Appendix C: Response to Public Comments
Governor George E. Pataki announced, on February 12, 2001, release of the Long Island South Shore Estuary Reserve Draft Comprehensive Management Plan for public review. As required by Article 46, the South Shore Estuary Reserve Council held two public hearings: one on February 28, 2001 in the Village of Patchogue and the other on March 1, 2001 in the Village of Freeport. Combined attendance at the two hearings exceeded 180 people in addition to Council members or designees and Department of State personnel. The public hearings were recorded in both audio and video tape formats.
Seventeen people gave oral comments during the Patchogue public hearing, and thirty-one spoke during the Freeport hearing. Seven of these speakers also submitted written comments, either at the hearing or by mail to the Department of State. By the end of the comment period on March 28th the Department had also received written comments mailed in by another seventeen individuals who hadn't spoken during the hearings.
An overwhelming majority of people offering comments expressed support for the plan and, in many cases, praised the efforts of the Council and the work of the Department of State. A significant number of people stressed the need to move forward to implement the plan's recommendations. A few individuals gave comments suggesting actions beyond the powers and duties given to the Council by the State Legislature.
Comments from several individuals included offers on behalf of their organizations to assist the Council with the plan's implementation. The specific organizations are identified at the end of Chapter 7.
The specific comments received are summarized below (in bold type) under major topics. A response is provided for each comment or set of similar comments. Most of the responses fall into three general categories: (1) explanation of how and where the comment is already addressed in the plan; (2) explanation that the comment is generally addressed in the plan and that specific details will be addressed as the Council implements the plan over the next 5 years; or (3) indication of revision(s) to be made in the plan.
General Comments
The Council appreciates the support.
2. Major concern that the NYS Department of State might discontinue working with local governments on implementation of the Comprehensive Management Plan.
The Department of State will continue to work with the local governments of the Reserve, both directly and in cooperation with the Council, to assist with implementation of the plan.
3. Will local control of the estuary be removed and a new state agency be formed? The Council should consider asking the State Legislature to mandate and at least partially fund municipal watershed action plans and local tidal wetland restoration programs.
Local control will not be taken away nor will a new State agency be formed. The Reserve's enabling statute intentionally avoided mandates, calling for local governments to voluntarily implement the plan in a coordinated manner. The Environmental Protection Fund and the Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act provide funds for municipal watershed action plans and local tidal wetland restoration programs, respectively. Federal, local government and other non-governmental funds are also anticipated.
4. More detail should be provided on plan implementation.
The Council has begun developing the first annual work program for implementation of the Comprehensive Management Plan; this is where details of plan implementation for the first year will be identified.
5. The plan marks a great start in the effort but consistent follow-up will be needed. The key to implementation will be intergovernmental cooperation and administrative follow-up. Implementation needs to cross jurisdictional boundaries.
The Council, with representatives from State and local governments, academia, the private sector and special interest groups, has made a long-term commitment to a cooperative and coordinated approach to plan implementation. The proposed Reserve office (Chapter 7, Action 11-2) reflects this approach.
6. The Town of Islip's commitment to the plan is questioned on the basis of it allowing a house to be built on barely half the square footage required through zoning. This is a troublesome precedent.
Islip's representative on the Council has been made aware of this issue.
7. The plan includes nothing on preserving Fire Island as a means of protecting the estuary. The State has fallen short in not getting behind the Fire Island Interim Plan and not protecting the 32-mile barrier which separates the estuary from the Atlantic Ocean. Additionally, there doesn't seem to be any policy for opening or closing new inlets.
The Reserve's enabling statute requires the Council to propose recommendations that address numerous issues related to water quality, living resources, public access and recreation, open space, the estuary-related economy and public education. Erosion on the Atlantic Ocean side of the barrier islands is not included. The Council voted to delineate the mean high tide line on the Atlantic as the southerly extent of the Reserve. Uncertainties regarding the benefits and detriments of breaches are being examined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and others, but in the interim the Corps of Engineers' breach contingency plan addresses breach closure along the barrier islands.
8. The systematic exclusion of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from the Council's deliberations demonstrates that the effort was not intended to be a serious look at the estuary's environmental problems.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was an active participant in Council meetings. The Corps made presentations to the Council on its environmental initiatives, attended a significant number of meetings of the Council and its Technical Advisory Committee, and is an important participant in resolving the estuary's environmental problems. The Corps has completed a reconnaissance study to examine federal participation in wetlands restoration, and will soon undertake a detailed feasibility study. In cooperation with the State, the Corps has begun implementation of a water level monitoring program for the bays, which will also collect bathymetric and other information appropriate for hydrodynamic modeling and water quality monitoring. With its State and local partners the Corps has played, and will continue to play, a key role in wetland restoration, dredging, data collection, and other environmental issues in the estuary.
9. There is a lack of information on the impacts of sea level rise, current research demonstrating the detrimental impacts of shoreline engineering projects, the hazards of shoreline redevelopment, and the need to respect natural coastal processes.
All of these issues were discussed in the Flooding and Erosion Technical Report and the Wetlands Technical Report which served as foundations for the Council in completion of the plan. The technical reports were based on information obtained from scientific literature and studies, and thus provide a good general discussion of these issues. Action 6-12 in Chapter 7 recommends examination of the impacts of shoreline hardening on the estuary, methods for mitigating bay flooding and erosion impacts, change in the estuary's shoreline due to sea level rise, and causes of wetland loss, in order to develop appropriate site specific management actions.
10. Regarding the problems of beach erosion and salinity in the Reserve, the Council should consider turning to the Netherlands for advice in dealing with these issues.
The Council is aware of this option.
11. The technical reports used in formulating and supporting the various chapters seem to be available only by accessing them on the web and downloading as hard copies and therefore are not readily accessible.
