No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinfish Aquaculture Project - FEIS Appendices • RED PAN 2 1 1996 VOLUME VI • Southold town Owit APPENDICES FOR: • 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. 0. 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. 0. Box 2003 Bridgehampton, NY 11932-2003 (516) 537-5160 - Bruce Anderson • SUBMITTED: MAY 1996 REVISED: AUGUST 1996 • • • • LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 LEAD AGENCY RESPONSE TO COMMENTS SUBMITTED ON THE DEIS • APPENDIX 2 FEDERAL COMMENTS CORPS OF ENGINEERS APPENDIX 3 FEDERAL COMMENTS NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES • APPENDIX 4 NEW YORK STATE COMMENTS DEPARTMENT OF STATE DIVISION OF COASTAL RESOURCES APPENDIX 5 NEW YORK STATE COMMENTS • OFFICE OF GENERAL SERVICES APPENDIX 6 NEW YORK STATE COMMENTS DEPARTMENT OF STATE FEDERAL CONSISTENCY • APPENDIX 7 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COMMENTS APPENDIX 8 NORTH FORK ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL COMMENTS APPENDIX 9 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK COMMENTS • APPENDIX 10 TITLE 6, PART 48 - RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR MARINE HATCHERIES, ON-BOTTOM AND OFF-BOTTOM CULTURE OF MARINE PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE • APPENDIX 11 REPORT TO THE MAINE STATE LEGISLATURE ON FINFISH AQUACULTURE MONITORING PROGRAM APPENDIX 12 APPPLICATION FOR SPDES PERMITS APPENDIX 13 LLOYD'S REGISTER • PROVISIONAL RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF FISH FARMS APPENDIX 14 HYDRO QUAL - IMPACTS OF NITROGEN RELEASED FROM PROPOSED FINFISH AQUACULTURE PROJECT ON LONG ISLAND • SOUND DISSOLVED OXYGEN LEVELS • • • • • APPENDIX 1 • • LEAD AGENCY RESPONSE TO COMMENTS SUBMITTED ON THE DEIS • • • • • • New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Building 40 - SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11790-2356 Telephone (516) 444-0365 • Facsimile (516) 444-0373 Michael D. Zagata Commissioner • • Peconic Associates, Inc . One Bootleg Alley Greenport, New York 11944 Attention: Merlon Wiggin RE: Lead Agency Response to Comments Submitted on the Draft • Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Proposed Finfish Aquaculture Project by Mariculture Technologies, Inc . April 22, 1996 Dear Mr. Wiggins : • Thank you for your letter of February 28, 1996 , with suggestions for responses to comments on the above referenced DEIS. Mariculture Technologies Inc . will have the task of • developing adequate responses to substantive comments received on or before the February 8, 1996, end of comment period. However, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, as lead agency, is responsible for the adequacy and accuracy of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) , of which responses to comments is an important component . • With the above in mind, I offer the following response to your letter of February 28, 1996, regarding the various comment letters submitted on the DEIS . 1 . DEPARTMENT OF STATE LETTER OF FEBRUARY 7, 1996 . 41 Please respond to all the sections that you have indicated. I understand your reluctance to respond to the comment "The marketing segment of the DEIS still does not contain a discussion or analysis of Mariculture Technologies' estimated cost for raising a summer flounder from egg to market size . " However, you • may wish to formulate a brief response from a business perspective indicating why you wish to have information of this type remain confidential . • • Peconic Associates, Inc . • Page 2 2 . OFFICE OF GENERAL SERVICES (OGS) LETTER OF FEBRUARY 8, 1996 . • Please respond to all the substantive comments as you indicated. Provide a detailed response in particular to the following comment by OGS "The marine 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 DEC to identify what ® the specific problems were and how to avoid repetition of them. " 3 . NORTH FORK ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL LETTER OF FEBRUARY 2, 1996 . As you've indicated, please develop a complete response to all concerns expressed in this letter. • 4 . NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) LETTER OF JANUARY 2.9; 1996 . Rather than as suggested in your letter of February 28 , 1996, you should answer this letter in its entirety. This • Department recognizes all of the questions posed to be substantive in nature . For example, the first paragraph on page two relates to three important concerns . (1) Does the Village of Greenport have alternative plans for the site? (2) Is your proposal in conflict $ with the community' s existing plan or goals as officially adopted? The Village has in the past had exceedences of effluent limits on their existing State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit . You've proposed tying the hatchery effluent into an existing Village outfall pipe . While the hatchery will have its own effluent limits, the total outfall • will increase . Clearly, the question raised is substantive and worthy of a thoughtful response. (3) Discuss also the issue of your proposed use of the two acres of Suffolk County Parkland. The sixth paragraph on page two and the second paragraph on page three are also deserving of a response . Hydrodynamics is • key to where by-products are going to end up. The Endangered Species Act and the issue of obtaining an "incidental take" statement from the jurisdictional federal agency needs to be addressed. I now turn your attention to the third paragraph on page • three in which NMFS recognizes the difficulty in responding with such potentially proprietary information as would be found in a business plan. Clearly, much of this information you want to keep confidential as long as possible . However, now that the process is well under way, it may be to your benefit to elucidate • • Peconic Associates, Inc . 41 Page 3 the proposal in order to help involved agencies such as NMFS make sound assessments . Bear in mind that it is NMFS policy, if not their mandate to support and foster aquaculture proposals such as • yours. What at times may seem like criticism is actually an earnest attempt to better understand the proposal, ensure its success and longevity. It' s also critical for you to keep in mind that a satisfactory State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) Final • Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) may qualify as the FEIS for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) . Without NMFS support for the SEQRA FEIS, it is likely you will be covering any areas of shortfall in a NEPA document . 5 . SOUTHOLD TOWN SUPERVISOR LETTER OF JANUARY 29, 1996 . • As you suggested in your letter to me of February 28, 1996, develop a complete response to this letter. I 'm certain the Town of Southold will be particularly interested in seeing a detailed response on the zoning issue. • 6 . Consider the following to be the official NYSDEC comments to which you shall provide a response in the form of an FEIS. (A) Page 5, I-160 - The DEIS and addendum provided some discussion on "disaster response, notification procedures and insurance" . And it' s understood than 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. (B) Page 19 - The waters of Block Island Sound (BIS) and 41 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 40 their calculations for the SPDES application. (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 to 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 • • Peconic Associates, Inc . • Page 4 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. (D) Page 26 - Where are the new nitrogen calculations referred to in the addendum, are the estimates on Page 25 the new calculations? • (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 . (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? (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. 41 (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 . • s Peconic Associates, Inc. • Page 5 (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 requires 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. a The above NYSDEC comments and your response should appear in the FEIS format, along with all the other substantive comments discussed in this letter. Now I' ll discuss several comment letters that were submitted • after the February 8, 1996, date for final comments . The letters are listed below with my guidance for response to each of them. 7 . SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING LETTER OF MARCH 21, 1996 . • Unfortunately, I failed to recognize Suffolk County as an involved agency and neglected to include Suffolk County on the distribution list of organizations to receive copies of the DEIS . As a result, this comment letter arrived after the February 8, 1996, date for final comments . However, as we agreed to at our March 28, 1996, meeting at the NYSDEC Division of Marine •r Resources Building, the comments expressed in this letter will be responded to thoroughly in the form of an FEIS. In responding to this letter, the emphasis need not be on how Suffolk County' s interests in the grow-out and hatchery locations were overlooked, but on what measures are currently being pursued to solve the problem. 8 . SUFFOLK COUNTY DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MEMORANDUM OF APRIL 1, 1996 As we agreed upon, the County' s concerns will be fully addressed. I suggest you contact Walt Dawydiak at (516) 852-2077 41 for an update and clarification of the County' s concerns prior to formulating your written response. 9 . ROBERT HAMILTON, JRS. LETTERS OF MARCH 29, 1996 AND APRIL 8, 1996 . • As we discussed, Mr. Hamilton' s comments were not timely and I will not require that they be responded to in the FEIS . While Mr. Hamilton' s comments are certainly substantive, the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) suggests inclusion of such comments only when such comments include new concerns of • • Peconic Associates, Inc. • Page 6 significant adverse environmental effects not covered in the DEIS or in timely comments by others . Mr. Hamilton' s concerns are not strictly environmental ones . However, Mr. Hamilton' s letters go to the heart of the issue of open water areas held in trust in • common for the public good. Therefore, while I will not require it, I do suggest that you consider responding to Mr. Hamilton' s letters in the form of an FEIS . 10 . SOUTHOLD TOWN BAYMEN' S ASSOCIATION, INC. , LETTER OF APRIL 15, 1996 . AD As with the comments from Robert Hamilton, Jr. , I will leave it up to your discretion to respond. Now about the format for the FEIS. As we agreed to at our March 28, 1996, meeting, you will not be categorizing the • substantive comments, but will be presenting them individually in the body of the FEIS with your response to each comment . Each comment letter will appear in its entirety in an appendix. However, some individuals who will be reviewing the FEIS are primarily interested in certain categories of issues . Therefore, please provide a legend and then flag each comment with the • appropriate symbol, for example : WQ - Water Quality NG - Navigation FWL - Fish & Wildlife • While you may respond to comments as indicated above, I suggest you respond in the form of an addendum. I feel there are enough complex and substantive issues to warrant an addendum. In whatever manner you choose to respond, it should be an easy document to refer to with comments and responses clearly linked. Most of the comments are specific and require a response of the • same type. Your response will need to be supported by your research. Keep me posted on your progress and provide me with a draft of your responses . Thank you. 1 • Sinc rel JOHN A. WIELAND Environmental Analyst I • JAW/ls enc . : Part 48 6NYCRR cc. : R. Link B. Anderson G. Colvin A. Newell • K. Chytalo G. Hammarth • • • • APPENDIX 2 • • FEDERAL COMMENTS CORPS OF ENGINEERS • • • • • • • , DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY TY •p~� ( NEW YORK DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS /4x ��' JACOB K. JAVITS FEDERAL BUILDING °'( ^' NEW YORK, N.Y. 10278-0090 • TTENTION Or January 24, 1996 Eastern Permits Section • SUBJECT: Application Number 96-00600-L2, by Mariculture Technologies, Inc. Dr. Merlon E. Wiggin President, Peconic Associates, Inc. • P.O. Box 672 Greenport, New York 11944 Dear Dr. Wiggin: • This is in regards to the subject application to install net pens for a finfish aquaculture project. The proposed work would take place in Gardiners Bay, at the Village of Greenport, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. We reviewed the information submitted with your application and determined that additional information is necessary. Before processing of your application may proceed, please • must provide the following information to our office: a. 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. b. In the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), Section I.E.8. ("Disaster Response and Notification Procedure"), at page I-160, the applicant states that "[t]he most potential [emergencies or disasters that might occur]would 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 (Lepidochelys kempit), and the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas)." Please be informed that the loggerhead and the green sea S turtles are listed as Federally threatened species pursuant to 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 II-62, states that right whales (Eubalaena 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 § 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§ 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 relevant in protecting other species of concern such as seals and dolphins. As soon as you provide the above requested information, we will resume processing of your application. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Roberto Barbosa of my staff at (212) 264-6730. • Sincerely, • James W. Haggerty Chief, Eastern Permits Section /, 0$61,S4 Enclosure • • • • • a • • • APPENDIX 3 • M FEDERAL COMMENTS NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES a • • • • • • 3� i UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ' r; 1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration �/� �• NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE ''""°'re I Habitat and Protected f Resources Division James J. Howard Marine Sciences Laboratory Highlands, New Jersey 07732 • February 6, 1996 Mr. John A. Wieland Environmental Analyst 41 State of New York Department of Environmental Conservation Region I Building #40 Stony Brook, New York 11790-2356 • Dear Mr. Wieland: This letter is in response to your agency' s request for review comments about the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) entitled "Finfish Aquaculture Project for the Production of Summer Flounder (Paralichthvs dentatus) . " While we generally • support proposals to create commercial finfish culture in New York State waters, the DEIS requires substantial revision before it meets the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) standards. General Comments: 41 We note that New York waters already support successful shellfish aquaculture activities, notably hatcheries and field grow-out operations, and the time may be right for expanding those efforts to include finfish. However, those activities should be carried out under an implementation strategy. The Mariculture • Technologies, Inc. application represents the first proposal for finfish culture. As such, it will set many of the standards for future projects. Consequently, the assessment needs extensive technical revisions to meet the necessary high standards . Proposed Action: 41 The present Mariculture Technologies, Inc. plan is to create a self-contained finfish aquaculture operation in northeastern Long Island and its adjacent waters by creating a land-based hatchery and upland grow-out facilities at "Clark' s Beach" , in the Town of Southold, New York. These activities would be supported by a 200 • acre suspended culture (fish pen) array in the northeastern portion of Gardiners Bay and an existing processing facilities in Greenport . We are concerned that legal and technical obstacles may hinder this proposal . jii ) a • Affected Habitat: • 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 pur- chased 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. 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 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. 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 american- us) , bay scallops (Araopecten irradians) , striped bass (Morone saxatilis) , tautog (Tautoga onitis) , scup (Stenotomus chrysops) • and weakfish (Cvnoscion 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 (Lepidochelvs kempii) and loggerhead (Caretta 4 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 salar) 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 40 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 40 suitable consideration of these issues to meet NMFS criteria for an incidental take statement for federally protected marine species. Technical Considerations: • 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 41 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 (eg. salaries, capital 40 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. 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 a • broodstock 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. 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: • Is the hatchery water system closed, semi-closed or open? What percentage of the water will be replaced at any given time? • Is the local groundwater capable of providing sufficient volume and salinity to support the hatchery operation in each phase of operation? How will the thermal and other biological requirements. of the target species be met from broodstock conditioning to product • harvest? 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? What are the potential impacts to the water column and benthic communities associated with the fish pen array? Is the water clarity at the pen site adequate for this sight- feeding species to locate the artificial diet introduced into • the pens? 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? • 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? • • How will maintenance be done on the pens to control biofouling, structural damage or equipment failure? What is the projected escapement from each pen type? How will escapes be prevented during heavy weather conditions or tidal surges? • How will cannibalism be controlled in the cultured population? What is the diet to be used to sustain conditioning broodstock? Conclusion: The Mariculture Technologies proposal is the first request by a private company to establish and promote significant commercial finfish production in New York State waters . This ambitious proposal would be better served by a more comprehensive discussion document . Substantial financial and technical support must be obtained before the project can become a reality. We suggest that the principals take advantage of other technical experts before finalizing the DEIS. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal . Notwithstanding the apparent issues remaining to be addressed on this specific proposal, we support the fundamental • concept of enhancing aquaculture activities in New York State. If you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mike Ludwig or Diane Rusanowsky at (203) 783-4228 . • Sincerely yours, Stanley-44. Gorski Assistant Coordinator • Habitat Program • • cc: F/NEO4 - Mears F/NEO2 - Mantzaris, Beach, Silva, Nelson CENAN - Seebode Mariculture Technologies - Link • • • • • APPENDIX 4 • • NEW YORK STATE COMMENTS DEPARTMENT OF STATE • DIVISION OF COASTAL RESOURCES 0 • • • • to ;.' r • STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE ALBANY, NY 12231-0001 ALEXANDER F. TREADWELL SECRETARY OF STATE • February 7, 1996 • Mr. John Weiland New York State Department of Environmental Conservation SUNY Campus - Building 40 Stony Brook, New York 11790-2356 Re: S-95-066 • Finfish Aquaculture Project Town of Southold Suffolk County • Dear Mr. Weiland: The New York State Department of State appreciated the opportunity to review the revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement Relating to the Proposed Finfish Aquaculture Project for the production of Summer Flounder(Para/ichth ys dentatus) as • submitted by Mariculture Technologies, Inc. (MT). Generally, the revised DEIS submitted by MT answers some of the questions which we raised in our initial review of the preliminary DEIS. The Department has found however, that a number of areas need further discussion and analysis by MT. The Department's comments on the revised DEIS are as follows: • • As noted in the Department's June 14, 1995 comments, the applicant was advised that the proposed action will occur within the coastal area of New York State. Therefore, a discussion of the proposed action on and its consistency with applicable state coastal policies had to be included in the DEIS. • The discussion demonstrating the consistency of the proposed action with the applicable coastal policies has not been satisfactorily accomplished: • 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. • i r printed on recycled paper • Mr. Weiland, Page 2. • 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. • 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. • Policy 8: The proposed grow out site is in close proximity to a New York State designated significant coastal habitat. In addition, the proposed hatcheries, Cedar Beach and Clark's Beach would release effluent into • Gardners 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. • 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. • • • . Mr. Weiland, Page 3. • 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. 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. 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. 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. • 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. • • The marketing segment of the DEIS still does not contain a discussion or analysis of MT's estimated costs for raising a summer flounder from egg to "market size". • • 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 commercial fishing industry is a sensitive management issue at the moment, it • • Mr. Weiland. Page 4. • 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 commercial fishing industry. • • On page 1-84, the DEIS provides information on Phase I of the project. The DEIS states: " Phase 1 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 form (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 ofse II through Phase IV is projected to be located on an approximately ten (1(3) cre 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. • 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 states 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. • 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 suggests 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. • • Mr. Weiland, Page 5. • If you have any questions regarding the Department of State's comments on the DEIS please call me at 518.474.600 or forward to me at New York State Department of State, 162 Washington Avenue, Albany, New York 12231 . • Sincerely, ./(b A , /U,• Nancy A. Kunz Coastal Resources Specialist II Division of Coastal Resources & Waterfront Revitalization • • • • • • • • • • • APPENDIX 5 • • NEW YORK STATE COMMENTS OFFICE OF GENERAL SERVICES • • • • gip • t.;. 41 .,: . . .. , ii. 104,..0-0... .0 0� RAYMOND W. CASEY • guAn OF MAI/ roan run MONMulco►. CASEY ptT�O M, DEiI* EXECUTIVE DEPARTMEIYtf 0�,,,,1/,o.ttt OFFICE Or GENERAL SERVICES JOHN J. IlaNOAllllGIUCTOt nu, 'topiary /LA*dNG M,ATOt 1Lj'rLJ1 CaNwo 7N9 TOwlt .*O l. lR ao 7111 COMOt AdLION A. toaaN.o LTL1ZAnW+nLUR twill $1AYI PLAYA I101<!R'1 I. E ALUM', PCT. 117M lAPF 0411, ILr4LAU O/ • LAND AtAkACIMIMT IAA NO Om 4799011 February 8, 1996 • Mr. John A. Wieland Environmental Analyst I Department of Environmental Conservation SUNY, Building 040 • Stony Brook, NY 11790-2356 Dear Mr. Wieland: The New York State Office of General Services (OGS) tea reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEiS) for the Mariculture Technologies, Inc., finfish • aquaculture project. The DEIS adequately addresses the concerns and iseurls. It should be noted that this project has been viewed with Interest as a plausible pr posal that can benefit the State's economy without significant environmental impacts. Experiences elsewhere • in the United States and Canada with aquaculture have lead to l'avorable expectations for its establishment in New York State.a The following�proj�c,ao providedn beireadily th the expectation that they should not y progress accommodated. Substantiation of the statement that there are no cultural, archeological or • historic resources (for example, on pg 1.21) Is still required. Evidence of communication or correspondence with the Office M Museum, or perh aps Long Island ion and istoric hlaton cinformatlon reservation (OPR&HP), the New York State sources, needs to be added. Nutrient loading and water quality appear as potential significant environmental • issues, especially with regard to the grow out pens. These is wee are addressed In other aquaculture efforts: both Maine end Massachusetts prowlda useful, meaningful insights to design and monitoring. This proposal will benefit from these experiences to the maximum extent possible, using salient design and monitoring if eatuurrh �s�, o astheame good, quantitative assessment of the proposal. To help acct mp • applicable parameters should be measured,aN�;��o��m�dative and comparative and units of measurement should be compatible with other monR g analyses. A well-designed monitoring plan will serve to protect the environment. • sr ill •0GS . . . COMMITTED TO TOTAL CUSTOMER S.TISPA�C'n N -- • •-- - . - • • Mr. John A. Wieland -2- February 8, 1488 The experiences in Maine are discussed as pertinent .4 the New Yoric State the recommendations ditacussod in Appendix V (NYS) proposal. In keeping with this, should be considered in implementing the subject proposal. Nest significant is that Maine's program utilized 'a standardized approach (v t ich) resulted in data of sufficient • quality to assuage fears that pen culture will result in a catastrophic degradation of our coastal environment'. Maine's progress In developing a predictive Index is interesting. Such an index will prove invaluable both to regulatory efforts and the aquaculture industry, and Its development should be pursued In NYS. This can be done In several ways: by • communicating with Maines regulatory community and their aquaculture industry, and by utilizing a compatible monitoring approach In NYS wfilch can contribute to and benefit from the development of the Index. Also significant Is the strong support Maine gave to video monitoring as an • efficient, cost effective tool for assessing benthic Impacts. Finally, the benthic recovery study also seems to be Important, and the State may crinslder it an essential assessment, especially if aqualculture becomes better establia led (which is obviously the hope and Intent driving this effort). The Maine aquacutturl 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 idatntify what the ajpsdfic problems were and how to avoid repetition There are two other considerations related to water aQn`mails habitat a played • One is the need for quantitative information water quallry What combinations of by currents, depth and temps tie and opt mall cpndidans for both . depth, currant and temperature offer poor, accepta monitoainor me the pen stocks and the impacted environment? Can a pfop° Pedidentify 'critical' levels of food, fecal and other organic metier, given the range of currents, depth and temperatures at the proposalo • The other consideration is tock the 6° rdep sits, espacl�!y understanding of the impacts onterm. low level', widely dispersed pen organicinformation?hie would Include: establishmentof n�baseline ad adJewntan>Ia�affea d byersanlcs rizes a "normaar benthic environment for the pe carried by the currents; selection of pertinent ormatision wof benthic condition and • deveiopment of a suitable protocol for long-term y This consideration can have a lower initial priority, sln►:e tt concerns long-term effects, but it should be planned as part of a comprehensive monitoring effort. Pursuit of this relates to the concern at other aquaculture efforts with understanding long-term • effects, to b9 able to avoid adverse Impacts, perhaps by rotating or retiring a given pen pa , stock site. While baseline assessment be developed andtlma��real should be aftcr the stocks determined initially, the protocol could were Instated and in use (design and implementation of this ar•asssment should not be reason to delay start-up or operation). • • -3- February i, 1589 • Mr. John A. Wieland The discussion and table on regulatory requirements Incicated that applications it thou)'i be noted thaearlier are not being submitted until the ES is completed.cant that some of these perm comments have been provided notifying the sp>� uitltes. gpedficaily mentioned i similarly depend upon completion of others as prere4 earlier was that the OGS lease requires completion of the US Amy Corps of Engineers review. Each review generally has substantial inimum time be M�fatbd *tidier, rsrther thaned for later. etion. Therefore, wherever possible, applications Please do not hesitate to contact this offloo at (613) 474-2198 if we can be of • further assiatanco. � rQly • Alan Bauder Submerged Lands 1. Natural Resouroae Menafl01r Bureau of Land Maria-gement • cc Bruce Anderson Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. • • • • • • • • • APPENDIX 6 • • NEW YORK STATE COMMENTS DEPARTMENT OF STATE • FEDERAL CONSISTENCY • • • • • y .4. • 1d s STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE ALBANY. NY 12231-0001 ALEXANDER F. TREADWELL • SECRETARY OF STATE February 21, 1996 Mr. Merlon E. Wigan President Peconic Associates, Inc. One Bootleg Alley • P.O. Box 624 Greenport, New York 11944 Re: F-96-026 (S-95-066) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/New York • District Permit Application Mariculture Technologies, Inc. Gardiner's Bay and Long Island Sound Town of Southhold and Village of Greenport, Suffolk County • Acknowledgement Qf Federal Consistency Assessment Form and Request for Additional Information • Dear Mr. Wig*: The Department of State received your Federal Consistency Assessment Form and supporting information on January 18, 1996, and has determined that the submitted documentation is adequate to commence our review of your proposed project. • The Department of State supports the development of aquaculture activities that would advance the economic development of fisheries resources. This proposed project would be the first large scale attempt to develop a successful finfish aquaculture facility in New York's coastal area, and could advance the State's policy to further develop commercial finfish resources in the coastal area by developing aquaculture facilities. The proposed project, if successful, could also provide • the impetus for other aquaculture facilities in the coastal area. However, there are several issues associated with this project that must be fully addressed in order to determine the consistency of the proposal with the State Coastal Management Program. The Corps of Engineers permit application and supporting information submitted to this Department is limited to a general physical description and diagrams of the proposed open water grow-out facility near Plum Island. The submitted information does not include information relating to other integral components of the proposed operation, such as the planned hatchery and processing facilities adjacent to the Long Island Sound, at Cedar Beach, and in the Village • c, printed on recvcled°aper • • Page 2. of Greenport. Information regarding these essential and integral components of the project is included in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DES) prepared for the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). That information is being used by this Department in its review of the proposed project. However, as this Department indicated in our February 7, 1996 comments on the DEIS (copy enclosed), a more comprehensive and detailed description of the project and a more comprehensive and detailed analysis of the effects of all of the components of the proposed project was not provided in the DES. Therefore, pursuant to 15 CFR 930.58, the following data and information is necessary to enable the Department of State to adequately • assess the coastal zone effects of this proposed project: 1. 