Peconic
Estuary
Program
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
O
N
E
1­
1
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
ONE
OVERVIEW
PLEDGE
FOR
THE
PECONIC
ESTUARY
We
find
and
declare
that
The
Peconic
Estuary
is
an
important
natural
resource
that
provides
incomparable
beauty
and
significant
recreational
and
commercial
benefits;

The
Peconic
Estuary's
living
resources,
water
quality,
and
aesthetic
character
have
suffered
from
development
and
other
human
uses;
and
Restoration
and
protection
of
the
Peconic
Estuary's
environmental
quality
require
focused
management
by
a
partnership
of
Federal,
State,
and
local
governments,
affected
industries,
academia,
and
the
public.

We
therefore
pledge
to
restore
and
protect
the
environmental
quality
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
through
the
preparation
and
implementation
of
the
Comprehensive
Conservation
and
Management
Plan.

 
Peconic
Estuary
Management
Conference
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
O
N
E
1­
2
GOALS
>
Ensure
a
healthy
and
diverse
marine
community;
optimizing
opportunities
for
water
dependent
recreation.

>
Promote
the
social
and
economic
benefits,
which
have
been
associated
with
the
Peconic
Estuary
System.

>
Establish
a
comprehensive
water
quality
policy,
which
ensures
the
integrity
of
marine
resources,
habitat,
and
terrestrial
ecosystems
while
supporting
human
activities
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
study
area.

>
Ensure
an
effective
technical,
regulatory,
and
administrative
framework
for
the
continued
monitoring
and
management
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
study
area.

>
Achieve
zero
discharge
(
from
point
and
nonpoint
sources)
of
toxic
pollutants,
and
particularly
of
bioaccumulative
chemicals.

>
Promote
an
understanding
and,
thus,
appreciation
of
the
value
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
as
an
ecosystem
and
as
a
mainstay
to
the
East
End
economy
so
that
it
is
preserved
and
restored
as
one
of
the
last
great
places
in
the
Western
Hemisphere.

>
Involve
the
many
and
diverse
stakeholders
in
the
Peconic
Watershed
regarding
the
implementation
of
the
CCMP
and
in
the
future
direction
and
decisions
affecting
the
estuary.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
O
N
E
1­
3
INTRODUCTION
The
Peconic
Estuary,
situated
between
the
North
and
South
Forks
of
eastern
Long
Island,
New
York,
consists
of
more
than
100
distinct
bays,
harbors,
embayments,
and
tributaries
(
See
Figure
1­
1).
The
area
surrounding
the
Peconic
Estuary's
watershed
is
rich
in
rolling
farmland,
scenic
beaches
and
creeks,
lush
woodlands,
and
wetlands.

The
Peconic
Estuary
System
includes
the
Peconic
Estuary
and
those
land
areas
that
contribute
groundwater
and
stormwater
runoff
to
the
Peconic
River
and
Estuary.
The
estuary
system
features
numerous
rare
ecosystems
that
are
home
to
many
plant
and
animal
species,
including
several
nationally
and
locally
threatened
and
endangered
plants
and
animals.
The
Nature
Conservancy
has
designated
the
Peconic
Estuary
System
as
one
of
the
"
Last
Great
Places"
in
the
Western
Hemisphere.

Bountiful
living
resources
support
commercial
fin
and
shellfishing,
as
well
as
other
waterdependent
and
water­
related
activities.
Tourism
and
recreation
are
central
to
the
local
economy,
including
businesses
such
as
restaurants
and
marinas
that
cater
to
recreational
fishermen,
boaters,
bathers,
hunters,
and
nature
enthusiasts.
In
1993,
more
than
1,100
establishments
were
identified
as
"
estuarine
dependent"
and
gross
revenues
for
these
establishments
exceeded
$
450
million
per
year.
More
than
7,300
people
are
employed
in
these
businesses,
with
a
combined
annual
income
of
more
than
$
127
million.
1
The
numerous
ecological,
cultural,
and
economic
assets
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
System
are
enjoyed
by
both
residents
and
visitors.
The
East
End
towns
are
home
to
approximately
100,000
people.
During
the
summer
season,
this
number
swells
to
over
280,000.
These
year­
round
and
seasonal
populations
put
pressure
on
the
area's
natural
resources
and
impact
water
quality.
In
recent
years,
many
stakeholder
groups
have
expressed
concern
about
the
impacts
of
population
growth,
new
development,
and
natural
resource
exploitation
on
the
overall
health
of
the
system.
Some
of
the
earliest
concerns
were
raised
in
1985,
after
the
first
appearance
of
the
Brown
Tide.
The
devastating
impacts
of
this
algal
bloom
heightened
public
awareness
about
the
linkage
between
the
region's
ecology
and
economy.
The
Brown
Tide
also
served
to
mobilize
the
citizens
and
local
governments
of
eastern
Long
Island
in
an
effort
to
save
the
estuary
from
careless
exploitation
and
irreversible
degradation.

Historically,
impacts
from
population
growth
and
unchecked
development
have
not
been
as
severe
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
as
in
certain
other
regions
on
Long
Island.
However,
a
number
of
problems
have
emerged
in
recent
years,
in
addition
to
the
Brown
Tide,
which
suggest
that
the
estuary
is
at
a
crossroads.

1Estuarine­
dependent
establishments
include
businesses
such
as
commercial
fishing,
marine
transportation,
marinas,
boat
building
and
repair,
eating
and
drinking
establishments,
hotels
and
motels,
selected
retail
and
membership
sport
clubs,
and
other
enterprises
that
cater
in
whole
or
in
part
to
tourists
and
recreationists
during
the
peak
season.
What
is
an
Estuary?

An
estuary
is
a
semi­
enclosed
coastal
body
of
water
that
connects
to
the
open
sea.
It
is
a
transition
zone
where
saltwater
from
the
ocean
mixes
with
freshwater
from
rivers
and
land.
The
amount
of
freshwater
flowing
into
the
estuary
varies
from
season
to
season
and
from
year
to
year.
This
variation,
together
with
the
daily
rise
and
fall
of
the
tides
and
the
consequent
movement
of
saltwater
up
and
down
rivers,
creeks,
and
in
embayments
creates
a
unique
environment.
Estuaries
are
among
the
most
productive
of
the
earth's
systems.
More
than
80
percent
of
all
fish
and
shellfish
species
use
estuaries
as
a
primary
habitat
or
as
a
spawning
and
nursery
ground.
Estuaries
also
provide
feeding,
nesting,
breeding
and
nursery
areas
for
a
wide
variety
of
animals.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
O
N
E
1­
4
Figure
1­
1.
Study
Area
Boundaries.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
O
N
E
1­
5
These
problems
include
the
closure
of
shellfish
beds
due
to
pathogenic
organisms,
declines
in
finfish
abundance,
the
loss
and
fragmentation
of
habitats,
nutrient
over­
enrichment
resulting
in
low
dissolved
oxygen
(
DO)
levels
(
in
Flanders
Bay),
the
potential
for
low
levels
of
toxics
to
impact
the
system,
and
the
loss
of
open
space
and
farmland
to
residential
development.
There
is
a
growing
awareness
of
the
need
for
remedial
efforts
to
correct
existing
problems
as
well
as
proactive
efforts
to
prevent
further
degradation
of
the
system.

THE
PECONIC
ESTUARY
PROGRAM
The
National
Estuary
Program
(
NEP)
was
established
by
the
Federal
Water
Quality
Act
of
1987,
which
amended
the
Clean
Water
Act.
Congress
added
the
Peconic
Estuary
System
to
the
priority
list
of
estuaries
for
inclusion
in
the
NEP
in
October
1988.
In
1991,
the
Peconic
Estuary
was
nominated
for
inclusion
in
the
NEP.
This
nomination
represented
the
effort
and
desires
of
a
wide
variety
of
estuary
stakeholders,
including
citizen's
groups,
environmental
groups,
local
and
State
governments,
academic
institutions,
and
many
private
organizations.
The
Peconic
Estuary
was
accepted
into
the
ranks
of
the
NEP
in
September
1992,
and
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
(
PEP),
a
partnership
of
all
stakeholders,
including
Federal,
State,
and
local
interests
and
the
public,
officially
commenced
with
a
kick­
off
conference
in
April
1993.
This
Comprehensive
Conservation
and
Management
Plan
(
CCMP)
is
the
product
of
a
tremendous
amount
of
research
and
effort
by
resource
agency
staff
and
local
citizens
serving
on
the
various
task
forces
and
committees
known
collectively
as
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Management
Conference.
The
Management
Conference
structure
and
membership
are
shown
in
Appendices
B
and
C.
The
National
Estuary
Program
Congress
recognized
the
significance
of
preserving
and
enhancing
coastal
environments
with
the
establishment
of
the
National
Estuary
Program
(
NEP)
in
the
1987
amendments
to
the
Clean
Water
Act.
The
purpose
of
the
NEP
is
to
promote
the
development
of
comprehensive
management
plans
for
estuaries
of
national
significance
threatened
by
pollution,
development,
or
overuse.
There
are
currently
28
estuaries
in
the
program.

