Peconic
Estuary
Program
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
T
E
N
10­
1
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
TEN
POST­
CCMP
MANAGEMENT
OBJECTIVES
1)
Create
a
stable
and
effective
management
structure
for
CCMP
implementation.

2)
Ensure
widespread
public
agency
participation/
representation
and
use
existing
authorities
to
the
maximum
extent
possible.

3)
Develop
and
implement
an
integrated
long­
term
monitoring
plan
for
water
quality
and
habitats/
living
resources
issues
with
a
coordinated
data
management
strategy.

4)
Track
the
progress
of
CCMP
implementation
(
commitments,
outcomes,
and
environmental
effects),
providing
routine
reporting
and
allowing
for
refining
of
management
approaches.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
T
E
N
10­
2
MEASURABLE
GOALS
The
Peconic
Estuary
Program's
measurable
goals
with
respect
to
post­
CCMP
management
and
implementation
are:

 
Implement
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Environmental
Monitoring
Plan.
[
See
Action
M­
2]

 
Produce
status
reports.
[
See
Action
M­
3]

 
Update
municipal
officials.
[
See
Action
M­
4]

 
Develop
sub­
watershed
implementation
plans
(
as
measured
by
the
number
of
subwatershed
plans
initiated).
[
See
Action
M­
5]
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
T
E
N
10­
3
INTRODUCTION
The
ultimate
success
of
any
National
Estuary
Program
management
conference
can
be
measured
by
implementation
of
its
Comprehensive
Conservation
and
Management
Plan
(
CCMP).
Plan
implementation
requires
a
clear
understanding
among
all
participating
entities
concerning
their
responsibilities
for
actions
recommended
in
the
CCMP
(
Battelle
et
al.,
1995).

The
Peconic
Estuary
Program
has
recognized
the
need
for
establishing
a
long­
term
framework
for
Peconic
Estuary
management,
as
shown
by
the
PEP
goals
and
objectives
at
the
beginning
of
this
chapter.
In
light
of
the
significance
placed
upon
post­
CCMP
management
and
monitoring
by
Congress,
the
EPA,
and
the
PEP
Management
Conference,
the
PEP
Management
Conference
directed
that
a
separate
section
of
this
Management
Plan
specifically
deal
with
the
issue
of
long­
term
management.
Accordingly,
this
chapter
of
the
CCMP
includes
not
only
a
discussion
on
the
critical
issue
of
long­
term
institutional
and
organizational
framework,
but
also
a
summary
of
other
important
parameters
such
as
long­
term
monitoring,
mechanisms
for
measuring
progress,
and
data
management.

INSTITUTIONAL
FRAMEWORK
The
PEP
has
selected
a
long­
term
institutional
framework
for
post­
CCMP
management,
which
is
to
continue
the
existing
management
structure.
Various
alternatives
were
proposed
in
the
Draft
CCMP.
These
alternatives
served
as
a
starting
point
for
the
public
as
well
as
agencies
and
resource
managers
in
the
decision­
making
process.
During
the
public
comment
period
for
the
draft
Management
Plan,
the
PEP
Management
Conference
sought
input
from
interested
parties
regarding
a
final
long­
term
institutional
framework
for
post­
CCMP
management.

The
three
alternative
frameworks
proposed
in
the
draft
CCMP
were:

1.
Continuation
of
Existing
Management
Conference
Structure
(
Policy
Committee;
Management
Committee;
Citizens,
Technical,
and
Local
Government
Advisory
Committees;
Natural
Resources
Subcommittee;
and
Program
Office);

2.
Formation
of
a
Regional
Advisory
Commission
(
formal,
non­
regulatory
commission
of
East
End
town
and
village
representatives);
and,

3.
Formation
of
the
Pine
Barrens
Maritime
Reserve
Commission
(
Modification
of
the
Pine
Barrens
Maritime
Reserve
Act
as
a
mechanism
to
involve
State,
County,
and
local
governments
in
a
regional
implementation
process).

For
the
foreseeable
future,
the
Management
Conference
will
continue
the
existing
Management
Conference
structure
(
see
Appendix
B).
The
PEP
Program
Office
at
the
SCDHS
Office
of
Ecology
will
continue
to
be
a
critical
coordinating,
management,
and
administrative
body.

Continuation
of
Existing
Management
Conference
Structure
At
the
core
of
the
existing
PEP
Management
Conference
structure
are
the
Management
Committee
and
Program
Office.
(
See
Figure
10­
1)
The
Program
Office
is
located
in
the
SCDHS
Office
of
Ecology.
The
Management
Committee
consists
of
voting
representatives
from
EPA,
the
NYSDEC,
Suffolk
County,
local
government,
chairs
of
Citizens
and
Technical
Advisory
Committees,
and
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
T
E
N
10­
4
several
other
advisory
members.
(
See
Appendix
B
for
a
full
discussion
of
the
Management
Conference
Structure.)

The
existing
Management
Conference
structure
remains
intact.
The
Local
Government
Committee,
Technical
Advisory
Committee,
and
Citizens
Advisory
Committee
will
continue
to
be
integral
to
the
long­
term
management
process.
The
Citizens
Advisory
Committee
will
continue
to
maintain
a
vigorous
public
education
and
outreach
program.
The
Technical
Advisory
Committee
and
the
Natural
Resources
Subcommittee
will
provide
technical
guidance
regarding
long­
term
monitoring
and
assessment
projects,
technical
implementation
projects,
and
CCMP
assessment
and
goal
attainment.
Local
governments
will
be
crucial
to
the
implementation
process
itself
with
regard
to
issues
such
as
land
use,
zoning,
and
implementation
of
nonpoint
source
control
programs.

Both
the
Management
Committee
and
Local
Government
Committee
currently
report
to
the
Policy
Committee.
Under
the
Post­
CCMP
structure,
both
will
continue
to
report
to
the
Policy
Committee,
which
will
review
and
approve
progress
reports
on
implementation
and
sanction
major
new
policy
initiatives.

