Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0049-0119
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-03-19T05:00Z

Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
APPENDIX
I
Environmental
Monitoring
Plan
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
This
Page
Intentionally
Left
Blank.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Environmental
Monitoring
Plan
November
2000
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
Table
of
Contents
Introduction
1
Monitoring
Plan
Basis
1
Output
Monitoring
2
Outcome
Monitoring
3
Monitoring
Plan
Elements
3
Data
Management
3
CCMP
and
NEP
Requirements
4
Core
Monitoring
Workplan
Elements
5
Measurable
Goals
6
Brown
Tide
Issues
10
Nutrients
Issues
12
Habitat
and
Living
Resource
Issues
20
Pathogens
Issues
30
Toxics
Issues
34
Monitoring
Program
Summary
47
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
1
­
Introduction
An
effective
monitoring
program
is
necessary
to
assess
the
status
and
trends
in
the
Peconic
Estuary's
water
and
sediment
quality
and
in
the
health
and
abundance
of
the
estuary's
habitats
and
living
resources.
Assessing
status
and
trends
includes
both
spatial
and
temporal
variations.
This
information
will
provide
insights
into
the
effectiveness
of
current
management
strategies,
indicate
where
goals
have
been
met,
if
actions
should
continue,
and
whether
more
stringent
controls
or
management
is
warranted.

Monitoring
the
changes
in
a
watershed
is
not
a
simple
task.
Watersheds,
by
their
very
nature,
are
dynamic
systems
where
populations
of
fish,
birds,
and
other
organisms
fluctuate
with
natural
cycles.
Water
quality
also
varies,
particularly
as
seasonal
and
annual
weather
patterns
change.
The
task
of
tracking
environmental
changes
can
be
difficult,
and
distinguishing
the
changes
caused
by
human
actions
from
natural
variations
can
be
even
more
difficult.

This
Environmental
Monitoring
Plan
describes
the
region's
existing
monitoring
efforts
as
well
as
recommendations
for
expanding
some
existing
programs
and
establishing
new
monitoring
programs.
The
Plan
also
describes
the
environmental
changes
these
data
can
be
used
to
assess.
While
agencies
or
organizations
carrying
out
monitoring
programs
may
extend
their
efforts
beyond
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
study
area
boundaries,
the
evaluation
of
the
monitoring
programs
described
in
this
document,
whether
existing
or
proposed,
applies
only
to
activities
within
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
study
area.
By
reporting
on
environmental
changes,
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
will
be
able
to
evaluate
whether
measurable
environmental
results
have
been
achieved
and
whether
the
goals
and
objectives
of
the
Comprehensive
Conservation
and
Management
Plan
(
CCMP)
are
being
met.
Efforts
from
Federal,
state,
county
and
local
government
agencies,
non­
governmental
organizations,
and
private
citizens
comprise
the
extant
monitoring
in
the
region.
Monitoring
has
been
and
continues
to
be
performed
for
water
quality,
habitats,
land
uses,
and
populations.
Specific
monitoring
efforts
are
described
in
detail
in
this
document.

Monitoring
can
be
divided
into
output
monitoring
and
outcome
monitoring.
Output
monitoring
is
programmatic
and
addresses
CCMP
implementation
issues
(
resulting
in
Implementation
Reports).
Outcome
monitoring
focuses
on
changes
in
ambient
conditions,
ecological
functions,
and
biological
populations
and
communities
(
resulting
in
Environmental
Status
Reports).
This
Environmental
Monitoring
Plan
mainly
focuses
on
outcome
monitoring.

Monitoring
Plan
Basis
The
pollutants,
biological
indicators
and
performance
criteria
included
in
this
Environmental
Monitoring
Plan
were
selected
based
on
the
priority
management
topics
in
the
CCMP
and
the
measurable
goals
the
Program
established
for
each
priority
management
topic.
The
priority
management
topics
were
initially
identified
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
nomination
document
for
inclusion
in
the
National
Estuary
Program.
These
topics
(
and
lead
agencies)
are:
Brown
Tide
(
SCDHS),
nutrients
(
SCDHS),
habitats
and
living
resources
(
NYSDEC),
pathogens
(
NYSDEC),
and
toxics
(
EPA).
In
the
final
CCMP,
these
topics
are
joined
by
critical
lands
protection,
an
overarching
issue,
to
form
the
priority
management
issues
for
the
Program,
along
with
public
education
and
outreach,
financing,
and
overall
implementation.
The
SCDHS
along
with
The
Nature
Conservancy,
the
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Planning,
and
the
Citizens
Advisory
Committee
serves
as
the
lead
for
critical
lands
protection.
These
priority
issues
have
been
selected,
both
initially
and
currently,
based
on
impacts,
threats,
and
importance
in
meeting
the
overall
goals
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program.

For
each
priority
management
topic,
the
PEP
has
developed
measurable
goals.
In
many
cases,
these
measurable
goals
are
first
order
estimates
based
on
best
available
information
and
on
management
conference
judgment.
Each
measurable
goal
in
the
final
CCMP
is
linked
to
one
or
more
of
the
actions
in
the
final
CCMP.
Each
element
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
2
­
Environmental
Monitoring
Plan
is
also
linked
to
one
or
more
of
the
measurable
goals.
The
relationship
between
a
monitoring
program
element
(
and
the
parameters
contained
therein)
and
a
CCMP
measurable
goal
is
the
basis
for
its
inclusion
in
this
Environmental
Monitoring
Plan.

The
Peconic
Estuary
Program's
Environmental
Monitoring
Program
consists
of
numerous
existing
monitoring
programs,
many
of
which
have
been
expanded
due
primarily
to
the
existence
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program.
The
Peconic
Estuary
Program
participants,
in
preparing
this
Plan,
did
not
observe
any
duplication
of
effort
among
the
agencies
or
organizations
currently
conducting
monitoring
in
the
estuary
and
its
watershed.
Where
gaps
in
and
among
monitoring
programs
were
identified,
recommendations
have
been
made
to
expand
existing
monitoring
programs
or
establish
entirely
new
monitoring
programs.
The
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Office
in
the
Office
of
Ecology
of
the
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services
serves
as
the
overall
coordinator
of
monitoring
efforts
in
the
estuary
and
watershed.
The
effectiveness
of
the
Environmental
Monitoring
Plan
will
be
reviewed
as
part
of
the
Implementation
Report
as
well
as
the
Environmental
Status
Report.
Recommendations
for
redirection
of
efforts
will
be
included
in
these
reports
as
needed;
these
proposed
changes
will
be
subject
to
public
review.

The
Peconic
Estuary
Program
has
developed
a
candidate
list
of
indicators
to
be
used
in
reporting
on
environmental
outcomes.
This
list
will
be
refined
and
finalized
in
the
2001­
02
timeframe.
The
candidate
indicators,
related
to
key
measurable
goals
in
the
CCMP
and
elements
of
the
Environmental
Monitoring
Plan,
are
as
follows:

­
Brown
Tide
Levels
­
Dissolved
Oxygen
Levels
­
Nitrogen
Levels
­
Water
Clarity
­
Eelgrass
Coverage
­
Extent
of
Shoreline
Hardening
­
Finfish
and
Shellfish
Landings
­
Acres
Open
to
Shellfish
Harvesting
­
Toxics
in
the
Environment
(
sediments,
biota,
and
loadings)
­
Habitat
Restoration
(
and
Land
Acquisition/
Protection)

Output
Monitoring
Programmatic
output
monitoring
will
track
the
products
from
implementing
the
CCMP.
Monitoring
will
help
keep
managers
abreast
of
all
implementation
programs
and
the
degree
to
which
the
programs
are
or
are
not
achieving
their
intended
outcomes.
This
type
of
monitoring
holds
designated
lead
organizations
accountable
for
specific
actions
and
steps
outlined
in
the
CCMP.
Programmatic
monitoring
can
also
be
used
to
assess
whether
an
educational
outreach
program
has
reached
its
intended
audience.

The
Peconic
Estuary
Program
will
report
on
the
status
of
the
CCMP
actions
("
output
monitoring")
through
periodic
bulletins
and
has
committed
to
a
full
accounting
on
the
status
of
all
CCMP
actions
every
three
years,
consistent
with
EPA
National
Estuary
Program
Guidance,
in
the
form
of
an
Implementation
Report.
This
reporting
commitment
is
an
action
in
the
Post­
CCMP
Chapter
of
the
final
CCMP.
The
report
will
evaluate
whether
the
CCMP
actions
and
steps
should
be
modified
in
order
to
achieve
the
CCMP
goals
and
objectives.
Where
appropriate,
resources
and
efforts
may
be
redirected
to
attain
the
desired
outcomes
of
the
Program.
Recommendations
for
the
redirection
of
efforts
will
be
subject
to
public
review.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
3
­
Outcome
Monitoring
Outcome
monitoring
assesses
the
success
in
attaining
CCMP
goals
and
objectives
rather
than
the
implementation
of
specific
actions.
For
each
measurable
goal
in
the
CCMP,
the
associated
monitoring
parameters
provide
a
measure
of
success.
Characterization
reports
prepared
for
the
CCMP
and
summarized
in
the
CCMP,
as
well
as
numerous
existing
monitoring
efforts,
represent
outcome
monitoring
activities.

The
Peconic
Estuary
Program
will
provide
information
on
environmental
quality
("
outcome
monitoring")
through
periodic
bulletins
and
a
report
every
three
years
on
progress
in
achieving
all
of
the
measurable
goals
described
in
the
CCMP
in
the
form
of
an
Environmental
Status
Report.
This
reporting
commitment
is
an
action
in
the
Post­
CCMP
Chapter
of
the
final
CCMP.
Through
the
outcome
monitoring
process,
existing
and
planned
monitoring
efforts
will
be
incorporated,
critical
information
gaps
will
be
identified,
and
standardizing
and
coordinating
future
monitoring
efforts
will
be
attempted.
As
with
the
Implementation
Report,
the
Environmental
Status
Report
will
include
recommendations
for
redirection
of
efforts
as
needed;
these
proposed
changes
will
be
subject
to
public
review.

Monitoring
Plan
Elements
Compiling
monitoring
program
information
into
one
document,
such
as
this
one,
promotes
cooperation
among
agencies
and
stakeholders,
clarifies
the
need
for
existing
programs
as
well
as
for
expanded
or
new
programs,
and
provides
an
avenue
for
integrating
results
from
different
monitoring
programs
and
projects
for
scientific,
regulatory
and
general
interests.
The
Peconic
Estuary
Program
has
identified
thirty­
two
core
monitoring
plan
elements,
which
are
necessary
to
determine
whether
the
CCMP
measurable
goals
are
being
met.

The
monitoring
plan
elements
are
geared
towards
the
chemical,
physical
and
biological
conditions
of
the
estuary.
As
such,
the
workplan
elements
focus
on
the
five
substantive
modules.
Other
modules
such
as
Public
Education
and
Outreach
and
Financing
will
be
dealt
with
in
other
reports.
The
Critical
Lands
Protection
Strategy
Chapter
outlines
all
the
milestones
that
need
to
take
place
in
developing
a
Critical
Lands
Protection
Plan.
Actual
environmental
goals
and
a
monitoring
workplan
for
critical
lands
protection
will
be
developed
as
part
of
the
Critical
Lands
Protection
Plan.

Data
Management
The
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Data
Management
Strategy
(
Peconic
Estuary
Program,
1993)
designated
the
SCDHS
Office
of
Ecology
as
the
repository
of
water
quality
data
and
most
Geographical
Information
System
(
GIS)
data.
The
Program
Office
also
is
the
prime
repository
for
natural
resource
data
on
a
provisional
basis.
Since
that
time,
the
USFWS
has
worked
on
several
mapping
efforts
and
has
provided
GIS
coverages
to
the
Program
Office
for
storage
and
distribution.
For
the
foreseeable
future,
the
Program
Office
in
the
SCDHS
will
continue
its
role
as
the
data
repository
and
data
management
agency.
The
Peconic
Estuary
Program
is
committed
to
reviewing
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Data
Management
Strategy
as
part
of
the
Post­
CCMP
Implementation
Report.

The
Peconic
Estuary
Program
intends
to
develop
a
real­
time,
web­
based
accountability
system
that
will
house
information
related
to
the
CCMP
goals
and
actions.
Reports,
newspaper
articles,
photographs
and
monitoring
data
will
be
available
through
the
internet
and
in
hard
copy
form.
Monitoring
data
will
be
posted
directly
via
links
to
a
database.
The
intent
of
the
accountability
system
is
that
all
PEP­
related
information
will
be
web­
accessible.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
4
­
CCMP
and
NEP
Requirements
Consistent
with
EPA
guidance,
each
of
the
individual
elements
of
this
Environmental
Monitoring
Plan
includes
the
following:

 
Program
Objective(
s):
Program
objectives
are
defined
and
performance
criteria
are
specified
(
i.
e.,
parameter
needed
to
guide
management
decisions).
 
Lead
Entity:
The
lead
entity
is
named
or
proposed.
 
Program
Status:
Program
status
describes
whether
the
program
is
existing,
existing
but
there
are
recommended
expansions,
or
is
new.
 
Monitoring
Extent
and
Frequency:
The
geographical
extent
of
the
monitoring
and
sampling
frequency
is
described.
 
Monitoring
Hypotheses:
Testable
hypotheses
are
provided.
 
Measurable
Goal:
The
Peconic
Estuary
Program
measurable
goal
(
or
goals)
related
to
the
monitoring
program
element
is
specified.
 
Program
Description:
Summary
information
addressing
the
particular
monitoring
program
is
included.
In
many
cases,
especially
where
there
are
existing
programs,
reference
is
made
to
an
acceptable
sampling
and
quality
assurance/
quality
control
project
plan.
Those
who
are
interested
in
the
details
and
specifics
of
a
particular
program
are
encouraged
to
consult
these
existing
documents.
For
monitoring
programs
that
do
not
exist
at
the
current
time,
but
are
recommended
in
this
monitoring
plan,
complete
information
for
all
these
factors
has
likely
not
yet
been
specified,
but
will
be
prior
to
the
initiation
of
any
environmental
monitoring
effort.
 
Costs:
Information
on
costs,
including
estimates
of
current
efforts
and
estimates
for
proposed
new
or
expanded
efforts
is
provided.

The
program
descriptions
and
the
referenced
sampling
and
quality
assurance/
quality
control
project
plans
together
include
the
following,
where
this
information
is
available:

 
Specification
of
monitoring
variables,
including
sampling
locations
and
frequency,
field
sampling
locations,
field
and
laboratory
analytical
procedures,
quality
assurance
and
control
procedures.
 
Specification
of
the
data
management
system
and
statistical
test
that
will
be
used
to
analyze
the
monitoring
data.
 
Description
of
the
expected
performance
of
the
initial
sampling
design
(
i.
e.,
the
minimum
difference
that
can
be
detected
in
measured
variables
over
time
and
between
locations).
 
Provision
of
a
timetable
for
analyzing
data
and
assessing
program
performance.

Finally,
information
on
costs
is
specified.
If
the
monitoring
activity
is
part
of
an
existing
or
ongoing
base
program
of
an
agency
or
organization,
a
cost
is
typically
not
specified.
If
it
is
a
recommendation
for
a
new
or
expansion
of
an
existing
monitoring
program,
to
the
extent
possible,
the
cost
has
been
estimated
for
planning
purposes.
These
cost
estimates
will
be
the
basis
for
securing
additional
funds.
Potential
sources
of
funding
include
agency
or
organization
base
programs,
special
funding
sources
(
i.
e.,
the
Suffolk
County
1/
4
percent
Sales
Tax
Program,
receipts
from
selective
sales
fees,
special
project
grants
through
governmental
and
non­
governments
sources).
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
5
­
Core
Monitoring
Workplan
Elements
Brown
Tide
Issues
­
Brown
Tide
Nutrients
Issues
­
Nutrients
­
Dissolved
Oxygen
­
Light
Extinction
­
Groundwater
­
Point
Sources
­
Land
Use
Habitat
and
Living
Resources
Issues
­
Eelgrass
­
Finfish
and
Macroinvertebrates
­
Wetlands
­
Shoreline
Hardening
­
Piping
Plovers,
Shorebirds,
Raptors,
and
Other
Birds
­
Dredging
­
Restoration
­
Bay
Scallops
­
Aquaculture
and
Transplanting
Activities
Pathogens
Issues
­
Coliform
Bacteria
­
Pfiesteria
and
Alexandrium
­
Vessel
Waste
No
Discharge
Areas
Toxics
Issues
­
Sediment
­
Coastal
2000
­
Biota
(
Fish,
Shellfish,
and
Crustaceans)
­
NOAA
Mussel
Watch
Program
­
Surface
Water
­
Groundwater
­
Hazardous
Waste
Sites
­
Point
Source
Discharges
­
Federal
Toxics
Release
Inventory
­
Pesticide
Use
­
Two
Stroke
Marine
Engines
­
Underground
Storage
Tanks
­
Treated
Lumber
in
the
Marine
Environment
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
6
­
Measurable
Goals
The
PEP's
measurable
goals
with
respect
to
Brown
Tide
blooms
include:

 
Continue
to
better
coordinate,
focus,
and
expand
Brown
Tide
research
efforts
(
measured
by
funding
appropriated,
frequency
of
Brown
Tide
symposiums
and
frequency
of
updating
the
Brown
Tide
Workplan
and
coordinations
within
the
Brown
Tide
Steering
Committee).

 
Continue
the
current
level
of
water
quality
sampling
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
(
measured
by
the
number
and
frequency
of
samples
taken
per
year
and
the
number
of
bays
and
peripheral
embayments
sampled).
Currently,
the
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services
conducts
biweekly
monitoring
at
32
stations
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
throughout
the
year,
resulting
in
over
830
samples
taken
annually.

The
PEP's
measurable
goals
with
respect
to
nutrients
include:

 
Decrease
the
total
nitrogen
concentrations
in
the
western
estuary
to
a
summer
mean
of
no
more
than
0.45
mg/
l
(
based
on
1994­
96
model
verification
conditions,
and
measured
by
surface
water
nitrogen
concentrations
as
compared
to
the
PEP
nitrogen
guidelines).

