Peconic
Estuary
Program
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
1
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
FIVE
PATHOGENS
MANAGEMENT
PLAN
OBJECTIVES
1)
To
minimize
heath
risks
due
to
human
consumption
of
shellfish.

2)
To
promote,
to
the
maximum
practicable
extent,
the
social
and
economic
benefits
which
have
been
associated
with
the
Peconic
Estuary
system.

3)
To
maintain
the
current
status
of
certified
(
seasonally
and
year­
round)
shellfish
beds
and
re­
open
uncertified
beds
by
eliminating
or
reducing
pathogen
(
indicator)
inputs
to
the
Peconic
Estuary
System.

4)
To
minimize
the
closure
of
bathing
beaches
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
while
adequately
protecting
human
health.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
2
MEASURABLE
GOALS
The
PEP's
measurable
goals
for
pathogens
include:

 
Maintain
current
level
of
bottom
lands
available
to
shellfish
harvesting,
with
the
ultimate
aim
of
re­
opening
lands
currently
closed
to
harvesting
(
measured
through
coliform
levels
and
numbers
of
acres
of
shellfish
beds
available
to
harvest).
[
See
Actions
P­
1,
P­
2,
P­
3,
P­
4,
P­
5,
P­
6,
P­
7,
P­
8,
P­
10,
P­
11,
P­
12,
P­
13,
P­
14,
P­
15]

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

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

 
Attain
a
zero
discharge
of
stormwater
runoff
in
new
subdivisions
(
measured
by
site
plans
for
new
developments
that
achieve
this
goal
and
the
development
of
new
ordinances
and
Habitat
Protection
Overlay
Districts).
[
See
Actions
P­
1,
P­
2,
P­
3,
P­
4]
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
3
INTRODUCTION
Pathogens
are
viruses,
bacteria,
algae,
and
protozoans
that
cause
diseases
in
humans,
plants,
and
other
animals.
Pathogens
that
may
be
found
in
marine
waters
in
the
United
States
include
those
causing
gastroenteritis,
salmonellosis,
and
hepatitis
A.
Pathogens
can
enter
marine
waters
in
untreated
or
partially
treated
human
sewage
and
in
wild
and
domestic
animal
waste.
Humans
may
encounter
the
pathogens
through
direct
contact
with
or
ingestion
of
contaminated
water
or
by
eating
raw
or
partially
cooked
bivalve
shellfish
harvested
from
contaminated
waters.

Pathogen
loadings
to
the
Peconic
Estuary
System
are
of
concern
because
of
the
potential
health
risks
associated
with
consumption
of
contaminated
shellfish,
health
risks
associated
with
direct
water
contact
and/
or
ingestion,
and
the
economic
losses
associated
with
the
closure
of
shellfish
beds
and
beaches.

In
order
to
protect
shellfish
consumers
and
beach
goers
from
the
human
health
risks
associated
with
pathogens,
the
State
of
New
York
regularly
monitors
water
quality
in
the
marine
waters
of
New
York
State
and
the
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services
(
SCDHS)
monitors
for
pathogen
indicators
at
public
beaches.
When
water
quality
parameters
fail
to
meet
the
established
human
health
criteria,
beaches
and
shellfish
beds
are
closed.

ENVIRONMENTAL
CRITERIA
It
is
difficult
to
directly
measure
the
concentration
of
specific
pathogens
in
seawater
due
to
the
variable
nature
of
their
occurrence.
Instead,
the
potential
for
the
presence
of
human
pathogens
in
the
water
is
measured
using
bacterial
indicator
species.
Fecal
indicator
bacteria
originate
in
the
intestines
of
warm­
blooded
animals.
They
are
easily
measured,
and
their
presence
in
the
water
indicates
that
the
wastes
of
a
warm­
blooded
animal,
which
may
contain
pathogens,
has
entered
the
water.
The
most
commonly
used
indicators
for
human
sewage
and
animal
waste
are
total
and
fecal
coliform
bacteria.

Each
State
adopts
an
established
uniform
water
quality
standard
for
total
and
fecal
coliforms
that
indicate
the
safety
of
the
water
for
bathing
and
for
consumption
of
bivalve
shellfish.
These
guidelines
are
based
on
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
recommendations
and
guidelines
developed
by
the
National
Shellfish
Sanitation
Program.
The
U.
S.
Food
and
Drug
Administration
(
USFDA)
evaluates
State
programs
annually
to
ensure
that
recommended
guidelines
are
uniformly
applied.
For
the
Peconic
Estuary,
monitoring
of
bathing
beaches
is
conducted
by
the
SCDHS;
monitoring
and
classification
of
shellfish
growing
areas
is
conducted
by
the
New
York
State
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation
(
NYSDEC),
Division
of
Fish,
Wildlife,
and
Marine
Resources
Shellfish
Sanitation
Unit.

The
standard
utilized
for
bathing
beaches
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
is
based
on
Section
6­
2.15(
1)
of
the
New
York
State
Sanitary
Code:
"
the
total
number
of
organisms
of
the
coliform
group
shall
not
exceed
a
logarithmic
mean
of
2400/
100
ml
for
a
series
of
five
or
more
samples
in
any
30­
day
period,
nor
shall
20
percent
of
total
samples
during
the
period
exceed
5000/
100
ml."
The
SCDHS,
however,
also
requests
closure
of
a
beach
if
the
fecal
coliform
level
exceeds
400/
100
ml,
which
almost
always
occurs
before
the
total
coliform
standard
is
exceeded.
The
only
significant
non­
human
pathogen
known
in
the
Peconics
is
wasting
disease
in
eelgrass,
Zostera
marina,
caused
by
the
slime
mold,
Labyrinthula
zosterae.
This
has
been
a
problem
in
the
Peconics
in
the
past
and
continues
to
be
a
concern.
This
pathogen
is
discussed
further
in
Chapter
4.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
4
Shellfish
Bed
Closures
The
NYSDEC
Shellfish
Sanitation
Program
classifies
shellfish
growing
areas
using
two
methods:
water
quality
based
closures
and
administrative
closures.

WATER
QUALITY
based
closures
are
determined
when
a
growing
area
fails
to
meet
the
National
Shellfish
Sanitation
Program
(
NSSP)
criteria
for
(
open)
certified
shellfish
growing
areas.
There
are
three
categories
of
water
quality
based
closures:
year­
round,
conditional,
and
seasonal
closures.

Year­
round
closures
are
areas
that
do
not
meet
the
NSSP
criteria
for
any
portion
of
the
year
and
are
closed
to
shellfish
harvesting.

Conditional
closures
apply
to
shellfish
growing
areas
that
fail
to
meet
the
certified
criteria
following
rainfall
events.
The
historic
water
quality
database
has
documented
that
conditional
areas
can
be
open
for
shellfish
harvesting
under
a
restricted
rainfall
"
trigger
amount"
during
the
cold
weather
months
(
usually
December
through
April).
The
"
trigger
amount"
for
each
conditional
area
varies
and
is
based
on
historical
water
quality
data.
All
conditional
areas
are
evaluated
annually
prior
to
the
start
of
the
conditional
program.

Seasonal
closures
are
used
when
a
shellfish
growing
area
fails
to
meet
the
certified
criteria
for
a
portion
of
the
year.
In
general,
a
majority
of
the
seasonal
areas
are
open
for
harvesting
during
the
cold
weather
months
(
November
through
April)
and
are
closed
for
the
warm
weather
months
(
May
through
October).

Temporary
Emergency
Rainfall
Closures
are
put
into
effect
when
shellfish
growing
areas
are
affected
by
greater
than
three
(
3)
inches
of
rainfall
in
a
continuous
thirty­
six
hour
period.
The
Shellfish
Sanitation
Program
uses
these
closures
to
protect
public
health
by
temporarily
closing
the
affected
areas
to
shellfish
harvesting
based
on
historical
water
quality
data
which
documents
that
rainfall
events
of
this
magnitude
degrade
water
quality
below
the
acceptable
criteria
for
shellfish
harvesting.
These
temporary
closures
are
rescinded
when
the
laboratory
analysis
of
the
samples
collected
during
the
closure
determine
that
water
quality
has
returned
to
certified
criteria.

ADMINISTRATIVE
closures
are
used
in
shellfish
growing
areas
as
buffer
zones
around
known
potential
sources
of
pathogens
such
as
sewage
treatment
plant
(
STP)
outfalls,
marinas
and
mooring
areas.
For
example,
administrative
closures
result
from
the
potential
for
an
unpredictable
release
of
pathogens
from
insufficient
treatment
at
a
STP,
or
from
the
discharge
of
untreated
waste
from
marine
sanitation
devices.

Since
the
start
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program,
several
shellfish
beds
have
been
upgraded
in
classification
to
year­
round
or
seasonally
certified
for
harvesting.
Some
of
these
areas
include
all,
or
a
portion
of,
East
Creek,
Fish
Cove,
North
Sea
Harbor,
Wooley
Pond,
Accabonac
Harbor,
Shelter
Island
Sound
near
Stirling
Basin,
and
Hashamomuck
Pond.
These
changes
came
about
primarily
as
a
result
of
increased
water
quality
sampling
in
these
areas,
which
was
done
cooperatively
between
the
NYS
Shellfish
Sanitation
Program
and
East
End
towns.

Several
towns
(
e.
g.,
Southampton
and
Southold)
have
conducted
stormwater
remediation
work
to
improve
water
quality
by
installing
catch
basins
adjacent
to
shellfish
growing
areas.
It
is
important
to
note
that
only
shellfish
beds
closed
due
to
water
quality
violations
have
the
potential
to
be
re­
opened
due
to
remediation
efforts.
Administrative
closures
are
mandated
on
the
basis
of
potential
contamination
and
will
not
be
reduced
or
eliminated
based
on
remediation
efforts.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
5
Shellfish
may
be
harvested
for
direct
human
consumption
in
areas
where
the
median
or
geometric
mean
total
coliform
most
probable
numbers
(
MPN)
do
not
exceed
70
per
100
milliliters
(
70/
100
ml)
of
water
with
not
more
than
10
percent
of
the
samples
exceeding
an
MPN
value
of
230/
100
ml
(
5­
tube
test)
or
330/
100
ml
(
3­
tube
test),
or
the
fecal
coliform
median
or
geometric
mean
MPN
does
not
exceed
14/
100
ml,
with
not
more
than
10
percent
of
the
samples
exceeding
an
MPN
of
43/
100
ml
(
5­
tube
test)
or
49/
100
ml
(
3­
tube
test).
This
determination
is
based
on
a
minimum
of
15
samples
collected
under
adverse
pollution
conditions.
Adverse
pollution
conditions
are
defined
as
the
collection
of
water
samples
on
an
ebbing
tide
within
96
hours
of
a
rainfall
event
of
0.25
to
3.00
inches
in
a
given
24­
hour
period.
These
criteria
are
defined
in
the
National
Shellfish
Sanitation
Program
(
NSSP)
Guideline
for
the
Control
of
Molluscan
Shellfish.

In
January
1997,
the
NYSDEC
Shellfish
Sanitation
Unit
modified
its
Routine
Water
Quality
Monitoring
Program
from
Adverse
Pollution
Condition
(
APC)
Sampling
to
Systematic
Random
Sampling
(
SRS).
APC
focuses
sampling
efforts
exclusively
on
rainfall
events
during
an
ebbing
tide.
SRS
sampling
is
also
done
on
ebbing
tide,
but
sampling
runs
are
scheduled
randomly
in
advance.
Sampling
runs
are
preplanned
throughout
the
year
to
develop
a
historic
database
that
includes
a
mixture
of
warm
and
cold
weather
as
well
as
wet
and
dry
conditions.
Because
SRS
is
conducted
under
various
hydrographic
conditions
(
dry
conditions
and
runoff
conditions),
thirty
(
30)
sets
of
water
quality
data
are
statistically
analyzed
to
determine
water
quality.

QUALITY/
IMPAIRMENTS
Beach
Closures
Excessive
quantities
of
coliform
bacteria
are
generally
found
in
areas
where
the
water
exchange
or
flushing
is
significantly
limited
and
runoff
from
the
surrounding
land
is
high.
For
a
variety
of
reasons,
beaches
are
typically
not
situated
in
areas
with
these
characteristics.
Only
one
bathing
beach
in
the
Peconics,
which
is
in
such
an
area,
has
been
closed
due
to
excessive
coliform
values
 
the
East
Hampton
town
beach
on
the
south
end
of
Lake
Montauk.
Samples
taken
in
the
water
just
off
the
beach
by
the
SCDHS
have
frequently
indicated
exceedences
of
the
State
standard
for
bathing
beaches.
Several
possible
sources
of
this
contamination
have
been
suggested,
including
waterfowl
and
other
wildlife,
as
well
as
overflow
from
the
shallow
sanitary
systems
in
the
Ditch
Plains
community
south
of
the
Lake.
These
systems
sit
on
top
of
a
clay
lens,
which
may
not
allow
sufficient
filtration
of
the
waste.
The
Town
of
East
Hampton
has
obtained
funds
for
a
project
to
remediate
this
potential
source
of
contamination.
Under
this
project,
stormwater
runoff
will
be
directed
through
a
series
of
ditches
and
freshwater
wetlands
for
filtration
before
being
discharged
into
the
embayment.
In
order
to
minimize
the
possibility
of
pathogens
getting
into
south
Lake
Montauk
in
the
future,
the
Town
of
East
Hampton
has
constructed
public
restrooms
at
the
beach,
which
compost
waste
material
rather
than
discharging
it
to
a
conventional
septic
system.
Over
time,
it
is
hoped
that
this
facility
will
demonstrate
the
feasibility
of
using
such
systems
and
result
in
the
construction
of
other
such
facilities
at
public
locations
near
bodies
of
water
that
are
particularly
sensitive
to
pathogen
contamination.

Shellfish
Bed
Closures
Closure
of
shellfish
beds
due
to
pathogens
is
a
problem
in
the
Peconics.
In
the
Peconics,
including
Gardiners
Bay,
121,390
acres
of
bottom
are
available
for
shellfishing.
Just
over
four
percent
(
5,172
acres)
are
closed
to
shellfishing.
Of
these
5,172
acres,
1,960
acres
are
seasonally
certified
or
open
only
during
the
winter,
and
3,212
acres
are
closed
year­
round.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
6
Although
only
about
four
percent
of
the
total
bottom
area
is
closed
to
shellfishing,
a
much
greater
percentage
of
the
total
productive
shellfishing
acreage
is
closed.
Based
on
the
NYS
Shellfish
Sanitation
Program
estimates,
121,390
acres
of
bay
bottom
are
technically
available
for
shellfishing.
Of
these,
only
20,880
acres
are
estimated
to
be
as
productive
shellfishing
areas.
Within
this
productive
area,
2,952
acres
(
14
percent)
are
closed
to
shellfishing.
These
beds
are
closed
because
water
quality
fails
to
meet
the
criteria
established
for
certified
shellfish
growing
areas
by
the
NSSP
and
New
York
State
Regulations.