The
Program
Office
will
continue
its
management,
coordination,
and
administration
functions,
as
they
are
applicable
to
post­
CCMP
management,
and
as
resources
allow.
Several
responsibilities
and
functions
outlined
in
the
PEP
Management
Conference
Agreement
(
June
1993)
which
will
still
be
applicable
to
the
post­
CCMP
period
are
noted
as
follows:

Management
Responsibilities
 
Communicate
regularly
with
all
PEP
participants
about
activities
and
issues
to
ensure
consensus
and
that
all
views
are
fairly
represented
in
work
products;

 
Coordinate
activities
among
Federal,
State,
County,
and
local
agencies
as
well
as
the
public
sector
to
obtain
program
objectives;

 
Manage
the
preparation
of
annual
workplans
and
reports,
in
cooperation
with
all
PEP
participants;

 
Coordinate
conference
activities
in
identifying
and
seeking
alternative
sources
of
funding
for
activities
associated
with
the
estuary
system;
and,

 
Implement
the
CCMP.

Technical
Responsibilities
 
Oversee
and
assist
in
coordinating
the
planning,
development,
and
implementation
of
all
phases
of
the
PEP;
and
 
Identify,
participate
in,
and
ensure
the
transfer
of
scientific/
engineering
information
to
PEP
participants.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
T
E
N
10­
5
Figure
10­
1.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Post­
CCMP
Management
Structure.
POLICY
COMMITTEE
Members:
A
representative
from
EPA,
NYSDEC,

Suffolk
County,
and
Local
Government.

Purpose:
To
oversee
and
ultimately
approve
fund
disbursement
and
project
progress.
MANAGEMENT
COMMITTEE
Members:
A
representative
from
EPA,

NYSDEC,
Suffolk
County,
the
Chairperson
of
the
Technical
Advisory
Committee,
the
Local
Government
Committee,
the
Citizens
Advisory
Committee,
and
several
non­
voting
advisory
members.

Purpose:
To
develop
goals,
approve
workplans,

and
oversee
the
project.

LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
COMMITTEE
Members:
Representatives
of
each
East
End
town
and
village.

Purpose:
To
provide
oversight
on
development,
zoning,

planning,
and
other
local
issues;
to
provide
guidance
for
effective
decisionmaking
and
financial
planning
to
develop
an
implementation
strategy.
PROGRAM
OFFICE
Member:
Suffolk
County
Dept.
of
Health
Services,
Office
of
Ecology.

Purpose:
To
serve
as
the
functional
arm
of
the
Management
Committee
in
conducting
day­
to­
day
management
of
technical,

administrative,
and
editorial
tasks
and
advisory
committee
support.

CITIZENS'
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
Members:
Representatives
from
citizens'
groups,
including
but
not
limited
to
farmers,
fishermen,
environmental
organizations,

and
business
and
industry.

Purpose:
To
integrate
citizens'
concerns
and
guidance
into
evaluation
and
decision­
making
processes;
to
conduct
public
education
and
outreach.

TECHNICAL
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
Members:
Scientists,
engineers,
planners,
and
managers
from
various
Federal,
State,
and
local
institutions,
as
well
as
from
universities
and
private
organizations.

Purpose:
To
provide
technical
guidance;
to
recommend
and
oversee
scientific
studies,
investigations,
and
sampling,
modeling,

and
monitoring
programs.
POST­
CCMP
MANAGEMENT
STRUCTURE
MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
T
E
N
10­
6
Program
Administration
 
Manage
development
of
Requests
for
Proposals;

 
Oversee
the
administration
and
performance
of
contracts
and
grants;

 
Facilitate
the
convening
of
conferences
and
meetings;

 
Prepare
routine
PEP
status
reports
and
program
information.
The
Program
Office
and
Suffolk
County
maintain
the
PEP
worldwide
web
site
and
the
Program
Office
library
that
contains
a
collection
of
program
documents,
reports,
and
maps;
and,

 
Prepare
and
distribute
a
periodic
newsletter
on
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program.

Administrative
Support
 
Routinely
attend
meetings
of
major
committees;

 
Ensure
the
transfer
of
all
PEP
materials
(
e.
g.,
work
products,
reports,
meeting
minutes,
etc.)
to
the
appropriate
persons
and
locations;
and,

 
Receive
and
respond
to
requests
for
technical
information
and
assistance
regarding
the
PEP
from
the
public,
elected
officials,
EPA
Headquarters,
and
others.

Benefits
of
Continuing
the
Existing
Management
Conference
Structure
 
The
structure
relies
on
a
pre­
existing
framework
that
has
been
successful
in
integrating
concerns
and
building
consensus
in
an
often
complex
and
contentious
process;

 
The
structure
effectively
involves
numerous
stakeholders
closely
in
the
management
process;

 
The
Program
Office,
which
benefits
from
decades
of
institutional
environmental
management
continuity
in
eastern
Suffolk
County,
is
at
the
heart
of
the
administration
and
management
process;

 
The
NYSDEC
(
which
administers
State
Bond
Act
funding)
and
EPA
(
which
provides
post­
CCMP
funding)
will
have
active
roles;
and,

 
The
structure
would
not
involve
any
new
or
major
institutional
expenditures
and
therefore
would
be
relatively
low
cost
(
provided
that
all
Committee
representatives
will
continue
to
participate
actively
in
committee
activities
without
compensation
and
that
staff
from
the
SCDHS
Office
of
Ecology
can
continue
to
dedicate
a
portion
of
their
time
to
program
coordination,
as
well
as
long­
term
monitoring
and
data
management).
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
T
E
N
10­
7
Drawbacks
of
Continuing
the
Existing
Management
Conference
Structure
The
following
drawbacks
of
continuing
the
existing
management
conference
structure
were
identified
in
the
draft
CCMP
and
will
need
to
be
considered
and
addressed
in
the
implementation
phase:

 
The
Management
Conference
structure
is
centered
around
the
Management
Committee
that
does
not
itself
implement
many
of
the
recommended
actions
in
the
draft
CCMP.
This
drawback
may
be
overcome
by
close
and
active
coordination
with
advisory
committees
and
workgroups.
Additional
committees,
such
as
a
Habitat
Restoration
Work
Group
and
the
proposed
Financing
Work
Group,
can
be
integrated
and
can
report
directly
to
the
Management
Committee,
or,
in
some
cases,
other
committees,
such
as
the
Local
Government
Committee,
as
needed;

 
The
structure
has
no
ability
to
raise
revenues.
This
can
be
overcome
by
a
coupling
with
a
non­
profit
arm
with
fund­
raising
ability;
and,

 
The
Management
Conference
structure
does
not
have
any
direct
regulatory
or
enforcement
authority.
Several
Management
Conference
members
have,
on
numerous
occasions,
expressed
the
opinion
that
a
lack
of
direct
regulatory
or
enforcement
authority
is
highly
desirable
and
is
in
the
spirit
of
the
consensus­
building
approach
of
the
PEP
Management
Conference.
Also,
agencies
that
sit
on
the
Management
Conference
do,
of
course,
have
regulatory
authorities.

