ConPro Spatial is changing! For now, you may view the already existing ConPro spatial application or other spatial information
in a new browser window by clicking on one of the links below. Note that TNC users must log in to see the complete data.
- ecad.tnc.org/ConProSpatial
- Map of TNC's Conservation Projects will open in a new browser window which contains links to detailed project data in ConPro. TNC users must log in to see complete data.
- maps.tnc.org/coredata
- TNC's core conservation datasets including conservation projects dataset.
- maps.tnc.org
- Site that provides links to all of TNC's publically available data resources.
Oops. ConPro encountered an error while trying to fulfill your request. Please refresh this page
and try again.
If the error persists, please notify us using the feedback form.
Great South Bay (ID: 1445)
Project last modified by
aspeers
on
March 09, 2010.
-
- Download Data
- See Associated Info (0)
This conservation project has been locked by a Miradi upload. For more information about Miradi uploads/downloads, please see:
Miradi FAQs.
Miradi FAQs.
Associated Files
No associated links found.
Associated Links
No associated links found.
- Basic
- Viability
- Threats
- Viability Assessment
- Action Plan
- Strategy Effectiveness
- Indicators
- Resources
| Name |
|---|
|
Objective 01: Re-establish the hard clam population in GSB to an average density of 6 clams per meter squared by 2020 for the purposes of ecosystem health/enhancement and sustainable harvest
|
|
Objective 02: Maintain existing salt marsh acreage from a baseline constructed from the most recent available height-of-growing-season imagery, increase acreage where possible, and enhance functionality of Great South Bay salt marsh by 2015
|
|
Objective 03: Maintain 2002 seagrass acreage (14,000 acres) in Great South Bay and increase acreage by 10% over 2002 levels by 2015
|
|
Objective 04: By 2015, ensure that natural movement of the barrier island (which is necessary for the long-term integrity of the island in light of rising sea-levels) can potentially occur without human intervention.
|
|
Objective 05: By 2012 develop a vision and coordinated plan to achieve sustainable predator and prey finfish species abundance levels designed to meet pre-determined human use and ecosystem objectives...(see text)
|
|
Objective 06: Rebuild the Mid-Atlantic Southern New England winter flounder stock as specified in Amendment 1 to the ASMFC Winter Flounder FMP, expand knowledge of the species, and reduce human use impacts on flounder reproduction in GSB
|
|
Objective 07: Increase the size of the Great South Bay alewife population from less than 10,000 individuals to greater than 100,000, distributed over at least four tributaries by 2022
|
|
Objective 08: By 2015, increase the number and productivity of piping plovers to 65 pairs and a five-year average of 2.0 chicks fledged per pair for the Fire Island reach of their New York range.
|
|
Objective 09: Maintain a sustainable nesting population of horseshoe crabs in Great South Bay at a level that also provides adequate forage for fish and shorebirds
|
|
Objective 10: Reduce pollution in GSB to ensure that water quality is sufficient to support the viability and sustainability of the habitats, species and human uses of GSB by 2015
|
|
Objective 11: By 2020, reduce New York State greenhouse gas emissions to 10% below 1990 levels, and establish a well-coordinated, multi-layered approach to protecting coastal habitat in the face of sea level rise
|
|
Objective 12: By 2015 increase the environmental stewardship ethic on Long Island as measured by a 25% increase in the acceptance and actions for implementing an ecosystem-based approach to planning and managment on land and in the water.
|
| Focal Conservation Target | Target Type | Habitat Type |
|---|---|---|
|
Hard Clams
|
- | - |
|
Salt Marshes
|
- | - |
|
Alewives
|
- | - |
|
Piping Plovers
|
- | - |
|
Seagrass Meadows
|
- | - |
|
Horseshoe Crabs
|
- | - |
|
Winter Flounder
|
- | - |
|
Barrier Island Complex
|
- | - |
|
Predatory Fish: (weakfish, bluefish, summer flounder, and striped bass)
|
- | - |
| Threat (Common Taxonomy) * | Targets Threatened |
|---|---|
|
Shoreline armoring (Natural System Modifications :: Other Ecosystem Modifications ) |
|
|
Breach contingency / Inlet Management (Natural System Modifications :: Other Ecosystem Modifications ) |
|
|
Development (Residential & Commercial Development :: Housing & Urban Areas ) |
|
|
Global warming (Climate Change & Severe Weather :: Temperature Extremes ) |
|
|
Sea level rise (Climate Change & Severe Weather :: Habitat Shifting & Alteration ) |
|
|
Beach nourishment (Natural System Modifications :: Other Ecosystem Modifications ) |
|
|
Imbalanced Concentration and Composition of Nutrients (Pollution :: Household Sewage & Urban Waste Water ) |
|
|
Harmful Algal Blooms (Invasive & Other Problematic Species & Genes :: Invasive Non-Native/Alien Species ) |
|
|
Dams (Natural System Modifications :: Dams & Water Management/Use ) |
|
|
Direct take (Biological Resource Use :: Fishing & Harvesting Aquatic Resources ) |
|
|
Dredging (Transportation & Service Corridors :: Shipping Lanes ) |
|
|
Inadequate culverts (Natural System Modifications :: Dams & Water Management/Use ) |
|
|
Disease (Invasive & Other Problematic Species & Genes :: Invasive Non-Native/Alien Species ) |
|
|
Loss of sea grass beds (Biological Resource Use :: Fishing & Harvesting Aquatic Resources ) |
|
|
By-catch (Biological Resource Use :: Fishing & Harvesting Aquatic Resources ) |
|
|
Invasive Species (Plants, Phragmites) (Invasive & Other Problematic Species & Genes :: Invasive Non-Native/Alien Species ) |
|
|
Predation (Cormorant, fish) (Invasive & Other Problematic Species & Genes :: Problematic Native Species ) |
|
|
Predation(crabs, whelks, etc.) (Invasive & Other Problematic Species & Genes :: Problematic Native Species ) |
|
|
Invasive species(aquatic) (Invasive & Other Problematic Species & Genes :: Invasive Non-Native/Alien Species ) |
|
|
Mosquito control ditches (Natural System Modifications :: Dams & Water Management/Use ) |
|
|
Off-shore by-catch (Biological Resource Use :: Fishing & Harvesting Aquatic Resources ) |
|
|
Reduced filtering capacity (Biological Resource Use :: Fishing & Harvesting Aquatic Resources ) |
|
|
Storm water runoff (Natural System Modifications :: Dams & Water Management/Use ) |
|
|
Toxic contaminants (endocrine disruptors) (Pollution :: Household Sewage & Urban Waste Water ) |
|
|
Deteriorated shellfish beds (Biological Resource Use :: Fishing & Harvesting Aquatic Resources ) |
|
|
Harvest Methods (Biological Resource Use :: Fishing & Harvesting Aquatic Resources ) |
|
|
Toxins (Pollution :: Household Sewage & Urban Waste Water ) |
|
|
Boating activities (Human Intrusions & Disturbance :: Recreational Activities ) |
|
|
Excessive herbivory (Invasive & Other Problematic Species & Genes :: Problematic Native Species ) |
|
|
Excessive macroalgae (Invasive & Other Problematic Species & Genes :: Problematic Native Species ) |
|
|
Power plant entrainment and impingement (Natural System Modifications :: Dams & Water Management/Use ) |
|
|
Direct human caused mortality (Human Intrusions & Disturbance :: Recreational Activities ) |
|
|
Excessive deer grazing (Invasive & Other Problematic Species & Genes :: Problematic Native Species ) |
|
|
Groins (Natural System Modifications :: Other Ecosystem Modifications ) |
|
|
Harvest of forage fish (Biological Resource Use :: Fishing & Harvesting Aquatic Resources ) |
|
|
Incompatable recreation (Human Intrusions & Disturbance :: Recreational Activities ) |
|
|
Invasive species (marine) (Invasive & Other Problematic Species & Genes :: Invasive Non-Native/Alien Species ) |
|
|
Off road vehicles (Human Intrusions & Disturbance :: Recreational Activities ) |
|
|
Predation (cats, gulls, etc.) (Invasive & Other Problematic Species & Genes :: Invasive Non-Native/Alien Species ) |
|
|
Reduced pH of sediment pore water (Biological Resource Use :: Fishing & Harvesting Aquatic Resources ) |
|
|
Renewable Energy Projects (Energy Production & Mining :: Renewable Energy ) |
|
|
Sand Mining (Energy Production & Mining :: Mining & Quarrying ) |
|
|
Beach Nourishment parks and town policies inclusive of maintainance of trans infrastrcuture (Residential & Commercial Development :: Housing & Urban Areas ) |
|
|
Boat traffic (Human Intrusions & Disturbance :: Recreational Activities ) |
|
|
Changes to nutrient cycles (Undefined :: Undefined ) |
|
|
Decreased shellfish beds (Natural System Modifications :: Other Ecosystem Modifications ) |
|
|
deteriorating marshes (Undefined :: Undefined ) |
|
|
Direct harvest of mussels (Biological Resource Use :: Fishing & Harvesting Aquatic Resources ) |
|
|
Discard mortailty inside GSB (Biological Resource Use :: Fishing & Harvesting Aquatic Resources ) |
|
|
Discard mortality outside GSB (Biological Resource Use :: Fishing & Harvesting Aquatic Resources ) |
|
|
Fertilizer application (Pollution :: Agricultural & Forestry Effluents ) |
|
|
Inapropriate dredge spoil deposition and beach nourishment (Natural System Modifications :: Dams & Water Management/Use ) |
|
|
Inlet stabilization (Natural System Modifications :: Dams & Water Management/Use ) |
|
|
Low Dissolved Oxygen (Natural System Modifications :: Other Ecosystem Modifications ) |
|
|
Restricted Sediment Transport (Natural System Modifications :: Other Ecosystem Modifications ) |
|
|
Tidal restrictions (Natural System Modifications :: Dams & Water Management/Use ) |
|
|
Unleashed dogs (Invasive & Other Problematic Species & Genes :: Problematic Native Species ) |
|
* For information on the common taxonomy of threats, see http://conservationmeasures.org/CMP/IUCN/.
| Strategy (Common Taxonomy) | Threats Addressed |
|---|---|
|
Strategic Action 1.1: Actively rebuild spawning potential of clam population in Great South Bay.
( Species Management :: Species Recovery ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 1.2: Passively rebuild clam population by protecting some of the natural clam sets and existing large clams in order to add to the total spawning potential of Great South Bay.
( Species Management :: Species Recovery ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 1.3: Ensure that harvest management and enforcement efforts are consistent with short-term rebuilding and long-term sustainability of a functioning clam population
( Species Management :: Species Recovery ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 1.4: Maximize hard clam survival through ecosystem-based approaches to managing predation induced mortality
( Species Management :: Species Recovery ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 1.5: Ensure all enforcement agencies have sufficient staff and resources and are familiar with current regulations, codes and laws concerning marine resources
( Law & Policy :: Compliance & Enforcement ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 1.6: Monitor KEAs and fill gaps in information by conducting appropriate research
( Land/Water Management :: Site/Area Management ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 10.1: Reduce nutrient loading, sources of pathogens, and pesticide/herbicide application throughout the watershed and minimize and remediate sources of toxics in the GSB watershed into Great South Bay.
( Law & Policy :: Policies & Regulations ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 10.2: Fill gaps in information by conducting appropriate research and monitoring
( Land/Water Management :: Site/Area Management ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 11.1: Develop regional greenhouse gas initiative legislation that will lead to the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to 5% below 1990 levels by 2010 and 10% below 1990 level by 2020
( Law & Policy :: Legislation ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 11.2: Coordinate state and local agency permitting and management activities undertaken to control greenhouse gas emissions and confront existing climate change impacts.
( External Capacity Building :: Institutional & Civil Society Development ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 11.3: Protect shoreline habitats from disappearing due to the opposing pressures of sea level rise and coastal development
( Land/Water Protection :: Resource & Habitat Protection ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 11.4: Develop and implement a plan for the state of New York to become carbon neutral by 2015
( Law & Policy :: Policies & Regulations ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 12.1: Develop materials that teach people ways they can take individual actions to become better stewards of their local marine and coastal environments.
( Education & Awareness :: Awareness & Communications ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 12.2: Maximize the compatible recreation opportunities on Long Island's shores by increasing number of access sites in local communities and reducing use impairments at existing sites by improving water quality.
( Land/Water Management :: Site/Area Management ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 2.1: Ensure the protection and functionality of newly-formed tidal wetland and island habitat, including flood tide deltas and peninsulas formed by barrier island overwash.
( Law & Policy :: Policies & Regulations ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 2.2: Establish appropriately sized buffers to effectively mitigate against the effects of sea level rise, and implement policies that modify buffer requirements over time in response to sea level rise.
( Law & Policy :: Policies & Regulations ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 2.3: Maintain and expand natural shorelines* by prohibiting new shoreline hardening structures and phasing out existing hardening structures in appropriate areas and reaches of the Great South Bay.
( Law & Policy :: Policies & Regulations ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 2.4: Require all navigational dredging projects to minimize impacts on tidal wetlands.
( Law & Policy :: Policies & Regulations ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 2.5: Minimize the use of mosquito chemical control agents in salt marshes
( Law & Policy :: Policies & Regulations ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 2.6: Reduce the rate of common reed (Phragmites australis) invasion by 10% and convert 10% of the current Phragmites acreage to native marsh species with characteristic zonation by 2015.
( Land/Water Management :: Invasive/Problematic Species Control ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 2.7: Modify marsh management practices to restore natural hydrology and sediment regimes in marshes in ways that reestablish native vegetation and improve marsh functionality.
( Law & Policy :: Policies & Regulations ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 2.8: Change public behavior by building awareness of the value of healthy salt marshes.
( Education & Awareness :: Awareness & Communications ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 2.9: Monitor KEAs and fill gaps in information by conducting appropriate research and monitoring
( Land/Water Management :: Site/Area Management ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 3.1: Develop and implement a plan to protect and restore seagrass meadows throughout the New York State marine district
( Land/Water Management :: Habitat & Natural Process Restoration ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 3.2: Restore 500 acres of seagrass meadows in central GSB by 2015
( Land/Water Management :: Habitat & Natural Process Restoration ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 3.3: Develop and implement a coordinated state-wide seagrass monitoring program
( Land/Water Management :: Habitat & Natural Process Restoration ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 3.4: Develop and implement a research program to understand the causes of seagrass loss from direct and indirect impacts and to refine restoration techniques
( Land/Water Management :: Habitat & Natural Process Restoration ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 3.5: Build awareness of the importance and location of seagrass beds in GSB
( Education & Awareness :: Awareness & Communications ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 3.6: Ensure adequate marine resources protection by keeping enforcement agencies informed of current regulations, codes, and laws concerning marine resources
( Law & Policy :: Compliance & Enforcement ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 4.1: Amend coastal policy to promote natural formation of inlets and littoral drift and assess the feasibility of letting inlets close.
( Law & Policy :: Policies & Regulations ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 4.2: Develop a suite of land use tools and best management practices, including managed retreat and post-storm redevelopment planning, that phase out the use of chronic sand replenishment by 2015.
