Peconic
Estuary
Program
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
N
I
N
E
9­
1
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
NINE
CCMP
FINANCING
OBJECTIVES
1)
At
a
minimum,
continue
to
fund
Federal,
State,
County,
and
local
programs
at
current
levels.

2)
Aggressively
seek
additional
public
and
private
funds.

3)
Utilize
innovative
financial
sources
and
incentives
to
fully
implement
the
CCMP.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
N
I
N
E
9­
2
MEASURABLE
GOALS
The
PEP's
measurable
goals
with
respect
to
financing
are:

 
Effectively
use
existing
funding
and
secure
new
or
additional
governmental
funding
for
CCMP
implementation
from
the
following
sources:

­
Federal
Government,
particularly
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture;

­
State
Government,
particularly
the
Clean
Water/
Clean
Air
Bond
Act
and
State
Revolving
Loan
Fund;

­
County
Government,
particularly
the
Suffolk
County
¼
%
Sales
Tax
Program;

­
Town
Governments;
and,

­
Village
Governments.

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

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

­
Businesses;
and,

­
Not
for
profit
organizations.

(
as
measured
by
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Office).
[
See
Actions
F­
4,
F­
7]
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
N
I
N
E
9­
3
INTRODUCTION
This
Management
Plan
contains
both
committed
and
recommended
actions
for
the
protection
and
restoration
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
System.
These
actions
and
this
Plan
have
been
created
as
part
of
the
characterization
and
planning
phases
of
the
PEP.
Funding
for
the
planning
process
has
been
provided
by
the
National
Estuary
Program
under
Section
320
of
the
Clean
Water
Act.
Upon
CCMP
approval,
the
PEP
will
begin
implementation
of
the
Management
Plan
and
its
actions.
Funding
for
the
continued
operation
of
the
PEP
and
for
the
implementation
of
each
action
in
the
Plan
will
need
to
be
secured.
The
estimated
cost
of
plan
implementation
is
shown
in
Table
9­
1.
Commitments,
previous
funding
allocations,
and
available
funding
to
implement
the
PEP
CCMP
are
shown
in
Table
9­
2.

It
is
anticipated
that
a
wide
variety
of
funding
sources
will
need
to
be
secured
to
ensure
full
implementation
of
the
CCMP.
Securing
this
funding
is
a
responsibility
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program.
Without
a
comprehensive
strategy
for
funding
the
implementation
of
all
aspects
of
the
plan,
the
PEP
runs
the
risk
of
not
fully
achieving
its
goal
of
becoming
a
guide
to
managing
water
quality,
living
resources,
and
habitats
of
the
Peconic
Estuary.
The
ability
of
the
PEP
to
achieve
its
goals
and
objectives,
and
the
pace
at
which
progress
is
made,
will
clearly
be
a
function
of
the
availability
of
funding.
The
PEP
will
continue
to
use,
where
possible,
cutting
edge
resource
valuation
techniques
to
guide
decision­
making
and
implement
this
Plan.

MANAGEMENT
STRATEGY
The
PEP
supports
implementation
through
a
combination
of
existing
resources
and
additional
funds,
including
donations
for
project
implementation
and
program
enhancement.
Early
work
on
the
financing
strategy
has
identified
four
major
categories
of
funding
that
are
known
to
be
available
or
that
will
be
pursued:
NEP
Dedicated
Funds,
the
NY
State
Clean
Water/
Clean
Air
Bond
Act,
Base
Program
Funding/
Services,
and
Additional
Funding
Sources.
Each
of
these
categories
is
discussed
below.

NEP
Dedicated
Funds
Although
the
EPA
provided
funds
under
the
Clean
Water
Act
for
the
development
of
the
CCMP,
Congress
has
not
dedicated
any
long­
term
funding
to
the
implementation
of
CCMPs.
EPA's
intent
is
generally
to
provide
post­
CCMP
funding
to
each
National
Estuary
Program,
contingent
upon
sufficient
annual
funding
and
adequate
progress
in
implementing
actions
described
in
annual
workplans.
In
Federal
fiscal
years
1998­
2001,
it
is
estimated
that
the
PEP
will
receive
$
300,000
per
year
in
National
Estuary
Program
funds,
subject
to
availability
of
funds
in
EPA
appropriations.
An
annual
workplan
required
to
receive
these
funds
will
be
developed
by
the
Management
Conference
(
or
its
successor)
and
submitted
to
EPA
for
approval.
These
funds
are
designated
for
demonstration
of
CCMP
actions
and
require
a
50
percent
non­
Federal
match.
Priorities
for
the
use
of
these
funds
include
support
of
the
PEP
program
office
(
or
its
successor),
State
and
County
staff
support,
and
education/
outreach
actions.
Beyond
the
first
four
years
of
post­
CCMP
status,
continued
National
Estuary
Program
funding
is
dependent
on
the
results
of
an
EPA
conducted
Implementation
Review.
The
purpose
of
the
Implementation
Review
is
to
perform
a
comprehensive
review
of
the
PEP's
progress
in
implementing
its
CCMP.
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
N
I
N
E
9­
4
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
Table
9­
1.
Cost
Estimates
for
Implementing
Recommended1
Actions
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Comprehensive
Conservation
and
Management
Plan.

1
These
estimates
do
not
include
costs
for
actions
already
funded
or
underway
or
for
which
governmental
or
non­
governmental
commitments
have
been
secured.

2
Personnel
costs
are
estimated
at
$
75,000
per
year
per
position.

Management
Plan
Element
New
One­
time
Costs1,
2
New
Annual
Costs1,
2
Notes
Brown
Tide
$
3,250,000
­
Includes
cost
estimate
for
a
one
time
$
2.8M
research
plan
Nutrients
$
767,500
$
1,372,500
Does
not
include
costs
for
implementing
agricultural
BMPs
Habitats
and
Living
Resources
$
9,088,750
$
1,881,250
Includes
cost
estimate
for
a
one­
time
$
3M
research
plan
Pathogens
$
1,718,750
$
1,530,000
Does
not
include
cost
estimates
for
remedial
stormwater
projects
Toxics
$
1,845,000
$
1,977,500
Critical
Lands
Protection
Plan
$
292,500
­
Does
not
include
costs
estimates
for
land
protection
(
including
acquisition)

Public
Education/
Outreach
$
190,000
$
1,003,500
Financing
$
1,162,500
$
600,000
Post­
CCMP
Management
$
1,525,000
$
1,060,000
Includes
costs
for
one
time
and
annual
environmental
monitoring
programs
Sub­
Total
$
19,840,000
$
9,424,750/
year
Habitat
Restoration
Plan
$
59,156,560
­
Preliminary
estimate
in
PEP
(
draft)
Habitat
Restoration
Plan
(
July
15,

2000)

Agricultural
BMPs
To
be
determined
To
be
determined
CAC
Estimate:
$
100
million
($
10
million
per
year
for
10
years)

Stormwater
Remediation
To
be
determined
To
be
determined
CAC
Estimate:
$
50
million
Land
Protection
To
be
determined
To
be
determined
CAC
Estimate:
$
100
million
Total
$
78,996,560
$
9,424,750/
year
Does
not
include
costs
for
agricultural
BMPs,
stormwater
remediation,
or
land
protection
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
N
I
N
E
9­
5
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
Table
9­
2.
Commitments,
Previous
Funding
Allocations,
and
Available
Funding
to
Implement
the
PEP
CCMP.

Past
and
One
Time
Allocations
Note:
Funding
may
be
available
Town,
County,
State
or
nationwide
Potential
Annual
Income
(
2001
and
beyond)

Suffolk
County
1/
4%
Sales
Tax
Program
(
2000­
2013)
Estimate
(
for
PEP
efforts)
$
2.5M
/
year
Suffolk
County
Open
Space
Initiatives
Community
Greenways
$
62
M
Preservation
Partnerships
$
16.6
M
Open
Space
$
1
M/
year
Farmland
Development
Rights
$
1.5M/
year
Community
Preservation
Funds
Original
Estimate:
$
110
M
Note:
Estimate
may
be
exceeded
as
$
45M
generated
4/
99­
12/
00
Suffolk
County
Capital
Program
Brown
Tide
Research
(
1995­
present)
$
1.1
M
PEP
Program
Support
(
1995
­
present)
$
700,000
Brown
Tide
Research
$
150,000/
year
PEP
Program
Support
$
100,000/
year
NYS
Clean
Air/
Clean
Water
Bond
Act
Allocation
for
Peconic
Estuary
and
South
Shore
Estuary
$
30
M
Awards
to
date
1997­
1999:
(
SSER:
$
4,299,600)
Peconic
$
9,647,150
2000
Allocation
for
SSER/
PEP
$
2
M
2001
and
beyond
$
14,053,250
Clean
Water
Act/
EPA;

Suffolk
County
Match;

and
NYSDEC
Match
­
National
Estuary
Program
$
4,511,644
­
Stormwater
Demonstrations
$
702,629
­
Action
Plan
Demonstration
Projects
$
285,000
­
Other
$
680,800
Total
EPA
funding
(
1993
­
2000)
$
6,180,073
Suffolk
County
Match
(
estimate;
actual
amount
is
greater)
$
1,600,000
NYSDEC
Match
(
estimate)
$
150,000
National
Estuary
Program
target:
$
310,000/
year
Suffolk
County
Match
(
Program
Office
&

Marine
Monitoring):
$
310,000/
year
Note:
Increased
appropriations
are
now
authorized
for
the
National
Estuary
Program
in
2001
and
beyond
Table
continued
on
next
page
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
N
I
N
E
9­
6
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
Table
9­
2.
Commitments,
Previous
Funding
Allocations,
and
Available
Funding
to
Implement
the
PEP
CCMP.
(
continued)

Governmental/

Organizational
Commitments
(
Expressed
as
Full
Time
Equivalents
or
FTEs
at
$
75,000
per
FTE/
year)

Note:
Includes
resources
for
new
actions
in
the
CCMP
and
does
not
include
"
base
program"

resources
EPA:
1.80
FTE
=
$
135,000
NYSDEC:
2.95
FTE
=
$
221,250
SCDHS:
1.65
FTE
=
$
123,750
PEP:
0.70
FTE
=
$
52,500
Towns:
2.25
FTE
=
$
168,750
Other
Entities:
4.15
FTE
=
$
311,250
Total
13.5
FTE
=
$
1,012,500
EPA:
1.80
FTE/
year
=
$
135,000/
year
NYSDEC:
2.00
FTE/
year
=
$
90,000/
year
SCDHS:
1.25
FTE/
year
=
$
93,750/
year
PEP:
0.90
FTE/
year
=
$
67,500/
year
Towns:
0.50
FTE/
year
=
$
37,500/
year
Other
Entities:
0.60
FTE/
year
=
$
45,000/
year
Total:
6.25
FTE/
year
=
$
468,750
/
year
Estuaries
and
Clean
Waters
Act
of
2000
Portion
of
$
275M
available
nationwide
NOAA
Coastal
Ocean
Program
Brown
Tide
Research
(
1997­
2003)
$
3M
Other
potential
funding
sources:
­
Federal
Land
and
Water
Conservation
Fund
­
USDA
EQIP
&
WHIP
(
Environmental
Quality
Incentives
Program
and
Wildlife
Habitat
Incentives
Program)

­
Clean
Water
Act
Section
319
(
nonpoint
source
management)

­
NYS
Environmental
Protection
Fund
­
Other
funding
under
the
NYS
Clean
Air/
Clean
Water
Bond
Act
categories
(
i.
e.,
open
space)

­
State
Revolving
Fund
(
loans)
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
N
I
N
E
9­
7
New
York
State
Clean
Water/
Clean
Air
Bond
Act
In
November
1996,
New
Yorkers
proclaimed
their
commitment
to
a
clean
environment
by
approving
the
$
1.75
billion
Clean
Water/
Clean
Air
Bond
Act.