 
Improve
the
dissolved
oxygen
concentrations
in
the
western
estuary
to
ensure
that
the
New
York
State
dissolved
oxygen
standard
(
currently
5.0
mg/
l)
is
not
violated
(
measured
by
surface
and
bottom
dissolved
oxygen
levels
as
compared
to
the
New
York
State
dissolved
oxygen
standard).

 
Ensure
that
the
total
nitrogen
levels
in
shallow
waters
remain
at
or
below
0.4
mg/
l
to
help
optimize
water
clarity,
maintaining
and
potentially
improving
conditions
for
eelgrass
beds,
a
critical
habitat
(
based
on
1994­
96
model
verification
conditions,
and
measured
by
light
extinction
coefficients
as
compared
to
the
recommended
eelgrass
habitat
optimization
goal
of
at
or
below
0.75
±
0.05
m­
1).

 
Ensure
that
the
existing
total
nitrogen
and
dissolved
oxygen
levels
are
maintained
or
improved
in
waters
east
of
Flanders
Bay
(
i.
e.,
do
not
increase
TN
nor
decrease
DO)
(
measured
by
surface
water
total
nitrogen
concentrations
as
compared
to
the
PEP
nitrogen
guidelines
and
surface
and
bottom
dissolved
oxygen
levels
as
compared
to
the
New
York
State
dissolved
oxygen
standard).

 
Develop
a
quantitative
total
nitrogen
load
allocation
strategy
for
the
entire
estuary
(
measured
by
development
of
a
strategy
and
timely
endorsement
by
local
and
State
agencies).
Preliminary
work
group
estimates,
and
work
performed
by
other
programs,
indicate
that
a
10­
25
percent
fertilizer
reduction
goal
is
a
reasonable
first
order
target
for
existing
residential
and
agricultural
fertilizing
programs.

 
Implement
a
quantitative
nitrogen
load
allocation
strategy
for
the
entire
estuary
(
measured
by
attaining
the
PEP
recommendations
including
the
implementation
of
the
recommended
Agricultural
Environmental
Management
(
AEM)
program,
as
well
as
other
recommendations,
which
may
include
fertilizer
reduction
programs,
sanitary
system
upgrade
programs,
point
source
controls,
etc.,
as
well
as
monitoring
for
the
impacts
on
measurable
groundwater
quality
parameters).

 
Ensure
that
there
is
no
substantial
net
increase
in
nitrogen
loading
to
areas
east
of
Flanders
Bay
and
reductions
in
the
Peconic
River/
Flanders
Bay
region
so
that
an
increase
in
new
development
would
be
offset
by
reductions
in
loads
from
pre­
existing
uses.
The
nitrogen
work
groups
will
develop
means
of
attaining
this
goal,
which
may
include
groundwater
performance
standards
(
e.
g.,
nitrogen
concentrations
in
groundwater
resulting
from
post­
development
discharge/
recharge),
implementing
fertilizer
and
clearing
restrictions,
and
zoning.

 
Continue
sponsoring
and
coordinating
research
and
information
gathering
(
measured
by
funding
appropriated,
and
research
conducted,
relative
to
PEP
recommendations).
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
7
­
 
Continue
and
expand
open
space
acquisition
programs
(
measured
by
funding
appropriated
and
acres
acquired
in
target
areas).

The
PEP's
measurable
goals
with
respect
to
habitat
and
living
resources
include:

 
Protect
the
high
quality
habitats
and
concentrations
of
species
in
the
Critical
Natural
Resource
Areas
(
measured
by
acres
of
open
space
protected
and
development
of
model
ordinances).

 
Maintain
current
linear
feet
of
natural
shoreline
and
over
the
next
15
years
reduce
shoreline
hardening
structures
by
five
percent
(
measured
by
the
percent
change
of
natural
vs.
hardened
shorelines
through
GIS
mapping).

 
Maintain
current
eelgrass
acreage
(
2,100
acres
in
main
stem
of
the
estuary)
and
increase
acreage
by
ten
percent
over
10
years
(
measured
by
inter­
annual
aerial
surveys
with
GIS
and
SCUBA
assessments).

 
Maintain
and
increase
current
tidal
and
freshwater
marsh
acreage,
and
restore
areas
that
have
been
degraded
(
e.
g.,
restricted
flow,
Phragmites
australis
dominated,
hardened
shoreline)
(
measured
as
number
of
acres
of
marsh
with
GIS).

 
Maintain
a
policy
of
no
new
mosquito
ditches
and
not
re­
opening
ditches
that
have
filled­
in
by
natural
processes;
and
restore
10­
15
percent
of
mosquito
ditched
marshes
through
Open
Marsh
Water
Management
(
measured
by
the
number
of
acres
of
restored
tide
marsh
using
Open
Marsh
Water
Management).

 
Increase
the
number
of
piping
plover
pairs
to
115
with
productivity
at
1.5
(
over
a
three­
year
average),
distributed
across
the
nesting
sites
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
(
measured
by
annual
piping
plover
surveys).

 
Develop
recommendations
and
guidelines
to
reduce
impacts
to
marine
life
from
dredging­
related
activities
(
measured
by
amount
of
reduced
dredging
volumes
and
protected
benthic
habitat
acreage).

 
Foster
sustainable
recreational
and
commercial
finfish
and
shellfish
uses
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
that
are
compatible
with
biodiversity
protection
(
measured
by
juvenile
finfish
trawl
surveys,
bay
scallop
landings,
and
identifying,
protecting,
and
restoring
key
shellfish
and
finfish
habitat).

 
Enhance
the
shellfish
resources
available
to
harvesting
through
reseeding,
creation
of
spawning
sanctuaries
and
habitat
enhancement
(
measured
by
scallop
and
clam
abundance/
landings).
 
Link
land
usage
with
habitat
quality
in
tidal
creeks
(
measured
by
continued
funding
of
benthic
and
water
quality
surveys
to
measure
the
quality/
impacts
to
the
habitats
within
selected
tidal
creeks).

 
Ensure
that
the
existing
and
future
aquaculture
(
shellfish
and
finfish)
and
transplanting
activities
are
situated
in
ecologically
low­
productive
areas
of
the
estuary
and
that
they
are
mutually
beneficial
to
the
aquaculture
industry,
natural
resources,
and
water
quality
(
measured
by
the
extent
and
location
of
aquaculture/
transplant
facilities,
water
quality
measures,
and
natural
resource
data).

 
Annually
initiate
five
percent
of
the
projects
identified
in
the
Habitat
Restoration
Workgroup
Plan
for
the
Peconic
Estuary
(
measured
by
the
number
of
projects
funded
and
implemented
annually).

The
PEP's
measurable
goals
with
respect
to
pathogens
include:

 
Maintain
current
level
of
lands
available
to
shellfish
harvesting,
with
the
ultimate
aim
of
re­
opening
lands
currently
closed
to
harvesting
(
measured
through
coliform
levels
and
numbers
of
acres
of
shellfish
beds
available
to
harvest).

 
Maintain
and
improve
water
quality
of
the
estuary
through
a
reduction
of
overall
stormwater
runoff,
particularly
key
areas
identified
through
the
Regional
Stormwater
Runoff
Study
(
measured
through
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
8
­
number
of
stormwater
remediation
projects
implemented).

 
Eliminate
all
vessel
waste
discharge
to
the
estuary
(
measured
by
the
adoption/
implementation
of
a
Vessel
Waste
No
Discharge
Area
in
the
Peconic
Estuary,
the
number
of
pump­
out
facilities
and
the
volume
of
waste
pumped
annually).

 
Attain
a
zero
discharge
of
stormwater
runoff
in
new
subdivisions
(
measured
by
site
plans
for
new
developments
that
achieve
this
goal
and
the
development
of
new
ordinances
and
Habitat
Protection
Overlay
Districts).

The
PEP's
measurable
goals
with
respect
to
toxics
are:

 
Improve
the
quality
of
the
ambient
environment
(
surface
waters,
groundwaters,
sediments
and
biota)
where
there
is
evidence
that
human
inputs
impair
or
threaten
these
resources
(
as
measured
by
surface
water,
groundwater,
sediment
and
biota
monitoring
programs).

 
Comply
with
schedules
for
conducting
site
characterizations,
remedial
actions
and
post­
remedial
monitoring
at
hazardous
waste
sites;
effectively
characterize
risks
and
protect
human
health
and
the
environment
at
hazardous
waste
sites;
ensure
compliance
with
permit
limits
for
point
source
discharges
(
as
measured
by
compliance
with
schedules
at
hazardous
waste
sites;
conducting
effective
characterizations;
and
point
source
monitoring).

 
Decrease
overall
emissions
of
reportable
toxics
from
the
five
East
End
towns
(
as
measured
by
the
Federal
Toxics
Release
Inventory).

 
Eliminate
holdings
of
banned,
unneeded
and
unwanted
pesticides
and
hazardous
substances
by
2005
(
as
potentially
measured
by
collections
during
"
Clean
Sweep"
programs,
household
hazardous
waste
collection
programs
and
events,
or
surveys
of
farmers/
commercial
landscapers/
homeowners).

 
Decrease
overall
agricultural/
residential/
institutional
pesticide
applications
in
the
five
East
End
towns
(
as
potentially
measured
by
point­
of­
sale
surveys,
surveys
of
residents,
or
commercial
applicator
tallies).

 
Eliminate
to
the
maximum
extent
practicable,
pesticide
applications
on
turf
grass
on
all
publicly
held
land
by
2003
(
as
potentially
measured
by
resolutions
passed
[
or
equivalent]).

 
Eliminate
underground
storage
tanks
exempt
from
current
replacement
requirements
via
incentive
programs
and
public
education
and
outreach
(
as
potentially
measured
following
baseline
established
of
number
of
underground
storage
tanks
[
USTs]
and
monitoring
of
the
number
of
underground
tanks
removed,
retired,
and
replaced).

 
Decrease
the
total
amount
of
treated
lumber
installed
in
the
marine/
estuarine
environment
(
as
potentially
measured
by
baseline
established
from
shoreline
surveys
and
monitoring
of
permits
issued
for
bulkheading
installations,
replacements,
and
removal).

 
Reduce
the
number
of
two
stroke
marine
engines
in
use
in
the
estuary
(
as
potentially
measured
by
harbormaster
conducted
surveys).

The
PEP's
measurable
goals
with
respect
to
education
and
outreach
are:

 
Annually,
embark
on
one
new,
substantial
public
education
effort
addressing
each
of
the
following
areas:
­
Conducting
Brown
Tide
education
and
outreach;
­
Reducing
residential
fertilizer
use
in
the
Peconic
Watershed;
­
Improving,
protecting
or
enhancing
habitats
and
living
resources;
­
Reducing
pathogen
loadings
to
the
estuary;
and
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
9
­
­
Reducing
the
use
and
loadings
of
toxics
substances
to
the
estuary.
(
as
measured
by
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Office
and
the
PEP
Citizens
Advisory
committee).

 
Annually,
conduct
one
major
watershed
effort
involving
students
in
estuary
management
(
as
measured
by
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Office
and
the
PEP
Citizens
Advisory
Committee).

 
Annually,
conduct
one
major
watershed­
wide
event
to
educate
those
who
live,
work,
or
recreate
in
the
Peconics
(
as
measured
by
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Office
and
the
PEP
Citizens
Advisory
Committee).

 
Annually,
support
the
establishment
of
one
new
local
embayment
or
tidal
creek
association
(
as
measured
by
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Office
and
the
PEP
Citizens
Advisory
Committee).

The
PEP's
measurable
goals
with
respect
to
financing
are:

 
Effectively
use
existing
funding
and
secure
new
or
additional
governmental
funding
for
CCMP
implementation
from
the
following
sources:
­
Federal
Government,
particularly
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture;
­
State
Government,
particularly
the
Clean
Water/
Clean
Air
Bond
Act
and
State
Revolving
Loan
Fund;
­
County
Government,
particularly
the
Suffolk
County
¼
%
Sales
Tax
Program;
­
Town
Governments;
and
­
Village
Governments.
(
as
measured
by
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Office).

 
Secure
new
or
additional
private
sector
funding
for
CCMP
implementation,
from
the
following
sources:
­
Businesses;
and
­
Not
for
profit
organizations.
(
as
measured
by
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Office).

The
Peconic
Estuary
Program's
measurable
goals
with
respect
to
post­
CCMP
management
and
implementation
are:

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

 
Produce
annual
reports.
[
See
Action
M­
3]

 
Update
municipal
officials.
[
See
Action
M­
4]

 
Develop
sub­
watershed
implementation
plans
(
as
measured
by
the
number
of
sub­
watershed
plans
initiated).
[
See
Action
M­
5]
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
10
­
Brown
Tide
Issues
Brown
Tide
Monitoring
Program
Objective
To
track
the
changes
in
abundance
and
distribution
of
the
Brown
Tide
organism
in
the
estuary
and
relate
the
changes
to
conventional
water
quality
parameters
(
e.
g.,
dissolved
organic
and
dissolved
inorganic
nutrients)
as
well
as
provide
support
to
Brown
Tide
researchers.

Monitoring
Hypothesis
Knowledge
of
Brown
Tide
abundance
and
distribution
may
hold
clues
to
preventing,
stopping
or
mitigating
Brown
Tide
blooms.

CCMP
Measurable
Goal
Continue
the
current
level
of
water
quality
sampling
in
the
Peconic
Estuary.

Lead
Entity
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services;
New
York
Sea
Grant
is
the
lead
for
Brown
Tide
Research
Initiative
projects.

Program
Status
Brown
Tide
monitoring
is
part
of
an
existing
program
of
the
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services.
Existing
Brown
Tide
Research
Initiative
Projects
will
be
completed
in
2002­
03.

Monitoring
Extent
and
Frequency
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services
monitors
estuary
wide
and
year
round
(
weekly
or
biweekly)
for
Brown
Tide
cell
counts
and
related
water
quality
parameters.
Monitoring
under
Brown
Tide
Research
Initiative
projects
is
in
accordance
with
approved
workplans.

Program
Description
Brown
tide
was
first
detected
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
in
June
of
1985.
The
Brown
Tide
organism,
Aureococcus
anophagefferens,
is
a
particularly
small
phytoplankton
species
and
is
only
problematic
under
"
bloom"
conditions.
Brown
tide
can
persist
for
unusually
long
periods
of
time
over
large
areas
and
has
no
predictable
onset,
duration,
or
cessation.
Brown
tide
has
recurred
since
1985
and
has
had
a
serious
impact
on
natural
resources,
the
local
economy,
the
general
aesthetic
value
of
the
estuary,
and
possibly
regional
tourism.
Brown
Tide
cell
counts
are
included
as
part
of
the
monitoring
programs
described
below.

SCDHS
Surface
Water
Quality
Monitoring:
In
1988
the
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services
(
SCDHS)
Office
of
Ecology
expanded
its
monitoring
operations
in
an
effort
to
determine
the
cause
of
Brown
Tide.
While
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
initial
Brown
Tide
characterization
for
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program.

Brown
Tide
cell
counts
are
now
part
of
the
regular
SCDHS
surface
water
quality
monitoring
protocol.
Refer
to
the
SCDHS
Surface
Water
Quality
Monitoring
section
in
the
Nutrient
Monitoring
Workplan
for
more
information
and
other
parameters
sampled
by
the
SCDHS.
The
SCDHS
Surface
Water
Quality
Monitoring
Standard
Operating
Procedure
(
SCDHS,
2000)
and
the
Quality
Assurance
Project
Plan
for
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Surface
Water
Monitoring
Program
(
SCDHS,
1994)
describe
the
standard
operating
procedures
and
the
QA/
QC
methods
for
the
entire
SCDHS
Surface
Water
Quality
Monitoring
Program,
which
includes
Brown
Tide
cell
counts..
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
11
­
Brown
Tide
Research
Initiative
(
BTRI)
Committee:
The
Brown
Tide
Research
Initiative
(
BTRI)
Committee,
chaired
by
the
New
York
Sea
Grant,
follows
the
research
and
monitoring
funded
primarily
through
the
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration's
Coastal
Ocean
Program
and
Suffolk
County.
The
BTRI
program
was
developed
to
increase
knowledge
concerning
Brown
Tide
by
identifying
the
factors
and
understanding
the
processes
that
stimulate
and
sustain
Brown
Tide
blooms.
The
Peconic
Estuary
Program
is
part
of
the
BTRI
Committee.
The
Initiative
is
composed
of
peer­
reviewed
research
projects
that
were
selected
from
two
national
calls
for
projects.
Brown
tide
research
and
characterizations
are
systematically
updated
through
New
York
Sea
Grant's
Brown
Tide
Research
Initiative
Reports.

Brown
Tide
Steering
Committee
(
BTSC):
The
Brown
Tide
Steering
Committee
(
BTSC)
was
formed
to
broadly
coordinate
Brown
Tide
research
efforts
both
inside
and
outside
New
York
through
the
development
of
a
comprehensive
Brown
Tide
research
and
management
plan
or
Brown
Tide
Workplan
(
see
Appendix
F
for
the
most
recent
Workplan).
The
BTSC
includes
representatives
from
various
agencies
and
environmental
groups
as
well
as
elected
officials,
commercial
fisherman,
and
other
interested
parties.
The
Committee
is
coordinated
by
Suffolk
County.

Costs
Base
Programs:
Continued
research
and
monitoring
depends
on
continued
funding.
The
SCDHS
Surface
Water
Monitoring
Program,
along
with
the
SCDHS
Routine
Point
Source
Monitoring
Program,
is
funded
in
part
by
$
20,000
in
Post­
CCMP
EPA
funds
awarded
to
SCDHS
and
by
in­
kind
match
from
Suffolk
County,
a
minimum
grant
commitment
of
$
120,000
per
year
to
satisfy
the
EPA
local
match
requirements.
As
with
prior
years,
the
costs
for
the
monitoring
program
are
likely
substantially
higher
than
the
EPA
grant.

