HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinfish Aquaculture Project - Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact StatementADDENDUM TO 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
F,
•
0
DATE OF zqnEACCEPTANCE: /�/�
DEADLINE DATE
FOR COMMENTS: ois
Grow Out - 200 Acre Site, Gardiners Bay
Processing - 3.3 Acres Site, Sterling Ave.,
Greenport
APPLICANT:
Mariculture Technologies, Inc.
P. O. Boz 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. Boz 2003
Bridgehampton, NY 11932
•
(516) 537-5160, Bruce A. Anderson, M. S.
DATE OF
PREPARATION:
November, 1995
F,
•
0
DATE OF zqnEACCEPTANCE: /�/�
DEADLINE DATE
FOR COMMENTS: ois
r
ADDENDUM
TO
THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Relating to the Proposed
FINFISH AQUACULTURE PROJECT
FOR THE PRODUCTION OF
SUMMER FLOUNDER (PARALICNTHYS DMMATUS)
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS PAGE
SUMMARY
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1
INTRODUCTION TO THE ADDENDUM - - - - - - - - -
10
ITEM
1-A
- NUTRIENT LOADING AND WATER
QUALITY - HATCHERY - - - - - - - - -
17
46
ITEM
1-B
- NUTRIENT LOADING AND WATER
QUALITY - GROW OUT SITE - - - - - -
18
ITEM
2 -
FISH GENETICS - - - - - - - - - - - -
30
+
ITEM
3 -
FISH DISEASES AND PARASITES - - - - -
30
ITEM
4 -
SPECIAL CONCERNS - ENDANGERED
SPECIES - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
33
ITEM
5 -
NET COATINGS - - - - - - - - - - - - -
37
.
ITEM
6 -
NAVIGATION - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
37
ITEM
7 -
PLUM ISLAND - - - - - - - - - - - - -
40
ITEM
8 -
ALTERNATIVE SITES -.- - - - - - - - -
41
•
ITEM
9 -
ALTERNATIVE SPECIES - - - - - - - - -
42
ITEM
10-A - HISTORICAL RESOURCES - - - - - - -
42
ITEM
10-B - CULTURAL RESOURCES - - - - - - - -
43
•
ITEM
11
- MARKETING - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
43
ITEM
12
- APPROVALS AND REQUIREMENTS - - - - -
47
ITEM
12-A - CONSISTENCY REVIEW - NEW YORK STATE
STATE COASTAL POLICIES AND VILLAGE
OF GREENPORT'S LOCAL WATERFRONT
REVITALIZATION PLAN - - - - - - - -
50
ITEM
13
- RECREATION - - - - - - - - - - - - -
89
REFERENCES - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
91
0
0
SUMMARY
The original Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for
the Finfish Aquaculture Project for the Production of Summer
• Flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) was submitted to the Lead
Agency, New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, in May of 1995. After their comprehensive
review, they requested additional information in fourteen
(14) different areas. The fourteen (14) items include the
following:
0 1. NUTRIENT LOADING AND WATER QUALITY:
Nutrient loading and impact to water quality will occur
at two specific locations - at the proposed hatchery at
d Clark's Beach on Long Island Sound and at the net pen
grow -out site, Gardiner's Bay South of Plum Island.
The controls over nutrient loading and protection of
water quality is much simpler at the hatchery because
of the ability to collect all of the effluent from the
hatchery tanks; treat the effluent water to remove
excess food, fish feces, nitrogen and phosphates. Both
equipment and technology now exists and is in use that
are expected to be able to treat the hatchery effluent
41 waters to a level less than 10 milligrams per liter
(tertiary level) for both organic material and
nutrients.
•
0
1
The control of organics and nutirient loadings in the
waters surrounding the net pens is much more difficult.
An attempt was made to do mass balance calculations,
but because of the many unknowns it was considered to
t be an impractical approach. This was also borne out by
information from a report done by the University of
Stirling in Scotland, U.K. and that done by the State
. of Maine Department of Marine Resources in which they
indicated that periodic weighing of the fish would be
•
required.
The water quality model developed by Hydro Qual was
also reviewed in detail. The results obtained from
• this model were difficult to adapt to this project for
several reasons which included a problem with the 1988
laboratory data and only one sampling station for the
6
E:
1989 data that was several miles removed from the
proposed project site. The model confirmed that
nutrient loading, especially nitrogen, was the
principal contributor to the loss of water quality and
low dissolved oxygen in western Long Island Sound. It
is for this reason that the Impact Statement proposes
that the water testing for nitrogen be included in this
part of the monitoring program. Since the DEIS was
published, the State of Maine has published their
initial grow -out site monitoring results and have
2
F
2. FISH GENETICS:
Based on cencerns express, Mariculture has decided to
withdraw all plans to do selective breeding of brood
stock.
3. FISH DISEASES AND PARASITES:
Additional review was accomplished of published
research relating to the transmission of disease from
farms to wild fish, as well as the use of any anti-
biotic treated compounds. This review further added to
i
3
0
concluded that the measurement of dissolved oxygen,
diver inspections beneath the net pens and the
S
surrounding waters, and the benthic analysis of the
bottom are the best practical methods to prevent any
deterioration to water quality in the area of the net
pen aquaculture. Both their procedures and results are
outlined in the Addendum and are contained in the
Appendix. As their water quality monitoring is the
result of review of work done by other states and other
countries as well as the result of many years of
evaluation by them, it is felt that it is in the best
•
interest of the project to pattern this project's
monitoring after the State of Maine, but with the
proviso that the monitoring processes be modified as
•
additional data becomes available.
2. FISH GENETICS:
Based on cencerns express, Mariculture has decided to
withdraw all plans to do selective breeding of brood
stock.
3. FISH DISEASES AND PARASITES:
Additional review was accomplished of published
research relating to the transmission of disease from
farms to wild fish, as well as the use of any anti-
biotic treated compounds. This review further added to
i
3
0
Ell
Sound.
1
C
•
4
the conclusion that the disease impacts to the
surrounding wild fish population are expected to be
minimal or non-existent. It is still felt very
important that the fish in both the hatchery and the
net pens be monitored on a daily basis for any
indication of a disease or parasites, and if and when
discovered they will be immediately removed and
processed as a non-food product.
S
4. SPECIAL CONCERN/PROTECTED/THREATENED/ENDANGERED
SPECIES:
•
Additional review was done on the concerns of the
threatened and endangered species and are covered in
the Addendum. Of particular concern was the short nose
sturgeon. A contact and review with the Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection indicated that
they did not expect any aspect of the Mariculture
•
Technologies' operation to jeopardize the existence of
this species in the Connecticut River population.
Also, according to Connecticut DEP, they are of the
•
opinion that none of the short nose sturgeon will leave
the Connecticut River and move out into Long Island
Sound.
1
C
•
4
r
It is planned that Mariculture will assume the cost of
40 removal and handle dead marine animals from the net
pens and the rehabilitation of endangered species in
conjunction with the assistance and plan worked out
• with the Okeanos Research Foundation.
5. NET COATINGS:
• It is not the intent to coat either pen mesh or the
predator control mesh.
0 6. NAVIGATION:
One of the principal reasons that the net pens will
have a small impact to recreation and commercial
0 vessels is that it is located out of the main traffic
routes. Included in the Addendum is a section of the
charts which located the buoy destinations most
• commonly entered into Loran and GPS equipment. Of the
chart identified routes none are in the vicinity of the
grow -out site. The principal reason that storm damage
• to the net pens is unlikely to occur is that all
projected manufacturers of the equipment have had their
net pen design reviewed by Lloyds of London and they
• are insured with Lloyds Register of Shipping
Provisional Rules and Regulations for the
Classification of Fish Farms. Twenty years of Coast
Guard wind and wave data was taken into account by
5
•
Lloyds before coming up with insurability. The
individuals and organizations contacted by Mariculture
regarding the location of the project and its minimum
interference to local fishing and charter operations
are included.
•
7. PLUM ISLAND:
. Representatives of Mariculture paid a personal visit to
Plum Island and reviewed the entire project with Plum
Island officials. They had no objection or concern
0 about the project, but did ask that they be given a
copy of the DEIS when it is available for public
review.
S. ALTERNATIVE SITES:
Mariculture initially reviewed several alternate
hatchery sites but ruled them out because of the
apparent non-availability of companion grow -out sites.
Mariculture Technologies, Inc. felt that the two should
. be relatively adjacent for practical and economic
operation.
46
El
3
9. ALTERNATIVE SPECIES:
40 DEC, in 1993, suggested that Mariculture Technologies,
Inc. only pursue one species to simplify the
application process. Summer flounder was selected for
several reasons, including economic and available data.
As a result of this decision, no plans were made to
proceed with any alternate species as originally
48 discussed.
10. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES:
0 Additional verification was obtained that none of the
i
proposed operations are adjacent to historic sites or
have associated with them important cultural resources.
11. MARKETING:
Mariculture Technologies, Inc. have conducted extensive
46 research regarding the marketing of the flounder
including National Marine Fisheries, National Fisheries
Institute, New York Seafood Council, and others.
Applicable tables from a comprehensive aquaculture
marketing survey are included in the Addendum and
indicate that flounder is one of the largest selling
f inf ish species.
El
7
0
0
12. APPROVALS AND REQUIREMENTS:
Preparation of the required permit applications have
been started but held in abeyance pending the
acceptability of this DEIS by the Lead Agency. Most
regulatory agencies have indicated that they would much
prefer not to receive or review permit applications
until the Impact Statement is available for public
comment and review. The list of required permits has
been updated and is enclosed in this Addendum.
0 12A. CONSISTENCY REVIEW:
The applicable consistency review of the coastal
policies of both the New York State Coastal Policies
and the Village of Greenport Local Waterfront
Revitalization Plan was not originally included in the
Scope. All of the applicable policies in both the
State and the Village of Greenport have been reviewed
and commented on in detail as to the project's effects
and its consistency with the applicable policies. This
project is considered consistent with all applicable
New York State Coastal Policies and with all policies
of the Village of Greenport's Local Waterfront
Revitalization Plan. For review convenience, both the
State Policies and Greenport's LWRP are included in the
accompanying Appendix.
11
C`
s
•
13. RECREATION:
• The introduction of increased food source to the
indigenous species surrounding the net pens was further
reviewed. The consumption of the unconsumed pellets is
• considered very limited because of the high velocity
current distributing the unconsumed food and that the
consumption of feed settling to the bottom will occur
• primarily with bottom feeding pelagic fish for which no
large scale recreational fishery exists.
C
In summary, the following Addendum and Appendices is
considered a comprehensive response to the items requested
by the DEC letter of September 28, 1995.
0
•
•
•
•
G9
•
•
•
•
0
•
•
•
•
•
r
•
INTRODUCTION TO THE ADDENDUM
There is no question that the interest in aquaculture is
growing significantly in the United States. Since the
submittal of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement in May
of 1995 several new publications on aquaculture development
have occurred. Of particular interest is the State of
Massachusetts "Aquaculture White Paper & Strategic Plan"
published by the state's Coastal Zone Management and the
State of Maine's Offshore Net Pen Monitoring Program
results. Both of these documents was felt to be of
significant importance that reference is made to them in the
following Addendum to Mariculture Technologies, Inc. Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. The Massachusetts Strategic
Plan included reference to public documentation of the
future importance of aquaculture. The following two
paragraphs are quoted from this plan, particularly because
of their specific and concise summary of the importance and
the future of aquaculture.
"Commercial aquaculture (or fish farming) is a valuable and
growing industry in the U.S. and around the world. Two
major factors driving the industry's expansion are increased
public demand for high quality fishery products and reduced
yields from harvest of wild stocks. Many commercially
important wild fish stocks are declining as a result of
to
0
overfishing, environmental degradation and habitat loss. In
• addition, the possibility of contaminants in wild fish may
also limit the available supply of fresh fish to the public.
fisheries products are the largest contributor among
agricultural products, and second largest, after petroleum,
among all natural resource products (Joint Subcommittee on
• Aquaculture 1993)."
11
•
At the same time, America is becoming more health conscious
and consuming more fish because of its nutritional value and
•
low fat content. Per capita consumption of edible fishery
products in the United States reached an all-time high of
15.4 lbs. in 1987 (Robinette et a1. 1991). The Department
of Commerce has projected that total fish and shellfish
consumption could increase by 30 percent between 1990 and
2000. To satisfy U.S. demand, this would require an
•
additional 1 billion pounds of fishery products annually.
Longer term projections are even more dramatic. World
seafood demand is projected to increase nearly 70 percent by
2025 which would require a seven -fold increase over current
aquaculture production levels (Joint Subcommittee on
Aquaculture 1993).
