Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0049-0122
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-03-19T05:00Z

A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
1
APPENDIX
L
Response
to
Public
Comments
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
2
Table
of
Contents
I.
Introduction
L­
3
II.
Public
Comment
Summaries
and
Resulting
PEP
Responses
L­
3
Brown
Tide
L­
3
Nutrients
L­
5
Habitat
and
Living
Resources
L­
10
Pathogens
L­
20
Toxics
L­
22
Land
Protection
L­
34
Public
Education
and
Outreach
L­
36
Financing
L­
38
Post­
CCMP
Management
L­
39
General
Comments
L­
40
III.
Correspondence
Sent
During
the
Public
Comment
Period
L­
46
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
3
I.
Introduction
The
public
comment
period
for
the
draft
Comprehensive
Conservation
and
Management
Plan
(
CCMP)
began
September
16,
1999
and
ended
November
16,
1999.
Afternoon
and
night
public
hearings
in
each
of
the
six
East
End
towns
took
place
in
October.
Over
160
people
attended
these
meetings.
In
addition,
The
Bay
Show,
a
live
television
call­
in
show
on
channel
27,
dedicated
a
show
to
the
draft
CCMP;
a
few
people
called
in
with
questions.
The
Citizens
Advisory
Committee
met
near
the
beginning
and
end
of
the
comment
period
to
offer
suggestions.
Other
comments
from
citizens
have
come
in
the
mail
to
the
PEP
Program
Office.

Three
new
sections
of
the
CCMP
(
the
Base
Programs
Analysis,
Environmental
Monitoring
Plan,
and
Federal
Consistency
Report)
were
presented
for
public
comment
from
August
10,
2000
to
September
9,
2000.
An
afternoon
and
an
evening
public
comment
meeting
were
held
at
the
County
Center
in
Riverhead.

Summaries
of
the
public
comments
and
the
resulting
PEP
responses
are
located
in
Section
II.
Section
III
lists
all
the
correspondence
that
was
sent
during
the
public
comment
periods.
All
letters
received
during
the
comment
periods
are
on
file
at
the
Program
Office.

II.
Public
Comment
Summaries
and
Resulting
PEP
Responses
Several
comments
and
questions
were
raised
at
the
public
hearings
and
by
letters
sent
in
during
the
public
comment
period.
These
issues
are
summarized
and
satisfied
below.

Brown
Tide
Radionuclides/
Brookhaven
National
Laboratory
Comment:
At
several
sessions,
commentators
from
Fish
Unlimited,
Standing
for
Truth
About
Radiation,
and
the
South
Fork
Groundwater
Task
Force
raised
questions
about
the
possible
relationship
between
radionuclides,
toxics,
and
brown
tide.
These
issues
are
of
concern
to
these
groups,
particularly
with
respect
to
contamination
associated
with
Brookhaven
National
Laboratory
(
BNL).
For
example:
*
A
1994
release
of
tritium
was
cited
as
a
potential
causal
factor
for
the
brown
tide.
*
A
conflict
of
interest
is
suspected,
in
that
BNL
is
conducting
brown
tide
research.

Response:
The
detail
in
which
radionuclide
and
toxic
contamination,
and
BNL
are
discussed
in
the
Toxics
chapter
of
the
CCMP
has
been
expanded.
The
CCMP
Toxics
module
now
includes
more
discussion
about
the
extensive
programs
dealing
with
the
characterization
and
management
efforts
related
to
BNL
and
the
Peconic
River
(
see
discussion
below,
in
"
Toxics").
A
report
released
by
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
since
the
public
hearings
entitled
A
Characterization
of
the
Resources
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
with
Respect
to
Toxics
further
addresses
these
issues.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
4
To
the
knowledge
of
the
PEP,
the
scientific
community,
to
date,
has
not
produced
a
credible
theory
that
links
radionuclide
contamination
and
brown
tide.
This
is
based
on
several
factors,
including
the
appearance
of
the
brown
tide
in
several
locations
(
not
just
the
Peconic
Estuary)
dating
back
to
1985.
Also,
there
has
been
a
recent
global
increase
in
harmful
algal
blooms.
Moreover,
there
does
not
appear
to
be
a
hypothesis
that
offers
a
mechanism
by
which
relatively
low­
level
radioactive
contamination
can
result
in
onset
or
persistence
of
brown
tide.

The
Peconic
Estuary
has
aggressively
pursued
this
question,
however.
Brown
Tide
Research
Initiative
researchers
were
asked
at
the
March
2000
brown
tide
work
session
hosted
by
the
New
York
Sea
Grant
whether
the
onset
and/
or
persistence
of
the
brown
tide
may
be
related
to,
or
caused
by,
radioactive
and/
or
toxic
chemical
contamination
associated
with
BNL,
such
as
the
1984
release
of
tritium.
The
researchers,
who
are
closest
to
the
latest
findings
about
brown
tide,
did
not
seem
to
think
this
hypothesis
was
viable
based
on
personal
knowledge
of
relevant
studies,
personal
expert
opinion
based
on
well­
established
scientific
principles,
and
discussions
with
third
parties.

Researchers
are
already
actively
analyzing
water
column
and
sediment
samples
for
metals
and
other
trace
contaminants.
The
research
will
determine
level
of
presence,
and
possibly
offer
clues
to
potential
impacts.

A
PEP
priority
for
the
year
2001,
the
Brown
Tide
Workplan
will
be
revisited,
and
will
be
amended
to
reflect
the
results
of
latest
research,
and
to
indicate
priority
research
and
monitoring
needs.
The
revised
Workplan
will
consider
radionuclides,
toxics,
and
other
issues.

Regarding
the
suspected
conflict
of
interest
(
i.
e.,
that
Brookhaven
National
Lab
is
hypothesized
to
be
a
cause
of
the
Brown
Tide,
but
it
is
conducting
brown
tide
research,
as
well),
BNL
is
performing
an
extremely
small
portion
of
ongoing
Brown
Tide
research
and
monitoring.
In
recent
years,
they
have
received
approximately
$
250,000,
as
compared
with
a
Brown
Tide
pool
of
research
funding
which
totals
well
over
$
3
million
dollars.
Also,
the
BNL
researchers
are
widely
acknowledged
and
respected
as
world­
class
biologists
and
oceanographers.
Finally,
BNL
is
not
in
a
position
to
direct
research
efforts.
The
BTRI
(
the
source
of
most
Brown
Tide
research
funds)
is
administered
by
NOAA
and
N.
Y.
Sea
Grant,
and
includes
a
steering
committee
with
representatives
from
government,
academia,
and
citizenry
(
not
BNL).
Modest
funding
is
also
provided
by
Suffolk
County,
with
no
control
by
BNL.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
5
Nutrients
Wastewater
Treatment
Plants
Comment:
Continue
controlling
loads
from
sewage
treatment
plants
(
STPs)
and
discourage
new
plants.
Response:
As
a
long­
range
management
goal,
the
PEP
will
continue
to
evaluate
additional
upgrades
to
the
STPs
in
the
Peconic
watershed.
Action
N­
4
in
the
CCMP
states
that
new
or
incremental
point
source
increases
to
the
surface
waters
of
the
tidal
Peconic
River
and
western
Flanders
Bay
should
be
prohibited
and
should
be
limited
elsewhere
in
the
Peconic
watershed.
The
surface
water
point
source
nitrogen
freeze
applies
to
all
facilities,
including
the
sewage
treatment
plants
at
Brookhaven
National
Laboratory
and
the
former
Grumman
plant.
Point
sources
that
cause
substantial
groundwater
degradation
that
adversely
affects
surface
waters
should
also
be
limited.
Comment:
Modify
the
SPDES
permits
for
STPs
to
meet
nitrogen­
loading
goals.

Response:
The
PEP
has
an
action
in
the
CCMP
to
consider
modifying
the
State
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
SPDES)
permits
for
STPs
and
other
point
sources
in
the
Peconic
watershed
in
order
to
meet
the
PEP's
proposed
surface
water
quality
nitrogen
guideline
of
0.45
mg/
l.

Comment:
Evaluate
and
consider
a
beneficial
reuse
program
for
reclaimed
STP
water
and
sludge
for
possible
use
on
golf
courses,
playing
fields,
and
farms.

Response:
The
Program
added
a
step
to
Action
N­
4
to
evaluate
and
consider
a
possible
beneficial
reuse
program
in
the
Peconic
watershed.
Water
reuse
is
beginning
to
gain
acceptance
in
New
York
State.
The
NYSDEC
has
permitted
four
upstate
STPs
to
use
treated
wastewater
to
irrigate
nearby
golf
courses
and
a
study
group
formed
to
assess
the
feasibility
of
water
reuse
on
the
Pt.
Washington
peninsula
in
Nassau
County.

Comment:
The
trend
to
ultraviolet
light
disinfection
is
important.

Response:
The
use
of
ultraviolet
light,
an
alternative
to
the
traditional
method
of
chlorination,
to
disinfect
effluent
from
Sewage
Treatment
Plants,
safeguards
the
public
from
pathogens
and
eliminates
the
negative
environmental
impacts
to
our
surface
waters.
Ultraviolet
light
is
an
effective
germicide
because
it
mutates
the
DNA
of
the
pathogenic
organisms,
resulting
in
death.
The
PEP
funded
a
successful
on­
site
pilot
study
at
the
Shelter
Island
Heights
Sewage
Treatment
Plant
to
determine
the
effectiveness
disinfecting
the
effluent
using
UV
sterilization.
The
Brookhaven
National
Lab
and
the
Plum
Island
Sewage
Treatment
Plants
use
an
ultraviolet
disinfection
process.
Switching
from
chlorination
to
ultraviolet
light
disinfection
is
planned
for
the
Riverhead
and
Sag
Harbor
STP
upgrades.

Septic
Systems
Comment:
Emphasize
financial
incentives
for
on­
site
disposal
system
improvements.

Response:
A
step
included
in
Action
N­
5
calls
for
investigating
feasible
implementation
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
6
mechanisms
and
developing
a
plan
to
prevent
increases
and
encourage
decreases
in
nitrogen
in
groundwater
underflow
due
to
on­
site
disposal
systems
(
sanitary
systems).
One
of
the
many
mechanisms
for
sanitary
system
management
already
recommended
in
the
CCMP
is
tax
credits
and
other
incentive
programs.

Comment:
Promote
innovative
and
alternative
sanitary
systems.

Response:
The
PEP
agrees
that
promoting
innovative
and
alternative
sanitary
systems,
like
Clivus
Multrums,
is
another
good
way
to
prevent
increases
and
even
encourage
decreases
in
groundwater
underflow
due
to
sanitary
systems.
This
mechanism
is
already
mentioned
in
the
CCMP.

Comment:
Evaluate
use
and
effectiveness
of
septage
management
districts.

Response:
The
use
of
wastewater
management
districts
or
utilities
was
added
as
another
possible
mechanism
for
sanitary
system
management
in
Action
N­
5.

Fertilizers
Comment:
Create
financial
incentives
to
reduce
fertilizer
use.

Response:
The
PEP
already
included
tax
credits
and
other
incentives
programs
as
a
mechanism
for
fertilizer
management.

Comment:
Evaluate
restrictions
on
the
sale
and/
or
use
of
some
products
(
e.
g.,
liquid
fertilizers).

Response:
The
PEP
agrees
that
market­
based
measures
coupled
with
a
regulatory
approach
would
accomplish
a
significant
reduction
in
fertilizer
use.
Restricting
the
sale
and/
or
use
of
some
fertilizer
products
has
been
added
to
the
possible
mechanisms
for
fertilizer
management
listed
in
the
CCMP.

Comment:
Promote
organic
and/
or
slow­
release
fertilizers
(
tax
on
inorganic
fertilizers;
public
relations
such
as
endorsements
of
good
products;
education
of
retailers
and
consumers,
etc.).

Response:
The
PEP
agrees
that
advocating
organic
and/
or
slow­
release
fertilizers
may
help
control
the
degradation
of
our
watershed's
groundwater
quality.
This
recommendation
has
been
added
to
CCMP's
list
of
possible
mechanisms
for
fertilizer
management.
Promoting
certain
fertilizers
could
be
done
with
a
tax
on
inorganic
fertilizers,
public
relation
endorsements
of
"
good"
products,
and
educational
campaigns
for
retailers
and
consumers.

Agriculture
Comment:
Promote
organic
farming.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
7
Response:
The
Program
agrees
that
promoting
organic
farming
should
be
included
in
the
implementation
plan
for
regional
nitrogen
load
reductions.
The
final
CCMP
will
incorporate
this
addition.

Comment:
Agriculture
preservation
goals
need
clarification
(
e.
g.,
balance
of
agriculture
vs.
residential
growth).

Response:
There
is
an
overwhelming
public
desire
to
preserve
the
East
End's
farmland
and
agricultural
traditions,
as
evidenced
by
the
recent
voter­
approved
farmland
preservation
programs.
Also,
the
PEP
Economic
Value
Assessment
study
found
that
the
public
was
willing
to
pay
more
for
farmland
preservation
than
several
other
environmental
programs.
Thus,
the
PEP
operates
under
the
presumption
that
farmland
preservation
goals
will
be
met,
and
deals
with
nitrogen
loading
issues
associated
with
farmland
through
the
Agricultural
Nitrogen
Management
Work
Group.

Golf
Courses
Comment:
Discuss
golf
courses
specifically,
including
impacts
and
investigations.

Response:
A
recent
SCDHS
study
investigating
groundwater
impacts
entitled
Water
Quality
Monitoring
Program
to
Detect
Pesticide
Contamination
in
Groundwaters
of
Nassau
and
Suffolk
Counties,
NY
(
1999)
has
found
that
the
golf
courses
examined
were
not
having
major,
adverse
environmental
impacts
with
respect
to
nutrient
loading,
particularly
as
compared
with
traditional
row
crop
farms.
The
1999
report
documented
the
testing
of
31
wells
at
18
Long
Island
golf
courses
and
found
that
the
average
nitrate
concentration
was
4.3
mg/
L
(
the
median
nitrate
concentration
was
2.6
mg/
L),
which
is
the
equivalent
of
a
housing
density
of
less
than
one
residence
per
acre.
At
agricultural
sites,
the
1999
study
found
an
average
nitrate
concentration
of
11.7
mg/
L
and
the
SCDHS
1996
study
entitled
Nitrate
and
Pesticide
Impacts
of
Agriculture
on
Groundwater
Quality
Suffolk
County,
NY
found
a
20
year
nitrate
average
of
11.3
mg/
L.
Turf
management
practices
at
golf
courses
do
effectively
limit
nitrogen
inputs,
however,
monitoring
should
continue,
as
should
aggressive
golf
course
BMP
implementation.

The
SCDHS
conducted
a
follow­
up
study
in
2000
with
an
expanded
list
of
analytes
and
with
new
monitoring
wells
at
five
more
courses
in
the
county,
including
Shinnecock,
National,
and
Maidstone.
Preliminary
data
suggests
that
nitrogen
is
well
controlled.
The
NYSDEC
has
been
funding
the
monitoring
program
for
three
years
at
about
$
100,000
per
year.
The
NYSDEC
recently
agreed
to
a
three­
year
one
million­
dollar
commitment
with
the
SCDHS
to
expand
the
monitoring
program.

Nitrogen
Model
and
Nutrient
Criteria
Comment:
Emphasize
specific
nutrient
standards
for
which
the
plan
will
propose
to
manage,
and
include
strategies
proposed
for
implementing
such
objectives,
including
permitting
requirements.

Response:
The
appropriate
Nitrogen
Management
Work
Groups
and
the
Management
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
8
Committee
will
consider
specific
nutrient
standards
for
groundwater
inputs,
along
with
strategies
for
attaining
these
standards.

Comment:
Evaluate
reversal
of
Shinnecock
Locks
to
allow
better
flushing
of
Flanders
Bay.

Response:
The
three­
dimensional
hydrodynamic
and
water
quality
model
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
includes
a
connection
between
Great
Peconic
Bay
and
Shinnecock
Bay
through
the
Shinnecock
Canal.
Preliminary
runs
of
the
model
indicated
that
improved
flushing
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
would
occur
if
changes
were
made
to
the
operating
characteristics
of
the
tide
gate
at
Shinnecock
Canal.
Preliminary
analysis
by
the
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Public
Works
indicates
that
changes
to
the
Shinnecock
Canal
tide
gate
system
are
feasible
(
e.
g.,
flow
can
be
reversed
to
improve
Peconic
Estuary
flushing),
but
the
costs
would
be
on
the
order
of
several
million
dollars.
More
detailed
engineering
and
environmental
impact
studies
would
be
required
prior
to
supporting
such
a
major
expenditure.
The
PEP
has
recently
contracted
Tetra­
Tech,
Inc.,
to
address
the
primary
threshold
questions
of
environmental
impacts:
the
degree
of
improvement
in
Peconic
Estuary
water
quality
that
could
be
attained
by
management
alternatives,
coupled
with
associated
impacts
that
would
result
in
Shinnecock
Bay.

Comment:
Focus
on
tailoring
nitrogen­
loading
targets
to
subwatersheds
in
the
estuary.

Response:
The
PEP
recently
contracted
Tetra­
Tech,
Inc.,
to
upgrade
the
existing
threedimensional
hydrodynamic
and
water
quality
model
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
to
include
new
information
on
nonpoint
source
and
groundwater
flows
and
nutrient
loads
with
a
focus
on
smaller
watersheds.
The
contractor
will
use
the
model
to
address
concerns
regarding
nutrient
impacts
on
Flanders
Bay,
and
several
peripheral
creeks
and
embayments,
including
Meetinghouse
Creek,
West
Neck
Bay,
and
Sag
Harbor.

Comment:
The
PEP
should
spend
more
money
on
developing
and
implementing
management
initiatives,
rather
than
on
modeling/
assessment.