Brown
tide
research
is
currently
funded
through
many
specially
funded
government
grants.
NOAA,
through
its
Coastal
Ocean
Program,
is
providing
Brown
Tide
research
funding
totaling
$
3.0
million
over
six
years
(
funding
started
in
1997).
Between
1997
and
2000,
Suffolk
County
has
appropriated
$
583,000
to
support
Brown
Tide
monitoring
and
investigation
efforts.
Suffolk
County
has
authorized
$
150,000
each
year
for
the
next
three
years
(
2001­
2003)
from
the
capital
budget
for
more
Brown
Tide
research
and
monitoring.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
12
­
Nutrients
Issues
Nutrients
Monitoring
Program
Objective
To
track
the
long­
term
trends
in
nutrient
loading
and
the
short­
term
variations
in
nutrient
concentrations
in
relation
to
the
PEP
nitrogen
guidelines
(
based
on
1994­
96
conditions)
and
to
refine
the
guidelines
as
needed.
This
will
support
our
review
of
the
effectiveness
of
the
CCMP
actions
in
attaining
dissolved
oxygen
standards.

Monitoring
Hypothesis
Increases
or
decreases
in
estuarine
nutrient
loading
will
be
detected
by
monitoring
water
quality.
Nutrient
concentrations
will
change
based
on
land
uses
and
the
implementation
of
management
measures
over
time.

CCMP
Measurable
Goals
Decrease
the
total
nitrogen
concentrations
in
the
western
estuary
to
a
summer
mean
of
no
more
than
0.45
mg/
l;
Ensure
that
the
existing
summer
mean
total
nitrogen
levels
are
maintained
or
improved
in
waters
east
of
Flanders
Bay;
Ensure
that
the
summer
mean
total
nitrogen
levels
in
shallow
waters
remain
at
or
below
0.4
mg/
l.

Lead
Entity
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services.

Program
Status
Nutrient
monitoring
is
part
of
an
existing
program
of
the
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services.

Monitoring
Extent
and
Frequency
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services
monitors
estuary
wide
(
32
stations)
and
year
round
(
biweekly)
for
nutrients
and
related
water
quality
parameters.

Program
Description
Nitrogen
is
the
nutrient
of
primary
concern
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
although
the
surface
water
quality
conditions
with
respect
to
nitrogen
levels
are
generally
good.
In
the
summer
months,
when
environmental
stresses
are
at
their
peak,
nitrogen
is
the
"
limiting
nutrient"
for
algal
growth.
Excessive
nitrogen
inputs
stimulate
algal
growth,
which
may
cause
diurnal
dissolved
oxygen
problems.
Excessive
nitrogen
inputs
may
also
harm
eelgrass,
a
critical
habitat,
due
to
algal
shading,
stimulation
of
epiphytes,
and,
possibly,
direct
adverse
metabolic
impacts.
In
addition,
increased
nitrogen
levels
may
affect
the
duration
and/
or
intensity
of
a
Brown
Tide
bloom.

SCDHS
Surface
Water
Quality
Monitoring:
The
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services
(
SCDHS)
Office
of
Ecology
samples
for
a
suite
of
nitrogen
components
(
NH3,
NOx,
NO2,
NO3,
Urea,
TKN,
and
TDKN)
in
the
Peconic
Estuary.
Other
parameters
sampled
by
the
SCDHS
include
Secchi
depth,
Temperature,
Dissolved
Oxygen,
Salinity,
Total
Coliforms,
Fecal
Coliforms,
TPO4,
TDPO4,
O­
PO4,
TOC,
DOC,
SiO3,
TSS,
Total
Chl­
a,
Fractionated
Chl­
a,
Aureococcus,
Ambient
Irradiance,
depth
at
20%
of
Ambient
Irradiance,
depth
at
10%
of
Ambient
Irradiance,
and
depth
at
1%
of
Ambient
Irradiance.
While
limited
sampling
began
in
1976,
the
number
of
stations
and
samples
taken
in
the
Peconics
has
increased
through
the
years.
Currently,
the
SCDHS
conducts
biweekly
monitoring
at
32
stations
throughout
the
year.

The
Post­
CCMP
Surface
Water
and
Point
Source
Monitoring
Plan
(
SCDHS,
1999)
further
describes
the
post­
CCMP
efforts
of
the
SCDHS
in
the
Peconics.
As
indicated
in
the
Post­
CCMP
Surface
Water
and
Point
Source
Monitoring
Plan,
this
program
continues
to
adhere
to
the
Quality
Assurance
Project
Plan
for
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Surface
Water
Monitoring
Program
(
SCDHS,
1994),
on
file
at
SCDHS.
The
SCDHS
Surface
Water
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
13
­
Quality
Monitoring
Standard
Operating
Procedure
(
SCDHS,
2000)
document
describes
the
standard
operating
procedures
for
the
entire
SCDHS
Surface
Water
Quality
Monitoring
Program.

Costs
Base
Programs:
Information
on
costs
for
the
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services
Surface
Water
Quality
Monitoring
Program
is
included
under
Brown
Tide
Issues
in
this
document.

Dissolved
Oxygen
Monitoring
Program
Objective
To
track
the
long­
term
trends
and
the
short­
term
variations
in
dissolved
oxygen
concentrations
in
relation
to
the
New
York
State
dissolved
oxygen
standard.

Monitoring
Hypothesis
Improvements
in
the
dissolved
oxygen
concentrations
will
be
detected
by
monitoring
water
quality
in
the
estuary.

CCMP
Measurable
Goals
Ensure
that
the
New
York
State
dissolved
oxygen
standard
(
currently
5.0
mg/
l)
is
not
violated
in
the
estuary;
Ensure
that
the
existing
dissolved
oxygen
levels
are
maintained
or
improved
in
waters
east
of
Flanders
Bay
where
dissolved
oxygen
levels
are
currently
better
than
standards
require.

Lead
Entity
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services.

Program
Status
Dissolved
oxygen
monitoring
is
part
of
an
existing
program
of
the
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services.

Monitoring
Extent
and
Frequency
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services
monitors
estuary
wide
(
32
stations)
and
year
round
(
biweekly)
for
dissolved
oxygen
and
related
water
quality
parameters.

Program
Description
Dissolved
oxygen
conditions
in
the
Peconics
are
generally
excellent
although
diurnal
dissolved
oxygen
variations
are
a
primary
water
quality
management
issue.
The
Peconic
Estuary
is
a
relatively
shallow,
well­
mixed
estuary
and
as
such
is
not
subject
to
periods
of
severe
dissolved
oxygen
depression,
as
can
occur
in
deeper,
more
stratified
estuaries
like
the
Long
Island
Sound.
Areas
with
limited
flushing
and/
or
highly
organic
sediments
exhibit
bottom
water,
and
sometimes
surface
water
values
below
5
mg/
l.
SCDHS
Surface
Water
Quality
Monitoring:
The
SCDHS
Office
of
Ecology
has
been
recording
dissolved
oxygen
levels,
along
with
other
water
parameters,
at
numerous
stations
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
since
1976.
With
the
help
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
the
number
of
stations
and
samples
taken
has
increased
through
the
years.
Some
stations
that
historically
have
had
low
dissolved
oxygen
measurements
are
sampled
in
the
morning
and
afternoon.
The
Office
of
Ecology
has
also
done
intensive
dissolved
oxygen
surveys
(
sampling
every
two
hours
for
24
hours)
in
Flanders
Bay,
Meetinghouse
Creek,
and
the
Peconic
River.
The
Post­
CCMP
Surface
Water
and
Point
Source
Monitoring
Plan
(
SCDHS,
1999)
further
describes
the
efforts
of
the
SCDHS
in
the
Peconics.

Costs
Base
Program:
Information
on
costs
for
the
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services
Surface
Water
Quality
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
14
­
Monitoring
Program
is
included
under
Brown
Tide
Issues
in
this
document.

Light
Extinction
Monitoring
Program
Objective
To
track
the
long­
term
trends
and
short­
term
variations
in
water
clarity
in
relation
to
the
PEP
recommended
eelgrass
habitat
optimization
goal.

Monitoring
Hypothesis
Water
clarity
is
improving
in
the
estuary.
By
improving
water
clarity,
eelgrass
habitat
and
growth
will
be
optimized
(
see
eelgrass
monitoring
section).

CCMP
Measurable
Goal
Maintain
and
potentially
improve
water
clarity
conditions
for
eelgrass
beds,
a
critical
habitat
in
shallow
waters.
The
PEP­
recommended
eelgrass
habitat
optimization
goal
is
a
light
extinction
coefficient
(
Kd)
of
0.75
+/­
0.05
m­
1.

Lead
Entity
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services.

Program
Status
Light
extinction
monitoring
is
part
of
an
existing
program
of
the
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services.

Monitoring
Extent
and
Frequency
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services
monitors
estuary
wide
(
32
stations)
and
year
round
(
biweekly)
for
light
extinction
and
related
water
quality
parameters.
Detailed
long
term
investigations
are
taking
place
at
three
eelgrass
beds
in
the
estuary.

Program
Description
The
single
most
important
factor
controlling
the
distribution
of
submerged
aquatic
vegetation,
light
attenuation,
is
partially
linked
to
the
amount
of
nutrient
loading
in
a
waterbody.
High
nutrient
loading
in
the
shallow
waters
of
the
estuary
may
stimulate
algal
blooms,
decreasing
the
light
penetrating
into
the
water
column
and
consequently
hindering
eelgrass'
ability
to
photosynthesize.
Rooted
aquatic
plants
that
are
at
a
species'
depth
limit
for
clear
water
conditions
would
be
expected
to
decline
due
to
the
lack
of
sufficient
light
energy
in
turbid
waters.

SCDHS
Surface
Water
Quality
Monitoring:
The
SCDHS
Office
of
Ecology
has
an
extensive
monitoring
program
in
the
Peconics,
measuring
light
extinction
and
chlorophyll­
a,
among
other
parameters.
The
Post­
CCMP
Surface
Water
and
Point
Source
Monitoring
Plan
(
SCDHS,
1999)
further
describes
the
efforts
of
the
SCDHS
in
the
Peconics.

Submerged
Aquatic
Vegetation
Long
Term
Monitoring
Program:
First
initiated
in
1997,
three
existing
SAV
beds
were
monitored
to
determine
the
annual
and
long­
term
variations
in
eelgrass
bed
health
and
the
cause
of
those
variations.
In
1999,
the
project
was
expanded
to
include
three
more
locations.
Monitoring
of
each
site
includes
the
following
measures:
depth
and
position
of
deeper
edge
of
the
eelgrass
bed,
biomass,
shoot
density,
infauna,
epifauna,
light
extinction,
chlorophyll­
a,
total
suspended
solids,
dissolved
inorganic
nitrogen,
and
dissolved
inorganic
phosphorus,
among
others.

In
2000,
the
program
will
include
a
system­
wide
survey
based
on
aerial
photographs
and
site
visits.
These
data
will
be
compared
against
the
1994
Cashin
Associates
report,
Submerged
Aquatic
Vegetation
Study
to
determine
trends
taking
place
in
the
estuary.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
15
­
Costs
Base
Program:
Information
on
costs
for
the
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services
Surface
Water
Quality
Monitoring
Program
is
included
under
the
Brown
Tide
Issues
in
this
document.

Information
on
the
Submerged
Aquatic
Vegetation
Long
Term
Monitoring
Project
is
included
in
the
Eelgrass
Monitoring
section
of
this
document.

Groundwater
Monitoring
Program
Objective
To
track
the
long­
term
trends
and
short­
term
variations
in
groundwater
contaminants
and
better
define
the
zones
of
groundwater
input.

Monitoring
Hypothesis
Groundwater
quality
is
changing
in
the
Peconic
watershed.
The
locations
and
rates
of
groundwater
discharging
into
the
estuary
need
to
be
studied.

CCMP
Measurable
Goals
Implement
a
quantitative
nitrogen
load
allocation
strategy
for
the
entire
estuary
(
measured
by
attaining
the
PEP
recommendations
including
the
implementation
of
the
recommended
Agricultural
Environmental
Management
(
AEM)
program
as
well
as
other
recommendations
which
may
include
fertilizer
reduction
programs,
sanitary
system
upgrade
programs,
point
source
controls,
etc.,
as
well
as
monitoring
for
the
impacts
on
measurable
groundwater
quality
parameters).

Ensure
that
there
is
no
substantial
net
increase
in
nitrogen
loading
to
areas
east
of
Flanders
Bay
and
reductions
in
the
Peconic
River/
Flanders
Bay
region
so
that
an
increase
in
new
development
would
be
offset
by
reductions
in
loads
from
pre­
existing
uses.
The
nitrogen
work
groups
will
develop
means
of
attaining
this
goal
which
may
include
groundwater
performance
standards,
implementing
fertilizer
and
clearing
restrictions,
and
zoning.

Lead
Entity
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services.

Program
Status
Groundwater
nutrient
monitoring
is
part
of
an
existing
program
of
the
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services;
special
projects
have
been
completed
in
specific
areas
of
concern.

Monitoring
Extent
and
Frequency
Suffolk
County
maintains
a
network
of
wells
throughout
the
study
that
are
sampled
year
round
area
to
monitor
the
quality
(
and
quantity)
of
the
groundwater
supply,
and
conduct
studies
and
investigations
of
the
county's
hydrology.

Program
Description
Groundwater
is
one
of
the
largest
external
sources
of
nitrogen
to
the
estuary,
contributing
approximately
7,560
pounds
per
day
or
about
21%
of
the
total
nitrogen
load.

The
nitrogen
in
the
groundwater
originates
from
fertilizer
use,
sanitary
system
waste
and
other
sources.
Dominant
sources
of
total
nitrogen
to
the
estuary
are
agriculture
(
41%
of
TN
loading)
and
residential
development
(
40%
of
TN
loading)
(
SCDHS,
1999).
Industrial
and
commercial
uses
contribute
less
than
10%
of
the
total
nitrogen
load
to
the
estuary.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
16
­
Nitrogen
from
synthetic
fertilizer,
applied
as
nitrate,
ammonium
salt
or
urea,
may
be
the
most
important
source
of
nitrate
in
the
groundwater.
Ammonium
oxidizes
to
nitrate
in
the
soil.
Nitrate
is
leached
to
the
groundwater
supply
through
the
sandy
soils
by
the
recharge
of
precipitation
and
by
crop
irrigation
water.
Nitrate
contamination
in
drinking
water
is
a
serious
concern.
The
SCDHS
tested
45,985
private
wells
from
1972
to
1994
and
7.4%
of
the
wells
exceeded
the
nitrate
Maximum
Contaminant
Level
(
MCL)
(
SCDHS,
1996).
The
USEPA
and
New
York
State
drinking
water
MCL
for
nitrate
is
10.0
mg/
l.

The
SCDHS
Bureau
of
Groundwater
Resources
selected
ten
wells
in
the
county
monitoring
network
to
examine
the
effect
of
agriculture
on
groundwater
quality
from
1975
to
1994
(
SCDHS,
1996).
For
the
20
year
period,
the
average
annual
nitrate
concentration
for
all
ten
wells
was
11.3
mg/
l,
with
an
annual
average
range
of
9.2
mg/
l
in
1982
to
a
maximum
of
13.7
mg/
l
in
1988.
A
monitoring
well
in
Southold
contained
the
highest
average
nitrate
concentration
over
the
20
year
period
(
15.3
mg/
l)
and
also
the
highest
individual
sample
concentration
detected
(
33.0
mg/
l
in
1990).
Nitrate
concentrations
from
a
more
recent
study
by
the
SCDHS,
Water
Quality
Monitoring
Program
to
Detect
Pesticide
Contamination
in
Groundwaters
of
Nassau
and
Suffolk
Counties,
NY
(
1999)
are
consistent
with
these
1996
study
figures.

The
SCDHS
has
also
monitored
groundwater
for
impacts
from
pesticide
and
fertilizer
use
on
golf
courses
(
SCDHS,
1999).
A
total
of
41
samples
were
collected
from
31
wells
at
18
separate
golf
courses.
Nitrate
concentrations
in
the
Suffolk
County
golf
course
wells
averaged
4.3
mg/
l
with
a
median
concentration
of
2.6
mg/
l.
The
SCDHS
has
done
a
follow­
up
study
this
year
with
an
expanded
list
of
analytes
and
with
new
monitoring
wells
at
five
more
courses
in
the
county,
including
Shinnecock,
National,
and
Maidstone.

The
United
States
Geological
Survey
(
USGS)
has
delineated
the
groundwater­
contributing
areas,
as
well
as
preliminary
sub­
boundaries
for
the
main
bays
system.
The
USGS
further
characterized
the
Peconic
River
and
Flanders
Bay
subwatersheds
in
1999
by
defining
the
sub­
sediment
geology
through
seismic
reflections.
The
Cornell
Cooperative
Extension
together
with
the
SCDHS
developed
an
ultrasonic
low
flowmeter
for
use
in
Flanders
Bay
and
West
Neck
Bay.
The
flowmeter
data
will
be
used
to
determine
the
quality,
quantity
and
location
of
groundwater
discharging
into
the
estuary.

SCDHS
Groundwater
Monitoring:
The
SCDHS
Bureau
of
Groundwater
Resources
maintains
a
network
of
wells
throughout
the
county
to
monitor
the
quality
and
quantity
of
the
groundwater
supply,
and
conduct
studies
and
investigations
of
the
county's
hydrology.
The
Bureau
will
continue
to
produce
groundwater
measurement
reports.
The
Peconic
Estuary
Program
will
in
turn
review
the
trends
and
modify
the
CCMP
actions
and
steps
accordingly.

Suffolk
County
Groundwater
Model
(
Contractor
Camp,
Dresser,
and
McKee):
A
groundwater
model
is
being
developed
for
all
of
Suffolk
County.
The
model
will
provide
additional
information
on
the
groundwater
flow
paths
and
travel
times
in
the
Peconic
watershed.