.
"The United States is the world's largest exporter of
seafood products ($2.8 billion in 1990). At $9 billion a
•
year, the U.S. is also the second largest importer of
seafood in the world. In terms of the U.S. trade deficit,
fisheries products are the largest contributor among
agricultural products, and second largest, after petroleum,
among all natural resource products (Joint Subcommittee on
• Aquaculture 1993)."
11
•
•
•
12
LI
The State of Massachusetts Aquaculture White Paper &
Strategic Plan was the result of the efforts of
Massachusetts specially convened Aquaculture Steering
•
Committee consisting of Environmental Affairs, Economic
Developing and Marketing, Conservation Law Foundation, Food
and Agriculture, Business Development, Wetlands and
•
Waterways, and an Environmental Review Working Group. The
Plan was funded by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management of the National Oceanic and Atmosphereic
•
Administration, U. S. Department of Commerce. The
Aquaculture Strategic Plan of the State of Massachusetts
includes 68 specific recommendations which they recommend be
•
implemented to "overcome existing restraints and take
advantage of opportunities in the aquaculture industry".
These recommendations are considered so apropos to what is
•
being planned for Mariculture Technologies in the State of
New York that they have been briefly referenced as follows,
and are contained in Appendix U - Massachusetts Aquaculture
•
Recommendations. The recommendations are broken down into
four (4) different groups as follows:
o Priority Recommendations;
o Regulatory Reform;
o Economic Development and Marketing; and
o Environmental Review.
•
•
12
LI
•
The priority recommendations includes those items that they
felt were needed to "jump start" the aquaculture industry in
• Massachusetts. Most, if not all of them, could be
considered important to New York as well.
The Regulatory Reform Recommendations include the reduction
•
of regulatory requirements for pilot projects and the
elimination of Consistency Review requirements for
• Aquaculture projects. They also recommend not requiring a
permit for withdrawing of salt water either from surface or
from ground water.
•
The Economic Development and Marketing recommendation
section included a summary of very important statistics
• including: "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 2025 (Parker 1995)." This introductory
section also makes reference to the strong growth nationally
and internationally in the aquaculture industry and
•
•
contributes the slugishness growth of the aquaculture
industry in the State of Massachusetts to the myriad of
13
J
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
regulatory barriers and a lack of government coordination
and lack of clear vision. The Massachusetts Aquaculture
Permitting Process was considered lengthy, costly, and
complicated and discourages financial investment. It
indicates that overhauling and streamlining of the
regulatory process is necessary for any significant growth
in the aquaculture industry. The recommendations in this
section according to the plan represent the economic
initiative necessary to make Massachusetts competitive in
the regional, national, and international aquaculture
market.
The recommendations contained in the Environmental Review
section of the plan were of particular interest. They
recognized, along with the State of New York, that good
water quality is a fundamental concern for aquaculture
facilities. The also recognize, similar to New York State,
that for most potential sites there is limited or no
environmental water quality data upon which siting and
operations can be made, and that development of critical
information needs to be generated on such items as water
temperature, dissolved oxygen, pathogens, and toxic
contaminate concentrations. This part of the plan also
proposes the development of aquaculture relevant maps which
would include the in and offshore characteristics of
potential aquaculture sites including physical
14
0
characteristics such as water temperature, wind direction,
direction and velocity of currents, maximum wave height and
wave direction, and so forth. Special emphasis in this
section was given to the maintenance of good water quality,
which is important not only to the species being raised but
also for the flora and fauna that are indigenous to the
site, and that the best way to ensure good water quality, is
frequent monitoring. The plan preparation group surveyed
monitoring procedures, not only in the U.S. in the states of
Washington, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and
Maine, but also outside the United States in Canada, Italy,
Japan, Norway, Scotland, and Chile. As previously
referenced in Section IV of the DEIS, the recommendations
prepared by the Massachusetts plan relied heavily on the
monitoring program initiated by the State of Maine
Department of Marine Resources. Their recommendation is to
initially follow this plan along with continual review and
revision if appropriate. The monitoring plan for the
Mariculture Technologies Project is based primarily on this
same plan and is contained in Section IV, as referenced
above.
C`
•
L
15
E
In summary, so many of these recommendations are applicable
to not only the present proposed project by Mariculture
• Technologies, Inc., but also certainly would have bearing on
future aquaculture projects to be considered in the State of
New York and as mentioned before are contained in Appendix
• V, Massachusetts Aquaculture Recommendations.
•
•
•
C
•
•
[7
16
40
•
ITEM 1-A - NUTRIENT LOADING AND WATER QUALITY - HATCHERY -
• ADD TO PAGE ID -1:
The impact to the receiving waters from the hatchery
facility is calculated to be minimized by a water
• circulating treatment system that will remove excess food,
feces, oxygen demand, ammonia, nitrite, nitrates and
phosphates. The treatment system is to include settling
• biological filters, sequencing batch reactor, and a sludge
collection system. The mass balance calculations are
contained in Table 37 and on page III -9. In summary, the
BOD loading is projected to be reduced by 90% resulting in a
concentration of approximately 5.5mg/L. Suspended solids
are projected to be reduced by 90% resulting in a SS
• concentration of approximately 6.2mg/L. The nitrogen is
projected to be converted into nitrate nitrogen and result
in a concentration of less than 6.Omg/L. Phosphorus is
• projected to be reduced to less than 1.7mg/L through
chemical additions, settling and filtration. The principal
by-product of the treatment system will be sludge which is
• to be taken to a State approved facility for processing and
treatment. Utilizing proven technology it is realistic to
project that the reduction of BOD, suspended solids,
• nitrogen and phosphorous by 90% to 95%. It is therefore
realistic to predict minimum environmental impact to the
receiving waters.
•
•
17
•
• ITEM 1-B - NUTRIENT LOADING AND WATER QUALITY - GROW OUT
SITE - ADD TO PAGE IV -10:
As discussed in the previous pages, the severity of project
• impact to water quality and bottom conditions is difficult
to predict. Because of the wide variations in current
flows, changing conditions that occur not only each day but
• also seasonal, make the mass balance approach as utilized in
the hatchery evaluation difficult if not impossible. This
was borne out by information obtained from a mariculture
report done by the University of Stirling in Scotland, U.K.
in 1988. Information obtained of this study through the
State of Maine Department of Marine Resources indicated that
• the only way to make the mass balance at all work was the
necessity of measuring each fish on a very frequent basis to
determine its weight. This resulted in stressing of fish
•
•
•
•
•
and changing their feeding habits. It also made them more
susceptible to diseases. Also, this report determined that
the bio -mass was frequently changing, making it an
impractical method of determining impact to water quality.
The State of Maine, when setting up their monitoring
parameters reviewed this, but quickly discarded it as not
being a workable method. The State of Maine Department of
Marine Resources has spent four years of concentrated effort
to determine how best to analyze impact on water quality and
bottom sediments from net pen fish farm operations. They
18
0
have developed a comprehensive monitoring program based, not
only on their efforts, but also work done by Scotland and
•
Canada fisheries departments. The Canadians, for example,
have been working on methods of evaluation since 1978, data
. which was also used by the State of Maine. Consequently,
the State of Maine Department of Marine Resources has
concluded that the monitoring program will consist of three
• elements: 1) Divers survey; 2) Water Quality Monitoring
for disolved oxygen; and 3) Benthic analysis.
•
19
•
As contained in the basic document, Mariculture is also
•
proposing to do BOD in nitrogen testing as an additional
method in determining impact of water quality. The State of
Maine required this type of testing to be done early on in
•
their monitoring program, but recently discontinued it as
they found out the results were not meaningful and gave
distorted results as to the impact on water quality. Maine
gave two reasons for these test results not being
meaningful. One is the DO was near saturation most of the
time, making any BOD testing not practical, and that the
•
Maine waters are already fairly heavy with nitrogen and they
discovered that the minute amount of nitrogen from the fish
farms into the already nitrogen rich waters could not be
measured as to any change that was occurring.
•
19
•
•
•
E
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The first preliminary report of Maine Department of Marine
Resources Aquaculture Monitoring Program is contained as
Appendix V. As one can determine from this preliminary
report, the benthic analysis underneath in the vicinity of
the net pens is the principal measure of the impacts of the
fish farming operations. The benthic analysis consists of
video monitoring in the spring and fall; a divers survey on
60 meter transect lines at each end of the cage system; and
benthic monitoring consisting of sediment cores analyzed for
the redox discontinuity layer and determination of total
organic carbon analysis, coupled with sediment cores for
benthic macrofauna analysis. The complete State of Maine
Aquaculture Monitoring Program consists of eight parts as
listed below:
o Monthly confidential production reporting by lease-
holders;
o Semi-monthly dissolved oxygen monitoring of July,
August and September;
o Annual dissolved oxygen water column profilings in
August;
o Spring and Fall video recordings of the bottom beneath
and adjacent to the cages;
o Biennial Fall sediment reduction -oxidation (redox)
discontinuity (RPD) layer depth determinations;
20
0
•
•
•
•
•
•
C
E
•
•
o Biennial Fall total organic carbon content analyses of
the bottom surface layer;
o Biennial Fall sediment grain size analyses, or
granulometry; and
o Biennial Fall benthic macrofauna community analyses.
As a follow up to the above referenced preliminary report, a
lengthy and detailed telephone discussion was had with
Laurice Churchill, who has been the principal person setting
up the monitoring program. She reiterated that the State of
Maine's estimation that the above planned monitoring program
is the result of years of their work, that included data of
work done in Scotland, and by the Canadian fisheries, and
that it has proven to be the best means to measure the
impact from offshore net pen fish farm systems to water
quality and bottom sediment. She indicated that any
monitoring program may have to be tailored to individual
sites and that they were continually modifying their program
based on their experience. For example, they have found
that the experienced diver who can monitor the evidence of
excess feed, any indication of sediment gassing, and any
change of color of the sediment under or near the net pens
can make a very quick determination of any change in
conditions that may be occurring. They are considering
reducing the dissolved oxygen analysis to once a year during
peak temperature and peak production periods, probably in
21
li
September, and that the benthic sampling could be done also
once in the Fall of the year.
•
An interesting thing occurred last year during their
dissolved oxygen analysis where they originally required
•
that the DO be maintained as a percent of saturated, and
found out that it was more meaningful to have a percent of
the ambient because of water quality changes throughout the
•
area. They are also considering an evaluation of plankton
population to be done on a periodic basis as an additional
• means of evaluating changes in water quality.
Even though the latest reports of monitoring have not been
• compiled and published, they are finding that there is very
little impact beyond 10 to 30 meters downstream (current) of
the net pens and this has been borne out by studies done in
• Scotland and by the Canadians.
In summary, even though the organic input loading can be
determined fairly accurately based on size, number of fish,
•
and feeding amounts, the measurement of these same values
and the water surrounding the net pens is not considered
practical or meaningful, but instead it is Mariculture
•
Technologies intentions to utilize all of the years of work
done by other states and countries in determining the
• changes or impacts to the water quality and bottom sediment
22
0
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
using methods described above. It is planned to
continuously review these monitoring procedures and the
results of same and revisions to the monitoring methods
based on experience and changes in the number of net pens.
Further, based on experience by others it can be reasonably
predicted that the methods described above will provide an
indication of any significant degredation of water quality
and bottom sediment prior to any significant impact.
Another element of consideration in predicting impact to
water quality and bottom sediment is the seasonal use of the
grow out facility (May through October). In a discussion
with the State of Maine, they indicated that the water
quality and bottom sediment in the area of unoccupied net
pens was often completely reverted to the original
conditions during winter storm conditions, and that the
analysis of impact was started over again the following
year.
At the suggestion of DEC the water quality model and
analysis of hypoxia in Long Island Sound that was prepared
by Hydro Qual, Inc. was reviewed. The model is considered
to be of limited benefit in determining the expected impact
to water quality from subject project as per the following
discussion.
23
•
The water sampling information done is 1988 is considered
• unreliable (as per the model) and the nearest water quality
sampling station for 1989 was M-3, just West of Fishers
Island, many miles from the proposed net pen grow -out site.
•
Nitrogen was identified as a critical nutrient causing
adverse impact to in water quality as measured by the
• lowering of disolved oxygen.
The Hydro Qual Study identified the total nitrogen produced
• in the range of 300,000 to 400,000 pounds per day for all of
Long Island Sound. In comparison, the nitrogen produced by
the net pen grow -out site was calculated based on range of
• 11-80 gm/100 k of fish per day (published data for salmon).
Flat fish would be in the low end of the ranges as per work
done in Spain. For estimating purposed a very conservative
• 50 gm/100 kg/day of fish was used and the amounts of
nitrogen estimated to be produced are shown in the following
table.
