Peconic
Estuary
Program
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
E
V
E
N
7­
1
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
SEVEN
CRITICAL
LANDS
PROTECTION
STRATEGY
OBJECTIVES
1)
Compile
a
Geographic
Information
System
(
GIS)
database
of
lands
already
identified
for
protection
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
watershed
by
various
levels
of
government.

2)
Apply
the
PEP
criteria
developed
to
achieve
water
quality
and
habitat
protection
goals
for
the
Peconic
Estuary
to
land
available
for
development
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
watershed.

3)
Determine
the
degree
to
which
Community
Preservation
Fund
(
CPF)
plans
address
PEP
watershed
management
needs.

4)
Identify
additional
parcels,
not
on
CPF
protection
lists,
appropriate
for
estuarine
and
watershed
protection,
satisfying
the
PEP
land
prioritization
criteria.

5)
Estimate
funding
needed
for
land
protection,
quantify
benefits
(
where
feasible),
and
evaluate
funding
sources
available
for
that
protection.

6)
Involve
a
broad
cross
section
of
stakeholders
in
the
process.

7)
Accelerate
land
protection
in
the
Peconic
Estuary.

8)
Coordinate
protection
recommendations,
to
the
extent
possible,
with
the
protection
recommendations
of
the
Pine
Barrens
and
special
groundwater
protection
area
initiatives.

9)
Integrate
and
coordinate
the
PEP
Critical
Lands
Protection
process
with
Smart
Growth
and
Sustainable
Development
tools,
initiatives,
and
ordinance
modifications,
etc.
to
assist
communities
in
assigning
development
to
appropriate
areas.

10)
Develop
a
strategy
for
the
management
of
underwater
lands
which
preserves
and
enhances
the
region's
critical
natural
resources.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
E
V
E
N
7­
2
MEASURABLE
GOALS
The
PEP's
measurable
goals
with
respect
to
critical
lands
protection
include:

 
Develop
a
systematic,
watershed­
wide
evaluation
and
identification
of
lands
in
need
of
protection
with
respect
to
estuarine
management
concerns
and
evaluate
the
funding
available
for
that
protection.

 
Integrate
and
coordinate
the
PEP
Critical
Lands
Protection
process
with
related
land
use
initiatives
and
ordinance
modifications
affecting
the
Peconic
Estuary.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
E
V
E
N
7­
3
INTRODUCTION
This
chapter
represents
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program's
strategy
for
developing
a
Critical
Lands
Protection
Plan,
a
recommendation
that
arose
from
the
public
comments
of
the
September
1999
draft
Comprehensive
Conservation
and
Management
Plan
(
CCMP).
The
Critical
Lands
Protection
Plan
(
CLPP)
will
ultimately
evaluate
the
land
available
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
Study
Area
and
identify
priorities
for
protection
with
respect
to
estuarine
management
concerns.
It
is
the
intent
of
the
Critical
Lands
Protection
Plan
to
prioritize
the
available
land
"
through
the
lens"
of
habitat
and
water
quality
protection.
In
the
reality
of
acquiring/
preserving
land,
other
factors
including
drinking
water,
public
access,
and
upland
habitats
and
species,
among
others
come
in
to
play.
The
Critical
Lands
Protection
Plan
is
not
designed
to
be
the
sole
reference
for
land
protection
in
the
Peconic
region.
However,
it
will
be
a
useful
tool
for
State
and
local
agencies
that
make
land
acquisition
decisions
in
part
on
estuarine
considerations.

Rationale
for
Land
Protection
Ever­
increasing
development
is
consuming
open
space
and
natural
habitat,
and
stressing
watersheds
and
natural
communities.
At
the
current
rate
of
development,
nearly
two­
thirds
of
our
remaining
open
space
and
farmland
will
be
lost
forever
and
developed
within
the
next
ten
years.
As
is
documented
in
other
parts
of
this
CCMP,
the
pressures
development
can
place
on
the
estuary
include:

 
loss
of
natural
habitat;

 
increased
amounts
of
fertilizers
and
pesticides
from
lawns;

 
petroleum
spills
and
leaks
from
underground
oil
storage
tanks;

 
septic
system
inputs;
and,

 
road
runoff.

The
loss
of
natural
habitat
to
development
fragments
natural
communities
leading
to
their
eventual
decline.
Contaminants
migrate
into
ground
and
surface
waters,
leading
to
the
decline
and
death
of
aquatic
communities,
including
shellfish
and
finfish.
Increased
development
also
brings
increased
traffic,
congestion,
and
air
pollution.

It
is
not
prudent
or
economically
feasible
to
acquire
or
protect
all
of
the
remaining
land
available
for
development
in
the
estuary.
Although
drawbacks
to
land
protection
exist,
there
is
ample
justification
that
land
acquisition
has
significant
environmental
and
public
benefits.

Environmental
Benefits
of
Land
Protection
include:

 
preservation
of
concentrated
or
unique
species
or
natural
communities;

 
control
of
total
nitrogen
loads;

 
protection
of
watersheds
and
surface
water
quality;
and,

 
protection
of
groundwater
recharge
areas.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
E
V
E
N
7­
4
Public
Benefits
of
Land
Protection
include:

 
aesthetic
values
that
contribute
to
our
quality
of
life
including
economic
benefits
from
tourism
and
resort
homes;

 
limiting
development
costs
related
to
traffic
congestion
and
infrastructure
investments
(
water
mains,
septic
and
sewer
systems,
schools
and
fire
departments,
electric
and
telephone
lines);

 
protection
from
erosion
and
flooding­
related
damages,
and
other
physical
hazards;

 
drinking
water
protection;

 
increasing
public
access
and
recreational
opportunities;

 
economic
compensation
to
landowners
who
sell
their
property
for
open
space
and
enhanced
economic
values
to
the
nearby
property
owners
and
the
community;
and,

 
protection
of
productive
finfish
and
shellfish
habitats
for
recreational
and
commercial
purposes.

Drawbacks
to
Land
Protection
include:

 
reduces
the
tax
base
available
to
a
municipality;

 
reduces
the
supply
of
land
available
for
additional
housing
and
businesses;
and,

 
possible
increase
in
property
values,
thereby
increasing
housing
costs
and
property
taxes,
which
could
"
squeeze
out"
low
income
residents.

P
ublic
Willingness
to
Preserve
Land
The
public
has
a
strong
attachment
to
the
environmental
and
amenity
resources
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
System,
even
if
they
do
not
use
the
resources
directly.
In
response
to
an
inquiry
of
willingness
to
support
undeveloped
land
preservation
and
estimating
the
monetary
value
that
the
survey
responses
implied,
the
public
would
spend
at
least
$
14.0
thousand
per
acre
for
undeveloped
land,
using
a
25­
year
time
horizon
and
a
seven
percent
discount
rate
in
1995
dollars.
The
$
14.0
thousand
per
acre
underestimates
the
actual
value
the
public
would
be
willing
to
pay
because
the
survey
solely
focused
on
the
values
for
protecting
"
undeveloped
lands";
it
did
not
incorporate
the
value
to
the
public
with
respect
to
drinking
water
protection,
critical
habitat/
species
concerns,
and
estuarine
protection.
The
survey
was
carried
out
in
August
1995,
polling
968
year­
round
and
seasonal
residents
of
the
East
End
of
Long
Island.

The
intrinsic
values
of
many
natural
resources
are
difficult,
if
not
impossible,
to
measure.
Attempts
have
been
made
to
measure
elements
of
value,
however.
For
example,
the
economic
value
of
eelgrass,
intertidal
salt
marsh,
and
sand/
mud
bottoms
was
estimated,
based
on
the
value
of
the
fish,
shellfish,
and
bird
species
that
these
ecosystems
help
"
produce"
(
EAI,
1999).
The
results
suggest
an
asset
value
per
acre
of
approximately
$
12.4
thousand
for
eelgrass,
$
4.3
thousand
for
salt
marsh,
and
$
786
for
mud
flats,
using
a
25­
year
time
horizon
and
a
seven
percent
discount
rate
in
1995
dollars.

