HomeMy WebLinkAboutPeconic Estuary Program Conservation & Mngmnt Plan Appendices fi-
.yY
= "
anisuagaagwoa
veld ivawageuctu 18uo
F
� I
r
Peconic Estuary Program
"a 3'
e
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
w-NNtiv.co.suffolk.ny.us/health/eq/pep.html
" EPA
The Peconic Estuary Program is funded in part by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency under assistance agreements 4CE992002 to the Suffolk County
Department of Health Services and 4CE992066 to the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation. The mention of trade names or commercial products
does not in anv way constitute an endorsement or recommendation for use.
Technical editing and layout of this report is funded by the United States
Ent irownental Protection Agency under Contract Nos. 68-C7-0004 and
68-C-00-121, Work Assignment Nos. 2-12 and 0-18 respectively, to
Battelle, Dccburv, 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.
•
•
Pecanfc Estuary Program CCMP g
F
• TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX A: REFERENCES........... ......................................................................._.........._....... A-1
APPENDIX B: MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STRUCTURE..................................................B-1
APPENDIX C: MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE MEMBERSHIP...............................................0-1
APPENDIX D: DEMONSTRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS............................ D-I
APPENDIX E: BROWN TIDE RESEARCH PROJECTS...............................................................E-1
APPENDIX F: BRO'h'N TIDE INTERIM WORKPLAN................................................................F-1
APPENDIX G: PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM (PEP) LIBRARY REPORTS........................ G-1
APPENDIX H: AGRICULTURAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ......... H-1
APPENDIX I: ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PLAN .................................... .....................
APPENDIX J: FEDERAL CONSISTENCY REPORT.....................................................................J-1
APPENDIX K: BASE PROGRAM ANALYSIS..................... ............................................... K-1
APPENDIX L: RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS............... ........................................ L-I
•
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
a�
•
This Page Intentionally Left Blank. •
•
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
LIST OF ACRONYMNS
ALM - 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 - Discharae 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
iii
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
NMFS - National Marine Fisheries Service •
NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPS - Nonpoint Source
NRCS - Natural Resources Conservation Service
NWIRP - Navy 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
iv
APPENDIX A
References
APPENDIX A
A-1
,C°""^' Peconic Estuary CCMP
c_�
s
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
•
APPENDIX A
A-2
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP eo
REFERENCES
CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW
McElroy, A., Editor(October 20-21, 1995),Proceedings of the Brown Tide Summit,New York Sea
Grant Institute, Publication No.NYSGI-W-95-001.
New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program (March 1996), Final Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plan.
Peconic Estuary Program Management Conference(December 1994), Peconic Estuary Program
Action Plan.
Peconic Estuary Management Conference(June 25, 1993),Peconic Estuary Program Management
Conference Agreement.
Riegel's Handbook of Industrial Chemistry, 9" Edition, Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Suffolk County Department of Health Services(November 1992), Brown Tide Comprehensive
Assessment and.Vanagement Program.
• Suffolk County Department of Health Services(March 1991),Peconic EstuaryNational Estuary
Program Nomination.
CHAPTER 2: BROWN TIDE MANAGEMENT PLAN
New York Sea Grant(November 1999),Brown Tide Research Initiative Report 4.
New York Sea Grant(March 1999),Brown Tide Research Initiative Report 93.
New York Sea Grant(August 1998),Brown Tide Research Initiative Report#2.
New York Sea Grant (March 1998), Brown Tide Research Initiative Report"I.
Suffolk County Department of Health Services(1992),Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and
Management Program(including references therein).
See Appendix E for Brown Tide Research Projects and Appendix F for Brown Tide Workplan.
•
APPENDIX A
A-3
Peconic Estuary CCMP
e
T '
CHAPTER 3: NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLAN
Arthur D. Little, Inc. (December 13, 1996), Chemical Contaminant Distributions in Peconic Estuary
Sediments(Submitted to Suffolk County Department of Health Services and Peconic Estuary
Program) (Reference 47389)_
Batiuk, R.A., R.J. Orth,K.A. Moore, W.C. Dennison,J.C. Stevenson, L.W. Staver, V. Carter,N.B.
Rybicki, R.E. Hickman, S. Kollar, S. Bieber,and P. Heasly(December 1992), Chesapeake Bay
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Habitat Requirements and Restoration Targets:A Technical
Synthesis.
Beltrami, Edward('March 1995),Inferring Brown-Tide Dynamics in Peconic Bay from Models and
Data.
Brown Tide Steering Committee(Revised February 23, 1998),Brown Tide Workplan—An Overview
of Ongoing and Historical Research and an Identification of Future Research Priorities.
Burkholder J.M. (August 1993), Comparative Effects of Water-Column Nitrate Enrichment on
Eelgrass, Shoal Grass and Widgeon Grass, Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study Report 93-09.
Burkholder,J.M., K.M. Mason, and H.B. Glasgow Jr. (1992), Water-Column Nitrate Enrichment
Promotes Decline of Eelgrass (Zostera Marina L.): Evidence from Seasonal Mesocosm
Experiments. Marine Ecology Progress Series,No 1. 81: 163-178. •
Cashin Associates,P.C. (January 1996),Peconic Estuary Program Final Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation Study.
Dawydiak, W., Gorin,J., and M. Strieb(December 1, 1994),Peconic Estuary Program (PEP)Action
Plan.
Dumais, S., and C. Smith, Cornell Cooperative Extension Marine Program (December 1997),SAV
Long-Term Monitoring Program, Progress Report 41.
EEA, Inc. (1999), Water Quality Criteria for Eelgrass, Draft.
Economic Analysis, Inc. (November 1996), The Peconic Estuary System: Perspective on Uses,
Sectors and Economic Impacts.
Economic Analysis, Inc. (February 1999),Resource and Recreational Economic Values for the
Peconic Estuary System.
Garber,J.(1989),Sediment Monitoring Plan for Peconic Bay Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment
and Management Plan.
Hardy, C. (1976),A Preliminary Description of the Peconic Bay Estuary, Marine Science Research
Center, SUNY. Stony Brook, New York. Special Report No. 3.
Hinga, K.R., H.Jeon, and N.F. Lewis (January 1995),.I'farine Eutrophication Review,NOAA Coastal
Ocean Program, Decision Analysis Series No. 4.
•
APPENDIX A
A-4
Peconic Estuary Program COMP a#'
Howes, B.L., D.R. Schlezinger,N.P. Millham, G. Hampson, and D.D. Goehringer(April, 1998)7
Oxygen Uptake and Nutrient Regeneration in the Peconic Estuary Final Report.
Hughes and Porter, Cornell University Center for Environmental Research (1983),Protection and
Restoration of Ground Water in Southold, AT.
Koch, E.W. Dr.,Yarish, C. Dr., Beer, S. Dr.,Troy, R. Dr., Capriullo, G. Dr., Linden, and R.,
Rehnberg(July 1993-December 1994),Environmental Monitoring, Seagrass Mapping and
Biotechnology as Means of Fisheries Habitat Enhancement Along the Connecticut Coast.
LaRoche, J., R.Nuzzi, R. Waters, K. Wyman, P.G.Falkowski, and W.R. Wallace (1997), Brown Tide
Blooms in Long Island's Coastal Waters Linked to Interannual Variability in Groundwater Flow.
Long Island Regional Planning Board (July 1978),Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment
Management Plan, Vol. 1: Summary Plan and Vol. II: Summary Documentation.
Najarian Associates, L.P. (March 1992),Hydraulic and Water Quality Screening Analysis of Sag
Harbor:A Small Tidal Emboyment of the Peconic Bays, New York.
New York State Department of State in cooperation with the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (July 1995),New York State Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control
• Program. (prepared in fulfillment of the requirements of Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization Amendments of 1990)
Paulsen, R. J., C. Smith, and T.-f. Wong(1997),Development and Evaluation of an Ultrasonic
Groundwater Seepage Nfeter.
Peconic Estuary'Program(February 15, 1994),Report on Proceedings of Workshop on Marine
Surface Water Quality Modelling and the Evaluation of Possible Surface Water Quality
Guidelines.
Suffolk County Department of Health Services(November 1992), Brown Tide Comprehensive
Assessment and Management Program.
Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Bureau of Groundwater Resources(September 1996),
Nitrate and Pesticide Impacts of Agriculture on Groundwater Quality, Suffolk County, NY.
Suffolk County Department of Health Services(March 1991), Peconic Estuary National Estuary
Program Nomination.
Suffolk County Department of Health Services,Office of Ecology(January 14, 1998),Peconic
Estuary Program-Point and Nonpoint Source Nitrogen Loading Overview.
Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Office of Ecology(January 15, 1999),Peconic
Estuary Program -Nitrogen Loading Budget and Trends. Major, External, Anthropogenic
Nitrogen Sources: Groundwater and Duck Farms.
Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Office of Ecology(October 1, 1998),Peconic
Estuary Program-Surface Water Quality Nitrogen, Dissolved Oxygen, and Submerged Aquatic
is Vegetation Habitat.
APPENDIX A
A-5
g40'"'N Peconic Estuary CCMP
F _
Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Office of Ecology(April 2, 1998),Surface Water •
Quality Monitoring Report 1976-1996, Volume I, Narrative.
Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Office of Ecology (April 2, 1998),Surface Water
Quality Monitoring Report 1976-1996, Volume 11,Data.
Suffolk County Department of Planning(April 1998), Peconic Estuary Program Saturation
Population Analysis.
Suffolk County Department of Planning(April 1998),Peconic Estuary Program Land Available For
Development.
Suffolk County Department of Planning(April 1998), Peconic Estuary Program Land Use Change
Analysis.
Suffolk County Department of Planning(January 1997),Peconic Estuary Program Existing Land
Use Inventory.
Suffolk County Department of Planning(April 1998),Peconic Estuary Program Water Dependent
Use And Underwater Land Ownership Inventory.
Tetra Tech, Inc. (September 3, 1998), Three-Dimensional Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Model of
Peconic Estuary, Draft Final Report. •
Tetra Tech, Inc. (April 6, 1998), Peconic Estuary Program Model Evaluation Group Meeting,
Preliminary Hydrodynamic Verification Results, Water Quality Verification Results, Sediment
Submodel Results, Sensitivity.
Tetra Tech, Inc. (April 6, 1998),Peconic Estuary Program Model Evaluation Group Meeting,
Preliminary Water Quality Verification Results Using Specified Seasonal Sediment Fluxes.
Town of East Hampton (1995)East Hampton Town Code, Chapter 153, Harbor Protection Overlay
Districts.
Trautman, Porter, and Hughes, Cornell University Center for Environmental Research (1983),Land
Use and Groundwater Quality in the Pine Barrens of Southampton.
Trent, M. and S. F. Robbins, Suffolk County Department of Health Services(September 1996),
Nitrate and Pesticide Impacts of Agriculture on Groundwater Quality Suffolk County, NY
United States Department of Commerce and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(January 1995),Marine Eutrophication Review, Part 1. Quantifying the Effects of Nitrogen
Enrichment on Phytoplankton in Coastal Ecosystems.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water(July 1996),National Nutrient
Assessment Workshop.
•
APPENDIX A
A-6
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
United States Environmental Protection Agency (January 1993), Guidance Specifying Management
Measures for Sources of.Voupoint Pollution in Coastal Waters(issued under the Authority of
Section 6217(.-) of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990). (USEPA 840-13-
92-002)
United States Environmental Protection Agency(December 4-6, 1990,National Nutrient Assessment
Workshop Proceedings.
United States Geological Survey(1999),Areas Contributing Ground Water to the Peconic Estuary,
and Ground-water Budgets for the North and South Forks and Shelter Island, Eastern Suffolk
County, New York.
United States Geological Survey(1999), Ground-Water Flow Paths and Traveltime to Three Small
Embayments within the Peconic Estuary, Eastern Suffolk County, New York.
Wilson, R.E. and E. Beltrami (1998), Observations of the Prevailing Meteorological Conditions
During the Onset of A. anophagefferens Blooms in the Peconic Bays and the Characteristics of
Bloom Evolution.
CHAPTER 4: HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN
• Ahrens, Michael J. (April 1997),Peconic Estuary Program-An Annotated Bibliography of the
Natural Resources of the Peconic Estuary and Adjacent Locations on Eastern Long Island, N.Y.
Anderson,J. L. and M. J. Spatz(1997),Peconic bay system: aquaculture. Submitted to Suffolk
County Department of Health. Economic Analysis, Inc., Peace Date, RI 02883.
Bortman, Marci L. and Nancy Niedowski (August 31, 1998),Peconic Estuary Program,Natural
Resources Subcommittee- Characterization Report of the Living Resources of the Peconic
Estuary.
Botton, M. L., R. E. Loveland, and T. R.Jacobsen (1988),Beach erosion and geochemical factors:
influence on spmrning success of horseshoe crabs (Limulus polyphemus) in Delaware Bay.
Marine Biolon. 99: 326-332.
Bruno, S. F., R. D. Staker, and G. M. Sharma(1980),Dynamics of phytoplankton productivity in the
Peconic£sivarr, Long Island. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science. 10: 247-263.
Burkholder, J. 11.. K. M. Mason, H. B. Glasgow, Jr. (1992), Water-column nitrate enrichment
promotes decline of eelgrass Zostera marina: evidence from seasonal mesocosm experiments.
Marine Ecology Progress Series. 81: 163-178.
Bums, D. (1991). Cumulative effects of small modifications to habitat. Fisheries. 16(1): 12 -17.
Capriulo,G.M. (December 1996), Connecticut DEP Long Island Sound Research Fund-Alteration of
the Planktonic Food Web of Long Island Sound Due to Eutrophication.
Cashin Associates. P.C. (January, 1996),Peconic Estuary Program Final Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation Studv.
APPENDIX A
A-7
Peconic Estuary CCVP
F
Colletti, M. (1993), 1993 Peconic/Gardeners'Bay pound net location survey. Unpublished report •
prepared for the New York Department of Environmental Conservation.
Dennison, W.C., G.J. Marshall and C. Wigand (1989),Effect of"Brown Tide"shading on eelgrass
(Zostera marina L.) distributions. Chap. 37. In:Novel Phytoplankton Blooms. Causes and
impacts of recurrent brown tides and other unusual blooms. Coastal and environmental studies
35. (Editors: Cosper, E.M., V.M. Bricelj,and E.J. Carpenter) Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 675-692-
Dennison, B., C. Smith, M. Fonseca, B. Orth,and G. Rivara(1988),Eelgrass seedling study. Eelgrass
workshop, Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County.
Dumais, S. and C. Smith (1997),Submerged aquatic vegetation long term monitoring program.
Progress Report 1. Marine Program, Cornell Cooperative Extension. Submitted to the Peconic
Estuary Program.
EEA, Inc. (March 1999),Peconic Estuary Program Eelgrass Habitat Criteria Study.
EEA, Inc. (October 1999),Peconic Estuary Program Tidal Creek Study.
Ethan C. Eldon Associates, Inc. (1995),Suffolk County Department of Public Works maintenance
dredging projects draft generic environmental impact statement. Prepared for the County of
Suffolk Department of Public Works.
Ferraro, S. P. (1980),Daily time of spawning of l2 fishes in the Peconic Bays, New York. Fishery •
Bulletin. 78(2): 455-464.
Fonseca, M.S.,G.W. Thayer, and A. J. Chester, and C. Foltz (1984),Impact of scallop harvesting on
eelgrass (Zostera marina) meadows.' implications for management. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management. 4: 286-293.
Gainey, L. F.,Jr. and S. E. Shumway (1991), The physiological effect ofAureococcus
anophagefferens ("brown tide') on the lateral cilia of bivalve mollusks. Biol. Bull. 181: 298-
306.
Hardy, C. D. (1976),A preliminary description of the Peconic Bay Estuary. Marine Sciences
Research Center Special Report 3, Reference 76-4. State University of New York, Stony Brook,
NY.
Hecht, A., D. Avrin, S. Melvin,J.Nicholls, C. Raithel,and K. Terwilliger(1996), Piping plover
(Charadrius melodus)Atlantic coast population revised recovery plan. Prepared by the Atlantic
Coast Piping Plover Recovery Team. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 5, Hadley, MA.
Herrmann, R. E. (1997), The effects of shoreline hardening on the South Shore of Long Island, New
York.Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University. Prepared for the Town of
Southampton,NY.
International Technology Corporation with support from Geraghty and Miller Inc. (1998),
Brookhaven National Laboratory Final Operable Unit Five Remedial Investigation Report.
Prepared for Brookhaven National Laboratory, Brookhaven Science Associates, Upton,NY. BNL
contract No. 710617.
APPENDIX A
A-8
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
Lewis, D. E. and G. Rivara(1997),An assessment of shellfish resources in the tributaries and
embayments of the Peconic Esluarv. Draft. Cornell Cooperative Extension Program. Prepared for
the Peconic Estuary Program.
Lewis, D.,J. Kassner, R. Cerrato, and R. Finch (1997),An assessment of shellfish resources in the
deep water areas of the Peconic Estuary. Marine Sciences Research Center, State University of
New York at Stony Brook. Prepared for the Peconic Estuary Program.
Mariculture Technologies, Inc. (1998),Environmental assessment and proposed permit amendment
relating to ocean net pen culture operations for the production of summer flounder (Paralichthys
dentatus). Prepared by Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. for the N. Y. S. Department of
Environmental Conservation.
Newton, D. F. (1981),Report of the Peconic River screening study pursuant to the New York State
Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers Act. Prepared for the Riverhead Town Conservation
Advisory Council,the Brookhaven Town Conservation Advisory Council, and the Southampton
Town Environmental Board.
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (1993),Endangered, threatened and special
concern fish and wildlife species of New York State. From the NYS Department of Environmental
Conservation, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Resources Center, Delmar,NY.
New York Sea Grant Institute. SUNY NY & Cornell University(1985),Aquaculture Development in
New York State, Final Report.
Nuzzi, R. and R. M. Waters(1998), Peconic Estuary Program surface water quality monitoring
report, volume 1, narrative. Draft. Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Division of
Environmental Quality, Office of Ecology, Bureau of Marine Resources.
Peterson, C. H., H. C. Summerson, and S. Fegley(1987),Ecological consequences ofinechanical
harvesting of clams. Fishery Bulletin. 85(2): 281-298.
Pleuthner, Rachel A. (August 1995), Rare Plants, Rare Animals and Significant Natural Communities
in the Peconic Estuary.
Pohle, D. G.,V. M. Bricelj, and Z. Garcia-Esquivel (1991), The eelgrass canopy: an above-bottom
refuge from benthic predators for juvenile bay scallops, Argopecten irradians.Marine Ecology
Progress Series. 109: 117-136.
Reschke, C. (1990),Ecological communities of New York State. New York Natural Heritage
Program,NYS Department of Environmental Conservation. 96 pp.
Sadove, S. S. and P. Cardinale(1993), Species composition and distribution of marine mammals and
sea turtles in the New York Bight_ Final report to U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Sclafani, M. and M. Bortman(1999),Peconic Estuary Program Natural Resources Subcommittee-
Summary of threats to the living resources of the Peconic Estuary_
SCDHS Office of Ecology, (October 1, 1998), Peconic Estuary Program-Surface Water Quality
Nitrogen, Dissolved Oxygen, and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Habitat.
APPENDIX A
A-9
Peconic Estuary CCMP
F n7i
Short, F. T., D. M. Burdick, J. S. Wolf, and G. E.Jones(1993),Eelgrass in estuarine research •
reserves along the east coast, U S. A, Part I. declines from pollution and disease and Part II:
management of eelgrass meadows. NOAA - Coastal Ocean Program Publication.
Solomon,Nancy(October 1998), Historic Shellfishing in the Peconic Estuary Based on Baymen's
Interviews: 1945-1985.
Strieb, Max(January 1993), Long Island Sound Study-Assessment of Living Marine Resources.
Suffolk County Department of Planning(1998),Peconic Estuary Program land use change analysis.
Draft. Environmental Analysis and Research Divisions.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service(1991),Northeast coastal areas study. significant coastal habitats of
southern New England and portions of Long Island, New York. Prepared by the Southern New
England-New York Bight Coastal Ecosystems Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Charlestown, RI.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service(1997),Significant habitats and habitat complexes ofthe New York
Bight watershed. Prepared by the Southern New England-New York Bight Coastal Ecosystems
Program, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Charlestown, RI.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Ecological Services(1998), The Peconic Watershed-Recent Trends
in Wetlands and Their Buffers.
Vestal, B. and A. Rieser(1995),Methodologies and mechanisms for management of cumulative
coastal environmental impacts.NOAA Coastal Ocean Program, Decision Analysis Series No. 6.
U. S. Department of Commerce. 394 pp.
Weber, A. and C. Grahn (1995), Commercial finfish and crustacean landings from Peconic and
Gardiners Bay, New York 1980- 1992.New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, Division of Marine Resources, Bureau of Finfish and Crustaceans.
Weber, A., C. Gratin, and B. Havens (1998), Species composition, seasonal occurrence and relative
abundance of finf+sh and macroinvertebrates taken by small-mesh otter trawl in Peconic Bay,
New York.New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,Division of Fish,
Wildlife and Marine Resources. Marine Finfish Unit.
Wenczel, P., Smith C. and Tettelbach S.T. (1994),Planting Bay Scallops. Results of reseeding Bay
Scallops in the Peconic Bac, A.Y 1986 to 1992. A Final Report Submitted to New York State
Urban Development Corporation. the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation and the Count-, of Suffolk.
Young, B. and E. Woltmann (1994). Demonstration project for the restoration and enhancement of
alewives in the Peconic River. Proposal submitted to the Peconic Estuary Program.
APPENDIX A
A-10
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP "�"'*g
F
CHAPTER 5: PATHOGENS MANAGEMENT PLAN
Cabelli,V.J.,A.P. Dufour, M.A. Levin, L.J. McCabe,and P.W. Haberman (1979), Relationship of
microbial indicators to health effects at Maine bathing beaches. American Journal of Public
Health 69:690.
Cabelli,V.J. (1983),Health Effects Criteria for Marine Recreational Waters. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-600/1-80-031, Cincinnati, OH.
Elliot, E.L. and R.R. Colwell (1985),Indicator organisms for estuarine and marine waters. FEMS
Microbiol. Rev. 32:61-79.
Garabedian, B.J. (1994),North Sea Harbor Stormwater Impact Study. Final Report.New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation. 20 pp. (plus appendices).
CHAPTER 6: TOXICS MANAGEMENT PLAN
Arthur D. Little, Inc. (Helder Costa, et al.)(December 13, 1996), Chemical Contaminant
Distributions in Peconic Estuary Sediments. Final Report. Submitted to Suffolk County
Department of Health Services and Peconic Estuary Program -Reference 47389.
• Bastian, Robert K., United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater
Management(March 17-20, 1996),Disinfecting Wastewater for Discharge and Reuse:An
Overview of Some Current Issues, in Water Environment Federation Proceedings of Disinfecting
Wastewater for Discharge and Reuse, Portland OR.
Bastian, Robert K., United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater
Management Municipal Wastewater Disinfection: Protecting Aquatic Life and Human Health
(draft), EPA/480/09-90-010.
Breuer, Eric R. (May 1997), Distribution of Trace Metals and Dissolved Organic Carbon in a
`Brown Tide"Influenced Estuary: The Peconics. Master of Science Thesis in Marine
Environmental Science, State University of New York at Stony Brook.
Center for Research Management, Salt Lake City, Utah(1996), Charting a Sustainable Future, Golf
&the Environment, Environmental Principles for Golf Courses in the United States.
Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County(October 1995), Clean Sweep Final Report, Nassau
and Suffolk Counties, AT.
Federal Register, Vol. 59.No. 80, Tuesday April 26, 1994, Sediment Quality Criteria &Support
Documents; Reopening of Notice of Availability and Request for Comment.
International Technology Corporation (January 31, 2000),Plutonium Contamination
Characterization and Radiological Dose and Risk Assessment Report for Operable Unit V
(Final). Submitted to Brookhaven National Laboratory/Brookhaven Science Associates. BNL
Contract No. 710617.
•
APPENDIX A
A-11
fl Peconic Estuary CCMP
F
International Technology Corporation (August 1, 1997) Operable Unit VAcid Volatile
Sulfide/Simultaneously Extracted Metal Study of Peconic River Sediment Report. Submitted to
Brookhaven National Laboratory and Associated Universities, Inc. BNL Contract No. 710617.
International Technology Corporation (August 1, 1997), Operable Unit VAdditionol Fish Tissue
Bioaccumulation Study Report. Submitted to Brookhaven National Laboratory and Associated
Universities, Inc. BNL Contract No. 710617.
International Technology Corporation(December 9, 1996), Operable Unit V Fish Tissue
Bioaccumulation Study Report. Submitted to Brookhaven National Laboratory and Associated
Universities,Inc. BNL Contract No. 710617.
International Technology Corporation (November 5, 1996), Operable Unit V Toxicity Testing Study
of Peconic River Sediments Report. Submitted to Brookhaven National Laboratory and
Associated Universities, Inc. BNL Contract No. 710617.
International Technology Corporation with support from Geraghty & Miller, Inc. Environmental
Services(July 18, 1996), Operable Unit VRemedial Investigation Report(Draft). Submitted to
Brookhaven National Laboratory and Associated Universities, Inc. BNL Contract No. 710617.
Lewsey, Clement et al.,National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (March 14, 1996), Letter
to George Stafford (NYSDOS) and Philip DeGaetano(NYSDEC), transmitting draft findings and
conditions for the New York Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program under Section •
6217(c)(1)of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990.
Long, Edward R., et al(1996),Estimates of the Spatial Extent of Sediment Toxicity in Major US.
Estuaries, Environmental Science Technology,Vol. 30,No 12, pp. 3585 -3592.
Long, Edward R., et al(1995),Incidence ofAdverse Biological Effects Within Ranges of Chemical
Concentrations in Marine and Estuarine Sediments, Environmental Management, Vol. 19,No. 1,
pp 81-97.
Long, Edward R., and Lee G. Morgan,National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,National
Ocean Service(August 1991), The Potential for Biological Effects ofSediment-Sorbed
Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program,NOAA Technical
Memorandum NOS OMA 52.
McLaughlin, Larry, West Virginia University,National Research Center for Coal and Energy,
Morgantown, WV (1995),Marine Engine Impact on Air and Water Quality. An Initial
Assessment of Water Scrubbing and Cooling Effects on Marine Engine Hydrocarbon Emissions
to More Accurately Determine Their Impact on Both Air and Water Quality.
New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program(March 1996)Final Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plan.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation(September 24, 1998), Review of
Swedish Study of Outboard Engine Exhaust. Internal NYSDEC memorandum from Timothy
Sinnott to James Colquhoun.
•
APPENDIX A
A-12
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP eo"N,
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Technical Guidance for Screening
Contaminated Sediments. Division of Fish. Wildlife and Marine Resources Guidance Series,
Albany,NY. 36 pp.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Environmental
Remediation, (December 1996), Record of Decision, Bulova Watch Case Factory Site, Village of
Sag Harbor, Suffolk County, Site Number I-52-139.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Hazardous Waste
Remediation (April 1996),Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites in New York State, Site List
by Counties; Volume 1, Nassau and Suffolk Counties.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (June 1994),New, York State Water
Quality 1994.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Water(October 1993),
Ambient Water Quality Standards and Guidance Values. Also known as "Technical and
Operational Guidance Series(TOGS) I.I.1."
New York State Department of Health(revised September 1998),New York State Department of
Health Advisories, Chemicals in Sportfish and Game 1998-1999.
• New York State Department of Health (March 1996), 1996-1997 Health Advisories: Chemicals in
Sportfi.sh and Game.
New York State Department of Health, Bureau of Environmental Radiation Protection (September
12, 1996), Radioactive Contamination in the Peconic River, A Review of New York State
Environmental Radiation Alonitoring Program Data.
New York State Department of State in cooperation with the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (Jul), 1995),New York State Coastal Norrpoint Pollution Control
Program(prepared in fulfillment of the requirements of Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization Amendments of 1990).
O'Connor, Thomas P. and Benoit Beliaeff,National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(1995),Recent Trends in Coastal Environmental Quality Results from the Mussel Watch Project
from 1986-1993.
Peconic Estuary Program Management Conference(December 1994),Peconic Estuary Program
Action Plan.
Peconic Estuary Program Manaeement Conference(June 25, 1993),Peconic Estuary Program
Management Conference Agreement .
Sinnott, T.J.,New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (June 5, 1999),Assessment
of the Risks to Aquatic Life from the Use of Pressure Treated Wood in Water.
Suffolk County Department of Health Services(June 1999), Water Quality,1Yfonitoring Program to
Detect Pesticide Contamination in Groundtvaters of Nassau and Suffolk Counties, AT.
APPENDIX A
A-13
° Peconic Estuary CCMP
F
Suffolk County Department of Health Services(November 1992),Brown Tide Comprehensive
Assessment and Management Program.
Suffolk County Department of Health Seryices(March 1991), Peconic Estuary National Estuary
Program Nomination.
Town of East Hampton (1995), East Hampton Town Code, Chapter 153, Harbor Protection Overlay
Districts.
United States Department of Energy(February 9, 2000),Proposed Plan for Operable Unit V.-
Peconic
:Peconic River/Sewage Treatment Plant, Brookhaven National Laboratory.
United States Environmental Protection Agency and United States Department of Agriculture(March
20, 2000), Clinton-Gore Administration Acts to Eliminate MTBE, Boost Ethanol. Press Release
(with attachments)
United States Environmental Protection Agency(1999),Peconic Estuary Fish, Shellfish and
Crustacean Toxics Survey Quality Assurance Project Plan for Field Collection Effort.
United States Environmental Protection Agency,Region II (1999), Preliminary Data Tables for the
Peconic Estuary Tributaries Sediment Toxics Survev.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water(April 1999),Phase I Uniform •
National Discharge Standards for Vessels of the Armed Forces, Technical Development
Document. (EPA-821-R-99-001)
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region II (August 1998),Peconic Estuary
Tributaries Sediment Toxics Survey Field Sampling Plai/Quality Assurance Project Plan.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 11 (August 1998),Sediment Toxicity Testing
in the Peconic Estuary/Watershed Using the Amphipod, Ampelisca Abdita.
United States Environmental Protection Agency and United States Department of Energy(March
1996),Memorandum ofAgreement between the USEPA and USDOE. [regarding the operation
and environmental management of Brookhaven National Laboratory(with attachments)]
United States Environmental Protection Agency(January 1993), Guidance Specking Management
Measures for Sources ofNortpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters (issued under the Authority of
Section 6217(8) of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990) (USEPA 840-B-
92-002).
United States Environmental Protection Agency,Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
(September 1992),Superfund Record of Decision:North Sea Municipal Landfill, AT.
(USEPA/ROD/R02-92/175; PB93-963811)
United States Environmental Protection Agency,Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
(September 1989),Superfund Record of Decision:North Sea Municipal Landfill, NY.
(USEPA/ROD/R02-89/085).
APPENDIX A
A-14
Peconic Estuary Program CCHP
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
(September 1992),Superfund Record of Decision: Rowe Industries Groundwater Contamination,
NY. (USEPA/ROD/R02-92/179;P1393-963827)
United States Environmental Protection Agency (September 1989),Assessing Human Health Risks
from Chemically Contaminated Fish and Shellfish. A Guidance Manual(USEPA-503/8-89-002).
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria
and Standards Division (January 1985),Ambient Water Oualiry Criteria for Chlorine - 1984
(USEPA 440/5-84-030).
United States Geological Survey(June 1999), Pesticides and their Metabolites in Wells of Suffolk
County, New York 1998.
United States Geological Survey(May 1999),Pesticides in Streams in New Jersey and Long Island,
New York and Relation to Land Use.
United States Geological Survey(June 1998),Pesticide Concentrations in Surface Waters ojNew
York State in Relation to Land Use—1997.
CHAPTER 7: CRITICAL LANDS PROTECTION STRATEGY
Economic Analysis, Inc. (November 1996), The Peconic Estuary System: Perspective on Uses,
Sectors and Economic Impacts.
Economic Analysis, Inc. (February 1999).Resource and Recreational Economic Values for the
Peconic Estuary System.
Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Office of Ecology(January 15, 1999),Peconic
Estuary Program -Nitrogen Loading Budget and Trends. Major, External, Anthropogenic
Nitrogen Sources: Grounduater and Duck Farms.
Suffolk County Department of Planning(January 1997), Peconic Estuary Program Existing Land
Use Inventory.
CHAPTER 8: PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH MANAGEMENT PLAN
Coastal Waters in Jeopardy: Reversing the Decline, an oversight report of the Congressional
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, published by Congress in 1989.
CHAPTER 9: CCMP FINANCING
Delaware Estuary Program (September 1996), Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
for the Delaware Estuary.
•
APPENDIX A
A-15
Peconic Estuary CCMP
F
East End Land Bank Coalition(April 9, 1998), The Case for an East End Land Bank. (East End Land
Bank Coalition,P.O. Box 569, Bridgehampton NY 11932)
Grigalunas, Thomas and Jerry Diamantides, Economic Analysis, Inc. (November 1996), The Peconic
Estuary System.Perspectives on Uses, Sectors, and Economic Impacts (Revised Final Report).
(Peace Dale, Rhode Island)
Group for the South Fork,Blueprint For Our Future.
New York State(August 1997), Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act, Water Quality Improvement
Projects, Information for Applicants.
New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program (March 1996),New York-New Jersey Harbor
Estuary Program (Including the Bight Restoration Plan)Final Comprehensive Conservation and
,Vanagement Plan. (Main Report and Appendix 4: Finance Plan and Implementation Strategy)
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation(1997),Local Open Space Planning, A
Guide to the Process.
United States Environmental Protection Agency(September 1997),Protecting Wetlands with the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund. (EPA832-F97-017)
United States Environmental Protection Agency(December 1999), Catalog of Federal Funding
Sources for Watershed Protection. Second Edition(EPA 841-B-99-003)
United States Environmental Protection Agency(August 1996),Beyond SRF: Workbookfor
Financing CCMP Implementation. (EPA 842-B-96-002)
CHAPTER 10: POST CCMP MANAGEMENT
(No references.)
•
APPENDIX A
A-16
APPENDIX B
Management
Conference Structure
APPENDIX B
B-1
,4 Peconic Estuary Program CC,VP
r
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
•
B_2
APPENDIX B
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP t
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STRUCTURE
The structure of the Peconic Estuary Program Management Conference is presented in Figure 10-1.
This structure is initially developed during the nomination process by representatives of EPA Region
II, New York State, and Suffolk County, in cooperation with local government officials and members
of the BTCAMP Citizens Advisory Committee. The Management Conference consists of Policy and
Management Committees, and three advisory,committees: the Citizens Advisory Committee,
Technical Advisory Committee(TAC), and Local Government Committee(LGC). These committees
provide the framework in which the Management Conference will meet the goals of this program.
They represent a forum for open discussion, cooperation, and compromise that results in consensus.
While these committees function as separate entities,they are not meant to be exclusive. Thus, all
committee meetings are open to the public. In addition, communication between committees exists in
the form of members that serve on more than one committee and Federal, State, and county
representatives who will be attending all Management Conference meetings. The roles and
responsibilities of each of the committees, as well as charges to them, are summarized below.
POLICY COMMITTEE
The Policy Committee consists of representatives from EPA,NYSDEC, Suffolk County, and local
government. Currently,the representatives are the EPA Director of the Division of Environmental
Planning and Protection, Regional Director of the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation,the Suffolk County Executive, an agreed upon representative of local govemment who
at the time of the preparation of this document was the Supervisor of the Town of Southold. The
Policy Committee approves the workplan and budgets, approves Action Plans and the Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan, and resolves policy issues, including those identified by the
Management Committee.
MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
The roles and responsibilities of the Management Committee are to recommend the
workplans, budgets. Action Plans. and the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan to
the Policy Committee. On behalf of the Policy Committee,the Management Committee manages the
Peconic Estuary Program, ensuring the commitments and deadlines are met. The Management
Committee also coordinates the effective involvement of the advisory committees.
Committees within the Peconic Estuary Program strive for consensus. However, if a Management
Committee vote needs to be taken, representatives from EPA,NYSDEC, Suffolk County(currently
represented the Office of the Suffolk County Executive),the Local Government Committee (currently
represented bN the Southold Town Supervisor), and the chairs of the Citizens and Technical Advisory
committees will be eligible to vote.
Including both voting and non-voting members, the Management Committee representation currently
consists of representatives of EPA Region II (Environmental Planning& Protection Division),the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS),
NYSDEC Division of Marine Resources,New York State Department of State(NYSDOS)(Division
• of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization),New York State Department of Transportation
APPENDIX B
B-3
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
(NYSDOT),the Town of Southold(representing local government), a representative of the New York
State Legislature, and the chairs of the Citizens and Technical Advisory Committees.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE
The Local Government Committee(LGC)consists of representatives from the five East End Towns
surrounding the Peconic Bay(Southhold, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton, Shelter Island),
the Town of Br000khaven, which is not directly on the shores of the marine system but is located
within its watershed and includes portions of the Peconic River,the eight villages surrounding
Peconic Bay(Quogue, Dering Harbor, Sag Harbor,North Haven, Southampton, Westhampton Beach,
Greenport, East Hampton), and the Trustees of Freeholder Commonalities(East Hampton, Southold,
Southampton).
The charges to the LGC, in addition to providing input into the Conference Agreement,the annual
workplan, and CCMP, are to develop and oversee the implementation of the local government
outreach component of the workplan. The Local Government committee is crucial because local
governments have ultimate responsibility over land use, zoning, and other local issues.
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The Technical Advisory Committee consists of representatives from universities,the Federal
government(EPA, USFWS, USFDA),New York State(NYSDEC,NYSDOS,NYSDOT), Suffolk
County (Office of the County Executive, SCDHS, Suffolk County Planning Department, Soil and
Water Conservation District), local government planning and environmental agencies, and other
entities dealing in technical issues. New members with specific expertise are asked tojoin the TAC
as pertinent issues arise. In addition to providing input into the Conference Agreement and the annual
workplans,the TAC meets the needs of the Management Conference including recommending the
addition of the members as appropriate. The TAC also develops the research agenda that supports the
CCMP in the form of both a comprehensive agenda unconstrained by availability of funds and a
priority ranking of potential projects. In addition, the TAC assists in the development of public
outreach/education components of the PEP.
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The Citizens Advisory Committee(CAC)consists of members of the public that have an interest in
preserving and protecting Peconic Bay. The CAC, as an autonomous group, initially divided into ten
focus groups, into which each member of the committee fits based on their interests. These focus
groups are commercial fishers, marina and related industries, recreational fishermen,
environmental/ecology, recreation, agriculture, macroeconomics, education, commerce/business, and
civic organizations and members at large. Additional individuals may join the CAC by requesting
placement in the appropriate focus group.
In addition to providing input into the Conference Agreement and the annual workplans,the CAC
develops and oversees implementation for the public involvement and education component of the
workplans. The CAC also develops a Citizens Action Plan for inclusion in the overall Action Plan
and the CCMP.
B4 APPENDIX B
Peconic Estuary Program CCNtPo�N,
PROGRAM OFFICE
The Program Office roles and responsibilities are outlined as follows:
Management Responsibilities
• Communicates regularly with all PEP participants about activities and issues to ensure
consensus and that all views are fairly represented in work products;
• Coordinates activities among Federal, State. county, and local agencies as well as the
public sector to obtain program objectives;
• Participates in inter-agency work groups:
• Manages the preparation of annual workplans, the CCMP, and budgets, in cooperation
with all PEP participants: and
• Coordinates conference activities in identifying and seeking alternative sources of
funding for activities associated with Peconic Bay.
Technical Responsibilities
• Manages the planning, development, and implementation of all phases of the PEP using
knowledge of marine and estuarine environmental systems related to
scientific/engineering operations,and programmatic issues;
• Coordinates the compilation of findings of other estuary programs and transmits them to
the PEP Management Conference; and
• Identifies, participates in, and ensures the transfer of scientific/engineering information to
Program participants.
Program Administration
• Provides administrative support to the Management Conference;
• Manages development of Requests for Proposals for tasks identified in the annual
workplan among all involved agencies and advisory committees:
• Oversees the administration and performance of contract and grant activities to ensure
quality products are produced on time and within budget.
• Facilitates the convening of conferences and meetings for local and State officials and
legislators to brief them on CCMP development and PEP progress in coordination with
other Conference participants; and
• Prepares PEP status reports, as needed. and coordinates review with all PEP participants.
Administrative Support Responsibilities
• Attends meetings of major committees (not limited to the technical,local, citizens,
management and policy committees),
• Manages preparation of all PEP work products, including data summaries,annual reports,
• technical reports, CAC products, and modeling activities, for content and accuracy before
publication;
APPENDIX B
B-5
v""N Peconic Estuary Program CCVP
F
• Ensures the transfer all PEP materials (e.g.,work products, annual reports, meeting •
minutes, etc.)to the appropriate persons and locations(e.g., Management Conference
participants,the public, local libraries, etc.), and
• Receives and responds to requests for technical information and assistance regarding the
PEP from the public, elected officials, EPA Headquarters, and others.
APPENDIX B
B-6
APPENDIX C
Management
Conference Membership
APPENDIX C
C-1
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
F
a
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
APPENDIX C
C-2
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP8`'
POiiev Committee *Charles McCaffrey Anne Baird
NYS Department of State League of Women Voters of the
Kathleen Callahan.Chair 41 State Street Hamptons
Director.Division of Environmental Albany,NY 12231
Planning and Protection Betty Brown
USEPA Region It Kevin McDonald,Chair CAC North Fork Environmental Council
290 Broadway— 24th Floor Group for the SouthFork
New York.NY 10007 P.O. Box 569 Alexander Budd
Bridgehampton.NY 11932
Robert Gaffney, Suffolk County Jim Cain
Executive .Art Newell,Deputy Director Riverhead Conservation Advisory
H.L.Dennison Bldg Bureau of Marine Resources— Board
Veterans Memorial Highwav NYSDEC— Region I
Hauppauge,NY 11788 205 North Belle Meade Rd Joe Colao
Setauket,NY 11733
Rav Cowen.Director Floyd Carrington
Region I *Bill O'Beirne.NOA.A/OCRM Shinnecock Marlin&Tuna Club
NYSDEC Bldg#40 SSMC4/lIthFloor
SUNY(a_Stony Brook 1305 East-West Highway Rameshwar Das
Stonv Brook.NY 11794 Silver Spring.MD 20910
Sandra Dumais
Jean Cochran, Supervisor George Gatta Marine Education Center,CCE
Town of Southold Suffolk County Executive Office
H.L.
P.O.Box 1179 Hauppauge,
eBldg
NY 11788 Clete Galasso
• Southold.NY 11971 uge.NLarry's Lighthouse Marina
Chris Smith(2000-2001) Alex Gregor
Chair TAC
Management Committee Cornell Cooperative Extension Charles F.Guilloz
(*Non-voting member) 3059 Sound Avenue Southampton Business Alliance
Riverhead,NY 11901
Janice Rollwagen,Chair Bill Gunther
Chief of Estuaries and Oceans *David Stillwell Brookhaven National Laboratory
Section USFWS New York Field Office
USEPA— Region It 3817 Looker Road Billy Hajek
290 Broadwav— 24th Floor Cortland.NY 13045 .Accabonac Protection Committee
New York.NY 10007
*Assemblyman Fred Thiele Emerson Hasbrouck
Jean Cochran. Superyisor P.O. Box 3062 Comell Cooperative Extension
Town of Southold Bridgehampton,NY 11932
P_0.Box 1179 Harvey Hellering
Southold.NY 11971
Citizens Advisory Andrew Jones
*Darrel J. Kest,NYSDOT Committee
NYS Office Building Eve Kaplan
Veterans'Highway Kevin McDonald.Chair North Fork Environmental Council
Hauppauge,NY 11788 Group for the South Fork
John Kelly.M.D.
Lisa Liquori(1993-2000) Bruce Anderson
Chair TAC Suffolk Environmental Consulting Robert Kent
Town of East Hampton New York Sea Grant
300 Pantigo Road_Suite 105 Jennifer Andreoli
East Hampton.NY 11937 Landmarks Mark Ketcham
Ed Bausman .Alan&Donna Kuchas
Jean Lane
APPENDIX C
C-3
01 Peconic Estuary Program CCLIP
c
r
Steve Larson Tim Sullivan Douglas Murtha,Co-Chairperson •
Southold Town Bavmens Assoc. Village of Southampton
Marianne Tillman
Stuart R.Lowrie,Ph.D. Robert Strebel,Mayor
The Nature Conservancy Earl Voorhees Village of Westhampton Beach
Mrs.Lorry Mangan Audrey Watson lames Drew,Councilman
Pres.,Mattituck Chamber of Town of Southampton
Jeanne Marriner Commerce
Save the Peconic Bays Fredrick Stelle.Trustee
Peter Wenczel Town of North Haven
Gayle Marriner-Smith Southold Town Baymen's Assoc.
Eco-Vision Chris Kent.Councilman
Victor Zupa Town of Riverhead
Robert McAlevy
Red Cedar Point Association Sharon Kast
Local Government Town of Shelter Island
Lynn Mendelman.Ph.D.
Committee
Mendelman Associates
Richard Mendelman Jay Schneiderman. Supervisor Technical Advisory
Town of East Hampton Committee*
Seacoast Enterprises Associates.Inc.
Vincent Cannuscio,Supervisor Lisa Liquori,Chair(1993-2000)
Carol Morrison Town of Southampton
Concerned Citizens of Montauk Town of East Hampton
Gerard F. Siller,Supervisor Chris Smith,Chair(2000-2001)
Patricia Mundus Town of Shelter Island Cornell Cooperative Extension
Peter Needham Jean W.Cochran,Supervisor Susan.Antenen
.Association of Marine Industries Town of Southold The Nature Conservancy
Mal Nevel John LaValle. Supervisor Rick Balla
Shelter Island Baymens Assoc. Town of Brookhaven USEPA-Rea-ion II
Johanna Northam Robert Kozakieaicz, Supervisor Laura Bavaro
Suffolk County League of Women Town of Riverhead Suffolk Coum}y Department of
Voters Health Services
David E.Kapell,Mavor
Desiree&Louis Passantino Village of GreenportHenry Bokuniewicz.Ph.D.
Marine Sciences Research Center
Georgette Preston Timothy Hogue.Mavor SUNY at Stony Brook
Village of Dering Harbor
Michael Reichel Marci L.Bortman.Ph.D.
The Nature Conservancy
Paul F.Rickenbach.Jr.,Mavor
Mike Re"inski Village of East Hampton
Maria Brown
Frederick Arthur Ross EEA,Inc.
Robert Ratcliffe.Mayor
Ken Rubino Village of North Haven Emilie Cademartori
East End Waterways Tours Town of Brookhaven
Thelma Georaeson.Mavor
Village of Quogue Scott Campbell
Diana Schwenk Shelter Island
William Youna.Jr..Mavor
Bill Smith Village of Sag Harbor Robert Cerrato.Ph.D.
Fish Unlimited
Marine Sciences Research Center
SUNY at Stony Brook
APPENDIX C
C-4
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP .�°�
T�
•
Karen Chytalo Thomas hcanejko Skip Medeiros
NYSDEC Marine Habitat Protection Suffolk County Department of Brookhaven National Laboraton
Public Works
Kirk Cochran. Ph.D. Vito Minei
Marine Sciences Research Center Andrew Jones Suffolk County Department of
SUNY at Stony Brook Health Services
Jeff Kassner
Allan S-Connell
USDA-NRCS Town of Brookhaven Aslam Mirza
Robert Kent NYSDEC Division of Water
Jim Dalv New York Sea Grant
Suffolk County Planning Department Jerrold H. Mulnick
Ed Kilgus. Food&Drug Administration
Dewitt Davies.Ph.D. .Association of Marine Industries
Suffolk County Planning Department Executive Secretary Bronius Nemickas
U.S.Geological Survey
Walter Dawydiak Shawn Kiernan
Suffolk County Department of Town of Southampton Nancy Niedowski
Health Sen ices NYSDOS Div.Coastal Resources
Lee Koppleman. Ph.D.
Dick Draper LI Regional Planning Board Robert Parris
NYSDEC Division of Water U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Heather Lanza
Sandy Dumais The Nature Conservancy Laurence Perry,
Cornell Cooperative Extension Town of East Hampton Natural
Chris LaPorta Resources
Lauretta Fischer NYSDEC Bureau of Shellfisheries
Suffolk County Planning Department Chris Pickerel]
Tony Leung Come]]Cooperative Extension
Barnabv Friedman NYSDEC Division of Water
The Nature Conservancy George Prmos
Daniel Lewis Couri Executiee's Office
.Alan Fuchs NYSDEC Bureau of Shellfisheries
NYSDEC Division of W"ater Steve Ridler
Carl Lind NYSDOS
Jonathan Garber Suffolk Count,Planning Department
USEPA Environmental Research Karim Rimawi,Ph.D.
LabiORD Ed Lynch NYSDOH Bureau of Env. Radiation
SCDPW Waternvacs
Joseph Gergela 111 Gregg Rivam
Lone Island Farm Bureau lack Mattice.Ph.D. Comell Cooperative Extension
New York Sea Grant
Tom Halavik Sam Sadove
USFWS Southern New Enoland NY Kevin McAllister Tradewinds Em'.Restoration
Bight Peconic Ba%Keeper
Comelia Schlenk
Richard Hatlev Charles McCarthy New York Sea Grant
Riverhead Planning Department SCCC Eastern Campus
Robert Schneck
Emerson Hasbrouck Dennis McChesney NYSDEC Division of Nater
Comet]Cooperative Extension USEPA Region 2
Chris Schubert
John Herring Thomas McMahon U.S.Geological Survey
NYSDOS Coastal Resources Suffolk County Soil& Water
Conservation District Mathew Sclafani, Ph D.
Scott Hughes NYSDEC Marine Habitat Protection
NYSDEC Marine Habitat Protection
APPENDIX C
C-5
Peconrc Estuary Program CCMP
Valerie Scopaz Laura Star
Town of Southold NYSDEC Division of Water Alice Weber
Ken Testa NYSDEC Finfish&Crustaceans
Kim Shaw Town of Riverhead
Suffolk County Department of Judith Weis.Ph.D.
Health Services Steve Tettlebach Professor of Zooloey
LIU-Southampton University Rutgers University
Marty Shea
Town of Southampton Roger Tollefson Mareuerite Wolffsohn
New York Seafood Council Town of East Hampton
Laura Smith
Town of Southampton Ron Verbarg
Suffolk Count,Planning Department
*The Technical Advisory Committee list also includes key members of the Habitat Restoration Work Group.Critical
Lands Protection Plan Work Group,and the Nitrogen Management Work Groups.
APPENDIX C
C-6
APPENDIX D
i
Demonstration and
Implementation Projects
APPENDIX D
D-1
FPeconic Estuary Program CCMP
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
•
APPENDIX D
D-2
Peconlc Estuary Program CCMP e40" N
�G�StUA�p�d
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
FEDERALLY AND STATE-FUNDED
DEMONSTRATION AND
IMPLEMENTATION
PROJECTS
PEP Program Office
(631) 852-2077
APPENDIX D
D-3
0
SUFFOLK COUNTYDEPARTMfNT Of HEALTH SERVICES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY e
IO/(!I/•�jA{£NFrtlAflLIfAOI[Y4.O.•N
fU r£O
IX CO NN TY fIICUIry( COYYIfIIO NN y
_ � NO RALF q
OFFICE OF ECOLOGY
3 —jay. o
6A,5_4 2 -:� ulwli , noxa 4
S A
Sze r' X r n
LOC' ISL}NC . -No >'^r. 4
- 1{ -s�'-'U rw�° 8+^(L74,3 r ~ r 2 .4
1
all
\J-^-rte.• 21
11421� omr 8,40 3B , "" X28 }
•uio,n,Airux •/c A.+
/ / Yhul 41 � 4 c / {A /y" \ �� Q� :c , ry no +:w°v'iiiiii•• I
E� _ / i - x _,�•,�... n;i 4f' f' '� ,•-�-/ ..v{xecen{ul oxla- t i a
xl
d �Y
' ,pJ J..(/� � I _l�tl,-• S 1°�t/;:-- �
PROJECT LOCATION AND NUM BEN +� ,-����I��I�"x���•--
'J' �fA�1 .An', aLY•:..�:«:
fff S
II nv { Auor•x�Iro+a ox.eoss
1 F �., : _. aA A. x r:nry 'CG-,.."Y°'iC4!'.87:w:iC. B 1,.
,'/ --� a'eti vAi'0.'V.MAGtY{Ni,alifl + r
� a
/{- — v 1 .. ..... ........
4.O"1' a:C0Y<<'ki L}Gr1o'Ya�U"A 6A{,Ionto•
° .P'x OCGA' e' 4n ae.n nAl:n¢¢Ax nr.sox°,cl
=..xn.n°t I noiqux
d'ii�:"'"'•Mx Om,•e sxxene n{-, S:." u.Pa1 �Ai:iwAnnm:.-.+x...enm
Ie a1 A1°,•Ax:'.![ li a M'
a PFCONlC ESTUARY PROGRAM s yI A;V;,x.:n:e:z' "°"'"" i :`: °+- _ ,• ` la,
b W'Ea 'C C:Yld ei7o. ,4�s^yiiiSS eiAx.r
ROtfAI AND DANIONfI1WlONiMIPIMENGTIDN £ INrt N i voA:onanC"viii :i$:u ii ,-VAxY
.D PNOf mrc Lvw�r1i 6,2L4i,4tS';1•&1• ..,,.-.... - .°:..., ,,'A::.`,::::.1;'A:L or�2"�TC.'a'"�,x°e
r..amwN.n. .nlxv.,mx,..,roAmc4xax,.oa,,. 'i:l7o�CE.Ci4 am�n,+1.:,i.a':o.x: «
PfpA W4NI1YYyMIN4 U W Ip..°Ul"IA:x--
z
V .N Mt
X
d
Peconic Estuary Program CC,VP
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM (PEP)
RELATED DEMONSTRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS
The following is a brief description of demonstration and implementation projects for the Peconic
Estuary which have been funded since the inception of the PEP. To date, funding commitments to 92
projects have totaled over$13.5 million. In most cases, local match results in significantly greater
project resources. A funding list and a map of the project locations are attached. A separate listing of
State assisted projects that benefit the Peconic Estuary is included as Table I;the New York State
Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act and Environmental Protection Fund projects are included on both
lists. Not all projects in Table 1 are included on the map.
A) NEAR COASTAL WATERS GRANTS
The PEP was the only Tier IV National Estuary Program (NEP)to qualify for this funding, due to
outstanding performance and high-quality proposed projects. All projects are underway or
completed.
I) Bay Scallop Restoration Project(Cornell Coop. Ext.)
The objective of this project was to continue to enhance and restore populations of bay
scallops in the Peconic Estuary by purchasing and planting seed scallops. Over 100,000
seed scallops were planted in the estuary over several weeks. This project was conducted
in Flanders Bay; a draft report indicates that the spring, 1994 seeding was successful. The
Project was significantly expanded, using a National Marine Fisheries Service grant.
Aside from the immediate benefits of increasing local scallop populations, this project also
provided information on the overwintering survival of various size scallop seed, and the
survival rate of hatchery raised vs. natural set scallops. This information allowed the
development of optimal planting strategies for the future.
2) Filter Strip Projeet/Stormwater Abatement(Cornell Coop. Ext. & Natural Resources
Conservation Service)
Ideally, this project will lower coliform levels enough so that the creek can remain opened
to shellfishing at least on a seasonal basis. Marine waters of Long Island are plagued with
numerous points of stormwater runoff. This runoff causes declines in marine water quality,
deterioration of benthic habitats. and closure of shellfish grounds due to coliform bacteria.
Presently communities are restricted in their ability to mitigate this impact. This is largely
due to the cost of installation of the traditionally used leaching rings which cost about
$50,000 to install per project.
This project has constructed a grassed filter strip at the headwaters of Gardiners Creek in
Shelter Island where State Road 114 contributes stormwater runoff. This project utilized
manual labor to install the filter strip so that stormwater runoff would be distributed to a
larger infiltration area that would prevent it from point sourcing via a natural swale to the
creek. Data documenting the effectiveness of the filter strip system is being collected. If
this simple technology is proven effective, it may be implemented at additional selected
sites within the estuary.
APPENDIX D
D-5
ZPeconic Estuary Program CCMP
3) Open Marsh Water Management(Cornell Cooperative Extension)
By filling, and occasionally diverting, mosquito control ditches, this approach will restore
wetlands and allow these habitats to act as a more efficient filter of both nutrients and
coliform bacteria. Through this project, a portion of the approximately 300 acres of State-
owned tidal wetlands at Long Beach Bay in Orient will be restored by using Open Marsh
Water Management(OMWM).
Under OMWM, most ditches in the tidal marshes would be plugged, restoring the water
table to pre-ditching levels. As a result, conditions in the marsh will favor desirable, native
vegetation. Marsh pools and ponds would no longer be drained, improving habitat for
waterfowl and other wildlife. In addition, recent studies suggest that OMWM can reduce
the export of wildlife-source coliform bacteria from the marsh. This could help improve
water quality in the area, where certain shellfish beds have been recently closed as a result
of fecal coliform contamination. Additional benefits may include a reduction in coliform
inputs to adjacent shellfishing areas.
The original PEP project proposal has been significantly expanded, as NYSDEC has been
awarded $235,000 from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for the project. This funding has
also been contracted to Cornell Cooperative Extension.
4) Adopt-a-Sign Program(PEP Citizens Advisory Committee)
This project consists of posting signs to alert people to the fact that they are in the Peconic
Estuary watershed. The signs include posters in plexi-glass, with an educational brochure •
integrated into the design. They have been distributed at over 250 locations.
5) Corwin Duck Farm—Constructed Wetland Treatment System(Natural Resources
Conservation Service and Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District)
On the Corwin Duck Farm, a wetland was constructed to decrease the amount of nitrogen
and possibly pathogens entering the bay from Meetinghouse Creek. Historic duck farm
pollution to Meetinghouse Creek has resulted in local and regional adverse impacts. This
treatment system is expected to significantly improve the quality of duck farm wastewater
and may serve as a model for other animal waste treatment systems. Construction for the
program has been completed, and the wetland is operating.
B) FEDERAL FY94 ACTION PLAN DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
Again, the PEP was the onh Tier R'NEP to receive this funding due to the progress of the
program. Projects have been selected, and contracts have been issued. These projects are
underway or completed.
6) Bay Scallop Spat Collection and Transplant/Optimization (East Hampton)
This project is designed to accelerate scallop reproduction at Napeague Harbor in East
Hampton. This project will demonstrate and assess certain criteria for the establishment of
a Bay Scallop(Argopecten irradians)spat collection field adjacent to historically
productive eelgrass (Zostera marina)beds in Napeague Harbor. This field will be located
in such a way as to entrap scallop spat entrained in a tidal flow which would ordinarily be
swept out of the harbor to areas less desirable for survival. The spat collection system will
be assessed for optimal deployment timing and position in the tidal stream and water
column.
APPENDIX D
D-6
Peconlc Estuary Program CCMP
a
A technologically enhanced spat collector design,to replace the common onion bag, will be
used to improve mechanical harvesting. Animals will be retrieved from the collectors for
artificial rearing and subsequently reintroduced to prime natural nursery sites when their
increased size justifies a greater change of survival. The project attempts to demonstrate
the effectiveness of collection,rearing, and reintroduction of otherwise lost juvenile
scallops as a management approach to the problem of reestablishment of viable
reproductive populations following catastrophic events.
7) Composting Waste Public Restroom (East Hampton)
This project will mitigate potential nutrient and pathogen pollution from a public restroom
at South Lake Montauk Bathing Beach. The Town of East Hampton proposed to construct
a composting waste restroom facility for the South Lake Montauk Bathing Beach. The
proposal is to design, construct, maintain, and monitor a public beach comfort station
utilizing a compostable waste reduction system. The facility will replace the existing
comfort station and will be designed to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act,
the New York State Building Code,the Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Standards, Town planning and design standards, and all other applicable regulations.
8) Wetland Restoration Initiative(Southampton Town and Cornell Cooperative Extension)
This project will restore critical habitat and pollution buffer areas at a site in Southampton.
Wetland restoration is a newly-emerging field that promises to recapture significant
wetland area that has been lost to dredge and fill activities or other destructive activities. In
order to successfully restore a wetland, there must be a basic understanding of the physical
and biological processes that control the formation and stability of that wetland system.
Successful projects require site assessment data collection before construction. preparation
of a practicable restoration plan,active management during construction, and intensive
monitoring after completion of restorative activities. This project will demonstrate ways in
which human-induced impacts can be mitigated. Also,the restoration project provides the
perfect framework for educating students and concerned citizens alike in general wetlands
ecology and demonstrating the feasibility of such a project in other areas of the estuary
system. This proposal is being augmented with a U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service grant to
conduct the efforts at Paynes' Creek.
9) Eelgrass Restoration (East Hampton Town and Cornell Cooperative Extension)
This project will restore critical habitat at a site in East Hampton. The project will carry
out an intensive eelgrass planting program as well as an eelgrass bed survey in East
Hampton. Bottomland in East Hampton harbors will be surveyed to determine suitability
for planting, then an actual planting program will be carried out whereby eelgrass shoots
will be planted on the bottom. The planting technique, density, and suitability of donor
plants will be based on the results of a pilot-scale demonstration eelgrass program presently
taking place in East Hampton. Additionally, eelgrass seeds will be collected in order to
establish an eelgrass seed bank and for use in planting additional bottomland in this project.
This project is being carried out and coordinated by the Marine Program of Cornell
Cooperative Extension and the East Hampton Natural Resources Department, and is being
conducted in conjunction with the PEP Eelgrass Habitat Criteria Study(EEA, Inc.).
•
APPENDIX D
D-7
01—N Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
10) Ultraviolet Disinfection Pilot Project(Shelter Island and Cornell Cooperative Extension) •
This project has demonstrated the elimination of potentially harmful chlorine disinfection at
the Shelter Island Heights sewage treatment plant. There are presently ten sewage
treatment plants located in the watershed of the Peconic Estuary, four of which discharge
directly to surface waters. While sources of nitrogen from these sewage treatment plants
have had much discussion recently, control of coliform bacteria(and the pathogenic
organisms they indicate) is another important aspect of these sewage treatment plants.
While chlorination provides for disinfection to protect public health,there is a potential
negative environmental impact from chlorine and chlorinated compounds entering marine
surface waters.
An alternate method of disinfection of sewage treatment plant effluent is through the use of
ultraviolet(UV) light. UV light adds nothing to the water column and is effective as a
germicide because of photochemical damage to RNA and DNA within the cells of an
organism. Disinfection of sewage treatment plant effluent by UV has the potential to not
only protect public health, but to also improve water quality and habitat in the Peconic
Estuary by eliminating the harmful environmental side effects of chlorination.
11) Fish Run Demonstration Project(AYSDEC)
This project tested feasibility of restoring alewife runs over dammed areas of the Peconic
River. Alewives and rainbow smelt are an important food source for many commercially
and recreationally important species. The Peconic River,the site of this demonstration
project, has been identified as a stream which historically provided runs for these fish. A
pilot project for restoration has been implemented. Re-establishment of this run would
provide prey items in freshwater and marine environments, as well as added recreational
and possible commercial opportunities. While the initial pilot was unsuccessful, NYSDEC
hopes to re-test the project.
C) FEDERAL FY95 DEMONSTRATION/IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS(ACTION
PLAN DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS AND CLEAN WATER ACT,SECTIONS
104(b)(3) AND 319 FUNDING)
While other Tier IV NEP's qualified for$65,000 in funding,the PEP received almost$150,000
when EPA and NYSDEC identified additional funding sources. The additional funding was,
again, due to outstanding program performance and high-quality proposals. The projects have
been selected, and contracts have been issued.
12) "Stormtreat"Stormwater Quality Management(Contractor)
The"Storm-Treat'technology will be tested at a site to be selected within the Peconic
Estuary. This technology, which captures and treats pollution (e.g., sediments, nutrients,
bacteria) in the first flush of rainfall through several physical and chemical processes,
involves installation of a sedimentation chamber with an overflow into a created wetland.
13) Shallow Wetland/Biofiltration (Cashin Associates)
A shallow wetlands system is being constructed and planted at Havens Beach at Sag
Harbor. The system, which will consist of a sediment sump and emergent wetlands area,
will act as a "biofilter," creating wetlands habitat while preventing sediments, nutrients, and
bacteria from entering the bay.
14) Ozone Treatment of Stormwater Runoff(Cornell Cooperative Extension) •
APPENDIX D
D-8
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP J�
4
• The use of ozone treatment technology to disinfect stormwater runoff will be tested. The T
project will include site selection,engineering, installation, and testing.
15) Storm Drain Outfall(Eco-Boom Marine Control)
Eco-Boom has installed its `boom' containment device to trap pollution which discharges
from a storm drain at Gardiners Creek, Shelter Island. A durable, fine-mesh netting will be
suspended from a boom at the water surface and anchored to the bay bottom. The boom
will prevent suspended solids, bacteria, and debris from being washed out of the
containment area. Preliminary test results show excellent performance in reducing
coliform levels.
16) Stormwater Education/Outreach (Cornell Cooperative Extension)
Cornell Cooperative Extension will perform outreach sessions for local governments,
conveying the utility of stormwater management efforts tested under 104(b)(3)and other
PEP demonstration initiatives.
17) Coecles Harbor Marina—Best Management Practices (New York Sea GrantlCoecles
Harbor Marina
A series of best management practices will be implemented at Coecles Harbor Marina.
These include stormwater runoff mitigation and implementation of various procedures,
including dustless sanding and improvements in waste oil and washdown water processing.
Sea Grant will implement the educational and demonstration aspects of the project.
• 18) Clam Planting Strategies (Cornell Cooperative Extension)
Cornell Cooperative Extension will perform an analysis of machine-planted hard clams vs.
hand-planted clams. The project will result in a resource restoration benefit in terms of
clam stocks and will provide invaluable information for future seeding efforts.
D) FEDERAL FY96 ACTION PLAN DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
$75.000 in Federal fiscal year 1996 funds have been provided to the PEP. The funding is being
used to conduct the following demonstration projects.
19) Nonpoint Source Pollution Control at Boat Ramps(Cashin Associates)
Nonpoint source best management practices are being demonstrated at two public boat
ramp sites in the Sag Harbor Cove area(Amherst Road and John Street), mitigating direct
stormwater runoff at those sites. This highly visible project will result in water quality
benefits, public education and outreach, and model site plans which will be developed and
disseminated to Towns.
20) Artificial Reef Demonstration Project(Cornell Cooperative Extension)
Artificial reefs, using removable "reefballs," have been proposed for two sites to be
determined in the Peconic Estuary. The reefballs are intended primarily to create additional
habitat, while also providing recreational opportunities(diving, fishing, etc.).
•
APPENDIX D
D-9
F,*' N Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
E) FY97 ACTION PLAN DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AND "SEC. 104(B)" •
GRANTS (S207,519)
21) Agricultural Environmental Management(A.E.M.)Initiative(Suffolk County Soil&
Water Conservation District)
Using the A.E.M. approach, a comprehensive inventory and analysis is being conducted for
all farms within the watershed to assess the impact and potential impact the farms may have
on the Peconic Bay Estuary and shallow aquifer. Plans will be developed for high priority
farms and best management practices implemented based upon future funding. A total of
13 farms within the watershed will implement high priority best management practices.
$163,920 in Environmental Protection Fund monies have been awarded to the Suffolk
County Soil and Water Conservation District to augment the existing PEP grant of$30,000
for this project.
22) Land Cover Analysis (NYS Department of State)
Land cover analysis using state-of-the-art remote sensing and satellite interpretation
techniques, coupled with field verification of land cover types, will be analyzed for critical
areas of the PEP watershed. This information will be used in refining stormwater
modelling efforts and in developing land cover trends analyses based on historic satellite
imagery. These status and trends analyses will also be useful for several habitat and living
resources initiatives.
23) Project SOLVE(Save the Peconic Bays, Inc.)
The goal of Project SOLVE (Promoting Sustainability-Ownership-Leadership Values in
Environmental Education) is to build the capacity of regional schools(elementary through
high school)to deliver environmental education that fosters sustained student critical
thinking, decision-making, and hands-on problem solving around real-life issues in student
homes/schools. The project uses the PEP Children's Conference format and student
home/school environmental audits over a two-year period as catalysts for community
learning and community change. Objectives of Project SOLVE are using the 1998/1999
PEP Children's Conferences and preconference activities to: 1)partner with EPA staff and
other local agency officials in teaching educators applied environmental audit techniques;
2) support teaching of these skills in the classroom; 3)assist teachers/students during an
audit research phase, and the change-oriented decision making, planning, and action period;
4)empower networking via a Save the Peconic Bays-hosted Internet chat group; and 5)
structure the conferences to teach/model teamwork and regional collaboration. Year I
targets audit projects in student homes/schools. Year 2 fosters more advanced analysis and
local/regional problem solving. Media outreach will promote intergenerational public
dialogue over key issues raised by student data.
24) Bacterial Source/DNA Analyses (Cornell Cooperative Extension)
As a means to identify coliform sources, a DNA library, specific to eastern Long Island,
will be developed based on Escherichia coli isolated from the scat of animals(including
human fecal material). The DNA library will consist of"genetic fingerprints"determined
by contour-clamped homogenous electric field (CHEF)pulsed field gel electrophoresis
(PFGE) for each strain of E. coli isolated. Once the DNA library has been established, it
will be used to catalogue and identify sources of fecal pollution. Key among these will be
the identification of coliform source(s) in water samples from closed shellfish areas in
order to determine the most appropriate mitigation strategy to permit the reopening of these
areas. The new E. coli DNA library for species from Long Island will be compared to the •
D-10 APPENDIX D
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
4
41
F
E. coli DNA library that has been established from animals located in Virginia.
Comparisons will be made for differences and similarities of like species based on
geographical origin. Once the source of contamination is known, then the information can
be used by managers to more effectively develop nonpoint source pollution mitigation
strategies that are tailored to the specific causative animal or animals, including humans.
F) MISCELLANEOUS GRANTS (POLLUTION PREVENTION) (S57,500)
25) Federal Facilities/Pollution Prevention (EPA)
EPA has received funding to develop an inventory of Federal facilities and environmental
practices(excluding Brookhaven National Laboratory). This information will be used to
assess impacts and to develop management strategies and best management practices.
26) Peconic Estuary.Native Plantings Initiative(Cornell Cooperative Extension)
With the funding provided, native plantings were established at two public spaces
(Southampton and Southold Town Halls) in the watershed in areas highly visible to year-
round and seasonal residents, business owners, municipal officials, students,and visitors.
These plantings were established as living workshops where both adults and youth can
learn about the diversity of native plants and their beauty, hardiness, and suitability for
landscaping purposes. These plantings will also serve as reference sites where watering,
maintenance, and pesticide and fertilizer inputs vs. traditional landscaping practices will be
measured. Information on the plants and where to buy them would be available at each
is location. The public will be encouraged/challenged to establish native plantings at their
homes, businesses, and in public spaces. The number and areal extent of such plantings at
homes/businesses/public spaces will be counted through surveys and other appropriate
means(such as having interested participants register their native plantings)and estimates
of reduced water, maintenance, and fertilizer inputs will be measured directly or estimated
based on the reference sites and surveys.
27) Peconic Estuary Pesticide Reduction Initiative(Cornell Cooperative Extension)
Training workshops are being conducted to directly assist farm managers in acquiring
"scouting' expertise to identify pests, determine if threshold populations of pests are
present,and make appropriate decisions/recommendations of when to apply pesticides.
When no other control strategies are available,growers will consider environmental
characteristics such as persistence, toxicity, leaching potential, and runoff potential when
selecting pesticides. In addition, growers will learn specific pest biology, cultural practices,
and sanitation and forecasting systems to improve pest management. Direct technical
assistance in the field will be provided. Pre-training and post-growing season surveys will
be conducted of all participating farms to determine changes in pest management practices.
An in-depth evaluation of pesticide use and other pest management practices will be
conducted with several participating growers to compare IPM practices to standard
scheduled applications. Measurements of pesticide usage including number of applications
and rates will be quantified.
APPENDIX D
D-II
bt `. Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
F �,x
G) NONPOINT SOURCE IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS (CLEAN WATER ACT, i
SECTION `°319")
The"319"projects are funded by NYSDEC, using Federal money awarded under section 319 of
the Clean Water Act(nonpoint source implementation). Suffolk County was historically
unsuccessful in obtaining 319 funding. However, due to prioritization in the NEP,the PEP has
now received several 319 grants; additional 319 funding is anticipated in the future.
28) Surface Water Pollution Abatement(Town of East Hampton)
The system of dams in Accabonac Harbor and Northwest Creek are being expanded, and
two new dams are being installed in the watersheds of Fresh Pond and Three Mile Harbor
to reduce runoff into these tidal embayments. Funds will also be used to improve
monitoring of water quality in these areas and test effectiveness of the Open Marsh Water
Management.
19) Stormwater Mitigation (Goose Creek, Southold)
Stormwater runoff mitigation systems will be constructed at five locations in Goose Creek,
a tributary of Southold Harbor. The project will improve water quality, potentially enough
to allow shellfishing in the creek on a year-round conditional basis.
30) Stormwater Remediation (Hashamomuck Pond,Southold)
Stormwater runoff mitigation systems will be constructed in three areas of Hashamomuck
Pond,a 170-acre tributary to the Peconic Estuary. The project will be monitored for
effectiveness, and is expected to improve shellfishing conditions in the area. 0
31) Vac-Con Sewer Cleaning Machine (Southampton Town)
As a result of Southampton Town's two million dollar Clean Water Bond Act,
approximately 330 leaching basins will be installed to mitigate stormwater runoff. The
grant award will be used to purchase catch basin maintenance equipment, which will be
critical to the long-term success of the treatment systems. The maintenance equipment will
extend the life expectancy of the systems beyond the normal expectancy of fifty to seventy-
five years.
32) Drainage Improvements (Bay Avenue, Greenport,Southold)
The project will provide treatment via slow sand filtration to stormwater runoff entering
Stirling Basin from the existing Bay Avenue drainage system. The watershed consists of
65 acres in the village of Greenport, draining to Stirling Basin, a >j-acre bay.
33) Stormwater Retention/Biofilter(East Creek,Riverhead)
This project will construct a stormwater collection, storage,filtration, and treatment system
for the mitigation of water pollution due to highway runoff. A 1.5-acre grading and
drainage easement will be obtained, and eight catch basins, a 2,000 cubic yard retention
basin, and an 1,800 square yard reed bed will be constructed. Aquatic plants will absorb
nutrients from upstream nonpoint sources, suspended solids will settle, and bacteria will die
off.
34) Construction of a Wetland(Village of Sag Harbor)
This will reduce stormwater discharges into Sag Harbor Bay,which is part of the Peconic
Estuary System.
i
APPENDIX D
D-12
Peconic Estuan Program CCMP
35) Redirect Stormwater Runoff(Shelter Island)
Stormwater runoff which now flows from many of the Town's roads directly into surface
waters will be redirected. Infiltration basins with associated curb inlets, catch basins,and
piping will be installed on 17 streets and roads.
H) N.Y.S. CLEAN WATER/CLEAN AIR BOND ACT'
36) Aquatic Habitat Restoration in Lake Montauk(Town of East Hampton)
This project will reestablish eelgrass beds in the southern half of Lake Montauk, a tidal
lake, and cut and remove the common reed along the shoreline to reestablish a high quality
fringing marsh. The project will include the initiation of a phragmites control program.
Lake Montauk is a State Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat and a nursery for
winter flounder and other valuable finfish species. It is also a wintering and feeding ground
for waterfowl and home to the bay scallop. Increases in eelgrass beds should improve the
depressed populations of scallops. The control of the reeds should enable reestablishment
of high quality and diverse marsh species along the shoreline of the Lake.
37) Lake Montauk Runoff Pollution Abatement(Town of East Hampton)
This project will install eighty leaching catchment devices, ten infiltrators, and five
• adjustable weirs at twenty collection points to control pathogens and other pollutants from
stormwater runoff that are resultin, in shellfish bed closures and reductions in eelgrass
beds in the Lake Montauk portion of the proposed project area.
These waters support significant shellfish beds. Pathogens and other pollutants from
stormwater runoff have caused closure of these beds and precluded the harvesting of
shellfish. This project,together with two other projects also selected for funding under the
Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act, will improve the condition of this system which may
allow the reopening of some of the beds.
38) Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility(Town of Riverhead)
This project will build a 1.4 million gallons per day advanced wastewater treatment facility
utilizing Sequencing Batch Reactor technology and ultraviolet disinfection. The project
will enable the Town of Riverhead to comply with the conditions of its most recent
wastewater discharge permit and reduce the total load of nitrogen to the Peconic Estuary.
Funding will be provided in future years for the remainder of the project.
The Peconic River Estuary is a significant recreational and commercial resource.
Excessive levels of nitrogen from sewage treatment plants and runoff have increased
eutrophication in the estuary, depressed dissolved oxygen and, possibly, contributed to the
decline of eelgrass beds. This project addresses the primary point source of nitrogen to the
estuary and will improve the condition of the waterbody.
Project narratives provided by NYSDEC.
APPENDIX D
D-13
64a ,kt, Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
39) Stormwater Abatement Activities to Reduce Runoff to Peconic and South Shore
Estuaries(Town of Southampton) 10
This project will install underground stormwater retention and infiltration structures to
control pathogens from stormwater runoff that are resulting in shellfish bed closures in
Noyac Bay and Wooley Pond. The project was reduced in scope to focus on important
shellfish beds in Noyac Bay and Wooley Pond.
These waters support significant shellfish beds. Pathogens from stormwater runoff have
caused closure of these beds and precluded the harvesting of shellfish. This project will
improve the condition of this system,which may allow the seasonal use of some of the
beds.
40) Davis Creek Restoration/Enhancement(Town of Southampton)
This project will create ten acres of restored and new tidal wetlands on four contiguous
parcels by removing dredged materials and sand to restore water flow within a Town-
owned site located adjacent to the Little Peconic Bay and Davis Creek.
This tidal wetland has historically been home to threatened and endangered species. Past
disposal of dredged material has precluded the tidal wetland from functioning as a habitat.
This project will fully restore the function of this wetland and all its benefits to the creek.
The Davis Creek ecosystem is a significant nesting and feeding area for the State
endangered piping plover and least tem, as well as for the threatened osprey, common tern,
and diamond backed terrapin,a species of special concern. The creek is also noteworthy as
an important commercial shellfish area with hard clams, oysters,and scallops.
41) Remediation of Highway Stormwater Discharge to Peconic Estuary (Suffolk County
Department of Public Works)
This project will install recharge basins and in-line leaching basins to control pathogens
and other pollutants from stormwater runoff that are resulting in the closures of shellfish
growing waters. The scope of the project has been reduced to concentrate on the Lake
Montauk, Three Mile Harbor, and Shinnecock Canal portions of the proposed project area.
These waters support significant shellfish beds. Pathogens and other pollutants from
stormwater runoff have caused closure of these beds and precluded the harvesting of
shellfish. This project,together with two other projects also selected for funding under the
Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act,will improve the condition of this system which may
allow the reopening of some of the beds.
42) Animal Waste Treatment System for Flanders Bay(Suffolk County Soil and Water
Conservation District)
This project will construct two sealed aeration lagoons and one denitrification tank which
will supplement an existing waste treatment system at the Corwin Duck Farm. It will
reduce nutrients and pathogens entering Flanders Bay, when excess nitrogen loading has
caused stresses(low dissolved oxygen), and where shellfishing is reduced.
43) East Hampton Town Harbor Habitat Restoration (Town of East Hampton)
Aquatic habitat restoration is a priority of the Peconic Estuary Program. Restoring eelgrass
beds to improve habitat for scallops is extremely important in the Peconic Estuary because
of the devastating effect of Brown Tide blooms to both of these resources over the past ten
years. Also, wetlands serve numerous habitat and pollution control functions. This project
APPENDIX D
D-14
Peconic Estuary Program CCh9P "°°"'�
F
40 will rehabilitate wetland and bottom habitats in East Hampton tidal embayments,
particularly: Three Mile, Accabonac, and Napeague Harbors and Northwest Creek. The
goals are to restore eelgrass beds in the three harbors and combat Phragmites proliferation
in 20 acres of tidal wetlands by manual planting and removal, respectively,and by applying
open marsh water management techniques to vector control ditches.
44) Hudson Avenue Stormwater Abatement for Coecles Harbor(Town of Shelter Island)
Freshwater wetlands are rare on Shelter Island and this project will increase the wetland
acreage. This habitat will be beneficial to various avian species for nesting and feeding
such as the red-winged blackbird, common yellowthroat, and marsh wren. Small forage
fish will be introduced to control mosquitoes and provide food for wading birds. Nearby
shellfish beds will benefit from the improved water quality.
This is a four-phase project to create a freshwater wetlands system to hold stormwater
emanating from thirteen up-gradient catchment basins, to improve water quality in Coecles
Harbor,and to create a one-acre emergent, forested freshwater wetlands detention basin as
a preserve to enhance wildlife habitat and biodiversity. The area will be graded to planting
specifications and water control structures will be installed. Plants, interpretative signs, a
viewing platform and bird/bat boxes will then be installed.
45) Hashamomuck Pond Stormwater Remediation
This project will acquire approximately 4 acres of land to construct a biological filtration
pond to control pathogens and other pollutants from stormwater runoff that are causing
shellfish bed closures in Hashamomuck Pond. There is a significant shellfish resource in
the Pond, and this effort will mitigate a major coliform source. improving the condition of
the system which may allow the reopening of some of the beds.
46) Peconic Estuary Stormwater Remediation
Pathogens and other pollutants from stormwater runoff have caused closure of shellfish
beds and precluded the harvesting of shellfish. This project will improve the condition of
the system which may allow the reopening of some of the beds. This project will install
leaching and retention basins to control pathogens and other pollutants from stormwater
runoff that are causing the closures of shellfish growing waters. The scope of the project
has been reduced to focus on the Sag Harbor and Coves portion of the project.
47) Route 15 Stormwater Mitigation for Southold Bay
This project will install stormwater mitigation structures at three locations to control
pathogens and other pollutants from Stormwater runoff that are causing the closures of
shellfish growing waters in Southold Bay during part of the year.
48) Sag Harbor Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade
The Peconic Estuary Program has identified the need to reduce pollutants discharged to the
estuary as a priority in order to prevent degradation of water quality. This project will
reduce the biochemical oxygen demand and reduce nitrogen discharged to Sag Harbor.
This project will upgrade the existing Sag Harbor sewage treatment plant (STP) by
replacing the aeration tanks with sequencing batch reactors. Existing clarifiers will be
converted to aerated sludge holding tanks. The upgrading will increase the capacity of the
• Sag Harbor STP, enhance nitrogen removal, and reduce biochemical oxvgen demand in
APPENDIX D
D-15
1 Peconic Estuary Program CC,LIP
r
Sag Harbor Bay. Sag Harbor has been identified as stressed with respect to nitrogen and
dissolved oxygen,and the project should assist in alleviating these stresses.
49) Flanders Bay Stormwater Abatement
Southampton Town has launched an aggressive $2 million stormwater mitigation project to
minimize coliform,toxics, nutrients, and other pollutants to the estuary. This project will
install underground stormwater catch basins to control pathogens and other pollutants from
stormwater runoff that are causing the conditional certification of shellfish water in
Flanders Bay, augmenting Town funding and remediation efforts in these areas.