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 usd 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 or the possibility of increased incidence of disease or mortality, or other physical, biological or chemical effects of the proposed project on the designated habitat, the 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; _# - 2. 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; 3. 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. • • Page 3. In our recent telephone conversation, you indicated that the above and other issues will be fully addressed in the FEIS for the proposed project, which is expected to be completed within the next three months. In order to avoid delays in this Department's review of the project, and to • provide us with adequate opportunity to fully assess the coastal zone effects of the proposed project, please provide the above information to the Department of State as soon as possible. Pursuant to 15 CFR 930.64(d), if this necessary data and information is not provided, the Department of State may object to your consistency certification on the grounds of insufficient information. Any additional information which you believe will facilitate our review of this • project will be appreciated, and may assist this Department in expediting its review of the project. After the necessary data and information has been provided, you and the Corps of Engineers will be notified of our decision regarding the project's consistency with the New York State Coastal • Management Program and the Village of Greenport Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. Pursuant to the consistency provisions of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, the Corps of Engineers cannot issue a permit for this project unless the Department of State concurs with your consistency certification. • If you have any questions or need any other information or other assistance regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call me at (518) 474-6000. -• Si erely, n C. Resler • Coastal Resources Specialist Supervisor of Consistency Review Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization SCR/bms • end: DOS comments on DEIS dated 2/7/96 cc: COE/NY District - James Haggerty NMFS - Mike Ludwig NYS DEC/Region 1 - John Wieland/Robert A. Greene Town of Southold - Ruth Oliva • • • • APPENDIX 7 • • TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COMMENTS • • • • • • I.1 ✓ c 4 S rJ 0.1 . moo • JEAN W. COCf11tA,N f d Town Hall, 63096 Main Road SUPERVISOR : a P.O. Box 1179 ^�+0� Southold, New York 11971 0- .6 Fax (516)765-1823 -=�OfiNt 4:0,0 Telephone (516) 765.1889 • OFFICE OF THE SUPERVISOR Jri� 3 Q 1996 I .TOWN OF SOUTHOLD . , t ({: • • r.- January 29, 1996 Mr. John Wieland • NYS Department of Environmental Conservation SUN? Campus - Building 40 Stony Brook, NY 11790-2356 • Dear Mr. Wieland: Re: Finfish Aquaculture Project for the PEoduction of Summer Flounder (Paralichthys Dentatus) • Enclosed you will find comments we have prepared addressing the Draft Environmental Impact Statement relating to the proposed Finfish Aquaculture Project referenced above. As you see from our comments, we have serious concerns with the proposal of Mariculture Technologies, and we hope these concerns will be addressed through an addendum. • Please contact my office if you have any questions regarding the enclosed. Very truly yours, • Cbz Jean W. Cochran • Supervisor /rbw Enclosure • • • 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 advan- tages and disadvantages to the Town should the rezoning take place. It is inappropriate to assume that the Town will automatically approve the rezoning. 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 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 th pacts of the project Y e traffic im- Only once does the DEIS mention that the Town owns a parcel of land adjacent to the • Clarks Beach property on the northeast corner. What effect will the hatchery have on the Town's property? The DEIS states that the hatchery will require using 23 million gallons of saltwater per day and will provide same by drilling a saltwater well. This is a huge amount of water. What • will it do to the surrounding area, where has it been done before, This could have profound environmental effects and requires much more y more d aanalanat were lysis the he results? earliest possible stage of approvals. Two types of effluent will be released into Long Island Sound. The first, having gone f 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 the 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. • Finally, the hatchery will generate sludge. Where and how will this sludge be removed and who will pay for it? These are the major environmental concerns that the Town has at this time and we • would ask that they be addressed. As the project progresses we may hive mn,7, , . , • • • APPENDIX 8 • • NORTH FORK ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL COMMENTS • • • • • • • • • NORTH FORK ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL 4 Route 25 at Love Lane,PoIt gox 799,Matt uCk. NY 11952 516.298.8890 NWT• • DEc C E I V E R FEB 7.1 11/ February 2, 1996 7 Al NYSDEC Regulatory $ervices Mr. John A. Wieland NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Building d0 • • Stonybrook, NY 11790-2356 • 10 Re: Mariculture Technologies Hatchery Project Dear Mr. Wieland: ♦ We are writing to the DEC in its capacity as lead agency in the SEQRA process for the above-mentioned project. The North Fork Environmental Council has recently reviewed the DEIS for this proposed fish hatchery and wishes to share with you a number of questions and concerns that we feel were not adequately addressed. • 1 . 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 facilties needs to be recognized and addressed. 2. 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. tt Although this water will be treated and filtered, it will still carry 525 pounds of BOO, 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? 3. 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 S a non•proftt orpantzatIon for the preservation of land, seaair and auailty of;ffe • • • p. 2 daily average organic waste loading from the Grow Out facility will be 42,000 Kilograms and 22,000 Kilograms of BOO. 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 tha 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? 4. 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? 5. The DEIS notes that Mariculture has worked out an arrangement with m Okeanos to mitigate the pos§ible 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? a 6. 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? a Thank you for taking the time and effort to review and address these concerns. We look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely yours, • • David M. Goldman NFEC President DMG:dok • • • • APPENDIX 9 • • COUNTY OF SUFFOLK COMMENTS • i • • • • -1956 09:40 SUFFOLK CO. PLANNING DEPT 516 853 4044 P.02 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK • Roargr J. GAFFNEY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE • STEPHEN M. JONES. A.I.C.P. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING OIRECTOR OF PLANNING March 21, 1996 • Mr. John A. Wieland, EnvirDnmental Analyst I New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation Building 40 SUNY Stony Brook, New York 11''90-2356 • Dear Mr. Wieland: Re: Review of Draft Errfironmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on Mariculture Technologies, Inc. Finfish Aquaculture Project for the Production of Summer Flounder. • My staff has reviewed the subject DEIS and has determined that there are two major land/water use issues pertaining to the interests of Suffolk County that have not been adequately discussed. The first issue involves the Mariculture Technologies, Inc. (applicant)plan for access and use of County parkland for the proposed upland hatchery site. The second issue pertains to potential • authorization conflicts in securing access to the applicant's proposed net pen grow-out site in Gardiner's Bay south of Plum Island. 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 i laboratory, storage, visitor c;nter 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 appli':ant 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 parklrind 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 inthis 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 officialsand report on same in a revision to this DEIS. • 220 RABRO DRIVE • P.O. BOX 6100 ' HAUPPAL'CE. LONG ISLAND, NY :17Bb-0099 u (SW 8S3-S110 in NY (;'E' 853'4'" :-1996 09:41 SUFFOLK CO. PLANNING DEPT 516 853 4044 P.03 County Mantling Department _ 2 arch 21, 1996 S 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 porion of the site. PIease 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 in the DEIS. Indeed, it appears that over 50%of the net pen site is located within lot 028.00. Suffolk County retains oyster cultivation rii hts to lot 028.00, which is 932 acres in size. • 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 thi:proposed net pen site for finfish culture. The DEIS does not acknowledge, in any fashion,rights retained by Suffolk County on that porion of the underwater land at the net pen site that i s 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 with the applicant. 4 Thank you for the opportun.ty to comment on this DEIS. I look forward to providing assistance to the State and the applicar.t in addressing the access issues identified above. Sincerely yours, ilk SMJ/DDJsm tep ' . o s Enc. Director cc: Michael Frank, Commi;isioner, Dept. of Parks • Robert Cimino, County Attorney a C:WMPWN6O WPOOMeeEUWD.WP0 • • • 0 a • • • • • _ • • Milli ISLAND ifj a fa.M. a r • 'ski,. a.D YN fU . ne I _ / I-, 11 fil o r.c. ! x 7 SI.I / / .1 404. I....r. am III ��77 '. ` N A1 . . .,.'-, _ .. .. .Y.Y .._ .._._ .N _ _ • ..... ... ._. .... O ` ---,. A \\• T'O'NG OF ill--- � t-. '..4.--------1:-........w • • './ • sear SLAW SOW) Ta"" • • —__./ 71 .Y © 7' . r O D / . n w w / •1 A .. ES t �e Cm ? '' CO CANOMSEWS eur 4ittib -- v1 r if, 1 110141110 MOM•10 40 4014 .r" .... w Ul W L \\ A A 13 L....d "•or a m+a SOUTHOLD .rc+o.0 s �'^ r - �•y COUNTY OF SUFFOLK _�.,;,_'-'- 1 " Real Properly Tax Service Agency •ru,uo, I 3 2 r-..� .-..-. .-._ _►� v. . I Yr.rnn Comm.,' C..r.r 'PRIM?.• IDOO ---- I P............ .-�.-. ~~ _ r ..r M�rte' .._►-.... Olt [....w..._ J... • • • • APPENDIX 10 0 • TITLE 6, PART 48 RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR MARINE HATCHERIES, ON-BOTTOM AND OFF-BOTTOM CULTURE OF MARINE PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE I • I • • • NEW YORK STATE OFFICIAL COMPILATION OF CODES, RULES AND REGULATIONS TITLE 6 • PART 48 MARINE HATCHERIES, ON-BOTTOM AND OFF-BOTTOM CULTURE OF • MARINE PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE (Statutory Authority: Environmental Conservation Law Sections 11-0305, 11-2301, 13-0316) • Section 48.1 Definitions 48.2 General Prohibitions • 48.3 Permits 48.4 Sale of Cultivation Products 48.5 Marking and Identification of Cultivation Products 48.6 Records a For Additional Information Contact: NYS DEC Bureau of Shellfisheries • 205 Belle Meade Road East Setauket, New York 11733 (516) 444-0475 • Adopted: February 25, 1980 Amended: July 13, 1995 • • • Section 48.1 Definitions Unless the context otherwise requires, the following terms and their derivatives when used in this Part shall have the following meanings: • (a) "Marine hatchery" means any building, pond, tank, raceway or other structure, excluding hobby aquariums and natural bodies of water, in which marine plant or animal life is bred or otherwise cultivated, whether located on land or water, anywhere in the state. (b) "Culture" or "cultivation" means the controlled or partially controlled raising, breeding, growing, • planting and containment of marine plant or animal life in any marine hatchery or through on-bottom or off- bottom culture as herein defined. (c) "Off-bottom culture" means the raising, breeding or growing of marine plant or animal life, including containment on, or in, any raft, rack, float, cage, box or other similar device or structure in any natural waters of • the state. (d) "Waters of the marine and coastal district" means all those tidal waters and the lands thereunder which are located within the marine and coastal district as defined in section 13-0103 of the Environmental Conservation Law. (e) "Food fish" means all species of the super-class Pisces and hybrids thereof, which are edible. (f) "On-bottom culture" means the raising, breeding, growing or planting of marine plant or animal life on, or in, any natural underwater lands of the state• . (g) "Commissioner" means the commissioner of Environmental Conservation and his duly authorized representatives. (h) "Person" means any individual, group of individuals, public or private corporation, industry, co- partnership,joint stock company or other legal entity. S (i) "Marine plant and animal life" means all organisms that spend or are capable of spending all or part of their life cycle in any waters of the marine and coastal district, except those fish for which the department may issue a hatchery permit pursuant to the provisions of section 11-1909 of the Environmental Conservation Law. (j) "Tag" means a non-reusable locking marker which when locked must remain attached during routine handling of each fish or part thereof. (k) "Hybrid" means progeny produced by the breeding of marine plant life or animal life of different species. • 48.2 General Prohibitions (a) No person shall fail to comply with the provisions of this Part. • • (b) No person shall carry out the activities of cultivation as herein defined in a marine hatchery or through on-bottom or off-bottom culture without first obtaining a permit from the department. (c) No person shall import or receive, from outside the state, marine plant or animal life as herein defined for cultivation without first obtaining an importation permit from the department. • (d) No person shall sell, offer for sale or trade in any manner, marine plant or animal life of less than legal size, as defined in sections 13-0325, 13-0327, 13-0329, 13-0339 and 11-0303 of the Environmental Conservation Law or regulations adopted pursuant thereto, except as expressly allowed pursuant to the provisions of section 13-0316 of the Environmental Conservation Law and this Part. • 48,3 Permits (a) "Marine hatchery, on-bottom and off-bottom culture permits". (1) The department in its discretion may issue marine hatchery, on-bottom and off-bottom • culture permits. (2) The department may prescribe any conditions or limitations to such permits which, in the opinion of the Commissioner, are necessary to protect the public health and safety and provide for the continued viability of the marine resources of the State. • (3) All marine hatchery, on-bottom and off-bottom culture permit applications shall be completed in a form and in a manner established by the department. Applications shall be submitted within such time as will afford an adequate period for department review. • (4) Each marine hatchery, on-bottom and off-bottom culture permit shall include the identification of the species of marine plant or animal life which may be cultivated. (5) Each on-bottom and off-bottom culture permit shall include the specific location in which such activities may take place. • (6) No on-bottom and off-bottom culture permit shall be issued unless the applicant shall have provided the department with satisfactory confirming documentation of the applicant's title to, or appropriate grant, lease or other legal control, of all underwater lands where on-bottom and/or off-bottom culture shall be undertaken. (b) Importation Permits (1) The department in its discretion may issue an importation permit which shall allow for the importation and introduction of live marine plant or animal life for cultivation purposes. • (2) An importation permit must be obtained by the holders of valid marine hatchery, on- bottom and off-bottom culture permits prior to each importation activity. • • • (3) All importation permits shall be completed in a manner and in a form established by the Department. Applications shall be submitted within such time as will afford an adequate period for Department review. (4) Each importation permit shall include the following: • (i) Identification of the species to be imported. (ii) The specific location from which a species is to be obtained for importation. (iii) The period of time at which, or during which, importation may take place. (iv) The person from whom the species to be imported shall be obtained. (v) The manner and method of importation, as well as the identity of all separate persons, corporations or carriers, involved in the specific importation process. • (vi) The area or location of the hatchery or other facility to which the species is to be delivered and in which the species will be cultivated. (vii) The disposition of such species. • (viii) Any additional conditions, provisions or information which the Commissioner may deem necessary to protect the health and welfare of the people of the State and the continued viability of existing marine resources. • 48.4 Sale of Cultivation Products (a) Cultivation products of legal size may be sold for consumption or resale. (b) Subject to the provisions of Section 48.5 of this Part, food fish produced through cultivation which • are other than legal size or the sale of which is otherwise restricted through sections 13-0339, 11-0303, and 11- 1303 of the Environmental Conservation Law and regulations adopted pursuant thereto, may be sold for consumption or resale 48.5 Marking and Identification of Cultivation Products • (a) Marine plant or animal life permitted by the department to be possessed, raised, and bred in a marine hatchery or through on-bottom or off-bottom culture, pursuant to section 13-0316 of the Environmental Conservation Law and the provisions of this Part, may be sold to other permitted hatcheries, educational and scientific institutions. persons holding a valid on-bottom and off-bottom culture permit and, as specifically • provided in section 48.4 of this Part, to commercial markets for consumption or resale provided that each shipping container is marked with a label bearing the following information. (1) The name and quantity of the species contained. • w (2) The name and address of the original consignor and consignee4111 . (3) The marine hatchery, on-bottom and off-bottom culture permit number of the original consignor. (b) Prior to being sold as a food product, each individual food fish, other than hybrids or parts thereof, • shall bear a serially numbered tag provided and applied by the culturist. The tag must be used in ascending numerical order and shall be firmly attached to each whole fish or to each part thereof. The tag must remain attached until the product is prepared for final consumption and must be cut or broken in half, rendering it unusable, upon preparation of the product for consumption. The following information must appear on each tag: 1. Place of origin. 2. Marine hatchery or culture permit number. 3. Month & year of production. • 4. Species identification. 5. Tag number. • (c) The individual tagging of cultured hybrid food fish, or parts thereof is not required. Documentation of each consignment or sale of cultured hybrid food fish is required and must conform to the provisions of subdivision (d) of this section and subdivision (b) of section 48.6. (d) Each consignment or sale of cultured food fish, other than that to the final consumer, must be • accompanied by an invoice or shipping label bearing the date, the number of whole fish or parts contained therein and their taa numbers, the species, the total weight of whole fish or parts contained therein, the culture facility of origin, the consignor and the consignee. (e) Individual tagging requirements of this section shall not be required for the transfer of live, cultured 4 food fish, to facilities where they «ill be grown to larger sizes. (f) All hybrid species must be identified, sold or offered for sale as "hybrid" products. 48.6 Records • (a) Except as otherwise required in subdivision (b) of this section, each person holding a valid marine hatchery or on-bottom and off-bottom culture permit shall maintain a record indicating the quantity and disposition of all products produced and distributed within the previous 12-month period; this record shall include, but not be limited to, a list of all products disposed of that were of less than legal size. • (b) Culturists, seafood wholesalers and seafood retailers must keep records of invoices or shipping labels describing their receipts and disbursements of cultured food fish. These records must include all information as required in subdivision (d) of section 48.5 Such records shall be maintained for a period of one year from the • • • • date of consignment or sale. (c) Such records shall be made immediately available to the department upon request. • • • • • a • • • • APPENDIX 11 • • REPORT TO THE MAINE STATE LEGISLATURE ON FINFISH AQUACULTURE MONITORING PROGRAM • I • 1111 r • The Maine Department of Marine Resource's 4_ Finfish Aquaculture Monitoring Program (FAMP) 1992-1995 4111 A Report to the Joint Standing Committee on Marine Resources Second Session of the 117th Maine State Legislature 1 •1 • • March 8, 1996 (Revised March 13, 1996) • • • • • The Maine Department of Marine Resource's Finfish Aquaculture Monitoring Program (FAMP) 1992-1995 A Report to the Joint Standing Committee on Marine Resources Second Session of the 117th Maine State Legislature a Prepared for: Maine Department of Marine Resources State House Station 21 • Augusta, Maine 04333-00212 Phone (207) 624-6550 • Prepared by: Christopher S. Heinig MER Assessment Corporation RFD 2, Box 109 South Harpswell, Maine 04079 Phone/Fax (207) 729-4245 4 March 8, 1996 (Revised March 13, 1996) • S • • Executive Summary The State of Maine Aquaculture Application/Monitoring Program was created in 1991 by Public Law 381 after extensive study on the part of the legislature and considerable public input on the potential environmental effects of finfish aquaculture. • This program is now referred to as the "unified" application and monitoring program. The new application/monitoring process went into effect in the Spring of 1992. Accordingly, the Aquaculture Coordinator at the Maine Department of Marine Resources is the focal point for submission of all application and monitoring a information. The Aquaculture Coordinator then assumes responsibility for disseminating relevant information to the other state and federal agencies involved. The Aquaculture Monitoring Program consisted of eight parts: • Monthly confidential production reporting by lease-holders, • Semi-monthly dissolved oxygen monitoring in July, August and September, • Annual dissolved oxygen water column profiles in August, • Spring and Fall video recordings of the bottom beneath and adjacent to the cages, • • Biennial Fall sediment reduction-oxidation (redox) discontinuity (RPD) layer depth determinations, • Biennial Fall total organic carbon content analyses of the bottom surface layer, • Biennial Fall sediment grain size analyses, or granulometry, and • • Biennial Fall benthic macrofauna community analyses. This report presents summaries and analyses of the currently available video and benthic monitoring results developed since the program was initiated in the Spring of 1992. This includes four Spring video surveys, four Fall video surveys and three years of completed benthic monitoring surveys. Also included are the results of the "Recovery" project conducted at Connors Aquaculture's Broad cove site from 1993 through 1994 and analyses of the collected data which have been used to modify the monitoring program. For ease of presentation this report is separated into sections • dealing with each specific component of the monitoring program. Briefly, water quality monitoring of dissolved oxygen saturation in 1994 and 1995 show that only slight depression in dissolved oxygen saturation immediately adjacent to cage structure and recovery to ambient levels usally occurs within 100 meters. The • conclusion, therefore, is that dissolved oxygen depression or depletion associated with cage culture operations is not a major environmental concern in Maine. • • 1. Introduction This report briefly summarizes the results of the first four years of the semiannual aquaculture underwater video monitoring and the first three years of benthic sediment and macrofauna analyses. Analysis of the fourth year, Fall 1995, • benthic sampling is currently in progress. This report also includes the conclusions developed from these results, some of which have been used to modify the program. 2. Background • Farm production of Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, began in Maine in the early to mid 70's at a single site in Blue Hill. After several years of trials, however, the site was eventually abandoned. Another site was established in 1983, but production remained low and development of the finfish culture industry remained static through 1985. In 1986 a second site was added, tripling the number of cages in operation, and rainbow • trout, Onchorynchus mykiss, was added as a cultured species.. Production reached the 1 million pound level in 1988 and continued to double annually through 1991. In 1992 and 1993 production increased slowly, and even declined in 1994. However, in 1995 production surged by 8 million pounds and total whole fish production exceeded 22 million pounds (Figure 2.1.). • Figure 2.1. Maine finfish aquaculture production 1988-95 25 • ID 20 - c a o 15 0 = 7777 C10 - 0 1151 O 5 - a 0 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 • Finfish Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review MER Assessment Corporation-March,1996 Page 1/31 S • 3. Program Review • The following is a detailed description of each of the monitoring program's environmental assessment components with a summary of the results obtained to-date. A copy of the Finfish Aquaculture Monitoring Program (FAMP) guidelines is included as Appendix I. Due to the volume of data collected over the past four-year period, only • summaries of the data are presented here to support the conclusions pertaining to the relevance of the components to the program and recommended modifications to the overall program. 3.1. Water Quality Survey • The original dissolved oxygen monitoring requirements of the Finfish Aquaculture Monitoring Program specified that dissolved oxygen was to be analyzed by the individual operators of each aquaculture site every two weeks between July 1 and September 30 of each year. In addition, an annual dissolved oxygen profile was to be • done at three specified locations around each site during the month of August using the same techniques used for the semi-monthly analyses. The semi-monthly monitoring was intended to evaluate short-term affects on dissolved oxygen while the annual profiling during the month of anticipated peak production was intended to describe the broader, longer-term water column affects. • Data collected during 1992, the first year of the program's implementation, was both sporadic and of questionable quality. Compliance with the program requirements improved in 1993 as did the quality of the data. Analysis of the results from individual sites showed that, in general, affects on dissolved oxygen were negligible. However, due to the large numbers of individuals collecting the information and the differences in techniques employed at different sites, the data was of limited value in comparing results between sites. In view of the high variability of results and the consequent inability to compare a data between sites, the DMR chose to adopt a standard protocol and incorporate dissolved oxygen profiling into the scope of work of the Fall portion of the 1994-95 FAMP and again for the Fall portion of the 1995-96 two objectives: 1) the standardization of P. These modifications to e Program have allowed the DMR to achieved1 the sampling protocols, and 2) standardization of field procedures and observations by having a single entity apply the protocol at all sites. • Finfish Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review MER Assessment Corporation-March,1996 Page 3/31 S • Dissolved oxygen concentrations in the vicinity of finfish culture operations, as • well as at ambient control stations, in Maine in 1995 were generally below full saturation and consistently lower than those obtained in the study conducted in 1994. Table 3.2., below, summarizes the dissolved oxygen saturation results of the 1995 profiling: • Table 3.2. Categorization of 1995 dissolved oxygen saturation minima No. of Stations D.O. Saturation Percent of Total • 6 95-100% 2.0 98 90-94% 33.1 173 85-89% 58.5 17 80-84% 5.7 2 <80% 0.7 296 100.0 Despite the generally lower saturations observed in 1995, these results show that the vast majority of sites (-94%), represented by 277 of the 296 samples, meet or • exceed the current Maine Department of Environmental Protection's minimum standard of 85% dissolved oxygen saturation for Class SB waters. As already stated, the dissolved oxygen saturations observed both upcurrent and downcurrent of cage systems in 1995 were considerably lower than those • observed during the 1994 sampling. Interestingly, low dissolved oxygen saturations were observed elsewhere along the Maine coast during the Fall of 1995 (Kelley and Libby, 1996). Given the annual variations in ambient dissolved oxygen concentrations, another approach to determining the affect of cage culture operations on ambient dissolved oxygen levels is to compare upcurrent and downcurrent values at individual sites and to calculate the amount of oxygen saturation depression that occurs from one side to the other. Table 3.3. and 3.4. on the following pages show comparisons of the mean D.O. saturation minima observed at the three distances from each of the cage systems at each of the active sites in 1994 and 1995, respectively. Results of the samplings at the Control stations are not included in the mean, maximum, or minimum • calculations, but are shown at the bottom of each Table as references • Finfish Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review MER Assessment Corporation-March,1996 Page 5/31 • • Table 3.4. • Comparison of the mean D.O. saturation minima observed at the three distances from the cage systems at each of the active sites in 1995 Site 100m UP" 5m DN" 100m DN* Diff.1000-50 Diff.1000-100D CONA SB 88.0 85.7 87.0 2.3 1.0 • BPFI BE 89.3 87.8 88.5 1.5 0.8 DESC GN 89.0 87.0 86.0 2.0 3.0 HANK CL 87.0 88.5 89.0 -1.5 -2.0 T1FI CC 89.5 88.0 88.0 1.5 1.5 HARS JK 92.0 89.5 91.5 2.5 0.5 AAQF JK2 1 88.0 88.0 86.0 0.0 2.0 • AAQF JK2 2 89.5 88.0 88.0 1.5 1.5 MAFI PC 89.0 88.0 88.5 1.0 0.5 TIFI 1W 88.0 85.5 88.3 2.5 -0.3 CONA DC 92.0 87.3 89.8 4.7 2.2 MESI SH 87.5 86.0 88.5 1.5 -1.0 CONA BC 88.3 85.2 88.0 3.1 0.3 • CONA CP 92.0 88.0 91.0 4.0 1.51.0 SFML RN 89.0 84.8 87.5 4.3 ECFF TE 90.0 85.5 88.5 4.5 1.5 SFML JB3 92.5 87.5 92.5 5.0 0.0 STEV LU 90.0 90.5 91.0 -0.5 -1.0 ASMI II Steel 94.0 92.0 89.5 2.0 4.5 • ASMI II Polar 92.5 87.5 89.5 5.0 3.0 3.0 MCNI CW 92.0 90.0 89.0 2.0 ASMI LI 89.0 87.5 89.0 1.5 0.0 RLLT SI 94.0 91.0 90.0 3.0 4.0 ASMI Fl 91.5 89.0 89.5 2.5 2.0 IACO HS 92.5 84.0 92.0 8.5 0.5 • IACO TC 90.5 84.5 90.5 6.0 0.0 T1SF HI 91.0 86.8 90.0 4.2 1.0 ASMI CI 91.3 84.6 86.5 6.7 4.8 MCNC CN 88.0 88.0 89.5 0.0 -1.5 MCNC CH 84.0 85.5 87.5 -1.5 -3.5 Mean 90.0 87.4 89.0 2.7 1.0 Max 94.0 92.0 92.5 8.5 4.8 Min 84.0 84.0 86.0 -1.5 -3.5 a CONTROL 1 88.0 - - - - CONTROL 2 87.0 -- -- - - *Where more than one value is available for a sampling distance,all values are averaged to provide an overall • vaiue for each distance. Finfish Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review MER Assessment Corporation-March,1996 Page 7/31 S • 3.2. Video Monitoring • Video monitoring is carried out semi-annually in the Spring and Fall of each year. The purpose of the underwater video recording is to provide those unable to dive beneath the cages with visual images of conditions adjacent to and beneath cages systems, as well as provide an objective, rapid, albeit superficial, means of documenting and evaluating changes in conditions beneath and adjacent to cage • systems. This component of the monitoring program represents an instantaneous representation of shorter-term effects and changes. 