( Land/Water Management :: Habitat & Natural Process Restoration ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 4.3: Promote wise site-selection for the development of offshore structures and sand mining
( Land/Water Protection :: Resource & Habitat Protection ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 4.4: Prevent new development and minimize redevelopment that will impede cross-island sediment transport
( Land/Water Protection :: Resource & Habitat Protection ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 4.5: Eliminate the use of non-natives species for landscaping on Fire Island
( Land/Water Management :: Invasive/Problematic Species Control ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 4.6: Monitor KEAs and fill gaps in information by conducting appropriate research and monitoring
( Land/Water Management :: Site/Area Management ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 5.1: Through targeted monitoring and research expand knowledge base to more confidently assess and manage the range of harvested fishery resources in New York State – including Great South Bay by 2012
( Species Management :: Species Management ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 5.2: More thoroughly account for inter-species interactions, habitat and bycatch impacts, and species ecosystem services in the establishment of interstate regulatory reference points and fishery input regulations by 2015
( Law & Policy :: Policies & Regulations ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 5.3: Until a multi-species management approach is fully adopted, achieve (or establish if necessary) biomass and mortality rate targets for all NYS managed marine species by 2015.
( Species Management :: Species Management ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 6.1: Reduce fishing mortality rates regionally, state-wide, and in Great South Bay
( Species Management :: Species Management ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 6.2: Improve fishery statistics on winter flounder
( Species Management :: Species Management ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 6.3: Conduct necessary studies to properly manage this resource within Great South Bay.
( Land/Water Management :: Site/Area Management ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 6.4: Reduce human-induced disturbance to winter flounder spawning and nursery habitat in GSB.
( Law & Policy :: Policies & Regulations ) |
|
|
Strategic action 7.1: Eliminate the use of non-natives species for landscaping on Fire Island
( Land/Water Management :: Invasive/Problematic Species Control ) |
|
|
Strategic action 7.1: Manage harvest of alewives in Great South Bay and its tributaries
( Species Management :: Species Management ) |
|
|
Strategic action 7.2: Allow access to 30 new miles of suitable freshwater alewife habitat by 2017
( Land/Water Management :: Habitat & Natural Process Restoration ) |
|
|
Strategic action 7.3: Establish recurrent spawning runs in four or more GSB tributaries.
( Species Management :: Species Re-Introduction ) |
|
|
Strategic action 7.4: Investigate and mitigate oceanic bycatch of alewives
( Law & Policy :: Policies & Regulations ) |
|
|
Strategic action 8.1: Undertake a cooperative effort by the National Park Service, Suffolk County, New York State, appropriate Towns and private organizations, to manage and monitor all plover sites by April 1st every year.
( External Capacity Building :: Institutional & Civil Society Development ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 8.2: Close nesting beaches to off-road vehicles (ORVs) during periods when unfledged chicks are present
( Law & Policy :: Policies & Regulations ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 8.3: Selectively control documented predators at sites with high predation rates.
( Land/Water Management :: Invasive/Problematic Species Control ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 8.4: Protect piping plovers and their breeding habitat from contamination and degradation due to oil spills
( Species Management :: Species Management ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 8.5: Identify and protect critical wintering and stopover habitat to maximize survival and recruitment in the breeding population
( Species Management :: Species Management ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 9.1: Assure that the health of the benthic communities in GSB is sufficient to support benthic foraging species such as horseshoe crabs and winter flounder.
( Land/Water Management :: Site/Area Management ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 9.1: Initiate and advance research and monitoring needed to properly manage horseshoe crabs in Great South Bay
( Species Management :: Species Management ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 9.2: Ensure that harvest management is consistent with long-term sustainability of a functioning* horseshoe crab population.
( Law & Policy :: Policies & Regulations ) |
|
|
Strategic Action 9.3: Protect and restore horseshoe crab nesting and staging habitat by eliminating the threat of new structural development and removing existing structures where possible.
( Land/Water Protection :: Resource & Habitat Protection ) |
|
| Conservation Targets | Landscape Context | Condition | Size | Viability Rank | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade | Weight | Grade | Weight | Grade | Weight | |||
| 1 | Hard Clams | Fair | 1.0 | Poor | 1.0 | Poor | 1.0 | Poor |
| 2 | Salt Marshes | Poor | 1.0 | Fair | 1.0 | Fair | 1.0 | Fair |
| 3 | Alewives | Poor | 1.0 | Poor | 1.0 | Poor | 1.0 | Poor |
| 4 | Piping Plovers | Fair | 1.0 | Good | 1.0 | Fair | 1.0 | Fair |
| 5 | Seagrass Meadows | Fair | 1.0 | Fair | 1.0 | Fair | 1.0 | Fair |
| 6 | Horseshoe Crabs | Fair | 1.0 | Fair | 1.0 | Fair | 1.0 | Fair |
| 7 | Winter Flounder | Good | 1.0 | Poor | 1.0 | Poor | 1.0 | Fair |
| 8 | Barrier Island Complex | Fair | 1.0 | Good | 1.0 | - | 0.0 | Good |
| 9 | Predatory Fish: (weakfish, bluefish, summer flounder, and striped bass) | Fair | 1.0 | Fair | 1.0 | Fair | 1.0 | Fair |
| Project Biodiversity Health Rank | Fair | |||||||
You might have to scroll to see all of the table's data.
|
Project-specific Threats (Common Taxonomy *) |
Alewives | Barrier Island Complex | Hard Clams | Horseshoe Crabs | Piping Plovers | Predatory Fish: (weakfish, bluefish, summer flounder, and striped bass) | Salt Marshes | Seagrass Meadows | Winter Flounder | Overall Threat Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shoreline armoring (Other Ecosystem Modifications) |
- | High | Low | Medium | Low | Medium | High | Low | - | High |
| Breach contingency / Inlet Management (Other Ecosystem Modifications) |
- | High | Medium | - | - | - | - | Medium | High | High |
| Development (Housing & Urban Areas) |
- | High | - | Low | Medium | - | High | - | - | High |
| Global warming (Temperature Extremes) |
Medium | - | Medium | - | - | - | Medium | Medium | High | Medium |
| Sea level rise (Habitat Shifting & Alteration) |
- | - | - | Medium | Medium | - | High | - | - | Medium |
| Beach nourishment (Other Ecosystem Modifications) |
- | High | - | - | Low | - | Low | - | - | Medium |
| Imbalanced Concentration and Composition of Nutrients (Household Sewage & Urban Waste Water) |
- | - | High | - | - | - | Low | Low | - | Medium |
| Harmful Algal Blooms (Invasive Non-Native/Alien Species) |
- | - | High | - | - | - | - | Low | - | Medium |
| Dams (Dams & Water Management/Use) |
High | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | Medium |
| Direct take (Fishing & Harvesting Aquatic Resources) |
Low | - | Medium | Low | - | Low | - | - | Medium | Medium |
| Dredging (Shipping Lanes) |
- | Medium | - | - | - | Low | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
| Inadequate culverts (Dams & Water Management/Use) |
Medium | - | - | - | - | - | Medium | - | - | Medium |
| Disease (Invasive Non-Native/Alien Species) |
- | - | Medium | - | - | Low | - | Low | - | Low |
| Loss of sea grass beds (Fishing & Harvesting Aquatic Resources) |
- | - | Medium | - | - | Low | - | - | Low | Low |
| By-catch (Fishing & Harvesting Aquatic Resources) |
- | - | - | - | - | Low | - | - | Medium | Low |
| Invasive Species (Plants, Phragmites) (Invasive Non-Native/Alien Species) |
- | Low | - | - | - | - | Medium | - | - | Low |
| Predation (Cormorant, fish) (Problematic Native Species) |
- | - | - | - | - | Low | - | - | Medium | Low |
| Predation(crabs, whelks, etc.) (Problematic Native Species) |
- | - | Medium | - | - | - | - | Low | - | Low |
| Invasive species(aquatic) (Invasive Non-Native/Alien Species) |
Medium | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | Low |
| Mosquito control ditches (Dams & Water Management/Use) |
- | - | - | - | - | - | Medium | - | - | Low |
| Off-shore by-catch (Fishing & Harvesting Aquatic Resources) |
Medium | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | Low |
| Reduced filtering capacity (Fishing & Harvesting Aquatic Resources) |
- | - | Medium | - | - | - | - | - | - | Low |
| Storm water runoff (Dams & Water Management/Use) |
- | - | - | - | - | - | Medium | - | - | Low |
| Toxic contaminants (endocrine disruptors) (Household Sewage & Urban Waste Water) |
- | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | Medium | Low |
| Deteriorated shellfish beds (Fishing & Harvesting Aquatic Resources) |
- | - | - | Low | - | Low | - | Low | Low | Low |
| Harvest Methods (Fishing & Harvesting Aquatic Resources) |
- | - | Low | - | - | - | Low | Low | - | Low |
| Toxins (Household Sewage & Urban Waste Water) |
- | - | Low | - | - | - | Low | Low | - | Low |
| Boating activities (Recreational Activities) |
- | - | - | - | - | - | Low | Low | - | Low |
| Excessive herbivory (Problematic Native Species) |
- | - | - | - | - | - | Low | Low | - | Low |
| Excessive macroalgae (Problematic Native Species) |
- | - | Low | - | - | - | - | Low | - | Low |
| Power plant entrainment and impingement (Dams & Water Management/Use) |
- | - | - | - | - | Low | - | - | Low | Low |
| Direct human caused mortality (Recreational Activities) |
- | - | - | - | Low | - | - | - | - | Low |
| Excessive deer grazing (Problematic Native Species) |
- | Low | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | Low |
| Groins (Other Ecosystem Modifications) |
- | Low | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | Low |
| Harvest of forage fish (Fishing & Harvesting Aquatic Resources) |
- | - | - | - | - | Low | - | - | - | Low |
| Incompatable recreation (Recreational Activities) |
- | - | - | - | Low | - | - | - | - | Low |
| Invasive species (marine) (Invasive Non-Native/Alien Species) |
- | - | - | - | - | - | - | Low | - | Low |
| Off road vehicles (Recreational Activities) |
- | - | - | - | Low | - | - | - | - | Low |
| Predation (cats, gulls, etc.) (Invasive Non-Native/Alien Species) |
- | - | - | - | Low | - | - | - | - | Low |
| Reduced pH of sediment pore water (Fishing & Harvesting Aquatic Resources) |
- | - | Low | - | - | - | - | - | - | Low |
| Renewable Energy Projects (Renewable Energy) |
- | - | - | - | - | Low | - | - | - | Low |
| Sand Mining (Mining & Quarrying) |
- | Low | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | Low |
| Beach Nourishment parks and town policies inclusive of maintainance of trans infrastrcuture (Housing & Urban Areas) |
- | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Boat traffic (Recreational Activities) |
- | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Changes to nutrient cycles (Undefined) |
- | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Decreased shellfish beds (Other Ecosystem Modifications) |
- | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| deteriorating marshes (Undefined) |
- | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Direct harvest of mussels (Fishing & Harvesting Aquatic Resources) |
- | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Discard mortailty inside GSB (Fishing & Harvesting Aquatic Resources) |
- | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Discard mortality outside GSB (Fishing & Harvesting Aquatic Resources) |
- | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Fertilizer application (Agricultural & Forestry Effluents) |
- | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Inapropriate dredge spoil deposition and beach nourishment (Dams & Water Management/Use) |
- | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Inlet stabilization (Dams & Water Management/Use) |
- | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Low Dissolved Oxygen (Other Ecosystem Modifications) |
- | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Restricted Sediment Transport (Other Ecosystem Modifications) |
- | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Tidal restrictions (Dams & Water Management/Use) |
- | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Unleashed dogs (Problematic Native Species) |
- | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Threat Status for Targets and Project | Medium | High | High | Medium | Medium | Medium | High | Medium | High | High |
| Categories & Measures | Score | |
|---|---|---|
| People | ||
| Staff Leadership | Low | |
| Multidisciplinary Team | Low | |
| People Average | Low | |
Internal Resources |
||
| Institutional Learning | Low | |
| Funding | Low | |
| Internal Resources Average | Low | |
External Resources |
||
| Social/Legal Framework for Conservation | Low | |
| Community and Constituency Support | Low | |
| External Resources Average | Low | |
| Overall Project Resource Rank | Low | |
| Conservation Target | Key Attribute (Category) |
Indicator | Current Indicator Measurement | Rating Comments: (Poor, Fair Good Very Good) |
Current Rating and Date | Desired Rating and Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hard Clams |
Clam density
(Condition) |
Amount of area with clam density>7 clams per square meter | Most areas in GSB have been surveyed. |
Poor:
<15% of bay bottom with clam densities >7m2
Fair: 16-30% Good: 30-50% Very Good: >50% |
Poor
|
Good
|
| Hard Clams |
Food quality and quantity
(Condition) |
Age of 1" clam (multi-year) |
-
|
Poor:
6 or more years
Fair: 4-6 years Good: 3-4 years Very Good: 3-4 years |
Fair
Jan 15, 2007 |
Good
Jan 15, 2012 |
| Hard Clams |
Food quality and quantity
(Condition) |
Average increase in adult clam condition index (annual indicator) |
-
|
Poor:
<20% increase in CI from late summer to the peak the following spring
Fair: 20-35% Good: 35-50% Very Good: >50% |
Fair
Jan 15, 2007 |
Good
Jan 15, 2012 |
| Hard Clams |
Recruitment
(Condition) |
Presence of 20-48 mm (shell length) clams |
-
|
Poor:
<1 clam per m2
Fair: 1-2.5 clams per m2 Good: 2.5-5 clams per m2 Very Good: >5 clams per m2 |
Poor
|
Good
|
| Hard Clams |
Substrate suitability
(Landscape Context) |
A combination of sediment grain size, shell content, compaction, and pore water pH. | Information on sediment grain size and shell content is known, some info on compaction. Info on pore water, pH, and DO needed. |
Poor:
Mud&clay with little or no shell fragments, low DO, ph<7, and /or hard and compacted with less than 1cm oxygenated layer.
Fair: Heterogeneity of sediment grain size, with some shell, 1-2cm oxygenated Good: Combination of gravel, muddy sand and shell, more than 2cm oxygenated and pH around 8 Very Good: - |
Fair
Jan 15, 2007 |
Good
Jan 15, 2012 |
| Hard Clams |
Water Temperature
(Landscape Context) |
Range and duration |
-
|
Poor:
Long extended periods well outside optimal temperature range (8-26C) or extremely rapid temp. changes (freezing and ice scouring of sediments)
Fair: Exceeds optimal temperature range by more than 6C for > 4 months per year Good: Modestly exceeds optimal temperature range during seasonal extremes Very Good: Between 8-26C varying seasonally |
Good
Jan 15, 2007 |
Good
|
| Hard Clams |
Population size and distribution
(Size) |
Analysis of large scale shellfish survey data |
-
|
Poor:
Declining abundance
Fair: Static abundance Good: Increasing abundance Very Good: Abundance increasing by 2X in consecutive years |
Poor
|
Good
|
| Salt Marshes |
Presence / abundance of key functional guilds
1
(Condition) |
fiddler crab densities in appropriate marsh zone 2 | This is a guess, we have not done any survey work. |
Poor:
no crab burrows present in crab zone
Fair: < 5 borrows per m2 Good: 5-10 borrows per m2 Very Good: >10 borrows per m2 |
Fair
3
Jan 15, 2007 |
Good
4
Jan 15, 2015 |
| Salt Marshes |
Species composition / dominance (vegetation)
5
(Condition) |
Dominance of native vegetation genotypes 6 |
-
|
Poor:
Native vegetation represents less than 50 % of the vegetated zones that have historically been covered by spartina sp.