•
•
•
24
•
L
ESTIMATED PRODUCTION OF TOTAL N - GROW -OUT - NET PENS
AVERAGE
PHASE WEIGHT OF FISH (100 K) K OF N/DAY LBS OF N/DAY
• I
------------------------------------------------------------
375
19
41
II
------------------------------------------------------------
1,200
60
130
III
4,125
200
440
------------------------------------------------------------
IV
9,150
450
990
------------------------------------------------------------
V
------------------------------------------------------------
24,975
1,250
2,750
VI
41,625
2,500
5,500
•
The above estimated amounts of nitrogen produced are the
average that would occur at the end of the grow -out season
• (September and October). The production of nitrogen would
be significantly lower May to September and non-existant
during the winter months (pens unoccupied). The Thames
• River, New London, and Groton, according to the model, have
a total of 32.1 cfs flow of municipal and industrial waste
into the Sound, without any apparent impact to the level of
• nitrogen, as per that reported by the Hydro Qual models
sampling station. This level of nitrogen was at the same
general level as the analysis performed at the proposed
• grow -out site, (Page II -19 and II -20 of the DEIS) indicating
that the New London area high municipal and industrial flows
have little impact on the level of nitrogen in this portion
• of the Sound.
25
•
U
More specifically, the model data indicated that there are
• approximately 3,000 pounds per day of total nitrogen put in
the water in the Groton/New London area each day of the
year, and there was no major impact or change to the water
• quality at the water quality sampling station South of the
mouth of the Thames River.
Based on the above, it seems even more unlikely that there
would be any noticeable change in the nitrogen levels from
the off shore grow -out area to its surrounding water quality
• which would potentially produce a little more than 5,000
pounds per day during only a small portion of the year.
Also, since the DEIS calculations were made the nitrogen
• production estimates have been revised significantly
downward by a factor of 2 to 3, reducing the project's
nitrogen to less than half of the above.
•
The model certainly was very interesting but its results are
focused on western Long Island Sound, which has a loss of
• dissolved oxygen and high nutrient loading. The models very
limited applicable data strengthens the conclusion that the
best method of evaluating impact to water quality and bottom
sediment should be patterned after that being done by the
•
State of Maine, namely the measurement of dissolved oxygen
and the benthic analysis of the bottom sediment directly
• below and in the surrounding area of the net pens. These
26
0
0
•
•
•
•
•
a
•
•
•
0
factors, along with frequent diver survey, are in our
opinion, the best methods for the timely and expeditious
alerting of any changes in the quality of water and the
bottom sediment well before any major adverse environmental
impact can occur.
Massachusetts, in their Aquaculture White Paper & Strategic
Plan, recognizes that water quality and environmental change
to same are the most likely to create dissension and
opposition to aquaculture projects. In the preparation of
this document they reviewed significant amounts of material
and test results from other geographical areas and
operations and included a summary of the expected results of
fish farm impact to the water quality and bottom
sedimentation. You will note that this summary quoted as
follows, is very similar to that which has been concluded by
the State of Maine in their monitoring program to date.
"Fish farms generate large amounts of solid wastes in the
form of feces and unconsumed feed. These materials are
generally deposited in the immediate vicinity of the culture
structure. This deposition can result in physical and
chemical changes to the natural sediments including
decreased redox potential, increased sediment oxygen
consumption, and increased concentrations of total volatile
solids, total organic carbon, sulfides, nitrogenous
27
•
J
•
•
compounds and phosphates. While there are profound effects
on sediment chemistry and consequently the sediment biota,
these effects appear to be localized. Visible accumulation
of solids and the alteration of sediment chemistry typically
extends no more than 30 meters from the culture structure
and benthic community changes observed have been limited to
the same thirty meters. Sediment accumulation may be
expected to occur beneath any culture facility when less
than 15 meters exists between the bottom of the structure
and the sea floor. Sediment accumulation is possible at
• even greater depths, but little data is available since few
culture operations have been sited in deeper waters.
• "The accumulation of organic -rich sediments beneath culture
facilities and the consequent depletion of oxygen in the
sediment pore waters results in changes in the infaunal
invertebrate community. Loss of species intolerant of
•
organic enrichment (typically echinoderms, crustaceans, and
mollusks) often occurs. Opportunistic species like
• polychaete worms may move in and attain numerical dominance
in the community. In cases of extreme organic loading, the
sediments within the area of greatest impact may reach
complete azoic and anaerobic conditions, and form and
•
release methane or hydrogen sulfide gas. These conditions,
where they exist at all, tend to be temporally limited to
warmer periods of the growing season when feeding and growth
•
28
•
U]
•
rates are high. These impacts may be avoided entirely by
modifying the amount of feed used in order to prevent
overfeeding and the accumulation of excess feed on the
substrate.
"Accumulation of organic material in the vicinity of a fish
farm may result in the loss of nonmotile megafauna (i.e.
surfclams) living in intimate contact with the sediments.
However, fish and motile megafauna (e.g. crabs) living on or
above the sediment surface are typically found in higher
densities around fish farms than in the surrounding area.
The attraction of fish and megafauna to the culture area is
probably due to increased availability of food in the form
of feed unutilized by the cultured fish, the high abundances
of opportunistic macroinvertebrates, and the epifaunal
organisms living on the culture structure or which fall to
the bottom."
The above summary of impacts includes an evaluation that
most of the impacts can be avoided by not overfeeding.
Again, as discussed by personnel at the Maine Department of
Marine Resources, one of the principal and most important
• methods of control is the frequent dive survey which
immediately alerts conditions being caused by excess
feeding.
•
U,
29
•
ITEM 2 - FISH GENETICS - REPLACE LAST PARAGRAPH PAGE I-155
WITH THE FOLLOWING:
•
The proposal to develop brood stock through the traditional
methods of selective breeding are hereby withdrawn as part
of our overall proposal for the culture of summer flounder.
•
ITEM 3 - FISH DISEASES AND PARASITES - ADD TO PAGE I-231:
An analyses of Transmission of Disease to Wild Fish is
•
contained in the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement entitled Fish Culture in Floating Net -Pens
prepared by Wasnington Department of Fisheries dated January
•
1990 ("Washington Department of Fisheries - FPEIS"). The
Washington Department of Fisheries - FPEIS stated that "the
C
•
•
review of the technical literature indicates the risk of
transmission of disease from farms to wild fish is possible,
but not likely a significant problem.... in addition,
experience with other domesticated animals indicates that
husbanded stocks of animals are usually at greater risk from
transmission of infectious diseases than wild stocks.
Diseases observed in fish farm culture of salmonids in
Washington are husbandry diseases resulting from holding the
fish in captivity. Such diseases are non -exotic; infectious
agents originate from environmental sources or wild fish."
In the case of Mariculture Technologies, Inc. proposal to
culture summer flounder, all broodstock will be derived from
wildstock, no selective breeding is proposed.
30
As pointed out throughout the DEIS, cultured summer flounder
both in the ocean net pens and hatchery will be monitored on
a daily basis. Only those antibiotics approved by the FDA
will be used in the event of a disease outbreak. In
addition, any morts observed in the hatchery and net pen
systems will be immediately removed and processed as a non-
food product using the Paoli Food Processing Machine. The
daily monitoring, removal and processing of worts as a non-
a food product constitutes Mariculture Technologies, Inc.
Contingency Plan requested in the correspondence.
The effects resulting from sporadic use of anti -biotic
•
treated feed are not expected to pose a significant impact
to wild populations. This finding is based upon published
! literature on this subject as well as the environmental
conditions of the site particularly including the high
velocity currents known for the area. As pointed out in
Washington Department of Fisheries - FPEIS, the risks of
•
impact posed by feed treated with antibiotics to wild
populations depends upon the treatment frequency and the
environmental conditions of the site. The high current
velocity of the site will result in high dispersal of any
unconsumed feed treated with antibiotics. Published
accounts of potential impacts related to antibiotic
treatment of cultured species of wild populations have for
the most part been directed to studies of oxytetracycline
E:
31
0
Uj
("OTC"), the most commonly used antibiotic in aquacultural
applications. Austin (1985) discussed the effects of
• antimicrobial compounds on the environment and concluded
that the concentrations of drugs reaching the environment
are very small. As stated in the Washington Department of
Fisheries - FPEIS, (A) FDA study to evaluate the use of OTC
for aquatic applications, analyzed the environmental impact
of the antibiotic on disease control in lobsters held in
impoundments (Katz 1984) .... Katz concluded that "the
potential of R -factor (resistance factor) transfer between
organisms should be minimal' as a result of nutrients, low
temperatures and high salinity of seawater. Because the
proposed site is characterized as having low temperatures
and high salinity, it is concluded that the R -factor would
• likewise be low in this application. Finally, the
Washington Department of Fisheries - FPEIS states that (I)n
a preliminary study conducted in the Puget Sound region, no
' OTC was found in sediments near fish farms (Wekell, 1989).
Importantly, the current velocities detected at the grow -out
site are well in excess of the minimum velocities
• recommended by the Washington State Department of Fisheries.
Therefore, no OTC or similar compounds are expected to
accumulate in the sediments below and near the Net Pen Grow -
Out Site and accordingly, no impact to wild populations are
•
anticipated.
i
0
32
• ITEM 4 - SPECIAL CONCERNS - ENDANGERED SPECIES - ADD TO PAGE
II -66:
The biology of all species designated special concern,
• threatened or endangered are identified in Section II C of
the DEIS. In depth discussion of these species of concern
was devoted to all potentially occurring sea turtles, marine
• mammals, and the osprey. However, the correspondence
correctly points out that an in depth discussion of the
shortnose sturgeon was not included in the DEIS.
+1
All analyses related to sea turtles and mammals were
developed subsequent to a meeting with Mr. Sadove of the
• Okeanos Ocean Research Foundation. Mr. Sadove is considered
an expert with regards to marine mammals and sea turtles and
of course, Mr. Sadove was listed among the Consultants and
• Private People consulted in the preparation of this impact
statement (See Appendix A of the DEIS). Of great concern to
the principals of Mariculture Technologies Inc., was the
question of what course of action should be taken in the
case where marine mammals or sea turtles become entangled in
the predator control nets surrounding the individual net
w pens. A solution was reached whereby the Okeanos Ocean
Research Foundation would immediately respond to these types
of situations and perform immediate rescue of the effected
• animals. Such a plan is regarded as reasonable since
Okeanos Ocean Resource Foundation is the only organization
•
33
0
0
licensed for these types of activities in this area.
Accordingly, the immediate notification and subsequent
0 response by Okeanos Research Foundation constitutes
Mariculture Technologies, Inc.'s Contingency Plan for the
rescue of marine mammals and sea turtles should they become
t entangled in the ocean net pen predator nets.
The potential for the osprey to become entangled in the
01 predator control net was regarded as extremely remote. The
biology of the osprey was discussed in great detail in
Section II 63-66 of the DEIS. While the predator control
net stretched across the top of the net pens is intended to
prevent diving avains from preyingupon the net cultured
summer flounder, the osprey is not expected to become
entangled in the predator control nets. In fact, the DEIS
states our belief that the osprey will avoid the net pen
site altogether. Reasons offered in support of this finding
• are stated in Section II -66 of the DEIS as follows: The
proposed net pen culture of summer flounder is expected to
have no detrimental effect upon osprey populations. Reasons
0 to support this finding include the the osprey's excellent
eye sight, which would allow the bird to see the anti -
predator nets placed above the net pens and thus avoid
41 contact with it. In addition, the cultured summer flounder
are bottom dwelling fish, and therefore, will remain on the
bottom of the net pens except during the time in which they
rl
34
0
are being fed. Given that ospreys are not deep divers,
being able to capture prey only on or near the surface, it
is concluded that the osprey will not be able to prey upon
•
cultured summer flounder. Furthermore, the aforementioned
predator deterrent system coupled with the osprey's inherent
aversion to man's activities may cause the birds to avoid
the site altogeher.
The DEIS references a portion of the Washington Department
♦
of Fisheries FPEIS which states that similar anti -predator
systems have been used extensively in net pen aquaculture
and have proven to be both effective in controlling
•
predation of the cultured species by birds and at the same
time, preventing injury to bird species (See Section II -65
of the DEIS). Finally, the Section II -65 of the DEIS cites
•
an example closer to home regarding avian predation to
aquaculture farms, in this case, citing the Connor Brothers
Aquaculture Farms in Eastport, Maine, reporing no such
instances have occurred.
