Another concern about importing organisms into the Peconic Estuary System for the purpose of culturing them commercially is the parasites or diseases that may be brought in with them. These pests may be transmitted to wild populations if not detected in the cultured animals soon enough. As part of developing an aquaculture plan for the entire system, a plan of action for dealing with unforeseen outbreaks should be developed. NYSDEC should maintain the policy of not allowing the importation of southern shellfish.

The transplanting of shellfish into Peconic Estuary waters for cleansing presents a similar concern. New York's shellfish transplant program has been administered by the NYSDEC Bureau of Marine Resources, Shellfisheries Section since 1964. The primary goals of the transplant program are to protect public health and provide a long term opportunity for utilization of shellfish resources which are presently unusable due to coliform contamination ( see Chapter 5). In this program, shellfish are placed in certified waters for cleansing and reharvested after 21 days. Some of these transfers are carried out within the estuary itself, but a large segment of the New York transplant program involves the transfer of hard clams from Raritan Bay in New York Harbor to the clean near shore waters of the Peconic Estuary System. It is generally believed that the potential difference between shellfish in both bodies of water in terms of genetics, disease, or parasites is negligible; therefore, no monitoring of the harvested shellfish is done. Also, there have been no reported diseases or parasites in hard clams in New York waters. With the occurrence of oyster diseases such as Perkinsus marina ( dermo) and Haplosporidium nelsoni ( MSX) in other waters, however, it may be useful to monitor for these and other known parasites in oysters in order to determine if they may be transferred to the Peconic Estuary should a transplant program for oysters commence ( although dermo has already been documented in the Peconics [ summer 1997] and MSX may already exist there as well). Peconic Estuary Program CCMP C H A P T E R F O U R 4 48 Non Indigenous Species There are many documented cases of non indigenous species ( finfish, shellfish, ad other invertebrates) introduced into natural waters for culturing and subsequently released either accidentally or intentionally beyond the culturing facility ( though, there are no documented cases in New York). In many of these cases, the species quickly outcompete and outnumber indigenous populations, causing irreparable damage to the local ecosystem. There are already non indigenous species in the Peconic Estuary System ( e. g., the marine macroalga Codium fragile) whose impact on the environment is unknown. The NYSDEC does not permit the importation or introduction of nonindigenous species for aquaculture whether they are proposed to be maintained in an upland facility or in marine waters. It is important that NYSDEC continue to prohibit the introduction of exotic species and require indigenous genotypes for aquaculture. If non indigenous species are maintained on land in tanks, measures should be taken to prevent the introduction of these species into the wild as well as into surface water discharges containing waste or disease.

Monitoring Reduction of water quality associated with culturing, particularly that of large scale finfish culture, has been documented in other areas throughout the world. In order to maintain high water quality in the Peconic Estuary, ambient monitoring ( by the permittee or by others) should be implemented when aquaculture permits are granted. Examples of water quality parameters which have been incorporated in these permits include dissolved oxygen, nitrogen compounds, total suspended solids, and chemicals found in conjunction with food for the cultured organisms ( e. g., antibiotics). Biological parameters which are measured include chlorophyll a, changes in adjacent benthic populations and interactions with turtles, marine mammals, finfish, and large mobile epifauna ( e. g., crabs, whelks). A protocol for monitoring of aquaculture sites should be matched to the scale, location and type of culturing operation ( e. g., finfish vs. shellfish). For example, the one net pen finfish operation off Plum Island does have a water and sediment quality monitoring program and a marine mammal and avian reporting requirement. This net pen operation also conducts daily monitoring of dissolved oxygen inside and outside the pens to ensure good water quality for the caged farm fish. Complementary monitoring by an independent agency or entity could be conducted if funded.

Steps HLR 10.1 Assist in the development and implementation of an estuary wide aquaculture plan. Priority Include criteria regarding scale, location, assessment, monitoring, and methodologies of shellfish and finfish aquaculture which would be ecologically beneficial and would help sustain aquaculture as a beneficial estuarine use when performed in a manner that is sensitive to the natural conditions, productivity and ecology of the Peconic Estuary.

HLR 10.2 Identify suitable areas for shellfish and finfish aquaculture activities that are compatible with the water quality and habitat protection objectives in the CCMP to ensure that a balance is maintained between cultivated and wild stocks, and include in the estuary wide aquaculture plan.

HLR 10.3 Investigate the need to require monitoring of imported cultured organisms and intrastate transplant of shellfish for disease and parasites and determine if a requirement should be established to certify that they are disease free. Peconic Estuary Program CCMP C H A P T E R F O U R 4 49 HLR 10.4 Continue to support the prohibition of commercial culture or introduction of nonindigenous species in New York's waters and require that all aquaculture operations in the estuary use indigenous genotypes.

HLR 10.5 Develop water quality and natural resource monitoring protocols for existing and future shellfish and finfish aquaculture projects Responsible Entities HLR 10.1 Organize workshop: Suffolk County Planning Department; SCDHS ( co leads); NYSDEC; PEP  Natural Resources Subcommittee; NYSDOS; NY Sea Grant; NYSOGS; USACE; EPA; NOAA/ NMFS; Suffolk County; Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Southold, Shelter Island, and Riverhead; villages; Cornell Cooperative Extension; fish farmers; other groups; and individuals interested in aquaculture; Aquaculture Plan: Suffolk County with input from PEP and other stakeholders ( NYSDEC, Long Island Sound Study, and New York New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program)

HLR 10.2 Suffolk County Planning Department, SCDHS, NYSDEC ( co leads), NYSDOS, USACE, USFWS, PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee, and Suffolk County Planning Department HLR 10.3 Monitoring assessment: NYSDEC ( lead); Disease and parasite screening: PEP; NYSDEC; NYSDOS; NYSOGS; USACE; EPA; NOAA/ NMFS; Suffolk County; Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Southold, Shelter Island, and Riverhead; villages; Cornell Cooperative Extension; other groups; and individuals interested in aquaculture ( co leads)

HLR 10.4 NYSDEC ( lead) to implement legislation and NYS legislature HLR 10.5 SCDHS, NYSDEC ( co leads), USACE, NYSDOS, NYSOGS, USFWS, PEP, NOAA, and fish farmers ( permittees) Peconic Estuary Program CCMP C H A P T E R F O U R 4 50 Addresses Habitat and Living Resources Management Objectives 1, 3, 4, 6, and 8.

Unintentional artificial reefs have existed as long as humans have used seagoing vessels and lost them at sea. The deliberate placement of structures in the water for the purpose of attracting finfish is a more recent phenomenon. It is clear from anecdotal and more rigorous, quantitative research that these areas of relief do indeed attract finfish, some of which use the structures as refuges from predators or for breeding and feeding. What is less clear are the impacts of these structures on local benthic populations and regional finfish populations. Topics that need further investigation, either through literature research or actual studies, include the following:

  Benefits of the structure beyond attracting finfish and providing " good fishing;"

  Effects on finfish stocks ( i. e., Do the reefs concentrate fish into a small area and then cause them to be depleted through fishing or render them more vulnerable to predators, or do they provide additional refuge and feeding areas, thus increasing populations over time? Does the concentration of finfish at reef sites result in a decrease in the populations elsewhere or result in a shift in finfish community structure?);

  Specific effects of artificial reefs on sea turtle, marine mammals, shark, and other large marine species populations;

  The potential for and extent of habitat and species displacement and a determination of how many reefs could be supported in the estuary without causing adverse effects such as those mentioned above; and   A definition of areas where artificial reefs should not be located due to the presence of sensitive species or habitats of concern, and areas that may be suitable for reef structures ( i. e., are consistent with the water quality and habitat objectives in the CCMP).

The NYSDEC Artificial Reef Plan and GEIS was prepared in the late 1980s and approved through a public process in 1991. Since that time, marine mammal use of the system has been increasing. Since all artificial reef sites require a full evaluation ( including public input and the collection of relevant information) prior to decision making, special attention should be given to marine mammal and sea turtle issues and addressed in a pre placement/ siting monitoring program. The Reef Plan outlines the process for this decision making.

One concern related to sea turtles is the potential impact of artificial reefs on populations of spider crabs. Kemp's ridley sea turtles feed primarily on spider crabs. If either spider crabs or sea turtles are attracted to artificial reefs, there is a potential for adverse interactions between the reef structure or materials and these organisms. Conversely, if spider crabs are driven from an area by the presence of a reef, this could have an adverse impact on the turtles. Seals are another concern. Seals may be attracted to reefs in the eastern end of the Peconics because of the proximity to their haul out areas and because of their attraction to concentrations of finfish. If this happens, there is the potential for adverse interactions between the reef structure and materials or fishermen and these animals. Locations where these interactions might occur have been identified by some researchers and these HLR 11 Determine the Suitability of Artificial Reefs in the Peconic Estuary. Peconic Estuary Program CCMP C H A P T E R F O U R 4 51 sites should be avoided for the placement of artificial reefs, but this information needs to be documented. These potential sites include:

  Orient Harbor;

  Waters off Plum Island and Great Gull Island;

  Waters off Jessups Neck, within three quarters of a mile around the entire peninsula; and   Waters off shore from Three Mile Harbor to Accabonac Harbor, including those embayments.

At least one site recommended for reefs in the Peconics is located in a prime feeding area for Kemp's ridley sea turtles ( Orient Harbor). Presently, an evaluation for placement of a demonstration reef is proceeding in areas to the east ( where there is an unverified wreck) and the west ( where there is a known wreck) off Robin's Island. The information developed from this evaluation and others should be used to evaluate potential sites. Sea turtle and marine mammal monitoring is recommended for known wrecks and natural reef areas and where artificial reefs are sited.

Steps HLR 11.1 Evaluate the use of natural reefs, wrecks, artificial reefs, and aquaculture facilities by finfish, sea turtles, diving birds, marine mammals, and other estuarine organisms. Develop recommendations to minimize the impact on resources by these structures.

HLR 11.2 Determine environmental and habitat criteria ( e. g., productivity, etc.) for site selection of different reef structures, and evaluate the potential for the extent of habitat and species displacement and the number of reefs that could be supported in the estuary without causing adverse effects.

HLR 11.3 Evaluate the potential placement of artificial reefs in known sea turtle and marine mammal feeding areas as part of the siting process outlined in the NYSDEC Artificial Reef Plan.

Responsible Entities HLR 11.1 PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee ( lead) ( long term research plan) through contractor HLR 11.2 PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee and NYSDEC ( co leads)

HLR 11.3 NYSDEC ( lead); and Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, and Southold Peconic Estuary Program CCMP C H A P T E R F O U R 4 52 Addresses Habitat and Living Resources Management Objectives 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8.

Habitat degradation, pollution, overfishing, and improper fishing practices can all lead to depletions of commercial and recreational fish and shellfish populations. Data collection on stocks and harvests, regulation of fishing and shellfish harvesting practices, habitat protection, and pollution prevention are all needed to ensure the sustainable use of these stocks by humans.

Data Collection New York is one of 23 partners in the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program. The goal of this program is to cooperatively collect, manage, and disseminate fishery statistical data. Data on commercial fishing are compiled by NMFS. A certain amount of information is also periodically compiled and analyzed by NYSDEC fisheries staff. In fact, new State reporting requirements have been developed which will require commercial fishermen to report on all species caught. As long as this commercial data continues to be collected at the estuary level, this increased information should prove useful for better understanding the volume and distribution of landings for finfish and certain crustacean ( lobster) and shellfish ( squid) species in the Peconic Estuary. For recreational fishing, there is extensive data on catch, harvest, and discard for New York, but it is not available specific to the Peconics. Better information on both of these types of fishing at the estuary level would enable better understanding and ultimately, better management of the resources.