Fair: 50-75% of the marsh is dominated by native vegetation Good: 75-95% of the marsh is dominated by native vegetation Very Good: over 95% of the marsh vegetation is native and both high and low marsh species assemblages are present |
Fair
7
Jan 15, 2007 |
Good
8
Jan 15, 2015 |
| Salt Marshes |
Connectivity (ability to migrate)
(Landscape Context) |
% of salt marsh that has adequate natural buffer/adjacent ecosystem within 100 yr. sea level rise + 50 meters |
-
|
Poor:
<50% of salt marshes have adequate natural buffer
Fair: 50-75% of salt marshes have adequate natural buffer Good: 75-90% of salt marshes have adequate natural buffer Very Good: >90% of salt marshes have adequate natural buffer |
Poor
|
Good
|
| Salt Marshes |
Hydrologic regime
(Landscape Context) |
Timing, duration, frequency and extent of water logging of marsh peat 9 | Some marshes in GSB are experiencing waterlogging, while others seem to be fine. We have selected fair as the indicator rating, but we know that research needs to be done to assess this KEA. |
Poor:
Marsh is water logged to the point where vegetation coverage is sparse and erosion rates are high.
Fair: Marsh is water logged to the point where vegetation coverage is decreasing and erosion rates are increasing. Good: Marsh vegetation is stable. Very Good: - |
Fair
|
Good
|
| Salt Marshes |
Peat geochemistry
10
(Landscape Context) |
Concentration of hydrogen sulfide in porewater at the depth of the active root zone 11 |
-
|
Poor:
porewater sulfide concentrations at the root zone 4-6mM or above
Fair: porewater sulfide concentrations at the rooot zone 2-4mM Good: porewater sulfide concentrations at the root zone 1-2mM Very Good: porewater sulfide concentrations at the root zone <1mM |
Fair
|
Good
|
| Salt Marshes |
Pore water salinity
(Landscape Context) |
Salinity at the landward border averaged over the year | At the present time this indicator is being measured only at the Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge (NM is looking into this) |
Poor:
<10ppt
Fair: 10-15ppt Good: 15-20ppt (phragmites may appear at 18ppt) Very Good: 20-30ppt |
Fair
|
Good
|
| Salt Marshes |
Sediment regime
12
(Landscape Context) |
marsh surface elevation relative to sea level rise 13 | Indicator not currently being measured in GSB, but USGS will set up benchmark stations this summer. |
Poor:
Marsh elevation less than the projected rate of sea level rise over the next 20 years.
Fair: - Good: Marsh elevation and sea level rise are in balance over the next 20 years. Very Good: - |
Poor
14
Aug 15, 2007 |
Good
Aug 15, 2007 |
| Salt Marshes |
Trend in acreage
15
(Size) |
Total acreage from aerial *IR* photos 16 | This indicator is currently under measurement by the Peconic Baykeeper and collaborators at SBU and NYS-DEC. |
Poor:
marsh acreage is shrinking throughout the bay
Fair: marsh acreage is shrinking in small local areas Good: marsh acreage is stable Very Good: marsh acreage is growing, particularly on sand depositions along bay side of barrier island |
Fair
17
Jan 15, 2007 |
Good
Jan 15, 2015 |
| Alewives |
Number of spawning runs
18
(Condition) |
Number of tributaries with recurrent spawning runs (alewife) > 5,000 fish. 19 | Carmans, Carlls, Sampawans, Browns, Swan, Beaverdam, Little Neck Run, Yaphank and Rattlesnake had runs in 1938. Only certain run remaining is in tidal Carmans. |
Poor:
-
Fair: 1-2 Good: 3-4 Very Good: 5+ |
Poor
20
Feb 15, 2007 |
Good
May 15, 2015 |
| Alewives |
Ability to migrate between freshwater and the estuary
21
(Landscape Context) |
% of accessible upstream tributary miles in 17 focal tributaries 22 | 74 river miles total in 17 tribs, 32 upstream miles accessible = 43% |
Poor:
< 25
Fair: 25-50 Good: 50-75 Very Good: > 75 |
Fair
23
Feb 15, 2007 |
Very Good
May 15, 2015 |
| Alewives |
Suitable spawning and nursery habitat
24
(Landscape Context) |
% freshwater bottom free of invasive aquatic vegetation | Cabomba infestations occur in Lower Lake (Carmans), Upper Lake (Carmans) and Belmont Lake (Carlls). |
Poor:
<10
Fair: 10-25 Good: 25-50 Very Good: >50 |
Very Good
Feb 15, 2007 |
Very Good
|
| Alewives |
Tributary dissolved oxygen content
25
(Landscape Context) |
Percentage of days during March to May with DO <8 mg/L recorded in Carmans, Connetquot and Carlls rivers. 26 |
-
|
Poor:
>50
Fair: 25-50 Good: 10-25 Very Good: <10 |
Very Good
27
Feb 15, 2007 |
Very Good
|
| Alewives |
Tributary water temperature
28
(Landscape Context) |
% of days during July and August with temperatures >25C recorded in Carmans, Connetquot and Carlls rivers. 29 | Water quality monitoring data from the SCDE show multiple records>25C for the Carmans River in 2003. |
Poor:
>50
Fair: 25-50 Good: 10-25 Very Good: <10 |
Poor
30
Feb 15, 2007 |
Good
May 15, 2015 |
| Alewives |
Population size & dynamics
31
(Size) |
Average annual population growth (%) during rebuilding phase 32 | The Carmans River run appears to return each year, but no passage projects there or elsewhere have yet allowed for population growth. |
Poor:
<5
Fair: 5-15 Good: 15-25 Very Good: >25 |
Poor
33
Feb 15, 2007 |
Good
May 15, 2015 |
| Piping Plovers |
Productivity
34
(Condition) |
Fledges/pair 35 |
-
|
Poor:
< 1.0 chicks per pair over 5 year average
Fair: 1-1.49 chicks per pair over 5 year average Good: 1.5-1.99 chicks per pair over 5 year average Very Good: > 2.0 chicks per pair over 5 year average |
Good
36
Feb 15, 2007 |
Very Good
Feb 15, 2010 |
| Piping Plovers |
Available Nesting Habitat
37
(Landscape Context) |
% Change in available nesting habitat 38 |
-
|
Poor:
Greater than 10% decrease in currently available nesting habitat
Fair: Up to 10% decrease in currently available nesting habitat Good: Maintain currently available nesting habitat Very Good: Increase available nesting habitat by 25% or greater |
Good
39
Feb 15, 2006 |
Good
Feb 15, 2006 |
| Piping Plovers |
Connectivity between nesting and foraging areas
(Landscape Context) |
% of nesting locations with unfragmented continuity between nesting and foraging habitat |
-
|
Poor:
Unfragmented continuity between nesting and foraging habitat at less than 25% of nesting locations
Fair: Unfragmented continuity between nesting and foraging habitat at less than 25-49% of nesting locations Good: Unfragmented continuity between nesting and foraging habitat at less than 50-75% of nesting locations Very Good: Unfragmented continuity between nesting and foraging habitat at greater than 75% of nesting locations |
Fair
Jan 15, 2007 |
Very Good
Jan 15, 2015 |
| Piping Plovers |
Size of breeding population
(Size) |
piping plover nesting population 40 |
-
|
Poor:
< 25 nesting pairs
Fair: 25-49 nesting pairs Good: 50-65 nesting pairs Very Good: > 65 nesting pairs |
Fair
41
Feb 15, 2006 |
Good
May 15, 2010 |
| Seagrass Meadows |
Recruitment and growth
42
(Condition) |
Fred Shorts sentinal monitoring methods 43 |
-
|
Poor:
beds deteriorating
Fair: beds maintaining themselves Good: beds growing in size over time Very Good: beds growing in size over time |
Fair
44
Feb 15, 2006 |
Good
45
Feb 15, 2006 |
| Seagrass Meadows |
light
46
(Landscape Context) |
Irradiance 47 | assessed from max depth of growth observed |
Poor:
subtidal area not enough light
Fair: Critical Depth less than 1 m at MLLW Good: Critial Depth is about 2 m at MLLW Very Good: Critical Depth is greater than 2 MLLW |
Good
48
Jan 15, 2007 |
Very Good
49
Jan 15, 2015 |
| Seagrass Meadows |
Nutrient concentrations & dynamics
50
(Landscape Context) |
composition and concentration of nutrients |
-
|
Poor:
concentrations and/or composition of nutrients deter plant growth and reproduction
Fair: plants… Good: plants receive correct concentrations and composition of nutrients for growth and reproduction Very Good: - |
Fair
51
May 15, 2006 |
Good
|
| Seagrass Meadows |
Sediment and pore water chemistry
(Landscape Context) |
Measure of redox potential in sediment |
-
|
Poor:
Outside of good range
Fair: - Good: -175 to +300mV Very Good: - |
Good
Aug 8, 2007 |
Good
|
| Seagrass Meadows |
Soil / sediment stability & movement
(Landscape Context) |
The proportion of GSB estuarine shoreline where the shore is not impacted by hardening structures up to the higher high water mark. | based upon shoreline mapping and seagrass |
Poor:
<30%
Fair: 30-50% Good: 50-80% Very Good: >80% |
Fair
52
|
Good
|
| Seagrass Meadows |
Water Temperature
(Landscape Context) |
Temperature range and duration |
-
|
Poor:
>14 consecutive days above 27C
Fair: 7-14 consecutive days above 27C Good: <7 consecutive days above 27C Very Good: No days above 27C |
Fair
|
Good
|
| Seagrass Meadows |
Total Acreage covered
(Size) |
Total Acres covered / Total acres suitable 53 |
-
|
Poor:
> 0.4
Fair: 0.4-0.6 Good: 0.6-0.75 Very Good: >0.75 |
Fair
54
Feb 15, 2006 |
Good
Feb 15, 2006 |
| Horseshoe Crabs |
Food quality and quanity
(Condition) |
Abundance indices of preferred prey items, physiology of crabs, or abundance of indicator species (such as already monitored shellfish) | Unknown (excpet for abundance of hard clams) This indicator should be improved, however, it will require more investigation |
Poor:
Physiology of HS crabs is negatively impacted, or crabs are avoiding the area because of reduced quantity/quality of prey items
Fair: Benthic invertebrate community is altered in terms of composition and abundance of species used as forage by HS crabs but there is no apparent physiological or avoidance impact Good: Abundance of benthic invertebrates utilized by HS crabs are in abundance similar to historic levels Very Good: Abundance of benthic invertebrates utilized by HS crabs are in abundance similar to historic levels |
Fair
Jan 15, 2007 |
Good
|
| Horseshoe Crabs |
Available Nesting Habitat
(Landscape Context) |
The proportion of GSB estuarine shoreline where the shore is not impacted by hardening structures up to the higher high water mark. | With additional information, this indicator could be refined, verified and calculated to reflect sea level rise |
Poor:
<50%
Fair: 50-70% Good: 70-90% Very Good: >90% |
Fair
Jul 15, 2007 |
Good
Jan 15, 2012 |
| Horseshoe Crabs |
Size of breeding population
55
(Size) |
HS Crab breeding survey indices 56 | currently unknown, only a few observations |
Poor:
Few breeding pairs and/or declining trend in the number of breeding pairs
Fair: below habitat capacity but stable from year to year Good: high, or increasing number of breeding pairs Very Good: high, or increasing number of breeding pairs |
Fair
57
Jan 15, 2007 |
Good
Jan 15, 2015 |
| Winter Flounder |
Food quality and quantity
58
(Condition) |
Relative abundance of top diet items within GSB as measured by fishery independent surveys 59 |
-
|
Poor:
The top three diet items from nearby areas are an order of magnitude less abundant in GSB
Fair: - Good: top three diet items are in similar abundance to areas where wfl are doing well Very Good: - |
Fair
60
|
Good
|
| Winter Flounder |
Juvenile survival
(Condition) |
Size of cohort over time (first 3 years) |
-
|
Poor:
Z>>.2 (pre-recruit)
Fair: Z>.2 Good: Z=.2 Very Good: Z<.2 |
Poor
|
Good
|
| Winter Flounder |
Reproductive success/Biological recruitment
(Condition) |
Young of year beach seine for GSB: mortality estimated from tagging |
-
|
Poor:
Z>>.2 (pre-recruit)
Fair: Z>.2 Good: Z=.2 Very Good: Z<.2 |
Fair
Jan 7, 2007 |
Good
Jan 15, 2010 |
| Winter Flounder |
Available potential nesting and foraging and nursery habitat
61
(Landscape Context) |
proportion of various 'undisturbed' sand, mud, seagrass, and shellfish benthic habitat types 62 | there is not much activity going on right now |
Poor:
<40%
Fair: 40-60% Good: 60-80% Very Good: >80% |
Good
63
Jan 7, 2007 |
Good
64
Jan 10, 2007 |
| Winter Flounder |
Temperature regime
65
(Landscape Context) |
comparison of bottom temp trends (tidbits) 66 | guess |
Poor:
Long periods > 10 deg C in witer - long periods > 28 deg C in summer.
Fair: Short term periods > 10 deg C in winter, short perods > 28 deg in summer Good: < 10 deg C most of winter < 28 deg C most of summer Very Good: < 10 deg C all of winter < 25 deg C all of summer |
Good
67
Jan 7, 2007 |
Good
|
| Winter Flounder |
GSB spawning stock size
(Size) |
Relative stock size index for GSB |
-
|
Poor:
Low pop size with negative delta N
Fair: Low pop size with stable delta N Good: Less than historic pop size with positive delta N Very Good: High pop size with stable delta N |
Poor
Jan 7, 2007 |
Good
Jan 15, 2010 |
| Winter Flounder |
SNE/MA stock size
(Size) |
Relative stock size index for SNE/MA stock (NMFS) |
-
|
Poor:
Low pop size with negative delta N
Fair: Low pop size with stable delta N Good: Less than historic pop size with positive delta N Very Good: High pop size with stable delta N |
Poor
Jan 15, 2007 |
Good
Jan 15, 2010 |
| Barrier Island Complex |
mosaic of characteristic native vegetated communities
68
(Condition) |
presence of native vegetation 69 | Assuming that aside from the communities (and likely only small patches in the communites) the vegetation is natural and dynamic. |
Poor:
lacks characteristic native vegetated communites
Fair: fragmented or degraded vegetated communites Good: support large blocks of unfragmented native vegetated comunites Very Good: - |
Good
70
|
Good
|
| Barrier Island Complex |
Bayshore sediment dynamics
71
(Landscape Context) |
The proportion of GSB estuarine shoreline where the shore is not impacted by hardening structures up to the higher high water mark. |
-
|
Poor:
<25%
Fair: 25-50% Good: 50-75% Very Good: >75% |
Good
72
|
Good
|
| Barrier Island Complex |
Cross island sediment transport
73
(Landscape Context) |
% of island where cross island transport and dune development are allowed to occur 74 |
-
|
Poor:
< 25%
Fair: 25-50% Good: 50-75% Very Good: >75% |
Fair
75
Jan 15, 2007 |
Good
Jan 15, 2012 |
| Barrier Island Complex |
Ocean/beach dynamics
(Landscape Context) |
% Barrier Island Naturally Dynamic 76 |
-
|
Poor:
<25%
Fair: 25-50% Good: 50-75% Very Good: >75% |
Fair
77
|
Good
|
| Predatory Fish: (weakfish, bluefish, summer flounder, and striped bass) |
Food quality and quantity
78
(Condition) |
Relative abundance of top diet items within GSB as measured by fishery independent surveys 79 |
-
|
Poor:
Top prey items have declining trends in abundance
Fair: top prey items have non-declingn trends in abundance Good: top prey items have stable and high (relitive to historic estimates) abundance Very Good: same as good |
Fair
|
Good
|
| Predatory Fish: (weakfish, bluefish, summer flounder, and striped bass) |
Available potential nursery and foraging habitat
80
(Landscape Context) |
Relative prevalance of seagrass meadows, saltmarshes, unarmored shorelines, and shellfish beds compared to historic estimates 81 | rough cut - we need to firm up what our baseline is and if it could be different for each habitat type |
Poor:
40% of combined habitat types compared to historical estimates
Fair: 40-60% of hcombined habitat types compared to historical estimates Good: 60-80% of combined habitat types compared to historical estimates Very Good: >80% of combined habitat types compared to historical estimates |
Fair
|
Good
|
| Predatory Fish: (weakfish, bluefish, summer flounder, and striped bass) |
Combined GSB abundance
82
(Size) |
Fisheries independent survey |
-
|
Poor:
two or more species relative seasional abundance from a GSB index tracks poorer than the overall stock abundance for 3 consecutive years
Fair: all four species show a similar interanual trend in relative seasional abundance as the overal stock unit Good: one or more species shows an interannual trend in relative seasonal abundance that is superior to that of the overall stock performance and non track worse Very Good: two or more species show a relative trend in relative seasional abundance within GSB is superior to that of the overal stock size. |
Fair
|
Good
|
| Predatory Fish: (weakfish, bluefish, summer flounder, and striped bass) |
Combined stock conditions
(Size) |
Total stock sizes for all four species in relatio to their management biomass/abundance targets 83 |
-
|
Poor:
two or more species stocks below managment biomass targets with population trajectories that make it very unlikely for them to achieve their FMP specified rebuilding schedule
Fair: Three of the 4 stocks either at biomass target or increasing in biomass Good: All four species at biomass target or on track to meeting biomass target within the FMP specified rebuilding schedule Very Good: All 4 species stocks at or above managment biomass target |
Fair
|
Good
|
COMMENTS:
1
fiddler crabs are an important componant of many of our marshes, their borrowing activities have a facultative effect by improving water circulation and oxygenation in the marsh
5
stressed marshes are often dominated by the invasive genotype of Phramites - this indicator gets at using the presence of native grasses as an indicator of marsh viability
6
once phrag takes hold of a sizable portion of marsh is is difficult and expensive to convert it back to native vegitation
10
Hydrogen sulfide interferes with the ability of marsh plants to take up nitrogen, influences the distribution of species within the marsh ( Bertness 1991), and is toxic to those plants at high concentrations (DeLaune et al., Nyman et al., 1990)
11
Although this parameter has not been measured in GSB, this ranking represents a best guess at current conditions.