Most
shellfishing
in
the
Peconics
is
not
done
in
deep
waters.
In
fact,
shellfish
surveys
done
by
the
NYSDEC
in
1979
 
1980
and
again
through
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
in
the
fall
of
1995
have
shown
that
the
deep,
open
waters
of
the
Peconics
that
were
surveyed
contain
very
low
numbers
of
hard
clams
or
any
other
commercially
and
recreationally
important
shellfish
species.

An
assessment
of
shellfish
growing
area
classifications
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
from
1970
to
1995
indicates
that,
over
time,
there
has
been
a
net
increase
in
shellfish
bed
closures
every
year
(
Figure
5­
1).
The
greatest
increase
in
uncertified
acreage
occurred
from
1980
to
1992.
The
increase
in
shellfish
growing
area
closures
is
most
likely
a
result
of
increased
water
quality
monitoring
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
following
the
expansion
of
the
NYSDEC
Shellfish
Sanitation
Program
in
the
late
1980s.
During
this
time,
the
number
of
uncertified
acres
increased
by
an
average
of
151
acres
per
year.
However,
from
1992
to
1995,
the
rate
of
increase
decreased
to
39
acres
per
year.
The
most
probable
reason
for
the
deceleration
in
new
closures
is
that
many
of
the
shallow,
relatively
enclosed
areas
in
the
Peconic
Estuary,
which
tend
to
be
the
most
poorly
flushed
and
heavily
impacted
by
pathogens,
have
already
been
restricted
for
shellfish
harvesting.

At
present,
the
percentage
of
"
productive"
shellfish
beds
closed
in
the
Peconics
is
relatively
low
in
comparison
to
other
bodies
of
water
in
the
New
York
marine
district.
For
example,
in
the
early
1990s,
75
percent
of
the
productive
beds
in
New
York
waters
of
the
Long
Island
Sound
were
restricted
to
shellfish
harvesting
(
year­
round
and
seasonal);
currently,
100
percent
of
the
bottom
in
the
New
York­
New
Jersey
Harbor
core
area
is
closed
to
the
direct
harvesting
of
shellfish,
although
transplants
are
permitted
out
of
this
area
(
see
the
PEP
Pathogens
Characterization
Report
for
more
details
on
the
transplant
program).

Without
further
action
to
reduce
pathogen
loading
to
the
estuary,
additional
shellfish
beds
in
the
Peconics
may
be
closed
to
harvesting
each
year.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
7
Figure
5­
1.
Uncertified
Shellfish
Growing
Area
Acreage
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
System,
1970­
1996.

Harmful
Algal
Blooms
Paralytic
Shellfish
Poisoning
Paralytic
shellfish
poisoning
(
PSP)
caused
by
the
organism
Alexandrium
tamarense
has
been
a
problem
mainly
in
the
northern
New
England
states.
The
organism
produces
a
neurotoxin
that
can
be
concentrated
by
shellfish
which,
when
consumed
by
humans
(
or
other
mammals),
can
result
in
PSP
and
could
be
lethal.
In
a
four­
year
monitoring
study,
from
1986
to
1989,
the
SCDHS
found
that
a
spring
bloom
of
A.
tamarense
consistently
occurred
in
Reeves
Bay
and
also
noted
blooms
in
Terry's
and
East
Creeks
in
1989,
the
one
year
in
which
they
were
investigated.
No
other
stations
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
were
sampled.

Although
A.
tamarense
has
been
detected
on
the
north
and
south
shores
of
Long
Island
and
the
East
End
bays,
PSP
is
not
believed
to
be
a
significant
human
health
threat
in
Suffolk
County.
However,
the
SCDHS
believes
the
presence
of
A.
tamarense
in
our
waters
merits
further
screening,
and
has
requested
$
35,000
from
Suffolk
County
Capital
Funds
for
PSP
organism
investigations
this
year
(
2000).
This
investigation
will
be
limited
to
nine
sites
in
the
Peconic
Estuary,
with
other
areas
of
the
county
being
investigated
in
future
years.
Water
samples
will
be
analyzed
for
phytoplankton,
and
mussels
will
be
deployed
and
later
analyzed
for
PSP
toxins.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
8
Pfiesteria
In
the
summer
of
1999,
the
NYSDEC
and
the
Nassau
and
Suffolk
County
Health
Departments
and
the
Town
of
Hempstead
undertook
a
comprehensive
monitoring
effort
to
assess
the
marine
waters
of
the
State
for
the
presence
of
Pfiesteria
cells.
Pfiesteria
piscicida
is
a
complex
microorganism
that
lives
in
brackish
coastal
waters
and
has
been
associated
with
fish
kills
and
possibly
with
human
health
effects
in
other
states.
The
exact
conditions
to
trigger
toxin
production
by
Pfiesteria
are
poorly
understood.
Pfiesteria
normally
occurs
in
non­
toxic
forms
unless
triggered
to
develop
into
a
toxic
form.
In
a
preliminary
1998
screening
survey
by
the
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services,
Pfiesteria
was
present
in
a
few
water
samples.
The
test,
using
a
molecular
probe
in
the
laboratory,
detects
the
presence
of
Pfiesteria
but
not
the
toxicity.
Water
samples
are
shipped
to
Dr.
Parke
Rublee
of
the
University
of
North
Carolina
where
they
are
analyzed
for
Pfiesteria.

In
1999,
water
samples
were
collected
for
Pfieseria
and
at
the
same
stations
dissolved
oxygen,
temperature
and
salinity
were
also
measured.
In
Peconic
Estuary,
Suffolk
County
also
analyzed
for
a
full
suite
of
water
quality
parameters,
including
nutrients,
total
suspended
solids
and
chlorophyll
a.
Stations
were
sampled
from
one
to
three
times
starting
in
July.
Table
5­
1
lists
the
areas
sampled
for
the
presence
of
Pfiesteria
in
the
PEP.

Table
5­
1.
Areas
Sampled
for
the
Presence
of
Pfiesteria
in
the
PEP.*

1998
Sites
Test
Results
Meetinghouse
Creek
+

River
Avenue
Reeves
Bay
+

1999
Sites
Reeves
Bay
Meetinghouse
Creek
Three
Mile
Harbor
+

Northwest
Creek
+

Sag
Harbor
cove
North
Sea
Harbor
Mill
Creek
Hashamomuck
Pond
East
Creek
in
Cutchogue
East
Creek
in
South
Jamesport
Peconic
River
+
=
Positive
Test
*
Additional
sampling
is
planned
in
2000.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
9
SOURCES
OF
PATHOGENS
IN
THE
PECONIC
ESTUARY
SYSTEM
Both
point
sources
and
nonpoint
sources
of
pollution
contribute
pathogens
to
the
Peconic
Estuary
system.
Point
sources
are
discrete,
easily
identifiable
sources
of
pollution,
such
as
a
discharge
from
a
STP.
Point
sources
that
may
contribute
pathogens
to
the
estuary
include
sewage
treatment
plant
discharges
and
discharge
from
the
Corwin
Duck
Farm
on
Meetinghouse
Creek.
Nonpoint
sources
refer
to
diffuse
sources
of
pollution
which
are
spread
throughout
the
watershed
and
which
have
no
easily
discernable
source
or
point
of
discharge
or
consist
of
many
discrete
sources.
Stormwater
runoff,
which
carries
a
multitude
of
pollutants
from
developed
land,
is
the
largest
contributor
of
pathogens
to
the
Peconic
Estuary
System.

Nonpoint
Sources
of
Pathogen
Contamination
Monitoring
and
research
done
as
part
of
the
Long
Island
Comprehensive
Waste
Treatment
Management
Plan
(
1978),
the
Long
Island
segment
of
the
Nationwide
Urban
Runoff
Program
(
1982),
and
the
Brown
Tide
Comprehensive
Assessment
and
Management
Plan
(
1992)
have
shown
that
the
major
sources
of
pathogens
to
marine
waters
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
are
nonpoint
in
nature.
The
largest
nonpoint
source
is
stormwater
runoff
from
roads
and
open
areas,
including
undeveloped
land
and
farmland.
Pathogen
contributions
to
stormwater
are
dependent
upon
the
characteristics
of
the
land
over
which
the
water
flows.
Fecal
coliforms
running
off
undeveloped
land
are
likely
to
have
originated
from
wildlife
(
including
waterfowl)
while
those
from
developed
areas
may
be
due
to
domestic
animals
and/
or
poorly­
functioning
on­
site
disposal
systems
(
OSDS),
including
septic
tanks
and
cesspools.

In
addition
to
stormwater
runoff,
another
small
but
possibly
locally
significant
nonpoint
source
of
pathogens
is
waste
from
boats,
particularly
in
the
enclosed
waters
around
marinas
and
mooring
areas.
Boater
waste
includes
raw
or
inadequately
treated
sewage
from
boat
waste
receptacles.
Concerns
about
boater
waste
disposal
in
enclosed
waters
has
led
to
seasonal
administrative
closures
of
shellfish
beds
and
temporary
closures
of
beds
during
times
of
particularly
high
use
(
i.
e.,
holiday
weekends
in
the
summer).
An
agreement
has
been
reached
by
the
East
End
towns,
New
York
State
and
the
Marine
Industries
for
designating
the
entire
Peconic
Estuary
a
Vessel
Waste
No
Discharge
Area,
and
will
be
adopted
in
the
near
future.

On­
site
Disposal
Systems
Properly
functioning
on­
site
disposal
systems
(
OSDS)
collect
solid
domestic
wastes
in
a
septic
tank
where
they
are
decomposed
by
microbial
activity.
The
liquid
overflows
into
a
cesspool
and
then
leaches
through
the
soil,
which
filters
out
any
pathogens
that
might
be
present.
Older
systems
may
consist
of
only
a
cesspool
with
no
septic
tank.
If
OSDS
are
poorly
constructed
or
are
not
maintained
and
the
leaching
field
is
compromised,
effluent
can
contribute
pathogens
to
groundwater
or
break
through
the
surface
and
contribute
pathogens
directly
to
runoff.
Studies
done
in
the
early
1980s
showed
that
groundwater
samples
from
around
Long
Island
did
not
contain
numbers
of
coliform
bacteria
exceeding
State
drinking
water
standards.
Therefore,
it
is
assumed
that
groundwater
in
general,
except
perhaps
in
some
highly
localized
situations,
is
not
a
significant
source
of
pathogen
contamination
to
marine
surface
waters.
Localized
contamination
most
often
occurs
if
sanitary
systems
have
not
been
properly
sited,
and
there
is
not
an
adequate
separation
between
the
leaching
pool
and
the
groundwater.
While
current
standards
for
separation
distances
between
OSDS
and
groundwater
and
surface
waters
are
believed
to
be
adequate
with
respect
to
protection
from
bacterial
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
10
contamination,
historic,
improper
siting
of
OSDS
may
result
in
pathogen
loadings
to
the
estuary
system.

Stormwater
Runoff
The
PEP
has
funded
a
regional
stormwater
management
project
to
establish
a
comprehensive,
coordinated,
intergovernmental
stormwater
strategy.
This
project,
which
began
in
the
summer
of
2000,
will
capitalize
on
previous
efforts
and
construct
a
framework
for
continuing
management.
The
goal
is
to
evaluate
the
entire
watershed,
with
a
very
high
level
of
detail
afforded
to
a
few
key
subwatersheds
Some
of
the
primary
outputs
from
the
project
will
include:

 
Characterization
of
stormwater
inputs,
identification
of
areas
impacted
by
stormwater
runoff,
and
assessment
of
the
extent
of
those
impacts;

 
Several
high­
quality
GIS
overlays
and
a
report
which
will
serve
as
a
continuing
management
resource;

 
Identification
of
areas
in
need
of
preservation;

 
Identification
of
mitigation
priorities
based
on
cost­
effectiveness;

 
Production
of
a
regional
stormwater
strategy;

 
Recommendations
for
additional
monitoring,
investigations,
and
demonstrations;
and,

 
Development
of
inputs
to
the
PEP
computer
models,
and
recommendations
for
additional
investigations.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
11
Best
Management
Practices
Because
of
its
nature,
nonpoint
source
pollution
is
not
easy
to
quantify
or
control.
Often,
it
is
difficult
to
collect
and
treat
stormwater
runoff
due
to
space
restrictions
and
the
high
costs
associated
with
remediation
projects.
OSDS
problems
are
difficult
to
track
and
remediate
due
to
the
cost
and
the
lack
of
enforceable
requirements
for
operation
and
maintenance.
Boater
waste
is
equally
difficult
to
document
and
prevent.
Nevertheless,
protecting
human
health
as
well
as
maintaining
the
remaining
certified
shellfish
beds
and
re­
opening
those
currently
closed
will
depend
on
the
identification
and
implementation
of
effective
measures
to
control
these
sources
of
pathogens.
A
number
of
projects
aimed
at
minimizing
or
treating
stormwater
runoff
have
been
implemented
throughout
the
Peconics,
including
a
grass
filter
strip,
artificial
wetlands,
and
Open
Marsh
Water
Management.

Point
Sources
of
Pathogen
Contamination
Point
sources
of
pathogens
in
the
Peconics
include
STPs,
as
well
as
one
duck
farm
in
the
watershed
that
may
discharge
effluent
directly
into
Meetinghouse
Creek.
The
Corwin
duck
farm's
NYSDEC
SPDES
permit
allows
the
facility
to
discharge
to
surface
waters
only
in
the
event
of
an
extraordinary
rainfall
(
e.
g.,
"
ten­
year
storm").
The
effluent
from
the
sewage
treatment
plants
is
treated
year­
round
to
kill
pathogens.
The
need
for
and
extent
of
disinfection
of
the
effluent
is
determined
by
the
classification
of
the
waters
into
which
the
effluent
is
discharged
(
Table
5­
2).
All
of
the
sewage
treatment
plants
in
the
Peconics
are
required
to
employ
year­
round
BMPs
for
Controlling
Stormwater
Runoff
Numerous
Best
Management
Practices,
or
BMPs,
can
be
used
to
minimize
and
treat
stormwater
runoff
before
it
reaches
a
receiving
body
of
water.
Some
of
the
ongoing
projects
in
the
Peconics
are
detailed
below.

Grass
Filter
Strip.
Runoff
may
enter
a
stream
or
bay
as
a
direct
discharge
from
a
pipe
collecting
drainage
from
a
nearby
road.
Often
this
discharge
is
very
intense
during
rainfall
events
and
can
act
as
a
significant
source
of
coliforms.
In
addition,
such
a
powerful
discharge
can
erode
streambanks
and
add
to
the
sediment
load
of
a
body
of
water.
Filter
strips
are
areas
of
natural
vegetation
between
the
road
and
the
water,
which
are
designed
to
slow
flow
and
allow
time
for
infiltration
of
the
runoff
before
it
reaches
the
stream.
There
are
many
spots
in
the
Peconics
where
stormwater
runoff
from
roads
enters
bays
and
streams
forcefully,
carrying
high
levels
of
coliforms.
A
filter
strip,
such
as
the
one
constructed
at
Gardiners
Creek
on
Shelter
Island,
may
be
the
best
solution
in
such
areas.