LONG­
TERM
MONITORING
Monitoring
during
CCMP
implementation
is
needed
to
gather
information
on
the
changing
state
of
the
estuary
system.
This
information
can
be
used
to
prioritize
activities
and
measure
the
success
of
management
actions.
Specific
details
regarding
PEP
post­
CCMP
monitoring
efforts
are
included
in
the
various
main
chapters
of
this
draft
management
plan
and
the
monitoring
plan
presented
in
Appendix
I.
The
overall
strategy
for
long­
term
monitoring
is
summarized
below.
Monitoring
plan
elements
are
summarized
in
Table
10­
1.

A
diagram
of
some
of
the
major
long­
term
monitoring
topics
for
the
PEP
is
shown
in
Figure
10­
2.
It
is
critical
to
emphasize
that
the
PEP
is
a
management
program
rather
than
primarily
a
research
effort.
Therefore,
all
monitoring
efforts
directly
undertaken,
coordinated,
or
overseen
by
the
PEP
must
be
primarily
management­
oriented.
For
example,
the
PEP
would
probably
not
perform
a
long­
term
zooplankton
study
merely
to
determine
shifts
in
regional
species
composition
abundance,
but
to
ultimately
enable
evaluation
of
possible
linkages
to
causal
factors.
PEP
projects
must
be
more
determinate
in
terms
of
hypotheses
and
probable
management
utility.
An
appropriate
research
project
would
be
to
perform
synoptic
zooplankton
and
nutrient
monitoring
to
determine
whether
changes
in
nutrient
loading
are
adversely
affecting
that
trophic
level,
in
terms
of
abundance
or
species
composition.
More
than
just
an
academic
or
semantic
issue,
the
clear
definition
of
project
objectives
and
management
utility
will
have
profound
impacts
on
project
types.

This
is
not
to
discount
PEP
involvement
in
long­
term
research
projects.
The
PEP,
as
part
of
the
CCMP,
will
continue
to
identify
long­
term
research
efforts
necessary
to
characterize
and
understand
basic
processes
and
parameters.
The
PEP
will
also
seek
to
procure
sources
of
funding
to
support
such
research.
In
the
case
of
Brown
Tide,
the
PEP
will
actively
participate
in
the
Brown
Tide
Steering
Committee.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
T
E
N
10­
8
Several
of
the
PEP
monitoring
program
topics
in
Figure
10­
2
will
be
performed
as
part
of
preexisting
programs
(
point
source
discharge
data
through
SPDES
permits;
groundwater
monitoring
programs
through
the
SCDHS,
the
Suffolk
County
Water
Authority,
NYSDEC,
and
other
entities;
coliform/
shellfish
sanitation
program
through
NYSDEC,
surface
water
monitoring
program
through
SCDHS;
etc.).
Also,
the
NYSDEC
will
continue
its
finfish
trawl
surveys,
and
landings
data
for
finfish
and
scallops
will
provide
some
indication
of
fisheries
resources.
Finally,
Brown
Tide
research
will
be
addressed
through
the
Brown
Tide
Steering
Committee,
in
which
the
PEP
will
continue
to
participate
actively.
Several
possible
funding
sources
are
outlined
in
the
Brown
Tide
chapter.

Even
though
the
pre­
existing
long­
term
efforts
will
be
ongoing,
substantial
effort
will
be
required
to
compile,
analyze,
and
use
some
of
the
data.
The
Management
Committee
will
continue
to
identify
entities
that
will
commit
resources
to
such
data
analysis
and
use.
For
example,
the
coliform
and
finfish
trawl
data
is
routinely
collected,
but
requires
substantial
resources
to
compile
and
report
for
the
PEP.
Similarly,
groundwater
programs
collect
substantial
data
at
the
County
and
State
levels,
but
compilation
and
use
of
data
represents
a
formidable
challenge.

Figure
10­
2.
Long­
Term
Monitoring
Topics.
Long­
Term
Monitoring
Candidates
Land
Use
Land
Cover
STP
Loads
Groundwater
Surface
Water
Monitoring
Brown
Tide
Research
Water
Column
Sediment
Land
Legend
Existing
Program
PEP
Candidate
Benthic/
Bioindicators
SAV/
Bioindicators
Coliforms
Finfish
Trawl
Surveys
Finfish/
Scallop
Landings
Food
Web
Response
Baitfish
Fish
Larvae
Zoo­
&
Phytoplankton
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
T
E
N
10­
9
Table
10­
1.
Environmental
Monitoring
Plan.