14
Charlie Roman reference (pers. comm) and will be coming out with a report soon
Confidence and reliability of the current rating: Medium
15
NYS has photos to document the status of NY salt marshes - shrinking is a problem in some areas along the south shore. it is not known yet if GSB marshes are OK.
THe photos exist - need to get DEC or a contractor to make the marsh layers
18
Fish do not show 100% fidelity, so runs in adjacent streams can support one another and recolonize empty streams or those that experiience local extirpation.
20
1938 survey established historical distribution: volunteer survey begun in 2996 and continuing confirmed Carmans run and seek others.
21
Alewife spawn in rivers, but many river miles are no longer accessible due to dams, culverts and other barriers.
22
Best habitat is upstream, so upstream miles are disproportionately important.
Confidence and reliability of these indicator rating descriptions: High
23
Only uncertainty is current rating is location and passability of culverts and other barriers, in addition to known dams.
Confidence and reliability of the current rating: Medium
24
Habitat suitability models for alewives show that preferred habitat is at least 75% sofy sediment, and that areas with up to 5o% vegetation coverage are still usable.
25
Research shows that juvenile alewives can tolerate levels as low as 3 mg/L. Adults can tolerate as low as 5mg/L, but spawning is optimal with at least 8 mg/L.
26
Like temperature, ranges are high because DO will vary along rivers, so tempoary refuges can mitigate episodic low DO levels in certain locations to some degree.
27
Watre quality monitoring data from the SCDE show that DO levels can fall below 8 mg/L in the Carmans River, but this only occurs in summer months and is rare in the March to May spawning period.
28
Habitat suitability models for alewives showthat preferred temperatures for spawners and juveniles are15-20C, with a thermal threshold of 30C.
29
Ranges are high because temperaturw varies along rivers, so temporary thermal refuges can mitigate episodic highs to some degree.
30
Additional data from USGS, Trout Unlimited and other sources are still being compiled for a more comprehensive assessment.
31
Alewife populations at low population size show high intrinsic rates of population growth, r, (from0.3 to 0.55, or 35% to 73% per year) when new habitat is opened.
32
There should be a population size index through monitoring. Populations should be self sustaining -not hatchery derived, although transplanting spawners can kick start runs. This indicator is applicable to the initial re-building phase, after which a usutained population size indicator should be implemented.
Confidence and reliability of these indicator rating descriptions: Medium
38
first cut - need to talk to Joe aout this and have a GIS assessment of FI
Confidence and reliability of these indicator rating descriptions: Medium
39
guestimate - need to assess Need to assess how much we have, roughly from arial photos, GIS
Confidence and reliability of the current rating: Medium
46
LICOR is a new meter to read light, can assess whole bay, get Kd for critical depth, and locate areas it should grow
50
plants need nutrients, light, and water ! Seagrasses have roots and are designed to get nutrients from the sediments like terestrial plants
51
if anything this system is suffering from too much nutrients - there is no evidence that seagrass are limited by inadequate nutrients in GSB
52
Shoreline project and seagrass mapping. It is possible to be greater than 100% because seagrass can survive near some structures.
53
first cut
Certain carrying capacity of how much is suitable for seagrass to grow. Therefore need to look at ratios of actual habitat and available habitat to determine potential seagrass habitat.
54
guess from looking at 2002 charts without looking at suitiblity map - we need LICOR data and fred shorts model to get suitability areas
Confidence and reliability of the current rating: Medium
55
Right now there is no good information on the abundance of HS Crabs in GSB. CCE and DEC are starting a HS Crab survey and we should encorage that there is some work done at FINS
58
some diet studies suggest that top diet items may be missing or in low abundance in GSB - this is basically from diet studies in NY haror in comparison to whats availavle in GSB - since WFL are somewhat opertunistic foragers this needs more follow up - comparison of diets in different areas could show if this is important
59
guestimate
food availability may be most important for samll juviniles as bigger fish can survive longer or migrate futher under poor food conditions
Would really require looking at different areas as a comparison
Confidence and reliability of these indicator rating descriptions: Low
60
Mkenzi 2002 study compared to the NMFS diet study Need to go back to the other NOAA study for all regions
Confidence and reliability of the current rating: Medium
61
various habitats are used for different things - such as nesting, YOY and juvinile foraging and refugia, ect - disturbances such as dredging can distroy nests (egg masses) or impact habitat such as eelgrass beds
we dont have a clear understanding of which habitt types are used at which stage in great south bay
62
Disturbed means impacted by dredging or some other impact (clam digging?) durring the timeof year its being utilized (ie nesting between Dec - April) seagrass - any time
Confidence and reliability of these indicator rating descriptions: Low
64
seems ok now but this does not get into the fact that habitats have been modified
At one time there was a lot of disturbances from clam diggers but there were lots of flounder - could be habitat alteration or degradation
65
li is close to the southern extent of this species range - some issues like global climate change and ground water withdrawl may contribute to rising water temperatures that can impact wfl - the numbers in here come from laboratory studies - the aplicability for GSB is questionable
66
need to look into apropriate temp indicator - onset of --- temp, duration above ---, area below --- in month ---, not sure
68
The presence of native vegetation, apropriate for specific habitats
Trys to get at threats related to use and deevelopment and invasives
69
rough first cut, still rough
Confidence and reliability of these indicator rating descriptions: Low
71
Bay shoreline behave as seperate cells and this indicator is measurable and looks at the entire bay
73
long shore needs to be - no increase in interuptions (other KEA)
cross island should strive for increasing unabated % area (breach and overwash - toping over)
Dune Development (aolin and vegitation) perhaps dune development is better for the other KEA
74
need to look at current areas and refine these to reflect the amount of area where we are currently at.
77
Although there are large tracts without structures or without nourisment in place the effects of the nourishemnt upstream linger into downstream areas.
79
first cut - would be better to include a predator health condition index but we are far from that. The downside of the abundance is that the more predators there are the more prey they will eat - and so ideally we would want to measure prey production rather than prey abundance
Confidence and reliability of these indicator rating descriptions: Medium
80
We currently do not have a way to quantify the importaince of various marine habitats, water quality is covered by a seperate objective so we have focused on habitats that are impacted by people. We cont not easily identify impacts to sand and mud flats, and they are often the end result of lost SAV or vegitated marsh - so we did not want to include them for mathimatical reasons
81
first cut - we recognize this needs improvement
Confidence and reliability of these indicator rating descriptions: Medium
- Show all:
Objective: Objective 01: Re-establish the hard clam population in GSB to an average density of 6 clams per meter squared by 2020 for the purposes of ecosystem health/enhancement and sustainable harvest
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 1.1: Actively rebuild spawning potential of clam population in Great South Bay.
- Action Step: Action Step 1.1.1: Establish and maintain a network of spawner sanctuaries (harvest-free areas on natural bottom) throughout GSB. Focus on areas where clam density was historically high but is currently less than 1/m2 and where larvae are likely to be ret
- Action Step: Action Step 1.1.2: Utilize hatchery clams to supplement populations in spawner sanctuaries or other management areas in order to improve the success of municipal clam seeding projects. Continue and expand seasonal and/or overwintering hard clam nursery pr
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 1.2: Passively rebuild clam population by protecting some of the natural clam sets and existing large clams in order to add to the total spawning potential of Great South Bay.
- Action Step: Action Step 1.2.1: Maintain TNC underwater lands as no-harvest area until hard clam population objectives are met. Brookhaven Town Code should be amended to specify all of TNC underwater land as a management area to codify harvest prohibitions and facilit
- Action Step: Action Step 1.2.2: Develop and adopt management area designations that have consistency between town code and state regulations to facilitate understanding among stakeholders and enforcement agencies. Responsible Entity: Towns, NYS DEC, Shellfish Manager
- Action Step: Action Step 1.2.3: Enforce new restrictions on the harvest of shellfish put in place as a result of the designation of new no-harvest areas Responsible Entities: Member organizations and agencies on the Bluepoints Bottomlands Council, Bay Constables, SC
- Action Step: Action Step 1.2.4: Discourage and prohibit hard clam relay programs from the uncertified waters of GSB until such a time that the bay-wide population goals are met. Responsible Entities: NYS DEC, Towns
- Action Step: Action Step 1.2.5: Maintain large-scale shellfish surveys to monitor population size and distribution, recruitment strength, growth and mortality of hard clams. Periodically expand surveys into un-surveyed areas. Ensure consistency of surveys among years
- Action Step: Action Step 1.2.6: Amend NYS DEC’s mission to include a restoration mandate in order to facilitate the active restoration of marine and coastal habitats and species. Responsible Entity: NYS DEC
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 1.3: Ensure that harvest management and enforcement efforts are consistent with short-term rebuilding and long-term sustainability of a functioning clam population
- Action Step: Action Step 1.3.1: Coordinate town shellfish code and state shellfish regulations to ensure consistency to meet plan objectives and increase enforcement capabilities. Responsible Entities: Towns, NYS DEC
- Action Step: Action Step 1.3.2: Establish a recreational shellfish permit in Brookhaven similar to Islip and Babylon. Provide information on clam rebuilding program and current harvest restrictions to all recreational permit holders. Responsible Entities: Brookhaven
- Action Step: Action Step 1.3.3: Review precision and accuracy of current shellfish harvest reporting and update reporting requirements if necessary. Incorporate information into state landings statistics and utilize these data in setting future sustainable harvest lev
- Action Step: Action Step 1.3.4: Undertake data management activities to enable state hard clam landings data and town shellfish survey data to be utilized to assess restoration success and incorporated into assessment models to recommend reference points and managemen
- Action Step: Action Step 1.3.5: Adopt a maximum size limit of 1 5/8 inches across the hinge on hard clams harvested from the Smith Point Bridge to Robert Moses Bridge. Responsible Entity: Member organizations and agencies on the Bluepoints Bottomlands Council
- Action Step: Action Step 1.3.6: Clarify discrepancies in important biological parameters used in clam population models such as growth rates and mortality rates. Initiate this action by hosting a clam aging workshop and/ or a scientific assessment update workshop. Re
- Action Step: Action Step 1.3.7: Support a study that documents the extent of the no-commercial and non-reported hard clam harvest as well as the social and economic importance of these activities and incorporate into a fishery management plan FMP. Responsible Entity
- Action Step: Action Step 1.3.8: Develop and implement a bay-wide hard clam FMP with sustainability and ecosystem goals utilizing all available survey and biological information and incorporating social and economic interests. Responsible Entity: Member organizations
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 1.4: Maximize hard clam survival through ecosystem-based approaches to managing predation induced mortality
- Action Step: Action Step 1.4.1: Establish a New York State oyster toadfish harvest moratorium. Responsible Entities: NYS DEC, baymen (note: NYS DEC instituted harvest restrictions on oyster toadfish in 2005, so this action step has been largely accomplished).
- Action Step: Action Step 1.4.2: Address the harvest of other predators of shellfish eating crustaceans such as northern puffer, cunner, tautog, eel regionally. In the short term, NYS size limits, possession limits, and seasons should be explored rebuilding tools for n
- Action Step: Action Step 1.4.3: Develop a demonstration project that utilizes the most recent scientific literature on the use of shell substrate to augment shellfish settlement and survival. Seek funding and required permits. Responsible Entities: TNC, Towns, Stony
- Action Step: Action Step 1.4.4: Improve understanding of Great South Bay benthic communities, with a focus on shellfish predators, including causes of any changes over time. Responsible Entity: Stony Brook University, other research institutions
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 1.5: Ensure all enforcement agencies have sufficient staff and resources and are familiar with current regulations, codes and laws concerning marine resources
- Action Step: Action Step 1.5.1: Where necessary, expand the resources of environmental conservation enforcement entities and encourage more coordination among town, county, state, and federal enforcement. Increase violation penalties where necessary. Improve communi
- Action Step: Action Step 1.5.2: Develop a 24-hour marine enforcement hotline for reporting violations while they are occurring. Responsible Entities: NYS DEC and Suffolk County Marine Bureau
- Action Step: Action Step 1.5.3: Develop and implement an annual marine enforcement workshop for multiple agencies. Responsible Entities: NYS DEC Bureau of Marine Resources/Marine Law Enforcement Unit
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 1.6: Monitor KEAs and fill gaps in information by conducting appropriate research
- Action Step: Action Step 1.6.1: Modify plankton sampling methods in Suffolk County’s current water quality monitoring program to better monitor food quality and quantity available to hard clams and other shellfish. The program should be modified in all estuaries that
- Action Step: Action Step 1.6.2: Conduct a coordinated bay-wide shellfish survey to provide a more consistent and comprehensive picture of shellfish abundances in the bay. Concurrently record information on other benthic species and sediment characteristics. Compare in
- Action Step: Action Step 1.6.3: Assess effects of whelk predation and other sources of mortality on restoration sites and, if necessary/possible, mitigate mortality on restoration sites. When practical, incorporate assistance of baymen in whelk harvest activities. Re
- Action Step: Action Step 1.6.4: Monitor the post-release survival of seed clams and continue to adjust methods to improve survival efficiency. Share best practices information among municipalities and NGOs. Responsible Entity: Members of the Bluepoints Bottomlands Co
- Action Step: Action Step 1.6.5: Monitor the survival, condition, and spawning of transplanted clams and continuously evaluate and adjust tactics to maximize success and efficiency. Responsible Entity: Members of the BBC
- Action Step: Action Step 1.6.6: Improve the harvest reporting and incorporate information into state landings statistics. Responsible Entity: NYS DEC, Towns
- Action Step: Action Step 1.6.7: Collate state hard clam landings data and town shellfish survey data and compile raw data in a database so that it can be utilized to assess restoration success and incorporated into assessment models to recommend reference points and m
- Action Step: Action Step 1.6.8: Carry out a study that documents the extent of the non-commercial and non-reported hard clam harvest as well as the social and economic importance of these activities. Incorporate these data into harvest management decisions making. R
- Action Step: Action Step 1.6.9: Monitor temperature constantly throughout the bay in conjunction with a comprehensive water quality monitoring program. Responsible Entity: SCDHS
Objective: Objective 02: Maintain existing salt marsh acreage from a baseline constructed from the most recent available height-of-growing-season imagery, increase acreage where possible, and enhance functionality of Great South Bay salt marsh by 2015
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 2.1: Ensure the protection and functionality of newly-formed tidal wetland and island habitat, including flood tide deltas and peninsulas formed by barrier island overwash.
