Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSuffolk Co Marine ProgramCONTRACT FOR SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT made this ,ZTday of ~c~c,e~, 2001, between the Town of Southold, a municipal corporation of the State of New York, having its office and principal place of business at 53095 Main Road: Southold, New York 11971 and the Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk Coun~ .~, having its principal place of business at 246 Griffing Ave, Riverhead, New York 11901. WHEREAS, the Town of Southold has passed a bond resolution authorizing funding for the improvement and preservation of Tow~ waterways, inctudh~g but not limited to, preservation of tidal wetlands, salt marshes, creeks, bays. Long Island Sound, estuaries and fresh water wetlands all in the interest of improxdng water quality and waterways; and WHEREAS, the Town of Southold has an interest in initiating waterfront revitalization programs and whereas the C0rne~'Co°P~ratix/6 Ex~&r~s~ofi ~0f Suffolk County Marine Program has the expertise to implement these programs. NOW THEREFORE, the Town of Southold and the Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County mutually agree as follows: I. The following exhibit is attached to this agreement and made part thereof: EXHIBIT A - Program Description and Budget II. In consideration of the payment by the Town of Southol~l~of the.sum of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($150,000), the Cornell III. Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County agrees 'to conduct the programs and provide services as found in Exhibit A, for the period of December 19, 2001 to December 19, 2003 and will provide a semi-annual progress reports to the Town Board. The Cornetl Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County shall secure and maintain such insurance that will protect it from claims ~nder the Worker's Compensation Acts and from claims for bodily injury, death or property damage which may arise from the performance of its services under this Agreement, in limits of $3,000,000 and $2,000,000 aggregate liability for bodily injury and property damage. The Contractor shall indemnJ~y and hold harmless the Town from and against all suits, claims, demands or actions for any bodily injury or property damage sustained or alleged to be sustained by any party or parties in connection with the alleged negligent performance or negligent performance by the Contractor, its employees or agents Or any subcontractor and in case of any such action brought against the Town, the Contractor shall immediately take charge of and defend the same at its own cost and expense. In addition, the Contractor will name the Town as an additional insured on any applicable policies. IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties~e~to.,haW e~ecuted this AGREEMENT by their respective representatives. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD CORNELL COOPERATIVE EXTENSION OF SUFFOLK COUNTY JeXah Cochran, Supervisor By: Paul Eglevsky, Bo~hrd Prbsident Southold Town Waterfront Revitalization Initiative A Proposal to the Southold Town Board Submitted by Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County Marine Program 246 Griffing Ave Riverhead, New York 11901 12-4-2001 Introduction This project proposes to conduct a two-year, four-phase effort to address needs outl'med in the Town of Southold Water~ont Revitalization Program (LWRP). This initiative would contribute towards achieving the goals of the following policies as outlined in the LWRP document: 1. Policy 1-14'. LWRP Education 2. Policy 1~13 GIS Update Policy 4~6 Shoreline Defense and Shoreline Inventory 4. Poli~y 4-6 Best Management Proctices/Stormwater Rkmoff and Protecting Groundwater Quality 5. 9-6Bay Mooring Plan 6. 11-6 Local Resource and Habitat Management Plans Phase 1. Southold Waterfront RevitaFmation Project GIS Component Geographic Information System (GIS) technology is a valuable analytical tool increasingly used for resource management, development planning and scientific investigations. Essentially, GIS is a computer-based system ~apable of assembling, storing, manipulating and presenting geographically referenced information. Geographic data is any information that can be identified according to ph~ysical locatiom ~rom a municipal perspective, a GIS can link data sets together by common locatianx[ helps different departments (Trustees, planning b~ards, zoning boards etc.) data which share information~ Any variable that is capable of being located spatially can be inserted into the GIS database. Therefore, the only limit to how comprehensive a resource database can be is the mount of time and effort put into developing and updating the systen~ The Town of Southold has initiated the development ofa GIS through State grants. However, as described in the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan · (LWRP), the Town reqmms assistance in continuing to create