Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Shellfish Aquaculture Lease Program in Peconic & Gardiners Bay 2008
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ~~ STEVE LEVY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING MEMORANDUM To: East End Town Clerks, Village Clerks and Library Directors From: Michael Mule, Senior Plann r s~ Suffolk County Department f Plan g Date: September 3, 2008 THOMAS A. ISLES, A.I.C.P. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING Subject: Suffolk County Shellfish Aquaculture Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardeners Bay Suffolk County has been authorized by the State of New York to develop and implement a shellfish aquaculture lease program in Peconic Bay and Gardeners Bay pursuant to New York Environmental Conservation Law §13-0302. This program is subject to State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) regulations and procedures. As part of the Suffolk County Department of Planning's effort to inform the local communities of this process and in accordance with Title 6 NYCRR Part 617, enclosed, please find a copy of the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for this program. It would be greatly appreciated if you could make this document available for public review. Please contact me at (631) 853-5205 should any questions arise. MM:bd Encl.: Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the Shellfish Aquaculture Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardeners Bay, Suffolk County, NY, September 3, 2008 FGEIS Viewing Locations LOCATION MAILING ADDRESS H. LEE DENNISON BLDG. - 4TH FLOOR P. O. BOX 6100 PHONE: (637) 853-5191 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE, NY 11788-0099 FAX: (631) 853-4044 Memo to East End Town Clerks, Village Clerks and Library Directors Page 2 September 3, 2008 FGEIS Viewing Locations Town Clerk Town Clerk Town Clerk Southold Town Hall Riverhead Town Hall Southampton Town Hall P.O. Box 1179 200 Howell Avenue 116 Hampton Road Southold, NY 11971 Riverhead, NY 11901 Southam ton, NY 11968 Town Clerk Town Clerk Village Clerk East Hampton Town Hall Shelter Island Town Hall Village of Sag Harbor 159 Pantigo Road P.O. Box 970 P.O. Box 660 East Ham ton, NY 11937 Shelter Island, NY 11964 Sa Harbor, NY 11963 Village Clerk Village Clerk Village Clerk Village of East Hampton Village of West Hampton Village of Greenport 86 Main Street Dunes 236 Third Street East Hampton, NY 11937 P.O. Box 728 Greenport, NY 11944 Westhampton Beach, NY 11978 Village Clerk Village Clerk Village Clerk Village of Dering Harbor Village of Southampton Village of North Haven P.O. Box 3010 23 Main Street 335 Ferry Road Shelter Island Heights, NY Southampton, NY 11968 Sag Harbor, NY 11963 11965 Village Clerk Village Clerk Village Clerk Village of West Hampton Beach Village of Sagaponack Village of Quogue 165 Mill Road P.O. Box 660 P.O. Box 926 Westhampton Beach, NY Sagaponack, NY 11962 Quogue, NY 11959 11978 Library Director Library Director Library Director The Hampton Library Amagansett Free Library Floyd Memorial Library P.O. Box 3025 P.O. Box 2550 539 First Street Brid eham ton, NY 11932 Ama ansett, NY 11930 Green ort, NY 11944 Library Director Library Director Library Director Southold Free Library Westhampton Free Library East Hampton Library P.O. Box 697 7 Library Avenue 159 Main Street Southold, NY 11971 Westhampton Beach, NY East Hampton, NY 11937 11978 Library Director Library Director Library Director Hampton Bays Public Library Cutchogue-New Suffolk Free Rogers Memorial Library 52 Ponquogue Ave Library 91 Coopers Farm Road Hampton Bays, NY 11946 P.O. Box 935 Southampton, NY 11968 Cutcho ue, NY 11935 Library Director Library Director Librazy Director John Jermain Memorial Library Quogue Library Riverhead Free Librazy 201 Main Street 90 Quogue Street 330 Court Street Sa Harbor, NY 11963 Quo ue, NY 11959 Riverhead, NY 11901 Library Director Library Director Library Director Mattituck-Laurel Library Montauk Library Shelter Island Public Library P.O. Box 1437 P.O. Box 700 P.O. Box 2016 Mattituck, NY 11952 Montauk, NY 11954 Shelter Island, NY 11964 LOCATION MAILING ADDRESS H. LEE DENNISON BLDG. - 4TH FLOOR P. O. BOX 6100 PHONE: (631) 853-5191 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE, NY 11788-0099 FAX: (631) 853-4044 SHELLFISH AQUACULTURE LEASE PRUGRAlVI IN PECONIC BAY AND GARDINERS BAY SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY County Executive FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONIVIENTAL INIFACT STATEMENT Preparn~d,~or: Suffolk County Department of Planning P[) Box 6100 Hauppauge, NY 11788-0099 Prepared ay: CASHIN ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1200 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, NY 11788 Septernbep 3, 2oas Steve Levy SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT September 3, 2008 SHELLFISH AQUACULTURE LEASE PROGRAM IN PECONIC BAY AND GARDINERS BAY SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY Lead A>;ency County of Suffolk H. Lee Dennison Building 100 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Prepared for: Thomas A. Isles, A.LC.P. Suffolk County Department of Planning H. Lee Dennison Building 100 Veterans Memorial Highway P.O. Box 6100 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Contact Name: DeWitt S. Davies, Ph.D. Chief Environmental Analyst Suffolk County Department of Planning H. Lee Dennison Building 100 Veterans Memorial Highway P.O. Box 6100 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Prepared by: Cashin Associates, P.C. 1200 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Suffolk County A9uaculture Lease Program Advisory Committee (ALPAC) Committee Members Thomas A. Isles, A.LC.P., Chairman Suffolk County Department of Planning DeWitt S. Davies, Ph.D. (Alternate) Carrie Meek Gallagher Suffolk County Executive Designee Todd Stebbins (Alternate) Suffolk County Department of Environment and Energy Hon. Jay H. Schneiderman Suffolk County Legislature Environment, Planning and Agriculture Committee Martin Trent Suffolk County Department of Health Services Kimberly Paulsen (Alternate) Gilbert Anderson, P.E. Suffolk County Department of Public Works Robert H. Whelan, P.E. (Alternate) John Aldred Town of East Hampton Victor Bethge Town of Shelter Island David O. Conover, Ph.D. School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, Stony William M. Wise (Alternate) Brook University Vacant New York State Department of Environmental Debra A. Barnes (Alternate) Conservation, Bureau of Marine Resources Wayne L. Grothe The Nature Conservancy Stuart Heath East Hampton Town Baymen's Association, Inc. Arnold Leo (Alternate) Lt. David Lessard Town of Riverhead James McMahon Town of Southold Gregg Rivara Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County Christopher F. Smith (Alternate) Karen Rivara East End Marine Farmers Association Cornelia G. Schlenk New York Sea Grant Institute Hon. Jon S. Semlear Town of Southampton Hon. Edward J. Warner, Jr. (joint appointment) Suffolk County Department of Planning Fina! Generic Environmental Impact Statement Shellfish Aquaeultare Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardiners bay September 3, 2008 Table of Contents Section Section 1:Introduction ........................................................ 1.1 Overview ..................................................................... 1.2 Incorporation of DGEIS into FGEIS Document..... 1.3 Content and Finding of DGEIS ................................ 1.4 Purpose of the FGEIS ................................................ 1.5 Scope and Content of the FGEIS .............................. Section 2: Responses to Substantive Comments ............... Z.1 Introduction ................................................................ 2.2 Land Grants ............................................................... 2.3 Hydraulic Dredging ................................................... 2.4 Environmental and Socio-economic Sensitive Area 2.5 Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement ... 2.6 Shellfish Cultivation ................................................... 2.7 Lease Areas ................................................................. 2.8 General Comments .................................................... 2.9 Marine Habitat ........................................................... 2.10 Shellfish Management ............................................. 2.11 Shellfish Sanitation .................................................. 2.12 Finfish Issues ............................................................ Literature Cited ................................................................... Appendices ....................... ....................... ....................... ....................... ...................... 1 ...................... 1 ...................... l ...................... 2 ....................... ...................... 2 ....................... ...................... 2 ....................... ...................... 3 ....................... ...................... 3 ....................... ...................... 5 ....................... ...................... 8 s ..................... .................... 12 ....................... .................... 16 ....................... .................... 28 ....................... .................... 30 ....................... .................... 32 ....................... .................... 34 ....................... .................... 40 ....................... .................... 56 ....................... .................... 58 ....................... .....................61 Appendix A -Updated version of Section 2.6 -Components of Proposed Lease Program Appendix B -Suffolk County CEQ Meeting Transcript Appendix C -DGEIS Public Hearing Transcript Appendix D -DGEIS Written Comments Appendix E -Hydraulic Dredging Impacts Additional Literature Review Appendix F -Essential Fish Habitat Evaluation Appendix G -Revised Shellfish Cultivation Zone Map Appendix H -Current and Potential Maximum Use of Underwater Lands for Shellfish Aquaculture in Peconic Bay and Gardiners Bay CashinAssociates, P. C. Suffolk County Department of Planning Final Generic Environmenm/ /mpact Statement She!lfrsh Aquaculture Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardeners I3ay September 3, 2008 This page intentionally left blank CashinAssociates, P. C. Suffolk County Depar(men( ofP(anning Final Generic Fnvironmento!lmpac( S'(atemem Shellfish ,4quaculture Lease Program in Peconic bay and Gardeners Bay September 3, 2008 Section 1: Introduction 1.1 Overview This document is the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS) for the proposed Suffolk County Shellfish Aquaculture Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardeners Bay. The proposed program is being prepared pursuant to New York State Environmental Conservation Law §13-0302 (2004 Leasing Law) which ceded to Suffolk County underwater lands in Peconic Bay and Gardeners Bay seaward of the 1,000 feet from the high water mark for the purposes of shellfish aquaculture. This FGEIS has been prepared in accordance with Section 8-0109 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law (the State Environmental Quality Review Act, SEQRA) and the implementing regulations of SEQRA at 6NYCRR part 617, including the specific provisions which relate to the content of final environmental impact statements contained in 6NYCRR§617.9(6)(8). This program has been identified as a Type I action and Suffolk County is the lead agency. The County issued a positive declaration pursuant to SEQR, thereby indicating the potential for one or more significant environmental impacts and requiring that an Environmental Impact Statement be prepared. Due to the nature and scope of the project a Generic Environmental Impact Statement was found to be most appropriate. The Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) dated March 19, 2008 was prepared for the proposed program. At its March 19, 2008 meeting, the Suffolk County Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) accepted the DGEIS as complete with respect to its scope and content for the purposes of commencing public review, in accordance with 6NYCRR§617.9(a)(4). The DGEIS was subsequently circulated for review, and to solicit comments from interested agencies and the public, pursuant to 6NYCRR§617.12. The public review period was for 30 days and ended on May 1, 2008. A public hearing regarding the DGEIS was held by CEQ on April 17, 2008 in accordance with 6NYCRR§617.9(a)(4). A total of 15 speakers provided comments. The public comment period was held open for a period of 10 business days following the hearing to allow the opportunity for further written commentaries. A total of 14 parties replied via written correspondence. Following the issuance of the Notice of Completion by CEQ, this FGEIS will be circulated in accordance with the requirements of 6NYCRR§617.12. Before issuing its findings and subsequently taking action, SEQRA provides the County a minimum period of 10 days for agencies and the public to consider the FGEIS. The Suffolk County Council on Environmental Quality has extended this period up to 30 days. 1.2 Incorporation of DGEIS into FGEIS Document Pursuant to 6NYCRR§617.9(6)(8), the March 19, 2008 DGEIS is incorporated by reference into this FGEIS. Interested parties should request a copy or arrange to review the March 19, 2008 DGEIS by contacting the Lead Agency's contact person identified on the inside cover page of this document. CashinAssociates, P. C. l Suffolk County Deparlmen! of Planning Final Generic Environmental lmpac! Statement Shellfish Aguacult:u~e Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardeners Bay September 3, 2008 1.3 Content and Finding of DGEIS The DGEIS was prepared by Suffolk County Department of Planning with assistance from Cashin Associates, P.C. of Hauppauge, New York. The DGEIS consists of all required chapters including: Executive Summary; Introduction; Description of Proposed Action; Underwater and Surface Water Uses; Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation; Alternatives; and Cumulative and Growth Inducing Impacts. Specific environmental topics include: Natural Resources; Socio-Economic and Cultural Impacts; Transportation; Visual Setting; Use and Conservation of Energy; Solid Waste Management; Acquisition of Land; Ground Water Resources; and Air Quality. There are several major additions to the DGEIS incorporated into this FGEIS: an updated version of Section 2.6-Components of Proposed Lease Program (Appendix A); an additional literature review of impacts associated with hydraulic shellfish dredging (Appendix E); an Essential Fish Habitat evaluation (Appendix F); a revised version of the Shellfish Cultivation Zone Map (Appendix G); and maximum acreage that could be leased in the program given various assumptions (Appendix H). These additions are included as part of the response to issues raised during the public review of the DGEIS. 1.4 Purpose of the FGEIS This FGEIS, in conjunction with the DGEIS, is intended to provide Suffolk County, the lead agency and primary decision-making body relative to the proposed action, with necessary information relating to potential environmental impacts associated with adoption of the Shellfish Aquaculture Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardeners Bay. This information will also facilitate a determination by the Suffolk County Legislature as to whether the program should be adopted as currently proposed. 1.5 Scope and Content of the FGEIS The primary objective of this FGEIS is to address substantive comments that were raised during the public review of the March 19, 2008 DGEIS. Section 2 of the FGEIS identifies all substantive verbal and written comments received by the Lead Agency and provides a response to each, conforming to the specific requirements set forth under 6NYCRR§617.9(b)(8). The comments that are addressed in this FGEIS were made or submitted either at the public hearing held by CEQ on March 19, 2008, the public review hearing held on April 17, 2008 or received as written correspondence within the designated written comment period. Cashin Associates, P.C. 2 Suffolk County Department ojPlanning Final Generic Environmenml Impact Smtemem Shellfish Aquaculture Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardiners Bay September 3, 2008 Section 2: Responses to Substantive Comments 2.1 Introduction This section of the FGEIS provides responses to substantive comments compiled by the Lead Agency, Suffolk County, during the public review phase of the Shellfish Aquaculture Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardiners Bay SEQR process. As stated previously, commentaries relating to the DGEIS include the following: • Verbal testimony presented at the March 19, 2008 CEQ meeting; • Verbal testimony presented at the April 17, 2008 public hearing; and • Written correspondence submitted at the public hearing or prior to the close of the comment period on May 1, 2008. The CEQ reviewed the DGEIS on March 19, 2008 to determine its completeness with respect to all SEQRA requirements. The transcript from this meeting is provided in Appendix B. Also, a total of 15 individuals commented at the April 17, 2008 public hearing for the DGEIS; and the transcript for that meeting is provided in Appendix C. Additionally, 14 parties responded by separate written correspondence, received during the scheduled comment period. Copies of the written responses are provided in their entirety in Appendix D. This FGEIS addresses "substantive" comments in accordance with the content requirements of SEQR (6NYCRR 617.9(b)(8)). The FGEIS generally does not attempt to address comments that do not have relevance to the identification and evaluation of environmental or socio-economic impacts and the formulation of suitable mitigation measures, which are essential to the decision-making process for the proposed action, or comments which concur with or object to the proposed action without elaboration. Such substantive comments have been incorporated into the SEQR record and are provided in the Appendices of this FGEIS. To avoid unnecessary repetition, several broad categories or topic headings were created and the substantive comments were grouped under appropriate topic heading in the FGEIS. These topics include: • Land Grants (LG); • Hydraulic Dredging (HD); • Environmental and Socio-economic Sensitive Areas (ESSA); • Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS); • Shellfish Cultivation (SC); • Lease Areas (LA); • General Comments (GC); • Marine Habitat (MH); • Shellfish Management (SM); • Shellfish Sanitation (SS); and • Finfish Issues (Fl). In order to facilitate review of the FGEIS by interested parties, each comment whether stated at the public hearing or as a written document, or other form of correspondence Cashin Associates, P. C. 3 Suffolk County Departmen( of Planning F7nal Generic Environmental /mpac(Sm(ement She!/fish Aquaculture Lease Program in Pceonic Bay and Gardiners Bay September 3, 2008 was assigned an identifying letter (for example, "PH" identifies a comment made at the public hearing). At the end of each comment in Section 2 of the FGEIS, one or more of these identifying letters are listed to indicate where the comment originated. The comment codes are as follows: Table 1 -Corres ondence Codes Code Commentator T e of Corres 'ondence and Date CEQ SC Council on Environmental Verbal comments by the CEQ Qualit see attached transcri t) committee, March 19, 2008 PH Public Hearing Comment Verbal comments from 15 individuals (see attached transcript) during the public hearing held on April 17, 2008. AL Town of East Hampton Baymens Letters to Suffolk County Department Association (Arnold Leo) of Planning, April 3, 2008 and April 17, 2008 WP Winergy Power, LLC Letter to Suffolk County Department of Plannin , A ril 14, 2008 GR Cornell Cooperative Extension of Email sent to DeWitt Davies, April 18, Suffolk Count (Gre Rivara 2008 DB NYSDEC (Debra Barnes) Letter to DeWitt Davies, Suffolk County Department of Planning, April 22, 2008 KR Aeros Cultured Oyster Company Letter to DeWitt Davies, Suffolk (Karen Rivara) County Department of Planning, April 29, 2008 and email sent to DeWitt Davies on A ril 25, 2008 NSBA North Shore Baymen's Association Letter to Suffolk County Department of Plannin , A ril 27, 2008 JA Town of East Hampton (John Email sent to DeWitt Davies and Aldred Gre or Greene, A ril 28, 2008 PW Peter Wenczel Letter to Suffolk County Department of Plannin , A ril 30, 2008 PB Peconic Baykeeper (Matthew Email sent to Tom Isles, Suffolk Atkinson) County Department of Planning, May 1, 2008 NSA North Sea Aquafarms (Philip Curcio) Fax sent to DeWitt Davies, Suffolk County Department of Planning, May 1, 2008 GEE Group for the East End Fax sent to Suffolk County Department of Plannin , Ma 1, 2008 DEC New York State Department of Letters to Suffolk County Department Environmental Conservation of Planning, May 12, 2008 and June 24, 2008 CashinAssociates, P. C. Suffolk County Departmen( of Planning Final Generic Em~ironmental Impact Statement Shellfish Aquaculhtre Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardiners Bay September 3, 2008 2.2 Land Grants Comment LG-1 Permits issued by the NYSDEC that allow cultivation of species other than oysters on underwater land grants are not legal. (PH) (NSBA) Response LG-I It is not the objective or responsibility of the DGEIS, this FGEIS or the County to determine whether the NYSDEC is legally authorized to permit the cultivation of other species of shellfish besides oysters on existing land grants. However, the NYS 2004 Leasing Law does give the County the authority to allow access to underwater lands in support of and to promote shellfish cultivation. Therefore, under the County's program, arty existing commercial aquaculture enterprise legitimately operating on an underwater land grant, which has been allowed by any governmental body to cultivate other species of shellfish besides oysters, must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the entity can participate in the County's program and what the limitations on aguaculture activities will be. Comment LG-2 Underwater land grants should not be included in the Lease Program because they were originally issued on productive wild stock areas and are therefore illegal (PH) (NSBA) Response LG-2 According to the New York State Legislature as adopted in NYS ECL ,¢13-0302, "The grant of lands under the waters of Gardiners and Peconic Bays, by the Commissdoners of Shellfisheries, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 385 of the Laws of 1884, as amended, subsequently held and used by the grantees, heirs, successor, and assigns on which all taxes and assessments have been paid, are hereby ratified and confirmed. Any underwater lands in Gardiners and Peconic Bays previously granted that revert or escheat to the State or are subject to tax deed by the County of Suffolk shall be available to the County for leasing pursuant to this section. " It is not the intention of this program for the County, the DGEIS or this FGEIS to determine whether the issuing of these underwater land grants in the late I SOOs to early 1900s was legal or not. Currently, under State Law the privately owned grant lands have the right to cultivate shellfish and as such the County recognizes that right. Comment LG-3 In Section 2.6 component #3, it is stated "Leases on underwater lands not currently used for aquaculture will be 5 or 10 acres" and Section 2.6 component #27 states "Owners of grants can apply under the County Lease Program to overlay a lease on the entire grant or a portion thereof." Then in Section 4.2.3.3 it is stated "The rationale for overlaying leases on the entire acreage of an oyster grant is that they are permitted by law to bottom- culture oysters." The County Lease Program should not allow the overlaying of leases on grant lands that are not currently permitted by the NYSDEC to culture shellfish other than oysters. (AL) (PH) Cashin Associates, P. C. Snffotk County Department of Planning Final Generic Environmental /mpacl Statement Shellfish Aquacuttzme Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardiners Bay September 3, 2008 Response LG-3 Based on input received from [he ALPAC committee, CEQ and the public, the recommendation suggested in LG-3 and part of Section 2.6 of the DGEIS has been modified. An oyster grant holder can apply for a lease on his/her grant, or a portion of which, if the owner can document a prior historical or current use of the grant for shellfish aquaculture. Grants with title conflicts will not be eligible for a lease until the conflict is resolved by the grant holder. If a grant has been fallow (i.e. if no shel~sh aquaculture activities have been conducted for the past 10 years), it can enter the Lease Program in a limited phased process (i.e., a 5 to 10-acre lease). Leases on fallow grants shall not exceed two 10-acre leases for the first five years of the Lease Program, at which time a review of the Lease Program by the County will determine if the lease on the former fallow grant may be expanded. Leases on fallow grants will be subject to the full application process, including public review, and will only be approved based on the findings of that process. Comment LG-4 Consistent with the Peconic Bay Aquaculture Advisory Report, leases should be no more than 50 acres for on-bottom culture regardless of total acreage of grant land. Oyster grant holders should be phased up to 50 acres upon satisfactory demonstration of use of lease and justification for this scale of culture operation for species other than oysters. Oyster grant lands that have not been used for culture of other species within five years should be subject to benthic survey requirements as apply to new lease sites. Establishing a limit on acreage for grant lands will reduce user conflicts and potential impacts from harvest gear and be more consistent with the overall framework for the proposed leasing program in Peconic Bay and Gardiners Bay. (DB) Response LG-4 Because of past controversy involving the legality and rightful ownership of the underwater land grants, incorporating or considering grants for inclusion into the County's program will be a very difficult task. Part of the difficulty includes: determining rightful ownership; whether the grants have been sufficiently active or fallow; and based on this current activity analysis what relevance does this determination hold when considering a grant for inclusion into the County's program. A further complication in this attempt to include the grants in the County's program is the existing practice by the NYSDEC of permitting some of these underwater grants to cultivate other species of shellfish besides oysters. It would not be in the best iraerest of this program or possibly even an unconstitutional taking, to limit grant owners cultivation up to 50-acres when permission has been given by the NYSDEC to cultivate shellfish species other than oysters and owners have been actively doing so on all or part of their underwater parcel which may be greater than 50-acres. Due to past actions of permitting sheldfrsh aquaculture on land grants by the NYSDEC, this type of newly imposed restriction to sheldfrsh cultivation (no more than 50-acres) is no longer viable on some underwater parcels and therefore, acreage to be leased on a particular grant should more appropriately be based on whether a grant has been active or fallow CashinAssociates, P. C. 6 Suffolk County Department of Planning Final Generic Environmemal /mpact Statement Shellfish Aquaculhtre Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardiners Bay September 3, 2008 Comment LG-5 Fallow oyster grants located in Gardiners Bay comprise approximately 2,000 acres of underwater lands. These grants should not be included in the leasing program due to established commercial finfish, crustaceans and whelk fisheries and natural hard clam beds which have been documented on oyster grant lands in the area. (DB) Response LG-5 All grant owners .seaward of the 1,000 foot high tide mark will be considered for inclusion into the program to cultivate shel~sh species other than oysters. However, as described in Response LG-3 above, each grant's potential for inclusion may depend on but not be limited to location, past and current activity, and proof of ownership. As jar as the inclusion of the grants in Gardiners Bay, the NYSDEC in 2007-2008 issued I2 shellfish cultivation permits to owners of underwater land grants of which 2,565.5-acres are seaward of the 1, 000 foot buffer zone. Of those acres, approximately 1, 035 acres are located in Gardiners Bay and of that only one 205-acre parted was permitted to cultivate shellfish ocher than oysters. This parcel is the only parcel located in Gardiners Bay that will be considered eligible to acquire a lease on the entire parcel. Arty other grant will have to enter the program on a limited basis and will be required to go through the permitting process as if it were a new lease (see LG-6 Response below). However, it should also be noted that all of the underwater land grants are permitted by State Law to cultivate oysters and do not need to particdpate in the County's program to do so. Comment LG-6 A lease holder may have to fallow their grant or portions of their grant, to combat disease or discourage predators. This fallowing period is about a maximum of 5 years and this type of fallowing would give a "reasonable timeline." This type of fallowing should not be considered inactive. (KR) Response LG-ti Based on input received from the ALPAC committee, CEQ, the public, and the recommendation from Comment LG-6 of this FGEIS, Section 2.6 of the DGEIS will be modified in this FGEIS in Appendix A as follows: Component 15. Minimum Levels of Performance for Lease Holder is amended to include the statement: "In evaluating performance, beds used in a rotation .system of shellfish production, where some beds are actively farmed, while others are rested for various reasons, such as predator control and bottom preparation for re-seeding, all such beds shall be considered as actively farmed. " Component 27. Lease Establishment on Active Grants is amended to include the statement: "It is noted that shellfish farmers growing shellftsh species other than oysters on their grants may have instituted a bed rotation system. Under such a system, some beds may be actively farmed, while others are rested for various reasons, such as predator control and bottom preparation for re-seeding. In such cases, all of the beds will be considered active, since they are part of the shellfish production system for the respective grants involved. " CashinAssociates, P. C. y Suffolk County Department of Planning Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement Shel(frsh Aquacu(kme Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardeners Bay September 3, 2008 2.3 Hydraulic Dredging Comment HD-1 Hydraulic dredging is objectionable and its use will result in long term damage to public bottom land. Hydraulic dredging should be banned from this program. (PH), (CEQ), (NSBA) Response HD-1 Section 4.1.2.2, Harvest of Shellfish (pg. 199-204) not only references the activities and impacts of the Frank M. Flowers & Sons operations but goes on to describe a range of dredging techniques and cites various scientific studies on both the short term and long term effects of this harvest method on shellfish cultivation conditions. Section 4.1.2.7 (pg. 207-212) addresses the issue of sediment suspension and turbidity associated with mechanical harvesting practices. Numerous works of scient~c literature were cited in this section discussing the localized effects of dredging on flora and fauna. A further review of potential impacts associated with shellfish harvesting through the use of hydraulic dredges is presented in Appendix E. The Lease Program is to provide access to underwater lands, i[ is not the intent of the program to regulate harvest methods or other operational practices, which are regulated under State Environmental Conservation Law. Comment HD-2 If some natural stock exists on a lease site that is created out of an established oyster grant, please describe the hydraulic dredge or patent tongs that are capable of distinguishing between wild and cultivated stock. The subject of permitting hydraulic dredges on land leased through the County's Lease Program has not yet been discussed at any ALPAC meeting. The subject of hydraulic dredging should be addressed as soon as possible at an ALPAC meeting. (PH), (AL) Response HD-2 Presently, there is no harvesting device available that can differentiate between wild and cultured shellfish stocks. If evidence is presented that an area proposed for leasing has a viable wild stock, a field survey must be performed to assess existing wild stock before the lease is granted. If the site has a viable wild stock, It will not be eligible for leasing. A discussion on allowing the use of hydraulic dredges on leased lands was held at the 16`h ALPAC meeting on June 26, 2008. This discussion was accompanied by presentations from Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County and the East Coast Shellfish Growers Association. Comment HD-3 Hydraulic dredging will without question expose the dormant brown tide seeds in the sediment, increasing the likelihood of a major reoccurrence. (NSBA) Response HD-3 While some HAB species produce cysts that can be concentrated in the sediments (particularly dinoflagellates, as In the dispersal of Alexandrium red tides (Anderson Cashin Associates, P. C. County Department of Planning Final Generic Environmental /mpact Statement h Aquandture Lease Program in Peconic bay and Gardiners Bay September 3, 2008 2008), Aureococcus has not been demonstrated to do so (Brice) and Lonsdale, 1997) and is considered anon-cyst forming species (Pope)s and Hutchins, 2002; Doblin et al., 2004). Thus, dredging, mechanical or otherwise, is not likely to have any effect on the re-emergence of the brown tide. Oceangoing ships and coastal boats have been suggested as the major transpord mechanism for brown tide outside its original bloom location(s) (Pope)s and Hutchins, 2002, Doblin et al., 2004). Comment HD-4 Limit the use of mechanical dredging for on-bottom operations. As long as well considered limitations are imposed, it is clear that closely monitored dredging operations pose no long-term threats to the viability of the ecology of the Peconic Estuary or to the other users of the Peconic Bay system. While unchecked use of mechanical dredging is certainly detrimental, carefully regulated use of these methods, as described on p. 232 of the DGEIS, certainly has its place in the Suffolk Lease Program and should remain an option for those wishing to employ them. (NSA) Response HD-4 The proposed Lease Program in effect may preclude the use of mechanical dredging on leases because of the restricted size of the lease plots. However, mechanical dredging will likely continue on the limited number of oyster grants that are presently permitted by NYSDEC to harvest bottom planted shellfish species other than oysters. Comment HD-5 The gear used to harvest hard clams and oysters is often erroneously compared to the much larger gear used to harvest sea scallops, surf clams or worse often compared to channel dredging. Shellfish farmers are cultivating shellfish in a described area and not dredging over large areas to find shellfish. Farmers cultivating hard clams on several hundred acres would only be turning over 10-20 acres per year during the process of harvesting or preparing the bottom for planting. (KR) Response HD-5 Dredging performed for aguaculture operations is focused to recover the stock that was planted as part of each operation. This Is in contrast to dredging of wild stock, where dredging is performed in a way to locate and take shellfish in higher concentration areas. Dredging for aguaculture operations occurs only when a shellfish crop is ready for harvesting, and is not performed repeatedly, as is typical for harvesting of wild stock. Channel dredging involves activities that typically require the removal of relatively large volumes of material from specific areas, and the transport of that material away from the dredging location. Impacts from channel dredging have been well studied and documented. The impacts of channel dredging are not applicable to the effects of shellfish dredging on aguaculture stock Comment HD-6 The DGEIS fails to address the impacts of dredging on non-target benthic organisms, predator/prey interactions, benthic food web effects, changes in biodiversity, and declines in infaunal abundance. (DEC) Cashin Associates, P. C. Suffolk County Department of Planning Fina! Generic Environmental Impact Statemem Shellfish Aquacuhure /ease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardiners Bay September 3, 2008 Response to HD-6 A sufficiently detailed review of potential impacts associated with shellfish harvesting through the use of dredges (specifically hydraulic dredges) is presented in Appendix E. Comment HD-7 The homogenization of habitats is likely to result in the loss of ecological function in marine ecosystems as well. The DGEIS fails to address the effects of repeated disturbance of on-bottom shellfish aquaculture harvesting techniques, such as dredging on the recovery of benthic communities and the potential impacts of habitat homogenization. (DEC) Response to HD-7 The underwater lands currently permitted by NYSDEC to use mechanical dredges are restricted to oyster grant lands that bottom-cultivate shellfish species other than oysters (see Table 2 in Section 3.2.1 of the DGEIS). Shellfish crops are typically grown out for several years prior to harvesting, which minimize the use of dredges. A further review of potential impacts associated with shellfish harvesting through the use of dredges (specifically hydraulic dredges) is presented in Appendix E. Comment HD-8 The DGEIS fails to address how physical changes to bottom sediments, topography and microhabitat, as well as increase in turbidity and hypoxic effects resulting from repeated dredging disturbance will affect non-target organisms including egg/larval and juvenile marine finfish and their habitats as well as predatory/prey interactions, benthic food chain, ecosystem processes, biodiversity, infaunal abundance, and subsequent recovery of bottom habitats. (DEC) Response to HD-8 An in-depth review of potential impacts associated with shellfish harvesting through the use of dredges (specifically hydraulic dredges) is presented in Appendix E. Comment HD-9 The DGEIS does not address the physical impacts of the proposed shellfish dredging activities on egg, larva and juvenile finfish, including species that are known to inhabit Peconic Bays such as weakfish, scup, winter flounder, black sea bass, tautog, menhaden, northern and striped sea robins, hogchoker, puffer, windowpane flounder, butterfish, Atlantic mackerel and Gunner. (DEC) Response to HD-9 An fn-depth review of potential impacts associated with shellfish harvesting through the use of dredges (specifically hydraulic dredges) is presented in Appendix E. In addition, a Essential Fish Habitat analysis is provided in Appendix F. Comment HD-10 The DGEIS does not address the biological impacts of the proposed shellfish dredging activities on the epifauna and biogenic organisms that provide feeding and refuge habitats Cashin Associates, P.C. l0 County Deparlmem of Planning Final Generic Emironmenml /mpact Statement h Agaocutture Gease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardiners Bay September 3, 2008 for juvenile or small forms of marine finfish and other benthic organisms, nor does it address the impacts of the loss of Essential Fish Habitat on fish populations, survival, recruitment and the subsequent productivity of those fish species that rely on this habitat. (DEC) Response to HD-10 An in-depth review of potential impacts associated with shellfish harvesting through the use of dredges (specifically hydraulic dredges) is presented in Appendix E. In addition, a Essential Fish Habitat analysis i.s provided in Appendix F. Comment HD-11 The DGEIS does not address how the shellfish dredging activities associated with the proposal to lease underwater lands of Peconic and Gardiners Bay for the purpose of aquaculture will affect winter flounder spawning, egg, larval, post-larval and juvenile life stages and the habitat they rely on. The DGEIS should address how repeated, frequent commercial scale shellfish dredging activities will affect populations of winter flounder, as well as address the negative effects associated with an increase in turbidity and sedimentation, entrainment and burial of eggs and larvae, winter flounder predator/prey interactions and feeding, reproductive success, effects on winter flounder year class and recruitment, and future recreational and commercial landings, as well as address the impacts of the proposed activity on winter flounder Essential Fish Habitat. (DEC) Response to HD-11 In response to Comment HD-11, an in-depth review of potential impacts associated with shel~sh harvesting through the use of dredges (specifically hydraulic dredges) is presented in Appendix E of this FGEIS. In addition, an Essential Fish Habitat analysis is provided in Appendix F of this FGEIS. Comment HD-12 From 1984 to the present, the Department has conducted a survey of striped bass using a beach seine in Little Neck Bay and Manhasset Bay. During the time period in question, Department staff conducting the seine survey had first-hand observation of the condition of the water and the bottom before and during the use of mechanical harvesting for the relay program. Setting and retrieving the seine became more difficult as the unconsolidated sediments that had been loosened by mechanical harvest were re- suspended and clogged the net every time it was retrieved. This condition persisted for nearly a year following cessation of mechanical harvest. These observations played a role in the Department's decision not to allow mechanical harvest of wild product in New York. If mechanical harvest is allowed, how will the impact described above be prevented? (DEC) Response to HD-12 The comparison of hydraulic dredging in Little Neck Bay/Manhasset Bay to culture operations in Peconic Bays stretches the point. The "relay" dredging in Little Neck Bay occurred in shallow waters up !o the limit of dredge boat operations. This will not occur in Peconic Bay. The bay bottoms are also not comparable. CashinAssociates, PC. // Suffolk County Department of Planning Fina! Generic Environmental /mpac! S!alement Sheflfish Aquaculture Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardeners Bay September 3, 2008 In addition, shellftsh farmers typically leave their crop untouched for several years prior to harvesting; therefore, the degree of impacts from dredging cultured product is less than wild shellfish harvest. As previously stated, the proposed Lease Program will in effect preclude the use of mechanical dredging on leases because of the restricted size of the lease plots. Mechanical dredging wild most likely continue only on the limited number of oyster grants that are presently permitted by NYSDEC to harvest bottom- planted shellftsh species other than oysters. 2.4 Environmental and Socio-economic Sensitive Areas Comment ESSA-1 The Shellfish Cultivation Zone designated for aquaculture has not been properly vetted. Many of the areas within the zone lay on edge habitat that could be productive hard clam areas. (PH) Response ESSA-I As described in Section 2.1.1 on page 25 of the DGEIS, the development of the County's Lease Program required the collective knowledge and input from numerous individuals, agencies, organizations, businesses and other interested parties. The information used to determine the Shellfish Cultivation Zone was facilitated by the participation of the ALPAC Committee, and by conducting information gathering meetings including public input sessions. In addition to the ALPAC meetings, individual and group meetings were held involving site visits to local aquaculture operations and interviews with over 70 individuals, including local government representatives, .shellfish growers, baymen, fishermen, environmental organizations, professional/trade groups, recreational boaters, and academic institutes. In addition to the information obtained through the process mentioned above and to further mitigate this issue, the public input portion of the leasing procedure allows for additional input from interested parties prior to the issuing of a lease. As described in the Draft .Suffolk County Shellfish Aguaculture Lease Program Administrative Guidance document (June 2008), and the revised Section 2.6 Program Components of the DGEIS, if an objection regarding the proposed lease area is raised during the public comment period, the County will make a determination as to whether the objection is credible. For an objection to be considered credible, the objector must provide to the County proper notarized documentation. If the objection Is credible, the lease applicant will have the option to select one of his/her alternative sites, or if involving an alleged commercial shellfish or finfish frshery, will cause a benthic survey to be conducted at his/her own expense. The County will notify the lease applicant of arty objections. If the objection is credible, the lease applicant will be requested to select one of Its alternatives sites. Comment ESSA-2 There is wild shellfish stock throughout the bays and no public underwater land should be leased to private entities. (PH) CashinAssociates, P. C. t2 Suffolk County Department of Planning Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement Shet~h Aquacul[ure Lease Program in Peconie Bay and Gardiners Bay September 3 2008 Response ESSA-2 According to a recent document prepared for the PEP, Meetinghouse Creek Watershed Management Plan (2006) there are 158,000 acres of bay floor recognized by state agencies as shellfashing areas, however, the majority of yield comes from the shallower rivers and embayments that line the estuary. Estimates vary as to how much of the bay may be highly productive with figures ranging between 8,000 acres (Lewis et al., 1997) [0 20,880 (PEP COMP, 2001). The harvesting in these areas is highly concentraded due to the fact that these beds comprise only six to 18 percent of the entire shellfashing areas (Lewis et al., 1997). As discussed in Section 2.1.1 of the DGEIS, sites with viable wild stock of.shellfish will not be included in the Lease Program. Comment ESSA-3 Gardiners Bay is productive for shellfashing and public underwater lands in Gardiners Bay should not be allowed to be leased and should remain accessible to the public. (PH) Response ESSA-3 See ESSA-2 above Comment ESSA-4 Wild shellfish stock should be assessed before a lease is permitted. (PH) Response ESSA-4 As described above in Response ESSA-1, extensive information gathering sessions were conducted to help remediate arty impacts to wild shellfish stocks within the proposed lease areas in Peconic Bay and Gardiners Bay. In addition to these and as part of the lease application process, a pubic notice announcement period (as described in Section 2.6 of the DGEIS) is a requirement. As stated in Response ESSA-1 above and in the Draf Sujlolk Coun[v Shellfish Aguaculture Lease Program Administrative Guidance document (Administrative Guidance Document), and as revised in Section 2.6 of the DGEIS, if an objection regarding the proposed lease area is raised during the public comment period, the County will make a determination as to whether the objection is credible. If the objection is credible, the lease applicant will have the option to select one of his/her alternative sites, or if involving an alleged commercial shellfish or frnfish fashery, will cause a benthic survey to be conducted at his/her own expense. The County will notes the lease applicant of arty objections. If the objection is credible, the lease applicant will be requested to select one of its alternatives sites, or conduct the required benthic survey. Comment ESSA-5 In order to prevent lease holders from harvesting wild stock, a lease holder must first plant seed prior to harvesting the lease site. (PH) Response ESSA-5 Currently, in order to harvest on-bottom cultured shellfish on an underwater grant, a letter of permission from the NYSDEC is required. No harvest of shellfish can occur before the first culture planting. After planting, and once the NYSDEC has Cashin Associates, P. C. l3 Suffolk County Department of Planning Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement Shellfish Aquaculture Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardeners Bay September 3, 2008 documentation showing that the planted stock has matured, the cultured shellfish can be harvested. If an underwater grant owner is given permission by the NYSDEC to prepare the site for first planting, any hard clams harvested during the process of bottom preparation prior to first seeding must be returned to the water, or surrendered over to a public entity. Comment ESSA-6 The County should not give away public lands that the taxpayers are paying to preserve. (PH) Response ESSA-6 The proposed action does not give away public lands; ownership remains in the public. The program only allows access to a specified area for the purpose of shellfish cultivation as per NYS ECL ,¢13-0302. Comment ESSA-7 How would Suffolk County cancel a lease if it turns out that some environmental problem should have prevented the issuance of the lease initially? (CEQ) Response ESSA-7 In the development of the program, a great deal of time and effort went into gatherdng collective knowledge and input from numerous individuals, agencies, organizations, businesses and other interested parties to mitigate environmental and socio-economic impacts that may occur from the proposed action. As described in Section 2.6 component #16 (pg 51) of the DGEIS, the County may terminate a lease if certain criteria are not met which will include, but not be limited to, non-payment of lease fees, violation of the NY.S Environmental Conservation Law as it pertains to marine-related activities, significant adverse impacts to marine resources, or if the lease performance standards are not met. In addition, the County reserves the right to ask a lease holder to relocate if some unforeseen adverse impact associated with the location of a lease occurs, or new additional information on site conditions and characteristics is provided. The relacation of leases is discussed in Appendix A, component 7. Comment ESSA-8 Are there disturbances ("turf-wars") between existing culturist and other users of the bays? (CEQ) Response ESSA-8 There are no known violent conflicts that have occurred between baymen, growers, or the public over bottomlands in the Peconic Bay system. Conflicts over frshing/shellfishing grounds have occurred among commercial baymen, but theses types of conflicts are typically non-violent and generally involve disputes relating to the types and location of fashing gear. Cashin Associates, PC. l d Suffolk County Department of Planning Final Generic Environmemal /mpact Statement Shellfish Aguacut[ure Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardeners Bay September 3, 2008 Comment ESSA-9 Concerns regarding the lack of specific delineation of the whelk harvest areas as a socio- economic sensitive area. The Shellfish Cultivation Zone obviously has not included an evaluation of whelk fishing in those areas. Areas where commercial harvest of whelk occurs need to be delineated and excluded from the zone. (PW) Response ESSA-9 With the exception of a moratorium of permits being issued by the NYSDEC, the whelk fishery remains basically unregulated and unrestricted. There are over 110, 000 acres of underwater land available to whelk fishermen throughout the Peconic Bay system and [he limited restrictions (if any) that may apply on County leased acres will have little to no impact on the fishery. In fact, having an increased abundance of prey food (such as oysters and hard clams) may positively impact the whelk population. Comment ESSA-10 The benefits of shellfish cultivation are widely documented. These benefits apply to all species cultivated and all cultivation methods. They are: • Sustainability -cultivation of shellfish relieves the pressure on wild populations. • Create habitat and promote sets of shellfish on unfarmed grounds. • Clean water by filter-feeding. • Remove excess nitrogen. (KR) Response ESSA-10 As stated in comment ESSA-IQ shellfish aquaculture can have a positive impact on existing habitats. Comment ESSA-11 The DGEIS needs a better, more complete description of commercial fishing activity, particularly locations and seasonality. The DGEIS does not adequately describe the setting, leaving out important details. The areas where commercial fishing takes place are important for the seclusion mapping exercise. The DGEIS leaves out important detail about the recreational fishery, ignoring the flyfishing charter industry, for example. The document does not adequately describe the recreational industry, particularly location data which would be useful for the exclusion mapping exercise. The DGEIS needs a better description of the impacts to fishing activities, including the loss of access to public (ands occupied by aquaculture gear. The DGEIS needs a more complete description of boating activities and infrastructure, with impacts to same. There is some errata and irrelevant information included in this section. The Contractor should consult with DEC on corrections. (DEC) Response to ESSA-11 Because the "fly--frshing" community tends to utilize the flats and shallows, most likely the majority of the frshery is being conducted within the 1,000 foot buffer zone and not within the County's cultivation areas, so little to no impact is expected on this fishery. Also, ft may be possible that the structures used in off-bottom aquaculture activities wall create suitable habitat for bait fash, which in turn will attract the species of fish that this Cashin Associates, P. C. I S Suffolk County Departmen! of Planning Fina! Generic Errvironmental /mpact Smtement Shellfish Aquacu/ture Lease Progrnm in Peconic Bay and Gardiners bay September 3, 2008 fishery usually pursues (sdripped bass and bluefish). Structures used to grow shellfrsh may result in a positive impact on the fishery. 2.5 Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement Comment DGEIS-I On page 110, Table 2 indicates that grant #55 is in Great Peconic Bay and according to the reference map between pages 1 14 and 1 15 this grant is in Gardiners Bay. (JA) Response DGEIS-l In response to Comment DGEIS-1, Table 2 on page 110 of the DGEIS will here by be modified in this FGEIS to read that grant #55 is located in Gardiners Bay. Comment DGEIS-2 On page 171, the 4`h paragraph talks about eelgrass absence, possibly attributed to nutrient enrichment. However, Figure 8 on page 143 appears to indicate that nitrogen levels have diminished in the estuary. Is this contradictory? (JA) Response DGEIS-2 The loss of eelgrass beds is an occurrence that has been happening over the past several decades, and research has suggested that anthropogenic influences including nutrient enrichment may be a major cause for this decline. Because of and in reaction to this research, many of the municipalities surrounding the Peconic Estuary system have put restrictions on direct influx of nutrients into the bay. These efforts by the municipalities are the probable reason for the nitrogen levels diminishing in the estuary. Unfortunately, even with this reduction in nutrient levels, eelgrass beds may never return to historic levels. Comment DGEIS-3 On page 201, the statement about dredging on the Blue Points property is not attributed to any particular source, but all other statements about dredging are. (JA) Response DGEIS-3 The information regarding the impacts to the bay bottom in Great South Bay from the mechanical harvest operations conducted by the Bluepoints Oyster Company are hereby revised to include the following reference: Personal Communication, Carl Logue, The Nature Conservancy, August 2008. Comment DGEIS-4 On page 253, regarding the party/charter boat fishery, there should be mention of the "fly-fishing "boats -small speed boats that take individuals or small parties around to the flats and shallows, often, but not always, using fly fishing gear. There are quite a few of them out east. Also, Montauk isn't mentioned as a base for charter boats, but boats from there sometimes go into Gardiners if the winds are a problem farther east. (JA) CashinAssociates, P.C. I6 Suffolk County Department ojPlanning Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement Shel~sh Aguacutture Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardiners Bay September 3, 2008 Response DGEIS-4 Because the "Jly-ftshing" community tends to utilize the flats and shallows, most likely the majority of the fishery is being conducted within the 1,000 foot buffer zone and not within the County's cultivation areas, so little to no impact is expected on this frshery. Also, it may be possible that [he structures used in off-bottom aquaculture activities will create suitable habitat for bait fish, which in turn will attract the species offish that this fashery usually pursues (stripped bass and bluefish). Structures used to grow shel~sh may result fn a positive impact on the frshety. Because there will most likely be very few shellfish aquaculture lease areas in Gardiners Bay and the locations of those that are there are fn the upper western corner of the bay and around the Promise Land area, impacts on any charter boats out of Montauk using Gardiners Bay will most likely be minimal. Comment DGEIS-5 Description of the proposed action (Section 2) should clarify the fact that this program is a legal framework for giving access to sites and that the NYSDEC will be responsible for certain permitting procedures. (CEQ) Response DGEIS-5 Section 2.1 (pg. 25) and Section 2.1.2 (pg. 28) describe the intention of the program, from the County's perspective as a means to provide access to underwater lands for shellfish cultivation. Once access is secured, lessees must obtain all necessary permits from State and Federal agencies before shellfish cultivation could take place. Comment DGEIS-6 The document should contain a section on night-time navigation and the likelihood of accidental collisions with markers and gear along with potential mitigation measures. (CEQ) Response DGEIS-6 The US Coast Guard is the regulatory agency that will make the determination on the type of buoy required to alert mariners of the submerged or floating structures on shellfish aguaculture leases. According to the NYSDEC, all TMAUAs are required by the USCG to mark their sites with buoys that are 36", white in color, with two horizontal retro reflective orange bands placed completely around the buoy circumference. Between the two bands will be two vertical open faced diamonds placed 180 degrees apart with a daytime visibility range of one nautical mile and be radar reflective for night time and low visibility. Therefore, when an applicant for the lease program applies for a permit from the USCG, marking of a site will most likely be similar to this requirement. The likelihood of accidental collisions with shellfish aquaculture markers and submerged gear is low since submerged gear will be .set at a depth that will not impede navigation, and since there will be setbacks of leases from navigational channels (see Section 4.3.3.3. pg. 290). Cashin Associates, P. C. 17 Suffolk County Department of Planning Final Generic Environmental /mpact Statement Shellfish Aquaculnrre Lease Program in Peconic bay and Gardeners Bay September 3, 2008 Comment DGEIS-7 Are anti-fouling paints currently an issue? The document should identify these paints as a potential impact and discuss their implication and mitigation. (CEQ) Response DGEIS-7 Pesticides or other chemicals are not permitted in the treating of shellfish aquaculture gear for biofouling under the Food and Drug Administration (21 USC §I-1404). Antifouling techniques of shellfish aquaculture farmers typically consist of.• a high strength salt brine treatment, which disrupts the fouling organisms through osmotic shock, the physical removal of fouling organisms through brushing; steam treatment; or, air drying the equipment for an interval of time. Comment DGEIS-8 Section 4 should break out impacts and mitigation into individual major sections. (CEQ) Response DGEIS-8 In response to Comment DGEIS-8 and to further expand on the summary table in Section 4.10 of the DGEIS (pg. 294), the following tables (Table 1: Environmental Impacts and Table 2: Socio-economic Impacts) will be incorporated into this FGEIS to assist in associating impacts to mitigation methods: Table 1: Environmental /mnacts Im aef Miti afion Location in DGE/S document Amplification of native and exotic -Require disease testing lmoact-Section 4. L2.1 shellfish diseases -Monitoring environmental Mitigation-Sections 9.1.3.$ conditions 4.7.3.9, and 9. /.3.12 -Use loco! seed stock Harvest ofshellfish -Limit lease numbers Imoact -Section 4.1.2.2 -Limit [ease sizes Mitigation -Sections 4.1.3.1, -Limit type ofYease 4.1.3.2, 4. /.3.3, 4.1.3.5, 4.1.3.6, -Limit biomass of shellfish and 4.1.3.19 -Restrict harvest methods -Monitoring ofenviron. conditions Placement of on-bollom -Limit lease numbers Impact-Section 4.1.23 stnrctures on sediment -Limit lease sizes Mitigation -Sections 4. /.3.1, characteristics and benthicfauna -Limit type of lease 4.1.3.2, 4.1.3.3, 4.1.3.5, and -Limit biomass ofshe!lfish 4.1.3.14 -Monitoring ofenviron. conditions Sedimentation and scouring -Limit lease numbers /mnact -Section 4.1.2.4 -Limit lease sizes Mitigation-Sections 4.1.3.7, -Limit type of lease 4.1.3.2, 4.1.3.3, 4.1.3.5, and -Limit biomass ofshe!lfish 4. /.3.14 -Monitoring ofenviron. conditions Changes in Phyloplankton -Limit lease numbers /mnact -Section 4.1.2.5 composition and nutrient cycling -Limit lease sizes Mitigation -Sections 4.1.3.1, -Limit type of (ease 4.1.3.2, 4.1.3.3, 4.1.3.5, 4.1.3.11 -Limit biomass of shellfish and 4. /.3.19 -Plot rotation CashinAssociates, P. C. 18 Suffolk County Department of Planning Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement Shellfish Aquacultime Lease Program in Peconic Qay and Gardeners Bay September 3, 2008 -Monitoring ofenvironmenta! conditions Displacement and Attraction of -Limit lease numbers Impact -Section 4.1.2.6 Species -Limit (ease sizes Mitigation -Sections 9.1.3.1, -Limit type of (ease 4.1.3.2, 4.1.3.3, 4.1.3.5, 4.1.3.6, -Limit biomass ofshellfrsh 4.1.3.10, 4.7.3.7! and 4.1.3.19 -Restrict harvest methods -Transient gear aqua. system -Plot rotation -Monitoring of environmental conditions Suspended sedimendturbidity Limit lease numbers /moact-Section 4.1.2.7 -Limit lease sizes Mitigation-Sections 4. /.3. /, -[,emit type of lease 9.1.3.2, 4.1.3.3, 4.1.3.5, 4.1.3.6, -Limit biomass of shellfish and 4.1.3.10 -Restrict harvest methods Carrying capacity-phytoplankton -Limit lease numbers Imoact -Section 4.1.2.8-! l /nutrients depletion -Limit lease sizes Mili ag lion -Sections 4. /.3.1, -Limit type of lease 4.1.3.2, 4.13.3, 9.1.3.5, 4.13.1/ -Limit biomass of shellfish and 4.1.3. l4 -Plot roation -Monitoring of environ. conditions Enhanced recruitment -Limit (ease numbers Imoact -Section 9.7.2.72 -Limit lease sizes Mitieation -Sections 4.1.3.1, -Limit type of lease 4.1.3.2, 4./.33, 4.1.3.5, 9.7.3.7/ -Limit biomass ojshellfish and 4. /.3. /9 -Plot rotation -Monitoring of environ. conditions Site impacts, down-drift impacts -Limit lease numbers /mpact -- Section 4.1.2.8-/3 -Limit lease sizes Mitigation -Sections 4.1.3.1, -Limit type of lease 4.1.32, 4. /33, 4.13.5, 4.1.3.1 / -Limit biomass ofsheflfish and 4.1.3.19 -Plot rotation -Monitoring of environ. conditions Accidental release ofshe!lfish -Require disease testing Imoact-Section 4.1.2.8-14 -Use loco! seed stock Mniea[ion -Sections 4. /.3.9, - Monitoring of environ. 4.1.3.!2 and 4.1.3.!4 conditions Genetic changes -Require disease testing /mpact - Sec[ion 4. /.2.8-l5 -Use local seed stock Mitieation -Sections 4.13.9, - Monitoring of environ. 