Peconic
Estuary
Program
Management
Conference
Objectives
 
To
protect
and
improve
the
Peconic
Estuary
system
water
quality
to
ensure
a
healthy
and
diverse
marine
community;

 
To
preserve
and
enhance
the
integrity
of
the
ecosystems
and
natural
resources
present
in
the
study
area
so
that:

­
Optimal
fish
and
wildlife
habitat
and
diversity
of
species
can
be
ensured;
and
­
Conservation
and
wise
management
of
consumable,
renewable
resources
of
the
estuary
are
promoted
and
enhanced;

 
To
optimize
opportunities
for
water
dependent
recreation;

 
To
promote
to
the
maximum
practicable
extent,
the
social
and
economic
benefits
that
have
been
associated
with
the
Peconic
Estuary
system;

 
To
minimize
health
risks
from
human
consumption
of
shellfish
and
finfish;
and
 
To
promote,
to
the
maximum
extent
possible,
public
awareness
and
involvement
in
estuarine
management
issues.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
O
N
E
1­
6
Geographic
Scope
of
the
Program
The
Peconic
Estuary
is
located
on
the
eastern
end
of
Long
Island,
New
York,
and
is
bordered
by
Long
Island's
north
and
south
forks.
The
major
river
discharging
freshwater
into
the
estuary
is
the
Peconic
River.
This
freshwater
mixes
with
the
salt
water
from
the
many
bays
in
the
estuary
system
leading
out
to
the
Atlantic
Ocean.
Figure
1­
1
depicts
the
boundaries
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
study
area.
The
eastern
end
of
the
study
area
is
an
imaginary
line
through
Block
Island
Sound
between
Plum
Island
and
Montauk
Point,
beyond
which
lies
the
open
sea.
The
western
boundary
is
at
the
headwaters
of
the
Peconic
River,
just
west
of
the
William
Floyd
Parkway.
The
study
area
also
includes
those
land
areas
that
contribute
groundwater
and
stormwater
runoff
to
the
river
and
estuary.

The
study
area
includes
the
following
municipalities:
all
of
the
Town
of
Shelter
Island;
significant
portions
of
the
Towns
of
Riverhead,
Southold,
East
Hampton
and
Southampton;
a
small
portion
of
the
town
of
Brookhaven;
and
all
or
portions
of
the
Villages
of
Greenport,
Deering
Harbor,
Sag
Harbor,
and
North
Haven.
More
than
128,000
acres
of
land
and
121,000
acres
of
surface
water
are
included.
Figure
1­
2
shows
the
percent
distribution
of
land
uses
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
Watershed.

Figure
1­
2.
Land
Uses
in
the
Peconic
Estuary.

PECONIC
ESTUARY
PRIORITY
MANAGEMENT
ISSUES
Priority
management
topics
were
initially
identified
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
nomination
document
for
inclusion
in
the
National
Estuary
Program.
These
topics
were
Brown
Tide,
nutrients,
habitats
and
living
resources,
pathogens,
and
toxics.
In
this
final
CCMP,
these
topics
are
joined
by
critical
lands
protection,
public
education
and
outreach,
financing,
and
overall
implementation.
These
priority
issues
have
been
selected,
both
initially
and
currently,
based
on
impacts,
threats,
and
importance
in
meeting
the
overall
goals
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program.
It
is
not
enough
to
only
address
known
or
existing
problems;
management
conference
participants
recognize
the
need
to
also
take
a
proactive
approach
and
prevent
problems
from
occurring
now
and
in
the
future.
Each
of
these
priority
management
topics
is
discussed
below.
Specific
actions
to
address
each
of
these
priority
management
topics
can
be
found
in
the
Management
Plan
chapters
of
this
CCMP.
40%
60%
 
Residential
 
Commercial
 
Industrial
 
Institutional
 
Agriculture
 
Recreation
 
Open
Space
 
Undeveloped
or
"
Vacant"
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
O
N
E
1­
7
The
PEP
has
developed
measurable
goals
for
each
chapter.
In
many
cases,
these
measurable
goals
are
first
order
estimates
based
on
best
available
information
and
on
management
conference
judgment.
These
goals
will
be
refined
in
each
annual
report
as
new
information
becomes
available.

Brown
Tide
The
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services
(
SCDHS)
has
routinely
monitored
the
water
quality
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
since
1977.
In
June
1985,
an
unusually
large
and
persistent
algal
bloom,
now
known
as
Brown
Tide,
was
first
noted
in
Peconics.
The
Brown
Tide
organism
is
identified
as
the
phytoplankton
species
Aureococcus
anophagefferens2
and
has
also
bloomed
in
Long
Island's
South
Shore
Estuaries,
as
well
as
in
Narragansett
Bay,
RI,
and
Barnegat
Bay,
NJ.

In
1988
Suffolk
County
expanded
its
monitoring
operations
in
an
effort
to
determine
the
cause
of
Brown
Tide.
Although
the
cause
of
Brown
Tide
is
still
not
known,
the
study's
resulting
final
report,
the
Brown
Tide
Comprehensive
Assessment
and
Management
Program
(
BTCAMP)
(
SCDHS,
1992),
was
the
primary
source
for
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program's
National
Estuary
Program
Nomination
Report
(
SCDHS,
1991).

The
BTCAMP
serves
as
the
initial
Brown
Tide
characterization
for
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program.
Brown
Tide
research
and
characterizations
are
routinely
reported
in
scientific
literature
and
are
systematically
updated
through
Sea
Grant's
Brown
Tide
Research
Initiative
Reports
and
SCDHS'
Brown
Tide
Workplan
(
last
updated
in
1998).

Since
its
first
appearance
in
1985,
the
Brown
Tide
has
had
a
serious
impact
on
natural
resources,
the
local
economy,
the
general
aesthetic
value
of
the
estuary,
and
possibly
regional
tourism.
The
abundant
Peconic
bay
scallop
population
was
virtually
eradicated
by
the
onset
of
this
bloom.
Eelgrass
beds,
which
contribute
to
the
regional
importance
of
the
estuary
as
a
shellfish
and
finfish
spawning
and
nursery
area,
have
been
adversely
impacted.
Hard
clams
appear
to
have
been
affected
by
the
blooms,
although
to
a
lesser
extent
than
scallops.
In
addition,
finfish
landings
may
have
declined
during
the
blooms.
The
Brown
Tide
turns
the
normally
blue
waters
of
the
bays
brown
 
a
situation
which
is
unappealing
(
although
not
harmful)
to
swimmers
and
tourists.

While
a
significant
amount
of
research
has
been
completed
and
additional
projects
are
still
underway,
the
chemical,
physical,
and/
or
biological
factors
that
cause,
sustain,
and
end
Brown
Tide
blooms
are
yet
to
be
determined.
Efforts
are
ongoing
to
determine
what
management
actions
can
be
undertaken
to
prevent
or,
if
that
is
not
possible,
mitigate
the
effects
of
the
recurrent
Brown
Tide
on
the
ecosystem
and
economy
of
the
estuary.

The
PEP's
measurable
goals
with
respect
to
Brown
Tide
blooms
include:

 
Continue
to
better
coordinate,
focus,
and
expand
Brown
Tide
research
efforts
(
measured
by
funding
appropriated,
frequency
of
Brown
Tide
symposiums
and
frequency
of
updating
the
Brown
Tide
Workplan
and
coordinations
within
the
Brown
Tide
Steering
Committee).
[
See
Action
B­
1]

2
Different
Brown
Tide
organisms
have
been
associated
with
algae
blooms
in
various
parts
of
the
country.
Throughout
this
CCMP,
the
term
"
Brown
Tide"
refers
specifically
to
the
phytoplankton
species
Aureococcus
anophagefferens,
which
has
been
identified
as
the
source
of
the
Brown
Tide
blooms
in
the
Peconic
Estuary.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
O
N
E
1­
8
 
Continue
the
current
level
of
water
quality
sampling
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
(
measured
by
the
number
and
frequency
of
samples
taken
per
year
and
the
number
of
bays
and
peripheral
embayments
sampled).
Currently,
the
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services
conducts
biweekly
monitoring
at
32
stations
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
throughout
the
year,
resulting
in
over
830
samples
taken
annually.
[
See
Action
B­
1]

Measurable
goals
for
the
Brown
Tide­
related
natural
resource
impacts
are
found
in
the
Habitat
and
Living
Resources
Chapter
(
Chapter
4).

Nutrient
Pollution
The
Long
Island
Comprehensive
Waste
Treatment
Management
Plan
("
L.
I.
208
Study";
Long
Island
Regional
Planning
Board,
1978)
and
the
BTCAMP
(
SCDHS,
1992)
identified
nutrients,
specifically
nitrogen,
as
a
priority
management
issue
facing
the
Peconic
Estuary.
More
recent
status
and
trends
information
in
the
Point
and
Nonpoint
Source
Nitrogen
Loading
Overview
(
SCDHS,
1998),
the
Surface
Water
Quality
Monitoring
Report
(
1976
 
1996)
(
SCDHS,
1998),
the
Peconic
Estuary
Surface
Water
Quality:
Nitrogen,
Dissolved
Oxygen,
and
Submerged
Aquatic
Vegetation
report
(
SCDHS,
1998),
and
the
Nitrogen
Loading
Budget
and
Trends
report
(
SCDHS,
1999)
emphasize
the
need
to
reduce
anthropogenic
(
human­
influenced)
nitrogen
loads
to
the
estuary.
These
reports
incorporate
the
results
of
many
other
technical
studies
dealing
with
groundwater
quality
and
quantity,
sediment
nutrient
flux,
etc.

Excessive
nutrient
loading
in
an
estuary
can
result
in
low
dissolved
oxygen
levels
in
the
water,
a
condition
that
can
be
harmful
to
marine
life.
Although
nitrogen
itself
is
generally
not
harmful,
too
much
nitrogen
can
lead
to
excessive
algal
blooms.
Algae
consume
oxygen
(
respire)
at
night,
potentially
depleting
dissolved
oxygen
levels
in
the
water
column.
Also,
when
algae
die,
they
can
settle
through
the
water
column
to
the
sediments,
where
the
organic
matter
is
decomposed
by
bacteria.
Bacterial
decomposition
uses
oxygen
("
sediment
oxygen
demand"),
as
well
as
releases
nitrogen
back
into
the
water
column
("
sediment
nutrient
flux").
Thus,
algal
blooms
can
lead
to
repeated
or
prolonged
periods
of
low
dissolved
oxygen,
particularly
in
poorly
flushed
embayments.
Algal
blooms
can
also
produce
a
shading
effect
in
the
water
that
can
impact
eelgrass.

