Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0049-0121
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-03-19T05:00Z

A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
1
APPENDIX
K
Base
Program
Analysis
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
2
Table
of
Contents
Introduction
K­
3
Brown
Tide
K­
5
Nutrients
K­
7
Habitat
and
Living
Resources
K­
17
Pathogens
K­
28
Critical
Lands
K­
38
Toxics
K­
43
Post­
CCMP
K­
58
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
3
Introduction
This
Base
Programs
Analysis
has
been
prepared
pursuant
to
Section
320(
b)(
5)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act,
which
requires
that
each
National
Estuary
Program:

"
Develop
[
action]
plans
for
the
coordinated
implementation
of
the
[
comprehensive
conservation
and
management]
plan
by
the
states
as
well
as
Federal
and
local
agencies
participating
in
the
conference."

EPA's
policy
further
elucidates
Base
Programs
Analysis
requirements,
stating
that:

"
The
base
program
analysis
assesses
the
effectiveness
of
the
estuary's
management
framework.
It
describes
existing
mechanisms
for
addressing
priority
problems
identified
by
the
scientific
characterization
and
recommends
options
for
improving
or
enhancing
the
management
framework."
(
See
National
Estuary
Program
Guidance,
Comprehensive
Conservation
and
Management
Plans:
Content
and
Approval
Requirements,
USEPA
Office
of
Water,
October
1992;
see
also
National
Estuary
Program
Guidance,
Base
Programs
Analysis,
USEPA
Office
of
Water,
March
1993).

The
Peconic
Estuary
Program
(
PEP)
has
structured
its
Base
Programs
Analysis
in
a
modular
format,
corresponding
with
the
chapter
structure
of
the
PEP
Comprehensive
Conservation
and
Management
Plan
itself.
For
each
module,
or
chapter,
the
Base
Programs
Analysis
provides:

 
a
description
of
the
regulatory/
institutional
framework;
 
an
evaluation
of
effectiveness;
and
 
recommendations
for
addressing
gaps
and
expanding
strengths
("
recommendations
for
improvements")

Programs
and
agencies
are
discussed
in
greater
detail
the
first
time
they
are
mentioned
in
this
document.
For
example,
USEPA
and
Clean
Water
Act
programs
dealing
with
technology­
based
and
water
qualitybased
discharge
limits
are
described
in
the
nutrients
section,
but
are
simply
referred
to
in
the
pathogens
and
toxics
sections,
which
also
deal
with
those
programs.
Thus,
the
nutrients
section
has
the
most
extensive
description
of
water
quality
and
pollution
control
programs.

During
the
entire
PEP
CCMP
preparation
process,
agency
and
institutional
frameworks
have
been
identified
and
evaluated
as
part
of
the
management
plan
preparation
process.
However,
this
Base
Programs
Analysis
document
serves
valuable
purposes,
above
and
beyond
the
work
already
done.
For
example,
it
affords
the
opportunity
for
inter­
chapter
evaluation
and
reflection,
to
ensure
that
all
opportunities
and
options
have
been
fully
evaluated
and
addressed.
Also,
the
document
brings
together,
in
one
place
(
see
Summary
below)
programmatic
recommendations.
As
such,
it
provides
a
cohesive
look
at
all
programmatic
needs
and
recommendations.
It
also
offers
the
genesis
of
a
template,
or
checklist,
which
can
be
used
to
assess
programmatic
progress
during
implementation
efforts.

Two
major
documents
have
already
been
developed
to
address
programmatic
issues,
focusing
largely
at
the
local
level.
The
local
focus
is
based
on
the
fact
that
the
bulk
of
the
PEP
land
use
management
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
4
and
pollution
control
(
mainly
nonpoint
source)
recommendations
must
be
implemented
at
the
local
level.
They
are:

 
PEP
Base
Programs
Analysis,
Nonpoint
Source
Management
Plan
Inventory,
June
12,
1995.
 
Evaluating
Town
Capacity
and
Needs
in
Protecting
the
Peconic
Estuary,
Columbia
University,
1999.

The
reports
are
incorporated
by
reference
in
appropriate
sections
of
the
Base
Programs
Analysis.

Finally,
acknowledgement
must
be
provided
to
the
following
base
programs
analysis
reports:

 
Discussion
of
Existing
Management
Programs
for
the
Long
Island
Sound
and
its
Resources,
January
1993.
 
Barnegat
Bay
Estuary
Program,
Base
Programs
Analysis,
May
2000.
 
Delaware
Estuary
Program,
Base
Programs
Inventory,
Summary,
and
Analysis,
May
1995.

Information
and
narrative
from
these
reports
were
used
in
the
PEP
Base
Programs
Analysis,
particularly
with
respect
to
the
"
regulatory/
institutional
framework"
descriptions
for
Federal
and
state
agencies
and
programs.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
5
Brown
Tide
Description
of
Regulatory/
Institutional
Framework
Federal
Agencies
and
Programs
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration
NOAA's
Coastal
Ocean
Program
(
COP)
is
part
of
the
National
Centers
for
Coastal
Ocean
Science.
The
COP
provides
scientific
information
to
assist
decision­
makers
in
managing
coastal
resources.
The
Program
targets
critical
issues
that
exist
in
the
nation's
estuaries,
coastal
waters,
and
Great
Lakes.

The
Peconic
Estuary
Program,
NOAA,
Sea
Grant,
and
the
State
University
of
New
York
at
Stony
Brook's
Marine
Sciences
Research
Center
sponsored
a
Brown
Tide
Summit
in
October
1995
to
develop
a
comprehensive
Brown
Tide
research
agenda.
Since
the
Brown
Tide
Summit
in
1995,
the
Coastal
Ocean
Program
has
committed
$
3
million
towards
Brown
Tide
research.
New
York
Sea
Grant
is
in
charge
of
administering
these
funds.
The
Brown
Tide
Research
Initiative
(
BTRI)
Committee
formed
as
a
result
of
the
COP
funding
commitments
and
has
been
instrumental
in
preparing
Requests
for
Proposals,
reviewing
research
proposals,
and
assisting
in
managing
the
NOAA
COP
funding.
The
BTRI
Committee
includes:
NOAA,
NY
Sea
Grant,
NYS
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation,
the
Suffolk
County
Executive,
USEPA/
Peconic
Estuary
Program,
a
local
government
representative,
a
citizen
representative,
and
a
South
Shore
Estuary
Reserve
(
SSER)
representative.

The
intent
of
the
COP
Brown
Tide
program
is
to
understand
and
predict
the
onset
of
Brown
Tide
blooms,
and
determine
advance
strategies
for
mitigating
its
environmental
impacts.
Current
research
is
focused
on
identifying
the
factors
that
cause,
maintain,
and
dissipate
the
blooms.
Brown
tide
research
and
characterizations
are
routinely
reported
in
the
scientific
literature
and
are
systematically
updated
through
Sea
Grant's
BTRI
reports.

State
Agencies
and
Programs
New
York
Sea
Grant
New
York
Sea
Grant
is
a
cooperative
program
between
the
State
University
of
New
York
and
Cornell
University
which
focuses
the
talents
of
university
scientists
and
extension
specialists
on
research
and
the
transfer
of
scientific
information
to
industry,
government,
resource
managers,
and
the
public.
Sea
Grant
supports
more
than
20
scientific
research
projects
annually
in
technology
and
product
development,
fisheries,
coastal
environmental
quality
and
processes,
and
other
areas
of
special
interest,
including
Brown
Tide.
As
with
the
NOAA
Coastal
Ocean
Program
Brown
Tide
research
funding,
Sea
Grant
administers
grants
and
leverages
partnerships
with
the
state
and
private
sector.

Regional
Level
Brown
Tide
Steering
Committee
A
Brown
Tide
Steering
Committee
was
formed
after
the
Brown
Tide
Summit
in
1995
to
more
broadly
coordinate
and
guide
Brown
Tide
research
and
monitoring
efforts
through
the
development
of
a
Brown
Tide
Workplan.
The
Committee
is
made
up
of
BTRI
members,
as
well
as
several
additional
members,
including
elected
officials
and
representatives
from
various
agencies,
citizens
groups
and
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
6
estuary
programs
and
coordinated
by
Suffolk
County.
The
Steering
Committee's
goals
are
to:

1)
Coordinate
research
efforts
funded
and
performed
by
various
entities
2)
Assist
in
dissemination
of
information
3)
Develop
and
continually
refine
and
update
research
workplans,
by
systematically
organizing
and
summarizing
results
of
previous
and
ongoing
Brown
Tide
research
efforts
and
identifying
priorities
for
additional
research
needs
4)
Estimate
funding
needs
to
conduct
necessary
additional
research.

Between
1997
and
2000,
Suffolk
County
has
appropriated
$
583,000
to
support
Brown
Tide
monitoring
and
investigation
efforts.
Much
of
the
funding
has
gone
towards
funding
projects
outlined
in
the
1998
Brown
Tide
Workplan.
Suffolk
County
will
continue
to
authorize
$
150,000
each
year
for
the
next
three
years
(
2001­
2003)
from
the
Capital
Budget
for
additional
Brown
Tide
research
and
monitoring.

Local
Level
Suffolk
County
In
1988,
the
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services
(
SCDHS)
Bureau
of
Marine
Resources
expanded
its
surface
water
monitoring
operations
to
characterize
the
extent
and
severity
of
the
Brown
Tide
blooms.
The
Bureau
of
Marine
Resources
provides
this
information
and
needed
samples
to
researchers.
Although
the
cause
of
Brown
Tide
is
still
not
known,
the
study's
resulting
final
report,
the
Brown
Tide
Comprehensive
Assessment
and
Management
Program
(
BTCAMP)
(
SCDHS,
1992),
served
as
the
primary
basis
for
the
nomination
document
for
acceptance
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
into
the
National
Estuary
Program.

Evaluation
of
Effectiveness
The
agencies
and
programs
described
above
are
effective
but
are
underfunded.

Recommendations
for
Improvements
Continued
research
and
monitoring
depends
on
continued
funding.
It
is
recommended
in
the
CCMP
that:
 
The
SCDHS
water
quality
monitoring
program
continues
to
provide
information
needed
for
analysis
and
research
related
to
Brown
Tide
 
Funding
for
NOAA­
funded
Brown
Tide
research
and
monitoring
projects
is
continued
 
Funding
sources
to
implement
the
Brown
Tide
Workplan
are
identified
and
secured
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
7
Nutrients
Description
of
Regulatory/
Institutional
Framework
Federal
Agencies
and
Programs
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
The
principal
law
governing
pollution
of
the
nation's
waterways
is
the
Federal
Water
Pollution
Control
Act,
or
Clean
Water
Act.
Originally
enacted
in
1948,
it
was
totally
revised
by
amendments
in
1972
that
gave
the
Act
its
current
shape.
The
1972
legislation
spelled
out
ambitious
programs
for
water
quality
improvement
that
are
still
being
implemented
by
industries
and
municipalities.
Congress
made
finetuning
amendments
in
1977,
revised
portions
of
the
law
in
1981,
and
enacted
further
amendments
in
1987.

The
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA)
authorizes
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
to
establish
national,
uniform
technology­
based
effluent
limitation
guidelines
for
point
sources
of
pollution
discharging
to
"
waters
of
the
United
States,"
broadly
defined
to
include
wetlands.
Effluent
limitations
are
enforced
through
Section
402
of
the
CWA,
the
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
permit
program
(
NPDES;
delegated
to
New
York
under
SPDES).
The
CWA
does
not
apply
to
agricultural
nonpoint
source
pollution.

Recently,
Phase
II
Municipal
Stormwater
Rules
have
been
promulgated
under
Section
402
by
EPA,
which
will
extend
regulatory
requirements
for
stormwater
effluent
limitations
to
smaller
urban
areas
than
have
previously
been
affected.
The
program
will
be
phased
in
over
7
years,
and
will
be
administered
by
the
New
York
State
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation
(
NYSDEC)
as
part
of
its
delegated
authority
under
the
CWA.
Municipalities,
which
fell
outside
of
the
regulatory
purview
of
the
Phase
I
Rules,
will
need
to
meet
the
compliance
requirements
of
Phase
II.
Permitted
municipalities
will
be
required
to
implement
6
minimum
control
measures:

I.
public
education
and
outreach
II.
public
involvement/
participation
III.
illicit
discharge
detection
and
elimination
IV.
construction
site
stormwater
runoff
control
V.
post­
construction
stormwater
management
in
new
development
and
redevelopment
VI.
pollution
prevention/
good
housekeeping
for
municipal
operations
Sections
208
and
303(
e)
of
the
CWA
of
1972
established
the
initial
framework
for
addressing
nonpoint
sources
of
pollution
(
NPS).
States
and
local
planning
agencies
analyzed
the
extent
of
NPS
pollution
and
developed
water
quality
management
programs
to
control
it
with
funds
provided
by
EPA
under
Section
208.
Best
management
practices
were
evaluated,
assessment
models
and
methods
were
developed,
and
other
types
of
technical
assistance
were
made
available
to
State
and
local
water
quality
managers.
Section
208
provided
that
States
prepare
statewide
and
regional
plans,
based
on
watersheds,
for
the
prevention
of
both
point
and
nonpoint
source
pollution.

EPA's
Total
Maximum
Daily
Load
(
TMDL)
Program
comes
from
Section
303(
d).
There
remain
waters
in
the
nation
that
do
not
meet
the
CWA
national
goal
of
"
fishable,
swimmable"
quality
despite
the
fact
that
nationally
required
levels
of
pollution
control
technology
have
been
implemented
by
many
pollution
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
8
sources.
CWA
Section
303(
d)
addresses
these
waters
that
are
not
"
fishable,
swimmable"
by
requiring
the
state
to
identify
the
waters
and
to
develop
total
maximum
daily
loads
(
TMDLs)
for
them,
with
oversight
from
EPA.

Per
Section
312
of
the
CWA,
EPA,
individual
States
and
the
U.
S.
Coast
Guard
work
together
to
provide
states
with
the
opportunity
to
protect
citizens
and
aquatic
habitats
through
Vessel
Waste
No
Discharge
Area
designations
and
national
standards
for
marine
sanitation
devices
on
boat
toilets,
or
heads.
Section
312
of
the
CWA
helps
protect
human
health
and
the
aquatic
environmental
from
disease­
causing
microorganisms
that
may
be
present
in
sewage
from
vessels
and
boats.
These
microorganisms
can
include
bacteria,
protozoa,
and
viruses.
For
more
discussion
on
No
Discharge
Areas,
see
the
discussion
on
the
Clean
Vessel
Act
in
the
Pathogens
section.

Section
319
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
directs
each
state
to
develop
programs
for
controlling
nonpoint
source
pollution.
New
York
has
an
EPA­
approved
State
Assessment
Report
and
Management
Program
that
describes
the
state's
nonpoint
source
pollution
problems
and
programs.

Section
320
of
the
CWA
of
1987
established
the
National
Estuary
Program
(
NEP),
under
which
authority
for
this
document
supporting
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
was
prepared.
Section
320
authorized
the
EPA
Administrator
to
convene
Management
Conferences
to
develop
Comprehensive
Conservation
and
Management
Plans
for
estuaries
of
national
significance
that
are
threatened
by
pollution.
The
general
goals
of
the
NEP
are
the
protection
and
improvement
of
water
quality
and
the
enhancement
of
living
resources.
To
achieve
these
goals,
the
program
calls
for
activities
to
help:

 
establish
working
partnerships
among
Federal,
state,
and
local
government;
 
transfer
scientific
and
management
information,
experience,
and
expertise
to
program
participants;
 
increase
public
awareness
of
pollution
problems
and
ensure
public
participation
in
consensus
building;
 
promote
basin­
wide
planning
to
control
pollution
and
manage
living
resources;
and
 
oversee
development
and
implementation
of
pollution
abatement
and
control
programs.

Section
320
also
specifies
members
of
a
Management
Conference
to
ensure
representation
by
a
broad
range
of
interests.
Membership
must
include,
at
a
minimum,
representatives
of
Federal,
state,
regional,
and
local
agencies,
affected
industries,
academia,
and
the
public.

Section
401
of
the
CWA
of
1977
(
33
U.
S.
C.
1251,
Section
401)
provides
that
all
projects
requiring
Federal
permits
for
the
discharge
of
dredged
or
fill
material
into
waters
of
the
United
States
also
require
a
Water
Quality
Certification.
The
purpose
of
this
certification
is
to
insure
that
all
such
activities
are
consistent
with
national
water
quality
standards
and
management
policies.
This
program
is
administered
by
the
State
of
New
York
through
Federal
delegation.

Section
404
of
the
CWA
establishes
the
Federal
permitting
program
governing
discharge
of
dredged
and
fill
material
into
wetlands
and
other
waters,
administered
by
EPA
and
U.
S.
Army
Corps
of
Engineers.

U.
S.
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
The
U.
S.
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
(
ACOE)
is
an
engineering
and
water
resources
development
agency
authorized
to
investigate,
develop,
conserve
and
improve
the
nation's
water,
land
and
related
environmental
resources.
The
ACOE's
civil
programs
primarily
manage
the
country's
wetlands
and
waterways.
Program
activities
include
navigation,
flood
control,
flood
plain
management,
shore
and
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
9
beach
restoration
and
protection,
hurricane
flood
protection,
water
quality
control,
wetland
protection
and
enhancement,
outdoor
recreation
and
environmental
quality.

The
ACOE
issues
permits
for
the
placement
of
fill
material
into
United
States
waters
or
wetlands.
This
can
affect
small
and
large­
scale
projects
such
as
constructing
piers,
docks
and
ramps
or
dredging
and
placement
activities
in
navigable
waters.
The
ACOE
also
issues
permits
for
placement
of
dredged
material
into
ocean
waters.

National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration
The
U.
S.
Department
of
Commerce's
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration
(
NOAA)
is
the
nation's
principal
marine
science
agency.
NOAA
serves
the
public
through
a
variety
of
programs
designed
to
manage,
assess,
and
increase
our
understanding
of
the
marine
environment
and
coastal
zone.
NOAA's
coastal
programs
are
carried
out
primarily
through
two
line
offices,
the
National
Ocean
Service
and
the
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS),
described
in
greater
detail
below.
NOAA
also
conducts
many
studies
through
its
Coastal
Ocean
Program
(
COP),
a
multidisciplinary
activity
which
emphasizes
marine
environmental
quality,
fishery
productivity,
and
the
physical
impact
of
natural
coastal
hazards.
NOAA's
National
Sea
Grant
Program,
which
supports
university
research
directed
at
the
development
and
use
of
marine
resources,
is
implemented
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
through
the
New
York
Sea
Grant
Institute.

U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture,
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
The
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture's
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
(
NRCS)
carries
out
a
broad
program
of
technical
assistance,
research
and
education
which
aims
to
improve
agricultural
and
land
management
practices
which
help
protect
surface
and
groundwater
from
contamination.
These
management
practices
focus
on
proper
animal
waste
handling,
erosion
and
stormwater
runoff
control
and
abatement.

U.
S.
Department
of
the
Interior,
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
The
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
(
USFWS)
has
the
principal
Federal
responsibility
for
conserving
the
nation's
fish
and
wildlife
including
their
related
habitats.

Although
the
Service
has
no
direct
regulatory
control
concerning
discharges
of
pollutants
into
waters
of
the
U.
S.
or
discharge
of
dredged
or
fill
material,
the
Agency
plays
a
direct
advisory
role
in
these
regulatory
practices.
Under
the
Fish
and
Wildlife
Coordination
Act,
the
Service
must
assess
the
impacts
on
biota
of
all
water
and
water
related
development
projects
that
are
funded
by
the
Federal
government
or
constructed
under
a
Federal
permit
or
license.
The
Service
provides
information
to
Federal
construction
or
regulatory
agencies
and
to
permit
applicants.

U.
S.
Department
of
the
Interior,
Geological
Survey
The
primary
responsibility
of
the
U.
S.
Geological
Survey
(
USGS)
is
to
conduct
surveys,
investigating
and
researching
the
topography,
geology
and
mineral
and
water
resources
of
the
nation.
The
Survey
is
also
involved
with
quantification
of
the
nation's
water
resources
and
the
effect
of
development
and
utilization
on
them.
It
makes
statistical
data
and
summary
reports
available
to
planners,
developers
and
managers.

The
USGS
is
also
responsible
for
the
National
Water
Quality
Assessment
Program
which
aims
to
describe
the
status
and
trends
in
the
quality
of
the
nation's
ground
and
surface
water
resources
and
to
provide
a
sound,
scientific
understanding
of
the
primary
natural
and
human
factors
affecting
the
quality
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
10
of
these
resources.
The
information
collected
under
this
program
provides
essential
water
quality
information
for
policy
makers.

State
Agencies
and
Programs
New
York
State
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation
The
New
York
State
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation
is
the
lead
State
agency
in
planning,
developing
and
managing
the
state's
water
resources,
and
undertakes
studies
for
the
protection,
conservation,
development
and
use
of
water
resources
of
the
state.
Other
activities
include
classification
of
state
waters
and
establishing
standards
for
quality
and
purity,
permitting
of
wastewater
discharges,
flood
control
and
flood
plain
management,
control
of
dredging
and
filling
in
navigable
waters,
control
of
construction
of
dams
and
docks,
tidal
and
freshwater
wetland
conservation
programs
and
management
of
fish,
shellfish
and
wildlife
resources.

A
listing
of
individual
divisions
with
responsibility
over
the
water
quality
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
follows:

Division
of
Water:
charged
with
maintaining
water
quality
in
all
of
the
state's
waterbodies
and
managing
water
resources.
The
Division
sets
water
quality
standards,
regulates
wastewater
treatment
and
associated
discharges,
monitors
water
quality,
oversees
the
state's
nonpoint
source
pollution
program
and
protects
groundwater
aquifers,
under
delegation
of
Clean
Water
Act
powers
described
above.

Bureau
of
Marine
Resources:
responsible
for
managing
living
marine
resources
in
the
state.
This
includes
assessing
environmental
impacts
on
marine
resources,
administering
the
tidal
wetlands
and
excavation
and
fill
regulatory
programs,
coordinating
state
participation
in
National
Estuary
Programs,
recommending
standards
and
classifications
for
marine
waters,
certifying
shellfish
growing
waters
for
harvesting,
administering
shellfish
management
programs,
assessing
principal
fishery
stocks
and
developing
recommendations
for
effective
management
of
species.

Division
of
Environmental
Permits:
coordinates
permit
reviews,
assesses
environmental
impacts
of
proposed
projects,
reviews
regulations,
and
issues
permits.
The
Division
also
administers
the
State
Environmental
Quality
Review
Act
which
requires
all
levels
of
state
and
local
government
to
assess
the
environmental
significance
of
actions
which
they
have
discretion
to
approve,
fund
or
directly
undertake.

New
York
State
Department
of
State
Coastal
Management
Program
In
New
York,
the
Department
of
State
administers
the
Coastal
Management
Program
(
CMP).
The
CMP
provides
for
the
preservation,
protection,
development
and
use
of
the
state's
coastal
and
inland
waterways.
The
program
has
many
aspects:
policies
covering
land
use
planning,
development
of
recreation,
commercial
and
industrial
water­
dependent
properties,
maintenance
of
fish
and
wildlife
habitats,
stabilization
of
beaches
and
dunes,
and
waste
discharges
from
vessels
and
on
shore
facilities.
The
CMP's
jurisdiction
extends
from
the
limit
of
the
state's
territorial
waters
to
a
line
generally
500
to
1000
feet
inland.