Numerous
other
benefits
of
open
space
were
determined
and
quantified
including
the
public's
willingness
to
pay
for
additional
travel
to
access
cleaner
waters
resulting
from
open
space.
A
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
E
V
E
N
7­
5
recreational
survey
found
that
swimming
was
the
most
popular
water­
based
activity
within
the
Peconic
Estuary
and
accounted
for
42
percent
of
all
the
water­
based
recreation
trips
that
year.
Using
travel
cost
model
estimates,
the
public
was
found
to
be
willing
to
pay
$
8.59
per
swimming
trip
above
and
beyond
the
amount
they
actually
spend
to
engage
in
the
activity.
(
Note:
The
PEP
is
not
recommending
the
public's
willingness
to
pay
be
translated
into
any
new
or
increased
fees
at
public
recreation
areas.)

Swimming
use
was
found
to
be
dependent
on
the
public's
perception
of
the
water
quality.
A
benefitcost
analysis
was
used
to
simulate
hypothetical,
uniform
improvements
in
water
quality.
A
ten
percent
uniform
improvement
in
water
quality
in
each
bay
would
increase
the
estimated
number
of
annual
swimming
trips
by
151
thousand
and
would
add
a
yearly
benefit
of
$
1.3
million.
This
is
an
increase
of
about
11
percent
in
use
and
in
benefits.
Most
of
the
benefits
($
754
thousand)
are
due
to
hypothetical
improvements
in
water
clarity
(
as
measured
by
Secchi
depth).
If
the
ten
percent
hypothetical
water
quality
improvement
were
maintained
for
25
years,
this
improvement
would
have
a
present
value
of
$
15.1
million,
using
a
seven
percent
discount
rate
and
1995
dollars.
This
number
represents
the
change
in
asset
value
for
swimming
due
to
the
quality
improvement,
all
else
remaining
the
same.
Thus,
if
the
cost
of
preserving
land
and
other
policies
to
improve
water
quality
did
not
exceed
$
15.1
million
over
the
same
period,
it
is
a
good
investment
of
scarce
resources.

Open
space
has
a
significant,
positive
effect
on
nearby
property
values.
A
property
value
analysis
was
conducted
for
the
Town
of
Southold
by
applying
the
hedonic
method
to
a
database
comprised
of
GIS
parcel
coverage
data
and
real
estate
sales
data
from
1996.
A
parcel
of
land
adjacent
(
or
within
25
ft.)
to
open
space
was
found
to
have,
on
average,
a
12.83
percent
higher
per­
acre
value
than
a
similar
parcel
located
elsewhere.
To
illustrate
the
impacts
of
open
space
to
property
values,
it
can
then
be
estimated
that
a
hypothetical
contribution
of
a
parcel
of
approximately
ten
acres
of
open
space
would
increase
adjoining
property
values
by
$
410,907.
For
this
illustration,
if
the
ten
acres
of
undeveloped
property
could
be
protected
for
less
than
$
410,907,
the
benefits
would
be
greater
than
the
costs.
Note
that
even
if
the
property
to
be
protected
costs
more
than
$
410,
907,
the
benefits
may
still
exceed
the
costs.
This
is
because
not
all
the
benefits
of
open
space
are
captured
in
the
hedonic
analysis
(
i.
e.,
general
amenity
benefits
enjoyed
by
all
local
residents,
regardless
of
the
location
of
their
homes)
and,
since
the
study,
real
estate
values
have
drastically
increased
in
all
towns,
some
more
dramatically
than
others.

Population
and
Land
Use
in
the
Peconic
Watershed
The
population
of
eastern
Suffolk
County
continues
to
grow.
While
the
five
eastern
towns
of
Suffolk
County
comprise
eight
percent
of
Suffolk
County's
total
population,
the
year­
round
population
has
steadily
grown
since
1960
(
SCPD,
1997).
From
1960
to
1995
the
population
in
eastern
Suffolk
increased
by
67
percent.
Tourism
and
the
presence
of
summer
homes
increase
the
population
during
the
summer
months.
It
is
estimated
that
the
population
in
the
five
eastern
towns
nearly
triples
during
peak
seasonal
times,
expanding
from
the
1990
year­
round
figure
of
106,593
up
to
289,000
during
peak
seasonal
times
(
an
increase
of
171
percent).

The
population
growth
continues
to
stress
the
natural
resources
of
this
region.
While
the
population
in
eastern
Suffolk
increased
by
67
percent
from
1960
to
1995,
the
number
of
year­
round
households
increased
118
percent.
Thus,
the
growth
of
housing
has
outpaced
population
growth
(
SCPD,
1997).

Forty
percent
of
the
acreage
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
watershed
was
subject
to
development
in
1995
(
SCPD,
1997).
If
open
space
programs
were
not
implemented
and
all
40
percent
were
developed
at
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
E
V
E
N
7­
6
low
density
residential
land
uses,
the
current
total
nitrogen
loads
to
the
western
estuary,
South
Fork,
and
Shelter
Island
would
more
than
double,
as
compared
with
existing
conditions
(
SCDHS,
1999)
assuming
that
typical
lawn
care
practices
continue
and
there
is
no
change
in
septic
system
technology.
Given
the
region's
growing
population
and
the
significant
increase
in
the
rate
of
development
in
the
last
five
years,
the
need
for
protecting
open
space
and
undeveloped
land
is
further
underscored.

The
ownership
pattern
of
underwater
lands
in
the
open
bays
has
to
a
major
extent
been
the
result
of
past
oyster
ground
management
activities
(
SCPD,
1997).
The
Suffolk
County
Planning
Department
inventoried
over
121,000
acres
of
underwater
lands
in
the
Peconic/
Gardiners
Bay
system,
contiguous
bays
and
tidal
creeks,
and
the
bottom
of
the
Peconic
River
above
the
head
of
the
tide
(
SCPD,
1997).
The
majority
of
the
area
(
54
percent)
is
owned
by
New
York
State
while
Suffolk
County
has
control
over
roughly
25
percent
of
the
underwater
lands.
About
seven
percent
of
the
bottom
(
8,659
acres)
is
controlled
by
the
towns
or
Town
Trustees.
Villages
own
only
27
acres
and
more
than
11,000
acres
are
privately
held.

The
title
and
exact
locations
of
many
underwater
land
parcels
have
become
clouded.
The
titles
to
underwater
parcels
that
are
held
jointly
by
Suffolk
County
and
private
interests
and
to
parcels
that
have
unknown
owners
need
to
be
clarified.
In
some
instances,
reference
points
on
adjacent
uplands
that
were
used
a
century
ago
to
locate
underwater
land
parcels
are
no
longer
in
existence.
Boundary
disputes
are
likely
to
arise
in
the
future
as
well.
Unless
addressed
and
resolved,
these
issues
will
hamper
development
of
management
plans
for
the
marine
portion
of
the
Peconic
Estuary.

Recreational
Use
and
Value
of
the
Watershed
The
Peconic
watershed
is
used
by
our
residents,
second
homeowners,
and
visitors
for
a
vast
amount
of
recreational
activities.
A
PEP­
funded
recreational
survey
estimated
that
in
1995:

 
127,762
people
took
some
3.3
million
swimming,
boating,
fishing,
or
shellfishing
outings;
and
 
156,184
people
engaged
in
about
5.2
million
beach
use,
bird
watching,
wildlife
viewing,
or
hunting
trips.

Swimming
and
beach
use
were
the
most
popular
activities,
followed
by
bird
and
wildlife
viewing,
boating,
and
fishing
(
EAI,
1999).
Shellfishing
and
hunting
had
the
fewest
estimated
number
of
trips.
Activities
such
as
hiking/
walking
and
bicycling
were
not
included
in
the
estimates
of
recreational
activity.