- Action Step: Action Step 2.1.1: Adopt laws to designate any new land created along or adjacent to barrier islands through natural weather-related processes as protected open space, and ensure protection of these areas by prohibiting dredging and sand mining. Responsi
- Action Step: Action Step 2.1.2: Establish appropriate buffer requirements to protect newly forming marsh from impacts of development. Responsible Entities: NYS DEC, Towns of Brookhaven and Islip
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 2.2: Establish appropriately sized buffers to effectively mitigate against the effects of sea level rise, and implement policies that modify buffer requirements over time in response to sea level rise.
- Action Step: Action Step 2.2.1: Model the rate and extent of sea level rise. Responsible Entities: NYS DOS, NOAA Coastal Services, NGOs such as TNC
- Action Step: Action Step 2.2.2: Assess and identify areas where salt marsh can migrate in response to 2100 sea level rise predictions. Responsible Entities: NYS DOS, NOAA Coastal Services, NGOs such as TNC
- Action Step: Action Step 2.2.3: Explore possibilities for creating new buffer: acquire vacant shoreline property and property adjacent to major salt marshes (includes easements) and identify or create funding sources. Responsible Entities: NYS Legislature, NYS DEC, S
- Action Step: Action Step 2.2.4: Adapt wetland code so that wetland permitting is responsive to sea level rise (e.g. change zoning laws to require new construction to be landward of a designated elevation based on sea level rise projections.). Responsible Entities: N
- Action Step: Action Step 2.2.5: Modify Town, State and NPS/FINS codes to include provisions for structural retreat on parcels undergoing re-development. Responsible Entities: NYS DEC, Towns of Brookhaven and Islip, NPS/FINS
- Action Step: Action Step 2.2.6: Enact code that would require vegetated buffers on all properties adjacent to salt marshes and water bodies. Responsible Entities: NYS Legislature, NYS DEC, Towns of Brookhaven and Islip, NPS/FINS
- Action Step: Action Step 2.2.7: Initiate coastal monitoring to survey and map newly flooded areas to identify areas that are being converted to wetlands. Responsible Entities: NYS DOS, NYS DEC, NOAA Coastal Services Center
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 2.3: Maintain and expand natural shorelines* by prohibiting new shoreline hardening structures and phasing out existing hardening structures in appropriate areas and reaches of the Great South Bay.
- Action Step: Action Step 2.3.1: Prohibit and decline to issue permits for new shoreline armoring in GSB. Responsible Entities: Town of Islip, Town of Brookhaven, NYS DEC, NPS, NYS DOS (via amendment of its coastal zone management policy to include removal of requirem
- Action Step: Action Step 2.3.2: Require a timed phase-out of existing shoreline hardening structures (via temporary softer alternatives if necessary). Responsible Entities: NYS DEC, Town Planning and Environment Departments, NYS DEC, NYS DOS, USACE, NPS, Town of Isli
- Action Step: Action Step 2.3.3: Develop and promulgate regulatory permitting criteria preventing the rebuilding of defunct or dilapidated impediments to longshore sediment transport and develop standards for removal of these structures. Responsible Entity: NYS DEC
- Action Step: Action Step 2.3.4: Implement demonstration projects to showcase bulkhead removal and natural shoreline restoration. Responsible Entities: TNC, NYS DEC, Towns
- Action Step: Action Step 2.3.5: Provide legal and technical advice to town and state decision makers on how to strengthen state and local code to limit shoreline armoring and the granting of variances to narrowly-defined emergency conditions. Technical support could t
- Action Step: Action Step 2.3.6: Hold a workshop to promote awareness of the ecological, social, and economic benefits of natural shorelines, and to promote shoreline naturalization throughout the area. Responsible Entity: TNC
- Action Step: Action Step 2.3.7: Design and implement a communication plan that will inform the public of the ecological, social, and economic benefits of natural shorelines. Responsible Entities: SSER, TNC and partner NGOs
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 2.4: Require all navigational dredging projects to minimize impacts on tidal wetlands.
- Action Step: Action Step 2.4.1: Ensure that deep channels are not so close to marsh edges that they serve as a sediment sink for suspended sediments or cause the marsh plain to slump or subside. Responsible Entity: NYS DEC
- Action Step: Action Step 2.4.2: Ensure that channel design maximizes sediment transport from one side to the other. Responsible Entity: NYS DEC
- Action Step: Action Step 2.4.3: Ensure that the location of navigational channels minimizes the impact of boat wakes on marsh edges and consider speed limits where existing channels are close to marshes. Responsible Entity: NYS DEC
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 2.5: Minimize the use of mosquito chemical control agents in salt marshes
(measures info)
Progress Updated Comments On Track - - - Action Step: Action Step 2.5.1: Design and implement an outreach program to instruct residents on how to eliminate mosquito breeding areas around their homes. Responsible Entity: Suffolk County Vector Control
- Action Step: Action Step 2.5.2: Conduct a risk assessment to determine when the risk of applying pesticides outweighs the risk of not doing so. Responsible Entities: Suffolk County Vector Control Pesticide Management Committee, Suffolk County Wetland Stewardship Work
- Action Step: Action Step 2.5.3: Determine the impact of chemical control agents used in salt marshes on mosquito production as well as natural mosquito predator populations and other non-target organisms. Responsible Entities: Suffolk County Vector Control Pesticide
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 2.6: Reduce the rate of common reed (Phragmites australis) invasion by 10% and convert 10% of the current Phragmites acreage to native marsh species with characteristic zonation by 2015.
- Action Step: Action Step 2.6.1: Conduct vegetation mapping to determine the current extent and rate of expansion of Phragmites cover in GSB marshes. Responsible Entity: NYS DEC
- Action Step: Action Step 2.6.2: Identify appropriate sites for pilot projects that will fulfill this objective. Responsible Entities: NYS DEC, SSER, Towns of Brookhaven and Islip, Suffolk County Wetland Stewardship Workgroup
- Action Step: Action Step 2.6.3: Determine the most effective mechanisms of Phragmites removal and native vegetation restoration with minimal adverse effects. Responsible Entities: NYS DEC, Suffolk County Wetland Stewardship Workgroup
- Action Step: Action Step 2.6.4: Modify storm drainage systems and impermeable development along the coast to reduce surface freshwater inputs to shore-based marshes. Responsible Entities: NYS DEC, SSER, Towns of Brookhaven and Islip, Suffolk County
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 2.7: Modify marsh management practices to restore natural hydrology and sediment regimes in marshes in ways that reestablish native vegetation and improve marsh functionality.
(measures info)
Progress Updated Comments On Track - - - Action Step: Action Step 2.7.1: Develop a comprehensive set of salt marsh stewardship, restoration, and management goals and strategies, and measures of success by 2008. Responsible Entity: Suffolk County Wetland Stewardship Workgroup
- Action Step: Action Step 2.7.2: In the Suffolk County Wetlands Stewardship Program (SCWSP), define the term: “functionality” with respect to salt marsh systems and determine measurable parameters to evaluate wetland functionality. Responsible Entity: Suffolk County W
- Action Step: Action Step 2.7.3: In the SCWSP, identify science-based, site specific techniques for evaluating and achieving restoration objectives. Responsible Entity: Suffolk County Wetland Stewardship Workgroup
- Action Step: Action Step 2.7.4: Issue wetland permits and support projects that are consistent with the management plan developed by the SCWSP. Responsible Entity: NYS DEC
- Action Step: Action Step 2.7.5: Change NYS statute to include a strong mandate for NYS DEC such that they actively promote salt marsh restoration projects. Responsible Entity: New York State Legislature
- Action Step: Action Step 2.7.6: Lobby the NYS Legislature for a new law that allows NYS DEC to charge a fee for wetlands permit applications and use those monies to increase wetland staff and support wetland restoration activities. Responsible Entities: TNC, other N
- Action Step: Action Step 2.7.7: Initiate a program to survey the suitability (size and orientation) of all culverts to identify those that pose tidal restriction threats to marshes and mitigate unsuitable culverts to restore hydrology and both faunal and floral commun
- Action Step: Action Step 2.7.8: Limit human induced marsh loss due to harmful harvesting methods. Prohibit the harvesting of natural resources from marshes (e.g. bank mussels, worms, crabs etc.) in a manner that disrupts the integrity of the marsh peat. Responsible
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 2.8: Change public behavior by building awareness of the value of healthy salt marshes.
- Action Step: Action Step 2.8.1: Design and implement a communication plan that will inform the public of the connectedness of ecosystems and that what they do on land affects coastal ecosystems. Responsible Entities: NYS DEC, SSER, NGOs such as TNC and Peconic Baykee
- Action Step: Action Step 2.8.2: Design and implement a communication plan that will inform the public of the ecological, social, and economic benefits of natural shorelines including salt marshes. Responsible Entities: NYS DEC, SSER, NGOs such as TNC and Peconic Bayk
- Action Step: Action Step 2.8.3: Design and implement a communication plan that will inform the public of the ecological, social, and economic benefits of wetland buffers. Responsible Entities: NYS DEC, SSER, NGOs such as TNC and Peconic Baykeeper
- Action Step: Action Step 2.8.4: Design and implement a communication plan that will inform the public of the ecological, social, and economic benefits of adhering to low impact boating behavior. Responsible Entities: NYS DEC, SSER, NGOs such as TNC and Peconic Baykee
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 2.9: Monitor KEAs and fill gaps in information by conducting appropriate research and monitoring
- Action Step: Action Step 2.9.1: Monitor marsh acreage and vegetation patterns using a combination of aerial infrared photography images taken at the height of growing season (August-October) and ground-truthed vegetation transects. Ensure that future survey methodolog
- Action Step: Action Step 2.9.2: Monitor hydrology of wetlands in order to identify areas that are becoming soggy or waterlogged or showing a shift from higher to lower marsh vegetation based on inspection of aerial images. In those locations, install auto-logging grou
- Action Step: Action Step 2.9.3: Monitor sediment accumulation and elevation changes in a variety of GSB marshes that represent a gradient of marshes from those that appear to be healthy and accreting to those that appear to be sinking or shrinking. Use Surface Elevati
- Action Step: Action Step 2.9.4: Assess the status of key functional guild populations by developing a database of fiddler crab and bank mussel densities within Great South Bay marshes. These populations should be assessed on an annual basis. Responsible Entities: NYS
- Action Step: Action Step 2.9.5: Add pore water salinity measurements at the landward edges of selected salt marshes to a general water quality monitoring program. Responsible Entities: NYS DEC, Suffolk County Department of Parks, Brookhaven Department of Environmenta
- Action Step: Action Step 2.9.6: Calculate a nutrient budget for Great South Bay and determine whether the shifting vegetation patterns observed in GSB marshes (generally from S. patens to S. alterniflora or Phragmites dominated marshes) are related to changes in hydro
- Action Step: Action Step 2.9.7: Monitor the total amount of nitrogen in cordgrass per unit area at select marshes in order to understand the types and amounts of nutrients that are influencing salt marshes. Responsible Entities: NYS DEC, Suffolk County Department of
- Action Step: Action Step 2.9.8: Monitor the concentration of hydrogen sulfide in marsh peat at the depth of active root growth seasonally. Responsible Entities: NYS DEC, Suffolk County Department of Parks, Brookhaven Department of Environmental Protection, Islip Depa
- Action Step: Action Step 2.9.9: Determine the effect of altered drainage patterns within marshes (due to sedimentation at inlets or within mosquito ditches; maintenance of mosquito ditches, stormwater drainage patterns, etc.). Responsible Entities: NYS DEC, Suffolk C
Objective: Objective 03: Maintain 2002 seagrass acreage (14,000 acres) in Great South Bay and increase acreage by 10% over 2002 levels by 2015
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 3.1: Develop and implement a plan to protect and restore seagrass meadows throughout the New York State marine district
- Action Step: Action Step 3.1.1: Develop a list of legislative, regulatory, and programmatic initiatives to protect and restore seagrass in New York State by December 31, 2009. Responsible Entity: New York State Seagrass Taskforce
- Action Step: Action Step 3.1.2: Implement recommendations of New York State Seagrass Taskforce. Responsible Entities: NYS DEC, Towns, FINS, NYS Legislature
- Action Step: Action Step 3.1.3: Identify seagrass beds based on their ecological importance and/or their vulnerability to threats that require special protection and designate those areas as seagrass reserve zones where potentially damaging activities are limited. R
- Action Step: Action Step 3.1.4: Designate GSB seagrass beds as Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC). Responsible Entities: NYS DEC, MAMFC
- Action Step: Action Step 3.1.5: Identify appropriate seagrass bed restoration locations and methods. Responsible Entities: SSER, TNC, NY Sea Grant, Stony Brook University, Cornell Cooperative Extension
- Action Step: Action Step 3.1.6: Acquire funding from NYS, federal restoration programs, and Suffolk County restoration programs such as the Drinking Water Quality Program, which is needed to implement restoration and monitoring. Responsible Entities: SSER, Towns, TNC
- Action Step: Action Step 3.1.7: Increase native shellfish populations through restoration and protection in conjunction with seagrass restoration. Responsible Entities: NYS DEC, Towns, TNC
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 3.2: Restore 500 acres of seagrass meadows in central GSB by 2015
- Action Step: Action Step 3.2.1: Identify appropriate restoration locations and methods. Responsible Entities: TNC, Towns, NY Sea Grant, Stony Brook University, Cornell Cooperative Extension
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 3.3: Develop and implement a coordinated state-wide seagrass monitoring program
- Action Step: Action Step 3.3.1: Regularly update seagrass maps by conducting aerial image analysis. Aerial photo surveys that include collection of oblique images should be performed every two years. This temporal scale will allow management to assess and respond to i
- Action Step: Action Step 3.3.2: Conduct sentinel bed monitoring. A series of representative seagrass beds needs to be identified to monitor the health of the seagrass as well as the health of the ecosystem as a whole. A panel of seagrass scientists has already outline
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 3.4: Develop and implement a research program to understand the causes of seagrass loss from direct and indirect impacts and to refine restoration techniques
- Action Step: Action Step 3.4.1: Working with experts, build upon the one-day NY Seagrass Experts Meeting hosted by NY Sea Grant of May 2007 to develop a comprehensive list of priority research topics including: • Seagrass diseases • Relationships among surface and g
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 3.5: Build awareness of the importance and location of seagrass beds in GSB
- Action Step: Action Step 3.5.1: Increase the number of navigation channel markings by decreasing the distance between each marking in areas of GSB where boats frequently run aground, such as Dickerson Channel and Snakehill channel. Responsible Entities: USCG, USCG A
- Action Step: Action Step 3.5.2: Include maps, charts and information with boat registrations and town boat ramp permits. Responsible Entities: NYS DEC, NYS DOS, SSER, DMV, Town parks departments
- Action Step: Action Step 3.5.3: Post informational signage at boat ramps throughout the estuary highlighting the presence and importance of seagrass beds. Responsible Entities: SSER, Towns, FINS, NYS DEC
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 3.6: Ensure adequate marine resources protection by keeping enforcement agencies informed of current regulations, codes, and laws concerning marine resources
- Action Step: Action Step 3.6.1: Where necessary, expand the resources of environmental conservation enforcement entities and encourage more coordination among town, county, state, and federal enforcement. Responsible Entities: Towns, NYS DEC, SSER
- Action Step: Action Step 3.6.2: Develop a live 24-hour marine enforcement hotline for reporting and addressing violations while they are occurring. Responsible Entities: NYS DEC, Suffolk County Marine Bureau
- Action Step: Action Step 3.6.3: Develop and implement an annual marine enforcement workshop for multiple agencies. Responsible Entities: NYS DEC Bureau of Marine Resources/Marine Law Enforcement Unit
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 2.3: Maintain and expand natural shorelines* by prohibiting new shoreline hardening structures and phasing out existing hardening structures in appropriate areas and reaches of the Great South Bay.