The
CMP
reviews
projects
having
some
form
of
Federal
involvement
in
coastal
areas
for
consistency
with
local,
state
and
Federal
environmental
statutes
and
program.
The
CMP
also
provides
technical
and
financial
assistance
to
local
municipalities
to
prepare
Local
Waterfront
Revitalization
Plans.
These
plans
promote
revitalization
of
coastal
areas
while
protecting
their
integrity.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
11
Under
the
Coastal
Zone
Act
Reauthorization
Amendments
of
1990,
each
state
was
required
to
develop
and
submit
to
the
EPA
and
NOAA
a
coastal
nonpoint
pollution
control
program.
The
purpose
of
the
program
is
"
to
develop
and
implement
management
measures
for
nonpoint
source
pollution
to
restore
and
protect
coastal
waters,"
working
in
close
conjunction
with
other
state
and
local
authorities.

New
York
State
Department
of
Health
The
Department
of
Health
enforces
compliance
with
the
Public
Health
Law
and
the
State
Sanitary
Code.
In
the
area
of
water
resources,
the
Department
establishes
drinking
water
quality
standards,
and
establishes
regulations
for
the
sanitary
control
of
water
supplies.
The
Health
Department
sets
guidance
for
seafood
consumption
to
protect
public
health.
The
Department
also
assists
DEC
in
developing
water
and
air
human
health
standards
and
in
overseeing
public
health
interests
for
the
inspection
and
remediation
of
inactive
hazardous
waste
sites.

Regional
Level
Long
Island
Regional
Planning
Board
The
Board
conducts
planning
and
technical
studies
targeted
to
the
preparation
and
update
of
the
Bi­
County
Comprehensive
Development
Plan
for
Nassau
and
Suffolk
Counties.
Activities
are
supported
by
grants
from
Federal,
state
and
local
government
agencies.
Technical
assessments
conducted
at
both
regional
and
local
levels
have
focused
on
a
wide
array
of
topics
including
the
implications
of
land
use
on
waste
management
planning,
the
quality
of
groundwater
and
surface
waters
and
natural
resource
protection.
The
Board
also
provides
technical
expertise
to
local
municipalities
and
makes
recommendations
on
development
proposals,
government
operations
and
open
space
plans
and
acquisitions.

Local
Level
New
York
has
a
long­
standing
tradition
of
local
self­
determination
or
local
home
rule.
Home
rule
authority
is
highly
valued
and
strongly
defended.
Land
use
controls
in
particular
are
viewed
as
a
local
prerogative.
At
the
county
level,
Suffolk
County
performs
state­
assigned
functions
such
as
enforcement
of
state
laws,
and
the
conduct
of
elections,
as
well
as
providing
a
variety
of
public
services
to
its
residents
in
such
areas
as
public
and
environmental
health,
sanitation,
highways
and
public
safety.

In
New
York,
municipalities,
usually
local
planning
and/
or
zoning
commissions,
and
zoning
boards
of
appeals
are
responsible
for
determining
land
use
and
zoning.
This
authority
is
delegated
to
localities
by
state
law
and
under
state
guidance.
Commissions,
in
conjunction
with
other
local
agencies,
exert
additional
regulatory
control
over
activities
in
the
community.
Some
examples
include
conservation,
aquifer
protection,
and
wetland
and
historic
commissions.

Municipal
Boards
or
Councils
In
New
York,
the
elected
Municipal
Boards
are
charged
with
the
responsibility
of
overseeing
all
functions
of
local
government.
These
boards
are
ultimately
charged
with
the
regulation
of
land
use
and
zoning
 
the
"
backbone"
of
home
rule.
In
most
instances,
the
Board
commissions
the
development
of
a
master
plan
or
other
comprehensive
land
use
document
which
defines
the
existing
development
patterns
within
a
given
community,
articulates
a
set
of
objectives
or
goals,
sets
forth
a
plan
for
guiding
future
development
in
conformance
with
the
stated
goals
or
objectives
and
can
grant
zoning
incentives.
The
Board
will
usually
delegate
watchdog
powers
to
a
planning
board
that
analyzes
individual
development
proposals
in
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
12
the
context
of
the
overall
master
plan
to
insure
compliance.
However,
if
this
authority
is
not
delegated,
zoning,
rezoning
and
granting
special
permits
is
the
function
of
the
legislative
board.

Boards
and
Department
of
Health
The
Department
of
Health
has
far­
reaching
authority
in
exercising
their
responsibility
to
protect
public
health
and
safety.
Its
broad
regulatory
authority
places
it
at
the
forefront
of
environmental
protection.
The
Board
of
Health
can
adopt
regulations
for
many
activities
that
might
endanger
public
health
or
the
environment.
Health
Department
jurisdictions
typically
extend
into
the
areas
of
water
supply,
sewage
disposal
and
sanitation.

The
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services
implements
delegated
programs
from
the
NYS
Departments
of
Health
and
Environmental
Conservation,
as
well
as
Suffolk
County
Sanitary
Code
Articles
4,
6,
7,
and
12.
These
Sanitary
Code
sections
limit
nutrient
and
toxic
pollution
to
groundwater,
with
attendant
benefits
to
surface
waters.

Conservation
Commissions
and
Boards
Municipalities
are
empowered
under
state
law
to
establish
local
environmental
advisory
agencies.
Among
their
purposes
are
to
inventory
natural
resources
within
the
community;
receive
and
monitor
designated
open
space/
conservation
areas
as
well
as
conservation
easements
on
behalf
of
the
community;
serve
as
an
advisor
on
conservation
matters
to
other
municipal
boards,
councils
and
agencies;
and
prepare
and
periodically
update
maps
of
open
space/
conservation
areas
and
other
important
natural
resources.

Inland
or
Freshwater
Wetland
Commissions
The
municipality
is
empowered
under
state
law
to
enact
legislation
providing
for
the
local
regulation
of
inland
or
freshwater
wetlands
that
is
consistent
with
state
statutes.
Once
wetland
regulations
are
enacted,
the
municipal
board
will
generally
delegate
implementation
to
an
Inland
Wetland
Commission
or
Conservation
Board.
These
commissions
preside
over
specific
development
actions
in
and
around
wetlands
and
render
regulatory
decisions.
Other
activities
may
include
monitoring
approved
projects
for
compliance
with
the
terms
and
conditions
of
issued
permits,
providing
enforcement
of
the
local
wetland
regulations,
and
keeping
maps
of
wetland
areas
that
are
available
for
review.
The
regulation
of
inland
wetlands
is
an
important
component
to
the
protection
of
estuarine
quality
as
inland
wetlands
are
often
hydrologically
connected
to
estuarine
wetlands
and
waterways.

Environment
Departments
Environment
Departments
are
often
established
by
the
governing
municipal
board
to
oversee
and
coordinate
all
activities
in
the
municipality
having
to
do
with
the
environment.
These
departments
are
charged
with
managing
natural
resources,
protecting
public
health
and
balancing
population
growth,
resource
use
and
resource
health.
Environmental
departments
provide
assistance
and
advice
to
a
wide
variety
of
elected
and
appointed
boards
having
jurisdictions
in
environmental
matters.

Planning
and
Zoning
Boards
or
Commissions
Planning
boards
or
commissions
are
statutorily
empowered
to
carry
out
a
variety
of
planning
related
functions,
some
of
which
are
long­
range
while
others
pertain
to
the
review
of
individual
projects,
proposals
and
activities.
These
authorities
are
conveyed
to
municipalities,
but
not
required
of
them.
Accordingly,
while
these
powers
are
the
backbone
of
local
home
rule,
all
procedures
must
be
consistent
with
the
requirements
of
state
planning
and
zoning
enabling
statutes
and
are
not
universally
in
place.
These
boards
or
commissions
are
the
primary
authorities
for
local
coastal
management
planning
and
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
13
implementation.
All
significant
development
proposals
are
reviewed
for
conformance
with
local
and
state
coastal
programs.

Generally,
planning
or
combined
planning
and
zoning
commissions
prepare,
adopt
or
amend
master
plans
of
development
for
a
community;
review
municipal
improvement
projects
and
the
subdivision
of
land.

Zoning
Board
of
Appeals
Boards
of
Appeals
are
elected
or
appointed
by
the
local
legislative
board
and
empowered
to
vary
land
use
regulations
where
the
strict
application
of
such
regulations
would
create
unnecessary
hardship
(
i.
e.,
if
the
applicant
is
deprived
of
all
economic
uses
or
benefit,
the
hardship
is
unique
but
not
self­
created).
In
some
municipalities,
the
boards
may
also
hear
and
decide
on
applications
for
special
permits.

Nonpoint
Source
Implementation
Local
programs
are
discussed
more
fully
in
the
PEP
documents,
PEP
Base
Programs
Analysis,
Nonpoint
Source
Management
Plan,
Inventory,
June
12,
1995,
as
well
as
Evaluating
Town
Capacity
and
Needs
in
Protecting
the
Peconic
Estuary,
Columbia
University,
1999.
The
nonpoint
source
document
is
particularly
significant
with
respect
to
pollution
loading,
as
it
describes
applicable
6217(
g)
management
measures,
and
the
extent
to
which
they
are
implemented
by
local
programs.
The
report
discusses,
in
detail,
issues
such
as
local
ordinances
and
management
approaches
for
stormwater
runoff,
sanitary
systems,
and
land
use
management
controls
(
zoning,
open
space,
clearing
restrictions,
etc.).

Legislative
Bodies
NYS
Legislative
Commission
on
Water
Resource
Needs
of
Long
Island
Since
1987,
the
NYS
Legislative
Commission
on
Water
Resource
Needs
of
Long
Island
has
worked
to
prevent
degradation
of
resources
and
their
interdependent
ecologies.
The
Commission's
primary
responsibilities
are
to
make
recommendations
that
lead
to
the
preservation
and
protection
of
water
resources,
to
initiate
the
enactment
of
legislation
to
those
same
ends,
and
to
participate
in
ongoing
dialogues
to
ensure
the
health
of
those
waters.

Evaluation
of
Effectiveness
In
general,
most
of
the
agencies
and
programs
described
above
provide
adequate
capacity
(
statutory
and
regulatory
authority,
agency
functionality,
etc.)
to
support
PEP
management
objectives.
A
few
needs/
deficiencies,
potentially
warranting
"
new"
programs,
are
recommended,
including:

 
Optimizing
farmer
involvement
in
AEM
initiatives
by
providing
comfort
levels,
possibly
via
insurance
programs.

 
Promoting
more
progressive
nonpoint
source
control
measures,
especially
in
sensitive
nearshore
areas
and
subwatersheds
of
embayments,
dealing
with
sanitary
system
upgrades,
innovative
and
alternative
sanitary
systems,
septage
management
districts,
and
harbor
protection
overlay
district
ordinances.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
14
While
a
few
needs
for
"
new"
programs
have
been
recommended,
most
of
the
programmatic
analysis
contained
in
this
document,
and
in
the
CCMP,
has
resulted
in
identification
of
recommendations
for
improvements
in
existing
programs.
These
improvements
generally
fall
in
the
classes
of:

 
Needs
to
apply/
tailor
existing
programs
and
mechanisms
to
further
PEP
recommendations
(
e.
g.,
use
mechanisms
such
as
nitrogen
guidelines
to
guide
regional
nitrogen
load
allocations).

 
Needs
to
expand
pre­
existing
programs
to
meet
Peconic
Estuary
needs
(
e.
g.,
tailor
an
agricultural
environmental
management
program
for
nitrogen
management
needs
to
the
conditions
in
Suffolk
County,
where
nitrogen
from
fertilizers
leaches
readily
from
soil
to
groundwater,
eventually
reaching
surface
waters).

 
Needs
for
additional
financial
and/
or
staff
resources
for
implementation
(
e.
g.,
additional
staff
at
Suffolk
County
Soil
and
Water
Conservation
District
and
USDA
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
to
implement
agricultural
environmental
management).

Recommendations
for
Improvements
Based
on
its
programmatic
inventory
and
evaluation,
in
terms
of
new
programs,
the
PEP
has
recommended:

 
Investigating
the
creation
of
a
farm
insurance
program
to
optimize
involvement
in
AEM
initiatives.

 
Evaluating
the
feasibility
of
progressive
nonpoint
source
control
measures.
­
Tax
credits
for
sanitary
system
upgrades.
­
Innovative
and
alternative
sanitary
systems,
and
septage
management
districts.
­
Harbor
protection
overlay
district
ordinances.

Since
these
new
programs
are
in
the
early
stages
of
investigation,
commitments
have
not
been
procured,
and
costs
and
responsibilities
are
unknown.
The
PEP
Management
Conference
is
the
lead
entity
in
evaluating
feasibility
of
these
programs.

Based
on
program
needs,
recommendations
for
improvements
(
or
programmatic
follow­
up)
include:

 
Refine
Water
Quality
Standards
and
Guidelines.
­
Integrate
monitoring
and
modeling
data,
studies,
and
reports
to
evaluate
the
application
of
nitrogen
guidelines
for
attaining
and
maintaining
DO
standards,
optimizing
eelgrass
habitats,
and
for
use
in
developing
regional
load
allocation
strategies
and
TMDLs.
­
Review
and
revise
as
appropriate
the
marine
DO
standards
based
on
Long
Island
Sound
Study
efforts
to
develop
area­
specific
DO
targets
and
USEPA
efforts
to
develop
DO
criteria
for
marine
waters.

 
Preserve
Water
Quality
East
of
Flanders
Bay
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
15
­
Develop
and
implement
water
quality
preservation
plans
to
protect
existing
water
quality
for
waters
east
of
Flanders
Bay
where
water
quality
meets
or
exceeds
established
standards,
criteria,
or
guidelines.
This
may
be
accomplished,
in
part,
by
land
use
and
nonpoint
source
pollution
control
measures
noted
above
and
below.

 
Implement
a
Quantitative
Nitrogen
Load
Allocation
Strategy
for
Entire
Estuary
­
Initiate
the
development
of
load
allocation
targets
and
implementation
strategies
for
nitrogen
loading
to
the
entire
estuary,
identify
water
segments
to
be
included
in
New
York
State's
2002
303(
d)
list,
and
establish
schedule
for
development
of
a
TMDL,
as
needed.

 
Control
Point
Source
Discharges
from
STPs
and
Other
Dischargers
­
Evaluate
the
appropriateness
of
applying
for
a
"
Discharge
Restriction
Category"
to
prevent
new
nitrogen
discharges
from
point
sources
in
the
Peconic
River
and
the
western
portion
of
the
Peconic
Estuary.
­
Consider
a
groundwater
application
of
the
point
source
nitrogen
freeze
in
the
Peconic
River/
Flanders
Bay
watershed
(
currently
applied
only
to
surface
water
discharges),
based
upon
Nitrogen
Management
Work
Group
recommendations
and
TMDL
work.

 
Implement
Nonpoint
Source
Control
Plans
­
Ensure
that
the
Section
6217(
g)
management
measures
of
CZARA
are
appropriately
implemented,
in
support
of
the
overall
nitrogen
management
plan.
­
Develop
a
regional
implementation
plan
for
agricultural
nitrogen
load
reductions
which
would
include
promoting
agricultural
best
management
practices,
expanding
agricultural
environmental
management
(
AEM)
strategies,
and
promoting
organic
farming
among
other
initiatives.
Four
staff
persons
per
year
over
the
next
10
years
are
needed
for
implementation
(
estimate).
­
Develop
a
Long
Island
component
to
the
New
York
State
Agricultural
Environmental
Management
(
AEM)
program.
($
1
million
for
program
development).
­
Provide
funding
for
increased
local
AEM
development
and
implementation
($
1
million
for
implementation
start
up,
from
NYS
Bond
Act,
Suffolk
County
¼
%
Sales
Tax,
and
other
funding
sources;
long­
term
to
be
determined).

 
Use
Land
Use
Planning
to
Control
Nitrogen
Loading
Associated
with
New
Development
­
Continue
and
expand
aggressive
open
space
preservation
programs
­
Review
the
Pine
Barrens
Land
Use
Plan
"
guidelines"
(
non­
binding)
for
development
in
the
Compatible
Growth
Area
and
develop
proposals
for
additional
"
standards"
(
binding)
for
development
based
on
Peconic
River
water
quality
protection
goals.
­
Evaluate
nitrogen­
loading
impacts
when
reviewing
Core
Preservation
Area
hardship
applications.
­
Ensure
that
the
public
acquisition
of
private,
vacant
lands
in
Core
Preservation
Areas
within
the
Peconic
River
ground
watershed
are
given
high
priority.

­
Utilize
the
strictest
practicable
standards
when
reviewing
Peconic
River
development
plans
(
e.
g.,
require
open
space
dedications,
maximum
practicable
setbacks
from
the
river,
and
natural
landscaping
to
minimize
fertilizer
use).
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
16
Habitat
and
Living
Resources
Description
of
Regulatory/
Institutional
Framework
Federal
Agencies
and
Programs
National
Environmental
Policy
Act
This
Act
established
a
national
environmental
policy
and
goals
for
the
protection,
maintenance,
and
enhancement
of
the
environment,
provided
a
process
for
implementing
these
goals
within
the
Federal
agencies,
and
established
the
Council
on
Environmental
Quality
to
oversee
Federal
implementation
of
the
Act.
Under
the
Act,
all
Federal
agencies
must
incorporate
environmental
considerations
into
their
planning,
decision­
making,
and
actions
through
the
preparation
of
environmental
impact
statements.

Coastal
Zone
Management
Act
The
Coastal
Zone
Management
Act
is
administered
by
the
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration
(
NOAA);
however,
the
objectives
of
the
law
are
to
be
achieved
through
state
coastal
management
programs.
The
State
of
New
York
has
such
a
program,
and
the
actions
of
Federal
agencies
must
be
consistent
with
the
states'
programs.
The
Act
established
a
national
policy
to
preserve,
protect,
develop,
and
where
possible,
to
restore
or
enhance
coastal
zones.

Magnuson­
Stevens
Fishery
Conservation
and
Management
Act
This
Act
was
designed
to
conserve
and
manage
all
fishery
resources
within
the
U.
S.
Exclusive
Economic
Zone,
with
the
exception
of
some
species
on
the
continental
shelf
outside
of
the
U.
S.
Exclusive
Economic
Zone.
This
Act
also
established
eight
regional
fishery
management
councils,
which
prepare
Fishery
Management
Plans
for
the
fisheries
in
their
region.
These
plans
must
include
measures
for
conservation
and
management
that
prevent
overfishing
while
achieving
optimum
yield
for
each
fishery.
Amendments
to
the
Act
require
the
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
describe,
identify,
conserve,
and
enhance
"
essential
fish
habitat",
defined
as
"
those
waters
and
substrate
necessary
to
fish
for
spawning,
breeding,
feeding,
or
growth
to
maturity."

Atlantic
States
Marine
Fisheries
Commission
The
Atlantic
States
Marine
Fisheries
Commission
has
an
Interstate
Fisheries
Management
Program
that
was
established
by
a
state/
Federal
cooperative
agreement
with
the
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service.
This
program
was
designed
to
establish
priorities
for
Territorial
Sea
Fisheries
Management,
develop,
monitor,
and
review
management
plans
for
high
priority
fisheries,
recommend
to
states,
Regional
Fishery
Management
Councils,
and
the
Federal
Government,
management
measures
that
will
benefit
these
fisheries,
and
conduct
short­
term
research
to
assist
in
the
preparation
or
revision
of
fishery
management
plans.
Fishery
management
plans
are
now
required
to
include
essential
fish
habitat
provisions.

Endangered
Species
Act
The
Endangered
Species
Act
is
administered
by
the
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
(
FWS)
and
NOAA's
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS).
This
program
is
designed
to
protect
and
conserve
all
types
of
wildlife
and
plants
­­
both
marine
and
terrestrial
­­
that
are
threatened
or
endangered
with
extinction.
All
Federal
agencies
must
consult
with
the
FWS
and
NMFS
on
activities
that
they
authorize,
fund,
or
carry
out,
which
may
impact
any
threatened
or
endangered
species
or
its
habitat.
This
is
to
ensure
that
actions
will
not
jeopardize
the
species
either
directly
or
through
adverse
modification
of
its
habitat.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
17
Marine
Mammal
Protection
Act
The
Marine
Mammal
Protection
Act
(
MMPA)
is
administered
by
NMFS.
This
Act
serves
to
protect
and
conserve
marine
mammals
and
their
designated
critical
habitat.
In
addition,
it
establishes
a
moratorium
on
the
taking
and
importation
of
marine
mammals.
This
Act
also
provides
for
scientific,
legal,
and
policy
research
to
determine
the
best
methods
for
protecting
and
conserving
marine
mammals.
The
porpoises
and
pinnipeds
found
in
the
Peconics
are
all
covered
under
this
law.

North
American
Waterfowl
Management
Plan
This
Plan
is
administered
cooperatively
by
the
states
and
the
FWS.
It
was
established
to
address
the
serious
decline
of
waterfowl
populations
throughout
North
America.
The
Plan
identifies
habitat
conservation
needs
in
specific
regions,
sets
goals
for
restoration
of
waterfowl
populations,
and
provides
a
framework
for
accomplishing
local,
regional,
and
international
goals.

Fish
and
Wildlife
Coordination
Act
The
Fish
and
Wildlife
Coordination
Act
of
1934
authorizes
the
FWS
to
"
provide
assistance
to
and
cooperate
with
Federal
and
state
agencies
to
protect,
rear,
stock
and
increase
the
supply
of
game
and
fur­
bearing
animals,
as
well
as
to
study
the
effects
of
domestic
sewage,
trade
wastes,
and
other
polluting
substances
on
wildlife."
Amendments
passed
in
1958
further
allow
the
FWS
to
review
proposed
Federal
actions
that
may
affect
stream,
wetlands
or
other
bodies
of
water
and
recommend
ways
to
conserve
fish
and
wildlife.
It
also
allows
the
FWS
to
determine
standards
for
water
quality
maintaining
fish
and
wildlife,
study
methods
of
abating
and
preventing
pollution
and
recovering
useful
products,
and
collect
and
distribute
data
on
the
results
of
the
investigations.

Migratory
Bird
Conservation
Act
and
Migratory
Bird
Treaty
Act
The
Migratory
Bird
Conservation
Act
of
1929
and
the
Migratory
Bird
Treaty
Act
of
1919
serve
to
protect
migratory
birds
through
prohibiting
their
takings,
development
of
hunting
seasons,
restriction
on
weapons,
numbers
taken
and
acquiring
areas
to
manage
and
protect
migratory
birds.
These
laws
protect
many
of
the
waterfowl
and
migratory
birds
found
within
the
Peconics.

Section
404
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
Section
404
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
is
administered
jointly
by
the
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
(
ACOE)
and
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
Section
404
requires
and
regulates
permits
for
the
discharge
of
dredged
or
fill
material
into
surface
waters,
their
tributaries,
and
adjacent
wetlands.
Through
environmental
impact
statements,
a
permit
applicant
must
demonstrate
that
1)
there
are
no
practicable
alternatives;
2)
that
threatened
or
endangered
species
will
not
be
eliminated
or
water
quality
standards
violated;
3)
that
no
significant
degradation
of
waters
will
result;
and
4)
that
the
impacts
of
any
necessary
discharge
are
minimized.

Section
103
of
the
Marine
Protection,
Research,
and
Sanctuaries
Act
Section
103
of
the
Marine
Protection,
Research,
and
Sanctuaries
Act
is
administered
by
the
ACOE,
in
conjunction
with
the
EPA,
NMFS,
and
FWS.
Section
103
is
the
only
part
of
the
Act
that
affects
the
Peconic
Estuary.
The
purpose
of
Section
103
is
to
regulate
the
transportation
and
placement
of
dredged
materials.
Non­
Federal
projects
in
which
dredged
materials
are
transported
or
placed
must
be
evaluated
and
permitted
by
the
ACOE,
and
Federal
projects
must
be
evaluated.
The
EPA
is
responsible
for
development
of
environmental
impact
criteria
upon
which
these
evaluations
are
based,
and
for
the
identification
of
placement
sites.
Both
the
NMFS
and
FWS
assist
in
the
environmental
review
of
activities
covered
by
Section
103
of
this
Act.