Even if an osprey were to become injured by entanglement in
•
the predator control nets, the contingency plan offered is
to immediately contact a NYSDEC Licensed Wildlife
Rehabilitator or veterinarian to transport and treat the
•
injured osprey. Any osprey mortality will be reported to
NYSDEC Region 1 Headquarters.
i
35
•
0 It is noted that the DEIS listed the shortnose sturgeon as
potentially occurring in the grow -out site. However, the
occurrence of the shortnose sturgeon at the grow -out site is
0 regarded as extremely remote. As suggested in the
correspondence, Mr. Savoy of the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection ("Connecticut DEP") was consulted.
a Mr. Savoy of the Connecticut DEP reported their efforts in
mark -recapture experiments occurring throughout the
Connecticut River suggesting that none of the short nose
40 sturgeon are moving out into Long Island Sound waters to
their knowledge. Apparently, the only known stock of
shortnose sturgeon in New York waters is actually confined
0 to the area of the Connecticut River. In a letter from Mr.
Savoy to Bruce A. Anderson dated November 20, 1995 attached
herewith as Appendix W, Mr. Savoy concludes that he would
0 not expect the mariculture operation to jeopardize the
•
continued existence of the Connecticut River population of
shortnose sturgeon at this time.
Even if the shortnose sturgeon was to become entangled in
the predator control nets, the Contingency Plan offered
includes the immediate freeing of the short nose sturgeon by
on site divers followed by a report of incidence sent to
Region 1.Headquarters of the NYSDEC. Any shortnose
! mortality will also be reported to Region 1 Headquarters of
the NYSDEC.
P,
0
36
0
ITEM 5 - NET COATINGS:
It is not the intent at this time to have net pen mesh or
predator control mesh be coated. All references to "coated"
are to be deleted.
S ITEM 6 - NAVIGATION - ADD TO PAGE II -85 - GROW OUT SITE:
The proposed net pen site was deliberately located away from
the standard navigation routes for both private and
commercial vessels. This is best depicted in a section of
page 7 in the New York to Nantucket Region 3 Chart Kit (see
Figure 29 A). In this day of aids to navigation that
include Loran and GPS, most charts include the latitude and
longitude location of the principal navigation buoys used as
destinations. For explanation and clarity, the following
routes are listed below:
o Peconic Bay in Greenport to points East;
RW "N" to G "1 GI" off the Northern Tip of Gardiners;
o Sag Harbor to points Northeast;
N 112" to G "1 GI" off the tip of Gardiners, then to
Valient Rock Bell, West of Fishers Island;
o Long Island Sound to Montauk and Block Island through
Plum Gut to G "1 GI";
o New London, Connecticut to Gardiners Bay;
Valient Rock Bell to G "1 GI" and then points West or
to R 4 Bell Long Island Sound, then through Plum Gut.
El
37
•
All of the above navigational buoys, as you will note on
Figure 29 A, have pre-printed on them the latitude and
longitude for easy entry into Loran and GPS equipment. You
will note that none of these destination buoys result in a
route even remotely close to the proposed net pen site.
! There are additional reasons that this site is not in, near
or adjacent to standard navigation routes and they include
the Plum Island Rock, which is a unlighted hazard; Pine
a Point off the Southern tip of Plum Island, which is
unlighted and unmarked; Bedford Reef to the East, which is a
significant shoal; Old Silas Rock to the East, a unmarked
r hazard; and then the rocks surrounding Great Gull Island,
which are also unmarked hazards.
From the original conception of this project there was
concern regarding damage and potential break up of the net
pens in case of a severe storm, including hurricanes or a
North or Southeaster. The concern was not only economic
loss, but also as to the impact to navigation from the
debris that could be distributed in the area of boat
traffic. It was for this reason that extensive effort was
made to select manufacturers that could meet a very high
standard in resistance to storm damage. The three net pen
manufacturers selected anchoring systems and structures have
a
38
•
1 : \ Y•,. U ... :4c.
+. 438
K `j., .3., sm rep 9Art1
�� 6� •_ ..r2' ! "'.9' ?: N 47 / H 47 '�. •' . RAy •?i2 N p 3 qk Rk .+.. '4.: Rk 44 MICR
"R 52 / I r i I ro 14 �i....: Own fo
M 1 7 3 3B\ 7e26`' no&M 4i3. k 57 47 ..... 1»e,
• •. 26 x29:'60 i' r :+: j5•
¢3 f.�;
27 2 �41 34 . 44 71 RA i48 + : . Rk: 5
17�.. ..i - \ •- 66 52 S0 / t: -7
jj 3H ~ M �� 77 1 '/dwrr /32 52 4 FI 56 36111 2A1 3; C 40 , 73 "':4 6 1 1 • 4b9
Aq/ 42 HORN lA' Numerous Rk o I ' ' ,
— Z9� . 40 1 82 56 71 72 7s 0 47 .: 46 . rep 4mi) �g6 m� 53 52 10 s.
s8 '
5.-o '`eJe..0 % 96 /7 se �m �5' 1 urgdrperound '
ji 4� 98 , 93 266 WAS ••1•• plhs horn surveys
78 t9 128 118 ; 79 �.....: f
�,- 99 1 `� / 52 : 71, 1983. 1981
X79 SS►Wd r 155/� 84..... ' and 1990 65
i6 71 91 89 R y / 136 :58; IY 71 y "G
FIR4sBELL ; 74 �: Yz5a—`W-- '1'
14.8 85 / 82 73 s Pnv
10 78
18.9 Its 1 129 203 135 17 ., 77 / 1 5 Ard
86a 0 mi) 100°m —' t 91 /'' h
2 r 160 74Obs,
80
. r m 74
8. 107 S G 179 204 41 15.6
/101158 / 53 72 08.3
1 125 195 122 �� 210
loo 190?. ;
70 12 1 149X E296 FI R IC
IOfa, f 156 164 1 S� S1 204 H
/I'ISi,r p r� Int ° r •• I 24>� n 'Q A
�r`g 290 m (11.s mi) 110am —r G Af w 248
o 1
q2 ' o VALIANT ROCK BELL
e $'
s 19 13 117 In .O c
05a
u/irq4r1
/ G 237 203 l
r, ���/� X1198 231 13 273
/fir163 . 11 RW •PP r a R`ySG 142 t PA 'Q-`�e, 19 Va!•
Imo
136 - v l i o048 95 217 86 . 0 'o ss 147
1741 22 / V`K, i1/ik �-
114 X146 G9 e° 1
o
131 Lrr%L 'GULL 1 46cr 1 W2
164 _ • s 3 162 137 F 910 15M CGN i i x?
9 Ran 3t ti1a=-35 3 31 NSP 144
•!gyp=__ SEE PAGE 34 3 S2
YEOMAN7;
254
' i 'i•���.• I 196
1
41106 r� 135 41 ° 10' N Lookout 1'' ; • + l
—'MS\ ti 184 $ 7213.1 72' 10' W 48 • r ' S3 /r 51 69 210
Plu Isea d U.S. Go rn ent 70 23
153 36»"'•• F
1�4 kroperty and is c osed to the pu "r` I f r, 3Q "'• 4,
r } JZ 41 13 8
• ' -S I 23 > 37� 70 92 7204.0 13
`,,,� 133 136 el A� 33 . �3'22 23 s1 �•2 A4°
145 \ �� N! 0 7 4�• "''• ra ... A r 27,.` lCi/ ntr S
\ .\a`\IL8 b `n 134' ir. -M c '4� Z6 f r. rAy 67 1 86
A ` a" � i 57 r. ,� ' . . .� f "i8t ( � \z S2 i� 10:
:.� 41
gyp 8 `* • 11 14 ..r 0 'ISF 22 3 � 65 89
113 2?5 ^,o '�'•-�,��(]vT/ANK 20 ,G : , o
3' 323 R -2 PG RR r ryZ• ' 0 p9A/ , j' w 6 NO *r 22 f t 26 ti' fY�"� 49 j w 71
95 \\`�\ ►O , r' F 25s5at 5 A�_ ?�P n4Y { R aa4Ualion Ri 90Go
�` a 40l>� r PROPOSED NET PEN SITE 33 N -yam
11,11.1 7 / 104 L6nOe* aAe .• 1 4 ° 39 42 i r{y S 66
s LAT N 41 10' 20" Mae
46 so
• i L:21 "." .. , •... 1 LNG W 72° 10' 25" 5
�jT, 96 65 'ti 69
88 'i•' 1 G t'. 1 J 1
'_ Ce 433 1 ! so I
I 121 j
44• Idif� •• ��r 3000 66 11 122 l 46 83 35
o ryes) is ,. ' 36 40 y sdT/0,v j m (2 9 n►f 1 - �.�/ es 1 75 S0 so 104
ft,12 f
•� 8 iFRIHO""� , w 49 s 1 �,*6 I 7?Oom F 0 448 GGr O G 37 101 78 60 56
11t.- '1 K1 t 1 3B 34
rry
BFIG 46 1411 68_ DANG A _ �
b r rd pf11 43930 ' n°re e 4 ' •' . �"i8'41 09.0
:.. _
_ 7 47 �y d;ner 1P��i�. RIrINS ;• , " 72 09-0 73 7
12 179' l 72 13
39
10/ 11 47 319 24 ! J*24 o
10 42 l •',r 3— — J '% y33 (c/o;, om r ' 79 10
v 1A 25 e w
217 1
r 40 6
34 'I 42,.� 24 } 12 \... ►
Y �6 y 9C
i I6' . ` • .... y
26 11 26
'I 31 439p ` tl 27 v 2; / 21
ata' • 37 : ' n " \ r 40
2e 026 / - 244 11 . 23of 25
.
s 36 35 Po 27 �` 2Z•:' 12 :19
/cAo•� 9Js Y 32.... 29 Stake% $p.••... 9 ",•-2 •• '.35
9 14*27 37 4
•` .
�Atnw W-415 34 390- ' i ♦ Io00 SEE, • TOWER :26''•.•::1
41 _ �' FIGURE 29 A �_ A R n i x E R s r �- r .. — Eaelerm Pit
E
0
•
•
•
•
•
U
•
been designed and approved by Lloyds of London and are
insurable in accordance with Lloyds Register of Shipping
Provisional Rules and Regulations for the Classification of
Fish Farms. In arriving at the design and insurance
approvals average for wind speeds of up to 20.0 m/seconds
(45 mph) and wave heights up to 5 meters were taken into
consideration.
If, despite this high storm resistance design, the
unexpected still can occur and if there is damage or break
up of the net pens due to a hurricane or an unusually severe
storm, then material for this could very likely end up in
the vessel navigational areas. That is why special emphasis
was given to disaster response and notification procedure
outlined in I -E. Operations, sub -section 8, Disaster
Response and Notification Procedure. Preliminary
arrangements have already been made with the Southold Town
Police and its Bay Constables who would coordinate the
location and notification of the Coast Guard who have in
place a procedure whereby a radio notification to mariners
of any obstruction or hazards to navigation is issued. As
described previously, the on scene operations manager would
immediately initiate debris pick up and removal using
vessels already in the employ of Mariculture or, if
necessary, additional ones utilizing local marine
contractors, as coordinated through the Town of Southold and
with the United States Coast Guard. As described in the
39
r]
above reference, the USDA at Plum Island would also play a
role in the location and reporting of any debris.
•
In November of 1993, officials of Mariculture contacted
40 local mariners and got input to them regarding the project
and the location of the net pen site that would least
interfere with other local fishing and charter operations.
Those individuals are listed below.
o Peter Wenzzel - Commercial Fisherman;
o Roland Clark - Head of Inshore Bayman's Association;
• o James King - Head of Long Island Sound Lobsterman
Association;
o John Sinning - Charter Boat Association;
• o Richard Jenson - Charter Boat Association;
o Dwight Besely - Lobsterman - Orient By The Sea Marina.
Their input led to the conclusions stated in Part I -B,
entitled "Location of Aquatic and Land Based Operations" in
which they indicated that local commerical fishermen
indicated that this site is not critical to their fishing
•
due to the submerged rocks and high currents.
ITEM 7 - PLUM ISLAND - ADD TO FIRST PARAGRAPH, PAGE I-21:
A site visit was made to Plum Island by representatives of
Mariculture who met with the Director, the Administrator,
and Engineering Officer of the Plum Island Animal Disease
a
40
0
6
Center on October 4, 1995. A very detailed presentation was
made to Plum Island officials of the proposed grow out site.
• During this meeting, Plum Island officials voiced no
objection or concern to the project, but did express an
interest in being one of the reviewing agencies of the DEIS
when it is judged complete and ready for public review and
comment. Mariculture officials indicated that a copy of the
a
document would be provided as soon as it was ready.