Response:
The
PEP
believes
that
the
modeling
and
assessment
are
necessary
prerequisites
to
establishing
effective
regional
planning
and
management
strategies,
and
that
these
efforts
have
already
reaped
rewards
in
terms
of
policy
changes
(
e.
g.,
point
source
nitrogen
freeze)
and
early
implementation.
The
PEP
recognizes
the
need
for
early
implementation,
as
evidenced
by
the
55
early
demonstration
and
implementation
projects
using
$
11
million
in
federal
and
state
funds.
Moreover,
tens
of
millions
more
have
been
committed
by
the
County
and
Towns,
as
discussed
in
the
CCMP.
These
implementation
funding
sources
are
orders
of
magnitude
higher
than
the
moneys
used
for
characterization
and
modeling.
As
the
program
matures,
yet
additional
resources
will
be
placed
on
developing
and
implementing
tangible
management
initiatives
at
the
subwatershed
level,
through
programs
such
as
the
Subwatershed
Management
Plans.

Comment:
Solicit
and
use
peer
review
in
refining
and
using
monitoring
data
and
nitrogen
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
9
management
tools.

Response:
The
PEP
will
continue
to
incorporate
the
PEP
Technical
Advisory
Committee
and
external
peer
review
in
the
modeling
development
and
application
process,
which
includes
dependent
analyses
of
water
quality
and
pollution
input
studies.
As
the
model
process
is
completed,
the
PEP
will
continue
to
solicit
and
use
the
TAC
and
external
peer
review
in
developing
programs
and
interpreting
and
applying
data.

Living
Resources
Comment:
Better
discuss
the
impacts
of
nutrients
on
eelgrass.

Response:
Text
was
added
to
the
introduction
of
the
Nutrients
Module
to
explain
that
increased
nutrient
enrichment
causes
increased
microscopic
algae
production
that
decreases
water
clarity
and
diminishes
the
amount
of
light
received
by
rooted
aquatic
plants.
Submerged
aquatic
vegetation
that
are
at
a
species'
depth
limit
for
clear
water
conditions
would
be
expected
to
decline
due
to
the
lack
of
sufficient
light
energy
in
turbid
waters.
Eutrophication
will
also
increase
the
growth
of
epiphytes
on
eelgrass
blades,
again
shading
the
plant
itself
and
hindering
production.
Furthermore,
species
such
as
red
or
green
macroalgae,
which
adsorb
nutrients
more
quickly
than
eelgrass,
may
competitively
exclude
eelgrass
plants.

Comment:
Focus
on
nutrient
levels
with
respect
to
bay
productivity.
Is
there
too
little
nitrogen
in
the
system?

Response:
To
the
knowledge
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program,
the
scientific
community
and
environmental
managers,
to
date,
do
not
believe
that
there
is
too
little
nitrogen
reaching
the
waters
of
the
Peconic
Estuary.
Nitrogen
is
critical
for
sustaining
the
marine
ecosystem,
but
can
be
harmful
to
the
estuary
at
excessive
levels.
The
process
by
which
a
water
body
becomes
over
enriched
with
nutrients
and
associated
organic
carbon,
called
eutrophication,
may
result
in
dissolved
oxygen
stresses
that
are
harmful
to
marine
life.
Ecological
stresses
are
already
prevalent
in
the
estuary
due
to
nitrogen,
including
extensive
macroalgae
blooms
(
e.
g.,
Ulva),
areas
of
high
sediment
oxygen
demand
rates,
and
areas
of
dissolved
oxygen
depression.

Given
the
concerns
of
some
citizens,
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
has
posed
this
question
to
Brown
Tide
Research
Initiative
(
BTRI)
researchers
for
consideration
with
respect
to
brown
tide.
At
this
point,
there
does
not
appear
to
be
a
hypothesis
that
offers
a
mechanism
by
which
low
levels
of
nutrients
could
result
in
the
onset
or
persistence
of
brown
tide.

Comment:
The
plan
may
focus
too
much
on
nitrogen
and
dissolved
oxygen.

Response:
Long­
term
shifts
in
an
ecosystem
are
likely
due
to
subtle
changes
in
the
environment
over
an
extended
period
of
time.
Nitrogen
and
dissolved
oxygen
measurements
are
immediate
tools
with
which
resource
managers
can
identify
differences
in
water
quality.
Nitrogen
and
dissolved
oxygen
measurements
are
also
"
integrators"
of
pollutant
inputs,
reflecting
organic
carbon
overenrichment
and
other
contaminants.
The
Peconic
Estuary
Program
is
involved
in
other
ways
to
monitor
water
quality,
including
monitoring
eelgrass
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
10
beds
and
coordinating
brown
tide
research
efforts
with
respect
to
nutrients.
Ultimately,
the
Living
Resources
Research
and
Monitoring
Plan
will
develop
long­
term
monitoring
and
assessment
techniques
for
evaluating
nitrogen
impacts
on
food
web
dynamics.

Comment:
Participate
actively
in
the
Pine
Barrens
process.

Response:
The
Peconic
Estuary
Program
closely
coordinates
its
activities
with
the
Central
Pine
Barrens
Planning
Commission.
In
addition,
the
same
agencies
and
levels
of
government
serve
on
the
Central
Pine
Barrens
Planning
Commission
and
Peconic
Estuary
Program
committees,
including
the
NYSDEC,
the
Suffolk
County
Executive's
Office,
and
town
representatives.

Habitat
and
Living
Resources
The
Natural
Resources
Subcommittee
(
NRSC)
of
the
PEP
reviewed
all
public
comments
pertaining
to
habitat
and
living
resources.
While
the
comments
were
numerous,
the
NRSC
identified
several
key
topics
that
were
repeatedly
raised
both
at
the
public
meetings
and
in
letters.
Since
there
was
considerable
overlap
among
these
comments,
they
were
reduced
into
sub­
categories
within
the
following
main
sections
of
the
Habitat
Chapter:
1)
critical
natural
resource
areas;
2)
shoreline
hardening;
3)
dredging;
4)
aquaculture;
5)
finfish/
shellfish;
6)
habitat
restoration;
and
7)
research
and
monitoring.

Critical
Natural
Resource
Areas
Question:
What
was
the
scientific
basis
and
criteria
used
to
select
the
CNRA
boundaries?

Response:
The
CCMP
has
been
revised
to
better
reflect
the
CNRA
process
and
sources
of
information
used
to
form
the
CNRA
boundaries
(
see:
HLR­
1).
However,
the
NRSC
recognizes
that
improvements
to
the
existing
data
for
underwater
lands
are
needed,
and
has
recommended
that
additional
bottom
mapping
using
state­
of­
the­
art
techniques
be
employed.
Once
the
data
is
analyzed,
modifications
to
the
underwater
boundaries
should
then
be
made.
Some
examples
of
data
that
were
used
for
the
CNRAs
are:
the
NYS
Heritage
maps,
Federal
endangered
species
lists,
NYS
Coastal
Significant
Fish
and
Wildlife
maps
and
local
input
from
the
towns.
Reference
will
also
be
made
to
the
Living
Resources
Characterization
report,
which
contains
a
detailed
description
of
the
natural
resources
of
the
estuary.
Question:
How
will
the
CNRAs
be
implemented
and
coordinated?

Response:
The
NRSC
recommended
that
the
PEP
host
a
Critical
Natural
Resource
Area
Workshop.
The
aim
of
the
workshop
is
to
bring
the
various
levels
of
government
together
to
clarify
the
intent
of
the
CNRA
designation,
develop
an
implementation
strategy
and
update/
revise
the
current
language
in
the
CCMP.
At
a
minimum
we
will
include
the
following
workshop
objectives
within
the
CCMP
chapter
as
a
new
step.

Workshop
objectives:
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
11
a)
Provide
the
background
&
ecological
information
for
the
CNRA
boundaries
(
including
new
surveys
such
as
underwater
mapping).
b)
Review
existing
regulations
for
natural
resource
protection
at
all
governmental
levels.
c)
Determine
how
protection
of
CNRAs
are
related
to
the
existing
regulatory
framework.
d)
Determine
what
level
of
designation
is
necessary/
appropriate
for
CNRAs.
e)
Discuss
commonalities
that
the
towns
share
with
respect
to
their
needs
and
interests.
f)
Determine
uses
of
this
designation
and
whether
it
should
be
on
the
State,
County,
Town
level
or
some
combination
of
them.
g)
Determine
implementation
strategies
h)
Plan
the
next
steps
Shoreline
Hardening
Comment:
The
CCMP
did
not
provide
adequate
evidence
that
shoreline
hardening
structures
(
e.
g.,
bulkheads,
docks)
have
a
negative
impact
on
habitat
and
living
resources.
Shoreline
hardening
should,
in
some
instances,
be
encouraged
because
they
don't
always
have
a
negative
impact
to
the
resources.

Response:
The
PEP
maintains
that
shoreline
hardening
structures
can
negatively
impact
marine
habitats
and
biota.
A
recent
example
of
negative
impacts
from
such
structures
in
the
Peconics
was
demonstrated
in
a
study
on
eelgrass
beds
by
the
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
a
critical
habitat
for
shellfish
and
finfish
in
the
estuary)
in
Lake
Montauk,
where
a
dock
structure
was
built
over
them.
This
study
showed
evidence
that
the
eelgrass
beds
that
were
shaded
by
the
dock
died
back.
Although
there
are
few
studies
specific
to
the
Peconic
Estuary,
there
is
ample
evidence
from
investigations
in
other
areas
that
demonstrate
the
negative
impacts
of
structures
such
as:
bulkheads,
seawalls
and
docks
to
the
natural
resources
(
e.
g.,
loss
of
beach
and
shallow­
water
habitats,
disrupting
connectivity
of
land
and
sea,
habitat
fragmentation).
Reference
to
such
studies
will
be
listed
in
an
unbiased
review
of
the
literature
that
is
currently
underway
(
i.
e.
studies
that
show
no
effects
of
such
structures
to
natural
resources
will
also
be
included).

Comment:
Regulations
should
be
reviewed
and
revised
to
make
shoreline­
hardening
structures
more
difficult
to
obtain.

Response:
The
CCMP
has
been
modified
and
now
calls
for
a
comprehensive
review
of
State,
County
and
Town
regulations
as
well
as
an
update/
review
of
the
NYS
Coastal
Policies
has
been
included
in
the
Habitat
chapter.
It
is
hoped
that
strategies
will
be
developed
to
strengthen
current
policies
(
particularly
within
CNRAs).
A
recent
example
of
a
shoreline
hardening
management
plan
that
the
PEP
supports
is
the
Town
of
East
Hampton's
proposed
Coastal
Legislation.
A
description
of
this
proposal
has
been
included
in
the
Habitat
Chapter.

Comment:
The
policy
of
"
no­
net
increase"
of
shoreline
hardening
structures
is
unrealistic.
Basic
inventories
of
existing
structures
and
their
location
in
the
estuary
are
needed
to
properly
develop
management
strategies.

Response:
The
PEP
maintains
its
support
of
the
Citizens
Advisory
Committee's
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
12
recommendation
for
a
policy
of
"
no­
net
increase"
of
shoreline
hardening
structures.
Known
impacts
from
shoreline
hardening
structures
to
the
natural
resources
warrant
such
a
strategy.
However,
the
PEP
also
realizes
that
the
current
environmental
regulations
actually
allow
for
an
increase
in
much
of
the
watershed.
The
PEP
also
acknowledges
that
data
for
existing
structures
is
necessary
to
properly
develop
and
implement
such
a
plan,
and
incentives
to
remove
existing
bulkheads
are
also
necessary
for
such
a
policy
to
actually
succeed.
A
shoreline
hardening
inventory
was
performed
for
the
entire
estuary
in
the
spring/
summer
2000;
all
existing
structures
will
be
digitally
mapped.
This
data
will
be
used
to
further
refine
the
recommendation
of
"
no­
net"
increase
of
bulkheads
in
the
estuary.
The
Habitat
Chapter
has
also
been
modified
accordingly
to
reflect
this
(
section:
HLR­
2).

HLR­
2.4
has
been
modified
as
follows:
Develop
a
variety
of
financial
incentives
and
programs
to
encourage
property
owners
to
remove
or
modify
hardened
shoreline
structures
and
replace
them
with
natural
vegetation
and
other
vegetated
(
bioengineered)
alternatives
to
restore
the
natural
shoreline
of
the
Estuary.

A
new
step
for
shoreline
hardening
structures
was
also
included
in
the
CCMP
under
(
HLR­
2):

HLR­
2.2
Review
existing
regulations
for
shoreline
hardening
structures
at
all
levels
of
government,
encourage
consistent
policies
and
strengthen
regulations
where
appropriate.

Dredging
Comment:
There
is
concern
that
the
Peconic
Estuary
is
being
proposed
as
a
dredge
material
disposal
site.
The
EPA
and
the
Army
Corp
of
Engineers
have
a
commitment
to
the
public
to
tell
them
if
the
contaminated
dredge
material
is
going
to
be
dumped
in
Montauk
or
the
Peconics.
Management
policies
should
be
set
in
the
Peconics
so
that
contaminated
dredge
materials
cannot
be
dumped
there.

Response:
There
is
a
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Statement
being
developed
by
the
United
States
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
for
designation
of
dredge
material
disposal
areas
for
the
Long
Island
Sound.
This
will
include
the
Peconic
Estuary
and
Block
Island
Sound.
Site
selection
criteria
are
currently
being
developed
(
e.
g.,
water
depth,
habitat,
etc.)
and
will
be
presented
to
the
public
to
comment
on
as
well
as
to
comment
on
the
scope
of
the
potential
dredge
areas
and
upland
disposal
areas.
It
is
expected
that
most
shallow
waters
will
be
eliminated
from
this
list,
including
those
of
the
Peconics.
The
PEP
will
provide
information
(
e.
g.,
habitat
data,
endangered
species,
etc.)
to
the
Corps
during
the
site
selection
review
process
to
ensure
that
the
importance
and
significance
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
is
clearly
demonstrated
and
that
the
maximum
levels
of
protection
are
sought.

Comment:
Will
the
dredge
summit
include
all
appropriate
parties
involved
with
dredging?

Response:
While
the
exact
format
of
the
summit
remains
to
be
determined,
the
PEP
is
a
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
13
consensus
building
program
and
will,
therefore,
include
all
interested
parties
(
regulatory
and
non­
regulatory)
to
the
workshop.
It
is
hoped
that
the
forum
will
lead
to
the
development
of
a
comprehensive
dredging
plan
for
the
estuary
the
minimizes
impacts
to
important
resources,
while
considering
the
needs
of
businesses
that
depend
on
dredging,
and
the
concerns
of
others.

Aquaculture
Comment:
Finfish
and
shellfish
culture
are
associated
with
different
types
of
impacts
and
the
CCMP
should
reflect
this.
Additionally,
the
aquaculture
activities
that
are
currently
undertaken
in
the
estuary
are
primarily
small­
scale
(
shellfish).
The
Habitat
chapter
gives
the
impression
that
it
is
primarily
large­
scale
(
finfish)
culture
that
occurs
in
the
Peconics,
which
is
not
the
case.

Response:
The
Habitat
chapter
has
been
revised
to
better
reflect
these
concerns
in
the
text.
Further
discussions
through
workgroups
that
deal
with
the
regional
planning
of
aquaculture
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
should
be
encouraged
to
discuss
the
different
impacts
of
all
types
of
aquaculture
activities
and
how
best
to
manage
them
in
the
estuary
(
See
Action
HLR­
10).
In
addition
the
following
actions
have
been
added
to
the
chapter:

HRL­
10
The
text
has
been
revised
to
reflect
the
two
main
types
of
aquaculture;
shellfish
and
finfish
aquaculture
that
take
place
within
the
estuary
and
the
different
impacts
associated
with
each.
The
text
has
been
revised
to
emphasize
the
smaller­
scale
shellfish
culture
that
occurs
within
the
estuary,
rather
than
on
the
single
large­
scale
finfish
culture
facility
located
in
Gardiner's
Bay.

HLR­
10.2
Calls
for
identifying
areas
where
intensive
aquaculture
should
be
avoided.
This
has
been
reworded
to
identify
areas
where
shellfish
and/
or
finfish
aquaculture
are
appropriate/
suitable.

Comment:
Under
action
HLR
10.2
a
$
500,000
survey
is
proposed.
What
type
of
survey
would
this
be?

Response:
This
is
a
rough
estimate
for
the
costs
of
an
acoustic
benthic
mapping
survey
of
the
entire
estuary,
including
tidal
creeks.
As
stated
below
in
the
Habitat
Restoration
Workgroups
comments,
the
benthic
habitats/
communities/
resources
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
are
poorly
documented,
and
such
mapping
would
not
only
help
PEP
best
determine
where
aquaculture
activities
are
most
compatible
with
the
water
quality
and
habitat
objectives
in
the
CCMP,
but
also
be
useful
for
critical
natural
resource
mapping
and
watershed
management.

Habitat
Restoration
Question:
Why
were
an
overwhelming
majority
of
habitat
restoration
sites
from
the
South
Fork?
Response:
The
Habitat
Restoration
Workgroup
did
not
select
habitat
restoration
sites
internally.
The
Workgroup
conducted
a
public
nomination
process
and
disseminated
information
on
the
process
through
a
variety
of
outreach
mechanisms,
including:
a
mass
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
14
mailing,
interviews
on
The
Bay
Show,
a
presentation
to
the
PEP
Citizens'
Advisory
Committee
and
a
press
release
published
in
a
variety
of
regional
and
local
newspapers.
The
majority
of
nominations
received
by
the
Workgroup
during
Round
One
of
this
process
were
sites
located
on
the
South
Fork.
The
Workgroup
attempted
to
rectify
the
under­
representation
of
North
Fork
sites
during
Round
Two
by
conducting
additional
outreach
in
North
Fork
municipalities
and
groups,
and
by
providing
assistance
to
potential
site
nominators.
As
a
result,
during
Round
Two,
24
North
Fork
sites
were
nominated,
out
of
a
total
of
26
new
nominations.
These
nominations
can
be
found
in
the
report
entitled
Habitat
Restoration
Plan
for
the
Peconic
Estuary.

Comment:
There
are
osprey
nesting
platforms
in
East
Hampton
that
need
to
be
straightened
or
replaced.
Specifically,
there
is
one
at
the
end
of
Breeze
Hill
Road
in
East
Hampton
that
needs
to
be
looked
at.

