HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinfish Aquaculture Project - FEIS •
RECEIVED
NOV 2 1 1 VOLUME V
• Southold town Oak
THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
• Relating to the Proposed
FINFISH AQUACULTURE PROJECT
FOR THE PRODUCTION OF
• SUMMER FLOUNDER (PARALICHTHYS DENTATUS)
LOCATION: Hatchery - 10 Acres County Road 48, Southold
Grow Out - 200 Acre Site, Gardiners Bay
• Processing - 3.3 Acres Site, Sterling Avenue.,
Greenport
APPLICANT: Mariculture Technologies, Inc.
P. O. Box 461
Greenport, NY 11944
(516) 477-1777 - Robert Link
LEAD AGENCY: N.Y.S. Dept. of Environmental Conservation
SUNY Campus - Building 40
Stony Brook, NY 11790-2356
(516) 444-0365 - John Wieland
•
PRINCIPAL PREPARERS: Peconic Associates, Inc.
One Bootleg Alley
Greenport, NY 11944
(516) 477-0030 - Merlon E. Wiggin, Ph.D.
and
• Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc.
P. O. Box 2003
Bridgehampton, NY 11932-2003
(516) 537-5160 - Bruce Anderson, M.S.
DATE OF
• PREPARATION: MAY 1996 (REVISED AUGUST 1996)
DATE OF
FILING: SEPTEMBER 1996
•
•
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DOCUMENTS 1
• PROJECT SUMMARY 2
SUMMARY OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATION 5
RESPONSES TO STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW
COMMENTS 6
•
RESPONSES TO FEDERAL COMMENTS
A. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 6
SITE MAP 8
•
B. NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE 11
RESPONSES TO STATE AGENCY COMMENTS
•
A. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DIVISION ON COASTAL RESOURCES AND
WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION 23
B. NEW YORK STATE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
• OFFICE OF GENERAL SERVICES 35
C. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DIVISION ON COASTAL RESOURCES AND
WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION 39
• D. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION 42
RESPONSES TO TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COMMENTS
• A. OFFICE OF THE SUPERVISOR - TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - 54
RESPONSES TO LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS
A. NORTH FORK ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL 58
COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE COMMENT
• PERIOD
A. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING - - 63
B. LETTERS FROM LOCAL FISHERMEN, BAYMEN,
AND CAPTAINS ASSOCIATION 65
•
BIBLIOGRAPHY 66
•
•
• FINFISH AQUACULTURE PROJECT
FOR THE PRODUCTION OF
SUMMER FLOUNDER (PARALICHTHYS DENTATUS)
i
INDEX OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DOCUMENTS
•
VOLUME I - DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
• VOLUME II - APPENDICES FOR THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
VOLUME III - ADDENDUM TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
• VOLUME IV - APPENDICES FOR THE ADDENDUM TO THE DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
VOLUME V - THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
VOLUME VI - APPENDICES FOR THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
•
IMPACT STATEMENT
•
•
•
1
•
•
•
PROJECT SUMMARY
• Mariculture Technologies, Inc. proposes the rearing of summer flounder from egg to
market size, including the harvesting, processing and marketing of the resultant fish
products for consumer use. The proposed project is comprised of three basic
components: Hatchery, Growout and Processing.
The Hatchery Component, consisting of the rearing of summer flounder from egg
to fingerling is to take place on a 10 acre site locally known as Clarks Beach
located in the Town of Southold. More specifically, the hatchery component
consists of the selection, conditioning and spawning of brood stock and the rearing
of early larvae, juvenile and fingerling summer flounder. The rearing from egg to
fingerling is expected to take approximately one year. Fingerling summer flounder
are to be transported live to the proposed ocean net pens for grow out to market
0 size.
The Growout Component of the overall proposed project is to take place in net pen
cages deployed in the northeastern portion of Gardiner's Bay. All ocean net pen
types provide for off bottom culture. Cultured summer flounder will be confined to
the net pen cages protected from all potential predators, fed and closely monitored.
• The cultured summer flounder are to remain in the pens until they reach marketable
size, after which they will be harvested and transported to an upland processing
site.
The Processing Component of the overall proposed project is to take place at the
existing Winter Harbor Fisheries Processing Plant situated in Greenport, New York.
• One half of the market sized cultured summer flounder will be packaged at the
processing site and sold as whole fish. The remaining harvested cultured summer
flounder will undergo full processing resulting in fillets, other consumable fish
products, and other waste products to be sold as non food items. Importantly,
Mariculture Technologies, Inc. has applied the state of the art processing
technologies providing for full utilization and subsequent marketing of
• approximately 99% of all harvested summer flounder by weight.
Mariculture Technologies, Inc. proposes to implement the above project in six
distinct phases providing for the incremental production of cultured summer
flounder. The incremental growth of this proposed project in accordance with the
• six distinct phases is intended to provide for greater flexibility in culture operations
so as to apply the best management practices as they become available as well as
to reduce the environmental impacts associated therewith. The mass culture of
summer flounder in accordance with the six proposed phases is set forth below:
•
2
•
•
Harvest Yield
• Phase (Number of Fish)
l 45,000
II 150,000
III 500,000
•
IV 1,100,000
V 3,000,000
VI 5,000,000
The three project areas - hatchery, growout, and processing - are depicted on the
following location map.
0
•
•
•
•
•
3
•
• • • • • • • A • • •
N
I ---- ,
,.. ,
PLUM
ISLAND
NET PEN SITE
LONG ISLAND SOUND Sq ACRES
PLUM GUT
ORIENT POINT
TOWN OF
SOUTHOLD GARDINERS BAY
COUNTY ROM N ORIENT HARBOR
�
r~ \
tC
LONG BEACH
CLARKS
BEACH
INLET POINT STERLING
STE
COUNTY 4 w1f
PA' BASIN 9'�
WINTER ?ire- .
` HARBOR
HARB RIES
OF
GREENPORT
Geographic boundaries and site locations of the proposed project.
•
SUMMARY OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT:
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement with appendices was prepared for the
finfish aquaculture project for the production of summer flounder (Paralichthys
• dentatus) from November 1993 to May 1995. This DEIS after review by Federal
and State agencies was amended by addendum on November 1995. The revised
Draft Environmental Impact Statement was deemed complete and accepted for
public review on December 18, 1995. Having determined the subject DEIS to be
complete pursuant to the provisions set forth in Article 8 of the NYS Environmental
Quality Review Act, numerous other State and Federal agencies analyzed and
• commented on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The official review
period commenced on January 3, 1996 and extended to February 8, 1996. A
public hearing was not held by the decision of the Lead Agency during this period.
Written comments were received by the Lead Agency (New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation) from two (2) Federal Agencies, and four State
Agencies. Written comments were also received from the Town of Southold, the
North Fork Environmental Council, and the County of Suffolk.
The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) consists of the DEIS, hereby
included by reference, a summary of the comments received on the DEIS, and the
responses to those comments.
•
•
•
•
•
•
5
•
•
RESPONSES TO STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW COMMENTS
Written comments received from two (2) Federal Agencies - the Department of the
Army Corps of Engineers and the United States Department of Commerce, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. Four
• (4) responses were received from New York State Agencies - two from the
Department of State Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization;
New York State Executive Department Office of General Services; and New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation. Comments were also received
from the Office of the Supervisor of the Town of Southold and from the President
of the North Fork Environmental Council. Additional comments were also received
• from the County of Suffolk Department of Planning after the close of the comment
period but, because of their substantive nature, are included in this FEIS. The Lead
Agency, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division
of Regulatory Affairs selected from each of the responses to the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement the substantive comments for which responses
have been prepared and are included in this Final Environmental Impact Statement.
• This Lead Agency letter is enclosed as Appendix # 1 .
All Comments are categorized with the following symbols:
WQ - Water Quality
NG - Navigation
• FWL - Fish & Wildlife
GEN - General
RESPONSES TO FEDERAL COMMENTS
• A. Department of the Army - Letter of January 24, 1996. (Appendix 2)
1. NG Comment: Please provide a detailed work description for your
proposed work. The written work description should include the
dimensions of the various structures proposed for installation (e.g., the
"Aqua Cage", "New Seafarms", and "Ocean Spars"), its associated
• features such as anchoring systems, and the number of each structure
that would be installed on each phase of your proposal. Although we
are aware that some of this information may be included in the
environmental impact statements and supporting documentation
provided to our office, we believe that this course of action would
expedite processing of this application.
•
Response: The site map for the proposed location of the net pens is
enclosed (see page 4). The technology for flat fish cage systems is an
emerging technology with Europe, especially the Norwegians, having
the most successful commercial experience. Mariculture Technologies
is in the process of reviewing several flat fish cage systems with the
• intention of selecting a number with a schedule of installing one of
each of the manufacturers in the spring of 1997. Complete
descriptions, details, dimensions, anchoring systems, etc. are being
prepared for each cage system and will be submitted as part of the
revised Corps of Engineers permit application. The revised application
• will include site plans depicting the number of net pen systems for
each of the manufacturers through Phase IV.
6
•
•
• Mariculture Technologies has been selected for funding of a Federal
grant for the evaluation of various flat fish net pen systems. It is the
intent to evaluate each of the selected trial net pen systems for at
lease the following parameters:
o Ability to withstand wind and wave conditions.
• o Number of net cages required.
o Ease of installation including anchoring and seasonal removal.
o Maintenance of system including cleaning.
• o Projected life of net cage systems.
o Predator control including seals.
o Feeding systems and ease of feeding.
• o Specific adaptation to the species.
o Ease of inspection of the fish for feeding rates, disease, etc.
o Ease of harvesting.
• o Written evaluation of the using personnel.
•
•
•
•
•
•
ND
S pU pG ISLAND EAST POINT
Lo
0
0
111111111111111111111111111a-
to /
1111°
` `/0 ,/
c � �/ 11 / \ Lt W 4 ! ` 10'56'
co •
PLUM ` /PHASE I \ Lg W\72°09'49"
Z• I I l` PHASES II, III and IV I 4,, ,5 \
ISLAND \5 / , �` ;S° °
C PLUM IS ROCK 1 �2 ��h95 48 ACHES —j• 2
9U off`
BUOY N„4' S°/ :logit:' /4414:1:46
i Cr, / •':�i yid�i�i moi./
j / Li N 41'10'25" \p + /k LI N 41 ° 10 44/ Lg W - i 0� Lc W 72°0932
o / (Reference) iIii:-. hl/,.•a�' JD 1
?�° / \ '/Z'
��� R COUNTY cI SUFFOLK
u / P ASES V and VI TOWN of SOUTHOLD
• ¢ / / 1 /'104 ."52 Z4..CRES' h� TAX MAP REFERENCE
a N 41 ' 10' 10" �, ^)
0 / \4 / 'L PARCEL REF. NO. 28
z Lg W 72° 10'33'
CD \ PROPERTY MAP 132
i6
/.\
�O° S V DISIR CT 1000
I / ` 6c
\
6 \ /
v_
Li N 4 1 °09' 58" /
G
I r /, �� Lg W 72° IC 16
Ct
�� 250/ 1
0PINE rGINT \ \ 2
SC TAX MAP REF : 10:.).2.-..13,27.....00 .00 28.00
�� A /
LJ �/ _ ,��013
2 1- 1 /
W R S k,',/ c.,\ /!
PROPOSED -- t \c
GROWOUT PEN SITE I
200 Acres
R p°
A 270 g 0
a SCALE: r,= 2000 FT v
o PURPOSE: SITE MAP FINFISH AQUACULTURE PROJECT
o FORTHGROWOUT FACILITY Mariculture Technologies
a FOR THE PRODUCTION OF EASTERN LONG ISLAND
W SUMMER FLOUNDER GARDINERS BAY TOWNRT of SOUR
HOLD
0 (Parnlichfhys Dentatus) SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK.
_c DATJM MEAN SEA LEVEL (PLUM ISLAND VICINITY) Prepared b
PECONIC ASSOCIATES, INC.
w AD_A^ENT PROPEFTY OWNERS: N/A ow •oC'LtG ALLCY, OPCENPOPT, NY 1,144
J
aDRAWN BY: AB CHK'D B`: MW DATE. 02JUL96 SHEET OF
8
•
S
2. FWL Comment: In the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS),
• Section I.E.8. ("Disaster Response and Notification Procedure"), at
page 1-160, the applicant states that "[t]he most potential
[emergencies or disasters that might occur] should
include. . .entrapment of seals or sea turtles in the net pens." In
addition, in Section II.C.4. ("Aquatic Ecology - Wildlife"), at page II-
51,• the applicant states that "[t]he most common sea turtles that may
be present. . .are the loggerhead (Caretta caretta), Kemps ridley
(Lepidoche/ys kempii), and the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas)."
Please be informed that the loggerhead and the green sea turtles are
listed as Federally threatened species pursuant of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (E.S.A.). The Kemps ridley turtle is listed as a
Federally endangered specie pursuant to the E.S.A. The same section
of the DEIS, at page 11-62, states that right whales (Euba/aena
glacialis) occur in the vicinity of the proposed area. This specie is also
listed as endangered pursuant to the E.S.A. For these reasons, it will
be necessary that you provide to this office a detailed discussion of
the preventive measures the applicant would undertake to avoid a
"taking" of the aforementioned species. This definition is described in
• paragraph 3 of the E.S.A. Enclosed please find a copy of the relevant
text highlighted for your information. Failure to address this issue
adequately may result in a request from the National Marine Fisheries
Service (N.M.F.S) to engage in formal consultation pursuant to
paragraph 7 of the E.S.A. This could potentially lengthen our review
process for an indeterminate amount of time. In addition, and based
• on our previous experience with N.M.F.S., we strongly recommend
that the applicant also discuss proposed preventive and/or corrective
measures insofar as they would be revelant in protecting other species
of concern such as seals and dolphins.
Response: The biology of the loggerhead turtle, Kemp's Ridley
• Turtle, green sea turtle and the right whale is discussed in the
DEIS, pages 11-51 to 11-63 (Volume I). It is recognized that these
species are listed as a threatened or endangered species
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
The issues involving the compatibility between fish farms such as
proposed and rare species protection including seals and dolphins, are
not new to the mariculture industry. These issues have been
specifically addressed in the Final Programmatic Environmental
Impacts Statement: Fish Culture in Floating Net-Pens prepared by the
Washington Department of Fisheries, 1990 ("Fish Culture FPEIS").
The Fish Culture FPEIS states that predators have been successfully
• controlled in Washington waters with anti-predator control nets.
These predators include the harbor seal, California sea lion, river otter,
killer whales, as well as a wide variety of fish eating avians. With
respect to killer whales, the Fish Culture FPEIS states that they tend
to avoid the fish farms and, in the instant application, it is expected
that the right whale and dolphins would similarly avoid the proposed
• grow-out area.
9
•
•
• Citing the potential problems of compatibility between fish farms and
endangered and threatened species and in consultation with National
Marine Fisheries Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service the
following protection strategies are disclosed in the Fish Culture FPEIS:
(1) The use of predator control nets where predators may be
• present;
(2) The predator control nets should be separated from the fish by
at least 3 feet;
• (3) The predator control net should extend 3 to 9 feet below the
bottom of the fish net, loop back up to create a bag-type
structure and be weighted sufficiently to remain taught;
(4) The predator control net mesh size should be less than 5 inches
to avoid accidental entrapment of animals;
• (5) Perimeter fencing should be installed to prevent resting of
pinnepeds on the pens; and
(6) A 7 inch stretch mesh net or parallel strings over the top of the
fish pen to stop birds from entering from above should be
installed.
As disclosed in the DEIS and the Addendum to the DEIS, these
recommendations have generally been applied to the instant proposal
(Section IV-2 through 10) (DEIS Volume I) and pages 33 through 36
of the Addendum to the DEIS (Volume III). Additionally, as disclosed
in the DEIS and the Addendum to the DEIS, Section IV-2 through 10
• (Volume I) and Pages 18 through 23 of the Addendum to the DEIS
(Volume III), additional mitigation measures are offered in the instant
proposal above and beyond those adopted for the State of
Washington. They include a seal deterrent device, regular diver
survey over all net surfaces and the rescue plan which discloses the
support activities offered by Okeanos Research Foundation seven days
• a week and 24 hours a day. Importantly, Okeanos Research
Foundation is licensed to handle federal threatened and endangered
species and is located in Riverhead, New York, a short distance from
the project site. It is anticipated that the regular diver inspection of
the net pens will provide important monitoring of the effect of net
pens to rare species, if any, and greatly improve the chances for
• immediate rescue operations should that be necessary by early
reporting. Therefore, because of the mitigative strategies incorporated
into the instant proposal, a "taking" of the rare species listed above is
not expected to occur.