4.1..i. /2 and 4. /.3.14 conditions /mpacts to protected and -Limit lease numbers Impact -Section 4.1.2.16 important species -Limit lease sizes Mitieation -Sections 4. /.3. /, -Limit type of lease 4. /.3.2, 4. /.3.3, 4.13.5, 9. /.3.ti, -Limit biomass of shellfish 4.1.3.7 and 4.1.3. /9 -Restrict harvest methods -Establish buffers -Monitoring of environ. conditions Cashin Associates, P. C. l9 Suffolk County Deportment of Planning Final Generic F.nvironmenta!lmpact Statement Shellfish Aguactdmre Lease Program in Peconic /3ay and Gardiners Bay September 3, 2008 Tabte 2: Socio-economic /mnacts /m act Miti anon Location in DGEIS document Loss of harvest area -Limit project acreage available /m°act -Section 9.2.2.1 -Limit lease size Miti a~ [ion -Sections 4..2.3.2, -Cooperation among user groups 4..2.3.3, 4.2.3.5, and 4.2.3.6 -Phased expansion of leases on land ants Maritime traditions -Limit project acreage available lmpact -Section 4.2.2.2 -Limit lease size Mitigation -Sections 4..2.3.2, -Cooperation among user groups 4..2.3.3, 4.2.3.5, and 4.2.3.6 -Phased expansion of leases on land rants Changes in employment -Cooperation among user groups lmpact -Section 4.2.2.3 0 ornmities Mi[i anon -Section 4.2.3.5 Vahre ojfrshery resources -Performance standards lmpact -Section 9.2.2.4 -Cooperation among user groups Mitigation -Sections 9.2.3.1 and 9.2.3. Potential supplemental income -Cooperation among user groups /moat[ -Seaton 4.21.5 Miti anon-Section 4.2.3.5 Shoreline facilities -Limit project acreage available !m°ac[ -Seaton 4.2.2.2 -Limit lease size Mitigation-Sections 4..2.3.2, -Cooperation among user groups 4..2.3.3, 4.2.3.5, and 4.2.3.6 -Phased expansion of leases on land rants Conflicts over lease boundaries -Limit project acreage available !moat[ -Section 9.2.2.2 -Limit lease size Mitigation-Sections 4..2.3.2, -Mark lease areas 4..2.3.3, 4.2.3.9, 9.2.3.5, and -Cooperation among user groups 9.2.3.6 -Phased expansion of leases on land ants Hazards to navigation -Standards for marking /moat[-Section 4.3.2.! -Notification Mitigatton-Sections 4.3.3.1, -Limit placement of structures 4.3.3.2, 4.3.3.3, and 4.3.3.4 -Re uire bu ers Restrictions on use -Notification lmpact -Section 4.3.2.2 -Ltmit placement of structures Mitigation -Sections 4.3.3.2, and 9.3.3.3 Loss of Aesthetic values/qualities -Visual buffers and setbacks Impact -Section 4.9.2.1 Mitigation -Sections 4.4.3. l Comment DGEIS-9 The leased premises of Winergy Power LLP were initially on the draft maps that identified which areas of Gardiners Bay that would be leased by Suffolk County for shellfish cultivation, but the current version has excluded them. Winergy respectfully submits that the rationale for generally excluding land from the current version of the Lease Program does not apply to its leased premises. (WP) Response DGEIS-9 As a result of additional deliberations by the ALPAC committee, the Department of Planning decided to add the 200-acre area located to the south of Plum Island, which is under lease issued by the State of New York Office of General Services to Winergy Power LLP, as part of the Shellfish Cultivation Zone. The Shellfish Cultivation Zone map has been amended to add this change. This 200-acre area will be considered like a fallow CashinAssociates, P. C. 20 Suffolk County Depar(ment of Planning Final Generic Environmental /mpact Statement Shellfish Aquacula~re Lease Program in Peconic Ray and Gardeners Bay September 3, 2008 oyster grant, where the owner is limited to applying for two 10-acre Zeases. The various provisions of the lease application process would also apply. Comment DGEIS-10 In Section 2.6.14, it states "The County will identify what will be considered adequate documentation of the status of natural shellfish stock; such documentation may include, but not be limited to, a Feld survey of the underwater land." Who will pay to provide a "field benthic survey," obviously not an inexpensive endeavor? If the County does pay for these surveys, and the lease site proves to be productive, the lease applicant should repay the County for the survey. If the site proves to be unproductive, the challenger should repay the County for the survey. (PH), (AL) Response DGEIS-10 Several different options are being considered as to how a field survey will be conducted and what source of funding will be used. A.s of the time this document was prepared, no one method has been selected. When options are selected, the Administrative Guidance Document will discuss them in greater detail. Comment DGEIS-11 In Section 2.6.10, it states "Lease sites must be surveyed by a licensed land surveyor prior to execution of the lease." If the County pays for the survey, then some percentage of the fee paid to the County by the lease holder should be devoted to repaying the cost of the survey. The lease holder has been granted exclusive use of public bottomland for private profit, and therefore should be financially responsible for the cost of the survey. (AL) Response DGEIS-11 Administrative costs for implementing the Lease Program will be offset to some extent by the lease application fees and annual rent payments. Comment DGEIS-12 Section 2.6 #25, states that the TMAUAs that have pending applications made by December 31, 2007 will be given the opportunity to obtain a lease in accordance with established provisions. What is the County's policy on new applications for TMAUAs after the December 31, 2007 date? (GR) Response DGEIS-12 Holders of TMAUAs issued after December 31, 2007 will have do submit an application to the County for a lease. The acreage involved must be located in the Shellfish Cultivation Zone, and will be considered as part of the annual acreage cap of 60 acres for new leases. Comment DGEIS-13 It may be important to review the relationship between the proposed project and the NYS Public Trust Doctrine again, as the DGEIS does not clearly show that there is no major conflict here. Leasing public lands for private gain should only be done if the public's Cashin Associates, P. C. 21 Suffolk Counry Department of Planning Fina/Generic Ennironmenta/ /mpact Statement Shellfish Aquacuhure Lease Program in Peconic bay and Gardeners Bay September 3, 2008 benefit will be greater than its cost. There is no clear demonstration that the benefits to the public outweigh the costs. (GEE) Response DGEIS-13 As stated in Section 1.3 (page 16) of the DGEIS, the implementation of the Lease Program is expected to yield the following benefits: • Provide people with the opportunity to obtain access to underwater lands far raising shellfish. • Encourage private Investment in aquaculture businesses and the establishment of shellfish farms. • Expand the marine-based economy and create related job opportunities. • Augment the spawning potential of native shellfish populations and exert positive Influence on water guality by increasing filter feeding organisms Into the system. • Provide potential positive impacts such a.s increased suitable substrate for flora and fauna and commensal relationship between ecological health and users of the bay. • Aelp re-establish and strengthen the maritime tradition of shellfish aquaculture. Comment DGEIS-14 In the section on Impacts, the discussion of Amplification of Native and Exotic Shellfish Diseases needs to more fully explain this threat and how it will impact native populations since it will most likely occur. The concept that monoculture enhances the spread of diseases needs to be fully explored. (PW) Response DGEIS-14 Several different mitigation methods have been discussed in the DGEIS in order to eliminate or limit the potential for the amplification of native and exotic shellftsh diseases being introduced as a result of the proposed action. The DGEIS suggests that several mitigation methods such as: limiting lease numbers; limiting lease sizes; limiting the types of leases; limiting the biomass of shellfish; restricting harvest methods; establishing buffers zones; requiring disease testing of shellftsh; restrictions by regulatory agencies; use of local seed stock; and monitoring of environmental conditions may be used to ensure that these concerns will be addressed. Comment DGEIS-IS The data reported in Table 28 do not accurately depict the actual landings of whelk. A serious and honest effort needs to be made to delineate the scope and contribution that the whelk fishery has on the total economic value of the fisheries in Peconic Bay and Gardeners Bay. In addition, the suggestion that fishing for whelks has increased because of reduced populations of Queen Conch is a fallacy, but rather the increase is due to displaced fishermen entering the fishery and an increase demand from Asian markets. (PW) Cashin Associates, P. C. 22 Suffolk Coanty Department of Planning Final Generic Environments/ /mpoct Stotemem Shellfrsh Aquacultnre Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardiners flay September 3, 2008 Response DGEIS-1 S As stated previously in this document, with the exception of a moratorium of permits being issued by the NYSDEC, the whelk fishery remains basically unregulated and unrestricted For this reason it is very difficult to ascertain accurate information on true landings or fishery value. Perhaps, proper mitigation of this inconsistency will require more involvement by regulatory agencies on whelk fishery activities. The increased demand for local whelks from Asian markets may indeed be a result of reduced populations of Queen Conch and in fact it is not unusual that once the prime target species for a certain fishery is exploited to the point of depletion, another similar less desirable species will be exploited to fill that void The insinuation that the increased for the demand of a certain species is a result of an increase of displaced fishermen entering that fishery is no[ an accurate statement. In fact, most fishermen whether displaced from an exploited fishery or not typically enter a fishery due to an increase in market demand and/or an increase of value per pound of that product. Comment DGEIS-16 The section on horseshoe crabs beginning on page 248 presents data that is incorrect and the conclusions that are drawn from the landings data are wrong and demonstrate a complete lack of understanding about the horseshoe crab fishery by the author. There is no noticeable decrease in abundance observed by the fisherman involved in the fishery and the NYSDEC surveys indicates that the population in NY waters is stable or slightly declining in some areas. There is no shortage of horseshoe crabs in NY. (PW) Response DGEIS-16 In further support of the information provided in the DGEIS on horseshoe crab populations, the following table depicting the Regional Trends of Horseshoe Crab Abundance according to the ASMFC Horseshoe Crab Stock Assessment Report, 2004 Indicates [hat there is some decline in horseshoe abundance along the east coast of the United States. Region Sub-region Time series duration Conclusion about o ion est dataset o elation chan e Southeast 1995-2003 Stable Delaware Ba 1898-2003 Declined New York W. Long Island 1987-2003 Stable or increased Sound, various ba s E. Long Island Sound, 1980-2003 Declined from peak Peconic Bay levels in early to mid 1990s, but consistent with mid 1980s levels New England Ca e Cod 1978-2002 Declined or stable Narra ansett Ba 1975-2002 Declined CashinAssociates, P. C. 23 Suffolk County Deparlmen! of Planning Fina! Generic Environmental /mpacl Statemen! Shellfish Aquaculture Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardeners Bay September 3, 2008 Also, it should be noted that when the NYSDEC enacts various catch limits and other restriction on certain species it is usually because of fears that that particular fishery stock is in decline and in need of regulatory actions. Comment DGEIS-17 The discussion on page 280 about the loss of harvest areas needs to more fully and honestly explore the impact on the whelk fishery. These impacts will be real and significant to the baymen involved. (PW) Response DGEIS-17 Leases for new shellftsh aquaculture operations will consist of modest 5 to 10 acre parcels, for a maximum acreage of 300 acres within the first 5 years of the program and 600 acres by the 10`I' year of the program. New leases will not be contiguous or clustered in a portion of the estuary, which could significantly preclude the placement of whelk pots in such areas of the estuary. This new acreage and what existing aquaculture operations are currently located in the Peconic estuary is approximately 2% of the underwater lands available to users of the bay system. This acreage should and can not be considered to significantly impact the whelk fishery or arty other fishery for that matter. Comment DGEIS-18 The suggestion on page 283 that the Lease Program will benefit displaced baymen is deceiving and misleading. The program itself will displace baymen most of which are not interested in aquaculture. This fact needs to be more fully discussed here. (PW) Response DGEIS-18 The statement in Comment DGEIS-18 is more of an opinion than factual information. There is no proof that any aquaculture activity currently in operation in the Peconic estuary has displaced any baymen. In fact, some baymen have already become involved in the NYSDEC's Temporary Marine Area Use Assignment program to help subsidize their incomes. Comment DGEIS-19 A discussion how baymen have been forced to spend significant time and effort resulting in a loss of income and productivity in order to protect their fishing lifestyle as a result of this leasing program needs to be included in the section on impacts. (PW) Response DGEIS-19 Publtc input was imperative In order for the County to ensure that impacts associated with the proposed action were evaluated. However, to insinuate that requesting public input forced the baymen to spend significant time and effort resulting in a loss of income and productivity is more an opinion than actual fact. Evening meetings have been held on the east end to accommodate working baymen. It is in their best interest for baymen to participate in this process. CashinAssociates, P. C. 24 Suffolk County Department of Planning Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement Shellfish Aquaculture /,ease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardeners Bay September 3, 2008 Comment DGEIS-20 In the document entitled "Suffolk County Shellfish Aquaculture Lease Program - Proposed Program Components (working Draft March 20, 2008)" on page 2, component # 3 (Sizes of Leases) it states that the lease size limits of 5 to 10 acres "do not apply to private oyster grants." This statement is in conflict with the statement about lease sizes which appears in the DGEIS dated March 19, 2008. On page 49 of the DGEIS it states that the limits "do not apply to active grants." There very definitely needs to be clarity about this issue, because to allow oyster-grant owners to convert all of their grant lands to the County's lease program would (1) allow aquaculture activities in well-established productive fishing areas; (2) create havoc where the grant lands are in navigational water; and (3) destroy any support the lease program might otherwise find in the baymen's community. (AL) Response DGEIS-20 The draft version of Proposed Program Components (dated March 2Q 2008) as well as the draft version of the Section 2.6 of the DGEIS is a work in progress and briefly discussed the basic outline of the components of the proposed lease plan. As par[ of the program, the Administrative Guidance Document being developed goes into much greater detail as to allowable lease acreage being considered in this program. Currently, the allowable lease acreage for a partdcular participant is described as such: 1. County Lease Program Participants a.) NYSDEC Temporary Marine Area Use Assignments The County Lease Program will provide for the incorporation of the existing Temporary Marine Area Use Assignments (TMAUA,) previously issued by NYSDEC into the leasing program. To the extent possible under the lease program, TMAUA holders will be permitted to remain at their current location. Leases established from TMAUA, will not be considered in the yearly allowance for new lease development (i.e., 60 acres per year). It should also be noted that once the program is implemented, TMAUA, located in the area that is under County jurisdiction must be converted to a lease in order to continue aquaculture activities on that site. i.) TMAUA holders will be required to submit a Lease Application to the County as described in Appendix B of this guidance document. The applicant can request that the existing operation (S-acre circular plot) be continued without change, or he/she can request an expansion (10-acre square lease) or modification of the current operation, at the same location. The application will be subject to the public review process and other lease requirements prior to issuance of a lease by the County. A TMAUA holder can request a 5 or 10-acre lease at a different location in the Shellfish Cultivation Zone. If issued at the new location, the Zease holder would have to relocate operations to the new location and vacate the former TMAUA location. ii.) Isolated TMAUA, will be permitted to remain at shat location, pending the lease review process. The TMAUA locations will be regarded as out-lying plots in the Shellfish Cultivation Zone because they have established operations at that location without apparent conflicts. These holders have CashinAssociates, P. C. 25 Suffolk County Department ojPlanning Final Generic Environmental /mpact Statement Shet fsh Aquacul/ure Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardeners Bay September 3, 2008 to convert their TMAUA site into a County lease; however, they cannot expand or alter their permitted operations. The County lease, if issued, would provide for only a continuation of operations allowed under the TMAUA program for that site. A holder of an isolated TMAUA can relocate operations to another site within the Shellfish Cultivation Zone in accordance with lease program requirements. iii.) Several existing TMAUAs appear to be located entirely or partially within 1000 feet of the shoreline. The County Lease Program has no leasing authority within this area. To allow for the participation of these sites in the lease program, a TMAUA holder will be given the opportunity to relocate operations to a plot outside of the 1000 foot lane as close to his original location as possible. The holder of such TMAUAs would have to fulfill the requirements of the lease application process. If the new nearby site is in a sensitive area, the operations would be Zimited to those permitted under the current TMAUA. The holder of a TMAUA entirely or partially within 1000 feet from shore will be given the opportunity to relocate to a site of his choice within the Shel~sh Cultivation Zone, subject to the lease review process. b.) Existing Private Oyster Grants i.) Oyster grant owners do not need to apply for a shellfish aquaculture lease if their farm operations are limited to oyster cultivation only. They must apply for a lease if they wish to cultivate shellfish species other than oysters. Any such leases issued do not count toward the cap of new acreage to be leased during the first two 5-year periods of lease program implementation. ii.) An oyster grant holder can apply for a lease on his/her grant, or a portion thereof, if the owner can document a prior historical or current use of the grant for shellfish aquaculture involving species other than oysters. To be considered active, the grant holder will need to provide documentation that aquaculture operations have been conducted on the grant within the 10-year period between January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2008. Documentation can consist of receipt for purchase of seed stock, proof of revenue from shel~sh sales from the subject parcel; or other documentation confirming that viable aquaculture activity has taken place on the grant. Copies of relevant NYSDEC permits will also need to be provided. Active grant holders can apply for a lease on their grant subject to the procedures outlined in the Lease Application. iii.) The County has identified a number of grants with title conflicts. Leases will not be issued on such grants until all title conflicts are resolved, and documentation/proof of same has been submitted to the County. iv.) If a grant has had no permitted aquaculture activity involving species other than oysters for the ]0 year period between January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2008, it will be considered `fallow" and may only ender the Lease Program in a limited phased process. A fallow grant holder may apply for up to two 10-acre leases on his/her site during the first five years of the Lease Program and will be .subject to the full application process including public review and comment. The program will be evaluated after five years CashinAssociates, P.C. 26 Suffolk County Department of Planning Final Generic Em~ironmental lmpaci Statement She[tfrsh A9uacutture Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardeners Bay September 3, 2008 and at that time the determination will be made to possibly expand leases on these formerly fallow grants. c.) Leases Subject to Annual Acreage Cap Ltmits Those portions of the Shell, fish Cultivation Zone that do not include TMAUAs or grants can also be leased subject to limitations that apply during the first hvo 5- year periods of the program. These leases will be limited to 5 or 10 acres in size, with a cap of 60 acres leased during each year. After five years, up to 300 acres could be leased, and after 10 years, the maximum area that could be leased would tota1600 acres. Applications for these leases will be accepted and processed in accordance with the requirements given in Appendix B of the Administrative Guidance Document. d.) Non-commercial Lease These leases include Experimental/Educational and Shellfish Resource Restoration Leases. These leases will be limited in scope and duration and must be located in the Shellfish Cultivation Zone as mapped. They will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis by [he County and will not be considered as part of the 1 new growth annual acreage cap limit on leases. Comment DGEIS-21 The DGEIS needs to consider implementing monitoring requirements under the program to evaluate the impacts to non-target species and changes in sediment deposition from cage use. (DEC) Response to DGEIS-21 In response to Comment DGEIS-21, the County had requested information from the NYSDEC on studies it has performed on impacts to non-target species and changes in sediment deposition from cage use associated with Temporary Marine Area Use Asstgnments that it has permitted in the Pecontcs since the mid-1980s. The NYSDEC responded in an email dated July 24, 2008 by stating "There are no monitoring programs conducted by DEC or required of permit holders for private shellfish culture activities authortzed by DEC permits. " In addition the County will be coordinating with federal, state, local agencies and institutions that are conducting studies an the Peconic estuary to determine how such research can be used in monitoring any impacts that may be associated with the County's Lease Program. Comment DGEIS-22 Under the heading "US Fish and Wildlife Service," the DGEIS states that the USFWS has regulatory control over any federally endangered wildlife species, such as marine mammals, which may be affected by shellfish aquaculture activities. This is generally the case in circumstances when those species are encountered on land. In the case of marine mammals and sea turtles found in the water, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has regulatory control through NMFS. (DEC) CashinAssociates, P. C. 27 Suffolk County Department of Planning Final Generic Environmental Impact Statemem Shetlfrsh Aquaculture Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardiners Bay September 3, 2008 Response to DGEIS-22 Although, Section 3.1.1 of the DGEIS states that USFWS has regulatory control over arty federally endangered wildlife species it also states in the NOAA description of the section that NMFS reviews permit applications to determine whether the proposed activities affect endangered marine species, particularly sea turtles in the Peconic Estuary. Basically as stated in Section 3.1.1, the regulatory control over federally endangered wildlife species is shared between the two federal agencies. Depending on where the impact occurs determines which agency will take the lead in authoritative actions. Comment DGEIS-23 As proposed in the DGEIS, the aquaculture leasing program does not adequately address management for the potential take of protected species. (DEC) Response to DGEIS-23 Since no activity can be done without an impact, whether through aquaculture or from harvesting wild stock, the question should ask if the impact is significantly adverse. During the literature review pordion of program preparation, no significant adverse impacts to protected species were reveled from aquaculture activities, therefore no significant adverse impacts are expected from the proposed action. More importantly the question should be, if the impact is indistinguishable from those of other common and approved user activities should that activity be regulated differently simply because it is aquaculture instead of a wild harvest fishery? 2.6 Shellfish Cultivation Comment SC-1 There are risks from transplanting large volumes of shellfish from other areas. It is fair to suggest that there should be no expansion beyond current annual introduction of shellfish from outside the estuary, and in addition plans should be developed to examine past impacts and potential future impacts. Transplanted shellfish can and have been a vector for harmful species. Alternative technologies of shellfish purification that do not require transplanting should be investigated. (NSBA) Response SC-1 The 2004 Lease Law does not grant Suffolk County the authority to expand the current annual introduction of shellfish from outside the estuary. As stated in Section 3.3.1 of the DGEIS, the shel fsh transplant program is administered and regulated by NYSDEC. The NYSDEC conducts continuous monitoring of approved harvest areas for the duration of the shellfish transplant program to make sure the shellfish are acceptable for transplant. In addition, NYSDEC requires that all shellfish transplanted be held in off-bottom containers (e.g., racks, cages or trays) to minimize any potential transmission of shellfish diseases to receiving waters in the Peconic Estuary. Also, an evaluation of alternative technologies for shellfish purification is not the responsibility of Suffolk County under the proposed Lease Program. Cashin Associates, P.C. 28 Suffolk County Depar(ment of Planning Final Generic Environmental tmpac( Statement Shel~sh Aguaetdhtre Lease Program in Pecanic Bay and Gardiners Bay September 3, 2008 Comment SC-2 The introduction of species through aquaculture has only partially documented the impact of past introductions on wild shellfisheries. Could mixing of wild and cultured stocks produce offspring that is less viable than the natural stock? (NSBA) Response SC-2 No data obtained during the information gathering portion of this program revealed any impacts to wild stock that suggested the mixing of cultured and wild.stocks resulted in the production of a less viable offspring. However, as part of program development, the County will continue to research this matter through additional literature searches and consultations with experts in the field ofshellfish research. Comment SC-3 The potential for nutrient loading and bacterial matting from raft culture should be examined and in the case of transplanting sediments beneath the structures should be periodically tested for chemicals and metals. (NSBA) Response SC-3 As part to program development, the County is currently reviewing methodologies that may be used to monitor the programs impacts on the environmental conditions. Comment SC-4 Is there a potential problem with waste products around a concentration of cultured shellfish? (CEQ) Response SC-4 Section 4.1.2.11 (pg. 215) addresses the issue of sedimentation of organic material as it relates to aquaculture activities. Studies cited indicate that the sedimentation of organic material, mostly feces and pseudofeces, can result in oxygen depletion in poorly flushed areas, although in well oxygenated areas with good water movement this is not likely to occur. Table 23(pg. 225) ident~es possible conseguences and supporting references relating to shellfish waste material. Comment SC-5 Is there a point where introduction of too many shellfish into an area will cause a strain on the carrying capacity of that system? (CEQ) Response SC-5 Section 4.1.2.5 (pg. 205) discusses phytoplankton composition and nutrient cycling. Literature cited indicates that changes in phytoplankton population composition, as opposed to population size, is slight, and is more likely to be related to complex, nutrient related trophic cascades rather than feeding. CashinAssociates, P. C. 29 Suffolk County Department of Planning Final Generic Environmental lmpac! Statement Shellfish Aquacu/ture Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardiners Bay September 3, 2008 Section 4.1.2.11 (pg. 216) addresses both the positive and potentially negative impacts on natural bivalve and planktonic communities associated with the introduction and possible proliferation of cultured bivalves. Table 23 (pg.225) identifies possible consequences and supporting references relating to [he depletion ofphytoplankton and zooplankton. Comment SC-6 Is there a potential for even NYSDEC approved stock to introduce disease and other exotics into the system? (CEQ) Response SC-6 Section 4.1.2.1 (pg. 198) discusses the amplification of native and exotic shellfish diseases. It is recommended in Sections 4.1.3.9 (pg, 234) & 4.1.3.12 (pg. 236) that local sources of shel~sh should be used for cultivation in order to prevent the introduction of exotic species. It goes on to mention that the NYSDEC is currently working on adopting a "Policy of Acceptable Origin of Shell and Shellstock for Introduction in New York" which highlights the requirements intended to avoid adverse impacts associated with uses ofnon-native species. Comment SC-7 Will cages be set at a certain depth to avoid collision with boats? (CEQ) Response SC-7 Section 2.8.2.2.1 (pg. 92) discusses typical off-bottom aquaculture systems while section 4.3.2.1 (pg. 288) addresses hazards to navigation stating that suspended shellfish aquaculture gear currently used within the Peconic Estuary is typically set below the wader surface at a depth that allows for boat passage through the site. However, if near surface gears (i. e. Jloa[ing rafts, upwellers) are permitted, large water surface structure hazards could exist in a random pattern throughout the bay and without properly marked buoys, this type of gear could become a danger to boaters during periods of poor visibility. Therefore, if such type of equipment will be used in association with aquaculture activities a more appropriate method of marking the locations may be warranted. 2.7 Lease Areas Comment LA-1 Is there going to be a provision in the program to ensure the removal of gear at the termination of the lease? (CEQ) Response LA-1 Section 2.6, component #12 (pg. 50) identifies the component of the aquaculture lease program that addresses equipment removal. It states that "lessees will be responsible for CashinAssociates, P. C. 30 Suffolk County Department of Planning Final Generic Environmental /mpact Statement Shellfish Aquaculhrre Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardeners Bay September 3, 2008 removal of all .shellfish aquaculture equipment from the lease area, upon termination of the lease. Also, all equipment must be labeled with grower's name and permit number. " In addition, the Administrative Guidance Document also states, "Maintenance and Removal -All shellfish aquaculture gear and the contents of which are the possession and responsibility of the lease holder, who shall be responsible for its maintenance and eventual removal. If the equipment is not removed within 60 days after expiration, termination or revocation of the lease, the lease holder shall be liable to the County for the cost of removal. " Comment LA-2 In regards to the Shellfish Cultivation Zone, it seems wise for the County or NYSDEC to assume the responsibility of ground truthing the appropriateness of possible lease sites before a lease is granted whether or not it is contested by an outside party. The cost of this could be incorporated into lease fees or other such fees. (GEE) Response LA-2 As stated in Section 2.1.1 of the DGEIS, and as part of program development, significant data on the environmental characteristics and features of Peconic Bay and Gardiners Bays were collected. In addition to the environmental information, data on socio- economic and maritime traditions were also collected and analyzed to assess arty impacts to those resources that may occur from the implementation of the proposed action. One of the main reasons for this effort was to help mitigate and reduce the need for costly ground truthing. As a secondary precaution and to further mitigate this action an objection component has been added to the public comment period of the program. In response to a credible objection, the lease applicant may choose to move to an alternative location, or conduct the required productivity survey at his/her own expense. Comment LA-3 The current limitation of one assignment per person or entity is onerous and should be revisited. The DGEIS points out that some current assignment holders find one assignment to be insufficient for their needs and the ability to re-locate stocks in the face of brown tide events or other ecological disturbing events would be advantageous and perhaps even necessary to preserve the crop. (NSA) Response LA-3 The Program Components have been revised to allow for two leases per lease holder. However, the second lease can only be procured if the allotment (60-acres annually) for new leases has not been used up by new firs[ time applicants. Comment LA-4 There should be a cap established and maximum acreage per lease for experimental and restoration sites. (DB) CashinAssociates, P.C. 3t Suffolk County Department of Planning Final Generic Environmental /mpac! Statement Shellfrsh Aquacuhure Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardeners Bay .September 3, 2008 Response LA-4 Experimental and restoration lease sites will be issued and approved on a case-by-case basis, and maximum acreage allowed for such leases will be determined based on the merits of the proposal and credentials of those involved. 2.8 General Comments Comment GC-1 Is there an educational program aspect that goes along with this project? (CEQ) Response GC-I Educational programs will not be directly implemented through the Lease Program,' however, Section 2.6, component #33 identifies that the Lease Program will have a provision for issuing leases for experimental/educational purposes. Currently, there are several educational efforts underway by Cornell Cooperative Extenston (i. e., S.P.A.T. program) and the East Coast Shellfish Growers Association who is developing a Best Management Practices program to assist growers in maintaining successful operations. Comment GC-2 There is a need to continuously monitor and review the program and its impacts on the estuary as a whole. ]t will be very important to keep up with annual reviews, the five- year review, and to follow through with an environmental review after 10 years. If the County is to move forward with this project, they should be willing to invest in a long- term monitoring on bay productivity and this should be addressed in the FGEIS document as a commitment. (CEQ), (GEE) Response GC-2 The County is in the process of evaluating methodologies that can be used to monitor any impacts associated with the program, including ways to determine impacts of typical culture operations on both short and long time periods. This monitoring will also include the County's authority to enter and inspect arry and all areas subject to a shellfish aquaculture lease agreement for the purpose of determining compliance with the terms and provisions of the lease. The small scale of the proposed shellfish aquaculture program is not likely to cause widespread changes in water quality. However, the County is evaluating the on-going water quality monitoring data program conducted by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services as part of the Peconic Estuary Program and determining how it may be modified to evaluate and provide the opportunity to discern cumulative impacts, if arty (see Section 4.1.3.14, pg. 237). Comment GC-3 Separating the aquaculture regulatory process and the leasing of bottomlands for aquaculture may have some negative side effects. It will be important to ensure that there is solid communication between the County and the NYSDEC in order to coordinate CashinAssociates, P.C. 32 Suffolk County Department of Planning Final Generic Emironmenta( /mpact Statement Shellfish Aquaculture Lease Program in Peeonic Bay and Gardeners Bay September 3, 2008 efforts to provide adequate environmental protection with the proposed program. (GEE) (PB) Response GC-3 Coordination between the County and the State is extremely important to the overall success of this project. Currently, fn addition to the NYSDEC and other State agencies being part of the ALPAC committee, the County has been communicating directly with NYSDEC personnel as to what information sharing procedure would work best during the lease processing period. Comment GC-4 The Lease Program is but one element of a larger scheme of aquaculture and the environmental impacts of that scheme are not adequately addressed without consideration of alternate management plans based upon a substantive analysis of shellfish aquaculture methodologies, including harvesting techniques. (PB) Response CC-4 As part of the development of this program, all current aquaculture operations including those being done by the local municipalities and Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County were consulted and involved in the analysis of the proposed action. In addition, they will continue to be consulted as the program develops. Also, it should be noted that this program is consistent with the Interim Final 10-Year Plan for the NOAA Aquaculture Program (2006) stating the need for the (Inited Slates to develop a domestic marine aquaculture industry to meet the growing demand for seafood. Comment GC-5 There is an issue of "grandfathering" existing Temporary Assignments into long-term leases upon full implementation of the proposal, and the "cut-off' deadline of December 31, 2007. The deadline is somewhat arbitrary and will discourage legitimate prospective participants in the future. (NSA) Response GC-5 The County developed this cut off date to prevent speculators from seizing an opportunity to obtain a lease and being grandfathered into the program while also providing a static view of current operations to be worked into the program. The cut-off deadline does not prevent anyone from obtaining a lease once the program in place. Comment GC-6 How much weight will the NYSDEC's comments have in Suffolk County's review of lease applications? (DEC) Response GC-6 All commeras received during the application process, whether from public, private or government agency, will be considered and reviewed by the County. The source of the comment received will also be considered. In addition, Suffolk County will notify the NYSDEC Bureau of Marine Resources and the Regional Permit Administrator of the CashinAssociates, P.C. 33 County Department of Planning h Aguaculture Lease Program in Peconic Final Generic Em~ironmental Impact Statement y and Gardeners Bay September 3, 2008 time, date and location of all lease pre-application meetings between the County and prospective lease applicants, with an invitation to NYSDEC staff to attend same. Such pre-application meetings would be used to discuss application procedures and ident~ potential lease site locations. DEC staff could also discuss preliminary permit issues with the prospective applicants. After the pre-application meetings are held, the County will send a summary report on same to the NYSDEC Bureau of Marine Resources and the Regional Permit Administrator. These procedures will occur prior to the issuance of the required public notice on each lease application received. This will be explained in more detail in the Administrative Guidance Document being developed by the County as part of this program. 2.9 Marine Habitat Comment MH-1 The Shellfish Cultivation Zone area determination process did not adequately address nor take into consideration the importance of fish, essential fish habitat, and fish spawning habitat. An impact analysis of the effects of the proposed leasing program on fish, essential fish habitat, and fish spawning habitat was not conducted in the DGEIS as was clearly outlined on Page 4 of the Draft Scoping Document, April 2007: Essential Fish Habitat. (DEC) Response MH-1 Based on input received from the NYSDEC, the recommendation suggested fn MH-1 and parts of Section ES-3 Impacts, 2.1.1 Background of Program Development, 4.4.4.7 Critical Natural Resource Areas, and 4.1.2 Impacts of the DGEIS have been modifaed to include Appendix F of this FGEIS, which contains an Essential Fish Habitat evaluation as it relates to the County's proposed lease program. Comment MH-2 While information on current and historic locations of eelgrass beds was collected and used to create the "Eelgrass Bed" layer in Figure 2, it should be noted that the location of historic populations is important in considering areas where restoration may be possible. Perhaps the "Eelgrass Bed" layer in the legend of Figure 2 can be changed to "Current and Potential Future Eelgrass Beds." (DEC) Response MH-2 If the County was to change the title as suggested by the NYSDEC in Comment MH-2, it would basically be insinuating that only areas where eelgrass beds were historically present would be the only places that could potentially have future beds. Although, past environmental conditions of those historic areas may have been suitable for eelgrass propagation, it does not mean that no other areas in the Peconic Bay system would be suitable for eelgrass propagation in the future. Therefore, the layer's title will remain as is. CashinAssociates, P.C. 3q .Suffolk County Department of Planning Finat Generic Environmental /mpacl Statement Shellfrsh Aquaculture Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardiners Bay September 3, 2008 Comment MH-3 How will leases be assigned? Will there be prioritized areas for leases within the Shellfish Cultivation Zone? (DEC) Response MH-3 As part of the program, the County is developing an Administrative Guidance document that will detail how areas will be assigned and what limitations will be placed on leasing depending on of where the lease area is located. Some priority will be given to existing aquaculture operations in regards to location and availability. Comment MH-4 It is highly advisable during the Five Year Program review and other program assessments that the data, information and results from the current and ongoing Benthic Mapping project in the Peconic Bays must be considered and ways in which to integrated said information discussed. (DEC) Response MH-4 Section 4.1.1.4 of the DGEIS discusses some of the preliminary results of the benthic mapping done by Dr. Roger Flood and Dr. Robert Cerrato and how it relates to the sediment characteristics of the bay bottom. As the preliminary results and as the mapping project moves into it next phases, the information gathered will used to support and refine procedures for mitigating any adverse impacts to sediment characteristics and benthic habitats associated with the County's leasing program. Comment MH-5 When proposed lease applications are public noticed and comments/objections are solicited and submitted by stakeholders, what will be the process/criteria that the County will use for considering said comments/objections? Will the County coordinate lease applications with the NYSDEC to ensure proper alignment of programs and regulations? How will objections be resolved? (DEC) Response MH-5 Section 2.6 component #14 (pg 51) of the DGEIS, addresses the process involved in documenting natural productivity of a proposed lease site. `7f, during the application public comment period, a comment is received and documentation can be provided as proof to the presence of significant natural shellfish productivity on the proposed lease site, the applicant will not be permitted to lease that site. The County will ident~ what will be considered adequate documentation of the status of natural shellfish stock; such documentation may include, but not be limited to a field benthic survey of the lease site ". In addition, the Administrative Guidance Document that is being completed as part of this program will provide further detail in describing the process for adequately addressing public comments. Comment MH-6 Should it be the responsibility of the proposed (ease applicant to provide proof of the presence of either significant natural shellfish productivity or no significant natural Cashin Associates, P. C. 35 Suffolk County Department of Planning Final Generic Environmental /mpact Statemem Shetlfrsh Aquacutlure Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardeners Bay September 3, 2008 shellfish productivity, and not that of the public? What will the County accept as "adequate" documentation? (DEC) Response MH-6 The creation of the Shellfish Cultivation Zone was a laborious multiphase process taking over one year to complete. The purpose of the zone was to mitigate any possible issues with mixed uses of the area, including commercial wild shellfish harvesting. To further ensure that a lease will not be issued in areas where wild shellfish stock harvesting may occur, the public notice portion of the lease process allows for an additional level of approval. However, to ensure that erroneous accusations are not filed, the County feels that some responsibility should be placed on the concerned party initiating the issue. Adequate documentation requirements will be discussed in detail in the Administrative Guidance Document being developed as par[ of the program. The current draft of the document states: "For the County to deem an objection regarding natural productivity and commercial fish credible, the concerned parry must include a copy of his/her commercial harvest license and documented proof on what was harvested and sold A notarized lever from the concerned party stating harvest activity in the area in question within the last 5 years at a catch rate that is considered sustainable would also be a necessary requirement. As described in the Administrative Guidance Document, "An accepted scient~c method for performing a benthic survey appropriate for assessing shellfish abundance must be utilized, and a report offindings must be completed by qualified personnel and submitted to Suffolk County. The survey methodology to determine the existence ofshellfish density that will support a sustainable catch rate will depend on [he species fn question. For hard clams, a mean density of less than 2 adults per square meter (greater than I inch shell thickness) would be considered low density and low productivity for clams. This estimate is based on the clam densities found during clam surveys from Long Island water bodies. Because of the transient nature of bay scallop populations, a density estimate is not a reliable way to address scallop productivity. Instead, the presence of scallops would have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis to render a decision as to whether an area is productive for scallops. Accepted methods of determining shellfish abundance would be bottom grab samplers and/or diver surveys, performed in a scientific manor. Statistically reliable estimates ofshellfish abundance would need to be calculated from field survey work for the lease area in question. " Comment MH-7 Have the costs of leases been proposed? Will there be a cap on sub-lease costs? (DEC) Response MH-7 According to the current Administrative Guidance Document, lease holders will be required to pay an annual rent fee as described below. Payment will be due 30 days before the lease anniversary date (i.e., if the lease was issued on February 1 s`, the annual lease rental fee would be due 30 days before that date of each year). Cashin Assaciales, P. C. 36 Suffolk County Departmen! of Planning Final Generic Environmenla! /mpact Statement Shellfish Aquaculture Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardiners Bay September 3, 2008 Non-Commercial Lease Standard Commercial Lease Annual Rent Fee $200 plus $5 per acre, and a $200 plus $5 per acre for lease, $100 non-refundable and a $100 non-refundable a lication ee a lication ee Comment MH-8 Will leases need to be obtained by entities interested in conducting general estuary-wide shellfish restoration programs/projects? Will those routine restoration activities be precluded and not allowed within areas of the shellfish Cultivation Zone unless leases are obtained? Will the on-bottom placement of shell, for purposes of restoration, be allowed under leases? (DEC) Response MH-8 As described in more detail in Section 2.6 component #34 (pg. 55) of the DGEIS document, leases for shellfish restoration will be allowed in the program. These leases must be located in the Shellfish Cultivation Zone and will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Comment MH-9 The DGEIS states that "the waters of the Peconic and Gardiners Bays are classified under 6NYCRR Part 661 as Littoral Zone (LZ); and therefore, NYSDEC regulations promulgated under the Tidal Wetlands Act would require this DGEIS to identify and mitigate any impacts as designated by the Tidal Wetlands Act that may be associated with the proposed program." While the 1974 Tidal Wetlands maps do show the LZ classification, Part 661 states that "there shall be no littoral zone under waters deeper than six feet at mean low water." (DEC) Response MH-9 Based on input received from Comment MH-9, part of Section 2.7.2 of the DGEIS will be modified to read in this FGEIS. "the waters of the Peconic and Gardiners Bays that are classified under 6NYCRR Part 661 as Littoral Zone (LZ). " Comment MH-10 Significant data and information have been presented addressing water quality and water quality concerns and issues in Peconic and Gardiners Bays; however, there is no mention of the USEPA approved Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) that exist for several Peconic waterbodies with pathogens and dissolved oxygen impairments. Both TMDL documents referred to in this comment ("Peconic Bay Pathogens TMDL," September 2006 and "Total Maximum Daily Load for Nitrogen in the Peconic Estuary Study Area, Including Water Bodies Currently Impaired Due to Low Dissolved Oxygen: the Lower Peconic River and Tidal Tributaries; Western Flanders Bay and Lower Sawmill Creek; and Meetinghouse Creek, Terrys Creek and Tributaries," Sept 2007) are available on the NYSDEC website. (DEC) CashinAssociates, P. C. 37 Suffolk County Department of Planning Final Generic Environmen7al /mpact Statement Shellfish Aquaculture Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardeners Bay September 3, 2008 Response MH-10 Both of the documents mentioned in Comment MH-10, are referenced and cited several times throughout the DGEIS document when the information in those documents was relevant to the County's shellfish lease program. Most if not all of the areas discussed in both documents are within the 1,000 foot buffer zone; and therefore, are not being considered as part of the leasing program. The majority of the impairment sources discussed in the documents described above are point and non-point upland sources, and neither document discusses any activities associated with shellfish aquaculture causing significant adverse environmental impacts on those areas. In fact, the 2007 report (pg. 62) lists shellfish restoration as a possible implementation consideration as a means of sequestering or removing nitrogen. Comment MH-11 More time should be spent discussing the presence and density of SAV beds as identified in the Tiner, R.W., H.C. Bergquist, D. Siraco, and B.J. McClaisn. 2003. An Inventory of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation and Hardened Shorelines for the Peconic Estuary, New York. (DEC) Response MH-11 Although there was not a detailed discussion in the DGEIS relating to the report mentioned in Comment MH-11, most of the eelgrass areas (both current and historic) on the Environmental and Socio-Economic Sensitive Areas (Figure 2 of DGEIS) were reviewed and considered in the creation of the Shellfah Cultivation Zone (Figure 3 of the DGEIS). Additionally, the boundaries of the cultivation zone were delineated to exclude eelgrass beds in consideration of information provided by Chris Pickerell and Steve Schott from their work associated with the report mentioned in Comment MH-11. Comment MH-12 Please address the potential impact for aquaculture activities and gear to attract undesirable non-native, invasive, and/or nuisance species. (DEC) Response MH-12 Early detection of new introductions and routine monitoring of existing populations are feasible in most freshwater habitats; however, once anon-native species becomes established in a marine system, the management options for control and eradication are virtually non-existent. The focus for addressing marine undesirable non-native, invasive, and/or nuisance species must be targeted on interrupting the pathways or vectors of non- native species and preventing new introductions through education, regulation or policy (Connecticut Aquatic Nuisance Species Working Group, undated). Therefore, some mitigation methods suggested in the DGEIS (Section 4.1.3.9) and enacted by regulatory agencies include: the use of native species only; restriction on the source of shellfish; health certification prior to issuance of permit; Shellfish Importation Permit requirements; and genetically altered strains are not permitted to be introduced into State wader with the exception of disease resistant stocks. Cashin Associates, P. C. 38 Suffolk County Department of Planning Fina! Generic Errvironmema! Impact Statement Shetifish Aguacutture Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardeners Bay September 3, 2008 Comment MH-13 As identified as a mitigation effort in response to leasing program impacts on natural resources, no buffer zone width/area between or surrounding leases, beside the 1,000 ft shoreline buffer required for aquaculture leases, has been identified or proposed in the DGEIS. Also, will there be, or should there be a limit on how many lease are located in a given area? (DEC) Response MH-13 The County is in the process of developing an Aquaculture Lease Area Map that depicts locations in the project area where new leases may be permitted This map includes a grid network that provides for 20-acre grids within which 10-acre lease plots are located. Hence, buffer zones will be established that separate leased areas. Although there are numerous grids throughout the Peconic Bay system, these grids only represent potential areas for leasing and do not necessarily mean that they will be leased. All the new lease plots depicted on this map must go thought the leasing process in order to be granted permission to lease, which may include limits on how marry leases will be granted in a particular area. Comment MH-14 For each of the "existing conditions/settings" addressed in Section 4's subheadings, a corresponding thorough impact analysis must be conducted. The DGEIS does address impacts in Section 4, but only selective impacts; not necessarily pertaining directly to each of the preceding "existing conditions/setting" as a DGEIS should. (DEC) Response MH-14 Nowhere in Section (5.4) Environmental Setting of the SEQR Handbook does it state that all existing conditions/settings described fn this section must be discussed in the impact analysis section. In fact, it states that attention should be focused on those environmental characteristics that are most likely to be affected by the project. Comment MH-15 While the project study area consists of approximately 1 10,000 acres of underwater lands in Peconic Bay and Gardeners Bay, there is no quantification provided of underwater land acreage within the proposed Shellfish Cultivation Zone. (DEC) Response MH-1 S Based on input received from the ALPAC committee, CEQ and the public, the proposed Shellfish Cultivation Zone map in the DGEIS has been modified to include quantified underwater land acreage in the legend of the map, totaling approximately 32,720 acres (Appendix G), and was distributed to ALPAC committee for review on June 26, 2008. Comment MH-16 Clarification is needed for allowable lease acreage given consideration that there is no size limit for leases on existing oyster grants. This will likely have implications on the expansion of mechanical harvesting and related impacts. (DEC) Cashin Associates, P.C. 39 Suffolk County Department of Planning Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement Shellfrsh Aguaculture Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardeners Bay September 3, 2008 Response MH-16 See Response DGEIS-20 of this document. Comment MH-17 Possible factors to explore: to compare among baseline, lease impacted and non-impacted sites within the estuary, up-current and down-current of lease sites, harvest methodologies. Seasonal monitoring -six times a year? (DEC) • Bottom and pelagic fish abundance and diversity • Benthic community composition . Sediment characteristics • Chlorophyll • Plankton community composition (including phytoplankton and larvae) • Temperature, dissolved oxygen, salinity, nitrogen, turbidity, other • SAV health/type and changes in density/distribution . Monitoring of natural shellfish beds health and composition • Waterfowl census . Dive surveys/transects Response to MH-I7 As the County moves forward with this program, ft will take into consideration [he factors discussed in Comment MH-17 when developing criteria for the monitoring component of the proposed action. 2.10 Shellfish Management Comment SM-1 The project area which includes Reeves Bay, described as the Inner Estuary, is outside Suffolk County's leasing authority established pursuant to Section 13-0302 of the ECL. The project area which includes West Neck Harbor, Long Beach Bay and Hallock Bay, described as the Middle Estuary, is outside the County's authority for leasing. The project area which includes Coecles Inlet, Three Mile Harbor, Accabonac Harbor, Napeague Harbor and Lake Montauk, described as Outer Estuary, is outside the County's authority for leasing. (DEC) Response SM-1 Based on input received from Commend SM-1, part of Section 2.2 of the DGEIS (pg. 32) will be modified to read in this FGEIS: "As described by Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) in their document Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program Summary (SCDHS, 1992), the Peconic Estuary comprises a total of approximately 158, 000 acres of surface water area (Peconic Estuary Program, accessed from www.peconicestuary.org/AboutPEP.htm[ on February 26, 2008). The project area consists of approximately [wo thirds of the open water in the estuary, approximately 110,000 acres. The Estuary is naturally divided by peninsulas (necks) and islands into a series of interconnected embayments. These include: Cashin Associates, P. C. 40 Suffolk County Department of Planning Final Generic Environmental impact Statement Shellfrsh Aquaeultm~e Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardiners Bay September 3, 2008 • The inner estuary (west of Robins Island) -Flanders Bay (including Reeves Bay) and Great Peconic Bay. • The middle estuary -Little Peconic Bay (including Cutchogue Harbor and Hog Neck Bay), West Neck Harbor, Noyack Bay, Sag Harbor Bay, Sag Harbor Cove, Northwest Harbor, Southold Bay, Shelter Island Sound, and Orient Harbor (including Long Beach Bay and Hallock Bay); and • The outer estuary (east of Shelter Island) -Gardiners Bay (including Coecles Inlet and Three Mile Harbor), Napeague Bay (including Accabonac Harbor and Napeague Harbor), and western Block Island Sound (including Lake Montauk). " Comment SM-2 Existing Temporary Assignments within the shellfish cultivation zone can convert to 5- acres leases without benthic survey requirements. Are these limited to Off-Bottom Culture only as currently specified under a Temporary Marine Area Use Assignment? If not then ground truthing of the natural productivity of these areas is recommended. (DEC) Response SM-2 As explained in Section 2.6 components 20 and 22 of the DGEIS, temporary assignments being converted over to the leasing program within [he Cultivation Zone and without any change to his/her operations or size do not need to provide a benthic survey. But if a temporary assignment holder converting over to the leasing program wishes to expand their operation or size, and if there Is a concern received during the public comment period indicating that significant natural shel~sh stocks exist In the proposed lease area the applicant would then have to either choose another site or conduct a benthic survey at his/her own cost. Comment SM-3 Pending applications for TMAUAs received prior to 12/31/07 will be included in the lease program. How will TMAUAs received after that date be handled and will these sites be considered part of the new leases? (DEC) Response SM-3 All TMAUAs applications received by the NYSDEC after the 12/31/07 deadline will be treated as new applications if they are to become part of the County's aquaculture lease program, and will be considered part of the one percent growth increase. Comment SM-4 There should be an acreage limit on leases established on private oyster grants. Establishing a limit on acreage for leases on grant lands will reduce user conflicts and potential impacts from harvest gear and be more consistent with the overall framework for the proposed leasing program in Peconic and Gardiners Bay. This will further support a framework for the development of aquaculture that is consistent with the types of aquaculture that are currently undertaken in the Peconic Bay System. (DEC) CashinAssociates, RC. q/ Suffolk County Department of Planning Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement Shellfish Aquacuhure Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardiners bay September 3, 2008 Response SM-4 Because the NYSDEC has permitted several grant owners permission to cultivate species other than oysters on all or part of their grant lands, ft would not be in the best interest of this program and possibly considered an unconstitutional taking to now limit the acreage on those parcels. Therefore, if a grant owner can prove that they have obtained permits and have indeed been cultivating their grants or any portion there of, they will be allowed to continue with their operation under this program. The grant owners should not be penalized because they have already secured proper approvals and permits from NYSDEC under the Environmental Conservation Law. Comment SM-5 Fallow grants located east of Shelter island should be excluded from the leasing program. Furthermore, fallow grants located in the proposed shellfish cultivation zone west of Shelter Island should be subject to benthic surveys if leases are desired. (DEC) Response SM-5 As described in Section 2.6 component #28 (pg. 54) of the DGEIS, if a grant has not been used for shellfish aguaculture within a time frame established by the County (i.e., been fallow for an extended time), it can enter the program in a limited phased process. Each lease application on a fallow grant would need to go through a County review process that would include public not cation. This process is explained in more detail in the County's draft Administrative Guidance Document currently being developed, and a grunts inclusion in the program is described as follows: "Existing Private Oyster Grants i.) Oyster grant owners do not need to apply for a shellfish aguaculture lease if their farm operations are limited to oyster cultivation only. They must apply for a lease if they wish to cultivate shellfish species other than oysters. Any such leases issued do not count toward the cap of new acreage to be leased during the first two 5-year periods of lease program implementation. ii.) An oyster grant holder can apply for a lease on his/her grant, or a portion thereof, if the owner can document a prior historical or current use of the grant for shellfish aguaculture involving species other than oysters. To be considered active, the grant holder will need to provide documentation that aguaculture operations have been conducted on the grant within the 10-year period between January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2008. Documentation can consist of receipt for purchase of seed stock, proof of revenue from shellfish sales from the subject parcel; or other documentation confirming that viable aguaculture activity has taken place on the grant. Copies of relevant NYSDEC permits will also need to be provided. Active grant holders can apply for a lease on their grant subject to the procedures outlined in the Lease Application. iii.) The County has identified a number of grants with title conflicts. Leases will not be issued on .such grants until all title conflicts are resolved, and documentation/proof of same has been submitted to the County. iv.) If a grant has had no permitted aguaculture activity involving species other than oysters for the 10 year period between January 1, 1999 and December CashinAssociates, P. C. 42 .Suffolk County Depar(men[ of Planning Final Generic Environmental /mpact Sta(emen[ Shellfish Aquacutture Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardeners Bay September 3, 2008 31, 2008, it will be considered `fallow" and may only enter the Lease Program in a limited phased process. A fallow grant holder may apply for up to two 70-acre leases on his/her site during the ftrst five years of the Lease Program and will be subject to the full application process including public review and comment. The program will be evaluated after five years and at that time the determination will be made to possibly expand leases on these formerly fallow grants. " Comment SM-6 One percent increase in acreage -This figure should not include the total acreage of existing private oyster grants within the study area given the fact that less than 25% of the grants are currently being used for cultivation of any type of shellfish. (DEC) Response SM-6 Currently, under State Law all of the private oyster grants, whether fallow or active are legally entitled to cultivate oysters and can do so if desired,• therefore, all private grant acreage was included in determining the one percent growth fagure. Comment SM-7 Potential for issuing leases larger than 10 acres -This should also apply to fallow oyster grants located within the shellfish cultivation zone. (DEC) Response SM-7 As described in the current draft of the Administrative Guidance Document, "If a grant has had no permitted aquaculture activity involving species other than oysters for the 10 year period between January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2008, it will be considered `fallow" and may only enter the Lease Program fn a limited phased process. A fallow grant holder may apply for up to two 10-acre leases on hi.s/her site during the first five years of the Lease Program and will be subject to the fold application process including public review and comment. The program will be evaluated after five years and at that time the determination will be made to possibly expand leases on these formerly fallow grants. " Comment SM-8 Page 69 of the DGEIS: There are several incorrect references to citations made for ECL Sections which include general prohibited acts and regulatory authority rather than specific permits from DEC. (DEC) Response SM-8 The Department correctly notes that the discussion in the DGEIS, Section 2.2.2 subtopic, Shellfish Permits under the Fish and Wildlife Law, does no[ clearly identify and defrne the common relationship between the statutory provisions listed therein. The intention for this subtopic is to identify and summarize statutory provisions related to permitting for shellfish related activities [which are also similarly addressed in the DEC regulations found in 6 NYCRR X175.1 (c)J. This discussion presented below replaces the one Cashin Associades, P.C. 43 Suffolk County Department ol'Planning Fina! Generic Environmental /mpact Statement Shellfish Aquaculture Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardiners Bay September 3, 2008 contained in the DGEIS which follows the subtopic heading: "Shellfish Permits Under the Fish and Wildlife Law:" "ECL ,¢ 13-0319 is the overall enabling statute which empowers the Department to regulate shellfish, including but not limited to the authority to regulate and administer through permitting. There are four statutory provisions for specific permits to be regulated by, and administered through the DEC, namely: i. ECL ,¢13-0311 (Digger's Permit), ii. ECL ,¢13-0313 (Bed Permit); iii. ECL §13-0315 (Shellfish Shipper's and/or Processor's Permits, Classes A-E),' and iv. ECL §13-0316 (Permits for Marine Hatcheries, and On-Bottom &Off-Bottom Culturing). There are five statutes (ECL ~'§ 13-0309, 13-0321, 13-0323, 13-0325, & 13-0327) which provide general prohibitions and requirements which are to be regulated and administered by the DEC, and within these statutes there are also provisions identifying specific activities which are required to be administered by the DEC through permits, with the manner of permitting left to the Department's discretion [see 6 NYCRR ,¢175.1]. These provisions are: i. ECL §13-0309 (3) f., permit required for taking mussels using a dredge of a certain size and operated in a specific manner, ii. ECL X13-0309 (] 0), permit required for possessing a stick dredge; iii. ECL ,¢13-0309 (11), permit required for possessing rakes or tongs,' iv. ECL ,¢13-0309 (12), requires the Department to include permit requirements in its regulation ofsurf, sea, hen, and skimmer clams, and ocean quahogs; v. ECL ,¢73-0321 (2), permit required for taking shellfish from uncertifred lands for transplanting or otherpurposes,~ vi. ECL §13-0323 (3), permit required for planting or transplanting oysters, other than the species Crassostrea virQiniea; vii. ECL ,¢73-0325 (2), permit required for certain transplanting operations for hard clams less than one inch in thickness, and viii. ECL ,¢13-0327 requires the Department to include permit requirements in its regulation of scallops. " Comment SM-9 Page 70 [DGEIS] Article 13, ECL 13-0321: The reference to permitting requirements under ECL 13-0309 is not correct and should be ECL Section 13-0319. (DEC) Response SM-9 The reference within ECL ,¢13-0321 to ECL §'13-0319 relates to the regulatory authority granted to the Department to define permit requirements. The typographic error in the identification of the enabling statute is changed from "ECL §13-0309" to "ECL §13- 03/9. " Cashin Associates, P. C. 49 Suffolk County Department of Planning Finai Generic EnvironmeMnl Impact Statement She/lfish ~gvocalture Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardiners Bay September 3, 2008 Comment SM-10 Page 71 of the DGEIS contains inaccurate descriptions of the various sections and programs in BMR. (DEC) Response SM-10 The descriptions of the various sections and programs in the NYSDEC's Bureau of Marine Resources (BMR) contained in the DGEIS were taken from the NY.SDEC's website, "Bureau of Marine Resources," (http://www.dec.ny.gov/about/796.html; accessed 9/14/2007). To elaborate further to clear up any inaccuracies fn the descriptions provided in the DGEIS from the Department's website, ft would be necessary for the DEC to provide clarification as to what inaccuracies it is referring to in its comment. Comment SM-11 Permit for Possession, Transportation, Taking and Handling of Shellfish -Reference to 6NYCRR Part 43 is incorrect and should be Part 42. (DEC) Response SM-Il The Department's comment relates to the Section 2 subtopic discussion of the DEC's regulation, 6NYCRR Part 175, Special Licenses and Permits -Definitions and Uniform Procedures, particularly § 175.1 (c), Applicability, [item) (11), which identifies applicable statutory authority for permitting under this regulation, including "ECL §13- 0309-Possession transportation, taking and handling of shellfish .... " As part of the subtopic discussion of this regulation, The author also cross referenced the cited statutory authorities for this regulation, as in this case, ECL ~¢13-0309, with other Shellfish regulations which cite the same statutory authority (or authorities). 6NYCRR Part 43: Surf Clam/Ocean Quahog Fishery Management is the only regulation under Subchapter F: Marine Fisheries which specifically identifies ECL x'13-0309 as controlling authority [see http.•//www.dec.ny.gov/regs/1236.htm1 (accessed 7/24/08)J, while 6NYCRR Part 42 does not identify this statute as controlling authority. Therefore, the DGEIS subtopic discussion will remain unchanged. Comment SM-12 Shellfish Shipper's and Processor's Permit -Should include reference to Part 42; - Marine Hatcheries, Off-Bottom and On-Bottom Culture Permits -Incorrect reference to Part 43; only Part 48 applies. (DEC) Response SM-12 As stated above for dhe prior DEC comment, the Department's comment relates to the Section 2 subtopic discussion of the DEC's regulation, 6NYCRR Part 175, Special Licenses and Permits -Definitions and Uniform Procedures, particularly § 175.1 (c), Applicability, [item) (11), which identifies applicable statutory authority for permitting under this regulation, including "section ECL §13-0315- Shel~sh shipper's and processor's permits; section ECL ,¢13-0316- Marine hatcheries, off-bottom and on- bottom culture permits ... " The author also cross referenced the cited statutory Cashin Associates, P.C. qs Suffolk County Department of Planning Finat Generic Environmental Impact Statement Shellfrsh Aquaculture Lease Program in Peconic Ray and Gardiners Bay September 3, 2008 authorities for this regulation, as in this case, ECL §,¢13-0315 and 13-0316, with other Shellfish regulations which cite the same statutory authority (or authorities). The Department correctly notes that 6NYCRR Part 175.1 (c), Applieabiliy, (11) "...section ECL §13-0315- Shellfish shipper's and processor's permits... " in the DGEIS should be cross-referenced to 6NYCRR Part 42; and the DGEIS is hereby revised to include this reference within the subtopic discussion. However the Department incorrectly notes that 6NYCRR Part 175.1 (c), Applicabiltty, (11) "...section ECL ,¢13-0316- Marine hatcheries, off bottom and on-bottom culture permits ... " is listed in the statutory authority for 6NYCRR Part 48, and not for 6 NYCRR Part 43 [see http://www.dec.ny.gov/regs/1236.html (accessed 7/24/08)J. Therefore, [he DGEIS subtopic discussion and regulatory references for this statute will remain unchanged Comment SM-13 Permit for Taking of Surf Clams should reference Part 43. (DEC) Response SM-13 As stated above for the prior NYSDEC comment, the Department's comment relates to the Section 2 subtopic discussion of the NYSDEC's regulation, 6NYCRR Part 175, Special Licenses and Permits -Definitions and Uniform Procedures, particularly § 175.1 (c), Applicability, [item) (11), which identifies applicable statutory authority for permitting under this regulation, including "...section ECL §13-0325- Permit to take, harvest, possess and transplant hard clams and license for boat to take surf clams... " is not listed in the statutory authority for 6 NYCRR Part 43 [see http://www.dec.ny.gov/regs/1236.html (accessed 7/24/08)J. Therefore, the DGEIS subtopic discussion and regulatory references for this statute will remain unchanged. Comment SM-14 6NYCRR Part 42 -Only applies to [he taking of surf clams by mechanical means from the area in Gardiners and Napeague Bays located east of a line from Orient Point to Hog Creek Point. This could conflict with leases for aquaculture if this area is included in the shellfish cultivation zone. (DEC) Response SM-14 The NYSDEC's comment relates to 6NYCRR § 43-1.5 (a) which provides that: "The mechanical harvesting of surf clams and ocean quahogs pursuant to this Subpart may only be undertaken in the following areas:... (2) Gardiners and Napeague Bays East of a line extending between Orient Point, Town of Southold, New York, and Hogs Creek Point, Town of East Hampton, New York " The westernmost portion of this area is within the easternmost section of the Shellfish Cultivation Zone. The authority granted to Suffolk County under ECL ,¢13-0302 is for shellfish aquaculture and leasing underwater lands (within its jurisdiction as defined by the statute), while the authority to regulate and permit aquaculture activities remains with the State. Although 6NYCRR § 43-1.5 (a) may restrict certain activities relating to surf clams and ocean quahogs pursuant to this CashinAssociates, P. C. 46 Suffolk County Department of Planning Final Generic Environmental /mpact Statement Shellfrsh ~ yuaculhrre (,ease Program in peconic Bay and Gardeners bay September 3, 2008 Subpart within arty future County aquaculture leases within certain areas of the easternmost section of the Shellfish Cultivation Zone, it would not necessarily preclude all aquaculture activities under a County lease program, nor would it necessarily prohibit the County from leasing underwater lands within this area that would otherwise be availahle under the authority granted by ECL X13-0302. However, the DEC's comment is noted as included as part of this FGEIS. Comment SM-15 Part 45 -Transplanting Shellfish -The EIS incorrectly states that if the County transplants or imports shellfish they are exempt from permit requirements. The exception only applies to individual shellfish transplant harvester permits that may be associated with a shellfish transplant project. Any person and municipalities or political subdivision are required to comply with permit requirements for shellfish transplant or importation permits (see Part45.3(a)(1)). (DEC) Response SM-I S The NYSDEC's comment provides the correct interpretation of 6 NYCRR § 43-1.5 (a)(I) whereby the municipal exemption applies only to a Shellfish Transplant Harvester's Permit, and therefore, the County would be subject to all other permit requirements provided for within this Subpart. This response replaces the last sentence on page 73 of the DGEIS subtopic, entitled: " 6 NYCRR Part 45 Transplanting Shellfish." Comment SM-16 Part 48 -Inaccurate statements made on prohibition of sale of product less than legal size. The regulations allow sale of marine plant and animal life of less than legal size as specifically defined under the provisions of ECL Section 13-0316. (DEC) Response SM-16 The NYSDEC's comment correctly notes that 6 NYCRR ,~ 48.2 (d) allows for the sale, offer for sale or trade of marine plant or animal life of less than legal size only as expressly authorized according to ECL ,¢73-0316. This response replaces the last sentence of the first paragraph of the DGEIS subtopic, entitled: "6 NYCRR Part 48 Marine Hatcheries, On-Bottom and Off-Bottom Culture of Marine Plant and Animal Life" on page 74. Comment SM-17 Part 49 - Allows a size exemption for oysters cultivated or transplanted under permit from DEC. (DEC) Response SM-17 The NYSDEC's comment correctly notes that the statement in the last sentence of the DGEIS subtopic on page 74 entitled: "NYCRR Part 49 Shellfish Management" should also note that according to the regulatory provision found in 6 NYCRR that § 99.2 (c)(1), "Except as provided in paragraph 4 ofthis subdivision, oysters (Crassostrea virginica) less than three inches in the longest diameter shall not be taken, possessed on the water for the marine and coastal district, or landed. This size limit shall not apply to oysters Cashin Associates, P.C. 97 Suffolk County Department of Planning Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement S'he!lfish Aquaculture Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardeners Bay September 3, 2008 transplanted or cultured under permit from the Department subject to the provisions of secttons 13-0316, 13-0319 and 13-0321. " Therefore, the NYSDEC's comment is noted as included as part of this FEIS. Comment SM-18 Reference to various town shellfish codes -These codes go beyond the authority of the various towns and include species not defined under the ECL as "shellfish" which are all types of clams, mussels, oysters and scallops. (DEC) Response SM-18 It is beyond the scope of the DGEIS, this FGEIS and the County to determine whether or not a Town has exceeded its authority by enacting a Town code containing a definition for "shellfish" which includes species not ident~ed in the ECL definition. In addition, the DGEIS does list definitions of shellfish as described in Town codes, but nowhere in the document does it discuss or list authoritative actions by these Towns on species other than clams, mussels, oysters and scallops. Comment SM-19 Summary of Various Permits -Under the Shellfish Culture Permit, this is subject to review by the Regional DEC Environmental Permits office and may include other applicable permits issued by the DEC. (DEC) Response SM-19 As stated in Section 2.7.4 (pg. 88) of the DGEIS "Table 1 represents the basic permits and not~catdon requirements an individual must obtain to conduct shellfish aguaculture under the proposed Lease Program. Additional permits (e.g., transplant permit, seed relay permit) may be required depending on the types of acttvities a lease holder may conduct as part of their operation. " Comment SM-20 Bed permits -These permits apply to "privately controlled lands owned, leased or rented for cultivation and marketing of shellfish" and would apply to the lease program. (DEC) Response SM-20 As stated to Section 2.7.4 (pg. 88) of the DGEIS beneath Table 1, "**Shellfish Growers Bed Permits apply to privately-owned underwater lands (oyster grants) as per personnel communication with J. Thiel (NYSDEC) on October 27, 2007. " Comment SM-21 Harvest Methods -Harvesting of shellfish on public underwater lands is restricted to hand-operated methods is not accurate. There are certain species exceptions that allow the use of mechanical harvesting gear on public or unleased underwater lands such as bay scallops, blue mussels, surf clams and use of pot haulers to retrieve a clam rake back onboard the harvest vessel (see ECL 13-0309(3)). (DEC) CashinAssociates, P. C. 48 Suffolk County Department of Planning Final Generic Environmental /mpact Statement Shellfrsh Aquaculture Gease Program in Peconic bay and Gardeners Bay .September 3, 2008 Response SM-21 Section 2.9.2 of the DGEIS is discussing and states harvest methods on cultivated sites (not wild stock areas), therefore the statement is accurate. Currently, there are two different types of shellfish cultivation activities operating fn the Peconics: Temporary Marine Area Use Assignments (TMAUAs); and culturing on private oyster grants. According to the NYSDEC, TMAUAs are off-bottom cultivation only and no mechanical methods are permitted but the NYSDEC has permitted the use of hydraulic dredges on private oyster grants as long as they meet the requirements set forth by the NYSDEC to do so. Comment SM-22 Table on Oyster Grant Parcels -Oyster Grant No. 58 (Map ID) in Little Peconic Bay is approved for culture of hard clams. (DEC) Response SM-22 At the time of the DGEIS presentation, the information provided in the table on page 110 was depicting the most accurate information available to the County. Since than and after meeting with the NYSDEC the status and permitted activities of the private oyster grant parcels have been updated and this new information was presented at [he June 26, 2008 ALPAC meeting, and indicates that that parcel does have 2007-2008 permits to cultivate both oysters and hard clams. The NYSDEC has been present during all these meetings and therefore advised of these updates. Comment SM-23 TMAUAs are also subject to review by New York State Office of General Services. (DEC). Response SM-23 Based on input received from Comment SM-23, part of Section 3.2.2 of the DGEIS (pg. 11) will be modified to read fn this FGEIS: "All applications are reviewed by NYSDEC, US Army Corps of Engineers, the US Coast Guard, NYS Department of State, NYS Department of General Services, and Suffolk County. " Comment SM-24 State Relay Program - references to "depuration" should be changed to "natural cleansing." (DEC) Response SM-24 All references to depuration in the DGEIS relating to the State Relay Program are hereby corrected to "natural cleansing. " Comment SM-25 Statement that each volunteer in the SPAT program has the potential to grow 50,000 to 100,000 shellfish is incorrect. This may apply to the total production from all volunteers involved in this program. (DEC) CashinAssociates, P. C. 49 Suffolk County Department of Planning Final Generic Environmental /mpact Statement Shellfish Aquaculhtre Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardeners Bay September 3, 2008 Response SM-25 Based on input received from Comment SM-25 and consulting with Cornell Cooperative Extension, part of Section 3.2.2-Town of Southold of the DGEIS (pg. 121) will be modified to read in this FGEIS: "Each volunteer has the potential to grow up to 1,000 oysters. " Comment SM-26 Reference to Northwest Harbor being uncertified is incorrect. The closure applies to Northwest Creek. (DEC) Response SM-26 Based on input received from Comment SM-26, part of Section 4.1.1.2 of the DGEIS (pg. 133) will be modified to read in this FGEIS: "Year-round uncertified shellfrsh harvesting areas due