3.2.1. Procedure Transect lines, consisting of 60 meter (-200 ft) ropes, are marked in 10m alternating black and white sections, with the exception of the first and last 10m which are marked as two 5m sections, the last five of which are marked in alternating lm black and white increments. One 60m transect line is deployed at each end of the cage system to allow measurement of distance from the cage edge along the bottom. The • line is weighted at each end with yellow window weights to provide highly visible starting and ending points. The line is deployed by allowing one end-weight to drop to the bottom immediately adjacent to the cage edge. The remaining line is payed out from a boat running parallel to the predominant current direction until the line becomes taught, at which point the end-weight is allowed to drop to the bottom. • The diver survey and video recording are begun 60m from the cage(s) on the upcurrent side allowing the diver to flow with the current. Once the diver reaches the end of the transect line at the pen edge the survey continues either adjacent to or directly beneath the cage(s) until the second transect line is found at the opposite end • of the system where the survey continues along the transect line to a distance 60m downcurrent of the cage(s). The video recording is taken with an underwater video camera package. Where necessary, additional lighting is provided by a 50 watt video light. The video recording is started at the end-weight and runs continuously throughout the dive, with the exception of certain instances when the diver becomes • disoriented and considerable time is required to relocate the transect lines. In such cases the camera is turned off to conserve video tape and ensure sufficient tape for completion of pertinent video recording of the bottom. 3.3.2. Results • As noted in the previous Preliminary Report, video recording has proven to be a relatively inexpensive and rapid, yet highly effective means of documenting and visually representing conditions beneath and adjacent to cage systems. It is, however, subject to individual interpretation and proper interpretation requires experience as well as • some familiarity with the specific sites filmed. Finfish Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review MER Assessment Corporation-March,1996 Page 9/31 S • Figure 3.3. • Legend of video graphic representation iconic symbols Video Observation Legend OMER Assessment Corporation,1995 GEAR and DEBRIS BOTTOM CONDITIONS MOLLUSCS SPONGES Patchyyl.pety O epethlc dalam .•..•^'d" Sea ecelbp � • Tee •PYcopMen mapNYnkua >`l1lt(f Fr r s Qq t�II[,J Eolithic datum mal •0+::s?;'4"'^^' �lde3. a plT � k a autst• :Iva:4 Patchy/sooty Blue mussel : Patchy/sooty AnoxiaAnoxia .....-_,=......— n -MyBW adultAlb Pellw p' Pelmets sponge \_"" -l,odkyo app.Chain Moats .liarChestnutMeade app. ........• Hand riling Wired whelk BeppYba p. •BYce•u•n ore*um f; ANEMONES Feed baps © bpplsts@ sp. ' ' ' Te d Flied anam 1 NI/peseta Jtoptutea doseneaYla rUetgYm malls :, Feed .rahi Predator net �.: �• Moon snail -Pelmets'hoop, Northern Red anemonedid' Ndcales PROBLEM -Tea/u tains • Grower net ?A!, i • ,!..!:••• • ; CRUSTACEANS Simpson iWhelkSolt rose cent A -Cabs rtrnpsoni -Goner".,ubobn ea :F} Lobster 4 •• Cert,I Trasn 'Morrrru,.rrtsrt.nua ` Red-diad nuabrancn Oyu,, Burma.Y anemone ^:<. •Corypholls t/danehtslu ‘..........t •C•Mrenus bonen *4- ECHINODERMS Mud shrimp Bushy.backrdnudbrach slit {tarpon,•gm eapinem • -DendrenoluJ►oMosw Ner-spolled anemone Common Sea Stn SI •Bunodaels MAP -Aston's dap. aE;yr MOP shrimp _. Spiny Ci iS.st.r •CmSumte nistoWORMS r pupa's' ( as • Rakrob FanWorm �; -Cancercrab elate, SEA SQUIRTS -Mystole mRrMeulurn `�� Purola Sunstar Sea push • darter endKl -FYloc rehY dap. Potsdam sp.mat Crete crab 45 {stern,monis Sulked eea aaqpuuM y Basket pat dabs ,�.�J .ao.ani se= Y FISH M-Gorgonocows •i` Hermll enb •P•puru,sp. Sea urchin flounder Strchin reraoplu, Sea ase (h -Forney PleuronecVdaa Praebacnonala Toed Crab -Claim Irlertra4 (J W-. -Myer w. $ Sean : ``✓ • Send Poser .Myot>cepMW sp MermaiMermaid'.-EcMarachnu,perms , ALGAMermaid'.tau �,, c -D•,menrtr•sp •y, ,r4, Lerpe northern,ea Cucumber -Cusumano emea,a 4=7,:,,aR "•' '. Rockweeds Ho.ra kap .....,40:: •.-,-, •A,copMeum op. S •L•mhe/i*plate TintnspU ed Sy -Cnugda 4eaJ KelpRay "t;t:ti? -Lem/naffs sp. -R•f p. Rat lal cucumber ^��' dli -bbrpda sp.and .41816 Ca t4M sp Sea colander -Apalim cnb/paum '•' Sea Mtarce Ona:Poul -Uhl sp. EaeY kap E ` inrrknuaJ Abri p. • FInfish Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review MER Assessment Corporation-March,1996 Page 11/31 S • Figure 3.5. • Example graphic representation of video observations at the same RISC RN, Cobscook Bay site in Fall 1995 —16:05 rocky bottom • ..neves... 4, s • 4aib' IY 15:59:20 firm bottom w/stone 44 7-7- M4b firmer b•ttom , O heavy silt dark) 4 . la "- . soft bottom • =_h` In d'eabl shells 462 heavy silt(dark • e mussel bed IIIP 15:48:1 IC'Atti• -Is lam& 60 m _r.....„...._ I RISC RN Dive 1 44 AITO 09-19.95 • • 4 ©MER Assessment Corporation, 1996 * 44 firm silt I sand C!1� wlrocks +•► 15:45:05 • Finfish Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review MER Assessment Corporation•March, 1996 Page 13/31 • • 3.3. Benthic Monitoring • Benthic monitoring is carried out adjacent, beneath, and on occasion, at some distance from, each cage system once every other year. The purpose of the benthic monitoring is to detect and document any changes which take place in the sediment composition and macrofaunal community structure on the sites as a result of the cage system operations. This component of the monitoring program seeks to track the • longer-term effects and changes related to cage culture operations. 3.3.1. Procedure 3.3.1.1. Sediments • Single sediment cores for grain size analysis are taken at pre-selected stations around and under the cage systems using 4 in. diameter PVC pipe coring devices. The corers are inserted as far as possible into the bottom, or to full resistance, and the depth of insertion recorded. The contents of the corer is transferred into labeled "Zip- • lock" bags for transportation to the analyzing facility. Samples for the determination of the redox discontinuity layer (RPDL) depth, depth of any unconsolidated organic material (UOM), and subsamples for Total Organic Carbon (TOC) analysis are taken with 8 in. long sections of 3/4 in. diameter clear PVC pipe. The RPDL depth and depth of the UOM are measured on-site. Once these are measured the top 2-3 cm of • sediment are collected for TOC analysis and placed into plastic sample bottles. Upon return to shore these samples are placed in a standard freezer and maintained frozen until delivery to the analyzing facility. The TOC analysis is carried out according to the methods of Hedges and Stern (1984). Granulometry is carried out according to the washed sieve method. • 3.3.1.2. Macrofauna Single sediment cores for benthic macrofauna analysis are taken at pre-selected stations around and under the cage systems using 4 in. diameter PVC pipe coring • devices. These are inserted to approximately the same depth as the cores for grain size analysis. Prior to the Fall of 1995, the contents of the cores was washed through a U.S. Standard No. 35 sieve (5O0µ mesh). Beginning with the sampling in the Fall of 1995, cores are now sieved on a U.S. Standard No. 50 sieve (1.0 mm mesh). All material retained on the screen is transferred into sample containers, and the • containers filled with 10% buffered formalin. Several drops of a 1% Rose Bengal staining solution are added to each sample to assist in highlighting the organisms for sorting. After 5 days of fixing in 10% Formalin, the formalin solution is decanted from the sample containers through a 500µmesh sieve and the formalin volume replaced with 70% ethanol to insure preservation of the organisms' integrity, particularly the • bivalves and other calcareous forms. Finfish Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review MER Assessment Corporation-March,1996 Page 15/31 S • Total organic carbon (TOC) analysis measures the amount of carbon present in • the sediment originating from organic rather than inorganic sources. Since cage culture operations add significant amounts of organic carbon in the form of fish feed, it was initially expected that the TOC values beneath and adjacent to the cages would be significantly higher than those found some distance from the cages, representing ambient conditions. However, as Figure 3.6 below shows, the combined results from • three rounds of sampling show no clear trend towards elevated TOC content at near- cage stations. Figure 3.6. 41 %Total organic carbon (TOC) in sediments at various distances from cage systems from 186 samples taken from 1992-94 14 12 • c`o 10 U 8� ro m O 6 .. co • • 0 4 • • • • • ® • • • • 0 0 20 40 60 80 • Distance from cage in meters • As previously suggested, this is probably due to the varying carbon sources found at different distances from the cages. For example, directly beneath the cages waste feed, feces, and bacteria contribute to the total carbon. At several meters from the cage, polychaetes may account for the majority of the carbon, while at a considerable distance from the cage, epilithic (bottom-covering) diatom mats may account for most of the carbon. While the source of the carbon may change from one • sampling location to another, the total amount of carbon found may vary only slightly, making interpretation of the results rather difficult. In addition, although measures are taken to eliminate them, carbonate-rich sediments can result in high TOC levels, thus confounding the interpretation of results. • Finfish Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review MER Assessment Corporation-March,1996 Page 17/31 • • • Figure 3.7. %Silticlay composition of sediments at various distances from cage systems from 186 samples taken from 1992-94 100 • • • • • 80 • • • • ® • cto 60 • e. 40 • • 0 • 20 1 o • I • • • • • 0 0 20 40 60 80 Distance from cage in meters To determine if "softening" of the bottom is occurring beneath cages monitoring results need to be compared with pre-development conditions. Pre-development data exist for sites developed after 1992, however, most of the currently monitored sites were developed prior to 1992 and such information is consequently unavailable. As additional data are collected, these comparisons will become possible. It is important • to note that changes in sediment composition can profoundly affect the composition of the benthic community by providing new habitat, i.e. increased opportunity for colonization by polychaetes. • Macrofauna The benthic macrofaunal community analysis is the most time-consuming and expensive part of the monitoring program. In addition to being highly labor-intensive, the identification of the organisms requires specific expertise in taxonomy. Although • costly, these analyses yield a great deal of information and provide a clearer understanding of the subtle, yet complex changes which take place beneath the cage systems once the systems are installed and operations begin. • Finfish Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review MER Assessment Corporation-March,1996 Page 19/31 • • maximum diversity is given as • Hmax = log k and the following proportion can be used to compare the actual and theoretical maximum diversity thus yielding a relative diversity J • J = H/Hmax Theoretically, under "normal", unaffected conditions the actual diversity should approach the theoretical maximum diversity and J should approach 1. In actuality • "normal", unaffected conditions are now difficult, if not impossible, to find. Where environmental degradation favors certain tolerant species the actual diversity can be considerably less than the theoretical maximum and J may approach 0. Theoretically then, the smaller J becomes, the more affected the environment is assumed to be. As we shall see, however, this is not always necessarily the case. • The capitellid polychaete Capitella capitata is considered to be highly tolerant of hypoxic, or oxygen depleted, conditions and is therefore considered a good indicator of environmental degradation. A determination of % C. capitata therefore allows a comparison of this species' relative abundance from one sample to another and • provides some indication of the bottom conditions. Grassle and Grassle (1976) identified six separate "sibling" species of Capitella with very similar morphological characteristics. For the purposes of the monitoring program, all morphological forms are reported as C. capitata. • Each of these values or indices provides a means of interpreting the mass of numbers generated through the benthic analyses. However, no single value or index taken by itself can be relied upon to reflect the "complete story". For example, consider a case where two samples have similar J values of 0.335 and 0.314, and % C. capitata • of 69% and 79%, respectively, but species richness values of 64 and 10, respectively. On the basis of J and % C. capitata the two samples may appear rather similar, but the fact that the first sample comes from an area supporting 64 species and the second from conditions supporting only 10 species suggests that the latter represents a more degraded environment that the former. • To avoid relying on either one of these values and better reflect the relationship between relative diversity and species richness we have simply multiplied the relative diversity value J by the species richness (RD*SR). Thus, the larger the product, the better the environmental condition. • Finfish Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review MER Assessment Corporation-March,1996 Page 21/31 0 • • Figure 3.9. Species richness at various distances from cage systems from 186 samples taken from 1992-94 80 • • • 60 0 $ w O • tt40 < 8 U ® • V) 20 • O • i • • • •O®® ® • 0 • ' 0 20 40 60 80 Distance from cage in meters • Figure 3.10. Abundance at various distances from cage systems from 186 samples taken from 1992-94 • 140 120 E • N 100 O r- N o m 80 • V) • c ,= 60 ca f- 13 m 40 • • • Q 0 0 • 20 •• • • 0 I • 0 20 40 60 80 Distance from cage in meters • Finfish Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review MER Assessment Corporation-March,1996 Page 23/31 0 • An attempt has also been made to determine whether a relationship exists • between the environmental affect at a site as a whole and level of production and length of time of operation. Environmental affect at each site was estimated by averaging the relative diversity values of all samples collected at the site since monitoring began in 1992. Production was based on the average production on the site for the 92-93 and 94-95 calendar years. Length of time of operation was • determined as the period from initiation of operations to the last year in which sampling took place. Data used in these analyses are not presented here due to the confidential nature of the information. Once again, as with the physical and biological parameters, no clear relationship • appears to exist between environmental affect, at least as measured by relative diversity, and level of production (R2= 0.279) or length of operation (R2= 0.019). The lack of a clear relationship may be attributable in part to the high level of variability of both benthic monitoring results from site to site as well as the constantly changing operations on each site. 0 The results of these individual parameter and inter-parameter analyses, based on all monitoring data available to-date, continue to support the observation made in the Preliminary Report that no single parameter by itself can adequately represent • conditions beneath or adjacent to cage culture operations. Further, the variability of results over both space and time make it impossible to define an "average" condition and it may be more appropriate to evaluate environmental affect on a site-by-site basis. • 3.3.2.3. Site-by-site Approach Data is now available for two complete rounds of sampling for half of the actively operated cage sites in Maine and covers the years 1992 and 1994. Data also exist for the remaining sites sampled in 1993 and 1995, although the latter samples are still • being processed. For those sites where two sampling periods have been completed, comparisons can be made between the two periods. Appendix II contains detailed station-by-station, site-by-site summaries along with graphic representations of key information developed • from sampling during these periods. Table 3.6., following, shows a comparison of key information for these sites for the two sampling periods and the net changes that have occurred. • Finfish Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review MER Assessment Corporation-March,1996 Page 25131 • • 4. Related Work • In addition to the routine monitoring, several additional efforts have been undertaken to improve our understanding of the environmental affects of cage culture operations and the ways in which these affects might be mitigated. Efforts have also been directed towards improving the efficiency and effectiveness of monitoring while • reducing the cost. 4.1. Benthic Recovery As has been previously mentioned, it was initially believed that, based on the • experiences in Norway and Washington State, the net-pen culture of salmon in Maine would result in serious and extensive degradation of the bottom, including heavy accumulation of organic material from waste feed and feces. The monitoring results of the past three years have now shown that, although environmental affects do occur at cage culture sites, these affects are not nearly as severe as initially expected and, in • most cases, the area of affect is limited to the immediate vicinity of the cages. A second concern expressed early in the cage culture environmental debate, and again based on experiences elsewhere, was the potential for long-term degradation of the bottom beneath and adjacent to culture operations. In 1993 a study • was initiated on a limited budget with the cooperation of Connors Aquaculture at its Broad Cove, Eastport, Unit 5300 cage site to determine how long it would take a significantly affected bottom to "recover" once finfish culture operations ceased. A proposal was submitted to the Northeast Regional Aquaculture Center (NRAC) but failed to be selected for funding. Despite the lack of funding, sampling continued on a • 10-week interval over an 18-month period from May 1993 through November 1994. All of the nearly 168 samples taken for the study have now been processed and the results compiled and analyzed. A detailed review of all of the results is beyond the scope of this report, but the results of the first sampling in May 1993 and the final • sampling of November 1994 are summarized in Table 4.1. Figure 4.1. shows the results of the relative diversity analysis for the first and last sampling dates, where the red line (•) represents the May 1993 relative diversity values and the green line (•) the November 1994 values. • The substantial decrease in total abundance between the two dates, driven principally by a precipitous decline in the Capitella capitata population, combined with an increase in species richness and a significant increase in the relative diversity values all indicate that recovery of the bottom can occur relatively quickly. $ Finrish Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review MER Assessment Corporation-March.1996 Page 27/31 • • The purpose of this study was to investigate the rate at which recovery occurs • but not the process by which it occurs. Nevertheless, there is little doubt that dragging activity within the previously affected area was a contributing factor to recovery. To evaluate recovery under non-dragging conditions, a second recovery study was initiated in cooperation with Atlantic Salmon of Maine at its Cross Island, Cutler "C"- farm site in May, 1995. This project is now into its fourth sampling round, but • insufficient data have been developed to-date to allow any conclusions to be drawn. This study should be completed by the Spring of 1997. 4.2. Family level analysis • The benthic macro-infauna analyses are the most time-consuming components of the monitoring program, but yield the most useful information. In an effort to reduce the cost associated with these analyses a study was undertaken to determine if a simplification of the organism identification process would significantly affect the results • of analyses. Data collected as part of the "recovery" project was analyzed at two different taxonomic levels: 1) the Species, or finest level, and 2) the Family level, or two steps higher (i.e. Family-Genus-Species). Table 4.2. summarizes the relative diversity analysis results at the two taxonomic levels. • Table 4.2. Comparison of relative diversity analysis results carried out at two taxonomic levels on selected "Recovery" study samples • May 13, 1993 November 14, 1994 Species Family Species Family Station RD Variance RD Variance RD Variance RD Variance • 1 0.443 0.005 0.439 0.005 0.811 0.005 0.747 0.006 2 0.279 0.001 0.285 0.002 0.841 0.003 0.800 0.003 3 0.342 0.002 0.342 0.002 0.840 0.000 0.834 0.000 4 0.364 0.001 0.367 0.001 0.737 0.002 0.738 0.001 5 0.310 0.001 0.310 0.001 0.740 0.003 0.749 0.003 • 6 0.423 0.002 0.426 0.001 0.678 0.030 0.684 0.028 7 0.297 0.003 0.300 0.003 0.675 0.000 0.695 0.000 8 0.647 0.007 0.641 0.007 0.471 0.004 0.473 0.004 Means 0.388 0.003 0.389 0.003 0.724 0.006 0.715 0.006 • Finnish Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review MER Assessment Corporation-March,1996 Page 29/31 • • 6.0 References • Grassle, J.P., and J.F. Grassle, 1976. Sibling species in the marine pollution indicator Capitella (Polychaeta). Science 192:567-569. Hedges, J.I., and J.H. Stern, 1984. Carbon and nitrogen determinations of carbonate- • containing solids. Limnol. Oceanogr., 29(3):657-663. Heinig, C.S., 1995. Maine Department of Marine Resources 1995-96 Finfish Aquaculture Monitoring Program, Task III. Annual Fall 1995 Water Quality Survey. MER Assessment Corp., RFD 2, Box 109 South Harpswell, ME 04079, 9 pp. • Heinig, C.S., 1994. Preliminary Report on the Maine Department of Marine Resource's Finfish Aquaculture Monitoring Program (FAMP). MER Assessment Corp., RFD 2, Box 109 South Harpswell, ME 04079, 34 pp. • Heinig, C.S., 1994. Maine Department of Marine Resources 1994-95 Finfish Aquaculture Monitoring Program, Task III. Annual Fall 1994 Water Quality Survey. MER Assessment Corp., RFD 2, Box 109 South Harpswell, ME 04079, 9 pp. Kelley, J.R., and P.S. Libby, 1996. Dissolved Oxygen in Maine Estuaries and • Embayments. Report submitted to the Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve, Wells, Maine, 14 pp. Shannon, C.E., 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. In: Biostatistical Analysis, Ed. J.H. Zar, Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 617 pp. • • • • Finfish Aquaculture Monitoring Program Review MER Assessment Corporation-March,1996 Page 31/31 • • • • • • • Appendix I Maine Department of Marine Resources Finfish Aquaculture Monitoring Program • • • • • • • DMR Finfish Aquaculture Monitoring Program (FAMP) (Pertaining to monitoring for the Fall 1994 through Spring 1996 survey work.) Upon issuance of a MDMR lease the following monitoring program will be required. • The objective of these monitoring requirements is to identify effects of farms on sediments and water quality. It also provides data with which to review the current environmental requirements for possible future modifications. 1. Diver Surveys, Semi-annual • Methods: A diver survey shall be conducted twice a year, once between April and May and once between the last two weeks of September and October. Accept as provided below the survey shall be documented with continuous video footage within the footprint of the net-pens and extend 60 meters (200 feet) • beyond the ends of the system along the axis of the primary current. The diver shall document the sediment types and features noting erosional or depositional areas. Also document the flora/fauna observed as to their relative abundance. Relative abundance characterized approximately as follows: abundant, always present within the diver's view; common, seen occasionally throughout the dive, • may be patchy; rare, only seen once or in a few places throughout the dive. Note: Video format is preferred* but photographs taken at 10 meter (30 foot) intervals may be submitted if video is not available. A brief narrative with the tape or photos describing reference points must be provided. MDMR monitoring • video or photos may be used for this requirement if available. All documentation must include the dates on which it was taken. *For the purpose of this survey Hi8mm video format is required. • 2. Water Quality Methods: Three water samples must be analyzed for dissolved oxygen (DO), temperature and salinity every two weeks from July 1 through September 30.** The sampling locations should be placed such that the downcurrent samples • represents water that has passed through the greatest number of pens. The samples shall be taken at mid-pen depth, ie. if the holding net is 6 meters deep, take the sample at 3 meters from the surface. The three stations to be sampled shall be located: 100 meters (300 feet) upcurrent of the operation, 100 meters (300 feet) downcurrent of the operation and within 5 meters (15 feet) • downcurrent from the pens. Also, during the month of August a one-time detailed analysis of dissolved oxygen, temperature and salinity shall be prepared for each station consisting of 10 equally-spaced samples over the entire vertical depth of the station.** • 1 • Grain size analyses should be performed using the Wet Sieving methods • described by Buchanan in Holme and McIntyre, 1984 (pp. 47-48) or a similar procedure (see appendix 1). The standard sieve sizes for gravel, sand, silt and clay shall be used. Full analyses of the silt-clay fractions may be calculated as the difference in dry weight between the original sample and the sum of the sieve fractions down to the 0.062 mm sieve • (very fine sand). The fraction in each sieve shall be reported in grams (dry weight) and percent of total (dry weight) including the total dry weight of the initial sample. The unconsolidated material and the top 2 cm of inorganic sediments • shall be collected for the analysis of Total Organic Carbon (TOC). The applicant must insure that a minimum of 30 grams are collected for analysis. Multiple cores (which include the top 2 cm of inorganic material) if warranted, will be required. • Total Organic Carbon shall be analyzed using the methods described in the Puget Sound Estuary Program (1986), Hedges and Stern (1984) or Verado et al. (1990) Methods for TOC and sediment analyses, see appendix 1. • b. Infauna Methods: Infauna samples shall be sieved through a 0.5 mm sieve and organisms identified to the lowest practical taxonomic level. Single cores shall be taken at the same sample location listed in the • approved sampling plan during the season of maximum feeding within the proposed lease area along the axis of the current. Cores must be inserted to resistance or 15 cm, whichever is less. Depth of the core shall be reported. • Individual benthic infauna cores collected by a diver shall have an area of at least 81 cm2 (a four inch diameter PVC pipe will suffice). Or cores may be collected from a grab or box type corer having an area of at least 0.1 m2 (1000 cm2). If subsamples are taken from a grab or box type corer for the sediment analysis and the remaining sample used for infauna • analysis, no more than one-quarter of the surface of each sample can have been removed for the sediment analysis.""*" ***For the purpose of survey TOC:TN is required. **** For the purpose of this survey a Smith-McIntyre grab is required. • • 3 • • • • • • Appendix II Site-by-site comparative summary of 1992 and 1994 benthic monitoring analyses results • • • • • • MisiU •671190 M4 799$919 w 7914 DATA 01.08711110 01.40017019 .4 4 4.3/40 .7000 pre 10 MR 41.760 70761 911/04167 305719699 071 DACE 4579496715 19.0 841 41110 00411 7001 PPM 10C DITANCE GAM 5619 114n1,t1EI 1.1.11 LAT ANA C, 0'7197 43 53, X U. 186 145 705 05 US 15. )V 11 y) 5}: 4660 C, 9612792 49 10520 0733 4 20 9 5, 1, 05 15 1615 tel I.7 ANA CI 9677797 720 1001 771 0 0 123 95 5 0 9 77 1 5 3 391 0 5 1 7/ 41 1 39 5 *5907 9612117 310 3975 11 Xi 0766 157 57 705 6 35 291 70 136 719 116 Kw CI 9673792 797 2607 2, )D 0 406 0 1 9 7 1 0 2 217 X 1 4 70 5 11, Kw CI 96,7791 10 /4 75 X 0152 216 129 1 I5 737 30 34 9 916 • KW C., 0112497 24 3159 t1 0 0X5 139 31 95 01 2 507 C 125 171 137 KW C. 9617.17 XI )795 5 0 0015 916 04 IOS 391 0 707 127 166 Kw CI 0117793 745 7119 8 0 010, 067 21 9 05 3 Set 0 45 311 11 Kw CI 6017797 617 7540 7 0 0 169 933 7 70 35 354 0 69 719 107 0660 C7 1972797 7I 315 445 21 14 0635 , 14 511 M, NI 184 70 NI 74 I 6+1 64 1 ASMIfl V, 1974791 51 1307 X U 14. 47 1 015 t /5 1477 10 Uq 5 93 0660 C,9.'f 964 14. 