HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinfish Aquaculture Project - Appendices to the Addendum for the Draft Environmenal Impact Statement7&)w 4 �C' 5&a 7�VaG,1-) -
APPENDICES TO THE ADDENDUM FOR THE DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Relating to the Proposed
FINFISH AQUACULTURE PROJECT
FOR THE PRODUCTION OF
SUMMER FLOUNDER (PARALICHTHYS DENTATUS).
LOCATION: Hatchery -10 Acres County Road 48, Southold
Grow Out - 200 Acre Site, Gardiners Bay
Processing - 3.3 Acres Site, Sterling Ave.,
Greenport
APPLICANT: Mariculture Technologies, Inc.
P. O. Box 461
Greenport, NY 11944
(516) 477-1777 - Robert Link
LEAD AGENCY: NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation
SUNY Campus - Building 40
Stony Brook, NY 11790-2356
(516) 444-0365 - John Weiland
PREPARER: Peconic Associates, Inc.
One Bootleg Alley
Greenport, NY 0030, Merlon Wiggin, PhD.
and
Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc.
P. O. Box 2003
Bridgehampton, NY 11932
(516) 537-5160, Bruce A. Anderson, M. S.
DATE OF
PREPARATION: November, 1995
DATE OF _
Z�
ACCEPTANCE:
DEADLINE DATE /
FOR COMMENTS: �f d Z 9(
rj
v
J
Cj
Cl
0
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX
U.
MASSACHUSETTS AQUACULTURE
RECOMMENDATIONS
APPENDIX
V.
PRELIMINARY REPORT ON THE MAINE
DEPARMENT OF MARINE RESOURCES
AQUACULTURE MONITORING PROGRAM
APPENDIX
W.
CORRESPONDANCE FROM STATE OF CONNECTICUT
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION -
SHORT NOSED STURGEON
APPENDIX
X.
AQUACULTURE MARKETING SURVEY
APPENDIX
Y.
NEW YORK STATE COASTAL POLICIES
APPENDIX
Z.
VILLAGE OF GREENPORT WATERFRONT
REVITALIZATION PROGRAM POLICIES
a
J
Cj
Cl
0
•
0
•
0
0
J
C:
•
A P P E N D I X u
MASSACHUSETTS AQUACULTURE RECOMMENDATIONS
•
E
Chapter II
PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations reinforce recommendations made by several of
the Working Groups and reflect the priority actions needed to "jump start" the
is aquaculture industry in Massachusetts. The first six recommendations should be
considered overarching, in that they address issues which are fundamental to
coordinated support for aquaculture. The priority recommendations should not
take away from the importance of the recommendations found in the individual
chapters. In many cases, the implementation of the specific recommendations
i dealing with regulatory reform, economic development and environmental review
hinge on the prior implementation of the recommendations presented below.
Recommendation numbers 7 - 13 address the administrative requirements
necessary to support an aquaculture industry at the state level.
Note: A ($) next to a recommendation indicates that a new appropriation is
necessary to implement the recommendation. If no ($) is noted, it can be assumed
that the recommendation can be implemented utilizing existing staff and resources.
A spreadsheet of all recommendations requiring funding is provided in Graphic 3.
1. Recommendation:
Regulatory streamlining recommendations found in Chapter 2 should be
implemented immediately. Standardized aquaculture applications which
include detailed information needs and standard plan requirements should be
coordinated as soon as possible. Regulatory streamlining and coordinated
processing are central to the development of aquaculture. Each general type of
aquaculture should require only one coordinated application.
2. Recommendation: ($)
In recognition of the multiple benefits of public aquaculture, the Municipal
Shellfish Propagation program should be reactivated and improved. Funds
should be appropriated to DMF to fund this popular program. Guidance to
municipalities must ensure that propagation funds are used effectively and for
appropriate purposes. Consideration should be given to incorporating the
restoration of contaminated areas into this program. It is recommended that
this program be administered as a matching grant program whereby the state
would match town propagation budgets.
Justification:
This program had significant local support and is seen as a means for
developing local support for aquaculture, both private and public. By
enhancing and managing productive public shellfish beds, the recreational and
commercial shellfish harvesters may not be so opposed to some privatization.
0 Aquaculture Strategic Plan 13
•
Other advantages of public aquaculture include the fostering of the public's
understanding of aquaculture and the creation of opportunities for
experimentation in propagation and harvesting techniques. Additional
incentives for the towns to support aquaculture can be created by allowing
them to use the proceeds of increased aquaculture license fees to increase the
size of state match.
3. Recommendation: ($)
Aquaculture staff within state and municipal government is critical to the
growth of aquaculture in Massachusetts. Presently, there is virtually no full
time staff in State government responsible for any aspect of aquaculture
regulation or economic development. At minimum, an Aquaculture
41 Coordinator at DFA and an Aquaculture Specialist within DFWELE are
necessary to meet existing and backlogged needs.
The Aquaculture Coordinator would oversee the ACT, establish and maintain
links with the regional, national and international aquaculture communities
and would be responsible for implementation of the Strategic Plan. Most
importantly, the Coordinator will serve as the single point of contact within
-,the State for all existing and prospective aquaculturists. The Coordinator will
actively assist all aquaculturists in identifying and complying with appropriate
regulatory requirements. The Aquaculture Specialist within DFWELE is
necessary to coordinate the streamlining of the regulatory review process as
• well as carry out required field survey and monitoring responsibilities.
4. Recommendation: '
Any State bond monies appropriated for aquaculture purposes should be
directed toward priorities identified in this Strategy. Specifically, funding for
• aquaculture related projects is included in the proposed Open Space Bond Bill
(HB no. 5143), Seaport Bond Bill (HB no. 5127) and the Coastal Assessment Bill
(SB no. 1834). Aquaculture should be included in the section of the Open Space
Bond Bill known as "Linked Investment for Agriculture" which would allow
state funds to be invested at lower than market rates in selected financial
institutions. The savings to the financial institution could then be passed on
the loan recipient.
5. Recommendation:
A priority of the aquaculture industry is to improve Shellfish Licensing terms
to provide for more predictability and stability of licensing in an effort to
• improve financing potential. The existing licensing process varies significantly
from town to town and leaves room for much discretion. It is recommended
that a series of meetings be organized with shellfish aquaculturists, municipal
licensing bodies (selectmen), shellfish constables and DMF to discuss potential
changes to DMF regulations as well as municipal license administration.
•
Aquaculture Strategic Plan
0
14
0
6. Recommendation: M
The state should produce' a user friendly "Aquaculture Regulatory Handbook"
41 which is easily updated. This Handbook should detail the permit
requirements, review time frames, jurisdictional authorities, application fees,
agency contact person, necessary application materials, and review processes for
the different types of aquaculture. This handbook should be geared toward
prospective aquaculturists, the finance community, and other interested
parties. A related longer term recommendation is to provide this regulatory
handbook in CD -Rom format.
Agency Responsibilities
s 7. Recommendation:
An Aquaculture Coordination Team (ACT) comprised of (existing) State agency
staff with expertise and responsibility for technical assistance, environmental
monitoring, economic development and permitting should be established.
0 ACT will be responsible for policy development, industry support, oversight of
regulatory streamlining, and implementation of the Strategic Plan. An
Aquaculture Coordinator, located at DFA should be hired to coordinate the
work of ACT. The Strategic Planning process has highlighted the need for
sustained inter -agency coordination and ACT would serve that purpose. An
Aquaculture Advisory Group would advise ACT. Refer to Graphic 4 depicting
the proposed Aquaculture Framework.
8. Recommendation:
An Aquaculture Advisory Group which includes representation from a broad
spectrum of interests including industry, conservation groups, the financial
• sector, landowners, municipal representatives, and academia should be '
established. The Aquaculture Advisory Group would advise and guide the
ACT on issues of concern. The Aquaculture Coordinator would be the liaison
between ACT and the Advisory Group. This group could also establish
research grant criteria and review procedures for state aquaculture research and
0 development grant programs.
Justification:
State aquaculture development and management activities should be
coordinated with members of the various sectors involved to assure that policy
• decisions and appropriations are efficiently carried out and relevant to industry
development.
9. Recommendation: M
A position should be established at DFA for an Aquaculture Coordinator. The
Aquaculture Coordinator should be responsible for coordination of all state
• aquaculture activities, would oversee the work of the Aquaculture
Aquaculture Strategic Plan
0
15
n
u
Coordination Team (ACT) and be responsible for the implementation of the
44 Strategic Plan.
10. Recommendation:
DMF should be the lead regulatory agency for marine aquaculture and
hatcheries. DMF should be responsible for developing and administering a
"one-stop" permit process which incorporates the concerns and timely review
i of all other relevant agencies, both state and federal.
11. Recommendation:
DFW should be the lead regulatory agency for inland aquaculture and
hatcheries. DFW should be responsible for developing and administering a
"one-stop" permit process which incorporates the concerns and timely review
of all other relevant agencies, both state and federal.
12. Recommendation:
DFA shall be the lead agency for the promotion and marketing of aquacultured
products. To the extent possible, all existing DFA promotion and marketing
programs should be extended to include aquaculture.
r
13. Recommendation:
Establish an Interagency Aquaculture Permit Review Group. This group would
• meet as needed to discuss aquaculture proposals presently under state review.
In an ongoing attempt to stfeamline the regulatory framework for aquaculture,
this Review Group would have representation from federal and state agencies.
The coordination of this group would be the responsibility of the Permitting
representative who sits on the ACT.
i justification:
The value of interagency coordination has become apparent through the
Strategic Planning process. Aquaculture, by the nature of the science and
industry, does not fit squarely within any existing agency in the state. Not
desiring to add another bureaucratic agency, it is recommended that the
Interagency Aquaculture Permit Review Group meet on an as needed basis.
0
•
Aquaculture Strategic Plan 16
0
FA
i
Introduction
C`
Chapter III
REGULATORY REFORM
The overriding mission of the Regulatory Reform Working Group (RRWG) was to
identify the major regulatory issues which inhibit the development of the
aquaculture industry and to propose a streamlined process which protects public and
private rights and environmental quality. In order to accomplish this mission, the
S ` RRWG reviewed both existing and proposed aquaculture activities in the
Commonwealth.
The three major issues identified for review by the committee included regulatory
coordination and streamlining, long-term security for capital investments, and state
• support for the aquaculture industry. These findings, and the associated
recommendations, are designed to provide the short-term framework for
improving aquaculture permitting. The RRWG contemplates that long-term
statutory amendments, consistent with the below recommendations, will also be
pursued in order to effectively address the needs of the aquaculture industry.
♦ Based on a review of applicable laws and regulations, the RRWG proposes a series of
recommendations which would improve the interagency coordination and
management of aquaculture activities in the Commonwealth. As a relatively new
industry in Massachusetts, aquaculture activities have rarely been considered in the
course of statute or regulation devizlopment. As a result, the aquaculture industry
a faces an uncoordinated, and at times overlapping, regulatory framework for they
review and permitting of aquaculture projects. In addition to the uncertain review
processes affecting aquaculture, the industry is not afforded an interagency
coordinated review processes or a lead state agency with adequate expertise to advise
and promote the industry. This lack of a comprehensive and certain review process
O represents a significant impediment to the development of the aquaculture industry
within the Commonwealth.
The recommendations of the RRWG are designed to streamline the regulatory
processes for aquaculture activities in Massachusetts. At the outset, a principal
recommendation calls for the establishment of a state Aquaculture Coordinator.
« This position will serve a variety of critical roles. The Aquaculture Coordinator
could assist the industry by providing a single point of contact for all aquaculture
related issues. The Coordinator should also serve to provide educational material
regarding the permit requirements, review time frames, application fees, agency
contact person, necessary application materials, and review processes for the
different types of aquaculture.
Aquaculture Strategic Plan 17
0
0
In order to further minimize regulatory bottlenecks in the review and permitting of
aquaculture, aquaculture should be jointly coordinated by the Division of Marine
Fisheries ('DMF') and the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife ("DFW"). DMF
should be the lead regulatory agency for marine aquaculture and hatcheries. DFW
should be the lead regulatory agency for inland aquaculture and hatcheries. Each
agency should develop one-stop permit process incorporating concerns of all other
relevant state and federal agencies. The Department of Food and Agriculture
�► ('DFA") should be the lead agency for the promotion and marketing of aquaculture
products.
Finally, state and federal agencies should aggressively pursue the development of
general permits for aquaculture activities (inland and marine). Such "general
permits" for certain classes of activities could eliminate the need for individual
detailed permit processing. A project would automatically qualify for a permit if the
conditions of the general permit are complied with. Projects qualifying for a general
permit would still be required to apply for a permit, but the processing would be
expedited. The use of general permits for aquaculture activities would greatly
+ improve the predictability and efficiency of permitting procedures and significantly
reduce permitting time. Concurrent filing will also improve coordination between
the various reviewing bodies and public hearings and comment periods should be
able to be coordinated.
The second issue of concern to the aquaculture industry is the long-term security of
• capital investments. Due to the significant capital investments associated with
aquaculture, security in the duration of the lease is a major consideration. The lack
of such stability in leasing intertidal and Commonwealth tidelands has proven to be
a financing obstacle. Lease security is critical to the industry and involves balancing
private land use with public interests in tidelands. Several recommendations are
a provided to clarify ownership of tidelands; terms and transferability of leases; and
the role of local, state, and federal agencies in developing lease agreements.
The third principal issue addressed was the development of state support for the
aquaculture industry and local shellfish managers. Specific interest was expressed
• for the reactivation of the Municipal Shellfish Propagation program. Shellfish
aquaculture licensing fees should reflect the economic value of public tidelands, be
dedicated to municipalities, and be used for public shellfish propagation and/or
restoration of shellfish beds. Interest has also been expressed in DMF developing a
pilot program of authorizing shellfish nurseries in restricted areas. Finally, a
standardized method for reporting aquaculture production should also be
developed to provide the Commonwealth and the industry with the ability to
monitor the success of the industry.
L
The final specific recommendations of the RRWG are intended to address the
following classes of aquaculture activities:
1. Shellfish Bottom Culture: which involves minimal structure and no discharge;
Aquaculture Strategic Plan 18
V
2. Shellfish/Seaweed Water Column Culture: consisting of more substantial
structures and no discharge;
3. RecirculatinglFlowthrough Culture: involving structures located on land and
having discharges;
4. Finfish Net Pen Culture: which involves structures in marine waters and
discharges.
5. Projects in Federal Waters: involving various culturing techniques and located
in part or full in federal waters.
A sixth class of projects, involving pond culture, was not addressed in the present
forum because pond culturing is currently being reviewed as part of the legislatively
authorized Farmland Advisory Committee.
The regulatory recommendations made in this section are directed at eliminating
redundant and unnecessary permit review processes. The intent of this effort was to
reduce process, while improving the integrity of vigorous, but relevant -
environmental review. The need for efficient, but effective environmental
oversight of aquaculture activities is critical not only to protect public welfare and
t� resources, but also to ensure the continued viability of aquaculture operations:
In addition to the recommendations presented below, the most valuable outcome
from the Working Group process has been an increased understanding of the
existing regulatory framework for aquaculture. This improved understanding has
i been enlightening not only to the regulating agencies, but to the industry as well. By
identifying the existing process, the Working Group was able to effectively woo '
toward streamlining and improvement. The existing regulatory framework for the
different classes of aquaculture projects is found in Appendix A.
a Recommendations
General Regulatory
14. Recommendation:
State agencies should work closely with the ACOE and other federal resource
agencies in amending the existing Programmatic General Permit (PGP) to
directly address aquaculture thresholds. Develop conditions which ensure that
only the largest projects and/or those with the greatest potential impacts
require review as individual permits under Sections 404 and/or 401.
Aquaculture Strategic Plan 19
0
Justification:
The existing PGP covers aquaculture indirectly, by reference to a previously
t established Letter of Permission (LOP). The LOP which is not included within
the text of the PGP, is oriented toward shellfish culture and does not address
other culturing techniques. An updated PGP could incorporate the LOP and
update to include other culturing techniques.
t Implementation Approach:
Amend the 404 PGP in coordination with the development of General NPDES
permits for aquaculture (see Recommendation 28). Have MCZM then issue
consistency on the PGP and DEP certify the PGP. It is estimated that this process
would take between 6-9 months to finalize.
15. Recommendation:
State agencies should make test lease or pilot projects viable by reducing
regulatory requirements and facilitating joint monitoring for predetermined
periods.
Justification:
r The permit process for aquaculture is cumbersome. By allowing pilot projects,
the state can encourage experimentation with new technology, develop project
specific monitoring protocols and coordinate with industry while jointly
monitoring baseline data and project impacts. Knowledge gained from pilot
projects will benefit regulatory agencies, the public and industry.
Implementation Approach: .
ACT should develop an expedited permit process for pilot projects.
a 16. Recommendation:
MCZM should adopt a policy stating that aquaculture projects do not need to
apply for Consistency Review unless 1.) They require an Individual permit as
determined by the ACOS and/or 2.) They are sited in whole or in part in federal
waters. MCZM should also draft a Program Policy which directly addresses and
supports aquaculture.
a
Justification:
This will clarify and simplify MCZM's review authority over aquaculture
projects. An Aquaculture Policy will provide policy guidance for Consistency
Review.
Implementation Approach:
MUM should develop policy in coordination with the ACOS, notice in the
Environmental Monitor and publicize.
6
Aquaculture Strategic Plan
40
20
f
17. Recommendation:
Amend DMF Chapter 130, Section 17 B to authorize the Director of Marine
i Fisheries to promulgate regulations concerning the siting, operation and
monitoring of finfish aquaculture projects in the marine environment. DMF
should be the lead agency in regulating ocean based aquaculture facilities and
should develop a coordinated permit process for ocean based finfish projects
which incorporates the concerns of all other relevant state and federal agencies.
r
Justification:
DMF regulations do not provide adequate guidance for the administration of
finfish aquaculture licensing. There is strong desire both from industry and
other regulating agencies to develop a "one-stop" permit process particularly
for finfish culture.
Implementation Approach:
DMF should work with ACT to develop one-stop permit process.
* 18. Recommendation:
The state should maintain and assert its position that the boundary between
private tidelands and state-owned subtidal land is mean low water.
Justification:
Private/public ownership of tidelands in Massachusetts has a complex history
and there is a need to clarify the legal boundary of state ownership. The recent
Pazolt decision held that because aquaculture is more like farming than fishing,
the landowners permission must be received before aquaculture is practiced on
private tidelands. The precise delineation between private and public lands
(i.e. mean low water or extreme low water) remains uncertain.
Implementation Approach:
The Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Legal Counsel and possibly the
Attorney Generals' Office should coordinate with DMF, MCZM, DEM and DEP
staff attorneys in searching for a case in which the delineation between public
4b and private tidelands is the central issue, and put it before the Supreme Judicial
Court of Massachusetts. In addition, counsel should review the issue of
municipal propagation on private property.
19. Recommendation:
0 The existing fee structure for the Waterways Program (Chapter 91) should be
reevaluated and revised for all aquaculture operations. The fee structure
should reflect the nature of the facility and some of the benefits which
aquaculture provides to the public (e.g. supplementing the wild stock, cleansing
the water). Fees should adequately reflect the economic value and productivity
t of the operation.
Aquaculture Strategic Plan
40
21
Justification:
Existing Waterways licensing regulations do not address aquaculture
specifically and the existing fee structure (based on displacement) is both
illogical and prohibitive for aquaculture activities. The fees charged by the state
for private use of public land should reflect both the economic value of the
activity and the loss of land to the public.
Implementation Approach:
DEP, in the course of revising Chapter 91 regulations should develop specific
appraisal techniques for aquaculture activities. MCZM will assist DEP by
analyzing other state aquatic land leasing processes and fee structures. See
Appendix B for state leasing survey.
r
20. Recommendation:
The MEPA unit should review the adequacy of existing thresholds as they
apply to aquaculture facilities. When considering these thresholds, MEPA
should focus its limited resources on projects that will benefit from coordinated
review and comment by both private and public interests. Additionally, this
review should consider limiting MEPA jurisdiction through "limited project"
general permit provisions, utilizing the categorical inclusion threshold,
Memoranda of Understanding and/or developing a Generic Environmental
Impact Report for aquaculture.
21. Recommendation:
EDEA (DEM and MCZM) should review the existing Coastal Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern (ACEC's) and existing state regulations to evaluate
how the ACEC designation will affect new aquaculture facilities. If it is
determined that the higher regulatory standards that accompany ACEC
designation will adversely affect aquaculture operations that are compatible
with the ACEC, then consideration should be given to amending the relevant
state regulation.
Justification:
r Any aquaculture activity proposed within an ACEC may be required to file an
Environmental Notification Form (ENF). The more stringent review
standards that are triggered within an ACEC should be balanced against the
benefiis of aquaculture projects within the coastal zone.
Implementation Approach:
The relationship between the ACEC designation process, MEPA and DEP
regulations and other regulations should be evaluated. DEM and MCZM
should review existing coastal ACEC's and work with ACEC communities,
preferably in the context of preparing ACEC resource management plans to
develop recommendations for the Secretary of EDEA as to the compatibility of
0 aquaculture projects to existing ACEC's. Longer Term - Future ACEC
designations and ACEC resource management plans should specifically
Aquaculture Strategic Plan 22
0
reference aquaculture projects and their relationship with the ACEC and, when
appropriate, include language to allow or encourage aquaculture projects.
22. Recommendation:
DEM should issue a policy stating that the interests of Ocean Sanctuaries
regulations are presumed to be met provided that DMF, Chapter 91 and MCZM
have approved or signed off on the project proposal. A longer term
recommendation is for DEM to amend the existing regulations to build on the
other programs as -outlined above.
Justification:
The Ocean Sanctuaries Act and regulations specifically permit "the harvesting
and propagation of fish and shellfish in all forms," so long as DEM and DMF
"are satisfied that such activities are carried on in accordance with sound
conservation practices" (defined as "practices designed to maintain, increase or
restore existing finfish or shellfish stocks by the management of resources).
0 Implementation Approach:
DEM, in addition to writing a policy stating that their regulations are presumed
to be satisfied, should be actively_ involved in the Interagency Aquaculture
Permit Review Group.
. 23. Recommendation:
Aquaculture licenses should be subject to performance criteria set by individual
towns. Such criteria or license conditions shall be valid for the term of the
license. It is recommended that initial license terms should be a minimum of
five years with 15 year renewals. Renewal of the license shall be authorized by
the licensing authority provided that the license holder meets the performance
criteria. Renewals shall also be contingent upon a determination that there
have been no unacceptable adverse impacts from the initial license period.
Justification:
Currently, potential lenders are reluctant to finance aquaculture ventures as
they have no assurance that licenses will continue beyond the initial period.
The uncertainty surrounding aquaculture leases translates into risk and lack of
collateral. The Steering Committee recognizes this issue to be one of the most
critical to the industry as well as potentially the most controversial to local
municipalities and the citizenry of the state. The issue of balancing private use
with public interests will continue to need additional study and input from a
variety of public and private stakeholders for both the short and long term.
Implementation Approach:
The Steering Committee should assist legislators in public outreach on this
issue prior to any proposed resolution or change to lease terms. The duration
4b and terms of leases or licenses of other states should be investigated to evaluate
Aquaculture Strategic Plan
0
23
0
49
0
how other states have balanced the issue of public rights with private use.
Refer to state leasing survey found in Appendix B.
24. Recommendation:
Shellfish aquaculture licenses should be transferable during the license period
with the approval of the licensing authority. Denial of transfer shall only be
authorized if the performance criteria set by the town was not met.
Justification:
same as 23
Implementation Approach:
same as 23
25. Recommendation:
Municipalities should be given the option to preapprove areas (with DMF,
DEP, Conservation Commissions, MCZM and ACOS) of its jurisdiction for
. aquacultural uses.
'Justification:
Ad hoc or site by site decision-making on aquaculture licensing is time
consuming and not advantageous to good management. By affording
municipalities the option to pre -approve large areas of town waters for
aquaculture, the municipality could have better control over long term
planning. Additionally, by preapproving large areas, administrative costs and
delays of individual reviews could be minimized.
Implementation Approach:
4b At the request of a municipality, DMF could survey a large section of town
waters and identify areas which are non-productive and have no overarching
natural resource constraints. DMF would establish criteria for pre -approving
areas. Once these areas are identified, the municipality could apply to DEP and
the ACOS for authorization of aquacultural activities under the jurisdiction of
• Chapter 91 and Section 10 respectively. The municipality would then know
which area could be used for aquaculture, hold the proper authorizations and
make siting decisions accordingly. Applicants would then apply to municipality
only. Conservation Commissions and licensing authorities could also become
involved in pre -approval utilizing resource conservation plans.
+' 26. Recommendation:
The state should provide written guidance to towns regarding the legal
requirements relating to the administration of shellfish licenses. This guidance
should include the appropriate scope of review, relevant issues and criteria and
public hearing formats.
•
Aquaculture Strategic Plan
24
V
Justification:
s A need has been identified to establish criteria for the appropriate scope of
review for shellfish licenses both for the benefit of aquaculturist and licensing
bodies. This guidance is also intended to standardize administration of
shellfish licensing from town to town, without compromising ultimate home
rule authority.
t Implementation Approach:
Review all municipal aquaculture licensing bylaws and statutes and develop a
generic model for towns to review.
27. Recommendation:
M WPA application should be filed concurrently with 404 Army Corps of
Engineers permit applications, Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors) applications and
Section 57 permit application, if required.
Justification:
Concurrent filing will improve coordination between the various reviewing
bodies and public hearings and comment periods should be able to be
coordinated. While there is currently a joint ACOE and WPA application for
aquaculture projects it is still necessary for applicants to send copies separately
to the ACOE and the Conservation Commission.
Implementation Approach:
Long Range - Consider amending the WPA regulations (310 CMR 10.00) to
eliminate the need for individual permit review by creating a presumption
that interests under the WPA are met provided that conditions imposed by
46 DMF are adhered to. This will require additional coordination and
conditioning between DEP, Conservation Commissions and DMF to ensure
adequate protection, particularly in cases where upland access is a
consideration. Coordination with municipal by-laws regulating aquaculture is
also necessary.
• 28. Recommendation:
Shellfish aquaculture licensing fees paid by aquaculturists to towns should be
increased to reflect their economic value and productivity. DMF should also
evaluate the necessity to charge a (one time) application fee which covers the
costs of surveying an area. License fees paid to municipalities should be
directed to Shellfish programs for use in public shellfish propagation and/or
restoration. Municipalities should provide an option to culturists to pay fees
and/or provide seed for public propagation.
Justification:
i DMF's statute (Chapter 130, section 64) currently caps shellfish aquaculture fees
at $25/acre/ per year. However, the fee varies from town to town. There is
concern that there may be an imbalance between the fee paid for private use of
40 Aquaculture Strategic Plan 25
U
public land for aquaculture and the potential loss of public access to this land.
The fees should be evaluated to reflect an appropriate balance. Once in place,
41 the revenues generated should be directed to public shellfish enhancement.
With enhancement of public resources, it is hoped that municipalities will
likewise be encouraged to permit some level of private aquaculture.
Implementation Approach:
• DMF should review license fees and consider adjustments. Statute should be
amended to direct license revenues to Shellfish Department budgets. Refer to
Appendix B for state leasing review.
29. Recommendation:
DMF requirements for reporting shellfish production should be improved. All
reporting requirements (town and state) should be coordinated. Productivity
thresholds (for keeping license) should be evaluated and increased. All reports
to towns and state involving production and/or financial disclosure should be
made confidential. (Amend Ch. 130, section 65)
A Justification:
""Existing reporting procedures are redundant and do not result in an -accurate
representation of the aquaculture industry.
Implementation Approach:
DMF, Massachusetts Aquaculture Association, and the Massachusetts Shellfish
Officers Association should cooperatively develop a standardized reporting
process and amend DMF regulations accordingly.
30. Recommendation
DMF should develop a pilot program of authorizing towns to lease restricted
areas for use as shellfish nursery areas. Pilot projects would only be initiated at
the request of and with the cooperation of, individual municipalities.
Justification:
Many contaminated areas are either naturally productive or have the capacity
to be productive. By not allowing aquaculture for seed production, a resource is
f orf ei ted.
Implementation Approach:
40 Short term - Policy change. DMF should work with Municipal Shellfish
Officers to develop procedures to allow a limited amount of leases within
restricted areas. The implementation of this program should be closely tracked
to evaluate the viability of expansion. Longer term - After evaluation of pilots,
DMF should consider making regulatory changes to authorize this activity.
i
Aquaculture Strategic Plan
40
26
0
31. Recommendation:
DEP and EOEA, in conjunction with the EPA, should aggressively pursue the
development of NPDES general permits for aquacultural activities (inland and
marine). An initial estimate of 6 - 9 months has been suggested as the time
period needed to draft, public notice and publish these two permits. In order to
accomplish this goal considerable effort and coordination with EOEA, EPA,
Mass Aquaculture Association and interested environmental groups must be
♦, dedicated in order to complete the project.
Justification:
Creating "general permits" for certain classes of activities would essentially
eliminate the need for individual projects to go through a detailed and
individual permitting process. A project would automatically qualify for a
permit if the conditions of the general permit are complied with. The overall
goal is to establish a general permit that would provide adequate protection
while reducing individual project review and application processing delays. A
screening provision, similar to the PGP, may be an effective way to allow
• timely review of individual projects. A recommended approach to a screening
provision is to have a reporting requirement that automatically approves the
project if the state does not require an individual permit review within 21 days
of receipt of the project notice.
The establishment of general NPDES permits for aquaculture activities will
greatly improve the predictability and efficiency of the regulatory process and
will reduce permitting time significantly.
32. Recommendation:
DEP's Office of Watershed Management should issue a policy outlining thq
i procedures for water withdrawals in brackish or saline waters from either
surface or groundwater. The policy should also indicate that no individual
permit is needed for salt water withdrawals from surface or groundwater.
Justification:
a There is significant confusion among both regulators and the regulated
community regarding the necessity of authorization for water withdrawals.
Implementation Approach:
DEP should simply issue a written policy on what types of projects require
water withdrawal permits and which do not. DEP should further outline the
10 water
and requirements for projects which do require such authorization.
33. Recommendation:
The state should work with the New England Fisheries Management Council
(NEFMC) and other federal agencies to develop a clear and coordinated
4b administrative process for authorizing aquaculture activities in the Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ). MCZM Consistency Review will be linked to this
Aquaculture Strategic Plan
40
27
W
a
V
•
process. The state should ensure that federal regulatory processes and actions
are compatible with state interests.
Justification:
The NEFMC has the authority to designate special management areas in the
EEZ for activities such as aquaculture. There is not presently an established
process for authorizing such uses despite industry interest in siting in federal
waters. At least two bills are being proposed in Congress to delineate federal
aquaculture responsibilities.
Implementation Approach:
The state should become involved in the NEFMC Aquaculture Subcommittee
as well as review proposed congressional aquaculture legislation.
Aquaculture Strategic Plan
28
C]
Chapter IV
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND MARKETING
Aquaculture: Why the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Should Support
the Development of Its Aquaculture Industry
•
Worldwide aquaculture is forecast to be a major growth industry into the 21st
century. In response to increasingly constrained global supplies of wild finfish and
shellfish and growing consumption of seafood products, aquaculture production has
expanded in many regions of the United States and indeed the world. World
aquaculture production (including seaweeds, finfish, mollusks and crustaceans)
increased 85 percent over a nine year period from 10.4 million metric tons in 1984 to
19.3 million metric tons in 1992, at a value of $32.5 billion (FAO 1995). Indeed,
aquaculture accounted for 14 percent of global fish production in 1992, up from 8.3
percent in 1984. In the period 1984-1992, aquaculture production of finfish, mollusks
and crustaceans grew at an average annual compound rate of nine percent in
volume and 14 percent in value.
Based on population growth projections and a projected continued growth in
seafood consumption, global seafood demand is expected to increase over 60 percent
in the next 30 years (Parker 1995). Given that harvest from wild fish stocks are
approaching or have exceeded maximum sustainable yields, aquaculture production
will have to increase approximately 500 percent to meet global seafood demand in
the year 2025 (Parker 1995).
In the U.S., due to the decline of native fish stocks and the need to diversify the
:W, economic base of many rural coastal and agricultural communities, aquaculture has
expanded in many regions of the country. Aquaculture is one of the fastest growing
agricultural sectors in the U.S. In fact, U.S. aquaculture production more than
doubled from 308 million pounds in 1983 to nearly 716 million pounds in 1993 at a
value of $810 million (NWS 1995). Nationwide, catfish, crawfish, and trout
t account for the largest share of aquaculture production, followed by baitfish, .salmon,
and oysters. Other domestically cultured species include mussels, shrimp, abalone,
hard and soft shelled clams, ornamental fish, tilapia, sturgeon, hybrid striped bass,
aquatic plants and others.
Nationwide, estimated employment and economic activity generated by the
domestic aquaculture industry is substantial. According to a USDA funded study
now being completed by Dr. Michael Dicks of the Department of Agricultural
Economics at Oklahoma State University, estimated U.S. Employment in
aquaculture production and processing is over 180,000 jobs including those
associated with the transport, storage, processing , manufacturing, distribution and
E sales of aquaculture products (Dicks 1L al., forthcoming). This figure also includes
employment associated with purchases of equipment, supplies, feed, seed, labor and
Aquaculture Strategic Plan 29
40
financing. This study also estimates that aquaculture contributes approximately $5.6
billion to the U.S. gross domestic product (Dicks et. al., forthcoming). An earlier
e study by the National Fisheries Education and Research Foundation (1989) found
that the U. S. aquaculture industry generated approximately 230,000 full-time
equivalent jobs in 1988 with associated direct and indirect economic activities of
$6.43 billion (National Fisheries Education and Research Foundation (1989).
• While the aquaculture industry continues its strong growth both nationally and
internationally, Massachusetts continues to lag behind in the development of its
industry. The total estimated 1992 farm gate value of aquacultured products in the
northeastern U.S. (West Virginia to Maine) is estimated at $146.4 million dollars
(Bush and Anderson 1993). Connecticut leads with a $61.8 million industry in 1992
•
'based mainly on the strength of its oyster industry. Maine is the second largest
aquaculture -producing state in the region with a $42.9 million production in 1992,
primarily due to its pen -reared salmon industry. In contrast, Massachusetts
produced a mere $8 million of aquacultured products in 1992, comprising mainly
hard shelled clams, oysters, trout, and hybrid striped bass. This is surprising if one
0 considers the vast, rich, and varied coastline of the Commonwealth.
Much of the sluggishness in the growth of the aquaculture industry in
Massachusetts compared to that of other states can be attributed to the myriad of
regulatory barriers, a lack of government coordination in the management of
aquaculture, and simply a lack of clear vision and policy regarding both marine and
1P freshwater aquaculture. Given the uncertainty surrounding aquaculture
regulations, particularly grant leasing policies, and the inherent risks in aquaculture,
financing of new aquaculture ventures in Massachusetts has been difficult if not
impossible to access.
i The Commonwealth's interest in aquaculture development has intensified in the'
past year, mainly due to the declines of New England's mainstay groundfish stocks
and the continuing economic hardship faced by the Massachusetts commercial
fishing industry. While aquaculture development can provide some jobs for
displaced fishermen and broaden the economic base of many coastal communities,
aquaculture is certainly not the solution to the New England fisheries crisis.
Nonetheless, aquaculture offers excellent opportunities for community economic
development, jobs creation, technology development and seafood production.
Massachusetts is particularly well situated to take advantage of the opportunities in
e aquaculture, including seafood production as well as technology development. The
state has a wealth of diverse marine and freshwater resources well suited to
offshore, inshore, and land-based aquaculture. The state is also home to many
world class research institutions which specialize in marine and aquatic technology
and science and give Massachusetts a unique advantage in this expanding industry.
The state also has a concentration of marine technology firms which are poised to
L profit from the growth of the aquaculture industry worldwide. Massachusetts is also
strategically located to service one of the largest seafood markets in the world - the
Aquaculture Strategic Plan 30
i
GI
Eastern seaboard of the United States. The state also has an immensely talented and
diverse work force and an established seafood processing and distribution network
ready to deliver aquaculture products to domestic and world markets.
Clearly the state of Massachusetts must seize the opportunity to foster this growth
industry. The state can not continue to sit mired in a sea of regulations and policy
inaction which restrict opportunities for economic development and
diversification. The Task Force on Aquaculture Economic Development and
Marketing believes that Massachusetts stands at a true crossroads. Stand behind and
actively promote the development of a strong, diversified and environmentally
sensitive aquaculture industry, or miss the boat and watch development dollars and
markets go to our neighboring states and other countries.
i
To encourage vigorous growth and development of the aquaculture industry in
Massachusetts there must first be strong leadership and commitment from the
Governor of the Commonwealth, affirming that growth of the aquaculture industry
is in the best interest of the state and will play a significant role in its economic
* future.
Furthermore, the state needs to develop a coordinated approach to aquaculture
development and regulation. Central to this effort must be the creation of an
aquaculture coordinator position to promote aquaculture in the state and coordinate
the various state agencies and other entities involved in regulation and support.
Currently aquaculture regulation is scattered across a myriad of state agencies and
individual towns. The need for coordination is not only clear, it is absolutely
critical. Review of the successful aquaculture programs in other states is testimony
to the key role of aquaculture coordination.
Equally important to the Governor's leadership and aquaculture coordination is the
dire need for regulatory reform. The current aquaculture permitting process is
lengthy, costly, and complicated and discourages financial investment. In order for
any growth in the industry to take place, overhauling and streamlining of the
regulatory process must be the top priority. Until the regulatory process is
improved, little industry development is likely. The State should also push for the
development of federal policies permitting aquaculture in offshore waters, an area
of significant economic opportunity as offshore technologies come on line.
Massachusetts has a distinct advantage in the field of offshore aquaculture
technology given the concentration of marine science and technology research
institutions and firms in the state.
The state must also act to provide this fledgling industry with opportunities for
start-up capital, research and development funds, marketing and promotion
support, and education and training. These efforts must take an industry -up
r approach rather than a government -down approach, whereby the state uses industry
expertise and experience to help it identify germane areas of applied research that
will actively promote the development of the state's aquaculture industry.
L Aquaculture Strategic Plan 31
0
Likewise, the industry can help guide and develop useful financing programs,
appropriate education programs, and effective marketing and promotion efforts.
C-1
The state, by working cooperatively with the industry, can have an enormously
positive impact on the development of aquaculture in Massachusetts. The passage
of comprehensive aquaculture legislation - addressing the concerns raised by the
Task Force, including state coordination of aquaculture development and
• management, access to capital for aquaculture entrepreneurs, dedication of research
and development funds, reform of the regulatory environment, creation of
education and training programs at the secondary, vocational and university levels,
and adequate marketing and promotion support - is the top priority. Aquaculture
offers significant opportunities in community economic development, job creation,
i technology development, and food production. The Commonwealth, through surift
and decisive action outlined in the following recommendations, can capitalize
upon these opportunities.
Constraints to Growth
Aquaculture Coordination
The development and regulation of aquaculture in Massachusetts is currently
spread over a myriad of agencies with little coordination among them. This has
resulted in not only a complicated regulatory environment, but one that has been
generally unsupportive of aquaculture development in the state. The state is clearly
in need of a coordinated approach to aquaculture development and we see the
creation of an aquaculture coordinator position along with the Aquaculture
Advisory Group as the cornerstones of coordinated industry development. This
approach has been used very successfully in most other states, as exemplified by the
i National Association of State Aquaculture Coordinators.
Obstacles to Financing
The rapidly growing domestic and international aquaculture industry offers great
benefits to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts through increased employment
t opportunities and job creation in the industrial sector including new and traditional
spin-off industries that support aquaculture and seafood manufacturing. Spin-off
opportunities include feed production, transportation, equipment manufacturing
(pumps, cages, 'veterinarian services, nets, boats, etc.), processing, packaging,
electronic monitoring and others.
A chief force propelling the growth of the aquaculture industry has been the
declining supplies of many of our principal wild fish stocks. Other factors have been
the demand for year round supplies and consistent quality and appearance. In spite
of many industry growth indicators, the finance community has been reluctant to
support its development. The reluctance is based on a daunting regulatory
f environment and a lack of information concerning what factors contribute to a
successful aquaculture operation. Consequently, start-up capital is difficult to access,
Aquaculture Strategic Plan
32
0
a
6
i
•
and there has been little investment in technology that would reduce capital
equipment costs.
The availability of information for the finance community on technology, market
conditions and production costs would allow a more accurate assessment of risk and
the securing of financial support for aquaculture development. Economic models
for successful aquaculture operations would further contribute to improved
perceptions of aquaculture among the finance community.
Lack of Marketing and Promotion Support
Product marketing and promotion are key to the success of any business, and
aquaculture is no exception. As aquaculture of many species is relatively new to the
state and the region, consumers are not familiar with the business nor its products.
Local opposition to aquaculture development often stems from a misunderstanding
of aquaculture operations. Aquaculture products, having been farmed under
controlled conditions, possess unique product characteristics that can be used in
their promotion. Expansion of the aquaculture industry in Massachusetts will not
proceed smoothly unless the public understands the nature of aquaculture and is
aware of the many benefits of aquaculture to their local communities and the state.
There is a clear need for state public education programs regarding aquaculture -
how it works and what its benefits are. The state can also capitalize upon the
favorable image of New England seafood and the promotion of its aquaculture
products can stimulate demand in the state, region, nation and around the world.
Regulatory Barriers to Marketing and Product Development
Currently there are many state regulations which hamper not only the
development of aquaculture but also the marketing of aquaculture products. Some
of these regulations set size restrictions based on those that pertain to the wild .;
fisheries. One of the key advantages of aquaculture is the ability to harvest at a size
which is most economically efficient and most profitable in the marketplacg.
Inappropriate size restriction placed on cultured products results in loss of revenue
and an increased risk on the part of the aquaculturist who must hold live product
longer than is desirable. Other regulations restrict the availability of fish and
shellfish for stocking, broodstock and research. All of these restrictions result in
higher costs to the aquaculturists, fewer marketing options and in certain cases,
higher productions risks. The state should actively review and revise some of their
current fisheries regulations to allow for flexible aquaculture development and
marketing while assuring the protection of its wild fish stocks.
Aquaculture Technology
The aquaculture industry is not limited solely to companies that produce finfish,
shellfish and aquatic plants. When the industry is considered in a broader sense, it
can include individuals and firms involved in research and development (R&D)
and the marketing of technologies such as sensory instruments, growout system
(pens, tanks, etc.) disease identification and control methods, feeding and breeding
methods and environmental controls.
Aquaculture Strategic Plan
33
i
Massachusetts marine technology firms, universities and marine research
Is institutions' possess world class capabilities, and Massachusetts is indeed poised to
capitalize on this in-house source of expertise. These capabilities can be coordinated
to focus on technological problems in aquaculture to reduce the investment risks
and improve the efficiency of production. State investment in technology research
and development will also foster the development of the marine technology
r industry in Massachusetts, a sector with excellent growth potential to service the
expanding aquaculture industry worldwide.
Currently, there are several bills before the Legislature that would authorize
significant levels of funding to enhance aquaculture R&D. However, the proposed
` legislation appears to allocate funds in advance for specific R&D projects. Although
identification of general categories of technological problems seems appropriate, a
policy of "picking winners" through legislation is not. General research areas must
be carefully identified according to state needs, and grants must be awarded on a
competitive, peer-reviewed basis.
Aquaculture Education in Massachusetts: Current Situation and Opportunities
Education and training are necessary for the growth of aquaculture in
Massachusetts. The state must take the initiative in the formation of these
programs. Foreign countries and U.S. states leading in aquaculture have
implemented comprehensive education programs including university degree
* programs, vocational training, extension services, and public/private education,
research, and development activities. Hawaii, Florida, Maine and other leading
states have integrated public university systems with industry directed research,
extension services and degree aquaculture programs.
There are presently very few opportunities for aquaculture training and education
in Massachusetts (see attached survey). Existing private aquaculturists generally rely
on other aquaculturists and limited assistance from UMASS cooperative extension
service and regional organizations such as the Northeast Regional Aquaculture
Center, Sea Grant, and out of state universities.
Technical education will increase the success rate of start-up aquaculture ventures.
Successful start-ups are critical for financial support to the industry. Extension
service can provide necessary technical assistance to aquaculture operations,
reducing the failure rate of start-ups, increasing production and mitigating losses
from disease, predators, and other risk factors.
There are presently no degree granting institutions with aquaculture programs in
the state, and there is very limited application of aquaculture education at other
levels. Formal education programs combined with industry driven research have
proven beneficial to aquaculture development in other states. Aquaculture
W education programs in secondary schools and vocational -technical schools can easily
be integrated into the state's cross curriculum initiative. Biology, chemistry,
Aquaculture Strategic PIan
J
34
0
engineering, business and writing skills are all necessary components to the multi -
0 disciplinary field of aquaculture. Regional training centers specific to aquaculture
could provide training to prospective aquaculture teachers.
•
Public education programs can generate the public support necessary for aquaculture
to develop in the state. The public is generally uninformed regarding aquaculture
operations and benefits. This lack of knowledge results in a negative attitude and a
public perception of aquaculture as detrimental. With home rule in Massachusetts,
local communities control coastal aquaculture. Positive public support is needed for
expansion of all (inland, coastal & offshore) aquaculture. Public/private aquaculture
projects can be very effective in the development of the private and public
(enhancement) aquaculture industry in Massachusetts. Private involvement
insures cost efficient and industry relative projects. Public involvement ensures
public benefit, consistency with other projects, and a broad overview. (i.e., water
quality monitoring & remediation, habitat restoration, population stability.
Information transfer is critical to the success of all aquaculture.)
Recommendations
The following recommendations represent the economic initiatives necessary to
make Massachusetts competitive in the regional, national and international
aquaculture market. Recommendations requiring funding have a ($) next to them.
Funding levels for each recommendation can be found on Graphic 3. Graphic 3 also
indicates the prioritization of the recommendations requiring funding.
34. Recommendation: ($)
The state should establish an Aquaculture Revolving Loan Fund providing up
to $25,000 for aquaculture start-up capital and requiring a 50/50 match. If the
loan is for bricks and mortar, with no operating expenses, provide an 80/20
match for up to 70 percent of costs.
Justification:
The private finance community looks upon private aquaculture with
interested skepticism. State funding of a revolving loan fund could serve to
leverage private capital. There is a direct correlation between states with
growing aquaculture industries and direct state funded support.