Response:
In
East
Hampton,
most
osprey
platform
construction
and
maintenance
is
conducted
by
Larry
Penny,
Director
of
the
East
Hampton
Natural
Resources
Department.
The
Habitat
Restoration
Workgroup
recommends
that
inquiries
regarding
osprey
platforms
in
East
Hampton
be
directed
to
the
Natural
Resources
Department.
Inquiries
regarding
osprey
platforms
located
on
county
or
state
properties
should
be
directed
to
the
appropriate
Suffolk
County
or
New
York
State
agency.

Comment:
There
should
be
a
wetlands
restoration
summit/
technical
workshop
to
talk
about
techniques,
applications
and
monitoring.
Restoration
can
be
done
cheaper
than
people
think.

Response:
The
Habitat
Restoration
Workgroup
agrees
that
information
sharing
is
valuable
and
will
consider
setting
up
a
workshop
for
municipalities.
The
Workgroup
will
also
provide
technical
assistance
through
components
of
the
PEP
Habitat
Restoration
Plan,
including
a
compilation
of
completed
restoration
projects
throughout
the
estuary,
descriptive
narratives
for
particularly
instructive
projects,
and
profiles
of
restoration
techniques
used
in
different
habitat
types.
The
Workgroup
will
also
participate
in
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
Restoration
Project
Database
(
see
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
owow/
wetlands/
restore/)
to
increase
the
accessibility
of
information
about
Peconic
Estuary
Program
projects.
For
more
focused
training,
the
Workgroup
suggests
that
municipal
staff
research
the
wide
variety
of
existing
technical
workshops
and
courses
offered
regularly
through
organizations
such
as
Environmental
Concern,
Inc.
We
also
will
encourage
workshops
on
native
plantings
that
are
beneficial
to
the
Peconic
watershed.

Comment:
For
reef
restoration,
people
seem
more
concerned
with
the
turtles
and
marine
mammals
than
with
fish.
The
focus
needs
to
be
more
on
the
fish.

Response:
The
Habitat
Restoration
Workgroup
does
not
consider
artificial
reef
construction
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
to
be
"
restoration".
This
type
of
habitat
does
not
naturally
occur
in
this
area
and
therefore,
would
be
considered
habitat
creation.
The
impacts
of
artificial
reef
construction
in
areas
where
they
do
not
naturally
occur
need
to
be
carefully
considered
for
all
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
15
aquatic
species
because
they
will
potentially
result
in
significant
alterations
to
the
existing
system.
Sea
turtles
and
marine
mammals
are
given
particular
attention
because
most
of
these
species
are
listed
as
federally
endangered
or
threatened.
This
does
not
preclude
the
PEP's
concerns
regarding
other
marine
species.

Comment:
The
CCMP
should
cover
deepwater
habitat
restoration
for
fish.
The
CCMP
needs
to
go
beyond
shallow
reefs.

Response:
Knowledge
of
the
characteristics
of
deepwater
benthic
habitats
in
the
Peconic
Estuary,
as
well
as
knowledge
of
historical
conditions
in
these
environments,
is
extremely
limited.
The
Habitat
Restoration
Workgroup
feels
that
these
limitations
currently
preclude
efforts
to
conduct
habitat
restoration
in
deepwater
areas.
However,
it
is
hoped
that
benthic
mapping
of
the
entire
estuary
will
someday
lead
to
a
better
understanding
of
these
deeper
areas
and
possibly
result
in
such
restorations.
Benthic
mapping
efforts
are
currently
in
the
planning
stages
and
are
expected
to
be
implemented
in
2001.

Comment:
A
new
trend
in
wetlands
protection
is
the
concept
of
offsetting
the
loss
of
wetlands
at
particular
building
sites
through
wetland
banking.
The
wetland
banks
are
mechanisms
by
which
damaged
or
degraded
wetlands
can
be
restored
or
enhanced
and
then
credits
can
be
sold
to
property
owners
whose
building
projects
will
impact
wetlands.
Wetland
banking
should
be
encouraged
as
a
source
of
funding
for
wetland
restoration
work.

Response:
The
Habitat
Restoration
Workgroup
does
not
feel
comfortable
recommending
the
use
of
wetland
banking
in
the
Peconic
Estuary.
Some
people
believe
wetland
banking
encourages
destruction
of
wetlands
and
leads
to
a
decline
in
overall
quality
of
wetland
ecosystems.
Wetland
banking
works
best
for
extremely
large
projects,
the
impacts
of
which
are
unavoidable
for
logistical
reasons,
e.
g.,
construction
of
transportation
corridors.
This
technique
has
not
been
employed
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
region
to
date
and
is
probably
not
appropriate
given
the
types
of
development
most
common
in
our
area.

Comment:
Setting
a
wetland
restoration
goal
(
acres
of
wetlands
and
SAV
to
be
restored)
for
the
Peconics
would
be
an
important
tool
for
the
program.

Response:
The
information
(
primarily
historical)
needed
to
accurately
set
an
acreage­
based
goal
for
restoration
of
either
wetlands
or
submerged
aquatic
vegetation
is
currently
not
available
for
the
Peconics.
However,
PEP
has
set
some
preliminary
restoration
objectives
in
the
measurable
goals
section
of
the
Habitat
Chapter.
These
are:
1)
Maintain
current
eelgrass
acreage
(
approximately
2,100
acres)
and
increase
acreage
by
10%
over
ten
years,
and
2)
Maintain
a
policy
of
no
new
mosquito
ditches
and
not
re­
opening
ditches
that
have
filled
in
by
natural
process,
and
restore
10­
15%
of
mosquito
ditched
marshes
through
Open
Marsh
Water
Management.
The
Habitat
Restoration
Workgroup
will
attempt
to
refine
quantifiable
goals
for
these
habitat
types
as
additional
information
is
acquired.
Comment:
Something
else
is
killing
eelgrass,
other
than
brown
tide.

Response:
While
there
are
many
factors
that
are
suspected
to
have
contributed
to
the
decline
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
16
of
eelgrass
beds,
one
of
the
most
prominent
is
decreased
water
clarity
from
algal
blooms
such
as
brown
tide
or
other
light
decreasing
factors
(
e.
g,
increased
turbidity
from
suspended
solids).
When
light
levels
are
inadequate,
eelgrass
(
a
rooted
vascular
plant)
is
no
longer
able
to
photosynthesize
and
eventually
dies
off
(
see:
Nutrients
Chapter).
While
PEP
does
not
have
definitive
proof
of
what
has
caused
these
die­
backs
of
eelgrass
in
the
Peconic
Estuary,
evidence
from
studies
done
in
other
estuaries
indicate
that
increased
nutrients
and
runoff
from
land­
based
activities
has
negatively
impacted
their
eelgrass
beds.
The
PEP
&
NRSC
are
constantly
searching
for
other
pathways
as
identified
in
the
literature,
and
continues
to
seek
funding
to
study
and
monitor
the
eelgrass
beds
in
the
estuary.
One
suggested
mechanism
is
the
linking
of
groundwater
influxes
to
eelgrass
viability,
since
groundwater
is
a
major
contributor
of
freshwater
inputs
into
the
Peconic
ecosystem.
We
have
also
included
the
following
new
action
to
reduce
impacts
to
eelgrass
beds:

Added
New
Step:
HLR­
6.3
Evaluate
anchor
dragging
and
propeller
scaring
and
other
known
impacts
to
extant
eelgrass
beds
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
and
develop
recommendations
to
reduce
them.

Comment:
Some
facts
about
Phragmites
are
misstated
in
the
CCMP.

Response:
Recent
evidence
from
research
on
wetland
plants
suggests
that
Phragmites
sp.
has
positive
habitat
values.
While
typically
considered
a
nuisance
species
(
see
Habitat
Chapter
for
discussion)
management
plans
should
also
consider
the
value
of
Phragmites
such
as
sequestering
of
nutrients,
bird
and
fish
habitat,
waterfowl
screening,
etc..
Such
values
have
been
added
to
the
text
in
the
Habitat
Chapter,
but
in
cases
where
Phragmites
is
outcompeting
other
valued
wetland
species,
we
will
consider
removal
of
it
as
restoration
of
wetlands
(
e.
g.,
restricted
tidal
flow
areas,
dyked
channels,
etc.).

Marine
Fish
Question:
How
does
the
CCMP
address
the
Magnuson­
Stevens
Fishery
Conservation
and
Management
Act's
essential
fish
habitat
designations?

Response:
The
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS)
has
designated
the
Peconic
Estuary
as
Essential
Fish
Habitat.
The
NMFS
handles
these
designations
and
coordinates
with
other
Federal
agencies
regarding
project/
activities
that
are
proposed
within
these
areas
to
avoid
or
minimize
impacts
associated
with
them
to
fish
habitat.
The
PEP
is
fully
aware
of
this
designation
and
we
support
its
use
on
regulating
activities
that
can
cause
impacts
to
the
marine
fish
populations
in
the
estuary.
However,
as
mentioned
above,
review
of
proposed
projects
are
primarily
coordinated
at
the
Federal
level.
The
CCMP's
overall
consistency
with
this
designation
will
be
included
in
our
base
programs
analysis.
We
have
included
the
following
new
action
in
support
of
these
designations
in
the
CCMP:

HLR­
12.6­
Support
NMFS
Essential
Fish
Habitat
Designations
within
the
Peconic
Estuary.

Comment:
The
effect
of
blocking
tributaries
is
detrimental
to
anadromous
fish
reproduction
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
17
and
various
food
chain
species.
Tributaries
should
be
cleared
of
blockages.

Response:
The
Natural
Resources
Subcommittee
and
the
Habitat
Restoration
Workgroup
have
identified
blockage
of
tributaries
as
primary
targets
for
restoration
efforts.
These
have
been
noted
in
the
CCMP
and
also
in
the
Habitat
Restoration
Plan
for
the
estuary.
A
recent
example
of
such
restorations
in
the
estuary
was
the
creation
of
a
fish­
ladder
for
the
headwaters
of
the
Peconic
River
in
Riverhead.
This
effort
has
restored
spawning
grounds
for
alewife,
which
they
had
lost
access
to
due
to
the
installation
of
dams
in
the
past.

Comment:
The
CCMP
needs
to
discuss
striped
bass,
lobsters,
squid
and
dogfish
for
their
management.

Response:
While
the
PEP
and
Natural
Resources
Subcommittee
are
concerned
with
the
quality/
abundance
of
marine
finfish
species
within
the
Peconic
Estuary,
it
is
not
the
role
of
the
PEP
to
manage
fisheries.
There
are
other
programs
that
focus
on
fisheries
management
that
the
PEP
supports.
New
York
State
is
one
of
23
partners
of
the
Atlantic
Coastal
Cooperative
Statistics
Program,
that
cooperatively
collect,
manage
and
disseminate
fishery
statistical
data
that
is
compiled
by
the
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service.
Furthermore,
many
of
the
species
that
are
mentioned
above
are
transient
species
in
the
estuary
and
therefore,
are
subjected
to
fishing
pressures
and
impacts
in
other
coastal
and
offshore
waters.
The
PEP's
CCMP
recommendation
is
to
foster
sustainable
recreational
and
commercial
finfish
and
shellfish
uses
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
that
are
compatible
with
biodiversity
protection
(
HLR­
12).

Shellfish
Comments:
In
the
1960'
s
there
was
a
steady
and
incremental
decline
of
fish
and
shellfish
in
the
Peconics.
Oysters
should
be
in
the
CCMP.
In
the
70'
s
and
80'
s
there
was
a
marked
decline
in
scallops
on
the
western
side
of
Shelter
Island
before
brown
tide
hit.
Oysters
are
the
most
sensitive
barometers
of
the
bays.

Response:
Oysters
are
discussed
in
the
CCMP
in
the
Habitat
and
Pathogens
Chapters.
While
oysters
were
primarily
introduced
to
the
Peconic
Ecosystem
for
culturing
purposes
the
PEP
and
Natural
Resources
Subcommittee
recognize
the
significance
of
shellfish
in
general
within
the
Peconic
Estuary.
While
many
of
the
Actions
throughout
the
CCMP
are
aimed
at
improving
water
quality
and
habitats
for
shellfisheries,
the
NRSC
has
also
decided
to
include
the
following
new
action
within
the
CCMP:

NEW
ACTION:
HLR­
17
Establish
a
working
group
to
examine
the
role
of
grazers
and
filter
feeding
organisms
in
influencing
water
quality
and
productivity,
and
to
better
understand
the
food
web
dynamics
and
to
develop
management
applications.

Shellfish
(
i.
e.,
hard
clams,
soft
clams,
bay
scallops,
and
slipper
shells)
are
vital
to
the
Peconic
estuary
both
ecologically
and
commercially.
Shellfish
can
filter
large
volumes
of
bay
water
over
relatively
short
time
periods.
They
have
the
potential
to
affect
water
quality
and
exert
significant
influence
on
the
size,
type
and
abundance
of
phytoplankton.
Conversely,
changes
in
phytoplankton
species
composition
have
the
potential
to
affect
shellfish
diversity
and
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
18
abundance.
With
the
advent
of
brown
tide,
reduction
of
duck
farms,
changes
in
habitat
(
e.
g.,
invasive
species)
and
harvesting;
shifts
can
occur
in
shellfish
diversity,
temporal
and
spatial
distribution
and
abundance.
Preliminary
brown
tide
research
findings
by
Caron
and
Lonsdale
have
resulted
in
a
working
hypothesis
that
the
rapid
decline
in
the
shellfish
population
prior
to
the
first
brown
tide
in
the
Peconics
may
have
led
to
significant
reduction
in
grazing
pressure
on
phytoplankton,
thereby
allowing
the
onset
of
brown
tide.
A
shellfish
working
group
is
necessary
to
examine
these
issues
more
closely
and
develop
recommendations
to
improve
shellfish
resources
in
the
estuary
and
promote
sustainable
harvesting
of
these
species.

Issues
for
examination
by
the
Shellfish
Working
Group
could
include:
1)
understanding
the
relationship
of
grazer
and
filter­
feeder
diversity
and
abundance
with
phytoplankton
diversity
and
abundance,
2)
how
to
enhance
shellfish
and
finfish
stocks
to
accommodate
harvesting
while
also
maintaining
sufficient
populations
that
are
adequate
to
fulfill
ecological
functions,
and
3)
need
for
collaboration
between
related
Peconic
Estuary
efforts
such
as
BTRI,
water
quality
modeling,
aquaculture
regional
plan
work
group,
and
finfish
monitoring.

New
Steps
include:
HLR­
17.1
Review
appropriate
scientific
literature,
identify
information
gaps,
and
develop
research
recommendations
regarding
how
shellfish,
finfish
and
other
"
topdown
predators
influence
water
quality
and
the
planktonic
community.
HLR­
17.2
Develop
research,
monitoring
and
assessment
needs
for
quantifying
food­
web
dynamics.
HLR­
17.3
Develop
food­
web
sub­
models
to
be
included
in
the
nutrient
model
to
evaluate
the
sensitivity
of
productivity
to
anthropogenic
changes
in
nutrient
supply.
HLR­
17.4
Consult
with
the
Brown
Tide
Research
Initiative
(
BTRI)
and
Aquaculture
work
group
to
develop
management
recommendations
for
"
top­
down"
regulation
of
water
quality
and
brown
tide
in
the
Peconic
Estuary.
HLR­
17.4
Facilitate
communication
among
BTRI,
water
quality
managers
and
aquaculture
work
group.

Research
and
Monitoring
Comments:
The
development
and
implementation
of
a
robust
research
and
monitoring
program,
particularly
for
the
living
resources
is
critical.
A
resource­
based
research
and
monitoring
program
should
be
developed
and
implemented.
The
food­
web
of
the
estuary
needs
to
be
characterized.
Also,
how
the
food­
web
has
been
impaired
by
man­
made
chemicals
entering
our
waters
needs
to
be
researched.
Research
should
look
at
how
harmful
chemicals
impact
life
in
the
water
column
(
e.
g.,
fish
larvae).

Response:
The
Marine
Resources
Conservation
Planner
for
the
PEP
has
developed
(
jointly
with
the
Natural
Resources
Subcommittee)
a
Living
Resources
Research
and
Monitoring
Plan
for
the
Peconic
Estuary.
Topics
already
identified
by
the
PEP
Natural
Resources
Subcommittee
for
inclusion
in
the
plan
address
questions
about
finfish
spawning,
larval
development,
and
recruitment
to
the
fishery;
population
dynamics
of
the
benthic
communities
of
the
system;
distribution,
abundance,
and
growth,
including
habitat
use
and
preference,
by
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
19
juvenile
and
forage
fish;
and
the
links
among
these
different
components
of
the
food
web.

One
of
the
monitoring
needs
identified
by
the
PEP
includes
monitoring
eelgrass
by
aerial
photographic
interpretation,
appropriate
groundtruthing,
periodic
mapping,
and
other
surveillance
techniques
to
adequately
assess
trends
in
eelgrass
distribution,
abundance
and
overall
health.
Given
the
recent
decline
in
eelgrass
beds
over
the
last
decade,
a
long­
term
commitment
to
eelgrass
monitoring
is
essential
to
provide
adequate
management,
preservation,
and
restoration
measures.
Additional
assessment,
research
and
monitoring
needs
identified
by
the
PEP
include
the
following:
1)
impacts
of
macroalgae
and
toxic
contaminants
on
eelgrass
distribution
and
abundance
2)
distribution,
abundance,
habitat
preferences,
and
life
stage
requirements
of
forage
fish
species,
horseshoe
crabs,
slipper
shells,
bay
scallops
and
hard
clams,
3)
critical
spawning
habitats
for
local
populations
of
winter
founder,
4)
benthic
habitat
mapping,
5)
assessing
and
monitoring
the
impacts
of
shoreline
hardening
on
habitat
and
living
resources
and
6)
effects
of
sea
level
rise
on
saltmarshes.