Artificial
Wetlands.
These
constructed
areas
of
natural
vegetation
may
be
used
to
filter
effluent
from
concentrated
animal
feeding
operations,
as
is
being
demonstrated
at
the
Corwin
Duck
Farm
in
Riverhead.
Artificial
wetlands
also
may
be
effective
in
treating
stormwater
moving
into
the
estuary.
As
with
the
grass
filter
strip,
these
wetlands
act
to
capture
and
filter
runoff
and
slow
the
flow
of
water,
which
also
eases
erosion.

Open
Marsh
Water
Management.
Tidal
wetlands
around
the
Peconics
were
extensively
ditched
for
mosquito
control
in
the
last
century.
Since
mosquitoes
breed
in
standing
water,
it
was
thought
that
ditching
marshes
to
facilitate
drainage
would
result
in
less
standing
water
at
low
tide.
However,
it
is
now
believed
that
the
increased
drainage
has
allowed
stormwater
runoff
coming
into
the
marsh
to
enter
the
main
bodies
of
water
without
adequate
detention
time,
resulting
in
high
loading
of
coliform
bacteria
to
subtidal
shellfish
beds.
Diking
the
mosquito
ditches
will
result
in
the
retention
of
a
greater
amount
of
runoff.
Greater
retention
times
will
result
in
fewer
live
pathogens
reaching
the
shallowsubtidal
regions
of
the
estuary.
In
this
way,
the
impacts
of
stormwater
runoff
with
respect
to
pathogen
contamination
will
be
minimized.
Demonstrations
of
this
technique,
known
as
Open
Marsh
Water
Management
(
OMWM),
are
being
carried
out
by
Cornell
Cooperative
Extension
in
cooperation
with
the
Town
of
East
Hampton.
In
addition,
the
NYSDEC
has
received
a
grant
from
the
US
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
(
USFWS)
National
Coastal
Wetlands
Restoration
Program
for
implementation
of
OMWM
on
state­
owned
tidal
wetlands
in
the
Town
of
Southold.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
12
disinfection.
The
total
coliform
most
probable
number
(
MPN)
limit
on
effluent
discharged
by
these
plants
is
700
coliforms/
100
ml.
The
average
monthly
MPN
limit
on
fecal
coliforms
discharged
in
effluent
from
Peconic
STPs
is
200
coliforms/
100
ml,
and
the
maximum
MPN
concentration
is
400
coliforms/
100
ml.

Table
5­
2.
Sewage
Treatment
Plants
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
System.

Sewage
Treatment
Plant
Receiving
Waterbody
Surface
Water
Classification
and
Description1
Brookhaven
National
Lab
Headwaters
of
the
Peconic
River
Class
C
 
Best
usage
is
fishing.
These
waters
shall
be
suitable
for
fish
propagation
and
survival.
The
water
quality
shall
be
suitable
for
primary
and
secondary
contact
recreation,
although
other
factors
may
limit
the
use
for
these
purposes.

Riverhead
Tidal
Peconic
River
Class
SC
 
Best
usage
is
fishing.
These
waters
shall
be
suitable
for
fish
propagation
and
survival.
The
water
quality
shall
be
suitable
for
primary
and
secondary
contact
recreation,
although
other
factors
may
limit
the
use
for
these
purposes.

Shelter
Island
Heights
Shelter
Island
Sound
Sag
Harbor
Sag
Harbor
Plum
Island
Gardiners
Bay
Class
SA
 
Best
usages
are
shellfishing
for
market
purposes,
primary
and
secondary
contact
recreation,
and
fishing.
These
waters
shall
be
suitable
for
fish
propagation
and
survival.

Calverton
(
former
Grumman
Facility)
Headwaters
of
the
Peconic
River
Class
C
 
Best
usage
is
fishing.
These
waters
shall
be
suitable
for
fish
propagation
and
survival.
The
water
quality
shall
be
suitable
for
primary
and
secondary
contact
recreation,
although
other
factors
may
limit
the
use
for
these
purposes.

1
These
classifications
are
for
general
usage
and
not
for
the
harvest
of
shellfish,
e.
g.,
portions
of
Shelter
Island
Sound,
Sag
Harbor,
and
Gardiners
Bay
are
closed
to
shellfish
harvesting.

Chlorination
has
traditionally
been
the
disinfection
method
used
by
STPs
to
treat
effluent
because
it
has
always
been
assumed
that
pathogens,
like
coliform
bacteria,
are
killed
by
chlorination.
There
is
evidence,
however,
that
viruses
are
not
effectively
eliminated
by
exposure
to
chlorine.
A
second
concern
related
to
the
use
of
chlorine
is
the
toxicity
of
chlorine
to
marine
life.
For
this
reason,
there
are
limits
set
on
the
concentration
of
chlorine
discharged
in
effluent
from
STPs.
The
Brookhaven
National
Lab
(
BNL)
and
the
Plum
Island
STPs
now
uses
an
ultraviolet
(
UV)
disinfection
process.
UV
has
been
proposed
for
use
at
Riverhead
and
Sag
Harbor
and
was
being
pilot
tested
in
Shelter
Island
Heights.

The
discharge
of
duck
waste
from
the
Corwin
Duck
Farm
is
also
considered
a
point
source
and
the
farm
is
required
to
have
a
State
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
permit.
In
an
attempt
to
lower
the
levels
of
coliforms
in
the
effluent,
a
freshwater
wetland
was
constructed
on­
site
at
the
duck
farm
and
is
being
used
to
filter
the
effluent
prior
to
discharge.
Studies
elsewhere
have
shown
that
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
13
sediment/
plant
associations
of
freshwater
wetlands
are
effective
in
removing
contaminants
from
runoff
as
it
flows
across
and
through
them.
It
is
believed
that
the
system
acts
as
a
filter
that
captures
pathogens
and
retains
them
until
they
die
rather
than
allowing
them
to
move
into
a
body
of
water
along
with
the
runoff.

MANAGEMENT
ACTIONS
The
actions
in
this
chapter
are
categorized
by
point
sources
and
nonpoint
sources
of
pathogen
contamination.
Of
these
two,
the
vast
majority
of
the
actions
are
directed
at
nonpoint
sources.
Point
sources
and
nonpoint
sources
of
pollution
contribute
many
harmful
materials
other
than
pathogens
to
the
estuary.
For
this
reason,
the
approach
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
in
formulating
these
actions
has
involved
research
on
a
variety
of
topics,
including
water
quality
modeling,
sediment
accretion
and
flux
dynamics,
and
groundwater
underflow
and
discharge
determinations.
So,
while
the
actions
in
this
chapter
are
primarily
designed
to
minimize
or
prevent
the
movement
of
waste
material
and
pathogen
indicators
into
the
estuary,
many
of
the
actions
will
also
serve
to
reduce
other
forms
of
pollution.

The
most
significant
sources
of
pathogens
are
stormwater
runoff
from
roads
and
open
land,
on­
site
disposal
systems,
and
domestic
and
wild
animal
waste.
Another
small
but
possibly
locally
significant
source
of
pathogens
is
waste
from
boats.
Actions
to
mitigate
stormwater
runoff
include
best
management
practices
in
construction,
road­
building,
and
storm
drain
construction
and
maintenance.
Measures
to
mitigate
waste
from
on­
site
disposal
systems
include
tracking
and
upgrading
failing
systems
and
best
management
practices
for
siting,
construction,
and
maintenance
of
new
systems.
Mitigation
of
pathogen
input
from
animal
waste
can
be
addressed
through
best
management
practices
for
stormwater
runoff.
Boater
waste
will
be
addressed
through
the
construction
of
pump­
outs
and
through
designation
and
implementation
of
vessel
waste
no
discharge
areas
at
locations
throughout
the
estuary.

Public
education
about
boater
waste,
on­
site
disposal
systems,
animal
waste,
and
other
types
of
nonpoint
source
pollution
is
an
extremely
important
tool
for
reducing
pathogens
entering
the
estuary.
The
Public
Education
and
Outreach
chapter
of
this
Plan
includes
actions
that
will
address
the
need
for
education
regarding
the
control
and
reduction
of
pathogen
loadings
to
the
estuary.
The
Pathogen
Management
Actions
are
listed
and
discussed
in
the
pages
that
follow.
Additional
information
on
costs
and
implementing
entities
is
contained
in
Table
5­
5
at
the
end
of
this
chapter.

Within
the
CCMP,
some
steps
within
the
actions
have
been
identified
as
priorities,
as
indicated
under
the
step
number.
The
PEP
will
seek
to
implement
priority
actions
in
the
near
term.
Priorities
may
be
either
new
or
ongoing,
commitments
or
recommendations.
Completing
some
priority
actions
does
not
require
any
new
or
additional
resources,
because
they
are
being
undertaken
through
"
base
programs"
or
with
funding
that
has
been
committed.
In
other
cases,
in
order
to
complete
the
priority
actions,
new
or
additional
resources
need
to
be
secured
by
some
or
all
of
the
responsible
entities.
There
are
a
number
of
alternatives
that
STPs
can
pursue
in
an
effort
to
alleviate
the
concern
over
chlorination.
One
alternative
is
to
use
a
different,
non­
chemical
disinfectant.
The
Peconic
Estuary
Program
is
demonstrating
the
use
of
ultraviolet
light
for
pathogen
removal
from
STP
effluent.
Research
has
shown
this
treatment
to
be
deadly
to
viruses
as
well
as
bacteria
and
it
leaves
no
residue
in
the
effluent.
This
study
is
being
conducted
at
the
Shelter
Island
Heights
STP.
This
demonstration
project
hopes
to
show
that
ultraviolet
treatment
can
serve
as
a
safe
and
effective
replacement
for,
or
as
an
adjunct
to,
chlorination.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
14
PATHOGENS
MANAGEMENT
ACTIONS
Stormwater
Runoff
P­
1.
Use
Existing
or
Implement
New
Stormwater
Management
Regulations
to
Control
Pathogen
Loading
and
Other
Forms
of
Nonpoint
Source
Pollution.

P­
2.
Develop
Land
Use
Regulations
that
Eliminate
or
Minimize
New
Sources
of
Stormwater
Runoff.

P­
3.
Use
Construction
Site
Guidelines
which
Eliminate
or
Minimize
Stormwater
Runoff.

P­
4.
Demonstrate
and
Implement
Technologies
to
Remediate
Stormwater
Runoff.

On­
site
Disposal
Systems
P­
5.
Enhance
Existing
Septic
System
Controls
and
Implement
New
Best
Management
Practices.

Assess
and
Manage
Vessel
Wastes
and
Marinas
P­
6.
Provide
Pumpout
Facilities
and
Encourage
Their
Use.

P­
7.
Establish
Vessel
Waste
No
Discharge
Areas.

P­
8.
Use
Administrative
and
Regulatory
Measures
to
Control
Pollution
from
Boaters
and
Marinas.

P­
9.
Promote
the
Use
of
Best
Management
Practices
to
Control
Pathogen
Loadings
from
Marinas,
Mooring
Areas,
and
Boatyards.

Point
Sources
P­
10.
Ensure
Adequate
Disinfection
at
Sewage
Treatment
Plants.

P­
11.
Monitor
Effluent
from
the
Corwin
Duck
Farm.

Assess
and
Manage
Nonpoint
Sources
P­
12.
Identify
Sources
and
Loadings
of
Nonpoint
Sources
of
Pathogens.

P­
13.
Develop
and
Implement
Nonpoint
Source
Control
Plans
for
Pathogens.

P­
14.
Obtain
Funding
to
Address
Stormwater
Runoff.

Water
Quality
Monitoring
P­
15.
Conduct
Water
Quality
Monitoring.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
15
Addresses
Pathogen
Management
Objectives
1,
3,
and
4.

The
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
program
requires
certain
activities
obtain
authorization
(
via
a
permit)
to
discharge
pollutants
via
stormwater
runoff
to
surface
waterways.
In
New
York,
this
requirement
is
covered
under
two
General
Stormwater
Permits
through
the
State
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
SPDES)
program.
One
permit
covers
activities
associated
with
construction
activities
(>
five
acres
in
size)
and
the
second
covers
the
remaining
activities
listed
in
the
NPDES
regulations.
Unless
covered
by
a
separate
individual
SPDES
permit,
the
only
other
alternative
for
dischargers
that
need
a
permit
is
one
of
the
general
permits.
The
general
permit
requires
the
development
and
implementation
of
a
program
with
the
goal
of
preventing
or
reducing
pollutant
runoff
from
municipal
operations.
The
program
must
include
municipal
staff
training
on
pollution
prevention
measures
and
techniques
(
e.
g.,
regular
street
sweeping,
reduction
in
use
of
pesticides
or
street
salt,
or
frequent
catch­
basin
cleaning).
The
plan
need
not
be
submitted
to
the
NYSDEC
unless
asked,
but
must
be
kept
on­
site
and
continually
updated.
The
NYSDEC
may
request
to
see
these
plans
and
may
require
changes
in
practices
if
adverse
impacts
on
receiving
waters
have,
or
may
have
occur
(
red).
Significant
fines
for
violations
face
violators.

Phase
II
of
the
EPA
Stormwater
regulations
were
finalized
in
October
1999.
This
set
of
regulations
contains
important
changes
and
requirements
for
construction
activities
and
certain
municipal
separate
storm
sewer
systems
serving
populations
less
than
100,000
and
construction
activities
that
disturb
areas
between
one
and
five
acres.
These
regulations
will
potentially
have
a
significant
impact
on
stormwater
management
in
the
Peconic
Estuary.
NYSDEC
is
currently
evaluating
the
program
changes
necessary
to
comply
with
the
new
regulations.

Steps
P­
1.1
Continue
to
implement
general
stormwater
permit
programs
to
control
the
discharge
of
stormwater
from
industrial,
construction,
and
municipal
activities.

P­
1.2
Determine
if
general
stormwater
permits
adequately
regulate
pollution
from
activities
subject
to
national
stormwater
regulations.

P­
1.3
Investigate
the
need
to
regulate,
for
general
stormwater
management,
communities
with
populations
less
than
100,000
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
watershed
in
order
to
control
coliform
discharges.

Responsible
Entities
P­
1.1
NYSDEC
(
lead)
and
EPA
(
data
management
system)

P­
1.2
PEP
(
lead
for
assessment)
and
NYSDEC
(
permit
issuance)

P­
1.3
NYSDEC
(
lead)
P­
1.
Use
Existing
or
Implement
New
Stormwater
Management
Regulations
to
Control
Pathogen
Loading
and
Other
Forms
of
Nonpoint
Source
Pollution.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
16
Addresses
Pathogen
Management
Objectives
1,
2,
3,
and
4.

Much
of
the
runoff
to
the
estuary
from
private
property
enters
from
land
directly
adjacent
to
the
water.
Commercial
operations
along
the
waterfront
may
require
a
large
area
of
hard
surfaces
such
as
parking
lots,
which
often
result
in
the
removal
of
natural
vegetation.
These
conditions
can
result
in
increased
stormwater
runoff.
The
impact
of
this
runoff
in
terms
of
erosion
and
pathogens
can
be
mitigated
by
permit
conditions
(
e.
g.,
Articles
24
and
25,
NYSDEC
wetland
regulations),
use
restrictions,
or
other
controls
on
activities
taking
place
on
waterfront
property.
Controlling
stormwater
runoff
from
non­
waterfront
property
and
vacant
lands
can
be
accomplished
through
a
variety
of
land
use
regulations,
such
as
protective
zoning,
transfer
of
development
rights
to
limit
density,
and
standards
for
stormwater
discharges
from
lands
developed
or
redeveloped
in
the
future.