Base
Programs
New
Costs
Monitoring
Program
One­
Time
Annual
One­
Time
Annual
Aquaculture
and
Transplanting
Activities
X
$
710,000
$
5,000
Bay
Scallops
(
recruitment
success
and
survival
dynamics)
$
200,000
(
over
three
years)
Biota
(
Fish,
Shellfish,
Crustacean)
Monitoring
for
Toxics
X
Brown
Tide
Research
Initiative
X
Brown
Tide
Steering
Committee
X
Coastal
2000
X
Dredging
$
37,500
$
7,500
Endangered
Species
Program
X
Federal
Toxics
Release
Inventory
X
Hazardous
Waste
Site
Monitoring
X
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
Program
X
NMFS
Commercial
Landings
Program
X
Vessel
Waste
No
Discharge
Areas
$
5,000
NOAA
Mussel
Watch
Program
X
NYS
Pesticide
Reporting
Law
X
NYS
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
SPDES)
Program
X
NYS
Shellfish
Land
Certification
Program
X
NYSDEC
Juvenile
Finfish
Survey
X
$
645,000
NYSDEC
Wetlands
Inventory
X
$
500,000
$
50,000
Osprey,
Terns
and
Waterfowl
TBD
Pesticide
Use
Monitoring
X
$
25,000
Restoration
Monitoring
$
35,000
$
15,000
SCDHS
Alexandrium
Monitoring
X
$
35,000
SCDHS
Bathing
Beaches
and
Swimming
Pools
Program
X
SCDHS
Groundwater
Monitoring
(
for
nitrogen
and
pesticides)
X
SCDHS
North
Creeks
Study
X
SCDHS
Pfiesteria
Monitoring
X
$
25,000
SCDHS
Routine
Point
Source
Monitoring
X
SCDHS
Surface
Water
Quality
Monitoring
X
SCPD
Land
Use
Monitoring
X
Sediment
Monitoring
25,000
Shoreline
Hardening
Monitoring
X
35,000
Submerged
Aquatic
Vegetation
Long
Term
Monitoring
X
$
30,000
Suffolk
County
Groundwater
Model
X
Surface
Water
Monitoring
for
Toxics
X
Two
Stroke
Marine
Engine
Inventory
$
10,000
Underground
Storage
Tank
Inventory
$
50,000
$
10,000
USFWS
National
Wetlands
Inventory
X
Total
$
1,332,500
$
922,500
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
T
E
N
10­
10
Even
more
difficult
is
procuring
resources
and
funding
sources
for
programs
which
are
not
preexisting
For
example,
there
is
currently
no
mechanism
to
perform
routine,
ongoing
land
use
and
land
cover
monitoring.
Also,
there
are
no
long­
term
monitoring
commitments
related
to
baitfish,
fish
larvae,
zooplankton
and
phytoplankton,
submerged
aquatic
vegetation,
and
benthic
communities.
The
PEP
must
procure
commitments
for
carrying
out
and
funding
priority
monitoring
projects.
This
will
involve
a
joint
and
cooperative
effort
between
the
Management
Committee
and
Technical
Advisory
Committee.

The
Management
Committee
will
continue
to
evaluate
costs
and
benefits
of
possible
monitoring
program
options.
Part
of
this
analysis
will
include
a
weighing
of
the
costs
of
given
programs
against
the
likelihood
of
success
and
the
value
of
success.
For
example,
it
is
possible
that
a
prohibitively
expensive
program
may
not
be
possible,
even
though
resulting
data
could
be
extremely
valuable.
Conversely,
a
project
which
cannot
guarantee
a
high
probability
of
intended
results
(
e.
g.,
a
usable
bioindicator
could
still
be
desirable,
if
the
possibility
of
success
is
reasonable
when
weighed
against
modest
project
costs
and
a
potentially
high
project
utility.

The
selection
of
monitoring
parameters
and
programs
must
include
commitments
from
entities
to
conduct
the
programs
and
dedication
of
sufficient
resources
to
enable
the
efforts.
The
final
monitoring
plan
contained
in
Appendix
I
conforms
to
National
Estuary
Program
Guidance,
Comprehensive
Conservation
and
Management
Plans,
Content
and
Approval
Requirements
(
EPA
1992).
This
guidance
document
emphasizes
the
need
for
clearly
defined
monitoring
plans
not
only
to
measure
the
effectiveness
of
CCMP
actions,
but
also
to
provide
information
necessary
to
redirect
and
refocus
the
CCMP.
As
required
by
EPA,
the
monitoring
plan
defines
program
objectives
and
performance
criteria,
describes
testable
hypotheses,
and
specifies
monitoring
variables
and
plan
details.

Monitoring
Priorities
EPA
funding
for
establishing
a
long­
term
monitoring
program
is
limited.
Currently,
the
following
priorities
for
use
of
PEP
post­
CCMP
monitoring
monies
(
NEP­
funded)
are
as
follows:

Water
Quality
Continuation
of
the
water
quality
monitoring
program
for
purposes
of
establishing
a
long­
term
program,
with
linkages
not
only
to
Brown
Tide
and
nitrogen
and
DO
management,
but
also
to
the
tidal
creeks
study,
the
submerged
aquatic
vegetation
monitoring
program,
and,
possibly,
other
programs.
This
also
includes
integrating
groundwater
quality
data
and
input
rates,
particularly
for
key
subwatersheds.

Sediment
Benthic
mapping
is
needed
to
direct
further
long­
term
monitoring
of
sediment
communities
and
other
environmental
issues.

Submerged
Aquatic
Vegetation
A
long­
term
submerged
aquatic
vegetation
program
is
needed
to
capitalize
upon
prior
efforts
and
to
establish
trends
in
eelgrass
and
macroalgae
abundance
and
distribution.
Ideally,
submerged
aquatic
vegetation
will
be
linked
with
water
quality
as
a
bioindicator.
Eelgrass
restoration
will
be
considered
based
on
the
results
of
the
PEP
habitat
criteria
study.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
T
E
N
10­
11
Other
Projects
A
small
amount
of
funding
will
remain
for
additional
living
resources/
habitat
monitoring
efforts.
This
could
include
establishing
a
long­
term
benthic
monitoring
study,
possibly
in
conjunction
with
the
tidal
creeks
study.
Hopefully,
prior
efforts
could
be
continued
to
evaluate
water
quality
and
sediment
communities
to
support
development
of
a
meaningful
bioindicator,
although
larger
studies
may
be
necessary
to
accomplish
this.
Another
project
option
includes
evaluating
trends
of
baitfish
abundance
and
distribution.

Additional
Natural
Resources
Research
and
Monitoring
Needs
The
natural
resources
committee
has
identified
several
projects,
which
would
require
several
hundreds
of
thousands
of
dollars
in
funding,
to
conduct
important
long­
term
monitoring
and
living
resources
projects.
These
projects
include
system­
wide
studies
of
benthic
communities,
baitfish,
fish
larvae,
zooplankton,
and
phytoplankton.
A
formal
project
list
and
justification
will
be
prepared
by
the
Management
Committee
for
further
evaluation
and
consideration
and
additional
funding
sources
will
be
sought.
Candidates
for
funding
may
include
the
New
York
State
Environmental
Protection
Fund
and
possibly
the
Suffolk
County
Capital
Program
($
50,000
proposed
for
zooplankton
and
phytoplankton
characterization,
which
would
assist
not
only
in
Brown
Tide
research,
but
also
in
PEP
long­
term
monitoring).