The
research
and
monitoring
plan
is
currently
being
released
for
external
peer
review.
Once
this
process
is
completed
and
the
document
revised,
it
will
be
formally
adopted
by
the
Management
Committee
and
released.

Other
Comments
Comment:
Step
HLR­
1.9
should
be
rewritten.
Better
wording
may
be
"
help
marinas
with
more
creative
storage
areas
so
they
do
not
have
to
expand
into
tidal
areas".

Response:
This
is
a
useful
recommendation
and
wording
has
been
included
to
consider
such
recommendations
as
part
of
the
more
comprehensive
strategy
dealing
with
shoreline
hardening,
marinas,
docks
and
public
access.

Question:
What
are
the
mosquito
control
recommendations
in
the
CCMP
for
Open
Marsh
Water
Management?
Should
ditches
in
marshes
be
filled
in
or
kept
open?
How
should
we
balance
ditching
marshes,
pesticides,
and
mosquitoes?

Response:
The
PEP
recognizes
that
mosquito
control
is
important
to
public
health
and
safety.
Ditching
was
employed
in
the
past
to
drain
the
marshes
of
standing
water,
to
reduce
mosquito­
breeding
habitat,
and
is
primarily
handled
by
Suffolk
County
Vector
Control
(
as
well
as
insecticide
spraying).
However,
in
many
areas
these
ditches
caused
excessive
drainage
of
tidal
wetlands
at
low
tide,
disturbing
the
natural
functioning
of
the
marsh.
Although
diminution
of
standing
water
was
thought
to
reduce
the
populations
of
mosquitoes,
it
is
now
thought
that
the
pools
actually
provide
habitat
for
small
finfish
(
killifish)
which
eat
mosquito
larvae.
Over
the
past
few
years,
Suffolk
County
Vector
Control
(
SCVC)
has
discontinued
its
practice
of
creating
new
ditches
and
switched
to
implementing
Open
Mash
Water
Management
(
OMWM)
to
restore
marshes
to
their
former
state
and
control
mosquito
populations.
The
PEP
supports
this
policy
(
HLR­
5
and
HLR­
8).
Furthermore,
the
PEP
encourages
better
coordination
between
SCVC
and
all
other
agencies
and
Towns
for
maintenance
of
existing
ditches
and
planning
of
mosquito
control
practices
in
wetlands.
The
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
20
PEP
would
like
to
see
a
region­
wide
plan
developed
for
mosquito
control
practices
in
the
Peconics
that
are
effective
at
reducing
mosquito
populations
and
environmentally
compatible.
We
have
modified
HLR­
5.3
and
added
HLR­
5.4
as
follows:

HLR­
5.3
Maintain
and
enforce
the
policy
of
creating
no
new
mosquito
ditches
in
tidal
wetlands
and
establish
a
policy
for
not
re­
opening
ditches
that
have
filled­
in
by
natural
processes.
HLR­
5.4
Ensure
that
SCVC
works
cooperatively
with
all
government
agencies,
East
End
towns
and
local
conservation
organizations
in
the
planning
of
wetland
mosquito
ditch
maintenance
and
pesticide
spraying.

Final
Note:
Minor
editorial
changes
were
made
throughout
the
text
to
improve
the
overall
flow
and
content
of
the
document,
as
well
as
to
reflect
recent
projects
that
have
occurred
in
the
estuary
since
the
initial
draft.
Additionally,
some
figures
have
been
modified
as
suggested
by
the
comments
received.

Pathogens
Question:
Is
there
a
Difference
between
Human
and
Avian
Coliforms?

Response:
Yes,
there
is
a
difference
between
the
coliform
bacteria
generated
by
birds
and
humans.
A
study
conducted
by
the
Suffolk
County
Soil
and
Water
Conservation
District
pursuant
to
Section
208
of
the
Federal
Water
Pollution
Control
Act
Amendments
of
1972
contained
a
comparison
of
coliforms
produced
by
humans,
ducks
and
chickens.
The
following
information
was
excerpted
from
the
Animal
Waste
Characteristics
section
of
this
report:

ESTIMATED
PER
CAPITA
CONTRIBUTION
OF
INDICATOR
MICROORGANISM
Animal
Fecal
Coliform
[
FC]
(
millions)
Fecal
Streptococcus
[
FS]
(
millions)

Humans
2,000
450
Ducks
11,000
18,000
Chickens
240
620
(
Note:
The
ducks
used
in
this
study
were
semi­
wild
White
Pekin.
The
report
noted
that
the
amount
and
characteristics
of
waste
produced
by
semi­
wild
ducks
is
similar
to
that
produced
by
White
Pekin
ducks.)
The
Peconic
Estuary
Program
supports
efforts
that
are
geared
toward
distinguishing
wildlife
from
human
coliform
sources
(
See
DNA
library
Action
P­
12)
since
they
will
assist
in
defining
loading
pathways
into
the
estuary,
and
therefore,
improve
management
strategies
to
reduce
these
loadings.
However,
it
is
not
necessary
to
separate
human
and
animal
coliforms
for
shellfish
sanitation
management.
Shellfish
sanitation
is
concerned
with
monitoring
the
total
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
21
concentrations
of
coliforms
(
i.
e.,
both
wildlife
and
human
coliforms)
in
the
environment.

Question:
Do
Pathogens
affect
Wildlife
other
than
Shellfish?

Response:
Yes,
pathogens
can
affect
wildlife.
Pathogens
are
described
in
the
CCMP
as
"
viruses
bacteria,
algae
and
protozoans
that
cause
disease
in
humans,
plants
and
other
animals".
Some
examples
of
pathogens
other
than
coliforms
that
affect
wildlife
in
the
marine
environment
are
"
gray
crab
disease"
(
Paramobea
perniciosa)
associated
with
crab
mortalities
and
the
dinoflagellates
Alexandrium
tamarensis
and
Gymnodinium
breve
which
are
known
to
be
responsible
for
fish
kills.
Alexandrium
tamarensis,
commonly
referred
to
as
"
red
tide"
produces
a
toxin
(
saxitoxin)
which
has
been
linked
to
mass
mortalities
in
a
variety
of
marine
organisms
from
finfish
to
marine
mammals
such
as
whales.

The
Peconic
Estuary
Program
recognizes
that
pathogens
can
affect
wildlife
other
than
shellfish,
but
since
shellfish
have
the
greatest
potential
to
transmit
these
pathogens
to
humans
our
management
actions
are
focused
on
these
organisms.
Furthermore,
the
PEP
management
strategies
aimed
at
reducing
pathogen
loadings
throughout
the
estuary
may
be
beneficial
to
all
forms
of
wildlife
and
not
just
limited
to
shellfish.

Comment:
The
report
should
recommend
the
monitoring
of
not
only
Alexandrium
tamarense
(
a
toxic
dinoflagellate
known
to
cause
shellfish
poisoning),
but
also
Pfiesteria
piscicida.

Response:
Alexandrium
tamarense
and
other
harmful
algae
such
as
Pfiesteria
piscicida
have
been
found
in
the
Peconic
Estuary.
While
these
organisms
have
not
caused
any
problems
to
date,
the
PEP
recognizes
their
(
potential)
risks
to
human
health
and
safety
and
encourages
increased
monitoring
throughout
the
estuary
(
See
Action
P­
15).
The
Pathogens
Chapter
has
also
been
updated
to
include
the
following
information
about
existing
and
planned
monitoring
programs:

The
NYSDEC
Shellfish
Sanitation
Unit
has
a
Marine
Biotoxin
Contingency
Plan
in
place
for
monitoring
Alexandrium
tamarensis,
but
does
not
routinely
test
for
this
organism
or
any
other
organism
responsible
for
a
Harmful
Algal
Bloom
(
HAB).
The
state
of
Connecticut
actively
tests
for
HAB's
from
April
through
November.
The
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services
currently
monitors
for
the
presence
of
Pfiesteria
at
fifteen
sites,
three
of
which
are
located
in
the
Peconic
Estuary.
This
monitoring
is
a
cooperative
effort
with
the
NYSDEC
and
is
being
conducted
with
funds
from
a
Federal
program.
The
PEP
supports
that
monitoring
for
the
presence
of
Pfiesteria
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
be
continued
and
expanded
(
See
Action
P­
15).

Additional
changes
to
the
Pathogens
Chapter
Note:
Editing
changes
that
were
minor
in
scope
are
not
included
here.

1)
The
box
on
Page
5­
4
("
Shellfish
Bed
Closures")
has
been
revised
substantially
under
the
heading
"
Administrative
Closure"
to
more
accurately
reflect
current
DEC
management
classifications.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
22
2)
Page
5­
11:
"
Point
Sources
of
Pathogen
Contamination".
We
have
included
the
following
statement:
"
The
Corwin
Duck
Farm's
NYSDEC
SPDES
permit
allows
the
facility
to
discharge
to
surface
waters
only
in
the
event
of
an
extraordinary
rainfall
(
e.
g.,
a
ten
year
storm)".

3)
Table
5.2
has
been
updated
to
include
the
Calverton
(
former
Grumman
facility)
sewage
treatment
plant.

4)
Plum
Island
sewage
treatment
plant
also
employs
UV
sterilization.

5)
A
section
describing
the
potential
harm
to
human
and
wildlife
from
Alexandrium
(
red
tide)
and
Pfiesteria
has
been
included
in
the
text
prior
to
the
section
on
"
Management
Actions".

6)
Action
P­
1
has
been
substantially
revised
to
better
reflect
the
new
stormwater
regulations
for
New
York
State.

7)
Action
P­
7
has
been
updated
to
reflect
the
most
recent
agreements
that
have
been
reached
for
the
Vessel
Waste
No
Discharge
Zone.

8)
Action
P­
15
has
been
revised
to
include
increased
monitoring
for
the
red­
tide
organism
Alexandrium
and
other
harmful
algal
blooms.

9)
All
tables
have
been
updated
to
reflect
recent
commitments,
time­
frames,
costs
and
status.

Toxics
Treated
Lumber
There
were
many
comments
regarding
treated
lumber.
These
included
comments
to:
­
include
a
discussion
of
treated
lumber
in
the
CCMP;
­
study
the
effects
of
the
wood
in
the
marine
environment;
­
monitor
waters
for
chemicals
used
in
treated
lumber;
­
identify
if
there
are
areas
where
sediments
have
been
contaminated
by
treated
lumber;
­
review
existing
studies
on
treated
lumber
and
potential
impacts
and
share
this
information
with
stakeholders;
­
Investigate
alternatives
to
treated
lumber;
­
promote
natural
materials
as
alternatives
(
i.
e.,
locust
or
cypress
lumber);
­
address
potential
problems
with
using
vinyl
or
plastic
as
alternatives;
­
provide
financial
incentives
(
i.
e.,
via
taxes)
for
using
alternatives;
­
develop
regulations
to
require
the
complete
removal
and
proper
disposal
when
treated
lumber
structures
are
demolished;
and
­
ban
or
restrict
the
use
of
treated
lumber
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
23
Based
on
these
comments,
the
final
CCMP
includes
a
discussion
of
treated
lumber
and
contaminants
associated
with
its
use.
Chemicals
associated
with
treated
lumber
will
continue
to
be
included
in
monitoring
efforts
and
the
effects
of
treated
lumber
and
associated
chemicals
(
as
well
as
other
toxics)
is
included
as
an
element
in
the
PEP
research
and
monitoring
plan.
The
CCMP
includes
a
step
to
develop
model
guidelines
regarding
the
placement
of
treated
lumber
in
the
marine
environment
and
supporting
non­
toxic
structures,
based
on
existing
studies
and
potential
impacts,
and
consistent
with
the
PEP's
overall
policy
of
no
net
increase
in
shoreline
hardening
structures.
These
guidelines
will
address
natural
materials
as
alternatives,
potential
problems
with
using
vinyl
or
plastic
as
alternatives,
and
the
disposal
of
treated
lumber
following
demolition.
This
information
will
be
shared
with
stakeholders.
Based
upon
the
available
information,
at
the
present
time,
the
PEP
is
not
recommending
an
outright
ban
on
the
use
of
treated
lumber,
but
does
support
restoration
to
natural
shoreline
features,
natural
alternatives
and
products,
and
providing
incentives
for
removing
treated
lumber
(
and
other
shoreline
hardening
structures).
Financial
incentives
for
the
removal
of
or
alternatives
to
shoreline
hardening
structures
are
discussed
on
the
Finance
Chapter
of
the
Plan.

Stormwater
There
were
numerous
comments
regarding
storm
water
with
respect
to
toxics.
These
included
comments
to:
­
Stop
road
runoff
from
all
contributing
points
and
address
needs
for
storm
drain
management
and
catchment
maintenance,
including
some
specific
named
sites
and
to
prevent
the
expansion
of
a
particular
business
enterprise
where
contaminated
runoff
was
suspected
of
being
an
issue;
­
Fast­
track
stormwater
management
projects
and
the
likely
high
costs
of
doing
so;
­
Encourage
the
use
of
permeable
surfaces
for
driveways
instead
of
blacktop;
­
The
need
to
review
past
stormwater
abatement
projects;
and
­
The
need
to
reevaluate
standards
and
guidelines
for
construction
projects
to
ensure
that
future
projects
work
properly.

One
commentor
suggested
postponing
all
stormwater
remediation
work
until
the
PEP
Regional
Stormwater
Management
Plan
was
prepared.

In
general,
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
management
conference
members
and
the
CCMP
recognize
that
stormwater
needs
to
be
managed
and
that
remediation
will
be
an
expensive
proposition.
A
Regional
Stormwater
Management
Plan
is
being
prepared
and
will
address
issues
such
as
the
identification
of
contributing
sites,
the
need
for
storm
drain
and
catchment
maintenance,
coordination
of
efforts
at
all
levels
of
government,
as
well
as
review
past
abatement
projects,
and
standards
and
guidelines
for
construction
projects.
The
CCMP
also
recognizes
the
need
to
address
land
uses
and
activities
that
contribute
contaminants
to
runoff,
including
paving
materials
as
well
as
the
need
to
identify,
develop
and
implement
programs
to
reduce
pollutant
loadings.
In
general,
the
PEP
believes
that
stormwater
remediation
projects
currently
underway
do
not
need
to
be
put
on
"
hold"
until
the
Regional
Stormwater
Management
Plan
is
prepared
as
they
are
likely
to
involve
appropriate
remedial
technologies;
any
significant
concerns
would
likely
be
addressed
through
the
permitting
process.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
24
Radionuclides/
Brookhaven
National
Laboratory
Several
commentaries
addressed
the
issue
of
radionuclides
and
operations
at
Brookhaven
National
Laboratory
(
BNL).
Comments
included
the
need
for:
an
expanded
discussion
of
Peconic
Estuary
related
issues
regarding
BNL;
monitoring
of
the
river
and
estuary
for
radionuclides,
including
sampling
sediment,
fish,
and
fish
bones;
investigating
the
bioaccumulation
of
radionuclides
and
other
contaminants
from
BNL
in
humans;
describing
the
results
of
sampling
that
has
already
taken
place,
particularly
for
plutonium;
and
considering
the
synergistic
human
health
effects
of
multiple
radioactive
contaminants,
particularly
for
impacts
on
pregnant
women
and
children.

The
CCMP
now
has
a
greatly
expanded
discussion
of
the
historic
contamination
at
BNL
and
downstream
impacts,
and
discusses
activities
that
have
taken
place
to
characterize
the
contamination
and
risks.
Once
the
results
of
EPA's1999
fish
sampling
has
been
evaluated,
additional
sampling
may
be
conducted,
potentially
including
fish
bones
and
sediments.
Finfish
and
shellfish
sampled
by
EPA
in
1999
are
being
analyzed
for
radionuclides.
This
analysis
will
be
completed
on
the
edible
portion
(
according
the
NYSDOH
guidelines),
which
does
not
include
the
whole
fish
or
fish
bones.
Contaminants
in
whole
fish
or
fish
bones
are
a
concern
for
certain
sub­
populations,
including
certain
ethnic
groups
and
subsistence
anglers.
For
this
reason,
the
CCMP
includes
a
step
in
the
Education
and
Outreach
Chapter
for
the
continuation
and
expansion
of
dissemination
of
fish
and
wildlife
consumption
advisory
information,
which
includes
suggestions
on
how
to
reduce
exposure
to
contaminants
through
certain
preparation
and
cooking
methods.
Remedial
investigations
that
are
conducted
under
Superfund
characterize
the
potential
for
radionuclides
to
bioaccumulate
in
humans
and
clean­
ups
are
proposed
where
contamination
results
in
risks
above
acceptable
levels.
Results
of
sampling
and
risk
assessments
that
have
been
completed
(
including
sampling
for
plutonium)
are
presented
in
the
CCMP
and
the
companion
document,
A
Characterization
of
Toxic
Substances
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
and
its
Watershed
(
PEP,
January
2001).
The
results
of
some
sampling
efforts,
including
sampling
that
EPA
has
completed
for
the
PEP,
are
not
yet
available.
The
results
are
expected
in
2001.
The
Superfund
risk
assessments
that
have
been
completed
consider
the
cumulative
risk
for
exposure
to
multiple
contaminants,
including
radionuclides,
under
various
future
use
scenarios.
No
specific
procedure
exists
at
the
present
time
to
consider
any
special
risks
imposed
on
pregnant
women
an
children,
beyond
the
conservation
risk
and
toxicity
assumptions
incorporated
in
existing
criteria
formulation
methodologies.

Other
commentaries
suggested:
the
PEP
have
a
position
on
the
operation
of
the
high
flux
beam
reactor
at
BNL,
a
relationship
between
operations
at
BNL
and
Brown
Tide,
and
that
BNL
pay
for
citizens'
financial
losses
due
to
contamination
of
the
Peconic
River.
A
decision
has
been
made
to
permanently
shut
down
the
high
flux
beam
reactor
at
BNL.
At
present,
there
is
no
plausible
hypothesis
relating
Brown
Tide
and
operations
at
BNL;
this
is
discussed
further
in
the
Brown
Tide
section
of
this
response
document.
The
contamination
of
the
Peconic
River
is
being
addressed
under
the
Federal
Superfund
program,
which
is
the
appropriate
venue
to
address
the
issue
of
citizens
financial
losses,
rather
than
the
National
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
25
Estuary
Program.