ITEM 8 - ALTERNATIVE SITES - REPLACE PARAGRAPH STARTING AT
BOTTOM OF PAGE VII -5:
• Cost associated with operating the hatchery and grow out in
two locations on Long Island were impractical for
Mariculture Technologies management and technical staff and
also proved cost prohibitive. Cost of operations, land,
•
electric power, and availability of high quality sea water
were major decision making factors. Specific consideration
of hatchery sites in 1990-91 did not reach serious
•
consideration because western towns fo Babylon, Islip and
Brookhaven did not possess suitable net pen grow -out
locations or were unable to commit to a water column lease.
•
Suitable net pen grow -out locations were the first planned
requirement for Mariculture Technologies Inc. operations.
Availability of suitable coastal sites that met the many
•
requirements and specific description of site consideration
as discussed in Section (VII page 3-7).
41
0
•
Factors leading to the selection of Long Island's East End
and North Fork are described thoroughly on page (VII page 3-
S 7) for selection of Clark's Beach hatchery site Other sites
40
•
were considered for net pens and they are discussed Grow -Out
Function (VII pages 7-15).
ITEM 9 - ALTERNATIVE SPECIES - ADD TO PAGE VII -43 - F.
ALTERNATIVE SPECIES:
At the request of New York State DEC in 1993, it was
suggested the Mariculture Technologies Inc. pursue one
species and simplify the application process. Mariculture
Technologies Inc. has no plans at this time to culture
additional species and therefore no discussion of alternate
species was included in the DEIS.
ITEM 10-A - HISTORICAL RESOURCES - REPLACES PARAGRAPH 4 -
PAGE I-23:
• Reference is made to Section I-23 of the DEIS which states
that (T)here are no historic sites to any of the proposed
locations. This statement is supported by information
contained in the National Register of Historic Places
disseminated by The New York State Office of Parks,
Recreation and Historic Preservation. The National Register
0 of Historic Preservation reveals none of the sites nor
adjacent sites to be designated historic.
r
42
0
0
•
C]
0
•
•
ITEM 10-B - CULTURAL RESOURCES - ADD TO PAGE II -87:
Section II -86 of the DEIS states that (T)here are no
important cultural resources associated with the hatchery
site, grow -out site and processing site. The primary reason
in support of this finding with respect to both the hatchery
site and processing site is the fact that both sites have
experienced significant disturbance. The processing site is
located over filled lands and the hatchery site has
undergone previous and significant excavation. Therefore,
the potential for these sites to contain cultural resources
of concern are minimal. Section II -86-87 of the DEIS makes
the point that the proposed project is appropriately viewed
as a combination of these two traditional industries and
also adds that the proposed hatchery will provide a tourist
and educational facility which will add to the existing
tourism industry in the area.
ITEM 11 - MARKETING - ADD TO PAGE II -90:
40 Mariculture Technologies Inc. has conducted extensive
research regarding the marketing of its flounder.
Mariculture Marketing Inc. was established in 1994 as a
0 subsidiary to market and sell seafood products through its
own seafood broker network. The principals of Mariculture
Technologies Inc. have over 20 years experience in the
41 seafood sales business both in the US and Canada. In
addition, Mariculture Technologies has already consulted
i
43
r�
u
a
0
•
•
•
•
•
with NMFS, National Fisheries Institute, New York Seafood
Council, Sea Grant and a number of seafood trade
associations including National Fisheries Institute,
National Association of Food Brokers, National Seafood
Advisory Council, Foodservice and Retail Advisory Council,
National Restaurant Association. (See Aquaculture Marketing
Survey - Appendix X.) These consultations led to the
finding that strong markets exist for summer flounder.
Moreover, in a recent retail survey supplied by National
Marine Fisheries Service, Flounder was found to be the fifth
largest selling fish product by volume. New York Sea Grant
1995 Marketing Survey found Flounder to be in the top five
of consumers most frequently purchased items in addition to
being chain stores and independant retailers top selling
species. Additionally, the top four fastest growing sales
items over the last three years are all aquaculture species;
Salmon, Shrimp, Tilapia and Catfish. (Seafood Business,
September/ October 1994.)
In a recent Food Service Survey flounder was the number one
fin fish product purchased. This combination of retail and
food service clearly shows that flounder is the number one
consumed fin fish in the United States as per the following
tables from New York and New Jersey Aquaculture Marketing
Survey.
44
0
TOP SELLING SEAFOOD SPECIES IN CHAIN
t AND INDEPENDENT RETAIL STORES
CHAIN STORES
SHRIMP
99%
--------------------------
SALMON
99%
48 ----------
--
58%
FLOUNDER
98%
--------------------------
CATFISH
97%
--------------------------
COD
24%
• ------------ ----95--
------
ORANGE ROUGHY
4%
--------------------------
SNAPPER
1%
--------------------------
SOLE---------------
15%
HADDOCK
1%
--------------------------
POLLOCK
1%
•
E
•
a
0
INDEPENDENT RETAILERS
SHRIMP
68%
---------------------------------
FLOUNDER
68$
---------------------------------
SALMON
--
58%
---------------------------------
COD
41%
---------------------------------
SWORDFISH
31%
---------------------------------
LOBSTER
24%
---------------------------------
CLAMS
21%
---------------------------------
SCALLOPS
20%
---------------------------------
TUNA
18%
---------------------------------
WHITING
15%
45
11
0 SEAFOOD SPECIES PURCHASED MOST FREQUENTLY BY FOOD
SERVICE SURVEY RESPONSDENT
Obviously, the success of this venture is dependant on
successful marketing and sales which is why founder was
• selected as the most desirable species.
In general, one can expect the flounder industry over time
• to follow aquaculture product and market development similar
to catfish or salmon. Additionally, one can expect costs to
decrease over time as operations benefit from rapidly
improving technology and economies of scale.
46
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%
Obviously, the success of this venture is dependant on
successful marketing and sales which is why founder was
• selected as the most desirable species.
In general, one can expect the flounder industry over time
• to follow aquaculture product and market development similar
to catfish or salmon. Additionally, one can expect costs to
decrease over time as operations benefit from rapidly
improving technology and economies of scale.
46
0
•
0
•
•
0
�
J
ITEM 12 - APPROVALS AND REQUIREMENTS. THE FOLLOWING TO BE
ADDED ON PAGE I-225:
Preparation on many of the permits listed in the following
Table has been started, but it has been the general
consensus of the regulatory agencies that they would prefer
to received the permit applications only after the DEIS is
available for public comment and review. Therefore, it is
the applicant's intent not be submit the various required
permit applications until after the acceptance of the DEIS
by the Leas Agency. At that time simultaneous submittals
are planned. The following is revised Table 30, Table 31
and Table 32:
TABLE 30 - REVISED - REQUIRED PERMITS, LICENSES, LEASES, ETC.
NET PEN GROW OUT SITE
ITEM
WATER COLUMN LEASE
WATER QUALITY
CONSISTENCY REVIEW
NAVIGABLE WATERS
HAZARDS TO
NAVIGATION
AGENCY REMARKS
NYS OGS
NYS DEC
NYS COASTAL
MANAGEMENT
US CORPS OF ENGINEERS
US COAST GUARD LIGHTING AND MARKING
NET PENS
SPDES NYS DEC
NPDES USEPA OPEN OCEAN DISCHARGE
47
•
•
•
0
•
•
f
•
•
TABLE 31 - REVISED - REQUIRED PERMITS, LICENSES, LEASES, ETC.
HATCHERY SITE
ITEM AGENCY REMARKS
PROPERTY LEASE
PROPERTY LEASE
CHANGE OF ZONE
VARIANCE OR WAIVER
COASTAL EROSION
VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
SUFFOLK COUNTY
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SITE PLAN
TOWN OF
SOUTHOLD
CONDITIONAL SITE
SUFFOLK
COUNTY
REVIEW
LONG ISLAND WELL
NYS DEC
PERMIT
UTILITIES CONNECTIONS
VILLAGE
OF GREENPORT
WATER AND SEWER
SUFFOLK
COUNTY
NYS DEC
SUFFOLK
COUNTY
ELECTRICAL FEEDER
VILLAGE
OF GREENPORT
SUFFOLK
COUNTY
NEW YORK STATE
LILCO
SPDES
VILLAGE
OF GREENPORT
NYS DEC
CONSISTENCY REVIEW
MARINE HATCHERY
NAVIGABLE WATERS
HIGHWAY CURB CUTS
AND CROSSINGS
S.E.Q.R.A.
APPROX. 8 ACRES
HATCHERY SUPPORT
FACILITY 2 ACRES
BOTH PARCELS
CURRENTLY ZONED R-80
RESIDENTIAL
PARKING
VILLAGE PROPERTY
ABUTS LIS BLUFF
SALT WATER SUPPLY -
HATCHERY
POTABLE WATER AND
VILLAGE SEWER MAINS
ARE ADJACENT
PLAN IS TO EXTEND
VILLAGE ELECTRICAL
TO SITE
REVISION TO EXISTING
PERMIT TO INCLUDE
HATCHERY DISCHARGE
NEW YORK STATE
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
NYS DEC
US CORPS OF ENGINEERS CHANGE: OUTFALL PIPE
SUFFOLK COUNTY
FOR ALL OF THE ABOVE
AS APPLICABLE
48
•
S.E.Q.R.A. FOR ALL OF THE ABOVE
AS APPLICABLE
•
•
•
•
49
El
TABLE 32 - REVISED - REQUIRED PERMITS,
LICENSES, LEASES, ETC.
FISH
PROCESSING SITE
ITEM
AGENCY
REMARKS
SITE PLAN
VILLAGE
OF GREENPORT
PARKING AND LOADING
•
AND OFF LOADING
FACILITIES
WETLAND PERMIT
VILLAGE
OF GREENPORT
LOADING AND OFF
NYS DEC
LOADING FACILITIES
•
CONSISTENCY REVIEW
VILLAGE
OF GREENPORT
LOADING AND OFF
NEW YORK STATE
LOADING FACILITIES
COASTAL
MANAGEMENT
FISH PROCESSING
FACILITIES
NAVIGABLE WATERS
US CORPS
OF ENGINEERS
LOADING AND OFF
•
LOADING FACILITIES
WATER AND SEWER
VILLAGE
OF GREENPORT
FISH PROCESSING
ALLOCATIONS
NYS DEC
REQUIREMENTS
BUILDING PERMIT
VILLAGE
OF GREENPORT
MODIFICATIONS TO
•
EXISTING FACILITIES
AND PARKING
S.E.Q.R.A. FOR ALL OF THE ABOVE
AS APPLICABLE
•
•
•
•
49
El
•
ITEM 12-A - CONSISTENCY REVIEW: ADD TO PAGE I-823 - NEW
YORK STATE COASTAL POLICIES (APPENDIX Y) AND VILLAGE OF
• GREENPORT'S LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PLAN (APPENDIX
•
Z) :
This project is within the coastal areas of New York State
(Hatchery site and grow out site) and in the area of the
Village of Greenport's Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan.
Project's effect and consistencies with the above policies
and plans are discussed as follows:
NEW YORK STATE COASTAL POLICIES
POLICY 1 RESTORE, REVITALIZE, AND REDEVELOP
DETERIORATED AND UNDERUTILIZED WATERFRONT
• AREAS FOR COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, CULTURAL,
RECREATIONAL AND OTHER COMPATIBLE USES.
Effects On and Its Consistency
•
This policy applies to the proposed hatchery site (Clark's
Beach) located on Long Island Sound. This present area,
owned by the Village of Greenport and the County of Suffolk,
•
and proposed to be leased to Mariculture Technologies Inc.
would be for the purpose of hatchery facilities through
Phase IV of the grow out operation. The site is presently
11
being used as a mining area, a dumping area, and was
originally purchased as a proposed site for the Village of
Greenport Sewer Plant, which was built at another location.
•
50
•
The present Village of Greenport Sewage Treatment Plant's
• outfall line runs through the property. The beach area of
the property is also used as a recreation area. The totally
underutilized site would be improved to contain hatchery
• facilities but leave in tact the area along the Long Island
Sound as a scenic area and public beach area. The existing
Village outfall line makes it practical for the treated
effluent from the hatchery to be connected to this line, and
•
therefore utilize the same outfall pipe and point of
discharge that now exists. The use of this site as a
• hatchery is entirely consistent with this policy in that it
•
•
would revitalize and redevelop underutilized waterfront
areas for a commercial and recreational use.
POLICY 2 FACILITATE THE SITING OF WATER -DEPENDENT USES
AND FACILITIES ON OR ADJACENT TO COASTAL
WATERS.