Outdoor
recreation
is
enormously
valuable
to
the
Peconic
Estuary
users.
The
unpaid
benefit
individuals
receive,
on
average,
from
a
recreational
trip
(
e.
g.,
consumer
surplus)
was
estimated
using
a
travel
cost
model
(
EAI,
1999).
The
estimated
values
per
recreational
trip
ranged
from
$
49.83
for
viewing
birds
and
wildlife
to
$
8.59
for
swimming
(
in
1995
dollars).
Fishing
and
boating
values
per
trip
fall
within
that
range
at
$
40.25
and
$
19.23,
respectively.

The
total
annual
benefit
from
each
recreational
activity
can
be
estimated
by
multiplying
the
average
consumer
surplus
for
an
activity
by
the
estimated
total
number
of
trips
to
engage
in
that
activity
over
the
year.
Viewing
birds
and
wildlife
was
the
most
valued
of
the
activities
studied
on
a
total
annual
benefit
basis
($
27.3
million).
Of
the
water­
based
activities,
recreational
fishing
was
the
most
highly
valued
($
23.7
million).
Boating
and
swimming
had
annual
values
of
$
18.0
million
and
$
12.1
million,
respectively.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
E
V
E
N
7­
7
Estimated
asset
values
for
recreational
activities
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
System
range
from
$
318
million
for
bird
watching
and
wildlife
viewing
to
$
141
million
for
swimming.
The
estimated
asset
value
is
$
276
million
for
recreational
fishing
and
$
210
million
for
boating.
These
figures
were
estimated
using
a
seven
percent
discount
rate,
a
time
horizon
of
25
years,
and
1995
dollars.
It
was
assumed
that
the
estimated
value
rates
remain
the
same
over
the
25­
year
period.

Great
Peconic
Bay
was
the
most
popular
waterbody
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
System
for
recreational
activity,
accounting
for
28
percent
of
the
recreational
trips
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
System,
while
Flander's
Bay
is
the
least
frequently
used
with
eight
percent.
Great
Peconic
Bay
is
the
most
popular
location
for
swimming
(
30
percent),
fishing
(
29
percent),
and
boating
(
25
percent).
Gardiners
Bay
is
the
most
popular
location
for
shellfishing,
accounting
for
33
percent
of
all
the
shellfishing
trips
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
System.

Overall,
the
residents
and
visitors
of
eastern
Long
Island
enjoy
a
plethora
of
access
points
and
activities
from
edges
of
roads,
marinas,
and
public
beaches.
Even
though
the
survey
revealed
that
some
parts
of
the
estuary
are
more
frequented
than
others,
all
bay
areas
are
cherished
by
the
residents
in
the
Peconic
system.

Non­
Recreational
Use
and
Value
of
the
Watershed
Resource­
related
businesses
play
an
important
role
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
watershed.
Specific
uses
include
commercial
fishing,
aquaculture,
agriculture,
fish
processing,
marinas,
ship
building
and
repair,
bait
and
tackle
shops,
hotels,
ferries,
petroleum
product
transfer
stations,
and
educational
facilities.
The
estuary
also
receives
sewage
treatment
plant
effluents
as
well.

A
conservatively
low
estimate
of
1,149
establishments
(
24
percent
of
those
in
the
Peconic
watershed)
were
estuarine
dependant
in
1993
(
EAI,
1996).
A
quarter
of
the
establishments
were
marine­
related
(
marinas,
boating,
commercial
fishing)
while
the
rest
of
the
establishments
included
in
the
study
were
tourism­
related
(
hotels,
motels,
restaurants,
retail,
etc.).
More
than
7,300
people
are
employed
in
these
businesses
(
twenty
percent
of
the
employment
in
the
region),
with
a
combined
annual
income
of
more
than
$
127
million.

Tourism
in
the
region
is
based
on
the
water
quality
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
and
agriculture.
Farmland
is
an
important
component
of
the
"
sense
of
place"
felt
by
many
of
the
residents
on
the
East
End,
who
enjoy
the
rural
quality
of
the
area
and
shopping
at
numerous
local
farm
stands.
A
survey
of
968
residents,
second
homeowners
and
tourists
in
1995
revealed
that
the
public's
overall
priority
for
land
protection
was
protecting
farmland.
The
survey
responses
imply
that
the
public
would
be
willing
to
spend
$
74.5
thousand
per
acre
of
farmland
protection,
using
a
25­
year
time
horizon
and
a
seven
percent
discount
rate
in
1995
dollars
(
EAI,
1999).

Criteria
for
Land
Protection
Priorities
The
dual
goals
of
water
quality
and
habitat
protection
in
the
PEP
drive
the
choice
of
criteria
for
land
acquisition
priorities
in
the
Peconic
Estuary.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
E
V
E
N
7­
8
Proposed
criteria
for
determining
priorities
for
protection
include:

 
PEP
Critical
Natural
Resource
Areas
(
CNRAs).
These
areas
contain
multiple
regional
attributes
of
ecological
significance
as
described
in
Chapter
4
of
this
Plan.

 
New
York
State
Natural
Heritage
Program
element
occurrences.
The
NYS
Natural
Heritage
Program
has
identified
locations
of
particular
ecological
significance,
including
areas
containing
rare,
threatened,
and
endangered
species.

 
United
States
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
(
USFWS)
1994
National
Wetlands
Inventory.
The
USFWS
1994
National
Wetlands
Inventory
catalogued
the
freshwater
and
tidal
wetlands
in
the
area.

 
Source
control
of
nitrogen,
bacteria,
and
toxics.
The
PEP
recognizes
that
protection
of
parcels
within
a
1000­
foot
boundary
from
freshwater
streams
and
bay
coastlines,
and
parcels
in
the
groundwater
contributing
area
to
nitrogen­
stressed
subwatersheds,
may
help
manage
the
inputs
of
nitrogen,
pathogens,
and
toxics
into
the
estuary.

Using
GIS
and
available
information
about
the
watershed,
the
CLPP
Work
Group
has
developed
the
following
coverages
(
assemblages
of
spatial
information):

1.
PEP
Watershed
Boundary;

2.
Suffolk
County
Tax
Map
Base;

3.
PEP
Land
Available
for
Development
(
minus
agricultural
land
available
for
development);

4.
PEP
Critical
Natural
Resource
Area
boundaries;*

5.
New
York
State
Natural
Heritage
Elements;*

6.
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
National
Wetland
Inventory
 
1994;*

7.
PEP
Groundwater
Water
Contributing
Areas
to
Nitrogen
Stressed
Subwatersheds;*

8.
1000
foot
boundary
from
freshwater
stream
and
bay
coastlines;*

9.
Community
Preservation
Fund
Project
Plan
parcels
from
the
five
East
End
towns;

10.
Protected
lands
(
includes
Federal,
State,
County,
town,
village
parks,
and
privately
owned
conservation
lands);
and,

11.
Suffolk
County
Greenways
proposed
acquisition
parcels.

*
If
land
is
available
for
development,
these
criteria
are
factors
that
contribute
to
its
"
criticality."

The
acquisition
or
purchase
of
development
rights
on
farmland
was
not
chosen
as
a
criterion
for
the
PEP
Critical
Lands
Protection
Plan.
The
CLPP
Work
Group
recognizes
that
protection
of
farmland
is
the
highest
priority
of
locally
adopted
Community
Preservation
Fund
plans.
There
are,
however,
options,
tools,
and
techniques
that
can
be
incorporated
into
acquisition
efforts
to
decrease
the
nitrogen
and
biologically
harmful
chemicals
that
reach
the
Peconic
Estuary
from
farmland.
The
PEP
Agricultural
Nitrogen
Management
Work
Group
is
addressing
these
issues.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
E
V
E
N
7­
9
Means
of
Achieving
Land
Protection
There
are
many
funds
and
programs
available
for
land
protection
in
the
Peconic
watershed.
While
several
are
noted
in
CCMP
Chapter
9
(
CCMP
Financing),
there
are
programs
within
them
specific
to
land
acquisition
as
well
as
other
funding
sources
that
warrant
mention
here.