Overall,
the
system
is
not
experiencing
widespread
low
levels
of
oxygen
related
to
excessive
nitrogen
loading.
However,
the
western
portion
of
the
system
(
Peconic
River
and
Flanders
Bay)
has
a
legacy
of
nutrient
over
enrichment
and
periodic,
short­
term
dissolved
oxygen
problems.
Although
there
are
larger
sources
of
nitrogen,
the
PEP
surface
water
computer
model
indicates
that
the
Riverhead
Sewage
Treatment
Plant
(
STP)
is
a
controllable
nitrogen
loading
sources
of
major
significance
in
the
Peconic
River/
Flanders
Bay
area.
The
importance
of
the
treatment
plant
nitrogen
loading
is
due
to
the
concentrated
nature
of
the
STP
discharge
at
a
location
near
the
mouth
of
the
Peconic
River,
a
poorly
flushed
area
of
the
estuary
system.

Historically,
duck
farming
along
the
shores
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
was
a
major
pollutant
source.
At
the
peak
of
the
industry
in
the
middle
of
the
twentieth
century,
there
were
21
duck
farms
in
the
Peconic
River
and
Flanders
Bay
area
discharging
large
quantities
of
animal
wastes
that
contained
nitrogen
into
the
system.
Presently,
there
is
only
one
duck
farm
remaining
in
operation
located
on
Meetinghouse
Creek,
which
discharges
to
the
north­
central
portion
of
Flanders
Bay.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
O
N
E
1­
9
Bottom
sediments
contribute
recycled
nutrients
to
the
water
that
originate
from
external
point
and
nonpoint
source
inputs.
The
release
of
nitrogen
from
the
sediments
represents
more
than
50
percent
of
the
estimated
total
nitrogen
load
to
the
system.

Groundwater,
accounting
for
more
than
21
percent
of
the
nitrogen
input,
is
the
largest
external,
locally
manageable
source
to
the
estuary.
It
combines
nitrogen
from
residential
and
agricultural
fertilizer,
on­
site
sewage
disposal
systems,
and
other
sources.

Atmospheric
deposition
to
surface
waters
represents
approximately
26
percent
of
the
nitrogen
load
to
the
system.
The
remaining
small
load
(
less
than
3
percent)
to
the
estuary
is
from
stormwater
runoff,
tributary
streams,
and
sewage
treatment
plants.
Although
these
sources
are
a
small
percentage
of
the
total
regional
loading,
they
may
have
localized
adverse
effects.

The
quantity
of
nitrogen
found
in
both
groundwater
and
surface
water
is
directly
related
to
land
uses
within
the
system.
Undoubtedly,
the
amount
of
open
space
found
throughout
the
study
area
has
spared
the
system
thus
far
from
significant
long­
term,
widespread
problems.
The
fact
that
much
of
this
open
space
is
available
for
development
heightens
the
need
for
enlightened
and
carefully
thoughtout
growth
management
plans.
This
is
especially
true
in
most
of
the
western
portion
of
the
system
(
the
Peconic
River
Corridor
and
Flanders
Bay
area)
and
around
embayments
poorly
flushed
by
cleaner
seawater.

The
PEP's
measurable
goals
with
respect
to
nutrients
include:

 
Decrease
the
total
nitrogen
concentrations
in
the
western
estuary
to
a
summer
mean
of
no
more
than
0.45
mg/
l
(
based
on
1994­
96
model
verification
conditions,
and
measured
by
surface
water
nitrogen
concentrations
as
compared
to
the
PEP
nitrogen
guidelines).
[
See
Actions
N­
4,
N­
5,
N­
10]

 
Improve
the
dissolved
oxygen
concentrations
in
the
western
estuary
to
ensure
that
the
New
York
State
dissolved
oxygen
standard
(
currently
5.0
mg/
l)
is
not
violated
(
measured
by
surface
and
bottom
dissolved
oxygen
levels
as
compared
to
the
New
York
State
dissolved
oxygen
standard).
[
See
Actions
N­
1,
N­
10]

 
Ensure
that
the
total
nitrogen
levels
in
shallow
waters
remain
at
or
below
0.4
mg/
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).
[
See
Actions
N­
1,
N­
4,
N­
5,
N­
10]

 
Ensure
that
the
existing
total
nitrogen
and
dissolved
oxygen
levels
are
maintained
or
improved
in
waters
east
of
Flanders
Bay
(
i.
e.,
do
not
increase
TN
nor
decrease
DO)
(
measured
by
surface
water
total
nitrogen
concentrations
as
compared
to
the
PEP
nitrogen
guidelines
and
surface
and
bottom
dissolved
oxygen
levels
as
compared
to
the
New
York
State
dissolved
oxygen
standard).
[
See
Actions
N­
1,
N­
2,
N­
4,
N­
5,
N­
10]

 
Develop
a
quantitative
total
nitrogen
load
allocation
strategy
for
the
entire
estuary
(
measured
by
development
of
a
strategy
and
timely
endorsement
by
local
and
State
agencies).
Preliminary
work
group
estimates,
and
work
performed
by
other
programs,
indicate
that
a
10­
25
percent
fertilizer
reduction
goal
is
a
reasonable
first
order
target
for
existing
residential
and
agricultural
fertilizing
programs.
[
See
Action
N­
3]
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
O
N
E
1­
10
 
Implement
a
quantitative
nitrogen
load
allocation
strategy
for
the
entire
estuary
(
measured
by
attaining
the
PEP
recommendations
including
the
implementation
of
the
recommended
Agricultural
Environmental
Management
(
AEM)
program,
as
well
as
other
recommendations,
which
may
include
fertilizer
reduction
programs,
sanitary
system
upgrade
programs,
point
source
controls,
etc.,
as
well
as
monitoring
for
the
impacts
on
measurable
groundwater
quality
parameters).
[
See
Actions
N­
3,
N­
4,
N­
5,
N­
10]

 
Ensure
that
there
is
no
substantial
net
increase
in
nitrogen
loading
to
areas
east
of
Flanders
Bay
and
reductions
in
the
Peconic
River/
Flanders
Bay
region
so
that
an
increase
in
new
development
would
be
offset
by
reductions
in
loads
from
pre­
existing
uses.
The
nitrogen
work
groups
will
develop
means
of
attaining
this
goal,
which
may
include
groundwater
performance
standards
(
e.
g.,
nitrogen
concentrations
in
groundwater
resulting
from
post­
development
discharge/
recharge),
implementing
fertilizer
and
clearing
restrictions,
and
zoning.
[
See
Actions
N­
3,
N­
4,
N­
5,
N­
6,
N­
10]

 
Continue
sponsoring
and
coordinating
research
and
information
gathering
(
measured
by
funding
appropriated,
and
research
conducted,
relative
to
PEP
recommendations).
[
See
Actions
N­
7,
N­
8,
N­
9]

 
Continue
and
expand
open
space
acquisition
programs
(
measured
by
funding
appropriated
and
acres
acquired
in
target
areas).
[
See
Action
N­
6]

Habitat
and
Living
Resources
The
eastern
end
of
Long
Island,
including
the
Peconic
Estuary,
contains
a
large
variety
of
natural
communities,
from
upland
pine
barrens
along
the
Peconic
River
to
soft­
bottom
benthos
in
the
main
bays.
There
is
a
larger
percentage
of
undisturbed
habitats
and
a
greater
diversity
of
natural
communities
within
this
watershed
than
anywhere
else
in
the
coastal
zone
of
New
York
State.
The
Peconic
Estuary
System
is
home
to
a
number
of
species
that
are
rare
or
endangered
globally,
nationally,
and
locally,
including
a
variety
of
plants,
birds,
insects,
amphibians,
reptiles,
and
fish.
In
addition
to
these
individual
species,
there
are
complete
habitats
in
the
region
that
are
found
nowhere
else
in
New
York
State
and
are
rare
even
on
the
east
coast
of
the
United
States,
such
as
pine
barrens
and
Atlantic
white
cedar
swamps.
Some
of
these
are
currently
in
danger
of
being
reduced
in
size
or
completely
lost.

The
Characterization
Report
of
the
Living
Resources
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
(
1998)
identified
the
living
resources
that
are
at
risk
and
determined
how
human
activities
have
or
could
alter
their
health.
Other
PEP
reports
characterizing
the
Peconic's
living
resources
include:

 
Tidal
Creeks
Study
(
1999)

 
Eelgrass
Habitat
Criteria
Study
(
1999)

 
Peconic
Estuary
Surface
Water
Quality
Nitrogen,
Dissolved
Oxygen,
and
Submerged
Aquatic
Vegetation
Habitat
(
1998)

 
Historic
Shellfishing
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
Based
on
Baymen's
Interviews;
1945
 
1985
(
1998)

 
The
Peconic
Watershed
 
Recent
Trends
in
Wetlands
and
Their
Buffers
(
1998)
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
O
N
E
1­
11
 
Species
Composition,
Seasonal
Occurrence
and
Relative
Abundance
of
Finfish
and
Macroinvertebrates
Taken
by
Small
 
Mesh
Otter
Trawl
in
Peconic
Bay,
New
York
(
1998)

 
An
Assessment
of
Shellfish
Resources
in
the
Tributaries
and
Embayments
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
(
1998)

 
Protocols
for
Harvesting
and
Transplanting
Eelgrass
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
(
1997)

 
Peconic
Bay
System:
Aquaculture
(
1997)

 
An
Annotated
Bibliography
of
the
Natural
Resources
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
and
Adjacent
Locations
on
Eastern
Long
island,
NY
(
1997)

 
An
Assessment
of
Shellfish
Resources
in
the
Deep
Waters
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
(
1997)

 
Submerged
Aquatic
Vegetation
Study
(
1996)

 
Marine
Mammal
and
Sea
Turtle
Report
(
1996)

 
Commercial
Finfish
and
Crustacean
Landings
from
Peconic
and
Gardiners
Bay
1980
 
1992
(
1995)

 
Bay
Scallop
Restoration,
Western
Peconic
Bay
(
1995)

 
Rare
Plants,
Rare
Animals
and
Significant
Natural
Communities
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
(
1995)

 
Planting
Bay
Scallops:
Results
of
Reseeding
Bay
Scallops
in
the
Peconic
Bay,
NY,
1986
to
1992
(
1993)

Habitat
loss,
fragmentation,
and
degradation
are
frequently
the
result
of
physical
alteration
of
the
land.
In
the
Peconic
Estuary
System,
low­
lying
marshes
and
swamps
historically
have
been
ditched,
drained,
and
filled
for
mosquito
control
and
construction.
Most
of
the
inlets
and
navigation
channels
in
the
embayments
and
surrounding
creeks
have
been
dredged.
The
use
of
bulkheads,
rip­
rap,
and
other
structures
has
been
widely
permitted
in
order
to
stabilize
waterfront
property
throughout
the
system.
Much
of
the
uplands
have
been
cleared
for
agriculture
or,
more
recently,
residential
use.
The
natural
resources
most
affected
by
these
practices
include
wetlands,
beaches,
grasslands,
forests,
coastal
ponds,
and
possibly
eelgrass
beds.