Land
Use
Monitoring
The
continuing
collection
and
analysis
of
land
use
data
is,
of
course,
a
paramount
long­
term
monitoring
priority.
It
will
be
critical
in
linking
land
use
trends
with
pollution
loading,
water
quality,
and
habitat
and
living
resources.
It
will
also
be
an
important
tool
in
tracking
the
progress
of
CCMP
implementation.

The
Suffolk
County
Planning
Department
will
be
crucial
to
any
long­
term
land
use
monitoring
efforts.
The
Planning
Department
has
a
verified
Geographic
Information
System
(
GIS)
database
for
existing
land
uses
at
tax
map
scale
for
the
Towns
of
Riverhead,
Southold,
Shelter
Island,
Southampton,
East
Hampton,
and
the
Peconic
River
corridor
in
the
Town
of
Brookhaven.
The
Planning
Department
also
has
a
verified
GIS
database
for
existing
zoning
in
this
same
region.
Both
of
these
databases
should
be
updated
on
an
annual
basis
to
reflect
conditions
as
of
March
1
(
tax
status
day).
The
update
and
maintenance
of
the
GIS
databases
will
require
coordination
of
activities
among
the
Planning
Department,
Suffolk
County
Real
Property
Tax
Service
Agency
(
SCRPTSA),
town
tax
assessors
and
town
planners.
Suggested
agency
roles
are
as
follows:

 
Town
tax
assessors
could
provide
a
list
to
SCRPTSA
of
those
parcels
for
which
there
has
been
a
change
in
tax
assessment
code
as
of
March
1.
These
lists
could
then
be
provided
by
SCRPTSA
to
the
Planning
Department
for
review,
conversion
into
land
use
classification
codes,
and
incorporation
into
the
GIS
land
use
database.
The
Planning
Department
would
then
make
this
updated
land
use
database
available
to
the
towns
for
their
use.
This
would
include
data
in
map
format.
Alternatively,
the
Planning
Department
could
receive
Real
Property
Transfer
Reports
(
RP­
5217)
for
review
to
monitor
land
use
changes;
and
 
Town
Planners
could
provide
a
list
of
any
modifications
to
town
zoning
codes
and
maps
to
the
Planning
Department,
which
in
turn
would
correct
the
GIS
zoning
database
and
provide
the
information
to
the
towns
for
their
use
(
includes
map
format).

If
one
or
more
of
these
procedures
is
implemented,
annual
updates
of
GIS
products
(
i.
e.,
databases,
tabulations,
trends,
and
maps
at
tax
map
scale)
for
existing
land
use
and
zoning,
can
be
made
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
T
E
N
10­
12
available
for
the
PEP
study
area
and
towns
as
a
whole.
The
databases
would
be
maintained
by
the
Planning
Department
to
assure
consistency
in
methodology
application
for
the
region.

Living
Resources
Monitoring
Coordinator
The
Management
Conference
recommends
coordinating
long­
term
monitoring
program
needs
for
field/
living
resources
concerns
by
hiring
at
least
one
full­
time
staff
person
dedicated
solely
to
conducting
and,
to
some
degree,
coordinating
these
programs.
This
person
would
serve
as
an
"
environmental
analyst,"
"
biologist,"
or
"
marine
conservation
planner"
and
would
oversee
routine,
limited
submerged
aquatic
vegetation
surveys,
baitfish
surveys,
and/
or
other
monitoring
efforts.
The
person
would
also
oversee
the
efforts
of
the
agencies
charged
with
collecting
data
and
to
keep
track
of
those
agencies'
commitments
to
compile
and
report
on
their
databases.
Candidate
agencies
for
providing
or
housing
a
staff
person
would
be
the
NYSDEC,
Cornell
Cooperative
Extension,
The
Nature
Conservancy,
or
the
SCDHS.

Until
such
a
position
is
filled,
the
Management
Conference
will
continue
to
conduct
these
monitoring
efforts
using
voluntary
contribution
of
multiple
agency
resources.
An
interim
option
is
to
contract
out
long­
term
monitoring
tasks.
A
possible
disadvantage
of
this
approach
would
be
a
lack
of
institutional
continuity
and
precarious
annual
funding
sources.

In
regard
to
these
issues,
the
Management
Committee
will
focus
on
sustainable,
long­
term
databases
which
can
be
used
to
monitor
the
effects
of
CCMP
implementation,
rather
than
substantial
short­
term
expenditures
of
funds
to
obtain
limited
characterizations
which
would
not
likely
be
useful
in
longterm
monitoring,
even
though
they
could
be
of
immediate
scientific
interest.

Living
Resources
Research
Plan
The
PEP,
through
the
present
Marine
Conservation
Planner,
has
prepared
a
Framework
for
Developing
a
Living
Resources
Research
and
Monitoring
Plan.
This
Framework,
which
has
been
peer
reviewed,
will
be
revised
based
on
peer
review
comments
and
integrated
with
other
monitoring
efforts
(
e.
g.,
sediment
nutrient
flux
and
toxicity)
to
update
the
existing
plan,
and
to
identify
priority
research
areas
and
topics.

M
EASURING
PROGRESS
OF
CCMP
IMPLEMENTATION
The
PEP
Management
Committee
evaluated
various
mechanisms
for
measuring
progress
of
CCMP
implementation,
including
technical/
scientific
measurements
(
e.
g.,
"
bay
quality
indices"),
performance
standards,
and
other,
more
citizen­
oriented
mechanisms
such
as
"
government
report
cards."
Reports
summarizing
the
progress
of
various
implementation
mechanisms
will
be
prepared
by
the
PEP.