Costs
Base
Program:
The
NYSDEC
has
been
funding
the
SCDHS
(
pesticide)
groundwater
monitoring
program
for
three
years
at
about
$
100,000
per
year.
The
NYSDEC
recently
agreed
to
a
three­
year
one
million­
dollar
contract
with
the
SCDHS
to
expand
the
monitoring
program,
but
funding
is
based
on
approval
of
an
annual
work
plan.
This
work
takes
place
throughout
Suffolk
County,
not
just
in
the
Peconic
Region.

Point
Source
Monitoring
Program
Objective
To
track
the
short
term
and
long
term
variations
in
point
source
nutrient
loadings
into
the
Peconic
Estuary.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
17
­
Monitoring
Hypothesis
Point
source
loadings
to
the
estuary
are
changing
over
time.

CCMP
Measurable
Goal
Implement
a
quantitative
nitrogen
load
allocation
strategy
for
the
entire
estuary
(
measured
by
attaining
the
PEP
recommendations
including
the
implementation
of
the
recommended
Agricultural
Environmental
Management
(
AEM)
program
as
well
as
other
recommendations
which
may
include
fertilizer
reduction
programs,
sanitary
system
upgrade
programs,
point
source
controls,
etc.,
as
well
as
monitoring
for
the
impacts
on
measurable
groundwater
quality
parameters).

Lead
Entity
New
York
State
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation
and
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services
Program
Status
Point
source
discharge
monitoring
requirements
and
the
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services
point
source
monitoring
programs
are
existing
program.

Monitoring
Extent
and
Frequency
Point
source
dischargers
are
required
to
monitor
effluent
quality
in
their
state­
issued
discharge
permit,
typically
monthly
monitoring
is
required.
The
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services
monitors
ten
routine
point
source
influenced
locations
in
the
estuary
during
the
year.

Program
Description
Point
sources
are
minor
nitrogen
sources
in
the
whole
estuary,
but
may
still
be
significant
for
water
quality
in
specific
embayments.

There
are
four
major
sewage
treatment
plants
(
STP)
in
the
Peconic
region:
Brookhaven
National
Lab,
Riverhead,
Sag
Harbor,
and
Shelter
Island
Heights.
The
Brookhaven
National
Laboratory
STP
is
assumed
to
be
subsumed
into
the
Peconic
River
baseline
flow
and
loading.
Operation
of
the
Riverhead
STP
"
avoids"
43
pounds
of
residential
total
nitrogen
loading
into
the
estuary
each
day
(
i.
e.,
groundwater
TN
load
would
have
occurred,
but
for
the
STP
collecting
and
treating
the
sanitary
waste
that
would
have
been
generated
in
the
absence
of
a
sewage
treatment
plant).
The
remainder
of
the
Riverhead
STP
loading
(
roughly
100
lbs/
day)
is
assumed
to
be
"
imported"
sanitary
waste
TN
loads
to
surface
waters,
mainly
from
commercial
and
institutional
activity
served
by
the
facility
(
SCDHS,
1999).
The
discharges
from
the
Sag
Harbor
and
Shelter
Island
Heights
STPs
are
much
less
than
1%
of
the
total
nitrogen
loadings
in
the
eastern
estuary
(
SCDHS,
1999).

Major
sewage
treatment
plant
upgrades
at
Riverhead
and
Sag
Harbor
are
being
funded,
in
large
part,
by
New
York
State.
The
upgrades
at
the
Riverhead
STP
include
building
a
1.4
million
gallons
per
day
advanced
wastewater
treatment
facility
utilizing
Sequencing
Batch
Reactor
technology,
including
ultraviolet
light
disinfection.
The
Village
of
Sag
Harbor
has
received
NYS
Bond
Act
funding
to
upgrade
their
STP
to
a
denitrification
system.

SCDHS
Routine
Point
Source
Monitoring:
The
SCDHS
Office
of
Ecology
monitors
ten
routine
point
source
influenced
locations
including
sites
in
the
Peconic
River,
Meetinghouse
Creek,
Crescent
Duck
Farm,
Fish
Cove
and
the
local
sewage
treatment
plants
on
a
monthly
basis.
To
minimize
the
effects
from
the
adjacent
saltwater
portion
of
Meetinghouse
Creek,
the
two
Corwin
Duck
Farm
sites
are
sampled
as
close
as
possible
to
low
tide.

New
York
State
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
SPDES)
Program:
The
SPDES
program
is
administered
by
the
New
York
State
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation.
Permits
are
written
to
ensure
that
point
source
discharges
do
not
cause
or
contribute
to
the
violation
of
ambient
water
quality
standards.
There
are
eight
permitted
surface
water
dischargers
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
System:
Brookhaven
National
Lab,
Navy
Weapons
Industrial
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
18
­
Reserve
Plant
at
Calverton,
Riverhead
Foundation
Aquarium,
Bayview
Ventures,
the
Plum
Island
Animal
Disease
Center
and
the
sewage
treatment
plants
at
Riverhead,
Sag
Harbor,
and
Shelter
Island
Heights.
Each
facility
is
required
to
monitor
their
effluents
for
a
suite
of
parameters
and
report
to
the
NYSDEC.
The
NYSDEC
is
responsible
for
reviewing
the
data
and
enforcing
the
permit.

Costs
Base
Programs:
Funding
for
the
SCDHS
Routine
Point
Source
Monitoring
Program
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
was
calculated
along
with
the
SCDHS
Surface
Water
Quality
Monitoring
Program.
Information
on
costs
for
the
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services
Surface
Water
Quality
Monitoring
Program
is
included
under
Brown
Tide
Issues
in
this
document.

Land
Use
Monitoring
Program
Objective
To
track
the
short­
term
and
long­
term
trends
in
land
uses
in
the
Peconic
watershed.

Monitoring
Hypothesis
Land
use
is
changing
in
the
Peconic
watershed.

CCMP
Measurable
Goals
Continue
and
expand
open
space
acquisition
programs;
Ensure
that
there
is
no
substantial
net
increase
in
nitrogen
loading
to
areas
east
of
Flanders
Bay
and
reductions
in
the
Peconic
River/
Flanders
Bay
region
so
that
an
increase
in
new
development
would
be
offset
by
reductions
in
loads
from
pre­
existing
uses.
The
nitrogen
work
groups
will
develop
means
of
attaining
this
goal
which
may
include
groundwater
performance
standards,
implementing
fertilizer
and
clearing
restrictions,
and
zoning.

Lead
Entity
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Planning.

Program
Status
Land
use
monitoring
for
the
study
areas
is
part
of
an
existing
program
of
the
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Planning
that
was
initiated
with
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program.

Monitoring
Extent
and
Frequency
Land
uses
(
and
other
related
information
such
as
zoning
and
ownership)
at
a
tax
map
scale
have
been
determined
for
the
entire
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Study,
including
both
upland
areas
and
underwater
lands.
The
SCPD
will
be
developing
a
strategy
for
updating
the
GIS
land
use
and
zoning
databases.

Program
Description
Land
protection
programs
and
other
regulatory
and
non­
regulatory
land
planning
efforts
are
critical
to
nitrogen
management.
Forty
percent
of
the
Peconic
watershed
was
available
for
development
in
1995
(
SCPD,
1997).
If
open
space
programs
were
not
implemented
and
all
40%
were
developed
at
low
density
residential
land
uses,
the
current
nitrogen
loads
to
the
western
estuary,
South
Fork,
and
Shelter
Island
would
more
than
double,
as
compared
with
existing
conditions
(
SCDHS,
1999).

Suffolk
County
Planning
Department
(
SCPD)
Land
Use
Monitoring:
The
SCPD
established
an
accurate
Geographic
Information
System
(
GIS)
database
for
existing
land
uses
at
a
tax
map
scale
for
the
Towns
of
Riverhead,
Southold,
Shelter
Island,
Southampton,
East
Hampton,
and
the
Peconic
River
corridor
in
the
Town
of
Brookhaven
(
SCPD,
1997).
The
SCPD
also
has
a
verified
GIS
database
for
existing
zoning
in
this
same
region.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
19
­
With
these
databases,
the
Department
is
able
to
quantify
the
land
use
acreage
by
general
categories,
by
jurisdiction
and
by
watershed
zone.
The
thirteen
general
categories
of
land
use
include
low
density
residential,
medium
density
residential,
high
density
residential,
commercial,
industrial,
recreation
and
open
space,
and
vacant,
among
others.
As
a
follow­
up
to
the
report
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Existing
Land
Use
Inventory
(
SCPD,
1997)
detailing
the
existing
land
uses
in
eastern
Suffolk
County
in
1995,
the
SCPD
is
in
the
final
stages
of
preparing
the
report
1999
Existing
Land
Use
Inventory
­
Eastern
Suffolk
County.

The
SCPD
will
develop
a
strategy
for
updating
the
GIS
land
use
and
zoning
databases,
to
be
included
in
the
first
post­
CCMP
report.
The
update
and
maintenance
of
the
GIS
databases
will
require
coordination
of
activities
among
the
Suffolk
County
Planning
Department,
Suffolk
County
Real
Property
Tax
Service
Agency
(
SCRPTSA),
town
tax
assessors
and
town
planners.
Current
land
uses
will
be
compared
to
the
PEP
Existing
Land
Use
Inventory
(
SCPD,
1997)
to
determine
the
rate
of
converting
vacant
or
agriculture
land
to
developed
uses.
Methods
may
include
tax
assessor
codes,
aerial
photographs,
building
permits,
and
site
inspections.

Other
Programs:
Several
other
programs
will
be
addressed
in
the
annual
post­
CCMP
report
including
open
space
and
farmland
preservation,
Harbor
Protection
Overlay
Districts
(
HPODs)/
local
ordinances,
and
clearing
restrictions.

Costs
Base
Programs:
Land
use
monitoring
will
be
funded
through
base
programs.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
20
­
Habitat
and
Living
Resource
Issues
Eelgrass
Monitoring
Program
Objective
To
monitor
the
abundance
and
quality
of
eelgrass
beds
in
the
estuary.

Monitoring
Hypothesis
Eelgrass
bed
abundance
and
quality
is
changing.

CCMP
Measurable
Goals
Maintain
current
eelgrass
acreage
(
2,100
acres
in
main
stem
of
the
estuary);
Increase
eelgrass
acreage
by
10%
over
10
years.

Lead
Entity
Cornell
Cooperative
Extension
of
Suffolk
County
Program
Status
The
Submerged
Aquatic
Vegetation
Long
Term
Monitoring
Project
is
an
existing
program.
Aerial
photo
analyses
of
eelgrass
coverage
estuary­
wide
was
performed
in
2000.
It
is
recommended
that
aerial
photo
analyses
of
eelgrass
coverage
be
repeated
periodically,
at
an
interval
to
be
determined
Monitoring
Extent
and
Frequency
The
Submerged
Aquatic
Vegetation
Long
Term
Monitoring
Project
involves
intensive
investigations
at
a
limited
number
of
sites
(
presently
six)
in
the
estuary.
Aerial
photo
analyses
of
eelgrass
coverage
estuary­
wide
was
performed
in
2000.
It
is
recommended
that
aerial
photo
analyses
of
eelgrass
coverage
be
repeated
periodically,
at
an
interval
to
be
determined
(
perhaps
every
three
years).

Program
Description
Submerged
Aquatic
Vegetation
Long
Term
Monitoring
Project:
In
1997,
Cornell
Cooperative
Extension's
Marine
Program
began
SAV
monitoring
at
three
sites
in
the
Peconic
Estuary:
Orient
Harbor,
Town
of
Southold;
Northwest
Harbor,
Town
of
East
Hampton;
and
Bullhead
Bay,
Town
of
Southampton.
A
minimum
of
three
stations
was
sampled
per
site
for
SAV,
sediment
analysis,
and
water
quality
analysis.
SAV
measurements
include:
species
composition,
dry
weight
biomass
of
algae
and
eelgrass,
depth
and
position
of
deep
edge
of
eelgrass
bed,
shoot
density,
presence
and
dry
weight
biomass
of
epiphytes,
and
presence
of
wasting
disease.
Each
site
was
sampled
twice
a
year.
Cornell
Cooperative
Extension
uses
water
quality
data
from
the
SCDHS
surface
water
quality
monitoring
program.
These
data
consist
of
the
following
parameters:
chlorophyll­
a,
total
suspended
solids,
dissolved
inorganic
nitrogen,
dissolved
inorganic
phosphorus,
and
light
attenuation
(
for
further
information
see:
Nutrients
monitoring
section).
In
addition,
water
temperature,
salinity,
and
light
measurements
at
the
surface
and
at
one
meter
increments
are
taken
at
the
time
of
SAV
sampling.
Sediment
measurements
include
grain
size
and
percent
organic
matter.

In
response
to
external
scientific
peer­
review,
the
monitoring
program
was
revised
(
1998
sampling)
as
follows:
SAV
sampling
was
performed
annually
during
the
summer,
the
number
of
samples
collected
per
site
was
increased
to
12,
and
sediment
sampling
will
be
repeated
every
five
years
for
each
site.
In
1999,
Cornell
Cooperative
Extension
expanded
its
monitoring
program
to
include
three
additional
sites
in
Gardiners
Bay,
Town
of
Shelter
Island;
Three
Mile
Harbor,
Town
of
East
Hampton;
and
Southold
Bay,
Town
of
Southold.
Furthermore,
underwater
video
of
each
site
was
also
taken
in
1998
and
1999.
In
2000,
the
sampling
plan
was
further
refined
to
improve
statistical
replication
and
reduce
any
potential
impacts
of
the
sampling
methods
to
the
extant
eelgrass
beds.
Within
each
of
the
six
monitoring
sites,
six
stations
were
sampled.
At
each
station,
eelgrass
stem
density
counts
were
performed
for
six
quadrats.
Plants
sampled
from
an
additional
four
quadrats
were
cut
to
determine
eelgrass
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
21
­
shoot
and
algal
biomass,
epiphytes,
wasting
disease,
and
stem
density.
This
sampling
protocol
results
in
a
total
of
60
samples
of
eelgrass
stem
density,
and
24
samples
of
shoot
and
algal
biomass
per
monitoring
site.
Furthermore,
the
eelgrass
roots
are
left
intact
to
allow
for
regrowth.
Aerial
photo
analyses
of
the
eelgrass
coverage
estuary­
wide
are
being
performed
in
2000
in
cooperation
with
the
US
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service.
Aerial
photos
will
provide
a
more
extensive
view
of
existing
eelgrass
beds
and
provide
estimates
of
percent
cover.

See
Dumais
and
Smith
(
1997)
for
further
details
on
the
data
analysis
and
quality
control
and
quality
assurance
of
this
project.

Costs
Base
Program:
The
Submerged
Aquatic
Vegetation
Long
Term
Monitoring
Project
is
funded
at
approximately
$
71,000
per
year.
Approximately
$
50,000
was
provided
from
EPA
Post­
CCMP
funds
awarded
to
SCDHS.
The
remainder
is
provided
by
in­
kind
matching
funds
from
Cornell
Cooperative
Extension.
New
Costs:
External
funding
for
future
annual
sampling
has
been
estimated
at
approximately
$
30,000.
A
source
of
funding
to
carry
out
this
work
has
not
yet
been
identified.

Finfish
and
Macroinvertebrate
Monitoring
Program
Objective
To
determine
the
temporal
and
spatial
distribution,
abundance,
and
different
life
stage
habitat
requirements
of
finfish
and
macroinvertebrate
species
throughout
the
Peconic
Estuary.

Monitoring
Hypothesis
Finfish
and
macroinvertebrate
abundance,
distribution
and
survival,
particularly
in
the
early
life
history
stages,
are
related
to
water
quality,
prey
and
predator
structure
and
habitat
quality
and
quantity.

CCMP
Measurable
Goals
Identify
the
important
and
sensitive
recruitment
and
spawning
areas
of
targeted
finfish
and
macroinvertebrates;
Increase
the
abundance
of
finfish
species
through
protection
of
their
habitats,
food
sources
and
restoration
of
degraded
spawning
and
recruitment
areas.

Lead
Entity
New
York
State
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation
Program
Status
Existing
Program
west
of
Shelter
Island;
recommended
expansion
of
program
to
areas
east
of
Shelter
Island.

Monitoring
Extent
and
Frequency
NYSDEC
has
run
an
annual
monitoring
survey
of
juvenile
finfish
west
of
Shelter
Island
since
1987.
Sampling
is
performed
on
a
block
grid
design
superimposed
over
the
Peconic
Estuary
(
77
sampling
blocks).
Sixteen
stations
are
randomly
selected
each
week
and
sampled
with
an
otter
trawl
during
daylight
hours.

Program
Description
The
CCMP
recommends
monitoring
of
finfish
and
macroinvertebrate
species
through:
(
1)
habitat
utilization
mapping
(
subtidal
habitats
including
SAV
beds),
(
2)
seine
surveys,
and
(
3)
trawl
surveys
to
develop
a
species
occurrence
list
throughout
their
life
cycle
and
identify
sensitive
recruitment
and
spawning
areas.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
22
­
NYSDEC
Juvenile
Finfish
Survey
While
there
are
currently
no
monitoring
efforts
in
the
Peconics
for
the
adult
finfish,
the
NYSDEC
runs
an
annual
monitoring
survey
of
juvenile
finfish
west
of
Shelter
Island
since
1987.
Sampling
is
performed
on
a
block
grid
design
superimposed
over
the
Peconic
Estuary
(
77
sampling
blocks).
Sixteen
stations
are
randomly
selected
each
week
and
sampled
with
an
otter
trawl
during
daylight
hours.
The
original
intent
of
the
surveys
was
to
develop
an
annual
index
of
recruitment
of
juvenile
weakfish
and
examine
the
relationship
between
parental
stock
size
and
environmental
factors
(
water
temperature,
salinity,
dissolved
oxygen
and
secchi
disc)
on
year
class
strength
for
weakfish
(
Cynoscion
regalis).
Data
collection
was
later
expanded
to
derive
similar
information
on
several
other
finfish
species
including
winter
flounder
(
Pleuronectes
americanus),
scup
(
Stenotomus
chrysops),
bluefish
(
Pomatomus
saltatrix),
tautog
(
Tautoga
onitis),
butterfish
(
Peprilus
triacanthus),
and
northern
puffer
(
Sphoeroides
maculatus).
The
surveys
also
provide
important
data
on
more
than
70
other
species
of
finfish
and
crustacea.