In
some
cases,
these
land
use
practices
have
caused
direct
impacts
to
living
resources
and
habitats
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
System.
More
often,
however,
development
and
land
alteration
cause
indirect
degradation
to
habitats
and
subtle
changes
in
natural
communities.
For
example,
fill
for
roads
and
railroads
has
cut
off
the
flow
of
water
into
some
tidal
wetlands.
Over
time,
the
vegetation
has
changed
and
the
marsh
has
either
become
a
freshwater
wetland
or
has
gradually
filled
in
and
become
upland.
Dams
have
been
built
on
many
of
the
rivers
and
creeks
emptying
into
the
estuary,
which
prevents
the
movement
of
anadromous
fish
into
fresh
water
for
spawning.
Dredging
has
altered
water
currents
in
small
embayments
and
creeks,
which
has
led
to
changes
in
sediment
distribution,
suspended
solids
in
the
water
column,
and
community
composition.
The
use
of
hard
structures
along
the
shoreline
has
caused
scouring
in
shallow
areas
and
the
loss
of
associated
communities.
In
many
cases,
these
changes
have
been
quite
localized
and
subtle,
with
no
apparent
impairments
to
human
uses
of
the
area.

In
some
cases,
development
and
human
uses
have
caused
degradation
and
destruction
of
habitat
to
the
degree
that
the
habitat
can
no
longer
support
certain
species,
some
of
which
are
now
endangered.
Many
species
have
requirements
for
very
specific
habitats,
such
as
pine
barrens,
freshwater
wetlands,
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
O
N
E
1­
12
and
maritime
grasslands
that
have
been
slowly
degraded
and
destroyed
over
time.
Other
species
have
historically
been
over­
exploited
for
food
(
turtles)
and
fur
(
seals).
And
some
species,
such
as
the
osprey,
became
victims
of
contamination
by
synthetic
chemicals.
Because
the
reasons
for
the
declines
in
different
species
vary,
solutions
for
protecting
and
restoring
endangered
wildlife
populations
must
be
tailored
to
specific
needs.
In
some
cases,
preservation
and
restoration
of
a
single
habitat
type
will
contribute
to
the
protection
of
a
whole
suite
of
species.
In
other
cases,
speciesspecific
actions
must
be
taken
to
protect
the
organisms.

Evidence
from
monitoring
some
of
the
important
species
found
in
the
estuary,
such
as
winter
flounder,
scup,
weakfish,
bay
scallops,
eelgrass,
piping
plovers,
and
least
terns,
indicates
poor
productivity
and
recruitment
of
these
species.
Low
fish
recruitment
may
be
due
to
less
egg
development,
fewer
adults
producing
eggs,
and/
or
less
habitat.
Loss
of
eelgrass
from
Brown
Tide
and
possibly
nutrient
enrichment
may
contribute
indirectly
to
poor
recruitment
of
juvenile
bay
scallops.
Predation,
off­
road
vehicles,
and
heavy
beach
use
are
some
of
the
causes
attributed
to
poor
piping
plover
and
least
tern
productivity.
Other
causes
of
poor
productivity
and
recruitment
include
invasive
species,
changes
in
water
quality,
and
habitat
loss,
degradation,
and
fragmentation.
Impacts
may
be
occurring
from
specific
activities
such
as
navigational
dredging,
shellfish
dredging,
overharvesting,
shoreline
hardening,
mosquito
control,
and
tidal
obstructions.
Many
of
the
actions
in
the
Habitat
and
Living
Resources
chapter
are
intended
to
reduce
or
eliminate
these
threats
and
to
protect,
restore,
and
enhance
productivity
and
recruitment.
Additional
investigations
and
monitoring
that
determine
the
extent
of
these
threats
would
be
of
great
value
to
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program.

Estuary­
wide
impacts
of
all
kinds
can
potentially
result
from
the
accumulation
of
localized
changes
to
the
system.
Daily
road
runoff
of
oil
and
gas,
farm
and
lawn
runoff
of
herbicides
and
pesticides,
nutrient
pollution,
Brown
Tide,
and
small
scale
physical
changes
(
i.
e.,
propeller
scour,
addition
of
individual
docks
and
piers)
are
only
a
few
examples
of
activities
that
can
have
reverberating
effects
throughout
the
Peconic
ecosystem.
Physical
and
chemical
disturbances
can
threaten
habitat,
health,
and
reproduction
of
fish,
shellfish,
and
wildlife.
In
some
instances,
effects
are
only
sublethal,
altering
fecundity
or
growth,
while
other
outcomes
result
in
low
diversity.
Unfortunately,
stresses
on
the
Peconic
Estuary
ecosystem
from
either
incremental
or
"
every
day"
activities
have
not
been
fully
quantified
and
analyzed
to
understand
their
cumulative
impacts.
To
accurately
understand
cause
and
effect
relationships,
more
scientific
inquiry
and
monitoring
of
Peconic
Estuary
living
resources
and
its
watershed
are
needed.

The
actions
of
this
CCMP
focus
on
broad
natural
resource
conservation
efforts,
as
well
as
specific
management
actions
for
selected
species
and
habitats.

The
PEP's
measurable
goals
with
respect
to
habitat
and
living
resources
include:

 
Protect
the
high
quality
habitats
and
concentrations
of
species
in
the
Critical
Natural
Resource
Areas
(
measured
by
acres
of
open
space
protected
and
development
of
model
ordinances).
[
See
Actions
HLR­
1,
HLR­
6,
HLR­
10,
HLR­
11,
HLR­
13,
HLR­
14,
HLR­
15,
HLR­
16]

 
Maintain
current
linear
feet
of
natural
shoreline
and
over
the
next
15
years
reduce
shoreline
hardening
structures
by
five
percent
(
measured
by
the
percent
change
of
natural
vs.
hardened
shorelines
through
GIS
mapping).
[
See
Actions
HLR­
1,
HLR­
2,
HLR­
5,
HLR­
8,
HLR­
13,
HLR­
15]

 
Maintain
current
eelgrass
acreage
(
2,100
acres
in
main
stem
of
the
estuary)
and
increase
acreage
by
ten
percent
over
10
years
(
measured
by
inter­
annual
aerial
surveys
with
GIS
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
O
N
E
1­
13
and
SCUBA
assessments).
[
See
Actions
HLR­
1,
HLR­
3,
HLR­
4,
HLR­
6,
HLR­
9,
HLR­
10,
HLR­
15,
HLR­
16]

 
Maintain
and
increase
current
tidal
and
freshwater
marsh
acreage,
and
restore
areas
that
have
been
degraded
(
e.
g.,
restricted
flow,
Phragmites
australis
dominated,
hardened
shoreline)
(
measured
as
number
of
acres
of
marsh
with
GIS).
[
See
Actions
HLR­
1,
HLR­
2,
HLR­
4,
HLR­
5,
HLR­
7,
HLR­
8]

 
Maintain
a
policy
of
no
new
mosquito
ditches
and
not
re­
opening
ditches
that
have
filledin
by
natural
processes;
and
restore
10­
15
percent
of
mosquito
ditched
marshes
through
Open
Marsh
Water
Management
(
measured
by
the
number
of
acres
of
restored
tide
marsh
using
Open
Marsh
Water
Management).
[
See
Actions
HLR­
1,
HLR­
2,
HLR­
5,
HLR­
7,
HLR­
8]

 
Increase
the
number
of
piping
plover
pairs
to
115
with
productivity
at
1.5
(
over
a
three­
year
average),
distributed
across
the
nesting
sites
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
(
measured
by
annual
piping
plover
surveys).
[
See
Actions
HLR­
1,
HLR­
8,
HLR­
13,
HLR­
15,
HLR­
16]

 
Develop
recommendations
and
guidelines
to
reduce
impacts
to
marine
life
from
dredging­
related
activities
(
measured
by
amount
of
reduced
dredging
volumes
and
protected
benthic
habitat
acreage).
[
See
Actions
HLR­
1,
HLR­
3,
HLR­
5,
HLR­
6,
HLR­
15]

 
Foster
sustainable
recreational
and
commercial
finfish
and
shellfish
uses
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
that
are
compatible
with
biodiversity
protection
(
measured
by
juvenile
finfish
trawl
surveys,
bay
scallop
landings,
and
identifying,
protecting,
and
restoring
key
shellfish
and
finfish
habitat).
[
See
Action
HLR­
1,
HLR­
11,
HLR­
12]

 
Enhance
the
shellfish
resources
available
to
harvesting
through
reseeding,
creation
of
spawning
sanctuaries
and
habitat
enhancement
(
measured
by
scallop
and
clam
abundance/
landings).
[
See
Actions
HLR­
4,
HLR­
7,
HLR­
8,
HLR­
9,
HLR­
10,
HLR­
12,
HLR­
16,
HLR­
17]

 
Link
land
usage
with
habitat
quality
in
tidal
creeks
(
measured
by
continued
funding
of
benthic
and
water
quality
surveys
to
measure
the
quality/
impacts
to
the
habitats
within
selected
tidal
creeks).