Fisheries for bait and for shellfish, such as conch, have existed for a long time. Although reliable statistics on most of these species are unavailable, scientific research on a few species indicates that they may be in some danger of being depleted. To ascertain the stocks of bait fish, a multi gear and temporal study of bait fish populations should be performed on a variety of tributaries, and regulations should be developed to prevent overfishing of these populations. For horseshoe crabs, NYSDEC has collected harvest data informally from lobster fishermen, juvenile anadromous fish seine surveys, and the Peconic Trawl Survey. This information will be collected under the proposed Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistical Program and incorporated into the Horseshoe Crab Fishery Management Plan ( FMP) ( approved in October 1998). Based on the recommendations in the FMP, NYSDEC will develop appropriate regulations for horseshoe crabs. Recently adopted regulations for horseshoe crabs include a 25 percent reduction of current landings coastwide and the recommendation that additional harvest control measures be considered for future reductions.

Regulation and Management Overfishing of finfish stocks that are highly desirable has been a concern for decades. Both commercial and recreational fishermen contribute to this problem. Fishery management plans and fishery regulations have been designed to allow for sustainable use of these stocks by humans. State and Federal agencies, including NYSDEC and NMFS, are responsible for developing plans for managing coastal migratory finfish stocks, which are then implemented by individual States. The PEP has recognized the fact that many of the species of finfish taken in the Peconic Estuary System that are commercially and recreationally valuable are migratory in nature and, therefore, cannot be HLR 12 Foster Sustainable Recreational and Commercial Finfish and Shellfish Uses of the Peconic Estuary that are Compatible with Biodiversity Protection. Peconic Estuary Program CCMP C H A P T E R F O U R 4 53 managed by efforts exclusive to the Peconic Estuary. Regulations on the taking of these fishes are promulgated at the Federal and State level and must be implemented over large areas by the appropriate government entities. Therefore, the best way that the PEP can hope to protect from overfishing the coastal, migratory species of finfish which use the estuary is for all members of the Management Conference, not just the NYSDEC, to support these management plans and regulations. This support would include consistent enforcement of regulations, public education and outreach regarding fishery regulations and management practices, and development of new regulations when necessary to protect the sustainable use of a fishery resource.

New regulations and management practices may be warranted to protect water quality and to protect species in the estuary system from injury, death, and overfishing. Four issues proposed for action include management of fishing gear, implementation of BMPs regarding fish waste, regulations for fish used as bait, horseshoe crabs, and whelks, and identification and regulation of spawner sanctuaries.

Fishing gear can result in permanent injury or death to unintended species. For example, fishing gear which is lost in the estuary may continue to " ghost fish" for a long period of time. Pots, traps, fishing lines, and nets lost during storms or due to cut lines may remain in the water column or on the bottom in a functional form. Finfish and other organisms that are caught by this gear may be permanently injured trying to escape or may not escape and will eventually die. In addition, certain types of gear may be very effective at catching not only the target species but other, non target species which may be injured or die before the gear is retrieved and they can be released. Regulations and management measures should be implemented that will reduce injury and death to non target species.

The waste generated by fishermen from cleaning fish is often discarded back into the water in the mistaken belief that, because it is biodegradable and came from the estuary, it is acceptable to return it there. In fact, this material attracts scavengers, both aquatic and terrestrial, and adds to the organic matter already decaying in the sheltered embayments where marinas are usually located. A number of simple practices can be implemented to minimize this problem, including:

  Establishing fish cleaning areas with proper waste receptacles;

  Developing and implementing rules governing the conduct and location of fish cleaning stations;

  Implementing fish composting where appropriate; and   Educating boaters and fishermen regarding the importance of proper fish cleaning procedures.

Research on hard clams in the Great South Bay of Long Island has indicated that the hydrographic regime associated with certain tributaries provides prime habitat for shellfish reproduction. These areas usually contain concentrations of coliform bacteria introduced from stormwater runoff and are uncertified for shellfish harvesting due to coliform contamination. Because shellfish in these areas are not routinely harvested, the populations are often larger and the reproductive output higher than in other areas of the estuary system. Thus, these areas may be supplying a disproportionate share of larval hard clams to the Great South Bay. It is not clear if there are any areas in the Peconic Estuary system which function similarly. This should be studied because if similar de facto spawner sanctuaries exist in the Peconic Estuary, some harvesting restrictions should be considered, particularly if efforts to improve water quality and reduce pathogen contamination are successful and these areas could be re opened to shellfishing. Certified areas should also be examined for potential Peconic Estuary Program CCMP C H A P T E R F O U R 4 54 designations as spawner sanctuaries. Spawner sanctuaries for scallops are viewed by NYSDEC as having more potential to succeed in the Peconic Estuary System.

Habitat Protection and Pollution Prevention A variety of habitats are important to different finfish species that use the Peconic Estuary System. A number of coastal migratory species use the system as spawning, nursery, or feeding grounds. These include weakfish, tautog, winter flounder, scup, bluefish, butterfish, and summer flounder. Habitats which are of importance to these species for a variety of reasons include shallow subtidal areas, both vegetated ( eelgrass) and unvegetated, deep subtidal areas ( sandy and muddy substrate), and intertidal salt marshes ( feeding over both vegetated Spartina beds and unvegetated flats). These habitats should be identified, protected, and restored to enhance shellfish and fish stocks. Principal threats to these include: physical and chemical impacts from shoreline hardening structures; physical and chemical inputs from runoff; and physical, chemical and biological impacts to eelgrass beds.

Steps HLR 12.1 Collect better statistical data on commercial and recreational fishing landings and by Priority catch specific to the Peconic Estuary System.

HLR 12.2 Identify, protect, and restore key shellfish and finfish spawning, nursery, and feeding Priority habitats in the Peconic Estuary to enhance shellfish and fish stocks and incorporate this data into the on going Essential Fish Habitat work being conducted under the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission ( ASMFC).

HLR 12.3 Support the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program.

HLR 12.4 Support the fishery management plans which have been and are being developed by the Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Council ( MAFMC) and the ASMFC.

HLR 12.5 Ensure the enforcement of existing regulations on both commercial and recreational fisheries.

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

HLR 12.7 Develop a public education program about the value of fish and fishing and the importance of commercial and recreational fishing regulations and compliance with the regulations.

HLR 12.8 Support the prevention, or at least minimization, of the effects on finfish and non target species by lost or incorrectly designed fishing gear. Measures to be supported include: ( 1) developing a program to encourage commercial and recreational fishermen to retrieve and properly dispose of fishing line, nets, traps, pots, and other gear; ( 2) work with the AMI to develop a campaign for dockside recovery and recycling programs; ( 3) support implementation of fishery regulations requiring escape vents and degradable panels in fish and lobster pots; ( 4) implementing fishery regulations requiring minimum mesh size for gill, fyke, and otter trawl nets; and ( 5) promoting the use of fishing gears that minimize by catch and discard ( e. g., pound nets). Peconic Estuary Program CCMP C H A P T E R F O U R 4 55 HLR 12.9 Implement CZARA section 6217 BMPs regarding fish waste at marinas and on docks. Develop public education materials for distribution at marinas, bait and tackle shops, and other related businesses detailing these BMPs.

HLR 12.10 Expand the monitoring and analysis of the NYSDEC finfish trawl survey to the east of Shelter Island and coordinate with PEP Living Resources Research, Monitoring, Assessment Plan.

HLR 12.11 Examine the role of areas uncertified for shellfishing as " spawner sanctuaries" for shellfish species.

HLR 12.12 On a biennial cycle, perform deep and shallow water shellfish abundance surveys.

Responsible Entities HLR 12.1 NOAA/ NMFS and NYSDEC ( co leads)

HLR 12.2 PEP, NOAA/ NMFS, ASMFC, New York Sea Grant Institute, NYSDEC, and local universities and colleges HLR 12.3 NMFS, NYSDEC, and PEP ( co leads)

HLR 12.4 NYSDEC, PEP ( co leads), ASMFC, NMFS, and MAFMC HLR 12.5 NYSDEC Division of Law Enforcement ( lead), Suffolk County Marine Police, and town bay constables HLR 12.6 PEP MC, NYSDEC, and NMFS.

HLR 12.7 PEP Public Education and Outreach program ( lead), NYSDEC, Sea Grant, CCE  Marine Program, AMI, and marina and fishing business owners HLR 12.8 NMFS, NYSDEC, NYS Sea Grant ( co leads), CCE, AMI, and commercial and recreational fishing community HLR 12.9 PEP Public Education and Outreach program ( lead), AMI, marina owners, other business owners, NYSDEC, Sea Grant, and CCE  Marine Program HLR 12.10 NYSDEC ( lead) and PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee HLR 12.11 PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee ( lead), NYSDEC, and CCE HLR 12.12 PEP through contractor Peconic Estuary Program CCMP C H A P T E R F O U R 4 56 Addresses Habitat and Living Resources Management Objectives 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8.

Shorebird nests and chicks on open beaches are vulnerable to disturbance, injury, and death from vehicles, humans, and unleashed dogs, predators such as foxes, crows, raccoons, gulls, and cats, and flooding. However, many of these impacts can be reduced through careful habitat management and public education. For example, research and monitoring has shown that shorebird chicks and eggs are extremely vulnerable to off road vehicles and noise from motorized watercraft near or within their nesting and feeding habitat. Vehicular disturbance can lead to abandonment of nests, injury or death of eggs and chicks, or reduced ability to feed, leading to malnourishment. Seasonally restricting the use of vehicles and watercraft on or in the vicinity of nesting and feeding shorebirds can aid in the recovery of these species. Therefore, the current county and town practice of selling beach driving permits may not be compatible with a management goal of protecting critical nesting and feeding habitat of rare shorebirds.

Plovers and terns are so vulnerable to disturbance that they need annual management. Since it is unreasonable to ban the public from beaches, signs and fences should be placed around nesting and feeding habitat to protect the birds during the breeding season. Since the plovers begin nesting in mid to late April, every effort should be made to find and fence each pair's early season nest to ensure a high rate of fledglings before the Fourth of July. Fencing and posting also protects the landowner from a " taking" under the Federal Endangered Species Act. Terns that are protected by New York State need their nesting habitat protected from mid May to mid August. Existing state and local programs generally are underfunded and understaffed to carry out the recommended fencing and monitoring.

The USFWS has developed guidelines to manage recreational activities in piping plover breeding habitat. Compliance with these guidelines will assist in the recovery of threatened and endangered species and conservation of other coastal species. Implementing these guidelines will also ensure that violations of Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act are avoided. The guidelines provide a variety of management options intended to prevent mortality, harm, and/ or harassment of piping plovers and their eggs due to recreational activities.

Management is best accomplished when the cause for bird mortality is known and qualified with documentation so that the management actions can be targeted to site specific threats. Therefore, intensive monitoring and threat documentation is very important.

Steps HLR 13.1 Strengthen existing municipal shorebird ( terns and plovers) management programs to Priority ensure timely fencing and erection of enclosures, adequate monitoring and reporting, and management of recreation and other activities within nesting and feeding habitat. Implement the 1997 Suffolk County Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation Piping Plover Protection Program and the NYSDEC Bureau of Wildlife 1998 Action Plan for Piping Plover Conservation in New York. HLR 13 Protect Nesting and Feeding Habitat of Shorebirds. Peconic Estuary Program CCMP C H A P T E R F O U R 4 57 HLR 13.2 Restrict the use of off road vehicles and small watercraft in shorebird nesting areas during breeding season ( April   August).

HLR 13.3 Consult with the USFWS to comply with Federal guidelines for managing recreational activities in piping plover breeding habitat.

HLR 13.4 Document threats to nesting shorebirds ( plovers and terns) such as off road vehicles, predation, and recreation, and develop and implement measures that lead to higher productivity and larger nesting populations.

Responsible Entities HLR 13.1 NYSDEC; Suffolk County Parks Department; Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Southold, Shelter Island, and Riverhead; villages; Trustees; The Nature Conservancy; and USFWS ( co leads)

HLR 13.2 OPRHP, Suffolk County Parks Department; Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Southold, Shelter Island, and Riverhead; villages; and NYSDEC for DEC owned properties ( co leads)

HLR 13.3 Beach managers including Federal ( USFWS), State, Suffolk County, towns, and property owners ( co leads)

HLR 13.4 East End towns and NYSDEC Peconic Estuary Program CCMP C H A P T E R F O U R 4 58 Addresses Habitat and Living Resources Management Objectives 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8.