While
the
NYSDEC's
survey
is
extensive,
it
should
be
expanded
to
the
east
of
Shelter
Island.
This
information
is
essential
to
better
understand
the
significance
of
the
Peconics
to
important
finfish
and
invertebrate
species.
Additional
efforts
should
focus
on
resident
species
such
as
winter
flounder,
tautog,
as
well
as
transient
species
such
as
alewife
(
Alosa
pseudoharengus),
weakfish,
scup,
windowpane
flounder
(
Scopthalmus
aquosus),
summer
flounder
(
Paralichthys
dentatus),
northern
puffer,
butterfish,
etc.
Data
on
invertebrate
species
vulnerable
to
these
gear
types
such
as
squid,
horseshoe
crabs,
lady,
blue,
and
green
crabs,
mantis
shrimp,
whelk,
etc.
should
also
be
reported.
For
information
on
the
trend
analyses
and
QA/
QC,
see
Weber
et
al.
(
1998).
Ideally,
trawl
data
should
be
entered
into
a
geographic
information
system
(
GIS)
to
analyze
spatial
aspects
of
the
data
and
to
enable
comparisons
with
habitat
maps.
Multivariate
statistical
analyses
linking
water
quality
and
finfish
data
should
also
be
performed.

Costs
Base
Program:
The
NYSDEC
Peconic
Bay
Trawl
Survey
is
annually
funded
by
the
Wallop­
Breaux
Sport
Fish
Restoration
Program.
New
Costs:
Analysis
and
GIS
mapping
of
the
Peconic
Bay
Trawl
Survey
data
would
require
an
additional
$
45,000
annually.
Expansion
of
the
trawl
survey
East
of
Shelter
Island
has
been
estimated
at
approximately
$
500,000
and
an
additional
$
100,000
would
be
needed
annually
for
staff.

Wetlands
Monitoring
Program
Objective
To
monitor
the
abundance,
distribution,
diversity
and
quality
of
fresh
and
salt
water
wetlands
in
the
Peconic
Estuary.

Monitoring
Hypothesis
Wetlands
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
sufficiently
respond
to
developmental
and
environmental
stressors
(
e.
g.
sea­
level
rise)
to
maintain
and
increase
their
abundance,
distribution,
diversity
and
quality.

CCMP
Measurable
Goals
Maintain
and
increase
current
tidal
and
freshwater
marsh
acreage;
Restore
degraded
tidal
and
freshwater
wetlands
(
e.
g.
restricted
flow,
Phragmites
australis
dominated,
shoreline­
hardened);
particularly
those
identified
in
the
Habitat
Restoration
Workgroup
Plan
over
10
years;
Restore
10­
15%
of
the
mosquito­
ditched
saltwater
marshes
through
Open
Marsh
Water
Management
(
OMWM)
over
the
next
10
years,
and
maintain
a
policy
of
no
new
ditching.

Lead
Entity
New
York
State
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation,
with
the
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
23
­
Program
Status
NYSDEC
and
USFWS
mapping
efforts
(
described
below)
were
completed
as
part
of
existing
program.
An
expansion
of
the
existing
program
is
necessary
for
additional
work
to
be
completed
(
also
described
below).
Future
surveys
and
trend
analysis
is
recommended.

Monitoring
Extent
and
Frequency
The
NYSDEC
has
performed
GIS
mapping
of
saltwater
wetlands
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
east
of
Shelter
Island
only
(
includes
spatial
distribution,
acreage,
and
marsh
types).
Funding
is
needed
to
complete
the
survey
west
of
Shelter
Island
and
routinely
track
the
trends
of
wetland
coverage
approximately
every
5
years.
The
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
surveyed
wetlands
in
the
entire
Peconic
Estuary
watershed
as
part
of
the
National
Wetlands
Inventory
in
1997.

Program
Description
USFWS
National
Wetlands
Inventory:
In
1997,
the
United
States
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
surveyed
wetlands
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
watershed
as
part
of
the
National
Wetlands
Inventory.
The
data
were
GIS
mapped
and
are
useful
for
tracking
wetland
trends
over
time.
See
the
USFWS
(
1998)
report
by
Tiner
for
details
on
trend
analyses
and
data
QA/
QC.

NYSDEC
Wetlands
Inventory:
The
NYSDEC
has
also
performed
GIS
mapping
of
saltwater
wetlands
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
East
of
Shelter
Island
only
(
includes
spatial
distribution,
acreage,
and
marsh
types).
The
NYSDEC
performs
such
GIS
mapping
through
a
combination
of
aerial
photo
surveys
and
ground
truthing.
Funding
is
needed
to
complete
the
survey
west
of
Shelter
Island
and
routinely
track
the
trends
of
wetland
coverage
approximately
every
5
years.
This
is
particularly
important
in
light
of
the
increasing
rate
of
developmental
pressure
and
sea­
level
rise.

Costs
New
Costs:
At
this
time,
no
new
or
additional
funding
has
been
identified
to
finalize
the
NYSDEC
mapping
of
saltwater
wetlands
west
of
Shelter
Island.
Finer­
scale
survey
saltwater
wetland
analysis
and
mapping
west
of
Shelter
Island
is
estimated
at
$
500,000.
Routine
trend
analysis
would
require
an
additional
$
50,000
annually.
Marsh
restorations
have
been
funded
through
a
variety
of
funding
sources
including:
NYS
Bond
Act,
USFWS,
Towns
and
the
private
sector.

Shoreline
Hardening
Monitoring
Program
Objective
To
quantify
estuarine­
wide
shoreline
hardening,
assess
impacts
to
habitat
and
living
resources,
and
develop
"
environmentally
friendly"
systems
to
assist
in
implementing
a
CCMP
priority
of
"
no
net
increase"
in
shoreline
hardening
throughout
the
estuary.

Monitoring
Hypothesis
The
Peconic
Estuary
is
experiencing
a
net
loss
of
natural
shorelines
and
habitats
from
shoreline
hardening
structures
such
as
bulkheads
and
rock
revetments.

CCMP
Measurable
Goals
Maintain
current
linear
feet
of
natural
shoreline
and
over
the
next
15
years
reduce
shoreline
hardening
structures
by
5%;
Maintain
and
increase
current
tidal
and
freshwater
marsh
acreage,
and
promote
new
growth
through
the
removal
of
existing
shoreline
hardening
structures.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
24
­
Lead
Entity
New
York
State
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation,
in
concert
with
the
Peconic
BayKeeper,
the
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
and
Cornell
Cooperative
Extension
of
Suffolk
County.

Program
Status
A
one
time
monitoring
survey
of
shoreline
hardening
structures
(
including
aerial
and
ground
truthing
surveys)
was
completed
in
2000
through
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program.
Future
surveys
and
trend
analysis
of
shoreline
hardening
structures
is
recommended
Monitoring
Extent
and
Frequency
The
entire
Peconic
Estuary
Shoreline
was
monitored
in
this
one
time
survey
in
2000.

Program
Description
Quantitative
mapping
is
an
important
first
step
and
will
be
carried
out
through
aerial
photo
interpretation
by
the
US
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
under
contract
to
the
PEP
during
the
year
2000.
The
Peconic
BayKeeper,
Cornell
Cooperative
Extension
and
the
NYSDEC
PEP
Program
Coordinator
will
assist
in
ground
truthing.
Once
the
baseline
information
is
established
(
e.
g.
percent
coverage
of
hardened
shoreline,
types
of
structures,
etc.),
trend
analysis
of
percent
shoreline
hardened
will
be
tracked
by
future
aerial
and
ground
truthing
surveys
through
GIS
mapping
and
analysis.
An
assessment
of
detrimental
effects
of
hardened
shoreline
and
docks
on
the
estuary
is
also
needed
to
fully
understand
impacts
on
habitat
and
natural
resources.
The
analysis
will
also
include
a
characterization
of
all
shoreline
hardening
found
in
the
Peconics
and
an
investigation
of
"
environmentally
friendly"
systems.
Future
funding
for
additional
surveys
and
trend
analysis
of
shoreline
hardening
structures
is
recommended,
but
not
yet
appropriated.

Costs
Base
Program:
This
monitoring
is
funded
in
part
by
the
PEP
Natural
Resources
Subcommittee
funds
at
$
19,000
and
Suffolk
County
Capital
Budget
Funds
($
49,000).
New
Costs:
Biennial
trend
analysis
using
GIS
mapping
is
estimated
at
$
70,000.

Piping
Plovers,
Shorebirds,
Raptors
and
Other
Birds
Program
Objective
To
determine
piping
plover
habitat
use,
availability,
and
prey
abundance
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
and
to
assess
affects
of
habitat
changes
to
make
recommendations
to
enhance
plover
breeding
and
productivity.
To
ensure
that
shorebirds,
raptors
and
other
birds
and
their
habitats
are
monitored
for
productivity.

Monitoring
Hypothesis
The
abundance
and
distribution
of
shorebirds,
raptors,
waterfowl
and
other
birds
in
the
estuary
is
related
to
habitat
quantity
and
quality,
prey
abundance
and
predators.

CCMP
Measurable
Goals
Increase
the
number
of
piping
plover
pairs
to
115
with
productivity
at
1.5
(
over
a
3­
year
average),
distributed
across
the
nesting
sites
in
the
Peconic
Estuary;
Maintain
current
linear
feet
of
natural
shoreline
and
over
the
next
15
years
reduce
shoreline
hardening
structures
by
5%
to
increase
habitats
for
shorebirds.

Lead
Entity
The
NYSDEC
in
cooperation
with
The
Nature
Conservancy,
and
the
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
25
­
Program
Status
Existing
program
for
monitoring
piping
plovers
and
least
terns
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Study
Area.
Recommended
expansion
of
existing
program
for
other
birds
and
for
enhancing
habitat
to
improve
shorebird
productivity.

Monitoring
Extent
and
Frequency
Piping
plover
and
osprey
surveys
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Study
Area
are
funded
annually
by
NYSDEC
and
The
Nature
Conservancy.
Waterfowl
surveys
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Study
Area
are
also
conducted
by
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
Program
Description
Endangered
Species
Program:
The
NYSDEC
in
cooperation
with
the
The
Nature
Conservancy
monitor
for
piping
plovers
and
least
terns
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
through
the
Endangered
Species
Program.
Initial
review
of
piping
plover
productivity
data
indicates
that
populations
are
down
at
a
number
of
Peconic
Estuary
sites.
The
reasons
are
unclear,
as
there
are
multiple
factors
that
can
play
a
role
in
breeding
success
and
overall
productivity.
Throughout
Long
Island,
there
is
an
interest
in
"
enhancing"
habitat
to
improve
shorebird
productivity.
Therefore,
baseline
data
on
prey
abundance
and
shorebirds'
microhabitat
(
i.
e.,
intertidal
zone
­­
sand
and
cobble
patches,
wrack,
areas
where
there
is
sparse
vegetation,
beach
berm,
and
moist
swales)
preferences
is
important
information,
particularly
in
the
Peconic
Estuary,
which
consists
of
habitats
that
do
not
readily
fit
typical
habitat
descriptions
found
in
the
literature.

Furthermore,
it
is
recommended
that
a
comprehensive
monitoring
plan
be
developed
for
the
Peconic
Estuary
that
ties
together
other
monitoring
programs
(
e.
g.
ospreys,
terns
waterfowl)
and
recommendations
for
improved
comprehensive
monitoring
in
this
region
be
developed.

Costs
Base
Program:
Piping
plover
and
osprey
surveys
are
funded
annually
by
NYSDEC
and
The
Nature
Conservancy.
Waterfowl
surveys
are
also
conducted
by
USFWS.
New
Costs:
Costs
for
developing
and
implementing
the
comprehensive
monitoring
plan
for
ospreys,
terns
and
waterfowl
have
not
yet
been
developed.

Dredging
Program
Objective
To
track
the
volumes
and
locations
of
dredging
in
the
Peconics
and
reduce
impacts
to
critical
marine
habitats.

Monitoring
Hypothesis
The
majority
of
dredging
in
the
estuary
is
for
navigational
purposes
and
a
portion
of
that
dredging
is
impacting
important
finfish
and
shellfish
habitats.

CCMP
Measurable
Goal
Develop
recommendations
and
guidelines
to
reduce
impacts
to
marine
life
from
dredging­
related
activities.

Lead
Entity
(
proposed)
New
York
State
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation,
in
coordination
with
the
PEP
Program
Office
and
the
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Public
Works.

Program
Status
Proposed
new
program.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
26
­
Monitoring
Extent
and
Frequency
Proposal
is
to
develop
a
tracking
system
of
all
dredge­
related
activities
(
public
and
private)
that
occur
annually
within
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Study
Area.

Program
Description
While
there
are
no
tracking
programs
yet
established
to
evaluate
the
locations
and
volumes
of
annual
dredging
within
the
Peconic
Estuary
(
i.
e.,
public
and
private),
the
NYSDEC
maintains
a
permitting
system
that
records
all
dredging
activities
in
NY
marine
waters.
Coordination
between
the
PEP
and
NYSDEC
Environmental
Permitting
should
be
established
so
as
to.
Additionally,
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Public
Works
maintains
records
of
navigational
maintenance
dredging
that
they
perform
in
the
estuary
and
therefore,
should
also
be
included
in
the
coordination
efforts.

Costs
New
Costs:
A
funding
source
for
this
monitoring
has
not
been
identified
yet.
Initial
project
cost
is
estimated
at
$
30,000
(
contractor
fee)
with
a
biennial
maintenance
cost
estimated
at
$
15,000.

Restoration
Monitoring
Program
Objective
To
assess
the
success
of
habitat
restoration
projects
in
the
Peconic
Estuary.

Monitoring
Hypothesis
To
determine
the
short
and
long­
term
success
of
habitat
restoration
projects
in
the
Peconic
Estuary,
a
tracking
and
evaluation
system
is
required.

CCMP
Measurable
Goals
Annually
initiate
5%
of
the
projects
identified
in
the
Habitat
Restoration
Workgroup
Plan
for
the
Peconic
Estuary
and
identify
reference
wetlands
for
comparative
purposes
such
as
functionality;
Restore
degraded
tidal
and
freshwater
wetlands
(
e.
g.,
restricted
flow,
Phragmites
australis
dominated,
shoreline­
hardened);
particularly
those
identified
in
the
Habitat
Restoration
Workgroup
Plan
over
10
years;
Restore
10­
20%
mosquito­
ditched
saltwater
marshes
through
Open
Marsh
Water
Management
(
OMWM)
over
the
next
10
years,
and
maintain
a
policy
of
no
new
ditching.

Lead
Entity
(
proposed)
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Habitat
Restoration
Workgroup,
in
concert
with
the
New
York
State
Department
of
State
and
Cornell
Cooperative
Extension
of
Suffolk
County.

Program
Status
Proposed
new
program.

Monitoring
Extent
and
Frequency
Proposal
is
to
develop
a
tracking
system
of
all
habitat
restoration
activities
(
public
and
private)
that
occur
annually
within
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Study
Area,
including
both
short
and
long­
term
monitoring
evaluations,
and
monitoring
before,
during,
and
after
restoration
as
needed
to
evaluate
success
of
restoration
efforts.

Program
Description
The
CCMP
recommends
evaluating
the
success
of
restoration
efforts.
While
restoration
efforts
can
be
successful
in
reaching
their
goals,
there
have
also
been
examples
in
the
Peconics
of
restoration
efforts
that
have
not
resulted
in
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
27
­
actual
long­
term
recovery
of
the
targeted
habitat.
Therefore,
it
is
essential
to
quantitatively
assess
and
monitor
restoration
projects
in
order
to
take
steps,
if
necessary,
to
correct
any
problems.
A
number
of
restoration
projects
are
now
underway
as
a
result
of
available
funding
from
the
NYS
Clean
Air
Clean
Water
Bond
Act.
More
restoration
projects
are
expected
to
be
funded
in
the
future.
It
is
critical
for
restoration
projects
to
build
in
the
capacity
to
monitor
sites
upon
completion
of
restoration.
Restoration
assessment
needs
to
be
linked
to
the
reference
sites
in
order
to
make
quantitative
comparisons
of
functionality.
As
part
of
assessment,
monitoring
before,
during,
and
after
restoration
is
also
needed
to
evaluate
success
of
restoration
efforts.
It
is
strongly
recommended
that
the
Habitat
Restoration
Workgroup's
Plan
for
the
different
types
of
restoration
projects
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
be
followed
as
an
initial
guideline.
The
development
of
a
tracking
database
for
each
restoration
project
should
also
be
developed
for
both
short
and
long­
term
monitoring
evaluations.

Costs
New
Costs:
A
funding
source
for
this
monitoring
has
not
been
identified
yet.
An
estimated
cost
of
$
35,000
is
required
to
initiate
such
monitoring
and
an
additional
$
15,000
is
necessary
for
database
maintenance
on
an
annual
basis.

Bay
Scallops
Program
Objective
To
monitor
the
quantity
and
quality
of
bay
scallops
in
the
estuary
and
evaluate
the
success
of
enhancement
efforts.
To
perform
a
distribution­
focused
study
of
the
survival
dynamics
of
juvenile
bay
scallops
including
and
examination
of
settlement,
recruitment,
and
size
frequency
and
year
class­
abundance
of
bay
scallops
located
inside
and
outside
of
eelgrass
beds
Monitoring
Hypothesis
Bay
scallop
abundance
and
distributions
are
related
to
water
quality,
predator
abundance
and
habitat
quantity
and
quality
in
the
estuary.

CCMP
Measurable
Goal
Enhance
the
shellfish
resources
available
to
harvesting
through
reseeding,
creation
of
spawning
sanctuaries
and
habitat
enhancements.