Implementation Approach:
Create lending criteria and an oversight committee or board of directors to
advise with expertise from industry, academia, finance and other government
entities. Legislative appropriation may be necessary. Note that this fund could
0 be included as part of a comprehensive natural resource financing legislation
that is presently being considered.
Aquaculture Strategic Plan 35
0
0
35. Recommendation:
DFA should expand its existing agriculture marketing and distribution
10 programs to include aquaculture. Specifically, DFA should develop/expand the
following programs: work with area restaurants, chefs and supermarkets to
showcase Mass. aquaculture products; track information on domestic seafood
markets and international trade opportunities (see Appendix C for an excellent
example from the Maryland Aquaculture office.); coordinate with the
Governor's Seafood Task Force in their development of fishery product
promotion; and incorporate Massachusetts aquaculture products into the DFA
Fresh Connection promotion program.
Justification:
Many of these programs are already established and would require minimal
effort to expand to include aquaculture products.
36. Recommendation: W
Provide funding to subsidize participation in the Boston Seafood Show,
currently the premier seafood trade show in the U.S.. The Massachusetts
seafood industry could have a "Massachusetts Ave." block of booths similar to
,Maine's successful "Maine Street" promotion of Maine seafood companies.
Also provide funding for promotion of MA aquaculture products at local
seafood festivals such as those in Gloucester and New Bedford, as well as the
Harvest Festival in Cambridge.
Justification:
A display at the Boston Seafood Show would promote not only MA
aquaculture products but other MA seafood products and an overall positive
image of Massachusetts seafood.
r�
37. Recommendation: W
Establish a grants program or incentive program for secondary schools to
implement aquaculture curriculum and small scale aquaculture facilities.
Emphasize aquaculture in the state's cross curriculum goals for secondary
i schools.
Justification:
Curriculum is available from other states and can easily be transferred to
Massachusetts schools. Small scale, hands-on facilities are vital to the
education effort. Freshwater recirculating systems are the most cost efficient for
e this type of basic training. Vocational schools should be given priority in this
program. For those schools unable to establish a hands on program assistance
should be provided for some cooperation with local vocational school and/or
exposure to other aquaculture operations and regional demonstration centers.
t
Aquaculture Strategic Plan
•
36
38. Recommendation: W
. The Commonwealth should sponsor a seminar for the finance community to
acquaint them with the various forms of aquaculture possible in
Massachusetts. In addition, the aquaculture coordinator should work to inform
the public/private finance community about industry developments and
successful models in order to encourage lending. The coordinator should also
work with local communities to encourage aquaculture as an element of
• community economic development planning.
Justification:
Many key and interested bankers and investors in the Northeast have been or
would like to be involved in investing in or lending to the aquaculture
ft industry, whether inshore, offshore or land-based. One obstacle that the
finance community must overcome is a general lack of information about the
nature of the aquaculture industry.
Implementation Approach:
Regularly scheduled seminars, distribution of printed materials and video
production to focus on economic benefits to state and local communities.
39. Recommendation: W
r Develop a public relations campaign designed to enlighten citizens about what
aquaculture is, how it works and the importance and benefits of the industry.
This may involve the development of videos, print material and posters.
Point-of-purchase materials should be distributed to retail outlets.
Justification: •
There is a need to educate the general public regarding all aspects of
aquaculture in order to generate public support for the aquaculture industry
and market demand for its products.
40. Recommendation:
Allow finfish growers to sell their products at below the minimum size set by
regulations governing the wild fisheries.
Justification:
There are significant markets for these products, particularly in the market for
s live fish, and proper documentation such as tracking numbers and duplicate
invoices should assure the protection of the wild fish stocks.
41. Recommendation:
Consider developing a limited access, quota controlled fishery for elvers
(juvenile eels) to provide stock for Massachusetts aquaculture operations.
Elvers would be allowed to be harvested and sold only in the state of
Massachusetts for aquaculture in Massachusetts only.
Aquaculture Strategic Plan 37
i
•
Justification:
0 Techniques for hatching elvers from adult eel eggs is not yet known; hence the
aquaculture industry must rely on wild caught elvers for their stock. Currently
elvers sell approximately $200-450 per pound in Maine. If aquaculturists held
the elvers for growout to adults, assuming normal growout and typical
mortality, the value of one pound of elvers grown to adult size would amount
to an estimated $30,000.
42. Recommendation:
Allow a limited number of special permits for collection of highly regulated
species such as striped bass, white perch, yellow perch, sturgeon, largemouth
bass and others for aquaculture broodstock and research.
Justification:
There may be significant opportunities in the aquaculture of many alternative
species. However, aquaculturists and other researchers need a limited number
of wild fish in order to research the possibilities.
•
43. *'Recommendation:
Reassess the current restrictions on the culture of non-native species to
Massachusetts. Develop a set of protocols that would allow the culture of non-
native species in alternative growing systems. Industry should prioritize
species of interest and a risk assessment should be performed on high priority
species.
Justification:
There are significant opportunities in the culture of many species that are not
native to the state. The state, before closing the door to these opportunities,
should at least analyze the risks. If the risks are found to be acceptable,
aquaculture of those species should be allowed.
44. Recommendation:
The MA Division of Marine Fisheries should develop a written policy
concerning acceptable sources for shellfish seed for aquacultural purposes,
including the importation of seed from other states. The protocol of the
Atlantic States Marine Fishery Commission regarding interstate shipment of
seed should be used as guidance.
Justification:
Currently DMF does not allow the importation of shellfish seed from
hatcheries outside of the region, and there is some confusion concerning the
certification process a hatchery must follow to become certified by DMF. Since
the Massachusetts shellfish aquaculture industry is presently limited by seed
f availability, this recommendation should result in improved access to hatchery
seed sources.
Aquaculture Strategic Plan 38
0
45. Recommendation: W
Fund a non-government organization to conduct an annual survey of the
Massachusetts aquaculture industry. Information to be gathered in the survey
would include annual production and value figures, employment, future
expectations, current constraints to the industry, etc.
Justification:
This information is critical to the tracking of industry development, the
marketing of products and the documentation of the value of the industry to
the state of Massachusetts.
• 46. Recommendation: W
Establish a competitive grant program to foster research and development.
Funds should be allocated to aquaculture R&D projects through a peer-
reviewed, competitive process and on the basis of Commonwealth and
industry needs. Identification of R&D grant criteria will be set by the
0 Aquaculture Advisory Group and funds will be administered by an appropriate
state agency.
Justification:
Basic and applied research is needed to identify appropriate species for culture
in Massachusetts and to develop efficient and economic technologies. There
will be ongoing research needed in these areas as well as areas such as disease
prevention, feed efficiency, hatchery techniques, environmental impacts, etc.
Few private firms have the expertise or funds to conduct this typically costly
research and thus rely upon publicly funded research.
4& 47. Recommendation: W f
Fund on a competitive basis an industry based and driven research and
innovation center such as the newly established Massachusetts Aquaculture
Innovation Center (MAIC). Modeled after the successful Maine Aquaculture
Innovation Center, the MAIC should be a state assisted, but industry -driven
research and development center. (The MAIC is presently an organization
with a board of directors. There is no physical "center" at this time.)
Justification:
Organizations such as the MAIC will facilitate and expand cooperative efforts
between industry and the research community while acting as an information
transfer source. This approach has proven itself to be very responsive to
industry needs while maintaining a balanced representation from government,
academia and industry.
Aquaculture Strategic Plan 39
48. Recommendation:
40 Earmark existing state programs and funding that can be redirected towards
aquaculture training, education, and extension at secondary, vocational, and
college levels.
Justification:
There are likely to be several existing state education programs and funding
sources which could be directed to include aquaculture training and education.
Prior the implementation of this recommendation, consideration must be
given to the availability of aquaculture jobs.
49. Recommendation:
Recommend that the Governor appoint a member to the Fish and Wildlife
Advisory Board who has experience in the aquaculture field the next time a
position on the board 'is open.
50. Recommendation: ($)
The state should provide aquaculture extension services. Through the state
university/college system, establish two extension agents, one specializing in
,freshwater aquaculture and one in marine aquaculture.
Justification:
Extension agents, using university and regional demonstration center
resources, can provide training and assistance to the industry.
51. Recommendation: ($)
Develop a Massachusetts -Grown Seal to be put on packaging to promote MA
aquaculture products.
f
Justification:
A Massachusetts -Grown seal will promote Massachusetts aquaculture products
and the Massachusetts seafood image.
52. Recommendation: ($)
Establish an internet bulletin board or homepage which would post MA
aquaculture products availability and prices. This could be partially funded by
fees to businesses using the service.
Justification:
An internet bulletin board is a potentially efficient and highly effective means
of promoting the awareness and availability of Massachusetts aquaculture
products to a wide variety of domestic and international buyers.
Aquaculture Strategic Plan 40
0
53. Recommendation
Initiate study of agriculture cooperatives and how they could be applied to
4k aquaculture in MA. Currently there is not a critical mass of businesses nor a
marketing logjam to warrant the establishment of a cooperative.
Justification:
As the aquaculture industry expands in the state, the industry may benefit from
0 management, marketing, and other support services that a cooperative can
offer at a lower cost than if left to an individual firm.
54. Recommendation: ($)
Develop a buyers guide to MA aquaculture products to be distributed locally,
48 regionally, and nationally.
Justification:
There is a need to attract and educate buyers about MA aquaculture products.
55. Recommendation:
Provide marketing seminars to growers to inform them of alternative
marketing options for their products.
Justification:
Growers can capitalize on the unique characteristics of aquaculture products if
• they are better informed about marketing options.
56. Recommendation ($)
Appropriate funds for aquaculture degree programs at universities and
colleges. Massachusetts universities/ colleges should develop coordinated j
programs with each institution specializing in one or two particular areas. The
curriculum exists in other university systems both in the U.S. and abroad.
Suggested areas of focus include: shellfish, marine finfish, crustaceans, aquatic
plants, freshwater finfish, disease and veterinary studies, engineering, and
technology. All programs should include business, sales and marketing, and
technology. The universities could also act as regional training centers to offer
teacher training in aquaculture.
Justification:
Critical to the successful implementation of any aquaculture program is
education and training.
r
57. Recommendation: ($)
Establish a grants program available to community organizations to design and
implement public aquaculture education programs.
1
Aquaculture Strategic Plan
i
41
1
Justification:
Aquaculture development in Massachusetts requires community level
a programs. Raising the public's awareness of the benefits of aquaculture is
critical to success. Community organizations can tailor specific public
education programs to their particular conditions. Model programs include
Nantucket where private aquaculture is being developed in conjunction with
public fisheries enhancement programs. The program includes water quality
monitoring through educational programs for local students and the general
public. In Westport, students and other local organizations collect scallop spat
for enhancement. Involvement of the local community generates support for
aquaculture development.
58. Recommendation: ($)
Establish regional aquaculture information/ training demonstration centers
which are state/private partnerships and locally operated.
Justification:
These demonstration centers will provide the infrastructure necessary for
aquaculture development. The centers should be based upon a commercial
level aquaculture operation to provide funding for operations. This will
promote relevant training, practical research and development opportunities,
and offer facilities to commercial operators for research and development
activities. As demonstration centers, these facilities will play the important
• role of introducing the public to physical aquaculture operations. They will
provide training to prospective aquaculturists, teachers, and students.
59. Recommendation: ($)
Establish a grants program to design and implement public/private programs
which combine public enhancement and private aquaculture development.
For example, on Nantucket, the Nantucket Research and Education
Foundation and future private aquaculturists (aquaculturists in training)
provide labor and expertise to the town for Nantucket's public enhancement
program. In return, the town allows use of areas normally closed to private
aquaculture for nursery operations.
Justification:
This cooperation increased benefits to both public and private operations. The
private sector is much more efficient at operating aquaculture programs
whether for profit or enhancement. The program has also increased water
quality monitoring activities for the entire island. This same model can be
used for freshwater resources.
Aquaculture Strategic Plan
42
Chapter V
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Introduction
! Aquaculture is a relatively new and promising industry in Massachusetts, therefore
it stands to reason that communities as well as individuals are concerned about
proposals for its promotion. Water quality is frequently a prominent concern when
aquaculture facility siting options are discussed. The problems posed by competing
uses such as marine and coastal environments, as well as social considerations, such
! as private ownership, can be addressed in a thoughtful deliberative fashion, by
incorporating good siting and environmental data into the initial stages of the
decision-making process. .
To assist proper siting, support aquaculture -related management and policy
! decisions, and ensure the long-term sustainability of this fledgling industry, the state
needs to develop sound data and reliable information. The effective utilization of
data will be the cornerstone for deciding fundamental issues such as, land -use
patterns, and how water-based activities affect water quality and aquatic habitats in
marine and coastal environments. In addition, this information is necessary to
t enhance the development of a balanced, comprehensive, and effective policy that
will promote aquacultural enterprise.
This chapter contains the following subsections: Siting and Monitoring. While
these two topics are related, siting and monitoring present different perspectives and
concerns and therefore, require separate attention. The information required for
siting is both site and species-specific. Conversely, monitoring is broad-based and
must be consistent with a range of current and future uses and needs.
Monitoring data required to describe ambient environmental conditions of a specific
fishery, at a specific site proposed for aquaculture is, different on both spatial and
temporal scales from physical, chemical, and biological parameters needed to
document the presence/absence of change. Several regulatory programs also govern
site -selection and the on-going operations of established facilities. Siting decisions
must take into account issues such as: the natural productivity of the area under
consideration; proximity of wild fisheries; migratory stocks; competing uses;
! navigational constraints; questions of coastal access; and upstream uses. In addition,
an up -and -running aquaculture facility will have to satisfy National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting conditions according to
monitoring parameters required by this well-established program. NPDES
permitting, however, may not necessarily be relevant to the siting process itself.
1
Aquaculture Strategic Plan 43
C:
n
Siting
General Considerations
If Massachusetts is to successfully site aquaculture facilities and promote the growth
of the aquaculture industry, economic investment required for its success must
incorporate sound management decisions while also protecting environmental
quality. A wide array of environmental, political, economic, and social
considerations affect proper siting of aquaculture projects. These practical
considerations are often site, and species specific, however, general features of the
state of Massachusetts, both political and geographic, must also be considered when
making siting decisions.
• Within the borders of Massachusetts exist two distinctly different hydrogeographic
and biogeographic provinces. North of Cape Cod, water temperatures are
consistently colder, especially during winter. These colder temperatures can cause
problems with icing, which is a major impediment to the use of cages and other
aquaculture structures. Moreover, cold water temperatures, even south of Cape
Cod, can often be lethal to a wide variety aquaculture species. Conversely, summer
temperatures in the Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays, especially near -shore, are
often too warm for most salmonids, the species most commonly used for finfish
aquaculture in the northeast. However, south of Cape Cod, warm summer
temperatures actually promote growth of certain shellfish and finfish, where cold
winter waters can greatly increase culture time and consequently, costs.
In both of these areas of Massachusetts, many of the species traditionally associated
with aquaculture are difficult, if not impossible, to culture profitably. Thus, the first
step for any siting venture in Massachusetts coastal waters must be the generation of
a detailed annual temperature profile. Any siting decision must use temperature
profile information to determine the optimal temperature range for the species and
systems under consideration. The responsibility of generating this profile, and
incorporating the information it contains into the siting decision, needs to be clearly
specified.
Equally important to the temperature profile is a description of prevailing
hydrographic conditions. This information will determine the usefulness of the site
for particular categories of aquacultural enterprise. Current direction and velocity,
affect the delivery of plankton to filter -feeding shellfish and the elimination of
wastes from systems where feeding and/or medication are required. Structural
adequacy of moorings and other project deployments must be demonstrated with
0 regard to sea -state conditions at the site.
Good water quality is a fundamental concern for siting aquaculture facilities. The
water quality of most Massachusetts coastal environments is generally acceptable
and capable of supporting most of the kinds of aquaculture ventures that are likely
40 to be introduced within the state. Water quality in Massachusetts is poorest in
urban estuaries and inner harbor areas. Aquaculture may be precluded in these
Aquaculture Strategic Plan 44
areas, not only because of water quality, but also because of the presence of other
` well established conflicting uses such as commerce and navigation.
For most, if not all, potential sites there is limited or no environmental/water
quality data upon which siting and operational decisions can be made.
Consequently, for all siting decisions critical information must first be generated
regarding water temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pathogen and toxic
! contaminant concentrations. The responsibility for gathering this information also
needs to be determined:
Siting for shellfish aquaculture facilities is further constrained by the fact that
shellfish projects can be located only in beds classified as "approved" under the
ID National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP). This restriction limits the
availability of potential shellfish aquaculture sites in near -shore environments
within Massachusetts.
The experience of other states and countries which have successfully addressed
problems concerning siting protocols for aquaculture facilities has been utilized in
developing systems within the state. Combining the best of these collective
solutions and adapting them to the state's needs, should aid the development of
siting and operational monitoring systems to encourage aquaculture development.
. Many aquaculture projects require a near -shore location where water and sediment
quality are often most degraded by upland activities. This situation limits the
potential availability of many sites in Massachusetts for successful aquaculture
development. Nevertheless, there are several areas in Massachusetts which support
relatively pristine conditions suitable for aquaculture. Long-term suitability,
however, may be jeopardized by future pressure for development and by changing
! land uses. This existing and potential conflict between land and water uses is an
important policy and management question~ To balance the competing demands on
coastal areas, successful planning for aquaculture must integrate long range land
and water -use planning.
! Specific Siting Considerations
Siting an aquaculture facility requires evaluation of diverse kinds of information
ranging from ambient water quality, to state and local regulatory concerns. The
following reviews existing regulatory authority, siting criteria, and mapping as a
siting tool for regulators, policy decision makers, and entrepreneurs.
•
The current Massachusetts regulatory scheme assigns control to local governments
for the issuance of aquaculture licenses in waters and flats up to the three-mile
limit. This authority however, only applies to licenses for shellfish aquaculture. To
date, no comparable regulations/licenses exist for finfish aquaculture.
Aquaculture Strategic Plan 45
•
The succeeding siting considerations and the monitoring criteria are each discussed
in accordance with the following four categories of aquacultural enterprise described
in Chapter M.
1. No Structures/No Additions/No Discharges:
Prototype, Shellfish Bottom Culture
• 2. Structures (Water-Based)/No Additions/No Discharges:
Prototype, Shellfish/Seaweed Water Column Culture
•
3. Structures (Land -Based) /Additions /Discharges:
Prototype, Recirculating/Flowthrough Culture
4. Structures (Water-Based)/Additions/Discharges:
Prototype, Net -Pen Culture of Finfish
Category 5 projects, Projects in Federal Waters, can involve any of the four
• categories referenced above. Siting and monitoring criteria for category 5 projects,
are not discussed in this section.
Cat gory 1.
No Structures/No Additions/No Discharges: Prototype, Shellfish Bottom Culture
•
Aquaculture facilities in this category typically involve intertidal and subtidal
bottom culture of shellfish. Authority granted under Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 130 (MGL Ch. 130), section 57, requires DMF to review applications to
ensure site-specific shellfish culture activities, approved in via a town -issued
• license, will not have an undue adverse affect upon area natural resources. DMF's
review begins by assessing the water quality using a sanitary survey which
establishes a classification for the area such as approved, restricted, or prohibited.
The primary basis for classifying shellfish growing areas is the concentration of fecal
coliform bacteria counted in water samples collected from the site. If a site is
• classified as either prohibited or restricted, the municipality can not issue a shellfish
aquaculture license.
Under (MGL Ch. 130) section 57, and as part of the current siting process, DMF is
required to review the public hearing record to identify other potential problems
• including the presence of other productive fisheries or competing uses. A grid
survey is used to assess the density of shellfish population per square foot as well as
the presence of other resources at the site. DMF must also consider the presence of
threatened or endangered species, such as the piping plover, their critical habitats,
and seek advice on these issues from other appropriate agencies. Finally, DMF must
also consider the effect of the proposed activity on current public access to shoreline
habitats, as well as effects on sea grasses and other vegetative systems.
Aquaculture Strategic Plan
0
46
For the purpose of aquaculture facilities siting, the Army Corps of Engineer (ACOE)
• is concerned with environmental impacts and obstructions to navigation. To
facilitate the aquaculture permitting process, the ACOE has developed thresholds
regarding size and type of facility. Facilities under 10 acres, which covers most
bottom shellfish operations, are subject to the ACOE Programmatic General Permit
(PGP) program. Facilities over 10 acres would require submission of an individual
permit application. DMF often collaborates in providing site-specific information to
the ACOE regarding both of these type of permits.
Under the Wetlands Protection Act, local Conservation Commissions are
authorized to review aquaculture projects proposals in tidal flats, saltmarshes and
• submerged lands. Conservation Commissions are required to ensure that proposed
activities will not adversely affect drinking water supplies, wildlife habitat, or
interfere with stormwater runoff.
Category 2.
Structures (Water-Based)/No Additions/No Discharges: Prototype,
Shellfish/ Seaweed Water Column Culture.
These operations involve using gear suspended in the water column from buoys
that can be moved vertically for ease of maintenance and harvesting. This category
0 also covers production of algae and other nonshellfish species, where feeding is not
required. An Individual Permit from the ACOS is required for most subtidal,
suspended, or transient facilities. Some suspended or floating shellfish culture
activities are allowed under the PGP. Municipalities do not have licensing
authority over these nonshellfish aquaculture operations, however Conservation
Commissions do have oversight authority under the WPA. .
Criteria for siting subtidal, suspended, or transient shellfish cages, are essentially the
same as siting intertidal shellfish operations: These operations, however, receive a
higher level of review, due to potential navigational and engineering limitations,
and the potential effects aquaculture structures may have on the ambient
environment and endangered species.
Category _
Structures (Land-Based)/Additions/Discharges: Prototype,
Recirculating/Flowthrough Culture (Addressed elsewhere)
Category 4.
Structures (Water -Based) /Additions/ Discharges: Prototype, Net -Pen Culture of
Finfish.
0 Aquaculture Strategic Plan 47
At present, no process exists within Massachusetts government to assess siting
proposals for finfish aquaculture. Municipalities have no "home rule" regulatory
• authority with respect to finfish aquaculture as they do for shellfish aquaculture,
except under the WPA.
The following basic elements are for incorporation into a aquaculture siting
procedures check list:
a. Endangered species habitats must be identified within a given distance from
the proposed culture site. Gear modification or alternative site selection may
be required to reduce potential adverse effects to protected species and their
habitats.
•
b. Issuance of a water quality certification from the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection must be obtained, and criteria set forth in the
Clean Water Act and the Rivers and Harbors Act must be met.
0 c. Applicants must provide accurate plans for pen facilities, existing resources,
and current and proposed uses in the site, and in adjacent areas. These plans
r must, at a minimum, also include: the number, size and location of pens; a
mooring plan; and, the maximum area to be utilized by pen systems.
d. A baseline survey will be required that includes video diver survey, sediment
a and infauna analysis, water quality sampling, and hydrographic data
collection such as current and water depth information. As part of this
baseline survey, benthos must be characterized in terihs of sediment
structure, community structure, and basic hydrography.
e. Water depth must be sufficient at all times to allow circulation beneath pen
systems.
f. The engineering specifications of any proposed system must be sufficient to
withstand the worst expected sea state and other hydrographic parameters at
• the selected site. The ACOS will determine if engineering design is sufficient
in its permit review process.
Mapping for Aquaculture in Massachusetts
Maps are the traditional tools used to visually display information and locate and
monitor the physical environment. The recent explosion in information
technology now offers many more mapping formats then previously available.
Maps can be customized to show the user the exact information needed for any
particular use. In addition, maps can easily be revised to reflect changes to the
physical and natural environment.
Use of information technology for mapping is rapidly becoming a significant
management tool for ocean and coastal planning. Several marine oriented items
Aquaculture Strategic Plan 48
0
now under review in the Massachusetts legislature, require mapping using modern
0 mapping tools. The Open Space and Seaport Bond bills are examples of such items,
which if passed, present opportunities for funding coastal mapping initiatives.
Mapping based on information technology could greatly benefit the business
community, regulatory agencies involved with aquaculture, and state and
municipal planners. In addition, maps and data produced could significantly
enhance private support by aquaculture entrepreneurs. These maps, once
developed, can guide applicants for aquaculture licenses to appropriate sites and
help simplify the license application process. Regulatory officials reviewing license
applications rely on standardized maps, which facilitates the recording of baseline
and operational monitoring data. Planners developing and modifying zoning and
land use designations in harbor areas will also benefit from the development of
9 these maps and the accompanying coastal and marine resource data sources.
On the down side, base map preparation is costly and time consuming. Identifying
users and the appropriate use specific scale is a crucial component for developing
useful maps. It is important to note, that inaccuracies inherent in mapping exercises
• necessitate the continuance of site and field investigations, as well as long-term
monitoring efforts. Field investigations that verify current baseline information
and establish precise locations of crucial data and information will continue to be
essential.
In Massachusetts, various agencies and organizations are engaged in the mapping of
geographic data using information technology. MassGIS coordinates many of these
activities among the agencies and with the state's Management Information System
(MIS) efforts. Since its inception in 1985, MassGIS data base has developed in close
cooperation with federal agencies, local communities, and special interest groups.
MassGIS base maps have been derived from 1:25,000 -scale USGS topographic maps.
This scale, while efficient in terms of cost for state-wide needs, does not provide the
precision, detail, or up-to-date qualities necessary for coastal and marine mapping
requirements.
To promote, regulate and assist the aquaculture community, maps on a scale of plus
or minus 1 m, rather than the plus or minus 10-15 m, are needed. To date, MassGIS
has operated in a cost -for -services mode. An agency or outside user, orders and pays
for data layers to be digitized, and then purchases customized maps. Because custom
map production is time consuming, efforts using CDROM technology are currently
underway at EDEA. This conversion will make the MassGIS data base more cost
effective and increase accessibility to outside users, allowing the private sector to
assume more of the custom map generation function for non -agency users.
Assuming passage of the Open Space Bond bill, MassGIS will begin an aggressive
multi-year mapping effort to enhance the precision of the state's base map through
the generation of black and white orthophoto maps. Orthophoto maps provide
precise positional information which future agency mapping efforts could share.
Orthophotos provide a pictorial representation over which interpretive data can be
. Aquaculture Strategic Plan 49
C
superimposed. Stored in the existing MassGIS archives, are a number of useful
layers of coastal marine data, developed by MassGIS, DFW, ELF, and MCZM. The
utility of these data varies depending on their origin and their intended use.
In October 1994, the United States Department of Commerce's NOS began a multi-
year shoreline mapping project to update the state's nautical charts. Results of the
NOS mission will include precise delineations of the shoreline at Mean High Water
• (MHW) and Mean Low Water (MLW). Additionally, information about docks and
piers, and other features commonly seen on a nautical chart, will be included, and
incorporated into MassGIS.
MCZM is working closely with both MassGIS and NOS to unify these efforts and to
0 develop a comprehensive and long term 1:10,000 scale coastal map series that will
better meet the requirements of coastal and marine users. Phase I of this project, to
be completed by September 1995, will produce rectified color aerial photographs
using the NOS source data currently available. Phase II will add and refine marine
jurisdictional designations to the MassGIS by Spring 1996. Phase III will produce
color orthophotographs for the entire coast.
MCZM has received funding under a federal grant to establish a Marine Resources
Information System. This integrated with MRGIS will collate, standardize and
manipulate existing geographic information relating to ocean resources. New
information layers will also be added as compatible information is gathered. MCZM
is working with DMF, MassGIS and other agencies to initiate this system.
Considerable amounts of basic physical and interpreted coastal marine information
still need to be acquired and/or synthesized. Data on bathymetry, navigation
channels, circulation, fisheries assessments, and many other categories of essential
• information are needed for planning, regulating, monitoring and promoting
aquaculture interests. Some of these data are already available within the scientific
community. The USGS Atlantic Marine Geology Division, Woods Hole
Oceanographic, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and Salem State College are
merely some of the regional information sources which can be tapped. These, and
• other data, need to be collected, organized, and integrated into the MassGIS to
improve accessibility for broader categories of coastal users.
In discussing mapping as an appropriate tool for aquacultural siting and monitoring
initiatives, it is important to address the development of siting maps that would
• indicate favorable aquaculture conditions. Unfortunately, there are a number of
drawbacks to this approach. First, there are many different species which are the
subject of aquaculture, each requires different habitats, structures, etc. The volume
of data that would have to be collected and digitized to display these species specific
requirements would be prohibitively expensive. Second, previous siting experience
suggests that maps of potential aquaculture sites can be used to prevent, rather than
a promote, the development of aquaculture facilities in otherwise ideal locations.
Aquaculture Strategic Plan 50
0
•
•
0
•
•
Lastly, sites can change, either.subtly or drastically, over time as a result of natural or
man made disasters.
Having considered these deterrents, the Working Group recommends that
aquaculture -relevant maps be produced which identify areas where aquaculture
would be constrained or prohibited using the following parameters:
1. Physical Characteristics
- temperature
- wind direction
- direction and velocity of currents
- maximum wave height/wave direction
- velocity overwash zones
- bathymetry
- surface water designations, such as outstanding resource waters (ORWs)
- Mean Low Water and Mean High Water (MLW, MHW)
- barrier beaches
- shoreline changes
2. Areas with Biological Management Designations
- ACECs
- endangered species and critical habitats
- identifiable nursery areas
- location of eelgrass (DEP)
- plankton density
- shellfish management areas
3. Cultural Features ..
- access issues
- competing uses, adjacent or at location, (land use and land cover data are
available from 1972 and 1985; 1990 data completed for the Cape, and 1995, for
Buzzards Bay)
- upland ownership (public vs. private)
• - location of NPDES point sources (water pollution)
- navigation channels
- navigational markers with a 100' to 200' contraindication buffer (all markers
in N.E.) soon to be available on disc
- dredge and disposal sites (ACOS digital data)
- shipwrecks
Note: Many of the parameters listed above have already been or are in the process of
being digitized, however, scales frequently vary.
•
Aquaculture Strategic Plan Sl
r "
E
Monitoring
Good water quality is an important prerequisite for successful aquaculture.
Maintaining a healthy coastal environment is not only important to the organisms
to be cultured at a site, but also for flora and fauna that are indigenous to the site,
and to the migratory species that circulate through and around the site.
Maintaining good water quality ensures a healthy valuable product will be
marketed, and helps to ensure the prolonged productiveness of the area, reducing
the need to develop other sites.
Maintaining good water quality, particularly in intensively developed coastal
environments such as Massachusetts, requires frequent monitoring. Effective
40 monitoring can detect changes in environmental quality that result from
aquaculture operations, as well as other impacts to coastal areas. In addition,
monitoring can quantify the scope and duration of environmental impacts.
Early identification of environmental degradation through a routine monitoring
program permits the aquaculturist to institute minor operational changes, for
example altering feeding frequency of net -pen reared finfish in order to correct an
identified problem before it reaches an extreme condition. Early identification of
environmental problems prevents cumulative environmental degradation and can
save the grower money. When degradation reaches an extreme level, cultured
organisms experience depressed growth rates, disease, and even death. A situation
all growers want to avoid.
Monitoring also permits comparison of baseline values of flora and fauna already
existing in the area prior to siting an aquaculture facility. This data provides useful
information on the extent of impact from a single operation and possible
0 cumulative impacts from many operations located within a single water body. In
general, successful monitoring can aid growers in raising organisms at a site for long
periods of time while minimizing impacts to the environment.
Healthy coastal ecosystems are characterized by a diversity of species. Change in
species diversity at a particular site is commonly used as an index of environmental
quality. Some aquaculture practices, such as feeding of net -pen finfish, may attract
new, wild species, hence resulting in a transient increase in biodiversity. Evidence
indicates, however, that over time continued inputs of food, essential nutrients, and
other "contaminants", typically results in a net loss of biodiversity near an
aquaculture site. Opportunistic species, such as Capitellid worms, often dominate
affected sites. Changes in the abundance of sensitive indicator species may reflect
initial impacts, while the total absence of indigenous benthic fauna reflects more
severe degradation. Some effects on the bent -dc community must be expected at an
in situ aquaculture site. However, the level and duration of such impacts need to be
monitored at regular intervals to determine if the degradation is persistent,
worsening, or extend beyond the immediate confines of the permitted facility. If
conditions become critical, steps need to be taken to reduce impacts to the area. Such
Aquaculture Strategic Plan
52
0
steps could be as simple as modifying feeding frequency or the volume of feed
• offered to prevent unconsumed food from accumulating in benthos. Although
more drastic action may sometimes be required, such as moving the entire culture
system, temporarily, or perhaps permanently, to allow the area to recover.
Process for Defining Monitoring Protocols for Proposed Aquaculture Projects in
Massachusetts
Current aquaculture in Massachusetts is largely limited to shellfish culture in the
southeastern coast, with some land-based aquaculture occurring in the western part
of the state. However, when considering a process to define monitoring guidelines,
the Working Group reviewed the complete spectrum of aquacultural enterprise.
The Working Group surveyed aquaculture monitoring protocols from outside the
United States, in Canada, Italy, Japan, Norway, Scotland, Chile, GESAMP, and also
domestically in the states of Washington, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island,
and Maine. Although all were instructive, none provided a truly successful "fit"
with the environmental, political, and cultural features that define marine
aquaculture in Massachusetts. Particularly, the state's physical location on the
boundary between two biogeographic provinces, its highly developed, intensively
used coastal environment, and its long tradition of home -rule make Massachusetts
truly unique.
Maine has, by northeast standards, a relatively well established aquaculture
industry. The majority of Massachusetts waters are part of the Gulf of Maine
system, therefore the Monitoring Subgroup relied heavily on Maine's experience.
From this information a three step process to generate the data and information will
need to be developed to monitor the environmental impact of aquaculture projects.
• This proposal, and the process it defines, must be seen as iterative, subject to
continuing revision. The following is an adaptation of the Maine three-step model.
Step One - Categorize the project
Define the project using one of four possible categories (see Appendix F) to describe a
continuum of potential impact on Massachusetts marine/coastal waters. These four
categories are consistent with the kinds of aquaculture facilities discussed in the
Regulatory Chapter and in the siting section of this chapter.
Category 1 Aquaculture
S Applies to low -impact, bottom -culture systems where there are no structures
suspended within the water column. These systems do not inhibit other
individuals from using the overlying water and do not contribute extraneous
additions of food or other inputs to the system. Category 1 aquaculture requires
minimal baseline evaluation of the site. For example, information on traditional
0 usage, level of productivity, and so forth are generally sufficient. Operational
monitoring, (referring to long-term, continuous monitoring activities in contrast
to baseline monitoring) of a category 1 projects, should not be extensive.
0 Aquaculture Strategic Plan 53
Operational monitoring for these types of projects can consist of an annual
inspection of the site by local regulators to ensure the use of site is consistent with
permit conditions. In addition, an annual report submitted to DMF should be
required for each category 1 site. This report should include, at a minimum the
number of seed deployed and amount of crop harvested. (Note: This information
should be handled by reporting officials as proprietary information. Since reports
such as these were recently ruled to be public information, confidentiality will
require new legislation.)
Categor Aquaculture
These projects will involve a more intensive use of the physical space, with
structures suspended within the water column or intertidal zone, thereby
S impeding access to other individuals who might otherwise use the overlying
water. No additional inputs of feed or other agents are permitted in Category 2
aquaculture sites. Baseline information required for Category 2 aquaculture efforts
will include all the information required for Category 1 projects, plus an
evaluation of the potential impact of the suspended structures. This evaluation
shall include:
•
,a. A detailed design plan for the facility including concise drawings of the
equipment to be deployed into the environment;
b. A description of the proposed site including: measurements of depth; tidal
current velocities, benthic habitat (including video diver survey); sediment
type; submerged vegetation; and resident fauna; and
c. Information on known uses of the proposed site by endangered species and a
discussion of the potential for impacts on endangered species.
Operational monitoring at category 2 sites shall include an annual site visit and a
biannual evaluation of the benthic environment within the site which includes a
video diver survey. Any entanglements of protected species shall be reported
within 24 hours to DMF and NMFS. In addition, an annual report of production
a at the aquaculture site (confidentiality maintained) shall be required. Documented
in this report will be all animal entanglements and user conflicts that have
occurred within the previous year.
Category 3 Aquaculture
These operations are land-based and intensively managed facilities such as
shellfish or finfish hatcheries or recirculating culture systems. Facility discharges
are concentrated and remotely deployed into the environment. In considering a
Category 3 culture system, regulations addressing point -source discharges are
currently well established and guidelines/regulations are clearly outlined as part of
the NPDES permitting process. Therefore, the Working Group felt it unnecessary
i to address environmental monitoring of a category 3 culture system as the system
is already in place. It will be necessary, however, to ensure that the effluent from
Aquaculture Strategic Plan
S4
•
an intensive Category 3 aquaculture system is classified as "agricultural effluent"
• and to apply those regulations required for the discharge of such waste effluent to
all category 3 aquaculture facilities.
Category 4 Aquaculture
These operations represent the most intensive level of field -deployed in situ
aquaculture and consequently demands the most intensive environmental
monitoring. This category involves both structures within the water column and
added inputs of organic and inorganic materials. All of the information required
for the previous 3 categories of aquaculture development will be needed for a
successful category 4 project. In addition, the Maine model, with appropriate
adaptation to reflect unique features of Massachusetts, offers a reasonable
• framework for environmental monitoring of finfish aquaculture operations. (See
Appendix F, Categories of Aquaculture Projects in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.)
• Step Two - Develop Baseline Monitoring Guidelines
Baseline monitoring guidelines must be developed that are consistent with the
aquaculture categories established in step one. These guidelines are "time -zero"
data, and are the foundation needed to assess the impacts projects may have on the
ecosystem effects over time.
• The baseline data established in this phase will serve as the parameters for step 3
which will detail operational monitoring guidelines. The baseline data is of critical
importance, and how they are defined needs to be an integral part of the aquaculture
facility permitting process. The following are questions which need to be addressed
in order to develop an aquaculture permit application; $
• What category of environmental impact will the proposed aquaculture site fit
into?
• Given the level of intensity of culture (Categories 1 through 4) what are the
• potential and likely environmental impacts?
• What biological, chemical, and physical measurements are required to quantify
the potential impacts?
• What are appropriate thresholds of environmental degradation?
•
• What are appropriate sampling frequencies?
• What laboratories (private, public or both) are needed and are available to process
samples in a timely, cost-effective fashion?
Should a private contractor, capable of doing all assessment and able to verify
methods, be utilized?
Aquaculture Strategic Plan 55
0
•
• Which State agency will collect and review the data? (If DMF is designated,
• additional staff support with collection, diving, and photographic capabilities will
be required.)
• Can start-up projects afford the baseline monitoring which must be conducted?
How can the state fund monitoring costs? Who will pay for baseline and
operational monitoring?
Step Three - Develop Operational Monitoring Guidelines
Operational monitoring requirements the necessary tools for the continuing
evaluation of the project's impact. Operational, or on-going monitoring
requirements, must also be coordinated with the other marine monitoring
programs, particularly the Massachusetts Marine Monitoring Program now being
developed.
Upon completion of the three activities identified above, an initial evaluation
• (baseline) procedure as well as a continuing monitoring program will have been
designed to accommodate any aquaculture effort proposed for the Commonwealth.
Recommendations
•
60. Recommendation:
Encourage municipalities to develop land use, harbor plans, shellfish bed
management plans, resource management plans and other coastal resource
related managements plans, which incorporate opportunities for public and
• private aquaculture as well as development of commercial and recreational
fisheries.
Justification:
Such resource management plans will allow municipalities or cities to decide,
• in advance, the kinds of activities and development they wish to foster and
support. Resource planning will alleviate last-minute, haphazard planning
that does not allow a municipality to fully utilize its waterfront areas and
resources. Natural resource planning maximizes the types of uses an area or
region can support and sustain.
•
•
0
In general, municipalities do not have the resources required to develop these
plans, although good planning can be cost effective over the long term.
Therefore, any assistance, even small grants and technical assistance, provides
important incentives for municipalities to proceed with the harbor planning
process.
Aquaculture Strategic Pian
56
•
Implementation Approach:
• This is a long-term implementation project which can be initiated
immediately. Promote existing incentives for communities to develop natural
resource plans for resource allocation. This outreach should be initiated when
municipalities approach DMF for aquaculture surveys and should be done with
assistance from DMF, MCZM and the Mass. Bays Shellfish Bed Restoration
• Program. Harbor planning activities can be funded, in part, through the
pending Seaport Bond bill.
61. Recommendation:
The state should encourage the development of several (initially, small scale)
aquaculture pilot projects to assist in establishing realistic siting and
• monitoring protocols.
Justification:
Experience with pilot projects will allow the recommended siting and
monitoring procedures to be tried before full-scale implementation of these
• strategies is required. Changes will likely need to be made to the procedures
based on actual field experience. Pilot projects will allow protocols to be
tailored to the specific environmental conditions in Massachusetts. -
Implementation Approach:
• The Interagency Aquaculture Permit Review Group should work with all
appropriate applicants in designing and assisting in the implementation of
environmental monitoring plans.
62. Recommendation:
MASSGIS should produce a hard -copy, base map incorporating all relevant
• coastal features for which data .are available at the most practicable scale. flaps
should be available to users at field stations throughout the Commonwealth.
Justification:
Adequate mapping can greatly facilitate the siting of aquaculture facilities for
• municipalities and the state alike.
•
•
Implementation Approach:
MCZM has received funding and is initiating this project with the assistance of
DMF, MassGIS and DEP.
63. Recommendation:
Adopt a three-step monitoring definition process which (1) evaluates each
proposed aquaculture project in terms of its potential environmental impact
and labels it accordingly (see Appendix F, Categories of Aquaculture Projects in
Mass.), (2) defines, in conjunction with the permitting process, baseline data
acquisition to be implemented and (3) delineates operational (long-term)
Aquaculture Strategic Plan 57
J
monitoring criteria, together with a regimen for their implementation, to be
incorporated in the permit 'order of conditions".
•
Justification:
Reliable environmental quality data are needed to adequately assess both the
potential suitability of a site for an aquaculture operation and the baseline
conditions against which future changes can be measured. This information is
• essential for agencies responsible for environmental protection and
management. Aquaculturists also need these data since, in many instances,
they will be investing large sums of money into operations and need to know
the suitability of the site for sustained production.
• Implementation Approach:
Requirements for generating baseline data on proposed sites should be
included in the application process. It should be stated that monitoring is the
responsibility of the applicant. Data, when collected, should be integrated into
the Mass. Marine Monitoring Program data base.
• 64. Recommendation:
Support the Open Space Bond Bill and other dedicated sources of funding for
long-term marine environmental monitoring activities.
Justification:
0 Given that environmental monitoring is a very high priority for both siting
aquaculture operations and to ensure that environmental quality is adequately
protected once an project is underway, a dedicated effort should be made to
secure funding for marine monitoring efforts.
• 65. Recommendation:
Secure new resources for DMF (funds for new personnel, computer mapping
capabilities, etc.) dedicated to support (technical assistance, regulatory
responsibilities) for aquacultural enterprises.
• Justification:
Resources of DMF staff are presently fully allocated with existing mandatory
responsibilities.
66. Recommendation
An aquaculture application packet should be developed which includes: 1) basic
background information on aquaculture in the Commonwealth, including
regulations, licensing, siting requirements, operational monitoring
requirements, etc., 2) a standardized application form which integrates reviews
by DMF, ACOS, MDEP, local Conservation Commissions, and the Harbor
Master, 3) a format for public comment at the local level, and 4) a Standard
• Field Survey Matrix for use by DMF field biologists during Aquaculture
Surveys.
Aquaculture Strategic Plan
0
58
Justification:
A standardized form would streamline the application and permitting process
and make it easier for both applicants to file for a permit and for agencies to
review the application. The Field Survey Matrix will provide guidance to local
Conservation Commissions during their reviews, thereby allowing a thorough
• and more expeditious review.
Implementation Approach:
The Aquaculture Coordinator should work with ACT to develop this
standardized application packet as soon as possible.
67. Recommendation:
All siting and monitoring data collected shall use approved, performance-based
methodologies and shall be consistent with and integrated into the
Massachusetts Marine Monitoring Program (MMMP) currently being
developed by the MCZM.
•
Justification:
The Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EDEA) and the University of
Massachusetts are collaborating in the development of a Massachusetts Marine
Monitoring Program (MMMP) that is integrated with state agency monitoring
• activities. An integrated approach to monitoring and data management should
eliminate duplicative monitoring efforts, allow for consistency in data
collection and data quality and increase the utility of any data collected.
Implementation Approach:
Coordination should begin immediately with DMF taking the lead role. .
68. Recommendation:
An environmental monitoring focus group should be established to provide
the oversight of environmental monitoring efforts associated with
aquaculture.
•
Justification:
The process of establishing and maintaining a monitoring protocol for
aquaculture should be iterative with the state learning from each project.
•
Implementation Approach:
DMF and DFW should identify appropriate expertise to fulfill this
recommendation.
Aquaculture Strategic PIan 59
•
Chapter VI
• SUMMARY
Conclusion
• The lack of a cohesive aquaculture strategy, the absence of aquaculture staffing in
State government and a daunting array of regulatory requirements have effectively
stymied the potential for the aquaculture industry in Massachusetts to flourish.
While there are other constraints to the industry, the administrative issues
mentioned above are central to the success of aquaculture in this state. Without
0 focussed, consistent State support for the industry, the aquaculture sector of our
economy will continue to be small, representing a fraction of its potential.
This Strategic Plan is a critical first step toward establishing an effective and
responsive administrative and regulatory framework which supports aquaculture
in its many forms. The recommendations below represent the general consensus of
the Working Groups and address the larger administrative needs of the industry.
These recommendations, in concert with the specific regulatory, economic
development and environmental review recommendations provide the
underpinnings of the Strategic Plan.