 
Ensure
that
the
existing
and
future
aquaculture
(
shellfish
and
finfish)
and
transplanting
activities
are
situated
in
ecologically
low­
productive
areas
of
the
estuary
and
that
they
are
mutually
beneficial
to
the
aquaculture
industry,
natural
resources,
and
water
quality
(
measured
by
the
extent
and
location
of
aquaculture/
transplant
facilities,
water
quality
measures,
and
natural
resource
data).
[
See
Actions
HLR­
1,
HLR­
3,
HLR­
4,
HLR­
6,
HLR­
10,
HLR­
15,
HLR­
17]

 
Annually
initiate
five
percent
of
the
projects
identified
in
the
Habitat
Restoration
Workgroup
Plan
for
the
Peconic
Estuary
(
measured
by
the
number
of
projects
funded
and
implemented
annually).
[
See
Actions
HLR­
7,
HLR­
8]

Pathogens
and
Closed
Shellfish
Beds
Pathogens
are
disease­
causing
organisms
that
include
bacteria,
viruses,
algae
and
fungi.
The
Peconic
Estuary
Program
focused
on
the
potential
health
risks
associated
with
consumption
of
contaminated
shellfish
and
direct
water
contact
and/
or
ingestion,
as
well
as
the
economic
losses
associated
with
shellfish
bed
and
beach
closures
in
the
Peconic
Estuary.
The
Characterization
Report
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
O
N
E
1­
14
Pathogens
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
(
1997)
identified
the
main
pathogens
of
concern,
as
well
as
their
sources.
Other
PEP
reports
and
projects
characterizing
the
Peconic's
pathogen
concerns
include:

 
Water
Quality
Monitoring
(
SCDHS)

 
Shellfish
Sanitation
Unit
and
water
quality
monitoring/
sanitation
surveys
(
NYSDEC)

 
Three­
Dimensional
Hydrodynamic
and
Water
Quality
Model
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
(
Tetra­
Tech,
Inc.)

 
Delineations
of
the
stormwater
contributing
areas
in
the
estuary
(
SCDHS)

 
Regional
Stormwater
Runoff
Management
Project
(
Horsely
and
Witten,
Inc.)

 
Several
Action
Plan
Demonstration
Projects
 
Several
Section
319
Nonpoint
Source
Grant
Projects
The
primary
pathogens
of
concern
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
are
those
associated
with
human
and
animal
wastes.
It
is
difficult
to
directly
measure
the
concentration
of
specific
pathogens
in
seawater
due
to
the
variable
nature
of
their
occurrence.
Instead,
the
level
of
fecal
bacteria
in
the
water
is
measured
using
bacterial
indicator
species
such
as
coliform.

Nonpoint
sources
of
pathogens
(
especially
stormwater
runoff)
have
been
identified
as
the
main
contributors
to
the
degradation
of
shellfish
beds
in
the
Peconics.
Although
these
pathogens
do
not
directly
affect
shellfish,
human
health
is
at
risk
from
the
consumption
of
contaminated
water
or
seafood
harvested
from
contaminated
waters.
To
protect
human
health,
shellfish
beds
can
be
closed
to
harvesting
in
two
ways:
documented
violations
of
bacterial
standards
("
water
quality
closures")
or
proximity
to
potential
sources
of
pathogens
("
administrative
closures"),
such
as
sewage
treatment
plant
(
STP)
outfalls,
marinas,
or
mooring
areas.
Administrative
closures
are
used
because
of
the
potential
for
unpredictable,
intermittent
releases
of
pathogens
or
the
discharge
of
untreated
or
insufficiently
treated
wastes.
Both
water
quality
and
administrative
closures
can
be
either
year­
round
or
seasonal.
There
are
also
"
conditional"
closures
in
which
beds
are
open
for
the
season
except
when
a
specified
amount
of
rainfall
occurs.
This
is
to
avoid
pathogens
that
may
be
transmitted
with
stormwater
runoff.

Shellfish
bed
closures
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
due
to
pathogen
contamination
are
a
significant
problem.
The
number
of
highly
productive,
commercially
important
shellfish
lands
has
been
estimated
at
nearly
21,000
acres.
Almost
3,000
of
these
21,000
acres,
or
14
percent,
are
closed
to
shellfishing.

Bathing
waters
are
also
sampled
for
the
presence
of
bacterial
indicator
organisms.
Only
one
bathing
beach,
the
Town
of
East
Hampton
public
beach
at
the
south
end
of
Lake
Montauk,
has
been
closed
due
to
contamination
in
recent
years.
It
is
believed
that
this
contamination
results
from
wildlife
and
waterfowl,
stormwater
runoff,
and
possibly
malfunctioning
or
failing
on­
site
disposal
systems
in
the
Ditch
Plains
community
south
of
Lake
Montauk.

Pathogens
that
cause
disease
in
marine
organisms
are
not
a
significant
issue
in
the
estuary.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
O
N
E
1­
15
The
PEP's
measurable
goals
with
respect
to
pathogens
include:

 
Maintain
current
level
of
lands
available
to
shellfish
harvesting,
with
the
ultimate
aim
of
re­
opening
lands
currently
closed
to
harvesting
(
measured
through
coliform
levels
and
numbers
of
acres
of
shellfish
beds
available
to
harvest).
[
All
Actions]

 
Maintain
and
improve
water
quality
of
the
estuary
through
a
reduction
of
overall
stormwater
runoff,
particularly
key
areas
identified
through
the
Regional
Stormwater
Runoff
Study
(
measured
through
the
number
of
stormwater
remediation
projects
implemented).
[
See
Actions
P­
1,
P­
2,
P­
3,
P­
4,
P­
12,
P­
13,
P­
14]

 
Eliminate
all
vessel
waste
discharge
to
the
estuary
(
measured
by
the
adoption/
implementation
of
a
Vessel
Waste
No
Discharge
Area
in
the
Peconic
Estuary,
the
number
of
pump­
out
facilities
and
the
volume
of
waste
pumped
annually).
[
See
Actions
P­
6,
P­
7,
P­
8,
P­
9]

 
Attain
a
zero
discharge
of
stormwater
runoff
in
new
subdivisions
(
measured
by
site
plans
for
new
developments
that
achieve
this
goal
and
the
development
of
new
ordinances
and
Habitat
Protection
Overlay
Districts).
[
See
Actions
P­
1,
P­
2,
P­
3,
P­
4]

Toxics
Toxic
contamination
is
not
currently
a
significant
problem
in
the
estuary.
However,
toxic
substances
have
been
found
in
the
estuary,
and
impacts
from
toxic
substances
have
been
documented,
and
limiting
the
inputs
of
toxic
substances
to
the
system
remains
a
management
topic,
particularly
as
human
uses
in
the
watershed
and
estuary
intensify.
At
some
specific
locations,
remedial
investigations
and
clean­
ups
are
occurring
under
Federal
and
State
hazardous
waste
clean­
up
laws.

Toxic
contaminants
include
both
human­
made
and
naturally
occurring
substances
that
can
cause
adverse
ecosystem
or
human
health
effects.
Toxics
can
be
present
in
surface
water,
groundwater,
soil,
sediments,
and
plant
and
animal
life.
Toxics
can
directly
affect
the
ability
of
fish,
shellfish,
and
wildlife
to
survive
or
reproduce.
Some
toxics
can
accumulate
in
the
edible
tissues
of
fish,
shellfish,
and
wildlife,
making
them
unsafe
as
a
food
source
for
either
people
or
wildlife.
Toxic
contamination
could
also
impact
dredging
and
dredged
material
placement
operations
because
limited
placement
options
are
available
for
contaminated
sediments.

New
York
has
established
statewide
health
advisories
to
limit
or
restrict
human
consumption
of
fish,
shellfish,
and
wildlife
due
to
the
presence
of
chemicals,
including
PCBs,
pesticides
such
as
dichlorodiphenyl
trichloroethane
(
DDT)
and
chlordane,
and
metals
such
as
cadmium.
Some
of
these
advisories
are
in
place
for
species
that
can
be
harvested
from
the
Peconic
Estuary.
Because
these
species
may
migrate,
the
source
of
these
pollutants
may
be
from
outside
of
the
Peconic
Estuary.

Toxic
contaminants
that
may
be
present
in
the
estuary
are
as
diverse
as
the
land
uses
and
activities
from
which
they
originate.
Sources
include
runoff
from
residential
developments
and
businesses,
roads
and
parking
lots,
sewage
treatment
plants
and
individual
on­
site
disposal
systems,
agriculture,
golf
courses,
mosquito
control
measures,
marinas
and
recreational
boating,
Federal
and
State
Superfund
sites,
treated
lumber,
and
leaking
underground
storage
tanks.
Environmental
standards,
guidelines,
or
criteria
exist
for
only
a
small
portion
of
the
literally
tens
of
thousands
of
substances
that
support
our
modern
lifestyles.
Work
continues
to
better
assess
the
impacts
toxic
substances
individually
and
cumulatively
have
on
the
system.
The
focus
of
this
Management
Plan
is
on
those
land
uses
and
activities
that
could
contribute
toxics
to
the
system
in
order
to
prevent
problems
from
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
O
N
E
1­
16
occurring
in
the
future.
Of
particular
concern
are
those
land
uses
and
activities
that
take
place
on,
are
adjacent
to,
or
directly
affect
surface
waters.