Local
legislation
that
is
highly
protective
of
the
coastal
zone,
such
as
the
East
Hampton
Harbor
Protection
Overlay
District
(
HPOD),
has
proven
very
effective
on
a
relatively
discrete,
enclosed
body
of
water
entirely
within
local
jurisdiction.
However,
in
order
for
such
a
measure
to
be
protective
of
a
regional
body
of
water
such
as
the
entire
Peconic
Estuary,
this
type
of
legislation
must
be
enacted
on
a
system­
wide
basis.

Steps
P­
2.1
Evaluate
existing,
and
develop
model
land
use
regulations
that
eliminate
or
minimize
new
Priority
sources
of
stormwater
runoff.

P­
2.2
Review
the
East
Hampton
HPOD
legislation
and
the
results
of
its
implementation;
adopt
similar
regulations
for
other
East
End
towns
and
villages.

P­
2.3
Adopt
land
use
regulations
that
eliminate
or
minimize
new
sources
of
stormwater
runoff.

P­
2.4
Control
the
impacts
of
waterfront
development
through
a
prohibition
on
all
new
non­
waterdependent
commercial
development.

Responsible
Entities
P­
2.1
PEP
(
lead)
through
contractor
P­
2.2
PEP
(
lead)
with
contractor
assistance,
and
towns
and
villages
P­
2.3
Towns
of
East
Hampton,
Southampton,
Shelter
Island,
Southold,
and
Brookhaven;
and
incorporated
villages
P­
2.4
Towns
of
East
Hampton,
Southampton,
Shelter
Island,
Southold,
and
Riverhead;
and
NYSDOS
P­
2.
Develop
Land
Use
Regulations
that
Eliminate
or
Minimize
New
Sources
of
Stormwater
Runoff.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
17
Addresses
Pathogen
Management
Objectives
2
and
3.

Construction
sites
of
all
types
and
sizes
can
be
significant
sources
of
pollutants
to
stormwater
runoff
because
the
natural
vegetation
and
land
forms
which
would
normally
slow
and
absorb
runoff
have
been
removed.
The
Clean
Water
Act
requires
stormwater
permits
for
construction
activities
on
sites
involving
soil
disturbances
of
five
acres
or
more.
However,
the
threshold
will
be
reduced
to
one
or
more
acres
of
disturbance
in
March
2003.
These
permits
contain
a
requirement
for
the
permittee
to
develop
a
sediment
and
erosion
control
plan
for
the
project.

Developing
official
guidelines
for
sediment
and
erosion
control
plans
would
ensure
that
construction
sites
of
all
sizes
would
have
access
to
information
about
appropriate
BMPs
for
controlling
runoff.
These
guidelines
could
be
incorporated
into
recommendations
for
stormwater
plans
required
for
General
Stormwater
permits
or
they
could
be
required
by
town
planning
boards
for
incorporation
into
site
plans.
State
Building
Codes
could
also
be
expanded
to
include
provisions
for
sediment
and
erosion
control
measures.

Steps
P­
3.1
Require
the
use
of
BMPs
to
control
stormwater
runoff
and
sediment
erosion
at
construction
Priority
sites.

P­
3.2
Pursue
the
expansion
of
the
State
Building
Code
to
include
provisions
for
stormwater
runoff
control
practices
and
erosion
and
sediment
control
for
all
construction
activities.

P­
3.3
Implement
standards
for
building
permits
and
subdivision
approvals
that
will
require
new
developments
to
retain
and
treat
all
stormwater
runoff
on
the
property
to
the
extent
practicable.

P­
3.4
Continue,
through
Federal
programs
(
Clean
Water
Act,
section
404)
and
State
programs
(
the
Tidal
Wetlands
Regulatory
Program,
Article
25,
the
Freshwater
Wetlands
Program,
Article
24,
and
the
Protection
of
Waters
Program,
Article
15),
to
regulate
all
construction
projects
to
ensure
that
they
prevent
or
minimize
impacts
to
wetlands
and
other
natural
resources
from
stormwater
runoff
and
septic
system
leakage.

P­
3.5
Require
sediment
and
erosion
control
and
stormwater
runoff
pollution
prevention
plans
for
new
development
greater
than
five
acres,
as
well
as
to
areas
of
disturbance
that
are
one
acre
or
more,
effective
in
March
2003.

P­
3.6
Review
the
Suffolk
County
contractor
licensing
process
for
effectiveness
and
amend
regulations
to
provide
for
fines
and
revocation
where
repeated
violations
of
land
use
and
site
plan
laws
are
committed
by
contractors.
P­
3.
Use
Construction
Site
Guidelines
which
Eliminate
or
Minimize
Stormwater
Runoff.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
18
Responsible
Entities
P­
3.1
Towns
of
East
Hampton,
Southampton,
Shelter
Island,
Southold,
Riverhead,
and
Brookhaven;
and
incorporated
villages
P­
3.2
NYSDOS
and
NYSDEC
(
co­
leads)

P­
3.3
Towns
of
East
Hampton,
Southampton,
Shelter
Island,
Southold,
Riverhead,
and
Brookhaven
and
incorporated
villages
P­
3.4
USACE
(
Federal
lead),
NYSDEC
(
state
lead),
EPA
and
NMFS
P­
3.5
Towns
of
East
Hampton,
Southampton,
Shelter
Island,
Southold,
and
Riverhead;
and
incorporated
villages
P­
3.6
PEP
(
lead
for
review)
and
Suffolk
County
(
lead
for
making
amendments),
SCDHS,
NYSDEC,
EPA
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
19
Addresses
Pathogen
Management
Objectives
2,
3,
and
4.

One
way
to
reduce
pathogen
loadings
to
the
estuary
system
is
to
remediate
stormwater
runoff.
A
number
of
projects
aimed
at
minimizing
or
treating
stormwater
runoff
have
been
implemented
throughout
the
Peconics.
For
example,
the
New
York
State
Department
of
Transportation
(
NYSDOT)
has
committed
millions
of
dollars
for
mitigation
of
runoff
from
State
roads
and
is
working
with
the
towns
to
identify
the
priority
sites
for
remediation.
The
Town
of
Southampton
has
already
developed
and
implemented
a
comprehensive
program
financed
through
a
$
2
million
bond
act
that
was
passed
in
1994.
The
New
York
State
Clean
Water/
Clean
Air
Bond
Act
also
provides
funding
for
stormwater
remediation
in
the
Peconic
Estuary.
An
example
is
the
remediation
of
highway
stormwater
discharge
to
Hashamomuck
Pond
in
the
Town
of
Southold
($
600,000
State
and
$
600,000
local
match).
Other
towns
have
identified
some
priority
locations
and
will
remediate
them
as
funds
are
made
available.
Examples
of
specific
remediation
projects
include
a
grass
filter
strip
on
Shelter
Island
($
10,000
in
Near
Coastal
Waters
funds),
artificial
wetlands
at
several
locations
in
Southold
($
10,000
FY
1995
Action
Plan
Demonstration
Project
funds),
and
Open
Marsh
Water
Management
in
both
East
Hampton
and
Southold
($
11,000
Near
Coastal
Waters
fund
for
Northwest
and
Accobonac
Harbors;
$
236,000
USFWS
funds
for
Long
Beach
Bay).

In
addition
to
general
recommendations
regarding
remediation,
two
of
the
actions
below
highlight
ongoing
projects
in
the
Peconics
which
have
been
designed
to
mitigate
coliform
contamination.
The
effectiveness
of
existing
and
new
remediation
projects
needs
to
be
assessed
through
water
quality
monitoring
both
before
and
after
project
implementation.
The
Peconic
Estuary
Program
is
also
funding
a
Regional
Stormwater
Management
Plan.

For
related
actions,
see
P­
13
and
P­
14.

Steps
P­
4.1
Demonstrate
a
variety
of
different
technologies
to
remediate
stormwater
runoff
and
determine
the
effectiveness
and
appropriateness
of
the
technologies
in
various
settings
around
the
estuary.

P­
4.2
Ensure
that
information
on
ongoing,
successful
stormwater
remediation
projects
is
shared
among
the
NYSDOT,
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Public
Works,
and
towns
and
villages
in
a
timely
fashion.

P­
4.3
Ensure
that
the
NYSDEC
and
the
SCDHS
continue
to
work
cooperatively
with
East
End
towns
on
stormwater
remediation
projects
by
providing
monitoring
support
following
the
implementation
of
management
actions,
providing
ambient
coliform
loading
data,
helping
to
evaluate
sources
of
coliform
bacteria,
and
assessing
localized
impacts
of
runoff,
particularly
on
shellfish
beds
and
bathing
beaches.

P­
4.4
Implement
the
Town
of
East
Hampton
Ditch
Plains
Oceanside
Drainage
Project
to
restore
the
water
quality
of
South
Lake
Montauk.
P­
4.
Demonstrate
and
Implement
Technologies
to
Remediate
Stormwater
Runoff.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
20
P­
4.5
Conduct
a
pilot
project
to
construct
and
operate
a
composting
waste
toilet
facility
at
the
East
Hampton
Town
Beach
on
Lake
Montauk.
Evaluate
the
effectiveness
of
such
a
facility
and
determine
if
there
are
other
locations
around
the
estuary
where
this
type
of
toilet
could
be
installed
for
public
use.

P­
4.6
Develop
a
"
Regional
Stormwater
Management
Plan"
to
evaluate
and
recommend
Priority
technologies
to
remediate
stormwater
runoff
in
the
estuary.

Responsible
Entities
P­
4.1
PEP
(
lead)

P­
4.2
PEP
(
lead)
through
contract
with
Cornell
Cooperative
Extension
P­
4.3
NYSDEC
Shellfish
Sanitation
Program
and
SCDHS
Office
of
Ecology
(
co­
leads)

P­
4.4
Town
of
East
Hampton
(
lead)
and
Cornell
Cooperative
Extension
P­
4.5
Town
of
East
Hampton
P­
4.6
PEP
(
lead)
through
contractor
and
Peconic
Baykeeper,
EPA,
NYSDEC,
SCDHS
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
21
Addresses
Pathogen
Management
Objectives
1,
2,
3,
and
4.

Wastewater
treatment
for
most
of
the
residences,
businesses,
and
institutions
of
the
watershed
of
the
Peconics
is
serviced
by
on­
site
disposal
systems
(
OSDS),
such
as
septic
tanks
or
cesspools.
In
some
areas,
these
systems
are
decades
old
and
have
not
been
properly
maintained.
Systems
that
have
not
had
the
solids
pumped
regularly
and
whose
leaching
fields
have
been
compromised
by
clogging
may
eventually
release
inadequately
filtered
fluids
that
contain
high
concentrations
of
pathogens.
Once
released
to
the
surface,
these
fluids
can
be
carried
into
the
estuary
via
stormwater.

One
of
the
simplest
and
most
effective
methods
of
pinpointing
septic
system
leakage
is
through
the
placement
of
dye
in
the
toilets
of
the
suspected
system.
The
appearance
of
the
dye
in
nearby
surface
waters
after
a
period
of
time
will
indicate
a
compromise
of
the
leaching
field.
However,
these
tests
can
only
be
done
with
the
cooperation
of
the
homeowner,
and
it
is
often
difficult
to
obtain
permission
to
run
the
tests
since
a
positive
result
may
end
in
a
requirement
for
the
homeowner
to
repair,
upgrade,
or
replace
the
entire
system.
Providing
a
means
to
obtain
funding
for
repairing
and
upgrading
OSDS
might
result
in
fewer
failing
systems.

Because
current
inspections
by
government
agencies
and
voluntary
dye­
testing
may
not
be
effective
at
identifying
and
remediating
all
substandard
or
malfunctioning
OSDS
in
the
Peconic
area,
it
may
be
necessary
to
mandate
inspections
and
repair/
replacement
of
OSDS
under
certain
circumstances.

For
related
actions,
see
Public
Outreach
and
Education
POE­
3.3,
POE­
5.5,
POE­
5.6,
and
N­
5.

Steps
P­
5.1
Implement
existing
programs
that
identify
failing
septic
systems
and
work
with
property
owners
to
have
the
systems
repaired
or
replaced.
Regular
inspection
and
testing
could
be
done
by
local
agencies,
particularly
in
older
communities,
to
ensure
that
problems
are
detected
and
addressed
in
a
timely
manner.
For
those
municipalities
with
existing
inspection
regulations,
those
regulations
should
be
enforced.

P­
5.2
Work
with
waterfront
residents
to
conduct
voluntary
dye
tests
on
their
septic
systems
to
Priority
determine
if
there
are
significant
leakage
problems.

P­
5.3
Develop
and
implement
a
requirement
for
inspection
and
certification
of
OSDS
at
specified
intervals
or
upon
transfer
of
property.
If
a
system
does
not
meet
current
standards,
the
homeowners
would
be
required
to
repair
or
replace
the
system.

P­
5.4
Investigate
the
need
for
and
feasibility
of
establishing
an
OSDS
(
septic
system)
district(
s)
to
provide
homeowners
access
to
low­
interest
loans
available
through
the
State
Revolving
Fund
to
repair
and
upgrade
malfunctioning
OSDS.
P­
5.
Enhance
Existing
Septic
System
Controls
and
Implement
New
Best
Management
Practices.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
22
P­
5.5
Conduct
a
workshop
with
appropriate
State,
Suffolk
County,
and
town
officials
to
review
and
evaluate
existing
septic
system
controls
(
including
system
monitoring,
required
maintenance,
and
repair
and
replacement
of
failing
systems)
and
current
BMPs
for
septic
systems.

P­
5.6
Implement
OSDS
BMPs
contained
in
NYSDEC
guidance
for
new
developments.

Responsible
Entities
P­
5.1
Towns
of
East
Hampton,
Southampton,
Shelter
Island,
Southold,
Riverhead,
and
Brookhaven;
and
SCDHS
P­
5.2
Towns
of
East
Hampton,
Southampton,
Shelter
Island,
Southold,
Riverhead,
and
Brookhaven;
and
SCDHS
P­
5.3
PEP
(
lead);
Towns
of
East
Hampton,
Southampton,
Shelter
Island,
Southold,
Riverhead,
and
Brookhaven;
and
SCDHS
P­
5.4
PEP
(
lead),
State
Environmental
Facilities
Corporation,
towns,
SCDHS
P­
5.5
PEP
P­
5.6
Towns
of
East
Hampton,
Southampton,
Shelter
Island,
Southold,
Riverhead,
and
Brookhaven;
and
SCDHS
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
23
Addresses
Pathogen
Management
Objectives
1,
3,
and
4.