•
Complete Listing of Recommendations
1. Implement regulatory streamlining. (pg. 13)
2. Reactivation of the Municipal Shellfish Propagation Program. (pg. 13)
3. Establish aquaculture positions at DFA and DFWELE. (pg. 14)
4. Bond monies should be directed to Strategic Plan priorities. (pg. 14)
5. Improve shellfish licensing terms and conditions. (pg. 14)
6. Produce "Aquaculture Regulatory Handbook". (pg. 15)
7. Establish an Aquaculture Coordination Team. (pg. 15)
• 8. Establish an Aquaculture Advisory Group. (pg. 15)
9. Hire an Aquaculture Coordinator at DFA. (pg. 15)
10. DMF is lead regulatory agency for marine aquaculture. (pg. 16)
11. DFW is lead regulatory agency for inland aquaculture. (pg. 16)
12. DFA is lead agency for promotion and marketing. (pg. 16)
0 13. Establish an Interagency Aquaculture Permit Review Group. (pg. 16)
14. Amend ACOE Programmatic General Permit. (pg. 19)
15. Encourage pilot projects. (pg. 20)
16. MCZM should clarify Consistency Review. (pg. 20)
17. DMF should promulgate regulations for finfish aquaculture. (pg. 21)
18. Maintain and assert position that the boundary between private tidelands and
state-owned subtidal land in MLW. (pg. 21)
Aquaculture Strategic Plan
E
60
Ll
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
0
•
19. Chapter 91 fee structure should be reevaluated. (pg. 21)
20. MEPA should review the adequacy of existing thresholds as they apply to
aquaculture. (pg. 22)
21. DEM should review ACEC program as it relates to aquaculture. (pg. 22)
22. Establish presumption that the interests of the Ocean Sanctuary Act are met if
DMF, DEP and MCZM approve a project. (pg. 23)
23. Shellfish aquaculture licenses should be renewable. (pg. 23)
24. Shellfish aquaculture licenses should be transferable. (pg. 24)
25. Municipalities should be given the option to preapprove areas. (pg. 24)
26. State should provide written guidance to municipalities. (pg. 24)
27. Concurrent filing of applications is encouraged. (pg. 25)
28. Increase shellfish licensing fees. (pg. 25)
29. Improve shellfish reporting requirements. (pg. 26)
30. DMF should develop pilot leasing program for restricted areas. (pg. 26)
31. Develop NPDES general permits for aquaculture discharges. (pg. 27)
32. Develop policy on water withdrawals. (pg. 27)
33. Ensure federal -state coordination. (pg. 27)
34. Establish revolving loan fund. (pg. 35)
35. Expand existing DFA programs to include aquaculture. (pg. 36)
36. Subsidize participation in Boston Seafood Show. (pg. 36)
37. Establish curriculum grants program for secondary schools. (pg. 36)
38. State sponsorship of seminars for finance community. (pg. 37)
39. Develop a public relations campaign for aquaculture. (pg. 37)
40. Allow finfish growers to sell their products at below minimum size
restrictions. (pg. 37)
41. Consider developing a limited access elver fishery. (pg. 37)
42. Allow limited number of special collection permits for broodstock. (pg. 38)
43. Reassess current restrictions of culture of non-native species. (pg. 38) ,.
44. DMF should publish its policy concerning shellfish seed certification. (pg. 38)
45. Conduct an annual survey of Mass. aquaculture industry. (pg. 39)
46. Establish a competitive grant program to foster research and development. (pg.
39)
47. Fund a research and innovation center. (pg. 39)
48. Earmark existing funds for aquaculture training. (pg. 40)
49. Consider adding an aquaculture member to the Fish and Wildlife Advisory
Board. (pg. 40)
50. The state should provide aquaculture extension services. (pg. 40)
51. Develop a Mass.- grown seal. (pg. 40)
52. Establish internet bulletin board. (pg. 40)
53. Initiate study of agriculture cooperatives. (pg. 41)
54. Develop a buyers guide to aquaculture products. (pg. 41)
55. Provide marketing seminars for growers. (pg. 41)
56. Appropriate funds for degree programs in aquaculture. (pg. 41)
57. Establish grant program for public aquaculture programs. (pg. 41)
58. Establish regional aquaculture demonstration centers. (pg. 42)
59. Establish a grants program for private/public programs. (pg. 42)
Aquaculture Strategic Plan
61
0
60. Encourage municipalities to include aquaculture within the context of local
planning efforts. (pg. 56)
61. The state should encourage pilot projects. (pg. 57)
62. A base -map of coastal/ocean features should be developed. (pg. 57)
63. Adopt a three step environmental monitoring process. (pg. 57)
64. Support funding for long-term marine monitoring. (pg. 58)
65. Secure new resources for DMF. (pg. 58)
• 66. Develop an aquaculture application packet. (pg. 58)
67. All data collection should be consistent with Mass. Marine Monitoring
Program. (pg. 59)
68. Establish an environmental monitoring focus group. (pg. 59)
0
•
r
0
0
4h
C1
0
Aquaculture Strategic Plan
•
62
•
GLOSSARY
+ ACEC - Area of Critical Environmental Concern
ACOS - Army Corps of Engineers (U.S.)
aquaculture - The manipulation of marine or freshwater organisms and/or their
environment before eventual release, harvest, or capture; the controlled cultivation
and harvest of aquatic animals and plants (USDA, 1983).
broodstock - Individual fish/shellfish used for breeding purposes.
culch - Hard material (usually broken oyster/clam/scallop shells) laid down in
intertidal area to attract spat.
DFWELE - Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Environmental Law Enforcement
r DEM - Department of Environmental Management
DEP - Department of Environmental Protection
DFA - Department of Food and Agriculture
DFW - Division of Fish and Wildlife
DMF - Division of Marine Fisheries
DO - dissolve oxygen 14
EEZ - Exclusive Economic Zone. Marine areas under -the jurisdiction of the federal
government. Generally, the area between the three mile state jurisdiction and 200
miles.
a ENF - Environmental Notification Form
�
]
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
EOEA - Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
EOEcA - Executive Office of Economic Affairs
FTE - full time employee
inland aquaculture - Facilities on land, including wetlands, ponds, tanks, and
enclosures used to culture marine species. Species cultured in inland facilities are
Aquaculture Strategic Plan 63
f
IA
2
dependent upon the culturist for maintenance of water quality, food supply and
waste removal.
LOP - Letter of Permission (ACOS)
MCZM - Coastal Zone Management Office
NREF - Nantucket Research and Education Foundation
NMFS - National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOS - National Ocean Service
NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Authorization to
discharge into surface waters of the U.S. issued by the Environmental Protection
Agency.
NSSP - National Shellfish Sanitation Program
neretic - near shore
NEFMC - New England Fisheries Management Council
marine aquaculture - Structures (trays, pens, enclosures, nets, ect.) which are located
in or on unaltered marine waters.
MAA - Massachusetts Aquaculture Association
MAIC - Massachusetts Aquaculture Innovation Center
MEPA - Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Unit
MGL - Massachusetts General Laws
MHW - Mean High Water
MLW - Mean Low Water
MMMP - Massachusetts Marine Monitoring Program
MOBD - Massachusetts Office of Business Development
PGP - Programmatic General Permit (ACOE)
Aquaculture Strategic Plan
64
therapeutants - Substances used for the remedial treatment of disease
!'
TOC - Total Organic Carbon
WG - Working Group(s)
WPA - Wetlands Protection Act
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Aquaculture Strategic Plan 65
0
REFERENCES
AQPHA/AWWA/WPCF. 1992. Standard methods for examination of water and
wastewater. 18th Ed. American Public Health Association, 1015 15th Street NW,
Washington D.C. 20005. 1269 pp.
Buchanan, J. 1984. Sediment analysis. pp. 41-65 in N.A. Holmes and A.D. McIntyre
(eds.), Methods for the study of the marine benthos. IBP Handbook 16, Blackwell
Scientific Publications. Oxford and Edinburgh, UK.
Bush and Anderson, Northeast Regional Aquaculture Center. 1993. Northeast
Regional Aquaculture Industry Situation and Outlook Rel2ort.
Alan Chandler Nova Scotia Dept. of Fisheries. Tel. (902) 424-4560; Jim Ross
Fisheries and Oceans, Halifax, Canada.
Dicks, Michael R., R McHugh and B. Webb. Forthcoming. Economy Wide Impacts
of U.S. Aquaculture. Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State
Uni :•ersity, Stillwater, OK.
Arne Ervik, Institute of Marine Resrch. Dept. Aquaculture, Bergen, Norway.
Sandra D. Falicon New Hampshire Fish and Game, Concord, NH.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 1995. Review of the State
of World Fisheries: Aquaculture. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 886. Rome: FAO.
i Ron Hall, British Columbia Environmental Dept.
Hedges, J.I., and J.E. Stern. 1984. Carbon and nitrogen determinations of carbonate -
containing solids. Limnol. Oceanogr. 29: 636-883.
Kent, Drawbridge, and Ford. 1995. AFS Symposium 15.
Maine Application for Net Pen Aquaculture. 1994.
National Fisheries Education and Research Foundation. 1989. Economic Activity
Associated with Fishery Products in the U.S.. Study done by A. -T. Kearny, Inc. for the
r National Fisheries Education and Research Foundation. Washington, D.C.
National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries Statistics Division, 1995. Personal
communication. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, NMFS.
• New Jersey Aquaculture Development Plan.
Aquaculture Strategic Plan
66
Parker, Hank. 1995. 'Rural, Coastal Communities: Look to Aquaculture to
Economic, Environmental, Social Benefits." Fish Farming News, 3 (3).
Bruce Raymond, Dept. Environmental Resources. Personal communication.
Harold Rosenthal, Kiel, Germany. Chairman of the International Council for the
Exploration of the Sea Working Group on Environmental Interactions of
mariculture.
Kim Snow Newfoundland. Dept. Fisheries. Personal Communication. Shellfish
Aq. Program Coordinator.
4b Bob Sweeney, Personal communication. Final draft report of the Fisheries
Environmental Management Plan for the Marine Finfish Aquaculture Industry in
the Bay of Fundy, New Brunswick. From Jim Ross, Science Advisor, Fisheries and
Oceans (Nova Scotia}. Fax 902-426-3231.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 1986. Recommended protocols for measuring selected
environmental variables in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Estuary Program. U.S. EPA
Region X, Seattle, WA.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1983 National Aquaculture Development Plan.
U.S. EPA Region IV. Authorization to discharge under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System. Permit No. AL0067237.7/7/94.
Verardo, D.J. et al.1990. Determinations of organic carbon and nitrogen in marine
sediments using Carlo Erba NA 1500 analyzer -Deep Sea Res 37:157-165
a
Washington Department of Ecology 1986.
V. Zupo Statzione Zoologica, Naples, Italy Tel 081 583 3309
•
•
1)
Aquaculture Strategic Plan
0
67
a
4. Data and Analysis
Video surveys and sampling under the Aquaculture Monitoring Program began
in the Spring of 1992. To date, two Spring video monitoring and two Fall video and
benthic monitoring surveys have been completed. Data have been compiled for each
of the Spring surveys and for the Fall 1992 surveys. Samples collected during the Fall
of 1993 are presently being processed. Consequently, benthic macrofauna and
sediment monitoring data is available for only half of the sites currently operated, the
balance to be added once analyses are completed in April/May 1994.
Despite incomplete data, the results to date support the "expert" environmental
index discussed in Section 2. The benthic condition index can be viewed as
representing four environmental conditions:
0-1 "Natural", unaffected condition
1-2 Slightly or mildly affected
2-3 Moderately affected, and
3-4 Heavily affected.
Based on these categories and the site ratings of the "expert" panel, the distribution of
aquaculture -related benthic affects in Maine is:
0-1 9 of 23 or —39%
1-2 5 of 23 or ^-22%
2-3 7 of 23 or —30%, and
34 2 of 23 or — 9%.
Thus, approximately 60% of the affects are considered to be imperceptible to
slight, 30% moderate, and just under 10% heavy. It should be noted that the two
'heavily affected" ratings are for separate cage systems on the same site, so that in
actuality only one lease site would be considered as heavily affected. Once the analy-
ses for the remaining sites have been completed, the actual monitoring results will be
used to quantitatively validate the semi -quantitative index. In the interim, data from
three sites representing different situations have been selected for discussion here.
4.1. Case Studies
The first site, designated HAIRS JK, is located in an area subjected to strong
tidal currents for at least three hours of each ebb and flood tide. The bottom is
coarse, consisting principally of gravel and coarse sand. The site has been occupied
by one ten cage system, which has recently been expanded to sixteen, and a smaller
•
Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review
MER Assessment Corporation
Page 13!34
40
1
four cage system. Sampling was carried out only beneath and adjacent to the larger
cage system.
40
A layout of the site is shown in Figure 4.1. where sampling locations are
indicated by station number. Results of the 1992 benthic macrofauna and sediment
analyses are shown below in Tables 4.1. and 4.2., respectively.
1
Figure 4.1. Site Layout for HAIRS JK
0
3 1
• a 2
i
C
•
Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review
MER Assessment Corporation
Page 14/34
60 m
6 + 4w
Core Depth (cm)
UOML Depth (cm)
RPOL Depth (cm)
TOC
Grain Size
MER ASSESSMENT CORPORATION
Coarse gravel 1
SENTHIC ANALYSIS REPORT
Coarse gravel 2
PAGE 7 OF 7
J2
DATE _ -92
A � c
LOCATION HARE K
+ D n
NO. SAMPLES 3
d1 M C
0.38 "
« C
44
n
018
3
Total organisms
MedMne sand
Abundance as No. organlsms10.1 m'
a' o
a
Species richness (No, species)
Fine sand 2
Distance In meters
o
Rel. Diversity
o
% Capitelts capitals
0
-v
RDSR
Gravel
># 4
r
Site
3
Impact Index 2.39
Slli/Clay
Expert Rating 0.17
A
Abundance10.1 m' 1177
0
Species richness 39.3
f
Mean ReL Div. 0.793
0 3531
% C. capitata 12.8
39
Mean RI SR 31.0
Core Depth (cm)
UOML Depth (cm)
RPOL Depth (cm)
TOC
Grain Size
Screen
Coarse gravel 1
3.0"
Coarse gravel 2
2.0 "
Coarse gravel3
1.50"
Medium gravel
0.75 "
Fine gravel 1
0.50 "
Fine gravel 2
0.38 "
Coarse sand
44
Cr/med sand
018
Med. sand
020
MedMne sand
040
Fine sand 1
860
Fine sand 2
8100
Very fine sand
5200
Sift
8 250
Clay
c8 250
Gravel
># 4
Sand
0 4 -,jt 40
Fine sand
840 - 21 -NM
Slli/Clay
40 200
0 • •
TABLE 4.1 BENTHIC INFAUNA ANALYSES RESULTS SUMMARY
TABLE 4.4 SEDIMENT ANALYSES RESULTS SUMMARY
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean
10.5
11.0
11.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.8
0.0
1
2
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1
Total
Mean
285
248
111
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 644
215
1563
1360
609
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 3531
1177
39
44
35
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
39.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
' O
0
0
0
0
-
0.721
0.761
0.897
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.793
8.8
22.6
0.0
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
12.6
28.1
33.5
31.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.P
0.0
31.0
TABLE 4.4 SEDIMENT ANALYSES RESULTS SUMMARY
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean
10.5
11.0
11.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.8
0.0
0.3
0.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1
35.
1.0
b-5.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.3
0.64
0.51
0.74
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.0
4.9
5.1
9.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6,4
22.3
18.5
24.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
21.1
19.4
21.7
9.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
16.8
7.1
7.1
5.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.4
10.0
9.1
7.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.9
5.7
7.0
8.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.9
6.3
8.8
9.1
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
7,4
8.7
8.9
9.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.1
7.9
9.9
8.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.6
2.8
3.9
3.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.4
12
1.3
1.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1
3.5
2.6
4.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.4
53.7
50.4
48.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
50.8
22.0
22.9
24.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
23.3
19.4
22.7
21.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.1
4.9
4.0
5.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.8
100.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
f
V
0
4)
Ab
The trends of three of the indices described above are shown graphically in
Figure 4.2. The rectangle at the top indicates the location of the cage relative to the
sampling stations. Distances are only relative, indicating stations located away from
the cages or adjacent to and beneath the cages.
iNl?i
75
50
25
FIGURE 4.2.
.8ENTHIC MACROFAUNA ANALYSIS RESULTS
INDICES COMPARISON
% C. capitata/RD*SR
Relative Dlverslt
0 ' --'
r
0 1 2 3
STATION
—`— Relative Diversity —}— % C. capitata —` RD'SR
HARS JK 1992
Box Indicates cage location
4
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
In this case the relative diversity (■) adjacent and beneath the cages differs
little from stations located some distance from the cages. Similarly, the percentage of
C. capitata (+) in the samples remains low across the stations, although there is a
slight increase beneath the cage system. Between stations, species richness (not
indicated) is also relatively constant at 39, 44, and 35. Thus the RD*SR (*) values
are high at 28.1, 33.5, and 31.4.
• All of these index values indicate that the site remains essentially unaffected by
the operation. The increase in the number of species found immediately beneath the
cages suggests a low level of biostimulation resulting from carbon deposition on the
bottom, either as waste feed or feces.
t
Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review
MER Assessment Corporation
Page 16/34
40
•
i
CI
0
0
n
u
49
The second site, CONA BC, is a large site which has been operated intensively
for several years. Cages located at the southern end of the site are subjected to
rather strong currents compared to cages in the northern section. Depth at the south
end of the site is —65 feet at mean low water (MLW) as opposed to —20-25 feet at the
northern end. Two cage systems within the site were selected for comparative
purposes, Unit 6000 towards the south and Unit 5300 to the north. Figure 4.3. below
shows the arrangement of cage systems on the site and the location of sampling
stations.
Figure 4.3. Site Layout for CONA BC
11 6
N
10 5
r 9 1 i 4
Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review
MER Assessment Corporation
Page IV34
5800 5900
60 m
6100
0
W
0
0
W
Ci
Results of the 1992 benthic macrofauna and sediment analyses at CONA BC
are shown in Tables 4.3. and 4.4., respectively. Figure 4.4. below shows a graphic
comparison of the same parameters as shown for site HARS JK.
FIGURE 4.4
BENTHIC INFAUNA ANALYSIS RESULTS
INDICES COMPARISON
% C. Capitata. RD•SR
100
so
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 S 10
STATION
—Relative Diversity —+— % C. Capitate —e— RD•SR —8 SR
CONA BC 1992
Box Indicates cage location
Relative Diversity
0.8
Lem
W!
10
12
A
Again, the relative location of the cage systems to the stations is indicated by
the rectangles at the top of the graph. In sharp contrast to the previous set of graphs,
here the curves show great fluctuations. First, the relative diversity values (■) drop
sharply beneath and adjacent to the cage, increasing as sharply away from the cages.
The % Capitella capitata (+) shows a strong inverse relationship to relative diversity,
that is, as relative diversity drops, the percentage of C. capitata in the population
increases. This is not surprising, since relative diversity is sensitive to increased
abundance of any given species, and C. capitata abundance increases with increased
organic enrichment, as is the case beneath the cages.
Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review
MER Assessment Corporation
Page 18134
MER ASSESSMENT CORPORATION
St=NTHIC ANALYSIS REPORT
PAGE 7 OF 7
DATE 10416-92
LOCATION CONA BC
NO. SAMPLES 11
Total organisms
Abundance as No. organlsms10.1 m'
Species richness (No. species)
Distance in meters
Rel. Diversity
% C. capitata
RO•SR
Impad Index
Expert Rating
Mean Rel. Div.
% capltena capitata
Mean RO'SR
Core Depth (cm)
UOML Depth (cm)
RPOL Depth (cm)
TOC
Grain Size
Coarse gravel 1
Coarse gravel 2
Coarse gravel3
Medium gravel
Fine gravel 1
Fine gravel 2
Coarse sand
Crimed sand
Med sand
MedRlne sand
Fine sand 1
Fine sand 2
Very One sand
Slit
Clay
Gravel
Sand
Fine sand
SIWClay
SITE
3.74
3.29
0.423
66.5
14.5
Screen
3.0"
2.0'
1.50"
0.76 "
0.50'
0.38 "
84
0 10
020
$40
8 60
sloe
0200
$ 250
c8 250
>* 4
c04 -x040
#40 --,4200
0200
a
2.88
0.230
80.7
124
i 11 • to
TABLE 4.3. BENTHIC MACROFAUNA ANALYSES RESULTS SUMMARY
1
2
3
4A
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
3358
7488
9595
7885
6126
1616
898
1629
1167
1054
283
18412
41057
52609
43233
33589
8861
4924
8932
6399
5779
1552
44
39
64
26
$6
39
36
10
9
31
23
60
30
0
0
30
60
30
0
0
30
70
0.484
0.450
0.335
0.125
0.346
0.537
0.523
0.314
0.216
0.587
0.736
31.4
60.5
68.5
93.0
66.0
51.4
30.6
79.0
89.0
34.0
7.1
21.3
17.5
21.5
3.3
19.4
20.9
18.8
3.1
1.9
18.2
16.9
0.0
6300
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.8
5.9
5.8
12.4
0.0
3.75
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Z2
5.3
2.1
7.6
0.265
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
6.4
8.8
84.0
0.0
1.1
4.1
0.8
0.0
5.4
0.0
0.0
3.7
4.9
2.5
2.8
8.7
2.0
2.8
2.7
5.3
8.8
0.3
0.7
•
Total Mean
41099 3736
225346 20486
34.3
TABLE 4.4. SEDIMENT ANALYSES RESULTS SUMMARY
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Mean
10.0
7.0
7.0
10.0
7.5
8.5
9.5
9.0
8.0
6.0
14.0
8.8
0.5
1.3
1.3
2.5
2.0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.0
2.7
0.3
1.6
3.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
2.7
WA
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
1.3
2.22
2.28
3.87
8.08
4.20
3.46
3.13
5.19
4.59
8.06
3.30
4.398
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
27.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Z5
12.0
16.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
12.9
22.4
29.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.8
5.9
5.8
12.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Z2
5.3
2.1
7.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
6.4
8.8
13.9
0.0
1.1
4.1
0.8
0.0
5.4
0.0
0.0
3.7
4.9
5.2
2.8
8.7
2.0
2.8
2.7
5.3
8.8
0.3
0.7
4.3
4.1
5.6
3.4
11.9
1.2
7.9
2.6
4.7
102
0.9
0.4
4.8
4.4
5.8
4.2
12.2
6.5
7.7
4.6
6.0
10.1
6.2
1.7
6.3
5.3
8.5
7.7
3.2
11.0
8.0
4.5
9.9
10.4
8.9
2.6
7.3
4.5
7.7
9.8
29.8
33.8
18.7
5.5
17.2
9.9
19.1
7.3
14.8
1.7
2.7
3.3
12.0
24.4
20.5
5.6
12.6
12.8
41.1
36.0
15.7
02
0.3
0.3
0.7
1.2
1.4
0.7
1.1
1.4
3.5
3.5
1.3
4.7
5.2
5.6
21.5
18.8
28.9
73.0
43.2
31.0
20.0
47.8
27.2
63.8
47.2
49.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.5
15.4
22.6
20.1
20.6
4.3
14.8
6.1
10.0
24.4
1.2
1.1
12.8
14.2
22.0
21.7
45.2
51.3
34.4
14.6
33.1
30.4
34.2
11.6
28.4
6.6
8.2
9.2
34.2
44.4
50.8
79.3
56.9
45.2
64.6
87.3
44.2
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
0.423
66.5
14.5
C
It is important to note the elevated species richness at stations 2, 3, 4, and 5, in
the vicinity of Unit 6000, even though the percentage of C. capitata is high (refer to
Table 4.3). Thus, despite the predominance of C. capitata, the environmental
conditions can still support many other species, a situation shown particularly well by
the results at station 3 located at the west end of Unit 6000. These results suggest
that considerable carbon loading is occurring around Unit 6000, but at a rate which
! can support a substantial number of species and biomass while not exceeding the
benthic macrofauna's assimilative capacity.
The relative diversity values in the immediate vicinity of Unit 5300 are higher
than those of Unit 6000, but the species richness values are significantly lower. Thus,
despite the higher relative diversity values, fewer species are supported in the vicinity
4b of these cages, suggesting a higher loading rate, resulting from a higher feeding rate
or reduced dispersal of the load. Regardless of the cause, the loading rate appears to
exceed the benthos' assimilative capacity causing severe oxygen depletion in the
sediments thus favoring a select group of organisms. The shallow redox discontinuity
layer depths (RPD) for these stations, in most cases reaching the surface, support this
0 conclusion (refer to Table 4.4.).
Although the relative diversity values around Unit 5300 are higher than those
found around Unit 6000, by factoring in species richness, the RD*SR (*) values are
lower for Unit 5300 than 6000, thus indicating a more degraded condition around
40 5300, as suggested above. The significance of these results and the relationship
between these indices will be discussed further below.
The third example site, SFML JB, is shallow and subjected to very weak tidal
41 currents by comparison to the previous sites. This site has been operated rather
intensively for several years and shifting of cage locations within the site is a standard
operating procedure.
Figure 4.5. shows the position of the cages on the site and the location of the
i sampling stations. The shaded area beneath the inner system indicates the system's
location just prior to its being moved to is new location shortly before sampling was
conducted. A graphic comparison of the same parameters used for the previous two
sites is shown in Figure 4.6. below. The rectangles at the top of the graph indicate
the relative position of the cages to the sampling stations with the shaded area
indicating the relative position of the inner cage system just prior to sampling. Tables
4.5 and 4.6. summarize the 1992 benthic macrofauna and sediment analyses for
SFML JB., respectively.
4
Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review
MER Assessment Corporation
Page 20!34
El
LM
7
N Figure 4.5. Site Layout for SFML JB
�11 2 4 5
OUTER
9 10
INNER
60 m
r
FIGURE 4.0.
BENTHIC MACROFAUNA ANALYSIS RESULTS
INDICES COMPARISON
% C. capitata. RD•SR Relative Divers
100
75
50
25
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
STATION
--- Relative Diversity —►— % C. capitata —*— RD•SR
SFML JS 1992
Box Indicates cape location
Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review
MER Assessment Corporation
Page 21134
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
12
q
LJ
is
•
0
r
•
•
•
MER ASSESSMENT CORPORATION
BENTHIC ANALYSIS REPORT
PAGE 7 OF 7
DATE
10-08-92
LOCATION
SFML JB
M A
MA
NO. SAMPLES
10
� Y
A
a D c
TABLE 4.5. BENTHIC MACROFAUNA ANALYSES RESULTS SUMMARY
A
1
2
3
4
6
6
7
8
9
10
Total Mean
« n
Total organisms
234
745
163
216
57
614
144
58
279
274
2784
278
o
Abundance as No.organlsms/0.1 m'1283
4085
894
1184
313
3367
790
318
1530
1502
15265
1526
Species richness (No species)
26
7
1
12
22
6
1
6
25
27
13.5
o
Distance M meters
30
0
0
0
30
30
0
0
0
30
0
Rel Diversity
0.819
0.224
0.215
0.591
0.877
0.044
0.000
0.462
0.564
0.589
0.438
tic
% Capitella capitata
0.4
90.7
93.3
29.2
1.8
98.9
100.0
79.3
OA
0.0
$0.7
RD'SR
21.3
1.6
0.9
7.1
1"
0.3
0.0
2.3
14A
15.9
6.9
r
Outer
Inner
InnerPre-shlft
3
Index
3.76
Expert Rating
2.75
a
Abundance/0.1 m'
1626
2054
879
1491
Species richness
1A
7.7
10.3
4.0
i
Mean Rel Div.
0.438
0.343
0.342
0.169
%C.capitata
60.7
71.1
59.9
92.7
Mean RD'SR
5.9
3.2
5.5
0.9
TABLE 4.6. SEDIMENT ANALYSES RESULTS SUMMARY
1
2
3
4
5
8
7
8
9
10
Mean
Core Depth (cm)
10.5
11.0
11.0
10.5
7.0
8.0
9.5
8.0
9.0
10.0
9.5
UOML Depth (cm)
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.0
0.0
1.0
0.8
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.7
RPOL Depth (cm)
0.5
1.5
3.0
3.5
2.0
1.5
2.0
4.0
3.0
3.5
2.5
TOC
2.40
0.90
0.90
0.50
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.6
Grain Size
Screen
Coarse gravel 1
3.0 "
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Coarse gravel 2
2.0 "
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Coarse grave13
1.50 "
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Medium gravel
0.75 "
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 '
Fine gravel 1
0.50 "
0.0
0.0
4.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
Fine gravel 2
0.38 "
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
Coarse sand
0 4
1.7
0.0
3.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
Cr/med sand
0 10
5.7
0.0
1.5
6.5
0.8
1.9
5.9
4.0
2.1
2.9
3.1
Med sand
020
3.6
1.5
2.6
7.1
1.6
1.5
6.6
6.1
2.5
4.0
3.7
MedRine sand
0 40
22
5.9
10.3
5.4
2.4
2.3
4.5
4.6
5.4
3.7
4.7
Fine sand 1
0 60
1.6
5.5
23.9
62
3.4
3.0
3.8
5.6
92
5.2
6.7
Fine sand 2
0100
1.7
5.4
12.9
6.2
4.7
3.7
3.8
5.1
6.8
6.0
6.6
Very fine sand
0200
8.8
182
10.5
9.3
16.4
16.8
12.6
8.1
9.3
14.6
12.5
SIR
0 260
2.5
5.7
1.5
2.0
5.4
6.0
3.3
2.6
2.0
3.7
3.5
Clay
40250
72.2
57.8
27.5
57.3
65.3
64.8
59.5
63.9
62.7
59.9
69.1
Gravel
> 0 4
0.0
0.0
5.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
Sand
<04->040
11.0
1.5
7.7
13.6
2.4
3.4
12.5
10.1
4.6
6.9
7.4
Fine sand
040 - >NM
5.5
16.8
47.1
17.8
10.5
9.0
12.1
15.3
21.4
14.9
17.0
SIR/Clay
40 200
83.5
81.7
39.5
68.6
87.1
87.6
75.4
74.6
74.0
78.2
75.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
V
is
W-1
As with the CONA BC, the relative diversity values drop sharply in the vicinity of
the cages, but here the effect is more pronounced and the inverse relationship
between relative diversity and % C. capitata more clearly defined. As before, the
results show the affected area to be confined to the immediate area beneath and
adjacent to the cages. Such confinement is expected at this site, for the currents are
too weak to disperse the deposition beyond the immediate vicinity of the cages. As a
consequence, the affect to the "shadow" of the system is more severe than that seen
beneath CONA BC Unit 6000 where swifter currents succeed in spreading the
deposition over a larger area, thus reducing the impact in the immediate area.
Particularly noteworthy, however, is the "shift" in all indices beneath the inner
system towards the system's previous position. The deep relative diversity valley
+ (R.D. = 0), coupled with the complete dominance of C. capitata (100%), indicates that
the shift was timely.
4.2. Relationships between Parameters
0 The foregoing examples show the usefulness of certain parameters in
describing conditions under and around cage systems. However, the relationships
between many of the parameters are less strong than expected, and in some cases
defy intuition. Figure 4.7. below shows a comparison of the relative diversity and
sediment silt content results for 24 of the stations sampled.
S
U
1
i
i
FIGURE 4.T.
RELATIVE DIVERSITY/% SILT
1992 AOUACULTURE MONITORING RESULTS
Relative Diversity
1
0.8 .... I
0.6---
0.4
0.2
0
0
5 10 15
Stations
-- R.D. —i % Silt
Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review
MER Assessment Corporation
Page 23134
20
% Silt
---1100
80
.--.—.-60
40
---20
0
25
•
6-1
r
C7
0
0
0
It is generally believed that softer sediment bottoms are more prone to pen -
related impacts than coarser sediment bottoms. If true, one would expect to find an
inverse relationship between increased silt content and indicators of environmental
quality, such as relative diversity. As Figure 4.7. shows, however, relative diversity
and silt content are poorly correlated with an R2 value of 0.009 for these two
parameters over 24 samples.
Similarly, it would be expected that, as a general trend, as organic enrichment
increases (as indicated -by increased TOC), the environmental quality diminishes.
Figure 4.8. below shows that this general trend is found, but there is a wide range of
data points around the trend and the relationship is weak (R2 = 0.168). It should be
noted that this regression analysis is based on only 18 samples and the inclusion of
more samples may reinforce the trend and improve the R2 value.
FIGURE 4.8.
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON/RELATIVE DIVERSITY
1992 AQUACULTURE MONITORING RESULTS
Relative Diversity
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
+ + +
0 5 10 15
Stations
R.D. i TOC
Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review
MER Assessment Corporation
Page 24134
TOC (%)
10
8
6
4
2
0
20
10
•
Another example is the relationship between species richness and relative
diversity. Intuitively one would expect to find a strong positive relationship between
the two. As shown in Figure 4.9., there is a general trend towards increased species
richness with increased relative diversity, but again, the relationship is weak with an R2
value of 0.147 for these two parameters over 24 samples.
0
FIGURE 4.9.
SPECIES RICHNESS/RELATIVE DIVERSITY
1992 AQUACULTURE MONITORING RESULTS
4
Relative Diversity Species Richness
M
0
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
40 Stations
—�— R.D. —11(— Richness
24 STATION AT 3 SITES
0
Although it is difficult to show a strong relationship between most of the
parameters, a clear inverse relationship exist between relative diversity and the
abundance of C. capitata. Figure 4.10. below shows this relationship as the crossed
trend lines of the two parameters. This relationship is relatively strong with R2 _
0.853.
i
Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review
MER Assessment Corporation
Page 25134
0
li
S FIGURE 4.10.
SPECIES RICHNESS/REL. DIVER./C. capitata
1992 AQUACULTURE MONITORING RESULTS
Relative Diversity Species Rlchness/% C. capitata
100
75
50
25
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Stations
—`- R.D. -- Richness G" % C. capitata
•
24 STATIONS AT 3 SITES
It is interesting to note the peak in species richness (*), represented by the
curve at the left of the intersection of the trend lines. Figure 4.11. below shows that
this "spike" in species richness is also seen in the number of organisms (x)
represented in samples. These "spikes", have been observed elsewhere in benthic
community analyses and appear to represent a zone of biostimulation, a condition
0 where the organic load offers increased opportunities for colonization without creating
adverse conditions which would favor selected species. Pearson and Rosenberg
(1978) reported similar finding regarding benthic community responses to organic
enrichment.
0
Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review
MER Assessment Corporation
Page 26134
S
1
40,
0.8
0.6
1
0.4
0.2
41
0
100
75
50
25
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Stations
—`- R.D. -- Richness G" % C. capitata
•
24 STATIONS AT 3 SITES
It is interesting to note the peak in species richness (*), represented by the
curve at the left of the intersection of the trend lines. Figure 4.11. below shows that
this "spike" in species richness is also seen in the number of organisms (x)
represented in samples. These "spikes", have been observed elsewhere in benthic
community analyses and appear to represent a zone of biostimulation, a condition
0 where the organic load offers increased opportunities for colonization without creating
adverse conditions which would favor selected species. Pearson and Rosenberg
(1978) reported similar finding regarding benthic community responses to organic
enrichment.
0
Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review
MER Assessment Corporation
Page 26134
S
i
a
FIGURE 4.11.
RICHNESS/REL. DIVER./NO. ORGANISMS
1992 AOUACULTURE MONITORING RESULTS
Species Richness, Rel. Diversity (00) Thousands
100
75
50
25
W
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Stations
S —- Richness -- No. Organisms R.D. (X10)
24 STATIONS AT 3 SITES
r
Table 4.7. below shows the extent of relationship between the various
parameters used in the Aquaculture Monitoring Program.
i
Table 4.7.
Compararive Analysis of Parameters
Regression R2 Matrix of Parameters
RD
% SILT
SR % Cap. TOC
RPD
RD
= • :;=
.009080
.147299 .852958 .168230
.194562
%SILT
.009080
.356566 .000022 .043159
.121959
_;
' .
SR
.147299
.356566
.154733 .031355
.010271
% Cap.
.852958
.000022
.154733 . .-<�. .125645
.154278
TOC
.168230
.043159
.031355 .125645 .'" "` y
.435237
RPD
.194562
.121959
.010271 .154278 .435237E.xr%L
Is
Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review
MER Assessment
Corporation
Page 27/34
i
i
The only two parameters which show a strong relationship between them are
relative diversity and % C. capitata. As stated earlier, this is no surprise, for relative
diversity is sensitive to the predominance of a particular species and C. capitata is
well known for its opportunism and tolerance of hypoxic conditions. Its predominance
in organically enriched environments has led some to use it as the "indicator of
choice". Although % C. capitata may be a good indicator, reliance on the relative
• abundance of C. capitata as a sole indicator may be an oversimplification. This can
again be illustrated using the example of stations 3 and 8 at CONA BC. Here, the two
stations have relative diversity values of 0.335 and 0.314 and % C. capitata values of
68.5 and 79.0, respectively. Based on these relatively close values one might assume
that the two stations are similar. However, a review of the species richness values
t shows station 3 supports 64 species while station 8 supports only 10. The situations
are clearly not at all similar, for a review of the RPD layer depths shows station 8 to
be severely hypoxic, with anoxic surface sediments, compared to a 3 cm oxic layer at
station 3.
•
f
•
Obviously, no single parameter by itself can fully reflect the conditions beneath
and adjacent to cage systems and a broader understanding of the sites is required to
facilitate and improve interpretation.
Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review
MER Assessment Corporation
Page 28134
a
5. Critique and Recommendations
5.1. Video Monitoring
The value of underwater video recordings has already been proven, however,
their usefulness depends greatly on the quality of the image. Several factors
contribute to image quality, including the quality of equipment, type of film, and
operator experience, but two have the greatest affect: 1) amount of light, and 2) speed
of the diver along the bottom.
During the first season of filming, artificial light was only used beneath the
cages and not along .the approach to and departure from the cage systems. In 1993
artificial lighting was used throughout the dive and significantly improved the quality of
the images. The use of a single 50W light -appears to be sufficient, for the use of
increased light up to 150W has no appreciable affect on image quality enhancement.
Further, the use of light provides greater definition to both the flora and fauna, thus
facilitating identification. It is therefore recommended that light continue to be used
S throughout the video recording, even when ambient light appears to be sufficient.
The speed of travel across the bottom is critical to image quality and proper
interpretation of the footage. Where speed is excessive, images are blurred,
particularly in frame -by -frame analysis, often making identification of individual
organisms and specific impact assessment impossible. It is therefore recommended
that the filming swim rate not exceed 0.3m/sec or —60m every 3 to 4 minutes.
Finally, although video recording is already useful as a "stand alone" tool, its
usefulness will be greatly enhanced by coupling specific video images with quantitative
results of sediment granulometry and benthic macrofauna community analyses. A
preliminary attempt has already been made at such a coupling by taking "still' video
recordings of the bottom at the location of benthic coring sites prior to the cores being
taken. The results of the benthic cores will be compared to the recorded images.
Interpretation of the comparison of these two monitoring tools will remain highly
• subjective, but through experience should lead to improved interpretation of the visual
images.
5.2. Benthic Monitoring
* The difficulties encountered in measuring the depth of the unconsolidated
organic material (UOM) and redox discontinuity (RPD) layers have already been
discussed. Some of these problems are related to the methods used while others are
related to site-specific conditions.
t
Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review
MER Assessment Corporation
Page 29/34
4W
When monitoring first began in Maine, it was anticipated that the UOM layer
would be several centimeters deep based on reports of up to 2-3 meters of
accumulation beneath pens in Norway and Washington State. In cases of heavy
accumulation, measurement errors of centimeters are insignificant, but when the layer
is very thin, as is usually the case in Maine where it rarely exceeds 2-3 cm, the
possibility of erroneous measurement is rather high and their effects on accuracy
magnified. Therefore, if the parameter is to be retained as part of the program, other
r methods of differentiating UOM from fine sediments should be investigated.
The difficulties with the RPD measurements have already been mentioned.
Recently we have found bands of dark anoxic sediments sandwiched between lighter
colored sediments. This is being attributed to burial of anoxic surface sediments
under oxic sediments deposited over the bottom after being resuspended by local
dragging activities. These high sediment deposition rates may also be affecting the
determination of UOM by compacting the organic material under a layer of fine
inorganic sediment. Similarly,* the total organic carbon results may be affected by
having much of the carbon buried below the 2 cm level which is used as the standard
sample depth. Further, where dragging is occurring adjacent to the cages, much of
the deposited carbon is undoubtedly being resuspended and redeposited elsewhere.
A possible solution to the problem of TOC source identification may be the
simultaneous presentation of total nitrogen (TN) in the samples and the ratios of
+ TOC to TN. Since this ratio varies with the source of carbon, the TOC:TN may
provide some clues as to the source of the carbon. Preliminary results including TN
and TOC:TN ratios have been received, but insufficient information is currently
available on the conditions where the samples were taken to allow any conclusions to
be drawn regarding the applicability of these data. Additional work on the relationship
• between TOC and TN in sediments around cage sites is currently underway and -more
information should be available within the next six (6) months.
The benthic macrofauna analyses are extremely time- and labor -consuming, but
provide a depth of understanding unattainable through physical and chemical analyses
alone. Although the program requires identification only to the 'lowest practical
taxonomic" level, every effort has been made to identify organisms to the species
level. This has been done in large part to allow evaluation of indices such as species
richness and relative diversity. Now that the data is available at the species level, the
species will be grouped by Family and the indices recalculated and the difference
between the results compared. Due to the predominance of members of the Family
Capitellidae in samples taken from beneath the cages, the difference between the two
calculations may be relatively insignificant, in which case the level of identification
could be reduced to Family, thus significantly reducing the labor intensity and
consequently the cost of benthic monitoring.
•
Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review
MER Assessment Corporation
Page 30!34
40
•
Finally, certain sites have shown little evidence of affect from the cage system
operation, either in the video or benthic monitoring. Reduction in the level of scrutiny
received by these sites may be justifiable based on the lack of observed impact.
Monitoring could be reduced to an annual video survey in the Fall with benthic
sediment and macrofauna monitoring carried out only every fourth year. The level of
monitoring could, of course, be intensified at any time if the results of the video survey
indicated increased degradation of the bottom.
0
n
u
0
Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review
MER Assessment Corporation
Page 31134
0
6. Related Work
6.1 Predictive Model
The work carried out in Maine over the past two years has provided information
useful in related research efforts. Sowles, Churchill, and Silvert (1993) have recently
developed a predictive model for penculture-related benthic loading. In its current
if form, the model attempts to predict benthic impacts based on production levels,
feeding efficiency (feed conversion rates), depth, and current velocity. These
variables have been mathematically manipulated to arrive at an equation which yields
a "prediction" for individual systems comparable to the "expert" scores reported here in
Section 3.1.2. for the same systems.
f
The results thus far are encouraging, but before being of use, the model must
be validated in the same way that the arbitrary "expert" scores upon which it is based
must be validated. This can be accomplished by having the model accurately predict
real impacts as described by the data generated through the Aquaculture Monitoring
Program. The model has been developed on information from 23 sites in Maine, but
complete monitoring data is currently available for only 12 of these sites. Once the
samples collected in 1993 are analyzed, complete benthic information will be available
for 22 of the 23 selected sites.
It must be emphasized, however, that the model is not intended as a tool for
site selection, but has been designed to assist regulators in determining the
appropriate level of monitoring for a particular site.
• 6.2. Species Sensitivity Classification
The work of Chang et al. (1992) and its application to the aquaculture
monitoring effort in Maine have already been mentioned. As pointed out, one difficulty
encountered with applying this classification approach is the disproportionate number
of species classified as "most insensitive" (Category IV), thus shifting the overall site
rating higher. To alleviate this problem, species assemblages normally found in Maine
under different environmental conditions need to be classified in the same manner as
Chang et al. have done for the New York Bight.
One approach is to pass the macrofauna data developed through the
0 aquaculture monitoring program and other similar studies through the statistical "sieve"
employed by Chang et al. to produce ratings for local species. Unfortunately, Chang
et al. included sensitivity to lead and chromium, in addition to grain size and total
organic carbon, in their selection process. While the latter two have direct applicability
49
Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review
MER Assessment Corporation
Page 32134
•
to the work presented here, heavy metal sensitivity is not of concern in this case.
Nevertheless, although both costly and time-consuming, species sensitivity
• classification may provide a useful quantitative tool for analyzing environmental quality
through benthic macrofauna analysis, not only as applied to aquaculture, but to all
forms of marine environmental degradation through enrichment.
6.3. "Recovery"
As the graph on the first page of this report shows, the number of pens in
operation in Maine has been steadily increasing over the last 5-6 years. Today, all of
the ideal sites, and most if not all of the good sites (for salmon culture), have been
f leased. Consequently, for continued expansion to occur, sites will have to be located
in increasingly marginal areas (greater distance from shore, greater exposure, etc.) or
existing sites will have to be utilized more intensively. If the latter is the case, pens
will have to be rotated around sites to avoid excessive degradation of the bottom.
•
•
f
The aquaculture monitoring program has been successful in detecting and
tracking the degradation process, but little is known about the recovery process once
organic enrichment ceases. Knowledge of this process, however, will become critical
in the future as operators are faced with decisions on when and where to locate pens
on their sites.
A preliminary effort has been initiated to investigate the rate of benthic recovery
after pen removal. This effort, however, is restricted to only one site which would not
be considered to represent the average or normal situation in Maine. * An effort to
develop information on the recovery rate applicable across the State would require
investigation of several sites representing various environmental conditions and
production levels.
The current project is being funded at a minimal level at this time, but additional
funding is being sought.
Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review
MER Assessment Corporation
Page 33134
ti,.
•
References
Chang, et al., 1992. Association of benthic macrofauna with habitat types and quality
in the New York Bight. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., Vol. 89:237-251.
Grassle, J.P., and J.F. Grassle, 1976. Sibling species in the marine pollution indicator
Capitella (Polychaete). Science 192:567-569.
•
Hedges, J.I., and J.H. Stern, 1984. Carbon and nitrogen determinations of carbonate -
containing solids. Umnol. Oceanogr., 29(3):657-663.
Pearson, T.H., and R. Rosenberg, 1978. Macrobenthic succession in relation to
organic enrichment and pollution of the marine environment. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol.
Ann. Rev., 16:229-311.
Shannon, C.E., 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. In: Biostatistical
Analysis, Ed. J.H. Zar, Prentice -Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 617 pp.
•
Sowles, J.W., L. Churchill, and W. Silvert, 1993. The effects of benthic carbon loading
on the degradation of bottom conditions under farm sites. In: Modelling Benthic
Impacts of Organic Enrichment from Marine Aquaculture, Ed. B.T. Hargrave, Can.
Tech. Rep. Fish. Aq. Sci. (not numbered).
•
•
•
•
Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review
MER Assessment Corporation
Page 34/34
W",
0
Ll
P�
A P P E N D I X V
0
PRELIMINARY REPORT ON THE
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF MARINE RESOURCES
AQUACULTURE MONITORING PROGRAM
♦
0
E7
InterOfce Memo
• To: Penn Est rook, Department of Marine Resources
From: Joh s, Department of Environmental Protection
Date: FeXary 7, 1994
Subject: omments on Aquaculture Monitoring Program
I have gone over the Aquaculture Monitoring Program with both Laurice Churchill of
your Department and Chris Heinig, contractor to your Department. I have only a few
comments that you may wish to consider as you make your report to the Legislature.