Five
types
of
projects
may
qualify
for
funding
under
the
Bond
Act:

 
Clean
Water­
$
790
million;

 
Safe
Drinking
Water­
$
355
million;

 
Solid
Waste­
$
175
million;

 
Municipal
Environment
Restoration
(
Brownfields)­
$
200
million;
and
 
Air
Quality­
$
230
million.

With
passage
of
the
1996
Clean
Water/
Clean
Air
Bond
Act,
tremendous
opportunities
are
available
to
restore,
preserve,
and
protect
the
State's
valuable
environmental
resources.
Section
56­
0303
of
Title
3
of
the
Bond
Act
provides
$
495
million
to
municipalities
and
soil
and
water
conservation
districts
for
water
quality
improvement
projects.
This
includes
$
30
million
for
water
quality
improvement
projects
identified
by
the
Comprehensive
Conservation
and
Management
Plans
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
and
the
South
Shore
Estuary
Reserve.
No
decision
has
been
made
at
this
time
regarding
the
allocation
of
the
$
30
million
between
the
two
areas.
Guidance
from
New
York
State
has
limited
eligibility
for
Peconic
Estuary
projects
to:

 
Water
quality
improvement
projects
which
address
elimination
of
raw
sewage,
failing
individual
septic
systems,
and
advanced
wastewater
treatment
(
beyond
secondary);

 
Nonpoint
source
pollution
abatement
and
control
projects;
and,

 
Aquatic
habitat
restoration.

$
295
million
is
available
statewide
for
other
clean
water
projects
that
are
applicable
in
the
Peconic
Estuary,
including
open
space
acquisition
and
programs
to
help
small
businesses
protect
the
environment.
Eligible
applicants
for
Bond
Act
funds
are
municipalities
and
soil
and
water
conservation
districts.
In
the
case
of
aquatic
habitat
restoration
projects,
the
term
municipality
includes
the
State
itself.

In
determining
eligibility
and
evaluating
applications,
the
State
has
noted
that
due
consideration
will
be
given
to:

 
The
suitability
and
feasibility
of
the
project
in
relation
to
the
goals
of
the
respective
management
program,
plan,
or
project;

 
The
priority
of
the
project
in
relationship
to
other
projects
proposed
under
the
same
program
or
plan.
Highest
priority
shall
be
given
to
projects
that
provide
the
greatest
reduction
in
pollutants
or
most
significant
habitat
improvement
and
are
identified
as
priorities
in
the
respective
management
program,
plan,
or
project;

 
The
availability
of
matching
funds
on
the
part
of
the
applicant,
where
applicable;
and,

 
The
urgency
of
the
need
for
Bond
Act
funds
based
on
availability
of
other
funding
sources.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
N
I
N
E
9­
8
State
assistance
payments
from
the
Bond
Act
will
vary,
depending
on
the
type
of
project.
For
example,
State
assistance
payments
will
fund:
1)
up
to
85
percent
of
the
cost
of
the
project
for
wastewater
treatment
improvement
projects;
2)
50
percent
of
the
cost
of
aquatic
habitat
projects;
3)
50
percent
of
the
cost
of
pollution
prevention
projects;
and
4)
50
percent
of
the
cost
for
nonagricultural
nonpoint
source
abatement
projects.
For
agricultural
nonpoint
source
abatement
projects,
up
to
75
percent
of
the
project
costs
may
be
granted
with
no
landowner
or
operator
contribution,
or
up
to
90
percent
with
such
a
contribution.
Project
costs
incurred
after
November
5,
1996
are
eligible
for
consideration.

While
the
Bond
Act
funding
for
the
Peconic
Estuary
is
substantial,
it
is
not
likely
to
be
sufficient
to
meet
all
needs,
and
there
are
limitations
on
the
use
of
funds
(
i.
e.,
private
individuals
or
organizations
cannot
receive
Bond
Act
funds;
research
activities
are
ineligible).
Therefore,
while
it
will
provide
much
needed
funding
for
many
important
projects,
additional
funding
will
still
need
to
be
identified
and
secured.

Base
Program
Funding
It
is
anticipated
that
a
great
many
of
the
actions
in
this
Plan
can
be
implemented
through
the
efforts
and
resources
of
existing
programs.
The
costs
for
these
actions
are
described
in
this
Management
Plan
as
"
base
program."
This
term
is
used
to
refer
to
actions
that
can
be
funded
within
the
existing
programmatic
support
of
the
implementing
entity.
In
many
cases,
these
actions
are
ongoing
elements
of
existing
agency
workplans;
in
other
cases
the
actions
can
be
accomplished
by
refocusing
agency
activities
without
identifying
additional
funding.
The
PEP
has
not
estimated
costs
for
individual
base
program
actions
since
these
actions
are
accomplished
within
existing
programs
and
workplans.
This
CCMP
includes
numerous
commitments
on
behalf
of
EPA,
NYSDEC,
SCDHS,
other
Federal,
State
and
County
agencies,
local
governments,
and
other
implementing
entities
to
continue
the
implementation
of
ongoing
programs.
These
commitments
assume
that
base
programs
continue
to
be
funded,
at
a
minimum,
at
current
levels.

Additional
Funding
Sources
Actions
that
do
not
fit
within
the
scope
of
ongoing
programs
and
existing
agency
efforts
will
require
additional
funding
or
resources.
The
Peconic
Estuary
Program
will
establish
a
Finance
Work
Group
to
develop
a
financing
strategy
and
seek
funding
to
carry
out
these
recommended
actions
during
the
implementation
process.
In
particular,
special
efforts
may
be
needed
to
obtain
funding
for
education,
outreach,
and
participation
efforts,
as
relatively
little
government
agency
funding
seems
to
be
available
for
those
sorts
of
actions.

Because
of
the
significant
role
local
governments
bear
in
implementing
many
of
the
actions
in
this
Plan,
local
governments
will
play
a
key
role
in
identifying
and
securing
additional
funding
sources.
In
all
cases,
the
PEP
will
continue
to
consider
the
ability
of
local
governments
to
pay
for
projects
prior
to
their
implementation.
In
addition,
the
PEP
and
participating
agencies
will:

 
Ensure
that
local
governments
are
actively
involved
in
the
Management
Conference
and
are
aware
of
CCMP
actions
that
may
impact
them;

 
Actively
work
with
local
governments
to
ensure
their
understanding
and
gain
their
support
for
the
environmental
benefits
of
proposed
projects;

 
Continue
to
develop
cost
estimates
for
project
implementation
and
refine
and
update
cost
estimates
as
necessary;
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
N
I
N
E
9­
9
 
Actively
work
with
local
governments
to
identify
funding
sources;
and,

 
Foster
the
development
of
low­
cost
approaches
to
address
environmental
problems
and
implement
such
approaches
whenever
possible
(
for
example,
encouraging
nonstructural
low
tech,
and
low
maintenance
means
to
reduce
runoff
and
pollutant
inputs).

Action
Costs
Information
in
the
cost
column
of
the
management
action
tables
in
the
back
of
each
chapter
represents
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program's
best
estimate
of
the
costs
associated
with
each
action
implementation.
"
Base
Program"
means
that
no
new
or
additional
funds
will
be
needed
outside
of
the
responsible
entity's
operating
budget
to
implement
the
action.
Where
practicable,
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
has
made
estimates
of
the
costs
of
base
programs,
either
in
terms
of
dollars
or
work
years.
Where
this
Plan
recommends
or
commits
to
new,
expanded,
or
enhanced
efforts
beyond
those
tasks
that
may
be
described
as
base
programs,
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
has
attempted
to
quantify
the
necessary
resources
to
carry
out
the
new,
expanded,
or
enhanced
work.

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

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

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

In
many
cases,
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
was
unable
to
quantify
resources
(
either
in
dollar
amount
or
in
work
years)
associated
with
these
base
programs.
This
is
because
elements
related
to
recommendations
and
actions
are
frequently
inextricably
linked
to
regional
management
initiatives
targeted
at
areas
larger
than
the
PEP
watershed,
making
segregation
of
PEP
resources
exceedingly
difficult
or
impossible
(
e.
g.,
coastal
zone
management
programs
for
all
of
Long
Island;
endangered
species
management,
etc.).
Also,
recommendations
and
actions
are
often
intertwined
in
larger
and/
or
related
programs,
making
their
individual
cost
isolation
impractical
(
e.
g.,
staff
working
on
wetland
mapping
and
trends
analysis
also
work
on
numerous
other
natural
resource
efforts,
such
as
permitting
and
enforcement
as
well).
Finally,
parties
responsible
for
implementing
actions
use
diverse
and
often
incompatible
methods
of
accounting
and
cost/
time
analysis,
making
efforts
to
discretize
costs
difficult
and
ultimately,
inherently
inaccurate,
and
thus,
unhelpful.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
N
I
N
E
9­
10
Not
all
resource
needs
have
been
estimated
at
this
point
in
time,
and
the
costs
of
some
activities
will
be
subject
to
further
refinement
in
the
future.
Many
costs
have
not
been
estimated
for
the
private
sector,
because
the
planning
processes
have
not
developed
actions
specific
enough
to
do
so
(
e.
g.,
septic
tank
management
recommendations,
since
recommended
pump­
out
intervals
have
not
yet
been
specified
and
upgrade
incentive
programs
have
not
been
fully
agreed
upon).
The
PEP
will
attempt
to
estimate
these
costs
in
the
future
as
needed
and
will
attempt
to
identify
funding
for
compliance
assistance
where
possible.

MANAGEMENT
ACTIONS
The
remainder
of
this
chapter
presents
proposed
actions
for
securing
funding
sources
for
CCMP
implementation.
These
actions
address
each
of
the
four
major
categories
of
funding
discussed
above:
NEP
Dedicated
Funds,
the
NY
State
Clean
Water/
Clean
Air
Bond
Act,
Base
Program
Funding/
Services,
and
Additional
Funding
Sources.

Within
the
CCMP,
some
steps
within
the
actions
have
been
identified
as
priorities,
as
indicated
under
the
step
number.
The
PEP
will
seek
to
implement
priority
actions
in
the
near
term.
Priorities
may
be
either
new
or
ongoing,
commitments
or
recommendations.
Completing
some
priority
actions
does
not
require
any
new
or
additional
resources,
because
they
are
being
undertaken
through
"
base
programs"
or
with
funding
that
has
been
committed.
In
other
cases,
in
order
to
complete
the
priority
actions,
new
or
additional
resources
need
to
be
secured
by
some
or
all
of
the
responsible
entities.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
N
I
N
E
9­
11
CCMP
FINANCING
MANAGEMENT
ACTIONS
F­
1.
Establish
a
Finance
Work
Group
to
Formulate/
Refine
Financing
Options.

F­
2.
Effectively
use
NEP
Funding,
the
NYS
Bond
Act
Funding,
the
Suffolk
County
¼
%
Sales
Tax
Program,
and
Base
Programs
to
Implement
the
CCMP.

F­
3.
Explore
Options
for
Federal,
State,
and
County
Funding.

F­
4.
Encourage
Non­
Profit
Organizations
to
Administer
Funding
for
Estuary
Protection
Efforts.

F­
5.
Fund
Actions
under
the
State
Revolving
Loan
Fund.

F­
6.
Use
Municipal
Bonds
for
Project
Financing.

F­
7.
Identify
and
Obtain
Sources
of
Private
Sector
Funding.

F­
8.
Utilize
Funds
from
Fines
and
Settlements.

F­
9.
Utilize
Tax
Abatements
and
Other
Tax
Incentives
to
Encourage
Conservation
Projects
and
Environmental
Improvements.