a Natural Resources inventory and Database (NRID). The NRID is an essential first step for implementing other resource nmnagement goals of the LWRP. Currently, the Town GIS 4ontains infomtion on tax boundaries, land use, zoning districts, developmem rights and the 2% land bank for Southold. We propose to build on the Town's existing database by overIaying information specifically called for in the LWRP, such as inv~nto~ layers of natural resources and shoreline structures within the Town. All information will be stored in a format in which the Town is already capable of cataloging a~d manipulating, specifically the MapInfo GIS software. Our proposed GIS database will be composed of information extracted t~om three project components: l) Southold Town Creeks visual inventory 2) eelgrass management and restoration efforts and 3) shellfish management and restoration efforts. Implementing these components not only confers the advantages of performing valuable restoration efforts, but in also providing essential data needed to fulfill one of the first:priorities of the LWRP; creating a resource inventory database for the ToWr~ ' The following describes the geographically referenced data~ which will be obtained for each component. Southold Town creeks visual inventory -InVentory of shoretine srructures along Town creeks. Photos of existing structufe_~ (e:g. houses and dock~} will be extracted ~l~m the produced videos and linked to their corresponding tax map lot. Selecting ~any creek-front parcel will provide information such as acreage and will call up digital photographs. -Database of shoreline defense structures. All shorefine-hardening structures (e.g. bulkheads) will be mapped and linked to descriptive information such as size, length, etc. -Mooring field inVentory. All mooring fields in Southold will be mapped and linked to digital and aerial photographs. -Navigational channel mapping. Previously and currently maintained channels wilt be mapped and linked to aerial photographs. Eelgrass Management and Restoration -Historical eelgrass bed distribution. Locations of historical beds ofeeigrass throughout Southold will be mapped and linked to descriptive data such as density, health, etc. -Existing eelgrass bed distribution' Current locations o f eelgrass beds will be mapped and hnked to digital (underwater) and aerial photographs. -Long-term eelgrass monitoring stations. Comell C,oopemfive Extension eelgrass monitoring stations will be mapped and linked to data such as digital photographs (underwater) and monitoring findings. -Previous and ongoing eelgrass restoration efforts. Cornell ted restoration efforts will be mapped and linked to digital photographs and restoration outcomes/ findings. ~Sites highly suitable for eelgrass transplanting. A map of sites determined to be highly suitable for restoration activities will be created. The ability to produce such'a map will be dependent on obtaining funding fi:om additional sources to carry out the necessary multivariate modeling. Shellfish Management and Restoration -Cornell Cooperative Extension/Town of Southold seeding efforts. Map representing locations~where seeding (clams, oysters and bay scallops) has occurred in 2001-2002 will be produced. The map will be linked to data such as quamity of seed and lime of dispersal. -P-ropose, d shellfishrestoration efforts. A map will bgproduced depicting the proP°sed efforts: ~callop spawner sanctuary and oyster reef, These areas will be linked to digital photographs and project sltmmary d6cuments. -SPAT project activity. The locations of all SPAT op~ratious within the Town will be mapped. -"Community garden". The location of the comm.ur~.~.ty garden will be mapped and will be linked to digital photographs and descriplion of program. -Shellfish closure areas. A map wSth year-round, seasOnal.~[4 and conditional shellfish closure areas will be produced. lVne final product will be a database geographically locating,~describing, and depicting both natural and structural resources on a Town-wide basis. [GIS technology brings the ability to develop a comprehensive inventory of natural resoarces and structures; using various med~mns such as maps, digital photographs, aerial p~o, tographs, word processor and spreadsheet documents. Such a database should be cous~dered to be a tremendous asset, either as a stand-alone source of information orto be el~Cl,~,anded upon to include even more town resources at any time in the future. A detail&l inventory of Southold resources will greatly aid in their management and protection. Visual Inventory of Southold Town Creeks As a part of the GIS component for the Southold Town X~aterfront Revitalization Project, the visual inventory of the town's creeks would be executed with the use of digital technology. Digital video will be used to handle three~ parts of the GIS documemation; first the digital format can be linked to the G~8 database via standard computer files such as mpegs (~,d_eo) and