Anadromous
Fish
Conservation
Act
The
Anadromous
Fish
Conservation
Act
of
1965
is
administered
by
the
U.
S.
Department
of
the
Interior
and
the
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service.
The
Act
is
intended
to
conserve,
develop
and
enhance
anadromous
fishery
resources.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
18
Rivers
and
Harbors
Act
The
Rivers
and
Harbors
Act
is
administered
by
the
ACOE.
This
Act
was
designed
to
prevent
the
deposition
of
obstructive
and/
or
injurious
materials
within
harbors
or
adjacent
and
tributary
waters.
This
Act
requires
permitting
for
the
movement
or
deposition
of
dredged,
excavated,
or
other
refuse
material
in
harbors
and
their
tributaries.

Coastal
Wetlands
Planning,
Protection,
and
Restoration
Act
The
Coastal
Wetlands
Planning,
Protection,
and
Restoration
Act
is
administered
by
the
FWS.
Under
this
Act,
coastal
states
can
receive
matching
grants
to
establish
programs
for
the
conservation
of
wetlands.
Projects
funded
include
those
in
which
wetlands
are
acquired,
restored,
and
enhanced.

Federal
Agriculture
Improvement
and
Reform
Act
The
Federal
Agriculture
Improvement
and
Reform
Act
(
FAIRA)
of
1996
consolidated
and
simplified
some
of
the
existing
conservation
programs
established
under
the
Food,
Agriculture,
Conservation,
and
Trade
Act
of
1990.
Implemented
primarily
by
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture
(
USDA),
both
acts
encourage
reducing
soil
erosion,
retaining
wetlands,
and
protecting
other
environmentally
sensitive
croplands.

Environmental
Monitoring
and
Assessment
Program
The
Environmental
Monitoring
and
Assessment
Program
is
administered
by
EPA.
The
purpose
of
this
program
is
to
confirm
the
effectiveness
of
pollution
control
strategies.
It
does
this
through
assessing
and
documenting
the
status
and
trends
of
various
habitats
in
marine
and
non­
marine
systems.
The
monitoring
and
assessment
of
these
habitats
is
standardized
throughout
the
country,
so
as
to
ensure
comparable
spatial
and
temporal
measurements.

National
Wildlife
Refuge
System
Wildlife
refuges
are
managed
by
the
USFWS.
The
mission
of
this
program
is
"
to
provide,
preserve,
restore,
and
manage
a
national
network
of
lands
and
waters
sufficient
in
size,
diversity,
and
location
to
meet
society's
needs
for
areas
where
the
widest
possible
spectrum
of
benefits
associated
with
wildlife
and
wild
lands
is
enhanced
and
made
available."
Goals
of
this
program
include
preservation,
restoration,
and
enhancement
of
plant
and
animal
species
in
danger
of
extinction,
perpetuation
of
migratory
birds,
preservation
of
natural
diversity
and
abundance
of
plants
and
animals
in
refuges,
and
provision
of
recreational
experiences
to
the
public.

Coastal
Barrier
Resources
Act
The
Coastal
Barrier
Resources
Act
is
administered
by
the
FWS.
The
purpose
of
this
Act
is
to
protect
ecologically
sensitive
coastal
barriers
through
reduction
or
prevention
of
development.
This
Act
designated
specific
barrier
islands
and
spits
as
ineligible
for
either
direct
or
indirect
Federal
financial
assistance
that
would
support
development
(
including
Federal
flood
insurance).
Thus,
private
interests
or
state
and
local
governments
can
only
finance
development.

Protection
of
Wetlands
(
Executive
Order
11990)
Actions
implemented
within
freshwater
or
coastal
wetlands
may
be
subject
to
the
completion
of
a
wetlands
assessment
and
mitigation
plan.

Floodplain
Management
(
Executive
Order
11988)
Any
construction
within
the
100­
year
flood
plain
necessary
to
implement
actions
of
the
CCMP
may
necessitate
the
preparation
of
a
flood
plain
assessment.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
19
Land
and
Water
Conservation
Fund
The
Land
and
Water
Conservation
Fund
is
administered
by
the
U.
S.
Department
of
the
Interior.
It
is
designed
so
that
there
are
sufficient
outdoor
recreation
resources
that
are
conserved,
developed,
and
utilized
for
present
and
future
generations.
The
Fund
derives
revenue
from
various
sources
such
as
Outer
Continental
Shelf
oil
and
gas
monies
and
motorboat
fuel
taxes,
and
appropriates
this
money
to
1)
states
in
the
form
of
matching
grants
for
outdoor
recreation
projects;
and
2)
Federal
agencies
for
land
acquisitions.

National
Sea
Grant
College
Program
The
National
Sea
Grant
College
Program
is
a
partnership
between
the
nation's
universities
and
NOAA
chartered
in
1966
by
the
National
Sea
Grant
College
Program
Act.
The
program
encourages
the
wise
stewardship
of
marine
resources
through
research,
education,
outreach,
and
technology
transfer.
The
NOAA
Office
of
Sea
Grant
administers
the
program
and
provides
financial
support
to
colleges,
universities,
and
other
research
institutions
through
a
matching
fund
program.

Fish
and
Wildlife
Service's
Coastal
Ecosystem
Program
The
USFWS's
Coastal
Ecosystem
Program
aims
to
conserve
fish
and
wildlife
and
their
habitats
and
to
support
healthy
coastal
ecosystems.
The
Program's
approach
is
to
work
in
partnership
with
Federal,
state,
international,
Native
American,
and
local
agencies;
non­
governmental
organizations;
and
the
private
sector
to
develop
and
implement
ecosystem­
based
policies
and
programs
that
protect
and
enhance
coastal
living
resources.
The
emphasis
of
the
Coastal
Ecosystem
Program
is
to
have
natural
laboratories
for
long­
term
research
and
monitoring
projects,
as
well
as
public
education,
so
that
comparative
work
can
be
accomplished
through
these
sites.

Coastal
America
Coastal
America
is
an
interagency
partnership
of
12
Federal
agencies
working
together
to
protect,
preserve,
and
restore
coastal
ecosystems
that
was
established
in
1992.
It
also
includes
state,
local
and
tribal
governments
and
non­
governmental
organizations.
Coastal
America
also
collaborates
and
cooperates
in
the
stewardship
of
coastal
living
resources
by
working
in
partnership
with
other
Federal
programs
and
by
integrating
Federal
actions
with
state,
local
and
tribal
efforts.

National
Estuarine
Research
Reserve
The
National
Estuarine
Research
Reserve
(
NERR)
was
created
in
1972
with
the
passage
of
the
Coastal
Zone
Management
Act.
The
NERR
systems
protect
representative
estuarine
areas
through
a
partnership
between
NOAA
and
state
governments.
Each
estuarine
reserve
has
research,
education,
and
monitoring
functions
that
include
researching
reserve
environments,
and
tracking
the
status
and
trends
in
ecosystem
health.

State
Agencies
and
Programs
Environmental
Quality
Review
Act
The
Environmental
Quality
Review
Act
is
administered
by
NYS
DEC
Division
of
Environmental
Permits.
This
Act
requires
consideration
of
environmental
impacts
along
with
social
and
economic
factors
in
all
state
and
local
agency
decision
making.
Through
this
Act,
all
state
and
local
government
agencies
must
assess
the
environmental
significance
of
actions
that
they
have
discretion
to
approve,
fund
or
directly
undertake.
In
cases
in
which
an
action
may
potentially
have
significant
environmental
impacts,
an
environmental
impact
statement
must
be
prepared.
This
statement
examines
ways
to
reduce
or
avoid
adverse
environmental
impacts
related
to
a
proposed
action,
and
it
includes
analysis
of
reasonable
alternatives.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
20
Coastal
Management
Program
The
Coastal
Management
Program
is
administered
by
NYS
Department
of
State,
Division
of
Coastal
Resources
and
Waterfront
Revitalization.
This
Program
is
responsible
for
coordinated
and
comprehensive
planning
for
the
use,
protection,
and
development
of
coastal
resources,
and
the
exercise
of
full
governmental
authority
over
land
and
water
uses
in
the
coastal
area.
The
Coastal
Management
Program
is
implemented
through
three
components:
1)
local
Waterfront
Revitalization
Programs,
which
address
coastal
development;
2)
review
of
Federal
and
state
government
actions
to
determine
consistency
with
coastal
management
policies;
and
3)
support
and
involvement
in
coastal
programs,
projects,
and
activities,
which
implement
coastal
policies.
A
fourth
component,
the
Coastal
Nonpoint
Pollution
Control
Program,
has
recently
been
added
to
develop
and
implement
management
measures
for
nonpoint
source
pollution.
In
addition,
the
Coastal
Management
Program
contains
the
Significant
Coastal
Fish
and
Wildlife
Habitats
Program,
which
maps
designated
areas
for
their
protection,
preservation,
and
maintenance.

Marine
Fisheries
Management
Programs
There
are
various
fisheries
management
programs
administered
by
NYS
DEC
Division
of
Fish,
Wildlife
and
Marine
Resources.
It
is
the
mission
of
these
programs
to
manage
and
maintain
the
state's
living
marine,
estuarine,
and
anadromous
resources,
and
to
protect
and
enhance
the
habitat
upon
which
these
resources
depend,
in
order
to
assure
that
diverse
and
self­
sustaining
populations
of
these
resources
are
available
for
future
generations.
Specific
programs
include
investigation
and
management
of
shellfish,
anadromous
finfish,
marine
finfish,
and
crustaceans,
the
Peconic
finfish
and
macroinvertebrate
trawl
survey,
development
of
artificial
reefs,
and
enhancement
of
access
to
these
resources.

Shellfish
Sanitation
Program
The
Shellfish
Sanitation
Program
is
administered
by
NYS
DEC
Bureau
of
Marine
Resources.
This
program
assures
that
shellfish
harvested
and
sold
in
the
state
meet
public
health
guidelines.
This
goal
is
achieved
by
testing
the
waters
where
shellfish
are
harvested
and
closing
those
waters
that
exceed
levels
of
pathogen
indicators
that
would
be
unsafe
for
human
consumption.
In
addition,
NYS
DEC
monitors
and
inspects
all
wholesalers
to
make
sure
that
all
shellfish
are
handled,
processed,
and
shipped
under
sanitary
conditions.

Freshwater
Fish
and
Wildlife
Management
Programs
There
are
various
wildlife
management
programs
administered
by
NYS
DEC
Division
of
Fish,
Wildlife
and
Marine
Resources.
These
programs
are
designed
to
manage
and
maintain
the
state's
freshwater
fisheries
and
wildlife
resources
for
the
use
and
enjoyment
of
the
public,
and
to
protect
and
enhance
the
habitat
upon
which
these
resources
depend.
Some
of
these
programs
include:
management
of
the
waterfowl
resource,
including
habitat
restoration
under
the
North
American
Waterfowl
Management
Plan,
monitoring
and
protection
of
endangered
species
and
significant
habitats,
regulation
of
use
of
species
through
the
process
of
setting
hunting
regulations,
and
biological
surveys
of
wildlife
species.

Endangered
Species
Program
The
Endangered
Species
Program
is
administered
by
NYS
DEC
Division
of
Fish,
Wildlife
and
Marine
Resources.
This
Program
studies
species
with
declining
population
sizes
and
classifies
them
as
"
endangered,"
"
threatened,"
or
"
of
special
concern."
Overall,
there
are
52
endangered
or
threatened
species
in
New
York
State.
The
Program
identifies
and
acts
to
preserve
habitats
vital
to
the
existence
of
these
species.
In
addition,
this
program
actively
participates
in
efforts
to
restore
populations
of
endangered
species.
Water
Quality
Certification
("
401
certification")
Program
The
Water
Quality
Certification
Program
is
administered
by
NYS
DEC
Division
of
Environmental
Permits,
under
program
authority
of
the
Division
of
Water.
Under
section
401
of
the
Federal
Clean
Water
Act,
any
"
discharge"
to
U.
S.
waters
that
requires
a
Federal
permit
must
first
obtain
a
401
certification
from
the
state.
Therefore,
this
Program
regulates
water
quality
to
insure
that
actions
by
Federal
agencies
do
not
compromise
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
21
the
water
quality
standards
adopted
by
New
York
State.
This
objective
is
accomplished
by
requiring
Federal
agencies
issuing
permits
or
carrying
out
direct
actions
to
first
obtain
a
water
quality
certification
from
the
state.

Nonpoint
Source
Water
Pollution
Program
The
Nonpoint
Source
(
NPS)
Water
Pollution
Program
is
administered
by
NYS
DEC
Division
of
Water.
Under
section
319
of
the
Federal
Clean
Water
Act,
the
U.
S.
EPA
oversees
this
Program
through
grant
administration,
program
approval,
and
periodic
program
evaluation.
This
Program
is
responsible
for
an
Assessment
Report,
which
reflects
the
current
level
of
understanding
of
NPS
problems
in
New
York
State,
and
a
Nonpoint
Source
Management
Program.
The
management
program
is
designed
to:
identify
approved
management
practices,
establish
watershed
planning
processes,
recommend
control
measures
needed
to
address
each
category
of
NPS
pollution,
identify
potential
sources
of
funding
available
to
implement
NPS
control
programs,
and
establish
a
procedure
to
ensure
that
Federal,
state,
and
local
programs
are
consistent
with
the
state's
NPS
program.
This
Program
was
initiated
in
1989,
and
is
implemented
through
other
existing
programs
and
agencies,
which
incorporate
management
recommendations
into
their
plans.

Point
Source
Control
Program
The
Point
Source
Control
Program
is
administered
by
NYS
DEC
Division
of
Water.
Under
section
402
of
the
Federal
Clean
Water
Act
and
New
York
State
law,
this
Program
regulates
discharges
from
all
point
sources.
This
includes
ensuring
water
quality
standards
are
achieved.
This
Program
is
responsible
for
granting
state
pollutant
discharge
elimination
system
(
SPDES)
discharge
permits.
SPDES
is
the
primary
mechanism
for
controlling
the
discharge
of
conventional,
non­
conventional
and
toxic
pollutants
from
point
sources,
and
it
is
the
mechanism
through
which
sanitary,
commercial,
and
industrial
discharges
of
wastewater
to
surface
and
ground
waters
are
regulated.

Tidal
Wetlands
Program
The
Tidal
Wetlands
Program
is
administered
by
the
NYS
DEC
Division
of
Fish,
Wildlife
and
Marine
Resources,
and
it
consists
of
three
parts
(
NYS
Environmental
Conservation
Law,
Article
25).
The
Tidal
Wetlands
Regulatory
Program
is
designed,
through
the
use
of
permits,
to
preserve
and
protect
tidal
wetlands
and
adjacent
areas,
and
to
prevent
their
despoliation
and
destruction.
The
Tidal
Wetlands
Acquisition
Program
purchases
or
otherwise
obtains
(
e.
g.,
easement,
donation)
tidal
wetland
areas
that
are
deemed
valuable.
The
state
acquires
these
wetlands
for
the
purpose
of
conservation,
preservation,
and
public
use.
The
NYS
DEC
also
has
a
program
for
restoring
and
enhancing
tidal
wetlands.
In
addition,
all
tidal
wetlands
in
the
state
are
mapped,
inventoried,
and
their
status
is
assessed.

Freshwater
Wetlands
Program
The
Freshwater
Wetlands
Program
is
administered
by
NYS
DEC
Division
of
Fish,
Wildlife
and
Marine
Resources
(
NYS
Environmental
Conservation
Law,
Article
24).
This
Program
protects
and
regulates
activities
in
freshwater
wetlands
12.4
acres
or
larger
and
their
adjacent
areas,
and
smaller
wetlands
if
they
are
deemed
locally
important.
Permits
are
required
for
activities
such
as
construction,
modification,
expansion
and
restoration
of
structures,
placement
of
fill,
excavation,
grading,
drainage,
and
application
of
pesticides.

Protection
of
Waters
Program
The
Protection
of
Waters
Program
is
administered
by
the
NYS
DEC
Division
of
Fish,
Wildlife
and
Marine
Resources
(
NYS
Environmental
Conservation
Law,
Article
15).
This
Program
regulates
the
following
three
categories
of
activities:
1)
disturbance
of
the
bed
or
banks
of
a
"
protected
stream"
or
other
watercourse;
2)
construction
and
maintenance
of
dams;
and
3)
excavation
and/
or
filling
in
"
navigable
waters"
or
the
wetlands
and
estuaries
adjacent
and
contiguous
to
any
navigable
waters.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
22
Coastal
Erosion
Hazard
Program
The
Coastal
Erosion
Program
is
administered
by
the
NYS
DEC
(
NYS
Environmental
Conservation
Law,
Article
34).
This
Program
identifies
and
maps
coastal
erosion
hazard
areas,
establishes
standards
for
the
issuance
of
coastal
erosion
management
permits,
and
regulates
activities
within
these
areas.
Procedural
requirements
are
also
set
up
for
local
governments
that
wish
to
implement
a
local
program.

Toxic
Substances
Assessment
Program
The
Toxic
Substances
Assessment
Program
is
administered
by
NYS
Department
of
Health
Division
of
Environmental
Health
Assessment.
After
the
NYS
DEC
tests
finfish
and
shellfish
for
toxic
substances,
this
Program
interprets
the
results
from
a
human
health
risk
perspective.
In
the
case
that
levels
of
toxic
substances
are
above
those
which
present
a
risk
to
human
health,
this
Program
issues
consumption
advisories.

New
York
State
Marine
Mammals;
Harbor
Seals
In
addition
to
the
Marine
Mammal
Protection
Act
(
See
Federal
section
above),
the
State
of
New
York
specifically
protects
harbor
seals
in
New
York
water
under
NYS
Environmental
Conservation
Law,
Article
11,
section
0107,
by
prohibiting
the
wounding
or
killing
of
harbor
seals
except
as
permitted.
These
animals
are
also
protected
under
this
law
from
being
possessed,
transported,
bought,
or
sold,
except
as
permitted.

Natural
Heritage
Program
The
Natural
Heritage
Program
is
administered
by
NYS
DEC
Division
of
Fish,
Wildlife
and
Marine
Resources
and
the
Division
of
Lands
and
Forests,
with
support
from
The
Nature
Conservancy.
This
Program
was
developed
to
gather
information
and
store
data
on
rare
species
and
significant
natural
communities
in
New
York
State.
Information
and
data
collected
includes
distribution
and
abundance
of
species
and
habitats,
as
well
as
classification
of
communities.

Wild,
Scenic,
and
Recreational
Rivers
Program
The
Wild,
Scenic,
and
Recreational
Rivers
Program
is
administered
by
NYS
DEC
Division
of
Lands
and
Forests
(
NYS
Environmental
Conservation
Law,
Article
15).
This
Program
was
developed
to
protect
and
preserve,
in
a
free­
flowing
condition,
those
rivers
of
the
state
that
possess
outstanding
natural,
scenic,
historical,
ecological,
and
recreational
values
identified
as
being
important
to
present
and
future
generations.
Rivers
that
meet
specific
criteria
are
categorized
as
either
wild,
scenic,
or
recreational
based
on
the
appearance
and
amount
of
nearby
development.
After
designation,
construction
of
many
structures
in
the
river
or
adjacent
areas
requires
a
permit.

Open
Space
Conservation
Plan
The
Open
Space
Conservation
Plan
is
administered
by
NYS
DEC
Division
of
Lands
and
Forests
and
the
NYS
Office
of
Parks,
Recreation,
and
Historic
Preservation.
The
purpose
of
this
plan
is
to
provide
for
the
conservation,
protection,
and
preservation
of
open
space,
natural,
historic,
and
cultural
resources,
and
the
enhancement
of
recreational
opportunities.
Such
open
space
and
resources
includes
fields,
forests,
waters,
and
wetlands.
The
Open
Space
Conservation
Plan
strives
towards
this
objective
by
purchasing
or
otherwise
acquiring
undeveloped
open
space
and
developing
management
strategies
for
these
acquisitions.

New
York
State
Pine
Barrens
Act
The
New
York
State
Pine
Barrens
Act
delineates
large,
undeveloped
parcels
containing
unique
plant
and
animal
communities
around
the
Peconic
River
which
are
to
be
protected.
This
law
provides
for
the
protection
of
several
communities
exclusively
associated
with
the
barrens,
such
as
the
pitch
pine/
scrub
oak
forests
and
coastal
plain
ponds.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
23
New
York
State
Clean
Water/
Clean
Air
Bond
Act
The
New
York
State
Clean
Water/
Clean
Air
Bond
Act
was
approved
by
NYS
voters
in
1996
and
provides
$
1.75
billion
for
improving
and
restoring
water
bodies
across
the
State.
Open
spaces
of
lands
are
also
conserved
with
Bond
Act
money,
as
well
as
the
closing
of
aging
landfills,
upgrading
of
sewage
treatment
plants,
reduction
of
stormwater
runoff,
restoration
of
degraded
habitats,
and
the
clean
up
of
contaminated
properties.

Local
Level
There
are
a
wide
variety
of
local
programs
in
place
to
protect,
preserve
and
enhance
the
habitats
and
living
resources
of
the
Peconic
watershed.
These
were
discussed
in
detail
in
Columbia
University's
report
entitled
"
Evaluating
Town
Capacity
and
Needs
in
Protecting
the
Peconic
Estuary
".
This
report
evaluated
the
existing
programs
enlisted
to
protect
habitat
and
living
resources
for
all
six
east­
end
towns
(
Brookhaven,
East
Hampton,
Riverhead,
Shelter
Island,
Southampton
and
Southold)
and
determined
their
ability
to
monitor
and
evaluate
threats
to
the
estuary.
Each
Town
has
developed
their
own
laws,
zoning
regulations
and
environmental
programs
to
address
habitat
and
living
resources
protection
that
often
go
beyond
those
of
the
New
York
State.
For
example,
Southampton
adopted
a
wetlands
law
in
1993
that
intends
to
achieve
a
"
no
net
loss"
of
wetlands,
and
to
encourage
a
net
gain.
A
more
detailed
description
of
each
Town's
programs
and
ability
to
meet
the
needs
of
the
PEP
CCMP
actions
are
found
in
the
report
by
Columbia
University.

Evaluation
of
Effectiveness
In
general,
the
agencies
and
programs
described
above
provide
excellent
mechanisms
to
protect
many
of
the
habitats
and
living
resources
in
the
Peconic
Estuary.
Many
of
these
programs
also
provide
a
means
to
monitor
habitats,
water
quality
and
living
resources,
as
well
as
allowing
for
the
enhancement
and
restorations.
However,
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Natural
Resources
Subcommittee
and
the
PEP
Management
Conference
have
identified
several
areas
where
existing
laws
and
programs
do
not
sufficiently
protect
the
natural
resources
or
require
strengthening
for
protection
into
the
future.
The
PEP
makes
the
following
recommendations:

Recommendations
for
Improvements
 
Although
many
of
the
habitats
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
are
offered
some
level
of
protection
through
existing
regulations
by
the
Federal,
state
and
local
governments,
there
are
assemblages
of
aquatic
and
terrestrial
habitats
and
living
resources
that
are
increasingly
threatened
by
human
activities
because
the
regulations
do
not
adequately
protect
them.
For
example
a
continued
loss
of
inter­
tidal
and
beach
habitats
from
shoreline
hardening
is
expected
since
NYSDEC
regulations
classify
bulkheads
as
"
generally
compatible
with
the
environment"
above
mean
high
water,
provided
that
there
are
no
tidal
wetlands
in
the
vicinity.
While
these
regulations
may
sufficiently
protect
wetlands,
they
offer
only
limited,
or
no,
protection
of
the
beach
habitats
which
are
of
great
importance
to
many
nesting
shorebirds
(
e.
g.,
piping
plovers)
and
horseshoe
crabs
which
lay
their
eggs
in
these
areas.
Similar
examples
are
found
in
other
aquatic
and
terrestrial
environments.
While
it
is
generally
recommended
that
NYS
strengthen
its
tidal
wetland
regulations,
an
alternative
is
proposed.
It
is
recommended
that
the
areas
within
the
Peconics
that
are
of
very
high
ecological
quality
(
e.
g.,
providing
important
spawning,
breeding,
nursery
and
feeding
habitats
for
a
diversity
of
rare,
keystone
and
commercially
important
species)
be
identified
and
mapped
as
Critical
Natural
Resource
Areas.
Once
these
Critical
Natural
Resource
Areas
are
identified
and
adopted,
they
should
be
given
an
extra
level
of
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
24
protection
through
increased
coordination
and
rigorous
implementation
of
existing
regulations;
and
new
protection
mechanisms
should
be
developed
where
needed.
A
full
implementation
strategy
to
protect
Critical
Natural
Resource
Areas
should
be
developed
and
implemented
by
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
and
all
regulatory
authorities.