•
10
•
•
B. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• National Marine Fisheries Service - Letter of February 6, 1996. (Appendix 3)
1. WQ Comment: Land Based Operations: The preferred upland site
includes two adjacent parcels that overlook Long Island Sound. The
bulk of the site is owned by the Village of Greenport, which had
+ purchased the property for future construction of sewage treatment
facilities. Does the Village's development no longer rely on the site?
Additional property needs include a two acre parcel owned by Suffolk
County, which will support a visitor center, laboratory and other
facilities.
Response: After the purchase of the site by the Village of Greenport,
• the Sewage Treatment Plant was subsequently built at another site
more central to the Village and a force main constructed from the
Sewage Treatment Plant site to Long Island Sound which traverses
the Clark's Beach site previously described. The only use the Village
has of this site now is for the force main that crosses the property and
access to the Sound by Village residence for fishing and recreation.
•
Mariculture Technologies has made a written request for the 2 acre
parcel now owned by Suffolk County. The decision of its availability
by the County is not expected to be received by Mariculture for some
time. This delay does not impact the project as the visitors center,
laboratory, and other facilities would not be needed for approximately
• two years.
2. WQ Comment: Mariculture Technologies plans to draw salt water
from wells onsite. However, the document is not clear on where the
hatchery effluent will be returned. Depending upon the volume of
discarded water, the concentrations and nature of substances
11
contained in the effluent and similar considerations, nutrient loading
into Long Island Sound or other receiving waters could be of concern.
Existing permits that regulate discharges from the selected processing
facilities, and capacities of available support infrastructure, including
municipal treatment plants or landfills, must be reviewed and updated
• to accommodate additional wastes from this operation.
Response: The proposed fish hatchery is projected to return
approximately twenty percent of the circulated water within the fish
hatchery to the Long Island Sound after treatment. The complete
details of the amounts based on per months of year from Phase I
through Phase IV, which will be its peak load level are set forth in the
application for SPDES Permits in Appendix # 12 (Volume VI). The
projected flow from the hatchery, including the average loading of
BOD, suspended solids, and nitrogen are listed in Table 3-B 1996,
Table 4-B 1997, Table 5-B 1998, Table 6-B 1999, and Table 7-B year
2000. (See Appendix # 12) (Volume VI). It should be noted that in
1999 the flows in the hatchery as well as the loading and the effluent
• are projected to have reached their peak.
11
1
•
Sludge from the hatchery treatment process is projected to be
• collected and trucked to the Suffolk County Sewage Treatment Plant
at Bergen Point for treatment and disposal.
Municipal waste generated at the hatchery site for working personnel
and visitors toilets is small in nature and will be discharged through a
• connection to the Greenport Village sanitary mains adjacent to the
project site and then processes in the Village's sewage treatment
plant.
•
•
I
•
a
•
12
•
•
• 3. FWL Comment: Aquatic-based operations: The selected fish pen site
lies within or adjacent to a significant coastal habitat as designated by
the New York State Department of State and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. This region provides high value nursery and foraging
habitat for many species of concern to the NMFS. In particular,
fishery resources including American lobsters (Homarus americanus),
• bay scallops fArgoaecten irradians), stripped bass (Morone saxatilis),
tautog (Tautoqa onitis), scup (Stenotomus chrysops) and weakfish
(Cynoscion regalis) may be encountered in the general net pen site.
The waters of Gardiners Bay, Long Island Sound and the Peconic Bays
also support several species of special concern, notably Kemp's ridley
(Lepidochelys kempii) and loggerhead (Caretta caretta) sea turtles, as
well as a variety of cetaceans and pinnepeds. These marine reptile
and mammal species are afforded "protected" status under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) or the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA). Additionally, Plum Gut tentatively has been identified as a
regional migration corridor for Atlantic salmon (Salmo salad returning
to Connecticut waters.
•
Degradation of water quality and benthic communities by materials
emanating from the culture pens, and altered natural deposition
patterns associated with reduced water velocities around the pen
array may be detrimental to these and many other aquatic resources.
• The data provided in the DEIS are not sufficient for us to assess the
probable environmental impacts of the project at either site. The
discussion of operations should be a comprehensive assessment of
the local hydrodynamics. This assessment should include site data on
currents measured at different times of the year and, specifically,
• during inclement weather. Since the pen operation would create an
attractive hazard to pinnepeds and other aquatic species protected by
the ESA, a more detailed contingency plan is needed concerning
possible incidents with protected species, including an assessment of
potential impacts to their habitats and forage. Furthermore, a more
appropriate prevention plan, rather than relying upon the services of
• the regional stranding team, should be developed to preclude
entanglement or entrapment events.
We recommend that these deficiencies be corrected in future versions
of the document. For ESA species, the assessment should address all
legal aspects of "take", including non-lethal harassment, harm and
wounding. It is illegal to possess or otherwise "take" a federally
• endangered or threatened species without first obtaining an incidental
take statement from the jurisdictional federal agency. The DEIS does
not present suitable consideration of these issues to meet NMFS
criteria for an incidental take statement for federally protected marine
species.
•
13
•
•
Response: With respect to the first paragraph set forth in WQ
Comment #3: Aquatic-Based Operations above, it is recognized that
two designated Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats are found within the
general area of the net pen site. They are: Plum Gut and the Race.
• The Significant Habitat, Plum Gut, is located more than 1,000 yards
from the proposed net pen site. However, the protruding peninsula of
Plum Island known as Pine Point provides a terrestrial barrier between
the net pen site and Plum Gut. The accompanying Impact
Assessment included in the Project Narrative for this Significant
Habitat speaks to the effects of any activities which would
• substantially alter water currents in the area. In the instant proposal,
it is recognized that the placement of nets in this area will cause a
localized change in the currents at the net pen site. These expected
changes arise out of frictional forces associated with the nets. Even
so, it is inconceivable that such localized effects would alter currents
• in Plum Gut in any substantial way. Similarly, the accompanying
Impact Assessment included in the Project Narrative for The Race
speaks to the effects of any activities which would substantially alter
water currents in the area. The southeastern reach of the Race as
identified by NYSDOS is approximately 11,000 yards from the net pen
site, and given this distance there is no chance whatsoever, that the
proposed project could alter current velocities in the race to any extent
II measurable by even the most sophisticated equipment available.
Finally, an attempt to obtain available scientific literature on the
effects of net pens to surrounding waters of high velocity currents
reveal no such investigations to have been undertaken. In fact, to our
knowledge, this issue has never before been raised and is not even
identified in the more comprehensive studies on effects of net pens
• such as the Final Frogrammatic Environmental Impact Statement: Fish
Culture in Floating Net-Pens, prepared by the Washington Department
of Fisheries, 1990. (See previous response A-2.)
As disclosed in the DEIS, a diver survey was conducted over the net
. pen site in accordance with the specifications provided in the Scoping
Outline as amended by the Department (Section 1-162 through 165)
(Volume I). Importantly, these specifications were developed among
all agencies having jurisdiction over the proposed project. The diver
survey did not reveal the presence of any of these species. With
respect to the American lobster, repeated field inspection of the site
• did not reveal any lobster pots at the net pen site, a finding that
should surprise no one given that the rocky bottom land habitat
generally favored by the American lobster does not exist at the project
site. With respect to bay scallops, while it is recognized that bay
scallops could potentially be found at the net pen site, there is no
expectation that bay scallops would be present in commercial
quantities particularly given their preference for inland waters such as
• Peconic Bay. With respect to stripped bass and weakfish, it is widely
recognized that their local habitat preference would be associated with
the Race and Plum Gut due to high velocity currents and the bottom
land coutours which concentrate prey along the shelf areas in these
places. With respect to tautog, their habitat preferences are generally
associated with rocky bottom lands and, in this area, the most
• productive fishing grounds are found on the north side of Plum Island
(the net pen site is on the south side of Plum Island.)
14
•
•
Even though none of the above mentioned species were actually
found on the site, it is conceded that some may inhabit or at least
pass through or around the project area, probably in route to their
preferred habitats. Furthermore, it is recognized that the project site
• over time could have similar effects as an artifical reef providing the
development of a food chain not now associated with the net pen site
and also providing cover or refuge for these species. However, such
effects should rightly be considered positive particularly given the fact
that numerous state and federal agencies have promoted, approved
and funded the creation of artificial reefs in the waters of the United
•
States. Furthermore, given that all such fish stocks are in a
precipitous and unprecedented state of decline, the effect of the net
pens once installed may be positive with respect to these species.
With respect to the second paragraph set forth in WQ Comment #3:
• Aquatic-Based Operations above, a contingency plan for the Kemp's
Ridley and loggerhead turtle as well as pinnepeds are addressed in the
response to FWL Comment #2 above. With respect to potential
impacts to the right whale, no harm to the right whale will occur as
the right whale is expected to avoid the net pen site just as killer
whales were found to avoid numerous net pen sites in the Puget
Sound in the State of Washington. With respect to the Atlantic
• salmon, no structures are proposed in Plum Gut. Accordingly, this
migration corridor will not be impeded to any extent whatsoever.
With respect to the third paragraph set forth in WQ Comment #3:
Aquatic-Based Operations above, an extensive monitoring program is
proposed for this project which is explained in great detail in the DEIS
• (Section IV-2 - 10) (Volume I). The monitoring program proposed
includes detailed analyses of all potential effects arrived at by diver
survey, water quality monitoring and benthic analyses. Importantly,
the proposed monitoring plan goes well beyond any such monitoring
efforts imposed on mariculture operations in the States of Maine and
' Washington.
With respect to the fourth and fifth paragraph set forth in WQ
Comment #3: Aquatic-Based Operations above, the specifications for
the assessment of local hydrodynamics were set forth in the Scoping
Outline developed with the full cooperation of the National Marine
Fisheries Service who attended the various scoping sessions. The
DEIS goes beyond the minimum specifications as recommended by
NMFS by inclusion of the relevant hydrodynamic data prepared by the
US Army Corps of Engineers as well as the analyses of such data
specific to the site (Section I 165-200) (Volume I) (Appendices C and
D) (Volume II). Having been included in this process, as well as
having provided input prior to the Lead Agency's determination of
• completeness for the DEIS which occurred subsequent to the
preparation of the Addendum to the DEIS which NMFS and other state
and federal agencies provided input to, it is wholly inappropriate to
now require or suggest that additional hydrodynamic data and
analyses be required for this project.
•
15
•
•
The contingency plan offered for this proposal is not limited to sole
reliance upon a regional stranding team, and a description of the
• contingency is once again provided in the Response to FWL Comment
#2 above. Additionally, FWL Comment #2 addresses the question of
taking.
4. GEN Comment: While we appreciate the potentially proprietary nature
of the data involved, the DEIS does not include sufficient detail in its
• discussions of technical and operational aspects of the proposal to
meet resource agency assessment needs. The document portions
related to the fish pens should be reviewed and repetitious sections
excised. Typographical errors should be eliminated as they confuse
the discussions and detract from the presentation. The DEIS should
• focus first on the Phase I operations and subsequently add the greater
activities envisioned in later out-years to reduce confusion with
respect to water volume, dietary and net pen demands. If equipment
or techniques are being evaluated in initial project phases, the criteria
for the evaluation should be identified in the EIS. Because potential
"success", although not a requirement of the permitting process, is a
consideration in light of the structures to be placed in navigable
• waters of the United States, an economic assessment and business
plan also should be included. It is important for the principals to
weigh production costs (e.g. salaries, capital investments and utilities)
against price per unit product (net wholesale value) and, in general
fashion, indicate at what production volume will prevailing and
projected market rates economically sustain the operation.
•
Response: Mariculture Technologies has complied with the requests
of all involved agencies from the initial scoping sessions in November
1992; April 13, 1993; July 15, 1993; and the final scoping session,
October 5, 1993. Although repetitious, Mariculture Technologies was
following the layout of the agreed upon scoping document covering
a Phase I and all subsequent phases of operation. If National Marine
Fisheries Service had suggestions for the organization of the scoping
document, there was ample time for input before the final scoping
document layout was agreed upon. The net pen structures will be
evaluated for over-all performance, durability, ease of use, safety,
maintenance, and fish survival. There was no input (verbally or in
letter form) from the NMFS representative who attended the scoping
sessions or during the "formal pre-review" sixty days prior to the
commencement of the official comment period. The only
correspondence with regards to this matter was on the last day of the
public comment period, February 6, 1996. Mariculture Technologies
is in contact with and has included the most up to date NMFS funded
• flounder research and cutting edge aquaculture techniques to ensure
this pioneering effort is a success.
•
16
•
•
Mariculture Technologies has complete confidence in its business plan
after weighing all production costs, capital investment, technical
expectations, and market viability. Mariculture Technolgies is
proceeding with the expectation that the proposed venture will be
• economically viable. We expect the operation to be profitable by the
completion of Phase III, however this is obviously subject to
operational experience and market demands. Mariculture
Technologies stands firm on its position that this information is
proprietary, and should not be part of the permitting process.
• 5. FWL Comment: The projected production goals and resource
demands may be overly optimistic. For example, the broodstock
collection and conditioning plan appears flawed. In our experience,
some fish will not acclimate to aquaria due to the stresses of
collection or captivity. Relying on a total of only twenty adults may
not suffice. Collectors should attempt to select potential brookstock
• by determining the sexes in the field, if possible. Collecting fish by
size could result in a breeding population of mostly females, or too
many males. This would reduce the genetic variability of the progeny
or result in too small a hatchery population to be economically viable.
Response: As disclosed in the DEIS filed for the proposed action, it
• was the intention of Mariculture Technologies, Inc. to develop a true
broodstock by selective breeding for the eventual production of
fingerling summer flounder to be stocked in ocean net pens (Section I-
100 through 108) (Volume I). This proposal was dropped in the
Addendum to the DEIS in favor of the collection and breeding of
wildstock in the field. (Page 30 of the Addendum to the DEIS, Volume
• III). The primary reasons for the proposal amendment was the fear
that the conditioned broodstock may not provide sufficient numbers of
viable offspring and agency fear that any genetic alteration of cultured
summer flounder could impact upon the natural population genome.
6. FWL Comment: Our inspection of the engineering and culture
• calculations reveals that review is necessary for many parameters
including the daily water consumption needs at the hatchery, fish
stocking densities in the land- and water-based portions of the project,
as well as the required yields necessary to meet the early life history
dietary demands for each phase of the project. Will the algae be
raised in uncontaminated culture or in open systems? What
• contingency plans are there for unexpected collapse of the cultured
diets? How will operations be maintained during prolonged power
outages? In general, the document needs a much more thorough
explanation of the hatchery operation. This discussion should be
expanded to address thoroughly the questions noted above and other
pertinent concerns including:
••
17
•
•
6a WQ Comment: Is the hatchery water system closed, semi-
`' closed or open?
Response: Based on the plan to have approximately 20% of
the hatchery water replaced each day, we would define the
system as semi-closed.
• 6b WQ Comment: What percentage of the water will be replaced
at any given time?
Response: Approximately 20% of the total volume of the
hatchery tanks will be replaced on a daily basis.
• 6c WQ Comment: Is the local groundwater capable of providing
sufficient volume and salinity to support the hatchery operation
in each phase of operation?
Response: To determine the potential availability of salt water,
a test well was installed by Kreiger Well & Pump Corp. (see
•
Appendix R of the DEIS) (Volume II). Also as the maximum
required salt water is only .46 mgd, and that a well field
capable of pumping 400 gpm is more than adequate for this
need, it is estimated with a high degree of certainty that a well
field in this vicinity can provide both the volume and the salinity
of the water required for the hatchery phase of operation.
• Reference is also made to the salt water well profile attached
showing the high concentration of salt water at a relatively
short depth below the ground surface. Also, the type of
substrata material common in this portion of the Long Island
area makes possible relatively high rates of pumping. Many
irrigation wells pump in excess of 400 gpm on a continual basis
• during the summer months.