to impaired water quality are located within the western portion of Flanders Bay; Shelter Island Sound, between Greenport and Dering Harbor; and Northwest Creek. Comment SM-27 Section 4.1.1.6 Shellfish Pathogens/Disease/Exotic Species -this section failed to mention the distribution and prevalence of QPX in wild and transplanted clams in certain locations of Peconic Bays and other locations in the marine district. (DEC) Response SM-27 NYSDEC, in cooperation with Marine Animal Disease Laboratory at Stony Brook University (MADE), currently monitors hard clams at various locations throughout the marine district in an effort to determine the evolution and trends in QPX prevalence. The monitoring effort takes into account the temporary and spatial changes in QPX prevalence demonstrated in previous monitoring efforts. In 2004, QPX prevalence significant dropped in overall prevalence of the parasite. The four QPX-positive sites were restricted to the central portion of Raritan Bay. Comment SM-28 Section 4.1.2.1 -Amplification of Native and Exotic Shellfish Diseases -This section only addresses the potential introduction of shellfish diseases through importation of seed, contaminated water, containers, etc. It does not describe the potential occurrence of shellfish diseases due to planting of shellfish at high densities in either off-bottom or on- bottom culture which is well above the densities typically observed in natural populations. (DEC) Response SM-28 Although there Is the potential for shellfish diseases to occur in high densities of cultured shellfish, as opposed to what may typically be observed in natural populations, the County's program has recommended several mitigation methods to help reduce the likelihood of such occurrences including: limiting lease sizes and areas; limiting lease numbers,' limiting the types of leases; limiting biomass of shellfrsh; establishing buffers CashinAssociates, P. C. 50 Suffolk County Department of Planning Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement Shellfrsh Agaacutnere Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardiners Bay September 3, 2008 around leases and environmental resources; requiring disease testing of shellfish; use of local seeds; and monitoring environmental conditions. Comment SM-29 The description of various suction dredges includes a reference to cutterhead dredges. The cutterhead dredge is used for maintenance (sediment type) dredging projects and is not used for shellfish harvest. (DEC) Response SM-29 There is little scientific literature pertaining to dhe impacts of dredging activities from cultured shellfish harvesting. Most scientific studies on the effects of dredging activities to marine environments pertain to large-scale dredging operations (for removal of sediments). Such documents were reviewed and included in the DGEIS to identify potential impacts that could occur to a much lesser degree when considering mechanical shel fish harvest. Comment SM-30 References and discussion in this section about scallop dredges should clarify that they are referring to sea scallop dredging and not the typical dredges that could be used in Peconic Bays. This section should provide a better description for the types of harvest gear, frequency of harvest, and scale of operations that are likely to take place under the proposed action. (DEC) Response SM-30 An in-depth review of potential impacts from hydraulic dredging for shellfish aquaculture harvest purposes is included in Appendix E. Comment SM-31 Turbidity Plumes -Reference is made to turbidity plumes in subtidal and intertidal areas. Shellfish dredging does not occur in the intertidal area in New York and the lease program area will only be in subtidal areas. This section is relatively weak and does not attempt to quantify or describe the scale of mechanical harvest that would be expected to be undertaken in the proposed action. (DEC) Response SM-31 An in-depth review ofpotential impacts from hydraulic dredging for shellfish aquaculture harvest purposes i.s included in Appendix E. Comment SM-32 The total area currently used for aquaculture in Peconic and Gardiners Bays on TMAUAs and oyster grants is less than 2,000 acres. The scale of the leasing program could be significantly reduced if limits were placed on the number of leases to be issued on private oyster grants. (DEC) CashinAssociates, P. C. 51 Suffolk County Department of Planning Dina( Generic Environmenml /mpact Statement Shel/fish Aquaculture Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gadiners Bay September 3 2008 Response SM-32 As discussed in Response SM-5 above, grants and depending on location, pc activities permitted by NYSDEC) the owner may enter the lease program. I being permttted on private grants w perceraage allowance of 60 addttional 600 aerer of new lease area). there are several limits placed on private oyster a usage and current activity (including current 'ounry will determine whether and how a grant owever, it should be noted that the total acreage ll have no effect on the current new growth acres a year for the first 10 years (an additional Comment SM-33 The inclusion of all oyster grant lands in the shellfish cultivation zone regardless of conflicts with established fisheries, natural productivity of shellfish beds, and other identified conflicts is inconsistent with the statutory requirements of ECL 13-0302. By limiting the number and size of the leases that may be issued on oyster grant lands, potential impacts on benthic habitat and user conflicts in Peconic and Gardiners Bays will be reduced. This is critical to the implementation of a leasing program that will allow the promotion of aquaculture to be undertaken without having any significant or undesirable impacts to the Peconic Estuary. (DEC) Response SM-33 Again as stated in Response SM-S above, there are .several limits placed on private oyster grants and depending on locatton, past usage and current acttvtry (including current activities permitted by NYSDEC) the -County will determine whether and how a grant owner may enter the lease program. However, past and current permitttng actions by the NYSDEC have allowed for several private oyster grant owners to cultivate species other than oysters on all or part of the grant lands, and therefore they should be entitled to continue to do so under the County's leasing program. Comment SM-34 This section (4.1.3.6) has some inaccurate statements about use of mechanical harvest gear. Also, private oyster grant holders must obtain a permit from the NYSDEC for on- bottom culture in order to cultivate any species of shellfish, not just species other than oysters. (DEC) Response SM-34 Because Comment SM-34 is not specific as to what inaccurate statements about the use of mechanical harvest gear are in Section 4.1.3.6 of the DGEIS, this FGEIS can not respond to that statement. However, based on input received from Comment SM-34, part of Section 4.1.3.6 of the DGEIS (pg. 232) will be mod~ed to read in thts FGEIS: "Currently, private oyster grant holders must obtain a NYSDEC on-bottom culture permit to cultivate any shellfish species, etc. " Comment SM-35 Establishing buffer zones -may help to mitigate conflicts due to overlap but does not replace the statutory requirement for boundary surveys to be conducted of all leased areas. (DEC) Cashin Associates, P.C. 52 Suffolk County Department of Planning Final Generic Environments! /mpact Statement Shellfish Aquaculture Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardiners Bay September 3, 2008 Response SM-35 It was not the intend of the statement "A buffer zone may also help to mitigate the need for an accurate survey of each lease area ", to imply that there would be no need for a survey, but merely to state that a buffer zone could lessen the impacts assoctated with the location of each lease area as it relates to the lease program. Comment SM-36 Reference to seed being obtained from reputable dealer is inaccurate. Seed may only be obtained from a licensed marine hatchery, an on/off-bottom culture permit holder or as authorized under a shellfish transplant permit. (DEC) Response SM-36 Based on input received from Comment SM-36, the statement in Sectton 4.1.3.9 of the DGEIS (pg. 234) `7f this is not possible, seed may be obtatned from reputable deafens elsewhere, as close as possible to the culture site" will be removed and replaced with "Seed may only be obtained from a NYSDEC Licensed marine hatchery, an on/off-bottom culture perm[[ holder, or as authorized under a shellfish transplant/importation permit" in this FGEIS. Comment SM-37 Majority of hard clams harvested from the PBS are cultured in racks and do not involve hydraulic dredging. (DEC) Response SM-37 A sufficiently detailed review of potential impacts associated with shellfish harvesting through the use of dredges (specifrcally hydraulic dredges) is presented in Appendix E. Comment SM-38 Oysters are typically harvested by non-hydraulic (dry dredges); the term non-mechanical is incorrect. (DEC) Response SM-38 Based on input received by Comment SM-3$ the DGEIS will hereby be corrected to read "that oysters are typically harvested by non-hydraulic dredges in this FGEIS. " Comment SM-39 Characteristics of Commercial Fisheries -ECL Section and regulation listed for commercial fishing licenses/permits for marine species are incorrect. Is should be as required by Article 13 and 6NYCRR parts 40 and 44. (DEC) Response SM-39 Based on tnput received from Comment SM-39, the statement in Section 4.2.11.3 of the DGEIS (pg. 258) "Commercial fashing licenses/permits are required for the commercial harvest of all marine species in New York State (ECL §I1-1501 & 11-1521, 6NYCRR Part 175) "will be removed and replaced with "Commercial fishing licenses/permits are CashinAssociates, P. C. 53 Suffolk County Departmen! of Planning Final Generic Environmental /mpact Statement Shellfish ,4quaculture Lease Program in Pecanic Bay and Gardeners Bay September 3, 2008 required for the commercial harvest of all marine species in New York State (ECL Article I3 and 6NYCRR Part 40 and 44) " in this FGEIS. Comment SM-40 Maritime Traditions -Reference to Three Mile Harbor does not apply because it is outside of the jurisdiction of the leasing program and would not be impacted (Town controlled). (DEC) Response SM-40 Three Mile Harbor, although outside of the jurisdiction of the proposed Lease Program, was included in the discussion of areas of recreational boating because of the amount of boating traffic in the vicinity of the harbor that is within the jurisdiction of the County. Comment SM-41 Limit Lease Size -This section has the potential to result in the most significant impact to the PBS if the size of leases are not restricted on private oyster grants. (DEC) Response SM-41 Again as stated in Response SM-5 above, there are several limits placed on private oyster grants, and depending on location, past usage and current activity (including current activities permitted by NYSDEC) the County will determine whether and how a grant owner may enter the lease program. However, past and current permitting actions by the NYSDEC has allowed for several private oyster grant owners to cultivate species other than oysters on all or part of the grant lands, and therefore, they should be entitled to continue to do so under the County's leasing program. Comment SM-42 Hazards to Navigation -This section incorrectly stated that submerged aquaculture gear is required by DEC to have attached floating devices. Submerged gear is not required to have floating devices or buoys unless required by the US Coast Guard. Most culturists try to minimize the number of surface buoys to reduce navigational hazards. (DEC) Response SM-42 Based on input received by Comment SM-42, the DGEIS will hereby be corrected to read that submerged aquaculture gear is not required by NYSDEC but rather "submerged aquaculture gear may be required by the US Coast Guard to have attached floating devices. " Comment SM-43 Alternative 1 B -Minimum lease with moderate growth -Generally support the proposed action of up to 300 acres over first five years subject to program review and update of shellfish cultivation map. However, we do not support the inclusion of all private oyster grants (those currently used for shellfish culture and fallow grants) in the leasing program. (DEC) CashinAssociates, P. C. 54 Suffolk County Department of Planning Final Generic Environmental /mpact Statemem Shellfish Aquaculture Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardeners bay September 3, 2008 Response SM-43 Again as stated in Response SM-5 above, there are several limits placed on private oyster grants and depending on location, past usage and current activity (including current activities permitted by NYSDEC) the County will determine whether and how a grant owner may enter the lease program. However, pass and current permitting actions by the NYSDEC has allowed for several private oyster grant owners to cultivate species other than oysters on all or part of the grant lands, and therefore, they should be entitled to continue to do so under the County's leasing program. Comment SM-44 The DGEIS does not adequately describe [he specific areas within the shellfish cultivation zone or the distribution of proposed leases within this zone which is necessary to assess the potential impacts of the proposed lease program. The assessment of harvesting methods for cultivated product only considers the small scale leasing of 5 to ]0 acre parcels (up to 300 over five years) which may be minimal and fails to address the impacts associated with the culture of other species on private oyster grants which will be more significant. (DEC) Response SM-44 Again as slated fn Response SM-5 above, there are several limits placed on private oyster grants and depending on location, past usage and current activity (including current activities permitted by NYSDEC) the County will determine whether and how a grant owner may enter the lease program. Taken that into account, in 2007-2008 dhe NYSDEC has permitted 28 private oyster grants (totaling 2,695 acres) to cultivate shellfish and of them, 13 grants (totaling 1,446 acres outside the 1,000 foot buffer) have permits to cultivate species other than oysters on all or part of their grants (Appendix H). Currently, under the County's program these 13 private grants with NYSDEC permits to cultivate other .species of shellfish ,and other grants that have been used for such activity during the last 10 years, will be allowed to continue with these activities. All other grant owners seeking to enter the program will be permitted to enter the program on a limited basis as described in Response SM-5 above. Therefore, no significant adverse environmental or sotto-economic impacts associated with these grants are expected. Comment SM-45 The controlling laws for the granting of underwater lands for oyster culture in Peconic and Gardeners Bays stipulate that the underwater lands may revert to the state when they fail to be used for oyster culture. Once the lands revert to the state they are supposed to be ceded back to the County for leasing. Therefore, this would imply that the legislative intent of the lease law and all previous law dealing with issuance of oyster grants would require any leases issued on fallow private oyster grants to be consistent with the scale and criteria for new leases in the PBS. These grant lands represent large tracts of underwater lands that have been utilized by the people of the state as "public lands" for a very long time. They should have reverted and therefore one can make a strong argument that these lands must conform to the same criteria as any other lease issued in this program. (DEC) Cashin Associates, P.C. 55 Suffolk County Department of Planning Fina! Generic F,nvironmen(al lmpacl S(atemem Shellfish Aquaculture Lease Program in Pecanic Bay and Gardeners Bay September 3, 2008 Response SM-45 Based on input received from the ALPAC committee, CEQ and the public, Section 2.6 of the DGEIS has been modified to allow an oyster grant holder to apply for a lease on his/her grant, or a portion of which, if the owner can document a prior historical or current use of the grant for shellfish aquaculture. Grants with title conflicts will not be eligible for a lease until the conflict is resolved by the grant holder. If a grant has been fallow (i.e., if no shellfish aquaculture activities have been conducted for the past ]0 years), it can enter the Lease Program in a limited phased process (i. e., the grant holder may initially apply fora 5 to 10-acre lease). Leases on fallow grants shall not exceed two 10-acre leases for the first five years of the Lease Program, at which time a review of the Lease Program will determine if the lease on the former fallow grant may be expanded. Leases on fallow grants will be .subject to the full application process, including public review. 2.11 Shellfish Sanitation Comment SS-1 The acronym that is used for U.S. FDA in the DGEIS is USDA? Perhaps they should change that to USFDA or just FDA. Most people use the USDA acronym in reference to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, not USFDA. Response SS-1 It is hereby corrected that the acronym for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration stated in the DGEIS is USFDA. Comment SS-2 The DGEIS lists sections of the NYS ECL that govern aquaculture. ECL §11-0103(9) was not included which provides definition of shellfish. (DEC) Response SS-2 Based on input received from Comment SS-2, part of Section 2.7.2 of the DGEIS (pg. 64) is here by modified to include in this FGEIS: "Article 11, ECL ~I ]-0103(9) the definition of shellfish means oysters, scallops, and all kinds of clams and mussels. Comment SS-3 Erroneous reference which states that ECL §13-0307 requires DEC to publish annual "reports" on the condition of shellfish lands. The ECL requires the DEC to publish "notices" on the condition of shellfish lands. It is correct ("notices") on page 75. (DEC) Response SS-3 Based on input received from Comment SS-3, part of Section 2.7.2 of the DGEIS (pg. 67) hereby modified to change the word "reports" to "notices" in the definition on ECL ,¢13- 0307 in this FGEIS. CashinAssociales, P.C. 56 Suffolk County Department ojPlanning Final Generic Environmental /mpacl Statement Shellfish Aguaculture Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardeners Bay September 3, 2008 Comment SS-4 On page 132 of the DGEIS (last sentence in the paragraph): "An area is immediately closed if a single fecal coliform sample is found to exceed 70 mpn/]OOmI." This is not correct. It should be deleted. (DEC) Response SS-4 Based on input received from Comment SS-4, part of Section 4.1.1.2 of the DGEIS (pg. 132) is here by modified to delete the sentence "An area is immediately closed if a stngle fecal coliform sample is found to exceed 70 mpn/IOOmI " in this FGEIS. Comment SS-5 Shellfish water quality closures can be classified in two (not three) sub-categories: year- round closures and seasonal closures. (DEC) Response SS-5 Based on input received from Comment SS-5, part of Section 4.1.1.2 of the DGEIS is here by modified to change the sentence to read: "Shellfish closures due to tmpaired water quality are generally classified into two sub-categories: year-round closures and seasonal closures " in this FGEIS. Comment SS-6 The DGEIS tries to make conditionals seem like a separate sub-category. No area is designated as "conditionally uncertified" in Part 41. (DEC) Response SS-6 Based on input received from Comment SS-6, part of Section 4.1.1.2 of the DGEIS is here by modified to include the following sentences to read: "In addition to the two sub- categories, Conditional Harvesting area programs are developed on an annual basis through the cooperative efforts of local Towns and NYSDEC-Bureau of Marine Resources Shellftsheries Section. Once those program areas are established, certain uncertified areas are designated as "conditionally certified.• as provided for in Chapter 1 Section 41.1 of the Sanitary Condition for Shellfish Lands" into this FGEIS document. Comment SS-7 "Conditionally and seasonally closed areas may be opened by the NYSDEC when conditions warrant." That statement is not correct. (DEC) Response SS-7 Based on input received from Comment SS-7, part of Section 4.1.1.2 of the DGEIS is here by modified in this FGEIS to delete the following sentences: "Conditionally and seasonally closed areas may be opened by the NYSDEC when conditions warrant. Seasonal openings are generally from mid-December through mid-April, when nonpoint source pollution is reduced. Conditional areas may be suspended, revised, or canceled at any time if any conditions are found to exist which may be a threat to public health" and replaced with "Seasonally closed areas are opened and closed on dates specified in Chapter 1 Section 41 of the Sanitary Condition for Shellfish Lands and Conditionally CashinAssociates, P. C. 57 Suffolk County Department of Planning Final Generic Environmental /mpact Statement Shellfish Ayuaculture Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gm~diners Bay September 3, 2008 certified areas are opened and closed based on conditions that have been determtned through an annual evaluation of the area(s) ". Comment SS-8 On page 133 of the DGEIS portions of Shelter Island Sound are designated as uncertified due to impaired water quality when in fact the closure is an "administrative closure" or "closed safety zone". (DEC) Response SS-8 Based on input received from Comment SS-8, part of Section 9.1.1.2 (pg. 133) of the DGELS is here by modified in this FGEIS by delettng the following: "Shelter Island Sound hetween Greenport and Dearing Harbor. " Comment SS-9 The second paragraph on page 134 of the DGEIS makes it seem like the "conditional" program associated with the operation of the Shelter Island Heights STP is listed in Part 47. It is not. (DEC) Response SS-9 Please see Response SS-8. Comment SS-10 The description on page 136 of the DGEIS describing the location of the outfall of the Sag Harbor STP is not accurate. (DEC) Response SS-10 Although this comment is, as stated by the NYSDEC, a matter of semantics, part of Section 4.1.1.2 (pg. 136) of the DGEIS is here by modified to this FGEIS by deleting the following: "The Sag Harbor STP outfall i.s located immediately outside of the mouth of Sag Harbor" and the adding the following: "The Sag Harbor STP outfall is located east of the North Haven bridge and west of the large rock jetty (breakwater) that protects Sag Harbor. " 2.12 Finfish Issues Comment FI-1 The DGEIS presents a list of species NYSDEC has found in Peconic Bays, but fails to indicate that the majority of the fish found in the survey were vulnerable, highly sensitive life stages of these species, including post-larval, young of the year and small juvenile finfish. The DGEIS did not address the impacts of the leasing program on each of these species' egg, larval and juvenile life stages and their habitats, particularly the ecological impacts associated with on/off bottom culture and harvest methods. (DEC) Cashin Associates, P.C. 58 Suffolk County Department of Planning Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement Shellfish Aquaculture Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardiners Bay September 3, 2008 Response FI-1 Based on input received from Comment FI-1, the DGEIS is here by modified in this FGEIS to include Appendix F, an Essential Fish Habitat Designation analysis to address the impacts on finfish by the proposed program. Comment FI-2 The DGEIS fails to evaluate the impact of the aquaculture activities on benthic, finfish and aquatic resources with the full grow-out of the proposed action. (DEC) Response FI-2 As stated in .several sections of the DGEIS, the total acreage ceded to the County by the State is approximately 110, 000 acres. Of that acreage a small portion consisting of some existing private oyster grants and TMAUA.s would be available for shellfish cultivation under this program. If all of those grants and TMAUAs were converted, and leases were. issued to the maximum amount of acreage available to them, the total acreage would add up to no more than approximately 3,153.5 acres, or 2.87% of the 110,000 acres. (See Appendix H) Therefore, i[ is highly unlikely that the proposed action would have any significantly adverse impact on benthic, finfish and aquatic resources if the program would reach a full grow-out. The County is in the process ofpreparing an estimate of the maximum area that could be potentially leased under the program after 10 years of implementation. This estimate will be presented in the final version of this FGEIS. Comment FI-3 The DGEIS fails to address the impacts of dredging on non-targeted benthic organisms, predator/prey interactions, benthic food web effects, changes in biodiversity, and declines in infaunal abundance. (DEC) Response FI-3 An in-depth review of potential impacts from hydraulic dredging for shellfish aquaculture harvest purposes is included in Appendix E. Comment FI-4 The DGIES fails to address the effects of repeated disturbance of on-bottom shellfish aquaculture harvesting techniques such as dredging on the recovery of benthic communities and the potential impacts of habitat homogenization. (DEC) Response FI-4 Shellfish farmers typically leave their crop untouched for several years prior to harvesting; which is much less than the degree of impacts associated with wild shellfish harvest. Wild shellfish harvesting entails the repeated dredging over a broader area for a prolonged period of time. When compared with wild shel~sh harvest operations, dredging cultured shellfish has a much less significant impact on the surrounding aquatic ecosystem. Where as wild stock dredging seeks to find concentrations of shellfish over a broader area, aquaculturists only dredge the specific area where they have planted shellfish, allowingfor a more focused operation. CashinAssociates, PC. 59 Suffolk County Department of Planning Fina! Generic Environmental Impact Smtement Shellfish Aguacuhure Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardiners Bay September 3, 2008 Comment FI-5 DGEIS needs to consider implementing monitoring requirements under the program to evaluate the impacts to non-target species and changes in sediments deposition from cage use. (DEC) Response F1-5 See Response DGEIS-21 of this FGEIS. Comment FI-6 Under the heading US Fish and Wildlife Service, the DGEIS states that the USFWS has regulatory control over any federally endangered wildlife species, which may be affected by shellfish activities. In the case of marine mammals and sea turtles found in the water, NOAA has regulatory control through NMFS. Response FI-6 See Response DGEIS-22 of this document. Comment FI-7 As proposed in the DGEIS, the aquaculture leasing program does not adequately address management for the potential take of protected species. Response FI-7 No data obtained during the information gathering portion of this program revealed any significant impacts to protected species as a resulted of aquaculture activities. However, as part of program development, the County will continue to research this matter through additional literature searches and consultations with experts in the field of shellftsh research. Comment FI-8 The DGEIS does not address the threat of sea turtle takes posed by mechanical harvesting. Response FI-8 As stated by Robert B. Rheault, Ph. D. of Moonstone Oysters respond to Comment FI-8 as follows: "In the course of my literature review I encountered no reference do impacts ofshellfash aquaculture (or inshore shellfish dredging activities) on turtles. In the course of 30 years of shellfish aquaculture, I have never seen nor heard of anyone interacting with arty species of turtle. " CashinAssociates, P. C. 60 Suffolk County Department of %anning /final Generic Environmental Impact Statement Shellfish Aquacutture Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardeners Bay September 3, 2008 Literature Cited Anderson, D.M, 2008. Testimony before the Committee on Science and Technology Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, US. House of Representatives Hearing on "Harmful Algal Blooms: The Challenges on the Nation's Coastlines" (July 1 Q 2008). Brice j, V.M., Lonsdale D.J, 1997. Aureococcus anophagefferens: Causes and ecological consequences ofbrown tides in US. mid-Atlantic and coastal waters. Doblin, M.A., Popels, L. C., Coyne, KJ Hutchins, D.A., Cary, S.C., Dobbs, F.C., 2004. Transport of the harmful alga Aureococcus anophagefferens by oceangoing ships and coastal boats. App. And Env. Microbiology 70: 6495-6500. Horsley Witten Group, Inc. 2006. Meetinghouse Creek Watershed Management Plan. Prepared for Peconic Estuary Program, Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Office of Ecology, Riverhead NY Lewis, D., J. Kassner, R Cerrato, R. Finch. 1997. An Assessment of Shellfish Resources in the Deep Water Areas of the Peconic Estuary. Marine Science Research Center. State University of Stony Brook. 28 p. Popels, L.C., Hutchins, D.A., 2002. Factors affecting dark survival of the brown tide alga Aureococcus anophagefferens (Pelagophyceae). J Phycology 38: 738-744. Peconic Estuary Program (PEP). 2001. Peconic Estuary Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. 866 pp. Sponsored by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under Sec. 320 of the Clean Water Act. Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Program Office. CashinAssoctates, P. C. 6l Suffolk County Depar[mem ofPlantting Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement Shellfish Aquacu((ure Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardeners Bay September 3, 2008 This page intentionally left blank CashinAssociates, P.C. 62 Appendix A Updated Version of Section 2.6 -Components of Proposed Lease Program Components of Proposed Lease Program The proposed Lease Program involves the conversion of NYSDEC Temporary Marine Assignments to leases, allows private oyster grant holders to participate in the Lease Program, and also provides for future growth of the industry by permitting additiona] use of underwater lands for shellfish aquaculture within defined limits. This alternative would make available approximately an additional 300 acres of bottom land for new entities at the end of the first five year period, and another approximately 300 acres at the end of 10 years. The program components outlined below make reference to the Suffolk County Aquaculture Lease Program Shellfish Cultivation Zane Map. The Shellfish Cultivation Zone indicates areas suitable for lease placement based on environmental, socio-economic and historical considerations. The zone includes areas where environmental impacts and conflicts with existing users of the estuary are minimized, and areas with a prior history of aquaculture activities. General Components 1. Suffolk County as Program Lead Agency -- Suffolk County will be the lead agency for the Suffolk County Shellfish Aquaculture Lease Program for underwater lands ceded from New York State by the 2004 Leasing Law. Participation in the County Lease Program does not obviate the need to obtain any permits required for aquaculture activities by regulatory agencies. 2. Ten Year Lease Terms -- The term of the initial lease will be 10 years, with ]0 year renewable options. 3. Sizes of Leases -- Leases on underwater lands not currently used for aquaculture will be 5 or 10 acres (these limits do not apply to active private oyster grants or temporary assignments). 4. Shape of Lease Areas -- Leases on underwater lands not currently used for shellfish aquaculture will be square in shape (this criterion does not apply to active private oyster grants or assignments). 5. Five Year Program Reviews --The program will be subject to review during the second 5 year period after program implementation begins, to establish program components after 10 years. During the 5 year review process, the Shellfish A-1 Cultivation Zone map will be reviewed and updated as needed. The review will be based on environmental assessment, results of the program to date, need/demand for additional lease space, Town, public and industry input, and other factors. Data on environmental conditions in the bay, including that from the ongoing County water quality monitoring program, will be utilized in the assessment. 6. Environmental Review for Significant Program Changes -- If significant changes to the program are desired after 10 years, an environmental review will be performed to assess potential impacts of the proposed changes. Significant changes would include an expansion of total lease area, number of leases, or location of leases. Any significant program changes and environmental review will comply with State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) requirements. 7. Relocation of Leases -- In the event that the program review requires a change in the Shellfish Cultivation Zone where new leases are permissible, the lease holder may be required to relocate their lease area. The relocation would be required by the end of the lease period or within 5 years, whichever is more. The lease holder would be given the option to move to an allowable area in the Shellfish Cultivation Zone as close to the original lease location as practical. The criteria for changing the boundary of the Shellfish Cultivation Zone will include any changes in water quality classifications as deemed by NYSDEC, or if any unforeseen navigational or recreational/commercial conflicts arise. 8. Annual Reporting of Activities -- All lease holders must provide annual reports as to the type of shellfish aquaculture undertaken on the subject lease. The reports must include documentation as to the types and quantities of shellfish being cultivated and harvested on the subject lease and include the time periods of cultivation and harvesting, and other information deemed appropriate by the County. 9. Permits from Other Regulatory Agencies -- The County Lease Program will provide access to underwater lands only. Type of cultivation in terms of species and method of harvest will not be specified under the lease, but will be subject to A-2 NYSDEC permit requirements. Lease applicants must obtain all necessary permits from NYSDEC and other regulatory agencies. 10. Marking and Surveying of Lease -- Boundaries of all leases must be properly marked according to County specifications. Lease sites must be surveyed by a licensed land surveyor prior to execution of the lease. The lessee is responsible for obtaining all necessary permits and licenses under federal and state law, including any permits for buoys and private aid markers required by the US Coast Guard and/or US Army Corps of Engineers. 11. Annual Lease Rent -- Lease applicants must pay an annual lease rent, which will be determined by the County, based on the number of acres leased. 12. Aquaculture Equipment Removal -- Lessees will be responsible for removal of all shellfish aquaculture equipment from the lease area, upon termination of the lease. All equipment must be labeled with the lessee's name and lease identification number. 13. Public Notice -- Upon acceptance of the completed lease application by the County, the County will issue a public notice regarding the proposed lease site and the two alternative lease sites, in accordance with ECL § 13-0302. In addition, the County will issue a public notice to each of the five East End Town clerks. The public notice will have a 60-day written comment period during which the public, regulatory agencies and municipalities may submit written comments on the location of the lease and the alternative lease sites. The County will take into consideration all comments received during the public comment period when making its decision to approve or deny a lease application. 14. Documentation of Natural Non-Productivity of Proposed Lease -- If, during the application public comment period, a comment is received objecting to the lease application, the County will make a determination as to whether the objection is credible. For an objection to be considered credible, the objector must provide to the County proper notarized documentation. If the objection is credible, the lease applicant will have the option to select one of his/her alternative sites, or if involving an alleged commercial shellfish or finfish fishery, will cause a benthic survey to be conducted at his/her own expense. A-3 15. Minimum Levels of Performance for Lease Holders -- Lease holders must meet minimum levels of performance to confirm that the lease is actually in use for aquaculture. Minimum levels of performance will include: a good faith effort to prepare an aquaculture site; securing financing, equipment and/or seed; the planting, cultivation, or harvest of product; or evidence of some sort of active aquaculture activity on a shellfish aquaculture lease. Lessees will be required to commence shellfish cultivation activities within one year of the issuance of the lease. Failure to meet minimum performance levels and timeframe can result in termination of the lease. Provision will be made for hardship allowance, based on information (i.e., medical records, tinancial statements, and water quality data) to be provided to and considered by the County. In evaluating performance, beds used in a rotation system of shellfish production, where some beds are actively farmed, while others are rested for various reasons, such as predator control and bottom preparation for re-seeding, all such beds shall be considered as actively farmed. I6. Termination of a Lease -The County may terminate a lease if certain conditions of the lease are not met. The criteria for terminating a lease will include, but are not limited to, non-payment of lease fees, violation of the NYS Environmental Conservation Law as it pertains for marine-related activities, significant adverse impacts to marine resources, or if lease performance standards are not met. 17. Limit of Lease Ownership and Sub-Leasing -- Ownership of leases will be limited to a maximum of two leases per individual and/or corporate entity. Sub- leasing of lease areas will be permitted. The lease holder must provide assurance that the sub-lease meets all stipulations required by the County in the primary lease. Ownership of sub-leases will also be limited to a maximum of two sub- leases per individual and/or corporate entity. 18. Transfer of Leases -- Leases may be transferable to another individual/entity for the remainder portion of the lease term, in accordance with terms established by the County. 19. Seed Stock Requirements -All participants in the Lease Program will be required to comply with all components of 6 NYCRR Part 48: Marine Hatcheries, A-4 On-Bottom and Off-Bottom Culture of Marine Plant and Animal Life, including the policy being adopted by NYSDEC (anticipated to be adopted in 2008) on Acceptable Origin of Shell and Shellstock for Introduction in New York. Specific Requirements- Existing Temporary Marine Assignments 20. Conversion oT Temporary Assignments -- Existing temporary assignments in the Shellfish Cultivation Zone must be converted into County leases once the County Lease Program is implemented, in accordance with the provisions given below. Temporary assignments that are being converted into a lease without any change in their operations or size will be retained as a circular shaped 5-acre lease. Temporary assignments that wish to expand can convert to a 10-acre lease (i.e, one ]0-acre lease square, or two five-acre square leases), as long as the expansion occurs in the Shellfish Cultivation Zone. 21. Phasing of Converted Temporary Assignments into Lease Program -- Temporary assignments that wish to be incorporated into the County Lease Program will have up to one year to comply with the lease requirements. This phasing will allow for the time required to comply with new lease requirements (e.g., completing lease requirements if converting to a ]0-acre lease). 22. Productivity Documentation for Conversion of Existing Temporary Assignments -- The need for a benthic survey will not apply to existing temporary assignments holders who chose not to change or expand their operations under the County Lease Program, but would apply to those expanding their operation onto previously unused underwater land if there is a credible comment indicating significant natural shellfish stocks during the public comment period (as discussed in item 14 above). 23. Temporary Assignments within 1,000 ft of Shoreline -Holders of temporary assignments that are located within 1,000 feet of the shoreline will be given the opportunity to obtain a lease beyond the 1,000 foot line at a location in the Shellfish Cultivation Zone as close to their original position as practical. The lease site will be 5 or ]0 acres. Holders of temporary assignments lying within 1,000 feet of shore that do not choose to locate within the Shellfish Cultivation A-5 Zone will not be subject to the County Lease Program and may be subject to termination by NYSDEC. 24. Temporary Assignments Partially within 1,000 ft of Shoreline -Holders of temporary assignments that are partially located within 1,000 feet from shore will be permitted to adjust their areas so that they lie beyond 1,000 feet. 25. Pending Applications for Temporary Assignments -- Applicants with pending applications to obtain a temporary assignment from the NYSDEC will be given the opportunity to obtain a lease in accordance with the provisions established above. The applications must have been made by December 31, 2007. Applications received by NYSDEC subsequent to December 31, 2007 will be required to apply for a lease in accordance with the County's shellfish aquaculture lease application process. Site Specific Requirements -Private Ovster Grants 26. Continuation of Grant Activities -- Grant owners can cultivate oysters on their grants without a lease from the County. Grants and portions thereof that are located more than 1,000 feet from shore can be considered for inclusion in the County Lease Program (grants that are located within 1,000 feet from shore are not within the jurisdiction of the County Lease Program), should there be the desire to cultivate species other than oysters. Shellfish cultivation activities on these grants are regulated by the NYSDEC. 27. Lease Establishment on Active Grants -Grant owners actively cultivating shellfish must obtain a lease from the County if they wish to cultivate species other than oysters on their grant. Grants are considered active if the owners can document a prior historical or current use of the grant for shellfish aquaculture. Adequate documentation of former aquaculture use of the grant within the 10- year period between January 1, 1999 and December 3 ], 2008 may include: receipt for purchase of seed stock; proof of revenue from shellfish sales from the subject parcel; or other documentation confirming that viable aquaculture activity has taken place on the grant, as well as copies of relevant NYSDEC permits. Leases on active grants do not have specified acreage limits. Owners of grants can apply A-6 under the County Lease Program to overlay a lease on the entire grant area, or a portion thereof, depending upon the extent of historical, active use of the grant for shellfish culture. It is noted that shellfish farmers growing shellfish species other than oysters on their grants may have instituted a bed rotation system. Under such a system, some beds may be actively farmed, while others are rested for various reasons, such as predator control and bottom preparation for re-seeding. In such cases, all of the beds will be considered active, since they are part of the shellfish production system for the respective grants involved. 28. Phased Expansion of Leases on Fallow Grants If a grant has not been used for culture of species other than oysters during the 10- year period between January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2008, it is considered a fallow grant, and can enter the Lease Program in a limited phased process. Conditions pertaining to establishment of leases on underwater lands not formerly used for shellfish aquaculture, as outlined above, would apply to placement of leases on fallow grants. A fallow grant holder may apply for up to two 10-acre leases on his/her site during the first five years of the Lease Program and will be subject to the full application process including public review and comment. (This limitation applies to the number and size of fallow grant parcels as described in the Underwater Land Title Search Data Report (2008) prepared by the Suffolk County Dept. of Planning. As such, a grant owner will not be allowed to exceed the two 10-acre leases on his/her grant by subdividing and selling smaller grant parcels to others.) This will provide for a phased approach for the establishment and expansion of leases on these fallow grants. The program will be evaluated after five years and at that time, the determination will be made to possibly expand leases on these formerly fallow grants. Proposed One Percentlncrease 29. One Percent per Year Increase in Acreage for Aquaculture -- The Lease Program will provide for a one percent increase in the amount of underwater land available for aquaculture each year for the first five year planning period. The A-7 one percent increase will be based on the existing total acreage of temporary assignments as of December 31, 2007, plus the total acreage of existing private oyster grants within the study area (Peconic and Gardiners Bay, extending east to the regulatory limit). The allowable one percent per year will not include leases placed on the existing oyster grants, and will not include the expansion of existing temporary assignments converted to leases as discussed herein. 30. Carry-over of Yearly Allocation -- If the one percent increase is not used for a particular year, the unused amount will be carried over to future years within the five year period. The cap on total lease area over the five year period will not exceed five percent. 31. Carry-over of 5 Year Allocation -- If the five percent cap is not used up during the first five year period, the remainder can be carried over to the second five year period. 32. Cap on New Leases After 10 Years - It is anticipated that the second five year period will have the same limitations and conditions as those set for the first five year period. The program will include a cap on new leases after 10 years at which time an additional environmental review may be required to determine impacts of increased growth beyond this time. Non-commercial Shellfish Cultivation Leases 33. Experimental/Educational Leases -- The program will have a provision for issuing experimental/educational leases. These leases would be limited in scope and duration, but must be located in the Shellfish Cultivation Zone, as mapped. These leases would not be subject to all of the restrictions outlined above, and would be reviewed by the County on a case-by-case basis. The acreage of these leases would not be included in the one percent increase annual acreage cap limit on leases (item 29). 34. Leases for Shellfish Resource Restoration -- Leases can be issued for shellfish resource restoration. These leases must be located in the Shellfish Cultivation Zone and are also otherwise subject to the requirements outlined above. Sub- leasing of these leases would not be permissible. The acreage of these leases A-8 would not be included in the one percent increase annual acreage cap limit on leases (item 29). Options for Future Consideration 35. Potential for Issuing Leases Larger than 10 Acres -The County Lease Program will consider issuing leases larger than 10 acres, but not exceeding 50 acres, after the completion of the first five year planning period, based on review of environmental and economic conditions. As part of the development of the Shellfish Aquaculture Lease Program, the County will prepare an Administrative Guidance document that defines in detail the administrative procedures, regulations and criteria for all aspects of the leasing process. The various criteria, standards and requirements referenced in the Program Components will be defined in that document. Administrative needs required by the County to implement the program will also be identified. The level of detail to be included in the document will be necessary for implementation of the program, but is not necessary for the assessment prepared for this Generic E[S. A-9 Flow Chart for Inclusion of Private Oyster Grants into Suffolk County Aquaculture Lease Program Private Oyster Grant Outside of the 1,000 ft Within the 1,000 ft "Status quo" shoreline buffer shoreline buffer oyster cultivation only Lease Application Process ~ Does not participate in (January -February County Lease Program of current year) Active grant Fallow grant (must prove shellfish (no shellfish culture culture on grant on grant in last within last 10 yrs) 10 yrs or more) Lease size limited to Limited Lease active grant lands or (up to two 10-acre on portion being cultivated or off bottom) Resolve title Title Resolve title conflicts, Title conflicts, if any conflict not if any conflict not resolved resolved Public Notice Period Public Notice Period (60-day period) Lease not (60-day period) Lease not ermitted ermitted p p Not subject to May be subject to ground-truthing ground-truthing if opposition is received County makes determination on lease application A-10 Flow Chart for Conversion of NYSDEC Temporary Marine Area Use Assignments (TMAUAs) into Suffolk County Aquaculture Lease Program Existing active TMAUA (as of December 31 2007) Lease Application Process (January -February of the current year) Located outside of Located within the 1,000 ft buffer 1,000 ft buffer Do not relocate Move to location in May be subject to Cultivation Zone where termination by conflicts are minimal NYSDEC Remain as Expansion of 5-acre operations (up to off-bottom 10-acres on/off cultivation only bottom) Public Notice Public Notice Period Period (60 days) (60 days) Not subject to May be subject to ground-truthing ground-truthing County issues determination on lease application A-1 1 Flow Chart for New Leases in the Suffolk County Aquaculture Lease Program :New Lease. (1% new growth in ShellTsh Cult. Zone) Lease Application Process (January -February of current year) Must be located within Shellfish Cultivation Zone Up to 10-acres (on or off-bottom) Public Notice Period (60-day period) May require ground-truth determination County makes determination on lease application A-12 Appendix B Suffolk County Council for Environmental Quality Meeting Transcript ~~ :~ 1 1 ~.,ff 2 Department of Planning ~ n (. ~ rf.. 3 Council on Environmental Quality -, ~~ -------- 4 -----X °1. PUBLIC MEETING 5 ------------------------------------------ 6 X 7 March 19, 2008 9:30 a.m. 8 William Rodgers Complex 9 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 10 11 12 13 14 15 .__ . 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC. 25 b FRANCES LANE PORT JEFFERSON, NEW YORK 11777 631-331-3753 2 1 2 A P P E A R A N C E S: 3 R. LAWRENCE SWANSON, Chairperson 4 MICHAEL KAUFMAN, Vice Chairperson HON. JAY H. SCHNEIDERMAN, CEQ 5 EVA GROWNEY, CEQ GLORIA G. RUSSO, CEQ. 6 JAMES BAGG, CEQ ZEB YOUNGMAN, CAC 7 JOY SQUIRES, CAC RICHARD MARTIN, Historic Society 8 9 A L S O P R E S E N T: 10 11 BOARD OF ELECTIONS WAREHOUSE ADDITION: IVAN YOUNG 12 JAMES INGENITO WAYNE ROGERS 13 SUFFOLK COUNTY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM: 14 EMERSON HASBROUCK LORNE BROUSSER 15 ANGEL DYBAS ERIK BERGEY 16 JEFF DAWSON MATT SCLAFANI 17 MARK CAPPELLINO 18 DGEIS FOR SHELLFISH AQUACULTURE LEASE PROGRAM: DeWITT S. DAVIES 19 GREGORY GREENE MICHAEL MULE 20 KEITH BREWER 21 LAURETTA FISCHER 22 23 24 ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 6 FRANCES LANE 25 PORT JEFFERSON, NEW YORK 11777 631-331-3753 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 Society for Preservation of Long Island Antiquities in Cold Spring Harbor. And that, again, will be at 9:30 at their offices on Main Street. CHAIRMAN SWANSON: So Mary Ann will be representing us? MR. MARTIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN SWANSON: Very good. Thank you. Just a reminder that this is a public meeting, and if anybody has comments they would like to make on a particular topic, please feel free to let us know, and we will probably take them at the time a particular issue is being discussed. So, project reviews. The ~F~4,?~Sfor shellfish aquaculture lease program at PeconicBay is next on the agenda. If you would like to, come up and make a presentation. And I'd like to just remind the CEQ that our role here t(ogd~a~y is to determine whether or not the ~BEt~5' i is in suitab.e shape and complete enough to be released to the 7 ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 8 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 public. Also, there is, I believe, on 3 April 17th -- is that correct, Jim? 4 MR. BAGG: Yes, I believe that there 5 is a public hearing tentatively scheduled 6 for April 17th. 7 CHAIRMAN SWANSON: The April 17th e public hearing will be in Riverhead, and I 9 believe it's at 7:00. I'll be chairing the 10 meeting and I encourage other members of CEQ 11 to come. It's always good if more than one 12 of us hears what the public has to say 13 concerning these particular large projects. 14 I think, Mike, you're planning on coming; is 15 that correct? 16 MR. KAUFMAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. 17 CHAIRMAN SWANSON: If anybody else 18 has time, please come and join us. 19 MR. KAUFMAN: What time of day? 20 CHAIRMAN SWANSON: I think I just 21 said 7:00. 22 Okay. DeWitt, if you'd like to 23 introduce y o u r p anel. 7~ ( ~ y~ 24 ~ MR. ~tv-tb~ Yes. Thank you, Larry, 25 and I'd like to thank the members of the ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-33.1-3753 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 Council for the chance to come before 3 you today so we can provide some input, with 4 respect to the draft ~`~~'~- ~ Environmental 5 impact statement that you have before 6 you on the Suffolk County shellfish Aquaculture 7 lease program in Peconic Bay and Gardner' 8 s Bay. 9 BY way of introduction, on my far 10 right is Mike Mule, senior planner, who has 11 worked on this project from the very 12 beginning a few years a o. g Keith Brewer i 13 s senior scientist at Cashgn Associates. h 14 en is the consultant that is working on 15 the impact statement and program document. 16 To my right is Greg Greene, who is the 17 Cei ~ principal at ~ and is in charge of 18 their work for this project. 19 Larry has already mentioned some of 20 the key dates with r espect to the future of 21 this particular project, and that is the 22 scheduling tentative) y, pending your 23 deliberation today, of a ~ pu.,lic hearing an 24 that draft document. 25 Let's go back a littl e wa h y ere so 9 ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 10 1 CEQ PiTBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 you can get some historical perspective with 3 respect to this particular program. 4 Chapter 425 of the laws of New York State 5 2004 ceded to Suffolk Count a y pproximately 6 110,000 acres of underwater land in Peconic 7 and Gardner's Bay to Suffolk County for the 8 purpose of establishing a shellfish 9 aquaculture lease program in this area. 10 This is an important piece of legislation 11 and has important ramifications for Suffolk 12 County. 13 The particular legislation that I 14 just referenced contains a sunset clause, 15 December 31st, 2010, which was imposed by 16 various interests in the State of New York 17 on the County, in that, if the County does 18 not implement -- first adopt and then 19 implement this program, it will lose the 20 authority to manage shellfish aquaculture in 21 this area and forfeit the title that it has 22 to the underwater land that I mentioned 23 before; 110,000 acres or so. 24 CfiAIRMAN SWANSON: Car. I interrupt 25 and ask a question? ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3J19/08 2 A-v~GS' MR. Sure. 3 CHAIRMAN SWANSON: When you say 4 "ceded," the State is not actuall y giving 5 owhership, they~re onl y giving the right to 6 conduct aquaculture in those acres; is that 7 correct? $ an~,cLs: MR..T~c; They've ceded the right 9 for shellfish cultivation purposes to 10 Suffolk County and the 're Y giving the 11 Count y, given certain conditions, rights to 12 lease those lands for that activit y. The 13 underlying title is retained by the State of 14 New York, but if you look at the bundle of 15 rights that are associated with ownership of 16 underwater land, the right to cultivate 17 shellfish on the bottom and in the water 18 column is probably the principal right 19 associated with that ownership. 20 So that's a little bit - - in terms of 21 the historical perspective, in terms of 22 where we provide this particular project. 23 The project was funded by the County, 24 Capital Project Planning Department We'v 25 . e been underway now for approximatel 13 y or 11 ACCURATE COURT REPORTSNG SERVICES, 631-331-3753 f 12 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 14 months in an intensive way. We have an 3 aquaculture lease program advisory 4 committee, 17 members, of which Legislator 5 Schneiderman is a member. He's been 6 attending these meetings on a regular basis 7 and is familiar with the operation of that 8 particular committee. 9 Earlier in the year, we came before 10 the CEQ to ask their review of a draft 11 scoping document. The process of scoping 12 has been completed. We had a public hearing 13 on the draft scoping document, and on 14 August 23rd the Legislature approved the 15 final scoping document for this project and 16 essentially authorized us to proceed with 17 active preparation of the ~A@~ report. 18 You might ask, why are we doing this? 19 what are the goals of this particular 20 program? And again, stepping back a little 21 bit here, but one of the initial concerns 22 people had was sustaining and maintaining 23 the marine environment in the area in which 24 we are dealing with. Again, this is 25 Gardner's and Peconic Bay in Suffolk County. ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 13 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/1g~08 Whatever we do, we want to maintain and sustain that environment in whatever we do with respect to the activities. We want to provide the ability for people to get access to underwater lands for raising shellfish in a manner that is socially equitable with all the other uses of this particular marine space. We want to provide an opportunity for controlled and predictable growth of shellfish farming at acceptable levels, both over the near-term and the long-term. What are the outcomes that we expect from this program? Should it be adopted by Suffolk County from a policy perspective and then implemented? Well, we believe that if those two things occur, adoption and law and implementation, that private investment in the shellfish aquaculture business will be encouraged. We will see shellfish farms established at secure locations which don't pose conflicts with other bay users. We believe that the water-dependent economy cE the County will be expanded and green-related job opportunities will be ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 14 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 created, also, and these kinds of 3 opportunities are in tune with the quality 4 of life and the sense of place that is the 5 East End of Suffolk County. 6 We believe that these shellfish farms 7 will increase shellfish populations and 8 densities in various areas in the system, 9 and that alone will have very important 10 ramifications for the health of the Peconic 11 estuary. Because we all know shellfish are 12 filter feeders. They have a positive 13 influence on water quality by removing 14 nutrients, by removing humidity, by 15 improving light penetration and, also, they 16 have the ability to augment the spawning 17 potential of the natural populations of 18 shellfish that are out there. 19 If this program is adopted and 20 Suffolk County, again, assumes an active 21 role in management of the system -- 22 something which it had historically, over a 23 hundred years ago, but that involvement has 24 waned over the years -- shellfish 25 cultivation leasing will become ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 institutionalized as a government 3 responsibility and function. This program 4 will also be implemented in a wa y that 5 assures input from all of the East End 6 interests and local governments through the 7 application process that we envision for 8 obtaining a lease. 9 Where are we now in this particular 10 ~~~ project? Associates has prepared 11 this draft impact statement. A preliminary 12 draft of the impact statement was circulated 13 to the Agriculture Lease Program Advisory 14 Committee for review and comment and we'v 15 , e incorporated those comments. This draft has 16 not been distributed to anyone exce t P you 17 folks. In the letter from Director Tom 1& Isles to the chairman, who the Department 19 requests a review of the document and, 20 hopefully, you'll be able to concur with the 21 conclusion that this document is complete 22 with respect to the requirements of SEQRA 23 for distribution. 24 I'd like to make the comment that ir_ 25 is a generic impact statement Th i . e mpact 15 ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 16 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 statement focuses on the issue of providing 3 access to underwater lands for private 4 commercial use, but it could also involve 5 municipality use with respect to obtaining 6 leases for habitat restoration purposes, 7 also. So it's not just a private lease 8 program. The leases, as we envision it, 9 could be issued to local government for 10 their purposes and also to private entities 11 that may want to conduct research, for 12 example. 13 So we are at that juncture now. The 14 Department of Planning would like to proceed 15 with this project and be able to conduct a 16 full public review of the document. That's 17 why we have enclosed in the letter, that I 18 believe you have before you, our plan. The 19 plan is tentative at this point. We'd like 20 to schedule a public hearing on this 21 document, Riverhead Town Hall on April 17th. 22 Our ALPAC meetings will continue program 23 development as we go through the public 24 review process. We will then have the 25 opportunity to hear from people, in a very ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 63I-331-3753 17 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 Z specific and defined way, what issues bother 3 them, what issues they support, what issues 4 they don't support, in terms of how they've 5 been resolved and discussed in the impacE 6 statement. This is the way we can get that 7 input if we go out and start this formal e process. If we continue on schedule -- and 9 we are on schedule at the moment with 10 respect to this project -- the next major 11 milestone would be for preparation of the 12 administrative component document, which 13 will describe how leases would be issued in 14 terms of their format, what standards and 15 criteria would be used by the County in 16 reviewing and implementing programs in a 17 specific way. That document is under 18 preparation and a preliminary version of 19 some of that material will be given at the 20 next ALPAC meeting in April. 21 But assuming that we can, again, 22 proceed with going through the impact 23 statement, finalizing, etcetera, we hope to 24 have the whole program wrapped up in a final 25 form by the end of the summer, at which time ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 18 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 it would then be submitted to the County 3 Executive, etcetera, for a policy review and 4 subsequent action. If it is adopted into 5 _ _... _ __ _ law, etcetera, we expect-that the County --- 6 could begin this process of issuing leases 7 in 2009 and 2010. As I said before, we have 8 some significant ramifications if that 9 deadline of December 31st, 2010 is not met 10 by the County. 11 So, given that as an introduction as 12 y~~n to where we are at the present time, 13 Associates' Greg Greene and Keith Brewer are 14 here today to answer specific questions that 15 you might have on this document. We will 16 certainly take note of it to the best of our 17 ability today. And I'd also like to point 18 out again [he fact that this is a generic 19 impact statement. It focuses on access 20 issues, a provision of access to underwater 21 lands and the conduct of this activity. 22 This is not a regulatory program with 23 respect to orhat Suffolk County's authorities 24 are under the State law. The New York State 25 DEC retains its regulatory function and ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3"753 1 19 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 authority under New York State Environmental 3 Conservatiott law, and the y are i , n a sense 4 , the regulator arm-with r Y espect to which 5 these proposed activities on leases will°-be 6 judged, because the State of New York ha 7 s to issue permits for those activities and all 8 ramifications associated with those 9 operations. 10 The County is responsible, under the 11 program, for providing the mechanism to 12 obtain access. I think that's an important 13 distinction. All permits that the New York 14 State DEC would issue for a specific culture 15 operation would be subject to a public 16 review process that they conduct. So I 17 just wanted to make that point clear. 18 So I can turn it over to you, Greg. '9 You ma w y ant to say a few words about the 20 document itself. 21 Larry? 22 CHAIRMAN SWANSON: Ind like to ask 23 You a question just for clarification. 24 December 31st, 2010 some activity must be 25 takin g place. What exactly is that ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 20 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 activity, the completion of the EIS process 3 or actually the first leases? Just so that 4 we're clear as to what we're shooting for. ~-V 1 t,5'. 5 MR_ ~A~~: The law is quite specific 6 with respect to what would have to happen. 7 The County would have to adopt, by local e law, a shellfish cultivations zone map and 9 the program itself with respect to how this 10 program would be implemented. So the 11 authority would have to be in place before 12 the County could actually lease. But 13 there's also the provision that if no leases 14 are executed by the County -- the operative 15 word there is "executed," meaning that we've 16 actually done it -- the County forfeits its 17 title to the underwater lands and loses its 18 authority to issue leases. It returns, 19 then, to the State of New York. 20 I point out that, historically, 21 Suffolk County has had an authority out in 22 Peconic and Gardner's Bay since 1884. First 23 to issue grants for oyster cultivation, 24 which the County was very active in at the 25 turn of the century, and in 1969 a new law ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 1 21 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 gave the County the right to sell leas 3 es for shellfish cultivation. Howev 4 er, the complexities and problems 5 associated with _. _ ... that law led to over 30 . years-of no 6 action by Suffolk County. That's why the law 7 was changed in the year 2004. 8 So we do have a long history here 9 , and it's been sporadic with respect to th 10 e level of involvement that the Count Y h h 11 as ad with this particular resource, but the 12 resurgence of culture technology out i 13 n Peconic and Gardner's Bays changed i 14 n the viewpoint of many of the constituencies 15 out there with respect to how they vi 16 ew aquaculture and its promise, I think 17 , with respect to the future. I think all those 18 factors have come together here to 19 present an opportunity that the county should 20 see. There is no guarantee that the Stat 2. e of New York will ever issue a lease anywher i 22 e n the New York State marine district 23 . It has not done so. That is one of the 24 ccncerrs, I think, that people express with 25 respect to the legislation when it was under discussion ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 22 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 several years ago. 3 We never had a deadline in the 4 previous laws. A deadline -- you can 5 speculate as to why a deadline is in the-re: 6 They wanted to essentially encourage the 7 County to meet its responsibilities, but I e sometimes think that they're interested, 9 perhaps -- and this is a little bit of 10 editorializing -- they did not want to see 11 the County do this because of jurisdictional 12 authority with respect to the State of 13 New York. 14 CHAIRMAN SWANSON: Mr. Greene? 15 MS. RUSSO: May Z, Mr. Chairman? 16 CHAIRMAN SWANSON: Yes. 17 MS. RUSSO: G oo d morning. I was a (~ ~ ~ 18 little unclear --~ I understand -- can 19 you give me background on why the State is 2~ doing this? Wanting this law doing this? 21 Because when I read through it, it appears 22 to me that there already are some oyster 23 grants and other land grants. People are 24 using -- already doing some of this. So 25 what was the reasoning or the thought behind ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 23 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 the State to grant this lease to the County, and if there already is some aquaculture activity going on, why do we need another layer of ..government? Can you clarify that? i don't understand the whole real purpose. MR. GREENE: Under the previous legislation, the County was given the authority in 1969 to lease lands for shellfish cultivation, a species other than oysters. Historically, back at the turn of the century, the County sold grants for oyster cultivation purposes, oysters only. There was grants, most of which have returned to the County for nonpayment of taxes with approximately 5800, 5900 acres of oyster grants that are held out in the PeconicJGardner's Hay system today. In the 1980s, in an attempt to consider a leasing program, the State of New Yozk issued a temporary marine area use assignment, The word "temporary" is key here. Circular five-acre plots on a yearly basis. Every year you have to renew. They can be terminated at any time, and approximately 30 ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 24 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 to 32 of these assignments have been issued 3 and are in effect today. Some come and some 4 don't. We have about 5600 acres of oyster 5 grants. These are private grants that-ha-ve 6 survived over the years. We have about 1200 7 acres that are under culture permit from the 8 State of New York, and we have the rest, 9 4800, whatever it is, acres that have not 10 been .used for decades, but the underlying 11 title is still there in private hands. 12 There is a need for the ability for 13 the cultures to obtain secure access. If 14 you're in business, it's difficult to sell 15 your plan and get financing if you don't 16 know you're going to be in the spot you are 17 today at the end of the year, okay? There 18 is some security with respect to having a 19 lease program where you have some defined 20 term of access. In this case, there's a 21 ten-year period given for leases, and 22 there's ability to maintain your activity. 23 Some certainty helps out with respect to 24 that. 25 We're looking here at the system as a ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 1 CEQ PUBLIC NEETING, 3/19/08 2 whole. We're tr in Y g to locate areas i 3 n addition to the assignments We . want to 4 grandfather those locations if they're n t -S o within the boundary of -the shorel,n -- e. -- 6 There's some issues with that that are 7 minor. But the ability to find new areas 8 where people could come in and obtain 9 a lease, we've done that. We have a shellfish 10 cultivation zone defined in the report that 11 consists of the assignment locations, the 12 13 private grants and other areas defined by ~(kS i h Associates after extensive input from 14 ALPAC Committee members and the public and 15 interviews with fishermen and interest 16 groups out on the East End this past ea y r, 17 where we think that those areas will 18 pose a minimal conflict with natural resources and 19 other uses, so there's a place to go. 20 So, in essence, as far as the grant 21 owners are concerned, we wanted to clear up 22 this particular problem of their abilit y to 23 culture species other than oysters. They 24 can grow oysters now, but the 2GG4 la.r 25 changed the table - - the playin t bl g a e a 25 ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 ( 26 I CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 little bit here -- playing field, I should 3 say, because the State granted all right and 4 title to the County not previously issued 5 -- with respect to how these-lands-would be - 6 used. So the State is interpreting it now 7 that if someone wants to raise clams, e scallops or some other shellfish other than 9 oysters, they have to get a lease from 10 Suffolk County to do so. So even though I1 there are private grants that could grow 12 oysters as we speak today, without anything 13 from Suffolk County, if they wanted to get 14 in the clam business or scallop business 15 they'd have to get a lease from the County 16 to do that. That's why when people say, 17 "Well, you have all this land out there 18 now." Yes, but you can't use it for things l9 that you may want to use it for, and you're ?0 a public person -- not a ublic p person, but 21 if you wanted to go out there and get a 22 lease from a grant owner, they don't have to 23 extend you anything. Those lands are 24 generally not available. 25 There is difficulty with respect to ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 1 27 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 how the State of New York has issued these 3 assignments as difficult, perhaps, to find 4 a new location because the y haven t 5 gone 6 through an extensive inventor Y and analysis C0.5h~ ~ that men Associates have conducted for 7 us. So I think we're on a good footing to e proceed with that. So I think we' 9 re trying to clear up in the program some of the 10 discrepancies that have i ar sen over the 11 years with respect to the old program and 12 how it was administered by the Stat 13 e and a lack of oversight b y the County uit 14 , q e frankl y, and proceed into this new century. 15 What we're doing here toda y, and hopefully 16 in the future, will be to 17 more or less start a whole new era for this particular 18 activity. 19 We're dealing with a situation that 20 we've inherited since 1884, based 21 upon outdated technolo 9y, based on old 22 practices that ignored lots of things We' 23 . re trying to bring it u p to date and you're setting 24 the stage here for havin a 9 program that ZS will continue over the next hundred years, ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 28 I CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 hopefully, where the ability to raise 3 shellfish in this environment will be 4 somewhat more secure and available as we 5_ proceed: 6 I hope I've answered your question. 