 
Eelgrass
has
been
identified
as
a
critical
underwater
habitat
for
bay
scallops
and
finfish.
Eelgrass
beds,
however,
are
only
loosely
protected
under
the
NYSDEC
tidal
wetlands
regulations,
to
a
depth
of
only
6
ft.
and
by
Protection
of
Waters
(
NYS
ECL;
Article
15).
No
other
regulations
exist
to
protect
this
important
habitat
from
the
increasing
threats
of
propeller
scarring,
dredging
and
shading
from
docks
and
piers.
It
is
recommended
that
a
full
review
of
current
policies
that
protect
eelgrass
beds
be
undertaken
and
that
the
PEP
develop
recommendations
for
their
increased
protection,
possibly
through
inclusion
as
a
Critical
Natural
Resources
Area.

 
There
is
an
increasing
need
for
dredging
in
the
Peconics
for
both
commercial
and
recreational
purposes,
which
can
result
in
negative
impacts
to
the
habitat
and
living
resources
in
the
estuary.
Dredging
is
regulated
at
the
Federal
and
state
levels,
but
the
existing
regulations
may
not
always
offer
the
best
protection
of
habitats
due
to
conflicting
programmatic
concerns.
It
is
recommended
that
a
"
dredge
summit"
be
convened
for
the
Peconic
Estuary
that
addresses
specific
concerns
such
as:
impacts
to
shorebird
nesting,
demersal
fish
spawning
and
benthic
communities.
The
"
dredge
summit"
should
develop
regional
management
recommendations
to
minimize
impacts
to
the
critical
habitat
and
living
resources
of
the
estuary.

 
As
mentioned
above
in
the
example
for
Critical
Natural
Resource
Areas,
shoreline
hardening
structures
such
as
bulkheads
and
rock
revetments
are
considered
"
generally
compatible
with
the
environment"
above
mean
high
water,
provided
that
there
is
no
tidal
wetland
vegetation
in
that
location.
While
State
regulations
are
protective
of
wetlands,
they
offer
only
limited
protection
of
beach
habitats
and
when
bulkheads
are
installed
above
mean
high
water,
they
may
not
allow
for
the
landward
migrations
of
tidal
wetlands
with
sea­
level
rise.
Additionally,
docks
and
piers
are
also
listed
as
"
generally
compatible
with
the
environment",
which
leads
to
a
fragmentation
of
tidal
marsh
and
aquatic
habitats,
as
well
as
a
shading
of
eelgrass
beds.
It
is
recommended
that
the
PEP
adopt
a
policy
of
"
no
net
increase"
in
shoreline
hardening
structures
for
the
Peconic
Estuary,
develop
recommendations
to
reduce
impacts
from
shoreline
hardening
structures,
encourage
the
strengthening
of
existing
policies
and
regulations
to
reduce
impacts
from
bulkheads
at
all
levels
of
government,
and
promote
"
softer"
vegetated
alternative
shoreline
protection
solutions
as
well
as
incentives
to
remove
existing
bulkheads.

 
There
are
a
number
of
aquatic
and
terrestrial
habitat
restoration
opportunities
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
that
have
been
identified
by
the
Towns
and
local
agencies.
These
include:
coastal
grasslands,
beaches,
dunes,
fish
and
wildlife
migratory
corridors,
tidal
wetlands,
freshwater
wetlands,
submerged
aquatic
vegetation,
coastal
forest
communities
and
intertidal
flats.
There
are
also
various
sources
of
funding
available
at
the
Federal,
state
and
local
levels
to
implement
restoration
efforts.
However,
there
is
no
single
agency
that
identifies
or
coordinates
restoration
projects
in
the
Peconics.
It
is
recommended
that
the
PEP
convene
a
Habitat
Restoration
Workgroup
to
develop
and
implement
an
estuary­
wide
habitat
restoration
plan.
This
plan
should
identify
and
list
priority
habitats
to
be
restored,
develop
restoration
criteria
for
selection
of
restoration
sites
and
identify
sources
of
funding
to
implement
and
monitor
all
restoration
efforts
in
the
Peconics.

 
Tidal
wetlands
have
been
extensively
ditched
in
the
past
for
mosquito
control.
Ditching
fragments
tidal
marshes
and
can
impact
their
ecological
functions.
While
no
new
ditching
is
currently
allowed
in
the
Peconic
Estuary,
tidal
wetland
regulations
do
allow
for
the
maintenance
of
existing
ditches
through
rotaryditcher
machines.
Advances
in
alternatives
to
ditching
for
mosquito
control
management
such
as
Open
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
25
Marsh
Water
Management
(
OMWM)
have
proven
effective.
There
have
been
some
efforts
to
restore
and
control
mosquitoes
in
tidal
marshes
in
the
Peconics
with
OMWM,
but
they
are
often
limited
in
scope
and
not
well
coordinated.
It
is
recommended
that
the
PEP
work
cooperatively
with
Suffolk
County
Vector
Control
and
other
agencies,
towns
and
groups
to
encourage
and
develop
priority
areas
for
OMWM
in
the
Peconics.

 
Aquaculture
and
transplanting
of
shellfish
have
the
potential
to
be
beneficial
or
harmful
to
the
water
quality
and
living
resources
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
depending
on
the
type,
scale
and
location
of
culturing/
transplanting
activities.
The
NYSDEC
is
responsible
for
the
permitting
of
aquaculture
activities
in
the
Peconics,
but
Suffolk
County
is
responsible
for
developing
an
aquaculture
plan.
No
comprehensive
plan
exists
for
aquaculture
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
and
this
has
resulted
in
uncoordinated
management
and
planning
of
these
activities.
It
is
recommended
that
the
PEP
assist
in
the
development
of
a
Regional
Aquaculture
Plan
for
the
Peconic
Estuary
that
is
mutually
beneficial
to
the
estuary
and
the
culturing/
transplanting
facilities
and
does
not
impact
natural
stocks
of
shellfish
or
finfish.

 
Artificial
reefs
can
also
be
beneficial
or
harmful
to
the
habitats
and
living
resources
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
depending
on
their
type,
scale
and
locations.
The
State
has
an
Artificial
Reef
Plan
that
was
developed
in
the
1980s,
but
it
is
limited
in
its
overall
considerations
of
potential
impacts
to
marine
mammals,
benthic
communities
or
changes
to
the
species
compositions
in
the
area.
It
is
recommended
that
PEP
evaluate
the
use
of
artificial
reefs
and
develop
recommendations
to
minimize
the
impact
on
resources
by
these
structures,
particularly
in
Critical
Natural
Resource
Areas.

 
There
has
been
increasing
usage
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
by
sea
turtles
and
marine
mammals.
Current
activities
that
may
harm
them
include
boating,
dredging,
large­
scale
aquaculture
projects,
or
poorly
designed
artificial
reefs.
Under
NYS
ECL
Article
11,
Section
0107,
it
is
illegal
to
injure
or
cause
the
death
of
harbor
seals.
It
is
also
illegal
to
buy,
sell,
transport,
or
have
possession
of
these
animals.
The
law
was
implemented
a
number
of
years
ago
when
the
harbor
seal
was
the
only
pinniped
found
in
NY
waters.
Currently,
there
are
five
species
of
seals
that
are
found
in
these
waters,
of
which
three
have
become
fairly
common.
In
order
to
protect
these
species
as
well
as
other
marine
mammals,
this
law
would
need
to
be
expanded.
PEP
should
work
with
the
Towns,
County,
and
State
to
review
uses
of
areas
which
have
been
identified
as
sea
turtle
and
marine
mammal
feeding
areas
and
consider
what
restrictions
may
be
necessary
to
be
more
protective
of
these
species
and
their
food
resources.

 
Measures
are
needed
to
counteract
the
effects
of
increasing
human
populations
and
development
of
the
lands
and
waters
of
the
watershed
surrounding
the
estuary.
Although
the
East
End
Towns
are
developing
Local
Waterfront
Revitalization
Plans,
which
can
enhance
public
access
and
protect
habitats
and
living
resources,
proper
planning
is
needed
to
ensure
that
access
points
are
coupled
with
the
right
kind
of
space
to
accommodate
different
uses.
PEP
should
support
maintaining
a
balance
between
the
needs
and
opportunities
for
public
access
and
requirements
for
sustaining
living
resources.
One
local
plan
that
has
been
used
successfully
in
the
estuary
is
the
Harbor
Protection
Overlay
District
(
HPOD).
The
Town
of
East
Hampton
created
the
HPOD
to
address
development
on
waterfront
property
and
imposes
restrictions
on
newly
developed
or
redeveloped
waterfront
property.
A
number
of
these
restrictions
are
particularly
useful
in
the
protection
of
living
resources,
such
as
requirements
that
the
shoreline
be
maintained
with
a
natural
buffer
made
up
of
native
vegetation.
The
PEP
should
encourage
and
assist
other
Towns
in
adopting
similar
planning
measures.

 
Monitoring
involves
the
multi­
year
collection
of
data
on
living
resources
and
water
quality
to
understand
the
natural
variability
of
populations
over
time
as
well
as
changes
in
those
populations
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
26
that
result
from
human
influences.
While
there
are
several
different
on­
going
monitoring
programs
in
the
Peconics
(
e.
g.,
SCDHS
Water
Quality
Program,
NYSDEC
Juvenile
Finfish
Trawl
Survey,
Cornell
Cooperative
Extension
eelgrass
monitoring,
NYSDEC
Endangered
Species
Program,
etc.),
there
is
a
need
to
coordinate
these
programs
to
fully
evaluate
the
health
of
the
Peconic
ecosystem
and
manage
it
based
on
sound
data
collection
and
analysis.
There
is
also
a
significant
need
for
basic
ecological
research
in
the
Peconic
Estuary,
to
help
understand
and
guide
the
management
of
the
natural
resources
that
exist.
It
is
therefore,
recommended
that
the
PEP
develop
and
seek
funding
to
implement
a
research
and
monitoring
plan
for
the
habitats
and
living
resources
of
the
Peconic
Estuary.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
27
Pathogens
Description
of
Regulatory/
Institutional
Framework
Federal
Agencies
and
Programs
National
Pollution
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
On
November
16,
1990,
EPA
issued
National
Pollution
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
permit
application
regulations
for
stormwater
discharges.
The
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
program
requires
certain
activities
obtain
authorization
(
via
a
permit)
to
discharge
pollutants
via
stormwater
runoff
to
surface
waterways.
In
New
York,
this
requirement
is
covered
under
two
General
Stormwater
Permits
through
the
State
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
SPDES)
program.
One
permit
covers
activities
associated
with
construction
activities
(>
five
acres
in
size)
and
the
second
covers
the
remaining
activities
listed
in
the
NPDES
regulations.
Unless
covered
by
a
separate
individual
SPDES
permit,
the
only
other
alternative
for
dischargers
that
need
a
permit
is
one
of
the
general
permits.
The
general
permit
requires
the
development
and
implementation
of
a
program
with
the
goal
of
preventing
or
reducing
pollutant
runoff
from
municipal
operations.
The
program
must
include
municipal
staff
training
on
pollution
prevention
measures
and
techniques
(
e.
g.,
regular
street
sweeping,
reduction
in
use
of
pesticides
or
street
salt,
or
frequent
catch­
basin
cleaning).
The
plan
need
not
be
submitted
to
the
NYSDEC
unless
asked,
but
must
be
kept
on­
site
and
continually
updated.
The
NYSDEC
may
request
to
see
these
plans
and
may
require
changes
in
practices
if
adverse
impacts
on
receiving
waters
have,
or
may
have
occurred).

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

Clean
Water
Act
Section
319
Nonpoint
Source
Programs
New
York
State
has
developed
a
program
for
the
control
of
sources
of
pathogen
indicators
to
the
Peconic
Estuary.
The
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA)
Section
319
Nonpoint
Sources
Management
Program,
forms
the
basis
for
this
management
program.
The
1987
amendments
to
the
CWA
established
a
national
program
to
control
nonpoint
sources
of
water
pollution.
Under
Section
319,
States
address
this
pollution
by:
1)
developing
nonpoint
source
assessment
reports
and
2)
adopting
and
implementing
nonpoint
source
management
programs.
Section
319
also
provides
for
the
issuance
by
EPA
of
grants
to
states
to
assist
them
in
implementing
the
management
programs
that
have
been
approved
by
the
EPA.
New
York
has
an
approved
Nonpoint
Source
Management
Program
that,
among
other
objectives,
attempts
to
address
diverse
sources
of
pathogen
indicators.

The
NYSDEC
Nonpoint
Source
Management
Program
was
finalized
and
approved
by
EPA
in
January
1990.
The
plan
addressed
specific
requirements
of
the
Clean
Water
Act,
Section
319.
NY
developed
a
process
of
ongoing
assessment
of
waters
impacted
by
nonpoint
source
pollution
and
identifies
BMPs
to
be
used
to
reduce
their
effects.
Programs
for
the
control
of
general
sources
of
nonpoint
source
pollution
were
also
presented.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
28
NYSDEC
has
developed
several
nonpoint
source
documents.
Statewide
guidelines
for
stormwater
management
for
new
development
and
for
erosion
and
sediment
control
have
been
developed
by
NYSDEC
for
use
by
local
planning
officials,
building
inspectors,
and
developers.
Municipalities
have
been
encouraged
to
use
these
guidelines
in
the
review
of
local
development
projects.
In
addition,
NYSDEC
has
developed
Management
Practices
Catalogues
for:
1)
agriculture;
2)
silviculture;
3)
urban/
stormwater
runoff;
4)
road/
right­
of­
way
maintenance;
5)
leaks,
spills,
and
accidents;
6)
resource
extraction;
7)
onsite
waste
disposal;
8)
construction;
and
9)
hydrologic/
habitat
modification.

Coastal
Management
Plan
Nonpoint
Source
Control
Program
The
reauthorization
of
the
Federal
Coastal
Zone
Management
Act
(
CZMA)
was
passed
on
November
5,
1990.
A
major
provision
of
the
Act
(
Section
6217)
is
the
requirement
for
a
new
Coastal
Zone
Nonpoint
Source
Management
Program
in
each
state.
These
programs
were
to
be
developed
over
the
30
months
following
EPA
publication
of
final
technical
guidance
in
May
1992.
These
programs
are
applicable
in
the
entire
coastal
zone
exclusive
of
the
areas
subject
to
the
new
stormwater
regulations.

The
new
nonpoint
source
programs
are
jointly
approved
by
NOAA
and
EPA,
and
must
be
incorporated
into
states'
Clean
Water
Act
Section
319
programs.
The
coastal
zone
nonpoint
source
programs
are
based
on
nonpoint
source
pollution
management
measures,
which
are
essentially
systems
of
best
management
practices
(
BMPs).
EPA
published
draft
management
measures
guidance
in
May
of
1991,
and
published
final
guidance
in
May
1992.
The
management
measures
are
keyed
to
different
land
uses
(
sources)
and
specify
practices
to
be
carried
out
to
reduce
and/
or
prevent
nonpoint
source
pollution.
Demonstration
of
water
quality
impairment
is
not
required
for
implementation
of
the
management
measures;
rather,
the
approach
is
technology­
based
(
like
effluent
guidelines).

The
issues
addressed
by
the
Management
Measures
Guidance
include
1)
agriculture,
2)
forestry
(
silviculture),
3)
urban
runoff,
4)
wetlands,
5)
boats
and
marinas,
and
7)
hydromodification.
Pathogens
from
confined
animal
feeding
operations
(
CAFO),
onsite
sewage
disposal
systems,
urban
runoff,
and
boats
and
marinas
are
addressed
in
the
guidance.
Management
practices
suggested
to
control
pathogens
in
urban
runoff
include
detention/
retention
ponds,
biofiltration
and
infiltration
devices.
Management
practices
identified
to
remove
pathogens
from
onsite
sewage
disposal
systems
include
periodic
septic
tank
pumping,
septic
system
inspections,
and
installation
of
intermittent
sand
filters
with
a
leaching
fields
for
existing
developments.
For
new
developments,
wastewater
separation
with
a
holding
tank
for
blackwater
and
conventional
system
for
grey
water
has
been
recommended.
Marina
siting,
design
and
operation,
and
maintenance
and
management
measures
are
also
presented
in
the
guidance.
Wastewater
collection
to
prevent
pathogen
contamination
of
marina
waters
can
be
performed
with
marina­
wide
collection
(
pump­
out)
systems
implemented
as
portable/
mobile
systems
or
dedicated
slipside
systems.

The
State's
modified
Coastal
Management
Plan
(
CMP)
must
contain
"
enforceable"
policies
based
on
local
ordinances,
state
laws
or
regulations.
Section
6217(
b)
of
the
CZMA
Reauthorization
also
provides
for
the
identification
of
critical
areas
immediately
adjacent
to
coastal
areas
where
land
uses
may
contribute
to
future
impairment.
In
these
areas,
the
law
provides
for
additional
management
measures
that
are
land
use
oriented,
such
as
siting
and
density
requirements.
The
focus
of
this
section
of
the
law
is
on
land
use
controls.

In
New
York
State,
the
development
of
the
Coastal
Zone
Nonpoint
Management
Plan
falls
under
the
joint
jurisdiction
of
the
Department
of
State
(
DOS)
and
the
NYSDEC
which
together
have
the
authority
for
implementing
section
6217(
b)
of
the
Coastal
Zone
Act
Reauthorization
Amendments
of
1990.
NYSDOS
submitted
the
New
York
State
Plan
to
NOAA
in
July
1995
and
has
been
approved
and
has
been
incorporated
it
into
the
State's
Nonpoint
Program
(
Clean
Water
Act
section
319).
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
29
Total
Maximum
Daily
Load
Program
EPA's
Total
Maximum
Daily
Load
(
TMDL)
Program
comes
from
Section
303(
d)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
See:
Nutrients
Section
of
Base
Programs
Analysis).
There
remain
waters
in
the
nation
that
do
not
meet
the
CWA
national
goal
of
"
fishable,
swimmable"
despite
the
fact
that
nationally
required
levels
of
pollution
control
technology
have
been
implemented
by
many
pollution
sources.
CWA
Section
303(
d)
addresses
these
waters
that
are
not
"
fishable,
swimmable"
by
requiring
the
state
to
identify
the
waters
and
to
develop
total
maximum
daily
loads
(
TMDLs)
for
them,
with
oversight
from
EPA.

Clean
Vessel
Act
Congress
passed
the
Clean
Vessel
Act
(
CVA)
in
1992
to
help
reduce
pollution
from
vessel
sewage
discharges.
The
Act
established
a
five­
year
Federal
grant
program
administered
by
the
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
(
FWS)
and
authorized
$
40
million
from
the
Sport
Fish
Restoration
Account
for
use
by
the
states.
Federal
funds
may
constitute
up
to
75%
of
all
approved
projects
with
the
remaining
funds
provided
by
the
states
or
marinas.
Grants
are
available
to
the
states
on
a
competitive
basis
for
the
construction
and/
or
renovation,
operation
and
maintenance
of
pumpout
and
portable
toilet
dump
stations.
Currently,
states
submit
grant
proposals,
by
May
1
of
each
year,
to
one
of
seven
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
regional
offices
for
review.
The
Service's
Division
of
Federal
Aid
then
convenes
a
panel
including
representatives
from
the
Service's
Washington
Office
of
the
Division
of
Federal
Aid,
the
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration
(
NOAA),
EPA,
and
the
U.
S.
Coast
Guard.
The
panel
reviews,
ranks
and
makes
funding
recommendations
to
the
Director
of
the
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service.
The
Director
gives
priority
consideration
to
grant
proposals
that
provide
installation
and/
or
operation
of
pumpout
and
dump
stations
under
Federally
approved
state
plans.

Pursuant
to
the
CVA,
the
Sport
Fish
Restoration
Program
sets
aside
money
for
pump
out
units
for
marinas;
money
comes
from
an
excise
tax
built
into
sales
of
certain
fishing
or
boating
gear
(
money
is
administered
by
FWS
and
sent
back
to
the
state
agencies
for
projects
that
would
benefit
recreational
fishing
and
boating).

As
noted
above
under
Clean
Water
Programs,
Section
312
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
authorizes
the
EPA,
individual
states
and
the
U.
S.
Coast
Guard
to
work
together
to
provide
states
with
the
opportunity
to
protect
its
citizens
and
its
aquatic
habitats
through
Vessel
Waste
No
Discharge
Area
designations
and
national
standards
for
marine
sanitation
devices
on
boat
toilets
or
heads.
The
availability
of
pumpout
stations
and/
or
the
importance
of
the
waterbody
for
human
health
and
recreation
or
the
aquatic
ecosystem
bring
to
bear
on
a
state's
request
for
a
Vessel
Waste
No
Discharge
Area
designation.
A
graphic
pumpout
symbol
is
placed
at
docks
and
marinas
to
show
boaters
where
a
pumpout
facility
is
located.
In
some
cases,
small
boats
may
be
modified
to
receive
these
wastes
and
can
visit
boats
to
provide
this
service.
Enforcement
of
Vessel
Waste
No
Discharge
Areas
is
the
responsibility
of
the
U.
S.
Coast
Guard;
the
Coast
Guard
may
delegate
this
responsibility
to
the
state.

There
are
three
distinct
kinds
of
Vessel
Waste
No
Discharge
Area
designations
that
may
be
available
to
an
interested
state.
These
are:
to
protect
aquatic
habitats
where
pumpout
facilities
are
available,
to
protect
special
habitats
or
species,
and
to
protect
human
drinking
water
intake
zones.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
30
State
Agencies
and
Programs
Surface
Water
and
Groundwater
Classifications
and
Standards
The
NYSDEC
Division
of
Water
classifies
water
quality
standards
for
coliforms
through
the
NYS
Water
Quality
Regulations
(
Title
6,
Chapter
X,
Part
703
of
Water
Quality
Regulations).
These
standards
have
been
established
for
total
and
fecal
coliform
counts,
and
are
applied
throughout
the
NYS
waters,
including
the
Peconic
Estuary.

Transportation
Efficiency
Act
The
Transportation
Efficiency
Act
is
implemented
by
New
York
State
Department
of
Transportation
(
NYSDOT)
and
funded
by
NYSDOT
capital
budget.
These
funds
can
be
used
to
improve
water
quality
by
preventing
or
remediating
road
runoff.

Vessel
Waste
No
Discharge
Area
Designations
Per
Section
312
of
the
CWA,
EPA,
individual
States
and
the
U.
S.
Coast
Guard
work
together
to
provide
states
with
the
opportunity
to
protect
citizens
and
aquatic
habitats
through
Vessel
Waste
No
Discharge
Area
designations
and
national
standards
for
marine
sanitation
devices
on
boat
toilets,
or
heads.
Section
312
of
the
CWA
helps
protect
human
health
and
aquatic
environment
from
disease­
causing
microorganisms
that
may
be
present
in
sewage
from
vessels
and
boats.
These
microorganisms
can
include
bacteria,
protozoans
and
viruses.