The Kemp's ridley, loggerhead, and green sea turtles use the Peconic Estuary as important developmental habitat when they are juveniles. Leatherback turtles are found to a much lesser extent in the estuary. All of these species of turtles are Federally listed as either endangered or threatened. Therefore, any activities that kill, injure, or significantly disturb the behavior of these organisms are of concern.

Sea turtles are most frequently sighted in Southold Bay, Orient Harbor, Noyack Bays, the waters from Accabonac Harbor to Napeague Harbor, including the embayments, and the waters off Plum Island, Great Gull Island, Gardiners Island, and Jessup's Neck. Current activities that may directly or indirectly kill, injure, or disturb turtles include boating and dredging. Activities in the system which are not of concern yet, but which have the potential to expand and result in more frequent turtle encounters, are large scale, intensive aquaculture projects or relatively large scale, poorly designed artificial reefs. All the current activities and all proposed activities in these areas should be reviewed with the impact on sea turtles in mind.

Under New York State Environmental Conservation Law Article 11, Section 0107, it is illegal to injure or cause the death of harbor seals. It is also illegal under this law to buy, sell, transport, or have possession of these animals. The law was implemented a number of years ago when the harbor seal was the only species of pinniped found in New York waters. Currently, there are five species of seals that are found in these waters, of which three have become fairly common. In order to protect these species, as well as other marine mammals, such as the bottlenose dolphin and the harbor porpoise, this law should be expanded.

Steps HLR 14.1 Review uses of areas which have been identified as sea turtle and marine mammal feeding areas and consider what restrictions may be necessary to be more protective of these species and their food resources.

HLR 14.2 Evaluate the expansion of existing laws to ensure that all species of seals as well as other marine mammals are protected from intentional injury or death.

HLR 14.3 Expand New York State law protecting harbor seals ( ECL Article 11, Section 0107) to include all species of seals in NYS marine waters.

Responsible Entities HLR 14.1 NYS agencies ( e. g., NYSDEC, NYSDOS, NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, NYS Office of General Services) ( co leads), Suffolk County, and Towns HLR 14.2 NYS agencies ( e. g., NYSDEC, NYSDOS, NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, NYS Office of General Services) ( co leads), SCDHS, and towns HLR 14.3 New York State Legislature and NYSDEC ( co leads) HLR 14 Protect Sea Turtles and Marine Mammals. Peconic Estuary Program CCMP C H A P T E R F O U R 4 59 Addresses Habitat and Living Resources Management Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8.

Measures are needed to counteract the effects of increasing human populations and development of the lands and waters of the watershed surrounding the estuary. The pressure on the natural system, if not controlled or mitigated, will result in replacement or loss of natural habitats ( conversion to lawns and gardens, hardening of the shoreline resulting in lost wetlands, increased siltation and lowered salinity from runoff); increased introduction of toxic chemicals and excess nutrients to surface and ground waters as a result of increases in impervious surface areas and other inputs ( pesticides, herbicides, household chemicals, septic systems, fertilizers); and displacement of wildlife ( shorebirds, diamondback terrapins, small mammals, indigenous plant communities). With proper planning and management, residents and visitors will be able to continue to use and enjoy the many resources the estuary has to offer for generations to come; the finfishery and shellfishery resources of the estuary can also be sustained and improve as viable economic resources. Otherwise, the estuary risks becoming unproductive ecologically and economically.

Planning Coordinated land use planning and comprehensive planning on a local level can be used to ensure protection of natural resources and habitats from cumulative impacts. A master plan, especially when developed in conjunction with those of other towns, is a powerful tool for managing the way in which an area is developed. The East End of Long Island is under increasing pressure for development. It will require careful planning and uniform implementation to ensure that increases in population do not overwhelm the natural resources that make the East End such a desirable place to live. The development of a master plan in each town and minimization of variances allowed are good measures for achieving such control. Towards this action, the Towns of East Hampton, Southold, and Southampton are in the process of developing Local Waterfront Revitalization Plans. The Villages of Greenport and Sag Harbor have already adopted such plans. These types of plans can be used to address the need for public access and the impacts associated with public demands for open space. Providing well sited and well planned public access points protects habitat and meets the public's demand while building a constituency for enhanced protection of natural habitat and species populations. Planning is needed to ensure that access points are coupled with the right kind of space to accommodate different uses: places to fish, places to swim, places close to wildlife habitat for observation, safe places for boating including support facilities, and places to walk along the water. People must be able to enjoy and appreciate a clean estuary for there to be continuing support for further investments to improve water quality and coastal habitats. PEP supports maintaining a balance between the needs and opportunities for public access and the requirements for sustaining living resources.

One local plan that has been used successfully in the estuary is the Harbor Protection Overlay District ( HPOD). The Town of East Hampton created the HPOD to address developments on waterfront property. The HPOD imposes restrictions on newly developed or redeveloped waterfront property. A number of these restrictions are particularly useful in the protection of living resources, such as HLR 15 Utilize Land Use Planning, BMPs, and Other Management Measures to Reduce the Negative Impacts of Human Uses and Development on the Estuary System. Peconic Estuary Program CCMP C H A P T E R F O U R 4 60 requirements that the shoreline be maintained with a natural buffer made up of native vegetation. The PEP encourages other towns to adopt similar planning measures.

Regulations already exist that protect natural resources of the estuary from human impacts ( e. g., NYS freshwater and tidal wetland regulations that require minimum setbacks for house and sanitary systems and vegetated buffer zones). Statewide plans are also useful tools for protecting estuary resources. New York has developed a State Coastal Nonpoint Management Plan in response to CZARA Section 6217. This plan addresses all of the categories of nonpoint source pollution which have been identified as being of concern in the Peconic Estuary System and recommends BMPs or management measures for controlling sources of nonpoint pollution in coastal waters. Many of these BMPs are protective of habitat and living resources. The PEP should work with local governments and other agencies to implement BMPs and encourage or require land owners to adopt BMPs.

Another plan that is protective of the Peconic Estuary is the Areawide Contingency Plan for dealing with large oil spills. This plan, which was developed by the U. S. Coast Guard ( USCG), in conjunction with other Federal and State agencies, is periodically revised and updated. The review period provides an opportunity for the PEP to contribute information with regard to critical areas and species of concern in the estuary such as waterfowl ( ducks and geese), waterbirds ( herons, terns, etc.), sea turtles, and marine mammals. In addition, this plan could be a conduit for including PEP stakeholders in clean up efforts for large spills. At this time, there are no trained wildlife rehabilitators to care for the species most at risk from a large scale oil spill. In order to be prepared for this contingency, local rehabilitators should be encouraged to take training in handling oiled wildlife. The NYSDEC and USCG could then include them in the clean up effort for a large spill.

The use of town councils or planning boards for reviewing actions that affect public lands and open space is another tool for minimizing cumulative impacts of development and population growth. Currently, the Town of Southampton has a Conservation Advisory Board; the Towns of East Hampton, Southold, and Shelter Island have Conservation Advisory Councils. State legislation exists which enables towns to increase the status of these councils in order to provide them with a role in reviewing Town Board actions. Any action that may be taken by a Board, which would have an effect on the overall open space of a town, is reviewed by the Conservation Advisory Board and appropriate recommendations are made. Such reviews may provide the Town Board with important information on the impacts of individual actions on the entire inventory of open space and its management in the town.

All of these planning and management efforts will not be successful if they are not conducted in a coordinated manner. One way to ensure that these protection and conservation efforts are implemented in a coordinated manner is to develop a group such as the Protected Lands Council, which has been established for the management of the Pine Barrens. The Council includes all groups that manage the Pine Barrens for preservation and ensure that uses are managed equitably. The Council fosters communication and cooperation among the managers in order to use staff and financial resources more efficiently. It may be possible to expand this group to include the management of lands throughout the Peconic River and estuary watershed. Alternatively, it may be more feasible to establish a similar group for the estuary that includes different entities, since the PEP CCMP and the Pine Barrens Plan have different goals. Peconic Estuary Program CCMP C H A P T E R F O U R 4 61 Steps HLR 15.1 Each town should develop a master or comprehensive management plan, coordinated Priority with plans of other towns that increases the level of protection of natural resources and habitats and accounts for cumulative impacts.

HLR 15.2 Increase public access to the estuary consistent with other ecosystem objectives. Priority HLR 15.3 Develop and implement a Harbor Protection Overlay District such as that developed by the Town of East Hampton and include it in the master plan for each town.

HLR 15.4 Develop implementation mechanisms for all measures required by Section 6217( g) of CZARA that are applicable to the Peconic Estuary. These measures would include BMPs for the use of natural vegetation, minimization of impervious surfaces, safe and reasonable use of lawn, garden, and household chemicals, and minimization of stormwater runoff. Incorporate these BMPs into the site plan requirements for all newlydeveloped and redeveloped property, particularly along the shoreline.

HLR 15.5 Use the Protected Lands Council of the Central Pine Barrens Comprehensive Land Use Plan as a model for developing a similar coalition of public agencies and conservation organizations to address common issues of concern throughout the estuary.

HLR 15.6 Encourage towns with existing Conservation Advisory Councils or planning staff, to be given the responsibility as Conservation Advisory or Planning Boards to review proposed Town Board actions as they affect public lands and open space concerns.

HLR 15.7 Review and provide comments to NYSDEC on any revisions to the Statewide Oil Spill Areawide Contingency Plan for the Peconic Estuary relating to waterfowl, marine mammals, and sea turtles and their rehabilitation if oiled. Develop and distribute information on reporting and responding to small scale spills.

HLR 15.8 Develop regulations for new marinas or expansion of existing marinas which include the following ( from CZARA section 6217): ( 1) assessment of water quality conditions during and after construction; ( 2) site and design such that tides and/ or currents will aid in the flushing of the site or renew its water regularly; ( 3) site and design to protect against adverse effects on shellfish resources, wetlands, submerged aquatic vegetation, or other important riparian and aquatic habitat areas as designated by local, State, or Federal governments; ( 4) designate and enforce no wake zones and ensure that shoreline areas are stabilized effectively by vegetative means; and ( 5) require effective stormwater runoff control measures to reduce sediment and toxic inputs.

Responsible Entities HLR 15.1 Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Southold, Shelter Island, and Riverhead; and NYSDOS ( co leads); EPA, NYSDEC, SCDHS HLR 15.2 All Federal, state, and local governmental agencies in the PEP watershed ( co leads); NYSDEC Peconic Estuary Program CCMP C H A P T E R F O U R 4 62 HLR 15.3 NYSDOS ( lead); Towns of Southampton, Southold, Shelter Island, and Riverhead HLR 15.4 NYSDEC, NYSDOS, PEP Education and Outreach Program ( co leads), Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District, SCDHS, USDA NRCS, CCE, NY Sea Grant, Peconic BayKeeper, SCDHS HLR 15.5 PEP and Pine Barrens Commission and Protected Lands Council ( co leads); Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Southold, Shelter Island, Riverhead; NYSDEC; SCDHS HLR 15.6 Towns of East Hampton, Southold, Shelter Island, and Riverhead ( co leads)

HLR 15.7 PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee in conjunction with the USCG, NYSDEC, USFWS ( co leads); Rehabilitation: local wildlife rehabilitators ( licensed); Education: PEP Public Education and Outreach program in conjunction with the USCF, NYSDEC, and USFWS; BMPs: NYSDOS; AMI; Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Southold, Shelter Island; and Riverhead; and villages HLR 15.8 NYSDEC ( lead); SCDHS; EPA; PEP; Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Southold, Shelter Island, and Riverhead; AMI; and private marina owners Peconic Estuary Program CCMP C H A P T E R F O U R 4 63 Addresses Habitat and Living Resources Management Objectives 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8.