One
commentor
suggested
that
two
additional
sources
of
radionuclides
be
listed
in
table
6.1:
naturally
occurring
radionuclides
and
fall­
out
from
atmospheric
nuclear
weapon
tests.
These
sources
are
now
noted
in
the
CCMP.
This
commentor
also
noted
that
the
reference
to
the
NYSDEC
remedial
action
threshold
for
tritium
provides
guidance
only
for
evaluating
radioactively
contaminated
soil
clean­
up
plans,
and
not
to
the
radioactive
contamination
of
water
or
fish.
This
has
been
corrected
in
the
final
CCMP.

One
commentor
recommended
that
the
CCMP
include
a
recommendation
that
there
be
a
full
investigation
and
report
concerning
the
radioactive
contamination
in
the
Peconic
Estuary,
and
what
the
investigation
should
entail.
The
PEP
will
continue
to
monitor
actions
under
Superfund
at
BNL
through
its
member
agencies
(
principally
the
USEPA,
NYSDEC,
and
SCDHS)
and
will
participate
in
oversight
of
the
eventual
remedy
for
the
site.
The
PEP
will
also
fully
evaluate
the
results
of
all
sampling,
including
fish
tissue
sampling
that
EPA
completed
for
the
PEP.
Based
on
an
evaluation
of
the
results
of
all
these
efforts,
PEP
will
determine
if
any
additional
efforts
regarding
the
radioactive
contamination
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
is
warranted.

A
commentor
asked
for
the
final
CCMP
to
indicate
that
the
BNL
sewage
treatment
plant
utilizes
ultraviolet
disinfection
for
its
sewage
treatment
plant
effluent;
this
has
been
done.
Another
commentor
suggested
that
research
being
completed
at
BNL
is
important
and
the
contamination
is
small.
The
PEP
is
concerned
with
all
releases
of
toxic
substances
to
the
environment
and
therefore
supports
continuing
efforts
at
BNL
to
clean­
up
historical
contamination
and
take
all
appropriate
steps
to
eliminate
or
significantly
reduce
ongoing
discharges
to
the
environment.

Pesticides
and
Herbicides
Comments
regarding
pesticides
included
suggestions
to:
­
Include
additional
information
on
the
presence
of
pesticides
in
the
estuary;
­
Include
information
on
pesticide
investigations,
including
a
map
depicting
pesticide
contamination
of
groundwater,
if
possible;
­
Ban
(
especially
at
the
state
level)
the
use
of
destructive
chemicals,
most
artificial
pesticides
­
including
at
a
minimum
the
30
detected
in
Suffolk
County
wells
which
are
not
banned
already,
and
Malathion
which
is
used
for
mosquito
control;
­
Include
in
the
table
of
"
toxics
of
concern
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
System"
pesticides
impacting
groundwater,
and
include
the
name
of
every
pesticide
and
pesticide
metabolite
identified
as
contaminating
groundwater
in
cited
reports;
­
Investigate
connections
between
pesticides
and
eelgrass
decline,
and
discuss
the
potential
effects
on
pesticides
in
groundwater
may
be
having
on
shellfish
larvae;
­
Investigate
if
DDT
(
now
banned)
is
still
impacting
resources;
­
Increase
the
annual
estimated
cost
of
conducting
pesticide
clean
sweeps
to
$
150,000;
­
Implement
measures
to
reduce
mosquito
populations
that
do
not
involve
spraying,
especially
the
pesticides
Malathion
and
Anvil,
and
for
the
PEP
to
take
a
position
on
the
issue
of
spraying
for
mosquito
control;
also
NYSDEC
and
NYSDOH
should
be
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
26
added
as
responsible
entities
for
the
action
regarding
mosquito
control;
­
Identify
golf
courses
as
contributors
to
pesticide
(
and
nitrate)
contamination;
forcefully
address
herbicide
use
on
golf
courses;
­
Reduce
toxic
loadings
(
including
pesticides)
from
private
homes;
identify
residences
as
contributors
to
pesticide
(
and
nitrate)
contamination;
­
Encourage
organic
pest
control;
­
Add
a
new
step
to
develop
and
implement
IPM
programs
that
manage
pests
with
minimal
impact
on
human
health
and
the
environment;
the
appropriate
entities
were
also
identified;
­
Reduce
agricultural
pesticide
use;
­
Recognize
and
reconcile
possible
conflicts
between
applying
more
restrictions
to
agricultural
operations
and
public
support
for
farmland
preservation,
public
desire
to
preserve
rural
character,
and
the
importance
of
agriculture
to
local
quality
of
life
and
economy,
including
tourism;
­
Support
lawsuits
against
pesticide
companies;
­
Impose
a
"
sin
tax"
or
"
fee"
on
pesticides;
and
­
Have
manufacturers
of
toxic
substances
fund
research
projects
in
the
Peconics;

The
final
CCMP
includes
an
expanded
discussion
of
pesticides,
includes
sources,
impacts,
and
recent
data
on
levels
in
groundwaters
and
surface
waters.
Revisions/
clarifications
to
the
table
of
"
Toxics
of
Concern
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
System"
have
been
made.
The
PEP
has
not
added
any
additional
pesticides
to
the
list
of
toxics
of
concern,
but
the
final
CCMP
does
list
47
pesticides
detected
in
Suffolk
County
wells
in
two
recent
groundwater
studies.
The
final
CCMP
provides
summaries
of
these
two
studies,
but
does
not
include
maps
associated
with
those
studies,
as
the
studies
themselves
should
be
consulted
by
those
interested
in
that
level
of
information.
The
CCMP
now
includes
a
new
step
for
the
state
to
"
restrict
or
ban
pesticides
whose
residues
are
frequently
detected
at
levels
of
environmental
or
public
health
concern
in
groundwater
or
the
estuary."
The
PEP
is
not
calling
for
any
additional
substances
to
be
banned
at
this
time,
though
this
may
occur
in
the
future.
The
CCMP
also
includes
language
recognizing
a
potential
connection
between
pesticides
and
eelgrass
decline,
and
discusses
the
potential
effects
pesticides
in
groundwater
may
be
having
on
fish
larvae.
As
described
in
a
step
in
the
Habitat
and
Living
Resource
Chapter,
the
PEP
supports
further
investigations
of
these
two
areas
of
concern
through
inclusion
in
the
Long
Term
Research
and
Monitoring
Plan.
The
CCMP
also
describes
some
recent
investigations
suggesting
that
DDT
and
its
breakdown
products,
through
historical
and
possibly
current
sources,
may
be
impacting
resources
and
that
further
investigations
are
perhaps
warranted.
If
continuing
sources
of
DDT
to
the
environment
are
documented,
this
supports
the
continuation
of
"
Clean
Sweep"
programs
for
the
proper
collection
and
disposal
of
pesticide
products.
As
suggested,
the
annual
estimated
cost
of
conducting
pesticide
clean
sweeps
has
been
increased
to
$
150,000.

The
PEP
is
also
not
recommending
against
the
use
of
Malathion
or
Anvil
for
mosquito
control
at
this
time.
In
a
CCMP
step,
the
PEP
supports
a
reduction
in
the
use
of
insecticides
for
mosquito
control
to
the
maximum
extent
practicable
that
still
adequately
protects
human
health,
and
considers
limiting
adverse
impact
on
the
environment
in
pesticide
selection.
The
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
27
CCMP
also
recommends
good
housekeeping
methods
of
control,
such
as
eliminating/
reducing
standing
water
that
functions
as
breeding
sites.
The
NYSDEC
and
NYSDOH
have
been
added
to
the
list
of
responsible
entities
for
this
step.
The
PEP
is
also
pursuing
"
open
marsh
water
management"
(
OMWM)
as
a
potential
means
of
mosquito
control
(
in
addition
to
habitat
restoration
and
possibly
stormwater
control)
that
does
not
involve
the
use
of
pesticides
but
rather
natural
systems,
in
locations
where
it
is
appropriate.
OMWM
is
described
in
the
Habitat
and
Living
Resources
Chapter
of
the
Plan.

Additional
information
is
now
provided
identifying
golf
courses
and
residences
as
contributors
to
pesticide
(
and
nitrate)
contamination.
The
CCMP
includes
language
calling
for
the
implementation
of
integrated
pest
management
programs
and
specifically
highlights
Suffolk
County's
IPM
pesticide­
free
golf
course
initiative.
The
Public
Education
and
Outreach
Chapter
contains
a
step
calling
for
endorsement,
adoption
and
implementation
of
"
environmental
Principles
for
Golf
Courses
in
the
United
States"
by
all
golf
courses
in
the
study
area.
The
CCMP
also
discusses
how
the
implementation
of
BMPs
on
golf
courses
can
reduce
groundwater
contamination.
Similarly,
the
Public
Education
and
Outreach
Chapter
contains
a
step
calling
for
the
implementation
of
program
aimed
at
eliminating
or
reducing
domestic
pesticide
use.

The
final
CCMP
includes
a
new
step
to
develop
and
implement
IPM
programs
that
manage
pests
with
minimal
impact
on
human
health
and
the
environment;
the
appropriate
entities
were
also
identified
for
this
step.
This
is
intended
as
a
means
of
encouraging
organic
pest
control.
Other
steps
in
the
Toxic
and
Public
Education
and
Outreach
Chapter
are
intended
to
support
"
organic"
pesticide
operations,
such
as
supporting
organic
agricultural
operations,
pesticide
free
golf
courses,
implementing
IPM
program
on
public
lands,
and
eliminating
or
reducing
pesticide
use
at
residences.

In
addition
to
the
steps
in
the
draft
CCMP
regarding
reducing
agricultural
pesticide
use,
the
final
CCMP
includes
an
additional
step
calling
for
the
USDA
to
develop
and
implement
a
comprehensive
agricultural
pesticide
management
proposal.
This
step,
in
addition
to
others
regarding
reducing
overall
pesticide
use
seek
to
lessen
the
potential
impacts.
These
steps
include
development
of
the
Long
Island
Pesticide
Management
Plan,
comply
with
the
Federal
Coastal
Zone
Act
Reauthorization
Amendments
section
6717(
g)
requirements
regarding
agricultural
pesticides
in
the
coastal
zone,
carrying
out
regular
"
Clean
Sweep"
programs
to
properly
collect
and
dispose
of
unwanted
pesticides,
developing
and
implementing
IPM
programs,
and
banning
or
restricting
pesticides
under
certain
circumstances.
Also,
the
Critical
Lands
Protection
Plan
of
the
final
CCMP
addresses
the
need
to
establish
a
connection
between
the
agricultural
operations
and
pesticide
use,
including
pesticide
usage
when
development
rights
are
being
purchased.
It
is
likely
this
will
continue
to
be
a
topic
of
discussion
during
the
development
and
Implementation
of
the
Agricultural
Environmental
Management
Strategy
(
see
also
Appendix
H
of
the
CCMP).

The
Finance
Chapter
of
the
final
CCMP
includes
a
step
proposing
the
investigation
of
establishing
selective
sales
fees
for
pesticides
(
and
fertilizers).
Fees
collected
would
fund
environmental
management
programs.
The
PEP
is
not
recommending
that
manufacturers
of
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
28
toxic
substances
fund
research
projects
in
the
Peconics,
though
the
Program
is
interested
in
any
potential
connections
between
pesticide
use
and
eel
grass
declines
or
impact
on
fin
fish
and
shellfish
and
their
larvae.
The
PEP
is
not
recommending
lawsuits
against
pesticide
companies.

Boat
Engines/
Personal
Water
Craft
("
Jet
Skis")
Comments
regarding
boat
engines
and
personal
water
craft
(
i.
e.,
"
jet
skis")
were
to:
­
Address
the
problem
of
2
stroke
marine
engines;
­
Identify
fuel
from
motor
boats
as
a
direct
and
local
source
of
PAHs;
­
study
the
pollution
potential
of
exhaust
from
motor
boats;
and
­
Curtail
the
use
of
"
jet
skis"
in
the
estuary.

The
final
CCMP
includes
a
detailed
discussion
of
the
pollution
impacts
of
marine
engines,
including
how
impacts
are
lessened
with
cleaner
burning
4
stroke
(
vs.
2
stroke)
engines.
The
Finance
and
Public
Education
and
Outreach
chapters
discuss
incentives
for
switching
to
4
stroke
engines.
In
the
CCMP
table
of
"
Pollutants
of
Concern"
boat
wet
exhaust
is
identified
as
a
source
of
PAHs.
Poor
fueling
practices
is
also
identified
as
a
potential
source
of
pollutants
(
PAHs)
in
both
the
Toxics
and
Education
and
Outreach
Chapters.
While
the
CCMP
does
not
include
a
specific
recommendation
for
the
PEP
to
study
exhausts
from
boats,
discussion
is
included
on
studies
and
findings
at
the
national
level.
Local
studies,
if
determined
to
be
warranted,
could
be
included
in
the
research
plan
being
prepared.
The
Toxics
Chapter
does
not
specifically
address
the
issue
of
personal
water
craft
("
jet
ski")
engines,
but
marine
engines
generally,
which
includes
personal
water
craft.
The
Habitat
and
Living
Resources
chapter
includes
some
anecdotal
information
regarding
the
adverse
impact
of
personal
water
craft
(
on
marshes
and
other
otherwise
generally
inaccessible
habitats),
though
the
PEP
is
not
making
recommendations
to
curtail
their
use
in
the
estuary
at
this
time,
the
issue
of
personal
water
craft
use
is
being
reviewed
under
authorities
beyond
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program.

Underground
Storage
Tanks
Comments
regarding
underground
storage
tanks
were
to:
­
Discuss
Article
12
of
the
Suffolk
County
Sanitary
Code,
which
addresses
toxic
and
hazardous
material
storage
(
including
underground
storage
tanks)
in
the
CCMP;
­
Describe
the
potential
problem
of
home
heating
oil
tanks
and
financial
incentives
to
replace
older
tanks;
­
Include
an
action
in
the
final
CCMP
regarding
oil
tanks,
and
that
steel
storage
tanks
are
­
not
desirable;
and
­
Include
information
on
evidence
of
petroleum
leaking
into
the
estuary
from
old
storage
tanks.

The
final
CCMP
now
includes
a
discussion
of
Article
12
of
the
Suffolk
County
Sanitary
Code,
which
addresses
toxic
and
hazardous
material
storage
(
including
underground
storage
tanks).
The
CCMP
also
includes
a
discussion
of
the
potential
problems
associated
with
home
heating
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
29
oil
tanks
not
meeting
code
requirements
for
new
installations
in
the
Toxics
Chapter.
This
includes
a
discussion
of
the
current
county
requirements
regarding
these
tanks,
including
the
requirement
that
tanks
be
constructed
of
non­
corrodible
materials.
Limited
information
is
also
included
on
tank
leaks.
A
step
establishing
a
voluntary
replacement
program
of
underground
oil
tanks
is
included
in
the
Public
Education
and
Outreach
Chapter,
and
financial
incentives
for
replacement/
removal
are
discussed
in
the
Financing
Chapter.
The
Toxics
Chapter
includes
a
step
to
determine
the
adequacy
of
the
voluntary
program
and
make
a
determination
as
to
whether
a
regulatory
program
should
be
instituted
watershed
wide
or
in
particular
areas.

"
Superfund"
Sites
Comments
regarding
the
former
Naval
Weapons
Industrial
Reserve
Plant
(
NWIRP)
site,
also
known
as
the
Grumman
Calverton
facility,
were
to:
­
Identify
the
NWIRP
site
as
a
toxic
concern,
and
expand
the
discussion
of
this
site
due
to
the
existing
contamination
and
potential
to
effect
the
Peconic
River
and
Estuary;
­
Clarify
the
status
of
this
site
with
respect
to
Superfund's
National
Priorities
List;
­
Participate
and
provide
input
to
the
clean
up
effort,
and
participate
in
meetings
of
the
Navy's
Restoration
Advisory
Board;
and
­
Describe
the
status
of
the
facility's
RCRA
permit.

Other
Superfund
related
comments
addressed:
the
status
of
the
Long
Island
Fisherman
Building
(
the
former
power
generating
plant
by
Baron's
Cove);
and
the
EPA
decision
that
"
no
further
action
is
necessary"
at
the
North
Sea
Landfill
Superfund
Site
in
light
of
the
continued
presence
of
hazardous
substances
in
Fish
Cove.

The
final
CCMP
includes
an
updated
and
expanded
discussion
of
the
former
Naval
Weapons
Industrial
Reserve
Plant
(
NWIRP)
site,
due
to
its
potential
to
contribute
pollutant
loadings
to
the
Peconic
River
and
Estuary.
However,
this
site
is
not
presently
on
the
Federal
government's
National
Priorities
List
under
Superfund;
clean­
up
and
investigations
are
being
conducted
under
the
corrective
action
program
of
the
Federal
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA).
The
PEP
will
continue
to
monitor
actions
at
the
NWIRP
through
its
member
agencies
(
principally
the
USEPA,
NYSDEC,
and
SCDHS)
and
participate
in
oversight
of
the
eventual
cleanup
of
the
site.
At
the
present
time
there
are
no
plans
for
the
PEP
to
participate
directly
except
through
its
member
agencies.
The
status
of
the
facility's
RCRA
permit
is
described
in
detail
in
the
final
CCMP.
The
most
recent
RCRA
permit
for
this
facility
was
issued
on
April
24,
2000
and
will
expire
on
April
30,
2010.