Bathing
Beach
Monitoring
Programs
NY's
coliform
standards
for
beach
water
quality
are
specified
in
Sub
Part
6­
2
of
the
New
York
State
Sanitary
Code
(
NYSSC).
The
NYSSC,
as
revised
on
March
30,
1988,
allows
local
health
departments
the
option
of
utilizing
either
total
or
fecal
coliform
as
a
water
quality
indicator.
The
New
York
State
monitoring
guidelines
are
described
in
the
NYSSC
Subpart
6­
2.15.
No
state
requirements
have
been
made
for
the
sampling
frequency
and
it
is
up
to
the
local
health
department
in
each
county
to
design
a
monitoring
plan.
As
a
result,
each
county
has
a
slightly
different
sampling
strategy.

Since
sources
of
pathogens
may
be
different
during
rainfall,
samples
are
specified
as
either
taken
in
"
wet"
or
"
dry"
periods.
A
sample
is
considered
"
wet"
if
(
1)
it
has
rained
48
hours
prior
to
sampling,
or
if
(
2)
more
than
0.4
inches
of
rain
has
accumulated
within
a
24
hour
time
span,
or
if
(
3)
more
than
0.2
inches
of
rain
has
fallen
in
a
two­
hour
period.

In
addition
to
closures
caused
by
regularly
monitored
indicator
levels,
some
areas
are
automatically
closed
following
rainfall
events
or
as
a
result
of
sewage
treatment
plant
malfunction.
These
closures
are
made
as
a
precaution
against
predicted
elevated
coliform
levels
and
pathogen­
related
human
health
risks.
This
type
of
automatic
closure
is
referred
to
as
an
administrative
closure,
and
does
not
require
indicator
sampling.
In
the
case
of
emergency
closures,
sampling
is
necessary
after
the
closure
to
determine
if
the
water
quality
has
rebounded
to
certified
criteria.

The
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services
has
recommended
suspension
of
swimming
at
enclosed
bay
beaches
after
significant
rainfall
events.
The
definition
of
a
significant
rainfall
varies
based
on
the
local
hydrology,
soil
type,
topography,
and
land
use.
Therefore,
the
threshold
amount
required
to
trigger
a
closure
varies
for
each
area.

Shellfish
Monitoring
Programs
The
New
York
State
Shellfish
Sanitation
Program
monitors
shellfish
harvesting
areas
and
the
shellfish
industry
to
protect
public
health.
New
York
State
is
a
participating
member
of
the
Interstate
Shellfish
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
31
Sanitation
Conference
(
ISSC)
which
uses
the
National
Shellfish
Sanitation
Program
Guide
for
the
Control
of
Molluscan
Shellfish
(
1997).

The
National
Shellfish
Sanitation
Program
(
NSSP)
was
established
by
the
U.
S.
Public
Health
Service
in
1925
to
protect
the
public
health
from
contaminated
shellfish.
In
1968,
the
U.
S.
Food
and
Drug
Administration
began
administering
the
NSSP.
The
NSSP
carries
out
its
mandate
by
providing
states
with
detailed
procedures
and
protocols
as
highlighted
in
the
Guide
for
the
Control
of
Molluscan
Shellfish.
These
are
implemented
by
the
New
York
State
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation
(
NYSDEC)
Shellfish
Sanitation
Program.
The
New
York
State
Shellfish
Sanitation
Program
conducts
the
following
activities
in
shellfish
harvesting
areas:
water
quality
monitoring
for
bacteria
indicative
of
potential
pathogenic
contamination;
conducting
detailed
pollution
source
surveys
to
identify
potential
sources
of
pathogens;
restricting
shellfish
harvesting
consistent
with
the
results
of
such
monitoring
and
surveys,
and
enforcing
such
restrictions.

The
New
York
State
Shellfish
Sanitation
Unit
classifies
all
shellfish
growing
areas
for
harvesting
in
the
New
York
State
Marine
District.
New
York
State
defines
shellfish
as
oysters,
scallops,
mussels
and
clams.
There
are
seventy­
five
individual
shellfish
growing
areas
in
New
York
State.
Approximately
thirty
shellfish
growing
areas
are
located
within
the
Peconic
Estuary.

The
Shellfish
Sanitation
Unit
classifies
all
growing
areas
using
the
guidelines
established
in
the
National
Shellfish
Sanitation
Program
(
NSSP)
Guide
for
the
Control
of
Molluscan
Shellfish.
These
guidelines
require
the
establishment
of
water
sampling
stations
to
effectively
evaluate
all
potential
pollution
sources
that
may
affect
a
growing
area.
On
average,
the
NYSDEC
Shellfish
Sanitation
Program
collects
and
analyzes
from
10,000
to
15,000
bacteriological
water
quality
samples
each
year.
All
certified
and
selected
uncertified
areas
(
used
for
transplant
and
conditional
harvest)
are
sampled
and
evaluated.

New
York
State
uses
the
NSSP
Systematic
Random
Sampling
(
SRS)
Method
of
water
sample
collection
and
the
Total
Coliform
Standard
to
evaluate
shellfish
growing
areas.
SRS
requires
that
water
sample
collection
be
scheduled
sufficiently
far
in
advance
to
support
random
collection
with
respect
to
environmental
conditions.
Samples
are
collected
under
wet
and
dry
weather
conditions
in
warm
and
cold
weather
months.
Surface
and
bottom
temperature
and
salinity
measurements
are
also
collected
at
selected
stations
in
each
Peconic
growing
area.
SRS
samples
are
collected
at
each
station
a
minimum
of
six
times
per
year
on
an
ebbing
tide.
Following
the
collection
of
thirty
SRS
water
samples
the
area
is
evaluated
to
determine
proper
classification
for
shellfish
harvesting.

The
Shellfish
Sanitation
Unit
has
a
policy
to
temporarily
close
harvesting
shellfish
growing
areas
that
are
affected
by
greater
than
3.0
inches
of
rainfall
within
a
continuous
36­
hour
period.
The
affected
growing
areas
will
remain
closed
until
water
sampling
documents
an
improvement
in
water
quality
supporting
the
reopening.

NYSDEC
Shellfish
Sanitation,
in
cooperation
with
the
NYS
Department
of
Health
and
the
NYS
Department
of
Agriculture
and
Markets,
has
been
very
effective
at
controlling
outbreaks
of
shellfish­
related,
food­
borne
disease.
Controls
on
the
quality
of
the
shellfish
consumed
are
achieved
not
only
through
proper
management
of
harvesting
areas
but
also
through
sanitary
inspection
of
facilities
and
review
of
records
and
tags
from
shellfish
wholesalers
and
shippers
throughout
the
State.
The
NYSDEC
Shellfish
Inspection
Unit
carries
out
the
latter
activities.
Sanitary
inspection
of
food
service
establishments
is
carried
out
by
the
Department
of
Health
and
inspection
and
review
of
shellfish
retailers
is
done
by
the
Department
of
Agriculture
and
Markets.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
32
New
York's
Shellfish
Transplant
Program
is
administered
by
the
NYSDEC
Bureau
of
Marine
Resources,
Shellfish
Management
Unit.
The
primary
goal
of
the
Transplant
Program
is
to
provide
the
opportunity
for
utilization
of
shellfish
resources
that
are
presently
unusable.
Shellfish
harvested
in
the
transplant
program
are
relayed
from
uncertified
to
certified
waters
and
may
be
reharvested
from
the
cleansing
area
after
21
days
under
specified
conditions.
Following
adequate
cleansing
the
clams
can
be
marketed.

Some
of
these
transplants
are
carried
out
within
the
estuary
but
a
large
segment
of
the
New
York
Transplant
Program
involves
the
transfer
of
hard
clams
from
Raritan
Bay
in
New
York
Harbor
to
near
shore
waters
in
the
Peconics.
Transplanted
clams
from
this
area
have
accounted
for
an
increased
percentage
of
the
total
hard
clam
harvest
from
the
Peconics
in
the
last
decade.

Shellfish
regulations
are
enforced
by
NYSDEC
Environmental
Conservation
Officers
as
well
as
County
Marine
Police,
Town
Bay
Constables
and
Harbor
Masters.
Towns
also
assist
in
collection
of
water
samples
and
in
obtaining
information
for
shoreline
surveys.
For
a
full
description
of
all
local­
level
pathogens
reduction
programs
and
shellfish
management
programs
see
Columbia
University's
report,
"
Analysis
of
Town
Capacity
and
Needs
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
".

New
York
State
Clean
Water/
Clean
Air
Bond
Act
The
New
York
State
Clean
Water/
Clean
Air
Bond
Act
was
approved
by
NYS
voters
in
1996
and
provides
$
1.75
billion
for
projects
including
improving
and
restoring
water
bodies
across
the
State.
Open
spaces
of
lands
are
also
conserved
with
Bond
Act
money,
as
well
as
the
closing
of
aging
landfills,
the
clean
up
of
contaminated
properties,
the
reduction
of
stormwater
runoff,
and
the
upgrading
of
sewage
treatment
plants.

Regional
Level
SCDHS
Bathing
Beaches
and
Swimming
Pools
Program
In
order
to
protect
beach
goers
from
the
human
health
risks
associated
with
pathogens,
the
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services
(
SCDHS)
Bureau
of
Marine
Resources
monitors
for
pathogen
indicators
at
public
beaches.
When
water
quality
parameters
fail
to
meet
the
established
human
health
criteria,
beaches
are
closed.

Pfiesteria
piscicida
and
Alexandrium
tamarense
Monitoring
Programs
The
unusual
dinoflagellate,
Pfiesteria
piscicida,
has
been
implicated
in
major
fish
kills
in
the
brackish
coastal
waters
of
North
Carolina
and
several
areas
within
the
Chesapeake
Bay.
It
has
also
been
implicated
in
human
health
effects,
the
severity
of
which
are
apparently
dependent
on
the
length
of
contact
with
the
organism,
or
an
airborne
toxin
released
by
the
organism.
Pfiesteria
normally
occurs
in
non­
toxic
forms
unless
triggered
to
develop
into
a
toxic
form;
the
exact
conditions
triggering
toxin
production
are
poorly
understood.

Preliminary
studies
by
SCDHS
in
1998
showed
the
organism
to
be
present
at
seven
of
the
sixteen
sites
sampled
within
Suffolk
County
and
at
two
of
the
three
sites
sampled
within
the
Peconic
Estuary.
In
the
summer
of
1999,
the
NYSDEC
and
the
Nassau
and
Suffolk
County
Health
Departments
(
SCDHS)
and
the
Town
of
Hempstead
undertook
a
comprehensive
monitoring
effort
to
assess
the
marine
waters
of
the
state
for
the
presence
of
Pfiesteria
cells.
Water
samples
were
tested
for
Pfiesteria
along
with
a
suite
of
other
parameters,
including
dissolved
oxygen,
water
temperature,
and
salinity.
The
test,
using
a
molecular
probe
in
the
laboratory,
detects
the
presence
of
Pfiesteria
but
not
the
toxicity.
Water
samples
are
shipped
to
Dr.
Parke
Rublee
of
the
University
of
North
Carolina
where
they
are
analyzed
for
Pfiesteria.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
33
The
SCDHS
is
currently
testing
for
the
presence
of
Pfiesteria
at
fifteen
sites,
three
of
which
are
located
in
the
Peconic
Estuary.
This
project
is
meant
to
provide
a
comprehensive
temporal
analysis
as
samples
are
being
collected
from
each
of
the
fifteen
stations
on
a
biweekly
basis
from
April
to
October,
2000.
Differential
phytoplankton
counts
and
water
quality
analysis
will
be
conducted
in
the
lab.
This
monitoring
is
a
cooperative
effort
with
the
NYSDEC
and
is
being
coordinated
with
funds
from
the
U.
S.
EPA.

Paralytic
shellfish
poisoning
(
PSP)
red
tides
caused
by
the
organism
Alexandrium
tamarense
have
been
a
problem
mainly
in
the
northern
New
England
states.
The
organism
produces
a
neurotoxin
that
can
be
concentrated
by
shellfish
which
when
consumed
by
humans
can
result
in
PSP.
In
a
four
year
monitoring
study,
from
1986
to
1989,
SCDHS
found
that
a
spring
bloom
of
A.
tamarense
consistently
occurred
in
Reeves
Bay
and
also
noted
blooms
in
Terry's
and
East
Creeks
in
1989,
the
one
year
in
which
they
were
investigated.
No
other
stations
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
were
sampled.
The
SCDHS
Bureau
of
Marine
Resources
is
currently
estimating
the
concentration
of
Alexandrium
at
seven
sites
in
the
Peconic
Estuary.
The
investigation
entails
the
placement
of
mussels
(
Mytilis
edulis)
at
the
study
sites,
and
their
collection
at
specified
intervals
for
PSP
toxin
analysis.
The
present
study
is
limited
to
the
Peconic
Estuary.

Local
Level
Harbor
Protection
Overlay
Districts
One
local
plan
that
has
been
used
successfully
in
the
estuary
to
protect
water
quality
and
habitats,
and
reduce
pathogens,
is
the
Harbor
Protection
Overlay
District
(
HPOD).
The
Town
of
East
Hampton
created
the
HPOD
to
address
development
on
waterfront
property
and
imposes
restriction
on
newly
developed
or
redeveloped
waterfront
property.
A
number
of
these
restrictions
are
particularly
useful
in
the
protection
of
living
resources,
such
as
requirements
that
the
shoreline
be
maintained
with
a
natural
buffer
made
up
of
native
vegetation.
Such
restrictions
can
potentially
reduce
pathogen
loadings
into
the
estuary,
particularly
within
poorly
flushed
areas
as
tidal
creeks.
For
additional
information
on
local
government
pathogens
reduction
programs
see
Columbia
University's
report,
"
Analysis
of
Town
Capacity
and
Needs
in
the
Peconic
Estuary".

Evaluation
of
Effectiveness
In
general,
the
agencies
and
programs
described
above
provide
an
excellent
ability
to
protect
humans
from
pathogen
contamination
of
shellfish
or
bathing
waters
in
the
Peconic
Estuary.
Many
of
these
programs
also
provide
a
means
to
monitor
and
reduce
pathogens
through
stormwater
improvements,
sewage
treatment
plant
upgrades
and
restorations
of
degraded
habitats
that
help
to
filter
these
pathogens.
In
addition,
new
regulations
may
prove
helpful
at
reducing
nonpoint
sources
of
pathogens
into
the
estuary,
however,
these
are
currently
being
evaluated
and
have
not
yet
been
fully
implemented.
The
Peconic
Estuary
Program
has
identified
several
areas
where
existing
laws
and
programs
do
not
adequately
address
the
reduction
and
management
of
pathogens
in
the
estuary
and
thus,
make
the
following
recommendations.

Recommendations
for
Improvements
 
It
is
recommended
that
existing
stormwater
management
regulations
continue
to
be
used
to
control
pathogen
loadings
and
other
forms
of
nonpoint
source
pollution.
It
is
also
recommended
that
an
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
34
evaluation
of
the
ability
of
general
stormwater
permits
to
regulate
pollution
from
activities
in
the
national
stormwater
regulations
be
performed
for
the
Peconics.
The
development
of
new
regulations
may
be
necessary
for
further
reductions
in
pathogen
loadings.

 
Controlling
stormwater
runoff
from
non­
waterfront
property
and
vacant
lands
can
be
accomplished
through
a
variety
of
land
use
regulations,
such
as
protective
zoning,
transfer
of
development
rights
to
limit
density,
and
standards
for
stormwater
discharges
from
lands
developed
or
redeveloped
in
the
future.
Local
legislation
that
is
highly
protective
of
the
coastal
zone,
such
as
the
East
Hampton
Harbor
Protection
Overlay
District,
has
proven
very
effective
on
a
relatively
discrete,
enclosed
body
of
water
entirely
within
local
jurisdiction.
However,
in
order
for
such
a
measure
to
be
protective
of
a
regional
body
of
water
such
as
the
entire
Peconic
Estuary,
this
type
of
legislation
must
be
enacted
on
a
system­
wide
basis.
Therefore,
it
is
recommended
that
an
evaluation
of
existing
model
land
use
regulations
that
eliminate
or
minimize
new
sources
of
stormwater
runoff
in
to
the
estuary
be
performed.
For
example,
a
review
of
the
East
Hampton
Harbor
Protection
Overlay
District
(
HPOD)
legislation
and
the
results
of
its
implementation
would
be
a
good
starting
point.
If
effective,
the
PEP
should
encourage
the
adoption
of
similar
regulations
in
other
East
End
towns
and
villages
to
eliminate
or
minimize
new
sources
of
stormwater
runoff.
The
PEP
should
also
recommend
controlling
the
impacts
of
waterfront
development
through
a
prohibition
on
all
new
non­
waterdependent
commercial
development.

 
Construction
sites
of
all
types
and
sizes
can
be
significant
sources
of
pollutants
to
stormwater
runoff
because
the
natural
vegetation
and
land
forms
which
would
normally
slow
and
absorb
runoff
have
been
removed.
The
Clean
Water
Act
requires
stormwater
permits
for
construction
activities
on
sites
over
5
acres.
These
permits
contain
a
requirement
for
the
permittee
to
develop
a
sediment
and
erosion
control
plan
for
the
project.
Developing
official
guidelines
for
sediment
and
erosion
control
plans
would
ensure
that
construction
sites
of
all
sizes
would
have
access
to
information
about
appropriate
BMPs
for
controlling
runoff
into
the
Peconic
Estuary.
These
guidelines
should
be
incorporated
into
recommendations
for
stormwater
plans
required
for
general
stormwater
permits
or
they
could
be
required
by
town
planning
boards
for
incorporation
into
site
plans.
State
Building
Codes
should
also
be
expanded
to
include
provisions
for
sediment
and
erosion
control
measures.

 
One
way
to
reduce
pathogen
loadings
to
the
estuary
system
is
to
remediate
stormwater
runoff.
A
number
of
projects
aimed
at
minimizing
or
treating
stormwater
runoff
have
been
implemented
throughout
the
Peconics,
but
their
overall
effectiveness
needs
to
be
evaluated
before
the
technologies
are
fully
endorsed
for
other
locations
in
the
estuary.
It
is
also
recommended
that
information
on
ongoing,
successful
stormwater
remediation
projects
is
shared
among
the
NYSDOT,
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Public
Works,
and
towns
and
villages
in
a
timely
fashion.
Monitoring
support
following
the
implementation
of
management
actions,
providing
ambient
coliform
loading
data,
helping
to
evaluate
sources
of
coliform
bacteria,
and
assessing
localized
impacts
of
runoff,
particularly
on
shellfish
beds
and
bathing
beaches,
is
also
recommended.

 
Develop
a
"
Regional
Stormwater
Management
Plan"
to
evaluate
and
recommend
technologies
to
remediate
stormwater
runoff
in
the
Peconic
Estuary.
 
Wastewater
treatment
for
most
of
the
residences,
businesses,
and
institutions
in
the
watershed
of
the
Peconics
is
serviced
by
onsite
disposal
systems
(
OSDS),
e.
g.,
septic
tanks
or
cesspools.
In
some
areas,
these
systems
are
decades
old
and
have
not
been
properly
maintained.
Systems
that
have
not
had
the
solids
pumped
regularly
and
whose
leaching
fields
have
been
compromised
by
clogging
may
eventually
release
inadequately
filtered
fluids
that
contain
high
concentrations
of
pathogens.
Once
released
to
the
surface,
these
fluids
can
be
carried
into
the
estuary
via
stormwater.
Since
identifying
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
35
these
failing
systems
requires
cooperation
of
individual
homeowners
(
e.
g.,
dye
testing),
it
is
recommended
that
inspection
and
repair/
replacement
of
OSDS
under
certain
circumstances
be
mandated.
PEP
recommends
that
we
follow
the
State
of
Massachusetts
approach
to
managing
OSDS
for
inspections.
PEP
should
also
provide
a
means
to
obtain
funding
for
repairing
and
upgrading
OSDS
for
failing
systems.
Another
potential
alternative
is
to
investigate
the
need
for
and
feasibility
of
establishing
an
OSDS
(
septic
system)
district(
s)
to
provide
homeowners
access
to
low­
interest
loans
available
through
the
State
Revolving
Fund
to
repair
and
upgrade
malfunctioning
OSDS.

 
One
of
the
ways
to
reduce
the
potential
for
pathogen
loadings
in
marina
and
mooring
areas
from
human
sewage
is
to
minimize
boater
discharges.
Boats
on
which
people
stay
for
extended
periods
of
time
represent
a
particular
concern
because
of
the
amount
of
waste
generated
on
these
vessels.
There
is
currently
legislation
that
requires
that
marinas
that
dock
houseboats/
barges
have
a
functioning
pumpout
station.
This
law
needs
to
be
rigorously
enforced.
The
use
of
shoreside
restrooms
and
the
use
of
Type
III
marine
sanitation
devices
(
MSD)
on
boats
(
which
have
holding
tanks),
combined
with
pumpout
facilities
at
marinas,
would
minimize
the
potential
for
release
of
pathogens
into
the
water
through
untreated
wastes
and
wastes
from
boats
with
Types
I
and
II
marine
sanitation
devices.
The
Federal
Clean
Vessel
Act
(
CVA)
provides
money
to
the
states
to
develop
a
plan
for
siting
and
constructing
pumpout
facilities
at
docks
and
marinas
in
an
effort
to
reduce
the
potential
contamination
of
coastal
waters
with
human
sewage
from
boats.
The
Act
also
provides
grant
money
to
be
administered
by
the
states
for
subsidizing
the
construction
of
these
facilities
once
the
need
has
been
identified
at
specific
sites.
All
funds
from
the
CVA
have
currently
been
obligated;
it
is
not
anticipated
that
additional
funding
will
be
available
through
this
legislation.
Therefore,
PEP
recommends
that
other
sources
of
funds
be
identified
and
allocated
to
provide
boaters
with
more
pumpout
facilities.
It
is
also
recommended
that
in
general,
PEP
promote
the
use
of
shore­
based
toilets,
holding
tanks
on
boats,
and
pumpout
stations,
especially
in
areas
of
heavy
boat
traffic
or
environmentally
sensitive
areas.
Marinas
should
encourage
their
patrons
to
use
shore
toilet
facilities
when
berthed
at
a
dock,
particularly
if
they
remain
overnight.

 
Through
the
Clean
Water
Act,
water
bodies
may
be
designated
as
"
Vessel
Waste
No
Discharge
Areas."
The
discharge
of
untreated
vessel
waste
is
prohibited
within
the
three­
mile
jurisdiction
of
State
coastal
waters
and
navigably
connected
waters.
However,
treated
waste
from
approved
Marine
Sanitation
Devices
(
MSDs)
can
be
discharged
in
these
waters.
Within
No
Discharge
Areas,
vessels
are
prohibited
from
discharging
both
treated
and
untreated
waste
into
surface
waters.
Since
such
a
program
may
lead
to
localized
reductions
in
pathogens
it
is
recommended
that
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
develop
an
agreement
on
the
Peconics
for
a
No
Discharge
Area.

 
PEP
recommends
using
administrative
and
regulatory
measures
to
control
pollution
from
boaters
and
marinas
and
promote
the
use
of
best
management
practices
to
control
pathogen
loadings
from
marinas
and
boatyards.