New
York
State
Land
Acquisition
Programs
New
York
State
Open
Space
Conservation
Plan:
Released
in
1998
by
the
New
York
State's
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation
and
the
Office
of
State
Parks,
Recreation,
and
Historic
Preservation,
this
is
the
current
State­
wide
plan
for
open
space
acquisition
and
protection.
The
plan
identifies
sites
that
are
priorities
for
protection
and
preservation
of
farmland,
historic
and
archaeological
resources,
water
quality,
natural
and
scenic
environments,
and
open
space/
recreational
opportunities.
This
plan
is
being
updated
with
the
assistance
of
regional
advisory
committees,
with
public
hearings
scheduled
on
a
draft
updated
plan
in
the
winter
of
2001.

New
York's
Clean
Water
State
Revolving
Fund
(
CWSRF):
This
fund
provides
low­
interest
rate
loans
to
municipalities
to
carry
out
projects
that
reduce
or
prevent
water
pollution.
As
the
loans
are
repaid,
money
is
available
to
be
used
again
for
new
loans.
The
CWSRF
program,
in
existence
since
1990,
has
made
over
$
4.3
billion
in
loans.
The
CWSRF
program
funds
projects
involving
construction
of
wastewater
facilities
that
reduce
or
prevent
point­
source
water
pollution.
Projects
that
reduce
nonpoint
source
pollution
are
also
eligible
for
CWSRF
financing.
Such
projects
include
restoration
of
riparian
vegetation,
wetlands
and
other
waterbodies;
land
purchase
or
conservation
easements
for
water
quality
protection
such
as
for
wellheads
or
watersheds;
and
certain
EPA
designated
estuary
projects,
such
as
aquatic
habitat
restoration
and
protection.

New
York
State
Environmental
Protection
Fund
(
EPF):
This
fund
provides
approximately
$
30
million
per
year
for
open
space
preservation.
It
is
funded
primarily
through
real
estate
transfer
taxes.
Decisions
regarding
the
use
of
these
funds
are
made
according
to
the
New
York
State
Open
Space
Conservation
Plan.

New
York
State
Clean
Water/
Clean
Air
Bond
Act:
This
Bond
Act
provides
$
150
million
for
State
Open
Space
conservation
projects
undertaken
by
either
the
NYS
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation
or
Office
of
Parks,
Recreation,
and
Historic
Preservation
and
farmland
preservation
projects
administered
by
the
Department
of
Agriculture
and
Markets.
An
additional
$
50
million
is
dedicated
to
municipal
parks
and
historic
preservation
projects
administered
through
Office
of
Parks,
Recreation,
and
Historic
Preservation;
this
also
includes
funds
for
land
acquisition.

Suffolk
County
Land
Acquisition
Programs
Farmland
Preservation:
This
program,
the
first
of
its
kind
in
the
United
States,
was
created
in
1977
for
the
purpose
of
acquiring
development
rights
to
working
farms.
The
easement
acquired
eliminates
all
development
rights
other
than
those
necessary
for
agricultural
production,
and
establishes
oversight
and
approval
of
new
farm
structures
with
the
County
Farmland
Committee.
Since
the
inception
of
the
program,
approximately
$
40
million
in
general
obligation
bonds
have
been
spent
by
Suffolk
County
to
preserve
7,000
acres
of
farmland.

Open
Space:
This
program
was
created
in
1986
and
funded
through
general
obligation
bonds
initially
at
$
60
million.
Subsequent
appropriations
have
raised
expenditures
to
$
84
million.
Approximately
5,000
acres
have
been
acquired
by
the
County
to
date.
It
is
designed
to
acquire
lands
under
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
E
V
E
N
7­
10
development
pressure
that
cannot
be
clustered,
rezoned,
or
partially
developed.
Lands
acquired
are
managed
generally
as
passive
open
space.

Drinking
Water
Protection:
This
program
is
funded
with
one­
quarter
cent
of
the
sales
tax,
which
has
been
generating
approximately
$
35
million
annually
depending
on
the
economy.
The
County
has
acquired
12,000
acres,
mostly
in
the
Pine
Barrens.
Since
the
inception
of
the
program
in
1987,
over
$
220
million
has
been
spent
on
acquisitions.
The
program
was
set
to
expire
in
2001,
but
has
been
reauthorized
(
see
"
Sales
tax
extension
program"
below).
The
program
has
three
components:

12.5.
A
requires
that
acquisitions
must
relate
directly
to
drinking
water
supply
anywhere
in
Suffolk
County,
generally
in
one
of
the
Special
Groundwater
Protection
Areas
(
SGPAs).
There
are
seven
designated
SGPAs
within
the
deep
aquifer
recharge
areas
of
Suffolk
County.
The
bulk
of
the
money
continues
to
pay
for
debt
service
on
acquisitions
made
in
the
1989­
91
time
frame.

12.5.
D
is
a
revenue
sharing
component
based
on
population
and
is
set
aside
by
each
town.
The
towns
can
elect
to
spend
all
or
a
portion
on
landfill
costs,
but
Brookhaven
and
the
five
eastern
towns
are
still
requesting
their
yearly
shares
be
spent
on
land
acquisition.

12.5.
E
is
the
residuary
or
leftover,
which
voters
in
1996
mandated
be
spent
totally
for
land
acquisition.
It
is
divided
into
two
segments:
one­
third
goes
to
the
four
western
towns
and
Shelter
Island
on
a
population
basis
and
can
be
spent
to
acquire
any
properties
which
are
authorized
by
the
County
Legislature;
two­
thirds
goes
to
the
other,
or
so­
called
Pine
Barrens
towns,
on
an
undifferentiated
basis
to
be
spent
on
Drinking
Water­
related
parcels.

Sales
tax
extension
program:
This
program,
authorized
by
referendum
in
1999,
extends
the
1/
4%
sales
tax
starting
in
2001
and
ending
in
2013.
The
program
will
be
funded
annually
depending
on
the
economy
and
sales
tax
revenues.
It
is
divided
into
the
following
five
separate
and
dedicated
accounts:

 
Sewer
rate
relief
(
projected
total
$
300
million
over
life
of
program);

 
Tax
relief
(
projected
total
$
270
million
over
life
of
program);

 
Farmland
for
the
continued
purchase
of
development
rights
(
projected
total
$
62
million
over
life
of
program);

 
Drinking
Water
and
Open
Space
for
land
acquisitions,
including
the
Peconic
Estuary
and
the
South
Shore
Estuary
Reserve
(
projected
total
$
114
million
over
life
of
program);
and,

 
Water
Quality
to
fund
wetland
cleanups
and
rehabilitation,
stormwater
runoff
cleanups,
demonstration
projects,
and
other
environmental
improvements
(
projected
total
$
95
million
over
life
of
program).

Community
Greenways:
Authorized
by
referendum
in
1998,
this
program
is
funded
at
$
62
million
over
the
life
of
the
program.
In
1999,
the
County
Legislature
authorized
the
Open
Space
component
($
20
million)
principally
for
drinking
water
protection
parcels,
stream
tributaries,
greenbelt,
and
habitat
enhancement,
which
comprises
about
1,000
acres
scattered
throughout
Suffolk
County.
Parcels
have
been
targeted
for
acquisition
and
negotiations
are
proceeding.
Individual
authorizations
are
also
proceeding
for
lands
to
be
used
for
Active
Recreation
($
20
million
available),
where
the
County
buys
the
land
and
a
town,
village
or
community
group
is
required
to
design,
build,
and
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
E
V
E
N
7­
11
maintain
the
recreation
improvements.
Golf
courses
are
specifically
excluded.
In
early
2000,
the
Legislature
authorized
the
Farmland
component
($
20
million),
for
the
purchase
of
development
rights
to
active
farms
anywhere
in
the
County,
provided
another
level
of
government
commits
to
30
percent
of
the
cost
of
acquisition.
This
program
should
be
able
to
preserve
another
2,000
acres
of
farms.
Two
million
dollars
are
set
aside
for
the
construction
of
a
natural
history
interpretive
center.