Pesticides,
an
emerging
concern,
may
be
introduced
to
the
Peconic
System
from
suburban
and
urban
sources
as
well
as
from
agricultural
operations
and
mosquito
control
measures.
Though
no
causal
link
has
been
identified,
low
levels
of
pesticides
may
be
affecting
aquatic
resources,
including
eelgrass,
sensitive
larval
stages
of
commercially
and
recreational
important
finfish
and
shellfish,
including
lobsters,
and
other
ecologically
important
species.
Even
pesticides
that
are
banned
or
not
being
applied
can
cause
or
contribute
to
environmental
problems
if
they
are
not
disposed
of
or
are
improperly
stored.
Several
pesticides
have
already
been
detected
in
groundwater
resources.

"
A
Characterization
of
the
Resources
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
with
Respect
to
Toxics"
(
PEP,
January
2001)
is
the
primary
document
describing
the
status
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
with
respect
to
toxics.
Other
PEP
reports
addressing
toxic
substances
in
the
estuary
include:

 
Chemical
Contaminant
Distributions
in
Peconic
Estuary
Sediments
(
Arthur
D.
Little,
Inc.,
1996)

 
Peconic
Estuary
Fish,
Shellfish
and
Crustacean
Toxics
Survey
Quality
Assurance
Project
Plan
for
Field
Collection
Effort
(
EPA
Region
II,
1999)

 
Preliminary
Data
Tables
for
the
Peconic
Estuary
Tributaries
Sediment
Toxics
Survey
(
EPA
Region
II,
1999)

 
Sediment
Toxicity
Testing
in
the
Peconic
Estuary/
Watershed
Using
the
Amphipod,
Ampelisca
abdita
(
EPA
Region
II,
August
1998)

Other
reports
related
to
toxics
that
may
be
of
interest
include:

 
(
Final)
Plutonium
Contamination
Characterization
and
Radiological
Dose
and
Risk
Assessment
Report
for
Operable
Unit
V
(
IT
Corporation
for
Brookhaven
National
Laboratory/
Brookhaven
Science
Associates,
2000)

 
Proposed
Plan
for
Operable
Unit
V:
Peconic
River/
Sewage
Treatment
Plant,
Brookhaven
National
Laboratory
(
U.
S.
Department
of
Energy,
2000)

 
Water
Quality
Monitoring
Program
to
Detect
Pesticide
Contamination
in
Groundwaters
of
Nassau
and
Suffolk
Counties,
NY
(
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services,
June
1999)

 
Pesticide
Concentrations
in
Surface
Waters
of
New
York
State
in
Relation
to
Land
Use
 
1997
(
U.
S.
Geological
Survey,
June
1998)

 
Pesticides
in
Streams
in
New
Jersey
and
Long
Island,
New
York
and
Relation
to
Land
Use
(
U.
S.
Geological
Survey,
May
1999)

 
Pesticides
and
their
Metabolites
in
Wells
of
Suffolk
County,
New
York
1998
(
U.
S.
Geological
Survey,
June
1999)

The
PEP's
measurable
goals
with
respect
to
toxics
are:

 
Improve
the
quality
of
the
ambient
environment
(
surface
waters,
groundwaters,
sediments
and
biota)
where
there
is
evidence
that
human
inputs
impair
or
threaten
these
resources
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
O
N
E
1­
17
(
as
measured
by
surface
water,
groundwater,
sediment
and
biota
monitoring
programs).
[
See
Actions
T­
2,
T­
3,
T­
4,
T­
5,
T­
6,
T­
7,
T­
8,
POE­
5]

 
Comply
with
schedules
for
conducting
site
characterizations,
remedial
actions
and
postremedial
monitoring
at
hazardous
waste
sites;
effectively
characterize
risks
and
protect
human
health
and
the
environment
at
hazardous
waste
sites;
ensure
compliance
with
permit
limits
for
point
source
discharges
(
as
measured
by
compliance
with
schedules
at
hazardous
waste
sites;
conducting
effective
characterizations;
and
point
source
monitoring).
[
See
Action
T­
2]

 
Decrease
overall
emissions
of
reportable
toxics
from
the
five
East
End
towns
(
as
measured
by
the
Federal
Toxics
Release
Inventory).
[
See
Action
T­
7]

 
Eliminate
holdings
of
banned,
unneeded
and
unwanted
pesticides
and
hazardous
substances
by
2005
(
as
potentially
measured
by
collections
during
"
Clean
Sweep"
programs,
household
hazardous
waste
collection
programs
and
events,
or
surveys
of
farmers/
commercial
landscapers/
homeowners).
[
See
Action
T­
4]

 
Decrease
overall
agricultural/
residential/
institutional
pesticide
applications
in
the
five
East
End
towns
(
as
potentially
measured
by
point­
of­
sale
surveys,
surveys
of
residents,
or
commercial
applicator
tallies).
[
See
Actions
T­
4,
POE­
5]

 
Eliminate
to
the
maximum
extent
practicable,
pesticide
applications
on
turf
grass
on
all
publicly
held
land
by
2003
(
as
potentially
measured
by
resolutions
passed
[
or
equivalent]).
[
See
Action
T­
4]

 
Eliminate
underground
storage
tanks
exempt
from
current
replacement
requirements
via
incentive
programs
and
public
education
and
outreach
(
as
potentially
measured
following
baseline
established
of
number
of
underground
storage
tanks
[
USTs]
and
monitoring
of
the
number
of
underground
tanks
removed,
retired,
and
replaced).
[
See
Actions
T­
6,
POE­
5]

 
Decrease
the
total
amount
of
treated
lumber
installed
in
the
marine/
estuarine
environment
(
as
potentially
measured
by
baseline
established
from
shoreline
surveys
and
monitoring
of
permits
issued
for
bulkheading
installations,
replacements,
and
removal).
[
See
Actions
T­
6,
POE­
5]

 
Reduce
the
number
of
two
stroke
marine
engines
in
use
in
the
estuary
(
as
potentially
measured
by
harbormaster
conducted
surveys).
[
See
Action
POE­
5]

Critical
Lands
Protection
Ever
increasing
development
is
consuming
and
fragmenting
open
space
and
natural
habitats,
and
stressing
watersheds
and
natural
communities.
Numerous
PEP
reports,
already
mentioned
in
the
Nutrients
and
Habitat
and
Living
Resources
chapters,
detail
the
importance
of
protecting
open
space
to
protect
the
Region's
water
quality
and
natural
habitats.

This
chapter
represents
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program's
strategy
for
developing
a
Critical
Lands
Protection
Plan,
a
recommendation
that
arose
from
the
public
comments
of
the
September
1999
draft
Comprehensive
Conservation
and
Management
Plan
(
CCMP).
The
Critical
Lands
Protection
Plan
(
CLPP)
will
ultimately
evaluate
the
land
available
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
Study
Area
and
identify
land
protection
priorities
with
respect
to
estuarine
management
concerns.
It
is
the
intent
of
the
Critical
Lands
Protection
Plan
to
prioritize
the
land
available
for
development
"
through
the
lens"
of
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
O
N
E
1­
18
habitat
and
water
quality
protection
and
evaluate
the
funding
needed
for
that
protection.
The
Critical
Lands
Protection
Plan
will
be
a
useful
tool
for
state
and
local
agencies
that
make
land
acquisition
decisions
in
part
on
estuarine
considerations.

Since
the
actual
Critical
Lands
Protection
Plan
still
needs
to
be
developed,
there
are
no
measurable
goals
associated
with
this
strategy
at
this
point.
Measurable
goals
will
be
developed
and
included
in
the
Post­
CCMP
annual
report.

Public
Education
and
Outreach
Citizen
involvement
has
been
a
critical
component
of
the
PEP
since
its
inception.
The
Program
formed
a
Citizens
Advisory
Committee
(
CAC)
to
ensure
broad­
based
public
participation
in
the
development
of
the
CCMP.
This
CAC
consists
of
representatives
from
marine­
related
industries,
environmental
and
civic
organizations,
as
well
as
baymen,
boaters,
recreational
fishermen,
and
other
interested
citizens.
The
CAC
has
made
significant
contributions
by
assuring
public
involvement
in
all
aspects
of
the
program
and
encouraging
the
public
to
learn
more
about
the
Peconic
Estuary
System.
The
CAC
has
utilized
television
events
and
radio
broadcasts
as
well
as
printed
materials
in
its
public
education
and
outreach
efforts.

Educating
and
involving
the
public
and
obtaining
public
support
is
vital
to
the
success
of
the
PEP.
All
residents
of
eastern
Long
Island
need
to
understand
their
role
as
users
of
the
system
and
the
effect
that
actions
and
inaction
have
on
the
quality
and
sustainability
of
the
area's
many
resources.
Effective
public
participation
will
provide
the
broad­
based
public
support
needed
to
ensure
that
actions
reach
the
implementation
phase.
The
ultimate
goal
of
public
participation
in
the
PEP
is
to
establish
a
public
consensus
that
will
ensure
long­
term
support
for
the
implementation
of
the
CCMP.
While
developing
this
consensus
among
individuals
and
key
segments
of
the
public,
an
understanding
of
individual
and
collective
roles
in
watershed
protection
can
be
established,
making
that
constituency
dedicated
to
caring
for
the
Peconic
Estuary
System.

The
Public
Participation
Strategy
during
implementation
of
the
CCMP
stresses
the
need
to
continue
to
bring
together
the
stakeholders
in
the
watershed,
participate
in
decision­
making
affecting
the
estuary,
encourage
participation
in
programs
to
protect,
enhance
and
restore
the
estuary
and
its
watershed,
and
conduct
education
and
outreach
efforts
on
priority
topics.
A
hallmark
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
has
been
and
will
continue
to
be
the
preparation
and
use
of
innovative
and
high
quality
participation,
education
and
outreach
methods,
including
printed
materials,
television
and
radio
spots,
and
conferences.
The
elements
of
the
Public
Participation
Strategy
itself
are
embodied
in
the
actions
in
this
chapter,
as
well
as
through
the
representation
of
the
Citizens
Advisory
Committee
chair
on
the
Management
Committee.