50) Southold Bay Stormwater Remediation—Shore Road
Pathogens and other pollutants from stormwater runoff have caused closure of these beds
during part of the year and impaired the harvesting of shellfish. This project will improve
the condition of this system which may allow the use of the beds year-round.
This project will replace existing catch basins along Shore Road to control pathogens and
other pollutants from stormwater runoff that are causing the closures of shellfish beds
during part of the year in Southold Bay.
•
APPENDIX D
D-16
Peconic Estuary Program CCtfP
F�
Feb. 2001
Peconic Estuary Program
Related Demonstration/Implementation Projects
PROJECT TITLE FEDERAL/STATE FUNDING (S)
Near Coastal Waters Grants(S144385)
1) Bay Scallop Restoration Project 125,9501
2) Filter Strip Project/Stormwater Abatement 10,000
3) Open Marsh Water Management Project 2463852
4) "Saving the Bay' Poster/Pamphlet Project 5,000
5) Corwin Duck Farm Constructed Wetland 68000
Action Plan Demonstration Project(APDPs) (FY94)(S75,000)
6) Bay Scallop Spat Collection and Transplant/Optimization 10,000
7) Composting Waste Public Restroom Facelift 18,730
8) Wetland Restoration Project 36,9703
9) Eel_grass Restoration Project(uses $700 in FY95 APDP funds) 20,200
10) Ultraviolet Disinfection/Shelter Island Heights STP 6,800
11) Fish Run Demonstration Project 10,000
FY95 APDP & "Sec. 104(b)"Stormwater Management Grants(5135,000)
12) Nonpoint Source Pollution Prevention(Coecles Harbor Marina) 47,3594
13) Stormwater Quality Management("Stormtreat") 11,950
14) Shallow WetlandBiofiltration 19,500
15) Ozone Treatment of Stormwater Runoff 18,850
16) Clam Planting Strategies 29,050
17) Storm Drain Outfall (EcoBoom) 20,000
18) Stormwater Education/Outreach 4,000
FY96 Action Plan Demonstration Projects ($75,000)
19) Nonpoint Source,Boat Ramps 17,000
20) Artificial Reef Demonstration Project 58,000
FY97 APDP and "Sec. 104(b)" Stormwater Manaeement Grants ($207,519)
21) Agricultural Environmental Management Initiativeb 34,500
22) Land CoverAnal_.sis 67,819
23) Project SOLVE 20200
24) Bacterial Source,DNA Analyses 85,000
EPA Miscellaneous Grants (Pollution Prevention)(S57,500)
25) Federal Facilities%Pollution Prevention 20,000
26) Native Plantings 20,000
27) Pesticide Reduction Initiative 17,500
•
APPENDIX D
D-17
.0 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
'c
PROJECT TITLE FEDERAL/STATE FUNDING (S)
"Section 319"Nonpoint Source Implementation Grants'($578,700)
28) Town of East Hampton-Surface Water Pollution Abatement 34,500
29) Stormwater Mitigation at Goose Creek 15,000
30) Hashamomuck Pond Stormwater Remediation 39.000
31) Southampton Vac-Con Sewer Cleaning Machine 180,000
32) Bay Avenue Drainage Improvement 50.000
33) East Creek Stormwater Retention/Biofilter 62,000
34) Village of Sag Harbor-Construction of a Wetland at Havens Beach 157.500
35) Town of Shelter Island- Redirect Stormwater Runoff 40,700
New York State Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act($9,647,150)
36) Lake Montauk and Fort Pond Restoration(Town of East Hampton) 15,000
37) Lake Montauk and Fort Pond Runoff Pollution Abatement(Town of East Hampton) 100,000
38) Wastewater Treatment Facility Construction(1997 and 1998)(Town of Riverhead) 2,922,500
39) Stormwater Abatement Activities(Town of Southampton) 140,000
40) Davis Creek Restoration/Enhancement(Town of Southampton) 25,000
41) Remediation of Highway Stormwater Discharge to Peconic Estuary
(Suffolk County Dept. of Public Works) 100.000
42) Animal Waste System for Flanders Bay(SCSWCD) 200,000
43) East Hampton Town Harbor Habitat Restoration(Town of East Hampton) 75,000
44) Hudson Avenue Stormwater Abatement Project(Town of Shelter Island) 196,200
45) Highway Stormwater Remediation to Hashamomuck Pond
(Peconic Estuary)(Suffolk County Dept. of Public Works) 600,000
46) Remediation of Highway Stormwater Discharge to Peconic Estuary(SCDPW) 75,000
47) Route 25 Stormwater Mitigation Project(Town of Southold) 45,000
48) Sag Harbor Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade(1998)(Town of Sag Harbor) 500,000
49) Stormwater Abatement Activities(Town of Southampton) 165,000
50) Stormwater Remediation along Shore Road(Suffolk County DPW) 50,000
51) Wastewater Treatment Facility Construction(1999)(Town of Riverhead) 3,027,500
52) Stormwater Remediation to Peconic Estuary from Mitchell Park(Village of Greenport) 61,450
53) Riverhead Foundation for Marine Research and Preservation Wastewater
Treatment(Town of Riverhead) 40,000
54) Sag Harbor Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade(1999)(Village of Sag Harbor) 1,172,000
55) Sammis Beach Restoration(Town of East Hampton) 137,500
FY00 "Sec. 104(b)" Stormwater Management Grants ($150,000)
56) Open Marsh Water Management Stormwater Strategy 75,000
57) Downtown Riverhead Stormwater Management 75,000
New York State Environmental Protection Fund (S2 189 450)
58) East Hampton Town LWRP/LEMP(Town of East Hampton) 60,000
59) Street End Access and Stormwater Mitigation(Town of East Hampton) 25,000
60) Public Outreach and Education(Town of East Hampton) 20,000
61) East Hampton Town Marine and Environmental
Science Center(Town of East Hampton) 20,000
62) Coastal Public Education Program (Town of East Hampton) 47,000
63) Scenic Resource Inventory and Analysis(Town of East Hampton) 40,000
64) Landing Lane Road End Refurbishment(Town of East Hampton) 10,000
65)GIS Development(Town of East Hampton) 50,000
APPENDIX D
D-18
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP J4
PROJECT TITLE FEDERAL/STATE FUNDING (S)
New York State Environmental Protection Fund (S2,189,450) (continued)
66)East Hampton Sand Management Program (Town of East Hampton) 30,000
67)Harbor Management Plan (Village of Greenport) 35,000
68) Mitchell Property Design (Village of Greenport) 75,000
69)Design of a Waterfront Park and Harbor Walk(Village of Greenport) 25,000
70)Mitchell Property Redevelopment and Marine Design (Village of Greenport) 75,000
71)Mitchell Dock Westerly Pier Completion (Village of Greenport) 255,000
72) Mitchell Park and Marina Transient Docking Basin (Village of Greenport) 320,000
73) Mitchell Park and Marina-Phase Two(Village of Greenport) 450,000
74) Grangebel Park Revitalization(Town of Riverhead) 14,250
75) Town of Riverhead LWRP(Town of Riverhead) 20,000
76) LWRP Amendment/ Harbor Management Plan (Village of Sas Harbor) 37,500
77) Rysam Street Drainage(Village of Sag Harbor) 100.000
78) Wetlands Restoration Plan (Town of Southampton) 28,900
79) Shinnecock Canal Maritime Development(Town of Southampton) 25,200
80) LWRP/Intermunicipal Waterbody Management Plan/Harbor
Management Plan(Town of Southampton) 70.000
81) Shinnecock Canal Public Access Improvements Design and
Engineering(Town of Southampton) 25,000
82) Erosion Management Plan(Town of Southold) 25,000
83) Harbor Management Plan(Town of Southold) 25,000
84) Street End Access and Stormwater Mitigation (Town of Southold) 15,000
85) Street End Access Improvements(Town of Southold) 42,000
86) Seed Clam Growout Program(Town of Southold) 4,800
87) Ferry Impact Workshop(Town of Southold) 3,500
88) Establish GIS Database for Growth Management(Town of Southold) 60,000
89) Road Ends Public Access and Stormwater Control
Improvements(Town of Southold) 35,000
90) GIS Implementation(Town of Southold) 18,300
91) Eelgrass Culture Facility for the Peconic Estuary (Town of Southold) 53,000
92) Implementation of Priority LWRP Projects (Town of Southold) 50,000
TOTAL S 13,605,063
' $50,000 Near Coastal Waters grant project expanded with S75,950 National Marine Fisheries Services grant.
Sl 1,385 Near Coastal Water grant; project expanded with$235,000 U.S. Fish&Wildlife Service grant to
NYSDEC.
59,970 FY94 APDP grant;project expanded with$27,000 U.S. Fish& Wildlife Service grant.
4 Funded, in part,with Section 319 Nonpoint Source Management grant($16,409).
' Clean Water Act, Section 319 Nonpoint Source Implementation grants are passed through NYSDEC. The
Peconic Estuary has been a priority by virtue of its inclusion in the National Estuary Program.
6 Uses$163,920 in NYS Environmental Protection Fund grant to supplement$30,000 PEP APDP award.
y'OTE: Non-federal match&commitments have resulted in project funding levels that are significantly larger.
Also,this list does not include citizens' action projects, eelgrass restoration habitat criteria trials,and
other action projects funded under"baseline"National Estuary Program management planning grants.
•
APPENDIX D
D-19
jvPvo`-'� Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
Table 1
State Assisted Projects to Benefit the Peconic Estuary
PROJECT TITLE STATE FUNDING (S)
New York State Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act($9,647,150)
1) Lake Montauk and Fort Pond Restoration(Town of East Hampton) 15,000
2) Lake Montauk and Fort Pond Runoff Pollution Abatement(Town of East Hampton) 100,000
3) Wastewater Treatment Facility Construction(1997)(Town of Riverhead) 922,500
4) Stormwater Abatement Activities to Peconic and South Shore
Estuaries(Town of Southampton) 140,000
5) Davis Creek Restoration/Enhancement(Town of Southampton) 25,000
6) Remediation of Highway Stormwater Discharge to Lake Montauk,Three
Mile Harbor, and Shinnecock Canal(Suffolk County Dept. of Public Works) 100,000
7) Wastewater Treatment Facility Construction(1998) 2,000,000
8) Animal Waste System for Flanders Bay(SCSWCD) 200,000
9) East Hampton Town Harbor Habitat Restoration(Town of East Hampton) 75,000
10) Hudson Avenue Stormwater Abatement Project(Town of Shelter Island) 196,200
11) Highway Stormwater Remediation to Hashamomuck Pond
(Peconic Estuary)(Suffolk County Dept. of Public Works) 600,000
12) Remediation of Highway Stormwater Discharge to Peconic Estuary(SCDPW) 75,000
13) Route 25 Stormwater Mitigation Project(Town of Southold) 45,000
14) Sag Harbor Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade(1998)(Town of Sag Harbor) 500,000
15) Stormwater Abatement Activities(Town of Southampton) 165,000
16) Stormwater Remediation along Shore Road(Suffolk County DPW) 50,000
17) Wastewater Treatment Facility Construction(1999)(Town of Riverhead) 3,027,500
18) Stormwater Remediation to Peconic Estuary from Mitchell Park(Village of Greenport) 61,450
19) Riverhead Foundation for Marine Research and Preservation Wastewater
Treatment(Town of Riverhead) 40.000
20) Sag Harbor Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade(1999)(Village of Sag Harbor) 11172,000
21) Sammis Beach Restoration(Town of East Hampton) 137.500
New York State Environmental Protection Fund (52,189,450)
22) East Hampton Town LWRP/LEMP (Town of East Hampton) 60,000
23) Street End Access and Stormwater Mitigation(Town of East Hampton) 25,000
24) Public Outreach and Education (Town of East Hampton) 20.000
25) East Hampton Town Marine and Environmental Science
Center(Town of East Hampton) 20,000
26) Coastal Public Education Program (Town of East Hampton) 47,000
27) Scenic Resource Inventory and Analysis (Town of East Hampton) 40,000
28) Landing Lane Road End Refurbishment(Town of East Hampton) 10,000
29) GIS Development(Town of East Hampton) 50,000
30) East Hampton Sand Management Program (Town of East Hampton) 30,000
31)Harbor Management Plan (Village of Greenport) 35,000
32)Mitchell Property Design (Village of Greenport) 75,000
33)Design of a Waterfront Park and Harbor Walk(Village of Greenport) 25,000
34)Mitchell Property Redevelopment and Marine Design (Village of Greenport) 75,000
35)Mitchell Dock Westerly Pier Completion (Village of Greenport) 255,000
36)Mitchell Park and Marina Transient Docking Basin (Village of Greenport) 320,000
37) Mitchell Park and Marina-Phase Two(Village of Greenport) 450,000
APPENDIX D
D-20
Peconic Estuary Program CC,tfP 4'�%'
sPROJECT TITLE STATE FUNDING (S)
New York State Environmental Protection Fund (52,189,450)(continued)
38) Grangebel Park Revitalization (Town of Riverhead) 14,250
39)Town of Riverhead LWRP(Town of Riverhead) 20,000
40) LWRP Amendment/Harbor Management Plan (Village of Sag Harbor) 37,500
41) Rysam Street Drainage(Village of Sag Harbor) 100,000
42) Wetlands Restoration Plan (Town of Southampton) 28,900
43) Shinnecock Canal Maritime Development(Town of Southampton) 25,200
44) LWRP/Intermunicipal Waterbody Management Plan/Harbor
Management Plan (Town of Southampton) 70,000
45) Shinnecock Canal Public Access Improvements Design and
Engineering(Town of Southampton) 25,000
46) Erosion Management Plan(Town of Southold) 25,000
47) Harbor Management Plan(Town of Southold) 25,000
48) Street End Access and Stormwater Mitigation (Town of Southold) 15,000
49) Street End Access Improvements(Town of Southold) 42000
50) Seed Clam Growout Program (Town of Southold) 4,800
51) Ferry Impact Workshop(Town of Southold) 3,500
52) Establish GIS Database for Growth Management(Town of Southold) 60,000
53) Road Ends Public Access and Stormwater Control
Improvements(Town of Southold) 35.000
54) GIS Implementation (Town of Southold) 18300
55) Eelgrass Culture Facility for the Peconic Estuary (Town of Southold) 53,000
56) Implementation of priority LWRP Projects (Town of Southold) 50.000
New York State Revolving Fund (S 149,480,707)
57) Land Fill Cap (Town of East Hampton) 4,127,822
58) Non-point Source Drinking Water Protection (Town of East Hampton) 20,000,000
59) Sewage Treatment Plant Modification (Town of East Hampton) 200,000
60) Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade (Town of Riverhead) 8,046310
61) Interceptor, Collector, Pump Station, and Force Main (Town of Riverhead) 4,148,000
62) Non-point Source Drinking Water Protection(Town of Southampton) 30,000,000
63) Non-point Source Stormwater Runoff Treatment(Town of Southampton) 1,308,149
64) Non-point Source Stormwater Runoff Treatment(Town of Southampton) 651.400
65) Stormwater Runoff Treatment (Town of Southampton) 691.851
66) Landfill Cap(Town of Southold) 5,641.175
67) Non-point Source Drinking Water Protection(Suffolk County) 74,666,000
TOTAL $161,317,307
s
APPENDIX D
D-21
,¢ Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
F1
_�
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
APPENDIX D
D-22
APPENDIX E
Brown Tide
Research Projects
APPENDIX E
E-1
�.� Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
APPENDIX E
E-2
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP f N
c
•
BROWN TIDE RESEARCH SUMMARY
'% M1
i
OSlrrn
• Transmission electron micrograph of the Brown Tide organism.(x47.000)
AUREOCOCCUS ANOPHAGEFFERENS
(golden sphere') (causing cessation offeeding )
This package includes a summary of ongoing Brown Tide Research Initiative projects and the Brown Tide tfonitoring
.Aetwork as well as a list of historic research projects funded by Suffolk County and Sea Grant_
The Brown Tide Research Initiative is a multi-Year effort to investigate the onset,persistence, cessation and impacts of the
Brown Tide- The Initiative was formali=ed at the October 1995 Brown Tide Summit and is overseen by a Committee with
representatives from Sea Grant(Committee chair), the Peconic Estuary Program(PEP), Suffolk County, the Nanonal
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(AAAA), the Stony Brook University Marine Sciences Research Center,and
others-
Ongoing Brown Tide research is being funded with a portion of a S3.0 million commitment from,o"OAA (over six years),
S 100,000 in Brookhaven National Lab(BAL)services, and 5100,000 of Suffolk County funds to be used as match for the
BAL project_ Suffolk County has authort=ed an additional 5450,000(over three years) in Brown Tide research capital
funds. Historic Brown Tide research has been funded primarily by Suffolk County and Sea Grant.
Prepared by:
Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services— Office of Ecology
Peconic Estuary Program, Program Office
County Center
Riverhead,N.Y. 11901
(516)852-2077
January, 2001
APPENDIX E
E-3
.4'" g� Peconic Estuary Program CCVP
BROWN TIDE RESEARCH INITIATIVE
PROJECTS LIST
Funded Proposals
(Funded with NOAA Monies)
B1 Robert Andersen,Provasoli-Guillard National Center for Culture of Marine
Phytoplankton,Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences. Multiple Culture Isolates(Xenic
and Axenic)Biodiversity and Ultrastructure ofAureocococcus anophagefferens
The objectives of this program are to establish multiple uni-algal, including axenic (bacteria-
free) cultures of A. anophagefferens from various areas for use in laboratory studies. The
availability of these cultures will allow studies of the organism's physiology to be undertaken
in an effort to determine the physical and chemical requirements for its growth. The project
also includes examination of strain diversity, genetic studies, and cellular ultrastructure.
B2 Gregory L. Boyer(Chemistry Department,College of Environmental Science and
Forestry, SUNY,Syracuse) and Julie LaRoche(Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Sciences Division,Department of Applied Science, Brookhaven National Laboratory).
Ferrodoxin and Flavodoxin as Metabolic Markers for Iron Stress in Aureococcus
anophagefferens,
There is speculation that blooms of the Brown Tide organism,Aureococcus anophagefferens •
may be triggered by iron. This proposal will develop a metabolic marker for iron stress that
can be used to elucidate if iron is limiting to Aureococcus.
B3 David Caron (Biology Dept.,Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution) and Darcy
Lonsdale, (Marine Sciences Research Center, SUNY, Stony Brook). Microzooplankton-
Mesozooplankton Coupling and Its Role in the Initiation of Blooms ofAureococcus
anophagefferens (Brown Tides),
A study of the effects of zooplankton-zooplankton and zooplankton-phytoplankton predator-
prey relationships on the initiation of Brown Tides.
B4 Patricia M. Glibert and Todd M. Kana, Horn Point Environmental Laboratory,
University of Maryland. Mechanisms for Nutrient and Energy Acquisition in Low Light.,
Successful Strategies ofAureococcus anophagefferens
Isolation and culture of additional clones of A. anophagefferens and a characterization of their
photosynthetic and nitrogen uptake capabilities under varying nutrient and light conditions.
Similar characterizations will be made on naturally occurring blooms. The proposal is based
on the idea that A. anophagefferens outcompetes other phytoplankton by having several
mechanisms to acquire energy and nutrients in highly turbid waters.
APPENDIX E
E-4
Peconic Estuary Program CCVP 41"
B5 Maureen D. Keller and Michael E. Sieracki, Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences.
Physiological Ecology of the Brown Tide Organism,Aureococcus anoohaeefferens.
Determination of the photosynthetic and growth characteristics of a variety of isolates ofA
anophagefferens and other co-dominating nanophytoplankton, in an effort to determine the
reason(s)for bloom initiation
B6 Theodore J. Smayda, Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island.
Analysis of Physical Chemical and Biological Conditions Associated with the Narragansett
Bay Brown Tide.
An analysis of the considerable amount of data collected by URI during the Brown Tide
bloom, which occurred in Narragansett Bay in 1985.
B7 Gary H.Wickfors and Richard A. Robohm, Milford Laboratory, NOAA, NMFS.
Isolation and Propagation of the Brown Tide Alga,Aureococcus anonhaeefferens, Using
Dialysis Culture Techniques.
Attempts to provide axenic (bacteria-free)cultures Of A. anophagefferens using a novel culture
technique.
• B8 Sergio Sanudo-Wilhelmy, David Hutchins (MSRC, SUNY, Stony Brook) and John Donat,
Old Dominion University. Biogeoehemieal and Anthropogenic Factors that Control Brown
Tide Blooms: The Effects of Metals and Organic Nutrients in Long Island's Embayments.
Determination of the seasonal and temporal variability of dissolved metals and organic
nutrients in an attempt to establish the relative importance of natural processes versus
anthropogenic inputs on the development of Brown Tide blooms.
BTRI 1999-2001
B9 Sieracki; The Effects of Microbial Food Web Dynamics on the Initiation of Brown Tide
Blooms
Expanding on the work from the Keller and Sieracki BTRI 1996-99 project, this investigator
is examining the growth and grazing of Aureococcus within the context of the microbial
plankton community. The hypothesis is that a picoalgae niche is typically occupied by the
algae Svnechococcus and that Svnechococcus must be selectively removed or reduced to
open the niche to A- onophagefferens. This project also addresses the picoplankton
community including phototrophic and heterotrophic components, such as bacteria and
protozoan grazers.
•
APPENDIX E
E-5
,} Peconlc Estuary Program CCMP
B10 Kana,MacIntyre,Cornwell and Lomas;Benthic-Pelagic Coupling and Long Island
Brown Tide
To gain insight into the regional differences in the occurrence of Brown Tide across the
Long Island bays,this group is examining several hypotheses regarding the control of Brown
Tide by nutrients and the coupling between water column and bottom (benthic-pelagic
coupling). The central focus of the project is on the role of sediment and benthos as
mediators of nutrient exchange in the water column. A coupled benthic pelagic coupling
model is used as a framework for studying the role of sediments in Brown Tide dynamics.
Field sampling includes south shore bays, West Neck Bay and Great Peconic Bay.
Physiological experiments utilizing technology developed in Gilbert's 1996-99 project,the
turbidostat, will allow for accurate bioenergetic measurements of A. anophagefferens growth
and photosynthesis under diverse organic nutrient conditions.
Bll Lonsdale, Caron,and Cerrato; Causes and Prevention of Long Island Brown Tide
This project continues efforts utilizing mesocosms to study and understand the factors
leading to Brown Tide outbreaks and possible Brown Tide prevention or mitigation. The
team is examining several topics including changes in the plankton community structure that
takes place as A. anophagefferens increases in relative and absolute abundance within a
natural plankton assemblage, and the effects that perturbation to the pelagic food web have
on the success or failure of Brown Tide. Investigations will continue exploring how •
suspension feeding bivalves affect planktonic food web structure, and how their activities
affect the absolute and relative abundance of A. anophagefferens. This investigation will
consider the effects of the chemical form of growth limiting nutrients and the rate of nutrient
loading as factors affecting Brown Tide initiation and bloom magnitude.
•
APPENDIX E
E-6
Peconic Estuary Program CC.VIP
F�V
r
SUFFOLK COUNTY
Funded Brown Tide Research
Ref.# Year Funding Name/Description
Sl 1986 $78.998 Part I. ($36,058)
Effects of high algal concentrations(field samples)on feeding
performance of bay scallop and mussel. Feeding Performance of
scallops using"normal'phytoplankton species. (Bricelj)
S2 Part IL (42,940)
Effects of light limitation on eelgrass growth. (Dennison)
S3 1987 S43,563 (Cosper, Carpenter)
Laboratory growth studies of bloom organism (macro-micronutrients,
physical/chemical parameters)
Positive identification using EM.
S4 59,300 Supplemental funds for technical assistance on above project.
S5 $16.663 (Dennison)
Photographic overflight of Peconic System to map eelgrass.
Grouncitruthing of aerial overflight imagery. Preparation of eelgrass
habitat inventory map.
S6 59,998 (Siddall, SUNY, Stony Brook)
Bay Scallop Landing of 1985-1986 and the Effects of Brown Algal
Blooms.
S7 — (Siddall, SUNY, Stony Brook)
Climatology of Long Island Related to the Brown Tide Phytoplankton
Blooms of 1985 and 1986.
S8 1988 $46.800 (Cosper)
14C productivity studies.
S9 S24,999 (Anderson)
Development of immunofluorescent identification procedure and
training of SCDHS personnel.
Sl0 $6,680 (Levandowsky)
Attempts to obtain an axenic culture of Aureococcus anophagefferens-
S11 1989 513.885 (Levandowsky.Haskins Laboratory, NYC)
The use of satellite based remote sensing for monitoring the Brown
Tide phenomenon.
S12 199-- 533,848 (Beltrami, SUNY Stony Brook)
95 Inferring Brown Tide Dynamics in Peconic Bay from Models and
Data.
S13 518.606 (Lonsdale, SUNY, Stony Brook)
A Field Study of Microzooplankton Biomass and Grazing Rate.
S14 55,803 (Mahoney,NMFS, Sandy Hook)
Purification of Aureococcus anophogefjerens Culture.
S15 1994— 532.168 (510,000 SCDHS, 522.168 Sea Grant— Wilson and Beltrami,
N7 95 SUNY, Stony Brook)
S16 531,000 (Boyer, SUNY— Env. Science 8 Forestry, Syracuse)
Iron and Nitrogen Nutrition in the Brown Tide Algae Aureococcus
anophagefferens
S17 199(r $100.000 Brown Tide Monitoring Network(Brookhaven National Lab)
97 This project will use 5100,000 in Suffolk County funds with
• significant match by BNL(minimum S 100,000 match in first year).
Suffolk Countyfunding will be used to deploy real-time in-situ
APPENDIX E
E-7
g Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
fluorometers,construct and maintain a Brown Tide home page on the •
World Wide Web reporting resulting data,and determining basic
photosynthetic physiology of Brown Tide in the field. BNL is also
performing"hind-casting"and autoecological investigations through
in-kind match.
S-18 1998— $49,945 (Lonsdale& Taylor, SUNY, Stony Brook)
99 Differential Phytoplankton and Microzooplankton Analyses in Long
Island Bays. Research to increase knowledge of the plankton ecology
of Long Island Bays. The researcher's goal is to describe as
completely as possible the temporal and spatial patterns in
composition and biomass of phytoplankton and microzooplankton,
including protozoa and micrometazoa,at three sites in the Peconic
Bays system,and two in south shore bays. Based on experience and
the literature,the researchers will categorize where possible the
planktonic members by trophic group(e.g., as primary producers,
grazers,omnivores,bacteriovores)which is a first step towards
characterization and comparison of planktonic food web structure in
these bays.
5-19 1998— $200,00 (LaRoche et al.,Brookhaven National Laboratory)
99 Dissolved Organic Nitrogen and Brown Tide Blooms in Long Island's
Coastal Waters: Testing the Groundwater Hypothesis.
A study to identify the source of DON that is available to A.
anophogefferens via field and laboratory studies. The laboratory work
will involve 1)the identification of the DON components from the
Peconic estuary or Great South Bay that can support growth of the
alga and 2)characterization of the DON uptake systems and utilization
mechanisms that make this ales competitive at utilizing nitrogen 3)the
production of immunological probes to major proteins of A.
anophagefferens involved in the utilization of DON. In the field, BNL
will characterize the DON fraction utilized by A. anophagefferns
during a bloom as well as follow the nitrogen nutrition of this algae
using immunological probes. Weekly or biweekly nutrient bioassays
and analysis of various dissolved and particulate nitrogen pools will
complement the field sampling of Suffolk County Department of
Health Services(SCDHS)surface water monitoring program. The
result will be analyzed in the context of the groundwater hypothesis.
the SCDHS survey and the Brown Tide Research Initiative(BTRI)
project.
•
APPENDIX E
E-8
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP oP .
NEW YORK SEA GRANT INSTITUTE*
Brown Tide Research
Ref.# Proiect
N1 RIF-48: Blooms of Brown'Tide Phytoplankters in Long Island Bays: Physiological Characteristics.
Dr. Edward Carpenter, MSRC, SUNY at Stony Brook.
Started: 8/15/86 Ended: 2/28/87 $9,685
N2 R/CMB-2: An Investigation of Coupling Between Phytoplankton Productivity and Zooplankton
Dynamics in Long Island Coastal Embayments.
Drs. Elizabeth Cosper and Darcy Lonsdale,MSRC, SUNY at Stony Brook
Started: POU91 Ended- 12/31/92 $147,529
N3 RCMB-I 1: A Study of Viral Activity in the Brown Tide Alga,Aureococcus anophagefferens.
Dr. Elizabeth Cosper, MSRC, SUNY at Stony Brook
Started: 2/01/93 Ended: 3/06/92 S7,936(Scholar only)
N4 R'CF-5: Environmental Factors Enhancing `Brown Tide' Blooms: A Field Experimental
Approach.
Drs.Elizabeth Casper,Darcy Lonsdale and Edward Carpenter, MSRC, SUNY at Stony Brook
Started 2/01/93 Ends: 7/31/95 $150,692
N5 R/CE-7: Impact of Brown Tide(Aureococcus onophagefferens) on Microbial Food Web Processes
in a Long Island Bay.
Dr. Darcy Lonsdale and Gordon Taylor, MSRC, SUNY at Stony Brook.
Started:2/01/94 Ends: U31/96 $417.061
N6 P,/FBM-16: Relative Susceptibility of Bivalves to the Brown Tide Alga Aureococcus
onophagenfferens: Comparison among species and life history stages.
Dr. Monica Bricelj,MSRC, SUNY at Stony Brook
Started: 9/4/95 Ends 8/31/97 $164387
N7 RCE-10: Causative Factors in the Initiation of Brown Tide Blooms.
(S15) Robert Wilson,MSRC,and Ed Beltrami,Mathematics. SUNY at Stony Brook
1-year starting 2/01/96 $22K approx. (Plus SIOK from Suffolk County)
TO BE FORWARDED TO NATIONAL OFFICE FOR FUNDING IN 1996-97 OMINIBUS
PROPOSAL: (intended but not yet approved for funding).
N8 R/CMB-12: Cell Cycle Technique for Measurement of Growth Rates and Environmental Effects
of the Brown Tide Alea.
Edward Carpenter, MSRC. SUNY at Stony Brook
2-year project starting 2/01/96 S35K/year approx.
* Information provided by Sea Grant
APPENDIX E
E-9
4416-"� Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
r
ECOHAB •
Funded Research
Ref.# Project
E-1 (Stabile et al., 1998-99)
Genetic Variability Among Spatially and Temporally Isolated Blooms of the Brown Tide
Microalga,A. anophogefferns.
Final project description is forthcoming.
APPENDIX E
E-10
APPENDIX F
Brown Tide
Interim Workplan
i
APPENDIX F
F-1
�$ Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
F
This Pale Intentionaliv Left Blank.
Left Blank.
i
APPENDIX F
F-2
Peconlc EstuaryProgram CGLIP
F
r
BROWN TIDE WORKPLAN
,A
0.5/dm
Transmission electron micrograph of the Brown Tide organism (x47,000)
AUREOCOCCUS ANOPHAGEFFERENS
golden sphere) ('causing cessation offeeding'%
An Overview of Ongoing and Historical Research and an
Identification of Future Research Priorities
Brown Tide Steering Committee
Coordinated by: Suffolk County, N.Y.
Robert J. Gaffney, County Executive
Interim Workplan —Rev. May, 1998
This interim document has been prepared by the Brown Tide Steering Committee an ad hoc advisor,
committee coordinated by the Office of the Suffolk Countv Executive For additional information. or
to provide comments please contact Suffolk County Dept of Health Services Office of Ecology.
Riverhead County Center. Riverhead N Y 11901 (631) 852-2077.
NOTE:Appendices referenced in this Brown Tide Workplan are available upon request from
the PEP Program Office.
APPENDIX F
F-3
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
FOREWORD •
This revised Workplan has been prepared to include newly funded research proiects and is being
issued in anticipation of the spring 1998 Brown Tide Research Initiative Symposium A more
substantial revision of this Workplan incorporating results of ongoing research initiatives will be
produced subseauenttothat Symposium.
The publication history of this Workplan is as follows:
Revised Draft Workplan May 19, 1997=The first complete draft Workplan which
incorporated comments from the full Brown Tide Steering Committee. Followed the 1997 •
Brown Tide Research Initiative Symposium.
Interim Workplan, tune 3, 1997=The first official Brown Tide Steering Committee
product,which incorporated comments on the May 19, 1997 Revised Draft.
Interim Workplan Rev. June 17, 1997=A revised workplan, based on Committee
recommendations to include the following priority: mesocosm and laboratory experiments to
determine the Brown Tide srowth response to additions of selected nutrients and trace
elements.
Interim Workplan Rev. February 23, 1998=A revised workplan, based on funding of
three new projects:
• Dissolved Organic Nitrogen and Brown Tide Blooms in Long Island's Coastal Waters
Testing the Groundwater Hypothesis(J. LaRoch et al.)
• Differential Phvtoplankton and lVicrozooplankton Analyses in Long Island Bad
(D. Lonsdale et al.)
• Genetic Variability among Spatially and Temporallv Isolated Blooms of the Brown Tide
Microal'a A.Anophagefferens(Stabile et al.)
Interim Workplan Rev. May, 1998=A revised workplan, based on research results
reported in the 1998 Brown Tide Research Initiative Symposium.
APPENDIX F
F-4
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
4
BROWN TIDE WORKPLAN
1. SUMMARY
Significant progress has been made with respect to understanding brown tide onset, persistence.
cessation, and impacts on shellfish, as well as related biological, physical, and chemical factors.
However, substantial additional research is needed. This Workplan estimates that, over the next
three years, a total of at least $2.1 to $2.8 million would be necessary to conduct high priority
research efforts(see sections A and B below). This initial estimate is probably conservatively low,
and is provided for purposes of preparing an interim Workplan based on readily available
information.
A) Brown Tide Research Initiative (BTRI)
As a result of the Brown Tide Research Initiative(BTRI)process, three areas of research have been
identified as specifically warranting additional funding. Cumulatively, these areas of research would
require approximately 5400,000 to $600,000. One specific project proposal which has been deemed
worthwhile, but which is not being conducted due to funding restrictions, is:
1) Investigations of groundwater, and its various constituents, with respect to Brown Tide
• blooms.
Additionally, BTRI Committee members recommended development of a Request for Proposals for
the following specific research needs:
1) Modelling of nutrient budgets.
2) Investigation of viral/pathogen activity as it may affect Brown Tide.
B) Brown Tide Summit
In addition to the above projects, substantial research should be performed on physical, chemical,
and biological factors related to Brown Tide, as well ecological effects of the organism. These
additional research priorities are based on a review of Brown Tide Summit(Oct. 1995)
recommendations in light of historical and ongoing research. Summit recommendations are included
as Workplan research project priorities only where the Summit recommendations address
substantively critical topics, where data is needed in the immediate future, and where there is still a
research gap (1—e., incomplete research, or no ongoing research). The range of funding needed to
adequately- address these projects is estimated to be approximately $1.4 to $1.8 million to conduct
projects in the following areas:
1) Role of allelopathy in securing for the Brown Tide a competitive edge over other
microalgae.
2) Autolysis as a factor related to Brown Tide cessation.
3) Possible relationships between benthic-pelagic coupling and the Brown Tide, including:
a) Benthic filter-feeders and the removal of suspended particles, and
b) Resuspension of bottom material and "condition mg"of the water column.
APPENDIX F
F-5
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
4) The relationship between historical data on meteorological and oceanographic
parameters and the occurrence and distribution of Brown Tide in the Peconic Bays
system and other systems on the East Coast.
5) Quantitatively describing the temporal and spatial Q-dimensional distribution)of
biological,chemical, and physical parameters associated with Brown Tide. A Brown
Tide bloom detection and monitoring system based on remote sensing should be
developed.
6) Continuous monitoring of various chemical and physical parameters in the field before,
during and after Brown Tide blooms.
7) Mesocosm and laboratory experiments to determine the Brown Tide growth response to
additions of selected nutrients and trace elements. One possible hypothesis that the
mesocosm experiments could test is that the Brown Tide has a competitive advantage in
conditions of low dissolved inorganic nitrogen DIN supply, and that limited,transient
additions of DIN could mitigate Brown Tide blooms.
8) Effects of Brown Tide on commercially important bivalves and other filter feeders, and
optimization of shellfish management programs in the presence of Brown Tide.
9) Effects of Brown Tide on other ecosystem elements, such as eelgrass, and optimization
of relevant management programs in the presence of Brown Tide.
C) Next Steps
The Workplan is an"interim document',to be refined and updated periodically. The Brown Tide
Research and Management Steering Committee (`Steering Committee") should further analyze
research needs, and should consider issuing a Request for Pre-Proposals based on anticipated funding
sources.
2. INTRODUCTION
After the Brown Tide bloom in the summer of 1995 (see Brown Tide fact sheet in Appendix A) the
Brown Tide Summit of October, 1995 again galvanized support behind a comprehensive program of
Brown Tide research. Some Summit participants expressed frustration that historic research was
intermittent, uncoordinated,and underfunded. At the Summit, significant progress was made in
expanding upon historical knowledge of research needs. Recommendations on additional research
dealing with physical, chemical, and biological factors related to Brown Tide were made by Summit
work groups.
Also at the Summit, critical commitments for Brown Tide research funding were made. The NOAA
Coastal Ocean Program announced that$1.5 million, over three years, would be used for Brown Tide
funding. Also, Brookhaven National Lab(BNL)and the Suffolk County Executive announced the
Brown Tide Monitoring Network(discussed below), which uses $100,000 in Suffolk County funding
with at least that much match from BNL.
As a result of the Summit,the Brown Tide Research Initiative(`BTRI") Committee was formed to
prepare a Request for Proposals(RFP), review research proposals, and assist in managing the NOAA
Coastal Ocean Program funding. That Committee includes NOAA,N.Y. Sea Grant,NYS Dept. of •
APPENDIX F
F-6
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP p+6�'Rk
Environmental Conservation,the Suffolk County Executive,the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency(EPA)/Peconic Estuary Program (PEP), a local government representative, a citizen
representative, and a South Shore Estuary Reserve(SSER)representative.
Another Committee, the Brown Tide Steering Committee,was also proposed by various Federal,
State, and local representatives to more broadly coordinate and guide Brown Tide research and
management efforts. The Steering Committee's goals are to:
I) Coordinate research efforts funded and performed by various entities.
2) Assist in dissemination of information.
3) Develop and continually refine and update research work plans, by systematically
organizing and summarizing results of previous and ongoing Brown Tide research
efforts, and identifying priorities for additional research needs.
4) Estimate funding needs to conduct necessary additional research.
This "Workplan"deals primarily with goals 3 and 4, but also serves to coordinate and disseminate
information about ongoing efforts. The Steering Committee, however, should pursue several other
mechanisms to further its goals, including routine distribution of progress reports from ongoing
research efforts.
As proposed,the Steering Committee (see Appendix C for proposed goals and structure) is
comprised of BTRI members, as well as several additional members, including elected officials and
representatives from various agencies, citizens groups, and estuary programs, such as Barnegat and
Narragansett Bays (see Appendix D for mailing list). The Steering Committee is coordinated by
Suffolk County. Consensus-building is the process proposed for the Steering Committee, which
serves in an advisory role to estuarine research and management programs,elected officials, citizens,
and agencies funding and overseeing specific research projects.
3. PROCESS OF IDENTIFYING RESEARCH NEEDS
Research needs are identified in two main ways in this Workplan. The first method is by solicitation
of ideas from the research community via Requests for Proposals; this results in specific ideas and
very detailed cost estimates. This means is usually employed when there are specific amounts of
money available to expend on research,and was used by the BTRI in administering NCAA Coastal
Ocean Program funding (see Section 4).
The second mechanism is a systematic organization and review of historical research to identify
gaps, resulting in recommendations on generalized research efforts and approximate cost estimates.
A major charge of the Steering Committee is to review important research issues in the context of
historical and ongoing research, and identify remaining research gaps. The Committee will seek
input from technical experts as part of the Workplan process.
4. BTRI APPROACH AND RFPs
APPENDIX F
F-7
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
F
The Request for Proposals issued by the BTRI in 1996 resulted in numerous proposals. Although •
NOAA funding was substantial, it was not enough for all worthwhile proposals.
One specific proposal which was ranked highly, but which could not be funded, included:
1) Investigations of groundwater, and its various constituents,with respect to Brown Tide
blooms.
Additionally, BTRI Committee members recommended development of a Request for Proposals for
the following specific research needs:
1) Modelling of nutrient budgets.
2) Investigation of viral/pathogen activity as it may affect Brown Tide.
The "nutrient budget' comment has also been highlighted as an important issue by the Steering
Committee, particularly in light of a recent hypothesis that Brown Tide may thrive in an environment
in which the supply of dissolved organic nitrogen is elevated in relation to a low supply of dissolved
inorganic nitrogen (Brookhaven National Lab, LaRoche et al). The"nutrient budget'project should
further test this hypothesis, and evaluate whether human impacts on the ecology of the Peconic Bay
may have contributed to causation of Brown Tide. Ultimately,the hope is that human management
(L9., controlling nitrogen inputs)may mitigate conditions which favor Brown Tide blooms.
While the recently funded "Dissolved Organic Nitrogen..."project(see Appendix B project S-19)
will be an important step in researching the role of DON in brown tide blooms, it will not completely
resolve the nutrient budget issue. For example, additional information on sources of various nitrogen
constituents("., groundwater and sediment flux) is still necessary.
Each of the three research topics would probably require approximately $150,000 to $200,000 over a
two year period, for a total funding need of about$450,000 to $600,000. The Brown Tide Steering
Committee, or member agencies, should consider issuing a Request for Pre-Proposals based on
anticipated funding sources. These include $450,000 in Suffolk County Capital funds($300,000
authorized but not appropriated,plus$150,000 recently appropriated; see projects S-18 and S-19 in
Appendix B)and New York State funding of Brown Tide research (discussed but not committed).
5. HISTORICAL AND ONGOING RESEARCH_SYSTEMATIC REVIEW APPROACH
The Workplan's summary and analysis of research efforts is not intended to be an exhaustive
discussion or rigorous compendium. Rather, it is useful as a tool to illustrate the nature and extent of
previous research efforts in the context of identified research needs, so that future research needs can
be more appropriately identified and justified.
A) Previous and Ongoing Research
A list of previous and ongoing research efforts is included in Appendix B. For illustrative purposes,
all research efforts are assigned an index number based on primary funding source. These index
numbers are used in Table 1 which groups project types by categories such as organism
APPENDIX F
F-8
Peconfc Estuary Program CGVIP
onset/growth, decline/cessation, and effects on shellfish. The table also differentiates between lab
and field studies, and indicates projects performed retrospectively on existing data.
Several other research and management projects may be related to the Brown Tide, and are not
included on the research table at this time. For example, bay scallop restorations and eelgrass
restocking trials have occurred as part of the PEP. The PEP has also conducted investigations
regarding surface water quality monitoring, land use, surface water modelling and sediment nutrient
flux. These may be quite important in understanding, and possibly managing,the Brown Tide.
However, for purposes of this Workplan, readily available research lists were utilized;these lists deal
with scientific"research"which directly and primarily deals with the Brown Tide.
Table 1 essentially encapsulates information available at the time of the Brown Tide Summit, with
the addition of the BTRI projects and the Brown Tide Monitoring Network project. At the Summit,
workgroups developed detailed recommendations on research needs in the areas of chemical,
physical, and biological factors affecting Brown Tide, as well as Brown Tide ecological impacts.
Because these topics include extremely detailed recommendations from work groups,they are used
in this Workplan's analysis.
B) Development of Priority Research Recommendations
Tables 2 through 5 list the research areas identified as priorities in the Summit. The tables also note
where additional research is necessary on a high priority basis. Research needs are highlighted
where Brown Tide Summit recommendations were not acted upon (ie., no high quality proposals
submitted, or no funding available), or where research is ongoing, but substantial additional research
is believed to be needed.
In considering the importance of research gaps, areas are designated as"high priority"when the need
for the project is-both substantively and temporally (7ie., necessary immediately) important. For
example, comprehensive Brown Tide modelling is believed to be substantively important, but to a
large degree cannot effectively occur on a meaningful level until more is understood about basic
Brown Tide physiology. Therefore, it is not a high priority for immediate funding. However,
information on differential phytoplankton populations, which would be critical to any eventual
model. is a high priority, as it would assist in understanding Brown Tide population dynamics and
relationships to other organisms.
The timeframe contemplated by this Workplan is roughly in the range of three years, which is how
long it would probablN take to complete the round of projects identified as priorities. The nature of
the scientific research projects makes it nearly impossible to accurately forecast research priorities
beyond that time period. Researchers and managers hope that the Brown Tide mystery will be
solved, and that management options may be possible to prevent or minimize impacts of future
blooms. Conversely. based on prior experience, it is reasonable to assume that, at the end of three
years, scientists maN have raised substantial additional questions, which would require substantial
additional funding. This Workplan contemplates only the short-term, priority research needs. Of
course,the research priority-setting process is fluid, and will change periodically based on new
findings.
The"systematic" approach is admittedly less than perfectly rigorous. Research priorities and
funding estimates are,to some degree, based on subjective evaluations and subject to some degree of
APPENDIX F
F-9
Peconic Estuary Program CChfP
error. This is, hopefully, minimized by identifying only projects which are clearly high priorities, •
and specifying a range of likely project costs which are conservatively low. In this manner, the
Workplan specifies a"minimum"of research needs.
Also,research is, by its very nature, somewhat speculative. No one can be sure how useful the
results of any one project, or even a set of projects, might actually be in helping to understand or
manage the Brown Tide. The fluid nature of the Workplan, which will be periodically updated,
should address the need to continually review the results of current research and identify remaining
research needs.
Potential problems in the prioritization approach will also be minimized by review of, and input to,
the Workplan by a broad range of persons with expertise and interest in the topic. In the final
analysis,the Brown Tide Steering Committee, and its Workplan, are advisory in nature, and final
funding decisions on specific projects are left to the entities which actually fund research work. The
Workplan is intended to guide funding entities,proposers, and policymakers involved in funding
decisions. The Steering Committee believes that the Workplan approach is the best way to
accomplish these ends.
6. PRIORITY RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS
The systematic review of Brown Tide Summit recommendations has resulted in several
recommended projects,which would require approximately $1.8 to$2.4 million to perform. Cost
estimates for the projects are provided as a range of probable costs of$150,000 to $200,000 per
project, assuming two years for each project. The estimates are based on professional judgement and
prior experience with comparable projects. It is possible that given projects could be performed for
less than the assumed cost range; conversely, some projects could cost substantially more,
particularly if significant laboratory analysis and/or field effort is required. For purposes of
estimating the approximate range of research funding necessary,the estimates are believed to be
reasonable.
It is important to emphasize that the overall cost estimates in this interim Workplan are probably too
low, as they were prepared based on readily available information, using cost estimates which are
conservatively low and defensible. While a few projects could cost less that$150,000 to $200,000, it
is likely that several could cost substantially more, particularly the ones which would be labor-
intensive and multiple-year efforts. The estimates are provided for purposes of preparing an interim
Workplan, and the Steering Committee should consider expanding upon,or refining,the estimates,
as deemed appropriate.
These priority research recommendations are summarized as follows.
A) Biological
Many of the key areas of research recommended by the Brown Tide Summit workgroup are being
conducted as part of the BTRI. These include efforts to isolate of multiple and axenic cultures,
investigation of iron as a possible trigger for the Brown Tide bloom by development of a metabolic
marker, a study of Brown Tide energy and nutrient acquisition in low light, and additional
APPENDIX
F-10
- Peconic Estuary Program CCMP ZtO-W'wi
investigations into zooplankton and phytoplankton interactions. However, several other important
areas were not addressed. These are discussed below.
1) Role ofAllelopathv in Securing for the Brown Tide a Competitive Edge over Other
Microalgae
Allelopathy has been suggested as a possible mechanism for Brown Tide blooms, whereby the
Brown Tide can interfere with the growth or survival of other organisms through production of
toxins or other substances. This is a significant gap in Brown Tide research.
2) Factors Related to Brown Tide Cessation. including lysis
Prior research suggests that viruses may be involved in the cessation of Brown Tide blooms.
The BTRI identified viruses as an additional research area, recognizing the importance of
verifying and characterizing the nature and extent of viruses in ending Brown Tide blooms.
Another research area identified in the Brown Tide Summit is the determination of whether the
Brown Tide organism breaks down and lyses itself, as is the case in some marine microalgae.
1 Possible Relationships between Benthic-Pelagic is Coyiing and the Brown Tide, including.
Benthic Filter Feeders and the Removal of Suspended Particles, and Resuspension of Bottom
Material and "Conditioning" of the Water Column
Additional research is needed to characterize how benthic filter-feeders impact water column
suspended particle loads and the size structure of phytoplankton communities, as well as how
human-related shellfishing practices may have affected ecological processes by removal of
shellfish or resuspension of sediments.
B) Physical
The most sweeping recommendation, regarding a quantitative model, is probably unrealistic, due to
the absence of basic data to construct the model,together with the prohibitively high cost of
constructing the model. However,three areas are appropriate priorities for immediate research,as
follows.
1) What Relationship Exists between Historical Data on Meteorological and Oceanographic
Parameters and the Occurrence and Distribution of Brown Tide in the Peconic Bays Svstem?
A comprehensive and systematic review and reporting on all available data has not been
performed. Physical scientists/physical oceanographers or others familiar with advanced
statistical techniques should evaluate a number of East Coast embayments. Climatic data, such
as rainfall and wind direction, should be gathered and analyzed at a fairly high-resolution level,
perhaps weekly. Satellite data, and any other available multi-frequency data, should be
systematically used. Advanced statistical methods, such as"intervention analysis," should be
considered. Specific possibilities which should be considered include geographic orientation of
bays (in combination with local wind vectors and poor flushing)and warm core ring water
drifting onto the East Coast to "seed"the area with an offshore bloom.
APPENDIX F
F-lI
` Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
r
2) How Can We Best Quantitatively Describe the Temporal and Spatial(3-Dimensional
Distribution) of Biological. Chemical. and Phvsical Parameters Associated with Brown
Tide?
While a comprehensive three-dimensional model is not a realistic short-term goal, data should be
collected which could eventually support model development, and which would have
independent utility, as well. The following topic deals with such data collection: the
development of an effective remote sensing system for Brown Tide blooms to better track the
spatial and temporal variability of blooms.
Q Chemical
As with the "biological" recommendations, many of the key areas of research recommended by the
Brown Tide Summit workgroup are being conducted as part of the BTRL These include a study of
the effect of metals and organic nutrients with respect to Brown Tide. Several other projects deal
jointly with interrelated chemical and biological issues(Lg., iron study discussed above; review of
chemical and biological data in Narragansett Bay). The following areas, however,warrant additional
investigation.
1) Continuously Monitor Various Chemical and Physical Parameters in the Field before,
during and after Brown Tide Blooms.
Although the Brookhaven National Lab Brown Tide Monitoring Network project will initiate
some continuous monitoring in 1997, the project will terminate within a year. Additional
support will be needed to maintain and,possibly, expand the program. This project would
probably require approximately $50,00-100,000.
As with differential phytoplankton data, an "early warning/emergency response"plan may be
appropriate(reduce number of stations, and increase when Brown Tide begins blooming). Also,
efforts could be concentrated in "bloom initiation' periods(May). However,cost savings in
reducing number of continuous stations and/or time periods should be carefully weighed against
the value of"out-of-Brown Tide season'data.
1 Perform Vesocosm and Laboratory Experiments to Determine the Brown Tide Growth
Response to Additions of Selected Nutrients and Trace Elements
To test the theory that Brown Tide bloom onset conditions are optimized when supply is elevated
in relation to a low DIN supph (discussed above), and to evaluate possible mitigation strategies,
field and laboratory experiments should be performed to determine the effects of various
nitrogen constituents on Brown Tide. Other nutrients and trace elements could be included as
well. A factorial-grid of DON!DIN ratio, timing of DON/DIN manipulation, and competitor
phytoplankton species could be useful for a critical evaluation of the hypothesis. Such an
approach could be best accomplished with closely coordinated lab and mesocosm experiments.
One possible hypothesis that the mesocosm experiments could test is that the Brown Tide has a
competitive advantage in conditions of low dissolved inorganic nitrogen DIN supply, and that
limited,transient additions of DIN could mitigate Brown Tide blooms.
•
APPENDIX F
F-12
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
D) Ecological Effects
While ecological effects are certainly important, the consensus at the Summit seemed to be that the
most critical threshold issues relate to the dynamics of the Brown Tide organism itself. Thus,
priority research recommendations relate to the Brown Tide, rather than its impacts. The Steering
Committee will revisit this issue to evaluate whether additional priorities should be placed in the area
of ecological effects.
With regard to shellfish, since there is a real possibility that the Brown Tide may never be
"controllable," scientists and resource managers should also focus on the practical aspects of
ecological effects, with special emphasis on the portions of the ecosystem tied to public use. These
efforts would involve characterizing Brown Tide impacts on resource species (how much Brown
Tide is tolerated,and for how long). Ultimately,the goal would be to characterize the sustainability
of various species, and provide guidance on likelihood of resource availability. There are numerous
specific and practical management implications of this"research," including identification of species
that have the best prospects for long-term sustainability, and in what areas; recommendations on
where to site, and how to manage, hatchery facilities; where to transplant scallops to maximize
likelihood of survival and population; and ways to manage shellfish in the event of a bloom, such as
moving scallops to areas less likely to be impacted.
Also, information on why Brown Tide affects filter feeders may be important to understand why it is
so successful.
Specific research area recommendations for shellfish include:
• Identify mechanists by which Brown Tide affect actual(whole) scallops(IL-9., chemical
mediator affecting feeding,mechanism).
• Evaluate threshold density and duration of Brown Tide exposure that impacts scallops.
- Characterize scallop recovery time after short exposure.
- Identify ``point of no return"after which time scallops will not recover.
• Studv impacts on other species(L9., clams,oysters).
Living resources other than scallops, clams, and oysters which may be of concern with respect to the
Brown Tide include submerged aquatic vegetation(particularly eelgrass), finfish, and crustaceans.
The negative impacts on eelgrass are suspected but not confirmed;there were massive die-offs of the
grasses reported during the first bloom in 1985, but apparently not in subsequent blooms. Eelgrass is
a critical habitat for scallops and other organisms. Knowledge of Brown Tide impacts on eelgrass.
and eelgrass recovery dynamics, may be important in providing guidance on likelihood of resource
availability and in directing management programs, such as eelgrass and scallop transplant efforts.
The impacts of the Brown Tide on finfish and crustaceans are completely unknown. There is some
anecdotal information that these organisms moved out of the estuan- in response to the bloom but
these have not been confirmed. The latter impacts may be important with respect to the role of the
estuary, particularly the waters in the western end, as a nursery and feeding ground for coastal finfish
species as well as crustaceans. Although not of first priority, some consideration should be given in
APPENDIX F
F-13
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
r
the future to examining the effects of the bloom on crustaceans and species of finfish which use the
estuary for spawning and juvenile feeding.
For purposes of this workplan,the"ecological effects" research topics are grouped into the following
two areas(based on Table 5) although it is highly likely that more than two projects would be
necessary to accomplish the above-discussed objectives.
1) How does Brown Tide impact commercially important bivalves and other filter feeders,
and how can shellfish management programs be optimized in the presence of Brown
Tide?
2) What is the effect of Brown Tide on other ecosystem elements, such as eelgrass, and
how can relevant management programs be optimized in the presence of Brown Tide?
•
APPENDIX F
F-14
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP °�'hI
Table 1. Concluded and Onaoina Brown Tide Research.
I. LAB STUDIES
A) What factors control the growth of brown tide?
1. Organism Physiology
a. Role of macro& micronutrients
Cosper(S3,S4), LaRoche &Falkowski (BNL), Glibert& Kana(134), Keller&
Sieracki (135), Carpenter(N1), LaRoche et al. (S-19)
b. Role of Light(Photosynthetic Physiology)
Glibert&Kana(64), Keller& Sieracki (135)
c. Role of trace metals & chelators
Cosper(133), Boyer(S16), Boyer& LaRoche (132)
d. Growth rate measurements
Carpenter(N8)
2. Competitive Interactions
a. Allelopathy (no known research performed to date)
b.Interspecific competition
Keller& Sieracki (135)
c.Axenic Cultures and Bacterial Associations
Levandowsky(S11), Wikfors & Robohm (137), Andersen (B1), Mahoney(S14)
3. Genetics ofAureococcus
Andersen (B1), Stabile et al_(E-1)
B) What factors control bloom progress, decline and cessation?
1. Effect of grazers on brown tide
Lonsdale(S13), Keller& Sieracki (B5), Cosper& Lonsdale(N2)
2. Effect of viruses on brown tide
Cosper(N3)
Q How does bloom affect the ecosystem?
1. Effect of brown tide on shellfish
Bricelj (S1,N6)
II. FIELD STUDIES
A) What factors control growth of brown tide?
1. Organism physiology & bloom dynamics
a. Role of macro & micronutrients
BTCAMP,PEP, Cosper(N4), Sanudo—Wilhelmy ct al. (138), LaRoche et al. (S-19)
b. Role of Light(Photosynthetic Physiology)
Wirick& Falkowski (S17-BNL)
c. Role of trace metals and chelators
d. Productivity studies
Cosper(S8). Safi udo-WiIhelmv e! 118
APPENDIX F
F-15
JPeconic Estuary Program CCMP
r
Table 1. Concluded and On-oine Brown Tide Research. (continued) •
H.FIELD STUDIES (continued)
e. Bloom dynamics
BTCAMP, PEP, Anderson (S9), Levandowsky (SI 1)
f. Genetic Variability, Stabile etas (G-1)
2. Competitive interactions
a. Microzooplankton-mesozooplankton coupling
Caron& Lonsdale(133), Lonsdale et Qi. (S-18)
3. Physical Factors
Siddall (S7), BTCAMP, PEP, Beltrami (S12), Wilson & Beltrami (S15-N7)
B)Effects of brown tide on ecosystems
1. Effects of brown tide on eelgrass
Dennison(S2,S5)
2. Effects on scallop landings
Siddall (S6)
3. Effects on microbial food webs
Lonsdale& Taylor(NS)
III.RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS
1. Long Island Brown Tide
LaRoche& Falkowski (BNL)
2. Rhode Island Brown Tide
Smayda(136)
" "N"=NY Sea Grant-funded;"S"=Suffolk County-funded;"B"=BTRI/NOAA COP funded(See Appendix B).
APPENDIX F
F-16
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP 'h
Table 2. Brown Tide Summit and Workplan Research Recommendations Biological Factors
Brown Tide
Workplan=Priority
Brown Tide Summit= Recommended Research Category Research Area
1.1 What factors control the growth of brown tide?
I.I.A. Nutritional requirements of brown tide
1. Role of macro-, micro-, and trace organic nutrients in A.
Anophagefferens growth.
Z. Role of variation in light(including shade adaptation and
photoperiod) in affecting the nutritional requirements or
preferences of A. anophagefferens.
3. Role of various metals and chelating compounds in altering the
nutritional requirements/preferences of A. anophagefferens.
4. Role of heterotrophy as a means ofsupplemental nutrition of A.
anophagefferens.
1.1.B. Competitive interactions involving the brown tide organism
1. Role of allelopathy in securing for the brown tide a competitive X
edge over other microalgae.
2. Role of bacterial associates in mediating the brown tide
organism's response to environmental conditions and
particularly in affecting its nutrition.
1.2. What factors control the removal of brown tide and how do thev relate
to bloom dynamics?
1.2.A. Timing of grazer presence and grazine activity.
1. Extensive examination ofpotential grazers.
2_ The palatabiltry/susceptibilhy of the of the brown tide organism
to grazers.
1.2.13. Activity of viruses
12.C_ Autolysis g
1.3 What aspects of benthic-pelagic coupling may be important in brown tide
blooms?
1.3.A. Benthic filter-feeders and the removal of suspended particles. X
1.3.13. Resuspension of bottom material and"conditioning"of the water X
column.
1.4 Basic Organism Physiology—Misc.
I.A.A. Axenic Culture
APPENDIX F
F-17
4 W
,v`' Peconrc Estuary Program CCMP
F
Table 3. Brown Tide Summit and Workplan Research Recommendations
Physical Factors.
Brown Tide
N'Brown Tide Summit=Recommended Research Category Workplan=Priority
Research Area
2.1 What relationship exists between historical data on meteorological and X
oceanographic parameters and the occurrence and distribution of brown
tide in the Peconic Bays System? Others stems?
2.2 Can a simple quantitative model be developed that explains historic and
current trends in the variation of these parameters throughout the
system?
2.3 How can we best quantitatively describe the temporal and spatial(3- X*
dimensional distribution)of biological,chemical,and physical
arameters associated with brown tide?
* Differential phytoplankton analysis and remote sensing of brown tide.
Table 4. Brown Tide Summit and Workplan Research Recommendations
Chemical Factors
nx
Brown Tide Summit=Recommended Research Category
3.1 What is the role of major nutrients(e•S.,N,P),including organic
nutrients in stimulatin a brown tide bloom?
3.2 What is the role of micronutrients in stimulating brown tide blooms?
3.3 Research objectives for macro-and micronutrients(Culture based and
field ex eriments)?
3.3.A.Calculate budgets for the major nutrients(N, R Si)to the extent
possible using existing data.
3.3.13. Continuously monitor various chemical and physical parameters in thefield before.during. and after brown tide blooms.
3.3.C. In an effort to determine the relative importance of macro-and
micronutrients in stimulating the growth of A. anophagefferens,a suite
of experiments should be conducted in the field,with mesocosms and
with bottle experiments. The goal of these experiments is to determine
the growth response to additions of selected nutrients and trace
elements. A parallel set of measurements should be conducted in the
laboratory using axenic cultures.
3.3.D.As the efforts proceed to identify chemical factors important in
stimulating brown tide blooms, it is necessary to characterize
important sources and sinks of such factors. Sources include,but are
not limited to,the flux from bottom sediments, groundwater inflow,
sewage treatment plan effluent,atmospheric deposition,and
stormwater runoff.
•
APPENDIX F
F-18
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP ¢ '�,
i -
Table 5. Brown Tide Summit and Workplan Research Recommendations
Ecological Effects.
Brown Tide
Brown Tide Summit=Recommended Research Category Workplan=Priority
Research Area
4.1 How does brown tide impact commercially important bivalves and other X
filter-feeders?
4.1.A. Brown tide's effect on bivalve hvsiologv
I. What is the in vivo mechanism responsible for gracing suppression and other
adverse effects 9
2. What are the density-and time-dependent effects of brown tide on survival,
rowth and reproduction of bivalves?
3. How does brown tide cause recruitment failure and other reproductive
impacts in bivalve mollusks?
4.1.B. Development of a brown tide bioassay
4.2 How can shellfish management programs be optimized in the presence of X
brown tide?
4.2.A. Determination of management approaches: How can management
practices be improved to reduce losses from brown tide?
4.2.B. What is the effect of brown tide on other ecosystem elements?
4.3 What is the effect of brown tide on other ecosystem elements? X
4.3.A. Impacts on submerged aquatic vegetation SAV
4.3.13. Impacts on secondary consumers
1. Does brown tide-related light attenuation and increased turbidity affect
organisms, such as finfish, that rely on visual cues in feeding and predator
avoidance9
2. What are the effects ofbrown tide-related eelgrass losses on secondary
consumers2
4.4 Are there multiple strains of brown tide of varying relative toxicity?
APPENDIX F
F-19
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
F
i
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
i
APPENDIX F
F-20
• APPENDIX G
Peconic Estuary Program (PEP)
Library Reports
APPENDIX G
G-1
ssFa Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
•
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
APPENDIX G
G-2
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP z ^ �
REPORTS AUTHOR/SOURCE DATE
A Plan to Entrap Bay Scallop Spat Subject to Evacuation J. Aldred,T. Ciccone, Aug 2000
from Prime Rearing Sites,with an Emphasis on Optimizing C. Hassler,and
Collection Timing and Location and a Goal of Reintroduction T. Domhoffer(E. Hampton
to Natural Nursery Areas Town Shellfish Hatchery
Ultraviolet Disinfection of Sewage Treatment Plant Effluent Emerson Hasbrouck,(CCE) Aug 2000
— A Pilot Prosect
Habitat Restoration Plan for the Peconic Estuary(Draft) PEP Habitat Restoration Jul 2000
Work Group
A Characterization of the Resources of the Peconic Estuary PEP Jan 2001
with Resl2ect to Toxics
Particle Mixing and Sediment Accumulation Rates of Peconic J. K. Cochran, Jun 2000
Estuary Sediments: A Sediment Accretion Study in Support D.J. Hirschberg,and
of the Peconic Estuary Program D.Amiel SUNY
Three-Dimensional Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Model Tetra Tech, Inc. Jun 2000
of Peconic Estuary Draft Final
Peconic Estuary Program Eelgrass Restoration Project Final Emerson Hasbrouck and May 2000
Report 1996-1999 Chris Pickerel) CCE
Framework for Developing a Living Resources Research and M. Bortman Jan 2000
Monitorinz Plan(Draft)
H.F.Corwin and Sons Duck Farm Constructed Wetland and USDA— NRCS and Jan 2000
Meetinghouse Creek Relocation Final Report SCSWCD
- Tidal Creeks Studv EEA Inc. Oct 1999
Post-CCMP Surface Water&Point Source Monitoring Plan SCDHS Office of Ecology Jun 1999
Draft
Evaluating Town Capacity and Needs in Protecting the School of International& May 1999
Peconic Estuary Public Affairs,Columbia
University
Eelgrass Habitat Criteria Study— Volume I,Narrative; EEA, Inc. Mar 1999
Volume II,Al2vendices
Recreational and Resource Economic Values for the Peconic EAI Feb 1999
Estuary Svstem
Federally and State-Funded Demonstration and PEP Program Office Feb 1999
Implementation Protects
Draft Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan PEP Program Office Set 1999
Nitrogen Loading Budget and Trends— Major,External, SCDHS,Office of Ecology Jan 1999
Anthropogenic Nitrogen Sources: Groundwater and Duck
Farms
Particle Mixing and Sediment.Accumulation Rates of Peconic 1. K. Cochran, et al. Jan 1999
Estuary Sediments: A Sediment Accretion Study in Support
of the Peconic Estuaa Program
Note: List includes PEP reports only. For other listings of informational literature.Brown Tide reports,pre-PEP reports,
and education and outreach information.see the PEP webpage at http://w"w.co.suffolk.nN,.us/health/pep.
•
APPENDIX G
G-3
31' Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
lir
4.__
i
REPORTS AUTHOR/SOURCE DATE
Ground-Water Flow Paths and Travel Time to Three Small USGS 1999
Embayments within the Peconic Estuary,Eastern Suffolk
County,New York(Water Resources Investigations Report
98-4181
Characterization Report of the Living Resources of the Marci Bortman and Dec 1998
Peconic Estuary Nancv Niedowski
Regional Stormwater Runoff Management Project PEP Program Office Nov 1998
Back round Information and Description of Data Sets
Peconic Estuary Surface Water Quality:Nitrogen,Dissolved SCDHS,Office of Ecology Oct 1998
Ox Zen and Submertzed Aquatic Vegetation Habitat
Point and Nonpoint Source Nitrogen Loading Overview SCDHS, Office of Ecology Oct 1998
Revised draft
Historic Shellfishing in the Peconic Estuary Based on Nancy Solomon Oct 1998
Ba men's Interviews: 1945-1985 L. I. Traditions
Federally and State-Funded Demonstration and PEP Program Office Sept 1998
Implementation Pro'ects
Sediment Toxicity Testing in the Peconic Estuary/Watershed EPA, Region 11 Aug 1998
usin the Am hi od.Am elisco abdita
Stormwater Runoff—Best Management Practices for Jay Tanski(NY Sea Grant, Aug 1998
Marinas— A Guide for Operators CCE)
The Peconic Watershed— Recent Trends in Wetlands and USFWS Jul 1998
Their Buffers Draft
Species Composition, Seasonal Occurrence and Relative Weber et al. Jun 1998
Abundance of Finfish and Macro-invertebrates Taken by (NYSDEC)
Small-Mesh Otter Trawl in Peconic Bay.New York
I
Land Available for Development Draft SCPD Apr 1998
Saturation Po ulation Analvsis Draft SCPD A r 1998
Oxygen Uptake and Nutrient Regeneration in the Peconic B. Howes et al. (UMASS, Apr 1998
Estuary Dartmouth) S. Aubrey,
Aubrev Consultin Inc.
Surface Water Quality Monitoring Report 1976-1996(Draft) SCDHS Apr 1998
Volume I.Narrative: Volume 11. Data
An Assessment of Shellfish Resources in the Tributaries and D.E. Lewis,Gregg Rivara Apr 1998
Emba mens of the Peconic Estuar% CCE
Land Use Chane Analvsis SCPD Mar 1998
Estimated Food Web and Habitat Values for Habitats in the EAI,Inc. Jan 1998
Peconic Estuary System Review draft
Defining Freshwater Outcrops in West Neck Bay, Shelter R.J. Paulsen et al. 1998
Island,New York Using Direct Contact Resistivity
Measurements and Transient Underfloe Measurements
Areas Contributing Ground Water to the Peconic Estuary and USGS 1998
Ground Water Budgets for the North and South Forks and
Shelter Island,Eastern Suffolk County.New York(Water-
Resources Investigations Report 97-4 136
Protocols for Harvesting and Transplanting Eelgrass in the EEA, Inc; East Hampton Aug 1997
Peconic Estuary Town Natural Resource
Dept.7 CCE
•
APPENDIX G
G-4
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP p40�N
REPORTS AUTHOR/SOURCE DATE
Federally and State-Funded Demonstration and PEP Program Office Jul 1997
Implementation Projects
Peconic Bay System: Aquaculture James L.Anderson May 1997
Mark J. Spatz(Economic
Analvsis Inc.
Oxygen Uptake and Nutrient Regeneration in the Peconic C. Shubert(USGS) Apr 1997
Estuary
An Annotated Bibliography of the Natural Resources of the Michael J.Ahrens(SUNY Apr 1997
Peconic Estuary and Adjacent Locations on Eastern Long MSRC)
Island NY
Water Dependent Use and Underwater Land Ownership SCPD Apr 1997
Inventory(Draft)
Draft Water Quality Calibration Results, Preliminary Tetra-Tech, Inc. Mar 1997
Manasement Runs
Population Analvsis DraftSCPD Mar 1997
Surface Water Quality Modeling of the Peconic Estuary, Tetra Tech,Inc. Jan 1997
Calibration of EFDC Hydrodynamic Model(Interim
Report�:2
Comprehensive Conservation& Management Plan, Pathogen Cvnthia Decker(NYSDEC) Jan 1997
Contamination.Assessment of Conditions Draft
Existine Land Use Inventory(Draft) SCPD Jan 1997
An Assessment of Shellfish Resources in the Deep Water Daniel Lewis et al. 1997
Areas of the Peconic Estuary SUNY MSRC
Contributing Areas to the Peconic Estuary and Groundwater C.Shubert(USGS) 1997
Budgets for the North and South Forks and Shelter Island,
Eastern Suffolk New York
Development and Evaluation of an Ultrasonic Groundwater R.J. Paulsen et al. 1997
SeeDaae Meter SCDHS/CCE
Contaminant Distributions in Peconic Estuary Sediments Arthur D. Little. Inc. Dec 1996
The Peconic Estuary System: Perspective on Uses, Sectors EAI, Inc. Nov 1996
and Economic Impacts Revised Final
Radioactive Contamination in the Peconic River: A Review of NYSDOH. Bureau of Sept 1996
the New York State Environmental Radiation Monitoring Environmental Radiation
Program Data Protection
APPENDIX G
G-5
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
AdwF
r
REPORTS AUTHORISOURCE DATE
Selected Natural Resource Mapping and Digitizing of the Joseph Dowhan (USFWS) Jul 1996
Peconic Estuary and Watershed
Federally and State Funded Demonstration and PEP Program Office June 1996
Implementation Pro'ects
Statement of Support for the Proposed Modification to the PEP Program Office Apr 1996
Riverhead Sewage Treatment Plant(STP)Discharge Permit
SPDES#NY-0020061
Feasibility of Coupled Three-Dimensional Hydrodynamic and John M. Hamrick Apr 1996
Water Quality Modeling of the Peconic Bay System(Interim (Tetra-Tech, Inc.)
Report h I
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Studv Cashin Associates P.C. Jan 1996
Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Report(Draft) Samuel S. Sadove 1996
OKEANOS
Surface Water Quality Monitoring 1993-1995 SCDHS Office of Ecolow Dec 1995
Commercial Finfish and Crustacean Landings from Peconic Alice Weber Nov 1995
and Gardiners Bay 1980-1992 Christina Grahn , YSDEC
Bav Scallop Restoration Western Peconic Ba Draft Christopher F. Smith CCE Oct 1995
Rare Plants,Rare Animals and Significant Natural Rachel A. Pleuthner(N.Y. Aug 1995
Communities in the Peconic Estuary Natural Heritage Program
Base Program Analysis,Nonpoint Source Management Plan SCDHS Office of Ecology Jun 1995
Inventory Draft
Planting Bay Scallops: Results of Reseeding Bay Scallops in Peter Wenczel,et al. 1993
the Peconic Bav New York 1986 to 1992
Proceedings of Workshop on Marine Surface Water Quality SCDHS Dec 1993
Modelling and the Evaluation of Possible Surface Water
uali a Guidelines
APPENDIX G
G-6
APPENDIX H
Agricultural Environmental
Management Strategy
APPENDIX H
H-1
,k�N@ Peconic Estuary Program CCVP
F
•
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
APPENDIX H
H-2
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP gtol-N,
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
AGRICULTURAL ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
Foreword
The Agricultural Nitrogen Management Committee extends its deep appreciation to the East End
farming community, which has been instrumental in investigating and developing a nutrient and
pesticide reduction strategy.
Summary of Goals
To cooperatively develop, with the region's agricultural community, a strategy to lower nutrients
and pesticide inputs into the environment. A 20 percent to 30 percent reduction of agricultural
fertilizer nitrogen inputs is targeted over a five-year period, and may be measured by voluntary
reporting, surveys, fertilizer sales data, and groundwater monitoring.
To maintain, and hopefully increase, farm profitability while demonstrating that changes in
farming practices can have measurable environmental improvements.
To emphasize incentive-based pollution reduction strategies(e.g.,tax credits). This will be
linked to market development and product distribution associated with other agricultural
economic planning efforts underway in the region.
To attain 90 percent participation within the farming community in a Long Island Agricultural
Environmental Management(AEM)program within five years.
Summary of Recommendations
This Committee strongly recommends that the following tasks be pursued to begin reducing
nutrient and pesticide impacts on the Peconic Estuary. The rationale and supporting details of
each task is outlined in further detail in the body of this report.
Task I Develop a Long Island component to the New York State Agricultural Environmental
Management(AEM)program. The Long Island component would be tailored to the
Peconic Estuary Region (as well as other Long Island regions, as appropriate).
Task II Identify potential pilot projects to demonstrate Best Management Practices and test them,
where appropriate.
Task III Investigate the creation of a farm insurance plan.
Task IV Provide funding for increased local AEM development and implementation.
Task V Investigate and implement innovative/alternative finance mechanisms for education and
outreach and other tasks noted above.
Task VI Gather and analyze economic data on a regular basis and continue to promote and
integrate economic analyses and support mechanisms into the AEM initiatives.
APPENDIX H
H-3
;Fw" lt, Peconic Estuary Program CCWP
Agricukurai Nitrogen Management Committee—Background
Because of the need to develop a regional, quantitative nitrogen loading management process, the
Peconic Estuary Program (PEP) formed work groups(committees)to deal with agricultural
issues, non-agricultural issues and a west estuary total maximum daily load (TMDL). The goal of
each committee is to set quantitative loading targets and detailed plans for load management
(timing,costs,responsible entities,etc.).
The Agricultural Nitrogen Management Committee was 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 the"Purchase of Development Rights" links to
farm management plans. The Committee has also expanded its issues to include pesticides.
To date,the Agricultural Nitrogen Management Committee has made significant progress
towards its goals, including producing agricultural use geographic information systems(GIS)
maps(for the Towns of Southold, Southampton and Riverhead),and determining the nitrogen
loading rates and estimates of potential reductions for specific crops(see Attachment H-2).
These are major tasks that will be described and integrated in future reports.
While these initiatives were developed with a focus on the Peconic Estuary Program's needs,the
Committee notes that there will be a countywide benefit for groundwater and surface water. For
example, AEM programs will be countywide, and notjust targeted at the Peconic Estuary
watershed. Thus, benefits will also accrue to the surface waters of the Long Island Sound and
South Shore Estuary Reserve.
Introduction
Maintaining a viable farming industry that serves its community(broadly Long Island) is important
for the region economically. Suffolk County is the top producer of agricultural products in terms of
sales in New York State, representing up to six percent of Suffolk County's gross domestic product.
Recent estimates indicate that an estimated 10,000 people are employed by agriculture-related
businesses.
Agriculture is a significant underpinning of eastern Suffolk County's tourism-based economy.
Residents and visitors 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).
The State ofAgricuiture
At the end of World War II, more than 110,000 acres of arable land were cultivated in Suffolk
County. In response to the rapid suburbanization of the 1950s and 1960s,the County adopted the
nation's first Farmland Protection Program in the mid-1970s. Through the Farmland Protection
Program, the county pays farmers for their development interest(rights)and in return, farmers agree
not to develop their land in perpetuity. The program gives farmers the opportunity to invest back into
APPENDIX H
H-4
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP gc^"%,
their farms or to settle estate matters with heirs. Presently, Suffolk County owns the development
rights to 6,280 acres of agricultural land.
The Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan(Suffolk County Agricultural and Farmland Protection
Board, 1996)states that Suffolk County has had a large decline in the amount of farmland over the
last several decades and continues to see a rapid decline in farmland today in spite of conservation
efforts. The Plan downgraded the initial goal of farmland protection in Suffolk from 35,000 acres to
20,000 acres. According to the New York Agricultural Statistics Service,about 35,858 acres of
Suffolk County land was farmed in 1997. Ten percent of the total land area in the Peconic Estuary
watershed(14,539 acres)was agricultural land in 1995, most of which is still located on the north
fork(SCPD, 1997). Undoubtedly there are fewer acres of farmland in Suffolk County now than in
1997 and 1995. The Suffolk County Farmland Protection Plan further states that at the present rate of
agricultural land loss,there will be only 10,000 acres left in Suffolk in 2012.
Areas at the outskirts of large metropolitan regions are under the greatest threat of losing their
farmland resources to sprawl, houses, and commercial developments. This is well documented across
the nation. The American Farmland Trust ranked Suffolk County as the 18th most threatened
agricultural county in the nation.
While recent efforts to secure new funding for farmland protection have been successful,there is
literally a race against time to secure the preservation of critical farmland in eastern Suffolk against
the backdrop of ever escalating land values tempting farmers to cash out.
High land values coupled with New York State's continued reliance on property taxes to fund
government operations increase the opportunity costs of farming. The fixed costs associated with
farming add to the problem and create a situation likely to: 1) accelerate the need to adopt high value-
added strategies to support farm enterprises, and 2)drive more marginal commercial farmers out of
business.
The future of agriculture is also threatened by the high degree of reliance on rented land for farming
in Suffolk County. An estimated 60 percent of Suffolk County farmers rent land. Farmland owners
who seek rental payments sufficient to cover property tax obligations will force farmers in turn to
seek ever higher value and more land-intensive(e.g., with possible greater environmental impacts)
crop production methods. As development pressures increase, so do incentives for conversion of
rented farmland to alternative uses(i.e., development and polf courses).
Yellow Wood Associates(YWA), under contract with the Town of Southampton to update the town's
agricultural section of its comprehensive plan in 1995, found that agriculture in Southampton has
evolved in response to market demand. Agriculture now includes horse farming, nursery and
greenhouse production, potatoes,vegetables, sod production, vineyards, duck farms, pheasant farms,
orchards, small fruits and row crops. There is an increased emphasis on direct marketing from
roadside stands and farm services such as winery tours, horse boarding, breeding, training and riding
lessons. These conclusions can be applied to the entire East End.
Citing trends common to areas like the East End, YWA identified the transformation from a
commodity-based production to a(mostly) land intensive production of high value crops that can be
differentiated in the market. This trend is underway in many urban fringe areas in the northeast and,
in fact, represents a kind of agricultural resurgence(See Attachment H-3).
APPENDIX H
H-5
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
Environmental Concerns
Conventional farming practices are typically fertilizer(nitrogen)and pesticide dependent. Nitrogen is
a major management issue for the Peconic Estuary Program, since nitrogen contributed from
fertilizers has already resulted in adverse environmental impacts, such as depressions in dissolved
oxygen (see Nutrient Chapter). Nitrogen is soluble and is particularly mobile in Suffolk County's
highly permeable soils. While fertilizers and pesticides have resulted in an increase in crop biomass,
much of the byproducts are carried into the estuary by groundwater and, locally,by stormwater
runoff.
Overall groundwater total nitrogen loading to the Peconic Estuary is approximately 6,500 pounds per
day,about 32 percent of which occurs in the western estuary(Peconic River and Flanders Bay
groundwater-contributing area). The dominant sources of total nitrogen to the estuary are agriculture
(41 percent of the TN loading)and residential development(40 percent of TN loading). Agriculture
has a per-acre TN loading rate of about double the residential land in the study area(SCDHS, 1999).
Loading rates for various land uses are illustrated in Figure H-1.
6000 - -
■ Acres/10
TN Load 5000 - - Fertiizer (b/day) - •
(m/Day)
and 4000 _ —_ - Sanitary (Ib/day) -
Land Use
(Acres/10) M Other/aggregated
3000 - - -
(Ib/day)
2000 — --
1000 -- —
O
TN ACRES TN TW69#ds and Lgipd kMType TN ACRES
Residential Agriculture Vacant/Open Space Other
TN Loads and Land Use Type
Figure H-1. Total Nitrogen(TN)Load by Land Use.
Public Health
Many studies indicate that nitrogen from synthetic fertilizer is the most important source of nitrate in
groundwater. Ingestion of water with high nitrate levels is known to cause methemoglobinemia in
infants under one year of age. In addition,the Centers for Disease Control has reported two episodes
•
APPENDIX H
H-6
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP jol-"'I
fs
of an association between first trimester miscarriages and elevated nitrate concentrations in the
drinking water.
The SCDHS monitored ten wells that were primarily down gradient from agricultural land over a
22-year period (SCDHS, 1996). For the 20 year period 1975 through 1994,the average annual nitrate
concentration for all ten wells was 11.3 mg/l. The ten well annual averages ranged from a minimum
of 9.2 mg/I in 1982 and 1984 to a maximum of 13.7 mg/1 in 1988. The EPA and New York State
drinking water Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)for nitrate is 10.0 mall.
The impact of agriculture on nitrate concentrations is also reflected in the results of private well
testing by the SCDHS. The SCDHS tested 45,985 private wells between the years 1972 and 1994.
Of all the private wells tested, 7.4 percent exceeded the nitrate MCL (SCDHS, 1996). The percentage
of private wells exceeding the nitrate MCL was significantly greater in the agricultural communities
than the countywide average.