Dual
Approach:
Reports
on
Outputs
and
Outcomes
Reporting
the
status
of
CCMP
implementation,
and
redirecting
effort
as
needed,
is
crucial
to
successful
implementation
of
the
Plan.
There
are
two
types
of
measures
of
CCMP
implementation:

 
Outputs
 
reviews
to
determine
whether
CCMP
commitments
have
been
met;
and
 
Outcomes
 
reviews
of
progress
using
appropriate
environmental
indicators
to
determine
whether
the
Peconic
Estuary
is
responding
as
expected
to
pollution
controls,
and
whether
unanticipated
environmental
problems
are
emerging.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
T
E
N
10­
13
The
CCMP
provides
a
framework
for
tracking
both
outputs
and
outcomes.
For
outputs,
each
action
in
the
CCMP
identifies
what
is
to
be
done,
by
when,
and
by
whom.
The
PEP
will
review
these
commitments
and
recommend
mid­
course
corrections
as
needed.
For
outcomes,
the
Environmental
Monitoring
Plan
includes
recommendations
to
periodically
measure
and
report
on
a
number
of
environmental
indicators
of
the
success
of
CCMP
implementation.
These
indicators
will
tell
us
whether
our
goals
and
objectives
are
being
met.
The
most
important
indicators
are
those,
which
involve
measuring
the
ambient
environment
to
assess
whether
beneficial
uses
are
being
restored,
and
whether
the
ecosystem
is
healthier
and
more
productive
as
a
result
of
actions
taken.
Other
indicators
involve
measuring
continuing
loading
of
pollutants
to
the
ambient
environment.

Technical
Measures
A
variety
of
technical
criteria
or
indices
can
be
developed
to
assist
in
evaluating
the
outcomes
of
CCMP
implementation
and
effectiveness
of
CCMP
activities.
Many
of
these
criteria,
including
nonregulatory
guidelines,
are
described
in
other
chapters
of
this
Management
Plan,
such
as
nitrogen
guidelines
and
DO
standards.

In
developing
indices,
the
Management
Committee
will
emphasize
integration
of
water
quality
and
living
resources,
to
the
extent
possible.
Examples
include
water
quality
habitat
criteria
for
submerged
aquatic
vegetation,
and
possibly
use
submerged
aquatic
vegetation
as
a
bio­
indicator
of
water
quality
and
habitat
quality.
Also,
benthic
communities
used
as
integrators
of
watershed
stresses
may
be
valuable
bioindicators.
These
are,
of
course,
subject
to
the
findings
of
ongoing
scientific
studies
being
conducted
by
the
PEP.

Coordination
of
scoping
and
design
of
a
technical
report,
and
its
elements,
will
be
performed
by
the
PEP
Management
Conference.
At
a
minimum,
this
report
will
include
parameters
such
as
groundwater
quality
changes,
surface
water
nutrient
trends,
dissolved
oxygen
violations,
and
alterations
in
land
use
and
land
cover
patterns.

Non­
Technical
Measures
Non­
technical
measures
also
can
be
used
as
tools
for
assessing
CCMP
implementation.
Reports
summarizing
the
progress
of
various
implementation
mechanisms
will
also
be
prepared
as
a
mechanism
for
tracking
progress.
Implementation
funding
levels
and
appropriations
will
be
included.
New
regulatory
initiatives
and
enforcement
of
pre­
existing
initiatives
also
will
be
important.

Mechanisms
such
as
preparing
environmental
"
report
cards"
and
government
action
"
check
lists,"
as
outlined
in
Measuring
Progress
of
Estuary
Programs,
A
Manual,
(
EPA
1994)
has
been
recommended.
That
manual
also
outlines
a
bay
quality
index,
an
aggregate
index
of
various
parameters
to
attempt
to
monitor
long­
term
changes
in
bay
quality.
The
report
also
emphasizes
the
importance
of
surveys
and
public
education
in
the
progress
measurement
process.

CCMP
Reporting
Every
three
years,
the
PEP
will
prepare
a
report
on
the
status
and
effectiveness
of
CCMP
implementation,
focusing
on
outputs,
as
required
by
EPA
National
Estuary
Program
Guidance.
The
report
will
include
commitments
for
redirection
of
efforts
as
needed.
One
and
one­
half
years
after
the
first
CCMP
Implementation
Report,
and
every
three
years
after
that,
the
PEP
will
also
prepare
a
full
account
of
the
status
and
effectiveness
of
CCMP
implementation,
measured
by
the
environmental
outcomes
being
tracked
through
implementation
of
the
PEP
Environmental
Monitoring
Plan.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
T
E
N
10­
14
DATA
MANAGEMENT
The
December
1993
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Data
Management
Strategy
designated
the
SCDHS
Office
of
Ecology
as
the
repository
of
water
quality
data
and
most
GIS
data.
The
Program
Office
also
became
the
prime
repository
for
natural
resource
data
on
a
provisional
basis.
Since
that
time,
the
USFWS
has
worked
on
several
mapping
efforts
and
has
provided
GIS
coverages
to
the
Program
Office
for
storage
and
distribution.
Suffolk
County
will
continue
its
role
as
a
water
quality
data
repository
and
data
management
agency;
a
permanent
long­
term
habitat
and
living
resources
data
repository
will
need
to
be
identified.
The
Data
Management
Strategy
and
related
policies
and
practices
will
be
periodically
reviewed
and
updated,
as
needed.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
T
E
N
10­
15
POST
CCMP
MANAGEMENT
ACTIONS
Within
the
CCMP,
some
steps
within
the
actions
have
been
identified
as
priorities,
as
indicated
under
the
step
number.
The
PEP
will
seek
to
implement
priority
actions
in
the
near
term.
Priorities
may
be
either
new
or
ongoing,
commitments
or
recommendations.
Completing
some
priority
actions
does
not
require
any
new
or
additional
resources,
because
they
are
being
undertaken
through
"
base
programs"
or
with
funding
that
has
been
committed.
In
other
cases,
in
order
to
complete
the
priority
actions,
new
or
additional
resources
need
to
be
secured
by
some
or
all
of
the
responsible
entities.

POST­
CCMP
MANAGEMENT
ACTIONS
M­
1.
Implement
a
Long­
Term
Management
Structure.

M­
2.
Conduct
Monitoring
and
Coordinate
Research.

M­
3.
Produce
Progress
Reports
and
Manage
Data.

M­
4.
Update
Municipal
Officials.

M­
5.
Develop
Sub­
Watershed
Implementation
Plans.