Between 1995 and December 2000 thirty-four technical reports were produced as the basis for development of this plan and are available in printed format from the Department of State by written request. All of the technical reports are contained on a CD-ROM which was distributed to public libraries in the Reserve. The technical reports were reviewed by Council and its advisory committees, providing review by as many as 75 individuals representing government, academia, nonprofit organizations and the public sector. Each report was discussed at a Council meeting and all of the meetings were open to the public. The Council provided time for a public comment period at each meeting.
12. The federal funding under the National Recreation Trails Program has remained untapped even though fees are collected for four wheel drive access for fishing, an activity which could qualify for funding as motorized trails improvements.
The plan contains a listing of "Other Sources" of funding for which various State agencies, local governments or non-profit organizations represented on the Council can apply. The list is not meant to be inclusive.
13. Asks for help with Army Corps of Engineers plans to allow a 150' dock with two huge platforms in Great South Bay at Bellport and is concerned that this will encourage others. Considers this inappropriate for the area or neighborhood.
The Council has no authority to authorize or deny any development proposal.
14. Designate the Reserve as an NEP.
The potential for inclusion of the Reserve within the National Estuary Program was explored by the Council in 1994 and again in 1997. Each time it was clear to the Council that funding was not available for a new NEP designation.
15. Concern that, by establishing an office, the Council would have an authority that is not appropriate or warranted. Concern with the size of a building for the Reserve office.
The enabling statute calls for cooperation between State and municipal agencies. It requires the Council to encourage and, where feasible, facilitate implementation of the recommendations of the plan and review the plan and its effectiveness. Therefore, the Council sees voluntary participation between partners through the creation of an office as an effective use of resources to achieve Reserve-wide implementation of the priority actions.
The plan doesn't propose an office building. Recent discussion of the Reserve office by Council members suggest an office with a core of four persons (director, administrative assistant, science/technology advisor and education/outreach coordinator) augmented by additional staff as provided or funded by the two counties and six towns to implement plan recommendations.
16. The Shinnecock Tribal Council must be included as a responsible party for lands under its jurisdiction.
The Shinnecock Tribal Council was invited to participate in development of the plan. It has the sole authority to decide which, if any, of the plan's recommended actions should be implemented on lands under its jurisdiction.
17. In the overview section of Chapter 1, the figure of 1.5 million people stated to live in the Reserve seems high.
The figure was estimated from 1990 census tract and block group data. Information generated by the 2000 Census will be used for any additional population analyses needed during implementation.
18. Fire Island National Seashore has a number of ongoing projects associated with many of the recommendations in the plan and there are many areas in which the National Park Service and the Council should be working together.
The Council may include FINS among other entities it invites to serve in an advisory capacity.
Water Quality
The Council shares these views. The plan reflects the importance of improving and protecting water quality and the need to abate and control nonpoint source pollution, especially pollutants carried by stormwater runoff.
20. Smart growth controls are needed by local governments to control nonpoint source pollution.
New York State's Quality Communities Interagency Task Force recently released a report titled State and Local Governments Partnering for a Better New York. The report sets forth quality communities ("smart growth") principles. These principles are inherent in most aspects of the Comprehensive Management Plan. Thus, local government implementation of the plan's recommended actions for nonpoint source pollution control will necessarily embody smart growth.
21. The significance of Ulva (a floating algae that occurs in large mats) in the western bays is being overlooked in the report's focus on eelgrass.
Eelgrass in the western bays is of ecological significance; Ulva is the most problematic. The prevalence of Ulva in the bays is thought to be a result of nutrient inputs from both nonpoint sources and sewage treatment plant discharges. Many of the management practices called for under Outcome 1 in Chapter 7 are intended to reduce nutrient loading from nonpoint sources. Total Maximum Daily Load figures for nutrients that will be developed for the western bays (Chapter 7, Action 6-3) will form the basis of evaluating the need for wastewater treatment plant upgrades or relocation of their outfalls to the coastal ocean in an effort to reduce point source loadings of nutrients and ultimately control Ulva.
22. Sewage treatment plant discharges are the major source of pollution to the western bays and not nonpoint source pollution. Regulations, education and monitoring are needed to deal with both these sources.
Based on existing information (1996 Priority Waterbody List for the Atlantic Ocean/Long Island Sound Basin), urban runoff (a nonpoint source pollutant) is the primary source of water quality impairments to Hempstead and South Oyster bays; municipal sources, i.e., sewage treatment plants, are considered a secondary source of pollution to Hempstead Bay. The analysis discussed in Chapter 7, Action 6-3 (Determination of additional point and nonpoint source controls.) will further identify the relative contributions of point and nonpoint pollution sources. Future regulations will be based on the results of this analysis and the assessments of municipal nonpoint pollution control practices discussed in Chapter 7, Actions 1-2 and 1-5. Education is acknowledged as important and dealt with extensively in Chapter 6 and Outcome 10 in Chapter 7. Action 6-1 calls for a comprehensive water quality monitoring program.
23. The watershed boundary shown for East Meadow Brook is off by five miles.
The exact boundaries of watersheds and contributing areas for the Reserve's tributaries will be determined as part of Action 1-6 (Development of watershed action plans.).
24. Include the watersheds of Swan River, Mud Creek and Milburn Creek as priorities for stormwater remediation.
A detailed integrative analysis of multiple data sets was used to determine areas in urgent need of stormwater management projects. Chapter 7, Action 1-1 identifies the watershed of Patchogue Bay for priority stormwater remediation. This watershed includes the Patchogue and Swan rivers, and Tuthill and Mud creeks. Milburn Creek was not designated as such due to the fact that it did not meet the basic requirement of appearing on the 1996 Priority Waterbody List.