 
Disinfection
of
effluent
from
sewage
treatment
plants
is
essential
to
prevent
the
spread
of
disease.
Disinfection
can
be
accomplished
by
a
variety
of
methods,
all
of
which
have
been
proven
effective
under
specific
conditions.
There
are
concerns
about
the
use
of
chlorine
as
a
disinfectant
because
chlorine
may
not
effectively
eliminate
certain
viruses
from
effluent.
In
addition,
chlorine
may
have
toxic
effects
on
living
organisms
when
it
becomes
complexed
in
seawater
with
organic
compounds.
Therefore,
PEP
should
ensure
adequate
disinfection
at
sewage
treatment
plants
and
encourage
all
sewage
treatment
plants
to
use
ultraviolet
disinfection.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
36
 
An
important
step
in
reducing
pathogens
in
the
estuary
is
to
identify
their
sources.
Therefore,
it
is
recommended
that
PEP
identify
and
assess
the
major
nonpoint
source
and
stormwater
inputs
and
quantify
loadings
of
pathogens
to
local
harbors
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
System.
Since
high
coliform
counts
have
also
been
observed
in
relatively
undeveloped
embayments,
it
is
further
recommended
that
PEP
seek
funds
to
develop
a
DNA
"
library"
of
coliform
bacteria
isolated
from
feces
of
animals,
including
humans.
This
knowledge
can
potentially
be
used
to
identify
loading
pathways
and,
thus,
the
means
by
which
to
remediate
those
loadings.
Additionally,
PEP
should
perform
land
cover
analyses
for
the
study
area
that
can
be
used
to
determine
stormwater
runoff
loadings.
This
analysis
should
include
tabulation
and
mapping
of
existing
land
cover
types
and
analysis
of
land
cover
changes
over
time.
Finally,
nonpoint
source
control
plans
for
specific
embayments
for
each
nonpoint
source
category
associated
with
potential
pathogen
contamination
(
such
as
stormwater
runoff,
onsite
disposal
systems,
and
marinas/
boating)
through
the
"
Regional
Stormwater
Management
Plan"
and
sub­
watershed
management
pilot
projects
for
each
Town
should
be
developed.

 
PEP
should
identify
projects
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
watershed
that
are
fundable
under
the
Transportation
Efficiency
Act
and
NYSDOT
capital
budget
that
will
improve
water
quality
by
preventing
or
remediating
road
runoff,
as
well
as
those
that
may
be
fundable
under
New
York
Clean
Water/
Clean
Air
Bond
Act.

 
It
is
recommended
that
the
water
quality
sampling
programs
run
by
the
NYSDEC
Shellfish
Sanitation
Program
and
the
SCDHS
Bureau
of
Marine
Resources
for
monitoring
pathogens
in
shellfish
beds
and
public
beaches
be
fully
maintained
and
expanded
where
necessary.
In
addition
to
sampling
for
coliforms,
monitoring
for
Pfiesteria
piscicida
and
paralytic
shellfish
poisoning
organisms
should
be
funded
for
the
Peconic
Estuary.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
37
Critical
Lands
Protection
Strategy
Description
of
Regulatory/
Institutional
Framework
Federal
Agencies
and
Programs
United
States
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
Through
the
Division
of
Habitat
Conservation,
the
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
(
USFWS)
works
to
conserve
coastal
resources.
The
Division's
Coastal
Program
works
in
partnership
with
Federal,
state,
and
local
governments,
and
private
organizations
and
individuals
to
conserve
fish,
wildlife,
and
their
habitats
in
the
coastal
areas.
The
Coastal
Program
implements
on­
the­
ground
restoration
in
high­
priority
estuarine
and
coastal
watersheds
around
the
country.

The
USFWS
National
Coastal
Wetlands
Conservation
Grant
Program
was
established
in
1990
by
the
Coastal
Wetlands
Planning,
Protection,
and
Restoration
Act.
Through
this
program,
which
complements
the
Service's
other
coastal
conservation
efforts,
matching
grants
are
provided
to
coastal
states
for
the
acquisition,
restoration,
or
enhancement
of
coastal
wetlands.
Grant
funds
for
the
program
are
derived
from
excise
taxes
on
motorboat
and
small
engine
fuels
and
certain
fishing
equipment.
About
$
10
million
in
grants
are
awarded
annually
through
a
nationwide
competitive
process
based
on
ranking
factors
developed
by
the
Service.
The
program's
emphasis
on
encouraging
partnerships,
supporting
watershed
planning,
and
leveraging
ongoing
projects
ensures
that
the
use
of
limited
funds
results
in
maximum
benefits.

National
Park
Service
There
are
many
programs
within
the
National
Park
Service
which
protect
critical
lands.
The
Land
and
Water
Conservation
Fund,
one
such
program,
provides
a
system
for
funding
Federal,
state
and
local
parks
and
conservation
areas.
It
gives
states
and
localities
incentives
to
plan
and
invest
in
their
own
park
systems.

Farmland
Protection
Policy
Act
This
act
was
created
to
minimize
the
extent
to
which
Federal
programs
contribute
to
the
unnecessary
and
irreversible
conversion
of
farmland
to
non­
agricultural
uses,
and
to
ensure
that
Federal
programs
are
administered
in
a
manner
that,
to
the
extent
practicable,
will
be
compatible
with
state
and
local
governments
as
well
as
private
programs
and
policies,
to
protect
farmland.
If
any
projects
in
the
CCMP
would
convert
significant
agricultural
land
to
non­
agricultural
uses,
consultation
with
the
USDA
 
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
may
be
necessary.

State
Agencies
and
Programs
New
York
State
Open
Space
Conservation
Plan
Released
in
1998
by
the
New
York
State's
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation
and
the
Office
of
State
Parks,
Recreation,
and
Historic
Preservation,
this
is
the
current
State­
wide
plan
for
open
space
acquisition
and
protection.
The
plan
identifies
sites
that
are
priorities
for
protection
and
preservation
of
farmland,
historic
and
archaeological
resources,
water
quality,
natural
and
scenic
environments,
and
open
space/
recreational
opportunities.
This
plan
was
updated
in
the
summer
of
2000.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
38
New
York's
Clean
Water
State
Revolving
Fund
(
CWSRF)
This
fund
provides
low­
interest
rate
loans
to
municipalities
to
carry
out
projects
that
reduce
or
prevent
water
pollution.
As
the
loans
are
repaid,
money
is
available
to
be
used
again
for
new
loans.
The
CWSRF
program,
in
existence
since
1990,
has
made
over
$
4.3
billion
in
loans.
The
CWSRF
program
funds
projects
involving
construction
of
wastewater
treatment
facilities
that
reduce
or
prevent
point
source
water
pollution.
Projects
that
reduce
nonpoint
source
pollution
are
also
eligible
for
CWSRF
financing.
Such
projects
include
restoration
of
riparian
vegetation,
wetlands
and
other
water
bodies;
land
purchase
or
conservation
easements
for
water
quality
protection
such
as
for
wellheads
or
watersheds;
and
certain
USEPA
designated
estuaries
projects,
such
as
aquatic
habitat
restoration
and
protection.

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

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

Regional
Level
Peconic
Land
Trust
The
Peconic
Land
Trust
works
with
landowners
to
protect
eastern
Long
Island's
scenic
vistas,
water
quality
and
productive
farmland.
The
Trust
assists
landowners
with
the
available
options
for
land
conservation,
including
an
outright
donation
of
land
to
a
blend
of
conservation
measures
including
the
sale
of
appropriate
portions
or
the
development
rights
on
the
property.

The
Nature
Conservancy
The
mission
of
The
Nature
Conservancy
is
to
preserve
plants,
animals
and
natural
communities
by
protecting
the
lands
and
waters
they
need
to
survive.
The
Conservancy
has
protected
more
than
11
million
acres
of
habitat
in
the
United
States
and
nearly
60
million
acres
in
Canada,
Latin
America,
the
Caribbean,
Asia
and
the
Pacific.

Local
Level
Suffolk
County
Farmland
Preservation
Program
This
program,
the
first
of
its
kind
in
the
United
States,
was
created
in
1977
for
the
purpose
of
acquiring
development
rights
to
working
farms.
The
easement
acquired
eliminates
all
development
rights
other
than
those
necessary
for
agricultural
production,
and
establishes
oversight
and
approval
of
new
farm
structures
with
the
County
Farmland
Committee.
Since
the
inception
of
the
program,
approximately
$
40
million
in
general
obligation
bonds
have
been
spent
by
Suffolk
County
to
preserve
7,000
acres
of
farmland.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
39
Suffolk
County
Open
Space
Program
This
program
was
created
in
1986
and
funded
through
general
obligation
bonds
initially
at
$
60
million.
Subsequent
appropriations
have
raised
expenditures
to
$
84
million.
Approximately
5,000
acres
have
been
acquired
by
the
County
to
date.
It
is
designed
to
acquire
lands
under
development
pressure
that
cannot
be
clustered,
rezoned,
or
partially
developed.
Lands
acquired
are
managed
generally
as
passive
open
space.

Suffolk
County
Drinking
Water
Protection
Program
This
program
is
funded
with
one­
quarter
cent
of
the
sales
tax,
which
has
been
generating
approximately
$
35
million
annually
depending
on
the
economy.
The
County
has
acquired
12,000
acres,
mostly
in
the
Pine
Barrens.
Since
the
inception
of
the
program
in
1987,
over
$
220
million
has
been
spent
on
acquisitions.
The
program
expires
in
2001.
The
program
has
three
components:
12.5.
A
requires
that
acquisitions
must
relate
directly
to
drinking
water
supply
anywhere
in
Suffolk
County,
generally
in
one
of
the
Special
Groundwater
Protection
Areas
(
SGPAs).
There
are
seven
designated
SGPAs
within
the
deep
aquifer
recharge
areas
of
Suffolk
County.
The
bulk
of
the
money
continues
to
pay
for
debt
service
on
acquisitions
made
in
the
1989­
91
time
frame.
12.5.
D
is
a
revenue
sharing
component
based
on
population
and
is
set
aside
by
each
town.
The
towns
can
elect
to
spend
all
or
a
portion
on
landfill
costs,
but
Brookhaven
and
the
five
eastern
towns
are
still
requesting
their
yearly
shares
be
spent
on
land
acquisition.
12.5.
E
is
the
residuary
or
leftover,
which
voters
in
1996
mandated
be
spent
totally
for
land
acquisition.
It
is
divided
into
two
segments:
one­
third
goes
to
the
four
western
towns
and
Shelter
Island
on
a
population
basis
and
can
be
spent
to
acquire
any
properties
which
are
authorized
by
the
County
Legislature;
two­
thirds
goes
to
the
other,
or
so­
called
Pine
Barrens
towns,
on
an
undifferentiated
basis
to
be
spent
on
Drinking
Water­
related
parcels.

Suffolk
County
Community
Greenways
Program
Authorized
by
referendum
in
1998,
this
program
is
funded
at
$
62
million.
In
1999,
the
County
Legislature
authorized
the
Open
Space
component
($
20
million)
principally
for
drinking
water
protection
parcels,
stream
tributaries,
greenbelt,
and
habitat
enhancement,
which
comprises
about
1000
acres
scattered
throughout
Suffolk
County.
Parcels
have
been
targeted
for
acquisition
and
negotiations
are
proceeding.
Individual
authorizations
are
also
proceeding
for
lands
to
be
used
for
Active
Recreation
($
20
million
available),
where
the
County
buys
the
land
and
a
town,
village
or
community
group
is
required
to
design,
build
and
maintain
the
recreation
improvements.
Golf
courses
are
specifically
excluded.
In
early
2000,
the
Legislature
will
authorize
the
Farmland
component
($
20
million),
for
the
purchase
of
development
rights
to
active
farms
anywhere
in
the
County,
provided
another
level
of
government
commits
to
30%
of
the
cost
of
acquisition.
This
program
should
be
able
to
preserve
another
2000
acres
of
farms.
Two
million
dollars
are
set
aside
for
the
construction
of
a
natural
history
interpretive
center.

Suffolk
County
Land
Preservation
Partnership
This
funding
program
from
general
obligation
bonds
calls
for
the
acquisition
of
land
for
various
purposes,
not
including
active
recreation,
in
partnership
with
a
town
or
village
primarily.
All
associated
costs
are
split
50­
50,
and
the
land
can
be
divided
or
held
in
common
ownership
as
the
partners
choose.
Development
rights
and
conservation
easements
can
also
be
acquired
under
this
program,
funded
thus
far
at
approximately
$
9
million
in
County
dollars.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
40
Suffolk
County
Sales
Tax
Extension
Program
This
program,
authorized
by
referendum
in
1999,
will
extend
the
sales
tax
starting
in
2001
and
ending
in
2013.
The
program
will
be
funded
annually
depending
on
the
economy
and
sales
tax
revenues.
It
is
broken
into
the
following
five
separate
and
dedicated
accounts:
 
Sewer
rate
relief
(
projected
total
$
300
million)
 
Tax
relief
(
projected
total
$
270
million)
 
Farmland
for
the
continued
purchase
of
development
rights
(
projected
total
$
62
million)
 
Drinking
Water
and
Open
Space
for
land
acquisitions,
including
the
Peconic
Estuary
and
the
South
Shore
Estuary
Reserve
(
projected
total
$
114
million)
 
Water
Quality
to
fund
wetland
cleanups
and
rehabilitation,
stormwater
runoff
cleanups,
demonstration
projects,
and
other
environmental
improvements
(
projected
total
$
95
million)

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

Additional
information
on
Suffolk
County's
open
space
programs
can
be
obtained
over
the
Internet
on
the
Suffolk
County
Planning
Department
homepage
at
http://
www.
co.
suffolk.
ny.
us/
planning/
acq_
progs.
html.

Town
Community
Preservation
Fund
Project
Plans
In
November
1998,
the
voters
of
the
five
East
End
Towns
approved
a
referendum
that
added
a
2
%
tax
to
certain
real
estate
transfers
in
their
communities.
Revenues
generated
by
the
tax
go
into
a
Community
Preservation
Fund
in
the
Town
in
which
the
transaction
occurred
for
the
purpose
of
protection
and
acquisition
of
open
space
and
historic
properties.
In
each
of
the
Town's
Community
Preservation
Fund
Project
Plans,
parcels
have
been
identified
for
protection
through
fee
simple
acquisition
or
other
means
such
as
conservation
easements.

When
the
program
was
conceived,
it
was
estimated
the
transfer
tax
would
generate
approximately
$
10
million
annually
until
the
year
2010
when
the
program
either
expires
or
is
renewed.
After
the
first
several
months
of
tax
receipts,
it
appears
that
$
10
million
may
be
an
underestimate
of
the
potential
in
this
program.
For
instance,
transfer
taxes
in
the
Town
of
Southampton
in
January,
2000
were
close
to
$
2
million.

Evaluation
of
Effectiveness
Although
there
are
many
agencies
and
organizations
acting
on
behalf
of
land
protection
and,
at
a
quick
glance,
there
seems
to
be
enough
money
for
land
protection
available,
land
values
are
high
and
escalating,
the
population
of
eastern
Suffolk
County
continues
to
grow
and
the
demands
for
the
existing
funds
are
great.
Land
protection
measures
would
be
more
effective
with
increased
funding
and
a
focused
list
of
land
protection
priorities.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
41
Recommendations
for
Improvements
The
PEP
recommends
that
a
Critical
Lands
Protection
Plan
be
developed
which
will
prioritize
the
land
available
for
development
in
the
Peconic
Study
Area
"
through
the
lens"
of
habitat
and
water
quality
protection.
This
Plan
will
also
estimate
the
funds
and
funding
sources
needed
for
this
protection.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
42
Toxics
Description
of
the
Regulatory/
Institutional
Framework
Federal
Laws,
Agencies
and
Programs
Clean
Water
Act
Please
see
Clean
Water
Act
description
in
the
Nutrients
section.

Clean
Vessel
Act
Please
see
Clean
Vessel
Act
description
in
the
Pathogens
section.

Clean
Air
Act
The
Federal
Clean
Air
Act's
primary
mechanism
for
achieving
clean
air
is
through
State
Air
Quality
Implementation
Plans.
These
plans
encompass
many
different
elements,
including
regulations
limiting
emissions
from
small
and
large
stationary
sources,
both
new
and
existing,
and
strategies
dealing
with
emissions
from
mobile
sources
such
as
vehicle
inspection
programs.
EPA's
primary
responsibilities
are
to
assist
and
oversee
the
development
of
these
plans,
and
once
in
place,
to
ensure
their
implementation.
Because
of
the
large
number
of
responsibilities
delegated
to
the
states,
Section
105
of
the
Act
established
a
mechanism
to
fund
a
portion
of
these
activities.
These
resources
are
used
to
fund
both
the
base
programs
run
by
the
states
and
special
outputs
which
are
specified
by
EPA.
The
special
outputs
are
negotiated
with
the
states
and
are
in
accordance
with
national
objectives.
The
use
of
these
funds
and
the
accomplishment
of
specific
objectives
contained
in
the
grants
are
closely
tracked
by
EPA.

A
special
category
of
air
emissions
is
made
up
of
airborne
toxic
compounds.
EPA
is
developing
a
national
program
to
implement
the
air
toxics
portion
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
and
emissions
are
expected
to
be
reduced
over
the
course
of
a
10­
year
period
as
controls
for
various
categories
of
sources
are
developed.
In
addition,
the
Clean
Air
Act
establishes
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
(
NESHAPs)
under
Section
112
of
the
Act,
and
EPA
provides
technical
and
financial
support
to
state
agencies
for
the
development
and
implementation
of
air
toxics
programs.
EPA
has
established
emissions
standards
for
7
pollutants,
including
mercury,
and
another
189
hazardous
air
pollutants
will
be
regulated
under
the
1990
Clean
Air
Act
Amendments.

Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA)
This
Federal
statute
was
enacted
in
1976
to
ensure
the
proper
management
and
disposal
of
hazardous
and
non­
hazardous
solid
wastes
and
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities.
In
1984,
the
Hazardous
and
Solid
Waste
Amendments
(
HSWA)
were
authorized
by
Congress
to
strengthen
RCRA.
The
1984
Amendments
require
an
applicant
to:

I.
construct
land
disposal
facilities
in
accordance
with
Minimum
Technology
Requirements,
such
as
double
liners
and
leachate
collection
and
detection
systems;
II.
construct
and
operate
treatment
and
storage
tanks
in
accordance
with
the
Federal
regulation
promulgated
July
14,
1986
which
mandated
secondary
containment;
III.
identify
and
address
any
contamination
at
all
solid
waste
management
units;
and
IV.
certify
to
waste
minimization.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
43
The
HSWA
permit
also
requires
the
applicant
to
initiate
a
corrective
action
program
to
address
any
environmental
releases
of
hazardous
waste
or
constituents
at
solid
waste
management
units.
A
corrective
action
program
consists
of:

I.
RCRA
Facility
Assessments
to
identify
releases
or
potential
releases
requiring
further
investigation;
II.
Interim
Corrective
Measures
to
take
immediate
action
in
response
to
releases;
III.
RCRA
Facility
Investigations
to
fully
characterize
the
extent
of
releases;
IV.
Corrective
Measure
Studies
to
determine
the
need
for
and
extent
of
remedial
measures.
This
step
includes
the
selection
and
implementation
of
appropriate
remedies
for
all
problems
identified.

These
4
activities
ensure
that
a
facility
will
adequately
identify
all
contamination
and
provide
corrective
action
as
necessary
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.

The
current
Federal
Solid
Waste
Management
Program
is
an
outgrowth
of
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
of
1976.
The
Hazardous
and
Solid
Waste
Amendments
of
1984
and
the
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Task
Force
within
EPA
have
guided
Federal
solid
waste
program
development.
In
February
1989
a
final
report
of
the
Task
Force,
entitled
"
The
Solid
Waste
Dilemma:
An
Agenda
for
Action,"
set
forth
the
current
Federal
initiatives
in
solid
waste
management.

Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation
and
Liability
Act
("
Superfund")
"
Superfund"
was
established
in
December
1980
under
the
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liability
Act
(
CERCLA,
42
USC
1901
et
seq.).
The
purpose
of
this
program
is
to
provide
funding
for
the
cleanup
of
sites
contaminated
with
hazardous
wastes.
The
Act
authorized
EPA
to
provide
long­
term
remedies
at
hazardous
waste
sites,
and
established
a
$
1.6
billion
fund,
raised
over
5
years
from
special
industry
taxes
and
general
revenues,
to
finance
remedial
activities.
In
1986,
Congress
reauthorized
Superfund
by
enacting
the
Superfund
Amendments
and
Reauthorization
Act
(
SARA),
increasing
the
fund
to
$
8.5
billion
and
strengthening
the
remedial
process.

The
sites
eligible
for
receiving
Superfund
monies
are
listed
on
the
National
Priorities
List
(
NPL),
which
is
used
by
EPA
to
set
priorities
for
cleanup
of
the
sites.
A
priority
site
can
be
remediated
in
several
ways:

I.
The
responsible
parties,
i.
e.,
site
owners
and
operators
as
well
as
generators
and
transporters,
can
remediate
it
voluntarily;
II.
The
responsible
parties
can
be
forced
to
remediate
it
by
legal
and
administrative
actions;
or
III.
Superfund
monies
can
be
used
to
finance
the
remedial
action.
If
there
is
difficulty
in
getting
the
responsible
parties
to
act,
EPA
will
proceed
under
Superfund
and
will
seek
recovery
of
costs
through
legal
action
at
a
later
date.

National
Oil
and
Hazardous
Substance
Pollution
Contingency
Plan
Prevention
and
cleanup
of
oil
and
hazardous
substance
spills
are
the
focus
of
Federal
programs
administered
by
the
U.
S.
Coast
Guard
and
EPA.
The
National
Oil
and
Hazardous
Substance
Pollution
Contingency
Plan
was
developed
pursuant
to
the
provisions
of
Section
311(
c)(
2)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
of
1972
as
amended.
The
National
Plan
is
also
required
by
Section
105
of
the
Superfund
Act.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
44
The
National
Plan
calls
for
the
establishment
of
a
nationwide
network
of
regional
contingency
plans.
The
purpose
of
these
local
contingency
plans
is
to
provide
for
a
coordinated
and
integrated
response
by
the
concerned
Federal,
state,
and
local
agencies
in
the
event
of
a
spill.
The
plans
provide
for
the
standardization
of
procedure
and
policy
among
agencies,
and
encourage
the
development
of
capabilities
by
both
local
governments
and
private
interests
to
handle
and
prevent
pollution
discharges.
Additionally,
Title
III
of
the
Superfund
Amendments
and
Reauthorization
Act
of
1986
(
SARA)
requires
state
and
local
level
emergency
planning
efforts.
SARA
requires
industries
to
notify
local
governments
of
potential
chemical
hazards
present
in
the
community.

Pollution
Prevention
Pollution
prevention
has
become
a
key
notion
for
environmental
progress
in
the
last
decade.
Pollution
prevention
is
a
multi­
media
approach
with
its
primary
goal
being
the
avoidance
of
waste
and
pollution
generation,
followed
by
source
reduction
and
environmentally
sound
recycling.
The
ultimate
goal
is
to
avoid
shifting
pollutants
from
one
media
to
another
by
reducing
the
need
for
treatment.
EPA
has
4
strategic
objectives
by
which
the
pollution
prevention
goal
can
be
met:

 
Develop
a
multi­
media
approach;
 
Support
regional,
state,
and
local
multi­
media
prevention
programs;
 
Build
consensus
for
a
National
Agenda
on
Prevention;
and,
 
Establish
data
strategy
to
develop
indicators,
evaluate
progress,
and
target
opportunities.

The
Coastal
Zone
Management
Act
(
CZMA)
The
Coastal
Zone
Management
Act
(
CZMA)
of
1972
established
a
national
policy
to
preserve,
protect,
develop,
and
where
possible,
to
restore
or
enhance,
the
nation's
coastal
zone.
The
Act
also
encouraged
the
states
to
exercise
their
responsibilities
in
the
coastal
zone
through
the
development
and
implementation
of
management
programs,
the
preparation
of
special
area
management
plans,
and
the
participation
and
cooperation
of
the
public,
local
and
state
governments,
interstate
and
regional
agencies,
and
Federal
agencies
in
programs
affecting
the
coastal
zone.
The
U.
S.
Department
of
Commerce
is
the
Federal
lead
agency
charged
with
the
responsibility
of
implementing
the
Act;
however,
the
Act
provides
that
the
objectives
of
the
law
are
to
be
achieved
through
the
development
and
administration
of
approved
state
coastal
management
programs.
The
Coastal
Zone
Act
Reauthorization
Amendments
of
1990
(
CZARA)
augmented
the
original
Act
by
authorizing
Federal
matching
grants
for
assisting
coastal
states
in
developing
management
programs
for
the
land
and
water
resources
of
their
coastal
zones,
particularly
for
nonpoint
source
pollution
control.