Although humans have lived around and worked in the Peconic Estuary for thousands of years, a relatively small amount of scientific research has been performed on the living resources of this system. To understand the impacts of humans and their activities on this system, there must be a better understanding of how the estuary functions ecologically. This understanding can only be achieved through a focused research, monitoring, and assessment effort ( RM& A).

Monitoring involves the multi year collection of data on living resources and water quality to understand natural variability of populations over time as well as changes in those populations which result from human influences. Monitoring certain sensitive species or communities as overall indicators of ecosystem health can be a valuable tool in keeping track of conditions which may stress a system. Data from monitoring programs can provide an " early warning" about the declining health of the estuary. Monitoring living resources is needed for the estuary system.

As part of the process of developing this CCMP, the PEP identified and performed a number of priority characterization projects. Many of the important questions about the system could not be answered, however, due to time and funding constraints. The PEP now needs to identify and prioritize all of the remaining research and monitoring needs and develop an RM& A Program. The RM& A Program will define the critical research questions that need to be answered, facilitate coordination among various new and ongoing research, monitoring, and assessment programs, and identify private and public sources of funding. The RM& A Program would outline monitoring needs, agencies, and organizations responsible for conducting monitoring activities, funding sources, and methods for coordination with ongoing programs. The development of integrated water quality and living resource indicators should also be included in the RM& A Program. The PEP sponsored a workshop in 1998 involving scientists and participants of the PEP Management Conference to develop a framework for the RM& A Program.

Topics already identified by the PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee for inclusion in the Program poses questions regarding finfish spawning, larval development, and recruitment to the fishery; population dynamics of the benthic communities of the system; distribution, abundance, and growth, including habitat use and preference, by juvenile and forage fish; and the links among these different components of the food web.

One of the monitoring needs identified by the PEP includes monitoring eelgrass by aerial photographic interpretation, appropriate groundtruthing, periodic mapping, and other surveillance techniques to adequately assess trends in eelgrass distribution, abundance and overall health. Given the recent decline in eelgrass beds over the last decade, a long term commitment to eelgrass monitoring is essential to provide adequate management, preservation, and restoration measures. HLR 16 Develop and Implement a Living Resources Research, Monitoring, and Assessment Program. Peconic Estuary Program CCMP C H A P T E R F O U R 4 64 Additional research, monitoring, and assessment needs identified by the PEP include the following:

1) impacts of macroalgae and toxic contaminants on eelgrass distribution and abundance;

2) distribution, abundance, habitat preferences, and life stage requirements of forage fish species, horseshoe crabs, slipper shells, bay scallops and hard clams;

3) critical spawning habitats for local populations of winter founder;

4) basic food web ecology;

5) benthic habitat mapping;

6) assessing and monitoring the impacts of shoreline hardening on habitat and living resources; and,

7) effects of sea level rise on saltmarsh distributions and shallow water habitats.

Information sharing, coordination of research and monitoring efforts, and funding and incentives for increased research and monitoring are needed to ensure that research, monitoring, and assessment activities within the Peconic Estuary System are successful.

Dissemination of research and monitoring information is essential to evaluate progress made in restoration and conservation efforts and develop improved methods for research, monitoring, and stewardship of our important natural resources. A biennial conference would provide an opportunity for scientists to meet together with managers and the public to review and discuss findings. By creating an accessible database of natural resources, data would be available in a standard, meaningful format that could be used by managers, researchers, and stewards of the Peconic Estuary.

Although the Peconic Bays are an excellent estuarine laboratory for basic and applied research by universities ( e. g., SUNY Stony Brook), colleges ( e. g., LIU Southampton College), institutions ( e. g., Brookhaven National Laboratory), and public and private schools, very little basic and applied research takes place here. Necessary incentives to encourage researchers to focus their scientific inquiries here need to be identified, developed, and promoted. Establishing a research center/ scientific platform and targeting funding are two incentives which can support cutting edge marine research and monitoring.

Other National Estuary Programs have embarked on research projects, which have resulted in significant findings about marine systems that are applicable to many estuaries. The PEP should participate in coordinated research and information exchange with other National Estuary Programs.

Steps HLR 16.1 Develop and implement a research program for the Peconic Estuary and its watershed to Priority investigate natural processes, impairments, and links to water quality, maintenance of systems and species, and effects of recreation and pollution on biodiversity, among other research needs. Investigate and seek funding sources for supporting implementation of the program ( e. g., National Estuarine Research Reserve Systems) Peconic Estuary Program CCMP C H A P T E R F O U R 4 65 HLR 16.2 Develop a long term program for monitoring and assessment of living resources in the Priority Peconic Estuary that is coordinated with the development of a research plan and ongoing research and monitoring efforts.

HLR 16.3 Support research on the interactions between eelgrass and the dominant macroalgae species in the Peconic Estuary to determine impacts of macroalgae on eelgrass distribution and abundance.

HLR 16.4 Perform research and monitoring of forage fish species, horseshoe crabs, and conch in the Peconic Estuary to understand their distribution ( temporal and spatial), abundance, habitat preferences, and different life stage requirements to develop management strategies.

HLR 16.5 Perform research on the ecology of food sources of sea turtles to evaluate the importance of the Peconic Estuary to them and potential threats to these endangered and threatened species.

HLR 16.6 Research the lethal, sublethal, and synergistic effects of elevated nutrients, toxic chemicals, and Brown Tide on the reproduction and behavior of finfish and invertebrate species.

HLR 16.7 Determine the effects of navigational dredging on shallow water communities and the recovery time of benthic communities exposed to dredging.

HLR 16.8 Ensure implementation of adequate mapping and monitoring programs to track trends in the extent and quality of eelgrass, and to evaluate progress towards reaching restoration goals.

HLR 16.9 Establish a scientific panel to review research, monitoring, and assessment data, and to offer guidance in management of the habitats and living resources in the Peconics.

HLR 16.10 Organize an annual or biennial conference to report research, monitoring, and assessment results to the public and guide management decisions.

HLR 16.11 Establish and maintain an accessible database of natural resources in the Peconic Estuary.

HLR 16.12 Promote research and monitoring opportunities in the Peconic Estuary to local schools, colleges, universities, and institutes by establishing funding and scientific platforms and other incentives to facilitate basic and applied marine research.

HLR 16.13 Seek opportunities to link research and monitoring in the Peconic Estuary System to related estuaries and regional studies.

HLR 16.14 Support priorities listed in the Living Resources Research, Monitoring, and Assessment Plan including research on ecosystem productivity and ecosystem structure, bioindicators, and effects of global climate change on wetlands. Peconic Estuary Program CCMP C H A P T E R F O U R 4 66 Responsible Entities HLR 16.1 Plan development and coordination: PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee and the Marine Conservation Planner ( co leads) in consultation with other members of the PEP Management Conference and technical experts; Plan implementation: PEP Management Conference, NYSDEC, NYSDOS, New York Sea Grant Institute, and SCDHS ( co leads)

HLR 16.2 Monitoring plan: PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee and Marine Conservation Planner ( co leads) in conjunction with NYSDEC; SCDHS; Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Southold, Shelter Island, and Riverhead; Plan implementation: PEP in conjunction with NYSDEC ( co leads); SCDHS; Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Southold, Shelter Island, and Riverhead; Cornell Cooperative Extension; local universities and colleges; and NY Sea Grant HLR 16.3 Plan development: PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee and the Marine Conservation Planner ( co leads) in consultation with other members of the PEP Management Conference and technical experts; Plan implementation: PEP Management Conference, NYSDEC, NYSDOS, New York Sea Grant Institute, and SCDHS ( co leads)

HLR 16.4 PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee, NYSDEC, Marine Conservation Planner ( coleads and technical experts through the PEP long term research plan HLR 16.5 PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee ( lead) and technical experts through the PEP longterm research plan HLR 16.6 PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee ( lead) and technical experts through the PEP longterm research plan, NY Sea Grant HLR 16.7 PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee ( lead) and technical experts to define specific research questions, USACE, SCDPW, and NYSDEC HLR 16.8 PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee ( lead) and PEP Management Council ( co leads)

HLR 16.9 PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee ( lead)

HLR 16.10 PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee in conjunction with EPA, NYSDEC ( co leads), SCDHS, and local universities and colleges HLR 16.11 PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee ( lead)

HLR 16.12 PEP, NY Sea Grant, EPA ( co leads), NOAA, NYS Marine Educators Association ( MEA), and Cornell Cooperative Extension  Marine Program HLR 16.13 Association of NEPs, EPA, PEP ( co leads), NY Sea Grant, and NOAA HLR 16.14 PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee Peconic Estuary Program CCMP C H A P T E R F O U R 4 67 Addresses Habitat and Living Resources Management Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8.

Grazer and filter feeding organisms, such as zooplankton, clams, scallops, menhaden, and sponges, are vital to the estuary ecosystem. Filter feeders, particularly shellfish, filter large volumes of bay water over relatively short time periods. They can affect water quality and exert significant influence on the size, type, and abundance of phytoplankton. Conversely, changes in phytoplankton species composition can affect the diversity and abundance of grazers and filter feeders. For example, preliminary Brown Tide research findings by Caron and Lonsdale have resulted in a working hypothesis that reduced shellfish populations prior to the first Brown Tide in the Peconics may have led to significant reduction in grazing pressure on phytoplankton, thereby allowing the onset of Brown Tide. Brown Tide, changes in the nutrient regime, and harvesting of shellfish and finfish can shift the abundance, diversity, and temporal and spatial distribution of grazers and filter feeders. Understanding the food web dynamics and " top down" control of productivity can therefore, be equally important to the management of the Peconic Estuary as that of nutrient cycling (" bottom up"). A working group is needed to examine these issues more closely and evaluate the relationship between filter feeders and water quality, as well as to link other PEP efforts and to identify potential management applications.

The work group should include Brown Tide researchers, shellfish and fishery scientists, marine ecologists, baymen, aquaculturists, water quality modelers, resource managers and regulators.

Issues:

1) Understanding the relationship of grazer and filter feeder diversity and abundance with phytoplankton diversity and abundance;

2) How to enhance shellfish and finfish stocks to accommodate harvesting while also maintaining sufficient populations that are adequate to fulfill ecological functions; and 3) Need for collaboration between related Peconic Estuary efforts, such as the Brown Tide Research Initiative ( BTRI), water quality modeling, estuary wide aquaculture plan work group, and finfish monitoring.

Steps HLR 17.1 Review appropriate scientific literature, identify information gaps, and develop research recommendations regarding how shellfish, finfish and other " top down" predators influence water quality and the planktonic community.

HLR 17.2 Develop research, monitoring, and assessment needs for quantifying food web dynamics.

HLR 17.3 Develop food web sub models to be included in the nutrient model to evaluate the sensitivity of productivity to anthropogenic changes in nutrient supply. HLR 17 Establish a Working Group to Examine the Role of Grazers and Filter Feeding Organisms in Influencing Water Quality and Productivity, and to Better Understand the Food Web Dynamics and to Develop Management Applications. Peconic Estuary Program CCMP C H A P T E R F O U R 4 68 HLR 17.4 Consult with the BTRI and the estuary wide aquaculture plan work group to develop management recommendations for " top down" regulation of water quality and Brown Tide in the Peconic Estuary.

HLR 17.5 Facilitate communication among BTRI, water quality managers and the estuary wide aquaculture plan work group.