jpegs (still photo). [Second, video of each creek can be stored and viewed on CD s, DVD disks or standard videotapes to be viewed at a later date. Third, still images can be extracted from the vide~.to highlight specific areas of interest such as shoreline hardening, existing structures and wetland vegetation. The equipment to be used will be Sony's VX1000 digital video camera and Sony's PC 100 digital video camera. The computer program to edit and extract the still images is Canopus Corporation's DV Rex-edit RT. In. order to document the town's creeks, a list of all the creeks would be made and categorized into size. A powerboat would be used to trayel into the creeks, a set eom:se and distance from the shore will be followed for one pass and thena second pass to document specific aspects of the creek (shoreline hardening, existing structures and wetland vegetation). The videotape would be taken back to the tab and 'edited with graphics as to vChat creek it is and other descriptive'information about the creek. Next, ~wo~ with~the:GIS~techniciaa:to, determ/ne ~what ~ imams ~ need~l~ those su~ll images ¢eotild ~en be extracted a~ used in the GIS program~ Phase 2. Southold Town Eel~ass. ~ Re~:~6nPr0jg~ ProjectNeed Management of natural resources and conservatioaof valuable habitats are important goals in any revitalization plar~ For this reason, the Town of Southold identified the development of"Local Resource and Habitat Management ~ Waterfront Revitalization Plan (LWRP). Howevers when a ~ severely impacted upon, management and conservation effo complemented with active restoration actions. One such hal local waters, is the eelgmss. Eelgrass (Zostera marina L ) is that is a critically important to the ecology of shallow coasta forms dense meadows that have been likened to coral reefs h recent review, Short and Wyllie-Echeverria (1996) point to a seagrass biome worldwide. Data, gathered from glohak sour~ seagrass cover is on the rise when compared to losses report{ losses are reported.from several regions, hot spots are coinci. and urban areas (Short and Wyllie-Echeverria, 1996). It is clear that seagrass loss will decrease the produc~vity ofnearshore systems (e.g, Thayer ~ al. 1984; Phillips, 1984; Zieman and Zieman, 1989; Larkum et al., 1989; Wyllie~Ech~verria et al., 1994). In response, several U.S. coastal states have impleanented or ar{ designing policies to protect current resources and restore appropriate sites (Batull~ et al., 1992; Wyllie- Echeverria et al., 1995). lans' in their Local ~source/habitat has been cs may need to be lat, which bas declined in t submersed aquatic plant waters. Eelgrass typically [ temperate waters. In a ~ alarming trend for the es, indicates that loss of d from 1970-82. Although lent with industrial centers Eelgrass populations in Long Island embayments have waxed and waned in the last century. Although we lack quantitative data, anecdotal repro patterns were quite robust in the decade prior to 1931 (smith local baymen and long-time residents suggest that all of Sore contained eelgrass beds at one time. Populations began to de reductions apparent by 1931 during the height of the wasting 1933). Recovery began in the early I940s (Cottom and Man populations never reached the levels prior to the wasting disease. From 1969 to the present, aerial photographs and interviews were used to crea~ time-series distribution ts indicate that distribution t9461. Interviews with hem Town's creeks cline in 1928 with drastic disease epidemic (Cottom, :o, I954), although the maps of several sites for 1969, 1984 (sometimes 1980) and 1994 (Cashin Associates, 1996). Anal3lical analysis of these maps led to the assertion that eelgrass distribution has been on a continuous decline in the Peconic Bay Estuary, including Southold Town waters. This decline can be attributed to periods of poor water quality, channel dredging and the blooms of brown tide (.4ureococcus anophageffrens) in the mid-1980s and early- 1990s, The combined pressure of all of these factors has taken its toll on the eelgrass populations, in Southold Town, and throughom the Peconic Estuary. This population decline is disturbing when the value ofeelgrass to coastal waters is considered. Eelgrass meadows are an important habitat for many species of fish. crustaceans,, and mollusks. In the Peconic Estuary, the~growth and survival of.ee, lgrass is intimately related to the success ofthe Ath~ic bay scallop ~5irgopecten irradians). In addition, numerous:other species, including recreationally anlt commercially important finfish and shel~lfish (e.g. Winter.and Summer Flounder, Northern Quahog and Blue Crab), rel¥on e~elgrass meadows during some part oflheir life cycle. Declines ia the commercial landings of these species have coincided with the loss 0feelgrass habitat. Eetgras~ has been found to be a resource for waterfowl as well. Brant and Canada Geese ,are knovm m graze on ee!grass during the la~e spring early summers wher~the plaras are m seed. !