7 MS. RUSSO: Yes, you have. 8 CHAIRMAN SWANSON: Mr. Greene? 9 MR. GREENE: Thank you. I th in k I'd ~ ~ g , 10 just like to add and point out that 6 has 11 been the subject of a great deal of work 12 over the past 14 months. In addition to the 13 public scoping session, there were two 14 public information sessions held early in 15 the year, January and February of 2007. 16 There were almost monthly meetings of the 17 advisory committee, and as part of the 18 process we interviewed a large number of 19 individual stakeholders, including 20 fishermen, existing aquaculture operations, 21 environmental groups, and just about anyone 22 else who wanted to o€fer input into the 23 program. All that information was used to 24 develops but I think even more 25 importantly it helped us in developing a ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 `, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 program that took account of all the diverse opinions. We heard about some of it. It helped us develop a program that we think will proude for modest-growth of __ aquaculture but also protect the interests of the existing uses of the estuary, including the traditional fisheries and boating interests, for instance. So it was a unique program in that sense, that we had a lot of information, not only to do the~~~s -B£i,S, to help develop a program that we think fit with what we're hearing from the public and concerned interests on the East End. CHAIRMAN SWANSON: Thank you. I know you wanted to comment. MR. KAUFMAN: DeWitt, you and I were talking yesterday. I was also talking with Jim. I was there at the start of [his procedure, I was there for the scoping, etcetera, and yet even I got a little bit confused about what we were dealing with, so I wanted to try to get one central point clear. And correct me if I'm wrong; this ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 30 I CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 is, essentiall y, a leasing program in a 3 contractual sense. It focuses on access 4 issues, again, in a legal framework, and 5 almost setting up a contractin g program by 6 Suffolk County. And again, I use those 7 words in the legal sense because that's what e I understand this program to be right now. 9 I also understand it to have an aspect to it 10 that DEC will be handling most, if not all, 11 of the primary environmental reviews, 12 regulatory aspects, etcetera, of generalized 13 permits. I also understand this to be, 14 essentially, a generic EIS, so when you put 15 those two issues together, the County's 16 role -- in this document, it's focused upon 17 the leasing aspects and looking at the 18 environmental impacts of leasing and of the 19 contractual aspects, which is, essentially, 20 a limited charge, hence the limited t ype of. 21 review undertaken here, and, again, the 22 reliance upon DEC for the primary 23 environmental review. 24 That's the way I understand this 25 focus to be. I looked at the documents ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 31 I CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 again yesterday and this morning, but I 3 basically asked this to make clear in m y own `~ mind what we're reviewing and how we're 5 supposed to--review it. Essentially because 6 environmental permitting and management and, 7 if you will, environmental mitigation is 8 primarily left to DEC, we're not doing, if 9 you will, a classic EIS of individual 10 conditions and individual issues. We're 11 doing it generically and its focus is upon, 12 if you will, not the precise environmental 13 impact, but how the County will regulate 19 access. Is that a fair statement to make? 15 ~~ MR. Generall y, yes. And I 16 think that the approach i.s that of a generic 17 approach, that's for sure. It is focused 18 on, again, this authority with respect to 19 leasing, but I would just point out that ~~ those factors, some of those factors that 21 you mentioned, natural resources 22 considerations, for example, have been and 23 will continue to be a factor in anything 24 that the County does with respect to this 25 program. You see on page -- there' s a ACCURATE COURT KEPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 32 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 foldout in the document after page 28, which 3 contains a pictorial showing various 4 environmental conditions that were 5 L___ inventoried as a result .of Ga~,~~,r s 6 interviews, etcetera, and these are areas ~ that are environmentally sensitive and/or 8 actively used and, so, we are avoiding 9 conflicts with users and natural resources 10 by looking at additional areas that don't 11 have those characteristics. 12 So the document is based on a 13 consideration of those things that are more 14 environmental, of course. When you turn the 15 page you'll see the shellfish cultivation 16 zone that is established in draft. And 17 you'll see it's rather convoluted. There's 18 a few dots and a few irregular shapes here, 19 etcetera, but this area is the area within 20 which leasing could occur. We've taken 21 pains Co include and grandfather the 22 industry that is there now. The goal of the 23 program is not to throw people out of 24 business who are legitimate. If we did 25 that, we'd be acting in a very adverse way ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 33 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 to the very people that we think are going 3 to take advantage of this program. That 4 area, "Oh, that's a large area." How large 5 is it? I can a __..._ pproximately tell you how-- 6 large that is. It's about 33,000 acres. It ~ is about maybe 30 percent of the entire area 6 in the County shellfish planning area 9 domain, but that area is not all going to be 10 leased. 11 That's not what's going to happen 12 and, you know, we can envision over the 13 first couple years of the program there 14 being maybe 1 or 2,000 acres leased. One 15 percent of the entire system. But the key 16 here is to find adequate spots here within l~ that gray area in a controlled basis so the 18 system is not overwhelmed and that a 19 moderate growth can occur. And we built in s c Cc 20 ` n here __ has put in the proviso that 21 the program be reviewed after its first ten 22 years, and an environmental review would be 23 undertaken to make sure that what was done 24 in the previous timeframe is what you want 25 to do in the future, or you change it. ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 34 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 So you're right, this is an access 3 program, but that's the first step. New 4 York State DEC often issues shellfish 5 culture permits to growers. One of the- 6 conditions that they have is that the grower 7 must have secure access to the underwater 8 land. If they don't have access to the 9 land, they can't get a permit. So it goes 10 tandem there. This is the first step. 11 MR. KAUFMAN: The reason I brought 12 that particular issue up -- and I appreciate 13 the answer. The reason I brought it up was, 14 again, I was not necessarily very clear. In 15 reading this document and looking at it, I 16 did not see the interplay, if you will, 17 between the proper identification of this as 18 a legal framework combined with the generic 19 aspect of it. And that threw me on my first 20 reading, yet I was aware of that. It's 2I something I think should be clarified. 22 And look, for example, at page 25, 23 description of those actions, and yet it 24 does talk about -- it's properly titled as 25 an aquaculture lease program, etcetera. And ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 35 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 it talks about the background of it, 3 etcetera. But again, for m y purposes, and 4 for people readin this, g perhaps a better 5 __ _ explanation or a more nuanced explanat-ion of 6 how a generic is done and also saying 7 that -- very clearly saying that DEC is 8 going to be responsible for certain things 9 and. the County is onl y going to be focusing 10 on certain things. 11 And again, if I could be, on my first 12 reading of this, not necessarily seeing it 13 -- and I know some of the other members have 14 the same problem -- it needs a little bit 15 better wordsmithing, if you will, to 16 understand that. That was my primary 17 comment. ~V~85' 18 MR. Bpi-I.6.; Point well taken. Z'm 19 sure if we go to the public hearing state, 20 there will be lots of other comments that 21 we'll have to address, and that will give us 22 the chance to answer those points 23 specifically, and that may require new 29 information. It might require extracting 25 information that is already in here. Right ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 36 I CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 now, it's a 300-page document. It's tough 3 to go through it, but we'll be able to tease 4 those points out and hopefully augment and 5 - - _ _ -- -- provide a better answer to your particular 6 question. 7 CHAIRMAN SWANSON: Thank you. 8 Legislator Schneiderman, before you 9 start, I'd like to say welcome back to CEQ 10 after several years of absence. We're glad 11 to have you. 12 MR. SCHNEIDERNAN: It's nice to be 13 back. As you know, last time I was here I 14 was here in my capacity as chair of parks. 15 Chair of the environmental committee. So 16 I'm pleased to be back. 17 First, let me thank ~~ as well as J70.U i;tS 18 Mr. s and all those involved in what I 19 think is a very thorough document. First, I 20 should say that of the hundred or so 21 thousand acres available in the Peconic 22 estuary systems, this lease program is 23 contemplating, over five years, using about 24 300 acres, probably in five-acre leases, 25 over a five-year period, so roughly 60 acres ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 531-331-3753 37 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 a year or 12 leases per year for the next 3 five years, and then possibly for the 4 following five years a similar 300 acres. 5 So we're talking about a very small portion. 6 of increased aquaculture -- it already is 7 aquaculture going, so as we look at the 8 environmental impact, Z think it's important 9 to understand that aquaculture is already 10 happening on a much larger scale than what 11 we're adding to it. And in trying to frame 12 what some of the possible impacts of 13 aquaculture could be -- and we typically 14 think of aquaculture as a good thing in 15 terms of we're adding more filtering 16 capacity into the harbors to help clarify 17 the water. 18 There are three things that jump out 19 in my mind, and one is the navigational 20 issue, which you covered here because you 21 are setting up buoys, you're setting up the 22 cages for off-bottom aquaculture that could 23 potentially interfere with the movement of 24 ships in a storm, could basically have 25 objects that might be moving about. ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 38 I CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 The second issue would be issues of 3 carrying capacity. If you're doing this 4 industrial aquaculture and adding this 5. - fil.taring~capacity, you are using a €ood~- 6 supply because these bivalves are, I guess, 7 metabolizing or using algae as part of their 8 growth. So could you, at some point, be 9 depriving other species' food supplies? So 10 that would be one category to look at. I 11 know you've done some work on that. 12 And the third category that jumps to 13 mind, from an environmental standpoint, is 14 the possible introduction of contaminants or 15 species that might take off, so to speak, 16 indigenous species that would create 17 problems for the traditional marine life 18 through their introduction. I9 So other areas of environmental 20 concern, if you could point them out, but 21 maybe you could provide a general overview 22 for this body. Zt seems that aquaculture 23 would, on its face, have a positive 24 environmental impact, and we're locking at 25 an environmental statement and trying to ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 39 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 make a judgment as to whether this program is a good thing for the basis -- I think it's important, at least, to kind of frame the major issues and give us your take can what they might be and, i.f they need to be mitigated, how they would be mitigated. y~Qu:cS: MR. „r~,~„ Greg, maybe you can give an overview of how the program is envisioned at this point. Actually, it includes a lot of the mitigation that we would approach this particular issue with. MR. GREENE: I think the one concern that arose more than any other during the course of putting together the EIS was the issue about conflict with existing users of the estuaries, existing users being commercial fishing and shellfish industry that already exists out there. That's the issue that kept coming back more and more frequently as we went throuyh the process. And what we did is speak to those interests to the extent possible to identify which areas they considered of primary importance to their businesses. ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 1 1 2 3 4 5, 6 7 e 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 40 CEQ PUALIC MEETING, 3/19/08 MR. SCHNEIDERMAN: When you're talking about other users, you're not, per se, talking about other leaseholders, you're talking about fishermen and..: MR. GREENE: Working with wild harvesters. In developing the map indicating where we felt these leases might be appropriate, we excluded those areas that were felt by those groups to be most important to their business. And then a good example is the eastern part of the estuary. Town of Southampton, interests in the town of Southampton expressed a concern that a large part of that area was used for their fishing industry and, therefore, we have very limited areas available for leasing in those waters. In particular, we sat down with the town -- various people in the town to identify where they think it would be appropriate, and that's how the areas were defined. MR. SCHNEIDERMAN: No currently productive areas would be considered for ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SEP.VICES, 631-331-3753 {" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 41 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 leaseholds; is that correct? MR. GREENE: The basic premise is that we were looking for areas with the lowest productivity.. And the projeGt_has.i built-in mechanism to check that if someone actually does propose a lease in the area, there is a public notification period in which someone disagrees with that premise, that they believe it is a productive area, they will have the opportunity to say that and provide- documentation. MR. SCHNEIDERNAN: I actually went out to see how this kind of worked with oysters... I spent the day with Mr. Pell and I got to see his operation, but what I see is -- they fill bags with the small oysters, these kind of mesh bags, and they stack them one on top of each other in these large cages and, so, you basically have an enormous concentration of oysters in a particular spot. And I'm wondering -- I know we're spending a lot of time cleaning up duck farms now because we're finding them to be tremendous sources of nitrogen ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 531-331-3753 42 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 contamination in bays and harbors. 3 Can there be a problem with 4 byproducts, so to speak -- I'm trying to 5 figure aut the right word to use. When you- 6 have that many oysters in one spot, ~ obviously there's a waste product that's 8 produced, and it's going into the system or 9 maybe it's falling to the sea bed in that 10 area. Could it render an area -- even 11 though it may not be productive currently, 12 could it make that habitat -- maybe in the 13 past, historically, maybe it wasn't 14 productive, but currently it is, couldn't it 15 potentially render that area completely 16 useless in the future? 1~ MR. GREENE: Well, I guess brought to 18 a certain point, if you had such an extreme 19 quantity of aquaculture operations, you 20 could start to have negative impact. That's 21 not what's proposed here. We have a very 22 modest, I'll call small-scale type of zone 23 proposed. On the other hand, there's a lot 24 of scientific evidence that suggests that 25 aquaculture at this scale actually has ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3J19j08 2 positive impacts on the ecolo gy. The 3 cultures themselves are used as habitat i n 4 feeding areas for fish and other shellfish. 5 They seYVe ds mini artificial reefs in , a 6 sense, to bring in life to an area. And ~ even in a natural environment, shellfish do 8 tend to live in dense populations, dense 9 muscle beds, dense clam beds. A lot of the 10 natural population has declined fo r various 11 reasons over the last few decades. But 12 generally it is believed that shellfish are 13 good for an estuary. 14 MR. SCHNEIDERMAN: Is there a point 15 where you've done too much, where you've 16 actually over-clarified and taken away the 17 food source that other organisms depend 18 upon 43 19 MR. GREENE: Well, again, I think 20 that's theoreticall ypossible, I mean, in an 21 extreme case, but what we're doing here is 22 having very limited scale buffers between 23 aquaculture areas, and in total a very small 24 percentage of the available land would be 25 devoted to aquaculture. So these t ype of ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 I CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 impacts would be far -- 3 MR. SCHNEIDERMAN: So you're saying 4 that the supply of algae far exceeds -- we 5 won'_t have_aiiy measurable impact on food- 6 supply? 44 7 MR. GREENE: Not at this scale. This 8 is a very moderate program. 9 MR. SCHNEIDERMAN: But in terms of 10 clarifying water, or at least eliminating 11 pollutants from the water, this is something 12 that should have a positive effect? 13 MR. GREENE: It should start to have 14 a positive effect, yes. And it also will 15 provide sporting stock, hopefully, to help 16 bring back some of the wild stock that used 17 to exist in the bays. 18 And to answer one of your concerns 19 about the introduction of species that 20 shouldn't be there and toxic material, the 21 DEC has strict guidelines which seed stock 22 could be used for this program. There's a 23 lot of protective measures in place, and 24 those measures are even becoming more strict 25 to prevent issues like that happening. ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 45 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3J19/08 2 MR. SCHNEIDERMAN: Is it possible, 3 using the approved seed stock, that a 4 pathogen might be introduced a fu , ngus or 5 whatever it might he, ih orie of those olams 6 or oysters that now is being introduced into 7 the system that could potentially devastate 8 the productivity of the harbor? 9 MR. GREENE: Seed stocks need to be 10 deemed safe. They're tested to be 11 disease-free. It's probably more likely the 12 reverse would ha ppen, that aquaculture stock 13 could be affected by disease agents already 14 in the estuary that were there all along. 15 MR. SCHNEIDERMAN: We're not doing 16 this in any channels, I know. In general, 17 these are deep water areas, correct? So the 18 cages would be below the depth of any of the 19 boats that are in the areas, right? 20 MR. GREENE: In developing the 21 shellfish cultivation no Th t , . a was an 22 issue that had to be incorporated. We are 23 eliminating channels and bufferi ng areas 24 around channels, and we're eliminati ng areas ~' that are important areas for both ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 46 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 recreational and commercial boats. And, 3 plus, the structures, the cages, the buoys, 4 all have to meet requirements set up by the 5- CoastGuard and other regulatory agencies-. 6 MR. SCHNEIDERMAN: The provision if 7 somebody stops cultivating oysters or e whatever they might be, to remove their 9 equipment from the sea ? 1~ MR. GREENE: That was another issue 11 that came up and we do have provisions for 12 that as well. 13 CHAIRMAN SWANSON: I have a couple 14 follow-up questions. The aquaculture IS business has been known to use antifouling 16 paints and so forth on some of their nets, 17 gear, equipment and so forth. Is that an 18 issue that you've looked into in this 19 situation? 20 MR. GREENE: We looked at the 21 existing operations and there's no 22 indication that that's a problem at this 23 point. I think in cases where it's done on 24 a larger scale, larger commercial scale, 25 that may be an issue. That's certainly ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 47 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEE'PING, 3/19/08 2 something that could be built into the 3 program to ensure that the , y're doin h g w at s 4 right for the environment. 5_ CFIALRMAN SWANSON: T would encourage - 6 you to try to do something with regard to 7 antifouling issues. e Then following up again on 9 navigation, I know that the areas are to be 10 blocked off with buoys and so forth b , ut in 11 this particular area there are going to be a 12 lot of small recreational boats that are 13 probably going to be out at night and not 14 going to be able to see these marker buoys 15 and so forth, and I'm sure you won't have 16 them lighted, so what is the likelihood that 17 that situation of people being out th ere on 18 a summer ni ht are 9 going to run into these 19 buoys and equipment that are in the areas 20 you're proposing to be used? 21 MR. GREENE: Well, the equipment used 22 will bemarked by a rather small buo y, about 23 the size of a lobster buo y and the 11 , y even 24 use ropes that sink instead of floating 25 along the surface to minimize the ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 48 I CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19J08 2 possibility of entanglement in propellers. 3 You should also know that the bay now is 4 filled with markers used by the commercial S fishermen, f or the whelk industry and, to a 6 lesser extent, lobster fisher. men. There's 7 already a lot of markers out there that 8 people need to avoid navigating at night, 9 but these markers will be done in a way that 10 will minimize interference with boat I1 traffic. 12 CHAIRMAN SWANSON: Again, the 13 concern of public access out in Washington 14 state, where they have leased shellfish 15 lands, they get very obnoxious about -- the 16 shellfishermen get very obnoxious about 17 anybody that goes into their area, to the 18 extent of being extremely violent in some 19 cases, and they don't even allow people to ZO walk along the beach. Is this a problem 21 that we could be confronted with here? 22 X25: MR. I think, Larry, you're 23 mentioning a situation that's not quite 24 analogous to what we have here. Some of the 25 western states actually sold their tidelands ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 ,. 49 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 to private parties. They own the property, 3 they own Che upland. So it's a little bit 4 different situation. 5 CHAIRMAN SWANSON, There's not going 6 to be any uplands, beach space involved? ? ~ ,~ MR. ; No. In fact, if you look s at the cultivation zone, one of the things 9 that you had to do is to eliminate the 10 buffer zone 1,000 feet from approximately 11 high water. So right off the bat before , we 12 can begin all the other things that we' ve 13 done here, we eliminated 19,000 acres along 14 the shoreline from future consideration. 15 You can't lease there, can't - - we don't 16 have any authority over that. 17 CHAIRMAN SWANSON: Are these people 18 going to mobilize to go out and take care of 19 their leased land? 2 0 ~11v~ eS: MR. 4zc; They're doing it now from 21 various shoreline locations. They're doing 22 it essentially in a private wa y. There's 23 been some discussion that maybe there should 24 be some opportunities created for commercial 27 fishermen aquaculturists because of their -- ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 637.-331-3753 SO I CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 again, the difficulty of shoreside access 3 for boats and what have you, but this 4 program, in itself, does not address 5 specifically those shoreside issues. That 6 is a sidebar that could be considered in the 7 future, but people have brought that up. 9 They have brought up that question, and 9 maybe there are opportunities with respect 10 to the North and South Fork where an access 11 point or points could be provided in some 12 way. 13 MS. GROWNEY: My question has to do 14 with, might there be any kind of educational 15 program that would go along with this? ~ ~ 16 MR. Y The extension has a 17 program underway dealing with identification 16 of best management practices for shellfish 19 aquaculture. They're doing that as part of 20 the Broader Northeast Aquaculture Center 21 initiative and, so, that's part of the 22 education program that the shellfish farmers 23 can take advantage of. There may be simple 24 things that they can do to improve the 25 viability of their operation and the ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 r' 51 I CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 wholesomeness of their product, and it might 3 be a simple thing as to turn off your 4 outboard engine when you're tendin g your 5 gear. Because if there'sany unburnt fuel 6 in the water, you could potentiall y, in some ~ way, com romise P your product. 8 There are very simple things that can 9 be done and there are efforts outside of 10 this particular work here to accomplish 11 that, but one of the products that will come 12 out of this program is a summary document 13 which will describe for the public what they 14 need to know in terms of how to participate, 15 where to go, what forms to use, etcetera, 16 etcetera, etcetera, and we want to make this 17 user-friendly. So, in essence, the nuts and 18 bolts of the program will be contained in a 19 20 or 30-page document outlining all of 20 that. This is administrative guidance that 21 the County will be able to provide as part 22 of this project. 23 So we go out and talk to people with 24 respect to the policy review, and they~ll be 25 able tc see what will actuall ha Y ppen and ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 52 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 how the public will interact with it in 3 terms of criteria, what are the forms, what 4 are the procedures, what are the timelines, 5 what is thepublic notice requirement. 6 Every application will have to go through a 7 public notice requirement. It's part of e State law. All the towns are going to be 9 notified about it, how the County would make 10 that administrative decision. 11 All those things are coming and will 12 be, not only in the. program document, which 13 is people like us, but in a summary form for 14 the public. 15 MS. RUSSO: Mr. Greene, I think 16 you'll be able to answer this question I 17 have.. On page 295 of the document, table 39 18 talks about potential to be adverse impacts 19 for the program. Basically, the mitigation 20 measures for each of these parameters limits 21 on numbers and placement. I realize 22 earlier, when I questioned DeWitt as far as 23 the purpose of the State doing this lease 24 with the County -- because when I first read 25 the document, I was expecting to see more ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SF,RVICES, 631-331-3753 1 53 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 scientific data positive and negative, for 3 shellfish to aquaculture, and then reading 4 this on the chart, on page 295, basically, 5 placement, but I wag ho ping to se 6 e a little more scientific data from other 7 counties in order to have information s showin g positive and negative impact of 9 shellfish aquaculture. And I realized 10 , after DeWitt answered m y question earlier 11 , that this really wasn't the document - 12 leasin g program of this. 13 ~ And you did mention somewhere earlier 14 in the document ahout Virginia and 15 some aquacultural programs there and another 16 municipality that was preparing some b 17 est management practices for aquaculture. Could 18 you just go into a little more detail of 19 where you're gettin g these mathematical 20 processes involved and the Virginia study 21 and let's just have a little more 22 background? 23 MR. GREENE: Yes. And just with 24 regard to the table, t he two i pr mary 25 mitigating factors for the program are tc ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-33i-3753 54 I CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 limit the number and the amount of area 3 devoted to aquaculture- So that's why that 4 was kind of given a hi h g priority in that 5 tahle, because that was the first step in 6 identifying the program that we wanted to ~ avoid conflict with existing users. As part e of the b&~ 5 and as part of another document 9 we're producing in the administrative 10 guidance documents, we have reviewed what' s 11 being done in other states throughout the 12 East Coast. Most of the states are well 13 beyond what New York State is as far as 14 aquaculture. Most of them have m h uc more 15 extensive aquaculture programs. In some 16 states it's a substantial maritime business. 1~ So there is a lot of information on these 18 programs and that, to the extent possible, 19 we're reviewing for use here. We're picking 20 and choosin g parts of those programs to make 21 applicable to this situation. So there i s a 22 lot being done in different states, all the 23 way from Maine down to Florida. 24 MS. RUSSO: And I think you did touch 25 on it just a little bit, but I think for ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3"153 55 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 myself coming in cold reading the document, 3 and I'm thinking of the public hearing, that 4 maybe it would help a little to have a small 5 chapter on other states, municipalities that 6 have pursued more aggressive aquaculture ~ programs and show their results and studies 6 of these programs. 9 MR. GREENE: Yes, that can be done. 10 As I mentioned, there's another document 11 that will be prepared soon that will draw 12 upon the resources already available from 13 the other states' programs. 14 MR. KAUFMAN: Let me just interrupt 15 you for a second. Larry just left the room; 16 I'm acting chairman right now. 17 Gloria's point is well taken in terms 18 of looking at the environmental impacts that 19 those states have seen and how they have 2~ tried to mitigate and, if you will, deal 21 with those particular issues. To the extent 2 2 ~~~5 that we're in a-BE~3 situation, net 23 everything has to be placed in a document, 29 but to the extent [hat we're trying to make 25 sure that this particular 6~Ed:3 has that ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 [ 56 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 information in there, you might be well 3 advised to put this into this particular 9 document at, say, the FGEIS stage as opposed `~ to hau~.ng it-in a--separate document that you...: 6 might be developing in the future, unless 7 that second document is produced at a time 8 the FGEIS is developed and made a part of 9 this. In other words, you may have two 10 options: You can either stick that 11 information in this document now or else 12 make the second document that you're talking 13 ' about, make it a part of this document. 19 Given the fact that it's being raised 15 by Gloria -- frankly, it was going to be 26 raised by myself, also -- it may become an 17 issue that you need to look at. And again, 18 I take cognizance of the fact that this is a 19 generic, so you don't have to go into every 20 individual aspect of every little detail. 21 Sa I throw that out for your 22 consideration, if you will. 23 MR. GREENE: Yes. I think both can 24 happen. The other document will be done 25 within the ~-9-FS~~ imeframe. And, also, a lot ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 of this information can be addressed in the 3 FEIS as well. Working with us on this 4 project is a shellfish aquaculture expert 5 ___. who'svery.familiar with -G he New Jer-sey---- 6 experience, and he is independent from this 7 project, also working with the shellfish 8 growers on the East End and developing best 9 management practices. So that's a resource 10 we have available to us. He's helped us I1 with this document, and he'll help us 12 include discussion. of those type of issues 13 in the FEIS as well. 14 MR. KAUFMAN: Basically, my intent, 15 obviously, is to fireproof the document; 16 make sure that there's enough consideration 17 in there so that the issue is identified, 18 there is some general, if you will, 19 mitigation, general description of impact, 20 etcetera, in a sense that people can see 21 it's been considered, people can look at it, 22 know it's in there, rather than having a gap 23 in there. That's what concerns me. 24 CHAIRMAN SWANSON: Anybody else? 25 MR. KAUFMAN: First off, going back s7 ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 63i-331-37$3 58 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 to a question that Eva had raised regarding 3 public education, in our legislative packet 4 number 1216 there's a local law that has -5 been-proposed by-Legislator Schneiderman, 6 who conveniently is here today to possibly 7 talk about it. It's a local law to reduce e the. use of fertilizer near wetlands in 9 Suffolk County. To the extent that we know 10 that nitrogen is a problem and fertilizer I1 runoff is a problem in this county and has 12 affected the Peconic, this kind of bill, if 13 it passes with a -- I believe it's a 14 hundred-foot setback for the use of 15 fertilizer, that's the kind of thing that 16 could go into a public education component 17 of all of this, and, I think that's very, 18 very important. I don't know the percentage 19 of runoff of fertilizer as compared with the 2~ groundwater component of fertilizer going 21 into a PEP, or the Peconic estuary area, but 22 this is the kind of exact thing that's 23 easily identifiable, easily made a part of 24 an education aspect, and, I think, very, 25 very important. I think it's a very good ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 59 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 bill in that sense. 3 If I may, Mr. Chairman, I've got a 4 couple other questions. My concern is some S o~.the harvesting methods-:..that are _ 6 identified. Basically, if you will, they 7 come down to hammer and tongs versus s hydraulic methods of some sort, sleds, 9 suction pumps, whatever. And some of the 10 justifications in there are a little bit 11 worrisome to me. I point out page 209, 12 where, down at the bottom, it says: "As 13 noted previously, hydraulic pressure in 14 Oyster Bay Harbor by Frank M. Flowers 15 Company has not resulted in noticeable 16 system damage." And several times through 17 the document, it is referenced that these 18 conclusions are from personal communications 19 with the Flowers Company. Now, Z know 20 Flowers has got a pretty big operation out 21 there, and it seems to be thrivin g, and 22 there don't seem to be man y problems, but 23 what concerns me is that there's a lack of z4 studies of, for example, Oyster Bay Harber L5 complex. ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 60 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 As to whether this is a true 3 statement or not -- I don't know if there's 4 studies out there one way or another. I 5 don't knDw if anybody's-looked at it, It: 6 would be interesting to see if, again, the ~ statement by the Flowers Company is, indeed, 8 accurate in terms of impact upon the 9 ecosystem. 10 That's just a concern in a nearby 11 harbor. 12 CHAIRMAN SWANSON: Ifind the 13 hydraulic dredging an issue, in my personal 14 and quasi-professional opinion on fishing, 15 to be totally objectionable. You know, 16 people are makin 9 -- practically going to i~ war over any proposal to put a cable across 18 the Sound because of the one-time dredging 19 to put the cable in and that the bottom is 20 going to be forever torn apart, but, yet, 21 here we.'re talking about sort of casually 22 hydraulic dredging on a periodic basis is 23 just fine, and I think the fishing industry 24 using draggers and so forth, and torn up the 25 bottom of many of our coastal waters, and ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3"I53 61 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 this process also tears it up, and there is 3 long-term damage at the bottom, so I would 4 encourage you to try to eliminate the use of 5 -- hydraulic dredging-in these lease areas. - - 6 MR. KAUFMAN: I'm glad you brought 7 that up. I actually second what Larry is 8 saying. I'm glad that he brought it up. As 9 someone who deals in a professional capacity 10 with coastlines and the water more than I 11 do, I was hesitant about making a statement 12 like that. It is worrisome to me that some 13 of this mechanical hydraulic dredging can 14 have an impact such as he was describing. 15 I've seen reports about impacts on the 16 flounder industry, I've seen the dra ggers 17 offshore, and I've seen people following 18 front of -- etcetera. While I'm not 19 necessarily wholly against it, there was 20 information in here that some of- these 21 methods were less then permanently damaging, 22 etcetera. In terms of SEQRA, it's good to 23 identify. In terms of SEQRA, it's something 24 that has to be thrown out there. In terms 25 cf SEQRA, it's something that the County ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 62 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 should have examined b the Y public so the 3 public can comment on it. 4 My personal predilection might be S _._ tfia~::_mec7aan.cal:~d in .. g g=might=mot k~e-=-- 6 something that, at least in these areas, we 7 want to necessaril , y pursue. We re talking 8 about restoring an ecosystem, which is 9 actually one of the purposes of this 10 program. I'm not a hundred percent 11 convinced that we should allow, if you will, 12 techniques that can undermine one of the 13 intents, or the basic intents, of the 14 program. So that's worrisome to me. It's 15 something, probabl y, others will bring u 16 p, and it's probably something that should be 17 looked at again in the FGEIS. The good 18 thing about this is, again, it's a generic, 19 so you are allowed to, in a SEQRA sense, 20 look at this and throw it out and say 21 "Sometimes some areas may be perfectly 22 appropriate for hydraulic dredging," as 23 opposed to a site specific, where you can 2`' make that specific judgment. 25 So, again, I'm talking about this in ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 ( 63 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 a SEQRA sense, how we need to look at the 3 document. And then Larr y, in a policy 4 sense, may be correct. -5 - I haue a couple comments on the-- 6 organization. I'm just sort of jumping 7 around a little bit. The index, and also e the way the document is laid out in section 9 4, is very, very not well laid out for me. 10 In looking at page 2 of the document, where 11 the index has a black face Section 4, 12 "Environmental Studies, Impacts and 13 Mitigation." Okay, I understand that, but 14 then there's no, if you will, boldface for 15 section 4.12 "Impacts" than Section 4.13. 16 And then you start getting into 4.13 -- 17 4.1.3.14. You need to break that up a 18 little bit in the indexin so g you can see 19 what's going on and boldface "Impacts" and 20 boldface "Mitigation." And also set that up 21 in the document itself, where you start 22 talking about actual impacts and then actual 23 mitigation. For example, page 228, it just 24 jumps right in, and I started reading this 25 and I went right past it. I mean, I read ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 64 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 it, but I didn't realize it, really, that I 3 was in the mitigation section. It might be 4 worth it to have a paragraph in there saying --S __ what_,yau'ue done,--saying.:SE4RA requsres that._ 6 mitigation be undertaken. Just sort of a 7 stylistic, if you will, set-off so that it e just doesn't run on from one section to 9 another. And, again, I'm looking at 225, 10 for example, and some of the other sections 11 beyond that. 12 Legal point for a moment. This is 13 something that, DeWitt, you and I had 14 discussed yesterday. There's no provision 15 in here that if Suffolk Count y gives a lease 16 and DEC gives a permit and operations begin, ~~ let's say two years out, something like 18 that, somebody finds out that realistically 19 the lease should not have been executed; 20 that there's some sort of an ecological 21 problem down there that nobody spotted. DEC 22 can cancel its permits, but there's no 23 provision in here for Suffolk County to 24 cancel the lease. And, in other words, 25 there's no real provision for cancellation ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 65 1 2 3 4 _5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 of bad environmental leases. I think it's on page 51, for example, number 16, "Termination of the Lease." You're looking -- at-1:anguage saying, "Ghe County may terminate the lease if certain conditions of the lease are not met." Again, that's the contractual aspect. And it talks about nonpayment of the lease fees, violation, etcetera, but it doesn't -- and it does say "significant adverse impacts on resources," but it may need to phrase just a little bit more in terms of the legalities of it; that if there is a problem seen, the County can unilaterally cancel -- or maybe not unilaterally, but it can cancel if there are problems. Obviously, you don't want to get into a taking situation or anything. ~JI E,S'. MR. ^,..~..'-~r°~: Right. And I think we've had a lot of discussion about how the administration of the lease program, how it would occur, and there definitely will be a section in here described in the administrative proponent document about ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 1 66 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 Lease termination, the transfer, etcetera 3 , what would be allowed and not be allowed 9 , and the timeframes involved with 5 respect to - terminating:-the lease. In e ssence, if- 6 someone is doing an activity and you had to ~ phase him out, either because there' 8 s a change in the cultivation zone because of 9 an environmental question - , - and that to s required under the law. Ever y five 11 years the Count y has to look at this 12 zone to determine whether it should be changed If 13 . somebody's in the zone today and the 14 zone is changed in the future because of these 15 unforeseen things, there has to be 16 a phase-out of that operation, and we have 17 that considered. He may have shellfish 18 stock on the bottom, for example or i 19 , n cages, for example. He has to have 20 a period of time to finish growth of that crop before 21 he's kicked out. 22 MR. KAUFMAN: That's the 5th 23 Amendment aspects of it. 24 ~~E.$ ; MR. I don't know what that 25 means, but -- ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 i 67 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 MR. KAUFMAN: If you kick the person 3 out after he expended resources, in a 4 capital sense, it would almost be a taking 5 - - - - ~f he was removed-from the-property without 6 being able to remove those capital 7 resources. 8 ~~' MR.S: But I think that -- 9 MR. KAUFMAN: That can go in the 10 administrative section. ~ 11 MR. g I think we're well aware 12 of that, because of the required reviews 13 that have to happen under the State law and 14 under the program here. The question about 15 terminating people because they're not ' 16 living up to their end of the bargain or 17 because environmental conditions have 16 changed in some way that you haven't 19 predicted, there is the ability to cancel 20 them out. See, right now, this is making it 21 certain that, in that sense, provides some 22 perspective for people coming into the 23 program. They know what will happen, they 24 know -- they could be given the. opportunity 25 to move to another locatior. where those ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-33i-3753 l 68 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 conflicts aren't apparent. See, that's 3 what's important about this particular 4 approach, and I think that's the way we set 5- _ ,, it up,. I:think ynu have ::more details on 6 that in the program document. ~ MR. GREENE: It was the intent of 8 both Component 7, "Relocation of Leases," 9 and 16, "Termination of a Lease," to give 10 the County the right to relocate a lease or 11 terminate a lease if, for environmental 12 reasons, that location is no longer 13 acceptable or suitable. And that could be 14 brought out in more detail, in the FEIS as 15 well as the administrative document. On 16 page 50, item 7. 17 MR. KAUFMAN: Yeah, I did see that. 18 MR. GREENE: Item 7 is if, for 19 whatever reason, the area changes or becomes 20 more productive for natural shellfish stock 21 or some other change, the County will have a 22 right to relocate that lease. And in 23 item 16 on page 51, it will give the County 24 the right to terminate a lease if someone is 25 operating in a way that's deemed ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 69 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 unacceptable and inappropriate from an 3 environmental standpoint and other 9 standpoints. 5 MRa KAUFMANe- On page-129- and this 6 is a question toward science -- has anyone 7 mapped out the water flows? There's a -- e beginning at the top, it's talking about 9 differences in response of the differen[ 10 assemblances. For exam le, p you have adult 11 hard clams growing best in certain currents 12 one way, currents have less influence on 13 scallops another way, muscles are located -- 14 mentioned in here, also. 15 Has anyone done an ma Y pping on that 16 or... 17 MR. GREENE: As far as water 18 circulation? 19 MR. KAUFMAN: Yeah. That might be a 20 predictor for the types of assemblance that 21 can grow. 22 MR. GREENE: There have been studies 23 done on water circulation in the bay. And 24 it's a given that some areas will be better 25 for growing shellfish than others. We want ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 i 70 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 the program to have some flexibility so that 3 if someone has an idea that one area is 4 better for growing oysters than another, 5 they can hopefully-pick an area where they - 6 feel it might be a good area. A lot of this 7 work we think will be done by baymen who 8 want to diversify, and a lot of them have an 9 idea as to where the water circulation would 10 be best for growing oysters or other 11 shellfish. So we think even if all the 12 scientific data isn't there, there will be a 13 lot of common knowledge as to where water 14 circulation might be best for certain 15 operations. 16 MR. KAUFMAN: In a SEQRA sense, will 17 this information be available or could it be 18 made part of the document? Or is there 19 something you might want to put in the 20 administrative section? 21 MR. GREENE: Well, there are certain 22 references that refer to studies done of 23 water circulation. If they're not in this 24 document, it can be brought out in the FEIS 25 as well. ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 1 2 3 4 5 __ __ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 71 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 MR. KAUFMAN: Again, I'm not asking you to do a, if you will, classic EIS, where each individual parcel is assessed and each Lndvid~al piece e~f information is needed before you can realistically make a judgment. Obviously, this is a generic. My focus in terms of asking these SEQRA questions is to -- well, these are things that I saw that might be helpful in a large, if you will, generic sense. If you've got a map out there and this kind of information is out there, I don't think it's going to alter the document. It might be helpful to make it a part or make it available to people. That's all. MR. GREENE: Yes. CHAIRMAN SWANSON: Mr. Greene or DeWitt, can you explain a little bit about your expectations about monitoring? ~IV IfS: MR. '"'"^"`,„s1.iT-~, The program, as discussed, there's a need for this, and I know that aS ~~ has examined this particular question, and it is interesting to note, I think, that we may be able to ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 7z 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 capitalize on programs that are underway in 3 large, especially those that are underway 4 __ now. The Department of Health, with respect - -5^ _. to. the Peeonic estuary program, they. have 6 -- extensive water quality monitoring set-up ~ out there, and we were talking about -- it 8 might be very useful to look at specific 9 culture situations that are typical of the 10 kinds of operations that may be anticipated 11 to occur out there, and devise a specific 12 program to look at and try to determine if, 13 in fact, any conditions will change to a 14 significant degree or not. I'll ask QShCn 15 to address that later today, but I think in 16 looking at -- there may be several things 17 that have to be done during the course of 18 implementation. That is certainly one of 19 them. And the program review in five years 20 to determine whether or not the cultivation 21 zone should be changed. 22 So, yes, the first ten years of this 23 program, if set up properly, will provide 24 information that will be useful in terms of 25 modifying how it will be implemented during ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 ( 73 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/14/08 2 the second ten-year period. Certainly there 3 might be new answers there. There is 4 monitoring and investigations underway that - S wren!t comp-fete today. Whatever mapping 6 program that's underway for several years 7 now. This information, when it is available 8 for the entire system, will be useful in its 4 own right in determining, perhaps, 10 additional input to the process here where, 11 based on the condition, etcetera, pose the 12 least environmental threat in terms of 13 activity on those resources. So we have 14 more input coming. They're not available to 15 us today and, hopefully, we'll be able to 16 take advantage of that. 17 MR. GREENE: Well, in our review of 18 the scientific literature, I found a good 14 article to what would be the ideal 20 monitoring to implement in conjunction with 21 aquacultures. Some of them are ideal in the 22 sense that they're very detailed, very 23 extreme. Others are a little more moderate, 24 so there are some good examples on what 25 should be done. I'd also like to point out ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 74 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 that the program that's currently envisioned 3 has a provision for experimental and 4 educational leases. Certain groups have 5 - - _ expressed interest in perhaps getting a - 6 lease where they could actually conduct 7 experiments with aquaculture, experiments S and tests of what some of the impacts might 9 be of different types of aquaculture to systems. So that's another provision that's 11 built into the program that would help 12 develop monitoring needs. 13 CHAIRMAN SWANSON: Just a comment on 14 monitoring. In my opinion, Suffolk County 15 moves forward with this, that Suffolk County 16 ought to also be willing to invest in a 17 monitoring program that is going to assure 18 the long-term success of the endeavor and 19 not just rely on self-monitoring by the 20 lessees. Quite frankly, I think 21 self-monitoring is self-serving, and so I 22 would like to see that the County has the 23 ability to get access to the individual 24 leases to see how the activity is being 25 carried out; whether, in fact, it is ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SEP.VICES, 631-331-3753 7s 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 productive and beneficial. And, also, from 3 the more holistic point of view, it seems to 4 me that Legislator Schneiderman has raised 5 impQrtaht issues that the-County also-needs - 6 to cope with, and that is the long-term 7 productivity of the bay, given that you're e imposing this hopefully beneficial activity 9 in the area, and that we ought to be looking 10 five years, ten years down the road to see 11 whether, in fact, there is sufficient food 12 to sustain a program that you're proposing. 13 So those are some thin gs that I would 19 like to see put into the document as a 15 commitment to the overall success of the 16 program. 17 ~~~~• MR. -s: A good case in point I6 there, and there may be many things that we 19 should do with respect to how the program is Z~ implemented. I think we are developing 21 those, and certainly the comments today -- 22 and we hope to get in the near-term here, 23 and it definitely appears to be good. 24 CHAIRMAN SWANSON: As you know, 25 Suffolk County has an outstanding water ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-33I-3753 1 2 3 4 5 _.. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 t 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 76 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 quality monitoring program already in place for many things, and I don't think it would be extensive commitment of additional xesoti.rces to modify-the objectives to-- address specifically the issues that we're dealing with here with the aquaculture program. ~,~r? LS ; MR. „~~. I think that there's a lot of technical questions embedded in that suggestion, and I think you suggested or hinted that that program will not be sufficient to do what you think it should be doing, but I think we can talk about that. And again, it might be stationed right near where we would like to see this activity occur, and we might be able to encourage them to add a few stations, perhaps, and add different kinds of parameters that might have to be assessed over time, and I think we would be able to address exactly what you're saying now. I think we can make that as part o€ the administrative arrangement, and I think it's a good idea. MR. KAUFMAN: One last question on my ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 ~~ 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 part, and this follows up with the first 3 question, where I was looking at how the 4 program was structured. Mitigation i s my ~ _ other concern. As I read-this document- 6 right now, it states that primary mitigation ~ here will be done in essentially two areas: 8 DEC will be controllin all 9 permits and will 9 be doing the primary environmental analysis, 10 and the County will basically be doing 11 mitigation by basic avoidance of identified 12 sensitive areas. That's the thrust if , you 13 will, of what I see over here. Is that an 14 accurate statement? 15 `~ES`. MR. The law requires the 16 County to do what we propose to do. There 17 are certain stipulations in the State law 18 that point out areas that should not be 19 leased, and we've tried to follow those 20 stipulations in coming up with the a pproach 21 that is before you. But it is true that, 22 again, the County is not going to be in the 23 business of regulating aquaculture because 24 it doesn't have the authority to do that. 25 This law that the County is operating under ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 (~ 7s 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 is in the conservation law, Section 13302, I 3 believe. Other sections of the 4 environmental conservation law relate -5-- specifically to the conduct-of shellfish - - 6 cultivation and the permits that are ~ required to be issued in order to let people 9 do that kind of thing. The State of 9 New York is the regulatory agent here, and 10 those decisions are made by the State. 11 Again, as we tried to point out 12 before, access is one issue, regulation is 13 another. And the ultimate decision, with 14 respect to those permits, are New York State 15 DEC's to make. In addition to this lease 16 process, which we envision public notice and 17 a review and a certain period of time, 18 etcetera, an individual would have to get 19 these permits from the State of New York, 20 which are also subject to those kind of 21 processes. The State DEC. I'm not sure if 22 that answered your question. 23 MR. KAUFMAN: That fully answers the 24 question. 25 CHAIRMAN SWANSON: Legislator ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 ]. CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 Schneiderman. 3 MR. SCHNEIDERMAN: Again I 4 , think this is an excellent program. This body is S bein g asked to review a generic 6 environmental impact statement 7 , not just the program itself, and I thinks it' 8 s a policy question. I think, in general, we have been 9 promoting aquaculture in all sorts of w 10 ays, including seeding of Gr~t- ®n~ South 11 Bay and Northwest Harbor and many areas, It s ha d 12 r to imagine an thin Y g but positives 13 coming out of a program like this. I think that' 14 s my main point and I'd like to see it 15 move forward. Again i , n the beginning, we're 16 talking about 12 individuals 17 getting five-acre leases. It's a lE very small amount of increase to aquaculture and it's hard 19 to 2 imagine how that could possibly do anything 0 wron g, but I think the document look 21 s at everything that could possibly go wr 22 ong and does mitigate it, so I think you ve done 23 an excellent job there. We, as a body are 24 , asking to be revised or are we going to be 25 asked to vote it in, I leave that up to the 79 ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 80 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 Chair, but I'm satisfied in general that you've covered the primary bases and that we can .move forward here. CHAIRMAN.SWANSON: DeWitt, I have another question, and that -- well, maybe I seem like I will be skeptical of some aspects of the program, but I do have a question of: How did you decide on how you were going to expand it and, in fact, is 600 acres too little, and should we be looking at why isn't it 1200 acres? Why isn't it 2400 acres? And why are you expanding only ten percent per year? ~ ~~ MR• That specific figure, this 60 acres per year, first five years is 300, second five years is 300. That is referring to areas that are not currently used for aquaculture. There's new activity, in other words. I mentioned before there were 32 assignments that are five acres each, so we can multiply and it comes to about 150 acres. That's part of the program that's out there now. And obviously those people would like to continue their ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 f 1 81 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 operations. Under the program as it stands 3 , those individuals would have an o pportunity 4 to stay at five acres. Now, if the Y are i 5 n _ an area that is_hot a problem-with respect- -- 6 to resources and socio-economic, etcetera 7 , etcetera, they might have the abilit t 8 y o expand to ten acres at that location. See 9 , this is an ability for them to expand their 10 operation if, in fact, they would lik 11 e to do that. So there's some flexibility there. 12 There ase some o pportunities on the 13 private grants that are already under 14 permit. About 12, 1300 acres have i 15 perm ts already for various things, but there' 16 s a lot of extra ground out there that will be 17 protected. There might be an o pportunity 18 for some of the FALO grants to be used, but 19 we're looking at that at a ver Y limited 20 basis. Maybe a ten-acre lease 21 , or somethin g, on a FALO grant. 22 Is there any scientific way that 23 we've come up with some of these numbers? 24 The answer is no. , I think, we ve 25 come up with the numbers strictly by asking the ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-33i-3753 sz 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 z public and the people who have attended our 3 meetings that last two to three hours a pop 4 and we have 40 or 50 people. We've done 5 ths__13 times. We.tvQ responded-to them in -- 6 trying to come up with a structure that 7 relates to what they've said, and some 6 people, frankly, have said, you know, this 9 bulk of property, if you look at the private 10 ownership and the assignments, it might be, 11 like, 6,000 acres, right? So we say, "Well, 12 that could be used at some point." There 13 are certain rights that people have if it's 14 a grant, for example, but there's an 15 opportunity to expand on some of these 16 grounds, and that's true. And we thought, 17 well, maybe take a percentage of that 6,000 18 acres, and that's what it is. Take, what is 19 it, 1 percent, Greg? 20 MR. GREENE: Yes. z l ~'~s ; MR.- One percent of 6,000 22 is... Well, I can't... But that's what it 23 is per year. So that's how we derived that 24 figure. And some people say, "P7e11, maybe 25 it's too little." Some people say, "Well, ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-33.1-3753 83 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 it's too much." It's an approximation. 3 Ft's an accommodation, if you will based 4 , on the comments that we've received, and we' re 5_ trYln4 to kee it, p as Greg mentioned -- 6 earlier, moderate growth in an activity that 7 is underway now, out there, but giving those 8 people an opportunit to Y perhaps have the 9 ability to expand, which they don't have l0 now. 11 Legislator Schneiderman mentioned 12 one of the companies that he visited - - and it 13 might be a pproximate -- he may have 14 2 million oysters in cages on the bottom 15 . Now, if you have 2 million oysters, and 16 maybe the y pump 30 gallons per day for 17 oysters, so that's 2 million times 30. 18 That's 60 million gallons per day that they 19 can filter into Riverhead. The Riverhead 20 sewage treatment flows one million gallons 21 per day. 22 So shellfish can, and do have, from 23 what we can understand here , an environment 24 that's tidally well-flushed out there Ft' 25 . s not a fjord. It's not where the circulation ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 f 84 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/1908 2 is dramatic from top to bottom. This thing 3 is pretty well flushed. As we all know, 4 these shellfish can have -- again, a gut 5 feeling we_,have, 2 think,:i~ a. very positive,_ 6 influence on water quality, and that is the ~ benefit to the public aside from some people 8 getting marine-oriented jobs, but there is a 9 public benefit from this activity that will 10 accrue based on this leasing program. And I 11 think we're pretty strong on that point. 12 We're not putting in a fuel -- these are 13 shellfish, and if done correctly, with all 14 the safeguards that we can bring here, and 15 in a moderate pace, moderate pace that you 16 can continually look at to see: Is it too 17 little? Maybe we can afford a few more. If 18 it's too much, we don't have to issue any 19 more leases; we're done. 20 And I think that that approach is the 21 best way to proceed because there are some 22 uncertainties there, too. But, again, with 23 the information that we've come across here, 24 waste is on the bottom, clams in the bottom, 25 etcetera, if done properly, we'll have a ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 ~ 1 85 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 real positive benefit to the public at large 3 to water quality, etcetera, etcetera. 4 .CHAIRMAN SWANSON: Thank you. 5 __ Anyother.:questions? _._ 6 (No response.) ~ CHAIRMAN SWANSON: All right. Is 8 there anybody from the public that is going 9 to want to speak on this matter? 10 (No response.) 11 CHAIRMAN SWANSON: Okay. So our job 12 here today is to ascertain whether or not we 13 believe that the sco in p g process and the 14 information that is provided in the-96365 s 15 sufficient to move forward with the public 16 hearing and the process in general. So I 17 would like to entertain discussion for that 18 to see if we can't get the ball rolling. 19 MR. KAUFMAN: My personal opinion 20 right now is probably this is good enough to 21 go. Obviously, in the process, we have a 22 draft, and then we have a final on all of 23 this. I've picked out a few issues, Gloria 24 has picked out a few issues which we think 25 should probably be addressed on the f' anal. ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 ( 86 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 Z don't think those issues right now are 3 significant enough to prevent this from 4 going out to public comment and letting the 5 _ _ public start: talking about all_of this,_ _ 6 Maybe they'll raise some of the same issues, 7 maybe they won't. Maybe we're going to have 8 other issues, but I think it's identified 9 enough what is out there to probably give a 10 pretty good framework for discussion by the 11 public, if they read all the documents. And 12 again, I come back to the fact that it's a 13 generic. It doesn't have to go into as much 14 detail as an individual EIS. So that's my 15 opinion, and I'm sticking with it for the 16 next ten seconds. 17 CHAIRMAN SWANSON: Anyone like to 18 make a motion? 19 MR. SCHNEIDERMAN: I would like to 20 make that motion. 21 CHAIRMAN SWANSON: Your motion is 22 that the document is sufficient -- 23 MR. SCHNEIDERMAN: To move forward to 24 public hearing. 25 CHAIRMAN SWANSON: To move forward to ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 87 1 CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 public hearin 9• Good enough. 3 Okay, we have a motion and we have a 4 second, 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ao we have any comments on-that motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SWANSON: All those in favor? (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN SWANSON: Opposed? (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN SWANSON: Motion carries. I'd like to thank you all for your patience in dealing with our questions today, and we look forward to working with you as the process moves forward. ~~~5; MR. I'd like to thank the Council and we will proceed with the public hearing on the 17th, and we look forward to your participation and address all your concerns. Thank you. MS. RUSSO: Mr. Chairman, I just want to ensure that we also have the pe~[ojjpg~le in front of us understanding that-F9~'' is an ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 88 I CEQ PUBLIC MEETING, 3/19/08 2 issue addressed that we brought up. I don't 3 know if that was clear, what we just voted 4 on. And I wanted to ensure that. 5- _ _. CHAIRMAN"SWANSON:_, That!s your - 6 understanding? 7 .f5: MR W ' . e ve taken notes on 8 those issues, and we will address them. 9 CHAIRMAN SWANSON: Okay. We'll give 10 our stenographer a five-minute break. Her 11 fingers are tired. 12 THE REPORTER: Thank you. 13 (whereupon, a short recess was 14 taken.) 15 CHAIRMAN SWANSON: One item here that 16 is informational as opposed to something 17 that we need to take a vote on and need a 18 quorum, and that is the update on the 19 Cornell report on stormwater management. So 20 you want to come to the table and start that 21 presentation, if you could? 22 Emerson, it's good to see ycu again. 23 MR. HASBROUCK: Thank you. Good to 24 see you again as well. 25 MR. KAUFMAN: Sust do us a favor and ACCURATE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 631-331-3753 Appendix C Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement Public Hearing Transcript ~~ ~RIC1;';;~1 SUFFOLK CO"JNTY COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY in conjunction with the SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Pudic hearing on the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the Suffolk County Shellfish Aquaculture Lease Program in Pecoric Bay and Gardiners Bay April 17, ?.008 7:00 p.m. Riverhead Town Hall ?00 Howell Street Riverhead, New York P A N F. L: R. Lawrence Swanson, Ph.D., Chairman S.C.. Council onEnvironmental Quality Thomas A. Isles, A.I.C.p. S.C. Department of Planning James Bagg, S.C. Council on Environmental Qual.i.ty Dewitt S. Davies, Ph.ll., S.C. Department of Planning R E P O R T F. D B Y: CHERYL A. FERRELLI, RPF, SENIOR COURT REFORTER 2 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC SPEAKERS: Bob wemyss Charles Murphy Karen Rivara Jim Markow Michael Craig Bryan Murphy Chris Kiely Gerard T'roisi IN ATTENDANCE: Lauretta Fischer Jennifer Kohn Michael Mule Barbara DelGiudice Gregory T. Greens Keith Hrewer Robert Nuzzi Ken Koetzner Jenny Koetzner Gregg Rivara Debra Barnes David Lessard Florence Sharkey Joseph Woronowicz David Johnson John Dunne Bill Pell Arnold Leo Dennis Connell Philip Curcio Jen Skilbred John Kramer Ted Bucci Paul Matthews Antoinette Clemetson Gary Crowther Christina Grahn Wade Carden Walter Zalak Denise Civiletti 1 CEQ Public Hearing - April 17, 2008 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Good evening, 3 ladies and gentlemen. 4 If you'll take your seats, we 5 will commence. 6 I'm Larry Swanson and I'm the ~ Chair of the Suffolk County Council 8 on Environmental Quality a d , n I want 9 to thank all of you for taking the 10 time to come to this important, 11 important hearing concerning the 12 Shellfish Aquaculture Lease Program 13 and Peconic and Gardiners IIay of 14 Suffolk County, 15 I!11 introduce the panel starting 16 with Mr. Davies over here -- or 17 Dr. Davies - - on my right. 18 MR. DAM ES: DeWitt Davies from 19 Suffolk County Department of 20 Planning. 21 MR, ISLES: Tom Isles, I:irector. 22 of Planning, Suffolk County Planning. 23 MR. BAGG: James IIa 9g, Suffolk ``~ County Council on Envircnmer.tal 25 Quality. 4 1 CEQ Public Hearing - April 17, 2008 2 THE CHAIRMAN: We're here to 3 listen to your comments. q Consequently, there won't really 5 be dialogue between anybody here at 5 the panel and you unless it's to 7 clarify comments that you have made g and we don't quite understand. g We don't have too many speakers 10 signed up so far, so i£ you desire to 11 speak, please, make sure you sign up 12 in the back. 13 We're going to give each speaker. 14 Five minutes, and written comments 15 will also be accepted if you don't 16 choose to speak or if you don't get 17 everything said that you needed to 18 say. lg I would request, for just common 20 courtesy of everybody in the 21 audience, that if you have a coil 22 phone, to, please, r_urn it off. 23 so, with that, we will begin. ?4 Each speaker should state their 25 name and their affiliation far the 1 CEQ Public Hearing - April 17, 2008 2 record, and we may ask you to spell. 3 it for our stenographer, 9 First speaker is Bob Wemus (s.ic), 5 the town of -- from Huntington 6 representing the North Shore Aayme-,. 7 MR. WEMYSS: Robert Wemyss. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Wemyss. I'm 9 sorry. 10 MR. WEMYSS: It's okay. 11 I looked through the DGEIS, and 12 when you get to the subject of 13 productivity determination ' s, you re 14 doing a terrible thin g. You 15 designate an aquaculture zone without 16 vetting. 17 You have side scan sonar 18 information, an example of which is 19 shown in -- in Pe conic Estuary 20 Program. 21 It shows a ring of shell ir. 2?. Orient Harbor and you have shell 2~ information throughout Peconics where 24 you -- you show edge habitat. 7.5 And I'll describe edge habitat as S 6 1 CEQ Public Hearing - April 17, 2008 2 that area where the mud in the middle 3 bays rises up to the shoal area and 4 turns into harder bottom. S F.very clam digger on Long Island 6 knows that the edge is where the 7 natural clams live. And you, 8 basically, blacked out eighty percent 9 of the Peconics without taking into 10 account this type of habitat. 11 And the shell ring, the side scan 12 sonar can't differentiate between 13 live clams and shell. 1~1 You also have samples from 15 that -- from that study in Peconic 16 that show large numbers of juvenile 17 hard clams. And you simply haven't 18 vetted the habiL'at that you propose 19 to lease. 20 The program has also decided to 21 take the tact of ignoring the state's 22 legislature's -- legislature's clear. 23 intent, which is to start a new 24 leasing program by attempting to 25 enable the layering of leases over 1 CEQ Public Hearing - April 17, 2008 2 oyster grants that were illegally 3 granted in the original that are 4 proven to be natural shellfish beds. S Aquaculture technolc gy's lawsuit 6 which the county was involved in ~ showed that in court. documents. Yet, 8 at a late date, you included that 9 property now owned by Perrino 1C (phonetic) as an aquaculture zone 11 which is known to be a productive 12 hard clam bed with the proof .in that 13 court case. That is, the proof that 14 that defendant, in fact dred d , ge aver 15 a million dollars' worth of hard. 16 clams, of natural hard clams, off 17 that property. f8 Now, you have similar grants all 19 through Peconic Ba y, especially 2C eadtern portion of Peconic Ba t y, hat 21 straddle the edge, which is the 7.2 productive hard clam habitat. 23 The state legislature, the plain l4 meaning of the law, did not 25 anticipate that the county should 7 8 1 CEQ Public Rearing - April 17, 2008 2 lease further rights to private grant ~ holders. Nothing in that legislation q suggests that the county has that 5 authority. 6 You have not dealt with the ~ productivity determination on a g grant. Specifically, you have g avoided the subject. 10 The whole proposal is dishonest 11 in its intent. Because the large 12 balance of acreage would be available 73 to private grant holders who have not lq even used these lands. 15 These lands are worthless for 16 oyster culture. The proof. is they 17 are not being used for oyster lp culture. Nobody in this estuary is lg doing broadcast planting of oysters 20 on these grants. ?1 Any grant holder who has and 22 holds a permit to plant clams or, an ?3 oyster grant has that permit by 2q questionable authority because a 25 court case on the subject said those 1 CEQ Public Hearing - April 17, 2008 grants are for oysters only. 3 You. have not contemplated what 4 Lhe impact of leasing those lands for 5 other shellfish will be on those 6 grant holders's ability to dredge 7 natural hard clams from those grants. 8 Currently, they cannot without 9 determinations fromthe state. Rut 10 if they have a lease for cultivation ll of other species as others i.n the 12 state do, it is very likely that the 13 state will have no choice but to 14 issue them permits that will allow 15 them to dredgethose natural hard 16 clams. 17 And the vast majority of the 18 acreage affected in this proposal is 19 old grant lag. You propose six 7.0 hundred acres in new grants and you 21 cannot even tell us how much old 22 oyster land woald be subject. Ycu 23 don't know what's reverted, what's 24 not reverted, what's latent, what's 2S not latent. You have net disclosed 9 to 1 CEQ Public Hearing - April 17, 2008 2 the scope of the project to the 3 public, and the public has a right to 4 know. 5 And you have ignored the fact 6 that clams grow on edges, and ti;e SP_ '1 grants straddle the edge. That 8 oyster commissioners met in dark 9 rooms for eight years granting land 10 before registering with the county 11 board of supervisors when they were 12 required to register every piece 13 within ninety days. That these were 14 rot grants to individuals within the 15 county. These grants all became 16 incorporated prior to them ever being 17 registered and consolidated by the 18 likes of IIl.ue Point's and Long Island 19 oyster farms. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Cou7.d I ask you to 21 summarize, please? 22 MR. WF,MYSS: That to continue 23 with this project in its current form 24 will be a violation of the public 25 trust and ignore the naturally 11 i CEQ Public Hearing - April 17, 200£3 2 productive lands which you have not 3 vetted in any way by designating an 4 aquaculture zone that covers nearly 5 eighty percent of the Peconics and 6 very productive existin o g yster grant 7 lands that have not been used for 6 oyster culture in decades. 9 The program as its written is a 10 farce and a travesty against the 11 people of the State of New York. 12 THE CHAI RMAN: Thank you very 13 much. 14 Charles Murphy. 15 MR. MURPHY: I. have a petition 16 here that twenty-five baymcn have 17 signed. Do you need that up there 18 now? 19 While I'm walking up there, I'll 20 give you a little rundown of my life. 21 I'm sixty-five years old. I've 22 been clamming for about fort y-odd 7.3 years and I've seen what damage z4 leasing has done to the public 25 bottom. lz 1 CRQ Public Hearing - April 17, 2008 2 But let's get back to what I'm 3 really here for. 4 A couple years ago, we had 5 pot-holers legal in New York State y now. A hand digger can use a 7 pot-holer to pull up a rake. That g gives them the opportunity to work in g fifty feet, thirty feet, sixty feet 10 of water, anywhere in -- in the state 11 waters. 12 To lease this bay bottom would be 13 a travesty. Right now, New York 14 State and the United States is 15 running into a recession. A lot of 16 people are being let go on certain 17 jobs. lg This would give opportunity for lg individuals, not just baymen or 2p someone who's out of work, to find 21 work on the water. 22 Like I've mentioned before, that Zg I've been around and I've seen what Za these dredge boats do, how many clams 25 they can produce in a day. 1 CEQ Public Hearing - April 17, 2008 2 I always say one dredge boat 3 represents twent ,.ive baymen. Y-` 4 So, this area there that you're S looking at has lots of hard cl ams on 6 it. It could support quite a few 7 baymen. 8 And, if you want to shoot some 9 questions at me go right ahead. 10 TFiE CHAIRMAN: I don't think we 11 want to shoot questions at you. 12 MR. MURPHY: Okay. 13 THE CHAIRMAN; If you have 14 further comments, you still have some 15 time. 16 MR. MURPHY: Well, I just -- you 17 know, I feel they have to look into 18 this seriously and find out what 19 dredges do. 20 I have an article he re that -- 21 within the National Fisherman d , an in 22 Maryland, they're banning hydraulic 2s dredging in those waters. And I 24 think the State of New York should do 2' the same. 13 14 1 CEQ Public Hearing - April 17, 2008 2 Thank you for listening to me. 3 THE CHAIRMAN; Thank you. 4 And, if you want to submit that S article for the record, I'm sure we 6 would appreciate it. ~~ MR. MURPHY: Okay. I'1]. copy e this and mail it to youse. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. 10 MR. MURPHY: Thank you. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 12 Karen Rivera (sic). i3 MS. RIVARA: Good evening. My 19 name is Karen Rivara, R-I-V-A-R-A -- 15 TfIE CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry. 16 MS. RIVARA: That's okay. 17 -- and I am the secretary to 18 Noank Aquaculture Cooperative. I 1B also sit on the ALPAC as an industry 20 representative and I own an oyster 21 grant. They're called generic oyster 22 grants. We've had it since 1993 and 23 we've planted millions of clams on -- 24 and oysters and bay scallops on that 25 property since that time. 1 is CEQ public Hearing - April 17, 2008 2 The DGEIS, the nature is to look 3 at economic impacts, not benefit 4 s. 90, I would just like to summarize 5 some benefits of the industry A 6 . nd i also have a pamphlet that 7 was produced by the University of Rh 8 ode Island that summarizes the benefits 9 of the industry and also has a 10 website that you can go to for 11 more information. 12 But, essentially, the 13 environmental benefits 14 are that the shellfish we plant clean the 15 water. The industry is sustainable We' 16 . re not taking -- we're taking animals 17 that wa have planted. We' 18 re not just taking. We're puT.ting and then 19 taking. So, we continue to plant 20 after we've harvested and 21 sustain the resource that way. 22 The shellfish remove n.ir.rogen 23 from the water and also sY.imulate 24 diversity. Other 25 organisms usually like to grow around shellfish f arms 16 1 CEQ Public Hearing - April 17, 2008 y because of the structure and the 3 animals that we place there. q Regarding this program, the. scale 5 in terms of new acreage is -- is 6 negligible and, so, the impacts, 7 therefore, would also be negligible. g All the acreage that they're talking g about is acreage that will be farmed. 10 So, again, it's sustainable, it's 11 where people are going to be planting ly and then harvesting shellfish. 13 And when I say the acreage is 14 negligible, it used to have about 15 four -- forty thousand acres That 16 were farmed the middle of the. last 17 decade when the oyster industry lg failed because of the supply of sea lg oysters from Connecticut, those yo acreage went fallow. yl Hut, currenCly, there are about, yy roughly, two thousand acres that are y3 farmed and Chen [here's another, 24 roughly, four thousand that's fallow y5 but available for oyster cultivation. 1 CEQ Public Hearing - April. 17, 2008 2 The people who have been farming 3 out in the Peconics have been doing 4 so without any concern in terms of 5 environmental damage. That's, 6 basically, what you're focusinq on 7 tonight. And, actuall y, people have & seen benefits from what we do with 9 shellfish setting up in adjacent 10 areas. 11 The areas that are going to be 12 added from this -- with this program 13 would be, as proposed, thirty ~-- I'm 14 sorry -- three hundred acres over 15 five years, and then the possible 16 conversion of five-acre assignments 17 to ten-acre leases. 18 The leases that are being 19 referred to on the oyster gran..ts 20 would be to cultivate species other 21 than oysters. But, currentl y, those 22 grants can be and are cultivated for 23 oysters which are either planted on 24 the bottom, just as the clams are, or 25 they're cultivated .in cages- 17 18 1 CEQ Public Hearing - April 17, 2008 2 Zn addition to the environmental 3 benefits, many of us who are in the 4 industry are involved in projects 5 thar_ contribute to the restoration of 6 the bay. We donate seed to towns, we 7 work on environmental projects. 8 Our cooperative is in the process 9 of developing a project where premium 10 shellfish will be sold and the net 11 proceeds will go to projects that 12 benefit the bay, either research, 13 education or land preservation 14 projects. And that's not atypical 15 for people in our. industry. 16 The industry is also in the 17 process of developing best management 18 practices yuidance, and we're doing 19 that ofith some input from a major 20 environmental group, so we do 21 interact with other stakeholders. 22 We're very -- we're stewards of. 23 the land that we use. We're very 24 concerned about the health of that 25 land. We're fanners, so it makes no 1 CEQ Public Hearing - April 17, 2008 2 sense for us to be otherwise. 3 Bo -- and there are a lot of new 9 people comin int g o the Indus*_ry. It 5 does have a lot of o pportunity for 6 newcomers, so we want to make sure 7 that people coming into the industry 8 are aware of what the best management 9 practices should be from an 10 environmental and, also, a 11 sociological standpoint- 12 I will also say that I don't 13 believe that any other stakeholder. 1`; group could really withstand the 15 scrutiny of their industry as we have 16 regarding the environmental impacts. 17 Certainly, there was no 18 environmental impact study dare when 19 we decided to develcp so mach of the 20 watershed for housin g~ And that, 21 certainly, has had an impact on the i2 water quality. `"3 So, Z think -- I'm, actua?ly, 24 very proud of my industry and I feel. 25 that we can withstand the scrutiny. 19 1 CEQ Public Hearing - April 17, 2008 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very 3 much. 4 MS. RIVARA: You're welcome. 5 And I have these pamphlets. 6 And there's a website that you ~~ can access for more information, and 8 I'll probably be giving you mare 9 written comments. 10 Thank you. 11 TEIE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 12 Jim Markow. 13 MR. MARKOW: I'm Jim Markow. 1 14 represent Reros Oyster Company. 15 I grew up on Long 2sland, worked 16 for Blue Point's company and moved to 17 Connecticut. Z still own grants here 18 in New York with my partner, Karen 19 Rivara. 20 But it was very difficult for us 21 to move our business along. And 12 alter Blue Point's company had 23 closed, we had a brown tide problem 24 there, things got very difficult 2S for -- for us to survive there. 20 zl 1 ChQ Public Hearing - April 17, 200E3 2 But when we had the storm in 1992 3 and it broke through an inlet there, 9 the bay came back. It was great. I `' thought everything was going to do 6 real well, and things got, you know, ~ pretty good. e So, we had built z hatchery. I ~ had a house over on the bay in 10 Moriches and we were doing very we].1 11 there. 12 But the problem that we had was ],3 we couldn't grow our business in New 74 York because they're just so 15 restrictive on everything that we 16 wanted to do. 17 So, we had bought the grant in 18 Gardiners Bay and planted oysters and ly clams, and we have done that for many 20 years. And just the opposition, 21 being able to do something with your 22 own ground that: ycu pay tares on and, 23 you know, have been taicina care of 24 made it very difficult. 25 So, I ended up going over to 22 CEQ Public Hearing - April 17, 2008 2 Connecticut. And we have quite a few 3 leases over there and we work with 4 the towns, and we have a great 5 relationship. We have a good 6 recreational program that we work 7 with the towns wiCh. 8 What we do is, on some of the 9 grounds that we lease from the towns, to we give them a percentage of the 11 seed. Rnd they're able to have these 12 recreational programs where people 13 buy permits and they're able to go 14 and work in these areas that are 15 exclusive to them for recreational 16 shellfish. 17 so, the one town that I work with 18 primarily, they took in about eighty 19 thousand dollars in just permit fees, 20 so that pays for their waters, 21 they're able to buy boats, they're 22 able to do their water quality 23 test:ing, and they have a great 29 program. It's all self-supporting. 25 'They don't need any tax payer money 23 I CEQ Public Hearing - April 17, 2008 2 to keep it going, and it works great. Ard S just can't understand why 4 something that's so simplisf_ic can't work in New York. And it's almost 6 discouraging to think that with all ~ the resources that are here, that you e can't carve out niches to -- for each 9 user group to have a piece of the 10 pie. 11 It's not that aquaculture wants 12 to take over the whole area. There's 13 small, little segments of area that 14 we want to use. It's a pinprick of 15 use. But the amount of area that 16 we're, you know, leaving alone is 17 huge. It's a huge amount of area. 18 The small amount that we're going 19 to use has such a great benefit with 20 having shellfish being planted back 21 there. Having the natural 2.2 recruitment of having those oysters 23 and clams planted there is almost 24 like having seed sanctuaries located 25 in different parts of the bay. 24 1 CEQ Public Hearing - April 17, 2008 2 And without that, you may not get 3 natural recruitment. This, at least, 4 gives it an opportunity to come back S naturally. 6 And I can't understand why -- you 7 know, like the baymen look at it, 8 well, like who's -- who's going to 9 help them out? 10 We're going to help them out. it Because the fact that we have areas 12 there that are spawning and we do 13 have a big amount of oysters or clams 14 there, those are like having natural 15 hatcheries alI over the place. -16 So, you know, I don't really see 17 it as a threat. I think it's a 18 positive thing for them. 19 So, thanks for listening. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 21 Just for the record, you 22 mentioned a town in Connecticut 23 you're working with. 24 MR. MARKbW: I work with Town of 25 Groton. and almost all the towns east 25 1 CEQ Public Hearing - April 17, 2008 of the Connecticut river. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 4 MR. MARKOW: We work with East 5 Lyme, Waterford, most of those towns. 6 And have had a great relationship 7 with all the towns. And they're all. 8 able to he pretty successful. 5 THF. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 10 MR. MARKOW: You're welcome. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any more 12 people wishing to speak? 13 MS. DELGIUDICE: Yes. I have 14 more forms. 15 THE C}1AIRMAN: Okay. 16 (Whereupon, the aforementioned 17 items were handed to the Chairman.) ''8 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 19 MS. llEI,GIUilICE: You're welcome. 20 1'HE C"riA 1RMAN: Michael Craig, I Z1 guess it is. 2?_ MR. CRAIG: Hello. Z'm Mike 23 Craig. Z have a temporary site from 29 the State of New York. ~`' I was a lobster man for 26 1 CEQ Public Hearin g - April 17, 2008 2 twenty-two years and, unfortunately, 3 the lobster business died and now I 4 grow oysters at Pe conic Bay. 5 I'm grateful for the State of New 6 York to let me continue on, and I 7 think the county is pi.ckin u 9 P. You 8 know, where they left off. 9 And I see a lot of opportunity 10 for growth. There is a lot of 11 collateral benefits to growing 12 oysters. 13 And I think you did a ver y good 14 job with our ma Y p as far as where 15 areas of cultivation are possible, 16 and I think it should be su pported 17 and I encoura e g your efforts. 18 Thank you. 19 THE CHAIRMAN; Thank you very 20 much. 21 Aryan Murphy. 22 MR. MURPHY: I'm Bryan Murphy, 23 North Shore Ba ymen Association. 24 I just wanted to say that 1 dug 25 clams out in Gardeners Bay for a 27 1 CEQ Public Hearing - April 17, 2008 2 couple of years and, you know, 3 there's plenty of orild clams there. 4 And I just don't think that it's 5 right that you're going to allow 6 people to put leases on these grounds 7 and, you know, let them prosper and 8 stop bagmen from earning a living on 9 wild clams. 10 That's all. 11 THE CI-IAIRMAN: Thank you. 12 Chris Keely (sic). Is that 13 correct? 14 MR. KIELY: Kiely. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Kiely. 16 MR. KIELY: Chris Kiely, North 17 Shore Bagmen's Association. 18 I also duq clams in Gardiners Bay 19 for about five years. 2U Recently, this Januar y, I went 21 out there and, in about an hour and a 22 half, dug a bag of clams. It's a 23 very productive resource for the 24 public and it should sta y public. 25 That's it. 28 1 CEQ Public Hearing - April 17, 2008 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 3 Gerard Troisi. `~ MR: TROISI: Gerard Troisi. 5 Independent baymen. 6 I'd like to say that I am against 7 the leasing of these areas. And, 8 definitely, the state should assess 9 what kind of shell stock is on that 10 area before they give up the leases 11 to somebody who, ultimately, is going 12 to go there first and dredge those 13 clams o€f the bottom. I mean that's ?¢ a fact. 15 I don't care what they put down, 16 they're going to dredge the natural 17 shell stock that is there first. 18 Thank you. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: 'thank you. 20 Florence Sharkey. 21 MS. SHARKEY: Good evening, 22 fellows. My name is Florence 2's Sharkey. I'm Brookhaven Baymen's 2.4 Association president. 25 We totally cppose giving our 1 CEQ Public Hearing - April 17, 2008 2 lands to anyone. It should be epee 3 to the public. 4 our ba ymen have a resource out 5 there and, if these men want to farm, 6 then let them put the seed in first ~ and leave the wild clam for the 8 baymen. 9 Rut, no, they will take the wild 10 clam and disappear in five C o seven 11 years. 12 We have trustees, and our 13 trustees should keep this open for 14 al]. baymen, fishermen, conchers, 15 lobstermen. 16 You know, these men use these 17 waters too, and why are we thinking 18 about giving them u p? This is ].and 19 grabs from the golden times, from 20 mining. You know, we're in the 21 twenty-first century. We shouldn~t 22 be giving our lands away. These 23 belong to the bay!nen. A11 different 24 kind of baymen. 25 If they- want to farm, we want 29 3C 1 CEQ Public Hearing - April 17, 2008 2 them to put the seed down and not 3 farm them for five years. 4 Farmers seed their property. 5 They don't take the wild. 6 Thark you . 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 8 I know Z'm noL going to say this 9 right. But Joseph -- 10 MR. WORONOWICZ: Woronowicz. 11 THE CHAIRMAN; Thank you. You 12 saved me. 13 MR. WORONOWICZ: Thank you. 14 You have to excuse me, I'm a 15 little slow. I just had a mild 16 stroke. 17 Hut what I'm thinking i.s you're 18 giving away public land, or leasing 19 public land. 20 Right now the tax payer in 21 Suffolk County is paying to preserve 22 land, preserve wild species. 23 Does anybody know what a 24 mechanical dredge does or what it 25 looks like? 1 31 cE4 Public Hearin g - April 17, 2008 2 You got two hoses like this 3 pumping from -- from a big diesel 4 engine, water under pressure blasting S tare bottom. `tou got a steal blade 6 that goes underneath and cuts out the ~ bottom. Anything there is blown 8 apart or killed to whatever they set 9 it, four inches, six inches, eight 10 inches. You. destroy the bottom. 11 That bottom has fauna, it has 12 your estuaries are beginning, are all 13 marine life in the ocean and the 19 ba s. y Fish. You have a 15 multi-billion-dollar fishi ng 16 .industry. 17 You wouldn't give away some 18 private forest, a -- a preserve over 19 here to somebody to come in and plow 20 i.t u p, destroy everything there and 21 plant corn. You would have corrr. 22 You wouldn't have any other wild 23 species. 24 What you're doing is giving away ?.5 public land. to be destroyed to 32 1 CEQ Public Hearing - April 17, 2008 2 harvest, to plant clams or Y.o remove 3 the clams. °- You wouldn't do it where people 5 could see it done. Why do it on L'he 6 water? Why, for whatever reason 7 allow somebody to come in and destroy 8 the natural habitat for everything 9 that lives there? The plants. 10 I don't know. When the brown 11 tide comes, you rip the plants out, 12 where does the oxygen Dome from? 13 This is what it does. You blast 14 it with a water pressure hose, you 15 cut under it. 16 Out of all the maricultures, 17 people of Long Island that were here 18 at one time, there's only one left. 19 All the rest of them went out of 20 business. It doesn't last. It's 7.1 like a one-shot deal for a certain 22 period of time and it destroys the 23 bottom. 24 Anything you do to the bottom is 25 like if you tear down trees, you 33 1 CEQ Public Hearin 9 - April 17, 2008 2 destroy all your natural habitat, 3 what's left? You plant potatoes , you 4 get potatoes. You don't get anything 5 else. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I 7 appreciate you coming out. 8 David Johnson. 9 MR. JOHNSON: Hi. My name is 10 David Johnson. I'm a coastal 11 steward. I've been doing 12 environmental restoration on Long 13 Island for eighteen years. I've been 14 involved with shellfish restoration 15 for ei ht 9 years and I work closely 16 with Cornell Cooperative Extension 17 and some of the people that have been 18 in this room. 19 I orould like to turn around and 20 ask the bagmen here, is the fishing 21 as good as it was ten years ago? 22 [NIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Is 23 anythin as 9 good as it. was ten years 24 ago? 25 TfIE CHAIRMANQ; Excuse me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 i9 20 21 22 23 24 25 34 CEQ Public Hearing - April 17, 2008 MR. JOHNSON: Do you think your rakes are doing any damage to the bottom? THE CHAIRMAN: You should be talking to us. MR. JOHNSON: I'm sorry. You're right. I've been doing the shellfish restoration. The natural stocks Chat are, you know, in our waters right now are under a lot of stress from a number of diseases, over fishing, pollution, et cetera. The strain of oysters that they use is the same oyster. It actually came from Oyster Bay. There's a gentleman there from Flowers, you may have heard of him. He's, I guess, the one that everybody is talking about. here that's still around. He almos*_ got wiped cut by these diseases. What turns out is the only ones that he had left to use as spawners 35 1 CEQ Public Hearing - April 17, 2008 2 were the only ones that survived. 3 These are naturally disease resistant 4 to the three diseases that are 5 plaguing the whole east coast, the 6 Gulf of Mexico. 7 44e are down to one percent of the e historical high of oyster population ~' around Long Island right now. All 10 right? 11 These oysters that I've been I2 planting, I've released over two 13 hundred thousand adult oysters into 14 the Port Jefferson harbor alone. 15 Z've been doing recent surveys at 16 low tide, walking the beach and 17 counting oysters, which are natural 18 set and which are the strain that I'm 19 talking about. 20 We have a genetic marker that 21 just happened to ha ppen with these 22 oysters, and it's black stripes nn 23 them. Se you know right away if 24 you~re successful, which is very 25 beneficial to me in gettin g grant s 36 i CEQ Public Hearing - April 17, 2008 2 and so on. 3 Seventy-two point five percent of 4 the oysters in Port Jefferson now 5 have black stripes. I've only been 6 doing this seven years. Okay? And 7 I've released a very small amount. 8 Two hundred thousand oysters may 9 sound like a lot of oysters, but it's 10 really not. It's not. 11 If you had property or bay bottom 12 leased and you're going to get a lot 13 more than two hundred thousand 14 oysters out there. 15 One of the other things you have 16 to keep in mind here is that if 17 they're putting down a lot of 18 oysters, these oysters are filtering 19 water. They're filtering -- adult 20 oysters can filter up to fifty 21 gallons a day of water. My little 22 two hundred thousand are doing over ?.3 r.en million gallons a day. And you 24 can think about. how many millions of 25 oysters these people that are trying 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 i9 20 21 22 1.3 24 25 37 CEQ Public Hearing - April 17, 2008 to scratch a living, trying to make a living. Some of them were former baymer, on the wild and they gave up. The future is not natural stock. The future is aquaculture and it puts a less strain on the natural stocks. It doesn't hurt them. The baymen, I very sympathize with them. It's a tough life, it's a hard life, and it's getting harder every day. The baymen that I know that I talk to, you know, they get a good year here and there. Just like anything in nature, you get cycles. Okay? We have to -- the United States is so far behind the rest of the world as far as aquaculture, it's embarrassing. It's quite embarrassing. You just cant keep taking without putting something back. Okay% And that's my point. I mean these people are good 38 1 CEQ Public Hearing - April 17, 2008 2 stewards. They're trying to do the 3 best. And a lot of stuff that they 4 put down, you know, there's all kinds 5 of things that grow oa them. It's 6 great habitat to juvenile fish ~ because they have got, now, somcahinq e to protect, something to hide in. 9 Okay? 10 And that's pretty much all I have 11 to say. Thank you. 12 THE CHAIRMAN; Thank you. 13 MR. WORONOWICZ: Can I answer 14 what somebody said about using a 15 rake? 16 THE CHAIRMAA*: Let ua get through 17 the agenda and, if we have time, we 18 might be able to come back. 19 John Dunne. 20 MR. DUNNE: Good evening. John 21 Dunne. I'm just representinq myself, 22 and I want to step up as one of the 23 few proponents in the room. 24 I don't want to beat a dead horse 25 and repeat too many of the same 39 1 CEQ Public Hearing - April 17, 2o0S 2 points, but the sustainabilit y, the 3 oysters are referred to as ecosystem 4 engineers. In other words, they 5 provide habitat and produce habitat, 6 create habitat. 7 The gear that will be used in any 8 sort of shellfish bottom culture acts 9 as a -- it's own habitat and harbors 10 juvenile fish and other juvenile 11 shellfish. 12 Another point that I wanted to 13 touch on, if there's bottoms out 14 there that people are able to go out 15 and in an hour and a half make a 16 day's pay, these are considered 17 productive bottoms. And those that 18 have been paying attention to the 19 leasing program know that these kinds 20 of bottoms will not be leased. 21 Productive bottoms are not going to 22 be leased. And we're talking about 23 six hundred out of a total cf about a 24 hundred thousand acres cut there in 25 the Peconic and Gardiners Bays. Sc, 40 1 CEQ Public Hearing - April 17, 2008 2 it's a pittance. 3 Another gentleman mentioned 4 something about a recession- s Well, there's a recessior. coming, 6 so why don't we think about creating 7 jobs? Which is just what this 8 program would do. ~ You'd have folks going out there 10 culturing shellfish, folks that would 11 need to be creating gear for the 12 shellfish growers to use and grow 13 their shellfish in. You got boat 19 repairs, gear repairs, gear 15 production, et cetera. 16 And there is an economic 17 multiplier. to any industry. An 18 economic multiplier for this kind of 19 shellfish aquaculture is on the order 20 of four to six. In other words, for 21 every dollar spent in this industry 22 alone, you get a residual four to six 23 dollars out in the residual economy. 24 so, it is an economic boost. 25 And that's about it. 'that's it 1 41 CEQ Public Hearin g - April 17, 2008 ` for me. Thanks. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, 4 Bill Pell. 5 MR. PELL: Bill Pell, 6 Southampton I' . m an oyster farmer. 7 I'm representing myself and also Fast 8 Gnd Marine Farmers. It' s a group of 9 oyster farmers on the east end, north 10 and south fork, 11 I have lands in Southo).d and also 12 in Southampton Town and also 13 get __ my seed is groem in Riverhead Town 14 out of East Creek. 15 A lot of people don't understand 16 aquaculture. You could hear all the 17 bad parts, F all the good parts I' 18 . m just going to tell you wha*_ I know 19 about it. 20 Our gear is all plastic, .it's 21 nontoxic to the water. We don't tar 2.2 it, we don't dip it, we don't u 23 se tar nets. It goes on a bottom. It does 24 not hurt the wildlife at a]. ].. It 25 actually, brings mere wildlife to the 92 I CEQ Public Hearing - April 17, 200s 2 area. It's like a barrier reef. 3 When you have oysters there, 4 you're going to have scallops come `' alongside of them because scallops 6 love to live with oysters. ~~ I think the scallops actually eat 8 the byproduct of the oysters. 9 Aecause I grew scallops. I had a 10 hard time keeping them alive during 11 the winter. But I found out if I 12 kept the oysters and the scallops 13 together, they lived fine. ]9 You get eels there, you get 1`~ toadfish, you get crabs, you get baby 16 black fish, you get porgies. And, 17 actually, if ou ut the Y p gear in the 18 bay, you will actually bring more 19 fish to the area. 20 People worrying about you're 21 going to cover the whole area. 22 You're only talking about six hundred 23 acres out_ of a hundred thousand 29 acres. 25 The stuff is going to spawn 43 1 CEQ Public Hearing - April 17, 2008 2 there. .So, actuall Y, you are helping 3 the environment by bringing more 4 oysters and other stuff into the 5 area. 6 The fisherman can go fish ~ alongside of it. $ Right now where I have m y gear, 9 there's a lot of striped bass there 10 in the summertime. The s ort p guys qo 11 there fly-fishing eve ry night, catch 12 baby blues, baby stripers. They love 13 it. 14 And there's more up side than 15 down side to the whole thin g. You 16 are worrying about ruining the 17 bottom. You're not going to ruin the 18 bottom. It's off the bottom. Even 19 if you bottom plant, it's fine. 20 The new areas, you're not- going `'` to be -- most likel y you re not gcing 22 to be hydraulic dredgingon. The el.d 23 leases are permitted but it's a small 24 fraction of that. 25 And it's a no win situation. You 44 1 CEQ Public Hearing - April 1.7, 2008 2 do more harm by not letting this 3 program go ahead and do it. The ~ people who are complaining, they're S going to lose big time because 6 there's not going to be any oysters, 7 no clams, no scallops, no fish in the B whole area. You're going to have a 9 dead bay. 10 What? Are you going to have_ a 11 petting zoo? You want to go to 12 Atlantis to see seafood? That's 13 where you're going to go. 14 Thank you very much. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 16 Arnold Leo. 17 MS. LEO: Hi. Thanks. Arnold 18 Leo. I'm secretary of the East 19 Hampton Baymen's Association. I'm 20 also consultant for commercial 21 fisheries for the Town of East 22 Hampton and am a member of ALPAC, 23 the Aquaculture Lease Program 29 Advisory Committee. And I'm going to 25 just make three comments tonight. CEQ Public Hearing - April 17, 2008 2 This DGEIS is a fairly complex 3 document and I can't pretend that 4 I've read al]. of it yet. But let's 5 start on Page 232 under an item 6 called Restrict Harvest Methods. 7 It.'s stated dredging would only 8 be permitted to harvest aquaculture 9 stock and not natural stock. 10 So, I've been wondering where the 11 hydraulic dredge is that's 12 intelligent enough to know whi h c is 13 natural stock and which is cultured 14 stock, you know? Because I think if 15 you run a hydraulic dredge,. it's 16 going to just take up anything that's 1/ there. 18 So, i think that m y problem here 19 is that so far the advisory committee 20 has rot discussed the issue of 21 hydrau]ic dredging at all and I, 22 therefore, am requesting that that be 23 put on the agenda of Y_he advisory 24 committee. 25 Now, on sizes of leases, you 45 46 1 CEQ Public Hearing - April 17, 2008 2 know, on page 266, under Limit Lease 3 Size, it's stated the rationale for 4 overlaying leases on the entire 5 acreage of an oyster grant is that 6 they are permitted by law to bottom 7 culture oysters. 6 Now, this -- this, legally, is a 9 problem because some of these oyster 10 grants are, you know, over three 11 hundred acres. 12 And what this is saying is that, 13 you know, under the county lease 14 program, you're, simply, going to l~ allow someone with a 16 three-hundred-acre grant to overlay 17 the lease program on all three 18 hundred acres. 15 That --- that's not acceptable. 20 And we have to address that further 21 because that, clearly, is not the 22 intention of the lease program where 23 the most leases will be owned in five 2.4 or ten acres in size. <<^5 So, this provision for the oyster 1 CEQ Public Hearin 9 - April 17, 2008 2 grant lands are allowing, you know 3 , tease program sites of over three 4 hundred acres in one shot, and that 5 has to he addressed and corrected. 6 Finally, on Page 51, there~s an 7 item called Documentation of Natural 8 Nonproductivit y of Proposed Lease 9 , which doesn't make any sense to 10 me. But what it is saying here is that - 11 basically what it says is that if 12 someone is going to challenge a 13 proposed ].ease site, they have to 14 document that there is productivit 1 y on that lease site in order to 16 prevent the lease from going through. 17 And the y have to perform what i 18 s called a - - you know, a field Senthic 19 survey. Now, that's a pretty 20 expensive, you know, operation, doing 2.1 that kind of Benthic survey to 22 prove productivity on a particular site 23 . And, sc, what I want to 24 propose -- and I know we have to 7.5 discuss this further - . - is that, you 47 48 1 CEQ Public Hearing - April 17, 2008 2 know, if someone challenges an 3 applicant for a lease and says that 4 that site that the applicant warts is 5 productive, then I think, you know, 6 there has to be a Benthic survey 7 done. 8 And if the Benthic survey shows 9 that, indeed, the site is, you know, SO productive, then the applicant should 11 pay for that sttrvey. 12 But if, indeed, the survey shows 13 that that land is fallow and 14 unproductive and there's no good 15 historical record to show that it 16 was, indeed, you know, productive 17 scallop grounds when we had 16 widespreadscallop populations, if 19 there's neither, you know, evidence 20 from a Benthic survey nor, you know, 21 reliable historical evidence of 22 productivity, then the challenger 23 should pay for the survey. 24 Thanks. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very 1 49 CEQ Public Hearin 9 - April 17, 2008 2 much. 3 no we have any other speakers? 4 There was a gentleman that wanted 5 to r_larify about raking I u 6 , g ess. I'll allow you to do this, but 7 there is not to be a dialogue between 8 you and anybody in the audience. 9 Would you repeat your name again, 10 please? 11 MR. WORONOWICZ: Joseph 12 Woronowic2. 13 If you drop an anchor to the 14 bottom, anythin g you to do the bottom 15 causes some damage, leaves a 16 footprint, whether it's a rake an 17 , anchor. 18 But if somebody plows the land -- 19 but there's a difference between 20 using a plow andusing a combire 21 _ I'm sa in Y' g the amount of damage you 22 do to the bottom, running over it G3 with a mechanical. dredge vers us what 24 a rake does, like E said, you're ?S pumping deep water through hoses this SO 1 CEQ Public Hearing - Aprii 17, 2008 2 much, undercutting the bottom with 3 steal blades, running over it back 4 and forth, back and forth, versus 5 what a rake does. 6 Rakes have been used far hundreds 7 of years. The only thing that e destroyed raking in South Bay is the 9 water quality. Otherwise, the 10 clamming would be just as good as it 11 was. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 13 All right. Last call for anybody 14 that wants to speak. 15 MR. MURPHY: Just one more thing. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Quickly. 17 We need your name. 18 MR. MURPHY: Charles Murphy, 19 North Shore Haymen~s Association. 20 Some people like to believe that 21 the bagmen don't believe :in 22 aquaculture, we do believe an 2"s aquaculture. 24 The Toxin of Huntington, we take 2~ half of our fees for our licenses, 51 1 CEQ Public Hearing - April 17, 2008 2 put it to Brewing seed and putting 3 them out in the wild. 4 The Long Island oyster farms have 5 left Huntington, it's been about 6 eighteen years now, and the first 7 five years or so they left, there was 8 nothing. 9 Now, with the help of our town 10 and the fees from our licenses, we're 11 buying clams from the Flowers in 12 Oyster Bay and we're putting out seed 13 and it's put out there for the 14 pub.l i c . . 15 We would like to see more of that 16 done throughout the whole state. 17 We're not against aquaculture if ir.'s 18 for the public. 19 Thank you. 20 THE Ci-IAIR~IAN: Thank you. 21 Dennis Connell. 22 MR. CONNELL: My name is Dennis 23 Connell from West End Ba ~,^,'s ym . 24 Association. 25 We had many discussions with s2 1 CEQ Public Hearing - April 17, 2008 2 DeWitt Davies. He was supposed to do 3 surveys before he allowed certain 4 areas to be designated for leases. 5 And, a pparently, according to 6 this gentleman over here, it's goira 7 to be nonexistent, they're goinq to 8 let the leases go through without the 9 surveys to tell you whether the 10 bottom is productive or not. 11 Like Charlie said-, you know, 12 we're in favor of aquaculture. 1'he 13 state has a program already and the 14 program seems adequate. There are 15 plenty of people filing for those 16 assignments. 17 But to lease out the bottom that 18 belongs to the public is not right. 19 It shouldn't be done. 20 That's all I have to say_ Thank 21 you. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 23 Once again, last call. 24 If not, we will declare this ?~ hearing a success, and I thank ali of 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CEQ Public Hearing - April 17, 2008 you for coming out and for participating. So, have a good evening and I'm sure you'll see responses to your comments in upcoming revisions to the document. (Whereupon, the hearing was adjourned at 7:46 p.m.) + ~ x ~ ~ C E R T I F I C A T I O N I, Cheryl A. Ferrelli, hereby certi.f.y that the above and foregoing is a true and accurate transcription of my stenographic notes. ~~,C, CHER A. FERRELLI Senior Court Reporter. APPENDIX Written Statements Submitted: Appendix A -Pamphlet from the East Coast Shelltish Growers Association submitted by Karen Rivara. Appendix B - Baymen's petition submitted by Charles Murphy. Appendix C -National Fisherman, May 2008, "Mazyland dredging ban closes out bay clammers," article cited by Charles Murphy. Appendix U - Kobert M. Wemyss, letter dated April 17, 2008. Shellfish Farming.. is Su'slainable • Shellfish filter microsc»pic -. plant cells from } the water eolumrs :r • Shellfish feed , low on the Food ~` chain. • Mo fertifiaers,. feeds, herbicides;: drugs, chemicals; or antibiotics a{e; used. ~ ;:::~~ - Shellfish aquacutture has proven to he sustainabtebBcause it doesnnt damage the environment or.'.. -.leaY~d~ize~€uiareptoduet~vity.,~ etnnuaF haivcsts~are madeppssihle by repJanYing hatchery-: rea{ed seed ,^ ty An orn!e~ fasmer ~' - tends his crnp~.` atlm~ xd. ~~ • toter-feeding she!lfrsh improve-water quality • Shellfish farming provides habitat for fish and improves `: species diversity. • Shellfish aquaculture is sustainable and good for the environmeKt. `i D -D m 2 O X D Shellfish. the Wa~ex Filter fee • A single oyster ta» c 15 gallons a day; seta particles as smaft as • A small oyster,farm r~ Narragansett, Rt'clea 100 million ga/(p»9 ei / Reduces tpibidity / Improves fight ge / Imptovt;s rv~tez q Reduces anoxia,(? ~* ~1~«X:ka9?~ d! Shellfish improve'viat i qu2hty;as;i feed by filtenng mieiascoptc'paiti~ from the water This removes psobl' sediments- and phytop~dokton aid't associated nutrients. Sdmebfthe ntrd is incorporated mtd protein and theii-r! deposited on the bottom, whew. it:cai consumed by worms and otfie 4zgans • Shefltsh Ce plants-~~Yfi • Nitrogen cc tissues is re. animals arer • Shellfish fee denitrficati . 1.,,.,..,..ad tc rvef, SI1ef~flsl~~' ~~ '" AquacuY~ure , ~e ;... S#I~nulates`` ' CI . s~ DIVerS`I~t 7 • Recent studres.(•e!!eal>'thpY ~. ~ ` shellfish ayuaGulturr; fan ~ , imprvve`spirecles ahunildnee `' ?' sh' and divetsity }"' ' • Shells and`- ~ structures prQvid~ ~raltrtat, ` ;. , . .for juveni~efrsh, cra`'~isaril ~} ' ,, other orga»rsms. rid. Cultured shellfish have gotten a tfittimbs -` ' 55; - up from envvdtintental gEOpps $uch as '' :~ ~ F,nvironmerital. Dgt'ense, 'the ChE#~' ; ~ Collabnrative's Seafo'a`d3ntufw`ns =I and others. These grpup5 work t5{ ''; ~~„ steer consumers towazds xil~tamably ~ ` ; , harvested seafnods. Oysters are a~::,"; ' keystone species, meaning they ~:. conireltdieenvtronitjeiitinwh~ch they five by cleaning;the water'; whilethespacesbetweenth6ii APPENDIX B BAYMEN'S PETITION AGAINST LEASING EDGE SHELLFISH HABITAT IN GARDINERS BAY AND PECONIC BAY BY SUFFOLK COUNTY The primary habitat for hard clams in open bays is on edges where softer middle bay bottom rises up to harder and tighter bottom types. These edges are typically between twelve and forty feet deep and usually show on charts as a tightening of the depth contour lines, often with the bottom type transition noted. Edges are the bread and butter of deep water bagmen and they produce hard clams year after year, while they may not get a set each year they almost always have several year classes of hard clams growing on them at any given time. This edge habitat itself is a public resource that should not be privatized by leasing. It would also 6e inappropriate for the County of Suffolk to convert assignments, or layer Oyster Grants with {eases that would privatize edge habitat which. A significant buffer zone on either side of the edges in the cultivation zone should 6e protected as public shellfish habitat. Name NYS Permit Number Signature APPENDIX B BAYMEN'S PETITION AGAINST LEASING EDGE SHELLFISH HABITAT IN GARDINERS BAY AND PECONiC BAY 8Y SUFFOLK COUNTY NYS Permit Number Signature APPENDIX B BAYMEN'S PETITION AGAINST LEASING EDGE SHELLFISH HABITAT IN GARDINERS BAY AND PECONIC BAY BY SUFFOLK COUNTY Name NYS Permit Number i- 1 APPENDIX B '~':, ~ ; BAYMEN'S'~ETITIONgGA1NST CEASING EDGE SHELLFISH HABITAT IN GARDINERS BAY AND PECONIC BAY BY SUFFOLK IrOUNTY Name ~ NYS Permit Numher ~. _.__...._. _ ® ® "`°,C0'°~"u aLA4&i F18HE8MAN5 __._-.___ JOUR AL MAV 2P08 ~~ - INFORMED FISHERMEN • PROFITABLE FISHERIES - ISUSTA ABLE FISH r Maryland dredging ban closes out bay clammers Bill proposes compensation for boats, gear hill oazsed by ;he Mayard Gea- - ual Assembly to ban hyaraulic darzz dredging wi1J go inw effect in October For as ;ong as anyone can rrmember sherr. has Seen winwr clam dredging ir. !slaryland's roast:: bays. Tbasgfa maly a handf d of watermcn cor.Umze she pncdce, the methods esed to ha: yr-r. the hard damn has come under scrutiny bS` Soth environmentalism and sport fishermen. "Though [support the local seafood industry, those clam dredges arc hell on the Day's 6oaom;' says aigie: Cbuck ;ohnson of the Ocean City area. "7hey scar is w;th big acnch<s, whmh cant b< good for other Fsh and sea SfeJ' Bur commercial dredges like Garv 'I'ulf, of Crsheld, have spent x good parr oF;hei: Irves clxmming the back bzys and making a living fwm it, Tuli was gutted recen;iy in se Dady Zimes of Saliibm'y, Md., as saying,'7his is all Pve known and all Pve ever done" He ism': sun how he will fd; in the economic gap after October. Some push clam. agwcul:urc instead, bu: zegula- dons and :teens op- position from ;Deal :and owners have lirryted the prospects in tilaryhnd's coastal bays. Clammers rt<engy found support 4rom Sen. Richacd F. Co!buao (s~_Easr<cn $hom), who sporsc[<d a 6i11 sp <ompea- 't, saw them for the cwt of their boats and dgs wh<d theirjobs are'exGuded. "Whether it be five or 10 or several hundred, the Gexrai Assembly is obiigu- ed to compensate [hose nhar arc put our of work by our fegislauon;'says Coiburn. "'Sie are supposed ;0 6e business-friendly and create jobs, nor neeessari:y pu tying people ont of work." If :he crnnpemacon biJ fails, Coiburn will rv a s<pante bill :moving ehe dmdging mo:atormm back cne more year. --- CFadie Penu¢i D m 2 x n ns er Gcloner, hydraulic dredging gear, seen here in Chincoteague Bay, will be a relic among varyland watermen. APPENDIX D North Shore Baymen's Assn., Inc. 62 Oldfield Rd. Huntington, New Yorkrj~\~- April ~, 2008 W ` ~ ~ ~~C SUFFOLK COUNTY SHELLFISH AQUACULTURE COMMITTEE Having reviewed the committee's most recent draft proposal, we have come to the conclusion that the committee has departed from its legislative mandate and is acting in the service of individuals and private companies. When the New York State legislature passed the enabling statute, it did not authorize SuCColk County to lease underwater land that is naturally productive. The legislature did not exempt Oyster Grant Lands (OGL) from the substantive provisions of the statute that protect underwater lands that are capable of supporting significant commercial hand harvesting activity. The legislature did not authorize Suffolk County to lease underwater land currently held as oyster grants. Always follow the. moneq, keep your eyes on the actions of those who stand to profit. The oyster grant lands in Gardiners and peconic $ay are in many cases old ~-owth clam beds that have been open to the publsc for decades. This is because many of them have not been used for any type of cultivation for decades: unmarked and unused. These lands have been the subject of recent speculative consolidation by members of the committee. The speculation is that the OGL will be eligible for leasing by the owners, and that these owners would eventually be able to hydraulically dredge these old growth clam beds. This has become the primary drive of certain committee members, and it appears that the committee has been co-opted by the individuals who stand to profit the most. The fact is that the committee has allowed OGL owners to drive the committee's agenda. What value would be conveyed to holder of OGh with the canmittee's currenC proposal? OC,L holders will be gifted an absolute right to tease the natural old growth clam beds on their grant land, effectively converting to ownership these clam beds creating an exclusive right of fishery for the state owned clams which abound there. APPENDIX D It cannot have escaped the committee members that under the present proposal the leases available to the public in ten acre plots will be dwarfed by those gifted to current OLG holders. One thing court records make cleaz about Oyster Grant Lands is that any grants issued prior to the 190fi amendment were Illegally granted if they aze for more than 25 acres_ For this reason alone their use should never be expanded. The commissioners who granted them were run out of office for illegally granfing productive lands. The court that made landmark decision in the case of Suf£o]k County v Edwards 148_N.Y.S. 305; 86 Misc Rep. 283 determine in its findings of fact: "Fourteenth: That contrary to the statute in such case made and provided, the said Commissioners of SheiZ Fisheries did not bring the said applications to the attention of the Board of Supervisors of Suffolk County, and that said Commissioners and said Board, or a committee thereof, did not hear andpass upon said objections, and did not determine that the said land so applied for by either of the said applicants was of an area of not unreasonable extent and did not direct the Clerk of the County of St{ffolk to sell the lands so applied for at public auction to the highest bidder; and that no attempt was made by the said Commissioners of Shell Fisheries to comply with the law applicable to said applications; that Chapter 385 of the Lanus of 1884 of the State of New York permitted the conveyance of only four acres of oyster ground under the waters of Gardiner's Bay or the Peconic Bays to one applicant; and that Chapter 916 of the APPEfVDIX D Laws Of 1896, amending said Chapter 385 of the Laws of 1884, permitted the granting of no more than twenty five acres of such ground to one applicant; and that the only authority for conveying more than twenty five acres of said ground to one applicant, assuming that said ground has not been set apart and can be legally conveyed in an amount, is Chapter 640 of the Laws of 1906, which the defendant attacks as unconstitutional." FIFTEENTH: That the defendants Eaerett J. Edwards, Clarence C. Cartwright and Edwin D. Tuthill, individually and as Commissioners of Shellfcsheries, did nat act in good faith in making the said attempted conveyance hereinbefore set forth, but acted in ignorance of the law governing their actions as such the commissioners and in defiance and contempt of its provisions". When the State of New York took Aqua Culture Technologies to court for illegally dredging natural hard clams, the Attorney General refused Co use the Edwards case. The only possible reason for not using that case was that the New York State Department of Conservation (DEC) knew that this would highlight the fact that it had been illegally issuing permits that allowed uses other than oyster culture on OGL to various parties for some time. The only proper course of action for the DEC would be to simply deal with the repercussions of rescinding all permits that allowed non-oyster activity. Lnstead they continued to permit these activities in clear contravention of the law. "There has always been a natural abundance of other shellfish such as clams and scallops...It is also to be observed that the act of 1884, if considered as a grant, is to be construed strictly in favor of the state, and that it was explicitly for the purpose of oyster culture' atone...There is clear distinction between grants of private property for private APPENDIX D purposes and secessions of public properties for governmental purposes. To these Lands underwater the right and title of the state was sovereign not proprietary, The state held the title of the people for the common benefit and to promote the public convenience and enjoyment of the natural beds. AIt the state had to cede and all the county took by the act of 1884 was the title held for government Purpose" Suffolk County v Edwards 148 N.Y.S. 305; 86 Misc. Rep. 283 It is important to note that once Judge Kelby rendered this decision, any leeway the DEC and the County of Suffolk had with regard to interpreting the statute was suspended. It is role of the courts to interpret the statute and the role of the DF,C to act according to the court's interpretafion. In this case that interpretation cannot possibly Lead one to conclude that the DEC has any authority to expand use of OGL beyond oyster cultivation, regardless of how they try to craft their policy. This was the sentinel case directly on point to guazd the public's right to the enjoyment of the natural beds. The effect of the DEC illegally allowing other shellfish to be cultivated on oyster grant lands has been to increase the value of private property that might otherwise have reverted to the public as the statute lays out. When ]and is no longer used for oyster culture, it reverts to the public. Private holders of OGL that have invested in cultivating species of she116sh other than oysters may in fact be damaged by having their permits rescinded, but the DEC never had any legal right to issue those permits in the first place. The OGL holders never owned anything but a right to cultivate oysters and oysters alone. The. DEC has sought to limit the states liability for issuing permits that were beyond its authority. That is understandable given the long history of collusion between DEC Sulfolk County and oyster companies. Suffolk County issuing old growth clam bed leases to OGL holders would conveniently bail out the DEC at the expense of the law and the public right to the natural beds. The proposed draft program recommends putting the obligation of determining the productivity of land on the public. °14. Dopcment_ a~ Lion ofnrpSUral Non-Productiuib~ r_Proposed Lease -If during the application public comment period, comment is rec~iued indicatino tyre presence pf sinni$cant natural nrnrfiirhUt~ Ori the proposed lease Site ~P+3gr-{p APPENDIX D must provide documentation that the sub'ect land does not resentl t su appkcant productive natural shetlftsh stock. The County will identify what wilt bepport a considered adequate documentation of the status ojnatural shel fish stock; such documentation may include, but not be limited to, a feeld benthic survey of the underwater land. The Count un11 identi what is considered a si ni cant shellfish stack. What is "not be limited to a field benthic survey" supposed to mean? Where is the committee's obligation to the public? The law requires the determination that land offered for lease is not productive. The ]aw is does not authorize leasing of productive land as long no one objects. At the very minimum a complete benthic survey needs to be performed with a full report conducted on behalf of the County at the expense of the applicant- It is the County of Suffolk that is responsibly under the law to certify to the public that the land it proposes to lease is not capable of supporting signifrcant hand harvesting activity. There must then be a minimum 60 day public inspection period to allow the public to rebut the claim of non-productivity. That "claim of non-productivity" is no mere formality; it is the event in the process where the greatest conflict of interest exists. Qbjective criteria must be developed and applied. That 60 day period must be extended if extreme weather conditions or other extenuating circumstances prevent public inspection. If the committee was really about the business of promoting aquaculture, it would designate modest cultivation zones in areas known to benon-productive. Has the committee scrapped the blue zone? Is the idea to make the entire Gardiner I'econic Bay system a cultivafion zone? There is an obligation to determine where there is significant hard clam habitat; that habitat is meant by law to be protected from leasing. We have seen nowhere in the committee paper work a discussion of specific hard clam habitat. The idea is not to create the appearance of transparent government but actually to engage in transparent government. The temporary assignment program is miseharacterized in the scoping document. The temporary assignment program was designed with particular safeguards for public access to the natural shellli h beds. This was repeated to me by DEC personnel on many occasions. I particularly remember telling Josh Thiele how 1 felt applicants were being granted temporary assignments on APPENDIX D edges that were primary hazd clam habitat; he dismissed my concerns. My point then was that it was poor policy to grant temporary assignments in areas where the underwater topography make hard clam abundance likely. My point now is that the assignments on the edges in Gazdiners and Peconic Bays should not be considered for conversion to leases. The DEC had no obligation at the time to certify that these areas were nonproductive, and they ignored and dismissed the suggestion that the assignments not be granted on edges. The committee is designing an aquaculture program that will he a land grab for the naturally productive hard clam habitat that it is bound by law to protect. Blanket designation of aquaculture zones without ground truthing is an abuse of the authorizing legislation.. The whole point of designating aquaculture zones was to put the question of natural productivity to cost to protect public access to the natural beds. Instead the committee spends its time crafting ways to avoid its duty to do the actual physical work. This is disappointing but not surprising. Every act for granting, leasing or otherwise alienating public land for shellfish cultivation in Suffolk County has always been a land grab for naturally productive underwater land. Huntington and Islip leases and the nefarious Blue Point Smith Patent were all naturally productive underwater Lands, sold out from under the public by corrupt politicians and forwarded by judges and courts by deals made in Country Clubs. These oyster lands aze part of one of the most corrupt land grabs in Long island history -remnants of Blue Points and Long Island Oyster Farms clam cartel, and it is an insult that these illegally granted lands would even be considered for inclusion in any leasing program. Robert M. Wemyss Secretary, IVSBA Appendix D Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement Written Comments ~~S -+VS~1' ipy~_j °_ ~ TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON.. ~ FISIIERIES CONSULTANCY & COMMITTTEE ~~w„ls..~`~ 1~9 Pantigo Road East Hampton, New York ll93? ARNOLD LEO Consultant Tel' f 63I) 3'_4.3187 RRUCE HOEK Fax: (631) 324-6280 Chairman Apri13, 2008 DeWitt Davies, Chief Environmental Analyst Suffolk County Dept. of Planning P. O. Box 6100 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Dear DeWitt, With reference to the document dated Apri12, 2008, entitled "Preliminary Draft Suffolk County Shellfish Aquaculture Lease Program Administrative Guidance," please accept the following comments for the record. On page 7, under "Site Review/Ground Truthing," when an individual claims a potential tease site has sustainable wild stock, it is unreasonable to require that individual to conduct a "benthic survey" to prove the existence of the wild stock. To do such a survey that would be scientifically acceptable would require the services of a qualified marine scientist Otherwise, I could get a buddy to testify that he has surveyed the site on S different. days and always got 3U0 clams as hour, no? Some nther.means needs to be found to ascertain the productivity of a proposed tease site. It would seem adequate to require the notarized statements of at least three people who state that they harvest economically significam amounts of wild shellfish from the proposed site. If a dispute between the protester(s) and the lease applicant ensues, perhaps the County will have to pay for the "benthic survey." Next, at the back of the above-cited document there is another document, entitled "Suffolk County Shellfish Aquaculture Lease Program-Propcased Program Components (Working Drag March 20.2008)." On page 2, item number 3 ("Sizes of Leases', it is stated that the lease size limits of 5 or 10 acres "do not apply to private oyster grants." This statement is in conflict with the statement about lease sizes wtuch appears in the DGEIS dated March 19, 2008.On page 49 of the DCrEIS it states that the limits "do not apply to active private oyster grants [italics added]." There very definitely needs to be clarity about this issue, because as we discussed after the Apri12 ALPAC meeting, to allow oyster-grant owners to convert all of their grant lands to the County's lease program would (1) allow aquaculture activities in well-established productive trshing areas; (2) create havoc where the grant lands are in navigational waters; and {3) destroy any support the lease program might otherwise fold in the baymen's community. Sincerely yours, Arno~Consultant ~ ~yt ~.~~~~ ARNOLD LEO Consultant BRUCE HOEK Chairman TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON F`~~Hi~~~~~ ~CONSULTAI~CY & COMMITTEE 159 Pantigo Road' East Hampton, New York 11437 ".. Tel: (G31~Y?4-318? Fax: (G31;.3'_3-6?80 April 17, 2008 To: DeWitt Davies, Chief Environmental Analyst Suffolk County Dept. of Planning From: Arnold Leo Consultant for Commercial Fisheries, Town of East Hampton ~n ~;`., - Re: DGEIS, Shellfish Aquaculture Lease Program in Peconic Bey and Gardiner's Bay 4.1.3.6 RestriM Harvest Methods (p. 232). It is stated: "Dredging would only be permitted to harvest aquaculture stock, and not natural stock." If natural stock exists on the lease site, then the lease should never have been granted since productive areas should not be available for leasing. However, let's say some natuual stock does exist on a ]case site that is created out of an established oyster grant, please describe the hydraulic dredge or patent tongs that are capable of distinguishing between wild and cultivated stock. The subject of permitting hydraulic dredges on land leased through the County's program- has. not yet been discussed at any meetingof the Aquaculture Lease Program Advisory Committee. The subject of hydraulic dredging should be addressed as soon as possible at an ALPAC meeting. 2.6.3 Size of Leases (p. 49). It is stated: "Leases on underwater (ands not currently used for aquaculture will be 5 or 10 acres (these limits do not apply to active private oyster grants or temporary assignments)." At 2.6.27 Lease Establishment on Grano (p. 53), it is stated: "Owners of gnarls can apply under the County Lease Program to overlay a lease on the entire grant area, or a portion thereof." Then in 4.2.3.3 Limit Lease Size (p. 286) it is stated: "The rationale for overlaying leases on the entire acreage of an oyster grant is that they are pemutted by law to bottom-culture oysters." Some owners of oyster grants have got DEC permits to raise shellfish other than oysters on their bottomlands, in some cases on all of the land in the grant, in other cases on only a portion of the grant land. The County Program should not allow the overlaying aj the lease program on grant lands that are oat cwrently permitted by DEC to culture shel~sh other than oysters. 2.6.14 Documentation of Natural Non-Productivity of Proposed Lease (p. 51 }. It is stated: "'I1te County will identify what will be considered adequate documentation of the status of natural shellfish stock; such documentation may include, but not be limited to, a field bemhic survey of the tnderwater land." The question here is who pays to provide a "field benthic survey," obviously not an inexpensive endeavor. It may be that the County will have to provide these benthic surveys incases where a lease applicant is challenged by interested parties who claim that the proposed tease site is productive fishing ground. If the County does pay for these surveys, and the lease sites proves to be productive, the lease applicant should repay the County for the survey. If the site proves to be u~roductive, the challenger should repay the County for the survey. 2.6.10 Marking and Surveying of Lease. It is stated: "Lease sites must be surveyed by a licensed land surveyor prior to execution of the lease." This leaves unanswered the question of who pays for the survey, an expensive undertaking. It has been suggested that the County pay for the survey, is an effort. to encourage the development of the leasing program. If the Coumy pays for the survey, then some percentage of the fee paid to the County by the lease holder should be devoted to repaying the cost of the survey. This way the expense can be repaid over the course of 10 or 12 years. It is to be remembered that the lease holderhas been granted exclusive use of public bottomland for private profit, and therefore should be financially responsible for the cost of the survey. April 14, 2008 DeWitt S. Davies, Ph.D. Suffolk County Department of Planning H. Lee Dennison Building, 4'" Floor 100 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Re: Winerav Power, LLC Dear Mr. Davies: We write this letter to you to request that Suffolk County include the premises of our lease with the New York State Office of General Services in thb leasing program that Suffolk County is in the process of implementing for shellfish cultivation in Gazdiner's Bay. Byway of background, our predecessor, Mariculture, entered into a lease of underwater lands with the New York State Office of General Services for the cultivation of vazious types of aquacuiture in 1997. The premises are located off the eastern coast of Plum Island in Gazdiner's Bay, as demonstrated by the map attached hereto. The term "aquaeulture" is defined and is read to include shellfish, although shellfish are not expressly listed in the definition, In 2002, Mariculmre assigned all its rights and interests in the lease to Winergy. In 2002, Winergy renewed the lease. The New York State Office of General Services considers the lease to be valid and in effect, and Winergy has been duly paying the rental fees under the lease to such agency, although future aquaculture operations will be carried out by Gardiners Bay Seafood. While there have been a number of state laws relating to Gazdiner s and Peconic Bays in Suffolk County, the most recent law enacted by the New York State Legislature for this area and relating to shellfish occurred in 2004. Chapter 425 of the Laws of 2004 ceded all lands under water in Gazdiner's and Peconic Bays to Suffolk County in order to provide Suffolk County with the opportunity to institute a lease program for shellfish cultvation. The 2004 law provides that Suffolk County's authority to lease such lands shall terminate if no lands are leased for shellfish cultivation by Winergy Power LLC, t50 Motor Parkway, Suite 425, Nauppauge, NY 71788-9998 Phone: 631.434.9100 Fax: 631,239.6686 1.800.380.5950 www.winergyllccom December 31, 2010. The law also provides that lands ceasing to be used for shellfish cultivation shall revert to the state. As you may know, the County of Suffolk is undergoing a process to establish its lease program for shellfish cultivation. As part of that process, Suffolk County has drafted maps that identify which areas of Gardiner's Bay will be leased by Suffolk County for shellfish cultivation. While the ]eased premises of Winergy were initially on such maps, more recent maps have excluded the Winergy leased premises. It is our understanding that the reason for the exclusion of various lands from the current version of the leasing program is that there were too many conflicting claims to the rights to those lands. However, because Winergy possesses an exclusive lease with the New York State Office of General Services for its premises, Winergy Power does not understand how there can be any reasonable conflicting claims with its rights to the premises it has leased from the New York State Office of General Services. Thus, Winergy respectfully submits that the rationale for excluding land generally from the current version of the leasing program does not apply to its leased premises. Accordingly, Winergy Power respectfully requests that its leased premises tie reinstated in the maps of authorized areas of the leasing program tinder review byS'uffolk County. This request is especially compelling given the pre-existing lease Winergy Power has with the New York State.Office of General Services to conduct aquaculture. We would greatly appreciate a meeting with the appropriate Suffolk County persons to furthet discuss this matter, if that would be helpful to and appropriate with the ounty. I thank you in advance for your consideration of this mat ety tru urs, Dennis , CEO cc: Hon. Christine titalafi 94320 Page 1 of 1 Davies, DeWitt from: Gregg Rivera [gjr3@ccomell.eduj Sent Friday, April 18, 2008 9:08 AM To: Davies, DeWitt Subject TMAUA's duestion on 25 below: What is the county's policy on new applipffons for TMAUA after 1231-077 Will the county approve only new assignments in cuRivatbn zones? ?5. Pending Appticstions for Temporary Assignments -Applicants with pending applications to obtain a temporary assignment fmm the NYSDEC will be given the oppotlunity to obtain a lease in accordance with the provisions eStbbHshed above. The applications must have been made by December 31, 2007. G Gregg Rivera Aquaculture Speaalist Cornell University Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County 3690 Cedar Beach Road Southold, NY 11971 631-852-8680 ext 35 631352-8662 fax gjr3(r~cornell.edu htto:/lwww.cce.corneli.edul-suffolklProcrams/MARhome. htm 4118!2008 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Fish, Wildlife & Marine Resources Bureau of Marina Resources 205 North Belts Mead Road, Suite 1, East Setauket, New York. 11733 Phone: (631)444-0430 FA)C: (631} 444-0434 Webske: www.deC.ny.gov April 22, 2008 DeWitt Davies, Ph.D. Chief Environmental Analyst Suffolk County Department of Planning H. Lee Dennison Building 100 Veterans Memorial Highway P.O. Bow 6100 Hauppauge, New York ] 1788 Alexander B. Grannls Commiasbner RE: Preliminary Draft Suffolk County Shellfish Aquaculture Lease Program Administrative Guidance Dear DeWitt: The purpose of this correspondence is to provide comments on the Preliminary Drag Suffolk County Shellfish Aquaculture Lease Program Administrative Guidance document that was prepared by Cashtn Associates for the Suffolk County Department of Planning and distributed to ALPAC for review at the Apri12 meeting. The following comments are provided on the preliminary draft document for your consideration: Definitions section oa pg. 5: The term "Shellfish Seed" should refer to "any shellfish measuring less than legal size as established under State law or regulation." Size limits for hard clams and soft clams are established under the ECL and size limits for bay scallops and oysters aze established by regulation (6NYCRR Part 49). 2. Lease Application Process -Public Notice on pg. 6: recommend that the word "[voice]" comments be changed to "submit written" comments on the proposed lease unless Suffolk County will accept both verbal and written comments on lease applications during the public notice period. 3. Site Review/Ground Truthing on pg's 7-$: In the second bullet on pg. 7, first sentence, recommend that the term "[legalj" harvest of shellfish be changed to "comfnetcial" harvest of shellfish. This section should be redrafted for the determination of naturally productive areas. The statutory responsibility to }ease only those underwater lands that are not naturally productive for shellfish harvest rests with Suffolk County. Therefore, benthic surveys should be undertaken by Suffolk County prior to determining shellfish cultivation zones and designating potential lease sites within these zones in Peconic end Gardiner's Bays. Survey results should be made available to interested patties during the public notice period. Temporary markers can be placed. at dse potential lease sites during the public notice period to provide bagmen with an oppottunity to verify the survey results. Ilse full or partial cost for benthic surveys may be incorporated into the lease fee and distributed over the tern of the lease. 4. Requirements and Restrictions Once Lease is Granted -Lease Required on pg. 8: Recommend changing "[construct or operate a]" shellfish culture to "conduct anv tune oP' shellfish culture either on/in bottom or in an off-bottom structure ... 5. Revocation on pg. 9: You should clarify what constitutes a "simificant violation of the Environmental Conservation Law." 6. Annual Lease Fee on pg. 10: replace [dq] with the word ~. 7. Noise and Lighting on pg. I1: Clarification is needed in the last bullet that night time operations are limited to maintenance of buoys and other non-shellfish related activities, Possession of shellfish on the water at night is a violation of the ECL. 8. Lnportaticin of Shellfish [Seed} on pg. 12: Recommend changing this sentence to "All importation of shellfish [seed] of an size being used on County shellfish aquaculture leases must comply with all NYSDEC shellfish aquaculture regulations. Importation of shellfish, regardless of size, requires a permit from NYSDEC prior to importing shellfish into the state. 9. Sale for Human Consumptions) on pg. 12: Recommend changing this sentence to "All shellfish cultured on County leases must comply with all applicable state rules and rP¢utation~ n~_d ECT far harv t candling, r o ' r oe eAte ntrol and aquaca(tL o{vhellfiah," 10. Taking Possession of Wild Stock Shellfish by Lease Holder on pg. 12: Recommend changing this sentence to "A leaseholder must comply with all @Dvficabte state rules and regulation4 Brut ECT for p, os~~sjon hsvesk hcan,tlin crDragP a le „nltary Cnntrnt and ~ ,Arn a of 11 : ' The ha_*+M~t and andinu of wild shellfish may ty be Mowed ~ ~ arch h vest i avoidable a. 'nc;d 1 to h h *vest of c~ ln,.ed hhellfish. 11. Possession of Wild Undersized Shellfish on pg. 12: Not sure what is the intent of this section but recommend this be changed to '21o person shall possess wild undersize shellfish ~„ a loser aura 12. Harvest of Shellfish Transferred from Other Waters on pg. 13: Recommend changing the term [depuration] to "nature! cleansin¢". 13. Handling of Shellfish on pg. 13: Recommend changing this sentence to "L,ease holders shall conduct all shellfish aquaculture activities and operations involving and relating to possession and handling of cultivated shellfish to prevent cpntaminatioa and decomposition of such shellfish in accordance with applicable state ter a ~t g~tafin ,t urr r an'tgrE ,antral over shell slt and aanaritlnire as mtt+unari ed beloty~: 14. Eligibility on pg. 13: This item is lister as pending; reserve comment for later time. 15. Corporate Applicants on pg. 13: 1) should this be Certificate of Incorporation instead of [Articles] of Incorporation? 16. Description of the Lease Application Process on pg. 17: For item 3., last sentence, should the word "[completeJ" be changed to a v ? 17. Annual Reporting Form on pg. 26: Method of shellfish harvest used on lease (recommend changing for [off-bottom operation] to on-bottom culture operation. I8. Annual Reporting Form on pg. 26: Suggest adding "and quantities and sizes of each .gpecies planted or cultured on the lease site". 19. Request for Lease Termination on pg. 28: What is the time-fi~ame for a lessee to remove any structures or bottom cultivated shellfish from the lease site? Must this be done prior to termination of lease? 20. Suffolk County Shellfish Aquaculture Lease Program -Components -Site Specific Requirements for Private Oyster Grants on pg. 6: Recommendation that there should be an acreage limit on grant lands. Consistent with the Peconie Bay Aquaculture Advisory Report, leases should be no more then 50 acres for on-bottom culture regardless of total acreage of grant Fand. Oyster grant holders should be phased up to 50 acres upon satisfactory demonstration of use of lease and justification for this scale of culture operation for species other than oysters. Oyster grant lands that have not been used for culture of other species within five years should be subject to benthic survey requirements as apply to new lease sites. Establishing a limit on acrcage for grant lands will reduce user wnflicts and potential impacts from harvest gear and 6e more consistent with the overall framework for the proposed leasing program in Peconic and Gardiner's Bay. 21. Phased Expansion of Leases on Fallow Grants on pg. 7: Fallow oyster grants located in Gardiner's Bay comprise up to approximately 2,000 acres of underwater lands. These grunts should not be included in the leasing program due to established commercial finfish, crustaceans and whelk fisheries and natural hard clam beds which have been documented on oyster grant lands in this area. Recommendation that fallow grants located in the shellfish cultivation zone (to be located west of Shelter Island) should be subject to benthic surveys if leases are desired. 22. Leases fot ExperimentaUEducation Leases 8c Shellfish Resource Restoration on pg. 8: There should be a cap established and maximum acreage per lease for experimental and restoration sites. Clarification is need to identify what is meant by "off-site habitat restoration"? This needs to be consistent with Suffolk County's authority for leasing of underwater lands for shellfish cultivation pursuant to ECL 13-0302. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the draft Suffolk County Shellfish Aquaculture Lease Program Administration Guidance documents. If you have any questions concerning these comments, please feel free to contact me at (631)444-0483. Sincerely, a'~~./ Debra A. Barnes Biologist 2 Marine cc: Kenneth L, Koetzner, Chief, Shellfisheries From: Karen E Rivara [mailto:keera@jurw.com] Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 9:57 PM To: Davies, DeWitt Subject: Some comments from a farmer DeWitt, Hopefully these comments will make sense. Under Definitions: I know it is picky, but the titles of the old laws refer to granted lands for "shellfish culture" oysters were just the only shellfish they could cultivate back then. but I believe the titles say for "shellfish cultivation". Under Lease Application Process. What applies to active grants? Will the public process to initiate leasing program cover the allowance for active grants to continue their cultivation activities. Certainly we would not be required to dispel claims that our lands are productive. Mine ought be productive in some spots as I have work to achieve that particular goal. In no case should we be denied a grant to cultivate species other than oysters if we have followed all regulations and already have proper permits. Site Location will need to define "appropriate buoys" Annual repomnQ./. Design of operation in permit application for DEC ! ACOE boundaries of lease - Gty has that info What is meant by processes to prevent contamination? What type of contamination? What will County be looking for re sanitation and maintenance. Lots of this is duplicated by DEC. Can we submit copies of documentation required by them to Cty? The amount of product brought to market is proprietary. I assume the Cty like the DEC will not allow this info to be made public. Revocation seed acre depends upon species and bottom type and cultivation method. Must have reasonable standard Annual reporting form What is crop contamination? What contamination? What is Cty looking for re: sanitation? Leases should be in approved waters, so harvest from them would be permitted yeaz round. What more is required? This is a DEC thing. Do all County employees understand shellfish sanitation?The ladies who conduct inspections fot the Cty. Health Dept certainty don't. As they needled me for insignificant things like back flow preventers and sneeze guazds, they neglected to check for tags and to see if oysters were on ice. (More on hilarious County Health inspectors at later date.) The reporting of cultivation and harvest records must be confidential It is no one else's business. The DEC and USDA keep this info confidential, the Cty must also. Lease Transfer how will this work on grants? Assume if grant sold to new owner, new owner also gets leases and must be responsible to program. SUFFOLK COUNTY ....PROPOSED PROGRAM COMPONENTS Site Specific Requirements -Private Ovster Grants 28. re: fallowing. A lease holder may have to fallow their grant or portions of their grant, to combat disease or discourage predators. However, I think this fallowing period would be a maximum of 5 years. See what Bassem thinks re disease. Dave R or Gregg re: predators. At any rate this type of fallowing would give an idea of a "reasonable timeline" for fallowing. Certainly, a grant not cultivated for 20 years is inactive and not being fallowed. However, do not want normal fallowing to be considered as inactive. I think thats it Good night Karen c~ro.r r~ ,1\ i~ April 29, 2008 DeWitt Davies, Chief Environmental Analyst Suffolk County Department of Planning PO Box 6100 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Dear Dr. Davies I feel i shoukt present further information to you regarding the environmental effects of shellfish cultivation after listening to comments presented to the Suffolk County Department of Planning and Suffolk County Coundi on Environmental Quality at the April 17" public hearing. Reaardina bottom cuttivation: 1) Bottom cuRivation of oysters has occurred since tl3e late 1880's in the Peconic Estuary. HaM dams have been culWated on the bottom since the 1950's. Clams are strictly bottom dwel~rs and cannot be culivated off-bottom. No documentation of damage to the environment has been recordarl :regarding this harvest rr~tlwd in the Peconics and Gardiners Bays. When oysters were cultivated extensively on fhe bottom in the middle of the last century Heady 300 people were employed by this industry in Greenport alone. Other spades of fish arxf shellfish were;alsq abundant_ _.... 2) One company's use of bottom harvest equipment, mainy hydraulic harvesters, on public ground cast this Harvest method in a negative light. However, it is widety used regionalry in. Connecticut and in Oyster Bay, LI. Both areas are productlve of shellfish and other marine spades. 3) In 2001 Aeros asked Dr. Robert Cerra, of SOMAS at SUNY Stony Brook, about the effects of hydraulic harvesting on our grounds off of Shelter Island. Attached is hts response. As dted in the DGEIS, the DEC also studied the effects of hard dam harvest mettwds and found no significant difference between hard raking, hydraulic harvest and any of Fhe other methods studied. tBames et al., tg91) 4) The gear used to harvest hard dams and oysters is often erroneousty compared to the mud? larger gear used tc harvest sea scallops and surf dams. Worse, rt is offen compared to channeidredging. 5) Shellfish fanners are a3ltivating shellfish in a described area. We are not using bottom harvest gear over large areas to find shellfish. We are harvesting what we have planted. Farn3ers cultivating hard dams on several hundred acres would only be taming over 1t} 20 aces per year during the process of harvesting a preparing the bottom fcx planting. Reaardino the concern that "natural" dams would be harvested by farmers 1) Bottom cultivation requires a large investment in a special¢ed harvest vessel. To purchase and equ~r a vessel to harvest hard dams would cost no less than $150,000, The proposed size of the new leases and lease areas on Palk»v grants {5 -10 acxes) makes this expense impradiral, thereby eliminating the fear of harvestng wild product in ttx76e areas. 2) The regulations governing currant operetions that alnivate using the bottom dictate that harvest can only oaur on one's grant by letter of permission from fhe NYSDEC. The grant :\eros Coltwed O~--seer Company, Inc. P.O. Bon # 964 Sewdrold, New York t 1971 Phone/Fez: (631j76i-1808 owner must document all cultivation activities. No marketable hard dam product may be removed from the grant until it is mature, which is about a 4-6 year tlme investment No harvest can occur before the first planting the NYSDEC has documentation of is mahire. Any hard clams harvested during the process of botCOrn preparation must be returned to the water or given over to a public entity. It is legally impossible to remove hard dams from a grant unless they have been planted there. Fanners must, therefore, wait 4 - 6 years for any hope of a return on their investrnent This will also discourage any individual who wishes to fake advantage of the program by trying to harvest what they have not planted. See copy of permit conditions for Aeros grant lands. Regarding Environmental Benefits/ Best Management Practlces The benefits of shellfish culWation are widey documented. These benefits apply to ail spades cultlvated and all cultvaton methods. They are: a) Sustainabi0ty - wltlvatlon of shelfish relieves the pressure on wild populations b) Create habitat and promote sets of shellfish on unfamred grounds. c) Clean water by filter feedirg d) Remove excess nitrogen. The East Coast Shellfish Growers Assodafion is working on a Best Management Practices program fo be adapted by growers. This will enhance the stewardship capabilities of growers on the East Coast by guiding us to us the most appropriate dtlrg and methodology for our operations. Continued sludles Drat address concerns about hydraulic harvesting are a part of this program. Most operations that use hydraulic harvesters are located in areas similar to granted lands in the Peconics and Gatdfners Bays and are not negatively impacted by this pred)ce when used in conjunction with a wltlvatlon program. A studyis being conducted this summer in Rivefiead, New York at a shellfish nursery cultvafon site to examine the quantitatlve impacts of a commerdat oyster nursery upon waWr darity, phytoplankton, and dissolved riutrierMs. This study is Heing conducted by researdiers at the Natlonal Marina Fisheries Service laboratory in Miffonf, Connetiicut It mustbe remembered that the existlngaquaWlture aperetlons and ttxae being proposed era confined to designated pots and are easy to moMtor. We do not. use pesticides or any other inorganic compounds in the cultivation of our prroduct This is important for not only for the environment, but also for human health. Farms are located in dean waters arxi our operations are very visible. Any redudbn or Iimilfng of commerdat shellfish aquacutture will mean that the taxpayer, who already funds municipal, county anti state seeding. prbgrems far shellfish restoration, will simpty have to pay more to make up for the millbns of seed that would not be otherwise planted by shellfish fanners. 1 look forward to the continuation of my shellfish fainting efforts in the PeCOnic Estuary through the County leasing program. I hope you find my commerds and the attached information helpful. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Karen Rivera Cc: Greg Greene, Keith Brewer - Cashin Assodates R. t.awrence Swanson - CEQ Camdl Chair Ri.. ~i_r, ,, ,rFi. North Shore Bagmen's Assn., inc. April 27, 2008 62 Oldfield Rd. Huntlngton, New York 11743 Suffolk County Department of Planning H. Lee Dennison Building 100 Veterans Memorial Highway P.O. Box 6100 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Enclosed Find my comments for the OGIS for the Suffolk County Aquaculture Program. Res ectfulty Robert M. y Secretary NSBA From: John Aldred [mailto:jakired@town.east-hampton.ny.us) Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 12:20 PM To: Davies, DeWitt; Greene, Gregory Subject: DGEIS Sorry for this late submission, but I recently got back from CA. Only a few comments: 1. p.110 -grant #55 is in Gardiners Bay (not Great Peconic Bay) according to the reference map between ~:p. 114 & 115. 2. p.171 -The 4 paragraph talks about eel grass absence, possibly attributed to nutrient enrichment. However, I believe that Bob Nuui has talked about nitrogen levels diminishing in the estuary (figure 8, p.143). Is this contradictory? 3. p.201 -The statement about dredging on the Blue Points property is not attributed to any particular source, but ail other statements about dredging are. 4. p.253 -Regarding the partylcharter boat fishery, there might be mention of fhe 'fly-fishing' boats -small speed boats that take individuals or small parties around to the flats and shallows, often, but not always, using fly fishing gear. There are qutte a few of them out east here. Also, Momauk isn't mentioned as a base for charter boats, but boats from there sometimes go into Gardiner's if the winds are a problem farther east. John Aldred East Hampton Town Shell£sh Hatchery 159 Pantigo Road East Hampton, NY l 1937 631-668-4601, phone and fax 631-871-9175, cell jaldred(ix?town cast-hanpu>n ny us v~, ~©~~~5~~ '-yr~~n~ ~~s~l ~~ Comment on DGIS The statute does not authorize the scheme devised by the County of Suffolk to expand the rights of curcent Oyster Wnd Grant holders through leases. 1 have inducted below a portion of my affidavit from I~~ation of therule of strict construction of the County. {t provides the legal support for the app the statute. It documents tfie facts on the record about the illegal nature of the original oyster grants which alone is enough to end their private use. in the plain and ordinary meaning of the taw no one could reasonably condude that the New York State legislature intended to authorize this elaborate scheme to gift natural clam beds to grant holders. Robert M. Wemyss, being duly swum, deposes and says: 1~ I am a plaintiff in the above-entitled action and I have been permitted by the State of New York as a "shellfish harvester", permit number 7873, without intercuptlon since 1981. 2) 1 am the secretary of North Shore Baymen's Assodatbn Inc., and have been since 1984. 3~ 1 have been conducting research on New York's shellflsh industry since that time. 4~ 1 have studied aspects of the alienation of public lands with specific focus an the alienation of lands underwater granted, leased or otherwise alienated by the State of New York and various political subdivisions thereof. 5) A synopsis of underwater land grants made by the Suffolk Countyiheliflsh Commissioners between 1897 and 19061s contained in the report of the said commissioners made to the Suffolk County Board of Supervisors and recorded in the "PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS", on Apri110,1906. Annexed hereto as exhibit 14. 6) This report shows that the rnmmissioners made no report to the Board of Supervisors, for 14 years, between 1892 and 1906 and that between 1897 and 1906 the commissoners granted 27,514.5 aces of underwater land for oyster cuhure. 7j The authorizing statute Chapter 385 o I pno ~! u d~erwater land stating thatr 916 of the laws of 1896 restricted app such applications "shall not cover more that twenty-five acres, nor shall said commissioners convey to any one person less than one or more than twenty-five acres." The clear intent of the legislature to restrict oyster land grants to twenty- five acres or less was ignored by the SuffolkCaunty Shellfish Conunissioners who circumvented the law by issuing single deeds, of up to 1,100 acres each, to joint applicants. Examples of whkh appear in the Shellfish Commissioners Record pages 77 through 971nduding dates between October 5, 1905 and May 18, 1906, which is annexed hereto as exhibit 15. 8) The pattern of grants and subsequent transfers shows that ownership of underwater land in 6ard'mets and Peconic Bay was quickly consolidated by the preeminent oyster planters of the day. Controversy over conveyances by the commissioners of "natural grounds" where shelffish grew naturally and whkh were supposed to be off limits to granting had by 1908 reached the point that the bagmen found 8 necessary to retained council to "bring suit to oust all the Oystermen from the natural grounds". "PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS" September 22, 1908 annexed hereto as exhlb816. 9j The controversy culminated in 1914 with the case of Suffolk CouMV v. Edwards. 148_N.Y.S. 305; 86 Mtse. Rep: 283, in which the Suffolk County Board of Supervtsars sued the Suffolk County Shellfish Commissioners to recover illegally granted natural grounds. The language of the court was clear and unambiguous as to the ilmited rights of the County of Suffolk and of the holders of grants of underwater land ih Gardiners and Pecontc Bays: "There has always been a natural abundance of other shellfish such os clams and scalJops...lt is also to be observed that the act of 1884, if considered as a grant, is ro be constroed strictly /n favor of the state, and that it was explldtly for the purpose of oyster culture' a/one...There is clear drstinctlan between graat3 v/private prdpertyfor private purposes and secessJons of puWlc properties for govemmento/purposes. To these fands underwater the right and tR/e of the state was sovereign not proprietary. The store held the title of the people for the common benefit and to promote the public convenience and enjoyment of the naturo! beds. All the state had to cede and al! the rnunty took by the act of 1884 was the title held for government purpose" I0j The findings of fad in Suffolk County v. Edwards which are contaihed in the original decision incase kept by the Suffolk County Clerk are, for the convenience of the court, annexed hereto as exhibit 17. These conGusbns provide insight in the actions of the Suffolk County Shetlfish Commissioners: "FOURTEENTH: That contrary to the statute in such case made and provided, the said Commissioners of Shell Fisheries did not bring the said applications to the attention of the Board of Supervisors of Suffolk County, and that said Commissioners and sold Board, or a committee thereof, did not hear and pass upon said objections, and did not determine that the sold land so applied for by either of the said opplirnnts was of an ores of not unreasonable extent and did not direct the Clerk of the County of Suffolk to sell the lands so applied for at public auction to the highest bidder, and that no attempt was mode by the said Commissfonen of Shell Fisheries to comply with the low appl/coble to said applications; that Chapter 385 of the Laws of 1884 of the State of New York permitted the conveyance of only four acres of oyster ground under the waters of Gard/ner's Bay or the peconic Bays to one oppl/cont; and that Chapter 916 of the Laws Of 1896, amending sold Chapter 385 of the laws of 1884, permitted the granting of no more than twenty five acres of such ground to one opptica»t; and that the only atrthoriry for cronveying more than twenty five acres of said ground to one applkant, assuming that said ground has not been set apart and con be fegaNy conveyed !n an amoant is Chapter 640 of the Laws of 1906, which the defendant attacks as unconstitutional. FIFTEENTH: That the defendants Everett J. Edwards, Clarence C. Cartwright and Edwin D. Tuthill, indlviduirfty and as Commiss)oriers of Shel~sheries, d/d riot act In good faith in mdkfrrg the said attempted ronveyance hereinbefore set forth, but ailed in ignoronce of the law governing their actions as such the commisslonersand /n defiance and contempt of its provisions." 11) The last log entry of the Suffolk County Shellfish Commissioners came in 1915 when they quit their office and granted no more underwater land. Grants of State Owned Underwater land 12) On a state level the power of the State "Shell-Fish Commissioner" to grant perpetual franchises for shellfish cuture on state owned underwater land pursuant to Chapter 584 of the Laws of 1887 was repealed in 1904 by Chapter 24 of the laws of 1909 in favor of less permanent leases for shellfish culture. Chapter 584 of the laws of 1887 was construed by the courts in 1904. The case of Yroom v. Tilly i84 NY 168, deah specifically with the construction of grans of state owned underwater land and set strict standards for compliance with the terms and automatic reversion to the state upon failure to continuously maintain boundary markers and to continuously use the property as intended. The doctrine of strict construction for grants of public land was rerngnized by the United States Supreme Court: " The rule of construction in the case of such o grant from the sovereign is quite different from that which governs private grants. The familforrule and its chfejfoundation were fellc/tousiy expressed by SJr William Scott: "A/l gronts of the crown ore to be stHctty construed against the grantee, contrary to the usual policy of the taw in the consideration of grants, and upon this just ground: that the prerogatives and rights and emoluments'of the crown being conferred upon it for great purposes, and for the public use, !t shoN not be intended that such prerogatives rights, and emoluments ore diminished by any grant; beyond what such grant, by necessary and unavoidable construction, shall take away."Shivehr v. 8owihv.152 U.S. i. Statutes authorizing grants, leases, and perpetual franchises were not passed to defeat the common law prindples which. stand against graMing an exdusive right of fishery, but rather to allow cultivation of unproductive underwater land white protecting the publics rights to the natural beds. In Gardiners and Peconic those grants were for the cultivation of oysters and oysters onty. Statutes delegating sovereign power are to be strictly construed by the courts, Peace v. MrAdoo.110 App. Oiv.13; 96 N.Y.S. 1039, Such statutes rang only the powers dearly stated theren,0aan tiesdt ferry Cote. v. Incg~wreted VBi~ of an tiesch. 29$ f+I.Y. 30, and. a delegation of the legislature's authority to others will never by implied, Town of Mamaroneck v. New York Interurban Water Comoanv.126 Misc. 382. Egalitarian Concerns To understand this conflict one must bok bads at events which surrourud the 191415 oyster lands case (Suffolk County v. Edwards) in his decision Judge Kelby J, stated that: there has ahvays been a natural abundance of other shellfish such as clams and scallops, ... Hre !aw of 1884, N considered as a grant is to be construed strictly in favor- of the state, and Heat it was exptrcidy "for the purpose of oyster cuHrxs"atone. The fundamental fallacy, however, underlying the entire contention (the contention that a proprietary Interest in underwater land was had by these grant for oyster cutturej is that it overlooks the clear distinction beiw+sen grants of private property fix private purposes and cessions of public properties for governmental purposes. to these lands under water the right arxf fttfe of the stela was sovereign and rrotprop»etary. the state held the title ofthe people forthe common benefit attd to promote the public convenience and enjoyment of the nature/ beds. (5uifolk County v Edwards, 148 N.Y.S. 305, 86 Misc. Rep. 283) This-case was the culmination of a long running controversy over the manner in which the Suffolk County Shel~sh Commissioners granted underwater land. The catalyst for the controversy was the baymen's repeated comptairtts that the commissioners were illegally granting naturally productive shellfish grounds to oyster planters. The shellfish commissioners left office never to sft again after the court found that they had illegally granted productive shellfish beds. The present controversy is over illegal resurrection of tax,delinquent, abandoned and unused oyster lams and the illegal hydraulic hard dam dredging conducted on those lands. Our primary contention is that these oyster /and grarrts were illegal enclosures of natural shellfish bads. k is important to note that in the Edwards case the defense claimed these were private grerrts and that the owners had a right to the natural scallops,. mussels and clams, the court rejected these, assertions, In any evert the court decided that the oyster lands can: only be used for oyster cultivation and the state and the county lade the authority allow any other use. The settled law in New York's state waters is that only unproductive areas can tie considered for cultivation and that only legally planted shellfish Can be protected as property: The seta of various govemmentat authotikies that have been in charge of evaluating land fw cultivation use speak for themselves../ do not ask anyone to adopt my conclusions but rather if some one is interested in the truth Brat they examine the instrumetns of appropriation; deeds, leases and assignmerrts as i have done and look a the habitat they enclose. A review of initial transfers and subsequent transfers shows that these urere sophisticated schemes perpetrated to secret. The truth is the owners of a few compant~ consoCrctated control of the overwhelming majority of these underwater lands with the assistance of Crooked politicians arxt officals. July conclusion is that the oyster land grants ware dearly intended to enclose productive shellfish beds.. The problem with past appropriations of public land for aquaculture on tong Island is that each of the various schemes for appropriation ended up with large companies controNing vast bracts of productive natural shellfish habitat. The sd,emes all seem to start out the same way offering small plots; in Islip H was 2 acxes, in Huntington 10 acres, In Gardiners and Peconic 4 acres, then 25 atxes. They all promise to reserving natural beds for the public use but end up appropriating them. We are faced with a situation where natural hard clams are being. hydraulically dredged illegally from oyster lands. Baymen and the public are asked to believe that a new leasing scheme will be d"rfferent from the schemes of past. It woukt be ignorant in the face of experience to assume: a) That this won't be just another habitat grab. b) That the terms and conditions agreed upon will be enforced. c) That Gaymert wont. be subjected to one-sided enforcement. d) That it won't be another deal to allow encbsure of natural beds or justify hydraulic dredging of natural shellfish under the cover'of aquaculture. Hydraulic Dredging TfXe committee report rpa1ces several staT,sments about the impacts or lack of impacts of hydwulic.daedgirtg which are misleading and gratuitous: 1) "The evidence from scienffic assessments of the relatAre environmental impacts of hydraulic vs. `dry' (mechenica~ drredges dtd not re-real that. fhe impacts of hydraulic dredglrrg were any mo'e severe or persistent (ban those created by dry dredges. On the contrary, evidence was presented to the Wet rate of shell breakage and damage in hand harvesting opbratlons of scR~sheN alums }vas higher than with either hydr>4u1ic or dry dredges. `(fyBAAC committee's report) This conglomerate of conclusions does not seem to reflect a careful review of the current available silence on the subject of mobile fishing gear impede. Comparing dry dredging to hydraulic dredging or soft dam harvest breakage rates between gear types is not valid. The. breakage rate for hard dams La actually much higher with mechanical gear than with Mand rakes, but R is in any event an Irrelevant and gratuitous inclusion. Instead it seems bo be a selective sampling to whitewash the use of hydraulic dredges in Gardiner's and Peconic Bays. The committee avoids the issue of wholesale resuspension associated with hydraulic dredging. "The immediate effects of suction dredging are, not surprfsinglY, 4ui[e severs, as the entire upper laye-s of the subshatum and fauna are removed. Irt sorrre fisheries, bivalves are collecfed by hand or mecharoiz~ of benthic faunart wither hhand-rat ked plots Broad and Hall} suggests that the compos' ~chniques, recovers within 54 days of initial disturbance. Unlike suctiondredging handraking leaves the sediment in situ and does not affect aft the animals within the path of the reke." (Environmental impacts of Bivalve Mariculture M.J. Kaiser, I. Laing, S.D. tltting and G.M. Burnell} Another disturbing thing is that in comparing soft clam harvest to hard clam harvest the cornrtrriitee reports fails to identify the fundamental differences in habitat of these iwo species. Soft clams inhabit high energy shallow waters typically littoral and sublittorel flats, which are characterized by their shifting nature. The organisms in these areas are adapted to this environment and are highly tsub-tidal areas th are by the f ~~,aard clams on the other hand inhabit tow energy areas ~~ makeup a large subject to much.less natural disturbance. The,deepec portion. of the productive natural hard clam habitat in Gardiner's and P~nicBays, are low energy areas not subject to the apheaval of softclam areas. Scouring by tidal currents inthese deeper area deposits tine sediments in to areas o ~i ~r~ bw The bottom in these. deep basins is mostly fine soft mud precisery energy conditions there encourage settlement of sedrrnent that would remain in suspension in more turbulent arms. The natural tidal suspensioh of fine sediments from soft soupy mid-bay mud is not comparable the suspension from hydraulic dredging; which suspends sedimenrts from. deep beneath the bay floor, sediments which nomtalty remain in their anoxictorrib> On the margins of these deeper basins and bay cells ~~ ~~ ~ eha~ 9 ~ 9es. Edges are centers of estuarine life, when: the mid-bay bottom with its more diverse benttric communities. Edges' are Primary natural shellfish and finfish habitat. The edges are characterized by indines that nse more or less sharpy to flats that slope gentry to the shore. Charts often show edges as ~ntour lines running roughly parallel with. the shore mirrorrcrg the s#rorefines curves and features. In Gardiner's bay the edges are at various locations between 14 and 40 feet, some shallower, some deeper. While the impacts of dredging on shallow shifty sand bar habitats may be of great interest they cannot inform us of the impacts on deep-water edges and low energy mud basins. "At the smaller end of the size spectrum, silt and clay particles in muds erg so wlnereble to resuspensfon and removal that they accumulate mainly in areas with a low frequency of resuspenskn (e.g., the deep sea) or high suppty (estuaries). Disfurbanoe of the Seabed by Mobile Fishing Gear". (A Comparison with Forest Clear-Cutting, Les Watling and ENiot A. Norse) Clams are harvested by hydreulk equipment that shoots water onto clam beds. The pressurized water changes the environment from a solid to a fluid state and, stnce clams erg fight, they float to the surface where they era easily oottecYed. Moraifties may result tram breakage, by deep burial, or through k+creased exposure to predators. Tire potential tortong-farm damage fs greatest in she/tow waters whale wave energy is minimal, and in coarse, compact substrates (Dobrocky Seatech 1984). Watling and Elliot observed that 'dredging for shellfish rgsuspend large amounts of sediments (P11skaM et x1...1998, this.lssue).: Rkimana and Hoffmann.(1991) found ehort- term increased suspended sediment loads of 981~i,381 %. The sediment plume and organisms (e.g., polyciraetes, amphipods) entreined within it affect water clarity, oxygen content, and energy relations of organisms living or feeding where the plume interacts with the bottom. High suspended sediment bads in shallow waters affect photosyntlresizers in the wafer cdumn and on the seabed. High suspended sediment loads are associated with shifts rn fish communlttes from dominalion.by visual predators to those that fled food by touch and chemosensatk~n, es weN as alteratknr of the benHlk community from one dominated bysuspension-feeders to one having a prepryrdarancg ofdeposit-feeders. Once deposit ffaeders become dominant, they can psgvent rgoov~sry ofsuspension-feeders by feeding on end smothering settling larvae (Dayton et al. 1985).' Watling and Elliot also concluded that 'resuspenskm ofburied organks irxreases oxygen demand in the water oolumn; in areas where dissolved oxygen fs aligady lirrriting, this increase could signiflcanty slfect plankton and nekton species composition, even conbibuting to the growth of anoxk areas. Resuspended sediment acrd pons water can also add to the nutrient loading of the water, perhaps triggering phytoplankton blooms". 2) "Given this and the above resdictions on num4er of 50-sera leases that would be slowed at any one time, the volume of bottom sediments likely to be resuspended by hydraulic driealging on teased aquaculture lands pales in comparison to the volume of such sediments typically resuspended in a coastal storm. "(PBAAC committee report) The fallacy of this argument should be clear: coastal storms are not optional they can indeed suspend large amounts of sediment but they do not typicaly turn over the deep- water benthic communities or resuspend the anoxic sedimenrts beneath them. The characteristic eNect of coastal stones on the deep-water benthos is the subsequent settiemerrt of fines sediments areas in the deeper beams and other low energy areas. We can only regulate anthropogenic activities it is a disservice to suggest that this committee has come to an objective conclusion that the effects of natural stomps can be validly used to justify actions of man. The sediment typiglly suspended in a coastal storm is from high energy areas where the sediments a not normally anoxic and do not contain the same high levels of nitrogen and ammonia as sediments from low energy areas. There is such a qualitative difference between these two types of sedmmenrt that the comparison drawn by the committee report is absurd. The foNowing is reprinted from a 1998 Army Corps Technical Note on dredging operation. It is worth noting. that navigational dredging is done because it is necessary and that unlike hydraulic dredging for shellfish the regulatory object of navigational dredging is to prevent resuspension of t>enthic material and great pains are taken to achieve the containment of the spoils. It highlights some of the cwncems assodated with suspended sediments associated with dredging operations. Turbtdlty, Suspended Sed/ments, and Sed/menfatlon: Of the Districts surveyed, 68 percent (25 Districts) reported turbidity, suspended sediments, and/or sedimentation issues as a Hasson for environrr~ntal windows (Table 3}. In the protection of commercial and sport fish species, dredge-induced turbidlty/resuspended sediments was cited as en issue of concern for 22 Districts (59 percantj, followed by sedimentatlat !br 15 Districts (41 penrent}, as the most common reason for dredging restrictions. How egg and larval stages of marine and estuarine species aro affected by dredging and disposal operations has been a focus of many resource agency regcresta for windows. Many fish species deposit demersal eggs that remain on the bottom until larval hatching: Resource agencies suspect high mortality of eggs by smothenirg, as a result of sedimentation, and of larvae by clogging or abrasion of gill tissues caused by suspended sediment particles. For adult and juvenile fishes, the potential bbckage of migratory pathways of various anadromous species due to their hypothetical avoidance of turbidity plumes was frequently an issue of concern. Madr~mous fishessuch as striped bass, American shad, alewife, sturgeon (e.g., shorfnose, Salt pal!!d), and a number ofsahnonkis (e.g:, chirrook, coho) were the roost hequanf/y Listed species of cortcem. Sedimentation issues are also implicated to support windows to protect submerged aquatic vegetat%n and shellfish. The burial of aquafi,c plants such as eelgrass (e.g., Zostere ma?Ina). due to dredging activities was reported as a wirrokiws- related issue in fore Districts surveyed. Shellfish such as mobile rxusfaceans ~®.g., shrimp, cra6sj and sessNe mollusks (e.g., oysters,. dame) are also suspected to be negatively affected by increased levels of turbidity and sedimentation. Nine USACE Districts (24 pe-cent) currently list shellfish with regards to turbidi(y,and sedimentation as a r~ncem leading to windows. Major concerns involve si/tatlon effects an suitability of clutch material settlement by larvae of fhe eastern oyster (Cressostrea virginica) and s~7taNon-Induced sufTpcatlon of oyster bars. (Rains, lC J., Dickerson, D. O., and Clarke, D. G. (1998). "fnvirormrentel windows associated with dredging operatwns.' DOER 1'echnlcel Notes Collection (TN DOEi2-E2). U. S. Army Engineer ReaearrJr and L)evalopment Center, Vx~CSburg MS. www.wes.amry:mr7leLldotskloe) Hydraulic dredges of the ryes used on Long Island conservatively suspends 1 cubic foot of henthic material for every 1.5 feet of linear travel. At s towing. speed of 3 mites per hour the dredge will process 390 cubic-yard of benthic material in and hour. tiVith a 75% bottom time in an eight-hour day a single vessel. wilt process 2,340 cubic yard of benthic material The turbidity and off site siRation and sedirnentetion caused by processing this much bentltic material ~ a function of the composition of the material and the local conditions. The purpose of the water manifold on the dredge is to clear the mud and fine benthic material from the dredge. A series or Houle blow down 1Mo the bottom liquefying it and another series blow badt into the cage of the dredge to de8r the mud from the crontainment are. They are blowing the bottom apart and'be damned the ootta~terai damage and downstream effects. Is it unreasonable to expect aquacutturists to keep the berrthic destruction limited to the plot of land they cultivate? a) The Tight bbcking effect of the turbidity abne should be enough to disallow the process in a bay system where we are trying to protect and regenerate eelgress habits!. b) The immediate chemir~l oxygen demand from suspending anoxic mud and the consequence of ammonia release from those sedimerrts should be enough to disallow the process. c) This siltation and smothering concerns alone should be enough to disallow the process. Hydraulic dredge operating in Little Hack Bay Environmental issues associated wffh sheliflsh transpiandng The transplanting of shellfish from uncertified (polluted) areas has been an important aspect of New York's shettflsh industry since the 194os. Despite our concerns over public resource use and access to bagmen we recognize that the Raritan Bay transplant provides significant empbyment to independent bagmen who hand harvest the shellfish from Raritan Bay. There are risks from transplanting large volumes of shellfish from other areas. By introducing these shellfish to Peconic and Gardiners bay we are essentially allowing interr~urse with New York Harbor and New York Harbor, through ballast water discharge of intemationai shipping, has daily intercourse with the world. The impacts of algae blooms has been visited on shelifisheties worldwide. We think ft is fair to suggest that there should be: no expansion beyond current annual introduction of shellfish from outside the estuary, and in addfion plans should be developed to examine past impacts and potential future impacts. Transplanted shellfish can and have been a vector for harmful speaes. The faeces and digestive tracts of bivalves can be padcad wide viable dinoflegetlate call's or can contain resting cysts (Starrett of el. 1993). Viable cysts-may also be found in the mud and sand retained with dredged mussels. These cysts may then be releasedYnto coasts! waters et a new location (Kaiser et al 1989) The application of the precautionary principle seems reasonable. AS a long-term goal we believe that isolating the stocks within definable estuaries would be prudent Httemative technokegies. of shellfish purification that do not require transplanting should be investigated, they include on land closed circuit depuration and barge depuration that could be conducbsd on site in Raritan Bay. introductions of efgae;, inducting toxic dinoBaga!lates, blooms of which can have a significant impact on oommerclal bHalve mollusc culturs, have generally been sttr/buted to the transportatiarotrssting cysts in ships' 6aNast water (HaNegraetf erect Bo%te 1981). However, normal trading, involving transport of steel/fish stacks horse one area to another fo/%wed by relaying or storage in open basins, can provide another mechanism of transfer. in the Netherlands, rechculadng storage systems em used to quarsntfne mussels and oysters as a prscaution against such introductions (Dykema 1995). We are confident that this is a problem that can and should be worked out by industry but ft ought not be allowed to languish. Non Indigenous Specfea and genetic concerns The introduction of species through agt.tacutture is onry partially documented the impact of past introductions cannot be gauged, Oyster plarrters moved huge volumes of oyster seed up and down the coast through the middle of the last century the consequences have usually been viewed for there impacts on aquaculture. The impact on the wild fisheries has never been fully documented. "there is a great deal offiddling around with breeding of shellfish to create the perfect cultivation organism. Could mbting of wild and cultured stocks produce offspring that is less viable than the natural stock? Transplanted oysters often fait to set in their new ernirons. This suggests that they may be so specifically selected in their natural environment that that they cannot produce viable offspring outside iti The inverse can be true as weft the introduced species can be limited by various factors in iPs natural environment and be introduced to a place where those limits do not exist. Again all this leads me to conclude the applieatioh M the precautionary principle must be applied because consequences to wild shellfish could be irreversible. 'Merry caonbies also here add/ftonal national kgisla6an to car~trol the eWOductlon of exotic trNahre spades for cutlivatlan. M th-W4 /or example, rekese o/ exofk speatsa M/o th wind Is orNy pemdsaPoJa by tlcerrae under the N and ~ Act (1981). 771e Intematlonal CwndY /or tlea ExpMretlon of Ura See (ICES) hea prodreed a Code of Praarce enttGed The IMradrrcdons and Trensfem d Marble Orgerdarne 1994' This most roceM version d file Code addressee fhive. that Inca equacrnlure today: FNstty, Madverfart ~s d hamaid orgenWns essociatrtal with the tarps es oCWnBd recently M PectlPc oyster manta ham Frarx7e fo 1re/8rW (tbhnea end MMChM f993).• saoonrXy; the eoabplcBl and ~ Mtpeda of Mfmducsd and banalened spades; tlrirdh; the ger~lc Meat w 4itrnfiraed and danelerred spades an Md~gendra . AlHwugh there M coricem M the saMwn nd„stry rnat it fanned tlah escape ~y may ehecr the 9enedc ainestly oI natlwa at«*a the ger>edc Mrpacls of transferr6rg Huelva stoda from one area fo arroMerheve not bean addressed. lnvearve anon aeeweatla, MawdnA sareessum munarm, Undada pMnetitlda era Lmrdnede /apontca are aroo thought to have been Mtroduced MM Emopemr waters through barrspart of fie apamphyte stage Moyster irnrerd/es, ar as amen plants attached M b;vaMe shetla (Rererarsa 1989). • (Kaisetj Potential impacts of off bottom culture on the bottom The potential for nutrient boding and bacterial matting from raft culture should be examined and in the case of trensplarrting sediments beneath the strutttures sfioutd be periodically tests for chemicals and metals. Dahl6nclr end Gunnarsson (1981) M Sweden.... darna~lated orgaNc asd/maMetlon rats of 24-3.1 g orgerdc C m d' beneeM mussel / which wee Mice as mach ea found M aQtacent unaAtlvated areas. TNs exceaslw orgerric enridmerrt Wes aseoraated wdh anoxb sediment and bactedel mars a badada, rreggr~oa eav~. de~elapinsr beneath 8re /ongpnea. M Brie sduadorr, the barptYc 6rferina had bw dlveBlty and Dbrnesa wrtkh b a wed docunerge0 rosPanse to PWJuted sdes (Poarson and Rosenberg 19781 a~11: ~ P~ ofderraely sroclred Japmrese oystergnxaxls wee debirrrenlady a/1brbd by dee generation orbrge gtrer7879s orpseudolaeces arM high fdtretion rafea (do and hnai 1955; Kusuld 1977). Pserrdoraeees production wes ao great beneath oyster wHivatian raga Brat d was at bast aqulvaient m natural sources of samnrerrtaeion (Marlo%ob and Kusuid 19s7J. Intense fish and shellfish cuttivatian sites have been beset by epidemic diseases. Consideration should be given to emergency contingency planning to eradicate stocks of diseased cultivated shellfish to prevent the spread of suds diseases to wild stocks. Hydraulic dredging will without question expose the dormant brown tide seeds in the sediment increasing the likelihood of major reoccurrences. Suffolk Ctwnty as the lead agency is responsible for dealing wkh all the impede associated with the proposed action. Instead, the county scapegoats the New York State Department of Conservation as the regulator of activities that would be perrnittsd on leases. This is not appropriate because R prevents a full discussion of what the state will eventually allow, so in term of environmental and socioeconomic impacts the State is the lead aaencv. The cards are-not on the table. The fact is if a lease for an oyster grant is given where that oyster grant is a natural dam bed, which many have proven to be, the state law will compel the state to authorize the use or mechanical means (hydraulic dredges). 'this will set up exduaive right offisheryfor-nature{ clam beds which is the opposite of what the legis~ture intended. This is exactly what ttie grant holders and the County of Suffolk appears bent on doing. it is not less than criminal: Public resources (natural dem beds) shepherded into private hands by public offidals. Robert M. Wertsyss l/ From: John Aldred [mailto:jaldred@town.east-hampton.ny.us] Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 12:20 PM To: Davies, DeWitt; Greene, Gregory Subject: DGEIS Sorry for this late submission, but I recently got back from CA. Only a few comments: 1. p.110 -grant #55 is in Gardiners Bay (not Great Pewnic Bay) according to the reference map between ~p. 114 & 115. 2. p.171 -The 4' paragraph talks about eel grass absence, possibly attributed to nutrient enrichment. However, I believe that Bob Nuzzi has talked about nitrogen levels diminishing in the estuary (figure 8, p.143). Is this contradictory? 3. p.201 -The statement about dredging on the Blue Points property is not attributed to any particular source, but all other statements about dredging are. 4. p.253 -Regarding the party/charter boat fishery, there might be mention of the'fly-frshing' boats -small speed boats that take individuals or small parties around to the flats and shallows, often, but not always, using fly fishing gear. There are quite a few of them out east here. Also, Montauk isn't mentioned as a base for charter boats, but boats from there sometimes go into Gardiner s if the winds are a problem farther east. John Aldred East Hampton Town Shellfish Hatchery 159 Pantigo Road East Hampton, NY 11.937 631-668-4601, phone and fax 631-871-9175,ce11 jaldred(aitown.cast-hamntnn. nv.us 04/24/2008 04:23 16317655669 PETER WENC2EL PAGE 01 Hate April 3o,zoos Subject: Comment ott the DGEIS ibr the She}tfish Aquaculture Lease Program for Peconic and Gardi~rs Bay. From: Prier Wendel. t+~5 W Shore Dr Sotrthohl, NY 119?1 I. The lack of a specitlc delineation of tlm walk harvest eraser on the project map of the Sacioetxmomic Sensitive Area.4ia obviously an intentional effort to minimize the scope ofthe walk fishery and the impact that this leasi»g project will have on that sshery. 2. The selection of areas to be included in the $~j1~shS;ultivatioa Zone obviously has not lachtded an evaluazion ofwetk frahtng is thou areas. Areas where commercial rho harvoet of walker occur need W be delineated and exefuded from the shelIfieh aritivation zone. 3, In the s~tion on Impairs ttx discussion of,~jg}~~jgatioa of Native eruct Exrnic Site11&ah Diseases needs to mote fatly explain this threat and how rt will i sapaa native popstlafions since it will most surely occur. The concept that monocvlttue enhances the spread of diseases needs to be fully explored. 4. The iuchtaian of table 28.and atry of the conchtsions tkmt have boar drown from that table u an out right attempt to sic abeut the scope nfttse Welk fishery. NX dose not have mandatory repotting of walk 3andings erred the numbers the! are included. in table 28 are ridiarlousty small comparod to the real 1.anditsgs that ocair. A serieua and honest e$Ixt rteoda to be made m delineate the ecopo and contribution that the we9t fishery Ives oa the total economic veltta of the Pecanic C,atdinas Bay fisherys. 5. The paragraph that follower table 2g suggest that fishing effort for walks has iaeteasea dtte to reduced populations of Qteeen Conch is a Altary. Watl~s are a very diffenettt produtx compared to the Queen Conch and irtct~ae in landings in recent years fs a result of fishermen being displaced from ottKr fisherya Had the strong datttand from Asian markets for Walk. b, The section on horseshoe crabs beginning on page 248 preserns data that is incorrect and ttm coachrsions that arc drawn from the landings data are wrung artd demonshata a comp!ate lack of undastaadtng about the Itorsesltoe crab fisbary by the author. Addendum I that tedur~atf NY's quern to 366,272 ereba wen into effect vaMay 1, 2000, which means that NY exceeded its ASINFG quota only im 2000. in 1999 the NY quota was stilt 488,362 crabs. The paragraph seems to suggest that. the decrease in landings after 2000 was due to overharvest and not to a doraaase in Salting pressure. The fact is that after gang so far ova the quota in 2000 NY was required to repay the overage in 2001 which greatly curtailed the harvest is 2801. Attar 2001 t~arveat levels have remained around the 150,000 mark because of harvest teatric-tions and more rimely reporting procedttrea enacted by the 1VYDE.C. Thera has bees no noticeable decrease in abundanx observed by the fishermen itrvoived m the fishery and the DEC surveys indicate that the population in NY waters is fable or slightly declining in soma areas. The incrt~se in lat~ings itt 04/2412008 04:23 16317655669 PETER I~EJJCZEL. pq~ 92 2007 was due w a shift in fishing pressure from the Delaware Bay to the NY aces due to harvest. closures. The irtcraasod pressure calpted with the extreme ahamdance of hotaeahoe arabs created a aituetion where reported landiags wart. eo ierpe Ming a one wxk period in May of 20(17 that the DEC suns unable bo respond quickly oaargh to srop the harvest and keep the fishery within its allotted quota Thera is >m shortage of hotneshoe crabs in NY. 7. The disassion on page 280 about the loss of harvest areas seed ro more fully std honestly. exptor~ the impact on the walk fishery. These impacts will be rural and significant to the bagmen ittvalvad. 8. The suggestion on page 283 that the leasing program wilt benefit displaced baymeu is deceiving and misleading. The progam itself wiA displace bavraen, most of which are not iaterestad ill aquacatlture. This fact rtceda to be more s,uy discussed here. 9. A discussion how bagman bave barn forced to spend signiteant lime and etFcrt rpultit~ in s loss of incatne anti productivity in order to protect than fishing life style as a restdt of this leasing program t~eda to be iaehded in the section on impacts. ll is hard enough ro earn a living fishing without having to devde valuable time to lighting issues that threate» their lifestyle. From: Matthew Atkinson [mailto:matthew@pemnicbaykeeper.org] Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 4:56 PM To: Isles, Tom; Davies, Dewitt; DelGiudice, Barbara Ce: Kevin McAllister; Sumner Pingree Subject: ALPAC( DGEIS Dear Mr. Isles, I submit these comments on the draft generic environmental impact statement on behalf of Peconic Baykeeper. We continue to be concerned with the decoupling of the regulatory program, governed by DEC, from the County's leasing program. This decoupling raises two issues. The first is practical There is a danger of the process becoming too cumbersome to be useful. This can azise if the County and DEC make their respective leasing and permitting decisions upon inconsistent bases, with the applicants shuttling between both. Such a situation is not unusual, especially in regards to underwater lands, but consideration of the interface may help identify a mechanism for inter-agency coordination. T'he second issue is that the teasing program is but one element of larger scheme of aquaculture. The environmental impacts of that scheme are not adequately addressed without consideration of alternate management plans based upon a substantive analysis of shellfish aquaculture methodologies, including harvesting techniques. Perhaps this might be considered suitable for a Supplemental EIS -perhaps also, it might best be prepazed by DEC. However, in our view, the question needs to be addressed 7n order to complete an environmental assessment of the program as a whole. For examp-e, consider a scenario where ail available lands, including the total acreage of private oyster grants, are permitted for on bottom cultivation and harvest by hydraulic dredge. Such permitting might have significant cumulative impacts as well as being a significant departure from DEC's present Temporary Marine Assignment program. Clearly, a management plan is advisable, and without one, Peconic Baykeeper questions whether the County leasing program can or should be implemented in fact. We look forward to learning of the DEC's comments (we understand they are submitting comments as an involved agency) and whether they have addressed this matter themselves. Thank you for your consideration of these comments Sincerely, Matthew Atkinson General Counsel Peconic Baykeeper, Inc 10 Old Country Road PO Box 693 Quogue N'! 11959 637.653-0804 631-653-0802(taxl 05/01/08 1'$IJ 15:29 FA% lar~ t~7u of PHILIP L. CURQO, esq. P.C. Atwmay ac taw ~srociota in~ldntirnlty Adeietd ie Ncn Vor4 dt Cooea&et VIA FACSIlI~IILE ONLX L631) $53-4044 DeWitt S. Davies, Ph.D. Chief Environmental Analyst Suffolk Coumy Dept Of Plazuting H. Lee Dennison Bldg. 100 Veterans Memorial Hwy, Hauppauge, N.1'. 11788 445 Broadho6ow Rd., Suite 200 Metv0t0. lYY 11747 (631)249-9390 Re: Public Comment on proposed DGEIS for the Shellfish Aquaculture Lease Program in Pecoaic Bay and Gardiners Bay Dear Mr, bevies: Those comments are respectfidly submitted on behalf of North Sea Aquafarms, Inc., (hereinafter "NSA Inc."~ a recently formed st»ail, closely held company whose principals are east end fishermen looking to aquaculture as a viable alternative means of income. As such, NSA Inc. is a recent addition to the list of parties and participants having as interest in the captioned program. Ia the interest of firll disclosure, you should be aware that I am a corporate principal ofN$A Inc., as well as counsel to same; Mypexsonat sad professional background encompasses the instant subject matter in that, prior to liecoming a maritime and environmental attorney, I was a deckhaad on several party fishing boats for approximately twenty years during ffie 1970's, ' 80's and `90's, sad currently hold as activt 100-ton USCG operator's license. In addition, my educational background is in the area of marine natural resotace management and fisheries management law and policy. Moreover, T have practical experience in the realm of shellfish husbandry and aquaeulturc, having administered and executed a successful demonstrattoo-level oyster hatahory/n~asery for three years during my tenure 8t Loag Island Soundkeeper Pond in Norwallt, CT., in partnership with Norm Bloom and Son, LLC, a corporate descendant of the Talmadge Bros. Oyster Co. of Connecticut. Thus, I am knowledgeable in the areas of instam tbncem, and in a sense 1 am also a "displaced fisherman," as ate my current partners. With that said, we hereby offer our comments on the proposed DGEIS for your consideration. First and foremost, NSA lac, fiillY supports "Alternative 1 B -Minimum Lease with Moderate Growth." As you know, the United States' seafood imports currently far exceed its exports -this deficit has been addressed by the federal govemmetrt in the farm of a policy statement expressing the need for the U.S. to intreaae its ~»aoulture production Rve-fold by the year 2025. See Renort of the Ma~+he Aooac~lt~e Taste t=^*ce 3 ~~inablt M,' art ar, r at p. 1 (2007)• The Proposed Altemnhve 1H fully comports with the letter and spirit of this ~ 001 05/01/08 THr; 15;20 FAE ~~~ PHILIP L, CUR.QO, Esq. P.C. Atta*asp at taw 1ls,+uclaACin,Bdaaraky 'w.tiaca fn k<w Yerk a. Conuatlcut 44S Broadholiow Rd„ Suik 200 Meivlik,1'71' 11707 (63i) 2d9-9239 Page 2 of 3 federal policy, while at the same time balancing the needs of existing uses of the Pecanic estuary ~ wall as preserving and even enhancing the existing ecological condition of the system, Moreover, in consideration of the current and expected futtue state of wild fish and shellfish stocks and then associated fisheries, Alternative 1Bprovides amuck-needed mechanism to ensure the continuance of Suffolk County's historic tnaritime tradirion, by providing alternative maritime employment to displaced fishing families and the existing infrastructure that depends on them Overall, Alternative IB is swell-informed, well-considered proposal that should be impicmented for the combined benefit of the cancemed towns, the county and the Peconic estuary itself. Given the overarching efficacy of the proposal itself, however, there are a few minor sstus that are of particular concern that we would Pike to address at this time. First is the issue of "grandfathering" existing Temporary Assignments into long-term leases upon fu]] implenaentaticrt oftheproposal, and the "cut-off' deadline of Aeeember 31, 2007 for such treatment Although we understand that the policy purpose for such a deadline Is to avoid a "land-rush" by speculators in the. final years of the TMAUA program prior to implementation of the county lease program, we submit that such. a deadline is somewhat arbitrary and will discourage legitimate prospective participants in the future. Thus, we would offer an alternative solution: allowall TNiAUA holders; ngarditesaof the tirtta of entry into ttiepiagram, tlae airrility to convert to long-term leases upon full implementation, BUT t7NLY if they are able to show continuous (year-to-year) active use of their Assignments for the period drat that' have held such Assignments. Such en approach would still deter last minute speculation and fallow Assignments, but wotild allow legitimate late-cotpers the expectation oflong-term stability, a very Important factor for fledgling businesses dependo»t on such uso. On a similar note, the qurrent limitation of one Assignment par person or eatlty is onerous and should be revisited While we agree that ~mc limitation must be placed on Assignments to avoid mgnopolization and over-industrialization, one Assignment may not. be sufficient for the needs of a small company seeking moderate expansion The DGETS points. out that 359/0 of current Assignment. holders find one Assignment to be insufficient for their needs. Furthermorq the document also states that the ability to relocate stocks in the face of brown tide events or other ecologically disturbing events such as 100 year nor'easters would be advantageous and I~~Ps eves tucessary to preserve a Drop: See p. 230. The current policy of one Assigmnerrt par person or entity nms taunter to this obsotvation. For these reasons, we would auggcst that the limitation be raised to perhaps a maximum of flue Asslgnmenb (flr less) par persart or artily. but terminly more than one is necessary fen stability sad. safety of a given crop. Such limitation could also be geographic in Hectic; for instanco, a maximum of three Assignments pct peTSOn or entity, but no more than one or two in each empoyment (i.e.: one in Great Peconic Bay, ono in Little Peconio, Otte in Noyack or Napeagut). This approach would f~002 05/01/08 THU 16:00 PAE 1,6W L"" Of PHIS.YP L. CURCIO, Esq. P.C. Jtttornsy at Lsty Arsoc*ars ia~tfiAbRLty 44$ Broedhoilox Rd., Soke 200 Me1v11N, NY 11747 ndrinM W Ndr York 8 Coenuacet (63t) 249-9230 Page 3 of 3 provide the safety factor alluded to on p. 230 of the DGEIS, but would still avoid monopolization of prime grounds by say one amity. With aspect to harvest methods: although NSA Inc. will not be engaging in mechanized harvest methods such as dredging (we will be using off-bottom rack & bag systems), we are in favor of limited »sa of mechanical dredging for on-bottom operations. As long as well considemd limitations are imposed such es knife size, bag size and pump horsepower limitations, as well as time and area limitations, it is clear that closely monitored dredging operations pose no long-term threats to the viability of the ecology of the Peconic estuary or to the other users of the system. I cart personally attest to this assertion, having gmwn up fishing in both Qystce Bay and Great South Bay. As the DGEIS points out (and 1 coo add my personal afflxntation of this statement), Frank M. Flower ~ Sons hen been using mechanical dredging techniques for decades, yet the healthy ecological attributes of Oyster Bay have remained intact, However, I have also seen how the overuse of such mechanized methods can have a devastating impact on sensitive estuarine habitats, as in the case of Blue Point Oyster Company in Great South Bay. Thus, while unchecked use of mechanical dredging is certainly detrimental, carefully regulated use of these methods, as described on p. 232 of the DGEIS, certainly has its place in the Suffollc Lease Program and should remain an optton for thoso wishing to employ them. Thus, to restate, NSA Inc. supports Alternative 1 B, with the above provisos. The plan embodied in the DGEIS is obviously the product of much study, public input and patient husbandry on the part of the courrty and other participants, and as such represents a fine example of cooperative development of public policy. NSA Inc. and its principals thank you for the opporttmity to comment on this process, and we look forward to further participation both in its planning and implementatlon. Rcspectfiilly submitted, . 2ti~ Philip L. Gurcio Counsel and cotporate principal North Sea Aquafarms, Inc. ~ 000 05/01!2000 14:41 7777777 RAGE 01 FOR-THE EAST END F X. COVER SHEET Dat :May 1, 2008 Se to:. Suffolk courtty Department of Planning 3 PAGES (Incl. cover) Fax j#: (631) 853-0044 ~ Fx :Jennifer Skilbred Co tact #; (631) 537-1400, ext. 18 CO MENTS: . Pk; se enterthe following, comments regarding Suffolk county's Shettfish Aquaculture~ lea a Program in Pecoriio $ay and Gardiner's i3ay - DGEIS into the record. Thank your ! and pleaea cantaot me with any questions. Sind Jen ~ j erey ~ifer Skilgred r - Gro '~ p for the East Eald Phone: (631) 537-1400, ext. 18 244 Main Street Fax: (631} 537-2201 P.O. Box 569 E-mail iskilbred@eastendenyironment org Brid ehampton, NY 21932 Website: wgvw.eastendenvironment ore 05/01/2008 14:41 7777777 PAGE B2 Pat Office Box 569 -- 2442 Main Street Sridgehexnptmy PP.' 11932-D569 i`e1: 631.537.1400 ' Fax: 631.5372201 www.groupfortl~eeastend.org Freaident Robert S. Chalm~an willialn 5. Iv1cQ Vice t:luinnan ArtnColley - aoard Members Harris A. Eater W Marco Burn Wiltielenus B. Br Mazk 8u~chB1~ Claudia Camozz Andrew Goldste Richard D• Kahn .. ~ ..ROnatd'S: Laude Sandra R..Meyei Christopher 1'ia Peter Sdiellbach~ Johu Shea Alan Sieget ~. ~. btlen 5osrww . John C. Waddell Mary. Walker M[s. James H. 5herrye Henry Amold [.eo Peter Matthiesa Muriel O. Murr L.umet Ancus John Sargent Jam® Trees Fiuold M. Wit May 1, 2008 DeWitt Davies Chief $tivironmentsi Analyst Suffolk CountyDepartment of Planning H. Lee Dennison Building IOO Veterans Meutoriat Highway P.O. Bok 6100:. Hauppauge, NY 117$8 J[" Re: Suffolk County's Sheliftsh Aquaculture Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardiller's Bay -Draft Generic Environmental Iutpact Statement Dear Mr. Davies, I am writing on.belialf of Group for the East End to express our.. comments on the Draft t}etierie Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) for Suffollc County's A.quacuituro Lease Program in Peconie Bay and Gardiner's Bay:. For the record, Group for the East End is a professionally staffed non-profit environmental advocacy and education organization. The Group has been committed to protecting the natural environment,-dual chazacter; and quality of If£e on the East End of Long Island for over 35 years. Group for the East End was inCJicately involved in the creation of the Pecouic Estuazy Program, and the . nomination of the Peconic Estltary as ao estuary of national signifrcance- To ensure an effective and environmentally sound progzaat, there are a few major issues of cance:», including Ute need to keep this project stnalt scale and to continue to view it as an adaptable experiment, as well as the need for strong cvotYlination between Suffolk County, as the leasing agency, and New Xozk State Depar4ixept of Environmental Conservation (DEC), as the regulatory agency, for minimizing conflicts to the public, and assuring the appropriateness o£ all selected locatirons. It is clear from reading section 4.1.2 on Natural Itesource Impacts in the DGEIS that there are still marry unlmowns as to the probable impacts of increased aquacultrue in the Peconics. The program does a good job of remaining es a :limited experimental project. The limited size and scale of the program (at 1 % per year over I O years) is ess~tia! es is the treed to cputinuously mollitar and review the program azul its impacts on the estuary as a whole. It will be vary important to .keep uP with annual reviews, the five-year review, and to follow through with an F~IGHTIN.G FOR THfi QUALITY OF YOUR LIPE - 5Ux a~a Cmswnv/Sa%, pomgp Fbeia 05/01/2008 14:41 7777777 R PAGE 03 V ~~ ~~ FOR~THE EAST.END environmental review after ten years, before the program is expanded in any way. However, if adverse effccts are beipg seen Ixfore the ten-year review point there may be a need tb do a full review earlier. Separating the aquaculture regulatory process and the leasing of bottomlands for aquaaulture may have some negative side effects. It will be important to ensure :that these is solid communication between file County and the NYS DEC in order to coordinate efforts to pzovide adequate environmental protection with. the proposed program. The actual uses bf the lease sites, although they fall under the regulatory heading, will be major deteimining factors in Ule impacts that may be imposed on the estuary. Some of these issues include: problems associated with shellfish relaying from uncertified waters {i.e. possible pathogen introduction) and problems associated with hydraulic dzedging: if may be important fo review the relationship between the proposed project and the NYS Public Trust Doctrine again, as the DGEIS does not clearly show that there is no major cotifliot here. Leasing public lands for private gain should-Only be done if the public's benefit will be greater than its cost. There is no clear demonsGation thattlte benefits to the publAC outweigh the costs {and.this may not be known. until after the initial five or ten-year reviews, in which case this issue should be.lncbrporated into the zeview.) In regards to the Shellfish Cultivation Zone it seems wise for Suffolk County ox the NYS DEC to assume the responsibility of ground frothing the appropriateness of possible lease sites before the lease is granted whether or not it is contested by ap outside parry. The cost bf this could be incorporated into lease fees or ot$er such fees. We ask that you review these comments and keep t}tem in mind in developing the FBIS and in future decision-making for this'project. Please contact me with questiops or for further information. Thank-you for taking the time to rnsure the protection of our precious Peconic Estuary. Sincerely,. J~ ~b Jenpifer Skilbred Environmental Advocate 10011 pafm+ruuw,uytle] p,pv New York State Department of Envirq~mental Conservation Region One Office of NaturaP Resources ~~_,, _ .~ ~'-~ SUNY @ Stony Brook, 50 GYrol® Rued. Stony Brook,`tJewYork 11790-3409 Pfrone: (831)444-0270 PAX: (831)444.0272 ? ~ ~';'? '.~!: ~ u Website: www.decstate.ny.us _'' `~. May 21, 2008 Dr. DeWitt S. Davies Chief Environmental Analyst Suffolk County Department of Planning H. Lee Dennison Building. 100 Veterans Memorial Highway P.O. Box 8100 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Dear Dr. DeWitt; ArlXiMrY~ Mib Commissioner Thank you for the opportunity to review the DGEIS for the Shellfish Aquaculture Lease Program in Peconk and Gardiners Bay proposed by Suffolk County. The following comments are provided to summarize the outstanding croncerrts and issues that were identified by the-staff of the Region 1 Office of Natural Resources: The designation of the Peconic Bay estuary system as a National Estuary attests to its importance as a public and natural resource. The evidence that this area provides critical and complex spawning, nursery and forage habitat to a wide variety of commercially and recreationally important spades is well documented. Any asped: of the proposed Shellfish Aquaculture Lease Program that vaould adversely impad; existng habitats and their dependent spades within the esd,ary must be carefully assessed, partictliariy given the potential for large scale acreage of affected underwater lands resultlng from this proposal. The prindpal concerns identfied by regkmal staff relate toc impacts of harvestlng gear used for on- bottom shellfish aquaculture operations, including spedflc assessments of the impads to spades with-currently depressed populations such as winter flounder; potential community and produdivity shifts within the estuary due to stocking and overstocking; total build-out potential; impads'to existng commercial and recreational uses wittNn the estuary; induding existing pot fisheries and a review of more ecologically sensitive alternatives that may call effediveiy satisfy the County's lease. requirements. These concerns are not satlsfad:orify addressed in the DGEIS. The DGETS fails to adequately address the potental impads of the proposed leasing and aquaculture activities on the natural resources of the Peeonic Bay system. Harvesting. techniques assodated, with this proposal, such as the use of hydraulic shellfish dredges, are a signiflcaM concern. On-bottom cultivation and Harvest of hard dams is a major component of the proposed she9flsh leasing program which is likely to affect large amounts of underwater acreage under this program. Hydraulic dam dredging has-been found Grs produce the most dramatic and immediate effed5 on seabed habitat of any gear type. Recent reviews of the impacs associated with both Hydraulic and mechanical dredging have fdentifled signiflcant conterns about the effects of these dredges on benthic communities and on ecologically sensitirre areas, such as those that serve as finftsh nurseries. The DGEIS does not adequately address or review the well-documented, slgniflcant adverse impacts of chronic hydraulic dam dredging on marine resources and habitats. The DGEIS fails to sufficiently consider the impacts of harvesting gear on marine flnfish and their habitats, particularly in light of on-going efforts to rebuild and restore local flnfish stocks, such as winter flounder. The Peconic Bay estuary is one of New York's most important marine flnfish nursery areas, providing habitat for over 80 speces of finflsh. Many of the finflsh species that are found in the estuary occur as juvenile and small forms of valuable marine and ercreatonal flnfish resources, Including weakfish, scup, winter flounder, black sea bass, tautog, northern puffer, windowpane flounder, butterfish, atlantic mackerel, bluefish, and Gunner, as well as important forage species includiry the bay anchovy, Atlantc silversides, menhaden and Atlantic herring. These egg, larvae and juveniles have been documented tit occur at loptlons and depths throughout the Peconic Bay system. They represent the most vulnerable life stages of marine finflsh and have been shown to be highly sensitive to habitat alteretlon, such as those resulting from the proposed shellfish dredging activitles. The DGEIS presents a list of species NYSDEC has found in Peconic Bays, but fails to indicate that the majority of the fish found in this survey occur during highy sensitive life stages, including postlarval, young of the year and small juvenile flnfish. The DGEIS specifically fails to address the impacts of the proposed adivitles, including harvest activities, on eggs, larvae, and juvenile marine flnfish and the habitats they rely on, nor does tt address the consequent loss in productlvity associated with these impacts on the.future harvest and landings of commercial and recreational fisheries or the economic impacts assocated with those losses. Impacts assocated with on-bottom aquaculture activitles on egg, larval and juvenile or small forms of marine flnfish include both physical and biological Impacts. Direct losses due bo the physical effects of dred9ing include entrainment, removal or burial; turbidity, and increased sedimentation resulting from the operation of the hydraulic shellfish gear. Additlonal indirect mortality from increased turbidity and sedimentation would occur due to the sediment plume created try the dredge Jtself. The. bioogical impacts associated with dredging include lass of habitat, changes In prey availability and Increased predatlon. AS a species of particular concern, the DGEIS should spedflpfty address how the harvest adivitles associated with the proposed aquaalture use will affect winter flounder spawning, eggs, larval, postlarval and juvenile Itfe stages and the habitat they rely on. The waters of Pewnic and Gardeners Bay are designated as Essential Flsh Habitat for winter flounder, which spawn in New York's bays, harbors and estuaries from December through April. Winter flounder eggs are demersal and adhesive. Although larval winter flounder are pelagic, they are strongly associated with the bottom. Postlarvaf, young of the year, yearling and adult winter flounder have been documented at locatlons throughout the Peconic Bay system, although current stock assessments indicate that winter flounder populatons are at k:ritkalty tow levels. The Atlantic States MaHne Fishery Commission's Fishery Management Plan for winter flounder specifically recommends a prohibitlon on dredging to minimize mortality of egg; larval and post- larval flounder. The tommercal harvest adivitles associated with this program appear to be in conflict with that recommendation. The DGELS should specifically address the Impacts of repeated, frequent shellfish dredging activitles on winter flounder populations, including the adverse impacts associated with increased turWdity and sedimerttatlon, entrainment and burial of eggs and larvae, winter flounder predatorJprey inberactlons, feeding, reproductive success, spawning reuuitment, habitat and future recreational and commercial landings. Harvesting techniques, which may use towed, hydraulic or suction dredges to capture shelfsh in bottom sediments, signifi~ntly impact benthic communitles, including non-target organisms such as sand dollars, crustaceans, molluscs, worms and finflsh. Resultant changes in benthic community abundance Or diversity ~n cause alterations to marine food webs with important consequences for marine ftsh populations. Many of the fish spades that comprise New York's Important demersai fisheries are benthic predators, including spades such as weakfish, summer flounder, winter flounder, scup, tautog, black sea bass, and striped trans. The DGEIS fails to address the impacts of dredging on non-target benthk organisms, Including predator/prey interactions, benthk food web effects, biodiverstty, and declines in infaunai abundance. The DGELS should address recovery rates and tlmeframes for benthk communities subjected in frequent and repeated use of these harvesting methods. The DGEIS does not adequately review and address the. impacts of the proposed activities on benthk communities, including Impacts on non-target mollusc and crustacean species that inhabit the Peconic Bay system and that provide a cHtlcal forage base for many important and valuable marine fishery resources. Biogenk organisms that Itve at the sediment surface {such as sponges or mum) or that create mounds, tubes and burrows within the moment provide microhabitat structure for early life stages of marine flnflsh. These microhabitats are critlcal habitat features for many organisms, including post-settlement marine flnflsh. The diversity of benthk infauna and epibiota provides essential forage and habitat features that sustain many marine flnflsh populations. The structural complexity of the seabed provides protective cover for many species offish. Dredging removes seafloor features and surface Irregularities, creates furrows and trough marks, and re-suspends sediments and lowers sediment consolidation. Changes to the seabed topography resulting from harvest dredging increases mortality through increased predation. Resuspension of sediments has also been shown to alter the benthic/pelagk nutrient flux which could potentially have ecosystem wide consequences on phytoplankton growth. Dredging activities alter sediment wmpositlon by removing the larger sand fractions and causing a decrease in the compaction and binding of bottom sediments, resultng in an alteration of the composition of Infauna. The DGEIS falls to address how physical changes to bottom sediments, topography and mlcrohabitat, will affect non-target organisms. Similarly, the impacts of increased turbidity and hypoxic effects should be more fully explored. The DGEIS fails to adequately address the potential effects of ernsystem-wide alteratons to the PecoMc Bay system due to the proposed large scale tnaease In filter feeding bivalves. Potential impacts to other herbivores and the primary productivity of the water column from the proposed extensive, large scale shellfish aquaculture program (e.g., high stocking biomass and fliterfeeding capacity) should be more fully expbred. Overstocking can result in decreased planktonic biomass and a shift In pelagic communities and food webs. Changes in primary productivity or variations in the types or amount of phytoplankton available can Ilmit secondary productivity and have cascading effects on flnflsh and benthk productivity. The IXoEIS does not adequately address these potential effects. In addition, the DGEIS does not address the cumulative impacts of the full grow-out potential of the leasing program, particularly in terms of large scale alterations to marine habitats, primary productivity and marine food webs, turbidity, sedimentation and hypoxia effects. Although the I>GEIS describes the leasing program as an Incremental expansion over time, R does not provide an assessment of the full cumulative effects or the total acreage that can be potentially affected under this leasing plan. Since there appears to be no limit on the total amount of acreage that can ultimately be leased out of the 110, 000 acres Irrvoly~ in the program, the DGFSS should address the potential impacts to benthk, flnflsh and aquatic resources of having the entlre acreage available for leasing. The DGEIS faNs to adequately address the impacts of the shellfish leasing program on existing commercial and recreational flsheHes. For example, there are extensive whelk, eel, scup and black sea bass pot fisheries in the Peconic Bay system. however, the DGEIS does not accurately depict the current extent and locations of these existing commercial fisheries, wdh particular reference to existing whelk and flnflsh pot fisheries. Increasing off-bottom and on- bottom shellfish aquacuiture activities are likey to interfere with existng ftsheHes, partlcularly since these flsheHes are not accurately represented in this document Although the DGEIS Indicates that aquaalture lease holders may voluntarily allow pot fishermen to set gear on their leased acreage, lease holders may also choose not to allow gear to be set In all Ilkelihood, commercial fishermen can expect to lose access to<histoncalry and previously fished sites. Similarly, large buoy fields wlil Ilmit tradltionaF areas for recreational fishermen and boaters. This Impact has already been noted'for existing off-bottom culture zones. Rnaliy, the DGEIS faits to consider more ecdogically seruitive attemaWes, such as prohibitions on destructive harvest gear types in leased areas and restricting leasing programs to shellfish restoration projects. These attematives provide an opporWnity to mitigate adverse impacts assodated with the current proposal; provide greater public benefltand still effectively satisfy the County's lease requirements. Once again, we appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this'DGEIS for the Shelifl~ aquaculture Lease Program in Pewnic and Gardtners Bay proposed by Suffolk County. Thank you for your thoughfful consideration of our comments. Sincerely, ~.~ lp-l~aKJ// ~ Charles T. Hamilton Regional Supervisor of Natural Resources New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Fish, Wildlife 8. Marine Resources ~ Bureau of Marine Resources Alexander B. Grannis Commissioner 205 North Belle Meats Road, Suite 1, East Setauket, New York 11733 Phone: (631)444-0430 FAX:(631)444-0434 Website: www.dec.ny.gbv June 24, 2008 DeWitt 5. Davies, Ph.D. Chief Environmental Analyst Suffolk County Dept. of Planning PO Box 6100 Hauppauge, NY 11788-0099 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Shellfish Aquaculture Lease Program in Pecomc Bay, Suffolk County, NY Dear Dr. Davies: This Fetter provides formal comments from the Bureau of Marine Resources on the subject document submitted 6y Suffolk County Department of Planning. Although it appears much effort has occurred over development of the document, we have identified deficiencies in three areas; (- inadequacies in the extent and level of impact analysis relative to marine resources; 2 -Lack of State Environmental Quality 13,eview Aet.coordination with DEC's Division of Environmental Permits; and 3 - clarification on coordination between Suffolk County and DEC if the program is implemented. In general, the DGEIS requires further discussion of the potential impacts of the proposed action. In some sections, the impact analysis is cursory and in others it is entirely lacking. The DGEIS presents the physical and biological setting, but does not provide an in-depth analysis of how these resources will be affected. The summary table of impacts is not sutTicient to document and address the impacts to habitat, fish and benthic organisms. Overall, we believe from a habitat perspective, shellfish aquaculmre, especially on a small scxle, can likely coexist with. other uses and our fishery resources in the Pecomc Estuary given proper placement, monitoring and controls. Ifowever, this is predicated on a rigorous assessment of all. potential impacts. Since this proposed project will involve both actions by Suffolk County with subsequent actions by DEC, SEQRA coordination between the County and State is imperative for efficient review and potential implementation. Lack of adequate impact analysis in the DGEIS could result in DEC requiring a supplemental analysis before State approvalsrpemtitseould be issued which could produce significant. delays in program implementation. 'Therefore, a complete analysis of all the impacts associated with the project, whether under State or County jurisdiction, is warranted for the project to progress efficiently. Additionally, close coordination between the County and State is imperative for this program to be viable. Although separate actions would occur under the program, specifically, County issuance of underwater land tease, State issuance of aquaculture and possibly other permits; the granting of these actions must be coordinated as a single action to not mislead potential participants in assuming approval fiom [he Slate once the County has issued a lease. 1§'e recommend that operative guidelines be developed that have adequate sideboards to ensure protection of the Peconic estuary. Attached are detailed comments on the DGE1S. We hope these comments wilt provide useful input in improving the document. We can provide further clarification. on any of the comments. Please contact either me or Debra Barnes in our Shellfisheries Section if you have further questions. Sincerely, James J. Gilmore Chief, Bureau of Marine Resources cc. Peter Scully Roger Evans Ken Koetzner Debra Bames New York State Department of Environmental Conservatiorl~ Division of Fish, Wildlife 8 Marine Resources - Bureau of Marine Resources nteaanaer e. crannis 205 North Belle Mead Road, Suite 1, East Setauket, New York 11733 commissioner Phone: (631)444-0430 PAX:(631)444-0434 Website: www.dec.ny.gov Below, please find questions, comments, concerns, and suggestions submitted by the Bureau of Marine Resources on the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) for the proposed Shellfish Aquaculhue Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardiners Bay, Suffolk County, NY. The Bureau consists of three program sections; Marine Habitat, Shellfisheries, and Finfish & Crustaceans. Comments are provided for each of the Bureau sections. Marine Habitat Section has provided comments 1-19 specifically relating to marine habitat issues. 1) ES-3 /mpacts (Pg 10-12) & 1.1. !Background of Program Development (Pg 25-28) & 4J.1.7 Critical Natural Resource Areas (Pg I76-187) & 4.1.1 /mpacts (Pg. 197-228) Shellfish Cultivation Zune area determination process did not adequately address not take into consideration the importance of fish, essential fish habitat, and fish spawning habitat. An impact analysis of the effects of the proposed leasing program on fish, essential fish habitat, and fish spawning habitat was not conducted in this DGEIS as was clearly outlined on Page 4 of the Draft Scoping Document, April 2007: "Essential Fish Habitat: The proposed action should address [he potential impacts of aquaculture activities on finish resources and essential fish habitat for the large number of fish species found in the estuary. The estuary provides important juvenile fish habitat for species such as winter flounder, weakfish, bluefish, scup, biackfish, summer flounder, puffers and butterfish". The DGEIS only addressed impacts on fisheries. 2) 2.1.1 Background of Program Development (Pg 27) and Figure 1 "Envirvmnentul and Socio- Economic Sensitive Areas. While information on curcent and historic locations of eelgrass beds was collected and used to create the "Eelgrass bed" layer in Figure 2, it should be noted that the location. of historic populations is important in considering areas where restoration, either natural or human initiated, may be possible. Perhaps the "Eelgrass Bed" layer title in Figure 2 can be changed to "Curcent and Potential Future Eelgrass Beds". 3) 2.6 Components of Proposed Lease Program (Pg 48) How will leases be assigned' And wilt there be prioritized-areas far teases within the Shellfish Cultivation Zone? 4) 2. h Components ojProposed Lease Program (Pg 49j General component "5. Five Year Program Reviews" and other various program or lease reviewslassessments, "data on environmental condition of the bay, include that from the ongoing County water quality monitoring program, will be utilized in the assessment". @ is highly advisable during this Five Year Program review and other program assessments that data, information and results resulting from the curremt and ongoing Benthic Mapping project in the Peconic Bays must he considered and ways in which to integrate said information discussed. 5) 2.6 Components ufPrnposed Lease Program (Pg S(Ij General component " l3. Town and Public Review of Lease Applications"- When proposed ]case applications arc public noticed and commentsiobjections are solicited and submitted by stakeholders, what wilYbe theprocess/criteria Suffolk County will use for considering said comments objections? Will the County coordinate lease applications with NYSDEC to ensure proper alignment of programs and regulations? How will objections be resolved? 5) 2.6 Companents of Proposed Lease Program (Pg SI) General component "14. Documentation of Natural Non-Productivity of Proposed Lease"- Should it be the responsibility of the proposed lease applicant to provide proof of the presence of either significant natural shellfish productivity or no significant namral shellfish productivity, and not that of the public? What will the County accept as "adequate documentation"? 7) Z.6 Components of Proposed Lease Program (Pg SI General components "11. Annual Lease Rent" and "17. Limit of Lease Ownership and Sub-Leasing"- Have costs of leases been proposed? Will there be a cap on sub-lease costs? 8) 2.6 Components of Proposed Lease Program (Pg 55f General component " 33. Leases for Shellfish Resource Restoration"-Will (eases need [o be obtained by entities interested in conducting general Fstuary-wide shellfish restoration progmms,'projects? Will those routine restoration activities be precluded and not aJEowed within azeas of the Shellfish Cultivation Zone unless leases. are obtained? Will the on-bottom placement of shell, for purposes of restoration, be allowed under leases? 9) 2.71 .New York State Requirements- Tidal Wetlands Program (Pg. 79-80) "the waters of [he Peconic and Gardiners Bay aze classified under SNYCRR Part 661 as Littoral Zone (LZ); and therefore, NYSDEC regulations promulgated under the Tidal Wetlands Act would require this DGEIS to identify and mitigate any impacts as designated by the Tidal Wetlands Act that may be associated with the proposed lease program". While [he 1974 TW maps to show the LZ classificaEion, Part 651 states that "there shall be no littoral zone under waters deeper than six feet at mean low water". 30) 4.l.l.l. WarerQuality (Pg IZ9-t56) Significant data and information has been presented addressing water quality and water quality concerns and issues in Peconic and Gardiners Bays; however, there is no mention of [he USEPA approved Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) that exist for several Peconic waterbodies with pathogen and dissolved oxygen impairments. Both TMDL documents ("Peconic Bay Pathogens TMDL", September 2006 and "Total Maximum Daily Load for Nitrogen in the Peconic Estuary Study Area, Including Waterbodies Currently Impaired Due to Low Dissolved Oxygen. the Lower Peconic River and'Fidal Tributaries; Western Flanders Bay and Lower Sawmill. Creek; and Meetinghouse Creek, Tetrys Creek and Tributaries", Sept 2001) are~available at htt :'.'www,dzc.n . >ociche ticall23835.htm1 l 1) 4.1.1.2. Water Qua[iry (Pg 132) The statement "an area is immediately closed if a single colifotm sample is found to exceed 70mprt~'}OOmI" is incorrect and should be deleted. 12) 4.(.1.5. Submerged~lquatrc Vegetation (current and historic) (Pg 166-172) Significant time is spent discussing the Cashin Associates Peconic Estuary Program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study (1996). While this 1996 study did map several species of Peconic SAWS, an Estuary- wide acreage was not quantified. A more recent invemory,~map and gtrantification was conducted since then (Tiner, R.W., H.C. $ergquist, D. Siraco, and B.J. McClain. 2003. An Inventory of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation and Hardened Shorelines for the Peconic Estuary, New York. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast Region, Hadley, MA. Prepared for the Peconic Estuary Program of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Office of Ecology, Riverhead, NY. 47 pp httn:iAibrarv.fws.goviWetlantlsioeconic03.pdf) yet only briefly mentioned on Pg 170. More time should be spent discussing the presence and density of SAV beds as identified in the 2003 report than the 1996 report. 13) 4.1.2.6. Displacement and Attraction of Species (Pg 206-207) Please address the potential impact for aquaculture activities and geaz to attract undesirabte non-native, invasive, and/or nuisance species. 14) 4.7.3.7. Establish Buffers Around Leases and Environmental Resources (Pg 232) As identified as a mitigation efYort in response to leasing program impacts on natural resources, no buffer zone width/area between or surrounding leases, beside the I OOOft shoreline buffer required for aquaculture leases, has been identified or proposed in the DGEIS. Also, will there be, or should there be a limit on how many bases are located within a given area? 15) Section 4: Environmental Setting. Imparts and Mitigation For each of the "existing conditions/settings" addressed in each of Section 4's subheadings (4.1 Natural Resources, 4.2 Socio-Economic and Cultural Impacts, 4.3 Trnnsportation....e[c J, acorresponding thorough impact analysis must be conducted. The DGEIS does address impacts in Section 4, but only selective impacts; not necessarily pertaining directly ar each of the preceding "existing conditionslsetting" as a DGEIS should. 16) While the project study aze consists of approximately 110,000 acres of underwater lands in Peconic Bay and Gardiners Bay, there is no quantification provided of underwater land acreage within the proposed Shellfish Cultivation Zone. 17) Clarification is needed for albwable tease acreage (300 acres for the I" 5 years and up to 600 acres by the YO'" year) given consideration that [here is no size limit for leases on existing oyster grants. This will likely have implications on the expansion of mechanical harvesting and related impacts. The Shellfish Management Section provided comments 18-64. 18} Pg. 32 -The project area which includes Reeves Bay, described as the Itmer Estuary, is outside Suffolk County's leasing authority established pursuant to Section 13-0302 of the ECL. 19) The project area which includes West Neck Harboz, Long Beach Bay and Hallock Bay, described as the Middle Estuary, is outside of Suffolk County's authority for leasing. 20) The project area which includes Coccles Inlet, Three Mile Harbor, Accabonac Harbor, Napeague Hazbor and Lake Montauk, described as Outer Estuary, is outside of Suffolk County's authority for leasing. 21) Pg. 52 -Existing Temporary Assignments within the shellfish cultivation wne can convert to 5 acres leases without benthic survey requirements. Are these leases limited to Off-Bottom Culture only as currently specified under a Temporary Marine Area Use Assignment? if not then ground truthing of the natural productivity of these areas is recommended. 22) Pg. 53 - 25. Pending Applications for Temporary Marine Area lise Assignments (TMAUA) received prior to12r31i07 will be included in the lease program. How will TMAUA's received after 12/31/07 be handled by Suffolk County and will these sites be considered part of the new lease azea of up to 300 acres in five years. 23) Pg. 53 - 27. Lease Establishment on Grants -Recommend that there should be an acreage limit on leases established on private oyster grants. Establishing a limit. on acreage for leases on grant (ands will reduce user conflicts and potential impacts from harvest geaz and be more consistent with the overall framework for the proposed leasing program in Peconic and Gardiner's Bay. This will further support a fmmeworkfor the development of aquaculture that is consistent with the types of aquaculmre drat are currently undertaken in the PBS (Peconic Bay System) 24) Pg. 54 - 28. Phased Expansion of Leases on Fallow Grants -Recommend that fallow grants tocated east of Shelter Island (which comprise approximately 2,000 acres) be excluded from the leasing program. These grants should not be included in the teasing program due to established commercial finfish, crustacean and whelk fisheries and natural hard clam beds which have been documented on oyster gt'ant lands in this area. Further recommend that fallow grants located in the proposed shellfish cultivation zone west of Sfielter Island be subject to benthic surveys if leases are desired. The issuance of leases on fallow grants in this area should be limited to no more than 10 acres. which is consistent with new leases in this program. Expansion of leases on grants can be considered after cazeful review of the cultivation activities conducted under the prior lease and documented need for the expansion of the aquacultttreactivity at that site. 25) Pg. 55 - 29. One-Percent per Year Increase in Acreage for Aquaculture -This figure should not include the total acreage of existing private oyster gtattts within the study area given the fact that Tess than 25% of the existing pm ate oyster grants are currently being used for cultivation of any type of shellfish. 26) Pg. 55 - 35. Potential for issuing Leases Larger than. ] 0 Acres -This should also apply to fallow oyster grants located within the shellfish cultivation zone. 27) Pg. 69 -There are several incorrect references to citations made for ECL Sections which include general prohibited acts and regulatory authority rather than specific permits from DEC. 28) Pg. 70 -Article 13, ECL 13-0321 -The reference to permitting requirements under ECL 13-0309 is not correct and should be ECL Section 13-0319. 29)Pg. 71 -Contains inaccurate descriptions of the various sections and programs in BMR. 30) Pg. 72 -Permit for the Possession, Transportation, Taking and Handling of Shellfish -Reference to 6NYCRR Pan 43.s'incorrectnnd should be Part 42. 31) Shellfish Shipper's and Processor's Permit -Should include reference to Part 42; -Marine Hatcheries, Off-Bottom and On-Bottom Culture Permits -Incorrect reference to Pan 43; only Part 48 applies. 32) Pg. 73 - Pernut for Taking of Surfclams should reference Part 43 33) - 6NYCRR Pan 43 -Only applies to the taking of surfclams by mechanical means from the area in Gardiner's and Napeague Bays located east of a line from Orient Point to Hog Creek Point. This could conflict with leases for aquaculture if this area is included in the shellfish cultivation zone. 34) Pgs. 73174 -Part 45 -Transplanting Shellfish -The EIS incorrectly states that if Ehe County transplants or imports shellfish they are exempt from permit requirements; The exemption only applies to individual shellfish transplant harvester permits that may be associated with a shellfish transplant project. Any person and municipalities or political subdivisions are required to comply with permit requirements for shellfish trattsplant or importation permits (see Part 45.3(ax 1). 35) Pg. 74 -Part 48 -Inaccurate statements made on prohibition of sate ofproduct tress than legal size. "£he regulations allow sale ofmarine plant and animal life oY'less than legal size as specifically defined under the provisions of ECL Section t3-0316. 36) Part 49 - Allows a size exemption for oysters cultivated or txanspianted under permit from DEC. 37) Pg.'s 83-87 -Reference to various Town shellfish codes -These codes go beyond the authority of the various towns and includes species not defined under the ECL as "shellfish" which are defined as all types of clams, mussels, oysters and scallops. - Town of Southold - No authority over blue crabs, periwinkles, conchs; these are defined as "shellfish" under town code -Town code cannot be less restrictive than state law; - Town of Shelter Island - No authority over blue curbs, shrimp, crabs, lobsters and periwinkles; - Town of Southampton - No authority over crabs, shrimp, periwinkles, conchs, quazterdeckers; - Town of East Hampton - No authority over blue crabs, conchs, shrimp, periwinkles, lobsters and crabs. 38) Pg. 88 -Summary of Various Permits -Under [he Shellfish Culture Permit, this is subject to review by the Regionai DEC Envirotunentat Permit's office and may include other applicable permits issued by DEC; 39) Bed Permits -These permits apply to "privately controlled lands owned, leased or rented for cultivation and marketing of shellfish" and would apply to the lease program. 40) Pg. 94 2.9.2 -Harvest Methods - "Harvesting of shellftsh on public undetuater fonds is restricted Fo hand-operated methods" is not accurate. There are certain species exceptions that allow the use of mechanical harvesting geaz on public or unleased underwaFer lands such as bay scallops, blue mussels, surfclams and use of a pot hauler to retrieve a clam rake back onboard the harvest vessel (see ECL 13-D309(3)). 41) Pg. 1 10 -Table on Oyster Grant Parcels - Oystet Grant No. 58 (Map ID) in Little Peconic Bay is approved for culture of hard clams. 42) Pg. I I 1 - TMAUA's are also subject to review by New York State Office of General Services. 43) Pg. 116 -State Relay Program -references to "depumtion" should be changed to "natural cleansing'. 44) Pg. 121 -Statement that each voluntecc in the SPAT program has the potential to grow 50,000 to 100,000 shellfish is incorrect. This may apply to the total production from all volunteers involved in this program. 45) Pg. 133 -Reference to Northwest Harbor being uncertified is incorrect. The closure applies to Northwest Creek. 46) Pg. 172 - 4. t.l.b. Shellfish Pathogens/Disease/Exotic Species "Phis section failed to mention the distribution and prevalence of QPX in wild and transplanted clams in certain locations of Peconic Bays and other locations in the marine district. 47) Pg. 197 4.1.2.1 -Amplification of Native and Exotic Shellfish Diseases -This section only addresses the potential introduction of shellfish diseases through importation of seed, contaminated water, containers, etc. It dues not describe the potential occurrence of shellfish diseases due to planting of shellfish at high densities in either off-bottom or on-bottom culture which is well above the densities typically observed in natural populations. Intensive aquaculture activities increase the potential for QPX, Dermo and other parasitic shellfish diseases. Best Management Practices for the aquaculture industry are recommended to reduce potential for occurrence of native and exotic diseases. 48) Pg. 200 -The description of various suction dredges includes a reference to cutterhead dredges. The cutterhead dredge is used for maintenance (sediment type) dredging projects and is not used for shellfish harvest. 49) Pg. 201-202 References and discussion in this section about scallop dredges should clarify that they are referring to sea scallop dredging and not the typical dredges that could be used in Peconic Bays. This section should provide a better description of the types of harvest gear, frequency of harvest, and scale of operations that are likely to take place under the proposed action. The literature cited provides information on impacts from a variety of mechanical harvest gear that may not be applicable to the types of geaz that would be used in an aquaculture operation. 50) Pg. 209 Turbidity Plumes -Reference is made to turbidity plumes in subtidal and intertidal areas. Shellfish dredging does not occur in the intertidal area in New York and the lease program area will only include subtidal areas. This section is relatively weak. and does not attempt to quantify or describe the scale of mechanical harvest that would be expected to be undertaken in the proposed action. 51) Pg. 229 - 4.1.3.1 Limit Lease Number -The statement that "Under the proposed program, a one-percent growth rate for new leases will be implemented so that no more than five-percent of the total area currently used for aquaculture (approximately 5,982 acres) will be leased over the first five years." The total area curremly used for aquaculture in Peconic and Gardiner's Bays on TMAUA's and oyster grants is less than 2,000 acres. The scale of the leasing program could be significantly reduced if limits were placed on the number of teases to be issued on private oyster grants. 52) 4.1.3.2 -Limit Lease Size - Under this proposal new leases are limited to 5 or 10 acres but leases on private oyster grants can potentially cover the entire grant site which in some cases, could involve several hundred acres. Further, the inclusion of all oyster grant lands in the shellfish cultivation zone regardless of conflicts with established fisheries, natural productivity of shellfish beds, and other identified conflicts is inconsistent with the statutory requirements of ECL 33-0302. However, some oyster grant lands may mu[ [he criteria for inclusion under the new program.. The aquaculmre activities and harvesting of cultured shellfish that may potentially occur on the private oyster grants through the proposed leasing program has the likelihood to result in more significant adverse impacts to benthic communities, established commercial fisheries, wild shellfish beds, and sensitive marine life as compared to new leases limited to 5 or 10 acres. Leases on the oyster grants under the proposed action are more likely to involve on-bottom culture and use of hydraulic harvesting gear which may have adverse impacts to benthic cotmunities and habitat. By limiting the number and size of leases that may be issued on oyster grant lands, potential impacts on benthic habitat and user conflicts in Peconic and Gazdiner's Bays with be reduced. This is critical ro the implementation of a leasing program that will allow the promotion of aquacultuee to be undertaken without having any significant or undesirable impacts to the Peconic Estuary. "Phis will help to address enforcement issues and reduce the potential for harvest of naturally occurring shellfish and displacement of commercial and recreational fishermen from large tracts of public lands. 53) Pg. 4.1.3.6 Restrict Harvest Methods -This section has some inaccurate statements about use of mechanical harvest gear. Also, private oyster grant holders must obtain. a permit from NYSDEC for on-bottom culture in order to cultivate any species of shellfish not just species other than oysters. 54) Pg. 233 -Establishing buffer zones -may help to mitigate conflicts due to overlap but does not replace the statutory requirement for boundary surveys to be conducted of all leased areas. 55) Pg. 234 -Reference to seed being obtained from reputable dealer is inaccurate. Seed may only be obtained from licensed marine hatchery or on.-off-bottom culture permit holders or as authorized under a shellfish transplant permit. 56) Pg. 245 -Majority of hard clams harvested from the PBS are cultured in racks and do not im~olve hydraulic dredging. 57) Pg. 246 -Oysters are typically harvested by non-hydraulic (dry dredges); the term non-mechanical is incorrect. 58) Pg. 258 - 4.2.1.1.3 Characteristics of Commercial Fisheries -ECL Sections and regulation listed for commercial fishing licenses/permits for marine species are incorrect It should be as required by Article 13 and 6NYCRR Parts 40 and 44. 59) Pg. 281 -Maritime Traditions -Reference to Three Mile Harbor does not apply because it is outside of the jurisdiction of the leasing program and would not be impacted (town controlled). 60) Pg. 286 - 41.3.3. -Limit Lease Size -This section has the potential to result in the most significant impact to the PBS if the size of leases are not restricted on private oyster grants. The limit on tease size should apply to private oyster grants. The concerns regarding potential use of hydraulic dredges to re- harves[cultivated shellfish and harvest of natural sets are amplified on oyster grant lands not restricted by tease size. Most oyster grants in the PBS are fallow and have not been used in several decades. 61) Pg. 288 - 4.3.2.1. Hazards to Navigation -This section incorrectly states that submerged aquaculture gear Is required by DEC to have attached floating devices. Submerged gear is not required [o have floating devices or buoys unless required by the US Coast Guard. Most culturists ny to minimize the number of surface buoys to reduce navigational hazards. 62) Alternative 1 B • Minimum lease with moderate growth -Generally support the proposed action of new leases of up to 300 acres over first rive years subject to program review and update of shellfish cultivation map. However, we do not support the inclusion of all private oyster grants (those currently used for shellfish culture and fallow grants) in the teasing program. Approximately 75% of the existing private oyster grants are not being used for any type of shellfish culture and should not be grand fathered into the leasing program and without any restrictions on lease size, location and other criteria that new leases must comply with. The most controversial issues related to this proposed action are the potential harvest of wild shellfish, use of hydraulic dredges and impacts to benthic habitats. These issues can be significantly mitigated if the oyster grant lands were subject to lease criteria consistent with new leases and fallow grants located in Gardiner's Bay were eliminated from the shellfish cultivation zone. 63) The DEIS does not adequately describe the specific areas within the shellfish cultivation zone or the distribution of proposed leases within this zone which is necessary to assess the potemial. impacts of the proposed lease program. The assessment of harvest methods for cultivated product only considers the small scale leasing of 5 or ]0 acre parcels (up to 300 over five years) which may be minimal and fails to address the impacts associated with the culture of other species on private oyster grants which will be more significant. Since [he majority of the private oyster grants have been. fallow for decades, they must be considered as "new" cultivation activities to be undertaken through the leasing program. The E[S does not consider the economic viability of culture operations on 5 or 10 acre leases as compared to unrestricted acreage on Feases for private oyster grant holders. New lease holders would be at a significant economic disadvantage and would most likely not be able to compete with larger scaled operations on private grant lands. The proposed action does not address the concerns expressed by baymen and the department of the potential harvest of natural shellfish that may be located on potential tease sites and have previously been documented on private oyster grams. 64) The controlling laws for the granting of underwater lands for oyster culture in Peconic and Gardiner's Bays stipulate that the underwater lands may revert to the state when they fail to be used for oyster culture. Once the lands revert to the state they are supposed to be ceded hack to the County for leasing. Therefore, this would imply that the legislative intent of the lease law and all. previous law dealing with issuance of oyster grants would require any leases issued on fallow private oyster grants to be consistent with the scale and criteria for new leases in the PBS. These grant lands represent large tracts of underwater lands that have boon utilized by the people of the state as "public lands" for a very Tong time. They should have reverted and therefore one can make a strong argument that these lands must conform to the same criteria as any other lease issued in this program. Comments 65-74 relate to shellfish sanitation and speciffcally to the legal framework of state and FDA issues. 651Paee 60 & other eases, 75: The acronym that is used for U.S. FDA in the DGEIS is USDA ? Perhaps they should change that to US FDA orjust FDA. Most people use [he USDA acronym in reference to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, not L'S FDA. 66) Page 64: The DGEIS lists section of the NYS ECL that govern aquaculture. ECL § I 1-0103 (9) was not included which provides definition of shellfish. 671 Pase 67: Erroneous reference which states that ECL § 13-0307 requires DEC to publish annual "reports" on the condition of shellfish lands. The ECL requires DEC to publish "notices" on [he condition of shellfish (ands. It is correct ("notices") on page 75. 68) Page 132 (last sentence in [he second pazagraph): "An area is immediately closed if a single fecal colil'otm sample is Found to exceed 70 mpni 100m1." That is not correct. It should be deleted. 69) Paee 132 & 133 (the naraeranh that beeins on the bottom of 132 and continues on 1331: Shellfish water quality closures can be classified in two (not three) sub-categories: year-round closures and seasonal closures. They can be found in 6NYCRR, Part 41 "Sanitary Condition of Shellfish Lands." 70) The DGEIS tries to make conditionals seem like a sepazate sub-category. No area is designated as "conditionally uncertified" in Part 4 L Conditional harvesting area programs are developed on an annual basis through the cooperative efforts of local Towns and NYSDEC-Bureau of Marine Resources' Shellfisheries Section. Once those programs area established, certain uncertified areas are designated as "conditionally certified" as provided for in section 41.4 711 Paee 133: "Conditionally and seasonally closed areas may be opened by the NYSDEC when conditions warrant." That statement is not correct. Seasonally closed areas close on a date specified in Part ai and reopen on a date specified in Part 4I. DEC does not open and close them "as conditions warrant." Conditionally certified areas are "opened" and "closed" based on conditions that have been determined through an annual evaluation of the area(s). Paae 133: The last sentence in the first paragraph on the page seems completely non sequitur. 72) Pase. 133, second paragranh: 'this paragraph lists shellfish harvesting areas that are designated as uncertified due to impaired water quality. It lists the portion of Shelter Island Sound between Greenport and Dering Harbor. Most of that closure is an "administrative closure" or "closed safety zone" surrounding the outfall of the Shelter Island Heights sewage treatment plant. It is not realty a water quality closure. The DGEIS actually makes this point in the third complete paragraph on Page 134. 731 Pase 134, second complete naraeraoh: This paragraph makes i[ seem like the "conditional" program associated with the operation ofthe Shelter Island Heights STP is listed in Pan 41. It is not It is a conditional harvesting program that is evaluated each year and operated in cooperation with the Town of Shelter Island. 74) Page t36: 'The description. of the location of the outfall of the Sag. Harbor STP is not accurate. The outfall is within the area of Sag Harbor. It is located east of the North Haven bridge and west of the large rock jetty (breakwater) that protects Sag Harbor. This may be just a matter of semantics and what one believes is "the mouth of Sag Harbor." Comments 78-89 relate to finfish issues from a resource management perspective. 78} Peconic Bays is one of New York's most important spawning and nursery areas for many marine finfish species, including weakfish, scup, winter flounder, black sea bass, tautog, menhaden, northern and striped sea robins, hogchoker, windowpane flounder, butterfish, atlantic mackerel and canner. The DGEIS presents a list of species NYSDEC has found in Peconic Bays, but fails to indicate that the majority of the fish found in the survey were vulnerable, highly sensitive life stages of these species, including postlarval, young of the year and small juvenile fintsh. The DGEIS did not address the impacts of the teasing program on each of these species' egg, }arval andjuvenile life stages and their hab2tafs, particularly the ecological impacts associated with on and off bottom culture and harvest methods. 79) The DGEIS fails to evaluate the impacts of aquaculture activities on benthic, finfish and aquatic resources associated with the full grow-out of this proposed action. 80) The DGEIS fails to address the impacts of dredging on non-target benthic organisms, predatodprey interactions, benthic food web effects, changes in biodiversity, and declines in infaunal abundance. 81) The homogenization of habitats is likely to result in the loss of ecological function in marine ecosystems as well. The DGEIS fails to address the effects of repeated disturbance of on-bottom shellfish aquaculture harvesting techniques such as dredging on the recovery of benthic communities and the potemial impacts of habitat homogenization 82) The DGEIS faits to address how physical changes to bottom sediments, topography and microhabitat, as well as increase in turbidity and hypoxic effects resulting from repeated dredging disturbance will affect non-target organisms including eggilarval andjuvenile marine tinfis6 and their habitats as welt as predatorpey interactions, benthic food chain, ecosystem processes, biodiversity; infaunal abundance, and subsequent recovery of bottom habitats. 83) The DGEIS does not address the physical impacts of the proposed shellfish dredging activities on egg, larval and juvenile finfish ,including species that are known to inhabit Peconic Bays such as weakfish, scup, winter flounder, black sea bass, tautog, menhaden, northern and striped sea robins, hogchoker, putTer, windowpane flounder, butterfish, atlantic mackerel and canner. The DGEIS does not address the biological impacts of the proposed shellftsh dredging activities on the epifauna and biogenic organisms that provide feeding and refuge habitats for juvenile or small fomrs of marine finfish and other benthic organisms, nor does i[ address the impacts of the loss of Essential Fish Habitat on fish populations, survival, recruitment and the subsequent productivity of those fish species that rely on this habitat . 34) The DGEIS fails to address how the shellfish dredging activities associated with the proposal to lease underwater lands of Peconic and Gardiners Bay for the purpose of aquaculture will affect winter flounder spawning, egg, larval, postlarval and juvenile life stages and the habitat they rely on. The DGEIS should address how repeated, frequent commercial scale shellfish dredging activities will affes[ populations of winter flounder, as well as address the negative affects associated with an increase in turbidity and sedimentation, entrainment and burial of eggs and Larvae, winter flounder predatodprey interactions and feeding, reproductive success, effects on winter flounder year class and recruitment, and future recreational and commercial landings, as well as address the impacts of the proposed activity on winter flounder Essential Fish Habitat. 85) DEIS needs to consider implementing monitoring requirements under the program to evaluate the impacts to non-target species and changes in sediment deposition from cage use. 86) Possible factors to explore: To compaze among baseline, lease impacted and non-impacted sites within the estuary, up-current and down-current of ]ease sites, harvest methodologies Seasonal monitoring - 6 times a year? Bottom and pelagic fish abundance and diversity Benthic community composition Sediment characteristics Chlorophyll Plankton community composition (including phytoplankton and larvae) Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, Salinity, Nitrogen, Turbidity, Other? SAV health;'type and changes in density/distribution Monitoring of natural shellfish beds health and composition Waterfowl census Dive surveys/transects 87) Under the heading US Fish and Wildlife Service, the DGEIS states that the USFWS has regulatory Scontrol over any federally endangered wildlife species, such as mazine mammals, which may be affected by shellfish aquaculture activities. This is generally the case in circumstances when those species aze encountered on land. In the case of marine mammals and sea turtles found in the water, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has regulatory control through NMFS. 88) As proposed in the DEIS, the aquaculture leasing program does no[ adequately address management for the potential take of protected species. 89) The DE1S does not address the threat of sea turtle takes posed by mechanical harvesting. The following discussion,items 90-91 relates to fishing activities, in general. 90) The DGEIS needs a better, more complete description of commercial fishing activity, particularly locations and seasonality. The DGEIS does nol adequately describe the setting, leaving out important details. The areas where commercial fishing takes place are important for the exclusion mapping exercise. The DGEIS leaves out important detail about the recreational. fishery, ignoring the flyfishing charter industry, for example. The document does not adequately describe the recreational industry, particularly location data which would be useful for the exclusion mapping exercise. The DGEIS needs a better description of the impacts to fishing activities, including the loss of access to public lands occupied by aquaculture gear. The DGEIS needs a more complete description of boating activities and infrastructure, with impacts to same. There is some errata and irrelevant information included in this section. The Contactor should consul[ with DEC on corrections. 9I) General Comment on Mechanical Harvesting From 1984 to the present, the Department has conducted the a survey of striped bass using a beach seine in Little Neck Bay and Manhasset Bay. During [he Eime period in question, Department staff conducting the seine survey had first-hand observation of the condition. of the water and the bottom before and during the use of mechanical harvesting for the re-lay program. Setting and rettieving the seine became more difficult as the unconsolidated sediments that had been loosened by mechanical harvest were re-suspended and clogged the net every time it was retrieved. This condition persisted for nearly a year fallowing cessation of mechanical harvest These observations played a role in [he Department's decision not to allow mechanical harvest of wild product in New York {personal communication, DEC staff). If mechanical harvest is allowed; how will the impact described above be prevented. Appendix E Hydraulic Shellfish Dredging Impacts Additional Literature Review A Literature Review of Ecological Impacts Associated with Hydraulic ShellTish Harvest Dredges 1.0 Introduction When compared to conventional shellfish harvesting techniques, hydraulic dredges are more efficient, allow for continuous harvesting with a lower mortality rate, and increase the area and bottom type that can be dredged (MacPhail 1961, Parker 1981). However, some believe that the potential ecological impacts from hydraulic dredging outweigh its economical advantage. Scientific studies have been conducted on the potential impacts of hydraulic dredges on the immediate and surrounding environment. This appendix provides a literature review of the available scientific and grey literature on hydraulic dredging in an effort to examine the severity of the potential impacts associated with the use of this equipment for harvesting cultured shellfish. Hydraulic dredges capture shellfish by injecting highly pressurized water into bottom sediments to create a slurry from which burrowing shellfish can be easily extracted (National Research Council 2002). Most hydraulic dredges utilize a dredge head, consisting of a cutting edge that removes shellfish from the substrate and a basket container in which the shellfish are collected, towed by a cable from the vessel equipped with a winch, water pump and ancillary equipment. Unlike hydraulic dredges, mechanical dredges (i.e., dry dredges) do not utilize pressurized water to extract burrowed shellfish, but scrape shellfish off the bottom. Mechanical dredges are typically used for scallops and oysters which lie on the top of the substrate. Hydraulic dredging for the harvest of cultured shellfish should not be compared to impacts associated with channel dredging. Channel dredging and channel maintenance operations occur on a much larger scale than cultured shellfish harvesting. More sediment is removed during channel dredging operations, resulting in more severe impacts to the surrounding marine environment. Shellfish harvest dredges disturb only the top few centimeters of the substrate in a particular area. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) currently permits the use of hydraulic dredging equipment for shellfish harvest on privately- owned or leased underwater lands under the provisions of the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL). However, privately-held oyster grant holders are required to have a valid on-bottom culture permit for shellfish species other than oysters in order to use hydraulic dredging equipment to harvest shellfish on their site. The use of hydraulic dredging equipment for shellfish aquaculture harvest on NYSDEC Temporary Marine Area Use Assignments (TMAUAs) sites, all of which are off- bottom culture operations, is prohibited by NYSDEC under a special condition stated in the culture permit. 2.0 Potential Ecological Impacts Associated with Hydraulic Dredging There are several ecological issues associated with the use of hydraulic dredging that may occur in the immediate and surrounding environment of the dredging site. The main issues include: . resuspension/turbidity effects . decreased water quality (release of nutrients, contaminants, elevated biological oxygen demand [BOD]) impacts of settling resuspended sediments impacts on species richness, diversity and productivity impacts on vertical structure The ecological effects of hydraulic dredging are generally related to the intensity of, and time scale within which the operations are undertaken, as well as the type of area being worked. Each of these potential impacts is discussed in detail below. 2.1 Resuspension/Turbidity Effects Hydraulic dredges create the largest turbidity plumes of all the mechanical shellfish harvesting techniques (Richardson 1984). The highly-pressurized water of hydraulic dredges injected directly into the bay bottom physically disturbs and suspends sediment biota and causes an underwater cloud of suspended sediments, commonly referred to as a turbidity plume. Suspended sediments and turbidity plumes may cause short-term impacts to aquatic life, including shading, a decrease in primary production, effects on the filter feeding of shellfish (Barnes et al. 199]), and fish gill clogging and irritation (Simenstad 1990). Resuspension of sediments occurs naturally in an estuarine environment, resulting from the activities of benthic organisms within the sediments (bioturbation) and by tidal currents, increased wind velocity, and storm waves (Barnes et al. 1991). Estuarine organisms that encounter elevated and highly variable suspended sediment loads throughout their life histories, with ambient seston levels often varying by several orders of magnitude over short durations, are generally considered tolerant of short-term perturbations (Lutz 1938; Kyte et al. 1975). Simenstad (1990) and Coen (1995) both reported that most estuarine fishes move out or are adapted to elevated suspended sediments and most behavioral or sublethal effects seen in the lab are even more ambiguous when extrapolated to the Feld. Auld and Schubel (1978) concluded the same for eggs and larvae of six Chesapeake Bay species (including striped bass). However, this may not be the case for young fish or if food supplies are increased as a result of increases in organic material (ABP Research 1997). The size and suspended duration of a turbidity plume is dependant on the substrate affected, depth of the dredge cut, and the scale of the operation (Barnes et al. 1991). The distance and direction of the plume is subject to wave currents. Tarnowski (2001) found that substrates consisting predominately of silt/clay sediments remain in suspension the longest when altered by dredging activities. Ruffin (1995) found that a turbidity plume created by a hydraulic dredge returned to background levels approximately three hours after operations ceased. Light attenuation took 4.8 hours to return to background levels in deep waters and up to 22 hours in shallow waters. According to Barnes et al. (1991), nearly all of the sediments suspended from shellfish dredging operations will remain within approximately one meter of the bay bottom and settle within approximately four hours of disturbance. Detectable deposits resulting from hydraulic dredging have been recorded at a maximum distance of 75 ft, and a minimum of 15 ft from a dredging site (Rheault 2008). Taylor and Saloman (1968) reported that interference with photosynthesis due to light shielding of the resuspended sediments was offset by the stimulation of photosynthesis as nutrients were mobilized and made available for phytoplankton uptake. Impacts of turbidity plumes created by hydraulic shellfish dredges in tidal waters are believed to be negligible on biological resources when compared to natural environmental variation (e.g., can-ents, winds and waves) (Coen 1995; Godwin 1973). Most studies have shown that over 95 percent of the suspended sediment settles to the bottom within a few tens of meters of the source (reviewed in Coen 1995). Barnes et al. (1991) stated that the maximum estimate of the total amount of resuspension during a shellfish dredging operation is comparable to a single tidal resuspension event, with concentrations higher at the shellfish dredging site. Auld and Schubel (1978) also concluded that the limited turbidity plumes created by shellfish dredging operations are unlikely to have a major impact on ambient turbidity levels and those habitats. It should be noted that hydraulic dredging of shellfish is very different from channel dredging and channel maintenance operations, which involve the removal of large volumes of sediment in a concentrated area. Potential impacts of channel dredging are much greater than those associated with shellfish dredging because of the relatively intense scale of the activity. 2.2 Decreased Water Quality Release of Nutrients Shellfish aquaculture does not result in additional nutrient loading, but rather a transfer of nutrients from the water column to benthic sediments through deposition of feces and pseudofeces (Olin 2002). The stirring of bottom sediments can temporarily cause an acceleration of the release of nutrients (Rheault 2008). Excessive amounts of nutrients released to the water column could result in algal stimulation/eutrophication, ammonia toxicity, and chemical oxygen demand (Barnes et al. 1991). Nutrient releases from shellfish harvesting techniques are believed to be negligible (Kyte et al. 1975; Barnes et al. 1991). According to Barnes et al. (1991), the quantity of nutrients released from shellfish dredging activities is low and the associated impacts are less than those resulting from a more widespread, high energy event such as a storm or from the daily nutrient loadings from point and non-point sources. Such impacts should be limited in time (from minutes to a maximum of one week) and space (generally confined to the active harvest area) (Barnes et al. 1991). Barnes et al. (1991) concluded that potential impacts of nutrient release by shellfish harvesters are short-term and very localized, since the magnitude of released nutrients is small compared to an overall estuarine ecosystem nutrient budget. Barnes et al. (1991) also stated that such results of increased nutrients (e.g., algal blooms) are probably offset by shading due to enhanced turbidity. Based on the scientific literature reviewed and the high variability of typical wind or stone events that may occur and fluctuations in daily loadings from point and non- point sources, it seems highly improbable that nutrient release related to shellfish harvesting under the proposed Shellfish Aquaculture Lease Program would have major significant impacts to the Peconic Estuary. Release of Contaminants Potential impacts associated with the release of suspended toxins (e.g., pesticides, heavy metals, hydrocarbons) are minimized in an estuarine environment, where currents and the continuous mixing of the water column would dilute toxin concentrations (Barnes, et al. 1991) (Drobeck and Johnston 1982), although the likelihood of impacts would increase as in areas where water movement decreased, as in the more enclosed areas which are typically uncertified for shellfish harvesting. Toxins entering the estuary are likely to adhere to suspended sediments and eventually settle to the bay bottom (USEPA 2006). Physical disturbances (e.g. dredging activities) of these sediments could potentially release toxins into the water column, where they may become concentrated by filter-feeding organisms. According to Barnes et al. (1991), the release of metals from shellfish dredging activities, including hydraulic dredges, is insignificant, as no significant releases of metals have ever been observed since shellfish growing areas require high water quality and are not areas where such chemicals have been dumped. Areas designated for shellfish cultivation under the proposed Lease Program will not be in areas where contaminated sediments would be found. The She115sh Cultivation Zone will be located within certified waters over 1,000 feet from the shore in areas generally regarded as free of contaminants. Elevated BOD from the Release of Nutrients Elevated levels of nutrients stimulate algal growth and increase biological oxygen demand (BOD), which can potentially lead to local eutrophy (Kyte et al. 1975; Kyte and Chew 1975; Barnes et al. ] 991). Kyte et al. (1975) found that the hydraulic escalator dredge had little long-term effects on the local ecosystem. Ambient seston levels (6.9 - 441 mg/L) often met or exceeded those associated with harvesting, thus obscuring any potential short-term effects. Barnes et aI. (1991) concluded that the concern of dissolved oxygen reduction due to adredge-induced nutrient release algal bloom/algal die-off scenario is very small when compared to other consistent types of nutrient loading problems creating this same scenario. According to Rheault (2008), if the equilibrium is altered locally by dispersing and oxygenating sediments then those suspended sediments will have less oxygen demand after the disturbance, resulting in local, short-term oxygen reduction due to the local disturbance; not a net loss of oxygen from the water column. 2.3 Direct Burial/Smothering In some cases, suspended sediments from a turbidity plume created by a hydraulic dredge may travel and settle over adjacent subtidal or intertidal habitats some distance from the dredged area. Settling sediments may result in physiological impacts, including smothering of benthic habitats; delayed or reduced hatching of eggs, reduced larval growth/development, abnormal larval development, or reduced response to physical stimulus (Anchor Environmental 2003). Numerous laboratory studies have been conducted on the effects of suspended sediments on a variety of aquatic organisms, including pelagic, bottom dwelling, and epibenthic feeders. Generally, mortality from direct burial or smothering caused by dredging is an issue only for organisms with restricted mobility (e.g., attached eggs, juveniles, burrowing infauna, oysters) (Lutz 1938; Barnes et al. 1991). Hirsch et al. (1978) concluded that the more naturally variable the environment, the less effect dredging will have because animals common to the unstable areas are adapted to stressful conditions and have life cycles which allow them to withstand the stresses imposed by dredging and disposal. According to Coen (1995) and Barnes et al. (1991), in most instances, impacts to benthic communities are perceived to be insignificant since most benthic organisms are capable of tolerating burial effects up to 30 cm. Most of the physical changes of sediments may return to their natural state within two weeks (Visel undated). Physical impacts of suspended sediments on important fish spawning and nursery grounds are another concern. It is believed [hat suspended sediments could settle on and smother demersal eggs and affect the respiratory of fish in the larval stage. This impact is more Likely to occur when harvesting operations coincide with seasonal reproduction (Bames et al. 1991). A review of scientific literature on the effects of suspended sediments on various life stages of fishes was conducted by LaSalle et al. (1991). According to LaSalle et al., all life stages ofestuarine-dependent and anadromous fish species appear to be fairly tolerant of elevated suspended sediment concentrations and concluded that, in all probability, fishes that use naturally turbid habitats as spawning and nursery grounds are adapted to and highly tolerant of elevated suspended sediment concentrations. LaSalle et al. (1991) found that in some cases (e.g., striped bass), tolerance of elevated suspended sediment concentrations corresponds to periods of greatest ambient suspended sediment levels. According to Auld and Schubel (1978), turbidities greater than 1,000 mg/L and 500 mg/L were lethal to striped bass eggs and larvae, respectively. Conversely, Morgan et al. (]991) reported that up to 5,250 mg/L of suspended sediment did not affect the hatch of striped bass eggs, although developmental rates were slowed significantly at levels above 1,500 mg/L. LaSalle et al. (1991) concluded that 500 mg/L to 1,000 mg/L of suspended sediment should be considered a conservative safe level at which no impact would be anticipated to demersal eggs or fish larvae. Estimates of resuspended sediment levels from commonly used sediment dredges (i.e., cutterhead dredge and clamshell/bucket dredge) operating in estuarine habitats are less than the amount stated above for impacts to striped bass eggs and larvae. Resuspended solids produced by a cutterhead dredge reached a maximum of 580 mg/L within two meters of the dredge (Herbich and Brahme in Barnes et al. 1991). Studies of a clamshell/bucket dredge found resuspended solids reaching a maximum of 100 mg/L (Peddicord and McFarland 1978 in Barnes et al. 1991) and 790 mg/L, (Tavolaro 1984 in Barnes et al. 1991). Barnes et al. (1991) concluded that sedimentation rates induced by shellfish harvesting activities can be expected to be minimal when compared to other dredging activities and, therefore, should have no significant adverse impact. It is highly unlikely that harvest activities under the proposed Suffolk County Aquaculture Lease Program will result in prolonged or chronic elevation of sediment levels since the leases will be too small to support hydraulic dredging and because the activities are very limited in area (Rheault 2008). As previously mentioned, channel dredging and maintenance operations are much larger in scale than shellfish harvest dredging activities. Impacts associated with channel dredging and maintenance are more severe due to the large amount of sediment removed and the broader scale of the operation, as opposed to shellfish harvest dredging, which only disturbs the top few centimeters of the substrate in a concentrated area. 2.4 Impacts on Species Richness, Diversity and Productivity All mobile shellfish harvesting gear, whether hydraulic or dry dredges (non-hydraulic dredges), reduces benthic habitat complexity by removing or damaging the actual physical structure of the seafloor, and causes changes in species composition (National Research Council 2002). However, since many of these small benthic organisms (crustaceans, polychaetes, mollusks) have rapid generation times, high fecundities and excellent recolonization capacities, it is generally accepted that this community effect is only short-term (e.g, Godcharles 1971; Peterson et al. 1987; Bennet et al. 1990; Hall et al. 1990). Hydraulic water jets cut into bottom sediments creating shallow trenches along the dredge line, approximately 4-8 inches deep, depending on the type of equipment used. This cutting action restructures the bottom sediments and directly disturbs sediment biota. Trenches cut through gravelly substrates in low current environments may persist for an extended period of time (Caddy 1973), while trenches created in sandy substrates or in areas of high energy recover the fastest (Tarnowski 2001). Ultimately, recovery time is dependant on site wave action and tidal conditions (Eleftheriou and Robertson 1992). Several studies conclude that the use of hydraulic dredges for shellfish harvesting does not significantly impact benthic habitat more than non-hydraulic harvesting techniques. A study conducted by Godcharles (1971) found no lasting impacts on benthic populations from the use of a hydraulic escalator dredge. Several studies found that predators and opportunistic species (e.g., fish, crabs, shrimp, gastropods, echnioderms) were immediately attracted to the dredged area following dredging operations (Inge) 1952; Manning 1959; Meyer et al. 1981; Haskin and Wagner 1986). Mackenzie (1982) concluded that hydraulic dredging did not alter the abundance and species composition of the benthic macroinvertebrates; the polychaetes and mollusks present on the surface were observed to reburrow (Barnes et al. 1991). During a study conducted by Hall et aI. (1990) investigating the effects of hydraulic dredging on the infauna by comparing the species composition in dredged and adjacent undredged areas, an increase was observed in the density of species and individuals in the dredged area and a decrease in the unaltered adjacent area 40 days after dredging. Dolmer et al. (200]) interpreted this change as a result of suspended benthic animals by the dredge followed by a sedimentation of animals in the adjacent area. Barnes et al. (1991) stated that one of the advantages of hydraulic dredging for shellfish harvesting purposes was that it is actually easier on bottom and benthos. The Virginia Institute of Marine Science (Austin 1980 cited in Barnes et al. 1991) concluded that hydraulic dredging for hard clams was found to be less disruptive of the bottom ecology than the standard oyster dredge or patent tongs. Furthermore, since cultured shellfish are planted in high densities on the seafloor, direct impacts to the bay bottom from hydraulic dredges are less likely to occur (K. Rivara, East End Marine Farmers Association, persona] communication, February 2008). When compared to wild shellfish harvest operations, dredging cultured shellfish has a much less significant impact on the surrounding aquatic ecosystem. Wild shellfish harvesting entails the repeated dredging over a broader area for a prolonged period of time. Where as wild stock dredging seeks to find concentrations of shellfish over a broader area, aquaculturists only dredge the specific area where they have planted shellfish, allowing for a more focused operation. By-catch is not perceived to be an issue with hydraulic dredging for shellfish aquaculture. Shellfish farmers rarely encounter significant by-catch of undesirable species due to the fact that the gear is slowly towed across the site; the gear is designed to catch shellfish not fish; and, tows are very short (Rheault 2008). During this literature review, no studies or documentation regarding the impacts to sea turtles from hydraulic dredges were encountered. Rheault (2008) stated that in the course of 30 years of shellfish aquaculture, he has never seen or heard of anyone interacting with any species of turtle in dredging gear. 2.5 Impacts on Vertical Structure Seafloor structures serve as nurseries for juvenile fish and provide refuge and food for adults (Rheault 2008). Areas of the Seafloor that lack these structures do not support the variety of fish populations observed in more complex regions (Collie et al. 2000 and Kaiser et al. 1999 cited in Rheault 2008). In oyster culture operations, unlike the wild fishery, the shell and juvenile shellfish are replanted after harvest and so the vertical structure is replaced (Rheault 2008). In clam aquaculture, there is typically little structure to begin with, so the disturbance is short-term and recovery is rapid (Rheault 2008). 3.0 Conclusion Shellfish hydraulic dredging operations have typically not been considered [o have deleterious results, since their effects are perceived to be negligible compared to natural environmental variation (e.g., currents, winds and waves) (Godwin 1973). It is important to remember that on cultured grounds, the shellfish farmer replants the bottom with live shellfish, so the significant impacts typically associated with dredging operations are limited to wild harvest activities and are not relevant to the harvest of shellfish on cultured ground (Rheault 2008). Shellfish farmers typically leave their crop untouched for several years prior to harvesting; therefore, the degree of impacts from hydraulic dredges is less than wild shellfish harvest. Hydraulic dredging in Oyster Bay Harbor has been undertaken by the Frank M. Flowers & Sons Company for many years without evidence of undue environmental degradation (D. Relyea, Frank M. Flower & Sons, personal communication, June 2007). Mr. David Relyea of Frank M. Flower & Sons believes the hydraulic dredging conducted by Flowers is not seriously detrimental to the environment and makes the sediment more suitable for successful clam sets (D. Relyea, Frank M. Flower & Sons, personal communication, June 2007). He also stated that the dredging does not cause an extensive cloud of suspended sediment except in the immediate vicinity of the dredge when it is raised to the surface and flushed to remove sediment carried up in the dredge. The Flowers & Sons Company operates what is regarded as a successful and productive oyster and clam aquaculture business in the relatively confined waters of Oyster Bay Harbor on leased lands, and the company relies on hydraulic dredging as an important tool in its operations. A negative perception of shellfish dredging is likely attributed to past dredging operations conducted on the former Bluepoints Company on 13,000 acres of private underwater land in Great South Bay. The Bluepoints Company shellfish harvest dredging operations are believed to have resulted in long-term damage to the bay bottom. Dredging operations performed by Bluepoints Company were extensive, conducted on a year-round basis, and included the harvest of cultured shellfish as well as natural shellfish stock. Their prolonged dredging use resulted in the destruction of eelgrass beds, scoured bottom sediments, and the over-harvest of natural clam stocks (Carl Logue, The Nature Conservancy, personal communication, August 2008). It should be remembered, however, that according to the former manager of the hard clam aquaculture operation at the Bluepoints Co., only 4-5% of peak harvests during the early ] 980s originated from selected beds that were planted with hard clam seed produced in the company hatchery. The remaining 95% of harvests came from natural clam stocks. (Craig Strong, personal communication with DeWitt S. Davies, August 2008). Contrary to the dredging operations conducted by Bluepoints Company, any hydraulic dredging that is conducted under the proposed Suffolk County Shellfish Aquaculture Lease Program are likely to have minimal impacts to the estuarine environment due to the limited scale of the program. In addition, the Lease Program will in effect preclude hydraulic (or even dry-dredge) harvest methods because of the restricted size of the lease plots. Literature Cited Anchor Environmental CA, L.P. 2003. Literature Review of Effects of Resuspended Sediments Due to Dredging Operations. Los Angeles Contaminated Sediments Task Force, Los Angeles, CA. 73 p. Associated British Ports (ABP) Research. 1997. Environmental Assessment of the deepening of Swansea Channel. ABP Research Report No. R701. Auld, A.H. and Schubel, J.R. 1978. Effected of suspended sediment on fish eggs and larvae: a laboratory assessment. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Sci. 6, 153-164. Austin, H.M., M. Castagna, W.J Hargis, Jr. and D.S. Haven. 1980. Position of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science on the Use of Hydraulic Dredging for the Taking of Hard Clams. Virginia Marine Resources Report #80-12. Barnes, D., K. Chytalo, S. Hendrickson. 1991. Final Policy and Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Management of Shellfish in Uncertified Areas Program. NYSDEC. Division of Marine Resources. Stony Brook, NY. 79 pp. Bennett, D. H., C. M. Falter, K. Reese, W. McLaughlin, W. D. Sawle, M. Liter, J. W. Carlson, J. Hall, and N. Sanyal. ]990. Fish, wildlife, and recreational characteristics of Box Canyon Reservoir. 1989 Annual Report. University of Idaho. Report to Pend Oreille County Public Utility District, Washington. Caddy, J.F. 1973. Underwater observations on tracks of dredges and trawls and some effects of dredging on a scallop ground. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 30:173-180. Coen, Loren. 1995. A Review of the Potential Impacts of Mechanical Harvesting on Subtidal and Intertidal Shellfish Resources. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. Marine Resources Research Institute. 46 pp. Collie, J. S., G.A. Escanero, and P. C. Valentine. 2000. Photographic evaluation of the impacts of bottom fishing on benthic epifauna. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57: 987-1001. Dolmer, P., T. Kristensen, M.L. Christiansen, M.F. Petersen, P.S. Kristensen, and E. Hoffmann. 2001. Short-term impact of blue mussel dredging (Mytidus edulis L.) on a benthic community. Hydrobiologia, Volume 465, Numbers 1-3, pp. 115-127(13). Drobeck, K.G. and M.L. Johnston. 1982. Environmental Impact of Hydraulic Escalator Dredging on Oyster Communities. Final Report to Maryland Department of Natural Resources. UMCEES Reference No. 82-5 CBL. Solomons, Maryland. 97 p. Elefrheriou, A. and M.R. Robertson. 1992. The effects of experimental scallop dredging on the fauna and physical environment of a shallow sandy community. Neth. J. Sea Res. 30: 289-299. Godcharles, M.F. 1971. A study of the effects of a commercial hydraulic clam dredge on benthic communities in estuarine areas. State of Florida Department of Natural Resources, Marine Resources Laboratory. Technical Series No. 64. Godwin, W.F. 1973. Preliminary Draft: Environmental Impact Analysis of Proposed Hydraulic Clam Dredging Activity in the New River Estuary, Onslow County, North Carolina. Use of seed oysters to supplement oyster production in southern North Carolina. 19 pp. Hall, S.J., D.J. Brasford, and M.R. Robertson. 1990. The impact of hydraulic dredging for razor clams Eni.s sp. on the infaunal community. Neth. J. Sea. Res. 3-27: 119-125. Haskin, H.H., E. Wagner. 1986. Assessment of mortalities in surf clams (Spisula solidissima) due to dredging, sorting and discard. J. Shellfish Res. 7:120-121. Herbish, J.B. and S.B. Brahme. ]984. Turbidity generated by a model cutterhead dredge. Proc. Of the Cong. Dredging '84 Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Div. ASCE/Nov. 14-16, 47-56. Hirsch, N.D., L.H. DiSalvo, R. Peddicord. 1978. Effects of Dredging and Disposal on Aquatic Organisms. Dredged Material Research Program. Office, Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army, Washington D.C. Technical Report DS-78.5. 41 p. Ingel, R.M. 1952. Studies on the effect of dredging operations upon fish and shellfish. Sate of Florida Dept. of Nat. Res. Tech. Ser. No. 5, ]-25. Kaiser, M.J, S.I. Rogers, and J.R. Ellis. 1999. Importance of benthic habitat complexity for demersal fish assemblages. American Fisheries Society Symposium 22:212-223. Kyte, M.A., P. Averill, T. Hendershott. 1975. The impact of the hydraulic escalator shellfish harvester on an intertidal sofr-shell clam flat in the Harraseeket River, Maine. Dep. Mar. Res., Augusta, Maine, Project Completion Report, 54 pp. Kyte, M.A. and K.K. Chew. 1975. A Review of the Hydraulic Escalator Shellfish harvester and its Known Effects in Relation to the Soft-Shell Clam, Mya arenaria. Washington Sea Grant Program WSG 75-2. University of Washington. 30 p. LaSalle, M.W., Clarke, D.G., Homziak, J., Lunz, J.D., and Fredette, T.J. 1991. A framework for assessing the need for seasonal restrictions on dredging and disposal operations. Technical Report D-91-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Lutz, G. R., Jr. 1938. Oyster culture with reference to dredging operations in South Carolina. W.S. Engineering Office, Charleston, South Carolina. Mackenzie, C.L. 1982. Compatibility of invertebrate populations and commercial fishing for ocean quahogs. N. American J. Fish. Manage. 2:270-275. MacPhail J.S. 1961. A Hydraulic Escalator Harvester. Fish Res. Board Can. Bull. 128:24 p. Manning, J.H. 1959. Commercial and biological uses of the Maryland soft clam dredge. Proc. Gulf Carib. Fish. Inst. 12, 61-67. Meyer, T.L., R.A. Cooper, K.J. Pecci. 1981. The performance and environmental effects of hydraulic clam dredge. Marine Fisheries Review, 43:14-22. Morgan, R.P. II, Rasin, V.J., Copp, R.L. (1981). Temperature and salinity effects on development of striped bass eggs and larvae. Trans. Am. Fish Soc. 110:95-99. In Culture ofNonsalmonid Freshwater Fishes, Stickney, second edition, ISBN 0-8493- 8633-0. National Research Council. 2002. Effects of Trawling and Dredging on Seafloor Habitat. Committee on Ecosystem Effects of Fishing. ISBN 0309083400. Olin, Paul G. 2002. Environmental Interactions of Bivalve Shellfish Aquaculture. In Tomasso, J.R. (editor). 2002. U.S. Aquaculture Society, A Chapter of the World Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. ISBN: 1-888807-09-I: 141-154. Parker, P. 1981. History and Development of Surf Clam Harvesting Gear. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Technical Report. National Marine Fisheries Service Circ. No. 364.15 p. Peddicord, R.K., V.A. McFarland, D.P. Belfiori, T.E. Byrd. 1975. Effects of suspended solids on San Francisco Bay organisms. USACOE Dredge Disposal Study, San Francisco Bay and estuary, 1-158. Peterson, C. H., W. G. Ambrose, and J. H. Hunt. 1982. Afield-test of the swimming response of the bay scallop (Argopecten irradians) to changing biological factors. Bull. Mar. Sci. 32:939-944. Rheault, R. 2008. Review of the Environmental Impacts Related to the Mechanical Harvest of Cultured Shellfish. Unpublished. Richardson. 1984. Agitation dredging: lessons and guidelines from past projects. USACE Tech. Rep. HL-84-6. Ruffin, K.K. 1995. The effects of hydraulic clam dredging on nearshore turbidity and Tight attenuation in Chesapeake Bay, Maryland. MS Thesis, University of Maryland. 97 p. Simenstad, C.A. ed., 1990. Effects of dredging on anadromous Pacific coast fishes. Workshop Proceedings, University of Washington and WA Sea Grant Program, 160 PP• Tarnowski, M. 2001. A literature review of the ecological effects of hydraulic escalator dredging. Fisheries Technical Report Series No. 47. 