F­
10.
Establish
Municipal
Improvement
Districts
to
Pay
for
Qualified
Projects.

F­
11.
Identify
Sources
of
Funding
for
Land
Preservation
and
Acquisition.

F­
12.
Encourage
Citizen
Initiated
Environmental
Legislation.

F­
13
Investigate
the
Feasibility
of
Establishing
Selective
Sales
Fees
to
Fund
Environmental
Management
Programs.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
N
I
N
E
9­
12
Addresses
Financing
Objectives
1,
2
and
3.

A
financing
work
group
should
be
formed
to
assist
in
the
further
refinement
of
financing
options
to
implement
the
CCMP.

Steps
F­
1.1
Establish
a
finance
workgroup
to
formulate/
refine
financing
options
Priority
Responsible
Entities
F­
1.1
PEP
(
lead)
F­
1
Establish
a
Finance
Work
Group
to
Formulate/
Refine
Financing
Options.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
N
I
N
E
9­
13
Addresses
Financing
Objective
1.

NEP
Dedicated
Funds,
the
NY
State
Clean
Water/
Clean
Air
Bond
Act,
and
Base
Program
Funding/
Services
are
major
funding
sources
that
have
already
been
identified.
Additional
funding
sources
that
may
be
used
for
CCMP
action
implementation
are
described
on
the
pages
that
follow.
The
information
regarding
these
and
other
possible
sources
will
be
refined
by
the
Finance
Work
Group
during
CCMP
implementation.

The
sales
tax
revenues
from
the
Suffolk
County
¼
%
Sales
Tax
Program,
approximately
$
260
million
over
13
years
(
beginning
December
1,
2000),
will
be
used
for
three
distinct
categories:
open
space
acquisition
($
100
million),
farmland
easements
($
60
million),
and
water
quality
improvement
projects
($
100
million).
A
portion
of
the
funding
for
water
quality
improvement
projects
will
be
available
for
use
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
for
projects
including
nonpoint
source
abatement
and
control,
pollution
prevention
initiatives,
and
aquatic
habitat
restoration
projects
recommended
by
the
PEP.

Steps
F­
2.1
Provide
post­
CCMP
funding
to
implement
eligible
CCMP
actions;
strive
to
obtain
additional
funding
based
on
the
results
of
EPA
conducted
Implementation
Reviews.

F­
2.2
Ensure
that
funding
reserved
for
the
PEP
in
the
New
York
State
Clean
Air/
Clean
Water
Bond
Act
is
used
effectively
for
the
highest
priority
eligible
projects.

F­
2.3
Effectively
use
funding
for
PEP
recommended
projects
from
the
Suffolk
County
¼
%
Priority
Sales
Tax
Program.

F­
2.4
Utilize
existing
base
program
funding
from
Federal,
State,
County,
and
local
government
programs
to
implement
actions
as
appropriate;
ensure
that
funding
for
these
agencies
remains,
at
a
minimum,
at
current
levels.

Responsible
Entities
F­
2.1
EPA
(
lead),
PEP
F­
2.2
NYSDEC
(
lead),
PEP
F­
2.3
Suffolk
County
(
lead),
PEP
F­
2.4
EPA,
NYSDEC,
SCDHS,
other
Federal,
State,
and
county
agencies,
and
local
governments
(
co­
leads)
F­
2
Effectively
Use
NEP
Funding,
the
NYS
Bond
Act,
the
Suffolk
County
¼
%
Sales
Tax
Program,
and
Base
Programs
to
Implement
the
CCMP.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
N
I
N
E
9­
14
Addresses
Financing
Objective
2.

A
number
of
Federal
statutes
and
programs
provide
grants
or
matching
funds
for
projects
related
to
conservation
planning
and
management,
including
the
Clean
Water
Act,
Coastal
Zone
Management
Act,
Clean
Vessel
Act,
Intermodal
Surface
Transportation
Efficiency
Act,
and
others
under
EPA,
NOAA,
USFWS,
and
NYSDOT.

There
are
numerous
provisions
in
the
Federal
Clean
Water
Act
that
can
provide
funding
for
CCMP
actions,
such
as
the
Nonpoint
Source
(
NPS)
Management
Program
under
Section
319
and
the
Water
Quality
Management
Planning
(
WQMP)
Program
under
Section
604(
b).
Opportunities
exist
when
the
State
carries
out
these
and
other
Federally
funded
programs,
and
through
other
State
programs,
including
those
under
the
Environmental
Protection
Fund.
There
are
also
provisions
which
have
established
and
capitalized
the
State
Revolving
Fund
program,
funds
from
which
can
be
used
to
carry
out
CCMPs.
Candidate
funding
sources
exist
in
other
Federal
and
State
statutes
and
agencies.

Two
USDA
programs,
the
Environmental
Quality
Incentives
Program
(
EQIP)
and
the
Wildlife
Habitat
Incentives
Program
(
WHIP)
are
sources
of
funding
and
technical
assistance
for
farmers,
ranchers,
and
landowners.
EQIP
was
established
to
provide
a
single
voluntary
conservation
program
for
farmers
and
ranchers
to
address
significant
natural
resource
needs
and
objectives.
Nationally,
it
provides
technical,
financial,
and
educational
assistance,
half
of
it
targeted
to
livestock­
related
natural
resource
concerns
and
the
other
half
to
more
general
conservation
priorities.
EQIP
is
available
primarily
in
priority
areas
where
there
are
significant
natural
resource
concerns
and
objectives.
Assistance
includes:
cost
sharing
at
up
to
75
percent
of
costs
of
certain
conservation
practices;
incentive
payments
to
up
to
100
percent
for
three
years;
and
a
maximum
payment
of
$
10,000
per
person
per
year
and
$
50,000
over
the
length
of
the
contract.
$
3.495
million
was
available
in
New
York
State
in
1997;
$
3.63
million
in
1998.
The
FY99
budget
included
a
50
percent
increase
($
100
million
nationwide)
for
EQIP.
The
majority
of
these
funds
have
been
allocated
to
upstate
projects.
Future
allocations
should
include
significant
allocations
to
priority
projects
in
the
Peconic
Watershed.

The
Wildlife
Habitat
Incentives
Program
(
WHIP)
is
a
voluntary
program
for
people
who
want
to
develop
and
improve
wildlife
habitat
on
private
lands.
It
provides
both
technical
assistance
and
cost
sharing
to
help
establish
and
improve
fish
and
wildlife
habitat.
Participants
work
with
USDA's
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
to
prepare
a
wildlife
habitat
development
plan
in
consultation
with
the
local
conservation
district.
The
plan
describes
the
landowner's
goals
for
improving
wildlife
habitat,
includes
a
list
of
practices
and
schedule
for
installing
them,
and
details
the
steps
necessary
to
maintain
the
habitat
for
the
life
of
the
agreement.

Suffolk
County
is
the
leading
agricultural
county
in
New
York
State,
based
upon
the
value
of
products
produced.
Much
of
this
agriculture
is
concentrated
on
the
East
End.
Even
though
the
Peconic
Estuary
supports
the
largest
number
and
greatest
concentration
of
rare
and
endangered
species
in
the
State,
and
aside
from
the
fact
that
East
Enders
rely
exclusively
on
groundwater
for
drinking
water,
to
date,
neither
EQIP
nor
WHIP
funds
have
been
awarded
to
the
Suffolk
County
Soil
and
Water
Conservation
District.
F­
3
Explore
Options
for
Federal,
State,
and
County
Funding.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
N
I
N
E
9­
15
Steps
F­
3.1
Support
the
Clean
Water
Act
reauthorization,
including
grants
to
States
for
continued
capitalization
of
State
Revolving
Loan
Funds.

F­
3.2
Advocate
100
percent
funding
of
Clean
Water
Act
Sections
319
and
604(
b)
by
the
Federal
government
and
100
percent
funding
of
the
New
York
Nonpoint
Source
Management
Program
through
the
State
Environmental
Protection
Fund.

F­
3.3
Fund
CCMP
Actions
under
non­
CWA
statutes,
such
as
the
Coastal
Zone
Management
Act,
Clean
Vessel
Act,
Intermodal
Surface
Transportation
Efficiency
Act,
and
others.

F­
3.4
Provide
funding
under
the
USDA's
Environmental
Quality
Incentives
Program
and
Wildlife
Habitat
Incentives
Program
(
EQIP/
WHIP)
for
the
Suffolk
County
Soil
and
Water
Conservation
District
for
priority
projects
consistent
with
the
goals
of
the
PEP.

F­
3.5
Actively
seek
government
agency
funding
for
program
enhancements
and
projects
mentioned
in
the
CCMP.
Develop
a
list
of
government
funding
sources
that
matches
CCMP
recommendations
with
mission/
authorities
of
various
government
agencies.

Responsible
Entities
F­
3.1
NYSDEC
(
lead),
PEP
CAC
F­
3.2
NYSDEC,
NYSDOS
(
co­
leads)

F­
3.3
NOAA,
USFWS,
NYSDOT
(
leads)
with
input
from
PEP
F­
3.4
USDA
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
(
lead);
Suffolk
County
Soil
and
Water
Conservation
District
in
cooperation
with
PEP
F­
3.5
PEP
(
lead)
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
N
I
N
E
9­
16
Addresses
Financing
Objective
2.

Funding
for
proposed
CCMP
actions
need
not
always
be
provided
by
government
agencies.
There
are
individuals
and
corporations
interested
in
making
contributions
to
implement
estuary
protection,
preservation,
and
restoration
efforts.
Non­
profit
organizations
under
section
501(
c)(
3)
of
the
Internal
Revenue
Code
are
ideally
suited
to
receive
such
contributions
and
disburse
funds
for
the
purposes
of
furthering
their
mission
as
well
as
the
PEP's
mission.
One
such
fund
that
can
be
established
and
administered
by
non­
profit
entities
is
an
"
Environmental
Improvement
Fund."
Private
citizens
as
well
as
private
industry
can
receive
monies
from
the
Environmental
Improvement
Fund
to
install
improved
environmental
systems
and
other
environmental
improvements
that
require
large
capital
funding.

The
PEP
will
encourage
non­
profit
organizations
to
fund
appropriate
CCMP
actions.
To
accomplish
this,
the
PEP
will:

 
Identify
CCMP
actions
that
may
be
appropriate
for
funding
by
non­
profit
organizations.
(
Examples
include
research
studies,
environmental
monitoring,
and
educational
programs);

 
Identify
existing
non­
profit
organizations
with
missions
that
overlap
with
the
PEP's;

 
Seek
expressions
of
interest
from
non­
profit
organizations
to
work
in
partnership
with
the
PEP
to
identify
those
actions
they
can
implement;
and,

 
Work
with
interested
non­
profit
organizations
to
develop
a
coordinated
strategy
to
further
mutual
goals,
including:
soliciting
private
sector
funds;
funding
appropriate
CCMP
actions;
and,
including
non­
profit
organization
activities
in
CCMP
updates.

Steps
F­
4.1
Identify
actions
suited
for
funding
by
non­
profit
organizations.
Identify
existing
nonprofit
organizations
with
missions
that
overlap
PEP's
and
seek
expressions
of
support
from
them.
Work
with
interested
organizations
to
further
mutual
goals
and
solicit
private
sector
funding.

F­
4.2
Investigate
opportunities
for
establishing
an
Environmental
Improvement
Fund
to
provide
funding
for
private
citizens
and
industry
for
funding
environmental
improvements.

Responsible
Entities
F­
4.1
PEP
(
lead)

F­
4.2
PEP
(
lead)
F­
4
Encourage
Non­
Profit
Organizations
to
Administer
Funding
for
Estuary
Protection
Efforts.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
N
I
N
E
9­
17
Addresses
Financing
Objective
2.