Responsible Entities HLR 17.1 PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee ( lead) through contractor HLR 17.2 PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee ( lead) and marine conservation planner HLR 17.3 PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee through contractor ( lead) in consultation with other members of the PEP Management Conference and technical experts HLR 17.4 PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee ( lead) in consultation with other members of the PEP Management Conference and technical experts; NYSDEC, NYSDOS, New York Sea Grant Institute, SCDHS, BTRI researchers, SUNY Stony Brook, Cornell, and commercial aquaculture facilities in the Peconics HLR 17.5 PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee ( lead) in consultation with other members of the PEP Management Conference and technical experts; NYSDEC, NYSDOS, New York Sea Grant Institute, SCDHS, BTRI researchers, SUNY Stony Brook, Cornell, and commercial aquaculture facilities in the Peconics BENEFITS OF THE MANAGEMENT ACTIONS Implementation of these management actions will greatly benefit the Peconic Estuary by protecting rare and endangered species, enhancing ecological communities throughout the system, restoring degraded habitats to increase biodiversity, protecting high quality areas where there are concentrations of exemplary examples of natural communities, improving our understanding and assessment of impacts on natural resources, and providing sustainable commercial and recreational fisheries. These management recommendations also include important actions that can be taken to mitigate stress by minimizing impacts to living resources and habitats crucial to their survival.

The estuary is on the brink of being seriously impacted by overuse. By setting management actions that foster commercial and recreational use that is sustainable and compatible with protection of biodiversity, stakeholders can ensure an important balance between preservation and the wise use of the bays' natural resources. EAI's Economic Value Assessment and Finance Plan may contain quantifiable benefits to highlight these claims. Peconic Estuary Program CCMP C H A P T E R F O U R 4 69 COSTS OF THE MANAGEMENT ACTIONS The individual cost for each management action is provided in Table 4 1.

The total cost of all new actions proposed for the Habitat and Living Resources management in this chapter is $ 9,088,750 in one time costs and $ 1,881,250 annually. ( See " Action Costs" in Chapter 1 for an explanation of how these costs were determined.)

HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES ACTIONS SUMMARY TABLE Table 4 1 provides the following summary information about each of the actions presented in this chapter. Priority Habitat and Living Resources steps are also identified in the table. These priorities were decided by the PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee.

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

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

Cost Information in the cost column represents the PEP's best estimate of the costs associated with action implementation. " Base Program" means that no new or additional funds will be needed outside of the responsible entity's operating budget to implement the action. Where additional funding is needed, resources to implement an action may be expressed in dollar amounts or work years or both. One full time equivalent employee or " FTE" is estimated as costing $ 75,000 per year, which includes salary, fringe benefits and indirect costs. The " Action Costs" description in both Chapter 1 and Chapter 9 provides a expanded explanation of base programs and action costs. C H A P T E R F O U R 4 70 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Table 4 1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions.

Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status HLR 1 Use Critical Natural Resource Areas ( CNRAS) to Develop and Implement Management Strategies to Protect High Quality Habitats and Concentrations of Species of Special Emphasis. ( Objectives 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8)

HLR 1.1 Priority Collect and interpret natural resource, water quality, and land use data sets. Use GIS technology to finalize a comprehensive inventory of species, natural communities and water quality, refine maps ( including development of maps of each CNRA), and evaluate individual and cumulative threats within each CNRA. NYSDEC, The Nature Conservatory ( co leads) with towns and USFWS assistance Post CCMP $ 150,000 for contractor assistance NYSDEC   1.0 FTE TNC   1.0 FTE Towns   0.1 FTE USFWS   0.2 FTE R HLR 1.2 Priority Finalize CNRA boundaries and adopt CNRAs by appropriate levels of government. NYSDEC; The Nature Conservancy ( co leads); PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee; Towns of East Hampton, Southampton,

Southold, Shelter Island,

Riverhead, and Brookhaven;

NYSDEC; OPRHP; Suffolk County Parks Department;

USFWS; NYSDOS Post CCMP NYSDEC   0.3 FTE SCDHS   0.3 FTE PEP   0.3 FTE TNC   0.3 FTE USFWS   0.3 FTE Towns   0.2 FTE each SC Parks   0.3 FTE R Table continued next page Peconic Estuary Program Draft Final CCMP October 2000 C H A P T E R F O U R 4 71 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Table 4 1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. ( continued)

Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status HLR 1.3 Priority Develop management recommendations and plans to protect CNRAs in each town in coordination with existing Federal,

State, county, and municipal programs that address individual and potential cumulative impacts including but not limited to docks,

shoreline stabilization structures,

dredging, marinas, artificial reefs,

fish farms, shellfish culture, fishing,

pesticides, golf courses, motorized personal watercraft, swimming pools, sewage treatment and disposal, building and adjacent upland development, and clearing of vegetation. NYSDEC, The Nature Conservancy ( co leads) to assist local governments in coordination with PEP Management Conference,

EPA, SCDHS . Post Completion of HLR 1.1 and HLR 1.2 EPA   0.05 FTE NYSDEC   0.9 FTE SCDHS   0.5 FTE TNC   0.5 FTE Towns   1.0 FTE each R HLR 1.4 Priority Protect the CNRAs through land acquisition and other protection tools ( e. g., clearing restrictions,

setback requirements, zoning,

Transfer of Development Rights)

principally within the areas themselves and including essential watershed buffers ( see Chapter 7). NYSDEC; NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation; Suffolk County Planning Department;

Towns of East Hampton,

Southampton, Southold,

Shelter Island, Riverhead,

and Brookhaven Ongoing ( Significant funding has been allocated for acquisition estuary wide. See Chapters 7 and 9. C/ O Table continued next page C H A P T E R F O U R 4 72 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Table 4 1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. ( continued)

Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status HLR 1.5 Prohibit the installation of new shoreline hardening structures within CNRAs. Investigate ecologically enhancing, innovative designs to replace or use as an alternative to hard structures. Prohibit installation: Towns of East Hampton,

Southampton, Southold,

Shelter Island, Riverhead,

villages, NYSDEC;

Investigate new designs:

NYSDEC, TNC, EPA,

SCDHS, Peconic BayKeeper Subsequent to completion of HLR 1.2 Prohibit installation: Base Program; Investigate new designs: $ 50,000 EPA   0.1 FTE NYSDEC   0.8 FTE SCDHS   0.5 FTE TNC   0.5 FTE Towns   0.5 FTE each Peconic BayKeeper   0.2 FTE R HLR 1.6 Coordinate PEP recommendations for CNRAs with the NYSDOS Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat Program and Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan Programs. NYSDOS ( lead), NYSDEC,

PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee Fall 1999 NYSDEC   0.1 FTE PEP   0.1 FTE NYSDOS   0.2 FTE C/ O HLR 1.7 Encourage increased use of the NYSDOS Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat Program guidelines by appropriate Federal, State, county,

and municipal agencies. NYSDOS ( lead), NYSDEC,

Towns, USACE, USFWS,

NMFS Ongoing NYSDOS   0.2 FTE NYSDEC   0.1 FTE C/ O HLR 1.8 Examine the possibility of establishing marine reserves ( e. g., protect eelgrass beds) within the CNRAs. PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee, EPA,

NYSDEC, SCDHS Post CCMP EPA   0.05 FTE NYSDEC   0.05 FTE SCDHS   0.05 FTE PEP   0.05 FTE R HLR 1.9 Discourage expansion of existing marinas and the creation of new ones within the PEP CNRAs. The marina expansion and creation issue will be further evaluated as part of a comprehensive strategy dealing with shoreline hardening, marinas, docks,

and public access ( see HLR 1.3). Contingent upon adoption of CNRAs ( see HLR 1.2) Post completion of HLR 1.2 Base Program R Table continued on next page Peconic Estuary Program Draft Final CCMP October 2000 C H A P T E R F O U R 4 73 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Table 4 1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. ( continued)

Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status HLR 2 Manage Shoreline Stabilization, Docks, Piers, and Flow Restriction Structures to Reduce or Prevent Additional Hardening and Encourage Restoration of Hardened Shorelines to a Natural State. ( Objectives 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8)

HLR 2.1 Priority Quantify and map all hardened shoreline, docks and piers, and flow restriction structures in the Peconic Estuary and assess the overall impacts of stabilization structures on natural resources.

Develop recommendations to promote alternative shoreline management and incentives for maintaining and restoring natural shorelines. Contract with Cornell and USFWS Develop recommendations:

NYSDEC, EPA, SCDHS,

NYSDOS, Towns Due: Spring 2001 Post CCMP ($ 65,000 NEP funds allocated)

Develop recommendations:

NYSDEC   0.2 FTE EPA   0.1 FTE SCDHS   0.1 FTE NYSDOS   0.2 FTE Towns   0.1 FTE each C/ O R HLR 2.2 Review existing regulations for shoreline hardening structures at all levels of government, encourage consistent policies and strengthen regulations where appropriate. PEP Natural Resources subcommittee through contractor Post CCMP $ 50,000 R HLR 2.3 Priority Establish and enforce a policy of no net increase" of hardened shoreline in the Peconic Estuary and, if possible, a net decrease in hardened shoreline. Use HLR 1 and HLR 2 as a mechanism to establish this strategy. PEP Management Conference ( lead); NYSDEC;

Towns of East Hampton,

Southampton, Southold,

Shelter Island, Riverhead;

villages; NYSDOS; USACE;

PEP, SCDHS, EPA Post CCMP Establishing the policy could be done with Base program funds but implementation of such a policy could be substantial EPA   0.3 FTE NYSDEC   0.3 FTE SCDHS   0.3 FTE PEP   0.3 FTE Towns   0.3 FTE NYSDOS   0.3 FTE R Table continued next page C H A P T E R F O U R 4 74 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Table 4 1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. ( continued)

Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status HLR 2.4 Priority Develop a variety of financial incentives and programs to encourage property owners to remove or modify hardened shoreline structures and replace them with natural vegetation and other vegetated ( bioengineered)

alternatives to restore the natural shoreline of the estuary. Peconic BayKeeper ( lead);

Towns of East Hampton,

Southampton, Southold,

Shelter Island, Riverhead;

villages; HRWG; NYSDEC;

SCDHS; PEP Post CCMP NYSDEC   0.1 FTE SCDHS   0.1 FTE PEP   0.1 FTE Towns   0.2 FTE each Peconic BayKeeper   0.3 FTE R HLR 3 Assess the Impacts of Dredging Activities on Habitat and Natural Resources and Develop Recommendations and Guidelines for Reducing those Impacts. ( Objectives 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7)

HLR 3.1 Priority Hold a " Dredging Summit" for the Peconic Estuary System to address specific concerns ( i. e., impacts on shorebird nesting, demersal fish eggs, benthic communities, and the potential release of contaminants)

and develop dredging guidance on an embayment specific basis and for identified CNRAs. Integrate dredging guidance into existing regulatory programs. NYSDEC ( lead) through contractor; USACE;

NYSDOS; SCDPW; EPA;

SCDHS; Towns of East Hampton, Southampton,

Southold, Shelter Island,

Riverhead; other interested stakeholders Post CCMP Dredging Summit: $ 15,000 Develop Guidance:

NYSDEC   0.4 FTE NYSDOS   0.2 FTE SCDHS   0.2 FTE EPA   0.1 FTE R R Table continued next page Peconic Estuary Program Draft Final CCMP October 2000 C H A P T E R F O U R 4 75 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Table 4 1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. ( continued)

Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status HLR 3.2 Priority Assess navigational dredging in tidal creeks and embayments ( utilizing Suffolk County's Generic Environmental Impact Statement)

for damages or impacts to eelgrass beds and other habitats and develop permit conditions to minimize impacts that potentially could result in habitat loss and degradation.