479 9173 .1 U0 0 77 91 9 25 2770 0000 IN 4601010 F 9614.18 1 49 4 0 0010 25 12 215 4776 0 0000 II IO KN.VT'F 9674494 41 744 13 0 074 91 55 25 4 747 0 0000 ) 97 Kw C1 1r 967444 42 9154 16 X 0337 72 M 775 0129 10 0000 3 91 4646 CITF 96614 261 9637 12 36 0797 90 8S 075 0 3 2213 36 0000 9 90 4660 CITF 96/1498 104 Mn 70 0 0201 15 4 125 7777 0 0000 14 19 61 KA CI T F 0114 41, 1090 6 0 0 719 96 70 1 5 6 757 0 0 000 79 69 KM CITF 96714 737 1,014 12 0 0260 4 1 247 0 0000 9 57 0364,CI F 96114 769 1491 24 30 0 214 II 1 1 2 5 7 813 10 0 000 3 4 • 4660019'0 961465 45 41 17 ]O 0/96 14 04 75 4 115 30 00 10 40 900 46700190 9614.14 777 1{15 9 0 0879 95 /S 60 0 776 0 00 70 )0 950 ASA CIVF 9674794 425 /347 8 0 0717 92 /0 30 0 723i 0 00 20 10 900 660 C104 F 9614.94 557 6675 10 0 0424 10 63 30 0 191 0 00 30 740 730 Kw C1918 9614194 790 140 1 30 044 e0 45 20 7 257 X 00 20 60 914 Kw U 9662798 242 3947 10 70 966470 6 0 125 065, 0000 0 Ti 17 044609 (812194 14 113 0 0000 167 U 45 05 U 0174 U 0 O 0 97 419439 961104 19 236 1 0 0913 • 31 1 65 0675 0 0546 0 0000 0 79 r, ASA 7 1271794 26 308 9 0 0 747 57 7 0 5 0 5 0175 0 0 000 i A 19 *5670 017114 74 734 17 30 0193 0 It 1 075 075 0105 X 07 73 96 0'0 CPM BC 153 6997 713 3497 13 737 0 736 7 t 79 9 14 0 3 3 3 3 70 0 17 116 11) COM BC 133 00611 7179 73108 33 30 0 609 37 70 7 6 2 7 D 506 70 0 t 7 34 1 4 f COMA BC 153 9606197 774 74407 9 0 0 776 /9 t 9 e 3 0 4 59 0 0 74 4 301 40 0 CON6BC(53 006197 1679 70707 70 0 0314 19 37 9 25 0 519 0 0 70 337 569 COMA BC 153 00697 178 71007 31 20 0579 306 192 95 75 MA 313 30 0 07 146 193 • 00014 BC(53 0977.14 791 MA79 60 0125 6 71 63 OS ]1 791 60 70 /0 710 580 00791146 Isl 09671494 705 741 ), X 0 771 73 N e s O e 1 0 731 70 14 0 71 0 20 0 77 0 COMA BC 153 0667/191 491 436 X 0 0967 5 25 105 70 15 239 0 270 150 770 370 009441 BC 753 0977.14 791 3143 24 0 0679 70 15 70 00 t3 056 0 00 210 190 584 COMA ESC(53 0471194 111 3763 45 X 0797 7 34 I5 00 55 091 30 750 790 710 300 COM BC 153 MAIM. 145 497 50 60 0610 0 34 95 03 30 741 60 120 170 370 360 COMA BC 760 960997 1619 79975 43 60 0557 573 227 /5 05 77 346 60 0 14I 341 501 C040674160 (406197 61X 1559. 5, 30 0344 66 796 75 2 0 42 X 0 41 517 44 A COM BC 160 9609697 7915 9130, X 0 0776 93 33 70 25 0 901 L 0 706 152 347 COMA BC 460 749413 9590 11427 4 L 0337 45 276 1 77 J 387 0 49 797 711 9? COIM BC 160 9606117 7491 92525 40 30 0449 604 719 1 13 3 779 70 412 276 77 6? C07441974460 006.17 3355 4140, 45 60 0417 314 771 10 05 3 227 60 630 754 142 66 COMA BC 160 06617994 317 3012 74 60 0467 66 7t 705 05 75 246 90 00 60 310 630 C0990BC IGO 00797791 3052 9/677 72 X 0 249 90 5 4 0 7 1 0 0 4 71 36 0 0 9 0 36 0 55 0 • COM BC 160 09677491 101 3/14 15 0 0161 91 2 700 73 00 750 0 00 760 810 800 004.4 BC 160 069/491 775, 77110 45 0 0]97 3? 11 50 0/ 13 165 0 SC 360 400 400 CdA BC NO 06677494 977 77370 5, 30 0675 75 32 40 05 15 221 >D 200 220 790 140 C0994.BC 161) 06617414 677 941 44 60 047 3 30 30 00 30 053 60 670 450 790 700 C094*CP 70,0597 7274 79611 53 50 0472 567 25 175 13 33 744 50 400 792 2,9 1I COM CP 70713797 3791 3429 30 25 0 754 91 t 4 7 71 2 3 0 0 15 25 36 I 37 5 16 7 14 6 COMM 1005192 7173 77305 33 0 0716 795 50 35 75 367 537 0 574 251 154 91 COMA CP 100592 923 11300 3? 0 0415 467 15 55 75 3 09 0 17, 493 347 /9 COMA CP 7001591 732 0033 79 30 0335 45 15 54 35 9 245 30 196 413 773 61 COM CA 1000092 715 0564 79 90 0117 631 727 Mr NT 1487 113 617 27 403 21 17 COMA CP 00733491 7143 2771 49 90 0 714 73 35 3 5 0 0 3 5 016 60 70 0 33 0 310 9 0 COMACP 0673511 1355 16771 43 30 3534 XI 21 10 13 45 I 03 30 0 730 230 330 0009000 09/93494 40 7101 27 0 0(34 55 71 170 10 15 793 0 0 160 340 430 004600 067514 42 114 36 0 0613 19 23 40 03 19 097 0 310 250 770 760 COM CP 0673591 46 191 21 10 0 009 1 79 4 5 0 3 ,5 7 57 30 2 0 75 0 71 0 71 C • C0740CP 066714 771 1107 34 60 0918 1 ]0 50 00 SO OTS 91 4 0 ).0 150 710 COM.DC 1047771 095 17315 61 60 0119 7 7 86 5 10 5 O S 1 t t 50 14 5 45 7 17 3 COMA DC 10717497 1561 19300 4 JO 0675 97 324 9 1 2 773 30 104 361 477 C0946OC 10717497 4376 53506 27 0 0 595 25 7 16 I 7 7 36 7 4 53 0 7,9 3 361 CO9.DC 19607997 7527 11109 33 25 0006 32 9 70 70 73 3 5 3 3 25 16 1 4 t 351 CONE DC 7007997 2643 30015 69 25 044 87 376 1 7 1 74 25 3 6 349 213 102 CCX+0074 7017712 174 9145) 31 C 0517 771 195 75 15 NA 41 0 151 535 300 CONAOC 1001/97 314 63995 15 25 0485 19 1,9 15 75 5 395 75 775 625 11 COMA DC 1001/97 7133 37497 70 50 0 357 4 9 36 1 11 5 0 5 7 5 267 SC 36 1 37 9 74 1 0094.00 0072974 360 444 81 60 0 191 71 32 1 0 1 I 5 0 1 4 60 0 0 70 0 35 0 55 0 COMA DC 007164 1793 1411 49 377 0657 19 32 700 15 30 24 30 00 /0 530 390 COMADC 0672994 4574 9444 3, 0 0361 49 72 50 71 70 401 0 00 90 600 700 C094OC MINN 1078 INN 34 36 044 40 70 100 05 30 346 10 00 700 400 500 0007000 097964 245 3626 45 30 0 74 72 35 3 0 0 3 0 0 1 79 36 0 0 51 0 35 0 .4 0 C094.DC 06779.4 1475 57991 40 0 01373 19 25 50 00 45 071 0 00 40 370 40 • COMM 97991 7850 90016 4 30 041 39 30 75 0 00 7}, b 00 340 40 114 COMA 00 0661191 65] 9044 e0 60 0111 75 45 70 O) 70 171 60 00 330 550 110 914095 h 70147974 4 7370 35 3 0191 77 5 31 4 10 5 .5 0 0 3 03 7 77 19 4 4 9 41095 r 717 1964 741 3060 44 0 0 167 72 6 33 5 0 7 0 51 0 50 4 27 9 77 1 774.435 1, 7004.97 795 35,1 39 3 0 737 79 7 1, 0 95 0 0 74 7 46 7 74 9 71 7 5 6 90175 J< 6073491 477 6877 45 30 0732 32 90 00 10 067 30 760 350 470 60 NNW J. 067191 105 194 76 0 046 27 05 03 23 011 0 770 430 200 700 IMPS.111 0667191 277 7917 29 0 0710 3 71 05 05 70 091 0 710 500 180 50 94.4495.44 06'7594 191 294 25 X 0 775 I 19 9 0 0 0 2 0 016 36 33 0 47 0 73 0 7 0 NCO TC 667779. 706 9370 70 X 0647 71 70 00 20 774 30 00 00 40 960 1K01C 6671. X 916 10 0177 1 6 55 20 00 734 10 00 70 100 910 ,WO 1C 6671. 50 911 4 0379 7 55 31 00 699 0 00 10 190 6777 .46087[ 0710 9 777 70 0917 7 15 05 15 139 10 00 70 700 940 ICO TC 01714 7 4 30 0932 3 40 05 75 791 30 00 30 400 40 4;1 1c 079690 71 136 60 0976 97 55 1 03 75 142 80 0 33 774 743 4E5.1 IC 0,701019] AM 1 30 011, 7 7 197 9 O7 t 707 36 0 76 23 7 NJ MKT TC 0707 3 37 0 , 3 5 2 0 04 0 0 09 4.1 Ir 94371 TC 0770091 124 1530 1 30 0741 54 105 7 5 01 0 07s 30 0 09 15 41 5491 IC 07091 491 6077 30 60 0 671 3 5 20 3 2 5 1 77 60 0 0 0 16 7 96 5 181 CC 900117 90 114 27 70 0735 0 162 35 .35 75 093 A 79 393 172 705 98100 0,120,127 734 1679 X 0 04 74 141 09 0 767 0 679 149 104 65 FBICC 09697 A 963 77 20 0 711 309 133 940 940 753 70 409 214 274 707 181700 90197 735 3747 77 10 074 37 745 03 040 227 70 165 /1 914 i3 78110 0011791 40 1138 36 0 0771 02 79 05 790 279 0 246 142 531 /4 9407170 0002 79 975 71 10 0157 S 7 14 5 0 00 0 3 4 10 91 2 3 7 11 0 9 781 70 0667998 216 141 42 30 0 710 7 37 7 5 0 0 1 5 1 77 50 0 0 13 0 4 9 7 2 78,10 06619641 505 00 38 0 049 79 25 /0 00 745 120 0 00 290 390 150 01.45 110,73/174 70 ON 73 30 0991 6 70 50 00 50 029 30 00 700 40 90 NEM 0+ 7976997 367 4776 35 30 0174 6I 21 5 r 0 3 1 7 97 20 0 71 7 77 3 76 6 • 1ESC GN 110091 7505 79517 30 3 056/ lea 115 25 4 497 3 0 64 45 491 fESC GN 709962 511 6503 73 0 0X1 11 9 3 1 10 1 5 s 0 91 0 49 7 77 9 79 5 17 6 KM CJ. '0719611 717 13,1 i 3 0217 154 77 IS 1 0 073 3 317 142 11 713 0E577 09. 1010992 715 7151 74 30 0000 729 146 705 05 35 171 36 0 474 239 79 7E577GN 0477494 333 4777 44 SO 0735 2 37 100 03 50 734 30 140 790 570 330 1E57704 0447714 7249 1409 X 0 0739 73 9 15 03 30 057 0 170 170 400 720 6E$C04 0967714 3363 41 0 0417 44 11 90 03 00 779 0 370 790 790 150 7E577 CN 9477494 509 04 21 0 0513 57 17 75 05 10 213 0 00 20 100 360 1E977GN 0171.14 765 44 49 X 0136 1 b 700 00 700 016 X, 20 70 100 790 SFA J3 1960997 73. 7910 X X 0119 04 273 105 105 7 74 30 11 172 41 60448 1010697 145 9193 7 0 0774 671 76 10 05 13 377 0 47 326 671 3634.If 111197 163 701 i 4 0 0215 933 09 95 13 0 415 0 ) 795 615 Soy,13 10,171,177 276 7665 73 0 0 576 79 2 1 5 1 01 7 5 1 91 C 1 14 6 4 7 444.8 70992 51 703 12 36 0111 79 193 135 05 45 197 30 65 773 177 5444.8 100997 614 7571 6 X 044 919 03 705 15 55 736 X4 305 657 0 60 44.8 10997 144 1111 7 0 2 )69 0 ea 74 1 69 3 3090,8 100101 54 176 5 0 047 /� 7] 915 17 87 736 0 61 69 919 444.4 70997 219 3443 20 0 0 564 01 14 7 75 0 5 4 1 53 0 79 1 74 3 51 9 60908 7099.97 7 19' 2257 27 30 0636 0 777 9 9 6 767 X 53 34 971 1144183 0667194 a 591 20 30 048 7 71 95 05 75 159 40 00 40 50 910 60443 666769+ 71 176 79 0 014 23 34 95 10 40 173 X 00 10 40 570 614.4XI 067694 25 433 10 0 0765 73 1 90 73 00 757 0 00 74 70 910 5011.83 06611744 53 664 6 0 024 99 2 170 03 05 776 0 10 )0 70 40 490.43 0667094 53 04 II X 0/79 2 75 90 03 55 753 X 70 70 50 570 5,6094 107644 79 675 0 044 14 2 100 00 00 169 0 00 70 100 910 1354 w 79676494 177 3735 12 70 0791 6 3 170 00 11 272 JO 00 10 790 790 175014. 500744 117 167 73 60 0406 6 05 00 95 112 60 00 40 740 775094 1071/4 4 9214 8 0 0 47 9 3 95 00 40 III 0 500 7,444 56777764 7/' 734 31 60 079940 450 390 270 6 24 IS 00 ]5 061 60 ))0 700 NO 1]0 • 1 • • • • • • • A • • • ASMI CI'C'FARM BENTHIC ANALYSIS 9994 DATA DEPTHS IN CENTIMETERS 1 94 <94_.640 140-41200 2*200 SITE 10 DATE STATION TOTAL ABUNDANCE RICHNESS DISTANCE DIVERSITY %C.cap SR'RD CORE UMOL RPDL TOC DISTANCE GRAVEL SAND SAND(FlNE) SILTICLAY ASMI CI*C"FARM 1011394 1 367 4531 12 30 0.191 90 2 85 0.75 0.75 2.213 30 0 1 9 90 ASMI CI•C•FARM 10/1394 2 900 12172 10 0 0.266 85 3 4 1.25 0 3.717 0 0 14 19 67 ASMI CI'C''FARM 1011394 3 481 5930 6 0 0.119 96 1 10 1.5 0 6.152 0 0 5 26 69 ASMI CI"C'FARM 1011394 4 737 9096 12 0 026 84 3 4 1 0 2.061 0 0 4 9 87 ASMI CI'C'FARM 10/1394 5 769 9493 24 30 0.314 11 6 7 1 2.75 1.473 30 0 1 3 96 RELATIVE DIVERSITY SPECIES RICHNESS AS941 CI r FM.I 1994 ASMI CI'V FARM 1094 • • 41, n 11- I1 g M- In- 61 1 I • 4 I 1 1 1 4 I Stollen SIMM Ir..OM MI/i.4 fres Wit 40 MITI ABUNDANCE PERCENT SILT ASM CI V.FNW 1004 ASM CI S'FMM 1994 ()) u III n- ijI I- . 1 1 I . I o . I 1 I I S1.W1 Station fw.PM VAMP MIA Ir..OM r 4 Mill PERCENT CAPITELLA MM CI'C FARM 1994 .A 10 0 II- - I 1 1 I • I Swim I..e.O.1'MIME 0 ASMI II BENTHIC ANALYSIS 994 DATA DEPTHS IN CENTIMETERS >94 4#4—a#40 N40-34/200 41200 SfTE ID DATE STATION TOTAL BUNDANCE RICHNESS DISTANCE DIVERSITY %C.cep SR•RD CORE UMOL RPOL TOC DISTANCE_ GRAVEL SAND SAND(FlNE( S1LTICLAY ASMIII 10/12/94 1 242 2987 16 30 0680 14 11 6 0 125 0651 30 0000 0 23 77 ASMI II 10/12/94 2 14 173 1 0 0 000 100 0 4 5 0.5 0 0 834 0 0.000 0 17 83 ASMI II 10/12/94 3 19 235 8 0 0 883 37 7 6.5 0 875 0 0.546 0 0 000 0 29 71 ASMI II 10/12/94 4 25 309 9 0 0.747 52 7 4 0 5 0 5 0.875 0 0.000 1 20 79 ASMI If 10/12/94 5 104 1284 21 30 0.793 0 17 7 0 75 0.75 0.605 30 0 1 13 86 RELATIVE DIVERSITY SPECIES RICHNESS A5M1 a 1004 AS/4111 1004 1 II ee- A 2e- 7 13 11 � w e1- 1- 1 f I 1 1 l f • 1 9041 510071 laws Owl reom1e1e11 !es Owe VAIs wee ABUNDANCE PERCENT SILT AMA 1004 ASM 111M4 I b 1 h- • IN i ir 1_ \ 11 e 0 e 0 1 1 e f ] 1 I 1 9141 SWYn tsses ow rwar/11011 %wee Own 1.40•02477 PERCENT CAPITELLA ASMe1004 110 r- a ' • A- 1 1 1 1 e 1 9041 Iowa Ps sus NAM • • • • • • • • • • • COMA BC 6000 BENTHIC ANALYSIS 1992 vs 1994 DATA • DEPTHS IN CENTIMETERS s 64 €64_'$40 /40_'/200 4200 SITE ID DATE STATION TOTAL ABUNDANCE RICHNESS DISTANCE DIVERSITY %C.e . SR'RO CORE UMOL RPOL TOC DISTANCE GRAVEL SAND SAN FIN SILT/CLAY COMA BC(60 10/06/92 1 :- 1619 19978 43 60 0 527 51.3 22.7 8 5 0.5 2.7 3.46 60 0 14 8 34.4 50 8 COMA BC(60 104692 2 11126 75595 57 30 0 344 66 19 8 7.5 2 0 4.2 30 0 4.3 51.3 44 4 COMA BC(60 1046/92 3 7885 97301 28 0 0 125 93 3.3 10 2 5 0 8 08 0 0 20 6 45 2 34 2 COMA BC(60 104692 4 9595 118402 68 0 0 333 68 5 22 6 7 1.3 3 3 87 0 49 20.1 21.7 9 2 COMA BC(60 104692 :. 5 7498 92525 40 30 0 449 60 4 17 9 7 1.3 3 2.28 30 47.2 22.8 22 8 2 COMA BC(60 1046192 - 8 3355 41401 45 60 0 481 31 4 21.7 10 0 5 3 2.22 60 63 8 15.4 14.2 6 6 COMA BC(60 09/7794 1 317 3913 24 60 0 462 66 11 10.5 0 5 2 5 2.46 60 0.0 8 0 31.0 63 0 COMA BC(60 09/77/94 2 3052 37677 22 30 0 249 80 5 4 0 1.8 0 0 4 17 30 0 0 9 0 36.0 55 0 CONA BC(60 0912794 3 3038 37504 15 0 0.161 91 2 10.0 1.3 0.0 3.50 0 0.0 18.0 44.0 40 0 COMA BC(60 09/77/94 4 2251 27789 43 0 0.391 31 17 5.0 0.7 1.5 1.65 0 5.0 36.0 40.0 19.0 COMA BC(80 09/27/94 5 921 11370 51 30 0 825 15 32 4.0 0.5 1.5 222 30 26.0 32.0 28.0 14.0 • COMA BC(60 09/7794 8 877 8358 44 60 0.687 3 30 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.83 60 17.0 45.0 28.0 10 0 • RELATIVE DIVERSITY SPECIES RICHNESS COMA BC 6000 1992.1 1904 COMM BC 6000 1002 v1 1994 • a-� a_ ;6997 1999., I 4.1991 15 +1991 • 1 • 4 • • 1 1 1 4 I • $101,01 $1.901 10.010(121 04119 1000 DN 1414.9010 ABUNDANCE PERCENT SILT COMM BC 6000 1992 vs 1994 COMA BC 6000 1992 vs 1991 1r- jJ :: 4 • 4 1991 r` 2• • 1 2 • 4 I • I r t • 4 • • Siwm S4•e1 • sAvu 011110V M10 Immo DM 1M16010 PERCENT CAPITELLA COMA BC MOD 1992 vs 1904 me r- r-f= M 1992 d r. 4.1994 r I 1 1 • 1 I • 51•se1 9....00101 M10 • • r iy • • • r • R • COMA DC EENTSIC ANALYSIS 1992 vs 1994 DATA 11 DEPTHS N CENTIMETERS 9.94 4 114-.910 040-.1200 vl200 • SrtEID DATE STATION TOTAL ABUNDANCE RICHNESS DISTANCE DIVERSITY %C.e.• SR-R0 CORE UMOL RPDL TOC DISTANCE GRAVEL SAND SAND IFNE) SILT1CLAY COWS DC 10107192-„ 1 998 - 12315 E2 80 0.749 13 46.5 10.5 0.5 4 2.11 60 0 14.5 43.2 42.3l� COMA DC 10107/92 2 1504 19300 48 30 0.875 9 1 32.4 9 1 2 1.73 30 0 19.4 38 4 422 COMA DC 10/07112 3:'. 4338 53508 27 0 0.505 25.7 18.1 7 1 7 4 53 0 0 21.9 30 3 38.8 C09I1 DC 10107/02 4 1521 18789 33 25 0.608 33 9 20 10 1.3 3.5 3.2 25 0 16.1 48.1 35 8 CONI DC 10107/92 -:..5:1. 2843 32815 89 25 0.544 8.3 37.6 8 2 8 1.4 25 336 34.9 21.3 102 CONI DC 10107192 " 5 7188 88453 38 0 0.512 21.7 19 5 7.5 1.5 N1 4.7 0 0 15.7 53 5 308 COMA DC 10107192 7. - 5186 63995 45 25 0485 19 21.8 7.5 2.5 5 3 95 25 8 125 82.5 17 • CONI DC 10107/92 8 2833 32491 70 50 0.552 4.9 38.7 11.5 0.5 4.5 262 50 0 38.1 37.8 24.1 • COMA DC 09126194 1 360 4444 41 60 0.788 21 32 8.0 1.8 5.0 1.64 80 0.0 10.0 35.0 55 0 COMA DC 09/26/94 2 1203 14851 49 30 0957 19 32 100 1.5 38 2.94 30 0.0 8.0 53.0 39 0 CONA DC 09/28194 3 4574 56488 31 0 0.384 49 12 8.0 1.8 1.0 4.08 0 0.0 6.0 80.0 34.0 • CONA DC 09/28194 4 1028 12691 38 30 0 544 48 20 10.0 0.8 3.0 3.46 30 0.0 10 0 40.0 50.0 • COMA DC 09/28/94 5 245 3025 45 30 0.788 22 35 3.0 0.3 0.0 1.29 30 0.0 51.0 35.0 140 COMA DC 0908194 8 1418 17505 40 0 0.823 19 25 5.0 00 4 5 0.77 0 0.0 4 0 32.0 64.0 • CONA DC 00126/94 7 2480 30818 56 30 0.543 39 30 2.5 0.0 0.0 1.21 30 0.0 340 54.0 12.0 CONA DC 09/28194 8 852 8049 00 60 0.744 25 45 7.0 03 30 1.18 eo 0.0 330 55.0 12.0 • • • RELATIVE DIVERSITY SPECIES RICHNESS COMA 0C 1902.1994 COIN DC 1992 v.199. Z. r ._ .199: I r_ ALiiiiiiiV 49109. • A 1994 i 1 - r OS r I 1 . t . r 'lI 1 • i I ! 4 I 4 Slam Ys Mo Mr� 1 51am, rOSIOPN I IwIIfs. ABUNDANCE PERCENT SILT COWL OC 1992.1994 CAINOC 1992. 1994 • a • olie on • ir r_ e 61 ~- • 01992 r a 1992 '' O 199. a -0. 1994 w w_ \ 1 I I • • . r .4 I ; I I l , I Stam Sinai feNe M Nee Y1. -CM MIS 1.1.1 PERCENT CAPITELLA CONA 0C 1992 n 1994 so • ..._____/ . E r 0 1992 14 1994 I o I I • I I Siam INN.9rrrre. • • • 0 • • • • • • • • MPLT/IACD TC BENTHIC ANALYSIS 1892.1994 COMBINED DATA DEPTHS IN CENTIMETERS 1114 co/4-14140 840-)4/200 .0/200 SITE ID DATE STATION TOTAL BUNOANCE RICHNESS DISTANCE DIVERSITY %C.tip SR•RD CORE UMOL RPOL TOC DISTANCE GRAVEL SAND SAND(FlNEI SILT/CLAY MPLT TC 10/20/92 3 3 37 3 0 1 0 3 5.5 2 0 0.94 0 0 0.6 12.4 87 MPLT TC 102092 4 124 1530 14 30 0 747 5 6 10 5 10.5 0.8 0 0.75 30 0 0.9 15 84.1 MPLT TC 10/20/92 2 165 2036 24 30 0 781 12.1 18.7 9 0.3 1 1.02 30 0 2.6 23.1 74.3 • MPLT TC 10/2092 5 488 6022 30 60 0677 3 5 20.3 11 11 2.5 1.12 60 0 0.8 16.7 825 MPLT TC 10/20/92 1 11 136 6 60 0916 9.1 5.5 7 0.3 1 5 1.42 60 0 3.3 224 74.3 IACO TC 10/27/94 3 50 617 6 0 0 379 6 2 5.5 3 8 0 0 6 89 0 0 0 1.0 18.0 81 0 LACOTC 102794 4 9 111 7 10 0971 0 7 6.5 0.5 1.5 1.39 10 0.0 1.0 10.0 89.0 • TACO TC 10/2794 2 29 358 8 10 0.777 14 6 5 5 2.0 0.0 1.34 10 0.0 1.0 10.0 89.0 • 1 TACO TC 10/2794 5 7 86 4 30 0 832 0 3 6.0 0 5 1.5 1.92 30 0.0 3.0 10.0 87.0 TACO TC 10/27/94 1 106 1309 20 30 0 687 0 14 7.0 0.0 20 1.24 30 0.0 00 4.0 96.0 • RELATIVE DIVERSITY SPECIES RICHNESS NCO TC COr.BIED ION DATA NCO TC CDAI PED TO tI DATA 11 r p a ••- TI e` • s s 00 Oa 0 10 t• A t • 10 A 00 Oa 0 t0 e s b Mona Damao Ione MO/moo Kr11 Soso.Maw rrr tom ABUNDANCE PERCENT SILT NCO TC COWSHED TOf4 DATA NCO TC COWSHED i2.N DATA 0 100 1 1 0 r p 1 i - H- Dtl i 2 1 01- 11 0 10 10 Y 20 0 e 10 b 10 0 f ■ 00 M 10 t• 10 10 Damns Dolmas *vs M r ro00pr Lve M r rrP O&M PERCENT CAPITELLA NCO IC COI.6HED n.H DATA is i • d • b 10 a 00 0 e t0 s b DNI/coo )ere Mrrq sola • • • • • • • • 0 • • NBFI JC BENTMC ANALYSIS 1992,1994 COMBINED DATA DEPTHS IN CENTIMETERS >84 ‘M4-3.140 940->IV200 0200 SITE ID DATE STATION TOTAL BUNDANCE RICHNESS DISTANCE DIVERSITY %C.cap SR•RD CORE UMOL RPM. TOC DISTANCE GRAVEL SAND SANDIFINE) SILT/CLAY NBFI JC 10/0492 2 546 6738 36 0 0.721 0.2 26 8 0 5 >8.0 2.28 0 24.6 142 53 8 7.4 NBFI JC 10/0492 1 255 3147 31 10 0.789 3.1 24 5 4 0 3 >4 0 2.22 10 16.5 9 8 66.4 7.3 NBFI JC 10/0492 3 79 975 17 10 0852 5.1 14.5 9 0 >9.0 3.87 10 88.2 32 7.7 09 NBFI JC 092594 2 505 6259 38 0 0 669 29 25 7.0 0 0 2.5 1.20 0 0.0 29 0 56 0 15.0 NBFI JC 092594 1 276 3407 42 30 0.760 1 32 1.5 0.0 1.5 1.77 30 00 13.0 84 8 2.2 NBFI JC 092594 3 70 864 23 30 0.888 6 20 5.0 0.0 5.0 0.39 30 0.0 10.0 81.0 9.0 RELATIVE DIVERSITY SPECIES RICHNESS Nlf I JC COMBINED 112.111 DATA NBFI JC COMB NED 12.114 DATA e. n f •n- A- El •n- 2 •1- • • 11 10 • 30 f 0 10 1e 1 M 30 DYlano DWano sane DMR"Me NM 10.00 Ota MM MEAL ABUNDANCE PERCENT SILT I--• MEI JC COMBIED 12 N DATA IBI JC COMBNED ION DATA W 1 10 • e 0, 1 a ' C 1- 9- • • •1e 10 a 31 a e n u a ne 10 DIMan Delano fano 0e10IMNMIRI 10.00,DMR awe IMI.., PERCENT CAPITELLA MEI JC COI.BIED*2.14 DATA a a- • • 1e 1e e n a seen Ow r•Me Matt • • r R • • • • 0 0 • SFML JB BENTHIC ANALYSIS 1992 DATA DEPTHS IN CENTIMETERS >N4 <N4—>N40 N40—>N200 <N200 SITE ID DATE STATION TOTAL BUNDANCE RICHNESS DISTANCE_ DNERSIY %C.cap SR•RD CORE UMOL RPDL TOC DISTANCE GRAVEL SAND SANDgINE1 SILT/CLAY SFMLJB 1010892 6 614 7577 6 30 0 044 98.9 0.3 10 5 1.5 5 8 3.36 30 0 4.4 30 5 65.1 SFMLJB 10418192 7 144 1777 1 0 0 100 0 7 2 4 369 0 0 6 24.7 693 SFMLJB 10/0892 8 58 716 5 0 0 462 793 - 2.3 95 1.3 43 264 0 0 6.7 6.4 869 • SFML JB 1041892 9 279 3443 25 0 0 564 0.4 14 1 15 0 5 4 1.53 0 0 26 8 14.3 58 9 SFMLJB 1041892 10 191 2357 27 30 0 638 0 17.2 9 9 6 1 61 30 0 5.3 3.4 91.3 • RELATIVE DIVERSITY SPECIES RICHNESS . Sr MLA 1992 SF•.A 1992 e• '0 •• Ie. //111------. s•- . • . Amo ammo fuse pose.••••mes 1 fan 091199•••m01) ABUNDANCE PERCENT SILT SRC J0 1992 SRA.JB 1992 • 1n CA M- a - ! g •_ e > 0 • • > > • • • > ObW10 Diatom. Swam 001..1191 Ss.n dn..wnn PERCENT CAPITELLA SRL.B 1992 1> i m- >- > 0 0 0 > ammo Ira.C.Po.(14•11) • • • 0 • • • • t • • TISF HI BENTHIC ANALYSIS 1944 DATA DEPTHS IN CENTIMETERS '64 <14—'140 140—'1200 0200 SRE ID DATE STATION TOTAL ABUNDANCE RICHNESS DISTANCE DIVERSITY Y.C.cap SR•RO CORE UMOL RPDL TOC DISTANCE GRAVEL SAND 3ANDIFINEL SILT/CLAY 713E HI 102194 1 79 975 1 0 0 544 II 2 10.0 0.0 0 0 1 68 0 0.0 1 0 10 0 69 0 TISF HI 102194 2 173 2138 12 30 0 291 8 3 12.0 0 0 1 8 2 12 30 0 0 3 0 18 0 79.0 TISF HI 10/21/94 3 117 1444 13 60 0 496 4 6 9.5 0 0 9 5 1.72 60 0.0 4 0 14 0 82.0 TISF HI 10/21/94 4 104 1284 8 0 0 421 6 3 9.5 0 0 4 0 1.17 0 4.0 5 0 39 0 52.0 TISF HI 102194 5 187 2309 31 60 0 766 6 24 8 5 0.0 3 5 0.61 60 33.0 20.0 21 0 23.0 RELATIVE DIVERSITY SPECIES RICHNESS TSF HI 1994 TISF HI 1994 • I 15 I 11 I- 1 1 . 1 1 1 S I .Oa F40 9C 1sc.Oa F..a(Lill ABUNDANCE PERCENT SILT TSF 11994 TSF 11994 li o 1m 1 e- 17 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 . 1 , notion Stolen 1w.Oa FNa 9i10 *it M FYI 9.11 PERCENT CAPITELLA TISF NI 1994 n- B9 I.' •- .- . 1 . 1 1 . 1 Station Lour Oa V./.a. • • • 0 APPENDIX 12 • • APPLICATION FOR SPDES PERMITS 0 a • • S • • i; APPLICATION FOR SPDES PERMITS 4 FOR • MARICULTURE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. FISH HATCHERY AND • NET PEN GROW-OUT SITE FOR PECONIC ASSOCIATES ONE BOOTLEY ALLEY GREENPORT, NEW YORK 11944 • PREPARED BY • CAMERON ENGINEERING, P.C. 1400 OLD COUNTRY ROAD WESTBURY, NEW YORK 11590 • FEBRUARY 1996 • • • TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. • Section I Project Description 1 Section II Fish Hatchery 1 Section III Water Pollution Control Plant 2 Section IV WPCP and Hatchery Loadings 3 • Section V Net Pen Grow-Out Site 6 Section VI Summary 7 List of Tables Follows • Page No. Table 1 3 Table 2 3 Tables 3A-3C (1996) 4 • Tables 4A-4C (1997) 4 Tables 5A-5C (1998) .5 Tables 6A-6C (1999) .5 Tables 7A-7C (2000) 6 Table 8A (1997) 7 Table 8B (1998) 7 Table 8C (1999) 7 Table 8D (2000) 7 Table 8E (2001) 7 List of Figures S Follows Page No. Figure 1 Hatchery Location Map 1 Figure 2 1996 Loadings - WPCP & Hatchery 4 Figure 3 1997 Loadings - WPCP & Hatchery 4 Figure 4 1998 Loadings - WPCP & Hatchery 5 Figure 5 1999 Loadings - WPCP & Hatchery 5 Figure 6 2000 Loadings - WPCP & Hatchery 6 Net Pen Location Map 6 • Figure 7A 1997-1999 Loadings - Net Pen 7 Figure 7B 2000-2001 Loadings - Net Pen 7 • s TABLE OF CONTENTS cont'd. • Appendix A Hatchery Forms Form 1 EPA Form 2B EPA • Form 2B Supplement Industrial Chemical Survey DMR Form Appendix B Net Pens Forms • Form 1 EPA Form 2B EPA Form 2B Supplement Industrial Chemical Survey DMR Form • f * • • 1 i Mariculture Technologies, Inc. Application for State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Fish Hatchery and Net Pen Grow-Out Site • L Project Description Mariculture Technologies, Inc. is proposing to construct a fish hatchery at Clark's Beach in the S Town of Southold. Clark's Beach is located within the Town of Southold and owned by the Village of Greenport. See Figure 1 on next page for proposed site location. Clark's Beach has frontage on Long Island Sound with the discharge (outfall pipe) from the Village of Greenport's Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) running through the proposed project site and terminating approximately 300 feet offshore. • The hatchery being proposed by Mariculture Technologies, Inc. would be for the breeding, hatching and partial grow-out (fingerling stage) of summer flounder. Final grow-out from fingerling to adult is to take place in offshore net pens located off Plum Island. The purpose of this analysis is to support the applications for a State Pollutant Discharge • Elimination System (SPDES) for both the Hatchery and the Net Pen Grow-Out site. H. Fish Hatchery Mariculture Technologies, Inc. is proposing to construct a fish hatchery adjacent to Long Island • Sound at a site known as Clark's Beach which is located within the Town of Southold and owned by the Village of Greenport. Clark's Beach is located on the north side of County Road 48 and adjoins Suffolk County's Inlet Point Park. At this time, Mariculture Technologies has proposed constructing a fish hatchery complete with its own saltwater treatment facility. The facility will treat and recirculate approximately 80% of the water contained within its fish hatching and • rearing tanks. The 20% volume lost is due to waste removal, effluent discharge, evaporation and process losses. Daily make-up water will be supplied by an on-site saltwater well. The hatchery's water treatment facility will be designed to treat its effluent to the following levels: Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) 30 mg/1, Suspended Solids (SS) 30 mg/1 and Total Nitrogen (N) of 10 mg/l. The hatchery is anticipated to connect to the Village of Greenport's outfall pipe that discharges the effluent from the Village's Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP). To assess the potential impact of the hatchery effluent in evaluating this application for a SPDES Permit, it is necessary to include the projected loadings from the Village's WPCP along with the projected loadings from the hatchery. r Page 1 4 • • 0 1 y • • • • • • LONG ISLAND �4� •J1 ,1 I' •� • 3r SOUND 6 �' \il� �^ • ^• VI ' /,' •+ +Y -.el - ; 25`5 .,\ 59 1 24 `. 'a cd i ?- U 6b. '•• b 1 G. • c iii• �./ 7'.•• oa _ • • 6M - \ ►J 0 21 • PROJECT SITE :'`5° •• .o •.\• .�•.t� D.,ri ; �� f 39 Inlet Ptii, •i1.0• •, .o •_•"'';�5tirling. I ��' - L .. ...:J Stirling, „_ 1) Gull • , ^ •• .- Cern ..:-._„,-,: 28 371` •kk."�.�� 'sL � -5-gio r'� n+ty % 3-�"r,. IA" �� ) 'i 27 1\ • 6 . i v-•i BM .,. 4 S \-�Ce n1 .1 .I r • i, Green Jt r'% 2 • P'•�+QQ yt• '`m _l�1'O 70 Parker Rock ;r. �� ' •1, C A.•, • • •=� °t� A ".' a�:j[ IRS -) c-tu •. , J Silver �� r .�`- . 6r `l o-�•\ `� - Ldlle, �? °1I'erandy ec Youngs PI — — 39 ze � o Mooreg fl as a 1114,?..p ao1,. 21 tok i' 22 y y 1 - • ♦/ Sawaga y�/�t \ n. C���--\ r/ / I,-i:- / /,Ji. Disposal ..7-,' ..... _ �ow; H.% }; ^ o Pile/ i Light• \‘ ,i�. Race: : :'••11 4�1 _l,-' i. O /' 29 .,y,.` •e Trac • •-• - f b1o' /4/1:K • 1� ° '�{1 �' Union Il Op , �`; / �° f 42 / � /7---) /' �) ,�fa d' •1 r6 Sch1 ' �, 1 R\N. 'r' � � 1 a B° / 24 / i '�- ,J'1 ' y ,•. ••rrt . 's:' 0K ._ . .3 e.' \_).''' i '- i '. ••• • ii? , I �,2 Theater - IIIII•Y �' , = • • Subsletf�\ v t:.' "' .r-.I .' _�o tWit••t Lights•- l 1 ° ' • • • / 3O� �1 IJ I " _ . t 1 ,,., ~ . • 1 � `... °f _�Q 1 /I — 6 F. i g /! ) _.....x.,?..--Ait'4.0 �' ^ 1x4, ...._____.,". (_, _) „.4, ...._,____ _ ____0 ., • A '- t - -." ��� I .-.17) LONGITUDE 72' 23" LATITUDE 41' 07" Plot: "� R CAMERON MARICULTURE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. FIGURE No. Z •";' r?' ENGINEERING, P.C. �f FISH HATCHERY 1 °1III 1400 Old Count Rood `�, Country PROJECT LOCATION MAP tJti b Suite 410 V• Westbury. New York 11590 • The principal references as basis of calculations are the hatchery Phase Outline Schedules and the Timing Schedule from the DEIS with the following clarifications: • Phase I and I-A Hatchery Functions are being accomplished at another site. Half(25,000) of the Phase I fingerlings (20 Grams) are expected to be available in September of 1996. Phase II and III Brood Stock held for acclimation until proposed start of hatchery function. • • Hatchery at Clark 's Beach would start with Phase 11 and III, April 1997; Phase II-A and III-A, November 1997. Phase N and N-A, considered the maximum capacity of the Beach hatchery site, would commence in April and October respectively of 1998. • Effluent as a percentage of tank volume (20%) will be as per the Phase Outline Schedules in the DEIS. • Flows are increased based on a monthly basis in increments as fish get larger and more tanks are required. • Same Brood Stock can be used twice in one year - 6 months apart (principal Phase and Alternate Phase). If this is not the case, additional space and flows would be required. • No chemicals are projected to be added. If, sometime in the future, any are considered, • they would not be used without advance FDA approval. Associated permit application forms for the proposed land-based hatchery are provided in Appendix A of this document. • III. Water Pollution Control Plant The Village of Greenport's WPCP operates under SPDES Permit # NY 0020079 and currently has the following effluent limits: Flow 0.065 MGD BOD 30 mg/l, 163 #/day (30 day avg) 45 mg/l, 244 #/day (7 day avg) • SS 30 mg/l, 163 #/day (30 day avg) 45 mg/l, 244 #/day (7 day avg) There are additional permit limits for Coliforms, pH, Settleable Solids and Copper. However, these parameters are not considered critical in analyzing the potential effluent from the proposed • hatchery. Currently, Nitrogen is not included in the effluent limitations. At this time, the Long Page 2 a • Island Sound Study (LISS) has not recommended restrictions on Nitrogen loadings from the • Greenport WPCP. It is not known if or when the WPCP's discharge could be subject to a Nitrogen limit. Table 1 provides historical data from the Greenport WPCP over the past three (3) years. The values represent averages from the Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) and the laboratory data • supporting the DMRs. The data indicates that the average yearly flow for the period of 1993- 1995 was 0.409 MGD. Highest flow months are July, August and September as might be expected due to tourism activities. While BOD reduction is very high, the plant experiences exceedances of effluent limitations for SS (30 mg/1) for the months of January, June, November and October. The Village has recognized the need to improve the reductions of SS in its effluent. The cause is believed due to the type of solids generated from the extended detention • time (>10 days) in the aerated lagoons. Table 2 provides historical loading data generated from the average values developed in Table 1. Please note that the Nitrogen value of 23 mg/1 is used as it represents the average from six (6) values obtained in the Fall of 1994. The plant is not required to monitor for Nitrogen and, therefore, no other data exists. It is likely that the Nitrogen value would vary over the course of a year and may actually be less than the value used. For purposes of this application, the value will be used for each month and may therefore be reflecting a theoretical peak loading of Nitrogen. • IV. WPCP and Hatchery Loadings To assist the Department in evaluating the potential impact from the proposed hatchery,the tables were developed to project future loadings from the Village's WPCP and the proposed hatchery, assuming both effluents would be discharged from the same outfall in Long Island Sound. • Tables 3A-3C thru 7A-7C were developed for each of the years of 1996 through the year 2000. The Village of Greenport WPCP values represent a yearly 3% increase over the average values developed in Table 1 and Table 2. There has been no decreasing of the effluent SS values although it is believed that modifications will be implemented within the near future to address the situation. Flow values from the proposed hatchery have been derived from Mariculture • Technologies, Inc. Loading values are derived from utilizing the project flow and assuming an effluent quality having a maximum concentration of 30 mg/1 for both BOD and SS and a maximum concentration of 10 mg/I of Total Nitrogen. Following each table, the data for both the WPCP and the proposed hatchery were plotted to • illustrate each individual component as well as the combined total loadings that would be discharged to the outfall pipe. The following highlights are provided for each of the sets of tables. Please note references to flow are average daily values and BOD, SS and N are average loading values. • Page 3 • • Table 1 Village of Greenport • Operating Data 1993-1995 Average Values Flow MGD 3 Yr BOD SS • 1993 1994 1995 Avg mg/I mg/I Jan 0.315 0.449 0.374 0.379 2 45 Feb 0.365 0.382 0.414 0.387 2 16 Mar 0.366 0.414 0.395 0.392 2 20 Apr 0.350 0.407 0.354 0.370 2 19 May 0.343 0.389 0.399 0.377 2 19 Jun 0.407 0.400 0.409 0.405 2 41 Jul 0.445 0.463 0.469 0.459 2 13 Aug 0.449 0.464 0.459 0.457 2 30 Sep 0.462 0.440 0.434 0.445 2 26 Oct 0.458 0.410 0.407 0.425 3 35 i Nov 0.426 0.390 0.381 0.399 4 38 Dec 0.455 0.398 0.373 0.409 2 28 Avg 0.409 • • a a • • • Table 2 i Village of Greenport • 3 Year Average Loadings Flow BOD SS N MGD mg/I mg/I mg/I BOD SS N • (93-95) (93-95) (93-95) (*) #/day #/day #/day Jan 0.379 2 45 23 6 142 73 Feb 0.387 2 16 23 6 52 74 Mar 0.392 2 20 23 7 65 75 Apr 0.370 2 19 23 6 59 71 May 0.377 2 19 23 6 60 72 • Jun 0.405 2 41 23 7 139 78 Jul 0.459 2 13 23 8 50 88 Aug 0.457 2 30 23 8 114 88 Sep 0.445 2 26 23 7 97 85 Oct 0.425 3 35 23 11 124 82 • Nov 0.399 4 38 23 13 126 77 Dec 0.409 2 34 23 7 116 78 Avg 0.409 • Note Nitrogen value represents an average value from analyses taken over a six (6) week sampling period in September and October 1994. S a • a • • • Tables 3A-3C (1996) • WPCP The WPCP flow peaks in July at 0.468 MGD. BOD peaks in November at 14 #/day, SS peaks in January at 145 #/day and Nitrogen peaks in July at 90 #/day. No exceedances for flow or average loading values. • • Hatchery Facility begins operation in September, Phase 11 and III Brood Stock, and Phase I-A with peak loadings for the year seen in December with flow of 0.022 MGD, BOD and SS of • 6 #/day and N of 2 #/day. • Combined Peaks value for flow is seen in July at 0.468 MGD and Nitrogen at 90#/day. BOD peak • is in November at 19 #/day and SS peaks in January at 146 #/day. Figure 2 is provided to illustrate the loadings. Tables 4A-4C (1997) • • WPCP Flow peaks in July at 0.478 MGD, BOD at 14 #/day in November, SS at 148 #/day in January and Nitrogen at 92 #/day in July. No exceedances for flow or average loading values. • Hatchery Production at the hatchery fluctuates as fingerling fish are transferred to the grow-out net pens located offshore. Phases II and III start in April and Phases II-A and III-A start in • October. Operations steadily increase with peak values reached in the month of December. Flow at 0.086 MGD, BOD and SS at 22 #/day and Nitrogen at 7 #/day. BOD production from the hatchery is now greater than the WPCP. • Combined • Peak value for flow is seen in August at 0.530 MGD, BOD loading is greatest in December at 29 #/day, peak SS in January at 155 #/day and peak Nitrogen in July and August at 96 #/day. • . Figure 3 is provided to illustrate the loadings. Page 4 • • Table 3A Village of Greenport Projected 1996 Average Loadings • Flow BOD SS N BOD SS N MGD mg/I mg/I mg/I #/day #/day #/day Jan 0.387 2 45 23 6 145 74 Feb 0.395 2 16 23 7 53 76 Mar 0.400 2 20 23 7 67 77 • Apr 0.378 2 19 23 6 60 72 May 0.385 2 19 23 6 61 74 Jun 0.413 2 41 23 7 141 79 Jul 0.468 2 13 23 8 51 90 Aug 0.466 2 30 23 8 117 89 Sep 0.454 2 26 23 8 98 87 • Oct 0.434 3 35 23 11 127 83 Nov 0.407 4 38 23 14 129 78 Dec 0.417 2 28 23 7 97 80 Table 3B • Fish Hatchery Projected 1996 Average Loadings Flow MGD BOD SS N Gallons #/day #/day #/day Jan n/a • Feb n/a Mar n/a Apr n/a May n/a Jun n/a Jul n/a • Aug n/a Sep 16,000 0.016 4 4 1 Oct 18,000 0.018 5 5 2 Nov 20,000 0:020 5 5 2 Dec 22,000 0.022 6 6 2 • Table 3C Combined Project 1996 Average Loadings Flow BOD SS N • MGD #/day #/day #/day Jan 0.387 6 145 74 Feb 0.395 7 53 76 Mar 0.400 7 67 77 Apr 0.378 6 60 72 May 0.385 6 61 74 • Jun 0.413 7 141 79 . Jul 0.468 8 51 90 Aug 0.466 8 117 89 Sep 0.470 12 103 89 Oct 0.452 16 132 85 Nov 0.427 19 134 80 Dec 0.439 13 103 82 • • Figure 2 Village of Greenport I AP Projected 1996 Average Loadings i 200 ---- — — - m ?50 <• 0 ` C ■BOD I C,tii SS ',00 A A A N I 3 p A L A o G G E A u il 5V <` <' C u ■ ■ ■ ■ - ■ - ■ EEO • ■ ■ Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec • 1996 Fish Hatchery 1 • Projected 1996 Average Loadings I 6 --- - 0 5 -- n -1 ,. LIQBOD 1 n — I N " / ss 3 — A NI I a Z -- G A A G. 1 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1996 Combined • Project 1996 Average Loadings 200 — — — • 1 gn `: co -- C C O c onn i I • N i00 P l• CS C A A A A A I L�.f W f A L A a. / Z C !' JV - IQ _ 1111 ■ 0— le ■ ® ® ® ■ u Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec • 1996 • • Table 4A ? Village of Greenport Projected 1997 Average Loadings • Flow BOD SS N BOD SS N MGD mg/I mg/I mg/I #/day #/day #/day Jan 0.395 2 45 23 7 148 76 Feb 0.403 2 16 23 7 54 77 Mar 0.407 2 20 23 7 68 78 • Apr 0.385 2 19 23 6 61 74 May 0.392 2 19 23 7 62 75 Jun 0.422 2 41 23 7 144 81 Jul 0.478 2 13 23 8 52 92 Aug 0.476 2 30 23 8 119 91 Sep 0.463 2 26 23 8 100 89 Oct 0.442 3 35 23 11 129 85 • Nov 0.415 4 38 23 14 132 80 Dec 0.425 2 28 23 7 99 82 Table 4B • Fish Hatchery Projected 1997 Average Loadings Flow MGD BOO SS N Gallons #/day #/day #/day Jan 24,000 0.024 6 6 2 • Feb 24,000 0.024 6 6 2 Mar 26,000 0.026 7 7 2 Apr 26,000 0.026 7 7 2 May 37,000 0.037 9 9 3 Jun 39,000 0.039 10 10 3 Jul 47,000 0.047 12 12 4 Aug 54,000 0.054 14 14 5 . Sep 57,000 0.057 14 14 5 Oct 61,000 0.061 15 15 5 Nov 56,000 0.056 14 14 5 Dec 86,000 0.086 22 22 7 • Table 4C Combined Project 1997 Average Loadings Flow BOD SS N • MGD #/day #/day #/day Jan 0.419 13 155 78 Feb 0.427 13 60 80 Mar 0.433 14 75 81 Apr 0.411 13 68 77 May 0.429 16 72 79 • Jun 0.461 17 154 85 Jul 0.525 20 64 96 Aug 0.530 22 133 96 Sep 0.520 22 115 94 Oct 0.503 27 145 90 Nov 0.471 28 146 85 Dec 0.511 29 121 89 a a Figure 3 Village of Greenport I • Projected 1997 Average Loadings E 200 -- 150 - < o G n ■ RC)il 1 n • n inn - e> e cc Va a A A a a aD © a A ^, I < _ ■ ■ - ■ ■ ■ - ■ ■ - ■ - ■ ■ ■ ■ v Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec • 1997 Fish Hatchery • Projected 1997 Average Loadings 1 25 r.u 20 (9 ,. ■ Roll N l0 p a u a I SS =• 10 - ILA DI o ❑ JO Q 1 o 5 - A a a © L a a a a� A 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec . 1997 Combined a Project 1997 Average Loadings 200 — 1 c0 _ c' c t mc ■ SOLI l • - e o 100 - © a A a o SS I ® 0- ® P c ,=� • • • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec • 1997 a • Tables 5A-5C (1998) • ▪ WPCP Peak flow is seen in July at 0.487 MGD as is Nitrogen at 93 #/day. BOD peaks in November at 14 #/day and SS at 151 #/day in January. • Hatchery Production at the hatchery fluctuates as fingerling fish are transferred to the grow-out net pens located offshore. Phase IV starts in April and Phase N-A in October. All peaks are seen in October with flow at 0.341 MGD, BOD and SS at 85 #/day and Nitrogen at • 28 #/day. BOD loading continues to be greater than the WPCP with flow values approaching > 50% of the WPCP. • Combined • All peak values are reached in October with a combined flow of 0.792 MGD, BOD of 97 #/day, SS of 217 #/day and Nitrogen of 115 #/day. In addition to October, loading for SS exceed current 30-day limit of 163 #/day in the months of January (185 #/day), June (172 #/day), August and September (169 #/day) and November (166 #/day). • Figure 4 is provided to illustrate the loadings. Tables 6A-6C (1999) • WPCP • Peak flow is seen in July at 0.497 MGD. Peak BOD in November at 14#/day, peak SS in September at 124 #/day and peak Nitrogen in July & August at 95 #/day. SS values reflect improvements in the WPCP to achieve compliance with the 30 mg/1 discharge limit. It is quite possible that such measures would have been implemented at an even earlier date. • Hatchery Production at the hatchery fluctuates as fingerling fish are transferred to the grow-out net pens located offshore. Phase IV repeats itself starting in April and Phase N-A repeats • itself starting in October. Production levels increase to a peak flow of 0.461 MGD in October. Loadings are higher in October for BOD and SS at 115 #/day and Nitrogen at 38 #/day. • Page 5 • • Table 5A Village of Greenport Projected 1998 Average Loadings Flow BOD SS N BOD SS N MGD mg/I mg/I mg/I #/day #/day #/day Jan 0.403 2 45 23 7 151 77 Feb 0.411 2 16 23 7 55 79 Mar 0.416 2 20 23 7 69 80 • Apr 0.393 2 19 23 7 62 75 May 0.400 2 19 23 7 63 77 Jun 0.430 2 41 23 7 147 83 Jul 0.487 2 13 23 8 53 93 Aug 0.485 2 30 23 8 121 93 Sep 0.473 2 26 23 8 102 91 • Oct 0.451 3 35 23 11 132 87 Nov 0.423 4 38 23 14 134 81 Dec 0.434 2 28 23 7 101 83 Table 5B • • Fish Hatchery Projected 1998 Average Loadings Flow MGD BOD SS N Gallons #/day #Iday #/day Jan 134,400 0.134 34 34 11 • Feb 186,800 0.187 47 47 16 Mar 250,500 0.251 63 63 21 Apr 168,300 0.168 42 42 14 May 68,000 0.068 17 17 6 Jun 99,000 0.099 25 25 8 Jul 155,000 0.155 39 39 13 • Aug 187,000 0.187 47 47 16 Sep 265,000 0.265 66 66 22 Oct 341,000 0.341 85 85 28 Nov 127,000 0.127 32 32 11 Dec 191,000 0.191 48 48 16 • Table 5C Combined Project 1998 Average Loadings Flow BOD SS N • MGD #/day #/day #/day Jan 0.537 41 185 89 Feb 0.597 54 102 95 Mar 0.666 70 133 101 Apr 0.561 49 105 90 May 0.468 24 81 83 • Jun 0.529 32 172 91 Jul 0.642 47 92 107 Aug 0.672 55 169 109 Sep 0.738 75 169 113 Oct 0.792 97 217 115 Nov 0.550 46 166 92 Dec 0.625 56 150 100 • • Figure 4 Village of Greenport I • Projected 1998 Average Loadings I 200 1cn _ t, C m 0 p • pnn u V I • v 4vv ^ V Vv M c A v c A A A a ,� A_ c c 50 - u _ mgpi g ■ e Man II Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec • 1998 Fish Hatchery • Projected 1998 Average Loadings ! 100 80 - u c ❑ a Rnn i aii • 40 ❑LI ❑ ❑ 7SS a ❑ a ❑ � � — e 20 - A A a u A A A LA A © • A u Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec ' 1998 Combined • Project 1998 Average Loadings 250 F' 200 _ m C 0 C` 0 p G i 50 - f> Q 9OD t° Oc S c • 0 100 — . cc A C © L` © A A C S 0_ . A ■ • L 1 50 _ . ■ ■ m a s • ■ S 0 - - Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec • 1998 0 Table 6A Village of Greenport Projected 1999 Average Loadings Flow BOD SS N BOD SS N MGD mg/I mg/I * mg/I #/day #/day #/day Jan 0.411 2 30 23 7 103 79 Feb 0.419 2 16 23 7 56 80 Mar 0.424 2 20 23 7 71 81 • Apr 0.401 2 19 23 7 64 77 May 0.408 2 19 23 7 65 78 Jun 0.439 2 30 23 7 110 84 Jul 0.497 2 13 23 8 54 95 Aug 0.495 2 30 23 8 124 95 Sep 0.482 2 26 23 8 105 92 Oct 0.460 3 30 23 12 115 88 • Nov 0.432 4 30 23 14 108 83 Dec 0.442 2 28 23 7 103 85 Maximum value of 30mg/I used tp reflect plant improvements Table 6B • Fish Hatchery Projected 1999 Average Loadings Flow MGD BOD SS N Gallons #/day #/day #/day • Jan 267,000 0.267 67 67 22 Feb 341,000 0.341 85 85 28 Mar 416,000 0.416 104 104 35 Apr 241,000 0.241 60 60 20 May 127,000 0.127 32 32 11 Jun 191,000 0.191 48 48 16 Jul 267,000 0.267 67 67 22 • Aug 341,000 0.341 85 85 28 Sep 416,000 0.416 104 104 35 Oct 461,000 0.461 115 115 38 Nov 127,000 0.127 32 32 11 Dec 191,000 0.191 48 48 16 • Table 6C Combined Project 1999 Average Loadings Flow BOD SS N • MGD #/day #/day #/day Jan 0.678 74 170 102 Feb 0.760 93 142 109 Mar 0.840 112 175 117 Apr 0.642 67 124 97 May 0.535 39 97 89 • Jun 0.630 56 158 101 Jul 0.764 76 121 118 Aug 0.836 94 210 124 Sep 0.898 113 209 128 Oct 0.921 127 231 127 Nov 0.559 47 140 94 . Dec 0.633 56 152 101 • Figure 5 Village of Greenport I Projected 1999 Average Loadings I 140 — — 120 _ f C >. 100 -- O T 80 -- a A 0 A A G C .� R(�rl cc I = 60 O O 0 < I o Q- 40 - ' ‘...-1.-11�' 1 9n - - ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ O . ■ Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec • 1999 Fish Hatchery Projected 1999 Average Loadings 140 — 120 a T 100 - a 64 II _ ca - ---0 80 a a ® BO" 1 • c 60 - a a a `' = f 0 40 - C ° ,_..1 C A a Az, L a 20 -- t A Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec • 1999 Combined I • Project 1999 Average Loadings I 250 — — 0 200 - (' co C <' D 150 -- O O . Finn 17) c L n n cc I • g 100 - L A LJ E 50 -- . • • i 0 - — -- Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1999 • • • Combined • October is the highest month with a flow of 0.921 MGD, BOD of 127 #/day and a SS loading of 231 #/day. Nitrogen is highest in September at 128 #/day. Current monthly limitation for SS (163 #/day) is exceeded in January (170 #/day), March (175 #/day), August (210 #/day), September (209 #/day) and October (231 #/day). • Figure 5 is provided to illustrate the loadings. Tables 7A-7C (2000) • WPCP • Peak flow is seen in July at 0.507 MGD. BOD is highest in November at 15 #/day, SS is highest in August at 126 #/day and Nitrogen is greatest in August as well at 97 #/day. • Hatchery • Production at the hatchery fluctuates as fingerling fish are transferred to the grow-out net pens located offshore. Phase IV repeats itself starting in April and Phase IV-A repeats itself starting in October. October sees the peak flow at 0.461 MGD. BOD and SS in October are both 115 #/day and Nitrogen in the month is greatest at 38 #/day. • • Combined October is the peak month with a flow of 0.930 MGD, a BOD loading of 128 #/day, a SS loading of 233 #/day. Nitrogen is highest in September at 130 #/day. The current monthly average loading limit of 163 #/day for SS is exceeded in a total of five (5) • months. Figure 6 is provided to illustrate the loadings. V. Net Pen Grow-Out Site • In addition to applying for a SPDES Permit for the land-based fish hatchery, Mariculture Technologies, Inc. is also applying for a SPDES Permit for the fish grow-out site. The fingerling fish raised at the hatchery will be transported to floating net pens that will be anchored off Plum Island (see Location Map on next page). Mariculture Technologies, Inc. has provided the • following information relating to the grow-out site and the expected loadings of BOD, Suspended Solids and Nitrogen from the feeding operation: 1. Average Stocking Weight of each fish 500 grams (0.5 kg) • 2. Average Final Weight of each fish 1000 grams (1 kg) Page 6 • • • • LONG ISLAND s S O U N D ` U �� 0 • �—' IIII�IIII�' �' ..9 r / 960 011011IIIIIIP imelloill iI1J/fT0"lI PL1 1• P UM ISROCK•IS D ,•2, ROCK PROPOSED \.....,. �o ♦ NET PEN SITE G._ (200 Acres) w Lot N 41 . 10'20'"I� \ T./..50 Lng W 72' 10"25' 0• c ( 0�_ c �/ p ! f- p / PLUM GUT C ♦. 90 m = \ / r LIGHTHOUSE v ?+ i� O ?0 a. ORIENT) ' POINTY; E- '..'t 'ill'il)-iy ' 0 , g :I I ... '''' '.--------- --'"-..---;\ GGF^IN; S • GARDINERS) • p ec • ,(;,,,,2 ; B A Y W W i N --��\ 4 I 5-:: ri v. E ......... C PURPoS.: LOCATION MAP_ FINFISH AQUACULTURE PROJECT o GROWOUT FACILITY Mariculture Technologies a FOR THE PRODUCTION OF EASTERN LONG ISLAND GREENPORT SUMMER FLOUNDER GARDINERS BAY AREA TOWN of SOUTI-OLD 5 (Parnl20,fhy5 Dcntatus) SUFFOLK COUNTY, N=W YORK • DAT�w MEAN SEA LEVEL NEW YORK Prepared b o PECONIC ASSGCIATES. Inc. 2 OK IIOOTL:. AUX'. CPC:Mr:m Mr 1194A �, AO_ACENT PROPEFTY OWNERS: N/A O DRAWN Br: JLB ICHK'D B': MW _DATE 12JAN 961sHEET 2 or 24 • • Table 7A ' ) Village of Greenport . Projected 2000 Average Loadings Flow BOD SS N BOD SS N MGD mg/I mg/I mg/I #/day #/day #/day Jan 0.419 2 30 23 7 105 80 Feb 0.427 2 16 23 7 57 82 Mar 0.432 2 20 23 7 72 83 • Apr 0.409 2 19 23 7 65 78 May 0.416 2 19 23 7 66 80 Jun 0.448 2 30 23 7 112 86 Jul 0.507 2 13 23 8 55 97 Aug 0.505 2 30 23 8 126 97 Sep 0.492 2 26 23 8 107 94 Oct 0.469 3 30 23 12 117 90 • Nov 0.441 4 30 23 15 110 85 Dec 0.451 2 28 23 8 105 87 * Maximum value of 30mg/I used tp reflect plant improvements Table 78 • Fish Hatchery Projected 2000 Average Loadings Flow MGD BOD SS N Gallons #/day #/day #/day 9 Jan 267,000 0.267 67 67 22 Feb 341,000 0.341 85 85 28 Mar 416,000 0.416 104 104 35 Apr 241,000 0.241 60 60 20 May 127,000 0.127 32 32 11 Jun 191,000 0.191 48 48 16 Jul 267,000 0.267 67 67 22 • Aug 341,000 0.341 85 85 28 Sep 416,000 0.416 104 104 35 Oct 461,000 0.461 115 115 38 Nov 127,000 0.127 32 32 11 Dec 191,000 0.191 48 48 16 • Table 7C Combined Project 2000 Average Loadings Flow BOD SS N • MGD #/day #/day #/day Jan 0.686 74 172 103 Feb 0.768 93 143 111 Mar 0.848 112 177 118 Apr 0.650 68 126 99 May 0.543 39 98 91 • Jun 0.639 56 160 102 Jul 0.774 76 122 120 Aug 0.846 94 212 126 Sep 0.908 113 211 130 Oct 0.930 128 233 129 Nov 0.568 47 142 96 Dec 0.642 56 154 103 • • Figure 6 Village of Greenport I Projected 2000 Average Loadings L 150 - - - c 0 o 0 n 100 - A A A ! BOD I ® © 4 A ® ® A A I • 3 C n CC '' d 5u - � � nl 0 ■ ■ - ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ -■ • ! i Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2000 • Fish Hatchery Projected 2000 Average Loadings• 140 — - 120 o • 1uu ^° o a U E D N 80 - i • c 60 - 0 a a < I Iv ' CL 40 - o o � G " o GLI LO 20 - c c. L o 0 - - Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec • 2000 Combined • Project 2000 Average Loadings 1 7 n -- — 0 200 - co 0 0 50 -- 0 0 0 ! Bnn E ., D u Q C CC 1 • • 100 ! A G L ! L. 4 I CL ! ! ! E' 1 50 -- ■ ! ■ • 0 - — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec • 2000 • • 3. Pounds of BOD per day per 1000 kg of fish 12 #/day • 4. Pounds of SS per day per 1000 kg of fish 13 #/day 5. Pounds of N per day per 1000 kg of fish 1.5 #/day It is currently anticipated that the net pen grow-out area will see its first stocking of fingerling • fish in May of 1997. Expected loadings are shown on Table 8A with November of 1997 showing the highest expected loadings of BOD (264 #/day), SS (286 #/day) and Nitrogen (33 #/day). Table 8B (Phases II &III) provides anticipated loadings for 1998, with November again showing • the highest loading of BOD (7800 #/day), SS (8450 #/day) and Nitrogen (975 #/day). Table 8C (Phase IV) provides anticipated loadings for 1999, with November loadings peaking for BOD (13,200 #/day), SS (14,300 #/day) and Nitrogen (1650 #/day). • Table 8D (Phase V) provides anticipated loadings for the year 2000, with November loadings peaking for BOD (36,000 #/day), SS (39,000 #/day) and Nitrogen (4500 #/day). Table 8E (Phase VI) provides anticipated loadings for the year 2001, with November loadings peaking for BOD (60,000 #/day), SS (65,000 #/day) and Nitrogen (7500 #/day). • Figures 7A and 7B are provided to illustrate the loadings. Associated permit application forms for the net pen grow-out area are provided in Appendix B of this document. • VL Summary In preparing this information in support of the application for a SPDES Permit for a land-based fish hatchery, it was necessary to evaluate the potential discharge from the facility in conjunction with an existing discharge from the Village of Greenport's WPCP. At this time, it is being • proposed that the hatchery would discharge its effluent into the outfall pipe of the WPCP. The outfall terminates approximately 300 feet offshore in Long Island Sound. In looking at the projected loadings, it becomes apparent that Suspended Solids may exceed current permit limitations as the hatchery production increases in the years 1998-2000. The • current loading limitations are based on a permitted flow level of 0.65 MGD. The flow limitation in the Village's permit is not a real concern of the wastewater treatment plant as it is not impacting the treatment plant's unit processes as it is entering downstream of the treatment plant. The proposed hatchery's flow increases, therefore, will not directly impact the WPCP's ability to receive and treat domestic wastewater. The flow values for the Village have included • a yearly increase of 3%. If the Village of Greenport's sewer collection system is expanded and/or Page 7 • • Table 8A Net Pen Grow Out Projected 1997 Average Loadings No. of. Avg Wt. Fish Fish BOD SS N 1000s 1000kg #/day #/day #/day Jan Feb • Mar Apr May 25 12 144 156 18 Jun 24 14 168 182 21 Jul 24 16 192 208 24 Aug 23 17 204 221 26 Sep 23 19 228 247 29 • Oct 22 20 240 260 30 Nov 22 22 264 286 33 Dec Table 88 • Net Pen Grow Out Projected 1998 Average Loadings No.of. Avg Wt. Fish Fish BOD SS N 1000s 1000kg #/day #/day #/day • Jan Feb Mar Apr May 710 355 4260 4615 533 Jun 700 408 4896 5304 612 Jul 690 460 5520 5980 690 • Aug 680 510 6120 6630 765 Sep 670 558 6696 7254 837 Oct 660 603 7236 7839 905 Nov 650 650 7800 8450 975 Dec • Table 8C Net Pen Grow Out Projected 1999 Average Loadings No. of. Avg Wt. • Fish Fish BOD SS N 1000s 1000kg #/day #/day #/day Jan Feb Mar Apr May 950 610 7320 7930 915 • Jun 960 700 8400 9100 1050 Jul 980 790 9480 10270 1185 Aug 960 870 10440 11310 1305 Sep 1,140 950 11400 12350 1425 Oct 1,120 1,030 12360 13390 1545 Nov 1,100 1,100 13200 14300 1650 Dec • • Figure 7A Net Pen Grow Out I • Projected 1997 Average Loadings I inn — f ■ o • co 200 — r • Bnn ,, DD • dO 100 — �v AL n ® e A 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec • 1997 Net Pen Grow Out I • Projected 1998 Average Loadings 10 8 — i 6 6 — r�, ■ BOD • o a N I LL 2 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec • 1998 Net Pen Grow Out • Projected 1999 Average Loadingslc ■ 8 10 - • ■ BOD • in S c SS `I o F 5 L N 1 LL © © L v -- Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec • 1999 1111 Table 8D Net Pen Grow Out Projected 2000 Average Loadings • No. of. Avg Wt. Fish Fish BOD SS N 1000s 1000kg #/day #/day #/day Jan Feb • Mar Apr May 3,200 1,650 19800 21450 2475 Jun 3,250 1,890 22680 24570 2835 Jul 3,200 2,130 25560 27690 3195 Aug 3,150 2,360 28320 30680 3540 • Sep 3,100 2,580 30960 33540 3870 Oct 3,050 2,800 33600 36400 4200 Nov 3,000 3,000 36000 39000 4500 Dec Table 8E • Net Pen Grow Out Projected 2001 Average Loadings No. of. Avg Wt. Fish Fish BOD SS N 1000s 1000kg #/day #/day #/day a Jan Feb Mar Apr May 5,550 2,770 33240 36010 4155 Jun 5,440 3,170 38040 41210 4755 • Jul 5,360 3,570 42840 46410 5355 Aug 5,270 3,950 47400 51350 5925 Sep 5,180 4,320 51840 56160 6480 Oct 5,090 4,670 56040 60710 7005 Nov 5,010 5,000 60000 65000 7500 Dec • • S S • Figure 7B Net Pen Grow Out • Projected 2000 Average Loadings i 50 40 — 8 c 30 — • . ■ BOD `I • G SS f o cu G N E 10 — e A © ® © A 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2000 • Net Pen Grow Out • Projected 2001 Average Loadings I 80 T 60 I C ® BOD • v s 40 — c SS o G N LL lU - LLLL LL 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2001 • — — - • • • • • additional service connections provided, these assumptions will have to be revisited. • It is clear that improvements to the WPCP will need to be implemented to improve the capture of suspended solids. As Nitrogen is not a parameter currently limited, its potential loading must be examined in more comprehensive manner such as part of the Long Island Sound Study. As for the net pen grow-out site, the loadings are comprised of uneaten food and fecal solids from the fish within the net pens. The potential impact of these loadings on the receiving waters and • the benthic communities will be closely monitored throughout each year. The monitoring program has been defined in detail in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). • • • • • • • Page 8 • • • • e APPENDIX "A" • • • • • • • Please print or type in the unshatletl areas only ti/—in areas are spaced for elite type.Le., 12 characterslrnchl. Form Approved. OMB No. 2040-0086. Approval expires 5-31-92. FORM U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY I. EPA 1.0. NUMBER 1 =CEPA GENERAL INFORMATION I Consolidated Permits Program F D GENERAL (Read the"General Instructions"before starting.) J , - ,. „ LAB LITEMS I ` , \\\\\\\ GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS \ ` \ \ If a preprinted label has been provided, affix I. EPA 1.D. NUMBER It in the deli Hated h\\ \ y space. Rwiaw the inform- ation carefully; if any of it is incorrect, cross II- FACILITY NAME through it and enter the correct data in the \ \ \\\\ appropriate fill—in area below. Also, if any of \ \ the preprinted data is absent (the area to the FACILITY left of the label space lists the information V' MAILING ADDRESS PLEASE PLACE LABEL IN THIS SPACE that should appear), please provide it in the proper fill—in area(s) below. If the label is complete and correct, you need not complete Items I, III, V. and VI (except VI-B which �\/ FACILITY • must be completed regardless). Complete all I' LOCATION items if no label has been provided. Refer to the instructions for detailed item descrip- tions and for the legal authorizations under which this data is collected. 11.POLLUTANT CHARACTERISTICS INSTRUCTIONS: Complete A through.1 to determine whether you need to submit any permit application forms to the EPA.If you answer"yes"to any questions,you must submit this form and the supplemental form listed in the parenthesis following the question.Mark"X"in the box in the third column the supplemental form is attached. If you answer"no"to each question,you need not submit any of these forms.You may answer"no"if your activity 1 is excluded from permit requirements;see Section C of the instructions.See also,Section 0 of the instructions for definitions of bold—faced terms. - MARK'X' MA •X• SPECIFIC QUESTIONS - - Trs "D PD".. —•• - SPECIFIC QUESTIONS POEM • ATTACHED TEE "D ATTACHED • Is .this facility a publicly owned treatment worksB..Does or will this facility (either existing or proposed) which results in a discharge to waters of the U.S.? • ' tea.lnclude a concentrated animal feeding operation or • (FORM 2A) X -equi animal production facility which results in a X H al 0 '. 17 " at - discharge to waters of the US.?(FORM 28) • C. Is this a facility which currently results in discharges D. Is this a proposed-facility (other than those described _.• to waters of the U.S..other than those described in X j_In A or B above) which will result in a discharge to X A or B above?(FORM 2C) .s :. :. -waters of the U.S.?(FORM 20) T. :. IT E. Does or will this facility treat, store, or dispose of F. Do you or will you inject at this facility industrial or hazardous wastes?(FORM 3) X municipal effluent below the lowermost stratum con- X ---tsining, within one quarter mile of the well bore, -.underground sources of drinkingwater?(FORM 4) as >h so It a. sa 1 G. Do you or will you Infect at this facility any produced ... water or other fluids which are brought to the surface H. Do you or will you inject at this facility fluids for spa- ' in connection with conventional oil or natural gas pro- X — cis( processes such as mining of sulfur by the Frisch X •duction, inject fluids used for enhanced recovery of process, solution mining of minerals, in situ combus- - •.- oil or natural gas,or inject fluids for storage of liquid tion of fossil fuel,or recovery of geothermal energy? hydrocarbons?(FORM 4) .''. (FORM 4) •• j a. s Ts 7T .. n 1. Is this facility a proposed stationary source which is J. is this facility a proposed stationary source which is one of the 28 industrial categories listed in the in- -*NOT one of the 28 industrial categories listed in the -. structions and which will potentially emit 100 tons X Instructions and which will potentially emit 250 tons x • per year of any air pollutant regulated under the per year of any air pollutant regulated under the Clean ▪ _ Clean Air Act and may affect or be located in an Air Act and may affect or be located in an attainment - attainment area?(FORM 51 .. ., .T _area?(FORM 5) .T .. .T 11.NAME OF FACILITY T sKir M A R I C U IL IT IU IR IE IT IE IC IH `IOL 0 IG Z . .S I . 'I IS 11 ' IH 'A `T 'C H 'E R 'Y ' ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II• 4 73 30 4 40 V. FACILITY CONTACT . • A.NAME&TITLE(last,first, & title) . • ' ' • " " ' .. C.PHONE(arca code& no.) 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 r I I 1 T I 1 T 1 T T T T T 1 T T 1 1 I I I 1 I I 1 2 R. O B ER T L INK PRES I D ENT .T 5` 1 6• ' lI . 7 7 j 11 7 7 7 I. FACILITY MAILING ADDRESS I A.STREET OR P.O. MOX 1c 1 I 1 I I 1 1 , , T I 1 1 I I I I 1 1 I T T I I I i I I 3 PO B O X 4 6 1 B. CITY OR TOWN C.STATEJ D. ZIP CODE T I I I I I I I i I I T 1 -11 -1111 -11111 1 1 1 I I 4 G.R .EENPOR-T _ N Y 1 19 4 4 —-. 'se- 'mit- .,' . . `10 II. FACILITY LOCATION . A.STREET. ROUTE NO.OR OTHER SPECIFIC IDENTIFIER c I I I I T I I I T 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 ,41 - C.L,A-R_KE'S _ ,B -E,A ,C ,H , •C -T _R • R D 4 8 • ,. .. B. COUNTY NAME SIUIFIFOIL KI r I I I l I I t I I 1 1 I - -1. C.CITY OR TOWN O.STATE E. ZIP CODE F. COUNTY CODE W known& c I I 7 i I IIIIIIIIII T I T T 1 I I I 1 I I I 7 S O U T H O L D IN Y l 1 1 9 4 4 A Form .....0-i ,., CO,JT NIJE ON P VERGE • EPA I.D.NUMBER(copy from Item 1 or Form 1) Form Approved See the instructions on the reverse. OMB No.2000-0060 Please print or type in the unshaded areas only. Approval expires 3-31-86 FTEWATER ORMAPPLICATU.S.ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 2 EPA CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS AND AQUATIC ANIMAL PRODUCTION FACILITIES NPDES Consolidated Permits Prooram • I. t AL IN MA I N A.TYPE OF BUSINESS B.LEGAL DESCRITION OF FACILITY LOCATION C.FACILITY OPERATION STATUS CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING ❑ 1. OPERATION(complete,tems B.C.and Clarke's Beach, Greenport 1. EXISTING FACILITY Section ii) CONCENTRATED AQUATIC ANIMAL Town of Southold ®2. PRODUCTION FACIUTY(compete E 2. PROPOSED FACILITY Items B.C.and Section III) • II. CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATION CHARACTERISTICSIM A.TYPE&NUMBER OF ANIMALS IN OPEN CONFINEMENT&HOUSED UNDER ROOF B.NO.OF ACRES FOR 1.TYPE 2.NO.IN OPEN CONFINEMENT 3.NO.HOUSED UNDER ROOF CONFINEMENT FEEDING Summer Flounder C.If there is open confinement,has a runoff diversion and control system been (Paralichthys dentata) constructed? • C YESI(�mplete Items 1,2,&3 below) C NO(go to Section N) !'1.:What is the design basis focthe control system? • - eiv INCHES INCHES INCHES I TYPE 1111 a.10 YEAR, "` '� d.25 YEAR, C.OTHER ❑24-HOUR STORM -❑ 24 HOUR STORM ❑(specify inches (pecify inches) (specify inches) 3 t'pe) ACRES SAFETY FACTOR 2. Report the number of acres of contributing 3. Report the design safety factor. Sir..drainage. III.CONCENTRATED AQUATIC ANIMAL PRODUCTION FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS A."For each outfall give the maximum daily flow,maximum 30 day flow, B. Indicate the total number of ponds,raceways,and similar structures in wand the Ion. term average flow. '` our facility. . Z.FLOW(gallons per day) 1. 2. RACEWAYS 3. OTHER .t:.OUTFALL r 7 BD or Tanks (TBD) - -NO. a MAA1WlM s IIAxwUM a LONG TERM :!--. DAILY 30 DAY AVERAGE 0.461 MGD 0.461 MGD 0.28 MGD C. Provide the name of the receiving water and the source of water used by 1 1999 1999 12 mos. your facility. 1.RECEIVING WATER 2.WATER SOURCE average L.I. Sound Sal` ?later Well • D. List the species of fish or aquatic animals held and fed at your facility.For each species,give the total weight produced by your facility per year in pounds of harvestable weight.and also give the maximum weight present at any one time. 1. COLD WATER SPECIES 2. WARM WATER SPECIES _ . b.HARVESTABLE WEIGHT(pounds) b.HARVESTABLE WEIGHT(pounds) _- a SPECIES (1)TOTAL YEARLY (b MA%(MORA a.SPECIES 111 TOTAL YEARLY (2)MAAIMUM • Summer Flounder N/A N/A (Paralic 1-t 1ys dentatal Fish transferring to grow-out site and harvested at that sire • E. Report the total pounds of food fed during the calendar month of 1.MONTH 2. POUNDS OF FOOD maximum feeding. October 2,000,000 IV. CERTIFICATION •. • I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this application and all attachments and that.based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the)nlormanon,I believe that the information is true.accurate and complete.I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false Information.including the possibility of fine and imprisonment. A. NAME&OFFICIAL TITLE(print or Type) B PHONE NO area.:cce a no I ROBERT LINK, PRESIDENT 516/477-1777 • C. SIGNA�ditr— _ // /�� n 1 D• DATE SIGNc;. C. • EPA Form.251')-23,i]•dul •91-15-5 (10/79) NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ALBANY, NEW YORK 12233 INDUSTRIAL CHEMICAL SURVEY Please refer to ) • attached table PART I. W.ASE COMPLETE AND RETURN TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. ATTENTION: INDUSTRIAL CHEMICAL SURVEY. MPANY NAME SIC CODE(If known) OFFICE USE ONLY Mariculture Technologies, Inc. 0921 1 COMPANY MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE P.O. Box 461 Greenport _ NY 11944 ANT NAME(If different) CONTACT NAME TELEPHONE Fish Hatchery Robert Link Afei516-477-1777 •NT ADDRESS(If different) LCITY STATE ZIP CODE :'rreetClarkS Beach Ct. Rd. 48 Southold — NY 11944 7NCIPAL BUSINESS OF PLANT Fish Hatching & Rearing NOTE: (If parent company, give name and addresses of all divisions, subsidiaries, etc. located in New York State.A separate questionnaire is to be completed and submitted for each.) • -- - PART II .- 41 - • Discharge Information 1. Does your plant discharge liquid wastes to a municipally owned sanitary sewer system? IQ Yes ❑ No Name of System Village of Greenport — Outfall Pipe I I 2. Is your facility permitted to discharge liquid wastes under a State (SPDES) or Federal (NPDES) permit? SPDES Applied For Permit Number I❑ Yes 0 No 3. Do you discharge liquid wastes in any other manner? I❑ Yes ® No Explain I If any of the above are "Yes": I )c a. Do you discharge process or chemical wastes —(i.e. water used in manufacturing including direct I contact cooling water and scrubber water)? I 0 Yes ® No b. Do you discharge non-contact cooling water? I 0 Yes ® No c. Do you discharge collected storm drainage only? I 0 Yes x❑ No • d. Do you discharge sanitary wastes only? �❑ Yes ® No 1. Does your facility have sources of possible emissions to the atmosphere? I Yes © No °_° 2. Enter Location and Facility Code as shown on your Air Pollution Control Application for Permits and Certification (If applicable) I • 1. List Name and Address of Firm (Including yourself) removing wastes other than office and cafeteria refuse. C Name •• Address City State Zip Code I : H W 2 N Name vu < City State Zip Code I nom, 3 Address I — n •) D )_ _ 4�' 2. List Location(s) of Landfill(s) owned and used by your facility. I I (b1 ❑ ❑ i 2 • I ❑ ❑ • 1. Does this facility: V) Manufacture Pesticides or Pesticide Product Ingredients? I. Yes ® No W Produce Pesticides or Pesticide Product Ingredients? Yes § No Formulate Pesticides? Yes No in Repackage Pesticides? Yes No T 411°- 2. EPA Establishment Number _ - - ..._....._..