One
of
the
ways
to
reduce
the
potential
for
pathogen
loading
in
marina
and
mooring
areas
from
human
sewage
is
to
minimize
boater
discharges.
Boats
on
which
people
stay
for
extended
periods
of
time
represent
a
particular
concern
because
of
the
amount
of
waste
generated
on
these
vessels.
There
is
currently
legislation
that
requires
that
marinas,
which
dock
houseboats/
barges,
have
a
functioning
pumpout
station.
This
law
needs
to
be
rigorously
enforced.
The
use
of
shoreside
restrooms
and
the
use
of
Type
III
marine
sanitation
devices
(
MSD)
on
boats
(
which
have
holding
tanks),
combined
with
pumpout
facilities
at
marinas,
would
minimize
the
potential
for
release
of
pathogens
into
the
water
through
untreated
wastes
and
wastes
from
boats
with
Types
I
and
II
marine
sanitation
devices.

The
Federal
Clean
Vessel
Act
(
CVA)
provides
money
to
the
States
to
develop
a
plan
for
siting
and
constructing
pumpout
facilities
at
docks
and
marinas
in
an
effort
to
reduce
the
potential
contamination
of
coastal
waters
with
human
sewage
from
boats.
The
Act
also
provides
grant
money
to
be
administered
by
the
States
for
subsidizing
the
construction
of
these
facilities
once
the
need
has
been
identified
at
specific
sites.
Currently
funded
projects
are
listed
in
Table
5­
3.
All
funds
from
the
CVA
have
currently
been
obligated;
it
is
not
anticipated
that
additional
funding
will
be
available
through
this
legislation.

For
related
actions,
see
Public
Outreach
and
Education
POE­
3.4
and
POE­
3.5.

Steps
P­
6.1
Continue
to
provide
boaters
with
incentives
to
use
pumpout
stations,
such
as
providing
pumpout
stations
that
are
easy
to
use,
clean,
quick,
free
(
or
low­
cost),
and
land­
based
or
mobile.

P­
6.2
Conduct
a
survey
of
recreational
vessels
and
pumpout
stations
in
the
Peconic
Estuary,
and
prepare
a
plan
for
the
construction,
installation,
maintenance,
and
repair
of
pumpouts
and
waste
reception
facilities
sufficient
to
qualify
all
or
parts
of
the
Peconics
for
designation
as
a
vessel
waste
no
discharge
area.
(
See
P­
7
for
related
action.)

P­
6.3
Administer
Statewide
Clean
Vessel
Act
(
CVA)
grants
(
and
any
other
similar
grants)
for
the
construction,
installation,
maintenance,
and
repair
of
pumpout
and
waste
reception
facilities
pursuant
to
the
State
Clean
Vessel
Act
Plan
developed
by
NYSDOS.

P­
6.4
Promote
the
use
of
shore­
based
toilets,
holding
tanks
on
boats,
and
pumpout
stations,
especially
in
areas
of
heavy
boat
traffic
or
environmentally
sensitive
areas.
Marinas
should
encourage
their
patrons
to
use
shore
toilet
facilities
when
berthed
at
a
dock,
particularly
if
they
remain
overnight.
P­
6.
Provide
Pumpout
Facilities
and
Encourage
Their
Use.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
24
P­
6.5
Ensure
strict
enforcement
of
the
Suffolk
County
Article
12
requirement
that
marinas
which
facilitate
overnight
docking
of
houseboats
or
housebarges
maintain
a
waste
pumpout
facility.

Responsible
Entities
P­
6.1
Towns
of
East
Hampton,
Southampton,
Shelter
Island,
Southold,
and
Riverhead;
and
private
marina
owners
P­
6.2
NYSDOS
(
lead),
NYSDEC
and
PEP
No­
Discharge
Area
(
NDA)
Committee,
EPA
P­
6.3
NYSDEC
(
administers
the
plan
in
New
York
State
for
the
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
which
is
responsible
for
the
CVA)
and
municipal
and
private
marina
owners
P­
6.4
NY
Sea
Grant
Extension
Service
Pumpout
Education
Program
(
lead),
Association
of
Marine
Industries,
local
governments,
NYSDEC,
and
NYSDOS
P­
6.5
SCDHS
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
25
Table
5­
3.
Clean
Vessel
Act
Grants
in
the
Peconics.

Location
Town
Amount
Requested
Sag
Harbor
Pumpout
Boat
Southampton
 
Sag
Harbor
$
25,000
Peconic
Bays
Pumpout
Boat
Southampton
 
all
others
$
25,000
Shagwong
Marina
East
Hampton
 
Three
Mile
Harbor
$
6,145
Strong's
Marina
Southold
 
Great
Peconic
Bay
$
7,500
Montauk
Sportsman's
Dock
East
Hampton
 
Lake
Montauk
$
6,214
Game
Fishing
Marina
East
Hampton
 
Lake
Montauk
$
7,166
Larry's
Lighthouse
Marina
Riverhead
 
Meetinghouse
Creek
$
8,111
Marine
Park
Docks
Village
of
Sag
Harbor
$
5,250
East
Creek
Marina
Southold
 
East
Creek
$
11,250
Cutchogue
Harbor
Marina
Southold
 
Cutchogue
Harbor
$
13,183
New
Suffolk
Shipyard
Southold
 
Cutchogue
Harbor
$
24,366
Gateway
Marina
Southampton
 
Flanders
Bay
$
4,939
East
Hampton
Point
Marina
East
Hampton
 
Three
Mile
Harbor
$
3,675
Coecles
Harbor
Marina
and
Boatyard
Shelter
Island
 
Coecles
Harbor
$
13,856
Albertson
Marine
Southold
 
Budds
Pond
$
4,650
Downtown
Riverhead
Pumpout
Station
Riverhead
$
14,930
Star
Island
Pumpout
Facility
East
Hampton
 
Lake
Montauk
$
25,000
Claudio's
Marina
Southold
 
Greenport
Harbor
$
6,952
Great
Peconic
Bay
Marina
Riverhead
 
Kings
Creek
$
12,926
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
26
Addresses
Pathogen
Management
Objectives
1,
3,
and
4.

Through
the
Clean
Water
Act,
waterbodies
may
be
designated
as
"
Vessel
Waste
No
Discharge
Areas
(
or
Zones)."
The
discharge
of
untreated
vessel
waste
is
prohibited
within
the
three­
mile
jurisdiction
of
Sate
coastal
waters
and
navigably
connected
waters.
However,
treated
waste
from
approved
Marine
Sanitation
Devices
(
MSDs)
can
be
discharged
in
these
waters.
Within
no
discharge
areas,
vessels
are
prohibited
from
discharging
both
treated
and
untreated
waste
into
surface
waters.

Local
governments
may
submit
No
Discharge
Area
(
NDA)
petitions
through
NYSDEC
seeking
the
Federal
NDA
designation,
which
is
administered
by
EPA.
The
EPA
will
approve
state
designation
of
waterbodies
as
No
Discharge
Areas
when
the
petitioner
can
demonstrate
that
there
is
a
need
for
greater
protection
of
the
resources
and
there
are
sufficient
pumpout
facilities
to
service
the
number
of
boats
using
the
waterbody.
In
addition,
the
petition
includes
information
on
enforcement
and
public
education.

In
an
effort
to
advance
the
idea
of
a
NDA
in
the
Peconics,
a
committee
was
formed
made
up
of
representatives
from
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program,
New
York
State,
Association
of
Marine
Industries,
and
the
Peconic
BayKeeper.
The
group
reached
an
agreement
that
supports
the
recommendation
of
designating
the
entire
estuary
as
a
NDA.
The
Peconic
Baykeeper
has
met
with
the
five
East
End
Towns
and
asked
for
their
support
in
designating
the
entire
estuary
a
NDA.
All
five
towns
are
in
support
and
expressed
their
willingness
to
act
as
partners
in
the
application
process.
Officials
from
the
NYS
Department
of
State
with
assistance
from
the
BayKeeper
are
currently
preparing
the
petition
on
the
Municipalities
behalf.
The
draft
petition
is
nearing
completion
and
is
expected
to
be
provided
to
the
Towns
and
reviewing
agencies
so
it
can
be
implemented
for
the
2001
boating
season.

Steps
P­
7.1
Develop
agreement
on
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Vessel
Waste
No
Discharge
Area.

P­
7.2
Develop
and
submit
an
appropriate
application
for
a
vessel
waste
no
discharge
area
based
Priority
on
recommendations
provided
by
the
committee
in
P­
7.1.

P­
7.3
Implement
and
enforce
a
vessel
waste
no
discharge
area
throughout
the
estuary.
Priority
P­
7.
Establish
Vessel
Waste
No
Discharge
Areas.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
27
Responsible
Entities
P­
7.1
PEP
CAC
Chair
and
AMI
representative
(
co­
leads);
NYSDOS;
PEP;
Towns
of
East
Hampton,
Southampton,
Shelter
Island,
Southold,
and
Riverhead;
AMI;
and
Peconic
Baykeeper
P­
7.2
Application
development
and
submission:
NYSDEC
and
NYSDOS
(
co­
leads),
in
conjunction
with
Towns;
determination
of
adequacy
of
pumpout
and
treatment
facilities
and
approval
of
NYSDEC
designation:
EPA
(
lead);
enforcement
of
no
discharge
area:
local
enforcement
agencies
(
lead),
USCG,
and
NYSDEC.

P­
7.3
NYSDOS,
Peconic
Baykeeper
(
implementation),
NYSDEC,
U.
S.
Coast
Guard,
and
Town
Bay
constables
(
enforcement)
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
28
Addresses
Pathogen
Management
Objectives
1,
3,
and
4.

There
is
an
existing
law
in
Suffolk
County
mandating
the
investigation
of
reported
nuisances
at
marinas.
This
law
may
be
broadly
interpreted
to
include
problems
resulting
in
pollution
of
surface
waters
such
as
stormwater
runoff,
malfunctioning
septic
systems
at
shoreside
restrooms,
and
improper
use
of
pumpout
facilities.
Currently,
enforcement
of
this
law
is
in
response
to
complaints.
Pollution
problems
may
be
addressed
under
this
law
through
some
provision
for
routine
inspection
of
marinas
and
shore
facilities.

Steps
P­
8.1
Investigate
the
administrative,
regulatory,
and
programmatic
elements
of
the
Suffolk
County
Law
to
investigate
reported
nuisances
at
marinas
in
order
to
determine
if
this
law
could
be
applied
to
evaluate
and
manage
pollution
from
marinas
and
other
sources.

P­
8.2
Examine
existing
site
plan
review
process
and
special
permit
legislation
and
amend
to
accommodate
close
scrutiny
of
marinas
and
all
waterfront
projects
to
address
pathogen
sources.

Responsible
Entities
P­
8.1
SCDHS
P­
8.2
SCDHS
(
lead),
with
stormwater
contractor
assistance
(
see
P­
12);
and
Towns
of
East
Hampton,
Southampton,
Shelter
Island,
Southold,
and
Riverhead
P­
8.
Use
Administrative
and
Regulatory
Measures
to
Control
Pollution
from
Boaters
and
Marinas.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
29
Addresses
Pathogen
Management
Objectives
1,
3,
and
4.

In
addition
to
BMPs
for
boat
waste,
the
Coastal
Nonpoint
Source
Program
Guidance
for
CZARA
section
6217
also
lists
recommendations
for
minimizing
pollution
from
marinas
and
boatyards
from
runoff
and
septic
system
leakage.
These
BMPs
could
be
codified
and
required
as
permit
conditions
for
the
construction
of
new
marinas
and
boatyards
or
the
expansion
of
existing
ones.

Steps
P­
9.1
Select
and
promote
the
use
of
BMPs
to
control
pathogen
loadings
from
new
and
existing
marinas,
mooring
areas,
and
boatyards
in
accordance
with
section
6217
of
CZARA.

P­
9.2
Include
BMPs
in
accordance
with
section
6217
of
CZARA
to
permit
conditions
for
new
marinas,
mooring
areas,
and
boatyards.

Responsible
Entities
P­
9.1
NYSDOS
(
lead);
Towns
of
East
Hampton,
Southampton,
Shelter
Island,
Southold,
and
Riverhead;
and
NYSDEC
P­
9.2
Towns
of
East
Hampton,
Southampton,
Southold,
Shelter
Island,
and
Riverhead;
and
NYSDEC;
NYSDOS
P­
9.
Promote
the
Use
of
Best
Management
Practices
to
Control
Pathogen
Loadings
from
Marinas,
Mooring
Areas,
and
Boatyards.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
30
Addresses
Pathogen
Management
Objectives
1,
2,
3,
and
4.

Disinfection
of
effluent
from
sewage
treatment
plants
is
essential
to
prevent
the
spread
of
disease.
Disinfection
can
be
accomplished
by
a
variety
of
methods,
all
of
which
have
been
proven
effective
under
specific
conditions.
There
are
concerns
about
the
use
of
chlorine
as
a
disinfectant
because
chlorine
may
not
effectively
eliminate
certain
viruses
from
effluent.
In
addition,
chlorine
may
have
toxic
effects
on
living
organisms
when
it
becomes
complexed
in
seawater
with
organic
compounds.

Steps
P­
10.1
Ensure
that
adequate
disinfection
at
sewage
treatment
plants
continues.

P­
10.2
Encourage
all
sewage
treatment
plants
to
use
ultraviolet
disinfection.

Responsible
Entities
P­
10.1
NYSDEC
(
lead);
and
operators
of
the
Town
of
Riverhead,
Shelter
Island
Heights,
BNL,
NWIRP,
Village
of
Sag
Harbor,
and
Plum
Island
Disease
Control
Center
STPs
P­
10.2
PEP
(
lead)
P­
10.
Ensure
Adequate
Disinfection
at
Sewage
Treatment
Plants.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
31
Addresses
Pathogen
Management
Objectives
1,
3,
and
4.

Meetinghouse
Creek
in
the
Town
of
Riverhead
has
been
identified
as
being
significantly
contaminated
with
coliform
bacteria.
In
the
past,
duck
waste
was
diluted,
filtered,
and
allowed
to
discharge
into
the
creek.
In
an
attempt
to
lower
the
levels
of
coliforms
in
the
effluent,
a
freshwater
wetland
was
constructed
on­
site
to
capture
and
retain
pathogens
until
they
die
rather
than
allowing
them
to
move
into
a
body
of
water
along
with
the
runoff.
Monitoring
is
necessary
to
evaluate
the
effectiveness
of
the
artificial
wetland
treatment
system.

Steps
P­
11.1
Monitor
Meetinghouse
Creek
receiving
waters
to
determine
efficacy
of
the
wetland
treatment
system
installed
to
treat
effluent
from
the
Corwin
Duck
Farm.

Responsible
Entities
P­
11.1
USDA­
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
(
NRCS)
(
lead)
and
Suffolk
County
Soil
and
Water
Conservation
District
P­
11.
Monitor
Effluent
from
the
Corwin
Duck
Farm.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
32
Addresses
Pathogen
Management
Objectives
1,
2,
3,
and
4.

Knowing
the
sources
of
pathogens
in
the
estuary
as
well
as
the
total
loadings
of
pathogens
to
various
embayments
is
a
crucial
first
step
in
designing
remedial
activities.
A
reliable,
first­
order
quantification
of
pathogen
sources
in
the
estuary
would
aid
in
determining
the
most
cost­
effective
management
and
remedial
actions
that
would
result
in
lowered
coliform
levels
and,
ultimately,
reopened
shellfish
beds.
The
PEP
has
funded
a
"
Regional
Stormwater
Management"
project
to
establish
a
comprehensive
stormwater
strategy.
This
project,
which
will
begin
in
the
summer
of
2000,
will
include
a
system­
wide
stormwater
inventory,
an
integrated
characterization
effort,
and
a
stormwater
management
strategy.