M­
6.
Ensure
Consistence
with
National
and
State
Historic
Preservation
Laws
and
the
Endangered
Species
Act
when
Implementing
the
CCMP.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
T
E
N
10­
16
Addresses
Post­
CCMP
Objectives
1
and
2.

Steps
M­
1.1
Continue
the
current
management
conference
structure.
Review
the
effectiveness
of
this
Priority
structure
during
Implementation
Reviews,
or
as
needed,
and
make
changes
as
appropriate.

M­
1.2
Continue
to
use
SCDHS
Office
of
Ecology
as
the
PEP
Program
Office,
to
provide
Priority
program
administration,
coordination,
management,
and
technical
support
services.

Responsible
Entities
M­
1.1
PEP
Management
Conference
(
lead)

M­
1.2
PEP
(
lead),
SCDHS
M­
1.
Implement
Long­
Term
Management
Structure.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
T
E
N
10­
17
Addresses
Post­
CCMP
Objective
3.

Steps
M­
2.1
Implement
the
PEP
Environmental
Monitoring
Plan
and
integrate/
coordinate
monitoring
Priority
with
research.

M­
2.2.
Appoint
a
Living
Resources
Monitoring
and
Research
Coordinator
to
develop
and
Priority
oversee
the
long­
term
habitat
and
living
resources
monitoring
plan.

M­
2.3.
Continue
to
fund
the
NYSDEC
coordinator,
particularly
to
coordinate
management
of
Priority
habitat
and
living
resources
issues
in
the
post­
CCMP
period.

Responsible
Entities
M­
2.1
PEP
Management
Conference
(
lead)

M­
2.2
PEP
Management
Conference
M­
2.3
NYSDEC,
EPA
M­
2.
Conduct
Monitoring
and
Coordinate
Research.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
T
E
N
10­
18
Addresses
Post­
CCMP
Objective
4.

Steps
M­
3.1
Produce
Implementation
Reports
on
outputs
(
attainment
of
CCMP
commitments
and
Priority
recommendations),
and
reports
on
outcomes
(
environmental
conditions
and
indicators).

M­
3.2
Update
the
PEP
Data
Management
Strategy
to
establish
SCDHS
as
the
continuing
longterm
data
repository
for
water
quality­
related
information.
A
permanent
habitat
and
living
resources
data
repository
will
need
to
be
identified.

Responsible
Entities
M­
3.1
EPA,
NYSDEC,
SCDHS,
PEP
Management
Conference
M­
3.2
PEP
Management
Conference
(
lead)
M­
3.
Produce
Progress
Reports
and
Manage
Data.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
T
E
N
10­
19
Addresses
Post­
CCMP
Objective
3.

Steps
M­
4.1
Update
municipal
officials
on
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program.
Provide
educational
Priority
opportunities
for
these
officials
on
the
CCMP
and
technical
issues.

Responsible
Entities
M­
4.1
PEP
(
lead)
M­
4.
Update
Municipal
Officials.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
T
E
N
10­
20
Addresses
Post­
CCMP
Objective
2.

Steps
M­
5.1
Develop
sub­
watershed
implementation
plans
integrating
actions
from
all
CCMP
Priority
chapters
for
one
waterbody,
embayment,
or
geographic
area
in
each
town,
per
year.

Responsible
Entities
M­
5.1
PEP
(
lead)
with
local
officials,
businesses,
non­
governmental
organizations,
and
citizens
M­
5.
Develop
Sub­
Watershed
Implementation
Plans.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
T
E
N
10­
21
Addresses
Post­
CCMP
Objective
2.

While
this
Comprehensive
Conservation
and
Management
Plan
in
and
of
itself
will
not
have
any
effect
on
historic
or
prehistoric
resources,
there
is
the
potential
that
individual
actions
of
this
plan
that
are
subsequently
implemented
might.
In
compliance
with
Section
106
of
the
National
Historic
Preservation
Act,
if
any
Federal
undertaking
performed
as
part
of
the
CCMP
has
the
potential
to
have
an
effect
on
prehistoric
or
historic
resources
as
a
result
of
ground­
disturbing
activities,
EPA
will
evaluate
the
need
for
the
performance
of
an
initial
Stage
IA
cultural
resources
survey
(
CRS)
and
any
necessary
additional
stages
of
survey,
prior
to
project
implementation,
to
identify
areas
sensitive
for
the
discovery
of
prehistoric
or
historic
resources.
Coordination
of
any
further
cultural
resources
investigations
will
be
carried
out
by
the
appropriate
Federal
agency.
To
the
extent
that
such
actions
are
State
undertakings,
NYSDEC
will
be
the
lead
for
consulting
with
the
State
Historic
Preservation
Officer.

Informal
consultation
pursuant
to
Section
7
of
the
Endangered
Species
Act
has
been
initiated
with
the
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
and
the
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service.
While
EPA
believes
that
the
CCMP
will
not
have
a
negative
effect
on
Federally­
listed
or
proposed
threatened
or
endangered
species
or
their
habitats,
it
is
possible
that
some
components
of
the
CCMP
may
have
to
be
modified
based
on
input
from
these
agencies.
Any
actions
contemplated
for
the
protection
or
enhancement
of
habitat
for
a
Federally­
listed
species
should
be
implemented
with
the
consent
of
the
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
and
the
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service.

Steps
M­
6.1
Ensure
consistency
with
National
and
State
historic
preservation
laws
and
the
Endangered
Species
Act
when
implementing
the
CCMP
Responsible
Entities
M­
6.1
EPA,
NYSDEC,
PEP
M­
6.
Ensure
Consistency
with
National
and
State
Historic
Preservation
Laws
and
the
Endangered
Species
Act
when
Implementing
the
CCMP.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
T
E
N
10­
22
COSTS
OF
MANAGEMENT
ACTIONS
The
total
cost
of
all
new
actions
proposed
in
the
Post
CCMP
chapter
is
$
1,525,000
in
one­
time
costs
and
$
1,060,000
annually.
The
majority
of
these
one­
time
and
annual
costs
are
for
implementing
the
PEP
Environmental
Monitoring
Plan.
(
See
"
Action
Costs"
in
Chapter
1
for
an
explanation
of
how
these
costs
were
determined.)