The
Federal
Clean
Water
Act's
State
Revolving
Loan
Fund
(
SRF)
provision
was
established
to
provide
low
interest
loans
to
localities
for
water
pollution
control
projects.
A
SRF
has
been
established
by
the
State
within
EPA
guidelines.
The
New
York
State
SRF
was
capitalized
initially
by
a
combination
of
Federal
grants
and
State
matching
funds
with
the
intent
of
recycling
money
back
into
the
SRF
as
the
loans
were
repaid,
making
the
fund
self
sufficient
over
time.
Since
1990,
New
York
State
has
received
over
$
1.6
billion
in
Federal
capitalization
grants
and
provided
over
$
314
million
in
State
matching
funds.
The
State
has
executed
over
590
loans
totaling
over
$
4.2
billion
to
over
250
communities
throughout
the
State.

Funding
decisions
are
made
based
on
the
State's
intended
use
plan
(
IUP)
and
priority
project
list.
The
SRF
was
primarily
established
to
provide
financing
for
conventional
sewage
treatment
projects.
However,
the
Clean
Water
Act
and
EPA
guidance
specifically
allow
the
use
of
the
SRF
for
nonpoint
source
projects
consistent
with
the
State's
Nonpoint
Source
Management
Program,
such
as
structural
and
vegetative
stormwater
management
controls;
sediment
and
erosion
control
practices;
and
certain
waterbody
and
wetland
restoration
techniques.
The
Clean
Water
Act
and
EPA
guidance
also
specifically
allow
the
use
of
the
SRF
for
activities
in
an
approved
CCMP
that
are
listed
on
the
State's
IUP,
such
as
land
acquisition,
habitat
enhancement,
monitoring
and
enforcement,
education,
and
training.

The
SRF
is
an
important
funding
source
for
nonpoint
source
management
and
CCMP
actions,
particularly
for
capital
improvements
that
have
a
substantial
useful
life
and
for
which
a
strong
case
can
be
made
that
funding
is
available
to
repay
the
debt
over
time.
Examples
of
CCMP
projects
for
which
long
term
borrowing
may
be
appropriate
include
activities
such
as:

 
Building
sewage
treatment
facilities;

 
Improving
or
upgrading
on­
site
septic
systems;

 
Building
stormwater
management
systems;

 
Installing
nonpoint
source
pollution
controls
or
equipment;
and,

 
Building
boat
pumpout
facilities
for
vessel
waste.

The
SRF
may
also
be
an
important
mechanism
for
land
acquisition
for
preserving
environmentally
sensitive
areas
and
open
space.
Land
acquisition
for
drinking
water
source
protection
is
currently
eligible
under
the
State
SRF.
Land
acquisition
can
be
through
purchase
(
fee
simple)
or
easement.
For
eligibility,
the
land
to
be
acquired
must
be
identified
in
a
plan
or
report
that
includes
a
technical
basis
for
the
land
acquisition;
parcels
must
be
excluded
from
future
sale
considerations;
and
the
municipality
must
agree
to
protect
the
land
from
incompatible
uses.
Costs
related
to
land
acquisition
that
is
eligible
for
SRF
financing
may
include:
cost
of
purchase
(
based
on
fair
market
value)
or
easement;
property
appraisal;
survey;
site
assessment;
and
title
search
and
other
legal
fees.
Utilizing
financing
available
under
the
SRF
may
similarly
be
important
for
land
acquisition
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
for
preserving
environmentally
sensitive
areas
and
open
space.
F­
5
Fund
Actions
under
the
State
Revolving
Loan
Fund.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
N
I
N
E
9­
18
The
New
York
State
SRF
does
not
presently
provide
financing
to
private
entities
(
individuals,
businesses,
or
organizations).
This
precludes
the
SRF
from
directly
financing
certain
environmental
improvement
or
protection
measures
that
may
be
important
to
the
success
of
the
CCMP.
The
establishment
of
special
districts
(
as
described
elsewhere
in
this
chapter)
can
provide
a
vehicle
for
financing
certain
specified
environmental
improvement
or
protection
measures.
Constitutional,
statutory,
or
regulatory
changes
are
necessary
at
the
State
level
to
provide
funding
to
private
entities.
Providing
SRF
funding
to
private
entities
could
enhance
implementation
of
some
CCMP
actions.

Most
entities
may
be
under
the
misconception
that
grants
are
always
a
better
deal
than
SRF
loans.
Most
State
and
local
government
officials
are
more
familiar
with
grants,
and
consequently,
many
misconceptions
exist.
In
fact,
a
loan
may
often
be
a
better
deal
than
a
grant
for
the
following
reasons:

 
Most
grant
programs
require
significant
cost
shares
(
as
much
as
50
percent
or
more).
A
State
Revolving
Fund
Loan
can
cover
100
percent
of
project
costs
with
no
cash
up
front;

 
SRF
loans
provide
significant
cost
savings
over
the
life
of
a
loan.
For
example,
a
zero
percent
SRF
loan
will
cost
approximately
50
percent
less
than
the
same
project
financed
by
a
commercial
loan
at
7.5
percent.
Additionally,
a
zero
percent
SRF
loan
is
equivalent
to
receiving
a
50
percent
grant
(
where
the
other
50
percent
(
match)
is
financed
at
market
rate);
and,

 
Financing
a
project
with
an
SRF
loan
means
fewer
Federal
requirements
than
any
other
Federal
grant.
The
SRF
program
is
experienced
in
helping
applicants
through
the
loan
application
process
and
providing
extensive
technical
assistance.

Steps
F­
5.1
This
CCMP
includes
both
specific
and
general
management
actions
aimed
at
preserving,
protecting
and
restoring
water
quality,
living
resources,
and
habitats
to
ensure
their
eligibility
for
SRF
financing.
Ensure
that
CCMP
projects
are
included
on
the
State's
priority
list
and
intended
use
plan.
Identify
priority
nonpoint
source
projects
and
ensure
that
they
are
included
on
the
State's
priority
list
and
intended
use
plan.

F­
5.2
Educate
municipalities
and
other
potential
recipients
on
the
possible
benefits
of
SRF
loans.

F­
5.3
Make
necessary
constitutional,
statutory,
or
regulatory
changes
necessary
at
the
State
level
to
provide
SRF
funding
to
private
entities
F­
5.4
Provide
zero
percent
loans
under
the
SRF
for
land
acquisition
consistent
with
this
Plan.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
N
I
N
E
9­
19
Responsible
Entities
F­
5.1
NYSDEC
(
lead),
NYS
Environmental
Facilities
Corporation
(
EFC),
PEP,
Towns
and
Villages
F­
5.2
PEP,
NYS
Environmental
Facilities
Corporation
(
co­
leads)

F­
5.3
NYS
Legislature,
NYSDEC,
EFC
F­
5.4
EFC,
NYSDEC
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
N
I
N
E
9­
20
Addresses
Financing
Objective
2.

If
the
SRF
cannot
be
accessed,
CCMP
implementors
may
look
to
traditional
municipal
finance
markets
to
fund
capital
projects.
The
substantial
advantage
of
municipal
bonds
is
that
there
is
a
lower
effective
interest
rate
than
if
the
funds
were
borrowed
directly
by
corporations
or
individuals
to
finance
environmental
projects.
The
capital
requirements
must
meet
the
minimum
threshold
size
for
cost
effective
underwriting.
The
minimum
recommended
size
for
a
bond
issue
is
typically
no
less
than
one
million
dollars.
While
technically
feasible
to
issue
bonds
with
a
smaller
total
issue
size,
the
cost
of
issuing
may
be
prohibitive.

Consolidating
capital
requirements
is
a
general
approach
that
integrates
the
financing
needs
of
numerous
localities
to
achieve
economies
of
scale
during
the
financing
process.
Approaches
for
consolidating
municipal
debt
include:

 
Creating
special
multi­
jurisdictional
districts;

 
Using
State
bond
banks/
State
financial
agencies;
and,

 
Pooling
bonds
from
multiple
localities
in
a
joint
issue.

The
fundamental
advantage
of
these
methods
is
that
they
allow
individual
municipalities
more
efficient
access
to
capital.
Consolidating
debt
is
a
logical
approach
to
implementing
CCMP
actions
where
several
municipalities
must
take
similar
actions
to
address
a
particular
problem.

Steps
F­
6.1
Consider
traditional
municipal
finance
markets
to
fund
capital
projects
where
appropriate.

Responsible
Entities:

F­
6.1
Towns,
villages
(
leads),
with
input
from
PEP
F­
6
Use
Municipal
Bonds
for
Project
Financing.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
N
I
N
E
9­
21
Addresses
Financing
Objective
2.

Some
of
the
capital
required
to
implement
CCMP
initiatives
may
be
obtained
either
directly
or
indirectly
from
private
sources.
This
approach
is
particularly
effective
in
funding
initiatives
that
are
below
the
minimum
threshold
size
for
a
viable
municipal
debt
offering
as
well
as
for
those
projects
for
which
funds
are
not
available
through
traditional
financing
mechanisms.
Using
private
capital
has
a
number
of
advantages:
it
does
not
encumber
the
tax
base
of
local
and
regional
governments
or
constrain
future
borrowing;
it
links
some
of
the
contributors
to
estuary
or
watershed
pollution
with
the
costs
of
mitigating
impacts;
and
it
has
the
potential
to
create
commercial
opportunities
for
the
private
sector.

Developer
Financing:
Developer
financing
consists
of
securing
funds
to
finance
either
mitigation
or
environmental
protection
activities
from
land
developers.
It
is
generally
secured
around
impact
fees,
capacity
credits,
and
negotiated
extractions.

Impact
fees
are
an
assessment
on
real
estate
development
activities
to
fund
additional
infrastructure
capacity.
Intended
to
compensate
for
additional
demands
placed
on
existing
services
by
new
development,
they
are
most
applicable
to
capital
improvements
directly
related
to
needs
such
as
traditional
sewage
treatment
and
stormwater
management.
Typically
a
fee
(
usually
on
the
order
of
a
few
thousand
dollars
for
each
residential
unit)
is
charged
to
the
developer;
the
sum
of
the
accumulated
impact
fees
provide
a
capital
fund
which
may
be
used
to
finance
any
number
of
projects,
although
they
are
most
commonly
used
to
expand
municipal
infrastructure,
such
as
sewage
treatment
facilities
and
stormwater
management
measures.

Capacity
credits
are
essentially
prepaid
impact
fees.
They
permit
developers
to
protect
the
viability
of
a
future
development
project
by
"
reserving"
an
increment
of
capacity
in
a
new
or
expanded
facility.
Although
voluntary,
developers
often
choose
to
pay
them
in
order
to
ensure
their
ability
to
undertake
development
in
the
future.

Negotiated
extractions,
a
type
of
impact
fee,
are
assessments
established
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
They
are
most
appropriate
for
large
development
projects,
particularly
commercial
or
industrial
ventures.
Negotiated
extractions
are
considerably
more
complex
to
administer
than
impact
fees,
but
they
ultimately
provide
more
flexibility.

Privatization:
Privatization
refers
to
the
use
of
private
firms
to
build
and
operate
facilities,
such
as
sewage
treatment
plants,
or
to
provide
services
such
as
environmental
inspections.
Capital
for
financing
the
necessary
investment
is
provided
by
the
private
firm,
which
then
operates
the
project
as
a
commercial
venture.
Privatization
may
be
an
effective
approach
for
small­
scale
capital
projects
that
can
be
tied
to
a
revenue
stream
for
a
private
operator.
An
example
would
be
procuring
vehicles
and
equipment
for
septic
system
maintenance.
In
this
instance,
a
private
operator
provides
the
necessary
capital
items,
the
revenue
streams
to
finance
the
investment
are
provided
by
commercial
and
residential
owners
of
septic
systems,
and
incentives
in
the
form
of
requirements
to
maintain
septic
systems
facilitate
private
investment
by
ensuring
a
need
for
the
services.