Pollutant
loadings
can
be
estimated
using
land
use
data
and
land
cover
information.
Land
cover
information
is
available
from
a
variety
of
sources
including
the
NOAA
Coastal
Change
Analysis
Program
(
C
 
CAP)
which
derives
its
data
from
satellite
imagery.
These
data
have
been
acquired
by
the
NYSDOS
and
have
been
ground­
truthed
with
existing
aerial
photographs
for
the
New
York
coastal
region.
A
land
use
analysis
for
the
study
area
has
been
conducted
by
the
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Planning,
and
a
preliminary
stormwater
contributing
area
map
has
been
developed
from
the
stormwater
data
collecated
by
the
Towns,
County
and
State.

Steps
P­
12.1
Identify
and
assess
the
major
nonpoint
source
and
stormwater
inputs
and
quantify
loadings
of
pathogens
to
local
harbors
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
System.

P­
12.2
Develop
a
DNA
"
library"
of
coliform
bacteria
isolated
from
feces
of
animals,
including
humans.
See
related
Public
Outreach
and
Education
Action
POE­
3.1.

P­
12.3
Pilot
the
use
of
a
DNA
library
to
assess
coliform
sources
in
selected
embayments.
This
knowledge
can
potentially
be
used
to
identify
loading
pathways
and,
thus,
the
means
by
which
to
remediate
those
loadings.

P­
12.4
Perform
land
cover
analyses
for
the
study
area
which
can
be
used
to
determine
stormwater
runoff
loadings.
Include
tabulation
and
mapping
of
existing
land
cover
types
and
analysis
of
land
cover
changes
over
time.

Responsible
Entities
P­
12.1
PEP
(
lead)
with
contractor
assistance;
Towns
of
East
Hampton,
Southampton,
Shelter
Island,
Southold,
Riverhead,
and
Brookhaven;
villages;
NYSDEC;
SCDHS;
EPA
P­
12.2
Cornell
Cooperative
Extension
(
lead)
in
cooperation
with
PEP
P­
12.3
Cornell
Cooperative
Extension
(
lead)
in
cooperation
with
PEP
P­
12.4
PEP
through
contract
with
NYSDOS
(
lead)
P­
12.
Identify
Sources
and
Loadings
of
Nonpoint
Sources
of
Pathogens.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
33
Addresses
Pathogen
Management
Objectives
1,
2,
3,
and
4.

Comprehensive
planning
involving
multiple
levels
of
government
is
required
to
address
a
pathogencontaminated
waterbody,
particularly
since
contamination
is
often
due
to
a
variety
of
sources,
including
stormwater
runoff,
septic
systems
(
cesspools),
vessel
wastes
and
even
wildlife
and
domestic
animal
wastes.

This
action
recognizes
the
need
for
the
plans
to
be
developed
for
specific
waterbodies,
as
well
as
the
need
to
secure
funding
for
pathogen
management
through
the
Suffolk
County
Water
Quality
Coordinating
Committee.

Steps
P­
13.1
Develop
nonpoint
source
control
plans
for
specific
embayments
for
each
nonpoint
source
Priority
category
associated
with
potential
pathogen
contamination
(
such
as
stormwater
runoff,
onsite
disposal
systems,
and
marinas/
boating)
through
the
"
Regional
Stormwater
Management
Plan"
and
sub­
watershed
management
pilot
projects
for
each
town
(
see
Action
P­
12).

P­
13.2
Continue
to
promote
nonpoint
source
management
of
pathogens
through
the
Suffolk
County
Water
Quality
Coordinating
Committee
(
SCWQCC),
and
coordinate
Committee
activities
with
the
PEP.
(
The
SCWQCC
is
comprised
of
agencies
[
including
the
NYSDEC
and
SCDHS]
which
have
a
stake
in
improving
water
quality
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
System.)

Responsible
Entities
P­
13.1
PEP
(
lead),
with
contractor
assistance
in
concert
with
state
and
local
governments;
SCDHS;
NYSDEC;
EPA;
SCDPW;
NYSDOT
P­
13.2
SCWQCC,
chaired
by
the
Suffolk
County
Soil
and
Water
Conservation
District
(
lead),
and
PEP
P­
13.
Develop
and
Implement
Nonpoint
Source
Control
Plans
for
Pathogens.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
34
Addresses
Pathogen
Management
Objectives
1,
2,
3,
and
4.

Some
actions
in
this
chapter
can
be
implemented
without
additional
outside
funding.
For
example,
the
local
highway
or
public
works
departments
in
many
municipalities
already
have
the
appropriate
equipment
and
trained
personnel
for
carrying
out
many
of
the
BMPs
for
stormwater
runoff
remediation.
Several
towns
incorporate
funds
every
year
into
their
highway
or
public
works
department
budgets
specifically
for
this
purpose.

Other
actions
will
require
additional
funding.
State
funds
are
available
through
the
New
York
Department
of
Transportation
as
well
as
the
NYSDEC
from
the
Bond
Act.
The
members
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
have
been
very
successful
at
applying
for
and
receiving
Federal
funds
under
the
Clean
Water
Act.
Projects
funded
since
the
inception
of
the
PEP
in
1993
are
contained
in
Table
5­
4.

Steps
P­
14.1
Include
an
annual
amount
in
the
highway
operating
budget
specifically
for
the
correction
of
existing
road
runoff
problems.
Implementation
of
this
action
would
support
the
effort
described
in
Action
P­
4.

P­
14.2
Identify
projects
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
watershed
that
are
fundable
under
the
Transportation
Efficiency
Act
and
NYSDOT
capital
budget
that
will
improve
water
quality
by
preventing
or
remediating
road
runoff.

P­
14.3
Identify
projects
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
watershed
under
the
New
York
Clean
Water/
Priority
Clean
Air
Bond
Act
that
will
improve
water
quality
by
preventing
or
remediating
road
runoff.

Responsible
Entities
P­
14.1
Suffolk
County
DPW;
Towns
of
East
Hampton,
Southampton,
Shelter
Island,
Southold,
Riverhead,
and
Brookhaven;
and
incorporated
villages;
PEP
P­
14.2
Suffolk
County
DPW;
Towns
of
East
Hampton,
Southampton,
Shelter
Island,
Southold,
Riverhead,
and
Brookhaven;
incorporated
villages;
PEP
HRWG;
NYSDOT;
SCDPW
P­
14.3
Suffolk
County;
Towns
of
East
Hampton,
Southampton,
Shelter
Island,
Southold,
Riverhead,
and
Brookhaven;
incorporated
villages;
and
PEP
HRWG,
NYSDEC
P­
14.
Obtain
Funding
to
Address
Stormwater
Runoff.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
35
Table
5­
4.
Peconic
Estuary
Demonstration/
Implementation
Projects
 
Pathogen
Mitigation.

Project
Title
Federal/
State
Funding
Near
Coastal
Waters
Grants
Filter
Strip
Project/
Stormwater
Abatement
Open
Marsh
Water
Management
Project
"
Saving
the
Bay"
Poster/
Pamphlet
Project
Corwin
Duck
Farm
Constructed
Wetlands
$
10,000
$
246,3851
$
5,000
$
68,000
FY94
Action
Plan
Demonstration
Projects
Composting
Waste
Public
Restroom
Facility
Wetland
Restoration
Project
Ultraviolet
Disinfection/
Shelter
Island
Heights
STP
$
18,730
$
36,9702
$
6,800
FY95
Action
Plan
Demonstration
Projects
Nonpoint
Source
Pollution
Prevention/
Coecles
Harbor
Marina
Stormwater
Quality
Management
("
Stormtreat")
Shallow
Wetland/
Biofiltration
Ozone
Treatment
of
Stormwater
Runoff
Storm
Drain
Outfall
(
Ecoboom)
Stormwater
Education/
Outreach
$
47,3593
$
12,650
$
19,500
$
18,850
$
20,000
$
4,000
FY96
Action
Plan
Demonstration
Projects
Nonpoint
Source/
Boat
Ramps
$
17,000
Section
319
Nonpoint
Source
Grants4
Town
of
East
Hampton
Surface
Water
Pollution
Abatement
Stormwater
Mitigation
at
Goose
Creek
Hashamomuck
Point
Stormwater
Remediation
Stormwater
Vac­
Con
Sewer
Cleaning
Machine
Bay
Avenue
Drainage
Improvements
East
Creek
Stormwater
Retention/
Biofilter
$
34,500
$
15,000
$
39,000
$
180,000
$
50,000
$
62,000
1$
11,385
Near
Coastal
Water
grant;
project
expanded
with
$
235,000
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
grant
to
NYSDEC
2$
9,970
FY94
APDP
grant;
project
expanded
with
$
27,000
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
grant
to
NYSDEC
3Funded
in
part
with
CWA
section
319
Nonpoint
Source
grant
($
16,409)
4Clean
Water
Act
section
319
grants
are
through
NYSDEC
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
36
Addresses
Pathogen
Management
Objectives
1,
3,
and
4.

In
order
to
accurately
assess
the
levels
of
pathogen
indicators
in
the
system,
routine
water
quality
sampling
is
critical.
The
NYSDEC
Shellfish
Sanitation
Program
is
the
primary
entity
that
carries
out
this
activity
for
the
purpose
of
protecting
human
health
from
the
consumption
of
shellfish
contaminated
with
pathogens.
The
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services
(
SCDHS)
is
the
lead
entity
for
the
purpose
of
protecting
human
health
from
pathogens
at
bathing
beaches.
SCDHS
also
analyzes
water
samples
for
coliforms
as
part
of
a
larger
program
to
assess
overall
quality
of
the
waters
in
the
Peconic
system.
In
order
to
determine
the
impact
of
control
measures
on
pathogen
indicator
concentrations
in
the
water,
it
is
important
that
these
monitoring
programs
be
maintained.

Water
quality
monitoring
is
required
for
assessing
the
status
of
all
shellfish
beds.
There
are
a
number
of
small,
shallow
embayments
in
the
Peconics
that
are
closed
to
shellfishing
as
a
result
of
coliform
contamination.
The
towns
are
interested
in
reopening
these
areas
on
a
conditional
or
seasonal
basis
to
access
the
shellfish
resources
that
exist
there.
More
intensive
water
quality
sampling
(
increased
frequency
and
number
of
stations)
by
the
State
Shellfish
Sanitation
Program
may
result
in
more
detailed
assessments
of
the
amount,
timing,
and
sources
of
contamination
in
these
bodies
of
water.
This
additional
information
may
result
in
upgrading
the
classification
of
some
sections
of
these
embayments
to
shellfishing
for
at
least
part
of
the
year.

In
1998,
several
New
York
marine
surface
water
samples
were
analyzed
for
Pfiesteria
piscicida;
some
of
the
samples
from
Peconic
Estuary
waters
contained
Pfiesteria
piscicida.
Pfiesteria
is
a
microscopic
organism
that
has
a
complex
life
cycle
that
includes
toxin­
producing
stages.
The
exact
conditions
that
are
necessary
to
trigger
toxin
production
by
Pfiesteria
piscicida
are
poorly
understood,
but
it
is
believed
these
conditions
do
not
commonly
occur
in
New
York
coastal
waters.
The
New
York
State
Departments
of
Environmental
Conservation
and
Health
are
working
with
county
health
departments
to
complete
comprehensive
sampling
for
Pfiesteria
and
developing
plans
for
responding
to
possible
toxic
Pfiesteria
piscicida
outbreaks.

Steps
P­
15.1
Maintain
the
water
quality
sampling
programs
run
by
the
NYSDEC
Shellfish
Sanitation
Program
and
the
SCDHS
Bureau
of
Marine
Resources
in
order
to
monitor
pathogens
in
shellfish
beds
and
public
beaches
and
to
assess
the
results
of
mitigation
measures,
respectively.

P­
15.2
Conduct
Pfiesteria
piscicida
sampling
effort
to
characterize
embayments
with
respect
to
this
organism.

Responsible
Entities
P­
15.1
NYSDEC
and
SCDHS
(
co­
leads)

P­
15.2
NYSDEC
and
SCDHS
(
co­
leads),
NYSDOH,
and
NYS
Pfiesteria
workgroups
P­
15.
Conduct
Water
Quality
Monitoring.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
37
BENEFITS
OF
MANAGEMENT
ACTIONS
Successful
implementation
of
the
actions
in
this
chapter
will
result
in
environmental
benefits,
human
health
benefits,
and
economic
benefits
to
the
estuary
system
by
ensuring
cleaner
water
and
continued
or
increased
availability
of
shellfish
lands
for
harvesting.
Although
these
benefits
have
not
been
quantified
in
monetary
terms,
their
value
is
potentially
quite
high.
Ensuring
open
beaches
for
tourists
and
clean
water
for
recreational
users
supports
a
variety
of
local
businesses,
such
as
restaurants,
hotels,
and
shops.
The
re­
opening
of
shellfish
beds
to
harvesting
would
have
the
benefit
of
increasing
the
revenue
generated
from
this
fishery.
The
value
of
this
increased
revenue
would
depend
on
the
abundance
per
unit
area
of
shellfish
(
primarily
hard
clams)
in
the
closed
beds
and
the
market
price
at
the
time
of
re­
opening.
Finally,
it
is
worthwhile
to
note
that
actions
to
reduce
pathogen
loadings
also
will
often
reduce
inputs
of
sediment
particles
and
nutrients
into
the
system.

COSTS
OF
MANAGEMENT
ACTIONS
Estimated
costs
for
each
of
the
pathogen
management
actions
are
provided
in
Table
5­
5.
As
shown
in
the
table,
for
some
actions,
costs
can
not
be
estimated
due
to
the
variables
involved.
Other
actions
rely
on
implementation
using
current
levels
of
effort
and
funding.
Many
of
the
actions
have
secondary
or
indirect
costs
that
also
are
difficult
to
measure.
For
these
reasons,
it
is
not
possible
to
estimate
the
total
cost
of
implementing
the
proposed
pathogen
management
actions.

For
example,
in
order
to
re­
open
shellfish
beds
to
reharvesting,
the
sources
of
pollution
in
each
separate
growing
area
would
have
to
be
identified.
Then
the
cost
of
remediating
each
separate
source
could
be
estimated.
A
conservative
estimate
would
involve
locating
the
point
at
which
each
stormwater
discharge
enters
an
embayment
and
determining
the
cost
of
remediating
each
of
those
discharges.
Sources
of
leachate
from
on­
site
disposal
systems
could
be
determined
through
dye
tests
done
in
conjunction
with
each
individual
residence
or
business.
Those
septic
systems
that
are
shown
to
contribute
substantial
quantities
of
pathogens
would
need
to
be
replaced
or
upgraded,
and
this
cost
would
be
added
to
the
total.
Suspected
vessel
discharges
could
be
monitored
and
enforcement
of
laws
prohibiting
discharge
of
raw
sewage
could
be
increased.
The
increased
expense
of
monitoring
and
enforcement
for
any
designated
vessel
waste
no
discharge
area
would
also
have
to
be
added
in.
If
wildfowl
are
determined
to
be
a
significant
source,
some
action
might
have
to
be
taken
regarding
these
populations,
including
a
public
education
campaign
on
not
feeding
them,
and
this
would
require
an
additional
cost.