___.... • 23 NEW TORR STATE DEPARTIKEWT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Supplement Application Supplement for ZPA Fora 23 (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and Aquatic Animal Production Facilities) The outfall information requested in question III A. on EPA Fore 23 does not sufficiently describe each outfall. Therefore, the following additional information regarding each outfall must be provided. • III A. (Continued) Outfall No. 3. Q Proposed Replacement 4. Operation(s) contributing flov(1) 0 Existing 0 Expansion Hatchery - Treated Effluent S. Description of Treacment(2) (If none, so state) 6. Frequency of Discharge Nitrification-biological filtration-clarification- © Continuous- 0 Intermittent latch • filtration-disinfection 7. Period of Discharge: _1 2 Mos. per year 7 Days per week !. Hours per day 8. Mama of Receiving Waters(3/ 9. Latitudej4) 10. Longitude(4) L.Z. Sound 41 Deg' IAin. I Sja _ 72Deg. 12 I in. Sec. 09 11. Facility designed for continuous cleaning(5)? 0 Tes 0 No If no, state the averages to the following questions: Facility cleaned: "" times per O day 9 month (check one). Time required is hours per cleaning. Outfall No. 3. Proposed (J Replacement 4. Operation(s) contributing flow(1) • Existing 0 Expansion S. Description of Treatment(2) (If none, so state) 6. Frequency of Discharge QContinuous 9 Intermittent 0 latch 7. Period of Discharge: Mos. per year Days per week Hours per day 41 8. Ham. of Receiving Waters(3) 9. Latitude(4) 10. Longitude(4) Deg. Min. Sec. Deg. Kin. Sec. 11. Facility designed for continuous eleaning(5)? 0 Yes 0 lb If no, state the averages to the following questions: Facility cleaned: times per(3 day I month (check one). Time required is hours per cleaning. Outfall No. 3. 0 Proposed El Replacement 4. Operation(s) contributing flov(11 D Existing 0 Expansion • S. Description of Trestasat(2) (If none, so scats) 6. Frequency of Discharge Continuous D Intermittent p latch 7. Period of Discharge: lbs. per year Days par week Hours per day 8. Name of Receiving Waters(3) 9. Latitude(4) 10. Longitude(4) Deg. I Min. See. Deg. Min. � Sec. 11. Facility designed for continuous clesning(5)? 9 Tee 0 No If no. state the averages to the following questions: Facility cleaned: times per 0 day 0 month (check one). Time required is hours per cleaning. (1)Exssples of operations contributing flow are: tank cleaning, hatchery tank overflows. laboratory wastes. • sanitary wastes. feedlot storm runoff. (2)tramples of description of treatment are: settling tanks or ponds. septic tank-leach fields (or seepage pits). activated sludge (aeration), sand filters, etc. (3)Give common name of receiving waters. If unnamed. designate ss "Unnamed tributary of (insert name of nearest named downstream water)". If discharge is to the surface of the ground or underground, specify "groundvatere". Leave It III C.1. on Fora 23 blank. 41 (4)Specify Outfall Latitude and Longitude to the nearest 15 seconds. (5)Aquatic Animal Production Facilities only. • NYSDEC SJPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS - ATTACHMENT Your SPDES permit, when issued, may require you to periodically submit a Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR). The reports must be signed as follows: 1. for a corporation: by a responsible corporate officer. For the purposes of this section, a responsible corporate officer means: • (i) a president, secretary, treasurer, or a vice president of the corporation In charge of a principal business function, or any other person who performs similar policy or decision-making function for the corporation, or (ii) the manager of one or more manufacturing,production,or operating facilities employing more than 250 persons or having annual sales or expenditures exceeding $25 million (In second quarter 1980 dollars), If authority to sign documents has been assigned or delegated to the manager in accordance with corporate procedures; or 2. for a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner or the proprietor, respectively; or 3. for a municipality, state,federal,or other public agency:by either a principal or executive officer or ranking elected official. A principal executive officer of a federal agency Includes: (I)the chief executive officer of the agency, or (II) a senior executive officer having responsibility for the overall operations of a principal geographic unit of the agency; or 4. a duly authorized representative of the person described in items (1), (2) or (3). A person is a duly authorized representative only if: (i) the authorization is made in writing by a person described in paragraph (1), (2) or (3); • • (ii) the authorization specifies either an individual or a position having responsibility for the overall operation of the regulated facility or activity such as the position of plant manager, operator. of a well or well field,superintendent,position of equivalent responsibility,or an individual or position having overall responsibility for environmental matters for the company. (A duly authorized representative may thus be either a named individual or any individual occupying a named position). (ill) the written authorization is submitted to the Department. • Changes to authorization: if an authorization under paragraph (4) is no longer accurate because a different individual or position has responsibility for the overall operation of the facility,a new authorization satisfying the requirements of paragraph (4) must be submitted to the Department prior to or together with any reports to be signed by an authorized representative. THE TABLE BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED AND FiLED WITH YOUR APPLICATION. The • person Identified on the first line will be listed in Part I of the issued permit under the DMR MAILING ADDRESS section and must be a person described in paragraph (1), (2), (3) or (4). The table may be used to designate an authorized representative as described In paragraph (4). THE APPLICANT MUST NOTIFY THE DEPARTMENT OF ANY CHANGE 14 THIS INFORMATION DURING THE LEE OF THE PERMIT. Name and/or Title of person responsible for signing and submitting OMR*: Phone: • Robert Link, President (516 ) 477-1777 Mailing Name: Mariculture Technologies Meiling Address: City: Stats: Zip Code: • P.O. Box 461 Greenport NY 11944 - - ,Name of person described In paragraph (1), (2)or (3): This: • Robert Link President Signature of person described In paragraph (1), (2).or (3): Date: • Failure to submit this completed page with your application will result In your application being declared Incomplete. This will delay Issuance of your permit and authorization to discharge. Flay.4/90) • KEW TORR STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION STATE POLLUTANT DISCBAP.GE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (SFDES) • Thermal Discharge And Material Storage Area Supplement For Application Form C r (Attach to Application Form) 1 . Thermal Discharges Does the temperature of any of the discharges from this facility exceed 70°F. at any time? 0 TES Q NO 41 If yes, attach the following information, and specify which outfall(s) it relates to: a) Range of measured discharge temperatures • b) Maximum discharge temperature c) Discharge configuration (that is, whether surface, subsurface, effluent diffuser, etc.) 40 d) Chemical additives utilized (also see Section 4 on Form C) 2. Material Storage Areas i Is storm runoff or leachate from any material storage area (such as: coal piles, raw material or finished product stockpiles, etc.) discharged to either surface eaters or groundvaters? Q ITS Q NO 41 If "yes", please attach a brief description of types and quantities of materials stored, size of storage'area, etc., and show its location and the location of any discharge points on the map required by Section 6 of Form C. 411 • 40 91-19-2 Supplement 9/78 - 2,00C 41 • APPENDIX "B" • • • • • • • • please print or type in the unshaded areas Only :,ll—in areas are spaced for elite type, i.e., 12characters/inchf. Form Approved. OMB No. 2040-0086. Approval expires 5-31-92. FORM U.S.ENVIRONMENTAL.PROTECTION AGENCY I. EPA I.D.NUMBER 1 =CEPA GENERAL INFORMATION • -I I I. Consolidated Permits Program F D GENERAL (Read the"General Jnatructlons before starting.) t2 . „ ,. „ LAB L ITEMS ) \ GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS \EPA ID. NUMBER If a preprinted label hes been provided, affix i� \ it in the designated space. Review the inform- ation carefully; if any of it is incorrect, cross 11- FACILITY NAME through it and enter the correct data in the > \\\ \ appropriate fill—in area below. Also, if any of \ the preprinted data is absent (the area to the AGILITY left of the label space lists the information V. MAILING ADDRESS PLEASE PLACE LABEL IN THIS SPACE that should appear), please provide it in the proper fill—in aree(s) below. If the label is complete and correct, you need not complete - Items I, Ill, V, and VI (except Vl-B which must be completed regardless). Complete all FACILITY • items if no label has been provided. Refer to 1' LOCATION • the instructions for detailed item descrip- tions and for the legal authorizations under which this data is collected. II.POLLUTANT CHARACTERISTICS INSTRUCTIONS: Complete A through J to determine whether you need to submit any permit application forms to the EPA.If you answer"yes"to any questions, you must submit this form and the supplemental form listed in the parenthesis following the question.Mark"X"in the box in the third column -; �if the supplemental form is attached. If you answer "no"to each question,you need not submit any of these forms.You may answer"no"if your activity is excluded from permit requirements;see Section C of the instructions.See also,Section 0 of the instructions for definitions of bold—faced terms.. -" SPECIFIC QUESTIONS - - - - - (aAt3x Po-M `--- MARfi FORM vs■ NO wrrwe••as -- SPECIFIC QUESTIONS • - ♦as -e ATTACHED 51. Is .this facility a publicly owned trainment works Ba..Daor will this facility (either existing or proposed) t—; which results in a discharge to waters of the U.S? X �3�anelude a ootsearttratad animal feeding operation or X _ (FORM 2A) __z'agu tic animal production facility which results in a • ,• 17 discharge to waters of the U.S.?(FORM 28) - - is ,• „ C. Is this a facility which currently results in discharges t 0. Is this a proposed facility (other than those described _.. to waters of the U.S..other than those described in X . In A or B above) which will result in a discharge to X - A or B above?(FORM 2C) .. n :1 waters of the U.S.?(FORM 20) _ ,, .. :, F. Do you or will you inject at this facility industrial or E. Does or will this facility treat, store, or dispose of hazardous wastes?(FORM 3) . X municipal effluent below the lowermost stratum con- X ---taining, within one quarter mile of the well bore, --• ,• ,• I. underground sources of drinking water?(FORM 4) rG. Do you or will you inject at this facility any produced _ water or other fluids which are brought to the surface H. Do you or will you inject a<this facility fluids for spa in connection with conventional oil or natural gas pro- X dial processes such as mining of sulfur by the Frasch X _ duction, inject fluids used for enhanced recovery of Pruett, solution mining of minerals, in situ combus- oil or natural gas, or inject fluids for storage of liquid tion of fossil fuel,or recovery of geothermal energy? hydrocarbons?(FORM 4) ,= • ,• ,• s (FORM 4) VP le Si ' 1. Is this facility a proposed stationary source which Is J. is this facility a proposed stationary source which is one of the 28 industrial categories listed in the in- • •NOT one of the 28 industrial categories listed in the structions and which will potentially emit 100 tons i Instructions and which will potentially emit 250 tons per year of any air pollutant regulated under the X .per year of any air pollutant regulated under the Clean X VI Clean Air Act and may affect or be located in an Air Act and may affect or be located in an attainment attainment area?(FORM 5) .. ., ., area?(FORM 5) ., .. 1 as I. NAME OF FACILITY 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 —sKIP M A R I CULTURE TECHNOLOGIES NET T P E N GROWOUT O W O U T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . /.FACILITY CONTACT A.NAME &TITLE/last.first, & title) B.PHONE(area code& no.) I 1 1 I I f I 1 I f I 1 T 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I i T 1 1 1 f I I I I l I I III "T ROBERT LINK PR14 7 7 �1 7 _7 ,7 . FACILITY MAILING ADDRESS 1 -; A.STREET OR P.O. BOX I I I . I 1 1 I T 1 1 1 1 T 1- I 1 I I r 1 I 1 1 f i T 1 P O BOX 4 6 1 ,• - •. B. CITY OR TOWN C.STATE D. ZIP CODE IIIIIIIIIIIIIII I I 1 I T T I T T I I I I I 1 G R E E N P ORT NY 1 1 9 4 4 ,• . 4I 4l •/ - ',,, I. FACILITY LOCATION • A.STREET. ROUTE NO.OR OTHER SPECIFIC IDENTIFIER I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I ERTS BAY B.COUNTY NAME i T I I I I I I I I I i I 1 I I I I I I I I UFFOLK - -I. C.CITY OR TOWN D.STATE E. ZIP CODE l F. COUNTY CODE - I+ f i/kno .rn ...ITT t I f r I I 1 r 1 r r r TIT TTI r I i T I i aliS 0 U T H 0 L D NY 1 1 9 4 41 'A .-drrn _..:,i-: ;-_•J. • EPA I.D.NUMBER(copy from item I of Form 11 Form Approved See the instructions on the reverse. OMB No.2000-0060 Please pant or type in the unshaded areas only. Approval expires 3-31-86 FOAP PLI FIM U.S.ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 2 EPA CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEED NG OPERATIONS AND AQUATIC ANIMAL PRODUCTION FACILITIES NPDES Consolidated Permits Prooram I. AL IN RMA I N A.TYPE OF BUSINESS B.LEGAL DESCRITION OF FACILITY LOCATION C.FACILITY OPERATION STATUS CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING r El. OPERATION(complete items B.C.end Gardner's Bay off Plum Island i. EXISTING FACILITY Simeon II) CONCENTRATED AQUATIC ANIMAL ❑2. PRODUCTION FACILITY(oompOete E 2. PROPOSED FACILITY Items B.C.and Section III) • II. CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATION CHARACTERISTICS A.TYPE&NUMBER OF ANIMALS IN OPEN CONFINEMENT&HOUSED UNDER ROOF B.NO.OF ACRES FOR 1.TYPE 2.NO.IN OPEN CONFINEMENT 3.NO.HOUSED UNDER ROOF CONFINEMENT FEEDING 'LUU ac Net Yens C.If there is open confinement,has a runoff Summer Flounder Peak in 5,002,001 diversion and control system been (Paralichthys dentata) constructed? 1111 LI YES(complete Items/.2,&3 below) l3 NO(go to Section IV) 1. What is the design basis for the control system? - - • • .. '•.- •• -- - r.� 1.•+cmEs INCHES TYPE e.10 YEAR, b.25 YEAR. C.OTHER • ❑24-HOUR STORM 0 24 HOUR STORM ❑(specify inches (woody inches) (specify inches) INCHES `lypOl rEz SAFETY FACTOR 2. Report the number of acres of contributing 3. Report the design safety factor. -;,,-.drainage. III.CONCENTRATED AQUATIC ANIMAL PRODUCTION FACILITY CHARACTERISTICSIIIINIIIMMIIIINIIIIIIIII A. For each outfall give the maximum daily flow,maximum 30 day flow, B. Indicate the total number of ponds,raceways,and similar structures in *'Wand the Ion• term average flow. our facility. O -, 2.I-LL)W(gallons per day) 1. 2. RACEWAYS 3. OTHER I..OUTFALL Y NO. ;e.MAXIMUM s MAxaaly C LONG TERM • LILY 70 OAT AVERAGE C. Provide the name of the receiving water and the source of water used by your facility. I.RECEIVING WATER 2.WATER SOURCE • D. L.jst the species of fish or aquatic animals held and led at your facility.For each species.give the total weight produced by your facility per year in pounds of harvestable weight.and also give the maximum weight present at any one time. 1. COLD WATER-SPECIES — 2. WARMWRI tR PECIES b.HARVESTABLE WEIGHT(pounds) 1 b.HARVESTABLE WEIGHT(pounds) ', a-SPECIES Iii TOTAL?EARLY 121 MAXIMUM a.SPECIES 111 TOTAL YEARLY (Si MAXIMUM • Summer Flounder 10M 10M (Paralicht hys dentate; • E. Report the total pounds of food fed dunng the calendar month of 1.MONTH 2.POUNDS OF FOOD maximum feeding. October 6,500,000 IV. CERTIFICATION O I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this application and all attachments and that,based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information,I believe that the information is true.accurate and complete.lam aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information.including the possibility of fine and imprisonment. A. NAME&OFFiCIAL TITLE;print or type) B Pi-.CNE'+u area,:::o a no i ROBERT LINK, PRESIDENT 516/477-1777 C. SIGNAi 6 <jr- 14 D . .E�}NE'' • EPA Fcrm ;;'0-:/ ^-•+fit . allk 91-15-S(10/79) NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ALBANY, NEW YORK 12233 INDUSTRIAL CHEMICAL SURVEY 111111111 Please refer to ,i attached table PART L PLEASE COMPLETE AND RETURN TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS, ATTENTION: INDUSTRIAL CHEMICAL SURVEY.1 •OMPANY NAME SIC CODE(If known) OFFICE USE ONLY Mariculture Technologies, Inc. 0900 l COMPANY MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE P.O. Box 461 Greenport NY 11944 LANT NAME(If different) CONTACT NAME TELEPHONE 'PLANT Net Pens Robert Link Area 516-477-1777 PLANT ADDRESS(If different) CITY STATE ZIP CODE Street Gardner's Bay Southold NY , 11944 RINCIPAL BUSINESS OF PLANT Grow—Out of Fish "OTE:(If parent company, give name and addresses of all divisions, subsidiaries. etc. located in New York State.A separate questionnaire is to be completed and submitted for each.) • __ PART S Discharge Information 1. Does your plant discharge liquid wastes to a municipally owned sanitary sewer system? 1❑ Yes ❑ No Name of System I 2. Is your facility permitted to discharge liquid wastes under a State (SPDES) or I Federal (NPDES) permit? SPDES Applied For Permit Number I❑ Yes ❑ No 3. Do you discharge liquid wastes in any other manner? I 0 Yes 0 No a Explain I < if any of the above are "Yes": I 3 a. Do you discharge process or chemical wastes — (i.e. water used in manufacturing including direct I❑ Yes ® No contact cooling water and scrubber water)? b. Do you discharge non-contact cooling water? I 0 Yes ® No c. Do you discharge collected storm drainage only? I❑ Yes Q No • d. Do you discharge sanitary wastes only? �a Yes ® No 1. Does your facility have sources of possible emissions to the atmosphere? I Yes © No °C 2. Enter Location and Facility Code as shown on your Air Pollution < Control Application for Permits and Certification (If applicable) 1 • 1. List Name and Address of Firm (Including yourself) removing wastes other than office and cafeteria refuse. C Name � Lel City State Zip Code Z 7, Name W z 3 1111 0 Address City State Zip Code 'B c 2. List Location(s) of Landfill(s) owned and used by your facility. Iem ro 11 l HO A 2 i ❑ ❑ 1. Does this facility: i„ Manufacture Pesticides or Pesticide Product Ingredients? I❑ Yes x❑ No c Produce Pesticides or Pesticide Product Ingredients? I Yes © No Formulate Pesticides? I Yes © No N Repackage Pesticides? I Yes © No °' 2. EPA Establishment Number - - 1 41 23 NEW TORR STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVAIION Supplement Application Supplement for EPA Fore 23 (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and Aquatic Animal Production Facilities) The outfall information requested in question III A. on UA Tore 23 does not sufficiently describe ‘ each outfall. Therefore, the following additional information regarding each outfall east be provided. • III A. (Continued) Outfall No. 3. ® Proposed ❑ Replacement 4. Operation(s) contributing flow(1) None 0 Existing 0 Expansion Offshore Net Pens S. Description of Treatment(2) (If none, so state) 6. Frequency of Discharge 0 Continuous- 0 Intermittent 0 latch None 7. Period of Discharge: 8 Mos. per year _.7_,Days per weak .21_Sours per day 9. Latitude C' 10. Longitude(4) 8. Nae of Receiving Waters(3S Deg. Min. Sem. Gardner's Bay 41 Deg. I 10Kin. 20 , 72 1 ]0 l 7S 11. Facility designed for continuous cleaning(5)? © Tes 0 1W fb If no. state the averages to the following questions: Facility cleaned times psi O day 0 math (check one). Time required L hours per cleaning. Outfall No. 3. 0 Proposed 0 Replacement 4. Operation(s) contributing flaw(1) • ❑ Elating ❑ Expansion . S. Description of Treatment(2) (If none, so state) 6. Frequency of Discharge (3 Continuous ❑ Intermittent ❑ latch 7. Period of Discharge: Mos. per year Days per week Sours per day • 8. Name of Receiving Waters()) 9. Latitude(4) 10. Longitude(4) Deg. . Kin. 1 Sec. Deg. l Min. I Sec. 11. Facility designed for continuous cleaaing(S)? 0 Tes 0 No If no, state the averages to the following questions: Facility cleaned: tines per❑ day ❑ month (check one). Time required is hours per cleaning. Outfall No. 3. ❑ Proposed 9 Replacement 4. Operation(s) contributing flov(r) ❑ Existing ❑ Expansion S. Description of Treatment(2) (If none. so state) 6. Frequency of Discharge 41 0 Continuous ❑ Intermittent ❑ latch 7. Period of Discharge: lbs. per year Days per week Hours per day 8. Nae of Receiving Waters)) 9. Latitude(4) 10. Longitude(4) Deg. ( Kin. 1 Sec. Deg. 1 Kin. I Sec. IL 11. Facility designed for continuous cleaning(S)? 9 Tes 0 No If no, state the averages to the following questions: Facility cleaned: times per 0 day ❑ month (check one). Time required is hours per cleaning. (1)Examples of operations contributing flow are: tank cleaning. hatchery tank overflows. laboratory wastes, • sanitary wastes. feedlot storm runoff. (2)Ezamples of description of treatment are: settling gag Raab or ponds. septic tank-leach fields (or seepage pits). activated sludge (aeration). sand filters. etc. (3)C1ve common none of receiving waters. If unnamed. designate as "Unnamed tributary of (insert nae of nearest named downstream eater)". If discharge is to the surface of the ground or underground, specify "groundwater.". Leave Item ITI C.1. on Form 23 blank. (4)Specify Outfall Latitude and Longitude to the nearest 15 seconds. 6 (5)Aquatic Animal Production Facilities only. NYSDEC SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS - ATTACHMENT Your SPOES permit, when Issued, may require you to periodically submit a Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR). The reports must be signed as follows: 1. for a corporation: rP by a responsible corporate officer. For the purposes of this section, a responsible corporate officer means: • (1) a president, secretary, treasurer, or a vice president of the corporation In charge of a principal business function, or any other person who performs similar policy or decision-making function for the corporation, or (ii) the manager of one or more manufacturing, production,or operating facilities employing more than 250 persons or having annual sales or expenditures exceeding $25 million (in second • quarter 1980 dollars), if authority to sign documents has been assigned or delegated to the manager in accordance with corporate procedures; or 2. for a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner or the proprietor, respectively; or 3. for a municipality, state,federal,or other public agency: by either a principal or executive officer or ranking elected official. A principal executive officer of a federal agency includes: (I) the chief executive officer of the agency, or (II) a senior executive officer having responsibility for the overall operations of a principal geographic unit of the agency; or 4. a duly authorized representative of the person described In hems (1), (2) or (3). A persorl is a duly authorized representative only If: (i) the authorization is made in writing by a person described in paragraph (1), (2) or (3); • (li) the authorization specifies either an IndMdual or a position having responsibility for the overall operation of the regulated facility or activity such as the position of plant manager, operator. of a well or well field,superintendent, position of equivalent responsibility,or an Individual or position having overall responsibility for environmental matters for the company. (A duly authorized representative may thus be either a named indMdual or any indMdual occupying a named position). (iii) the written authorization is submitted to the Department. • Changes to authorization: If an authorization under paragraph (4) is no longer accurate because a different Individual or position has responsibility for the overall operation of the facility, a new authorization satisfying the requirements of paragraph (4) must be submitted to the Department prior to or together with any reports to be signed by an authorized representative. THE TABLE BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED AND FiLED WITH YOUR APPUCATION. The person Identified on the first line will be listed in Part I of the issued permit under the DMR MAILING 'ADDRESS section and must be a person described In paragraph (1), (2), (3) or (4). The table may be used to designate an authorized representative as described in paragraph (4). THE APPliCANT MUST NOTIFY THE DEPARTMENT OF ANY CHANGE N THIS INFORMATION DURING THE LIFE OF THE PERMIT. Name and/or Title of person responsible for signing and submitting DMR's: Phone: Robert Link, President (516 ) 477-1777 Mailing Name: Mariculture Technologies Melling Address: City State: Zip Code: P.O. Box 461 Greenport NY 11944 Name of person described In paragraph (1), (2)or (3): Title: Robert Link President Signature of person described in paragraph (1), (2),or(3): Date: • Failure to submit this completed page with your application will result in your application being declared incomplete. This will delay issuance of your permit and authorization to discharge. a (Rev.4/90) ETV TORR STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION STATE POLLUTANT DISCHAP.GE ELIMINATION SISTEM (SPDES) Thermal Discharge And Material Storage Area Supplement For Application Form C (Attach to Application Form) • 1 . Thermal Discharges Does the temperature of any of the discharges from this facility exceed 70°F. at any time? C] ?FS Q NO 1 If yes, attach the following information, and specify which outfall • it relates to: a) Range of measured discharge temperatures 1 b) Maximum discharge temperature c) Discharge configuration (that is, whether surface, subsurface, effluent diffuser, etc.) 1 d) Chemical additives utilized (also see Section 4 on Form C) 2. Material Storage Areas Is storm runoff or. leachate from any material storage area (such as: coal piles, raw material or finished product stockpiles, etc.) discharged to either surface eaters or groundwater!? Q ITS Q NO 41 If "yes", please attach a brief description of types and quantities of materials stored, size of storage-area, etc., and show its location and the location of any discharge points on the sap required by Section 6 of Form C. • • • 91-19-2 Supplement 9/78 - 2,000 41 • • • • APPENDIX 13 • LLOYD'S REGISTER PROVISIONAL RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF FISH FARMS a a • • • • • • • PROVISIONAL RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF FISH FARMS • s • • Lloyd's Register of Shipping 71,Fenchurch Street, May,1992 • LONDON,EC3M 4BS • kto,yolfs Tez,stieor • PROVISIONAL RULES AND REGULATIONS • FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF • FISH FARMS • Part 1 Regulations • 1992 • • R .a ! Doti • Provisional Rules for Fish Farms Chapter Contents Part 1 • CHAPTER 1 GENERAL REGULATIONS 2 CLASSIFICATION REGULATIONS • 3 SURVEY REGULATIONS 4 OPERATIONS MANUAL • • • • a Lloyd's Re.s.e-of SI-17-^^¢ • Provisional Rules for Fish Farms Contents Part 1 s CHAPTER 1 GENERAL REGULATIONS Section 1 Section 2 • Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6 Section 7 Section 8 Section 9 • Section 10 Evolution of the Rules CHAPTER 2 CLASSIFICATION REGULATIONS Section 1 Conditions for classification and stages of approval 1.1 General 1.2 Stages of approval 1.3 Design and manufacturing/fabrication,(Stage 1 approval) 1.4 Site investigation,(Stage 2 approval) 1.5 Mooring design and manufacture,(Stage 3 approval) 1.6 Installation,(Stage 4 approval) 1.7 Responsibility of the Owner 1.8 Application • 1.9 Scope of the Rules 1.10 Advisory Services Section 2 Character of classification and class notations 2.1 General definitions 2.2 Class notation definitions 2.3 Character symbols • 2.4 Class notations 2.5 Descriptive notes Section 3 Surveys-General 3.1 New Construction Surveys 3.2 Machinery 3.3 Existing fish farms • 3.4 Repairs and alterations 3.5 Periodical Surveys 3.6 Certificates 3.7 Notice of surveys 3.8 Suspension of class or approval during transportation/ towage 3.9 Removal from the approved site ` 3.10 Withdrawal/suspension of class 3.11 Appeal against Surveyor's recommendations • a Ucw sF • Provisional Rules for Fish Farms Contents Part 1 CHAPTER 3 SURVEY REGULATIONS Section 1 New fish farm installations 1.1 General • 1.2 Structure manufacture/fabrication,(Stage 1 approval) 1.3 Installation offshore,(Stage 4 approval) Section 2 Periodical Surveys 2.1 Frequency of surveys 22 Documentation required 2.3 Machinery S Section 3 Annual Surveys 3.1 Structure and equipment Section 4 Biennial Surveys Ashore 4.1 Structure and equipment Section 5 Biennial In-Water Surveys i 5.1 General Section 6 Classification of fish farms not built under survey 6.1 General CHAPTER 4 OPERATIONS MANUAL • Section 1 General 1.1 Requirements 1.2 Objectives 1.3 Outline of content • do • • a • Provisional Rules for Fish Farms General Regulations Part 1, Chapter 1 Sections 1,2&3 • SECTION 1 1.1 Uoyd's Register of Shipping(LR),which is recognized under the laws of the United Kingdom as a body whose busi- ness is conducted for the benefit of the community,was founded in 1760.It was established for the purpose of obtaining for the use of Merchants, Shipowners and Underwriters a faithful and accurate Classification of Mercantile Shipping and,whilst it still continues to fulfil that purpose,it now also: ' (a) approves design,surveys and reports on:hovercraft;non-mercantile shipping;yachts and small craft;amphibious and land and sea and sea-bed installations,structures,plant,etc.;machinery,apparatus,materials,components,equipment,produc- tion methods and processes of all kinds;for the purpose of testing their compliance with plans,specifications,rules,Codes of Practice,etc.,or their fitness for particular requirements; (b) acts with delegated authority on behalf of numerous governments in respect of statutory requirements; (c) provides other technical inspection and advisory services relating to ships and the maritime industry generally and also in • respect of land and sea-based undertakings. SECTION 2 2.1 LR's affairs are under the overall direction of the General Committee,which is composed of persons nominated or elected to represent the world community and industry which LR serves. • 2.2 The General Committee, which may at its discretion vary the constitution of such representation, is currently composed of: Such persons(not exceeding 50)nominated by the Chamber of Shipping to represent the shipowning industry in the United Kingdom,including the Council's President and Vice-President ex officio. President of the Shipbuilders'and Shiprepairers'Association ex officio. • 11 members nominated by the Committee of Uoyd's(comprising 9 Marine Underwriters and 2 Brokers)as well as the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Uoyd's ex officio. 