- Action Step: Action Step 2.3.1: Prohibit and decline to issue permits for new shoreline armoring in GSB. Responsible Entities: Town of Islip, Town of Brookhaven, NYS DEC, NPS, NYS DOS (via amendment of its coastal zone management policy to include removal of requirem
- Action Step: Action Step 2.3.2: Require a timed phase-out of existing shoreline hardening structures (via temporary softer alternatives if necessary). Responsible Entities: NYS DEC, Town Planning and Environment Departments, NYS DEC, NYS DOS, USACE, NPS, Town of Isli
- Action Step: Action Step 2.3.3: Develop and promulgate regulatory permitting criteria preventing the rebuilding of defunct or dilapidated impediments to longshore sediment transport and develop standards for removal of these structures. Responsible Entity: NYS DEC
- Action Step: Action Step 2.3.4: Implement demonstration projects to showcase bulkhead removal and natural shoreline restoration. Responsible Entities: TNC, NYS DEC, Towns
- Action Step: Action Step 2.3.5: Provide legal and technical advice to town and state decision makers on how to strengthen state and local code to limit shoreline armoring and the granting of variances to narrowly-defined emergency conditions. Technical support could t
- Action Step: Action Step 2.3.6: Hold a workshop to promote awareness of the ecological, social, and economic benefits of natural shorelines, and to promote shoreline naturalization throughout the area. Responsible Entity: TNC
- Action Step: Action Step 2.3.7: Design and implement a communication plan that will inform the public of the ecological, social, and economic benefits of natural shorelines. Responsible Entities: SSER, TNC and partner NGOs
Objective: Objective 04: By 2015, ensure that natural movement of the barrier island (which is necessary for the long-term integrity of the island in light of rising sea-levels) can potentially occur without human intervention.
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 4.1: Amend coastal policy to promote natural formation of inlets and littoral drift and assess the feasibility of letting inlets close.
- Action Step: Action Step 4.1.1: Amend the Breach Contingency Plan and associated permits in order to allow the persistence of breaches in natural areas, and evaluate the feasibility of allowing for the opening of new inlets and closing of existing inlets. Responsibl
- Action Step: Action Step 4.1.2: Establish a suite of engineering alternatives that represent best management practices for sediment bypassing. Responsible Entity: USACE
- Action Step: Action Step 4.1.3: Develop and implement a communications plan to educate residents and elected officials about barrier island movement and the necessity of breaching to ensure the persistence of the island and the health of the natural communities that r
- Action Step: Action Step 4.1.4: Develop standards for inlet and marina dredging and maintenance that are consistent with natural movement of sediments and mimic sediment bypass in the disposal of dredged materials. Responsible Entity: NYS DEC
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 4.2: Develop a suite of land use tools and best management practices, including managed retreat and post-storm redevelopment planning, that phase out the use of chronic sand replenishment by 2015.
- Action Step: Action Step 4.2.1: Deny permits for beach nourishment except in narrowly-defined emergencies. Responsible Entity: NYS DEC, FINS
- Action Step: Action Step 4.2.2: Refrain from beach nourishment activities in parks except in defined emergencies. Responsible Entities: State and County parks agencies
- Action Step: Action Step 4.2.3: Advocate for amendment of USACE regulations to properly value natural processes and resources in project benefit-cost analyses, and require that shoreline management projects be evaluated under the National Environmental Restoration fra
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 4.3: Promote wise site-selection for the development of offshore structures and sand mining
- Action Step: Action Step 4.3.1: Develop a comprehensive Generic Environmental Impact Statement to establish criteria for site selection for offshore structures and implement those criteria in project-specific EISs. EISs should include biological, physical, and geologi
- Action Step: Action Step 4.3.2: Advise FERC on site selection for offshore structures such as wind farms based, in part, on the need to ensure natural movement of sand from offshore sources to beaches on Fire Island. Responsible Entity: NYS DEC
- Action Step: Action Step 4.3.3: Deny permits for sand mining projects within state waters. Responsible Entity: NYS DEC
- Action Step: Action Step 4.3.4: Fund research on effects of sand mining on natural movement of sand from offshore to onshore. Responsible Entity: NY Sea Grant
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 4.4: Prevent new development and minimize redevelopment that will impede cross-island sediment transport
- Action Step: Action Step 4.4.1: Develop capacity to fully implement and enforce the provisions of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area law to minimize the inappropriate siting of new development in hazard areas and prevent the rebuilding of structures in those areas. Resp
- Action Step: Action Step 4.4.2: Encourage increased FINS involvement with residential communities on Fire Island to develop zoning ordinances that consolidate development and enhance corridors for cross island transport. Responsible Entities: FINS, Brookhaven, Islip
- Action Step: Action Step 4.4.3: Develop a regional shoreline management plan that incorporates the need for cross-island sediment transport in development criteria. Responsible Entities: NYS DOS, NYS DEC, Towns of Islip and Brookhaven, FINS, SCPD, NYSOPRHP
- Action Step: Action Step 4.4.4: Develop post-storm recovery plans that are FEMA-compliant, involve significant post-storm land protection, and would trigger federal funding for necessary property acquisition. Responsible Entities: SEMO, Towns of Brookhaven and Islip,
- Action Step: Action Step 4.4.5: Develop a program to purchase or transfer development rights or purchase property outright in the most vulnerable locations of Fire Island. Responsible Entities: Suffolk County, Towns of Brookhaven and Islip
- Action Step: Action Step 4.4.6: Encourage recommendations, pursuant to FIMP, that prioritize public acquisition of vulnerable coastal properties. Responsible Entity: USACE, FINS, NYS DOS, NYS DEC
- Action Step: Action Step 4.4.7: Empower the Fire Island Land Trust to become an active partner with state and local government in protecting coastal property on Fire Island in perpetuity. Responsible Entities: Fire Island Land and Environment Trust, Brookhaven and Is
- Action Step: Action Step 4.4.8: Amend FEMA policy to cap National Flood Insurance Program recovery in areas of high ecological value or high risk. Responsible Entity: NY Congressional Representatives
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 4.5: Eliminate the use of non-natives species for landscaping on Fire Island
- Action Step: Action Step 4.5.1: Include provisions in the General Management Plan for Fire Island Communities to use vegetation native to barrier island communities for landscaping. Responsible Entity: NPS
- Action Step: Action Step 4.5.2: Map and designate invasive free areas as Weed Prevention Areas (WPAs). Responsible Entities: NYS DEC, FINS
- Action Step: Action Step 4.5.3: On NPS property, follow “early detection, rapid response” protocol recommended by LI Invasive Species Management Area work group. Responsible Entity: NPS
- Action Step: Action Step 4.5.4: Educate community members on the benefits and importance of native vegetation. Responsible Entities: FINS, SSER
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 4.6: Monitor KEAs and fill gaps in information by conducting appropriate research and monitoring
- Action Step: Action Step 4.6.1: Fund research on effects of sand mining on natural movement of sand from offshore to onshore and its linkage to overall sediment budget. Responsible Entities: NY Sea Grant, FINS
- Action Step: Action Step 4.6.2: Map barrier island and bayshore species community structure using aerial photos and infrared data sets gathered as part of the salt marsh and seagrass monitoring recommendations. This analysis should be conducted along with coordinated
- Action Step: Action Step 4.6.3: Identify, map and monitor areas of the barrier island where cross island sediment transport can occur by determining the percent of the island where dune development and migration are allowed to occur naturally. Responsible Entities:
- Action Step: Action Step 4.6.4: Fund research on the effects of beach fencing on aeolean transport of sediments on the barrier island. Responsible Entity: NY Sea Grant
- Action Step: Action Step 4.6.5: Evaluate and monitor the extent of natural shoreline in GSB in order to understand where sediments are allowed to distribute naturally. Responsible Entities: NYS DEC, Towns
- Action Step: Action Step 4.6.6: Identify areas where beach nourishment, sand-mining, sand fencing, and policy issues prevent natural processes from occurring. Responsible Entities: SSER, NYS DEC, FINS, Towns
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 2.3: Maintain and expand natural shorelines* by prohibiting new shoreline hardening structures and phasing out existing hardening structures in appropriate areas and reaches of the Great South Bay.
- Action Step: Action Step 2.3.1: Prohibit and decline to issue permits for new shoreline armoring in GSB. Responsible Entities: Town of Islip, Town of Brookhaven, NYS DEC, NPS, NYS DOS (via amendment of its coastal zone management policy to include removal of requirem
- Action Step: Action Step 2.3.2: Require a timed phase-out of existing shoreline hardening structures (via temporary softer alternatives if necessary). Responsible Entities: NYS DEC, Town Planning and Environment Departments, NYS DEC, NYS DOS, USACE, NPS, Town of Isli
- Action Step: Action Step 2.3.3: Develop and promulgate regulatory permitting criteria preventing the rebuilding of defunct or dilapidated impediments to longshore sediment transport and develop standards for removal of these structures. Responsible Entity: NYS DEC
- Action Step: Action Step 2.3.4: Implement demonstration projects to showcase bulkhead removal and natural shoreline restoration. Responsible Entities: TNC, NYS DEC, Towns
- Action Step: Action Step 2.3.5: Provide legal and technical advice to town and state decision makers on how to strengthen state and local code to limit shoreline armoring and the granting of variances to narrowly-defined emergency conditions. Technical support could t
- Action Step: Action Step 2.3.6: Hold a workshop to promote awareness of the ecological, social, and economic benefits of natural shorelines, and to promote shoreline naturalization throughout the area. Responsible Entity: TNC
- Action Step: Action Step 2.3.7: Design and implement a communication plan that will inform the public of the ecological, social, and economic benefits of natural shorelines. Responsible Entities: SSER, TNC and partner NGOs
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 2.6: Reduce the rate of common reed (Phragmites australis) invasion by 10% and convert 10% of the current Phragmites acreage to native marsh species with characteristic zonation by 2015.
- Action Step: Action Step 2.6.1: Conduct vegetation mapping to determine the current extent and rate of expansion of Phragmites cover in GSB marshes. Responsible Entity: NYS DEC
- Action Step: Action Step 2.6.2: Identify appropriate sites for pilot projects that will fulfill this objective. Responsible Entities: NYS DEC, SSER, Towns of Brookhaven and Islip, Suffolk County Wetland Stewardship Workgroup
- Action Step: Action Step 2.6.3: Determine the most effective mechanisms of Phragmites removal and native vegetation restoration with minimal adverse effects. Responsible Entities: NYS DEC, Suffolk County Wetland Stewardship Workgroup
- Action Step: Action Step 2.6.4: Modify storm drainage systems and impermeable development along the coast to reduce surface freshwater inputs to shore-based marshes. Responsible Entities: NYS DEC, SSER, Towns of Brookhaven and Islip, Suffolk County
Objective: Objective 05: By 2012 develop a vision and coordinated plan to achieve sustainable predator and prey finfish species abundance levels designed to meet pre-determined human use and ecosystem objectives...(see text)
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 5.1: Through targeted monitoring and research expand knowledge base to more confidently assess and manage the range of harvested fishery resources in New York State – including Great South Bay by 2012
- Action Step: Action Step 5.1.1: Develop and implement a comprehensive fishery independent fish monitoring plan for Great South Bay which incorporates multiple gear types and trophic levels. Maintenance of long term data like this are most appropriately done by agenci
- Action Step: Action Step 5.1.2: Institute adequate reporting for under-reported fisheries, such as sport fishing and bait (forage species) harvest, and increase precision of reported fisheries so that harvest can be broken down by estuary and season. At a minimum all
- Action Step: Action Step 5.1.3: Fund and conduct research specifically targeted at improving management by providing more accurate estimates of biological parameters used in fisheries models (such as size- or age-specific natural mortality, growth, and emigration rate
- Action Step: Action Step 5.1.4: Institute and expand coverage of a comprehensive fishery observer program to calculate by-catch and discard mortality, and incorporate those estimates into management plans. Responsible Entity: NYS DEC, ASMFC, NMFS
- Action Step: Action Step 5.1.5: Utilize the renewal of boat slip and facility lease/rent agreements with the charter and party boat fleet at Captree State Park to make compliance with DEC reporting and harvest regulations a condition of future lease agreements to oper
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 5.2: More thoroughly account for inter-species interactions, habitat and bycatch impacts, and species ecosystem services in the establishment of interstate regulatory reference points and fishery input regulations by 2015
- Action Step: Action Step 5.2.1: Incorporate findings from interstate and federal by-catch and habitat committees, working groups, and research reports into fisheries management plans so that harvesting policies contain objectives that strive towards reducing or elimin
- Action Step: Action Step 5.2.2: Require that information on interspecies interactions and ecosystem services be incorporated into the terms of reference used in the development of reference points as revisions are made to current interstate fishery management plans. A
- Action Step: Action Step 5.2.3: Develop a long term vision of what a well managed estuary will look like in 20 years which incorporates details of what the kinds of activities (including fishing) that are desired to be occurring in the future, and what types will be d
- Action Step: Action Step 5.2.4: Expand and clarify the NYS DEC’s regulatory authority to manage the types of fishing gears and fishing activities that occur spatially and temporally within NYS waters (including Great South Bay) which is outside of the individual regul
- Action Step: Action Step 5.2.5: Explore the expansion of social and economic expertise to better anticipate the short and long term social and economic ramifications (beyond immediate impact to commercial and recreational harvesters to include the value of ecosystem s
- Action Step: Action Step 5.2.6: Encourage the development of local fish co-ops and/or improve distribution infrastructure (or address other identified needs) and promote sustainable, local, fresh seafood on Long Island. Responsible Entities: ESDC, Suffolk County, NY
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 5.3: Until a multi-species management approach is fully adopted, achieve (or establish if necessary) biomass and mortality rate targets for all NYS managed marine species by 2015.