The
PEP's
measurable
goals
with
respect
to
Education
and
Outreach
are:

 
Annually,
embark
on
one
new,
substantial
public
education
effort
addressing
each
of
the
following
areas:

­
Conducting
Brown
Tide
education
and
outreach;

­
Reducing
residential
fertilizer
use
in
the
Peconic
Watershed;

­
Improving,
protecting
or
enhancing
habitats
and
living
resources;

­
Reducing
pathogen
loadings
to
the
estuary;
and
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
O
N
E
1­
19
­
Reducing
the
use
and
loadings
of
toxics
substances
to
the
estuary.

(
as
measured
by
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Office
and
the
PEP
Citizens
Advisory
committee).
[
See
Actions
POE­
3,
POE­
4,
POE­
5,
POE­
6,
POE­
7]

 
Annually,
conduct
one
major
watershed
effort
involving
students
in
estuary
management
(
as
measured
by
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Office
and
the
PEP
Citizens
Advisory
committee).
[
See
Action
POE­
7]

 
Annually,
conduct
one
major
watershed­
wide
event
to
educate
those
who
live,
work,
or
recreate
in
the
Peconics
(
as
measured
by
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Office
and
the
PEP
Citizens
Advisory
Committee).
[
See
Actions
POE­
7,
POE­
8]

 
Annually,
support
the
establishment
of
one
new
local
embayment
or
tidal
creek
association
(
as
measured
by
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Office
and
the
PEP
Citizens
Advisory
Committee).
[
See
Action
POE­
7]

Financing
This
Management
Plan
contains
actions
for
the
protection,
enhancement,
and
restoration
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
System.
For
some
actions
in
this
Plan,
the
agency
or
organizations
involved
have
made
a
commitment
to
carry
out
the
action.
For
other
actions,
the
PEP
is
recommending
the
action
be
undertaken;
often
additional
funding
is
needed.
These
actions
and
this
Plan
have
been
created
as
part
of
the
characterization
and
planning
phases
of
the
PEP.
Funding
for
the
development
portion
of
this
process
has
been
provided
by
the
National
Estuary
Program
under
Section
320
of
the
Clean
Water
Act.
Once
the
final
CCMP
is
approved,
the
PEP
will
focus
on
implementation
of
the
Management
Plan
and
its
actions.
Funding
for
the
continued
operation
of
the
PEP
and
for
the
implementation
of
each
action
in
the
Plan
will
need
to
be
secured.

A
wide
variety
of
funding
sources
will
need
to
be
secured
to
ensure
full
implementation
of
the
CCMP.
Securing
this
funding
is
a
responsibility
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
as
a
whole
and
the
agencies,
organizations
and
individuals
that
make
up
the
Management
Conference.
Without
a
comprehensive
strategy
for
funding
the
implementation
of
all
aspects
of
the
Plan,
the
PEP
runs
the
risk
of
not
fully
achieving
its
goal
of
becoming
a
guide
to
managing
water
quality,
living
resources,
and
habitats
of
the
Peconic
Estuary.
The
ability
of
the
PEP
to
achieve
its
goals
and
objectives,
and
the
pace
at
which
progress
is
made,
will
clearly
be
a
function
of
the
availability
of
funding.

Substantial
funding
is
currently
available
for
land
acquisition
programs
in
the
five
East
End
towns
at
the
town,
County,
and
State
level.
There
is
also
$
30
million
commitment
to
implement
this
Plan
and
the
South
Shore
Estuarine
Reserve
Plan
under
the
New
York
State
Clean
Air/
Clean
Water
Bond
Act.
Under
the
leadership
of
Governor
George
E.
Pataki,
sixty­
seven
projects
have
been
funded
under
the
New
York
State
Bond
Act,
Environmental
Protection
Fund,
and
State
Revolving
Fund,
for
the
Peconic
Estuary.
There
are,
however,
limitations
on
the
types
of
activities
that
may
be
funded
under
these
programs,
and
therefore
additional
sources
of
funding
must
be
secured.
Many
actions
will
continue
to
be
funded
through
ongoing
activities
of
existing
governmental
and
non­
governmental
stakeholders.
Collectively,
these
are
referred
to
as
"
Base
Programs."

Numerous
existing
and
new
funding
sources
and
mechanisms
are
described
in
the
Plan,
including
existing
programs
at
the
Federal,
State
and
County
level,
the
State
Revolving
Loan
fund,
municipal
bonds,
funds
from
fines
and
settlement,
tax
abatements
and
incentives
and
the
establishment
of
municipal
improvement
districts,
as
well
as
encouraging
participation
in
implementation
by
not
for
profit
organizations
and
other
private
entities.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
O
N
E
1­
20
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
¼
%
Sales
Tax
Program;

­
Town
Governments;
and
­
Village
Governments.

(
as
measured
by
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Office).
[
See
Actions
F­
2,
F­
3]

 
Secure
new
or
additional
private
sector
funding
for
CCMP
implementation,
from
the
following
sources:

­
Businesses;
and
­
Not
for
profit
organizations.

(
as
measured
by
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Office).
[
See
Actions
F­
4,
F­
7]

Plan
Implementation
and
Post­
CCMP
Management
The
Peconic
Estuary
Program
has
long
recognized
the
need
for
establishing
a
long­
term
framework
for
Peconic
Estuary
management.
In
light
of
the
significance
placed
upon
post­
CCMP
management
and
monitoring
by
Congress,
the
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA),
the
PEP
Management
Conference,
and
the
PEP
Management
Committee
directed
that
a
separate
section
of
this
Management
Plan
specifically
deal
with
the
issue
of
long­
term
management.
Chapter
10
of
this
CCMP
includes
not
only
an
extended
discussion
on
the
critical
issue
of
long­
term
institutional
and
organizational
framework,
but
also
a
summary
of
other
important
parameters,
such
as
long­
term
monitoring,
mechanisms
for
measuring
progress,
and
data
management.

The
PEP
is
continuing
the
existing
management
structure.
A
Program
Office
will
continue
to
be
located
in
the
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services
Office
of
Ecology,
with
oversight
from
a
Management
Committee
consisting
of
voting
representatives
from
the
EPA,
the
New
York
State
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation
(
NYSDEC),
Suffolk
County,
Local
Government,
and
chairs
of
the
Technical
Advisory
Committee
and
Citizens
Advisory
Committee.

Chapter
10
also
includes
actions
on
reporting
progress
in
implementing
the
CCMP
and
measuring
environmental
quality,
as
well
as
working
with
local
governments
and
local
government
officials
to
develop
plans
for
particular
waterbodies
in
each
town.

The
Peconic
Estuary
Program's
measurable
goals
with
respect
to
post­
CCMP
management
and
implementation
are:

 
Implement
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Environmental
Monitoring
Plan.
[
See
Action
M­
2]
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
O
N
E
1­
21
 
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
subwatershed
plans
initiated).
[
See
Action
M­
5]

Environmental
Monitoring
Plan
An
effective
monitoring
program
is
necessary
to
assess
the
status
and
trends
of
the
health
and
abundance
of
the
Peconic
Estuary's
water
quality,
habitat,
and
living
resources.
This
Environmental
Monitoring
Plan
reports
on
the
region's
existing
and
future
monitoring
efforts
and
coordinates
the
environmental
changes
these
data
can
be
used
to
track.
By
reporting
on
environmental
changes,
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
will
be
able
to
evaluate
whether
measurable
environmental
results
have
been
achieved
and
whether
the
goals
and
objectives
of
the
PEP
CCMP
are
being
met.

Compiling
monitoring
programs
into
one
document
promotes
cooperation
among
agencies
and
stakeholders,
clarifies
existing
efforts,
and
provides
an
avenue
for
integrating
results
from
different
monitoring
programs
and
projects
for
scientific,
regulatory,
and
general
interests.
The
Peconic
Estuary
Program
has
identified
25
core
monitoring
workplans,
those
activities
required
to
determine
whether
the
CCMP
measurable
goals
are
being
met.
These
workplans
are
discussed
in
detail
in
Appendix
I.