Specific
information
regarding
the
Long
Island
Fisherman
Building
(
the
former
power
generating
plant
by
Barron's
Cove)
in
Sag
Harbor
has
not
been
included
in
the
final
CCMP.
This
site
is
not
a
federal
Superfund
site
on
the
National
Priorities
list;
the
PEP
will,
however,
address
any
concerns
regarding
this
site
in
the
future.
Regarding
the
North
Sea
Landfill,
the
final
CCMP
contains
updated
information,
now
stating
that
EPA
is
requiring
the
Town
of
Southampton
to
conduct
additional
benthic
community
and
sediment
toxicity
testing,
and
that
based
on
the
results
of
that
sampling,
the
current
Superfund
remedy
may
be
evaluated.
This
is
also
reflected
in
the
revised
step
addressing
the
North
Sea
Landfill
site
in
the
Toxic
Chapter.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
30
MTBE
Comments
regarding
the
gasoline
additive
MTBE
were
to:
ban
MTBE
from
gasoline,
immediately;
seek
alternatives
to
MTBE
remediation;
and
notify
residents
in
the
event
of
an
MTBE
spill.

The
final
CCMP
now
discusses
MTBE
in
detail,
including
actions
underway
to
reduce
or
eliminate
its
use;
this
information
is
also
reflected
in
a
step
supporting
regulatory
actions
to
reduce/
eliminate
the
use
of
MTBE
in
gasoline.
The
final
CCMP
does
not
specifically
address
the
issues
of
alternatives
to
MTBE
remediation
or
notifications
of
residents
in
the
event
of
an
MTBE
spill;
the
PEP
believes
these
issues
are
adequately
addressed
though
ongoing
and
existing
programs,
though
the
PEP
may
become
involved
in
this
in
the
future.

Boating
Comments
regarding
boating
included
the
need
to
address
the
issue
of
boat
bottom
paint,
as
any
area
where
boats
were
traditionally
stored
and
maintained
is
likely
to
have
soil
contamination.

The
final
CCMP
includes
a
discussion
of
the
issue
of
boat
bottom
paint,
and
a
step
to
identify
past
and
present
boatyards
as
potential
sources
of
heavy
metal
contamination
to
the
estuary.

There
was
also
a
comment
regarding
the
use
of
gasoline
motors
on
Peconic
Lake
(
also
called
Forge
Pond),
concerns
regarding
parking
in
the
area,
and
enforcement
of
local
laws
regarding
gasoline
engine
use
on
the
lake.
The
Peconic
Estuary
Program
is
not
aware
of
any
state
or
local
laws
in
effect
prohibiting
the
use
of
gasoline
engines
on
this
waterbody.
Neither
the
Program
nor
the
CCMP
is
recommending
any
restrictions
on
gasoline
engine
use
at
this
location
at
this
time
Monitoring
and
Testing
Comments
regarding
monitoring
included
suggestions
to:
Describe
current
and
recent
sampling
efforts;
­
Test
fish
in
the
Peconic
River
for
bioaccumulation
of
organochlorine
substances,
as
well
as
test
fish
bones
in
addition
to
fish
muscle
when
analyzing
freshwater
and
saltwater
fish;
­
Test
Peconic
Estuary
sediments
for
toxics
and
radionuclides,
especially
near
the
Riverhead
Sewage
treatment
Plant
outfall;
­
Study
pollution
from
the
aviation
industry;
­
Study
toxics
that
might
be
coming
into
the
estuary
from
the
shellfish
depuration
program;
­
Study
the
effects
of
pollutants,
even
trace
doses,
on
larval
stages
of
aquatic
life;
and
­
Look
into
the
high
rates
of
breast
cancer
on
Long
Island.

The
final
CCMP
includes
an
expanded
discussion
of
current
and
recent
sampling
efforts
for
toxic
contaminants.
As
discussed
under
the
heading
"
Radionuclides/
Brookhaven
National
Laboratory"
in
this
response
document,
once
the
results
of
EPA's
1999
fish
sampling
analysis
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
31
have
been
evaluated,
additional
sampling
may
be
conducted,
potentially
including
fish
bones
and
sediments.
The
1999
EPA
fin
and
shellfish
sampling
for
the
PEP
was
of
marine
and
estuarine
species
rather
than
freshwater
species.
As
described
in
the
CCMP,
analyses
are
being
performed
for
a
full
suite
of
chemical
and
radiological
parameters.
Finfish
and
shellfish
sampled
by
EPA
in
1999
will
be
analyzed
for
radionuclides,
though
analysis
will
be
on
what
the
NYSDOH
considers
the
edible
portion,
which
does
not
include
the
whole
fish
or
fish
bones.
Freshwater
fish
were
sampled
and
analyzed
for
a
full
suite
of
chemical
and
radiological
parameters
as
part
of
the
remedial
investigation
under
Superfund
for
Operable
Unit
V
at
Brookhaven
National
Laboratory.
As
indicated
in
the
final
CCMP,
EPA
has
committed
to
ongoing
support
in
the
form
of
sediment
sampling,
testing
and
analysis
for
chemical
specific
analyses
as
well
as
overall
toxicity.
The
2001
sampling
effort
will
likely
include
analyses
for
radiological
parameters
for
a
subset
of
the
samples
collected
as
part
of
an
initial
characterization;
candidate
sampling
locations
for
2001
included
the
area
around
the
Riverhead
sewage
treatment
plant
outfall
in
the
tidal
Peconic
River.

Potential
pollution
from
aviation
industry
sites
is
not
currently
described
in
the
CCMP,
however
the
PEP
will
keep
this
sector
in
mind
under
various
steps
contained
in
the
CCMP,
including
those
addressing
RCRA
inspections,
environmental
sampling
and
the
development
of
pollution
prevention
strategies
for
particular
areas
or
industry
sectors.
Any
new
or
emerging
concerns
can
also
be
identified
through
key
regulatory
agencies
participating
in
the
PEP
management
conference.
The
PEP
does
not
believe
that
toxics
that
might
be
coming
into
the
estuary
from
shellfish
depuration
program
are
a
significant
concern
at
this
time
and
no
specific
steps
addressing
this
potential
source
have
been
included
in
the
CCMP.
Studying
the
effects
of
pollutants,
even
trace
doses,
on
larval
stages
of
aquatic
life
has
been
identified
as
a
concern
and
this
has
been
addressed
in
the
Habitat
and
Living
Resources
Chapter
of
the
Plan;
there
is
a
specific
step
calling
for
research
of
lethal,
sub­
lethal
and
synergistic
effects
of
toxic
contaminants.
The
CCMP
does
not
specifically
address
the
issue
of
breast
cancer
or
breast
cancer
rates.
The
PEP,
through
its
member
agencies,
will
continue
to
participate
efforts
to
investigate
breast
and
other
cancers,
and
will
take
appropriate
action
based
on
findings.
The
CCMP
does
include
numerous
steps
which
can
serve
to
reduce
loadings
of
toxic
substances
and
support
clean­
ups
of
contaminated
areas.
Toxics:
Miscellaneous
Sources
Comments
regarding
other
sources
included:
­
Toxics
in
paving
materials
are
a
concern;
alternatives
to
current
materials
should
be
sought;
­
Resources
should
be
provided
for
regular
inspections
of
retail
stores
to
enforce
the
ban
on
the
sale
of
illegal
on­
site
disposal
system
products
(
deodorizers,
drain
cleaners,
and
cesspool
additives);
and
­
The
Plum
Island
sewage
treatment
plant
should
be
included
in
the
list
of
point
source
discharges
to
the
study
area.

Though
not
recognized
as
a
significant
source
of
toxics,
the
PEP
sees
the
potential
for
impacts
from
paving
materials
and
the
CCMP
includes
steps
to
reduce
the
potential
for
toxic
loading
from
road
construction
and
operation/
maintenance.
The
CCMP
also
highlights
provisions
of
the
Town
of
East
Hampton's
Harbor
Protection
Overlay
District
requiring
parking
lots
and
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
32
driveways
have
unimproved
surfaces
or
be
constructed
with
certain
specified
materials
and
recommending
these
measures
be
adopted
in
other
parts
of
the
study
area.
The
PEP
would
also
entertain
other
or
more
specific
management
recommendations
regarding
paving
materials.
The
CCMP
now
includes
a
step
recommending
that
there
be
regular
inspections
of
retail
stores
to
enforce
the
ban
on
the
sale
of
illegal
on­
site
disposal
system
products
(
deodorizers,
drain
cleaners,
and
cesspool
additives).
The
CCMP
has
also
been
revised
to
include
the
Plum
Island
sewage
treatment
plant
in
the
list
of
point
source
discharges
to
the
study
area.

Placement
of
Long
Island
Sound
Dredged
Material
Comments
regarding
dredged
material
placement
focused
on
the
potential
for
dredged
material
from
the
Long
Island
Sound
to
be
placed
in
the
Peconics,
and
the
recommendation
that
such
placement
should
not
occur,
as
well
as
the
need
for
adequate
testing
of
and
stringent
criteria
for
the
placement
of
dredged
material.

The
CCMP
now
describes
how
EPA
and
the
U.
S.
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
have
identified
the
likely
need
to
continue
marine
placement
of
dredged
material
in
the
Long
Island
Sound
Area.
In
1999,
the
EPA
in
cooperation
with
U.
S.
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
issued
a
notice
of
intent
to
prepare
an
environmental
impact
statement
to
consider
the
potential
identification
of
one
or
more
placement
sites
for
Long
Island
Sound
dredged
material.
EPA
and
the
Corps
have
decided
to
consider
the
use
of
four
existing
sites
and
their
identification
as
dredged
material
placement
sites
under
Section
102(
c)
of
the
Marine
Protection,
Research
and
Sanctuaries
Act.
Other
alternatives
will
also
be
evaluated,
including
other
open
water
placement
sites
and
other
placement
and
management
options.
Identification
of
a
site
does
not
itself
result
in
placement
of
any
particular
material,
it
serves
only
to
make
the
site
a
placement
option
available
for
consideration
in
the
alternatives
analysis
for
each
individual
dredging
project
in
the
area.
The
PEP
participants
consider
it
unlikely
a
placement
site
will
be
proposed
within
the
PEP
study
area.
The
final
CCMP
includes
a
step
calling
for
the
PEP
to
participate
in
the
EPA/
Corps
efforts
to
identify
potential
placement
sites
for
Long
Island
sound
dredged
material.
The
final
CCMP
also
continues
to
stress
the
need
for
critical
evaluation
of
applications
and
permits
for
dredging
and
dredged
material
placement.

Toxics:
General
Comments
Other
comments
regarding
toxics
included:
­
Toxics
were
not
adequately
addressed
in
the
draft
CCMP;
­
A
request
for
a
description
of
the
standards
that
were
used
for
the
characterization
of
toxic
substances
in
the
Peconic
System;
­
The
section
of
the
draft
CCMP
on
risk
based
criteria
should
be
rewritten
in
a
clearer
manner
or
taken
out;
­
Stop
the
introduction
of
toxics
into
the
Peconic
Estuary;
and
­
Controls
on
toxics
should
include
education/
outreach,
bans
in
sensitive
areas,
and
taxes;

Overall,
the
Toxics
Chapter
has
been
greatly
expanded,
including
the
description
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
33
standards
that
were
used
for
the
characterization
of
toxic
substances
in
the
Peconic
System.
A
separate
Characterization
Report
and
expanded
bibliography
are
also
available.
Additional
steps
for
reducing
toxics
are
also
included
in
the
Public
Education
and
Outreach
Chapter
of
the
CCMP.
The
section
of
the
draft
CCMP
on
risk
based
criteria
has
been
rewritten
in
a
clearer
manner.
The
final
CCMP
includes
many
steps
to
eliminate
or
reduce
the
introduction
of
toxics
into
the
Peconic
system,
requiring
efforts
by
government
agencies,
organizations,
businesses,
and
the
public.
Methods
for
implementing
these
steps
include
education
and
outreach
efforts,
regulatory
means
(
including
bans),
and
providing
financial
incentives
through
tax
programs
and
the
use
of
selective
sales
fees.

Other
Revisions
In
addition
to
the
changes
described
above,
additional
objectives
have
been
specified
in
the
Toxics
chapter,
including:
measuring
the
levels
of
toxics
in
the
environment
to
discern
trends
in
environmental
quality
and
to
determine
the
effectiveness
of
management
programs;
eliminating
where
possible,
and
minimizing
where
practicable,
the
introduction
of
toxic
substances
to
the
environment,
through
regulatory
and
non­
regulatory
means;
and
where
toxic
contamination
has
occurred,
ensuring
that
clean­
ups
occur
quickly,
and
according
to
the
most
appropriate
and
stringent
environmental
standards.
Improving
the
quality
of
drinking
water
and
sediments
is
also
now
included
in
the
objectives.
Measurable
goals
have
also
been
developed
and
included
for
the
Toxics
Chapter.

Further:
­
Copper
has
been
added
as
a
"
Toxic
of
Concern"
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
System
due
its
presence
in
Peconic
River
sediments
from
historic
discharges
at
BNL;
­
Descriptions
of
previous
pesticide
"
clean
sweep"
programs
have
been
included;
­
There
is
an
expanded
discussion
of
nonpoint
sources
of
pollution,
particularly
for
urban
and
suburban
areas,
and
of
the
Town
of
East
Hampton's
Harbor
Protection
Overlay
District;
­
There
is
new
language
regarded
dredging
and
dredged
material
placement;
­
The
current
memorandum
of
understanding
between
EPA
and
the
Department
of
Energy
regarding
the
facility­
wide
environmental
management
systems
at
BNL
is
described;
­
A
description
of
operations
at
the
Plum
Island
Animal
Disease
Center
is
now
included.
­
Groundwater
quality
criteria
are
discussed;
­
Two
recent
studies
discussing
ambient
water
quality
in
the
Peconic
River
and
Estuary
are
described;
and
­
EPA's
recent
sampling
efforts
of
sediments
and
fin
fish
and
shellfish
tissues
are
described.

Land
Protection
Comments
regarding
establishing
a
focus
in
the
final
CCMP
for
land
protection
included:
­
that
a
land
protection
and
development
chapter
should
be
created
in
the
CCMP,
and
that
the
CCMP
should
be
clear
in
outlining
its
objectives
for
the
amount
of
land
that
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
34
should
be
protected
throughout
the
basin;
­
that
a
separate
land
use/
management
chapter
should
be
created;
topics
could
include
Critical
Natural
Resource
Areas,
developmental
trends,
an
analysis
of
current
land
use
and
the
build
out
potential;
and
­
that
a
new
chapter
entitled
"
Critical
Lands
Protection
Plan"
should
be
created
in
the
CCMP.
The
proposed
chapter
should
include
a
land
acquisition
plan,
zoning,
land
use
planning,
environmental
review,
and
a
regulatory
framework.

The
final
CCMP
includes
a
separate
chapter
addressing
the
protection
of
critical
lands.
The
final
Plan
does
not
establish
a
numeric
objective
in
acres
for
land
to
be
preserved,
but
rather
describes
a
process
for
identifying
and
prioritizing
land
to
be
protected,
and
the
steps
necessary
to
ensure
that
critical
lands
are
protected.
This
chapter
in
the
final
CCMP
also
discusses
integration
with
the
Critical
Natural
Resource
Areas
discussed
in
the
Habitat
and
Living
Resources
Chapter
and
other
efforts/
studies
that
have
taken
place
under
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program,
including
identification
of
current
land
uses,
development
trends
and
build
out
potential,
and
the
development
of
land
management
tools
(
other
than
outright
acquisition),
including
but
not
limited
to
zoning,
land
use
planning,
environmental
review,
and
regulatory
processes.

Specific
suggestions
were
made
to:
­
produce
land
use
overlays
for
vacant,
preserved,
agriculture,
wetland,
residential,
suburban,
and
urban
areas;
­
include
in
the
CCMP
an
assessment
of
land
use
trends
occurring
in
the
region
with
additional
attention
to
the
way
in
which
such
trends
(
i.
e.,
developmental
pressure
and
nitrogen
application)
may
be
expected
to
impact
water
quality
and
public
usage;
­
Create
a
watershed
management
plan
for
the
five
East
End
towns;
­
Produce
a
watershed
management
plan
for
the
North
Fork
and
Shelter
Island,
similar
to
the
South
Fork's;
­
Require,
through
the
CCMP,
all
the
East
End
Towns
to
complete
a
Local
Waterfront
Revitilization
Plan
(
LWRP);
­
Pay
particular
attention
to
shoreline
development.
Undeveloped
shoreline
should
have
priority
in
open
space
acquisition
programs;
­
Place
restrictions
on
heavy
land
uses
near
delicate
waterways
and
curtail
asphalt
paving
near
delicate
waterways;
­
Include
a
discussion
of
setbacks
in
the
CCMP
and
have
homeowners
and
officials
in
government
consider
setbacks
in
site
planning
(
zoning)
because
of
sea
level
rise
and
other
factors;
and
­
Coordinate
the
findings
and
actions
of
the
CCMP
with
SCPD
reviews,
particularly
with
respect
to
zoning,
building,
and
wetland
matters
on
Shelter
Island.

The
land
use
overlays
suggested
by
the
commentor
have
been
prepared.
Unfortunately,
it
was
not
possible
to
include
them
in
the
final
CCMP.
The
program
hopes
to
make
this
information
available
in
the
public
summary;
it
is
available
in
various
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Reports
and
in
large
map
form
in
the
Program
Office.
The
Critical
Lands
Chapter
of
the
final
CCMP
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
35
and
various
supporting
reports
includes
information
on
land
use
trends.
This
information
together
with
the
water
quality/
hydrodynamic
model
will
be
used
to
predict
how
the
estuary
will
react
in
response
to
various
development
and
land
use
scenarios.
The
final
CCMP
is
a
form
of
watershed
management
plan
for
the
five
East
End
towns,
however
it
is
possible
and
desirable
for
specific
watershed
plans
on
a
smaller
scale
to
be
developed
and
the
program
would
support
any
such
effort.
The
development
and
implementation
of
subwatershed
plans
for
embayments,
tidal
creeks
and
other
waterbodies
is
included
as
an
action
in
the
Post­
CCMP
Management
Chapter
of
the
final
CCMP.
The
south
fork
watershed
management
plan
primarily
addresses
drinking
water
issues.
The
National
Estuary
Program
does
not
focus
on
drinking
water
issues,
though
many
actions
in
the
CCMP
would
likely
be
compatible
with
drinking
water
source
protection
and
management
plans.
The
final
CCMP
does
not
require
towns
to
develop
local
waterfront
revitalization
plans,
though
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
encourages
the
development
and
implementation
of
such
plans,
and
recognizes
the
incentives
that
are
available
to
do
so.
The
CCMP
recognizes
the
importance
of
activities,
particularly
development,
that
take
place
on
the
shoreline.
Many
actions
throughout
the
final
CCMP
address
shoreline
protection
concerns.
The
Town
of
East
Hampton's
Harbor
Protection
Overlay
District
is
presented
as
a
model
for
managing
waterfront
properties,
including
certain
land
uses
and
asphalt
paving.
Proximity
to
the
waterbodies
is
discussed
in
the
final
CCMP
as
a
criterion
in
setting
acquisition
priorities.
The
use
of
setbacks
as
a
tool
for
protecting
lands
is
discussed
in
both
the
Critical
Lands
Protection
and
Habitat
and
Living
Resources
Chapters
of
the
final
CCMP
to
address
sea
level
rise
and
other
factors.
The
Peconic
Estuary
Program,
through
the
CCMP
envisions
the
coordination
of
findings
and
actions
with
existing
review
processes,
such
as
those
of
the
Suffolk
County
Planning
Department,
with
respect
to
zoning,
building,
and
wetland
matters
on
Shelter
Island
and
throughout
the
watershed
and
study
area.