Land
Preservation
Partnership:
This
funding
program
from
general
obligation
bonds
calls
for
the
acquisition
of
land
for
various
purposes,
not
including
active
recreation,
in
partnership
with
a
town
or
village
primarily.
All
associated
costs
are
split
50­
50,
and
the
land
can
be
divided
or
held
in
common
ownership
as
the
partners
choose.
Development
rights
and
conservation
easements
can
also
be
acquired
under
this
program,
funded
thus
far
at
approximately
$
9
million
in
County
dollars.

Review
of
tax
lien
properties
for
environmental
value:
The
Suffolk
County
Planning
Department
reviews
all
tax
lien
parcels
for
environmental
evaluation
after
the
redemption
period
has
expired
to
determine
if
the
County
should
retain
these
parcels
for
open
space/
park/
municipal
purposes
or
sell
them
at
auction.
This
procedure
was
first
initiated
by
Suffolk
County
nearly
15
years
ago.
In
1999
alone,
Suffolk
County
transferred
over
350
acres
to
its
Department
of
Parks,
Recreation
and
Conservation.

Town
Community
Preservation
Fund
Project
Plans
In
November
1998,
the
voters
of
the
five
East
End
Towns
approved
a
referendum
that
added
a
two
percent
tax
to
real
estate
transfers
in
their
communities.
Revenues
generated
by
the
tax
go
into
a
Community
Preservation
Fund
in
the
Town
in
which
the
transaction
occurred
for
the
purpose
of
protection
and
acquisition
of
open
space
and
historic
properties.
In
each
of
the
Town's
Community
Preservation
Fund
Project
Plans,
parcels
have
been
identified
for
protection
through
fee
simple
acquisition
or
other
means
such
as
conservation
easements.

When
the
program
was
conceived,
it
was
estimated
the
transfer
tax
would
generate
approximately
$
10
million
annually
until
the
year
2010
when
the
program
either
expires
or
is
renewed.
After
the
first
several
months
of
tax
receipts,
it
appears
that
$
10
million
is
an
underestimate
of
the
potential
amount
generated
by
this
program.
For
instance,
the
total
revenue
generated
by
all
five
towns
in
the
year
2000
exceeded
$
35
million.
This
total
reflects
a
robust
real
estate
market.
Fluctuations
in
the
economy
may
affect
future
Community
Preservation
Fund
revenues.

Agencies
and
Organizations
that
Protect
Land
It
may
appear
from
the
above
noted
funding
sources
that
more
than
enough
dollars
exist
to
achieve
any
set
of
protection
objectives.
However,
land
values
are
high
and
escalating,
and
competing
demands
on
these
funds
are
so
great
that
efforts
to
prioritize
are
necessary.

The
agencies,
communities,
and
organizations
that
call
upon
and
expend
these
funding
sources
are
numerous,
staffed
with
professionals,
and
actively
involved
in
protecting
land
in
the
Peconic
Estuary.
Land
acquisition/
protection
is
occurring
now
in
the
absence
of
a
plan
that
is
solely
focused
on
regional
estuarine
and
land
management
concerns.
In
fact,
almost
any
reduction
in
density
of
certain
areas
of
the
watershed
will
have
a
positive
effect
on
the
natural
community.
But
with
limited
funds
available,
it
is
incumbent
on
the
community
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
to
seek
out
the
best
means
by
which
collective
resources
can
be
spent
for
the
greatest
benefit
to
the
watershed.
The
CLPP
is
intended
to
provide
this
guidance.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
E
V
E
N
7­
12
All
of
the
organizations
acting
on
behalf
of
land
acquisition
are
either
represented
on
the
CLPP
Work
Group
or
will
be
contacted
in
the
stakeholder
input
process.
They
include
the
following:

 
United
States
Fish
&
Wildlife
Service;

 
New
York
State
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation;

 
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Planning;

 
The
Nature
Conservancy;

 
Group
for
the
South
Fork;

 
North
Fork
Environmental
Council;

 
Peconic
Land
Trust;

 
Southold
Town;

 
Riverhead
Town;

 
Southampton
Town;

 
East
Hampton
Town;

 
Shelter
Island
Town;

 
Brookhaven
Town;

 
Village
of
Dering
Harbor;

 
Village
of
Greenport;

 
Village
of
North
Haven;
and,

 
Village
of
Sag
Harbor
Types
of
Protection
Tools
Available
In
addition
to
the
many
sources
of
funds
available
to
protect
land
in
the
Peconic
Estuary,
there
are
also
many
tools
available
to
the
organizations
and
agencies
who
complete
the
transactions
that
protect
the
land.
These
include
many
creative
approaches,
some
of
which
are
described
below:

 
Fee
Simple
Acquisition
 
Outright
purchase
of
full
title
to
land
at
fair
market
value;

 
Purchase
of
Development
Rights
 
Landowner
sells
all
or
part
of
a
property's
development
rights
to
a
municipality
or
non­
profit
conservation
organization,
while
still
retaining
ownership
and
the
right
to
certain
land
uses
such
as
farming;

 
Transfer
of
Development
Rights
 
Landowner
sells
all
or
part
of
a
property's
development
rights
and
transfers
those
development
rights
to
another
parcel
of
land
within
the
same
Groundwater
Management
Zone
or
sells
the
development
rights
to
other
landowners
whose
property
can
support
increased
density
in
the
same
Groundwater
Management
Zone;
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
E
V
E
N
7­
13
 
Conservation
Easements
 
Conservation
easements
are
restrictions
landowners
voluntarily
place
on
their
property
that
legally
bind
the
actions
of
present
and
future
owners.
Easements
are
used
to
preserve
wildlife
habitat,
open
space,
agricultural
land,
or
the
historic
features
of
a
building
while
allowing
the
landowners
to
continue
owning
and
using
the
property.
Easements
can
provide
tax
advantages
and/
or
tax
abatement
provided
that
easement
is
long
term
or
perpetual;

 
Bargain
Sale
 
Sale/
conveyance
of
title
to
land
or
development
rights
to
a
charitable
organization
at
less
than
fair
market
value;

 
Outright
Land
Donation
 
Donation
by
a
landowner
of
all
or
partial
interest
in
a
property;

 
Option
 
An
option
signed
between
a
property
owner
and
a
conservation
organization
that
provides
temporary
protection
for
a
parcel
while
allowing
the
organization
to
secure
funding
for
the
parcel's
acquisition;

 
Right
of
First
Refusal
 
A
right
of
first
refusal
granted
to
a
conservation
organization
or
agency
that
allows
the
agency
to
be
notified
when
a
parcel
of
land
is
being
considered
for
purchase
by
another
party;

 
Like­
kind
Land
Exchange
 
A
tax­
free
transaction
whereby
a
public
agency
or
a
nonprofit
conservation
organization
exchanges
like­
kind
developable
land
with
property
identified
for
protection;

 
Tax­
exempt
Installment
Sale
 
A
long­
term
contract
to
sell
property
or
associated
development
rights
negotiated
between
the
landowner
and
municipality
and/
or
non­
profit
organization,
providing
significant
tax
relief;

 
Management
Agreements
 
An
agreement
between
a
property
owner
and
another
agency,
such
as
a
non­
profit
conservation
organization,
on
how
the
property
will
be
managed.
For
example,
a
management
agreement
on
a
parcel
of
farmland
could
state
that
buffer
areas
of
native
vegetation
be
maintained
at
the
border
of
active
farmland
for
the
purpose
of
reducing
nitrogen
runoff
to
an
adjacent
water­
body;

 
Limited
Development/
Reduced
Density
 
Property
that
is
subdivided
at
a
reduced
density
to
better
protect
open
space.
Limited
development
plans
can
provide
tax
advantages,
reduced
infrastructure
building
costs,
and
enhanced
marketability;
and,

 
Clustering
 
Land
subdivision/
proposed
development
that
is
clustered
on
a
portion
of
property
to
protect
open
space.

MANAGEMENT
ACTIONS
The
management
actions
make
use
of
available
information,
resources,
and
public
opinions
to
help
decision­
makers
choose
protection
priorities
that
have
the
greatest
benefit
for
the
most
critical
areas
of
the
watershed.