Agricultural pesticides have also found their way into Suffolk County's groundwater. Concentrations
of the carbamate pesticides, including Aldicarb(Temik), carbofuran (Furadan), and oxamyl (Vydate),
have been detected in Suffolk County's monitoring wells but have steadily decreased since their ban
in 1979 and 1982. The dacthal metabolite TCPA can be found in some areas despite its removal from
the Suffolk County market in 1988. In 1999,the SCDHS concluded an 18-month study of pesticide
contamination in the groundwaters of Nassau and Suffolk Counties(SCDHS, 1999). Wells were
chosen for testing based upon a variety of considerations including selecting wells that had shown
detectable traces of pesticides in previous monitoring. Other criteria included land use type,
Geographic coverage,and random selection. Of the 1,901 wells tested in Suffolk County, Aldicarb
metabolites were the most frequently detected pesticide, followed by the dacthal metabolite TCPA,
1,2-dichloropropane, metalaxyl, and metachlor. These are all agricultural chemicals with the
exception of TCPA, which is also used on turf and residential lawns. There were 191 wells found to
exceed pesticide MCLS of which 91 percent were impacted by agricultural chemicals(including
nursery and sod uses). The towns found to have the greatest percentage of pesticide impacted wells
are Southold(51 percent), Riverhead (38.7 percent),and Southampton (34.5 percent); these towns
also contain the bulk of Long Island's remaining agricultural land. In response to the pesticide
problem, the NYSDEC has recently created a committee to reduce pesticide usage.
Estuarine Health
Excessive levels of nitrogen can be harmful to the estuary. When nutrients are introduced to the
estuary at higher than normal rates,they can stimulate aquatic plant growth, including plankton and
larger communities of macroalgae. 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"). Processes such as diurnal DO depression, sediment oxygen
demand, and sediment nutrient flux can result in dissolved oxygen levels which are low enough to be
harmful to marine life.
Currently,the estuary is not experiencing widespread low dissolved oxygen levels related to 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. According to the
Nitrogen Loading Budget and Trends Report(SCDHS, 1999), nonpoint source loading of nitrogen
APPENDIX H
H-7
/00 ' Peconic Estuary•Program CCMP
L
has risen dramatically over time, far outweighing historic point source nitrogen loading from duck •
farms. Considering the trends of nutrient enrichment in the region, implementing nitrogen reduction
strategies is critical.
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(i.e.,eelgrass). Submerged aquatic
vegetation beds serve as a prime habitat forjuvenile fish,a food source and bottom stabilization.
Aquatic plants 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. Excessive influxes of nutrients will
also increase the growth of epiphytes on 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. It is also thought that the lack of a
mechanism to terminate nitrate uptake in eelgrass coupled with excessive nitrate in the system results
in impaired plant health and a decline in eelgrass shoot production(Cashin Associates, 1996).
Nitrogen levels may also be linked to the Brown Tide. While data suggest that gross concentrations
of nitrogen do not trigger blooms,the relative concentrations among the various forms of nitrogen
may play a role in Brown Tide blooms. One theory holds that increases in nitrogen in groundwater
may play a role in triggering Brown Tide blooms.
Though no causal link has been identified, low levels of pesticides may be affecting aquatic
resources, including eelgrass, sensitive larval stages of commercially and recreationally important
finfish and shellfish, and other ecologically important species.
Recommendations
The Committee's recommendations are shown in Table H-1, which also includes a designation of
responsible entity,cost, and timeframe for each recommendation. The following discussion provides
additional background and details regarding the recommendations.
•
APPENDIX H
H-8
i r i
y Table H-1.Agricultural Nitrogen Committee Interim Workplan Actions.*
ro
m Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost * Status
z AgN-I Develop a Long Island component NYS Dept. of Agriculture& 2000 $250,000-$500,000 for R
C7 Priority to the New York State Agricultural Markets program development
X Environmental Management (estimated)
(A EM) program.
AgN-2 Identify potential pilot projects to Suffolk County& Cornell 2001 To be determined C
demonstrate [lest Management Coop. Extension
Practices and test them.
AgN-s Investigate the creation of a farm PEP Agriculture Nitrogen 2000 To be determined R
Priority insurance plan. Management Committee
AgN-4 Provide funding for increased local USDA NRCS, Cornell 2000 $175,000/year for staff at R
Priority AEM development and Coop. Extension, SC Soil SCSWCD;$175,000/year
implementation. and Water Conservation for staff at CCE
District, Suffolk County& $1 million annually for
NY State implementation start up
(from NYS Bond Act,
Suffolk County '/4%Sales
Tax,and funding sources in
AgN-5);
Long-term to be determined.
AgN-5 Investigate and implement NY State: 2000 To be determined R
Priority innovative/alternative finance fertilizer/pesticide tax;
mechanisms for education and subsidizing capital
outreach,and actions 1-4. improvement loans from
EEC
AgN-6 Gather and analyze economic data PEP Agriculture Nitrogen 2001 To be determined R
on a regular basis and continue to Management Committee n
promote and integrate economic b
analyses and support mechanisms
into the AFM initiatives
x
C=Commitment R= Recommendation F"s
*Note: Actions and costs are also contained in the Nturient Chapter of the PEP CCMP.
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
•
Task I The New York State Agricultural Environmental Management Program (AEM)
New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets and the New York State Soil and
Water Conservation Committee manage the New York State Agricultural Environmental
Management Program wherein whole farm management plans are undertaken with farm
operators to reduce environmental impacts. This program has focused on the livestock
farmers in upstate New York, with an emphasis on phosphorus reduction and little emphasis
on nitrogen reduction (Long Island's primary issue). Total AEM State funding for 1999 was
4.5 million dollars, but the program was still oversubscribed. Expanding this program for
Long Island will require a one-time estimated commitment of$250,0004500,000 of State
funds. This cost estimate deals with program planning, design, and development, and not
implementation, which is discussed below.
The current AEM program is the preferred model for nutrient and pesticide reduction in the
Peconic Region since enhancements can be added to the conventional AEM program to
satisfy Long Island's program requirements. In a high cost area, like Long Island, AEM must
be enhanced with incentives to be viewed as a viable working option to reduce nitrogen and
pesticides. The tax credits, cost sharing, and the program itself should be enticing enough so
that 90 percent of the farmers working the remaining agricultural acres within the watershed
are participating by 2005.
A Long Island AEM Plan outlining the management objectives and the available financial
incentives will be developed. The plan will be prepared by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture—Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA—NRCS), Suffolk County Soil
and Water Conservation District(SCSWCD), Cornell Cooperative Extension(CCE), and
other stakeholders and approved by the New York State Department of Agriculture and
Markets and the New York State Soil and Water Conservation Committee. Farmers would
than be eligible to have whole farm management plans prepared for them with respect to the
LI AEM Plan. Practices such as fertilizing, pesticide application, irrigating, and soil testing
would be examined and then a financial/feasibility plan would be prepared showing the
farmer how the recommended actions could be financially undertaken.
An ambitious Agricultural Environmental Management(AEM)Initiative program has already
been piloted in the Peconic Estuary. Using the AEM approach, a comprehensive inventory
and analysis was conducted for most farms within one subwatershed to assess the potential
impact the farms may have had on that part of the Peconic Estuary and shallow aquifer.
Plans were developed for high priority farms and best management practices(BMPs)were
implemented. A total of 13 farms within the watershed implemented the high priority BMPs.
This pilot effort and other limited and localized efforts have been targets for agricultural
environmental management by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and the
Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District. Their success is a promising
foreshadowing of a much-needed regional program.
The task before the Peconic Estuary Management Conference is to manage for improved
environmental practices without driving farms out of business. Any discussion about
environmental improvements should be incentive-driven as it relates to the burdens placed on
the farmer. More applications of the same products at reduced loading rates and other best
management practices may reduce total pollutant loadings but increases farm operation costs •
APPENDIX H
H-10
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
in terms of fuel, labor,wear on equipment, etc. Since it is within the public interest to seek
changes in agricultural practices,the public should offer several incentives to farmers that
carry out the recommendations of their whole farm plans. The tax credits option is consistent
with school district tax relief practices that the State legislature has provided to farmers.
A recent study by the Northwest Area Foundation compared certain conventional farming
practices with aggressive AEM-based approaches. That study concluded that the cost of
chemicals decreased in certain instances while labor and managerial costs rose in some cases.
Sustainable farming tends to be more labor-intensive than conventional farming. This
translates into areaterjob creation potential. Diversification leads to a more even distribution
of labor requirements throughout the year.
Other States have achieved substantial reductions in nutrient loadings as a result of their
investment in AEM.
Task II Pilot Projects
To initiate the AEM effort as soon as possible, pilot projects will be identified and carried
out. One pilot site that has already been identified is at the Suffolk County Yaphank research
farm; others will be sought,as well. Possible pilot projects include:
• Evaluation of fertilizer and pesticide application rates as related to crop yield and quality,
as well as leaching rates and pollution potential. Fertilizer trials(CCE)with potatoes
show that a substantial reduction in nitrogen can be obtained with no reduction in yield.
Overall, nitrogen reductions in the range of 10 to 30 percent are believed to be feasible
for most crop types (except grapes and grain);
• Utilization of slow release nitrogen fertilizers. Most suited for nursery stock and longer
term crops:
• Irrigation evaluations for water efficiency and nitrogen loads;
• Zero discharge nursery greenhouses currently exist. Others could be retrofitted but new
equipment costs money;
• Best management practices for pesticides(IPM);
• Soil testing
• Pesticide storage handling and application equipment evaluations should be undertaken
with a specific intention of improving handling practices etc.;
• Stormwater runoff mitigation practices, including soil loss and erosion control; and
• Agricultural wellhead protection.
Task III Farm Insurance Plan
There is a perceived risk in trying unfamiliar farming practices instead of the accustomed
methods. Although proven by researchers and innovative farmers, most growers are reluctant
to adopt new practices, even when crop costs can be reduced. because of concerns about yield
variability. Necessary to any real environmental improvements is making certain that risks to
the farmer in implementing these procedures could be neutralized, possibly by creating a
farm insurance program.
APPENDIX H
H-11
Y°'% Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
•
The farm insurance plan could be modeled after the Mississippi Soil Conservation District
and Campbells Corporation private-sector crop insurance programs. They were designed to
raise the comfort level of new farmers participating in conservation programs that depart
from traditional farming practices. Similarly,the Agricultural Conservation Innovation
Center, in cooperation with the IGF Insurance Company, has designed insurance coverage to
help farmers adopt conservation practices(see Attachment H-5).
The USDA has undertaken the development of an Adjusted Gross Revenue(AGR) insurance
plan to provide an insurance safety net for multiple agricultural commodities in an insurance
product. The AGR plan was piloted in New England last year. The USDA intends to expand
this program to 16 counties in New York State, including Suffolk County. The AGR
insurance plan will replace the Federal government disaster program of the past and the crop
insurance which growers found much too expensive for anything near adequate coverage.
The AGR plan is not the same as reduced losses due to new practices, however the principles
of the plan may be applicable to the proposed farm insurance plan.
Task IV AEM Implementation
The Federal, State and county governments must expand their operating budgets to provide
for more staff at the USDA—NRCS,CCE, and SCSWCD to provide technical support to
develop 1)the regional plan, 2)whole farm plans and 3) initiate necessary pilot
demonstration projects. Respective budgets should appropriate two more staff persons at
SCSWCD at$175,000 per year, and 2 more staff at CCE at$175,000 per year specifically for
this Committee's initiatives(figures include salaries, benefits, associated equipment and
space needs).
In terms of funding to support implementation of the LI AEM,the program should be
financed by New York State with at least a$1 million commitment. The New York State
Bond Act, Environmental Protection Fund, the new 1/4 percent sales tax water quality
improvement fund from the non-point source pollution category,and Suffolk County Capital
Funds are all reasonable candidates for additional funding for implementation.
Another option for securing funding to implement AEM plans designed for specific farms is
the Suffolk County Farmland Development Rights Program, which is authorized and
administered in accord with the criteria in Laws of Suffolk County,Volume 1, Part III,
Administrative Local Laws, Chapter 8, Development Rights to Agricultural Lands
(pp. 801-806). This program is currently limited to the expenditure of funds for the purchase
of non-farm development rights in response to recommendations made by the Suffolk County
Farmland Committee.
Suffolk County should evaluate the potential and utility of amending Chapter 8 to authorize
the payment of additional funds to a willing seller of development rights so as to encourage
participation in the AEM program for a specified time period. This offering could be linked
to farms in watershed areas that have been identified as having significant impacts on Peconic
Estuary water quality, and to farms located within 1500 feet of the regional groundwater
divide in order to protect drinking water supplies. The new 13-year, 1/4 percent sales tax
extension program will have a funding stream dedicated specifically for purchase of
development rights to farms. If authorized,yearly participation payments from this fund
could be made to farmers who implement AEM farm plans.
APPENDIX H
H-12
Peconic Estuary Program CC.VP d`O4"%
• S
Task V Finance Mechanisms
While some finance mechanisms are noted above(New York State Bond Act, Environmental
Protection Fund,the new 1/4 percent sales tax), several other conventional and
innovative/altemative finance mechanisms need to be investigated to fund education and
outreach, as well as the other tasks. For example, crop insurance,additional personnel, and
tax credits could be financed by levying a small fee on all fertilizer and pesticide sales at the
wholesale to retail distribution level in Suffolk County. A well-developed marketing and
public outreach program targeted to homeowners and larger users should also be developed
with these funds. Aspects of this educational program should be extended to large
institutional users such as golf courses(See Attachment H-6;the Michigan Groundwater
Stewardship Program and the Northwest Michigan Groundwater Stewardship Program, both
financed by a small fee on nitrogen and pesticides).
Another topic raised by the Committee includes subsidizing capital improvement loans for
farms from the Environmental Facilities Corporation. This and other mechanisms need to be
explored more fully.
Task VI Gather and analyze economic data
Economic data need to be gathered and analyzed on a regular basis, and the Committee needs
to continue to promote and integrate economic analyses and support mechanisms into the
AEM initiatives. Ideas posed by the Committee include securing an agricultural economist
and creating a Farm Development Agency.
Summary of Costs and Benefits
Developing a LI AEM program will require an estimated commitment of$250,000 to $500,000.
While the cost of long-term implementation of the plan is unknown, $350,000 is needed to fund
additional staff at CCE and SCSWCD for agriculture-related issues, and a minimum of$1 million is
required to support initial implementation efforts. The costs of providing State tax credits to farmers,
conducting pilot projects, and developing and implementing farm insurance plans have not yet been
developed.
Environmental benefits of nutrient management are well documented in the PEP CCMP,and include
attainment of dissolved oxygen standards throughout the estuary. Other benefits include public
health/drinking water considerations(attainment of standards), as well as support of a sustainable
agricultural community, which is essential to the economy and quality of life in the Peconic Estuary
watershed.
Conclusions
AEM enhanced with tax credits as presented herein can be initiated now. If so, it will accelerate the
conversion of conventional agriculture to lower impact practices. This may lead to organic,
community-supported agriculture and niche farming or other innovations. A successful AEM
program will result in less pollution to the groundwater, and consequently the Peconic Estuary, and
reduce pesticide use in the region by providing direct economic incentives to farmers.
APPENDIX H
H-13
„�oPeconic Estuary Program CCMP
YWA concludes its report by stating, "Sustainable farming is not universally financially sustainable
or profitable. The crucial factor in financial sustainability is good management, particularly
necessary since many sustainable farms are highly diversified. Ecological sustainability in agriculture
requires use of modern, emerging technologies that are information-driven and management centered.
Sustainable agriculture requires a highly adaptive management technology that responds to the
ecology of the farm, and will spread as environmental constraints grow. The ability to farm
sustainably will be in increased demand as environmental constraints grow because it has real and
measurable environmental benefits.”
The State and the County have robust economic development programs, investing millions of dollars
each year. In order to address AEM correctly we must augment this effort to other agricultural-
related economic assistance programs in order to fully support the conversion of the region's current
agricultural economy to one that is more environmentally harmonious with groundwater and surface
water protection issues.
References
Cashin Associates,P.C., (January, 1996). Peconic Estuary Program Final Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation Study.
Economic Analysis, Inc., (February 1999). Resource and Recreational Economic Values for the
Peconic Estuary System.
Suffolk County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board(June 1996). Agricultural and Farmland
Protection Plan. Report prepared by the Suffolk County Department of Planning. Hauppauge,
NY.
Suffolk County Department of Health Services Office of Ecology, (January 1999).Peconic Estuary
Program—Nitrogen Loading Budget and Trends, Major, External, Anthropogenic Nitrogen
Sources: Groundwater and Duck Farms.
Suffolk County Department of Health Services Bureau of Groundwater Resources, (September 1996).
Nitrate and Pesticide Impacts of Agriculture on Groundwater Quality, Suffolk County, AT.
Suffolk County Department of Health Services Bureau of Groundwater Resources, (.March 1999).
Water Quality Monitoring Program to Detect Pesticide Contamination in Groundwaters of
Nassau and Suffolk Counties, NY
Suffolk County Department of Planning,(January 1997). Peconic Estuary Program Existing Land
Use Inventory.
APPENDIX H
H-14
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP t" N^
ATTACHMENT H-1
APPENDIX H
H-1-1
Peconic Estuary Program COMP
i
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
APPENDIX H
H-1-2
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
AGRICULTURAL NITROGEN
MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
Name Apeney
George Proics, Chairman Suffolk County Executive Office/Suffolk County Soil & Water
Conservation District
Kevin McDonald,Co-Chairman Group for the South Fork/Peconic Estuary Program CAC
Bill Sanok Cornell Cooperative Extension
Joe Sieczka Connell Cooperative Extension
Mary Barbato East End Initiative
Mary McGlone East End Initiative
Joe Gergela Long Island Farm Bureau
Marci Bortman The Nature Conservancy
Stuart Lowrie The Nature Conservancy
Alpa Pandya The Nature Conservancy
Matthew Sclafani New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation/Peconic Estuary Program
John Wildeman New York State Soil and Water Conservation Committee
Debbie O'Kane North Fork Environmental Council
Susan Dodson Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Martin Trent Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Walter Dawydiak Suffolk County Department of Health Services/Peconic Estuary
Program
Vito Minei Suffolk County Department of Health Services/Peconic Estuary
Program
Laura Klahre Suffolk County Department of Health Services/Peconic Estuary
Program
DeWitt Davies Suffolk County Planning Department
Lauretta Fischer Suffolk County Planning Department
Steve Jones Suffolk County Planning Department
Thomas J. McMahon Suffolk County Soil & Water Conservation District
Allan Connell United States Department of Agriculture—NRCS
Rick Balla United States Environmental Protection Agency
Other Contributors:
Long Island Agricultural Stewardship Working Group
Peconic Land Trust
Town of Southampton
Town of Southold
i
APPENDIX H
H-1-3
J��, Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
s
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
s
APPENDIX H
H-1-4
Peconic Estuary Program CGNP
c
•
ATTACHMENT H-2
APPENDIX H
H-2-1
,¢ Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
F
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
•
APPENDIX H
H-2-2
Peconic Estaary Program CCMP �'O6 141
c
NITROGEN LOADING RATES AND POTENTIAL REDUCTIONS*
Fertilizer Load Rate Potential
Category Reduction (lb N/ac/yr) (%)
Vineyards 40 5-10
Mixed Vegetables 125-175 10
Potatoes 150-200 10-20
Orchards 60-80 20
Nurseries 160-250 20-30
Sod** 250 25
Grain 0-50 0
Greenhouse me. Container Stock) *** —
Field Corn 120-180 15
Christmas Trees 160-200 20
* All values result from the publication"Protection and Restoration of Groundwater in
Southold,NY"Cornell University C.E.R.,April 1983, Draft,and subsequent discussions
with the Long Island Agricultural Stewardship Working Group Meeting at the Cornell
Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County on June 22,2000.
** Sod values were further refined with input from Tamsen Yen from the Cornell
• Cooperative Extension of Nassau County in July and August,2000.
*** Approximately 80 percent of container stock greenhouses use slow release fertilizers
instead of liquid feedine.
•
APPENDIX H
H-2-3
3� Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
•
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
•
•
APPENDIX H
H-2-4
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP j4
i
i
ATTACHMENT H-3
i
APPENDIX H
H-3-1
1pl`" Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
i
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
i
APPENDIX H
H_3_2
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
AGRICULTURAL TRENDS ANALYSIS
FOR TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON
Yellow Wood Associates(YWA) analyzed the existing agricultural and fisheries resources and
developed recommendations for fostering an economically and environmentally viable climate for the
natural resource-based economy of Southampton.New York. They identified several important
components to changes in the agriculture industry. The major components of their trends analysis are
listed below and incorporate a strategy to assess capacity and develop a response strategy.
1. The transformation from commodity production to specialty crop production may
contribute positively to environmental sustainability. This will depend, in large part, on
the capacity of farmers to employ more information and management-intensive
approaches to production. Farmers will need to have the financial capital to invest in
modern technologies. This transformation will depend as well on continued growth in
consumer demand for organic or"g-reed'products and services.
2. Diversification of agricultural production will increasingly include service provision in
tourism,recreation and education, whether through direct marketing(e.g., roadside
stands, pick your own)or activities such as farm vacations, school field trips, riding
lessons, hav rides, wine tasting events or farm tours. There are two reasons for this
trend. First, services provide an additional income opportunity to farmers who face ever-
hi,her costs of production. Second, consumers rank the ocean as their 9 1 most popular
vacation setting, followed in third place by rural destinations.
3. The long-term success of agriculture, based on product differentiation and services
depends heavily on economical provision of appropriate infrastructure(e.g., parking,
signage, and sewage disposal)and market infrastructure development in both retail and
wholesale markets. Market diversification is as important as product diversification to
ensure the long-term viability of agriculture. East End farmers must be able to capture
local sales and tap more distant markets as appropriate.
4. One of the substantial challenges facing agricultural entrepreneurs is that of matching the
scale of production to market demand. Another is in securing the range of professional
services from translating to graphic design, labeling, packing,transportation and pricing
information required to survive in a highly competitive marketplace. A third is
developing the supply relationships, market relationships and information systems needed
to meet demands for'just-in-time" deliveries. Advantages to the East End farmers
include proximity to major markets, but proximity-alone is not enough to ensure
marketing success.
5. The requirements of agricultural diversification into specialty products and related
production and marketing requirements can lead to increased vertical integration of farm
operations.
6. Diversified agricultural activity,with a significant service and processing component.will
require new approaches to land use regulation.
APPENDIX H
H-3-3
g°""N Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
APPENDIX H
H-3-4
Peconrc Estuary Program CCMP �
ATTACHMENT H-4
.APPENDIX H
H-4-1
JPeconic Estuary Program CCMP
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
APPENDIX H
H-4-2
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
IATFS NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT YARDSTICK
The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) uses a Nutrient Management Yardstick to
promote on-farm efficiency and environmental protection for use on Minnesota farms. This is a
summary of that program.
Summary
The Nutrient Management Yardstick measures nutrient inputs and outputs that go beyond the farm
boundary. An imaginary boundary is drawn around the farm, so that nutrients that remain on the farm
are not counted; but those that enter or leave the farm boundary are measured. Nutrients that enter the
farm from beyond the boundary include nitrogen in rainfall, feed and livestock inputs, fertilizer and
manure inputs, nitrogen-fixing plants, and nitrogen in irrigation water. Nutrients that leave the
boundary may include exported crops,volatilization and denitrification into the atmosphere, runoff
into surface water, and leaching into groundwater.
The project, based on a successful Dutch program, is in its second year in the United States and
Canada. The Yardstick is a bookkeeping tool to help farmers understand and better manage the flow
of primary nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium) on their farms. By providing farmers with a
method of measuring nutrient utilization, unnecessary inputs can be eliminated, reducing costs as well
as excess nutrients flowing to the environment.
Excess nutrients are measured using a simple equation: inputs—outputs=excess nutrients. The
farmer completes worksheets, entering estimated figures, and calculates a score that indicates the
pounds per acre of excess nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium on the farm. Cash-grain farms tend to
have minimal (-50 pounds per acre)nutrient excesses. Scores are used by the farmer to more fully
understand the nutrient flows on the farm; since conditions vary from farm to farm and year to year,
the scores should not be used for comparison purposes. The Yardstick is not a regulatory tool; scores
are kept confidential.
Determining Nutrient Outputs
Crop farmers need the following information to complete the worksheets:
• amount of fertilizers used;
• amount of crops that left the farm;
• if legumes are grown, the acreage, cutting, and type of stand; and
• if irrigation is used,the nitrate content and volume of water used.
The program describes how to convert the dry, matter weight of crop products that were sold or
removed from the farm and determines the nutrient content of sold crop products. A useful chart of
nutrient contents of common crops and forages is included. The farmer then determines the nutrients
in purchased fertilizer and manure and the nitrogen fixated by legumes. Finally, environmental inputs
are estimated from deposition and irrigation water.
APPENDIX H
H-4-3
t Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
Once all known factors are figured in,the farmer totals all nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus inputs
and outputs,then determines the difference. The final result is a score for excess pounds per acre for
each of the three nutrients.
SIGNIFICANCE OF SCORES
The closer a yardstick score is to zero,the more efficient is the on-farm nutrient use. The document
includes criteria that increase or decrease efficiency, and fertilizer data.
APPENDIX H
H-4-4
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP eo"N,
ATTACHMENT H-5
i
APPENDIX H
H-5-I
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
i
APPENDIX H
H_j_2
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
� r
BMP-PLUST"':
INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR INNOVATIVE PRACTICES
Conservation Practices Could Be More Widely Adopted if RISKS Could be Neutralized
Best Management Practices(BMPs)are research-proven, cost-reducing farming methods designed to
optimize crop income while protecting the land. Yet it is hard for farmers to change the way they
farm. They stick with accustomed methods because of concerns about yield variability that tend to
outweigh either cost-cutting appeal or environmental impact reduction concerns. Until farmers have
seen that the risks have been worked down,they continue to use current practices.
THE BMP-PL USr"! Conservation Innovation Policy
To boost adoption of proven conservation techniques,the Agricultural Conservation Innovation
Center(ACIC)has designed insurance coverage for innovative practices. The approach uses split
fields(or orchards)to isolate the risk. The innovative steps are followed on one half while
conventional methods are used on the other. All other practices must be identical across the split field
system to make sure that the conservation practice is the only thing that is different in the two
portions. The yield difference between the two halves is insured.
Sponsoring organizations play a pivotal role. Proposals originate with them and they screen
participants. They identify technicians who'll guide growers as the innovative practice is
implemented. They track yields, analyze differences in the split field results, and help process any
claims.
ACIC empanels expert committees to evaluate conservation practices for their suitability. Other
criteria may become evident as proposals are processed.
A Specialized Insurance Policy Can Resolve This Dilemma
To boost adoption of proven conservation practices,the ACIC and IGF Insurance Company have
designed insurance coverage to help farmers adopt conservation practices.
APPENDIX H
H-5-3
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
r
How It Works and What It Costs
1. A split field approach is commonly used to demonstrate a different practice or product.
For BMP-PLUS'"" split fields will be used to isolate risk in proven conservation methods.
The innovative procedure is followed in one half while conventional methods are
continued in the other. All other farming practices must be identical across the split field
system to make sure that the conservation practice is the only thing that is different.
Yield variance between the two halves is then insured neutralizing a grower's risk as
innovative conservation practices are adopted.
2. The BMP-PLUSW insurance will have premiums set at 50 percent of the established
Multiple Peril Crop Insurance(MPCI)rates for any crop.
Sponsoring Groups
The enhanced AEM program proposed herein recognizes that the County and State(Department of
Agriculture and Markets)have a bona fide stake in conservation. Their leadership makes the whole
process work by:
• Identifying conservation proposals;
• Clarifying the benefits and the risks;
• Communicating with farmers;
• Screening farmer participants;
• Ensuring sufficient technical support; and
• Assisting in loss adjustment.
How the BMP-PLUSTm Policy Works
1. A bona fide conservation practice is identified (in this case, AEM practices);
2. Either a sponsoring organization persuades farmer members to enroll crop acreage or a
producer persuades his organization to sponsor a proposal;
3. A simplified description of the conserving practice is submitted by the sponsoring
organization to ACIC for an initial review;
4. ACIC reviews the concept and the needs, responding to the applicant organization with
assistance in either making a full application or in obtaining more information and
refining how the proposal may be specified more effectively;
5. The sponsoring organization:
a. Nominates the producer participants;
b. Vouches for the participants;
c. Identifies the field support for farmers using the practice;and
d. Certifies that the split fields have comparable productive capacity.
6. ACIC initially rates the insurance based on a non-probability premium structure
developed jointly with IGF Insurance Company:
APPENDIX H
H-5-4
Peconic Estuan,Program CCMP ppa"r^�
a. Empanels a vetting committee to assess the technical aspects of the proposal; and
b. Customizes the innovation insurance policy to fit the circumstances.
7. IGF Insurance Company writes and distributes the BMP-PLUS'" policy via agents;
8. The producer grows his crops according to the split field method;
9. The sponsoring organization provides technical support for enrolled producers and
oversees the steps of the recommended conservation practice;
10. The sponsoring organization performs the initial adjustment process and prepares a
preliminary report if a loss occurs and verifies that all other farming practices were
consistent across both portions of the split field system; and
11. IGF Insurance Company performs the final adjustment process and pays out claims as
necessary.
Source: Agricultural Conservation Innovation Center, 1999
•
APPENDIX H
H-5-5
Lt Peconic Estuary Program CCjWP
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
APPENDIX H
H-5-6
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP %
•
ATTACHMENT H-6
APPENDIX H
H-6-1
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
F
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
•
APPENDIX H
H-6-2
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
GiDuAdwater
Stewardship
BMW=
r1►,_
Mission
To provide information and assessment tools for pesticide and nitrogen fertilizer users which help
them identify risks to groundwater associated with their pesticide and nitrogen fertilizer use practices
and to coordinate local, State, and Federal resources to help individuals reduce those risks.
The Michigan Groundwater Stewardship Program is designed to be voluntary,to be locally driven, to
address the concerns of individuals, and to maintain a focus on the financial and technical constraints
which drive real-world decisions.
The Michigan Groundwater Stewardship Program is relatively narrow in focus addressing only risks
to groundwater associated with pesticide and nitrogen fertilizer use. However, it has a wide scope
and addresses the many uses of these materials, including agricultural,turfgrass, and household uses.
Local Programs
Local Groundwater Stewardship Programs are being funded through a competitive grants program.
Technical assistance personnel are hired to help individuals complete an on-site evaluation of risks
and help implement practices which reduce those risks.
Farm *A* Syst (FAS)
Farm *A* Syst(FAS) identifies potential risks posed by farmstead operations. Fact sheets provide
educational information and list reference people to contact if questions arise. F*A*S* work sheets
use a simple question-and-answer format to evaluate farmstead practices that may pose a risk to
groundwater.
Farm *A* Syst is voluntary and confidential. All Farm *A* Syst materials stay with you on your
farm. It is important to recognize that Farm *A* Syst only identifies risk. It does not tell you if you
have contaminated water or that you will never have contaminated water.
Technical assistance with completing Farm *A* Syst evaluations is available free of charge from the
Michigan Groundwater Stewardship Program.
Home *A* Syst
Home *A* Syst helps homeowners identify and lower risks to groundwater and surface water,
protecting human health and the environment. A home assessment system to help you identify and
APPENDIX H
H-6-3
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
f
lower risks to groundwater and surface water. Groundwater is a limited resource. Its contamination
can occur in several ways:
• Contaminants moving down well casings of unused or unusable wells;
• Excess or poorly timed use of yard and garden fertilizers and pesticides, leading to
groundwater or surface water contamination;
• Poorly maintained septic systems; and
• Improper disposal of wastes.
Groundwater Stewardship Practices
Technical assistance personnel may work with landowners to develop a Groundwater Stewardship
Plan describing the cost-share and technical assistance resources available to implement Groundwater
Stewardship Practices.
The practices not only provide easy-to-access information about reducing risks but also can provide
technical assistance and cost-share for closing abandoned wells.
One-Stop Shoppinc
In the past, individuals have gone to MSU Extension for general information on implementation of
the Groundwater Stewardship Practices. Then they would go to the Natural Resources Conservation
Service for technical standards,visit the Consolidated Farm Service Agency for cost-share
information, and finally work through the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the local
conservation district to set up technical assistance and learn about other cost-share opportunities.
To address this problem, a series of Groundwater Stewardship Practice Manuals have been developed
by the Michigan Groundwater Stewardship Program which integrate:
• MSU Extension descriptive information
• Natural Resources Conservation Service technical standards
• State and Federal legal requirements
• Information on State and Federal cost-share opportunities, and
• Evaluation tools.
Groundwater Stewardship Teams
These teams determine the mixture between cost-share,technical assistance, and/or demonstration
provided by the local program. They ensure coordination of local resources and make sure the local
program meets the groundwater protection needs of local pesticide and fertilizer users.
Groundwater Stewardship Teams(GST) are a part of Michigan's Groundwater Stewardship Program
(GSP). They provide a collective voice of pesticide and nitrogen fertilizer users in determining the
direction of the statewide program. GSTs help ensure that local information, technical assistance,
demonstration projects and cost-share opportunities supported by the Michigan Groundwater
Stewardship Program meet local needs and interests. They can also serve as local forums to
•
APPENDIX H
H-6-4
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
Ir
communicate the groundwater protection activities, needs, and concerns of the pesticide and nitrogen
fertilizer users to the nonagricultural community.
Field *A* Syst
Field *A* Syst is designed to help individuals identify ways to reduce the risk of groundwater
contamination associated with field applications of pesticides and nitrogen fertilizers.
Field *A* System is a series of worksheets and fact sheets that help identify and offer ways to reduce
the risk of groundwater contamination associated with pesticide and nitrogen fertilizer use. These in-
field risk assessment tools are based on the highly popular Farm *A*Syst program which is used to
evaluate farmstead practices and structures that may pose a risk to groundwater.
Currently, Field*A*Syst materials are available for the following topics:
• General Pesticide&Nutrient Management Work Sheets;
• General Irrigation Management Field Screening Work Sheets; and
• Com Nutrient& Pesticide Management.
The general pesticide, nutrient and irrigation management packages focus on practices such as: split
nitrogen application,nitrate testing, pesticide selection, sprayer calibration, and pesticide safety.
The field screening worksheets help evaluate the impact of soils, subsurface geology, cropping
practices, and depth to the water table on the relative vulnerability of the fields you manage. The idea
is that if you are going to try using a groundwater stewardship practice,you'll get the biggest benefit
using it on your most vulnerable fields.
The materials are designed to integrate MSU Extension bulletins and recommendations into a single
fact sheet, using the same easy Farm*A*Syst question-and-answer format to help you apply the
recommendations to your own fields. Just like Farm*A*Syst, the Field*A*Syst program is voluntary
and confidential. All materials stay with you on your farm.
Funding-
Funds
undingFunds for this program come from industry-supported pesticide and fertilizer registration fees on
specialty and agricultural products. Registration fees are paid for by companies that register their
products for use in Michigan. A tonnage fee on bulk nitrogen fertilizers is also a source of funding.
Nitrogen tonnage fees are paid directly by bulk fertilizer users.
Pesticide registration fees account for about 72 percent of the revenues with the remaining being
provided by nitrogen fertilizer users. Specialty(household)products generate approximately 40
percent of the total revenues with the remaining coming from agriculture and other wide-area
pesticide uses.
Over 85 percent of the revenues generated by these fees are returned directly to pesticide and
fertilizer users through education, technical-assistance, applied research, and cost-share programs.
APPENDIX H
H-6-5
Vito", Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
0
Funding Revenues
Funds for the Michigan Groundwater Stewardship Program come from industry-supported pesticide
and fertilizer registration and tonnage fees.
Pesticide registration fees are paid for by companies which register both specialty(homeowner) and
wide-area(agricultural, right of way, golf course, etc.)pesticides for use in Michigan. The rate for
specialty pesticides is $100/product while the rate for wide-area pesticides is equal to three-quarters
of one percent of the annual wholesale value with a$150/product minimum.
Specialty fertilizer registration fees are equal to $100 for each product and grade registered for sale.
Nitrogen fertilizer tonnage fees are set at one-and-a-half cents per percent of nitrogen in each ton of
fertilizer sold. For example,the fee on one ton of 28-0-0 would be 28 x.015 or$0.42. So, if 28-0-0
were selling at$160/ton,the groundwater fee would raise the price by two-tenths-of-one-percent.
Pesticide registration fees account for about 74 percent of program revenues with the remaining being
provided by nitrogen fertilizer users. Specialty products generate approximately 40 percent of the
total revenues with the remaining coming from wide-area pesticide uses.
Total annual revenues were about$2 million in 1994 and $3.5 million in 1995. Revenues not spent in
one year are carried forward to fund the next year's programs and are not returned to the general fund.
Northwest Michigan
Groundwater Stewardship Program
"l��� m
The Northwest Michigan Groundwater Stewardship Program is here to be of service to you.
The Program offers:
• Farmstead Assessments(Farm*A*Syst);
• Homestead Assessments(Home*A*Syst);
• Cost-share Funding; and
• An Information Network/Partnership.
It's about Risk Reduction to improve the quality of our region's groundwater and your personal
groundwater supply. This program is funded through PA216 of 1994, which assesses a surcharge on
nitrate fertilizers and pesticides. The revenues generated are to be used to help farmers and
homeowners to undertake management changes that will reduce the threat of groundwater
contamination on their property. The bulk of the grant funds will be used to deliver on-site technical
APPENDIX H
H-6-6
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP jo
• v
assistance to landowners and to provide cost-share funds to landowners for closing abandoned wells,
installing anti-backflow devices on agricultural wells and implementing other practices that protect
groundwater.
Groundwater Facts and Trivia
• The earth is a closed system;there is the same amount of water here today as there was
three billion years ago;
• Water moves through the hydrologic cycle, changing from solid to liquid to gas (water
vapor)over and over again;
• Ninety-seven percent of the earth's water is salt water, only three percent is fresh water.
Of the freshwater, 77 percent is frozen in ice and glaciers, 22 percent is groundwater, and
less than 1 percent is found in lakes, marshed, rivers, and streams;
• About 95 percent of the United States'total supply of fresh water is groundwater. The
remaining is surface water found in lakes and streams;
• About 27 trillion gallons of groundwater are withdrawn for use in the United States each
year;
• Three-quarters of the cities in the United States use groundwater as part of their water
supply. Almost 350 municipalities throughout Michigan use groundwater for their public
water supply system;
• More than 800,000 new water wells are drilled in the United States each year;
• Unconsolidated sands and gravels compose nearly 90 percent of all aquifers developed
for water supplies. Porous sandstone, limestone, and highly fractured crystalline and
volcanic rock make up most other aquifers;
• Forty-three percent of Michigan's residents depend on groundwater for drinking;
• Thirty-seven percent of Michigan's farmers use groundwater for irrigating crops and
watering livestock;
• Groundwater supplies water to many of our streams, lakes, and wetlands. In fact, about
30 percent of stream flow in the U.S. is from groundwater discharge;
• Rainfall is the main source of fresh groundwater. About 25 percent of rainfall in the
United States becomes groundwater. That is equal to about 300 trillion gallons per year;
• Groundwater is constantly moving. The rate of movement may be as fast as 50 feet per
day or as slow as 50 feet per 500 years;
• Groundwater nearly always contains more mineral matter than nearby surface water, but
is generally much cleaner:
• About a quarter of the Earth's population drink contaminated water;
• The two major groundwater problems are overdraft(withdrawing more water than is
being naturally replenished), and unnatural contamination;
• Since water will dissolve more things than any other substance it is very susceptible to
contamination;
APPENDIX H
H-6-7
joa %. Peconic Estuary Program CCVP
4 ,
• Groundwater contamination has been found in every State. Groundwater is known to be •
contaminated at about 1,300 sites in Michigan;
• Agricultural activities constitute the single largest use of groundwater; and
• Approximately one-fifth of the earth's fresh water is contained in the Great Lakes Basin.
Farm*A*Syst
A Farm*A*Syst is an assessment to help identify potential risk of groundwater contamination posed
by farmstead operations. Fact sheets provide education information. F*A*S worksheets use a simple
question-and-answer format to evaluate farmstead practices that may pose a risk to groundwater. A
groundwater technician will come out to the farm and work with you to identify practices which
would help reduce the risk of contamination on you farm and develop a Groundwater Stewardship
Plan.
Farm*A*Syst areas which are addressed are:
• Well location and condition;
• Pesticide and/or fertilizer storage and handling;
• Fuel storage(see EQIP info for cost-share info); •
• Hazardous waste management;
• Household and milking center wastewater treatment;
• Livestock manure storage;
• Livestock yard management;
• Silage storage;
• Emergency preparedness planning; and
• Overall farmstead assessment.
After doing a Farm*A*Syst,one is eligible to apply for cost-share funding to help implement safer
groundwater practices. For more information about the Farm*A*Syst program, please contact Ginger
Bardenhagen at(616)941-4191 or email her at: soicena northlink.net.
APPENDIX H
H-6-8
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP #,c^'""L,
Home*A*Syst
Home*A*Syst is a home assessment system to help you identify and lower risks to groundwater and
surface water. The packet fact sheets can be done alone or with assistance and cover the following
topics:
• Drinking Water Well Management;
• Yard and Garden Care:
• Household Wastewater;
• Stormwater Management;
• Hazardous Household Products;
• Household Trash;
• Liquid Fuels; and
• Homesite Assessment.
The assessment will allow you to:
• Protect your drinking water;
• Learn the basics about your home septic system;
• Reduce runoff which may harm lakes and streams,
• Gain information on the health and environmental impact of your yard and gardening
activities;
• Lower risks from hazardous household products;
• Reduce and improve handling of household waste; and
• Safely manage liquid fuel storage (gas, fuel oil, kerosene, etc_)_
For more information or for a Home*A*Syst packet contact:
Kelly Wood-Arnold
Phone: 616-935-1514
Fax: 616-922-4633
APPENDIX H
H-6-9
yco" , Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
APPENDIX H
H-6-10
Peconic Estuan,Program CC,VfP
APPENDIX I
Environmental Monitoring Plan
APPENDIX 1
° Peconic Estuary Program COMP
•
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
APPENDIX I
Peconic Estuary Program CGNP
r
Peconic Estuary Program
Environmental Monitoring Plan
2001
APPENDIX I
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
APPENDIX I
Peconic Estuar} Program MVP j4o-"k,
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Monitoring Plan Basis 1
Output Monitoring 2
Outcome Monitoring 3
Monitoring Plan Elements 3
Data Management 3
CCMP and NEP Requirements 4
Core Monitoring Workplan Elements 5
Measurable Goals 6
Brown Tide Issues 10
Nutrients Issues 12
• Habitat and Living Resource Issues 20
Pathogens Issues 30
Toxics Issues 35
Monitoring Program Summary 49
Figures
Figure 1 —Peconic Estuary Study Area Boundaries 50
Figure 2 —Harbors. Embayments, Tidal Creeks. Ponds and Lakes 51
in the Peconic Estuary Study Area
Figure 3 —Areas of Brown Tide Occurrence on Long Island 52
Figure 4 — Post CCMP Marine Surface Water Monitoring Program 53
Figure 5 — Summer Dissolved Oxygen Conditions in the Peconic Estuary 54
Figure 6 —Average Summer Light Extinction Coefficients 55
for 1994&1996 (Non-Brown Tide Years)
Figure 7 —Peconic Estuary Regional Groundwater Quality 56
Figure 8 —May 1998 Sediment Monitoring Sites in the Peconic Estuary 57
Figure 9 —August 2000 Sediment Monitoring Sites in the 58
Peconic Estuary
Figure 10— Proposed 2001 Sediment Monitoring Sites in the Peconic 59
Estuary
Attachments
Research, Monitoring and Assessment Priorities for Habitats and I-1
Liming Resources of Peconic Estuary
APPENDIX [
JONOINy Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
•
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
APPENDIX I
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP g,ko ^�
Introduction
An effective monitoring program is necessary to assess the status and trends in the Peconic Estuary's water and
sediment quality and in the health and abundance of the estuary's habitats and living resources. Assessing status
and trends includes both spatial and temporal variations. This information will provide insights into the
effectiveness of current management strategies, indicate where goals have been met, if actions should continue, and
whether more stringent controls or management is warranted.
Monitoring the changes in a watershed is not a simple task. Watersheds, by their very nature, are dynamic systems
where populations of fish, birds, and other organisms fluctuate with natural cycles. Water quality also varies,
particularly as seasonal and annual weather patterns change. The task of tracking environmental changes can be
difficult, and distinguishing the changes caused by human actions from natural variations can be even more
difficult.
This Environmental Monitoring Plan describes the region's existing monitoring efforts as well as
recommendations for expanding some existing programs and establishing new monitoring programs. The Plan also
describes the environmental changes these data can be used to assess. While agencies or organizations carrying out
monitoring programs may extend their efforts beyond the Peconic Estuary Program study area boundaries, the
evaluation of the monitoring programs described in this document,whether existing or proposed,applies only to
activities within the Peconic Estuary Program study area. 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 Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP)are being
met. Efforts from Federal, state, county and local government agencies, non-governmental organizations, and
private citizens comprise the extant monitoring in the region. Monitoring has been and continues to be performed
for water quality, habitats, land uses, and populations. Specific monitoring efforts are described in detail in this
document. The Peconic Estuary's study area boundary and waterbodies are shown in Figures 1 and 2.
Monitoring can be divided into output monitoring and outcome monitoring. Output monitoring is programmatic
and addresses CCMP implementation issues(resulting in Implementation Reports). Outcome monitoring focuses
on changes in ambient conditions, ecological functions,and biological populations and communities(resulting in
Environmental Status Reports). This Environmental Monitoring Plan mainly focuses on outcome monitoring.
Monitoring Plan Basis
The pollutants,biological indicators and performance criteria included in this Environmental Monitoring Plan were
selected based on the priority management topics in the CCMP and the measurable goals the Program established
for each priority management topic. The priority management topics were initially identified in the Peconic
Estuary nomination document for inclusion in the National Estuary Program. These topics(and lead agencies) are:
Brown Tide(SCDHS), nutrients (SCDHS), habitats and living resources (NYSDEC), pathogens(NYSDEC), and
toxics(EPA). In the final CCMP,these topics are joined by critical lands protection,an overarching issue,to form
the priority management issues for the Program, along with public education and outreach, financing, and overall
implementation. The SCDHS along with The Nature Conservancy, the Suffolk County Department of Planning,
and the Citizens Advisory Committee serves as the lead for critical lands protection. 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.
•
APPENDIX I
I-1
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
For each priority management topic,the PEP has developed measurable goals. In many cases,these measurable •
goals are first order estimates based on best available information and on management conference judgment. Each
measurable goal in the final CCMP is linked to one or more of the actions in the final CCMP. Each element of the
Environmental Monitoring Plan is also linked to one or more of the measurable goals. The relationship between a
monitoring program element(and the parameters contained therein) and a CCMP measurable goal is the basis for
its inclusion in this Environmental Monitoring Plan.
The Peconic Estuary Program's Environmental Monitoring Program consists of numerous existing monitoring
programs, many of which have been expanded due primarily to the existence of the Peconic Estuary Program. The
Peconic Estuary Program participants, in preparing this Plan, did not observe any duplication of effort among the
agencies or organizations currently conducting monitoring in the estuary and its watershed. Where gaps in and
among monitoring programs were identified, recommendations have been made to expand existing monitoring
programs or establish entirely new monitoring programs. The Peconic Estuary Program Office in the Office of
Ecology of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services serves as the overall coordinator of monitoring
efforts in the estuary and watershed. The effectiveness of the Environmental Monitoring Plan will be reviewed as
part of the Implementation Report as well as the Environmental Status Report. Recommendations for redirection of
efforts will be included in these reports as needed;these proposed changes will be subject to public review.
The Peconic Estuary Program has developed a candidate list of indicators to be used in reporting on environmental
outcomes. This list will be refined and finalized in the 2001-02 timeframe. The candidate indicators, related to kev
measurable goals in the CCMP and elements of the Environmental Monitoring Plan, are as follows:
- Brown Tide Levels
-Dissolved Oxygen Levels
-Nitrogen Levels
- Water Clarity
-Eelgrass and Tidal Wetlands Coverage
-Extent of Shoreline Hardening
-Finfish and Shellfish Landings
- Acres Open to Shellfish Harvesting
- Toxics in the Environment(sediments, biota,and loadings)
-Habitat Restoration(and Land Acquisition/Protection)
Output Monitoring
Programmatic output monitoring will track the products from implementing the CCMP. Monitoring will help keep
managers abreast of all implementation programs and the degree to which the programs are or are not achieving
their intended outcomes. This type of monitoring holds designated lead organizations accountable for specific
actions and steps outlined in the CCMP. Programmatic monitoring can also be used to assess whether an
educational outreach program has reached its intended audience.
The Peconic Estuary Program will report on the status of the CCMP actions("output monitoring")through periodic
bulletins and has committed to a full accounting on the status of all CCMP actions every three years,consistent
with EPA National Estuary Program Guidance, in the form of an Implementation Report. This reporting
commitment is an action in the Post-CCMP Chapter of the final CCMP. The report will evaluate whether the
CCMP actions and steps should be modified in order to achieve the CCMP goals and objectives. Where
appropriate, resources and efforts may be redirected to attain the desired outcomes of the Program.
Recommendations for the redirection of efforts will be subject to public review.
APPENDIX I
1-2
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP q*P"N
Outcome Monitorin>s
Outcome monitoring assesses the success in attaining CCMP goals and objectives rather than the implementation of
specific actions. For each measurable goal in the CCMP, the associated monitoring parameters provide a measure
of success. Characterization reports prepared for the CCMP and summarized in the CCMP,as well as numerous
existing monitoring efforts,represent outcome monitoring activities.
The Peconic Estuary Program will provide information on environmental quality("outcome monitoring") through
periodic bulletins and a report every three years on progress in achieving all of the measurable goals described in
the CCMP in the form of an Environmental Status Report.This reporting commitment is an action in the Post-
CCMP Chapter of the final CCMP. Through the outcome monitoring process, a report on environmental status and
trends will be prepared, existing and planned monitoring efforts will be incorporated,critical information gaps will
be identified, and standardizing and coordinating future monitoring efforts will be attempted. As with the
Implementation Report,the Environmental Status Report will include recommendations for redirection of efforts as
needed; these proposed changes will be subject to public review.
Monitoring Plan Elements
Compiling monitoring program information into one document, such as this one, promotes cooperation among
agencies and stakeholders, clarifies the need for existing programs as well as for expanded or new programs, 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 thirty-two core monitoring plan elements, which
are necessary to determine whether the CCMP measurable goals are being met.
The monitoring plan elements are geared towards the chemical, physical and biological conditions of the estuary.
As such,the workplan elements focus on the priority management topics. Other modules such as Public Education
and Outreach and Financing will be dealt with in other reports. The Critical Lands Protection Strategy Chapter
outlines all the milestones that need to take place in developing a Critical Lands Protection Plan. Actual
environmental goals and a monitoring workplan for critical lands protection will be developed as part of the Critical
Lands Protection Plan.
The Peconic Estuary Program's technical report Research, Monitoring&Assessment Priorities for Habitats and
Living Resources of the Peconic Estuary(Peconic Estuary Program,2000) recommends additional monitoring
activities for consideration in the future.
Data Management
The Peconic Estuary Program Data Management Strategy,(Peconic Estuary Program, 1993)designated the
SCDHS Office of Ecology as the repository of water quality data and most Geographical Information System (GIS)
data. The Program Office also is 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. For the foreseeable future,the Program Office in the SCDHS will continue its role as the
data repository and data management agency. The Peconic Estuary Program is committed to reviewing the Peconic
Estuary Program Data Management Strategv as part of the Post-CCMP Implementation Report.
APPENDIX I
I-3
afa" . Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
F
The Peconic Estuary Program intends to develop a real-time,web-based accountability system that will house •
information related to the CCMP goals and actions. Reports, newspaper articles, photographs and monitoring data
will be available through the internet and in hard copy form. Monitoring data will be posted directly via links to a
database. The intent of the accountability system is that all PEP-related information will be web-accessible.
CCMP and NEP Requirements
Consistent with EPA guidance,each of the individual elements of this Environmental Monitoring Plan includes the
following:
• Proeram Objective(s): Program objectives are defined and performance criteria are specified (i.e.,
parameter needed to guide management decisions).
• Lead Entitv: The lead entity is named or proposed.
• Program Status: Program status describes whether the program is existing,existing but there are
recommended expansions, or is new.
• Monitoring Extent and Frequency: The geographical extent of the monitoring and sampling frequency
is described.
• Monitoring Hypotheses: Testable hypotheses are provided.
• Measurable Goal: The Peconic Estuary Program measurable goal (or goals)related to the monitoring
program element is specified.
• Proeram Description: Summary information addressing the particular monitoring program is included. •
In many cases, especially where there are existing programs, reference is made to an acceptable
sampling and quality assurance/quality control project plan. Those who are interested in the details and
specifics of a particular program are encouraged to consult these existing documents. For monitoring
programs that do not exist at the current time,but are recommended in this monitoring plan, complete
information for all these factors has likely not yet been specified, but will be prior to the initiation of
any environmental monitoring effort.
• Costs: Information on costs, including estimates of current efforts and estimates for proposed new or
expanded efforts is provided.
The program descriptions and the referenced sampling and quality assurance/quality control project plans together
include the following,where this information is available:
• Specification of monitoring variables, including sampling locations and frequency, field sampling-
locations,
amplinglocations, field and laboratory analytical procedures,quality assurance and control procedures.
• Specification of the data management system and statistical test that will be used to analyze the
monitoring data.
• Description of the expected performance of the initial sampling design (i.e.,the minimum difference
that can be detected in measured variables over time and between locations).
• Provision of a timetable for analyzing data and assessing program performance.
Finally, information on costs is specified. If the monitoring activity is part of an existing or ongoing base program
of an agency or organization, a cost is typically not specified. If it is a recommendation for a new or expansion of
an existing monitoring program, to the extent possible,the cost has been estimated for planning purposes. These
cost estimates will be the basis for securing additional funds. Potential sources of funding include agency or
organization base programs, special funding sources(i.e.,the Suffolk County 1/4 percent Sales Tax Program.
receipts from selective sales fees, special project grants through governmental and non-governments sources).
APPENDIX I
I-4
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
i
Core Monitoring Workplan Elements
Brown Tide Issues
- Brown Tide
Nutrients Issues
-Nutrients
- Dissolved Oxygen
-Light Extinction
-Groundwater
-Point Sources
- Land Use
Habitat and Living Resources Issues
- Eelgrass
-Finfish and Macroinvertebrates
- Wetlands
- Shoreline Hardening
- Piping Plovers. Shorebirds, Raptors,and Other Birds
- Dredging
- Restoration
• Bay Scallops
Aquaculture and Transplanting Activities
Pathozens Issues
- Coliform Bacteria
-Pfiesteria and Alexandrium
-Vessel Waste No Discharge Areas
Toxics Issues
- Sediment
- Coastal 2000
- Biota(Fish, Shellfish, and Crustaceans)
-NOAA Mussel Watch Program
- Surface Water
- Groundwater
- Hazardous Waste Sites
- Point Source Discharges
-Federal Toxics Release Inventory
- Pesticide Use
- Two Stroke Marine Engines
- Underground Storage Tanks
-Treated Lumber in the Marine Environment
The technical report Research. .Vonuoring&Assessment Priorities for Habitat and Living Resources of the
Peconic Estuary(Peconic Estuary Program, 2000)recommends additional monitoring activities for consideration in
the future.
APPENDIX ]
I-5
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
S��
Measurable Goals •
For each priority management topic,the PEP has developed measurable goals. In many cases,these measurable
goals are first order estimates based on best available information and on management conference judgment. Each
measurable goal in the final CCMP is linked to one or more of the actions in the final CCMP. Each element of the
Environmental Monitoring Plan is also linked to one or more of the measurable goals. The relationship between a
monitoring program element(and the parameters contained therein) and a CCMP measurable goal is the basis for
its inclusion in this Environmental Monitoring Plan. However,not all measurable goals are linked to the
environmental monitoring plan elements as some measurable goals are related to programmatic concerns.
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).
• 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.
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/l (based on 1994-96 model verification conditions, and measured by surface water nitrogen
concentrations as compared to the PEP nitrogen guidelines).
• Improve the dissolved oxygen concentrations in the western estuary to ensure that the New York State
dissolved oxygen standard(currently 5.0 mg/1) is not violated (measured by surface and bottom
dissolved oxygen levels as compared to the New York State dissolved oxygen standard).
• Ensure that the total nitrogen levels in shallow waters remain at or below 0.4 mg/l 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 ±0.05 m-1)
• Ensure that the existing total nitrogen and dissolved oxygen levels are maintained or improved in
waters east of Flanders Bay(Le., 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).
• 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.
• 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).
APPENDIX I
I-6
Peconic Estuary Program CC.WP
• 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/recharae), implementing
fertilizer and clearing restrictions, and zoning.
• Continue sponsoring and coordinating research and information gathering(measured by funding
appropriated, and research conducted, relative to PEP recommendations).
• Continue and expand open space acquisition programs (measured by funding appropriated and acres
acquired in target areas).
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).
• 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).
• 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).
• 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).
• 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).
• 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).
• 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).
• Foster sustainable recreational and commercial finfish and shellfish uses of the Peconic Estuary that are
compatible with biodiversity protection (measured byjuvenile finfish trawl surveys, bay scallop
landings, and identifying, protecting, and restoring key shellfish and finfish habitat).
• Enhance the shellfish resources available to harvesting through reseeding, creation of spawning
sanctuaries and habitat enhancement(measured by scallop and clam abundance/landings).
• 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).
APPENDIX I
1-7
�ca "'+q, Peconic Estuary Program CCVP
z s
• 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).
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).
• 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).
• 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).
• 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).
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(as measured by surface
water, groundwater, sediment and biota monitoring programs).
• 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).
• Decrease overall emissions of reportable toxics from the five East End towns (as measured by the
Federal Toxics Release Imentory).
• 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).
• 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).
• 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]).
• 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).
• 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).
APPENDIX 1
I-8
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP °O""
• Reduce the number of two stroke marine engines in use in the estuary (as potentially measured by
harbormaster conducted surveys).
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).
• 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).
• 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).
• 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).
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 '/4% Sales Tax Program;
- Town Governments; and
- Village Governments.
(as measured by the Peconic Estuary Program Office).
• 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).
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 annual 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]
APPENDIX I
I-9
b+a`, Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
41.4 1
Brown Tide Issues •
Brown Tide Monitorine
Program Objective
To track the changes in abundance and distribution of the Brown Tide organism in the estuary and relate the
changes to conventional water quality parameters (e.g., dissolved organic and dissolved inorganic nutrients)as well
as provide support to Brown Tide researchers. Monitoring coupled with research may further elucidate the
processes involved with these phenomena.
Monitoring Hypothesis
Incidences of Brown Tide blooms (duration and extent) are decreasing, most likely in response to changes resulting
from some combination of the following factors: the implementation of point and nonpoint source management
practices; meteorological conditions; or ecological changes.
CCMP Measurable Goal
Continue the current level of water quality sampling in the Peconic Estuary.
Lead Entity
Suffolk County Department of Health Services;New York Sea Grant is the lead for Brown Tide Research Initiative
projects.
Program Status
Brown Tide monitoring is part of an existing program of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services.
Existing Brown Tide Research Initiative Projects will be completed in 2002-03.
Monitoring Extent and Frequency
Suffolk County Department of Health Services monitors estuary wide and year round(weekly or biweekly)for
Brown Tide cell counts and related water quality parameters. Monitoring under Brown Tide Research Initiative
projects is in accordance with approved workplans.
Program Description
Brown tide was first detected in the Peconic Estuary in June of 1985. The Brown Tide organism,Aureococcus
anophagefferens, is a particularly small phytoplankton species and is only problematic under`bloom"conditions.
Brown tide can persist for unusually long periods of time over large areas and has no predictable onset, duration, or
cessation. Brown tide has recurred since 1985 and has had a serious impact on natural resources,the local
economy,the general aesthetic value of the estuary, and possibly regional tourism. Brown Tide cell counts are
included as part of the monitoring programs described below. See Figure 3 for areas of Brown Tide occurrence on
Long Island.
SCDHS Surface Water Quality Monitoring: In 1988 the Suffolk County Department of Health Services(SCDHS)
Office of Ecology expanded its monitoring operations in an effort to determine the cause of Brown Tide(see Figure
4 for Post-CCMP monitoring stations). While 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), served
as the initial Brown Tide characterization for the Peconic Estuary Program.
Brown Tide cell counts are now part of the regular SCDHS surface water quality monitoring protocol. Refer to the
SCDHS Surface Water Quality Monitoring section in the Nutrient Monitoring Workplan for more information and
other parameters sampled by the SCDHS. The SCDHS Surface Water Quality Monitoring Standard Operating
Procedure(SCDHS,2000)and the Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Peconic Estuary Program Surface is
APPENDIXI
I-10
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
Water Monitoring Program(SCDHS, 1994)describe the standard operating procedures and the QAIQC methods
for the entire SCDHS Surface Water Quality Monitoring Program,which includes Brown Tide cell counts..
Brown Tide Research Initiative(BTRI)Committee: The Brown Tide Research Initiative(BTRI)Committee,
chaired by the New York Sea Grant, follows the research and monitoring funded primarily through the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Coastal Ocean Program and Suffolk County. The BTRI program was
developed to increase knowledge concerning Brown Tide by identifying the factors and understanding the
processes that stimulate and sustain Brown Tide blooms. The Peconic Estuary Program is part of the BTRI
Committee. The Initiative is composed of peer-reviewed research projects that were selected from two national
calls for projects. Brown tide research and characterizations are systematically updated through New York Sea
Grant's Brown Tide Research Initiative Reports.
Brown Tide Steering Committee(BTSC): The Brown Tide Steering Committee(BTSC)was formed to broadly
coordinate Brown Tide research efforts both inside and outside New York through the development of a
comprehensive Brown Tide research and management plan or Brown Tide Workplan (see Appendix F for the most
recent Workplan). The BTSC includes representatives from various agencies and environmental groups as well as
elected officials, commercial fisherman, and other interested parties. The Committee is coordinated by Suffolk
County.
Costs
Base Programs: Continued research and monitoring depends on continued funding. The SCDHS Surface Water
Monitoring Program, along with the SCDHS Routine Point Source Monitoring Program, is funded in part by
• $20,000 in Post-CCMP EPA funds awarded to SCDHS and by in-kind match from Suffolk County,a minimum
grant commitment of$120,000 per year to satisfy the EPA local match requirements. As with prior years, the costs
for the monitoring program are likely substantially higher than the EPA grant.
Brown tide research is currently funded through many specially funded government grants. NOAA, through its
Coastal Ocean Program, is providing Brown Tide research funding totaling $3.0 million over six years(funding
started in 1997). Between 1997 and 2000, Suffolk County has appropriated $583.000 to support Brown Tide
monitoring and investigation efforts. Suffolk County has authorized $150,000 each year for the next three years
(2001-2003)from the capital budget for more Brown Tide research and monitoring.
APPENDIX I
I-11
410`1 , Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
Nutrients Issues •
Nutrients Monitorin¢
Program Objective
To track the long-term trends in nutrient loading and the short-term variations in nutrient concentrations in relation
to the PEP nitrogen guidelines(based on 1994-96 conditions)and to refine the guidelines as needed. This will
support our review of the effectiveness of the CCMP actions in attaining dissolved oxygen standards.
Monitoring Hypothesis
Nutrient levels(as measured by various forms of nitrogen)are decreasing in areas of the Peconic Estuary, where
nutrient guidelines have been exceeded and being maintained where they are currently achieved, in response to the
implementation of point and nonpoint source management practices.
CCMP Measurable Goals
Decrease the total nitrogen concentrations in the western estuary to a summer mean of no more than 0.45 mg/l;
Ensure that the existing summer mean total nitrogen levels are maintained or improved in waters east of Flanders
Bay; Ensure that the summer mean total nitrogen levels in shallow waters remain at or below 0.4 mg/l.
Lead Entity
Suffolk County Department of Health Services.
Program Status
Nutrient monitoring is part of an existing program of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services.
Monitoring Extent and Frequency
Suffolk County Department of Health Services monitors estuary wide(32 stations)and year round (biweekly) for
nutrients and related water quality parameters.
Program Description
Nitrogen is the nutrient of primary concern in the Peconic Estuary although the surface water quality conditions
with respect to nitrogen levels are generally good. In the summer months,when environmental stresses are at their
peak, nitrogen is the `limiting nutrient'for algal growth. Excessive nitrogen inputs stimulate algal growth, which
may cause diurnal dissolved oxygen problems. Excessive nitrogen inputs may also harm eelgrass,a critical habitat,
due to algal shading, stimulation of epiphytes,and, possibly, direct adverse metabolic impacts. In addition,
increased nitrogen levels may affect the duration and/or intensity of a Brown Tide bloom.
SCDHS Surface Water Oualitv Monitoring: The Suffolk County Department of Health Services(SCDHS) Office
of Ecology samples for a suite of nitrogen components(NH3,NOx,NO2,NO3, Urea,TKN, and TDKN) in the
Peconic Estuary. Other parameters sampled by the SCDHS include Secchi depth,Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen,
Salinity, Total Coliforms, Fecal Coliforms, TP04,TDP04, O-PO4, TOC, DOC, SiO3,TSS, Total Ch1-a,
Fractionated Chl-a,Aureococcus,Ambient Irradiance,depth at 20%of Ambient Irradiance, depth at 10% of
Ambient Irradiance, and depth at 1% of Ambient Irradiance. While limited sampling began in 1976,the number of
stations and samples taken in the Peconics has increased through the years. Currently, the SCDHS conducts
biweekly monitoring at 32 stations throuehout the year.
The Post-CCMP Surface Water and Point Source Monitoring Plan(SCDHS, 1999) further describes the post-
CCMP efforts of the SCDHS in the Peconics. As indicated in the Post-CCMP Surface Water and Point Source
Monitoring Plan,this program continues to adhere to the Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Peconic Estuary Is
Program Surface Water Monitoring Program(SCDHS, 1994), on file at SCDHS. The SCDHS Surface Water
APPENDIX I
I-12
Peconic Estuary Program CC;NP s a�N
r
Quality Monitoring Standard Operating Procedure(SCDHS, 2000) document describes the standard operating
procedures for the entire SCDHS Surface Water Quality Monitoring Program.
Costs
Base Programs: Information on costs for the Suffolk County Department of Health Services Surface Water Quality
Monitoring Program is included under Brown Tide Issues in this document.
Dissolved Oxvaen !Monitoring
Program Objective
To track the long-term trends and the short-term variations in dissolved oxygen concentrations in relation to the
New York State dissolved oxygen standard.
Monitoring Hypothesis
Dissolved oxygen levels in the Peconic Estuary are improving in response to the implementation of point and
nonpoint source nutrient management practices.
CCMP Measurable Goals
Ensure that the New York State dissolved oxygen standard (currently 5.0 mg/1) is not violated in the estuary;
Ensure that the existing dissolved oxygen levels are maintained or improved in waters east of Flanders Bay where
dissolved oxygen levels are currently better than standards require.
Lead Entity
Suffolk County Department of Health Services.
Program Status
Dissolved oxygen monitoring is part of an existing program of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services.
Monitoring Extent and Frequency
Suffolk County Department of Health Services monitors estuary wide(32 stations) and year round (biweekly)for
dissolved oxygen and related water quality parameters.
Program Description
Dissolved oxygen conditions in the Peconics are generally excellent although diurnal dissolved oxygen variations
are a primary water quality management issue. The Peconic Estuary is a relatively shallow, well-mixed estuary and
as such is not subject to periods of severe dissolved oxygen depression, as can occur in deeper, more stratified
estuaries like the Long Island Sound. Areas with limited flushing and/or highly organic sediments exhibit bottom
water, and sometimes surface water values below 5 mg/I (see Figure 5).
SCDHS Surface Water Quality Monitoring: The SCDHS Office of Ecology has been recording dissolved oxygen
levels, along with other water parameters, at numerous stations in the Peconic Estuary since 1976. With the help of
the Peconic Estuary Program the number of stations and samples taken has increased through the years. Some
stations that historically have had low dissolved oxygen measurements are sampled in the morning and afternoon.
The Office of Ecology has also done intensive dissolved oxygen surveys(sampling every two hours for 24 hours)
•
APPENDIX I
I-13
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
s
in Flanders Bay, Meetinghouse Creek, and the Peconic River. The Post-CCMP Surface Water and Point Source •
Monitoring Plan(SCDHS, 1999)further describes the efforts of the SCDHS in the Peconics.
Costs
Base Program: Information on costs for the Suffolk County Department of Health Services Surface Water Quality
Monitoring Program is included under Brown Tide Issues in this document.
Light Extinction Monitoring
Program Objective
To track the long-term trends and short-term variations in water clarity in relation to the PEP recommended
eelgrass habitat optimization goal. By improving water clarity, eelgrass habitat and growth will be optimized(see
eelgrass monitoring section).
Monitoring Hypothesis
Water clarity, as measured by light extinction, is improving in the Peconic Estuary, in areas where goals are not
being attained and maintained in areas where criteria are being attained, in response to the implementation of point
and nonpoint source management practices.
CCMP Measurable Goal
Maintain and potentially improve water clarity conditions for eelgrass beds, a critical habitat in shallow waters.
The PEP-recommended eelgrass habitat optimization goal is a light extinction coefficient(Kd)of 0.75 +/- 0.05 m-1.
Lead Entity
Suffolk County Department of Health Services.
Program Status
Light extinction monitoring is part of an existing program of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services.
Monitoring Extent and Frequency
Suffolk County Department of Health Services monitors estuary wide (32 stations)and year round(biweekly) for
light extinction and related water quality parameters. Detailed long term investigations are taking place at three
eelgrass beds in the estuary.
Program Description
The single most important factor controlling the distribution of submerged aquatic vegetation, light attenuation, is
partially linked to the amount of nutrient loading in a waterbody. The average summer light extinction coefficients
for the non-Brown tide years 1994and 1996 are shown in Figure 6. High nutrient loading in the shallow waters of
the estuary may stimulate algal blooms, decreasing the light penetrating into the water column and consequently
hindering eelgrass' ability to photosynthesize. Rooted aquatic plants 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.
SCDHS Surface Water Quality Monitoring: The SCDHS Office of Ecology has an extensive monitoring program in
the Peconics, measuring light extinction and chlorophyll-a, among other parameters. The Post-CCMP Surface
Water and Point Source Monitoring Plan(SCDHS, 1999)further describes the efforts of the SCDHS in the
Peconics.
APPENDIX I
I-14
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP 4
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Long Term Monitoring Program: First initiated in 1997, three existing SAV beds
were monitored to determine the annual and lona term variations in eelgrass bed health and the cause of those
variations. In 1999,the project was expanded to include three more locations. Monitoring of each site includes the
following measures: depth and position of deeper edge of the eelgrass bed, biomass, shoot density, infauna,
epifauna, light extinction, chlorophyll-a,total suspended solids, dissolved inorganic nitrogen, and dissolved
inorganic phosphorus, among others.
In 2000,the program will include a system-wide survey based on aerial photographs and site visits. These data will
be compared against the 1994 Cashin Associates report,Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study to determine trends
taking place in the estuary.
Costs
Base Program: Information on costs for the Suffolk County Department of Health Services Surface Water Quality
Monitoring Program is included under the Brown Tide Issues in this document.
Information on the Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Long Term Monitoring Project is included in the Eelgrass
Monitoring section of this document.
Groundwater Monitoring
Program Objective
To track the longterm trends and short-term variations in groundwater contaminants and better define the zones of
groundwater input.
Monitoring Hypothesis
Nutrient levels in the groundwater of the Peconic Estuary Study Area is decreasing to natural background levels in
response to the implementation of point and nonpoint source management practices.
CCMP Measurable Goals
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, implementing fertilizer and clearing restrictions,and zoning.
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).
Lead Entity
Suffolk County Department of Health Services.
Program Status
Groundwater nutrient monitoring is part of an existing program of the Suffolk County Department of Health
APPENDIX I
I-15
Peconic Estuary Program CGYIP
c
Services; special projects have been completed in specific areas of concern. •
Monitoring Extent and Frequency
Suffolk County maintains a network of wells throughout the study that are sampled year round area to monitor the
quality (and quantity)of the groundwater supply, and conduct studies and investigations of the county's hydrology.
Program Description
Groundwater is one of the largest external sources of nitrogen to the estuary, contributing approximately 7,560
pounds per day or about 21%of the total nitrogen load.
The nitrogen in the groundwater originates from fertilizer use, sanitary system waste and other sources. Dominant
sources of total nitrogen to the estuary are agriculture(41%of TN loading)and residential development(40%of
TN loading)(SCDHS, 1999). Industrial and commercial uses contribute less than 10% of the total nitrogen load to
the estuary.
Nitrogen from synthetic fertilizer, applied as nitrate, ammonium salt or urea,may be the most important source of
nitrate in the groundwater. Ammonium oxidizes to nitrate in the soil. Nitrate is leached to the groundwater supply
through the sandy soils by the recharge of precipitation and by crop irrigation water.
Nitrate contamination in drinking water is a serious concern. The SCDHS tested 45,985 private wells from 1972 to
1994 and 7.4%of the wells exceeded the nitrate Maximum Contaminant Level(MCL)(SCDHS, 1996). The
USEPA and New York State drinking water MCL for nitrate is 10.0 mg/l.
The SCDHS Bureau of Groundwater Resources selected ten wells in the county monitoring network to examine the
effect of agriculture on groundwater quality from 1975 to 1994(SCDHS, 1996). For the 20 year period,the
average annual nitrate concentration for all ten wells was 11.3 mg/I. with an annual average range of 9.2 mg/I in
1982 to a maximum of 13.7 mg/I in 1988. A monitoring well in Southold contained the highest average nitrate
concentration over the 20 year period(15.3 mg/1) and also the highest individual sample concentration detected
(33.0 mg/I in 1990). Nitrate concentrations from a more recent study by the SCDHS, Water Quality Monitoring
Program to Detect Pesticide Contamination in Groundwaters of Nassau and Suffolk Counties. AT(1999) are
consistent with these 1996 study figures.
The SCDHS has also monitored groundwater for impacts from pesticide and fertilizer use on golf courses (SCDHS,
1999). A total of 41 samples were collected from 31 wells at 18 separate golf courses. Nitrate concentrations in the
Suffolk County golf course wells averaged 4.3 mg/l with a median concentration of 2.6 mg/l. The SCDHS has
done a follow-up study this year with an expanded list of analytes and with new monitoring wells at five more
courses in the county, including Shinnecock,National, and Maidstone.
The United States Geological Survey(USGS)has delineated the groundwater-contributing areas,as well as
preliminary sub-boundaries for the main bays system. The USGS further characterized the Peconic River and
Flanders Bay subwatersheds in 1999 by defining the sub-sediment geology through seismic reflections. The
Cornell Cooperative Extension together with the SCDHS developed an ultrasonic low flowmeter for use in Flanders
Bay and West Neck Bay. The flowmeter data will be used to determine the quality,quantity and location of
groundwater discharging into the estuary.
SCDHS Groundwater Monitorins: The SCDHS Bureau of Groundwater Resources maintains a network of wells
throughout the county to monitor the quality and quantity of the groundwater supply, and conduct studies and
investigations of the county's hydrology. The Bureau will continue to produce groundwater measurement reports.
The Peconic Estuary Program will in turn review the trends and modify the CCMP actions and steps accordingly.
See Figure 7 for the groundwater quality delineations in the Peconic Estuary study area.
APPENDIX I
I-16
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
Suffolk County Groundwater Model (Contractor Camp, Dresser,and McKeel: A groundwater model is being
developed for all of Suffolk County. The model will provide additional information on the groundwater flow paths
and travel times in the Peconic watershed.
Costs
Base Program: The NYSDEC has been funding the SCDHS (pesticide)groundwater monitoring program for three
years at about $100,000 per year. The NYSDEC recently agreed to a three-year one million-dollar contract with
the SCDHS to expand the monitoring program, but funding is based on approval of an annual work plan. This
work takes place throughout Suffolk County, notjust in the Peconic Region.
Point Source Monitoring
Program Objective
To track the short term and long term variations in point source nutrient loadings into the Peconic Estuary.
Monitoring Hypothesis
Total nutrient loadings to the Peconic Estuary from point sources are at a minimum being maintained, consistent
• with the PEP"no net increase" policy of surface water point source discharges.
CCMP Measurable Goal
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).
Lead Entity
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Program Status
Point source discharge monitoring requirements and the Suffolk County Department of Health Services point
source monitoring programs are existing program_
Monitoring Extent and Frequency
Point source dischargers are required to monitor effluent quality in their state-issued discharge permit,typically
monthly monitoring is required. The Suffolk County Department of Health Services monitors ten routine point
source influenced locations in the estuary during the year.
Program Description
Point sources are minor nitrogen sources in the whole estuary, but may still be significant for water quality in
specific embayments. There are four major sewage treatment plants(STP) in the Peconic region: Brookhaven
National Lab,Riverhead, Sag Harbor,and Shelter Island Heights. The Brookhaven National Laboratory STP is
APPENDIX I
1-17
.4 `ya. Peconic Estuary Program CCYIP
c
assumed to be subsumed into the Peconic River baseline flow and loading. Operation of the Riverhead STP •
"avoids"43 pounds of residential total nitrogen loading into the estuary each day(i.e., groundwater TN load would
have occurred, but for the STP collecting and treating the sanitary waste that would have been generated in the
absence of a sewage treatment plant). The remainder of the Riverhead STP loading(roughly 100 lbs/day) is
assumed to be "imported"sanitary waste TN loads to surface waters, mainly from commercial and institutional
activity served by the facility(SCDHS, 1999). The discharges from the Sag Harbor and Shelter Island Heights
STPs are much less than 1% of the total nitrogen loadings in the eastern estuary(SCDHS, 1999).
Major sewage treatment plant upgrades at Riverhead and Sag Harbor are being funded, in large part, by New York
State. The upgrades at the Riverhead STP include building a 1.4 million gallons per day advanced wastewater
treatment facility utilizing Sequencing Batch Reactor technology, including ultraviolet light disinfection. The
Village of Sag Harbor has received NYS Bond Act funding to upgrade their STP to a denitrification system.
SCDHS Routine Point Source Monitorina: The SCDHS Office of Ecology monitors ten routine point source
influenced locations including sites in the Peconic River,Meetinghouse Creek, Crescent Duck Farm,Fish Cove and
the local sewage treatment plants on a monthly basis. To minimize the effects from the adjacent saltwater portion
of Meetinghouse Creek,the two Corwin Duck Farm sites are sampled as close as possible to low tide.
New York State Pollutant Discharze Elimination Svstem (SPDES) Program: The SPDES program is administered
by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Permits are written to ensure that point source
discharges do not cause or contribute to the violation of ambient water quality standards. There are eight permitted
surface water dischargers in the Peconic Estuary System: Brookhaven National Lab,Navy Weapons Industrial
Reserve Plant at Calverton, Riverhead Foundation Aquarium, Bayview Ventures,the Plum Island Animal Disease
Center and the sewage treatment plants at Riverhead, Sag Harbor, and Shelter Island Heights. Each facility is •
required to monitor their effluents for a suite of parameters and report to the NYSDEC. The NYSDEC is
responsible for reviewing the data and enforcing the permit.
Costs
Base Programs: Funding for the SCDHS Routine Point Source Monitoring Program in the Peconic Estuary was
calculated along with the SCDHS Surface Water Quality Monitoring Program. Information on costs for the Suffolk
County Department of Health Services Surface Water Quality Monitoring Program is included under Brown Tide
Issues in this document.
Land Use Monitoring
Note: This monitoring program element does not include direct environmental measurements.
Program Objective
To track the short-term and Ion,--term trends in land uses in the Peconic watershed.
Monitoring Hypothesis
The total amount of protected open space in the Peconic Estuary Program Study Area is increasing due to
acquisition programs and other land protection measures.
CCMP Measurable Goals
Continue and expand open space acquisition programs; 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, implementing
fertilizer and clearing restrictions, and zoning.
APPENDIX I
1-18
Peconic Estuary Program CCrY/P : g
Lead Entity
Suffolk County Department of Planning.
Program Status
Land use monitoring for the study areas is part of an existing program of the Suffolk County Department of
Planning that was initiated with the Peconic Estuary Program.
Monitoring Extent and Frequency
Land uses(and other related information such as zoning and ownership)at a tax map scale have been determined
for the entire Peconic Estuary Program Study, including both upland areas and underwater lands. The SCPD will
be developing a strategy for updating the GIS land use and zoning databases.
Program Description
Land protection programs and other regulatory and non-regulatory land planning efforts are critical to nitrogen
management. Forty percent of the Peconic watershed was available for development in 1995 (SCPD, 1997). If
open space programs were not implemented and all 40%were developed at low density residential land uses,the
current nitrogen loads to the western estuary, South Fork, and Shelter Island would more than double, as compared
with existing conditions(SCDHS, 1999).
Suffolk Countv Plannine Department(SCPD)Land Use Monitoring: The SCPD established an accurate
Geographic Information System (GIS) database for existing land uses at a tax map scale for the Towns of
Riverhead, Southold, Shelter Island. Southampton, East Hampton, and the Peconic River corridor in the Town of
Brookhaven (SCPD, 1997). The SCPD also has a verified GIS database for existing zoning in this same region.
With these databases,the Department is able to quantify the land use acreage by general categories,byjurisdiction
and by watershed zone. The thirteen general categories of land use include low density residential, medium density
residential, high density residential, commercial, industrial,recreation and open space, and vacant, among others.
As a follow-up to the report Peconic Estuary Program Existing Land Use Inventory(SCPD, 1997)detailing the
existing land uses in eastern Suffolk County in 1995,the SCPD is in the final stages of preparing the report 1999
Existing Land Use Inventor,- Eastern Suffolk County.
The SCPD will develop a strategy for updating the GIS land use and zoning databases,to be included in the first
post-CCMP report. The update and maintenance of the GIS databases will require coordination of activities among
the Suffolk County Planning Department, Suffolk County Real Property Tax Service Azency(SCRPTSA), town
tax assessors and town planners. Current land uses will be compared to the PEP Existing Land Use Inventory
(SCPD, 1997)to determine the rate of converting vacant or agriculture land to developed uses. Methods may
include tax assessor codes, aerial photographs, building permits, and site inspections.
Other Programs: Several other programs will be addressed in the annual post-CCMP report including open space
and farmland preservation. Harbor Protection Overlay Districts(HPODs)/local ordinances, and clearing
restrictions.
Costs
Base Programs: Land use monitoring will be funded through base programs.
APPENDIX 1
1-19
Peconic Estuary Program MMP
Habitat and Living Resource Issues
Eelgrass Monitoring
Program Objective
To monitor the abundance and quality of eelgrass beds in the estuary.
Monitoring Hypothesis
Eelgrass bed abundance(and aerial coverage) is increasing and health (as measured by density, growth, epiphyte
coverage,and other ecological measurements) is improving in the Peconic Estuary due to the implementation of
point and nonpoint source controls and management practices.
CCMP Measurable Goals
Maintain current eelgrass acreage (2,100 acres in main stem of the estuary); Increase eelgrass acreage by 10%over
10 years.
Lead Entity
Come]] Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County
Program Status
The Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Long Term Monitoring Project is an existing program. Aerial photo analyses
of eelgrass coverage estuary-wide was performed in 2000. It is recommended that aerial photo analyses of eelgrass
coverage be repeated periodically,at an interval to be determined
Monitoring Extent and Frequency
The Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Long Term Monitoring Project involves intensive investigations at a limited
number of sites (presently six) in the estuary. Aerial photo analyses of eelgrass coverage estuary-wide was
performed in 2000. It is recommended that aerial photo analyses of eelgrass coverage be repeated periodically, at
an interval to be determined (perhaps every three years).