- Action Step: Action Step 5.3.1: Via new legislation, require that all fisheries operating within state waters are managed with control rules with biomass and mortality rate targets similar to the way that federal fisheries are required to be managed as outlined in the
- Action Step: Action Step 5.3.2: Consider developing new FMPs for managing harvested yet unregulated species such as northern puffer. Responsible Entities: NYS DEC, ASMFC
- Action Step: Action Step 5.3.3: Expand the amount of staff and resources available for Marine Conservation Law Enforcement and explore new ways to maximize their coverage and expand stern prosecution of offenses. Responsible Entities: NYS DEC, district attorneys and
- Action Step: Action Step 5.3.4: Take actions to set annual harvest restrictions with sufficient lead time for stakeholders to make sound business decisions in advance of the fishing season, while continuing to take protective, precautionary approaches toward managing
Objective: Objective 06: Rebuild the Mid-Atlantic Southern New England winter flounder stock as specified in Amendment 1 to the ASMFC Winter Flounder FMP, expand knowledge of the species, and reduce human use impacts on flounder reproduction in GSB
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 6.1: Reduce fishing mortality rates regionally, state-wide, and in Great South Bay
- Action Step: Action Step 6.1.1: Evaluate the impacts of the Amendment 1 regulations and actively engage in ASMFC recommendations. If the regulations are found to be inadequate, seriously consider the adoption of a moratorium. This determination and action should be ma
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 6.2: Improve fishery statistics on winter flounder
- Action Step: Action Step 6.2.1: Develop a new method and program for quantifying recreational catch of winter flounder. Responsible Entities: NYS DEC, NMFS, ACCSP
- Action Step: Action Step 6.2.2: Create a state observer program that uses independently contracted observers to help monitor and document bycatch. Responsible Entites: NYS DEC, NMFS
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 6.3: Conduct necessary studies to properly manage this resource within Great South Bay.
- Action Step: Action Step 6.3.1: Fund and conduct a population survey of winter flounder in Great South Bay. Responsible Entities: Research Institutions, NYS DEC, NYS Legislature, ASMFC, NMFS, NY Sea Grant
- Action Step: Action Step 6.3.2: Fund and conduct a study to identify nesting and juvenile habitat of winter flounder in Great South Bay. Responsible Entities: Research Institutions, NYS DEC, NYS Legislature, ASMFC, NMFS, NY Sea Grant
- Action Step: Action Step 6.3.3: Fund and conduct an evaluation of stage-specific mortality rates of winter flounder in Great South Bay. Correlate with work with key variables including temperature, precipitation, predator density. Responsible Entities: Research Insti
- Action Step: Action Step 6.3.4: Fund and conduct research to identify predators of winter flounder in Great South Bay by studying gut contents. Responsible Entities: Research Institutions, NYS DEC, NYS Legislature, ASMFC, NMFS, NY Sea Grant
- Action Step: Action Step 6.3.5: Fund and conduct research to identify primary diet items of winter flounder in Great South Bay. Responsible Entities: Research Institutions, NYS DEC, NYS Legislature, ASMFC, NMFS, NY Sea Grant
- Action Step: Action Step 6.3.6 (also 5.4.1): Develop and implement a comprehensive fishery-independent monitoring plan for Great South Bay which incorporates multiple gear types and multiple trophic levels, and multiple seasons. This is something that will have to be
- Action Step: Action Step 6.3.7: As part of a water quality monitoring program, bottom water temperature should be measured constantly with remote temperature sensors. Responsible Entities: NYS DEC, Suffolk County
- Action Step: Action Step 6.3.8: Monitor the current condition of benthic communities using data from shellfish surveys and put in historic perspective. If altered, predict impacts of changes in benthic communities to benthic predators like horseshoe crab and winter fl
- Action Step: Action Step 6.3.9: To better understand the relative habitat available to fish populations as nursery and foraging areas, benthic habitats should be mapped every 3 - 5 years using aerial photos, sonar, and data from town shellfish surveys. Responsible E
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 6.4: Reduce human-induced disturbance to winter flounder spawning and nursery habitat in GSB.
- Action Step: Action Step 6.4.1: Modify the timing and spatial extent of navigational and fisheries dredging so that it avoids spawning and nursery habitat during the winter months. Responsible Entities: NYS DEC and Suffolk County, USACE
- Action Step: Action Step 6.4.2: To evaluate the impact of dredging on winter flounder in Great South Bay, map the extent, location, and timing of dredging in the bay. Responsible Entities: Suffolk County (via completion of its draft Environmental Impact Statement on
- Action Step: Action Step 6.4.3: Fund and conduct research on the impacts of dredging on the various life history phases of winter flounder. Responsible Entities: NY Sea Grant, Stony Brook University, NOAA, ASMFC, Research institutions, NYS DEC
Objective: Objective 07: Increase the size of the Great South Bay alewife population from less than 10,000 individuals to greater than 100,000, distributed over at least four tributaries by 2022
-
Strategic Action: Strategic action 7.1: Manage harvest of alewives in Great South Bay and its tributaries
(measures info)
Progress Updated Comments On Track - - - Action Step: Action Step 7.1.1: Based on emerging science, prohibit all harvest of alewives in Great South Bay and its tributaries to ensure alewife restoration until a fishery management plan (FMP) has been developed and rebuilding targets are met if current netting
- Action Step: Action Step 7.1.2: Establish a stakeholder group in 2008 to develop a state wide river herring fisheries management plan by 2010. The plan could include thresholds for ending the moratorium (put in place under previous action) and phased reintroduction of
- Action Step: Action Step 7.1.3: Set minimum coast-wide river herring management measures, recognizing that local populations interact with other areas through straying within the larger coastal metapopulation. Responsible Entities: NYS DEC and the New York ASMFC Comm
-
Strategic Action: Strategic action 7.2: Allow access to 30 new miles of suitable freshwater alewife habitat by 2017
- Action Step: Action Step 7.2.1: Identify the dams that cause the most severe problems in terms of fish passage, thermal pollution, and promoting invasive aquatic plant populations, and work with dam owners and appropriate municipalities and stakeholders to modify or r
- Action Step: Action Step 7.2.2: Create a staff position within NYS DEC with the purpose of achieving an effective and efficient process for modifying or removing barriers to fish passage in New York State. Responsible Entity: New York Governor
- Action Step: Action Step 7.2.3: Through coordination among NYS DEC’s Freshwater Fisheries Unit, Anadromous Fisheries Unit, and Dam Safety Unit, and Division of Water, develop and adopt policies and or regulations to facilitate dam modification or removal in support of
- Action Step: Action Step 7.2.4: Establish a financial assistance scheme to support dam modification or removal projects. Responsible Entities: New York Governor and State Legislature
- Action Step: Action Step 7.2.5: Work with dam owners to install fish passage structures at priority dams where removal is not feasible. Responsible Entity: NYS DEC
- Action Step: Action Step 7.2.6: Mitigate barriers (culverts and dams) to fish passage by implementing recommendations of the recent inventory and assessment of barriers six tributaries of the SSER Responsible Entities: NYS DOS, NYS DEC
- Action Step: Action Step 7.2.7: Action steps under the Water Quality objective should be implemented by relevant entities to maintain necessary temperature and dissolved oxygen conditions. Responsible Entities: Multiple (see Water Quality section)
- Action Step: Action Step 7.2.8: Document existing occurrences of aquatic invasive plants, and work with local municipalities to prevent further spread where possible. Responsible Entity: NYS DEC
- Action Step: Action Step 7.2.9: New York State should supplement through funding or no-interest loans local efforts to acquire land on the shores of tributaries where significant acres of undeveloped waterfront land remain, e.g., Swan River and Mud Creek. Responsib
-
Strategic Action: Strategic action 7.3: Establish recurrent spawning runs in four or more GSB tributaries.
- Action Step: Action Step 7.3.1: Once the Carmans River population has reached 10,000 fish, transplant spawners from the Carmans to the Connetquot River and Carlls River to establish eastern, western and central stronghold populations in the three longest rivers in the
- Action Step: Action Step 7.3.2: Monitor other tributaries for natural straying and re-establishment of spawning runs from the stronghold populations. Responsible Entities: NYS DEC, members of the Diadromous Fish Workgroup
- Action Step: Action Step 7.3.3: Transplant spawners to additional tributaries where natural straying does not occur. Responsible Entities: NYS DEC, members of the Diadromous Fish Workgroup
-
Strategic Action: Strategic action 7.4: Investigate and mitigate oceanic bycatch of alewives
- Action Step: Action Step 7.4.1: Lobby Congress for increased funding for the NMFS observer program to collect better data on the extent of the bycatch problem. Responsible Entities: Members of the Diadromous Fish Workgroup, NGOs
- Action Step: Action Step 7.4.2: Reform sea herring fishing regulation by NEFMC based on current understanding of the spatial and temporal patterns of river herring bycatch. Responsible Entities: New York’s ASMFC delegation, ASMFC, NEFMC
- Action Step: Action Step 7.4.3: Support and participate in a large-scale, multi-state, multidisciplinary research effort to understand oceanic migrations of individual river runs and to match fish caught as bycatch with their natal streams. Responsible Entities: NYS
- Action Step: Action Step 7.4.4: Advocate for further refinements in management of sea herring fishing by NEFMC as new understanding of oceanic bycatch emerges. Responsible Entities: ASMFC, Members of the Diadromous Fish Workgroup
Objective: Objective 08: By 2015, increase the number and productivity of piping plovers to 65 pairs and a five-year average of 2.0 chicks fledged per pair for the Fire Island reach of their New York range.
-
Strategic Action: Strategic action 8.1: Undertake a cooperative effort by the National Park Service, Suffolk County, New York State, appropriate Towns and private organizations, to manage and monitor all plover sites by April 1st every year.
- Action Step: Action Step 8.1.1: Hire seasonal stewards by April 1st. Responsible Entities: NYSOPRHP, FINS, SCPD
- Action Step: Action Step 8.1.2: Install plover fencing by April 1st at all major public beaches. Responsible Entities: FINS, NYSOPRHP, SCPD
- Action Step: Action Step 8.1.3: Recruit part-time stewards, town staff, and volunteers to monitor and fence nesting birds between April 1st and mid-May if fulltime stewards are not yet hired. Responsible Entities: NYSOPRHP, FINS, SCPD
- Action Step: Action Step 8.1.4: Conduct early April and mid-May steward training workshops. Responsible Entities: TNC, USFWS, NYS DEC
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 8.2: Close nesting beaches to off-road vehicles (ORVs) during periods when unfledged chicks are present
- Action Step: Action Step 8.2.1: Close select beaches to ORVs from April to August. Responsible Entities: FINS, NYSOPRHP, SCPD
- Action Step: Action Step 8.2.2: Enforce existing closure guidelines and off-road vehicle regulations. Responsible Entities: FINS, NYSOPRHP, SCPD
- Action Step: Action Step 8.2.3: Increase penalties and fines for off-road vehicle use violations. Responsible Entities: Towns of Brookhaven and Islip, Suffolk County, NYS DEC, NYS Park Police, FINS
- Action Step: Action Step 8.2.4: Update off-road vehicle permit applicant video about beach nesting birds. Responsible Entities: NYSOPRHP, FINS, SCPD, TNC, USFWS, NYS DEC
- Action Step: Action Step 8.2.5: Require all off-road vehicle permit applicants to view a video about beach nesting birds. Responsible Entities: FINS, NYSOPRHP, SCPD
- Action Step: Action Step 8.2.6: Conduct annual training for enforcement officers to enable officers to identify endangered and threatened species on the beach and understand endangered species laws and their responsibilities under these laws. Responsible Entities: US
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 8.3: Selectively control documented predators at sites with high predation rates.
- Action Step: Action Step 8.3.1: Eliminate access to human food waste by using closed non-mesh trash containers and frequently removing trash. Responsible Entities: NYSOPRHP, FINS, SCPD, communities
- Action Step: Action Step 8.3.2: Erect predator exclosures in areas of high predator pressure. Responsible Entities: FINS, NYSOPRHP, SCPD
- Action Step: Action Step 8.3.3: Establish and maintain predation monitoring protocols in order to determine sites with high predation rates. Responsible Entities: USFWS, NYS DEC
- Action Step: Action Step 8.3.4: Develop and distribute a list of approved trappers and accepted trapping methods for predator removal using live trapping. Responsible Entities: USFWS, NYS DEC
- Action Step: Action Step 8.3.5: Ensure the FINS General Management Plan is consistent with controlling high predation rates, particularly from an imbalance of species or feral species within the park and wilderness area. Responsible Entities: TNC, FINS
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 8.4: Protect piping plovers and their breeding habitat from contamination and degradation due to oil spills
- Action Step: Action Step 8.4.1: Prepare an oil spill emergency response plan focusing on preventing oil from reaching the shore if at all possible. The plan should include immediate mobilization of clean-up efforts with minimal disturbance and impact to breeding pipin
- Action Step: Action Step 8.4.2: In the event of oiling of piping plovers or their habitat, enforce the requirement of clean-up by the responsible parties and file appropriate claims under the Natural Resource Damage Assessment regulations for recovery of damages and t
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 8.5: Identify and protect critical wintering and stopover habitat to maximize survival and recruitment in the breeding population
- Action Step: Action Step 8.5.1: Establish a plover monitoring program during migration and on wintering grounds to determine distribution, abundance, and limiting factors to population and habitat availability. Responsible Entities: USFWS, state wildlife agencies, TN
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 2.3: Maintain and expand natural shorelines* by prohibiting new shoreline hardening structures and phasing out existing hardening structures in appropriate areas and reaches of the Great South Bay.
- Action Step: Action Step 2.3.1: Prohibit and decline to issue permits for new shoreline armoring in GSB. Responsible Entities: Town of Islip, Town of Brookhaven, NYS DEC, NPS, NYS DOS (via amendment of its coastal zone management policy to include removal of requirem
- Action Step: Action Step 2.3.2: Require a timed phase-out of existing shoreline hardening structures (via temporary softer alternatives if necessary). Responsible Entities: NYS DEC, Town Planning and Environment Departments, NYS DEC, NYS DOS, USACE, NPS, Town of Isli
- Action Step: Action Step 2.3.3: Develop and promulgate regulatory permitting criteria preventing the rebuilding of defunct or dilapidated impediments to longshore sediment transport and develop standards for removal of these structures. Responsible Entity: NYS DEC
- Action Step: Action Step 2.3.4: Implement demonstration projects to showcase bulkhead removal and natural shoreline restoration. Responsible Entities: TNC, NYS DEC, Towns
- Action Step: Action Step 2.3.5: Provide legal and technical advice to town and state decision makers on how to strengthen state and local code to limit shoreline armoring and the granting of variances to narrowly-defined emergency conditions. Technical support could t
- Action Step: Action Step 2.3.6: Hold a workshop to promote awareness of the ecological, social, and economic benefits of natural shorelines, and to promote shoreline naturalization throughout the area. Responsible Entity: TNC
- Action Step: Action Step 2.3.7: Design and implement a communication plan that will inform the public of the ecological, social, and economic benefits of natural shorelines. Responsible Entities: SSER, TNC and partner NGOs
Objective: Objective 09: Maintain a sustainable nesting population of horseshoe crabs in Great South Bay at a level that also provides adequate forage for fish and shorebirds
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 9.1: Initiate and advance research and monitoring needed to properly manage horseshoe crabs in Great South Bay
- Action Step: Action Step 9.1.1: Establish and map horseshoe crab population baseline in Great South Bay, identify spawning areas, calculate emigration rates and site fidelity, determine target baywide spawning stock required to meet the appropriate management and rest
- Action Step: Action Step 9.1.2: Continue and expand the horseshoe crab spawning population survey currently being conducted by Cornell Cooperative Extension through the State Wildlife Grant Program, ensuring that methods are standardized with other studies along the c
- Action Step: Action Step 9.1.3: Conduct appropriate research and monitoring to assess the current condition of benthic communities and put that condition in a historic perspective. Use these data to assess whether the current condition of benthic communities is a limi
- Action Step: Action Step 9.1.4: Assess future impacts of sea level rise on horseshoe crab nesting beaches and incorporate the results into future land decisions concerning erosion and shoreline armoring. Responsible Entities: Research institutions, NYS DEC, NYS DOS,
- Action Step: Action Step 9.1.5: Assess the current migratory shorebird populations to determine their status and interactions with spawning horseshoe crabs. Responsible Entities: Research institutions, USFWS, NYS DEC
- Action Step: Action Step 9.1.6: In coordination with a shellfish survey, collect subsamples to assess food quality, quantity, and availability to horseshoe crabs. Responsible Entities: Research institutions, NYS DEC
- Action Step: Action Step 9.1.7: Determine if there are areas within park boundaries that may be appropriate nesting sanctuaries for horseshoe crabs. Once determined these areas should be explicitly incorporated into park code as well as state fisheries management regu
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 9.2: Ensure that harvest management is consistent with long-term sustainability of a functioning* horseshoe crab population.