Lead
Entity
(
proposed)
New
York
State
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation,
in
coordination
with
the
PEP
Program
Office,
the
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
and
Cornell
Cooperative
Extension
of
Suffolk
County.

Program
Status
Proposed
new
program.

Monitoring
Extent
and
Frequency
Proposal
is
to
annually
monitor
the
quality
and
quantity
of
bay
scallops
an
evaluate
the
success
of
enhancement
efforts
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program.

Program
Description
A
program
should
be
established
that
tracks
the
annual
recruitment
success
and
survival
dynamics
of
bay
scallops.
Anecdotal
information
indicates
that
adult
bay
scallops
were
once
abundant
enough
that
they
were
found
outside
of
eelgrass
beds
in
deeper
waters
where
they
were
harvested
by
dredging.
Today,
bay
scallops
are
harvested
almost
entirely
in
eelgrass
beds
because
they
are
not
as
abundant
and
are
no
longer
found
in
deeper
waters.
Given
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
28
­
huge
fluctuations
that
have
occurred
in
bay
scallop
populations
as
a
result
of
Brown
Tide,
it
is
important
to
perform
a
distribution­
focused
study
of
the
survival
dynamics
of
bay
scallops
and
to
monitor
for
changes
in
abundance
and
distribution
and
evaluate
the
effectiveness
of
reseeding
efforts.

NMFS
Commercial
Landings
Program:
The
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS)
is
in
charge
of
coordinating
the
yearly
landings
and
economic
data
on
bay
scallops
caught
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
and
they
have
well
established
QA/
QC
and
statistical
procedures.

Costs
Base
Program:
NMFS
provides
funding
for
landings
and
economic
data
annually.
New
Costs:
A
funding
source
for
the
recruitment
and
survival
monitoring
has
not
been
identified
yet.
It
is
estimated
that
a
full
evaluation
and
tracking
of
the
parameters
of
interest
would
cost
$
200,000
over
three
years.

Aquaculture
and
Transplanting
Activities
Program
Objective
To
monitor
the
locations
and
extent
of
aquaculture
and
transplanting
activities
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
to
minimize
potential
impacts
to
critical
habitats
and
conflicts
with
other
uses.

Monitoring
Hypothesis
Aquaculture
and
shellfish
transplanting
have
the
potential
to
positively
or
negatively
influence
the
Peconic
Estuary.
The
type,
scale
and
locations
of
the
culturing
and
transplanting
activities
will
influence
the
water
quality
and
natural
resources
and
other
uses
within
the
estuary.

CCMP
Measurable
Goal
Ensure
that
the
existing
and
future
aquaculture
(
shellfish
&
finfish)
and
transplanting
activities
are
situated
in
ecologically
low­
productive
areas
of
the
estuary,
and
that
they
are
mutually
beneficial
to
the
aquaculture
industry,
natural
resources
and
water
quality.

Lead
Entity
(
proposed)
New
York
State
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation,
in
coordination
with
the
PEP
Program
Office,
the
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Planning
and
Cornell
Cooperative
Extension
of
Suffolk
County.

Program
Status
Proposed
new
program.

Monitoring
Extent
and
Frequency
Proposal
is
to
annually
monitor
the
locations
and
extent
of
aquaculture
and
transplanting
activities
in
the
Peconic
Estuary.

Program
Description
There
are
no
coordinated
monitoring
programs
for
either
aquaculture
(
shellfish/
finfish)
or
transplanting
activities
in
the
Peconics.
The
NYSDEC
issues
permits
for
aquaculture
and
transplanting
activities
and
therefore,
can
better
monitor
the
types,
scale
and
locations
of
these
activities
in
the
estuary
annually
through
GIS
mapping.
Long­
term
monitoring
should
be
established
to
best
situate
culturing
and
transplanting
activities
that
are
mutually
beneficial
to
the
estuary
and
the
aquaculturists.
This
coordination
should
also
include
the
Suffolk
County
Planning
Department,
as
Suffolk
County
is
ultimately
responsible
for
the
development
of
an
aquaculture
plan
for
the
Peconic
Estuary.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
29
­
Costs
Base
Program:
The
NYSDEC
annually
funds
the
permitting
of
aquaculture
and
transplanting
activities.
New
Costs:
The
initial
cost
to
develop
a
GIS
map
is
estimated
at
$
10,000.
Annual
maintenance
cost
of
the
GIS
map
is
estimated
at
$
5,000.
Mapping
and
ground­
truthing
of
the
entire
estuary
bottom
is
estimated
to
cost
$
700,000.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
30
­
Pathogen
Issues
Coliforms
Monitoring
Program
Objective
To
monitor
and
evaluate
water
quality
in
designated
New
York
State
Shellfish
Growing
Areas
throughout
the
Peconic
Estuary.
Monitoring
is
necessary
to
properly
classify
growing
areas
for
the
safe
harvest
of
shellfish
to
protect
the
public
health.

Monitoring
Hypothesis
The
management
of
nonpoint
sources
of
pollution
may
lead
to
an
increase
in
available
shellfishing
areas
from
which
to
harvest.

CCMP
Measurable
Goals
Maintain
current
acreage
of
areas
available
to
shellfish
harvesting,
with
the
ultimate
aim
of
re­
opening
lands
currently
closed
to
harvesting;
Maintain
and
improve
water
quality
of
the
estuary
through
a
reduction
of
overall
stormwater
runoff,
particularly
key
areas
identified
through
the
Regional
Stormwater
Runoff
Study.

Attain
a
zero
discharge
of
stormwater
runoff
in
new
subdivisions.

Lead
Entity
New
York
State
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation
(
lead
for
the
Shellfish
Land
Certification
Program)
and
the
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Heath
Services
(
lead
for
the
bathing
beaches
and
swimming
pools
program).

Program
Status
The
New
York
State
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation
Shellfish
Land
Certification
Program
and
the
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Heath
Services'
Bathing
Beaches
and
Swimming
Pools
Program
Surface
Water
Quality
Monitoring
Programs
are
existing
efforts.

Monitoring
Extent
and
Frequency
Monitoring
takes
place
on
a
regular
basis
in
the
thirty
shellfish
growing
areas
under
the
Shellfish
Land
Certification
Program
(
a
minimum
of
six
times
per
year
at
each
sampling
station).
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services
(
SCDHS)
Bureau
of
Marine
Resources
routinely
monitors
for
pathogen
indicators
at
public
beaches,
and
includes
coliform
sampling
in
the
routine
monitoring
program
estuary
wide
(
32
stations)
and
year
round
(
biweekly).

Program
Description
New
York
State
Shellfish
Land
Certification
Program:
The
New
York
State
Shellfish
Land
Certification
Unit
classifies
all
shellfish
growing
areas
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
growing
areas
are
located
within
the
Peconic
Estuary.
The
Shellfish
Land
Certification
Unit
classifies
all
shellfish
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
pollution
sources
that
may
affect
a
growing
area.

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
enough
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
growing
area
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
31
­
Peconics.
SRS
samples
are
collected
a
minimum
of
six
times
per
year
at
each
station.
Following
the
collection
of
thirty
SRS
water
samples
the
area
is
evaluated
to
determine
proper
classification
for
shellfish
harvesting
based
on
the
NSSP
total
coliform
criteria
for
certified
shellfish
growing
areas.
It
is
imperative
that
all
growing
areas
be
properly
classified
for
shellfish
harvesting
for
the
protection
of
public
health.

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
routinely
monitors
for
pathogen
indicators
at
public
beaches.
When
water
quality
parameters
fail
to
meet
the
established
human
health
criteria,
beaches
are
closed.
In
addition,
the
SCDHS
generally
recommends
the
closure
of
bay
beaches
for
two
tidal
cycles
after
large
rainfall
events.

SCDHS
Surface
Water
Quality
Monitoring:
The
SCDHS
Bureau
of
Marine
Resources
includes
coliform
bacteria
counts
in
their
suite
of
monitoring
parameters
for
their
sampling
sites
in
the
Peconic
Estuary.
Refer
to
the
SCDHS
Surface
Water
Quality
Monitoring
Section
in
the
Nutrients
Monitoring
Workplan
for
more
information
about
SCDHS'
Program.

Costs
Base
Program:
The
shellfish
land
certification
monitoring
is
funded
annually
by
the
NYSDEC.
The
SCDHS
Bathing
Beaches
and
Swimming
Pools
Program
is
funded
annually
by
SCDHS.
The
SCDHS
Surface
Water
Quality
Monitoring
Program
is
funded
in
part
by
PEP
Post­
CCMP
EPA
funds
and
in­
kind
match
from
Suffolk
County
(
see
discussion
under
Brown
Tide
Issues
in
this
document).

Pfiesteria
piscicida
and
Alexandrium
tamarense
Monitoring
Program
Objective
To
monitor
for
the
presence
of
harmful
algal
blooms
and
ensure
public
health
and
safety.

CCMP
Measurable
Goal
Prevent
the
human
ingestion
and
exposure
to
marine
organisms
that
are
affected
by
harmful
algal
blooms
through
routine
monitoring.

Lead
Entity
New
York
State
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation,
in
cooperation
with
the
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services
for
Pfiesteria
piscicida;
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services
for
Alexandrium
tamarense.

Program
Status
The
existing
program
of
Pfiesteria
piscicida
sampling
was
conducted
in
1999­
2000;
it
is
recommended
this
program
be
expanded
to
be
conducted
annually.
Sampling
for
Alexandrium
tamarense
has
been
performed
periodically;
it
is
recommended
this
program
be
expanded
to
be
conducted
annually
Monitoring
Extent
and
Frequency
A
comprehensive
characterization
survey
for
Pfiesteria
piscicida
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
was
conducted
in
1999­
2000.
The
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services
is
currently
estimating
the
concentration
of
Alexandrium
at
seven
sites
in
the
Peconic
Estuary.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
32
­
Program
Description
Pfiesteria:
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.
The
SCDHS
Surface
Water
Quality
Monitoring
Standard
Operating
Procedure
(
SCDHS,
2000)
and
the
Quality
Assurance
Project
Plan
for
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Surface
Water
Monitoring
Program
(
SCDHS,
1994)
contain
the
standard
operating
procedures
and
the
QA/
QC
methods
for
Pfiesteria
monitoring.

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
using
their
rigorously
established
QA/
QC
standards.

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
(
including
tests
for
nutrient
levels)
will
be
conducted
in
the
lab.
This
monitoring
is
a
cooperative
effort
with
the
NYSDEC
and
is
being
coordinated
with
funds
from
a
Federal
Program.
It
is
recommended
that
monitoring
for
Pfiesteria
piscicida
continue
annually.

Alexandrium:
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
SCDHS
Surface
Water
Quality
Monitoring
Standard
Operating
Procedure
(
SCDHS,
2000)
and
the
Quality
Assurance
Project
Plan
for
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Surface
Water
Monitoring
Program
(
SCDHS,
1994)
contain
the
standard
operating
procedures
and
the
QA/
QC
methods
for
PSP
monitoring.

The
present
study
is
limited
to
the
Peconic
Estuary.
Present
plans
are
to
investigate
the
south
shore
bays
of
the
County
in
2001
and
the
north
shore
bays
the
following
year.

Costs
Base
Program:
The
estimated
cost
for
handling
and
analyzing
the
water
samples
for
this
year's
Pfiesteria
monitoring
project
is
$
25,000.
The
estimated
cost
for
handling
and
analyzing
the
samples
for
this
year's
Alexandrium
monitoring
project
is
$
35,000.
Neither
estimate
includes
the
cost
of
labor
and
boat
maintenance.

New
Costs:
Additional
funding
is
needed
($
25,000
for
Pfiesteria
and
$
35,000
for
Alexandrium)
to
annually
continue
these
projects.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
33
­
Vessel
Waste
No
Discharge
Areas
Program
Objective
To
determine
if
the
No
Vessel
Waste
Discharge
Areas
improves
water
quality
in
targeted
areas.

Monitoring
Hypothesis
Localized
water
quality
in
poorly­
flushed
areas
may
improve
as
a
result
of
establishing
Vessel
Waste
No
Discharge
Areas.

CCMP
Measurable
Goal
Eliminate
all
vessel
waste
discharges
to
the
estuary
upon
adoption
of
the
Vessel
Waste
No
Discharge
Area.

Lead
Entity
(
proposed)
Peconic
BayKeeper,
in
cooperation
with
the
New
York
State
Department
of
State,
the
east
end
towns,
public
and
private
marinas,
and
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Office.
(
Note:
This
monitoring
program
element
should
be
coordinated
with
Coliform
Monitoring
also
contained
in
this
monitoring
plan).

Program
Status
Proposed
new
program.

Monitoring
Extent
and
Frequency
Annual
monitoring
of
boat
waste
collected
from
pump
out
facilities
estuary­
wide.

Program
Description
The
Peconic
Estuary
may
be
designated
as
a
No
Vessel
Waste
Discharge
Area
by
the
2001
boating
season.
The
volume
of
boat
waste
collected
from
pump­
out
facilities
within
the
Peconic
Estuary
each
year
should
be
monitored
with
trend
analysis.
In
addition,
a
comparative
study
evaluating
the
effectiveness
of
Vessel
Waste
No
Discharge
Areas
at
improving
water
quality
should
be
done.
An
evaluation
of
the
pertinent
parameters
to
be
measured
is
necessary,
and
the
statistical
analyses
employed
to
compare
these
zones
should
be
fully
replicated.

Costs
New
Costs:
A
funding
source
for
this
monitoring
has
not
been
identified
yet.
Monitoring
of
boat
waste
collected
from
pump
out
facilities
is
estimated
at
a
cost
of
$
5,000
annually.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
34
­
Toxics
Issues
Sediment
Monitoring
Program
Objective
To
monitor
the
quality
of
estuarine
sediments
to
determine
the
levels
of
specific
toxic
substances
and
overall
sediment
toxicity.

Monitoring
Hypotheses
The
quality
of
estuarine
sediments
is
improving;
New
or
emerging
pollutants
of
concern
or
areas
will
be
detected
by
monitoring
sediments.

CCMP
Measurable
Goal
Improve
the
quality
of
the
ambient
environment
(
surface
waters,
groundwater,
sediments
and
biota)
where
there
is
evidence
that
human
inputs
impair
or
threaten
these
resources.

Lead
Entity
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
in
cooperation
with
the
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services.

Program
Status
Sediment
surveys
were
conducted
in
1998,
2000
and
2001,
and
will
be
conducted
annually
hereafter.

Monitoring
Extent
and
Frequency
Up
to
30
estuarine
locations
will
be
sampled
annually.
To
date,
bulk
chemistry
and
overall
toxicity
data
is
available
on
approximately
60
embayments,
harbors
and
tributaries.

Program
Description
Peconic
Estuary
sediments
are
now
being
regularly
collected
and
analyzed
for
a
broad
range
of
contaminants
and
overall
or
cumulative
toxicity.
In
the
fall
of
1994,
the
PEP
contracted
with
the
firm
of
A.
D.
Little,
Inc.
to
analyze
field
collected
sediments
for
toxic
contaminants.
In
all,
sediments
from
12
sites
were
analyzed.
In
1998,
the
USEPA
Region
II
conducted
a
survey
that
involved
the
collection
and
sampling
of
sediments
for
chemical
contaminants
and
overall
sediment
toxicity
from
34
sites
representative
of
a
range
of
typical
land
uses
across
the
estuary.
Toxicity
testing
is
a
valuable
gauge,
in
addition
to
chemical
specific
analyses,
because
the
results
provide
an
assessment
of
the
overall
toxicity
resulting
from
exposure
to
multiple
contaminants.
In
August
2000,
EPA
conducted
a
survey
similar
to
the
1998
survey,
again
involving
the
collection
and
sampling
of
sediments
for
chemical
contaminants
and
overall
sediment
toxicity.
Some
previously
sampled
sites
were
revisited
for
follow­
up
work
and
some
new
sampling
locations
were
selected.
Additional
sites
were
sampled
in
2001.

Future
monitoring
efforts
should
be
used
to
describe
trends
in
sediment
quality
(
both
for
individual
contaminants
and
overall
toxicity)
at
previously
sampled
sites
and
the
sediment
quality
status
at
any
newly
sampled
sites.
Sediment
sampling,
collection,
analysis,
and
testing
procedures
should
be
consistent
with
those
employed
previously
by
EPA
and
are
described
in
Peconic
Estuary
Tributaries
Sediment
Toxics
Survey
Field
Sampling
Plan/
Quality
Assurance
Project
Plan
(
USEPA
Region
II,
August
1998)
and
the
2000
Peconic
Estuary
Tributaries
Sediment
Toxics
Survey
­
Field
Sampling
Plan/
Quality
Assurance
Project
Plan
(
USEPA
Region
II,
August
2000).
The
EPA
target
analyte
list
of
polychlorinated
biphenyls
(
PCBs),
polynuclear
aromatic
hydrocarbons
(
PAHs),
pesticides,
and
metals,
should
also
be
matched,
to
the
extent
possible,
but
supplemented
with
any
toxic
substances
of
emerging
concern,
particularly
with
respect
to
pesticides.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
35
­
Costs
Sample
collection
and
analysis
for
toxic
substances
and
toxicity
is
relatively
expensive.
Analysis
alone
can
be
several
hundreds
dollars
to
over
one
thousand
dollars
per
sample,
particularly
if
substances
such
as
dioxins
or
furans
are
on
the
target
analyte
list.
Typically
more
than
one
sample
per
location
is
necessary
and
QA/
QC
samples
must
also
be
analyzed.
Analysis
alone
for
a
limited
survey
can
be
upwards
of
$
25,000
with
additional
resources
necessary
for
sample
collection.
Interpretation
of
the
results
must
be
conducted
after
the
analysis
is
complete.

To
the
extent
possible,
the
PEP
should
seek
to
undertake
annual
sediment
sampling
until
all
major
embayments
in
the
estuary
are
sampled,
and
areas
of
concern
are
re­
sampled.
Base
programs
of
the
USEPA
and
the
SCDHS
can
provide
sample
collection
and
preparation
costs.