~elgrass pr0dnet~vity has also been tied to tt/e enert~y dynamics a£deeper water detritat t~ood Webs. The presence of eelgrass in near-shore w.htem may also have an impact on t~dal marshlands and be~h/dtme communities. Edtgrass.beds act as natural baffi?: rea?ing current velocity atad waive force, thereby ~iz~)g erosion, and' prot~,e~c~ ting these s~ystems. The eeconie Estnary has been cha?cteri~ed as:a priority site in the lS~[ati0~ Esttmry Program and is th~, focus of our restoration efforts. ~g)lonitoring and manage~le~ of exi~tlng eelgrass has beer~ identified in the CQ_mpreh~ns~e Conservation and M~gement Plan for ~e Peconic Estuarg Progran~ In EdditJon, eelgrass restoration has ~e~idemified as a priority in the Restoration Plan for tt~ Peconic E~uary. In recent years, concern regarding water quality b~as prompted several local townships to invest heavily in storm-water mitigation efforts. The .overall Water quality of the estuary is at the highest it has been in decades as a result ofthese and other projects. Brown tide has been an infrequent visitor to the local waters since the early 1990s, with the few blooms being isolated to small embayments and creeks. Yet~ despite these improvements, there remains a lack ofeelgrass re-colonizati~ to areas that are known to have once contained lush eelgrass meadows. One hypothesis suggests that water quality is not inhibiting the re-establishment of eelgrass, but rather i~ is the lack o£propagules in these areas that is preventing natural restoration. Most areas: identified as having a historic eelgrass presence, are effectively isolated from existing eelgrass beds by distance, as eelgrass seeds generally disperse close to their patemallplants. If this hypothesis proves viable, then natural replenishment of eel.gr, ass populations in "isolated" areas of~e estuary may take decades. To this end, restoration projects are needed to establisli eelgrass to the now vacant areas of its historical range. Southold To~wn has already entered into a commitment to conserve and restore the health of its waters. Stormwater mitigation projects have been completed reducing road rtmoff into Town creeks. The Town of Southold has also taken steps to restore vital habitats that have been lost due to natural and anthropogenic events. In an effort to re-establish displaced eelgrass beds to local waters, Southold Town partnered with Comell Cooperative Extension's Marine Program to secure a grant to fund eelgrass restoration efforts. This grant included moneys to construct an eelgrass nursery (greenhouse) and the materials and labor to imptemem restoration activities. Tho Southold Town Ee!grass Restoration Program was launched in October 2001 with the ~transplanting of approximately 1000 eelgl-aSS shoots into Town waters. Transplant methods were based on the TERF~ (Transplanting Eelgrass by Remote Frame System) methodology establishodby Fred Short et aL of the University of New Hampshire. A TERFS unit consists of a weighted, metal, mesh cage to which eelgrass iS attached via degradable ties fabricate~ firom c[epe paper,streamer material.' Four frames ~..e~.p deployed t9 four sites tl~?t we~ 'ch ~osen basec~ on historica! presence of eelgrass, Se~en.~ type; water depth, and i .n~e~t. uenc, y cfi'natural a~d man-made disturbance. Pote~ sites werepresented to ~ Town ~rUstee~ for ¢onskteration and finalized to include Dam Pond, Town Harbor, C0rey Creel~ and Cutchoguc Harbor. A total of 4 m2 of .eel~ was planted, rePre~entinl~t~e t~est ~ha~,_e of the progran~ Field evaluation of the transplants will ho made in mid-Decemb~.r 2001 These trial plantings will allow for. the fine-tuning of the transplanm~on teclmi.,ques and site select~on ertterlm Expansion ofrestoraaon activities in S6uth~51d 3~own is ~mnned to begin.in October 2002. Through fiaese restoration efforts, it is hoped tllat a valudb~e habitat will ho re-introduced into S0athokl Town waters where it will ,b* conserved for futura generations to enjoy. Objectives Given that one goal of local resource and habitat management is to restore eelgrass in Southold Town waters, this fimding is intended to enhance our existing eelgrass ma~xgement and restoration progran~ This project will develop a Town-wide eelgrass management plan and increase the scope, efficiency and ecological impact of restoration activities through three specific objectives. The first objective is to expand the geographic range of efforts by increasing plantings in the Town of Southold. The Southold Town Draft Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan identifies a majority of the Town creeks as potential sites for improvement. Re-introduction o£eelgrass into creeks that meet transplanting criteria, will not only provide habitat, but can contribute to improving water quality. A second objective is to refine our teehniques by incorporating additional planting methods. Use of the traditiomt "staple method" (1994-1995) proved unsuitable to local