Industry­
Sponsored
Initiatives:
Private
capital
may
be
available
in
the
form
of
voluntary,
industrysponsored
initiatives.
Increasingly,
private
firms
are
voluntarily
financing
environmental
projects.
F­
7
Identify
and
Obtain
Sources
of
Private
Sector
Funding.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
N
I
N
E
9­
22
This
approach
depends
on
the
availability
of
one
or
more
firms
that
are
able
and
willing
to
make
the
necessary
investment
in
meaningful
projects.
Potential
revenues
or
benefits
from
this
approach
may
not
be
predictable
or
consistent.

Opportunities
for
firms
to
publicize
their
achievements
can
encourage
voluntary
donations
of
capital.
For
example,
donated
equipment
or
facilities
could
identify
the
provider,
special
plaques
or
citations
could
commemorate
a
donation,
and
local
officials
could
participate
in
dedication
ceremonies.
Candidate
firms
include
those
who
have
a
stake
in
potential
regulation
or
who
are
otherwise
interested
in
environmental
protection.
While
it
is
important
to
ensure
that
projects
are
consistent
with
CCMP
or
watershed
goals,
industry­
sponsored
initiatives
can
be
particularly
attractive
for
small
scale
projects
where
the
capital
requirements
are
below
the
threshold
for
cost
effective
municipal
debt
financing.

Leasing:
Leasing
can
be
used
to
obtain
capital
equipment,
facilities,
or
property,
or
in
overcoming
a
funding
shortfall.
Examples
include
leasing
oil
spill
containment
equipment
or
vehicles
and
equipment
used
for
nonpoint
source
abatement
or
wetlands
restoration.
Mechanisms
for
leasing
arrangements
are
generally
available
through
standard
local
government
procurement.
While
leasing
does
not
circumvent
the
need
for
revenues
to
cover
the
carrying
cost
of
the
leased
item,
it
does
potentially
allow
a
capital
item
to
be
procured
in
a
more
timely
fashion.
Assessments
of
the
financial
reasonableness
of
the
lease
include
comparisons
of
the
annual
lease
fee
with
the
equivalent
annual
cost
of
buying
equipment
and
should
be
based
on
estimates
of
useful
life,
residual
value,
and
the
cost
of
capital.

Steps
F­
7.1
Collect
and
use
developer
fees
from
firms
undertaking
land
development
to
finance
mitigation
and
environmental
protection
activities.

F­
7.2
Identify
and
promote
opportunities
for
private
firms
to
build
and
operate
facilities
and
to
provide
services.

F­
7.3
Identify
and
promote
opportunities
for
voluntary,
industry­
sponsored
initiatives.

F­
7.4
Utilize
leasing
arrangements,
where
appropriate,
for
small­
scale
capital
purchases
or
equipment
or
in
overcoming
a
funding
shortfall.

Responsible
Entities
F­
7.1
Towns,
villages
(
leads)

F­
7.2
PEP
(
lead),
town
and
local
governments,
PEP,
private
entities
F­
7.3
PEP
(
lead),
PEP
CAC,
private
entities,
industry
groups
and
trade
associations,
PEP,
local
governments
F­
7.4
Towns,
villages
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
N
I
N
E
9­
23
Addresses
Financing
Objective
3.

Occasionally,
sufficient
funds
become
available
through
fines,
negotiated
settlements,
or
jury
awards
to
fund
significant
capital
improvement
programs.
Although
these
are
essentially
unpredictable
sources,
it
can
be
useful
to
establish
a
process
for
securing,
using,
and
perhaps
sustaining
these
funds
when
appropriate
occasions
arise.
For
example,
an
existing
entity
such
as
an
environmental
trust
can
be
designated
as
the
recipient
for
various
punitive
or
restitution
payments
flowing
to
the
State
or
local
governments.
Some
Federal
statutes,
such
as
the
Oil
Pollution
Act
and
the
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation
and
Liability
Act
(
CERCLA),
provide
that
penalties
for
damages
to
natural
resources
be
shared
with
State
or
local
trustees
to
implement
restoration
activities.

Where
such
opportunities
present
themselves,
the
results
can
be
particularly
attractive.
Major
cases
may
produce
substantial
revenue,
and
public
acceptability
is
high
based
on
the
"
polluter
pays"
principle.
Projects
funded
through
these
means
offer
a
vehicle
to
turn
penalties
and
fines
to
positive
purposes.
Disadvantages
of
this
source
of
funding
are
its
uncertainty
and
vulnerability
to
competition
for
other
uses.

The
PEP
should
identify
an
appropriate
legal
entity
with
established
administrative
procedures
for
using
funds,
including
clearly
defined
objectives,
project
eligibility
and
selection
criteria,
and
fund
recipient
eligibility.
A
list
of
priority
projects
or
funding
needs
to
which
proceeds
can
immediately
be
applied
should
be
maintained.
The
need
for
establishing
legislation
to
establish
an
endowment,
including
an
assessment
of
the
specific
legal
procedures
in
the
State
for
distributing
funds
from
penalties
or
litigation,
should
be
further
investigated.

Steps
F­
8.1
Establish
a
program
to
utilize
funds
from
fines,
negotiated
settlements,
or
jury
awards
for
CCMP
actions,
should
they
become
available.

Responsible
Entities
F­
8.1
EPA,
NYSDEC
and
local
governments
(
leads),
PEP
F­
8
Utilize
Funds
from
Fines
and
Settlements.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
N
I
N
E
9­
24
Addresses
Financing
Objective
3.

A
variety
of
tax
incentives
can
be
used
to
encourage
property
owners
to
undertake
improvement
projects
that
benefit
the
environment,
including
real
property
tax
abatements,
income
tax
deductions,
and
real
property
tax
reductions.

Real
Property
Tax
Abatements:
Real
property
tax
abatements
could
be
effectively
used
to
support
qualified
environmental
projects,
such
as
replacement
of
underground
gasoline
and
home
heating
oil
tanks,
septic
system
upgrades,
commercial/
residential
stormwater
abatement
projects,
certain
environmental
improvements
at
marinas,
restoration
of
wetland
buffers,
re­
establishment
of
native
vegetation,
and
the
removal
of
hardened
shoreline
structures.
The
Real
Property
Tax
Law
(
RPTL)
will
need
to
be
amended
to
enable
towns
to
grant
these
real
property
tax
abatements.

The
real
property
tax
law
requires
that
all
real
property
in
the
State
be
taxed
unless
exempt
from
State
law.
While
the
State
law
lists
numerous
exemptions
to
promote
certain
public
policy
objectives,
the
environmental
protection
and
improvement
measures
mentioned
above
are
not
listed.
The
Municipal
Home
Rule
Law
prohibits
towns
from
superseding
a
"
State
statute
relating
to...
creation
or
alteration
of
areas
of
taxation."
Therefore,
specific
State
legislation
is
necessary
to
enable
towns
to
give
tax
relief
to
those
who
undertake
qualified
environmental
projects.

Specifically,
Section
487­
a
of
the
RPTL
should
be
amended
to
include
the
conservation
methods
mentioned
above,
or
a
new
section
could
be
added
specifically
listing
these
exemptions
from
taxation
of
improvements
which
aid
in
environmental
protection.
Towns
willing
to
implement
this
tax
abatement
would
need
to
do
so
pursuant
to
a
locally
adopted
plan
outlining
the
condition
needing
remediation,
the
extent
of
the
problem,
the
incentive
to
the
recipient,
and
the
impact
on
the
tax
base.
Towns
can
establish
programs
to
be
limited
and
targeted
to
specific
needs,
with
sunset
provisions
and
other
limits
so
as
not
to
create
unpredictable
and
unforeseen
administrative
complications
and
unnecessary
negative
fiscal
impacts
to
the
tax
base.

Environmental
Improvement
Income
Tax
Deduction:
Revisions
to
the
New
York
Tax
Law
can
encourage
certain
qualified
environmental
protection
measures
by
providing
for
interest
deductions
for
these
measures
and
permitting
lending
institutions
to
be
exempted
from
earned
income
for
loans
for
these
projects.
Tax
credits
(
similar
to
those
currently
provided
for
solar
and
wind
energy
systems)
could
encourage
replacement
of
underground
gasoline
and
home
heating
oil
tanks,
upgrading
of
septic
systems,
commercial/
residential
stormwater
abatement
projects,
certain
environmental
improvements
at
marinas,
restoration
of
wetland
buffers,
reestablishment
of
native
vegetation,
and
the
removal
of
hardened
shoreline
structures.
Further,
interest
income
earned
by
lending
institutions
is
factored
in
to
compute
net
income
and
thus
is
taxable
in
New
York
State.
Lending
institutions
that
receive
interest
income
from
municipalities
are
exempt
from
State
tax,
which
provides
for
lower
municipal
interest
rates.
This
action
envisions
banks
developing
environmental
improvement
loan
portfolios
with
exemptions
similar
to
those
afforded
municipalities
whose
interest
payments
are
exempt
from
State
taxation.
This
would
enable
businesses
and
residents
to
make
environmental
improvements
to
their
property
at
less
than
prevailing
market
interest
rates.
F­
9
Utilize
Tax
Abatements
and
Other
Tax
Incentives
to
Encourage
Conservation
Projects
and
Environmental
Improvements.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
N
I
N
E
9­
25
Homeowner
Associations:
Homeowner
associations
typically
control
the
open
lands
created
by
reserved
areas
resulting
from
a
subdivision.
Regulations
for
the
reserved
area
are
typically
written
by
the
developer
for
the
association;
most
regulations
are
without
regard
for
the
resource
that
constitutes
the
reserved
area,
be
it
farmland,
woodlands,
wetlands
or
dunes.
Homeowner
association
land
should
be
afforded
an
additional
real
property
tax
reduction
if
the
reserved
area
conforms
to
a
management
plan
for
the
reserved
area.
For
example,
agricultural
reserves
that
are
not
farmed
in
accordance
with
a
management
plan
would
be
taxed
at
a
higher
rate
than
those
that
are.

Steps
F­
9.1
Amend
the
Real
Property
Tax
Law
(
RPTL)
to
enable
towns
to
grant
real
property
tax
abatements
for
qualified
environmental
protection
measures.

F­
9.2
Amend
the
New
York
State
Tax
Law
to
provide
for
deductions
for
certain
qualified
environmental
protection
measures
and
to
exempt
lending
institutions
from
taxes
on
earned
income
for
loans
for
these
projects.

F­
9.3
Identify
the
necessary
mechanisms
and
feasibility
providing
for
real
property
tax
reductions
for
homeowner
associations
whose
lands
are
managed
in
accordance
with
a
management
plan
(
i.
e.,
amendments
to
the
Real
Property
Tax
Law).

Responsible
Entities
F­
9.1
State
Legislature
(
lead),
Towns,
PEP
(
for
coordination)

F­
9.2
State
Legislature
(
lead),
Towns,
PEP
(
for
coordination)

F­
9.3
Local
governments,
PEP
(
lead)
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
N
I
N
E
9­
26
Addresses
Financing
Objective
3.

Municipalities
can
establish
improvement
districts
(
such
as
sewer,
drainage,
water,
water
quality
treatment,
water
supply,
harbor
improvement,
and
others)
and
provide
improvements
or
services
wholly
at
the
expense
of
the
district.
Such
districts
and
the
properties
within
the
districts
would
receive
the
benefit
of
municipal
finance
rates,
favorable
terms
to
pay
for
certain
improvements,
and
municipal
requests
for
proposals
to
undertake
certain
improvements.
Qualified
improvements
could
include:
replacement
of
underground
gasoline
and
home
heating
oil
tanks,
septic
system
upgrades,
commercial/
residential
stormwater
abatement
projects,
certain
environmental
improvements
at
marinas,
restoration
of
wetland
buffers,
reestablishment
of
native
vegetation,
and
the
removal
of
hardened
shoreline
structures.
Town­
wide
septic
system
and
fuel
oil
tank
districts
might
be
desirable,
but
State
law
may
need
to
be
amended
to
allow
such
districts.
Instead
of
creating
new
districts,
it
may
also
be
possible
to
amend
existing
districts
to
achieve
the
same
ends.
While
the
existing
legislation
for
Wastewater
Disposal
Districts
makes
reference
to
"
on­
site
wastewater
disposal
systems,"
it
is
unclear
if
this
provision
pertains
to
private
septic
systems
or
simply
to
collection
districts
for
the
purpose
of
transporting
sewage
to
treatment
plants.
This
section
could
be
amended
or
clarified
to
provide
for
private
on­
site
septic
system
improvements.

Steps
F­
10.1
Establish
appropriate
improvement
districts
(
or
amend
existing
districts)
to
encourage
the
adoption
of
certain
qualified
environmental
improvements.

F­
10.2
Amend
the
State
Town
Law
to
allow
the
establishment
of
town
wide
septic
systems
and
fuel
oil
tank
districts
to
encourage
environmental
improvements.
Also,
the
existing
legislation
for
Wastewater
Disposal
Districts
should
be
amended
or
clarified
to
provide
for
private
on­
site
septic
system
improvements.

Responsible
Entities
F­
10.1
Towns,
PEP
F­
10.2
State
Legislature
(
lead),
Towns,
PEP
F­
10
Establish
Municipal
Improvement
Districts
to
Pay
for
Qualified
Projects.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
N
I
N
E
9­
27
Addresses
Financing
Objective
3.

Open
space
preservation
through
conservation
planning,
land
acquisition,
or
the
use
of
easements
can
be
used
to
protect
important
habitats
of
rare
or
endangered
species
and
can
have
social,
environmental,
and
economic
benefits.
Open
space
planning
involves
identifying
and
saving
what
is
most
important
or
most
valued
in
a
community
or
region
while
still
accommodating
desirable
or
sustainable
growth.
The
environmental
benefits
of
open
space
preservation
are
discussed
in
other
chapters
of
this
CCMP.

Community
Preservation
Fund:
The
Community
Preservation
Fund
establishes
a
two
percent
real
estate
transfer
tax
to
support
farmland
and
open
space
conservation
in
the
five
East
End
towns.
It
is
estimated
that
this
tax
will
raise
$
110
million
over
10
years.
Elements
of
the
program
include:

 
Exemption
of
up
to
$
250,000
on
improved
property
(
to
ameliorate
concerns
regarding
affordable
housing);

 
A
sunset
provision
in
which
the
tax
would
expire
in
the
year
2010;

 
Creation
of
an
advisory
committee
to
identify
lands
to
be
preserved
and
oversee
implementation;

 
An
agricultural
land
exemption;

 
The
tax
is
subject
to
mandatory
referendum
before
any
East
End
town
can
levy
the
tax;

 
The
buyer
pays
the
tax;

 
Money
raised
in
a
town
stays
in
the
town
in
which
the
tax
is
levied;
and,

 
The
tax
applies
only
in
the
East
End
towns
and
nowhere
else
in
New
York
State.

New
York
State
Open
Space
Conservation
Plan:
Statewide,
significant
funding
is
available
through
the
New
York
State
Clean
Water/
Clean
Air
Bond
Act
specifically
for
open
space
preservation
under
the
Clean
Water
provisions
of
the
Act
($
150
million).
The
New
York
State
Environmental
Protection
Fund
(
EPF),
which
is
funded
primarily
through
real
estate
transfer
taxes,
also
has
funded
open
space
preservation
(
approximately
$
30
million
per
year).
Decisions
regarding
use
of
these
funds
are
made
according
to
the
New
York
State
Open
Space
Conservation
Plan.
The
NYSDEC
has
established
regional
advisory
committees
to
solicit
recommendations
regarding
open
space
resource
priorities.
This
Open
Space
Conservation
Plan
proposes
strategies
for
conserving
various
types
of
areas.
Acquisition
is
only
one
of
many
suggested
approaches
to
conservation
of
open
spaces.
The
plan
also
recommends
voluntary
landowner
initiatives
and
establishment
of
partnerships
between
public
agencies
and
private
organizations
for
achieving
the
objectives
of
the
plan.

County
and
Town
Open
Space
Initiatives:
Suffolk
County
and
each
of
the
East
End
towns
have
set
aside
significant
funding
for
open
space
and
farmland
preservation.
Preservation
may
take
the
form
of
outright
acquisition
or
the
purchase
of
development
rights.
Suffolk
County
programs
include
the
¼
%
Sales
Tax
Drinking
Water
Program
(
raising
approximately
$
20
million
per
year
for
use
countywide
through
2013
via
¼
%
sales
tax);
Open
Space
Program
($
1
million
per
year
through
annual
appropriations);
Farmland
Purchasing
of
Development
Rights
(
PDRs)
($
1.5
million
per
year
through
F­
11
Identify
Sources
of
Funding
for
Land
Preservation
and
Acquisition.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
N
I
N
E
9­
28
annual
appropriations);
Community
Greenways
Fund
($
62
million
in
bonds
for
the
acquisition
of
farmland
development
rights,
open
space,
and
parklands
for
active
recreational
use);
and
Preservation
Partnerships.
Funding
available
through
town
governments
are
as
follows:
East
Hampton:
$
5
million;
Riverhead:
$
2
million;
Shelter
Island:
$
0.6
million;
Southampton:
$
5
million;
and
Southold
$
4
million.
Additional
match
from
Suffolk
County
may
be
available
through
Suffolk
County
Preservation
Partnerships.
This
funding
is
for
open
space
and
farmland
preservation
countywide
and
town­
wide
and
not
necessarily
limited
to
land
in
the
PEP
Study
area.
County
and
town
open
space
and
farmland
preservation
and
acquisition
programs
should
consider
open
space
priorities
identified
by
the
PEP.

Private
Land
Trusts:
Land
trusts
are
private,
tax­
exempt,
non­
profit
organizations
whose
primary
purpose
is
to
conserve
important
open
land,
usually
by
acquiring
it
in
fee
or
by
conservation
easement
and
ensuring
that
it
is
effectively
managed
for
conservation
purposes.
A
land
trust
may
have
its
own
specific
objectives
or
strategies,
such
as
conserving
ecologically
sensitive
lands.
Land
trusts
can
also
help
others
acquire
land.
To
obtain
an
easement
or
acquire
fee
title
to
a
parcel
of
land,
a
considerable
amount
of
negotiation
must
take
place
and
land
trusts
are
often
in
the
best
position
to
do
this.
Land
trusts
have
skills
and
experience
and
may
already
have
established
good
working
relationships
with
key
landowners.
Land
trusts
can
explain
the
benefits
of
donating
an
easement
and
are
knowledgeable
about
tax
laws.
The
two
primary
land
trusts
in
the
Peconics
are
The
Nature
Conservancy
and
the
Peconic
Land
Trust.

Conservation
Easements
and
Purchase
of
Development
Rights:
Conservation
easements
encompass
development
rights
along
with
other
types
of
easements.
This
approach
is
based
on
the
concept
that
it
is
not
necessary
to
transfer
ownership
of
the
property,
but
only
to
restrict
certain
uses.
Under
a
conservation
easement,
the
right
to
develop
a
site
in
accordance
with
its
highest
zoned
use
is
given
up,
in
whole
or
in
part,
in
return
for
certain
financial
and
tax
benefits.
This
separation
of
rights
from
the
property
is
legally
binding,
is
recorded
along
with
the
title
and
deed
records,
and
is
conveyed
along
with
ownership
of
the
land.
Conservation
easements
are
intended
to
be
tradable,
and
thus
enjoy
much
more
flexibility
to
define
specific
rights
and
conditions.
This
makes
it
easier
to
tailor
easements
to
the
distinctive
needs
of
property
owners,
who
define
the
restrictions
they
wish
to
observe.
The
principle
is
similar
to
owning
land
in
a
development
subject
to
legally
binding
covenants
against
subdividing
property.
Although
easements
can
be
structured
for
a
given
period
of
time,
easements
generally
must
give
up
development
rights
permanently
in
order
to
qualify
for
tax
advantages.
This
is
primarily
because
it
is
difficult
to
value
fixed
period
easements,
such
as
a
10­
year
moratorium
on
developing
a
property.

Easement
donors
can
take
advantage
of
three
different
tax
benefits.
First,
the
value
of
the
easement
(
defined
as
the
difference
in
value
between
the
land
with
and
without
development
rights)
can
be
deducted
from
the
donor's
income
for
Federal
and
State
income
tax
purposes.
Second,
property
values
are
assessed
on
the
consequent
lower
value
of
the
land,
thus
reducing
the
owner's
property
taxes.
Finally,
the
land
is
subject
to
lower
estate
taxes
when
the
land
passes
on
to
the
donor's
heirs,
an
advantage
particularly
relevant
when
farmland
is
at
issue.
These
tax
advantages
can
be
significant
in
higher
growth
areas
where
development
pressures
create
a
high
value
for
development
rights
and
render
purchase
of
such
rights
too
expensive
to
undertake.
In
lower
growth
areas,
on
the
other
hand,
the
value
of
development
rights
may
be
low
enough
that
the
property
owner
would
prefer
to
be
paid
for
the
rights
because
the
tax
advantages
are
so
small,
and
the
costs
might
be
low
enough
that
the
agency
or
organization
could
more
easily
afford
a
purchase.

One
of
the
greatest
challenges
in
this
approach
is
gaining
the
serious
consideration
of
donors.
In
addition,
it
is
essential
to
identify
lands
that
are
likely
to
provide
the
most
environmental
value.
This
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
N
I
N
E
9­
29
is
particularly
crucial
in
purchasing
development
rights,
which
are
not
tradable
and
whose
purchase
price
is
not
likely
to
be
recovered.
Because
donations
create
a
monitoring
responsibility,
it
is
also
important
to
focus
resources
on
critical
areas.

Conservation
Improvement
Districts:
In
a
conservation
improvement
district,
willing
landowners/
neighbors
finance
the
purchase
of
critical
open
space
or
environmentally
sensitive
land
through
their
respective
local
property
tax
bills.
The
landowner
is
a
willing
seller,
and
neighboring
property
owners
apply
to
the
town
to
acquire
the
land
pursuant
to
the
provisions
of
the
Conservation
Improvement
District.
The
town
acquires
the
land
using
funding
raised
through
a
special
assessment
applied
to
the
tax
bills
of
the
petitioning
landowners.
The
landowners
preserve
the
open
space
and
their
tax
bills
rise
incrementally.
This
type
of
program
facilitates
the
direct
participation
of
concerned
citizens
in
environmental
conservation.

Agricultural
Assessment
Districts:
The
New
York
State
Legislature
allows
the
establishment
of
Agricultural
Assessment
Districts
to
help
farmers
keep
land
in
agricultural
production
by
reducing
property
taxes.
In
Agricultural
Assessment
Districts,
farmers
agree
to
keep
land
in
agricultural
production
for
eight
years
in
exchange
for
reduction
in
property
taxes.
A
similar
program
could
be
established
to
apply
more
generally
to
open
space
and
environmentally
sensitive
lands.
Taxes
on
these
lands
would
be
deferred
and
not
forgiven
so
that
the
property
owners
must
pay
all
back
taxes
if
the
land
is
developed
in
the
future
or
prorated
if
there
is
partial
development,
thereby
encouraging
conservation.
This
process
could,
for
example,
reduce
taxes
by
30
percent
or
more
and
be
limited
to
only
those
parcels
identified
by
the
town
board
as
warranting
this
incentive.
In
an
effort
to
limit
the
impact
on
town
revenues/
receipts,
the
town
could
further
limit
the
percent
reduction
based
on
the
importance
of
the
parcel,
the
gross
amount
of
reductions
by
any
town
board
in
any
one
year,
and
other
factors.