6 members nominated by the Institute of London Underwriters as well as the Institute's Chairman and Deputy Chairman ex officio. 1 member nominated by the Liverpool Underwriters'Association. 1 member nominated by the Association of British Insurers. Chairman of the Technical Committee ex officio. (All the above nominations to be subject to confirmation by the General Committee). Such persons(not exceeding 60)specially elected by the General Committee. 7 members representing P and I Clubs elected by the General Committee. Past Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen of the General Committee and Chairmen of National and Area Committees appointed under Section 3. 2.3 The General Committee is further empowered to elect as Honorary Members of the General Committee such persons of distinction and eminence as the General Committee shall from time to time think fit. 2.4 Nominated or ex officio members of the General Committee retire annually but are eligible for re-appointment. 2.5 Members of the General Committee elected or re-elected on or after 26th June,1987,retire at the end of 2 years and are eligible for re-election.Those elected prior to that date will be eligible for re-election when their present term of membership expires. • SECTION 3 3.1 The General Committee has power to: Appoint a Board and delegate thereto such of its powers as it may determine. Appoint Sub-Committees of Classification and determine their powers,duties and functions. Appoint Committees in any country or area to form a liaison between LR and the local maritime, industrial and commercial communities. Appoint a Technical Committee and determine its function,powers and duties. Lloyd's Register of SF_ooing • Provisional Rules for Fish Farms General Regulations Part 1, Chapter 1 Sections 5,6,7&8 + 5.7 Any proposal of the Technical Committee involving any alteration in,or addition to,Rules for classification is referred to the General Committee and may be finally approved at the next following meeting of the Board if the General Committee so direct. 5.8 The Technical Committee is empowered to: (a) appoint sub-Committees,or panels of the Committee;and • (b) co-opt to the main Committee,or to such sub-Committees or panels,representatives of any organization or industry or private individuals for the purpose of considering any particular problem. SECTION 6 • 6.1 The General Committee has power to adopt,and publish as deemed necessary, Rules relating to classification and has(in relation thereto)provided the following: (a) Except in the case of a special directive by the Committee,or where changes necessitated by mandatory implementation of International Conventions or Codes are concerned,no new Rule or alteration in any existing Rule is to be applied compulsorily within 6 months of its adoption,nor after the approval of the original midship section or equivalent structural plans.Where it is desired to use existing approved ship or machinery plans for a new contract,written application is to be made to the Committee. • (b) All reports of survey are to be made by the Surveyors according to the form prescribed,and submitted for the consideration of the General Committee,or of the Sub-Committee of Classification,but the character assigned by the latter is to be subject to confirmation by the General Committee or by the Chairman or the Deputy Chairman acting on behalf of the General Committee. (c) The reports of the Surveyors shall,subject to the approval,in his absolute discretion,of the Chairman or the Deputy Chairman, be open to the inspection of the Owner and of any other person authorized in writing by the Owner.Copies of reports will, • subject to the approval of one of the Chairmen,be supplied to Owners,or their representatives,on application.It is acknow- ledged that National Administrations have access to reports of surveys undertaken by LR on their behalf. (d) A Classification Executive Committee consisting of senior members of LR's Classification Department staff shall carry out whatever duties that may be within the function of the Sub-Committee of Classification that the latter Committee may assign to the former. SECTION 7 7.1 No LR employee is permitted,under any circumstances,to accept,directly or indirectly,from any person,firm or company,with whom the work of the employee brings the employee into contact,any present,bonus,entertainment or honorar- ium of any sort whatsoever which is of more than nominal value or which might be construed to exceed customary courtesy extended in accordance with accepted ethical business standards. SECTION 8 8.1 The General Committee has power to: (a) determine the amounts to be charged for the services provided by LR or for any of its publications; (b) withhold or,if already granted,to suspend or withdraw any class(or to withhold any certificate or report in any other case), in the event of non-payment of any fee. SECTION 9 9.1 In providing services information or advice neither Uoyds Register of Shipping(LR)nor any of its officers employees or agents warrants the accuracy of any information or advice supplied.Except as set out herein neither LR nor any of its officers employees or agents(on behalf of each of whom LR has agreed this clause)shall be liable for any loss damage or expense what- • ever sustained by any person due to any act or omission or error of whatsoever nature and howsoever caused of LR its officers employees or agents or due to any inaccuracy of whatsoever nature and howsoever caused in any information or advice given in any way whatsoever by or on behalf of LR,even if held to amount to a breach of warranty.Nevertheless,if any person who is party to the agreement pursuant to which LR provides any service, uses LR's services or relies on any information or advice given by or on behalf of LR and suffers loss damage or expense thereby which is proved to have been due to any negligent act omission or error of LR its officers employees or agents or any negligent inaccuracy in information or advice given by or on behalf of LR then LR will pay compensation to such person for his proved loss up to but not exceeding the amount of the fee(if any)charged by LR for that particular service information or advice. 411 Lloyd's Register of Shpppirc O Provisional Rules for Fish Farms Classification Regulations Part 1, Chapter 2 Section 1 • Section 1 Conditions for classification and stages of approval 2 Character of classification and class notations 3 Surveys—General I SECTION 1 Conditions for Classification and stages of 1.3.2 Choice of the design environmental criteria on approval which Stage 1 approval is based is the responsibility of the designer. The environmental and other operational loads 1.1 General which LR requires to be considered in the appraisal of the i design are specified in Pt 2,Ch 2. 1.1.1 Fish farms built and which have been installed at an approved site in accordance with these Provisional Rules 1.3.3 For Stage 1 approval the fish farm will not be (hereinafter referred to as the Rules)or in accordance with assessed for compliance with Pt 3, Ch 2,6 which is consid- requirements equivalent thereto,will be assigned a class in the ered an operational requirement. Register of Fish Farms(hereinafter called The Register)and will continue to be classed so long as they are found,upon exam- ination at the prescribed surveys, to be maintained in 1.4 Site investigation,(Stage 2 approval) • accordance with the requirements of the Rules.Classification will be conditional upon compliance with LR's requirements for 1.4.1 Site investigation is required to determine the structure,equipment, moorings,site investigation and other environmental and seabed conditions at the site at which the safety considerations. fish farm is to be moored. Stage 2 approval is dependent upon the to 1.1.2 Classification is dependent upon and covers only demonstrate that environmental conditions at the site ilit adequacof the investiation and itsbw ll be the standards of design, construction, materials, workman- no more onerous than the design environmental criteria for ship, installation and maintenance of the fish farm structure, which the fish farm was approved at Stage 1.It is also neces- • equipment and moorings as prescribed by these require- sary in order to be able to assess the adequacy of the merits. Classification does not cover feeders,water filters, mooring design for Stage 3 approval. Site investigation alarms or monitors or other machinery and equipment solely requirements are specified in Pt 2,Ch 3. concerned with fish rearing or other associated operations, except where the design or arrangement of these items may affect the integrity of the fish farm.It is assumed that the fish 1.5 Mooring design and manufacture,(Stage 3 farm is not permanently manned and does not normally approval) i contain machinery essential for its safe operation,see also 3.2. 1.1.3 Adequate means of access is to be provided to 1.5.1 After completion of Stage 2 approval LR will require- the ish farm to enable satisfactoryinspectionappraise the mooring system for compliance with the structure for survey during construction offor periodic based on hements and tmost oneroandards us environmental on ent aned in Part 3.Approval seabed condi- surveys. tions likely to be encountered at the proposed site(s) as determined by the Stage 2 approval. , O 1.2 Stages of approval 1.5.2 A fish farm and its mooring will be granted 1.2.1 Fish farm approvalStage 3 approval when Stage 1 and 2 approvals have been procedures for assignment of satisfactorily completed and the mooring system satisfies the class will be in four stages comprising: requirements of Part 3.The approval is only valid for the spec- Stage 1:The design and manufacturing/fabrication process. ified site. Stage 2:The site(s)investigation. Stage 3:The mooring design and manufacture. 1.6 Installation,(Stage 4 approval) a Stage 4:The installation. 1.6.1 1.2.2 Depending on the requirements of the manufac- class will be Stage 4 approval and subsequent assignment of turer or Owners of the fish farm LR is willing to undertake 2 and 3 approval followed nt on sby satisfactory instry allation oof ntatgthe approval Stages 1, or 1, 2 and 3, as defined in 1.2.1. approved site(s)and compliance with the requirements of However,class will only be assigned to fish farms which have Pt 3,Ch 2,6. undergone all four stages of approval. 1.6.2 Approval of the installation procedure will be • Design and manufacturing fabrication, considered on an individual basis. Proposals for the installa- 1.3 1 approval) ton procedure including assembly of components,towing, (Stage anchor pre-loading,anchor line pre-tensioning,etc.,should 1.3.1 LR will a be forwarded for approval. ppraise the fish farm design and manu- facturing/fabrication process for compliance with the 1.6.3 Final installation and commissioning of the requirements and standards specified in Parts 1 and 3 of the fish farm is to be to the Surveyor's satisfaction. 11 Rules. Fish farms which satisfy these requirements will be granted Stage 1 approval. Lloyd's Register of Sr p._.,g 411/ Provisional Rules for Fish Farms Classification Regulations Part 1, Chapter 2 Section 2 • SECTION 2 2.4 Class notations Character of classification and class notations 2.4.1 In addition to the character symbols,all units will normally be assigned a class notation.The class notation will 2.1 General definitions either be decided by the Committee or may be proposed by an Owner for consideration by the Committee.The class nota- 2.1.1 Fish Farm A floating cage structure,which is tion will consist of either one or both of,a site notation and a • attached by a permanent mooring to the shore or seabed and special features notation. is used for the rearing of fish. An example of a character and notation of class is: 2.1.2 Permanent mooring See Pt 3,Ch 4, 1.2 a FF AT FS 64°22'30"N 21°25'CO"W Flexible rubber collar. 2.1.3 Fixed site(FS)and defined limited operating • area(DLOA) See Pt 2,Ch 3, 1.2. 2.5 Descriptive notes 2.2 Class notations definitions 2.5.1 In addition to any class notation, appropriate descriptive notes may be entered in column 6 of the Register 2.2.1 Site notation. A notation indicating the indicating the type of installation in greater detail than is geographical position of the approved fish farm,fixed site or contained in the class notation and/or providing additional approved operating area: information about the type or capabilities of the fish farm,e.g. FS 64°02'01"N rigid steel pontoon,3000 ms volume cages moored in 6 cage 22°13'04"W raft with 12 point mooring.The notes may include the cage • or DLOA bounded by the quadrilateral: manufacturer and model designation.A descriptive note is not 65°29'39"N 65°29'39"N a Lloyd's Register classification notation and is provided solely 13°34'48"W 13°34'09"W for the information of the users of the Register. 65°29' 12"N 65°29' 12"N 13°34'48"W 13°34'09"W or DLOA inshore of a line from: • 65°10'00"N to 65°11'02"N 13°30'08"W 13°34'09"W 2.22 Special features notation. A notation indicat- ing that the fish farm incorporates special features which significantly affect the design,e.g.semi-submersible or artic- ulated walkway. • 2.3 Character symbols 2.3.1 All fish farms, when classed,will be assigned character symbols as applicable.For all fish farms the charac- ter assigned will be FF AT or a•FF AT. 2.3.2 A full list of character symbols for which fish farms may be eligible is as follows: This distinguishing mark will be assigned,at the time of classing, to new fish farms constructed under LA's Special Survey,in compliance with the Rules,and to the satisfaction of the Committee. FF These character letters will be assigned to all fish farms • built in accordance with the Rules. A This character letter will be assigned to all fish farms, which have been built or classed in accordance with LR's Rules and Regulations,and which are maintained in good and efficient condition. • T This character letter will be assigned to fish farms which are intended to perform their primary designed service function only while they are permanently anchored, moored or linked,and which have,in good and efficient condition,adequately attached anchoring, mooring or linking equipment which has been approved by the Committee as suitable for the intended service. • Lloyd's Register of S!toping • Provisional Rules for Fish Farms Classification Regulations Part 1, Chapter 2 Section 3 • 3.6 Certificates 3.8.3 Although it is not generally a condition of classification that assessment of a fish farm as being fit for a 3.6.1 When the required reports,on approval Stages 1 particular tow should be undertaken by LR,LR is prepared to to 4 of new or existing fish farms which have been submitted advise on the measures to be adopted, to supervise their for classification,have been received from the Surveyors and execution and to issue the appropriate certificates if requested approved by the Committee,certificates of first entry of clas- to do so.Details will be provided on request. sification,signed by the Chairman or Deputy Chairman and • Chairman of the Sub-Committee of Classification,and coun- tersigned by the Secretary,will be issued to the Builder or 3.9 Removal from the approved site Owner. 3.9.1 If a fish farm is removed from its approved fixed 3.62 Certificates of Stage 1 or Stage 1, 2 and 3 site or defined limited area,class will be suspended except in approval will be issued as appropriate to manufacturers or the circumstances stated in 3.8.Class will be reinstated when Owners of fish farms who do not wish to continue the the fish farm is reinstalled at the approved site or defined approval procedure through to Stage 4 and full classification limited area.See 3.3.2. of the complete,fully installed fish farm,see 1.2. 3.9.2 For reclassification after installation at a new site 3.6.3 Certificates of maintenance of class in respect of LR will have to reconsider approval.Stage 2,3 and 4 approval completed Periodical Surveys of structure and moorings will procedures will have to be carried out in respect of the new be issued to the Owners on application. site. Depending on the circumstances of the case LR will consider simplified approval procedures if appropriate. 3.6.4 LR's Surveyors are permitted to issue provisional (interim)certificates to enable a fish farm classed with LR to • continue operations provided that in their opinion,it is in a fit 3.9.3 When considering approval at a new site LR will and efficient condition. Such certificates will embody the take into account previous service experience of the fish farm. Surveyor's recommendations for continuance of class,but in all cases are subject to confirmation by the Committee. 3.10 Withdrawal/suspension of class 3.6.5 Under no circumstances is the extension of valid- ity of a class certificate to be granted beyond the due date of 3.10.1 When the class of a fish farm for which the S a Periodical Survey without the essential inspection having Regulations as regards surveys on structure and equipment been completed for all prescribed parts of the structure. have been complied with, is withdrawn by the Committee in consequence of a request from the Owner,the notation'Class withdrawn at Owner's request'(with date)will be assigned. 3.7 Notice of surveys 3.10.2 When the Regulations as regards survey on 3.7.1 It is the responsibility of the Owner to ensure that structure and equipment have not been complied with and the all surveys necessary for the maintenance of class are carried fish farm is thereby not entitled to retain class,the class will be • out at the proper time and in accordance with the instructions suspended or withdrawn,at the discretion of the Committee, of the Committee. and a corresponding notation will be assigned. 3.7.2 LR will make every effort to give timely notice to 3.10.3 When it is found,from reported defects in struc- an Owner about forthcoming surveys.The omission of such ture and equipment,that a fish farm is not entitled to retain notice,however,does not absolve the Owner from his respon- class and the Owner fails to repair such defects in accordance sibility to comply with LA's survey requirements for with LRs requirements,the class will be suspended or with- maintenance of class. drawn, at the discretion of the Committee, and a corresponding notation indicating that class has been suspended or withdrawn because of reported defects will be 3.8 Suspension of class or approval during assigned. transportation/towage 3.10.4 When it is found that a fish farm is being operated 3.8.1 In general, classification does not cover move- in a manner contrary to that agreed at the time of ments of the fish farm including transportation from the classification,or is being operated in environmental conditions . manufacturers to the offshore location.Exceptions to this are: which are more onerous than,or at a site other than,those agreed by the Committee,the class will be liable to be auto- (a) Movements wholly within the defined limited matically withdrawn or suspended. operating area. 3.10.5 In all instances of class withdrawal or suspension, (b) Towage to and from nearby shore site(s)for erec- the assigned notation,with date of application,will initially tion, maintenance and surveys, provided the appear in The Register. In cases where class has been environmental conditions encountered during the suspended by the Committee and it becomes apparent that a tow will be no more onerous than those for which the Owners are no longer interested in retaining LR's Class, the fish farm has Stage 1 approval. the notation will be amended to withdrawn status.After'class withdrawn' status has been established in The Register for All tows are to be carried out in accordance with the manufac- one year, it will be automatically amended to 'classed L.R. Curers instructions as stated in the Operations Manual. until'(with date). 3.82 If it is necessary to move the fish farm because of 3.10.6 For reclassification and reinstatement of class, urgent operational reasons then LR's Surveyors should be see 3.3.2. informed as soon as possible. Lloyd's Register of Shipping • Provisional Rules for Fish Farms Survey Regulations Part 1, Chapter 3 Section 1 . Section 1 New fish farm installations 2 Periodical Surveys 3 Annual Surveys ` 4 Biennial Surveys Ashore 5 Biennial In-Water Surveys 6 Classification of fish farms not built under survey SECTION 1 include checks for circularity and straightness of tubular New fish farm installations members;straightness and lack of warpage of fabricated and rolled sections;also flatness of plane or fairness of curvature for plated areas. 1.1 General 1.2.4 Any means used to achieve correct alignment or 1.1.1 The requirements of Ch 2,3.1 and where applica- other fit must not introduce straining in the structure which • ble Ch 2,3.2 are to be complied with. would produce unacceptable built-in stresses. 1.1.2 Necessary access and facilities are to be 1.2.5 All deviations from approved plans including arranged to allow the Surveyors to undertake their duties in a scantlings significantly in excess of those approved are to be satisfactory manner,from the commencement of work until reported.Occasional checks should be made during fabrica- completion of the fish farm,including witnessing required test- tion of the rolling tolerances of delivered plates and sections. ing,trials and any subsequent adjustments or alterations as they may deem necessary for compliance with these regula- 1.2.6 The Surveyors are to witness all testing of frames, • tions. pontoons,etc.,required by the Rules.Where it is not practica- ble to adequately pressure test any items LR may require 1.1.3 Where materials or components are supplied in non-destructive testing of the structure during fabrication. accordance with recognized standards the Surveyors are to be enabled,by means of suitable certificates,or such other 1.2.7 Checks are to be made,throughout the building means as they consider necessary,to satisfy themselves that period,of the main dimensions of the fish farm to satisfy the such standards have been complied with. Surveyors that no significant distortions occur. Checks are also to be made to ensure that no local distortions or misalign- • 1.1.4 It is required that all structure,equipment and ment occur during the installation of items of machinery or plant are constructed and fitted in accordance with plans equipment,which may cause unacceptable built-in stresses in approved by LR.The plans required by Ch 2,3.1.1 must be the structure. submitted sufficiently early to allow time for independent strength calculations and approval of scantlings and details, 1.2.8 It is required that any protection,whether paint,or etc., before materials are ordered or construction is otherwise,which is intended to reduce corrosion is satisfacto- commenced. rily applied and in good condition while the fish farm is being constructed and on completion. 1.2 Structure manufacture/fabrication,(Stage 1 approval) 1.3 Installation offshore,(Stage 4 approval) 1.2.1 Steel,welding consumables and other materials 1.3.1 Installation offshore including positioning of are to be checked to ensure that they have been manufac- anchors or anchor weights,mooring buoys,pontoons,pre- cured as required by Pt 2,Ch 1 of these Rules. Inspections loading of anchor and pre-tensioning of mooring lines as and tests required by the Rules are to be made and/or relevant is to be carried out in accordance with agreed proce- witnessed by the Surveyors. dures and be to the Surveyor's satisfaction. 1.2.2 During the preparation of the materials and the construction of the fish farm the workmanship is to be care- fully inspected to ensure that it is satisfactory.Materials which are required by the Rules, to be examined or tested and sampled or certified at the manufacturer's works are to be • checked on arrival at the Builder's works to ensure that the Rules have been complied with. Faulty workmanship and material and bad fit or misalignment of items due to welding are to be rectified. 1.2.3 Misalignment and deviation from design fairness is to be checked to ensure that tolerances as specified by the El designer and approved by LR are complied with.This is to Lloyd's Register of SFupang • Provisional Rules for Fish Farms Survey Regulations Part 1, Chapter 3 Sections 3&4 • 3.1.11 LR's Surveyor will verify that an up-to-date copy SECTION 4 of the fish farm Operating Manual is provided for the use of the Biennial Surveys Ashore operations personnel. 4.1 Structure and equipment 3.1.12 The permanent mooring system should be exam- ined.A schedule or rota of moorings to be examined at each 4.1.1 Owners should notify LR whenever a fish farm Annual Survey should be agreed for component parts of can be examined ashore,or if the underwater parts can be • permanent moorings, otherwise sufficiently exposed for examination,see 2.1.1. The schedule is to be arranged such that representative components of the entire mooring system are examined in 4.1.2 In many cases removal of all or part of a fish farm detail annually and all components of the system are exam- for Survey.Ashore may be impractical.The Committee may fined at least once in a 4 year cycle.See 4.1.7. accept In-water Surveys in lieu of Survey Ashore for all or part of the fish farm installation.See Section 5 for requirements. 3.1.13 Fouling or the presence of some organic environ- ments may cause significant and very rapid deterioration of 4.1.3 The maximum interval between examinations of • mooring system components.Surveyors are to ensure: this type is to be 2 years. (a) Anchors are cleaned and examined. (b) Wire and synthetic fibre mooring ropes are exam- 4.1.4 The extent of inspection at this Biennial Survey is fined for frayed, embrittled, badly corroded, to include all those examinations required for Annual Survey birdcaging or broken fibres or wires,as applica- but extended to include those parts of the fish farm which are ble.Ropes are to be renewed as necessary. submerged during normal operations. (c) Chain cables are ranged and examined. Any length of chain cable found to be reduced in 4.1.5 In order to carry out more detailed examinations • mean diameter at its most worn part by 11 per the Surveyors may require the local removal of coatings, cent or more from its nominal diameter is to be coverings or filler materials. renewed. (d) Buoys,weights,floats,shackles etc.are cleaned 4.1.6 The supporting structure of the fish farm is to be and examined. presented for survey in such a way that all exposed parts are visible for examination. Large frames/structures should be 3.1.14 Where any examination reveals defects or serious placed on blocks of sufficient height,suitable cranage should • deterioration of any kind the Surveyors may require additional be provided for suspending or turning elements if necessary items to be inspected and they are to ensure that any neces- and staging or other access equipment erected as required. sary work is carried out to their satisfaction. 4.1.7 Anchor weights which cannot be removed for scheduled examinations are to be examined by diver assisted survey.See Section 5. • • 411 • • Lloyd's Register of Sh;r rig • Provisional Rules for Fish Farms Operations Manual Part 1, Chapter 4 Section 1 • Section 1 General SECTION 1 Orientation of the fish farm and anchor array and maxi- • General mum permitted offset. 1.1 Requirements Maximum walkway/deck loadings including wheel load- ings. 1.1.1 These notes are intended as guidance only.One copy of the Manual is to be forwarded for information. Construction and materials. Corrosion/cathodic protection/protective coatings 1.2 Objectives design philosophy and maintenance procedures. 1.2.1 The objectives of the Manual should be: Operation of mobile equipment(e.g. derricks,fork lifts (a) To provide a concise description of the fish farm and its etc.). equipment. (b) To draw attention to all essential information for ensur- Location, operation and maintenance of marking ing safety of persons,and safety and integrity of the fish devices(e.g.lights,buoys,etc.). farm. • (c) To provide a concise and non-ambiguous ready refer- Procedures and measures to be taken, if any, in ence, supplying an overall index to the available extreme storm conditions or other emergency(e.g.fail- information on the fish farm. ure of a mooring line). (d) To provide guidance and instruction for necessary actions relating to overall aspects of the fish farm's safe References including any statutory documents relating operation. to the fish farm. • 1.3 Outline of content 1.3.2 The manual should be updated if necessary. 1.3.1 Information should be provided in a form readily • understood by operating personnel and include,where aplica- ble,the following subjects: Geographical location of the fixed site(s)or defined • limited area atlin which the fish farm operates. Environmental and seabed conditions at the site(s). General description of the fish farm and its facilities. Objectives of the Manual. • Maintenance requirements including removal of debris and cleaning of marine growth. Inspection routines including items to be inspected, frequency and any requirements for underwater inspec- tions by diver. Net changing and repair procedures. • Limiting environmental criteria and operating loading conditions, including maximum permitted marine growth and ice or snow accretion. Towing and mooring procedures. • Installing the mooring system. Holding ground/sea bed conditions,anchor or anchor weight positions and required pre-loading. Mooring lines,length,diameters,connections,required pre-tension and maximum permitted tension. • Lloyd's Register of S?u77.ng 18 • • 1114 S Ava24.6stigr. • PROVISIONAL RULES AND REGULATIONS • FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF • FISH FARMS • Part 2 Design Aspects - 1992 • - o� • Provisional Rules for Fish Farms Chapter Contents Part 2 • CHAPTER 1 MATERIALS 2 LOADS AND MOTIONS 3 SITE INVESTIGATION • • • • • • • • Lk, s�e: • Provisional Rules for Fish Farms Contents Part 2 • CHAPTER 1 MATERIALS Section 1 Conditions for manufacture,survey and certification 1.1 Scope • CHAPTER 2 LOADS AND MOTIONS Section 1 Motions and structural design loadings 1.1 General 1.2 Wind speed 1.3 Wind force • 1.4 Wave loadings 1.5 Orientation and wave direction 1.6 Current loadings 1.7 Ice loads 1.8 Gravity loads 1.9 Hydrostatic pressure 1.10 Mooring forces • 1.11 Buoyancy forces 1.12 Work boats 1.13 Installation forces Section 2 Guidance notes on the calculation of forces 2.1 General • 2.2 Drag and inertia loading 2.3 Current velocity 2.4 Wave impact loads CHAPTER 3 SITE INVESTIGATION • Section 1 General 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Definitions 1.3 Locational accuracy Section 2 Environmental factors 2.1 General • 2.2 Values for environmental investigation 2.3 Environmental factors to be considered Section 3 Seabed survey 3.1 General 3.2 Extent of survey investigation 3.3 Methods of investigation • Section 4 Guidance Notes for soil samples 4.1 General 4.2 Seabed survey methods • • ucvd's Reis.e.�«_:� • Provisional Rules for Fish Farms Materials Part 2, Chapter 1 Section 1 • Section 1 Conditions for manufacture,survey and certification SECTION 1 • Conditions for manufacture,survey and certification 1.1 Scope 1.1.1 Materials used for the construction or repair of the structure of fish farms which are approved,classed or are intended for classification by LR are to be manufactured, • tested and inspected in accordance with LR's Rules for the Manufacture, Testing and Certification of Materials. 