•
Most importantly, I congratulate you for a job well done. It is a rare experience in state
government to see a program carried out as intended. Both in its quality and timeliness,
this program demonstrates that*we can be accountable. Too often programs go on and on
without benefit of a review. As a consequence, such programs frequently end up with
limited value for errors that could have been corrected early on had they only been
pncovered. The aquaculture monitoring program is most definitely better off for this
biennial review. My specific recommendations relate to those parts with which I have
been involved, benthic impact and dissolve oxygen monitoring.
An immediate consequence of the standardized approach used in your Finfish Aquaculture
•
Monitoring Program resulted in data of sufficient quality to assuage fears that pen culture
will result in a catastrophic degradation of our coastal environment. Although benthic
impacts from pen culture aquaculture in Maine are indeed experienced, those impacts are
not nearly as severe as reported elsewhere. Second, the standardized approach enabled us
in Maine to understand the dynamics of how impacts occur and develop a predictive index
that can be used not only by regulators but the industry as well. The index relates loading
(feed) and environmental variables to benthic impact. While at this point the index could
be refined further, it and the raw monitoring data already have confirmed several positions
that we, in the state, have long held. Benthic impacts are directly related to feed and
inversely related to flushing and depth. Indeed, about 2/3rds of all Maine operations fall
•
into the range where benthic impacts are minimal.
Video - As a monitoring tool, this is perhaps the most cost effective means of monitoring
environmental impact. Video transect should continue as in the past with the possibility of
eliminating the routine spring dive. Spring dives could be done on a case by case basis
depending on the level of concern, for example, on sites having high benthic scores.
•
Infauna - Our work has demonstrated that operations having benthic scores below 2.5
(see Sowles, Churchill and Silvert, 1993 for full paper) have little likelihood of causing an
adverse benthic impact. It is therefore feasible to reduce the frequency of benthic infauna
sampling at operations having scores at or below 2.5. Whether this is on a once in four
•
year frequency, at random, or on a case by case basis, is up to you. I would suggest,
however, that a representative subset of low score sites be selected and followed in order
0 ............•.w v.. •rrvunVa u1Ej a a VFjaaua — .. — [ ubu a
to assess inter -annual variability. This would be important to differentiate community
changes caused by weather, for example, from those cause by aquaculture activities.
Gran ulometry,TOC, and Redox Discontinuity Profile - The level of effort given to
granulometry,TOC, and redox discontinuity profiles should equal that given to infauna
analysis. In other words, if infauna sampling is scaled back, then these physical variables
could also be scaled back and sampled at the same time as infauna samples are collected.
Through analysis of the data collected thus far in the program, I would recommend that %
water be added to the analysis list and reported with the granulometry data. Percent
water correlates well with infauna community structure. Added cost to the analysis is
minimal, requiring only one additional step, weighing the wet sample before drying. To
complement the TOC values, you might also consider adding Total Nitrogen. I do not
know about costs, but think that N is run on the same machine as TOC and can be easily
0 reported at minimal additional expense. Combined with the reduced level of effort overall,
I think that there will end up being a net savings.
Dissolved Oxygen - I have looked over the data collected by the industry. The results
illustrate the value of having a standard protocol. Unlike the benthic analyses which were
done by a single team, dissolved oxygen was measured by several individuals and
techniques. Although the values reported appear consistent within an individual site, it is
impossible to make comparisons industry -wide due to apparent accuracy problems. I
therefore recommend that in lieu of industry collected dissolved oxygen profiles (at 1/10th
depth intervals) the Department add profiles to the program but at a reduced frequency
and only at peak stocking densities. Alternatively, the Department could work to improve
the industry QA/QC so that the data they collect is more uniform. In any event, the data
collected thus far confirms our prior held belief that oxygen is not a problem and that less
sampling would adequately satisfy water quality standards.
Other Recommendations - I am aware that the Department is doing a benthic recovery
study and recommend that this continue to be supported. The results of this study will be
extremely useful to the State when looking at environmental risk and setting management
priorities.
I also encourage that the video transects be refined to a quantitative level by relating
measured benthic impacts to observable impacts. This will eventually further strengthen
the value of video surveys while enabling a relaxation of the need to collect hard and
expensive quantitative data. I think an investment early on will save everyone money in
the long run.
0 My final comment is that I would like very much to appear before the Marine Resources
Committee to express my congratulations on a job well done. I you would like me to do
so, please let me know.
i
' VI C K HSSessmem RFD 2 BOX 109
SOUTH HARPSWELL, MANE 04079
O R P O R A T 1 O N TEUFAX 207 729-4245
i:E;ufi{Kt"'it sai��.i'u%;v���Ef n.'��'ic'ui'si�c<°tie< ..«u�c' t�icia:Ei i�.iti,9uitM%%w.ui< �c�S�a 'ua.:"u .io-:<c:•:;:':•:<':'%•`••^:-".
a
PRELIMINARY REPORT ON THE
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF MARINE RESOURCES'
e AQUACULTURE MONITORING PROGRAM
r
•
s
Prepared by
Christopher S. Heinig
January 24, 1994
NePI►.Ic cn�npn�!�ec.�r�i PccryltP^cam
L]
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................. i
*
1. Introduction ................................................. 1
2. Background ................................................ 1
3. Program Review ............................................. 2
3.1. Video Monitoring ........................... 3
3.1.1. Procedure ........................................ 4
3.1.2. Procedure Review ................................... 4
3.2. Benthic Monitoring ..................................... 7
0 3.2.1. Procedure ......................................... 7
.x,3.2.2. Procedure Review ................................... 8
4. Data and Analysis ............................................ 13
4.1. Case Studies ......................................... 13
5. Critique and Recommendations .................................. 29
5.1. Video Monitoring ...................................... 29
5.2. Benthic Monitoring ..................................... 29
6. Related Work ............................................... 32
6.1 Predictive Model ....................................... 32
6.2. Species Sensitivity Classification ........................... 32
6.3. "Recovery ............................................. 33
References................................................... 34
1
Appendix I Example Spreadsheet .................................. 35
•
•
0
•
Executive Summary
The State of Maine Aquaculture Application/Monitoring Program was created in
• 1991 by Public Law 381 after extensive study on the part of the legislature and
considerable public input on the potential environmental effects of finfish aquaculture.
This program is now referred to as the "unified" application and monitoring program.
The new application/monitoring process went into effect in the Spring of 1992.
Accordingly, the Aquaculture Coordinator at the Maine Department of Marine
Resources is the focal point for submission of all application and monitoring
information. The Aquaculture Coordinator then assumes responsibility for
disseminating relevant information to the other state and federal agencies involved.
• The Aquaculture Monitoring Program consists of eight parts:
• Monthly confidential production reporting by lease -holders,
• Semi-monthly dissolved oxygen monitoring in July, August and September,
• Annual dissolved oxygen water column profilings in August,
• Spring and Fall video recordings of the bottom beneath and adjacent to the
cages,
• Biennial Fall sediment reduction -oxidation (redox) discontinuity (RPD) layer
depth determinations,.
• Biennial Fall total organic carbon content analyses of the bottom surface
• layer,
• Biennial Fall sediment grain size analyses, or granulometry, and
• Biennial Fall benthic macrofauna community analyses.
This report presents examples of the currently available video and benthic
0 monitoring results developed since the program was initiated in the Spring of 1992.
To date, two Spring video surveys and two Fall video and benthic monitoring surveys
have been completed. Data have been compiled for each of the Spring surveys and
for the Fall 1992 surveys. Samples collected during the Fall of 1993 are presently
being processed. Consequently, benthic macrofauna and sediment monitoring data
• are available for only half of the sites currently operated, the balance to be added
once the remaining analyses are completed in April/May 1994.
A semi -quantitative benthic condition index has been developed to assist in
categorizing levels of impact which numerically identifies four environmental
conditions:
•
0-1 "Natural', unaffected condition
1-2 Slightly or mildly affected
2-3 Moderately affected, and
3-4 Heavily affected.
.I
i
W
0
Based on these categories and the site ratings of an "expert" panel consisting
of individuals familiar with aquaculture impacts, the distribution of aquaculture -related
benthic affects in Maine at twenty-three actively operated cage systems is:
0-1 9 of 23 or —39%
1-2 5 of 23 or —22%
2-3 7 of 23 or —30%, and
3-4 2 of 23 or — 9%.
Thus, approximately 60% of the affects are considered to be imperceptible to
slight, 30°x6 moderate, and just under 10% heavy. It should be noted, however, that
the two "heavily affected" ratings are for separate cage systems on the same lease
• site, so that in actuality only one lease site would be considered heavily affected.
Once all of the results for the remaining sites have been completed, the actual
monitoring results will be used to quantitatively validate the semi -quantitative index.
The relationships between observed environmental impacts and the parameters
• used in the monitoring program are also discussed. Although strong correlations can
be found between certain parameters and the level of environmental impact, others
are poorly correlated. For example, the abundance of Capitella capitata, a commonly
used indicator species, is strongly correlated with relative diversity, an environmental
quality index. In contrast, sediment type appears to have little influence on degree of
0 impact. This is particularly surprising since it is generally believed that softer sediment
bottoms are more prone to pen -related impacts than coarser sediment bottoms.
Based on the results of these relationship analyses, specific recommendations
are provided for modifying the program to enhance the reliability of the information
collected and improve the efficiency and efficacy of the program.
Finally, the work reported here is related to other current, as well as future,
aquaculture environmental impact assessment and management efforts.
•
11
Cl
ii
0
•
1. Introduction
•
This report briefly summarizes the results of the first two years of the
Semiannual Aquaculture Underwater Video Monitoring and the first year of Benthic
Sediment and Macrofauna Analyses. This report also includes some preliminary
conclusions developed from these results, as well as early recommendations for
• modifications to the program.
2. Background
• Finfish culture, specifically salmonid culture, began in Maine in the early to mid
70's at a single site in Blue Hill. After several years, the site was abandoned. By
1983 another finfish culture site had been established, but the number of active culture
sites remained at one and the total* number of cages operated was only 16.
Development of the finfish culture industry remained static at this level through 1985.
In 1986 a second site was added and the total number of cages operated increased
threefold to 48. Over the course of the next four years, 1987 through 1990, the
industry increased tenfold to 19 active sites holding 458 cages. From 1990 to the
present only 5 new sites have been added, however, the number of cages has
continued to increase to its current level of just over 700 (Figure 2.1.).
•
FIGURE 2.1.
NUMBER OF FINFISH SITES AND PENS
1989-1889
•
•
E
•
40
Sites
25
20----
10--
5—
Pens
0 ---10 -5
Pens
800
---- 600
400
200
O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93
Year
--- Active Sites -4' Active Pens
Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review
MER Assessment Corporation
Page 1134
Prior to 1988, the site application process was cumbersome and few, if any,
monitoring requirements were placed on finfish growers. Beginning in 1988 certain
0 growers were required to provide various monitoring results to several different
agencies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Army Corps of
Engineers (ACOE), and the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), but
the monitoring requirements were poorly coordinated and differed from site to site.
The rapid growth of the industry during the 1987-1989 period caused some to
• question the adequacy of the application and monitoring processes. In response to
this, legislation was submitted in 1990 to address these concerns. As written,
however, the bill called for such stringent monitoring requirements that, had it passed
in its original form, the industry would have been crippled. After extensive study on
the part of the legislature and considerable public input, a compromise was struck in
9 1991 which resulted in Public Law 381 and what is now termed the "unified"
application and monitoring program.
The new application/monitoring process went into effect in the Spring of 1992.
Accordingly, the Aquaculture Coordinator at the Maine Department of Marine
0 Resources is the focal point for submission of all application and monitoring
information. The Aquaculture Coordinator then assumes responsibility for
disseminating relevant information to the other state and federal agencies involved.
The Aquaculture Monitoring Program focuses on benthic impacts and includes
video recording of the bottom beneath and adjacent to the cages, sediment analyses
for redox discontinuity layer depth, total organic carbon content of the bottom surface
layer, sediment granulometry, and benthic macrofauna community analysis. Video
recordings are conducted semi-annually in the Spring and Fall while benthic analyses
are carried out biennially on a rotating basis. The program also includes summerrw
dissolved oxygen monitoring and monthly confidential production reporting by lease
holders. These data are treated separately and are consequently not discussed here.
3. Program Review
The contract between MER Assessment Corporation and the Maine Department
of Marine Resources includes a review and critique of the current monitoring program
and recommendations for modifications. Following is a detailed description of each of
the monitoring program components with a summary of the results obtained to date.
• Where available data permits, an analysis and interpretation of those data is
presented, followed by conclusions pertaining to the relevance of the components to
the program and recommendations on how the components might be modified to
improve the overall program.
Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review
MER Assessment Corporation
Page 2134
11
3.1. Video Monitoring
Video monitoring is carried out semi-annually in the Spring and Fall of each
year. The purpose of the underwater video recording is to provide those unable to
dive beneath the cages with visual images of conditions adjacent to and beneath
cages systems. One objective of the program is to eventually correlate these images
will actual benthic impacts, thus enhancing the utility of the video monitoring.
•
3.1.1. Procedure
Transect lines, consisting of 60 meter (-200 ft) ropes, are marked in 10m
alternating black and white sections, with the exception of the first and last 10m which
are marked as two 5m sections, the last five of which are marked in alternating 1m
black and white increments. One 60m transect line is deployed at each end of the
cage system to allow measurement of distance from the cage edge along the bottom.
The line is weighted at each end with yellow window weights to provide highly visible
starting and ending points. The line is deployed by allowing one end -weight to drop to
the bottom immediately adjacent to the cage edge. The remaining line is payed out
from a boat running parallel to the predominant current direction until the line becomes
taught, at which point the end -weight is allowed to drop to the bottom.
The diver survey and video recording are begun 60m from the cage(s) on the
• upcurrent side allowing the diver to flow with the current. Once the diver reaches the
end of the transect line at the pen edge the survey continues either adjacent to or
directly beneath the cage(s) until the second transect line is found at the opposite end
of the system where the survey continues along the transect line to a distance 60m
downcurrent of the cage(s). The video recording is taken with an underwater video
camera package. Where necessary, additional lighting is provided by a 50 watt video
light. The video recording is started at the end -weight and runs continuously
throughout the dive, with the exception of certain instances when the diver becomes
disoriented and considerable time is required to relocate the transect lines. In such
cases the camera is turned off to conserve video tape and ensure sufficient tape for
• completion of pertinent video recording of the bottom.
3.1.2. Procedure Review
Video recording is a relatively inexpensive, rapid, and highly effective means of
documenting and visually representing conditions around and beneath the cages. It
is, however, subject to individual interpretation based on individual reactions to specific
visual cues.
•
Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review
MER Assessment Corporation
Page 3/34
r
0
To quantify the variability in subjective interpretation of under -cage video
recordings, selected, unidentified segments were
presented
to various audiences
which were asked to rate the
environmental conditions shown
on a scale of 0 to
4
where 0 represents a "normal',
unaffected, natural condition
and
4 an "unacceptable"
condition. The results of rating
exercise are presented
in
tabular form in Table 3.1.
TABLE 3.1.
AUDIENCE RESPONSES TO VIDEO MONITORING SEGMENTS
SEGMENT No. 1 2 3 4
S
6
7
S
6
10
11
12
13 TYPE
Industry
4 3 2 1
1
1
3
4
4
2
1
3
3
1
1 2 2 3
4 1 3 0
1
0
0
1
2
1
4
3
4
3
3
2
3
3
1
1
2
1
P
I
0 0 0 0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
2 2 2 1
2 3 3 1
0
0
3
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
1
3
2
3
2
1
1
1
2 3 2 1
2 04 0
1
0
1
0
2
4
2
4
1
1
1
0
2
4
1
2
2
2
4 2 3 1
3 2 4 0
1
0
1
0
3
4
4
3
4
4
2
2
3
3
2
2
1
2
1
3 3 4 1
4 3 4 1
0
2
1
3
3
4
3
4
2
3
1
2
4
3
3
4
1
3
1
3 0 3 1
2 2 3 1
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
0
1
A
1
Workshop
3 2 ♦ 1
0
0
2
1
1
2
4
0
1
R
3 3 3 3
4 3 4 0
0
1
4
3
1
4
4
2
4
0
2
2
4
4
3
2
2
S
1
3 3 3 4
3 4 4 0
3
1
3
2
4
4
3
4
3
3
3
2
4
3
4
4
3
3
S
S
2 3 3 1
3 4 4 0
0
0
2
0
3
3
3
2
2
2
0
1
4
4
2
1
2
1
E
T
•
2 3 3 0
2 3 1 0
0
0
2
0
2
2
1
0
3
1
1
0
4
3
3
3
3
1
M
2 4 3 1
2 3 3 0
0
1
2
2
4
3
3
3
3
4
1
2
4
3
2
4
1
3
S
S
2 3 3 1
1 2 1 2
1
2
2
1
3
3
3
3
4
2
3
0
4
2
4
2
3
1
S
S
1 1 0 0
3 2 1 1
0
0
0
1
3
3
4
1
3
2
1
2
2
3
3
2
2
R
R
2 3 2 4
3 2 2 1
0
0
0
4
1
3
1
3
2
4
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
2
R
A
2 2 3 1
3 2 3 0
0
0
0
1
2
2
4
1
3
4
0
1
3
4
4
2
2 4►
1
R
R
3 2 1 0
2 3 1 1
1
0
0
2
2
3
3
1
3
2
0
0
2
2
3
4
1
3
C
A
2 3 4 1
2 3 3 2
0
3
2
02
3
2
0
2
2
0
0
4
3
3
4
2
2
2 3 3 1
3 1 4 0
0
0
1
0
2
2
3
2
2
3
1
0
3
4
1
2
1
1
A
R
3 0 2 1
3 2 1 0
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
4
0
3
0
1
2
3
0
3
0
2
R
R
0 1 4 0
2 3 3 0
0
0
3
1
0
1
0
3
1
3
0
1
2
3
0
3
0
2
•
2 3 2 0
4 4 4 2
0
0
2
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
1
2
4
1
4
2
3
R
S
1 3 4 0
2 1 3 1
0
0
1
1
3
2
1
4
2
3
0
0
4
4
2
2
1
2
A
T
3 1 2 0
1 2 2 0
0
1
1
1
2
2
3
1
3
1
1
0
3
2
2
1
1
0
A
I
4 3 3 1
2 3 3 2
1
1
0
3
3
3
2
1
3
3
1
1
3
1
2
2
1
I
R
3 2 1 1
3 3 3 1
0
1
1
2
3
3
2
3
2
3
0
1
0
2
0
3
1
3
R
R
•
2 3 2 1
1 3 1 1
10
0
1
2
1
2
3
3
2
3
1
2
3
3
3
1
2
1 4 3 2
1 3 3 3
1
1
1
3
3
3
0
4
3
1
2
0
3
3
3
3
2
1
2 03 0
4 3 3 2
0
1
1
2
3
3
1
4
2
3
0
0
3
3
2
3
0
2
1 2 2 02
2 3 4 3
1
0
2
1
2
2
2
1
0
1
2
2
3
1
1
0
2
R
A
2 1 3 1
1 2 3 1
0
0
1
2
3
4
4
2
1
3
0
1
2
4
3
3
1
2
A
R
1 3 2 1
2 1 3 0
0
0
3
3
2
2
4
3
3
4
0
2
4
3
2
2
1
1
A
A
Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review
MER Assessment Corporation
Page 4134
0
"Unacceptable" is, by necessity, an arbitrary term, for "unacceptable" conditions
have yet to be specifically defined. In the absence of such a definition, visual cues
associated with environmental degradation, e.g. presence of white bacterial -mold, feed
• pellets, dark sediments, etc., were presented as examples of factors to be considered.
Consequently, the rating of degree of affect and the attainment of an "unacceptable"
condition were allowed to be individually assessed.
The "Industry" category refers to the responses from 14 industry
representatives from the Maine aquaculture industry. The "Workshop" category refers
to the responses from a mixed audience (Type) including industry representatives (1),
academics (A), students(S), teachers M, researchers (R), environmentalists (E), and
the public (P).
• Table 3.2. presents an analysis of the responses where n is the number of
respondents, Mean is the mean rating, and S.D. is the standard deviation of the
responses. The "experts" responses refers to ratings given to each segment by four
individuals with extensive experience with the environmental affects of salmon culture
in Maine, namely, Laurice Churchill, aquaculture coordinator for MDMR, Todd
0 LaJeunesse, biologist with Intertide Corporation, Christopher Heinig, President of
Intertide Corporation and MER Assessment Corporation, and Brian Tarbox, diver and
underwater video cameraman for Intertide Corporation and a fisheries biologist.
r
11
0
E
0
0
TABLE 3.2.
ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES TO VIDEO MONITORING SEGMENTS
SEGMENT No.
1
2'
3
4
6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
COMBINED
n
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
63
65
65
65
65
65
Mean
2.29
2.34
2.68
0.84
OAS
1.29
2.51
2.64
2.4
1.02
2.78
2.28
1.66
S.D.
1.00
1.05
1.05
1.00
0.73
1.16
0.92
1.25
1.1
0.94
1.05
1.18
0.88
INDUSTRY
n
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
Mean
2.67
1.86
2.79
0.86
OA3
0.86
2.64
2.79
2.29
1.6
2.67
1.93
1.6
S.D.
1.22
1.17
1.12
0.77
0.65
1.03
1.01
1.25
1.38
0.76
1.02
1.00
0.85
WORKSHOP
n
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
49
51
51
51
51
51
Mean
2.22
2.47
2.65
0.86
OA7
1A1
2.47
2A7
2A3
0.88
2.84
2.37
1.57
S.D.
0.92
0.99
1.04
1.06
0.76
1.17
0.9
1.26
1.02
0.95
1.07
1.22
0.9
'EXPERTS"
3.76
3.26
2.83
0.76
0
0.6
2.83
2.13
2.76
0.63
2.83
1.63
2.83
EX WRK
1.53
0.78
0.18
-0.2
-0.5
-0.9
0.36
-0.3
0.32
-0.3
-0.0
-0.7
1.26
EX4ND
1.18
1.39
0.04
-0.1
-0.4
-0.4
0.19
-0.7
0.46
-0.9
0.26
-0.3
1.33
Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review
MER Assessment Corporation
Page 5134
0
•
•
G
G
•
•
The EX-WRK and EX -IND rows show the difference between the mean "expert"
ratings and those of the mean workshop and industry audience ratings, respectively.
A positive difference indicates that the "experts" rated the segment more harshly than
the audience while a negative difference indicates a more lenient rating by the
"experts". It is interesting to note that positive differences tend to be larger than
negative differences, indicating less agreement between the experts and the
audiences on more heavily affected areas, the experts being more critical than the
less informed observer. This has been interpreted to reflect the "experts' " higher level
of confidence in rendering a decision, presumably the result of greater knowledge, or
conversely, the audiences' reluctance to "take a stand" due to lack of confidence
and/or insufficient knowledge. The relationship between the responses of the various
audiences and the experts is shown graphically in Figure 3.1. below.
FIGURE 3.1
ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES TO VIDEO SEGMENTS
EXPERTS/INDUSTRY/N.O. WORKSHOP
Environmental Rating
4
3
2
F11
0 2 4 s s 10
Video Segment
-- Industry —i Workshop —1 Experts
12 14
A.
Based on these results it is clear that, given similar visual cues, audiences with
varying levels of knowledge on the environmental affects of salmon culture can arrive
at similar conclusions. It is important to bear in mind, however, that these conclusions
are strictly qualitative based on relative differences between sites and little, if any,
understanding of the actual implications of the conditions represented by the visual
cues. Consequently, although the "visceral" reaction to a particular image may be
strong, the actual affect to the bottom may not be understood, and in some case,
incorrectly assumed to be severe, when in fact, more in-depth study may prove
otherwise. An example of this situation will be presented later.
0 Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review
MER Assessment Corporation
Page 6/34
0
0
3.2. Benthic Monitoring
Benthic monitoring is carried out adjacent, beneath, and on occasion, in the
• vicinity of, each cage system once every other year. The purpose of the benthic
monitoring is to detect and document any changes which take place in the sediment
composition and macrofaunal community structure on the sites as a result of the cage
system operations.
17
3.2.1. Procedure
Sediments
0 Single sediment cores for grain size analysis are taken at pre -selected stations
around and under the cage systems using 4 in. diameter PVC pipe coring devices.
The corers are inserted as far as possible into the bottom, or to full resistance, and
the depth of insertion recorded. The contents of the corer is transferred into labeled
"Zip -lock" bags for transportation to the analyzing facility. Samples for the
0 determination of the redox discontinuity layer (RPDL) depth, depth of any
unconsolidated organic material (UOM), and subsamples for Total Organic Carbon
(TOC) analysis are taken with 8 in. long sections of 3/4 in. diameter Gear PVC pipe.
The RPDL depth and depth of the UOM are measured on-site. Once these are
measured the top 2-3 cm of sediment are collected for TOC analysis and placed into
0 plastic sample bottles. Upon return to shore these samples are placed in a standard
freezer and maintained frozen until delivery to the analyzing facility. The TOC
analysis is carried out according to the methods of Hedges and Stem (1984).
Granulometry is carried out according to the washed sieve method.
40 Macrofauna
•
0
Single sediment cores for benthic macrofauna analysis are taken at pre-
selected stations around and under the cage systems using 4 in. diameter PVC pipe
coring devices. These are inserted to approximately the same depth as the cores for
grain size analysis. The contents of the cores is washed through a U.S. Standard No.
35 sieve (500p mesh), all material retained on the screen is transferred into sample
containers, and the containers filled with 10% buffered formalin. Several drops of a
1 % Rose Bengal staining solution are added to each sample to assist in highlighting
the organisms for sorting. After 5 days of fixing in 10% Formalin, the formalin solution
is decanted from the sample containers through a 500p mesh sieve and the formalin
volume replaced with 70% ethanol to insure preservation of the organisms' integrity,
particularly the bivalves and other calcareous forms.
Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review
MER Assessment Corporation
Page 7134
•
3.2.2. Procedure Review
• Sediments
All of the parameters reviewed as part of the benthic sediment monitoring are
reported quantitatively, however two require interpretation.
• The unconsolidated layer usually appears as a loosely compacted to
flocculent layer on the surface of an otherwise relatively compacted sediment core.
Unfortunately, the depth of the unconsolidated organic material layer is usually difficult
to establish since there is rarely a discrete line of demarkation between the
unconsolidated and consolidated portions of the sediment cores. Further, it is often
• difficult to distinguish between an unconsolidated layer of organic material and very
fine, loosely compacted silt. Generally speaking, however, the depth of this loosely
compacted layer is deeper directly beneath the cages than at a distance from the
cages. Nevertheless, the difference between the "ambient" condition and "affected"
condition is usually slight, and in many cases, undetectable.
•
Similarly, the reduction -oxidation (redox) discontinuity (RPD) level, which
defines the boundary between oxic, or oxygenated sediments, and the anoxic, or
oxygen depleted sediments, is often very difficult to distinguish. This is due in part to
streaking of the layers along the inner surface of the corer as well as localized
• variations in the RPD level within the core. This difficulty, however, is limited to the
areas of 'limited" affect; where significant affect is encountered, i.e. directly beneath
the cages, a clear RPD layer is usually definable, and where little or no affect is
encountered, the entire core is oxic and no RPD level is seen.
• It was initially expected that the TOC values beneath and adjacent to the cages
would be significantly higher than those found some distance from the cages or
representative of ambient conditions. The results obtained thus far are highly variable
with no clear trend for near -cage stations. This is probably due to the varying carbon
sources found at different distances from the cages. For example, directly beneath
• the cages waste feed, feces, and bacteria contribute to the total carbon. At several
meters from the cage, polychaetes may account for the majority of the carbon, while
at a considerable distance from the cage, epilithic (bottom -covering) diatom mats may
account for most of the carbon. While the source of the carbon may change from one
sampling location to another, the total amount of carbon found may vary only slightly,
• making interpretation of the results rather difficult. In addition, although measures are
taken to eliminate them, carbonate -rich sediments can result in high TOC levels, thus
confounding the interpretation of results.
•
Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review
MER Assessment Corporation
Page 8134
11
•
Grain size - Granulometry
There are two purposes for conducting the granulometry analyses: 1) to
• determine changes which might occur in bottom sediments as a result of changes in
deposition rates associated with the cages and 2) to correlate levels of impact with
sediment types. Analyses have been completed on samples taken in Fall 1992 and
the samples taken in 1993 are currently being processed.
• The first purpose assumes the existence of pre -development sediment
composition information, but for most of the currently monitored sites, such information
is unavailable since the sites were developed prior to implementation of the new
application process which now requires information on granulometry. Consequently
there is no way to compare existing conditions to pre -development conditions.
0 Comparisons will be possible over time as subsequent results become available.
The washed sieve method for granulometry yields results in up to 15 different
size categories. To facilitate comparisons between sediment types and other
parameters, the granulometry results are being reduced to percent composition as
gravel, sand, fine sand, and silt/clay. These percentages are then compared to other
sedim6nt parameters and indicators of environmental quality to determine if any trends
can be established. The relationship between sediment composition and
environmental quality is discussed further in Section 4.
Few difficulties have been encountered with this method, but the treatment of
"non -representative" materials in the sediment samples has raised questions on
several occasions. Non -representative materials refers to materials which are oddities
in sediment of otherwise similar composition. An example is where two or three
moderate-sized rocks or shells are found in an otherwise silty sediment sample. Since
0 the granulometry results are reported as dry weight fractions of the total sediment
weight (percent), the rocks or shells can cause a bias towards coarseness despite
their originating from a muddy, silty bottom.
To avoid these anomalies, non -representative material is removed from the
0 sample and weighed separately. These weights are not reported as part of the
sample, but are instead reported separately to allow their inclusion, if necessary.
Macrofauna
The benthic macrofaunal community analysis is the most time-consuming and
expensive part of the monitoring program. In addition to being highly labor-intensive,
the identification of the organisms requires specific expertise in taxonomy. Although
costly, these analyses yield a great deal of information and provide a Dearer
0 Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review
MER Assessment Corporation
Page 9134
•
understanding of the subtle, yet complex changes which take place beneath the cage
systems once the systems are installed and operations begin.
• As with the sediment granulometry analyses, the results of the biennial
macrofaunal analyses are intended to be compared with pre -development conditions.
However, as stated earlier, few opportunities currently exist where such comparisons
can be made, since pre -development benthic macrofaunal analyses have only recently
been required as part of the lease application process. Pre -development benthic
community information does exist for one developed site, although two core sizes
were used for the pre- and post -development sampling. A comparison of these results
will be presented later.
A computer spreadsheet has been developed in Lotus 1,2,3 for Windows to
• tabulate all of the data and facilitate comparisons between individual samples as well
as between sites. The spreadsheet lists all 140 species found to date in the rows and
provides column space for entering the number of individuals of each species found at
each station.
• The spreadsheet provides several calculations to assist in understanding and
interpreting these data. The simplest is the summation of total number of organisms.
This number is converted to abundance as number of organisms per 0.1 m2 by
•
Abundance = total no. organismsicore dia. 4 5.483
where 5.483 converts the surface area of the corer to 0.1 m2.
Species richness is simply the number of species represented in the sample.
Species richness serves as an index of diversity indicating either a heterogeneous
• community where numerous species are represented, or a homogeneous community
where only a few species are present.
Relative diversity, also referred to as evenness, is an index which relates the
number of species represented to the number of individuals of each species. Thus,
while a large number of species may be represented, most may be represented by a
small number of individuals, while two or three may be represented by the bulk of the
individuals found. Consequently, while the species richness may be high, the
representation of the species, relative to one another, may be far from evenly split.
The diversity index H used here (Shannon, 1948) is expressed as
• k
H=nlogn-Y, f,logf,
I=1
n
•
Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review
MER Assessment Corporation
Page 10134
0
•
where n is the total number of organisms in the sample, k is the number of species in
the sample, and f is the number of individuals in each species i. The theoretical
maximum diversity is given as
•
Ll
Hmax = log k
and the following proportion can be used to compare the actual and theoretical
maximum diversity thus yielding a relative diversity J
J = HIHM"
Theoretically, under "normal", unaffected conditions the actual diversity should
approach the theoretical maximum diversity and J should approach 1. In actuality
• "normal", unaffected conditions are now difficult, if not impossible, to find. Where
environmental degradation favors certain tolerant species the actual diversity can be
considerably less than the theoretical maximum and J may approach 0. Theoretically
then, the smaller J becomes, the more affected the environment is assumed to be. As
we shall see, however, this is not always necessarily the case.
•
rThe capitellid polychaete Capitella capitata is considered to be highly tolerant of
hypoxic, or oxygen depleted, conditions and is therefore considered a good indicator
of environmental degradation. A determination of % C. capitata therefore allows a
comparison of this species' relative abundance from one sample to another and
provides some indication of the bottom conditions. Grassle and Grassle (1976)
identified six separate "sibling" species of Capitella with very similar morphological
characteristics. For the purposes of the monitoring program, all morphological forms
are reported as C. capitata.
Each of these values or indices provides a means of interpreting the mass of
numbers generated through the benthic analyses. However, no single value or index
taken by itself can be relied upon to reflect the "complete story". For example, two of
our samples have similar J values of 0.335 and 0.314, and % C. capitata of 69% and
79%, respectively, but species richness values of 64 and 10, respectively. So,
although on the basis of J and % C. capitata the two samples may appear rather
similar, the fact that the first sample comes from an area supporting 64 species and
the second from conditions supporting only 10 species suggests that the latter
represents a significantly more degraded environment that the former.
To avoid relying on either one of these values and better reflect the relationship
between relative diversity and species richness we have simply multiplied the relative
diversity value J by the species richness (RD*SR). Thus, the larger the product, the
better the environmental condition.
Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review
MER Assessment Corporation
Page 11134
•
In a recent paper by Chang et al. (1992), species have been statistically
assigned to each of four categories of environmental sensitivity according to the
frequency of their occurrence in samples taken at a variety of locations representing
different degrees of environmental degradation. The four categories are; 1. Most
contaminant sensitive, II. Contaminant sensitive, III. Contaminant insensitive, and IV.
Most contaminant insensitive. A list of species has been developed for each category.
By assigning each species the number of its respective category, the species can be
used to rate the environmental conditions from which it was taken. Further, by
• multiplying the species rating by the occurrence of the species, summing these values,
and dividing by the total number of rated organisms, we can develop a weighted mean
environmental rating for the sample which rates the conditions from which the sample
was taken on the basis of the sensitivity of the species represented in the sample.
• Calculations carried out to date on specific sites have tended towards greater
environmental degradation than the relative diversity or other indices might suggest.
This may be due to the preponderance of insensitively rated species as opposed to
sensitively rated species. This latter situation results from the fact that the species
comprising the insensitive category seem likely to be found here in Maine as well as in
• the New York Bight where the samples Chang et al. based their work on were
obtained. By contrast, few of the sensitive species listed by Chang et al. are normally
found in Maine, and species normally found here associated with unaffected
conditions do not appear on their list. Consequently, the rating is biased toward the
higher, insensitive values.
This classification scheme could prove useful and merits additional
investigation. However, to be effective, all of the species currently found on sites must
be assigned to one of the four "tolerance" or "environmental sensitivity" categories.
•
•
•
• Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review
MER Assessment Corporation
Page 12/34
0
•
a
•
P
11
A P P E N D I X W
• CORRESPONDANCE FROM STATE OF CONNECTICUT
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SHORT NOSED STURGEON
•
•
•
•
• b lA1 L' 11r' Uk N1NhU'1'11;U'1'
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
BUREAU OF NATURAL RESOURCES
FISHERIES DIVISION
MARINE FISHERIES PROGRAM
• P.O. BOX 719
OLD LYME, CT 06371
Ci
November 20, 1995
Bruce Anderson, President
Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc.
Newman Village, Main Street
P.O. Box 2003
Bridgehampton, New York 11932-2003
Dear Mr. Anderson,
•
To the best of our knowledge, of the three major river
systems in Connecticut, only the Connecticut River still has a
viable population of shortnose sturgeon. Recent mark recapture
efforts (1988-1993) indicate the that population of adult
shortnose sturgeon (greater that 45 cm TL) in the lower
Connecticut River is approximately 850 to 1000 individuals.
Questions concerning whether shortnose sturgeon above the Holyoke
dam are unique population remain unresolved at this point. Data
on the seasonal movement patterns of the shortnose sturgeon in
the lower river have been collected within the freshwaters of the
State of Connecticut, but little information on their movements
!
outside the Connecticut River is known.
It is likely that some shortnose sturgeon from the
Connecticut River spend some time outside of the river system
based on temporary loss of telemetered fish from the river
system, but the temporal and spatial scales of such movement are
!
unknown. Tagged or untagged shortnose sturgeon have not been
reported in commercial landings from Long Island Sound, but that
may be a function of their endangered status and not their
presence/abundance. Documented catches of shortnose sturgeon in
oceanic waters have taken place in Massachusetts, New Jersey and
in the South Atlantic states, with some catches occurring over 25
•
miles from the nearest natal river system.
It is possible that some number of shortnose sturgeon may
occur in the vicinity of the proposed net pen site as Plum Gut
and Gardiners Hay are less than 10 miles from the mouth of the
Connecticut River (not 20 miles), but it is difficult to fully
•
assess the potential impacts that mariculturs utilizing net pens
on the South side of Plum Island will have on the U.S. Federally
Endangered shortnose sturgeon for many reasons. The most
(2(M4 04367"44e0
•
79 Elm Stract • Hartford, CT 06106.3124
An Equal Opportunity Smployer
•
important of which it is unclear whether the marine phase is
mandatory and the extent that the proposed activities will
• preclude utilization of nearby marine waters for shortnose
sturgeon is indeterminate. eased on currently available
information, I would not expect your mariculture operation to
jeopardize the continued existence of the Connecticut River
population of shortnose sturgeon at this time.
I hope this information is somewhat useful.
Sincerely,
Thomas Sav
Fisheries, iologist
•
•
•
•
•
•
(203) 434-6043
4
E7
•
0
4
i
•
A P P E N D I X X
AQUACULTURE MARKETING SURVEY
a
•
•
40
•
L:
Aquaculture
Marketing Survey
Consumers, Retail Stores,
and :Food Service Operations
in New York and New Jersey
Linda O'Dierno
New Jersey Department of Agriculture
Ken Gall
New York Sea Grant
Funded by the Northeast Regional
Aquaculture Center
In Cooperation with the United States
Department of Agriculture, Office of Agriculture
Ll
42 Retail Market Survey
RETAIL MARKET SURVEY
s
The purpose of this portion of the study was to develop a profile of seafood species, product forms,
sales, attitudes, and marketing needs in retail stores in New York and New Jersey. Survey data was
0 gathered from independent retailers and supermarket chain stores. The purpose of the survey was:
1) to gain a better understanding of the type of seafood products most acceptable at the retail level,
2) to identify the types of products or services that would be required for aquaculture companies to
gain a larger share of the seafood retail marketplace, 3) to determine which potential retail markets
may exist for value-added seafood products, and 4) to determine what attributes of farm raised
i seafood can be utilized in promotional programs to develop a better overall market position for
aquacultured products.
To obtain this information a retail survey instrument was developed and mailed to retailers in New
York and New Jersey in 1993. A postage -paid return envelope was included with each survey to
• encourage retailers to respond. Additional survey data was collected throughout the project during
training programs and meetings coordinated by the project investigators. Retailers were asked to
provide information on a number of different aspects of their operation. Each of the following
summarize the results obtained from each of the questions included in the survey instrument. In
some cases groups of similar questions are discussed in a single section.
•
RETAIL SURVEY RESPONDENT PROFILE
Surveys from 497 New York and New Jersey retailers were completed and returned. Of these, 350
responses (70%) were completed by seafood departments in 12 different supermarket chains, and
147 responses (30%) were completed by independent retail seafood or fish markets. The retail
stores who returned surveys were located on Long Island, in New York City, upstate New York, and
New Jersey. Seventy-five percent of the retailers surveyed characterized their business location as
urban, 19% characterized their operation as being suburban, 3% reported operating in rural locations,
and 3% were located in a vacation or leisure community.
TABLE 1. SURVEY RESPONDENT'S REPORTED BUSINESS LOCATION
URBAN
SUBURBAN
RURAL
VA ATION EISURE
369(75%)
91 (190/0)
16(37o)—
13(30/,)
Seventy-two percent of all the retailers surveyed reported that their total annual seafood sales were
between $0.5 and $1 million. Eighteen percent reported annual seafood sales less thin $0.5million,
and 10 percent of the retailers surveyed had total annual seafood sales greater than $1 million. For
most supermarket chains, products such as canned tuna and some prepared seafood items such as
seafood salads, smoked fish, etc., may be handled through other departments like grocery and deli.
and would not have been included in the sales figures reported for the seafood department. Independent
retailers, however, would have been more likely to have included all seafood products in their sales
estimates.
•
0
4 3 Retail Market Survey
0
Ll
TABLE 2. SURVEY RESPONDENT'S REPORTED AVERAGE
ANNUAL SEAFOOD SALES
> $1 MILLION
$0.541 MILLION
< $0.5 MILLION
48(10%)
362(72%)
92(18%)
The majority of the retailers surveyed (65%), were unable to put a dollar figure on their average
seafood sale per customer. Most of the supermarket chain stores did not provide this information.
However, ofthe 174 retailers who did provide an estimate of their average seafood sale per customer,
13% reported that their average sale was between $10 and $15, 11% reported an average sale
greater than $15, and 11% reported average sales less than $10.
TABLE 3. SURVEY RESPONDENT'S REPORTED AVERAGE
SEAFOOD SALE PER CUSTOMER
>$20
$15-$20
$10415
<$10
Unknown
24(50/o)
31 (6%)
64(13%)
54(11%)
329(66%)
The majority (89%) of retailers who completed a survey characterized their customers as being
primarily "middle income". Six percent characterized their clientele as being primarily "upper income",
and 5% as primarily "low income". Most of those who identified their customers as primarily upper
or low income were independent retailers. This assessment of customer income category was based
solely on the retailers' perception of the terms "high, middle, and low" income. No attempt was
made to define these categories in the survey instrument, and it should be recognized that regional
differences in perceptions about income levels are likely to exist.
TABLE 4. SURVEY RESPONDENT'S REPORTED CLIENTELE INCOME PROFILL
ZEST SELLING SEAFOOD SPECIES
r Respondents were asked to list their five best-selling seafood species in 1992. This was a recall
question and cannot be construed to be a direct indication of sales volume. Four items emerged as
the major sellers in both chain and independent retail stores in the New York and New Jersey area.
Shrimp, salmon, and flounder were clearly the leading retail items in both chain and independent
retail stores. Cod was also an important species in both types of operations. The top selling species
listed by these retail stores closely mirrors overall U.S. seafood consumption. For the other species
identified as top sellers in 1992 there were significant differences between chains and independents.
•
UPPER INCOME
MIDDLE INCOME
LOW INCOME
All Retailers
29(6%)
443(89%)
26(5%)
Chain Stores
2(1%)
344 (98%)
4(1%)
Independents
1 27(19%)
197(66%)
22(15%)
ZEST SELLING SEAFOOD SPECIES
r Respondents were asked to list their five best-selling seafood species in 1992. This was a recall
question and cannot be construed to be a direct indication of sales volume. Four items emerged as
the major sellers in both chain and independent retail stores in the New York and New Jersey area.
Shrimp, salmon, and flounder were clearly the leading retail items in both chain and independent
retail stores. Cod was also an important species in both types of operations. The top selling species
listed by these retail stores closely mirrors overall U.S. seafood consumption. For the other species
identified as top sellers in 1992 there were significant differences between chains and independents.
•
E
•
6
44 Retail Market Survey
TABLE 5. TOP SELLING SEAFOOD SPECIES IN CHAIN
AND INDEPENDENT RETAIL STORES
CHAIN STORES INDEPENDENT RETAILERS
SHRIMP
99%
SHRIMP
68%
SALMON
99%
FLOUNDER
68%
FLOUNDER
98%
SALMON
58%
CATFISH
97%
COD
41%
COD
95%
SWORDFISH
31%
ORANGE ROUGHY
4%
LOBSTER
24%
SNAPPER
1%
CLAMS
21%
SOLE
1%
SCALLOPS
20%
HADDOCK
1%
TUNA
18%
POLLOCK
1%
WHITING
15%
The % figures indicate the percentage of all retailers in each category who
• included that species in their list of the Top S best selling species in 1992.
Seafood sales in chain stores appeared to be focused on large volumes of a limited number of species.
This is probably related to central purchasing and chain -wide advertising. Based on survey results,
five species were consistently identified as the top sellers by chain stores in the area, and appeared to
account for a large portion of total sales. Shrimp and salmon were included in the list of the Top 5
• selling species by 99% of the chain stores surveyed. Flounder and catfish were also major sellers
listed by 98% and 97% of the chain stores respectively. Cod was included in the list of Top 5 sellers
by 95% of the stores. Flounder was likely to have been used in the context of an all-inclusive term for
a variety of different flatfish species and the survey question did not prompt respondents to be
specific. The term flounder probably includes a variety of species like yellowtail flounder, blackback
0 or winter flounder, fluke or summer flounder, American plaice or dabs, windowpane flounder, and
witch flounder (grey sole). Greenland turbot could also fall into this category in some locations. The
only other species identified by more than 2 or 3 chain store survey respondents as a top selling item
was orange roughy. Overall, chain stores or supermarkets appear to be concentrating their sales
efforts on traditional species with the most universal demand pattern. It is also significant that no
• shellfish products, other than shrimp, were identified by chain stores as top sellers in 1992.
Shrimp, flounder, salmon, and cod were also the most frequently identified top sellers by independent
retailers. The number of choices offered in independent markets was more varied as they frequently
target sales to appeal to specific consumer groups in their immediate area. These groups often
represent a wide range of income levels, age groups, and ethnic backgrounds. Independent retailers
tended to have a more diverse mix of products than chain stores. This probably relates to traditional
supply channels such as the Fulton Fish Market and the Philadelphia Fish Market frequently used by
independent retailers. Product can be purchased in smaller quantities and a greater variety of different
species are readily available at these local wholesale fish markets. Many independent retailers often
• purchase product 2 or 3 times a week in these markets. This allows them the flexibility to take
advantage of supply and price shifts frequently associated with seafood products harvested from the
wild which are susceptible to a variety of factors including weather, seasonality, number of boats
fishing, etc. These factors can drastically affect both the supply and product price in a short period of time.