Effects On and Its Consistency
This Policy specifically applies to the proposed hatchery
• site (Clark's Beach) located on Long Island Sound. Access
to surface salt water or salt water wells is necessary for
salt water fish species dictates that such a facility be
located on or adjacent to coastal waters. The proposed
•
hatchery facilities for summer flounder require large
quantities of salt water which are circulated through the
hatchery tanks. Present plans include a series of salt
•
51
0
•
•
water wells which can only be located adjacent to coastal
waters without impacting potable ground water supplies.
Policy 2 includes guidelines that should be utilized to
encourage or facilitate water dependent uses. Of particular
• importance is Guideline No. 2 in the policy which applies to
in-place facilities and services. This particular site also
has immediate access to public water and sewer facilities
• for employee use, as well as the existing outfall facilities
to which it is proposed that the treated effluent pipeline
from the hatchery would be connected to. It is also
• directly accessible to County Road 48 which will be used as
the primary route to move the fingerlings from the hatchery
to the Greenport dock site for transportation to the off
• shore grow out site. This site is also reasonably close to
•
the Village of Greenport electrical distribution system
which is proposed to be extended to the hatchery site.
Coastal Policy # 2 also includes the kinds of actions that
should be considered in promoting water dependent uses. The
• proposed project is consistent with this policy and
accordingly should receive favored leasing arrangements. As
stated earlier, one property is owned by the Village of
• Greenport and the second by the County of Suffolk. Lease
negotiations are under way between Mariculture Technology
and the Village of Greenport and the County of Suffolk for
• use of these properties.
52
0
•
Another action that is recommended in this Policy is
property tax abatements. Negotiations have already been
started with the Town of Southold for a tax abatement for
•
this property for use as a hatchery. The use of this
property as a fish hatchery is considered to be totally
consistent with Policy 2 as it is water dependent and needs
•
to be located on or adjacent to coastal waters.
POLICY 3 THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
•
THIS PROJECT
•
POLICY 4 THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
THIS PROJECT
•
POLICY 5 ENCOURAGE THE LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT IN
AREAS WHERE PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES
•
ESSENTIAL TO SUCH DEVELOPMENT ARE ADEQUATE.
Effects On and Its Consistency
This Policy is applicable to the hatchery site (Clark's
•
Beach). The hatchery site is either serviced or is adjacent
to public water and public sewer that are more than adequate
to handle the small amounts of domestic water and sewer
•
requirements, and has the practicality of extending the
Village of Greenport's electrical power to the site. The
•
53
•
•
side is also well serviced by County Road 48, which is more
than adequate to handle the small increase in traffic for
• employees and for the transport of fingerlings to the
Village of Greenport dock site for transportation to the off
shore grow out site. The site also contains the Village of
Greenport sewage treatment plant outfall line which is being
•
replaced with a larger size which will then be adequate to
handle the treated effluent from the hatchery tanks. Use of
• this property for a fish hatchery is very consistent with
the requirements of Policy 5 in that it has on or adjacent
to it all of the major public services and facilities
. necessary for its development and support.
POLICY 6 EXPEDITE PERMIT PROCEDURES IN ORDER TO
FACILITATE THE SITING OF DEVELOPMENT
ACTIVITIES AT SUITABLE LOCATIONS.
Effects On and Its Consistency
•
The accompanying Explanation of Policy speaks to the
coordination and synchronization of existing permit
procedures and regulatory programs among State Agencies and
Local Governments. At the local level, the responsibility
for such coordination and synchronization is limited to
• Towns and Villages who are participating in the Waterfront
Revitalization Program ("LWRP").
•
54
•
•
•
With respect to the proposed hatchery site, the proposal
encompasses the use of two separate but adjacent parcels.
The first and largest of these parcels, consisting of a 15
acre site locally known as Clark's Beach, is owned by the
Village of Greenport. However, subject parcel lies outside
the boundaries of the Incorporated Village of Greenport
•
within the Town of Southold. The Town of Southold has been
in the process of drafting its LWRP for at least 10 years.
While there has been some more recent progress with respect
•
to the comprehensive coastal plan, the Southold LWRP has not
been adopted and of course, the implementation of the
Southold LWRP has not begun. Accordingly, the
•
responsibility for the synchronization and coordination of
the environmental review of the hatchery operation rests
with State and Federal Government. Even so, the principles
•
of Mariculture Technology, Inc. have had detailed
discussions with government officials of both the Town of
Southold and Village of Greenport, and the hatchery aspect
•
of the overall project has been widely reported in the local
papers of the North Fork of Long Island. To facilitate the
synchronization and coordination of the hatchery aspect of
•
the overall project, the DEIS disclosed all Approvals and
Requirements for the Hatchery Site (See Section G.
•
•
•
Approvals and Requirements).
55
• The second parcel comprising the Hatchery site consists of a
two acre parcel adjacent to and east of the larger parcel
owned by the Village of Greenport. This second parcel is
• owned by the County of Suffolk. As disclosed in Section G
of the DEIS, Approvals and Requirements, the ability to use
the County Parcel for a hatchery will depend upon the
• willingness of the County of Suffolk to grant a lease to the
Principals of Mariculture Technologies, Inc. However, the
County of Suffolk is not participating in a LWRP of its own,
• and therefore, Policy 6 does not apply with respect to this
parcel.
• As proposed, the grow -out portion of the overall project is
to take place in the northeastern portion of Gardiners Bay.
This particular area is located within State Waters and thus
• the coordination and synchronization responsibilities set
forth in the accompanying Explanation of Policy to Coastal
Policy 6 rests solely with the State of New York and the
• Federal Government. Even so, the Principals of Mariculture
Technologies, Inc. have conducted extensive dialogue among
State Officials with respect to the grow -out site. Further,
• numerous copies of the DEIS were forwarded to the NYSDEC
which in turn distributed same to all Involved and
Interested State and Federal Agencies thereby coordinating
• and synchronizing this aspect of the overall project.
Accordingly, the provisions of Policy 6 are considered
consistent to this porject.
:l
56
•
0
L
0
0
•
0
0
•
9
•
0
POLICY 7
POLICY 8
POLICY 9
THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSISERED APPLICABLE TO
THIS PROJECT.
THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
THIS PROJECT.
THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
THIS PROJECT.
POLICY 10 FURTHER DEVELOP COMMERICAL FINFISH,
SHELLFISH, AND CRUSTACEAN RESOURCES IN THE
COASTAL AREA BY ENCOURAGING THE CONSTRUCTION
OF NEW, OR IMPROVEMENT OF EXISTING ON -SHORE
COMMERCIAL FISHING FACILITIES, INCREASING
MARKETING OF THE STATE'S SEAFOOD PRODUCTS,
MAINTAINING ADEQUATE STOCKS, AND EXPANDING
AQUACULTURE FACILITIES.
Effects On and Its Consistency
The proposed project consists of the commercial culture of
summer flounder from egg to market size. Once market size
summer flounder is achieved, summer flounder will be
processed at an existing processing facility in the Village
of Greenport and marketed. While the overall proposal does
not include the expansion of on shore commercial fishing
facilities, successful implementation of the proposed
57
•
project will result in increased marketing of summer
flounder grown in New York State and of course, all
•
construction proposed will result in an expansion of
aquaculture in New York State. Accordingly, the proposed
project is considered consistent with the provisions of this
•
policy.
58
•
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.
•
Effects On and Its Consistency
This policy applies to the proposed hatchery facilities
(Clark's Beach). The hatchery facilities are proposed to be
•
located well landward of the coastal erosion area. They are
also located at a significant elevation above any low
coastal areas. The siting of these proposed facilities is
•
considered consistent with the flooding and erosion
provisions of this policy.
•
POLICY 12 ACTIVITIES OR DEVELOPMENT IN THE COASTAL AREA
WILL BE UNDERTAKEN 80 AS TO MINIMIZE DAMAGE
TO NATURAL RESOURCES AND PROPERTY FROM
•
FLOODING AND EROSION BY PROTECTING NATURAL
PROTECTIVE FEATURES INCLUDING BEACHES, DUNES,
BARRIER ISLANDS AND BLUFFS.
•
58
•
•
Effects On and Its Consistency
This policy is applicable to the proposed hatchery site
•
(Clark's Beach). This site contains a significant bluff
along Long Island Sound. The proposed hatchery facilities
are sited well away from the bluff so as to minimize any
•
potential increase in erosion potentially caused by
excavation and work on the construction of the proposed
facilities. The siting of the hatchery facilities is
•
considered consistent with the provisions of this policy.
POLICY 13 THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
•
THIS PROJECT.
POLICY 14 THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
• THIS PROJECT.
POLICY 15 THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
• THIS PROJECT
POLICY 16 THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
• THIS PROJECT
-M
•
59
•
•
POLICY 17 NON-STRUCTURAL MEASURES TO MINIMIZE DAMAGE TO
NATURAL RESOURCES AND PROPERTY FROM FLOODING
• AND EROSION SHALL BE USED WHENEVER POSSIBLE.
Effects On and Its Consistency
This policy applies to the proposed hatchery facility
• (Clark's Beach). The hatchery facility is sited well back
from the natural bluff along Long Island Sound and the
proposed construction will include in -ground catch basins to
• reduce or eleminate run-off from roofs so as to prevent
erosion of the aforementioned bluff. Because of the
elevation of the site flooding is not a concern. The
• proposed hatchery facilities are considered consistent with
the provisions of this 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.
Effects On and Its Consistency
The proposed project by Mariculture Tenchologies, Inc.
•
represents the first large scale effort to culture summer
flounder in the State of New York. As disclosed in Section
I-8 of the DEIS, in 1983, the State of New York passed the
•
0
•
11
C
•
•
•
•
•
Aquaculture Planning Act which requested the Sea Grant
Institute of the State of New York and Cornell University to
undertake a study to develop a statewide aquaculture plan
("Study"). The Study found that aquaculture could have the
potential to supplement New York's fishery resources and
stabilize the supply of fish stocks, that aquaculture
provides employment and economic development through the
production of food products in an industry compatible with
the economy and lifestyle of the rural and coastal
communities of New York State, and that aquaculture provides
high quality seafood products to the benefit, health and
safety of consumers. Clearly, the proposed commercial
culture of summer flounder represents the first tangible
fulfillment of the policies of the Legislature of the State
of New York in Eastern Long Island.
Various portions of the DEIS speak to economic and social
interests of the State. For example, the opening statement
prepared by Mariculture Technologies, Inc. declares the
status of finfish to be in a serious state of decline. The
decline in natural finfish stocks including summer flounder
have provided an important basis for the encouragement of
the growth of aquaculture, not only in the State of New York
•
but throughout the United States. Later in the DEIS, the
economic needs of the citizens including most particularly
job growth are discussed in detail (See Part I -A-3, Public
•
61
•
•
P,
•
•
C
•
•
•
•
•
0
Need, of the DEIS). Furthermore, in Section VII -E of the
DEIS entitled No Action Alternatives, the negative impacts
of not pursuing the proposed project are described. The
negative impacts include reduced employment and all negative
social effects associated therewith.
The environmental consequences of the proposed action are
discussed in great detail throughout most of the DEIS. In
Section III, Significant Environmental Impacts, the impacts
relating to the proposed hatchery and net pen operations are
discussed. The DEIS concludes that the impacts to Coastal
Resources as evidenced by analysis of water quality are
relatively small. In the case of hatchery effluents, the
best management practices are applied resulting in
concentrations of BOD, suspended solids, nitrogen and
phosphorus that are reduced to the maximum extent
practicable. With respect to the operation of the proposed
net pens, the impacts to coastal resources as evidenced by
water quality are low. This conclusion was arrived at due
to the current velocities at the net pen site which are
expected to disperse excess food and fecal material over a
broad area.
RE,
0
Because the economic, social and environmental interests of
the State and of its Citizens are discussed in great detail
in the DEIS, it is the position of Mariculture Technologies,
Inc. that due consideration of these criterion have been
afforded. Accordingly, the proposed project is regarded as
consistent with the provisions of this policy.
49 POLICY 19 PROTECT, MAINTAIN, AND INCREASE THE LEVEL AND
TYPES OF ACCESS TO PUBLIC WATER -RELATED
RECREATION RESOURCES AND FACILITIES.
Effects On and Its Consistency
This policy applies to the proposed hatchery site (Clark's
Beach). The siting of the hatchery facilities includes the
installation of a roadway and parking area to facilitate and
improve the access to the public beach area utilized by the
residents of the Village of Greenport and others. This site
is often used for fishing (shore casting) and scuba diving.
The proposed hatchery facility is not only consistent with
this policy, but they will improve the accessibility of
public beach areas.