conditions. Since that time, other methods such as "sod plugs" have been employed with gremer success. Recently, our pilot plantings have determined that new techniques, such as TERFS and broadcast seeding, may be highly suitable for use in the Pecenic Estuary. The final objective is to create a GIS-based "Local Resource and Habitat Management Plan" for eelgrass. Methodology Transplantation of Stranded Robust Shoots Large amounts of viable eelgrass plants (stranded robust shoots, SRS) with rhizome and roots intact wash up on local beaches as a result ofbioturhation, scouring by strong waves and shellfishing activities. LeR alone these plants dry out within a matter of hours or days and are incorporated into the beach profile as a result of natural sand accretion. Collection, culture and division of these plants offer a low-cost, Iow-impact source of ~elgrass transplants, In the Pacific Northwest, Wyl!ie-Echeverria et al. (inprep) are using ~ 9~l,grass, cq~lected f~om wrack lines~ m restore~ damage'by ~e dePloymen~ of a submarine cable and prel~ results are favorable. Culture of SRS will[take place in the nursery facility (greenhouse). After collection, shoots vca2l be highrgraded and only those with viable rootlets ~adll be selected and ~wam~p~ o~ied to the n~ ~,y and placed in the flowing seawa!er system. After new root grow~ appe~s, slao~ts wrll be planted in a sediment medium designed for grow out. Depe.ndi~[ g on the' extent of growth, these propagulesmay be further &aded to ~rease the amoant of transplant stock. Transplanting ofthe stock will commence by mid-October. The method for transplanting is TERFS, and requires ye eelgrass stock to be tied to modular, metal frames. The eelgrass is attached to thc metal mesh of the frame by biodegradable ties fabricated from twisted crepe paper streamers prior to deployment. Each kame covers an area of 0.25 square meters and can hold up to I00 eelgrass shoots. In the field, the prepared frames are lower to the bottom and left for several weeks, until the plants anchor themselves. ARer this period, the fi~ames are carefully lifted from the bottom, leaving the newly rooted>sho0ts behind. Transplant areas will vary from site to. site, but could range from 6 m2 to 25 m2 per site. Seed Propagation Several studies have discussed the collection and sowing of wild eelgrass seed (Churcb511 et al. 1978;~Orth etal. 1994; Granger et al. 1996; Thom and Wyllie-Echeverria 1997~. Until recently, this method of eelgrass restoration had been marginally successful. However, restoration work in the Chesapeake Bay by Robert Orth's group, from the Virgin/a Institute of Marine Science (VtMS), has found broadcast seeding to be increasingly successful. The one drawback of this method is the large number of seeds that are required m offset seed predation and the low, natural vitality of seeds (ca. 10%). The restoration efforts in the Chesapeake require the collection of approximately 2 tons of eelgr~ss flowers to yield 7 million seeds (Orth and Fishman, personal communicatioa). Collecting this amount of material is labor-intensive, but requires little training, allowing for the utilization of a large volunteer base. Once the flowers are collected, they must be held in well-oxygenated, flowing seawater tanks until the ripe seeds are released. This takes several weeks and requires several large tanks. Seeds can then be held until Octol~er/November then distributed. To eliminate the excessive handling of materials, a new system of processing and sowing seeds has been devised. This method invotves collecting large quantities of flowers as previously mentioned,~ but instead of placing the material in holding tanks, the flowering shoots are~packed into mesh cages equipped with floats and deployed in the field at the restoratio~ site. As the material decomposes in the cages, the seeds are released into the water column where they~immediately sink to the bottom. The floafiug cages, anchored by concrete blocks, freely swing with wind and tides covering a circular area whose diameter can be adSusted by the length ofrope between the cage and anchor. Grofiping together large mm/bets oEthese floats can effectively seed a large a~ea. This method has bee~ tested in · l~i!ot project in No,yack Creek at,the EA. Morton National Wildlife l~cfuge, 8onth .