•
4 Ketan Marxet Jurvey
Although catfish was one of the leading sellers in chain stores, it was only identified as a top seller by
r 9 of the independent stores. This may be related to a lack of an appropriate distribution mechanism
for independent retailers. Chains can more easily order in advance and purchase large quantities of
commodity species like catfish and distribute them to individual stores on a regular basis. Many
independent retailers are actively seeking supplies of lower priced products like catfish, and sales in
independent stores is likely to increase in the future. However, chain stores are likely to continue to
hold a competitive edge due to volume buying.
Shellfish species other than shrimp were clearly a much more important product in independent
retail stores. Clams, lobsters, and scallops were among the top.selling items in independent markets
while only shrimp was identified as a top seller by chain stores. Shellfish products like clams, lobsters,
0 and scallops are traditional seafood items in the New York and New Jersey market. There are likely
to be a variety of reasons why shellfish sales were reported to be higher in independent markets.
Chain stores may find it more difficult to obtain consistent supplies of these products, while
independent retailers are likely to have more experience sourcing these products from a variety of
local suppliers. Chain stores may also be more reluctant to carry some of these products because of
0 the special equipment needed (ie. lobster tanks), and the special handling considerations and record
keeping requirements necessary for live molluscan shellfish products like clams and oysters. These
products are items that area consumers have traditionally purchased from specialty stores in the
past. Although scallops are an important product commonly sold in both independent and chain
stores in the area, the chain stores surveyed did not include scallops in their lists of top selling
♦ seafood items.
For three of the five seafood products identified by retailers as best sellers in 1992, a large portion of
the local supply is derived from aquaculture sources. Shrimp and salmon were prominent in the list
of top selling species for both chains and independent retailers, and catfish was a leading seller in
a chain stores in the area. In recent years the supply of aquaculture produced shrimp, salmon, and
catfish has increased, prices have stabilized, and supplies have become more consistent. Several
other important aquacultured species were not identified by many stores as best overall sellers. Not
one store reported tilapia as a top selling species, and only 3 stores identified mussels as a top seller.
One store identified striped bass which is likely to be a hybrid striped bass since the sale of wild
S striped bass is currently prohibited in New Jersey and highly restricted in New York.
With a consistent supply, an appropriate price structure, and attention to effective promotional
strategies, there appears to be a significant opportunity to increase the market share for both traditional
and newer aquaculture species. For many chain stores in the New York and New Jersey area aggressive
` marketing through newspaper advertising and special sales has been successful, and consumers
frequently report that they make purchase decisions based on advertisements and special sales. The
purchasing power of the supermarket chains frequently allows them to offer many special sales.
Farmed products such as catfish and shrimp, and to a lesser extent salmon, tend to be commodity
products where large volumes are routinely available.
Stores in both the higher and lower annual sales volume categories had less dependence on the
traditional species and offered a greater variety of products that appeal to customers who shop in
their particular area. The popularity of shrimp, as demonstrated by the survey, was evenly distributed
in all locations, urban, suburban, and rural areas as well as vacation communities. Flounder, salmon,
and catfish were all major sellers in the urban stores. Catfish was most consistently identified
•
S
4P
46 Retail Market Survey
as a top seller in the urban stores. Retailers in suburban locations also included flounder, salmon and
cod in their list of top sellers. Cod and catfish were not identified as top selling items in those stores
that were located in vacation communities. These stores, which are frequently located near coastal
areas, sell a wider variety of locally harvested species, and their customers may also be more willing
to experiment with new products while on vacation and enjoying their leisure time.
TABLE 6. FIVE TOP SELLING SPECIES COMPARED TO TOTAL
u
SPECIES
>$1.0
MILLION
$0.5-$1
MILLION
$0.1-$0.5
MILLION
<$0.1
MILLION
SHRIMP
81%
97%
62%
52%
SALMON
63%
97%
53%
52%
FLOUNDER
79%
100%
62%
56%
COD
25%
94%
43%
41%
CATFISH
31%
90%
10%
0%
SWORDFISH
23%
40/6
34%
36%
Table 6 compares top selling retail species to total annual seafood sales. The three top species,
shrimp, salmon,and flounder, were prominent items in retail stores with sales ranging from over $1
million to less than $100,000. Because most of the responses in the $0.541 million annual sales
category were from the chain stores, the large percentages of shrimp, flounder, salmon, cod, and
catfish primarily reflect their sales. Independent retailers of all sizes also consistently listed shrimp,
salmon, flounder, and cod as leading sellers. Swordfish was the fifth most frequently identified top
seller, and it appears to be used consistently by the independent stores of all sizes. The low percentage,
of responses in the $0.1 to $0.5 million category for swordfish is likely to be artificially low, since
most chains reported that their total sales fell in this range and none of them included swordfish as a
top selling item.
TABLE 7. FIVE TOP SELLING SPECIES COMPARED
TO AVERAGE CUSTOMER PURCHASE
SPECIES
>$20
$15-$20
$10-$15
<$10
SHRRAP
65%
65%
88%
58%
SALMON
57%
65%
73%
50%
FLOUNDER
61%
74%
82%
50%
COD
13%
45%
35%
50%
CATFISH
4%
7%
27%
1501/0
SWORDFISH
1 43%
45%
37%
16%
Table 7 compares the top five species to reported average sales per customer (primarily reported b%
independent retailers). Shrimp, salmon, and flounder were listed as top sellers by retailers with
average sales per customer from less than $10 to greater than $20. Retailers with the highest average
sale per customer sold less cod and catfish. For retailers with a lower average purchase amount per
r
0 77 Food Service Survey
__111MIMI 191011
0
Food service survey respondents were asked to list their "Top five purchased seafood species" with
a prompt asking that they list those species for which the largest volume was purchased. Five blank
spaces were provided on the survey instrument. This was a recall question, and although these lists
cannot necessarily be construed as indicating total sales volume, they do provide an indication of
* which species were most important to each food service operator. Specific species suggestions were
not provided because of the potential for any given list to bias the responses received.
Overall, restaurants identified a slightly higher number of species (3.3 species per response compared
to 3.0 species per response for institutions) in their lists of the five most frequently purchased species.
Shrimp was clearly the most important species, and was identified by 75% of all of the food service
businesses surveyed. Flounder, cod, crab, and tuna were the other species identified as being purchased
most frequently by food service businesses.
Flounder and cod are the most well known of the lean, white flesh, mild tasting fish species preferred
by most consumers in this region. The flounder category includes a wide range of flatfish that were
not specifically listed under other market names such as grey sole or lemon sole. Some users may
have considered each type of flounder as a separate species while others may not have been familiar
with the differences. For this reason the use of flatfish as a species category may have been under
reported. In addition, when survey results were compiled products listed separately as scrod were
not included with the cod responses. Overall, the relative position of each of each of the products on
the survey respondent's lists was likely to have been influenced to some extent by market conditions
related to supply and/or price at the time the questionnaires were distributed.
Crab was also an important item, but it was impossible to determine what type of crab was being
purchased from the survey responses. In some cases, especially for the restaurants with low menu
prices and the institutional operations, some of those who reported purchasing crab may have
inadvertently included surimi-based imitation crab products. Tuna was the fifth most frequently
identified seafood species, but again it was impossible to determine what type of tuna was being
used. Because almost half of the survey respondents were institutional food service operations, it is
:+ likely that a significant portion of the reported tuna purchases were canned tuna.
The other five species of the ten reported to be purchased most frequently were scallops, clams,
lobster, whiting and salmon. All of these species have been popular menu items in restaurants in the
region and around the country for some time. Processed fresh and frozen scallop and clam products
are also widely available at reasonable prices for institutional food service operations. Both fresh
and frozen salmon and whiting are also readily available at a reasonable price in forms suited to both
restaurant and institutional food service operations. Whiting was identified as a frequently purchased
item by the institutional operations. Most of this product is not likely to be the locally harvested
whiting, but frozen product harvested in the Pacific ocean or southern hemisphere. These imported
• frozen whiting products are particularly well-suited to institutional buyers because of their relatively
low price and increased availability in this market. As the supply of traditional East Coast gadoid
species such as haddock. and cod have decreased, this lower priced alternative product is filling an
important market need.
•
0
•
C7
0
C:
0
78
Food Service Survey
TABLE 4. SEAFOOD SPECIES PURCHASED MOST FREQUENTLY BY FOOD
SERVICE SURVEY RESPONDENTS
SPECIES
% of survey respondents who included each species in
their list of most frequently purchased items
SHRIMP
75%
FLOUNDER
33%
COD
33%
CRAB
32%
TUNA
31%
SCALLOPS
25%
CLAMS
25%
LOBSTER
23%
WHITING
19%
SALMON
18%
The two other potentially aquacultured seafood products purchased by a significant number of the
food service businesses surveyed were mussels (11%) and catfish (9%). The top ten species plus
mussels and catfish comprised 80% of all the responses to this question. After these top twelve
traditional products, there was a very steep drop in responses, and no other species was identified by
more than one to four survey respondents. This would seem to indicate that there is considerable
demand elasticity for less familiar products in this segment of the market. With appropriate market
development strategies, there is a major opportunity for suppliers to introduce food service operators
to many different less familiar seafood products.
The top species identified by food service businesses surveyed were consistent with the species
identified by both retailers and consumers in the New York and New Jersey area with the exception
of whiting. The survey results were also consistent with annual seafood consumption patterns in the
United States -reported by the National Marine Fisheries Service and with national restaurant survey
results reported by Seafood Business. In its May/June 1994 issue, Seafood Business reported that
the best selling species in rank order on the menu for all types of food service operations were:
shrimp, whitefish (cod, haddock, and pollock), salmon, swordfish, flounder, scallops, lobster, tuna,
clams, catfish, and mahi-mahi. Swordfish and mahi-mahi were the only two species not identified as
top selling species by the food service operators surveyed.
i
Volume
1. Shrimp
6. Orange Roughy
2. Salmon
7. Swordfish
etail
8. Halibut
4. Catfish
sli
urve
5. Flounder
10. Suriml
Fastest Growing Items
1. 1994
Salmon
1993
Salmon
1992
%hoa/Catfisb
2. 1994
b%rimp
1993
Shrimp
a
Salmon
.
3.19%
'IIlapia
1993
Catfish
1992
`The quality of the seafood can be
`ymaintained
Fun. moo vis off bec
Caft
better, and the shelf life is a
harder to Mad as mon retallem
1992
loc longer," he says. Clemens still con-
t� �rols the quality by packaging thePablo
ewHoh to ael>><eerve os+aoo with
�H
Orange Roughy
r' seafood that goes into the self-serve cues
Suricul
1992
' ; shemselves.
frozen at sea.
Kober explains that the cost of
"We finally recognized that sc
Faumng and lack of associate tenure
continues to be price driven," note
are issues in full-
manager. "a
e departments.the
'Ii s hard to keep When the
mainstay
mainstays your cast, fres
z good people in the of your case, fresh lets, become
deparuuent. Thcy fillets, become too expensive fo
;Tlceep going on to6Xpe1tWY6 for the consumer, you
`be
. ,�. tter' positions."cercomer, you look for for odor opci
"..
Training expense other options." The opcior
Asad turnover neg- frozen-at-sea
vely affect mar•
and other spp
E
has proven to be a successful soft
Still, he poibs out, it is necessary to
Sales are continuing to grow.
someone in the meat counter adja
The manager of another loge
:. gent co a self-serve seafood cast who can
concurs but says it was not easy to
answer consumer questions about
consumers away from "frtsh."
�.' seafood
. "We've overcome customer a
The aforementioned seafood voter-
qn also reports that he has been preach-
to managers to put in 12-, 16- or
Most Common
20-foot-self-serve cases for pre-
(;cltetl product, with about 8 to 10 feet
Methods for Tralnln;
-Qf ice display.
Counter Personnel
You can only cut labor so much
♦
' th an al"ce case. Nowadays, you can't
1.110113-on 8E
LL" He adds that a seafood man-
2. Manuals or handbooks 41
(r sEills needs to be there 40 hours a
3. On-site workshops 4(
" The few really positive retail rcpom
4.Off-site workshops It
pane from two large chains that are
5. ChZS 11
g high-quality frozen fish, primarily
6. Other
SEAFOOD BUSINESS SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1994
one
'hen
s of
1 fil-
too
the
look
of
cod
Average Number of
Items on Display in
Seafood Counter
Number ofitems: 30-35
Compared w0b 1993:
More 43%
Same 42%
Fewer 15%
Seafood Department
Sales by Category
Fresh, never frozen 55% Incre&n5
Previously frozen, 20% Same
Slacked out
Frozen, sold frozen 20% Same
Livc 5% Same
Biggest Sellers by
Volume
1. Shrimp
6. Orange Roughy
2. Salmon
7. Swordfish
3. "Whitefish"
8. Halibut
4. Catfish
9. Scallops
5. Flounder
10. Suriml
Fastest Growing Items
1. 1994
Salmon
1993
Salmon
1992
%hoa/Catfisb
2. 1994
b%rimp
1993
Shrimp
1992
Salmon
.
3.19%
'IIlapia
1993
Catfish
1992
Shrimp
4. 1994
Caft
1993
T*12
1992
Orange Roughs
5. 1994
Orange Roughy
1993
Suricul
1992
Crab
NEW YORK STATE COASTAL POLICIES
LIM
4k
�jm
Cl
•
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
Y
NEW YORK STATE COASTAL POLICIES
LIM
4k
�jm
Cl
i
•
0
a
New York State
Department of State
Coastal Management Program
162 Washington Avenue
41 Albany, NY 12231
•
STATE COASTAL POLICIES
Excerpted from the State of New York Coastal Management Program
and Final Environmental Impact Statement, Section 6, August 1982
0
a
C
DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
•
Ll
POLICY 1 RESTORE, REVITALIZE, AND REDEVELOP DETERIORATED AND
UNDERUTILIZED WATERFRONT AREAS FOR COMMERCIAL,
INDUSTRIAL, CULTURAL, RECREATIONAL, AND OTHER
COMPATIBLE USES.
Explanation of Policy
State and federal agencies must ensure that their actions further the revitalization of urban
waterfront areas. The transfer and purchase of property; the construction of a new office
41 building, highway or park; the provision of tax incentives to businesses; and establishment of
enterprise zones, are all examples of governmental means for spurring economic growth. When
any such action, or similar action is proposed, it must be analyzed to determine if the action
would contribute to or adversely affect a waterfront revitalization effort.
• It must be recognized that revitalization of once dynamic waterfront areas is one of the most
effective means of encouraging economic growth in the State, without consuming valuable open
space outside of these waterfront areas. Waterfront redevelopment is also one of the most
effective means of rejuvenating or at least stabilizing residential and commercial districts
adjacent to the redevelopment area.
•
In responding to this policy, several other policies must be considered: (1) Uses requiring a
location abutting the waterfront must be given priority in any redevelopment effort. (Refer to
Policy 2 for the means to effectuate this priority); (2) As explained in Policy 5, one reason for
revitalizing previously dynatnic'waterfront areas is that the costs for providing basis services to
• such areas is frequently less than providing new services to areas not previously developed; (3)
The likelihood for successfully simplifying permit procedures and easing certain requirements
(Policy 6) will be increased if a discrete area and not the entire urban waterfront is the focus for
this effort. In turn, ease in obtaining permits should increase developers' interest to invest in
these areas. Further, once this concentrated effort has succeeded, stabilization and revitalization
s of surrounding areas is more likely to occur.
Local governments through waterfront revitalization programs have the primary responsibility
for implementing this policy. Though local waterfront revitalization programs need not be
limited to redevelopment, local governments are urged to identify areas as suitable for
• redevelopment, and establish and enforce redevelopment programs.
1. When a Federal or State action is proposed to take place in an urban waterfront area
regarded as suitable for redevelopment, the following guidelines will be used:
a. Priority should be given to uses which are dependent on a location adjacent to the
water (see Policy 2);
b. The action should enhance existing and anticipated uses. 'For example, a new
highway should be designed and constructed so as to serve the potential access
needs for desirable industrial development;
C�
C�
t C. The action should serve as a catalyst to private investment in the area;
d. The action should improve the deteriorated condition of a site and, at a minimum,
must not cause further deterioration. For example, a building could not be
abandoned without protecting it against vandalism and/or structural decline;
0 e. The action must lead to development which is compatible with the character of
the area, with consideration given to scale, architectural style, density, and
intensity of use;
f. The action should have the potential to improve the existing economic base of the
0 community and, at a minimum, must not jeopardize this base. For example,
waterfront development meant to serve consumer needs would be inappropriate
in an area where no increased consumer demands were expected and existing
development was already meeting demand;
g. The action should improve adjacent and upland views of the water, and, at a
minimum, must not affect these views in an insensitive manner;
h. The action should have the potential to improve the potential for multiple uses of
the site.
•
2. If a State or Federal action is proposed to take place outside of a given deteriorated,
underutilized urban waterfront area suitable for redevelopment, and is either within the
relevant community or adjacent coastal communities, the agency proposing the action
must first determine if it is feasible to take the action within the deteriorated,
0 underutilized urban waterfront area in question. If such an action is feasible, the agency
should give strong consideration to taking the action in that area. If not feasible, the
agency must take the appropriate steps to ensure that the action does not cause further
deterioration of that area.
POLICY 2 FACILITATE THE SIMG OF WATER -DEPENDENT USES AND
FACILITIES_ON OR ADJACENT TO COASTAL WATERS.
Explanation of Policy
There is a finite amount of waterfront space suitable for development purposes. Consequently,
while the demand for any given piece of property will fluctuate in response to varying economic
and social conditions, on a statewide basis, the only reasonable expectation is that long-term
demand for waterfront space will intensify.
• The traditional method of land allocation, i.e., the real estate market, with or without local land
use controls, offers little assurance that uses which require waterfront sites will, in fact, have
access to the State's coastal waters. To ensure that such "water -dependent" uses can continue
to be accommodated within the State, State agencies will avoid undertaking, funding, or
approving non -water dependent uses when such uses would preempt the reasonably foreseeable
0
t development of water dependent uses; furthermore, agencies will utilize appropriate existing
programs to encourage water dependent activities.
C1
The following uses and facilities are considered as water -dependent:
1. Uses which depend on the utilization of resources found in coastal waters (for
example: fishing, mining of sand and gravel, mariculture activities);
2. Recreational activities which depend on access to coastal waters (for example:
swimming, fishing, boating, wildlife viewing);
3. Uses involved in the sea/land transfer of goods (for example: docks, loading
areas, pipelines, short-term storage facilities);
4. Structures needed for navigational purposes (for example: dams, locks,
0 lighthouses);
S. Flood and erosion protection structures (for example: breakwaters, bulkheads);
6. Facilities needed to store and service boats and ships (for example: marinas, boat
repair, boat construction yards);
7. Uses requiring large quantities of water for processing and cooling purposes (for
example: hydroelectric power plants, fish processing plants, pumped storage
power plants);
0 8. Uses that rely heavily on the waterborne transportation of raw materials or
products which are difficult to transport on land, thereby making it critical that
a site near to shipping facilities be obtained (for example: coal export facilities,
cement plants, quarries);
9. Uses which operate under such severe time constraints that proximity to shipping
i facilities become critical (for example: firms processing perishable foods);
10. Scientific/educational activities which, by their nature, require access to coastal
waters (for example: certain meteorological and oceanographic activities); and
•
11. Support facilities which are necessary for the successful functioning of permitted
water -dependent uses (for example: parking lots, snack bars, first aid stations,
short-term storage facilities). Though these uses must be near the given water -
dependent use they should, as much as possiblet be sited inland from the water-
y _ dependent use rather than on the shore.
In addition to water -dependent uses, uses which are enhanced by a waterfront location should
be encouraged to locate along the shore, though not at the expense of water -dependent uses. A
water -enhanced use is defined as a use that has no critical dependence on obtaining a waterfront
location, but the profitability of the use and/or the enjoyment level of the users would be
increased significantly if the use were adjacent to, or had visual access to, the waterfront. A
w restaurant which uses good site design to take advantage of a waterfront view, and an industrial
park which incorporates the waterfront into the site layout while providing for public access are
two examples of water -enhanced uses.
If there is no immediate demand for a water -dependent use in a given area but a future demand
is reasonably foreseeable, temporary non -water -dependent uses should be considered preferable
to a non -water -dependent or enhanced use which involves an irreversible or nearly irreversible
commitment of land. Parking lots, passive recreational facilities, outdoor storage areas, and
non -permanent structures are uses or facilities which would likely be considered as "temporary".
non -water -dependent uses.
In the actual choice of sites where water -dependent uses will be encouraged and facilitated, the
following guidelines should be used:
1. Competition for space: Competition for space, or the potential for it, should be indicated
before any given site is promoted for water -dependent uses. The intent is to match
• water -dependent uses with suitable locations and thereby reduce any conflicts between
competing uses that might arise. Not just any site suitable for development should be
chosen as a water -dependent use area. The choice of a site should be made with some
meaningful impact on the real estate market anticipated. The anticipated impact could
either be one of increased protection to existing water -dependent activities or else the
0 encouragement of water -dependent development.
2. In::Vlace facilities and services: Most water -dependent uses, if they are to function
effectively, will require basic public facilities and services. In selecting appropriate areas
for water -dependent uses., consideration should be given to the following factors:
4
a) The availability of public sewers, public water lines and adequate power supply;
b) Access to the area for trucks and rail, if heavy industry is to be accommodated;
and
c) Access to public transportation, if a high number of person trips are to be
generated. -
3. Access to navigational channels: ' If commercial shipping, commercial fishing, or
recreational boating are planned, the locality should consider setting aside a site, within
a sheltered harbor, from which access to adequately sized navigation channels would be
assured.
4. Compatibility with adjacent uses and the protection of other coastal resources: Water -
dependent uses should be located so that they enhance, dr at least do not detract from,
• the surrounding community. Consideration should also be given to such factors as the
protection of nearby residential areas from odors, noise and traffic. Affirmative
approaches should also be employed so that water -dependent uses and adjacent uses can
serve to complement one another. For example, a recreation -oriented' water -dependent
use area could be sited in an area already oriented towards tourism. Clearly, a marina,
V fishing pier or swimming area would enhance,and in turn be enhanced by, nearby
t restaurants, motels and other non -water oriented tourist activities. Water -dependent uses
must also be sited so as to avoid adverse impacts on the significant coastal resources.
5. Preference to underutilized sites: The promotion of water -dependent uses should serve
to foster development as a result of the capital programming, permit expediting and other
State and local actions that will be used to promote the site. Nowhere is such a stimulus
needed more than in those portions of the State's waterfront areas which are currently
underutilized.
6. Providing for expansion: A primary objective of the policy is to create a process by
41 which water dependent uses can be accommodated well into the future. State agencies
and localities will, therefore, give consideration to long-term space needs and, where
practicable, accommodate future demand by identifying more land than is needed in the
near future.
•
In promoting water -dependent uses, the following kinds of actions will be considered:
1. Favored treatment to water dependent use areas with respect to capital programming.
Particular priority should be given to the construction and maintenance of port facilities,
roads, railroad facilities, and public transportation within areas suitable for water
dependent uses.
2. When areas suitable for water dependent uses are publicly owned, favored leasing
arrangements should be given to water dependent uses.
3. Where possible, consideration should be given to providing water dependent uses with
property tax abatements, loan guarantees, or loans at below market rates.
4. State and local planning and economic development agencies should actively promote
water dependent uses. In addition, a list of sites available for non -water dependent uses
should be maintained in order to assist developers seeking alternative sites for their
proposed projects.
5. Local, State and Federal agencies should work together to streamline permitting
procedures that may be burdensome to water dependent uses. This effort should begin
for specific uses in a particular area.
6. Local land use controls, especially the use of zoning districts exclusively for waterfront
uses, can be an effective tool of local government in assuring adequate space for the
development of water dependent uses.
POLICY 3 FURTHER DEVELOP THE STATE'S MAJOR PORTS OF ALBANY,
BUFFALO, NEW YORK, OGDENSBURG, AND OSWEGO AS CENTERS
OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, AND ENCOURAGE THE SITING, IN
THESE PORT AREAS, INCLUDING THOSE UNDER THE
JURISDICTION OF STATE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES, OF LAND USE AND
r
•
DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS ESSENTIAL TO, OR IN SUPPORT OF, THE
WATERBORNE TRANSPORTATION OF CARGO AND PEOPLE.
Explanation of Policy
The aim of this policy is to support port development in New York, Buffalo, Ogdensburg, and
Oswego. Three other development policies have significant implications for port development,
namely: water dependency, concentration of development, and the expediting of permit reviews.
In implementing this policy, state agencies will recognize the legally established jurisdictional
boundaries of the port authorities. If an action is proposed for a site within or abutting a major
port, or if there is a reasonable expectation that a proposed action elsewhere would have an
impact on a major port, then the following guidelines shall be used in determining consistency:
1. In assessing proposed projects within or abutting a major port, given that all other
applicable policies are adhered to, the overriding consideration is the maintenance and
enhancement of port activity, i.e., development related to waterborne transportation,
• which will have precedence over other non -port related activities.
2. Dredging to maintain the economic viability of major ports will be regarded as an action
of regional or statewide public benefit if: a clear need is shown for maintaining or
improving the established alignment, width, and depth of existing channels or for new
channels essential to port activity; and, it can be demonstrated that environmental impacts
would be acceptable according to State regulations governing the activity.
3. Landfill projects in the near -shore areas will be regarded as an acceptable activity within
major port areas, provided adverse environmental impacts are acceptable under all
41 applicable environmental regulations and a strong economic justification is demonstrated.
4. If non -port related activities are proposed to be located in or near to a major port, these
uses shall be sited so as not to interfere with normal port operations.
5. When not already restricted by existing laws or covenants and when there is no
overriding regional or statewide public benefit for doing otherwise, surplus public land
or facilities within or, adjacent to a major port shall be offered for sale, in the first
instance, to the appropriate port authority.
40 6. - In the programming of capital projects for port areas, highest'priority will be given to
projects that promote the development and use of the port. However, in determining
such priorities, consideration must also be given to non -port related interests within or
near the ports that have demonstrated critical capital programming needs.
7. No buildings, piers, wharves, or vessels shall be abandoned or otherwise left unused by
• a public agency or sold without making provisions for their maintenance in sound
condition or for their demolition or removal.
8. Proposals for the development of new major ports will be assessed in terms of the
anticipated impact on: a) existing New York State major ports; b) existing modes of
0
0
transportation; and c) the surrounding land uses and overall neighborhood character of
the area in which the proposed port is to be located; and other valued coastal resources.
9. Port development shall provide opportunities for public access insofar as these
opportunities do not interfere with the day-to-day operations of the port and the port
4 authority and its tenants do not incur unreasonable costs.
POLICY 4 STRENGTHEN THE ECONOMIC BASE OF SMALLER HARBOR AREAS
BY ENCOURAGING THE DEVELOPMENT AND ENHANCEMENT OF
THOSE TRADITIONAL USES AND ACTIVITIES WHICH HAVE
PROVIDED SUCH AREAS WITH THEIR UNIQUE MARITIME
IDENTITY.
Explanation of Policy
•
This policy recognizes that the traditional activities occurring in and around numerous smaller
harbors throughout the State's coastal area contribute much to the economic strength and
attractiveness of these harbor communities. Thus, efforts of state agencies shall center on
promoting such desirable activities as recreational and commercial fishing, ferry services,
0 marinas, historic preservation, cultural pursuits, and other compatible activities which have made
smaller harbor areas appealing as tourist destinations and as commercial and residential areas.
Particular consideration wi11 be given to the visual appeal and social benefits of smaller harbors
which, in turn, can make significant contributions to the State's tourism industry.
• The following guidelines shall be used in determining consistency:
1. The action shall give priority to those traditional and/or desired uses which are dependent
on or enhanced by a location adjacent to the water.
2. The action will enhance or not detract from or adversely affect existing traditional and/or
desired anticipated uses.
3. The action shall notbe out of character with, nor lead to development which would be
out of the character with, existing development in terms of the area's scale, intensity of
0 use, and architectural style.
4. The action must not cause a site to deteriorate, e.g., a structure shall not be abandoned
without protecting it against vandalism and/or structural decline.
5. The action will not adversely affect the existing economic base of the community e.g.,
waterfront development designed to promote residential development might be
inappropriate in a harbor area where the economy is dependent upon tourism and
commercial fishing.
6. The action will not detract from views of the water and smaller harbor area, particularly
• where the visual quality of the area is an important component of the area's appeal and
identity.
•
• POLICY 5 ENCOURAGE THE LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS WHERE
PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES ESSENTIAL TO SUCH
DEVELOPMENT ARE ADEQUATE.
Explanation of PolicX
By its construction, taxing, funding and regulatory powers, government has become a dominant
force in shaping the course of development. Through these government actions, development,
particularly large-scale development, in the coastal area will be encouraged to locate within,
contiguous to, or in close proximity to, existing areas of concentrated development where
• infrastructure and public services are adequate, where topography, geology, and other
environmental conditions are suitable for and able to accommodate development.
The above policy is intended to accomplish the following:
- strengthen existing residential, industrial and commercial centers;
foster an orderly pattern of growth where outward expansion is occurring;
increase the productivity of existing public services and moderate the need to
provide new public services in outlying areas;
preserve open space in sufficient amounts and where desirable
foster energy conservation by encouraging proximity between home, work, and
leisure activities..
For any action that would result in large-scale development or an action which would facilitate
or serve future development, a determination shall be made as to whether the action is within,
contiguous to, or in close proximity to an area of concentrated development where infrastructure
and public services are adequate. The following guidelines shall be used in making that
• determination:
1. Cities, built-up suburban towns and villages, and rural villages in the coastal area are
generally areas of concentrated development where infrastructure and public services are
adequate.
2. Other locations in the coastal area may also be suitable for development, if three or more
of the following conditions prevail:
a. Population density of the area surrounding or adjacent to the proposed site
exceeds 1,000 persons per square mile;
b. Fewer than 50% of the buildable sites (i.e., sites meeting lot area requirements
under existing local zoning regulations) within one mile radius of the proposed
site are vacant;
C. Proposed site is served by or is near to public or private sewer and water lines;
•
0
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
0
d. Public transportation service is available within one mile of the proposed site; and
e. A significant concentration of commercial and/or industrial activity is within one-
half mile of the proposed site.
The following points shall be considered in assessing the adequacy of an area's
infrastructure and public services:
a. Streets and highways serving the proposed site can safely accommodate the peak
traffic generated by the proposed land development;
b. Development's water needs (consumptive and fire fighting) can be met by the
existing water supply system;
C. Sewage disposal system can accommodate the wastes generated by the
development; '
d. Energy needs of the proposed land development can be accommodated by existing
utility systems;
e. Storm water runoff from the proposed site can be accommodated by on-site
and/or off-site facilities; and
f. Schools, police and fire protection, and health and social services are adequate
to meet the needs of the population expected to live, work, shop, or conduct
business in the area as a result of the development.
It is recognized that certain forms of development may and/or should occur at locations which
are not within or near areas of concentrated development. Thus, this coastal development policy
does not apply to the following types of development projects and activities.
1. Economic activities which depend upon sites at or near locations where natural resources
are present, e.g., lumber industry, quarries.
2. Development which, by its nature, is enhanced by a non -urbanized setting, e.g., a resort
. complex, campgrounds, second home developments. .
3. Development which is designed to be a self-contained activity, e.g., a small college, an
academic or religious retreat.
4. Water -dependent uses with site requirements not compatible with this policy or when
alternative sites are not available.
5. Development which, because of its isolated location and small scale, has little or no
potential to generate and/or encourage further land development.
6. Uses and/or activities wluch because of public safety consideration should be located
away from populous areas.
KI
7. Rehabilitation or restoration of existing structures and facilities.
8. Development projects which are essential to the construction and/or operation of the
above uses and activities.
In certain urban areas where development is encouraged by this policy, the condition of existing
public water and sewage infrastructure may necessitate improvements. Those State and Federal
agencies charged with allocating funds for investments in water and sewer facilities should give
high priority to the needs of such urban areas so that full advantage may be taken of the rich
array of their other infrastructure components in promoting waterfront revitalization.
POLICY 6 EXPEDITE PERMIT PROCEDURES IN ORDER TO FACILITATE THE
SITING OF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES AT SUITABLE LOCATIONS.
Explanation of Policy
For specific types of development activities, and in areas suitable for such development, State
agencies and local governments participating in the Waterfront Revitalization Program will make
every effort to coordinate and synchronize existing permit procedures and regulatory programs,
as long as the integrity of the regulations' objectives is not jeopardized. These procedures and
programs will be coordinated within each agency. Also, efforts will be made to ensure that each
agency's procedures are synchronized with other agencies' procedures at each level of
government. Finally, regulatory programs and procedures will be coordinated and synchronized
between levels of government, and if necessary, legislative and/or programmatic changes will
be recommended. .
When proposing new regulations, an agency will determine the feasibility of incorporating the
regulations within existing procedures, if this reduces the burden on a particular type of
development and does not jeopardize the integrity of the regulations' objectives.
POLICY 7 SIGNIFICANT COASTAL FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITATS WILL BE
PROTECTED, PRESERVED, AND WHERE PRACTICAL, RESTORED SO
AS TO MAINTAIN THEIR VIABILITY AS HABITATS.
Explanation of Policy
Habitat protection is recognized as fundamental to assuring the- survival of fish and wildlife
• populations. Certain habitats are particularly critical to the maintenance of a given population
and, therefore, merit special protection. Such habitats exhibit one or more of the following
characteristics:
(a) are essential to the survival of a large portion of a particular fish or wildlife
9 population (e.g. feeding grounds, nursery areas);
0
0 (b) support populations of rare and endangered species;
(c) are found at a very low frequency within a coastal region;
(d) support fish and wildlife populations having significant commercial and/or
•
recreational value; and .
(e) would be difficult or impossible to replace.
In order to protect and preserve a significant habitat, land and water uses or development shall
not be undertaken if such actions destroy or significantly impair the viability of an area as a
habitat. When the action significantly reduces a vital resource (e.g., food, shelter, living space)
or changes environmental conditions (e.g., temperature, substrate, salinity) beyond the tolerance
range of an organism, then the action would be considered to "significantly impair" the habitat.
Indicators of a significantly impaired habitat may include: reduced carrying capacity, changes
• in community structure (food chain relationships, species diversity), reduced productivity and/or
increased incidence of disease and mortality.
0
The range of generic activities most likely to affect significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats
include, but are not limited to the following:
1. Draining wetlands, ponds: Cause changes in vegetation, or changes in groundwater and
surface water hydrology.
2. Filling wetlands, shallow areas of streams, lakes, bays, estuaries: May change physical
character of substrate (e.g., sandy to muddy, or smother vegetation, alter surface water
hydrology).
3. Grading land: Results in vegetation removal, increased surface runoff, or increased soil
erosion and downstream sedimentation.
r
4. Clear cutting: May cause loss of vegetative cover, increase fluctuations in amount of
surface runoff, or increase streambed scouring, soil erosion, sediment deposition.
5. Dredging or excavation: May cause change in substrate composition, possible release
of contaminants otherwise stored in sediments, removal of aquatic vegetation, or change
circulation patterns and sediment transport mechanisms.
6. Dredge spoil disposal: May include shoaling of littoral areas, or change circulation
patterns.
7. Physical alteration of shore areas through channelization or construction of shore
structure: May change volume and rate of flow or increase scouring, sedimentation.
8. Introduction, storage or disposal of pollutants such as chemical, petrochemical, solid
wastes, nuclear wastes, toxic material, pesticide, sewage effluent, urban and rural runoff,
• leachate of hazardous and toxic substances stored in landfills: May cause increased
•
mortality or sublethal effects on organisms, alter their reproductive capabilities, or reduce
their value as food organisms.
The range of physical, biological and chemical parameters which should be considered include,
but are not limited to, the following:
1. Physical parameters, such as living space, circulation, flushing rates, tidal amplitude,
turbidity, water temperature, depth (including loss of littoral zone), morphology,
substrate type, vegetation, structure, erosion and sedimentation rates;
• 2. Biological parameters, such as community structure, food chain relationships, species
diversity, predator/prey relationships, population size, mortality rates, reproductive rates,
behavioral patterns and migratory patterns; and
3. Chemical parameters, such as dissolved oxygen, carbon dioxide, acidity, dissolved solids,'
nutrients, organics, salinity, and pollutants (heavy metals, toxic and hazardous materials).
•
When a proposed action is likely to alter any of the biological, physical or chemical parameters
as described in the narrative beyond the tolerance range of the organisms occupying the habitat,
the viability of that habitat has been significantly impaired or destroyed. Such action, therefore,
would be inconsistent with the above policy.
•
In cooperation with the State's Coastal Management Program, the Department of Environmental
Conservation has developed a rating system incorporating these five parameters CU
Development and Evaluation of a System for Rating Fish and Wildlife Habitats in the Coastal
Zone of New York State, Final Report, January 1981, 15 pp.).
To further aid Federal and State agencies in determining the consistency of a proposed action
with this policy, a narrative will be prepared for each significant habitat which will: (1) identify
the location of the habitat; (2) describe the community of organisms which utilize the habitat;
(3) identify the biological, physical and chemical parameters which should be considered when
• assessing the potential impacts of a project on that habitat; (4) identify generic activities which
would most likely create significant impacts on the habitat; and (5) provide the quantitative basis
used to rate the habitat. Prior to formal designation of significant fish and wildlife habitats,
copies of the individual habitat narratives plus copies of habitat maps and completed rating forms
will be provided to Federal and State agencies and the public for the review and comment.
POLICY 8 PROTECT FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES IN THE COASTAL AREA
FROM THE INTRODUCTION OF HAZARDOUS WASTES AND OTHER
POLLUTANTS WHICH BIO -ACCUMULATE IN THE FOOD CHAIN OR
WHICH CAUSE SIGNIFICANT SUBLETHAL: OR LETHAL EFFECT ON
THOSE RESOURCES.
Explanation of Policy
Hazardous wastes are unwanted by-products of manufacturing processes and are generally
• characterized as being flammable, corrosive, reactive, or toxic. More specifically, hazardous
0
• waste is defined in Environmental Conservation Law [S27-0901(3)] as "waste or combination
of wastes which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious
characteristics may: (1) cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an
increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness; or (2) pose a substantial
present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored,
transported, or otherwise managed." A list of hazardous wastes (NYCRR Part 366) will be
adopted by DEC within 6 months after EPA formally adopts its list.
The handling (storage, transport, treatment and disposal) of the materials included on this list
is being strictly regulated in New York State to prevent their entry or introduction into the
f environment, particularly into the State's air, land and waters. Such controls should effectively
minimize possible contamination of and bio -accumulation in the State's coastal fish and wildlife
resources at levels that cause mortality or create physiological and behavioral. disorders.
Other pollutants are those conventional wastes generated from point and non -point sources, and
not identified as hazardous wastes, but controlled through other State laws.
POLICY 9 EXPAND RECREATIONAL USE OF FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES
IN COASTAL AREAS BY INCREASING ACCESS TO EXISTING
RESOURCES, SUPPLEMENTING EXISTING STOCKS, AND
DEVELOPING NEW RESOURCES.
Explanation of Policy
41 Recreational uses of coastal fish *and wildlife resources include consumptive uses such as fishing
and hunting, and non -consumptive uses such as wildlife photography, bird watching and nature
study.
Any efforts to increase recreational use of these resources will be made in a manner which
ensures the protection of fish and wildlife resources in marine and freshwater coastal areas and
which takes into consideration other activities dependent on these resources. Also, such efforts
must be done in accordance with existing State law and in keeping with sound management
considerations. Such considerations include biology of the species, carrying capacity of the
resources, public demand, costs and available technology.
The following additional guidelines should be considered by State and Federal agencies as they
determine the consistency of their proposed action with the above policy:
1. Consideration should be made by Federal and State agencies as to whether an action will
impede existing or future utilization of the State's recreational fish and wildlife resources.
C
2. Efforts to increase access to recreational fish and wildlife resources should not lead to
over -utilization of that resource or cause impairment.of the habitat. Sometimes such
impairment can be more subtle than actual physical damage to the habitat. For example,
increased human presence can deter animals from using the habitat area.
1
3. The impacts of increasing access to recreational fish and wildlife resources should be
determined on a case-by-case basis, consulting the significant habitat narrative (see Policy
7) and/or conferring with a trained fish and wildlife biologist.
4. Any public or private sector initiatives to supplement existing. stocks (e.g., stocking a
stream with fish reared in a hatchery) or develop new resources (e.g., creating private
fee -hunting or fee -fishing facilities) must be done in accord with existing State law.
POLICY 10 FURTHER DEVELOP COMMERCIAL FINFISH, SHELLFISH, AND
CRUSTACEAN RESOURCES IN THE COASTAL AREA BY
ENCOURAGING THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW, OR IMPROVEMENT
OF EXISTING ON -SHORE COMMERICAL FISHING FACILITIES,
INCREASING MARKETING OF THE STATE'S SEAFOOD PRODUCTS,
MAINTAINING ADEQUATE STOCKS, AND EXPANDING
AQUACULTURE FACILITIES.
•
Explanation of Policy
Commercial fishery development activities must occur within the context of sound fishery
management principals developed and enforced within the State's waters by the New York State
• Department of Environmental Conservation and the management plans 'developed by the
Regional Fisheries Management Councils (Mid -Atlantic and New England) and enforced by the
U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service within the Fishery Conservation Zone. (The Fishery
Conservation Zone is the area of coastal waters extending from the three-mile State waters
boundary to the 200 mile offshore boundary of the U.S. waters. The Conservation Zone is
• authorized by the U.S. Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976.) Sound resource
management considerations' include optimum sustained yield levels developed for specific
commercial fish species, harvest restrictions imposed by State and Federal governments, and the
economic, political (uses conflicts), and technological constraints to utilizing these resources.
• The following additional guidelines should be considered by State and Federal agencies as they
determine the consistency of their proposed action with the policy:
1. A public agency's commercial fishing development initiative should not preempt or
displace private sector initiative.
• 2. A public agency's efforts to expand existing or create new on -shore commercial fishing
support facilities should be directed towards unmet development needs rather than merely
displacing existing commercial fishing activities from a nearby port. This may be
accomplished by taking into consideration existing State or regional commercial fishing
development plans.
•
3. Consideration should be made by State and Federal agencies whether an action will
impede existing utilization or future development of, the state's commercial fishing
resources.
•
• 4.. Commercial fishing development efforts should be made in a manner which ensures the
maintenance and protection of the renewable fishery resources.
FLOODING AND EROSION HAZARDS POLICIES
POLICY 11 BUILDINGS AND OTHER STRUCTURES WILL BE SITED IN THE
COASTAL AREA SO AS TO MINEM IZE DAMAGE TO PROPERTY AND
q, THE ENDANGERING OF HUMAN LIVES CAUSED BY FLOODING AND
EROSION.
Explanation of Policy
4P On coastal lands identified as coastal erosion hazard areas, buildings and similar structures shall
be set back from the shoreline a distance sufficient to minimize damage from erosion unless no
reasonable prudent alternative site is available as in the case of piers, docks and other structures
necessary to gain access to coastal waters to be able to function. The extent of the setback will
be calculated, taking into account the rate at which land is receding due to erosion, and the
40 protection provided by existing erosion protection structures, as well as by natural protective
features such as beaches, sandbars, spits, shoals, barrier islands, bay barriers, nearshore areas,
bluffs and wetlands. The only new structure allowed in coastal erosion hazard areas is a
moveable structure as defined in Section 505.3(u) of the regulations for ECL, Article 34. Prior
to its construction, an erosion hazard areas permit must be approved for the structure. Existing,
non -conforming structures located in coastal erosion hazard area may be only minimally
• enlarged.
In coastal lands identified as being subject to high velocity waters caused by hurricane or other
storm wave wash - a coastal high hazard area - walled and roofed buildings or fuel storage tanks
shall be sited landward of mean high tide; and no mobile home shall be sited in such area. In
coastal lands identified as floodways, no mobile homes shall be sited other than In existing
mobile home parks.
Where human lives may be endangered by major coastal storms, all necessary emergency
preparedness measures should be taken, including disaster preparedness planning.
•
POLICY 12 ACTIVITIES OR .DEVELOPMENT IN THE COASTAL AREA WELL BE
UNDERTAKEN SO AS TO. MDU IIZE DAMAGE TO NATURAL
RESOURCES AND PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND EROSION BY
0 PROTECTING NATURAL PROTECTIVE FEATURES INCLUDING
BEACHES, DUNES, BARRIER ISLANDS AND BLUFFS.
Explanation of Policy
Beaches, dunes, barrier islands, bluffs, and other natural protective features help safeguard
coastal lands and property from damage, as well as reduce the danger to human life, resulting
•
• from flooding and erosion. Excavation of coastal features, improperly designed structures,
inadequate site planning, or other similar actions which fail to recognize their fragile nature and
high protective values, lead to the weakening or destruction of those landforms. Activities or
development in, or in proximity to, natural protective features must ensure that all such adverse
actions are minimized. Primary dunes will be protected from all encroachments that could
impair their natural protective capacity.
POLICY 13 THE CONSTRUCTION OR RECONSTRUCTION OF EROSION
PROTECTION STRUCTURES SHALL BE UNDERTAKEN ONLY IF
THEY HAVE A REASONABLE PROBABILITY OF CONTROLLING
EROSION FOR AT LEAST THIRTY YEARS AS DEMONSTRATED IN
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS AND/OR ASSURED
MAINTENANCE OR REPLACEMENT PROGRAMS.
Explanation of Policx
�7
Erosion protection structures are widely used throughout the State's coastal area. However,
because of improper design, construction and maintenance standards, many fail to give the
protection which they are presumed to provide. As a result, development is sited in areas where
it is subject to damage or loss due to erosion. This policy will help ensure the reduction of such
• damage or loss.
POLICY 14 ACTIVITIES AND DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING THE CONSTRUC-
TION OR RECONSTRUCTION OF EROSION PROTECTION
• STRUCTURES, SHALL BE UNDERTAKEN SO THAT THERE WILL BE
NO MEASURABLE INCREASE IN EROSION OR FLOODING AT THE
SITE OF SUCH ACTIVITIES OR DEVELOPMENT, OR AT OTHER
LOCATIONS.