A
key
component
of
the
long­
term
Plan
is
the
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services
routine
surface
water
quality
monitoring
program
which
addresses
Brown
Tide,
nitrogen,
dissolved
oxygen,
light
extinction,
and
point
sources.
The
Suffolk
County
Planning
Department
will
also
monitor
changes
in
land
use.
For
habitat
and
living
resources,
the
New
York
State
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation
(
NYSDEC)
will
continue
its
juvenile
finfish
trawl
surveys,
and
will
integrate
information
from
other
monitoring
programs
such
as
the
NYSDEC
wetlands
inventory,
the
Endangered
Species
Program,
and
the
NMFS
Commercial
Landings
Program.
The
Submerged
Aquatic
Vegetation
Long
Term
Monitoring
Program
(
Cornell
Cooperative
Extension
and
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service)
is
also
a
key
component
of
the
Plan.
Coliform
bacteria
monitoring
(
NYSDEC
Shellfish
Sanitation
Program)
and
toxic
chemical
monitoring
(
EPA)
are
also
included
in
the
Environmental
Monitoring
Plan.
The
PEP
will
continue
to
sponsor
and
coordinate
Brown
Tide
research,
and
will
seek
funding
for
the
Habitat
and
Living
Resources
Research
and
Monitoring
Plan.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
O
N
E
1­
22
CCMP
ORGANIZATION
The
primary
purpose
of
this
CCMP
is
to
identify
actions
that
need
to
be
taken
by
government
agencies,
businesses,
private
organizations,
and
citizens
to
attain
the
goals
and
objectives
established
by
the
Management
Conference.
Toward
this
end,
the
CCMP
contains
seven
individual
but
interrelated
Management
Plans
that
address
the
priority
problems
of
the
estuary,
as
well
as
the
need
for
public
education
and
outreach.
Each
Management
Plan
contains
specific
actions
to
address
issues
and
impacts
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
System.
In
some
cases,
the
actions
fall
within
the
scope
of
existing
programs,
while
in
other
cases
they
represent
new
programs
or
initiatives.
To
aid
in
implementation,
lead
and
participating
agencies
and
organizations
who
are
committed
to
implementing
actions,
or
to
whom
recommendations
are
being
made,
are
identified.
Time
frames,
schedules,
and
where
possible,
the
costs
and
sources
of
funding
for
carrying
out
these
actions
also
have
been
identified.
The
costs
for
some
actions
will
be
borne
by
agencies
and
organizations
in
the
normal
course
of
carrying
out
their
business
and
therefore
no
"
new"
funding
is
needed.
In
such
cases,
however,
existing
environmental
program
funding
levels
must
be
maintained
and
funding
authorizations
and
appropriations
continued.
Other
actions
and
certain
components
of
general
Plan
implementation
will
require
the
identification
of
new
funding
sources
or
the
allocation
of
funds
already
set
aside
for
the
broad
purpose
of
implementing
the
Plan
(
such
as
the
New
York
Clean
Water/
Clean
Air
Bond
Act).

The
PEP
will
seek
funding
for
the
implementation
of
specific
recommendations.
Funding
opportunities
to
be
explored
include
public/
private
partnerships
as
well
as
opportunities
to
apply
enforcement
settlement
and
other
funds
to
carry
out
recommended
actions.
These
funding
options
are
discussed
further
in
Chapter
9.

Management
Actions
Within
the
CCMP,
some
steps
within
the
actions
have
been
identified
as
priorities,
as
indicated
under
the
step
number.
The
PEP
will
seek
to
implement
priority
actions
in
the
near
term.
Priorities
may
be
either
new
or
ongoing,
commitments
or
recommendations.
Completing
some
priority
actions
does
not
require
any
new
or
additional
resources,
because
they
are
being
undertaken
through
"
base
programs"
or
with
funding
that
has
been
committed.
In
other
cases,
in
order
to
complete
the
priority
actions,
new
or
additional
resources,
or
endorsements
need
to
be
secured
by
some
or
all
of
the
responsible
entities.

The
Peconic
Estuary
Program
and
Management
Conference
were
formed
specifically
to
prepare
the
CCMP.
However,
much
work
remains
to
be
done
to
ensure
coordinated
implementation
of
the
Plan.
This
effort
will
be
led
by
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program,
as
discussed
in
Chapter
10.
Remaining
research
needs,
long­
term
monitoring
efforts,
and
a
mechanism
for
measuring
the
progress
of
CCMP
implementation
are
also
included
in
Chapter
10.
There
are
many
existing
regulatory
programs
at
the
Federal,
State,
and
local
level
that
effectively
prohibit
or
control
point
and
nonpoint
sources
of
pollution.
In
order
to
prevent
duplication
of
effort
between
the
actions
in
this
CCMP
and
existing
programs,
a
Base
Program
Analysis
has
been
completed
as
part
of
the
CCMP
development
process.
The
Base
Program
Analysis
describes
existing
mechanisms
for
addressing
priority
problems
and
recommends
options
for
improving
or
enhancing
the
management
of
those
problems.
In
keeping
with
the
findings
of
the
Base
Programs
Analysis,
some
of
the
actions
found
in
the
CCMP
call
for
new
actions
and
programs,
whereas
others
expand
on
existing
programs
or
call
for
review
or
coordination
with
existing
management
activities.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
O
N
E
1­
23
Action
Costs
Information
in
the
cost
column
of
the
management
action
tables
in
the
back
of
each
chapter
represents
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program's
best
estimate
of
the
costs
associated
with
each
action
implementation.
"
Base
Program"
means
that
no
new
or
additional
funds
will
be
needed
outside
of
the
responsible
entity's
operating
budget
to
implement
the
action.
Where
practicable,
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
has
made
estimates
of
the
costs
of
base
programs,
either
in
terms
of
dollars
or
work
years.
Where
this
Plan
recommends
or
commits
to
new,
expanded,
or
enhanced
efforts
beyond
those
tasks
that
may
be
described
as
base
programs,
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
has
attempted
to
quantify
the
necessary
resources
to
carry
out
the
new,
expanded,
or
enhanced
work.

Resources
were
expressed
as
a
dollar
amount,
typically
for
projects
suitable
for
contracting
out,
or
as
"
work
years"
or
"
full
time
equivalent"
employees
(
or
"
FTEs")
for
work
that
is
most
likely
to
be
carried
out
by
governmental
staff.
Some
activities
require
both
contracting
dollars
and
FTEs.
Resource
needs
expressed
as
FTEs
are
usually
estimated
to
the
nearest
one­
tenth
of
a
work
year
(
i.
e.,
approximately
one
month
or
20
work
days).
For
some
of
the
smaller
tasks
that
are
likely
to
be
undertaken
with
other
separate
but
related
tasks,
the
FTE
estimates
may
be
combined,
and
this
is
indicated
in
the
table.
For
estimating
the
overall
cost
of
implementing
this
Plan,
the
Program
will
use
an
estimate
of
$
75,000
per
FTE
per
year,
which
includes
salary,
fringe
benefits,
and
indirect
costs.
The
actual
cost
of
a
full
time
worker
may
be
more
or
less
than
this
amount
and
will
likely
vary
by
agency,
complexity
of
task,
and
point
in
time
at
which
work
is
initiated.

Carrying
out
some
tasks
requires
an
annual
and
ongoing
investment
of
resources.
Other
tasks
have
been
expressed
as
one­
time
investments.
This
distinction
is
made
for
each
action
in
the
Plan,
and
is
also
reflected
in
the
total
cost
of
implementing
the
Plan.

For
programmatic
resource
allocation
analysis,
a
significant
effort
has
been
made
to
quantify
time
commitments
for
actions
involving
PEP
sponsoring
agencies
(
EPA,
NYSDEC,
or
SCDHS).
For
such
actions,
a
commitment
has
been
indicated
and
resource
needs
have
been
estimated.
Carrying
out
these
actions
forms
the
core
workplan
for
the
PEP
coordinators
from
the
sponsoring
agencies
and
the
Program
Office
staff.

In
many
cases,
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
was
unable
to
quantify
resources
(
either
in
dollar
amount
or
in
work
years)
associated
with
these
base
programs.
This
is
because
elements
related
to
recommendations
and
actions
are
frequently
inextricably
linked
to
regional
management
initiatives
targeted
at
areas
larger
than
the
PEP
watershed,
making
segregation
of
PEP
resources
exceedingly
difficult
or
impossible
(
e.
g.,
coastal
zone
management
programs
for
all
of
Long
Island;
endangered
species
management,
etc.).
Also,
recommendations
and
actions
are
often
intertwined
in
larger
and/
or
related
programs,
making
their
individual
cost
isolation
impractical
(
e.
g.,
staff
working
on
wetland
mapping
and
trends
analysis
also
work
on
numerous
other
natural
resource
efforts,
such
as
permitting
and
enforcement,
as
well).
Finally,
parties
responsible
for
implementing
actions
use
diverse
and
often
incompatible
methods
of
accounting
and
cost/
time
analysis,
making
efforts
to
discretize
costs
difficult
and
ultimately,
inherently
inaccurate,
and
thus,
unhelpful.

Not
all
resource
needs
have
been
estimated
at
this
point
in
time,
and
the
costs
of
some
activities
will
be
subject
to
further
refinement
in
the
future.
Many
costs
have
not
been
estimated
for
the
private
sector,
because
the
planning
processes
have
not
developed
actions
specific
enough
to
do
so
(
e.
g.,
septic
tank
management
recommendations,
since
recommended
pump­
out
intervals
have
not
yet
been
specified
and
upgrade
incentive
programs
have
not
been
fully
agreed
upon).
The
PEP
will
attempt
to
estimate
these
costs
in
the
future
as
needed
and
will
attempt
to
identify
funding
for
compliance
assistance
where
possible.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
O
N
E
1­
24
Status
An
action's
status
is
designated
in
the
table
by
either
an
"
R"
for
"
Recommendation"
or
a
"
C"
for
"
Commitment."
Actions
that
are
commitments
are
being
implemented
because
resources
or
funding
and
organizational
support
is
available
to
carry
them
out.
Actions
that
are
"
recommendations"
require
new
or
additional
resources
by
some
or
all
of
the
responsible
entities.
"
O"
refers
to
ongoing
activities;
"
N"
indicates
new
actions.

Timeframe
This
category
refers
to
the
general
timeframe
for
action
implementation.
Some
actions
are
ongoing
or
nearing
completion;
implementation
of
other
actions
is
not
anticipated
until
some
time
in
the
future.

Cost
Information
in
the
cost
column
represents
the
PEP's
best
estimate
of
the
costs
associated
with
action
implementation.
"
Base
Program"
means
that
no
new
or
additional
funds
will
be
needed
outside
of
the
responsible
entity's
operating
budget
to
implement
the
action.
Where
additional
funding
is
needed,
resources
to
implement
an
action
may
be
expressed
in
dollar
amounts
or
work
years
or
both.
One
full
time
equivalent
employee
or
"
FTE"
is
estimated
as
costing
$
75,000
per
year,
which
includes
salary,
fringe
benefits
and
indirect
costs.
The
"
Action
Costs"
description
in
both
Chapter
1
and
Chapter
9
provides
an
expanded
explanation
of
base
programs
and
action
costs.