New
Costs:
An
estimated
$
25,000
per
year
will
be
necessary
over
three
years
to
complete
sample
collection
and
analysis.

Coastal
2000
Program
Objectives
Assess
the
health
or
condition
of
the
estuarine
waters
of
the
United
States
and
trace
changes
in
that
condition
through
time.

Utilize
the
approach
to
identify
reference
conditions
for
estuarine
waters
in
the
United
States.

Utilize
existing
state
monitoring
programs
as
appropriate
CCMP
Measurable
Goal
Improve
the
quality
of
the
ambient
environment
(
surface
waters,
groundwater,
sediments
and
biota)
where
there
is
evidence
that
human
inputs
impair
or
threaten
these
resources.

Lead
Entity
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
in
cooperation
with
the
New
York
State
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation.

Program
Status
Program
will
be
conducted
in
2000­
01.

Monitoring
Extent
and
Frequency
Twelve
sites
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
will
be
sampled,
six
in
2000
and
the
remaining
six
in
2001.

Program
Description
Coastal
2000
is
a
Federal
EPA
program
to
assess
the
ecological
condition
of
our
nation's
estuarine
resources
using
EPA's
EMAP
designs
and
methodologies.
Unlike
EMAP,
which
took
on
the
entire
task
itself,
Coastal
2000
has
worked
with
the
coastal
states
to
form
partnerships,
incorporating
the
monitoring
needs
of
the
individual
states
into
the
overall
design
and
providing
funding
to
build
up
infrastructure
for
monitoring
in
the
future.
Such
monitoring
may
be
ideally
suited
to
Clean
Water
Act
Section
305(
b)
reporting.
The
EPA
NHEERL
laboratory
in
Narragansett,
RI
has
worked
with
New
York
to
develop
probabilistic
monitoring
plans,
and
identified
who
will
take
the
lead
in
carrying
out
the
sampling.
A
number
of
core
indicators
will
be
monitored
at
each
station;
however,
individual
states
can
add
to
this
list
as
they
desire.
The
core
suite
includes
water
quality
parameters,
sediment
chemistry,
sediment
toxicity,
benthic
community
composition,
fish
community
composition,
fish
pathology,
and
contaminants
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
36
­
in
fish.
Twelve
sampling
stations
were
planned
for
the
Peconic
Estuary.

Update
as
of
August
2000:
The
monitoring
plan
was
developed
in
cooperation
with
the
NYSDEC,
the
EPA
Long
Island
Sound
Program,
and
the
State
University
at
Stonybrook.
Karen
Chytalo,
Chief,
Estuary
Management
Unit
of
NYSDEC
initiated
the
cooperative
agreement.
Larry
Swanson,
Marine
Science
Research
Unit
of
the
Waste
Reduction
and
Management
Institute
at
Stonybrook
has
taken
the
lead
for
monitoring.
He
will
be
assisted
by
county
and
New
York
City
monitoring
staff.

Future
Action:
The
Narragansett
staff
will
meet
with
the
agencies
from
New
York
in
the
early
fall
of
2000
to
discuss
how
the
monitoring
went
and
what
improvements
or
changes
need
to
be
made
for
the
monitoring
that
will
be
done
in
2001.

Costs
Base
Program:
Current
funding
levels
have
allowed
for
sampling
at
half
the
stations
in
New
York
in
2000
with
the
other
half
planned
for
monitoring
in
the
summer
of
2001.
All
the
cooperative
agreements
have
been
awarded
and
sampling
has
begun
by
all
entities
involved.
All
analyses
will
be
provided
by
the
Coastal
2000
Program.

Biota
(
Fish,
Shellfish
and
Crustacean)
Monitoring
Program
Objective
To
monitor
the
quality
of
estuarine
biota
with
respect
to
individual
toxic
substances,
and
provide
updated
information
to
be
used
in
the
establishment
of
Human
Health
Advisories.

Monitoring
Hypotheses
The
quality
of
estuarine
biota
is
improving;
New
or
emerging
pollutants
of
concern
can
be
detected
using
biota.

Lead
Entity
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
in
cooperation
with
the
New
York
State
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation,
the
New
York
State
Department
of
Health
and
the
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services.

Program
Status
In
1999
EPA
conducted
a
one
time
survey
involving
the
collection
of
finfish
and
shellfish
samples
for
toxic
analyses.
Any
efforts
including
compiling,
evaluating
and
interpreting
data
for
the
Peconic
Estuary
Study
Area
represents
a
new
program
activity.

Monitoring
Extent
and
Frequency
Conducted
as
a
one
time
survey
of
finfish
and
shellfish
quality.
Various
species
of
finfish
and
shellfish
were
collected
from
locations
throughout
the
Peconic
Estuary.
No
further
biota
sampling
is
recommended
until
data
analysis,
evaluation
and
data
interpretation
is
completed.

CCMP
Measurable
Goal
Improve
the
quality
of
the
ambient
environment
(
surface
waters,
groundwater,
sediments
and
biota)
where
there
is
evidence
that
human
inputs
impair
or
threaten
these
resources.

Program
Description
At
present,
no
entity
has
established
a
program
whereby
Peconic
Estuary
biota
is
regularly
collected
and
analyzed
for
a
broad
range
of
contaminants.
In
1999,
EPA
Region
II
conducted
a
Peconic
Estuary
Fish,
Shellfish
and
Crustacean
Survey.
A
primary
objective
of
this
survey
was
to
determine
whether
the
toxic
compounds
identified
by
the
New
York
State
Department
of
Health
as
being
important
for
the
issuance
of
human
health
advisories
for
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
37
­
consumption
of
aquatic
species
are
relevant
in
edible
tissues
of
selected
fish
and
shellfish,
and
tissues
and
hepatopancreas
(
tomalley)
of
selected
crustacean
species
in
the
Peconic
Estuary.

Future
monitoring
efforts
should
be
used
to
describe
trends
in
biota
quality
and
to
identify
new
or
emerging
chemicals
of
concern.
Biota
sampling,
collection,
analysis,
and
testing
procedures
should
be
consistent
with
those
employed
previously
by
EPA
and
described
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
Fish,
Shellfish
and
Crustacean
Toxics
Survey
Quality
Assurance
Project
Plan
for
Field
Collection
Effort
(
USEPA
Region
II,
1999).
The
EPA
target
analyte
list
of
dioxins
and
furans,
polychlorinated
biphenyls
(
PCBs),
polynuclear
aromatic
hydrocarbons
(
PAHs),
pesticides,
metals,
and
radionuclides
should
also
be
matched,
to
the
extent
possible,
but
supplemented
with
any
toxic
substances
of
emerging
concern,
particularly
with
respect
to
pesticides.

Costs
Sample
collection
and
analysis
for
toxic
substances
is
relatively
expensive.
Analysis
alone
can
be
several
hundreds
dollars
to
over
one
thousand
dollars
per
sample,
particularly
if
substances
such
as
dioxins
or
furans
are
on
the
target
analyte
list.
Typically
more
than
one
sample
per
location
is
necessary
and
QA/
QC
samples
must
also
be
analyzed.
Analyses
alone
for
EPA's
1999
survey
was
approximately
$
100,000
with
additional
resources
necessary
for
sample
collection
and
preparation.
Interpretation
of
the
results
must
be
conducted
after
the
analysis
is
complete.

No
further
biota
sampling
is
recommended
until
analysis
is
completed
for
the
1999
EPA
samples
and
data
interpretation
is
completed.

NOAA
Mussel
Watch
Program
Program
Objective
The
objective
of
the
NOAA
Mussel
Watch
Program
is
to
measure
concentrations
of
a
broad
suite
of
trace
metals
and
organic
chemicals
in
the
whole
soft
parts
of
mussels
and
oysters.

Monitoring
Hypotheses
A
nationwide
program
of
monitoring
mussels
and
oysters
can
address
national
concerns
over
the
quality
of
the
coastal
marine
environment
and
identify
chemicals
of
concern.

CCMP
Measurable
Goal
Improve
the
quality
of
the
ambient
environment
(
surface
waters,
groundwater,
sediments
and
biota)
where
there
is
evidence
that
human
inputs
impair
or
threaten
these
resources.

Lead
Entity
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
using
NOAA
data
Program
Status
The
NOAA
Mussel
Watch
Program
is
an
existing
program.
Compiling,
evaluating
and
interpreting
data
represents
a
new
program
activity.

Monitoring
Extent
and
Frequency
One
site
in
Gardiners
Bay
is
included
in
this
national
program,
which
is
sampled
annually.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
38
­
Program
Description
The
NOAA
Mussel
Watch
Program
is
part
of
the
NOAA
National
Status
and
Trends
(
NS&
T)
Program,
the
purpose
of
which
is
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.
At
present,
one
sampling
site
in
Gardiners
Bay
is
included
in
this
national
program.
See
Chemical
Contaminants
in
Oysters
and
Mussels
(
Tom
O'Connor,
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration
(
NOAA),
1998
(
on­
line))
and
NOAA's
State
of
the
Coast
Report
(
Silver
Spring,
MD:
NOAA.
URL:
http://
state­
of­
coast.
noaa.
gov/
bulletins/
html/
ccom_
05/
ccom.
html)
for
more
information.

Costs
Base
Program:
Sampling
and
analysis
at
this
site
is
part
of
a
national
program.

Surface
Water
Monitoring
Program
Objective
To
monitor
the
quality
of
the
surface
waters
with
respect
to
individual
toxic
substances
and
overall
toxicity.

Monitoring
Hypotheses
The
quality
of
surface
waters
is
improving;
new
or
emerging
pollutants
of
concern
or
areas
will
be
detected
by
monitoring.

CCMP
Measurable
Goal
Improve
the
quality
of
the
ambient
environment
(
surface
waters,
groundwater,
sediments
and
biota)
where
there
is
evidence
that
human
inputs
impair
or
threaten
these
resources.

Lead
Entity
(
no
lead
entity
has
been
identified
at
present)

Program
Status
No
existing
programs.
Various
programs,
typically
of
limited
duration
and
scope,
have
been
conducted
in
the
past,
investigating
tidal
creeks
and
the
freshwater
Peconic
River.
Compiling,
evaluating
and
interpreting
data
for
the
Peconic
Estuary
Study
Area
represents
a
new
program
activity.

Monitoring
Extent
and
Frequency
Various
programs,
typically
of
limited
duration
and
scope,
have
been
conducted
in
the
past
including
sampling
of
tidal
creeks
on
the
North
Fork
and
the
freshwater
Peconic
River.
The
need
and
specifications
for
a
new
ongoing
surface
water
monitoring
program
should
be
investigated/
determined.

Program
Description
At
present,
no
entity
has
established
a
program
whereby
surface
water
samples
are
regularly
collected
and
analyzed
for
a
broad
range
of
contaminants
and
overall
or
cumulative
toxicity.
Monitoring
for
toxics
in
surface
waters
has
occurred
on
a
limited
basis
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
System.
Detailed
new
investigations
have
focused
on
sediments
and
fish
tissues
where
toxics
tend
to
accumulate.
Notably,
the
pesticide
Aldicarb
also
has
been
detected
in
the
surface
waters
of
East
Creek
and
other
North
Fork
Creeks.
While
Aldicarb
is
no
longer
in
use,
its
presence
is
likely
due
to
the
drainage
of
agricultural
areas
containing
residues
of
Aldicarb.
Another
emerging
concern
is
MTBE
(
methyl
tert­
Butyl
Ether),
an
octane
booster
in
gasoline,
which
has
been
showing
up
in
surface
water
samples,
including
Sag
Harbor
Creek
near
Havens
Beach
(
perhaps
related
to
an
active
recovery
operation
nearby),
the
Peconic
River,
and
other
surface
waters.
An
ongoing
North
Fork
Creek
Study
and
other
programs
are
described
below.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
39
­
North
Fork
Creeks
Study:
The
SCDHS
Office
of
Ecology
samples
sixteen
north
fork
creeks,
located
from
Sawmill
Creek
to
Narrow
River,
bimonthly
with
eight
locations
done
each
month.
Sampling
is
done
during
the
last
of
the
ebb
tide
at
each
station
in
an
attempt
to
quantify
impacts
that
the
stream
may
have
on
the
estuary.
Samples
from
each
site
are
analyzed
for
109
organic
solvent
and
pesticide
compounds.

Other
Programs:
In
1997,
New
York
State
and
the
U.
S.
Geological
Survey
began
a
cooperative
effort
to
monitor
pesticides
in
State
waters,
including
one
station
in
the
Peconic
River.
Samples
were
analyzed
for
47
pesticides,
including
herbicides,
insecticides
and
their
degradation
products.
The
pesticide
concentrations
measured
in
this
survey
probably
do
not
reflect
maximum
annual
concentrations
because
most
of
the
samples
were
collected
during
base
flow
(
low­
flow)
conditions.
While
no
pesticides
with
water
quality
criteria
available
were
identified
present
in
excess
of
the
applicable
criteria,
two
pesticides
(
atrazine
and
simazine)
were
detected
in
surface
water
samples
(
USGS,
1997).

Some
trace
metals
analysis
has
been
performed
on
Peconic
Estuary
waters
(
see
Distribution
of
Trace
Metals
and
Dissolved
Organic
Carbon
in
a
Brown
Tide
Influenced
Estuary:
The
Peconics,
E.
Breuer,
May
1997).
Results
for
the
metals
sampled
for
which
New
York
State
has
adopted
and
EPA
has
approved
aquatic
life
based
water
column
criteria
(
cadmium,
copper,
lead,
nickel,
and
silver),
while
showing
evidence
of
anthropogenic
(
man­
made)
inputs,
did
not
exceed
the
established
criteria.

Recommendations
for
Monitoring:
Periodic
surface
water
sampling
should
continue
and
special
projects
supported,
particularly
investigations
on
pesticides.
Such
studies
should,
to
the
extent
possible,
be
done
in
conjunction
with
sediment
surveys
and
sample
collection
and
analysis
procedures
should
be
consistent
with
those
employed
by
EPA.
The
EPA
target
analyte
list
of
polychlorinated
biphenyls
(
PCBs),
polynuclear
aromatic
hydrocarbons
(
PAHs),
pesticides,
and
metals,
should
also
be
matched,
to
the
extent
possible,
but
supplemented
with
any
toxic
substances
of
emerging
concern,
particularly
pesticides.
Overall
water
toxicity
testing
should
also
be
employed.
Toxicity
testing
is
a
valuable
gauge,
in
additional
to
chemical
specific
analyses,
because
the
results
provide
an
assessment
of
the
overall
toxicity
resulting
from
exposure
to
multiple
contaminants.
See
Pesticide
Concentrations
in
Surface
Waters
of
New
York
State
in
Relation
to
Land
Use
­
1997
(
U.
S.
Geological
Survey,
June
1998)
and
Pesticides
in
Streams
in
New
Jersey
and
Long
Island,
New
York
and
Relation
to
Land
Use
(
U.
S.
Geological
Survey,
May
1999)
for
additional
information.

Costs
Base
Program:
The
North
Fork
Creeks
Study
is
funded
by
the
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services.

Sample
collection
and
analysis
for
toxic
substances
and
toxicity
is
relatively
expensive.
Analysis
alone
can
be
several
hundreds
dollars
to
over
one
thousand
dollars
per
sample,
particularly
if
substances
such
as
dioxins
or
furans
are
on
the
target
analyte
list.
Typically,
more
than
one
sample
per
location
is
necessary
and
QA/
QC
samples
must
also
be
analyzed.
Analysis
alone
for
a
limited
survey
can
be
upwards
of
$
50,000
with
additional
resources
necessary
for
sample
collection.
Interpretation
of
the
results
must
be
conducted
after
the
analysis
is
complete.

No
new
surface
water
sampling
programs
for
toxics
are
recommended
at
the
present
time.

Groundwater
Monitoring
Program
Objective
To
monitor
the
quality
of
groundwater
with
respect
to
individual
toxic
substances
to
determine
public
health
threats.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
40
­
Monitoring
Hypotheses
Monitoring
of
groundwater
will
identify
chemicals
of
concern
in
the
raw
water
supply
(
and
ultimately
chemicals
that
may
be
of
concern
in
the
estuarine
environment).
New
or
emerging
pollutants
of
concern
will
be
detected
by
monitoring
these
media.

CCMP
Measurable
Goal
Improve
the
quality
of
the
ambient
environment
(
surface
waters,
groundwater,
sediments
and
biota)
where
there
is
evidence
that
human
inputs
impair
or
threaten
these
resources.

Lead
Entity
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services,
with
support
from
the
New
York
State
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation.

Program
Status
Numerous
studies
have
been
conducted
in
the
past.
At
present,
the
SCDHS
to
is
carrying
out
a
three
year
pesticides
in
groundwater
monitoring
program.
It
is
likely
that
it
will
be
recommended
this
program
be
continued
annually
thereafter.

Monitoring
Extent
and
Frequency
Groundwater
is
sampled
throughout
the
study
area.
The
Suffolk
County
Health
Department
has
identified
thousands
of
private
wells
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
Study
Area
that
should
be
monitored
due
to
the
high
risk
of
pesticide
contamination.

Program
Description
The
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services
Bureau
of
Groundwater
Resources
monitors
the
quality
and
quantity
of
the
groundwater
supply
and
conducts
studies
and
investigations
of
the
county's
hydrology.
Suffolk
County
is
completely
dependent
on
its
groundwater
resource
for
drinking
water
supply.
The
focus
of
groundwater
protection
measures
has
been
on
contamination
caused
by
humans,
from
sewage
to
chemicals
such
as
petroleum,
solvents,
degreasers,
fertilizers,
pesticides
and
herbicides.
In
eastern
Suffolk
County,
agricultural
chemicals
are
the
primary
contaminant
of
concern.