25. Has the connection with the polluted Peconic Bay through the Shinnecock Canal been considered as a potential source of problems for the Reserve?
Yes. Peconic Bay and Shinnecock Bay are included on the Priority Waterbody List. Currently, Suffolk County is planning to fund additional research on impacts to water quality and living resources from flows through the Shinnecock Canal.
26. Concerns were raised about the lack of flushing in the bays due to the small number of inlets and that more inlets were needed.
Various actions identified in Chapter 7 address ocean-bay water exchanges. The water quality monitoring program called for in Chapter 7, Action 6-1 will look at trends in salinity levels in the Reserve and ocean-bay water and sediment exchanges. The hydrologic model called for in Action 6-7 will measure and model groundwater underflow, tributary inputs to the bays, circulation in the bays and ocean-bay exchanges with the intent of predicting the water quality impacts of potential management actions. Research on hard clam biology will more closely examine the relation of water quality parameters such as salinity on clam settlement, growth and recruitment.
27. The feasibility of discharging sewage treatment plant effluent to the coastal ocean or to groundwater should be explored in an effort to improve water quality in the bays and reverse the decline in groundwater levels and baseflow in streams. Additionally, State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permits need to be reviewed as they relate to permitted nutrient discharges.
Some sewage treatment plants discharge ef-fluent to groundwater but permits to do so are stringent due to the use of groundwater for drinking purposes. The development of Total Maximum Daily Load figures for nutrients for the western bays (Chapter 7, Action 6-3) will be the basis for review of SPDES permitted nutrient loadings and evaluating the need for upgrades to sewage treatment plants and other wastewater disposal options (Action 2-4).
28. Education programs that train municipal officials in the water quality impacts of land use decisions should be included in the recommendations.
The need for training municipal officials in diverse aspects of land use planning and related impacts on water quality and living resources was one of many areas addressed in the assessments of municipal nonpoint pollution control practices cited in Chapter 7, Actions 1-2 and 1-5. Language will be added to Action 1-5 to clearly state that these assessments identified the need for such training.
29. When will Nassau County begin stormwater abatement?
To date Nassau County has identified its storm sewer outfalls, mapped its stormwater conveyance systems, addressed flow augmenta-tion in a number of streams, and is constructing various stormwater abatement projects using Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act funds.
30. The impacts on wildlife from toxins from parks and golf courses is a concern. Extensive water and bottom samples are needed for remediation.
Action 6-1 (Monitoring water quality.) and Action 6-4 (Determination of sediment composition in Reserve tributaries and bays.) include components that will address the ecological consequences of toxic substances and the significance of the resources at risk or impaired. These issues have also been addressed in two Reserve technical reports, Status and
Trends and Areas of Contaminated Sediments, background information used to develop Chapter 2 and related actions in Chapter 7.
31. House barges and live-aboards are proliferating and controls on the disposal of effluent from them are lacking.
Such gaps in local control and enforcement are identified through the assessments of municipal nonpoint pollution control management practices, and Chapter 7, Action 1-2 calls for local governments to address such gaps through amendments to local codes and regulations. To date, assessments have been completed for the Reserve's counties and towns. Action 1-5 calls for the completion of similar assessments, with technical assistance from the Reserve office, for the City of Long Beach and all incorporated villages in the Reserve, with the intent that they too address gaps in their pollution control efforts.
32. There should be dedicated State funds for implementation of the Environmental Protection Agency's Stormwater Phase II Final Rule.
This issue should be examined once the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation has completed its plan for implementing the rule.
33. There should be a comprehensive inventory of underground storage tanks not accounted for (abandoned in place).
The NYS Department of Environmental Conservation has authority over tanks larger than 1,100 gallon; counties have authority over those less than 1,100 gallons. Action 2-2 in Chapter 7 states that Nassau County regulated such tanks at one time but found the program burdersome and costly, and switched to a voluntary approach. Language will be added to Action 6-6 (Analysis of existing information on leaks and spills.) that calls for determining if there is a feasible and fiscally-responsible approach to identifying environmental problems due to abandoned tanks.
34. Long term water quality monitoring and other fundamental data collection and analysis are important aspects of the plan. It is absolutely critical that these tasks be conducted by those agencies that have been doing so in the past.
The Reserve-wide water quality monitoring program described in Chapter 7, Action 6-1, will strive to be cost effective by analyzing historical water quality data and maximizing the use of existing monitoring programs conducted by federal, State, local governments, academia and volunteer groups.
35. Requests that no-discharge zones be established, more comprehensive water quality testing be done, more enforcement of existing laws be provided and more pumpout stations be made available. Pumpout stations should be monitored to ensure regulatory compliance and reasonable accessibility.
Part of Action 1-2 calls for the reduction of pollutants associated with new and redeveloping marinas and recreational boating. It specifically includes the verification of the number of existing pumpout facilities in the Reserve, assessing their operation and maintenance, and improving their user fee structure. The action also calls for increasing the numbers of land and water-based pumpout facilities to meet both the needs of boaters and the criteria for designation of each bay by the towns as a no-discharge zone for vessel wastes. The action also calls for upgrading and coordinating enforcement of vessel waste regulations. Action 6-1 calls for a broad and coordinated water quality monitoring program.
Living Resources
The importance of eelgrass is recognized in the plan, as well as in several technical reports (Wetlands, Estuarine Fishes, Molluscan Shellfish). Action 4-5 in Chapter 7 reiterates its importance and details an approach for comprehensive protection and restoration of eelgrass habitat. Action 6-8 provides details on development of an ecosystem monitoring program that includes, as a priority, assessment of submerged aquatic vegetation beds.