POST­
CCMP
MANAGEMENT
ACTIONS
SUMMARY
TABLE
Table
10­
2
provides
the
following
summary
information
about
each
of
the
actions
presented
in
this
chapter.

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

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

Cost
Information
in
the
cost
column
represents
the
PEP's
best
estimate
of
the
costs
associated
with
action
implementation.
"
Base
Program"
means
that
no
new
or
additional
funds
will
be
needed
outside
of
the
responsible
entity's
operating
budget
to
implement
the
action.
Where
additional
funding
is
needed,
resources
to
implement
an
action
may
be
expressed
in
dollar
amounts
or
work
years
or
both.
One
full
time
equivalent
employee
or
"
FTE"
is
estimated
as
costing
$
75,000
per
year,
which
includes
salary,
fringe
benefits
and
indirect
costs.
The
"
Action
Costs"
description
in
both
the
Overview
and
Finance
Chapters
provides
a
expanded
explanation
of
base
programs
and
action
costs.
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
T
E
N
10­
23
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
Table
10­
2.
Post­
CCMP
Management
Actions.

Action
Responsible
Entity
Timeframe
Cost
Status
M­
1
Implement
a
Long­
Term
Management
Structure.
(
Objectives
1
and
2)

M­
1.1
Priority
Continue
the
current
management
conference
structure.
Review
the
effectiveness
of
this
structure
during
Implementation
Reviews
or
as
needed,
and
make
changes
as
appropriate.
PEP
Management
Conference
(
lead).
Post­
CCMP
EPA
 
02
FTE/
yr
NYSDEC
 
0.2
FTE/
yr
SCDHS
 
0.2
FTE/
yr
C
M­
1.2
Priority
Continue
to
use
SCDHS
Office
of
Ecology
as
the
PEP
Program
Office,
to
provide
program
administration,
coordination,

management,
and
technical
support
services.
PEP
(
lead),
SCDHS.
Ongoing
$
75,000/
yr,
in
EPA
NEP
Post­
CCMP
funds.
C/
O
M­
2
Conduct
Monitoring
and
Coordinate
Research.
(
Objective
3)

M­
2.1
Priority
Implement
the
PEP
Environmental
Monitoring
Plan
and
integrate/
coordinate
monitoring
with
research
PEP
Management
Conference
(
lead).
Post­
CCMP
Some
monitoring
is
ongoing;
costs
need
to
be
specified
for
some
new
initiatives.

PEP
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
Costs
for
Environmental
Monitoring
Plan:

Annual
costs:
$
910,000
One­
time
costs:
$
1,512,000
C/
O;

R/
N
Table
continued
on
next
page
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
T
E
N
10­
24
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
Table
10­
2.
Post­
CCMP
Management
Actions.
(
continued)

Action
Responsible
Entity
Timeframe
Cost
Status
M­
2.2
Priority
Appoint
a
Living
Resources
Monitoring
and
Research
Coordinator
to
develop
and
oversee
the
long­
term
habitat
and
living
resources
monitoring
plan.
PEP
Management
Conference.
Post­
CCMP
$
50,000
annually
for
coordinator.
R
M­
2.3
Priority
Continue
to
fund
the
NYSDEC
coordinator,
particularly
to
coordinate
management
of
habitat
and
living
resources
issues
in
the
post­
CCMP
period.
NYSDEC,
EPA.
Ongoing
$
75,000
per
year,
in
EPA
NEP
post­
CCMP
funds.
C/
O
M­
3
Produce
Progress
Reports
and
Manage
Data.
(
Objective
4)

M­
3.1
Priority
Produce
Implementation
Reports
on
outputs
(
attainment
of
CCMP
commitments
and
recommendations),
and
reports
on
outcomes
(
environmental
conditions
and
indicators).
EPA,
NYSDEC,
SCDHS,

PEP
Management
Conference.
CCMP
Implementation
Reports:
June
2001
and
every
three
years
thereafter
Environmental
Outcomes
Reports:
Dec
2002
and
every
three
years
thereafter
EPA
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
NYSDEC
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
SCDHS
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
C/
O
M­
3.2
Update
the
PEP
Data
Management
Strategy
to
establish
SCDHS
as
the
continuing
long­
term
data
repository
for
water
quality­
related
information.
A
permanent
habitat
and
living
resources
data
repository
will
need
to
be
identified.
PEP
Management
Conference
(
lead).
Post­
CCMP
for
data
management
strategy
update.
Base
Programs
for
data
management
strategy
update.
Costs
to
be
determined
for
long­
term
habitat
and
living
resources
data
management.

PEP
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
C
Table
continued
on
next
page
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
T
E
N
10­
25
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
Table
10­
2.
Post­
CCMP
Management
Actions.
(
continued)

Action
Responsible
Entity
Timeframe
Cost
Status
M­
4
Update
Municipal
Officials.
(
Objective
3)

M­
4.1
Priority
Update
municipal
officials
on
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program.
Provide
educational
opportunities
for
these
officials
on
the
CCMP
and
technical
issues.
PEP
(
lead).
Post­
CCMP
and
annually
thereafter.
EPA
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
NYSDEC
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
SCDHS
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
C/
N
M­
5
Develop
Sub­
Watershed
Implementation
Plans.
(
Objective
2)

M­
5.1
Develop
sub­
watershed
implementation
plans
integrating
actions
from
all
CCMP
chapters
for
one
waterbody,
embayment,
or
geographic
area
in
each
town,
per
year.
PEP
(
lead)
with
local
officials,
businesses,

nongovernmental
organizations,

and
citizens.
Post­
CCMP
Estimate:
$
100,000/
yr
to
initiate
new
projects.

Technical
support:

EPA
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
NYSDEC
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
SCDHS
 
0.1
FTE/
yr
C/
N
M­
6
Ensure
Consistency
with
National
and
State
Historic
Preservation
Laws
and
the
Endangered
Species
Act
when
Implementing
the
CCMP.
(
Objective
2)

M­
6.1
Ensure
consistency
with
National
and
State
historic
preservation
laws
and
the
Endangered
Species
Act
when
implementing
the
CCMP.
EPA,
NYSDEC,
PEP
Post­
CCMP
Base
Program,
as
needed
C/
N
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
T
E
N
10­
26
This
Page
Intentionally
Left
Blank.