•
0
63
0
•
THIS PROJECT
•
10
64
POLICY 20 ACCESS TO THE PIIBLICLY-OWNED FORESHORE AND TO
LANDS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE FORESHORE
OR THE WATER'S EDGE THAT ARE PIIBLICLY OWNED
SHALL BE PROVIDED, AND IT SHOULD BE PROVIDED
IN A MANNER COMPATIBLE WITH ADJOINING USES.
•
Effects On and Its Consistency
The site of the proposed hatchery (Clark's Beach) is
proposed to be leased to Mariculture Technologies, and the
ownership retained by the Village of Greenport and the
County of Suffolk, thereby protecting and retaining beach
areas and public ownership and its accessibility to the
•
public.
Maxicu-1t-etre_TeChng1pgies lease. rather or
�}cc ovdi� is
this project^ consistent with the
'\
•
provisions of this policy.
POLICY 21 THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
•
THIS PROJECT
•
POLICY 22 THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
THIS PROJECT
•
POLICY 23 THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
THIS PROJECT
•
10
64
•
POLICY 24 THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
• THIS PROJECT
POLICY 25 PROTECT, RESTORE OR ENHANCE NATURAL AND MAN-
MADE RESOURCES WHICH ARE NOT IDENTIFIED AS
BEING OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, BUT WHICH
CONTRIBUTE TO THE OVERALL SCENIC QUALITY OF
•
THE COASTAL ARES.
Effects On and Its Consistency
• The policy is applicable to the proposed hatchery site
(Clark's Beach). The bluff along the Long Island Sound of
this site is considered scenic as it provides an elevated
view of Long Island Sound both East, North and West. The
•
siting of the proposed hatchery facilities are such that
they will not be in the way or interfere with these scenic
views, and the construction also includes the installation
•
of containment facilities for roof run-off, thereby reducing
or eliminating potential run-off and erosion of the bluffs,
which are now occurring to some degree. A general clean up
•
of the site is also proposed, thereby improving its scenic
quality. The proposed hatchery facilities are considered
consistent with the provisions of this policy.
POLICY 26 THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
THIS PROJECT
•
•
65
-71
L]
0
E
r
•
Cl
J
•
11
POLICY 27 THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
THIS PROJECT
POLICY 28 THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
THIS PROJECT
POLICY 29 THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
THIS PROJECT
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.
Effects On and Its Consistency
The provisions of this Policy are applicable to the proposed
hatchery site (Clark's Beach) and the grow out site
(Gardiner's Bay, South of Plum Island). The salt water
discharges and flows from these two sites will not contain
any toxic or hazardous substances. However, effluent flows
will contain minor concentrations of organic materials
primarily consisting of fish feces and left over fish feed.
The hatchery site will include treatment facilities for the
66
•
reduction of suspended solids, BOD and nutrient of the
effluent discharge from the hatchery prior to discharging
•
into the Long Island Sound via the Village of Greenport's
existing outfall pipe. Fish feces and feed at the grow out
site will be distributed and dispersed the same as it would
•
from natural stock by the currents and water flows in the
area of the grow out site. Importantly, no aspect of the
overall project will cause a contravention in water quality
standards. Reference is made to Item 1-B and Appendix V of
the Addendum. The project is considered consistent with the
provisions of this policy.
•
POLICY 31 STATE COASTAL AREA POLICIES AND MANAGEMENT
OBJECTIVES OF APPROVED LOCAL WATERFRONT
'• REVITALIZATION PROGRAMS WILL BE CONSIDERED
WHILE REVIEWING COASTAL WATER CLASSIFICATIONS
AND WHILE MODIFYING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS;
• HOWEVER, THOSE WATERS ALREADY OVERBURDENED
WITH CONTAMINANTS WILL BE RECOGNIZED AS BEING
A DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINT.
• Effects On and Its Consistency
This Policy applies to the proposed hatchery site (Clark's
Beach) and the off shore grow out site in Gardiner's Bay
• South of Plum Island. Neither the hatchery facilities or
the grow out facilities are expected to make any change to
the present water quality classifications of the standards
• in these areas.
67
•
•
•
POLICY 32
POLICY 33
THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
THIS PROJECT
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WILL BE USED TO
ENSURE THE CONTROL OF STORMWATER RUNOFF AND
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS DRAINING INTO
COASTAL WATERS.
Effects On and Its Consistency
• The provisions of this Policy are applicable to the proposed
hatchery site (Clark's Beach). The hatchery's facilities
will include in -ground collection and leaching facilities
•' for the stormwater runoff from the roof and grounds of the
facility. The containment of this stormwater runoff will
reduce or eliminate the draining of same into the Long
• Island Sound waters adjacent to the proposed hatchery site.
0
The construction of the proposed hatchery facilities are
considered consistent with the provisions of this policy.
POLICY 34 DISCHARGE OF WASTE MATERIALS INTO COASTAL
WATERS FROM VESSELS SUBJECT TO STATE
• JURISDICTION WILL BE LIMITED 80 A8 TO PROTECT
SIGNIFICANT FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITATS,
RECREATIONAL AREAS AND WATER SUPPLY AREAS.
• Effects On and Its Consistency
This Policy is applicable to the off shore grow out site
(Gardiner's Bay South of Plum Island). Vessels will be
• utilized to transport fingerlings and feed from the docks in
68
•
•
a
•
•
0
•
•
•
0
Greenport to the grow out site and also to transport morts
and harvested fish from the grow out site back to the docks
in Greenport. All vessels utilized in the transport of
these materials, as well as those that are on site for
housing and watchmen, will contain holding tanks the
contents of which will be discharged into approved pump out
stations in the Village of Greenport. These pump out
stations will be connected to the Village of Greenport's
Waste Water Treatment Plant. All vessels will also be
operated in strict adherence to the Coast Guard's rules and
regulations regarding discharge of waste materials into the
coastal waters. The operation of vessels for this project
will be in such a manner that their operations will be
consistent with the provisions of this policy.
POLICY 35 THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
THIS PROJECT
POLICY 36 THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
THIS PROJECT
1W
•
POLICY 37 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WILL BE UTILIZED TO
MINIMIZE THE NON -POINT DISCHARGE OF EXCESS
NUTRIENTS, ORGANICS AND ERODED SOILS INTO
COASTAL WATERS.
Effects On and Its Consistency
• Only two aspects of the overall project may be considered to
potentially have associated non -point discharge of excess
nutrients, organics or eroded soils into coastal waters.
a First, there are the construction related impacts of the
proposed hatchery at Clark's Beach in the Town of Southold.
Second, the day to day operation of the ocean net pens
specifically including the introduction of peletalized feed
is regarded as a potential non -point source impact to
coastal waters.
With respect to the construction of the proposed hatchery,
any potential impacts related to soil erosion are to be
• mitigated through the use of hay bales staked end to end
together with a silt fence. Hay bales and silt fence are to
be deployed along a line between the seaward edge of the
• hatchery buildings and the top of the bank adjacent to the
beach area. The use of both hay bales and silt fence are
considered to be the best management practice in controlling
• soil erosion and are routinely required by government
agencies having jurisdiction over a wide variety of land
based development activities.
•
70
n
♦
With respect to the day to day operation of the ocean net
pens, the successful growout of summer flounder to market
sp
size necessitates daily feeding. As disclosed in Section I
- E - 6 of the DEIS, a moist sinking food pellet will be
introduced into each net pen as the only food source for the
46
cultured summer flounder. Throughout the grow -out function,
feed will be delivered to the cultured summer flounder at a
rate of 2% of fish body weight per day. The 2% rate was
selected based upon the experience and at the advise of
David Bengston, PhD. of the University of Rhode Island, and
Christopher Duffy of Great Bay Aquafarms, both of which have
•
practical first hand knowledge and experience in the culture
of summer flounder. Accordingly, the feed rates are derived
from practical experience and thus are regarded as the best
•
management practices. From an economic standpoint, it would
not behoove Mariculture Technologies, Inc. to over feed
cultured summer flounder because such a practice would
result in higher feed costs and therefore higher production
costs. Thus, it is expected that Mariculture Technologies,
Inc. avoid delivering feed above the consumption rate of
summer flounder contained in the proposed net pens.
Therefore, it is concluded that with respect to the two
identified potential non -point impacts to coastal waters,
•
the best management practices are proposed and therefore,
the proposed project is considered consistent with the
provisions of this Policy.
i
71
0
t>
C7
i
L
•
•
C
r
POLICY 38 THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
THIS PROJECT
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.
Effects On and Its Consistency
As disclosed in the accompanying Explanation of Policy,
Policy 39 is intended to provide a basis for regulation of
solid waste management facilities including resource
recovery facilities, sanitary landfills and solid waste
reduction facilities. In addition, the accompanying
Explanation of Policy contains a definition of hazardous
waste to wit: "waste or combinations 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 serious
illness; or (2) pose a substantial present or potential
hazard to human health or the environment when improperly
72
a
0
a
•
3
U
0
treated, stored, disposed, transported or otherwise
managed." Given that the proposed project is not a solid
waste facility and involves no transport, storage, treatment
or disposal of hazardous waste, Policy 39 is not applicable
to this proposed project.
POLICY 40 THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
THIS PROJECT
POLICY 41 THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
THIS PROJECT
POLICY 42 THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
THIS PROJECT
POLICY 43 THIS POLICY I8 NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
THIS PROJECT
73
E
POLICY 44 PRESERVE AND PROTECT TIDAL AND FRESHWATER
t WETLANDS AND PRESERVE THE BENEFITS DERIVED
FROM THESE AREAS
Effects On and Its Consistency
a This Policy is applicable to the proposed hatchery site
(Clark's Beach). All proposed hatchery construction is
significantly landward of the Long Island Sound coastal
shoals that are seaward of this site. All planned
construction will include erosion prevention, and on site
containment of all storm waters, therefore the proposed work
and project are considered consistent with the provisions of
this policy.
L
•
i
0
74
0
0
i
0
Ll
0
WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM POLICIES
FOR THE VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
That portion of the project previously entitled "Processing
Facilities" is located on Sterling Avenue at the site
commonly referred to as Winter Harbor Fisheries. The
applicable Waterfront Revitalization Progam Policies for
this portion of the project are reviewed as follows:
POLICY 1 RESTORE, REVITALIZE AND REDEVELOP
DETERIORATED AND UNDERUTILIZED WATERFRONT
AREAS FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL,
CULTURAL# RECREATIONAL AND OTHER COMPATIBLE
USES.
POLICY lA REVITALIZE GREENPORT'S WATERFRONT AREA BY
REDEVELOPING DETERIORATED/UNDERUTILIZED
PROPERTIES AND BUILDINGS FOR APPROPRIATE
COMMERCIAL AND RECREATIONAL USES.
The proposed processing facilities are to be located in a
underutilized commercial facility. The use of this property
has been significantly reduced since the decline of the
fishing industry. The rehabilitation of this property and
limited expansion for use for processing of fish from the
off shore grow out would be consistent with these two
policies.
75
G
POLICY 1B THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
THIS PROJECT
0
76
POLICY 2 FACILITATE THE SITING OF WATER -DEPENDENT
FACILITIES ON OR ADJACENT TO COASTAL WATERS.
The location of the fish processing portion of this project
at the proposed location is applicable to this policy
because of its water -dependent requirements. These include,
but are not limited to, the docking of vessels for transport
•
of feed to the offshore net pens and the return docking of
vessels to transport fish back from the grow -out facilities
to the processing facilities. Fish processing plants are
particularly referenced in the explanation of this policy,
therefore the use for fish processing is consistent with the
provisions of this policy. In addition, this policy lists
permitted uses, of which "fish and shellfish processing
•
plants" is one of the designated permitted uses.
•
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 QUALITY.
0
76
0
•
i
[7
0
POLICY 6 EXPEDITE PERMIT PROCEDURES IN ORDER TO
FACILITATE THE SITING OF DEVELOPMENT
ACTIVITIES AT SUITABLE LOCATIONS.
The Village and other regulatory agencies are expected to
expedite permit procedures to facilitate the use of this
area and facilities for the processing of fish, storage of
feed and support functions.
77
The fish processing and boat landing portion of this project
is particularly applicable to this policy. Use of this
property for these purposes will insure that the traditional
uses of Greenport's waterfront for fish processing, docking
facilities, and docks will be continued and enlarged. This
use includes the "ambience of the smell of the salt air and
freshly caught fish, and the noise and visual impact of
40
harbor and sea bound vessels" as explained in this policy.
The proposed use of this property for the processing and
support functions is consistent with all six of the
standards contained in this policy.
POLICY 5 THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
THIS PROJECT
POLICY SA THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
THIS PROJECT
•
i
[7
0
POLICY 6 EXPEDITE PERMIT PROCEDURES IN ORDER TO
FACILITATE THE SITING OF DEVELOPMENT
ACTIVITIES AT SUITABLE LOCATIONS.