The
cost
of
implementing
all
of
these
actions
could
run
into
the
millions
of
dollars
and
would
have
to
be
compared
to
the
increased
value
of
the
harvest
to
be
taken
out
of
the
estuary
as
well
as
the
values
placed
on
cleaner
water,
reduced
human
health
risks,
and
better
recreational
opportunities.

The
total
cost
of
all
new
actions
for
the
pathogens
management
in
the
chapter
is
$
1,718,750
in
onetime
costs
and
$
1,530,000
annually.
(
See
"
Action
Costs"
in
Chapter
1
for
an
explanation
of
how
these
costs
were
determined.)
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
38
PATHOGENS
ACTIONS
SUMMARY
TABLE
Table
5­
5
provides
the
following
summary
information
about
each
of
the
actions
presented
in
this
chapter.

Status
An
action's
status
is
designated
in
the
table
by
either
an
"
R"
for
"
Recommendation"
or
a
"
C"
for
"
Commitment."
Actions
that
are
commitments
are
being
implemented
because
resources
or
funding
and
organizational
support
is
available
to
carry
them
out.
Actions
that
are
"
recommendations"
require
new
or
additional
resources
by
some
or
all
of
the
responsible
entities.
"
O"
refers
to
ongoing
activities;
"
N"
indicates
new
actions.

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

Cost
Information
in
the
cost
column
represents
the
PEP's
best
estimate
of
the
costs
associated
with
action
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.
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
39
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
Table
5­
5.
Pathogens
Management
Actions.

Action
Responsible
Entity
Timeframe
Cost
Status
P­
1
Use
Existing
or
Implement
New
Stormwater
Management
Regulations
to
Control
Pathogen
Loading
and
Other
Forms
of
Nonpoint
Source
Pollution.
(
Objectives
1,
3,
and
4)

P­
1.1
Continue
to
implement
general
stormwater
permit
programs
to
control
the
discharge
of
stormwater
from
industrial,
construction,
and
municipal
activities.
NYSDEC
(
lead),
EPA
(
data
management
system)
Ongoing
Base
Program
Enhanced
Program:

NYSDEC
 
1.0
FTE/
yr
C/
O
R
P­
1.2
Determine
if
general
stormwater
permits
adequately
regulate
pollution
from
activities
subject
to
national
stormwater
regulations.
PEP
(
lead
for
assessment),

NYSDEC
(
permit
issuance)
Post­
CCMP
NYSDEC
 
1.0
FTE
PEP
 
1.0
FTE
R
P­
1.3
Investigate
the
need
to
regulate,
for
general
stormwater
management,

communities
with
populations
less
than
100,000
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
watershed
in
order
to
control
coliform
discharges.
NYSDEC
(
lead)
Following
EPA
issuance
of
new
stormwater
regulations
NYSDEC
 
1.0
FTE
R
P­
2
Develop
Land
Use
Regulations
that
Eliminate
or
Minimize
New
Sources
of
Stormwater
Runoff.
(
Objectives
1,
2,
3,
and
4)

P­
2.1
Priority
Evaluate
existing
and
develop
model
land
use
regulations
that
eliminate
or
minimize
new
sources
of
stormwater
runoff.
PEP
(
lead)
through
contractor
Post­
CCMP
$
50,000
R
P­
2.2
Review
the
East
Hampton
HPOD
legislation
and
the
results
of
its
implementation,
adopt
similar
regulations
in
other
East
End
towns
and
villages.
PEP
(
lead)
with
contractor
assistance,
and
towns
and
villages
Post­
CCMP
$
50,000
PEP
 
0.2
FTE
Towns
 
0.5
FTE
each
R
P­
2.3
Adopt
land
use
regulations
that
eliminate
or
minimize
new
sources
of
stormwater
runoff.
Towns
of
East
Hampton,

Riverhead,
Southampton,

Shelter
Island,
Southold,

and
Brookhaven;
and
incorporated
villages
Post­
CCMP
Towns
 
0.5
FTE
each
R
Table
continued
on
next
page
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
40
Table
5­
5.
Pathogens
Management
Actions.
(
continued)

Action
Responsible
Entity
Timeframe
Cost
Status
P­
2.4
Control
the
impacts
of
waterfront
development
through
a
prohibition
on
all
new
non­
water­
dependent
commercial
development.
Towns
of
East
Hampton,

Southampton,
Southold,

Shelter
Island,
and
Riverhead;
NYSDOS;

NYSDEC
Post­
CCMP
Towns
 
0.5
FTE
each
R
P­
3
Use
Construction
Site
Guidelines
which
Eliminate
or
Minimize
Stormwater
Runoff.
(
Objectives
2
and
3)

P­
3.1
Priority
Require
the
use
of
BMPs
to
control
stormwater
runoff
and
sediment
erosion
at
construction
sites.
Towns
of
East
Hampton,

Riverhead,
Southampton,

Southold,
Shelter
Island,

and
Brookhaven;
and
incorporated
villages
Post­
CCMP
Towns
 
0.5
FTE
each/
yr
R
P­
3.2
Pursue
the
expansion
of
the
State
Building
Code
to
include
provisions
for
stormwater
runoff
control
practices
and
erosion
and
sediment
control
for
all
construction
activities.
NYSDOS
and
NYSDEC
(
co­
leads)
Ongoing
NYSDEC
 
0.5
FTE
NYSDOS
 
0.5
FTE
R
P­
3.3
Implement
standards
for
building
permits
and
subdivision
approvals
that
will
require
new
developments
to
retain
and
treat
all
stormwater
runoff
on
the
property
to
the
extent
practicable.
Towns
of
East
Hampton,

Southampton,
Southold,

Shelter
Island,
Riverhead,

and
Brookhaven;
and
incorporated
villages
Following
completion
of
Action
P­
3.2
or
development
of
local
standards
Towns
0.5
FTE
each
R
Table
continued
on
next
page
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
41
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
Table
5­
5.
Pathogens
Management
Actions.
(
continued)

Action
Responsible
Entity
Timeframe
Cost
Status
P­
3.4
Continue,
through
Federal
programs
(
Clean
Water
Act,

section
404)
and
State
programs
(
the
Tidal
Wetlands
Regulatory
Program,
Article
25,
the
Freshwater
Wetlands
Program,

Article
24,
and
the
Protection
of
Waters
Program,
Article
15),
to
regulate
all
construction
projects
to
ensure
that
they
prevent
or
minimize
impacts
to
wetlands
and
other
natural
resources
from
stormwater
runoff
and
septic
system
leakage.
USACE
(
Federal
lead),

EPA,
NMFS;
NYSDEC
(
state
lead)
Ongoing
Base
Programs
C/
O
P­
3.5
Require
sediment
and
erosion
control
and
stormwater
runoff
pollution
prevention
plans
for
new
development
greater
than
five
acres,
as
well
as
to
areas
of
disturbance
that
are
one
acre
or
more,
effective
in
March
2003.
Towns
of
East
Hampton,

Southampton,
Shelter
Island,
Southold,
and
Riverhead;
incorporated
villages
Post­
CCMP
Base
Programs
R
P­
3.6
Review
the
Suffolk
County
contractor
licensing
process
for
effectiveness
and
amend
regulations
to
provide
for
fines
and
revocation
where
repeated
violations
of
land
use
and
site
plan
laws
are
committed
by
contractors.
PEP
(
lead
for
review),

Suffolk
County
(
lead
for
making
amendments),

SCDHS,
EPA,
NYSDEC
Post­
CCMP
EPA
 
0.2
FTE
NYSDEC
 
0.2
FTE
SCDHS
 
0.3
FTE
PEP
 
0.2
FTE
R
Table
continued
on
next
page
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
42
Table
5­
5.
Pathogens
Management
Actions.
(
continued)

Action
Responsible
Entity
Timeframe
Cost
Status
P­
4
Demonstrate
and
Implement
Technologies
to
Remediate
Stormwater
Runoff.
(
Objectives
2,
3,
and
4)

P­
4.1
Demonstrate
a
variety
of
different
technologies
to
remediate
stormwater
runoff
and
determine
the
effectiveness
and
appropriateness
of
the
technologies
in
various
settings
around
the
estuary.
PEP
(
lead)
Ongoing
(
Grass
filter
strip
 
$
10,000
Near
Coastal
Waters
funds;
artificial
wetlands
and
retention
rings
 
$
10,000
FY95
Action
Plan
Demonstration
Project
funds;
OMWM
 
$
11,000
Near
Coastal
Waters
fund
for
Northwest
and
Accabonac
Harbors;

$
235,000
USFWS
funds
to
NYSDEC
for
Long
Beach
Bay)

PEP
 
0.1
FTE
C/
O
P­
4.2
Ensure
that
information
on
ongoing,

successful
stormwater
remediation
projects
is
shared
among
the
NYSDOT,
SCDPW,
and
towns
and
villages
in
a
timely
fashion.
PEP
(
lead)
through
contract
with
Cornell
Cooperative
Extension
Spring
2000
($
10,000)

PEP
 
0.1
FTE
C/
O
P­
4.3
Ensure
that
the
NYSDEC
and
the
SCDHS
continue
to
work
cooperatively
with
East
End
towns
on
stormwater
remediation
projects
by
providing
monitoring
support
following
the
implementation
of
management
actions,
providing
ambient
coliform
loading
data,

helping
to
evaluate
sources
of
coliform
bacteria,
and
assessing
localized
impacts
of
runoff,

particularly
on
shellfish
beds
and
bathing
beaches.
NYSDEC
Shellfish
Sanitation
Program,
SCDHS
Office
of
Ecology
(
co­
leads)
Ongoing
Base
Program
C/
O
Table
continued
on
next
page
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
43
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
Table
5­
5.
Pathogens
Management
Actions.
(
continued)

Action
Responsible
Entity
Timeframe
Cost
Status
P­
4.4
Implement
the
Town
of
East
Hampton
Ditch
Plains
Oceanside
Drainage
Project
to
restore
the
water
quality
of
South
Lake
Montauk.
Town
of
East
Hampton
(
lead),
Cornell
Cooperative
Extension
2
years
once
started
($
65,000
East
Hampton;

$
175,000
ISTEA)
C/
O
P­
4.5
Conduct
a
pilot
project
to
construct
and
operate
a
composting
waste
toilet
facility
at
the
East
Hampton
Town
Beach
on
Lake
Montauk.

Evaluate
the
effectiveness
of
such
a
facility
and
determine
if
there
are
other
locations
around
the
estuary
where
this
type
of
toilet
could
be
installed
for
public
use.
Town
of
East
Hampton
Construction
completed;

operation
to
commence
in
1999;
evaluation
in
2000
($
23,270
Town
of
East
Hampton;
$
18,730
PEP
FY94
APDP
funds)
C/
O
P­
4.6
Priority
Develop
a
"
Regional
Stormwater
Management
Plan"
to
evaluate
and
recommend
technologies
to
remediate
stormwater
runoff
in
the
estuary.
PEP
(
lead)
through
contractor
and
Peconic
Baykeeper,
EPA,
NYSDEC,

SCDHS
Summer
2000
($
45,000
PEP
FY98;

$
65,100
Clean
Water
Act
funds)

EPA
 
0.1
FTE
NYSDEC
 
0.1
FTE
SCDHS
 
0.1
FTE
C/
N
P­
5
Enhance
Existing
Septic
System
Controls
and
Implement
New
Best
Management
Practices.
(
Objectives
1,
2,
3,
and
4)

P­
5.1
Implement
existing
programs
that
identify
failing
septic
systems
and
work
with
property
owners
to
have
the
systems
repaired
or
replaced.

Regular
inspection
and
testing
could
be
done
by
local
agencies,

particularly
in
older
communities,

to
ensure
that
problems
are
detected
and
addressed
in
a
timely
manner.
For
those
municipalities
with
existing
inspection
regulations,
those
regulations
should
be
enforced.
Towns
of
East
Hampton,

Southampton,
Shelter
Island,
Southold,
Riverhead,

and
Brookhaven;
SCDHS
Post­
CCMP
SCDHS
 
1.0
FTE
Towns
 
0.5
FTE
each/
yr
R
Table
continued
on
next
page
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
44
Table
5­
5.
Pathogens
Management
Actions.
(
continued)

Action
Responsible
Entity
Timeframe
Cost
Status
P­
5.2
Priority
Work
with
waterfront
residents
to
conduct
voluntary
dye
tests
on
their
septic
systems
to
determine
if
there
are
significant
leakage
problems.
Towns
of
East
Hampton,

Southampton,
Southold,

Shelter
Island,
Riverhead,

and
Brookhaven;
SCDHS
Post­
CCMP
Relatively
inexpensive
for
test
and
time
spent;
may
be
considerable
for
homeowners
if
septic
system
is
found
to
be
malfunctioning
SCDHS
 
1.0
FTE/
yr
R
P­
5.3
Develop
and
implement
a
requirement
for
inspection
and
certification
of
OSDS
at
specified
intervals
or
upon
transfer
of
property.
If
a
system
does
not
meet
current
standards,
the
homeowners
would
be
required
to
repair
or
replace
the
system.
PEP
(
lead);
Towns
of
East
Hampton,
Southampton,

Southold,
Shelter
Island,

Riverhead,
and
Brookhaven;

SCDHS
Post­
CCMP
SCDHS
 
1.0
FTE
Towns
 
0.25
FTE
each
R
P­
5.4
Investigate
the
need
for
and
feasibility
of
establishing
an
OSDS
(
septic
system)
district(
s)
to
provide
homeowners
access
to
low­
interest
loans
available
through
the
State
Revolving
fund
to
repair
and
upgrade
malfunctioning
OSDS.
PEP
(
lead),
State
Environmental
Facilities
Corporation,
Towns,

SCDHS
Post­
CCMP
SCDHS
 
0.3
FTE
PEP
 
0.2
FTE
Towns
 
0.1
FTE
each
R
P­
5.5
Conduct
a
workshop
with
appropriate
State,
Suffolk
County,

and
town
officials
to
review
and
evaluate
existing
septic
system
controls
(
including
system
monitoring,
required
maintenance,

and
repair
and
replacement
of
failing
systems)
and
current
BMPs
for
septic
systems.
PEP
Fall
2000
$
10,000
PEP
 
0.1
FTE
R
Table
continued
on
next
page
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
45
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
Table
5­
5.
Pathogens
Management
Actions.
(
continued)

Action
Responsible
Entity
Timeframe
Cost
Status
P­
5.6
Implement
OSDS
BMPs
contained
in
NYSDEC
guidance
for
new
developments.
Towns
of
East
Hampton,

Southampton,
Shelter
Island,
Southold,
Riverhead,

and
Brookhaven;
SCDHS
Post­
CCMP
SCDHS
 
2.0
FTE/
yr
Towns
 
1.0
FTE/
yr
R
P­
6
Provide
Pumpout
Facilities
and
Encourage
Their
Use.
(
Objectives
1,
3,
and
4)

P­
6.1
Continue
to
provide
boaters
with
incentives
to
use
pumpout
stations,

such
as
providing
pumpout
stations
that
are
easy
to
use,
clean,
quick,

free
(
or
low­
cost),
and
land­
based
or
mobile.
Towns
of
East
Hampton,

Southampton,
Shelter
Island,
Southold,
and
Riverhead;
private
marina
owners
Ongoing
Base
Programs
C/
O
P­
6.2
Conduct
a
survey
of
recreational
vessels
and
pumpout
stations
in
the
Peconic
Estuary,
and
prepare
a
plan
for
the
construction,

installation,
maintenance,
and
repair
of
pumpouts
and
waste
reception
facilities
sufficient
to
qualify
all
or
parts
of
the
Peconics
for
designation
as
a
vessel
waste
no
discharge
area
(
See
P­
7
for
related
action.)
NYSDOS
(
lead),
NYSDEC,

PEP
NDA
Committee,
EPA
Survey:
completed
Plan:
Spring
2000
EPA
 
0.1
FTE
NYSDEC
 
0.2
FTE
PEP
 
0.1
FTE
DOS
 
0.5
FTE
C
P­
6.3
Administer
Statewide
Clean
Vessel
Act
(
CVA)
grants
(
and
any
other
similar
grants)
for
the
construction,

installation,
maintenance,
and
repair
of
pumpout
and
waste
reception
facilities
pursuant
to
the
State
CVA
Plan
developed
by
NYSDOS.
NYSDEC
(
administers
the
plan
in
NY
State
for
the
USFWS
which
is
responsible
for
the
CVA),

municipal
and
private
marina
owners
1993
 
2004
Base
Programs
C/
O
Table
continued
on
next
page
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
46
Table
5­
5.
Pathogens
Management
Actions.
(
continued)

Action
Responsible
Entity
Timeframe
Cost
Status
P­
6.4
Promote
the
use
of
shore­
based
toilets,
holding
tanks
on
boats,
and
pumpout
stations,
especially
in
areas
of
heavy
boat
traffic
or
environmentally
sensitive
areas.