More
generally,
there
were
comments
that:
land
acquisition
is
important;
open
space
needs
to
be
preserved;
and
also
that
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
is
treating
the
Peconic
Watershed
as
sacred
land.

The
Peconic
Estuary
Program
agrees
that
land
acquisition
is
an
important
tool
in
protecting
the
estuary,
and
that
open
space
needs
to
be
preserved
in
order
to
support
the
environmental,
cultural,
and
economic
features
that
make
the
estuary
and
its
watershed
significant.
The
basis
for
this
is
provided
in
the
final
CCMP.
The
Program
and
the
final
CCMP
recognizes
that
humans
are
part
of
the
estuary
system.
The
Program
and
CCMP
also
recognizes
that
sustainable
development
in
the
watershed
is
both
possible
and
necessary.

Public
Education
and
Outreach
Comment:
Public
education
and
outreach
is
important.
The
Internet
web
site
should
be
used
to
disseminate
information,
scientific
findings
should
be
publicized
more
often
and
there
should
be
a
newsletter
to
communicate
information
about
the
Estuary
Program.

Response:
These
ideas
were
included
in
actions
such
as
Establish
and
Promote
an
Information
Resource
Center
(
including
a
web
site)
and
Convene
an
Annual
State­
of­
the­
Bays
Conference.
The
Program
Administration
description
in
the
Implementation
Chapter
now
also
specifically
includes
the
preparation
and
distribution
of
a
periodic
newsletter/
status
report
that
will
include
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
36
information
on
scientific
findings.
It
was
also
suggested
that
the
public
be
educated
through
media
advertising.
The
CCMP
recommends
using
a
variety
of
approaches
and
media
for
education
and
outreach
campaigns,
including
print,
radio
and
television.
(
PE­
1,
PE­
6,
PE­
18,
PE­
10,
PE­
15)

Comment:
Some
of
the
actions
in
this
chapter
are
written
too
broadly.
Realistic,
specific
education
goals
should
be
set
that
can
be
attained
in
designated
time
frames.
Should
the
purpose
of
public
outreach
be
to
cause
or
create
support
for
the
CCMP
and
its
recommendations?

Response:
In
the
final
CCMP,
we
have
identified
priority
actions
and
have
provided
additional
specificity
to
actions
that
were
too
broad.
The
Management
Conference
also
believes
that
actions,
once
in
the
final
plan
and
agreed
to
by
the
Management
Conference
have
been
sufficiently
subjected
to
review
to
be
appropriate
for
public
support.
(
PE­
11,
PE­
12,
PE­
13)

Comment:
Well­
established
and
successful
public
environmental
education
programs
exist
and
should
be
expanded
to
include
more
estuarine­
related
subjects.

Response:
The
CCMP
now
recognizes
the
existence
of
such
programs
and
includes
and
action
stating
that
such
existing
effective
programs
should
continue.
(
PE­
5)

Student
Involvement
Comment:
Students
should
be
involved
(
monitoring,
replanting,
educating
the
public,
etc.)
in
carrying
out
the
Plan.

Response:
Several
actions
in
the
draft
and
final
Plan
are
aimed
at
the
involvement
of
students.
These
include
d­
POE­
1.1,
Continue/
expand
the
Annual
Peconic
Children's
Conference,
and
d­
POE­
6.4,
Continue/
expand
the
PEP
Youth
Advisory
Committee.
In
the
final
CCMP,
students
and
school
groups
are
now
also
encouraged
to
participate
in
habitat
restoration
projects.
The
final
CCMP
also
has
a
new
action
in
the
Public
Education
and
Outreach
Chapter
regarding
volunteer
monitoring.
The
Accabonac
Protection
Committee
offered
to
provide
a
project
leader
to
start
water
quality
testing
with
local
high
school
students
in
the
East
Hampton
area.
The
Final
CCMP
identifies
the
Accabonac
Protection
Committee
as
a
responsible
entity
in
this
new
action.
(
PE­
9,
PE­
16)

Fertilizers
Comment:
Create
an
aggressive
consumer­
based
education
campaign
for
reducing
fertilizer
use.

Response:
While
Action
N­
5.3
in
the
nutrient
chapter
of
the
draft
CCMP
addressed
the
need
to
improve
the
quality
of
groundwater
with
respect
to
nitrogen
to
prevent
increases
and
encourage
decreases
due
to
domestic
fertilizer
use,
a
specific
public
education
and
outreach
action
addressing
residential
fertilizer
use
reduction
was
not
in
the
draft
CCMP.
The
Public
Education
and
Outreach
Chapter
in
the
final
CCMP
now
includes
such
an
action.
(
PE­
2,
PE­
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
37
17b)

Waterfowl
Comment:
The
education
program
identified
in
the
draft
CCMP
discouraging
feeding
of
waterfowl
should
also
identify
the
problem
of
feeding
gulls,
and
that
scraps
of
bread
left
for
gulls
also
attract
crows.
Gulls
and
crows
are
predators
of
endangered
colonial
nesting
birds.
Response:
Two
actions
in
the
Public
Education
and
Outreach
Chapter
now
specifically
address
this
issue,
the
action
regarding
the
feeding
of
waterfowl
and
the
education
program
for
terns
and
plovers
now
more
generally
address
the
more
general
problem
of
feeding
wildlife.
(
PE­
7)

Toxics
Management
Comment:
Make
launching
an
aggressive
consumer
based
pesticide
use
reduction
campaign
a
priority.

Response:
While
several
actions
in
the
draft
plan
were
intended
to
include
education
and
outreach
activities
to
eliminate
or
reduce
pesticide
use,
a
specific
public
education
and
outreach
action
addressing
residential
pesticide
use
reduction
was
not
in
the
draft
CCMP.
The
Public
Education
and
Outreach
Chapter
in
the
final
CCMP
now
includes
such
an
action.
Comment:
The
program
should
identify
environmentally
safe
products
(
soap,
food,
and
pesticides)
on
the
market
today.

Response:
The
CCMP
now
reflects
the
need
to
identify
such
products
in
various
education
and
outreach
efforts,
such
as
the
Ultimate
Users
Guide
and
other
pollution
prevention
materials.
(
PE­
17a,
PE­
4)

Comment:
Information
regarding
finfish,
shellfish
and
wildlife
consumption
advisories
should
be
in
both
Spanish
and
Greek.

Response:
The
CCMP
now
identifies
these
two
target
non­
English
speaking
groups
as
well
as
the
need
to
identify
other
potential
audiences.
(
PE­
8)

Comment:
Better
inform
the
public
of
the
serious
an
irreparable
damage
that
occurs
when
people
are
exposed
to
even
low
level
radiation
from
the
ingestion
of
food
and
water
contaminated
with
radionuclides.

Response:
The
final
CCMP
also
includes
a
commitment
to
discuss
the
issue
of
radioactivity
in
any
materials
specifically
developed
for
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
regarding
fish
and
water
consumption.
(
PE­
14)

Pollution
Prevention
Comment:
The
North
Fork
Environmental
Council
stated
it
would
be
launching
an
education
campaign
called
"
Go
Organic
2000".
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
38
Response:
This
type
of
effort
was
envisioned
by
the
action
in
the
CCMP
regarding
pollution
prevention
education
and
outreach
activities.
(
PE­
3)

The
CCMP
now
includes
a
description
of
the
public
participation
process
that
was
followed
for
soliciting
input
on
the
draft
CCMP,
a
well
as
the
Public
Participation
Strategy
to
be
employed
during
the
implementation
of
the
CCMP.
New
actions
have
been
added
as
follows:
recommending
the
continuation
of
existing
effective
environmental
education
efforts
(
other
than
those
carried
out
by
the
PEP);
developing
and
implementing
comprehensive
education
programs
to
reduce
residential
fertilizer
and
pesticide
use
in
the
watershed;
encouraging
conversions
to
cleaner
burning
marine
engines;
encouraging
alternatives
to
treated
lumber
and
shoreline
hardening
structures;
encouraging
voluntary
replacement
of
underground
oil
storage
tanks
exempt
from
current
replacement
requirements;
promoting
the
establishment
of
local
watershed
associations;
and
recommending
the
establishment
of
citizens
monitoring
programs.

Financing
Comments
regarding
financing
addressed
the
need
to
provide
funding
for
public
education
projects,
especially
pesticide
reduction
efforts;
the
need
for
Federal
agencies
to
provide
funding,
including
NOAA;
and
the
need
to
fund:
projects
researching
the
impacts
of
treated
lumber,
the
monitoring
and
research
of
habitats,
and
a
dredging
summit.
The
final
CCMP
describes
the
need
to
fund
a
variety
of
actions,
including
public
education
and
outreach,
obtaining
funding
from
all
sources,
including
the
Federal
government,
and
to
address
the
specific
issues
mentioned.

One
commentor
suggested
that
Brown
Tide
research
funding
be
re­
directed
to
address
toxic
management
issues.
Because
the
Brown
Tide
funding
has
been
appropriated
at
the
Federal
level
for
the
purpose
of
addressing
the
Brown
Tide
issue,
this
is
not
possible.
The
CCMP
does
recognize
the
need
to
address
toxic
issues
and
identifies
many
actions
of
numerous
toxic
management
actions.
Another
commentor
suggested
using
available
funding
for
small
scale
wetland
restoration
projects
rather
than
more
studies.
The
CCMP
includes
many
actions,
including
those
involving
research,
monitoring
and
implementation,
of
varying
scales,
addressing
both
preservation
and
restoration.

The
need
for
funding
for
land
acquisition
was
also
noted,
including
the
Federal
government
as
a
source.
The
discussion
of
land
protection
and
funding
for
land
protection
has
been
expanded
in
the
Financing
Chapter
and
the
new
Critical
Lands
Protection
Chapter.
Establishing
a
citizen's
budget
oversight
committee
was
recommended
as
was
citizens
allocating
funding
rather
than
governmental
entities.
Citizens
presently
provide
input
to
the
allocation
of
funding
through
the
participation
of
the
chair
of
the
Citizens
Advisory
Committee
on
the
Management
Committee.
This
process
will
continue
in
the
implementation
phase,
where
both
governmental
and
non­
governmental
entities
can
provide
input
in
the
budgetary
process.
One
commentor
stated
that
$
15
million
seemed
inadequate
for
stormwater
abatement
projects.
While
a
final
figure
has
not
yet
been
determined,
the
PEP
CAC
has
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
39
suggested
a
figure
of
$
50
million
is
a
better
estimate
of
stormwater
management
needs.

One
commentor
questioned
the
source
of
funding
for
a
particular
action.
In
general,
where
funding
for
a
particular
action
has
been
secured,
it
has
been
noted
in
the
plan.
The
funding
needs
for
most
recommended
actions
has
estimated
but
has
not
yet
been
secured;
in
these
cases
a
particular
source
for
the
funding
is
not
identified.
Tax
credits
were
suggested
to
help
homeowners
and
businesses
make
improvements
to
help
improve
the
region's
environment.
The
CCMP
now
includes
a
revised
discussion
of
tax
credits
and
similar
incentives.
Two
commentaries
identified
the
need
to
better
specify
the
funding
necessary
to
carry
out
each
action
and
step
in
the
plan.
Nearly
all
actions
and
steps
in
the
Plan
now
includes
a
cost
estimate
(
expressed
in
work
years
or
in
direct
dollar
figures.

The
Financing
Chapter
has
also
been
revised
to
recognize
the
recently
enacted
Suffolk
County
1/
4%
sales
tax
program
that
will
provide
funding
for
CCMP
implementation
and
County
and
local
programs
for
land
protection
and
acquisition.
The
CCMP
now
includes
an
action
recommending
a
selective
sales
tax
be
established
(
on
products
such
as
fertilizers
and
pesticides)
to
fund
environmental
management
programs.
The
CCMP
also
recommends
that
SRF
funding
be
made
available
to
private
entities,
and
that
0%
loans
be
available
for
land
acquisition.

Post­
CCMP
Management
One
commentor
suggested
the
PEP
should
have
a
citizens
advisory
committee
with
a
budget.
The
final
Plan
describes
a
post­
CCMP
committee
structure
that
includes
a
citizens
advisory
committee.
The
Management
Conference
intends
to
continue
to
fund
CAC
activities,
consistent
with
available
resources.

Several
comments
addressed
the
issue
of
post­
CCMP
management
structure,
suggesting
the
regional
management
alternative
be
considered,
that
the
existing
structure
be
legislatively
created,
and
that
the
selected
structure
foster
systemwide
collaboration
and
accountability.
While
one
commentor
suggested
a
protected
land­
type
structure,
another
questioned
the
advantage
to
the
North
Fork
of
incorporating
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
into
the
Pine
Barrens
Maritime
Reserve
Commission
as
the
North
Fork
does
not
have
pine
barrens.
The
PEP
Management
Conference
considered
all
these
issues
and
will
be
continuing
the
existing
management
structure.
This
decision
will
be
revisited
during
biennial
reviews
and
changed
if
an
alternative
structure
is
determined
to
be
appropriate.

Other
comments
asked
about
the
final
form
of
the
CCMP
and
how
public
input
in
the
draft
would
be
shared.
The
final
plan
follows
a
similar
format
as
the
draft
plan
though
additional
detail
has
been
added.
This
document
is
being
prepared
to
respond
to
public
comments.

This
chapter
now
includes
a
revised
discussion
of
the
PEP
Environmental
Monitoring
Plan
and
Living
Resources
Research
Plan.
The
current
management
structure
will
be
continued
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
40
during
the
implementation
phase;
this
decision
will
be
revisited
during
biennial
reviews
or
as
necessary.
The
chapter
also
describes
the
necessary
coordination
with
the
Federal
Endangered
Species
Act
and
national
and
state
historic
preservation
efforts.

General
Comments
Many
general
comments
were
submitted
on
the
draft
CCMP.
These
included
comments
that
the
draft
CCMP
was
"
great"
and
"
something
is
actually
being
done."
One
commentor
expressed
gratitude
for
the
coherent
presentation
on
the
plan,
and
another
stated
that
it
was
satisfying
to
see
how
much
progress
the
program
had
made.
The
draft
Plan
was
not
without
its
detractors,
however,
with
comments
that
the
recommendations
of
the
draft
Plan
were
impractical
to
implement
and
without
revision
the
plan
could
easily
delay
protection
of
the
estuary
because
of
legal
battles
and
a
lack
of
cooperation
among
stakeholders.
One
commentor
found
the
draft
CCMP
too
vague
and
noncommittal.

The
Peconic
Estuary
Program
management
conference
participants
were
pleased
with
draft
CCMP
document.
Both
the
draft
and
final
CCMPs
document
that
a
great
deal
of
work
has
been
accomplished,
in
terms
of
studying
the
estuary
and
its
problems
and
threats
and
also
taking
steps
to
preserve,
protect
and
enhance
the
estuary
and
watershed.
In
preparing
the
final
CCMP,
the
PEP
has
attempted
to
develop
specific
and
practical
actions
that
are
implementable,
and
in
particular
working
with
the
responsible
entities
to
garner
support
and
commitments
so
that
actions
will
be
carried
out.
The
Peconic
Estuary
Program
expects
to
move
ahead
with
implementing
the
CCMP,
working
cooperatively
with
all
responsible
entities
and
stakeholders.
The
PEP
also
recognizes
that
some
mid­
course
corrections
may
be
necessary
during
the
implementation
phase.

Commentors
suggested:
that
the
plan
needs
to
be
implemented
quickly
and
that
there
wasn't
time
to
waste,
as
the
bays
were
being
degraded;
and
that
a
common
sense
approach
was
needed,
and
that
we
shouldn't
be
putting
things
in
the
bay
that
don't
belong
there.
It
was
also
suggested
that
the
CCMP
needs
to
emphasize
that
protection
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
in
its
high
quality
state
is
a
better
option
(
economically,
ecologically,
philosophically,
etc.)
than
allowing
it
to
degrade
and
then
cleaning
it
up.
One
commentor
observed
that
pollution
is
the
biggest
problem
in
the
estuary;
another,
that
finfish
and
shellfish
need
to
be
restored
to
the
bay,
and
another,
how
flushing
is
important
to
the
estuary.
Environmental
awareness
was
identified
as
being
very
important
by
one
commentor;
another
stated
that
adequate
financing
and
education
would
be
cornerstones
for
enabling
the
program
to
succeed,
and
yet
another,
that
public
education
and
outreach
should
be
worked
on
right
away
and
that
the
Citizens
Advisory
Committee
perspective
is
important.