The Village and other regulatory agencies are expected to
expedite permit procedures to facilitate the use of this
area and facilities for the processing of fish, storage of
feed and support functions.
77
•
U
r
•
0
0
•
•
POLICY 8 THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
THIS PROJECT.
POLICY 9 THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
THIS PROJECT
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 A MANNER WHICH
ENSURES THE PROTECTION OF SUCH RENEWABLE FISH
RESOURCES AND CONSIDERS OTHER ACTIVITIES
DEPENDENT ON THEM.
The proposed
project consists of the commercial culture of
summer flounder from egg to market size. Once market size
summer flounder is achieved, summer flounder will be
processed at
an existing processing facility in the Village
of Greenport
and marketed. While the overall proposal does
78
0
not include the expansion of on -shore commercial fishing
facilities, successful implementation of the proposed
•
project will result in increased marketing of summer
flounder grown in New York State and of course, all
construction proposed will result in an expansion of
•
aquaculture in New York State. Accordingly, the proposed
project is considered consistent with the provisions of this
policy.
POLICY 10A ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW, OR EXPANDED
COMMERCIAL FISHING FACILITIES IN GREENPORT,
0 AND PROTECT EXISTING COMMERCIAL FISHING
FACILITIES FROM ENCROACHMENT BY POTENTIALLY
CONFLICTING LAND USES.
Mariculture Technologies, Inc. proposal to utilize the
existing fish processing plant at Winter Harbor Fisheries is
consistent with the policy. Reasons in support of this
finding are a follows: (1) Utilization of the Winter Harbor
Fisheries Processing Plant will not displace any private
sector initiatives; (2) Public Agency approval of the use of
the Winter Harbor Fisheries Processing Plant will be
consistent with existing State plans to expand aquaculture;
(3) The use of the Winter Harbor Fisheries Processing Plant
will not impede existing utilization or future development
of the State's commercial fishing resources; and (4) The use
of the Winter Harbor Fisheries Processing Plant will not
79
•
•
effect local, state and federal governments efforts to
maintain and protect renewable fishery resources.
•
Accordingly, the proposed project is considered consistent
with the provisions of this policy.
•
POLICY it THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
46
•
•
40
•
•
•
•
THIS PROJECT
POLICY 12 THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
THIS PROJECT
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 THIRTY YEAR
PERIOD.
The present property for the fish processing function is
totally bulkheaded along Stirling Basin. Some modifications
of this bulkhead and repairs and replacement are expected to
be accomplished within the first few years of operation to
better facilitate the docking of the vessels and the loading
and offloading of the vessels. All such work will be of
s0
0
such a quality to withstand destructive forces of wave
• action and ice movement for a thirty year period. The
construction, modification, and restoration of any docks or
bulkheads will meet the three requirements listed in the
40 policy. All of the proposed functions and restoration and
construction will be consistent with all of the provisions
of this policy.
•
POLICY 14 THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
THIS PROJECT
0
POLICY IS
POLICY 16
POLICY 17
POLICY 18
40
POLICY 19
C�
�J=
THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
THIS PROJECT
THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
THIS PROJECT
THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
THIS PROJECT
THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
THIS PROJECT
THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
THIS PROJECT
81
[l
•
li
C]
0
1
•
POLICY 20 THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
THIS PROJECT
POLICY 20A THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
THIS PROJECT
POLICY 21 THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
THIS PROJECT
POLICY 21A THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
THIS PROJECT
POLICY 22 THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
THIS PROJECT
POLICY 23 THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
THIS PROJECT
POLICY 25 PROTECT, RESTORE OR ENHANCE NATURAL AND MAN-
MADE RESOURCES WHICH ARE NOT IDENTIFIED AS
BEING OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE BUT WHICH
CONTRIBUTE TO THE OVERALL SCENIC QUALITY OF
THE COASTAL AREA.
82
0
The improvements and modifications of the site and buildings
* in the fish processing site on Sterling Street will not in
any way interfere with the scenic views of Stirling Harbor
from this particular street. Therefore, this proposed
portion of the project is considered consistent with the
provisions of this policy.
POLICY 27 THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
THIS PROJECT
POLICY 29 THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
• THIS PROJECT
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.
r The provisions of this policy prohibit any discharge of
waste in the Stirling Basin. The present owner and operator
of Winter Harbor Fisheries, in which the processing plant is
located, has installed settling basins and provisions for
the waste effluent from this facility to, after preliminary
primary treatment, to be pumped directly to Greenport's
waste water treatment plant. The extensive use of this
83
0
a
•
0
♦
facility for the processing of fish from the offshore net
pens will include a requirement to continue this on site
containment and treatment policy. Therefore, the projected
use of this facility for fish processing purposes will not
allow or permit any discharges into Stirling Harbor, and
therefore the use of this property for fish processing, feed
storage, and support functions will be consistent with the
provisions of this policy.
POLICY 31 STATE COASTAL AREA POLICIES AND PURPOSES OF
APPROVED LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION
PROGRAMS WILL BE CONSIDERED WHILE REVIEWING
COASTAL WATER CLASSIFICATIONS AND WHILE
MODIFYING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS; HOWEVER,
THOSE WATERS ALREADY OVERBURDENED WITH
CONTAMINANTS WILL BE RECOGNIZED AS BEING A
DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINT.
The use of the Winter Harbor Fisheries site for the fish
processing and support functions would also include
r collection of street and storm drainage run-off as part of
any site improvement. Also, as covered in Policy 30 all
waste water in fish processing functions will be initially
treated and pumped to Greenport's waste water treatment
plant. Vessels using this site will contain holding tanks
the contents of which will be discharged directly into
•
84
0
•
•
•
i
i
V
0
C7
0
approved vessel sanitary pump -out facilities. These site
and facility practices will ensure that there is no further
deterioration of the waters of Stiring Harbor or Shelter
Island Sound, and it would be expected to remain classified
as (SA), and therefore make this portion of the project
consistent with the provisions of this policy.
POLICY 33 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WILL BE USED TO
ENSURE THE CONTROL OF STORMWATER RUNOFF AND
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS DRAINING INTO
COASTAL WATERS.
The planned improvements of this site to support the fish
processing is principally to provide parking for employees.
Parking development plans will include on-site drainage
facilities to contain stormwater on site. These planned
improvements to this site are therefore considered
consistent with the provisions of this policy.
POLICY 34 DISCHARGE OF WASTE MATERIALS INTO COASTAL
WATERS FROM VESSELS WILL BE LIMITED 80 AS TO
PROTECT SIGNIFICANT FISH AND WILDLIFE
HABITATS, RECREATIONAL AREAS AND WATER SUPPLY
AREAS.
85
a
•
•
C
•
U
•
•
i
•
This policy is only applicable to the stage of operations
involving the movement of vessels between the Processing
Site and Grow -Out Site. Vessels will be utilized to
transport personnel, fingerlings and feed from the docks in
Greenport to the grow -out site and also to transport morts
and harvested fish from the grow -out site back to the docks
in Greenport. All vessels utilized for these purposes will
contain holding tanks, the contents of which will be
discharged into approved pump -out stations in the Village of
Greenport. All waste materials will be transported to
Greenport's Waste Water Treatment Plant for proper
treatment. Accordingly, the proposed project is considered
consistent with the provisions of this policy.
POLICY 35 THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
THIS PROJECT
POLICY 36 THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
THIS PROJECT
POLICY 37 THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
THIS PROJECT.
86
•
•
A
•
•
•
•
P,
•
POLICY 38 THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
THIS PROJECT
POLICY 39 THE TRANSPORT, STORAGE, TREATMENT AND
DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTES, PARTICULARLY
HAZARDOUS WASTES, WITHIN COASTAL AREAS WILL
BE CONDUCTED IN SUCH A MANNER 80 A8 TO
PROTECT GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER
SUPPLIES, SIGNIFICANT FISH AND WILDLIFE
HABITATS, RECREATION AREAS, IMPORTANT
AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND SCENIC RESOURCES.
As disclosed in the accompanying Explanation of Policy,
Coastal Policy 39 is intended to provide a basis for
regulation of solid waste management facilities including
resource recovery facilities, sanitary landfills and solid
waste reduction facilities. In addition, the accompanying
Explanation of Policy contains a definition of hazardous
waste, to wit: "Waste or combinations 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 serious
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." Given that the proposed project is not a solid
waste facility and involves no transport, storage, treatment
87
•
0
0
C
•
•
0
•
0
or disposal of hazardous waste, this policy is not
considered applicable to this proposed project.
POLICY 41 THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
THIS PROJECT
POLICY 42 THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
THIS PROJECT
POLICY 43 THIS POLICY IS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
THIS PROJECT
POLICY 44 PRESERVE AND PROTECT TIDAL AND FRESHWATER
WETLANDS AND PRESERVE THE BENEFITS DERIVED
FROM THESE AREAS.
The proposed fish processing site does not contain any tidal
or freshwater wetlands. If in the future any dredging
activities are required to repair broken or damaged
bulkheads, or to improve the docking of support vessels, all
work will be done in accordance with appropriate written
permits as issued by the Village of Greenport and other
regulatory agencies. The use of this property for fish
processing and support of the offshore net pen operation is
considered consistent with the provisions of this policy.
88
0
ITEM 13 - RECREATION - ADD TO PAGE III -16 - C: RECREATIONAL
FISHERY:
The potential of the increased food source to the indigenous
species surrounding the net pens and the corresponding
impact to recreational opportunities is related to the
quantity of unconsumed feed which leaves the confines of the
net pens. As pointed out in Section I-158 of the DEIS, a
moist sinking food pellet is proposed. Accordingly, a
potential exists for food pellets to settle out down current
from the proposed net pen site. On a flood tide, pellets
would tend to settle out west of the net pen site whereas
during and ebb tide pellets would tend to settle out to the
east of the net pen site.
The probable consumption of unconsumed pellets by indigenous
species is likely to be extremely limited for two basic
reasons. First, the high velocity currents will carry
unconsumed pellets far and wide thereby reducing the
probability that unconsumed pellets will be located and
consumed by indigenous species. Second, unlike the cultured
summer flounder stocked into the net pens, indigenous
species would not have been weaned onto an artificial diet
! and accordingly, may not accept the unconsumed feed. What
ever consumption that does occur by indigenous species, will
likely be found with bottom feeding pelagic fishes such as
r Smooth and Spiney Dogfish, Little Skate, Conger Eel, Oyster
89
w
•
U
•
•
•
•
C
0
W]
Toad Fish, and Northern and Striped Sea Robin. However, no
large scale recreation fishery exists for these bottom
dwelling pelagic fish. For these reasons, impact to the
recreational fishery arising out of the introduction of
increased feed are not expected to be significant.
90
S
•
Austin, B. and D. Allen -Austin, 1985. Microbial quality of
water in intensive fish rearing. Journal of
Microbiological Sciences, 2(4):113-117. In: Final
. Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement: Fish
Culture in Floating Net -Pens prepared by Washington
Department of Fisheries, 1990.
Hydro Qual, Inc. Water Quality Modeling Analysis of Hypoxia
in Long Island Sound, July 1991.
Katz, S. E., 1984. Environmental impacts assessment for the
use of oxytetracycline to control gaffkemis infections
in lobsters. Report available through Dockets
Management Branch, HFA - 305, U. S. Food and Drug
Administration, Room 4-625600, Fisheries Lane,
Rockville, MD 20857. In: Final Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement: Fish Culture in
Floating Net -Pens prepared by Washington Department of
Fisheries, 1990.
The Maine Department of Fisheries. Salmon Aquaculture
. Monitoring and Research Fund. Laurice Churchell, DMR.
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management. Aquaculture White
Paper & Strategies Plan, 1995.
Parker, 1995. Economic Development and Marketing working
Group. In: Aquaculture White Paper & Strategic Plan
prepared by Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management
Office, 1995.
Robinette, H. R.. J. Hynes, N. C. Parker, R. Putz, R. E.
Stevens, and R. R. Stickney, 1991. AFS Position
Statement - Commercial Aquaculture; Fisheries 16 (1):
18-22; In: Aquaculture White Paper & Strategic Plan
prepared by Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management
Office, 1995.
Washington Department of Fisheries, 1990. Final
• Programmatic Impact Statement: Fish Culture in
Floating Net Pens.
Wekell, M., 1989. Personal Communication. U. S. Food and
Drug Administration, Seafood Products Research Group,
Bothell, WA. In: Final Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement: Fish Culture in Floating Net -Pens.
Washington Department of Fisheries, 1990.
91