~_ on~ Ne~ ~orl~ After two months of deployment, all of the flowe~ rdaterial!and seed~ ha&been completely decomposed and dispersed. The collection of seed material should begin toward the. end of June 2002 and continue into the sect?nd week of July. This timetable is subject to change as seed development and maturation is highly correlated to water temperatare. Cooler water temperatures couldpush collection into July. Monitoring of seed development will begin in early June and should provide a better, estimated harvest time. Harvest and stock of cages will be completed by the end of July. Once the cages~are deployed, they will be attended to by volunteers. The glowers should be completely decomposed by the end of September 2002, at which time the cages will be removed. Seedling germination will not occur until November; ~and; at that time, monitoring of seedling growth and survival will commence using SCL~A and continue through the summer 2003. Phase 3. Community-Based Shellfish Enhancement Programs for Southold Town Background: The Town of Soathold has practiced shellfish enhancement for decades. A number of policies of Sonthold Town's draft local waterfront revitalization program involve shellfish: Policy 2: Preserve historic resources of the Town of Southold. Policy 6: Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosystem. Policy 9: Provide for public access to, and recreational use of, coastal waters, public lands, and public resources of the Town of Southold. Policy 11: Promote sustainable use of living marine resources in the Town of Southold. The proposed programs in this section will address all four of these policies and will build on the work Comell Cooperative Extension has performed for the town in the past. We propose to utilize SPAT (Southold Projects in Aquaculture Trairfing) volunteers to carry out much of the hatchery and fieldwork, thereby giving the public a vested interest in the programs. Proposed Actions: 1. Creation of an oyster reef in Mattitnck Creek. Mattituck Inlet and Creek has been an area fished for oysters (Crassostrea virginica) when they are available. The creation ora "spawner sanctuary" or oyster reef at the southern end of the creek may create sets of oysters to the nortl~ Surf clarrh sea and bay scallop shell will he acqnired.from Long Island and planted as a base for the oysters to rest upon. Shell may also be used to harden up muddy areas where oyster larvae, may presently avoi& Cornell Cooperative Extension personnel and possibly members ofthe Southold Baymen's Association will accomplish the planting of up to 20 cubic yards of shell~as a base for ~th, e ~anctuary. The amount of shell ~equired will.depend, of the site ctios~n~ A beneficial use determination; (BUD) permit 'fr0m the NYS DEC is already in ptace :~or ~t ~ ~urpose in this water body, Up to 250~000 oysters would be place? on the reef during the ~irst year, sometime before Jane, This may mqulxe~that the_.town s hatche,ry pr0du~ion be o3~erwintered until ~ following spt:rog. SPg_T participantS may also m~th'b~ute eysters the~ have grown benes the 50~/ao£tl~i~ oysters'E, wi}l he returned ~t~ ~,CE: aS pm of~eir agreem~m W~,tl~ the program, Mm,~y of thece larg~e oysters r0tumed ~ be:~.ome part Ofthe reef~ Tjhe enact site ~wi!~ 1 be :chosen with ~e he, lp of the I/t~xn}[.. . l ,~, '\qqO~',, . o ..q ~llfishadvisor~eamm~tteeand To~m Tn,stee~andB. . . . .: ohrd. · I'oflo~. up Sltlth~s ol culR. h rathe arc~ x~ ill. bc ll~adc I{~ ¢{ulcrnmlu ifasgt oceut~ but there is n{~ gtllll'lllllcc thll the reefwoukl I~e 2.-Creation ora bay scallop spawner sanctuary in Hallocks B~y and Hay Harbor, Fishers Island. Hallocks Bay has been the mainstay ofthe bay scallop (~gopecten irradians irradiang1 fishery in Southold Town since the first brown tide in 1985. We propose to set up a scallop spawner sanctuary in closed waters (Narrow River or Little Bay) that will export larvae to the waters to the west; i.e. the ma'm body of Hallocks. The addition of 75,000 scallops of spaWning size to a small area (about 10,000 square feet) that will he untouched will allow the shellfish to spawn possibly more than once and enhance harvestable stocks in the bay. CCE personnel as well as SPAT participants will grow the scallops tmtil the spring of the following year. At this time CCE, SPAT and the Southold Town Baymen's Association will plant them in the sanctuary.. The sanctuary ~ be monitored by CCE and SPAT to determine if and when ~he broodstock spawn; with the understanding that any "bugs" found in Hallocks may be from broodstock in the main bay and not necessarily from the sanctuary. Hay Harbor on western Fishers Island has historically held stocks of bay scallops. Various entmrtcement methods have been attempted including seed planting and lantern nets with broodstock scallops. It is thought that the scale of such attempts was too small to make a great difference. We propose to duplicate the I4allocks Bay broodstock sanctuary approach in Hay Harbor, placing up to 75,000 brood scallops in the southern end (furthest fi:om the inlet) in late spring. Phase 4. Water Quality Education Program Introduction The Peconic Estuary system and The Long Island Sound are integral parts of the Long Island economy and ecology. In order to sustain these valuable resources, we must achieve a balance between the needs of the estuary's resources and the sometimes, conflicting demands ofthe region's populace. Keyto establishing this balance is an educated citizenry that is willing to support, promote and actively participate in measures to protect the estu ~apj system at home, at work, and while recreating, and collectively