0 Explanation of Policy
Erosion and flooding are processes which occur naturally. However, by his actions, man can
increase the severity and adverse effects of those processes, causing damage to, or loss of
property, and endangering human lives. Those actions include: the use of erosion protection
• structures such as groins, or the use of impermeable docks which block the littoral transport of
sediment to adjacent shorelands, thus increasing their rate of recession; the failure to observe
proper drainage or land restoration practices, thereby causing run-off and the erosion and
weakening of shorelands; and the placing of structures in identified floodways so that the base
flood level is increased causing damage to otherwise hazard -free *areas..
POLICY 15 MINING, EXCAVATION OR DREDGING IN COASTAL WATERS SHALL
NOT SIGNIFICANTLY INTERFERE WITH THE NATURAL COASTAL
PROCESSES WHICH SUPPLY BEACH MATERIALS TO LAND
ADJACENT TO SUCH WATERS AND SHALL BE UNDERTAKEN IN A
MANNER WHICH WILL NOT CAUSE AN INCREASE IN EROSION OF
1 SUCH LAND.
V,
• Explanation of Policy
Coastal processes, including the movement of beach materials or shoreline sediment by water,
and any mining, excavation or dredging in nearshore or offshore waters which changes the
supply and net flow of such materials can deprive shorelands of their natural regenerative
powers. Such mining, excavation and dredging should be accomplished in a manner so as not
to cause a reduction of supply, and thus an increase of erosion, to such shorelands. Offshore
mining is a future alternative option to land mining for sand and gravel deposits which are
needed to support building and other industries.
•
POLICY 16 PUBLIC FUNDS SHALL ONLY BE USED FOR EROSION PROTECTIVE
STRUCTURES WHERE NECESSARY TO PROTECT HUMAN LIFE, AND
NEW DEVELOPMENT WHICH REQUIRES A LOCATION WITHIN OR
ADJACENT TO AN EROSION HAZARD AREA TO BE ABLE TO
• FUNCTION, OR EXISTING DEVELOPMENT; AND ONLY WHERE THE
PUBLIC BENEFITS OUTWEIGH THE LONG TERM MONETARY AND
OTHER COSTS INCLUDING THE POTENTIAL FOR INCREASING
EROSION AND ADVERSE EFFECTS ON NATURAL PROTECTIVE
FEATURES.
•
Explanation of Policy
Public funds are used for a variety of purposes on the State's shorelines. This policy recognizes
the public need for the protection of human life and existing investment in development or new
• development which requires a location in proximity to the coastal area or in adjacent waters to
be able to function. However, it also recognizes the adverse impacts of such activities and
development on the rate of erosion and on natural protective features and requires that careful
analysis be made of such benefits and long-term costs prior to expending public funds.
POLICY 17 NON-STRUCTURAL MEASURES TO MINIMIZE DAMAGE TO
NATURAL RESOURCES AND PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND
EROSION SHALL BE USED WHENEVER POSSIBLE.
• Explanation of Policy
This policy recognizes both the potential adverse impacts of flooding and erosion upon
development and upon natural protective features in the coastal area, as well as the costs of
protection against those hazards which structural measures entail.
• "Non-structural measures" shall include, but not be limited to:
1. Within coastal erosion hazard areas identified under Section 34-104, Coastal Erosion
Hazard Areas Act (Article 34, Environmental Conservation Law), and subject to the
permit requirements on all regulated activities and development established under that
• law, (a)the use of minimum setbacks as provided for in Section 34-108; and(b)the
strengthening of coastal landforms by the planting of appropriate vegetation on dunes and
bluffs, the installation of sand fencing on dunes, the reshaping of bluffs to achieve an
appropriate vegetation on dunes and bluffs, the installation of sand fencing on dunes, the
reshaping of bluffs to achieve an appropriate angle of repose so as to reduce the potential
for slumping and to permit the planting of stabilization vegetation, and the installation
of drainage systems on bluffs to reduce runoff and internal seepage of waters which
0 erode or weaken the land -forms; and
2. Within identified flood hazard areas, (a) the avoidance of risk or damage from flooding
by the siting of buildings outside the hazard area, and (b) the flood -proofing of buildings
or their elevation about the base flood level.
This policy shall apply to the planning, siting and design of proposed activities and development,
including measures to protect existing activities and development. To ascertain consistency with
this policy, it must be determined if any one, or a combination of, non-structural measures
would afford the degree of protection appropriate both to the character and purpose of the
activity or development, and to the hazard. If non-structural measures are determined to offer
sufficient protection, then consistency with the policy would require the use of such measures,
whenever possible.
In determining whether or not non-structural measures to protect against erosion or flooding will
afford the degree of protection appropriate, an analysis, and if necessary, other materials such
49 as plans or sketches of the activity or development, of the site and of the alternative protection
measures should be prepared to allow an assessment to be made.
• GENERAL POLICY
POLICY 18 TO SAFEGUARD THE VITAL ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND
ENVIRONMENTAL INTERESTS OF THE STATE AND OF ITS
CITIZENS, PROPOSED MAJOR ACTIONS IN THE COASTAL AREA
MUST GIVE FULL CONSIDERATION TO THOSE INTERESTS, AND TO
THE SAFEGUARDS WHICH THE STATE HAS ESTABLISHED TO
PROTECT VALUABLE COASTAL RESOURCE AREAS:
0 Explanation of Policy
Proposed major actions may be undertaken in the coastal area if they will not significantly impair
valuable coastal waters and resources, thus frustrating the achievement of the purposes of the
safeguards which the State has established to protect those waters and resources. Proposed
actions must take into account the social, cultural, economic acid 'environmental interests of the
State and their citizens in such matters that would affect natural resources, water levels and
flows, shoreline damage, hydro -electric power generation, and recreation.
0
•
• PUBLIC ACCESS POLICIES
POLICY 19 PROTECT, MAINTAIN, AND INCREASE THE LEVEL AND TYPES OF
ACCESS TO PUBLIC WATER -RELATED RECREATION RESOURCES
a AND FACILITIES.
Explanation of Policy
This policy calls for achieving balance among the following factors: the level of access to a
resource or facility, the capacity of a resource or facility, and the protection of natural resources.
The imbalance among these factors is the most significant in the State's urban areas. Because
this is often due to access -related problems, priority will be given to improving physical access
to existing and potential coastal recreation sites within the heavily populated urban coastal areas
of the State and to increasing the ability of urban residents to get to coastal recreation areas by
• improved public transportation. The particular water -related recreation resources and facilities
which will receive priority for improved access are public beaches, boating facilities, fishing
areas and waterfront parks. In addition, because of the greater competition for waterfront
locations within urban areas, the Coastal Management Program will encourage mixed use areas
and multiple use of facilities to improve access. Specific sites requiring access improvements
! and the relative priority the program will accord to each will be identified in the Public Access
Planning Process.
The following guidelines will be used in determining the consistency -of a proposed action with
this policy:
•
1. The existing access from adjacent or proximate public lands or facilities to public water -
related recreation resources and facilities shall not be reduced, nor shall the possibility
of increasing access in the future from adjacent or proximate public lands or facilities to
• public water -related recreation resources and facilities be eliminated, unless in the latter
case, estimates of future use of these resources and facilities are too low to justify
maintaining or providing increased public access.
The following is an explanation of the terms used in the above guidelines:
a) Access - the ability and right of the public to reach and use public coastal lands
and waters.
b) Public water -related recreation resources of facilities - all public lands or facilities
that are suitable for passive or active recreation that requires either water or a
• waterfront location or is enhanced by a waterfront location.
C) Public lands or facilities - lands or facilities held by State or local government in
fee simple or less -than -fee simple ownership and to which the public has access
or could have access, including underwater lands and the foreshore.
d) A reduction in the existing level of public access - includes, but is not limited to,
the following:
(1) The number of parking spaces at a public water -related recreation resource
or facility is significantly reduced.
• (2) The service level of public transportation to a public water -related
recreation resource or facility is significantly reduced during peak season
use and such reduction cannot be reasonably justified in terms of meeting
system -wide objectives.
• (3) Pedestrian access is diminished or eliminated because of hazardous
crossings required at new or altered transportation facilities, electric
power transmission lines, or similar linear facilities.
(4) There are increases in the following: already existing special fares of
• public transportation to a public water -related recreation resource or
facility; and/or admission fees to such a resource or facility, and an
analysis shows that such increases will significantly reduce usage by
individuals or families and incomes below the State government
established poverty level.
•
e) An elimination of the possibility of increasing public access in the future includes,
but is not limited to, the following:
(1) Construction of public facilities which physically prevent the provision,
• except at great expense, of convenient public access to public water -
related recreation resources and facilities.
(2) Sale, lease, or other transfer of public lands that could provide public
access to a public water -related recreation resource or facility.
•
(3) Construction of private facilities which physically prevent the provision
of convenient public access to public water -related recreation resources or
facilities from public lands and facilities.
2. - Any proposed project to increase public access to public water -related recreation
• resources and facilities shall be analyzed according to the following factors:
a) The level of access to be provided should be in accord with estimated public use.
If not, the proposed level of access to be provided shall be deemed inconsistent
with the policy.
11
b. The level of access to be provided shall not cause a degree of use which would
exceed the physical capability of the resource or facility. If this were determined
to be the case, the proposed level of access to be provided shall be deemed
inconsistent with the policy.
0
•
• 3. The State will not undertake or fund any project which increases access to a water -related
resource or facility that is not open to all members of the public.
4. In their plans and programs for increasing public access to public water -related resources
• and facilities, State agencies shall give priority in the following order to projects located:
within the boundaries of the Federal -Aid Metropolitan Urban Area and served by public
transportation, within the boundaries of the Federal -Aid Metropolitan urban area but not
served by public transportation; outside the defined Urban Area boundary and served by
public transportation; and outside the defined Urban Area boundary but not served by
• public transportation.
POLICY 20 ACCESS TO THE PUBLICLY -OWNED FORESHORE AND TO LANDS
E%01EDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE FORESHORE OR THE WATER'S
EDGE THAT ARE PUBLICLY -OWNED SHALL BE PROVIDED AND IT
• SHALL BE PROVIDED IN A MANNER COMPATIBLE WITH
ADJOINING USES.
Explanation of Poligy
• In coastal areas where there are little or no recreation facilities providing specific water -related
recreational activities, access to the publicly -owned lands of the coast at large should be provided
for numerous activities and pursuits which require only in iimal facilities for their enjoyment.
Such access would provide for walking along a beach or a city waterfront or to a vantage point
from which to view the seashore. Similar activities requiring access would include bicycling,
• birdwatching, photography, nature study, beachcombing, fishing and hunting.
For those activities, there are several methods of providing access which will receive priority
attention of the Coastal Management Program. These include: the development of a coastal
trails system; the provision of access across transportation facilities to the coast; the
• improvement of access to waterfronts in urban areas; and the promotion of mixed and multi -use
development.
While such publicly -owned lands referenced in the policy shall be retained in public ownership,
traditional sales of easements on lands underwater to adjacent onshore property owners are
• consistent with this policy, provided such easements do not substantially interfere with continued
public use of the public lands on which the easement is granted. Also, public use of such
publicly -owned underwater lands and lands immediately adjacent to the shore shall be
discouraged where such use would be inappropriate for reasons of public safety, military
security, or the protection of fragile coastal resources.
• The following guidelines will be used in determining the consistency of a proposed action with
this policy:
1. Existing access from adjacent or proximate public lands or facilities to existing public
coastal lands and/or waters shall not be reduced, nor shall the possibility of increasing
• access in the future from adjacent or nearby public lands or facilities to public coastal
lands and/or waters be eliminated, unless such actions are demonstrated to be of
•
• overriding regional or Statewide public benefit or, in the latter case, estimates of future
use of these lands and waters are too low to justify maintaining or providing increased
access.
•
The following is an explanation of the terms used in the above guidelines:
a) (See definitions under first policy of "access", and "public lands or facilities").
b) A reduction in the existing or anticipated level of public access - includes, but is
not limited, to the following:
• (1) Pedestrian access is diminished or eliminated because of hazardous
crossings required at new or altered transportation facilities, electric
power transmission lines, or similar linear facilities.
• (2) Pedestrian access is diminished or blocked completely by public or private
development.
c) An elimination of the possibility of increasing public access in the future -
includes, but is not limited to, the following:
(1) Construction of public facilities which physically prevent the provision,
except at great expense, of convenient public access to public coastal lands
and /or waters.
(2) Sale, lease, or other conveyance of public lands that could provide public
• access to public coastal lands and/or waters.
CI
(3) Construction of private facilities which physically prevent the provision
of convenient public access to public coastal lands and/or waters from
public lands and facilities.
2. The existing level of public access within public coastal lands or waters shall not be
reduced or eliminated.
a) A reduction in the existing level of public access - includes, but is not limited to,
• the following:
(1) Access is reduced or eliminated because of hazardous crossings required
at new or altered transportation facilities, electric power transmission
lines, or similar linear facilities.
• (2) Access is reduced or blocked completely by any public developments.
3. Public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast shall
be provided by new land use or development,' except where (a) it is inconsistent with
public safety, military security, or the protection of identified fragile coastal resources;
(b) adequate access exists within one-half mile; ' or (c) agriculture would be adversely
•
• affected. Such access shall not be required to be open to public use until a public agency
or private association agrees to accept responsibility for maintenance and liability of the
accessway.
4. The State will not undertake or directly fund any project which increases access to a
• water -related resource or facility that is not open to all members of the public.
•
5. In their plans and programs for increasing public access, State agencies shall give priority
in the following order to projects located: within the ' boundaries of the Federal -Aid
Metropolitan Urban Area and served by public transportation; within the Federal -Aid
Metropolitan Urban Area but not served by public transportation; outside the defined
Urban Area boundary and served by public transportation; and outside the defined Urban
Area boundary but not served by public transportation.
.6. Proposals for increased public access to coastal lands and waters shall be analyzed
according to the following factors:
(a) The level of access to be provided should be in accord with estimated public use.
If not, the proposed level of access to be provided shall be deemed inconsistent
with the policy.
(b) The level of access to be provided shall not cause a degree of use which would
exceed the physical capability of the coastal lands or waters. If this were
determined to be the case, the proposed level of access to be provided shall be
deemed inconsistent with the policy.
RECREATION POLICIES
• POLICY 21 WATER -DEPENDENT AND WATER -ENHANCED RECREATION WILL
BE ENCOURAGED AND FACILITATED, AND WILL BE GIVEN
PRIORITY OVER NON -WATER -RELATED USED ALONG THE COAST.
C
Explanation of Policy
Water -related recreation includes such 'obviously water -dependent activities as boating,
swimming, and fishing, as well as certain activities which are enhanced by a coastal location and
increase the general public's access to the coast such as pedestrian and bicycle trails, picnic
areas, scenic overlooks and passive recreation areas that takeadvantage of coastal scenery.
•
Provided the development of water -related recreation is consistent with the preservation and
enhancement of such important coastal resources as fish and: wildlife habitats, aesthetically
significant areas, historic and cultural resources, agriculture and significant mineral and fossil
deposits, and provided demand exists, water -related recreation development is to be increased
and such uses shall have a higher priority than any non -coastal dependent uses, including non -
water -related recreation uses. In addition, water -dependent recreation uses shall have a higher
priority over water -enhanced recreation use. Determining a priority among coastal dependent
uses will require a case by case analysis.
Among priority areas for increasing water -related recreation opportunities are those areas where
access to the recreation opportunities of the coast can be provided by new or existing public
transportation services and those areas where the use of the shore is severely restricted by
highways, railroads, industry, or other forms of existing intensive land use or development. The
Department of State, working with the Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation
and with local governments, will identify communities whose use of the shore has been so
restricted and those sites shoreward of such developments which are suitable for recreation and
can be made accessible. Priority shall be given to recreational development of such lands.
The siting or design of new public development in a manner which would result in a barrier to
the recreational use of a major portion of a community's shore should be avoided as much as
practicable.
• Among the types of water -dependent recreation, provision of adequate boating services to meet
future demand is to be encouraged by this program. The siting of boating facilities must be
consistent with preservation and enhancement of other coastal resources and with their capacity
to accommodate demand. The provision of new public boating facilities is essential in meeting
this demand, but such public actions should avoid competition with private boating development.
0 Boating facilities will, as appropriate, include parking, park -like surroundings, toilet facilities,
and pumpout facilities. Harbors of Refuge are particularly needed along Lake Erie and Lake
Ontario. There is a need for a better locational pattern of boating facilities to correct problems
of overused, insufficient, or improperly sited facilities.
Also to be encouraged is non -motorized recreation in the State's coastal area. Water -related off-
road recreational vehicle use is an acceptable activity, provided no adverse environmental
impacts occur. Where adverse environmental impact will occur, mitigating measures will be
implemented, where practicable, to minimize such adverse impacts. If acceptable mitigation is
not practicable, prolubition of the use by off-road recreational vehicles will be posted and
0 enforced.
POLICY 22 DEVELOPMENT, WHEN LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE SHORE, WILL
PROVIDE FOR WATER -RELATED RECREATION, WHENEVER SUCH
• USE IS COMPATIBLE WITH REASONABLY ANTICIPATED DEMAND
FOR SUCH ACTIVITIES, AND IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE PRIlVIARY
PURPOSE OF THE DEVELOPMENT6
explanation of Policy
Many developments present practical opportunities for providing recreation facilities as an
additional use of the site or facility. Therefore, whenever developments are located adjacent to
the shore, they should, to the fullest extent permitted by existing law, provide for some form
of water -related recreation use unless there are compelling reasons why any form of such
recreation would not be compatible with the development, ora reasonable demand for public use
0 cannot be foreseen.
The types of development which can generally provide water -related recreation as a multiple use
include, but are not limited to:
parks
highways
power plants
utility transmission rights of way
sewage treatment facilities
mental health facilities*
hospitals*
prisons*
schools, universities*
military facilities*
nature preserves*
large residential subdivisions (50 units)
shopping centers
office buildings
Prior to taking action relative to any development, State agencies should consult with the State
Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, and if there is an
• '
approved local waterfront program, with the municipality in which the development is to locate,
to determine appropriate recreation uses. The agency should provide OPRHP and the
municipality with the opportunity to participate in project planning.
• Appropriate recreational uses which do not require any substantial additional construction shall
be provided at the expense of the project sponsor provided the cost does not exceed 2 % of total
project cost.
In determining whether compelling reasons exist which would make inadvisable recreation as
• a multiple use, safety considerations should reflect a recognition that some risk is acceptable in
the use of recreation facilities.
Whenever a proposed development would be consistent with CMP policies and the development
could, through the provision of recreation and other, multiple uses, significantly increase public
use of the shore, then such development should be encouraged to locate adjacent to the shore
(this situation would generally only apply within the more developed portions of urban areas).
* 'Ilse types or recreation uses likely to be compatible with these facilities are limited to the more passive
forms, such as trails or fishing access. In some cases, land areas not directly or immediately needed by
40 the facility could be used for recreation.
0
•
HISTORIC AND SCENIC -RE SOURCES POLICIES
POLICY 23 PROTECT, ENHANCE AND RESTORE STRUCTURES, DISTRICTS,
AREAS OR SITES THAT ARE OF SIGNIFICANCE IN THE HISTORY,
ARCHITECTURE, ARCHAEOLOGY OR CULTURE OF THE STATE, ITS
COMMUNITIES, OR THE NATION.
Explanation of Policy
Among the most valuable of the State's man-made resources are those structures or areas which
are of historic, archaeological, or cultural significance. The protection of these structures must
involve a recognition of their importance by all agencies and the ability to identify and describe
them. Protection must include concern not just with specific sites but with areas of significance,
and with the area around specific sites. The policy is not to be construed as a passive mandate
but must include active efforts, when appropriate, to restore or revitalize through adaptive reuse.
While the program is concerned with the preservation of all such resources within the coastal
boundary, it will actively promote the preservation of historic and cultural resources which have
a coastal relationship.
The structures, districts, areas or sites that are of significance in -the history, architecture,
0 archaeology or culture of the State, its communities, or the Nation comprise the following
resources:
•
(a) A resource, which is in a federal or State park established, among other reasons,
to protect and preserve the resource.
(b) A resource on, nominated to be on, or determined eligible to be on the National
or State Registers of Historic Places.
(c) A resource on or nominated to be on the State Nature and Historic Preserve
Trust.
(d) An archaeological resource which is on the State Department of Education's
inventory of archaeological sites.
(e) A local landmark, park, or locally designated historic district which is located
0 within the boundary of an approved local waterfront revitalization program.
(f) A resource that is a significant component of an Urban Cultural Park.
All practicable means to protect structures, districts, areas or sites that are of significance in the
history, architecture, archaeology or culture of the State, its communities or the Nation shall be
deemed to include the consideration and adoption of any techniques, measures, or controls to
prevent a significant adverse change to such significant structures, districts, areas or sites. A
significant adverse change includes but is not limited to:
0
0
0 1. Alteration of or addition to one or more of the architectural, structural, ornamental of
functional features of a building, structure, or site that is a recognized historic, cultural,
or archaeological resource, or component thereof. Such features are defined as
encompassing the style and general arrangement of the exterior of a structure and any
original or historically significant interior features including type, color and texture of
i building materials; entry ways and doors; fenestration; lighting fixtures; roofing;
sculpture and carving; steps; rails; fencing; windows; vents and other openings;
grillwork; signs; canopies; and other appurtenant fixtures and, in addition, all buildings,
structures, outbuildings, walks, fences, steps, topographical features, earthworks, paving
and signs located on the designated resource property. (To the extent they are relevant,
0 the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for
Rehabilitating Historic Buildings" shall be adhered to.)
2. Demolition or removal in full or part of a building, structure, or earthworks that is a
recognized historic, cultural, or archaeological resource or component thereof, to include
all those features described in (a) above plus any other appurtenant fixtures associated
with a building, structure or earthwork.
3. All proposed actions within 500 feet of the perimeter of the property boundary of the
historic, architectural, cultural, or archaeological resource and all actions within an
historic district that would be incompatible with the objective of preserving the quality
and integrity of the resource. Primary considerations to be used in making judgement
about compatibility should focus on the visual and locational relationship between the
proposed action and the special character of the historic, cultural, or archaeological
resource. Compatibility between the proposed action and the resource means that the
general appearance of the resource should be reflected in the architectural style, design
material, scale, proportion, composition, mass, line, color, texture, detail, setback,
landscaping and related items of the proposed actions. With historic districts, this would
include infrastructure improvements or changes, such as street and sidewalk paving,
street furniture and lighting.
• This policy shall not be construed to prevent the construction, reconstruction, alteration, or.
demolition of any building, structure, earthworks, or component thereof of a recognized historic,
cultural or archaeological resource which has been officially certified as being imminently
dangerous to life or public health. Nor shall the policy be construed to'prevent the ordinary
maintenance, repair, or proper restoration according to the U.S. Department of Interior's
"Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings" of any
building, structure, site or earthwork, or component thereof of a recognized historic, cultural
or archaeological resource which does not involve a significant adverse change to the resource,
as defined above. "
i
•
POLICY 24 PREVENT IMPAIRMENT OF SCENIC RESOURCES OF STATEWIDE
SIGNII,ICANCE.
Explanation of Policy=
* The Coastal Management Program will identify on the coastal area map scenic resources of
statewide significance. A list of preliminary identified resources appears in the Appendix (to
the NYS Coastal Management Program).
The following general criteria will be combined to determine significance:
Quality. The basic elements of design (i.e., two-dimensional line, three-dimensional form,
texture and color) combine to create all high quality landscapes. The water, landforms, and
man-made components of scenic coastal landscapes exhibit variety of line, form, texture and
color. This variety is not, however, so great as to be chaotic. Scenic coastal landscapes also
exhibit unity of components. This unity is not, however, so complete as to be monotonous.
Example: the Thousand Islands where the mix of water, land, vegetative and man-made
components creates interesting variety, while the organization of these same components creates
satisfying unity.
Often, high quality landscapes contain striking contrasts between lines, forms, textures and
colors. Example: A waterfall where horizontal and vertical lines and smooth and turbulent
textures meet in dramatic juxtaposition.
Finally, high quality landscapes are generally free of discordant features, such as strictures or
other elements which are inappropriate in terms of siting, form, scale, and/or materials.
Uniqueness. The uniqueness of high quality landscapes is determined by the frequency of
occurrence of similar resources in a region of the State or beyond.
Public Accessibility. A scenic resource of significance must be visually and, where appropriate,
a physically accessible to the public.
Public Recognition. Widespread recognition of a scenic resource is not a characteristic intrinsic .
to the resource. It does, however, demonstrate people's appreciation of the resource for its
visual, as well as evocative, qualities. Public recognition serves to reinforce analytic conclusions
about the significance of a resource.
When considering a proposed action, agencies shall first determine whether the action could
affect a scenic resource of statewide significance. This determination would involve: (a) a
review of the coastal area map to ascertain if it shows an identified scenic resources which could
be affected by the proposed action, and (b) a review of the types of activities proposed to
! determine if they would be likely to impair the scenic beauty of an identified resource.
Impairment will include: (i) the irreversible modification of geologic forms; the destruction or
removal of vegetation; the modification, destruction, or removal of structures, whenever the
geologic forms, vegetation or structures are significant to the scenic quality of an identified
resource; and (ii) the addition of structures which because of siting or scale will reduce
C
identified views or which because of scale, form, or materials will diminish the scenic quality
of an identified resource.
The following siting and facility -related guidelines are to be used to achieve this policy;
recognizing that each development situation is unique and that the guidelines will have to be
applied accordingly. Guidelines include:
1. Siting structures and other development such as highways, power lines, and signs, back
from shorelines or in other inconspicuous locations to maintain the attractive quality of
the shoreline and to retain views to and from the shore;
2. Clustering or orienting structures to retain views, save open space and provide visual
organization to a development;
.3. Incorporating sound, existing structures (especially historic buildings) into the overall
0 development scheme;
i
4. Removing deteriorated and/or degrading elements; -
5. Maintaining or restoring the original land form, except when changes screen unattractive
elements and/or add appropriate interest;
6. Maintaining or adding vegetation to provide interest, encourage the presence of wildlife,
blend structures into the site, and obscure unattractive elements, except when selective
clearing removes unsightly, diseased or hazardous vegetation and when selective clearing
creates views of coastal waters;
7. Using appropriate materials, in addition to vegetation, to screen unattractive elements;
and
8. Using appropriate scales, forms and materials to ensure that buildings and other
• structures are compatible with and add interest to the landscape. "
POLICY 25 PROTECT, RESTORE OR ENHANCE NATURAL AND MAN-MADE
RESOURCES WHICH ARE NOT IDENTIFIED AS BEING OF
0 STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, BUT WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO THE
OVERALL SCENIC QUALITY OF THE COASTAL AREA.
Explanation of Policy
•
When considering a proposed action which would not affect a'scenic resource of Statewide
significance, agencies shall ensure that the action will be undertaken so as to protect, restore or
enhance the overall scenic quality of the coastal area. Activities which could impair or further
degrade scenic quality are the same as those cited under the previous policy, i.e., modification
of natural landforms, removal of vegetation, etc. However, the effects of these activities would
0 not be considered as serious for the general coastal area as for significant scenic areas.
•
C
0
•
0
i
0
0
U
The siting and design guidelines listed under the previous policy should be considered for
proposed actions in the general coastal area. More emphasis may need to be placed on removal
of existing elements, especially those which degrade, and on addition of new elements or other
changes which enhance. Removal of vegetation at key points to improve visual access to coastal
waters is one such change which might be expected to enhance scenic quality.
AGRICULTURAL LANDS POLICY .
POLICY 26 CONSERVE AND PROTECT AGRICULTURAL LANDS IN THE STATE'S
COASTAL AREA.
Explanation of Policy
The first step in conserving agricultural lands is the identification of such lands. The
Department of State is mapping all important agricultural lands within the State's coastal area.
The following criteria have been used to prepare the maps, and the mapped information will be
incorporated in the New York State Coastal Resources Inventory and on the Coastal Area Map.
Land meeting any of the following criteria is being mapped.- I
1. Land which meet the definition of the U.S. Department of Agriculture as being prime
farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance..
a. Prime farmland is defined by USDA Soil Conservation Service in CRF #7
Agriculture Part 657.5(a), January 1979. A list of the soil associations that meet
this definition has been prepared for each coastal county.
b. Unique farmland is defined by USDASCS in CRF #7 Agriculture Part 657.5(b).
In the coastal area of New York all fruit and vegetable farming meets the terms
of the definition.
3
I After mapping according to this definition was substantially completed, the NYS Department of Agriculture and Mrkeb completed
development of a new agricultural land classification system. As soon as Is practical, the following definition will be the basis for
revising maps of coastal agricultural land. Important agricultural land &ball Include all land within an agricultural district or sobjeet to
an eight-year commitment which has been farmed within at least two of the lost Me y&m; or any land farmed within at least two of the
rive years in 96111 groups 1-4 as classified by the Land Classification System aalablished by the Now York State Department at
Agriculture and Markets, or any land farmed within at least two of the lost five years which h influenced by climate conditions which
support the growth of high value trope. Additionally. agricultural land het meeting the above criteria but located adjacent to may such
land and forming part of an on-going agricultural enterprise shall be considered Important lttieultural land. .
2 For the purposes of this map the urban areas which ate to be excluded are all cities, the Counties of Nassau, Westchester, Rockland.
Putnam and Erie, and any built up area.
0
C. Farmland of Statewide importance is defined by USDASCS in CRF //7
Agriculture Part 656.5(c). Lists of soil associations which constitute farmland of
Statewide importance have been prepared for each coastal county.
2. Active farmland within Agricultural Districts. The maps of each Agricultural District
w shows land committed by farmers. This is the land that will be mapped as active
farmland. The district boundary will also be shown.
3. Areas identified as having high economic viability for farming. Any farm not identified
under 1 and/or 2 above and which is located in an area identified as having "high
viability" on the map entitled "Economic Viability of Farm Areas" prepared by the
Office of Planning Coordination in May, 1969. This would be the basis for initial
identification of areas having high economic viability for farming. Areas will be added
and/or deleted based on comments from the agricultural community.
r 4. Areas adjacent to land identified under 1 above if these areas are being farmed and are
part of a farm with identified important agricultural lands.. .
5. Prime farmland, unique farmland, and farmland of Statewide significance will not be
identified as important agricultural land whenever it occurs as parcels of land less than
25 acres in size and these small parcels are not within a mile of areas of active farming.
Given the Program's application to a narrow strip of land, implementing a policy of promoting
agricultural use of land must, to be practical, concentrate on controlling the replacement of
agricultural land uses with non-agricultural land use as the result of some public action. The
many other factors such as markets, taxes, and regulations, which influence the viability of
agriculture in a given area, can only be addressed on a Statewide or national basis.
The Program policy requires a concern for the loss of any. important agricultural land.
However, the primary concern must be with the loss of agricultural land when that loss would
have a significant effect on an agricultural area's ability to continue to exist, to prosper, and
46 even to expand. A series of determinations are necessary to establish whether a public action
is consistent with the conservation and protection of agricultural lands, or whether it is likely
to be harmful to the health of an agricultural area. In brief, these determinations are as follows:
First, it must be determined whether a proposed public action would result in the loss of
• important agricultural lands as mapped in on the Coastal Inventory. If it would not result, either
directly or indirectly, in the loss of identified important agricultural lands, then the action is
consistent with the policy on agriculture. If it is determined that the action would result in a loss
of identified important agricultural lands, but that loss would not have an adverse effect of the
viability of agriculture in the surrounding area, then the action may also be consistent with this
• policy. However, in that case, the action must be undertaken in a manner that would minimize
the loss of important farmland. If the action is determined to result in a significant loss of
important agricultural land, that is if the loss is to a degree sufficient to adversely affect
surrounding agriculture's viability -- its ability to continue to exist, to prosper, and even to
expand -- then the action is not consistent with this agriculture policy.
0
The following guidelines define more fully what must be considered in making the above
determinations:
A. A public action would be likely to significantly impair the viability of an agricultural area
in which identified important agricultural lands are located if:
0 1. The action would occur on identified important agricultural land and would:
(a) Consume more than 10% of the land of an active farmcontaining such
identified important agricultural lands.
(b) Consume a total of 100 acres or more of identified important agricultural
land.
(c) Divide an active farm with identified important agricultural land into two
or more parts, thus impeding efficient farm operation.
•
2. The action would result in environmental changes which may reduce the
productivity or adversely affect the quality of the product of any identified
important agricultural lands.
3. The action would create real estate market conditions favorable to the conversion
of large areas of identified important agricultural land to non-agricultural uses.
Such conditions may be created by:
(a) Public water or sewer facilities to serve non-farm structures.
(b) Transportation, improvements, except for maintenance of, and safety
improvements to, existing facilities, that serve non-farm or non-farm
related development.
a (c)
(d)
• (e)
•
Cl
(f)
Major non -agribusiness commercial development adjacent. to identified
agricultural lands.
Major public institutions.
Residential uses other than farm dwellings.
Any change in land use regulations applying to agricultural land which
would encourage or allow uses incompatible with the agricultural use of
the land.
3 A form is defined as an area or at least 10 acres devoted to agricultural production as defined in the Agricultural District Law and
from which agricultural products have yielded gross receipts of $10,000 in the past yeti. "
34
0
0
C
•
i
i
•.
•
C-1
The following types of facilities and activities should not be construed as having adverse
effects on the preservation of agricultural land:
1. Farm dwellings, barns, silos, and other accessory uses and structures incidental
to agricultural production or necessary for farm family supplemental income.
2. Agribusiness development, which includes the entire structure of local support
services and commercial enterprises necessary to maintain an agricultural
operation, e.g., milk hauler, grain dealer, farm machinery dealer, veterinarian,
food processing plants.
C. In determining whether an action that would result in the loss of farmland is of
overriding regional or Statewide benefit, the following factors should be considered:
1. For an action to be considered overriding, it must be shown to provide
significantly greater benefits to the region or State than are provided by the
affected agricultural area (not merely the land directly affected by the action).
In determining the benefits of the affected agriculture to the region or State,
consideration must be given to its social and cultural value, its economic viability,
its environmental benefits, its existing and potential contribution to food or fiber
production in the State and any State food policy, as well as its direct economic
benefits.
(a) An agricultural area is an area predominantly in farming and in which the
farms produce similar products and/or rely on the same agribusiness
support services and are to be a significant degree economically inter-
dependent. At a minimum, this area should consist of at least 500 acres
of identified important agriculture land. For the purpose of analyzing
impacts of any action on agriculture, the boundary of such area need not
be restricted to land within the coastal boundary. If the affected
agricultural lands lie within an agricultural district then, at a minimum,
the agricultural area should include the entire agricultural district.
(b) In determining the benefits of an agricultural area, its relationship to
agricultural lands outside the area should also be considered.
(c) The estimate of the economic viability of the affected agricultural area
should be based on an assessment of
i soil resources, topography, conditions of climate and water
resources; ,.
ii availability of agribusiness and other support services, and the
level and condition of investments in farm real estate, livestock
and equipment;
35
0
LIP
•
(d)
•
M
4
(e)
w
•
0
iii the level of fanning skills as evidenced by income obtained, yield
estimates for crops, and costs being experienced with the present
types and conditions of buildings, equipment, and cropland;
iv use of new technology and the rates at which new technology is
adopted;
v competition from substitute products and other farming regions and
trends in total demand for given products;
vi patterns of farm ownership for their effect on farm efficiency and
the likelihood that farms will remain in use.
The estimate of the social and cultural value of farming in the. area should
be based on an analysis of:
i the history of farming in the area;
ii the length of time farms have remained in one family;
iii the degree to which farmers in the area share a cultural or ethnic
heritage;
iv the extent to which products are sold and consumed locally;
v the.degree to which a specific crop(s) has become identified with
a community.
An estimate of the environmental benefits of the affected agriculture
should be based on analysis of:
i the extent to which the affected agriculture as currently practiced
provides a habitat or food for wildlife;
ii the extent to which a farm landscape adds to the visual quality of
an area;
iii any regional or local open space plans, and degree to which the
open space contributes to air quality;
iv the degree to which the affected agriculture does, or could,
contribute to the establishment of a clear edge between rural and
urban development.
0 36
0
D. Whenever a proposed action is determined to have an insignificant adverse effect on
identified important agricultural land, or whenever it is permitted to substantially hinder
the achievement of the policy according to DOS regulations, Part 600, or as a result of
the findings of an EIS, then the required minimization should be undertaken in the
following manner:
1. The proposed action shall, to the extent practicable, be sited on any land not
identified as important agricultural, or, if it must be sited on identified important
agricultural land, sited to avoid classes of agricultural land according to the
following priority;
i
(a)
prime farmland in orchards or vineyards
(b)
unique farmland in orchard or vineyards
(c)
other prime farm land in active farming
(d)
other uniqure farmland
0 (e)
farmland of Statewide importance in active farming.
(f)
active farmland identified as having high economic viability
(g)
prime farmland not being farmed
(h)
farmland of Statewide importance not being farmed
2. To the extent practicable, agricultural use of identified important agricultural land
not directly necessary for the operation of the proposed non-agricultural action
should be provided for through such means as lease arrangements with farmers,
direct undertaking of agriculture, or sale of surplus land to farmers. Agricultural
use of such land shall have priority over any other proposed multiple use of the
40 land.
ENERGY AND ICE MANAGEMENT POLICIES
POLICY 27 DECISIONS ON THE SITING AND CONSTRUCTION OF MAJOR
ENERGY FA?,mrnES IN THE COASTAL AREA WILL BE BASED ON
PUBLIC ENERGY NEEDS, COMPATIBILITY OF SUCH FACILITIES
. WITH THE ENVIRONMENT, AND THE FACILITY'S NEED FOR A
SHOREFRONT LOCATION.
nation of Poli
Demand for energy in New York will increase, although at -a -rates lower than previously
predicted. The State expects to meet these energy demands through a combination of
conservation measures; traditional and alternative technologies; and use of various fuels
including coal in greater proportion.
•
37
0
A determination of public need for energy is the first step in the process for siting new facilities.
The directives for determining this need are contained primarily in Article 5 of the New York
State Energy Law. That Article requires the preparation of a State Energy Master Plan. With
respect to transmission lines and steam electric generating facilities, Articles VII and VIII of the
State's Public Service Law require additional forecasts and establish the basis for determining
• the compatibility of these facilities with the environment and the necessity for a shorefront
location. The policies derived from the siting regulations under these Articles -are entirely
consistent with the general coastal zone policies derived from other laws, particularly the
regulations promulgated pursuant to the Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act.
That Act is used for the purposes of ensuring consistency with the Coastal Management
Program. `
The Department of State will comment on the State Energy Master Plan; present testimony for
the record during relevant certification proceedings under Articles VII and VIII of the PSL; and
use the State SEQR and DOS regulations to ensure'that decisions on other proposed energy
facilities (other than transmission facilities and steam electric generating plants) which would
impact the waterfront area, are made consistent with coastal policies.
POLICY 28 ICE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES SHALL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE
PRODUCTION OF HYDROELECTRIC POWER, DAMAGE SIGNIFICANT
• FISH AND WILDLIFE AND THEIR HABITATS, OR INCREASE
SHORELINE EROSION OR FLOODING..
•
Explanation of Policy
Prior to undertaking actions required for ice management, an assessment must be made of the
potential effects of such actions upon the production of hydro -electric power, fish and wildlife
and their habitats as will be identified in the Coastal Area Maps, flood levels and damage, rates
of shoreline erosion damage, and upon natural protective features.
•
Following such an examination, adequate methods of avoidance or mitigation of such potential
effects must be utilized if thr proposed action is to be implemented.
•
POLICY 29 ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF ENERGY RESOURCES ON THE
OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF, IN LAKE ERIE: AND IN OTHER
WATER BODIES, AND ENSURE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY OF
SUCH ACTIVITIES.
r
0 38
0
Explanation of Policy
The State recognizes the need to develop new indigenous energy resources. It also recognizes
that such development may endanger the environment. Among the various energy sources being.
examined are those which may be found on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) or in Lake Erie.
The State has been encouraging the wise development of both.
Matters pertaining to the OCS are the responsibility of the Department of Environmental
Conservation. In 1977, the Department, in cooperation with regional and local agencies,
completed a study which identified potential sites along the marine coast for on -shore OCS
facilities. To date, thse sites have not been developed for this purpose. The Department also
actively participates in the OCS planning process by reviewing and voicing the State's concerns
about federal OCS oil and gas lease sales and plans. In its review of these proposed sales and
plans, the Department considers a number of factors such as the effects upon navigational safety
in the established traffic lanes leading into and from New York Harbor; the impacts upon,
! important finfish, shellfish and wildlife populations and their spawning areas; economic and.
other * effects upon commercial and recreational fishing activities; impacts upon public
recreational resources and opportunities along the marine coast; the potential for hazards;
impacts upon biological communities; and water quality.
The Department of Environmental Conservation has also examined the potential impacts of Lake
Erie gas drilling and is instituting reasonable guidelines so that activities can proceed without
damage to public water supplies and other valuable coastal resources. State law prohibits
development of wells nearer than one-half mile from the shoreline, two miles from public water
supply intakes, and one thousand feet from any other structure or installation in or on Lake Erie.
+ Further, State law prohibits production of liquid hydrocarbons in Lake Erie, either alone or in
association with natural gas. The Department has not, however, reached a decision as to
whether or not the lands under Lake Erie will be leased for gas exploration purposes.
i WATER AND AIR RESOURCES POLICIES
POLICY 30 MUNICIPAL, INDUSTRIAL, AND COMMERCIAL DISCHARGE OF
. POLLUTANTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, TOXIC AND
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES, INTO COASTAL WATERS WILL
CONFORM TO STATE AND NATIONAL WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS.
Explanation of Policy
Municipal, industrial and commercial discharges include not only "end -of -the pipe" discharges
into surface and groundwater but also plant site runoff, leaching, spillages, sludge and other
waste disposal, and drainage from raw material storage sites. Also, the regulated industrial
39
0
discharges are both those which directly empty into receiving coastal waters and those which
pass through the municipal treatment systems before reaching the State's waterways.
POLICY 31 STATE COASTAL AREA POLICIES AND MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES
OF APPROVED LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAMS
WILL BE CONSIDERED WHILE REVIEWING COASTAL WATER
CLASSM, CATIONS AND WHILE MODIFYING WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS; HOWEVER, THOSE WATERS ALREADY
OVERBURDENED WITH CONTAMINANTS WILL BE RECOGNIZED AS
BEING A DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINT.
Explanation of Policy
Pursuant to the Federal Clean Water Act of 1977 (PL 95-217) the State has classified its coastal
and other waters in accordance with considerations of best usage in the interest of the public and
• has adopted water quality standards for each class of waters. These classifications and standards
are reviewable at least every three years for possible revision or amendment. Local Waterfront
Revitalization Programs and State coastal management policies shall be factored into the review
process for coastal waters. However, such consideration shall not affect any water pollution
control requirement established by the State pursuant to the Federal Clean Water Act.
The State has identified certain stream segments as being either "water quality limiting" or
"effluent limiting." Waters not meeting State standards and ' which would not be expected to
meet these standards even after applying "best practicable treatment" to effluent discharges are
classified as "water quality limiting% Those segments meeting standards or those expected to
meet them after application of "best practicable treatment" are classified as "effluent limiting,"
and all new waste discharges must receive "best practicable treatment." However, along stream
segments classified as "water quality limiting", waste treatment beyond "best practicable
treatment" would be required, and costs of applying such additional treatment may be prohibitive
for new development.
n
POLICY 32 ENCOURAGE THE USE OF ALTERNATIVE OR INNOVATIVE
SANITARY WASTE SYSTEMS IN SMALL COMMIJNTITES WHERE THE
COSTS OF CONVENTIONAL FACILITIES AREUNREASONABLY HIGH,
GIVEN THE SIZE OF' THE EXISTING TAX BASE OF THESE
CO
Explanation of Policy
Alternative systems include individual septic tanks and other Subsurface disposal systems, dual
• systems, small systems serving clusters of households or commercial users, and pressure or
vacuum sewers. These types of systems are often more cost effective in smaller, less densely
populated communities and for which conventional facilities are too expensive.
0 40
POLICY 33 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WILL BE USED TO ENSURE THE
CONTROL OF STORMWATER RUNOFF AND COMBINED SEWER
OVERFLOWS DRAINING INTO COASTAL WATERS.
t
Explanation of Policy
Best management practices include both structural and non-structural methods of preventing or
mitigating pollution caused by the discharge of stormwater runoff and combined sewer
overflows. At present, structural approaches to controlling stormwater runoff (e.g., construction
of retention basins) and combined sewer overflows (e.g., replacement of combined system with
• separate sanitary and stormwater collection systems) are not economically feasible. Proposed
amendments to the Clean Water Act, however, will authorize funding to address combined sewer
overflows in areas where they create severe water quality impacts. Until funding for such
projects becomes available, non-structural approaches (e.g., improved street cleaning, reduced
use of road salt) will be encouraged.
J
2
POLICY 34 DISCHARGE OF WASTE MATERIALS INTO COASTAL WATERS FROM
VESSELS SUBJECT TO STATE JURISDICTION WILL BE LIMITED SO
AS TO PROTECT SIGNIFICANT FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITATS,
RECREATIONAL AREAS AND WATER SUPPLY AREAS.
Explanation of Policy
The discharge of sewage, garbage, rubbish, and other solid and liquid materials from watercraft
and marinas into the State's waters is regulated. Priority will be given to the enforcement of
i this law in areas such as shellfish beds and other significant habitats, beaches, and public water
supply intakes, which need protection from contamination by vessel wastes. Also, specific
effluent standards for marine toilets have been promulgated by the Department of Environmental
Conservation (6 NYCRR, Part 657).
I
POLICY 35 DREDGING AND DREDGE SPOIL DISPOSAL IN COASTAL WATERS
WILL BE UNDERTAKEN. IN A MANNER THAT MEETS EXISTING
STATE DREDGING PERMIT REQ S, AND PROTECTS
SIGNIFICANT FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITATS, SCENIC RESOURCES,
NATURAL PROTECTIVE FEATURES, IMPORTANT AGRICULTURAL
LANDS, AND WETLANDS.