Steps
F­
11.1
Provide
regular
input
to
the
NYSDEC
Region
1
Open
Space
Advisory
Committee
regarding
important
open
space
preservation
and
acquisition
parcels.
Incorporate
priority
areas
in
the
State
Open
Space
Conservation
Plan.

F­
11.2
Provide
regular
input
to
County
and
town
committees
regarding
important
open
space
and
farmland
preservation.
Coordinate
County
and
town
efforts
with
the
State
Open
Space
Conservation
Plan.

F­
11.3
Implement
the
Community
Preservation
Fund
and
coordinate
this
program
with
other
Priority
open
space
conservation
programs.

F­
11.4
Private
land
trusts
should
continue
to
acquire
and
preserve
important
open
space
and
environmentally
sensitive
land.

F­
11.5
Use
conservation
easements
and
the
purchase
of
development
rights
to
preserve
open
space
and
protect
environmentally
sensitive
areas.

F­
11.6
Amend
the
State
Town
Law
to
allow
the
establishment
of
Conservation
Improvement
Districts.
Encourage
open
space
and
environmentally
sensitive
land
acquisition
through
such
districts.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
N
I
N
E
9­
30
F­
11.7
Amend
the
State
Town
Law
to
allow
the
establishment
of
Open
Space
Conservation
Assessment
Districts.
Encourage
the
preservation
of
open
space
and
environmentally
sensitive
lands
through
such
districts.

Responsible
Entities
F­
11.1
PEP
(
lead),
Regional
Open
Space
Advisory
Committee,
NYSDEC
F­
11.2
PEP
(
lead),
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Planning,
Towns
F­
11.3
Towns
F­
11.4
The
Nature
Conservancy,
Peconic
Land
Trust
(
co­
leads),
PEP
F­
11.5
Local
governments,
private
land
trusts
(
co­
leads),
willing
landowners,
PEP
F­
11.6
State
Legislature
(
lead),
Towns,
private
landowners,
PEP
F­
11.7
State
Legislature
(
lead),
Towns,
private
landowners,
PEP
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
N
I
N
E
9­
31
Addresses
Financing
Objective
3.

The
State's
Town
Law
presently
allows
citizens
to
place
a
number
of
issues
on
the
ballot
without
Town
Board
approval,
i.
e.,
to
initiate
legislation.
The
Town
Law
is
vague
with
respect
to
measures
regarding
certain
environmental
improvements.
The
Town
Law
does
provide
that
town
boards
may,
upon
a
board
motion
or
upon
a
petition,
submit
at
special
or
biennial
elections
a
proposition
to
dredge,
bulkhead,
dock,
or
otherwise
improve
navigable
or
other
waterways
within
the
town.
Whether
or
not
such
improvements
could
include
septic
tank
improvements,
fuel
tank
replacement,
or
wetland
buffer
restoration,
and
the
like,
is
unclear.
The
Town
Law
should
be
clarified
or
an
additional
section
added.

Steps
F­
12.1
Amend
the
State
Town
Law
to
enable
citizens
to
put
environmental
protection
measures
(
such
as
septic
tank
improvements,
fuel
tank
replacement,
or
wetland
buffer
restoration)
to
a
public
vote
which
will
result
in
funding
to
be
allocated
to
pay
for
these
measures.

Responsible
Entities
F­
12.1
State
Legislature
(
lead),
Towns,
citizens,
PEP
F­
12
Encourage
Citizen
Initiated
Environmental
Legislation.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
N
I
N
E
9­
32
Addresses
Financing
Objective
3.

In
the
absence
of
securing
sufficient
funds
for
CCMP
implementation,
the
feasibility
of
establishing
selective
fees
to
fund
environmental
management
programs
should
be
investigated.

At
least
four
states
(
Wisconsin,
Iowa,
Minnesota,
and
Oregon)
currently
assess
a
surcharge
on
fertilizer/
pesticide
sales
or
charge
producers/
distributors
directly.
These
agricultural
chemical
fees
are
imposed
on
fertilizers,
pesticides,
agricultural
additives
and
minerals,
and
some
herbicides,
as
a
sales
distribution
fee.

Such
fees,
if
employed
in
the
Peconics,
could
generate
significant
revenues
because
of
the
relatively
large
volume
of
fertilizers
and
pesticides
used.
For
pesticides,
there
could
be
a
graduated
rate
structure,
which
varies
according
to
the
toxicity
of
the
ingredients.
Fees
could
be
collected
to
cover
both
commercial
agriculture
and
residential
garden
uses.
Revenues
could
be
used
to
fund
related
education/
outreach
programs
to
discourage
unnecessary/
inappropriate
fertilizer/
pesticide
use,
agricultural
best
management
practices,
or
surface
or
groundwater
remediation
projects.

Steps
F­
13.1
Investigate
the
feasibility
of
establishing
selective
sales
fees
(
on
products
such
as
Priority
fertilizers
and
pesticides)
to
fund
environmental
management
programs.

Responsible
Entities
F­
13.1
New
York
State
Legislature,
PEP,
NYSDEC
F­
13
Investigate
the
Feasibility
of
Establishing
Selective
Sales
Fees
to
Fund
Environmental
Management
Programs.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
N
I
N
E
9­
33
COSTS
OF
MANAGEMENT
ACTIONS
The
total
cost
of
all
new
actions
proposed
in
the
Financing
Chapter
is
$
1,162,500
for
one­
time
costs
and
$
600,000
annually.
(
See
"
Action
Costs"
in
Chapter
1
for
an
explanation
of
how
these
costs
were
determined.)

CCMP
FINANCING
MANAGEMENT
PLAN
ACTIONS
SUMMARY
TABLE
Table
9­
3
provides
the
following
summary
information
about
each
of
the
actions
presented
in
this
chapter.

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

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

Cost
Information
in
the
cost
column
represents
the
PEP's
best
estimate
of
the
costs
associated
with
action
implementation.
"
Base
Program"
means
that
no
new
or
additional
funds
will
be
needed
outside
of
the
responsible
entity's
operating
budget
to
implement
the
action.
Where
additional
funding
is
needed,
resources
to
implement
an
action
may
be
expressed
as
dollar
amounts
or
work
years
or
both.
One
full
time
equivalent
employee
or
"
FTE"
is
estimated
as
costing
$
75,000
per
year,
which
includes
salary,
fringe
benefits
and
indirect
costs.
The
"
Action
Costs"
description
in
both
Chapter
1
and
Chapter
9
provides
an
expanded
explanation
of
base
programs
and
action
costs.
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
N
I
N
E
9­
34
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
Table
9­
3.
CCMP
Financing
Management
Actions.

Action
Responsible
Entity
Timeframe
Cost
Status
F­
1
Establish
a
Finance
Work
Group
to
Formulate/
Refine
Financing
Options.
(
Objectives
1,
2
and
3.)

F­
1.1
Priority
Establish
a
Finance
Work
Group
to
Formulate/
Refine
Financing
Options.
PEP
(
lead).
Post­
CCMP
EPA
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
NYSDEC
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
SCDHS
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
R
F­
2
Effectively
Use
NEP
Funding,
the
NYS
Bond
Act,
the
Suffolk
County
¼
%
Sales
Tax
Program,
and
Base
Programs
to
Implement
the
CCMP.
(
Objective
1)

F­
2.1
Provide
post­
CCMP
funding
to
implement
eligible
CCMP
actions,

strive
to
obtain
additional
funding
based
on
the
results
of
EPA
conducted
Implementation
Reviews.
EPA
(
lead),
PEP.
Federal
fiscal
years
1998
­

2001
($
300,000
per
year
annual
target)
C/
O
F­
2.2
Ensure
that
funding
reserved
for
the
PEP
in
the
New
York
State
Clean
Air/
Clean
Water
Bond
Act
is
used
effectively
for
the
highest
priority
eligible
projects.
NYSDEC
(
lead),
PEP.
Annually
during
1998­
2005
($
30,000,000
[
less
funds
allocated
to
the
South
Shore
Estuary
Reserve
Program],

additional
funds
may
also
be
available)
C/
O
F­
2.3
Priority
Effectively
use
funding
for
PEP
recommended
projects
from
the
Suffolk
County
¼
%
Sales
Tax
Program.
Suffolk
County
(
lead),
PEP
Beginning
December
1,

2000
(
Estimated
funding
available
may
be
$
2.5
M/
yr
for
water
quality
improvement
projects
alone)
C/
N
F­
2.4
Utilize
existing
base
program
funding
from
Federal,
State,

County,
and
local
government
programs
to
implement
actions
as
appropriate;
ensure
that
funding
for
these
agencies
remains,
at
a
minimum,
at
current
levels.
EPA,
NYSDEC,
SCDHS,

other
Federal,
State,
and
county
agencies,
and
local
governments
(
co­
leads).
Ongoing
Existing
agency
program
staff
and
resources,
as
applicable
C/
O
Table
continued
on
next
page
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
N
I
N
E
9­
35
Table
9­
3.
CCMP
Financing
Management
Actions.
(
continued)

Action
Responsible
Entity
Timeframe
Cost
Status
F­
3
Explore
Options
for
Federal,
State,
and
County
Funding.
(
Objective
2)

F­
3.1
Support
the
Clean
Water
Act
reauthorization,
including
grants
to
States
for
continued
capitalization
of
State
Revolving
Loan
Funds.
NYSDEC
(
lead),
PEP
CAC.
Annually
Base
Program
C/
O
F­
3.2
Advocate
100
percent
funding
of
Clean
Water
Act
Sections
319
and
604(
b)
by
the
Federal
Government
and
100
percent
funding
of
the
New
York
State
Nonpoint
Source
Management
Programs
through
the
State
Environmental
Protection
Fund.
NYSDEC,
NYSDOS
(
co­
leads).
Annually
Base
Program
C/
O
F­
3.3
Fund
CCMP
Actions
under
non­

CWA
statutes,
such
as
the
Coastal
Zone
Management
Act,
Clean
Vessel
Act,
Intermodal
Surface
Transportation
Efficiency
Act,
and
others.
NOAA,
FWS,
NYSDOT
(
leads)
with
input
from
PEP.
Annually
Base
Program
PEP
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
R
F­
3.4
Provide
funding
under
the
USDA's
Environmental
Quality
Incentives
Program
and
Wildlife
Habitat
Incentives
Program
(
EQIP/
WHIP)

for
the
Suffolk
County
Soil
and
Water
Conservation
District
for
priority
projects
consistent
with
the
goals
of
the
PEP.
USDA
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
(
lead),

Suffolk
County
Soil
and
Water
Conservation
District
in
cooperation
with
PEP.
Annually
PEP
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
USDA­
NRCS
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
SCS&
WCD
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
R
Table
continued
on
next
page
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
N
I
N
E
9­
36
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
Table
9­
3.
CCMP
Financing
Management
Actions.
(
continued)

Action
Responsible
Entity
Timeframe
Cost
Status
F­
3.5
Actively
seek
government
agency
funding
for
program
enhancements
and
projects
mentioned
in
the
CCMP.
Develop
a
list
of
government
funding
sources
that
matches
CCMP
recommendations
with
mission/
authorities
of
various
government
agencies.
PEP
(
lead).
Post­
CCMP
EPA
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
NYSDEC
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
SCDHS
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
C/
N
F­
4
Encourage
Non­
profit
Organizations
to
Administer
Funding
for
Estuary
Protection
Efforts.
(
Objective
2)

F­
4.1
Identify
actions
suited
for
funding
by
non­
profit
organizations.