Determine if navigational dredging locally impairs water quality to the point of precluding restoration of eelgrass. PEP through contractor,

NYSDEC, DOS, SCDHS Post CCMP Assessment: $ 50,000 Determination:

NYSDEC   0.2 FTE NYSDOS   0.2 FTE SCDHS   0.2 FTE R R HLR 3.3 Determine the need for frequency of maintenance dredging and develop recommendations to reduce runoff and erosion in creeks to reduce the need for maintenance dredging. Frequency of dredging:

SCDPW ( lead);

Runoff recommendations:

NYSDEC, NYSDOS ( co leads); PEP, SCDHS Post CCMP Frequency of dredging: Base Program Runoff recommendation:

NYSDEC   0.1 FTE SCDHS   0.1 FTE PEP   0.2 FTE R R Table continued on next page C H A P T E R F O U R 4 76 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Table 4 1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. ( continued)

Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status HLR 4 Examine and Promote Methods of Shellfish Harvesting that are Most Compatible with Establishment and Growth of Eelgrass Beds and Vegetated Salt Marshes. ( Objectives 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8)

HLR 4.1 Examine methods of harvesting clams, scallops, and other shellfish and determine which are most compatible with eelgrass establishment and growth. Develop recommendations for harvesting methods, frequency, and timing which will allow recovery of eelgrass throughout the estuary and enhance shellfish productivity. NYSDEC ( lead) through contract Post CCMP $ 50,000 for contractor support NYSDEC   0.3 FTE R HLR 4.2 Discourage harvesting of shellfish at the edge of vegetated salt marshes and encourage the use of methods that minimize impacts to vegetated habitats. NYSDEC ( lead); Towns of East Hampton, Southampton,

Southold, Shelter Island,

Riverhead; PEP Public Education and Outreach program; shellfishermen Post CCMP Base program and $ 10,000 for education and outreach NYSDEC   0.2 FTE PEP   0.2 FTE R HLR 5 Implement, Enforce, and Encourage the Continuation of Current Policies and Regulations Protective of Wetlands.

( Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7)

HLR 5.1 Ensure continued protection of freshwater and tidal wetlands through the implementation and enforcement of current regulations under the Federal Clean Water Act and the State Wetlands Protection Programs, local government regulations and local land use practices. NYSDEC ( lead), ACOE,

East End Towns Ongoing Base program Enhance existing programs NYSDEC   2.0 FTE/ yr C/ O R Table continued on next page Peconic Estuary Program Draft Final CCMP October 2000 C H A P T E R F O U R 4 77 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Table 4 1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. ( continued)

Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status HLR 5.2 Review existing tidal wetlands protection policies to determine if they provide for maintenance of tidal wetlands with respect to future sea level rise. PEP   Natural Resources Subcommittee through contractor Post CCMP $ 25,000 R HLR 5.3 Maintain and enforce the policy of creating no new mosquito ditches in tidal wetlands and establish a policy for not re opening ditches that have filled in by natural processes. SCVC ( lead), NYSDEC,

EPA, SCDHS, NYSDOS,

East End Towns Ongoing EPA   0.1 FTE NYSDEC   0.2 FTE SCDHS   0.2 FTE PEP   0.2 FTE SCVC   0.3 FTE Towns   0.1 FTE each C/ O HLR 5.4 Ensure that SCVC works cooperatively with all government agencies, East End towns and local conservation organizations in the planning of wetland mosquito ditch maintenance and pesticide spraying. SCVC ( lead), SCDHS,

NYSDOS, EPA, NYSDEC,

East End Towns Post CCMP EPA   0.1 FTE NYSDEC   0.1 FTE SCDHS   0.1 FTE PEP   0.1 FTE SCVC   0.1 FTE R HLR 6 Evaluate the Effectiveness of Current Policies in Preserving Eelgrass Habitat and Develop Ways to Provide Increased Protection for all Extant Eelgrass. ( Objectives 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8)

HLR 6.1 Priority Evaluate the effectiveness of current policies in preserving eelgrass habitat and develop ways to provide increased protection for all extant eelgrass. NYSDEC ( lead) through contract Ongoing $ 25,000 R HLR 6.2 Monitor and protect extant eelgrass ( Zostera marina) beds, and restore degraded eelgrass beds. NYSDEC, ( lead), Cornell Cooperative Extension, PEP

Natural Resources Subcommittee PEP HRWG Ongoing ( Monitor: $ 75,000 biennially,

included in Environmental Monitoring Plan.)

Protect and Restore: to be determined C/ O R Table continued on next page C H A P T E R F O U R 4 78 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Table 4 1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. ( continued)

Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status HLR 6.3 Evaluate anchor dragging, propeller scarring, dredging and other known impacts to extant eelgrass beds in the Peconic Estuary and develop recommendations to reduce them. NYSDEC, Habitat Restoration Workgroup (

coleads through contract Post CCMP Evaluation through contractor: $ 50,000 Develop recommendations:

NYSDEC   0.2 FTE R HLR 6.4 Hold a workshop to evaluate the factors that regulate the health and extent of eelgrass beds in the Peconic Estuary and develop management recommendations based on these findings. NYSDEC, PEP NRSC, PEP HRWG ( co leads) Post CCMP Workshop costs: $ 10,000 Develop recommendations:

NYSDEC   0.4 FTE R R HLR 7 Develop and Implement an Estuary Wide Habitat Restoration Plan ( HRP). ( Objectives 1, 2, 4, and 7)

HLR 7.1 Priority Develop and implement an estuarywide Habitat Restoration Plan ( HRP). PEP HRWG ( lead) Initiate in Fall 1998,

complete in 2001 Costs for implementation in PEP Habitat Restoration Plan NYSDEC   0.1 FTE/ yr SCDHS   0.1 FTE/ yr PEP   0.1 FTE/ yr Towns   0.1 FTE each/ yr Cornell   0.2 FTE/ yr NYSDOS   0.2 FTE/ yr C/ O HLR 7.2 Identify and list priority habitat types for the HRP. PEP HRWG ( lead) Completed Included in HLR 7.1 C/ O HLR 7.3 Priority Inventory and prioritize a list of restoration projects for which planning is underway and recommend these for " fast tracking"

towards Bond Act funding. NYSDOS ( lead), NYSDEC,

PEP HRWG Annually, prior to Spring announcement of available funds Included in HLR 7.1 C/ O HLR 7.4 Inventory and list restoration opportunities in the PEP area and estimate costs. PEP HRWG ( lead), East End Towns Completed Included in HLR 7.1 C/ O Table continued on next page Peconic Estuary Program Draft Final CCMP October 2000 C H A P T E R F O U R 4 79 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Table 4 1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. ( continued)

Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status HLR 7.5 Develop and include in the HRP criteria for selection of restoration sites. PEP HRWG ( lead) Completed Included in HLR 7.1 C/ O HLR 7.6 Inventory and list completed,

ongoing, and proposed restoration projects for inclusion in the HRP.

Include all restoration sites on GIS maps. PEP HRWG ( lead) Completed Included in HLR 7.1 C/ O HLR 7.7 Develop and include in the HRP a list of funding sources available for habitat restoration in the PEP area. PEP HRWG ( lead) Completed Included in HLR 7.1 C/ O HLR 7.8 Develop model guidelines for habitat restoration planning for use by municipalities in applying for EPF monies. NYSDOS, NYSDEC (

coleads PEP HRWG, EPA,

Towns, CCE 2001 EPA   0.1 FTE PEP   0.1 FTE Towns   0.1 FTE each Cornell   0.2 FTE NYSDOS   0.2 FTE C/ N HLR 8 Develop and Implement Specific Restoration Projects. ( Objectives 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8)

HLR 8.1 Encourage cooperation among governmental agencies to plan and Implement Open Marsh Water Management ( OMWM) to manage tidal wetlands with grid ditches for mosquito control with the goal of also restoring more natural conditions. Cornell Cooperative Extension, SCVC, USFWS,

East Hampton Department of Natural Resources, NYSDEC ( co leads), PEP Post CCMP NYSDEC   0.1 FTE PEP   0.1 FTE Cornell   0.3 FTE SCVC   0.3 FTE USFWS   0.3 FTE Towns   0.2 FTE each R Table continued on next page C H A P T E R F O U R 4 80 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Table 4 1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. ( continued)

Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status HLR 8.2 Develop recommendations in the PEP Habitat Restoration Plan for control of Phragmites australis by restoration of natural processes such as removal or modification of flowrestriction devices, removal of hardened shorelines, and revegetation of bay and creek shorelines or by other means. PEP HRWG ( lead) through contractor 2001 Base Program and $ 10,000 for contractor C HLR 8.3 Priority Develop a quantitative goal for eelgrass restoration based on ongoing monitoring and mapping efforts. PEP HRWG ( lead),

NYSDEC, SCDHS, CCE,

DOS, Towns 2001 NYSDEC   0.05 FTE SCDHS   0.05 FTE PEP   0.1 FTE Towns   0.05 FTE each Cornell   0.2 FTE NYSDOS   0.2 FTE C/ N HLR 8.4 Identify and prioritize locations where restoration of eelgrass is most feasible based on water quality and environmental criteria which are being developed for eelgrass in the Peconic Estuary System and elsewhere in its range. PEP HRWG ( lead), PEP,

NYSDEC, NYSDOS 2001 Included in HLR 8.3 C/ N HLR 8.5 Develop and/ or utilize cooperative programs with the public for simple,

local habitat improvements and enhancements. PEP HRWG ( lead), NY Sea Grant, Cornell Cooperative Extension Post CCMP $ 25,000 per year R HLR 9 Monitor and Evaluate the Success of Restoration Efforts. ( Objective 8)

HLR 9.1 Develop and implement procedures to track and evaluate restoration efforts using success criteria and monitoring protocols in the PEP area. PEP HRWG ( lead) Post CCMP HRWG   0.2 FTE R Table continued on next page Peconic Estuary Program Draft Final CCMP October 2000 C H A P T E R F O U R 4 81 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Table 4 1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. ( continued)

Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status HLR 9.2 Develop procedures for the management and storage of habitat restoration project and monitoring information for the Peconic Estuary. PEP HRWG ( lead), PEP HRWG   0.2 FTE R HLR 9.3 Identify a regional set of reference sites to assist in habitat restoration evaluation and monitoring and provide a framework for long term habitat and living resources research and monitoring. PEP HRWG, PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee 2001 Included in HLR 8.3 C/ N HLR 10 Develop an Aquaculture Plan for the Peconic Estuary. ( Objectives 1,2, 5, 6, 7, and 8)

HLR

10.1 Priority Assist in the development and implementation of an estuary wide aquaculture plan. Include criteria regarding scale, location,

assessment, monitoring, and methodologies of shellfish and finfish aquaculture which would be ecologically beneficial and would help sustain aquaculture as a beneficial estuarine use when performed in a manner that is sensitive to the natural conditions,

productivity and ecology of the Peconic Estuary. Organize workshop: Suffolk County Planning Department;

SCDHS ( co leads); NYSDEC;

PEP   Natural Resources Subcommittee; NYSDOS; NY Sea Grant; NYSOGS; USACE;

EPA; NOAA/ NMFS; Suffolk County; Towns of East Hampton, Southampton,

Southold, Shelter Island,

Riverhead; villages; Cornell Cooperative Extension; fish farmers; other groups and individuals interested in aquaculture; Aquaculture Plan:

Suffolk County with input from PEP and other stakeholders ( NYSDEC, Long Island Sound Study, New York New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program) Post CCMP Plan: within one year of workshop Workshop: $ 5,000 Plan:

EPA   0.2 FTE NYSDEC   1.0 FTE S. C.   1.0 FTE R Table continued on next page C H A P T E R F O U R 4 82 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Table 4 1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. ( continued)

Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status HLR 10.2 Identify suitable areas for shellfish and finfish aquaculture activities that are compatible with the water quality and habitat protection objectives in the CCMP to ensure that a balance is maintained between cultivated and wild stocks and include in the estuary wide aquaculture plan. Suffolk County Planning Department, SCDHS,

NYSDEC ( co leads),

NYSDOS, USACE,

USFWS, PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee Post CCMP $ 500,000 for a survey Enhance existing programs:

NYSDEC   0.5 FTE/ yr SCDHS   0.5 FTE/ yr R R HLR 10.3 Investigate the need to require monitoring of imported cultured organisms and intrastate transplant of shellfish for disease and parasites and determine if a requirement should be established to certify that they are disease free. Monitoring assessment:

NYSDEC ( lead); Disease and parasite screening: PEP;

NYSDEC; NYSDOS;

NYSOGS; USACE; EPA;