act as wise stewards ora shared public resource. AChieving this requires an intensive education and Outreach effort thatis aimed at key audiences/stakeholders, as weft as the public in general. ETfectSve public education in the PEP and LISS is needed to develop the broad-based public support needed to ensure that estuary program recommendations reach the implementationphase~ The ultimate goal of public participation in the PEP and. LISS is to establish the public consensus that ensures long-term support and implementation of the CCMP. The public participation program supplements and complements Management Conference activities and advances the role of providing for public input to estuary prograra decision-making. Public Outreach and Education Strategy In the Peconic Estuary system and eastern Long Island Sound, nonpoint source pollution is a major issue ofconcerm Nonpoint source pollution is primarily generated by users of the estuary, from many ordinary, every day activities. Thus the citizens, collectively, contribute both to the problems and threats to the estum3r system and to the solutions to these problems. Each and every one of us living, working and recreating on the East End impacts both of these important estuary systems through everyday actions - in both positive and negative ways. Few if any individual actions made as a part of our day-to- day living are likely to significantly affect the overall water quality, living resources or habitats of the Peconic Estuary orthe Sound. Consider, however, what happens if each ofthese impacts are multiplied by the thousands and thousands of residents, workers, and visitors inthe watershed. It is not long before the cumulative impact does affect these estuaries. Because of this, the Peconics and the Sound could die the "death of a thousand cuts" or be cherished, nurtured and healed by a "thousand" environmentally thoughtful actions. Thus a creative, innovative, and effective public outreach and education strategy is all-important in motivating and making a lasting positive impression on our East End citizenry and stakeholders and thus a lasting positive impact on our roost important natural and economic resource- the heart of our region- our marine environment. In an effort to educate and inform the general public about nonpoint source pollution issues, and to develop a stewardship ethic at the citizen level, a public education campaign will be developed and implemented. One significant watershed within the Town will bo the focus of the project. The Town of Southold will select the watershed and the education program will be developed and itnplemented by the Comell Marine Prograrrr The watershed will be delineated as part ofthe project and an educational campaign will be directed at residems, visitors and businesses within the watershed. Issues regarding nonpoint source pollution in general, as well as items specific to the identified watershed will be focused components of the education campaign~ Target Population: Resiclents~ Businesses and-Visitors;.Development o£basic and background information and~development of informational materials: 1. Nonpoint source pollution and stormwater.nmoffin general 2. Problems specific to the identified watershed Delivery of the above information to the extended community: a. placement of informational articles in local association newsletters b. presentations to business/civic/service organi?ations in the community c. placement of informational articles in the local press d. developmem and delivery of informational flyers, factsheets, relevant road signage and creative informational materials References: Batuik, 1LA., RJ. Orttk K.A. Moore, W.C. Dennison, J.C. Stevenson, L.W. Staver, V. Carter, N.B. Rybicki, R.E. Hickman, S. Kollar, S. Birber and P. Heasley, 1992. Chesapeake Bay submerged aquatic vegetation habitat requirements and restoration targets: Atechnical synthesis. U.S. EPA. ContfibutionNo. 68-WO-0043. Cashin Associates, 1996. Peconic Estuary Program Submersed Aquatic Vegetation Study--Final Report. Churchill, A.C,, A,E. Cok and 1VLI. Riner, 1978. Stabilization ofsubtidal sediments by the transplantation ofthe seagrass Zostera marina L.. New York Sea Grant Report Series. Cottora, C., 1933. Disappearance ofeelgrass along the Atlantic Coast. The Plant Disease Reporter 17(6): 46-53. Cottom, C. and Da~. Munro, 1954. Eelgrass status and environmental relations. Joumat of Wildlife Management 18(4): 449-460. Larkum, A~W.D., A.J. McComb and S.A. Sheperd, 1989. Biology of Seagrasses. A treatise on the biology ofseagrasses with a special reference to the Australian Region. New York: Elsevier Science Publishing Company, Inc. Orth, 1LJ., M. Luckenbach and I<LA. moore, 1994. Seed dispersal in a marine macrophyte: implications [or colonization and restoration. Ecology 75(7): 1927-1939. Ph/llips~ P,~C., 1984; The ecology ofee!grass meadows in the Pacific Northwest, a commimity profile. IJ.