Program Description
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Loner Term Monitoring Project: In 1997, Cornell Cooperative Extension's Marine
Program began SAV monitoring at three sites in the Peconic Estuary: Orient Harbor, Town of Southold;Northwest
Harbor, Town of East Hampton; and Bullhead Bay, Town of Southampton. A minimum of three stations was
sampled per site for SAV, sediment analysis, and water quality analysis. SAV measurements include: species
composition, dry weight biomass of algae and eelgrass, depth and position of deep edge of eelgrass bed, shoot
density, presence and dry weight biomass of epiphytes, and presence of wasting disease. Each site was sampled
twice a year. Cornell Cooperative Extension uses water quality data from the SCDHS surface water quality
monitoring program. These data consist of the following parameters: chlorophyll-a,total suspended solids,
dissolved inorganic nitrogen, dissolved inorganic phosphorus, and light attenuation(for further information see:
Nutrients monitoring section). In addition, water temperature, salinity, and light measurements at the surface and at
one meter increments are taken at the time of SAV sampling. Sediment measurements include grain size and
percent organic matter.
In response to external scientific peer-review, the monitoring program was revised (1998 sampling)as follows:
SAV sampling was performed annually during the summer,the number of samples collected per site was increased
to 12, and sediment sampling will be repeated every five years for each site. In 1999, Comell Cooperative
Extension expanded its monitoring program to include three additional sites in Gardiners Bay,Town of Shelter
Island; Three Mile Harbor, Town of East Hampton; and Southold Bay, Town of Southold. Furthermore,
underwater video of each site was also taken in 1998 and 1999. In 2000,the sampling plan was further refined to
APPENDIX I
1-20
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP o'°""N
improve statistical replication and reduce any potential impacts of the sampling methods to the extant eelgrass beds.
Within each of the six monitoring sites, six stations were sampled. At each station, eelgrass stem density counts
were performed for six quadrats. Plants sampled from an additional four quadrats were cut to determine eelgrass
shoot and algal biomass, epiphytes,wasting disease,and stem density. This sampling protocol results in a total of
60 samples of eelgrass stem density, and 24 samples of shoot and algal biomass per monitoring site. Furthermore,
the eelgrass roots are left intact to allow for regrowth. Aerial photo analyses of the eelgrass coverage estuary-wide
are being performed in 2000 in cooperation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Aerial photos will provide a
more extensive view of existing eelgrass beds and provide estimates of percent cover.
See Dumais and Smith(1997)for further details on the data analysis and quality control and quality assurance of
this project.
Costs
Base Program: The Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Long Term Monitoring Project is funded at approximately
$71,000 per year. Approximately $50,000 was provided from EPA Post-CCMP funds awarded to SCDHS. The
remainder is provided by in-kind matching funds from Cornell Cooperative Extension.
New Costs: External funding for future annual sampling has been estimated at approximately$30,000. A source of
funding to carry out this work has not yet been identified.
Finfish and Macroinverteb rate Monitoring
Program Objective
To determine the temporal and spatial distribution, abundance,and different life stage habitat requirements of
finfish and macroinvertebrate species throughout the Peconic Estuary.
Monitoring Hypothesis
Finfish and macroinvertebrate abundance,diversity, distribution and health are improving due to the
implementation of harvesting regulations and habitat protection.
CCMP Measurable Goals
Identify the important and sensitive recruitment and spawning areas of targeted finfish and macroinvertebrates;
Increase the abundance of finfish species through protection of their habitats, food sources and restoration of
degraded spawning and recruitment areas.
Lead Entity
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Program Status
Existing Program west of Shelter Island; recommended expansion of program to areas east of Shelter Island.
Monitoring Extent and Frequency
NYSDEC has run an annual monitoring survey ofjuvenile finfish west of Shelter Island since 1987. Sampling is
performed on a block grid design superimposed over the Peconic Estuary (77 sampling blocks). Sixteen stations
are randomly selected each week and sampled with an otter trawl during daylight hours.
s
APPENDIX 1
I-21
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
Program Description
The CCMP recommends monitoring of finfish and macroinvertebrate species through: (1)habitat utilization
mapping(subtidal habitats including SAV beds), (2) seine surveys,and (3)trawl surveys to develop a species
occurrence list throughout their life cycle and identify sensitive recruitment and spawning areas.
NYSDEC Juvenile Finfish Survev: While there are currently no monitoring efforts in the Peconics for the adult
finfish,the NYSDEC runs an annual monitoring survey ofjuvenile finfish west of Shelter Island since 1987.
Sampling is performed on a block grid design superimposed over the Peconic Estuary(77 sampling blocks).
Sixteen stations are randomly selected each week and sampled with an otter trawl during daylight hours. The
original intent of the surveys was to develop an annual index of recruitment of juvenile weakfish and examine the
relationship between parental stock size and environmental factors(water temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen
and secchi disc)on year class strength for weakfish (Cynoscion regalis). Data collection was later expanded to
derive similar information on several other finfish species including winter flounder(Pleuronectes americanus),
scup(Stenotomus chrysops), bluefish(Pomatomus saltatrix),tautog(Tautoga onitis),butterfish(Peprilus
triacanthus),and northern puffer(Sphoeroides maculatus). The surveys also provide important data on more than
70 other species of finfish and crustacea. In the 1998 report, "Species Composition, Seasonal Occurrence and
Relative Abundance of Finfish and Macroinvertebrates Taken by Small-Mesh Otter Trawl in Peconic Bay,New
York"(Weber et at),nine years of data are compiled and evaluated.
While the NYSDEC's survey is extensive, it should be expanded to the east of Shelter Island. This information is
essential to better understand the significance of the Peconics to important finfish and invertebrate species.
Additional efforts should focus on resident species such as winter flounder,tautog, as well as transient species such
as alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), weakfish, scup,windowpane flounder(Scopthalmus aquosus), summer
flounder(Paralichthys dentatus),northern puffer, butterfish, etc. Data on invertebrate species vulnerable to these
gear types such as squid, horseshoe crabs, lady, blue, and green crabs, mantis shrimp, whelk, etc. should also be
reported. For information on the trend analyses and QA/QC, see Weber et at. (1998). Ideally,trawl data should be
entered into a geographic information system (GIS)to analyze spatial aspects of the data and to enable comparisons
with habitat maps. Multivariate statistical analyses linking water quality and finfish data should also be performed.
Benthic Macroinvertabrate Survey: A program should be established to regularly conduct surveys of benthic
macroinvertebrates(abundance, distribution, and diversity) in the Peconic Estuary.
Costs
Base Program: The NYSDEC Peconic Ba} Trawl Survey is annually funded by the Wallop-Breaux Sport Fish
Restoration Program.
New Costs: Analysis and GIS mapping of the Peconic Bay Trawl Survey data would require an additional $45,000
annually. Expansion of the trawl survey East of Shelter Island has been estimated at approximately$500,000 and
an additional $100,000 would be needed annually for staff. Costs for annual benthic macroinvertebrate sampling
have not been determined.
Wetlands Monitoring
Program Objective
To monitor the abundance, distribution. diversity and quality of fresh and salt water wetlands in the Peconic
Estuary.
Monitoring Hypothesis
Wetlands in the Peconic Estuary are increasing in abundance and distribution in response to the implementation of
management and restoration programs.
APPENDIX I
I-22
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP gs�"
CCMP Measurable Goals
Maintain and increase current tidal and freshwater marsh acreage; Restore degraded tidal and freshwater wetlands
(e.g. restricted flow,Phragmites australis dominated, shoreline-hardened); particularly those identified in the
Habitat Restoration Workgroup Plan over 10 years; Restore 10-15%of the mosquito-ditched saltwater marshes
through Open Marsh Water Management(OMW M)over the next 10 years,and maintain a policy of no new
ditching.
Lead Entity
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Program Status
NYSDEC and USFWS mapping efforts(described below)were completed as part of existing program. An
expansion of the existing program is necessary for additional work to be completed(also described below). Future
surveys and trend analysis is recommended.
Monitoring Extent and Frequency
The NYSDEC has performed GIS mapping of saltwater wetlands in the Peconic Estuary east of Shelter Island only
(includes spatial distribution, acreage, and marsh types). Funding is needed to complete the survey west of Shelter
Island and routinely track the trends of wetland coverage approximately every 5 years. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service surveyed wetlands in the entire Peconic Estuary watershed as part of the National Wetlands Inventory in
1997.
• Program Description
USFWS National Wetlands Inventory: In 1997,the United States Fish and Wildlife Service surveyed wetlands in
the Peconic Estuary watershed as part of the National Wetlands Inventory. The data were GIS mapped and are
useful for tracking wetland trends overtime. Seethe USFWS (1998)report by Tiner for details on trend analyses
and data QA/QC.
NYSDEC Wetlands Inventorv: The NYSDEC has also performed GIS mapping of saltwater wetlands in the
Peconic Estuary East of Shelter Island only(includes spatial distribution, acreage, and marsh types). The NYSDEC
performs such GIS mapping through a combination of aerial photo surveys and ground truthing. Funding is needed
to complete the survey west of Shelter Island and routinely track the trends of wetland coverage approximately
every 5 years. This is particularly important in light of the increasing rate of developmental pressure and sea-level
rise. A program to assess wetland quality and map sensitive areas at risk should be established.
Costs
New Costs: At this time, no new or additional funding has been identified to finalize the NYSDEC mapping of
saltwater wetlands west of Shelter Island. Finer-scale survey saltwater wetland analysis and mapping west of
Shelter Island is estimated at $500,000. Routine trend analysis would require an additional $50,000 annually.
Marsh restorations have been funded through a variety of funding sources including: NYS Bond Act. USFWS,
Towns and the private sector. Costs of establishing a program to assess wetland quality and mapping sensitive
areas at risk have not been developed.
APPENDIX I
1-23
�Fl ""I, Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
c
Shoreline Hardening Monitoring
Program Objective
To quantify estuarine-wide shoreline hardening, characterize changes to the coastlines(erosion,deposition), assess
impacts to habitat and living resources, and develop "environmentally friendly"systems to assist in implementing a
CCMP priority of"no net increase" in shoreline hardening throughout the estuary.
Monitoring Hypothesis
The rate of loss of natural shoreline in the Peconic Estuary is slowing in response to the implementation of PEP
policies and education and outreach efforts.
CCMP Measurable Goals
Maintain current linear feet of natural shoreline and over the next 15 years reduce shoreline hardening structures by
5%; Maintain and increase current tidal and freshwater marsh acreage, and promote new growth through the
removal of existing shoreline hardening structures.
Lead Entity
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, in concert with the Peconic BayKeeper, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County.
Program Status
A one time monitoring survey of shoreline hardening structures(including aerial and ground truthing surveys)was •
completed in 2000 through the Peconic Estuary Program. Future surveys and trend analysis of shoreline hardening
structures is recommended
Monitoring Extent and Frequency
The entire Peconic Estuary Shoreline was monitored in this one time survey in 2000.
Program Description
Quantitative mapping is an important first step and will be carried out through aerial photo interpretation by the US
Fish and Wildlife Service under contract to the PEP during the year 2000. The Peconic BayKeeper, Cornell
Cooperative Extension and the NYSDEC PEP Program Coordinator will assist in ground truthing. Once the
baseline information is established(e.g. percent coverage of hardened shoreline,types of structures, etc.),trend
analysis of percent shoreline hardened will be tracked by future aerial and ground truthing surveys through GIS
mapping and analysis. An assessment of detrimental effects of hardened shoreline and docks on the estuary is also
needed to fully understand impacts on habitat and natural resources. The analysis will also include a
characterization of all shoreline hardening found in the Peconics and an investigation of"environmentally friendly"
systems. Future funding for additional surveys and trend analysis of shoreline hardening structures is
recommended, but not yet appropriated.
Costs
Base Pro��ram: This monitoring is funded in part by the PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee funds at$19,000 and
Suffolk County Capital Budget Funds($49,000). New Costs: Biennial trend analysis using GIS mapping is
estimated at$70,000.
•
APPENDIX I
I-24
Peconic Estuary Program COMP
4
Piping Plovers, Shorebirds, Raptors and Other Birds
Program Objective
To determine piping plover habitat use,availability,and prey abundance in the Peconic Estuary and to assess
affects of habitat changes to make recommendations to enhance plover breeding and productivity. To ensure that
shorebirds, raptors and other birds and their habitats are monitored for productivity.
Monitoring Hypothesis
The abundance and distribution of shorebirds, raptors, waterfowl and other birds in the estuary is increasing due to
improvements in habitat quantity and quality, food abundance, and controls on predators.
CCMP Measurable Goals
Increase the number of piping plover pairs to 115 with productivity at 1.5 (over a 3-year average), distributed
across the nesting sites in the Peconic Estuary; Maintain current linear feet of natural shoreline and over the next
15 years reduce shoreline hardening structures by 5%to increase habitats for shorebirds.
Lead Entity
The NYSDEC in cooperation with The Nature Conservancy, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Program Status
Existing program for monitoring piping plovers and least terns in the Peconic Estuary Program Study Area.
Recommended expansion of existing program for other birds and for enhancing habitat to improve shorebird
productivity.
Monitoring Extent and Frequency
Piping plover and osprey surveys in the Peconic Estuary Program Study Area are funded annually by NYSDEC
and The Nature Conservancy. Waterfowl surveys in the Peconic Estuary Program Study Area are also conducted
by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Program Description
Endangered Species Program: The NYSDEC in cooperation with the The Nature Conservancy monitor for piping
plovers and least terns in the Peconic Estuary through the Endangered Species Program. Initial review of piping
plover productivity data indicates that populations are down at a number of Peconic Estuary sites. The reasons are
unclear,as there are multiple factors that can play a role in breeding success and overall productivity. Throughout
Long Island,there is an interest in"enhancing" habitat to improve shorebird productivity. Therefore, baseline data
on prey abundance and shorebirds' microhabitat(i.e.. intertidal zone-- sand and cobble patches, wrack, areas where
there is sparse vegetation, beach berm, and moist swales)preferences is important information, particularly in the
Peconic Estuary,which consists of habitats that do not readily fit typical habitat descriptions found in the literature.
Furthermore. it is recommended that a comprehensive monitoring plan be developed for the Peconic Estuary that
ties together other monitoring programs (e.g. ospreys,terns waterfowl) and recommendations for improved
comprehensive monitoring in this region be developed.
Costs
Base Program: Piping plover and osprey surveys are funded annually by NYSDEC and The Nature Conservancy.
Waterfowl surveys are also conducted by USFWS.
ff
APPENDIX I
I-25
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
Lit lr
New Costs: Costs for developing and implementing the comprehensive monitoring plan for ospreys,terns and
waterfowl have not yet been developed.
Dredging
Note: This monitoring program element does not include direct environmental measurements.
Program Objective
To track the volumes and locations of dredging in the Peconics and reduce impacts to critical marine habitats.
Monitoring Hypothesis
The total amount of dredging for navigational purposes in the Peconic Estuary is decreasing due to the
implementation of sediment control practices and stormwater management.
CCMP Measurable Goal
Develop recommendations and guidelines to reduce impacts to marine life from dredging-related activities.
Lead Entity
(proposed)New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, in coordination with the PEP Program
Office and the Suffolk County Department of Public Works.
Program Status ,
Proposed new program.
Monitoring Extent and Frequency
Proposal is to develop a tracking system of all dredge-related activities(public and private)that occur annually
within the Peconic Estuary Program Study Area.
Program Description
While there are no tracking programs yet established to evaluate the locations and volumes of annual dredging
within the Peconic Estuary(i.e., public and private),the NYSDEC maintains a permitting system that records all
dredging activities in NY marine waters. Coordination between the PEP and NYSDEC Environmental Permitting
should be established so as to. Additionally, Suffolk County Department of Public Works maintains records of
navigational maintenance dredging that they perform in the estuary and therefore, should also be included in the
coordination efforts.
Costs
New Costs: A funding source for this monitoring has not been identified yet. Initial project cost is estimated at
$30,000(contractor fee)with a biennial maintenance cost estimated at$15,000.
Restoration Monitoring
Note: Portions of this monitoring program element does not include direct environmental measurements.
Program Objective
To track and assess the success of habitat restoration projects in the Peconic Estuary.
APPENDIX I
1-26
Peconic Estuary Program CCI
Monitoring Hypotheses
The extent and distribution of habitat restoration sites in the Peconic Estuary study area is increasing due to the
implementation of the Peconic Estuary Program's"Habitat Restoration Plan for the Peconic Estuarv"(Dec. 2000)
and the availability/allocation of funding to carry out specific projects.
Habitat restoration efforts in the Peconic Estuary study area are successful, as measured by success criteria and
monitoring protocols. The ecological function of restored habitats are equivalent to similar natural areas or
reference sites, specific to a habitat type.
CCMP Measurable Goals
Annually initiate 5%of the projects identified in the Habitat Restoration Workgroup Plan for the Peconic Estuary
and identify reference wetlands for comparative purposes such as functionality; Restore degraded tidal and
freshwater wetlands(e.g.,restricted flow,Phragmites australis dominated, shoreline-hardened); particularly those
identified in the Habitat Restoration Workgroup Plan over 10 years; Restore 10-20% mosquito-ditched saltwater
marshes through Open Marsh Water Management(OMWM)over the next 10 years,and maintain a policy of no
new ditching.
Lead Entity
(proposed)Peconic Estuary Program Habitat Restoration Workgroup, in concert with the New York State
Department of State and Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County, sponsors of individual habitat
• restoration projects.
Program Status
Proposed new program(s).
Monitoring Extent and Frequency
Proposal is to develop a tracking system of all habitat restoration activities(public and private)that occur annually
within the Peconic Estuary Program Study Area, including both short and long-term monitoring evaluations, and
monitoring before, during, and after restoration as needed to evaluate success of restoration efforts. Individual
restoration projects would also be assessed according to success criteria and monitoring protocols.
Program Description
The CCMP recommends evaluating the success of restoration efforts. While restoration efforts can be successful in
reaching their goals,there have also been examples in the Peconics of restoration efforts that have not resulted in
actual long-term recovery of the targeted habitat. Therefore, it is essential to quantitatively assess and monitor
restoration projects in order to take steps, if necessary,to correct any problems. A number of restoration projects
are now underway as a result of available funding from the NYS Clean Air Clean Water Bond Act. More
restoration projects are expected to be funded in the future. It is critical for restoration projects to build in the
capacity to monitor sites upon completion of restoration. Restoration assessment needs to be linked to the reference
sites in order to make quantitative comparisons of functionality. As part of assessment, monitoring before,during,
and after restoration is also needed to evaluate success of restoration efforts. It is strongly recommended that the
Habitat Restoration Workgroup's Plan for the different types of restoration projects in the Peconic Estuary be
followed as an initial guideline. The development of a tracking database for each restoration project should also be
developed for both short and long term monitoring evaluations.
i
APPENDIX I
1-27
Peconic Estuary Program CCMIP
c
i
Costs •
New Costs: A funding source for this monitoring has not been identified yet. An estimated cost of$35,000 is
required to initiate such monitoring and an additional $15,000 is necessary for database maintenance on an annual
basis. Appropriate monitoring associated with individual restoration projects should be included in the cost of the
effort;costs will vary according to habitat type, scale, and location of the project.
Bav Scallops
Program Objective
To monitor the quantity and quality of bay scallops in the estuary and evaluate the success of enhancement efforts.
To perform a distribution-focused study of the survival dynamics ofjuvenile bay scallops including and
examination of settlement, recruitment, and size frequency and year class-abundance of bay scallops located inside
and outside of eelgrass beds.
Monitoring Hypothesis
Bay scallop abundance and distributions are related to water quality, predator abundance and habitat quantity and
quality in the estuary, as well as to commercial and recreational harvests.
CCMP Measurable Goal
Enhance the shellfish resources available to harvesting through reseeding, creation of spawning sanctuaries and .
habitat enhancements.
Lead Entity
(proposed)New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, in coordination with the PEP Program
Office,the National Marine Fisheries Service and Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County.
Program Status
Proposed new program.
Monitoring Extent and Frequency
Proposal is to annually monitor the quality and quantity of bay scallops an evaluate the success of enhancement
efforts in the Peconic Estuary Program.
Program Description
A program should be established that tracks the annual recruitment success and survival dynamics of bay scallops.
.Anecdotal information indicates that adult bay scallops were once abundant enough that they were found outside of
eelgrass beds in deeper waters where they were harvested by dredging. Today, bay scallops are harvested almost
entirely in eelgrass beds because they are not as abundant and are no longer found in deeper waters. Given the
huge fluctuations that have occurred in bay scallop populations as a result of Brown Tide, it is important to perform
a distribution-focused study of the survival dynamics of bay scallops and to monitor for changes in abundance and
distribution and evaluate the effectiveness of reseeding efforts.
NMFS Commercial Landinss Program: The National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS) is in charge of
coordinating the yearly landings and economic data on bay scallops caught in the Peconic Estuary and they have
well established QA/QC and statistical procedures.
Costs
Base Program: NMFS provides funding for landings and economic data annually.
APPENDIX I
1-28
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP j`
F�
New Costs: A funding source for the recruitment and survival monitoring has not been identified yet. It is estimated
that a full evaluation and tracking of the parameters of interest would cost$200,000 over three years.
Aquaculture and Transplanting Activities
Program Objective
To monitor the locations and extent of aquaculture and transplanting activities in the Peconic Estuary to minimize
potential impacts to critical habitats and conflicts with other uses.
Monitoring Hypotheses
Aquaculture activities have no short or Ione-term impacts on the water quality in the Peconic Estuary.
Transport activities have no impact on natural populations of shellfish species in non-bed areas.
CCMP Measurable Goal
Ensure that the existing and future aquaculture(shellfish & 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.
• Lead Entity
(proposed)New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, in coordination with the PEP Program
Office,the Suffolk County Department of Planning and Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County.
Program Status
Proposed new program.
Monitoring Extent and Frequency
Proposal is to annually monitor the locations and extent of aquaculture and transplanting activities in the Peconic
Estuary.
Program Description
There are no coordinated monitoring programs for either aquaculture(shellfish/finfish)or transplanting activities in
the Peconics. The NYSDEC issues permits for aquaculture and transplanting activities and therefore, can better
monitor the types, scale and locations of these activities in the estuary annually through GIS mapping. Long-term
monitoring should be established to best situate culturing and transplanting activities that are mutually beneficial to
the estuary and the aquaculturists. This coordination should also include the Suffolk County Planning Department,
as Suffolk County is ultimately responsible for the development of an aquaculture plan for the Peconic Estuary.
Costs
Base Program: The NYSDEC annually funds the permitting of aquaculture and transplanting activities.
New Costs: The initial cost to develop a GIS map is estimated at$10,000. Annual maintenance cost of the GIS
map is estimated at$5,000. Mapping and ground-truthing of the entire estuary bottom is estimated to cost
$700.000.
APPENDIXI
I-29
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
t d^,�
Pathogen Issues
Coliforms Monitorine
Program Objective
To monitor and evaluate water quality in designated New York State Shellfish Growing Areas throughout the
Peconic Estuary. Monitoring is necessary to properly classify growing areas for the safe harvest of shellfish to
protect the public health.
Monitoring Hypotheses
The total acreage of open shellfish beds in the Peconic Estuary is increasing in response to improved water quality
resulting from the implementation of nonpoint source controls and management practices.
The number of beach closures is decreasing due to the implementation of nonpoint source controls and
management practices.
CCMP Measurable Goals
Maintain current acreage of areas available to shellfish harvesting, with the ultimate aim of re-opening lands
currently closed to harvesting; 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.
Attain a zero discharge of stormwater runoff in new subdivisions. •
Lead Entity
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation(lead for the Shellfish Land Certification Program)
and the Suffolk County Department of Heath Services(lead for the bathing beaches and swimming pools program).
Program Status
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Shellfish Land Certification Program and the
Suffolk County Department of Heath Services' Bathing Beaches and Swimming Pools Program Surface Water
Quality Monitoring Programs are existing efforts.
Monitoring Extent and Frequency
Monitoring takes place on a regular basis in the thirty shellfish growing areas under the Shellfish Land Certification
Program(a minimum of six times per year at each sampling station). Suffolk County Department of Health
Services(SCDHS) Bureau of Marine Resources routinely monitors for pathogen indicators at public beaches, and
includes coliform sampling in the routine monitoring program estuary wide(32 stations) and year round
(biweekly).
Program Description
New York State Shellfish Land Certification Program The New York State Shellfish Land Certification Unit
classifies all shellfish growing areas in the New York State Marine District. New York State defines shellfish as
oysters, scallops,mussels and clams. There are seventy-five individual shellfish growing areas in New York State.
Approximately thirty growing areas are located within the Peconic Estuary. The Shellfish Land Certification Unit
classifies all shellfish growing areas using the guidelines established in the National Shellfish Sanitation Program
(NSSP)Guide for the Control of Molluscan Shellfish. These guidelines require the establishment of water
sampling stations to effectively evaluate all pollution sources that may affect a growing area.
New York State uses the NSSP Systematic Random Sampling(SRS) Method of water sample collection and the
Total Coliform Standard to evaluate shellfish growing areas. SRS requires that water sample collection be
APPENDIX I
1-30
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP ;
t
scheduled sufficiently far enough in advance to support random collection with respect to environmental
conditions. Samples are collected under wet and dry,weather conditions in warm and cold weather months. Surface
and bottom temperature and salinity measurements are also collected at selected stations in each growing area in the
Peconics. SRS samples are collected a minimum of six times per year at each station. Following the collection of
thirty SRS water samples the area is evaluated to determine proper classification for shellfish harvesting based on
the NSSP total coliform criteria for certified shellfish growing areas. It is imperative that all growing areas be
properly classified for shellfish haryesting for the protection of public health.
SCDHS Bathino Beaches and Swimming Pools Program: In order to protect beach goers from the human health
risks associated with pathogens, the Suffolk County Department of Health Services(SCDHS) Bureau of Marine
Resources routinely monitors for pathogen indicators at public beaches. When water quality parameters fail to
meet the established human health criteria, beaches are closed. In addition,the SCDHS generally recommends the
closure of bay beaches for two tidal cycles after large rainfall events.
SCDHS Surface Water Quality Monitoring: The SCDHS Bureau of Marine Resources includes coliform bacteria
counts in their suite of monitoring parameters for their sampling sites in the Peconic Estuary. Refer to the SCDHS
Surface Water Quality Monitoring Section in the Nutrients Monitoring Workplan for more information about
SCDHS' Program.
Costs
Base Program: The shellfish land certification monitoring is funded annually by the NYSDEC. The SCDHS
Bathing Beaches and Swimming Pools Program is funded annually by SCDHS. The SCDHS Surface Water
Quality Monitoring Program is funded in part by PEP Post-CCMP EPA funds and in-kind match from Suffolk
County (see discussion under Brown Tide Issues in this document).
P�esteriapiscicida and Alexandrium tamarense Monitorinpiscicida and Alexandrium tamarense Monitorins
Program Objective
To monitor for the presence of harmful algal blooms and ensure public health and safety. Harmful algal blooms
may be due to poor water quality conditions in combination with meteorological events and other factors.
Monitoring Hypothesis
Pfiesteria piscicida and Alexandrium tamarense are not present in concentrations that are toxic or threaten public
health and safety, due to improving water quality conditions in the Peconic Estuary.
CCMP Measurable Goal
Prevent the human ingestion and exposure to marine organisms that are affected by harmful algal blooms through
routine monitoring.
Lead Entity
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. in cooperation with the Suffolk Count-, Department
of Health Services for Pfiesteria piscicida: Suffolk County Department of Health Services for Alexandrium
tamarense.
•
APPENDIX 1
1-31
jf,,-' , Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
r
Program Status
The existing program of Pfiesteria piscicida sampling was conducted in 1999-2000; it is recommended this
program be expanded to be conducted annually. Sampling for Alexandrium tamarense has been performed
periodically, it is recommended this program be expanded to be conducted annually
Monitoring Extent and Frequency
A comprehensive characterization survey for Pfiesteria piscicida in the Peconic Estuary was conducted in 1999-
2000. The Suffolk County Department of Health Services is currently estimating the concentration of Alexandrium
at seven sites in the Peconic Estuary.
Program Description
P testeria: The unusual dinoflagellate,Pfiesteria piscicida, has been implicated in major fish kills in the brackish
coastal waters of North Carolina and several areas within the Chesapeake Bay. It has also been implicated in
human health effects,the severity of which are apparently dependent on the length of contact with the organism, or
an airborne toxin released by the organism. Pfiesteria normally occurs in non-toxic forms unless triggered to
develop into a toxic form; the exact conditions triggering toxin production are poorly understood.
Preliminary studies by SCDHS in 1998 showed the organism to be present at seven of the sixteen sites sampled
within Suffolk County and at two of the three sites sampled within the Peconic Estuary. In the summer of 1999,the
NYSDEC and the Nassau and Suffolk County Health Departments(SCDHS)and the Town of Hempstead
undertook a comprehensive monitoring effort to assess the marine waters of the state for the presence of Pfiesteria
cells. The SCDHS Surface Water Quality Monitoring Standard Operating Procedure(SCDHS,2000)and the
Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Peconic Estuary Program Surface Water Monitoring Program(SCDHS,
1994)contain the standard operating procedures and the QA/QC methods for Pfiesteria monitoring.
Water samples were tested for Pfiesteria along with a suite of other parameters, including dissolved oxygen,water
temperature,and salinity. 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 using their rigorously established QA/QC standards.
The SCDHS is currently testing for the presence of Pfiesteria at fifteen sites, three of which are located in the
Peconic Estuary. This project is meant to provide a comprehensive temporal analysis as samples are being
collected from each of the fifteen stations on a biweekly basis from April to October 2000. Differential
phytoplankton counts and water quality analysis (including tests for nutrient levels)will be conducted in the lab.
This monitoring is a cooperative effort with the NYSDEC and is being coordinated with funds from a Federal
Program. It is recommended that monitoring for Pfiesteria piscicida continue annually.
Alexandrium: Paralytic shellfish poisoning(PSP)red tides caused by the organism Alexandrium tamarense have
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 can result in PSP. In a four year monitoring study,
from 1986 to 1989, 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.
The SCDHS Bureau of Marine Resources is currently estimating the concentration of Alexandrium at seven sites in
the Peconic Estuary. The investigation entails the placement of mussels(Mytilis edulis)at the study sites, and their
collection at specified intervals for PSP toxin analysis. The SCDHS Surface Water Quality Monitoring Standard
Operating Procedure(SCDHS, 2000)and the Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Peconic Estuary Program
Surface Water Monitoring Program(SCDHS, 1994)contain the standard operating procedures and the QA/QC
methods for PSP monitoring. •
APPENDIX I
I-32
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
The present study is limited to the Peconic Estuary. Present plans are to investigate the south shore bays of the
County in 2001 and the north shore bays the following year.
Costs
Base Program: The estimated cost for handling and analyzing the water samples for this year's Pfiesteria
monitoring project is$25,000. The estimated cost for handling and analyzing the samples for this year's
Alexandrium monitoring project is $35,000. Neither estimate includes the cost of labor and boat maintenance.
New Costs: Additional funding is needed($25,000 for Pfiesteria and $35,000 for Alexandrium)to annually
continue these projects.
Vessel Waste No Discharge Areas
Program Objective
To determine the amount of vessel waste collected in pump-out facilities as the result of education/outreach
programs and the designation/implementation of a vessel waste no discharge area for the Peconic Estuary. The
collection of such wastes may improve water quality in poorly flushed areas.
Monitoring Hypothesis
The amount of vessel wastes collected in pump-out facilities will increase,as a result of education/outreach
programs and the designation/implementation of a vessel waste no discharge area for the Peconic Estuary.
CCMP Measurable Goal
Eliminate all vessel waste discharges to the estuary upon adoption of the Vessel Waste No Discharge Area.
Lead Entitv
(proposed) Peconic BayKeeper, in cooperation with the New York State Department of State,the east end towns.
public and private marinas, and the Peconic Estuary Program Office. (Note: This monitoring program element
should be coordinated with Coliform Monitoring also contained in this monitoring plan).
Program Status
Proposed new program.
Monitoring Extent and Frequency
Annual monitoring of boat waste collected from pump out facilities estuary-wide.
Program Description
The Peconic Estuary may be designated as a No Vessel Waste Discharge Area by the 2001 boating season. The
volume of boat waste collected from pump-out facilities within the Peconic Estuary each year should be monitored
with trend analysis. In addition, a comparative study evaluating the effectiveness of Vessel Waste No Discharge
Areas at improving water quality should be done. An evaluation of the pertinent parameters to be measured is
necessary, and the statistical analyses employed to compare these zones should be fully replicated.
APPENDIX I
1-33
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
F
z
Costs •
New Costs: A funding source for this monitoring has not been identified yet. Monitoring of boat waste collected
from pump out facilities is estimated at a cost of$5,000 annually.
•
APPENDIX 1
1-34
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
• r�
Toxics Issues
Sediment Monitorine
Program Objective
To monitor the quality of estuarine sediments to determine the levels of specific toxic substances and overall
sediment toxicity.
Monitoring Hypotheses
The quality of estuarine sediments is improving;New or emerging pollutants of concern or areas will be detected
by monitoring sediments.
CCMP Measurable Goal
Improve the quality of the ambient environment (surface waters, groundwater, sediments and biota)where there is
evidence that human inputs impair or threaten these resources.
Lead Entity
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in cooperation with the Suffolk County Department of Health Services.
Program Status
Sediment surveys were conducted in 1998, 2000 and 2001, and will be conducted annually hereafter.
Monitoring Extent and Frequency
Up to 30 estuarine locations will be sampled annually. To date,bulk chemistry and overall toxicity data is available
on approximately 60 embayments, harbors and tributaries. Sediment quality does not change rapidly. The Peconic
Estuary Program is pursuing a program whereby depositional areas are monitored to identify areas of concern for
follow up work.
Program Description
Peconic Estuary sediments are now being regularly collected and analyzed for a broad range of contaminants and
overall or cumulative toxicity. In the fall of 1994,the PEP contracted with the firm of A.D. Little, Inc.to analyze
field collected sediments for toxic contaminants. In all, sediments from 12 sites were analyzed. In 1998,the
USEPA Region II conducted a survey that involved the collection and sampling of sediments for chemical
contaminants and overall sediment toxicity from 34 sites representative of a range of typical land uses across the
estuary(see Figure 8). Toxicity testing is a valuable gauge, in addition to chemical specific analyses, because the
results provide an assessment of the overall toxicity resulting from exposure to multiple contaminants. In August
2000, EPA conducted a survey similar to the 1998 survey, again involving the collection and sampling of sediments
for chemical contaminants and overall sediment toxicity. Some previously sampled sites were revisited for follow-
up work and some new sampling locations were selected(see Figure 9). Additional sites were sampled in 2001
(see Figure 10).
Future monitoring efforts should be used to describe trends in sediment quality(both for individual contaminants
and overall toxicity)at previously sampled sites and the sediment quality status at any newly sampled sites.
Sediment sampling,collection, analysis, and testing procedures should be consistent with those employed
previously by EPA and are described in Peconic Estuary Tributaries Sediment Toxics Survey Field Sampling
Plan/Quality Assurance Project Plan(USEPA Region [I, August 1998)and the 2000 Peconic Estuary Tributaries
APPENDIX I
I-35
,,f"', Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
is I
Sediment Toxics Survey-Field Sampling Plan/Quality Assurance Project Plan(USEPA Region II,August 2000). •
The EPA target analyte list of polychlorinated biphenyls(PCBs), polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons(PAHs),
pesticides,and metals, should also be matched,to the extent possible, but supplemented with any toxic substances
of emerging concern, particularly with respect to pesticides.
Costs
Sample collection and analysis for toxic substances and toxicity is relatively expensive. Analysis alone can be
several hundreds dollars to over one thousand dollars per sample, particularly if substances such as dioxins or
furans are on the target analyte list. Typically more than one sample per location is necessary and QA/QC samples
must also be analyzed. Analysis alone for a limited survey can be upwards of $25,000 with additional resources
necessary for sample collection. Interpretation of the results must be conducted after the analysis is complete.
To the extent possible,the PEP should seek to undertake annual sediment sampling until all major embayments in
the estuary are sampled, and areas of concern are re-sampled. Base programs of the USEPA and the SCDHS can
provide sample collection and preparation costs.
New Costs: An estimated $25,000 per year will be necessary over three years to complete sample collection and
analysis.
Coastal 2000
Program Objectives •
Assess the health or condition of the estuarine waters of the United States and trace changes in that condition
through time.
Utilize the approach to identify reference conditions for estuarine waters in the United States.
Utilize existing state monitoring programs as appropriate.
CCMP Measurable Goal
Improve the quality of the ambient environment(surface waters, groundwater, sediments and biota)where there is
evidence that human inputs impair or threaten these resources.
Lead Entity
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in cooperation with the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation.
Program Status
Program will be conducted in 2000-01.
Monitoring Extent and Frequency
Twelve sites in the Peconic Estuary will be sampled, six in 2000 and the remaining six in 2001.
Program Description
Coastal 2000 is a Federal EPA program to assess the ecological condition of our nation's estuarine resources using
EPA's EMAP designs and methodologies. Unlike EMAP, which took on the entire task itself, Coastal 2000 has
worked with the coastal states to form partnerships, incorporating the monitoring needs of the individual states into
the overall design and providing funding to build up infrastructure for monitoring in the future. Such monitoring
APPENDIX I
1-36
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP °
�W
may be ideally suited to Clean Water Act Section 305(b)reporting. The EPA NHEERL laboratory in Narragansett,
RI has worked with New York to develop probabilistic monitoring plans, and identified who will take the lead in
carrying out the sampling. A number of core indicators will be monitored at each station; however, individual
states can add to this list as they desire. The core suite includes water quality parameters, sediment chemistry,
sediment toxicity, benthic community composition, fish community composition, fish pathology, and contaminants
in fish. Twelve sampling stations were planned for the Peconic Estuary.
Update as of August 2000: The monitoring plan was developed in cooperation with the NYSDEC,the EPA Long
Island Sound Program, and the State University at Stonybrook. Karen Chytalo, Chief, Estuary Management Unit of
NYSDEC initiated the cooperative agreement. Larry Swanson, Marine Science Research Unit of the Waste
Reduction and Management Institute at Stonybrook has taken the lead for monitoring. He will be assisted by
county and New York City monitoring staff.
Future Action: The Narragansett staff will meet with the agencies from New York in the early fall of 2000 to
discuss how the monitoring went and what improvements or changes need to be made for the monitoring that will
be done in 2001.
Costs
Base Program: Current funding levels have allowed for sampling at half the stations in New York in 2000 with the
other half planned for monitoring in the summer of 2001. All the cooperative agreements have been awarded and
sampling has begun by all entities involved. All analyses will be provided by the Coastal 2000 Program.
•
Biota (Fish, Shellfish and Crustacean) Monitoring
Program Objective
To monitor the quality of estuarine biota with respect to individual toxic substances, and provide updated
information to be used in the establishment of Human Health Advisories.
Monitoring Hypotheses
The quality of estuarine biota is improving;New or emerging pollutants of concern can be detected using biota.
Lead Entity
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in cooperation with the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation,the New York State Department of Health and the Suffolk County Department of Health Services.
Program Status
In 1999 EPA conducted a one time survey involving the collection of finfish and shellfish samples for toxic
analyses. Any efforts including compiling, evaluating and interpreting data for the Peconic Estuary Study Area
represents a new program activity.
Monitoring Extent and Frequency
Conducted as a one time survey of finfish and shellfish quality. Various species of finfish and shellfish were
collected from locations throughout the Peconic Estuary. No further biota sampling is recommended until data
analysis, evaluation and data interpretation is completed.
APPENDIX I
1-37
xJ�"TM"+R„ Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
d,
CCMP Measurable Goal •
Improve the quality of the ambient environment(surface waters, groundwater, sediments and biota)where there is
evidence that human inputs impair or threaten these resources.
Program Description
At present, no entity has established a program whereby Peconic Estuary biota is regularly collected and analyzed
for a broad range of contaminants. In 1999, EPA Region II conducted a Peconic EstuaryFish, Shellfish and
Crustacean Survey. A primary objective of this survey was to determine whether the toxic compounds identified
by the New York State Department of Health 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.
Future monitoring efforts should be used to describe trends in biota quality and to identify new or emerging
chemicals of concern. Biota sampling, collection, analysis, and testing procedures should be consistent with those
employed previously by EPA and described in the Peconic Estuary Fish, Shellfish and Crustacean Toxics Survey
Quality Assurance Project Plan for Field Collection Effort(USEPA Region 11, 1999). The EPA target analyte list
of dioxins and furans, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons(PAHs), pesticides,
metals, and radionuclides should also be matched,to the extent possible, but supplemented with any toxic
substances of emerging concern, particularly with respect to pesticides. Target species in any future efforts should
be carefully selected and may focus on bivalves.
Costs
Sample collection and analysis for toxic substances is relatively expensive. Analysis alone can be several hundreds •
dollars to over one thousand dollars per sample, particularly if substances such as dioxins or furans are on the target
analyte list. Typically more than one sample per location is necessary and QA/QC samples must also be analyzed.
Analyses alone for EPA's 1999 survey was approximately$100,000 with additional resources necessary for sample
collection and preparation. Interpretation of the results must be conducted after the analysis is complete.
No further biota sampling is recommended until analysis is completed for the 1999 EPA samples and data
interpretation is completed.
NOAA Mussel Watch Program
Program Objective
The objective of the NOAA Mussel Watch Program is to measure concentrations of a broad suite of trace metals
and organic chemicals in the whole soft parts of mussels and oysters.
Monitoring Hypotheses
A nationwide program of monitoring mussels and oysters can address national concerns over the quality of the
coastal marine environment and identify chemicals of concern.
CCMP Measurable Goal
Improve the quality of the ambient environment(surface waters, groundwater, sediments and biota)where there is
evidence that human inputs impair or threaten these resources.
Lead Entity
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, using NCAA data .
APPENDIX I
1-38
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP �i
Program Status
The NOAA Mussel Watch Program is an existing program. Compiling,evaluating and interpreting data represents
a new program activity.
Monitoring Extent and Frequency
One site in Gardiners Bay is included in this national program, which is sampled annually.
Program Description
The NOAA Mussel Watch Program is part of the NOAA National Status and Trends(NS&T)Program,the purpose
of which is to measure concentrations of a broad suite of trace metals and organic chemicals in surface sediments
and the whole soft parts of mussels and oysters. At present, one sampling site in Gardiners Bay is included in this
national program. See Chemical Contaminants in Oysters and Mussels (Tom O'Connor,National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration(NOAA), 1998 (on-line))and NOAA's State of the Coast Report(Silver Spring,MD:
NOAA. URL: http'//state-of-coast.noaa.gov/builetins/html/ccom 05/ccom.html) for more information.
Costs
Base Program: Sampling and analysis at this site is part of a national program.
Surface Water Monitoring
Program Objective
To monitor the quality of the surface waters with respect to individual toxic substances and overall toxicity.
Monitoring Hypotheses
The quality of surface waters is improving due to the implementation of point and nonpoint source control
programs; new or emerging pollutants of concern or areas will be detected by monitoring.
CCMP Measurable Goal
Improve the quality of the ambient environment(surface waters, groundwater, sediments and biota)where there is
evidence that human inputs impair or threaten these resources.
Lead Entity
(no lead entity has been identified at present)
Program Status
No existing programs. Various programs.typically of limited duration and scope, have been conducted in the past,
investigating tidal creeks and the freshwater Peconic River. Compiling,evaluating and interpreting data for the
Peconic Estuary Study Area represents a new program activity.
Monitoring Extent and Frequency
Various programs, typically of limited duration and scope, have been conducted in the past including sampling of
tidal creeks on the North Fork and the freshwater Peconic River. The need and specifications for anew ongoing
surface water monitoring program should be investigated/determined, and any effort should be coordinated with
other monitoring efforts, particularly groundwater monitoring.
APPENDIX I
I-39
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
Program Description
At present,no entity has established a program whereby surface water samples are regularly collected and analyzed
for a broad range of contaminants and overall or cumulative toxicity. Monitoring for toxics in surface waters
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.Notably,the pesticide 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 is
likely due to the drainage of agricultural areas containing residues of Aldicarb. Another emerging concern is
MTBE(methyl tert-Butyl Ether), an octane booster in gasoline,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. An ongoing North Fork Creek Study and other programs are described
below.
North Fork Creeks Study: The SCDHS Office of Ecology samples sixteen north fork creeks, located from Sawmill
Creek to Narrow River,bimonthly with eight locations done each month. Sampling is done during the last of the
ebb tide at each station in an attempt to quantify impacts that the stream may have on the estuary. Samples from
each site are analyzed for 109 organic solvent and pesticide compounds.
Other Programs: 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 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 water quality criteria available were identified present in
excess of the applicable criteria, two 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). 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),while showing evidence of anthropogenic (man-made) inputs,
did not exceed the established criteria.
Recommendations for Monitoring: Periodic surface water sampling should continue and special projects
supported, particularly investigations on pesticides. Such studies should,to the extent possible, be done in
conjunction with sediment surveys and sample collection and analysis procedures should be consistent with those
employed by EPA. The EPA target analyte list of polychlorinated biphenyls(PCBs), polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons(PAHs), pesticides, and metals, should also be matched, to the extent possible, but supplemented with
any toxic substances of emerging concern, particularly pesticides. Overall water toxicity testing should also be
employed. Toxicity testing is a valuable gauge, in additional to chemical specific analyses, because the results
provide an assessment of the overall toxicity resulting from exposure to multiple contaminants. See Pesticide
Concentrations in Surface Waters of New York State in Relation to Land Use- 1997(U.S. Geological Survey,June
1998)and Pesticides in Streams in.Vew Jersey and Long Island, New York and Relation to Land Use(U.S.
Geological Survey, May 1999)for additional information.
Costs
Base Program: The North Fork Creeks Study is funded by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services.
Sample collection and analysis for toxic substances and toxicity is relatively expensive. Analysis alone can be
several hundreds dollars to over one thousand dollars per sample, particularly if substances such as dioxins or
furans are on the target analyte list. Typically, more than one sample per location is necessary and QA/QC samples
APPENDIX I
I-40
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
• c
must also be analyzed_ Analysis atone for a limited survey can be upwards of 550,000 with additional resources
necessary for sample collection. Interpretation of the results must be conducted after the analysis is complete.
No new surface water sampling programs for toxics are recommended at the present time.
Groundwater Monitorine
Program Objective
To monitor the quality of groundwater(in the groundwater contributing area of the Peconic Estuary)with respect to
individual toxic substances to determine public health and ecological threats.
Monitoring Hypotheses
The quality of groundwater is improving in the Peconic Estuary Program study area in response to the
implementation of point and nonpoint source control programs.
Monitoring of groundwater will identify chemicals of concern in the raw water supply (and ultimately chemicals
that may be of concern in the estuarine environment). New or emerging pollutants of concern will be detected by
monitoring these media.
CCMP Measurable Goal
Improve the quality of the ambient environment (surface waters, groundwater. sediments and biota)where there is
evidence that human inputs impair or threaten these resources.
Lead Entity
Suffolk County Department of Health Services, with support from the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation.
Program Status
Numerous studies have been conducted in the past. At present,the SCDHS to is carrying out a three year pesticides
in groundwater monitoring program. It is likely that it will be recommended this program be continued annually
thereafter.
Monitoring Extent and Frequency
Groundwater is sampled throughout the study area. The Suffolk County Health Department has identified
thousands of private wells in the Peconic Estuary Study Area that should be monitored due to the high risk of
pesticide contamination.
Program Description
The Suffolk County Department of Health Services Bureau of Groundwater Resources monitors the quality and
quantity of the groundwater supply and conducts studies and investigations of the county's hydrology. Suffolk
County is completely dependent on its groundwater resource for drinking water supply. The focus of groundwater
protection measures has been on contamination caused by humans, from sewage to chemicals such as petroleum,
solvents, degreasers, fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides. In eastern Suffolk County, agricultural chemicals are the
primary contaminant of concern.
•
APPENDIX 1
I-41
'§ Peconic Estuary Program CCVP
Groundwater discharge provides the base flow for the County's rivers and streams. Relatively small fluctuations in •
water table elevations can have a significant effect on wetlands,stream flow and lake levels. Stream flow and
groundwater undertow to embayments influence the salinity of surface waters and effect the ecology, having
impacts on the ability of shellfish and finfish to reproduce. The Bureau of Groundwater Resources is involved
with several active groundwater investigations, contaminant studies and at superfund and hazardous waste sites.
The Bureau of Groundwater Resources' Pesticide Monitoring Program is especially important, including
investigations done in conjunction with the USGS and NYSDEC. There is an ongoing program involving public
and private well monitoring. Groundwater impacts from vineyards and golf courses are being specifically
evaluated. See Pesticides and their Metabolites in Wells of Suffolk County, New York 1998(U.S. Geological
Survey, June 1999)and Water Quality Monitoring Program to Detect Pesticide Contamination in Groundwaters of
Nassau and Suffolk Counties, NY(Suffolk County Department of Health Services, June 1999)for more
information.
The Suffolk County Health Department has identified thousands of private wells in the Peconic Estuary Study Area
that should be monitored due to the high risk of pesticide contamination. Significant funding is needed to monitor
for pesticide residues in potentially impacted residential and public water supply wells in the study area.
Costs
Groundwater monitoring is occurring under many specially funded studies and investigations as well as an ongoing
program involving public and private well monitoring. The SCDHS has requested that the NYSDEC accelerate
funding to test all 6,000 to 7,000 wells at risk in high pesticide use areas under the Pesticide Reporting Law.
The NYSDEC has been funding the SCDHS pesticide groundwater monitoring program for three years at about
$100,000 per year. The NYSDEC recently agreed to a three-year one million-dollar contract with the SCDHS to
expand the monitoring program, but funding is based on approval of an annual work plan. The SCDHS has
requested that the full one million dollars be allocated to expand the monitoring program.
Hazardous Waste Site Monitorine
Program Objective
Perform monitoring as part of remedial investigations and following the implementation of remedies at hazardous
waste sites; monitor compliance with clean-up schedules.
Monitoring Hypothesis
Discharges of toxic substances entering the Peconic Estuary Program study area from hazardous waste sites are
decreasing in response to clean-ups and remedial actions.
CCMP Measurable Goals
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.
Lead Entity
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeency,New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and the
Suffolk County Department of Health Services.
Program Status
APPENDIX I
I-42
Peconic Estuary Program CC,WP
•
Permittees, property owners, potentially responsible parties,and government agencies are investigating various
sites and performing monitoring to document the effectiveness of remedial measures as part of existing programs.
Compiling, evaluating and interpreting data for the Peconic Estuary Study Area represents a new program activity.
Monitoring Extent and Frequency
At numerous sites throughout the study area, site investigations and post-remedial monitoring is taking place
according to compliance schedules, workplans and records of decisions.
Program Description
Federal and State hazardous waste laws require monitoring as part of the remedial investigation process and once
remedial actions are undertaken. The current program is effective to assess human health and ecological risks at
hazardous waste sites.
Costs
Base Programs: Costs are home by permittees, property owners,potentially responsible parties, or the government.
At this time, no new or additional investigations or monitoring is being recommended in the Peconic CCMP,
outside of that required by existing authorities. The PEP will monitor compliance with schedules, as described in
the Toxics Chapter in the PEP Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan.
Point Source Monitoring
Program Objective
Perform monitoring of regulated point sources to determine compliance with permit limitations and conditions.
Monitoring Hypothesis
Discharges of toxic substances entering the Peconic Estuary Program study area from point sources are decreasing
in response to improved treatment practices and process substitutions.
CCMP Measurable Goals
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.
Lead Entity
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. and the
Suffolk County Department of Health Services.
Program Status
Permittees perform monitoring of discharges part of existing programs. Compiling,evaluating and interpreting data
for the Peconic Estuary Studer .Area represents a new program activity.
Monitoring Extent and Frequency
Permittees perform monitoring of discharges at various locations throughout the estuary at a frequency specified in
their permits.
APPENDIX I
I-43
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
4
•
Program Description
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Svstem(NPDES/SPDES)Program: The National and State Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System(NPDES/SPDES)Programs establish thresholds on discharges(concentration or
mass based)for toxic(and other)pollutants in the form of permit limitations and conditions. Permittees are also
required to self-monitor their discharge and demonstrate compliance status with these limits/conditions. This
information is reported to regulatory agencies in the form of Discharge Monitoring Reports(DMRs). The
NYSDEC also inspects and samples discharges for compliance with permit requirements.
Costs
Base Programs: Sampling and reporting costs are borne by permittees and ongoing compliance programs of
regulatory agencies. At this time, no new or additional investigations or monitoring is being recommended in the
Peconic CCMP,outside of that required by existing authorities.
Federal Toxics Release Inventory
Program Objective
To monitor major releases of toxics to the environment
Monitoring Hypothesis
Releases of toxic substances to the Peconic Estuary Program study area are decreasing in response to the
implementation of best management practices, product substitutions, etc.
CCMP Measurable Goal
Decrease overall emissions of reportable toxics from the five east end towns.
Lead Entity
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Program Status
Reporting is required as a part of an existing program. Compiling, evaluating and interpreting data for the Peconic
Estuary Study Area represents a new program activity
Monitoring Extent and Frequency
A limited number of facilities in the Peconic Estuary watershed report annually under the requirements for the
Toxics Release Inventory.
Program Description
Existing Federal program and reporting requirement.
Costs
Base Program: Reporting costs are borne by regulated entities. At this time, no new or additional monitoring is
being recommended in the Peconic CCMP, outside of that required by existing authorities.
New Costs: A mechanism needs to be established by the PEP to assemble and interpret the Federal Toxics Release
Inventory data for the Peconic Estuary.
APPENDIX I
I-44
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
Pesticide Use Monitorin¢
Note: This monitoring program element does not focus on direct environmental measurements.
Program Objective
Measure types and quantities of pesticides used, and unneeded and unwanted pesticides that are collected for proper
disposal. Information should also be used to identify priority areas for monitoring based on pesticide usage data.
Monitoring Hypothesis
Pesticide use and proper disposal, including trends in types and quantities, can be measured by various means.
CCMP Measurable Goals
Eliminate to the maximum extent practicable, pesticide applications on turf grass on all publicly held land by 2003;
Eliminate holdings of banned, unneeded and unwanted pesticides(and other hazardous substances)by 2005;
Decrease overall agriculturat/residential/institutional pesticide applications in the five East End towns.
Lead Entity
(proposed)New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
Program Status
Reporting is required as a part of an existing program. Compiling, evaluating and interpreting data for the Peconic
• Estuary Study Area represents a new program activity.
Monitoring Extent and Frequency
Information is available annually for the Peconic Estuary Program Study Area.
Program Description
The existing New York State Pesticide Reporting Law allows information about the amounts and types of
pesticides being applied in the State to be obtained by health researchers. Under the Law, certified pesticide
applicators are required to report for each pesticide application the name of the product applied,the product's U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)Federal registration number,the quantity applied,the product's unit of
measure,the date of application, the county, street address, municipality and zip code of the application.
Commercial permittees who sell pesticides to private applicators at wholesale and retail, must report for each sale
the name of the product purchased, its EPA Federal registration number,the quantity sold,the product's unit of
measure, the date sold, as well as the county, street address, municipality and zip code of the intended application.
There may be other useful mechanisms for monitoring pesticide use and the safe disposal of unneeded or unwanted
pesticides, including surveys of farmers/commercial landscapers/homeowners, point-of-sale surveys, residential use
surveys, commercial applicator tallies,collections during"Clean Sweep"programs.or household hazardous waste
collection programs and events, or resolutions passed(or equivalent)by state or local government to eliminate or
reduce pesticide usage. These other mechanisms must be more fully developed by the Peconic Estuary Program.
Costs
Base Program: Reporting costs under the State Pesticide Reporting Law are borne by regulated entities.
New Costs: The cost and details of the other potential monitoring mechanisms has not been fully developed at this
point by the Peconic Estuary Program. A preliminary estimate for compiling, evaluating and interpreting data is
•
APPENDIX I
1-45
Peconic Estuary Program CC�VP
$25,000 annually.
Two Stroke Marine Engine Inventory
Note: This monitoring program element does not focus on direct environmental measurements.
Program Objective
To monitor the progress of conversion/replacement from 2 stroke to 4 stroke marine engines in the estuary.
Monitoring Hypothesis
Hydrocarbon loadings to the estuary will be reduced as the number of 2 stroke marine engines used in the estuary is
reduced.
CCMP Measurable Goal
Reduce the number of 2 stroke marine engines in use in the estuary.
Lead Entity
(proposed)Peconic Estuary Program Office
Program Status
New proposed program
Monitoring Extent and Frequency •
Monitoring will be collected annually for the Peconic Estuary Program Study Area
Program Description
Federal requirements require the manufacturers of marine engines to phase in cleaner burning 4 stroke engines. The
progress of the conversion from 2 stroke to 4 stroke marine engines takes place in the estuary can be monitored. If
the pace of conversion/replacement appears slow, the PEP may establish or recommend incentives to speed the
conversion. A potential monitoring mechanism is harbormaster-conducted surveys. The costs or details of the
potential monitoring mechanism have not been fully developed at this point by the Peconic Estuary Program.
Costs
New Costs: The costs or details of this potential monitoring mechanism have not been fully developed at this point
by the Peconic Estuary Program. A preliminary estimate is $10,000 annually.
Underground Storage Tank Inventon
Note: This monitoring program element does not focus on direct environmental measurements.
Program Objective
To monitor the progress of underground storage tank removal, retirement and replacement.
Monitoring Hypotheses
The threats and occurrences of leaking underground storage tanks are being reduced as the number of tanks exempt
from current removal/replacement retirement requirements in use in the estuary's watershed is reduced.
CCMP Measurable Goal •
Eliminate underground storage tanks exempt from current replacement requirements.
APPENDIX I
1-46
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP 'i""%
Lead Entity
(proposed) Peconic Estuary Program Office
Program Status
New proposed program
Monitoring Extent and Frequency
Monitoring will be collected annually for the Peconic Estuary Program watershed.
Program Description
No program is currently in place to establish a baseline on the number of tanks currently in use that are exempt
from current removal/replacement/retirement requirements or to track the number of tanks that are removed, retired
and replaced. A potential monitoring mechanism is to establish a baseline and then track the number of
underground storage tanks that are removed, retired and replaced.
Costs
New Costs: The costs or details of these potential monitoring mechanisms have not been fully developed at this
point by the Peconic Estuary Program. Estimate for establishing baseline: $50,000; estimate for updating
inventory: $10,000 per year.
Treated Lumber in the Marine Environment Inventory
Note: This monitoring program element does not focus on direct environmental measurements.
Program Objective
To monitor the extent of treated lumber installed in the marine environment.
Monitoring Hypotheses
Reducing the amount of treated lumber installed in the marine environment is reducing the toxic impacts in the
estuary.
CCMP Measurable Goal
Decrease the cumulative amount of treated lumber installed in the marine/estuarine environment.
Lead Entity
(proposed)Peconic Estuary Program Office
Program Status
New proposed program(in conjunction with shoreline hardening monitoring also described in this Plan)
Monitoring Extent and Frequency
Monitoring will be collected annually for the Peconic Estuary Program Study Area
APPENDIX I
1-47
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
F
r
i
Program Description •
A potential monitoring mechanism would need to include both establishing a baseline on the amount of treated
lumber presently installed in the marine environment and updating this baseline to reflect chances due to new
installations,replacements, and removals. A portion of this potential mechanism is included in the section of this
Plan addressing monitoring for Habitat and Living Resource concerns(under the heading"Shoreline Hardening").
This proposed monitoring mechanism will need to be expanded to further include information on whether the
existing shoreline hardening material is treated lumber.
Costs
New Costs: Costs of these potential monitoring mechanisms are included in the Shoreline Hardening discussion of
this Environmental Monitoring Plan.
s
APPENDIX I
1-48
Peconic Estuary Program CC,VP '�F°
aMonitoring Program Summary
Monitoring Program Base Programs I — New Costs 1
_ 1One-Time Annual One-Time Annual
Aquaculture and Trans laming Activities X S710,000 $5.000
Bay Scallops(recruitment success and survival I $200,000(over
dynamics) three years)
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Surveys X TBD TBD
Biota(Fish,Shellfish,Crustacean)Monitoring X
for Toxics
Brown Tide Research Initiative Xli
Brown Tide Steering Committee _ X _
Coastal 2000 X
Dredging $37,500 $7500
Endangered S ecies Program X
Federal Toxics Release Inventory X
Hazardous Waste Site Monitorin- X
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination X
System(NPDES)Program
NMFS Commercial Landings Program X
Vessel Waste No Discharge Areas S5.000
NOAA Mussel Watch Program X
NYS Pesticide Reporting Law
NYS Pollutant Discharge Elimination System X
(SPDES)Program
NYS Shellfish Land Certification Program X
NYSDEC Juvenile Finfish Survev X 5645,000*
NYSDEC_Wetlands lnventorry X I S500,000 i 550,000*
Os rev.Terns and Waterfowl I TBD
Pesticide Use Monitoring X S25.000
Restoration Monitoring $35.000_ $15,000
SCDHS Alexandrium Monitoring X 535,000
SCDHS Bathing Beaches and Swimming Pools X
Program
SCDHS Groundwater Monitoring(for nitrogen X
andpesticides)
SCDHS North Creeks Studv X _
SCDHS Pfiesteria Monitoring X 525.000
SCDHS Routine Point Source Monitoring X
SCDHS Surface Water Quality Monitoring X _
SCPD Land Use Monitoring X
Sediment Monitoring 25.000
Shoreline Hardening Monitoring X 35.000
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Lone Term X S30,000
Monitoring _
Suffolk County Groundwater:Model ' X '
Surface Water Monitoring for Toxics X
Two Stroke Marine Engine Inventory 510,000
Underground Storage Tank Inventory $50,000 510,000
USFWS National Wetlands Inventory X j
Total $1,332500 S922,500
* Additional costs for other elements to be determined.
i
APPENDIX I
1-49
Figure 1 4
Peconic Estuary Program b
Study Area Boundaries
n
c
Legend c
nd
Overall Study Area Boundary w°
P �
® Planning Area Sub-Boundary(Land Use. a n
Groundwater Underflow Estimation or Plum C)
Surface Water Modelling) Island b
Subwotershed Boundary Block Island Sound
Gardeners
Long Island Sound d Bay RS
Lillie
Peconic / j ""•
e Riverhead Bay !�
Great ,� • [A$ NA4P N •*
Pe onic River Peconic " �� •'•
Flanders Bay Bay
/ ure r
Brookhaven
ro er
ro F
rn I
z �
0
Atlantic Ocean
k �•
No Scale
F g15re z
Peconic Estuary Program Study Area
zHarbors Embayments, Tidal Creeks, Ponds and Lakes
d
k o I
.. oden[Pt ntV !I!
n s 3 l � ein.N hl.ne lavne �i
i
WL l° tt
ffF// 6
p .9
GaN inen Hep 90 Eponmuk Po'mt
11 1
3
p7 Be
u u pe
N 99 ° 9 34
]5 pv 95
29 1p D D tl l 16 16 74 75
n 61 p3
A pl
3433 3 ,3U Litle 9 7; D
35 1 N—
•Nl3 36 H.I i a 00
r66
11
3p
n
65
11"0
q[at§ bttt 3 Mf. ) b
11"0 Port Il Unat
lyrnn it 60 61 L LIC CIY Yay I] MA C6Ck 6] Voa[T fea Na.Do• O
A51
L H., 163 a Lon mach la R ba[hmk 6l POn cnw $.
I Ya..o�Atw. 11 Wl[MM Cm4k fi. Oav[f Cmak
f91 ONvn[xarLoe , Mtt C.mk 6f No11 I 3 0m CanQI35 l 611 NM$3 Sp ] 1 SC1.l to la.ln l9 Xor[onCC•mk 69 9 Na•Da•Co.¢
r 2-11 Po[I 'U ] Cman e.0 Na.Da• .0 Laual lam ]L • S Na.Do•Co '�,
1Y F]a1 Ca.4 11 La Nf Cecek ]l Lon P.N O
A II 6a.ln xamoe 63 A mt C.mk ]x S xa.eoa
A la Uvp Cwak 11 qa[t ev Cewk ]] Vae[Twa[fwvk
F/ Il O.atm.C.wk 11 R[ay Cwek 10 Vo.tTwa[Ni.Da. q
11 melaf Na.Do. N Sann6ll Cwvk )] ✓•ID PonQ 3
1] la.v hwk 1f Po[onl[D1w. if Sco laaq (�
Sf h.Y[T Cnva al PoCNS[Lim IPo. m bila Mi.Do. (�
1] N't Wtt a ..k. 11 Mlbooa Lam 1.
l� 11 fpeL 11 Cmak le Aww.lay 19 10 .n1- CB-1
f I1 mn an[3[C.mk 51 bow Cma4 (SovCDa so PwN Peng PafC Na
R ]4 f4[L 1A ek)a ]I HI.eD Cmak iL as a Na.Dar tt[y
�[ al Va a[k li ]] Wll C.mk 9] ai a Ha rTy
1 1. as 9mlTola la II MSDiW Cwak %l PmaT Pon6 Oft..N
]i Maf DattoM[C tWa 11 p]Cmak lona A toe[ PoM Ia ° �q
wn C.wk ]3 9(uiw !e/3 Pe.0 PeM X.P'
a3 latm hmK ]f Ataura[aek[anal if Laka!bn[auk
of w CmOk 19.v[D]] Cala .i Pwa Y1 Y A¢¢Q PON
al Ca.a Cwak ]1 BuxUua 8a Be 0 m. PON
aL N Nvtk 11,
]1 L[[Ca faDanac hwk d1 6aa[ Pena
0 2 4 6 8 10 Miles n m[M.na C.mk \p xau v.na 9p ]onaa.uc eeN
a. 1[o Ylw W[C.w it i.4 I.0 lona fl H[f Cvt[k hwk
lL Ma W.Cow
Figure 3
F
I �
N m
n
0
3
n'
o
PECONIC-FLANDERS BAYS SYSTEM b
0
\ YORK SOO
SLFFOLK SHININE I( BAY
0
NASSAU COUNTY MORIC} S BAY
COUNTY
GREAT SCAITIi BAY
KINGS
ATLANTIC OCEAN
a
b IEOEND
z PO PECONIC ESTUARY SYSTEM GROUNDWATER CONTR18UTINO AREA
° 0 AREAS MOST AFFECTED BY BROWN TIDE
X
Areas of Brown Tide Occurence on Long Island
SOURCE: SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPART'MEN' T Of HEALTH SERVICES NO SCALE
r
0 0
Y Monitoring Stations
Peconic Estuary Program Figure 4
> 240PeconicRiver^. Post CCMP Marine Surface Water Monitoring Program -
�V 220-Meetinghouse Creek^.
to 101 -East Creek 1 127-Sag Harbor Cove
'z 102-Cutchogue Harbor 130-Great Peconic Bay
d 103-East Creek 2^ 132-Three Mile Harbor^ 15H
K104-North Sea Harbor 133-Accabonac Harbor^ "Includes TSS samples(surface)
106-Goose Creek 134-Napeague Harbor^ Early AM and PM sampling April-Sept.
107-Town Creek" 135-Lake Montauk^
108-Southold Bay 144-Cornelius Point" All stations are sampled biweekly
109-Hashamomuck Pond PLUM
112-Hl Bay^ 145-Napeague Harbor Eelgrass ISLAND
Transplant Site
113-Little Peconic Bay A 148-Bullhead Bay A
114-Paradise Point 170-Flanders Bay^
115-Orient Harbor -ffi
116-Gardlners Bay West^
116-Northwest Harbor A
119-West Neck Ba -144 Wpjw,
Bay EL °"" RS BLD ISLAND SHIM
121 -Noyack Bay � .115
122-Coecles Harbor^ 51 AN
124-West Neck Harbor A D S L
126-Sag Harbor
wit[ ,IIB
WOW 121
Our p
rV3 EAST HAIAP N 3
0
y
AD gA00(R$
O
.70
0 o�p
148 OUT A T
a
n
mm n
V� � }1 YP ➢I('CRNI(:f}T UARY PROGRAARSR;OY AHlA
-rte OCiALT
NT t NgL71 C
NO SCALL
PEP Additional Monitoring Stations Figures
(lssalsssl Peconic Estuary Program ,
n Routine Marine Surface Water Monitoring Program
a 240-Peconic River
220Meetinghouse Geek"""+ Summer Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.) Conditions - Surface Samples p o
101 East Creek 1 4Pt� a
102-Cutchogue Harbor138-Gardiners Bay North " Sampled weekly;other new stations are sampled
102-East Creek 2" 143-Majors Harbor" biweekly 4 ASN m
104-North Sea Harbor 144-Cornelius Point" tndudes TSS samples(surface) a
105 Hog Neck Bay" 145-Napeague Harbor Transplant ^^Includes TSS samples(surface and bottom)
106 Goose Creek Site + Early AM and PM sampling April Sept.
107 Town Creek" 148.Bullhead Bay" o
108 Southold Bay 069-Robins Island EasthUH
z,
109 Hashamomuck Pond 081 -Hog Neck Bay West" ISLAND
111 G reenporl Harbor
112 HallocksBayA n
117 Gardiners Bay South
124-West Neck Harbor
126
U
126 Sag Harbor .19
127-Sag Harbor Cove" '144
131 -Northwest Creek EL Gardiners Bay RS BLOCK 15LAND SOUND
132-Three Mile Harbor" -115
133-Accabonac Harbor" AN
135-Lake Montauk" dSL
n •h7
Long Island Sound
Little 143 P
o Peccnic Bay '
121
1
Great
W EAST HAMP N �^
x � °a
R 101' Peconic Bay 4
�WIltlOIR$ �
®170 130s Pre-existing Stations(1987 1996)
(Sampled Weekly)
0 170-Flanders Bay+""
D ° D Violation of 5.0 mgA D.O.Standard 130-Great Peconic Bay^^
'v SOUT A T 113 Little Peconic Bay'A
0 Frequent(>201 of samples) 114-Paradise Point
♦ Occasional(2-5%;>2 violations) 115 Orient Harbor
z >> 116-Gardiners Bay West""
srowrt ca ♦ Infrequent(1 violation) 118-Northwest Harbor Al
No Violation 119-West Neck Bay
X
Violation of 3.5 mg/I Benchmark 121 -Noyack Bay
122-Coecles Harbor"
�CCNSS ""Violation of 2.0 mg/I Benchmark
NiLN�}iC
NO SCAU I
Figure 6
Peconic Estuary Program
•O PEP Additional Monitoring Stations
M 240-Peconic River""-. Average Summer Light Extinction Coefficients
z 220 Meetinghouse Creek""". Non-Brown Tide Years (1994 & 1996) �R S�pND
O 101 East Creek 1 5
k102,Cutchogue Harbor' (ISD
102 East Geek 2" 138 Gardners Bay North Sampled weekly;other new stations are sampled
104-North Sea Harbor 143-Malrns Harbor" biweekly
105-Hog Neck Bay" 144 Cornelius Point" " Includes TSS samples(surface) a '
106-Goose Creek 145-Napeague Harhor Transplant ""Includes TSS samples(surface and bottom)
107 Town Creek" Site + Early AM and PM sampling April Sept. c, PL UN
108 Southold Bay 140 Bullhead Bay" ISLAND
109 Hashamornuck Pond 069 Robms Iclyd East"
111 Greenport Harboi 081 Hog Neck BayWest"
112 H allocks Bay"
117 Gardiners Bay South o1z 112
124-West Neck Harbor"" 0m
126-Sag Harbor •W cumreas
127 Sag Harbor Cove" �• EL try &S BLOCK ISLAND SOUND
131 Northwest Creek"
132 Three Mile Harbor" ``' AN
133 Accabonac Harbor O
135 Lake Montauk1co 117
" D
�U1DD� 05 124 P
urnr 143
° 02 26t
a
081 94Y o
-x,113 ,a•. EAST HAAIP N rp M
Wirt vvv
c arrMu 4 Pre Existing Stations o
4-0 +npUs
*V4 o+r a (sampled weekly)
e+• 170 Flanders Bay
130 Great Peconic Bay
e e 113 Little Peconic Bay
S OU T A T C Kd Range pn-11 114.Paradise Point n
d - • 1(d>or=1 115 Orient Harhor n
._ ♦ Kid>or=0,8 and<1 116 Gardiners Bay West"" b
11 B Northwest Harbor
r urx ed O 1(data 119-West Neck Bay
e+r no data 121 -Noyack Bay
° 122 Coecles Harbor" a
w•�
Q�DPN
No Scale
Figure 7 A
Peconic Estuary Program
Regional Groundwater Quality
t
Total Nitrogen `15HLRS 15Lp414
® 92m9A
3
® 2to4mgA ISt NO �
® 4t07m9A 'b
® 7tolOmgA
SppHp a'05 RS BI OCR ISLAUU SUUNU
Lp�� tSLVNO
Op1Npt�
++ nra<
f a RIVERHEAU L °"
rrr,r [V}
wrtx nrrwu
ar r
0r
U 7
BROOHHAVEN
µe¢ua
a mr
ro
ro 9tC AN
to
'z ions '.. A4LAN5lC
d
k
NO SCALE
pWo We pep-re4bwlgra ItK-!NJ
Y � ._, ^,��s Figlue 8 I,
b Peconic Estuary Program Study Area
z May 1998 Sediment Monitoring Sites
0
X
... r'
n
W L xYa.e.i
L �
wx.exA
8h.n Cxrk Hri
HIAm.nd CrvrA D Wwr l..A d8 dP
v.d ervJ i.r I
JF.m C,.A Ir rr A..r.r C,rvY
r A.p laL CrvrY � • l�.nry CnJ
H.II.Wxr CnrA
3
4q rr,Vm
L n.
.H.. x
t IrF Cox
LrwFLFvu,r Crr.Y Cn.Y G„Cr.J(l.mr,y.rr) 4I
ni.HAi �, i..vm ill C,wY L �
• [O.xnK..n Ri..,Ar.lj ��
T ~
Ilnr,'iTl)
I� n
G. v
� b
0 2 4 6 8 10 Miles
3samples from waterbody composited for a single analysis
Figwe 9 ;4AO y
Peconic Estuary Program Study Area "
August 2000 Sediment Monitoring Sites o
s
a
b
A p
W C n
1 b
HxAam.mu�F l.nl� GwLB.A.r O,
Arnp
].d1
Cr.J I
S lIl
Gxl Cxi QI
Thrx n'i4
i.[l.rl.r Y.d.r
J
O r
l.mw Cn.\
p Ir,
BrvrAr Crw\ \V\
L.n AA..r.Crx\ r firA C.v grQA b
O i. t Alref.Crw\
[wmieAiwrB� d
• lO.wnr.vn Plv rA..f H
H Hu11A..I B.l
l`r I�w.iTEl
a � e
b
�o
M
o_
k
C' 0 2 4 6 8 10 Miles A 3samples fro vatertiody composited for a single analysis
0 3disclete samples from wateAody individually analyzed
a Peconic Estuary Program Study Area Figwe ,0
zProposed 2001 Sediment Monitoring Sites
0
k
P�
fl
Wr
F c.d 6.ne.A
L.•.Y.n xu\
P
Q •
J.d.l
.4.•.,.d o
L L.L Lwvk `
o �
O
c...1...,'.➢.A 111111 3
I.wAL➢'v.ID.w...m➢NrFwd �}may_ �yq
i� F«c B.I C. �^.. a GIAS I.n• b
a
8 2 4 6 8 10 Miles 3 samplesfivm wateLbody composited for a single analysis
■ 3discretesamples from waterbody individually analyzed
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
F
r
•
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
APPENDIX 1
1-60
Peconic Estuary Program CCjWP
ATTACHMENT I-1
i
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
•
Peconic Estuary Program CC.WP -.40'N'
• c
Research, Monitoring and Assessment Priorities for Habitats and
Living Resources of the Peconic Estuary
Natural Resources Subcommittee
Peconic Estuary Program
October 2000
!0
Marci Bortman, Ph.D.
Marine Conservation Planner
The Nature Conservancy
1,
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
i
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP ,e6
It
Research, Monitoring, and Assessment Priorities for Habitats and Living Resources
of the Peconic Estuary
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. BACKGROUND 2
3. GOAL 3
4. STRUCTURE OF A RESEARCH, MONITORING, AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAM 4
5. LIVING RESOURCE TARGETS 5
6. THREATS TO LIVING RESOURCE TARGETS 6
7. INITIAL RESEARCH, MONITORING, & ASSESSMENT PRIORITIES 7
7.1 Living Resource Threats-Related Research, Monitoring,and Assessment Priorities 7
7.2. Research, Monitoring, &Assessment From Systems to Species 10
7.3. Research, Monitoring, &Assessment Related to Restoration 21
8. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 23
8.1. Links to Other Programs 24
8.1.1. SCDHS Surface Water Monitoring 24
8.1.2. Brown Tide Research 25
8.13. NYS DEC Finfish & Macroinvertebrate Trawl Survey 26
8.1.4. Cornell Cooperative Extension SAV Monitoring 26
9. PRODUCTION & DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION 27
9.1. Data Management 27
9.2. Geographic Information Systems 28
10. IDENTIFICATION OF FINANCIAL RESOURCES 28
10.1 Coordination with Existing Grant Programs 28
H. CONCLUSION &NEXT STEPS 29
12. REFERENCES 30
APPENDICES 33
Al. Sampling Protocols 33
A2. Past& Ongoing Efforts 33
A2.1. Water Quality and Sediment Dynamics 33
A2.2. Toxic Contaminant Analyses 34
A2.3. Biological Inventories 34
•
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP '�"
r •
A2.4. Land Use Analyses 36
A2.5. Groundwater Studies 36
A2.6. Brown Tide Investigations 36
A3. Additional Research & Monitoring Initiatives 36
A3.1. Living Resources Threats-Related Research, Monitoring
&Assessment 37
A3.2. Research, Monitoring, &Assessment from Systems
To Species 38
A33. Research, Monitoring,&Assessment Related to Restoration 40
A4. Summary of threats to the living resources of the
Peconic Estuary 41
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Schematic of LRRM program design
Figure 2. SCDHS Marine Surface Water Monitoring Program Stations
Figure 3. Cornell Cooperative SAV monitoring stations
Figure 4. PEP Tide Creeks Study stations
Figure 5. PEP designated Critical Natural Resource Areas
Peconic Estuary Program CCb9P
r
1. INTRODUCTION
The National Estuary-Program was established in 1987. The purpose of the National Estuary
Program is to develop and implement comprehensive conservation and management plans
(CCMP) for"Estuaries of National Significance." The CCMP is a framework for managing an
estuary based on recommendations to reduce ecosystem threats and protect estuarine resources.
To date, the National Estuary-Program consists of 28 estuaries in various phases of developing
and implementing CCMPs.
In 1992, the Peconic Estuary was included in the National Estuary Program and the Peconic
Estuary Program(PEP) was created to develop a CCMP for the Peconic bays. PEP participants
include federal, state and local government, citizens' groups, academia, environmental groups,
and private organizations. A draft CCMP was developed in September 1999. A final CCMP is
expected by December 2000.
As part of developing the CCMP,the PEP identified the need to create a living resources
research and monitoring program. The PEP recognizes that there continue to be numerous gaps
in our information about the ecology of the estuary and the relationship of human impacts to
ecosystem health and biodiversity. One of the objectives in the habitat and living resources
chapter of the PEP Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) is to:
Develop and maintain an estuary-wide research and monitoring program to guide and
evaluate management decisions concerning the estuary and to ensure management
and policy decisions are based on the best available information.
Two priority actions in the habitat module are to:
Develop and implement a research plan for the Peconic Estuary and its watershed to
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.
Develop a long term plan for monitoring living resources in the Peconic Estuary that
is coordinated with the development of a research plan and ongoing research and
monitoring efforts.
Therefore, as a first step, this document provides a framework for integrated, system-wide
ecological research, monitoring, and assessment to understand the dynamic, multi-scale
ecological patterns and processes that sustain biota and their supporting natural systems in the
Peconic Estuary.
•
APPENDIX I
I-1
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
An important aspect of this document will be its coordination with ongoing water quality
monitoring,juvenile finfish monitoring, and brown tide research. Efforts will be made to link
these recommendations for research, monitoring, and assessment with the Suffolk County
Department of Health Services (SCDHS) surface water monitoring program, the NYS DEC
finfish and macroinvertebrate survey (by small-mesh otter trawl), and the Brown Tide Research
Initiative (BTRI) administered by New York State Sea Grant. This Living Resources Research,
Monitoring, and Assessment Framework would be the fourth major initiative and would round
out efforts in the Peconics to provide a more complete evaluation of the system.
Priorities for research, monitoring, and assessment included in this document are based on
information gaps identified in the Characterization Report of the Living Resources of the
Peconic Estuary (Bortman and Niedowski 1998), the Habitat Module of the CCMP, PEP Natural
Resources Subcommittee meetings, and recommendations made in the Living Resources
Research and Monitoring (LRRM) workshop held on June 24, 1998 by the PEP Natural
Resources Subcommittee at The Nature Conservancy's Mashomack Preserve on Shelter Island,
NY.
2. BACKGROUND
Estuaries are where land and sea meet with both contributing to an ecosystem of
specialized plants and animals all interacting within a complex food web. Beaches and dunes,
salt marsh, intertidal mud and sand flats, tidal creeks, and eelgrass meadows are only some of the
important habitats found in estuaries. These habitats provide food, shelter, spawning and nursery
areas to a wide range of animals. People are attracted to estuaries because of their beauty, for
their recreational opportunities, and the potential to make a living from the rich resources
estuaries provide.
With population increasing in the watershed, the Peconic Estuary is being threatened by
over-development and overuse of its resources. To fully realize the impacts of people and their
activities on this system,there must be a better understanding of how the Peconic Estuary
functions ecologically. This knowledge can only be achieved through comprehensive research,
monitoring, and assessment of the entire ecosystem.
Ecological research, monitoring, and assessment are essential components for guiding
management decisions. Research is performed to answer particular questions and fill
information gaps. Monitoring, which involves the multi-year collection of data, is carried out to
evaluate trends in natural variability as well as changes that may occur due to management or
other influences. Data from monitoring can act as an "early warning" system about the health of
the estuary. Assessment is the characterization of a resource through synthesis of existing data
or new surveys to obtain baseline information. In the Peconic Estuary Program (PEP),
assessments have often been the first step in obtaining scientific information, which has spurred
the development of specific research questions or the identification of monitoring needs. •
APPENDIX I
1-2
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
Research, combined with ongoing monitoring of certain sensitive species and
communities as overall indicators of ecosystem health, is essential to better understand the
natural dynamics of the Peconic Estuary and to target effective management activities. The
information gained from research and monitoring can be used to plan, manage, and improve
estuary protection programs at all levels of government and the private sector, assess progress
being made and inform the public of status and trends. Therefore, a properly designed research
and monitoring program should provide important and useful information to scientists, managers
and citizens. In fact, the purpose of developing research monitoring and assessment priorities for
habitats and living resources is to better understand the Peconic ecosystem by linking research
and monitoring, fostering partnerships among scientists, government agencies, and the public,
and ensuring that research and monitoring results are synthesized into useful products.
3. GOAL
The Ions-term goal of this PEP initiative is to develop a strategy of coordinated research,
monitoring, and assessment to fill significant information gaps and assist in the planning,
conservation, and management of the Peconic Estuary. A key component of this strategy is to
develop an applied, multi-scale, integrated approach to gain a better understanding of the estuary.
To achieve this goal, this document sets up guidelines for a detailed Living Resources Research,
Monitoring, and Assessment Plan to set priorities, define issues, identify novel research
questions, and create a compelling living resources research, monitoring, and assessment
program. The short-term goal of this initiative is to provide a stimulus for funding agencies and
organizations and researchers.
The objectives of this document are to:
(1) Establish a process to develop and implement a living resources research. monitoring,
and assessment program:
(2) Identify priority living resources targets (i.e., particular organisms and habitats)
qualified in the CCMP as important either due to their commercial or recreational
value or their role in the food web and ecosystem;
(3) Identifx threats (i.e., stresses and sources of stress) to the targets so as to improve
resource protection through management and conservation;
(4) Develop an initial set of research, monitoring, and assessment priorities to better
understand the targets and threats to targets.
i
APPENDIX I
I-3
E'pl ^e, Peconic Estuary Program CC.WP
4. STRUCTURE OF A RESEARCH, MONITORING,
AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
It is important that a research, monitoring, and assessment program be well-designed in
order to maximize its effectiveness in environmental management. Sound science is the
foundation for effective planning,management, and regulation. A well-designed research,
monitoring, and assessment program fits needs that are defined a priori rather than simply
collecting data and determining later how it is to be evaluated. Data are more meaningful when
evaluated not only qualitatively but also quantitatively and can withstand statistical rigor. Thus,
a program that is well-designed and well-planned has a much higher likelihood of success.
The following bullets outline 10 characteristics of a successful environmental monitoring
program adapted from the National Research Council (1990).
• Authority and control of the program should be clearly established and fiscal controls should
be compatible with program goals and objectives
• Know clearly how data are to be used-- ensure a link between research and monitoring
information and decision making
• Goals should be clearly defined and achievable scientifically, technologically, logistically,
and financially
• Before any data are collected, feedback loops should be clearly established between a
decision making system and a research and monitoring program
• Communication channels should be interconnected and functional among agencies and other
participating groups and individuals
• Regulatory, data and management needs and responsibilities of local, state and federal
agencies should be integrated to optimize use of available resources
• Mechanisms should be established to involve the scientific community and the public as
program participants early and often
• Mechanisms should be established to ensure that data results are communicated to decision
makers and the public in language they can understand and act on
• Mechanisms should be established for periodic review and easy alteration of redirection of
efforts when results or new information from other sources justifies a change
APPENDIX I
I-4
Peconic Estuary Program MVP
• Management action(s) recommended in response to both expected results and unexpected but
possible outcomes should be identified in advance
These elements should be incorporated in the development of a Living Resources Research.
Monitoring, and Assessment Plan. Figure 1 illustrates the relationship among research,
monitoring, and assessment objectives, methods, and evaluation of a research and monitoring
program along with management goals and information needs.
A coordinator is needed to implement recommendations made in this document. A
coordinator could (1)provide strong leadership, (2) help seek and direct funds from existing
grant programs to research and monitoring efforts in the Peconic Estuary, (3) find new funds
from public and private groups, and(4) leverage funds wherever possible. A coordinator would
focus efforts on applied research and monitoring necessary to effectively implement components
of the CCMP. Under the auspices of this framework, a coordinator would focus scientific
attention on management concerns of the estuary, lead the periodic update and next phase of
research and monitoring priorities, coordinate and target funding, and assure that research and
monitoring results are available to agencies, decision makers and the community at large.
In addition to needing a coordinator for this program, a science advisory panel should be
• developed. This panel should consist of experts both in and outside of the region who can help
establish and evaluate research, monitoring, and assessment priorities. Scientists are necessary
to review program design and evaluate research and monitoring results. The coordinator would
be responsible for organizing the science advisory panel and incorporating their comments in the
Living Resources Research, Monitoring, and Assessment Plan.
At present, there is no established fund for this living resources coordination or specific
research and monitoring projects. It is expected that there will be multiple sources of funds; but
to date,there is no established agency or organization to administer or coordinate grants for
research and monitoring. A coordinator is needed. This position, along with a science advisory
panel, should be established as part of the implementation phase of the CCMP.
5. LIVING RESOURCE TARGETS
It is an insurmountable effort to study every aspect of the Peconic Estuary ecosystem.
Therefore, focusing efforts on living resource targets that are commercially or recreationally
significant or are of ecological importance to the Peconic Estuary ecosystem is one of the most
feasible methods to understand ecological effects caused by human activities or the likelihood
that adverse effects might occur.
The following seven habitat and living resource targets are a good representation of the
APPENDIX I
I-5
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
Peconic Estuary system. These targets correspond to species or habitats that are of regional •
importance, highly threatened or have special conservation or management requirements, or
represent biodiversity (Bortman and Niedowski 1998). These living resource targets are
recognized in the CCMP as important either due to their commercial or recreational value or
their role in the food web and ecosystem. The seven living resource targets are:
1. Beach,Bluff, and Dune Complex—sandy and cobbly beaches, spits, bluff and dunes
2. Tidal Wetlands—vegetated and non-vegetated wetlands
3. Seagrass -- eelgrass and widgeon grass
4. Resident FinSsh -- Those species that spend a large portion of their lifecycle in the estuary
(i.e., spawning, nursery). Examples include: weakfish, forage fish, flounder, scup, porgy,
tautog, bluefish, alewife, American eel
5. Beach-Dependent Species -- Piping plovers, and least, common, and roseate tems and
horseshoe crabs
6. Shellfish --bay scallop, hard and soft clams
7. Diverse Phytoplankton Community—encompasses full range of diverse phytoplankton •
populations typically found in temperate estuaries (diatoms and dinoflagellates and smaller
pico- and nano-plankton). Phytoplankton in the Peconics have not been well-inventoried-
Therefore, composition is unknown. A healthy phytoplankton community is diverse, varying
daily, seasonally and annually.
6. THREATS TO LIVING RESOURCE TARGETS
Threats such as localized poor water quality, shoreline stabilization, brown tide and
invasive species are only a few of the concerns currently threatening the living resources of the
Peconic Estuary-. Because many small,persistent disturbances can lead to widespread
cumulative damage of natural communities throughout the system, it is important to focus
research on measuring cumulative impacts. Understanding the extent of these threats through
research and monitoring can guide management actions to lessen, and in some cases, eliminate
their impacts. Tables 1, 2, and 3 in the PEP living resources threats analysis (Sclafani and
Bortman 1999; in the appendix) show some of the threats identified in the Peconics and their
relationship to causes of different stresses. Any research and monitoring efforts related to
understanding these threats and lessening or eliminating them is considered to be a high priority.
Assessment of management recommendations in the CCMP is also required to determine their
effectiveness and evaluate progress of CCMP implementation.
•
APPENDIX I
I-6
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
• c
7. INITIAL RESEARCH, MONITORING, AND
ASSESSMENT PRIORITIES
Listed below are an initial set of priority research, monitoring, and assessment projects
that were developed as a result of the Characterization Report of the Living Resources of the
Peconic Estuary (Bortman and Niedowski 1998),the Habitat Module of the CCMP, PEP Natural
Resources Subcommittee meetings, and recommendations made in the Living Resources
Research and Monitoring (LRRM) workshop. The level of description of these priority projects
range from being relatively general in some instances to specific in others.
Priority projects will be refined further as the CCMP is finalized, a conceptual
ecological model is completed, and sampling protocols are fully developed to ensure quality
assurance and quality control as well as some degree of consistency among projects. As
priorities are finalized,project costs will also be estimated to determine the amount of funding
needed to perform the work.
This section divides the priorities into three categories: (1) threats, (2) biology and
ecology of living resource targets and system-wide studies of the Peconic ecosystem; and (3)
restoration. Within each category, priorities are numbered and identified as either research,
monitoring, or assessment. The living resource target(s) addressed by each priority is also listed.
Other important research, monitoring, and assessment initiatives are provided in bullet form in
the appendix. Cost estimates of specific projects are also in the appendix; however, it is
important to note that these estimates are very rough and need to be revised as proposals are
developed for each project.
7.1. LIVING RESOURCE THREATS-RELATED RESEARCH,
MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT PRIORITIES
(1) SHORELINE ENGINEERING & HARDENING
Targets: Beach, Bluff, and Dune Complex
Tidal Wetlands
Beach-Dependent Species
Assessment
Purpose: To quantify estuarine-wide shoreline engineering or manipulation from seawalls,
APPENDIX I
1-7
j,€n"""+� Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
bulkheads, docks and other hard structures, assess impacts on habitat and living resources, and •
develop"environmentally friendly" systems to assist in implementing a CCMP priority of "no
net increase" in shoreline engineering and hardening throughout the estuary.
Brief description: Development in the Peconic Estuary watershed has been occurring at a rapid
pace. In many instances, seawalls, bulkheads, docks and other hard structures are being erected
following the construction of homes and other structures along the Peconic Estuary shore. The
cumulative impact of these hard structures is of concern. Quantitative mapping is an important
first step and will be carried out through aerial photo interpretation by the US Fish and Wildlife
Service under contract to the PEP during the year 2000. The Peconic BayKeeper and the NYS
DEC PEP Program Coordinator will assist in ground truthing. An assessment of detrimental
effects of hardened shoreline and docks on the Estuary is also needed to fully understand impacts
on habitat and natural resources. Included in this analysis should be a characterization of all
shoreline hardening found in the Peconics and an investigation of"environmentally friendly"
systems.
(2) SEA LEVEL RISE
Target: Tidal Wetlands
Assessment
Purpose: To assess the viability of salt marshes in the Peconics by evaluating their response to
sea level rise and large-scale storm events.
Brief description: Salt marsh wetlands are critical to the viability of the Peconics and other
marine ecosystems because they provide habitats and breeding grounds for a variety of marine
organisms and serve as filters to prevent contaminants from entering the system. Yet these
wetlands are increasingly stressed by both sea level rise and development pressures.
Development can effectively prevent the landward migration of salt marshes as a response to
rising sea level (currently about 3 mm per year in the New York area). Thus an important step in
characterizing the health of salt marshes in the Peconics is to determine their response to sea
level change and unusual events such as hurricanes. One method for assessment could include
using radionuclides (e.g., Pb-210)to establish the chronology of marsh accretion, determine
whether the accretion rate is sufficient to keep pace with sea level rise, and evaluate historical
accretion pattems.
(3) CODIUM FRAGILE
Targets: Seagrass
Shellfish
Research
APPENDIX I
1-8
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
Purpose: To understand the influence of the introduced species Codium fragile on the ecology of
the estuary, particularly its effect on eelgrass (Zostera marina) and species dependent on
eelgrass.
Brief description: The macroalgae Codium fragile was introduced to the Peconics in the 1950s.
Since that time,the species has become widespread throughout the entire estuary and is the
dominant macroalgal species. Its impact on eelgrass abundance and distribution is unclear.
There are also questions related to its effects on survival and growth of some benthic (e.g., bay
scallop larval settlement/recruitment habitat) and pelagic species. Given the vast extent of
Codium fragile's occurrence in the estuary, and the PEP interest in eelgrass preservation and
restoration, it is critical to begin answering these questions now to better understand the
influence of this macroalgae on the ecology of the estuary. This research would be integrated
into the SAV priority research described later in this document.
(4) PHRAGM/TES AUSTRALIS
Target: Tidal Wetlands
Research
Purpose: To understand: (1) the causes of Phragmites expansion; (2) ecological effects on
communities, species, and food webs; (3)its adequacy in stormwater control; and (4) whether
there are differences in genotype.
Brief description: The common reed, Phragmites australis, is an invasive herbaceous grass. The
plant can reach up to approximately 7 m (20 ft) tall. Associated with disturbed areas, Phragmites
can spread rapidly, far beyond its original bounds. Phragmites tends to form dense, monotypic
stands after invasion of an area resulting in a reduction in species diversity and availability of
critical nesting habitat for certain species. However, some researchers have found that
Phragmites may provide habitat of comparable value as Spartina spp. for fiddler crabs, grass
shrimp, and larval mummichogs (J. Weis, personal communication, 1998). An investigation of
its ecological effects, effectiveness of current control efforts, and possible biological controls
should also be incorporated into studies.
•
APPENDIX I
1-9
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
•
(5) TOXIC CONTAMINANTS
Targets: Seagrass
Resident Finfish
Shellfish
Research
Purpose: To understand the impacts of lethal, sublethal, and synergistic effects of toxic
contaminants on(1) eelgrass and (2) sensitive stages of species in the estuary such as larval and
juvenile finfish and shellfish. This priority should be broken down into multiple research
projects that further specify research on impacts of particular toxic contaminants on eelgrass,
finfish, and shellfish.
Brief description: Toxic contaminants from pesticides, herbicides,road runoff, sewage, boats,
and other sources may be impacting Peconic estuarine organisms impairing growth,
reproduction, spawning, recruitment, settlement, or other sensitive stages in their lifecycle. Lytle
and Lytle (1998) found a correlation in the use of the pesticide, atrazine, and growth inhibition of
the estuarine marsh plant Juncus roemerianus. Other studies focusing on phytoplankton and
SAV macrophytes found declines with increased use of atrazine. Atrazine is one of the •
pesticides used by farmers in Suffolk County. Recent pesticide use data from the NYS DEC
indicates that Suffolk County has the greatest pesticide usage in the entire state of New York_
Eelgrass in the Peconics has been in decline at least since 1985 when brown tide first
occurred. Pesticides may be playing a role in the overall decrease of eelgrass throughout the
estuary, particularly in areas west of Shelter Island. Toxic contaminants may also be having
effects on organisms that use the estuary during critical life stages such as when they are larvae
or juveniles or during periods of reproduction, recruitment, and settlement. There is a paucity of
data on this type of information in the Peconics and it is therefore in need of further study.
7.2 RESEARCH, MONITORING, AND ASSESSMENT FROM
SYSTEMS TO SPECIES
Natural systems are vastly complex assemblages of species with elaborate internal and
external biotic and abiotic processes and interactions that help maintain the entire system (Noss
et al. 1997). System-wide research and monitoring of biotic and abiotic processes are essential
for understanding ecosystem productivity, land-bay-ocean linkages, benthic-pelagic coupling,
biological links to water quality and other interconnections that drive habitat functions and
biodiversity. More specific research, monitoring, and assessment of living resource targets is
also needed to further understand their role in the larger Peconic Estuary system.
APPENDIX I
I-10
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP ad°"°Ntl
i
(1) CONCEPTUAL ECOLOGICAL MODEL
Targets: Beach, Bluff, and Dune Complex
Tidal Wetlands
Seagrass
Resident Finfish
Beach-Dependent Species
Shellfish
Diverse Phytoplankton Community
Assessment
Purpose: To describe relationships among biotic, abiotic, and anthropogenic components of the
Peconic Estuary system and highlight information gaps in order to help prioritize research and
monitoring needs.
Brief description: A conceptual ecological model is needed to establish a baseline from which
we can identify the importance of various estuarine species, energy flows and key linkages
among human perturbations, physical processes, habitats, and biological elements of the system
in need of management. One recommended approach is to follow Odum (1971), which is a
systems-based method that describes the flow of energy among external forces and inputs,
producers, consumers, storages, and interaction among these components. Because of its
potential to help focus research and monitoring efforts, the development of a conceptual
ecological model is one of the highest priorities.
A conceptual ecological model is needed as part of this Living Resources Research and
Monitoring framework. A conceptual ecological model is a presentation of ecosystem
components and linkages among components in a schematic format (Montagna et al. 1996). The
model would link the categories of research and monitoring in this framework by describing
major components of the Peconic ecosystem and the interrelationship among them. A model
would highlight known information—our understanding of the biotic and abiotic factors
affecting the estuary and their linkages, and what is not known about the system—the gaps that
exist in our understanding that may limit effectiveness in developing strategies and managing the
Peconic Estuary. Therefore, the development of a conceptual ecological model is an important
organizing principle to help direct research and monitoring priorities.
•
APPENDIX I
1-11
,jo' N Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
i 4
(2) ROLE OF WETLANDS •
Target: Tidal Wetlands
Research
Pumose: To understand the role of wetlands in the Peconics as habitat, sites of nutrient flux, and
shoreline stabilization.
Brief description: Along the Peconic Estuary coast, salt marsh wetlands are found around small
embayments especially in areas where tidal creeks enter the estuary. It is one of the most
productive habitats in terms of biomass while also playing a critical role in the detrital food web.
Wetlands are also sensitive hydrologic indicators of water quality parameters such as turbidity,
pH, nutrient, and presence of various pollutants. According to Tiner et al. (2000 [draft]),
approximately 2,271 ha (5,679 ac) of the Peconic estuary consists of wetland(salt marshes and
intertidal flats) habitat. To improve our understanding of this critical habitat, it is important to
obtain information on its habitat importance to commercial, recreational, and rare species as well
as its role in nutrient cycling, and shoreline stabilization.
(3) WETLANDS MONITORING
Target: Tidal Wetlands
Monitoring
Pumose: To monitor the abundance, distribution, diversity and quality of fresh and saltwater
wetlands in the Peconic Estuary.
Brief description: In 1997, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service surveyed wetlands in the Peconic
Estuary watershed as part of the National Wetlands Inventory. The data was GIS mapped and
useful for tracking wetland trends over time. The NYS DEC has also performed GIS mapping of
saltwater wetlands in the Peconic Estuary East of Shelter Island only (includes spatial
distribution, acreage, and marsh types). The NYS DEC performs such GIS mapping through a
combination of aerial photo surveys and ground truthing. This effort should be extended to
complete the survey west of Shelter Island and routinely track the trends of wetland coverage
approximately every 5 years. This is particularly important in light of the increasing rate of
developmental pressure and sea-level rise.
•
APPENDIX I
1-12
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP ,OF
(4) SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION ECOLOGY
Target: Seagrass
Research
Purpose: To assess community importance of different SAV to understand their role in primary
production, habitat value, nutrient cycling, and sediment stabilization.
Brief description: Eelgrass once flourished throughout the Peconic Estuary. Largely as a result
of wasting disease in the 1930s and more recently brown tide in the 1980s and 1990s, eelgrass is
now found only along the eastern end of the estuary (with exception of Bullhead Bay,
Southampton). Since the introduction of Codium fragile in the 1950s, this invasive macroalgae
is now found widely throughout the estuary near eelgrass beds and in areas where there used to
be eelgrass. Eelgrass in the Peconic Estuary may also be effected by other SAV species
(epiphytic or non-epiphytic algal species). Given the changes in SAV abundance and
distribution, it is important to assess community importance of SAV and rank each in terms of
their community importance individually and as a whole to focus efforts on: (1) arresting current
declines in SAV habitat value and function; (2) managing in favor of natural species; and (3)
• restoring historic species and distributions. Assessments of historic locations should follow
rigorous, scientific methods such as sediment core analyses (e.g., pollen counts).
(5) EELGRASS
Target: Seagrass
Monitoring
Purpose: To adequately monitor aerial extent of eelgrass to assess trends.
Brief description: Adequate mapping and monitoring of SAV to track trends in areal extent and
quality of eelgrass is a priority. In 1997. Cornell Cooperative Extension began monitoring SAV
at three sites (see section 5.1.4.). This was expanded to a total of six sites in 1999. Aerial photo
analysis is being undertaken in 2000-2001. In the LRRVI workshop, annual aerial photo
interpretation and ground truth information using transect surveys at 10-12 sites (for eelgrass)
and up to a total of 20 sites for all SAV was recommended. All SAV should be surveyed every
couple of years to assess the spatial and temporal variability of(1) depth of edges; (2) incidence
of disease; (3) elemental tissue composition (of nitrogen); (4) general anatomical measures; (5)
crown density; (6) light attenuation; and, (7) overall abundance.
i
APPENDIX I
1-13
o"" N Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
(6) FORAGE FISH
Target: Resident Finfish
Research
Purpose: To determine (1) forage fish temporal and spatial distribution and abundance in the
nearshore habitats included in the shallow water zone(<_3 m) of the Peconic Estuary, and (2) to
evaluate the effects of land use patterns, water dependent activities, and urbanization on these
habitats.
Brief description: The Peconic Estuary provides particularly valuable habitat for commercially
and recreationally important finfish because of the availability of prey such as forage fish(e.g.,
larval and juvenile finfish, adult mummichog, sand lance, silversides, bay anchovy, herring spp.).
However little is known about their distribution and abundance in the estuary, particularly at
inshore areas such as the small embayments and tidal creeks of the system. An investigation of
forage fish and invertebrates would provide an understanding of their importance and aid in
development of management strategies to identify and address the impacts of land use and other
activities in areas adjacent to these habitats.
Work should initially begin on a subset of the tidal creeks described and studied in past •
surveys (i.e.,the PEP tidal creek survey), selected as representative of tidal creeks that were
rated overall as "highly impacted systems" or`low impacted systems." Diurnal and seasonal use
of various creek segments by larval,juvenile, and adult forage fish species should be
investigated. Sampling will need to occur at least biweekly, at sampling locations progressing
from the head to the mouth of the creek and out into surrounding nearshore areas adjacent to the
mouth of the creek. Sampling should take into account tidal stage, and will require the
evaluation and use of a variety of sampling gears (e.g., stop nets, seines, plankton nets, beam
trawls) to ensure capture and identification of the different life stages of forage species that
inhabit these nearshore areas.
The second component of this priority research is to evaluate the possible effects of
adjacent land use and degree of urbanization on the use of these creeks by forage fish species.
Results of surveys of forage fish abundance and distribution within selected creeks should be
compared to individual and overall ratings of water quality, macrobenthic invertebrates, and land
use ratings developed in the PEP tidal creek study to identify possible impacts and provide
information for developing management strategies to maintain and enhance tidal creek
productivity.
0
APPENDIXI
1-14
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
r
(7) FINFISH AND MACROI NVE RTEB RATES
Target: Resident Finfish
Monitoring
Purpose: To determine the temporal and spatial distribution, abundance, and different life stage
habitat requirements of finfish and macroinvertebrate species throughout the Peconic Estuary.
Brief description: Monitoring of targeted finfish and macroinvertebrate species should be
performed through: (1) habitat utilization mapping (subtidal habitats including SAV beds), (2)
seine surveys, and (3)trawl surveys to develop a species occurrence list throughout their life
cycle and identify sensitive recruitment and spawning areas. While there are currently no
monitoring efforts in the Peconics for the adult stages of finfish, the NYS DEC runs an annual
monitoring survey of juvenile finfish west of Shelter Island since 1987. The NYS DEC should
expand their annual monitoring and analysis of juvenile finfish by trawling to the east of Shelter
Island. This information is essential to better understand the importance of the Peconics to
important finfish, crustacean, and other species. Efforts should focus on resident species such as
winter flounder(Pleuronectes americanus), tautog (Tautoga onitis), as well as transient species
such as alewife(Alosa pseudoharengus), weakfish (Cynoscion regalis), scup (Stenotomus
chrysops), windowpane flounder(Scopthalmus aguosus), summer flounder (Paralichthys
dentatus), northern puffer(Sphoeroides maculatus), butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus), etc. Data
on invertebrate species vulnerable to these gear types such as squid, horseshoe crabs, lady, blue,
and green crabs, mantis shrimp, whelk, etc. should also be reported. Trawl data should be
entered into a geographic information system (GIS) to analyze spatial aspects of the data and to
enable comparisons with habitat maps.
(8) WINTER FLOUNDER
Target: Resident Finfish
Assessment
Purpose: To identify and map specific locations within the Peconic Estuary that provide critical
spawning habitat for local populations of winter flounder.
Brief description: R'inter flounder spawning in inshore waters is known to occur from December
through April. Spawning occurs at temperatures of 1°C to 10° C and bottom salinities of 10 ppt
to 35 ppt. Eggs are adhesive and demersal, attaching to each other and various substrates,
APPENDIX I
I-15
fl Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
resulting in concentrations of eggs on spawning grounds. To identify critical spawning areas
within the estuary, a fall and winter survey to collect egg and larval winter flounder should be
performed biweekly at locations throughout the estuary during peak spawning times for a
minimum of two sampling seasons. Sampling gear should include appropriate icthyoplankton
sampling gear, such as bongo nets and epibenthic sleds. Egg and larval spatial and temporal
distribution should be mapped and can be used to identify winter flounder spawning habitats and
to provide specific information for managers in developing optimal seasonal windows for
dredging that will minimize mortality of local stocks of winter flounder.
(9) PIPING PLOVERS
Target: Beach-Dependent Species
Assessment
Purpose: To determine piping plover habitat use, availability, and prey abundance in the Peconic
Estuary and to assess affects of habitat changes to make recommendations to enhance plover
breeding and productivity.
Brief description: Initial review of piping plover productivity data indicates that populations are
down at a number of Peconic Estuary sites. The reasons are unclear as there are multiple factors
that can play a role in breeding success and overall productivity. Throughout Long Island, there
is an interest in "enhancing" habitat to improve shorebird productivity. Therefore, baseline data
on prey abundance and shorebirds' microhabitat(i.e., intertidal zone -- sand and cobble patches,
wrack, areas where there is sparse vegetation, beach berm, and moist swales) preferences is
important information, particularly in the Peconic Estuary, which consist of habitats that do not
readily fit typical habitat descriptions found in the literature.
(10) HORSESHOE CRABS
Target: Beach-Dependent Species
Assessment
Purpose: To identify and protect potential spawning habitat of horseshoe crabs in the Peconic
Estuary.
Brief description: The 1998 Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Horseshoe Crabs(Limulus
polyphemus) adopted by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) has
identified habitat destruction and modification, overharvesting, and anthropogenic environmental
changes as potential causes of concern relating to the status of horseshoe crab populations along
the east coast. Horseshoe crabs are important to migrating shorebirds and sea turtles as sources
of food, are critical to biomedical research and pharmaceutical testing, and are commercially
harvested as bait for American eel, conch (or whelk), and baitfish. Horseshoe crabs have been
APPENDIX I
1-16
Peconic E.sfuarT Program CC;NP
• r
reported to spawn primarily during spring tidal phases, at the height of the daily tides on the
upper intertidal zone of protected beaches with well-drained sandy substrates. The ASMFC has
developed guidelines for delineation and assessment of horseshoe crab spawning habitat which
include the following: using coastal zone management erosion data and topographic and
navigational charts to predict potential spawning habitat; public participation using volunteers to
provide information on time and location of observed spawning activity; aerial overflights at low
tide; interviews with harvesters; and ground truth with surveys for nighttime spawning and for
monitoring juvenile presence throughout the summer. Water quality degradation, bulkheading
and sea wall and groin construction, dredging and beach renourishment, beach front
development, and increased boat traffic and all-terrain vehicle use have all been identified as
possible factors affecting horseshoe crab reproductive success. Initial landings data collected by
the NYSDEC indicates that the Peconic/Gardiners Bay system is the major source of commercial
landings of horseshoe crabs in New York, and presumably provides the largest concentration of
productive spawning habitat in our local waters. This study would provide specific information
for managers for protecting important spawning sites as required in the FLIP.
(11) HARD CLAM, SOFT SHELL CLAM, BAY SCALLOP
Target: Shellfish
Assessment
Purpose: To assess hard clam, soft shell clam, bay scallop, and oyster temporal and spatial
distribution; spawning, recruitment, and settlement; and population growth rates for improved
management of these species.
Brief description: Shellfish are extremely vital to the Peconic estuary both ecologically and
commercially. Shellfish can filter incredible volumes of bay water over relatively short time
periods. Therefore, decreased shellfish abundance may be resulting in significant ecological
changes to the system. For example, preliminary findings by Caron and Lonsdale (Dooley 1999)
have resulted in a working hypothesis that the rapid decline in the shellfish population prior to
the first brown tide may have led to significant reduction in grazing pressure on phytoplankton,
thereby allowing the onset of brown tide. Understanding abundance and population growth rates
as well as spawning, recruitment, and settlement of these important shellfish species is key to
restoring shellfish populations and promote sustainable harvesting of these species.
APPENDIX I
I-17
Peconic Estuary Program CCVP
•
(12) BAY SCALLOP
Target: Shellfish
Research
Purpose: To perform a distribution-focused study of the survival dynamics of bay scallops
including an examination of settlement, recruitment, and size frequency and year class
abundance of bay scallops located inside and outside of eelgrass beds.
Brief description: Anecdotal information indicates that adult bay scallops were once abundant
enough that they were found outside of eelgrass beds in deeper waters where they were harvested
by dredging. In some of these deeper areas, scallops may have been be two-years old, surviving
to spawn two successive years. These two-year old scallops may have played an important role
in the persistence of scallop populations,particularly following years in which brown tide
interfered with normal recruitment resulting from the spawning of one-year old scallops. Today,
bay scallops are harvested almost entirely in eelgrass beds because they are not as abundant and
are no longer found in deeper waters. Given the huge fluctuations that have occurred in bay
scallop populations as a result of brown tide, it is important to perform a distribution-focused
study of the survival dynamics of bay scallops.
(13) SLIPPER SHELL
Target: Shellfish
Research
Purpose: (1) To understand slipper shell (Crepidula spp.) temporal and spatial distribution;
spawning, recruitment, and settlement: and population growth rates to understand the role they
play in the estuary; and, (2) to use slipper shells as a model for understanding benthic filter
feeder dynamics with planktonic communities.
Brief description: Based on Lewis et al. (1997) and Lewis and Rivara(1997), slipper shells are
in great numbers throughout the Peconics with maximum abundances of 5,840 individuals pr
9.29 sq. meters. Crepidula spp. were found at 48% of the stations sampled in 1995 as compared
to only 11% by NYS DEC in 1979 Lewis et al. (1997). In fact, Crepidula fornicata was the
most abundant species surveyed by Lewis et al. (1997). It is not clear whether populations have
increased in response to ecological changes to the system such as brown tide and decreases in
bay scallop abundances. More information is needed on slipper shells as well as on benthic-
pelagic coupling occurring in the estuary. Slipper shell would be a good model to understand the
ecological relationship between benthic filter feeders and planktonic communities.
APPENDIX I
1-18
Peconic Estuary Program MVP ,,g
(14) BENTHOS
Targets: Seagrass
Shellfish
Assessment
Purpose: To obtain baseline information on bay bottom structure, substrate, and benthic
community structure for evaluating changes that may occur over time for better management of
benthic resources and the estuary as a whole.
Brief description: Mapping of the bay bottom using a high resolution remote sensing system will
provide information on shellfish, submerged aquatic vegetation, and sediment characteristics.
Such information is essential for proper management of Peconic estuarine resources, improving
shellfish productivity, restoring degraded benthic habitat, and improving shellfish harvest in the
system. Maps will also be useful for linking land usage (e.g., developed vs. undeveloped areas)
and water quality data to benthic habitat quality. Ultimately, benthic data will be employed as a
long-term indicator of the overall "health" of the Peconic Estuary. It is also intended that the
data be used to assess the spatial distribution of habitats and structures that are important to
juvenile finfish survival and recruitment into the fishery. In addition to seafloor mapping with
remote sensing equipment. ground-truthing will be performed to confirm occurrences of
particular species and significant concentrations of species and habitats.
(15) CRITICAL NATURAL RESOURCE AREAS
Targets: Beach, Bluff, and Dune Complex
Tidal Wetlands
Seagrass
Resident Finfish
Beach-Dependent Species
Shellfish
Assessment
Purpose: To organize existing data, collect new data to fill information gaps, and perform a
threat assessment for each Critical Natural Resource Area (CNRA) in order to fulfill
recommendations made in the draft CCMP and develop an implementation strategy by the
Towns to protect these important areas of high biodiversity.
Brief description: The CCMP identifies CNRAs within the Peconic Estuary watershed (spanning
APPENDIX I
1-19
t°""` Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
k
land and estuarine waters)that represent the highest quality remaining natural resources. All •
existing information on the different habitat and organisms of importance and their diversity of
function found in the CNRAs needs to be collected and organized into one inventory. Biological
data need to be quantified and information gaps need to be filled through additional data
collection and geographic information system (GIS) analysis. This analysis can then be used to
modify or confirm boundaries and develop buffer and core areas within CNRAs. A detailed
threats assessment is also needed. The threats assessment can then be linked to the CNRA
inventory and protection measures can be developed to reduce impacts and maintain their high
quality.
(16) ECOSYSTEM STRUCTURE AND PRODUCTIVITY
Targets: Beach-Dependent Species
Shellfish
Diverse Phytoplankton Community
Monitoring
Purpose: To obtain baseline information on the trophic structure through monitoring and to
perform analyses to determine whether there are changes, if any, in ecosystem productivity as a •
result of changes in species composition.
Brief description: The PEP has identified there is a paucity of information on the dynamics of
the food web in the Peconic Estuary. In order to determine whether there are shifts in food
sources (including submerged aquatic vegetation and plankton) related to habitat degradation,
water quality changes, invasive species, or other factors, and whether these shifts have led to
alterations in species composition, comprehensive assessment and monitoring of the different
trophic levels is needed. More specific research questions related to cause and effects of changes
in trophic structure need to be developed. Monitoring needs include: (1) phytoplankton
production, abundance, and identification and distribution of species assemblages (including
picoplankton); (2) microzooplankton abundance and identification and distribution of species
assemblages; (3)mesozooplankton abundance and identification and distribution of species
assemblages: (4) abundance and distribution of dominant benthic invertebrate species
assemblages; (5) abundance, distribution, density and size/weight of selected shellfish and finfish
species; (6) abundance and distribution of selected colonial waterbirds, shorebirds, and wintering
waterfowl; and (7) sightings/occurrences of marine mammals and sea turtles.
i
APPENDIX I
1-20
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP >ac pN
r
(17) BIOINDICATORS
Targets: Tidal Wetlands
Seagrass
Resident Finfish
Beach-Dependent Species
Shellfish
Diverse Phytoplankton Community
Research & Monitoring
Purpose: To identify and use a suite of indicator species at different trophic levels (e.g. plankton,
finfish [nekton], benthos)to assess estuarine diversity and abundance and productivity in the
Peconics and evaluate habitat changes and environmental stresses at varying multiple temporal
and spatial scales.
Brief description: Bioindicators consist of organisms that reflect changes to their habitat in a
predictable and repeatable manner. Bioindicators can represent changes at different scales,
ranging from biomolecular responses to population-level and community-level responses. These
are typically used to assess the effects of environmental stresses on the diversity and abundance
of marine organisms. These bioindicators need to be linked to the conceptual ecological model
representing different temporal and spatial scales. The indicators should provide technical
information about the condition of the estuary and be capable of linking improvements to
particular management actions undertaken or help identify management actions that are needed
to improve conditions. Examples of specific indicators may include: bay scallops. winter
flounder, tautog, osprey, eelgrass, sponges, and diamondback terrapins.
7.3 RESEARCH, MONITORING, AND ASSESSMENT RELATED TO
RESTORATION
(1) RESTORATION
Targets: Beach, Bluff, and Dune Complex
Tidal Wetlands
Seagrass
Resident Finfish
Beach-Dependent Species
Shellfish
APPENDIX I
I-21
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
Assessment & Research
Purpose: To assess restoration projects to measure success of restoration efforts and to identify
novel techniques to improve restoration efforts.
Brief description: An action in the CCMP recommends evaluating the success of restoration
efforts. There have been examples in the Peconics of restoration efforts that have not resulted in
actual long-term recovery of the targeted habitat. Therefore, it is essential to both assess and
monitor restoration projects in order to take steps, if necessary,to correct any problems. A
number of restoration projects are now underway as a result of available funding from the NYS
Clean Air Clean Water Bond Act. More restoration projects are expected to be funded in the
future. It is critical for restoration projects to build in the capacity to monitor sites upon
completion of restoration. Restoration assessment needs to be linked to the reference sites in
order to make quantitative comparisons of functionality. As part of assessment,monitoring
before, during, and after restoration is also needed to evaluate success of restoration efforts and
is considered a priority. Restoration projects should also strive to set aside a certain amount of
effort in performing experimental methods to improve efforts and identify key restoration
priorities. Also, research is needed to assess functional attributes necessary for restoration of
natural communities.
(2) EELGRASS CULTURING
Target: Seagrass
Research
Purpose: To develop a nondestructive method of culturing eelgrass to prevent impacts to
existing beds.
Brief description: Eelgrass restoration has been identified as a priority in the CCMP and the
Habitat Restoration Plan. It is important to preserve existing beds while restoring eelgrass to
other areas. Therefore nondestructive methods need to be pursued and national research
protocols on tissue culture and seed base need to be followed. As part of this research, there
should be an examination of flowering phenology, seed production and viability, eelgrass
colonization of unvegetated areas, sediment deposition due to eelgrass and possible changes in
sediment type after loss of eelgrass.
APPENDIX I
I-22
Peconic Estuary Program CC.VP t'
(3) REFERENCE SITES
Targets: Beach, Bluff, and Dune Complex
Tidal Wetlands
Seagrass
Resident Finfish
Beach-Dependent Species
Shellfish
Assessment
Purpose: To develop a suite of reference sites that represent different habitats as controls for
gauging restoration projects as well as for comparative analyses.
Brief description: One of the most common assessment designs involves the comparison of a
control or reference site (i.e., a place far enough from an activity under investigation to be
relatively unaffected by it) and an impact site (near an activity under investigation and therefore
assumed to show signs of an effect if one exists). Control-Impact and Before-After-Control-
Impact(BACI) are two examples of important sampling designs used in coastal ecology that
require the establishment of reference sites (Osenberg and Schmitt 1996). Sites used in previous
research, monitoring, and characterization efforts such as the SCDHS surface water quality
monitoring (Figure 2), tidal creek characterization (Figure 4), and Natural Heritage Program sites
need to be taken into consideration when reference sites are chosen. Pristine versus impacted
sites need to be identified and characterized as reference sites. Reference sites should represent
the functional value of different habitats (e.g., saltmarsh, eelgrass beds) in order to assess success
of habitat/resource restoration. Location maps need to be developed. Reference site data should
be made accessible to anyone involved in research, monitoring and restoration in the Peconics.
8. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
A key aspect of implementing a research and monitoring program is to have continued
interest by decision makers as well as an adequate and continuous funding source. Periodic
review of the program and redirection of effort by decision makers may also be necessary if new
information justifies a change in the research and monitoring program. A successful research
and monitoring program will also rely on participation by both the local scientific community
and the public.
•
APPENDIX I
1-23
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
Involvement of the scientific community over and above the creation of a science •
advisory panel can spark opportunities for associated research and monitoring. A management
recommendation made in the CCMP Habitat Module is to promote research and monitoring
opportunities in the Peconic Estuary at local schools, colleges, universities, and institutes by
establishing funding and scientific platforms and other incentives to facilitate basic and applied
marine research.
One management recommendation in the CCMP is to seek opportunities to link research
and monitoring in the Peconics to related estuaries and regional studies. 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 as well as other
estuaries where coordinated, large-scale research and monitoring efforts are underway.
Public participation is also beneficial for successful program implementation. Citizens as
advisory representatives ensure that the scope of the program addresses the needs of the
community and that information is in an understandable format. There are numerous examples
of programs having effective volunteer citizen monitoring programs as part of a larger research
and monitoring initiative. The Peconic Baykeeper intends to develop a volunteer citizens
monitoring effort, coordinated with this framework,that will focus on monitoring shoreline
changes.
8.1. LINKS TO OTHER PROGRAMS
A key aspect of the Living Resources Research and Monitoring program will be its
coordination with brown tide research efforts,the existing SCDHS surface water monitoring
program,NYS DEC annual trawl survey, and Cornell Cooperative Extension's SAV monitoring
to minimize redundancy and leverage efforts wherever possible. The following is a brief
description of each of the four programs.
8.1.1. SCDHS SURFACE WATER MONITORING
A major finding stressed at the LRRM workshop was the importance of the SCDHS
surface water monitoring program and the need to expand its efforts or develop partnerships with
other entities to incorporate a larger living resource component to its monitoring efforts. There
are already a number of living resource PEP projects (e.g., tidal creek study, SAV monitoring,
eelgrass/water quality) that are designed to work with SCDHS monitoring to obtain the most
complete information while minimizing unnecessary redundancy in water quality data collection.
A second recommendation made in the LRRM workshop was for the SCDHS to expand its
efforts to monitor groundwater flow and content such as nutrients and toxic contaminant levels.
Given the prevailing hypothesis by La Roche et a1. (1997), which associates brown tide with
nutrient inputs from groundwater, monitoring ground water seepage and nutrient levels would be
an important expansion to SCDHS efforts.
Since 1986, the SCDHS has routinely analyzed samples for a broad array of water quality •
and other parameters at 35 stations and 10 point source stations (Figure 2). Several intensive
APPENDIX I
I-24
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
• x �,E
water collection surveys have also been performed at Sag Harbor and West Neck Bay. The V
SCDHS surface water monitoring program consists of weekly water sampling of 15 sites with
the remaining 20 sites sampled on an alternating biweekly schedule and biweekly sampling of 10
point source stations. Sample analyses include nutrients (NH3, NOc +NO3, TP04, TDP04,
OPO4. TKN, DKN, urea, TOC, DOC, Si),total and fractionated (< 10 µm) chlorophyll-a,
salinity, total suspended solids,total and fecal coliform bacteria, and the brown tide organism
Aureococcus anophagefferens. Field measurements include temperature, dissolved oxygen,
secchi depth, and photosynthetically active radiation by irradiometry. Three stations are sampled
each week on a diurnal (morning and afternoon) basis in an effort to relate diumal dissolved
oxygen concentrations to chlorophyll-a and nitrogen levels. Special sampling events include wet
weather sampling to determine changes in water quality due to rainfall (in Sag Harbor and West
Neck Bay), intensive sampling of every two to four hours over a 24-hour period to investigate
diurnal dissolved oxygen variation (in Peconic River, Meetinghouse Creek and Flanders Bay),
and intensive sampling along the eastern boundary of the Peconic Estuary for input to the water
quality model being developed by Tetra Tech on behalf of the PEP.
8.1.2. BROWN TIDE RESEARCH
In the decade following the first brown tide in 1985,New York Sea Grant and Suffolk
• County funded brown tide research performed by scientists at SUNY Stony Brook, Brookhaven
National Laboratory (BNL), Southampton College and elsewhere. In 1996, the NOAA Coastal
Ocean Program funded $1.5 million for brown tide research as part of the Brown Tide Research
Initiative (BTRI) administered by New York Sea Grant. An additional S1.5 million for brown
tide research was funded by the Coastal Ocean Program of NOAA as part of the Ecology and
Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms (ECOHAB) program. ECOHAB is an interagency
program consisting of NOAA, Sea Grant,National Science Foundation, Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Naval Research, and National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. Studies supported by BTRL New York Sea Grant, and the NOAA Coastal
Ocean Program have included:
• Physiological characteristics of brown tide
• Phytoplankton productivity and zooplankton dynamics (predator-prey relationships)
• Viral activity
• Environmental factors enhancing brown tide blooms
• Impact of brown tide on microbial food web
• Susceptibility of shellfish to brown tide
• Physical oceanographic study on the causative factors in the initiation of brown tide blooms
• Genetics
• Historical occurrence of brown tide blooms
• Reconstruction of the effects of brown tide blooms on the growth of hard clams
i
.APPENDIX 1
1-25
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
8.1.3. NYS DEC FINFISH & MACROINVERTEBRATE TRAWL
SURVEY
Since 1987,the NYS DEC has performed annual trawl surveys west of Shelter Island.
The original intent of the surveys was to develop an annual index of recruitment of juvenile
weakfish and examine the relationship between parental stock size and environmental factors on
year class strength for weakfish (Weber et al. 1998). Data collection was later expanded to
derive similar information on several other finfish species including winter flounder, scup,
bluefish, tautog, butterfish, and northern puffer. The surveys also provide important data on
more than 70 other species of frnfish and crustacea(Weber et al. 1998).
8.1.4. CORNELL COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SAV MONITORING
In 1997, Cornell Cooperative Extension's Marine Program began SAV monitoring at 3
sites in the Peconic Estuary: Orient Harbor, Town of Southold,Northwest Harbor, Town of East
Hampton, and Bullhead Bay, Town of Southampton. A minimum of three stations were sampled
per site for SAV, sediment analysis, and water quality analysis. SAV measurements include:
species composition, dry weight biomass of algae and eelgrass, depth and position of deep edge
of eelgrass bed, shoot density, presence and dry weight biomass of epiphytes, and presence of
wasting disease. Samples for SAV were taken 2 times per year. Cornell Cooperative Extension
uses water quality data from SCDHS surface water monitoring program (see above). These data
consist of the following parameters: chlorophyll-a, total suspended solids, dissolved inorganic
nitrogen, dissolved inorganic phosphorus, and light attenuation. In addition, water temperature,
salinity, and light measurements at the surface and at one meter increments are taken at the time
of SAV sampling. Sediment measurements include grain size and percent organic matter.
Upon completion of the 1997 SAV monitoring report, two recognized experts in the field
were asked to review the monitoring program. As a result of this expert review,the monitoring
program was revised and the following 1998 sampling program was initiated: SAV sampling
was performed once per year during the summer,the number of samples collected per site was
increased to 12, and sediment sampling will be repeated every five years for each site. In 1999,
Cornell Cooperative Extension expanded its monitoring program to include three additional sites
in Gardiners Bay, Town of Shelter Island, Three Mile Harbor, Town of East Hampton, and
Southold Bay, Town of Southold (Figure 3). Underwater video of each site was also taken in
1998 and 1999. Aerial photo analysis of eelgrass coverage estuary-wide will be performed in
2000 in cooperation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Aerial photos will provide a more
extensive view of existing eelgrass beds and provide estimates of percent cover.
APPENDIX I
I-26
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP ,#cO`N,
9. PRODUCTION & DISSEMINATION OF
INFORMATION
Dissemination of research and monitoring information is essential to evaluate progress
made in restoration and conservation efforts, to develop improved methods for research,
monitoring, and stewardship of our important natural resources, and to provide public with
information about the state of the estuary. Results of research and monitoring should be
available in peer reviewed scientific journals and conferences as well as in newsletter and other
formats that are understandable to the public and decision makers.
9.1. DATA MANAGEMENT
A Living Resources Research and Monitoring program would generate a vast amount of
data over a relatively short period of time. How these data are managed and their availability
will influence how the information is used. A database manager must be identified early on in
the development of this program. Database management could be undertaken by Suffolk County
under the auspices of the PEP Program Coordinators,NYS DEC, or could be contracted out to a
university or private entity.
• Regardless of which entity manages the data, the information must be available in
different formats depending on how it will be used. The program coordinator should be required
to set up a procedure on how-the scientific data are transformed into information and made
available in various forms that can be used not only by other scientists, but also by resource
managers, decision makers, and the public at large. For example, different forms in which
information is needed include raw data of field and laboratory results, summary results from data
analyses, highly summarized data designed to explain generally about the health of the Peconics,
technical reports and publications on analyzed data, and public information such as news
accounts and press releases based on results from data analyses. Periodic fact sheets distributed
in a newsletter or made available electronically on the PEP web site are other important
information dissemination tools that should be provided by a living resources research and
monitoring coordinator.
One recommendation made in the CCMP Habitat Module is to organize an annual or
biennial conference to report research and monitoring results to the public and guide
management decisions. Such a biennial conference will provide an opportunity for scientists to
meet along with managers and the public to review and discuss findings.
•
APPENDIX I
1-27
/O° P% Peconic Estuary Program CCVP
z � s
9.2. GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS •
A geographic information system (GIS) is a computer system for the entry, management,
display, and analysis of geospatial data. Information is in the form of maps, or data layers, with
related tables of descriptive information that are linked to the graphic features on the map. Uses
of GIS parallel and support three of the major functions of the living resources research and
monitoring framework: information gathering, communication, and scientific analysis.
Examples of GIS applications include habitat delineation and assessment,threats assessment,
change analyses,process and flow modeling, and spatial measurements, as well as publication
and presentation graphics and data management. Some of the priorities discussed in this
document call for the use of GIS in developing maps and performing spatial analyses.
Some GIS applications are best performed by specialists with advanced systems, while
others can be done by individuals with minimal training and desktop systems. Given that GIS is
such a powerful tool for managing and analyzing data, it would be imperative that GIS be used
for various aspects of the Living Resources Research and Monitoring program activities related
to data management, map production, spatial analysis, and information dissemination.
10. IDENTIFICATION OF FINANCIAL RESOURCES
The cost of implementing a comprehensive research and monitoring program can be
wide-ranging depending on the scope of projects and staff needed to administer the program. At
least $500,000 annually would be needed to adequately perform only a few of the research and
monitoring projects identified as priorities in the CCMP. An additional $100,000 annually
would be required for program administration, oversight and coordination, and public
involvement and outreach. At least $3 million over the next five years would be required to
adequately implement a comprehensive living resources research and monitoring program.
The PEP Management Conference should aggressively seek funding as part of its budget
process for implementation of this program. Funding sources could be existing or new sources
from NYS DEC,NYS DOS, USEPA (including NEP implementation),NOAA,National Science
Foundation, Suffolk County, and private sources. Initial seed money could be sought from an
allocation by the New York State Legislature as a Member item or by federal representatives.
10.1. COORDINATION WITH EXISTING GRANT PROGRAMS
Coordination and partnership of individual competitive grants will play a major role in
the success of this program. Examples of competitive grants include but are not limited to: (1)
National Science Foundation grants; (2)US EPA Sustainable Development Challenge Grant; (3)
US EPA Project EMPACT (Environmental Monitoring for Public Access and Community
Tracking); (4)US EPA Water and Watershed Research; (5) US EPA Coastal 2000; (6)US EPA •
NCERQA; (7)NOAA ECOHAB; (8)NOAA Essential Fish Habitat; (9)NOAA Coastal Services
Center Coastal Change Analysis Program; (10) US Fish and Wildlife Service Aquatic Nuisance
APPENDIX I
I-28
Peconic Estuary Program CCUP
• r
Species program; (11) Coastal Intensive Network Sites (CISNet); and, (12)National
Environmental Monitoring Initiative -- Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources.
White House Office of Science & Technology Policy.
Special designations of sites in the Peconics could make funding available from NOAA
National Estuarine Research Reserve and/or National Science Foundation Land Margin
Ecological Research program.
11. CONCLUSION & NEXT STEPS
Research and monitoring should be used as tools in environmental decision- making to
provide technical assessments of problems while the wider public is involved in determining the
desirability of action based on the scientific evidence(Fairweather 1993). This document which
highlights research, monitoring, and assessment priorities for habitats and living resources of the
Peconic Estuary could provide the appropriate science needed to help decision makers
implement the recommended management actions in the CCMP and fill information gaps needed
to modify existing or develop new strategies to protect and conserve the estuary.
Living resources research and monitoring coordination, advocacy, and fundraising is
necessary to make this framework a reality. Strong leadership will be essential for success of
this program. A coordinator is needed to effectively implement this framework, focus research
and monitoring needs highlighted in the CCMP, and coordinate existing efforts. One of the most
important responsibilities of a coordinator will be to ensure that scientific results generated by
this framework be tailored into information that managers and the public can understand and use.
The ideas recommended in this document are consistent with new paradigms in
biodiversity conservation and management that embrace species, ecosystems, and the dynamic
multi-scale ecological processes that sustain them (Peters et al. 1997).
Next steps include identifying a coordinator, raising funds for specific projects, and
developing specific "scope of work" descriptions, cost estimates, and timelines for projects that
fall under each research and monitoring priority. The results of each priority project must
ultimately fulfill a management need identified in the CCMP. Therefore, specific management
needs must be finalized.
•
APPENDIX I
I-29
Peconic Estuary Program CC:LIP
12. REFERENCES
Anderson, D. M., B. A. Keafer, D. M. Kulis, R. M. Water, and R. Nuzzi. 1993. An
immunofluorescent survey of the brown tide chrysophyte Aureococcus anophagefferens along
the northeast coast of the United States. Journal of Plankton Research. 15: 563-580.
Arthur D. Little, Inc. 1996. Chemical contaminant distributions in Peconic Estuary sediments.
Submitted to Suffolk County Department of Health Services and the Peconic Estuary Program.
Reference 47389.
Bortman, M. and N. Niedowski. 1998. Characterization Report of the Living Resources of the
Peconic Estuary. Prepared for the Peconic Estuary Program.
Bricelj, V. M. and S. H. Kuenstner. 1989. Effects of the "brown tide" on the feeding physiology
and growth of bay scallops and mussels. In: E. M. Cosper et al. (eds.)Novel phytoplankton
blooms: causes and impacts of recurrent brown tides and other unusual blooms. Springer. pp. 85-
100.
Cashin Associates. 1996. Peconic Estuary Program final submerged aquatic vegetation study.
Prepared for the Peconic Estuary Program. 374 pp. •
Cochran, J. K.. D. J. Hirschberg, and D. Amiel. 1999. Particle mixing and sediment
accumulation rates of Peconic Estuary sediments: a sediment accretion study in support of the
Peconic Estuary Program. Final Report. Project No. 0014400498181563). 42 pp.
Cochran, J. K., D. J. Hirschberg, J. Wang and C. Dere. 1998. Atmospheric deposition of metals
to coastal waters (Long Island Sound,New York, USA): evidence from saltmarsh deposits.
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 46: 503-522.
Dennison, W. C., G. J. Marshall, and C. Wigand. 1989. Effect of"brown tide" shading on
eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) distributions. In: E. M. Cosper et al. (eds.)Novel phytoplankton
blooms: causes and impacts of recurrent brown tides and other unusual blooms. Springer. pp.
675-692.
Dooley, P. 1999. 1999 brown tide and symposium overview. Brown Tide Research Initiative.
Report Number 4. 12 pp.
EEA, Inc. 1999. Peconic Estuary Program tidal creek study. Prepared for the Suffolk County
Department of Health Services. Peconic Estuary Program. 60 pp.
Galveston Bay National Estuary Program. 1994. The Galveston Bay Plan. The Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan for the Galveston Bay Ecosystem. 458 pp.
Howes, B. L., D. R. Schlezinger,N. P. Millham, G. Hampson, D. Goehringer, and S. Aubrey. •
1998. Oxygen uptake and nutrient regeneration in the Peconic Estuary. Prepared for the Suffolk
APPENDIX 1
1-30
Peconic Estuary Program CC,1'IP t°"""t,
t
c
County Department of Health Services. center for marine Science and Technology, University
of Massachusetts, Dartmouth and Aubrey Consulting, Inc., East Falmouth, MA.
La Roche, J. R. Nuzzi, R. Waters, K. Wyman, P. Falkowski, and D. W. R. Wallace. 1997. Brown
tide blooms in Long Island's coastal waters linked to interannual variability in groundwater flow_
Global Change Biology. 3: 397-410.
Lewis, D. E. and G. Rivara. 1997. An assessment of shellfish resources in the tributaries and
embayments of the Peconic Estuary. Draft. Cornell Cooperative Extension Program. Prepared for
the Peconic Estuary Program. 92 pp.
Lewis, D., J. Kassner, R. Cerrato, and R. Finch. 1997. An assessment of shellfish resources in the
deep water areas of the Peconic Estuary. Marine Sciences Research center, State University of
New York at Stony Brook. Prepared for the Peconic Estuary Program. 169 pp.
LISS unpublished, undated fact sheet.
Lonsdale et al. 1996. Food web interactions in the plankton of Long Island bays, with
preliminary observations on brown tide effects. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 134: 247-263.
Lytle, J. S. and T. F. Lytle. 1998. Atrazine effects on estuarine macrophytes Spartina alternii lora
and Juncus roemerianus. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 17(10): 1972-1978.
Montagna, P. A., J. Li, and G. T. Street. 1996- A conceptual ecosystem model of the Corpus
Christi Bay National Estuary Program Study Area. Corpus Christi Bay National Estuary
Program, CCBNEP—08. 114 pp.
National Research Council. 1990. Managing troubled waters, the role of marine environmental
monitoring. Committee on A Systems Assessment of Marine Environmental Monitoring, Marine
Board. Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems. National Academy Press,
Washington, DC.
New York Sea Grant. 1998. Brown Tide Research Initiative Report#1. March 1998. 8 pp.
Noss, R. F., M. A. O'Connell, and D. D. Murphy. 1997. The science of conservation planning.
Island Press (Washington, DC).
Odum, H. T. 1971. Environment, power, and society. Wiley Interscience. New York. 331 pp.
Osenberg, C. W. and R. J. Schmitt. 1996. Detecting ecological impacts caused by human
activities. In: Detecting ecological impacts: concepts and applications in coastal habitats.
Academic Press. NY. 236 pp.
APPENDIX I
1-31
Peconic Estuary Program CCjVP
Y
•
Paulsen, R. J. and C. F. Smith, and T. F. Wong. 1997. Development and evaluation of an
ultrasonic groundwater seepage meter. Geology of Long Island and Metropolitan New York. 88-
97.
Peters, R. S., D. M. Waller, B. Noon, S. T. A. Pickett, D. Murphy, J. Cracraft, R. Kiester, W.
Kuhlmann, O. Houck, and W. J. Snape III. 1997. Standard scientific procedures for
implementing ecosystem management on public lands. In: The ecological basis of conservation:
heterogeneity, ecosystems, and biodiversity. S. T. A. Pickett, R. S. Ostfeld, M. Shachak, and G.
E. Likens (Eds.) Chapman and Hall, New York. Pp. 320-336.
Pleuthner, R. A. 1995. Raze plants, raze animals and significant natural communities in the
Peconic Estuary. Prepared for the Suffolk County Department of Health. New York Natural
Heritage Program, Latham,NY.
Sclafani, M. and M. L. Bortman. 1999. Summary of threats to the living resources of the Peconic
Estuary. Final Draft 6/99. Prepared for the Natural Resources Subcommittee, Peconic Estuary
Program. 7 pp.
Simenstad, C. A., C. D. Tanner, R. M. Thom, and L. L. Conquest. 1991. Estuarine habitat
assessment protocol. Prepared for the Puget Sound Estuary Program, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, WA. EPA 910/9-91-037. 201 pp.
Suszkowski. D. 1998. Importance of long-term monitoring from a US NGO viewpoint.
Proceedings of the 14th Annual Environmental Conference, Environmental Impact Studies: Are
they Worthwhile, Sherkin Island Marine Station, County Cork, Ireland,November 5-6, 1998.
Tiner, R. W., D. B. Foulis, G. S. Smith, J. Swords, S. Schaller, and D. Peterson. 2000 (draft).
The Peconic watershed—recent trends in wetlands and their buffers. Draft report prepared for
the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Ecological Services,National Wetlands Inventory Program,Northeast Region.
Weber, A., C. Grahn, and B. Havens. 1998. Species composition, seasonal occurrence and
relative abundance of finfish and macroinvertebrates taken by small-mesh otter trawl in Peconic
Bay, New York. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Fish,
Wildlife and Marine Resources, Marine Finfish Unit. 127 pp.
APPENDIX I
I-32
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
• r
APPENDICES
Al. SAMPLING PROTOCOLS
Cost effective sampling protocols are needed to ensure consistency among projects,
quality assurance and quality control, and allow comparisons of results from different projects.
Since the intent of this program is to support long-term research and monitoring, sampling
protocols are especially important for trend analyses. Until an expert panel is convened to
develop specific sampling protocols, sampling should follow methods found in Puget Sound
Estuary Program's Estuarine Habitat Assessment Protocol(Simenstad et al. 1991). Sampling
stations should be consistent with sites used in the SCDHS surface water quality monitoring
program (Figure 2), eelgrass monitoring by Cornell Cooperative Extension (Figure 3),the PEP
tidal creek characterization study (Figure 4), and the Critical Natural Resource Areas (Figure 5)
described later in this report.
A2. PAST & ONGOING EFFORTS
A2.1.WATER QUALITY AND SEDIMENT DYNAMICS
The PEP is supporting the development of a hydrodynamic water quality model of the
Peconic Estuary. Model results are expected in the near future.
The NYS DEC Bureau of Shellfisheries Shellfish Sanitation Unit is responsible for water
quality monitoring for the harvest of bivalve molluscs. Water samples are collected and
analyzed for total and fecal coliform bacteria. The Systematic Random Sampling Method is
used whereby NYS DEC samples at least six times per year(ideally once every two months) at
each shellfish growing area. Sampling can occur either during wet or dryweather but must be
taken on an ebbing tide. Shellfish growing areas are closed on a "temporary emergency basis"
after three inches of rainfall (or greater) within a continuous 36-hour period. When this occurs,
the affected growing area is closed to harvesting and must be tested to document that water
quality has returned to acceptable coliform levels. The area can then be re-opened to shellfish
harvesting. NYS DEC does not currently monitor coliform bacteria in all areas in the estuary
closed to shellfish harvesting.
In 1997, the PEP funded an eelgrass habitat water quality criteria study to correlate water
quality conditions with health of eelgrass beds. Water and sediment quality and general
hydrodynamic trends were evaluated in areas where eelgrass density was highest, lowest,
transitional, stressed, and non-existent. Data were compared to criteria developed for Long
APPENDIX I
1-33
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
re
Island Sound and Chesapeake Bay. Additional work included an analysis of eelgrass transplant
techniques to determine the most successful methodology for the Peconics.
The PEP funded a survey by Howes et al. (1998) on sediment nutrient flux at 10 stations
in the Peconic Estuary. Rates of sediment and water column oxygen consumption and nutrient
regeneration were measured throughout the system to determine the potential for occurrences of
bottom water hypoxia and the magnitude of organic matter cycling throughout the system.
Using radionuclides, Cochran et al. (1999) evaluated sediment mixing and accumulation patterns
at the same 10 sites. Carbon burial rates were estimated to be 0.3 to 1.8 mg C/cm2/y.
A2.2. TOXIC CONTAMINANT ANALYSES
In 1994, Arthur D. Little (1996), Inc. was contracted by the PEP to survey bottom
sediment for toxic contaminants throughout the estuary. Sediment samples were collected from
12 locations and analyzed for a wide range of naturally occurring and human-made substances.
Pollutant concentrations were compared to "Effects Range-Low" and "Effects Range-Median"
values developed by NOAH. Both the low and median values correspond to concentrations
below which contaminant induced effects are unlikely. None of the samples exceeded the
medium range values. Arsenic and lead concentrations exceeded the low values at 10 stations.
Copper, mercury, silver, cadmium, and zinc exceeded low values in East Creek.
Recently, in 1998 and 2000, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency performed a •
survey to sample sediment toxicity (e.g., metals, pesticides, organics) at 28 sites throughout the
estuary. Typically, most measurements were low to below detection. There were detectable
levels of pesticides including DDT and its breakdown products in Jockey Creek and Sawmill
Creek in Southold. The U.S. EPA also completed a survey in 1999 to examine possible
bioaccumulation of contaminants, including radionuclides, in finfish and shellfish. Results are
not yet available.
A2.3. BIOLOGICAL INVENTORIES
D. Lonsdale and G. Taylor, scientists from the Marine Sciences Research Center, State
University of New York , Stony Brook, are currently performing a taxonomic survey of
phytoplankton and microzooplankton including temporal and spatial patterns in composition and
biomass, at three sites in the Peconics. The sites are at SCDHS water quality sampling stations
in Flanders Bay (#170), West Neck Bay (4119), and Great Peconic Bay (4130).
The Peconic Estuary Program contracted EEA, Inc. to survey macrobenthic invertebrate
communities of 10 tidal creeks. Land use, water quality, bathymetry, hydrodynamics, physical
chemistry, sediment grain size, and wildlife was also evaluated. The data collected suggest an
interesting relationship between a diverse benthic community and presence of surrounding salt
marsh, even in instances where there was only a fringe of salt marsh between the creek and
development in the watershed(EEA, Inc. 1999).
The New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP) inventoried rare and endangered
species and natural communities in the Peconic Estuary watershed. Results of their inventory are
APPENDIX I
I-34
Peconic Estuary Program CC.VP t6P1 14,
i
• e�
found in Pleuthner(1995). The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service mapped critical natural resource
areas, including habitat and species distribution maps, which reflect the results of two PEP
experts workshops in 1996.
The NYS DEC performs ongoing wetland status and trends in the Peconic Estuary
watershed. In 1997, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service also surveyed wetlands in the Peconic
Estuary watershed as part of the National Wetlands Inventory (Tiner et al. 2000 [draft]).
In 1995, the PEP funded a deep (1.8 to 8.5 m) water shellfish survey by Lewis et al.
(1997) and in 1997, a shallow(0.3 to 1.85 m) water shellfish survey by Cornell Cooperative
Extension (Lewis and Rivara 1997)to evaluate distribution and abundance of sediment type,
shellfish, and other macrofauna. In the deep water survey, sampling was performed at 124
stations spaced approximately 0.5 nautical miles apart. An earlier shellfish survey was
performed in 1979 and 1980 by NYS DEC in the deep waters of the Peconic Estuary from
Flanders Bay to Shelter Island Sound at 246 stations. Sampling methods were the same as the
deep water survey performed by Lewis et al. (1997). Therefore, comparisons between surveys
were made in some areas.
The East End towns monitor a variety of finfish populations on different scales at
different locations. Commercial landings of finfish and crustaceans are also documented
annually by the National Marine Fisheries Service.
The PEP funded a SAV survey performed by Cashin Associates (1996). They reviewed
historical patterns of SAV abundance and distribution and performed field surveys throughout
the estuary. Their survey encompassed stations throughout the estuary in areas where shellfish
growing areas or eelgrass beds currently exist or may have occurred in the past based on
anecdotal and qualitative information from marine scientists, harbor masters, bay constables, and
other local officials. More detailed surveys were performed in North Sea Harbor, Three Mile
Harbor, West Neck Harbor, and Long Beach Bay. They also used aerial photos from October
1994 to add stations around Shelter Island and to the east and to determine spatial extent of
eelgrass beds and other SAVs between sampling stations. A total of 214 stations were sampled
between September and October 1994. Aerial coverage was estimated by visual surveys within
an approximately 30 in (100 ft) radius of each sampling station.
The PEP will be funding a second set of aerial photo interpretation by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service in cooperation with Cornell Cooperative Extension and the Peconic BayKeeper
as part of eelgrass long-term monitoring. Unlike Cashin (1996), photos will be collected
according to protocols developed by NOAA to obtain the most accurate interpretation of eelgrass
characteristics using aerial photography. The photos will also be used to obtain quantitative,
baseline information on the amount of shoreline hardening that currently exists along the Peconic
Estuary.
•
APPENDIX I
1.35
Peconic Estuary Program CCWP
n
A2.4. LAND USE ANALYSES
In 1995,the PEP supported the Suffolk County Department of Planning to inventory land
use and population and develop parcel-specific land use maps for every Suffolk County Tax Map
parcel in the PEP. Maps were also developed to show land available for development and
underwater ownership of submerged lands.
A2.5. GROUNDWATER STUDIES
From 1993 to 1996, the U. S. Geological Survey investigated the distribution and
magnitude of ground water discharge to the Peconic Estuary and identified ground water flow
paths and travel time to Meetinghouse Creek, Sag Harbor Cove and West Neck Bay. Water
levels were measured at 246 wells during March-April 1994 and at 195 wells in March 1995.
Modeling combined with hydrogeologic data from 43 observation wells and borehole-
geophysical surveys at 24 wells were used to determine ground water flow paths, travel time and
a water budget.
A continuously recording ultrasonic seepage meter was used by Paulsen et al. (1997)to
measure ground water underflow 65 ft offshore in Coecles Harbor, Shelter Island in an effort to •
understand the relationship between tidal fluctuations and groundwater underflow and to locate
the salt/fresh water interface.
A2.6. BROWN TIDE INVESTIGATIONS
In addition to the brown tide research and monitoring described earlier. BNL has initiated
the Brown Tide Monitoring Network to deploy real-time in-situ fluorometers and examine basic
photosynthetic physiology of brown tide in the field. BNL has also performed "hindcasting" and
autoecological investigations.
Initial studies on brown tide include those of Bricelj and Kuenstner(1989) on the effects
of brown tide on shellfish and Dennison et al. (1989) who investigated the effect of the brown
tide algal bloom on eelgrass. Studies performed by Crisper et al. have included physiological
analyses, 14C productivity data, and the effects of macronutrients and micronutrients on bloom
formation. Anderson et al. (1993) developed an immunoflourescent procedure for detecting
brown tide cells. Lonsdale (1996) examined predator-prey relationships.New York State, local
towns, baymen's groups and Cornell Cooperative Extension have been involved in shellfish
reseeding and monitoring efforts (New York Sea Grant 1998).
A3. ADDITIONAL RESEARCH & MONITORING INITIATIVES
There were numerous recommendations made at the LRRM workshop and PEP Natural
Resources Subcommittee meetings. Although not identified as priorities,the following research
and monitoring recommendations are nevertheless important and should be considered further as
APPENDIX I
I-36
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
4 t
the development of this program evolves. There is some overlap of research and monitoring
recommendations among each other and the priorities listed above.
A3.I. LIVING RESOURCES THREATS-RELATED RESEARCH,
MONITORING & ASSESSMENT
• It is intended that this LRRM program be linked to ongoing brown tide research and
monitoring efforts. Nevertheless, in discussions at the LRRM workshop and during Natural
Resources Subcommittee meetings, it was identified that there is a need for efforts to focus
on the ecological effects of brown tide. Some specific examples recommended are to: (1)
research the changes in energy pathways as a result of the present occurrence of
noxious/toxic algal blooms -- quantify the `ripple" effects of brown tide on living organisms
throughout the estuary; (2) examine brown tide process studies and rate measurements such
as nitrogen conversion; (3) investigate the role of benthos with respect to brown tide; and (3)
research the lethal, sublethal, and synergistic effects of brown tide on the reproduction and
behavior of finfish species.
• Integrated research on human impacts on"valued species" early life stages,productivity, and
reproduction. Human impacts include (1) physical effects from tributary blocking(e.g.,
culverts), shoreline hardening, and dredging; (2)chemical effects from nutrients (e.g., carbon
export, eutrophication) and toxics (e.g.,PAHs,pesticides, herbicides, endocrine disrupters).
• Investigate changes in energy pathways as a result of anthropogenic inputs (e.g., pesticides).
Quantify the"ripple" effects of nutrient and toxic inputs on living organisms throughout the
estuary.
• Examine the effects of toxics in localized sediments on the food chain(bioaccumulation and
any sublethal effects on eggs and/or larvae).
• Determine the effects of navigational dredging on shallow water communities and the
recovery time of benthic communities exposed to dredging. Dredging currently being done in
the Peconics should be examined on a site-specific basis to determine the magnitude of
impacts on the natural community in comparison with the economic benefits of the activity.
• Monitor water quality and benthos of Flanders Bay (plus some control sites) to evaluate the
effectiveness of upgrading the Riverhead sewage treatment plant.
• Evaluate impacts of navigational dredging on larval,juvenile, and adult fish and clams by
sampling before, during and after a maintenance or navigational dredging operation.
.APPENDIX I
1-37
Peconic Estuary Program CCNfP
r _
• Develop environmental report cards to track improvements (both environmental and •
economic).
• Monitor coliform bacteria in closed shellfish areas with the goal of re-opening beds.
• Assess the intensity and extent of oyster disease in the Peconics.
• Evaluate the effects of boating, local fishing, and shellfish harvesting practices on eelgrass.
As part of this research, best management practices (BMPs) should be developed and
presented to each town in the Peconics.
• Assess the effects of swans and Canada geese on the use of shellfish resources in the
Peconics for human consumption.
• Assess the improvement in habitat due to reduction in nonpoint source pollution in the
western Peconics by management actions.
A3.2. RESEARCH, MONITORING, & ASSESSMENT FROM
SYSTEMS TO SPECIES
• Study the ecological interactions of. (1) northern puffers and bay scallops; (2) lady crabs,
hard clams, and tautog; (3) lady crabs and winter flounder; and, (4) bluefish, forage fish, and
young of the year habitats for forage fish.
• Study the similarities and differences of the ecology of fish in Peconics and Gardiners Bays.
• Identify- dredging windows compatible with life cycle and habitat of finfish in the estuary.
• Focus research to determine the effects of SAV on the growth, survival, and abundance of
different fish species.
• Perform an evaluation of distribution, abundance, and role of higher trophic level organisms
(e.g., diamondback terrapin) in the Peconic Estuary food web.
• Perform research on the ecology of food of sea turtles to evaluate the importance of the
Peconic Estuary and potential threats to these endangered and threatened species.
• Monitor the impact of availability and quality of forage fish on seabirds and other fish-eating
wildlife. Evaluate finfrsh grazing and other interactions and the needs of piscivorous birds,
humans and others for improved management.
• Examine the importance of sponges in the in the Peconics by examining their distribution,
abundance, and habitat preferences.
APPENDIX I
t-38
Peconic Estuary Program CC.WP e¢ k-
•
• Characterize the importance of crustacean grazing, their population trends and importance as
a food source.
• Perform research and monitoring of conch and American eel throughout the estuary to
understand their distribution (temporal and spatial), abundance, habitat preferences. and
different life stage requirements to develop management strategies and importance to other
species.
• Elucidate relationships among nutrients, SAV, and valuable resource species. This
examination should include the quantification and determination of possible links between
nitrogen loads west of Shelter Island and water quality requirements of SAV.
• Determine the effectiveness of monitoring eelgrass by monitoring occurrence and abundance
of eelgrass in beach wrack.
• Determine economic values (market and non-market) of Peconics' ecological services and
resources to help prioritize management endpoints.
• • Evaluate how different Peconic Estuary management strategies may conflict and determine
whether management endpoints should be prioritized.
• Consider marine sanctuaries as control sites and limit activity. Monitor sanctuaries and
evaluate threats from development on these critical habitats.
• Perform "new production" (i.e., resulting from allocthonous or external sources of nitrogen
such as riverine, terrestrial, and atmospheric inputs, and upwelling) studies to examine
system-wide ecosystem changes whereby primary production is measured from nutrient
sources coming into the system such as upwelling and atmospheric deposition. If it is
assumed that only new production can be exported from the system, a nitrogen mass balance
can be developed to determine how much is being exported. Data needs for this approach
would be consistent with SCDHS water quality data collected.
• On a subwatershed basis, investigate correlations and study affects of adjoining land use on
adjacent ecological communities.
• Evaluate nutrient recycling by grazing and decomposition.
• Perform specific local benthic processes studies. One approach may be to first stratify the
system based on sediment type and identify sites that are representative of the spectrum to
study local processes.
•
APPENDIX [
1-39
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
• Examine meroplankton as an indicator of health of economically important species. In
addition, collect data on phytoplankton populations to determine what affects the base of the
food chain such as: (1) viruses and bacteria; (2) sediment flux; and, (3) total suspended
solids.
• Elucidate the plankton-benthic linkage as it relates to carbon and its role in the food web.
• Analyze the effectiveness of current wetland regulations and their implementation on
wetland buffers.
A3.3. RESEARCH, MONITORING, & ASSESSMENT RELATED TO
RESTORATION
• Determine whether particular species will return if the habitat is restored or enhanced,
particularly in areas influenced by duck farms in the past as well as areas currently impacted
by agricultural practices in existence today. There should also be an evaluation of water
quality improvements and subsequent species utilization/recolonization of these improved
habitats.
s
•
APPENDIX I
I-40
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
NATURAL RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE
APPENDIX 1: SUMMARY OF THREATS TO THE LIVING RESOURCES
• OF THE PECONIC ESTUARY
FINAL DRAFT: 6117199
Prepared By:
Matthew Sclafani' and Marci L. Bortman2
'New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine
Resources, 205 N. Belle Meade Rd., Suite 1, E. Setauket,NY 11733
'The Nature Conservancy, Long Island Chapter,250 Lawrence Hill Rd,Cold Spring Harbor,NY 11724
i
APPENDIXI
I-41
Peconic Estuan,Program CC;LIP
i
BACKGROUND •
The Peconic Estuary Program's (PEP) Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) has
identified threats that have, or have the potential to, negatively impact the water quality and living
resources in the Peconic watershed. The CCMP contains actions that address these threats to improve and
protect the health of the Peconic ecosystem. The actions in the Habitat chapter of the CCMP specifically
deal with threats to the living resources of the Peconic Estuary. In addition to the Habitat chapter, the
literature-based Characterization Report of the Living Resources in the Peconic Estuary (Bortman and
Niedowski 1998, Herein referred to as: Characterization report) also provides a detailed description of
the Peconic ecosystem and the threats they have been subjected to.
The threats to the living resources in the Peconic Estuary are wide ranging and include both human and
non-human factors that have negatively impacted many habitats and species. For example, the decline in
eelgrass (Zostera marina) beds within the Peconic Estuary has been attributed to the reduction of light
penetration during extensive brown-tide (Aureococcus anophagefferens) algal blooms, nutrient over-
enrichment from fertilizers and failing septic systems, and competition with non-native macro-algae
(Codium fragile). While any one of these threats could be responsible for the decline of eelgrass beds, it is
also possible that the combination or interaction of all three threats lead to the reduction of eelgrass
abundance. Additionally, cumulative losses from seemingly minor threats may only become noticeable
over extended time periods; often when damage to the resources is very severe. Such threats are also of
concern to the PEP.
A first step to managing these threats is to identify them and characterize their impacts to the biota in the .
watershed. The characterization report and habitat chapters have identified and characterized the threats
and impacts to the living resources within the Peconic Estuary, but a summary of this information is
lacking. Therefore, the goal of this document is to concisely present the threats and their impacts to living
resources that have been identified in the Characterization report. We were also interested in determining
if these threats were addressed by actions in the Habitat and Living Resources chapter of the CCMP. It
was decided by the natural resources subcommittee (NRSC) that this document will be included as an
Appendix to the Characterization Report of the Living Resources.
GENERAL THREATS AND ASSOCIATED IMPACTS
Our first goal was to extract all of the threats to the living resources in the Peconic Estuary that were
identified in the Characterization report. We then listed the impacts that are "generally"associated with
each threat in a matrix(Table I). The major impacts associated with these threats fell into seven
categories that were consistent with the impacts found in the Habitat chapter. However,this is not an
exhaustive list of impacts that can result from each threat. It is also important to note that the impacts
associated with each threat were not necessarily derived from studies in the Peconic Estuary. The impacts,
however, are known to result from threats observed and studied elsewhere (e.g.Newell et al. 1998: dredge
impacts). Additionally, many of the impacts in Table I have not yet been studied, or are not fully
understood. We coded these potential impacts with a"P"(Table 1).
Table I should therefore, be viewed as an inventory list of identified threats to the living resources in the
Peconic Estuary and the impacts that q pically result from them. Table I does not reflect the extent or
magnitude of the impacts to any particular habitat or species. An example of how to interpret Table I
follows: navigation dredging has been identified as a threat to the living resources in the Peconic Estuary
because it is known to cause a loss of benthic habitat, has the potential to reduce population abundance
and recruitment of certain organisms(e.g. clams, worms), creates physical disturbances to the system,
reduces water quality(e.g. turbidity plumes, resuspension of toxins)and has the potential to reduce food
availability.
APPENDIX 1
I-42
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
Table 1. Direct threats to the living resources of the Peconic Estuary and their resulting impacts. Asterik
(*) denotes that these are observed or known impacts resulting from the threat, while a"P" indicates
potential impacts that are not fully understood.
Threats Impacts
= ' a .42
m �
iE
OO d
Navigational dredging&spoil disposal * P P * P
Shellfish dredging P
Wasting disease x
Brown tide P
Codium&other invasive non-native s . * * P P P
Development "
Water clan (turbidity) P
Excess nutrients * P
Shoreline hardening P P P "
Phra mites
(Over)harvesting fish "
(Over)harvesting shellfish
Boating P
ORVs
Beach use P P * F
Predation imbalance
A uaculture: Finfish P P P
Aquaculture: Shellfish P P P P
Artificial reefs P P P P
Toxic contamination * P
Marinas,docks& mooring areas * x
Tidal flow Obstruction P
Mosquito control P P P
Sea level rise P P
Marine debris
CONSEQUENCES OF THREATS TO LIVING RESOURCES
While Table I provides an inventory of the threats to the living resources in the Peconic Estuary and their
associated impacts, it is also important to consider how these impacts affect the different types of living
resources in the Peconic Estuary. Table 2 gives examples of consequences that can result from the
impacts, or "Stressors", on particular habitats and species (Targets'"). Although the list of"Targets" in
Table 2 is not exhaustive, it covers a range of living resources that are of interest to the NRSC and can
easily be applied to other species and habitats as needed. As previously mentioned, many of the threats
and their consequences have not been studied in the Peconic Estuary. Therefore, we relied on examples
from the literature and personal observations to determine the expected effects, or consequences on some
of the targets in Table 2. An example from Table 2 follows: saltmarshes can be stressed from direct losses
and degradation (e.g. filling, reduced connectivity with tidal flow), which has the consequences of
reducing primary productivity, decreasing buffer zones for wildlife and lowering nutrient-uptake from
runoff.
APPENDIX I
1-as
'fable 2. Examples of consequences from different stressors on particular targets m�
r> '�s
TARGETS STRESSORS CONSEQUENCES/EFFECTS OF STRESS
n
Interconnected land and I labitat loss& -Loss of interconnectedness between land and sea environments
S
seascape degradation -Loss of buffer& land/sea gradation M
c
O
Beach&dunes Habitat loss& -Reduced nesting habitat for piping plovers and terns
degradation -Reduced suitable habitat for sea beach knotweed 'b
-Less egg-laying habitat for horseshoe crabs and other wildlife w
-Reduced ability to withstand storms, reduced erosion and flood protection 3
n
Saltmarsh, tidal creek& Loss°radation -Reduction in primary productivity and detrital-based energy
sand/nutdfat complex of -Loss of buffer leading to greater impact to land from storms& increased v
saltmarsh runoff to bays
-Reduction in nonpoint source nutrient uptake
-Loss°radation of spawning, breeding& feeding habitat for
shellfish, invertebrates, finfish, diamond-backed terrapins,shorebirds and
mammals
-Reduced vigor and ability to withstand storms
-Loss of rare plants(saltmarsh loosestrife,swamp sunflower,saltmarsh
bulrush)
Alteration of tidal -Loss of spawning and nursery habitat for a variety of marine organisms
creeks -Loss of shorebird and terrapin nesting habitat
Loss of -Loss of feeding habitat for shellfish and other invertebrates,wading and
mud/sandflats shorebirds
Eelgrass Habitat loss& -increased suspended sediment and reduced storm/flood protection to coastline
degradation -Loss of shelter&feeding habitat for bivalves, crabs&other invertebrates,sea
D turtles, finfish
'° -Loss of spawning and nursery areas forjuvenile bay scallops and other bivalves,
grass shrimp and other invertebrates, Atlantic silversides and other finfish
'z
-Loss of feeding habitat for diamond-backed terrapins&shorebirds
d
-Reduction of detrital-based energy
X
-Conversion of eelgrass beds to macroalgae (including Codium?)
Forage fish Reduced forage -Decreased food availability for predatory fish and birds
Table 2. Examples of consequences from different stressors on particular targets (continued)
Y TARGETS STRESSORS CONSEQUENCES/EFFECTS OF STRESS
ro
ro
M
z Commercial& Poor recruitment of winter -Decreased commercial &recreational landings
d recreational fish flounder, scup& weakfish
.. Low levels of spawning stock -Reduced recruitment,reduced genetic diversity and shift in community
of winter flounder, scup& structure
weakfish -Changes in trophic dynamics
Piping plovers& High level of physical -Mortality of plover and tern adults and chicks
least terns disturbance -Reduced nesting& feeding of plovers and terns leading to reduced productivity
Habitat loss°radation -Fragmentation of large tern colonies which reduces their ability to repel
predators
-Reduced nesting&feeding of plovers and terns leading to reduced productivity
Sea turtles Physical disturbance -Sublethal and lethal harm
U
n
0
3
Ray scallops I labilat loss and degradation -Increased mortality and reduced recruitment M
c
-- b
Alteration of genetic stock -I.ess able to withstand temporary, localized disturbances. Increased
susceptibility to diseases?
C)
Poor water quality -Reduction in stock abundance and quality b
Osprey Loss and degradation of -Reduced productivity 's
available food -Mortality of chicks
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
SUMMARY TABLE OF THREATS TO PECONIC ESTUARY LIVING RESOURCES •
The previous two tables provided a list of the threats, the general impacts associated with them and some
expected consequences to the living resources in the Peconic Estuary. We decided to provide a more
comprehensive table of the identified threats with respect to the different habitats and living resources in
the Peconic Estuary. Table 3 was developed with the intention of assessing threats that are known to be
impacting, or have the potential to impact the living resources within the Peconic Estuary as identified
within the Characterization report.
The threats listed in Table 3 are the same as those in Table 1, except that we added the following threat:
domestic animals/pets. We included a wide range of habitat complexes and living resources in the
Peconic watershed, including those of particular interest to the NRSC. Several of the living resources of
particular interest to the NRSC, however, were not specifically discussed as a category in the
Characterization report and they required special coding'. These were: connectivity of land/sea, tidal
creeks, sand/mudflat complexes and bay scallops. We coded each cell in the table with one of the
following:
7= Identified as a known threat within the Characterization report that is impacting the living
resources in the Peconic Estuary.
Potential threat to living resources (limited evidence/data) of which impacts are known from
other study areas, but not directly documented for the Peconic Estuary.
Empty=The resource is assumed to be unaffected by this threat.
Finally, we used Table 3 as a means to determine if the identified and potential threats to each living •
resource were addressed by an action plan in the Habitat chapter. If an action was addressed within the
Habitat chapter,the matrix cell was shaded in Table 3. If an action was addressed within a chapter other
than the Habitat chapter,the matrix cell was shaded diagonally.
CONCLUSIONS
This report has summarized the threats and impacts to the living resources of the Peconic Estuary that
were discussed in greater detail within the Characterization report and Habitat chapter of the CCMP.
Although the analysis of threats was not quantitative it provides us with a concise and comprehensive
overview of the threats and the impacts to the living resources in the Peconic watershed. Unfortunately,
we were unable to rank the magnitudes or extent of the impacts due to the lack of studies in the Peconic
Estuary.Additional investigations and monitoring that determine the extent of these threats would be of
great value to the PEP, particularly since the watershed is experiencing rapid increases in growth and
development. Studies should be quantitative to provide"baseline" information for analyzing lona term
status and trends of the resources,and to determine the successes of implemented CCMP actions.
This report has also identified which of the threats to the living resources in the estuary have been
addressed by management actions in the Habitat and Living Resources chapter. Many of the actions in the
Habitat chapter are intended to reduce and eliminate the threats and to protect,restore and enhance the
impacted resources. Clearly, the threats that have not been covered in the Habitat chapter or by other
chapters should be examined for future consideration as new actions. Additionally,those threats classified
as`potentiaP'warrant further research and monitoring to determine if they are having a significant impact
on the living resources.
Finally,this report has also indicated the paucity of studies that directly examined the threats and the
extent of impacts to the living resources in the Peconic Estuary. The tables also provide a quick reference
to areas that require further investigation. For example, in Table 3, although shoreline-hardening
APPENDIX I
1-46
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
structures are distributed throughout the estuary,their extent and impacts to the habitats and living
resources the Peconic Estuary remains unknown. It is also important to recognize that each threat on its
own may not be causing a noticeable impact to the resource, but the combination of various stressors or
their interactions may,be adversely affecting them. Additionally, sub-lethal effects to organisms from
threats at"low" or"background" levels(e.g. low concentrations of oil,toxins, brown-tide)may also be
reducing the overall health of the ecosystem over time. Such effects can further be confounded or go
undetected because they often target the early life history stages of organisms that are not commonly
monitored such as: eggs and larvae. In support of this, recent studies of marine fish eggs and larvae
exposed to extremely low concentrations of crude oil yielded significant effects on their behaviors and
development, which ultimately decreased their overall survival. We must also be prepared for new and
unexpected threats to living resources within the estuary. This is perhaps best exemplified by the
appearance of the brown-tide algae,which can be argued as a major impetus for establishing the Peconic
Estuary Program.
iThe following habitats and living resources were included in Table 3, but were not specifically categorized or
discussed in the Characterization report: a) connectivity of land and sea, b) tidal creeks, c) sand/mudflat complex
and d)bay scallops They were included in this chart since they are of special concern to the PEP and we handled the
coding(i.e."P'or"P")as follows:
a) Impacts from the threats to Connectivity of Land and Sea category were equated with those of Beach
and Dunes since beaches and dunes are a connection between the land and sea. Therefore. threats
assigned to beaches and dunes were also assigned to the Connectivity of Land and Sea category, unless
specified otherwise in the Characterization report.
b) We treated Tidal Creeks as a having impacts associated with both the benthos (e.g. tide creek beds)
and salt marsh (e.g. fringe marsh) habitats and therefore, they received similar impact codes as these
two habitats. If the codes were different between the two categories for a particular threat (e.g. an "f'
for benthos and a"P" for salt marsh)we would use our bestjudgement to decide which code to assign
for that particular threat category. This happened in only three cases.
c) Impacts from threats to the San&Mudflat complex were treated as the Benthos habitat and therefore,
were equated with them for coding.
d) Bay scallops are expected to experience similar impacts from threats to Suspension Feeders and,
therefore,were equated with them.
REFERENCES
Bortman, M. and N. Niedowski (1998) Characterization report of the living resources of the
Peconic Estuary. Peconic Estuary Program Office, SCDHS.
Newell_R.C., Seiderer L.J. and D.R. Hitchcock(1998) The impact of dredging works in coastal
waters: a review of the sensitivity to disturbance and subsequent recovery of biological
resources on the sea bed. Ocean. and Mar. Biot: Annual Review: 36: 127 178
APPENDIX I
I-47
a
Table 3. Summary table of threats listed within the Characterization of Living Resources Report.
'Y Direct Threats Habitat Living Resources
d
X
o s m
C w = ? R 9 R W W 00
A A
U
Navigational dredging P P I 1 I P P P P P P P 1 1 P
Wor spoil disposal
Shellfish dredging P P P I P P I P P
Wasting disease P P
Brown tide P I
INVASIVE SPECIES P 1 I P I 1 I P
Development 1 I I I P I 1 P I 1 1 P P
Excess turbidity I P P P 1 1
Excess nutrients 1 P P
Shoreline hardening I I P P P P I P P
(Over)harvesting fish P P I P P P P
(Over)harvesting shellfish 1 P 1 P P I P P
Boating P P P P P P P P I P P P
n
ORVs P 1 P P P P ty*M
Beach use P P o
Predation imbalance P P P P P P I P P P P P P P
Aquaculture: Shellfish P P P P
Aquaculture: Finfish P P P P P P P P P P P
Artificial reefs P P P P P P P P n
Toxic contamination P b
M
Table 3. Summary table of threats listed within the Characterization of Living Resources Report(continued). ; y
Direct Threats Habitat Living Resources M"
E c E72
n'
U
A
Marinas,docks& P P 1 t I P 1 P P 3
moorings n
n
Tidal flow/Hydrologic 1 1 I 1 1 P b
Obstructions
Mosquito control ( I I 1 P -
Oil spills: Catastrophic P P P P P P P P P PP P P P P P
Marine debris P P P P P P
Domestic Animals/Pets P 1 P P
1: Identified as a known threat within the"Characterization of hiving Resources" report for the Peconic Estuary, P: Potential threat to Peconic living resources(i.e.
limited evidence/data),of which the impacts are known from studies in other areas. Light Shading 0: Indicates that a CCMP Management action has been dcsignat
in the I labitat& Living Resources Module. Dark Shading: Indicates that a CCMP Management action has been designated in a chapter other than the Habitat&
Living Resources Module.
a
ro
v
d
X �' j
Peconic Estuary Program CCIVP
F�
•
Refinelredirect Define
`► management program man em ent owls
Specify
inform ati on n eeds
Develop
10 research &monitoring objectives
andpriorities
Develop specific hypotheses
to be tested for each priority
Select analytical methods
Rethinkresearch and sampling designs
and monitoring
study approach Evaluate expecteciresearch &
monitoring program performance
No Is the research &monitoring
program performance adequate?
Refine research &
monitoring objectives
andpriorities
Yes
Design and implement
Periodically evaluate/assess data management/
program performance information dissemination plan
Figure 1. Schematic of Living Resources Research and Monitoring program
design. Modifiedfrom the Galveston Bay National Estuary Program (1994).
i
APPENDIX I
I-1
TF.i,queez4
n "rte
Monitoring Stations Peconic Estuary Program b
240-Peconic River^«
Post CCMP Marine Surface Water Monitoring Program
220-Meetinghouse Creek^«
101 -East Creek 1
102-Culchogue Harbor 127-Sag Harbor Cove" S 1 SSP
103-East Creek 2^ 130-Great Peconic Bay
104-North Sea Harbor 132-Three Mile Harbor^
133-Accabonac Harbor" ^Includes TSS samples(surface) q
106-Goose Creek 134-Napeague Harbor^ +Early AM and PM sampling April-Sept.
107-Town Creek^ a
108-Southold Bay 135-Lake Montauk^ _ 'o
144-Cornelius Poiret A All stations are sampled biweekly
109-Hashamomuck Pond 4 PL U H
112-Hallacks Bay A 145-Napeague Harbor Eelgrass ISLAND
Transplant Site 3
113.Little Peconic Bay^ 148-Bullhead Bay A n
114-Paradise PoirAn
115-Orient Harbor 170-Flanders Bay^ 15 12 b
116.Gardiners Bay West^
118-Northwest Harbor"
119-Wed Neck Bay^ �. EL "144 hlgAranYns BS BLO ISLAND SOUND
121 -Noyack Bay
122-Coecles Harbor^ 51 AND,
124-West Neck Harbor^ L
126-Sag Harbor
❑�qR e�
P(f0u if 121
BIY • 13
JU
EAST HARP N
0 ww l a _
Y 4B gpU[Rt Pln41C
.17(1 �p R" a
eAY
OUT T �
v �
�o
M IL � P/((1N1('.1}TU,I PY PYpCPAAl StUOYANfA
7 SµIAWNfY' Jd
d 8Ar
OCihK
N1LAN�4C
NO SCALE
a
ro
ro
M
z
SAV blonieain�Suli.uu
/V
D'A 6Mid bm�J
N.dlnr
SnwLn •Gxrdm,er
Ima Llwd Furvl B N° ,.
Nuld weN • Mil,
kladar H�r4ur
n
lar
• .o
B �
NY u.:l„ a°
n'
R7
A
N
0
p0
L o 1 rE3•n.m:""I1 d', N L.d.nv..xl y
I. LIY.. NYAlu:.i.11'+II.uu.T N.T,E,;
C.n.Yle 1.1:000.TL.9n...f..:,.....uq .3
5 a 5 10 Kd....:... n
r
W �
+♦J_�h�j22 i
X
Q
y
N
• � ..
� t
d
a
o , N
a
w
}
m 7
0.
yJx
t '
S".tv
a
b Peconic Estuary Program
m
z PEP Critical Natural Resource Areas
d
171
k
t(
y
� � t
w r _ � 4
CD 4
� y
Scale=1:750,000 b
r
.�Peconic Estuary Program CCVP
APPENDIX J
Federal Consistency Report
APPENDIX J
J-1
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP °"°'"
•
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
APPENDIX )
J_2
r"
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
Peconic Estuary Program
Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plan
i
Federal Consistency Report
September 2000
•
APPENDIX J
J-3
Peconic Estuary Program CCNP
This Pace Intentionally Left Blank.
APPENDIX J
J-4
Peconic Estuary Program CC.kfP
FEDERAL CONSISTENCY REPORT FOR THE
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
Background
The National Estuary Program (NEP)was established by the Water Quality Act of 1987, which
amended the Federal Clean Water Act. The purpose of the NEP is to identify,protect and restore
estuaries of national significance. The Peconic Estuary was nominated for the NEP by the Governor
of New York in 1991. In 1993, the Management Conference was convened to oversee development
of a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan(CCMP).
There is a Federal consistency review requirement for the NEP. This is distinct from the Federal
consistency requirement of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act, conducted as part of the
State's coastal zone management program.
The Federal consistency review procedure being applied for the Peconic Estuary is explained below.
The procedure was originally developed by the Long Island Sound Study and New York—New Jersey
Harbor Estuary Program for their CCMPs. The State of New York has decided to apply this
procedure to the Peconic Estuary.
Purpose of Review
EPA guidance defines the goal of the Federal consistency review process as to ensure that Federal
actions do not adversely affect CCMP goals, and that they support actions proposed in the CCMP
where possible. In addition, under an agreement between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencv
(EPA)and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (see below), CCMPs are
submitted for determination that they are consistent with the coastal zone management plans of the
affected State or States. The major tasks in the Federal consistency review process are:
• Consistency of Federal actions with the CCMP:
I. Development of an inventory of Federal programs and projects to be reviewed for
consistency with the CCMP, and a one-time assessment of these programs/projects
for consistency with the CCMP_
2. Setting up and implementing a process to continually review individual Federal
projects for consistency with the CCMP.
• Consistency of the CCMP with coastal zone management plans:
3. Determination whether the CCMP is consistent with affected State CZM plans.
4. Concurrence of the State with the determination.
•
APPENDIX J
J-5
FA""""'y, Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
Consistency-of Federal Actions with the CCMP •
Activities that affect the quality of the Peconic Estuary are both supported and regulated, both directly
and/or indirectly, by Federal, State and local agencies. Because government-sponsored activities
have a wide variety of objectives, it is possible that some activities may be inconsistent with the goals
of the CCMP for the Peconic Estuary.
The need for coordination among governmental programs and program goals that will affect the
Management Conference(and ultimately the CCMP)has been addressed in Section 320(b)(7)of the
Clean Water Act,as amended. "Purpose 7" states that:
"The purpose of a management conference shall be to review all Federal financial
assistance programs and Federal development projects in accordance with the
requirements of Executive Order 12372, as in effect on September 17, 1983, to
determine whether such assistance program or project would be consistent with and
further the purposes of the CCMP."
In 1992, EPA and NOAA entered into an agreement designed to avoid conflicts and duplication
regarding the NEP and the Coastal Zone Management Program. One provision is that, after
concurrence by the State Governor(s)and approval by the EPA Administrator, EPA and NOAA will
encourage and/or require,to the extent permitted by law, that the CCMPs be submitted for
incorporation into the Coastal Zone Management Program, as appropriate.
Therefore, the consistency review requirement of the NEP can be met by integrating the process into •
the existing State Coastal Management Plan(CMP) consistency review process in New York. PEP
would be available to participate, as appropriate under existing appeal and mediation procedures, in
assisting the State in the resolution of consistency determinations.
Note also that potential inconsistencies among coastal activities can be addressed through the
Management Conference itself. Under Section 320(b)(7)of the Clean Water Act, as amended,the
Management Conference has such authority, as described above. However,the goal of the review
process established under purpose 7 is to complement the State's existing review process rather than
duplicate them, and PEP would be best served by using the existing process.
The appropriate ongoing review program in the State of New York has the staff and experience
necessary to perform Federal consistency reviews, whereas the costs and start-up time in addition to
the lack of experienced personnel could make the undertaking of a separate Federal consistency
review prohibitive to the PEP. Concerns have also been raised at the Management Conference
regarding the review of non-Federal programs for consistency with the CMP. These concerns would
be addressed in the existing State review programs, which require the review of certain non-Federal
activities and programs] and allow the review of activities outside the coastal zone if they affect the
coastal zone'.
These concerns would be addressed in the existing State CMP,which requires the activities of State agencies
to be consistent with the State's coastal policies or, in the case of the Villages of Greenport and Sag Harbor,
the policies of their State-approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs.
In New York State,this applies only to Federal activities. •
APPENDIX J
J-6
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP '�`"'�,
Consistency of the CCMP with Coastal Management Programs
Under Section 307(c)of the Coastal Zone Management Act(CZMA) of 1972, as amended, and
implementing regulations(see 15 CFR 930) consistency with an approved State coastal zone
management program is required: (a)for direct Federal activities and development projects; (b)for
activities requiring Federal licenses or permits; and (c) for activities receiving Federal financial
assistance. In New York, the program and the review of Federal activities consistency with the
State's CMP is administered by the New York State Department of State.
The 1988 EPAtNOAA agreement states that:
"CCMPs developed under the NEP will voluntarily, as a matter of policy, be submitted for review
under the Federal consistency provisions of Section 307(c)of the CZMA of 1972,as amended."
The State of New York, pursuant to the Federal and State consistency provision of their existing
coastal management program, already has a review process in place. Based on a review of the CCMP
and a consistency review submitted by EPA Region II,the State reviews the overall approval and
adoption of the CCMP,and each proposal within it,for consistency with policies of their CMP,which
is very specific with respect to use and development of coastal resources.
Area to be included for Federal Consistency Review
The study area for the Peconic Estuary Program includes the waters of Peconic Bay to an imaginary
line connecting the eastern end of Plum Island and Montauk Point. The land-based area includes the
surface water, storm water,and ground water contributing areas.
Federal Consistency Review for the PEP in New York
The Federal consistency review requirement under Section 320(b)(7)for the PEP will be delegated to
the State of New York because of the previously mentioned advantages of using the existing process
under the State's CMP,rather than establishing a new process under the PEP. Upon acceptance of the
final CCMP for the Peconic Estuary Program by the Administrator of EPA,the CMP in New York
will take all necessary actions to include the enforceable components of the CCMP in the CMP and
its existing Federal consistency process.
To accomplish this incorporation, the New York Department of State(NYDOS)must review the final
CCMP and the consistency determination submitted by EPA to determine its consistency with New
York's approved CMP. Having New York CMP program staff serve on the CCMP work groups and
the Management Committee has helped to ensure that consistency. New York's Federally approved
CMP must, if necessary, be amended and approved by NOAA. All steps must be in accordance with
NOAA's established regulatory and statutory procedures, including public review and comment.
Note that any Federal action that affects New York's coastal zone can be reviewed for consistency
with the State's CMP. An "inconsistent"decision, however, must be based on enforceable coastal
policies(i.e.,those that are based on existing State law and regulation). New York's review of the
PEP CCMP indicates that all of the committed actions, and many recommended actions, in the
CCMP applicable to New York, are based on existing State law and regulation. New York's review
also did not indicate the need for New York to enact new legislation or regulatory authority to help
APPENDIX J
J-7
Peconic Estuary Program CC;LIP
implement any recommended CCMP actions. Thus, most of the CCMP will be enforceable under i
New York's CMP.
The PEP Office should be notified of Federal activities that are subject to Federal consistency review
with regard to the CCMP. To accomplish this, PEP will request to be added to the NYDOS project
review notification list. The PEP Office may comment on the activities and, when the review is
complete, shall be notified of the results. If the PEP office comments on any Federal actions, it must
do so in timely manner so the State can adhere to the prescribed time frames established by regulation
in the Federal Register by NOAA for review/approval. As part of the consistency review
determination under the CMP,New York will ensure that each action is consistent with the
enforceable components of the CMP.
If necessary,New York will amend its CMP to incorporate the enforceable components of the CCMP
for the PEP. The review process shall consider all Federal financial assistance and development
activities as well as all other Federal actions including the issuance of Federal permits which are
listed in the State's CMP. State actions not requiring Federal consistency review are often subject to
review under the existing State consistency review process, and a formal or informal agreement
should be established between New York and the PEP whereby the PEP Office is notified of the
projects that may affect achieving the CCMP goals, strategies and proposed actions for the PEP. The
PEP will be best served by utilizing the State's existing CMP for its Federal consistency review
requirements.
For the CCMP consistency review with the State CMP under Section 307(c) of the CZMA, EPA will •
send a formal consistency determination to the NYDOS at the same time that the final CCMP is
submitted to the Governor of New York and the EPA Administrator. The NYDOS will determine the
consistency of the PEP CCMP with the CMP and implement enforceable PEP actions that are
consistent with the CMP.
Federal programs and activities subject to consistency review by New York State are identified in the
State's CMP. In some areas, State programs are reviewed under State-approved Waterfront
Revitalization Plans. The inventory of Federal programs is provided in Table 1.
Criteria for Consistency
The general criteria for determination of consistency are whether programs encourage or support the
objectives listed in the CCMP.
More specific criteria are whether the programs encourage or support the proposed CCMP actions in
the following ways. Programs or projects are inconsistent if they inhibit these activities or harm the
resources that they seek to protect or restore.
• Complies with existing management plans or supports continued development of
management plans for a wide variety of living resources and habitats;
• Encourages development of tools for such compliance, including GIS and community
classification systems;
i
APPENDIX J
J-8
Peconic Estuary Program CGNP
Z *1
• Encourages or provides for restoration of a variety of valuable habitats, including
wetlands, streams, stream corridors, riparian and wetland buffer zones, artificial reefs,
oyster reefs, shorelines, and large forested upland tracts;
• Reduces loss of wetlands;
• Protects shorelines;
• Promotes sustainable development;
• Reduces NPS pollution and protects water quality and quantity through watershed-based
planning,BMPs, and riparian corridor protection;
• Promotes improved land use planning to protect water quality and reduce sprawl;
• Encourages regional coordination;
• Encourages redevelopment and compact development;
• Encourages water conservation and integrated planning for water supply and wastewater;
• Promotes better coordination and planning for dredging, including dredge material
disposal;
• Encourages development and use of pump-out facilities;
• Improves public access to the estuary;
iEncourages wise use of chemicals by residents and businesses;
• Supports development and implementation of toxics water quality criteria;
• Helps to identify sources of contaminated sediments and identify control measures;
• Promotes regional information sharing and development of Geographic Information
Systems;
• Supports private sector efforts to achieve all these objectives and activities;
• Supports public education activities, including newsletters, other outreach materials,
ecotourism promotion, hands-on activities for volunteers, and curricula development;
and,
• Supports existing and expanded monitoring plans, including volunteer monitoring.
i
APPENDIX 1
J-9
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
Table 1. Inventory of Federal Programs for Consistency with the Peconic Estuary Plan. •
Catalog of Potential Potential to
Federal to support conflict
Domestic PEP with PEP
Assistance* Pro ram Title A enev** CCMP CCMP Priority?
10.200 Grants for Agricultural Research, USDA-ES X — —
S ecial Research Grants
10.069 Conservation Reserve Program USDA-FSA X — —
10.072 Wetlands Reserve Program USDA-NRCS X — —
10.901 Resource Conservation and USDA-NRCS X X
Development
10.902 Soil and Water Conservation USDA-NRCS X — —
10.903 Soil Survey USDA-NRCS X — —
10.904 Watershed Protection and Flood USDA-NRCS X — —
Prevention
10.906 Watershed Surveys and Planning USDA-NRCS X — —
10.912 Environmental Quality Incentives USDA-NRCS X — X
Program
10.913 Farmland Protection Program USDA-NRCS X — —
10.914 Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program USDA-NRCS X — X
10.768 Business and Industry Loans USDA-RB-CS X X —
10.769 Rural Development Grants USDA-RB-CS X X —
10.854 Rural Development Loans and Grants USDA-RB-CS X X —
10410 Very Low to Moderate Income USDA-RHS X X —
Housing Loans
10-411 Rural Housing Site Loans and Self- USDA-RHS X X —
Help Housing Land Development
Loans
10-433 Rural Housing rvation GraUSDA-RHS Presents X — —
10-766 Community Facilities Loans and USDA-RHS X X —
Grants
10.760 Water and Wastewater Disposal USDA-RUS X X —
S stems for Rural Communities
10.762 Solid Waste Management Grants USDA-RUS X X —
10.770 Water and Waste Disposal Loans and USDA-RUS X X —
Grants
11.3 Grants for Public Works and DOC-EDA X — —
Economic Development
11.302 Economic Development-Support for DOC-EDA X — —
Planning Or.-anizations
11.307 Economic Adjustment Assistance DOC-EDA X X —
i
APPENDIX J
J-10
Peconic Estuary Program CC.14P
Table 1. Inventory of Federal Programs for Consistency with the Peconic Estuary Plan.
(continued)
Catalog of Potential Potential to
Federal to support conflict
Domestic PEP with PEP
Assistance* Program Title A encv** CCMP CCMP Priority?
11.405 Anadromous Fish Conservation Act NOAA X —Program
11.407 Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act of NOAA X — X
1986
11,417 Sea Grant Support NOAA X — X
11.419 Coastal Zone Management NOAA X — X
Administration Awards
11.420 Coastal Zone Management Estuarine NOAA X — —
Research Reserves
11.426 Financial Assistance for National NOAA X — —
Centers for Coastal Ocean Science
11.427 Fisheries Development and Utilization NOAA X — —
Research and Development Grants
and Cooperative Aeements Program
11.429 Marine Sanctu Program NOAA X — —
11.433 Marine Fisheries Initiative NOAA X — —
• 11.441 Regional Fishery Management NOAA X — —
Councils
11.444 Aquaculture Program NOAA X X —
11.463 Habitat Conservation NOAA X — —
11.473 Coastal Services Center -NO A.A X — —
11.474 Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative NOAA X — —
Mana2ement Act
11.477 Fisheries Disaster Relief NOAA X — —
11 478 Center for Sponsored Coastal NOAA X — X
Research -Coastal Ocean Program
12.100 Aquatic Plant Control ACOE X — —
12.101 Beach Erosion Control Projects ACOE X X —
12.102 Emergency Rehabilitation of Flood ACOE X — —
Control Works or Federally
Authorized Coastal Protection Works
12.104 Flood Plain Management Services ACOE X — —
12.105 Protection of Essential Highways, ACOE X X —
Hiahwag Bridge Approaches and
Public Works
12.106 1 Flood Control Projects ACOE X X —
12.107 Navigation Projects ACOE X X —
APPENDIX J
J-11
Peconfc Estuary Program CCMP
Table 1. Inventory of Federal Programs for Consistency with the Peconic Estuary Plan.
(continued)
Catalog of Potential Potential to
Federal to support conflict
Domestic PEP with PEP
Assistance* Program Title Agency** CCMP CCMP Priority?
12.109 Protection,Clearing and Straightening ACOE X X —
Channels
12.110 Planning Assistance to States ACOE X — —
12.111 Emergency Advance Measures for ACOE X X —
Flood Protection
12.300 Basic and Applied Scientific Research ONR X — —
12.301 Basic and Applied Scientific Research ONR X — —
12.600 Community Economic Adjustment DOD-OEA X X —
12.607 Community Economic Adjustment DOD-OEA X X —
Planning Assistance
12.612 Communily Base Reuse Plans DOD-OEA X X —
12.613 Growth Management Planning DOD-OEA X X —
Assistance
14.218 Community Development Block HUD-CPD X X —
Grants/Entitlement Grants
14.2246 Community Development Block HUD-CPD X X —
Grants/Economic Development
Initiative •
15.605 Sort Fish Restoration FWS X — —
15.611 Wildlife Restoration FWS X — —
15.614 Coastal Wetlands Planning,Protection FWS X — —
and Restoration Act
15.615 Cooperative Endangered Species FWS X — —
Conservation Fund
15.616 Clean Vessel Act FWS X — X
15.618 Administrative Grants for Federal Aid FWS X — —
in S ort Fish and Wildlife Restoration
15.623 North American Wetlands FWS X — —
Conservation Fund
15.805 Assistance to State Water Resources USGS X — —
Research Institutes
15.976 Migratory Bird Banding and Data USGS X — —
Anal sis
15.916 Outdoor Recreation-Acquisition, NPS X X —
Develo ment and Planning
15.918 Disposal of Federal Surplus Real NPS X X —
Properry for Parks,Recreation,and
Historic Monuments
APPENDIXJ
J-12
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
Table 1. Inventory of Federal Programs for Consistency with the Peconic Estuary Plan.
(continued)
Catalog of Potential Potential to
Federal to support conflict
Domestic PEP with PEP
Assistance* Program Title Agency" CCMP CCMP Prioritv?
15.919 Urban Park and Recreation Recovery NPS X —Program
15.925 National Maritime Heritage Grants NPS X — —
20.005 Boatino Safetv Financial Assistance USCG X — —
20.006 State Access to the Oil Spill Liability USCG X — —
Trust Fund
20.007 Bride Alteration USCG X X —
20.205 Highway Planning and Construction FHA X X —
20.219 Recreational Trails Program FHA X X X
20.312 High Speed Ground Transportation- FRA X X —
Next Generation High Speed Rail
Program
20.500 Federal Transit-Capital Investment FTA X X —
Grants
20.505 Federal Transit-Metropolitan FTA X X —
Plarmm Grants
•
20.507 Federal Transit-Formula Grants FTA X X =
20.509 Formula Grants for Other than FTA X X
Urbanized Areas
20.514 Transit Planning and Research FTA X X —
20.515 State Planning and Research FTA X X —
20.801 Development and Promotion of Ports DOT-MA X X
and Intermodal Transportation
66.419 Water Pollution Control-State and EPA X — X
Interstate Program Support
66.433 State Underground Water Source EPA X — —
Protection
66.454 Water Quality Management Planning EPA X — X
66.456 National Estuary Program EPA X — X
66.458 Capitalization Grants for State EPA X — X
Revolving Funds
66.460 Nonpoint Source Implementation EPA X — X
Grants
66.461 Wetlands Protection-Development EPA X — —
Grants
66.463 National Pollutant Discharge EPA X — —
Elimination System Related State
Program
•
APPENDIX J
J-]3
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
Table 1. Inventory of Federal Programs for Consistency with the Peconic Estuary Plan.
(continued)
Catalog of Potential Potential to
Federal to support conflict
Domestic PEP with PEP
Assistance* Program Title Agency" CCMP COMP Priority?
66.500 Environmental Protection- EPA X v —
Consolidated Research
66.600 Environmental Protection EPA X — —
Consolidated Grants Program Support
66.605 Performance Partnership Grants EPA X — X
66.606 Surveys, Studies, Investigations and EPA X — X
Special Purpose Grants
66.608 One Stop Reporting EPA X — —
66.609 Children's Health Protection EPA X — —
66.700 Consolidated Pesticide Enforcement EPA X — —
Coo erative Agreements
66.701 Toxic Substances Compliance EPA X — —
Monitoring Cooperative Agreements
66.604 Environmental Justice Grants to Small EPA X — —
Community Groups
66.710 Environmental Justice EPA X — — •
Community/University Partnership
Grants Program
66.713 State and Tribal Environmental Justice EPA X — —
66.801 Hazardous Waste Management State EPA X — —
Program Support
66.802 Superfund State Site-Specific EPA X —
Coo erative Ag cements
66.804 State and Tribal Underground Storage EPA X — —
Tanks Program
66.805 Leaking Underground Storage Tank EPA X — —
Trust Fund Program
66.806 Superfund Technical Assistance EPA X — —
Grants for Citizen Groups at Priority
Sites
66.807 Superfund Innovative Technology EPA X — —
Evaluation Program
66.808 Solid Waste Management Assistance EPA X — —
66.809 Superfund State Core Program EPA X — —
Coo erative Agreements
66.810 CEPP Technical Assistance Grants EPA X — —
Program
•
APPENDIX J
J-14
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
c
!r
Table 1. Inventory of Federal Programs for Consistency with the Peconic Estuary Plan.
(continued)
Catalog of Potential Potential to
Federal to support conflict
Domestic PEP with PEP
Assistance* Program Title Aaencv** CCMP CCMP Prioritv?
66.811 Brownfield Pilots Cooperative EPA X —Agreements
66.708 Pollution Prevention Grants Program EPA X — —
83.536 Flood Mitigation Assistance FEMA X X –
83.537 Community Disaster Loans FEMA X X –
83.548 Hazard Mitigation Grant FEMA X X –
83551 Project Impact-Building Disaster FEMA X X –
Resistant Communities
*
2000 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance,Executive Office of the President,Office of Management and
Budget
** Agency Names:
ACOE — Army Corps of Engineers
DOC — Department of Commerce
DOC-EDA Department of Commerce-Economic Development Administration
DOD-OEA — Department of Defense-Office of Economic Adjustment
DOT-MA — Department of Transportation-Maritime Administration
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHA — Federal Highway Administration
FRA — Federal Railroad Administration
FTA — Federal Transit Administration
F%VS — Fish and Wildlife Service
HUD-CPD — Department of Housing and Urban Development—Community Planning and
Development
NOAA — National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPS — National Park Service
ONR — Office of Naval Research
USCG U.S. Coast Guard
USDA — U.S.Department of Agriculture
USDA-ERS — USDA Economic Research Service
USDA-ES — USDA Cooperative State Research,Education and Extension Service
USDA-FSA USDA Farts Services Agency
USDA-MRCS — USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
USDA-RB-CS— USDA Rural Business-Cooperative Service
USDA-RHS USDA Rural Housing Service
USDA-RUS — USDA Rural Utilities Service
USGS U.S.Geological Survey
•
APPENDIX J
1-15
Peconic Estuary Program CCAfP
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
•
APPENDIXJ
1-16
APPENDIX K
Base Program Analysis
r
APPENDIX K
K-1
44 n"It Peconic Estuary Program CC;LIP
F
Table of Contents
Introduction K-3
Brown Tide K-5
Nutrients K-7
Habitat and Living Resources K-17
Pathogens K-28
Critical Lands K-38
Toxics K-43
Post-CCMP K-58
APPENDIX K
K-2
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP aWi� "�¢
Introduction
This Base Programs Analysis has been prepared pursuant to Section 320(b)(5) of the Clean Water
Act, which requires that each National Estuary Program:
'Develop[action]plans for the coordinated implementation of the[comprehensive conservation and
management]plan by the states as well as Federal and local agencies participating in the
conference
EPA's policy further elucidates Base Programs Analysis requirements, stating that:
'The base program analysis assesses the effectiveness of the estuary's management framework. It
describes existing mechanisms for addressing priority problems identified by the scientific
characterization and recommends options for improving or enhancing the management framework.
(See National Estuary Program Guidance, Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans
Content and Approval Requirements, USEPA Office of Water, October 1992; see also National
Estuary Program Guidance,Base Programs Analysis, USEPA Office of Water, March 1993).
The Peconic Estuary Program (PEP) has structured its Base Programs Analysis in a modular format,
corresponding with the chapter structure of the PEP Comprehensive Conservation and,Vanagement
• Plan itself. For each module, or chapter,the Base Programs Analysis provides:
a description of the regulatory/institutional framework,
an evaluation of effectiveness; and
recommendations for addressing gaps and expanding strengths ("recommendations for
improvements")
Programs and agencies are discussed in greater detail the first time they are mentioned in this
document. For example,USEPA and Clean Water Act programs dealing with technology-based and
water quality-based discharge limits are described in the nutrients section, but are simply referred to
in the pathogens and toxics sections, which also deal with those programs. Thus,the nutrients
section has the most extensive description of water quality and pollution control programs.
During the entire PEP CCMP preparation process, agency and institutional frameworks have been
identified and evaluated as part of the management plan preparation process. However,this Base
Programs Analysis document serves valuable purposes, above and beyond the work already done.
For example, it affords the opportunity for inter-chapter evaluation and reflection,to ensure that all
opportunities and options have been fully evaluated and addressed. Also,the document brings
together, in one place(see Summary below) programmatic recommendations. As such, it provides a
cohesive look at all programmatic needs and recommendations. It also offers the genesis of a
template, or checklist, which can be used to assess programmatic progress during implementation
efforts.
Two major documents have already been developed to address programmatic issues. focusing largely
at the local level. The local focus is based on the fact that the bulk of the PEP land use management
APPENDIX K
K-3
Peconic Estuary Program CCWP
F�
and pollution control (mainly nonpoint source) recommendations must be implemented at the local •
level. They are:
• PEP Base Programs Analysis, .Vonpoint Source Management Plan Inventory,June 12,
1995.
• Evaluating Town Capacity and Needs in Protecting the Peconic Estuary, Columbia
University, 1999.
The reports are incorporated by reference in appropriate sections of the Base Programs Analysis.
Finally, acknowledgement must be provided to the following base programs analysis reports:
Discussion of Existing Management Programs for the Long Island Sound and its
Resources, January 1993.
Barnegat Bay Estuary Program, Base Programs Analysis, May 2000.
Delaware Estuary Program, Base Programs Inventory. Summary. and Analysis, May
1995.
Information and narrative from these reports were used in the PEP Base Programs Analysis,
particularly with respect to the "regulatory/institutional framework"descriptions for Federal and
state agencies and programs.
•
APPENDIX K
K-4
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP 14 It,
•
Brown Tide
Description ofDescription of Re2ulato�/Institutional Framework/Institutional Framework
Federal Agencies and Programs
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOAA's Coastal Ocean Program (COP) is part of the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science.
The COP provides scientific information to assist decision-makers in managing coastal resources.
The Program targets critical issues that exist in the nation's estuaries, coastal waters. and Great
Lakes.
The Peconic Estuary Program,NOAA, Sea Grant,and the State University of New York at Stony
Brook's Marine Sciences Research Center sponsored a Brown Tide Summit in October 1995 to
develop a comprehensive Brown Tide research agenda. Since the Brown Tide Summit in 1995,the
Coastal Ocean Program has committed S3 million towards Brown Tide research. New York Sea
Grant is in charge of administering these funds. The Brown Tide Research Initiative (BTRI)
Committee formed as a result of the COP funding commitments and has been instrumental in
preparing Requests for Proposals, reviewing research proposals, and assisting in managing the
NOAA COP funding. The BTRI Committee includes: NOAA,NY Sea Grant,NYS Department of
. Environmental Conservation,the Suffolk County Executive, USEPA/Peconic Estuary Program, a
local government representative, a citizen representative, and a South Shore Estuary Reserve (SSER)
representative.
The intent of the COP Brown Tide program is to understand and predict the onset of Brown Tide
blooms, and determine advance strategies for mitigating its environmental impacts. Current research
is focused on identifying the factors that cause, maintain, and dissipate the blooms. Brown tide
research and characterizations are routinely reported in the scientific literature and are systematically
updated through Sea Grant's BTRI reports.
State Agencies and Programs
New York Sea Grant
New York Sea Grant is a cooperative program between the State University of New York and
Cornell University which focuses the talents of university scientists and extension specialists on
research and the transfer of scientific information to industry, government, resource managers. and
the public. Sea Grant supports more than 20 scientific research projects annually in technology and
product development, fisheries, coastal environmental quality and processes, and other areas of
special interest, including Brown Tide. As with the NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Brown Tide
research funding. Sea Grant administers grants and leverages partnerships with the state and private
sector.
Regional Level
Brown Tide Steering Committee
APPENDIX K
K-5
d�0 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
A Brown Tide Steering Committee was formed after the Brown Tide Summit in 1995 to more •
broadly coordinate and guide Brown Tide research and monitoring efforts through the development
of a Brown Tide Workplan. The Committee is made up of BTRI members, as well as several
additional
members, including elected officials and representatives from various agencies, citizens groups and
estuary programs and coordinated by Suffolk County. The Steering Committee's goals are to:
1) Coordinate research efforts funded and performed by various entities
2) Assist in dissemination of information
3) Develop and continually refine and update research workplans, by systematically
organizing and summarizing results of previous and ongoing Brown Tide research
efforts and identifying priorities for additional research needs
4) Estimate funding needs to conduct necessary additional research.
Between 1997 and 2000, Suffolk County has appropriated$583,000 to support Brown Tide
monitoring and investigation efforts. Much of the funding has gone towards funding projects
outlined in the 1998 Brown Tide Workplan. Suffolk County will continue to authorize $150,000
each year for the next three years (2001-2003) from the Capital Budget for additional Brown Tide
research and monitoring.
Local Level
Suffolk County
In 1988,the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) Bureau of Marine Resources
expanded its surface water monitoring operations to characterize the extent and severity of the
Brown Tide blooms. The Bureau of Marine Resources provides this information and needed samples
to researchers. 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), served as the primary basis for the nomination document for acceptance of the Peconic
Estuary Program into the National Estuary Program.
Evaluation of Effectiveness
The agencies and programs described above are effective but are underfunded.
Recommendations for Improvements
Continued research and monitoring depends on continued funding. It is recommended in the CCMP
that:
The SCDHS water quality monitoring program continues to provide information needed
for analysis and research related to Brown Tide
Funding for NOAA-funded Brown Tide research and monitoring projects is continued
Funding sources to implement the Brown Tide Workplan are identified and secured
APPENDIX K
K-6
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP°4`10 %
Nutrients
Description of Regulatorv/Institutional Framework
Federal Agencies and Programs
United States Environmental Protection Agency
The principal law governing pollution of the nation's waterways is the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, or Clean Water Act. Originally enacted in 1948, it was totally revised by amendments
in 1972 that gave the Act its current shape. The 1972 legislation spelled out ambitious programs for
water quality improvement that are still being implemented by industries and municipalities.
Congress made fine-tuning amendments in 1977, revised portions of the law in 1981, and enacted
further amendments in 1987.
The Clean Water Act (CWA) authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)to
establish national, uniform technology-based effluent limitation guidelines for point sources of
pollution discharging to "waters of the United States," broadly defined to include wetlands. Effluent
limitations are enforced through Section 402 of the CWA.the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permit program (NPDES, delegated to New York under SPDES). The CWA
• does not apply to agricultural nonpoint source pollution.
Recently, Phase II Municipal Stormwater Rules have been promulgated under Section 402 by EPA,
which will extend regulatory requirements for stormwater effluent limitations to smaller urban areas
than have previously been affected. The program will be phased in over 7 years, and will be
administered by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) as part
of its delegated authority under the CWA. Municipalities, which fell outside of the regulatory
purview of the Phase 1 Rules, will need to meet the compliance requirements of Phase II. Permitted
municipalities will be required to implement 6 minimum control measures:
I. public education and outreach
IT. public involvement/participation
III. illicit discharge detection and elimination
Ib'. construction site stormwater runoff control
\'. post-construction stormwater management in new development and redevelopment
%T pollution prevention/good housekeeping for municipal operations
Sections 208 and 303(e) of the CWA of 1972 established the initial framework for addressing
nonpoint sources of pollution (NPS). States and local planning agencies analyzed the extent of NPS
pollution and de%eloped water quality management programs to control it with funds provided by
EPA under Section 208. Best management practices were evaluated,assessment models and
methods were developed, and other types of technical assistance were made available to State and
local water quality managers. Section 208 provided that States prepare statewide and regional plans,
based on watersheds, for the prevention of both point and nonpoint source pollution.
EPA's Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program comes from Section 303(d). There remain
waters in the nation that do not meet the CWA national goal of"fishable, swimmable"quality
despite the fact that nationally required levels of pollution control technology have been
APPENDIX K
K-7
Peconrc Estuary Program COMP
F
implemented by many pollution sources. CWA Section 303(d) addresses these waters that are not
"fishable, swimmable"by requiring the state to identify the waters and to develop total maximum
daily loads (TMDLs)for them, with oversight from EPA.
Per Section 312 of the CWA, EPA, individual States and the U.S. Coast Guard work together to
provide states with the opportunity to protect citizens and aquatic habitats through Vessel Waste No
Discharge Area designations and national standards for marine sanitation devices on boat toilets, or
heads. Section 312 of the CWA helps protect human health and the aquatic environmental from
disease-causing microorganisms that may be present in sewage from vessels and boats. These
microorganisms can include bacteria, protozoa, and viruses. For more discussion on No Discharge
Areas, see the discussion on the Clean Vessel Act in the Pathogens section.
Section 319 of the Clean Water Act directs each state to develop programs for controlling nonpoint
source pollution. New York has an EPA-approved State Assessment Report and Management
Program that describes the state's nonpoint source pollution problems and programs.
Section 320 of the CWA of 1987 established the National Estuary Program (NEP), under which
authority for this document supporting the Peconic Estuary Program was prepared. Section 320
authorized the EPA Administrator to convene Management Conferences to develop Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plans for estuaries of national significance that are threatened by
pollution. The general goals of the NEP are the protection and improvement of water quality and the
enhancement of living resources. To achieve these goals,the program calls for activities to help:
establish working partnerships among Federal, state, and local government;
transfer scientific and management information, experience, and expertise to program
participants;
increase public awareness of pollution problems and ensure public participation in
consensus building;
promote basin-wide planning to control pollution and manage living resources; and
oversee development and implementation of pollution abatement and control programs.
Section 320 also specifies members of a Management Conference to ensure representation by a
broad range of interests. Membership must include,at a minimum, representatives of Federal, state,
regional,and local agencies, affected industries, academia, and the public.
Section 401 of the CWA of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 1251, Section 401) provides that all projects requiring
Federal permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States also
require a Water Quality Certification. The purpose of this certification is to insure that all such
activities are consistent with national water quality standards and management policies. This
program is administered by the State of New York through Federal delegation.
Section 404 of the CWA establishes the Federal permitting program governing discharge of dredged
and fill material into wetlands and other waters,administered by EPA and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(ACOS) is an engineering and water resources development
agency authorized to investigate, develop, conserve and improve the nation's water, land and related
APPENDIX K
K-8
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP�t
environmental resources. The ACOE's civil programs primarily manage the country's wetlands and
waterways. Program activities include navigation, flood control, flood plain management, shore and
beach restoration and protection,hurricane flood protection, water quality control, wetland
protection and enhancement, outdoor recreation and environmental quality.
The ACOE issues permits for the placement of fill material into United States waters or wetlands.
This can affect small and large-scale projects such as constructing piers, docks and ramps or
dredging and placement activities in navigable waters. The ACOE also issues permits for placement
of dredged material into ocean waters.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
The U.S. Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is
the nation's principal marine science agency. NOAA serves the public through a variety of programs
designed to manage, assess, and increase our understanding of the marine environment and coastal
zone. NOAA's coastal programs are carried out primarily through two line offices, the National
Ocean Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), described in greater detail below.
NOAA also conducts many studies through its Coastal Ocean Program (COP),a multidisciplinary
activity which emphasizes marine environmental quality, fishery productivity, and the physical
impact of natural coastal hazards. NOAA's National Sea Grant Program, which supports university
research directed at the development and use of marine resources, is implemented in the Peconic
Estuary through the New York Sea Grant Institute.
U.S. Department of Agriculture,Natural Resources Conservation Service
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service(MRCS)carries out a
broad program of technical assistance, research and education which aims to improve agricultural
and land management practices which help protect surface and groundwater from contamination.
These management practices focus on proper animal waste handling,erosion and stormwater runoff
control and abatement.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)has the principal Federal responsibility for conserving the
nation's fish and wildlife including their related habitats.
Although the Service has no direct regulatory control concerning discharges of pollutants into waters
of the U.S. or discharge of dredged or fill material,the Agency plays a direct advisory role in these
regulatory practices. Under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Service must assess the
impacts on biota of all water and water related development projects that are funded by the Federal
government or constructed under a Federal permit or license. The Service provides information to
Federal construction or regulatory agencies and to permit applicants.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey
The primary responsibility of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is to conduct surveys,
investigating and researching the topography, geology and mineral and water resources of the nation.
The Survey is also involved with quantification of the nation's water resources and the effect of
development and utilization on thein. It makes statistical data and summary reports available to
planners, developers and managers.
.APPENDIX K
K-9
4'"�"� Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
F
The USGS is also responsible for the National Water Quality Assessment Program which aims to •
describe the status and trends in the quality of the nation's ground and surface water resources and to
provide a sound, scientific understanding of the primary natural and human factors affecting the
quality of these resources. The information collected under this program provides essential water
quality information for policy makers.
State Agencies and Programs
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation is the lead State agency in
planning, developing and managing the state's water resources, and undertakes studies for the
protection, conservation, development and use of water resources of the state. Other activities
include classification of state waters and establishing standards for quality and purity, permitting of
wastewater discharges,flood control and flood plain management, control of dredging and filling in
navigable waters, control of construction of dams and docks,tidal and freshwater wetland
conservation programs and management of fish, shellfish and wildlife resources.
A listing of individual divisions with responsibility over the water quality of the Peconic Estuary
follows:
Division of Water: charged with maintaining water quality in all of the state's waterbodies
and managing water resources. The Division sets water quality standards, regulates
wastewater treatment and associated discharges, monitors water quality, oversees the state's
nonpoint source pollution program and protects groundwater aquifers, under delegation of
Clean Water Act powers described above.
Bureau of Marine Resources: responsible for managing living marine resources in the state.
This includes assessing environmental impacts on marine resources, administering the tidal
wetlands and excavation and fill regulatory programs, coordinating state participation in
National Estuary Programs, recommending standards and classifications for marine waters,
certifying shellfish growing waters for harvesting,administering shellfish management
programs, assessing principal fishery stocks and developing recommendations for effective
management of species.
Division of Environmental Permits: coordinates permit reviews, assesses environmental
impacts of proposed projects, reviews regulations, and issues permits. The Division also
administers the State Environmental Quality Review Act which requires all levels of state
and local government to assess the environmental significance of actions which they have
discretion to approve, fund or directly undertake.
New York State Department of State Coastal Management Program
In New York, the Department of State administers the Coastal Management Program (CMP). The
CMP provides for the preservation, protection, development and use of the state's coastal and inland
waterways. The program has many aspects: policies covering land use planning, development of
recreation, commercial and industrial water-dependent properties, maintenance of fish and wildlife
habitats, stabilization of beaches and dunes, and waste discharges from vessels and on shore
facilities. The CMP's jurisdiction extends from the limit of the state's territorial waters to a line
generally 500 to 1000 feet inland. •
APPENDIX K
K-10
Pecomc Estuary Program CC.WP 7
• c
r
The CMP reviews projects having some form of Federal involvement in coastal areas for consistency
with local, state and Federal environmental statutes and program. The CMP also provides technical
and financial assistance to local municipalities to prepare Local Waterfront Revitalization Plans.
These plans promote revitalization of coastal areas while protecting their integrity.
Under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990,each state was required to
develop and submit to the EPA and NOAA a coastal nonpoint pollution control program. The
purpose of the program is"to develop and implement management measures for nonpoint source
pollution to restore and protect coastal waters,"working in close conjunction with other state and
local authorities.
New York State Department of Health
The Department of Health enforces compliance with the Public Health Law and the State Sanitary Code.
In the area of water resources, the Department establishes drinking water quality standards, and
establishes regulations for the sanitary control of water supplies. The Health Department sets guidance
for seafood consumption to protect public health. The Department also assists DEC in developing water
and air human health standards and in overseeing public health interests for the inspection and
remediation of inactive hazardous waste sites.
Regional Level
Long Island Regional Planning Board
The Board conducts planning and technical studies targeted to the preparation and update of the Bi-
County Comprehensive Development Plan for Nassau and Suffolk Counties. Activities are
supported by grants from Federal, state and local government agencies. Technical assessments
conducted at both regional and local levels have focused on a wide array of topics including the
implications of land use on waste management planning,the quality of groundwater and surface
waters and natural resource protection. The Board also provides technical expertise to local
municipalities and makes recommendations on development proposals, government operations and
open space plans and acquisitions.
Local Level
New York has a long-standing tradition of local self-determination or local home rule. Home rule
authority is highly valued and strongly defended. Land use controls in particular are viewed as a
local prerogative. At the county level, Suffolk County performs state-assigned functions such as
enforcement of state laws, and the conduct of elections, as well as providing a variety of public
services to its residents in such areas as public and environmental health, sanitation, highways and
public safety.
In New York, municipalities, usually local planning and/or zoning commissions, and zoning boards
of appeals are responsible for determining land use and zoning. This authority is delegated to
localities by state law and under state guidance. Commissions, in conjunction with other local
agencies, exert additional regulatory control over activities in the community. Some examples
include conservation, aquifer protection, and wetland and historic commissions.
APPENDIX K
K-11
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
i
F
r
-Municipal Boards or Councils •
In New York,the elected Municipal Boards are charged with the responsibility of overseeing all
functions of local government. These boards are ultimately charged with the regulation of land use
and zoning—the "backbone"of home rule. In most instances,the Board commissions the
development of a master plan or other comprehensive land use document which defines the existing
development patterns within a given community, articulates a set of objectives or goals, sets forth a
plan for guiding future development in conformance with the stated goals or objectives and can grant
zoning incentives. The Board will usually delegate watchdog powers to a planning board that
analyzes individual development proposals in the context of the overall master plan to insure
compliance. However, if this authority is not delegated, zoning, rezoning and granting special
permits is the function of the legislative board.
Boards and Department of Health
The Department of Health has far-reaching authority in exercising their responsibility to protect
public health and safety. Its broad regulatory authority places it at the forefront of environmental
protection. The Board of Health can adopt regulations for many activities that might endanger public
health or the environment. Health Department jurisdictions typically extend into the areas of water
supply, sewage disposal and sanitation.
The Suffolk County Department of Health Services implements delegated programs from the NYS
Departments of Health and Environmental Conservation, as well as Suffolk County Sanitary Code
Articles 4, 6, 7,and 12. These Sanitary Code sections limit nutrient and toxic pollution to
groundwater,with attendant benefits to surface waters.
Conservation Commissions and Boards
Municipalities are empowered under state law to establish local environmental advisory agencies.
.Among their purposes are to inventory natural resources within the community, receive and monitor
designated open space/conservation areas as well as conservation easements on behalf of the
community; serve as an advisor on conservation matters to other municipal boards, councils and
agencies, and prepare and periodically update maps of open space/conservation areas and other
important natural resources.
Inland or Freshwater Wetland Commissions
The municipality is empowered under state law to enact legislation providing for the local regulation
of inland or freshwater wetlands that is consistent with state statutes. Once wetland regulations are
enacted,the municipal board will generally delegate implementation to an Inland Wetland
Commission or Conservation Board. These commissions preside over specific development actions
in and around wetlands and render regulatory decisions. Other activities may include monitoring
approved projects for compliance with the terms and conditions of issued permits, providing
enforcement of the local wetland regulations, and keeping maps of wetland areas that are available
for review. The regulation of inland wetlands is an important component to the protection of
estuarine quality as inland wetlands are often hydrologically connected to estuarine wetlands and
waterways.
Environment Departments
Environment Departments are often established by the governing municipal board to oversee and
coordinate all activities in the municipality having to do with the environment. These departments
APPENDIX K
K-12
Peconic Estuary Program CC11P4h
are charged with managing natural resources, protecting public health and balancing population
growth, resource use and resource health. Environmental departments provide assistance and advice
to a wide variety, of elected and appointed boards having jurisdictions in environmental matters.
Planning and Zoning Boards or Commissions
Planning boards or commissions are statutorily empowered to carry out a variety of planning related
functions, some of which are long-range while others pertain to the review of individual projects,
proposals and activities. These authorities are conveyed to municipalities, but not required of them.
Accordingly, while these powers are the backbone of local home rule, all procedures must be
consistent with the requirements of state planning and zoning enabling statutes and are not
universally in place. These boards or commissions are the primary authorities for local coastal
management planning and implementation. All significant development proposals are reviewed for
conformance with local and state coastal programs.
Generally, planning or combined planning and zoning commissions prepare, adopt or amend master
plans of development for a community; review municipal improvement projects and the subdivision
of land.
Zoning Board of Appeals
Boards of Appeals are elected or appointed by the local legislative board and empowered to vary
land use regulations where the strict application of such regulations would create unnecessary
hardship(i.e., if the applicant is deprived of all economic uses or benefit, the hardship is unique but
not self-created).In some municipalities,the boards may also hear and decide on applications for
special permits.
Nonpoint Source Implementation
Local programs are discussed more fully in the PEP documents,PEP Base Programs Analysis,
Nonpoint Source Management Plan, Inventory, June 12, 1995, as well as Evaluating Town Capacity
and Needs in Protecting the Peconic Estuary, Columbia University, 1999. The nonpoint source
document is particularly significant with respect to pollution loading,as it describes applicable
6217(g) management measures, and the extent to which they are implemented by local programs.
The report discusses, in detail, issues such as local ordinances and management approaches for
stormwater runoff, sanitary systems, and land use management controls(zoning, open space, clearing
restrictions, etc.).
Legislative Bodies
NYS Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs of Long Island
Since 1987,the NYS Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs of Long Island has worked
to prevent degradation of resources and their interdependent ecologies. The Commission's primary
responsibilities are to make recommendations that lead to the preservation and protection of water
resources,to initiate the enactment of legislation to those same ends, and to participate in ongoing
dialogues to ensure the health of those waters.
APPENDIX K
K-13
Y Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
F
Evaluation of Effectiveness •
In general, most of the agencies and programs described above provide adequate capacity (statutory
and regulatory authority, agency functionality, etc.)to support PEP management objectives. A few
needs/deficiencies, potentially warranting"new"programs, are recommended, including:
• Optimizing farmer involvement in AEM initiatives by providing comfort levels, possibly
via insurance programs.
• Promoting more progressive nonpoint source control measures, especially in sensitive
nearshore areas and subwatersheds of embayments, dealing with sanitary system
upgrades, innovative and alternative sanitary systems, septage management districts, and
harbor protection overlay district ordinances.
While a few needs for"new" programs have been recommended, most of the programmatic analysis
contained in this document, and in the CCMP, has resulted in identification of recommendations for
improvements in existing programs. These improvements generally fall in the classes of:
• Needs to apply/tailor existing programs and mechanisms to further PEP
recommendations (e.g., use mechanisms such as nitrogen guidelines to guide regional
nitrogen load allocations).
• Needs to expand pre-existing programs to meet Peconic Estuary needs(e.g.,tailor an
agricultural environmental management program for nitrogen management needs to the
conditions in Suffolk County, where nitrogen from fertilizers leaches readily from soil to
groundwater, eventually reaching surface waters).
• Needs for additional financial and/or staff resources for implementation(e.g., additional
staff at Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District and USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service to implement agricultural environmental management).
Recommendations for Improvements
Based on its programmatic inventory and evaluation, in terms of new programs,the PEP has
recommended:
• Investigating the creation of a farm insurance program to optimize involvement in AEM
initiatives.
• Evaluating the feasibility of progressive nonpoint source control measures.
- Tax credits for sanitary system upgrades.
- Innovative and alternative sanitary systems, and septage management districts.
- Harbor protection overlay district ordinances.
Since these new programs are in the early stages of investigation, commitments have not been
procured,and costs and responsibilities are unknown. The PEP Management Conference is the lead
entity in evaluating feasibility of these programs.
APPENDIX K
K-14
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP s
• F .
Based on program needs, recommendations for improvements (or programmatic follow-up) include:
• Refine Water Quality Standards and Guidelines.
- Integrate monitoring and modeling data, studies,and reports to evaluate the
application of nitrogen guidelines for attaining and maintaining DO standards,
optimizing eelgrass habitats, and for use in developing regional load allocation
strategies and TMDLs.
- Review and revise as appropriate the marine DO standards based on Long Island
Sound Study efforts to develop area-specific DO targets and USEPA efforts to
develop DO criteria for marine waters.
• Preserve Water Quality East of Flanders Bay
- Develop and implement water quality preservation plans to protect existing
water quality for waters east of Flanders Bay where water quality meets or
exceeds established standards, criteria,or guidelines. This may be
accomplished, in part, by land use and nonpoint source pollution control
measures noted above and below.
• Implement a Quantitative Nitrogen Load Allocation Strategy for Entire Estuary
Initiate the development of load allocation targets and implementation strategies
for nitrogen loading to the entire estuary, identify, water segments to be included
in New York State's 2002 303(d) list,and establish schedule for development of
a TMDL, as needed.
• Control Point Source Discharges from STPs and Other Dischargers
- 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.
- 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.
• Implement Nonpoint Source Control Plans
- Ensure that the Section 6217(.-) management measures of CZARA are
appropriately implemented, in support of the overall nitrogen management plan.
- Develop a regional implementation plan for agricultural nitrogen load reductions
which would include promoting agricultural best management practices,
expanding agricultural environmental management(AEM)strategies, and
promoting organic farming among other initiatives. Four staff persons per year
over the next 10 years are needed for implementation (estimate).
- Develop a Long Island component to the New York State Agricultural
Environmental Management(AEM) program. ($1 million for program
development).
- Provide funding for increased local AEM development and implementation($1
million for implementation start up, from NYS Bond Act, Suffolk County
Sales Tax,and other funding sources; long-term to be determined).
APPENDIX K
K-15
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
F
•
Use Land Use Planning to Control Nitrogen Loading Associated with New Development
- Continue and expand aggressive open space preservation programs
- 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.
- Evaluate nitrogen-loading impacts when reviewing Core Preservation Area
hardship applications.
- Ensure that the public acquisition of private, vacant lands in Core Preservation
Areas within the Peconic River ground watershed are given high priority.
- 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 minimize fertilizer use).
•
APPENDIX K
K-16
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
c
•
Habitat and Living Resources
Description of Regulatory/Institutional Framework
Federal Agencies and Programs
National Environmental Policy Act
This Act established a national environmental policy and goals for the protection,maintenance,and
enhancement of the environment, provided a process for implementing these goals within the Federal
agencies,and established the Council on Environmental Quality to oversee Federal implementation of
the Act. Under the Act,all Federal agencies must incorporate environmental considerations into their
planning,decision-making,and actions through the preparation of environmental impact statements.
Coastal Zone Management Act
The Coastal Zone Management Act is administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration(NOAA); however,the objectives of the law are to be achieved through state coastal
management programs. The State of New York has such a program,and the actions of Federal
agencies must be consistent with the states' programs. The Act established a national policy to
preserve, protect, develop,and where possible,to restore or enhance coastal zones.
• Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
This Act was designed to conserve and manage all fishery resources within the U.S. Exclusive
Economic Zone, with the exception of some species on the continental shelf outside of the U.S.
Exclusive Economic Zone. This Act also established eight regional fishery management councils,
which prepare Fishery Management Plans for the fisheries in their region. These plans must include
measures for conservation and management that prevent overfishing while achieving optimum yield for
each fishery. Amendments to the Act require the National Marine Fisheries Service describe, identify,
conserve, and enhance`essential fish habitat",defined as"those waters and substrate necessary to fish
for spawning, breeding,feeding,or growth to maturity."
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission has an Interstate Fisheries Management Program that
was established by a state/Federal cooperative agreement with the National Marine Fisheries Service.
This program was designed to establish priorities for Territorial Sea Fisheries Management, develop,
monitor,and review management plans for high priority fisheries,recommend to states,Regional
Fishery Management Councils, and the Federal Government,management measures that will benefit
these fisheries, and conduct short-term research to assist in the preparation or revision of fishery
management plans. Fishery management plans are now required to include essential fish habitat
provisions.
Endangered Species Act
The Endangered Species Act is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)and NOAA's
National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS). This program is designed to protect and conserve all types
of wildlife and plants-- both marine and terrestrial--that are threatened or endangered with extinction.
All Federal agencies must consult with the FWS and NMFS on activities that they authorize, fund,or
carry out, which may impact any threatened or endangered species or its habitat. This is to ensure that
actions will not jeopardize the species either directly or through adverse modification of its habitat.
APPENDIX K
K-17
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
F
r_
•
Marine Mammal Protection Act
The Marine Mammal Protection Act(MMPA) is administered by NMFS. This Act serves to protect
and conserve marine mammals and their designated critical habitat. In addition, it establishes a
moratorium on the taking and importation of marine mammals. This Act also provides for scientific,
legal,and policy research to determine the best methods for protecting and conserving marine
mammals. The porpoises and pinnipeds found in the Peconics are all covered under this law.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan
This Plan is administered cooperatively by the states and the FWS. It was established to address the
serious decline of waterfowl populations throughout North America. The Plan identifies habitat
conservation needs in specific regions, sets goals for restoration of waterfowl populations,and provides
a framework for accomplishing local, regional,and international goals.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934 authorizes the FWS to"provide assistance to and
cooperate with Federal and state agencies to protect,rear,stock and increase the supply of game and
fur-bearing animals, as well as to study the effects of domestic sewage,trade wastes,and other polluting
substances on wildlife." Amendments passed in 1958 further allow the FWS to review proposed
Federal actions that may affect stream,wetlands or other bodies of water and recommend ways to
conserve fish and wildlife. It also allows the FWS to determine standards for water quality maintaining
fish and wildlife, study methods of abating and preventing pollution and recovering useful products,
and collect and distribute data on the results of the investigations.
Migratory Bird Conservation Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1919 serve to
protect migratory birds through prohibiting their takings, development of hunting seasons,restriction on
weapons, numbers taken and acquiring areas to manage and protect migratory birds. These laws protect
many of the waterfowl and migratory birds found within the Peconics.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is administered jointly by the Army Corps of Engineers(ACOE)
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA). Section 404 requires and regulates permits for
the discharge of dredged or fill material into surface waters,their tributaries, and adjacent wetlands.
Through environmental impact statements, a permit applicant must demonstrate that 1)there are no
practicable alternatives;2)that threatened or endangered species will not be eliminated or water quality
standards violated;3)that no significant degradation of waters will result, and 4)that the impacts of any
necessary discharge are minimized.
Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research,and Sanctuaries Act is administered by the ACOS, in
conjunction with the EPA,NMFS,and FWS. Section 103 is the only part of the Act that affects the
Peconic Estuary. The purpose of Section 103 is to regulate the transportation and placement of dredged
materials. Non-Federal projects in which dredged materials are transported or placed must be evaluated
and permitted by the ACOS,and Federal projects must be evaluated. The EPA is responsible for
development of environmental impact criteria upon which these evaluations are based,and for the
identification of placement sites. Both the NMFS and FWS assist in the environmental review of
activities covered by Section 103 of this Act.
APPENDIX K
K-18
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP_a''°�'e
F
Anadromous Fish Conservation Act
The Anadromous Fish Conservation Act of 1965 is administered by the U.S. Department of the
Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Act is intended to conserve, develop and
enhance anadromous fishery resources.
Rivers and Harbors Act
The Rivers and Harbors Act is administered by the ACOE. This Act was designed to prevent the
deposition of obstructive and/or injurious materials within harbors or adjacent and tributary waters.
This Act requires permitting for the movement or deposition of dredged, excavated, or other refuse
material in harbors and their tributaries.
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act
The Coastal Wetlands Planning,Protection,and Restoration Act is administered by the FWS. Under
this Act,coastal states can receive matching grants to establish programs for the conservation of
wetlands. Projects funded include those in which wetlands are acquired, restored,and enhanced.
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act
The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act(FAIRA)of 1996 consolidated and simplified
some of the existing conservation programs established under the Food,Agriculture,Conservation, and
Trade Act of 1990. Implemented primarily by the U.S. Department of Agriculture(USDA), both acts
encourage reducing soil erosion, retaining wetlands,and protecting other environmentally sensitive
croplands.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program is administered by EPA. The purpose of this
program is to confirm the effectiveness of pollution control strategies. It does this through assessing
and documenting the status and trends of various habitats in marine and non-marine systems. The
monitoring and assessment of these habitats is standardized throughout the country, so as to ensure
comparable spatial and temporal measurements.
National Wildlife Refuge System
Wildlife refuges are managed by the USFWS. The mission of this program is"to provide,preserve,
restore,and manage a national network of lands and waters sufficient in size,diversity,and location to
meet society's needs for areas where the widest possible spectrum of benefits associated with wildlife
and wild lands is enhanced and made available." Goals of this program include preservation,
restoration. and enhancement of plant and animal species in danger of extinction, perpetuation of
migratory birds, preservation of natural diversity and abundance of plants and animals in refuges,and
provision of recreational experiences to the public.
Coastal Barrier Resources Act
The Coastal Barrier Resources Act is administered by the FWS. The purpose of this Act is to protect
ecologically sensitive coastal barriers through reduction or prevention of development. This Act
designated specific barrier islands and spits as ineligible for either direct or indirect Federal financial
assistance that would support development(including Federal flood insurance). Thus,private interests
or state and local governments can only finance development.
APPENDIX K
K-19
' Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
Protection of Wetlands (Executive Order 11990)
Actions implemented within freshwater or coastal wetlands may be subject to the completion of a
wetlands assessment and mitigation plan.
Floodplain Management (Executive Order 11988)
Any construction within the 100-year flood plain necessary to implement actions of the CCMP may
necessitate the preparation of a flood plain assessment.
Land and Water Conservation Fund
The Land and Water Conservation Fund is administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior. It is
designed so that there are sufficient outdoor recreation resources that are conserved,developed, and
utilized for present and future generations. The Fund derives revenue from various sources such as
Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas monies and motorboat fuel taxes,and appropriates this money to 1)
states in the form of matching grants for outdoor recreation projects; and 2)Federal agencies for land
acquisitions.
National Sea Grant College Program
The National Sea Grant College Program is a partnership between the nation's universities and NOAA
chartered in 1966 by the National Sea Grant College Program Act. The program encourages the wise
stewardship of marine resources through research,education,outreach,and technology transfer. The
NOAA Office of Sea Grant administers the program and provides financial support to colleges,
universities, and other research institutions through a matching fund program.
Fish and Wildlife Service's Coastal Ecosystem Program
The USFWS's Coastal Ecosystem Program aims to conserve fish and wildlife and their habitats and
to support healthy coastal ecosystems. The Program's approach is to work in partnership with
Federal, state, international,Native American,and local agencies; non-governmental organizations;
and the private sector to develop and implement ecosystem-based policies and programs that protect
and enhance coastal living resources. The emphasis of the Coastal Ecosystem Program is to have
natural laboratories for long-term research and monitoring projects, as well as public education, so
that comparative work can be accomplished through these sites.
Coastal America
Coastal America is an interagency partnership of 12 Federal agencies working together to protect,
preserve, and restore coastal ecosystems that was established in 1992. It also includes state, local
and tribal governments and non-governmental organizations. Coastal America also collaborates and
cooperates in the stewardship of coastal living resources by working in partnership with other
Federal programs and by integrating Federal actions with state, local and tribal efforts.
National Estuarine Research Reserve
The National Estuarine Research Reserve (HERR)was created in 1972 with the passage of the
Coastal Zone Management Act. The NERR systems protect representative estuarine areas through a
partnership between NOAA and state governments. Each estuarine reserve has research, education,
and monitoring functions that include researching reserve environments, and tracking the status and
trends in ecosystem health.
APPENDIX K
K-20
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
State Agencies and Programs
Environmental Quality Review Act
The Environmental Quality Review Act is administered by NYS DEC Division of Environmental
Permits. This Act requires consideration of environmental impacts alone with social and economic
factors in all state and local agency decision making. Through this Act,all state and local government
agencies must assess the environmental significance of actions that they have discretion to approve.
fund or directly undertake. In cases in which an action may potentially have significant environmental
impacts,an environmental impact statement must be prepared. This statement examines ways to reduce
or avoid adverse environmental impacts related to a proposed action, and it includes analysis of
reasonable alternatives.
Coastal Management Program
The Coastal Management Program is administered by NYS Department of State, Division of Coastal
Resources and Waterfront Revitalization. This Program is responsible for coordinated and
comprehensive planning for the use, protection, and development of coastal resources,. and the exercise
of full governmental authority over land and water uses in the coastal area. The Coastal Management
Program is implemented through three components: l) local Waterfront Revitalization Programs, which
address coastal development;2)review of Federal and state government actions to determine
consistency with coastal management policies;and 3)support and involvement in coastal programs,
projects,and activities, which implement coastal policies. A fourth component,the Coastal Nonpoint
Pollution Control Program, has recently been added to develop and implement management measures
for nonpoint source pollution. In addition,the Coastal Management Program contains the Significant
Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats Program, which maps designated areas for their protection,
preservation, and maintenance.
Marine Fisheries Management Programs
There are various fisheries management programs administered by NYS DEC Division of Fish.
Wildlife and Marine Resources. It is the mission of these programs to manage and maintain the state's
living marine, estuarine,and anadromous resources,and to protect and enhance the habitat upon which
these resources depend, in order to assure that diverse and self-sustaining populations of these resources
are available for future generations. Specific programs include investigation and management of
shellfish, anadromous finfish, marine finfish,and crustaceans,the Peconic finfish and
macroinvertebrate trawl survey, development of artificial reefs, and enhancement of access to these
resources.
Shellfish Sanitation Program
The Shellfish Sanitation Program is administered by NYS DEC Bureau of Marine Resources. This
program assures that shellfish harvested and sold in the state meet public health guidelines. This goal is
achieved by testing the waters where shellfish are harvested and closing those waters that exceed levels
of pathogen indicators that would be unsafe for human consumption. In addition,N-YS DEC monitors
and inspects all wholesalers to make sure that all shellfish are handled, processed,and shipped under
sanitary conditions.
Freshwater Fish and Wildlife Management Programs
There are various wildlife management programs administered by NYS DEC Division of Fish, Wildlife
and Marine Resources. These programs are designed to manage and maintain the state's freshwater
• fisheries and wildlife resources for the use and enjoyment of the public,and to protect and enhance the
APPENDIX K
K21
J`,SSV!/
Y r Peconic Estuary Program CC.WP
F
habitat upon which these resources depend. Some of these programs include: management of the •
waterfowl resource, including habitat restoration under the North American Waterfowl Management
Plan, monitoring and protection of endangered species and significant habitats,regulation of use of
species through the process of setting hunting regulations, and biological surveys of wildlife species.
Endangered Species Program
The Endangered Species Program is administered by NYS DEC Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine
Resources. This Program studies species with declining population sizes and classifies them as
"endangered," "threatened,"or"of special concern." Overall,there are 52 endangered or threatened
species in New York State. The Program identifies and acts to preserve habitats vital to the existence of
these species. In addition,this program actively participates in efforts to restore populations of
endangered species.
Water Quality Certification ("401 certification") Program
The Water Quality Certification Program is administered by NYS DEC Division of Environmental
Permits, under program authority of the Division of Water. Under section 401 of the Federal Clean
Water Act,any"discharge" to U.S. waters that requires a Federal permit must first obtain a 401
certification from the state. Therefore,this Program regulates water quality to insure that actions by
Federal agencies do not compromise the water quality standards adopted by New York State. This
objective is accomplished by requiring Federal agencies issuing permits or carrying out direct actions to
first obtain a water quality certification from the state.
Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Program
The Nonpoint Source(NPS)Water Pollution Program is administered by NYS DEC Division of Water.
Under section 319 of the Federal Clean Water Act,the U.S. EPA oversees this Program through grant
administration,program approval,and periodic program evaluation. This Program is responsible for an
Assessment Report, which reflects the current level of understanding of NPS problems in New York
State,and a Nonpoint Source Management Program. The management program is designed to: identify
approved management practices,establish watershed planning processes, recommend control measures
needed to address each category of NPS pollution, identify potential sources of funding available to
implement NPS control programs, and establish a procedure to ensure that Federal,state, and local
programs are consistent with the state's NPS program. This Program was initiated in 1989,and is
implemented through other existing programs and agencies, which incorporate management
recommendations into their plans.
Point Source Control Program
The Point Source Control Program is administered by NYS DEC Division of Water. Under section 402
of the Federal Clean Water Act and New York State law,this Program regulates discharges from all
point sources. This includes ensuring water quality standards are achieved. This Program is
responsible for granting state pollutant discharge elimination system(SPDES)discharge permits.
SPDES is the primary mechanism for controlling the discharge of conventional, non-conventional and
toxic pollutants from point sources, and it is the mechanism through which sanitary,commercial,and
industrial discharges of wastewater to surface and ground waters are regulated.
Tidal Wetlands Program
The Tidal Wetlands Program is administered by the NYS DEC Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine
Resources, and it consists of three parts(NYS Environmental Conservation Law,Article 25). The Tidal
Wetlands Regulatory Program is designed,through the use of permits,to preserve and protect tidal
•
APPENDIX K
K-22
Peconic Estuary Program CC-WP.+
wetlands and adjacent areas, and to prevent their despoliation and destruction. The Tidal Wetlands
Acquisition Program purchases or otherwise obtains(e.g.,easement,donation)tidal wetland areas that
are deemed valuable. The state acquires these wetlands for the purpose of conservation, preservation,
and public use. The NYS DEC also has a program for restoring and enhancing tidal wetlands. In
addition,all tidal wetlands in the state are mapped, inventoried,and their status is assessed.
Freshwater Wetlands Program
The Freshwater Wetlands Program is administered by NYS DEC Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine
Resources(NYS Environmental Conservation Law, Article 24). This Program protects and regulates
activities in freshwater wetlands 12.4 acres or larger and their adjacent areas, and smaller wetlands if
they are deemed locally important. Permits are required for activities such as construction,
modification, expansion and restoration of structures, placement of fill, excavation,grading,drainage,
and application of pesticides.
Protection of Waters Program
The Protection of Waters Program is administered by the NYS DEC Division of Fish. Wildlife and
Marine Resources(NYS Environmental Conservation Law,Article 15,). This Program regulates the
following three categories of activities: 1) disturbance of the bed or bks of a"protected stream" or
other watercourse, 2)construction and maintenance of dams;and 3)excavation and/or filling in
"navigable waters"or the wetlands and estuaries adjacent and contiguous to any navigable waters.
• Coastal Erosion Hazard Program
The Coastal Erosion Program is administered by the NYS DEC (NYS Environmental Conservation
Law,Article 34). This Program identifies and maps coastal erosion hazard areas,establishes standards
for the issuance of coastal erosion management permits,and regulates activities within these areas.
Procedural requirements are also set up for local governments that wish to implement a local program.
Toxic Substances Assessment Program
The Toxic Substances Assessment Program is administered by NYS Department of Health Division of
Environmental Health Assessment. After the NYS DEC tests finfish and shellfish for toxic substances,
this Program interprets the results from a human health risk perspective. In the case that levels of toxic
substances are above those which present a risk to human health,this Program issues consumption
advisories.
New York State Marine Mammals; Harbor Seals
In addition to the Marine Mammal Protection Act(See Federal section above),the State of New York
specifically protects harbor seals in New York water under NYS Environmental Conservation Law,
Article 11, section 0107, by prohibiting the wounding or killing of harbor seals except as permitted.
These animals are also protected under this law from being possessed,transported, bought, or sold.
except as permitted.
Natural Heritage Program
The Natural Heritage Program is administered by NYS DEC Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine
Resources and the Division of Lands and Forests,with support from The Nature Conservancy. This
Program was developed to gather information and store data on rare species and significant natural
communities in New York State. Information and data collected includes distribution and abundance of
species and habitats,as well as classification of communities.
i
APPENDIX K
K-23
Peconic Estuary Program CC.VP
i
Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers Program •
The Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers Program is administered by NYS DEC Division of Lands
and Forests(NYS Environmental Conservation Law,Article 15). This Program was developed to
protect and preserve, in a free-flowing condition,those rivers of the state that possess outstanding
natural, scenic,historical,ecological, and recreational values identified as being important to present
and future generations. Rivers that meet specific criteria are categorized as either wild, scenic, or
recreational based on the appearance and amount of nearby development. After designation,
construction of many structures in the river or adjacent areas requires a permit.
Open Space Conservation Plan
The Open Space Conservation Plan is administered by NYS DEC Division of Lands and Forests and
the NYS Office of Parks,Recreation,and Historic Preservation. The purpose of this plan is to provide
for the conservation,protection,and preservation of open space,natural, historic, and cultural resources,
and the enhancement of recreational opportunities. Such open space and resources includes fields,
forests,waters,and wetlands. The Open Space Conservation Plan strives towards this objective by
purchasing or otherwise acquiring undeveloped open space and developing management strategies for
these acquisitions.
New York State Pine Barrens Act
The New York State Pine Barrens Act delineates large, undeveloped parcels containing unique plant
and animal communities around the Peconic River which are to be protected. This law provides for
the protection of several communities exclusively associated with the barrens, such as the pitch •
pine/scrub oak forests and coastal plain ponds.
New York State Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act
The New York State Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act was approved by NYS voters in 1996 and
provides$1.75 billion for improving and restoring water bodies across the State. Open spaces of lands
are also conserved with Bond Act money,as well as the closing of aging landfills, upgrading of sewage
treatment plants,reduction of stormwater runoff,restoration of degraded habitats,and the clean up of
contaminated properties.
Local Level
There are a wide variety of local programs in place to protect,preserve and enhance the habitats and
living resources of the Peconic watershed. These were discussed in detail in Columbia University's
report entitled"Evaluating Town Capacity and Needs in Protecting the Peconic Estuary ". This report
evaluated the existing programs enlisted to protect habitat and living resources for all six cast-end
towns(Brookhaven,East Hampton,Riverhead, Shelter Island, Southampton and Southold)and
determined their ability to monitor and evaluate threats to the estuary. Each Town has developed their
own laws,zoning regulations and environmental programs to address habitat and living resources
protection that often go beyond those of the New York State. For example, Southampton adopted a
wetlands law in 1993 that intends to achieve a"no net loss"of wetlands, and to encourage a net gain. A
more detailed description of each Town's programs and ability to meet the needs of the PEP CCMP
actions are found in the report by Columbia University.
APPENDIX K
K-24
Peconic Esluary Program CCMP 41
Evaluation of Effectiveness
In general,the agencies and programs described above provide excellent mechanisms to protect
many of the habitats and living resources in the Peconic Estuary. Many of these programs also
provide a means to monitor habitats, water quality and living resources, as well as allowing for the
enhancement and restorations. However,the Peconic Estuary Program Natural Resources
Subcommittee and the PEP Management Conference have identified several areas where existing
laws and programs do not sufficiently protect the natural resources or require strengthening for
protection into the future. The PEP makes the following recommendations:
Recommendations for Improvements
• Although many of the habitats in the Peconic Estuary are offered some level of protection through
existing regulations by the Federal,state and local governments,there are assemblages of aquatic
and terrestrial habitats and living resources that are increasingly threatened by human activities
because the regulations do not adequately protect them. For example a continued loss of inter-tidal
and beach habitats from shoreline hardening is expected since NYSDEC regulations classify
bulkheads as"generally compatible with the environment'above mean high water, provided that
there are no tidal wetlands in the vicinity. While these regulations may sufficiently protect
• wetlands,they offer only limited,or no,protection of the beach habitats which are of great
importance to many nesting shorebirds(e.g., piping plovers)and horseshoe crabs which lay their
eggs in these areas. Similar examples are found in other aquatic and terrestrial environments.
While it is generally recommended that NYS strengthen its tidal wetland regulations,an alternative
is proposed. It is recommended that the areas within the Peconics that are of very high ecological
quality (e.g.,providing important spawning, breeding,nursery and feeding habitats for a diversity
of rare, keystone and commercially important species) be identified and mapped as Critical Natural
Resource Areas. Once these Critical Natural Resource Areas are identified and adopted,they
should be given an extra level of protection through increased coordination and rigorous
implementation of existing regulations; and new protection mechanisms should be developed
where needed. A full implementation strategy to protect Critical Natural Resource Areas should be
developed and implemented by the Peconic Estuary Program and all regulatory authorities.
• Eelgrass has been identified as a critical underwater habitat for bay scallops and finfish. Eelgrass
beds, however,are only loosely protected under the NYSDEC tidal wetlands regulations,to a depth
of only 6 ft. and by Protection of Waters(NYS ECL; Article 15). No other regulations exist to
protect this important habitat from the increasing threats of propeller scarring,dredging and shading
from docks and piers. It is recommended that a full review of current policies that protect eelgrass
beds be undertaken and that the PEP develop recommendations for their increased protection.
possibly through inclusion as a Critical Natural Resources Area.
• There is an increasing need for dredging in the Peconics for both commercial and recreational
purposes, which can result in negative impacts to the habitat and living resources in the estuary.