Like
their
state
counterparts,
Federal
agencies
operate
a
number
of
programs
that
affect
the
wise
use
and
protection
of
coastal
resources.
The
CZMA,
as
amended,
requires
the
actions
of
Federal
agencies
to
be
consistent
with
the
policies
of
a
state's
Coastal
Management
Plan
(
CMP).
Federally
conducted
or
supported
activities
(
including
development
projects),
activities
requiring
Federal
licenses
or
permits,
Federal
financial
assistance
to
state
and
local
governments,
and
exploration,
development,
and
production
activities
on
the
Outer
Continental
Shelf
which
require
a
Federal
license
or
permit
are
all
subject
to
CZMA
requirements
and
must
be
consistent
with
the
New
York
CMP.

To
ensure
that
Federal
agencies
comply
with
the
CZMA
provisions,
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Commerce
adopted
regulations
(
15
CFR
Part
930)
which
established
procedures
for
the
Federal
consistency
process.
These
regulations
set
up
separate
review
procedures
for
each
of
the
above­
mentioned
items.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
45
Coastal
Zone
Act
Reauthorization
Amendments
of
1990
The
1990
amendments
to
the
Coastal
Zone
Management
Act
(
CZMA)
require
that
each
state
develop
a
nonpoint
source
pollution
control
program.
Please
refer
to
the
Pathogens
section
for
more
information
on
the
Coastal
Zone
Act
Reauthorization
Amendments
of
1990.

Pesticides
are
a
primary
agricultural
nonpoint
source
pollutant.
The
NPS
Management
Measure
for
states
to
follow
under
CZARA
is:

 
To
reduce
the
contamination
of
surface
water
and
ground
water
due
to
the
application
of
pesticides;
 
Evaluate
pest
problems,
previous
pest
control
measures,
and
cropping
history;
 
Evaluate
the
leaching
potential
at
the
site.
Take
steps
to
prevent
further
contamination
if
needed;
 
Use
integrated
pest
management
(
IPM)
strategies
(
apply
pesticides
only
when
an
economic
benefit
to
the
producer
will
be
achieved
and
apply
pesticides
efficiently
and
at
times
when
runoff
losses
are
unlikely);
 
When
pesticide
applications
are
necessary
and
a
choice
of
registered
materials
exists,
consider
the
persistence,
toxicity,
runoff
potential,
and
leaching
potential
of
products
in
making
a
selection;
 
Calibrate
pesticide
spray
equipment;
and
 
Use
anti­
backflow
devices.

The
practices
and
concepts
that
can
be
used
to
implement
this
measure
on
a
given
site
are
those
commonly
used
by
states
and
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture
(
USDA)
for
general
use
on
agricultural
lands.
When
this
measure
is
implemented
by
using
the
necessary
mix
of
practices
for
a
given
site,
there
should
be
a
relatively
small
negative
economic
impact
on
the
operator's
net
costs
and
farm
income,
and
in
some
cases
the
impact
will
be
positive.
Many
of
the
practices
that
can
be
used
to
implement
this
measure
may
already
be
required
by
Federal,
State,
or
local
rules,
or
may
otherwise
be
in
use
on
agricultural
fields.
Since
many
producers
may
already
be
using
systems
that
satisfy
or
partly
satisfy
the
intent
of
this
management
measure,
the
only
action
that
may
be
necessary
will
be
to
determine
the
effectiveness
of
the
existing
practices
and
implement
additional
practices,
if
needed.
Use
of
existing
practices
will
reduce
the
time,
effort,
and
cost
of
implementing
this
measure.

Other
nonpoint
sources
of
toxics
addressed
under
CZARA
include:
road,
highway
and
bridge
construction
sites,
operation
and
maintenance,
and
runoff
systems;
general
construction
sites,
onsite
disposal
systems;
pesticide
and
toxic
substance
uses
in
developed
areas;
and
marinas
and
recreational
boating.

Toxic
Substances
Control
Act
The
Toxic
Substances
Control
Act
institutes
comprehensive
procedures
for
the
testing
and
control
of
chemicals
believed
to
present
unreasonable
risks
and
injuries
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
This
includes:
assisting
states
in
developing
and
maintaining
toxic
substances
enforcement
programs;
sponsoring
cooperative
surveillance,
monitoring
and
analytical
procedures;
encouraging
regulatory
activities
within
the
states;
and
supporting
and
promoting
the
coordination
of
research
projects
relating
to
the
effects,
extent,
prevention
and
control
of
toxic
chemical
substances
or
mixtures.
Under
the
Toxic
Substances
Control
Act
and
FIFRA
(
see
Federal
Insecticide,
Fungicide,
and
Rodenticide
Act,
below),
the
sale,
use
or
distribution
of
certain
toxic
substances
has
been
banned
or
reduced.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
46
Federal
Insecticide,
Fungicide,
and
Rodenticide
Act
The
Federal
Insecticide,
Fungicide,
and
Rodenticide
Act
supports
and
promotes
the
coordination
of
research
projects
relating
to
human
and
ecological
effects
from
pesticides,
pesticide
degradation
products
and
alternatives
to
pesticides.
FIFRA
authorizes
EPA
to
control
pesticides
that
may
threaten
ground
water
and
surface
water.
FIFRA
provides
for
registration
of
pesticides
and
enforceable
label
requirements,
which
may
include
maximum
rates
of
application,
restrictions
on
use
practices,
and
classification
of
pesticides
as
"
restricted
use"
pesticides
(
which
limits
use
to
certified
applicators
trained
to
handle
toxic
chemicals).
This
Act
also
provides
for
assisting
states
in
developing
and
maintaining
comprehensive
pesticide
enforcement
programs;
sponsoring
cooperative
surveillance
monitoring
and
analytical
procedures;
and
encouraging
regulatory
activities
within
the
states.
Under
FIFRA
and
TSCA
(
see
Toxic
Substances
Control
Act,
above)
the
sale,
use
or
distribution
of
certain
toxic
substances
has
been
banned
or
reduced.

Organotin
Antifouling
Paint
Control
Act
of
1988
The
Organotin
Antifouling
Paint
Control
Act
of
1988
prohibits
the
use
of
bottom
paint
containing
tributyltin
on
vessels
less
than
82
feet
long
in
order
to
control
toxic
substances
in
the
water
to
help
protect
fish
and
other
aquatic
life.

Environmental
Quality
Incentives
Program
(
EQIP)
under
the
1995
Federal
Farm
Bill
Financial
incentives
for
voluntary
compliance
by
private
growers
with
the
CZARA
pesticide
management
measure
and
for
Integrated
Pest
Management
(
IPM)
strategies
may
be
available
through
the
1995
Federal
Farm
Bill's
Environmental
Quality
Incentives
Program
(
EQIP).
The
Suffolk
County
Office
of
the
United
States
Department
of
Agriculture
(
USDA)­
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
(
NRCS)
would
need
to
be
involved
in
the
preparation
of
any
EQIP
proposal.

Safe
Drinking
Water
Act
The
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act,
as
amended,
in
addition
to
establishing
tap
water
criteria
and
ensuring
the
safety
of
public
water
supplies,
contains
other
provisions
to
protect
groundwater
and
sets
controls
on
the
injection
of
fluids
into
underground
sources
of
drinking
water.
This
Act
also
includes
the
wellhead
protection
program,
Sole
Source
Aquifer
Program,
and
source
water
protection
program.

The
National
Environmental
Policy
Act
The
National
Environmental
Policy
Act
(
NEPA),
(
42
U.
S.
C.
4321
et
seq.),
was
signed
into
law
on
January
1,
1970.
The
Act
established
national
environmental
policy
and
goals
for
the
protection,
maintenance,
and
enhancement
of
the
environment,
provided
a
process
for
implementing
these
goals
within
the
Federal
agencies,
and
established
the
Council
on
Environmental
Quality
(
CEQ)
to
oversee
Federal
implementation
of
NEPA.

NEPA
contains
a
Declaration
of
National
Environmental
Policy
which
requires
the
Federal
government
to
use
all
practicable
means
to
create
and
maintain
conditions
under
which
people
and
nature
can
exist
in
productive
harmony.
NEPA
also
requires
Federal
agencies
to
incorporate
environmental
considerations
into
their
planning
and
decision­
making
through
a
systematic
interdisciplinary
approach.
Specifically,
all
Federal
agencies
are
to
prepare
detailed
statements
assessing
the
environmental
impact
of,
and
alternatives
to,
major
Federal
actions
significantly
affecting
the
environment.
These
statements
are
commonly
referred
to
as
Environmental
Impact
Statements
(
EISs).
Federal
agencies
are
also
required
to
lend
appropriate
support
to
initiatives
and
programs
designed
to
anticipate
and
prevent
a
decline
in
the
quality
of
human
living
and
the
world
environment.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
47
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration
(
NOAA)
The
U.
S.
Department
of
Commerce's
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration
(
NOAA)
has
specified
"
Effects
Range"
values
for
toxics
in
sediments
to
indicate
contaminant
concentrations
at
which
bottom
dwelling
organisms
may
be
adversely
affected,
and
as
an
indicator
of
overall
ecosystem
health.
While
these
NOAA
Effects
Range
values
are
not
sediment
quality
criteria
for
regulatory
purposes,
they
provide
a
benchmark
for
evaluating
sediment
contaminant
measurements.

The
two
NOAA
guideline
values,
ER­
L
(
effects
range­
low)
and
ER­
M
(
effects
range­
median)
delineate
three
concentration
ranges
for
a
particular
chemical.
The
concentrations
below
the
ER­
L
value
represent
a
minimal
effects
range,
a
range
intended
to
estimate
conditions
in
which
effects
would
be
rarely
observed.
Concentrations
equal
to
and
above
the
ER­
L,
but
below
the
ER­
M,
represent
a
possible
effects
range
within
which
effects
would
frequently
occur.
At
concentrations
equal
to
and
above
the
ER­
M,
contaminant­
induced
effects
are
likely.
(
See
Long,
et
al,
1996)

NOAA
Mussel
Watch
Program
NOAA
created
the
National
Status
and
Trends
(
NS&
T)
Program
in
1984
to
address
national
concerns
over
the
quality
of
the
coastal
marine
environment,
including
chemical
contamination.
The
Mussel
Watch
portion
of
the
NS&
T
program
was
formed
in
1986
to
measure
concentrations
of
a
broad
suite
of
trace
metals
and
organic
chemicals
in
surface
sediments
and
the
whole
soft
parts
of
mussels
and
oysters.

The
U.
S.
Food
and
Drug
Administration
The
U.
S.
Food
and
Drug
Administration
(
FDA),
the
lead
Federal
agency
responsible
for
risk
management
of
foods
in
interstate
commerce,
has
set
levels
for
contaminants
which,
when
exceeded
in
fish
and
shellfish
tissues,
can
prevent
these
products
from
entering
the
marketplace.
(
State
and
local
agencies
are
responsible
for
protecting
consumers
of
local
fisheries
products.
State­
issued
consumption
advisories
for
chemicals
in
sportfish
and
game
are
based
on
FDA
levels
and
other
factors.)

Presidential
Memorandum
on
"
Environmentally
and
Economically
Beneficial
Practices
on
Federal
Landscaped
Grounds"
A
Presidential
Memorandum
of
April
26,
1996
addresses
"
Environmentally
and
Economically
Beneficial
Practices
on
Federal
Landscaped
Grounds"
which
is
to
be
followed
by
all
executive
departments
and
agencies.

State
Laws,
Agencies
and
Programs
Among
the
state
agencies
having
authority
and
directly
involved
in
coastal
affairs
and
toxic
substance
management
are
the
New
York
State
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation,
the
New
York
State
Department
of
State,
and
the
New
York
State
Department
of
Health.
The
DEC
has
the
principal
responsibilities
for
the
management
and
protection
of
environmental
quality
and
the
natural
resources
of
the
coastal
zone.
The
DOS
is
the
lead
agency
in
New
York
for
coastal
zone
management
activities
and
also
conducts
a
program
of
planning
assistance
to
local
communities.
The
DOH
has
responsibilities
including
protecting
humans
from
toxic
substances
in
drinking
water
and
sportfish.

New
York
State
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation
(
DEC)
The
DEC,
in
planning,
developing
and
managing
the
state's
water
resources
undertakes
studies
for
the
protection,
conservation
and
development
of
state
waters
and
establishing
standards
for
quality
and
uses,
permitting
of
wastewater
discharges,
and
the
control
of
dredging
and
filling
of
navigable
waters.
The
Division
of
Solid
and
Hazardous
Materials
regulates
and
monitors
hazardous
waste
facilities
and
transporters,
encourages
waste
reduction
and
proper
disposal
of
household
hazardous
waste
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
48
and
regulates
the
use
of
pesticides.
The
Division
requires
hazardous
waste
generators
and
facilities
treating
the
waste
to
submit
waste
reduction
plans
that
must
be
approved
by
the
Department.

State
Pesticide
Use
Program
Under
the
Pesticide
Use
Program,
NYSDEC
regulates
the
sale
and
use
of
restricted
and
general
use
pesticides
in
order
to
prevent
the
unsafe
or
excessive
application
of
pesticides.
This
program
is
implemented
through
certification
of
pesticide
applicators
and
backed
up
by
examinations
to
ensure
that
only
knowledgeable,
qualified
people
are
permitted
to
handle
and
apply
these
chemicals.
A
certification
required
by
commercial
applicators
if
they
handle
and
apply
restricted
or
general
use
pesticides,
and
by
private
applicators
(
e.
g.,
farmers)
if
they
plan
to
use
a
restricted
use
pesticide.
It
has
been
estimated
that
50%
of
the
commercial
pesticide
applicators
on
Long
Island
may
be
operating
without
the
required
approvals.
While
pesticides
have
not
been
identified
as
impairing
water
quality
or
living
resources,
the
potential
for
misuse
or
unintended
off­
site
impacts
exists,
particularly
from
uncertified
applicators.

Freshwater
Wetlands
Law
The
State's
Freshwater
Protection
Law
prohibits
the
use
of
pesticides
and
herbicides
on
or
in
the
vicinity
of
wetlands
and
associated
waterbodies.
However,
many
residents
may
be
unaware
of
this
law.

The
Division
of
Hazardous
Waste
Remediation
is
responsible
for
the
superfund
program
that
involves
regulation
of
inactive
hazardous
waste
sites.

The
Division
of
Water
is
charged
with
maintaining
water
quality
in
all
of
the
state's
waterbodies
and
managing
water
resources.

The
Division
is
the
lead
for
establishing
water
quality
standards,
regulates
wastewater
treatment
and
associated
discharges,
monitors
water
quality,
oversees
the
state's
nonpoint
source
management
program,
and
protects
groundwater
aquifers.

The
New
York
State
Water
Quality
Standards
classify
waters
in
the
state
according
to
their
best
usage
and
specify
chemical
specific
numeric
criteria.
In
addition
to
specific
chemicals
in
the
State
Water
Quality
Standards,
a
NYSDEC
Technical
and
Operational
Guidance
Series
document
establishes
guidance
values
for
additional
substances.

The
New
York
State
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
SPDES)
was
established
by
the
New
York
Environmental
Conservation
Law
and
regulates
discharges
to
the
land,
groundwater,
and
surface
waters
of
the
state.
Such
discharges
include
effluent
from:
public
and
private
sewage
treatment
plants;
industrial
discharges;
land
application
of
sludge,
septage,
and
industrial
wastes;
discharges
into
municipal
wastewater
treatment
plants
which
are
regulated
under
the
industrial
pretreatment
program;
and
underground
injection.
This
program
was
delegated
to
New
York
under
the
CWA,
through
which
the
state
assumed
the
permitting
functions
of
the
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System.

State
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
program
permits
are
written
to
ensure
that
these
discharges
do
not
cause
or
contribute
to
the
violation
of
ambient
water
quality
standards.
Under
Phase
I
of
the
SPDES
stormwater
program,
permits
are
required
to
be
issued
for
municipal
separate
storm
sewer
systems
serving
large
or
medium­
sized
populations
(
greater
than
250,000
or
100,000
people,
respectively),
and
for
stormwater
discharges
to
surface
waters
associated
with
industrial
activity,
including
certain
types
of
marinas.
At
the
present
time,
nine
establishments
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Study
Area
have
been
issued
SPDES
stormwater
general
permits.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
49
Permits
also
are
issued
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
if
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
USEPA)
or
the
State
determines
that
a
stormwater
discharge
to
surface
water
contributes
to
a
violation
of
a
water
quality
standard
or
is
a
significant
contributor
of
pollutants
to
waters
of
the
United
States.
No
permits
of
this
type
have
been
issued,
to
date,
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
Study
Area.

Discharges
to
ground
waters
include
sanitary
wastes
from
residences
and
commercial
establishments
and
non­
contact
cooling
waters.
There
are
no
permitted
discharges
of
wastewater
from
industrial
activities
to
groundwater
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
Study
Area
(
aside
from
a
permit
at
Brookhaven
National
Laboratory
[
BNL]).
Businesses,
which
generate
wastewater
containing
toxic
substances,
dispose
of
such
wastewater
by
containing
the
limited
volumes
on­
site,
and
then
removing
them
by
approved
hazardous
waste
handlers/
transporters
for
treatment
off­
site.
This
method
is
often
referred
to
as
"
hold
and
haul".

A
marina
is
required
to
obtain
a
SPDES
stormwater
discharge
permit
if
vehicle
maintenance
activities,
such
as
vehicle
(
boat)
rehabilitation,
mechanical
repairs,
painting,
fueling,
and
lubrication
or
equipment
cleaning
operations
are
conducted
at
the
marina.
SPDES
permits
apply
only
to
the
point
source
discharges
of
stormwater
from
maintenance
areas
at
the
marinas.

Marinas
not
involved
in
equipment
cleaning
or
vehicle
maintenance
activities
are
not
covered
under
the
SPDES
stormwater
program.
Likewise,
a
marina
that
has
no
point
source
discharges
of
stormwater
is
not
regulated
under
the
SPDES
stormwater
program,
regardless
of
its
classification
and
the
types
of
activities
conducted.
In
addition,
some
marinas
are
marine
service
stations
that
are
not
regulated
under
the
SPDES
stormwater
program.
These
types
of
marinas
are
primarily
in
the
business
of
selling
fuel
without
vehicle
maintenance
or
equipment
cleaning
operations.

Sewage
treatment
plant
(
STP)
effluents
are
subject
to
disinfection
to
limit
the
discharge
of
pathogens.
The
most
common
method
of
disinfection
is
chlorination.
Chlorinated
discharges
to
surface
waters
are
of
concern
because,
in
systems
like
the
Peconics
which
contain
high
levels
of
organic
matter,
chlorinated
compounds
can
be
formed
which,
although
short
lived,
can
be
quite
toxic
to
aquatic
organisms.
The
complexity
of
the
reactions
of
chlorine
in
the
environment
increases
the
difficulty
of
assessing
its
impact.
Increased
attention
is
being
given
to
addressing
the
possible
need
to
limit
all
uses
of
chlorine
as
a
means
of
reducing
the
input
of
chlorinated
compounds
into
the
environment.

The
water
quality
certification
program
is
authorized
by
the
New
York
Environmental
Conservation
Law
and
the
CWA
Amendments
of
1977
(
33
U.
S.
C.
1251,
Section
401).
All
projects
requiring
Federal
permits
for
the
discharge
of
dredged
or
fill
material
into
state
waters
or
wetlands
also
require
a
State
Water
Quality
Certification.
The
purpose
of
this
certification
is
to
insure
that
all
such
activities
are
consistent
with
New
York
State
water
quality
standards
and
management
policies.

The
Division
of
Fish,
Wildlife
and
Marine
Resources
protects
promotes
and
provides
for
the
use
of
fish
and
wildlife
resources
by
maintaining
and
protecting
the
resources
and
their
habitats,
including
managing
the
living
marine
resources
of
the
state.
This
includes
assessing
environmental
impacts
on
marine
resources,
administering
the
tidal
wetlands
and
excavation
and
fill
regulatory
programs,
coordinating
state
participation
in
the
National
Estuary
Programs,
recommending
standards
and
classifications
for
marine
waters,
certifying
shellfish
waters
for
harvesting,
administering
shellfish
management
programs,
assessing
principal
fishery
stocks
and
developing
recommendations
for
effective
management
of
species.

The
Division
of
Air
controls
air
pollution
by
regulating,
permitting,
and
monitoring
sources,
and
developing
and
implementing
strategies
to
meet
the
requirements
of
the
Federal
Clean
Air
Act.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
50
The
Division
of
Regulatory
Affairs
coordinates
permit
reviews,
assesses
environmental
impacts
of
proposed
projects,
reviews
regulations
and
issues
permits.
The
Division
also
administers
the
State
Environmental
Quality
Review
Act
which
requires
all
levels
of
government
(
state
and
local)
to
assess
the
environmental
significance
of
actions
which
they
have
discretion
to
approve,
fund,
or
directly
undertake.

The
Division
of
Construction
Management
approves
and
manages
engineering
plans
and
construction
activities
for
sewage
treatment
plants
in
the
state.

The
Bureau
of
Spill
Response
controls
petroleum
and
chemical
bulk
storage
and
responds
to
spills.
New
York
State
law
includes
provisions
for
preventing
spills
of
petroleum.
These
provisions
require
all
facilities
with
a
minimum
capacity
of
1,100
gallons
to
be
registered,
set
forth
standards
for
the
handling
and
storage
of
petroleum,
and
set
forth
standards
for
new
and
substantially
modified
underground
and
aboveground
storage
facilities.
Owners
and
operators
must
notify
NYSDEC
of
any
spills.
Another
State
program
addresses
the
requirements
for
the
bulk
storage
of
other
hazardous
substances,
including
the
registration
of
storage
tanks,
spill
reporting
procedures
and
specifications
for
the
sale
and
delivery
of
such
substances.

New
York
State
Department
of
State
Coastal
Management
Program
In
New
York
State
the
Department
of
State
administers
the
Coastal
Management
Program
(
CMP).
The
CMP
provides
for
the
preservation,
protection,
development
and
use
of
the
state's
coastal
and
inland
waterways.
The
program
has
many
aspects:
policies
covering
land
use
planning,
development
of
recreation,
commercial,
and
industrial
water
dependent
properties,
maintenance
of
fish
and
wildlife
habitats,
stabilization
of
beaches
and
dunes,
and
waste
discharge
from
vessels
and
on­
shore
facilities.
The
CMP's
jurisdiction
extends
from
the
limit
of
the
state's
territorial
waters
to
a
line
generally
500
to
1000
feet
inland.

The
CMP
requires
reviews
of
projects
having
some
form
of
Federal
involvement
in
coastal
areas
for
consistency
with
local,
state,
and
Federal
environmental
statutes
and
programs.
The
CMP
provides
technical
and
financial
assistance
to
local
municipalities
to
prepare
Local
Waterfront
Revitalization
Plans.
These
plans
promote
revitalization
of
coastal
areas
while
protecting
their
integrity.

Existing
state
programs
and
requirements
(
including
those
under
the
State
Navigation
Law)
are
in
place
to
address:
pollution
from
boat
cleaning
at
marinas;
liquid
material
disposal
at
marinas;
solid
waste
disposal
at
marinas;
and
petroleum
control
at
marinas.

New
York
State
Department
of
Health
The
Department
of
Health
enforces
compliance
with
the
Public
Health
Law
and
the
State
Sanitary
Code.
In
the
area
of
water
resources,
the
Department
establishes
drinking
water
quality
standards
and
establishes
regulations
for
the
sanitary
control
of
water
supplies.
The
Health
Department
sets
guidance
for
seafood
and
wildlife
consumption
to
protect
human
health.
The
Department
also
assists
DEC
in
developing
water
and
air
human
health
standards
and
in
overseeing
public
health
interests
for
the
inspection
and
remediation
of
inactive
hazardous
waste
sites.