Identify
existing
non­
profit
organizations
with
missions
that
overlap
PEP's
and
seek
expressions
of
support
from
them.
Work
with
interested
organizations
to
further
mutual
goals
and
solicit
private
sector
funding.
PEP
(
lead).
Post­
CCMP
PEP
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
C/
N
F­
4.2
Investigate
opportunities
for
establishing
an
Environmental
Improvement
Fund
to
provide
funding
for
private
citizens
and
industry
for
funding
environmental
improvements.
PEP
(
lead).
Post­
CCMP
PEP
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
R
Table
continued
on
next
page
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
N
I
N
E
9­
37
Table
9­
3.
CCMP
Financing
Management
Actions.
(
continued)

Action
Responsible
Entity
Timeframe
Cost
Status
F­
5
Fund
Actions
under
the
State
Revolving
Loan
Fund.
(
Objective
2)

F­
5.1
This
CCMP
includes
both
specific
and
general
management
actions
aimed
at
preserving,
protecting
and
restoring
water
quality,
living
resources,
and
habitats
to
ensure
their
eligibility
for
SRF
financing.

Ensure
that
CCMP
projects
are
included
on
the
State's
priority
list
and
intended
use
plan.
Identify
priority
nonpoint
source
projects
and
ensure
that
they
are
included
on
the
State's
priority
list
and
intended
use
plan.
NYSDEC
(
lead),
NYS
Environmental
Facilities
Corporation
(
EFC),
PEP,

Towns
and
Villages.
Upon
approval
of
the
CCMP
for
CCMP
actions,

immediately
for
nonpoint
source
management
actions
NYSDEC
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
PEP
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
C/
N
F­
5.2
Educate
municipalities
and
other
potential
recipients
on
the
possible
benefits
of
SRF
loans.
EPA,
NYS
Environmental
Facilities
Corporation
(
leads),
NYSDEC.
Post­
CCMP
EPA
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
NYSDEC
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
EFC
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
C/
N
F­
5.3
Make
necessary
constitutional,

statutory,
or
regulatory
changes
necessary
at
the
State
level
to
provide
SRF
funding
to
private
entities.
NYS
Legislature,
NYSDEC,

EFC.
Post­
CCMP
Base
Program
R
F­
5.4
Provide
zero
percent
loans
under
the
SRF
for
land
acquisition
consistent
with
this
Plan.
EFC,
NYSDEC
Post­
CCMP
Base
Program
R
F­
6
Use
Municipal
Bonds
for
Project
Financing.
(
Objective
2)

F­
6.1
Consider
traditional
municipal
finance
markets
to
fund
capital
projects
where
appropriate.
Towns,
villages,
with
input
from
PEP.
Upon
approval
of
the
CCMP
Base
Program
R
Table
continued
on
next
page
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
N
I
N
E
9­
38
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
Table
9­
3.
CCMP
Financing
Management
Actions.
(
continued)

Action
Responsible
Entity
Timeframe
Cost
Status
F­
7
Identify
and
Obtain
Sources
of
Private
Sector
Funding.
(
Objective
2)

F­
7.1
Collect
and
use
developer
fees
from
firms
undertaking
land
development
to
finance
mitigation
and
environmental
protection
activities.
Towns,
villages
(
leads).
Upon
approval
of
the
CCMP
Towns
 
0.1
FTE
each/
yr
R
F­
7.2
Identify
and
promote
opportunities
for
private
firms
to
build
and
operate
facilities
and
to
provide
services.
PEP
(
lead),
Town
and
local
governments,
private
entities.
Post­
CCMP
PEP
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
R
F­
7.3
Identify
and
promote
opportunities
for
voluntary,
industry­
sponsored
initiatives.
PEP
(
lead),
PEP
CAC,

private
entities,
industry
groups
and
trade
associations,
PEP,
local
governments.
Post­
CCMP
PEP
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
R
F­
7.4
Utilize
leasing
arrangements,

where
appropriate,
for
small­
scale
capital
purchases
or
equipment
or
in
overcoming
a
funding
shortfall.
Towns,
villages.
Post­
CCMP
Base
Program
R
F­
8
Utilize
Funds
from
Fines
and
Settlements.
(
Objective
3)

F­
8.1
Establish
a
program
to
utilize
funds
from
fines,
negotiated
settlements,
or
jury
awards
for
CCMP
actions,
should
they
become
available.
EPA,
NYSDEC,
local
governments
(
leads),
PEP.
Post­
CCMP
EPA
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
NYSDEC
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
R
F­
9
Utilize
Tax
Abatements
and
Other
Tax
Incentives
to
Encourage
Conservation
Projects
and
Environmental
Improvements.
(
Objective
3)

F­
9.1
Amend
the
Real
Property
Tax
Law
(
RPTL)
to
enable
towns
to
grant
real
property
tax
abatements
for
qualified
environmental
protection
measures.
State
Legislature
(
lead),

Towns,
PEP
(
for
coordination).
Post­
CCMP
PEP
 
0.5
FTE
Towns
 
0.5
FTE
each
R
Table
continued
on
next
page
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
N
I
N
E
9­
39
Table
9­
3.
CCMP
Financing
Management
Actions.
(
continued)

Action
Responsible
Entity
Timeframe
Cost
Status
F­
9.2
Amend
the
New
York
State
Tax
Law
to
provide
for
deductions
for
certain
qualified
environmental
protection
measures
and
to
exempt
lending
institutions
from
taxes
on
earned
income
for
loans
for
these
projects.
State
Legislature
(
lead),

Towns,
PEP
(
for
coordination).
Post­
CCMP
PEP
 
0.5
FTE
Towns
 
0.5
FTE
each
R
F­
9.3
Identify
the
necessary
mechanisms
and
feasibility
providing
for
real
property
tax
reductions
for
homeowner
associations
whose
lands
are
managed
in
accordance
with
a
management
plan
(
i.
e.,
amendments
to
the
Real
Property
Tax
Law).
Local
governments,
PEP
(
lead).
Post­
CCMP
PEP
 
0.5
FTE
Towns
 
0.5
FTE
each
R
F­
10
Establish
Municipal
Improvement
Districts
to
Pay
for
Qualified
Projects.
(
Objective
3)

F­
10.1
Establish
appropriate
improvement
districts
(
or
amend
existing
districts)
to
encourage
the
adoption
of
certain
qualified
environmental
improvements.
Towns
(
lead),
PEP.
Post­
CCMP
Towns
 
1
FTE
each
PEP
 
1.0
FTE
R
F­
10.2
Amend
the
State
Town
Law
to
allow
the
establishment
of
town
wide
septic
systems
and
fuel
oil
tank
districts
to
encourage
environmental
improvements.

Also,
the
existing
legislation
for
Wastewater
Disposal
Districts
should
be
amended
or
clarified
to
provide
for
private
on­
site
septic
system
improvements.
State
Legislature
(
lead),

Towns,
PEP.
Post­
CCMP
PEP
 
0.5
FTE/
yr
R
Table
continued
on
next
page
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
N
I
N
E
9­
40
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
Table
9­
3.
CCMP
Financing
Management
Actions.
(
continued)

Action
Responsible
Entity
Timeframe
Cost
Status
F­
11
Identify
Sources
of
Funding
for
Land
Preservation
and
Acquisition.
(
Objective
3)

F­
11.1
Provide
regular
input
to
the
NYSDEC
Region
1
Open
Space
Advisory
Committee
regarding
important
open
space
preservation
and
acquisition
parcels.

Incorporate
priority
areas
in
the
State
Open
Space
Conservation
Plan.
PEP
(
lead),
Regional
Open
Space
Advisory
Committee,

NYSDEC.
Post­
CCMP
Utilize
Base
Program;

funding
available
under
the
Bond
Act
(
initially
$
150
million)
and
the
Environmental
Protection
Fund
(
approximately
$
30
million
per
year)

PEP
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
C/
N
F­
11.2
Provide
regular
input
to
County
and
town
committees
regarding
important
open
space
and
farmland
preservation.
Coordinate
County
and
town
efforts
with
the
State
Open
Space
Conservation
Plan.
PEP
(
lead),
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Planning,

Towns.
Upon
Approval
of
the
CCMP
Base
Program
(
A
portion
of
the
funds
available
at
the
county
level
and
a
portion
of
the
$
16.6
million
available
at
the
town
level)

PEP
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
C/
N
F­
11.3
Priority
Implement
the
Community
Preservation
Fund
and
coordinate
this
program
with
other
open
space
conservation
programs.
Towns.
1999
­
2010
Base
program
(
Community
Preservation
Fund
expected
to
raise
$
110
million
in
the
five
East
End
towns)

PEP
 
0.2
FTE/
yr
C/
O
F­
11.4
Private
land
trusts
should
continue
to
acquire
and
preserve
important
open
space
and
environmentally
sensitive
land.
The
Nature
Conservancy
and
Peconic
Land
Trust
(
leads),
PEP.
Post­
CCMP
Base
program
(
for
identifying
priorities),
to
be
determined
for
acquisition
R
F­
11.5
Use
conservation
easements
and
the
purchase
of
development
rights
to
preserve
open
space
and
protect
environmentally
sensitive
areas.
Local
governments
(
lead),

private
land
trusts,
willing
landowners,
PEP.
Post­
CCMP
PEP
 
0.2
FTE/
yr
Towns
 
1/
FTE/
town/
yr
R
Table
continued
on
next
page
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
N
I
N
E
9­
41
Table
9­
3.
CCMP
Financing
Management
Actions.
(
continued)

Action
Responsible
Entity
Timeframe
Cost
Status
F­
11.6
Amend
the
State
Town
Law
to
allow
the
establishment
of
Conservation
Improvement
Districts.
Encourage
open
space
and
environmentally
sensitive
land
acquisition
through
such
districts.
State
Legislature
(
leads),

Towns,
private
landowners,

PEP.
Post­
CCMP
PEP
 
0.2
FTE/
yr
R
F­
11.7
Amend
the
State
Town
Law
to
allow
the
establishment
of
Open
Space
Conservation
Assessment
Districts.
Encourage
the
preservation
of
open
space
and
environmentally
sensitive
lands
through
such
districts.
State
Legislature
(
leads),

Towns,
private
landowners,

PEP.
Post­
CCMP
PEP
 
0.2
FTE/
yr
R
F­
12
Encourage
Citizen
Initiated
Environmental
Legislation.
(
Objective
3)

F­
12.1
Amend
the
State
Town
Law
to
enable
citizens
to
put
environmental
protection
measures
(
such
as
septic
tank
improvements,

fuel
tank
replacement,
or
wetland
buffer
restoration)
to
a
public
vote
which
will
result
in
funding
to
be
allocated
to
pay
for
these
measures.
State
Legislature
(
lead),

Towns,
citizens,
PEP.
Post­
CCMP
PEP
 
0.2
FTE/
yr
R
F­
13
Investigate
the
Feasibility
of
Establishing
Selective
Sales
Fees
to
Fund
Environmental
Management
Programs.

(
Objective
3)

F­
13.1
Priority
Investigate
the
feasibility
of
establishing
selective
sales
fees
to
fund
environmental
management
programs.
State
Legislature
(
lead),

PEP,
NYSDEC
Post­
CCMP
Base
Program
PEP
 
0.5
FTE
R
Table
continued
on
next
page
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
N
I
N
E
9­
42
This
Page
Intentionally
Left
Blank.