37. There is a need to manage shorebird populations aggressively through vegetation and predator control. Efforts to increase public access must be sensitive to management needs of shorebirds.
Action 4-6 in Chapter 7 describes a multi-faceted approach to protection of Reserve shorebird populations. This includes support for current management programs, which include predator control and vegetation management, as well as promotion of devegetation as a means to enhance or create nesting habitat. Improved habitat management is also one of the goals contained in Action 4-7, which recommends recognition of several Reserve sites as regionally important in the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Network Reserve.
38. There needs to be greater emphasis on developing an aquaculture program for the Reserve, including: increased hatchery capacity, improved town growout facilities, and small-scale private bottom leases. Certification of areas closed to shellfishing should be revisited and funds allocated for increased monitoring and re-evaluation of certification determination.
The importance of improving shellfish growout, through increases in Town seed planting and growout capacity, as well as spawner relay and spawner sanctuaries, is recognized in the plan, as well as in the Molluscan Shellfish Technical Report. Chapter 7, Action 3-2 recommends expansion of regional hatchery facilities. Action 3-3 supports increased growout capability and calls for evaluating the economic feasibility of expanding public aquacultural growout of hard clams, oysters, scallops, and other shellfish, and identifying potential pilot projects and locations within the Reserve. The Molluscan Shellfish Technical Report also recommends exploring possibilities for expanded Town bay bottom leases for shellfish culture. As far as shellfish area certification is concerned, the Department of Environmental Conservation has been made aware of expressed public interest in an expanded water quality testing program. The improved water quality monitoring called for in Action 6-1 should address, among other objectives, the desire for improved monitoring of shellfish closure areas. Additionally, the targeted approach to watershed management recommended in Chapter 2, which focuses attention on those tributary areas where water quality degradation has contributed to shellfish bed closures, should result in reductions in nonpoint source pollution and opportunities for re-evaluation of certification.
39. Does shellfish management mean additional harvest quotas? Commercial shellfishers are already over regulated and over licensed.
The plan and the appended technical reports discuss and recommend a wide variety of approaches and techniques that are part of a comprehensive shellfish management program. The particular mix included in a town's management program should represent the most appropriate measures for that town's waters. Harvest levels are one component of an overall program and, while the plan recognizes the importance of establishing sustainable levels, it does not recommend that towns make specific changes to current harvest regulations or licensing practices.
40. Clam seeding is not effective; spawner programs are encouraged. Additionally, overwashes promote increases in hard clam set and recruitment.
As noted in the plan and technical reports, evidence from both local shellfish programs and shellfish management throughout the country indicates that shellfish seeding, in appropriate locations and under proper conditions, can be an effective component of a broad program for restoration of shellfish populations and maintenance of harvest levels. Recognizing that shellfish seeding by itself is not a panacea, the plan and technical reports recommend an array of additional practices, with establishment of spawner sanctuaries being a priority recommendation (Chapter 2, Recommendation 7, and Chapter 7, Action 3-5). Further research, as discussed in the plan and suggested in Action 6-9, is necessary to clarify the impacts of natural coastal processes on hard clam populations, in order to provide the basis for further management actions that promote larval shellfish population growth.
41. We advise against establishing an advisory board for the shellfish industry.
The CMP does not call for the establishment of a shellfish advisory board. Action 3-6 calls for the formation of a shellfish management forum for the purpose of promoting effective exchange of management-related information.
42. Increased emphasis should be placed on the use of spawner clams, rather than seed planting programs. We shouldn't spend money on an expanded Islip hatchery.
The CMP recognizes that seed planting, under appropriate conditions, is a valid component of an overall shellfish management program. The CMP recommends that increased seed production should be considered as part of a
town's shellfish management. As part of this recommendation, it is also suggested that the feasibility and effectiveness of a potential ex-pansion of the Islip hatchery into a regional facility be evaluated. The CMP also calls for wider use of spawner beds as an important tool in re-establishment of shellfish populations.
43. We encourage a high priority (per Outcome 4, Action 4-3) recommendation for USFWS and DEC to focus on reestablishing fish runs (alewives, blueback herring, smelt and salmonids), where water quality shows the most promise. Obstruction to upstream migration will have to be breached or bypassed by appropriate techniques (as stated). While Suffolk County, with three tributaries (pg 84) with existing alewife runs, has the most candidate streams for reintroduction, we would encourage the consideration of two streams in Nassau County that have potential for remediation and stocking.
The Diadromous Fishes Technical Report indicates locations of dams on Reserve tributaries that act as impediments to fish passage. Comparison of dam locations and water quality will indicate candidate tributaries where the potential exists for species reintroduction. USFWS and DEC should be encouraged to focus on reestablishing fish runs.
The CMP and the Diadromous Fishes Technical Report both indicate the need to use water quality information and dam location, as well as other parameters, to select tributaries for potential anadromous fish restoration projects. Recommendation 3 in Chapter 3 encourages restoration of riparian corridors, in part to provide for the needs of anadromous fishes. Recommendation 5 in that chapter calls for restoration of [anadromous] fish populations where the necessary habitat conditions exist or can be created. In Chapter 7, Action 4-3 calls for the restoration or re-introduction of salmonid and alosid (herring and alewife) species to appropriate Reserve tributaries.
44. The following information should be incorporated into the CMP: Weakfish have had a rebound in stock attributable to the fishery management plans adopted by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and federal plans for the exclusive economic zone. Great South Bay has a spawning season closure period and these areas should be indicated on the maps and discussed in the text.
While recognizing the effectiveness of fisheries management plans promulgated by the National Marine Fisheries Service, the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, the Council established early in the Reserve planning process that fishery regulations and species management lie outside the scope of the plan. Because of this, the plan and the Estuarine Fishes and Diadromous Fishes technical reports focused fishery-related efforts primarily on broad aquatic habitat protection and restoration concerns. The plan calls for a substantial increase in monitoring of living resources (Chapter 7, Action 6-8), which should include more detailed species-specific geographic information regarding fish habitat and life history requirements.