Dredging is regulated at the Federal and state levels, but the existing regulations may not always
offer the best protection of habitats due to conflicting programmatic concerns. It is recommended
that a"dredge summit'be convened for the Peconic Estuary that addresses specific concerns such
as: impacts to shorebird nesting, demersal fish spawning and benthic communities. The"dredge
APPENDIX K
K-?5
mo
� w ^
� Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
F
summit'should develop regional management recommendations to minimize impacts to the critical
habitat and living resources of the estuary.
As mentioned above in the example for Critical Natural Resource Areas,shoreline hardening
structures such as bulkheads and rock revetments are considered"generally compatible with the
environment'above mean high water,provided that there is no tidal wetland vegetation in that
location. While State regulations are protective of wetlands,they offer only limited protection of
beach habitats and when bulkheads are installed above mean high water,they may not allow for the
landward migrations of tidal wetlands with sea-level rise. Additionally,docks and piers are also
listed as"generally compatible with the environment', which leads to a fragmentation of tidal
marsh and aquatic habitats, as well as a shading of eelgrass beds. It is recommended that the PEP
adopt a policy of"no net increase"in shoreline hardening structures for the Peconic Estuary,
develop recommendations to reduce impacts from shoreline hardening structures,encourage the
strengthening of existing policies and regulations to reduce impacts from bulkheads at all levels of
government,and promote"softer"vegetated alternative shoreline protection solutions as well as
incentives to remove existing bulkheads.
• There are a number of aquatic and terrestrial habitat restoration opportunities in the Peconic Estuary
that have been identified by the Towns and local agencies. These include: coastal grasslands,
beaches, dunes,fish and wildlife migratory corridors,tidal wetlands, freshwater wetlands,
submerged aquatic vegetation, coastal forest communities and intertidal flats. There are also
various sources of funding available at the Federal,state and local levels to implement restoration •
efforts. However,there is no single agency that identifies or coordinates restoration projects in the
Peconics. It is recommended that the PEP convene a Habitat Restoration Workgroup to develop
and implement an estuary-wide habitat restoration plan. This plan should identify and list priority
habitats to be restored,develop restoration criteria for selection of restoration sites and identify
sources of funding to implement and monitor all restoration efforts in the Peconics.
• Tidal wetlands have been extensively ditched in the past for mosquito control. Ditching fragments
tidal marshes and can impact their ecological functions. While no new ditching is currently
allowed in the Peconic Estuary,tidal wetland regulations do allow for the maintenance of existing
ditches through rotary-ditcher machines. Advances in alternatives to ditching for mosquito control
management such as Open Marsh Water Management(OMWM)have proven effective. There
have been some efforts to restore and control mosquitoes in tidal marshes in the Peconics with
OMWM,but they are often limited in scope and not well coordinated. It is recommended that the
PEP work cooperatively with Suffolk County Vector Control and other agencies,towns and groups
to encourage and develop priority areas for OMWM in the Peconics.
• Aquaculture and transplanting of shellfish have the potential to be beneficial or harmful to the
water quality and living resources in the Peconic Estuary depending on the type, scale and location
of culturing/transplanting activities. The NYSDEC is responsible for the permitting of aquaculture
activities in the Peconics, but Suffolk County is responsible for developing an aquaculture plan. No
comprehensive plan exists for aquaculture in the Peconic Estuary and this has resulted in
uncoordinated management and planning of these activities. It is recommended that the PEP assist
in the development of a Regional Aquaculture Plan for the Peconic Estuary that is mutually
beneficial to the estuary and the culturing/transplanting facilities and does not impact natural stocks
of shellfish or finfish.
•
APPENDIX K
K-26
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP s
• Artificial reefs can also be beneficial or harmful to the habitats and living resources in the Peconic
Estuary depending on their type,scale and locations. The State has an Artificial Reef Plan that was
developed in the 1980s, but it is limited in its overall considerations of potential impacts to marine
mammals,benthic communities or changes to the species compositions in the area. It is
recommended that PEP evaluate the use of artificial reefs and develop recommendations to
minimize the impact on resources by these structures,particularly in Critical Natural Resource
Areas.
• There has been increasing usage of the Peconic Estuary by sea turtles and marine mammals.
Current activities that may harm them include boating,dredging, large-scale aquaculture projects,
or poorly designed artificial reefs. Under NYS ECL Article 11, Section 0107, it is illegal to injure
or cause the death of harbor seals. It is also illegal 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
pinniped found in NY 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,this law would need to be expanded. PEP should work with the Towns,
County,and State to 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.
• Measures are needed to counteract the effects of increasing human populations and development of
the lands and waters of the watershed surrounding the estuary. Although the East End Towns are
developing Local Waterfront Revitalization Plans,which can enhance public access and protect
habitats and living resources,proper planning is needed to ensure that access points are coupled
with the right kind of space to accommodate different uses. PEP should support maintaining a
balance between the needs and opportunities for public access and 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
development on waterfront property and 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 requirements that the shoreline be maintained with a natural buffer made
up of native vegetation. The PEP should encourage and assist other Towns in adopting similar
planning measures.
• Monitoring involves the multi-year collection of data on living resources and water quality to
understand the natural variability of populations over time as well as changes in those
populations that result from human influences. While there are several different on-going
monitoring programs in the Peconics (e.g., SCDHS Water Quality Program,NYSDEC Juvenile
Finfish Trawl Survey, Cornell Cooperative Extension eelgrass monitoring.NYSDEC
Endangered Species Program, etc.),there is a need to coordinate these programs to fully evaluate
the health of the Peconic ecosystem and manage it based on sound data collection and analysis.
There is also a significant need for basic ecological research in the Peconic Estuary, to help
understand and guide the management of the natural resources that exist. It is therefore,
recommended that the PEP develop and seek funding to implement a research and monitoring
plan for the habitats and living resources of the Peconic Estuary.
APPENDIX K
K-27
#t' Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
F
a
Pathogens
Description of Re2ulatory/Institutional Framework
Federal Agencies and Programs
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
On November 16, 1990, EPA issued National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit application regulations for stormwater discharges. 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 occurred).
Phase II of the USEPA Storm water 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.
Clean Water Act Section 319 Nonpoint Source Programs
New York State has developed a program for the control of sources of pathogen indicators to the
Peconic Estuary. The Clean Water Act(CWA) Section 319 Nonpoint Sources Management
Program, forms the basis for this management program. The 1987 amendments to the CWA
established a national program to control nonpoint sources of water pollution. Under Section 319,
States address this pollution by: 1) developing nonpoint source assessment reports and 2) adopting
and implementing nonpoint source management programs. Section 319 also provides for the
issuance by EPA of grants to states to assist them in implementing the management programs that
have been approved by the EPA. New York has an approved Nonpoint Source Management
Program that, among other objectives, attempts to address diverse sources of pathogen indicators.
The NYSDEC Nonpoint Source Management Program was finalized and approved by EPA in
January 1990. The plan addressed specific requirements of the Clean Water Act, Section 319. NY
developed a process of ongoing assessment of waters impacted by nonpoint source pollution and
identifies BMPs to be used to reduce their effects. Programs for the control of general sources of
nonpoint source pollution were also presented.
i
APPENDIX K
K-28
Peconic Estuary Program CLUP
NYSDEC has developed several nonpoint source documents. Statewide guidelines for stormwater
management for new development and for erosion and sediment control have been developed by
NYSDEC for use by local planning officials, building inspectors, and developers. Municipalities
have been encouraged to use these guidelines in the review of local development projects. In
addition,NYSDEC has developed Management Practices Catalogues for: 1)agriculture; 2)
silviculture; 3) urban/stormwater runoff; 4) road/right-of-way maintenance; 5) leaks, spills, and
accidents; 6) resource extraction; 7)onsite waste disposal. 8) construction; and 9) hydrologic/habitat
modification.
Coastal Management Plan Nonpoint Source Control Program
The reauthorization of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) was passed on November
5, 1990. A major provision of the Act(Section 6217) is the requirement for a new Coastal Zone
Nonpoint Source Management Program in each state. These programs were to be developed over the
30 months following EPA publication of final technical guidance in May 1992. These programs are
applicable in the entire coastal zone exclusive of the areas subject to the new stormwater regulations.
The new nonpoint source programs are jointly approved by NOAA and EPA, and must be
incorporated into states' Clean Water Act Section 319 programs. The coastal zone nonpoint source
programs are based on nonpoint source pollution management measures, which are essentially
systems of best management practices (BMPs). EPA published draft management measures
guidance in May of 1991, and published final guidance in May 1992. The management measures are
• keyed to different land uses (sources) and specify practices to be carried out to reduce and/or prevent
nonpoint source pollution. Demonstration of water quality impairment is not required for
implementation of the management measures;rather,the approach is technology-based (like effluent
guidelines).
The issues addressed by the Management Measures Guidance include 1)agriculture, 2) forestry
(silviculture), 3) urban runoff, 4) wetlands, 5) boats and marinas,and 7) hydromodification.
Pathogens from confined animal feeding operations(CAFO), onsite sewage disposal systems, urban
runoff, and boats and marinas are addressed in the guidance. Management practices suggested to
control pathogens in urban runoff include detention/retention ponds, biofiltration and infiltration
devices. Management practices identified to remove pathogens from onsite sewage disposal systems
include periodic septic tank pumping, septic system inspections,and installation of intermittent sand
filters with a leaching fields for existing developments. For new developments, wastewater
separation with a holding tank for blackwater and conventional system for grey water has been
recommended. Marina siting, design and operation, and maintenance and management measures are
also presented in the guidance. Wastewater collection to prevent pathogen contamination of marina
waters can be performed with marina-wide collection(pump-out) systems implemented as
portable/mobile systems or dedicated slipside systems.
The State's modified Coastal Management Plan(CMP) must contain "enforceable" policies based on
local ordinances, state laws or regulations. Section 6217(b) of the CZMA Reauthorization also
provides for the identification of critical areas immediately adjacent to coastal areas where land uses
may contribute to future impairment. In these areas,the law provides for additional management
measures that are land use oriented, such as siting and density requirements. The focus of this
section of the law is on land use controls.
•
APPENDIX K
K-29
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
4it
F
In New York State, the development of the Coastal Zone Nonpoint Management Plan falls under the •
joint jurisdiction of the Department of State(DOS) and the NYSDEC which together have the
authority for implementing section 6217(b)of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of
1990. NYSDOS submitted the New York State Plan to NOAA in July 1995 and has been approved
and has been incorporated it into the State's Nonpoint Program (Clean Water Act section 319).
Total Maximum Daily Load Program
EPA's Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program comes from Section 303(d) of the Clean Water
Act(See: Nutrients Section of Base Programs Analysis). There remain waters in the nation that do
not meet the CWA national goal of"fishable, swimmable"despite the fact that nationally required
levels of pollution control technology have been implemented by many pollution sources. CWA
Section 303(d)addresses these waters that are not"fishable, swimmable" by requiring the state to
identify the waters and to develop total maximum daily loads(TMDLs)for them, with oversight
from EPA.
Clean Vessel Act
Congress passed the Clean Vessel Act(CVA) in 1992 to help reduce pollution from vessel sewage
discharges. The Act established a five-year Federal grant program administered by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service(FWS)and authorized $40 million from the Sport Fish Restoration Account for use
by the states. Federal funds may constitute up to 75% of all approved projects with the remaining
funds provided by the states or marinas. Grants are available to the states on a competitive basis for
the construction and/or renovation, operation and maintenance of pumpout and portable toilet dump •
stations. Currently, states submit grant proposals, by May 1 of each year,to one of seven Fish and
Wildlife Service regional offices for review. The Service's Division of Federal Aid then convenes a
panel including representatives from the Service's Washington Office of the Division of Federal Aid,
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), EPA, and the U.S. Coast Guard.
The panel reviews, ranks and makes funding recommendations to the Director of the Fish and
Wildlife Service. The Director gives priority consideration to grant proposals that provide
installation and/or operation of pumpout and dump stations under Federally approved state plans.
Pursuant to the CVA,the Sport Fish Restoration Program sets aside money for pump out units for
marinas; money comes from an excise tax built into sales of certain fishing or boating gear(money is
administered by FWS and sent back to the state agencies for projects that would benefit recreational
fishing and boating).
As noted above under Clean Water Programs, Section 312 of the Clean Water Act authorizes the
EPA, individual states and the U.S. Coast Guard to work together to provide states with the
opportunity to protect its citizens and its aquatic habitats through Vessel Waste No Discharge Area
designations and national standards for marine sanitation devices on boat toilets or heads. The
availability of pumpout stations and/or the importance of the waterbody for human health and
recreation or the aquatic ecosystem bring to bear on a state's request for a Vessel Waste No
Discharge Area designation. A graphic pumpout symbol is placed at docks and marinas to show
boaters where a pumpout facility is located. In some cases, small boats may be modified to receive
these wastes and can visit boats to provide this service. Enforcement of Vessel Waste No Discharge
Areas is the responsibility of the U.S. Coast Guard; the Coast Guard may delegate this responsibility
to the state.
•
APPENDIX K
K-30
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP: N
t
x
There are three distinct kinds of Vessel Waste No Discharge Area designations that may be available
to an interested state. These are: to protect aquatic habitats where pumpout facilities are available,to
protect special habitats or species, and to protect human drinking water intake zones.
State Agencies and Programs
Surface Water and Groundwater Classifications and Standards
The NYSDEC Division of Water classifies water quality standards for coliforms through the NYS
Water Quality Regulations(Title 6, Chapter X, Part 703 of Water Quality Regulations). These
standards have been established for total and fecal coliform counts, and are applied throughout the
NYS waters, including the Peconic Estuary.
Transportation Efficiency Act
The Transportation Efficiency Act is implemented by New York State Department of Transportation
(NYSDOT) and funded by NYSDOT capital budget. These funds can be used to improve water
quality by preventing or remediating road runoff.
Vessel Waste No Discharge Area Designations
Per Section 312 of the CWA, EPA, individual States and the U.S. Coast Guard work together to
provide states with the opportunity to protect citizens and aquatic habitats through Vessel Waste No
Discharge Area designations and national standards for marine sanitation devices on boat toilets, or
• heads. Section 312 of the CWA helps protect human health and aquatic environment from disease-
causing microorganisms that may be present to sewage from vessels and boats. These
microorganisms can include bacteria, protozoans and viruses.
Bathing Beach Monitoring Programs
NY's coliform standards for beach water quality are specified in Sub Part 6-2 of the New York State
Sanitary Code(NYSSC). The NYSSC. as revised on March 30, 1988, allows local health
departments the option of utilizing either total or fecal coliform as a water quality indicator. The
New York State monitoring guidelines are described in the NYSSC Subpart 6-2.15. No state
requirements have been made for the sampling frequency and it is up to the local health department
in each county to design a monitoring plan. As a result,each county has a slightly different sampling
strategy.
Since sources of pathogens may be different during rainfall, samples are specified as either taken in
"wet" or"drA" periods. A sample is considered "wet" if(1) it has rained 48 hours prior to sampling,
or if(2) more than 0.4 inches of rain has accumulated within a 24 hour time span, or if(3) more than
0.2 inches of rain has fallen in a two-hour period.
In addition to closures caused by regularly monitored indicator levels, some areas are automatically
closed following rainfall events or as a result of sewage treatment plant malfunction. These closures
are made as a precaution against predicted elevated coliform levels and pathogen-related human
health risks. This type of automatic closure is referred to as an administrative closure. and does not
require indicator sampling. In the case of emergency closures,sampling is necessary after the
closure to determine if the water quality has rebounded to certified criteria.
The Suffolk County Department of Health Services has recommended suspension of swimming at
enclosed bay beaches after significant rainfall events. The definition of a significant rainfall varies
APPENDIX K
K-31
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
based on the local hydrology, soil type,topography, and land use. Therefore,the threshold amount •
required to trigger a closure varies for each area.
Shellfish Monitoring Programs
The New York State Shellfish Sanitation Program monitors shellfish harvesting areas and the
shellfish industry to protect public health. New York State is a participating member of the Interstate
Shellfish Sanitation Conference (ISSC)which uses the National Shellfish Sanitation Program Guide
for the Control of Molluscan Shellfish (1997).
The National Shellfish Sanitation Program(NSSP) was established by the U.S. Public Health Service
in 1925 to protect the public health from contaminated shellfish. In 1968,the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration began administering the NSSP. The NSSP carries out its mandate by providing
states with detailed procedures and protocols as highlighted in the Guide for the Control of
Molluscan Shellfish. These are implemented by the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC) Shellfish Sanitation Program. The New York State Shellfish Sanitation
Program conducts the following activities in shellfish harvesting areas: water quality monitoring for
bacteria indicative of potential pathogenic contamination; conducting detailed pollution source
surveys to identify potential sources of pathogens; restricting shellfish harvesting consistent with the
results of such monitoring and surveys, and enforcing such restrictions.
The New York State Shellfish Sanitation Unit classifies all shellfish growing areas for harvesting in
the New York State Marine District. New York State defines shellfish as oysters, scallops, mussels •
and clams. There are seventy-five individual shellfish growing areas in New York State.
Approximately thirty shellfish growing areas are located within the Peconic Estuary.
The Shellfish Sanitation Unit classifies all growing areas using the guidelines established in the
National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP) Guide for the Control of Molluscan Shellfish. These
guidelines require the establishment of water sampling stations to effectively evaluate all potential
pollution sources that may affect a growing area. On average, the NYSDEC Shellfish Sanitation
Program collects and analyzes from 10,000 to 15,000 bacteriological water quality samples each
year. All certified and selected uncertified areas(used for transplant and conditional harvest) are
sampled and evaluated.
New York State uses the NSSP Systematic Random Sampling(SRS) Method of water sample
collection and the Total Coliform Standard to evaluate shellfish growing areas. SRS requires that
water sample collection be scheduled sufficiently far in advance to support random collection with
respect to environmental conditions. Samples are collected under wet and dry weather conditions in
warm and cold weather months. Surface and bottom temperature and salinity measurements are also
collected at selected stations in each Peconic growing area. SRS samples are collected at each
station a minimum of six times per year on an ebbing tide. Following the collection of thirty SRS
water samples the area is evaluated to determine proper classification for shellfish harvesting.
The Shellfish Sanitation Unit has a policy to temporarily close harvesting shellfish growing areas
that are affected by greater than 3.0 inches of rainfall within a continuous 36-hour period. The
affected growing areas will remain closed until water sampling documents an improvement in water
quality supporting the reopening.
APPENDIX K
K-32
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP 100--h�
NYSDEC Shellfish Sanitation, in cooperation with the NYS Department of Health and the NYS
Department of Agriculture and Markets, has been very effective at controlling outbreaks of
shellfish-related,food-borne disease. Controls on the quality of the shellfish consumed are achieved
not only through proper management of harvesting areas but also through sanitary inspection of
facilities and review of records and tags from shellfish wholesalers and shippers throughout the
State. The NYSDEC Shellfish Inspection Unit carries out the latter activities. Sanitary inspection of
food service establishments is carried out by the Department of Health and inspection and review of
shellfish retailers is done by the Department of Agriculture and Markets.
New York's Shellfish Transplant Program is administered by the NYSDEC Bureau of Marine
Resources, Shellfish Management Unit. The primary goal of the Transplant Program is to provide
the opportunity for utilization of shellfish resources that are presently unusable. Shellfish harvested
in the transplant program are relayed from uncertified to certified waters and may be reharvested
from the cleansing area after 21 days under specified conditions. Following adequate cleansing the
clams can be marketed.
Some of these transplants are carried out within the estuary but a large segment of the New York
Transplant Program involves the transfer of hard clams from Raritan Bay in New York Harbor to
near shore waters in the Peconics. Transplanted clams from this area have accounted for an
increased percentage of the total hard clam harvest from the Peconics in the last decade.
Shellfish regulations are enforced by NYSDEC Environmental Conservation Officers as well as
County Marine Police,Town Bay Constables and Harbor Masters. Towns also assist in collection of
water samples and in obtaining information for shoreline surveys. For a full description of all local-
level pathogens reduction programs and shellfish management programs see Columbia University's
report,`Analysis of Town Capacity and Needs in the Peconic Estuary ".
New York State Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act
The New York State Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act was approved by NYS voters in 1996 and
provides$1.75 billion for projects including improving and restoring water bodies across the State.
Open spaces of lands are also conserved with Bond Act money,as well as the closing of aging landfills,
the clean up of contaminated properties,the reduction of stormwater runoff,and the upgrading of
sewage treatment plants.
Regional Level
SCDHS Bathing Beaches and Swimming Pools Program
In order to protect beach goers from the human health risks associated with pathogens,the Suffolk
County Department of Health Services (SCDHS)Bureau of Marine Resources monitors for pathogen
indicators at public beaches. When water quality parameters fail to meet the established human
health criteria, beaches are closed.
Pfiesteria piscicida and Alexandrium tamarense Monitoring Programs
The unusual dinoflagellate,Pfiesteria piscicida, has been implicated in major fish kills in the
brackish coastal waters of North Carolina and several areas within the Chesapeake Bay. It has also
been implicated in human health effects,the severity of which are apparently dependent on the
length of contact with the organism, or an airborne toxin released by the organism. Pfiesteria
•
APPENDIX K
K-33
ys Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
iFF
normally occurs in non-toxic forms unless triggered to develop into a toxic form;the exact •
conditions triggering toxin production are poorly understood.
Preliminary studies by SCDHS in 1998 showed the organism to be present at seven of the sixteen
sites sampled within Suffolk County and at two of the three sites sampled within the Peconic
Estuary. In the summer of 1999,the NYSDEC and the Nassau and Suffolk County Health
Departments(SCDHS) and the Town of Hempstead undertook a comprehensive monitoring effort to
assess the marine waters of the state for the presence of Pfiesteria cells. Water samples were tested
for Pfiesteria along with a suite of other parameters, including dissolved oxygen, water temperature,
and salinity. 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.
The SCDHS is currently testing for the presence of Pfiesteria at fifteen sites,three of which are
located in the Peconic Estuary. This project is meant to provide a comprehensive temporal analysis
as samples are being collected from each of the fifteen stations on a biweekly basis from April to
October,2000. Differential phytoplankton counts and water quality analysis will be conducted in the
lab. This monitoring is a cooperative effort with the NYSDEC and is being coordinated with funds
from the U.S. EPA.
Paralytic shellfish poisoning(PSP)red tides caused by the organism Alexandrium tamarense have
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 can result in PSP. In a four
year monitoring study, from 1986 to 1989, 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.
The SCDHS Bureau of Marine Resources is currently estimating the concentration ofAlexandrium at
seven sites in the Peconic Estuary. The investigation entails the placement of mussels (Mytilis
edulis)at the study sites, and their collection at specified intervals for PSP toxin analysis. The
present study is limited to the Peconic Estuary.
Local Level
Harbor Protection Overlay Districts
One local plan that has been used successfully in the estuary to protect water quality and habitats,and
reduce pathogens, is the Harbor Protection Overlay District(HPOD). The Town of East Hampton
created the HPOD to address development on waterfront property and imposes restriction on newly
developed or redeveloped waterfront property. A number of these restrictions are particularly useful in
the protection of living resources. such as requirements that the shoreline be maintained with a natural
buffer made up of native vegetation. Such restrictions can potentially reduce pathogen loadings into the
estuary,particularly within poorh flushed areas as tidal creeks. For additional information on local
government pathogens reduction programs see Columbia University's report, "Analysis of Town
Capacity and Needs in the Peconic Estuary".
Evaluation of Effectiveness
APPENDIX K
K-34
Peconic Estuary Program CG1dP '¢i:
r
In general,the agencies and programs described above provide an excellent ability to protect humans
from pathogen contamination of shellfish or bathing waters in the Peconic Estuary. Many of these
programs also provide a means to monitor and reduce pathogens through stormwater improvements,
sewage treatment plant upgrades and restorations of degraded habitats that help to filter these
pathogens. In addition, new regulations may prove helpful at reducing nonpoint sources of
pathogens into the estuary, however,these are currently being evaluated and have not yet been fully
implemented. The Peconic Estuary Program has identified several areas where existing laws and
programs do not adequately address the reduction and management of pathogens in the estuary and
thus, make the following recommendations.
Recommendations for Improvements
• It is recommended that existing stormwater management regulations continue to be used to
control pathogen loadings and other forms of nonpoint source pollution. It is also recommended
that an evaluation of the ability of general stormwater permits to regulate pollution from
activities in the national stormwater regulations be performed for the Peconics. The
development of new regulations may be necessary for further reductions in pathogen loadings.
• 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, 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. Therefore, it is
recommended that an evaluation of existing model land use regulations that eliminate or
minimize new sources of stormwater runoff in to the estuary be performed. For example, a
review of the East Hampton Harbor Protection Overlay District(HPOD) legislation and the
results of its implementation would be a good starting point. If effective, the PEP should
encourage the adoption of similar regulations in other East End towns and villages to eliminate
or minimize new sources of stormwater runoff. The PEP should also recommend controlling the
impacts of waterfront development through a prohibition on all new non-water-dependent
commercial development.
• 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 over 5 acres. 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 into the Peconic Estuary. These
Quidelines should 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 should also be expanded to include provisions for sediment
and erosion control measures.
APPENDIX K
K-35
..0° 11 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
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, but their overall effectiveness needs to be evaluated before the
technologies are fully endorsed for other locations in the estuary. It is also recommended 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. 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, is also
recommended.
• Develop a"Regional Stormwater Management Plan"to evaluate and recommend technologies to
remediate stormwater runoff in the Peconic Estuary.
• Wastewater treatment for most of the residences, businesses, and institutions in the watershed of
the Peconics is serviced by onsite disposal systems (OSDS), e.g., 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. Since identifying these failing systems requires cooperation of individual
homeowners(e.g., dye testing), it is recommended that inspection and repair/replacement of •
OSDS under certain circumstances be mandated. PEP recommends that we follow the State of
Massachusetts approach to managing OSDS for inspections. PEP should also provide a means to
obtain funding for repairing and upgrading OSDS for failing systems. Another potential
alternative is to 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.
• One of the ways to reduce the potential for pathogen loadings 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 that 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. All funds from
the CVA have currently been obligated; it is not anticipated that additional funding will be
available through this legislation. Therefore,PEP recommends that other sources of funds be
identified and allocated to provide boaters with more pumpout facilities. It is also recommended
that in general, PEP 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
•
APPENDIX K
K-36
Peconic Estuary Program CCVP
should encourage their patrons to use shore toilet facilities when berthed at a dock. particularly if
they remain overnight.
• Through the Clean Water Act, water bodies may be designated as "Vessel Waste No Discharge
Areas." The discharge of untreated vessel waste is prohibited within the three-mile jurisdiction
of State 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. Since such a program may lead to localized reductions in pathogens it is recommended
that the Peconic Estuary Program develop an agreement on the Peconics for a No Discharge
Area.
• PEP recommends using administrative and regulatory measures to control pollution from boaters
and marinas and promote the use of best management practices to control pathogen loadings
from marinas and boatyards.
• 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. Therefore. PEP should ensure adequate disinfection at
sewage treatment plants and encourage all sewage treatment plants to use ultraviolet
disinfection.
• An important step in reducing pathogens in the estuary is to identify their sources. Therefore, it
is recommended that PEP identify and assess the major nonpoint source and stormwater inputs
and quantify loadings of pathogens to local harbors in the Peconic Estuary System. Since high
coliform counts have also been observed in relatively undeveloped embayments, it is further
recommended that PEP seek funds to develop a DNA`library"of coliform bacteria isolated from
feces of animals, including humans. This knowledge can potentially be used to identify loading
pathways and,thus,the means by which to remediate those loadings. Additionally, PEP should
perform land cover analyses for the study area that can be used to determine stormwater runoff
loadings. This analysis should include tabulation and mapping of existing land cover types and
analysis of land cover changes over time. Finally, nonpoint source control plans for specific
embayments for each nonpoint source category associated with potential pathogen contamination
(such as stormwater runoff.onsite disposal systems, and marinas/boating)through the"Regional
Stormwater Management Plan'and sub-watershed management pilot projects for each Town
should be developed.
• PEP should 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, as well as those that may be fundable under New York
Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act.
• It is recommended that the water quality sampling programs run by the NYSDEC Shellfish
Sanitation Program and the SCDHS Bureau of Marine Resources for monitoring pathogens in
shellfish beds and public beaches be fully maintained and expanded where necessary. In
APPENDIX K
K-37
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
addition to sampling for coliforms, monitoring for Pfiesteria piscicida and paralytic shellfish •
poisoning organisms should be funded for the Peconic Estuary.
•
APPENDIX K
K-38
Peconic Estuary Program CC-UP,d'
Critical Lands Protection Strategy
Description of RelZUlatory/Institutional Framework
Federal Agencies and Programs
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Through the Division of Habitat Conservation,the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)works
to conserve coastal resources. The Division's Coastal Program works in partnership with Federal,
state, and local governments, and private organizations and individuals to conserve fish, wildlife, and
their habitats in the coastal areas. The Coastal Program implements on-the-ground restoration in
high-priority estuarine and coastal watersheds around the country.
The USFWS National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant Program was established in 1990 by the
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act. Through this program, which
complements the Service's other coastal conservation efforts, matching grants are provided to coastal
states for the acquisition, restoration, or enhancement of coastal wetlands. Grant funds for the
program are derived from excise taxes on motorboat and small engine fuels and certain fishing
equipment. About $10 million in grants are awarded annually through a nationwide competitive
process based on ranking factors developed by the Service. The program's emphasis on encouraging
partnerships, supporting watershed planning, and leveraging ongoing projects ensures that the use of
limited funds results in maximum benefits.
National Park Service
There are many programs within the National Park Service which protect critical lands. The Land
and Water Conservation Fund, one such program, provides a system for funding Federal, state and
local parks and conservation areas. It gives states and localities incentives to plan and invest in their
own park systems.
Farmland Protection Policy Act
This act was created to minimize the extent to which Federal programs contribute to the unnecessary
and irreversible conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses, and to ensure that Federal programs
are administered in a manner that, to the extent practicable, will be compatible with state and local
governments as well as private programs and policies, to protect farmland. If any projects in the
CCMP would convert significant agricultural land to non-agricultural uses, consultation with the
USDA—Natural Resources Conservation Service may be necessary.
State Agencies and Programs
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 was updated in the summer of
2000.
•
APPENDIX K
K-39
,4 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
x
� r
New York's Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) is
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 treatment 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
water bodies; land purchase or conservation easements for water quality protection such as for
wellheads or watersheds; and certain USEPA designated estuaries projects, such as aquatic habitat
restoration and protection.
New York State Environmental Protection Fund
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.
Regional Level
Peconic Land Trust
The Peconic Land Trust works with landowners to protect eastern Long Island's scenic vistas, water
quality and productive farmland. The Trust assists landowners with the available options for land
conservation, including an outright donation of land to a blend of conservation measures including the
sale of appropriate portions or the development rights on the property.
The Nature Conservancv
The mission of The Nature Conservancy is to preserve plants,animals and natural communities by
protecting the lands and waters they need to survive. The Conservancy has protected more than 11
million acres of habitat in the United States and nearly 60 million acres in Canada, Latin America,
the Caribbean, Asia and the Pacific.
Local Level
Suffolk County Farmland Preservation Program
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.
APPENDIX K
K-40
Peconic Estuary Program COMP 40"N�
•
Suffolk County Open Space Program
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 development
pressure that cannot be clustered, rezoned, or partially developed. Lands acquired are managed
generally as passive open space.
Suffolk County Drinking Water Protection Program
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 expires in 2001. 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.
12.5.1) 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.
Suffolk County Community Greenways Program
Authorized by referendum in 1998,this program is funded at$62 million. 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
1000 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 maintain the recreation improvements. Golf
courses are specifically excluded. In early 2000,the Legislature will authorize 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%of the cost of acquisition. This
program should be able to preserve another 2000 acres of farms. Two million dollars are set aside
for the construction of a natural history interpretive center.
Suffolk County 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 S9 million in County dollars.
APPENDIX K
K-41
ZPecanic Estuary Program CCMP
c
Suffolk County Sales Tax Extension Program •
This program, authorized by referendum in 1999, will extend the 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 broken into the following five separate and dedicated accounts:
• Sewer rate relief(projected total $300 million)
• Tax relief(projected total $270 million)
• Farmland for the continued purchase of development rights(projected total $62 million)
• Drinking Water and Open Space for land acquisitions, including the Peconic Estuary and
the South Shore Estuary Reserve(projected total $114 million)
• Water Quality to fund wetland cleanups and rehabilitation, stormwater runoff cleanups,
demonstration projects, and other environmental improvements (projected total $95 million)
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 into
its Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation.
Additional information on Suffolk County's open space programs can be obtained over the Internet
on the Suffolk County Planning Department homepage at
htti)://www.co.suffolk.ny.us/planninWacq sem.
Town Community Preservation Fund Project Plans
In November 1998,the voters of the five East End Towns approved a referendum that added a 2 %
tax to certain real estate transfers in their communities. Revenues generated by the tax go into a
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 maybe an underestimate of the
potential in this program. For instance, transfer taxes in the Town of Southampton in January, 2000
were close to $2 million.
Evaluation of Effectiveness
Although there are many agencies and organizations acting on behalf of land protection and,at a
quick glance,there seems to be enough money for land protection available, land values are high and
escalating,the population of eastern Suffolk County continues to grow and the demands for the
existing funds are great. Land protection measures would be more effective with increased funding
and a focused list of land protection priorities.
APPENDIX K
K-42
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
Recommendations for Improvements
The PEP recommends that a Critical Lands Protection Plan be developed which will prioritize the
land available for development in the Peconic Study Area`through the lens"of habitat and water
quality protection. This Plan will also estimate the funds and funding sources needed for this
protection.
i
APPENDIX K
K-43
t�O N. Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
t
_r
Toxics i
Description of theDescription of the Re2ulatorv/Institutional Framework Framework
Federal Laws, Agencies and Programs
Clean Water Act
Please see Clean Water Act description in the Nutrients section.
Clean Vessel Act
Please see Clean Vessel Act description in the Pathogens section.
Clean Air Act
The Federal Clean Air Act's primary mechanism for achieving clean air is through State Air Quality
Implementation Plans. These plans encompass many different elements, including regulations
limiting emissions from small and large stationary sources, both new and existing, and strategies
dealing with emissions from mobile sources such as vehicle inspection programs. EPA's primary
responsibilities are to assist and oversee the development of these plans, and once in place,to ensure
their implementation. Because of the large number of responsibilities delegated to the states, Section
105 of the Act established a mechanism to fund a portion of these activities. These resources are
used to fund both the base programs run by the states and special outputs which are specified by •
EPA. The special outputs are negotiated with the states and are in accordance with national
objectives. The use of these funds and the accomplishment of specific objectives contained in the
grants are closely tracked by EPA.
A special category of air emissions is made up of airborne toxic compounds. EPA is developing a
national program to implement the air toxics portion of the Clean Air Act and emissions are expected to
be reduced over the course of a 10-year period as controls for various categories of sources are
developed. In addition,the Clean Air Act establishes National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants(NESHAPs) under Section 112 of the Act,and EPA provides technical and financial support
to state agencies for the development and implementation of air toxics programs. EPA has established
emissions standards for 7 pollutants, including mercury, and another 189 hazardous air pollutants will
be regulated under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
This Federal statute was enacted in 1976 to ensure the proper management and disposal of hazardous
and non-hazardous solid wastes and treatment, storage,and disposal facilities. In 1984,the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA)were authorized by Congress to strengthen
RCRA. The 1984 Amendments require an applicant to:
I. construct land disposal facilities in accordance with Minimum Technology
Requirements, such as double liners and leachate collection and detection systems;
H. construct and operate treatment and storage tanks in accordance with the Federal
regulation promulgated July 14, 1986 which mandated secondary containment;
III. identify, and address any contamination at all solid waste management units; and
IV. certify to waste minimization.
i
APPENDIX K
K-44
Peconlc Estuary Program CCMP t
The HSWA permit also requires the applicant to initiate a corrective action program to address any
environmental releases of hazardous waste or constituents at solid waste management units. A
corrective action program consists of:
I. RCRA Facility Assessments to identify releases or potential releases requiring
further investigation;
II. Interim Corrective Measures to take immediate action in response to releases;
Ill. RCRA Facility Investigations to fully characterize the extent of releases;
IV. Corrective Measure Studies to determine the need for and extent of remedial
measures. This step includes the selection and implementation of appropriate
remedies for all problems identified.
These 4 activities ensure that a facility will adequately identify all contamination and provide
corrective action as necessary to protect human health and the environment.
The current Federal Solid Waste Management Program is an outgrowth of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 and
the .Municipal Solid Waste Task Force within EPA have guided Federal solid waste program
development. In February 1989 a final report of the Task Force, entitled"The Solid Waste
Dilemma: An Agenda for Action,"set forth the current Federal initiatives in solid waste
management.
• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
("Superfund")
"Superfund"was established in December 1980 under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act(CERCLA,42 USC 1901 et seq.). The purpose of this program is
to provide funding for the cleanup of sites contaminated with hazardous wastes. The Act authorized
EPA to provide long-term remedies at hazardous waste sites,and established a$1.6 billion fund,
raised over 5 years from special industry taxes and general revenues,to finance remedial activities.
In 1986, Con,ress reauthorized Superfund by enacting the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA), increasing the fund to $8.5 billion and strengthening the remedial
process.
The sites eligible for receiving Superfund monies are listed on the National Priorities List(NPL),
which is used by EPA to set priorities for cleanup of the sites. A priority site can be remediated in
several vays�
1. The responsible parties, i.e., site owners and operators as well as Qenerators and
transporters, can remediate it voluntarily:
II. The responsible parties can be forced to remediate it by legal and administrative
actions: or
III. Superfund monies can be used to finance the remedial action. if there is difficulty in
getting the responsible parties to act, EPA will proceed under Superfund and will
seek recovery of costs through legal action at a later date.
National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan
Prevention and cleanup of oil and hazardous substance spills are the focus of Federal programs
administered by the U.S. Coast Guard and EPA. The National Oil and Hazardous Substance
APPENDIX K
K-45
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
VW
Pollution Contingency Plan was developed pursuant to the provisions of Section 311(c)(2) of the •
Clean Water Act of 1972 as amended. The National Plan is also required by Section 105 of the
Superfund Act.
The National Plan calls for the establishment of a nationwide network of regional contingency plans.
The purpose of these local contingency plans is to provide for a coordinated and integrated response
by the concerned Federal, state, and local agencies in the event of a spill. The plans provide for the
standardization of procedure and policy among agencies, and encourage the development of
capabilities by both local governments and private interests to handle and prevent pollution
discharges.
Additionally, Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986(SARA)
requires state and local level emergency planning efforts. SARA requires industries to notify local
governments of potential chemical hazards present in the community.
Pollution Prevention
Pollution prevention has become a key notion for environmental progress in the last decade.
Pollution prevention is a multi-media approach with its primary goal being the avoidance of waste
and pollution generation, followed by source reduction and environmentally sound recycling. The
ultimate goal is to avoid shifting pollutants from one media to another by reducing the need for
treatment. EPA has 4 strategic objectives by which the pollution prevention goal can be met:
Develop a multi-media approach; •
Support regional, state, and local multi-media prevention programs;
Build consensus for a National Agenda on Prevention; and,
Establish data strategy to develop indicators, evaluate progress, and target opportunities.
The Coastal Zone Management Act(CZMA)
The Coastal Zone Management Act(CZMA)of 1972 established a national policy to preserve,
protect,develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance,the nation's coastal zone. The Act also
encouraged the states to exercise their responsibilities in the coastal zone through the development
and implementation of management programs,the preparation of special area management plans,
and the participation and cooperation of the public, local and state governments, interstate and
regional agencies, and Federal agencies in programs affecting the coastal zone. The U.S.
Department of Commerce is the Federal lead agency charged with the responsibility of implementing
the Act; however,the Act provides that the objectives of the law are to be achieved through the
development and administration of approved state coastal management programs. The Coastal Zone
Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990(CZARA) augmented the original Act by authorizing
Federal matching grants for assisting coastal states in developing management programs for the land
and water resources of their coastal zones, particularly for nonpoint source pollution control.
Like their state counterparts, Federal agencies operate a number of programs that affect the wise use
and protection of coastal resources. The CZMA, as amended, requires the actions of Federal
agencies to be consistent with the policies of a state's Coastal Management Plan (CMP). Federally
conducted or supported activities (including development projects), activities requiring Federal
licenses or permits,Federal financial assistance to state and local governments, and exploration,
development, and production activities on the Outer Continental Shelf which require a Federal
license or permit are all subject to CZMA requirements and must be consistent with the New York
CMP.
•
APPENDIX K
K-46
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP2t �
'F
•
To ensure that Federal agencies comply with the CZMA provisions, the U.S. Department of
Commerce adopted regulations (15 CFR Part 930) which established procedures for the Federal
consistency process. These regulations set up separate review procedures for each of the above-
mentioned items.
Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990
The 1990 amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Act(CZMA) require that each state develop
a nonpoint source pollution control program. Please refer to the Pathogens section for more
information on the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990.
Pesticides are a primary agricultural nonpoint source pollutant. The NPS Management Measure for
states to follow under CZARA is:
To reduce the contamination of surface water and ground water due to the application of
pesticides;
Evaluate pest problems, previous pest control measures, and cropping history;
Evaluate the leaching potential at the site. Take steps to prevent further contamination if
needed;
Use integrated pest management(IPM) strategies(apply pesticides only when an
economic benefit to the producer will be achieved and apply pesticides efficiently and at
• times when runoff losses are unlikely);
When pesticide applications are necessary and a choice of registered materials exists,
consider the persistence,toxicity, runoff potential, and leaching potential of products in
making a selection;
Calibrate pesticide spray equipment; and
Use anti-backflow devices.
The practices and concepts that can be used to implement this measure on a given site are those
commonly used by states and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)for general use on
agricultural lands. When this measure is implemented by using the necessary mix of practices for a
given site, there should be a relatively small negative economic impact on the operator's net costs
and farm income, and in some cases the impact will be positive. Many of the practices that can be
used to implement this measure may already be required by Federal, State, or local rules, or may
otherwise be in use on agricultural fields. Since many producers may already be using systems that
satisfy or partly satisfy the intent of this management measure,the only action that may be necessary
will be to determine the effectiveness of the existing practices and implement additional practices, if
needed. Use of existing practices will reduce the time,effort, and cost of implementing this
measure.
Other nonpoint sources of toxics addressed under CZARA include: road, highway and bridge
construction sites, operation and maintenance,and runoff systems; general construction sites, onsite
disposal systems; pesticide and toxic substance uses in developed areas. and marinas and recreational
boating.
Toxic Substances Control Act
The Toxic Substances Control Act institutes comprehensive procedures for the testing and control of
. chemicals believed to present unreasonable risks and injuries to human health and the environment.
APPENDIX K
K-47
410""'-
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
Y
c
s
This includes: assisting states in developing and maintaining toxic substances enforcement programs;
sponsoring cooperative surveillance, monitoring and analytical procedures; encouraging regulatory
activities within the states; and supporting and promoting the coordination of research projects
relating to the effects,extent, prevention and control of toxic chemical substances or mixtures.
Under the Toxic Substances Control Act and FIFRA(see Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act, below),the sale, use or distribution of certain toxic substances has been banned or
reduced.
Federal Insecticide,Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act supports and promotes the coordination of
research projects relating to human and ecological effects from pesticides,pesticide degradation
products and alternatives to pesticides. FIFRA authorizes EPA to control pesticides that may
threaten ground water and surface water. FIFRA provides for registration of pesticides and
enforceable label requirements, which may include maximum rates of application, restrictions on use
practices, and classification of pesticides as "restricted use" pesticides(which limits use to certified
applicators trained to handle toxic chemicals). This Act also provides for assisting states in
developing and maintaining comprehensive pesticide enforcement programs; sponsoring cooperative
surveillance monitoring and analytical procedures; and encouraging regulatory activities within the
states. Under FIFRA and TSCA(see Toxic Substances Control Act,above)the sale, use or
distribution of certain toxic substances has been banned or reduced.
Organotin Antifouling Paint Control Act of 1988 •
The Organotin Antifouling Paint Control Act of 1988 prohibits the use of bottom paint containing
tributyltin on vessels less than 82 feet long in order to control toxic substances in the water to help
protect fish and other aquatic life.
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) under the 1995 Federal Farm Bill
Financial incentives for voluntary compliance by private growers with the CZARA 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 (NRCS) would need to be involved in the preparation of any EQIP proposal.
Safe Drinking Water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended, in addition to establishing tap water criteria and ensuring
the safety of public water supplies, contains other provisions to protect groundwater and sets controls
on the injection of fluids into underground sources of drinking water. This Act also includes the
wellhead protection program, Sole Source Aquifer Program,and source water protection program.
The National Environmental Policy Act
The National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA), (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), was signed into law on
January 1, 1970. The Act established national environmental policy and goals for the protection,
maintenance, and enhancement of the environment, provided a process for implementing these goals
within the Federal agencies, and established the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)to oversee
Federal implementation of NEPA.
NEPA contains a Declaration of National Environmental Policy which requires the Federal
government to use all practicable means to create and maintain conditions under which people and
APPENDIX K
K-48
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
nature can exist in productive harmony. NEPA also requires Federal agencies to incorporate
environmental considerations into their planning and decision-making through a systematic
interdisciplinary approach. Specifically, all Federal agencies are to prepare detailed statements
assessing the environmental impact of, and alternatives to, major Federal actions significantly
affecting the environment. These statements are commonly referred to as Environmental Impact
Statements (EISs). Federal agencies are also required to lend appropriate support to initiatives and
programs designed to anticipate and prevent a decline in the quality of human living and the world
environment.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
The U.S. Department of Commerce's 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 these NOAA Effects Range values are not sediment quality criteria for
regulatory purposes,they provide a benchmark for evaluating sediment contaminant measurements.
The two NOAA guideline values, ER-L(effects range-low)and ER-M (effects range-median)
delineate three concentration ranges for a particular chemical. The concentrations below the ER-L
value represent a minimal effects range,a range intended to estimate conditions in which effects
would be rarely observed. Concentrations equal to and above the ER-L,but below the ER-M,
represent a possible effects range within which effects would frequently occur. At concentrations
• equal to and above the ER-M,contaminant-induced effects are likely. (See Long, et al, 1996)
NOAA Mussel Watch Program
NOAA created the National Status and Trends (NS&T) Program in 1984 to address national
concerns over the quality of the coastal marine environment, including chemical contamination. The
Mussel Watch portion of the NS&T program was formed in 1986 to measure concentrations of a
broad suite of trace metals and organic chemicals in surface sediments and the whole soft parts of
mussels and oysters.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration(FDA),the lead Federal agency responsible for risk
management of foods in interstate commerce, has set levels for contaminants which, when exceeded
in fish and shellfish tissues, can prevent these products from entering the marketplace. (State and
local agencies are responsible for protecting consumers of local fisheries products. State-issued
consumption advisories for chemicals in sportfish and game are based on FDA levels and other
factors.)
Presidential Memorandum on "Environmentally and Economically Beneficial Practices
on Federal Landscaped Grounds"
A Presidential Memorandum of April 26, 1996 addresses"Environmentally and Economically
Beneficial Practices on Federal Landscaped Grounds"which is to be followed by all executive
departments and agencies.
State Laws, Agencies and Programs
Among the state agencies having authority and directly involved in coastal affairs and toxic
substance management are the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,the New
APPENDIX K
K-49
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
F
York State Department of State, and the New York State Department of Health. The DEC has the i
principal responsibilities for the management and protection of environmental quality and the natural
resources of the coastal zone. The DOS is the lead agency in New York for coastal zone
management activities and also conducts a program of planning assistance to local communities.
The DOH has responsibilities including protecting humans from toxic substances in drinking water
and sportfish.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 'r,
The DEC, in planning, developing and managing the state's water resources undertakes studies for
the protection,conservation and development of state waters and establishing standards for quality
and uses, permitting of wastewater discharges,and the control of dredging and filling of navigable
waters.
The Division of Solid and Hazardous Materials regulates and monitors hazardous waste
facilities and transporters, encourages waste reduction and proper disposal of household hazardous
waste and regulates the use of pesticides. The Division requires hazardous waste generators and
facilities treating the waste to submit waste reduction plans that must be approved by the
Department.
State Pesticide Use Program
Under the Pesticide Use Program,NYSDEC regulates the sale and use of restricted and general use
pesticides in order to prevent the unsafe or excessive application of pesticides. This program is
implemented through certification of pesticide applicators and backed up by examinations to ensure i
that only knowledgeable, qualified people are permitted to handle and apply these chemicals. A
certification required by commercial applicators if they handle and apply restricted or general use
pesticides, and by private applicators(e.g., farmers) if they plan to use a restricted use pesticide. It
has been estimated that 50% of the commercial pesticide applicators on Long Island may be
operating without the required approvals. 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.
Freshwater Wetlands Law
The State's Freshwater Protection Law prohibits 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.
The Division of Hazardous Waste Remediation is responsible for the superfund program that
involves regulation of inactive hazardous waste sites.
The Division of Water is charged with maintaining water quality in all of the state's waterbodies
and managing water resources.
The Division is the lead for establishing water quality standards, regulates wastewater treatment and
associated discharges, monitors water quality, oversees the state's nonpoint source management
program, and protects groundwater aquifers.
The New York State Water Quality Standards classify waters in the state according to their best
usage and specify chemical specific numeric criteria. In addition to specific chemicals in the State
i
APPENDIX K
K-50
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP 'Ai, 'IN
Water Quality Standards, a NYSDEC Technical and Operational Guidance Series document
establishes guidance values for additional substances.
The New York State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) was established by the New
York Environmental Conservation Law and regulates discharges to the land, groundwater. and
surface waters of the state. Such discharges include effluent from: public and private sewage
treatment plants; industrial discharges; land application of sludge, septage, and industrial wastes;
discharges into municipal wastewater treatment plants which are regulated under the industrial
pretreatment program; and underground injection. This program was delegated to New York under
the CWA,through which the state assumed the permitting functions of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System.
State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program permits are written to ensure that these
discharges do 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.
Permits also are issued on a case-by-case basis if the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) 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.
Discharges to ground waters include sanitary wastes from residences and commercial establishments
and non-contact cooling waters. There are no permitted discharges of wastewater from industrial
activities to groundwater in the Peconic Estuary Study Area(aside from a permit at Brookhaven
National Laboratory [BNL]). Businesses,which generate wastewater containing toxic substances,
dispose of such wastewater by containing the limited volumes on-site, and then removing them by
approved hazardous waste handlers/transporters for treatment off-site. This method is often referred
to as "hold and haul".
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 that 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.
Sewage treatment plant(STP)effluents are subject to disinfection to limit the discharge of
pathogens. The most common method of disinfection is chlorination. Chlorinated discharges to
surface waters are of concern because, in systems like the Peconics which contain high levels of
APPENDIX K
K-51
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
F
organic matter, chlorinated compounds can be formed which, although short lived, can be quite toxic is
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.
The water quality certification program is authorized by the New York Environmental Conservation
Law and the CWA Amendments of 1977 (33 U.S.C.1251, Section 401). All projects requiring
Federal permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into state waters or wetlands also require
a State Water Quality Certification. The purpose of this certification is to insure that all such
activities are consistent with New York State water quality standards and management policies.
The Division of Fish,Wildlife and Marine Resources protects promotes and provides for the
use of fish and wildlife resources by maintaining and protecting the resources and their habitats,
including managing the living marine resources of the state. This includes assessing environmental
impacts on marine resources, administering the tidal wetlands and excavation and fill regulatory
programs, coordinating state participation in the National Estuary Programs,recommending
standards and classifications for marine waters, certifying shellfish waters for harvesting,
administering shellfish management programs, assessing principal fishery stocks and developing
recommendations for effective management of species.
The Division of Air controls air pollution by regulating, permitting,and monitoring sources,and •
developing and implementing strategies to meet the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act.
The Division of Regulatory Affairs coordinates permit reviews, assesses environmental impacts
of proposed projects, reviews regulations and issues permits. The Division also administers the State
Environmental Quality Review Act which requires all levels of government(state and local)to
assess the environmental significance of actions which they have discretion to approve,fund, or
directly undertake.
The Division of Construction Management approves and manages engineering plans and
construction activities for sewage treatment plants in the state.
The Bureau of Spill Response controls petroleum and chemical bulk storage and responds to
spills.
New York State law includes provisions for preventing spills of petroleum. These provisions require
all facilities with a minimum capacity of 1,100 gallons to be registered, set forth standards for the
handling and storage of petroleum, and set forth standards for new and substantially modified
underground and aboveground storage facilities. Owners and operators must notify NYSDEC of any
spills. Another State program addresses the requirements for the bulk storage of other hazardous
substances, including the registration of storage tanks, spill reporting procedures and specifications
for the sale and delivery of such substances.
New York State Department of State Coastal Management Program
In New York State the Department of State administers the Coastal Management Program (CMP).
The CMP provides for the preservation, protection, development and use of the state's coastal and
inland waterways. The program has many aspects: policies covering land use planning, development
of recreation, commercial,and industrial water dependent properties, maintenance of fish and
APPENDIX K
K-52
Peconic Estuary Program CC;LIP 81�@7
• � x
wildlife habitats, stabilization of beaches and dunes,and waste discharge from vessels and on-shore
facilities. The CMP'sjurisdiction extends from the limit of the state's territorial waters to a line
generally 500 to 1000 feet inland.
The CMP requires reviews of projects having some form of Federal involvement in coastal areas for
consistency with local, state, and Federal environmental statutes and programs. The CMP provides
technical and financial assistance to local municipalities to prepare Local Waterfront Revitalization
Plans. These plans promote revitalization of coastal areas while protecting their integrity.
Existing state programs and requirements (including those under the State Navigation Law)are in
place to address: pollution from boat cleaning at marinas; liquid material disposal at marinas; solid
waste disposal at marinas; and petroleum control at marinas.
New York State Department of Health
The Department of Health enforces compliance with the Public Health Law and the State Sanitary
Code. In the area of water resources,the Department establishes drinking water quality standards
and establishes regulations for the sanitary control of water supplies. The Health Department sets
guidance for seafood and wildlife consumption to protect human health. The Department also assists
DEC in developing water and air human health standards and in overseeing public health interests
for the inspection and remediation of inactive hazardous waste sites.
Fish, Shellfish and Wildlife Consumption Advisories
The State routinely monitors contaminant levels in fish and game and issues advisories on eating
sporttish and game because some of these foods contain chemicals at levels that may be harmful to
human health. These advisories are updated yearly,and provide information on how to minimize
exposure to contaminants and reduce whatever health risks are associated with exposure.
Local Programs and Laws
Suffolk County Sanitary Code
Suffolk County sanitary code requirements(Article 12) are more stringent than state requirements.
The County law went into effect in 1980 and addresses all underground and aboveground tanks
storing fuels, solvents,and chemicals,virtually anything that could contaminate groundwater or
surface water. New underground tanks are required to have secondary containment and be
constructed of non-corrodible materials, and must have leak detection and overflow protection
systems. All existing facilities had to be brought up to new construction standards by 1990.
The County law exempted existing tanks from the replacement requirement that were under 1100
Gallons and used for the storage of heating oil for on-premises use. However,new tanks of this type
must be made of non-corrodible materials. The Financing chapter of this CCMP includes several
recommendation regarding incentives for private homeowners to address this potential threat to
groundwater and surface water.
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 the soils and toxic (some are suspected carcinogens),they can easily
contaminate ground water and surface waters and threaten public health. State and County laws
APPENDIX K
K-53
4+ Peconic Estuary Program CC41P
S
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.
East Hampton Harbor Protection Overlay District
The Town of East Hampton, recognized 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 therefore have a special responsibility to help protect them. The Town has
established a Harbor Protection Overlay District(HPOD) whereby all lots in this district are subject
to special requirements for maintaining or protecting wildlife habitats, and surface water quality to
protect aquatic life. This includes:
• Requiring new parking lots and driveways to have "unimproved"surfaces or be
constructed of one or more of the following: poured concrete, hot plant asphalt, rapid
curing cut-back asphalt or quartz gravel;
• Requiring that runoff from new paved roads, parking lots and driveways be managed on-
site;
• Requiring that fuel tanks be double walled fiberglass if installed below ground or include
specified containment provisions if installed elsewhere;
• Requiring that swimming pools: be constructed or installed with a system to reduce the
use of chlorine, such as an ozonator, ionizer, or ultra violet disinfectant system; have
drywells constructed for evacuation of water from the pool; not be drained anywhere but
to the dry well; and not be cleaned by means of an acid wash unless the acids used are •
neutralized prior to discharge from the swimming pool, and
• Allowing the use of wood treated with copper chromated arsenate (CCA), ammoniacal
copper quat(ACQ), or creosote in tidal waters only when it can be shown that no
reasonable alternatives to using these treated woods exists.
Suffolk County Vector Control
The Suffolk County Department of Public Works maintains vector control ditches (mosquito
ditches), and 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.
Local "Stop Throwing Out Pollutants" (STOP) Programs
Each of the towns have STOP ("Stop Throwing Out Pollutants")or HAZMAT(HAZardous
MATerial) Programs, or which include collections for proper disposal of oil, paints, solvents, boat
and auto products (antifreeze, polishes, etc.), cleaning chemicals,and lawn and garden chemicals.
Some programs have specified collection dates and locations (East Hampton); others collect
materials on specific days (Shelter Island(Saturdays), Southold (Tuesdays and Thursdays)).
Construction Site Chemical Waste Disposal
All of the towns have some program or ordinance to address the disposal of chemical waste from
construction sites, although they are quite varied. Although Brookhaven and Riverhead require
contractors to submit plans for waste disposal at the construction site,they lack sufficient
enforcement strength to ensure these plans are being followed. East Hampton has indirect
ordinances for this action, but regulations are not uniform and disposal is handled on a case by case
basis.
APPENDIX K
K-54
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP�� ,
r
Road, Highway and Bridge Construction and Operation and Maintenance
All towns except Shelter Island have programs or ordinances to address both road construction and
maintenance chemical storage and disposal, although they are quite varied. East Hampton and
Riverhead have reported success in allocating staff and resources to addressing this potential source
of toxics.
Evaluation of Effectiveness
General: In general, most of the agencies and programs described above provide adequate capacity
(statutory and regulatory authority, agency functionality, etc.)to support PEP management
objectives. A few needs/deficiencies, potentially warranting"new"programs, initiatives, or efforts
are recommended.
Monitoring'Many agency programs and resources, when available, are effective and useful. There
is a significant amount of data that has been collected since the initiation of the PEP that still needs
evaluation.
Regulatory Sites of Concern: Existing Federal/State/local programs are effective at addressing
toxic contamination at Superfund sites,other hazardous waste sites,and permitted facilities, including
• those that discharge to groundwater and surface water. Remedial investigations,feasibility studies,and
clean up, in particular are complex and often take significant time to complete. Adequate monitoring
and evaluation needs to take place following remedial actions to ensure the remedy is effective.
Attention needs to be paid to permitted facilities that use or discharge toxic substances and enforcement
action used when necessary.
Chlorine'Alternatives to chlorine for disinfection at Sewage treatment Plants(STPs) are effective,
but not all effluents are suitable for all alternatives. Where chlorine is used,ambient water quality
standards for the protection of aquatic life for chlorine need to be attained.
Pesticides'FIFRA is an effective means of banning or restricting the use of pesticides of concern,
as is the state mechanism. The state has an effective pesticide certification program for commercial
applicators, as well as provisions to eliminate or reduce pesticide use near wetlands. The
development/establishment of a Long Island Pesticide Management Plan should be pursued, as
should enforceable programs under CZARA. The County's IPM pesticide free golf course initiative
is worthwhile, as is the Federal Presidential Memorandum regarding landscaping at Federal
installations. Additional demonstrations and cooperative efforts with the agricultural community to
reduce or eliminate pesticide use should be pursued. Overall IPM programs need to be developed
and implemented, and opportunities to expand markets for organic produce investigated.
Construction Sites, Roads'At present, on State funded projects, there are programs to effectively
manage toxic chemical use at construction sites, including road construction,and roadway operation
and maintenance. There are also existing statewide pesticide management, spill management, and
solid and hazardous waste disposal requirements. In the absence of statewide requirements
addressing remaining toxic concerns at these sites,there is a need to pursue local requirements
applicable at these sites. Requirements also need to be enforced, and education/outreach efforts with
• industry/trade groups pursued.
APPENDIX K
K-55
M1 L Pecome Estuary Program CC;LIP
Developed Areas-Public facilities should set the example in terms of conducting and •
implementing pollution prevention opportunity assessments and environmental management
reviews. Stormwater runoff at marinas and boatyards may need further evaluation and management.
The Town of East Hampton's Harbor Protection Overlay district is effective at addressing a number
of potential sources of toxic substances, including: 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. Certain onsite disposal system products are banned, but retail
establishments may still sell them to unsuspecting customers. Additional research and investigations
are needed regarding the placement of treated lumber in the marine environment. Natural shoreline
and non-toxic structures should be encouraged, consistent with PEP's overall policy no net increase
of shoreline hardening structures. Guidelines should be developed to address the disposal of treated
lumber following demolition. The Federal government's efforts to eliminate the use of the gasoline
octane booster, MTBE, should continue. Structurally sound home heating oil tanks currently
exempted from current replacement requirements still present a potential threat to groundwater and
ultimately surface water resources. Voluntary and incentive based programs should be developed to
encourage replacements and upgrades of these tanks.
Pollution Prevention'More aggressive pollution prevention programs should be established and
implemented, particularly for industries/establishments that use,generate or discharge toxic
substances. Existing town "Stop Throwing Out Pollutant"type programs are necessary and should
continue. Mosquito control programs should first encourage good housekeeping methods of control.
The use of pesticides should be reduced to the maximum extent practicable that still adequately •
protects human health.
Dredged Materials'Existing programs at the Federal and state level are adequate for ensuring that
applications and permits for dredged material are evaluated with respect to toxics.
Recommendations for Improvements
Monitoring'Many existing programs and resources at the Federal (especially USEPA,NOAA,
USGS),state(especially NYSDEC,NYSDOH) and local agency (SCDHS) should be accessed to the
maximum extent possible and supplemented with specially funded projects. Monitoring should
include not only chemical specific analyses but also evaluations of overall toxicity. In particular,
sediments, biota and groundwater should be evaluated, as well as surface waters, dredged materials
and soils. New and emerging topics, issues and concerns need to be addressed, including potential
endocrine disruptors, historic and present marinas and boatyards as possible areas of contamination
and any locally identified areas of concern.
Regulatory Sites of Concern'Federal and state regulatory agencies need to focus on meeting
deadlines associated with cleanups and permitting actions under hazardous waste laws. Facilities
that use or discharge toxic substances need to be inspected and monitored,as should sites being
remediated under hazardous waste laws. Enforcement should be used as necessarv.
Chlorine'Consistent with human health protection needs and based on the suitability of the
effluent,the use of chlorine for disinfection at Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs)should be
eliminated. Where alternatives to chlorine are not effective and chlorine continues to be used,
discharge permits must ensure that the ambient water quality standards for the protection of aquatic
life for chlorine be attained. •
APPENDIX K
K-36
Peconic Estuary Program CC_VP .4
64
Pesticides-EPA and the State should restrict or ban all pesticides that are detected at levels of
public health or environmental concern in groundwater or in the estuary. The State should continue
to ensure the proper certification of commercial pesticide applicators:the public should be educated
about using commercial applicators that are properly certified. The state should enforce the
provisions of the State Freshwater Wetlands Law to reduce or eliminate the use of pesticides in the
vicinity of wetlands. The Long Island Pesticide Management Plan should be developed/established,
as should enforceable programs under CZARA. The concepts behind Suffolk County's integrated
pest management/pesticide free golf courses should be applied to all public lands and golf courses.
The Federal Presidential Memorandum regarding landscaping at Federal installations should be
adhered to and a similar policy enacted for other owners of public lands. Additional work is needed
with the agricultural community to demonstrate/identify opportunities for reducing pesticide
applications. Integrated pest management programs need to be developed and implemented to
reduce or eliminate overall pesticide use. Opportunities for expanding markets for and production of
organic produce should be investigated. Collection of unneeded and unwanted pesticides,
particularly from agribusinesses and commercial landscapers, should be carried out on a regular
basis.
Construction Sites,Roads'For state funded construction projects, including road, highway and
bridge construction, and road, highway and bridge operation and maintenance, existing programs are
adequate to control toxics. While there are other existing Statewide pesticide management, spill
• management, and solid and hazardous waste disposal requirements, other toxics may not be
addressed on private projects or projects funded at the local level. Requirements applicable on state
funded projects should be applicable at all project sites. Until such time as statewide requirements
are adopted, uniform programs equivalent to those applicable at state funded projects should be
enacted at the local level. Requirements also need to be enforced, and education/outreach efforts
with local government/industry/trade groups pursued. Similarly, adequate management programs
are in place at the state level for runoff management systems for roads, highways and bridges.
Similar program requirements need to be adopted for application at the local level,and until such
time as they are adopted, local programs should be enacted or voluntary cooperation pursued. The
desired and enforceable measures to be implemented are as follows:
Road Hizhticav and Bridge Construction Site Chemical Control: Limit the application,
generation and migration of toxic substances,and ensure the proper storage and disposal of toxic
materials.
Road Hi ghrrai and Bridge Operation and Maintenance: Incorporate pollution prevention
procedures into the operation and maintenance of roads, highways and bridges to reduce
pollutant loadings.
Road. HiQlot m and Bridge RunoffSvstems: Develop and implement runoff management
systems for roads, highways and bridges 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.
Developed Areas'Public facilities should set the example in terms of conducting and
implementing pollution prevention opportunity assessments(PPOAs) and environmental
management reviews (EMRs). PPOAs and EMRs should be conducted and implemented at all
APPENDIX K
K-57
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
public facilities, beginning with Federal installations. Priorities should include facilities handling
toxic materials. Stormwater runoff at marinas and boatyards may need further evaluation and
management, due to materials used and disposed of at these facilities and their proximity to estuarine
waters. The Town of East Hampton's Harbor Protection Overlay District is effective at addressing a
number of potential sources of toxic substances, including: 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. In Suffolk County, certain onsite disposal system products
are banned, but retail establishments may still sell them. Retail establishments should be regularly
inspected to enforce the ban on the sail of these illegal OSDS products and an education/outreach
effort initiated for these establishments and consumers. Additional research and investigations are
needed regarding the placement of treated lumber in the marine environment. Natural shoreline and
non-toxic structures should be encouraged, consistent with PEP's overall policy no net increase of
shoreline hardening structures. Guidelines should be developed to address the disposal of treated
lumber following demolition. The Federal government's efforts to eliminate the use of the gasoline
octane booster, MTBE, should continue. Structurally sound home heating oil tanks currently
exempted from current replacement requirements still present a potential threat to groundwater and
ultimately surface water resources. Voluntary and incentive based programs should be developed to
encourage replacements and upgrades of these tanks.
Pollution Prevention-More aggressive pollution prevention programs should be established and
implemented, particularly for industries/establishments that use, generate or discharge toxic
substances. Existing town "Stop Throwing Out Pollutant"type programs are necessary and should .
continue. Mosquito Control programs should first encourage good housekeeping methods of control.
The use of pesticides for mosquito control should be reduced to the maximum extent practicable that
still adequately protects human health.
Dredged Materials Existing programs at the Federal and state level are adequate for ensuring that
applications and permits for dredged material are evaluated with respect to toxics. Permits and
applications should be critically evaluated with respect to their potential to cause adverse toxic effects
to the Peconic Ecosystem,and particularly to pelagic and benthic organisms and their food chains,
including humans. The EPA and the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers 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 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 identified site a
placement option available for consideration in the alternatives analysis for each individual dredging
project in the area. The PEP participants consider it unlikely a placement site will be proposed within
the PEP study area,but the PEP should continue to participate in the EPA/Corps efforts to identify
potential placement sites for Long Island Sound dredged material.
APPENDIX K
K-58
Peconic Estuary Program CC;VP
Post-CCMP
Description of Regulatory/Institutional Framework
Three alternative frameworks were considered for post-CCMP management:
• Continuation of Existing Management Conference Structure(Policy Committee:
Management Committee, Citizens, Technical and Local Government Advisory Committees:
and Program ice);
• Formation of a Regional Advisory Commission (formal, non-regulatory commission of
East End town and village representatives);
• Modification 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)
State Agencies and Programs
Pine Barrens Maritime Reserve Act
Through the Pine Barrens Maritime Reserve Act,the New York State Legislature declared that the
Long Island Pine Barrens should be protected in a comprehensive plan adopted by the state and
individual local governments. The Long Island Pine Barrens encompasses over one hundred
thousand acres in the county of Suffolk and overlies the largest source of pure groundwater in New
York. The Pine Barrens are interconnected to the Peconic Bay system by the Peconic River,the
longest groundwater river in New York.
The Act calls for a state supported regional comprehensive land use plan providing for the
preservation of the core preservation area, protection of the Central Pine Barrens area and for the
designation of compatible growth areas to accommodate appropriate patterns of development and
regional growth. The legislature intended that the comprehensive regional land use plan would
include provisions for private landowners whose property is located within the Central Pine Barrens
area. The landowners will be afforded an opportunity to receive benefits from the plan such as
transferable development rights, conservation easements, rights and values transfers, purchase of
development rights and/or fee acquisition with monetary compensation.
A Long Island Pine Barrens Maritime Reserve Council was established to help local governments
and the state coordinate the efforts of all municipal, county,state and Federal agencies involved in
the management of the preserve. The Council was also charged with overseeing and preparing a
comprehensive intergovernmental management plan for the Long Island Pine Barrens maritime
reserve for state and local governments to adopt.
Evaluation of Effectiveness
The existing Management Conference Structure has been successful in integrating concerns and
building consensus in an often complex and contentious process. For the foreseeable future,the
Management Conference has recommended continuation of the existing management structure,at least
until a different approach is sanctioned by the Policy Committee.
APPENDIX K
K-59
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
i
•
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
•
•
APPENDIX K
APPENDIX L
Response to Public Comments
APPENDIX L
L-I
; t- Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
Table of Contents
I. Introduction L-3
II. Public Comment Summaries and Resulting PEP Responses L-3
Brown Tide L-3
Nutrients L-5
Habitat and Living Resources L-10
Pathogens L-20
Toxics L-22
Land Protection L-34
Public Education and Outreach L-36
Financing L-38
Post-CCMP Management L-39
General Comments L-40
III. Correspondence Sent During the Public Comment Period L-46
APPENDIX L
L-2
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP '
I. Introduction
The public comment period for the draft Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
(CCMP) began September 16, 1999 and ended November 16, 1999. Afternoon and night
public hearings in each of the six East End towns took place in October. Over 160 people
attended these meetings. In addition. The Bay Show. a live television call-in show on
channel 27, dedicated a show to the draft CCMP; a few people called in with questions. The
Citizens Advisory Committee met near the beginning and end of the comment period to offer
suggestions. Other comments from citizens have come in the mail to the PEP Program
Office.
Three new sections of the CCMP (the Base Programs Analysis. Environmental Monitoring
Plan, and Federal Consistency Report) were presented for public comment from August 10,
2000 to September 9, 2000. An afternoon and an evening public comment meeting were held
at the County Center in Riverhead.
Summaries of the public comments and the resulting PEP responses are located in Section II.
Section III lists all the correspondence that was sent during the public comment periods. All
letters received during the comment periods are on file at the Program Office.
i
II. Public Comment Summaries and Resulting PEP Responses
Several comments and questions-were raised at the public hearings and by letters sent in
during the public comment period. These issues are summarized and satisfied below.
Brown Tide
Radionuclides/Brookhaven National Laboratory
Comment: At several sessions, commentators from Fish Unlimited, Standing for Truth
About Radiation, and the South Fork Groundwater Task Force raised questions about the
possible relationship between radionuclides, toxics, and brown tide. These issues are of
concern to these groups, particularly with respect to contamination associated with
Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL). For example:
* A 1994 release of tritium was cited as a potential causal factor for the brown tide.
* A conflict of interest is suspected, in that BNL is conducting brown tide research.
Response: The detail in which radionuclide and toxic contamination, and BNL are discussed
in the Toxics chapter of the CCMP has been expanded. The CCMP Toxics module now
includes more discussion about the extensive programs dealing with the characterization and
management efforts related to BNL and the Peconic River(see discussion below, in
"Toxics"). A report released by the Peconic Estuary Program since the public hearings
APPENDIX L
L-3
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
_r
entitled A Characterization of the Resources in the Peconic Estuary with Respect to Toxics
further addresses these issues.
To the knowledge of the PEP, the scientific community, to date, has not produced a credible
theory that links 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 that offers a mechanism by which
relatively low-level radioactive contamination can result in onset or persistence of brown
tide.
The Peconic Estuary has aggressively pursued this question, however. Brown Tide Research
Initiative researchers were asked at the March 2000 brown tide work session hosted by the
New York Sea Grant 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, such
as the 1984 release of tritium. The researchers, who are closest to the latest findings about
brown tide, did not seem to think this hypothesis was viable based on personal knowledge of
relevant studies, personal expert opinion based on well-established scientific principles, and
discussions with third parties.
Researchers are already actively analyzing water column and sediment samples for metals
and other trace contaminants. The research will determine level of presence, and possibly
offer clues to potential impacts.
A PEP priority for the year 2001, the Brown Tide Workplan will be revisited, and will be
amended to reflect the results of latest research, and to indicate priority research and
monitoring needs. The revised Workplan will consider radionuclides, toxics, and other
issues.
Regarding the suspected conflict of interest (i.e., that Brookhaven National Lab is
hypothesized to be a cause of the Brown Tide, but it is conducting brown tide research, as
well), BNL is performing an extremely small portion of ongoing Brown Tide research and
monitoring. In recent years,they have received approximately $250,000, as compared with a
Brown Tide pool of research funding which totals well over$3 million dollars. Also, the
BNL researchers are widely acknowledged and respected as world-class biologists and
oceanographers. Finally, BNL is not in a position to direct research efforts. The BTRI (the
source of most Brown Tide research funds) is administered by NO-AA and N.Y. Sea Grant,
and includes a steering committee with representatives from government, academia, and
citizenry (not BNL). Modest funding is also provided by Suffolk County, with no control by
BNL.
•
APPENDIX L
L-4
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP °
Nutrients
Wastewater Treatment Plants
Comment: Continue controlling loads from sewage treatment plants (STPs) and discourage
new plants.
Response-As a long-range management goal, the PEP will continue to evaluate additional
upgrades to the STPs in the Peconic watershed. Action N-4 in the CCMP states that new or
incremental point source increases to the surface waters of the tidal Peconic River and
western Flanders Bay should be prohibited and should be limited elsewhere in the Peconic
watershed. 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. Point sources that cause substantial groundwater degradation that adversely affects
surface waters should also be limited.
Comment: Modify-the SPDES permits for STPs to meet nitrogen-loading goals.
Response:-The PEP has an action in the CCMP to consider modifying the State Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (SPDES)permits for STPs and other point sources in the
Peconic watershed in order to meet the PEP's proposed surface water quality nitrogen
guideline of 0.45 mg/l.
Comment: Evaluate and consider a beneficial reuse program for reclaimed STP water and
sludge for possible use on golf courses,playing fields, and farms.
Response:-The Program added a step to Action N-4 to evaluate and consider a possible
beneficial reuse program in the Peconic watershed. Water reuse is beginning to gain
acceptance in New York State. The NYSDEC has permitted four upstate STPs to use treated
wastewater to irrigate nearby golf courses and a study group formed to assess the feasibility
of water reuse on the Pt. Washington peninsula in Nassau County.
Comment: The trend to ultraviolet light disinfection is important.
Response. The use of ultraviolet light. an alternative to the traditional method of chlorination,
to disinfect effluent from Sewage Treatment Plants, safeguards the public from pathogens
and eliminates the negative environmental impacts to our surface waters. Ultraviolet light is
an effective germicide because it mutates the DNA of the pathogenic organisms, resulting in
death. The PEP funded a successful on-site pilot study at the Shelter Island Heights Sewage
Treatment Plant to determine the effectiveness disinfecting the effluent using UV
sterilization. The Brookhaven National Lab and the Plum Island Sewage Treatment Plants
use an ultraviolet disinfection process. Switching from chlorination to ultraviolet light
disinfection is planned for the Riverhead and Sag Harbor STP upgrades.
Septic Systems
Comment: Emphasize financial incentives for on-site disposal system improvements.
APPENDIX L
L-5
X f. Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
F _
•
Response: A step included in Action N-5 calls for investigating feasible implementation
mechanisms and developing a plan to prevent increases and encourage decreases in nitrogen
in groundwater underflow due to on-site disposal systems (sanitary systems). One of the
many mechanisms for sanitary system management already recommended in the CCMP is
tax credits and other incentive programs.
Comment: Promote innovative and alternative sanitary systems.
Response:-The PEP agrees that promoting innovative and alternative sanitary systems, like
Clivus Multrums, is another good way to prevent increases and even encourage decreases in
groundwater underflow due to sanitary systems. This mechanism is already mentioned in the
CCMP.
Comment: Evaluate use and effectiveness of septage management districts.
Response: The use of wastewater management districts or utilities was added as another
possible mechanism for sanitary system management in Action N-5.
Fertilizers
Comment: Create financial incentives to reduce fertilizer use.
Response. The PEP already included tax credits and other incentives programs as a
mechanism for fertilizer management.
Comment: Evaluate restrictions on the sale and/or use of some products (e.g., liquid
fertilizers).
Response: The PEP agrees that market-based measures coupled with a regulatory approach
would accomplish a significant reduction in fertilizer use. Restricting the sale and/or use of
some fertilizer products has been added to the possible mechanisms for fertilizer management
listed in the CCMP.
Comment: Promote organic and or slow-release fertilizers (tax on inorganic fertilizers;
public relations such as endorsements of good products; education of retailers and
consumers, etc.).
Response: The PEP agrees that advocating organic and/or slow-release fertilizers may help
control the degradation of our watershed's groundwater quality. This recommendation has
been added to CCMP's list of possible mechanisms for fertilizer management. Promoting
certain fertilizers could be done with a tax on inorganic fertilizers, public relation
endorsements of"good" products, and educational campaigns for retailers and consumers.
APPENDIX L
L-6
Peconic EstuanProgram CGNP
Agriculture
Comment: Promote organic farming.
Response:-The Program agrees that promoting organic farming should be included in the
implementation plan for regional nitrogen load reductions. The final CCMP will incorporate
this addition.
Comment: Agriculture preservation goals need clarification (e.g., balance of agriculture vs.
residential growth).
Response: There is an overwhelming public desire to preserve the East End's farmland and
agricultural traditions, 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.
Golf Courses
Comment: Discuss golf courses specifically, including impacts and investigations.
Response: A recent SCDHS study investigating groundwater impacts entitled Water Quality
Monitoring Program to Detect Pesticide Contamination in Groundwaters ofNassau 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/L (the
median nitrate concentration was 2.6 mg/L),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 ofAgriculture on Groundwater Quality Suffolk County, NY found a 20 year nitrate
average of 113 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 conducted a follow-up study in 2000 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 nitrogen is well controlled. The NYSDEC
has been funding the monitoring program for three years at about S 100,000 per year. The
NYSDEC recently agreed to a three-year one million-dollar commitment with the SCDHS to
expand the monitoring program.
Nitrogen Model and Nutrient Criteria
and Nutrient Criteria
APPENDIX L
L-7
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
Comment: Emphasize specific nutrient standards for which the plan will propose to manage, •
and include strategies proposed for implementing such objectives, including permitting
requirements.
Response: The appropriate Nitrogen Management Work Groups and the Management
Committee will consider specific nutrient standards for groundwater inputs, along with
strategies for attaining these standards.
Comment: Evaluate reversal of Shinnecock Locks to allow better flushing of Flanders Bay.
Response: The three-dimensional hydrodynamic and water quality model of the Peconic
Estuary includes a connection between Great Peconic Bay and Shinnecock Bay through the
Shinnecock Canal. Preliminary runs of the model indicated that improved flushing of the
Peconic Estuary would occur if changes were made to the operating characteristics of the tide
gate at Shinnecock Canal. Preliminary analysis by the Suffolk County Department of Public
Works indicates that changes to the Shinnecock Canal tide gate system are feasible (e.g.,
flow can be reversed to improve Peconic Estuary flushing), but the costs would be on the
order of several million dollars. More detailed engineering and environmental impact studies
would be required prior to supporting such a major expenditure. The PEP has recently
contracted Tetra-Tech, Inc.,to address the primary threshold questions of environmental •
impacts: the degree of improvement in Peconic Estuary water quality that could be attained
by management alternatives, coupled with associated impacts that would result in
Shinnecock Bay.
Comment: Focus on tailoring nitrogen-loading targets to subwatersheds in the estuary.
Response: The PEP recently contracted Tetra-Tech, Inc.,to upgrade the existing three-
dimensional hydrodynamic and water quality model of the Peconic Estuary to include new
information on nonpoint source and groundwater flows and nutrient loads with a focus on
smaller watersheds. The contractor will use the model to address concerns regarding nutrient
impacts on Flanders Bay, and several peripheral creeks and embayments, including
Meetinghouse Creek, West Neck Bay, and Sag Harbor.
Comment: The PEP should spend more money on developing and implementing
management initiatives, rather than on modeling/assessment.
Response: The PEP believes that the modeling and assessment are necessary prerequisites to
establishing effective regional planning and management strategies, and that these efforts
have already reaped rewards in terms of policy changes (e.g., point source nitrogen freeze)
and early implementation. The PEP recognizes the need for early implementation, as
evidenced by the 55 early demonstration and implementation projects using $11 million in
federal and state funds. Moreover,tens of millions more have been committed by the County
and Towns, as discussed in the CCMP. These implementation funding sources are orders of
APPENDIX L
L-8
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP 8`
• F
r
magnitude higher than the moneys used for characterization and modeling. As the program
matures, yet additional resources will be placed on developing and implementing tangible
management initiatives at the subwatershed level, through programs such as the
Subwatershed Management Plans.
Comment: Solicit and use peer review in refining and using monitoring data and nitrogen
management tools.
Response. The PEP will continue to incorporate the PEP Technical Advisory Committee 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,the PEP will continue to solicit and use the TAC and external peer review in
developing programs and interpreting and applying data.
Living Resources
Comment: Better discuss the impacts of nutrients on eelgrass.
Response: Text was added to the introduction of the Nutrients Module to explain that
increased nutrient enrichment causes increased microscopic algae production that 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 increase the growth of epiphytes on 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.
Comment: Focus on nutrient levels with respect to bay productivity. Is there too little
nitrogen in the system?
Response: To the knowledge of the Peconic Estuary Program. the scientific community and
environmental managers, to date, do not believe that there is too little nitrogen reaching the
waters of the Peconic Estuary. Nitrogen is critical for sustaining the marine ecosystem, but
can be harmful to the estuary at excessive levels. The process by which a water body
becomes o�er enriched with nutrients and associated organic carbon, called eutrophication,
may result in dissolved oxygen stresses that are harmful to marine life. Ecological stresses
are already prevalent in the estuary due to nitrogen, including extensive macroalgae blooms
(e.g., Ulva). areas of high sediment oxygen demand rates, and areas of dissolved oxygen
depression.
Given the concerns of some citizens, the Peconic Estuary Program has posed this question to
Brown Tide Research Initiative (BTRI) researchers for consideration with respect to brown
tide. At this point, there does not appear to be a hypothesis that offers a mechanism by which
• low levels of nutrients could result in the onset or persistence of brown tide.
APPENDIX L
L-9
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
•
Comment: The plan may focus too much on nitrogen and dissolved oxygen.
Response: Long-term shifts in an ecosystem are likely due to subtle changes in the
environment over an extended period of time. Nitrogen and dissolved oxygen measurements
are immediate tools with which resource managers can identify differences in water quality.