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-IM/24. Washington, D.C. Short, F.T. and S. Wyllie-Echeverria, 1996. Natural and human-indaced disturbance of eelgrasses. EnvironmemalConservafion 23(1): 17-27. Smith, J.D., 1946. Eelgrass. The Nassau County Historical Journal 9(2): 76-82. Thayer, G.W., W.J. Kenworthy and M.S. Fonseca, 1984. Ecology of meadows of the Atlantic coast: a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-84/02. Washington. D.C. Wyllie-Echeverria, S., A.M. Olson, and M.J. Hershman, 1994. Seagrass Science and Policy in the Pacific Northwest: Proceedings of a semlmtr series. (SMA 94-1). EPA 910/R~94-004. Wyllie-Echeverria, S. 1LC. Phillips, E.S. Hunn, N.J. Tttmer and M.L. Miller, 1995. Eelgmss as a natural resource: Implications for formal policy. Pages 529-536 in: Proceedings-Puget Sound Science Conference. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. P.O. Box 40900, Olympia, WA 98504-0900. 2 Volumes. Zieman, J.C. and ILT. Zieman, 1989. Ecology ofeelgrass meadows of the west coast of Florida: a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85. Washington, D.C. Budget (2 years): Funds requested CCE match 1 Project Manager and 4 Senior Investigators 1 Technician 1 Support staff Total 85,700 15,000 2,500 103,200 Fringe Benefits (3L86%) 32,879 Equipment.and Supplies 12.500 Travel Mileage 7,250 Boa~[ time 6,250 Sub-total 129,200 Admirdstrative fee (16.!%) 20,800 Bookkeeping fees, audit fees, liability insurances, workers comp, unemployment, telephone, association serxdces Tot~ $150,000 $32,879 COrnell Cooperative Extension Suffolk County Education Center 246 Griff'mg Avenue Riverhead, NY 11901-3086 Tel: 631 727-7850 Fax: 631 727-7130 www.cce.cornell,edu/~ffolk Mary Wilson, Assistant Town Al~orr~y Town of Southold PO Box 1179 Sout,hold, NY 11971 Dear Ms. Wilson: Enclosed please fred ottr fully executed contract with Comell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County for "Southold Town Waterfrom Revitalization Initiative". Very truly yours, Enc. JAN ] 4 2002 TOWN ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Helping You Put Knowledge to Work DEPARTMENT OF STATE George E. Pataki Governor Alexander F. Treadwell Secretary of State April 13, 2001 Division of Coastal Resources 41 State Street Albany, NY 12231-0001 Honorable Jean Cochran Mayor Town of Southold PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Agreement Number C006158 Project Description: Eelgrass Culture Facility for the Peconi$ Estuary Dear Mayor Cochran: Enclosed is an approved copy of an amendment to the budget for the above cited project for your files. If you have any questions regarding the enclosures please contact me at (518) 473-2466. Sincerely, cc: Lanrissa Parent Clerk H V. DeBracmo J. McMahon J. Cushman Voice: 518 474-600( Fax: '518~ 473-2464 E-mail coastaI@dos.state.ny, as www. do s.state.ny.u s/cstVcstlwww.html Cornell Cooperaave Exte ion Suffolk County Suffolk County Marine Environment al Learning Center 3690 Cedar Beach Road Southold, NY 11971 Tel: 631 852-8660 Fax:. 631 852~8662 www.cce.cornell.edu/suffoLk Jean Fuller Coastal Resources, 41 state Street Albany, New York 1223 Kc. sbu gm February 5, 2001 Dear Ms. Fuller: Attached please find our proposed budget amendments for the Town ofSouthold EPF Eetgrass Project.. We hope that these proposed revisions to the existing contract with the Town meet with you expectations and look forward to hearing from you concerning these changes. Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions please feel free to call me. Chris Pickerell Wetland Specialist CORNELL COOPERATIVE EXTENSION Marine Program Helping You Put Knowledge to Work Appendix B BUDGET SLrMMARY A. Salaries & Wages (including Fringe Benefits) B. Travel C. Supplies/Materials ' D. Eqm'praent E. Contractual Services F. Other $ $10,155.00 $ $0.00 $ $0.00 $ $0.00 $ $95,845.00 $ $0.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ $106.000.00 Total State Funds ( 50 % of Total) Total Local Share ( 50 % of Total) $ $53.000.00 $ $53,000.00 Describe the anticipated project costs for each of the above cost categories in detail on the following page~ (Le. the title and pay rate of municipal employees to work on the project, type of eonsultant to be retained, type of equipment and materials to be purchased). The Total of your BUDGET must equal the sum of the State Share and the Local Share as shown on the Contract Face Page. Appendix B IBudget Detail Sheet) A. SALARIES & WAGES TITLE 2ommunity Development Officer $61,356.00 AMOUNT CHARGED TO THIS PROJECT $10,155.00 ' SISBTOTAL $10,155.00 SUBTOTAL $ 0.00 IfC. SUPPLIES MATERIALS SUBTOTAL $ 0.00 D. EQUIPMENT SUBTOTAL $0.00 E. CONTRACTUAL SERVICES Con.*racmal se~ices provided by Comell Cooperative Extension to plan, design, constmc~ and operate an eetgrass culture facility in the Town of Southold, conduct experiments to deveiop culture methodology, and implement an eeI~ass ~ansp!antation project in the Peconi¢ EsPaary. SUBTOTAL $95,845.00 F. OTHER SUBTOTAL $0.00