NOAA/ NMFS; Suffolk County, Towns of East Hampton, Southampton,

Southold, Shelter Island,

Riverhead; villages, Cornell Cooperative Extension;

other groups and individuals interested in aquaculture ( co leads) Post CCMP $ 50,000 per year Enhance existing programs:

NYSDEC   1.0 FTE/ yr R R HLR 10.4 Continue to support the prohibition of commercial culture or introduction of non indigenous species in New York's waters and require that all aquaculture operations in the estuary use indigenous genotypes. NYSDEC ( lead) to implement legislation, NYS legislature Ongoing Base Program Enhance existing programs:

NYSDEC   1.0 FTE/ yr C/ O R Table continued on next page Peconic Estuary Program Draft Final CCMP October 2000 C H A P T E R F O U R 4 83 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Table 4 1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. ( continued)

Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status HLR 10.5 Develop water quality and natural resource monitoring protocols for existing and future shellfish and finfish aquaculture projects. SCDHS, NYSDEC ( co leads), USACE,

NYSDOS, NYSOGS,

USFWS, PEP, NOAA, fish farmers ( permittees) Post CCMP Enhance existing programs:

NYSDEC   1.0 FTE SCDHS   1.0 FTE R HLR 11 Determine the suitability of Artificial Reefs in the Peconic Estuary. ( Objectives 1, 3, 4, 6, and 8)

HLR 11.1 Evaluate the use of natural reefs,

wrecks, artificial reefs, and aquaculture facilities by finfish, sea turtles, diving birds, marine mammals, and other estuarine organisms. Develop recommendations to minimize the impact on resources by these structures. PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee ( lead) (

longterm research plan) through contractor Post CCMP $ 100,000 through contractor R HLR 11.2 Determine environmental and habitat criteria ( e. g., productivity,

etc.) for site selection of different reef structures, and evaluate the potential for the extent of habitat and species displacement and the number of reefs that could be supported in the estuary without causing adverse effects. PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee & NYSDEC ( co leads) Post CCMP $ 100,000 through contractor R HLR 11.3 Evaluate the potential placement of artificial reefs in known sea turtle and marine mammal feeding areas as part of the siting process outlined in the NYSDEC Artificial Reef Plan. NYSDEC ( lead); Towns of East Hampton, Southampton,

Southold Post CCMP $ 50,000 through contractor R Table continued on next page C H A P T E R F O U R 4 84 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Table 4 1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. ( continued)

Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status HLR 12 Foster Sustainable Recreational and Commercial Finfish and Shellfish Uses of the Peconic Estuary that are Compatible with Biodiversity Protection. ( Objectives 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8)

HLR 12.1 Priority Collect better statistical data on commercial and recreational fishing landings and by catch specific to the Peconic Estuary System. NOAA/ NMFS, NYSDEC ( co leads) Post CCMP Enhance existing programs:

NYSDEC   2.0 FTE/ yr R HLR 12.2 Priority Identify, protect, and restore key shellfish and finfish spawning,

nursery, and feeding habitats in the Peconic Estuary to enhance shellfish and fish stocks and incorporate this data into the ongoing Essential Fish Habitat work being conducted under the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission ( ASMFC). PEP, NOAA/ NMFS,

ASMFC, New York Sea Grant Institute, NYSDEC,

local universities and colleges Post CCMP $ 100,000 R HLR 12.3 Support the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program. NMFS, NYSDEC, PEP ( co leads) Ongoing Base Programs C/ N HLR 12.4 Support the fishery management plans which have been and are being developed by the Mid

Atlantic Fishery Management Council ( MAFMC) and the ASMFC. NYSDEC, PEP ( co leads),

ASMFC, NMFS, MAFMC Ongoing Base Programs C/ O HLR 12.5 Ensure the enforcement of existing regulations on both commercial and recreational fisheries. NYSDEC Division of Law Enforcement ( lead), Suffolk County Marine Police, town bay constables Ongoing Base Program Enhance existing programs:

NYSDEC   2.0 FTE / yr C/ O R HLR 12.6 Support NMFS Essential Fish Habitat Designations within the Peconic Estuary. PEP   MC, NYSDEC,

NMFS Ongoing Base Program NYSDEC   0.1 FTE / yr C/ O Table continued on next page Peconic Estuary Program Draft Final CCMP October 2000 C H A P T E R F O U R 4 85 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Table 4 1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. ( continued)

Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status HLR 12.7 Develop a public education program about the value of fish and fishing and the importance of commercial and recreational fishing regulations and compliance with the regulations. PEP Public Education and Outreach program ( lead),

NYSDEC, Sea Grant, Cornell Cooperative Extension

Marine Program, AMI,

marina and fishing businessowners Post CCMP $ 15,000 R HLR 12.8 Support the prevention, or at least minimization, of effects on finfish and non target species by lost or incorrectly designed fishing gear.

Measures to be supported include:

( 1) developing a program to encourage commercial and recreational fishermen to retrieve and properly dispose of fishing line,

nets, traps, pots, and other gear; ( 2)

work with the AMI to develop a campaign for dockside recovery and recycling programs; ( 3) support implementation of fishery regulations requiring escape vents and degradable panels in fish and lobster pots; ( 4) implementing fishery regulations requiring minimum mesh size for gill, fyke,

and otter trawl nets; and ( 5)

promoting the use of fishing gears that minimize by catch and discard ( e. g., pound nets). NMFS, NYSDEC, NYS Sea Grant ( co leads), CCE, AMI,

commercial and recreational fishing community Post CCMP Base Program and additional funding ( to be determined)

for outreach and education Enhance existing programs:

NYSDEC   2.0 FTE/ yr Cornell   0.1 FTE/ yr C/ N R Table continued on next page C H A P T E R F O U R 4 86 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Table 4 1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. ( continued)

Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status HLR 12.9 Implement CZARA Section 6217 BMPs regarding fish waste at marinas and on docks. Develop public education materials for distribution at marinas, bait and tackle shops, and other related businesses detailing these BMPs. PEP Public Education and Outreach program ( lead),

AMI, marina owners, other business owners, NYSDEC,

Sea Grant, Cornell Cooperative Extension   Marine Program Post CCMP $ 15,000 for education and outreach materials R HLR 12.10 Expand the monitoring and analysis of the NYSDEC finfish trawl survey to the east of Shelter Island and coordinate with the PEP Living Resources Research, Monitoring,

and Assessment Plan. NYSDEC ( lead), PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee Post CCMP ( Included in Environmental Monitoring Plan:

Start up: $ 500,000 Annually: $ 300,000 R HLR 12.11 Examine the role of areas uncertified for shellfishing as " spawner sanctuaries" for shellfish species. PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee ( lead),

NYSDEC, Cornell Cooperative Extension Post CCMP $ 50,000 R HLR 12.12 On a biennial cycle, perform deep

and shallow water shellfish abundance surveys. PEP through contractor Post CCMP $ 150,000 R Table continued next page Peconic Estuary Program Draft Final CCMP October 2000 C H A P T E R F O U R 4 87 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Table 4 1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. ( continued)

Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status HLR 13 Protect Nesting and Feeding Habitat of Shorebirds. ( Objectives 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8)

HLR 13.1 Priority Strengthen existing municipal shorebird ( terns and plovers)

management programs to ensure timely fencing and erection of enclosures, adequate monitoring and reporting, and management of recreation and other activities within nesting and feeding habitat.

Implement the 1997 Suffolk County Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation Piping Plover Protection Program and the NYSDEC Bureau of Wildlife 1998 Action Plan for Piping Plover Conservation in New York. NYSDEC; Suffolk County Parks Department; Towns of East Hampton, Southampton,

Southold, Shelter Island, and Riverhead; villages; Trustees;

The Nature Conservancy;

USFWS ( co leads) Ongoing and Post CCMP Base Program Enhance existing programs:

NYSDEC   1.0 FTE/ yr TNC   1.0 FTE/ yr Towns   0.3 FTE each/ yr C/ O R HLR 13.2 Restrict the use of off road vehicles and small watercraft in shorebird nesting areas during breeding season ( April   August). OPRHP; Suffolk County Parks Department; Towns of East Hampton, Southampton,

Southold, Shelter Island, and Riverhead; villages;

NYSDEC for DEC owned properties ( co leads) Ongoing and Post CCMP Enhance existing programs:

Towns   0.3 each/ yr R HLR 13.3 Consult with the USFWS to comply with Federal guidelines for managing recreational activities in piping plover breeding habitat. Beach managers including Federal ( USFWS), state,

Suffolk County, the towns,

property owners ( co leads) Ongoing and Post CCMP Base Program USFWS   0.2 FTE/ yr C/ O Table continued next page C H A P T E R F O U R 4 88 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Table 4 1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. ( continued)

Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status HLR 13.4 Document threats to nesting shorebirds ( plovers and terns) such as off road vehicles, predation, and recreation, and develop and implement measures that lead to higher productivity and larger nesting populations. East End towns and NYSDEC ( co leads) Post CCMP $ 10,000 R HLR 14 Protect Sea Turtles and Marine Mammals. ( Objectives 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8)

HLR 14.1 Review uses of areas which have been identified as sea turtle feeding and marine mammal areas and consider what restrictions may be necessary to be more protective of these species and their food resources. NYS agencies ( e. g.,

NYSDEC, NYSDOS, NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation,

NYS Office of General Services) ( co leads),

Suffolk County, towns Post CCMP Enhance existing programs:

NYSDEC   1.0 FTE NYSDOS   0.2 FTE Parks   0.2 FTE SCDHS   0.2 FTE Towns   0.1 FTE each R HLR 14.2 Evaluate the expansion of existing laws to ensure that all species of seals as well as other marine mammals are protected from intentional injury or death. NYS agencies ( e. g., NYSDEC, NYSDOS,

NYS Office of Parks,

Recreation and Historic Preservation, NYS Office of General Services)

( co leads), SCDHS, towns Post CCMP Included in HLR 14.1 R HLR 14.3 Expand New York State law protecting harbor seals ( ECL Article 11, section 0107 to include all species of seals in NYS marine waters. New York State Legislature,

NYSDEC ( co leads) Post CCMP Included in HLR 14.1 R Table continued on next page Peconic Estuary Program Draft Final CCMP October 2000 C H A P T E R F O U R 4 89 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Table 4 1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. ( continued)

Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status HLR 15 Utilize Land Use Planning, BMPs, and Other Management Measures to Reduce the Negative Impacts of Human Uses and Development on the Estuary System. ( Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8)

HLR 15.1 Priority Each town should develop a master or comprehensive management plan,

coordinated with plans of other towns that increases the level of protection of natural resources and habitats and accounts for cumulative impacts. Towns of East Hampton,

Southampton, Southold,

Shelter Island, Riverhead;

NYSDOS ( co leads), EPA,

NYSDEC, SCDHS Post CCMP Enhance existing programs:

NYSDEC   0.1 FTE EPA   0.1 FTE SCDHS   0.1 FTE Towns   1.0 FTE each R HLR 15.2 Priority Increase public access to the estuary consistent with other ecosystem objectives. All Federal, state, and local governmental agencies in the PEP watershed ( co leads); NYSDEC Post CCMP Base Program and sitespecific costs for each access opportunity to be determined Enhance existing programs:

NYSDEC   1.0 FTE/ yr C/ N R HLR 15.3 Develop and implement a Harbor Protection Overlay District such as that developed by the Town of East Hampton and include it in the master plan for each town. NYSDOS ( lead); Towns of Southampton, Southold,

Shelter Island, and Riverhead Post CCMP $ 50,000 per town Towns   1.0 FTE each R Table continued on next page C H A P T E R F O U R 4 90 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Table 4 1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. ( continued)

Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status HLR 15.4 Develop implementation mechanisms for all measures required by Section 6217( g) of CZARA that are applicable to the Peconic Estuary. These measures would include BMPs for the use of natural vegetation, minimization of impervious surfaces, safe and reasonable use of lawn, garden, and household chemicals, and minimization of stormwater runoff.