The
PEP
and
the
final
CCMP
recognizes
that
the
plan
needs
to
be
implemented
quickly.
In
fact,
many
of
the
actions
are
ongoing,
meaning
that
implementation
is
already
taking
place
to
some
degree.
A
common
sense
approach
was
taken
in
crafting
many
of
the
actions,
which
included
seeking
stakeholder
input,
and
using
that
information
in
formulating
actions.
The
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
41
CCMP
relies
heavily
on
a
pollution
prevention
approach,
trying
to
prevent
problems
from
occurring
and
maintaining
high
quality
environments
where
they
exist
and
restoring
those
that
have
been
degraded.
The
final
Plan
recognizes
that
water
quality,
habitats,
and
living
resources
are
inextricably
linked
and
that
human
impacts
("
pollution")
are
the
greatest
problem
affecting
and
threatening
the
estuary
system.
The
importance
of
the
tidal
flushing
of
the
bay
is
recognized
in
the
Nutrient
and
Habitat
and
Living
Resources
Chapters
of
the
final
Plan,
in
particular,
but
flushing
should
not
be
used
as
an
alternative
to
reasonable
treatment
and
management
of
pollutant
sources.
An
effective
public
education
and
outreach
program
is
clearly
an
important
part
of
the
plan,
and
awareness
and
action
by
residents,
workers
and
visitors
to
the
estuary
is
necessary
for
the
success
of
the
program.
The
Citizens
Advisory
Committee
will
continue
to
play
an
important
role
in
the
implementation
phase.

It
was
suggested
that
an
overall
summary
should
be
provided,
tying
together
conclusions
and
recommendations
with
respect
to
water
quality
issues
from
all
of
the
chapters
so
the
reader
can
see
the
emergence
of
a
coherent
theory.
It
was
also
noted
that
some
of
the
graphics
were
unreadable
and
many
were
unlabeled
or
did
not
include
a
key.
One
commentor
provided
numerous
stylistic
recommendations
to
improve
the
message
that
was
being
conveyed.

The
introduction
chapter
of
the
Plan
has
been
revised
and
expanded
to
provide
a
better
overall
summary
of
the
Plan.
A
separate
Public
Summary
Document
will
be
prepared.
Graphics
in
the
Plan
have
been
improved,
including
readability,
labeling,
and
keys.
The
overall
document
was
also
edited
and
many
stylistic
improvements
were
made
throughout
the
Plan.

One
commentor
questioned
why
the
draft
CCMP
stated
that
expenditures
should
be
split
50/
50
between
remediation
and
preservation,
as
preservation
costs
are
often
significantly
lower
than
remediation
costs
(
a
significant
exception
being
the
purchase
of
lands
or
development
rights).

The
concept
that
both
remediation
and
preservation
initiatives
are
equally
important
is
introduced
in
the
Nitrogen
Chapter,
but
applies
throughout
the
plan.
If
restoring
degraded
resources
always
takes
precedence
over
preventing
problems
or
conversely,
if
only
preservation
efforts
are
pursued
without
regard
for
correcting
existing
problems,
the
Plan
will
not
be
successful.
Clearly,
both
restoration
and
protection
actions
need
to
be
taken
in
the
estuary
and
its
watershed.
The
presumption
is
to
attempt
to
split
expenditures
50/
50
between
remediation
and
protection,
recognizing
that
eligibility
requirements
of
certain
programs
may
limit
activities
to
one
or
the
other.

Other
commentors
noted
that
there
needs
to
be
more
local
government
activity
in
the
implementation
efforts
of
the
Plan
and
that
CCMP
implementation
should
be
made
a
standing
agenda
item
for
the
East
End
Supervisors
and
Mayors
Association
meetings.
Another
commentor
noted
that
it
seemed
that
there
were
instances
where
the
Towns
of
Riverhead
and
Brookhaven
need
to
be
included
or
listed
as
responsible
entities
under
the
management
actions,
particularly
if
the
Peconic
River
and
its
watershed
are
truly
part
of
the
Plan.
The
important
role
and
responsibility
that
shoreline
property
owners
have
in
carrying
out
the
Plan
was
noted.
It
was
suggested
that
two
committees
be
created:
an
Environmental
Oversight
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
42
Committee,
comprised
of
the
various
concerned
environmental
organizations,
and
a
Financial
Oversight
Committee,
to
examine
how
public
money
is
spent.
One
commentor
asked
about
the
total
list
of
stakeholders,
another
suggested
that
a
more
diverse
group
of
people
should
be
on
the
CAC.

The
Peconic
Estuary
Program
recognizes
the
critically
important
role
of
local
governments
in
implementing
the
Plan.
The
Program
has
periodically
participated
in
End
Supervisors
and
Mayors
Association
meetings
and
expects
that
this
will
continue
in
the
future.
A
key
part
of
the
CCMP
implementation
phase
will
be
involving,
engaging,
and
supporting
local
government
in
their
role
in
the
CCMP
process.
The
Towns
of
Riverhead
and
Brookhaven
are
important
stakeholders,
particularly
in
actions
affecting
the
Peconic
River
and
its
watershed.
The
final
Plan
better
reflects
their
role.
There
are
numerous
sections
and
actions
in
the
final
Plan
that
note
the
important
role
and
responsibility
that
shoreline
property
owners
have
carrying
out
the
Plan,
for
example,
in
the
Plan's
strong
support
for
the
establishment
of
Harbor
Protection
Overlay
Districts
based
on
the
Town
of
East
Hampton's
model.
The
final
Plan
does
not
recommend
the
establishment
of
an
Environmental
Oversight
Committee,
but
rather
supports
the
continuance
of
the
existing
structure
which
includes
a
Citizens
Advisory
Committee
and
Technical
Advisory
Committee,
both
of
which
include
representatives
from
various
concerned
environmental
organizations.
The
final
Plan
does
not
recommend
the
establishment
of
a
Financial
Oversight
Committee,
both
rather
continues
to
rely
on
the
existing
Policy
and
Management
Committees
to
ensure
public
funding
is
spent
wisely
and
consistent
with
applicable
laws,
regulations
and
guidelines,
with
input
from
the
three
advisory
committees.
The
final
CCMP
includes
a
corrected
list
of
stakeholders
as
an
appendix,
including
the
membership
of
the
Citizens
Advisory
Committee.
The
Citizens
Advisory
Committee
remains
interested
in
the
participation
of
new
members;
interested
individuals
can
get
involved
by
contacting
the
committee
chair
or
the
Program
Office.

The
need
to
prioritize
the
actions,
including
prioritization
by
the
agencies
responsible
for
their
further
development
and
implementation
was
noted.
It
was
also
suggested
that
a
timetable
and
budgetary
analysis
be
created
for
the
planning
and
implementation
of
each
action.

The
Final
Plan
includes
a
total
of
79
priority
actions.
Tracking
progress
in
carrying
out
these
priority
actions
is
an
important
part
of
the
implementation
process,
along
with
making
recommendations
to
the
agencies
responsible
for
carrying
out
those
actions.
The
action
plans
and
tables
of
the
final
Plan
includes
information
on
timetables
for
each
actions
as
well
as
resource
needs
(
both
staff
and
funding)
for
carrying
out
each
action.
A
complete
accounting
of
progress
in
implementing
the
Plan
will
occur
every
three
years
consistent
with
EPA
National
Estuary
Program
guidance.

Concerns
with
enforcement
and
staffing
were
also
expressed,
including
comments
regarding:
how
enforcement
was
incorporated
into
the
plan,
as
enforcement
can
be
a
problem
in
environmental
initiatives;
the
shortage
of
staff
in
enforcing
current
laws
and
who
and
how
actions
will
be
enforced;
the
general
need
for
additional
staff
to
implement
the
CCMP;
and
how
the
CCMP
proposes
little
in
the
way
of
new
legislation
to
help
with
implementation
and
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
43
enforcement
mechanisms,
without
which
too
little
of
the
CCMP
goals
and
objectives
will
be
accomplished.

The
Peconic
Estuary
Program
sees
the
importance
of
enforcement
and
staffing.
The
final
CCMP
provides
better
estimates
of
these
resource
needs
for
each
action,
both
in
terms
continuing
existing
staffing
levels
as
well
as
increasing
staffing
and
enforcement
resources
as
needed.
The
naming
of
responsible
entities
for
each
action
was
reviewed
and
updated
in
the
final
Plan.
Many
actions
in
the
final
CCMP
rely
on
existing
authorities,
but
where
new
authorities
are
needed,
this
is
explicitly
stated.
In
other
instances,
further
study
may
be
required
before
new
or
expanded
authorities
are
called
for
to
assist
with
implementation
and
enforcement.

Comments
regarding
goal
setting
included
the
comment
that
deadlines
should
be
added
to
the
establishment
of
goals.
Another
commentor
noted
that
the
goals,
objectives
and
actions
all
be
reviewed
with
an
eye
on
coordination
and
more
appropriate
expression.
Other
comments
suggested
that
the
goals
and
benchmarks
for
measuring
success
be
clearly
identified
throughout
the
CCMP.
One
commentor
suggested
that
goals
be
based
on
optimal
conditions
for
the
Peconic
Estuary
and
not
to
other
polluted
areas
outside
of
the
study
area.

The
final
CCMP
now
includes
measurable
goals
in
each
chapter.
All
goals,
objectives
and
actions
in
the
draft
Plan
were
reviewed
and
improvements
were
made
that
are
incorporated
into
the
final
Plan.
The
Environmental
Monitoring
Plan
reflects
monitoring
efforts
necessary
to
assess
progress
in
achieving
the
Plan's
measurable
goals.
The
measurable
goals
for
each
chapter
were
developed
based
on
the
objectives
included
in
each
chapter,
which
were
specifically
developed
for
the
Peconic
Estuary
and
its
watershed.

One
commentor
noted
that
bad
journalism
should
be
exposed
and
that
the
program
should
set
the
record
straight,
when
needed,
via
editorials,
and
that
bad
press
can
be
detrimental
to
the
whole
program.

The
Peconic
Estuary
Program,
including
the
Citizens
Advisory
Committee
and
Public
Education
and
Outreach
Coordinator
strive
to
keep
in
touch
with
and
be
accessible
to
the
local
media,
as
described
in
the
final
CCMP.
They
will
provide
input
when
requested
and
will
seek
to
provide
corrected
information
as
needed.

One
commentor
stated
that
a
baseline
for
the
estuary
must
be
established
before
any
water
quality
measures
are
taken;
another
that
trends
that
exist
regarding
improvements
in
water
quality
should
be
examined,
and
further
that
a
characterization
of
positive
trends
and
negative
trends
would
properly
orient
the
reader
to
the
state
of
the
bays.
It
was
also
recommended
that
there
should
be
a
systematic
survey
of
the
PEP
bathymetry
by
the
USCOE's
helicopter
LIDAR
system
as
well
as
intensive
interviews
with
long­
term
local
residents.
A
hyperspectral
imaging
spectrometer
was
also
suggested
as
a
potentially
useful
tool
for
ecosystem
management
in
the
Peconics.

The
information
collected
and
assembled
for
the
characterization
elements
of
the
CCMP
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
44
serves
as
the
baseline
condition
for
water
quality,
habitats,
and
living
resources
in
the
system.
Some
of
these
data
sets
are
substantial,
other
provide
some
basic
but
useful
information.
Information
on
trends
will
be
presented
and
shared
with
the
public
on
a
regular
basis
as
described
in
the
Post­
CCMP
Management
Chapter
of
the
final
CCMP.
Additional
work
regarding
the
estuary's
bathymetry
is
planned
in
2001
through
a
cooperative
effort
between
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
and
The
Nature
Conservancy,
with
the
Marine
Sciences
Research
Center
at
the
State
University
at
Stony
Brook.
Additional
data
gathering
using
remote
sensing
data
is
planned
in
the
future,
for
efforts
including
land
cover
and
determining
eelgrass
coverages,
for
example.
The
Peconic
Estuary
Program
has
in
the
past
and
will
continue
in
the
future
to
use
information
from
user
groups
to
fill
data
gaps
and
improve
technical
studies.

One
commentor
was
concerned
that
the
County
proposition
regarding
the
quarter
percent
sales
tax,
had
not
been
well
publicized.
Other
comments
of
a
general
technical
nature
included
the
observations
that
­
Water
use
overlays
should
be
provided
for
fishing,
dragging,
shellfish,
sailing,
high
speed
boating,
aquaculture,
mooring,
major
harbor,
and
minor
harbor
areas;
and
­
There
should
be
septic
and
point
source
outfalls
and
municipal
treatment
discharge
overlays.

The
County
proposition
regarding
the
extension
of
the
quarter
percent
sales
tax
(
a
portion
of
the
proceeds
will
be
targeted
towards
the
Peconic
Estuary)
has
since
passed.
A
discussion
of
this
revenue
source
is
discussed
in
the
Financing
Chapter
of
the
final
CCMP.
The
Peconic
Estuary
Program
has
impressive
geographic
information
system
(
GIS)
data
layer
coverages
of
the
estuary
and
watershed.
The
Program
hopes
to
expand
the
list
of
existing
data
layer
coverages
in
the
future
to
include
many
of
the
ones
suggested
by
the
commentor,
to
assist
in
studying
and
managing
the
estuary
and
communicating
with
the
public.
Data
layer
coverages
are
discussed
throughout
the
final
CCMP
and
in
the
Post­
CCMP
Chapter
and
in
the
Environmental
Monitoring
Plan.

While
not
comments
on
the
draft
Plan
itself,
the
Audubon
Society
expressed
interest
in
any
estimates
of
the
economic
impact
of
bird
and
wildlife
viewing.
Another
commentor
expressed
appreciation
for
receiving
copies
of
some
graphs
that
would
be
used
in
an
elementary
school
classroom
setting.

The
Audubon
Society
and
other
groups,
including
teachers,
are
welcome
to
the
wealth
of
information
that
has
been
gathered
by
and
through
the
Estuary
Program.
A
list
of
references
is
available
in
the
Final
CCMP,
as
is
a
list
of
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Library
Reports.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
45
III.
Correspondence
Sent
During
the
Public
Comment
Period
Government
and
Universities
D.
Brown,
USEPA,
January
3,
2000,
letter
J.
Heisler,
USEPA,
December
10,
1999,
letter
S.
Hammond,
NYSDEC,
November
12,
1999,
letter
R.
Draper,
NYSDEC,
November
22,
1999,
letter
V.
Palmer,
NYSDEC,
November
16,
1999,
letter
C.
LaPorta,
NYSDEC,
November
19,
1999,
letter
D.
Barnes,
NYSDEC,
November
18,
1999,
letter
J.
Pavacic,
NYSDEC,
November
12,
1999,
letter
J.
Turner,
NYS
Legislative
Commission
on
Water
Resource
Needs
of
New
York
State
and
Long
Island,
December
8,
1999,
letter
F.
Thiele,
State
of
NY
Assembly,
December
13,
1999,
letter
D.
Kost,
NYSDOT,
November
2,
1999,
letter
C.
McCaffrey,
DOS,
August
9,
1999,
letter
J.
Pim,
SCDHS,
October
20,
1999,
letter
E.
Cademartori,
Town
of
Brookhaven,
November
16,
1999,
letter
J.
Weiss,
Rutgers
University,
letter
Public
Interest
Groups/
Organizations
B.
Smith,
FISH
Unlimited,
August
9,
1999,
e­
mail;
October
1,
1999,
e­
mail;
October
18,
1999,
letter;
October
22,
1999,
letter
S.
Cullen,
STAR
Foundation,
October
20,
1999,
letter
J.
Penny,
South
Fork
Groundwater
Task
Force,
November
17,1999,
letter
R.
Schiano,
South
Fork
Groundwater
Task
Force,
November
15,
1999,
letter
N.
Kelley,
P.
Rabinovitch,
The
Nature
Conservancy,
November
10,
1999,
letter
R.
DeLuca,
Group
for
the
South
Fork,
November
17,
1999,
letter
K.
McAllister,
Peconic
Baykeeper,
November
12,
1999,
letter;
Suffolk
Life
Newspaper
December
1,
1999,
article
J.
Evans­
Brumm,
Friends
of
Long
Island
Sound,
November
15,
1999,
letter
B.
Prentice,
North
Fork
Audubon
Society,
October
26,
1999,
letter
Accabonac
Protection
Committee,
November
4,
1999,
letter
G.
Rivara,
Cornell
Cooperative
Extension,
November
15,
1999,
letter
Commercial
D.
Bavaro,
Shellfish
Construction
and
Culture
Co.,
November
15,
1999,
letter
J.
Pillus,
Aqua
Culture
Technologies,
November
15,
1999,
letter
K.
Rivara,
Aeros
Cultured
Oyster
Co.,
November
15,
1999,
comment
form
R.
Mendelman,
Harbor
Marina,
August
10,
1999,
letter
Citizens
R.
Tollefsen,
The
Southampton
Press,
November
11,
1999,
article;
November
7,1999,
letter
B.
McAlevy,
letter
A.
Jones,
October
16,
1999,
December
2,
1999,
letter
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
46
T.
Sullivan,
August
9,
1999,
e­
mail;
November
12,
1999,
e­
mail;
November
21,
1999,
e­
mail
R.
Smith,
November
16,
1999,
comment
form
P.
Stoutenburgh,
letter
J.
Murphy,
letter
S.
Johnson,
November
16,
1999,
letter
C.
Garvey,
December
1,
1999,
letter
J.
Seeman,
October
26,
1999,
letter
J.
Kelly,
November
5,
1999,
letter
B.
Hajek,
October
24,
1999,
letter
D.
Heckman,
comment
form
S.
Donovan,
October
13,
1999,
letter
J.
Hellerbach,
comment
form
W.
Freese,
October
8,
1999,
letter
P.
Dickerson,
comment
form
D.
Berson,
comment
form
C.
Schubert,
August
3,
1999,
e­
mail
M.
Rewinski,
November
3,
1999,
e­
mail;
November
11,
1999,
comment
form;
November
19,
1999,
e­
mail
M.
Sanford,
December
8,
1999,
letter
T.
Rozakis,
October
13,
1999,
letter
C.
Black,
November
15,
1999,
letter
J.
Edler,
November
3,
1999,
letter
F.
Conant,
November
12,
1999,
letter
L.
Tuthill,
November
12,
1999,
letter
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
L
L­
47
This
Page
Intentionally
Left
Blank.