45. A significant amount of water quality and living resource research has been conducted in the Reserve. These studies provide excellent starting points for implementation actions to restore the Reserve's biodiversity. It is disconcerting to see that the plan recommends further studies, rather than providing direct funds necessary to accomplish the plan's goals. In addition, the plan implies that controls will be directed toward working baymen and commercial fishermen, particularly clammers, as indicated in the following statement: "For commercial shellfish species, particularly the hard clam, the lack of understanding of population biology is a significant factor hampering management decisions." For a more equitable plan, there needs to be management of recreational fish and shellfish species, in addition to commercial species.
The plan recognizes that, based on research conducted to date, significant implementation actions for protection and restoration of the Reserve's natural resources are immediately feasible and appropriate (Ch. 3), including such measures as shellfish seed planting and improved growout capacity. This is reflected in a number of the implementation actions listed in Chapter 7 (Actions 1-1, 1-3, 3-1, 3-3, 3-5, 4-1, 4-3, 4-4, 4-6, 4-9, 4-10). These are actions that could be funded immediately, through local, State, and federal funding sources. However, the process of developing the technical report series has also resulted in identification of gaps in the current knowledge of the Reserve's resources. Filling these gaps is critical to improved management of the estuary. The plan, together with a number of the technical reports, recognizes that harvest levels and habitat degradation, regardless of the source, have been, and will continue to be, important factors in the overall health of the estuary's living resources. The language in the plan concerning species management, mentioned in the comment above, although it was in reference to species harvested commercially, includes all types of harvest, not solely commercial fishing. Additionally, the plan refers to the need for additional information in order for town shellfish managers to sustainably manage the resource. In this case, "management" refers to all types of measures that a town might employ in order to improve or enhance its shellfishery. The plan also calls for a comprehensive program of ecosystem monitoring, which would provide critical biological information necessary for management of commercial and recreational species alike.
46. An environmental monitoring program that assesses the water quality and living resource impacts of pesticide treatments for mosquito control should be considered for the Reserve.
Currently, the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation coordinates a water quality monitoring program for pesticides statewide in order to assess status, trends, and public health impacts of any pesticide contamination of ground or surface waters. Participating agencies include USGS and Suffolk County Department of Health Services, which will be sampling 2,000 public and private wells and water supplies over the next two years to identify potential pesticide contaminant plumes. Nassau County Department of Public Works also tracks pesticide levels in 500 monitoring wells. Actions 6-1 and 6-8 in Chapter 7 recommend comprehensive water quality and ecological monitoring programs, which should include assessment of the environmental impacts of toxic substances and other contaminants on the Reserve's living resources. Language will be inserted in Action 6-1 to acknowledge that water quality monitoring will include the ecological consequences of pesticide use in the Reserve.
47. There has been a drastic reduction in menhaden in the western bays. There maybe a connection to a reduction in water quality. Their absence has had a profound effect on the reduction of game fish in the estuary.
The plan, in Chapters 2 and 3, notes the importance of maintaining the necessary water quality to ensure healthy populations of fish and shellfish resources. Actions 6-1 and 6-8 in Chapter 7 call for comprehensive water and ecosystem monitoring in the Reserve. These programs would include assessment of the ecological impacts of degraded estuarine water quality on finfish populations.
Public Access and Recreation
The Town of Oyster Bay representative to the Council has been made aware of this comment.
The Council recognizes that there are safety concerns at many public shoreline facilities and fiscal constraints on tax revenues often leave facilities with inadequate funds to conduct routine repairs necessary to maintain use levels to meet public demand. These issues are reflected in Chapter 4 with reference to the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). In that chapter, Recommendation 3 specifically calls for improving and sustaining the levels of public access and recreation opportunities through a "no net loss" policy by necessary improvements and maintenance.
49. In reviewing the draft Comprehensive Management Plan there is no recommenda-tion for creating access in new localities in Nassau County? This is disappointing especially from the NYS Department of State which administers the State's Coastal Management Program. The South Shore Estuary Reserve is entirely within the State's Coastal Management Zone and all of the State Coastal Policies apply (especially those pertaining to water-dependent uses, specifically Policies 9, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24 and 25). The Florida Coastal Program should be looked as a model for public access which New York State should emulate.
Chapter 4, Recommendation 1 references 37 existing sites, developed in cooperation with local governments where public access opportunities can be expanded to increase the amount of land dedicated to physical and visual access. Chapter 7, Action 7 -2 calls for creating new public access and several priority projects are listed, the most ambitious of which are in Nassau County. For example, in Long Beach, the last remaining underutilized land along Reynolds Channel is proposed for public use as a regional water-dependent recreation destination. In Freeport, a new public facility is proposed at the recently acquired Little Swift Creek property. The Town of Hempstead also proposes improvements for passive recreational use at the recently acquired de St. Aubins property.
The New York State Coastal Zone Boundary closely follows the shoreline and some the major tributaries. The Reserve encompasses all of the upland area draining to the bays and is a much larger area. The New York State Coastal Management Program policies remain in effect and the draft Comprehensive Management Plan can be used to provide greater guidance when applying the State policies, especially for use by the localities.
50. The scarcity of land acquisition initiatives in Nassau County appears to reflect poorly on the county and its subdivisions as not interested in providing access to the Reserve.