Incorporate these BMPs into the site plan requirements for all newlydeveloped and redeveloped property, particularly along the shoreline. NYSDEC, NYSDOS, PEP Education and Outreach Program ( co leads), Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District,

SCDHS, USDA NRCS,

Cornell Cooperative Extension, NY Sea Grant,

Peconic BayKeeper, SCDHS Post CCMP Base Program Enhance existing programs:

NYSDEC   0.1 FTE SCDHS   0.1 FTE PEP   0.1 FTE C/ N R HLR 15.5 Use the Protected Lands Council of the Central Pine Barrens Comprehensive Land Use Plan as a model for developing a similar coalition of public agencies and conservation organizations to address common issues of concern throughout the estuary. PEP; Pine Barrens Commission and Protected Lands Council ( co leads);

Towns of East Hampton,

Southampton, Southold,

Shelter Island, and Riverhead; NYSDEC;

SCDHS Post CCMP NYSDEC   0.05 FTE/ yr SCDHS   0.05 FTE/ yr Enhance existing programs:

Towns   0.5 FTE each/ yr C R HLR 15.6 Encourage towns with existing Conservation Advisory Councils or planning staff, to be given the responsibility as Conservation Advisory or Planning Boards to review proposed Town Board actions as they affect public lands and open space concerns. Towns of East Hampton,

Southold, Shelter Island, and Riverhead ( co leads) Post CCMP Enhance existing programs:

Towns   0.5 FTE each/ yr R Table continued on next page Peconic Estuary Program Draft Final CCMP October 2000 C H A P T E R F O U R 4 91 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Table 4 1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. ( continued)

Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status HLR 15.7 Review and provide comments to NYSDEC on any revisions to the Statewide Oil Spill Areawide Contingency Plan for the Peconic Estuary relating to waterfowl,

marine mammals, and sea turtles and their rehabilitation if oiled.

Develop and distribute information on reporting and responding to small scale spills. PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee in conjunction with the USCG,

NYSDEC, USFWS ( co leads); Rehabilitation:

local wildlife rehabilitators ( licensed); Education: PEP Public Education and Outreach program in conjunction with the USCF,

NYSDEC, USFWS; BMPs:

NYSDO; AMI; Towns of East Hampton,

Southampton, Southold,

Shelter Island, and Riverhead; villages Post CCMP Base Program NYSDEC   0.05 FTE/ yr SCDHS   0.05 FTE/ yr PEP   0.05 FTE/ yr R Table continued on next page C H A P T E R F O U R 4 92 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Table 4 1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. ( continued)

Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status HLR 15.8 Develop regulations for new marinas or expansion of existing marinas which include the following ( from CZARA section 6217): ( 1) assessment of water quality conditions during and after construction; ( 2) site and design such that tides and/ or currents will aid in the flushing of the site or renew its water regularly; ( 3) site and design to protect against adverse effects on shellfish resources, wetlands, submerged aquatic vegetation, or other important riparian and aquatic habitat areas as designated by local, State, or Federal governments; ( 4) designate and enforce no wake zones and ensure that shoreline areas are stabilized effectively by vegetative means;

and, ( 5) require effective stormwater runoff control measures to reduce sediment and toxic inputs. NYSDEC ( lead); Suffolk County; DHS; EPA; PEP;

Towns of East Hampton,

Southampton, Southold,

Shelter Island, and Riverhead; AMI; private marina owners. Post CCMP EPA   0.3 FTE NYSDEC   0.5 FTE SCDHS   0.3 FTE PEP   0.3 FTE Enhanced Programs:

NYSDEC   1.0 FTE/ yr R R Table continued on next page Peconic Estuary Program Draft Final CCMP October 2000 C H A P T E R F O U R 4 93 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Table 4 1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. ( continued)

Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status HLR 16 Develop and Implement a Living Resources Research, Monitoring, and Assessment Program. ( Objectives 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8)

HLR 16.1 Priority Develop and implement a research program for the Peconic Estuary and its watershed to investigate natural processes, impairments,

and links to water quality,

maintenance of systems and species, and effects of recreation and pollution on biodiversity,

among other research needs.

Investigate and seek funding sources for supporting implementation of the program ( e. g., National Estuarine Research Reserve Systems). Plan development and coordination: PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee and the Marine Conservation Planner ( co leads) in consultation with other members of the PEP Management Conference and technical experts; Plan implementation: PEP Management Conference,

NYSDEC, NYSDOS, New York Sea Grant Institute,

SCDHS ( co leads) Plan development and peerreview 2001 Plan implementation: After the plan is developed,

adopted, and funding is allocated. Plan development: Base Program Plan implementation: $ 3 million over 3 to 5 years NYSDEC   0.2 FTE/ yr SCDHS   0.05 FTE/ yr TNC   0.7 FTE/ yr Plan Dev.:

C/ N; Implement.:

R Table continued on next page C H A P T E R F O U R 4 94 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Table 4 1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. ( continued)

Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status HLR 16.2 Priority Develop a long term program for monitoring and assessment of living resources in the Peconic Estuary that is coordinated with the development of a research plan and ongoing research and monitoring efforts. Monitoring and assessment plan: PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee and Marine Conservation Planner ( co leads) in conjunction with NYSDEC; SCDHS;

Towns of East Hampton,

Southampton, Southold,

Shelter Island, and Riverhead; Plan implementation: PEP in conjunction with NYSDEC ( co leads); SCDHS; Towns of East Hampton,

Southampton, Southold,

Shelter Island, and Riverhead; Cornell Cooperative Extension;

local universities and colleges; NY Sea Grant Plan development and peerreviewed By 2001 Plan implementation: After the plan is developed,

adopted, and funding is allocated Plan development: Base Program Plan implementation: To be determined. Included in HLR 16.1 C/ N R Table continued on next page Peconic Estuary Program Draft Final CCMP October 2000 C H A P T E R F O U R 4 95 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Table 4 1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. ( continued)

Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status HLR 16.3 Support research on the interactions between eelgrass and the dominant macroalgae species in the Peconic Estuary to determine impacts of macroalgae on eelgrass distribution and abundance. Plan development: PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee and the Marine Conservation Planner ( co leads) in consultation with other members of the PEP Management Conference and technical experts; Plan implementation: PEP Management Conference,

NYSDEC, NYSDOS, New York Sea Grant Institute,

SCDHS ( co leads) Post CCMP $ 150,000 ( estimate) R HLR 16.4 Perform research and monitoring of forage fish species, horseshoe crabs, and conch in the Peconic Estuary to understand their distribution ( temporal and spatial),

abundance, habitat preferences,

and different life stage requirements to develop management strategies. PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee, NYSDEC,

Marine Conservation Planner ( co leads), technical experts through the PEP long term research plan Post CCMP and adoption of HLR 16.1 $ 500,000 ( estimate) R HLR 16.5 Perform research on the ecology of food sources of sea turtles to evaluate the importance of the Peconic Estuary to them and potential threats to these endangered and threatened species. PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee ( lead) and technical experts through the PEP long term research plan Post CCMP and adoption of HLR 16.1 $ 75,000 through contractor R Table continued next page C H A P T E R F O U R 4 96 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Table 4 1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. ( continued)

Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status HLR 16.6 Research the lethal, sublethal, and synergistic effects of elevated nutrients, toxic chemicals, and Brown Tide on the reproduction and behavior of finfish and invertebrate species. PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee ( lead) and technical experts through the PEP long term research plan, NY Sea Grant Post CCMP and adoption of HLR 16.1 To be determined R HLR 16.7 Determine the effects of navigational dredging on shallow water communities and the recovery time of benthic communities exposed to dredging. PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee ( lead) and technical experts to define specific research questions,

USACE, Suffolk County SCDPW, NYSDEC Post CCMP and adoption of HLR 16.1 To be determined R HLR 16.8 Ensure implementation of adequate mapping and monitoring programs to track trends in the extent and quality of eelgrass, and to evaluate progress toward reaching restoration goals. PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee, PEP Management Council (

coleads Post CCMP $ 45,000 per year R HLR 16.9 Establish a scientific panel to review research, monitoring and assessment data, and to offer guidance in management of the habitats and living resources in the Peconics. PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee ( lead) Post CCMP and adoption of HLR 16.1 To be determined R HLR

16.10 Organize an annual or biennial conference to report research,

monitoring, and assessment results to the public and guide management decisions. PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee in conjunction with EPA,

NYSDEC ( co leads),

SCDHS, local universities and colleges Post CCMP; Biennial $ 10,000 per conference R HLR

16.11 Establish and maintain an accessible database of natural resources in the Peconic Estuary. PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee ( lead) Ongoing NYSDEC   0.1 FTE/ yr SCDHS   0.05 FTE/ yr PEP   0.1 FTE/ yr Enhance existing programs:

NYSDEC   0.5 FTE/ yr C/ O Table continued on next page Peconic Estuary Program Draft Final CCMP October 2000 C H A P T E R F O U R 4 97 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Table 4 1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. ( continued)

Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status HLR

16.12 Promote research and monitoring opportunities in the Peconic Estuary to local schools, colleges,

universities, and institutes by establishing funding and scientific platforms and other incentives to facilitate basic and applied marine research. PEP, NY Sea Grant, EPA ( co leads), NOAA, NYS Marine Educators Association ( MEA), Cornell Cooperative Extension   Marine Program Post CCMP Funding needs for research center/ scientific platform to be determined R HLR

16.13 Seek opportunities to link research and monitoring in the Peconic Estuary Program to related estuaries and regional studies. Association of NEPs, EPA,

PEP ( co leads), NY Sea Grant, NOAA Post CCMP NYSDEC   0.2 FTE/ yr EPA   0.1 FTE/ yr PEP   0.1 FTE/ yr R HLR

16.14 Support priorities listed in the Living Resources Research,

Monitoring, and Assessment Plan including research on ecosystem productivity and ecosystem structure, bioindicators, and effects of global climate change on wetlands. PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee Ongoing Base Programs C/ O HLR 17 Establish a Working Group to Examine the Role of Grazers and Filter Feeding Organisms in Influencing Water Quality and Productivity, and to Better Understand the Food Web Dynamics and to Develop Management Applications. ( Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8)

HLR 17.1 Review appropriate scientific literature, identify information gaps, and develop research recommendations regarding how shellfish, finfish and other "

topdown predators influence water quality and the planktonic community. PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee ( lead)

through contractor Post CCMP $ 50,000 for review R Table continued on next page C H A P T E R F O U R 4 98 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Table 4 1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. ( continued)

Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status HLR

17.2 Develop research, monitoring and assessment needs for quantifying food web dynamics. PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee ( lead) and marine conservation planner Post CCMP NYSDEC   0.1 FTE TNC   0.5 FTE PEP   0.2 FTE R HLR

17.3 Develop food web sub models to be included in the nutrient model to evaluate the sensitivity of productivity to anthropogenic changes in nutrient supply. PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee through contractor ( lead) in consultation with other members of the PEP Management Conference and technical experts Post CCMP $ 100,000 for model development R HLR

17.4 Consult with the BTRI and the estuary wide aquaculture plan work group to develop management recommendations for " top down" regulation of water quality and Brown Tide in the Peconic Estuary. PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee ( lead) in consultation with other members of the PEP Management Conference and technical experts; NYSDEC,

NYSDOS, New York Sea Grant Institute, SCDHS, BTRI researchers, SUNY Stony Brook, Cornell, commercial aquaculture facilities in the Peconics Post CCMP Enhance existing programs:

NYSDEC   0.2 FTE EPA   0.2 FTE SCDHS   0.2 FTE R HLR

17.5 Facilitate communication among BTRI, water quality managers and the estuary wideaquaculture plan work group. PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee ( lead) in consultation with other members of the PEP Management Conference and technical experts; NYSDEC,

NYSDOS, New York Sea Grant Institute, SCDHS, BTRI researchers, SUNY Stony Brook, Cornell, and commercial aquaculture facilities in the Peconics Post CCMP Included in HLR 17.4 R Peconic Estuary Program Draft Final CCMP October 2000 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP