Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1000-40.-1-23MARICULTURE T HNOLOGIES PO Box 461 · 127 Sterling Avenue · Greenport, NY 119d~.0461 · Ph: (516) 477-I 777 · Fax: (51 B) 477-1789 Visit us at our Web Sir~s mariculturetech.com and seafood-2001 .corn Towll of So~thnld 53095 Main l~d P.O. Box 1179 Sontholci, N~w York 11971 October 3, 1997 RECBX~'D OCT 7 1997 Southold Tow~ Cie& Enclosed please find c~pies of t~¢ Dk~harge Momtoring R~port for ~e montt~ of A~gt~st r~quired by our SPDES Permit # 0226726. If you ~aav¢ ~ ~ queSaons, plea~ f~l frce to call our office. /Cl~ainn*n of ~e Board "TAKING S,E'~FOOD INTO THE 2 ;/ST ~tzN¢ UR. ~CEIVED OCT ' 7 1997 ~ulhold Town Cle~ PREPARED FOR MARICULTURE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. FOR FINFISH AQUACULTURE PROJECT LOCATED OFF PLUM ISLAND, NEW YORK -.'. ----PREPARED BY CAMERON ENGD, IEERING & ASSOCIATES, LLP AND PECONIC ASSOCIATES, INC. SEi'~FD, FflER 1997 O~tober ~2, ~1997~/'he Suffolk Tin~e~i · NET WORK--MTI crews re~:ently positioning fish farm net pens off plum Island. ,' ~_ :. ,~, ,1~,~,-; .... Fish Farm , Subm,ts Hatchery category sought By Tim Wacker $OUTHOLD~It's a unique business Proposal three phases. Two of the buildings would be con- · nected to provide a 120,000-square- foot . fish "nursery." The 48,000-square-foot hatchery would be added in the third phase of construction. The 50,000 sum- and it deserves a unique designation.in mer flounder placed in net pens off the town's zoning ordinance. : Plum Island during the summer were , purchased from a New Hampshire That s What repr,eSentattvis Of Mar- ' iculture'Techn6ibgies Ibc. (MTI) afgfied' h.,a!c, be~.. ~ i-., . . :~ ~.: Mr wlggm argue([ tl~at ti~e wnole before. the Southoid Town Board Tues- · day as they renewed their drive t6 estab- operntion will be enclosed, with no fish lish a fish hatchery at Clark's B0ach jt~st~- outside Greenport Village.~. ,:. Th~ operators of the fish-farming business requested the addition of n new Marine 111 designation in Southold's zoning ordinance to permit fish hatcheries only. The company says that would allow such facilities on lands close to residential areas. It also would keep out other marine uses, such as the boat yards, marinas and fish processing plants, now permitted in the existing Marine I and Marine Il zones. Those designations can be found elsewhere in town, but MTI wants to create the new use designation for the villagn-owned~Clarkes Beach parcel, which is covered.by residential zoning. The company negotiated a long-term lease with the village, but dropped the hatchery plans earlier this year. "What I want to promote is ~nolher use that is much more restrictive than MI or Mil," company consultant Merlon Wiggin said after Tuesday's board meet- ing. "Those are not the kinds of uses you want in a residential ares." Hatching a Hatchery Mr. Wiggin and MTI officer Vito Caporusso als0 presented the board With tentative plans for the hatchery should the company get the zoning designation it seeks. The blueprints depict two squat, one-story buildings to be erected in pr.ocessing refuse Or large amounts-of sinpping going on and With waste Water from the hatchery being treated before' discharge into the sound. With a little landscaping, MTI could make a good neighbor and should befiq~lowed in ' more.-residential settings', Mt~Wiggln said. "It's enclosed and it' doesn't have the smell," he said. "i wouldn't have a prob- lem [living] with it. It's got a low profile and it will have plantings." After the company's presentation, ! Councilwoman Ruth Oliva said it was * tdo early to comment on the zoning: r~quest. "We really haven't i~oked at it," 'she said. "We're certainly not against] mariculture, we just Want ~o put it in a~ place where it fits and is rcasonable~.; PRELININ~RY DR~FT F'rNDINC~S CONSIDERATIONS FOR ~ MARINE III (M III) FISH AND SHELLFISH REARING SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 DISTRICT Loss of local commercial fish and shellfish industry because of depleted wild stock has increased the need for fish and shellfish farming. Southold Town, because of its minimum depth to salt water aquifer, makes viable salt water wells for rearing facilities. Rearing facilities utilize enclosed environment structures. Fish and shellfish rearing facilities do not require direct access or use of marine or tidal waters but are enhances by proximity to these waters. Marine I (M I) and Marine II (M II) allow for a wide range of uses (both permitted and by special exception) that are not considered compatible with residential zoning such as boatyards, marinas, aquaculture operations and fish processing. PURPOSE To take advantage of the Town of Southold's unique geographical characteristics and to advance opportunities to provide certain supporting aquaculture uses in response to the decline of traditional fishing and fishery resources. A Marine III (M III) District is hereby created. Permitted uses in the M III District are limited to the following activities: The rearing of fish and shellfish in an enclosed environment on lands generally not suited for agriculture on lots of five (5) acres or more. ~c' o" Cross Section at Frame(s) 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 S J RUGGIERO, INC PECONIC ASSOCIATES Unit 1 of 1 163 KENSINGTON AVENUE Ve¢-5 70 15 BAYPORT, NY U S A 11705 LANDMARK 2(XX] Frame Cross Section9/2~/g7 95~ AM PECONIC ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNERS & CONSULTANTS One Bootleg Alley - P.O. Box 672 Greenport, Mew ~ork 119~ Telephone (516)477-0030 Fax (516)677--0198 PLANNING FOR HATCHERY AND NURSERY FACILITY - CLARK'S BEACH SEPTEMBER 3, 1997 PHASE STOCKING TANK FACILITY NUMBER SIZE AREA M2 AREA S.F. I NURSERY 110,000 (GROW OUT 1999) 20-250 GR 1100 (1) 22,000 (2) NEED FACILITY BY SEPTEMBER 1998 START PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 1997 START CONSTRUCTION - APRIL 1998 III HATCHERY 20,000 JUVENILE 680,000 1-20 GR 1360 (3) 28,000 NURSERY (FINGERLING) 610,000 20-250 GR 6100 (1) 122,000' TOTAL 170,000 (GkOW OUT 2000) NEED HATCHERY FACILITY BY SEPTEMBER 1998 NEED NURSERY FACILITY BY SEPTEMBER 1999 START PLANNING SEPTEMBER 1997 START CONSTRUCTION APRIL 1998 (1) BASED ON (2) BASED ON (3) BASED ON 100 FISH/~2 OF TANK 20 S.F./M~OF TANK OR RACEWAY 500 FISH/M~ OF TANK NOTE: FACILITY AREA EXCLUSIVE OF WATER TREATMENT (INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT) FACILITY. PECONIC ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL pLANNERS & CONSULTANTS One Bootleg iLIley -- P.O. Box 672 Oreenport, ~ewlork 11~ Telephone (516]~77-0030 Fax, (516)~77-0198 PLANNING FOR HATCHERYAND NURSERY FACILITY - CLARK'S BEACH SEPTEMBER 3, 1997 STOCKING TANK FACILITY PHASE NUMBER SIZE AREA M2 AREA S.F. I NURSERY 110,000 (GROW OUT 1999) 20-250 GR 1100 (1) 22,000 (2) NEED FACILITY BY SEPTEMBER 1998 START PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 1997 START CONSTRUCTION - APRIL 1998 III HATCHERY 20,000 JUVENILE 680,000 1-20 GR 1360 (3) 28,000 NURSERY (FINGERLING) 610,000 20-250 GR 6100 (1) 122,000' TOTAL 170,000 (GkOW OUT 2000) NEED HATCHERY FACILITY BY SEPTEMBER 1998 NEED NURSERY FACILITY BY SEPTEMBER 1999 START PLANNING SEPTEMBER 1997 START CONSTRUCTION APRIL 1998 (1) BASED ON 100 FISH/~2 OF TANK (2) BASED ON 20 S.F./M~AOF TANK OR RACEWAY (3) BASED ON 500 FISH/Mz OF TANK NOTE: FACILITY AREA EXCLUSIVE OF WATER TREATMENT (INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT) FACILITY. Sterling tttt No Silver Lining . - __ ' co le wl~o live au SleTliog s~et nod Stealing so, residents there are trytog to ~ p ...... c ¢~o,li~,o nnd Sterling by hatdiog in the c~s ~ith, vacant lot on me cv~-~ .... ~'~* '~'~,~e more t~lall ~O ~e~ 8~o,. i a~ Art cie 78 suit sgah~sl the vlt~age, lau¢~ .............. Cpm t ]odge shot dowo their case. lu 1986, ihe Greenpofl Village Boa~ voted t0 allow a change o[zone for the property, owned by Tidal Prop~ties. Inc.. whose principal ow.9r .esidcnt Ma~k Middleton. from "R-2" [residential) Ia "W-C" (W~t~fftont mc~cial) by passl, g "l~al Law No. 5 of 1986." . . - tin' ted by Johtx Manci~, ~PY ~hat~altl~g~ Resider;tS of Sterl~og an~ St~ff ..~;,, ~ot the aw constitutes "spOt zoning nolhiog has b~n ~}ttlll OI I0¢ I}[Op~"~ ~.- ' - atibW' atxd {eopa dize5 the cha .acle~ and atmosphere of tile t~eigh~olho~d, lng ~he change, Mmlcln~ sa d. Ihe property s open tO a vadel~'Of industrial and es soote~of which may be noi~y or barnffltl to the envt~on~eaL ConUnued from Page 3 "1 blame the village:' said Mancini,. "People forget, ifMark [Middletonl is here today, gone tomorrow, then you have a stranger that you're going ~o b~ dealing with. We're ~yin$ to presage Ibis a~ and .o~ live next to some kind offa~o~ that's emitting ~mes or I~k- lng into the waler." According to coufl documents, the change w~ originally appli~ for so that Till ~o~rties, which also owned the Winter tla~bot Fisheries building across the slreet, could build an ic~ maki~g factor. The facto~ was never built, anti residents are now concerned Il,at a different, more intrusive business mighl open on tl~c land. The Article 78 suit alleged that the village -- which did not file the law wilh lite SecrelaDr of Statc until 1991 -- did not follow proper environmen- tal codes for reviewing the action whi~6 Ihe law weal inlo effect in 1990. The judge, however, ruled Ihat since the law was pas.~d by the village in 1986. the plated was in compliance with state regulalioos at lhe 6me. Grecoport Mayor Dave Kapell, a hoard member at lite lime the law was passed, defends the vi!lage's actions. saying~hntlhechangeofzonewasco~-i,, ~,lionl forbuildingsonlheii(e.~:~* ~:' - sistent with ~he village's efforLq, to em, ~.~. Mancini said, h~wever, that his courage fishe~ relal~.busi~ in the, ::-:group has little faith in ihe ~lanfliflg village, The Winter Itarbot. Fisheries. * hoard and Ihal ~ey pisa Ia ap~al their huildingcu~fly h~s a fish ex~'; ~ case..~ey also have a s~ond sdil ing business ~ll~ Ihe G~en~6 Fish i ~1 o~ ac~smg the vtllagc ofnpot zon- Faclo~ wflh a s~amte po~m~ ~mg~ mgi ~r making k ~.mg change for a (MTI). a fl~glmg fish ~rm~Ug o~ . cra result for such a cha~ge. ~n I~on. M ] I h~ ~en sto~mg ~u~pmen ~., ..worst form, ~ot zomng encoltragcs such as.large anch~q ~?q b?u~. On th~ ,'.~ ~cial. to ~mply will, requests, vaunt [aha since ~pn ' *' ' ...-. : I. ~. ~mpaigu donors or special 'We don~t want ~o see any~hinghap- ~: ~s. A ~hing change, ho~v~, tha~ ~n there~at wdl bhgh( ~enctgh~, t~ ~ns~de~ to ~ conmtgnt wl~ a said Ka~ll. who also said I~t I~epl~:' ' "mast~ p[ah~' is not necessafi[~ ning boa~ mus~ app~pv~.a~ applies- ~ning. II William F.: COster Funeral Home THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF SUFFOLK COUNTY New York Times L.I. Section 229 West 43rd St. New York, N.Y. i0036 The mariculture ("Farming Fluke 11/22/96 P.O. Box 1053 Southoldt N..V. 11971 technology proposal for Peconic Bay in Open Water", 11/17/96) may be in conflict with an ongoing Peconic estuary study (funded by the Environmental Protection Agency), which is focusing on habitat restoration in the bay. At this time, would the agency approve an environmental impact for the mariculture project? why statement on environmental legislation, in this instance)the Clean Water Act (estuarine areas) recommends that a comprehensive analysis of this project be completed to assess the possible impact-' on the fragile ~bay ecosystem. Rational management of a scarce perishable resource re- quires Clearly defined policy to obtain long term soc~ and economic benefits. Public opinion is an essential part of the decision l~,~lln% NOV 2 5i~6 making process. 5 ~D }~ s,',/ :' Johanna Northam (55) 765-597~ SUPEEV;,:SC, ,. TOWN,OF SCUT:-. ._ Natural Resource Chair Bachelor of Science Environmental Studies The League of Women Voters of Suffolk County position JUDITII T. TERRY OFFICE OF 'File '[OWN CLERK TOWN OF SOII'FIIOLI) ILO. Ilox I I '19 S~mlhold, New Yt.k 119'/I '1 I~ 1,1'*,1'110NI~ {~16) SOUTII()LO TOWN BOARD NOVEMBER 26, 1996 WORK SESSION Present: Supervisor Jean W. Cochran, Co nc woman Alice J. Ilussle, Councih.a~ Joseph L, Townsend, Jr,, Councilwoman Ruth D. OIIva, Justice Louisa P, Evnns, Justice Louisa P. Evans, Councilman William D. Moore, Town Clerk Jt~Hilh I. Terr~,, Town Attorney Laury L, Dowd. 9:10 A.M, - Edward Slegmann, representing the Southold Town senh~r clti~e~ organizations, met with the Town Board to request them to adopt a re.oltH~o support of the new School Tax Circuit Breaker Program, The Board will review the proposal and urged Mr. Slegmann to also take Ids request to the Ioeal s~hool ho.rd., 9:30 A.M, - Joseph Gold, Chalrnmn of the Land Preserv.tlon Commltt~, met with the Town Board to review resolutions 12 & 13, engaging two real estate appraisers to prepare appraisals of four parcels of land for possihle acquisition witl~ the n~w bond for the acquisition of development rights In agricultural lands.----Mr, Gohl also discussed a memorandum from Town Attorney Dowd recommending tlmt hm~mnch as the Town has spent significant moneys to purchase agricultural development rights, that this Investment can be protected by explicitly spelling out the rtgh~s and duties associated with such purchase, Mr. Gold said that the commiHee discussed the proposal, but feels the program Is working fine as It i~, and would not recommend making any changes at the present time. 10:10 A.M. - StUart R. Lowrle, Director of Conservation Programs nnd (;overnm~llt Relations for The Nature Conservancy, and his' a~soc'late Paul' Rablnobllch, met wllh the ~oar~,t'o b~ing th~' u~:to dat~ on the Involvemet~t'of The Nature Co~rvn~cy in assisting the Town in preserving the Arsh~momaque Wetlands, lie snhmill~d proposal to act as the Town*s agent In this respect, and the Bonrd l)lnc.d a resolution (26) on the agenda to accomplish this. 10:25 A. . - Merlon W gqln, V to Caporusso, and Bob I_lnk of Mariculttn'~ 'l">ch ~logles, Inc,, , - -, .... ~,,~on of summer flounder. The M met with ~the Town Board to d schuss the proposnl to devehq) uaculture ooeratlon lot t~le ~ commercial aq '. ..... ,:~- ~ a hatchery facility to rear proposa ncludes construction an~ Ol)~-<,~*~,, ~- - ..... s to flnaer ngs for approximately one year, at ~arKs ~eac~, ~ ~l~under from egg ~ - ......... ~ hv Inlet Point County Parl~ -- 48 Green orr, bounoec to t,,~ ~ ..... , : the north Dy LOng s a,,u ~u~ · ,- operation of 1lq acre o~ net pens for the grow-out phase of the operation, for ~a total grow-out area wn~c could reach 200 acres. The grow-out ~rea Is to he southeast of Plum island. The Town Board made It clear that a cha~g~ of would be required on the property. Mr. Link stated that the State Law aquaculture as being equal to agriculture, however, he was Informed the laws of Southold Town does not. The Board also made it clear that throughout ~11 of the permitting activities conducted by Mariculture Technologies, the Town has not h~n approached or kept informed. Mr. Link assured them that that would he correcl~(I and they would be kept up to date in the future. I"~,g~ 2 -- Worl', Sessiou - I 11:15 A.M. Solid Waste Coordinator James Bunchuck meet with .the Town Board to review Landfill Operations with regard to yellow bag disposal, scale violations, and salvaging. ~ 11:55 A.M. Engineeri,~g Inspector James Ricl~ter met with the Board to discuss tile recently constructed bridge over Brushes Creek, Laurel. Mr. Richter assured tile Board that structure itself has not failed. It Ilas settled, but he does not feel it will settle i~urther, lie described the construction technique and materials, and advised tl~e Board tl~at tile Ittghway Department will level tl~e road so that it is smooth and even. 12:30 P.M. - Recess for lunctl. 1:35 P.M. Work Session reconvened. The Town Board placed a resolution (27) on the agenda appointing Nancy N. Kormendi as a Clerk In the office of the Receiver of Taxes.----A resolution (28) was placed on the agenda appointing members to the new Swimming Pool Feasibility Committee.----The Town Board received a resume from a Clerk Typist at the 5outbold School, indicating bet interest In transferring to a Clerk Typist position with tile Town. Councilman Moore will contact the applicant statiug that at the present time the only vacancy is a full-time Clerk Typist position in the Building Department while Claire Toy is on a leave-of-absence.----The Board discussed a memorandum from the Board of Ethics recommending a code change concerning recusal of an employee in the event of a conflict of Interest. Tills was referred to the Code Committee.----A memorandum from the Board of Ethics concerning an Inquiry by a member of the Board of Appeals was referred to the Town Attorney inasmuch as the Board of Ethics lacks jurisdiction In this matter.---- Town Board reappointed Ilerbert Ernst to the Architectural Review Committee to replace Robert Pettlt (resolution 29).----Discussion with regard to labor relations negotiators.----Proposed contract from NYNEX which would allow the town to receive significant discounts on home-region local usage (resolution 30).----Letter from the NYS Liquor Authority asking if the Town Board bas an objection to the Issuance of a license to Ilalr of the Dog Inc., Fishers Island. [Justice Evans recused ~erself from this discussion as her husband bas an interest In this corporation). Board members had no objection to the issuance of the license.----Supervisor Cochran presented a proposed "Southold Town Farmers Bill of Rights" to the Board, who, after a brief review, referred It to the Code Committee.----Memorandum from Senior Accountant John Cushman transmitting a proposed time management and payroll system by Automatic Data Processing. Mr. Cushman is exploring other systems for the Board's consideration. EXECUTIVE SESSION 2:30 Jt.M. On motion of Councllmau Moore, seconded by Justice Evans, it was Resolved that the Town Board enter Into Executive Session to discuss employment history. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Supervisor Cochran, Councilwoman Hussle, Cmincilman Townsend, Councilwoman Oliva, Justice Evans, Councilman Moore. Also pl-eseut: Towu Clerk Terry, Town Attorney i)owd. 3:05 P.M. - Town Board reviewed the resolutions to be voted on tl~at the ~t:30 P.M. Regular meeting. 4:05 P.M. - Work Session adjourned. U.S. Army Corps of New York District So hoM To n Baymcn' Assn. In . ~'OST O~=~EC~ BOX...S~-~ GR~=~NPORT, ~_ONG I$~NO, N.Y. 11~4 Engineers ~.~L~ i~ Y~m~ ~rJ- To but or by the applicant. Belatedly, we received a copy of tae request by the NYSDOS for concerns and information abo,~t this project from a Southold Town Trustee, on April 6, L9'JS. We reviewed this project at our first ensuing meeting on April ~I, 1996. Our association has objections and/or concerns regarding the site chosen Dy ~ariculture Technologies, Inc. for situating their flsa net pen enclosures, which we feel ~ave not been adequately ~dressed in the ~i~ or in the E£S. The site chosen is utilize~ by the conch pot fishery. This is a highly pro~ctive conch area. To lose the use of over 200 acres of some of the best pu01ic conch bottom to a private enterprise is not a good precedent to set. 'fine area is also adjacent to and quite possibly covering( given the site shift to the north east) imrt of an existing lobster pot fishery area. T~e surrounding waters of the progoaed :~lte ~re an e~tremely valuable commercial and recreational fishery area. Ther~ is great concern that these fisheries could be adversly effect~ by the close proximity of ~he net pen site. Tidal currenhs are strong in this area and water from the site will ~low directly and indirectly into all adjacent water bodies. Degradation of existing water quality and the long and short term effects of nutrient loading, ~isease and biological and chemical changes that this large scale project wi.~l bring to the area have not and probably can not truly De a~dressed. To predict that such and such might happen given generalized assump- tions and comparisons and measurements, is not the same t~ing as a scientific monitoring of an existing facility which supplies hard cold data. ~fine potential risk of endangering the valuable fisheries in this sensitive are~ is not worth the value of this net pen exper- iment, which in fact has no proven value whatsoever. Fog develops regularly in,t~is ~rea, particularly in warm weather, and there is a considerable amount of Dost traffic due to the prox- imity of Plum Gut. There is frequent nigh~ transit usage across net pen site Oy boats [nvolved in t[~e stri~e~l 0ass fishery. The pens will create a navigational hazard. as a user group of this proposed site area, we sZrongly protest the taking of this public 0ottom. We were not contacted concerning the DEIS. ~r concerns have been ignored or glosseu over ~n the EIS. The reality that the proposed pen site area is locate~ in a nigh area concerning boating, fishing and general use is never fully ad- dressed in the EIS. 'finis site is not remote and not the proper lo- cation to do this project. Public Notice Number: ~6-00600-L2 ~ ~.~t.~ ~'~ Mariculture Technologies, Inc. ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~aom It May Goncern, ~ ~ ~ ~e would aave 21adly co~ented on t~e DEia ~o~ t~is we were never c~n~acted nor ~lven any info.marion oy any agenc'ies' Respectfully, ~tephen ~. Lateen secretary cc: New Southold Town Baymen's Assn. Inc. POST OFFICE BOX..t~L:~r GREENPORT, LONG ISLAND, N.Y. 11944 York State D.0.S. New York State D.E.C. North Fork Environmental Council County of Suffolk, Oept. of Health Services, Division of Envizlonmen ~al ~uality Pat Acompor& Ken Lavalle Group For The South Fork NOAA National Marine Fisheries NYs Executive Dept. Office of General Services NYSD~C MIcaael D. Zagata · Southold Town Hall Trustee~Town Soard George E. Paraki Governor Alexander E Treadwell Secretary of State October 25, 1996 Mr. Merlon E. Wiggen, President Peconic Associates, ][nc. One Bootleg Alley P.O. Box 624 Greenport, NY 1 i944 F-96-557 (formerly F-96-026) U.S. Army Corps of Engin~rs/New York District Permit Application ~6-00600-L2 Mariculture Technologies, Inc. GardNer's Bay and Long ][gland Sound Town of Southold and Village of Greenpon Suffolk County Actmowledgom,mt of Federal Consistency Assessment Form and Request for Additional Information Dear Mr. Wiggen: The Department of State received your new Federal Consismncy Assessment Form and supporting information on September 27, I996 and has determined that the submitted documentation is adequate to commence our review of your proposed project. However, the Final Environmental knpact Statement that was submitted as part of the supporting information for rials proposal did not fully address some of the issues that we raised in our earlier review of this proposal. Therefore, pursuant to 15 CFR Part ~0.>8. ,.he following data and information is necessary to enabIe the Department of State to adequately assess the coastal zone effects of this proposed project: Our letter rd you date~ February 21. 1996 indicated ;hat the Clark's Beach area is zoned for residential uses, and that a change of zone would be necessary in order ;o conduc~ aquaculture activities at the site. We further indicated that the appropriateness of using the Clark's Beach area for mariculture activities and the effects of a change of zone should be addressed and included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for this proposal. The response ;o that request for ;afformatinn was not included in the FEIS, nor has such information b~n provided to the Department of State. if the Town of Southold's zoning law indicates that such uses are Mr. Merlon E. Wiggen October 25, 1996 Page 2. permitted, and if the Town has determined that aquaculture is an appropriate use of the area, please provide this information to the Depaxtment of State as soon as possible. This information is necessary for our review of the proposal for its consistency with coastal policy ~ relating to the siting of water-dependent facilities and uses in appropriate areas (see also item #2, below). Information should be provided that would indicate whether the Village of Greenport could legally authorize the use of publicly owned wamrfronr property for the proposal, as well as information indicating that the Village would authorize the use of the area for this proposal. That information should be provided to this Department as soon as possible. Similar information should be provided if the activities would be conducted on property owned by the County of Suffolk. This ihformation is necessary in order to assess the consistency of the proposal with policies pertaining to the physical ability and fights of the public relating to access to and along the waterfront from publicly owned waterfront property (see coasrat policies #19 and g'2-0, and item #3 below). The response to one of our comments on page 24 of Volume V of the Final Environmental Impact Statement indicates that the shoreline along Clark's Beach is used by the public for recreational fishing. The response states: "The Village of Greenport values the beach portion of the site as a recreational area providing access for local surf casters." Please provide us with additional information indicating bow the existing .types and levels of public access to and use of the Clark's Beach area would be affected by this proposal. Similar information should be provided for any County owned parkland that might be used for aquaculture activities. CeD'sin components of the proposed activities must meet State water quality standards. In order for this Department to assess the affects of the proposal on coastal policies relating to surface and goundwater quality, please provide this Deparunem with. any information that would indicate whether or not the proposed activities would meet the State's regulatory standards pertaining to any necessary SPDES permits or water quality certifications. In order for this Deparnnent to expedite its review of this proposal, please provide the information requested above to the Department of State as soon as possible. Any additional information which you believe will facilitate otu: consistency review of this project would be appreciated. Pursuant to 15 CFR Part 9~0.64(d), if this necessary data and in/ormatien is not provided, the Department of Stare may object to your consistency certification on the gounds of insuffident ~ormation. You and the Corps of Engineers will be notified of our dec:sion when we have received Uhe ~ormation requested above and completed our review of this project for irs consistency with the New York State Coastal Management Program. The Corps of Engineers cannot issue a permit for this project un/ess the Department of State concurs with your consistency certifichtion. IVir. Merlon E. Wiggen October 25, 1996 Page 3. If you have any questions or if you need any information or assistauce regarding this matter, please call me at (518) 474-6000. SCRA~rns COE/NY District - lames Haggerty NYS DEC/Region 1 - Iohn Wietand NMI:S - Michael Ludwig Town'of $outhold - Ruth Oliva NYS OGS - Alan Bauder Village of Greenport ~ Mayor Kapell Smven C. Resler Supervisor of Consistency Review Coastal Management Pro.am Febraary21. 1995 Mr. Albez: Krupski. 21. Trus[¢~, Towu of Soud~ol~ 53095 Mare Road P.O. Bo~ 1179 $outluo{d. NY 11971 U.S. An'ay Co~s of Enginec;'s/Ncw York District Pem~t AppOrtion MaNcull~re Technolofie~, Inc. Ga~ef~ Bay Dear Mr. K.mpsk~: Lnciosed is a copy of the/rdormation submitted to thc Dcpa.r~ev, t of &ate lot renew of the ab.v~-re/~rence~ proiec~ with re~e~ to ~/.s co~sisten~ ~ the Co~al Program for ~our i~o~a:ion and pr~l~n~ renew. Yl¢~ ~utac~ Seeven C. DOS rev;ewer assi~.d to this projcc~ at (518) 47~6000 to discu~q your cum'cfm, and additional ~c,,'mano,~ which may h~ :cc~s~- m ~sA~ you ~ revie~g t~i~ prujecL ..~. co.acres you may ~ve will mssi~t ~e Dep~em ~ reac~g a dec,ion cmtsisl~nC', of thc proposed acuun ~lh ~e ~pr~ed ~S Co~ Mmagement Please ~me. however, d~al if we do not ,~2as ~rom you a~r.__.~in /~,davs of the date of this lcucr, wc xmil presume that you have no ubi~ctiolLs tO the proposed project. Sincerely, a' _ wUliam F, Barton /~J' Chief, Com~e~ R~w Di~ion of Cozuai R~ourc~ aBd Wate~oat WT't3:dlb RESPONSES TO TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COMMENTS Office of the Supervisor - Town of Southold - Letter of January 29, 1996. (Appendix 7) GEN Comment: Historically, Southold Town has had an economic base in the maritime industries, i.e. fishing and shellfish/rig, shipbuilding and repair, and several mariculture farms. This proposal by Mariculture Technologies, Inc. is probably one of many that will be seen in the next few years as the declination of our fishing stock continues. Although this and other projects are experimental, they deserve careful consideration. Having said this, the Town sees some serious ramifications in the proposed hatchery site and would ask further information on the following: The proposed site is not zoned for commercial use, it is zoned for two acre residential use. The DEIS should explain why this residential zone should be changed and the advantages and disadvantages to the Town should the rezoning take place. It is inappropriate to assume that the Town will automatically approve the rezoning. Response: The Southold Town Code, Section 100-13, entitled "Definitions", contains a broadly worded definition of Agriculture and states as follows: 'The production, keeoine or maintenance, for sa/e./ease or oersona/ use. of o/ants and animals useful to man, inc/udin= but not limited to forage and sod crops; grains and seed crops; dairy animals and dairy products; poultry and poultry products; livestock, including beef cattle, sheep, swine, horses, ponies, mules or goats or any mutation of hybrids thereof, including the breeding and grazing of any or ali of such an/ma/s; bees and apiary products; fur animals; fruits of ali kinds, including grapes, nuts and berries, vegetables; f/ora/, ornamental and greenhouse products; or/ands devoted to a soil conservation or forestry management program." {Eml~hasis added.) Michael G. Walsh, Mar/culture Technologies Attorney, who is reviewing whether a change of zone would be required in light of the recent revisions to the State's Agriculture and Markets Law has provided the following input: "Furthermore, a review of Section 301 of the Agriculture and Markets Law of the State of New York (hereinafter the "State Agriculture Law") indicates that the State Law definition of Agriculture specifically includes the production of Aquacu/tura/ Products including fish, fish products, water plants and shellfish as falling within the definition of crops, livestock and livestock products that are included/n the definition of "Agriculture" as a matter of State/aw. Therefore, /t/s clear that both the State Agriculture and Markets Law definition and the definition of Agriculture set forth at Section 100-13 of the Southo/d Code include the production of Aquaculture Products 54 (including but not limited to fish) as a use included within the definition of Agriculture for purposes of defining the use proposed by the applicant herein. "This broad definition of agriculture vis-a-vis State/aw and local zoning was recently addressed by the Appellate Court of the State of New York in the matter of Town of Southamoton v. Eouu$ Associates. Ltd. 2-1AD2d210, 615 NYS 2d 714App. Div. 2nd Dept. 1994. "in the Eouu$ matter, the Town Code's definition of Agriculture did not specifically include the raising, training and selling of polo ponies. However, after an extensive review of the Town Code provision and Section 301 of the State Agriculture and Markets Law, the Court concluded that a broad interpretation of "Agriculture" must be applied with respect to agriculture as a result of the legislative determination at both the State and local levels that the objectives of the regulation of agricultural uses is to support and promote said uses and, hence, the applicant must be given the benefit of a broad interpretation of the definition of Agriculture; in this case, a definition which includes Aquaculture within the definition of Agriculture. "Based upon our recent conference in connect/on with this matter and your continuing dialogue with the Town of Southo/d Zoning Agencies, / suggest that an interpretation be re~luested of the Southo/d Zoning 8oard of Appeals and/or any other official in the Town author/zed to provide an interpretation with respect to this/.~ue." !~ 2. GEN Comment: There has been significant erosion on the Long Island Sound bluffs and yet the site plan shows a building situated 50 feet from the lip of the bluff. This will require a Coastal Erosion permit from the Trustees and a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The DEIS does not address the ramifications of p/acing a building so close to the lip of the bluff. Response: The site plan included in the Appendix A of the DEIS (Volume II) disclose the location of a hatchery building 50 feet landward of the top of the bank. Chapter 37-11 of the Southold Town Code states that no person may engage in any regulated activity (including the placement of a structure or the construction of a building) in an erosion hazard area as depicted on the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Map of the Town of Southold, as amended without first obtaining a Coastal Erosion Management Permit. In this case, the Coastal Hazard Area extends to the top of the bluff and the proposed hatchery is located 50 feet landward thereof. What is termed bluff as per Chapter 37-6 of the Southold Town Code also includes an area 25 feet landward of the point of inflection on the top of the bluff. In any event, the proposed hatchery is located beyond the jurisdictional boundaries provided in Chapter 37 of the Town Code is not subject to a Coastal Erosion Management Permit. 55 Even so, it is in the interest of the applicant to construct a hatchery building without causing a significant impact to the bluff. The potential impacts to the bluff include the short term construction impact and the long term control of stormwater runoff generated from the hatchery building itself. With respect to the construction impacts, it is proposed that a project limiting fence be installed around the construction area and landward of the bluff to confine heavy equipment and restrict its use inadvertent or otherwise to no closer than 25 feet from the bluff face. Following construction activities, it is proposed that all exposed and disturbed soils be re-seeded to control potential longer term erosion impacts. With respect to stormwater runoff, it is proposed that all runoff generated from all impervious structures be captured and recharged or otherwise prevented from flowing over the bluff fac~ Such proposals are in keeping with the intent of the Town's Coastal Erosion Hazard Law to protect property. GEN Comment: The traffic on Routes 25 and 48 has been increasing every year. How much of an effect will this project have on the roads? The DEIS should provide an analysis of the traffic impacts of the project. Response: In order to do a general analysis on traffic impacts for the employees one needs to refer to the phase timing schedule (Figure 5) on page 1-86 of the DElS (Volume I) and on the Table of Projected Employees by Phase. (See page 28). Of the 193 employees, 105 of those are projected to work on a shift schedule, which means they will be reporting for work during nights and week-ends, and during off hours, which is also periods of Iow traffic. Also, the largest concentration of employees is during the harvesting and processing periods which occur in the fall months, November and December, which is also a period of Iow traffic. Therefore, with this small number of employees scattered over a wide range of times, traffic impact on Routes 48 and 25 are considered to minimal. GEN Comment: Only once does the DE1S mention that the Town owns a parcel of land adjacent to the Clark's Beach property on the northeast corner. What effect will the hatchery have on the Town's property? Response: None. Mariculture Technologies, Inc. hatchery facilities are concentrated in the Southwest portion of the Village owned Clark's Beach, approximately 800 feet to the West of the Town's property; 56 WQ Comment: The DEIS states that the hatchery will require using 23 -I- million gallons of salt water per day and will provide same by drilling a salt water well. This is a huge amount of water. What will it do to the surrounding area, where has it been done before, and what were the results? This could have profound environmental effects and requires much more analysis at the earliest possible stage of approvals. Response: It is correct that the hatchery is projected to use 23 __+ million gallons of salt water per day, but the majority of this is recirculated and reused again after treatment. The MGD's required range from 0.127 to a maximum of 0.~,16 during the peak flows in September and October. This salt water requirement can be handled by a pump capacity of less than 400 gpm, and as the wells are planned to be placed in the salt water aquifer to begin with, there is not expected to be any significant environmental effect from pumping this amount of water. WQ Comment: Two types of effluent will be released into Long Island Sound. The first, having gone through two filtration processes will be returned to the Sound, but there is no mention of its composition or how many gallons. The other effluent is probably the more serious problem because it is the effluent from backwashing of filters. Again there is no mention of the composition or the amount. The Town is actively pursuing a reduction in any discharge to the Sound or Peconic Bay systems. Therefore, we would discourage any discharge into the Sound. Response: Detailed information and quantities of the effluent to be discharged to the Sound are contained in the Application for SPDES Permits and are included in Appendix # 12 (Volume VI). The hatchery treatment plant is expected to treat the effluent so that the BOO will not exceed 30 rog/I; suspended solids not to exceed 30 rog/I; and total nitrogen less than 10 mg/I. This treatment process would also include the back washing effluent from the biological filters. Tabular data with graphs are included in the SPDES Application for all phases up through IV and IV-A, average time the hatchery will be at its peak production. WQ Comment: Finally, the hatchery will generate sludge. Where and how will this sludge be removed and who will pay for it? Response: Sludge consisting of approximately 25,000 gallons per day of fish waste will be concentrated and removed by a local hauler, on an as needed basis, to be transported to the Bergen Point Sewage Treatment Facility. Mariculture Technologies has contacted Mr. Kevin Oldham,.Suffolk County Department of Public Works, 335 Yaphank Avenue, Yaphank, NY 11980. Mr. Oldham stated that Bergen Point will accept the fish waste sludge. The fees, in Mariculture's opinion, are reasonable and are to be paid by Mariculture Technologies, Inc. The liquid wastes from the concentration process will be processed through the treatment facility before being discharged so as to meet the projected effluent permit concentrations. 57 THI='R£SA ELKOWITZ COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ROBERT J. GAFFNL:'Y SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY JAMES SAGG CHIEF IENVIRONMENTA[. ANALY~i' MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: All Interested Parties James F. Bagg, Chief Environmental Analyst May 6, 1996 Proposed Construction of Greenhouse Finfish Hatchery, Cedar Beach, Town of Southold Enclosed is an Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) on the above referenced County project which has been submitted to the Council on Environmental Quality for review, relative to a decision required by SEQRA regarding the significance of the project's enviroamental impacts. The Council would like to know your environmental concerns regarding this proposal and whether you think a draft EIS or a determination of non-sigrfificance is warranted. This project will be discussed at the May 15, 1996 CEQ meeting. Please forward any recommendations or criticisms, to this office prior to that meeting, or attend the meeting and present your views. If the Council has not heard from you bv the meeting date. they will assume that you feel that the action will not have signifieallt environmental impacts and should proceed accordin~y. Notice will be sent to you prior to the meeting. JFB/tk OFFICE OF THE COUNTY LEGISLATURE April 10, 1996 Ms. Theresa EIkowitz, Chairperson Council on Environmental Quality 220 Rabro Drive Hauppauge, NY 11788 Dear Ms. Elkowitz: Enclosed please find a Notice of SEQRA Determination of Non-Significance for the following resolution: IR 1368-96 A Charter Law Amending Article Xll of the Suffolk County Charter to Stabilize County Real Property Taxes. I believe this law constitutes a Type I Action pursuant to Section 617.12(b)(1) and (4) of Title VI of the New York Code of Rules and Regulation (NYCRR) and will not have a significant impact on the environment within the meaning of Section 8-0109(2) of the New York Environmental Conservation Law for the following reasons: Enactment of this law will not exceed any of the criteria in Section 617,11 of Title VI NYCRR which set forth thresholds for determining significant effects on the environment. This law will continue the Drinking Water Protection Program of promoting beneficial environmental impacts. The bill essentially constitutes a promulgation of rules and regulations for preserving the integrity of the One-quarter Per Cent (1/4%) Drinking Water Protection Program while preserving essential County governmental services and providing protection of the Central Pine Barrens through existing funding mechanisms. As a record keeping procedure, I would appreciate CEQ filing this document along with other similar Type I action. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, Legislative District 1 3 MD/emm enclosure SUFFOLK COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ~ORM (~Ag) Instructions: Th~s document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire Data Sheet. Include as much information as possible such as feasibility studies, design reports, etc. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Mark irrelevant questions N.A., not applicable. A. General Information: 1. Name of Project: A Charter Law Amending Article XII of the Suffolk County Charter to Stabilize County_ Real Property_ Taxes. 2. Location of Project: (specify) Town Entire County_ of Suffolk : Village or Hamlet ; (Include project location map on next page.) Street Address Suffolk County Name of property or waterway. 3. Maps of Property and Project: Attach relevant available maps, including a location map (note: use road map, Hagstrom Atlas, U.S.G.S. topo map, tax map or equivalent) and preliminary site plans showing orientation, scale, buildings, roads, landmarks, drainage systems, areas to be altered by project, etc. 4. Type of Project: (check one) New 5. Capital Program: (specify) Item # ; Expansion X ; Date Adopted Amout $ 6. General Description of Project Including its Purpose (Attach relevant design reports, plans, etc.). 7. Project Status: (check if begun) START COMPLETION X PROPOSAL Shall take effect unon filine in the Secretary of State's STUDY office followine an~roval bv an affirmative vote of the PRELIMINARY PLANNING oualified electors of Suffolk County voting on its propo- FINAL PLANS: SPECS sition at the next eeneral electiorl, SITE ACQUISITION CONSTRUCTION OTHER 8. Departments Involved: NAME AND ADDRESS OF DEPARTMENT NAME AND ADDRESS OF INITIATING PERFORMING DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT (If different) Name: Name: Suffolk County Legislature Street: Street: Veterans Memorial Highway P.O.: P.O.: Hauppauge State: State: NY Zip: Zip: 11788 Contact Person: Contact Person: Michael D'Andre Business Phone: Business Phone: 854-3900 Project Description 1. Scale of Project: a. Total contiguous acres now owned at site. b. Acreage to be acquired c. Developed acreage now. Developed acreage at completion of project d. Acreage of vegetation or cover to be removed e. Acreage to remain undeveloped f. Building gross floor area now Building gross floor area proposed g. Height of tallest structure on site now Height of tallest structure proposed on site h. Proposed building use. sq. ft.; sq. ft.;. acres acres i. Off-street parking spaces now number;. Off-street parking spaces proposed number; j. Max. vehicle trips/hr, when operational k. Roads on site now length;. 3 acres acres .acres 1. New road c~nstruction or reconstruction ,~//~ length; m. Will project result in an increase in energy use? yes ~.. no. dicate type(s) acres If yes, ia- n. Will project require storage of liquid fuels and chemicals? If yes, describe substances and amounts to be stored 2. Project Schedule: a. Is project single or multi-phase? ~x/ b. If multi-phase, how many phases? c. Total construction time (months) yes '______no. 3. Wastes and Pollutants C, enevated Duming Project Construction and Opemation: COmponents Quantity a. Sanitary sewage b. Liquid indus~mial wastes c. Toxic chemicals d. Pesticides or herbicides e. Solid wastes f. Clearing or demolition debris g. Spoil disposal or sedimentation h. Atmospheric emissions i. Surface water runoff j. Noise exceeding ambient k. Odors exceeding i hr/day 1. Other (specify) Mode of Disposal -4- Does Pr~jecC Involve Any: Grading-cut Dredging-max. depth Spoil-area Bulkheading-lengT~ Dewatering-g.p.m. 5. INDICATE' Water SOURCES OF UTILITIES: Electricit~ ; fill ;length. ; a~ount s , width ;amount ;period of time Gas Other 6. Total Water Usage: gallons per day indicate pumping capacity P~oject. A~ea Description-Existin~ Conditions: I. Acreage of Physical Characteristics of Project Area: If water supply i§ from wells, ~allons per minute. Meadow, field, scrub g~ow~ch Wooded ~gricultural Freshwater wetland Tidal wetlands Surface waters Cleared, graded or filled land Paved a~eas (~oads, parking, etc.) Buildings (number sq. ft. Other: (specify ) Total acreage: acres acres acres acres Streams within or contiguous to p~oject area: (including intermittent streams) Name of stream and name of river to which it is tributary -5- 3. Lakes, Ponds, Wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name b. Size (in acres) · . a. Are there natural drainage channels on the project site? yes no. b. How far is project area from freshwater wetlands, tidal wetlands or surface waters? 5. Is the Project area within the 100 yr. Flood plain? yes no 6. Depth to th~ water table: at surface 0-3ft 3-8ft 8-16ft Fl6 fi__ 7. Predominant soil type(s) on project site as identified in the Soil Survey of Suffolk Count~ (1975): (Include soils map of site,) General character of the land: Generally unifor~a slope Generally uneven and rolling or irr~gula~ (Include topographic map of site ) 9. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: 0-10% 10-15% or greater %. 10. ~y unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e. cliffs, dunes, kettle holes, eskers, other geological for~ations): A//t~ 11. Describe the predominent vegetation types on the Describe The predominent wildlife on the site: ~//~ 13. hoes project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered?__yes no; give source and identif7 each species_?//~ -6- l~. ~s project contiguous tolt does it Contain a building ' or paleontological impQrtance?~__yes no. Explain ~ite of historic,pre-historic 15. Specific activities now occurring at project location: hunting. other (specify) ;fishing__ ; 16. Is the project site presently used by the cgmmunity or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? ~ yes no. 17. Does the present site offer or include scenic views or vistas known to be important to the community? ~, yes__no. 18. Zoning: a. Current specific zoning or use classification of site? 4//~ b. Is proposed use consistent with present zoning or use? c. If no, indicate desired zoning or use Do 19. What is the dominant land use and zoning classification within a t/~ mile radius of the project (e.g. single family residential, R-2) and the scale of development (e.g. 2 story)? Include existing land use ma~ impact Summaz7 and Mitigation 1. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground cove~) will be removed from site?, ~//~ac~es., 2. Will any mature forest or other locally important vegetation be removed by this project? yes. ~ no. Explain 3. Are there plans for erosion control and stabilization? yes no.Explain and attach ~. Are there any plans for revegetation to replace that removed during construction? yes__ no. Explainand attach plans. -7- 5. Will project physica],ly alter any surface water bodies? yes no. Exm lain facilities oP homes? yes no. 6. Will project require relocation of any projects, 7. Number of jobs generated: during construction 8. Number of jobs eliminated by this project ~//~ ; after project is completed Alternatives - Briefly list alternatives to the proposal considered Approval and Compliance 1. Will project involve funding or financing by any: a. Federal agency (specify). b. State agency (specify) c. Local agency (specify~ 2. Does project require permit or approval from: a. Army Cozl~s of Engineers b. U.S. Environ~ntal Protection Agency c. Other Federai agency (specify) d. N.Y.S.~n¥ironmental Conservation Department e. Other State agency (specify) f. County Health Department g. County Planning Department h. County Public Works Department i. Town or Village Board ; amount .. ;amount .. Type -8- yes no j. Town or Village Planning Board ~z k. Town or Village Zoning Board 1. Town or ¥itlage Building Department ~ m. Town or Village Highway Department k n. Town or Village Environmental Agency ~ o. Local Pire Marshal ~ p. Other local agency (specify i.e. CAC) ~ 3. Conformance to existing comprehensive or p~oject masterp, lans. Type a. State yes no Description b. 8i County c. County d. Town e. Village PREPARER TITLE ~ IGNATUR~:~. PROJ. DIRECTOR TITLE SIGNATURE* certify that the information herein is accurate. ' ~ I certzfy Z~at the ki~rl~ormarion her~-i'n is accurate. Signature of both preparer and project director required -9- Part 2--Responsibility of Leac "'Agency · Pmj~'t Impact~ ~nd Tttelr M~gnltude Genesal Information (Read Carefully) · In completing the form the reviewer should be guided bv the question: Have my decisions and determmabons been reasonable! The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. · Identifying that an effect will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Ely identifying an impact in column 2 s~mpiy asks that it be looked at further. · The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. 8ut. for any specific proiect or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropnate for a Potential Large Impact rating. · Each project, on each site. in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. · The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. Instructions (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2.) to indicate the potential size of the impact~ If threshold impact e~uals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2.. If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1. d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to P~RT ]. e. If a potentially large impact or effect can be mitigated by a change in the proiect to a less than large magnitude. check the yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. IMPACT ON LAND 1 Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the proiects, ite.~ · ~NO t. JYES Example~ that would apply to column 1 · Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length], or where the general slopes in the project area ex. ceed 10%. · Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. · Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. · Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within .t feet of existin~ ground surface. · Construction that will continue for more than 1 year.or involve more than one phase or stage. · Excavatmn for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natual material (i.e.. rock or soil) per year. · Construction of any new sanitary landfill. · Construction in a designated fio<)dwav. · Other ~mpacts 2 Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on (i.e.. cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.~]~'NO the site? {:::]YES · Specific land forms: -[0- I 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Prolect Change [] [] J--lYes [] [] []Yes [] 0 OYes ~-~, No [] [] []Yes []NO [] [] []Yes [] [] []Yes 'c~-'1~ NO [] [] []Yes [] [] []Yes (-:No [] [] []Yes IMPACT ON WATER Will proposed action affect any wa~er body designated as protected? (Under Articles 15. 24. 2S of the Enwronmental Conservatmn Law. ECL) ~YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Developable area of site contains a protected water body. · Oredgmg more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. · Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. · Constructmn in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland.. · Other ~mpacts.: 4 Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? ~(IO I-JY E S Examples that would apply to column 2 · A 10% increase or decrease m the surface area of any body or water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. · Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. · Other impact~: 5. Wifl Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality? ~0 I-IyES E~amples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action will recluire a discharge permit. · Proposed Action reCluires use pt a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed (proiect) action. · Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per per minute pumping capacity. · Construction or operation causing .any contamination of a pubfic water supply system. · Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. · Liquid effluent will I)e conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not ex~st or have inadequate capacity. · Proposed Action requiring a facility that would use water in excess of 20.000 gallons pet day. · Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. · Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum product~ greater than 1.100 gallons. · Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services. · Proposed Action {ocates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage fatalities. · Other impact' 6 Will proposed action alter drainage flow. patterns or surface water water runoff ~ (~O I'-lY E S Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action would impede flood water flows I 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change I-'l [] ?Yes =No ~ (:~ ?~Yes :No [] [] ~--)Yes [] F-) I'-~ Yes :NO [] [] I--iyes ~No [] [] ~Yes [] I--] I-)yes [] [] []Yes ?:No [] [] []Yes [] [] []Yes []No [] [] []Yes ~No [] ~ []Yes [] [] []Yes I"'1 ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No · Proposed Action is likely to cause substantial erosion. · Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drain patterns. · Proposed Action wdl allow development in a designated floodway. · Other impacts: Impact on Air , 7 Will proposed ac'tion affect air quality? J~_O (-1YES Example~ that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action w*ll induce 1.000 or more vehicle trips in given hour. · Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than I ton of refuse per hour. · Proposed Action emission rate of all contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million 8TU's per hour. · Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial use. · Proposed action will allow increase in the density of industrial development existing industrial areas. · Other impacts: Impact ~ Plants snd Animals 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or enda~qgered species? ~[C) I"1YES Example~ that would apply to column 2 · Reduction of one or more species list,ed on the New York or Federal list. using the site. over or near site or found on the site. · Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. · Application of pesticide or herbicide over more than ~vice a year other than for agricultural purposes. · Other impacts: 9 Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threaten~,~:l or endangered species? KO ~YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. · Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. Impact off AgrtcuiturM Land Resources 10 Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? 'J~O ~YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · The prooosed action would sever, cross through, or limit access to a held of agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vine- yard. orchard, etc. J -]-2- I 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Moderate Large Mitlgatecl 8y Impact Impact Prolect Change I-I [] CYes ~.~o ~ Q ~_,Yes ~.No [] I-'J I-lYes [] ~ []Yes [] [] []Yes ~No' ~ ~ ~Yes ~ ~ ~Ye~ ~o ~ ~ ~Yes G ~ ~Yes ~o ~ ~ ~Yes · Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land. · The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or. if located in an Agricultutal District. more than one acre of agricultural land. · The proposed action would disrupt agricultural land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, striO cropping,); prevent agricultural land management measures from being JrJstalled; or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) · Prime or unique farmland as defined by USDA-SCS 7 CFR Part 657 and governed by the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 is involved. · Other impacts: Impact on Aa,,thatlc Reeour~a, or Community Chargetar 11 will proposed action affect aesthetic resources, or the character of the neighborho<xj or community? ~O OYES (If necessary use the visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.23) Examples that would apply to column 2 · Introduction of pr•ix)sad land uses, projects or project components obviously different or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns or existing man-made additions to the landscape. · Introduction of progosed land uses. projects or project conponents as described in the above example that will be visable to users of aesthetic resources. This will eliminate or significantly reduce the public enjoyment or appreciation of the appearance or aesthetic qualities of a resource or community character. · Introduction of proiect components that will result in the elimination or significant screening pt scenic views known to be important to the area. · Other impacts: Impect on HI.tod~ gnd An:biological Ra~ourc~ 12 Will Progosed Action impact any site or structure of.historic, pre~ historic or paleontogical imoortance? ~[blO EYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Froposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or contiguous to any facility or site listed or eligible for listing on the State or National Register of historic places. · Any impact to a archeological site or fossil bed located within the prolect site. · Pr•Dosed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archeological sites on the NSY Site Inventory. · Other impacts: Impact on Open S~ace Ind Recreation 13 Will Proposed Action affect the cluantity or quality of existing or future Doan spaces or recreational opportunities,~ Examples that would apply to column 2 ~[:JO ,-YES · The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opoortumty. · A malor reduction of an open soace ~moortant to the community. · Other impacts: Small to Moderate Impact [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] 2 Potential Large Impact [] [] [] 0. [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] 3 Can Impact Re Mitigated 8y Prelect Change ~'Yes ?-~Yes ~No [~Yes '-No []Yes i~No OYes ~NO ' [~Yes ~-.~No OYes []No []Yes /'-1No []Yes []No I-~ Yes eno []Yes ~JNo OYes I~,No ?:Yes ~'No []Yes E]No []Yes ,~No []Yes [mpect on Trsnsp~oriatlon 14 Will there be an effect to existing transportation syst,ems~ ~ r~YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. · Proposed Action will result in severe traffic problems. · Other ~mpacts: Impect on Energy 15 Will proposed action affect the communities sources of fuel or energy supply~ J~:~O F'IYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in any form of energy in municipality. · Proposed Action will reciuire the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences. · Other impacts: Impact on Noise 16 Will there be obiectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration or electrical disturbance as a result of the Proposed Action? ~.0 I~YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Blasting within 1.500 fe~t of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. · Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). · Proposed Action will produce ooerating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise o~tside of structures. · Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. · Other impacts: Iml~ct mt Public Health and (H~z~rds) Safety 17 Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety.~ I~o E]YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action will cause a risk of exoolsion or relea, se of hazardous substances (i.e. oil. pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.} in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there will be a chronic Iow level discharge or emission. · Proposed Action will result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.. including wastes that are solid, semi-solid, liquid or contain gasesl. · Storage localities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural gas or other liquids, · Other impacts: -14- 1 2 3 -- Small to Potential Can Impact Re Moderate Large Mitigate¢l Ely Impact Impact Protect Change [] [] []Yes [] [] l-lYes I--~No [] [] []Yes E] [] E]Yes [] [] ,'-lYes []No [] [] []Yes []No [] [] []Yes [] [] []Yes []No [] [] []Yes [] [] I'-~Yes ~No [] [] []Yes ~.~o [] [] I-]Yes ~No Impact on Growth grid Character of Community or Nelghbo~ood 18 Will Proposed Actmon affect the character of the ex~stln,g Community ~ r-YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · The population of the city, town or village in which the project is hkelv to grow by more than 5% of resident human population. · The municipal budgets for capital expenditures or operating services will acre·se by more than 5% per year as · result of this prolect. · Will involve any permanent facility of a non-agricultural use on more than one acre in an agricultural district or remove more than 10 acres of (prime) ·griCutural lands from cultivation. · Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. · Development will induce an influx of a particular age group with s~ecial needs. · Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future proiects. · Proposed Action will relocate 1S or more employees in one or more businesses. · Other impacts: 19 Is there public controversy related to Potential Adverse Environmental Impacts~ 'O Ezamples that would apply to column 2 · Either government or citizens of ail·cent communities have expressed opposition or reiected the project or have not been contacted. · Obiections to the proiect from within the community. I 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated 8y Impact Impact Proiect Change rl O CYes --.~o ~. [] 'r'~* Yes [] ~ ~Yes D ~ ~Ye~ ~o If Any Action In Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If You Cannot 0etermine the Magnitude of Impact, Pro~eed to Part 3 Detmmlnatlan of Significance Portio~ of EAF completed foe' thi~ project: [] Part 1 ~. Part 2 ~Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Part~ 1. 2 and 3) and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined that: A. The project will result in no major impacts and. therefore, is one which may not cause significant damage to the environment. Prepare a ee~lti~e dedaratiom '~ 8. For ,nli~ted actiom md,f. Although the proiect could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been included as part of the proposed project. Prepare · CONDITIONAL neptive deelaration: [] C The prolect will result in one or more major adverse impacts that cannot be reduced and may cause $~gnificant damage to the enwronment. Prepare · I~i/ive declaration, proceed with ElS: [] Signature of Preparer (if d,ff~.e.em-f*m~ responsible officer) Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Name of Le~Agen~ Date Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Date Intro. Res. No. ~ -1996 Laid on the Table Introduced by Legislators D'Andre, Rizzo and Fintay RESOLUTION NO. -1996, ADOPTING LOCAL LAW NO. YEAR 1996, A CHARTER LAW AMENDING ARTICLE Xll OF THE SUFFOLK COUNTY CHARTER TO STABILIZE COUNTY REAL PROPERTY TAXES WHEREAS, there was duly presented and introduced to this County Legislature at a regular meeting held on ,1996, a proposed local law entitled, "A CHARTER LAW AMENDING ARTICLE Xll OF THE SUFFOLK COUNTY CHARTER TO STABILIZE COUNTY REAL PROPERTY TAXES", and said local law in final form is the same as when presented and introduced; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that said local law be enacted in form as follows: LOCAL LAW NO. YEAR 1996, SUFFOLK COUNTY, 'NEW YORK A CHARTER LAW AMENDING ARTICLE Xll COUNTY CHARTER TO STABILIZE COUNTY TAXES OF THE SUFFOLK REAL PROPERTY BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNTY LEGISLATURE OF THE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, as follows: Section 1. Le~_islafive Intent. This Legislature hereby finds and determines that the preservation of environmentally sensitive land within the County of Suffolk and the protection of vital water resources are of essential significance to the promotion of the health, safety, and general welfare of the people of the County of Suffolk. This Legislature further finds that the preservation of such lands and water resources will protect, enhance, and promote the County's inherent physical and aesthetic qualities which have captured the attention, fancy, and imagination of the residents of this County as well as numerous visitors. This Legislature also finds and determines that recent action by the New York State Legislature to enact "The Long Island Pine Barrens Protection Act" has provided a comprehensive settlement of the issues that have recently divided developers and environmentalists by creating a land-use planning mechanism to protect and develop the Central Pine Barrens area of Suffolk County, which program -1- (;.;3 requires funding by the State, local, and federal government in order to be effectively implemented. This Legislature further finds and determines that Local Law No. 40-1987 and Local Law No. 35-1988, establishing a One-quarter Per Cent (1/4%) County Ddnking Water Protection Program, each approved by the electorate for the purpose of extending a one-quarter per cent (1/4%) sales and compensating use tax through December 1, 2000, combined land acquisition with water quality protection and tax mitigation as its primary goals and objectives. This Legislature also finds and determines that the use of $24.3 Million of these 1/4% moneys in fiscal year 1992 and $25 Million of these 1/4% moneys in fiscal year 1996 to fund a portion of the County's General Fund Operating Budget was necessary to preserve essential County functions that protect the public health, public safety, and general welfare of the residents of Suffolk County. This Legislature further finds and determines that pptential State and federal budget cuts will require action by Suffolk County to address these projected budgetatry shortfalls or reductions in essential services that are vital to the health, public safety, and general welfare of Suffolk County residents if Suffolk County wishes to continue its remarkable record of providing essential services while stabilizing County real property taxes. Therefore, the purpose of this law is to ensure an ordedy, rational, fiscally prudent, cost effective, carefully structured program of environmental protection narrowly targeted at unique environmental resources in the Pine Barrens which are vital to watershed, ecological, and aquifer protection for the residents of Suffolk County that will be balanced against protection of the 1/4% County Ddnking Water Protection Program against any diversion of funds from previously approved projects via an amendment to said Ddnking Water Protection Program to authorize Suffolk County's ability to use surplus 1/4% funds for general or public-safety governmental purposes and/or tax mitigation. ~ection. 2. Amendments as to Land Ace_uisition Com_Donen[ Section 12-5(A) of the SUFFOLK COUNTY CHARTER is hereby amended to read as follows: A.) The first pdority of this program shall be the acquisition of land in the Pine Barrens Wilderness and the Water Protection Presence. For this purpose, sufficient funds shall be set aside dudng the course of this program to allow for the acquisition of the maximum amount of acres which may be available in the Suffolk County Pine Barrens Wilderness and Water Protection Preserve lands. For each year of this program, pursuant to this Article, not less than forty percent (40%) of the total sales and compensating use tax shall be expended and/or set aside for the exclusive purposes set forth herein and in Section C12-5(B), unless funds are advanced through borrowing or financing agreements. At the end of each year, any funds set aside pursuant to this subdivision shall be put into and kept in [to] a separate appropriation within the Reserve Fund. This appropriation within the Reserve Fund shall not be used for any other purpose until said land acquisitions are completed in accordance with this Article. Over the life of this program Dp._E].Q[.eJb.a~ fifty-two percent (52%) of the total sales and compensating use tax will be used for Pine Barrens Wilderness and Water Protection Preserve acquisitions and related administrative costs which shall be limited to underwriting and bond counsel costs associated with acquiring said land. Approximately fifteen per cent (15%) of this fifty-two per cent (52%) or seven and eight-tenths per cent (7.8%) for land acquisitions and re.!ated costs, over the life of the program, shall be for land acquisitions based upon the recommendation of each respective Town where such lands are still extant, as such lands are defined in Sections C12-2(A), and C12-2(B) of this Article. Such recommendations for such land acquisitions shall be subject to review and approval by the Environmental Trust Fund Review Boa~ and the County Legislature pursuant to Section C12-5(D)(6). These Town- recommended lands which are acquired by the County shall not be subject to the provisions of Section C12-5(B). For the purposes of this subdivision, the expenditure of sales and compensating-use tax proceeds to pay debt service on obligations issued to pay the cost of the acquisition of land in the Pine Barrens Wilderness and the Water Protection Preserve shall be included in computing the percentage of the total sales and compensating-use tax proceeds expended for the purposes set forth herein. 1.) All reasonable measures shall be taken to ensure that pertinent land ac~3uisitions will be consummated no later than eighteen (18~ months after a orooerty Qwner and the County_ or Town. as the case may be. have entered into a binding agreement for the acquisition of an interest in real orooertv. Section 3. Conforming Amendments. I.) Section 12-5(C) of the SUFFOLK COUNTY CHARTER is amended to read as follows: hereby -3- c.) For each year of this program, not less than eight percent (8%) of the total sales and compensating use tax collected for 'that year shall be used to reduce or stabilize the county's general property taxes or Police/Public Safety_ property taxes for the subsequent fiscal year by being credited to revenues in direct proportion to taxes assessed and collected by the County of Suffolk from parcels within the County. The funds for this purpose shall be guaranteed on an annual basis. II. Section 12-5(E) of the SUFFOLK COUNTY CHARTER is hereby amended to read as follows: E.) Water Quality Protection Program and Enforcement. 1.) Any surplus funds which exist under this program on an annual basis, after first meeting the obligations under Section C12-5(A) through Sections 12-5(D) and C12-6 shall be allocated [for] to [Water Quality Protection programs] stabilizing County_ real property taxes paid by all real property_ taxpayers in the County_ of Suffolk. both in the General Fund and the potice/public-safe~ portion of the Coun~ Operatin(~ Budget. as determined by the County Executive and the County Legislature on a project-by-project basis through the annual budget appropriations process[.] via duly enacted resolution. [This allocation may include associated administrative costs and is not to exceed twelve per cent (12%) of the total sales and compensating use tax available over the life of the program.] The Water Quality Protection Program shall include, but not be limited to the following:] Funding for the sewer districts In accordance with the payment guarantees contained in Section C 12-6;] lb.) Further infrastructure improvements for all County sewer districts;] [c.) Extension of water mains;] Id.) Water purification;] -4- [e.) If.) gA3 .]) Waste water treatment;] Ten per cent (10%) of the funds appropriated for the Water Quality Protection Program shall be set aside on an annual basis to create a Watershed Management Reserve to provide an ongoing funding source for the Suffolk County Department of Parks, Recreation, and Conservation to provide custody, control, and interpretation of the land acquired under this Article; and] Funding for an Environmental Law Unit in the Department of Law which shall be responsible for the civil enforcement of environmental protection laws, with particular emphasis on pursuing parties responsible for the unlawful dumping of hazardous and toxic wastes. ,Any recoveries of funds from legal actions, fines, and penalties shall be deposited in the Environmental Trust Fund subject to any restrictions which are or may be imposed by State or federal laws.] Any further surplus funds which exist under this program on an annual basis, after first meeting the obligations of Section C12-5(A) through Section C12-5(D), Section C12-6, and under Section C12-5(E)(1) may be transferred in accordance with the annual budget appropriations process f(x the specific purpose of reducing ~ County [general] real property taxes paid bv all real orooe~v taxoavers in the County of Suffolk. both ia the C~eneral Fund and the oolice/oublic-safety oortion of ~e County Ooeratino Budget. via duly e~acted ~ for any year during the term of this Article, by being credited to revenues in direct proportion to taxes assessed and collected by the County of Suffolk from parcels within the County. Section 4. SEQRA Determination. This Legislature, being the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) lead agency, hereby finds and determines tha;, this law constitutes a Type I Action pursuant -5- to Section 617.12(b)(I) and (4) of Title VI of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations (NYCRR), and will not have a significant impact on the environment within the meaning of Section 8-0109(2) of the NEW YORK ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW for the following reasons: Enactment of this law will not exceed any of the cdteda in Section 617.11 of Title VI NYCRR which sets forth thresholds for deter mining significant effects on the environment. 2.) This law will continue the Ddnking Water Protection Program of promoting beneficial environmental impacts, including the following: a.) It will continue to provide enhanced protection of groundwater quality and quantity through preservation of additional above-lying Pine Barrens areas of the Central Pine Barrens; b.) It will ensure implementation of 'q'he Long Island" Pine Barrens Protection ACt" and help consummate a comprehensive settlement of the issues that have divided developers and environmentalists by providing fair compensation to property owners whose land may be taken to protect and develop the Central Pine Barrens ama of Suffolk County, which program will require finding by the State, local, and federal governments in order to be effectively implemented, while, at the same time prese~ing Suffolk County's ability to use surplus funds for general or public-safety governmental purposes and/or tax mitigation. 3.) The bill essentially constitutes a promulgation of rules and regulations for preserving the integrity of the One-quarter Per Cent (114%) Drinking Water Protection Program while simultaneously preserving essential County governmental services while still providing protection of the Central Pine Barrens through existing funding mechanisms. Furthermore, in accordance with Section C1-4(A)(I)(dl) of the SUFFOLK COUNTY CHARTER and Section 279-5(C)(4) of the SUFFOLK COUNTY CODE, the Suffolk County Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is hereby directed to prepare and circulate a SEQRA notice of determination of non-significance in accordance with this resolution. Section 5. Aa_olicability. This law shall apply to funds available for allocalion on or after the effective date of this law. ~ecfion 6. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or part of this law or the application thereof to any person, individual, corporation, firm, partnership, entity, or circumstance shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such order or judgment shall not affect, impair, or in validate the remainder thereof, but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or part of this law, or in its application to the person, individual, corporation, firm, partnership, entity, or circumstance directly involved in the controversy in which such order or judgment shall be rendered. Section 7. FQrm of Proposition. The proposition to be submitted at the next general election pursuant to Section 8 of this law shall be in the following form: Shall Resolution - '1996, Amending the County 114% Drinking Water Protection Program to Authorize the Use of All Surplus Funds in this Program for County Real Property Tax Stabilization or Tax Reduction, Be Approved? ~ection 8. Effective Date. This law shall take effect immediately upon filing in the office of the Secretary of State if it is approved by an affirmative vote of the qualified electors of the County of Suffolk voting upon a proposition for its approval at the next general election in conformity with the provisions of Section 34 of the NEW YORK MUNICIPAL HOME RULE LAW. After approval by the electorate, this law, as well as any other law converted into a mandatory referendum pursuant to Section 34(4) of the NEW YORK MUNICIPAL HOME RULE LAW, by a vote of the County Legislature, may only be amended, modified, repealed, or altered by enactment of an appropriate Charter law subject to mandatory referendum in accordance with prevailing law. Section 9. Conflicting Referenda. In the event that there are other referenda on the ballot, pertaining to or addressing substantially the same issues as are contained in this law, then the provisions of the measure approved by the electorate receiving the greatest number of affirmative votes, shall prevail, and the alternative measure, or measures, as the case may be, shall be deemed null and void. -7- [ ] Bracketsshallmeandeletionofexistinglanguage. UndeHiningshallmeanadditionofnewlanguage. DATED: APPROVED BY: County Executive of Suffolk County Date of Approval: S:~Jaws~,-pineb2.sam -8- OFFICE OF THE COUNTY LEGISLATURE DATE: TO: RE: TITLE: SPONSOR: DATE OF RECEIPT BY COUNSEL: 3106/96 PUBLIC HEARING: DATE ADOPTED/NOT ADOPTED: MARCH 15, 1996 CLERK OF THE COUNTY LEGISLATURE MEMORANDUM OF COUNSEL TO THE LEGISLATURE PURSUANT TO RULE 28 PROPOSED LOCAL LAW YEAR 1996 A CHARTER LAW AMENDING ARTICLE Xll OF THE SUFFOLK COUNTY CHARTER TO STABILIZE COUNTY REAL PROPERTY TAXES LEGISLATORS D'ANDRE, FINLA¥, AND RlZZO _ 4/30/96 CERTIFIED COPY RECEIVED: Enactment of this proposed Charter law would result in an amendment to the existing 1/4% County Ddnking Water protection Program whereby all surpl,~s funds would be autflorized for the sole and exclusive purpose of stabilizing County genera~ ~ ~c public safety property taxes. Land acquisition costs would be capped at 52% of total lifetime sales tax revenues. In addition, the allocation of residuary moneys for the 10 per cent water shed management preservation purposes (i.e. custody, control, and interpretation of acquired land), funding of the Environmental Law. Unit in the County Law Department, and water quality infiaatructure programs, are repealed so a to free up additional moneys for the balance of the program, including both land acquisition and property tax mitigation. Any surplus monies under the 1/4% Program would he used for tax stabilization instead of sewer district, infrastructure improvements, water purification, waste water treatment, land acquisition, revenue shadng, watershed management, or environmental law. Furthermore, the tax stabilization provisions are expanded to include police/public safety property tax mitigation. This legislation would be subject to mandatory referendum as required by the Section 8 of Local Law 37-1989 and Section 11 of Local Law No. 38-1989, the form of proposition for which is contained in Section 7 of this bill. In order to be timely and relevant for the upcoming general election at which such proposition would be voted on, the enactment process, including the approval of the County Executive or an override of his veto, must be completed no later than September 5, 1996. This law would apply to funds available for allocation on or after the effective date of this law. This law will have a fiscal impact measured by the enhanced property tax stabilization that' may occur from the availability of surplus 1/4% moneys, together with preservation of the tax base for lands not othen/vise acquired.. PAUL SABATINO II ..~-J C~ ~ oou.sEL TO T.E LEG,S~TU.~ PS:mjh THERESA ELKOWI'rz CHAIRPERSON COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ROBERT J. GAFFNEY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY JAM E.~ BAGG TO: FROM: DATE: RE: All Interested Parties James F. Bagg, Chief Environmental Analyst May 6, 1996 Proposed I.R. 1368-96, A Charter Law Amending Article XII of the Suffolk County Charter to Stabilize County Real Property Taxes Enclosed is an Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) on the above referenced County project which has been submitted to the Council on Environmental Quality for review, relative to a decision required by SEQRA regarding the significance of the project's environmental impacts. The Council would like to know your environmental concerns regarding this proposal and whether you think a draft EIS or a determination of non-significance is warranted. This project will be discussed at the May 15, 1996 CEQ meeting. Please forward any recommendations or criticisms, to this office prior to that meeting, or attend the meeting and present your views. If the Council has not heard from you by the meeting date. they will assume that you feel that the action will not have si_t, nifieant environmental impacts and should proceed accordingly. Notice will be sent to you prior to the meeting. JFB/tk SUFFOLK COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (EAF'~ Instructions: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire Data Sheet. Include as much information as possible such as feasibility studies, design reports, etc. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Mark irrelevant questions N.A., not applicable. A. General Information: 1. Name of Project: Greenhouse Finfish Hatchery 2. Location of Project: (specify Town, Village or Hamlet and include project location map on next page.) Town of Southold Street Address: 3690 Cedar Beach Road, Southold, NY 11971 Name of property or waterway:Suffolk County Marine Environmental Learning Center 3. Maps of Property and Project: Attach relevant available maps, including a location map (note: use road map, Hagstrom Atlas, U.S.G.S. topo map, tax map or equivalent) and preliminary site plans showing orientation, scale, buildings, roads, landmarks, drainage systems, areas to be altered by project, etc. 4. Type of Project: (check one) New X Expansion 5. Capital Program: (specify) Item #_N.A. Date Adopted AmountS. 6. General Description of Project Including its Purpose (attach relevant design reports, plans etc.): Suffolk County and Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County have been successful in securing funding to construct a Greenhouse Finfish Hatchery. This structure wffi be used to support educational programming and demonstration projects conducted by Cornell Cooperative Extension's Marine Program. /. t'rl3 ~¢t ~,taIus: (,cheCK 1i o¢~un] Start ~'~,.,,,,1~,1,,,, ~ PROPOSAL 5195 4/96 STUDY X PRELIMINARY PLANNING -see attached 10/95 3/96 FINAL PLANS: SPECS SITE ACQIJISITION CONSTRUCTION Page 1 8. Departments Involved: NAME AND ADDRESS OF DEPT. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERFORMING DESIGN & INITIATING DEPT. (If different) CONSTRUCTION Name: Cornell Cooperative Extension Street/P.O.: 246 Griffing Ave City, State: Riverhead, NY Zip: 11901 Contact Person:Kermit W. Graf Business Phone: 516-727-7850 1. Scale of Project: a. Total contiguous acres now owned at site: 68 b. Acreage to be acquired: N.A. c. Developed acreage now: 1 acre Developed acreage at completion of project: 1.25 acres Developed acreage ulfunately: 1.25 acres d. Acreage of vegetation or cover to be removed: three cedar trees will be moved to a new location on site e. Acreage to remain undeveloped: 66.75 acres f. Building gross floor area now: 10,000 sq. ft. acres Building gross floor area proposed: 9,000 sq.ft, acres g. Height of tallest structure on site now: approx. 15 feet Height of tallest structure proposed on site: approx 17 feet h. Proposed Building use (if any): same as current, education i. Off-street parking spaces now: N.A. number acres Off-street parking spaces proposed: N.A. number acres j. Max. vehicle trips/hr, when operational: N.A. k. Roads on site now: Dirt, 0.5 miles length Page 2 1. New road construction or reconstruction m. Will project result in an increase in energy use? If yes, indicate type(s): n. Will project require storage of liquid fuels and chemicals? If yes, describe substances and mounts to be stored: N.A. length yes; electric and fuel oil 2. Project Schedule: a. Is project single or multi-phase? single b. If multi-phase, how many phases? c. Total construction time (months) 2 months 3. Wastes and Pollutants Generated During Project Construction and Operation: Components Quantity Mode of Disposal a. Sanitary Sewage N.A. b. Liquid industrial waste N.A. c. Toxic chemicals N.A. d. Pesticides or herbicides N.A. e. Solid wastes N.A. f. Clearing or demolition debris N.A. g. Spoil disposal or sedimentation N.A. h. Atmospheric emissions N.A i. Surface water runoff N.A. j. Noise exceeding ambient N.A. k. Odors exceeding lhr/day N.A. Page 3 I. Other (specify) once operating fish waste culture water discharge 5 pounds per day 250 gallons per day commercial carter surface water following treatment 4. Does Project Involve Any: Grading Cut/Fill; List amounts. No Dredging; List max. depth, length & width. No Spoil Area; List amount. No Bulkheading; List length. No Dewatering; List g.p.m. & period oft'une. No 5. Indicate Sources of Utilities: Water well Electricity Lilco Gas N.A. Other (please specify) 6. Total Water Usage: Gallons per Day 100 If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity in gallons per minute 50 C. Project Area Description/Existing Conditions: 1. Acrease of Physical Characteristics of Project Area: Meadow. field, scrub growth Wooded 3.0 acres Agricultural Freshwater wetland Tidal wetlands 64.3 Surface waters CIeared. ~raded or filled land Paved areas (.roads. parking, etc.) Buildings (List number and sq. ft.) TOTAL 0.7 acres I building, 10,000 square feet 68 acres Page 4 2. Streams within or contiguous to project area: (Please list name of stream and/or name of river to which it is tributary, including intermittent streams) None 3. Lakes, Ponds, Wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: (Pleaxe list name(s) andsize(s) in acres) Cedar B~ach Creek and wetland, 64.3 acres 4. a. Are there nomml 0raina~e channels on thc project site? yes X no b. How far is project area from freshwater wetlands, tidal wetlands or surface waters? 45 feet 5. Is the Project area within the 100 yr. Flood plain? X2es no 6. Depth to the water table: at surfaco__X__0-3 1~ __3-8 t~ 8-16 1~__ 16 ~__ 7. Predominant soil type (s) on project site as identified in the SoiI Survey of Suffolk County - 1975: (Include soils map of site.) Sand 8. General character of the land: Generally uniform slope__X_Generally uneven and rolling or irregular . (Include topographic map of site.) 9. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: 0-10% X 10-15%__or greater t0. Any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e. cliffs, dunes, kettle holes, eskers, other geological formations): None 11. Describe the predominant vegetation types on the site: switchgrass 12. Describe the predominant wildlife on the site: occassional geese and deer 13. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? yes X no; if yes, give source and identify each species; Page 5 14. Is project contiguous to, or does it contain a building or site of historic, pre-historic or paleontological importance? yes X no. Explain. See Appendix A 15. List the specific activities now occurring at project location (ie. hunting, fishing, hiking etc.) Education 16. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? yes X no. 17. Does the present site offer or include scenic views or vistas known to be important to the community? yes X no. 18. Zoning: a. Current specific zoning or use classification of site? County property zoned for education b. Is proposed use consistent with present zoning or use? Yes c. If no, indicate desired zoning or use. 19. What is the dominant land use and zoning classification within a I/4 mile radius of the project (e.g. single family residential, R-2) and the scale of developmant (e.g. 2 story)? (Include existing land use map) Single family residential, R-2; single level greenhouse D. Impact Summary and Mitigation 1. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? Zero acres 2. Will any mature forest or other locally important vegetation be removed by this project? yes X no. Explain. 3. Are there plans for erosion control and stabilization? None needed yes X no. Explain and attach plans. 4. Are there any plans for revegetation to replace that removed during construction? yes X no. Explain and attach plans. Not applicable Page 6 5. Will project physically alter any surface water bodies? .~yes X no. Explain. 6. Will project require relocation of any projects, facilities or homes? ..__yes 3[ no. Explain. 7. Number of jobs generated: During construction? 8 After project is completed? 4 8. Number of jobs eliminated by this project Zero E. Altemativ¢~ - Briefly list alternatives to the proposal considered There are no realistic alternatives. F. Approval and Compliance 1. Will project involve funding or f'mancing by any: a. Federal agency (specify) b. State agency (specify) c. Local agency (specify) Departmen of Commerce ; mount ; amount 2. Does project require permit or approval from: amount $150.000 YES NO TYPE a. Army Corps of Engineers X b. U.S. Environmental Protection X c. Other Federal agency (specify) X d. N.Y.S. Environmental Conservation Department X Tidal Wetlands e. Other State agency (specify) Dept. of State X Fed. f. County Health Department X g. County Planning Department X h. Count-/Public Works Department X i. Town or Village Board i. Town or Village Planning Board X Page 7 k. Town or Village Zoning Board X 1. Town or Village Building Department X m. Town or Village Highway Department X n. Town or Village Environmental Agency X o. Local Fire Marshal X v. Other local a~,enc¥ (svecif'v i.e. CAC) X 3. Conformance to existing comprehensive or project master plans. a. State b. Bi County X c. County X __ d. Town NA e. Village NA __ yes no Description PREPARER Christopher Smith TITLE Marine Program Leader SIGNATURE* Date April 12. 1996 I certify that the information herein is accurate. PROJECT DIRECTOR Kermit W. Graf TITLE Executive Director SIGNATURE* Date April 12. 1996 I certify that the information herein is accurate * Signature of both preparer and project director required Page 8 Part 2 - RESPONSIBILITY OF LEAD AGENCY Project Impacts and Their Magnitude General Information (Read Carefully) · In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my decisions and determinations been reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. Identifying that an effect will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. By identifying an impact in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or- site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate for a Potential Large Impact rating. Each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. · The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. Instructions (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of the impact. If threshold impact equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1. d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. e. If a potentially large impact or effect can be mitigated by a change in the project to a less that large magnitude, check the yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. IMPACT ON LAND 1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? Yes 3[ No IMPACT ON LAND Examples that would apply to Column 1 I Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potentia 1 Large Impact 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change (Enter Yes or No) Page 9 Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise None per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. Construction of land where the depth to the water table is None less than 3 feet. Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more None vehicles. Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally None within 3 feet of existing ground surface. Construction that will continue for more than w year or None involve more than one phase or stage. Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more None than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. 1 2 3 IMPACT Obi LAND Small to Potentia Can Impact Be Moderate I Mitigated By Impact Large Project Impact Change (Enter Yes or No) Construction of any new sanitary landfill. None Construction in a designated floodway. None Other Impacts (Please describe) None 2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.) __ yes 3[ no. List Specific land forms: I ] [ P ON W 3. Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? (under Articles 15,24,25 of the 1 Small to Moderate Impact Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) __ yes X IMPACT ON WATER (Examples that would apply to colunm 2) no. 2 Potentia I Large Impact 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change (Enter Yes or No) Page 10 Developable area of site contains a protected water body. Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material fi.om channel of a protected stream. Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. Please List Other Impacts: 4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? ye X no A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. Please List Other Impacts: 5. Will' ~osed action affect surface or ~roundwater qualiw? ,yes ~ no Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to ser~e proposed (project) action. Proposed Action requires water supply fi.om wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. 1 2 3 IM~PACT ON WATER (cont.) Small to Potentia Can Impact Be (Examples that would apply to column 2) Moderate I Mitigated By Impact Large Project Impact Change (Enter Yes or No) Consu'uction or operation causing any contamination of a public water supply system. Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. Liquid effluent will be conveyed offthe site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. Proposed Action requiring a facility that would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day. Page 11 Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum products greater than 1,I 00 gallons. Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services. Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. Please list other impacts: 6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow, patterns or surface water runoff?, yes X no. Proposed Action would impede flood water flows. Proposed Action is likely to cause substantial erosion. Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drain patterns. Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. Please list other impacts: IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? yes X no. 1 2 3 IMPACT ON AIR Small to Potenti Can Impact Be (Examples that would apply to column 2) Moderate al Mitigated By Impact Large Project Impact Change (Enter Yes or No) Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle ~ips in given hour. Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. Page 12 ~ 1~ ~ 3 IMPACT ON AIR (cont.) Small to Potenti Can Impact Be Moderate al Mitigated By Impact Large Project Impact Change (Enter Yes or No) Proposed Action emission rate of all contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. Proposed Action will allow an increase in the mount of land committed to industr/al use. Proposed Action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development in existing industrial areas. Please List Other Impacts: IlVlPACT ON PLANTS AND ANfMALS 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? yes X no. 1 2 3 IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS Small to Potenti Can Impact Be (Examples that would apply to Column 2) Moderate al Mitigated By Impact Large Project Impact Change (Enter Yes or No) Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. Removal of any portion ora critical or significant wildlife habitat. Application of pesticide or herbicide over more than twice a year other than for agricultural purposes. Please list other impacts: 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or endangered species? __ Yes Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any I resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. X No Page 13 Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10. Will the Proposed Action affect a~ricultural land resources? Yes X No 1 2 3 IlVIPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LA.ND RESOURCES Small to Potenti Can Impact Be (Examples that would apply to Column 2) Moderate al Mitigated By Impact Large Project Impact Change '(Enter Yes or No) The Proposed Action would sever, cross through, or limit access to a field of agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, omhard, etc. 1 2 3 IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES Small to Potenti Can Impact Be (cont.) Moderate al Mitigated By Impact Large Project Impact Change (Enter Yes or No) Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil , profile of agricultural land. The Proposed Action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultural DisU'ict, more than one acre of agricultural land. The Proposed Action would disrupt agricultural land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); prevent agricultural land management measures f~om being installed; or create a need for such measures (e.g., cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) Prime or unique farmland as defined by USDA-SCS 7 CFR Part 657 and governed by the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 is involved. Please list other impacts: Page 14 IMPACT ON AESTHETIC URCES OR COMMUNITY CHA TER 1 I. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources, or the character of the neighborhood or community? __ Yes X No 1 2 3 IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES OR Small to Potenti Can Impact Be COMMUNITY CHARACTER Moderate al Mitigated By (Examples that would apply to column 2) Impact Large Project (If Necessary Use the Visual FAF Addendum in Section Impact Change 6J 7.23) (Enter Yes or No) Introduction of proposed land uses, projects or project components obviously different or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns or existing man-made additions to the landscape. Introduction of proposed land uses, projects or project components as described in the above example that will be visible to users of aesthetic resources. This will eliminate or significantly reduce the public enjoyment or appreciation of the appearance or aesthetic qualities of a resource or community character. Introduction of project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. Please list other impacts: Page 15 IMPACT ON HISTORIC A~ ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCE,~ 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontogical importance? _ Yes X No 1 2 3 IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL Small to Potenti Can Impact Be RESOURCES Moderate al Mitigated By (Examples that would apply to column 2) Impact Large Project Impact Change (Enter Yes or No) Proposed Action occurring wholly or paxtially within or contiguous to any facility or site listed or eligible for listing on the State or National Register of historic places. Any impact to an archeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archeological sites on the NSY Site Inventory. Please list other impacts: 13. EMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational oppommities? __ Yes X No 1 2 3 IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION Small to Potenti Can Impact Be (Examples that would apply to colunm 2) Moderate al Mitigated By Impact Large Project Impact Change (Enter Yes or No) The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational oppommity. A major reduction of an open space important to the community. Please list other impacts: 14. IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? __ Yes ~ No Page 16 1 2 3 IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION Small to Potenti Can Impact Be (Examples that would apply to column 2) Moderate al Mitigated By Impact Large Project Impact , Change (Enter Yes or No) Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. Proposed Action will result in severe traffic problems Please list other impacts: Page 17 15. IMPACT ON ENERGY Will ~osed action affect the communities sources of fuel or ener~k,y supply? Yes X No I 2 3 IMPACT ON ENERGY Small to Potenti Can Impact Be (Examples that would apply to column 2) Moderate al Mitigated By Impact Large Project Impact Change (Enter Yes or No) Proposed Action will canse a greater than 5~/o increase in any form of energy in municipality. Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences. Please list other impacts: 16. IMPACT ON NOISE Will there be objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration or electrical disturbance as a result of the Proposed Action? Yes X No 1 2 3 IMPACT ON NOISE Small to Potenti Can Impact Be (Examples that would apply to column 2) Moderate al Mitigated By Impact Large Project Impact Change (Enter Yes or No) Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. Please list other impacts: t7. IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND (HAZARDS'~ SAFETY Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? Yes X No Page 18 i 2 3 IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND (HAZARDS) Small to Potenti Can Impact Be SAFETY Moderate al Mitigated By (Examples that would apply to column 2) Impact Large Project Impact Change (Enter Yes or No) Proposed Action will cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there will be a chronic low level discharge or emission. Proposed Action will result in the burial of "ba?ardous wastes" (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc., including wastes that are solid, semi-solid, liquid or contain gases). 1 2 3 IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND (HAZARDS) Small to Potenti Can Impact Be SAFETY (cont.) Moderate al Mitigated By (Examples that would ~pply to eoluran 2) Impact Large Project Impact Change (Enter Yes or No) Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liqulfied n~mral gas or other liquids. Please list other impacts: 18. IMPACT ON GROWTH .~rD CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD affect the character of the existin~ Community? Yes X, No 1 2 3 IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF Small to Potenti Can Impact Be COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD Moderate al Mitigated By (Examples that would apply to column 2) Impact Large Project Impact Change (Enter Yes or No) The population of the city, town or village in which the project is likely to grow by more than 5% of resident human population. The municipal budgets for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. Page 19 Will involve any permanent facility of a non-agricultural use on more than one acre in an agricultural district or remove more than 10 acres of (prime) agricultural lands from cultivation. Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, ra'uctures or areas of historic importance to the community. Development will in induce an influx of a particular age group with special needs. Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. Proposed Action will relocate 15 or more employees in one or more businesses. Please List other impacts: 19. Is there public controversy related to Potential Adverse Environmental Either government or citizens of adjacent communities have expressed opposition or rejected the project or have not been contacted. Objections to the project from within the commumty. I~ mcts? Yes X No Page 20 If Any Action in Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 Determination of Significance Portions ofEAF completed for this project: X Partl X Part2 __ Part3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1,2 and 3) and considering both the magnitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined that: The project will result in no major impacts and, therefore, is one which may not cause significant damage to the environment. Prepare a negative declaration: J~ For unlisted actions only. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environmem, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in Part # have been included as part of the proposed project. Prepare a CONDITIONAL negative declaration: The project will result in one or more major adverse impacts that cannot be reduced and may cause significant damage to the environment. Prepare a positive declaration, proceed with EIS: __ Signature of Preparer (if different from responsible officer) Date Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency in Lead Agency Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer Name of Lead Agency Da~e Page 21 Part 3 - Responsibility of Lead Agency Evaluation of the Importance of Impacts Information Part 3 is prepared if one or mom impact or effect is considered to be potentially large. The mount of writing necessary to answer Part 3 may be determined by answering the question: In briefly completing the instructions below, have I placed in this record sufficiem information to indicate the reasonableness of my decisions? Instructions Complete the following for each impact or effect identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1. Briefly describe the impact. 2. Describe (if applicable) how the impact might be mitigated or reduced to a less than large impact by project change. 3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important to the municipality (city, town or village) in which the project is located. To answer the question of importance, consider: - The probability of the impact or effect occurring - The duration of the impact or effect - Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value - Whether the impact or effect can be con~rolled - The regional consequence of the impact or effect - Its potential divergence fi.om local needs and goals - Whether known objectives to the project apply to this impact or effect Determination of Significance An action is considered to be significant if.' One (or more) impact(s) is determined to be (both) large and its (their) consequence, based on the review above, is important. Part 3 Statements (Continue on Attachments, as needed) Page 22 APPENDLX A SUFFOLK COUNTY HISTORIC TRUST Application for Determination of Appropriateness for Alteration to Suffolk County Historic Trust Landmark or Site 1. APPLICANT: AGENCY: CONTACT PERSON: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PARKS POST OFFICE BOX 144 WEST SAYVILLE, NEW YORK 11796 (516) 854-4984 2. PROPERTY: STRUCTURE NAME: LOCATION: HISTORIC TRUST STATUS: Designated Eligible PRESERVATION CATEGORy: USE CATEGORY: CURRENT USE: PROPOSED USE: Is structure listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places? Yes No 3. PROPOSED WORK: SCOPE OF WORK: REASON FOR WORK: ARCHITECT/ENGINEER: CONTRACTOK: CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE: 4. FUNDING: ESTIMATE COST OF PROJECT: SOURCES: 5. PROPERTY HISTORY: DATE OF ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION: ORIGINAL ARCHITECT BUILDER: HISTORY OF USE: Page 23 HISTORY OF ALTERATIONS: 6. SUBMISSIONS: Please check all applicable: MAP DRAWINGS HP-1 FORM SPECIFICATIONS EAF/SHORT PHOTOGRAPHS SAMPLES OTHER 7. RELATED INFORMATION AND COMMENT: The Suffolk County, Historic Trust is hereby requested to review the scope of work proposed for the above mentioned landmark structure, owned by the County of Suffolk, New York, to determin.e the appropriateness of desig'n and~or use as regulated by the Suffolk County Charter. Design review guidelines have been made available for reference and it is understood that submission or approval of this application does not relieve responsibility for securing any and all other permits and approvals as required by law for the work proposed. This form is to be submitted by applicant department to: Suffolk County Division of Historic Services Parks Department Aclministration Building Post Office Box 144 West Sayville, New York 11796 For additional information and instructions please call (516) 854-4970. OFFICE USE ONLY DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATENESS: . Approved __ Disapproved Vote: Aye Nay Date: Signature 617.20 Appendix B Page 24 VISUAL EAF ADDENDUM This form is to be used in conjunction with the SEQR Full EAF. Once the potential visual impacts have been identified by the following questions, proceed to Question 11 of the Full EAF. (To be completed by Lead Agency) VISIBILITY (Check distance as appropriate in miles project is from each resource) 1. Is the project potentially visible from: ~ 0-1/4 1/4-1/2 1/2-3 3-5 5+ xxxxxxx A parcel of land which is dedicated to and available to the public for thc use, enjoyment and appreciation of natural or man-made scenic qualities. An overlook or parcel of land dedicated to public observation, enjoyment and appreciation of natural or man-made scenic qualifies. A site or structure on or eligible for inclusion in the National or State Register of Historic Places. State Parks. The State Forest Preserve National Wildlife Refuges and state game refuges. National Natural Landmarks and other outstanding natural features. National Park System Rivers designated as National or State Wild, Scenic or Recreational. Any transportation corridor of high exposure, such as part of the Interstate System, or Amtrak. A govcrrunentally established or designated interstate or inter county foot trail, or one proposed for establishment or designation. A site, are, lake, reservoir or highway designated or eligible for designation as scenic. Murdcipal park, or open space. County road. Local road. Page 25 2. Is the visibility of the project seasonal? (i.e., screened by summer foliage, but visible during other seasons) _ Yes _ No 3. Are any of the resources checked in question 1 used by the public during the time of year during which the project will be visible? _ Yes _ No DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING VISUAL ENVIRONMENT 4. From each item checked in question 1, check those which most generally describe the surrounding environment. F~entlally undeveloped A _m-ienlmml Suburban re~iclentiat Tndumwial Cnmmerciat 1 lrhan River I.ake C1iNq nverlnoks F)e~i_anated aesthetic regnuree Flat Hilly Other NOTE: Ada attachments as needed Within lid milo* Within 1 mile* 5. Are there visually similar projects within: 1/2 mile* _ Yes _ No 1 mile* _ Yes _ No 2 miles* _ Yes _ No 3 miles* _ Yes _ No *Distance from project site are provided for assistance. Substitute other distances as appropriate. EXPOSURE 6. The annual number of viewers likely to observe the proposed project is NOTE: Itfhen user data is unavailable or unknown, use best estimate. CONTEXT 7. The situation or activity in which the viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed action is as follows: Page 26 ACTMTY Travel to and from work Involved in recreational activities Routine travel by residents At a residence At worksite Please list any others: FREQUENCY (please list whether it is daily, weekly, weekends/holidays or seasonally) Page 27 SOIL SURVEY OF Suffolk County, New. York f United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with Cornell Agricultural E~[periment Station MIC U. S. DEP~,RTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE SUFFOLK COUNTY, NE SOIL L[GEND SY~80L WORKS March 8, 1996 Ivlr. Louis Chiarella Division of Regulatory..,kf-fairs N¥S DEC Loop Road, Building 40 SUNY-Stony Brook Stony Brook. NY 11790-2.356 Dear .Mr. Ch/aretla, Enclosed is a pein'fit application for a tidal wetlands v~,-iance for a proposed ~eenhotme, pond and saltwater well at the SuA~otk County. Marine Environmenmi Learning Center at Cea, Star Beac~ Southold. A variunce 5s required since be ~eenhouse wouici be closer to the wetlands boundarS' than current re_m.tlations allow. The proposed ~eermouse. pond and well will be used for fi.ralsh culture under our Mar/ne Hatchery. Pem~ir. Applied research and education is an [mportam parr of what we do here: ~is facffiry would a/low us to expand our programs. Based on your visit and our phone conversations, I have attempted to submit a complete application. ! ~ waiting for a lerner from Suffolk Count, naming Comeil Cooperative Extemion as the agent ~br th/s application, t hope you can at least swm your review and let me 'know if you require any addition.al information. Thank you for your help with this application. Sincerely, Gregg RJvara Cooperative Extension Agem Marine Program enclosure CC: Kermit Graf Legislator William Sones Chris Smith 95-19-3 (6~--.I--?e I DEC APFLJC~A'r~ON NUMB J ~i~.TRiJUT~ON ,~IF.W YORK STATE ~ ~ 1st CO~ ~lt Aamlnistrator OEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ~ ~ 2n~ CO~ Co~s of En~ln~rs JOINT APPLICATION FOR PERMIT ~ FRESHWA~R W~NDS ~ ~DA~ W~NDS ~ WA~R SUPPLY ~ LONG ~S~NO W~ ~ PROTE~ON OF WA~RS FOR: ~ C. Olslumance of a S~EAM B~ or BANKS or ex~tlofl in or fill Ot NAVIGAB~ WA~RS ~ ~1 WA~R QUA~ CE~FICATION ~ ~A~AL EROSION COBOL ~ ~KE G~RGE PA~ COMMISSION ~ES a~ ~ngst ~ Wl~. ~IC OR RECR~ONAL RIVERS 1. ~ST PREVIOUS PERMITIAPP~CATION NUMBERS AND OA~ (if any) IF O~ER THAN INDIVlDUA~ PROVIDE TAXPAYER ID NUMBER 2. APPUCANT IS ~WAN ~ Ow.er [] OPera,Or ~ Lessee [~3 Munic,oallW/Govemmemal Aoemcv 3. NAME OF APPUCANT (Use ;uti Namel CoL=el! Coopera=ive ~xrension Assoclac!on of Suffolk Riverhead TELEPHONE [Where cam De reac~e~ ~urmq ~av~ . 516 727-7850 ' N.Y. 11901 · Gregg RAvara MAILING ADDRESS 3690 Cedar Beach Road I ~ 5i6) 852-8660 ~ST OF=~CE i STATE :]p CODE Souchotd I N.Y. ~ ~o-~ . Su~. o1.< I Town or 06.0 Cedar Beach Road Southold ~ N.Y. NAME OF ETR~AM OR BODY OF WATER Cedar Beach Creek 7. NAS WORK ~EOUN ON =ROJE~'T~ If YEB. attach exDlanation on star~ing WOrK w~thou[ permit, inctuoe oates, i 8. =ROPOSED STA~ING DATE ShOW worx on mad analor Draw,ne.. ~ Y~ ~ NO ~ Aorl! ! ~ 1996 June 30, 1996 ~ ~ate ~lic ~ ~ ~v~ ~z ~oPcsso ~uRPOSm Greenhouse ~ll be used Co cul:ure fish for research and A greenhouse measur~g 90' x 96', a pond of 20' x 60' and a well ~ch less than 30 gpm average capaci~ are proposed. State Ha=che~ Pe~= PROJECT I.D. NUMBER · Appendb~ State ~vim~ental Ou~l~ Revl~ SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM F~ UNU~ ~ONS Omy PART I--PROJE~ INFORMA~ON ~o ~ completed ~y A~li~nt or ~. A~NT/SPONSOR Co~e~ Cooperative ~. 2. PR~ N~E ~=ens~on Association of SufEolk County ~um=~w Sou=hold ~ Suffolk SEQR 3690 Cedar Beach Road Sou=hold, NY 11971 5. IS PROPOSED ACTION: ~ New ~--- Eaoanslon ~ Moalficalionlalteration 6. D~CRIBE PROJE~ BRIEFLY: ~ 8,5&0 square ldo; sreenhouse, a 20~ x 50~ pond, ~d a 4" sa!=~acer well proposed. This greenhouse ~.ii be used for finish cul:ure/research and education. $.-ruc:ure will he closer uo wetland boundary (high =ide mark). 9. WHAT iS PRERENT LAND U~E IN VICINITY OF PRQJF~, This faci!iEy is !oca:ad a: Cedar Beach CounEy Park. The surrounding area is low dens!=y resident!al. ~0. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APeROVAL OR FUNDING. NOW OR ULT1MAT",-~ Y FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (F=.DERA~_ DEC Marine Hatchery. Permi: DEC Marine Hanche.--y Permi~ A~o~,ca. us~.~, .am.: GregE Kivara, A~en= ~ri=h Cornel! ~ 3/7/96 If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you am a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment OVER 1 Proposed Greenhouse- View to southwest from parking area ~--" S.E. corner of existing lab' View to East from behind existing lab View to south from parking area View to East from behind existing lab Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County Suffolk County Marine Environmental Learning Center 3690 Cedar Beach Road, Southold, New York 11971 View to southwest from parking area View to east-southeast from behind existing lab reenhouse View to west towards existing lab Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County Suffolk County Marine Environmental Learning Center 3690 Cedar Beach Road, Southold, New York 11971 ? COUNTY OF SUFFOLK DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MEETING NOTIFICATION May 15, 1996 9:30 a.m. 220 Rabro Drive Planning Conference Room JAMES BAGG Call to Order Minutes of April 17, 1996 CEQ Meeting Correspondence Project Review 1. Recommended TYPE II Actions Ratification of Staff Recommendations for Legislative Resolutions Laid on the Table April 30 and May 14, 1996 b. Review of Suggested Type II Actions as Submitted by Various Departments. 1) CP 7166 - Proposed Renovations and Improvements to the West Sayville and Indian Island Golf Courses TABLED PROJECTS: Proposed Management Plan for United Artist Park, Eastport, Towns of Brookhaven and Southampton Proposed Management Plan for Coram Airfield County Park, Coram, Town of Brookhaven Proposed IR #1164-96, A Charter Law Amending Article XII of the Suffolk County Charter to Protect Property Owners by Ftmding Long Island Pine Barrens Protection Act Proposed Intersection Improvements to CR 35, Park Ave. ~ CR 11 Pulaski Rd., Greenlawn, Town of Huntington (CF 330 I) CEQ Meeting Notice Page 2 May 15, 1996 3. Proposed Lease Renewal of Buitding #167 to Relay Matic, Inc., at Francis S. Gabreski Airport, Westhampton Beach, Town of Southampton 4. Proposed Reconstruction on West Lake Drive, CR 77, Montauk, Town of East Hampton 5. Proposed Construction of Greenhouse Finfish Hatchery, Cedar Beach, Town of Southold 6. Proposed Improvements to Sewer District No. I0, Stony Brook, Town of Brookhaven (CP 8175) 7. Proposed IR #1368-96, A Charter Law Amending Axticle XII of the Suffolk County Charter to Stabilize County Real Property Taxes -Historic Services - Director's Report - J. Lance Mallamo -Announcements -CAC Concerns -Other Business MEMBERS - PLEASE NOTIFY THIS OFFICE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE IF YOU WILL BE UNABLE TO ATTEND. **It has been suggested, that since we are an ~ Council, that perhaps everyone attending the meeting should bring their own coffee mug or cup so that we will not have to use STYROFOAM cups at our meetings. OEPm~q]*t~NT OF HEALTH $~RVICES SCDHS }FFPEE ;}Fc,_bL,21_-- ~OUNTY OF SUFFOLK MARY E. HIll'S-RD, M.D., M.P.H FAX NO. $16-852-2743/New Permanent Number/ TRANRMITTAL FORM TO: F~OM; DATE: SUBJECT: I~AGE$; Peconic Estuary Pro.am (PEP) Technical Advisory Commit V. Mind 5/22/96 Maricultor~ Technolot, ies. Inc. (DEIS) 6 (including this pagei If this is not received in its entirety, Please call 516-852- 2077 '--SDH"_-, OFFICE L-:F ECL-ILCG'~ OCOUNTY OF SUFFOLK D;-PA~TMI~NT OF' H~A: TM ~;E~VICE:$ To: L Wielan~,~ From: V, Minei MEMORANDUM Date: May21, 1996 Re: Maficulture Technologies, Inc. Draft Environmental hnpact Statement (DEI5). The enclosed comments regarding the above-referenced DEIS were received by the Peconic Estuary Program (PEP) Pro,am Office. The comments deal with: * parasites, and potential adverse impacts to non-hatchery fish, * the need to consider the fact that the ?ecomc Estuary is a warmer-water estuary than other sites which were used for DEIS analyses, * waste management and experimentM technology, and * the possibility for pilot-scale start-up and additional monitoring. The PEP Technical Advisor' Cotrm~ttee has not provided any formal comments, and has not ,,,et reviewed the attached cozm~mnts. However, we understand that a Fin~ Environmental Impact Statement is currently being prepared, and we ask that the enclosed com.rnentg be considered. · ' Thank you for providing the Office of Ecology with a copy of the (DEIS). ff we receive any additional comments, we will forward them to you immediately. Please do not hesitate to contact ~m or Walt Dawydiak at (5 i6) 852-2077 if you have any questions or comments. cci PEP Tecbmic'al Adviso~ Corm'n/ttee R. McAlevy K. McDonald ['!A :-22-!'_~96~=' ~'=-'. ~= '-3CDHL5 !i~FF ~,~ [i[F EQOLOIih ~11~, .... ,=,. =~,4~'-='-' ...... r. 91:1 0~, MA':-22-i~9~ ~2:~ SCDHS OFF~CE OF ECOLOGY 5i6 c,=-~,,~ = P.06,0~ m/ APR-OI-1996 14:57 Ivh'. Marion E. Wiggen President Peconic Associates, Inc. One Boo[leg Allcy P.O. Box 624 Grecnport, New York 11944 NYS DOS CMP 518 4?3 2484 ~TAT£ OF NEW YORt( DEPARTMENT OF ~TATE ^~.B^NY. NY 12231-0001 February21, 1996 F-96-026 (S-95-066) U.S. Army Corps of Engineer~/Ncw York District Permit Application Max/culture Technologies, Inc. Gardiner's Bay and Long Island Sound Town of Southhold and Village of Ga:capon, Suffolk Courtly pcknowl~ni~ement of Federal Consistency A~essment Form and Reouest for Additional Information P. 02 Dear Mr. Wiggen: Thc Department of State received your Federal Consistency Assessment Form .and suppon/ng information on January 18, 1996, and has determined that th~ submitted documentation is adequate to commence our review of your proposed project. The Department of State suppom the development of aquaculture activities that would advance the economic development of fisheries resources. This proposed project would be thc fin-at ~ scale attempt m develop a succcsfful fmf=h aquaculture facility in New York's coastal area, and could advance the State's policy to further develop commeraiaJ flll.C1sh r~otLrCes in the coastal area by developin§ aquaculture facilities. The proposed project, if successful, could also provide ~h¢ impetus for other aquaculture facilities in tl~ coas~ area. However, there are several issues associated with this pwject that must be fully addressed in order m demrmlne the consistency of the proposal with the State Coastal ~ment Prosram. The Corps of Eagin~rs permit application and supporting information submitted m this Depa~tmcm is ~m~ted ~o a general physical des~;y~ion and diagrams of the proposed open waIer grow-out facility near Plum Island. Thc submitted information does not include information relating to other integral components of the proposed operation, such as the planned hatchery and preening fucilitic~ adjacent to the Long Bland Round, at Cexlar Beach, and in thc Village ~ - .AFR-01-1996 14:57 NYS DOS CMP 518 47~ 2464 P,03 Page 2. of Greenpon. Information regarding these esse~lfial and integral components of the pro]ec~ is included in the Draft Environmental Impact $~ement (DIEIS) pv~ared for the Depa2flment of Environmental Conservation (DISC). That infonna~n is being used by thi.~ I;~:mlm~ in its review of the pwposed project. However, as this Department indicated in our February 7, 1996 comments on the DIEIS (copy enclosed), a mom comprehensive and detailed description of the project and a more comprehensive and detailed _~alysis of the effects of all of the components of the proposed projecz was not provided in the Dm-% Therefore, pursuant to 15 CFR 930.58, the following d~'~ and information is necessary to enable the Department of Sram to adequately assess the coastal zone effocts of this proposed project: It is our ututerstanding that you have been provided with a copy of the National Marine · Fisheries $ervice's (NMI~S) comments regarding this proposal. The concea'~s expressed by the NMOS that are related to the State's Coastal Policies include: the future use of the VinaE¢ and County owned properties (Policies 1, 2, $, 19, and 20); nutrient loading Long Bland Sound or other water~ bodies, and eff_~y__s on groundwater quantity and q,,allty (Policies 30 and 38); and effects on the State designated Plum Gut Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat ,,,,t any possible changes in community swacmre or the possibility of increased incidence Of disease or mortality, or other physical, biological or chemical effects of the proposed project on the designated habitat, the gww-out ama, or hatchery or processing facility discharge areas (Policies 7 and 8). The is.roes and concerns expressed by the NMF$ and the affects of ~e project on, and its consistency with the appropriate Coastal Polieies~ should he fully addressed and included in the Fi,~ Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) being prepared for this project; The Depa~huent of State's comments to the De~,uhl~ent of Environmental Conservation da~ February 7, 1996 regarding the D~ff-~ for this project need to be ~ully add~sed in the Fws. This Department's e~mments regarding the need W more fully assess and address the affecu of thc proposed project on, and its consistency with, Coastal Policies 1, 6, 7, 8 9, 10, 12, 18, 19, and 30, and our concerns regarding the mazkefi~ of the project's products, should also he fully addressed; The Clark's Beach area is zoned bY the Town of Southold fur reside~_~l uses A change of zone would be necessa~ in oilier to conduct aquaculture activities at C!~rk's Beach. The appropriateness of using Clark's B~cb for maficulture activities should be fully afldres,sed in thc l,~.t$, and included in a narrative ~n~lysis of thc effects of the proposal on, and its consistency with, Coastal Policy g2 of the Coastal l~nagement Program, which relales to the siting of new water-dependent uses in appropfia~ so that conflicts between water-dependent and nonwater-dep~dent uses are avoided. Since a change of zone would be requii~! by the Town Board of the Town of $outheld, the effects of such an action by the Town should be included in the ~,~.~-~. A analysis should be provided regar~in~ of the use of the open w~rer area near Plum Island for the proposed grow-out facility." ¢,, ~PR-01-1996 14:58 NYS DOS CMP 518 47S 2464 P.04 Pz§e 3. · In our recen~ telephone conversai/on, you indicated r~r the above ~d other issues will be fully addmss~ in rite FEI5 for the proposed project, wh/ch/s e. xpecU~d tn be completed within the next three months. In order tn avoid delays' in this Department's review of the project, and to pwvkl~ u~ wifla adcquam opportunity to fully as,~s the coastal zone effects of thc proposcd projecr~ please provide dm above infonnalion to ~ Department of Sram as soon as possible. Pursuant to 15 CFR 930.64(d), if ~s necessary clara and information is not provided, the DeparUnent of State may object [o your consistency cerdfica[iou on the grounds of i~sufficient information. Any additional information which you believe will facilime our review of ~ project will be appreciated, and may ass~ this Deplut~ent in expediting its review of the project. After the necessary ~ a~d informaxion has been provided, you and the Corps of~ wffi be no~ of our ~ion m~g thc p~j~'a co~cy wi~ ~e New York S~e Co~ ~,,~ m ~e consh~cy pmv~ions of ~e f~ C~ Zo~ ~cme~ Aa, ~e Co~s your consi~ncy ~fion. ~ you ~ve ~y qu~ns or a~d ~y ~ ~fion or o~er ~is~e m~g ~ mug, p~ do not hesi~ ~ ~ me a (518) 47~. $CR/bms ' ' encl: DOS comments on DIilS dated 2/7/96 Coastal Resources Specialist Supcrvi,wr of Consi.~,cncy P, cvicw Division of Coaxal P,~sources aad Waterfront Revitalization cc: CON/NY Dist~ic~ - lames Haggeny NIvIF$ - ~ L~dwig NYS DEC/Region 1 - John Wiel=na/P. ohert A. Greene Town of Soft. old - Ruth Oliva TOTAL P. 04 MAYOR DAVID E. KAPELL (516) 477-3000 GEORGE 9A HUBBARD ~36 THIRD ST/~EL~r G~RT, NEW YORK 119~4 LORNA M. CAI'US March 22, 1996 Supervisor Jean Cochran Southold Town Board Town Hail Main Road Southold, N-Y 11971 Re: Re-zoning of Clark's Beach Dear Supervisor Cochran, Regarding the letter dated February 21, 1996 from Secretary of State Treadwell to Mr. Merlon Wiggin paragraph ~3 refers to the need to rezone Clark's Beach (SCTM~ 1000-040-01-23) by the Town of Southold. The Incorporated Village of Greenport feels that the Mariculture Technologies' proposal is crucial to the economic viability and job creation in the Village of Greenport as well as the entire Town of Southold. This proposal would assist and end the stagnation of employment opportunities that are presently occurring in the area. It is crucially important in enhancing the relationship that exists between Village and Town by cooperating and encouraging a sound economic infrastructure that enables our constituents to gain employment opportunities and better their standard of living. Please review the current Southold Town Zone Code of the Clarke's Beach area, Residential Zone, and modify the zoning to Marine II to encourage and allow the Mariculture Hatchery proposal to achieve fruition. The zone change is consistent with the State of New York and Village of Greenport LWRP which lends water dependent use to Marine II zoning which is compatible with the Mariculture Technologies proposal. The State requires the Town to include the zone change in the analysis of the FEIS being proposed, and therefore the March 14, 1996 zone change should be considered immediately. Thank you for your prompt attention in regards to considering this zone change. The Village of GreenDort Board fully supports resolution (copy enclosed). S/-ac~erely, ~ Secretary of State State of New York Department of State Albany, NY 12231-0001 Mariculnure Technologies (Bob Link) Merlon Wiggin Village' Board this zone change by BH/eak -. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT Fax:516-477'~1877 Mar 26 '96 10:58 P. 02 VILLAGE OF GREENPORT BOARD OF TRUSTEES REGULAR MEETING MARCH 21, 1996 ACTION TAKEN BY THE vILLAGE O~ GREENPORT BOARD OF TRUSTEES: At a regular meeting of the village of Greenport Board of Trustees a motion was made by Trustee John A. Costello seconded by Trustee William J. Mills, III to authorize Trustee Barbara Beaney to send a letter to the Town of $outhold regarding the re-zoning of an area at Clark's Beach from Residential zone to Marine II to allow the movement of the Mariculture Technologies Hatchery to proceed. CERTIFICATION STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I Lorna M. Catus, Clerk/Trea&urer of =he Village of Greenport, New York, County of Suffolk, have compared the foregoing copy of the resolution now on file in this office, which was adopted by the Board of Trustees of the village of Greenport of said county on March 21, 1996, and that the same is a tr~e and correct transcript f said resolution and of the whole thereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereUntO set my hand and the official seal of the Village of Greenport o~ the County of Suffolk. Dated: March 26, 1996 L~~n~a M. Ca=us, Village clerk/Treaeure~ ~AL Southold Planning Board 10 ~January 29, 1996 Mr. Ward: )sed? Motion carried. APPROVAL OF Mr. Ward: Board to BO~ MINUTES December 11, 1995 minutes. Is there a second? Mr. Edwards: Seco~ Mr. Ward: M seconded. All Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Opposed? Motion carried. Mr. Ward. OTHER Mr. Ward: Under "Other" tonight we have an informational presentation for Mariculture Technologies, Inc. which is regarding the Proposed Finfish Aquaculture project. I see that the applicants are here and we'd like to have you come up and...if you would, it would be best if you could use the microphone so you'll be on our tape. Unknown: First, thank you very much. I'm not quite sure where want me to start. Would you like a little review of the project so you get an understanding of what we are trying to do? Mr. Ward: Yes, what I'd like you to do, if you would, is to state, so you're on the record, who you are and who you represent and a little bit about the project, is why we asked you in tonight. Bob Linc: Sure. My name is Bob Linc. I'm the President and founder of a company called Mariculture Technologies, Inc. Mariculture Technologies, Inc. is in the business of raising finfish; the finfish specifically being summer flounder. Our project was conceived ten years ago this coming February 3. After going through a litany of arguments that New York State has, we compiled what I assumed you read from the letter you sent me, an environmental impact statement that conformed to the SEQRA process. In that ElS we set the standard for anyone who wished to set up an aquaculture finfish farm. The finfish farm that we're proposing is to address the shortages that exist in the world today on flat fish. The shortages are of catastrophic proportions, although people don't know that. The business of mariculture, the business of Southold Town Planning Board 11 January 29, 1996 aquaculture, is something that is done on a worldwide basis. There are 17 million metric tons of aquaculture product produced in the world today. If this 17 million metric tons of aquaculture product was not done, processed, grown, raised, distributed and consumed in the world today, our oceans would have to be closed down. And that's sort of a draconian statement, but it's true. The sustainable yield for finfish to feed ourselves across the world is one million metric tons. We are averaging about 78 million to 82 million metric tons right now, of which 17 million of that is grown. Most of this growth occurs in third world countries, in some cases, a little bit in Europe and about 50 million pounds only in Chile, so it's just coming to this side of the world. The reason that it does not occur in the United States is because the United States requires a tremendous amount of diligence, and most business people say, 'well, I don't want to do the diligence.' They don't do the diligence and they take the time and the money that they would invest normally in the United States, and they invest it in a third world country. Mariculture Technology chose to do the diligence, chose to set the highest common denominator for anyone who was to follow, and is very happy to be here. We are probably more than anybody else on the North Fork, more environmentally consgious...we are as much an environmentalist as anyone else because water quality to us is probably more important than it is to anyone else because with poor water quality, our fish are going to die. If our fish die, we don't have a project. With that in mind, we have been working very, very diligently for the last three, three and a half years, and through, I guess now our third administration in the Town of Southold, and with the Village of Greenport, to acquire for a period of forty years, the parcel known as Clark's Beach. At this parcel we will, hopefully, be able to construct a hatchery that would be no different than the greenhouses that you currently see on the North Fork and in the hatchery we would be growing fish to about six to eight inches in size, and then bringing them out to the net pens at the site in the northeast corner of Gardiner's Bay. We also hope to bring to the North Fork area directly, in excess of one hundred jobs. Indirectly, all the common denominators that go with that. You can take all your measures, and then New York State says, 'oh, you can make one job and you employ a half a person in a deli and a quarter of a person in a gas station, and the next thing you know you've got two people', and so on. We also hope to construct this hatchery in that pen site to the point where it becomes the model for other countries and companies to come to New York. The amount of diligence that was exercised here would...Tom Fox was over here, the company that he represents comes from Canada. They've already agreed, once we're up and running to move their company down. We don't employ them, but that's another (inaudible) benefit. Southold Town Planning Board 12 January 29, 1996 We've worked with Cornell to establish a long term, on going educational relationship. We've worked with Natural Marine Fishery Services, down in Washington, to establish a long term relationship. We've worked with the USDA to set up educational avenues as well as common sense business avenues to increase this. We've worked with every environmentalist group that in fact would work with us, from the audibon people to the endangered species, we went down to Washington, went through the endangered species act. We've done, what I consider an inordinate amount of diligence work and again, if you saw the ElS, it weighs about 11 lbs. I only carry about one or two of them at a time when I bring them in to somebody. We're very, very happy to be here. We've been in business for three years. We haven't really made a lot of noise because we're just going about the business of setting up our company. I hope that gives you a fair overview of what you're looking for. Mr. Ward: in terms of the site specific elements, could you address what is proposed at this site in terms of site buildings and coverage and parking and ingress and egress and things like that, that we as a Planning Board might be interested in? Mr. Linc: Sure. Can I ask Merlon Wiggin, who has done most of the design work, to do that for us? Mr. Ward: Fine. Merlon Wiggin: I'm Merle Wiggin, Peconic Associates, and we're the principal along with Suffolk Environmental, who prepared the impact statement, which I assume you've all had a chance to at least look at and read. Mr. Ward: Didn't read it yet. Mr. Wiggin: I'm sure you could read it faster than it took to write it. I have with me copies of the phase outline schedule which is extracted from the impact statement. I'll give a copy...I think it will kind of help to explain what the hatchery (inaudible) proposal is about. That phase outline schedule is separated in different parts. The first page you see is the brood stock, which is the first phase of the hatchery. When you turn the page you come to early larva and the next page is weaning and the next page is juvenile and the last page you have (inaudible). Those are the stages of fish development before they are removed from the hatchery facility and put into the offshore net pens. Southold Town Planning Board 13 January 29, 1996 Now, these stages of development, the ones that take place in a hatchery environment and on land. Bruce is here and he can answer more details and Chris Smith as well. You see I've marked on the left hand side there Clark's beach, up through phase 4. In our preliminary planning for the hatchery at Clark's beach, we envision that site (inaudible) through phase 4 for the hatchery. Phase 5 and 6 are going to be done someplace else, at this time that site is not known. Talk about the time frames. It takes from the brood stock, up to a time of the (inaudible) stage, (inaudible) approximately one year. And then the six month (inaudible). So, the whole process is 18 months, in that general vicinity. Were in the present preliminary stages of preparing a site plan to not review with the Village of Greenport, but to submit to the Town of Southold Planning Board. That would show the facilities which would include the hatchery and the tanks for (inaudible) the fish and the water treatment which is a major part of the planning, is the water treatment facility because of the amount of water that has to be recirculated. To give you an idea, about 20% of the water is replaced and new water is brought in through proposed saltwater wells. So part of the site plan would include saltwater wells and a major water treatment facility which would remove the solids to (inaudible), reduce the 80D, which is not only for the purpose of what goes into the Sound but is also necessary for the health and welfare of the fish. The preliminary schedule that has just been put together here in the last few days is the...Mariculture Technologies hopes to have, or needs to have if they're going to keep on the present schedule, a first phase facility in place come September of this year. And that is for twofold purposes; to (inaudible) the brood stock to get then acclimated to the area for the phase one and two, and also to house a portion of the small fish that will be introduced into the net pens in the spring of 1997. The brood stock that will be brought in for acclimation, will not be able to produce size fish until spring of 1998. These fish need to be grown, in the summertime, in the six months, so it's based on a yearly projection from April, May through November of each year otherwise the whole program would slip one more year before it could start again. So, one of the things we'd like your input in is any particular details of the site plan. We've just started the preliminary layout of the site plan and so we're not really ready to (inaudible). We've had a preliminary plan showing the projected facilities on the charts in front of you. That was done some time ago and needs further refinement and details of what needs building and the details of construction, the parking is only shown in generalities. The employees will not be great in number. I think up to phase 4 the employees are 20 or so...Bob? Mr. Linc: Twenty or thirty. Mr. Wiggin: Twenty or thirty, in that stage. Southold Town Planning Board 14 January 29, I996 Mr. Linc: Just for the hatchery. Mr. Wiggin: And we also need the maintenance personnel and we also want space for visiting personnel. We expect this will be an attraction because of the uniqueness and they'll be organizational tours made. Cornell also is thinking about a public information area where they can demonstrate and show just how finfish are grown, how the whole process works from the hatchery right through the (inaudible) site; to include a model net pen (inaudible). Now 1 realize i haven't gone into a tot of detail. You will see on the right hand side of the column the amount of facility in square feet for each of those phases. But you can see it's significant in size. The (inaudible) phase one and two in the beginning and the schedule for the phase three and four will optimistically will occur in increments of one year. Mr. Orlowski: These are all greenhouse structures? Mr. Wiggin: The primary greenhouse structures, of course the treatment plant won't be a greenhouse structure, but the majority will be greenhouse structures. Mr. Latham: Is this privately funded? Tell me about the company a little bit. Mr. Wiggin: Well, I'll have to get Bob back for that. We thought the Town of Southold might want to be an investor. I say that in jest. It's privately funded and Bob can go into that. Mr. Latham: Well, you can go on with yours, that's alright. Mr. Wiggin: We realize that we're not ready to come to the Planning Board yet. We hope to be (inaudible) with a site plan prepared. I've probably raised more questions than I have answers, but if you have any questions I can answer now, I'd be happy to do so. Mr. Edwards: It sounds to me that you're going to need quite a bit of parking for ultimately 100 workers and... Mr. Wiggin: Twenty. Mr. Edwards: Well, I thought it said it was going to create 100 jobs. Mr. Wiggin: The majority of the jobs are associated with the (inaudible) site which is off Plum Island. That part will not be here at the hatchery, that will be a different location. It will not be here. So about 20 employees, plus visitors, is what we expect for parking. Mr. Orlowski: This total square footage comes out to about 8 acres of greenhouse, Southold Town Planning Board I5 January 29, i996 is that about right? Mr. Wiggin: That's correct. And the whole thing is about 12 acres of facilities. Mr. Orlowski: Of buildings. Mr. Wiggin: Of buildings, I'm sorry, t think 12 acres including the parking, the whole thing is about 12 acres. Mr. Ward: Do you anticipate...if you were able to get the zone change that you're requesting, how does this facility fit with the coverages and things for that zone? I don't have the answer to that. We haven't made an application to the Zoning Board yet. Mr. Ward: Are you up against more variances with the lot coverage here? Mr. Wiggin: We're not using a lot of the site because a lot of it is going to be left in its natural state, all along the bluff and also the portion to the east. So we think the coverage on the preliminary review is going to be OK. Mr. Latham: Merle, the saltwater well, is that down on the beach or is it back further? What's that going to do to the intrusion into other parcels to the west, I think? Mr. Wiggin: The saltwater wells are proposed along just back from the edge of the bluff. And you ought to realize from your own planning efforts that all the freshwater lands is (inaudible) with saltwater and the freshwater lands at that area so close to the beach is almost non-existent. We've already had a test well done and the (inaudible) walls were only for the purpose of make up but not for the total waterflow through the hatchery. Mr. Latham: I was just concerned with the residential property to the west. Mr. Wiggin: I understand. The saltwater well is preliminary located on the central and east portion of the site, which the east portion of the site is county park land, and the draw down on the preliminary test well was very very nominal. Seeing as the wells are several hundred feet from the nearest residence well, we're not anticipating that's going to be a problem. Mr. Latham: Have you talked to the county? What does the county say? Mr. Wiggin: About the other portion of the site? Mr. Latham: About their part in it. Mr. Wiggin: The portion of the county, which is also you see shown on there, is still Southold Town Planning Board 16 January 29, 1996 under review with them, negotiations I guess you'd say at this point. We don't know the answer to that yet. Mr. Latham: I have one more question. Is the repair of the sewer outfall pipe for the Village, it's in need of repair. Mr. Wiggin: Yes. Mr. Latham: And you would keep it in repair? Mr. Wiggin: Well that's really not, I don't think the purview of Mariculture Technologies. It's been suggested by the DEC and certainly (inaudible) objection is that the connection for the (inaudible) to be tied into the same outfall line as that presently used by the Village of Greenport. They're replacing that and the size will be adequate to take care of both (inaudible). This is saltwater we're going to be discharging, not freshwater. Saltwater's been through the treatment plant for removal of solid BOD and nitrates. Mr. Ward: Just as a general comment, you're here today in January. September is very soon around the corner. The zoning issue hasn't been satisfied. We don't have a site plan in front of us to get us into the SEQRA process, t don't know really that you can do it in that time frame. Mr. Wiggin: We have that same concern and unfortunately the SEQRA and the environmental process, DEC impact statement, took six months longer than we expected. It really wasn't on the part of Mariculture but the lead agency took a lot longer to get the initial review back. This has set the whole thing in for a tight squeeze. And it's well understood that if the first small portion of the facility cannot be met on time, it means one year later. It's not something you can delay three months or two months, it's a year delay. So, all we can do is push forth and see if there are any problems around that would delay which is something they'd like not to have happen. We know the time frame is extremely tight. Mr. Linc: It wasn't designed that way originally and then we couldn't come to you until we finished the SEQRA process because we couldn't give you an uncompleted ElS, so it was one of those catch 22's. It's not a problem, it happens. We're getting good at that now, and here we are. Mr. Wiggin: That was the reason we were really (inaudible) to submit any permit request until after the impact statement has been accepted as complete which has only happened two or three weeks ago. Ms. Scopaz: I just have one question. In reading the EIS, and I may have missed this, but I gathered the county of Suffolk was agreeable to letting you use that part of their property... Southold Town Planning Board 17 January 29, 1996 Mr. Wiggin: That's still in the negotiation stage. That's not necessary for the first two phases. That's not critical at first. If you go up through phase 4 and less space will be needed as well. Ms. Scopaz: I was just wondering if that didn't pan out whether you would just sim.ply incorporate that into the village property somehow. Mr. Wiggin: We could look at a couple of options and one, we might be able to have the tanks three high or two high, which is one thought, to stack them up higher, which would be something we could plan on at a later date; or we might have to scale back the size of the hatchery to phase three, and then the phase four would have to join some other location phase 5 and 6. We don't have an answer to that now and don't expect to have that in time for your initial review. Mr. Linc: tf I can add something, and this isn't Merlon's fault. He was just down in Venezuela for a week and a half. But the County of Suffolk did call us up last week and they said that those properties were parklands, that it would take a two year resolution to change it. I did not have a chance to communicate that with Merlon today. I had a million things to go over with him, but that is not one of the things I went over with him. So, he wasn't aware of it because when he left for Venezuela it was just as he stated it. So we are going to have to make some adjustments, but I didn't want to tell him that the first day he was back from vacation. Mr. Wiggin: It took six months for Suffolk County to come to that determination themselves. They thought they'd be able to use it and once they researched it they realized it was viable. Mr. Ward: Well, we appreciate you filling us in a little bit. I realize you don't have your specifics yet but I guess the number one thing is your zoning issue, number two, and you're dealing with it, is Suffolk County, and so we wish you luck with it and see where we go. Mr. Latham: Just one question. Is this all private money? Mr. Wiggin: Just one moment, could I have a Planning Board schedule for the next thirty days? Mr. Ward: We'll give it to you for the year. It's posted outside our office. Mr. Wiggin: Thank you. (Change tape) Mr. Linc: We were fortunate enough to apply to the federal government for a grant. And we did receive a grant for $458,000.00; but in order to utilize that grant we had to go three to one on it. So, the $458,000.00 grant that we're getting from the government, we're putting back three dollars to every one we get. And then all that information becomes public knowledge. And that's how it should be, we have Southold Town Planning Board 18 January 29, 1996 no problems with sharing our information with anybody that wishes to go into this business. We're a very very small business but we deem ourselves a very necessary business. If you're going to look at the world food shortages and all the other (inaudible) that are going on, ...and I will extend an invitation to each and everyone of you at any time to come to the facility. Our office is like an encyclopedia. We will show you anything that you need to know about aquaculture, mariculture, fish, world feeding, we'll feed China, the grain shortage projected in the year 2006; you name it, we've got it. And you're all welcome, all you have to do is call to make sure we're there because fortunately, we've been very very busy, but at anytime please avail yourselves. Please, I want you to feel comfortable at all times with this project. I don't want you to have a question. We're very accessible and t'm not shy. Mr. Latham: Thank you. It isn't probably part of our business to, I just thought I'd ask you about it. Mr. Linc: I have a prospectus for you. I always carry one in the briefcase. I'm prepared. Mr. Latham: I was just interested. It's not a public...the taxpayer is not involved in it in any way. Outside of the federal grant. Mr. Linc: No, I did want you to know about the grant. There was a fisheries assistance grant, they put up thirty million dollars to help the fisheries, the fishermen, the whole fishing situation in the United States. It's probably not common knowledge that we've closed the Georgia's Banks. Maybe you've never heard of the Georgia's Banks, but it was the most productive fishing area in the world ten years ago. Now it's dead, it's a sin. And the federal government said we will close it for ninety days. Well, that was a year and a half ago, and I was just down in Washington this past Monday and Tuesday and they're talking about keeping it closed for two generations. That means when they re-open that t'll be dead. I'll be fish food. But, two generations, that's forty years. That's a long long time, that's frightening. The grant we received was put in an emergency allocation, nothing to do with taxpayers money. The grant came from FEMA, which t guess is taxpayers money. We did not solicit it, it became available, we went after it. The first two rounds of the money, nobody from New York got a penny. We went down to Washington and said hey, it's for New York, New Jersey and New England and New York didn't get a penny. We sent in, I think it was 22 proposals. Not me, I was one, Cornell was one, and a bunch of other people. New Jersey sent in some. tt was what it was. So, we said well we're going back after it. And we went back after it and we did our homework and we made noise, and we wrote a good Southold Town Planning Board 19 January 29, 1996 proposal that made sense. We also agreed to give back three dollars to every one that we got from the government. If you're a business man and the government was looking at this as a business, we were one of the only of two people who said OK, we like this but we'll give you this in return. So, anytime, please avail yourselves, come down. Mr. Edwards: Just as a point of interest, why did you pick summer flounder as your species to raise? It's endangered? Mr. Linc: That's easy. Actually, yes, they're is a moratorium recreationally on it. You can only catch six. Commercially, they have a quota of 13 million pounds up and down the east coast, through the United States Marine Fishers Commission. But more importantly, it grows quickly, and the People in Japan pay $15 a pound for it. And ill was going to take somebody's money in, and I have, I better show them that they can get a return on their investment or they're going to come and give me a good spanking. If Japan is willing to pay $15 a pound, I'm willing to sell them fish at that price. It's really very simple. The other reason is, if you're going to grow something, there is a fish called tilapia, I don't know if you've ever heard of it, but it's good fish, but did you know what a tilapia was? No? But, everyone knows what flounder is. So strictly from a marketing point of view, we didn't have to go out and recreate the wheel. That's why we chose summer flounder. It's hearty, it gets very few diseases. Would you like a biological answer? We're prepared. Bruce Anderson: My name is Bruce Anderson, of Suffolk Environmental Consulting and my company and Mr. Wiggins company wrote the impact statement which I guess found its way to some people who are anxiously reading it and in that impact statement is a lengthy treatise on the biology of the summer flounder. And the interesting thing about the summer flounder is, of course its fast growth rate, it's general hardiness, its marketability, all which you've heard tonight. We believe since we will be culturing essentially wild stock that the disease and aspects of it should be fairly limited. We also are culturing in such a way as to keep the stocking densities far lower than is what theoretically possible on it. So in conjunction with the way the fish grows, it's known disease agents and so forth, we think it's an excellent choice for these waters. We will be culturing what is known as a northern stock of the summer flounder, which is a much more high vigor, fast growing, temperature tolerant type summer flounder as opposed to the southern stock which stems all the way up to essentially probably the southern quarter of Delaware. My understanding that the purpose of this meeting is just a general informational meeting, and I'm here to answer any specific questions you may have. Of course, we're going to be looking to work very closely with this Board and the Town in Southold Town Planning Board 20 January 29, 1996 general in bringing forward a project that we believe will be successful and one that we think the Town will be proud of, not only from the standpoint of another industry that will open up that's really a tradition between farming and fishing, but also some of the tourism aspects of it, the employment aspects of it, the marketing aspects of it. I will admit that it's a rather complicated proposal and I think the best thing that I can do as a consultant is to perhaps to work as closely with your staff as I can so that we don't get really hung up in the minutia of the building, the parking, the landscaping and all that kind of stuff. We can sort of tackle that head on because it's important that the process move forward in a orderly and expeditious way. So if you have any specific questions about the biology, I can take you from the egg to the filet if you like. Or it might be easier to simply read that section on the biology, because it is rather involved. Mr. Orlowski: Any of this fish going to end up being stocked in the local fishing areas out there? Mr. Anderson: Well, it's interesting that you ask that. When we were initially proposing this, we had made an offer to release some, and that offer was turned down by the State of New York, which wefrankly found surprising. We thought that we'd offer it as a way to give back. I suppose the reason for pre-empting us on our offer was the thought that the fish that we would be growing would somehow be genetically altered, but I can assure you that's not the case. In fact, the fish that we will be breeding for food production will be comprised of wild stock population and therefore there's no expectation that the genetic make-up of the cultured fish itself will be altered in any way. So, while we've made that offer, we have been turned down. tt doesn't make good biological sense, but in the same point it's probably easier on the projects sponsor. Mr. Ward: A question for the applicant. Since there is a lot of industrially zoned property in the town, has that all been exhausted and there's nothing that would work for you? Mr. Linc: Well, yes. The choice of Clark's Beach had more to do with water supply than anything else. I know as planners, when you talk about water supply we're usually talking about potable water and groundwater resources or extension of water mains and so forth, but in the culture setting the interest is really in deriving a reliable, clean source of saltwater. And that's what brought us to the shoreline of Clark's Beach. We propose groundwater wells that will essentially pull up from the saltwater aquifer adjacent to the shoreline, and that will be our water source for the hatchery production of the summer flounder. So, we can't really choose a wholly upland site and really tap into a reliable saltwater aquifer and that leads us to the coast line of which frankly there's not a whole lot of choices available. Southold Town Planning Board 21 January 29, 1996 Mr. Wiggin: The thing about it is that normally to use saltwater wells we need a point discharge for the effluent to replace the make-up water. In the preliminary discussion with the DEC with the effluent there, this was a much more ideal site than anywhere else. Mr. Latham: What's that going to do to the sound, pumping stuff out there? It's not going to help it any is it? That's what you mean by the effluent? What's left? Mr. Wiggin: This is saltwater effluent. Mr. Latham: Well, whatever it is. Mr. Wiggin: So the quality of water going into the Sound is going to be saltwater and it's going to be approximately the same that's already there. Mr. Latham: So what's the effluent, what does that mean? Mr. Wiggin: Effluent is a generic term used for a discharge from a water treatment plant. So we'll take the water out of the hatchery, which is saltwater, treat it to remove the nutrients, remove the suspended solids, reduce the BOD, then it goes back into the Sound. Mr. Latham: And that's not going to change anything out in the Sound? Mr. Wiggin: That's probably reviewed in the impact statement. Mr. Anderson: The interesting thing is because of the way it's planned, the quality of the effluent is actually going to be very clean and in looking at how the tanks are going to be managed and the fish are going to be managed, we predict really no impact to the waters of LI Sound. Mr. Ward: Alright, we thank you for coming and we trust you have some more work to do. Mr. ~body here tonight on any othe~ke to add,ress t,he Boa.rd? .W~.oing to a work~ses~on after this meeting which you re welcome to stay for~e record, you may approach the Board on that now~/..~ion to adjourn. ~ild°idn; seconded. All in favor? ~ PROPOSED FINFISH AQUACULTURE PROJECT - by MARICULTURE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Proposal includes: construction of 270,000 square feet of building on 15 acres owned by the Village of Greenport and 2 acres owned by the County of Suffolk. Thirty four parking spaces would be required to service the three proposed buildings. The buildings would include a hatchery, water processing center, support services area, laboratories and a visitor's center. lease of the Village and County property to the company for 40 years. sinking of a salt-water well capable of pumping 300 gallons per minute or 400,000 gallons per day. repair of sewer outfall pipe for the Village of Greenport. January 24, 1996 Michael Marran Mariculture Technologies, Inc. P.O.Box 461 Greenport, New York 11944 Dear Mr. Marran, This is to confirm our telephone conversation yesterday, during which you accepted the Southold Town Planning Board's invitation to attend its next meeting on January 29th. As I mentioned, the Planning Board is reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for your company's proposal to establish a finfish hatchery at the Clarks Beach site in Greenport. Before sending comments to the State Department of Environmental Conservation, the Board would like to have an opportunity to obtain a better understanding of the proposal from the project sponsors. You are scheduled to appear at the end of the Planning Board's regular public meeting, which will begin at 7:30 PM on Monday, the 29th of January. The meeting will be held in the Meeting Hall off the main lobby in Southold Town Hall. I suggest you arrive by 8:00 PM. If you have presentation graphics, feel free to bring them. We look forward to meeting you and hearing about your proposal. Sincerely, Valerie Scopaz Town Planner for Richard G. Ward Chairman January 24, 1996 Michael Marran Mariculture Technologies, Inc. P.O.Box 461 Greenport, New York 11944 Dear Mr. Marran, This is to confirm our telephone conversation yesterday, during which you accepted the Southold Town Planning Board's invitation to attend its next meeting on January 29th. As I mentioned, the Planning Board is reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for your company's proposal to establish a finfish hatchery at the Clarks Beach site in Greenport. Before sending comments to the State Department of Environmental Conservation, the Board would like to have an opportunity to obtain a better understanding of the proposal from the project sponsors. You are scheduled to appear at the end of the Planning Board's regular public meeting, which will begin at 7:30 PM on Monday, the 29th of January. The meeting will be held in the Meeting Hall off the main lobby in Southold Town Hall. I suggest you arrive by 8:00 PM. If you have presentation graphics, feel free to bring them. We look forward to meeting you and hearing about your proposal. Sincerely, Valerie Scopaz Town Planner for Richard G. Ward Chairman Grow-out: a rectangular 0.32 mile by 1.0 mile (200 acre) area in the northeastern portion of Gardiners Bay (see Figure 2.) under the jurisdiction of New York State. The above locations were chosen based upon unique qualities attributable to each site and are detailed as follows: Clark's Beach in the Town of Southold was chosen as a possible hatchery site because of its proximity to an plentiful source of salt water, Long Island Sound; its availability as a site for the proposed project; the availability of Greenport utilities at a competitive rate and the support of the Village of Greenport for such a project. Mariculmre Technologies, Inc. and the Village of Greenport have conducted extensive negotiations over the appropriate use of the Clarks Beach Site. These negotiations have culminated in a general agreement of the approphateness of the Clarks Beach Site for the construction and operation of a commercial hatchery. The northeastern portion of Gardiners Bay was chosen as the net pen grow out site for the following reasons: (1) its remoteness from privately owned shoreline areas; (2) high currents velocities to maintain high oxygen levels and excellent water quality as well as to provide wide dispersal I- 19 offish feces and unconsumed feed; (3) compatibility with the findings of local commercial fishermen that the site is not critical to their fishe~ due to submerged rocks and high currents; (4) shelter from North East storms; and (5) avoidance of existing navigational channels. The Winter Harbor Fisheries site was chosen as the proposed fish processing and storage site due to its preexisting conforming use as a processing plant; available vessel docking space for loading and off loading; easy access to navigable waters adjacent to the proposed net pen grow out site; and ample space for cold and feed storage. It should be noted that except for a few boulders along the south shore of Plum Island, there are no submerged objects, such as pipelines, cables or shipwrecks, in the immediate vicinity of the proposed sites. There is a submerged cable extending from' Orient Point to Plum Island, but its existence is not relevant to this proposed project. 1-21 o Stifling Basin o Greenport Harbor o Gardiners Bay o Plum Gut o The Sluiceway o The Race All of the above listed waters have channel depths in excess of 20 feet with the exception of Stifling Basin whose channel depth is 10 feet. It should be noted that these depths are more than adequate for the use of the vessels proposed herein. HISTORIC SITES There are no historic sites adjacent to any of the proposed locations. LOCATION OF ALL LAND BASED SUPPORT SITES Hatcher~ site- The proposed hatchery site is located on County Road 48 in the Town of Southold (See Figure 1.). Along the eastern boundary of the site is Inlet Point County Park and to the north is the Long Island Sound. The 2 acre area owned by the County of Suffolk (see survey and site plan in Appendix A.) will house a laboratory, visitors center and other support facilities. I - 23 Processing Site- The proposed processing site is Winter Harbor Fisheries located on Sterling Avenue in the Village of Greenport (see Figure 1.). The site is adjacent to Stifling Basin which possesses ample bulkhead space for vessel dockage (see survey and site plan in Appendix B). This vessel dockage area allows for the loading of fingerling summer flounder and feed to be transported by water to the grow out site in Gardiners Bay; as well as offloading of market size fish to be sold or processed. In addition to processing, this site also contains adequate feed and cold storage space for production Phases I through IV. Bulk transport is being considered for production phases V and VI. The Winter Harbor Fisheries Site is already serviced by Greenport electric, water and sewer utilities. HYDRODYNAMIC/OCEANOGRAPHY: Waves, tides, and related physical parameters, are important considerations in the design of the net pens. Probably one of the best references for understanding the phenomenon of waves is Chapter XXXIII entitled "Ocean Waves" from Bowditch's "American Practical Navigator" published by the U.S. Defense Mapping Agency Hydrographic/Topographic Center (See Appendix C.). Waves are caused primarily by wind. Waves are I - 24 not exceeding 800 feet in length, three hazard lights will be required. These hazard lights consist of yellow strobes flashing at a rate of 60 pulses per minute (1 flash every second) and must be visible at a minimum distance of four nautical miles. When the net pen site reaches its maximum size during Phase VI, four large lighted buoys, one at each coreer will be provided. In addition, intermediate lighting will be required. The extent of this additional lighting will be determined by the Coast Guard upon further review. Mariculmre Technologies, Inc. has agreed to install all navigational lighting as may be required. LAND BASED STRUCTURES: Hatchery Facilities: The proposed hatchery is to be located on a portion of an approximate 15 acre site known as Clark's Beach. Negotiations between the Village of Greenport Trustees and Mariculture Technologies, Inc. has culminated in a general agreement of the appropriateness of the Clarks Beach Site for the construction and operation of a commercial hatchery The proposed leased area would exclude the location of the Village of Cn'eenport's Municipal Sewer Plant outfall line and the beach area. 1-59 These areas would be retained for the exclusive use by the Village of Cn'eenport. The additional 2 acre site owned by the County of Suffolk is proposed to be leased or sold to Mariculture Technologies, Inc. and would house facilities for a visitors center, laboratory, and other support facilities. The hatchery will consist of four main structures - two 200 X 500 foot buildings which will house primarily the tanks and specific hatchery functions, a 70,000 square foot support facility that will be used for a visitors center, laboratories, and other support facilities, and a hatchery water treatment plant. The structures are proposed to be approximately a story and a half in height, with selected areas of skylights for natural light. All four structures will be constructed on reinforced concrete slabs. The site will include appropriate access, parking, security, and lighting. (See Survey and Site Plan in Appendix A.) The hatchery facilities will be serviced by Cn-eenport water, sanitary, and electricity. Mariculture Technologies, Inc. is negotiating with the Village of Greenport to mn a primary feeder from the nearest Village primary into the site with a new sub-station. Water and sanitary facilities will be only that for personnel and visitors. The I - 60 principal water supply for the hatchery will be salt water supplied by salt water wells located on site. This source is projected to provide optimum quality salt water with minimal initial treatment. Salt water from the proposed hatchery will be supplied by a salt water well. The projected salt water well flow requirements during Phase IV are approximately 400,000 gallons per day or 300 gallons per minute. This water will be filtered and sterilized prior to introduction into the rearing tanks. The culture of summer flounder produces several types of waste products that degrade water quality. These materials must be removed in order to maintain superior water quality in the hatchery. This is accomplished through the operation of an advanced water treatment system. The water supply and treatment system for the hatchery is an integral part of the hatchery. It involves complex waste control processes necessary in maintaining water quality. A review of operating hatchery water treatment systems in Europe was conducted to determine the water circulation requirements in the proposed hatchery system. 1-61 The greatest demand for water in the hatchery occurs during the summer flounder juvenile and fingerling rearing stages. During these two stages, the optimum water flow rate provides for a complete change in tank volume every two hours or twelve times per day. This flow results in a significant volume of water needed to be cimulated through the hatchery every day. The peak flow would occur during March or April of each year beginning with Phase IV and IVA when the tanks are fully utilized. At this time, Phase IV fish will be reaching the end of the fingerling stage and Phase IVA fish will be reaching the end of the juvenile stage. The volumes of water required during phases IV and 1VA are as follows: PEAK HATCHERY WATER FLOWS CM/DAY MGD Phase I & IA 2,760 0.73 Phase II & HA 12,080 3.20 Phase III & Ilia 40,830 10.80 Phase IV & IVA 90,000 23.80 CM=Cubic Meters MGD--Million Gallons per Day In order to understand the treatment process, it is necessary to characterize the types of waste found in the hatchery effluent. The waste water from the proposed hatchery would contain I - 62 O O O Temperature of the bulb and system: optimum temperature is about 106°F (40°C). As temperature drops, so does efficiency. Distance between the bulb and target organism: not more than one inch (2.5 cm) for maximum irradiation. Duration and intensity of exposure as determined by the flow rate through the unit and the turbidity of the water; and The presence of biological and mineral deposits on the quartz sleeve. In addition to the above mentioned treatment it will be necessary to conduct a 20% volumetric exchange of the hatchery water per day. This water change is required to prevent the increase of toxic metabolic products such as ammonia and maintain superior water quality essential for the culture of summer flounder. New water will be filtered and sterilized with ozone or [TV prior to introduction into the rearing tanks. Spent process water would exit the hatchery system alter disinfection by ozone and be discharged into the receiving waters. Discharge at this point will ensure that water entering the receiving waters would be as clean as water used for maintaining the cultured summer flounder. Processing, Loading and Off-Loading, and Feed Storage Facilities: These facilities are projected to be located at the present Winter I - 72 Harbor Fisheries site in Greenport. Included in the existing structures will be fish processing, cold storage, freezer, and feed storage up through Phase IlL During Phases IV through VI it is anticipated that the quantity of feed required for the net pens will dictate a bulk transportation system. The processing, cold storage, freezer and feed storage locations are set forth in Table 1 I. TABLE 11. LOCATION OF LAND BASED PROCESSING AND STORAGE FACILITIES PHASE PROCESSING COLD FREEZER FEED STORAGE STORAGE I II III IV V VI WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH&PS WH&PS WH WH WH&PS WH&PS NR WH WH&PS WH&PS NR WH WH&PS WH&PS NR WH = WINTER HARBOR FISHERIES PS -- PUBLIC STORAGE NR = NOT REQUIRED - BULK DELIVERY PLANNED TO VESSEL LOADING FACILITY. Dock, loading, and off-loading facilities are also comained at this site and will include docking provisions for the two crew vessels and docking facilities for two of the aqua truck type vessels. Two docking facilities are proposed: one alongside the bulkhead line at Winter Harbor Fisheries which will be utilized primarily for fish I - 73 unloading; the second facility will be constructed to facilitate the loading of bulk feed. The facilities will include an existing small hydraulic crane; the docking facilities for support vessels; and docking facilities for loading and off loading containers containing fingerlings, feed, and live fish. Arrangements to accommodate the above are depicted in the Site Plan in Appendix B. Support for these facilities are already in place including the road access via Sterling Avenue; Greenport water; Greenport electricity; and Greenport sewer. Holding tank pump out equipment will be installed to service the support vessels. Parking Facilities: Two (2) employee and visitor parking facilities are required. One will be at the Hatchery/Laboratory Visitors Center and support facilities on County Road 48. (See Site Plan - Appendix A.) The second parking facility will be located at the Sterling Avenue Processing Facility in Greenport. This parking site will include employees for the net pen security, the divers for net pens, the vessel crews, and those used for fish harvesting activities. Also included at this site will be general and administrative personnel for the company, which will include its officers, professional staff, consultants, and visitors. Shift schedules will be utilized for the security personnel at the net pens I - 74 and also during Phases IV, V, and VI of the fish processing activities which will reduce the total number of parking spaces required. Additionally, bus transport of personnel is under consideration as to reduce the number of parking spaces required. The proposed parking for this site is depicted on the Site Plan in Appendix B. To better determine the parking requirements, and employee parking schedules have been developed for each of the six (6) phases in Tables 12 and 13 below. TABLE 12. NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES PER PHASE PHASE HATCI-IERY & LABORATORY GROWOUT ADMINISTRATIVE & PROCESSING I 6 12 H 6 16 HI 10 44 IV 20 72 V 20 119 VI 20 174 I- 75 I II III IV V VI TABLE 13. PARKING PER PHASE CLARKS BEACH HATCHERY VISITORS GROWOUT ADMINISTRATIVE & PROCESSING VISITORS 6 10 12 2 6 10 14 2 8 12 36 4 12 12 61 (36) 4 12 20 76 (40) 6 ~2__~_ 20~ 110 (60) 6 Note: The number in parentheses ( ) represents the parking required in addition to bus transportation if utilized. I - 76 D. DESCRIPTION OF LAND USE RIGHTS 1. LAND BASED SITE_S The project requires the use of three (3) upland parcels as follows: Hatchery Site The hatchery facility as proposed will be located on a portion of a 17 acre site referred to locally as Clark's Beach. Fitteen acres of this site is owned by the Village of Greenport, but originally procured for the purpose of construction ora sewer processing plant. It is, however, totally within the Town of Southold, and its use for a fish hatchery will require the following actions: o Lease from the Village of Greenport. o Change of Zone (now zoned R-80 Residential) from the Town of Southold. o Zoning variance (parking) o A Coastal Erosion Permit from the Town of Southold. o A Consistency Review from New York State Department of State Coastal Zone Management. o Site Plan Approval - Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport. I - 77 O O O O O Utility connections - water, sanitary, and electrical - approval from the Village of Greenport. Water and Sanitary plans - Village of Greenport and Suffolk County Department of Health. A SPDES Permit - New York State D.E.C. A Site Plan coordinated review with Suffolk County Planning Board. A Building Permit from the Town of Southold. The ability to lease this 15 acre site from the Village of Crreenport is justified based upon Greenport's objectives to increase local economic development and related public benefits. The lease of a County owned 2 acre parcel which is immediately adjacem to that owned by the Village of Greenport will also be required. The previously described property for the Hatchery is not adequate to provide the other required support facilities which include the laboratories, storage, visitors center, and other related support activities. Therefore, this second property, now owned by the County of Suffolk, is proposed to be used for the above activities and thus would require the following I - 78 actions: o Lease or purchase from the County of Suffolk; o A Change of Zone - now zoned R-80 Residential - from the Town of Southold; o Variance (parking) o A Site Plan Approval - Town of Southold; Utility connections - water, sanitary, and electrical approval from the Village of Greenport; Water and Sanitary plans - Village of Greenport and Suffolk County Department of Health; A Site Plan and coordinated review with the Suffolk County Planning Board; and A Building Permit from the Town of Southold. O O O The ability to lease this 2 acre site from the County of Suffolk is justified based upon Suffolk County's long term objectives for economic development and related public benefits. Processing Site The Winter Harbor Fisheries property has been proposed for processing, loading, unloading and feed storage. This 3.3 acre property is presently leased by Mariculture I - 79 Technologies, Inc. for ten (10) years for the purposes of loading and off-loading vessel and boat dockage, feed storage, fish processing, and parking facilities. This land area is currently zoned as Waterfront Commercial, for which the proposed uses are permitted. However, the improvements for the loading and off-loading facilities will require: o Village of Greenport Wetlands Permit; o Coastal Zone Management Consistency Review by the New York State Department of State; o Navigable Waters Permit by the Corps of Engineers; o Site Plan by the Village of Greenport which include employee parking and vessel loading and off-loading facilities (see Appendix B.). AQUATIC SITES The proposed grow out site consists of a rectangular tract of 200 acres (1.0 miles X 0.32 miles) located in Gardiner's Bay (See Figure 2). The waters and bottom are both owned and under the jurisdiction of the State of New York. Permits and Approvals for I- 80 the use of this area will include the following: 0 0 0 Water Column Lease from the State of New York; Navigable Waters Permit from the Corps of Engineers; Aids to Navigation Permit from the United States Coast Guard. It is generally perceived that all the New York State Waters are held in public trus~. However, such lands are commonly devoted to private use. Perhaps the best example of public lands extended for private use includes marinas. That is, most marinas include structures (i.e. docks) extended over public bottom lands which provide for exclusive private use of same. A second example whereby public lands are devoted to private use includes the installation offish traps and gill nets in State Waters. Fish traps clearly limit navigation and use of the public waters. Even so, fish traps are widely permitted by New York State as a matter of economic development. Finally, the lease of public land for the commercial culture of shellfish is common in New York State. Such leases are also granted as to enhance economic development. Therefore, there is ample precedent for securing exclusive rights for use of surface and underwater areas. As with the above discussed 1-81 examples, the proposed lease agreement between Mariculture Technologies, Inc. and the State of New York will have the benefit of enhancing economic development in the State of New York. Accordingly, the granting of such lease by the State of New York is justified. I- 82 The operations can be described in terms of location as follows: Net Pen Operations: A variety of operations will occur at the net pen grow-out site. They will include security. It is proposed that security personnel will be provided around the clock, seven (7) days a week. The security personnel are proposed to stay aboard a 30 foot crew boat, which will be equipped with sleeping quarters, sanitary, and galley facilities for up to two (2) people. During the six (6) month Grow-Out period, the net pens will be serviced daily by dive personnel who will inspect the fish to evaluate their condition, health, disease, and general well being. They will also determine whether the summer flounder are currently being fed an adequate amount of feed. Finally, they will also remove any dead fish ("morts") from the pens for transport to the fi.eight vessel for movement back to Greenport for waste processing. The feeding operation will include the unloading of the feed fi.om the aqua-truck freight vessel into outboard powered skiffs, which will move the bags of feed to each of the net pens. As stated above, these operations are scheduled daily except when weather conditions would prohibit the safe movement of personnel I- 87 and feed. The harvest operation is expected to take place over a minimum period of two (2) months in which the bottom of the net pen will be raised to within several feet of the surface to permit easy removal of the fish from the net pens imo water filled comalners. The summer flounder will be hoisted aboard the freight vessel for transport back to the processing site. Land Operations: The loading and offloading facilities will be at the Winter Harbor Fisheries Site on Sterling Avenue in Greenport (see Site Plan- Appendix B.). These operations that will take place include: the onloading of fingerling summer flounder fi.om the hatchery, feed, and materials as well as off-loading of the morts from the hatchery and the net pens for separate non-food related processing. Transportation of necessary personnel to and from the net pens will also occur from the Winter Harbor Fisheries Site. The vehicle movement over roads is of interest, not only to the Village but also to the local residents. Accordingly, the use of a company owned bus to transport a significant portion of employees to and from the processing site is under consideration as the project reaches Phases IV I - 88 through VI. The following Table 14. depicts the projected vehicle movements at the Wimer Harbor Fisheries Processing Site for all phases of the project. TABLE 14. VEHICLE ROUND TRIPS/DAY WINTER HARBOR FISHERIES EMPLOYEE TRUCK TRUCK PHASE VEHICLES DELIVERIES (1) SHIPMENTS (2) I 17 2 4 II 20 2 4 III 44 2 4 IV 50 (23) (3) 3 6 V 60 (59) (3) 5 8 VI 70 (104) (3) 6 10 o) DELrv~VaeS eaCLt~E S~PLmS, rem HATC~R¥ MORTS (2) S~NTS - US~LE WAS~ ~RTm~ ~ ~O~N C~) (3) ASSES O~R SCUDDED BUS T~SPORTATION FOR E~LO~E ~ERS I- 89 Transportation is an important aspect in the culture of summer flounder. The transportation includes the following groups of operations: 0 0 Movement of the Fingerlings from the hatchery site to the loading site at Winter Harbor Fisheries in Stiding Harbor. This will be done by enclosed tanks trucked to the site. Movement of the Finger!ings to the Grow-Out Site. This involves the water transportation of fingerlings in the aforementioned enclosed tanks from the loading site in Greenport to the Grow-Out Site in Gardiner's Bay. This operation also includes the movement of crew personnel to service and maintain the net pens. Initially, one (1) freight type vessel similar to an Aqua-Truck, and two (2) crew/service vessels approximately 30 feet in length are proposed. Phases IV through VI of the proposed project will require two (2) Aqua truck type vessels as a minimum. The transportation of live fish also includes the harvesting of the fish at the end of the Grow-Out period and the subsequent loading of same onto a freight vessel for transportation back to the fish processing site. As the fish will need to be fed and the net pens serviced daily, there will I - 90 be daily trips of both the freight type vessel transporting feed, and the crew type vessels transporting personnel to and from the Grow-Out Site. In addition, one of the crew vessels will provide the needed on site security. 2. SCHEDULE OF OPERATION The culture methods employed for summer flounder are categorized by the following operations as follows: (1) the capture, maintenance and conditioning of wild stock adults for breeding purposes (broodstock); (2) the rearing of early larval stage flatfish through metamorphosis; (3) the weaning of post metamorphosed summer flounder omo artificial diets; (4) the rearing of post larvae summer flounder to the fingerling stage, (5) the rearing of fingerlings; and (6) the growout to marketable size fish in ocean net pens. The first five stages set forth above are to take place at a site known as Clark's Beach in the Town of Southold. The final stage set forth above will take place in ocean net pens which will be gradually deployed over a six year period. A quantitative summary of each of the above listed operations is contained in the Phase Outline Schedules enclosed herein. 1-91 5. DISPOSAL OF UNSUITABLE MATEKIALS Materials of concern include fish feces, uneaten feed, and dead fish from both the hatchery and the net pen grow out site, as well as the unusable waste from the processing facility. As previously stated, all dead fish from the hatchery and the grow out site will be taken to the Winter Harbor Fisheries Processing Plant on a daily basis. These dead fish will be processed through a Paoli Processing Device (See Appendix K.) reserved for only non food related processing. The product of this processing is expected to be separated into the following products: Fertilizer 75% Chum Logs 23% Unusable Waste 2% The unusable portion of the waste constitutes materials that are washed off' in the cleaning of the processing equipment. These materials will be filtered or settled to remove the majority of the solids. This is necessary to meet waste effluent criteria as not to exceed 300 mg/L of either BOD or suspended solids. The solids removed by this process will be combined with the I - 156 unusable waste generated by the processing of the marketable summer flounder and transported to an appropriate waste disposal facility. The unusable waste generated by the processing of the marketable summer flounder and morts constitutes 2 % of the total waste product. The residual water is discarded with ordinary sewage leaving the plant which will subsequently undergo sewage treatment at the Village of Greenport Sewage Treatment Plant. Accordingly, the disposal of this residual water will not cause processing difficulties at the Village of Greenport Sewage Treatment Plant. Fish waste and uneaten food in the hatchery waters will be collected as settleable solids through a centrifuge process. The thickened solids will be directed to a sludge holding tank for storage prior to transport to an appropriate disposal facility. At the proposed grow out site, fish waste and unconsumed feed is expected to exit the net pens as the fish are fed and excrete waste. There is no technology available to collect these wastes. However, the growout site experiences high velocity current I- 157 prevalent throughout the area. It is expected that these currents will promote wide dispersal over several square miles thereby precluding any deleterious effect these materials may have. ~WET VERSES DRY FEED A moist sinking pellet is proposed as the preferred food for the net pen culture of summer flounder. The moisture content of Moore Clarks Extruded Mahi Mahi diet is 7 to 8%. Additionally, these food pellets will sink at a rate of approximately one meter in ten seconds. 7. DISPOSAL OF FISH PROCESSING WASTE The methods by which culture summer flounder are to be processed was applied to the disposal of fish processing waste as set forth above. Essentially, disposal offish processing waste is limited to approximately 2% of the processed summer flounder consisting mainly of blood and perhaps some scales which are collected in the dally cleaning operations (hosing) of the processing plant. These materials will be collected and disposed of at an appropriate waste disposal facility. I-158 In addition to the processing waste, the dead fish "morts" from both the hatchery and the grow-out site will be collected on a daily basis, transported to the processing plant and processed in the same manner as the processing waste using the second Paoli Processing Device reserved for non food purposes. The quantities of same are included in the Phase Outline Schedule as the difference between the numbers and weights offish stocked versus that which is removed for each phase and function. (See the Phase Outline Schedules.) A summary of the projected fish waste by phase and function, along with its disposition, is included in the following Table 22. TABLE 22. FISH WASTE PROCESSING FISH WASTE/DAY ( 1)LB/DAY PHASE TOTAL FERTILIZER FROZEN CHUM UNUSABLE LOGS WASTE I 100 75 23 2 II 300 225 69 6 HI 1100 825 253 22 IV 1700 1275 391 34 V 4500 3375 1035 90 VI 7500 5625 1725 150 (1) ASSUMES THAT PORTIONS OF FINGERLING AND GROW OUT COULD OCCUR SIMULTANEOUSLY AND THAT THE JUVENILE AND PROCESSING PHASES COULD OCCUR SIMULTANEOUSLY. I- 159 III Significant Environmental Impacts A. WATER QUALITY Water quality can be impacted from two possible sources in the proposed project which include the following: 1. HATCHERY The operation of the proposed hatchery will have the potential to generate significant quantities of BOD, nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended solids. The hatchery water system is expected to include the following: O Salt water wells as the supply for hatchery water make up; Water Circulating Treatment Systems to remove excess food, feces, oxygen demand, ammonia, nitrite, nitrates and phosphates. The dissolved ammonia in the water will be converted to nitrite and subsequently nitrate utilizing a combination of biological filters and sequencing batch reactor technologies; III - 1 A Sludge Collection System to receive solid material from the Circulation Treatment System; and A disinfection system utilizing ozone or UV sterilization. The hatchery at Clarks Beach will reach full production in Phase IV during May 1998. The masses offish present in the hatchery during Phases I through IV have been calculated for each month. The hatchery system will require complete volumetric circulation through the treatment system every 2 hours with a 1.9 million gallons exchanged each time. This means that the recirculation pump ~1 ~mtt-will have to pump a total of 23 million gallons per day. Fish culture generates several contaminants of concern to water quality which include the following: Biological Oxygen and BOD: The amount of dissolved oxygen that microorganisms will consume in the biological oxidation of organic matter. An increase in BOD will be primarily from fish feces and unconsumed feed. BOD is also associated with the organic and nutrient portion of the waste treatment and may be either suspended or dissolved. III - 2 Nitrogen (N): The fish feces and fish feed contain quantities of organic nitrogen that can degrade into ammonia-nitrogen by bacterial action. Ammonia nitrogen (NH4) is also an end product offish metabolism. NH4 is toxic to fish and must be removed or converted to nitrate- nitrogen ("NO3") as part of the circulation process. Ammonia-nitrogen would be converted to nitrate-nitrogen by biological oxidation. Nitrate nitrogen is not of particular concern with regard to fish culture. NO3 is either flushed from the system during solid removal (Bovendeur, et. al., 1987) or that denitrification takes place during the aeration process (Tchobanoglous and Schroeder, 1985; Spotte, 1979). The level of nitrates as total nitrogen is not of concern to the receiving waters as studies of Long Island Sound have shown that keeping the levels of nitrogen static or reducing nitrogen will improve the water quality if the Sound. Phosphorus (P): A certain amount of phosphorus will also be discharged into the circulation system with the fish feces. Suspended Solids: The solid content of unused feed and fish feces will also result in an increase in the amount of suspended solids in the hatchery water and into the effluent. III - 3 The feed composition, the feed rate, and the fish metabolic rate ail effect water quaiity. The byproducts offish metabolism include carbon dioxide, ammonia, nitrogen, and fecal solids. The water flow through the hatchery along with the rate of feeding and fish metabolism have a significant impact on the quaiity of the water in the system (Losordo, In publication). Pelletized feed generally have a protein content of 50% to 60%. If not assimilated by the fish, these pellets produce a high organic waste which can impact water quaiity, primarily dissolved oxygen and ammonia ("NH4"). In order to predict the amount of waste that will be generated at the proposed hatchery, an anaiysis of the proposed hatchery system was conducted by Cameron Engineering, P.C. ("Cameron") of Westbury, NY. (See Appendix T.). Their anaiysis included a review of the literature pertaining to hatchery recirculation systems as well as information in the Phase Outline Schedules enclosed herein. III - 4 There are four methods used to calculate the amount of waste generated in a hatchery. Two methods utilize the biomass of the fish present in the hatchery while the other two methods use the amount of feed distributed to the cultured fish on a daily basis. Cameron based their estimates upon an average of all four methods investigated. The volumes of water discharged into the receiving waters must also be considered. The projected water volumes to be discharged into the receiving waters are as follows: CM/DAY GD Phase I & IA 46 12,150 Phase II & IIA 200 52,800 Phase III & IlIA 678 178,200 Phase IV & IVA 1,500 396,000 CM/DAY = Cubic Meters per Day GD = Gallons per Day The above volumes of water discharged represent the backwash water from the final polishing filter in addition to a 20 % volumetric water change of the hatchery system water per day. The only additional discharge from the III - 5 hatchet3' will be that resulting from the occasional cleaning of the hatchery tanks. Given the above listed volumes, and the mass offish present in the hatchery at a given time, it is possible to predict the total amount and concentration of nitrogen, BOD, suspended solids (SS), nitrogen and phosphorus generated by the hatchery system each day. May 1998 through April 1999 represents the period of peak operation of the proposed hatchery. Table 37. projects the average waste characterization for this time period. From Table 37, the average BOD generated is estimated to be 10,508 pounds per day in April 1999 (Phase IV). In a totally closed recirculation system, it is expected that the BOD loading would be reduced by 90% resulting in a concentration of approximately 5.5 mg/L remaining in the hatchery water. It is estimated that 11,873 pounds of suspended solids will be generated each day. In a closed recirculation system, it is III - 6 Table 37. Waste Characterization - Summary of References Month .............. 1000 K Mass of Fish May 1998 27 June 157 July 287 August 417 September 547 November 28 December 158 January 1999 287 February 419 March 562 April 705 Average Average Pounds of Pounds of Pounds of Feed BOD Nitrgg~n 1307 402 61 18 7599 2340 356 107 13891 4278 651 196 20183 6215 945 285 26475 8153 1240 374 1355 417 63 19 7647 2355 358 108 13891 4278 651 196 20280 6245 950 286 27201 8377 1274 384 34122 10508 1598 482 Average Average Pounds of Pounds of Phosphg~gus~__~spended ~91ids 455 2644 4833 7023 9212 472 2661 4833 7056 9465 11873 expected that the suspended solids level could be maintained at a 90% reduction level resulting in a SS concentration of approximately 6.2 mg/L remaining in the hatchery water. An estimated 1,598 pounds of nitrogen would be generated per day in the hatchery. In a closed system, the nitrogen in the system would be converted into nitrate-nitrogen. The amount of nitrogen would be reduced resulting in a concentration less than 6.0 mg/L in the hatchery water. At peak operation, it is expected that a total of 642 pounds of phosphorus will be generated per day. In a closed recirculation system, the level of phosphorus could be lowered to less than 1.7 mg/L through chemical addition, settling and filtration. The volume of water discharged from the hatchery in addition to the known concentrations of BOD, suspended solids, nitrogen and phosphorus in the hatchery water can be used to calculate the amount discharged per day of each of the above components. These calculations are summarized below: III - 8 BOD 5.5 mg,'L 525 lbs/day SS 6.2 mg/L 593 lbs/day N <6.0 mg/L 96 lbs/day P <1.7 mg/L 26 lbs/day Because of the high volume of flow, the concentrations appear low, yet the mass loadings calculated from the total daily flow are significant. It should be noted that these values represent a 90 % to 95 % reduction of the volume waste load expected to be generated within the hatchery. That is, only 5% to 10 % of the waste generated will enter the receiving waters. As previously discussed herein, all the hatchery tanks and piping will need to be leached for a period of at least two weeks to remove any contaminants. It should be noted that these contaminants are residual, originating from the manufacture of the tanks and piping. Leaching of new tanks is standard practice in the aquaculture industry and any contaminants resulting would be present in trace amounts below the detectable limits of standard testing methods. In addition, as the contaminants would be present III - 9 in the hatchery effluent for a relatively short period of time, it is expected that there would be no adverse effect upon the surrounding environment resulting from their discharge. 2. OFFSHORE NET PENS As previously stated herein, the water quality classification for the waters of the proposed net pen grow out site is "SA". The impact to the existing water quality occurring through the operation of the offshore net pens has been calculated based on the average total weight offish, and the average amounts of feed fed each day. The amounts of BOD, Suspended Solids, nitrogen and phosphorus can also be predicted based on the average total weight offish in the pens for each phase of the operation and each month of the grow out. The loading from the net pens for Phases I through VI are summarized in the following tables: TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY RECORD CARD ,/~--~/6 SUB. LOT L~'~ ~I ~.~.~.~...,,..~.~ ? ~ RES. S~S. VL. ~/~ FARM COMM. CB. ~: Mkt. Value LAND IMP. TOTAL DATE REMARKS ~E .U~LD~NG CONDmON N~ NORMAL BELOW ABOVE FARM Acre Value Per Value Acre Tillable 1 THIoble 3 Woodlond Swampland FRONTAGE ON WATER //~l d I Brushland FRONTAGE ON ROAD ~] ~ [j I~ouse Pmot DEPTH ~'/ t.l.(f~( BULKH~D Total DOCK '¸2 .~.:;~ ~- 2 HAP OF' F'ROPFE.~Ty :~,,,, .. :.ZV. ILLAGE OF C,q"~EEi',4PO2T "~" . . ~0~ CLARKS BEACH LEASE PROPOSAL For the purpose of the state-of-the-art harchery facility, aquaculture laboratory, educational and tourism facility. Project would bring jobs as detailed in Business Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. Total acreage of site - 15 Acres. Approximate leased acreage - 10 Acres (excluding beach/bluff area and access road and public parking). Mariculture Technologies, Inc. would be responsible for the following site improvemehts in lieu of rent: 1. Clean up of site and related debris. 2. Paved roadway and parking area for public access to beach. 3. Upgrade of existing municipal outfall pipe. 4. Extension of electrical primary from Village to hatchery site to include sub- station. Lease must be for a period of at least forty (40) years to qualify for public funds. Lease is subject to all necessary permits. Lease would terminate in five (5) years if improvements are not initiated. Construction is planned to begin in the Fall of 1995. Mariculture Technologies, Inc. will assume all taxes including improvements on leased portion of site. Lease would be contingent on: 1. Hook up and service to Greenport Utilities - water, sewer, and electric. (Maric~tture Technologies, Inc. would asssume cost involved in installation of Village electrical service.) 2. Connection to municipal outfall pipe on site for discharge of salt water. 3. Release of responsibility and ownership of beach area. 4. Successful development of salt water wells. Upon abandonment, Mariculture Technologies, Inc. would remove all equipment. Building(s) and improvements would remain. A firm commitment in the form of Lease, or at a minimum a solid Letter of Intent on the Village's behalf would be necessary within the next thirty (30) days. Scott A. Russell, Chairman Darline J. Duffy, Assessor Robert I. Scott Jr., Assessor BOARD OF ASSESSORS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town 1~ 53095 Main Ro~4 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York Telephone (516) 765-1 Fax (516) 7C>~.18~ Amended February 28, 1995 Estimate for Mariculture Technologies, Inc. SCTM~ 1000-40-1-23 Year One: Assessed Value 4000/land 13900/partial const 17900/Total Taxes $ 2,769.67 9t624.60 $12,394.27 Year Two through Year Eleven: Year Twelve: 4000/land 139000/building **125100/exempt Full Taxes * 276~97 9t624.60 $ 9,901.57 $99,015.63 *Assumes that land meet requirements set forth in RPTL 481 **Assumes that buildings meet requirements set forth in RPTL 483 Ail tax values are based on the tax rate established for fiscal 19~4/95 and are estimates. Estimate cost of construction $5,000,000 Estimate cost for qualifying structures $4,500,000 MONTH ORGANIC LOADING FROM NET PENS TABLE 38. PHASE I AVERAGE TOTAL ORGANIC WASTE BOD & SS WEIGHT OF FISH(l) KG/DAY (2) KG/DAY (3) NITRATE PHOSPHORUS KG/DAY (4) KG/DAY (5) ~AY 25,000 250 125 12 5 JUNE 30,000 300 150 15 6 JULY 35,000 350 175 18 7 AUG 40,000 400 200 20 8 SEPT 45,000 450 225 22 9 OCT 50,000 500 250 25 I0 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) FISH STOCKED AT 500 GRAMS EACH; HARVESTED AT ONE KILOGRAM. BASED ON 1.0 KG/100 KG OF FISH PER DAY. BASED ON 0.5 KG/100 KG OF FISH PER DAY. BASED ON 0.05 KG/100 KG OF FISH PER DAY. BASED ON 0.02 KG/100 KG OF FISH PER DAY. MONTH TABLE 39. PHASE II AVERAGE TOTAL ORGANIC WASTE BOD & SS WEIGHT OF FISH(I) KG/DAY (2) KG/DAY (3) NITRATE PHOSPHORUS KG/DAY (4) KG/DAY (5) MAY 80,000 800 400 40 16 JUNE 96,000 960 480 48 19 JULY 112,000 1120 560 56 22 AUG 128,000 1280 640 64 26 SEPT 144,000 1440 720 72 29 OCT 160,000 1600 800 80 32 III - 11 TABLE 40. PHASE III MONTH MAY IUNE fULY AUG SEPT OCT AVERAGE TOTAL ORGANIC WASTE BOD & SS NITRATE PHOSPHORUS WEIGHT OF FISH(l) KG/DAY (2) KG/DAY (3) KG/DAY (4) KG/DAY (5) 275,000 2750 1375 138 55 330,000 3300 1650 165 66 385,000 3850 1925 192 77 440,000 4400 2200 220 88 495,000 4950 2475 248 99 550,000 5500 2750 275 110 TABLE 41. PHASE IV MONTH AVERAGE TOTAL ORGANIC WASTE BOD & SS NITKATE PHOSPHORUS W'EIGHT OF FISH(l) KG/DAY (2) KG/DAY (3) KG/DAY (4) KG/DAY (5) MAY 610,000 6100 3050 305 122 JUNE 732,000 7320 3660 366 146 .rULy 854,000 8540 4270 427 171 AUG 976,000 9760 4880 480 195 SEPT 1,098,000 10,980 5490 549 220 OCT 1,220,000 12.200 6100 610 244 III - 12 TABLE 42. PHASE V MONTH AVERAGE TOTAL ORGANIC WASTE BOD & SS NITRATE PHOSPHORUS WEIGHT OF FISH(l) KG/DAY (2) KG/DAY (3) KG/DAY (4) KG/DAY (5) MAY 1.665,000 16,650 8,325 832 333 JUNE 1,998,000 19.980 9,990 990 400 JULY 2,331,000 23,310 11,655 1166 466 AUG 2,664,000 26,640 13,320 1332 533 SEPT 2,997,000 29,970 14,985 1498 599 OCT 3,330,000 33,300 16.650 1670 670 TABLE 43. PHASE VI MONTH AVERAGE TOTAL ORGANIC WASTE BOD & SS NITRATE PHOSPHORUS WEIGHT OF FISH(l) KG/DAY (2) KG/DAY (3) KG/DAY (4) KG/DAY (5) MAY 2,775,000 27,750 13,870 1380 560 JUNE 3,330,000 33.300 16,650 1670 670 JULY 3,885.000 38,850 19,420 1940 780 AUG 4,440,000 44,400 22,200 2220 890 SEPT 4,995,000 49.950 24,980 2500 1000 OCT 5.550,000 55.500 27,750 2780 1110 III- 13 The average current velocities at the Gardiners Bay Site far exceed the minimum recommended by the Washington State Department of Fisheries for fish culture in net pens (1990). In addition, these current velocities will promote the wide dispersal of fish feces and unconsumed feed. The potential impact to the benthic environment resulting from this project is expected to be minimal due to the sparse community that exists at the proposed site. In fact, it is expected that the benthic community at the net pen site will increase in diversity and richness due to a small percentage increase in food availability. This enhancement of the benthic community will subsequently attract those invertebrates and fish which feed upon benthic organisms, which in turn will attract larger fishes such as striped bass (Morone saxa#lis) and bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix). It should be noted that it is in the best interest of Mariculture Technologies, Inc. to maintain excellent water quality at the proposed net pen site. Any degradation of water quality would undoubtedly detriment the growout of cultured summer flounder and the success of this proposed project. III - 14 B. TRANSPORTATION PROCESSING SITE Vehicle activity during Phases IV, V, and VI to and from the Winter Harbor Fisheries Processing Plant is expected to have some impact. The Village streets in the residential areas surrounding the Winter Harbor Fisheries Processing Plant are narrow. The vehicle movement to and from the fish processing site during Phase IV, V, and VI are tabulated as follows: PHASE EMPLOYEE TRUCK TRUCK VEHICLES DELIVERIES SHIPMENTS IV 73 3 2 V 119 5 8 VI 174 6 10 Access to the processing site from Route 48, is via Main Street to Sterling Avenue. Route 48 is the major truck route in the area. Alternate access for non truck vehicles is via Carpenter Street to Sterling Avenue. The employee vehicle round trips will occur over a twenty- III - 15 four hour period with the majority of them within the normal work day, Monday through Friday. The truck deliveries and shipments are expected to occur only during regular daylight hours. It should also be noted that the employee round trips do not take into account any potential car pooling, but are based on each employee driving their own vehicles. III- 16 Mitigation Measures to Minimize Environmental Impact A. HATCHERY The principal mitigation proposed to reduce the impact of water quality from the hatchery is to construct a water recirculation system. This system would provide for 5 % to 10 % of the total water flow to be discharged to Long Island Sound via the existing sewage outfall pipe at Clarks Beach. This discharge will be derived primarily from the backwash of the filters and partial volumetric water replacement of the culture tanks themselves. The hatchery recirculation system is expected to utilized a new technology developed by U.S. and European team effort specifically for fish hatchery recirculation systems (Caldwell, 1994). This system represents the state of the art in recirculation systems, utilizing a unique hatchery tank design with a patented particle trap. The particle trap removes 98 % of the fish waste and unconsumed feed from the hatchery tanks (Caldwell, 1994). This prevents the material from dissolving and degrading the water quality of the system. The process also includes mechamcal filtration to remove suspended solids from the hatchery water Biological filtration equipment would be included in the filtration system for nitrifying and potential denitrification. The system reduces the total BOD, suspended solids, nitrogen and phosphorus by 90 % to 95 % volumetrically. IV- 1 B. GROW OUT SITE Due to the high velocity current flows and the volumes of water passing through the proposed net pen site, it is expected that the fish feces and unconsumed feed will be dispersed over a wide area. Gowen et. al. (1990) characterized four general types of impacts resulting from intensive aquaculture operations which presumably would include this proposed project. They are: (1) the risk of hypernutfification; (2) benthic enrichment; (3) increase in biological oxygen demand; and (4) bacteriological changes. However, attempts to precisely model these environmental impacts within the context of defined aquaculture practices have proved extremely difficult. In deed, a modeling study conducted by Silvert (1992) indicated several weakness in utilizing such models. For example, certain conceptual problems arise when a model incorporating static quantities such annual yield are used in calculating highly variable quantities such as dissolved oxygen (Silvert, 1992). Furthermore, Silvert (1992) points out that estimates of the maximum safe degree of nutrient enrichment is difficult to obtain or even to define. The expected loadings in accordance with the various proposed implementation phases are set forth in the Phase Outline Schedule - IV - 2 Grow Out Function. A summary of the expected organic loadings with respect to the implementation phases based upon an assimilation efficiency of 50% is set forth below: Average organic waste loadings (K/Day) with respect to the proposed phases of implementation at the grow out site. Phase Organic Loading I 375 II 1200 HI 4100 IV 9200 V 25000 VI 42000 A central problem in predicting the resultant impact on water quality is the fact that the proposed grow out site can not be treated as a closed system. It is the position of Mariculture Technologies, Inc. that the resulting impacts to water quality will be insignificant due to the proximity of high current velocity (flushing) areas including Plum Gut, the Sluiceway and the Race to the proposed grow out site. However, even if, a static model was to be applied in this instance, the resultant estimated effect to primary production would remain highly speculative because the relationship between IV - 3 nutrient levels and primary production is not well established in marine waters (Schindler, 1979, O'Connor, 1979, Lee and Jones, 1979). In an apparent effort to supplant these and other significant reseamh gaps, the Washington State Department of Fisheries (1990) has published recommended siting criterion for intensive marine aquaculture and the State of Maine Department of Marine Resources (1992) developed a Finfish Aquaculture Monitoring Program. Importantly, as previously disclosed herein, the siting criterion for marine aquaculture as recommended by the Washington State Department of Fisheries (1990) has been met and exceeded in this application. The monitoring program established by the State of Maine Department of Marine Resources is comprised of three basic components. They are: (1) Diver Survey; (2) Water Quality Monitoring; and (3) Benthic Analysis. The Diver Survey includes the filming of the bottom land within the foot print of the net pens and extending 60 meters (200 feet) beyond the ends of the system along the axis of the primary current as well as the relative abundance characterization of aquatic fauna IV - 4 as follows: abundant, always present within the diver's view; common, seen occasionally throughout the dive and rare, only seen one or in a few places. Unfortunately, as previously described herein, the filming of the ocean floor will not provide any meaningful monitoring data in this instance because of poor visibility that exists today. Nevertheless, Mariculture Technologies, Inc. proposes to implement a diver survey to determine the relative abundance of aquatic flora in accordance with the specifications described above already adopted by the State of Maine. Two diver surveys will be conducted on an annual basis, one during the spring between April and May and one during the fall between October and November as consistent with the State of Maine Monitoring Requirements. Data gained from this monitoring exercise will be combined in an annual monitoring report to be forwarded to the NYSDEC for agency review. The water quality monitoring as now required by the State of Maine is comprised of direct measurement of dissolved oxygen, temperature and salinity. As consistent with the monitoring requirements of the State of Maine, water quality will be monitored in accordance with the following specifications: One water sample will be analyzed for dissolved oxygen, temperature and salinity every two weeks from July 1 st IV - 5 through September 30th. Samples will be collected down current from a centrally located peripheral net pen at mid cage depth no further than 5 meters (15 feet) from the net pen. (2) Two additional samples will be sampled at a distance of 100 meters (300 feet) from a centrally located peripheral net pen, one upgradient (up current) and one down gradient (down current). Analyses of dissolved 'oxygen will be conducted by a NYS Licensed Laboratory. Analysis of temperature will be conducted by probe and analysis of salinity will be conducted using a hand held refractometer. (3) A complete dissolved oxygen, temperature and salinity profile will be conducted annually during mid August at a central location in the grow out site. Ten equidistant samples and measurements will be taken throughout the water column in the early morning hours one hour before slack Iow water. As to further address the potential impacts of hyper- eutrophication and biological oxygen demand in nearby waters, Mariculture Technologies, Inc. proposes to expand on the requirements set forth by the State of Maine to IV - 6 include analysis of chlorophyll a, total nitrogen and biological oxygen demand. This proposal includes the collection of two samples one meter above the ocean floor (for oxygen demand and total nitrogen) and two samples one meter below the surface (for analysis of Chlorophyll a). Samples will be collected at a distance of 100 meters (300 feet) upgradient (up current) from a centrally located peripheral net pen and at a distance of 100 meters (300 feet) downgradient (down current) from a centrally located peripheral net pen. Upgradient samples versus down gradient samples will provide a basis of comparison to determine the environmental impacts, if any, related to the proposed project. Samples are to be collected on the same date during which the detailed dissolved oxygen, temperature and salinity profiles are taken, although subsequent to the profile measurements or slack low tide. Analytical measurements of chlorophyll a, total nitrogen and biological oxygen demand will be conducted by a NYS Licensed Laboratory, the results for which will be forwarded to the NYSDEC as part of the proposed annual monitoring report. IV - 7 Monitoring of the benthos as proposed is comprised of two components: sediment analysis and infauna analysis. As consistent with the monitoring requirements adopted by the State of Maine, these monitoring efforts will be conducted every other year commencing after implementation of Phase II. Due to the highly unconsolidated nature of the bottom sediments, sediment and benthic samples will be collected using a 0.1 M2 Smith- Maclntyre Benthic Grab as opposed to a plexiglass corer. Approximately 1/4 of the collected sample volume will be analyzed for sediment composition. The proposed sampling plan incorporates several of the peripheral sampling locations set forth in Sample Locations for Macrobenthic Invertebrate and Sediment Chemistry Sampling. Specifically, the proposed sampling sites include the following locations: l, 6, 10, 18, 20, and 5. (See Figure 30.) As consistent with the baseline benthic survey presented herein, sediment grain size analysis will be performed in accordance with methods set forth by the American Society for Testing and Materials (1993). Sediment samples will be analyzed for sediment grain size (% gravel, sand, silt, ect.). Additionally, grab samples will be analyzed for Total Organic Carbon by methods outlines in the EPA manual (1988) for sediment testing. The results of these analyses will be included in the proposed annual monitoring report IV - 8 0 1~5 ' 70 35- 0-.