Nassau County representatives have participated in development of this plan through their membership on the Council and have stated their goals to acquire open space and provide public access in the Nassau County Comprehensive Plan. The Nassau County Planning Commission adopted (12/ 98) the Nassau County Comprehensive Plan which "provides a vision for the County focusing on the protection of its resources and on current and long range growth and development compatible with its suburban character and quality of life." (Nassau County Comprehensive Plan, executive summary). In the plan are a number of policy statements which support options to permanently preserve open space and establish an "Environmental Fund" to aquire and protect open space and natural resources. The plan recommends support of the open space advisory committee and expansion of the committee's charge to identify an overall open space program for the County (Nassau County Comprehensive Plan p.III-7 to p. III- 15), which was completed in 2000.
51. Baymen need more access and should be allowed to launch anywhere to follow the fish, and they need more ramps, as do recreational boaters.
The plan recognizes the need to enhance the economic viability for traditional water- dependent businesses and lists a number of techniques for municipalities to use in attracting and retaining them, including offering winter boat storage in existing shoreline parks and having adequate boat launch capability. The plan also encourages municipalities to consider, as a matter of waterfront policy, implementing the actions under Outcome 8 (Water-dependent businesses sustained). These actions include providing infrastructure to support existing and new water-dependent uses and states (Chapter 7, Action 8-1), "Throughout the region the greatest need is for docking and loading facilities for baymen..."
52. We request more public access (launch ramps) town-wide (Brookhaven) and the use of town facilities on the Swan River which could have slips to accommodate both baymen and recreational users as well as visitors.
Action 7-2 calls for the creation of new public access facilities. Action 8-1 specifically acknowledges the great need for docking and loading facilities for baymen throughout the Reserve. Brookhaven's representative on the Council has been made aware of these Town-specific requests.
53. Fishing access in Nassau County needs improvement.
State agencies and local governments realize the need for increased access throughout the Reserve. Chapter 7, Action 7-1 states, "To meet the growing demand for estuary-related activities, access, boat launches, fishing piers and other recreation facilities should be upgraded at the 37 sites identified in the 1996 inventory of public access and recreation sites".
This action also identifies additional sites for expansion in each sub-region and expansion of access through the development of a vehicle, vessel, bicycle and pedestrian trails. A new bullet will be added in Chapter 7 under Action 7-2(a) to call for determination of the feasibility of providing public access with parking near the parkway bridges for fishing and enjoyment of scenic views.
54. A hiking/biking trail should be established that would run from the North Bellmore/Wantagh border south through Bellmore to the end of the Cedar Creek County Park in Seaford.
This proposal fits into the recommendation for increased public use and recreational opportunities presented in the plan. The plan advocates the interconnection of existing public access and recreation facilities by a system of vehicle, vessel, bicycle and pedestrian trails to increase public access (Outcome 7). As part of implementation of the plan it is recommended that local governments inventory opportunities for access linkages and work with the Council, the Reserve office and State partners to create a trail system. The plan also identifies opportunities for public access facility upgrades and subregional priorities for creating new public access and recreation sites.
55. The plan recommends a bike trail from Jones beach eastward along the barrier island. This trail is already an approved project under NYS Department of Transportation's "Environmental Initiative" and construction should start this year.
In general, both planned and potential projects have been included in the plan in order to be current and complete. The Department of Transportation is in the process of developing design alternatives for the bike trail project.
56. There are a number of paddling trails which may act as a model for the waterway trail mentioned in the text.
Existing models will be examined during the development of access plans and blueway trails.
57. The National Park Service has been working since 1978 to secure funds for a visitor center in Patchogue for the Fire Island National Seashore. It would appropriate to mention this in the plan.
This facility is identified as a priority for the Great South Bay subregion in Action 7-3.
Shoreline Structures/Underwater Lands
The South Shore Estuary Reserve's enabling statute calls for voluntary participation on part of local governments, and the Council is not in a position to call for a moratorium. However, the issue of bulkheads is recognized.
Open Space
The Council recognizes that open space preser-vation is a mechanism to sustain community character, prevent further degradation of water quality from potential new development and protect living resources. Further, the plan calls for the immediate protection of open space as an action that serves these multiple objectives. Action 5-1 in Chapter 7 calls for a Reserve Open Space Workgroup to coordinate and develop an Open Space Acquisition and Protection Action Strategy to guide future open space preservation effort. The local government representatives and entities interested in open space protection on the Council have been made aware of the comments.
60. There should be strict procedures to protect private property owners' rights from condemnation proceedings with regard to open space acquisition.
Condemnation procedures are governed by the Eminent Domain Procedure Law, which seeks, among other purposes, "to give due regard to the need to acquire property for public use as well as the legitimate interests of private property owners." (EDPL § 101). Preservation of open space lands is primarily accomplished by mutual consent between willing parties.
61. Aesthetics and artistic merit of visual access are important to the Reserve. There is a need for consistency in signage efforts which should be coordinated with the New York State Department of Transportation.
Recommendation 16 in Chapter 4 calls for the recognition and preservation of the coastal landscape that contributes to the Reserve's unique character and sense of place. To raise public awareness, the Council's Citizens Advisory Committee has initiated a signage program to identify the more than 100 individual tributaries that flow into the estuary. The signs will recognize the numerous tributaries that have local or Native American names contributing to the Reserve's sense of place. Chapter 7, Action 7-4 calls for the establishment of a Coastal Heritage Trail to unify appropriate trail signs. The Council will consider adding the Department of Transportation as an advisor to the Council.
Maritime Character
Chapter 4, Recommendation 14 calls for the perpetuation of bay houses while protecting the bay island environment. Bay house owners identified opportunities for improving the cur-rent lease agreements especially where leases do not permit 100 percent in-kind replacement following storm damage and those that prohibit the transfer of bay houses to non-relatives. Information generated from research and doc-umenting the legacy of individual bay houses, can provide a basis for protection so that within lease agreements, performance standards can be included to provide for maintenance, in-kind repair, and seasonal use. The Town of Hemp-stead's standards for a caretaker or transfer pro-gram are viewed as a model. In instances where there is no family or caretaker, a local museum or historical society may be able to maintain and use the bay house for interpretive programs.