Explanation of Policy
Dredging often proves to be essential for waterfront revitalization and development, maintaining
navigation channels at sufficient depths, pollutant removal and meeting other coastal management
needs. Such dredging projects, however, may adversely affect water quality, fish and wildlife
habitats, wetlands and other important coastal resources. Often these adverse effects can be
0 41
0
* minimized through careful design and timing of the dredging operation and proper siting of the
dredge spoil disposal site. Dredging permits will be granted if it has been satisfactorily
demonstrated that these anticipated adverse effects have been reduced to levels which satisfy
State dredging permit standards set forth in regulations developed pursuant to Environmental
Conservation Law, (Articles 15, 24, 25, and 34), and are consistent with policies pertaining to
the protection of coastal resources (State Coastal Management Policies 7, 15, 24, 26 and 44).
POLICY 36 ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THE SHIPMENT AND STORAGE OF
PETROLEUM AND OTHER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS WILL BE
i CONDUCTED IN A MANNER THAT WILL PREVENT OR AT LEAST
MINIMIZE SPILLS INTO COASTAL WATERS; ALL PRACTICABLE
EFF- ORTS WILL BE UNDERTAKEN TO EXPEDITE THE CLEANUP OF
SUCH DISCHARGES; AND RESTITUTION FOR DAMAGES WILL BE
REQUIRED WHEN THESE SPILLS OCCUR.
9 Explanation of Policy
See Policy 39 for definition of hazardous materials.
POLICY 37 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WILL BE UTILIZED TO MINIMIZE
THE NON -POINT DISCHARGE OF EXCESS NUTRIENTSt ORGANICS
AND ERODED SOILS INTO COASTAL WATERS.
Explanation of Policy
Best management practices used to reduce these sources of pollution could include, but are not
limited to, encouraging organic farming and pest management principles, soil erosion control
practices, and surface drainage control techniques.
' POLICY 38 THE QUALITY AND QUANTITY OF SURFACE WATER AND
GROUNDWATER SUPPLIES, WILL BE CONSERVED AND
PROTECTED, PARTICULARLY WHERE SUCH WATERS CONSTITUTE
THE PRIMARY OR SOLE SOURCE OF WATER SUPPLY.
Explanation of Policy
Surface and groundwater are the principal sources of drinking water in the State, and therefore
must be protected. Since Long Island's groundwater supply has been designated a "primary
source aquifer," all actions must be reviewed relative to their impacts on Long Island's
groundwater aquifers.
0 42
a
POLICY 39 THE TRANSPORT, STORAGE, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OF SOLID
WASTES, PARTICULARLY HAZARDOUS WASTES, WITHIN COASTAL
AREAS WILL BE CONDUCTED IN SUCH A MANNER SO AS TO
PROTECT GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER SUPPLIES,
SIGNIFICANT FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITATS, RECREATION AREAS,
IMPORTANT AGRICULTURAL LAND, AND SCENIC RESOURCES.
Explanation of Policy
The definitions of terms "solid wastes" and "solid waste management facilities" are taken from
♦ New York's Solid Waste Management Act (Environmental Conservation Law, Article 27). Solid
wastes include sludges from air or water pollution control facilities, demolition and construction
debris and industrial and commercial wastes.
Hazardous wastes are unwanted by-products of manufacturing processes and are generally
characterized as being flammable, corrosive, reactive, or toxic. More specifically, hazardous
waste is defined in Environmental Conservation Law (Section 27-0901[3]), as "waste or
combination of wastes which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or
infectious characteristics may: (1) cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality
or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness; or (2) pose a substantial
present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored,
disposed, transported or otherwise managed." A list of hazardous wastes (NYCRR Part 366)
will be adopted by DEC within 6 months after EPA formally adopts its list.
Examples of solid waste management facilities include resource recovery facilities, sanitary
+ landfills and solid waste reduction facilities. Although a fundamental problem associated with
the disposal and treatment of solid wastes is the contamination of water resources, other related
problems may include: filling of wetlands and littoral areas, atmospheric loading, and
degradation of scenic resources.
s POLICY 40 EFFLUENT DISCHARGED FROM MAJOR STEAM ELECTRIC
GENERATING AND INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES INTO COASTAL
WATERS WILL NOT BE UNDULY INJURIOUS TO FISH AND
WILDLIFE AND SHALL CONFORM TO STATE WATER QUALITY
• STANDARDS.
Explanation of Policy
The State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment must consider a number of
factors when reviewing a proposed site for facility construction. • One of these factors is that the
• facility "not discharge any effluent that will be unduly injurious to the propagation and protection
of fish and wildlife, the industrial development of the State, the public health, and public
enjoyment of the receiving waters." The effects of thermal discharges on water quality and
0 43
0
aquatic organisms is considered by the siting board when evaluating any applicant's request to
construct a new steam electric generating facility.
POLICY 41 LAND USE OR DEVELOPMENT IN THE COASTAL AREA WILL NOT
CAUSE NATIONAL OR STATE AIR QUALITY STANDARDS TO BE
VIOLATED.
Explanation of Policy
New York's Coastal Management Program incorporates the air quality policies and programs
developed for the State by the Department of Environmental Conservation pursuant to the Clean
Air Act and State laws on air'quality. The requirements of the Clean Air Act are the minimum
air quality control requirements applicable within the coastal area.
To the extent possible, the State Implementation Plan will be consistent with coastal lands and
water use policies. Conversely, coastal management guidelines and program decisions with
regard to land and water use and any recommendations with regard to specific sites for major
new or expanded industrial, energy, transportation, or commercial facilities will reflect an
assessment of their compliance with the air quality requirements of the State Implementation,
Plan.
The Department of Environmental Conservation will allocate substantial resources to develop
a regulatory and management program to identify and eliminate toxic discharges into the
atmosphere. The State's Coastal Management Program will assist in coordinating major toxic
control programming efforts in the coastal regions and in supporting research on the multi -media
r nature of toxics and their economic and environmental effects on coastal resources. '
POLICY 42 COASTAL MANAGEMENT POLICIES WILL BE CONSIDERED IF THE
STATE RECLASSIFIES LAND AREAS PURSUANT TO THE
• PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION REGULATIONS OF
THE FEDERAL CLEAN AIR ACT.
Explanation of Policy
The policies of the State and local coastal management programs concerning proposed land and
water uses and the protection and preservation of special management areas will be taken into
account prior to any action to change prevention of significant deterioration land classifications
in coastal regions or adjacent areas. In addition, the Department of State will provide the
Department of Environmental Conservation with recommendatiotit for proposed prevention of .
significant deterioration land classification designations based upon State and local coastal
management programs:
0 44
POLICY 43 LAND USE OR DEVELOPMENT IN THE COASTAL AREA MUST NOT
CAUSE THE GENERATION OF SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF ACID
RAIN PRECURSORS: NITRATES AND SULFATES.
Explanation of Policy
! The New York Coastal Management Program incorporates the State's policies on acid rain. As
such, the Coastal Management Program will assist in the State's efforts to control acid rain.
These efforts to control acid rain will enhance the continued viability of coastal fisheries,
wildlife, agricultural, scenic and water resources.
•
POLICY 44 PRESERVE AND PROTECT TIDAL AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS
AND PRESERVE THE BENEFITS DERIVED FROM THESE AREAS.
• Explanation of Policy.
Tidal wetlands include the following ecological zones: coastal fresh marsh; intertidal marsh;
coastal shoals, bars and flats; littoral zone; high marsh or salt meadow; and formerly connected
tidal wetlands. These tidal wetland areas are officially delineated on the Department of
Environmental Conservation's Tidal Wetlands Inventory Map.
• Freshwater wetlands include marshes, swamps, bogs, and flats supporting aquatic and semi -
aquatic vegetation and other wetlands so defined in the NYS Freshwater Wetlands Act and the
NYS Protection of Waters Act.
The benefits derived from the preservation of freshwater wetlands include but are not limited
• to:
LE
habitat for wildlife and fish, including a substantial portion of the State's
commercial fin and shellfish varieties; and contribution to associated aquatic food
chains;
erosion, flood and storm control;
natural pollution treatment;
• - groundwater protection;
recreational opportunities;
educational and scientific opportunities; and . .
• - aesthetic open space in many otherwise densely developed areas.
0 45
0
J
A P P E N D I X Z
•
VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM POLICIES
i
s
•
7
C
i
u
SECTION III
kA:ERFRORT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM POLICIES
0
•
•
0
C7
Cl
•
SECTION III. WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM POLICIES
• DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
POLICY 1 RESTORE, REVITALIZE AND REDEVELOP DETERIORATED AND UNDERUTILIZED
WATERFRONT AREAS FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL, CULTURAL,
RECREATIONAL AND OTHER COMPATIBLE USES.
POLICY IA REVITALIZE GREENPORT'S WATERFRONT AREA BY REDEVELOPING
DETERIORATED/UNDERUTILIZED PROPERTIES AND BUILDINGS FOR
APPROPRIATE COMMERCIAL AND RECREATIONAL USES.
Explanation of Policy
Greenport Is economic and social vitality depends significantly on:
1) the type of redevelopment and rehabilitation in the waterfront area; and
2) the maintenance and appropriate expansion of water -dependent uses in the
waterfront area (See Map 4, Existing Land Use). The Village derives its
character, identity and economy from its relationship to the surrounding
waterfront environment, which extends from Young's Point along Stirling
• Basin and Greenport Harbor southwest to Fanning Point. Due to its location
on • a deep water channel, which provides access to the Atlantic Ocean
through Gardiner's Bay, Greenport has served as Eastern Long Island's major
port. Since the 1830's, it has primarily been the whaling, fishing and
shipping/boating industries that have provided the Village with its
economic base, employing thousands on its waterfront. The Village's
economic base still depends on the water -dependent industries of fishing
and shipping/boating.
In recent years, tourism and the second home industry have increased
significantly in the Village. Both these industries contribute
significantly to the Village's economy and are a desired commodity;
•
however, future development on the Greenport waterfront shall be carefully
sited to ensure that Greenport's waterfront heritage is not lost.
Greenport's heritage as a waterfront community, relying on its direct
association with the sea, shall be reinforced and preserved.
Deteriorated/underutilized properties in Greenport are located in the
•
following waterfront areas:
Waterfront Area 1
This area extends from Young's Point along Stirling Basin to S.T.
Preston and Son, Inc. The only deteriorated property is the Barstow site.
Waterfront Area 2
This area includes S.T. Preston and Son, Inc. along Greenport Harbor to
and inclusive of the Long Island Railroad property. This area. includes the
following deteriorated/underutilized sites: !Mitchell and the vacant portion
of Bohack.
•
0
Waterfront Area 3
This area extends from just south of the the Long Island Railroad
property along Greenport Harbor to the west of Fanning Point. The only
underutilized/deteriorated property is the Mobil site. This site is
designated for park and open space use; however residential use is a
permitted use for the site.
• The range of acceptable water -dependent and water -enhanced uses allowed
on the waterfront and on underutilized/deteriorated properties, excluding
the Mobil Site, are presented in Policy 2.
POLICY 1B REVITALIZE GREE\PORT'S CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT BY RESTORING
UNDERUTILIZED PROPERTIES AND BUILDINGS FOR APPROPRIATE RETAIL
f
COMMERCIAL AN'D OTHER COMPATIBLE USES.
Explanation of Policv
The Village CBD consists primarily of the retail activity that takes
place in and about Front and Main Streets. The existing and permitted uses
in the CBD are retail stores, personal service shops, offices, restaurants,
hotels, and public and semi-public facilities. Revitalization in this
retail area will be accomplished through a comprehensive program of infill
development, facade rehabilitation, and streetscape improvements. A
Central Business District Design Plan shall be developed with standards and
guidelines to regulate the character of the revitalization activity.
Since the center of retail and waterfront activity in the Village is
concentrated in the CBD and the adjacent Waterfront Area 2, the quality and
coordination of land development in these two areas is of particular
Importance if the Village is going to maintain and improve upon its
economic vitality and visual attractiveness. An important objective of
this revitalization effort involving these two areas is the provision of a
• pedestrian walkway system from Front Street through properties in the CBD
and adjacent Waterfront Area 2 to a waterside harborwalk. This pedestrian
system will provide convenient public access to and from the CBD and
adiacent Waterfront Area 2, and visually appealing open space and needed
visual access to the Greenport waterfront. (See Policy 20A).
0 Development Standards and Guidelines
The following development standards and guidelines shall be adhered to
for all development in the waterfront and CBD:
-- Parking. Adequate off-street parking shall be provided for all uses.
Parking areas shall be sufficiently drained so as to contain all
drainage on site and to prevent ponding. Whenever feasible, parking
areas shall be placed at the rear of buildings and/or screened by
plantings so as not to be highly visible from the waterfront and
Village streets.
-- Access. Vehicular ingress and egress, interior traffic circulation,
parking space arrangement, loading facilities and pedestrian walkways
shall be planned and built so as to promote safety and efficiency.
Wherever possible, public access shall be provided to the Village's
waterfront to the maximum extent practicable.
0
J
-- Protection of residential areas. When the site is located adjacent to
residences or a residence district, appropriate buffer landscaping,
natural screening and fencing are to be provided in order to protect
neighborhood tranquility, community character, and property values. A
minimum side yard and rear yard setback of 10 feet is required for lots
within 25 feet of a residence district boundary.
-- Lights. Lighting facilities and lighted signs shall be placed and
shielded in such a manner as not to cause direct light to shine on
other properties, and shall not be permitted to create a hazard on a
public street.
-- Water supply and waste disposal. All development shall be served by
the Village's public water supply and sewage system. On site solid
waste disposal containers shall be adequately screened from view.
POLICY 2 FACILITATE THE SITING OF WATER-DEPENMENT FACILITIES ON OR
ADJACENT TO COASTAL. WATERS.
Explanation of Policy
The traditional method of land allocation, i.e'., the real estate
market, with or without local land use controls, offers little assurance
that uses which require waterfront sites will, in fact, have access to
coastal waters. To ensure that water -dependent uses can continue to be
accommodated within the Village, government agencies will avoid
undertaking, funding, or approving non -water -dependent uses when such uses
would preempt the reasonably foreseeable development of water -dependent
uses; furthermore, government agencies will utilize appropriate existing
programs to encourage water -dependent activities.
-- Physical compatibility. In order to foster and maintain the small
scale seaside character of the Village, all new developments and
structures shall not exceed 2 stories or 35 feet in building height,
and the building lot coverage shall not exceed 40% of the lot. A
minimum front yard of 6 feet is required. If the subject lot is not
within 25 feet of a residence district boundary no minimum setback is
required. If one is provided it must be a minimum of 10 feet.
-- (Preservation of land for water -dependent uses. Water -dependent uses)
',shall have priority over water -enhanced uses.
-- Visual considerations. Adjacent and upland views of the water shall be
improved, and at a minimum, development activities must not affect
existing views in an insensitive manner. Structures shall be clustered
.
or oriented to retain views, save open space, and provide spatial
organization to development.
-- Landscaping. Screening with trees or other plantings may be required
for parking and other disturbed areas which are created. A landscaping
plan demonstrating that suitable vegetation will be planted and
nurtured may be required. Such a plan shall become a part of the
approved site plan. The original landform of a site should be
maintained or restored, except when changes screen unattractive
elements and/or add appropriate interest.
J
-- Protection of residential areas. When the site is located adjacent to
residences or a residence district, appropriate buffer landscaping,
natural screening and fencing are to be provided in order to protect
neighborhood tranquility, community character, and property values. A
minimum side yard and rear yard setback of 10 feet is required for lots
within 25 feet of a residence district boundary.
-- Lights. Lighting facilities and lighted signs shall be placed and
shielded in such a manner as not to cause direct light to shine on
other properties, and shall not be permitted to create a hazard on a
public street.
-- Water supply and waste disposal. All development shall be served by
the Village's public water supply and sewage system. On site solid
waste disposal containers shall be adequately screened from view.
POLICY 2 FACILITATE THE SITING OF WATER-DEPENMENT FACILITIES ON OR
ADJACENT TO COASTAL. WATERS.
Explanation of Policy
The traditional method of land allocation, i.e'., the real estate
market, with or without local land use controls, offers little assurance
that uses which require waterfront sites will, in fact, have access to
coastal waters. To ensure that water -dependent uses can continue to be
accommodated within the Village, government agencies will avoid
undertaking, funding, or approving non -water -dependent uses when such uses
would preempt the reasonably foreseeable development of water -dependent
uses; furthermore, government agencies will utilize appropriate existing
programs to encourage water -dependent activities.
0
0 The following uses and facilities are considered as water -dependent:
-- Uses which depend on the utilization of resources found in coastal
waters (for example: fishing);
-- Recreational activities which depend on access to coastal waters (for
example: swimming, fishing, boating, wildlife viewing);
-- Uses involved in the sea/land transfer of goods (for example_: docks,
loading areas, short-term storage facilities);
-- Structures needed for navigational purposes (for example: navigational
devices, lighthouses);
-- Flood and erosion protection structures (for example: breakwaters,
bulkheads);
-- Facilities needed to store and service boats and ships (for example:
marinas, boat repair, boat construction yards);
-4 Uses requiring large quantities of water ;or processing (for example:
fish processing plants);
-- Scientific/educational activities which, by their nature, require
• access to coastal waters (for example: certain meteorological and
oceanographic activities); and
-- Support facilities which are necessary for the successful functioning
of permitted water -dependent uses (for example: first aid stations,
short-term storage facilities). Though these uses must be near the
40 given water -dependent use they should, as much as possible, be sited
inland from the water -dependent use rather than on the shore.
In addition to water -dependent uses, uses which are enhanced by a
waterfront location should be encouraged to locate, although not at the
expense of water -dependent uses, along the shore- A water -enhanced use is
defined as a use that has�io critical dependence on obtaining a waterfront
location, but the profitability of the use and/or the enjoyment level of
the users would be increased significantly if the use were adjacent to or
had visual access to the waterfront.
If there is no immediate demand for a water -dependent uses in a given
area but a future demand is reasonably foreseeable, temporary non -water -
dependent uses should be considered preferable to a non -water -dependent use
which involves an irreversible, or nearly irreversible commitment of land.
Passive recreational facilities, outdoor storage areas, and non -permanent
structures are uses or facilities which would likely be considered as
"temporary" non -water dependent uses.
. In Greenport, water -dependent and water -enhanced uses are allowed
within the following locations of the three waterfront areas:
J
Waterfront Area 1
Along the entire waterfront area except the following areas: the Sandy
Beach Sandspit which is developed with residences; the cemetery located on
the east side of Stirling Basin; and two small shoreline areas, developed
with residences, located north of Carpenter Avenue and south of Bay Avenue.
Eleven (11) major water -dependent firms are located in this waterfront
area.
Waterfront Area 2
Along the entire waterfront area. Four (4) major water -dependent
firms, plus the LIRR commercial fishing dock, are located in this
waterfront area.
•
Waterfront Area 3
Only at the tip of Fanning Point on the west and east side of Fifth
Street
Park. No major water -dependent firms are currently located in this
waterfront
area.
♦ The
following water -dependent and water -enhanced uses are allowed
within
the three waterfront areas.
Permitted Uses
•
(1)
Public and private yacht clubs, marinas, and docking facilities.
(?)
Municipal parks and facilities.
(3)
Boat launching facilities.
•
(4) _
Tour boats, commercial, charter, and party fishing boats.
(5)
Boat sales, rental, service, repair, and storage.
(6)
Shipbuilding yards including facilities for building, repairing,
and maintaining boat engines and other marine equipment.
•
(7)
Manufacture of items related or incidental to the operations
associated with boat building.
(8)
Fish and shellfish processing plants.
(9)
Retail sale of equipment, goods, supplies, materials, tools, and
parts used in connection with boating and fishing.
(10)
Retail and wholesale of seafood products.
(11)
Solely retail fuel storage and sales for boats.
•
(12)
Boating instruction schools.
•
III -7
0
WITH THEIR UNIQUE MARITIME IDENTITY.
Explanation of Policy
The Village of Greenport is an outstanding example of an historic small
harbor with a maritime identity. During the nineteenth century whaling and
shipbuilding provided the Village with its economic base. The shellfish
and finfish industries prospered in the early twentieth century after the
whaling industry had declined. A revival of the 'shipbuilding industry
0 111-8
(13) Oceanographic, or marine -related, scientific research and
+
equipment manufacture and testing.
(14) Maritime museums.
Conditional uses
(1) Motels, boatels, and hotels which may include conference
facilities.
(2) Eating and drinking establishments.
(3) Retail sale and manufacturing of retail products.
S
(4) Marine related business �offisg •which handle matters principally
related to the design; manufacture, service, storage, purchase,
sale, and lease and insurance of boats and related marine
equipment; fishing and other marine harvesting; and fish
processing.
(5) Hospitals for human health care.
Where the subject property abuts the water, conditional uses shall be
permitted when established in accord with the following conditions:
•
(a) Conditional uses and related accessory uses shall not exceed more
than 70% of the allowed lot coverage.
(b) Such use or combination of conditional uses shall not be permitted
over surface waters.
(c) Consideration shall be given to the quality and extent of views
from the adjacent public streets through the property to the water
as well as the design and relationship of development to the
waterfront as viewed from the water.
Where the subject property does not abut the water, conditional uses
shall be permitted when established in accord with condition (c) above.
•
POLICY 3 THE STATE COASTAL POLICY REGARDING MAJOR PORTS IS NOT
APPLICABLE TC THE VILLAGE OF GREENPORT.
POLICY 4 STRENGTHEN THE ECONOMIC BASE OF SMALL. HARBOR AREAS BY
ENCOURAGING THE DEVELOPMENT AND ENHANCEMENT OF THOSE
TRADITIONAL USES AND ACTIVITIES WHICH HAVE PROVIDED SUCH AREAS
WITH THEIR UNIQUE MARITIME IDENTITY.
Explanation of Policy
The Village of Greenport is an outstanding example of an historic small
harbor with a maritime identity. During the nineteenth century whaling and
shipbuilding provided the Village with its economic base. The shellfish
and finfish industries prospered in the early twentieth century after the
whaling industry had declined. A revival of the 'shipbuilding industry
0 111-8
0
P,
occurred in the Village during World War II when most of Greenport's
shipyards were constructing naval vessels for the government.
Due to the increased demand and development of waterfront properties
for recreational boating marinas, and high-density residential use, not as
much of Greenport's waterfront is used for the traditional industries of
commercial fishing and shipbuilding as in the past. However, much of
Greenport's rugged shoreline is still characterized by the traditional uses
associated with commercial fishing and shipping/boating. These uses are
particularly concentrated in Waterfront Areas 1 and 2. Traditional uses
found within these waterfront areas include: ship repair, building and
storage yards; fish marketing, processing and packaging; dockage
facilities; marine contracting for docks, jetties and bulkheads; and marine
supplies. It is the presence of these traditional maritime uses, their
related sounds, the smell of the salt air and freshly caught fish, the
noise and visual impact of harbor and sea bound vessels, and the/
architecturally rich resources of the Village which comprise the -
traditional maritime character of Greenport.
This historic maritime tradition will be maintained and encouraged to
glow and prosper in Waterfront Areas 1 and 2 through the following means:
-- the provision for only water -dependent uses and water -enhanced uses;
-- the continued use of the existing commercial fishing dock by large
transient commercial fishing vessels;
-- the construction of an additional fishing dock for use by locally
operated small commercial fishing vessels;
-- the redevelopment of the Barstow shipyard site to provide commercial
fishing support services such as ice, weighing, fuel, packaging.
unloading, shipping, and minor repair .facilities.
The following guidelines and standards will be used to determine the
consistency of proposed actions with this policy:
1. The action shall give priority to those traditional and/or desired
marine uses which are dependent on a location adjacent to the water
(e.g. dockage and support facilities for commercial fishing vessels;
fish marketing, processing and packaging; ship yards, repair, building
and storage; and marine maintenance and supply services).
2. The action will enhance or not detract from or adversely affect
• existing traditional and/or desired anticipated uses.
3. The action shall not be out of character with, nor lead to development
which would be out of character with, existing development in terms of
the area's scale, intensity of use. and architectural style.
4. The action must not cause a site to deteriorate, e.g., a structure
shall not be abandoned without protecting it against vandalism and/or
structural decline.
0 1II-9
F,
5. The action will not adversely affect the Village's existing economic /
base e.g., waterfront development designed to promote residential '
development is inappropriate since the Village's economy is primarily
dependent upon boating, tourism, and commercial and recreational
fishing.
r 6. The action will not detract from views of the water, particularly where
the visual quality of the area is an important component of the area's
appeal and identity.
See Policies 1, 2, 10,and 23.
POLICY 5 ENCOURAGE THE LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS WHERE PUBLIC
SERVICES AND FACILITIES ESSENTIAL TO SUCH DEVELOPMENT ARE
ADEQUATE, EXCEPT WHEN SUCH DEVELOPMENT HAS SPECIAL FUNCTIONAL
REQUIREMENTS OR OTHER CHARACTERISTICS W}IICH NECESSITATES ITS
LOCATIO`i IN OTHER COASTAL .AREAS.
POLICY 5A MAINTAIN AND WHERE NECESSARY IMPROVE PUBLIC SERVICES AND
INFRASTRUCTURE WHICH SERVE THE VILLAGE WATERFRONT AREA AND
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT TO ASSURE THEIR CONTI\L'ED
e AVAILABILITY TO :FEET EXISTING AND LIMITED FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
NEEDS.
Explanation. of Policy
Local, State and Federal agencies charged with allocating funds for
investments in water and sewage facilities should give high priority to the
infrastructure needs of the Village's CBD and waterfront area, so that the
Village will be able to provide the essential infrastructure components
necessary to adequately serve water -dependent and water -enhanced uses
located in these areas.
Greenport serves as the commercial and business center for the eastern
sector of Southold Town due to its concentration of relatively small scale
motels, retail shops and stores, and water -dependent commercial and
recreational uses in its central business district and waterfront areas.
All areas of the Village, as well as sone areas outside the Village in the
Town of Southold, are served by Village -owned sewer, water, and electric
utilities. In the Village CBD and adjacent waterfront area, intensive land
uses such as shipyards, fish processing plants, marinas, motels,
restaurants, offices, retail shops, banks and personal service shops are
concentrated. As underutilized properties in the Village CBD and
waterfront area are redeveloped and existing uses are expanded, there will
be an increased demand on utilities. An immediate increase in demand on
•
Village utilities has already been caused by the development of residential
condominiums in the waterfront area at Fanning Point. In anticipation of
this increased demand for Village utilities, the capacity of the Village
sewage treatment system will be expanded; a comprehensive water needs and
availability study will be conducted; and the lease with the Power
Authority of :New York State, to serve the Village's jelectricity needs to
•
1996, has been recently renegotiated.
Local, State and Federal agencies charged with allocating funds for
investments in water and sewage facilities should give high priority to the
infrastructure needs of the Village's CBD and waterfront area, so that the
Village will be able to provide the essential infrastructure components
necessary to adequately serve water -dependent and water -enhanced uses
located in these areas.
0
POLICY 6 EXPEDITE PERMIT PROCEDURES IN ORDER TO FACILITATE THE SITING OF
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES AT SUITABLE LOCATIONS.
For development of permitted water -dependent uses and permitted
water -enhanced uses at deteriorated and/or underutilized sites within the
Village's waterfront commercial areas, the Village will make every
reasonable effort to coordinate and expedite local permit procedures and
regulatory activities as long as the integrity of the regulatory objectives
is not jeopardized. The Village's efforts in expediting permit procedures
are part of a much larger system for regulatory development which also
includes County, State and Federal government agencies. -Regulatory
programs and procedures should be coordinated and synchronized between all
levels of government and, if necessary, legislative and/or programmatic
changes will be recommended from the local level.
FISH AND WILDLIFE POLICIES
POLICY 7 THE STATE COASTAL POLICY REGARDING TFE PROTECTION OF
SIGNIFICANT COASTAL FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITATS IS NOT
APPLICABLE TO THE VILLAGE OF GREENPORT.
POLICY 8 PROTECT FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES IN THE COASTAL AREA FROM
THE INTRODUCTION OF HAZARDOUS WASTES AhD OTHER POLLUTANTS WHICH
BIO-ACCU� ATE IN THE FOOD CHAIN OR WHICH CAUSE SIGNIFICANT
SUBLETHAL OR LETHAL EFFECT ON THOSE RESOURCES.
4P Explanation of Policy
Hazardous wastes are unwanted by-products of the manufacturing
processes and are generally characterized as being flammable, corrosive,
reactive, or toxic. More specifically, hazardous waste is defined in the
Environmental Conservation Law (Section 27-0901(3)] as "a waste or
combination of wastes which because of its quantity, concentration, or
physical, chemical or infectious characteristics may: (1) cause, or
significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in
serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness; or (2) pose a
substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment
when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed or otherwise
managed." A list of hazardous wastes has been adopted by DEC (6NYCRR, Part
371).
The handling (storage, transport, treatment and disposal) of the
materials included on this list is being strictly regulated in New York
State to prevent their entry or introduction into the environment,
particularly into the State's air, land and waters. Such controls should
effectively minimize possible contamination of and accumulation in the
State's coastal fish and wildlife resources at levels that cause mortality
or create physiological or behavioral disorders. Other pollutants are
those conventional wastes, generated from point and non -point sources, and
not identified as hazardous wastes but controlled through other State's
laws.
POLICY 9 EXPAND RECREATIONAL USE OF FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES IN
COASTAL AREAS BY INCREASING ACCESS TO EXISTING RESOURCES,
SUPPLEMENTING EXISTING STOCKS. AND DEVELOPING NEW RESOURCES.
0
SUCH EFFORTS SHALL BE MADE IN A MANNER WHICH ENSURES THE
PROTECTION OF RENEWABLE FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES AND
CONSIDERS OTHER ACTIVITIES DEPENDENT ON THEM.
Explanation of Policy
Recreational uses of coastal fish and wildlife resources include
consumptive uses such as fishing and hunting, and non -consumptive uses such
as wildlife photography, bird watching, and nature study.
Recreational fishing is a major activity in the Village of Greenport.
The public fish from boats, piers, and bulkheads along the shoreline. The
recent increase in seasonal residents and vacationers has resulted in
increased demand for dock space for recreational boats. Some of this
demand may be met by the redevelopment of the Mitchell property (Policy 1).
Recrentional use of existing publicly- and privately -owned waterfront
areas for on -shore recreational fishing and the passive enjoyment of
waterfowl and other wildlife resources can be improved through the
development of the harborwalk (Policy 20A) and street -end parks (Policy
20i�1.
The following guidelines should be considered by State and Federal
agencies as they determine the consistency of their proposed action with
the above policy.
-- Consideration should be made by Federal and State agencies as to
whether an action will impede existing or future utilization of the
State's recreational fish and wildlife resources.
-- Efforts to increase access to recreational fish and wildlife resources
should not lead to overutilization of that resource or cause impairment
A of the habitat. Sometimes such impairment can be more subtle than
actual physical damage to the habitat. For example, increased human
presence can deter animals from using the habitat area.
0
-- The impacts of increasing access to recreational fish and wildlife
resources should be determined on a case-by-case basis.
-- Any public or private sector initiatives to supplement existing stocks
(e.g., stocking a stream with fish reared in a hatchery) or develop new
resources (e.g., creating private fee -hunting or fee -fishing
facilities) must be done in accord with existing State law.
POLICY 10 FURTHER DEVELOP COMMERCIAL FINFISH, SHELLFISH AND CRUSTACEAN
RESOURCES IN THE COASTAL AREA BY: (i) ENCOURAGING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF NEW, OR IMPROVEMENT OF EXISTING ON -SHORE
COMMERCIAL FISHING FACILITIES;(ii) INCREASING MARKETING OF THE
STATE'S SEAFOOD PRODUCTS; and (iii) MAINTAINING ADEQUATE STOCKS
AND EXPANDING AQUACULTURE FACILITIES. SUCH EFFORTS SHALL BE IN
do A MANNER WHICH ENSURES THE PROTECTION OF SUCH RE14EWARLE FISH
RESOURCES AND CONSIDERS OTHER ACTIVITIES DEPS :'DENT ON THEM.
0
POLICY 10A ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW, OR EXPANDED COMMERCIAL
FISHING FACILITIES IN GREENPORT, AND PROTECT EXISTING
COMMERCIAL FISHING FACILITIES FROM ENCROACHMENT BY POTENTIALLY
CONFLICTING LAND USES.
Explanation of Policy `
i
Due to Greenport's natural deep water harbor which can easily
accommodate large fishing vessels, its commercial fishing heritage, and
strategic location with respect to fishing grounds and coastal market
areas, Greenport is an important part of New York's commercial fishing
industry. All of Greenport's commercial fishing facilities are
privately -owned and operated, with the exception of the publicly -owned
commercial fishing dock at the LIRR property. See Section II, D for a list
and description of commercial fishing facilities in the Village.
In recent years, there has been an increase in demand for recreational
marina and dock space, waterfront high-density residential use, and
water -enhanced uses geared to the tourist industry, such as restaurants,
hotels and retail shops. In order to reduce the encroachment of water -
enhanced uses on water -dependent uses, only water -enhanced uses of a
compatible nature shall be conditionally permitted in the Village's
waterfront commercial area. (See Policies 1, 2 and 4).
In order to provide for the development of new or expanded commercial
fishing facilities in Greenport the following shall occur:
-- Redevelopment of the Barstow shipyard site to provide commercial
fishing support services.
-- The development of a fishing dock for use by locally operated
commercial fishing vessels.
The following guidelines should be considered by government agencies as
they determine the consistency of their proposed action with the above
policies and specific plan recommendations listed:
-- A public agency's commercial fishing development initiative should not
pre-empt or displace private sector initiative.
-- A public agency's efforts to expand existing or create new on -shore
commercial fishing support facilities should be directed towards unmet
development needs rather than merely displacing existing commercial
fishing activities from a nearby port. This may be accomplished by
taking into consideration existing State or regional commercial fishing
development plans.
-- Consideration should be made by State and Federal agencies whether an
action will impede existing utilization or future development of the
State's commercial fishing resources.
-- Commercial fishing development efforts should be made in a manner which
ensures the maintenance and protection of the renewable fishery
resources.
lul
FLOOD AND EROSION POLICIES
POLICY 11 BUILDINGS AND OTHER STRUCTURES WILL BE SITED IN THE COASTAL
AREA SO AS TO MINIMIZE DAMAGE TO PROPERTY AND THE ENDANGERING
OF HUMAN LIVES CAUSED BY FLOODING AND EROSION.
Within flood hazard areas (See Map 3, Natural Characteristics), the
40 following standards for construction and siting of development shall apply:
-- All new construction and substantial improvements shall be anchored to
prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement of the structure.
-- All new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed
40 with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage.
-- All new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed
using methods and practices that minimize flood damage.
-- All new and replacement water supply and sanitary sewage systems shall
be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into
the system and in the case of sanitary sewage systems shall be designed
to minimize or eliminate discharge from the system into flood waters.
-- On-site waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to
them or contamination from them during flooding.
-- All subdivision proposals shall be consistent with the need to minimize
flood damage.
-- All subdivision proposals shall have adequate drainage provided to
reduce exposure to flood damage.
-- All subdivision proposals shall have public utilities and facilities
such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems located and
constructed to minimize flood damage.
-- Base flood elevation data shall be provided for subdivision proposals
and other proposed development which contain at least 50 lots or 5
•
acres (whichever is less).
-- New residential construction and substantial improvements to any
residential structure shall have the lowest floor, including basement,
elevated to or above base flood level elevation.
-- New non-residential construction and substantial improvement of any
commercial, industrial or other non-residential structure shall either
have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated to the level of the
base flood elevation; or
-- be floodproofed so that below the base flood level the structure is
watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of
water;
-- have structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic and
hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy; and
•
-- be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect
that the standards of this subsection are satisfied.
In Coastal High Hazard Areas (Zones V4, V5 and V7), where special flood
hazards associated with high velocity waters from tidal surges and
• hurricane wave wash occur, (See Map 3, Natural Characteristics), the
following standards shall apply:
-- All structures shall be located landward of the reach of mean high
tide.
• -- All buildings and structures shall be elevated so that the lowest
portion of the structural members of the lowest floor is located no
lower than the base flood elevation level, with all space below the
lowest floor's supporting member open so as not to impede the -flow of
water, except for breakaway walls.
• -- All buildings and structures shall be securely anchored on pilings or
•columns.
•
-- Pilings or columns used as structural support shall be designed and
anchored so as to withstand all applied loads of the base flood flow.
-- There shall beano fill used for structural support.
-- Any alteration, repair, reconstruction or improvement to a structure
shall not enclose the space below the lowest floor unless breakaway
walls are used.
-- Breakaway walls shall be allowed below the base flood elevation
• provided they are not a part of the structural support of the building
and are designed so as to breakaway, under abnormally high tides or
wave action, without damage to the structural integrity of the building
on which they are to be used.
-- If breakaway walls are utilized, such enclosed space shall not be used
• :or human habitation.
-- Prior to construction, plans for any structure that will have breakaway
walls must be submitted to the Building Inspector for approval.
POLICY 12 ACTIVITIES OR DEVELOPMENT IN THE COASTAL AREA WILL BE
UNDERTAKEN SO AS' TO MINIMIZE DAMAGE TO N6TURAL RESOURCES AND
PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND EROSION BY PROTECTING NATURAL
PROTECTIVE FEATURES INCLUDING BEACHES, DUNES, BARRIER ISLANDS
AND BLUFFS. PRIMARY DUNES WILL BE PROTECTED FROM ALL
ENCROACHMENTS THAT COULD IMPAIR THEIR NATURAL PROTECTIVE
CAPACITY.
r.
•
Explanation of Policy
Natural protective features help safeguard coastal lands and property
from damage, as well as reduce the danger to human life, resulting from
flooding and erosion. Excavation of coastal features, improperly designed
structures, inadequate site planning, or other similar actions which fail
to recognize their fragile nature and high protective values, lead to the
. weakening or destruction of these landforms.
• POLICY 13A THE CONSTRUCTION OR RECONSTRUCTION OF DOCKS, SEAWALLS,
REVETMENTS, BULKHEADS, BREAKWATERS, AND OTHER SHORELINE
STRUCTURES SHALL BE UNDERTAKEN IN A MANNER WHICH WILL, TO THE
MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE, PROTECT AGAINST OR WITHSTAND THE
DESTRUCTIVE FORCES OF WAVE ACTION AND ICE MOVEMENT FOR A THS IRTY
YE&R-BERIOD.
Explanation of Policy
Significant portions of the Village's shoreline are developed with
bulkheads and docks to provide docking convenience for ships using the
harbor.
Today, approximately two thirds of the Village's shoreline is
bulkheaded and in many instances docks protrude from the bulkheaded
shoreline. This is particularly true in the Waterfront Areas 1 and 2 where
the shoreline is intensively developed with waterfront commercial uses.
Shoreline sites that are the least developed with bulkheads are located on
the southeast side of Stirling Basin and along isolated segments of
Waterfront Area 3.
Bulkheading of remaining undeveloped shoreline areas in the Village is
strongly discouraged. When the need to bulkhead a shoreline area in the
Village is necessary the bulkhead shall:
Beach areas and sand dunes are the only significant natural protective
features found along the Greenport waterfront. The alteration of sand
dunes, which would increase potential flood damage, is prohibited. Since
much of Greenport's waterfront area is developed with bulkheads, non-
contiguous, relatively small areas of beach are found in the waterfront
area. (See Section II, for a more in-depth description of Village beach
areas). Beaches are unsuitable for commercial or residential development
due to the unstable and dynamic nature of beach soils. Since disturbance
of beach soils by development can adversely affect their protective
capacity, residential and commercial development is prohibited on beach
areas in the Village. Activities or development in close proximity to
V;llage beach areas shall ensure that all potential adverse impacts are
minimized. The planting of maritime shrubs and beach grass is encouraged
on beach areas in the Village to help stabilize these areas, particularly
the beach area of Sandy Beach and the adjacent beach areas located on the
basin side of Beach Lane. Existing maritime shrubs and beach grass shall
•
not be removed from any beach area in the Village. See Policy 33.
POLICY 13 THE STATE COASTAL POLICY REGARDING THE PROTECTION OF EROSION
PROTECTIVE FEATURES IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE VILLAGE OF
GREENPORT.
• POLICY 13A THE CONSTRUCTION OR RECONSTRUCTION OF DOCKS, SEAWALLS,
REVETMENTS, BULKHEADS, BREAKWATERS, AND OTHER SHORELINE
STRUCTURES SHALL BE UNDERTAKEN IN A MANNER WHICH WILL, TO THE
MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE, PROTECT AGAINST OR WITHSTAND THE
DESTRUCTIVE FORCES OF WAVE ACTION AND ICE MOVEMENT FOR A THS IRTY
YE&R-BERIOD.
Explanation of Policy
Significant portions of the Village's shoreline are developed with
bulkheads and docks to provide docking convenience for ships using the
harbor.
Today, approximately two thirds of the Village's shoreline is
bulkheaded and in many instances docks protrude from the bulkheaded
shoreline. This is particularly true in the Waterfront Areas 1 and 2 where
the shoreline is intensively developed with waterfront commercial uses.
Shoreline sites that are the least developed with bulkheads are located on
the southeast side of Stirling Basin and along isolated segments of
Waterfront Area 3.
Bulkheading of remaining undeveloped shoreline areas in the Village is
strongly discouraged. When the need to bulkhead a shoreline area in the
Village is necessary the bulkhead shall:
0
-- be placed landward of any existing beach areas, maritime shrubland, or
beach grass that may exist;
-- be properly designed and constructed to minimize or prevent damage to
public or private property;
-- be designed and constructed according to generally accepted engineering
principles, which have demonstrated success, or where sufficient data
is not currently available, a likelihood of success in controlling
long-term erosion on the immediate site for at least 30 years.
The construction, modification or restoration of docks, seawalls,
revetments, bulkheads, breakwaters and other shoreline structures are
subject to the following requirements:
1. They must be designed and constructed according to generally accepted
engineering principles.
2. A long term maintenance replacement program must be provided, which
S includes specifications for normal maintenance of degradable materials
and periodic replacement of removable materials.
3. All materials used in such structures must be durable and capable of
withstanding wave impacts, ice movement, weathering, and other effects
of storm conditions for thirty years or must be replaced as necessary.
See Policy 17.
POLICY 14 ACTIVITIES AND DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING THE CONSTRUCTION OR
RECONSTRUCTION OF EROSION PROTECTION STRUCTURES, SHALL BE
UNDERTAKEN SO THAT THERE WILL BE NO MEASURABLE INCREASE IN
EROSION OR FLOODING AT THE SITE OF SUCH ACTIVITIES OR
DEVELOPMENT, OR AT OTHER LOCATIONS.
Explanation of Polic
Erosion and flooding are processes which occur naturally. However, by
S his actions, man can increase the severity and adverse effects of those
processes, causing damage to, or loss of property, and endangering human
lives. Those actions include: the use of erosion protection structures
such as groins, or the use of impermeable docks which block the littoral
transport of sediment to adjacent shorelands, thus increasing their rate of
recession; the failure to observe proper drainage or land restoration
• practices, thereby causing run-off and erosion and weakening of shorelands;
and the placing of structures in identified floodways so that the base
flood level is increased causing damage in otherwise hazard -free areas.
In order to reduce losses from flooding and erosion all development and
land use activity in the Village of Greenport shall:
. -- not pose a threat to the public's health, safety, and welfare by having
the potential to increase damage caused by flooding and/or erosion;
-- not significantly alter coastal hazard areas or alter beach areas,
0
tidal wetlands, freshwater wetlands, water courses, and drainage swales
found in the Village's waterfront area so that their ability to
accommodate and channel storm water runoff and flood waters is
decreased;
-- fill, grade or dredge, to any extent which may increase flood damage;
or
-- create flood barriers which will unnaturally divert flood waters or
increase flood hazards in other areas.
See Policies 11, 12, 33 and 44.
POLICY 15 MINING, E.YCAVATION OR DREDGING IN COASTAL WATERS SHALL NOT
SIGNIFICANTLY INTERFERE WITH THE NATURAL COASTAL PROCESSES
WHICH SUPPLY BEACH MATERIALS TO LAND ADJACENT TO SUCH WATERS
AND SHALL BE UNDERTAKEN I\ A MANNER G'HICH WILL NOT CAUSE AN
:\CREASE IN EROSION OF SCCH LAND.
Explanation of Policy
-@ Coastal processes, including the movement of beach materials by water,
and any mining, excavation or dredging in nearshore or offshore waters
which changes the supply and net flow of such materials can deprive
shorelands of their natural regenerative powers. Such mining, excavation,
and dredging should be accomplished in a manner so as not to cause a
reduction of supply, and thus an increase of erosion, to such shorelands.
Offshore mining is a future alternative option to landmining for sand and
gravel deposits which are needed to support building and other industry.
In the Village of Greenport there is little natural beach material
found along the Village's shoreline due to the heavily bulkheaded nature
of its waterfront area. Small quantities of beach material are being
supplied to the adjacent coastal areas from the Village waterfront, via
natural processes.
Dredge spoil removed from the two 'tillage locations where dredging will
occur, Stirling Basin and the dock at the Long Island Railroad property,
40 will be used for beach nourishment. The disposal site is the back side of
the inlet adjacent to Beach Lane.
In addition, the following conditions must be met during dredging to
assure that the Village's man-made and natural shoreline will not be
undermined:
-- the natural angle of repose for area sediments will not be oversteeped;
-- dredging adjacent to bulkheads will be undertaken so that the depth of
the area to be dredged does not exceed the toe of the bulkhead, and the
bulkhead will not be undermined or weakened in any manner;
-- dredging activity shall not alter the natural movement or flow of
harbor waters in a manner that will increase the erosion potential of
Village shoreline areas.
r
See Policy 35.
POLICY 16 PUBLIC FUNDS SHALL ONLY BE USED FOR EROSION PROTECTIVE
STRUCTURES WHERE NECESSARY TO PROTECT HUMAN LIFE, AND NEW
DEVELOPMENT WHICH REQUIRES A LOCATION WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO AN
EROSION HAZARD AREA TO BE ABLE TO FUNCTION, OR EXISTING
DEVELOPMENT; AND ONLY WHERE THE PUBLIC BENEFITS OUTWEIGH THE
LONG TERM MONETARY AND OTHER COSTS INCLUDING THE POTENTIAL FOR
INCREASING EROSION AND ADVERSE EFFECTS ON NATURAL PROTECTIVE
FEATURES.
Explanation of Policy
a Public funds are used for a variety of purposes on the Village's
shoreline. This policy recognizes the public need for the protection of
human life and existing investment in development or new development which
requires a location in proximity to the coastal area or in adjacent waters
to be able to function. However, it also recognizes the adverse impacts o:
such activities and development on the rate of erosion and on natural
i protective features and requires that careful analysis be made of such
benefits and long-term costs prior to spending public funds.
•
POLICY 17 WHENEVER POSSIBLE, USE NON-STRUCTURAL MEASURES TO MINIMIZE
DAMAGE TO NATURAL RESOURCES AND PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND
EROSION. SUCH MEASURES SHALL INCLUDE: (i) THE SET BACK OF
BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES; (ii) THE PLANTING OF VEGETATION AND
THE INSTALLATION OF SAND FENCING AND DRAINING; (iii) THE
RESHAPING OF BLUFFS; AND (iv) THE FLOOD -PROOFING OF BUILDINGS
OR THEIR ELEVATION ABOVE THE BASE FLOOD LEVEL.
Explanation of Policy
w This policy recognizes both the potential adverse impacts of flooding
and erosion upon development and upon natural protective features in the
coastal area, as well as the costs of protection against those hazards
which structural measures entail.
This policy shall apply to the planning, siting, and design of proposed
activities and development, including measures to protect existing
activities and development. To ascertain consistency with the policy, it
must be determined if any one, or a combination of, non-structural measures
would afford the degree of protection appropriate both to the character and
purpose of the activity or development, and to the hazard. If
• non-structural measures are determined to offer sufficient protection, then
consistency with this policy would require the use of such measures
wherever possible.
In determining whether or not non-structural measures to protect
against erosion or flooding will afford the degree of protection
appropriate, an analysis, and if necessary, other materials such as plans
or sketches of the activity or development, of the site and of the
alternative protection measures should be prepared to allow an assessment
to be made.
F:
See Policies 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15.
0 GENERAL POLICY
POLICY 18 TO SAFEGUARD THE VITAL ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL
INTEREST OF THE STATE AND ITS CITIZENS, PROPOSED MAJOR ACTIONS
IN THE COASTAL AREA MUST GIVE FULL CONSIDERATION TO THOSE
INTERESTS, AND TO THE SAFEGUARDS WHICH THE STATE HAS
ESTABLISHED TO PROTECT VALUABLE COASTAL RESOURCE AREAS.
Explanation of Policy
Proposed major actions may be undertaken in the coastal area if they
a will not significantly impair valuable coastal waters and resources, thus
frustrating the achievement of the purposes of the safeguards which the
State has established to protect those waters and resources. Proposed
actions must take into account the social, economic and environmental
interests of the State and its citizens in such matters that would affect
natural resources, water levels and flows, shoreline damage, hydro -electric
power generation, and recreation.
PUBLIC ACCESS POLICIES
POLICY 19 PROTECT, MAINTAIN, AND INCREASE THE LEVEL AND TYPES OF ACCESS
TO PUBLIC WATER -RELATED RECREATION RESOURCES AND FACILITIES SO
THAT THESE RESOURCES AND FACILITIES MAY BE FULLY UTILIZED BY
ALL THE PUBLIC IN ACCORDANCE WITH REASONABLY ANTICIPATED PUBLIC
RECREATION NEEDS AND THE PROTECTION OF HISTORIC AND NATURAL
RESOURCES. IN PROVIDING SUCH ACCESS, PRIORITY SHALL BE GIVEN
TO PUBLIC BEACHES, BOATING FACILITIES, FISHING AREAS AND
WATERFRONT PARKS.
4b Explanation of Policy
The three publicly -owned waterfront recreational facilities within the
Village are Fifth Street Park, Sandy Beach, and the Village/Town boat
launching facility. The Village's Fifth Street Park is located in
Waterfront Area 3 just west of Fanning Point; Sandy Beach is located in
Waterfront Area 1 west of Young's Point; and the boat launch is located on
the east side of Stirling Basin also in Waterfront Area 1. Transportation
modes used to gain access to these waterfront recreational facilities
include motor driven vehicles, bicycles, watercraft and foot. Access to
these facilities by Village residents via existing Village streets and
adjacent waterways is sufficient and shall be maintained. The existing
level of public access to these facilities shall not be diminished. It is
recognized, however, that opportunities for public access to and
recreational use of the publicly -owned foreshore can be significantly
improved, as discussed in Policy 20.
The following guidelines will be used in determining the consistency of
a proposed action with this policy:
1. The existing access to public water -related recreation resources and
facilities shall not be reduced, nor shall the possibility of
III -20
w
increasing access in the future from adjacent or proximate public lands
or facilities to public water -related recreation resources and
facilities be eliminated, unless in the latter case, estimates of
future use of these resources and facilities are too low to justify
maintaining or providing increased public access.
The following is an explanation of the terms used in the above
guidelines:
a. Access - the ability and right of the public to reach and use
public coastal lands and waters.
b. Public water -related recreation resources or facilities - all
i public lands or facilities that are suitable for passive or active
recreation that requires either water or a waterfront location or
is enhanced by a waterfront location.
c. Public lands or facilities - lands or facilities held by State or
local government in fee simple or less -than -fee simple ownership
and to which the public has access or could have access, including
underwater lands and the foreshore.
d. A reduction in the existing level of public access -includes but is
not limited to the following:
(1) The number of parking spaces at a public water -related
recreation resource or facility is significantly reduced.
(2) The service level of public transportation to a public
water -related recreation resource or facility is significantly
reduced during peak season use and such reduction cannot be
reasonably justified in terms of meeting systemwide objectives.
(3) Pedestrian access is diminished or eliminated because of
hazardous crossings required at new or altered transportation
facilities, electric power transmission lines, or similar
linear facilities.
(4) There are substantial increases in the following: already
existing special fares (not including regular fares in any
instance) of public transportation to a public water -related
recreation resource or facility, except where the public body
having jurisdiction over such fares determines that such
substantial fare increases are necessary; and/or admission fees
to such a resource or facility, and an analysis shows that such
increases will significantl7 reduce usage by individuals or
families with incomes below the State government established
poverty level.
e. An elimination of the possibility of increasing public access in
the future includes, but is not limited to the following:
(1) Construction of public facilities which physically prevent the
provision, except at great expense, of convenient public access
to public water -related recreation resources and facilities.
f
•
0
U
4
•
(2) Sale, lease, or other transfer of public lands that could
provide public access to a public water -related recreation
resource or facility.
(3) Construction of private facilities which physically prevent the
provision of convenient public access to public water -related
recreation resources or facilities from public lands and
facilities.
2. Any proposed project to increase public access to public water -related
recreation resources and facilities shall be analyzed according to the
following factors:
a. The level of access to be provided should be in accord with
estimated public use. If not, the proposed level of access to be
provided shall be deemed inconsistent with this policy.
b. The level of access to be provided shall not cause a degree of use
which would exceed the physical capability of the resource or
facility. If this were determined to be the case, the proposed
level of access to be provided shall be deemed inconsistent with
this policy.
3. The public -sector will not undertake or fund any project which
increases access to a water -related resource or facility that is not
open to all members of the public.
POLICY 20 ACCESS TO THE PUBLICLY -OWNED FORESHORE AND TO LANDS I,%MEDIATELY
ADJACENT TO THE FORESHORE OR THE WATER'S EDGE THAT ARE PUBLICLY
OWNED SHALL BE PROVIDED, AND IT SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN A `CANNER
COMPATIBLE WITH ADJOINING USES. SUCH LANDS SHALL BE RETAINED
I`. PUBLIC OWNERSHIP.
Explanation of Policy
While such publicly -owned lands referenced in this policy shall be
retained in public ownership, traditional sales of easements on lands
underwater to adjacent onshore property owners are consistent with this
policy, provided such easements do not substantially interfere with
continued public use of the public lands on which the easement is granted.
Also, public use of such publicly -owned underwater lands and lands
immediately adjacent to the shore shall be discouraged where such use would
be inappropriate for reasons of public safety, military security, or the
protection of fragile coastal resources.
The following guidelines will be used in determining the consistency of
a proposed action with this policy:
1. Existing access from adjacent or proximate public lands or facilities
• to the existing public coastal lands and/or waters shall not be
reduced, nor shall the possibility of increasing access in the future
from adjacent or nearby public lands or facilities to public coastal
-22
0
lands and/or waters be eliminated, unless such actions are demonstrated
to be of overriding regional or Statewide public benefit, or in the
latter case, estimates of future use of these lands and waters are too
low to justify maintaining or providing increased access.
2. The existing level of public access within public coastal lands or
waters shall not be reduced or eliminated.
•
3. Public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and
along the coast shall be provided by new land use or development,
except where (a) it is inconsistent with public safety, military
security, or the protection of identified fragile coastal resources;
(b) adequate access exists within one-half mile; or (c) agriculture
would be adversely affected. Such access shall not be required to be
open to public use until a public agenc.i or private association agrees
to accept responsibility for maintenance and liability of the
accessway.
4. The public -sector will not undertake or fund any project which
r increases access to a water -related resource or facility that is not
&open to all members of the public.
S. Proposals for increased public access to coastal lands and waters shall
be analyzed according to the following factors:
• a. The level of access to be provided should be in accord with
estimated public use. If not, the proposed level of access to be
provided shall be deemed inconsistent with the policy.
b. The level of access to be provided shall not cause a degree of use
which would exceed the physical capability of the resource. if
a this were determined to be the case, the proposed level of access
to be provided shall be deemed inconsistent with the policy.
El
In Greenport, in order to provide access opportunities and to enhance
the recreational use of the publicly -owned foreshore, modest improvements
will be made to the following small waterfront areas located within
Village -owned rights-of-way or on privately -owned property located between
Village rights-of-way and the waterfront. Each site is of very limited
size and not suitable for residential or commercial development. These
sites shall be developed into mini waterfront parks for passive
recreational activities, since they are unsuitable for intensive
receational activity. Improvements to these areas will include benches,
viewing platforms, plaques containing notes of historical significance,
refine4 pedestrian walkways to the waterfront and landscaping.
These sites are located in the following locations:
Waterfront Area 1
1. at the east end of Bay Avenue
2. the narrow section of land between Stirling Street and Stirling
Harbor (privately -owned)
TIT -23
9
0 3. at the end of Stirling Place at the head of Stirling Basin;
Waterfront Area 2
4. at the east end._of W "iDa_t,Uet_.(privately-owned)
Waterfront Area 3
5. at the LIRR site immediately south of the existing fishing dock
6. at the south end of Fifth Street and the area immediately to
the east of Fanning Point.
In addition, public access as well as passive recreational activities
will be -provided for at the Mobil site (see Policy 21A).
POLICY 20A ACCESS TO THE PUBLICLY OWNED FORESHORE AND TO LANDS INDiEDL1TELY
ADJACENT TO THE FORESHORE OR THE WATER'S EDGE SHALL BE PROVIDED
0 THROUGH THE CREATION OF A HARBORWALK IN WATERFRONT AREA 2.
E.�lanation of Policy
Increased public access shall be provided to the maximum extent
practicable through private and publicly -owned land in the Village, for
numerous activities and pursuits which require only minimal facilities for
their enjoyment. Such activities include: fishing from a pier, deck or
beach; walking along the waterfront; gaining access to vantage points from
which to view the water or activities taking place in the harbor;
birdwatching; and photography.
' All waterfront development within Waterfront Area 2 (from and inclusive
of S.T. Preston and Son, Inc., to and inclusive of the Long Island Rail
Road property) shall be required, as law permits, to provide public access
to the foreshore through the creation of a harborwalk. The walkway is to
be constructed along the water's edge in an east -west direction from
S.T. Preston and Son, Inc. to the LIRR property.
The harborwalk will become part of the overall pedestrian walkway
system that will connect and provide convenient access to the Village's
active waterfront, business area, and historic landmarks for the interest
and enjoyment of the Village residents and visitors.
. POLICY 21 WATER -DEPENDENT AND 'WATER -ENHANCED RECREATION WILL BE
ENCOURAGED AND FACILITATED, AND WILL BE GIVEN PRIORITY OVER
NON -WATER RELATED USES ALONG THE COAST, PROVIDED IT IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE PRESERVATION AND ENHANCEMENT OF OTHER
COASTAL RESOURCES AND TAKES INTO ACCOUNT DEMAND FOR SUCH
FACILITIES. IN FACILITATING SUCH ACTIVITIES, PRIORITY SHALL BE
GIVEN TO AREAS WHERE ACCESS TO THE RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES OF
THE COAST CAN BE PROVIDED BY NEW OR EXISTING PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AND TO THOSE AREAS WHERE THE USE OF THE
SHORE, IS SEVERELY RESTRICTED BY EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.
1
T 7 T - 2 4
0
Explanation of Polic
S Water -related recreation includes water -dependent activities such as
boating, swimming, and fishing, as well as certain activities which are
enhanced by a coastal location and increase the general public's access to
the coast, such as a pedestrian walkway system and scenic overlooks. that
take advantage of coastal scenery.
Provided the development of water -related recreation is consistent with
the preservation and enhancement of such important coastal resources as
existing traditional and/or desired anticipated uses associated with
commercial fishing and ship related industries, fish and wildlife habitats,
aesthetically significant areas, historic and cultural resources, and
: provided demand exists, water -related recreation use is to be increased.
Such use shall have a higher priority than any non -water -dependent use,
including non water -related recreation use. In addition water -dependent
recreation use shall have a higher priority over water -enhanced recreation
use in areas near or adjacent to the shore. Determining a priority among
water -dependent uses other than those listed above, will require a case by
• case analysis.
• The siting or design of new public development in a manner which would
result in a barrier to the recreational use of a major portion of the
Village's shore should be avoided as much as practicable.
• Among the types of water -dependent recreation, provision of adequate
boating services to meet future demand is to be encouraged. The siting of
boating facilities must be consistent with preservation and enhancement of
other coastal resources and with their capacity to accommodate demand. The
provision of new public boating facilities is essential in meeting this
demand, but such public actions should avoid competition with private
boating development. Boating facilities will, as appropriate, include
• parking, park -like surroundings, toilet facilities, and pumpout facilities.
Private commercial waterfront recreational facilities such as marinas
and yacht clubs are concentrated in 'Waterfront Areas 1 and 2. See Section
II, for a list of private firms which provide water -dependent recreational
facilities along the Village's waterfront. Recreational water -dependent
uses and facilities that exist and are permitted in these areas include:
yacht clubs; boat launching facilities; marinas; and dockage for charter
fishing and other recreational vessels.
See Policies 1, 2, 4 and 10.
POLICY 21A REDEVELOP THE MOBIL SITE FOR PUBLIC WATERFRONT RECREATIONAL
USE.
Explanation of Policy
The Village will pursue acquisition of this 2.6 acre site and convert
it to a municipal waterfront park for passive recreational purposes. Use
of this site for passive recreation would complement the Village's Fifth
Street Park, which is used intensively for active recreation use and to a
lesser degree for passive recreation. The Mobil site has the potential to
III -25
U
provide water -oriented recreational opportunities such as boat launching,
on -shore fishing, viewing waterfowl and other wildlife, viewing scenic
Shelter Island Sound, and viewing commercial and recreational vessels
entering and exiting Greenport Harbor. Conversion of this site to a
water -oriented municipal recreational facility would significantly enhance
the Village's waterfront recreational resources and opportunities for the
public to gain access to the waterfront. The development of this site as a
r municipal park would be far more compatible with existing adjacent uses
than the reuse of this site for commercial or industrial purposes.
Should the Village not be able to obtain this property for park
purposes and it is eventually developed for another use, public access to
and/or along the waterfront of this parcel shall, as law permits, be
secured.
POLICY 22 DEVELOPMENT, WHEN LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE SHORE, WILL PROVIDE
FOR WATER -RELATED RECREATION, AS A MULTIPLE USE, UHENEVER SUCH
RECREATIONAL USE IS APPRODB:aTE IS LIGi?T OF REASO\ABLY
ANTICIPATED DEMA ;'D FOR SUCH ACTIVITIES AND THE PRIMARY PURPOSE
OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
Explanation of Policy
Certain developments present practical opportunities for providing
recreation facilities as an additional use of the site or facility.
S Therefore, whenever developments are located adjacent to the shore. they
should to the fullest extent permitted by existing law provide :or some
form of water -related recreation use unless there are compelling reasons
why any form of such recreation would not be compatible with the
development, or a reasonable demand for public use cannot be foreseen.
Uses which are appropriate in the Village of Greenport coastal area and
which can provide opportunities for water -related recreation as a multiple
use include parks, maritime commercial uses and mixed use protects.
Prior to taking action relative to any development, State agencies
should consult with the Village to determine appropriate recreation uses.
The agency should provide the Village with the opportunity to participate
4b in project planning.
Appropriate recreation uses which do not require any substantial
additional construction shall be provided at the expense of the project
sponsor provided the cost does not exceed 2z of total project cost.
In determining whether compelling reasons exist which would make
inadvisable recreation as a multiple use, safety considerations should
reflect a recognition that some risk is acceptable in the use of
recreational facilities.
Whenever a proposed development would be consistent with CMP policies
♦ and the development could, through the provision of recreation and other
multiple uses, significantly increase public use of the shore, then such
development should be encouraged to locate adjacent to the shore.
0
0 See Policies 19, 20 and 21.
HISTORIC AND SCENIC RESOURCES POLICIES
POLICY 23 PROTECT, ENHANCE AND RESTORE STRUCTURES, DISTRICTS, AREAS OR
SITES THAT ARE OF SIGNIFICANCE IN THE HISTORY, ARCHITECTURE,
ARCHEOLOGY OR CULTURE OF THE STATE, ITS COMMUNITIES, OR THE
NATION.
Explanation of Policy
Among the most valuable of Greenport's man-made resources are those
f structures or areas which are of historic, archeological, or cultural
Significance. The protection of these structures must involve a
recognition of their importance by all agencies and the ability to identify
and describe them. Protection must include concern not Just with specific
sites but with areas of significance, and with the area around- specific
sites. The policy is not to be construed as a passive mandate but must
include effective efforts when appropriate to restore or revitalize through
a4,aptive reuse. While the program is concerned with the preservation of
all such resources within the coastal boundary, it will actively promote
the preservatior of historic and cultural resources which have a coastal
relationship.
The structures, districts, areas or sites that are of significance in
the history, architecture, archeology or culture of Greenport, the State or
the Nation comprise the following resources:
1. A resource on, nominated to be on, or determined eligible to be on the
National or State Registers of Historic Places.
a 2. An archeological resource which is on the State Department of
Education's inventory of archeological sites or the Office of Parks.
Recreation and Historic Preservation's Archeological Site File.
3. A local landmark, park, or locally designated historic district that is
located within the boundary of an approved local waterfront
revitalization program.
Greenport's heritage as a nineteenth-century coastal fishing and
trading center is discernible today because its built environment is fairly
well preserved. Many Federal, Greek revival, and Victorian style buildings
can be found throughout the Village. The existence of this well pre4erved,
rich architectural and historic past is the primary reason why tourism has
increased significantly in the Village in recent years.
Among the numerous resources of architectural and historic importance,
one area, the Greenport Village Historic District, Is on the National
40 Register of Historic Places. See Section II, Inventory and Analysis, for a
more in-depth discussion of the Village's historic district.
The Greenport Village Historic District includes the following areas:
-- Main Street between the harbor on the south and the intersection of
. Washington and Bridge Streets on the north;
0
-- First Street between the properties at 411 and 422 First Street and
Webb Street;
-- Carpenter Street between its intersection with Bay Avenue and its dead
end on the north;
-- Broad Street between Main Street on the east and First Street on the
west;
-- Ludlam Place, Central Avenue and Bay Avenue between Carpenter Street on
the west and the harbor on the east; and
-- Stirling Street between its intersection with Main Street on the west
and the properties at 160 and 165 Sterling Street on the east.
In the near future, in cooperation with the X.Y.S. Office of Parks,
Recreation, and Historic Preservation, additional historic resources
outside of the historic district may be identified for nomination to the
State and Federal Registers.
The following guidelines and standards apply to construction activity
wittin the Greenport Village Historic District:
-- no person shall carry out any exterior alteration, restoration,
reconstruction, demolition, new construction or moving of a 'Landmark or
structure which would adversely affect the appearance and cohesiveness
of the district;
-- properties which contribute to the character of the historic district
shall be retained, with their historic features altered as little as
possible;
41 -- sny alteration of existing properties shall be compatible with its
historic character, as well as with the surrounding district; and
-- new construction shall be compatible with the district in which it is
located.
In applying the principle of compatibility, the following factors will
be considered:
-- the general design, character and appropriateness of the proposed
alteration or new construction;
. -- the scale of proposed alteration or new construction in relation to the
property itself, surrounding properties, and the neighborhood;
-- texture, materials, and color and their relation to similar features of
other properties in the neighborhood;
• -- visual compatibility with surrounding properties, including proportion
of the property's front facade, proportion and arrangement of windows
and other openings within the facade, roof shape, and the rhythm of
spacing of properties on streets, including setbacks; and
III -28
0
-- the importance of historic, architectural or other features to the
significance of the property.
Changes to interior spaces, or to architectural features that are not
visible from a public street or alley, unless they are open to the public,
or publicly -owned or funded, are not subject to the standards and
guidelines cited above.
*
Two one -mile square sites shown on the New York State Historic
Preservation Office Site File Map, and one, one -mile diameter site shown on
the New York State Archeological Site Locations Overlay :Sap, are sites
within or near the Village of Greenport having the potential of being
archeologically significant. These figures are centered on points of high
archeological sensitivity at locations of known archeological sites. Sites
♦
of archeological sensitivity may also exist outside the boundaries of these
figures. Whether a proposed project is located within or outside these
figures, a field reconnaissance survey, conducted under the guidelines of
the New York State Education Department, will be done before an assessment
of a projects potential impact on archeological resources is determined.
In addition, the State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic
Preservation will also be contacted to determine whether significant
archeological resources are present at the site and what measures are
necessary to preserve these resources.. All practicable means shall be used
to preserve significant archeological resources.
This policy shall not be construed to prevent the construction,
reconstruction, alteration, or demolition of any building, structure,
earthwork, or component thereof of a recognized historic, cultural or
archeological resource which has been officially certified as being
imminently dangerous to life or public health. Nor shall the policy be
construed to prevent the ordinary maintenance, repair, or proper
restoration, according to the U.S. Department of Interior's Standards for
45 Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, of any
buildings, structure, site or earthwork, or component thereof of a
recognized historic, cultural or archeological resource which does not
involve a significant change to the resource, as defined above.
POLICY 24 THE STATE COASTAL POLICY REGARDING SCENIC RESOURCES OF
STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE VILLAGE OF
GREENPORT.
POLICY 25 PROTECT, RESTORE OR ENHANCE NATURAL AND KA` -MADE RESOURCES
WHICH ARE NOT IDENTIFIED AS BEING OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE BUT
WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO THE OVERALL SCENIC QUALITY OF THE COASTAL
AREA.
Explanation. of Policy
'_The visual characteristics of the Village's coastal area vary widely.
The blend of its rugged, bulkheaded shoreline, with pockets of natural
beach and maritime vegetation, historic waterfront commercial and
residential settlements, combined with varied and spectacular views of
Stirling Basin, Greenport Harbor, and Shelter Island Sound make the
Village's shoreline a unique and valuable waterfront resource of high
visual quality. In order for the Village to realize the full potential of
its waterfront as a scenic resource, visually degrading conditions found in
the three waterfront areas and in the CBD shall be removed.
Flashing, mobile, directly illuminated or reflecting cloth or flyer
signs shall not be erected, affixed, or maintained in the Village, and the
source of any exterior illumination shall not be visible across property
• lines. In addition, marquees shall not be erected over any public street
or sidewalk in the Village.
Specific waterfront sites which contain deteriorated structures include
the Barstow shipyard site, the Mitchell property, and the Mobil site.
Generally, these sites contain abandoned or derelict structures that are in
♦ a state of disrepair.
In order to remove unslightly conditions in the Village's CBD, which
include, but are not limited to, overhead electrical and telephone lines,
deteriorated building facades, inadequate landscaping, etc., the Village
will implement revitalization and redevelopment efforts according to the
♦ standards and guidelines of the CBD design plan mentioned in Policy 1B.
0
In addition, the Village's Historic District furthers the goal of
Improved scenic quality in the Village by serving to preserve and protect
the small harbor character and architecturally rich resources of the
Village.
See Policies 1A, 1B and 23.
POLICY 26 THE STATE COASTAL POLICY REGARDING THE PROTECTIO` OF
AGRICULTURAL LANDS IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE VILLAGE OF
GREENPORT.
ENERGY AND ICE MANAGEMENT POLICIES
POLICY 27 DECISIONS ON THE SITING AND CONSTRUC':ION OF MAJOR ENERGY
FACILITIES IN THE COASTAL AREA WILL. BE BASED ON PUBLIC ENERGY
NEEDS, COMPATIBILITY OF SUCH FACILITIES iiITH THE E%VIRONKENT,
♦ AND THE FACILITY'S NEED FOR A SHOREFRONT LOCATION.
Explanation of Polic
Demand for energy in New York will increase, although at a rate
slower than previously predicted. The State expects to meet
these energy demands through a combination of conservation
measures; traditional and alternative technologies; and use of
various fuels, including coal, in greater prpportion.
A determination of public need for energy is the first step in
the process for siting any new facilities. The directives for
determining this need are set forth in the New York State
Energy Law. With respect to transmission lines and steam
electric generating facilities, Articles VII and VIII of the
State's Public Service Law require additional forecasts and
0 1II-30
0
establish the basis for determining the compatibility of
40 location. The policies derived from the siting regulations
under these Articles are entirely consistent with the general
coastal zone policies derived from other laws, particularly the
regulations promulgated pursuant to the Waterfront
Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act. That Act is used for
the purposes of ensuring consistency with the State Coastal
Management Program and this Local Waterfront Revitalization
Program.
POLICY 28 THE STATE COASTAL POLICY REGARDING ICE MANAGEMENT IS NOT
APPLICABLE TO THE VILLAGE OF GREENPORT.
POLICY 29 ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF ENERGY RESOURCES ON THE OUTER
CONTINENTAL SHELF, IN LAKE ERIE AND OTHER WATER BODIES, AND
ENSURE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY OF SUCH ACTIVITIES.
Explanation of Policy
The State recognizes the need to develop new indigenous energy sources.
It also recognizes that such development may endanger the environment.
Among the various energy sources being examined are those which may be
found on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).
Matters pertaining to the OCS are the responsibility of the Department
of Environmental Conservation. In 1977, the Department, in cooperation
with regional and local agencies, completed a study which identified
potential sites along the marine coast for on -shore OCS facilities. To
I'_I-311
In consultation with the Village of Greenport, the Department
of State will comment of the State Energy Office policies and
planning reports as may exist; present testimony for the record
`
during relevant certification proceedings under Articles VII
and VIII of the PSL; and use the State SEQRA and DOS
regulations to ensure that decisions on other proposed energy
facilities (other than transmission facilities and steam
electric generating plants) which would impact the waterfront
area are made consistent with the policies and purposes of the
Village of Greenport Local Waterfront Revitalization Program.
•
The siting and construction of a major energy facility in the
Village of Greenport is inappropriate because the Village's
coastal area is not a suitable location for such a facility
based on the following: The Village's entire land mass
consists of only one square mile; the Village is nearly fully
developed with many small scale residential, retail commercial
and water -dependent uses many of which are historically
significant; only a few scattered small lots represent
opportunities for development; the Village owns and operates
its own power facility which provides electricity to Village
residents; and the Village's character and heritage is one that
relies on its direct association with the sea and its
commercial waterfront. The construction of a major power
facility would cause irreparable damage to the Village's
environment and economy.
POLICY 28 THE STATE COASTAL POLICY REGARDING ICE MANAGEMENT IS NOT
APPLICABLE TO THE VILLAGE OF GREENPORT.
POLICY 29 ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF ENERGY RESOURCES ON THE OUTER
CONTINENTAL SHELF, IN LAKE ERIE AND OTHER WATER BODIES, AND
ENSURE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY OF SUCH ACTIVITIES.
Explanation of Policy
The State recognizes the need to develop new indigenous energy sources.
It also recognizes that such development may endanger the environment.
Among the various energy sources being examined are those which may be
found on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).
Matters pertaining to the OCS are the responsibility of the Department
of Environmental Conservation. In 1977, the Department, in cooperation
with regional and local agencies, completed a study which identified
potential sites along the marine coast for on -shore OCS facilities. To
I'_I-311
date, these sites have not been developed for this purpose. The
Department, also, actively participates in the OCS planning process by
reviewing and voicing the State's concerns about Federal OCS oil and gas
lease sales and plans. In its review of these proposed sales and plans,
the Department considers a number of factors such as the effects upon
navigational safety in the established traffic lanes leading into and from
New York Harbor; the impacts upon important finfish, shellfish and wildlife
populations and their spawning activities, impacts upon public recreational
• resources and opportunities along the marine coast; the potential for
hazards; impacts upon biological communities; and water quality.
WATER AND AIR RESOURCES POLICIES
. POLICY 30 MUNICIPAL, INDUSTRIAL, AND COMMERCIAL DISCHARGE OF POLLUTANTS
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, TORIC AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES,
INTO COASTAL WATERS WILL CONFOFUM TO STATE AND NATIONAL WATER
QUALITY STA\'DARDS.
E::planation of Policy
Municipal, industrial and commercial discharges include not only
"end -of -the pipe" discharges into surface and groundwater, but also plant
site runoff, leaching, spillage, sludge and other waste disposal, and
drainage from raw material storage sites. Also, the regulated industrial
discharges are both those which directly empty into receiving coastal
waters and those which pass through municipal treatment systems be -fore
reaching the State's waterways.
The Village's secondary sewage treatment -facility is located on Moore's
Lane within the Village, but effluent from the plant, after it is
chlorinated, is discharged into Long Island Sound. The end of the pipe
discharge from the treatment system is located north of the Village in the
:own of Southold. This system serves all residential and commercial
establishments within the Village of Greenport. Due to the lack of
industry in the Village, other than commercial fish processing facilities,
the majority of the sewage treated at the plant is human waste from
residential and commercial uses. No commercial establishment discharges
its waste into Stirling Basin or Shelter Island Sound, nor shall any such
discharges be permitted in the future.
POLICY 31 STATE COASTAL AREA POLICIES AND PURPOSES OF APPROVED LOCAL
WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAMS WILL BE CONSIDERED 'e'HILE
REVIEWING COASTAL WATER CLASSIFICATIONS AND WHILE MODIFYING
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS; HOWEVER, THOSE WATERS ALREADY
OVERBURDENED WITH CONTA.KINANTS WILL BE RECOGNIZED AS BEING A
DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINT.
Explanation of Policy
The State has classified its coastal and other waters in accordance
with the considerations of best usage in the interest of the public and has
adopted water quality standards for each class of waters. These
•
classifications and standards are reviewable at least every three years for
possible revision or amendment. Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs
and State coastal management policies shall be factored into the review
process for coastal waters. However, such consideration shall not affect
any water pollution control requirement established by the State pursuant
to the Federal Clean Water Act.
•
POLICY 33 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WILL BE USED TO ENSURE THE CONTROL OF
STOR..%f;ATER RUNOFF AND COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS DRAINING INTO
COASTAL WATERS.
ExDlanaticn of Policy
Best management practices include both structural and non-structural
methods of preventing or mitigating pollution caused by stormwater runoff.
Stormwater runoff in the Village collects in street gutters and flows
directly into Village wetlands and surface waterbodies.
The Village sewer system is a separate, closed system not affected by
the flow of stormwater runoff. At present, the development of a municipal
. stormwater collection system to better control stormwater runoff and to
lessen the impact on surface water quality is desired but not economically
feasible.
To reduce the amount of stormwater runoff and pollutants entering
coastal waters, the following non-structural and structural approaches
shall be employed:
-- reduced use of road salt and improved street cleaning will be
encouraged;
-- for all new commercial development, stormwater shall be contained on
• site;
Current classifications of fresh and saline waters in Greenport are
given in Section II. The freshwater and saltwater "D" classification for
the freshwater and tidal portions of Moore's Drain, and the freshwater "D"
classification for Silver Lake are consistent with existing and proposed
land and water uses. The saline waterbodies of Stirling Basin and Shelter
Island Sound are classified as "SA" which permits shellfishing for market
purposes and primary contact recreation. Both Stirling Basin and that
portion of Shelter Island- Sound within the legal jurisdiction of the
Village of Greenport, also known as Greenport Harbor, have been closed to
shellfishing since the early 1960's, except for a short period -in the
1970's when shellfishing was allowed on an experimental basis. Sources of
pollution which are believed to be major contributors to the closing of
Sti=ling Basin and Greenport Harbor for shellfishing include but are not
limited to: stormwater-runoff from Village roads and developed waterfront
area properties; and debris from waterfront area land uses and recreation
and commercial vessels. The SA classification for Stirling Basin and
Greenport Harbor is consistent with existing and proposed land and water
uses.
POLICY 32 THE STATE COASTAL POLICY REGARDING THE USE OF ALTERNATIVE
SANITARY WASTE SYSTEMS IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE VILLAGE OF
GREENPORT.
POLICY 33 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WILL BE USED TO ENSURE THE CONTROL OF
STOR..%f;ATER RUNOFF AND COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS DRAINING INTO
COASTAL WATERS.
ExDlanaticn of Policy
Best management practices include both structural and non-structural
methods of preventing or mitigating pollution caused by stormwater runoff.
Stormwater runoff in the Village collects in street gutters and flows
directly into Village wetlands and surface waterbodies.
The Village sewer system is a separate, closed system not affected by
the flow of stormwater runoff. At present, the development of a municipal
. stormwater collection system to better control stormwater runoff and to
lessen the impact on surface water quality is desired but not economically
feasible.
To reduce the amount of stormwater runoff and pollutants entering
coastal waters, the following non-structural and structural approaches
shall be employed:
-- reduced use of road salt and improved street cleaning will be
encouraged;
-- for all new commercial development, stormwater shall be contained on
• site;
0
-- during the construction period of a site development, stormwater runoff
i generated by development activity will be retained on-site to reduce
site erosion and excessive sediments from entering coastal waters;
-- disturbed soils that are exposed during the construction period of site
development shall be covered with a mulch in order to reduce the
erosion potential of the exposed soil from the forces of rain and wind;
-- in no case shall stormwater be diverted to another property during site
preparation or after development has been completed.
POLICY 34 DISCHARGE OF WASTE MATERIALS INTO COASTAL. WATERS FROM VESSELS
WILL BE LIMITED SO AS TO PROTECT SIGNIFICANT FISH AND WILDLIFE
HABITATS, RECREATIONAL AREAS AND WATER SUPPLY AREAS.
Explanation of Polic
The discharge of sewage, garbage, rubbish, and other solid and liquid
materials from watercraft and marinas into the State's waters is regulated.
Priority will be given to the enforcement of this law in areas such as
shellfish beds and other significant habitats, beaches, and public water
supply intakes, which need protection from contamination by vessel wastes.
Also, specific effluent standards for marine toilets have been promulgated
by the Department of Environmental Conservation (6NYCRR, Part 657).
0 The dumping of oil, refuse, garbage, untreated sewage, or waste is
prohibited in Village waters. To further the intent of this policy,
pumpout facilities are required at new marinas or expansions of existing
marinas within the coastal area of the Village. Pumpout facilities must
also be installed at all marinas within three (3) years from the approval
date of Greenport's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program.
•
0
POLICY 35 DREDGING AND DREDGE SPOIL DISPOSAL IN COASTAL WATERS WILL BE
UNDERTAKEN IN A MANNER THAT MEETS EXISTING STATE DREDGING
PERMIT REQUIREMENTS, AND PROTECTS SIGNIFICANT FISH AND WILDLIFE
HABITATS, SCENIC RESOURCES, NATURAL PROTECTIVE FEATURES,
IMPORTANT AGRICULTURAL LAWS, AND WETLANDS.
Explanation of Policy
Dredging often proves to be essential for waterfront revitalization and
development, maintaining navigation channels at sufficient depths,
pollutant removal and meeting other coastal management needs. Such
dredging projects, however, may adversely affect water quality, fish and
wildlife habitats, wetlands and other important coastal resources. Often
these adverse effects can be minimized through careful design and timing of
the dredging operation and proper siting of the dredge spoil disposal site.
Dredging permits will be granted if it has been satisfactorily demonstrated
that these anticipated adverse effects have been reduced to levels which
satisfy State dredging permit standards set forth in regulations developed
pursuant to Environmental Conservation Law (Articles 15, 24, 25 and 34),
and are consistent with the policies of this program which pertain to the
protection of coastal resources.
0
Two locations in the Village require dredging on a periodic basis.
One location is the Federal navigation channel in Stirling Basin and the
other location is the commercial fishing dock at the LIRR property. Since
the Federal Navigation Channel in Stirling Basin was completed in 1939, it
has been dredged three times. The last time, 1976, 12,000 cubic yards were
dredged to allow recreation boats and commercial fishing vessels to pass
through the channel to existing marinas and commercial fishing facilities
along the shore of Stirling Basin. In 1983, 41,700 cubic yards were
• dredged from the underwater lands in the vicinity of the commercial fishing
dock in order to provide adequate water depth for commercial fishing
vessels. In the past, material dredged from the waters of Greenport have
consisted mainly of sand and/or gravel and have been suitable for beach
nourishment. When dredging is proposed in Greenport, the following
guidelines shall be used in determining dredge spoil deposition.
i
-- Village beach areas suitable for beach nourishment will be given
priority consideration over other potential beach areas outside of the
Village which are suitable for beach nourishment.
0
-- Dredge spoil for beach nourishment shall be of suitable quality.
-- •Dredge spoil shall be deposited in such a manner which does not result
in the introduction or reintroduction of dredge material into Stirling
Basin or the underwater lands near the commercial fishing dock.
When dredging is conducted near the Village's shoreline or within
Village waters the standards as listed in Policy 15 shall be met.
POLICY 36 ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THE SHIPMENT AND STORAGE OF PETROLEUM AND
OTHER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS WILL BE CONDUCTED IN A MANNER THAT
WILL PREVENT OR AT LEAST MINIMIZE SPILLS INTO COASTAL WATERS;
ALL PRACTICABLE EFFORTS WILL BE UNDERTAKEN TO EXPEDITE THE
CLEANUP OF SUCH DISCHARGES; AND RESTITUTION FOR DAMAGES WILL BE
REQUIRED WHEN THESE SPILLS OCCUR.
Explanation of Policy
See Policy 39 for definition of hazardous wastes.
This policy shall apply not only to commercial storage and distribution
facilities but also to residential and other users of petroleum products,
radio -active and other toxic or hazardous wastes. Spills, seepage or other
accidents which occur on or adjacent to coastal waters or which, by virtue
of natural or man-made drainage facilities, eventually reach coastal
waters, are included under this policy.
All government agencies shall act vigorously under the applicable laws
and regulations (including the New York State Petroleum Bulk Storage Act of
1983 and regulations issued thereunder) to prevent or control such
discharges, to minimize drainage from them, and to obtain full and prompt
compensation for the damage and cost caused by them. To this end the
Village will seek the cooperation of neighboring municipalities and of the
State and County authorities concerned.
•
0
POLICY 37 BEST MANAGDfENT PRACTICES WILL BE UTILIZED TO MINIMIZE THE
NON -POINT DISCHARGE OF EXCESS NUTRIENTS, ORGANICS AND ERODED
SOILS INTO COASTAL WATERS.
Explanation of Policy
Best management practices used to reduce these sources of pollution
could include, but are not limited to, encouraging organic gardening and
best management principles, soil erosion control practices, and surface
• drainage control techniques.
•
•
•
C
11
0
n
In the residential areas of the Village, primary sources of pollution
which contribute to the non -point discharge of excess nutrients and
organics into coastal waters are usually connected with products -used to
maintain lawns and gardens. The use of pesticides, herbicides and organic
compounds which can degrade surface and groundwater quality will be
discouraged through public education programs and by encouraging the use of
landscape materials native to Long Island.
Standards used to reduce or eliminate eroded soils into coastal waters
are listed in Policy 33.
POLICY 38 THE QUALITY AND QUANTITY OF SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER
SUPPLIES, WILL BE CONSERVED AND PROTECTED, PARTICULARLY WHERE
SUCH WATERS CONSTITUTE THE PRIMARY OR SOLE SOURCE OF WATER
SUPPLY.
U -planation of Policy
Surface and groundwater are the principle. sources of drinking water in
the State, and therefore must be protected. Since Long Island's
groundwater supply has been designated a "sole source aquifer", all actions
must be reviewed relative to their impacts on Long Island's groundwater
resources.
The Village has encountered problems with contamination of its water
supply from agricultural chemicals, primarily nitrates and pesticides, and
from saltwater intrusion. Contamination of its water supply is due in
large part to the practice of agriculture, the largest land use in the
surrounding Town of Southold. With continued assistance from the County,
State, and Federal agencies, every effort will be made to provide potable
water from the Village's municipal water supply system to Village
residents, and if the current practice continues, to others in the outlying
area of the Town of Southold who rely on the Village's water system for
water needs.
The Village and the Town of Southold will maintain ongoing
communication about their groundwater problems and needs and will
coordinate their actions so groundwater resources are managed most
effectively. (The Village and the Town are conducting comprehensive water
quality and quantity studies in order to evaluate options with regard to
meeting future water supply needs.)
III -36
0
POLICY 39 THE TRANSPORT, STORAGE, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTES,
PARTICULARLY HAZARDOUS WASTES, WITHIN COASTAL AREAS WILL BE
CONDUCTED IN SUCH A MANNER SO AS TO PROTECT GROUNDWATER AND
SURFACE WATER SUPPLIES, SIGNIFICANT FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITATS,
RECREATION AREAS, IMPORTANT AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND SCENIC
RESOURCES.
0 Explanation of Polic
The definitions of terns "solid wastes" and "solid wastes management
facilities" are taken from New York's Solid Waste Management Act
(Environmental Conservation Law, Article 27). Solid wastes include sludges
from air or water pollution control facilities, demolition and construction
debris and industrial and commercial wastes.
Hazardous wastes are unwanted by-products of manufacturing processes
generally characterized as being flammable, corrosive, reactive, or toxic.
More specifically, hazardous waste is defined in Environmental Conservation
Law (Section 27-0901.3) as "a waste or combination of wastes which because
of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious
characteristics may: (1) cause, or significantly contribute to an
inciease in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible or
Incapacitating reversible illness; or (2) pose a substantial present or
potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly
treated, stored, transported, disposed or otherwise managed." A list of
0 hazardous wastes has been adopted by DEC (6NYCRR, Part 371).
Examples of solid waste management facilities include resource recovery
facilities, sanitary landfills and solid waste reduction facilities.
Although a fundamental problem associated with the disposal and treatment
of solid wastes is the contamination of water resources, other related
problems may include: filling of wetlands and littoral areas, atmospheric
loading, and degradation of scenic resources.
POLICY 40 THE STATE COASTAL POLICY REGARDING EFFLUENT DISCHARGED FROM
ELECTRIC GENERATING AND INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES IS NOT APPLICABLE
TO THE VILLAGE OF GREENPORT.
POLICY 41 LAND USE OR DEVELOPMENT IN THE COASTAL AREA WILL NOT CAUSE
NATIONAL OR STATE AIR QUALITY STANDARDS TO BE VIOLATED.
Explanation of Polic
a The Village's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program incorporates the
air quality policies and programs developed for the State by the Department
of Environmental Conservation pursuant to the Clean Air Act and State laws
on air quality. The requirements of the Clean Air Act are the minimum air
quality control requirements applicable within the waterfront area.
Program decisions with regard to specific sites for major new or
expanded energy, transportation, or commercial facilities will reflect an
assessment of their compliance with the air quality requirements of the
State Implementation Plan.
• 111-37
F,
POLICY 42 COASTAL MANAGEMENT POLICIES WILL BE CONSIDERED IF THE STATE
• RECLASSIFIES LAND AREAS PURSUANT TO THE PREVENTION OF
SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION REGULATIONS OF THE FEDERAL CLEAN AIR
ACT.
Explanation of Policy
The policies of this program concerning proposed land and water uses
and the protection and preservation of coastal resources will be taken into
account prior to any action to change prevention of significant
deterioration land classifications in the coastal region or adjacent areas.
POLICY 43 LAND USE OR DEVELOPMENT IN THE COASTAL AREA MUST NOT CAUSE THE
• GENERATION OF SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF THE ACID RAIN PRECURSORS:
NITRATES AND SULFATES.
ExDlanation of Polic
The Village's Local Waterfront Revitalisation Program incorporates the
• State's policies on acid rain. As such, this program assists in the
State's efforts to control acid rain. These efforts to control acid rain
will enhance the continued viability of coastal fisheries, wildlife, scenic
and water resources.
POLICY 44 PRESERVE AND PROTECT TIDAL AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND PRESERVE
THE BENEFITS DERIVED FROM THESE AREAS.
Explanation of Policy
Tidal wetlands include the following ecological zones: coastal fresh
marsh; intertidal marsh; coastal shoals, bars and flats; littoral zone;
• high marsh or salt meadow; and formerly connected tidal wetlands. These
tidal wetland areas are officially delineated on the Department of
Environmental Conservation's Tidal Wetlands Inventory Map.
Freshwater wetlands include marshes, swamps, bogs and flats supporting
aquatic and semi -aquatic vegetation and other wetlands so defined in the
New York State Freshwater Wetlands Act and the New York State Protection of
S Waters Act. Village freshwater wetlands are located within Moore's Woods
and include: Silver Lake and the freshwater wetlands immediately adjacent
and contiquous to the Lake, and the non -tidal portion of Moore's Drain.
Tidal wetlands within the Village include the tidal portion of Moore's
Drain and the wetlands found in isolated locations along the shoreline of
Stirling Basin and Greenport Harbor. See Map 3, Natural Characteristics,
for the approximate location of these wetland areas.
The following actions are prohibited unless a written permit is issued
by the Village.
To place or deposit debris, fill or materials, including
structures, into, within, or upon any freshwater or tidal wetland.
- To dig, dredge, or in any other way alter, or remove any material
from any submerged land, or freshwater or tidal wetland.
0
All uses and operations approved by the Village shall be conducted
in a manner that will cause the least possible damage to,
encroachment on, or interference with any tidal and freshwater
wetland.
The Department of Environmental Conservation shall be notified of
proposed actions within 100 feet of any freshwater wetland and within 300
feet of any tidal wetland in order to assess the impact of the proposed
action on the freshwater or tidal wetland.
•
0
0
0
a
0
0 III -39