Fish,
Shellfish
and
Wildlife
Consumption
Advisories
The
State
routinely
monitors
contaminant
levels
in
fish
and
game
and
issues
advisories
on
eating
sportfish
and
game
because
some
of
these
foods
contain
chemicals
at
levels
that
may
be
harmful
to
human
health.
These
advisories
are
updated
yearly,
and
provide
information
on
how
to
minimize
exposure
to
contaminants
and
reduce
whatever
health
risks
are
associated
with
exposure.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
51
Local
Programs
and
Laws
Suffolk
County
Sanitary
Code
Suffolk
County
sanitary
code
requirements
(
Article
12)
are
more
stringent
than
state
requirements.
The
County
law
went
into
effect
in
1980
and
addresses
all
underground
and
aboveground
tanks
storing
fuels,
solvents,
and
chemicals,
virtually
anything
that
could
contaminate
groundwater
or
surface
water.
New
underground
tanks
are
required
to
have
secondary
containment
and
be
constructed
of
non­
corrodible
materials,
and
must
have
leak
detection
and
overflow
protection
systems.
All
existing
facilities
had
to
be
brought
up
to
new
construction
standards
by
1990.

The
County
law
exempted
existing
tanks
from
the
replacement
requirement
that
were
under
1100
gallons
and
used
for
the
storage
of
heating
oil
for
on­
premises
use.
However,
new
tanks
of
this
type
must
be
made
of
non­
corrodible
materials.
The
Financing
chapter
of
this
CCMP
includes
several
recommendation
regarding
incentives
for
private
homeowners
to
address
this
potential
threat
to
groundwater
and
surface
water.

Organic
solvents
used
as
septic
system
cleaners
may
hinder
effective
septic
system
operation
by
destroying
useful
bacteria
that
aid
in
the
degradation
of
waste,
resulting
in
disrupted
treatment
activity
and
the
discharge
of
contaminants.
In
addition,
since
the
organic
chemicals
in
the
solvents
are
highly
mobile
in
the
soils
and
toxic
(
some
are
suspected
carcinogens),
they
can
easily
contaminate
ground
water
and
surface
waters
and
threaten
public
health.
State
and
County
laws
restrict/
prohibit
the
sale
and
distribution
of
illegal
disposal
system
products
in
Nassau
and
Suffolk
counties.
This
includes
deodorizers
and
drain
cleaners
as
well
as
cesspool
additives.
However,
sewage
system
cleaners
may
still
be
used
by
unsuspecting
residents.

East
Hampton
Harbor
Protection
Overlay
District
The
Town
of
East
Hampton,
recognized
that
those
who
own
property
bordering
on
the
Town's
harbors
(
including
flag
lots,
flag
strips,
and
flag
access
strips)
derive
many
benefits
from
proximity
to
these
waters
and
therefore
have
a
special
responsibility
to
help
protect
them.
The
Town
has
established
a
Harbor
Protection
Overlay
District
(
HPOD)
whereby
all
lots
in
this
district
are
subject
to
special
requirements
for
maintaining
or
protecting
wildlife
habitats,
and
surface
water
quality
to
protect
aquatic
life.
This
includes:

 
Requiring
new
parking
lots
and
driveways
to
have
"
unimproved"
surfaces
or
be
constructed
of
one
or
more
of
the
following:
poured
concrete,
hot
plant
asphalt,
rapid
curing
cut­
back
asphalt
or
quartz
gravel;
 
Requiring
that
runoff
from
new
paved
roads,
parking
lots
and
driveways
be
managed
onsite
 
Requiring
that
fuel
tanks
be
double
walled
fiberglass
if
installed
below
ground
or
include
specified
containment
provisions
if
installed
elsewhere;
 
Requiring
that
swimming
pools:
be
constructed
or
installed
with
a
system
to
reduce
the
use
of
chlorine,
such
as
an
ozonator,
ionizer,
or
ultra
violet
disinfectant
system;
have
drywells
constructed
for
evacuation
of
water
from
the
pool;
not
be
drained
anywhere
but
to
the
dry
well;
and
not
be
cleaned
by
means
of
an
acid
wash
unless
the
acids
used
are
neutralized
prior
to
discharge
from
the
swimming
pool,
and
 
Allowing
the
use
of
wood
treated
with
copper
chromated
arsenate
(
CCA),
ammoniacal
copper
quat
(
ACQ),
or
creosote
in
tidal
waters
only
when
it
can
be
shown
that
no
reasonable
alternatives
to
using
these
treated
woods
exists.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
52
Suffolk
County
Vector
Control
The
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Public
Works
maintains
vector
control
ditches
(
mosquito
ditches),
and
typically
applies
sprays
for
larval
control
of
mosquitoes.
Problem
areas
are
monitored
to
determine
effective
treatments.
The
primary
insecticide
used
is
Bti
(
bacillus
thuringiensis
var.
israelensis);
in
some
areas,
methoprene
is
used.

Local
"
Stop
Throwing
Out
Pollutants"
(
STOP)
Programs
Each
of
the
towns
have
STOP
("
Stop
Throwing
Out
Pollutants")
or
HAZMAT
(
HAZardous
MATerial)
Programs,
or
which
include
collections
for
proper
disposal
of
oil,
paints,
solvents,
boat
and
auto
products
(
antifreeze,
polishes,
etc.),
cleaning
chemicals,
and
lawn
and
garden
chemicals.
Some
programs
have
specified
collection
dates
and
locations
(
East
Hampton);
others
collect
materials
on
specific
days
(
Shelter
Island
(
Saturdays),
Southold
(
Tuesdays
and
Thursdays)).

Construction
Site
Chemical
Waste
Disposal
All
of
the
towns
have
some
program
or
ordinance
to
address
the
disposal
of
chemical
waste
from
construction
sites,
although
they
are
quite
varied.
Although
Brookhaven
and
Riverhead
require
contractors
to
submit
plans
for
waste
disposal
at
the
construction
site,
they
lack
sufficient
enforcement
strength
to
ensure
these
plans
are
being
followed.
East
Hampton
has
indirect
ordinances
for
this
action,
but
regulations
are
not
uniform
and
disposal
is
handled
on
a
case
by
case
basis.

Road,
Highway
and
Bridge
Construction
and
Operation
and
Maintenance
All
towns
except
Shelter
Island
have
programs
or
ordinances
to
address
both
road
construction
and
maintenance
chemical
storage
and
disposal,
although
they
are
quite
varied.
East
Hampton
and
Riverhead
have
reported
success
in
allocating
staff
and
resources
to
addressing
this
potential
source
of
toxics.

Evaluation
of
Effectiveness
General:
In
general,
most
of
the
agencies
and
programs
described
above
provide
adequate
capacity
(
statutory
and
regulatory
authority,
agency
functionality,
etc.)
to
support
PEP
management
objectives.
A
few
needs/
deficiencies,
potentially
warranting
"
new"
programs,
initiatives,
or
efforts
are
recommended.

Monitoring:
Many
agency
programs
and
resources,
when
available,
are
effective
and
useful.
There
is
a
significant
amount
of
data
that
has
been
collected
since
the
initiation
of
the
PEP
that
still
needs
evaluation.

Regulatory
Sites
of
Concern:
Existing
Federal/
State/
local
programs
are
effective
at
addressing
toxic
contamination
at
Superfund
sites,
other
hazardous
waste
sites,
and
permitted
facilities,
including
those
that
discharge
to
groundwater
and
surface
water.
Remedial
investigations,
feasibility
studies,
and
clean
up,
in
particular
are
complex
and
often
take
significant
time
to
complete.
Adequate
monitoring
and
evaluation
needs
to
take
place
following
remedial
actions
to
ensure
the
remedy
is
effective.
Attention
needs
to
be
paid
to
permitted
facilities
that
use
or
discharge
toxic
substances
and
enforcement
action
used
when
necessary.

Chlorine:
Alternatives
to
chlorine
for
disinfection
at
Sewage
treatment
Plants
(
STPs)
are
effective,
but
not
all
effluents
are
suitable
for
all
alternatives.
Where
chlorine
is
used,
ambient
water
quality
standards
for
the
protection
of
aquatic
life
for
chlorine
need
to
be
attained.

Pesticides:
FIFRA
is
an
effective
means
of
banning
or
restricting
the
use
of
pesticides
of
concern,
as
is
the
state
mechanism.
The
state
has
an
effective
pesticide
certification
program
for
commercial
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
53
applicators,
as
well
as
provisions
to
eliminate
or
reduce
pesticide
use
near
wetlands.
The
development/
establishment
of
a
Long
Island
Pesticide
Management
Plan
should
be
pursued,
as
should
enforceable
programs
under
CZARA.
The
County's
IPM
pesticide
free
golf
course
initiative
is
worthwhile,
as
is
the
Federal
Presidential
Memorandum
regarding
landscaping
at
Federal
installations.
Additional
demonstrations
and
cooperative
efforts
with
the
agricultural
community
to
reduce
or
eliminate
pesticide
use
should
be
pursued.
Overall
IPM
programs
need
to
be
developed
and
implemented,
and
opportunities
to
expand
markets
for
organic
produce
investigated.

Construction
Sites,
Roads:
At
present,
on
State
funded
projects,
there
are
programs
to
effectively
manage
toxic
chemical
use
at
construction
sites,
including
road
construction,
and
roadway
operation
and
maintenance.
There
are
also
existing
statewide
pesticide
management,
spill
management,
and
solid
and
hazardous
waste
disposal
requirements.
In
the
absence
of
statewide
requirements
addressing
remaining
toxic
concerns
at
these
sites,
there
is
a
need
to
pursue
local
requirements
applicable
at
these
sites.
Requirements
also
need
to
be
enforced,
and
education/
outreach
efforts
with
industry/
trade
groups
pursued.

Developed
Areas:
Public
facilities
should
set
the
example
in
terms
of
conducting
and
implementing
pollution
prevention
opportunity
assessments
and
environmental
management
reviews.
Stormwater
runoff
at
marinas
and
boatyards
may
need
further
evaluation
and
management.
The
Town
of
East
Hampton's
Harbor
Protection
Overlay
district
is
effective
at
addressing
a
number
of
potential
sources
of
toxic
substances,
including:
materials
for
roads,
driveways
and
parking
lot
surfaces
and
management
of
runoff
from
these
surfaces;
fuel
storage
tanks;
swimming
pools;
treated
woods;
and
other
activities.
Certain
onsite
disposal
system
products
are
banned,
but
retail
establishments
may
still
sell
them
to
unsuspecting
customers.
Additional
research
and
investigations
are
needed
regarding
the
placement
of
treated
lumber
in
the
marine
environment.
Natural
shoreline
and
non­
toxic
structures
should
be
encouraged,
consistent
with
PEP's
overall
policy
no
net
increase
of
shoreline
hardening
structures.
Guidelines
should
be
developed
to
address
the
disposal
of
treated
lumber
following
demolition.
The
Federal
government's
efforts
to
eliminate
the
use
of
the
gasoline
octane
booster,
MTBE,
should
continue.
Structurally
sound
home
heating
oil
tanks
currently
exempted
from
current
replacement
requirements
still
present
a
potential
threat
to
groundwater
and
ultimately
surface
water
resources.
Voluntary
and
incentive
based
programs
should
be
developed
to
encourage
replacements
and
upgrades
of
these
tanks.

Pollution
Prevention:
More
aggressive
pollution
prevention
programs
should
be
established
and
implemented,
particularly
for
industries/
establishments
that
use,
generate
or
discharge
toxic
substances.
Existing
town
"
Stop
Throwing
Out
Pollutant"
type
programs
are
necessary
and
should
continue.
Mosquito
control
programs
should
first
encourage
good
housekeeping
methods
of
control.
The
use
of
pesticides
should
be
reduced
to
the
maximum
extent
practicable
that
still
adequately
protects
human
health.
Dredged
Materials:
Existing
programs
at
the
Federal
and
state
level
are
adequate
for
ensuring
that
applications
and
permits
for
dredged
material
are
evaluated
with
respect
to
toxics.

Recommendations
for
Improvements
Monitoring:
Many
existing
programs
and
resources
at
the
Federal
(
especially
USEPA,
NOAA,
USGS),
state
(
especially
NYSDEC,
NYSDOH)
and
local
agency
(
SCDHS)
should
be
accessed
to
the
maximum
extent
possible
and
supplemented
with
specially
funded
projects.
Monitoring
should
include
not
only
chemical
specific
analyses
but
also
evaluations
of
overall
toxicity.
In
particular,
sediments,
biota
and
groundwater
should
be
evaluated,
as
well
as
surface
waters,
dredged
materials
and
soils.
New
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
54
and
emerging
topics,
issues
and
concerns
need
to
be
addressed,
including
potential
endocrine
disruptors,
historic
and
present
marinas
and
boatyards
as
possible
areas
of
contamination
and
any
locally
identified
areas
of
concern.

Regulatory
Sites
of
Concern:
Federal
and
state
regulatory
agencies
need
to
focus
on
meeting
deadlines
associated
with
cleanups
and
permitting
actions
under
hazardous
waste
laws.
Facilities
that
use
or
discharge
toxic
substances
need
to
be
inspected
and
monitored,
as
should
sites
being
remediated
under
hazardous
waste
laws.
Enforcement
should
be
used
as
necessary.

Chlorine:
Consistent
with
human
health
protection
needs
and
based
on
the
suitability
of
the
effluent,
the
use
of
chlorine
for
disinfection
at
Sewage
Treatment
Plants
(
STPs)
should
be
eliminated.
Where
alternatives
to
chlorine
are
not
effective
and
chlorine
continues
to
be
used,
discharge
permits
must
ensure
that
the
ambient
water
quality
standards
for
the
protection
of
aquatic
life
for
chlorine
be
attained.

Pesticides:
EPA
and
the
State
should
restrict
or
ban
all
pesticides
that
are
detected
at
levels
of
public
health
or
environmental
concern
in
groundwater
or
in
the
estuary.
The
State
should
continue
to
ensure
the
proper
certification
of
commercial
pesticide
applicators;
the
public
should
be
educated
about
using
commercial
applicators
that
are
properly
certified.
The
state
should
enforce
the
provisions
of
the
State
Freshwater
Wetlands
Law
to
reduce
or
eliminate
the
use
of
pesticides
in
the
vicinity
of
wetlands.
The
Long
Island
Pesticide
Management
Plan
should
be
developed/
established,
as
should
enforceable
programs
under
CZARA.
The
concepts
behind
Suffolk
County's
integrated
pest
management/
pesticide
free
golf
courses
should
be
applied
to
all
public
lands
and
golf
courses.
The
Federal
Presidential
Memorandum
regarding
landscaping
at
Federal
installations
should
be
adhered
to
and
a
similar
policy
enacted
for
other
owners
of
public
lands.
Additional
work
is
needed
with
the
agricultural
community
to
demonstrate/
identify
opportunities
for
reducing
pesticide
applications.
Integrated
pest
management
programs
need
to
be
developed
and
implemented
to
reduce
or
eliminate
overall
pesticide
use.
Opportunities
for
expanding
markets
for
and
production
of
organic
produce
should
be
investigated.
Collection
of
unneeded
and
unwanted
pesticides,
particularly
from
agribusinesses
and
commercial
landscapers,
should
be
carried
out
on
a
regular
basis.

Construction
Sites,
Roads:
For
state
funded
construction
projects,
including
road,
highway
and
bridge
construction,
and
road,
highway
and
bridge
operation
and
maintenance,
existing
programs
are
adequate
to
control
toxics.
While
there
are
other
existing
Statewide
pesticide
management,
spill
management,
and
solid
and
hazardous
waste
disposal
requirements,
other
toxics
may
not
be
addressed
on
private
projects
or
projects
funded
at
the
local
level.
Requirements
applicable
on
state
funded
projects
should
be
applicable
at
all
project
sites.
Until
such
time
as
statewide
requirements
are
adopted,
uniform
programs
equivalent
to
those
applicable
at
state
funded
projects
should
be
enacted
at
the
local
level.
Requirements
also
need
to
be
enforced,
and
education/
outreach
efforts
with
local
government/
industry/
trade
groups
pursued.
Similarly,
adequate
management
programs
are
in
place
at
the
state
level
for
runoff
management
systems
for
roads,
highways
and
bridges.
Similar
program
requirements
need
to
be
adopted
for
application
at
the
local
level,
and
until
such
time
as
they
are
adopted,
local
programs
should
be
enacted
or
voluntary
cooperation
pursued.
The
desired
and
enforceable
measures
to
be
implemented
are
as
follows:

Road,
Highway
and
Bridge
Construction
Site
Chemical
Control:
Limit
the
application,
generation
and
migration
of
toxic
substances,
and
ensure
the
proper
storage
and
disposal
of
toxic
materials.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
55
Road,
Highway
and
Bridge
Operation
and
Maintenance:
Incorporate
pollution
prevention
procedures
into
the
operation
and
maintenance
of
roads,
highways
and
bridges
to
reduce
pollutant
loadings.

Road,
Highway
and
Bridge
Runoff
Systems:
Develop
and
implement
runoff
management
systems
for
roads,
highways
and
bridges
to
reduce
runoff
pollutant
concentrations
and
volumes;
identify
priority
and
watershed
pollutant
reduction
opportunities
(
e.
g.,
improvements
to
existing
urban
runoff
control
structures);
and
establish
schedules
for
implementing
appropriate
controls.

Developed
Areas:
Public
facilities
should
set
the
example
in
terms
of
conducting
and
implementing
pollution
prevention
opportunity
assessments
(
PPOAs)
and
environmental
management
reviews
(
EMRs).
PPOAs
and
EMRs
should
be
conducted
and
implemented
at
all
public
facilities,
beginning
with
Federal
installations.
Priorities
should
include
facilities
handling
toxic
materials.
Stormwater
runoff
at
marinas
and
boatyards
may
need
further
evaluation
and
management,
due
to
materials
used
and
disposed
of
at
these
facilities
and
their
proximity
to
estuarine
waters.
The
Town
of
East
Hampton's
Harbor
Protection
Overlay
District
is
effective
at
addressing
a
number
of
potential
sources
of
toxic
substances,
including:
materials
for
roads,
driveways
and
parking
lot
surfaces
and
management
of
runoff
from
these
surfaces;
fuel
storage
tanks;
swimming
pools;
treated
woods;
and
other
activities.
In
Suffolk
County,
certain
onsite
disposal
system
products
are
banned,
but
retail
establishments
may
still
sell
them.
Retail
establishments
should
be
regularly
inspected
to
enforce
the
ban
on
the
sail
of
these
illegal
OSDS
products
and
an
education/
outreach
effort
initiated
for
these
establishments
and
consumers.
Additional
research
and
investigations
are
needed
regarding
the
placement
of
treated
lumber
in
the
marine
environment.
Natural
shoreline
and
non­
toxic
structures
should
be
encouraged,
consistent
with
PEP's
overall
policy
no
net
increase
of
shoreline
hardening
structures.
Guidelines
should
be
developed
to
address
the
disposal
of
treated
lumber
following
demolition.
The
Federal
government's
efforts
to
eliminate
the
use
of
the
gasoline
octane
booster,
MTBE,
should
continue.
Structurally
sound
home
heating
oil
tanks
currently
exempted
from
current
replacement
requirements
still
present
a
potential
threat
to
groundwater
and
ultimately
surface
water
resources.
Voluntary
and
incentive
based
programs
should
be
developed
to
encourage
replacements
and
upgrades
of
these
tanks.

Pollution
Prevention:
More
aggressive
pollution
prevention
programs
should
be
established
and
implemented,
particularly
for
industries/
establishments
that
use,
generate
or
discharge
toxic
substances.
Existing
town
"
Stop
Throwing
Out
Pollutant"
type
programs
are
necessary
and
should
continue.
Mosquito
Control
programs
should
first
encourage
good
housekeeping
methods
of
control.
The
use
of
pesticides
for
mosquito
control
should
be
reduced
to
the
maximum
extent
practicable
that
still
adequately
protects
human
health.

Dredged
Materials:
Existing
programs
at
the
Federal
and
state
level
are
adequate
for
ensuring
that
applications
and
permits
for
dredged
material
are
evaluated
with
respect
to
toxics.
Permits
and
applications
should
be
critically
evaluated
with
respect
to
their
potential
to
cause
adverse
toxic
effects
to
the
Peconic
Ecosystem,
and
particularly
to
pelagic
and
benthic
organisms
and
their
food
chains,
including
humans.
The
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.
The
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
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
56
identified
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,
but
the
PEP
should
continue
to
participate
in
the
EPA/
Corps
efforts
to
identify
potential
placement
sites
for
Long
Island
Sound
dredged
material.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
K
K­
57
Post­
CCMP
Description
of
Regulatory/
Institutional
Framework
Three
alternative
frameworks
were
considered
for
post­
CCMP
management:
 
Continuation
of
Existing
Management
Conference
Structure
(
Policy
Committee;
Management
Committee;
Citizens,
Technical
and
Local
Government
Advisory
Committees;
and
Program
Office);
 
Formation
of
a
Regional
Advisory
Commission
(
formal,
non­
regulatory
commission
of
East
End
town
and
village
representatives);
 
Modification
of
the
Pine
Barrens
Maritime
Reserve
Commission
(
Modification
of
the
Pine
Barrens
Maritime
Reserve
Act
as
a
mechanism
to
involve
State,
County,
and
local
governments
in
a
regional
implementation
process)

State
Agencies
and
Programs
Pine
Barrens
Maritime
Reserve
Act
Through
the
Pine
Barrens
Maritime
Reserve
Act,
the
New
York
State
Legislature
declared
that
the
Long
Island
Pine
Barrens
should
be
protected
in
a
comprehensive
plan
adopted
by
the
state
and
individual
local
governments.
The
Long
Island
Pine
Barrens
encompasses
over
one
hundred
thousand
acres
in
the
county
of
Suffolk
and
overlies
the
largest
source
of
pure
groundwater
in
New
York.
The
Pine
Barrens
are
interconnected
to
the
Peconic
Bay
system
by
the
Peconic
River,
the
longest
groundwater
river
in
New
York.

The
Act
calls
for
a
state
supported
regional
comprehensive
land
use
plan
providing
for
the
preservation
of
the
core
preservation
area,
protection
of
the
Central
Pine
Barrens
area
and
for
the
designation
of
compatible
growth
areas
to
accommodate
appropriate
patterns
of
development
and
regional
growth.
The
legislature
intended
that
the
comprehensive
regional
land
use
plan
would
include
provisions
for
private
landowners
whose
property
is
located
within
the
Central
Pine
Barrens
area.
The
landowners
will
be
afforded
an
opportunity
to
receive
benefits
from
the
plan
such
as
transferable
development
rights,
conservation
easements,
rights
and
values
transfers,
purchase
of
development
rights
and/
or
fee
acquisition
with
monetary
compensation.

A
Long
Island
Pine
Barrens
Maritime
Reserve
Council
was
established
to
help
local
governments
and
the
state
coordinate
the
efforts
of
all
municipal,
county,
state
and
Federal
agencies
involved
in
the
management
of
the
preserve.
The
Council
was
also
charged
with
overseeing
and
preparing
a
comprehensive
intergovernmental
management
plan
for
the
Long
Island
Pine
Barrens
maritime
reserve
for
state
and
local
governments
to
adopt.

Evaluation
of
Effectiveness
The
existing
Management
Conference
Structure
has
been
successful
in
integrating
concerns
and
building
consensus
in
an
often
complex
and
contentious
process.
For
the
foreseeable
future,
the
Management
Conference
has
recommended
continuation
of
the
existing
management
structure,
at
least
until
a
different
approach
is
sanctioned
by
the
Policy
Committee.