Nitrogen and dissolved oxygen measurements are also "integrators" of pollutant inputs,
reflecting organic carbon overenrichment and other contaminants. The Peconic Estuary
Program is involved in other ways to monitor water quality, including monitoring eelgrass
beds and coordinating brown tide research efforts with respect to nutrients. Ultimately, the
Living Resources Research and Monitoring Plan will develop long-term monitoring and
assessment techniques for evaluating nitrogen impacts on food web dynamics.
Comment: Participate actively in the Pine Barrens process.
Response: The Peconic Estuary Program closely coordinates its activities with the Central
Pine Barrens Planning Commission. In addition, the same agencies and levels of government
serve on the Central Pine Barrens Planning Commission and Peconic Estuary Program
committees, including the NYSDEC, the Suffolk County Executive's Office, and town
representatives.
Habitat and Living Resources
The Natural Resources Subcommittee (NRSC) of the PEP reviewed all public comments
pertaining to habitat and living resources. While the comments were numerous, the NRSC
identified several key topics that were repeatedly raised both at the public meetings and in
letters. Since there was considerable overlap among these comments, they were reduced into
sub-categories within the following main sections of the Habitat Chapter: 1) critical natural
resource areas; 2) shoreline hardening; 3) dredging; 4) aquaculture; 5) finfish/shellfish; 6)
habitat restoration; and 7) research and monitoring.
Critical Natural Resource Areas
Question: What was the scientific basis and criteria used to select the CNRA boundaries?
Response: The CCMP has been revised to better reflect the CNRA process and sources of
information used to form the CNRA boundaries (see: HLR-1). However, the NRSC
recognizes that improvements to the existing data for underwater lands are needed, and has
recommended that additional bottom mapping using state-of-the-art techniques be employed.
Once the data is analyzed, modifications to the underwater boundaries should then be made.
Some examples of data that were used for the CNRAs are: the NYS Heritage maps, Federal
endangered species lists,NYS Coastal Significant Fish and Wildlife maps and local input
from the towns. Reference will also be made to the Living Resources Characterization
•
APPENDIX L
L-10
Peconlc Estuary Program COMP
report, which contains a detailed description of the natural resources of the estuary. r
uestion: How will the CNRAs be implemented and coordinated?
Response: The NRSC recommended that the PEP host a Critical Natural Resource Area
Workshop. The aim of the workshop is to bring the various levels of government together to
clarify the intent of the CNRA designation, develop an implementation strategy and
update/revise the current language in the CCMP. At a minimum we will include the
following workshop objectives within the CCMP chapter as a new step.
Workshop objectives:
a) Provide the background & ecological information for the CNRA boundaries (including
new surveys such as underwater mapping).
b) Review existing regulations for natural resource protection at all governmental levels.
c) Determine how protection of CNRAs are related to the existing regulatory framework.
d) Determine what level of designation is necessary/appropriate for CNRAs.
e) Discuss commonalities that the towns share with respect to their needs and interests.
f) Determine uses of this designation and whether it should be on the State, County, Town
level or some combination of them.
g) Determine implementation strategies
h)Plan the next steps
Shoreline Hardening
Comment: The CCMP did not provide adequate evidence that shoreline hardening structures
(e.g., bulkheads, docks) have a negative impact on habitat and living resources. Shoreline
hardening should, in some instances, be encouraged because they don't always have a
negative impact to the resources.
Response: The PEP maintains that shoreline hardening structures can negatively impact
marine habitats and biota. A recent example of negative impacts from such structures in the
Peconics was demonstrated in a study on eelgrass beds by the National Marine Fisheries
Service (a critical habitat for shellfish and finfish in the estuary) in Lake Montauk, where a
dock structure was built over them. This study showed evidence that the eelgrass beds that
were shaded by the dock died back. Although there are few studies specific to the Peconic
Estuary,there is ample evidence from investigations in other areas that demonstrate the
negative impacts of structures such as: bulkheads, seawalls and docks to the natural resources
(e.g., loss of beach and shallow-water habitats, disrupting connectivity of land and sea,
habitat fragmentation). Reference to such studies will be listed in an unbiased review of the
literature that is currently underway (i.e. studies that show no effects of such structures to
natural resources will also be included).
Comment: Regulations should be reviewed and revised to make shoreline-hardening
structures more difficult to obtain.
. Response: The CCMP has been modified and now calls for a comprehensive review of State,
APPENDIX L
L-11
� Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
County and Town regulations as well as an update/review of the NYS Coastal Policies has
been included in the Habitat chapter. It is hoped that strategies will be developed to
strengthen current policies (particularly within CNRAs). A recent example of a shoreline
hardening management plan that the PEP supports is the Town of East Hampton's proposed
Coastal Legislation. A description of this proposal has been included in the Habitat Chapter.
Comment: The policy of"no-net increase" of shoreline hardening structures is unrealistic.
Basic inventories of existing structures and their location in the estuary are needed to
properly develop management strategies.
Response: The PEP maintains its support of the Citizens Advisory Committee's
recommendation for a policy of"no-net increase" of shoreline hardening structures. Known
impacts from shoreline hardening structures to the natural resources warrant such a strategy.
However, the PEP also realizes that the current environmental regulations actually allow for
an increase in much of the watershed. The PEP also acknowledges that data for existing
structures is necessary to properly develop and implement such a plan, and incentives to
remove existing bulkheads are also necessary for such a policy to actually succeed. A
shoreline hardening inventory was performed for the entire estuary in the spring/summer
2000; all existing structures will be digitally mapped. This data will be used to further refine
the recommendation of"no-net" increase of bulkheads in the estuary. The Habitat Chapter
has also been modified accordingly to reflect this (section: HLR-2). •
HLR-2.4 has been modified as follows:
Develop a variety of financial incentives and programs to encourage property
owners to 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.
A new sten for shoreline hardening structures was also included in the CCMP under(HLR-
2):
HLR-2.2 Review existing regulations for shoreline hardening structures at all levels of
government, encourage consistent policies and strengthen regulations where
appropriate.
Dredein�
Comment: There is concern that the Peconic Estuary is being proposed as a dredge material
disposal site. The EPA and the Army Corp of Engineers have a commitment to the public to
tell them if the contaminated dredge material is going to be dumped in Montauk or the
Peconics. Management policies should be set in the Peconics so that contaminated dredge
materials cannot be dumped there.
Response: There is a Draft Environmental Impact Statement being developed by the United
States Army Corps of Engineers for designation of dredge material disposal areas for the
APPENDIX L
L-12
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
Long Island Sound. This will include the Peconic Estuary and Block Island Sound. Site r
selection criteria-are currently being developed(e.g., water depth, habitat, etc.) and will be
presented to the public to comment on as well as to comment on the scope of the potential
dredge areas and upland disposal areas. It is expected that most shallow waters will be
eliminated from this list, including those of the Peconics. The PEP will provide information
(e.g., habitat data, endangered species, etc.)to the Corps during the site selection review
process to ensure that the importance and significance of the Peconic Estuary is clearly
demonstrated and that the maximum levels of protection are sought.
Comment: Will the dredge summit include all appropriate parties involved with dredging?
Response: While the exact format of the summit remains to be determined, the PEP is a
consensus building program and will, therefore, include all interested parties (regulatory and
non-regulatory) to the workshop. It is hoped that the forum will lead to the development of a
comprehensive dredging plan for the estuary the minimizes impacts to important resources,
while considering the needs of businesses that depend on dredging, and the concerns of
others.
Aquaculture
Comment: Finfish and shellfish culture are associated with different types of impacts and the
CCMP should reflect this. Additionally, the aquaculture activities that are currently
undertaken in the estuary are primarily small-scale (shellfish). The Habitat chapter gives the
impression that it is primarily large-scale (finfish) culture that occurs in the Peconics, which
is not the case.
Response: The Habitat chapter has been revised to better reflect these concerns in the text.
Further discussions through workgroups that deal with the regional planning of aquaculture
in the Peconic Estuary should be encouraged to discuss the different impacts of all types of
aquaculture activities and how best to manage them in the estuary (See Action HLR-10). In
addition the following actions have been added to the chapter:
HRL-10 The text has been revised to reflect the two main types of aquaculture; shellfish and
finfish aquaculture that take place within the estuary and the different impacts associated
with each. The text has been revised to emphasize the smaller-scale shellfish culture that
occurs within the estuary,rather than on the single large-scale finfish culture facility located
in Gardiner's Bay.
HLR-10.2 Calls for identifying areas where intensive aquaculture should be avoided. This
has been reworded to identify areas where shellfish and/or finfish aquaculture are
appropri ate/suitable.
Comment: Under action HLR 10.2 a$500,000 survey is proposed. What type of survey
would this be?
APPENDIX L
L-13
aka Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
_r
Response: This is a rough estimate for the costs of an acoustic benthic mapping survey of the •
entire estuary, including tidal creeks. As stated below in the Habitat Restoration Workgroups
comments, the benthic habitats/communities/resources in the Peconic Estuary are poorly
documented, and such mapping would not only help PEP best determine where aquaculture
activities are most compatible with the water quality and habitat objectives in the CCMP, but
also be useful for critical natural resource mapping and watershed management.
Habitat Restoration
Question: Why were an overwhelming majority of habitat restoration sites from the South
Fork?
Response: The Habitat Restoration Workgroup did not select habitat restoration sites
internally. The Workgroup conducted a public nomination process and disseminated
information on the process through a variety of outreach mechanisms, including: a mass
mailing, interviews on The Bay Show, a presentation to the PEP Citizens' Advisory
Committee and a press release published in a variety of regional and local newspapers. The
majority of nominations received by the Workgroup during Round One of this process were
sites located on the South Fork. The Workgroup attempted to rectify the
under-representation of North Fork sites during Round Two by conducting additional
outreach in North Fork municipalities and groups, and by providing assistance to potential
site nominators. As a result, during Round Two, 24 North Fork sites were nominated, out of
a total of 26 new nominations. These nominations can be found in the report entitled Habitat
Restoration Plan for the Peconic Estuary.
Comment: There are osprey nesting platforms in East Hampton that need to be straightened
or replaced. Specifically, there is one at the end of Breeze Hill Road in East Hampton that
needs to be looked at.
Response: In East Hampton, most osprey platform construction and maintenance is
conducted by Larry Penny, Director of the East Hampton Natural Resources Department.
The Habitat Restoration Workgroup recommends that inquiries regarding osprey platforms in
East Hampton be directed to the Natural Resources Department. Inquiries regarding osprey
platforms located on county or state properties should be directed to the appropriate Suffolk
County or New York State agency.
Comment: There should be a wetlands restoration summit/technical workshop to talk about
techniques, applications and monitoring. Restoration can be done cheaper than people think.
Response: The Habitat Restoration Workgroup agrees that information sharing is valuable
and will consider setting up a workshop for municipalities. The Workgroup will also provide
technical assistance through components of the PEP Habitat Restoration Plan, including a
compilation of completed restoration projects throughout the estuary, descriptive narratives
for particularly instructive projects, and profiles of restoration techniques used in different
habitat types. The Workgroup will also participate in the Environmental Protection Agency's
•
APPENDIX L
L-14
Peconic Estuary Program CCWP
Restoration Project Database (see http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/restorer to increase r
the accessibility of information about Peconic Estuary Program projects. For more focused
training, the Workgroup suggests that municipal staff research the wide variety of existing
technical workshops and courses offered regularly through organizations such as
Environmental Concern, Inc. We also will encourage workshops on native plantings that are
beneficial to the Peconic watershed.
Comment: For reef restoration,people seem more concerned with the turtles and marine
mammals than with fish. The focus needs to be more on the fish.
Response: The Habitat Restoration Workgroup does not consider artificial reef construction
in the Peconic Estuary to be"restoration". This type of habitat does not naturally occur in
this area and therefore, would be considered habitat creation. The impacts of artificial reef
construction in areas where they do not naturally occur need to be carefully considered for all
aquatic species because they will potentially result in significant alterations to the existing
system. Sea turtles and marine mammals are given particular attention because most of these
species are listed as federally endangered or threatened. This does not preclude the PEP's
concerns regarding other marine species.
Comment: The CCMP should cover deepwater habitat restoration for fish. The CCMP
needs to go beyond shallow-reefs.
Response: Knowledge of the characteristics of deepwater benthic habitats in the Peconic
Estuary, as well as knowledge of historical conditions in these environments, is extremely
limited. The Habitat Restoration Workgroup feels that these limitations currently preclude
efforts to conduct habitat restoration in deepwater areas. However, it is hoped that benthic
mapping of the entire estuary will someday lead to a better understanding of these deeper
areas and possibly result in such restorations. Benthic mapping efforts are currently in the
planning stages and are expected to be implemented in 2001.
Comment: A new trend in wetlands protection is the concept of offsetting the loss of
wetlands at particular building sites through wetland banking. The wetland banks are
mechanisms by which damaged or degraded wetlands can be restored or enhanced and then
credits can be sold to property owners whose building projects will impact wetlands.
Wetland banking should be encouraged as a source of funding for wetland restoration work.
Response: The Habitat Restoration Workgroup does not feel comfortable recommending the
use of wetland banking in the Peconic Estuary. Some people believe wetland banking
encourages destruction of wetlands and leads to a decline in overall quality of wetland
ecosystems. Wetland banking works best for extremely large projects, the impacts of which
are unavoidable for logistical reasons, e.g., construction of transportation corridors. This
technique has not been employed in the Peconic Estuary region to date and is probably not
appropriate given the types of development most common in our area.
i
APPENDIX L
L-15
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
Comment: Setting a wetland restoration goal (acres of wetlands and SAV to be restored) for i
the Peconics would be an important tool for the program.
Response: The information (primarily historical) needed to accurately set an acreage-based
goal for restoration of either wetlands or submerged aquatic vegetation is currently not
available for the Peconics. However, PEP has set some preliminary restoration objectives in
the measurable goals section of the Habitat Chapter. These are: 1) Maintain current eelgrass
acreage(approximately 2,100 acres) and increase acreage by 10% over ten years, and 2)
Maintain a policy of no new mosquito ditches and not re-opening ditches that have filled in
by natural process, and restore 10-15% of mosquito ditched marshes through Open Marsh
Water Management. The Habitat Restoration Workgroup will attempt to refine quantifiable
goals for these habitat types as additional information is acquired.
Comment: Something else is killing eelgrass, other than brown tide.
Response: While there are many factors that are suspected to have contributed to the decline
of eelgrass beds, one of the most prominent is decreased water clarity from algal blooms such
as brown tide or other light decreasing factors (e.g, increased turbidity from suspended
solids). When light levels are inadequate, eelgrass (a rooted vascular plant) is no longer able
to photosynthesize and eventually dies off(see: Nutrients Chapter). While PEP does not
have definitive proof of what has caused these die-backs of eelgrass in the Peconic Estuary, •
evidence from studies done in other estuaries indicate that increased nutrients and runoff
from land-based activities has negatively impacted their eelgrass beds. The PEP &NRSC
are constantly searching for other pathways as identified in the literature, and continues to
seek funding to study and monitor the eelgrass beds in the estuary. One suggested
mechanism is the linking of groundwater influxes to eelgrass viability, since groundwater is a
major contributor of freshwater inputs into the Peconic ecosystem. We have also included
the following new action to reduce impacts to eelgrass beds:
Added New Step: HLR-6.3 Evaluate anchor dragging and propeller scaring and other
known impacts to extant eelgrass beds in the Peconic Estuary and develop recommendations
to reduce them.
Comment: Some facts about Phragmites are misstated in the CCMP.
Response: Recent evidence from research on wetland plants suggests that Phragmites sp. has
positive habitat values. While typically considered a nuisance species (see Habitat Chapter
for discussion) management plans should also consider the value of Phragmites such as
sequestering of nutrients, bird and fish habitat, waterfowl screening, etc.. Such values have
been added to the text in the Habitat Chapter, but in cases where Phragmites is outcompeting
other valued wetland species, we will consider removal of it as restoration of wetlands (e.g.,
restricted tidal flow areas, dyked channels, etc.).
Marine Fish
i
APPENDIX L
L-16
Peconic Estuary Program MVP P
Question: How does the CCMP address the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act's essential fish habitat designations?
Response: The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has designated the Peconic
Estuary as Essential Fish Habitat. The NMFS handles these designations and coordinates
with other Federal agencies regarding project/activities that are proposed within these areas
to avoid or minimize impacts associated with them to fish habitat. The PEP is fully aware of
this designation and we support its use on regulating activities that can cause impacts to the
marine fish populations in the estuary. However, as mentioned above, review of proposed
projects are primarily coordinated at the Federal level. The CCMP's overall consistency with
this designation will be included in our base programs analysis. We have included the
following new action in support of these designations in the CCMP:
HLR-12.6-Support NMFS Essential Fish Habitat Designations within the Peconic Estuary.
Comment:-The effect of blocking tributaries is detrimental to anadromous fish reproduction
and various food chain species. Tributaries should be cleared of blockages.
Response: The Natural Resources Subcommittee and the Habitat Restoration Workgroup
• have identified blockage of tributaries as primary targets for restoration efforts. These have
been noted in the CCMP and also in the Habitat Restoration Plan for the estuary. A recent
example of such restorations in the estuary was the creation of a fish-ladder for the
headwaters of the Peconic River in Riverhead. This effort has restored spawning grounds for
alewife, which they had lost access to due to the installation of dams in the past.
Comment: The CCMP needs to discuss striped bass, lobsters. squid and dogfish for their
management.
Response: While the PEP and Natural Resources Subcommittee are concerned with the
quality/abundance of marine finfish species within the Peconic Estuary, it is not the role of
the PEP to manage fisheries. There are other programs that focus on fisheries management
that the PEP supports. New York State is one of 23 partners of the Atlantic Coastal
Cooperative Statistics Program,that cooperatively collect, manage and disseminate fishery
statistical data that is compiled by the National Marine Fisheries Service. Furthermore. many
of the species that are mentioned above are transient species in the estuary and therefore, are
subjected to fishing pressures and impacts in other coastal and offshore waters. The PEP's
CCMP recommendation is to foster sustainable recreational and commercial finfish and
shellfish uses of the Peconic Estuary that are compatible with biodiversity protection (HLR-
12).
Shellfish
Comments: In the 1960's there was a steady and incremental decline of fish and shellfish in
the Peconics. Oysters should be in the CCMP. In the 70's and 80's there was a marked
Is decline in scallops on the western side of Shelter Island before brown tide hit. Oysters are
APPENDIX L
L-17
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
the most sensitive barometers of the bays. •
Response: Oysters are discussed in the CCMP in the Habitat and Pathogens Chapters. While
oysters were primarily introduced to the Peconic Ecosystem for culturing purposes the PEP
and Natural Resources Subcommittee recognize the significance of shellfish in general within
the Peconic Estuary. While many of the Actions throughout the CCMP are aimed at
improving water quality and habitats for shellfisheries,the NRSC has also decided to include
the following nen' action within the CCMP:
NEW ACTION: 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.
Shellfish(i.e., hard clams, soft clams, bay scallops, and slipper shells) are vital to the Peconic
estuary both ecologically and commercially. Shellfish can filter large volumes of bay water
over relatively short time periods. They have the potential to affect water quality and exert
significant influence on the size, type and abundance of phytoplankton. Conversely, changes
in phytoplankton species composition have the potential to affect shellfish diversity and
abundance. With the advent of brown tide, reduction of duck farms, changes in habitat(e.g.,
invasive species) and harvesting; shifts can occur in shellfish diversity, temporal and spatial •
distribution and abundance. Preliminary brown tide research findings by Caron and Lonsdale
have resulted in a working hypothesis that the rapid decline in the shellfish population 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. A shellfish working
group is necessary to examine these issues more closely and develop recommendations to
improve shellfish resources in the estuary and promote sustainable harvesting of these
species.
Issues for examination by the Shellfish Working Group could include: 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 BTRI, water
quality modeling, aquaculture regional plan work group, and finfish monitoring.
New Steps include.
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.
HLR-17.4 Consult with the Brown Tide Research Initiative (BTRI) and Aquaculture •
APPENDIX L
L-18
Peconic Estuary Program CCLIP
c
• work group to develop management recommendations for"top-down"
regulation of water quality and brown tide in the Peconic Estuary.
HLR-17.4 Facilitate communication among BTRI, water quality managers and
aquaculture work group.
Research and Monitorina
Comments: The development and implementation of a robust research and monitoring
program,particularly for the living resources is critical. A resource-based research and
monitoring program should be developed and implemented. The food-web of the estuary
needs to be characterized. Also, how the food-web has been impaired by man-made
chemicals entering our waters needs to be researched. Research should look at how harmful
chemicals impact life in the water column(e.g., fish larvae).
Response: The Marine Resources Conservation Planner for the PEP has developed (jointly
with the Natural Resources Subcommittee) a Living Resources Research and Monitoring
Plan for the Peconic Estuary. Topics already identified by the PEP Natural Resources
Subcommittee for inclusion in the plan address questions about 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. Additional assessment.-research and monitoring
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)-benthic habitat mapping,-5)-assessing and monitoring the impacts of shoreline
hardening on habitat and living resources and 6) effects of sea level rise on saltmarshes.
The research and monitoring plan is currently being released for external peer review. Once
this process is completed and the document revised, it will be formally adopted by the
Management Committee and released.
Other Comments
Comment: Step HLR-1.9 should be rewritten. Better wording may be "help mannas with
more creative storage areas so they do not have to expand into tidal areas".
•
APPENDIX L
L-19
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
Response: This is a useful recommendation and wording has been included to consider such •
recommendations as part of the more comprehensive strategy dealing with shoreline
hardening, marinas, docks and public access.
Question: What are the mosquito control recommendations in the CCMP for Open Marsh
Water Management? Should ditches in marshes be filled in or kept open? How should we
balance ditching marshes, pesticides, and mosquitoes?
Response: The PEP recognizes that mosquito control is important to public health and safety.
Ditching was employed in the past to drain the marshes of standing water, to reduce
mosquito-breeding habitat, and is primarily handled by Suffolk County Vector Control (as
well as insecticide spraying). However, in many areas these ditches caused excessive
drainage of tidal wetlands at low tide, disturbing the natural functioning of the marsh.
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 switched to implementing Open Mash
Water Management (OMWM)to restore marshes to their former state and control mosquito
populations. The PEP supports this policy (HLR-5 and HLR-8). Furthermore, the PEP
encourages better coordination between SCVC and all other agencies and Towns for •
maintenance of existing ditches and planning of mosquito control practices in wetlands. The
PEP would like to see a region-wide plan developed for mosquito control practices in the
Peconics that are effective at reducing mosquito populations and environmentally
compatible. We have modified HLR-53 and added HLR-5.4 as follows:
HLR-53 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.
Final Note. Minor editorial changes were made throughout the text to improve the overall
flow and content of the document, as well as to reflect recent projects that have occurred in
the estuary since the initial draft. Additionally, some figures have been modified as
suggested by the comments received.
Pathogens
uestion: Is there a Difference between Human and Avian Coliforms?
Response: Yes, there is a difference between the coliform bacteria generated by birds and •
APPENDIX L
L-20
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP �
humans. A study conducted by the Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District
pursuant to Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
contained a comparison of coliforms produced by humans, ducks and chickens. The
following information was excerpted from the Animal Waste Characteristics section of this
report:
ESTLLLATED PER CAPITA CONTRIBUTION OF LYDICATOR MICROORGANISM
Animal Fecal Coliform [FCl (millions) Fecal Streptococcus [FSI (millions)
Humans 2.000 450
Ducks 11,000 18,000
Chickens 240 620
(Note: The ducks used in this study were semi-wild White Pekin. The report noted that the
amount and characteristics of waste produced by semi-wild ducks is similar to that produced
by White Pekin ducks.)
The Peconic Estuary Program supports efforts that are geared toward distinguishing wildlife
• from human coliform sources (See DNA library Action P-12) since they will assist in
defining loading pathways into the estuary, and therefore, improve management strategies to
reduce these loadings. However, it is not necessary to separate human and animal coliforms
for shellfish sanitation management. Shellfish sanitation is concerned with monitoring the
total concentrations of coliforms (i.e., both wildlife and human coliforms) in the
environment-
Question: Do Pathogens affect Wildlife other than Shellfish?
Response. Yes.pathogens can affect wildlife. Pathogens are described in the CCMP as
"viruses bacteria, algae and protozoans that cause disease in humans, plants and other
animals'. Some examples of pathogens other than coliforms that affect wildlife in the marine
environment are "gray crab disease' (Paramobea perniciosa) associated with crab mortalities
and the dinoflagellates Alexandrium tamarensis and Gymnodinium breve which are known to
be responsible for fish kills. Alexandrium tamarensis, commonly referred to as"red tide'
produces a toxin (saxitoxin) which has been linked to mass mortalities in a variety of marine
organisms from finfish to marine mammals such as whales.
The Peconic Estuary Program recognizes that pathogens can affect wildlife other than
shellfish, but since shellfish have the greatest potential to transmit these pathogens to humans
our management actions are focused on these organisms. Furthermore, the PEP management
strategies aimed at reducing pathogen loadings throughout the estuary may be beneficial to
all forms of wildlife and not just limited to shellfish.
• Comment: The report should recommend the monitoring of not only Alexandrium tamarense
APPENDIX L
L-21
44 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
F
(a toxic dinoflagellate known to cause shellfish poisoning), but also Pfiesteria piscicida. •
Response:Alexandrium tamarense and other harmful algae such as Pfiesteria piscicida have
been found in the Peconic Estuary. While these organisms have not caused any problems to
date, the PEP recognizes their (potential) risks to human health and safety and encourages
increased monitoring throughout the estuary (See Action P-15). The Pathogens Chapter has
also been updated to include the following information about existing and planned
monitoring programs:
The NYSDEC Shellfish Sanitation Unit has a Marine Biotoxin Contingency Plan in place for
monitoring Alexandrium tamarensis, but does not routinely test for this organism or any
other organism responsible for a Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB). The state of Connecticut
actively tests for HAB's from April through November. The Suffolk County Department of
Health Services currently monitors for the presence of Pfiesteria at fifteen sites, three of
which are located in the Peconic Estuary. This monitoring is a cooperative effort with the
NYSDEC and is being conducted with funds from a Federal program. The PEP supports that
monitoring for the presence of Pfiesteria in the Peconic Estuary be continued and expanded
(See Action P-15).
Additional changes to the Pathogens Chapter •
Note: Editing changes that were minor in scope are not included here.
1) The box on Page 5-4 ("Shellfish Bed Closures") has been revised substantially under the
heading "Administrative Closure"to more accurately reflect current DEC management
classifications.
2) Page 5-11: "Point Sources of Pathogen Contamination". We have included the following
statement: "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., a ten year
storm)".
3) Table 5.2 has been updated to include the Calverton (former Grumman facility) sewage
treatment plant.
4) Plum Island sewage treatment plant also employs UV sterilization.
5) A section describing the potential harm to human and wildlife from Alexandrium (red tide)
and Pfiesteria has been included in the text prior to the section on "Management Actions".
6) Action P-1 has been substantially revised to better reflect the new stormwater regulations
for New York State.
7) Action P-7 has been updated to reflect the most recent agreements that have been reached
for the Vessel Waste No Discharge Zone. •
APPENDIX L
L-22
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
8) Action P-15 has been revised to include increased monitoring for the red-tide organism
Alexandrium and other harmful algal blooms.
9)All tables have been updated to reflect recent commitments, time-frames, costs and status.
Toxics
Treated Lumber
There were many comments regarding treated lumber. These included comments to:
- include a discussion of treated lumber in the CCMP;
- study the effects of the wood in the marine environment;
- monitor waters for chemicals used in treated lumber;
- identify if there are areas where sediments have been contaminated by treated lumber;
- review existing studies on treated lumber and potential impacts and share this
information with stakeholders;
- Investieate alternatives to treated lumber;
- promote natural materials as alternatives (i.e., locust or cypress lumber);
- address potential problems with using vinyl or plastic as alternatives;
- provide financial incentives (i.e.,via taxes) for using alternatives;
- develop regulations to require the complete removal and proper disposal when treated
lumber structures are demolished; and
- ban or restrict the use of treated lumber
Based on these comments,the final CCMP includes a discussion of treated lumber and
contaminants associated with its use. Chemicals associated with treated lumber will continue
to be included in monitoring efforts and the effects of treated lumber and associated
chemicals (as well as other toxics) is included as an element in the PEP research and
monitoring plan. The CCMP includes a step to develop model guidelines regarding the
placement of treated lumber in the marine environment and supporting non-toxic structures,
based on existing studies and potential impacts, and consistent with the PEP's overall policy
of no net increase in shoreline hardening structures. These guidelines will address natural
materials as alternatives,potential problems with using vinyl or plastic as alternatives, and
the disposal of treated lumber following demolition. This information will be shared with
stakeholders. Based upon the available information, at the present time, the PEP is not
recommending an outright ban on the use of treated lumber, but does support restoration to
natural shoreline features, natural alternatives and products, and providing incentives for
removing treated lumber(and other shoreline hardening structures). Financial incentives for
the removal of or alternatives to shoreline hardening structures are discussed on the Finance
Chapter of the Plan.
•
APPENDIX L
L-23
Peconic Estuary Program CCWP
Stormwater •
There were numerous comments regarding storm water with respect to toxics. These
included comments to:
Stop road runoff from all contributing points and address needs for storm drain
management and catchment maintenance, including some specific named sites and to
prevent the expansion of a particular business enterprise where contaminated runoff
was suspected of being an issue;
- Fast-track stormwater management projects and the likely high costs of doing so;
- Encourage the use of permeable surfaces for driveways instead of blacktop;
- The need to review past stormwater abatement projects: and
- The need to reevaluate standards and guidelines for construction projects to ensure
that future projects work properly.
One commentor suggested postponing all stormwater remediation work until the PEP
Regional Stormwater Management Plan was prepared.
In general, the Peconic Estuary Program management conference members and the CCMP
recognize that stormwater needs to be managed and that remediation will be an expensive
proposition. A Regional Stormwater Management Plan is being prepared and will address
issues such as the identification of contributing sites, the need for storm drain and catchment
maintenance, coordination of efforts at all levels of government, as well as review past
abatement projects, and standards and guidelines for construction projects. The CCMP also
recognizes the need to address land uses and activities that contribute contaminants to runoff,
including paving materials as well as the need to identify, develop and implement programs
to reduce pollutant loadings. In general, the PEP believes that stormwater remediation
projects currently underway do not need to be put on "hold" until the Regional Stormwater
Management Plan is prepared as they are likely to involve appropriate remedial technologies;
any significant concerns would likely be addressed through the permitting process.
Radionuclides/Brookhaven National Laboratory
Several commentaries addressed the issue of radionuclides and operations at Brookhaven
National Laboratory (BNL). Comments included the need for: an expanded discussion of
Peconic Estuary related issues regarding BNL; monitoring of the river and estuary for
radionuclides, including sampling sediment, fish, and fish bones; investigating the
bioaccumulation of radionuclides and other contaminants from BNL in humans; describing
the results of sampling that has already taken place, particularly for plutonium; and
considering the synergistic human health effects of multiple radioactive contaminants,
particularly for impacts on pregnant women and children.
The CCMP now has a greatly expanded discussion of the historic contamination at BNL and
downstream impacts, and discusses activities that have taken place to characterize the
contamination and risks. Once the results of EPA's1999 fish sampling has been evaluated,
additional sampling may be conducted, potentially including fish bones and sediments.
•
APPENDIX L
L-24
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
r
• Finfish and shellfish sampled by EPA in 1999 are being analyzed for radionuclides. This r
analysis will be completed on the edible portion (according the NYSDOH guidelines), which
does not include the whole fish or fish bones. Contaminants in whole fish or fish bones are a
concern for certain sub-populations, including certain ethnic groups and subsistence anglers.
For this reason, the CCMP includes a step in the Education and Outreach Chapter for the
continuation and expansion of dissemination of fish and wildlife consumption advisory
information, which includes suggestions on how to reduce exposure to contaminants through
certain preparation and cooking methods. Remedial investigations that are conducted under
Superfund characterize the potential for radionuclides to bioaccumulate in humans and clean-
ups are proposed where contamination results in risks above acceptable levels. Results of
sampling and risk assessments that have been completed (including sampling for plutonium)
are presented in the CCMP and the companion document,A Characterization of Toxic
Substances in the Peconic Estuary and its Watershed(PEP, January 2001). The results of
some sampling efforts, including sampling that EPA has completed for the PEP, are not yet
available. The results are expected in 2001. The Superfund risk assessments that have been
completed consider the cumulative risk for exposure to multiple contaminants, including
radionuclides, under various future use scenarios. No specific procedure exists at the present
time to consider any special risks imposed on pregnant women an children, beyond the
conservation risk and toxicity assumptions incorporated in existing criteria formulation
methodologies.
Other commentaries suggested: the PEP have a position on the operation of the high flux
beam reactor at BNL, a relationship between operations at BNL and Brown Tide, and that
BNL pay for citizens' financial losses due to contamination of the Peconic River. A decision
has been made to permanently shut down the high flux beam reactor at BNL. At present,
there is no plausible hypothesis relating Brown Tide and operations at BNL; this is discussed
further in the Brown Tide section of this response document. The contamination of the
Peconic River is being addressed under the Federal Superfund program, which is the
appropriate venue to address the issue of citizens financial losses, rather than the National
Estuary Program.
One commentor suggested that two additional sources of radionuclides be listed in table 6.1:
naturally occurring radionuclides and fall-out from atmospheric nuclear weapon tests. These
sources are now noted in the CCMP. This commentor also noted that the reference to the
NYSDEC remedial action threshold for tritium provides guidance only for evaluating
radioactively contaminated soil clean-up plans, and not to the radioactive contamination of
water or fish. This has been corrected in the final CCMP.
One commentor recommended that the CCMP include a recommendation that there be a full
investigation and report concerning the radioactive contamination in the Peconic Estuary, and
what the investigation should entail. The PEP will continue to monitor actions under
Superfund at BNL through its member agencies (principally the USEPA,NYSDEC, and
SCDHS) and will participate in oversight of the eventual remedy for the site. The PEP will
• also fully evaluate the results of all sampling, including fish tissue sampling that EPA
APPENDIX L
L-_5
' Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
IsF
completed for the PEP. Based on an evaluation of the results of all these efforts, PEP will •
determine if any additional efforts regarding the radioactive contamination of the Peconic
Estuary is warranted.
A commentor asked for the final CCMP to indicate that the BNL sewage treatment plant
utilizes ultraviolet disinfection for its sewage treatment plant effluent; this has been done.
Another commentor suggested that research being completed at BNL is important and the
contamination is small. The PEP is concerned with all releases of toxic substances to the
environment and therefore supports continuing efforts at BNL to clean-up historical
contamination and take all appropriate steps to eliminate or significantly reduce ongoing
discharges to the environment.
Pesticides and Herbicides
Comments regarding pesticides included suggestions to:
- Include additional information on the presence of pesticides in the estuary;
- Include information on pesticide investigations, including a map depicting pesticide
contamination of groundwater, if possible;
- Ban (especially at the state level) the use of destructive chemicals, most artificial
pesticides - including at a minimum the 30 detected in Suffolk County wells which
are not banned already, and Malathion which is used for mosquito control; •
- Include in the table of"toxics of concern in the Peconic Estuary System" pesticides
impacting groundwater, and include the name of every pesticide and pesticide
metabolite identified as contaminating groundwater in cited reports;
- Investigate connections between pesticides and eelgrass decline, and discuss the
potential effects on pesticides in groundwater may be having on shellfish larvae;
- Investigate if DDT (now banned) is still impacting resources;
- Increase the annual estimated cost of conducting pesticide clean sweeps to $I A000;
- Implement measures to reduce mosquito populations that do not involve spraying,
especially the pesticides Malathion and Anvil, and for the PEP to take a position on
the issue of spraying for mosquito control; also NYSDEC and NYSDOH should be
added as responsible entities for the action regarding mosquito control;
- Identify golf courses as contributors to pesticide (and nitrate) contamination;
forcefully address herbicide use on golf courses;
- Reduce toxic loadings (including pesticides) from private homes; identify residences
as contributors to pesticide (and nitrate) contamination,
- Encourage organic pest control;
- Add a new step to develop and implement IPM programs that manage pests with
minimal impact on human health and the environment; the appropriate entities were
also identified;
- Reduce agricultural pesticide use;
- Recognize and reconcile possible conflicts between applying more restrictions to
agricultural operations and public support for farmland preservation, public desire to
preserve rural character, and the importance of agriculture to local quality of life and
economy, including tourism; .
APPENDIX L
L-26
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
Support lawsuits against pesticide companies;
Impose a "sin tax" or"fee" on pesticides; and
Have manufacturers of toxic substances fund research projects in the Peconics;
The final CCMP includes an expanded discussion of pesticides, includes sources, impacts,
and recent data on levels in groundwaters and surface waters. Revisions/clarifications to the
table of"Toxics of Concern in the Peconic Estuary System" have been made. The PEP has
not added any additional pesticides to the list of toxics of concern, but the final CCMP does
list 47 pesticides detected in Suffolk County wells in two recent groundwater studies. The
final CCMP provides summaries of these two studies, but does not include maps associated
with those studies, as the studies themselves should be consulted by those interested in that
level of information. The CCMP now includes a new step for the state to "restrict or ban
pesticides whose residues are frequently detected at levels of environmental or public health
concern in groundwater or the estuary." The PEP is not calling for any additional substances
to be banned at this time,though this may occur in the future. The CCMP also includes
language recognizing a potential connection between pesticides and eelgrass decline, and
discusses the potential effects pesticides in groundwater may be having on fish larvae. As
described in a step in the Habitat and Living Resource Chapter, the PEP supports further
investigations of these two areas of concern through inclusion in the Long Term Research
• and Monitoring Plan. The CCMP also describes some recent investigations suggesting that
DDT and its breakdown products,through historical and possibly current sources, may be
impacting resources and that further investigations are perhaps warranted. If continuing
sources of DDT to the environment are documented, this supports the continuation of"Clean
Sweep"programs for the proper collection and disposal of pesticide products. As suggested,
the annual estimated cost of conducting pesticide clean sweeps has been increased to
S150.000.
The PEP is also not recommending against the use of Malathion or Anvil for mosquito
control at this time. In a CCMP step, the PEP supports a reduction in the use of insecticides
for mosquito control to the maximum extent practicable that still adequately protects human
health, and considers limiting adverse impact on the environment in pesticide selection. The
CCMP also recommends good housekeeping methods of control, such as
eliminating/reducing standing water that functions as breeding sites. The NYSDEC and
NYSDOH have been added to the list of responsible entities for this step. The PEP is also
pursuing "open marsh water management" (OMWM) as a potential means of mosquito
control (in addition to habitat restoration and possibly stormwater control)that does not
involve the use of pesticides but rather natural systems, in locations where it is appropriate.
OMWM is described in the Habitat and Living Resources Chapter of the Plan.
Additional information is now provided identifying golf courses and residences as
contributors to pesticide (and nitrate) contamination. The CCMP includes language calling
for the implementation of integrated pest management programs and specifically highlights
Suffolk County's IPM pesticide-free golf course initiative. The Public Education and
Outreach Chapter contains a step calling for endorsement, adoption and implementation of
APPENDIX L
L-27
Peconic Estuary Program COMP
r
"environmental Principles for Golf Courses in the United States"by all golf courses in the •
study area. The CCMP also discusses how the implementation of BMPs on golf courses can
reduce groundwater contamination. Similarly,the Public Education and Outreach Chapter
contains a step calling for the implementation of program aimed at eliminating or reducing
domestic pesticide use.
The final CCMP includes a new step to develop and implement IPM programs that manage
pests with minimal impact on human health and the environment; the appropriate entities
were also identified for this step. This is intended as a means of encouraging organic pest
control. Other steps in the Toxic and Public Education and Outreach Chapter are intended to
support`organic"pesticide operations, such as supporting organic agricultural operations,
pesticide free golf courses, implementing IPM program on public lands, and eliminating or
reducing pesticide use at residences.
In addition to the steps in the draft CCMP regarding reducing agricultural pesticide use, the
final CCMP includes an additional step calling for the USDA to develop and implement a
comprehensive agricultural pesticide management proposal. This step, in addition to others
regarding reducing overall pesticide use seek to lessen the potential impacts. These steps
include development of the Long Island Pesticide Management Plan, comply with the
Federal Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments section 6717(g)requirements •
regarding agricultural pesticides in the coastal zone, carrying out regular"Clean Sweep"
programs to properly collect and dispose of unwanted pesticides, developing and
implementing IPM programs, and banning or restricting pesticides under certain
circumstances. Also, the Critical Lands Protection Plan of the final CCMP addresses the
need to establish a connection between the agricultural operations and pesticide use,
including pesticide usage when development rights are being purchased. It is likely this will
continue to be a topic of discussion during the development and Implementation of the
Agricultural Environmental Management Strategy (see also Appendix H of the CCMP).
The Finance Chapter of the final CCMP includes a step proposing the investigation of
establishing selective sales fees for pesticides (and fertilizers). Fees collected would fund
environmental management programs. The PEP is not recommending that manufacturers of
toxic substances fund research projects in the Peconics, though the Program is interested in
any potential connections between pesticide use and eel grass declines or impact on fin fish
and shellfish and their larvae. The PEP is not recommending lawsuits against pesticide
companies.
Boat Eneines/Personal Water Craft("Jet Skis")
Comments regarding boat engines and personal water craft (i.e., "jet skis') were to:
- Address the problem of 2 stroke marine engines;
- Identify fuel from motor boats as a direct and local source of PAHs;
- study the pollution potential of exhaust from motor boats; and
- Curtail the use of"jet skis'in the estuary.
•
APPENDIX L
L-28
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP 5¢
• c
The final CCMP includes a detailed discussion of the pollution impacts of marine engines,
including how impacts are lessened with cleaner burning 4 stroke (vs. 2 stroke) engines. The
Finance and Public Education and Outreach chapters discuss incentives for switching to 4
stroke engines. In the CCMP table of"Pollutants of Concern"boat wet exhaust is identified
as a source of PAHs. Poor fueling practices is also identified as a potential source of
pollutants(PAHs) in both the Toxics and Education and Outreach Chapters. While the
CCMP does not include a specific recommendation for the PEP to study exhausts from boats,
discussion is included on studies and findings at the national level. Local studies, if
determined to be warranted, could be included in the research plan being prepared. The
Toxics Chapter does not specifically address the issue of personal water craft("jet ski")
engines,but marine engines generally, which includes personal water craft. The Habitat and
Living Resources chapter includes some anecdotal information regarding the adverse impact
of personal water craft (on marshes and other otherwise generally inaccessible habitats),
though the PEP is not making recommendations to curtail their use in the estuary at this time,
the issue of personal water craft use is being reviewed under authorities beyond the Peconic
Estuary Program.
Underground Storage Tanks
Comments regarding underground storage tanks were to:
- Discuss Article 12 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code, which addresses toxic and
hazardous material storage (including underground storage tanks) in the CCMP;
- Describe the potential problem of home heating oil tanks and financial incentives to
replace older tanks;
- Include an action in the final CCMP regarding oil tanks, and that steel storage tanks
are
- not desirable, and
- Include information on evidence of petroleum leaking into the estuary from old
storage tanks.
The final CCMP now includes a discussion of Article 12 of the Suffolk County Sanitary
Code, which addresses toxic and hazardous material storage (including underground storage
tanks). The CCMP also includes a discussion of the potential problems associated with home
heating oil tanks not meeting code requirements for new installations in the Toxics Chapter.
This includes a discussion of the current county requirements regarding these tanks,
including the requirement that tanks be constructed of non-corrodible materials. Limited
information is also included on tank leaks. A step establishing a voluntary replacement
program of underground oil tanks is included in the Public Education and Outreach Chapter,
and financial incentives for replacement/removal are discussed in the Financing Chapter.
The Toxics Chapter includes a step to determine the adequacy of the voluntary program and
make a determination as to whether a regulatory program should be instituted watershed wide
or in particular areas.
"Superfund" Sites
• Comments regarding the former Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) site, also
APPENDIX L
L-29
Peconic Estuary Program CC.WP
known as the Grumman Calverton facility, were to: •
- Identify the NWIRP site as a toxic concern, and expand the discussion of this site due
to the existing contamination and potential to effect the Peconic River and Estuary;
- Clarify the status of this site with respect to Superfund's National Priorities List;
- Participate and provide input to the clean up effort, and participate in meetings of the
Navy's Restoration Advisory Board; and
- Describe the status of the facility's RCRA permit.
Other Superfund related comments addressed: the status of the Long Island Fisherman
Building (the former power generating plant by Baron's Cove); and the EPA decision that
"no further action is necessary"at the North Sea Landfill Superfund Site in light of the
continued presence of hazardous substances in Fish Cove.
The final CCMP includes an updated and expanded discussion of the former Naval Weapons
Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) site, due to its potential to contribute pollutant loadings to
the Peconic River and Estuary. However, this site is not presently on the Federal
government's National Priorities List under Superfund; clean-up and investigations are being
conducted under the corrective action program of the Federal Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). The PEP will continue to monitor actions at the NWIRP through its
member agencies (principally the USEPA,NYSDEC, and SCDHS) and participate in
oversight of the eventual cleanup of the site. At the present time there are no plans for the
PEP to participate directly except through its member agencies. The status of the facility's
RCRA permit is described in detail in the final COMP. The most recent RCRA permit for
this facility was issued on April 24, 2000 and will expire on April 30, 2010.
Specific information regarding the Long Island Fisherman Building(the former power
generating plant by Barron's Cove) in Sag Harbor has not been included in the final CCMP.
This site is not a federal Superfund site on the National Priorities list; the PEP will, however,
address any concerns regarding this site in the future. Regarding the North Sea Landfill, the
final CCMP contains updated information,now stating that EPA is requiring the Town of
Southampton to conduct additional benthic community and sediment toxicity testing, and that
based on the results of that sampling, the current Superfund remedy may be evaluated. This
is also reflected in the revised step addressing the North Sea Landfill site in the Toxic
Chapter.
MTBE
Comments regarding the gasoline additive MTBE were to: ban MTBE from gasoline,
immediately; seek alternatives to MTBE remediation; and notify residents in the event of an
MTBE spill.
The final CCMP now discusses MTBE in detail, including actions underway to reduce or
eliminate its use; this information is also reflected in a step supporting regulatory actions to
reduce/eliminate the use of MTBE in gasoline. The final CCMP does not specifically
address the issues of alternatives to MTBE remediation or notifications of residents in the •
APPENDIX L
L-30
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP e�
• event of an MTBE spill; the PEP believes these issues are adequately addressed though
ongoing and existing programs, though the PEP may become involved in this in the future.
Boating
Comments regarding boating included the need to address the issue of boat bottom paint, as
any area where boats were traditionally stored and maintained is likely to have soil
contamination.
The final CCMP includes a discussion of the issue of boat bottom paint, and a step to identify
past and present boatyards as potential sources of heavy metal contamination to the estuary.
There was also a comment regarding the use of gasoline motors on Peconic Lake (also called
Forge Pond), concerns regarding parking in the area, and enforcement of local laws regarding
gasoline engine use on the lake. The Peconic Estuary Program is not aware of any state or
local laws in effect prohibiting the use of gasoline engines on this waterbody. Neither the
Program nor the CCMP is recommending any restrictions on gasoline engine use at this
location at this time
Monitoring and Testing
Comments regarding monitoring included suggestions to: Describe current and recent
sampling efforts,
- Test fish in the Peconic River for bioaccumulation of organochlorine substances, as
well as test fish bones in addition to fish muscle when analyzing freshwater and
saltwater fish;
- Test Peconic Estuary sediments for toxics and radionuclides, especially near the
Riverhead Sewage treatment Plant outfall;
- Study pollution from the aviation industry;
- Study-toxics that might be coming into the estuary from the shellfish depuration
program;
- Study the effects of pollutants, even trace doses, on larval stages of aquatic life; and
- Look into the high rates of breast cancer on Long Island.
The final CCMP includes an expanded discussion of current and recent sampling efforts for
toxic contaminants. As discussed under the heading "Radionuclides/Brookhaven National
Laboratory ' in this response document, once the results of EPA's 1999 fish sampling
analysis have been evaluated, additional sampling may be conducted, potentially including
fish bones and sediments. The 1999 EPA fin and shellfish sampling for the PEP was of
marine and estuarine species rather than freshwater species. As described in the CCMP,
analyses are being performed for a full suite of chemical and radiological parameters. Finfish
and shellfish sampled by EPA in 1999 will be analyzed for radionuclides,though analysis
will be on what the NYSDOH considers the edible portion, which does not include the whole
fish or fish bones. Freshwater fish were sampled and analyzed for a full suite of chemical
and radiological parameters as part of the remedial investigation under Superfund for
• Operable Unit V at Brookhaven National Laboratory. As indicated in the final CCMP, EPA
APPENDIX L
L-31
Peconic Estuary Program C01P
has committed to ongoing support in the form of sediment sampling, testing and analysis for •
chemical specific analyses as well as overall toxicity. The 2001 sampling effort will likely
include analyses for radiological parameters for a subset of the samples collected as part of an
initial characterization; candidate sampling locations for 2001 included the area around the
Riverhead sewage treatment plant outfall in the tidal Peconic River.
Potential pollution from aviation industry sites is not currently described in the CCMP,
however the PEP will keep this sector in mind under various steps contained in the CCMP,
including those addressing RCRA inspections, environmental sampling and the development
of pollution prevention strategies for particular areas or industry sectors. Any new or
emerging concerns can also be identified through key regulatory agencies participating in the
PEP management conference. The PEP does not believe that toxics that might be coming
into the estuary from shellfish depuration program are a significant concern at this time and
no specific steps addressing this potential source have been included in the CCMP.
Studying the effects of pollutants, even trace doses, on larval stages of aquatic life has been
identified as a concern and this has been addressed in the Habitat and Living Resources
Chapter of the Plan; there is a specific step calling for research of lethal, sub-lethal and
synergistic effects of toxic contaminants. The CCMP does not specifically address the issue
of breast cancer or breast cancer rates. The PEP, through its member agencies, will continue
to participate efforts to investigate breast and other cancers, and will take appropriate action •
based on findings. The CCMP does include numerous steps which can serve to reduce
loadings of toxic substances and support clean-ups of contaminated areas.
Toxics: Miscellaneous Sources
Comments regarding other sources included:
Toxics in paving materials are a concern; alternatives to current materials should be
sought;
Resources should be provided for regular inspections of retail stores to enforce the
ban on the sale of illegal on-site disposal system products (deodorizers, drain
cleaners, and cesspool additives); and
The Plum Island sewage treatment plant should be included in the list of point source
discharges to the study area.
Though not recognized as a significant source of toxics, the PEP sees the potential for
impacts from paving materials and the CCMP includes steps to reduce the potential for toxic
loading from road construction and operation/maintenance. The CCMP also highlights
provisions of the Town of East Hampton's Harbor Protection Overlay District requiring
parking lots and driveways have unimproved surfaces or be constructed with certain specified
materials and recommending these measures be adopted in other parts of the study area. The
PEP would also entertain other or more specific management recommendations regarding
paving materials. The CCMP now includes a step recommending that there be regular
inspections of retail stores to enforce the ban on the sale of illegal on-site disposal system
products (deodorizers, drain cleaners, and cesspool additives). The CCMP has also been
revised to include the Plum Island sewage treatment plant in the list of point source
•
APPENDIX L
L-32
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP "
• c
discharges to the study area.
Placement of Long Island Sound Dredged Material
Comments regarding dredged material placement focused on the potential for dredged
material from the Long Island Sound to be placed in the Peconics, and the recommendation
that such placement should not occur, as well as the need for adequate testing of and stringent
criteria for the placement of dredged material.
The CCMP now describes how EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 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. 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. The PEP participants consider it unlikely a placement site will
be proposed within the PEP study area. The final CCMP includes a step calling for the PEP
to participate in the EPA/Corps efforts to identify potential placement sites for Long Island
sound dredged material. The final CCMP also continues to stress the need for critical
evaluation of applications and permits for dredging and dredged material placement.
Toxics: General Comments
Other comments regarding toxics included:
- Toxics were not adequately addressed in the draft CCMP;
- A request for a description of the standards that were used for the characterization of
toxic substances in the Peconic System;
- The section of the draft CCMP on risk based criteria should be rewTitten in a clearer
manner or taken out;
- Stop the introduction of toxics into the Peconic Estuary: and
- Controls on toxics should include education/outreach, bans in sensitive areas, and
taxes;
Overall, the Toxics Chapter has been greatly expanded, including the description of the
standards that were used for the characterization of toxic substances in the Peconic System.
A separate Characterization Report and expanded bibliography are also available. Additional
steps for reducing toxics are also included in the Public Education and Outreach Chapter of
the CCMP. The section of the draft CCMP on risk based criteria has been rewritten in a
clearer manner. The final CCMP includes many steps to eliminate or reduce the introduction
• of toxics into the Peconic sy stem, requiring efforts by government agencies, organizations,
APPENDIX L
L-33
J Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
businesses, and the public. Methods for implementing these steps include education and •
outreach efforts, regulatory means (including bans), and providing financial incentives
through tax programs and the use of selective sales fees.
Other Revisions
In addition to the changes described above, additional objectives have been specified in the
Toxics chapter, including: measuring the levels of toxics in the environment to discern trends
in environmental quality and to determine the effectiveness of management programs;
eliminating where possible, and minimizing where practicable,the introduction of toxic
substances to the environment, through regulatory and non-regulatory means; and where
toxic contamination has occurred, ensuring that clean-ups occur quickly, and according to the
most appropriate and stringent environmental standards. Improving the quality of drinking
water and sediments is also now included in the objectives. Measurable goals have also been
developed and included for the Toxics Chapter.
Further:
- Copper has been added as a"Toxic of Concern' in the Peconic Estuary System due
its presence in Peconic River sediments from historic discharges at BNL;
- Descriptions of previous pesticide "clean sweep" programs have been included;
- There is an expanded discussion of nonpoint sources of pollution, particularly for •
urban and suburban areas, and of the Town of East Hampton's Harbor Protection
Overlay District;
- There is new language regarded dredging and dredged material placement;
- The current memorandum of understanding between EPA and the Department of
Energy regarding the facility-wide environmental management systems at BNL is
described;
- A description of operations at the Plum Island Animal Disease Center is now
included.
- Groundwater quality criteria are discussed;
- Two recent studies discussing ambient water quality in the Peconic River and Estuary
are described; and
- EPA's recent sampling efforts of sediments and fin fish and shellfish tissues are
described.
Land Protection
Comments regarding establishing a focus in the final CCMP for land protection included:
that a land protection and development chapter should be created in the CCMP, and
that the CCMP should be clear in outlining its objectives for the amount of land that
should be protected throughout the basin;
that a separate land use/management chapter should be created;topics could include
Critical Natural Resource Areas, developmental trends, an analysis of current land use
•
APPENDIX L
L-34
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
and the build out potential; and
that a new chapter entitled "Critical Lands Protection Plan" should be created in the
COMP. The proposed chapter should include a land acquisition plan, zoning, land
use planning, environmental review, and a regulatory framework.
The final CCMP includes a separate chapter addressing the protection of critical lands. The
final Plan does not establish a numeric objective in acres for land to be preserved, but rather
describes a process for identifying and prioritizing land to be protected, and the steps
necessary to ensure that critical lands are protected. This chapter in the final CCMP also
discusses integration with the Critical Natural Resource Areas discussed in the Habitat and
Living Resources Chapter and other efforts/studies that have taken place under the Peconic
Estuary Program, including identification of current land uses, development trends and build
out potential, and the development of land management tools (other than outright
acquisition), including but not limited to zoning, land use planning, environmental review,
and regulatory processes.
Specific suggestions were made to:
- produce land use overlays for vacant, preserved, agriculture, wetland,residential,
suburban, and urban areas;
• - include in the CCMP an assessment of land use trends occurring in the region with
additional attention to the way in which such trends (i.e., developmental pressure and
nitrogen application) may be expected to impact water quality and public usage;
- Create a watershed management plan for the five East End towns;
- Produce a watershed management plan for the North Fork and Shelter Island. similar
to the South Fork's:
- Require, through the COMP, all the East End Towns to complete a Local Waterfront
Revitilization Plan (LWRP);
- Pay particular attention to shoreline development. Undeveloped shoreline should
have priority in open space acquisition programs;
- Place restrictions on heavy land uses near delicate waterways and curtail asphalt
paving near delicate waterways,
- Include a discussion of setbacks in the CCMP and have homeowners and officials in
government consider setbacks in site planning (zoning) because of sea level rise and
other factors; and
- Coordinate the findings and actions of the CCMP with SCPD reviews. particularly
with respect to zoning, building, and wetland matters on Shelter Island.
The land use overlays suggested by the commentor have been prepared. Unfortunately, it
was not possible to include them in the final CCMP. The program hopes to make this
information available in the public summary; it is available in various Peconic Estuary
Program Reports and in large map form in the Program Office. The Critical Lands Chapter
of the final CCMP and various supporting reports includes information on land use trends.
• This information together with the water quality/hydrodynamic model will be used to predict
APPENDIX L
L-35
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
how the estuary will react in response to various development and land use scenarios. The •
final CCMP is a form of watershed management plan for the five East End towns, however it
is possible and desirable for specific watershed plans on a smaller scale to be developed and
the program would support any such effort. The development and implementation of
subwatershed plans for embayments, tidal creeks and other waterbodies is included as an
action in the Post-CCMP Management Chapter of the final CCMP. The south fork watershed
management plan primarily addresses drinking water issues. The National Estuary Program
does not focus on drinking water issues,though many actions in the CCMP would likely be
compatible with drinking water source protection and management plans. The final CCMP
does not require towns to develop local waterfront revitalization plans, though the Peconic
Estuary Program encourages the development and implementation of such plans, and
recognizes the incentives that are available to do so. The CCMP recognizes the importance
of activities, particularly development, that take place on the shoreline. Many actions
throughout the final CCMP address shoreline protection concerns. The Town of East
Hampton's Harbor Protection Overlay District is presented as a model for managing
waterfront properties, including certain land uses and asphalt paving. Proximity to the
waterbodies is discussed in the final CCMP as a criterion in setting acquisition priorities.
The use of setbacks as a tool for protecting lands is discussed in both the Critical Lands
Protection and Habitat and Living Resources Chapters of the final CCMP to address sea level
rise and other factors. The Peconic Estuary Program, through the CCMP envisions the •
coordination of findings and actions with existing review processes, such as those of the
Suffolk County Planning Department, with respect to zoning, building, and wetland matters
on Shelter Island and throughout the watershed and study area.
More generally, there were comments that: land acquisition is important; open space needs to
be preserved; and also that the Peconic Estuary Program is treating the Peconic Watershed as
sacred land.
The Peconic Estuary Program agrees that land acquisition is an important tool in protecting
the estuary, and that open space needs to be preserved in order to support the environmental.
cultural, and economic features that make the estuary and its watershed significant. The basis
for this is provided in the final CCMP. The Program and the final CCMP recognizes that
humans are part of the estuary s}stem. The Program and CCMP also recognizes that
sustainable development in the watershed is both possible and necessary.
Public Education and Outreach
Comment: public education and outreach is important. The Internet web site should be used
to disseminate information, scientific findings should be publicized more often and there
should be a newsletter to communicate information about the Estuary Program.
Response:_These ideas were included in actions such as Establish and Promote an
APPENDIX L
L-;6
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
Information Resource Center (including a web site) and Convene an Annual State-of-the- z
Bays Conference. The Program Administration description in the Implementation Chapter
now also specifically includes the preparation and distribution of a periodic newsletter/status
report that will include information on scientific findings. It was also suggested that the
public be educated through media advertising. The CCMP recommends using a variety of
approaches and media for education and outreach campaigns, including print, radio and
television. (PEA, PE-6, PE-18, PE-10,PE-15)
Comment: Some of the actions in this chapter are written too broadly. Realistic, specific
education goals should be set that can be attained in designated time frames. Should the
purpose of public outreach be to cause or create support for the CCMP and its
recommendations?
Response: In the final CCMP, we have identified priority actions and have provided
additional specificity to actions that were too broad. The Management Conference also
believes that actions, once in the final plan and agreed to by the Management Conference
have been sufficiently subjected to review to be appropriate for public support. (PE-11, PE-
12,PE-13)
• Comment: Well-established and successful public environmental education programs exist
and should be expanded to include more estuarine-related subjects.
Response: The CCMP now recognizes the existence of such programs and includes and
action stating that such existing effective programs should continue. (PE-5)
Student Involvement
Comment: Students should be involved (monitoring, replanting, educating the public, etc.)
in carrying out the Plan.
Response:-Several actions in the draft and final Plan are aimed at the involvement of
students. These include d-POE-1.1, Continue/expand the Annual Peconic Children's
Conference, and d-POE-6.4, Continue/expand the PEP Youth Advisory Committee. In the
final CCMP, students and school groups are now also encouraged to participate in habitat
restoration projects. The final CCMP also has a new action in the Public Education and
Outreach Chapter regarding volunteer monitoring. The Accabonac Protection Committee
offered to provide a project leader to start water quality testing with local high school
students in the East Hampton area. The Final CCMP identifies the Accabonac Protection
Committee as a responsible entity in this new action. (PE-9, PE-16)
Fertilizers
Comment: Create an aggressive consumer-based education campaign for reducing fertilizer
use.
APPENDIX L
L-37
Peconic Estuary Program CC,WP
z
r
r
Response: While Action N-5.3 in the nutrient chapter of the draft CCMP addressed the need •
to improve the quality of groundwater with respect to nitrogen to prevent increases and
encourage decreases due to domestic fertilizer use, a specific public education and outreach
action addressing residential fertilizer use reduction was not in the draft CCMP. The Public
Education and Outreach Chapter in the final CCMP now includes such an action.-(PE-2, PE-
17b)
Waterfowl
Comment: The education program identified in the draft CCMP discouraging feeding of
waterfowl should also identify the problem of feeding gulls, and that scraps of bread left for
gulls also attract crows. Gulls and crows are predators of endangered colonial nesting birds.
Response: Two actions in the Public Education and Outreach Chapter now specifically
address this issue, the action regarding the feeding of waterfowl and the education program
for terns and plovers now more generally address the more general problem of feeding
wildlife. (PE-7)
Toxics Management
Comment: Make launching an aggressive consumer based pesticide use reduction campaign
a priority.
Response: While several actions in the draft plan were intended to include education and
outreach activities to eliminate or reduce pesticide use, a specific public education and
outreach action addressing residential pesticide use reduction was not in the draft CCMP.
The Public Education and Outreach Chapter in the final CCMP now includes such an action.
Comment: The program should identify environmentally safe products (soap, food, and
pesticides) on the market today.
Response: The CCMP now reflects the need to identify such products in various education
and outreach efforts, such as the Ultimate Users Guide and other pollution prevention
materials. (PE-17a, PE-4)
Comment: Information regarding finfish, shellfish and wildlife consumption advisories
should be in both Spanish and Greek.
Response: The CCMP now identifies these two target non-English speaking groups as well as
the need to identify other potential audiences. (PE-8)
Comment: Better inform the public of the serious an irreparable damage that occurs when
people are exposed to even low level radiation from the ingestion of food and water
contaminated with radionuclides.
Response: The final CCMP also includes a commitment to discuss the issue of radioactivity •
APPENDIX L
L-38
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
c`!t
• in any materials specifically developed for the Peconic Estuary Program regarding fish and
water consumption. (PE-14)
Pollution Prevention
Comment: The North Fork Environmental Council stated it would be launching an education
campaign called "Go Organic 2000".
Response: This type of effort was envisioned by the action in the CCMP regarding pollution
prevention education and outreach activities. (PE-3)
The CCMP now includes a description of the public participation process that was followed
for soliciting input on the draft CCMP, a well as the Public Participation Strategy to be
employed during the implementation of the CCMP. New actions have been added as
follows: recommending the continuation of existing effective environmental education efforts
(other than those carried out by the PEP); developing and implementing comprehensive
education programs to reduce residential fertilizer and pesticide use in the watershed;
encouraging conversions to cleaner burning marine engines; encouraging alternatives to
treated lumber and shoreline hardening structures; encouraging voluntary replacement of
underground oil storage tanks exempt from current replacement requirements: promoting the
establishment of local watershed associations; and recommending the establishment of
citizens monitoring programs.
Financing
Comments regarding financing addressed the need to provide funding for public education
projects, especially pesticide reduction efforts; the need for Federal agencies to provide
funding, including NOAA; and the need to fund: projects researching the impacts of treated
lumber, the monitoring and research of habitats, and a dredging summit. The final CCMP
describes the need to fund a variety of actions, including public education and outreach,
obtaining funding from all sources, including the Federal government, and to address the
specific issues mentioned.
One commentor suggested that Brown Tide research funding be re-directed to address toxic
management issues. Because the Brown Tide funding has been appropriated at the Federal
level for the purpose of addressing the Brown Tide issue, this is not possible. The CCMP
does recognize the need to address toxic issues and identifies many actions of numerous toxic
management actions. Another commentor suggested using available funding for small scale
wetland restoration projects rather than more studies. The CCMP includes many actions,
including those involving research, monitoring and implementation, of varying scales.
addressing both preservation and restoration.
• The need for funding for land acquisition was also noted. including the Federal government
APPENDIX L
L-39
.40 '@ Peconic Estuary Program MVP
F�
as a source. The discussion of land protection and funding for land protection has been •
expanded in the Financing Chapter and the new Critical Lands Protection Chapter.
Establishing a citizen's budget oversight committee was recommended as was citizens
allocating funding rather than governmental entities. Citizens presently provide input to the
allocation of funding through the participation of the chair of the Citizens Advisory
Committee on the Management Committee. This process will continue in the
implementation phase, where both governmental and non-governmental entities can provide
input in the budgetary process. One commentor stated that $15 million seemed inadequate
for stormwater abatement projects. While a final figure has not yet been determined, the PEP
CAC has suggested a figure of$50 million is a better estimate of stormwater management
needs.
One commentor questioned the source of funding for a particular action. In general, where
funding for a particular action has been secured, it has been noted in the plan. The funding
needs for most recommended actions has estimated but has not yet been secured; in these
cases a particular source for the funding is not identified. Tax credits were suggested to help
homeowners and businesses make improvements to help improve the region's environment.
The CCMP now includes a revised discussion of tax credits and similar incentives. Two
commentaries identified the need to better specify the funding necessary to carry out each
action and step in the plan. Nearly all actions and steps in the Plan now includes a cost •
estimate (expressed in work years or in direct dollar figures.
The Financing Chapter has also been revised to recognize the recently enacted Suffolk
County 1/4% sales tax program that will provide funding for CCMP implementation and
County and local programs for land protection and acquisition. The CCMP now includes an
action recommending a selective sales tax be established (on products such as fertilizers and
pesticides)to fund environmental management programs. The CCMP also recommends that
SRF funding be made available to private entities, and that 0% loans be available for land
acquisition.
Post-CCMP Management
One commentor suggested the PEP should have a citizens advisory committee with a budget.
The final Plan describes a post-CCMP committee structure that includes a citizens advisory
committee. The Management Conference intends to continue to fund CAC activities,
consistent with available resources.
Several comments addressed the issue of post-CCMP management structure, suggesting the
regional management alternative be considered, that the existing structure be legislatively
created, and that the selected structure foster systemwide collaboration and accountability.
While one commentor suggested a protected land-type structure, another questioned the
advantage to the North Fork of incorporating the Peconic Estuary Program into the Pine
•
APPENDIX L
L-40
Peconic Estuary Program COMP
• Barrens Maritime Reserve Commission as the North Fork does not have pine barrens. The z
PEP Management Conference considered all these issues and will be continuing the existing
management structure. This decision will be revisited during biennial reviews and changed if
an alternative structure is determined to be appropriate.
Other comments asked about the final form of the CCMP and how public input in the draft
would be shared. The final plan follows a similar format as the draft plan though additional
detail has been added. This document is being prepared to respond to public comments.
This chapter now includes a revised discussion of the PEP Environmental Monitoring Plan
and Living Resources Research Plan. The current management structure will be continued
during the implementation phase; this decision will be revisited during biennial reviews or as
necessary. The chapter also describes the necessary coordination with the Federal
Endangered Species Act and national and state historic preservation efforts.
General Comments
Many general comments were submitted on the draft CCMP. These included comments that
• the draft CCMP was "great" and "something is actually being done." One commentor
expressed gratitude for the coherent presentation on the plan, and another stated that it was
satisfying to see how much progress the program had made. The draft Plan was not without
its detractors, however, with comments that the recommendations of the draft Plan were
impractical to implement and without revision the plan could easily delay protection of the
estuary because of legal battles and a lack of cooperation among stakeholders. One
commentor found the draft CCMP too vague and noncommittal.
The Peconic Estuary Program management conference participants were pleased with draft
CCMP document. Both the draft and final CCMPs document that a great deal of work has
been accomplished, in terms of studying the estuary and its problems and threats and also
taking steps to preserve,protect and enhance the estuary and watershed. In preparing the
final CCMP, the PEP has attempted to develop specific and practical actions that are
implementable, and in particular working with the responsible entities to garner support and
commitments so that actions will be carried out. The Peconic Estuay Program expects to
move ahead with implementing the CCMP, working cooperatively with all responsible
entities and stakeholders. The PEP also recognizes that some mid-course corrections may be
necessary during the implementation phase.
Commentors suggested: that the plan needs to be implemented quickly and that there wasn't
time to waste, as the bays were being degraded; and that a common sense approach was
needed, and that we shouldn't be putting things in the bay that don't belong there. It was also
suggested that the CCMP needs to emphasize that protection of the Peconic Estuary in its
• high quality state is a better option (economically, ecologically, philosophically, etc.)than
allowing it to degrade and then cleaning it up. One commentor observed that pollution is the
APPENDIX L
L-41
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
F
biggest problem in the estuary; another,that finfish and shellfish need to be restored to the •
bay, and another, how flushing is important to the estuary. Environmental awareness was
identified as being very important by one commentor; another stated that adequate financing
and education would be cornerstones for enabling the program to succeed, and yet another,
that public education and outreach should be worked on right away and that the Citizens
Advisory Committee perspective is important.
The PEP and the final CCMP recognizes that the plan needs to be implemented quickly. In
fact, many of the actions are ongoing, meaning that implementation is already taking place to
some degree. A common sense approach was taken in crafting many of the actions, which
included seeking stakeholder input, and using that information in formulating actions. The
CCMP relies heavily on a pollution prevention approach, trying to prevent problems from
occurring and maintaining high quality environments where they exist and restoring those
that have been degraded. The final Plan recognizes that water quality, habitats, and living
resources are inextricably linked and that human impacts ("pollution") are the greatest
problem affecting and threatening the estuary system. The importance of the tidal flushing of
the bay is recognized in the Nutrient and Habitat and Living Resources Chapters of the final
Plan, in particular, but flushing should not be used as an alternative to reasonable treatment
and management of pollutant sources. An effective public education and outreach program is
clearly an important part of the plan, and awareness and action by residents, workers and •
visitors to the estuary is necessary for the success of the program. The Citizens Advisory
Committee will continue to play an important role in the implementation phase.
It was suggested that an overall summary should be provided, tying together conclusions and
recommendations with respect to water quality issues from all of the chapters so the reader
can see the emergence of a coherent theory. It was also noted that some of the graphics were
unreadable and many were unlabeled or did not include a key. One commentor provided
numerous stylistic recommendations to improve the message that was being conveyed.
The introduction chapter of the Plan has been revised and expanded to provide a better
overall summary of the Plan. A separate Public Summary Document will be prepared.
Graphics in the Plan have been improved, including readability, labeling, and keys. The
overall document was also edited and many stylistic improvements were made throughout
the Plan.
One commentor questioned why the draft CCMP stated that expenditures should be split
50150 between remediation and preservation, as preservation costs are often significantly
lower than remediation costs (a significant exception being the purchase of lands or
development rights).
The concept that both remediation and preservation initiatives are equally important is
introduced in the Nitrogen Chapter, but applies throughout the plan. If restoring degraded
resources always takes precedence over preventing problems or conversely, if only
preservation efforts are pursued without regard for correcting existing problems, the Plan will •
APPENDIX L
L-42
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP n �
• not be successful. Clearly. both restoration and protection actions need to be taken in the r
estuary and its watershed. The presumption is to attempt to split expenditures 50150 between
remediation and protection, recognizing that eligibility requirements of certain programs may
limit activities to one or the other.
Other commentors noted that there needs to be more local government activity in the
implementation efforts of the Plan and that CCMP implementation should be made a
standing agenda item for the East End Supervisors and Mayors Association meetings.
Another commenter noted that it seemed that there were instances where the Towns of
Riverhead and Brookhaven need to be included or listed as responsible entities under the
management actions, particularly if the Peconic River and its watershed are truly part of the
Plan. The important role and responsibility that shoreline property owners have in carrying
out the Plan was noted. It was suggested that two committees be created: an Environmental
Oversight Committee, comprised of the various concerned environmental organizations, and
a Financial Oversight Committee, to examine how public money is spent. One commentor
asked about the total list of stakeholders, another suggested that a more diverse group of
people should be on the CAC.
The Peconic Estuary Program recognizes the critically important role of local governments in
• implementing the Plan. The Program has periodically participated in End Supervisors and
Mayors Association meetings and expects that this will continue in the future. A key part of
the CCMP implementation phase will be involving, engaging, and supporting local
government in their role in the CCMP process. The Towns of Riverhead and Brookhaven are
important stakeholders, particularly in actions affecting the Peconic River and its watershed.
The final Plan better reflects their role. There are numerous sections and actions in the final
Plan that note the important role and responsibility that shoreline property owners have
carrying out the Plan, for example, in the Plan's strong support for the establishment of
Harbor Protection Overlay Districts based on the Town of East Hampton's model. The final
Plan does not recommend the establishment of an Environmental Oversight Committee,but
rather supports the continuance of the existing structure which includes a Citizens Advisory
Committee and Technical Advisory Committee, both of which include representatives from
various concerned environmental organizations. The final Plan does not recommend the
establishment of a Financial Oversight Committee, both rather continues to rely on the
existing Policy and Management Committees to ensure public funding is spent wisely and
consistent with applicable laws, regulations and guidelines, with input from the three
advisoy committees. The final CCMP includes a corrected list of stakeholders as an
appendix, including the membership of the Citizens Advisory Committee_ The Citizens
Advisory Committee remains interested in the participation of new members: interested
individuals can get involved by contacting the committee chair or the Program Office.
The need to prioritize the actions, including prioritization by the agencies responsible for
their further development and implementation was noted. It was also suggested that a
timetable and budgetary analysis be created for the planning and implementation of each
action.
APPENDIX L
L-A3
,4 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
F
The Final Plan includes a total of 79 priority actions. Tracking progress in carrying out these
priority actions is an important part of the implementation process, along with making
recommendations to the agencies responsible for carrying out those actions. The action plans
and tables of the final Plan includes information on timetables for each actions as well as
resource needs (both staff and funding) for carrying out each action. A complete accounting
of progress in implementing the Plan will occur every three years consistent with EPA
National Estuary Program guidance.
Concerns with enforcement and staffing were also expressed, including comments regarding:
how enforcement was incorporated into the plan, as enforcement can be a problem in
environmental initiatives; the shortage of staff in enforcing current laws and who and how
actions will be enforced; the general need for additional staff to implement the CCMP; and
how the CCMP proposes little in the way of new legislation to help with implementation and
enforcement mechanisms, without which too little of the CCMP goals and objectives will be
accomplished.
The Peconic Estuary Program sees the importance of enforcement and staffing. The final
CCMP provides better estimates of these resource needs for each action, both in terms
continuing existing staffing levels as well as increasing staffing and enforcement resources as •
needed. The naming of responsible entities for each action was reviewed and updated in the
final Plan. Many actions in the final CCMP rely on existing authorities, but where new
authorities are needed,this is explicitly stated. In other instances, further study may be
required before new or expanded authorities are called for to assist with implementation and
enforcement.
Comments regarding goal setting included the comment that deadlines should be added to the
establishment of goals. Another commentor noted that the goals, objectives and actions all
be reviewed with an eye on coordination and more appropriate expression. Other comments
suggested that the goals and benchmarks for measuring success be clearly identified
throughout the CCMP. One commentor suggested that goals be based on optimal conditions
for the Peconic Estuary and not to other polluted areas outside of the study area.
The final CCMP now includes measurable goals in each chapter. All goals, objectives and
actions in the draft Plan were reviewed and improvements were made that are incorporated
into the final Plan. The Environmental Monitoring Plan reflects monitoring efforts necessary
to assess progress in achieving the Plan's measurable goals. The measurable goals for each
chapter were developed based on the objectives included in each chapter, which were
specifically developed for the Peconic Estuary and its watershed.
One commentor noted that bad journalism should be exposed and that the program should set
the record straight, when needed, via editorials, and that bad press can be detrimental to the
whole program.
•
APPENDIX L
L-44
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
F
• The Peconic Estuary Program, including the Citizens Advisory Committee and Public
Education and Outreach Coordinator strive to keep in touch with and be accessible to the
local media, as described in the final CCMP. They will provide input when requested and
will seek to provide corrected information as needed.
One commentor stated that a baseline for the estuary must be established before any water
quality measures are taken; another that trends that exist regarding improvements in water
quality should be examined, and further that a characterization of positive trends and negative
trends would properly orient the reader to the state of the bays. It was also recommended
that there should be a systematic survey of the PEP bathymetry by the USCOE's helicopter
LIDAR system as well as intensive interviews with long-term local residents. A
hyperspectral imaging spectrometer was also suggested as a potentially useful tool for
ecosystem management in the Peconics.
The information collected and assembled for the characterization elements of the CCMP
serves as the baseline condition for water quality,habitats, and living resources in the system.
Some of these data sets are substantial, other provide some basic but useful information.
Information on trends will be presented and shared with the public on a regular basis as
described in the Post-CCMP:Management Chapter of the final CCMP. Additional work
• regarding the estuary's bathymetry is planned in 2001 through a cooperative effort between
the Peconic Estuary Program and The Nature Conservancy, with the Marine Sciences
Research Center at the State University at Stony Brook. Additional data gathering using
remote sensing data is planned in the future, for efforts including land cover and determining
eelgrass coverages, for example. The Peconic Estuary Program has in the past and will
continue in the future to use information from user groups to fill data gaps and improve
technical studies.
One commentor was concerned that the County proposition regarding the quarter percent
sales tax, had not been well publicized. Other comments of a general technical nature
included the observations that
Water use overlays should be provided for fishing, dragging, shellfish, sailing, high
speed boating, aquaculture, mooring, major harbor, and minor harbor areas; and
There should be septic and point source outfalls and municipal treatment discharge
overlays.
The County proposition regarding the extension of the quarter percent sales tax (a portion of
the proceeds will be targeted towards the Peconic Estuary) has since passed. A discussion of
this revenue source is discussed in the Financing Chapter of the final CCMP. The Peconic
Estuary Program has impressive geographic information system (GIS) data layer coverages
of the estuary and watershed. The Program hopes to expand the list of existing data layer
coverages in the future to include many of the ones suggested by the commentor, to assist in
studying and managing the estuary and communicating with the public. Data layer coverages
are discussed throughout the final CCMP and in the Post-CCMP Chapter and in the
• Environmental Monitoring Plan.
APPENDIX L
L-45
4' Peconic Estuary Program C6NP
F s
•
While not comments on the draft Plan itself, the Audubon Society expressed interest in any
estimates of the economic impact of bird and wildlife viewing. Another commentor
expressed appreciation for receiving copies of some graphs that would be used in an
elementary school classroom setting.
The Audubon Society and other groups, including teachers, are welcome to the wealth of
information that has been gathered by and through the Estuary Program. A list of references
is available in the Final CCMP, as is a list of Peconic Estuary Program Library Reports.
•
•
APPENDIX L
L-46
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP elan,
� 4
• c .
III. Correspondence Sent During the Public Comment Period
Government and Universities
D. Brown, USEPA, January 3, 2000. letter
J. Heisler, USEPA, December 10, 1999, letter
S. Hammond, NYSDEC,November 12, 1999, letter
R. Draper,NYSDEC,November 22, 1999, letter
V. Palmer,NYSDEC,November 16, 1999, letter
C. LaPorta,NYSDEC,November 19, 1999, letter
D. Barnes,NYSDEC,November 18, 1999, letter
J. Pavacic,NYSDEC,November 12, 1999, letter
J. Turner,NYS Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs of New York State
and Long Island, December 8, 1999, letter
F. Thiele, State of NY Assembly, December 13, 1999, letter
D. Kost,NYSDOT,November 2, 1999, letter
C. McCaffrey,DOS, August 9, 1999, letter
J. Pim, SCDHS, October 20, 1999, letter
E. Cademartori, Town of Brookhaven, November 16, 1999, letter
J. Weiss, Rutgers University, letter
• Public Interest Groups/Organizations
B. Smith, FISH Unlimited, August 9, 1999, e-mail; October 1, 1999, e-mail;
October 18, 1999, letter; October 22, 1999, letter
S. Cullen, STAR Foundation, October 20, 1999, letter
J. Penny, South Fork Groundwater Task Force,November 17,1999, letter
R. Schiano, South Fork Groundwater Task Force,November 15, 1999, letter
N. Kelley_P. Rabinovitch, The Nature Conservancy,November 10. 1999, letter
R. DeLuca. Group for the South Fork,November 17, 1999, letter
K. McAllister, Peconic Baykeeper, November 12, 1999, letter;
Suffolk Life Newspaper December 1, 1999, article
J. Evans-Brumm, Friends of Long Island Sound,November 15, 1999, letter
B. Prentice. North Fork Audubon Society. October 26, 1999, letter
Accabonac Protection Committee,November 4, 1999, letter
G. Rivara. Cornell Cooperative Extension,November 15, 1999, letter
Commercial
D. Bavaro_ Shellfish Construction and Culture Co., November 15, 1999, letter
J. Pillus. Aqua Culture Technologies,November 15, 1999, letter
K. Rivara. Acros Cultured Oyster Co.,November 15, 1999, comment form
R. Mendelman, Harbor Marina, August 10, 1999, letter
Citizens
R. Tollefsen, The Southampton Press, November 11, 1999, article; November 7,1999, letter
• B. McAlevy, letter
APPENDIX L
L-47
Peconic Estuary Program CCMP
L_*
A. Jones, October 16, 1999, December 2, 1999, letter •
T. Sullivan, August 9, 1999, e-mail;November 12, 1999, e-mail;
November 21, 1999, e-mail
R. Smith,November 16, 1999, comment form
P. Stoutenburgh, letter
J. Murphy, letter
S. Johnson, November 16, 1999, letter
C. Garvey, December 1, 1999, letter
J. Seeman, October 26, 1999, letter
J. Kelly,November 5, 1999, letter
B. Hajek, October 24, 1999, letter
D. Heckman, comment form
S. Donovan, October 13, 1999, letter
J. Hellerbach, comment form
W. Freese, October 8, 1999, letter
P. Dickerson, comment form
D. Berson, comment form
C. Schubert, August 3, 1999, e-mail
M. Rewinski,November 3, 1999, e-mail:November 11, 1999, comment form;
November 19, 1999, e-mail
M. Sanford, December 8, 1999, letter •
T. Rozakis, October 13, 1999, letter
C. Black,November 15, 1999, letter
J. Edler,November 3, 1999, letter
F. Conant,November 12, 1999, letter
L. Tuthill,November 12, 1999, letter
•
APPENDIX L
L-48