Estuary Economy
Department of Environmental Conservation and Sea Grant in which he found that New York saltwater anglers spent over $1.139 billion; with a multiplier going to $2.5 billion. If, as the plan states, 43% of this fishing occurs in the SSER then direct expenditures would be $490 million. The plan should accurately reflect these figures.
The Council appreciates receiving information about a separate study that suggests the expenditures for recreational angling in the estuary may be substantially higher than those estimated for 1995 in the technical report titled Value of Economic Impacts and Sectors with a Perspective on Uses.
64. Waterfront properties are taxed at a higher rate than inland properties. The revenue difference between waterfront properties and inland properties should be dedicated to improving the Reserve.
The plan did not address the issue of tax assessment rates. Chapter 5, Recommendation 4 calls for municipalities to explore the use of tax relief, public/private partnerships and other techniques to attract and maintain water dependent businesses to shoreline locations. The concept of dedicated funds for estuary Reserve improvements will continue to be investigated by the Council as a mechanism for long term implementation.
65. The owner of a small marina is concerned with eroding waterfronts and the inappropriate location of industrial parks along the waterfront (Freeport).
The retention and needs of water-dependent businesses such as marinas in the Reserve is the focus of Chapter 5. Recommendation 3 encourages local governments to give priority to water-dependent businesses and develop strategies for public infrastructure improvement with regard to maintenance of in-water structures, dredging maintenance, and navigation safety.
66. The Village of East Rockway asks to be identified in the plan as a maritime center based on its long history as a port and the Havilan-Davison Grist Mill Museum, operated by the Village Trustees. The Village has made it a priority to acquire properties along the waterfront; it purchased the Talfor Boat Basin and White Cannon Park. They are acquiring an additional three acres for redevelopment for public use and water access.
Based on further investigation at the invitation of the Village Superintendent, it was determined that the Village clearly desires to increase public access to the waterfront and be included in the creation of the South Shore Estuary Reserve Coastal Heritage Trail. Identification of the Village as a maritime center, at this time, would not meet its primary objectives. To support the Village's vision for creating a public waterfront, its waterfront access improvements will be added to priorities for implementation under Action 7-2 (a) in Chapter 7.
67. Upland disposal of dredged material may be more advantageous than borrow pits within the bays, especially once the borrow pits are filled. The Army Corps of Engineers has granted a blanket 10 year dredging permit to the Town of Oyster Bay which will impact an individual property owner.
The plan recognizes the need to address navigation needs of water-dependent uses while protecting the estuarine resources. Recommendation 6 in Chapter 5 calls for the Council to coordinate development and implementation of a dredging and dredged material management plan for the estuary. Chapter 7, Action 8-2 provides greater detail on the elements which would be covered in the proposed dredging and dredged material management plan. The Town of Oyster Bay representative to the Council has been made aware of the concern over this specific dredging project in the Town's jurisdiction.
Education
The importance of parklands and open space is an recurring theme in Chapter 4 and is highlighted again in Outcome 5. Appropriate behavior on parklands is usually clearly defined in each park. It is hoped that the plan's efforts to increase stewardship of the Reserve will be reflected in positive changes in individual behavior.
69. Each tributary in the Reserve should have a Riverkeeper program.
Local stewardship of the environment is the basis for many of the education actions called for under Outcome 10 in Chapter 7. Riverkeeper programs can be considered among the many stewardship options.
70. Outreach targeted at property owners is an important way to solve environmental problems.
Property owners are one of the intended targets for education actions identified in Outcome 10 of Chapter 7. Action 10-14 calls for a homeowner certification program for nonpoint source pollution prevention in conjunction with the native plants landscaping program proposed in Action 10-13.
71. Long Island local history is not on the curriculum due to the focus of State social studies exams. The State Education Department should be added to the list of agencies participating in implementation of the plan.
Wording will be added to Chapter 7, Outcome 11 calling for the State Education Department to be represented on the Council's formal education workgroup.
72. Public awareness and appropriate behavior are crucial to solving environmental problems, and publicity is an important element of public awareness. The most important aspect of implementation is a community awareness program.
Chapter 6 and Outcome 10 in Chapter 7 are based on the fact that public awareness is the foundation of environmental education, and the intent of related education activities, which in-clude publicity of diverse types and local stewardship programs, is to change individual behavior.
73. The Council should empower the Citizens Advisory Committee to provide project grants to organizations who have sustainable and curriculum-appropriate programs, or to provide funds for such purposes to be administered by NYS Council for the Arts, Arts-in-Education program or by Nassau/Suffolk BOCES. A more appropriate role for the Council regarding education might be to develop a marketing tool such as a brochure on educational opportunities for students and teachers.
Neither the Council nor the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) have authority under the Reserve's enabling statute to give grants. It is envisioned that the formal education workgroup called for in the plan would recommend areas for funding to the CAC and Council, and these recommendations would be forwarded to the appropriate agency. The workgroup will help to encourage formal education activities that relate to the estuary and would be composed of repre-sentatives from appropriate State agencies and local organizations.
74. Mandatory education programs should be created for use in all Long Island schools in an effort to facilitate awareness and concern about local environmental matters.
The New York State Board of Regents has the responsibility for mandating education programs in the State. Environmental education
and outreach are important components of the plan, as described in Chapter 6 and Outcome 10 in Chapter 7. The Council's formal education workgroup will be taking the lead in developing education programs and working to incorporate them into school curricula.