Within
the
CCMP,
some
steps
within
the
actions
have
been
identified
as
priorities,
as
indicated
under
the
step
number.
The
PEP
will
seek
to
implement
priority
actions
in
the
near
term.
Priorities
may
be
either
new
or
ongoing,
commitments,
or
recommendations.
Completing
some
priority
actions
does
not
require
any
new
or
additional
resources,
because
they
are
being
undertaken
through
"
base
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
E
V
E
N
7­
14
programs"
or
with
funding
that
has
been
committed.
In
other
cases,
in
order
to
complete
the
priority
actions,
new
or
additional
resources
need
to
be
secured
by
some
or
all
of
the
responsible
entities.

CRITICAL
LANDS
PROTECTION
PLAN
MANAGEMENT
ACTIONS
CLPP­
1
Develop
a
PEP
"
Critical
Lands"
Map
and
List
Based
on
Applying
the
PEP
Criteria.

CLPP­
2
Continue
to
Refine
the
CNRA
Boundaries
with
Results
of
the
Work
from
the
PEP
Natural
Resources
Subcommittee.

CLPP­
3
Estimate
Funds
Needed
for
Land
Protection,
to
Quantify
Benefits
(
Where
Feasible)
and
Evaluate
Funding
Sources
Available
for
that
Protection.

CLPP­
4
Prepare
the
PEP
Critical
Lands
Protection
Plan
Report.

CLPP­
5
Accelerate
Land
Protection
in
the
Peconic
Estuary.

CLPP­
6
Identify
a
Process
for
Using
Smart
Growth
Tools,
Sustainable
Development
Initiatives,
and
Ordinance
Modifications,
etc.
to
Assist
Communities
in
Assigning
Development
to
Appropriate
Areas.

CLPP­
7
Develop
a
Strategy
for
the
Management
of
Underwater
Lands
Which
Conserves
and
Enhances
the
Region's
Critical
Natural
Resources.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
E
V
E
N
7­
15
Addresses
Critical
Lands
Protection
Plan
Objectives
1,
2,
3,
4,
and
6.

The
identification
of
all
parcels
meeting
the
criteria
for
protection
with
respect
to
estuarine
land
management
concerns
can
be
facilitated
by
using
GIS
(
for
criteria,
see
pages
7­
8).
Following
the
production
of
a
draft
map
illustrating
these
parcels,
the
CLPP
Work
Group
will
meet
with
each
town
within
the
Peconic
Estuary
Study
Area
to
discuss
the
draft
map
and
list
of
parcels.
Meetings
with
town
and
village
elected
officials,
planning
and
natural
resource
staff,
and
additional
stakeholders
will
be
an
opportunity
for
the
merits
of
each
parcel
to
be
considered
individually.

Input
from
each
town
will
be
incorporated
into
the
final
list
and
map
of
recommended
protection
priorities
for
the
CLPP.

The
town­
by­
town
meetings
will
be
held
in
2001.

Steps
CLPP­
1.1
Identify
parcels
currently
recommended
for
acquisition
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
Priority
by
various
levels
of
government.
(
i.
e.,
CPF
lists).

CLPP­
1.2
Finalize
GIS
data
coverages
that
allow
selection
of
parcels
within
the
watershed.
Priority
CLPP­
1.3
Develop
a
draft
map
of
parcels
(
for
discussion)
selected
for
protection
with
respect
to
Priority
estuarine
management
concerns.

CLPP­
1.4
Hold
town­
by­
town
meetings
with
town
officials
to
discuss
individual
parcels.
Priority
CLPP­
1.5
Incorporate
suggestions
from
the
towns
and
develop
a
final
map
illustrating
parcels
Priority
recommended
for
protection
with
respect
to
estuarine
management
concerns.

CLPP­
1.6
Incorporate
suggestions
from
the
towns
and
develop
a
final
list
of
parcels
recommended
Priority
for
protection
with
respect
to
estuarine
management
concerns.
CLPP­
1.
Develop
a
PEP
"
Critical
Lands"
Map
and
List
Based
on
Applying
the
PEP
Criteria.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
E
V
E
N
7­
16
Responsible
Entities
CLPP­
1.1
Suffolk
County
Planning
Department
(
SCPD)
(
lead)
and
five
East
End
towns
CLPP­
1.2
SCPD
(
lead),
CLPP
Work
Group,
and
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services
(
SCDHS),
PEP
Program
office
CLPP­
1.3
SCPD
(
lead),
PEP
Program
Office,
and
CLPP
Work
Group
CLPP­
1.4
The
Nature
Conservancy
(
TNC),
PEP
Program
Office
(
co­
leads),
SCPD,
CLPP
Work
Group,
five
East
End
towns,
and
villages
CLPP­
1.5
SCPD
(
lead),
TNC,
PEP
Program
Office,
and
CLPP
Work
Group
CLPP­
1.6
TNC
(
lead),
SCPD,
PEP
Program
Office,
and
CLPP
Work
Group
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
E
V
E
N
7­
17
Addresses
Critical
Lands
Protection
Plan
Objective
2.

Steps
CLPP­
2.1
Continue
to
refine
the
CNRA
boundaries
with
results
of
the
work
from
the
PEP
Natural
Priority
Resources
Subcommittee.

Responsible
Entities
CLPP2.1
NYSDEC,
PEP
Natural
Resources
Subcommittee
(
co­
leads),
CLPP
Work
Group,
and
SCPD,
and
PEP
Program
Office
CLPP­
2.
Continue
to
Refine
the
CNRA
Boundaries
with
Results
of
the
Work
from
the
PEP
Natural
Resources
Subcommittee.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
E
V
E
N
7­
18
Addresses
Critical
Lands
Protection
Plan
Objective
5.

Once
the
parcel
list
is
generated,
there
is
comparable
sales
data
available
to
estimate
the
costs
of
purchasing,
in
whole
or
in
part,
the
parcels.
It
is
then
necessary
to
determine
the
gap,
if
any,
between
the
cost
of
protection
and
the
funds
available
to
achieve
it.
This
analysis
must
be
set
in
the
context
of
how
these
funds
might
be
spent
on
other
competing
acquisition
priorities,
such
as
farmland
and
non­
PEP
open
space
lands.
Thus
based
on
prior
patterns
of
acquisition
funding,
the
PEP
will
assume
that
the
future
revenue
stream
will
be
similar
for
purposes
of
developing
finance
plans
and
cost
estimates.
Finally
there
are
methods
available
to
evaluate
the
benefits
of
land
protection
to
the
community
and
the
neighborhoods
in
which
it
occurs.

Steps
CLPP­
3.1
Determine
the
costs
of
acquisition
efforts
if
particular
parcels
were
purchased.
Priority
Determine
the
additional
cost
if
all
parcels
were
purchased.

CLPP­
3.2
Assess
the
funding
gap
between
needed
protection
and
available
funding
sources.
Priority
CLPP­
3.3
Analyze
and
estimate
the
economic
benefits
of
land
acquisition
to
the
community
as
a
Priority
whole
and
to
the
neighborhood
in
which
protected
land
is
located.

Responsible
Entities
CLPP­
3.1
TNC,
Suffolk
County,
and
towns
(
co­
leads)

CLPP­
3.2
TNC,
Suffolk
County,
and
towns
(
co­
leads)

CLPP­
3.3
PEP
Program
Office
(
lead)
Consultant
EIA,
Inc.,
Group
for
the
South
Fork
(
GSF),
and
TNC
CLPP­
3.
Estimate
Funds
Needed
for
Land
Protection
to
Quantify
Benefits
(
Where
Feasible)
and
Evaluate
Funding
Sources
Available
for
that
Protection.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
E
V
E
N
7­
19
Addresses
Critical
Lands
Protection
Plan
Objectives
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
and
6.

The
Critical
Lands
Protection
Plan
will
be
the
culmination
of
evaluating
the
land
available
for
development
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
Study
Area.
The
Plan
will
document
the
PEP's
priorities
for
protection
"
through
the
lens"
of
habitat
and
estuarine
water
quality
protection.
Estimates
of
the
funds
needed
for
this
protection
and
possible
funding
sources
will
be
identified.