30 pp. Tavolaro, J. F. and J. M. Mansky. 1985. Effects of dredging operations on nutrients and suspended sediment concentrations. Northeast Environ. Sci. 3:208-216. Taylor, J. L. and C. H. Saloman. 1968. Some effects of hydraulic dredging in coastal development in Boca Ciago Bay, Florida. Bull. U.S. Fish. Wildl. Serv., Fish. 7(2): 205-241. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2006. Final Report for Peconic Bay Pathogens TMDL. Prepared for USEPA Oceans and Coastal Protection Division. Prepared by Battelle, Duxbury, MA. 102 pp. Visel, Timothy C. Undated. The Cultivation of Marine Soil, the Hydraulic Harvesting of the Hard Shell Clam Mercenaria mercenaria. 19 p. Appendix F Essential Fish Habitat Evaluation 1.0 Introduction This assessment to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for the Suffolk County Shellfish Aquaculture Lease Program is being prepared in conformance with the ] 996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act (see FR 62,244, December 19, 1997). The 1996 amendments to the Act set forth a number of new mandates for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), eight regional fishery management councils (Councils), and other federal agencies to identify and protect important marine and anadromous fish habitats. The Councils, with assistance from NMFS, are required to delineate EFH for all managed species. Federal action agencies which fund, permit or carry out activities that may adversely impact EFH are required to consult with NMFS regarding the potential effects of their actions on EFH, and respond in writing to NMFS recommendations. The proposed shellfish aquaculture lease program is located within an area designated as EFH for the Northeast Council's Coastal Pelagics and Northeast Groundfish Management Plans. Although an EFH assessment is not specifically required for development and implementation of the Suffolk County Shellfish Aquaculture Lease Program. The EFH assessment format was utilized because of its standard format for assessing impacts to EFH, and it provides an assessment useful as technical backup to the SEQRA review of the program. 2.0 Location The project area is located in the Peconic Estuary System and includes: Great Peconic Bay, Flanders Bay, Little Peconic Bay, Southold Bay and Shelter Island Sound and Gardiners Bay. These bays are located within the Towns of Southampton, East Hampton, Southold, Riverhead and Shelter Island. There are flue EFH designations with portions of their coordinates located within the County's Shellfish Aquaculture Lease Area. 3.0 Project Purpose This report will provide documentation helpful for the Suffolk County Legislature and the Suffolk County Executive to enact the local law and regulations for the Shellfish Aquaculture Lease Program in Peconic Bay and Gardiners Bay that will enable Suffolk County to issue shellfish aquaculture leases. The implementation of the Shellfish Aquaculture Lease Program in Peconic and Gardiners Bays is expected to yield the following benefits: • Provide people with the opportunity to obtain access to underwater lands for raising shellfish. Encourage private investment in aquaculture businesses and the establishment of shellfish farms at secure locations that do not pose conflicts with commercial fishermen and other bay users. Expand the marine-based economy and create relatedjob opportunities. Augment the spawning potential of native shellfish populations and exert positive influence on water quality by helping to control nutrient cycling and to prevent noxious plankton blooms as a result of the increase in the number of shellfish. F-1 • Provide other potential positive impacts related to the establishment of aquaculture leases such as: bottom structures providing more suitable substrate for both flora and fauna; commensal relationships between commercial fishing activities and culture activities; and providing additional opportunity for commercial fisherman to maintain their economic viability. 4.0 Description of the Proposed Action Suffolk County is preparing a Shellfish Aquaculture Lease Management Program Report to: • Fulfill the requirements of the NYS ECL § ] 3-0302 (2004 Leasing Law) • Establish a framework for the leasing of underwater lands for shellfish aquaculture that minimizes environmental impacts and user conflicts while supporting the growth of shellfish aquaculture and the environmental, economic and natural resource benefits it provides; and, • Develop the local laws, regulations and administrative procedures necessary to implement a shellfish aquaculture lease program. 5.0 Proposed Mitigation Several aspects of the proposed project serve as mitigation for the potential impacts to EFH. These include the following: • Areas to be leased for shellfish aquaculture will be relatively small compared to the available suitable EFH found within the project area. • On bottom harvest methods will be limited to those allowed by existing regulatory agencies. • Increased shellfish populations may have a positive effect on water quality normally associated with filter-feeding organisms. • Structures associated with shellfish aquaculture may act as suitable fish habitat. 6.0 Summary of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Designation Numerous investigators have studied critically important nurseries for marine fishes and invertebrates found in the Peconic Estuary System (Ahrens, 1997; Bruno et al, 1980; Burkholder et al, 1992; Cashin, 1996; Colletti, 1993; Hardy, 1976; Webber et al, 1998). The Peconic Estuary System includes the Peconic estuary and those land areas that contribute groundwater and stormwater runoff to the Peconic River and the estuary. The estuary system features numerous rare ecosystems that are home to many plant and animal species, including several nationally and locally threatened and endangered plants and animals. In a report published by the New York State Department of Conservation (NYSDEC), over the period of nine years (1987-1995), 74 species of fish representing 41 families were collected in the Peconic Bay system (Webber et al, 1998). Twenty-five species of concern are listed in this Essential Fish Habitat Designation and are discussed in more detail below. F-2 According the NYSDEC, as with most coastal areas around the county, the natural habitats of the Peconic estuary and its watershed have been profoundly impacted by physical alterations; including dredging, filling, clearing for agriculture and development. In addition, extensive chemical changes such as input of excess nutrients, suspended sediments, toxic contaminants like pesticides and metals, and salinity disturbances, have taken place. Other indicators show signs of environmental stress. Low dissolved oxygen conditions occur in the tidal Peconic River, western Flanders Bay and tidal creeks; eelgrass beds are now virtually absent west of Shelter Island, and those that do exist are not expanding. In addition, numerous pesticides have been detected in the groundwater. Local fisheries, especially bay scallops and winter flounder, no longer support commercial harvests. The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act strengthened the ability of NMFS and the Councils to protect and conserve the habitat of marine, estuarine, and anadromous finfish, mollusks, and crustaceans. This habitat is termed "essential fish habitat" and is broadly defined to include "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity." The Act requires the Councils to describe and identify the essential habitat for the managed species, minimize to the extent practicable adverse effects on EFH caused by fishing, and identify other actions to encourage the conservation and enhancement of EFH. The Act also establishes measures to protect EFH. NMFS must coordinate with other federal agencies to conserve and enhance EFH, and federal agencies must consult with NMFS on all actions or proposed actions authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect EFH. In turn NMFS must provide recommendations to federal and state agencies on such activities to conserve EFH. These recommendations may include measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or otherwise offset adverse effects on EFH resulting from actions or proposed actions authorized, funded, or undertaken by that agency. As stated previously and numbered EFH Grid #I-5 in Figure 15 of the DGEIS (page 180), there are five EFH designations located within the project area, and each of these areas will be assessed separately below: F-3 6.1 Essential Fish Habitat Grid #1 10' x 10' Square Coordinates: Boundary 'North 'East ', South ', West Coordinate 41 ° 00.0' N 72 ° 30.0' W 40 ° 50.0' N 72 ° 40.0' W Square Description (i.e. habitat, landmarks, coastline markers): Atlantic Ocean waters within the square within Long Island Sound on the absolute northwest corner of the square, affecting the following: from the Mattituck Hills to northeast of Centerville, NY. Also, waters within Gardeners Bay and western Great Peconic Bay affecting the following: from just east of Deep Hole Creek southeast of Mattituck, NY, past Jamesport, NY, and South Jamesport, NY, around Flanders Bay to the Shinnecock Canal north of Flanders, NY, Red Creek, NY, and Squiretown, NY, and also east of Riverhead, NY. Waters within the southwest part of Shinnecock Bay are found in this square as well. At the very bottom of the square, waters within Great South Bay estuary can also be found. F-4 Figure 1 -Essential Fish Habitats Crids within the Shellfish Cultivation Zone ', Species ', Eggs .Larvae 'Juveniles Adults Atlantic salmon (Salmo solar) ', X X Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) pollock (Pollachius virens) ' ' X X 'whiting (Merluccius bilinearis) ', offshore hake (Merluccius albidus) red hake (Urophycis chuss) X X X X ', white hake (Urophycis tenuis) _. _~ redfish (Sebastes fasciatus) ! n/a witch flounder (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus) winter flounder (Pleuronectes americanus) ' X X I X 'I X 'yellowtail flounder (Pleuronectes ferruginea) ', windowpane flounder (Scopthalmus X X I X ' X ', aquosus) ', ', 'American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides) ocean pout (Macrozoarces americanus) ', Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus) _ Atlantic sea scallop (Placopecten --- - magellanicus) Atlantic sea herring (Clupea harengus) X X 'monkfish (Lophius americanus) ,bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) X '; X F-5 long finned squid (Loligo pealei) n/a n/a ', short finned squid (]Ilex illecebrosus) ', n/a n/a ',' Atlantic butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus) Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) X i X X 'I! X summer flounder (Paralicthys dentatus) X X scup (Stenotomus chrysops) ', X X ', X X black sea bass (Centropristus striata) ' n/a X ', surf clam (Spisula solidissima) n/a n/a ocean quahog (Artica islandica) n/a ': n/a spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) n/a n/a I, tilefish (Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps) -. ', ', king mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla) X ! X X X Spanish mackerel (,Scomberomorus , X X ' X { X maculates) ', cobia (Rachycentron canadum) ! X X ', X I X blue shark (Prionace glauca) ', X ', dusky shark (Charcharinus obscures) ', X sandbar shark (Charcharinus plumbeus) ' X ' X X sand tiger shark (Odontaspis taurus) X The following is an evaluation on the effects on the EFH associated with Grid #1 designation: Atlantic salmon (Salmo solar) -The life stage summary table indicates that this EFH is present in this designation during juvenile and adult life stages. However, the Atlantic salmon spawns in freshwater streams in New England, where the juveniles typically remain for two to three years. When they reach six inches, the juveniles migrate to sea, F-6 where they become pelagic and range form Long Island Sound to the Labrador Sea. Upon maturity, this species returns to its natal rivers to spawn (Oanie, 1984). Based on the demographics, no adverse effect is anticipated because both juvenile and adults are mobile and can avoid any impacts associated with the proposed action even if they were to appear in the proposed project area. Pollock (Pollachiu.r virensl - As indicated in the Grid #1 designation life stage summary table, juveniles and adults are present in this designation. This species has been reported over a wide variety of substrates, including sand, mud, rocky bottoms and vegetation (Hardy, 1978). They are found at temperatures ranging form 0-16°C and prefer salinities of around 31.Sppt (Hardy, 1978). Although, the water and substrate parameters located in the project area could support these life stages of the species, according to the catch data from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation no landings of po0ock were recorded in the 3,657 trawls performed between 1987 and 1997 (Webber et al, 1998). Therefore, no adverse impacts to this species is expected from the proposed action. Red hake (Urophycis chuss) -This species is present in this designation area during all life stages. However, the eggs are buoyant, and float near the surface; the larvae and young juveniles are pelagic and therefore impacts to the benthos associated with harvesting of shellfish should not affect these life stages. As the juveniles develop, they become demersal gradually descending to the bottom in depressions on the seabed (Fahay 1983; Able and Fahay 1998). Demersal juveniles and adults are commonly associated with shelter or structure (submerged man-made objects, debris, and artificial reefs), often with living sea scallops where they can be found under the scallops on the sediment or within their open mantle cavity (Steiner et al. ] 982; Farman 1983; Able and Fahay 1998). Shellfish harvesting methods could have a negative effect on these life stages but because of the limited size of the proposed project sites with the exception of a few underwater land grants, no large scale harvesting by mechanical methods will be associated with the proposed action; therefore no significant adverse impacts to this EFH is expected. Also, structures associated with off-bottom culturing and cultured oyster reefs may be beneficial by providing suitable habitat. Winter flounder (Pseudonleuroneetes americanus) - This species is present in this designation during all life stages. The eggs are demersal, adhesive, and stick together in clusters (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953). Larvae are initially planktonic but become F-7 increasingly bottom-oriented as metamorphosis approaches when the newly metamorphosed young-of--the-year (YOY) take up residence in shallow water. These three life stages would most likely not be affected by the proposed program because they are generally found in swallow inshore waters of the estuary (Pereira, et al., 1999). The majority of the shellfish cultivation zone being proposed in this project is located in waters deeper than 5 meters. This species is known to migrate inshore to spawning grounds in early fall to late winter; however, spawning does not occur in the project area until late winter to early spring (Weber, 1984). In addition, impacts to eggs, larvae and YOY may be avoided by regulating the time of year that on bottom harvesting can occur. Windowpane flounder (Scopthalmus aquosu.s) -This species is present throughout all of its life stages in this designation. Windowpane generally inhabit shallow water (<110m) with sand to sand/silt or mud substrates (Sukwoo, 1999). The eggs are buoyant and normally not found in the benthic strata. Larvae are pelagic until metamorphosis is complete. Juveniles and adults are mobile and can avoid shellfish aquaculture activities including harvesting techniques that may impact the EFH. The area being committed to aquaculture activities is small in comparison to available essential habitat. Very little to no impact is expected from the proposed action Atlantic Sea Iiereine (Clupea harenQUSI -This species is present though out the juvenile and adult stages in this designation. According to the New England Fisheries Management Council (NEFMC) EFH amendment dated October 7, 1998), both juveniles and adults are found in pelagic waters and bottom habitats. Preferred conditions are water temperatures below 10° C, water depths from I S - 135 meters and salinities above 26 ppt. Although, these conditions are present in parts of the project area, both the juveniles and adults are mobile and will be able to avoid any impacts that may be associated with the proposed action; therefore, no adverse effects to this EFH is expected. Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix)-This species is known to inhabit this designation during its juvenile and adult life stages. This species is extremely mobile in both of these life stages and can easily avoid any disturbances associated with the proposed action. In addition, the structures associated with off-bottom shellfish cultivation may provide suitable habitat for bait fish that this species preys upon. Atlantic Mackerel (Scomber scombrus) -All life stages of this species are found in this designation. Although mostly considered an offshore pelagic species (Studholme, A.L. et F-8 al, 1999), it may not be uncommon for all life stages of this species to be found in the project area, particularly in the open waters of Gardiners Bay. The egg and larval stages of this species may be impacted by certain harvesting methods associated with shellfish cultivation, however; by limiting the size of operations and limiting use of harvesting methods no significant adverse impacts are expected on these life stages. Summer Founder (Paralicthys dentatusl -According to NOAA Technical Memorandum (Packer et al, 1999) on Summer Flounder, both juveniles who use several estuarine habitats as nursery areas and adults who generally inhabit shallow coastal and estuarine waters during the warmer months (Packer, et al, 1999) could be found in the project area. However, both of these life stages are mobile and can avoid any disturbances associated with the proposed action. No significant impact associated with the proposed action is expected on either the juvenile or adult life stages of this species. Scup (Stenotomus chrvsops) -All life stages of the species are found in this designation. Scup eggs are buoyant and therefore pelagic, and should not be impacted by on-bottom aquaculture activities such as hydraulic dredging. After reaching 15-30 mm in total length the larvae become demersal (Able and Fahay 1998). However, because there is very little information available on habitat use or requirements during this transition period, it is difficult to assess any significant adverse impacts to this life stage by the proposed action. Both juveniles and adults can be found in the proposed project area, but because they are both mobile, they can avoid any disturbances that may be associated with the proposed action. Black Sea Bass (Centropristus striata) -According to NOAA Technical Memorandum on black sea bass, juvenile sea bass are usually found in association with rough bottom, shellfish and eelgrass beds, man-made structures in sandy-Shelly areas; off-shore clam beds and shell patches may also be used during wintering. Because the juvenile life stage of this species is mobile, no significant adverse impact is expected from the proposed action. In fact, structures associated with off-bottom shellfish culture may enhance suitable habitat for this species. King Mackerel (Scomberomorus cavallal and Spanish Mackerel (Scomberomorus maculates -Both of these species are listed in the designation throughout all of their life stages, however; according to the catch data from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation no landings of king mackerel were recorded in the 3,657 F-9 trawls performed between 1987 and 1997 (Webber et al, 1998). Therefore, no significant adverse impact is expected to this EFH by the proposed action. Cobia (Rachyicentron canaduml -This species is listed in this designation throughout all of its life stages. However, this species is generally considered an off-shore inhabitant and according to the catch data from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation only one landing of cobia in the 3,657 trawls performed between 1987 and 1997 was recorded (Webber et al, 1998). Therefore no significant adverse impact is expected on this EFH from the proposed action. Blue Shark (Prionace lg Quca) - No adverse effect on the adult life stage of this species is expected because it is a highly mobile, pelagic species normally found off the coast on the Continental Shelf. Dusky Shark (Charcharinus obscurusl -The larvae life stage of this species is listed in this designation. This species has been captured off the coast of Long Island (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953), but no catch data is available to indicate that larva are present in the project area. Therefore, no adverse impact from the proposed action to the EFH can be determined. Sandbar Shark (Charcharinus nlumbeus) -This species is listed in this designation throughout larvae, juvenile and adult life stages. Although this species is most likely a seasonal visitor to the project area (especially in the eastern portions), the catch data from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation recorded only one landing of the sandbar shark in the 3,657 trawls performed between 1987 and 1997 (Webber et al, 1998). Therefore, no significant adverse impact is expected on this EFH from the proposed action. Sand Tieer Shark (Odontaspis taurus) -The larvae life stage of this species is listed in this designation, however according to the catch data from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation no landings of sand tiger shark were recorded in the 3,657 trawls performed between 1987 and 1997 (Webber et al, 1998). Therefore, no adverse impact to the EFH can be determined from the proposed action. F-10 6.2 Essential Fish Habitat Grid #2 10' x 10' Square Coordinates: Boundary ', North East ', South ;West Coordinate 41 ° 00.0' N i 72 ° 20.0' W 40 ° 50.0' N 72 ° 30.0' W Square Description (i a habitat landmarks coastline markers): Atlantic Ocean waters within the square within Gardiners Bay, western Little Peconic Bay and eastern Great Peconic Bay affecting the following: southwest of New Suffolk, NY, Cutchogue, NY, southern Nassau Pt., Robins 1., along with and north of North Sea, NY, Sebonac Neck, NY, Southampton , NY, and Shinecock Hills, NY, from Shinecock Canal to south of Jessup Neck. Also, within the Atlantic Ocean south of Southampton, NY, from south of Mecox Bay to just west of the Shinnecock Inlet, within eastern Shinecock Bay. Also, waters within Great South Bay estuary can be found at the very bottom of the square. Species Eggs :Larvae ,Juveniles 'Adults Atlantic salmon (Salmo salary ' ! ! X X ', .Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) ', ', haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) I j pollock (Pollachius virens) ', ', X whiting (Merluccius bilinearis) ! X j X X X red hake (Urophycis chuss) ' X X X witch flounder (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus) winter flounder(Pleuronectes americanus) ', X X ' X X ', yellowtail flounder (Pleuronectes ferruginea) ', windowpane flounder (Scopthalmus ', X X X ', X I aquosus) oceanpout (Macrozoarces americanus) ! X X ' ' X F-11 Atlantic sea scallop (Placopecten magellanicus) Atlantic sea herring (Clupea harengus) X X 'monkfish (Lophius americanus) X X ', bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) ' X X 'long finned squid (Loligo pealei) ', n/a n/a X short finned squid (Illex illecebrosus) n/a n/a ', Atlantic butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus) ', ', Atlantic mackerel (.Scomber scombrus) X X ', X X 'summer flounder (Paralicthys dentatus) X X X :scup (Stenotomus chrysops) X ' X X X black sea bass (Centropristus striata) n/a ', X 'surf clam (Spisula solidisstma) n/a n/a ', 'ocean quahog (Artica islandica) n/a n/a i spiny dogfish (Sgualus acanthias) n/a n/a tilefish (Lopholatilus chamaeleonttceps) king mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla) X X X X 'Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus X ; X X X maculates) cobia (Rachycentron canadum) X X X X 'sand tiger shark (Odontaspis taurus) X blue shark (Prionace glauca) X white shark (Charcharadon carcharias) X dusky shark (Charcharinus obscures) X ', sandbar shark (Charcharinus plumbeus) X X X F-12 ', tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvieri) X skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) X The following is an evaluation on the effects on the EFH associated with Grid #2 designation: Atlantic salmon (Salmo salary -See Crid # ldesignation description above. Pollock (Pollachius virens) -According to the Grid #2 designation life stage summary table above, juveniles are present in this designation. These life stages of this species have been reported over a wide variety of substrates, including sand, mud, rocky bottoms and vegetation (Hardy, 1978). They are found at temperatures ranging form 0-16°C and prefer salinities of around 31.Sppt (Hardy, 1978). Although, the water and substrate parameters located in the project area could support these life stages in this EFH, no catch data (Weber et al, 1998) is available to indicate that they have been found in the project area. Whiting (Merluccius bilinearis) - As indicated in the summary table, all life stages of this species are present in this designation. This species is also known as silver hake and is listed as such in the NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-186 -Essential Fish Habitat Source Document. The New England Fisheries Management Council's EFH Amendment (October 7, 1998) for whiting indicates that all life stages of this species are found in water depths greater than 20 meters. During the surveys conducted by the NYSDEC between 1987 and 1997 (totaling 3,657 sample tows), only seven specimens of this species were caught. Therefore no significant adverse impacts are expected on this EFH from the proposed action. Red hake (Urophycis chuss) - This species is present in this designation during egg, larvae and juvenile life stages. However, the eggs are buoyant and float near the surface; the larvae and young juveniles are pelagic and therefore impacts to the benthos associated with harvesting of shellfish should not affect these life stages. As the juveniles develop, they become demersal gradually descending to the bottom in depressions on the seabed (Fahay 1983; Able and Fahay 1998). Demersal juveniles are commonly associated with shelter or structure (submerged man-made objects, debris, and artificial reefs), often with living sea scallops where they can be found under the scallops on the sediment or within F-13 their open mantle cavity (Steiner et al. 1982; Garman 1983; Able and Fahay 1998). Shellfish harvesting methods could have a negative effect on these life stages; however, by limiting the size of operations and limiting use of harvesting methods, no significant adverse impacts are expected on these life stages. Also, structures associated with off- bottom culturing may be beneficial by providing suitable habitat. Winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) -See Grid #1 designation description above. Windowpane flounder (Scopthalmus aauosus) -See Grid #l designation description above. Ocean pout (Macrozoarces americanus) -This species is present in this designation during egg, larvae and adult life stages. According to the New England Fisheries Management Council (NEFMC) EFH amendment dated October 7, 1998 eggs are generally found in water temperatures below 10° C, depths less than 50 meter, and salinity ranges 32-34 ppt. Larvae are usually found at same temp and depth, but at salinity greater than 25 ppt. Adults are generally found at water temperatures below 15 ° C, depths less than 110 meters, and salinities between 32-34 ppt. According to the table in the amendment of EFH Designation of Estuaries and Embayments for Ocean Pout, they are not known to inhabit Gardiners Bay. Also, the surveys conducted by the NYSDEC between 1987 and 1997 (totaling 3,657 sample tows) no specimens of this species were caught. Therefore, no impact to this EFH is expected from this proposed action. Atlantic Sea Herring (Clupea harenQZes) -See Grid #1 designation description above. Monkfish (Lophius americanus) -Also known as goosefish, this species is present in the designation during the egg and larval life stages. However, according to NOAA Technical Memorandum (Steimle, ]999) both of these life stages are generally found in water depths from 15 - 1,000 meters. On this assumption, the proposed action should have very little to no adverse impacts on these life stages of this EFH. Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) -See Grid # 1 designation description above. Lone, Finned Sauid (Loligo pealei) -Although this species during the juvenile life stage is found in this designation, no catch data is available to suggest that this species is F-14 known to inhabit the project area, and therefore, no adverse impacts are expected by the proposed action. Atlantic Mackerel (Scomber scombrus) -See Grid #1 designation description above. Summer Founder (Paralicthys dentatus) -According to NOAA Technical Memorandum on Summer Flounder, larvae are most abundant at depths between 30 to 230 feet and therefore no significant adverse impact from the proposed action is expected to this life stage. Both juveniles who use several estuarine habitats as nursery areas and adults who generally inhabit shallow coastal and estuarine waters during the warmer months could be found in the project area. However, both of these life stages are mobile and can avoid any impacts associated with the proposed action. Scup (Stenotomus chrvsops) -See Grid #1 designation description above. Black Sea Bass (Centropristus striata) -See Grid # 1 designation description above. Kind Mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla) and Spanish Mackerel (Scomberomorus maculates -See Grid #1 designation description above. Cobia (Rachvicentron canadum) -See Grid # 1 designation description above. Sand Tiger Shark (Odontaspis Taurus) -See Grid # 1 designation description above. Blue Shark (Prionace lg_auca) -See Grid #1 designation description above. White Shark (Charcharadon carcharias) - No adverse effect on the juvenile life stage of this species is expected because it is a highly mobile, pelagic species normally found off the coast on the Continental Shelf. Duskv Shark (Charcharinus obscurus) -See Grid #1 designation description above. Sandbar Shark (Charcharinus plumbeus) -See Grid # 1 designation description above. Tiger Shark (Galeocerdo cuvieri) - No adverse effect on the juvenile life stage of this species is expected because it is a highly mobile, pelagic species normally found off the coast on the Continental Shelf. Skiniack Tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) - No adverse effect on the adult life stage of this species is expected because it is a highly mobile, pelagic species normally found off the coast on the Continental Shelf. F-15 6.3 Essential Fish Habitat Grid #3 10' x 10' Square Coordinates: __ ', Boundary ', North ', East South !West ',. Coordinate i 41 ° 10.0' N 72 ° 20.0' W 41 ° 00.0' N 72 ° 30.0' W Square Description (i.e. habitat, landmarks, coastline markersl: Atlantic Ocean waters within the square within Long Island Sound affecting the following: northeast Long Island from east of Duck Pond Pt. to just east of Rocky Pt. on the north, north of Greenport, NY, and Southold, NY, including waters affecting Horton Lane Beach, Goldsmith Inlet, Horton Pt., Horton Neck, Shelter L Sound, northern Little Peconic Bay, and Noyack Bay. Also, these waters are within Gardeners Bay, and affect the following: northern Cutchogue Harbor, Hog Neck Bay, Great Hog Neck, Cedar Beach Pt, NY, Paradise Pt., NY, Southold Bay. In addition, these waters affect the western half of Shelter I. from Hay Beach Pt. to east of West Neck Harbor, around West Neck, Jennings Neck, NY, Shelter I. Heights, NY, Dering Harbor, Dering Harbor, NY, and Shelter 1., NY, and Jessup Neck from the north half of Nassau Pt. to just east of Cleaves Pt., south of Greenport, NY. ', Species .Eggs !Larvae ', Juveniles Adults 'Atlantic salmon (Salmo salary , X X Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) pollock (Pollachius virens) X X _ _ _ 'whiting (Merluccius bilinearis) ', 'offshore hake (Merluccius albidus) ', red hake (Urophycis chuss) X X X X white hake (Urophycis tennis) ', 'witch flounder (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus) 'winter flounder (Pleuroncctes americanus) X X X X F-16 yellowtail flounder (Pleuronectes ferruginea) windowpane flounder (Scopthalmus ' X ' X X X ', aquosus) 'American plaice (Hippoglossoides ', ', platessoides) ', ocean pout (Macrozoarces americanus) ', ', ', Atlantic sea scallop (Placopecten ' ', magellanicus) ', ', j Atlantic sea herring (Clupea harengus) ' ', X X monkfish (Lophius americanus) ', bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) ! X '~! X long finned squid (Loligo pealei) ' n/a n/a short finned squid (Illex illecebrosus) ' n/a ' n/a Atlantic butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus) ', ', Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) ', X X ', X ', X summer flounder (Paralicthys dentatus) ', X ', X ', scup (.Stenotomus chrysops) X X ', X black sea bass (Centropristus striata) n/a ', X __ _ surf clam (Spisula solidissima) n/a ' n/a ,ocean quahog (Artica Islandica) ', n/a ; n/a I 'spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) ', n/a n/a tilefish (Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps) ', 'king mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla) X X ' X i X ', 'Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus X X ' X X ', maculatus) __ __ ', F-17 cobia (Rachycentron canadum) ' X ! X X X sand tiger shark (Odontaspis taurus) X ', The following is an evaluation on the effects on the EFH associated with Grid #3 designation: Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) -See Grid # I designation description above. Pollock (Pollachius virens) -See Grid # 1 designation description above. Red hake (Urophycis chuss) -See Grid #1 designation description above. Winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) -See Grid #1 designation description above. Windowpane flounder (Scopthalmus aquosus) -See Grid #1 designation description above. Atlantic Sea Herring (Clupea harengus) -See Grid #1 designation description above Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) -See Grid # 1 designation description above. Atlantic Mackerel (Scomber scombrus) -See Grid # 1 designation description above. Summer Founder (Paralicthys dentatu.s) -See Grid #1 designation description above Scup (Stenotomus ch sry ops) -The egg, larvae and juvenile life stages of the species are found in this designation. Scup eggs are buoyant and therefore pelagic and should not be impacted by on-bottom aquaculture activities such as hydraulic dredging. Afrer reaching 15-30 mm in total length the larvae become demersal (Able and Fahay 1998). However, because there is very little information available on habitat use or requirements during this transition period it is difficult to assess any significant adverse impacts to this life stage by the proposed action. The juveniles can be found in the proposed project area but because they are mobile they can avoid any impacts that may be associated with the proposed action. Black Sea Bass (Centropristus striata) -See Grid # 1 designation description above F-18 King Mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla) and Spanish Mackerel (Scomberomorus maculates -See Grid # I designation description above. Cobia (Rachvicentron canadum) -See Grid # 1 designation description above. Sand Tiger Shark (Odontaspis Taurus -See Grid # 1 designation description above. 6.4 Essential Fish Habitat Grid #4 10' x 10' Square Coordinates: ', Boundary 'North .East j South 'West Coordinate ', 4 ] ° 10.0' N 72 ° 10.0' W 41 ° 00.0' N 72 ° 20.0' W Square Descrip tion (i.e. habitat, landmarks, coastline markersl: Waters within the square within Gardeners Bay affecting the following: Orient, NY, Ram Island, Coecles Harbor, Three Mile Harbor, and Northwest Harbor, along with around the eastern half of Shelter I., North Haven Peninsula, Barcelona Neck, and the Northwest Creek, north of Sag Harbor, NY, from Hay Beach to east of West Neck Harbor. ', Species ', Eggs :Larvae ', Juveniles Adults Atlantic salmon (Salmo salary X X ', Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) ', haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) pollock (Pollachius virens) whiting (Merluccius bilinearis) offshore hake (Merlucclus albidus) ', red hake (Urophycis chuss) white hake (Urophycis tenuis) redfish (Sebastesfasciatus) n/a witch flounder (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus) j F-19 winter flounder (Pleuronectes americanus) ', X ! X X ! X yellowtail flounder (Pleuronectes ferruginea) windowpane flounder (Scopthalmus ' X X X X American plaice (Hippoglossoides ', platessoides) ocean pout (Macrozoarces americanus) Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus ' ', hippoglossus) ', Atlantic sea scallop (Plaeopecten j magellanicus) ', Atlantic sea herring (Clupea harengus) ', ' X X 'monkfish (Lophius americanus) ' ' ; bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) ' ', X X long finned squid (Loligo pealei) ' n/a n/a short finned squid (Illex illecebrosus) ' n/a ' n/a ' i 'Atlantic butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus) ! ', ', Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) X X ' X X summer flounder (Paralicthys dentatus) ' X scup (Stenotomus chrysops) X ' X ; X . X black sea bass (Centropristus striata) n/a ' X X surf clam (Spisula solidissima) n/a n/a ocean quahog (Artica islandica) n/a ! n/a spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) ' n/a n/a ', tilefish (Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps) F-20 king mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla) X X ', X j X Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus ', X X X X maculates) cobia (Rachycentron canadum) X ' X X ' X sand tiger shark (Odontaspis taurus) X blue shark (Prionace glauca) ', X The following is an evaluation on the effects on the EFH associated with Grid #4 designation: Atlantic salmon (Salmo salary -See Grid # 1 designation description above. Winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanusl -See Grid #1 designation description above. Windowpane flounder (Scopthalmus aguosus) -See Grid #ldesignation description above. Atlantic Sea Herrine (Clupea harenQUS) -See Grid # 1 designation description above. Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) -See Grid # 1 designation description above. Atlantic Mackerel (Scomber scombrus) -See Grid #1 designation description above. Summer Founder (Paralicthys dentatus) -See Grid #4 designation description above. Scup (Stenotomus chrvsops) -See Grid # 1 designation description above. Black Sea Bass (Centropristus striata) -Both juvenile and adult life stages of this species are found in this designation. According to NOAA Technical Memorandum on black sea bass, juvenile and adult sea bass are usually found in association with rough bottom, shellfish and eelgrass beds, man-made structures in sandy-Shelly areas; off-shore clam beds and shell patches may also be used during wintering. Because both the juvenile and adult life stage of this EFH are mobile, no significant adverse impact that is expected from the proposed action. In fact, structures associated with off-bottom shellfish culture and cultured oyster reefs may enhance suitable habitat for this species. Kine Mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla) and Spanish Mackerel (Scomberomorus maculates -See Grid #1 designation description above. F-21 Cobia (Rachyicentron canadum) -See Grid # 1 designation description above. Sand Tiger Shark (Odontasnis Taurus) -See Grid # 1 designation description above. 6.5 Essential Fish Habitat Grid #5 10' x 10' Square Coordinates: Boundary North i East !South West Coordinate 41 ° 10.0' N 72 ° 00.0' W 41 ° 00.0' N 72 ° 10.0' W ware Description (i.e. habitat landmarks coastline markersl• Atlantic Ocean waters within the square within Gardeners Bay affecting the following: Gardeners Island and part of the northern part of the split of Long Island from just west of Rocky Point and south of Hither Hills State Park past Napeague Bay and Napeague Harbor, Lazy Pt. and Acabonack Harbor to Hog Creek Pt. Also affected are Cartwright I. and Hicks I. Species Eggs Larvae ,Juveniles Adults Atlantic salmon (Salmo salary X X Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) pollock (Pollachius virens) ', whiting (Merluccius bilinearis) ', offshore hake (Merluccius albidus) red hake (Urophycis chuss) __.._ _ white hake (Urophycis tenuis) redfish (Sebastes fasciatus) n/a ,witch flounder (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus) winter flounder (Pleuronectes americanus) X X X X F-22 yellowtail flounder (Pleuronectes ferruginea) I windowpane flounder (.Scopthalmus X ' X ', X ', X aquosus) American plaice (Hippoglossoides X X platessoides) ocean pout (Macrozoarces americanus) 'Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus ', ' I hippoglossus) ', Atlantic sea scallop (Placopecten ', magellanicus) ', ' '; Atlantic sea herring (Clupea harengus) X X 'monkfish (Lophius americanus) bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) ', X ' X long finned squid (Loligo pealei) n/a n/a short finned squid (Illex illecebrosus) n/a n/a ', .Atlantic butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus) L Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) X ' X X '! X summer flounder (Paralicthys dentatus) ' ', X - -- scup (Stenotomus chrysops) ', X i X X X black sea bass (Centropristus striata) n/a X X surf clam (Spisula solidissima) ' n/a n/a ocean quahog (Artica islandica) n/a ! n/a spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthus) ' n/a n/a tilefish (Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps) ', ', ', king mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla) ' X X X X F-23 Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus ', X maculatus) ', cobia (Rachycentron canadum) ' X sand tiger shark (Odontaspis taurus) blue shark (Prionace glauca) dusky shark (Charcharinus obscurus) sandbar shark (Charcharinus pdumbeus) 'X X ,X X X X X X X X X X The following is an evaluation on the effects on the EFH associated with Grid #5 designation: Atlantic salmon (Salmo salary -See Grid #ldesignation description above. Winter flounder (Pseudooleuronectes americanusl -See Grid #1 designation description above. Windowpane flounder (Scopthalmus a ug osus) -See Grid #ldesignation description above. American Plaice (Aippoglossoides platessoidesl -This species is present in this designation during juvenile and adult life stages. According to the NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-187 -EFH on American Plaice (Johnson, 2004), generally both juveniles and adults of this species are found in water depths between 45 and 175 meters. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts to this EFH are expected from the proposed action. Atlantic Sea Herring (Cluoea harenaus) -See Grid #1 designation description above. Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) -See Grid # 1 designation description above. Atlantic Mackerel (Scomber scombrusl -See Grid # 1 designation description above. Summer Founder (Paralicthys dentatus~ -According to NOAA Technical Memorandum on Summer Flounder, larvae are most abundant at depths between 30 to 230 feet and therefore no significant adverse impact from the proposed action is expected to this life stage. Both juveniles who use several estuarine habitats as nursery areas and adults who generally inhabit shallow coastal and estuarine waters during the warmer months could be found in the project area. However, both of these life stages are mobile and can avoid any impacts associated with the proposed action. Scup (Stenotomus chrysops) -See Grid #1 designation description above. Black Sea Bass (Centropristus striata) -See Grid # 1 designation description above. King Mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla) and Spanish Mackerel (Scomberomorus maculates) -See Grid #1 designation description above. Cobia (Rachycentron canadum) -See Grid # 1 designation description above. Sand Tiger Shark (Odontaspis Taurus) -See Grid # 1 designation description above. Blue Shark (Prfonace Qlauca) -See Grid #1 designation description above. Dusky Shark (Charcharinus obscurus~ -See Grid #] designation description above. Sandbar Shark (Charcharinus plumbeus) -See Grid #1 designation description above. F-25 7.0 Impact Assessment of Proposed Project This section of the report discusses the potential impacts on the essential fish habitat designations described above that may result from the proposed project. The impacts are evaluated as direct, indirect and cumulative as they relate to habitat and to species of concern that may be using the habitat. 7.1 Direct Adverse Impact Direct impacts from this proposed project that may affect the EFH species described above may include: impacts from shellfish harvesting methods; impacts from placement of the structures associated with off-bottom shellfish cultivation; and displacemenUattraction of species. However, through proper mitigation as suggested in the DGEIS, all of these impacts will have little or no adverse effect on any of the marine and anadromous species located in the areas designated by the Essential Fish Habitat for the Northeast Council's Coastal Pelagics and Northeast Groundfish Management Plans. Estuary faunal composition, abundance, and biomass are strongly seasonal in the Northeastern Region of the EFH, with peak abundance and biomass occurring in late Spring (May) and late Summer (August). The only species listed in the designations above that may be slightly effected by the action would be the winter flounder which tends to start their inshore migration to spawning grounds in late fall to early winter. Because the adults and juveniles are mobile, it is expected that they will avoid the area during disturbances from the proposed action. Therefore, there is no expected impact to the EFHs from excessive suspension of sediment into the water column during shellfish harvesting by hydraulic dredging operations. The placement of structures associated with off-bottom shellfish culture could possibly cause physical disruptions in the immediate areas surrounding the structures, such as increased sediment deposition or sediment scouring. Both of these conditions could impact the EFHs associated with that particular area. Most literature currently available on impacts associated with this type of aquaculture activity suggests that the ecological effects related to aquaculture activities are scale dependent. As described in the DGEIS of this program, mitigation methods to prevent significant adverse impacts to the EFHs of the area include limiting the number of aquaculture leases and limiting acreage of each lease. The Peconic estuary encompasses over 110,000 acres of underwater lands and the proposed action will be concentrated on a very small percentage of those acres; therefore, there is no expected impact to the EFHs from structures used in off-bottom cultivation of shellfish. Displacement and attraction of species can also be a possible impact associated with the proposed action. As stated in the DGEIS, benthic communities can be altered by both bottom and off-bottom aquaculture infrastructure that provides both substrate attachment, forage and refuge areas, with the potential to increase secondary productivity. In addition, as foundation species, bivalves can influence benthic communities by "creating general habitat, providing refuge from predation, reducing physical and physiological stress, enhancing settlement and recruitment, and increasing food supply." The three- dimensional structure provided by the bivalves themselves or by aquacultural F-26 infrastructure "can be particularly pronounced in areas previously devoid of any relief or hard substrate" and would be expected to attract other species, likely increasing local diversity. Therefore, a positive impact would be expected from the proposed action. 7.2 Indirect Adverse Impacts No indirect adverse impacts to EFH are expected from the proposed project. In fact, as mentioned above as foundation species, bivalves can influence benthic communities by "creating general habitat, providing refuge from predation, reducing physical and physiological stress, enhancing settlement and recruitment, and increasing food supply." 7.3 Cumulative Adverse Impacts No cumulative adverse impacts to EFH are expected from the proposed project. In fact, as mentioned above as foundation species, bivalves can influence benthic communities by "creating general habitat, providing refuge from predation, reducing physical and physiological stress, enhancing settlement and recruitment, and increasing food supply." F-27 Bibliography Able, K.W., and Fahay, M.P. ]998.The First Year in the Life of Estuarine Fishes in the Middle Atlantic Bight. Rutgers University Press: 1-342 Ahrens, Michael J. ]997. Peconic Estuary Program-An Annotated Bibliography of the Natural Resources of the Peconic Estuary and Adjacent Locations on Eastern Long Island, NY Biglow, H.B., and W.C. Schroeder. 1953. Fishes of the Gulf of Maine. U.S. Fish Wildlife Service. Fisheries Bulletin. 74: 576 pp Bruno, S.F., Staker, R.D., Sharma, G.M. 1980. Dynamics of phytoplankton productivity in the Peconic Estuary, Long Island. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science. 10:247-263 Burkholder, J.M, Mason, K.M., Glasgow, H.B. Jr., 1992. Water-column nitrate enrichment promotes decline of eelgrass Zoster marina: evidence from seasonal mesocosm experiments. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 81: 163-178 Cashin Associates, P.C. 1996. Peconic Estuary Program Final Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study. prepared for the Peconic Estuary Program Collette, M. 1993. Peconic/Gardeners' Bay pound net location survey. Unpublished report prepared for the New York Department of Environmental Conversation. Fahay, M.P. 1983. Guide to [he Early Stages of Marine Fishes Occurring in the Western North Atlantic Ocean, Cape Hatteras to the Southern Scotian Shelf. J. Northwest Atl. Fish. Sci. 4: 423pp Fahay, M.P., Berrien, P.L., Johnson, D.L., and Morse, W.W. 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Bluefish, Ponatomus saltatrix, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-144: 68pp Garmman, G.C. 1983. Observations on Juvenile Red Hake Associated with Sea Scallops in Frenchman Bay, Maine. Am. Fish. Soc. 112:211-215pp Hardy, C. 1976. A Preliminary Description of the Peconic Bay Estuary. Marine Science Research Center, SUNY, Stony Brook, New York. Special Report No. 3 F-28 Hardy, J.D., Jr. 1978. Development of Fishes of the Mid-Atlantic Bight: AN Atlas of Egg, Larval, and Juvenile States. Vol. 2 Anguillidae through Syngnathidae, U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Serv. Prog.FWS/OBS-78/12.458pp Johnson, D.L. 2004. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: American plaice, Mippoglossoides platessoides, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-187: 72pp Lock, M.C. and Packer, D.B. 2004. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Silver Hake, Merluccius bilinearis, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-186: 68pp Murdy, E.O., Birdsong, R.S., and Musick, J.A., 1996. Fishes of the Chesapeake Bay. Smithsonian Institution: 324pp New England Fisheries Management Council. 1998. NEFMC EFH Amendment to Essential Fish Habita[ Description Ocean Pout (Macrozoarces americanus) Report to Congress: Status of the Fisheries of the United States (September 1997). Oanie, D.S., J.G. Trial, and J.G.Stanley. 1984. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fish and Invertebrates (North Atlantic) - Atlantic Salmon. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-82/11.22. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4: 19pp Packer, D.B., Griesbach, S.J., Berrien, P.L., Zetlin, C.A., Johnson, D.L., and Morse, W.W. 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Summer Flounder, Paralichthys dentatus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-151: 88pp Pereira, J.J., Goldberg, R., Ziskowski, J.J., Berrien, P.L., Morse, W.W., and Johnson, D.L.. 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Winter Flounder, Pseudopleuronectes americanus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-138: 39pp Steimle, F.W., Zetlin, C.A., Berrien, P.L., and Chang S. 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Black Sea Bass, Centropristis striata, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-143: 42pp F-29 Steimle, F.W., Morse, W.W., and Johnson, D.L.. 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Goosefish, Lophius americanus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-127: 40pp Steimle, F.W., Morse, W.W., Berrien, P.L., Johnson, D.L., and Zetlin, C.A.. 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Ocean Pout, Macrozoarces americanus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-129: 26pp Steiner, W.W., Luczkovich, J.J., and Olla, B.L.. 1982. Activity, Shelter Usage, Growth and Recruitment of Juvenile Red Hake, Urophyci.s chuss. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 7: 125-135pp Studholme, A.L. Packer, D.B., Berrien, P.L., Johnson, D.L., Zetlin, C.A., and Morse W.W.. 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Atlantic Mackerel, Scomber scombrus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-141: 35pp Sukwoo C., Berrien, P.L., Johnson, D.L., and Morse, W.W. 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Windowpane, Scophthalmus aquosus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-137: 32pp Webber, A.M. 1984. Winter Flounder in Western Long Island Sound: Preliminary Results of the 1981-1983 Tagging Projects: New York State Dep. Environ. Conserv. Div. Mar. Resour. Stony Brook, NY. 33pp Webber, A., Grahn, G, and Havens, B., 1998. Species Composition, Seasonal Occurrence and Relative Abundance of Finiish and Macroinvertebrates Taken by Small-Mesh Otter Trawl in Peconic Bay, New York., NYSDEC Division of Fish Wildlife and Marine Resources, Marine Finish Unit. F-30 Appendix G Revised Version of the Shellfish Cultivation Zone Map ~.~ Appendix H Current and Potential Maximum Use of Underwater Lands for Shellfish Aguaculture in Peconic Bay and Gardeners Bay TRANSITION TO THE SUFFOLK COUNTY SHELLFISH AOUACULTURE LEASE PROGRAM: MAXIMUM LEASE SCENARIO Current Status of Underwater Land Acreaee Temporary Marine Area Use Assignments 31 Assignments @ 33 sites: 29 @ 5 acres = 145 acres 4 @ 2.5 acres = 10 acres Total 155 acres -. Maximum Acrea¢e that Could Be Potentially Leased During the First 10 Years of Lease Proeram Implementation 310 acres 2. Permitted oyster grants for cultivation of species other than oysters, located outside 1,000 tt. shoreline buffer 1,446 acres -+ 1,446 acres 3. Permitted oyster grants for cultivation of oysters only, located outside 1,000 ft. buffer 1,119.5 acres No lease required if used for oyster culture only. -~ 177.5 acres if used for other species 4. Fallow grants located outside 1,000 ft. shoreline buffer 2,834.5 acres -. 620 acres 5. New commercial shellfish cultivation leases subject to annual cap limits during the first 10 years of the program 0 acres -> 600 acres Total 3,153.5 acres The total maximum potential lease acreage - 3,]53.5 acres - is 2.87% of the 110,000 acres of underwater land subject to County jurisdiction. Of this total, 2,720.5 acres on assignments and grants are already permitted for culture by NYSDEC. The maximum lease scenario is based on the following assumptions: a.) All parties that now conduct shellfish culture under NYSDEC permit decide to participate in the County lease program. b.) Lease acreages are calculated using the criteria established in lease program components that govern issuance of leases for the growth, harvest and sale of shellfish for commercial purposes. c.) All grant title issues are resolved in favor of the owner. (There are 1,141.59 acres of grant lands with title issues located outside of the 1,000 ft. shoreline buffer; portions of this acreage are fallow; used for oyster culture only; or used for the culture of species other than oysters.) d.) For those grants that are permitted to grow shellfish species other than oysters, grant owners can document that their entire grant parcels have been historically used for culture of species other than oysters, e.g., hard clams. e.) All lease applications for new leases on additional lands survive the lease application/public notice process, and all objections/conflicts are decided in favor of the applicant. f) The calculation does not include consideration of Experimental/Educational Leases or Shellfish Restoration Leases. Such non-commercial leases would be evaluated on a case-by- case basis, and would not be subject to the annual acreage cap limits for new leases. Current NYSDEC Temporary Marine Area Use Assignments in Peconic and Gardiners Bays Harp Iseund Species Cultivated' Radius fft.1 Gear Permitted Comments 01/02/85 HC, EO 250 70 - 8'x8'x7' wood racks Raritan Ba rela site 07/21/93 HC, EO, BM, SC 250 150 - 4'x4'x11" vin I coated wire mesh cages 09/12/95 HC, EO, BS, BM, SC 250 250 -4'x7'x1" vinyl coated wire mesh 11/13/95 EO 250 400 - 36"x18"x3.5" plastic cages 11/13/95 EO 250 400 - 36"x18"x3.5" high plastic ca es 06/02/99 (original) 01/05/06 (re-issued) EO, HC, BS 250 50 - 3'x3'x3' vinyl coated wire mesh cages 08/18/00 EO, HC, BS 250 300 - 36"x18"x2" plastic mesh cages 10/06/00 EO, HC, SC, BM, BS, RC 250 100 - 6'x10'x5' cages 500 - 36"x20"x2.5" plastic mesh ba s 10/10/00 EO, HC, SC, BM, BS, RC 250 100 - 6'x10'x5' cages 500 - 36"x20"x2.5" plastic mesh bags 10 - 10'x6' upweller rafts with 3'x3' trays 01/02/01 EO, HC, SC, BM, BS 187 each 300 - 6'x3'x4' wire mesh cages at each site 04/05/01 EO, HC, BM, BS 250 200 - 2.5'x3'x4.5' steel and plastic mesh cages 07/24/01 EO, BS 250 200 - 3'x3'x3' vinyl coated wire mesh ca es 07/29/02 E0, HC, BM, BS, SC 250 400 - 6'x3'x4' wire mesh and wood cages each containing up to 12 poly mesh shellfish bags 10/07/02 EO, HC, SC, BS 250 500 - 3'x3'x2' plastic mesh ca es 07/16/99 (original) 07/07/03 re-issued E0, HC, BS 250 50 - 3'x3'x3' vinyl coated mesh cages 04/09/04 E0, BS 250 60 - 50"x36.5"x36.5" ca es 04/26/04 E0, BS 250 70 - 50"x36.5"x36.5" cages 07/25/97 (original) 01/27/05 re-issued EO, HC, BS 250 200 - 54"x36"x24" steel and plastic mesh cages 09/14/05 EO, HC, BS 250 200 - 42"x36"x36" steel and plastic cages 10/03/06 EO, HC, BS 250 250 - 3'x18"x3" cages 11/06/06 E0, HC, BS, BM, SC 250 300 - 4.5'x4.5'x2' cages 11/06/06 E0, HC, BS, BM, SC 250 300 - 4.5'x4.5'x2' cages 01/10/08 EO, HC, BS 250 200 - 42"x36"x36" steel and plastic cages 01/17/08 EO 250 250 - 4'x3'x3" mesh cages pendin EO 250 10 - 4.5'x3'x2' mesh ca es 01/10/08 EO, BS 250 1,056 - 2'x3'x3" shellfish ba son long lines 09/09/04 EO 187 each 100 - 3'x3'x3' ca es Current NYSDEC Temporary Marine Area Use Assignments in Peconic and Gardiners Bays n,.e i~~~~ea Sneries Cultivated Radius /H.l Gear Permitted Comments 1,200 - 30"x30"x96" cages 400 - 20"x8' lantern nets 01/10/08 EO, BS, HC, BM, SS 250 500 - 20"x24" pearl nets up to 15,000 - 20"x40"x3" shellfish bags 2008 EO 250 75- 4'x4'x4" mesh cages pendin EO 250 100- 3'x4'x4' cages pen ing 250 EO -Eastern Oyster, HC -Hard Clam, SC -Soft Clam, BS -Bay Scallop, SS -Sea Scallop, BM -Blue Mussel, RC -Razor Clam Source: NYSDEC, Bureau of Marine Resources, 2008 Temporary Marine Area Use Assignments + =2.SAcresx4=10 Ac • = 5 Acres x 29 = 145 Ac 155 Ac x ' ' ~, r h - ~/ ~ ~ ' ~. 1 ~ ~ -- ~~ .. • a ~ l! • • ' • }~ j • t I • • • • - r ~ _~ ~- ~ ~ - • ; ~~ , + ,, _, ! ,, ~, ,_. i d ~ ~, ~ ~ ~,~ • • i _- ~~4 r+. >r. fir) (' .5~ • ..i ,+ ~, -. r . ~..i~ :, _. • '~ • '". Private and Title Issue Oyster Grants DSBL Oster Logs) Total Ac. (SCRPTM) Approx. Ac. Within 1,000 ft. buffer Approx. Ac. Outside 1,000 ft. buffer 1 0300 20300 0100 017000 356 106 0 106 2 0300 20400 0400 011000 381 50.00 - 50 3 0300 20400 0400 014000 383 126.50 22 104.50 4 0300 20400 0500 002000 421 118.00 24 94 5 0300 20400 0500 006000 422 47.00 - 47 6 0300 20400 0500 022000 437 58.00 10 48 7 0600 15000 0100 004000 2 40 15 25 8 0600 15000 0200 002000 25 5 0 5 9 0700 02800 0100 012000 529 205 0 205 10 0700 02800 0100 013000 530 115 0 115 11 0700 02800 0100 015000 531 357 0 357 12 0700 02800 0100 019000 444 1 0 1 13 0700 02800 0100 020000 445 32.00 - 32 14 0700 02800 0100 021000 446 65 0 65 15 0700 02800 0100 022000 447 100 0 100 16 0700 02800 0100 027000 451 86 0 86 17 0700 02800 0100 087000 506 6.00 4 2 18 0700 02800 0100 088000 507 33 8 25 19 0700 02800 0100 089000 508 6 5 1 20 0700 02800 0100 094000 512 8 8 0 21 0700 02800 0100 095000 513 23 22.5 0.5 22 0700 02800 0100 096000 514 39 27 12 23 0700 02800 0100 099000 517 50.00 27 23 24 0900 00100 0100 010002 293A 477 0 477 25 0900 00100 0200 030000 543 0.58 0.58 - 26 090015400 0100 013000 249 19 0 19 27 0900 15400 0100 015000 248 3.00 - 3 28 090015400 0200 002000 252 49 0 49 29 0900 15400 0200 003000 253 74 0 74 30 0900 15400 0200 005000 254 191 0 191 31 0900 15400 0200 006000 257 35.00 - 35 32 0900 15400 0200 008000 258 82.00 - 82 33 0900 15400 0200 009000 259 101.00 - 101 34 0900 15400 0200 011000 261 71.00 - 71 35 1000 13200 0100 002000 184 124.00 6 118 36 1000 13200 0100 007000 191 6.00 - 6 37 1000 13200 0100 010000 197 78.00 - 78 38 1000 13200 0100 012000 213 60.00 18 42 39 1000 13200 0100 017000 198 197.00 - 197 40 1000 13200 0100 020000 203 60.00 - 60 41 1000 13200 0100 022000 206 83.00 - 83 42 1000 13200 0100 023000 207 285.00 - 285 43 1000 13200 0100 024000 208 298.00 - 298 44 1000 13300 0100 003000 96,107 334 0 334 45 1000 13300 0100 005000 113 60.00 19 41 46 1000 13300 0100 009000 116 263.00 - 263 47 1000 13300 0100 020000 139, 145 246 0 246 48 1000 13300 0100 021000 140 31.00 - 31 49 1000 13300 0100 025000 151 13 8 5 Prepared: 09/03/08 Private and Title Issue Oyster Grants Total Ac. Approx. Ac. Within Approx. Ac. Outside (SCRPTM) 1,000 ft. buffer 1,000 ft. buffer 50 1000 13300 0100 026000 150 30 0 30 51 1000 13300 0100 028001 154 57.00 - 57 52 1000 13300 0100 028002 153 37 0 37 53 1000 13300 0100 030000 550 3.00 - 3 54 1000 13300 0200 001000 157 18 18 0 55 1000 13300 0200 002000 158 6.00 2 4 56 1000 13300 0200 007000 164 3 3 0 57 1000 13300 0200 008000 165 15 15 0 58 1000 13300 0200 009000 162 199.00 65 134 59 1000 13300 0200 012000 173 2.00 - 2 60 1000 13300 0200 016001 179 144.00 43 101 61 1000 13400 0300 006000 57 225.00 8 217 62 1000 13400 0300 009000 61 71.00 44 27 63 1000 13400 0300 014000 64 40.00 - 40 64 1000 13400 0300 020002 74 28.00 - 28 65 1000 13400 0400 006002 77 27.00 - 27 Tntal a S.R92 OR d99 nR 5 dOn nn Prepared: 09/03/08 Private & Title Issue Oyster Grants Count: 65 Area: 5,822 Ac ~_: ';~ ~ ~,.. /" ~~~ ;' =, rY Na ^.y> Y ,~~ r- e • v ~,y . i ~ _ i ~ t~ u ' .r`- ~ ~ ~~~ ~~"~~ ~. ;i\ ;> Private Oyster Grants Total Ac. Approx. Ac. Within Approx. Ac. Outside DSBI Oyster Lot(s) (SCRPTM) 1,000 ft. buffer 1,000 ft. buffer 1 0300 20300 0100 017000 2 0300 20400 0500 002000 3 0300 20400 0500 022000 4 0600 15000 0100 004000 5 0700 02800 0100 012000 6 0700 02800 0100 013000 7 0700 02800 0100 015000 8 0700 02800 0100 019000 9 0700 02800 0100 020000 10 0700 ozaoo 0100 021000 11 0700 02800 0100 022000 12 0700 02800 0100 027000 13 0700 02800 0100 087000 14 0700 02800 0100 088000 15 0700 02800 0100 089000 16 0700 02800 0100 094000 17 0700 02800 0100 095000 18 0700 02800 0100 096000 19 0700 02800 0100 099000 20 0900 00100 0200 030000 21 0900 15400 0200 006000 22 0900 15400 0200 008000 23 0900 15400 0200 009000 24 090015400 0200 011000 25 1000 13200 0100 002000 26 100013200 0100 007000 27 1000 13200 0100 010000 28 1000 13200 0100 012000 29 1000 13200 0100 017000 30 1000 13200 0100 022000 31 1000 13200 0100 023000 32 1000 13200 0100 024000 000 13300 0100 003000 1000 13300 0100 005000 1000 13300 0100 009000 100013300 0100 020000 100013300 0100 021000 100013300 0100 025000 1000 13300 0100 026000 100013300 0100 028001 1000 13300 0100 028002 1000 13300 0200 001000 1000 13300 0200 007000 1000 13300 0200 008000 1000 13300 0200 009000 1000 13300 0200 012000 1000 13300 0200 016001 1000 13400 0300 006000 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 421 118.00 24 94 437 58.00 10 48 2 40 15 25 529 205 0 205 530 115 0 115 531 357 0 357 444 1 0 1 445 32.00 - 32 446 65 0 65 aa7 100 0 100 451 86 0 86 506 6.00 4 2 507 33 8 25 508 6 5 1 512 8 8 0 513 23 22.5 0.5 514 39 27 12 517 50.00 27 23 543 0.58 0.58 - 257 35.00 - 35 258 82.00 - 82 259 101.00 - 101 261 71.00 - 71 184 124.00 6 118 191 6.00 - 6 197 78.00 - 78 213 60.00 18 42 198 197.00 - 197 206 83.00 - 83 207 285.00 - 285 208 298.00 - 296 96, 97, 98, 334 0 334 100, 101, 107 113 60.00 19 41 116 263.00 - 263 139, 145, 146 246 0 246 140,141 31.00 - 31 151 13 8 5 150 30 0 30 154,156 57.00 - 57 153 37 0 37 157 18 18 0 164 3 3 0 165 15 15 0 162, 166 199.00 65 134 173 2.00 - 2 179 144.00 43 101 57 225.00 8 217 Prepared: 09/03/08 Private Oyster Grants Total Ac. Approx. Ac. Within Approx. Ac. Outside DSBL Oster Lots (SCRPTM) 1,000 ft. buffer 1,000 ft. buffer 49 1000 13400 0300 009000 61 71.00 44 27 50 1000 13400 0300 014000 64 40.00 - 40 Prepared: 09/03/08 Private Oyster Grants Count: 50 Area: 4,656 Ac `" -- ~ ~ ,; ~, ,, a t ~' ~ ~ _~ ,~ ~~ ,: .~ ;>. ., x~ r 7 e ` ,_. ..~~ _ w " 5 ~ -} f r t o t 4 x. - Y , p ~..1 h.+~ S ti a ~ iJ 1 ~,] { t /~ v ~ _ ~'S i' ' ~yY, J / .L ~ / { >.. 1 rv/ ~. ~, '' '. t n Oyster Grants with Title Issues DSBL Oyster Lot Total Ac. (SCRPTM) Approx. Ac. Within 1,000 ft. buffer Approx. Ac. Outside 1,000 ft. buffer 1 0300 20400 0400 011000 381 50.00 - 50.00 2 0300 20400 0400 014000 383 126.50 21.71 104.79 3 0300 20400 0500 006000 422 47.00 - 47.00 4 0600 15000 0200 002000 25 5.00 - 5.00 5 0900 00100 0100 010002 293 477.00 - 477.00 6 0900 15400 0100 013000 249 19.00 - 19.00 7 0900 15400 0100 015000 248 3.00 - 3.00 8 0900 15400 0200 002000 252 49.00 - 49.00 9 0900 15400 0200 003000 253 74.00 - 74.00 10 0900 15400 0200 005000 254 191.00 - 191.00 11 1000 13200 0100 020000 203 60.00 - 60.00 12 1000 13300 0100 030000 550 3.00 - 3.00 13 1000 13300 0200 002000 158 6.00 2.20 3.80 14 1000 13400 0300 020002 74 28.00 - 28.00 15 1000 13400 0400 006002 77 27.00 - 27.00 Total = 1,165.50 23.91 1,141.59 Prepared: 09/03/08 Oyster Grants with Title Issues ;; -._ Count: 15 r ~` ;;., ,,.. Area: 1,165 Ac _~ ~, ~ r. .~. ~ .i r ~ i i ~ ~ a L~ / t w t y ~ i .t ~ µ t " ., ~ \ ~ ~ _. .i.{' r ~ Y~ ~._ y t' j ~ ~ v\ _ ~v.~~ i~.~ f.. j ~~ ) t-~~ ~i, K _ ~ i' > ~ t .A '. ~ .... - 40, y. ~ f ~ ~ l:w r , a ~.y.'~ '. -+ x d ~~ P '_1 ,~1. ... A /. ~. i t ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ t;,. ,_ a -. ,, ,5> ,.,r.,; Permitted Oyster Grants 2007/2008 Oyster DSBL Ownershi Approx. Ac. Within Total Ac. 1,000 ft. (SCRPTM) buffer Approx. Ac. Outside Maximum 1,000 ft. Potential Permitted buffer Lease Ac. Species 151 1000 13300 0100 025000 Private 13 8 5 5 O 157 1000 13300 0200 001000 Private 18 18 0 0 0 356 0300 20300 0100 017000 Private 106 0 106 20 0 444 0700 02800 0100 019000 Private 1 0 1 1 0 446 0700 02800 0100 021000 Private 65 0 65 20 O 447 0700 02800 0100 022000 Private 100 0 100 20 0 451 0700 02800 0100 027000 Private 86 0 86 20 0 507 0700 02800 0100 088000 Private 33 8 25 20 O 508 0700 02800 0100 089000 Private 6 5 1 1 0 512 0700 02800 0100 094000 Private 8 8 0 0 O 513 0700 02800 0100 095000 Private 23 22.5 0.5 0.5 O 514 0700 02800 0100 096000 Private 39 27 12 10 0 530 0700 02800 0100 013000 Private 115 0 115 20 O 531 0700 02800 0100 015000 Private 357 0 357 20 O 139, 145 1000 13300 0100 020000 Private 246 0 246 20 O Subtotal = 1,216.00 96.50 1,119.50 177.50 2 0600 15000 0100 004000 Private 40 15 25 25 O, C, S 25 0600 15000 0200 002000 Title Problem 5 0 5 5 O, S 150 1000 13300 0100 026000 Private 30 0 30 30 0, C 153 1000 13300 0100 028002 Private 37 0 37 37 O, C 164 1000 13300 0200 007000 Private 3 3 0 0 O, C, S 165 1000 13300 0200 008000 Private 15 15 0 0 O, C, S 249 0900 15400 0100 013000 Title Problem 19 0 19 19 O, S 252 0900 15400 0200 002000 Title Problem 49 0 49 49 O, S 253 0900 15400 0200 003000 Title Problem 74 0 74 74 O, S 254 0900 15400 0200 005000 Title Problem 191 0 191 191 O, S 529 0700 02800 0100 012000 Private 205 0 205 205 O, C, S 293A 0900 00100 0100 010002 Title Problem 477 0 477 477 O, C 96, 107 1000 13300 0100 003000 Private 334 0 334 334 O, S Subtotal = 1,479.00 33.00 1,446.00 1,446.00 Grand Total = 2,695.00 129.50 2,565.50 1,623.SOt O = Oysters, C = Clams, S =Scallops t Value represents maximum possible lease acreage assuming parcels permitted for species other than oysters receive a lease for their entire grant acreage outside the 1,000 ft buffer. Prepared: osio3ioe NYSDEC On/Off Bottom Culture Permits Issued for Privately Held Underwater Lands / Oyster Grants in Peconic and Gardiners Bavs, 2007 - 2008 Permit Total Ac. Approx. Ac. within Approx. Ac. outside PnrmiMon No. nverar Lnt ISCRPTM) 1000 ft buffer 1000 ft buffer Area Year Comment Twin Fork Oyster 66 2` 40 15 25 Flanders Ba 2008 O, C, S 25 5 - 5 249 19 - 19 J. Kraus 63 252 49 - 49 Great Peconic Bay 2008 O, S 253 74 - 74 254 191 - 191 Coastal Farms & 1 293A 477 - 477 Great Peconic Bay 2008 O, C Hampton Shellfish Co. 83 Peconic Gold Corp. 116 96 Peconic Bay Seafood Ltd. 112 107 3341 - 334 Little Peconic Bay 2008 O, S 139 246 - 246 145 Southold Bay 151' 13 8 5 157** 18 18 - 512*' 8 8 - Derin Harbor Paradise Point 37 356 106 - 106 2007 O Oyster Farms 444 1 1 446 65 - 65 Gardiners Bay 447 100 - 100 530 115 - 115 531 357 - 357 150 30 - 30 Southold Bay Aeros Cultured 36 153 37 - 37 2008 O, C Oyster Co. 529 205 - 205 Gardiners Bay O, C, S 507* 33 8 25 508' 6 5 1 Southold Bay The World Is My Oyster 101 513' 23 22.5 0.5 2008 O 514' 39 27 12 451 86 - 86 Gardiners Bay D. Yaxa 33 164*' 3 3 - - E. Jurzenia 86 165" 15 15 _ Pipes Cove 2008 O, C, S - R. Nelson 113 2,695" 129.50 O = Oysters, C = Clams, S =Scallops t =Acreage indicates that of total tax parcel. Oyster lots 96 and 107 represent a 57 and 61 acre subset respectively. tt=Totals include additional unpermitted acerage associated with Suffolk County Tax Map parcel. ' A portion of the oyster grant falls within the 1,000 ft shoreline buffer. *" The entire grant acerage falls within the 1,000 ft shoreline buffer. z,ono.ou Prepared: 09/03/08 Permitted Oyster Grants 2007/2008 Count: 28 r "r~ `td....~ ": Total Area: 2,695 Ac .* '. <; Area Outside 1,000 ft Shoreline Buffer: 2,565.50 a >, r; !' s,r Oyster Grants Permitted for Species Other Than Oysters 2007/2008 Approx. Ac. Approx. Ac. Within Outside Maximum Oyster Total Ac. 1,000 ft. 1,000 ft. Potential Permitted Lot(s) DSBL Ownership (SCRPTM) buffer buffer Lease Ac. Species 2 0600 15000 0100 004000 Private 40 15 25 25 O, C, S 25 0600 15000 0200 002000 Title Problem 5 0 5 5 0, S 150 1000 13300 0100 026000 Private 30 0 30 30 O, C 153 1000 13300 0100 028002 Private 37 0 37 37 O, C 164 1000 13300 0200 007000 Private 3 3 0 0 O, C, S 165 1000 13300 0200 008000 Private 15 15 0 0 O, C, S 249 0900 15400 0100 013000 Title Problem 19 0 19 19 O, S 252 0900 15400 0200 002000 Title Problem 49 0 49 49 O, S 253 0900 15400 0200 003000 Title Problem 74 0 74 74 O, S 254 0900 15400 0200 005000 Title Problem 191 0 191 191 O, S 529 0700 02800 0100 012000 Private 205 0 205 205 O, C, S 293A 0900 00100 0100 010002 Title Problem 477 0 477 477 O, C 96, 107 1000 13300 0100 003000 Private 334 0 334 334 O, S Total = 1,479.00 33.00 1,446.00 1,446.00 O = Oysters, C = Clams, S =Scallops Prepared: 09/03/08 Permitted Oyster Grants -SPECIES OTHER THAN OYSTERS - 2007/2008 Count: 13 _ ,;°; ~ _~Y~ Total Area: 1,479 Ac Area Outside 1,OOOftShoreline Buffer: 1,446 Ac .~ ~, _ f ~" ~: Oyster Grants Permitted for Oysters Only 2007/2008 Approx. Ac. Approx. Ac. Within Outside Maximum Oyster Total Ac. 1,000 ft. 1,000 ft. Potential Lot(s) DSBL Ownership (SCRPTM) buffer buffer Lease Ac. 151 1000 13300 0100 025000 Private 13 8 5 5 157 1000 13300 0200 001000 Private 18 18 0 0 356 0300 20300 0100 017000 Private 106 0 106 20 444 0700 02800 0100 019000 Private 1 0 1 1 446 0700 02800 0100 021000 Private 65 0 65 20 447 0700 02800 0100 022000 Private 100 0 100 20 451 0700 02800 0100 027000 Private 86 0 86 20 507 0700 02800 0100 088000 Private 33 8 25 20 508 0700 02800 0100 089000 Private 6 5 1 1 512 0700 02800 0100 094000 Private 8 8 0 0 513 0700 02800 0100 095000 Private 23 22.5 0.5 0.5 514 0700 02800 0100 096000 Private 39 27 12 10 530 0700 02800 0100 013000 Private 115 0 115 20 531 0700 02800 0100 015000 Private 357 0 357 20 139, 145 1000 13300 0100 020000 Private 246 0 246 20 Total = 1,216.00 96.50 1,119.50 177.50 Prepared: 09/03/08 Permitted Oyster Grants - OYSTERS ONLY - 2007/2008 Count: 15 Total Area: 1,216 Ac Area Outside 1,000 ft Shoreline Buffer: 1,119.50 Ac °''~ 5. ( .2 4\ ~, I ~ ~« _ . '~,. .,y ,,-, ~~ ~, .H~ ~ ~, :, `» '=~` t {. :, i .. x ~ i. ~~/ r, G° ti; Non-Permitted (Fallow) Oyster Grants 2007/2008 Total Ac. Approx. Ac. Within Approx. Ac. Outside Potential DSBL Oyster Lot (SCRPTM) 1,000 ft. buffer 1,000 ft. buffer Lease Ac. 1000 13400 0300 006000 57 225.00 8 217 20 1000 13400 0300 009000 61 71.00 44 27 20 1000 13400 0300 014000 64 40.00 - 40 20 1000 13400 0300 020002 74 28.00 - 28 20 1000 13400 0400 006002 77 27.00 - 27 20 1000 13300 0100 005000 113 60.00 19 41 20 1000 13300 0100 009000 116 263.00 - 263 20 1000 13300 0100 021000 140 31.00 - 31 20 1000 13300 0100 028001 154 57.00 - 57 20 1000 13300 0200 002000 158 6.00 2 4 4 100013300 0200 009000 162 199.00 65 134 20 1000 13300 0200 012000 173 2.00 - 2 2 100013300 0200 016001 179 144.00 43 101 20 1000 13200 0100 002000 184 124.00 6 118 20 1000 13200 0100 007000 191 6.00 - 6 6 1000 13200 0100 010000 197 78.00 - 78 20 1000 13200 0100 017000 198 197.00 - 197 20 1000 13200 0100 020000 203 60.00 - 60 20 1000 13200 0100 022000 206 83.00 - 83 20 1000 13200 0100 023000 207 285.00 - 285 20 1000 13200 0100 024000 208 298.00 - 298 20 1000 13200 0100 012000 213 60.00 18 42 20 0900 15400 0100 015000 248 3.00 - 3 3 0900 15400 0200 006000 257 35.00 - 35 20 0900 15400 0200 008000 258 82.00 - 82 20 0900 15400 0200 009000 259 101.00 - 101 20 0900 15400 0200 011000 261 71.00 - 71 20 0300 20400 0400 011000 381 50.00 - 50 20 0300 20400 0400 014000 383 126.50 22 104.50 20 0300 20400 0500 002000 421 118.00 24 94 20 0300 20400 0500 006000 422 47.00 - 47 20 0300 20400 0500 022000 437 58.00 10 48 20 0700 02800 0100 020000 445 32.00 - 32 20 0700 02800 0100 087000 506 6.00 4 2 2 0700 02800 0100 099000 517 50.00 27 23 20 0900 00100 0200 030000 543 0.58 0.58 - 0 1000 13300 0100 030000 550 3.00 - 3 3 Total = 3,127.08 292.58 2,834.50 620 Prepared: 09/03/08 Non-Permitted Oyster Grants 2007/2008 Count: 37 Total Area: 3,127 Ac Area Outside 1,OOOftShoreline Buffer: 2,834 Ac ~~,.. . ,:; - ~. /, ~~_ ~~ ~. ~~ ' ~~~, ~~ J a ~ ~, a • ~ r ~ ~ ~~: ;r -~ ~ ~ ~ „ r ;F5 j ~.~ a b',' , y J: F 'r d 2Y ~i~Y; T. h jai P ~~ ..~ ~ * l ~.. ~ \ ~_ t.. \ f ~ ~ .. t. ": ~.~ 1" ' ~ i.~~ ~' , Y p. ~~ \ . , r