Groundwater
discharge
provides
the
base
flow
for
the
County's
rivers
and
streams.
Relatively
small
fluctuations
in
water
table
elevations
can
have
a
significant
effect
on
wetlands,
stream
flow
and
lake
levels.
Stream
flow
and
groundwater
underflow
to
embayments
influence
the
salinity
of
surface
waters
and
effect
the
ecology,
having
impacts
on
the
ability
of
shellfish
and
finfish
to
reproduce.
The
Bureau
of
Groundwater
Resources
is
involved
with
several
active
groundwater
investigations,
contaminant
studies
and
at
superfund
and
hazardous
waste
sites.
The
Bureau
of
Groundwater
Resources'
Pesticide
Monitoring
Program
is
especially
important,
including
investigations
done
in
conjunction
with
the
USGS
and
NYSDEC.
There
is
an
ongoing
program
involving
public
and
private
well
monitoring.
Groundwater
impacts
from
vineyards
and
golf
courses
are
being
specifically
evaluated.
See
Pesticides
and
their
Metabolites
in
Wells
of
Suffolk
County,
New
York
1998
(
U.
S.
Geological
Survey,
June
1999)
and
Water
Quality
Monitoring
Program
to
Detect
Pesticide
Contamination
in
Groundwaters
of
Nassau
and
Suffolk
Counties,
NY
(
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services,
June
1999)
for
more
information.

The
Suffolk
County
Health
Department
has
identified
thousands
of
private
wells
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
Study
Area
that
should
be
monitored
due
to
the
high
risk
of
pesticide
contamination.
Significant
funding
is
needed
to
monitor
for
pesticide
residues
in
potentially
impacted
residential
and
public
water
supply
wells
in
the
study
area.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
41
­
Costs
Groundwater
monitoring
is
occurring
under
many
specially
funded
studies
and
investigations
as
well
as
an
ongoing
program
involving
public
and
private
well
monitoring.
The
SCDHS
has
requested
that
the
NYSDEC
accelerate
funding
to
test
all
6,000
to
7,000
wells
at
risk
in
high
pesticide
use
areas
under
the
Pesticide
Reporting
Law.

The
NYSDEC
has
been
funding
the
SCDHS
pesticide
groundwater
monitoring
program
for
three
years
at
about
$
100,000
per
year.
The
NYSDEC
recently
agreed
to
a
three­
year
one
million­
dollar
contract
with
the
SCDHS
to
expand
the
monitoring
program,
but
funding
is
based
on
approval
of
an
annual
work
plan.
The
SCDHS
has
requested
that
the
full
one
million
dollars
be
allocated
to
expand
the
monitoring
program.

Hazardous
Waste
Site
Monitoring
Program
Objective
Perform
monitoring
as
part
of
remedial
investigations
and
following
the
implementation
of
remedies
at
hazardous
waste
sites;
monitor
compliance
with
clean­
up
schedules.

Monitoring
Hypotheses
Monitoring
of
environmental
media
during
remedial
investigations
is
necessary
in
order
to
develop
appropriate
remedies.
Monitoring
following
remedial
actions
assess
the
effectiveness
of
the
remedy.
Monitoring
compliance
with
schedules
helps
ensures
actions
are
timely.

CCMP
Measurable
Goals
Comply
with
schedules
for
conducting
site
characterizations,
remedial
actions
and
post­
remedial
monitoring
at
hazardous
waste
sites;
effectively
characterize
risks
and
protect
human
health
and
the
environment
at
hazardous
waste
sites;
ensure
compliance
with
permit
limits
for
point
source
discharges.

Lead
Entity
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
New
York
State
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation,
and
the
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services.

Program
Status
Permittees,
property
owners,
potentially
responsible
parties,
and
government
agencies
are
investigating
various
sites
and
performing
monitoring
to
document
the
effectiveness
of
remedial
measures
as
part
of
existing
programs.
Compiling,
evaluating
and
interpreting
data
for
the
Peconic
Estuary
Study
Area
represents
a
new
program
activity.

Monitoring
Extent
and
Frequency
At
numerous
sites
throughout
the
study
area,
site
investigations
and
post­
remedial
monitoring
is
taking
place
according
to
compliance
schedules,
workplans
and
records
of
decisions.

Program
Description
Federal
and
State
hazardous
waste
laws
require
monitoring
as
part
of
the
remedial
investigation
process
and
once
remedial
actions
are
undertaken.
The
current
program
is
effective
to
assess
human
health
and
ecological
risks
at
hazardous
waste
sites.

Costs
Base
Programs:
Costs
are
borne
by
permittees,
property
owners,
potentially
responsible
parties,
or
the
government.
At
this
time,
no
new
or
additional
investigations
or
monitoring
is
being
recommended
in
the
Peconic
CCMP,
outside
of
that
required
by
existing
authorities.
The
PEP
will
monitor
compliance
with
schedules,
as
described
in
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
42
­
the
Toxics
Chapter
in
the
PEP
Comprehensive
Conservation
and
Management
Plan.

Point
Source
Monitoring
Program
Objective
Perform
monitoring
of
regulated
point
sources
to
determine
compliance
with
permit
limitations
and
conditions.

Monitoring
Hypotheses
Monitoring
of
compliance
with
point
source
discharge
limits
will
help
ensure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
CCMP
Measurable
Goals
Comply
with
schedules
for
conducting
site
characterizations,
remedial
actions
and
post­
remedial
monitoring
at
hazardous
waste
sites;
effectively
characterize
risks
and
protect
human
health
and
the
environment
at
hazardous
waste
sites;
ensure
compliance
with
permit
limits
for
point
source
discharges.

Lead
Entity
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
New
York
State
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation,
and
the
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services.

Program
Status
Permittees
perform
monitoring
of
discharges
part
of
existing
programs.
Compiling,
evaluating
and
interpreting
data
for
the
Peconic
Estuary
Study
Area
represents
a
new
program
activity.

Monitoring
Extent
and
Frequency
Permittees
perform
monitoring
of
discharges
at
various
locations
throughout
the
estuary
at
a
frequency
specified
in
their
permits.

Program
Description
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES/
SPDES)
Program:
The
National
and
State
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES/
SPDES)
Programs
establish
thresholds
on
discharges
(
concentration
or
mass
based)
for
toxic
(
and
other)
pollutants
in
the
form
of
permit
limitations
and
conditions.
Permittees
are
also
required
to
self­
monitor
their
discharge
and
demonstrate
compliance
status
with
these
limits/
conditions.
This
information
is
reported
to
regulatory
agencies
in
the
form
of
Discharge
Monitoring
Reports
(
DMRs).
The
NYSDEC
also
inspects
and
samples
discharges
for
compliance
with
permit
requirements.

Costs
Base
Programs:
Sampling
and
reporting
costs
are
borne
by
permittees
and
ongoing
compliance
programs
of
regulatory
agencies.
At
this
time,
no
new
or
additional
investigations
or
monitoring
is
being
recommended
in
the
Peconic
CCMP,
outside
of
that
required
by
existing
authorities.

Federal
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
Objective
To
monitor
major
releases
of
toxics
to
the
environment
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
43
­
Monitoring
Hypotheses
The
Federal
Toxic
Release
Inventory
provides
a
measure
of
releases
of
toxic
substances
to
the
environment,
and
whether
overall
major
releases
are
increasing
or
decreasing.

CCMP
Measurable
Goal
Decrease
overall
emissions
of
reportable
toxics
from
the
five
east
end
towns.

Lead
Entity
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.

Program
Status
Reporting
is
required
as
a
part
of
an
existing
program.
Compiling,
evaluating
and
interpreting
data
for
the
Peconic
Estuary
Study
Area
represents
a
new
program
activity
Monitoring
Extent
and
Frequency
A
limited
number
of
facilities
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
watershed
report
annually
under
the
requirements
for
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory.

Program
Description
Existing
Federal
program
and
reporting
requirement.
Costs
Base
Program:
Reporting
costs
are
borne
by
regulated
entities.
At
this
time,
no
new
or
additional
monitoring
is
being
recommended
in
the
Peconic
CCMP,
outside
of
that
required
by
existing
authorities.
New
Costs:
A
mechanism
needs
to
be
established
by
the
PEP
to
assemble
and
interpret
the
Federal
Toxics
Release
Inventory
data
for
the
Peconic
Estuary.

Pesticide
Use
Monitoring
Program
Objective
Measure
types
and
quantities
of
pesticides
used,
and
unneeded
and
unwanted
pesticides
that
are
collected
for
proper
disposal.

Monitoring
Hypotheses
Pesticide
use
and
proper
disposal,
including
trends
in
types
and
quantities,
can
be
measured
by
various
means.

CCMP
Measurable
Goals
Eliminate
to
the
maximum
extent
practicable,
pesticide
applications
on
turf
grass
on
all
publicly
held
land
by
2003;
Eliminate
holdings
of
banned,
unneeded
and
unwanted
pesticides
(
and
other
hazardous
substances)
by
2005;
Decrease
overall
agricultural/
residential/
institutional
pesticide
applications
in
the
five
East
End
towns.

Lead
Entity
(
proposed)
New
York
State
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation
and
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.

Program
Status
Reporting
is
required
as
a
part
of
an
existing
program.
Compiling,
evaluating
and
interpreting
data
for
the
Peconic
Estuary
Study
Area
represents
a
new
program
activity.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
44
­
Monitoring
Extent
and
Frequency
Information
is
available
annually
for
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Study
Area.

Program
Description
The
existing
New
York
State
Pesticide
Reporting
Law
allows
information
about
the
amounts
and
types
of
pesticides
being
applied
in
the
State
to
be
obtained
by
health
researchers.
Under
the
Law,
certified
pesticide
applicators
are
required
to
report
for
each
pesticide
application
the
name
of
the
product
applied,
the
product's
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
Federal
registration
number,
the
quantity
applied,
the
product's
unit
of
measure,
the
date
of
application,
the
county,
street
address,
municipality
and
zip
code
of
the
application.
Commercial
permittees
who
sell
pesticides
to
private
applicators
at
wholesale
and
retail,
must
report
for
each
sale
the
name
of
the
product
purchased,
its
EPA
Federal
registration
number,
the
quantity
sold,
the
product's
unit
of
measure,
the
date
sold,
as
well
as
the
county,
street
address,
municipality
and
zip
code
of
the
intended
application.

There
may
be
other
useful
mechanisms
for
monitoring
pesticide
use
and
the
safe
disposal
of
unneeded
or
unwanted
pesticides,
including
surveys
of
farmers/
commercial
landscapers/
homeowners,
point­
of­
sale
surveys,
residential
use
surveys,
commercial
applicator
tallies,
collections
during
"
Clean
Sweep"
programs,
or
household
hazardous
waste
collection
programs
and
events,
or
resolutions
passed
(
or
equivalent)
by
state
or
local
government
to
eliminate
or
reduce
pesticide
usage.
These
other
mechanisms
must
be
more
fully
developed
by
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program.

Costs
Base
Program:
Reporting
costs
under
the
State
Pesticide
Reporting
Law
are
borne
by
regulated
entities.
New
Costs:
The
cost
and
details
of
the
other
potential
monitoring
mechanisms
has
not
been
fully
developed
at
this
point
by
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program.
A
preliminary
estimate
for
compiling,
evaluating
and
interpreting
data
is
$
25,000
annually.

Two
Stroke
Marine
Engine
Inventory
Program
Objective
To
monitor
the
progress
of
conversion/
replacement
from
2
stroke
to
4
stroke
marine
engines
in
the
estuary.

Monitoring
Hypotheses
Hydrocarbon
loadings
to
the
estuary
will
be
reduced
as
the
number
of
2
stroke
marine
engines
used
in
the
estuary
is
reduced.

CCMP
Measurable
Goal
Reduce
the
number
of
2
stroke
marine
engines
in
use
in
the
estuary.

Lead
Entity
(
proposed)
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Office
Program
Status
New
proposed
program
Monitoring
Extent
and
Frequency
Monitoring
will
be
collected
annually
for
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Study
Area
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
45
­
Program
Description
Federal
requirements
require
the
manufacturers
of
marine
engines
to
phase
in
cleaner
burning
4
stroke
engines.
The
progress
of
the
conversion
from
2
stroke
to
4
stroke
marine
engines
takes
place
in
the
estuary
can
be
monitored.
If
the
pace
of
conversion/
replacement
appears
slow,
the
PEP
may
establish
or
recommend
incentives
to
speed
the
conversion.
A
potential
monitoring
mechanism
is
harbormaster­
conducted
surveys.
The
costs
or
details
of
the
potential
monitoring
mechanism
have
not
been
fully
developed
at
this
point
by
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program.

Costs
New
Costs:
The
costs
or
details
of
this
potential
monitoring
mechanism
have
not
been
fully
developed
at
this
point
by
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program.
A
preliminary
estimate
is
$
10,000
annually.

Underground
Storage
Tank
Inventory
Program
Objective
To
monitor
the
progress
of
underground
storage
tank
removal,
retirement
and
replacement.

Monitoring
Hypotheses
The
threats
of
leaking
underground
storage
tanks
will
be
reduced
as
the
number
of
tanks
exempt
from
current
removal/
replacement
retirement
requirements
in
use
in
the
estuary's
watershed
is
reduced.

CCMP
Measurable
Goal
Eliminate
underground
storage
tanks
exempt
from
current
replacement
requirements.

Lead
Entity
(
proposed)
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Office
Program
Status
New
proposed
program
Monitoring
Extent
and
Frequency
Monitoring
will
be
collected
annually
for
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
watershed.

Program
Description
No
program
is
currently
in
place
to
establish
a
baseline
on
the
number
of
tanks
currently
in
use
that
are
exempt
from
current
removal/
replacement/
retirement
requirements
or
to
track
the
number
of
tanks
that
are
removed,
retired
and
replaced.
A
potential
monitoring
mechanism
is
to
establish
a
baseline
and
then
track
the
number
of
underground
storage
tanks
that
are
removed,
retired
and
replaced.

Costs
New
Costs:
The
costs
or
details
of
these
potential
monitoring
mechanisms
have
not
been
fully
developed
at
this
point
by
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program.
Estimate
for
establishing
baseline:
$
50,000;
estimate
for
updating
inventory:
$
10,000
per
year.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
46
­
Treated
Lumber
in
the
Marine
Environment
Inventory
Program
Objective
To
monitor
the
extent
of
treated
lumber
installed
in
the
marine
environment.

Monitoring
Hypotheses
Toxic
impacts
in
the
estuary
can
be
reduced
by
reducing
the
amount
of
treated
lumber
installed
in
the
marine
environment.

CCMP
Measurable
Goal
Decrease
the
cumulative
amount
of
treated
lumber
installed
in
the
marine/
estuarine
environment.

Lead
Entity
(
proposed)
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Office
Program
Status
New
proposed
program
(
in
conjunction
with
shoreline
hardening
monitoring
also
described
in
this
Plan)

Monitoring
Extent
and
Frequency
Monitoring
will
be
collected
annually
for
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Study
Area
Program
Description
A
potential
monitoring
mechanism
would
need
to
include
both
establishing
a
baseline
on
the
amount
of
treated
lumber
presently
installed
in
the
marine
environment
and
updating
this
baseline
to
reflect
changes
due
to
new
installations,
replacements,
and
removals.
A
portion
of
this
potential
mechanism
is
included
in
the
section
of
this
Plan
addressing
monitoring
for
Habitat
and
Living
Resource
concerns
(
under
the
heading
"
Shoreline
Hardening").
This
proposed
monitoring
mechanism
will
need
to
be
expanded
to
further
include
information
on
whether
the
existing
shoreline
hardening
material
is
treated
lumber.

Costs
New
Costs:
Costs
of
these
potential
monitoring
mechanisms
are
included
in
the
Shoreline
Hardening
discussion
of
this
Environmental
Monitoring
Plan.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
47
­
Base
Programs
New
Costs
Monitoring
Program
One­
Time
Annual
One­
Time
Annual
Aquaculture
and
Transplanting
Activities
X
$
710,000
$
5,000
Bay
Scallops
(
recruitment
success
and
survival
dynamics)
$
200,000
(
over
three
years)
Biota
(
Fish,
Shellfish,
Crustacean)
Monitoring
for
Toxics
X
Brown
Tide
Research
Initiative
X
Brown
Tide
Steering
Committee
X
Coastal
2000
X
Dredging
$
37,500
$
7,500
Endangered
Species
Program
X
Federal
Toxics
Release
Inventory
X
Hazardous
Waste
Site
Monitoring
X
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
Program
X
NMFS
Commercial
Landings
Program
X
Vessel
Waste
No
Discharge
Areas
$
5,000
NOAA
Mussel
Watch
Program
X
NYS
Pesticide
Reporting
Law
X
NYS
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
SPDES)
Program
X
NYS
Shellfish
Land
Certification
Program
X
NYSDEC
Juvenile
Finfish
Survey
X
$
645,000
NYSDEC
Wetlands
Inventory
X
$
500,000
$
50,000
Osprey,
Terns
and
Waterfowl
TBD
Pesticide
Use
Monitoring
X
$
25,000
Restoration
Monitoring
$
35,000
$
15,000
SCDHS
Alexandrium
Monitoring
X
$
35,000
SCDHS
Bathing
Beaches
and
Swimming
Pools
Program
X
SCDHS
Groundwater
Monitoring
(
for
nitrogen
and
pesticides)
X
SCDHS
North
Creeks
Study
X
SCDHS
Pfiesteria
Monitoring
X
$
25,000
SCDHS
Routine
Point
Source
Monitoring
X
SCDHS
Surface
Water
Quality
Monitoring
X
SCPD
Land
Use
Monitoring
X
Sediment
Monitoring
25,000
Shoreline
Hardening
Monitoring
X
35,000
Submerged
Aquatic
Vegetation
Long
Term
Monitoring
X
$
30,000
Suffolk
County
Groundwater
Model
X
Surface
Water
Monitoring
for
Toxics
X
Two
Stroke
Marine
Engine
Inventory
$
10,000
Underground
Storage
Tank
Inventory
$
50,000
$
10,000
USFWS
National
Wetlands
Inventory
X
Total
$
1,332,500
$
922,500
Monitoring
Program
Summary
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
I
­
48
­
This
Page
Intentionally
Left
Blank.