Steps
CLPP­
4.1
Prepare
the
PEP
Critical
Lands
Protection
Plan
report.
Priority
Responsible
Entities
CLPP­
4.1
TNC
(
lead),
PEP
Program
Office,
SCPD,
SCDHS,
NYSDEC,
USFWS,
and
EPA
CLPP­
4.
Prepare
the
PEP
Critical
Lands
Protection
Plan
Report.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
E
V
E
N
7­
20
Addresses
Critical
Lands
Protection
Plan
Objective
7.

With
abundant
available
funds
for
land
acquisition
and
a
robust
real
estate
market,
it
may
be
essential
for
the
public
sector
to
hire
more
people
to
work
on
acquiring
land
for
preservation.
This
work
is
time
intensive
and
manpower
dependent.
The
shortage
of
qualified
staff
can
delay
or
stall
the
pace
of
land
acquisition.

To
assist
in
purchasing
land
while
it
is
still
undeveloped
and
before
realized
sources
of
public
funding
become
available,
the
New
York
State
Environmental
Facilities
Corporation
("
EFC")
can
offer
below
market
rate
financing,
including
zero
percent
short­
term
loans
and
50
percent
subsidized
long­
term
loans
for
implementing
National
Estuary
Program
CCMPs,
such
as
the
Peconic
Estuary.

Another
means
of
increasing
the
rate
at
which
land
is
protected
is
provided
by
"
public
benefit"
or
"
current
use"
property
taxation
methods.
In
such
programs,
property
tax
relief
is
given
on
land
containing
one
or
more
"
sensitive
areas,"
such
as
public
access,
extra
surface
water
buffer,
habitat
restoration
area,
or
scenic
or
conservation
easements.
The
incentive
functions
by
establishing
a
"
current
use
taxation"
property
tax
assessment
that
is
lower
than
the
"
highest
and
best
use"
assessment
level
that
usually
applies.
The
reduction
in
taxable
value
ranges
from
50
percent
to
90
percent
for
the
portion
of
the
property
in
"
current
use."
Penalties
for
withdrawal
from
the
program
are
necessary
to
limit
conversions
after
receiving
tax
relief.
This
concept
could
also
be
employed
in
valuing
property
for
New
York
estate
tax
purposes.

Finally,
income
tax
credits
offer
a
much
greater
dollar
amount
compared
to
income
tax
deductions,
and
thus
a
greater
incentive
to
give.
This
is
a
very
effective
and
high­
leverage
land
protection
tool.
A
tax
credit
program
in
North
Carolina
revealed
that
for
every
$
1
of
tax
credit
given,
$
8
worth
of
land
was
protected.
This
type
of
program
is
especially
useful
in
higher
tax
states
like
New
York
where
the
benefits
of
tax
credits
are
more
valuable
and
where
land
prices
are
high
and
rapidly
escalating.

Steps
CLPP­
5.1
Increase
staff
at
the
town
and
County
level
to
meet
the
need
for
more
and
faster
land
acquisitions.

CLPP­
5.2
Secure
zero
percent
short­
term
financing
through
the
NYS
EFC
for
land
protection
measures.

CLPP­
5.3
Develop
a
"
Public
Benefit"
or
"
Current
Use"
ranking
system
for
assessment
of
property
taxes.

CLPP­
5.4
Create
a
State
income
tax
credit
program
for
qualified
charitable
gifts
of
land
for
conservation
purposes.
CLPP­
5.
Accelerate
Land
Protection
in
the
Peconic
Estuary.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
E
V
E
N
7­
21
Responsible
Entities
CLPP­
5.1
Five
East
End
towns
and
Suffolk
County
(
co­
leads)

CLPP­
5.2
TNC,
all
towns,
and
Suffolk
County
(
co­
leads)

CLPP­
5.3
TNC,
GSF,
and
all
town
tax
assessors
(
co­
leads)

CLPP­
5.4
TNC,
GSF,
and
State
Legislature
(
co­
leads)
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
E
V
E
N
7­
22
Addresses
Critical
Lands
Protection
Plan
Objectives
8
and
9.

Smart
Growth
activities
can
benefit
homeowners
and
developers
as
well
as
farmers
and
conservationists
by
encouraging
compact
development
in
areas
already
developed
and
leaving
open
space
and
farmland
alone.
Smart
Growth
and
"
neo­
traditional
villages"
keep
residential
and
commercial
development
"
clustered"
in
one
area,
thus
reducing
the
pressure
to
develop
into
surrounding
open
space
and
farmland
("
sprawl").
Keeping
future
development
"
clustered"
also
makes
it
easier
to
affect
future
nitrogen
and
pesticide
reduction
strategies,
on
the
assumption
that
economies
of
scale
prevail
if
houses
are
closer
together.

The
Suffolk
County
Planning
Commission
has
just
released
the
report
entitled
"
Smart
Communities
Through
Smart
Growth:
Applying
Smart
Growth
Principles
to
Suffolk
County
Towns
and
Villages"
(
Suffolk
County
Planning
Commission,
2000).
This
document
should
be
integrated
with
the
recommendations
of
the
CLPP.
The
Suffolk
County
Planning
Commission
is
in
the
process
of
integrating
the
principles
of
Smart
Growth
into
its
Zoning
and
Subdivision
Guidebook.

Government­
sponsored
incentive
programs
currently
available
include
the
State
Quality
Communities
program
and
the
Federal
Livable
Communities
program.
There
are
also
several
private
foundations
offering
grants
to
create
and
implement
Smart
Growth
policies.

Steps
CLPP­
6.1
Review
local
ordinances
to
allow
incorporation
of
Smart
Growth
initiatives.

CLPP­
6.2
Implement
Smart
Growth
initiatives.

Responsible
Entities
CLPP­
6.1
Towns
(
lead),
and
SCPD
CLPP­
6.2
Towns
(
lead),
and
SCPD
CLPP­
6.
Identify
a
Process
for
Using
Smart
Growth
Tools,
Sustainable
Development
Initiatives,
and
Ordinance
Modifications,
etc.
to
Assist
Communities
in
Assigning
Development
to
Appropriate
Areas.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
E
V
E
N
7­
23
Addresses
Critical
Lands
Protection
Plan
Objective
10.

Steps
CLPP­
7.1
Develop
a
strategy
for
the
management
of
underwater
lands
which
conserves
and
enhances
the
region's
critical
natural
resources.

Responsible
Entities
CLPP­
7.1
Suffolk
County
and
PEP
Program
Office
(
co­
leads),
NYSDEC,
and
PEP
Natural
Resources
Subcommittee
CLPP­
7.
Develop
a
Strategy
for
the
Management
of
Underwater
Lands
Which
Conserves
and
Enhances
the
Region's
Critical
Natural
Resources.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
E
V
E
N
7­
24
BENEFITS
OF
MANAGEMENT
ACTIONS
The
most
significant
benefits
of
the
management
actions
are
not
easily
quantified.
If
the
actions
are
successfully
implemented,
the
benefits
are
manifested
in
such
terms
as
quality
of
life,
a
thriving
recreational
fishery,
clean
water
in
which
to
recreate,
and
a
healthy
and
diverse
ecosystem.
Economic
analyses
can
and
will
quantify
some
of
these
benefits,
such
as
enhanced
property
values
and
successful
commercial
fisheries
harvests.
But
the
most
significant
benefit
is
the
protection
of
an
irreplaceable
asset
that
will
only
become
more
expensive
to
obtain
and
may
not
even
be
obtainable
if
action
is
not
taken
to
protect
it
now.

COSTS
OF
MANAGEMENT
ACTIONS
The
total
cost
of
implementing
the
acquisition
recommendations
remains
to
be
determined.
It
is
in
fact
a
management
action
to
assess
this
cost
and
evaluate
whether
funds
exist
to
meet
it
or
whether
a
gap
exists
that
needs
to
be
filled.
There
are
additional
costs
associated
with
the
following
(
to
be
funded
by
in­
kind
matches):

 
stakeholder
input
meetings;

 
GIS
analysis,
map
production,
and
distribution;
and,

 
economic
analyses.

The
total
cost
of
all
actions
proposed
for
critical
lands
protection
is
$
292,500
in
new
one
time
costs;
this
estimate
does
not
include
cost
estimates
for
land
protection
(
including
acquisition).
(
See
"
Action
Costs"
in
Chapter
1
for
an
explanation
of
how
these
costs
were
determined.)

CRITICAL
LANDS
PROTECTION
ACTIONS
SUMMARY
TABLE
Table
7­
1
provides
the
following
summary
information
about
each
of
the
actions
presented
in
this
chapter.

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

Timeframe
This
category
refers
to
the
general
timeframe
for
action
implementation.
Some
actions
are
ongoing
or
nearing
completion;
implementation
of
other
actions
is
not
anticipated
until
some
time
in
the
future.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
E
V
E
N
7­
25
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
S
E
V
E
N
7­
26
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
Table
7­
1.
Critical
Lands
Protection
Strategy
Actions.

Action
Responsible
Entity
Timeframe
Cost
Status
CLPP­
1
Develop
a
PEP
"
Critical
Lands"
Map
and
List
Based
on
Applying
the
PEP
Criteria.
(
Objectives
1,
2,
3,
4,,
and
6)

CLPP­
1.1
Priority
Identify
parcels
currently
recommended
for
acquisition
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
by
various
levels
of
government.
(
i.
e.,
CPF
lists)
SCPD
(
lead)
and
five
East
End
towns
2001
SCPD:
Base
Program
C/
N
CLPP­
1.2
Priority
Finalize
GIS
data
coverages
that
allow
selection
of
parcels
within
the
watershed.
SCPD
(
lead),
CLPP
Work
Group,
SCDHS,
PEP
Program
Office
2001
SCPD
 
0.1
FTE
C/
N
CLPP­
1.3
Priority
Develop
a
draft
map
of
parcels
(
for
discussion)
selected
for
protection
with
respect
to
estuarine
management
concerns.
SCPD
(
lead),
PEP
Program
Office,
CLPP
Work
Group
2001
Included
in
Step
1.2
C/
N
CLPP­
1.4
Priority
Hold
town­
by­
town
meetings
with
town
officials
to
discuss
individual
parcels.
TNC,
PEP
Program
Office
(
co­
leads),
SCPD,
CLPP
Work
Group,
five
East
End
towns,
villages
2001
EPA
 
0.05
FTE
NYSDEC
 
0.05
FTE
SCDHS
 
0.05
FTE
Towns
 
0.05
FTE
each
SCPD
 
0.05
FTE
TNC
 
0.05
FTE
C/
N
CLPP
1.5
Priority
Incorporate
suggestions
from
the
towns
and
develop
a
final
map
illustrating
parcels
recommended
for
protection
with
respect
to
estuarine
management
concerns.
SCPD
(
lead),
TNC,
PEP
Program
Office,
CLPP
Work
Group
2001
SCPD
 
0.1
FTE
TNC
 
0.05
FTE
C/
N
CLPP
1.6
Priority
Incorporate
suggestions
from
the
towns
and
develop
a
final
list
of
parcels
recommended
for
protection
with
respect
to
estuarine
management
concerns.
TNC
(
lead),
SCPD,
PEP
Program
Office,
CLPP
Work
Group
2001
Included
in
Step
1.5
C/
N
Table
continued
on
next
page
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
E
V
E
N
7­
27
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
Table
7­
1.
Critical
Lands
Protection
Strategy
Actions.
(
continued)

Action
Responsible
Entity
Timeframe
Cost
Status
CLPP­
2
Continue
to
Refine
the
CNRA
Boundaries
with
Results
of
the
Work
from
the
PEP
Natural
Resources
Subcommittee.
(
Objective
2)

CLPP­
2.1
Priority
Continue
to
refine
the
CNRA
boundaries
with
results
of
the
work
from
the
PEP
Natural
Resources
Subcommittee.
NYSDEC
and
PEP
Natural
Resources
Subcommittee
(
co­
leads),
CLPP
Work
Group,
SCPD,
PEP
Program
Office
2000­
2001
Base
Program
C/
O
CLPP­
3
Estimate
Funds
Needed
for
Land
Protection,
Benefits
(
Where
Feasible)
and
Evaluate
Funding
Sources
Available
for
that
Protection.

(
Objective
5)

CLPP­
3.1
Priority
Determine
the
costs
of
acquisition
efforts
if
particular
parcels
were
purchased.
Determine
the
additional
cost
if
all
parcels
were
purchased.
TNC,
Suffolk
County,

towns
(
co­
leads)
2001
Base
Program
C/
N
CLPP­
3.2
Priority
Assess
the
funding
gap
between
needed
protection
and
available
funding
sources.
TNC,
Suffolk
County,

towns
(
co­
leads)
2001
Base
Program
C/
N
CLPP­
3.3
Priority
Analyze
and
estimate
the
economic
benefits
of
land
acquisition
to
the
community
as
a
whole
and
to
the
neighborhood
in
which
protected
land
is
located.
PEP
Program
Office
(
lead)

Consultant
EIA,
Inc.,
GSF,

TNC
2001
$
30,000
NEP
Grant
C/
N
CLPP­
4
Prepare
the
PEP
Critical
Lands
Protection
Plan
Report.
(
Objectives
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
and
6)

CLPP­
4.1
Priority
Prepare
the
PEP
Critical
Lands
Protection
Plan
report.
TNC
(
lead),
PEP
Program
Office,
SCPD,
SCDHS,

NYSDEC,
USFWS,
EPA
2001
Base
Program
C/
N
Table
continued
on
next
page
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
E
V
E
N
7­
28
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
Table
7­
1.
Critical
Lands
Protection
Strategy
Actions.
(
continued)

Action
Responsible
Entity
Timeframe
Cost
Status
CLPP­
5
Accelerate
Land
Protection
in
the
Peconic
Estuary.
(
Objective
7)

CLPP­
5.1
Increase
staff
at
the
town
and
County
level
to
meet
the
need
for
more
and
faster
land
acquisitions.
Five
East
End
towns,

Suffolk
County
(
co­
leads)
2001
To
be
Determined.
R
CLPP­
5.2
Secure
zero
percent
short­
term
financing
through
the
NYS
EFC
for
land
protection
measures.
TNC,
all
towns,
Suffolk
County
(
co­
leads)
2001
Base
Program
R
CLPP­
5.3
Develop
a
"
Public
Benefit"
or
"
Current
Use"
ranking
system
for
assessment
of
property
taxes.
TNC,
GSF,
all
town
tax
assessors
(
co­
leads)
2001
To
be
determined
R
CLPP­
5.4
Create
a
State
income
tax
credit
program
for
qualified
charitable
gifts
of
land
for
conservation
purposes.
TNC,
GSF,
State
Legislature
(
co­
leads)
2000­
2001
Base
Program
R
CLPP­
6
Identify
a
Process
for
Using
Smart
Growth
Tools,
Sustainable
Development
Initiatives,
and
Ordinance
Modifications,
etc.
to
Assist
Communities
in
Assigning
Development
to
Appropriate
Areas.
(
Objectives
8
and
9)

CLPP­
6.1
Review
local
ordinances
to
allow
incorporation
of
Smart
Growth
initiatives.
Towns
(
lead),
SCPD
2000­
2001
To
be
determined
R
CLPP­
6.2
Implement
Smart
Growth
initiatives.
Towns
(
lead),
SCPD
2000­
2001
To
be
determined
R
CLPP­
7
Develop
a
Strategy
for
the
Management
of
Underwater
Lands
Which
Conserves
and
Enhances
the
Region's
Natural
Resources.

(
Objective
10)

CLPP­
7.1
Develop
a
strategy
for
the
management
of
underwater
lands
which
conserves
and
enhances
the
region's
natural
resources.
Suffolk
County
and
PEP
Program
Office
(
co­
leads),

NYSDEC,
PEP
Natural
Resources
Sub­
Committee
2001
To
be
determined
R