- Action Step: Action Step 9.2.1: Using economic incentives, develop and promote alternative baits for the eel and whelk fisheries, with the ultimate goal of phasing out the use of horseshoe crabs for bait altogether. In the interim, the use of bait bags and bait recycl
- Action Step: Action Step 9.2.2: Upon identifying important horseshoe crab spawning areas in Great South Bay, work collaboratively to prohibit or restrict harvest in at least some of these areas. Responsible Entities: NYS DEC, FINS, USFWS, Town, county parks departmen
- Action Step: Action Step 9.2.3: Where they already exist, clarify and enforce existing harvest restrictions on nesting horseshoe crabs (such as within Fire Island National Seashore and South Oyster Bay). Responsible Entities: FINS, NPS, NYS DEC
- Action Step: Action Step 9.2.4: In the short term, maintain current state-wide horseshoe crab quota while exploring seasonal quotas to allow for some horseshoe crab availability in the fall when the price and demand is higher. Responsible Entities: NYS DEC, baymen
- Action Step: Action Step 9.2.5: In the long term develop a more scientifically based quota which incorporates the concepts of sustainability and interspecies interactions. Should the research and monitoring outlined above indicate the potential for localized depletion
- Action Step: Action Step 9.2.6: Require reporting of horseshoe crab harvest specific to each estuary or sub-estuary so that impacts to particular spawning beaches can be better assessed. Responsible Entity: NYS DEC
- Action Step: Action Step 9.2.7: Explore methods such as increasing capacity and coordinating enforcement of appropriate conservation laws and regulations to ensure quota compliance with harvest restrictions. Responsible Entities: Town Bay Constables, Suffolk County M
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 9.3: Protect and restore horseshoe crab nesting and staging habitat by eliminating the threat of new structural development and removing existing structures where possible.
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 2.3: Maintain and expand natural shorelines* by prohibiting new shoreline hardening structures and phasing out existing hardening structures in appropriate areas and reaches of the Great South Bay.
- Action Step: Action Step 2.3.1: Prohibit and decline to issue permits for new shoreline armoring in GSB. Responsible Entities: Town of Islip, Town of Brookhaven, NYS DEC, NPS, NYS DOS (via amendment of its coastal zone management policy to include removal of requirem
- Action Step: Action Step 2.3.2: Require a timed phase-out of existing shoreline hardening structures (via temporary softer alternatives if necessary). Responsible Entities: NYS DEC, Town Planning and Environment Departments, NYS DEC, NYS DOS, USACE, NPS, Town of Isli
- Action Step: Action Step 2.3.3: Develop and promulgate regulatory permitting criteria preventing the rebuilding of defunct or dilapidated impediments to longshore sediment transport and develop standards for removal of these structures. Responsible Entity: NYS DEC
- Action Step: Action Step 2.3.4: Implement demonstration projects to showcase bulkhead removal and natural shoreline restoration. Responsible Entities: TNC, NYS DEC, Towns
- Action Step: Action Step 2.3.5: Provide legal and technical advice to town and state decision makers on how to strengthen state and local code to limit shoreline armoring and the granting of variances to narrowly-defined emergency conditions. Technical support could t
- Action Step: Action Step 2.3.6: Hold a workshop to promote awareness of the ecological, social, and economic benefits of natural shorelines, and to promote shoreline naturalization throughout the area. Responsible Entity: TNC
- Action Step: Action Step 2.3.7: Design and implement a communication plan that will inform the public of the ecological, social, and economic benefits of natural shorelines. Responsible Entities: SSER, TNC and partner NGOs
Objective: Objective 10: Reduce pollution in GSB to ensure that water quality is sufficient to support the viability and sustainability of the habitats, species and human uses of GSB by 2015
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 10.1: Reduce nutrient loading, sources of pathogens, and pesticide/herbicide application throughout the watershed and minimize and remediate sources of toxics in the GSB watershed into Great South Bay.
- Action Step: Action Step 10.1.01: Improve understanding of the relationship between nutrient loads and ambient water quality in GSB by: 1) establishing a nutrient (nitrogen, phosphorus, silica) budget for GSB that includes the concentration, composition, and forms of
- Action Step: Action Step 10.1.02: Expand NYS water quality standards to include numerical criteria for nitrogen in surface waters. Responsible Entity: NYS DEC
- Action Step: Action Step 10.1.03: Expand the scope and frequency of the Suffolk County water quality monitoring program in GSB and collect information on intra-and inter-annual plankton population structure over time. Responsible Entity: Suffolk County
- Action Step: Action Step 10.1.04: Expand USEPA National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) monitoring to wet, dry, and organic nitrogen in GSB and assess atmospheric sources effects on estuarine trophic structure. Responsible Entities: USEPA, Research institutions
- Action Step: Action Step 10.1.05: Research the presence, impacts and sources of toxins in GSB. Responsible Entities: Research institutions
- Action Step: Action Step 10.1.06: Revise and expand water quality recommendations in the SSER Comprehensive Management Plan to incorporate data and information collected from the other steps in this section. Responsible Entity: SSER
- Action Step: Action Step 10.1.07: Use land acquisition as a tool to prevent further development along the shore of the Bay and its tributaries, especially where large vacant parcels exist. Responsible Entities: NYS DEC, Suffolk County, Towns
- Action Step: Action Step 10.1.08: Implement the Suffolk County framework developed for golf courses (i.e. the “Peconic Challenge”) to golf courses in GSB to reduce fertilizer application. Responsible Entities: Suffolk County, Towns
- Action Step: Action Step 10.1.09: Evaluate the efficacy of septic system nitrogen reduction alternatives and make recommendations to NYS and Towns in GSB watershed. Responsible Entities: Suffolk County, Research institutions
- Action Step: Action Step 10.1.10: There are six additional action steps which can be found in the accompanying text.
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 10.2: Fill gaps in information by conducting appropriate research and monitoring
- Action Step: Action Step 10.2.1: Improve upon Suffolk County’s current water quality monitoring program by adding the following protocols to make it a more comprehensive program: Several stations should be established throughout the bay at which some parameters wil
- Action Step: Action Step 10.2.2: Add plankton monitoring to the SCDHS monitoring program in order to better understand the interrelationships among management actions, environmental conditions, and the presence/absence of fish and shellfish. The plankton samples s
- Action Step: Action Step 10.2.3: Create and maintain a clearinghouse of these data. Responsible Entity: SSER
Objective: Objective 11: By 2020, reduce New York State greenhouse gas emissions to 10% below 1990 levels, and establish a well-coordinated, multi-layered approach to protecting coastal habitat in the face of sea level rise
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 11.1: Develop regional greenhouse gas initiative legislation that will lead to the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to 5% below 1990 levels by 2010 and 10% below 1990 level by 2020
- Action Step: Action Step 11.1.1: Develop legislation that caps greenhouse gas emissions in New York State and includes a timetable for reducing the cap annually to meet the goal stated in this objective. Responsible Entity: NY State Legislature
- Action Step: Action Step 11.1.2: Develop regulations setting up a system to auction 100% of greenhouse gas allowances among emitters. Responsible Entity: NYS DEC
- Action Step: Action Step 11.1.3: Develop a program to award 10% of revenue generated in the greenhouse gas auction to adaptation projects in a competitive grant process, according to the following criteria: • Fundable adaptation actions should be long-term solutions.
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 11.2: Coordinate state and local agency permitting and management activities undertaken to control greenhouse gas emissions and confront existing climate change impacts.
- Action Step: Action Step 11.2.1: Initiate a statewide discussion aimed at coordinating state and local permitting related to natural resources and habitats that will be impacted by climate change and associated processes, incorporating the findings of the Sea Level Ri
- Action Step: Action Step 11.2.2: Develop strong incentives for local government regulatory alignment around issues of climate change and sea level rise. See Governance “white paper” recommendations on New Governance Scenarios. Responsible Entities: NY Governor, NYS
- Action Step: Action Step 11.2.3: Revise the policies that guide land-protection to be consistent with one another and to integrate the impact of climate change on the marine ecosystem and vulnerable coasts and shorelines. Responsible Entities: NYS DEC and other state
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 11.3: Protect shoreline habitats from disappearing due to the opposing pressures of sea level rise and coastal development
- Action Step: Action Step 11.3.1: Prohibit new shoreline stabilization structures, and develop a plan to phase out existing structures, where feasible. Responsible Entities: NYS DEC, NYS DOS
- Action Step: Action Step 11.3.2: Institute stronger wetland protection codes at the state and local levels that integrate “rolling” buffer and setback requirements. Responsible Entities: NYS DEC, Towns
- Action Step: Action Step 11.3.3: Create a dedicated, consistent funding stream to support the acquisition of coastal property. Responsible Entities: NYS Legislature and NY Governor
- Action Step: Action Step 11.3.4: Develop innovative strategies to more aggressively direct development and dredging away from fragile shorelines, out of wetlands and floodplains, and away from fragile underwater habitats. Responsible Entities: NYS DEC, Suffolk C
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 11.4: Develop and implement a plan for the state of New York to become carbon neutral by 2015
- Action Step: Action Step 11.4.1: Establish a Climate Neutral Working Group within the Office of General Services to evaluate strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from state and local government facilities. Responsible Entity: OGS
- Action Step: Action Step 11.4.2: Purchase only energy-consuming devices that meet or exceed the Energy Star or comparable standards established by the U.S. federal government, and operate these devices in a manner that maximizes their energy efficiency features. Resp
- Action Step: Action Step 11.4.3: Purchase only vehicles that have the highest available fuel efficiency in each respective vehicle class (e.g., passenger cars, light duty trucks, etc.). In setting these performance specifications, the Working Group shall consider vehi
- Action Step: Action Step 11.4.4: Develop programs to encourage state employees, through the use of incentives, to use transportation alternatives to a single person in a single motor vehicle for commuting and business travel, including incentives as may be bargained w
- Action Step: Action Step 11.4.5: Ensure that every state building reduces its energy consumption to meet the state’s overall greenhouse gas reduction objectives. Responsible Entities: OGS, All state facilities
- Action Step: Action Step 11.4.6: Develop and implement a plan to phase in a portfolio of renewable energy sources. Renewable energy includes electricity derived from sources such as solar, wind, geothermal, landfill methane gas, or small scale hydroelectric projects.
Objective: Objective 12: By 2015 increase the environmental stewardship ethic on Long Island as measured by a 25% increase in the acceptance and actions for implementing an ecosystem-based approach to planning and managment on land and in the water.
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 12.1: Develop materials that teach people ways they can take individual actions to become better stewards of their local marine and coastal environments.
-
Strategic Action: Strategic Action 12.2: Maximize the compatible recreation opportunities on Long Island's shores by increasing number of access sites in local communities and reducing use impairments at existing sites by improving water quality.
- Show all:
Percent Complete: 0%
![]() |
|
Percent Complete: 0%
![]() |
|
Percent Complete: 0%
![]() |
|
Percent Complete: 0%
![]() |
|
-
Indicator: presence of native vegetation(measurement report)Measurement Report:
Measure Date Source Trend Comments Assuming that aside from the communities (and likely only small patches in the communites) the vegetation is natural and dynamic. - Expert Knowledge Not Specified rough first cut, still rough Confidence and reliability of the current rating: Medium
Percent Complete: 0%
![]() |
|
Percent Complete: 0%
![]() |
|
Percent Complete: 0%
![]() |
|
Percent Complete: 0%
![]() |
|
Percent Complete: 0%
![]() |
|
Percent Complete: 0%
![]() |
|
Percent Complete: 0%
![]() |
|
-
Indicator: presence of native vegetation(measurement report)Measurement Report:
Measure Date Source Trend Comments Assuming that aside from the communities (and likely only small patches in the communites) the vegetation is natural and dynamic. - Expert Knowledge Not Specified rough first cut, still rough Confidence and reliability of the current rating: Medium
Percent Complete: 0%
![]() |
|
| Methods | Objectives | Key Indicator References by Target (w/Current Indicator Measurement) | Threat References by Target (w/Current Indicator Measurement) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Indicator: % Barrier Island Naturally Dynamic |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: % Change in available nesting habitat |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: % freshwater bottom free of invasive aquatic vegetation |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: % of accessible upstream tributary miles in 17 focal tributaries |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: % of days during July and August with temperatures >25C recorded in Carmans, Connetquot and Carlls rivers. |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: % of island where cross island transport and dune development are allowed to occur |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: % of nesting locations with unfragmented continuity between nesting and foraging habitat |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: % of salt marsh that has adequate natural buffer/adjacent ecosystem within 100 yr. sea level rise + 50 meters |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: A combination of sediment grain size, shell content, compaction, and pore water pH. |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: Abundance |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: Abundance indices of preferred prey items, physiology of crabs, or abundance of indicator species (such as already monitored shellfish) |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: Age of 1" clam (multi-year) |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: Amount of area with clam density>7 clams per square meter |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: Analysis of large scale shellfish survey data |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: Average annual population growth (%) during rebuilding phase |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: Average increase in adult clam condition index (annual indicator) |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: Change in N over time (size specific, fishery independent suvey indices) |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: Change in survey index over time (could be egg mass survey?) |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: Concentration of hydrogen sulfide in porewater at the depth of the active root zone |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: Decrease in Condition Index coresponding to spawning temperature |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: Dominance of native vegetation genotypes |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: Fisheries independent survey |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: Fledges/pair |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: Fred Shorts sentinal monitoring methods |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: HS Crab breeding survey indices |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: Irradiance |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: LICOR Water Clarity/Critical Depth |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: Measure of redox potential in sediment |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: Number of tributaries with recurrent spawning runs (alewife) > 5,000 fish. |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: Percent composition of particle types, grain size, heterogeneity |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: Percent of animals spawning (from individual reproductive index) |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: Percentage of days during March to May with DO <8 mg/L recorded in Carmans, Connetquot and Carlls rivers. |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: Percentage of intact gravel bottom to total historic gravel bottom (including degredation from sedimentation and reduced stream flow and road runoff) |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: Presence of 20-48 mm (shell length) clams |
|||
|
|
|
| |