Marinas
should
encourage
their
patrons
to
use
shore
toilet
facilities
when
berthed
at
a
dock,

particularly
if
they
remain
overnight.
NY
Sea
Grant
Extension
Service
Pumpout
Education
Program
(
lead),
AMI,
local
governments,
NYSDEC,

NYSDOS
Ongoing
Base
Programs
C/
O
P­
6.5
Ensure
strict
enforcement
of
the
Suffolk
County
Article
12
requirement
that
marinas
which
facilitate
overnight
docking
of
houseboats
or
house
barges
maintain
a
waste
pumpout
facility.
SCDHS
Ongoing
SCDHS
 
1.0
FTE
R
P­
7
Establish
Vessel
Waste
No
Discharge
Areas.
(
Objectives
1,
3,
and
4)

P­
7.1
Develop
agreement
on
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Vessel
Waste
No
Discharge
Area.
PEP
CAC
Chair
and
AMI
representative
(
co­
leads);

NYSDOS;
PEP;
Towns
of
East
Hampton,

Southampton,
Shelter
Island,
Southold,
and
Riverhead;
AMI;
Peconic
Baykeeper
Fall
1999
Base
Program
C/
O
Table
continued
on
next
page
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
47
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
Table
5­
5.
Pathogens
Management
Actions.
(
continued)

Action
Responsible
Entity
Timeframe
Cost
Status
P­
7.2
Priority
Develop
and
submit
an
appropriate
application
for
a
vessel
waste
no
discharge
area
based
on
recommendations
provided
by
the
committee
in
P­
7.1.
Application
development
and
submission:
NYSDEC
and
NYSDOS
(
co­
leads)
in
conjunction
with
Towns;

determination
of
adequacy
of
pumpout
and
treatment
facilities
and
approval
of
NYSDEC
designation:
EPA
(
lead);
enforcement
of
vessel
waste
no
discharge
area:
local
enforcement
agencies
(
lead),
USCG,

NYSDEC
Spring
2000
Application
and
approval:

Included
in
Action
P­
6.2
(
Estimated
cost
for
private
boat
owners
to
retrofit:
the
cost
to
install
Type
III
devices
on
vessels
currently
having
Type
I
or
II
devices
is
estimated
at
$
2,000
per
vessel.
It
has
been
estimated
that
there
are
approximately
500
vessels
using
the
Peconics
regularly
that
would
require
retrofits.)
C/
N
P­
7.3
Priority
Implement
and
enforce
Vessel
No
Waste
Discharge
Area
throughout
the
estuary.
NYSDOS
&
Peconic
Baykeeper
(
implementation);

NYSDEC,
U.
S.
Coast
Guard,
Town
Bay
constables
(
enforcement)
Summer
2002
Towns
 
0.25
FTE
each/
yr
NYSDEC
 
0.5
FTE/
yr
USCG
 
0.25
FTE/
yr
R
P­
8
Use
Administrative
and
Regulatory
Measures
to
Control
Pollution
from
Boaters
and
Marinas.
(
Objectives
1,
3,
and
4)

P­
8.1
Investigate
the
administrative,

regulatory,
and
programmatic
elements
of
the
Suffolk
County
Law
to
investigate
reported
nuisances
at
marinas
in
order
to
determine
if
this
law
could
be
applied
to
evaluate
and
manage
pollution
from
marinas
and
other
sources.
SCDHS
Spring
2000
Cost
to
be
determined
R
P­
8.2
Examine
existing
site
plan
review
process
and
special
permit
legislation
and
amend
to
accommodate
close
scrutiny
of
marinas
and
all
waterfront
projects
to
address
pathogen
sources.
SCDHS
(
lead)
with
stormwater
contractor
(
see
Action
P­
12);
Towns
of
East
Hampton,
Southampton,

Southold,
Shelter
Island,

and
Riverhead
Begin:
Spring
2000
SCDHS
 
1.0
FTE
Towns
 
0.2
FTE
each
R
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
48
Table
5­
5.
Pathogens
Management
Actions.
(
continued)

Action
Responsible
Entity
Timeframe
Cost
Status
P­
9
Promote
the
Use
of
Best
Management
Practices
to
Control
Pathogen
Loadings
from
Marinas,
Mooring
Areas,
and
Boatyards.

(
Objectives
1,
3
and
4)

P­
9.1
Select
and
promote
the
use
of
BMPs
to
control
pathogen
loadings
from
new
and
existing
marinas,

mooring
areas,
and
boatyards
in
accordance
with
section
6217
of
CZARA.
NYSDOS
(
lead);
Towns
of
East
Hampton,

Southampton,
Southold,

Shelter
Island,
and
Riverhead;
NYSDEC
Ongoing
NYSDEC
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
NYSDOS
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
C/
O
P­
9.2
Include
BMPs
in
accordance
with
section
6217
of
CZARA
to
permit
conditions
for
new
marinas,

mooring
areas,
and
boatyards.
Towns
of
East
Hampton,

Southampton,
Southold,

Shelter
Island,
and
Riverhead;
NYSDEC;
DOS
Ongoing
NYSDEC
 
0.1
FTE
NYSDOS
 
0.1
FTE
C/
O
P­
10
Ensure
Adequate
Disinfection
at
Sewage
Treatment
Plants.
(
Objectives
1,
2,
3,
and
4)

P­
10.1
Ensure
that
adequate
disinfection
at
sewage
treatment
plants
continues.
NYSDEC
(
lead);
operators
of
the
Town
of
Riverhead,

Shelter
Island
Heights,

BNL,
NWIRP,
Village
of
Sag
Harbor,
and
Plum
Island
Disease
Control
Center
STPs
Ongoing
NYSDEC
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
C/
O
P­
10.2
Encourage
all
sewage
treatment
plants
to
use
ultraviolet
disinfection.
PEP
(
lead)
Ongoing
Included
in
Action
P­
10.1
C/
O
P­
11
Monitor
Effluent
from
the
Corwin
Duck
Farm.
(
Objectives
1,
3,
and
4)

P­
11.1
Monitor
Meetinghouse
Creek
receiving
waters
to
determine
efficacy
of
the
wetland
treatment
system
installed
to
treat
effluent
from
the
Corwin
Duck
Farm.
NRCS
(
lead),
Suffolk
County
Soil
and
Water
Conservation
District
Monitoring
is
ongoing
through
1999
Base
Programs
(
Included
in
$
71,579
Near
Coastal
grant
funds;
$
3,500
from
Corwin
Duck
Farm)
C/
O
Table
continued
on
next
page
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
49
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
Table
5­
5.
Pathogens
Management
Actions.
(
continued)

Action
Responsible
Entity
Timeframe
Cost
Status
P­
12
Identify
Sources
and
Loadings
of
Nonpoint
Sources
of
Pathogens.
(
Objectives
1,
2,
3,
and
4)

P­
12.1
Identify
and
assess
the
major
nonpoint
source
and
stormwater
inputs
and
quantify
loadings
of
pathogens
to
local
harbors
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
System.
PEP
(
lead)
with
contractor
assistance;
Towns
of
East
Hampton,
Southampton,

Shelter
Island,
Southold,

Riverhead,
and
Brookhaven;

villages;
NYSDEC;

SCDHS;
EPA
Start
Spring
2000
through
Summer
2001
EPA
 
0.1
FTE
NYSDEC
 
0.1
FTE
SCDHS
 
0.1
FTE
Towns
 
0.1
FTE
each
C/
O
P­
12.2
Develop
a
DNA
"
library"
of
coliform
bacteria
isolated
from
feces
of
animals,
including
humans.
(
See
POE­
3.1)
Cornell
Cooperative
Extension
(
lead)
in
cooperation
with
PEP
Fall
1996
though
Spring
2000
Base
Programs
($
85,000
grant)
C/
O
P­
12.3
Pilot
the
use
of
a
DNA
library
to
assess
coliform
sources
in
selected
embayments.
This
knowledge
can
potentially
be
used
to
identify
loading
pathways
and,
thus,
the
means
by
which
to
remediate
those
loadings.
Cornell
Cooperative
Extension
(
lead)
in
cooperation
with
PEP
Spring
1999
through
December
2000
Base
Programs
($
75,000
grant)
C/
O
P­
12.4
Perform
land
cover
analyses
for
the
study
area
which
can
be
used
to
determine
stormwater
runoff
loadings.
Include
tabulation
and
mapping
of
existing
land
cover
types
and
analyses
of
land
cover
changes
over
time.
PEP
through
contract
with
NYSDOS
(
lead)
Fall
1999
through
December
2000
PEP
 
0.1
FTE
($
88,019
($
40,500
from
PEP
APDP;
$
47,519
from
EPA
104(
b)(
3)
funds))
C/
O
Table
continued
on
next
page
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
50
Table
5­
5.
Pathogens
Management
Actions.
(
continued)

Action
Responsible
Entity
Timeframe
Cost
Status
P­
13
Develop
and
Implement
Nonpoint
Source
Control
Plans
for
Pathogens.
(
Objectives
1,
2,
3,
and
4)

P­
13.1
Priority
Develop
nonpoint
source
control
plans
for
specific
embayments
for
each
nonpoint
source
category
associated
with
potential
pathogen
contamination
(
such
as
stormwater
runoff,
on­
site
disposal
systems,

and
marinas/
boating)
through
the
"
Regional
Stormwater
Management
Plan"
and
subwatershed
management
pilot
projects
for
each
town
(
see
Action
P­
12).
PEP
(
lead),
with
contractor
assistance
in
concert
with
state
and
local
government;

SCDHS;
NYSDEC;
EPA
December
2000
(
start)
Base
Program
EPA
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
NYSDEC
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
SCDHS
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
Towns
 
0.1
FTE
each/
yr
SCDPW
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
NYSDOT
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
R
P­
13.2
Continue
to
promote
nonpoint
source
management
of
pathogens
through
the
Suffolk
County
Water
Quality
Coordinating
Committee
(
SCWQCC),
and
coordinate
Committee
activities
with
the
PEP.
SCWQCC,
chaired
by
the
Suffolk
County
Soil
and
Water
Conservation
District
(
lead),
PEP
Ongoing
SCS&
WCD
 
0.2
FTE/
yr
R
P­
14
Obtain
Funding
to
Address
Stormwater
Runoff.
(
Objectives
1,
2,
3,
and
4)

P­
14.1
Include
an
annual
amount
in
the
highway
operating
budget
specifically
for
the
correction
of
existing
road
runoff
problems.

Implementation
of
this
action
would
support
the
effort
described
in
Action
P­
4.
Suffolk
County
DPW;

Towns
of
East
Hampton,

Southampton,
Shelter
Island,
Southold,
Riverhead,

and
Brookhaven;

incorporated
villages;
PEP
Post­
CCMP
PEP
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
Towns
 
0.1
FTE
each/
yr
R
Table
continued
on
next
page
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
51
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
Table
5­
5.
Pathogens
Management
Actions.
(
continued)

Action
Responsible
Entity
Timeframe
Cost
Status
P­
14.2
Identify
projects
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
watershed
that
are
fundable
under
the
Transportation
Efficiency
Act
and
NYSDOT
capital
budget
that
will
improve
water
quality
by
preventing
or
remediating
road
runoff.
Suffolk
County
DPW;

Towns
of
East
Hampton,

Southampton,
Southold,

Shelter
Island,
Riverhead,

and
Brookhaven;

incorporated
villages;
PEP
HRWG;
NYSDOT;

SCDPW
Ongoing
PEP
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
Towns
 
0.1
FTE
each/
yr
SCDPW
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
NYSDOT
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
R
P­
14.3
Priority
Identify
projects
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
watershed
under
the
New
York
Clean
Water/
Clean
Air
Bond
Act
that
will
improve
water
quality
by
preventing
or
remediating
road
runoff.
Suffolk
County;
Towns
of
East
Hampton,

Southampton,
Southold,

Shelter
Island,
Riverhead,

and
Brookhaven,

incorporated
villages;
PEP
HRWG;
NYSDEC
Annually
NYSDEC
 
0.2
FTE/
yr
Towns
 
0.1
FTE
each/
yr
SCDPW
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
R
P­
15
Conduct
Water
Quality
Monitoring.
(
Objectives
1,
3,
and
4)

P­
15.1
Maintain
the
water
quality
sampling
programs
run
by
the
NYSDEC
Shellfish
Sanitation
Program
and
the
SCDHS
Bureau
of
Marine
Resources
in
order
to
monitor
pathogens
in
shellfish
beds
and
public
beaches
and
to
assess
the
results
of
mitigation
measures,
respectively.
NYSDEC,
SCDHS
(
co­
leads)
Ongoing
Base
Programs
C/
O
P­
15.2
Conduct
Pfiesteria
piscicida
sampling
effort
to
characterize
embayments
with
respect
to
this
organism.
NYSDEC,
SCDHS
(
co­
leads),
NYSDOH,
NYS
Pfiesteria
Workgroups
Summer
1998
through
Summer
2001
Suffolk
County
­
Base
Program.
NYSDEC
­
included
in
Pfiesteria
Rapid
Response
Grant
from
EPA
C/
O
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
F
I
V
E
5­
52
This
Page
Intentionally
Left
Blank.