6d WQ Comment: How will the thermal and other biological
requirements of the target species be met from broodstock
conditioning to product harvest?
• Response: The life history parameters of the summer flounder
are analyzed in great detail in the DEIS based upon technical
literature search. (See 1-92 through I-99) (Volume I). What
follows in the DEIS are the detailed descriptions of all culture
methods to be employed in the rearing of summer flounded
from the conditioning of brood stock to the harvesting of
• market sized summer flounder from the ocean net pens. (See
Section 1-100 through 1-145 of the DEIS) (Volume I).
Essentially, the culture methods employed have been developed
to mimic the natural environment with a couple of important
modifications. Among the important modifications adapted for
the culture environment, is the elevation of water temperature
• in the hatchery. That is, the temperatures maintained in
hatchery waters will be significantly elevated over that which
18
•
•
would be experienced by developing summer flounder in the
natural environment from early larval development stages
through post metamorphosis and, in fact, up through the
fingerling stage. The elevated temperatures in the hatchery are
expected to result in faster growth throughout these
• development stages as well as reduced mortality over what
would be experienced in the natural environment during the
early larval stages.
The temperature regimes set forth in the DEIS specific to the
various life history stages of the summer flounder (Section 1-
103 through 131) Volume I) are all well within the temperature
tolerances of the summer flounder as suggested in the literature
also summarized in the DEIS (Section 1-92 through 99) (Volume
I). However, there is some concern over the ability to maintain
summer flounder in ocean net pens throughout the winter
months. In the natural environment, summer flounder migrate
li out into the Continental Shelf where surface waters are warmer
than in in-shore waters. The warmer temperatures of the
Continental Shelf experienced during the winter months are
attributed to greater depths. Also, as disclosed in the available
literature on the summer flounder, very cold surface water
temperatures are known to cause significant mortality to larval
5 summer flounder. However, there is a suggestion in the
literature that adult summer flounder have increased tolerance
to cold water temperatures. Even so, the proposed project
provides for the harvesting of cultured summer flounder from
the ocean net pens in late autumn or early winter and thus
cultured summer flounder will not be present in the net pens
• during the coldest part of the year.
6e WQ Comment: What is the potential for dispersed fecal
material, liquid nitrogenous wastes, pathogenic microrganisms
and non-consumed foodstuffs from the fish pens to enrich the
waters of Long Island Sound, Gardiners Bay or the Peconics?
•
Response: The potential for dispersal of fecal material, liquid
nitrogenous wastes, and so forth, can generally be assumed by
a review of the March 13, 1996 Report to the Maine State
Legislature on Finfish Aquaculture Monitoring Program included
in Appendix 11 (Volume VI). This report indicates that oxygen
• saturation below 85% were observed almost exclusively within
5 meters of the cage systems, either at pen net depth or close
to the bottom. The mean difference between the 100 meter
upcurrent saturation and the 5 meter downcurrent saturation
across all sites is shown to be 4.8 and 2.7 percentage points in
1994 and 1995, respectively. The mean difference between
• the 100 meter upcurrent and 100 meter downcurrent saturation
minima is only 1 .7 and 1 .0 percentage points in 1994 and
1995, respectively.
Mariculture Technologies, in response to requests from New
York State DEC, retained the services of HydroQual, Inc. to
• assess the probable impacts of nitrogen released from the
proposed Finfish Aquaculture Project on Long Island Sound
19
•
•
dissolved oxygen levels. (See Appendix 14) (Volume VI).
HydroQual analysis was to estimate the farfield impact of
nitrogen and organic carbon loadings from the fish pens on
dissolved oxygen levels in Long Island Sound. HydroQual's
farfield effects were evaluated using existing data and modeling
• tools developed for the USEPA, Long Island Sound Study
Office. HydroQual's analysis was approached using the Long
Island Sound Water Quality Model in two ways: First, by
comparing the estimated nitrogen and carbon loadings from the
fish pens, with loading estimates for Long Island Sound
tributaries for which information was available; and secondly,
• by estimating the nitrogen concentrations throughout the Sound
that would result from the operation of the facility, and
comparing those calculated values calculated for existing
conditions in the Sound.
HydroQual's analysis using the very conservative approach
• mentioned above, specifically that all nitrogen and carbon would
stay in the dissolved form, that nothing was assumed to settle,
and that no nitrogen was lost due to denitrification or
volitilization, and so forth, but would all be in the dissolved form
and subject to transport to the farfield locations, reached the
following conclusions:
•
"In the vicinity of the "hot spot" (Response Zone # 2), based on
the loading estimates, the fish pens are estimated to increase
the impacts of human activities on the annual minimum DO
level by 0. 18 to 0.20%, or 0.0054 to 0.0062 mg/L, depending
on the value chosen for carbon loads. Based on the model
• simulation, the fish pens are estimated to increase nitrogen
levels by a maximum of 0.22% (in May).
"In the eastern portion of the Sound in the vicinity of Response
Zone # 10, based on the loading estimates, the fish pens are
estimated to increase the impacts of human activities on the
• annual minimum DO level by 0.60 to 0.96%, or 0.0042 to
0.0067 mg/L. Based on the model simulation, the fish pens are
estimated to increase nitrogen levels by a maximum of 1.3% (in
November). In August, the fish pens are estimated to increase
nitrogen levels by approximately 1.0%. "
• The complete HydroQual analysis and modeling is contained in
Appendix 14 (Volume VI).
HydroQual, as part of its contract with Mariculture
Technologies, is also going to do a modeling and analysis of the
projected impacts on the Peconic Bays at a later date when the
• County information on nitrogen levels are collected and
tabulated.
6f WQ Comment: What are the potential impacts to the water
column and benthic communities associated with the fish pen
array?
•
20
•
•
Response: The potential impacts to the water column and
• benthic communities can best be evaluated based on the Report
to the Maine State Legislature on Finfish Aquaculture
Monitoring Program, dated March 13, 1996 in Appendix # 11
(Volume VI). It is recognized that the State of Maine water
quality monitoring of net pen finfish sites is one of the most
complete and objectively analyzed of any available monitoring
• program. Clearly, such an approach can be applied in the
evaluation of potential environmental impacts in Mariculture's
project with respect to all production phases proposed.
Importantly, the monitoring program report makes the following
conclusions: "The monitoring results for the past three years in
Maine have shown that, a/though environmental affects do
• occur at cage culture sites, these effects are not nearly as
severe as initially expected and, in most cases, the area of
effect is limited to the immediate vicinity of the cages. "
6g WQ Comment: Is the water clarity at the pen site adequate for
this sight-feeding species to locate the artificial diet introduced
II into the pens?
Response: The life history of the summer flounder was
analyzed in detail in Section I of the DEIS. (See Section 1-92
through 1-99) (Volume I). Essentially, summer flounder occupy
a variety of aquatic habitats ranging from shallow embayments
• to the Continental Shelf of the Atlantic Ocean. Also, as
disclosed in Section 1-97 of the DEIS (Volume I) the food
preferences of the summer flounder are quite varied ranging
from bottom dwelling crustaceans such as the hermit crab to
pelagic fishes such as silversides. Because the summer
flounder is known to feed on the bottom lands at great depths
O capturing live, mobile forms there is great likelihood that the
summer flounder will be able to easily locate slowly sinking feed
pellets in the net pens, particularly when it is considered that all
summer flounder will have been weaned onto an artificial diet
by that time. There is no doubt that water clarity at the net
pen site as measured by sechii disk and disclosed in the DEIS
• Section I-203) (Volume I), is sufficient for cultured summer
flounder to locate introduced pelletized feed.
6h FWL Comment:How well do larval summer flounder make the
transition from a live diet (rotifers, brine shrimp) to the moist
pelletized rations? Has the proposed formula been tested on
• this species?
Response: The culture stage in which summer flounder undergo
a transition from a live diet to the moist pelletized ration has
been identified as the weaning stage (see 1-118 through 1-121
of the DEIS) (Volume I). As disclosed in the DEIS, the expected
• survival rate at this stage is 80%.
21
•
•
As disclosed in the DEIS (Section 1-118 through 121 ) (Volume
I), the experimental flatfish hatcheries have, for the most part,
been using a salmon starter diet during the weaning stages with
good success. At the same time, producers of pelletized
rations, such as Moore-Clark Co. and others, are constantly
41 modifying the nutritional quality of starter diets in an effort to
maximize growth, survival or other target parameters. The
exact composition of the starter diet is proprietary but has
undergone testing by the feed manufacturer as part of their
normal research and development activities.
• 6i WQ Comment: What prophylactics or pesticides will be used?
How will they be introduced? What is the proposed application
rate and potential risk to water quality, native species or
seasonal transients?
Response: No prophylactics or pesticides are proposed for use
• in any culture operation for this project. Therefore, there is no
potential risk to water quality, native species nor seasonal
transients.
6j NG Comment: How will maintenance be done on the pens to
` control biofouling, structural damage or equipment failure?
Response: Pages 1-245 and 1-246 (Volume I) - Net Cleaning,
described in considerable amount of detail how the net pens will
be kept clean and the control of biofouling accomplished.
Where this is a seasonal operation, March into November, it is
planned for repairs to nets themselves and other structural
• damage will be accomplished during the other months of the
year, with the net pens in operation, and taking apart the net
pens and removing or replacing them would not interfere with
the grow out production. This is similar to the programs used
elsewhere on net pens. In addition, Mariculture Technologies is
• retaining on a consulting basis experienced maintenance
personnel to advise their personnel on net pen maintenance and
other equipment servicing.
6k FWL Comment: What is the projected escapement from each
pen type? How will escapes be prevented during heavy
• weather conditions or tidal surges?
Response: There is no projected escapement from any of the
proposed net pen types. The design, engineering and
construction of the three net pen types are disclosed in great
detail in Section C of the DEIS (Volume I). To summarize and to
place into proper perspective, all net pen types under
• consideration are designed for heavy weather conditions.
Hence, each of the contemplated net pen types are more aptly
and commonly referred to as ocean net pens. Also, as
disclosed in the DEIS, all net pen types are designed to meet
the very stringent and specific standards of Lloyd's Register -
Provisional Rules and Regulations for the Classification of Fish
• Farms (see Appendix # 13), American Bureau of Shipping
Standards, and A.S.T.M. Standards.
22
•
•
• Even if some fish were to escape, the environmental impact of
such a loss is regarded as insignificant because the cultured
summer flounder are genetically identical to the native wild
stocks. If anything, escaped cultured summer flounder would
be less adapted to the natural environment than obviously, the
native summer flounder populations having been entirely
' weaned onto an artificial diet no longer available to them.
Therefore, the escaped summer flounder would be at a
competitive disadvantage to the local populations of summer
flounder.
61 FWL Comment: How will cannibalism be controlled in the
• cultured population?
Response: Cannibalism is a problem which is experienced
during the early life stages of the summer flounder. In refining
the culture methods for the purposes of this proposed project,
` the authors of this EIS visited a variety of commercial and
experimental culture facilities where salmon and flounder were
being raised. Among the experimental rearing facilities visited
was the Huntsman Marine Center in New Brunswick, Canada.
Researchers at the Huntsman Marine Center have been actively
researching and developing more effective culture techniques
for the winter flounder. The authors were advised of this
• problem as well as its solution, separation. The control of
cannibalism is to be accomplished by the grading of summer
flounder in the hatchery by screen, siphon or similar means.
6m FWL Comment: What is the diet to be used to sustain
conditioning broodstock?
•
Response: As disclosed in 1-102 of the DEIS (Volume I),
broodstock will be maintained on a diet of live, recently killed or
frozen squid and butter fish.
•
•
•
23
•
•
RESPONSES TO STATE AGENCY COMMENTS
•
A. New York State Department of State
Division on Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization -
Letter of February 7, 1996. (Appendix 4)
' 1. GEN Comment: Policy 1 : The DEIS does not provide the historical
evidence of the Clark's Beach potential hatchery site as a commercial
waterfront, now in a deteriorated state, and therefore, in need of
revitalization, restoration, and/or redevelopment.
Response: As explained in the DEIS (Volume I, page I-77), this site
now is used primarily by the Village of Greenport for the Village of
• Greenport's sewage treatment outfall line which runs through the
property (underground) and to an outfall line in Long Island Sound.
The history of this site as explained by James Monsell, the former
Superintendent of Utilities for the Village of Greenport is set forth
below.
• The original Clark's Beach site was purchased by the Village of
Greenport on or about 1938 for the purpose of the installation of a
municipal sewage treatment plant. This site was later abandoned for
this purpose and the treatment plant was located further inland at its
present location, approximately to the south on Moore's Lane. Except
for the installation of the sewage treatment plant outfall line, this site
• has remained largely in its natural state, undeveloped and underutilized
since the above date. Extensive mining of sand and gravel has
occurred over the years at the site and the Village of Greenport has
made a concentrated effort to control dumping in the area. Wide
scale littering, and to a lesser degree dumping, has occurred over the
site. A direct benefit for the site being developed as a hatchery will
• include initial clean up and continued maintenance which will reduce
the incidence of littering and dumping.
In 1986 a Department of Energy grant was obtained to put in a
salt-to-fresh water experimental plant using freezing as a technology
to separate the salt from the water. This experiment lasted three
• years and was subsequently abandoned and the equipment removed.
The Village of Greenport values the beach portion of the site as a
recreational area providing access for local surf casters. The proposed
project is consistent with those values set forth by the Village of
Greenport.
•
2. GEN Comment: Policy 6: The DEIS statement: "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" is
inaccurate. The two acre hatchery site parcel owned by Suffolk
County falls under the purview of the New York State Coastal
• Management Program and as such should be discussed under this
policy.
24
•
•
Response: Policy 6 has to do with expediting the permit procedures in
order to facilitate the siting of development activities and suitable
locations. The 2-Acre parcel owned by Suffolk County certainly is a
• suitable location for the required added space for the hatchery portion
of the project. The principal permitting procedure will be preparation
and filing with the Town of Southold appropriate site plan documents.
The Town of Southold already has in place coordination procedures of
site plan applications with the Suffolk County Planning Department,
• thereby insuring synchronization of the permit process between the
Town, the County, and the State.
3. FWL Comment: Policy 7: The proposed grow out site is in close
proximity to the Plum Gut significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat,
designated by the Department of State on March 15„ 1987.
• The Department is concerned that the net pens may impinge on the
ability of certain species to migrate successfully from the Atlantic
Ocean into Long Island Sound. The DEIS should address Policy 7 and
all of the potential impacts that the proposed action (net pens) may
have on the number of species that utilize the Plum Gut Habitat.
• Response: As previously discussed herein, there are no plans nor
proposals to locate any net pens in Plum Gut. Therefore, there is no
potential for this migratory corridor to be impacted. Coastal Policy # 7
was not discussed in the DEIS as the project sponsor was careful to
locate the proposed net pens outside of two Significant Habitats in the
general area. They are: Plum Gut and the Race. The proposed net
• pen site has been located more than 1,000 yards from Plum Gut and
11,000 yards from the Race.
Policy 7 speaks to actions that significantly reduce a vital resource
(e.g., food, shelter, living space) or changes environmental conditions
• (e.g., temperature, substrate, salinity) beyond the tolerance range of
an organism, than the action would be considered to "signicantly
impair" the habitat. In the instant application, there is no expectation
that either significant habitat will be significantly impaired. That is,
there is no expectation that the proposed project will result in a
change to temperature or salinity whatsoever. With respect to
substrate, there is no expectation that the excess feed and fecal
• materials generated from the net pen site to settle out into Plum Gut
nor the Race to any measurable extent because the tidal currents
through these areas are great. So great are the tidal currents in these
areas, that the bottom lands are characterized as hard, consisting of
pebbles, larger stones and boulders. There is little probability that the
fine grained organic sediments or particulates from the proposed net
• pens will settle out in the high current velocity areas. Furthermore,
with respect to food, shelter and living space, there is no expectation
that any such physical parameters will be effected in these significant
habitats to any measurable degree. However, it is conceded that the
proposed net pen site may over time act as an artificial reef providing
for expended food, shelter and living space for at least some of the
• fish species which also utilize Plum Gut and the Race. This is viewed
as a potential benefit derived from the proposed project.
25
•
•
The accompanying Explanation of Policy established the range of
• physical, biological and chemical parameters which should be
considered in entertaining the question as to whether an action is
judged consistent with this particular coastal policy. The discussion of
physical parameters are central to the analyses provided in the DEIS
(Section II 3-6, 11-12, 16-32,34-38) (Volume I). The DEIS concludes
no such impacts will occur at the project site (Section III 10-14)
•
(Volume I) and therefore, there is even less likelihood that such
impacts could occur in two significant habitats located 1,000 yards to
11,000 yards from the project site. The biological parameters are not
expected to change in either of the significant habitats, although it is
conceded that the net pen site may act as an artificial reef over time
that would attract local populations of fish stocks to the net pen site
• increasing productivity, resulting in a more complex community
structure and predator/prey relationships. In general, the proposed
grow-out operations are expected to enhance the environment with
respect to biological parameters. With respect to chemical
parameters, there is no possibility that the proposed project will result
in a change to salinity, acidity nor an increase in toxic or hazardous
• materials. With respect to the remaining chemical parameters, a
detailed water quality and other parameters monitoring program is
proposed in the DEIS (page IV-4 to IV-10) (Volume I) that has been
designed to detect any significant impact to water quality should one
occur. There is expectation that the future expansion of the project
as proposed will only occur if no significant impacts to water quality
• result from the initial production phases. Therefore, the project as
proposed is not inconsistent with this coastal policy.
4. FWL Comment: Policy 8: The proposed grow out site is in close
proximity to a New York State designated Significant Coastal Fish and
Wildlife Habitat. In addition, the proposed hatcheries, Cedar Beach
•
and Clark's Beach would release effluent into Gardiners Bay and Long
Island Sound respectively. Fecal materials, excess fish feed,
antibiotics and diseases associated with fish farming are potentially
hazardous wastes when improperly treated and released into the
environment. The DEIS must satisfactorily explain, citing scientific
literature, how these potentially hazardous materials will be handled:
•
In particular, discussions should include documentation on how the
application of antibiotics and other medicines applied to the fish
population at the grow out site will be accomplished without exposing
other fauna to potentially hazardous materials.
Response: First, it should be understood that any proposed hatchery
• research at Cedar Beach conducted by Cornell University is not part of
the proposed project, but a separate entity.
•
26
•
•
Fecal materials, excess fish feed, antibiotics and diseases associated
• with fish farming are not classified as hazardous wastes. As disclosed
on page 87 of the Addendum to the DEIS (Volume III), hazardous
wastes are defined as follows: "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 environmental when
improperly stored, disposed, transported or otherwise managed. "
Because the release of fecal materials, excess fish feed and antibiotics
can not cause the above defined effects they can not be considered
hazardous materials. Furthermore, to assert that a fish once
• contracting a disease of any kind now becomes a hazardous material
is totally beyond any reasonable interpretation of what may be
considered a hazardous substance.
The potential impacts of antibiotics released into the aquatic
environment is addressed in the Addendum to the DE:IS (Pages 30-32)
• (Volume III) and in this FEIS (see WQ Comment No. 10). The
inescapable conclusion reached in these analyses is that such release
into the aquatic environment will not cause any significant impact to
water quality. Therefore, it must also be concluded that such release
will not significantly impact upon the fauna contained within the
• aquatic environment.
Antibiotics to be used in this application is limited to oxytetracycline
and oxytetracycline is integrated into the pelletized feed. The treated
pelletized feed is introduced into the net pens and obviously, its
beneficial effect to the summer flounder is only realized when the feed
is ingested. As disclosed in the DEIS, for many of the diseases
• affecting summer flounder, the initial consequence of disease outbreak
is the cessation of feeding of the cultured fish, which has been
termed, anorexic response (Section 1-231 through 245) (Volume I).
The anorexic response thwarts effective treatment by this method and
there are no other treatment methods available in the culture of
summer flounder. This further reduces the efficacy of antibiotic feed
• treatment in terms of frequency of use and quantity to be introduced.
Furthermore, the high price of antibiotic feed discourages over
feeding. In this application, the use of antibiotic feed is only expected
to be of value if a treatable disease is diagnosed in its early stages. It
is under this scenario that antibiotic feed would be delivered to the
culture fish until satiation. Satiation is determined in the field by
• direct observation from diver inspection. Accordingly, feeding is
halted once disease infected fish are satiated. The diirect observation
of this event results in the prevention of excess antibiotic feed being
released into the aquatic environment.
•
27
•
•
5. FWL Comment: Policy 9: This policy may be applicable to the
•
proposed action and should be discussed in the DEIS. In particular,
discussion should focus on the potential increase in recreational
fishing opportunities at Clark's Beach and near the grow out site.
Response: Policy # 9 speaks to the expansion of recreational fishing
in coastal areas by increasing access to existing resources,
• supplementing existing stocks and developing new resources. The
instant application will not increase access to existing resources nor
will existing stocks by supplemented. However, deployment of the
proposed net pens in Gardiners Bay could conceivably result in the
development of a new resource because of the anticipation that the
proposed net pens may have similar biological effects to those
• resulting from the creation of artificial reefs. It is in this regard that
the overall effect to recreational fishing is regarded as positive and
accordingly, the proposed project is consistent with Coastal Policy #
9.
6. FWL Comment: Policy 10: The DEIS should discuss the positive
• and/or negative economic effects the introduction of farmed summer
flounder into the New York marketplace will have on the State's
commercial fishing industry.
Response: Mariculture Technologies intends on selling at least 50%
of its flounder (whole fish or live) to overseas markets in Japan and
• the far East. Processed product will be sold and marketed on a direct
basis to large national chain accounts, retail and food service.
Flounder product will not be marketed through local channels or the
New York marketplace, i.e. Fulton Fish Market.
7. WQ Comment: Policy 12: If the salt water wells are to be located
•
adjacent to the proposed Clark's Beach hatchery site, their potential
impacts to the bluff morphology should be discussed.
Response: The proposed location of the salt water wells will be
substantially landward of the bluff. The salt water wells will be
• constructed using submersible pumps so the well casing and the pipe
will be totally underground. There is nothing in the salt water well
installation that would contribute to erosion of the bluff. All of the
controls and other equipment to operate the wells will be located in
the salt water treatment plant, remote from the salt water well site.
•
•
28
•
•
8. GEN Comment: Policy 18: The DEIS states that if the proposed
• action does not go forward negative impacts including "reduced
employment and all negative social effects associated therewith"
would occur. As the Department indicated previously, the potential
employment numbers (150 - 200 persons) appear to be over
estimated. To state that if the project is not approved employment
will be reduced resulting in negative social effects for the Village of
• Greenport is overly dramatic. The DEIS should provide a real estimate
of the number of individuals that would be employed for the different
phases of the proposed action, along with the type of work
opportunities that would be generated by the project.
Response: The number of jobs to be created by the project as
•
proposed is set forth in the following table.
9. GEN Comment: Policy 19: The DEIS states that the Clark's Beach
hatchery site will include the installation of a roadway and parking
area to facilitate and improve the access to the public beach now
utilized by the residents of the Village of Greenport. The DEIS should
• include discussions on what assurances will be given to retain public
access and, in managing visitor control at the hatchery.
Response: Public access will be assured within the lease between the
Village of Greenport and Mariculture Technologies. The Village is on
record in correspondence to John Wieland, NYDEC, April 30, 1996
• from Mayor David Kapell. The letter states, "The lease, when
executed will provide for continued public access to, and enjoyment of
the beachfront on Long Island Sound".
Mariculture's intent is for Cornell Cooperative Extention to assist in
the educational/visitor aspect of the project. In correspondence to
•
Mariculture Technologies from Cornell, dated March 7, 1995, Cornell
stated, "This letter is formalizing Cornell Cooperative Extension,
Suffolk County Marine Program's interest in pursuing the
establishment of an educational outreach component at Mariculture's
marine hatchery facility at Clark's Beach on Long Island Sound".
"Such a facility would serve as an excellent foundation from which
'
educational programs addressing marine ecology and the environment
could be conducted." "We look forward to having Mariculture
Technologies as a partner in development of this important
educational component to your aquaculture program." Visitors will be
accommodated by guided tours only.
•
•
29
•
•
REFERENCE THE DEIS (VOLUME I) PAGE I-75 - NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES PER
PHASE THE FOLLOWING IS A TABULATED LIST OF DIRECT EMPLOYMENT
•
PROJECTIONS BY TYPE
PROJECTED NUMBER AND TYPE OF EMPLOYEES PER PARSE
PHASE I II III IV V VI
•
HATCHERY/LABORATORY
HATCHERY MGMT/BIOLOGISTS 0 1 2 3 3 3
ASSISTANTS/TECHNICIANS/BIOLOGISTS
24 HRS/7 DAYS/WEEK 0 4 5 7 7 7
• HATCHERY ENGINEER/TREATMENT PLNT.
MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL
24 HRS/7 DAYS/WEEK 0 3 5 8 8 8
TRUCKERS 0 1 1 2 2 2
LABORATORY 0 1 2 3 3 3
TOTALS 0 10 15 23 23 23
•
NET PENS/GROWOUT
NET PEN MANAGER 1 1 1 2 2 2
ASSISTANTS 1 1 2 3 3 4
SKILLED LABOR TO INCLUDE:
NET PEN MAINTENANCE
• DIVERS, BOAT CREW,
FEED HANDLERS
FISH HARVESTING 4 5 10 14 18 26
NET PEN MONITORING 1 1 2 3 4 5
DOCK/SHORESIDE PERSONNEL 1 2 2 2 2 2
OFF HOURS, SECURITY 4 4 4 4 4 4
• TOTALS 12 14 21 28 33 43
PROCESSING
PLANT MANAGEMENT 1 1 1 2 2 2
HACCP CERT. SUPERVISORS 0 0 1 2 5 8
FISH CUTTERS 1 2 12 20 52 86
• GENERAL LABOR 2 2 4 4 6 8
TOTALS 4 5 18 28 65 104
ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICERS 2 2 2 3 3 3
ADMINISTRATIVE 1 2 4 8 10 14
• PROFESSIONAL 1 1 2 2 3 3
OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS 2 2 2 3 3 3
TOTALS 6 7 10 16 19 23
TOTAL HEAD COUNT 22 36 64 95 140 193
• *Some jobs may be handled by local subcontractors also some jobs wi
nature.
30
•
•
10. WQ Comment: Policy 30: The DEIS should provide a detailed
description of the impacts on the waters surrounding the grow out site
•
from discharges of fish feed containing antibiotics and other medicines
and how these impacts will be mitigated.
Response: A detailed assessment of Health/Disease Control is set
forth in Section H of the DEIS (Volume I) prepared May, 1995 as well
as in Item # 3 of the Addendum to the DEIS (Volume III) prepared
• November, 1995. Four basic types of diseases are identified in
Section I-H of the DEIS (Volume I). They are: nutritional disease, viral
pathogens, bacterial pathogens, and parasites. Among the four basic
disease types, only two may be cured or even arrested using antibiotic
feed. They are viral and bacteriological pathogens. Importantly, not
all diseases caused by viral and bacterial pathogens can be treated
• effectively with antibiotic feed. Therefore, the potential use of
antibiotic feed in the treatment of viral and bacteriological pathogens
is quite limited.
The use of antibiotic feed as a prophylactic approach to disease
control is not being entertained by Mariculture Technologies, Inc. for
•
two basic reasons. First, the widespread use of antibiotic feed would
cause a significant and unnecessary increase in food costs. Second,
the wide spread use of antibiotic feed in this manner could result in
evolving pathogens which become resistant to antibiotic treatment
thereby defeating such an approach.
• As disclosed throughout Section H of the DEIS (Volume I), only
antibiotics approved by the FDA for aquaculture will be used in
response to early stages of disease, not as a prophylactic. In
analyzing the types of diseases known or suspected to occur in
summer flounder with the number and types of antibiotics approved
by FDA for aquacultural use, only one antibiotic may be obtained and
•
used: oxytetracycline.
Oxytetracycline is the most commonly used antibiotic in salmon farms.
Its effects of aquatic environment have been previously investigated
(Austin, 1985; Katz, 1984; Wekel, 1989). Austin (1985) concluded
that the concentrations of antibiotics reaching the surrounding
• environment is quite small because of dilution. In the application,
dilution factors are greater than those experienced by Austin due to
greater current velocities in this area. Thus, if Austin found the
concentrations of antibiotics reaching the environment to be quite
small because of dilution, the concentrations of antibiotics in this
application will be even more minute. Katz (1984) in working with
•
FDA also concluded that the build-up of antibiotics and its associated
resistance factors are minimal due to dilution, among other things.
Finally, Wekell (1984) in his studies of salmon farms in the Puget
Sound area found no oxytetracycline in the sediments near fish farms
despite its apparent use by numerous salmon farms. Accordingly, no
build-up of oxytetracycline in the sediments in this application is
•
expected.
31
•
•
Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, the potential impacts
attributed to the sporadic or even occasional use of antibiotics to
•
surface waters and for that matter bottom sediments, are regarded as
minimal or insignificant.
11. FWL Comment: The proposed action has yet to define an MT
"market" size summer flounder. Because the harvest of wild summer
flounder by the New York State commerical fishing industry is a
•
sensitive management issue at the moment, it is important for MT to
determine what a "market" size fish will be and how its introduction
into the marketplace will effect the price of fish harvested by the
commerical fishing industry.
Response: Mariculture Technologies will harvest raised flounder above
• the State legal size limit of 14 inches. Harvest weight of the fish will
be between 2-3 pounds or 14-16 inches. Export markets seek a 2-3
pound fish as the most desirable size and highest market price.
The effect on wild harvest market price, due to farm raised flounder
will likely be positive in that ex-vessel price may increase because
•
farm raised product will be in the market place at a higher price. The
costs involved in raising a farm raised flounder are in excess of
$3.00/pound in the round. Average wholesale market price of
flounder in the round, over the last 5 years, has been considerably less
than $3.00/pound. Ex-vessel price has averaged in $1 .46 in 1993,
and imports averaged $1 .48 in 1993. The above information was
•
derived from USDC Fisheries Report # 9300 May 1994 and Memo
from Eric Braun, NOAA/NMFS.
12. FWL Comment: On page 1-84, the DEIS provides information on
Phase I of the project. The DEIS states: "Phase I production will be
accomplished by the eventual production of fingerlings to take place in
•
the proposed hatchery, or alternatively, by direct purchase. The direct
purchase option is proposed herein to address the logistical unknowns
pertaining to the overall regulatory process for the proposed project.
Accordingly, fingerlings may be purchased from (sic) out of state or
from Cornell Cooperative Extension Service utilizing their existing
facility at Cedar Beach in Southold, New York. The principal hatchery
•
and support functions of Phase II through Phase IV is projected to be
located on an approximately ten (10) acre site referred to locally as
Clark's Beach".
Our communication with Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk
County Marine Program personnel corroborates MT's intention to
• utilize the Cedar Beach site as the Phase I hatchery site. Extension
Service personnel reported that a National Marine Fisheries
Service/Fisheries Industry Grant had been awarded to MT for the
development of the hatchery facility at the Cedar Beach site.
•
32
•
•
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reports the MT proposal
• to raise summer flounder was "selected for funding consideration".
The NMFS requested a revised description of work based on its
technical review and as of this date a response from MT has not been
received. In addition to the revised work plan, NMFS stated that the
award will not be made until MT demonstrates that all necessary
• State, local and Federal permits are granted.
MT should clearly state within the DEIS, its intentions for the Cedar
Beach facility in Phase I of the proposed action. If Cedar Beach is the
designated Phase I hatchery site, then the applicant must provide the
appropriate information in the EIS regarding the Cedar Beach location.
• Response: All previous discussions and correspondance regarding the
relationship between Clarks Beach, Fisheries Industries Grant, and
Cedar Beach to subject project is clarified as follows::
CLARKS BEACH: The DEIS (page 1-17, Volume I) specifically specifies
that Clarks Beach is to be used for the hatchery and nursery for the
• project. Because of the delay in obtaining Clarks Beach as a hatchery
and nursery site, as well as the status of the permits for the same, it
was necessary for Mariculture Technologies to accomplish the planned
Phase I production of fingerlings by direct purchase from Great Bay
Aquafarms in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. These fingerling size fish
are planned to be used for stocking the Phase I net cage pens in the
• spring of 1997. As described in the DEIS (pages 1-59 to 1-72, Volume
I), it is planned that Clarks Beach will be used for subsequent phases
for hatchery and fingerling production.
FISHERIES INDUSTRY GRANT This grant was written for the primary
purpose to evaluate various manufacturers of net cage systems and
•
their adaptation to the final grow out of summer flounder. As stated
above, the source of the fish for the evaluation of several
manufacturers of net cage systems in Phase I are to be obtained for
Great Bay Aquafarms.
CEDAR BEACH: Initially, during the preparation of the Fisheries
• Industry Grant it was thought that the growing of the fish to be used
in the net cage system evaluation could be grown as part of a
hatchery research project at Cornell's Cooperative Extension, Cedar
Beach site. This was done without the specific realization that the
use of this site would necessitate a major revision to the DEIS and the
permit processes. Unfortunately, there was a reference in the
• Fisheries Industry Grant to utilize the Cedar Beach site as part of the
process for growing of fish for the net cage system evaluation.
Subsequently, it was realized that the necessary requirements
(permits, etc.) were not in place, and it was correctly determined that
the Cedar Beach site would not play any role in the project.
•
33
•
•
• As the primary purpose of the Fisheries Industry Grant was to evaluate
the various aspects of several net cage systems to grow summer
flounder to harvest size, Mariculture plans to request a revision to the
Fisheries Industry Grant to focus on its primary purpose to evaluate
net pen systems.
Displaced fishermen and a team of qualified personnel including
• representatives of appropriate agencies will be used for the cage
system evaluations.
13. FWL Comment: Since the Department's initial review of the DEIS, the
agency has been made aware of available technical information
pertaining to the culture of summer flounder. The Department
• suggest that the applicant work closely with the summer flounder
research community and the National Marine Fisheries Service to
provide a more complete analysis of the current culture techniques of
summer flounder and the use of net pens for flat fish,
Response: Mariculture Technologies worked with NMFS, University of
Rhode Island, the International Community in Canada and Norway,
and directly with NMFS Funded Flounder Research Grantees over the
past four years. We believe we have the best information gathered to
date. These sources are included in the DEIS list of references
(Section X, Volume I). Additionally, the Flat Fish Culture Symposium
hosted by New York Sea Grant in October, 1994 was attended by
• Mariculture Technologies as well as New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation and other agencies of jurisdiction.
Information obtained from this symposium was applied to subject
proposal where appropriate.
•
•
•
•
34
•
•
B. New York State Executive Department
•
Office of General Services - Letter of February 8, 1996. (Appendix 5)
1. GEN Comment: Substantiation of the statement that there are no
cultural, archeological or historic resources (for example, on pg. I-21)
is still required. Evidence of communication or correspondence with
the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPR&HP),
• the New York State Museum, or perhaps Long Island historic
information sources, needs to be added.
Response: An inquiry has been made to the New York State Office of
Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, who reviewed the project
in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
• Act of 1966. The Director of Historic Preservation Field Service
Bureau responded as follows:
"Based upon this review, it is the SHPO's opinion that your project
will have No Effect upon cultural resources eligible for inclusion in the
• National Register of Historic Places. "
2. WQ Comment: The Maine aquaculture assessment indicated that only
one leasehold (containing several sites) experienced significant water
quality problems. This should be further investigated in the DEIS or
perhaps by DEC to identify what the specific problems were and how
• to avoid repetition of them.
Response: Reference is made to the Report to the Maine State
Legislature on Finfish Aquaculture Monitoring Program, dated March
13, 1996 contained in Appendix 11 (Volume VI). The Finfish
Aquaculture Monitoring Program identified water quality as a potential
problem. However, as evidenced by this most recent updated report,
•
water quality in the lease sites referenced in the previous report, have
improved. Dragging of the areas as part of the commercial fishing
activity may have contributed to the rapid recovery and is being
considered as a mitigation measure on bottoms adversely affected by
culture operations. Mitigation measures are continually being
evaluated and the results will also be made available to Mariculture
• Technologies to ascertain their applicability to the proposed
Mariculture site.
3. WQ Comment: There are two other considerations related to water
and marine habitat quality: One is the need for quantitative
information and modeling to describe the role played by currents,
• depth and temperature in maintaining water quality. What
combinations of depth, current and temperature offer poor, acceptable
and optimal conditions for both the pen stocks and the impacted
environment? Can a proposed monitoring scheme identify "critical"
levels of food, fecal and other organic matter, given the range of
• currents, depth and temperatures at the proposed site.
35
•
•
Response: The development of quantative information and modeling
• of the impact to water quality of the site is based largely on that
conducted the State of Maine Aquaculture Monitoring Program, but
with more frequent sampling and evaluation. The State of Maine
Aquaculture Monitoring Program consists of eight parts:
o Monthly confidential production reporting by lease holders;
• o Semi-monthly dissolved oxygen monitoring in July, August and
September;
o Annual dissolved oxygen water column profiles 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;
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.
• The range occurance and the depth of site in the Maine information
vary even more than at the proposed Mariculture site,, so there is
reasonable expectation that the evaluation and modeling of this site
will produce useable results to evaluate the impact of the grow out
cage installation, particularly as the project is planned to evolve
through specific phases over several years. There is no reason to
• doubt that the planned monitoring and program for the Mariculture
Technologies site would produce any less results than that from the
State of Maine, which have concluded as follows:
"Based on all of the results to date, it seems reasonable to conclude
that the Fin fish Aquaculture Monitoring Program is effectively safe-
• guarding against excessive environmental degradation as a result of
finfish aquaculture operations and that, in the vast majority of cases,
the fin fish aquaculture inductry is acting responsibly in the
management of their operations. "
4. WQ Comment: The consideration is the need for more understanding
• of the impacts of "low level", widely dispersed pen stock organic
deposits, especially over the long term. This would include:
establishment of the baseline information which characterizes a
"normal" benthic environment for the pen stock and adjacent areas
affected by organics carried by the currents; selection of pertinent
indicators of benthic condition and development of a suitable protocol
• for long-term analysis.
•
36
•
•
• Response: Section IV of the DEIS (Volume I) identifies the specific
benthic monitoring program, again patterned after that used in the
State of Maine utilizing their long term experience in monitoring of the
conditions in and near the net pens as being the best available. Their
monitoring results clearly point out the importance of the control of
the feeding practices as it could effect the degree of environmental
impact. The importance of individual site management and analysis is
• best summarized in the State of Maine findings, as follows:
"Analyses of individual benthic parametric results show only weak
relationships between the parameter results and distance or proximity
of cage. Analyses of interparametric results similarly show little
relationship between parameters. The lack of clear relationships
•
points out the complexity of the interaction between cage operations
and the surrounding environment and supports the previous
suggestion that husbandry practices profoundly affect the degree of
environmental impact and that site-by-site review is the appropriate
approach to both monitoring and management. "
• 5. GEN Comment: The discussion and table on regulatory requirements
indicated that applications are not being submitted until the EIS is
completed. It should be noted that earlier comments have been
provided notifying the applicant that some of these permits may
similarly depend upon completion of others as prerequisites.
• Specifically mentioned earlier was that the OGS lease requires
completion of the US Army Corps of Engineers review. Each review
generally has substantial minimum time needed for completion.
Therefore, wherever possible, applications should be initiated earlier,
rather than later.
• Response: The timing of the various permit applications was based
primarily on New York State's Part 621, Uniform Procedures
(Staturatory Authority: Environmental Conservation Law, Paragraph
70-0107) which states, "If a project is subject to the revisions of
Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law (Environmental
Quality Review), the application is not complete until:
• (iii) If it has been determined that a project may have a significant
effect on the environment, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
has been either prepared or accepted by the Lead Agency which
meets the requirements of SEQR, and
(iv) the Department must satisfy the requirements of SEQR for those
•
projects subject to this Part and to Parts 617 and 618 of this chapter.
Where the Department, as the designated lead agency, requires the
preparation of a DEIS by an applicant, the scoping, review and
acceptance of that applicant prepared document are considered
prerequisites to a determination of complete application. "
•
37
•
•
• In the preparation of the permits to Federal Agencies, the applicant
was very conscious of the requirements under Title 33 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 325.2(d)(5), which put time constraints on
the time that a Federal Agency can keep an application without
processing it. Because Federal Agencies had made comment to the
Draft Environmental Statement, the Federal Permitting Agencies, along
• with State and local, are expecting the responses to these comments
to be prepared and submitted prior to the completion of the permit
application process. It was unanimously agreed that the Final
Environmental Impact Statement would be the vehicle of response to
these comments, copies of which will be made to all permitting
agencies. So, in retrospect, because of the time that has elapsed
• since the acceptance of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
December 18, 1995, the applications to permitting agencies, including
but not limited to Federal Agencies, submitted in January 1996, were
submitted too early. Accordingly, a time frame problem for these
agencies has now been created.
•
•
•
•
•
•
38
•
•
• C. New York State Department of State
Division on Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization - Letter of
February 21, 1996. (Appendix 6)
1. WQ Comment: It is our understanding that you have been provided
with a copy of the National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS)
comments regarding this proposal. The concerns expressed by the
• NMFS that are related to the State's Coastal Policies include: the
future use of the Village and County owned properties (Policies 1, 2,
5, 19, and 20); nutrient loading into Long Island Sound or other water
bodies, and effects on groundwater quantity and quality (Policies 30
and 38); and effects on the State designated Plum Gut Significant
Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat and any possible changes in
•
community structure of the possibility of increased incidence of
disease or mortality, or other physical, biological or chemical effects of
the proposed project on the designated habitat, the grow-out area, or
hatchery or processing facility discharge areas (Policies 7 and 8). The
issues and concerns expressed by the NMFS and the affects of the
• project on, and its consistency with the appropriate Coastal Policies,
should be fully addressed and included in the Final Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS) being prepared for this project.
Response: An analyses of the consistency of the proposed project
with respect to State Coastal Policies 1, 6, 10, 12, 18, 19, and 30
• are contained in page 50 to page 66 of the Addendum to the DEIS
(Volume III) filed for this action. At the time of the preparation of the
Addendum to the DEIS, it was felt that State Coastal Policies 7, 8,
and 9 were not applicable to the proposed action. However, State
Policies 7, 8, and 9 are addressed herein. The marketing aspects of
the proposed project are addressed in pages 11-89 and 90 of the DEIS
(Volume I), page 43 of the Addendum to the DEIS (Volume Ill) and
• herein.
2. GEN Comment: The Department of State's comments to the
Department of Environmental Conservation dated February 7, 1996
regarding the DEIS for this project need to be fully addressed in the
FEIS. This Department's comments regarding the need to more fully
• assess and address the affects of the proposed project on, and its
consistency with, Coastal Policies 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 18, 19, and
30, and our concerns regarding the marketing of the project's
products, should also be fully addressed.
• Response: The Department of State comments regarding consistency
with Coastal Policies 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 18, 19, and 30 are
responded to in the response to the comments contained in the New
York State Department of State's letter of February 7, 1996, A, 1
through 10.
•
39
•
•
3. GEN Comment: The Clark's Beach area is zoned by the Town of
• Southold for residential uses (R-80). A change of zone would be
necessary in order to conduct aquaculture activities at Clark's Beach.
The appropriateness of using Clark's Beach for mariculture activities
should be fully addressed in the FEIS, and included in a narrative
analysis of the effects of the proposal on, and its consistency with,
Coastal Policy # 2 of the Coastal Management Program, which relates
• to the siting of new water-dependent uses in appropriate areas so that
conflicts between water-dependent and nonwater-dependent uses are
avoided. Since a change of zone would be required by the Town
Board of the Town of Southold, the effects of such an action by the
Town should be included in the FEIS. A similar analysis should be
provided regarding of the use of the open water area near Plum Island
• for the proposed grow-out facility.
Response: The Southold Town Code, Section 100-13, entitled
"Definitions", contains a broadly worded definition of Agriculture and
states as follows:
• "The production, keeping or maintenance, for sale, lease or personal
use, of plants and animals useful to man, including but not limited to
forage and sod crops; grains and seed crops; dairy animals and dairy
products; poultry and poultry products; livestock, including beef
cattle, sheep, swine, horses, ponies, mules or goats or any mutation
of hybrids thereof, including the breeding and grazing of any or all of
• such animals; bees and apiary products; fur animals; fruits of all kinds,
including grapes, nuts and berries, vegetables; floral, ornamental and
greenhouse products; or lands devoted to a soil conservation or
forestry management program. " (Emphasis added.)
Michael G. Walsh, Attorney to Mariculture Technologies, Inc., who is
• reviewing whether a change of zone would be required in light of the
recent revisions to the State's Agriculture and Markets Law has
provided the following input:
"Furthermore, a review of Section 301 of the Agriculture and Markets
Law of the State of New York (hereinafter the "State Agriculture
• Law") indicates that the State Law definition of Agriculture specifically
includes the production of Aquacultural Products including fish, fish
products, water plants and shellfish as falling within the definition of
crops, livestock and livestock products that are included in the
definition of "Agriculture" as a matter of State law. Therefore, it is
clear that both the State Agriculture and Markets Law definition and
• the definition of Agriculture set forth at Section 100-13 of the
Southold Code include the production of Aquaculture Products
(including but not limited to fish) as a use included within the
definition of Agriculture for purposes of defining the use proposed by
the applicant herein.
•
40
•
•
"This broad definition of agriculture vis-a-vis State law and local
• zoning was recently addressed by the Appellate Court of the State of
New York in the matter of Town of Southampton v. Equus
Associates, Ltd. 2-1 AD2d 210, 615 NYS 2d 714 App. Div. 2nd Dept.
1994.
"In the Eauus matter, the Town Code's definition of Agriculture did
• not specifically include the raising, training and selling of polo ponies.
However, after an extensive review of the Town Code provision and
Section 301 of the State Agriculture and Markets Law, the Court
concluded that a broad interpretation of "Agriculture"' must be applied
with respect to agriculture as a result of the legislative determination
at both the State and local levels that the objectives of the regulation
• of agricultural uses is to support and promote said uses and, hence,
the applicant must be given the benefit of a broad interpretation of the
definition of Agriculture; in this case, a definition which includes
Aquaculture within the definition of Agriculture.
"Based upon our recent conference in connection with this matter and
• your continuing dialogue with the Town of Southold Zoning Agencies,
I suggest that an interpretation be requested of the Southold Zoning
Board of Appeals and/or any other official in the Town authorized to
provide an interpretation with respect to this issue. "
With reference to the comment on Coastal Policy No. 2 is: "Facilitate
• the siting of water-dependent uses and facilities on or adjacent to
coastal waters". As explained on pages 51 and 52 of the Addendum
to the DEIS (Volume III), the hatchery site as proposed is dependent
on the availability of salt water wells. Salt water wells need to be
sited adjacent to the coastal waters for two reasons: 1) The
availability of salt water; and 2) to preclude interference or disruption
• of the fresh water aquifer on more inland areas.
The entire concept of locating off shore grow out net pen facilities is a
technology that is being adopted world wide, and the principal
requirement is that they have to be located in either coastal or open
water areas, which makes them specifically and completely water
• dependent.
•
•
41
•
•
D. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation - Letter of April
• 22, 1996. (Appendix 1)
1. NG Comment: (A) Page 5, 1-160 - The DEIS and addendum provided
some discussion on "disaster response, notification procedures and
insurance". And it's understood that an adequate clean-up
contingency plan will be required as a permit condition prior to net pen
• installation. However, Mariculture Technologies, Inc. should make it
clear now as to who will be the party responsible to pay for any storm
damage clean up of the facility.
Response: Mariculture Technologies will be responsible for the
cleanup of facilities in conjunction with an inforce insurance policy for
• property and casuality.
2. WQ Comment: (B) Page 19 - The waters of Block Island Sound (BIS)
and Gardiner's Bay are not particularly nitrogen rich waters. BIS
typically has low levels of nitrogen compared to western portions of
Peconic Bay and Long Island Sound and also exhibits low chlorophyll
• levels because of those low nutrient levels. The applicant should
compare the nitrogen levels in Maine to those in BIS, especially if they
are using some of Maine's assumptions in their calculations for the
SPDES application.
Response: In order to make a comparison between the nitrogen levels
• in the Maine waters adjacent to the net pens and nitrogen levels in
surface waters of Gardiners Bay at the net pen site, we obtained from
Christopher S. Heinig, MER Assessment Corporation, nitrogen levels of
Maine waters who also prepared the 1992-1995 Finfish Aquaculture
Monitoring Program for the State of Maine. As compared to Gardiners
Bay and Block Island waters, Maine waters are considered relatively
• rich in nitrogen. (See the September Army Corps of Engineers
Monitoring Report for Maine Site No. 2, page 39.)
It is noted that the nitrate nitrogen (NO3-N) is almost always less than
0.05 mg/L in Gardiners Bay and Block Island Sound (HydroQual, Inc.
1991) where as compared to the concentration in the Maine waters of
• nitrate nitrogen is in the neighborhood of 0.3 mg/L. (See September
Army Corps of Engineers Monitoring Report for Site # 2 referenced
above.) The State of Maine nitrogen evaluation was that required by
the Army Corps of Engineers as part of the permitting requirements for
the installation of net pens.
• The letter symbols above each of the columns in the above referenced
table stand for the following:
•
42
•
•
BU - Approximately 100 Ft. upcurrent of the net pens at a
• depth of 1 meter above the sea floor;
BP - Between the net pens at the approximate mid-point at a
depth of 1 meter above the sea floor;
• BD - Approximately 100 Ft. downcurrent of the net pens at a
depth of 1 meter above the sea floor;
MD - Midway between the sea floor and the sea surface
approximately at net pen level;
SD - 1 meter below the sea surface.
•
It is interesting to note that there is very little difference between the
upstream and downstream readings (BU and BD), and even the
readings taken between the net pens and the sea floor (BP) show no significant
increase in the nitrogen compounds measured.
• In summary, the offshore net pen installation in the State of Maine has
not indicated an increase in nitrogen compounds in the water as a
result of fish farming operations. Also, it seems evident that the high
nitrogen levels in the Maine waters have not resulted in a hypoxia or
anoxia of their coastal waters.
•
•
•
•
•
43
•
d)xY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
?
•
ONI1il.,Y MONITORING REPORT Pa ." b
SEPTEMBER
• CA/WANT/INDIVIDUAL:
SITE: 11111.011111111111111111, Maine S'/ J.. STARTING TIME: 0915
SAI1PLIHG DATE: 29 Sept. 1991 FINISH TIME: 1010
• TIME OF TIDE: 0849 FO. FISH ON-SITE: 105450
STAGE OF TIDE: LOW INCObMING ESTIMATED WEIGHT: 269J7 ' lbs.
I
1
V TEI2 CHEMISTRY RESULTS:
Ia;tertlde Corporation/Alden Ames Laboratory /t
•
TEST BU BP SD MD BD
Depth (m/ft. ) 6. 7/22. 0 6. 7/22. 0 1 . 0/3. 0 4 . 6/15. 0 6. 1/20. 0
T°; (6C. ) 12 . e 11 . 8 12. 2 12. 2 11 . 6
• D.O. (mg/1) 8. 4 8. 1 6. 5 6. 1 6. 1
Call . (0/00/) 34 . 0 33. 8 33. 7 33. 4 . j 33, Fa
B. O. D. (mg/1) 0. 42 0. 44 0. 36 0. 33 0. 27
Blies-E (mg/1) 0. 06 0. 18 0. 06 <0. 02 , 0. 06
NO2-N (mg/1) 0. 0050 0. 0050 0. 0052 0. 0052 0. 0052
NO,,-N (mg/1) 0. .02 0 o. 280 0. 284 0. 295 0. 305
• 1311,. 7 . 73 7 . 70 7. 72 7. 71 7. /0
Turbidity (NTU) 1 . 5? 2. 17 1 . 72 1 . 53 1 . 84
TSS (mg/1) 4 . 5 6. 4 4 . 9 5. 0 ( 3. 8
TPOC (mg/1) 0. 8 0. ' 1 . 1 0. 9 0. 8
Secchl disc (ft. /m) ] 5. 5/4 . 7 14 . 5/4 . 4 13. 5/4 . 1 N/! N/A
IIFibh Inventory Summary: (as per nsnthly insurance report)*' ;
I
• Ga a No. Ng. Fish Mean wei:ht Total Vei:ht (lbs. )
1
. 1 6500 7. 0-7. 5 lbs. 47125
2 16000 5. 5-6. 0 lbs. 9200011
3 17350 5. 0 lbs. 66750
4 20300 350-375 g 161891
• 5 22000 270-320 g 1427&
6 23000 235-280 g 13030
otals 105150 269372
i
. Ectimnte •
i
I
1
44
0
•
3. WQ Comment: (C) Page 25 - The addendum discusses 3,000 pounds
• per day of nitrogen effluent from the Thames River. The Long Island
Sound Study is using 20,796 pounds per day of nitrogen discharged
from the entire Thames River watershed in the Hydro Qual model.
Please discuss this apparent discrepancy. This source and quantity of
nitrogen causes minimal dissolved oxygen impairment of the eastern
• portion of the Sound because of its' geographic location, but it does
contribute to the overall nitrogen budget of the Sound which needs to
be reduced. The quantity of nitrogen produced in the grow out area
will contribute to the eastern boundary of the Sound. It should be
included in the model boundary calculation and assessed for dissolved
oxygen impairment in the Sound. The 5,500 pounds per day of
nitrogen estimated for Phase VI is almost equivalent to the pounds per
day of nitrogen discharged to the Sound from all the point and non
point sources of Nassau and Suffolk Counties. The point here is that
the grow out area may not necessarily cause a dissolved oxygen
impairment adjacent to the site but potentially could contribute to
impairment many miles to the west in the Sound or even in Peconic
Bay. Near field and far field impacts need to be addressed.
•
Response: Page 25 and 26 of the Addendum to the DEIS (Volume III)
should have stated, "approximately 3,000 pounds per day of total
nitrogen put in the water in the Groton-New London area from
municipal waste alone".
• Mariculture Technologies, in response to requests from New York
State DEC, retained the services of HydroQual, Inc. to assess the
probable impacts of nitrogen released from the proposed Finfish
Aquaculture Project on Long Island Sound dissolved oxygen levels.
(See Appendix 14.) HydroQual analysis was to estimate the farfield
impact of nitrogen and organic carbon loadings from the fish pens on
dissolved oxygen levels in Long Island Sound. HydroQual's farfield
effects were evaluated using existing data and modeling tools
developed for the USEPA, Long Island Sound Study Office.
HydroQual's analysis was approached using the Long Island Sound
Water Quality Model in two ways: First, by comparing the estimated
• nitrogen and carbon loadings from the fish pens, with loading
estimates for Long Island Sound tributaries for which information was
available; and secondly, by estimating the nitrogen concentrations
throughout the Sound that would result from the operation of the
facility, and comparing those calculated values for existing conditions
in the Sound.
• As the proposed grow out facility lies closest to Management Zone #
1, which includes the Thames River, the impact due to nutrient
releases were computed by adding the estimated fish pen nutrient
loads to MZ # 1, and then calculating the changes in DO levels
throughout the Sound. The Thames River, according to HydroQual,
provided reasonable basis for comparison because of its geographical
• closeness to the proposed Finfish Aquaculture Project.
45
•
•
The nitrogen and carbon loads from the grow out facility were
calculated based on several years of experience with fish farming in
Holland and Denmark. HydroQual's analysis is considered very
•
conservative (on the high side) as they assumed that all loads would
be in the dissolved form and nothing was assumed to settle or remain
in the sediment bed, and also the amount of nitrogen that would be
lost due to denitrification, volitilization and uptake by biota was also
assumed to be zero. In reality, based on data from Nordic fish farms,
it can be expected that 20% to 25% of the nitrogen discharge would
•
end up settling to the bottom in the vicinity of the net pens.
The impacts from carbon and nitrogen loads from the net pens on DO
levels were calculated together by HydroQual and they calculated
Sound water quality over an annual cycle using hourly time steps
which calculates DO values every hour.
•
The impacts of nutrient loads on Long Island Sound's DO levels were
explored in two regions: the western basin, which includes the "hot
spot" in the region of minimum DO in the western Sound, and the
eastern basin, which includes the proposed location of the fish cages.
The DO level was calculated for the critical model segment in each
411
region, that is, the segment with the projected lowest DO level.
For model simulation, the Long Island Sound Water Quality Model
framwork was used to estimate the nitrogen concentrations in Long
Island Sound that would result during full-scale operation of the fish
. pens, specifically Phase VI. HydroQual indicated the purpose of this
calculation was to provide validation of the nutrient loading calculation
using a time-variable computation of the fate of the material released
from the fish pens.
HydroQual's analysis using the very conservative approach mentioned
above, specifically that all nitrogen and carbon would stay in the
• dissolved form, that nothing was assumed to settle, and that no
nitrogen was lost due to denitrification or volitilization, and so forth,
but would all be in the dissolved form and subject to transport to the
farfield locations, reached the following conclusions:
"In the vicinity of the "hot spot" (Response Zone # 2), based on the
• loading estimates, the fish pens are estimated to increase the impacts
of human activities on the annual minimum DO level by 0. 18 to
0.20%, or 0.0054 to 0.0062 mg/L, depending on the value chosen
for carbon loads. Based on the model simulation, the fish pens are
estimated to increase nitrogen levels by a maximum of 0.22% (in
May).
•
"In the eastern portion of the Sound in the vicinity of Response Zone
#10, based on the loading estimates, the fish pens are estimated to
increase the impacts of human activities on the annual minimum DO
level by 0.60 to 0.96%, or 0.0042 to 0.0067 mg/L. Based on the
model simulation, the fish pens are estimated to increase nitrogen
• levels by a maximum of 1.3% (in November). In August, the fish pens
are estimated to increase nitrogen levels by approximately 1.0%. "
46
•
•
The nearfield projected impacts to the water quality can best be
addressed by the data recently presented in Maine Department of
Marine Resources Finfish Aquaculture Monitoring Program 1992-1995,
Report dated March 8, 1996, Revised March 13, 1996. This report is
• contained in Appendix 11 (Volume VI). The sampling protocol now
accepted and used by Maine finfish cage structures includes three
locations: 100 meters upcurrent of the structure; within 5 meters
downcurrent of the structure; and 100 meters downcurrent of the
structure.
• The most recent DO monitoring of Maine net pen cage systems
concluded the following: "The data from both years of sampling show
that dissolved oxygen concentration recovery occurs rapidly within a
relatively short distance of the cage structures. In al/ cases, DO
saturation 100 meters downcurrent of the cage structures is the same
or only slightly below upcurrent values, even in cases where DO
• depression adjacent to the cage structure is significant.
"All of these results suggest that depression (hypoxia) or depletion
(anoxia) of dissolved oxygen within the water column as a result of
cage culture operations is not a major environmental concern in Maine
waters. "
•
•
•
•
•
•
47
•
•
Mariculture Technologies, Inc. has contracted with HydroQual to
• evaluate the impacts of nitrogen from the grow out site to the DO
levels in the Peconic Bays as soon as more complete nitrogen level
data is available from Suffolk County. Recent published information
indicates that perhaps there is a "rush to judgement" regarding the
impact of nitrogen on "Brown Tide". For example, the Maine waters,
especially in the vicinity of the net pens, nitrate nitrogen is in the
• range of 0.3 mg/L, or several times higher than that reported in the
vicinity of the proposed net pens. Nitrogen previously has been
considered one of the contributors to the brown tide that has occurred
in the Peconic Bays. The May 16, 1996 issue of the Suffolk Times
quotes Dr. Robert Nuzzi, the Supervisor of Suffolk County Health
Department's Marine Resources Bureau, as believing that nitrogen is
not a major factor in the brown tide's explosive growth. But, in
• contrast, low levels of dissolved inorganic nitrogen may be a
contributing factor to the algae growth. It is Mariculture
Technologies, Inc. intentions to keep current on any impact of
changing Nitrogen levels to the water quality, both in the vicinity of
the grow out site and the adjacent areas through the monitoring
program proposed in the DEIS (Pages IV-5 to IV-10) (Volume I).
As soon as HydroQual's analysis and calculation of projected impact
to the DO levels of Peconic Bays from the net pens grow out
operation are estimated, this report will be made available to DEC for
their future reference and use.
•
•
•
•
•
48
•
•
4. WO Comment: (D) Page 26 - Where are the new nitrogen
• calculations referred to in the addendum, are the estimates on Page
25 the new calculations?
Response: The new Nitrogen calculations are provided for the
hatchery and grow out site and are contained in Appendix 12 (Volume
VI).
•
5. NG Comment: (E) Page 39 - A further discussion of "Lloyds Register
of Shipping Provisional Rules and Regulations for the Classification of
Fish Farms" needs to be provided. It's important to understand under
what circumstances the damage to net pens and cost of resultant
clean up may not be covered under the insurance policy. For example,
• are some types of natural disasters or excessive wind speeds or wave
heights not covered? As an alternative, consider including the register
as part of the appendices so that your discussion may be brief.
Response: There are two types of insurance coverage that relate to
the loss and clean up of net pen structures and appurtenances. The
• manufacturer and installer of the net pens will be required to have
coverage under the Lloyd's Register Provisional Rules and Regulations
for the Classification of Fish Farms. This requirement covers fish
farms built, and which have been installed at an approved site, in
accordance with these provisional rules, and are assigned a class in
the Register of Fish Farms. Classification and insurance will be
• conditional upon compliance with the Lloyd's Register Requirements
for structure, equipment, moorings, site investigation, and other safety
considerations. Lloyd's Register Provisional Rules and Regulations for
Fish Farms is included as Appendix 13 (Volume VI).
In addition, Mariculture Technologies has an additional policy to be
• carried by Lloyd's of London which will include the following: "Theft
and malicious acts, predation or physical damage caused by predators
or other aquatic organisms (not sealice or other ectoparasites), storm,
lightning, tidal wave, collision, sudden and unforeseen structural
failure of equipment, freezing, supercooling, ice damage, deoxgenation
due to competing biological activity or to changes in the physical or
• chemical condition of the water, including change in pH or salinity,
disease, loss in transit and direct physical loss or damage to cages,
ents, ancillary equipment and workboats. " Lloyd's of London
underwrites fish farm insurance all over the world and there is no
restriction on wave height or wind velocity in these coverages, which
are broad in nature.
•
6. FWL Comment: (F) Page 63 - With respect to the Coastal
Management Policy 19, how does the loss of greater than 200 acres
of surface water affect access for marine recreational and commercial
fishers and boaters?
•
49
•
•
Response: Policy 19 reads as follows: "Protect, maintain, and
• increase the level and types of access to public water-related
recreation and facilities. " The State explanation of this policy is as
follows: "This policy calls for achieving balance among the following
factions: the level of access to a resource or facility, the capacity of a
resource or facility, and the protection of natural resources. " A
further explanation is: "The particular water-related recreation
• resources and facilities which will receive priority for improved access
are public beached, boating facilities, fishing areas and waterfront
parks. " We assume the comment has to do with fishing areas. The
principal recreational fishing areas in the vicinity of the proposed
offshore net pens is Plum Gut, The Race and East of Gardiner's Island.
Discussions and observations from local fishermen indicate that the
• area of the proposed net pen area is not a common recreational fishing
area, and certainly the construction of the net pen structures do not
limit or restrict access to the common recreational fishing areas listed
above, which is consistent with the added explanation statement in
the policy which states: "e) (3) Construction of private facilities
which physically prevent the provision of convenient public access to
• public water-related recreation resources or facilities from public lands
and facilities. "
In addition to the opinion that the net pens will not restrict access to
public water-related recreational resources, it may add to the
recreational resources by improved fishing in the vicinity of the net
• pens. This potential improvement is based on discussions of net pens
in other areas which have found that the excess feed attracts other
recreational fish to the vicinity of the net pens.
With respect to Coastal Management Policy 19 (reference page 63 of
the Addendum to the DEIS) (Volume III), access as defined in Policy
• 19, will not be restricted. Policy 19, "Calls for achieving balance
among the following factors: the level of access to a resource or
facility, the capacity of a resource or facility, and the protection of
natural resources".
Mariculture Technologies site will not restrict access to Gardiners Bay,
• Plum Gut or nearby water resources. Certainly the water resource is
vast and has the capacity to accommodate many user groups for a
variety of water related uses, i.e. recreational fishing, commercial
fishing, motor boating, sail boat racing, underwater divers, commerce,
water skiing, etc.
• Mariculture's 200 acre site is very small when compared to the
hundreds of square miles of accessible water resources. Policy 19
states, "the Coastal Management Program will encourage mixed use
areas and multiple use facilities to improve access".
•
50
•
•
7. FWL Comment: (G) Size limit and seasonal restriction limit harvesting
• of summer flounder by traditional commercial and recreational
fisherpeople. Please discuss how the no size limit or seasonal
restriction for farmed summer flounder will not hamper existing
enforcement programs. Enclosed with this mailing is Part 48 6NYCRR
which will help guide your response to this enforcement issue.
• Response: Mariculture Technologies will fully comply with Part 48,
Title 6NYCRR MARINE HATCHERIES, ON-BOTTOM AND OFF-
BOTTOM CULTURE OF MARINE AND ANIMAL LIFE. Environmental
Conservation Law Sections 11-0305, 11-2301, 13-0316.
These sections detail; Definitions, General Prohibitions, Permits, Sale
• of Cultivation Products, Marketing and Identification of Cultivation
Products, and Record Keeping for those operating a marine hatchery.
In addition Mariculture Technologies cultured summer flounder will be
sold for consumption, at sizes above the state legal size limit of 14
inches.
• 8. FWL Comment: (H) Typically, open water areas such as those
proposed for the fishfarm are reserved for the public for use in
common. The proposed fishfarm, although thought to be a worthy
venture, will restrict use of this area to Mariculture Technologies, Inc.,
to the exclusion of others. While this issue may be "thorny" enough,
when combined with a potential negative economic impact to those
• (traditional commercial fisherpeople) excluded, it becomes an issue
worthy of an elevated level of discussion. Please respond to this issue
in detail.
Response: Mariculture Technologies recognized "this issue may be
thorny", and has made great effort to communicate with the fishing
• community, both commercial and recreational, in a direct, candid and
upfront manner.
The first formal discussion, organized by Cornell Cooperative
Extension, with commercial fishermen and Mariculture Technologies
began in early December 1992. Based on this meeting and follow-up
• correspondence by Chris Smith of Cornell Cooperative Extension in a
letter to Mr. Robert Hamilton the opinion of Roland Clark mentioned "a
tow that occasionally he and others make that was in the vicinity of
these two sites (Mariculture Technologies proposed net pen sites)",
but it was his opinion that these two sites did not conflict with that
tow. There was another meeting, January 22, 1994 following a
• special presentation by Bob Link, President of Mariculture
Technologies, detailing the proposed fish farm project, at the Long
Island Fisherman's Forum, January 21, 1994. Follow up
correspondence from Chris Smith to Mariculture Technologies
regarding the January 22, 1994 meeting where Roland Clark, Bob
Hamilton (both inshore dragger fishermen), Peter Wenczel (inshore
• lobster and conch pot fisherman) and Scott Harris (part time
lobsterman), were present to review net pen sites in the Plum Island
51
•
•
area. Correspondence reviewing the meeting stated: "Based on these
• individuals input, it appears that these two sites would minimize user
conflicts in this area." Most recently, Mariculture Technologies has
spoken with Mr. Robert Hamilton, and through written correspondence
of April 5, 1996, offered to discuss objections that have recently
surfaced. Mr. Hamilton has not responded to Mariculture
• Technologies offer.
Mixed use for fishing in the surrounding area will continue, and likely
improve opportunities for recreational fishing, commercial fishing,
conch pot fishermen, and lobster fishermen due to the increased
biomass. Fishing activity will likely increase in the vicinity of the net
pens due to the cage and mooring structure providing habitat, similar
• to the effect of underwater wreckage, oil platforms, and reefs. The
presence of excess food and fish waste will also attract bait fish,
benthic species, bottom dwellers, crabs and consequently larger fish
chasing bait fish, crabs, etc. This anticipated increase should offer
additional opportunities for both recreational and commercial
fishermen in the vicinity of the net pens.
•
The above comment was reviewed with Laurice Churchill, The Maine
Department of Marine Resources, who is the person that oversees the
monitoring program for installation of net pens along the coast of
Maine. Maine now has 1,280 acres leased to offshore net pens.
Many of these leases have been objected to by what they consider the
• traditional fishermen, draggers, and lobstering. The type of questions
that are asked by the hearing officer in a public hearing prior to issuing
of leasing areas to net pens includes such questions of the fishermen
that are under oath, "How many days a year do you fish in this
particular spot?" "How much value and what percent of your income
is derived from this particular location?" "How many other fishermen,
• besides yourself, use this particular location?"
Personnel in Maine did indicate that there have been incidents of
fishermen that have damaged net pens or anchoring systems. It is our
understanding that Maine has passed a specific law prohibiting
• dragging operations within a specified distance of net pen systems.
9. WQ Comment: (I) While we concur that the monitoring requirements
from the State of Maine are basically suitable, provide a discussion of
the distinctions between the two proposals. For example, Maine
required a minimum clearance for their net pens, which they feel is
important and it is, in fact, a requirement for installation. The Maine
• monitoring requirements are also expected to change to require
monitoring of distant off-site deposition areas. Impacts to deposition
areas distant from net pen locations is now understood to be a
concern.
•
52
•
•
Response: The above comment was reviewed with Laurice Churchill,
• The Maine Department of Marine Resources. Maine does not require a
minimum clearance under the net pens, nor is there a requirement for
installation. The Corps of Engineers, as part of their permitting
requirements, has required a 10 foot clearance under the net pens for
the purpose of diver safety in doing the under-net pen inspection.
Recently, according to Maine officials, the Corps of Engineers have
• reviewed this on a case by case basis and have not required the 10
foot clearance, especially where there are predator barrier nets in
place. Ms. Churchill, who does diving on the net pens, indicated that
in some cases the net pens are right on the bottom and the inspection
divers have not found a problem in doing their work,, but she did
stress, however, that it is somewhat more hazardous and experience
• is the key to diving safety for bottom inspection in the vicinity of the
net pens.
According to Ms. Churchill, it is not true that Maine has a distant off
site deposition inspection requirement. This comment may have been
taken out of context. Reference again is made to Appendix 11
• (Volume VI), entitled, The Maine Department of Marine Resources
Finfish Aquaculture Monitoring Program, 1992-1995. This report was
recently revised on March 13, 1996 and gives very specific update
procedures and monitoring findings. As mentioned in the Addendum
to the DEIS (pages 18-22) (Volume III), Maine has, to our knowledge,
the best monitoring procedures of any place in the country, and
• certainly should be used as a guide for establishing those in the State
of New York.
•
•
•
•
53
•
•
RESPONSES TO TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COMMENTS
•
A. Office of the Supervisor - Town of Southold - Letter of January 29, 1996.
(Appendix 7)
1. GEN Comment: Historically, Southold Town has had an economic
base in the maritime industries, i.e. fishing and shellfishing,
• shipbuilding and repair, and several mariculture farms. This proposal
by Mariculture Technologies, Inc. is probably one of many that will be
seen in the next few years as the declination of our fishing stock
continues. Although this and other projects are experimental, they
deserve careful consideration. Having said this, the Town sees some
serious ramifications in the proposed hatchery site and would ask
further information on the following:
The proposed site is not zoned for commercial use, it is zoned for two
acre residential use. The DEIS should explain why this residential zone
should be changed and the advantages and disadvantages to the
Town should the rezoning take place. It is inappropriate to assume
•
that the Town will automatically approve the rezoning.
Response: The Southold Town Code, Section 100-13, entitled
"Definitions", contains a broadly worded definition of Agriculture and
states as follows:
• "Th= rr'd isn k.e,in• •rm•in :n•n f,r •1: /: • = ,r , :r in./
use, of plants and animals useful to man, including but not limited to
forage and sod crops; grains and seed crops; dairy animals and dairy
products; poultry and poultry products; livestock, including beef
cattle, sheep, swine, horses, ponies, mules or goats or any mutation
of hybrids thereof, including the breeding and grazing of any or all of
• such animals; bees and apiary products; fur animals; fruits of all kinds,
including grapes, nuts and berries, vegetables; floral, ornamental and
greenhouse products; or lands devoted to a soil conservation or
forestry management program. " (Emphasis added.)
Michael G. Walsh, Mariculture Technologies Attorney, who is
• reviewing whether a change of zone would be required in light of the
recent revisions to the State's Agriculture and Markets Law has
provided the following input:
"Furthermore, a review of Section 301 of the Agriculture and Markets
Law of the State of New York (hereinafter the "State Agriculture
• Law") indicates that the State Law definition of Agriculture specifically
includes the production of Aquacultural Products including fish, fish
products, water plants and shellfish as falling within the definition of
crops, livestock and livestock products that are included in the
definition of "Agriculture" as a matter of State law. Therefore, it is
clear that both the State Agriculture and Markets Law definition and
•
the definition of Agriculture set forth at Section 100-13 of the
Southold Code include the production of Aquaculture Products
54
•
•
(including but not limited to fish) as a use included within the definition of
• Agriculture for purposes of defining the use proposed by the applicant herein.
"This broad definition of agriculture vis-a-vis State law and local
zoning was recently addressed by the Appellate Court of the State of
New York in the matter of Town of Southampton v. Equus
Associates, Ltd. 2-1 AD2d 210, 615 NYS 2d 714 App. Div. 2nd Dept.
•
1994.
"In the Eauus matter, the Town Code's definition of Agriculture did
not specifically include the raising, training and selling of polo ponies.
However, after an extensive review of the Town Code provision and
Section 301 of the State Agriculture and Markets Law, the Court
• concluded that a broad interpretation of "Agriculture" must be applied
with respect to agriculture as a result of the legislative determination
at both the State and local levels that the objectives of the regulation
of agricultural uses is to support and promote said uses and, hence,
the applicant must be given the benefit of a broad interpretation of the
definition of Agriculture; in this case, a definition which includes
• Aquaculture within the definition of Agriculture.
"Based upon our recent conference in connection with this matter and
your continuing dialogue with the Town of Southold Zoning Agencies,
I suggest that an interpretation be requested of the Southold Zoning
• Board of Appeals and/or any other official in the Town authorized to
provide an interpretation with respect to this issue. "
2. GEN Comment: There has been significant erosion on the Long Island
Sound bluffs and yet the site plan shows a building situated 50 feet
from the lip of the bluff. This will require a Coastal Erosion permit
from the Trustees and a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
• The DEIS does not address the ramifications of placing a building so
close to the lip of the bluff.
Response: The site plan included in the Appendix A of the DEIS
(Volume II) disclose the location of a hatchery building 50 feet
landward of the top of the bank. Chapter 37-11 of the Southold
• Town Code states that no person may engage in any regulated activity
(including the placement of a structure or the construction of a
building) in an erosion hazard area as depicted on the Coastal Erosion
Hazard Area Map of the Town of Southold, as amended without first
obtaining a Coastal Erosion Management Permit. In this case, the
Coastal Hazard Area extends to the top of the bluff and the proposed
• hatchery is located 50 feet landward thereof. What is termed bluff as
per Chapter 37-6 of the Southold Town Code also includes an area 25
feet landward of the point of inflection on the top of the bluff. In any
event, the proposed hatchery is located beyond the jurisdictional
boundaries provided in Chapter 37 of the Town Code is not subject to
a Coastal Erosion Management Permit.
•
55
•
•
Even so, it is in the interest of the applicant to construct a hatchery
• building without causing a significant impact to the bluff. The
potential impacts to the bluff include the short term construction
impact and the long term control of stormwater runoff generated from
the hatchery building itself. With respect to the construction impacts,
it is proposed that a project limiting fence be installed around the
construction area and landward of the bluff to confine heavy
• equipment and restrict its use inadvertent or otherwise to no closer
than 25 feet from the bluff face. Following construction activities, it
is proposed that all exposed and disturbed soils be re-seeded to
control potential longer term erosion impacts. With respect to
stormwater runoff, it is proposed that all runoff generated from all
impervious structures be captured and recharged or otherwise
• prevented from flowing over the bluff face. Such proposals are in
keeping with the intent of the Town's Coastal Erosion Hazard Law to
protect property.
3. GEN Comment: The traffic on Routes 25 and 48 has been increasing
every year. How much of an effect will this project have on the
• roads? The DEIS should provide an analysis of the traffic impacts of
the project.
Response: In order to do a general analysis on traffic impacts for the
employees one needs to refer to the phase timing schedule (Figure 5)
• on page 1-86 of the DEIS (Volume I) and on the Table of Projected
Employees by Phase. (See page 28). Of the 193 employees, 105 of
those are projected to work on a shift schedule, which means they
will be reporting for work during nights and week-ends, and during off
hours, which is also periods of low traffic. Also, the largest
concentration of employees is during the harvesting and processing
periods which occur in the fall months, November and December,
•
which is also a period of low traffic. Therefore, with this small
number of employees scattered over a wide range of times, traffic
impact on Routes 48 and 25 are considered to minimal.
4. GEN Comment: Only once does the DEIS mention that the Town
owns a parcel of land adjacent to the Clark's Beach property on the
• northeast corner. What effect will the hatchery have on the Town's
property?
Response: None. Mariculture Technologies, Inc. hatchery facilities
are concentrated in the Southwest portion of the Village owned
Clark's Beach, approximately 800 feet to the West of the Town's
• property.
•
56
•
•
5. WQ Comment: The DEIS states that the hatchery will require using
23 ± million gallons of salt water per day and will provide same by
drilling a salt water well. This is a huge amount of water. What will it
•
do to the surrounding area, where has it been done before, and what
were the results? This could have profound environmental effects and
requires much more analysis at the earliest possible stage of
approvals.
Response: It is correct that the hatchery is projected to use 23 ±
• million gallons of salt water per day, but the majority of this is
recirculated and reused again after treatment. The MGD's required
range from 0.127 to a maximum of 0.416 during the peak flows in
September and October. This salt water requirement can be handled
by a pump capacity of less than 400 gpm, and as the wells are
planned to be placed in the salt water aquifer to begin with, there is
• not expected to be any significant environmental effect from pumping
this amount of water.
6. WQ Comment: Two types of effluent will be released into Long Island
Sound. The first, having gone through two filtration processes will be
returned to the Sound, but there is no mention of its composition or
• how many gallons. The other effluent is probably the more serious
problem because it is the effluent from backwashing of filters. Again
there is no mention of the composition or the amount. The Town is
actively pursuing a reduction in any discharge to the Sound or Peconic
Bay systems. Therefore, we would discourage any discharge into the
. Sound.
Response: Detailed information and quantities of the effluent to be
discharged to the Sound are contained in the Application for SPDES
Permits and are included in Appendix # 12 (Volume VI). The hatchery
treatment plant is expected to treat the effluent so that the BOD will
not exceed 30 mg/I; suspended solids not to exceed 30 mg/I; and
• total nitrogen less than 10 mg/I. This treatment process would also
include the back washing effluent from the biological filters. Tabular
data with graphs are included in the SPDES Application for all phases
up through IV and IV-A, average time the hatchery will be at its peak
production.
• 7. WQ Comment: Finally, the hatchery will generate sludge. Where and
how will this sludge be removed and who will pay for it?
Response: Sludge consisting of approximately 25,000 gallons per day
of fish waste will be concentrated and removed by a local hauler, on
an as needed basis, to be transported to the Bergen Point Sewage
• Treatment Facility. Mariculture Technologies has contacted Mr. Kevin
Oldham, Suffolk County Department of Public Works, 335 Yaphank
Avenue, Yaphank, NY 11980. Mr. Oldham stated that Bergen Point
will accept the fish waste sludge. The fees, in Mariculture's opinion,
are reasonable and are to be paid by Mariculture Technologies, Inc.
• The liquid wastes from the concentration process will be processed
through the treatment facility before being discharged so as to meet
the projected effluent permit concentrations.
57
•
•
RESPONSES TO LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS
A. North Fork Environmental Council - Letter of February 2, 1996.
• (Appendix 8)
1. WQ Comment: The North Fork Environmental Council notes that an
existing hatchery facility in Maine is cited in the DEIS as a model for
Mariculture's project. We would like to point out, however, that the
waters off the coast of Maine are much colder and surely inhibit
bacterial growth to some degree. Given that our area waters are
• susceptible to outgrowths of Brown Tide, the North Fork
Environmental Council feels that this difference in the two hatchery
facilities needs to be recognized and addressed.
Response: It is true that the waters of Maine are much colder than
waters in this area. Accordingly, the colder waters of Maine would
• tend to inhibit bacteriological growth over the waters as compared to
local waters of New York State. However, there should be no
concern over the potential for bacteriological fouling in New York
waters resulting from this project for several reasons. First,
bacteriological contamination of New York waters has always been
monitored by measurement of E. Coli bacteria. E. Colli bacteria is
• associated with warm blooded animals and thus neither the summer
flounder to be stocked nor the pelletized feed to be introduced
represent a threat to New York waters with respect to measured
bacterial input. With respect to other forms of bacteria, since all
cultured flounder are to be derived from native populations, there is no
possibility that any form of bacteria not already associated with native
• summer flounder will be introduced into the waters of New York
State. Finally, with respect to brown tide outbreaks in New York
waters, the causes of brown tide remain unknown and therefore it is
impossible to objectively assert that the proposed project will cause
brown tide.
• 2. WQ Comment: The applicant's DEIS states that ultimately the
hatchery will discharge more than 400,000 gallons of tank water into
the Sound on a daily basis. Although this water will be treated and
filtered, it will still carry 525 pounds of BOD, 593 pounds of
suspended solids, 96 pounds of nitrogen, and 26 pounds of
phosphorus. These amounts are referred to as the 'Unmitigated
• Environmental Impacts'. The DEIS, however, presents no 'researched'
conjecture as to what impact this Unmitigated Environmental Impact
may have. Does the DEC have evidence that the above amounts will
have no detrimental effect on the water quality of the Long Island
Sound?
• Response: The flows and total amounts of BOD, suspended solids,
nitrates and phosphorus are on a maximum basis during the peak level
of population in the hatchery. Since the DEIS was filed and more
comprehensive review of the capabilities of the hatchery treatment
plant have been researched and the projected flows and loadings are
contained in the SPDES Application which in Appendix # 12 (Volume
• VI).
58
•
•
The hatchery flows and loadings are not at constant levels day after
day, but reach their peak in October of each year from 1999 on.
These loadings are described in Table 6-B in the SPDES Application. It
• should be noted that the peak flow occurs in October of each year
from 1999 on at 461,000 gallons per day, and that the BOD is
projected at 115 pounds per day, the suspended solids at 115 pounds
per day, and the total nitrogen at 38 pounds per day. Of most
concern has been the nitrogen because of its potential impacts on the
• quality of water in the Sound. The reference used to determine the
potential impact was the Water Quality Model Analysis of Hypoxia in
Long Island Sound, done by HydroQual, Inc. of 1 Lethbridge Plaza,
Mahwah, New Jersey 07430. Table 3.3 of this report gives the
average pounds per day of total nitrogen at the end of Eastern Long
Island Sound from New London, Groton City, Groton Town, Montville,
and Norwich treatment plants. These total 2,753 pounds per day
•
average. This makes the nitrogen loading from the hatchery during
these peak flows a little over 1 % of the average loadings from these
other point sources. Figures 2-19 through 2-22 also provide the
concentration of nitrogen in the Eastern Basin and Block Island Sound
which is the area which includes the fish hatchery site. It should be
noted that nitrogen concentrations are generally less than .50 mg per
•
liter. From this it can be concluded that this very small amount of
loading, particularly nitrogen, is projected not to have any significant
impact on the water quality in Long Island Sound.
In addition Mariculture Technologies has recently obtained hatchery
recirculation treatment systems that can further reduce the amount of
• nitrogen and BOD loadings of the hatchery effluent. It is Mariculture's
intention to install this more efficient water quality equipment in the
proposed hatchery at Clarks Beach.
3. WQ Comment: The 'Grow Out' facility off of Plum Island will
introduce greater amounts of fish feces and fish feed into the Bay. It
• is estimated in the DEIS that even with state of the art mitigation
measures, the daily average organic waste loading from the Grow Out
facility will be 42,000 Kilograms and 22,000 Kilograms of BOD.
Although the DEIS insists that, given the swift and powerful currents
in this area, these amounts will be dispersed over a vast amount of
area and do not present a significant environmental impact. It also
• states that:
"Severity of project impact to water quality and bottom
conditions is difficult to predict. . . . A central problem in
predicting the resultant impact on water quality is the fact that
the proposed Grow Out site is not a closed system. It is the
• position of Mariculture Technologies, that the resulting impacts
to water will be insignificant."
On the one hand Mariculture's DEIS admits that it cannot
predict the environmental impact, but then concludes that the
environmental impact which cannot be predicted will be
• insignificant. If the DEC concurs with Mariculture, can a more
informed means of arriving at this conclusion be provided?
59
•
•
•
Response: The original calculations for organic and BOO loading in the
waters adjacent to the net cage systems was based on data utilizing
the expected once a day feeding of the fish. This once a day feeding
process was expected to result in a certain amount of waste feed,
hence the calculations for organic waste and BOD. In a recent
• investigative visit to European net cage systems in Norway and
Denmark, it was learned that there is a new feeding technology
starting to be utilized there and elsewhere in the world. This new
technology utilizes computerized program feeding systems where
feeding is done every ten to twelve minutes and varied throughout the
day based on the time of day, hours, and so forth. This resulted in a
• large reduction in amount of feed and nearly eliminated the waste
feed. As a result European published data estimates that with the
above referenced feeding process, the BOD loading would be 0.34
kilograms per 1,000 kilograms of fish per day. This new feeding
technology which Mariculture intends to employ for both economic
and environmental reasons, will reduce the organic waste and BOD to
• the surrounding waters to approximately half of what was originally
calculated.
In preparing the Environmental Impact documents considerable use
was made of the monitoring that the State of Maine has done in the
areas surrounding their finfish offshore net pens. For example, Maine
• now has over 1,280 acres leased to offshore net pens, and in 1995
their production was over 22,000,000 pounds. This compares to the
much smaller projected area proposed by Mariculture of 200 acres.
The State of Maine, after a long history of monitoring the
environmental impact to offshore net pens has concluded that their
monitoring program that they have in place is effectively safeguarding
• against excessive environmental degradation, as measured by water
quality and benthic monitoring has remained stable or improved at
most of the sites. With this example of effective monitoring, a
procedure proven in the State of Maine, certainly Mariculture with the
assistance of the regulatory agencies should be able to do equally
well, and therefore insure the conclusion that there will not be a
• significant adverse impact to the environment for the proposed
project.
4. WO. Comment: The DEIS insists that it is in Mariculture's financial
interest to monitor and see to it that no excess feed is dispersed into
the Grow Out nets. This is also viewed as a mitigation measure since
• excess feed would adversely impact water quality. However, it is also
possible that at some point it may be more cost-effective to waste
feed rather than precisely monitor and measure consumption rates. Is
there any means of safe-guarding against this possibility?
•
60
•
•
Response: It was asserted in the Addendum to the DEIS (page 77)
• (Volume III) that it would be in the interests of Mariculture
Technologies, Inc. not to waste feed by overfeeding the cultured
summer flounder. Understandably, this assertion was taken to mean
that the cost of the feed itself would provide a meaningful deterrent
for overfeeding or feed waste. However, a second and more
important set of deterrents was also built into the project proposal.
• Specifically, the additional deterrent is approached in the DEIS under
Mitigation Measures to Minimize Environmental Impact (See Section IV
of the DEIS) (Volume I). Section IV of the DEIS contains a detailed
monitoring program that will serve as an important deterrent to over
feeding or feed waster. The monitoring program includes regular Diver
Surveys, Water Quality Analyses and Benthic Analysis. It is through
• these monitoring efforts that the impacts of overfeeding or excess
feed will be detected should they occur and if such impacts are
significant, the viability of Mariculture Technologies, Inc. and its
continuing overall culture operations will be jeopardized.
5. FWL Comment: The DEIS notes that Mariculture has worked out an
• arrangement with Okeanos to mitigate the possible impact of
endangered species and aquatic wildlife becoming tangled in the
predatory nests surrounding the Grow Out nets. How practical is this
arrangement in terms of how long it may take Mariculture to discover
an animal trapped in the nets coupled with Okeanos' response time to
• the Out Grow facility?
Response: Representatives of Mariculture Technologies have had
recent meetings with the technical staff of Okeanos, and have been
reassured that Okeanos is ready, willing and able to respond
effectively and timely to any endangered species or aquatic wildlife
that might become tangled in the project site. During the time of fish
• grow-out there will be Mariculture staff on site, twenty-four hours a
day monitoring the condition of the net pens to include any wildlife
that may become entangled in the predatory nets. Okeanos officials
were also developing a very detailed response document that will be
put in place in advance of the deployment of the first group of net
• pens to mitigate the impact to any endangered species or aquatic
wildlife that could become entangled.
6. GEN Comment: Lastly, there is some concern that the processing
facility located on Sterling Avenue in Greenport is capable of
comfortably handling the 4,000,000 fish a year that the project
ultimately envisions. If not, to what extent might area residents be
• subjected to odors emanating from the processing facility?
Response: A minimum of half (50%) the harvested fish will be iced
and shipped whole, with no processing and minimal odor. As detailed
in the EIS processing section, Mariculture Technologies has planned to
use 98% of all fish waste from processing. Fish waste will be sold as
• frozen chum blocks, thus no odors from discarded fish waste will
occur.
61
•
•
At peak harvest, as explained in the Phase Outline Schedule for
Processing, 10M pounds/year is the expected volume through the
•
Winter Harbor Facility. 5M pounds of fish will be processed over 63
processing days. Fish will be cut into fillets and fish block. The
remaining waste product will be used for fertilizer (5,625 lbs/day),
frozen for chum logs (1,725 lbs/dat) and the remaining unusable
waste (150 lbs/day) will be handled on site with minimal odors.
Mariculture Technologies will be handling only fresh fish. This is an
•
odor free process different from the process of making fish meal,
where there is a cooking process.
•
•
•
•
•
•
62
•
COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE COMMENT PERIOD
•
A. County of Suffolk Department of Planning - Letter of March 21, 1996.
(Appendix 9)
1. GEN Comment: Issue # 1 . The applicant has proposed that its
hatchery facilities, in part, be located on a 2.03 acre parcel of County
• property in the Town of Southold. The facilities to be so-located
include laboratory, storage, visitor center and other related support
activities. Access to this site would be obtained via a lease or
purchase from Suffolk County. It is stated that lease negotiations are
underway between the applicant and the County for access to the site
(Vol. 4, p. 52).
•
With respect to this issue, the County purchased this parcel (SCTM #
1000-040.00-01 .00-024.000) on 11/17/86 as a targeted Open Space
Plan acquisition and addition to Inlet Point Pond County Park. It was
transferred to the jurisdiction of the County Parks Dept. on 11/24/86.
The status of this parcel as parkland places restrictions on its use with
• regard to private-for-profit activities. I am not aware of any
negotiations between the County and the applicant involving this land;
indeed, the County Parks Commissioner has indicated that he was
never informed of the interest in this parcel, or the details of the entire
aquaculture project. Hence, the applicant should scope out the
prospects and likelihood of actually obtaining access to the site with
• the appropriate County officials and report on same in a revision to
this DEIS.
Response: Mariculture Technologies, Inc. has initiated negotiations to
acquire the above referenced property to locate a visitors center and
educational facility that would be run by Cornell Cooperative
• Extension. This parcel would be incorporated into the overall project
and would be used primarily as an educational center. Mariculture
Technologies, Inc. has initiated actions with County officials to obtain
this parcel for the aforementioned purpose.
2. GEN Comment: Issue # 2. The applicant has selected a 200 acre site
in Gardiner's Bay for the grow-out of summer flounder in net pens.
There is no discussion anywhere in the DEIS of the ownership interest
that Suffolk County has over a portion of the site.
Please find the enclosed copy of SCTM section 132 for the Town of
Southold that shows underwater land parcels in the vicinity of Plum
• Island. SCTM parcel # 1000-132.00-01 .00-028.00 is coincident in
part with the proposed net pen site shown in Figure 2 of the DEIS.
Indeed, it appears that over 50% of the net pen site is located within
lot 028.00. Suffolk County retains oyster cultivation rights to lot
028.00, which is 932 acres in size.
•
63
•
•
Lot 028.00 was historically used for oyster cultivation under a grant
• issued by Suffolk County pursuant to New York State law (L 1884, ch
385 as amended). This parcel reverted to the County due to non-
payment of property taxes. In 1969, the State of New York gave
Suffolk County the authority to issue shellfish cultivation leases in the
area ceded to it, i.e., from the mouth of the Peconic River east to a
line running from the most easterly point of Plum Island to Goff Point
• at the entrance to Napeague Harbor (L 1969, ch 990).
The DEIS contains a draft water column lease (Vol. 2, Appendix Q)
between the New York State Office of General Services and the
applicant that identifies the terms and conditions associated with
authorization to use the proposed net pen site for finfish culture. The
• DEIS does not acknowledge, in any fashion, rights retained by Suffolk
County on that portion of the underwater land at the net pen site that
is within the boundaries of parcel 028.00.
The installation of floating pens, mooring lines and anchor structures
over and on the bottom of parcel 028.00 will preclude its use for
• other purposes. This poses important underwater land jurisdiction,
ownership and access questions that must be resolved prior to the
completion of the SEQR process. Discussions are needed between
Suffolk County and New York State agencies to identify a process
that will recognize County interests, and how this process interfaces
i with the applicant.
Response: The State of New York disagrees with the claim that
Suffolk County presently has ownership interest in a portion of the
grow out site. New York State Office of General Services is initiating
discussions and resolution of the site ownership. In the interim, so as
not to delay the project, it is proposed that the site be rotated 15° and
• extended 2,000 feet on its longitudinal axis to the Northeast. This
will insure the installation of net pens for Phase I, II, III, and IV can be
accomplished as scheduled. Assurances have been given that prior to
the scheduled date of installation of Phase V and VI net pens, the
question of ownership interest will be resolved. The revised site map
enclosed (see page 8) herewith for the grow out site reflects these
•
changes and will enable implementation of Phases I, II, Ill, and IV.
•
•
64
•
•
• B. Letters From Local Fishermen, Baymen, and Captains Association.
1. NG - Comment: Several of the above organizations have written
letters expressing concern about the location of the net pens in regard
to their fishing areas.
Response: During the scoping sessions and initial discussions of this
• project, meetings and discussions were held with various
representatives of the fishing industry and, in particular Cornell
Extension Service. The location selected and depicted in the DEIS
(Figure 18, page I-201) (Volume I) was arrived at in an effort to
mitigate impacts to these user groups. In the interest of being
responsive to the more recently expressed concerns of both the
• recreational and commercial fishermen, Mariculture Technologies, Inc.
planned a meeting on May 29, 1996 to review the proposed revision
to the location of the net pen site, to listen to the concerns of the
various fishermen. Unfortunately, the meeting did not take place due
to illness of the Cornell Extension Service representative. A new
• meeting is planned as soon as practical.
•
•
•
•
•
65
•
•
•
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Austin, B. 1985. Antibiotic Pollution from Fish Farms: Effects of Aquatic
• Microflora. Microbial Sciences. 2(4):113-117.
Cornell Cooperative Extension (personal communication). Correspondence
from Cornell Cooperative Extension to Mariculture Technologies, Inc.,
dated March 7, 1996
• HydroQual, Inc. 1991 . Water Quality Analysis of Hypoxia in Long Island
Sound. Prepared for Management Committee, Long Island Sound
Estuary Study and New England Interstate Water Pollution Control
Commission.
HydroQual, Inc. 1996. Letter of Opinion Concerning the Impacts of Nitrogen
• Released from the Proposed Finfish Aquaculture Project of Mariculture
Technologies, Inc. On Long Island Sound Dissolved Oxygen Levels.
Prepared for Mariculture Technologies, Inc.
Kappell, David (personal communication). Correspondence to John Wieland,
• NYSDEC dated April 30, 1996.
Katz, S. E., 1984. Environmental Impact Assessment for the Use of
Oxytetracycline to Control Gaffkemia Infections in Lobsters. In: Final
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement: Fish Culture in
Floating Net-Pens. By Washington Department of Fisheries. 1990.
• Mariculture Technologies, Inc. 1996 (personal communication).
Correspondence to John Wieland, NYSDEC dated April 24, 1996.
Wekell, M. 1989. In: Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement:
Fish Culture in Floating Net-Pens. By: Washington Department of
• Fisheries, 1990.
•
•
66
•