-. '~2 20' 22 22' Sampling Locations for Macrobenthic Invertebrate and Sediment Chemistry Sampling Figure 30. (eveN other year). Accordingly, these results as compared to the baseline results previously reported herein, will provide a basis to evaluate what impacts, if any, have resulted from the implementation of this proposed project. The remaining 3/4 of the 0.1M2 Smith-Maclntyre Grab will be washed through a 0.5 mm mesh sieve to remove fine particles. Invertebrates retained by the sieve will be identified to the lowest practical taxonomic level. Macrobenthic invertebrate densities for all proposed stations will be reported. Comparison between infauna previously collected as baseline data with infauna collected as part of this proposed monitoring program will provide a basis to evaluate what impacts, if any, have resulted from the implementation of this proposed project. It should be noted that it is in the best interest of Madculture Technologies, Inc. to maintain excellent water quality at the proposed net pen site. Any significant degradation of water quality would undoubtedly jeopardize the growout of cultured summer flounder and the success of this proposed project. Accordingly, with the approval of the NYS DEC, Mariculture Technologies, Inc. intends to implement the above stated monitoring program. IV- 10 C. TRANSPORTATION Madculture Technologies, Inc., is considering the use of an employee shuttle bus to mitigate traffic impacts as the proposed project enters Phase V. This bus would originate at central points in the local area to provide transportation of employees on regular work days. An analysis of the expected considered use 0fthis bus service will result in a projected reduction of employee vehicle round trips per day as follows: EMPLOYEE VEHICLE ROUND TRIPS PERDAY PHASE WITH BUS WITHOUT BUS V 60 119 VI 70 174 As appropriate, Mariculture Technologies, Inc. will encourage car pooling among its employees to further reduce the number of employee vehicle trips per day. IV-Il D. ECONOMIC BENEFITS The economic benefits of the proposed project include the following: O Need for economic growth which will result in'increased employment; Need for attracting clean industries compatible with the traditional industries of eastern Long Island specifically fishing and farming. This is especially true with the increasing numbers of fisherman unable to make a living from commercial fishing, and O Need for providing a high quality seafood product to the market place in a consistent basis to offset declines in the harvest of natural stock and to replace the revenue lost with those declines. The mitigation measures proposed herein will cause certain economic costs to Mariculture Technologies, Inc.. These costs include the following: IV - 12 Cost of two diver surveys per year of the proposed net pen site, Cost of collecting and analyzing samples for dissolved oxygen, temperature and salinity every two weeks from July 1st through September 30th at the net pen site, Cost of annual hydrographic profiles of the net pen site and subsequent laboratory analysis, Cost of BOD, total nitrogen, and Chlorophyll a monitoring and laboratory analysis, 0 Cost of sediment grain size analysis and TOC analysis every other year, Cost of benthic infaunal sampling and analysis every other year, Cost of construction and operation of a closed recirculation system for the hatchery water treatment, and Cost of maintaining and operating a company owned shuttle bus to minimize impacts due to increased traffic. IV - 13 VII Alternatives ALTERNATIVE SITES The proposed culture of summer flounder encompasses three basic components. They are: (1) Hatchery; (2) Grow-out; and (3) Processing. Mariculture Technologies, Inc. conducted a rather detailed assessment for site selection with respect to each of the three components which culminated in the selection of Clarks Beach for the hatchery site, the northeastern portion of Gardeners Bay for the grow-out site, and Winter Harbor Fisheries for the processing site. The site selection process encompasses due consideration of the following factors: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) The biological constraints of summer flounder; Availability of land as related to the proper sizing of all facilities to achieve maximum culture efficiency; Suitability of alternate sites to accommodate design requirements; Restriction of aquaculture from navigational channels; Environmental impact mitigation; Mitigation of all possible use conflicts; Compatibility with regional objectives; (8) Accessibility of site; (9) Water quality at hatchery and pen sites; (I0) Proximity of the proposed facilities to any point source discharges or facilities; and (11) Economic considerations. In evaluation of all three components of the overall project with respect to each of the three components, several of the above listed selection factors did not play a role in evaluation of preferred sites and their alternatives. For example, selection of the hatchery site was not influenced by compatibility of regional objectives as the only stated regional objective was set forth in the Aquaculture Planning Act of 1983 and the New York Sea Grant Study (1985) which followed. Neither the legislative act nor the study set forth specific locations where aquaculture should take place. Similarly, the site selection process for the grow-out and processing components was not influenced by point source discharges as none were found proximate to any of the alternative grow-out sites and the selection of a processing site would be not be influenced by this criterion. Obviously, the selection of the hatchery site was not influenced by restriction of aquaculture from navigational channels as no docking facilities are proposed at the hatchery site. VII - 2 Nevertheless, where applicable, the remaining factors were applied in selection of sites to accommodate facilities for each of the project components as follows: Hatchery Site Perhaps the most fundamental consideration in the selection of any hatchery site is its location Proximate to the coastal environment. It is clear that any hatchery facility for the culture of marine species requires a coastal location to insure availability of salt water whether derived from direct intake of coastal waters or by salt water well(s). Furthermore, any marine hatchery facility requires the ability to discharge saline waters back into a coastal environment. That is, discharge of saline waters in an upland area such as a recharge basin or sump would cause severe adverse impacts on the freshwater aquifer for which the entire population of Suffolk County relies on for potable water supplies. Discharge of hatchery effluent into an upland receiving facility would cause salt water contamination to the aquifer and desalination of hatchery effluents is clearly cost prohibited. Even so, available sites adjacent to the coast are extremely limited. In fact, most adjacent areas to the coast have already been developed in Eastern Suffolk County. These development patterns were established over many decades as the economy of past times was in large part driven by fishing and other water dependent uses. VII - 3 Alternative hatchery sites were considered early in the selection process with the end result clearly indicating the proposed Clarks Beach Site to be far superior in several respects for the mass culture of summer flounder than all other sites potentially available to Mariculture Technologies, Inc.. Initially, it was believed that the Winter Harbor Fisheries Site could accommodate a hatchery in addition to a processing facility. The Winter Harbor Fisheries site includes the existing processing facility on the south side of Sterling Avenue which presently is underutilized along with the approximate half acre undeveloped lot adjacent to and north of the processing site across Sterling Avenue. Upon determination of the needed floor space required for the culture of summer flounder, the Winter Harbor Fisheries Site was quickly ruled out. Phase I of the Hatchery Function as set forth in Phase Outline Schedule requiring one or more building structures of at least 3090 square feet could be accommodated on the vacant lot across the street from the existing Winter Harbor Fisheries Processing Plant. While Phase II of the Hatchery Function as set forth in the Phase Outline Schedule requires a building structure of at least 9610 square feet which conceivably could also be accommodated in the vacant lot across the Winter Harbor Fisheries Site, these area estimates include only the space required for the proposed tanks themselves, thereby excluding all support facilities associated therewith. Accordingly, a building structure located on the vacant lot would greatly exceed 9610 square feet thereby encompassing nearly all of this lot. Additional support facilities most particularly including parking could not be accommodated on this vacant lot thus from a practical stand point, the vacant lot across the street from the existing Winter Harbor Processing Facility would not be of sufficient size to accommodate the culture of summer flounder at Phase II. Finally, Mariculture Technologies, Inc. decided that a proposal for the use of the entire area of the vacant lot across the street from Winter Harbor Fisheries Processing Plant might lead to use conflicts or at least heightened quality of life concerns expressed by the adjacent residents to the north of this site. In the early planning stages for this proposal, the use of the Winter Harbor Fisheries Processing Facility for one or more of the hatchery functions was considered. However, these considerations resulted in the conclusion that the required retrofitting of the existing structures at the Winter Harbor Fisheries Processing Building was cost prohibited. Consideration was also given to a multitude of other sites located in Towns west of Southold. All such sites were quickly ruled out in VII - 5 the selection process due to extended transportation time of fingerlings to the grow-out site. The extended transportation time required ~o link the hatchery function with the grow-out function would result in greatly increased trucking costs, higher risk of fingerling mortality due to the greater amount of time for which fingerlings would be held in live wells on trucks during transportation, and higher liability which results in increased insurance premiums over fish transport. The choice of the Clarks Beach Site is one that has clear advantages in terms of use conflicts, quality of life issues, and local economic development. Use conflicts over the Clarks Beach site is minimal. Due to the location of the sewage treatment outfall at Clarks Beach, the adjacent coastal waters are not desirable from the standpoint of swimming or bathing. Presently, the Clarks Beach Site is under-utilized. The Clarks Beach Site is significantly buffered from nearly all of the surrounding residential development. The site is adjacent to the Long Island Sound to the north and County Road 48 to the south. Additionally, the County of Suffolk holds title to an approximate 36 acre parcel to the east which is bordered by a small parcel held by the Town of Southold. Only two dwellings are located adjacent to the Clarks Beach Site. The first dwelling is located on an out parcel adjacent to the Clarks Beach Site to the west and the second dwelling across County Road 48 to the south. Accordingly, the potential impact of the proposed hatchery site to the surrounding neighborhood is minimal. Finally, the choice of Clarks Beach as the preferred hatchery site has other definite economic advantages. These advantages include the following: (1) proximity to the coast; (2) available electric hook-up to the Village of Greenport resulting in significantly reduced power rates over that assessed by LILCO; (3) available hook up for hatchery discharge into the existing discharge point presently utilized by the Village of Greenport Sewage Treatment Plant; and (4) available hook up of both water and sewage to the Village of Greenport Water and Sewage Treatment Plant to accommodate the water usage and sewage generation of personnel and visitors. Grow-out Function As graphically portrayed and described throughout this EIS, the proposed net pen site is located in the northeastern portion of Gardeners Bay. However, prior to selecting this location for grow- out, Mariculture Technologies, Inc. considered a number of other sites. These sites included a 200 acre site in the Long Island Sound adjacent to LILCO's Shoreham Facility, a second 200 acre site on VII - 7 the southwestern side of Gardener's Island locally known as Cherry Harbor, and a third 200 acre site adjacent to and south of the proposed net pen grow-out site. There were no significant differences among the three alternative sites for grow-out with respect to availability of land, compatibility with regional objectives and point source discharges or facilities. All alternative grow-out sites are found in open water thereby satisfying the design criterion of availability of land. With respect to compatibility with regional objectives, the only stated regional policy pertaining to aquaculture was found in the Aquaculture Planning Act of 1983 and the New York Sea Grant Institute Study (1985) which followed. Neither the legislative act nor the technical study included site specific recommendations as to where net pen culture could take place. Rather, these planning initiatives sought to encourage the expansion of aquaculture in New York State. Accordingly, all three alternative grow-out sites are compatible with regional objectives. Finally, no point sources discharges were found in close proximity to any of the alternative grow-out sites. Even with respect to the proposed grow-out site and the alternative adjacent site, the only point source discharge in the vicinity was found on the north side of Plum Island far away from these sites. Nevertheless, a host of other physical, biological, and social factors resulted in the selection of the proposed grow- VII - 8 January 24, 1996 Michael Marran Mariculture Technologies, Inc. P.O.Box 461 Greenport, New York 11944 Dear Mr. Marran, This is to confirm our telephone conversation yesterday, during which you accepted the Southold Town Planning Board's invitation to attend its next meeting on January 29th. As I mentioned, the Planning Board is reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for your company's proposal to establish a finfish hatchery at the Clarks Beach site in Greenport. Before sending comments to the State Department of Environmental Conservation, the Board would like to have an opportunity to obtain a better understanding of the proposal from the project sponsors. You are scheduled to appear at the end of the Planning Board's regular public meeting, which will begin at 7:30 PM on Monday, the 29th of January. The meeting will be held in the Meeting Hall off the main lobby in Southold Town Hall. I suggest you arrive by 8:00 PM. If you have presentation graphics, feel free to bring them. We look forward to meeting you and hearing about your proposal. Sincerely, Valerie Scopaz Town Planner for Richard G. Ward Chairman PROPOSED FINFISH AQUACULTURE PROJECT - by MARICULTURE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Proposal includes: construction of 270,000 square feet of building on 15 acres owned by the Village of Greenport and 2 acres owned by the County of Suffolk. Thirty four parking spaces would be required to service the three proposed buildings. The buildings would include a hatchery, water processing center, support services area, laboratories and a visitor's center. lease of the Village and County property to the company for 40 years. sinking of a salt-water well capable of pumping 300 gallons per minute or 400,000 gallons per day. - repair of sewer outfall pipe for the Village of Greenport. Fish Farm Lease. Inked GREENPORT--Aftar five years of bureaucratic barriers, it looks like Marl- culutre Technologies Inc. is in business. . Since 1992, MTI has been working to i 'establish a fish farm project in the vii- · lake, and has encountered mountains of · paperwork from dozens'pt regulatory i'~,il!~g~ p~rty lc~e aRomcys, for both "lt'~ a 'don~' d¢~l, so't~ sp.eak,' said · .~ attorney Fred ~edes~hi, the village's special court'ct on.the matter. "It took a lot of banging out, but we did it." On Monday ~vening, the Village Board met with attorneys in closed session to discuss a proposed 40-year MTI lease at Greenport's Clarks Beach properly on Long Island Sound. Renting the property from the village, the company would use it for a hatcher~ to raise summer flounder (a.k.a. fluke) from eggs into fingerlings. MT1-then plans on rearing fha fish to maturity in grow-o~t pens proposed for the south side of Plum Island. Local officials were tight-lipped about the deal Mr. Tedeschi did, howev- er, discuss some aspects of the arrange- ment The 40-year deal includes a grad- uated rent schedule that ~iv~/s MTI a chance to get up and running while pro- viding for possible cost increases in "We hav~a iXetty iron-bound formula that protects both sides,~'; Mr.~Tedeschi said. "It's going to bn beneficial for both sides.- It's fair for the village and ' it's very fair t6 Mariculiur~ Tecboolo- Both ~h~ h'~fch~vj'ahd-the:pens in- Volve pote-n~tial e'~r~nmental' impacts, plus there are navigational, recreational -~und logistical;~m~lic~tions. That's meant invol, v, emant:by .federal, slate, county~,~town: and village agencies, and criticism- from environmuntul~ and: fish- '.ing-indnsU'y groups. Now MTI.~bfficiuls say village ap- proval of the:l~ase will put the venture in motion. With a signed lease, the com- pany will have fluke fry in the Plum Island pens by April,' heading for a his- See Flab Farm, page 22 Fish Farm... From page 7 toric fall harvest, the first of its kind in the state. The Village Trustees have voiced strong support for MTI and the Green- port business community has pushed the project as a means to bring more than 100 year-round jobs to the village. Right now. MTI reportedly has 45,000 baby fluke growing in a New Hampshire hatcbe~. After the lease is signed, all that re- mains for installation of the hatchery is a zone change from Southold Town. The village may own the property but it lies inside Southold and Town 'Board approval is needed for a zone change from residential to marine use. No zone change application has been made, but early word from the town has been mixed. Officials from the Southold Board of Trustees have written letters condemning the Plum Island plan be- cause, they say, the area.is actively used for commercial and recreational fishing purposes. "It's imperative that we do everything possible to preserve access to these underwater lands," wrote hayman and Southold Trustee Pete~ Wenczel in a Jan. I letter to the Del~artment of State. "There's no doubt that the area off the south side of Plum Island is intensely used by both commercial and recreationa! inierests.?j_ ' ' PfeJeet map shews Um flak katcbeq pen cite lecaflen off Plum Idand, Fish Far 'Swim,s- C)n Hatchery plans enter fi~l paperwork ph~e f By ~m Wa~or '~ ":~': ' '. ' ~ ~~ Co~a, n flou~ h~h~ ~ ~ B~h' ~ ~mmm~ ~ ~ ~e ~ off ~ ~um l~d ~ way ~ ~ f~ ~m~cl~ofa, ;-;-~ . ~ ;*~ Id ~t be m~ ~t of ~ng ~ge ~n- B~t ~g m~h of ~e ~ ~ ~e[ 'We~m In 1~, and SEQR p~ "It's ~ ~ of i~ ~nd in ~ c~n~. ~ ~ So~S m ~ ~m~ ~]." '. :' ~, ' g~lng fish In 1~7.' fl~d~ ~ah ~ on ~ it ~U: ~f ~ '~oj~t on ~tmm.dwelling ~ ~ m~g ~ ~ ~ e~ ' ~e'~ ~g a lot of what we're ~ fmgerling~ ~ ~y ~ ~ ~2~ going ~. W~, ~ong w · ~ En~2' ' wh~l? ~ ye ~ ~1 ~ work; ~t s m~ C~fi~ ~c., ~ a ag~m~gin." fi~-~ch-~ck ~ ~ im- p~t smt~t ~S~ ~ w~t ~css, which ~lu~ wi~ ~ ' e~ m ~ im~ to ne- ~im~~S.' ' of~ ~d~ of ~ ~IS ~ ~ ~m ~.,Wi~ ~'t ~i~ ~t ~y of Prepared Report for Meeting with New York State and Town of Southold August 28, 1997 Hatchery/Nursery Facility Proposal In its EIS, Maficulture Technologies, Inc. cited the need to have its own hatchery/nursery facility. Moro specifically, the facility would be used for the rearing from egg to fingerling which will take approximately one year. The hatchery/nursery facility will grow the fingerling to 250-300 grams and then transport them to our net pen site for grow out to market size. We propose to build in phases a facility with 160,000 square feet to accommodate 610,000 fish on 10.3 acres at Clarks Beach. We believe it would benefit both the Village of the Greenport and Town of Southold. In addition to Clarks Beach, Mariculture Technologies, Inc. is also interested in the 18.7 acros on Shipyard Lane, East Marion (the Long Island Oyster Factory). This property is currently zoned MII and would meet Mariculture's needs for a centralized facility for use as an administrative facility, hatchery, nursery and storage facility for fish food, nets, hardwaro, vessel operation, equipment and a facility to load and nnload supplies and vehicles in support of our net pen grow out site. The site has not been utilized in over ten (10) years and is in serious disropair. We believe that the site improvements which Maficulture would submit would enhance its presem condition, provide moro jobs, thereby having a favorable impact on the economy .of the Town of Southhold. Maricultare is in the process of opening up a dialogue with it' s owners. It is rocommonded that this underutilized coastal property continue to be used for Marine purposes. The attached schedules roflect the amount of fingerlings roquired as we expand from Phase I to Phase Vi. Although, we may modify some of the estimates, its does provide moanmgfifl data as to our need for fingerlings. Al prosent our needs are contracted to a hatchery in New Hampshire. However, to meet our needs it is necessary that we hatch a portion (approXUnately 110,000) of our fingerlings by Phase IH to develop systems and skilled personnel to perform the necessary hatche~ and nursery functions. This In itself will provide an increasing number of jobs to our area. As our EIS states Muriculture anticipates a work force of approximately 150 people by Phase Vi. h/~l CDL'~URE ~ECI~OLOOiE9 FI1AgE OI/~I~XNE SCIIEDULE - 8UHHER 1rl,oUtlDER HATCHERY FUB CT I OB ~ II~RVEST yIELD NO. OF FI$11 l,l~i;E (TnOUSAt~D$) 45¸ BROOD STOCK .... ' ~ IlO. OF I FEED I~A~TE ' IlO. OF TANKS LOADING FACILITY HILt. ION 2.7 3 3.75 3 COLLECTED ~RIG[~ 20 F. 20 H. 60 HATER FI,OH K/DAY cO. H./DAY G TYPE E./DAY $~. FRET 14) {S) (6) (?) 7.2 1.6 0.5 180 30 F. 10.8 2.4 0.8 35~ 100 r- 36 s.O '2.? 945 t00 Ii. ~00; t2.~S 3 ....... ~20 F. %~'~'*:'~;: 80 18 5.9 2205 220 }t. 30 600 F. '! 220 48 16 5400 600 H. 1800 81.8 17 t000 F. 360 80 27 5000 t0oo H. 3000 136.4 29 {1) AVERAGE 1500 GIU~I/RROOD FISH H2 (2) BASED oN TANI', DEHSITY OF 6.7 ItlSII PER {3} OlIg TANK - 10.5 H2 - 0.5 H/DEl~rll 9000 (4) BASED ON ExcHMJGR EVERY 10 HOURS AND 100% RKCIRCULATION (5) BASED ON 40 GRAHS/DAY EACll OF 20 GIU~[S gAOl OF $~UID AND BUTTER FISI! (6) BASED OH 1R. OF WASTE FE~ 3 R. OF FEED (7) BASED ON I ~2 OF TA~K/30 S~. FT. /o~g LgLT /oBiT ooa6 s6~ ~O~l OSLO£ o06~ 90 OOS Os~TT /~ ~OOl TZ OOS OOS~ /6T ~) ooOlOg. 09~g 009~ O00E h Oh~£L 9~6 05C6 OOTT O0~E~ ~Z~ O~ 0i)5 TTT OSL6 ¥~l I)~Ct 0ST i'I O00E 0£ SL£ S~ == ~'== ( ? ) T ) (SmlvsdOIl-l,) S'lJ3'flq .~ti,d.Liq £Jl (:~(itl~:~lJOll,lL) jlfg[.l ..qo '('RI AL l D~Jq'T ll3dUflll tiT'~ i · S~IN-L 3VDqV C~lliVZ k[3..l[.l-fl~J TS'aA)JVII ~--l--~n o,F 'o--~-- -~--v A u 'i/-q ---~--,i--i['-f'~i . E A j~_j_,_~o --- _ ................ ....... ~ .... - AnF. A OF ~ ' I ..................... .~-~' =~ 63(I 75 ~8 6.1 190 4 ............... 7 21oO ~SI} 1~5 208 624 13 13 -~ ....... 850 4~5 708 2124 45 42 ......... ........... 94 24 16000 ........................ 43000 .................... 267 256 64 ~ - 3o00 5i20 2560 4270 J28tO .............. 72000 ...................... 446 428 107 : qOOO Bqf, o 42~0 71311 21390 ..................... ...... ~ ......... ~ ................. ~UIIg (5) EFF~EHT B~D ~1 25~ R~CXCLEU/UAX OF iii .hsEu tm flor sunvxvM, I cU. Il/DAY ' 264 QhL/I)AX (~) fl~EIJ ~11 [ Il2 TMIK ~ll~/~O S~- TAB/-! J.g, AVERAGE TOTAL K (2) 600 ~000 68U0 15000 41000 68500 (JJ'UAs~V 0~t rtflnL tAIIK b~tls1=Y ur SOU ~isJt/t~ F~ B~SED o~ I ~X~IAI~E EVER[ 2 II~S. lit .25 It DEEP TANKS - J C0 Il/DAY ~ .103 GPII ,- DAYS 2* ,- (~) (4)1 (s)1 (G) 12o JGO 6 400 1200 ~ 2~ ~ ~00 ....... -/ .... ..... 8200 24500 410 . 2000 13700 41100 690 3400 LUADIIIG AV.~/DAt 100O (5) RFFLUEIIT BARED oil 20~ nECtCLED/DA! OF TMtE VoLDH~ l! cu H/DAY = 264 OALIDAt) (6) DRF FRED AT S K/IOO K OF FISII/DAY {AVERAHE) (7) BASED OW 2.S_KI100 K oF FISII/DAY (AVERAGE) (8) RASED OH I Hz TMIK AREA/ID SQ. ~- (2 IIIGII) 1700 s~. FT. 1200 4000 13600 82UUU 137000 6850 SThRTII~. TIl~UShflUs) 60 2UO 6SD ISOO 4to0 Jid. OF FlSll plthsk ('~tIOUSAHDS ! : i 45 .~ p:.~ ! .... ,.~ .............. ii 15o ill 500 ' iV * 1100 ..... ~ ...... = ...... ¥ f 3000 ~1 . 5000 IIUIIIIER ( TIloUSAIIDS ) 56 610 j 350 3700 6170 STOCK/ Il2 FilIAL (2) 400/ 800~ BOO ~GoOl 90000 3600 12200/ 305000 12250 2?uoo/ 675000 27000 ?4000/ 1850000 74000 123400/ 3005000 123400 · ~:~ ~ ' D sURVIVAL -I'~. }i) §{ute oH 9Bt _ ~o ,.;~.~.: t2J ~ASED Oil STOCKING SJgB OF 2" 20 Gu _ :,: . · :12. FilIAL 500 O~ cu H/OAT CO H/OAT 2400 40 10800 180 36750 610 81000 1350 222000 3700 370200 6170 FIHAL (6) i40/ 400 150/ 1000 480/ 61OO io8o/ 13500 ~uoo/ 37000 souo/ 61700 s~ocK / FILIAL (?] 80/ 2010 800L 75/ 3600t 9OO 240/ 3050 12200~ s4o/ 6750 2700g~ lSOO/ 74000 18500 2soo/ 30850 12340o (5) EFFLUENT 8ASEO OH 20% nECIRCULATZOH OF TAtIK VOIAflSE (6) BASED oil 4 ;/100 K OF PISII/DAY TO 2 K/LO0 (7) BASED OH 2 K~IOO K OF FI$11/DAY TO I K/IOO/UAT (Sy,OCK/FIIIAL (B) BASED Oil I H TAIIK AREA/lO S~. FT. {2 1llOll) REFERENCE THE DEIB (VOLUME I) PAGE 1-75 - NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES PER PHAHE THE FOLLOWING X~ A TABULATED LIST OF DIRECT ENPLOYMEHT PROJECTIONS BY TYPE PROJECTED NUMBER AND TYPE OF ENPLOYEES PER PAHSE ~TCHERY/LABORATORY HATCHERY MGMT/BIOLOGISTS 0 1 2 3 3 3 ASSISTANTS/TECHNICIANS/BIOLOGISTS 24 HRS/7 DAYS/WEEK 0 4 5 7 7 7 HATCHERY ENGINEER/TREATMENT PLNT. MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL 24 HRS/7 DAYS/WEEK 0 3 5 8 8 8 TRUCKERS 0 i i 2 2 2 LABORATORY @ ~ 2 3 3 3 TOTALS 0 10 15 23 23 23 NET PEW MANAGER 1 i i 2 2 2 ASSISTANTS i 1 2 3 3 4 SKILLED LABOR TO INCLUDE: NET PEN MAINTENANCE DIVERS, BOAT CREW, FEED HANDLERS FISH HARVESTING 4 5 10 14 18 26 NET PEN MONITORING i i 2 3 4 DOCK/SHORESIDE PERSONNEL i 2 2 2 2 2 OFF HOURS, SECURITY 4 4 4 4 4 4 TOTALS 12 14 21 28 33 43 PLANT MANAGEMENT I i i 2 2 2 HACCP CERT. SUPERVISORS 0 0 1 2 5 8 FISH CUTTERS i 2 12 20 52 86 GENERAL LABOR ~ ~ 4 4 ~ ~ TOTALS 4 5 18 28 65 104 OFFICERS ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONAL OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS TOTALS 2 2 2 3 3 3 i 2 4 8 10 14 1 1 2 2 3 3 6 7 10 16 19 23 TOTAL HEAD COUNT 22 36 64 95 140 193 *Some jobs may be handled by local subcontractors also some jobs wi nature. 30 PROPOSED HATCHERY, NURSERY, GROW OUT SCHEDULE 1997 - 2000 AUGUST 20, 1997 STOCKING WEIGHT STOCKING FUNCTION NUMBER PERIOD BEG END SOURCE REMARKS ~EPEAT OF PHASE I - '97 - '98 JUVENILE FINGERLING GROW OUT 120,000 110,000 100,000 MAY '97 - OCT. '97 OCT '97 - MAY '98 MAY '98 - NOV. '98 1 GR 20GR 20 GR 250GR 250 GR ? (1ST TIME) GREAT BAY HATCHERY GREAT BAY HATCHERY GREAT BAY NURSERY REPEAT OF PHASE I - 98 99 (2RD TIME) JUVENILE FINGERLING GROW OUT 120,000 MAY '98 - OCT. '98 110,000 OCT '98 - MAY '99 160,000 MAY '99- NOV. '99 1 GR 20GR 20 GR 250GR 250 GR ? GREAT BAY HATCHERY GREAT BAY HATCHERY MARICULTUR NURSERY NOW GROWING JUVENILE FINGERLING GROW OUT PHASE III 680,000 610,000 550,000 (NOTE # 3 (NOTE # 1) MAY '99 - 1 GR OCT. '99 OCT '99 - MAY '00 MAY '00 - NOV. '00 20GR 20 GR 250GR 250 GR ? ? ? MARICULTUR NURSERY NEED NURSERY FACILITY BY SEPT. 1998 SOURCE DEPENDS ON DATE OF COM- PLETION OF HATCHERY NOTE # i - SKIP PHASE II NOTE # 3 - THIS EQUATES WEIGHTWISE TO 225,000, 500 GR. FISH 127 STERLiNG STREET, GREENPORT, NY 11944 PREPARED FOR STATE MEETING 8/28/97 Hatchery/Nursery Facility Proposal P~a'ix.~: lbDisae~A/l:~iadlta'e lk.dvttsk~g'~e~, Ina U.~eq/Ut~ler~ Hatchery/Nursery Sites · Clarks Beach · Shipyard Lane Charts · Phase Outline Schedule · Number of Jobs N c J 0 ' S o W sJ C r/ N SITE 1h84b ` v �D tiv KEY MAP O Sca/e+ = 600' " 01 5� P co 0 / o- I � Ix , — �_-- - N' MAP OF PROPOSED HATCHERY ulN AT GREENPORT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD o -- SUFFOLK COUNTY N. Y. I P � e-I 6 � 1000 - 40 - 1 - 23.0 Scale: 1" = 50' Sept. 27, 1997 N 'o w (o ell ,IV 3 Q. �T� ilk V PHRASE 0 HATMERY a MENSEIRY FiACALIrY IN WAM TMA7MW 190M SP \ Ay y PrwsE I nws�ERY - eQOoo SF ' � . ow \ W - 0 11. �^ PHASE N ARM7SERY 69000 9f. y .6 X66 aQ° o, HATCMWY - 44000 SF C y ho oo \ F VISITOR &ADM. - , AOO SF Q 'Z TOM 4 AREA z A4000 '•AF. R a %LOt COYIAGE = 3I% _R V � q 0 Ya A Y r 5 o? stir � i05 � f> a rood e� T� 55 � NEW Yp? ZONING DISTRICT, R 80 ytip���t.MCrpe�* F NO AREA = 14.415 Aeres WA pq.AODIT T'VSWtVEflflLL SrATL EOUCA. w�A fci a NL sero EA tlf surveroe CONTOUR LINES ARE REFERENCED TO FIELD INFORMATION AND TIMLA ARsNf on: ' THE FIVE EASTERN TOWNS TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS (N,G.V.dl Hyl 7SD A�p�TIONA//,,LY Tp co CY w1TN sA LAW THE TLIW A1.4]0 er• \ R 0. aO0 CIVeT IL CMFD 8Y ANY AND ALC S VEYon UTA/{AM� €Y �' YEAD TRA ER�S 'iW Of AWTHR .WAtV6Y0iY5 AkV, TERMS M+CN AS 9J9i�ECAAO SOUTHOCO, M /I971 e'Rtll+WT-TO�DATE ML NOT M+ CO/MCMNCE WTN rBE 4M. ' 95 - 2117 ' • L 9P —r-._-- 19n —_—_ 15A b 64 IA h IP4 P 9A p - 1Ln11 114 u 12F it 13H Ii 144 & v - a, Ary 59' + _11 _._ - 9]5 0'.— _._ ____-50—P—_-._ 00 1' .. . SP 4' _.—__ _—_. E n� V X _ ria �' Sq- J_ __.- _ _ 'y i - � , _."1 0' .-- 5J'�' Su C' q _ s —_ . �i �P' cU ' _B_ -5 H .H • M - Iy i. f' AUMINISTRA[i]N/ �, I V1SITf]R ARLA M �'{ H M NURSER'V .AREA WATER TREATMENT AREA T.Tf 1 I H 1 1 � � -�_--- * ?. 7 S Y_ a Y 's y Ii a F LDIR PLA'',! f �llllUi�ll�ltllllli llV�llllUl��4(I w � rJ�� ELEVATTIN '.1 I I i , � _ � I i � 1 �� '.1 II .� '.I ill 1 .II I IIu � t �. i' h it II I. .1 X11 it �� •11 �l IL I I , IIIc{ ') q �, PP I ' I - 1 i ,1��.,� .I' 1 1 I ISI - �n 1 � � I I i ���� I �� 1 ��� � 11 �1� I1 I 1�,,.1 �� I�I'� n i� I)�,�� � � � � � ,� �I� � yy � li .i � - I� � � �l 1;1,1�1,,� ,I � , I ��� �, ii �� �� 1 �� I �1 ,���,1. .1� n� l �,. , i�� ��II II�III �Ih ill ��� � j l��il ' Ill -- �il �I ,�l�i �Ir 1� iil�� 1L9 I - _- �i `- �� 14_4 �i1 �L.. �..:i� .,��.�_ � . �.-.r. � - - L� �'_-_�.v,��_ �..,..-a-f-- - t �1t�1 EA _ r EI-EvAT,-tDd — ------ — --- --- -- -- ----------- -� TM c -- -- --- ----- - --- -- ----- Buitdin Descri t1Un1 -- BrPxirig Title: � ----� I��JTLE�1 A1�V ' L ,�r� BUTLER BUtLDE _ Project 9 P d Wt�JTim so 7 (( )��(��-- -------- ----- - --- 51.547 7,v?„� S,J, R 1ERN, INC 1'9AR[CUL URF TECHNELDGIES 100 U x 50 i11 x 113' 3 ELN1]R PLANT ��9l97 _ �7 _6CEVATINS 4�� lf�G�l 1e3 Ken in t,o1i Avelnae siLaate izt20fl`-0" x 6llb'-d" x13'=_3 - baY�gr t New York 11%05 �ireervort, New York � RP� Blitle�r MFg. 'Co, Kansas City, Mo ���0, 0„ x 1.QE�'; 0' , x , 18' Or 1/3p '1''-,f)„ SK-1 '