75. On page 6 of the Preface [actually the Executive Summary] you may want to add interpretive tours and field trips as a major way in which visitors, residents and students learn about the estuary.
The list in the Executive Summary was not meant to be inclusive. Such delivery mechan-isms are discussed in Chapter 6 (Increase Education, Outreach and Stewardship) and inferred in various actions under Outcome 10 (Heightened public awareness of the estuary.). Interpretive tours and field trips and other mechanisms are details that will be considered as part of implementation.
Offers of Assistance
Speakers at the Suffolk County Public Hearing
(Suffolk County Legislator)
Brian X. Foley, Patchogue, NY
(Suffolk County Legislator)
Dr. Mohammad Rana, Patchogue, NY
(St. Joseph's College)
David Thompson, Mt. Sinai, NY
(Trout Unlimited)
Craig Kessler, E. Moriches, NY
(Ducks Unlimited)
Don Pendleton, Patchogue, NY
(Swan Creek Environmental)
John W. Lund, Sayville, NY
(Davis Park Assn./Fire Island Assn.)
Dr. Lori Zaikowski, E. Patchogue, NY (Dowling College)
Dan Morris, Brookhaven, NY
(Open Space Council)
Florence Sharkey, Brookhaven, NY
(Brookhaven Bayman's Assn.)
William Hamilton, Brookhaven, NY
(Brookhaven Bayman's Assn.)
Tom Berger, E. Patchogue, NY
(Swan Lake Park Civic Assn.)
Mary Jane Rau - (LWV)
Adrienne Esposito, Patchogue, NY
(Citizens Campaign for the
Environment)
Mr. & Mrs. Wayne Brooks, Oakdale, NY
Roger Baker, E. Moriches, NY
(Ducks Unlimited)
Dr. Diana C. Teta, E. Patchogue, NY
(South Country Alliance)
Speakers at the Nassau County Public Hearing
(Target Marketing & Design)
George Kiesel, Freeport, NY
Morris Kramer, Atlantic Beach, NY
Alan Jay, Freeport, NY
Adeline Quinn, Lido Beach, NY
Elaine Y. Reinke, Massapequa, NY
Alan J. Leo, Patchogue, NY
(Open Space Preservation Trust)
John R. Fischer, Freeport, NY
(Trout Unlimited)
Marie Pendzich, Massapequa Park, NY
(Sierra Club)
Kenneth Arnold, Hicksville, NY
(Nassau County DPW)
B.A. Schoen, Baldwin, NY - (SSBHOA)
Jack McGreevy, N. Merrrick, NY
(Peconic Land Trust)
Vic Consiglio, Massapequa, NY
(Outcast Anglers)
John McDermott, Baldwin, NY
Steven Nagasheema, New Rochelle, NY
(NEMO)
Vicky Rosenberg, Wantagh, NY
(President, Wantagh/Seaford
Homeowners)
Dennis McCabe, East Rockaway, NY
(Village of East Rockaway)
Gerald Crockett, W. Babylon, NY
(Independent bayman)
Joseph M. Kralovich, Merrick, NY
Richard Wertz, Massapequa, NY
(Nassau Shores Civic Assn.)
Mary B. Rice, Massapequa, NY
(East End Civic Assn.)
Dr. Michael J. Weiss, Atlantic Beach, NY
Ruby Kast, Massapequa, NY
Susan Blake, Massapequa, NY
Joan Wild, Amity Harbor, NY
(Friends of Essex Lagoon)
Peter Anglim, Freeport, NY
Vincent Greco, Freeport, NY
Dave Denenberg, Merrick, NY
Christine L. Marzigliano, Seaford, NY
(Cedar Creek Health Risk Assesment)
Ken Bogatelle, Freeport, NY - (NWCA)
Guy Jacob, Elmont, NY
(Chair, Sierra Club Coastal Resources)
Individuals Who Submitted Written Comments
(St. Joseph's College)
Lori Zaikowski, PhD., Oakdale, NY
(Dowling College)
John W. Lund, Sayville, NY
(Davis Park Association)
Dennis McCabe, East Rockaway
(Village Superintendent )
Robert C. Weltner, Freeport, NY
(President, Operation SPLASH,
Chairman, Bring Back the Bay)
Alan Jay, Freeport, NY
Walter C. Reich, Patchogue, NY
(President, Fire Island Nation Seashore Advisory Board)
William E. Miller, Bethpage, NY
(Mid-Island Surfcasters)
Gerald Crockett, West Babylon, NY
(Commercial bayman)
Janice Schaefer, Mastic Beach, NY
(President, Mastic Beach Property Owners Assn.)
John E. Markee, Bohemia, NY
(General Manager, Fabco Industries, Inc.)
David Bishop, Lindenhurst, NY
(Suffolk County Legislator)
David Thompson, Medford, NY
(President, Art Flick Chapter of Trout Unlimited)
Guy Jacob, Elmont, NY
(Chair, Sierra Club Coastal Resources)
Jerry Stoddard, New York, NY
(President, Fire Island Assn.)
Robert J. Kent, Riverhead, NY
(Program Coordinator, Marine
District, New York Sea Grant,
Cornell University)
Nancy Soloman, Port Washington, NY
(Executive Director, Long Island
Traditions, Inc.)
Alan J. Leo, Brookhaven, NY
(Executive Director, Open Space
Preservation Trust)
Jovan Torres, Garden City, NY
George Kiesel, Freeport, NY
Matthew N. Karp, Mineola, NY
Richard Schary, North Bellmore, NY
(Member, Board of Directors , Long Island Greenbelt Trail Conference)
Elizabeth Marcellus, Bay Shore, NY
Edward Luke, West Sayville, NY
(President, Nissequogue Canoe & Kayak Club)