1.1.2 Materials for which provision is not made therein may be accepted provided they comply with an approved specification and with such tests as may be considered necessary. • 1.1.3 The requirements for anchors, stud link chain cable,short link chain cable and steel wire ropes are given in LR's Rules for the Manufacture, Testing and Certification of Materials. • • • • • Lloyd's Register of Shipping • Provisional Rules for Fish Farms Loads and Motions Part 2, Chapter 2 Section 1 • Section 1 Motions and structural design loadings 2 Guidance notes on the calculation of forces SECTION 1 Table 2.1.1 Values of coefficient Cs • Motions and structural design loadings Shape Cs 1.1 General Spherical 0,40 1.1.1 A fish farm's modes of operation are to be inves- Cylindrical 0,50 tigated using realistic loading conditions,including buoyancy Large flat surface 1,20 and gravity loadings together with relevant environmental Sm��opes 1'40 • loadings due to the effect of wind,waves,currents,motions Isolated parts (cranes,beams,etc.) 1,50 (inertia),moorings,ice,temperature,fouling,etc.Where appli- cable,the design loadings indicated herein are to be adhered Shapes or combinations of shapes which do riot readily to for all types of fish farms.The Owner(designer)is to specify fall into the specified categories will be subject to special the environmental conditions for which the fish farm is to be consideration. approved.When the fish farm structure is to be approved for a particular site(s)then the specified environmental conditions are to be at least as onerous as those at the proposed site(s). • See Chapter 3.Consideration of environmental criteria for the 1.3.2 The wind forces may be assessed on the basis of approval of the fish farm mooring systems are to comply with reliable wind tunnel tests. the requirements of Pt 3,Ch 4. 1.1.2 In determining environmental forces it is to be 1.4 Wave loadings assumed that the defined limiting environment of wind,waves and current will act concurrently and in the same direction. 1.4.1 Design wave criteria specified by the Owner However See Pt 3,Ch 4,2.2.1. (designer)may be described either by means of design wave • energy spectra or deterministic design waves having appropri- ate shape,size and period. Consideration is to be given to 1.2 Wind Speed waves of less than maximum height where due to their period, the effects on various structural elements may be greater. 1.2.1 Consideration is to be given to both sustained wind velocities and gust velocities when determining wind 1.4.2 The forces produced by the action of waves on loadings.The one minute mean wind speed is to be used the fish farm are to be taken into account in the structural • when calculating wind forces to be associated with the maxi- design, with regard to forces produced directly on the mum wave and/or current forces. immersed elements of the fish farm including the netting form- ing the fish cages.Forces resulting from accelerations due to 1.2.2 Wind speeds are to be specified relative to a its motion are also to be taken into account.Theories used for standard reference height usually taken to be 10m above sea the calculation of wave forces and selection of relevant level.Unless large parts of the fish farm structure are unusually coefficients are to be acceptable to LR. high then variation of windspeed with height may be ignored. 1.4.3 The effects of marine growth on the dimensions O and surface characteristics of submerged elements of the fish 1.3 Wind force farm structure including the netting forming the fish cages are to be considered when calculating the total wave forces. 1.3.1 Wind force is to be calculated for each part of the structure and is not to be taken less than: 1.4.4 The wave forces may be assessed from tests on a representative model of the fish farm by a recognized labo- F = KAV2 Cs Ch ratory. where • F = net force acting on any element or part of the 1.4.5 When using acceptable wave theories for wave structure.This includes the effect of any suction on force determination,reliable values of Co and C,,,as given in back surfaces Table 2.1.2 which have been obtained experimentally for use K = 0,613 for SI units in conjunction with the specific wave theory are to be used. = 0,0625 for metric units Otherwise published data may be used. A = the projected area of all exposed surfaces, V = the wind velocity 1.4.6 Consideration is to be given to the possibility of . Cs = the shape coefficient as given in Table 1.1.1 wave impact and wave induced vibration in the structure. Ch = the height coefficient = 1,(height<_15m) All units are to be of a consistent system. • Lloyd's Register of Shipping • Provisional Rules for Fish Farms Loads and Motions Part 2, Chapter 2 Sections 1 &2 • 1.11 Buoyancy forces SECTION 2 Guidance notes on the calculation of forces 1.11.1 Buoyancy forces on all underwater parts of the structure taking account of heel and trim when appropriate are 2.1 General to be considered. Loads on members due to the change in buoyancy which occurs with the passing of a wave are also to 2.1.1 This section is intended as general guidance and be considered.Provision of free flooding is not to be automat- is not a part of classification requirements. • ically considered to alleviate this effect. 2.1.2 The following method may be used for load esti- mation: 1.12 Work Boats (a) Morison's equation,see 2.2.1,may be used to deter- mine wave and current loading on structural members 1.12.1 If supply and workboats or other vessels are to be with dimensions less than 0,2 of the wave length. moored to the fish farm then the forces of the moored boat (b) Overall loading on a fish farm is determined from the are to be assessed and taken into account. summation of loads on individual elements at a particu- lar time.The proper values of CD and Cm for individual 1.12.2 Where supply and workboats or other vessels are members to use with Morison's equation will depend on required to berth or manoeuvre alongside the structure of the a number of variables for example,Reynolds Number, fish farm the effects of impact are to be considered on the Keulegan-Carpenter number,inclination of the member adjacent structure of the fish farm.If necessary,suitable fend- to local flow and effective roughness of marine ering is to be fitted to protect the structure. growth.Therefore,fixed values for all conditions cannot be given.Typical values for circular cylindrical members will range from 0,6 to 1,4 for CD and 1,3 to 2,0 for Cm. 1.13 Installation forces The values selected are to be not less than the lower limits of these ranges.For inclined members the drag 1.13.1 Installation lifts and towing forces are to be forces in Morison's equation are to be calculated using considered.Lifting or towing eyes and support structure are to the normal component of the resultant velocity vector. be designed on the basis of a safety factor of at least two on (c) The values of CD and Cm shown in 2.1.1 (b)may only be static weight and first order drag forces. used for calculating the overall loading for the extreme design wave when the calculations include the assump- • tion that: () The design wave is long crested. (ii) The motions are calculated by normal wave theo- ries. (iii) No shielding effects on the structure are included. (v) The particle velocities due to extreme indepen- dent values of wave and current are combined, unless otherwise agreed. If joint probability • predictions of wave and current are included in the design procedure or if the conservatism is reduced in any part,consideration is to be given to increasing the drag coefficient associated with hard marine growth.Where local loading governs, the force coefficients are to be specially consid- ered. 41 2.2 Drag and inertia loading 2.2.1 The forces on members or elements in the drag/inertia loading regime due to wave and current motions can be calculated by the equation: • Cp 0,5p Aulul+C,,,p v u where F = force per unit length of member Co = drag coefficient p = water density A = projected area of member per unit length u = component of the water particle velocity at the axis of the member and normal to it(calculated as if the • member were not there) lul = modulus of u Cm = inertia coefficient v = volume of member per unit length = component of the water particle acceleration at the axis of the member and normal to it(calculated as if the member was not there). • Lloyd's Recste-of • Provisional Rules for the Classification of Fish Farms Site investigation Part 2, Chapter 3 Section 1 • Section 1 General 2 Environmental factors 3 Seabed survey • 4 Guidance Notes SECTION 1 1.3 Locational accuracy General 1.3.1 Accuracy of the location and delineation of the area to be investigated is to be dependent upon: • 1.1 Introduction (a) The complexity of the fish farm. (b) The complexity,spread and level of redundancy in the 1.1.1 A fish farm will only be assigned and maintain mooring system. class in the Register of Fish Farms provided it is installed with (c) Quantity and reliability of the environmental data. an approved mooring system(see Pt 3,Ch 4)at a fixed site or (d) The location and orientation of the fish farm and its within a defined limited operating area. Pt 1,Ch 2,1 defines moorings with respect to land masses which provide the requirements for Stage 2 approval,the site investigation. shelter and limit fetch at the site. This is an assessment of environmental and seabed condi- (e) Variation in water depth and seabed soil conditions in • tions which are to be carried out prior to the design of the the vicinity of the site. mooring system and subsequent installation of the fish farm. (1) The proximity of the site to hazards (e.g. seabed obstructions,reefs,fairways,tidal races etc.). 1.1.2 The environmental criteria at the fixed site or defined limited operating area are not to exceed the design 1.3.2 The position and orientation of the fish farm and operational limiting criteria of the fish farm and its permanent its mooring system at the selected site is to be properly mooring system.Details of site or area environmental condi- related to the location of the site investigation. • tions are to be contained in the Operations Manual. 1.1.3 If the Owner wishes to maintain class of a fish farm which is to be moved to a new site or limited operating area then Stage 2 approval is to be reapplied for and the requirements complied with as applicable,see Pt 1,Ch 2,3.9. • 1.2 Definitions 1.2.1 A fixed site is a single defined geographical posi- tion at which the fish farm will be permanently moored. 1.2.2 A defined limited operating area(DLOA)is a small geographical area or a limited number of fixed sites in or at which the fish farm is to be moored.The geographical size of ID the area will depend on individual circumstances, however environmental and seabed conditions throughout an area are to be substantially the same.Approval of the fish farm and mooring system will assume the least favourable position within the area. 1.2.3 For simplicity the Rules have been written in terms of'a site'.All following references in the Rules to'a site' • are applicable to both a fixed site and DLOA unless specifically written otherwise. • • 7 Los-3,Pec< :c.._77,-7 • • Provisional Rules for Fish Farms Site investigation Part 2, Chapter 3 Sections 3&4 • SECTION 3 SECTION 4 Seabed Survey Guidance notes for soil samples 4.1 General 3.1 General 4.1.1 This section is intended as general guidance and 3.1.1 In order to design the permanent mooring is not a part of classification requirements. system the seabed conditions at the proposed site are to be • sufficiently investigated in area,depth and detail.The size and complexity of the proposed fish farm and its mooring,the 4.2 Seabed survey methods location,water depth and the anticipated seabed soil condi- tions to be encountered at the site should be considered in 4.2.1 Colour of seabed soil samples may be defined determining the extent of the survey. using the limited editions of the Munsell colour standard. 3.12 Full particulars of the seabed survey of the site 4.2.2 When describing seabed soil samples the • are to be submitted with sufficient supporting information to existence of joints,fissures,stratification change,laminations, demonstrate their validity. organic fragments,erratics,shells,grain sizes of sand etc.and odours due to gas or organic material should be recorded. 3.2 Extent of survey investigation 4.2.3 A written description of the hardness of the sample should be made at the time of its recovery,based on 3.2.1 The following information should be provided by its resistance to sampling.Simple tests to determine the shear the seabed survey: strength of cohesive soils are given in Table 3.4.1. • (a) Seabed topography. (b) Surface deposits and rock outcrops. 4.2.4 Whenever possible consistent estimation of shear (c) Variations in subgrade conditions. strength in cohesive soils should be made by the pocket (d) Stability of sloping seabeds. penetrometer or miniature vane test. (e) Seabed erosion, deposition and rates of mass trans- portation due to wave and current action. (f) Natural eruption and erosion of the seabed due to emis- Table 3.4.1 Undrained(immediate)shear strength of sions of gas,fresh water springs etc. cohesive soils • (g) Location of power cables,pipelines,existing moorings or other obstructions. Undrained Consistency Field indications (immediate)shear strength(kN/m2) 3.3 Methods of investigation Very stiff Can be indented by Greater than 150 3.3.1 Water depth in the vicinity of the site is to be tnail determined using an echo sounder or other appropriate Stier Canumb nnot be moulded 75 to 150 • in the fingers method and subsequently corrected for tidal variation.The Firm Can be moulded in the 40 to 75 number and spacing of survey lines should be appropriate to fingers by strong pressure the site characteristics and the complexity of the fish farm and Soft Easily moulded in the 20 to 40 permanent mooring. fingers Very soft Exudes between the Less than 20 3.3.2 The composition of the seabed surface is to be fingers when squeezed determined by obtaining soil samples.These samples may be • obtained with a gravity drop sampler, 'vibrocore'or equivalent system and,where practicable,should penetrate at least one metre into the seabed.An accurate and detailed description of the samples is to be obtained immediately on recovering it because of changes in colour, structure and physical behaviour of seabed soils once they are brought to the surface.See Section 4. • 3.3.3 Consideration should be given to an investigation of the seabed by diver survey immediately prior to installation of the fish farm and permanent mooring system. • • Lloyd's Register of Shipping 0 • • • me-s_4m-gr • PROVISIONAL RULES AND REGULATIONS • FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF • FISH FARMS • Part 3 Structural and Mooring Aspects • 1992 • • Anp 24. • tiD• • Provisional Rules for Fish Farms Chapter Contents Part 3 • CHAPTER 1 GENERAL CHAPTER 2 STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND ANALYSIS • CHAPTER 3 WELDING CHAPTER 4 MOORING SYSTEMS • • • • • • • • • • Provisional Rules for Fish Farms Contents Part 3 • CHAPTER 1 GENERAL Section 1 Rule application 1.1 General • 1.2 Exceptions Section 2 Structural plans and data 2.1 General 2.2 Specifications 2.3 Plans to be submitted 2.4 Calculations and data • 2.5 Operations Manual Section 3 Materials 3.1 General Section 4 Corrosion protection 4.1 General • Section 5 Acceptance testing on completion 5.1 Pressure testing 5.2 Leak testing CHAPTER 2 STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND ANALYSIS • Section 1 Structural design 1.1 General 1.2 Damaged conditions Section 2 Structural analysis 2.1 General • 2.2 Primary structure 2.3 Connections and details of primary structure 2.4 Stress concentration Section 3 Permissible stresses 3.1 General • Section 4 Local strength and details 4.1 General Section 5 Nets and associated ropework 5.1 General Section 6 Navigational and safety equipment 6.1 General 62 Safety of navigation 6.3 Safety equipment • • Lloyd's Register of Sh:vs�g • Provisional Rules for Fish Farms Chapter Contents Pan 3 • CHAPTER 3 WELDING Section 1 General 1.1 Application 12 Plans to be submitted • Section 2 Weld Types 2.1 Butt welds 2.2 Lap connections 2.3 Closing plates 2.4 Stud welding 2.5 Fillet welds • Section 3 Welding operation 3.1 Defined practices and welding sequence Section 4 Materials 4.1 Welding of steels 4.2 Welding of aluminium alloys • Section 5 Consumables 5.1 General Section 6 Procedures and workmanship 6.1 Procedures 6.2 Workmanship • Section 7 Inspection of welds 7.1 General CHAPTER 4 MOORING SYSTEMS • Section 1 General 1.1 Application 12 Definitions 1.3 Plans and data submission Section 2 Environmental criteria,forces and motions 2.1 Limiting environmental criteria • 2.2 Environmental forces Section 3 Mooring system-design and analysis 3.1 General 3.2 Factor of safety Section 4 Anchors 4.1 General • Section 5 Gravity anchorages 5.1 Scope 5.2 Materials 5.3 Testing 5.4 Identification • Section 6 Other mooring equipment 6.1 Fairleads,stoppers and terminals 6.2 Anchor or mooring lines 6.3 Anchor winches and windlasses • Lloyd's Rer sten of ShicaEnp • Provisional Rules for Fish Farms General Part 3, Chapter 1 Sections 1 &2 • Section 1 Rule Application 2 Structural plans and data 3 Materials • 4 Corrosion protection 5 Acceptance testing on completion SECTION 1 SECTION 2 Rule application Structural plans and data • 1.1 General 2.1 General 1.1.1 The Rules in this Part specify the fish farm struc- 2.1.1 Sufficient plans and data are to be submitted to ture, design and manufacturing requirements for Stage 1 enable the design to be assessed and approved.The plans Approval.They apply in general to fish farms constructed of are also to be suitable for use during construction,survey and rigid,semi-rigid(articulated)or flexible collars and supporting maintenance of the fish farm. • one or more netting cages.See also Pt 1,Ch 2, 1.1.2. 2.1.2 Plans are generally to be submitted in triplicate, 1.2 Exceptions ut only one copy of calculations, supporting data and P specifications will be required. 1.2.1 Fish farms of more complex or novel configura- tion will receive individual consideration based upon the 2.2 Specifications general standards of the Provisional Rules and Regulations for • the Classification of Fish Farms and where appropriate the 2.2.1 Adequate design specifications,appropriate in requirements of the Rules and Regulations for the detail to the approval required,are to be submitted for infor- Classification of Ships and the Rules and Regulations for the mation of the Surveyors. Classification of Mobile Offshore Units.The Rules are intended to ensure good engineering practice in the design,manufac- 2.2.2 Specifications for the design and construction of ture and operation of fish farms and do'not cover the the fish farm are to be submitted.Included in these are to be biological or environmental aspects of aquaculture. materials, grades/standards, consumables, construction • procedures and modes of operation with applicable limiting environmental criteria. 2.3 Plans to be submitted 2.3.1 Plans and data covering the following items are to be submitted for approval,as relevant: • Flexible booms/hoses, Walkways or other deck structures, Erection sequence, Floats, Hinges or other connections between adjacent elements, Main frame,bracing and associated primary • structure, Materials, Nets and associated ropes,fittings and weights, Penetrations and attachments to primary structure,(frame,pontoon,hose etc.), Pontoons, Quality control and non-destructive testing • procedures, Permanent superstructures and deckhouses, Support structures for cranes,masts,derrick post and heavy equipment, Tanks or hoppers and their supporting structure. Permanent mooring equipment, Towing arrangements, • Watertight sub-division, Lloyd's Register of Shipping • Provisional Rules for Fish Farms General Part 3, Chapter 1 Sections 4&5 • SECTION 4 SECTION 5 Corrosion Protection Acceptance testing on completion 4.1 General 5.1 Pressure testing 4.1.1 Where applicable, appropriate corrosion protec- 5.1.1 All pontoons, floats, booms,hoses, and water- • tion(such as galvanizing and/or sacrificial anodes)are to be tight main frame elements or compartments are to be provided. subjected to a 2,4m pressure head using water, or alterna- tively,a combination of water and air. 4.1.2 Where no corrosion protection is provided,or the corrosion protection is considered by LR to be inadequate, 5.1.2 My item not subjected to a complete water pres- then the scantlings are to be increased to compensate. sure test is to be leak tested in accordance with 5.2.1. 5.1.3 When a preservative coating is to be applied to t the structure of a pontoon,float,boom,hose or main frame, the water testing may take place after the application of the preservative,provided that the structure is carefully examined to ensure that all welding and structural stiffening is completed prior to the application of the coating,excluding prefabrication primers.The cause of any discoloration or disturbance of the coating is to be ascertained,and any deficiencies repaired. • 52 Leak testing 5.2.1 A leak test is carried out by applying a soapy water solution to the pontoon, float, boom, hose or main frame boundaries while subjecting it to an air pressure of 0,14 bar(0,14 kgf/cm2).It is recommended that the air pressure is • raised to 0,21 bar(021 kgf/cm2),with a minimum number of personnel in the vicinity and then lowered to the test pressure prior to inspection.Arrangements,to the Surveyort satisfac- tion, are to be provided to ensure that this limit is not • exceeded. 5.2.2 Leak testing is normally to be carried out before a protective coating is applied.However,subject to inspection 40 by the Surveyora, a complete protective coating may be applied prior to leak testing,except internally in way of welds made by processes other than automatic. • • • • Lloyd's Register of Shipping • • Provisional Rules for Fish Farms Structural Design and Analysis Part 3, Chapter 2 Sections 1 &2 • Section 1 Structural design 2 Structural analysis 3 Permissible stresses • 4 Local strength and details 5 Nets and associated ropework 6 Navigational and safety equipment • SECTION 1 SECTION 2 Structural design Structural analysis 1.1 General 2.1 General 1.1.1 The fish farm structure and its individual elements 2.1.1 The primary structure of the fish farm is to be is to be designed to withstand the static and dynamic loads analysed and the resultant stresses determined.The loading imposed upon it in all modes of operation.All relevant distribu- combinations considered are to represent all modes of oper- tions of loads specified in Pt 2,Ch 2 are to be considered,as ation so that the critical design cases are established. are stresses due to the overall and local effects. 2.1.2 Environmental criteria and wave heights up to the 1.1.2 The allowable stress levels and minimum scant- specified maxima, for all operating conditions are to be lings of the fish farm are to comply with the requirements of considered. Section 3. • 2.2 Primary structure 1.2 Damaged conditions 2.2.1 Local stresses,including those due to circumfer- 1.2.1 Al structure forming an inner or outer boundary of ential loading on tubular members,are to be added to the watertight subdivision is to have adequate strength to with- primary stresses to determine total stress levels. stand pressure heads which may be experienced in possible damaged conditions which the fish farm is required to survive. 2.2.2 The scantlings are to be determined on the basis • The factors of safety may be specially considered by LR when of criteria which combine,in a rational manner,the individual considering the overall strength of the fish farm in the stress components acting on the various structural elements damaged condition. of the fish farm. 2.2.3 The critical buckling stress of structural elements is to be considered, where appropriate, in relation to the computed stresses. • 2.2.4 When computing bending stresses,the effective flange areas are to be determined in accordance with'effec- tive width'concepts,derived from accepted shear lag theories and plate buckling considerations. 2.2.5 When computing shear stresses in plate girder webs or pontoon/frame side plating,only the effective shear e area of the web is to be considered.In this regard,the total depth of the girder may be considered as the web depth. 2.2.6 Members of lattice type structures should be designed in accordance with accepted practice. 2.2.7 If,because of the characteristics of the fish farm and the dynamic environmental loading for which it is • designed, rigid elements of the structure are exposed to excessive and continuous flexing,LR may require an assess- ment of the fatigue strength/life of all or some of the structural elements and components. • 5 • Provisional Rules for Fish Farms Structural Design and Analysis Part 3, Chapter 2 Sections 4&5 • SECTION 4 SECTION 5 Local strength and details Nets and associated rope work 4.1 General 5.1 General 4.1.1 The designer is to be able to show, if required, 5.1.1 All fish,ceiling,jump and predator nets and asso- that local strength requirements have been considered and dated supporting and reinforcing ropework are to be that minor components are fit for the purpose for which they manufactured to an appropriate National Standard. are specified. 5.1.2 The loading on the net is to be analysed and resultant stresses and strains determined.The resultant strain- ing of the nets and associated ropework should not be so great as to permit distortion of the nets to the extent that the ability of the net to function as intended is lost. • 5.1.3 Reaction forces at supporting points should be evenly distributed through the net to prevent local stress concentrations. The design is to take account of sudden shock loadings on the net due to heave of the supporting frame,boom or hose. • • • • • • Lloyd's Register of S'^_ irig • Provisional Rules for Fish Farms Welding Part 3, Chapter 3 Sections 1 &2 • Section 1 General 2 Weld types 3 Welding operation • 4 Materials 5 Consumables 6 Procedures and workmanship 7 Inspection of welds • SECTION 1 SECTION 2 General Weld types 2.1 Butt welds 1.1 Application 2.1.1 Abrupt change of section is to be avoided where • 1.1.1 This Chapter is applicable to all elements and plates of different thicknesses are to be butt welded.Where components of fish farms constructed principally of steel or the difference in thicknesses exceeds 3 mm,the thicker plate aluminium. It is also applicable, where appropriate,to steel to be welded is to be prepared with a taper not exceeding 1 and aluminium components of fish farms constructed princi- in 3 or with a bevelled edge to form a welded joint propor- pally of other materials. tioned correspondingly.Where the difference in thickness is less than 3 mm the transition may be achieved within the 1.1.2 Requirements are given in this Chapter for weld- width of the weld. Difference in thickness greater than 3 mm • ing connection details, defined practices and sequences, may be accepted provided it can be proven by the Builder, consumables and equipment,procedures,workmanship and through procedure tests,that the Rule transition shape can be inspection. achieved and that the weld profile is such that structural conti- nuity is maintained to the Surveyor's satisfaction. 1.2 Plans to be submitted 2.1.2 Where stiffening members are attached by continuous fillet welds and cross completely finished butt or 1.2.1 The plans to be submitted for approval are to indicate seam welds,these welds are to be made flush in way of the • clearly details of the welded connections of main structural faying surface. Similarly, for butt welds in webs of stiffening members,including the type and size of welds.This require- members,the butt weld is to be completed and generally ment includes welded connections to steel castings.The made flush with the stiffening member before the fillet weld is information to be submitted should include the following: made.The ends of the flush portion are to run out smoothly (a) Whether weld sizes given are throat thicknesses or leg without notches or sudden change of section.Where these lengths. conditions cannot be complied with, a scallop is to be (b) Grades and thicknesses of materials to be welded. arranged in the web of the stiffening member.Scallops are to (c) Location, types of joints and angles of abutting be of such size and in such a position,that a satisfactory weld members. can be made. (d) Reference to welding procedures to be used. (e) Sequence of welding of assemblies and joining up of assemblies.(See 3.1.3). 2.2 Lap connections 2.2.1 Overlaps are generally not to be used to connect plates which may be subjected to high tensile or compressive i loading and alternative arrangements are to be considered. Where,however,plate overlaps are adopted,the width of the overlap is not to exceed 4 times nor be less than 3 times the thickness of the thinner plate and the joints are to be posi- tioned as to allow adequate access for completion of sound welds.The faying surfaces of lap joints are to be in close contact and both edges are to have continuous fillet welds. • • 9 IIIProvisional Rules for Fish Farms Welding Part 3, Chapter 3 Sections 2&3 • Table 3.2.1 Throat thickness limits SECTION 3 Welding operation Throat thickness, Item in mm 3.1 Defined practices and welding sequence Min. Max. (1) Double continuous welding 0214 0,444, 3.1.1 Structural arrangements are to be such as will allow adequate ventilation and access for preheating,where • (2) Intermittent welding 0.274, 0.444, required,and for the satisfactory completion of all welding or 4,5 operations.Welded joints are to be so arranged as to facilitate the use of downhand welding wherever possible. (3) All welds,overriding minimum: (a)Plate thickness t,s 7.5 mm 3.1.2 The type and disposition of connections and Hand or automatic welding 3,0 - sequences of welding are to be so planned that any restraint Automatic deep during welding operations is reduced to a minimum. penetration welding 3,0 - • (b)Plate thickness t,>7.5 mm 3.1.3 The proposed sequence of welding is to be Hand or automatic welding 3.25 - agreed with the Surveyor prior to construction. Automatic deep penetration welding 3,0 - 3.1.4 Special attention is to be given to the examination of plating in way of all lifting eye plate positions to ensure free- NOTES dom from cracks and laminations.This examination is not 1. In all cases,the limiting value is to be taken as the greatest of restricted to positions where eye plates have been removed the applicable values given above. but includes the positions where lifting eye plates are perma- • 2. Where t,exceeds 25 mm.the limiting values may be calcu lated using a notional thickness equal to 0.5(4,+25)mm. Hent fixtures. 3. The maximum throat thicknesses shown are intended only as a design limit for the approval of fillet welded joints.Any weld 3.1.5 Careful consideration is to be given to assembly ing excess of these limits is to be to the Surveyor's satisfac sequence and overall shrinkage of plate panels,assemblies tion. etc.,resulting from welding processes employed.Welding is to proceed systematically with each welded joint being completed in correct sequence without undue interruption. • 2.5.5 Continuous welding is to be adopted in the Where practicable,welding is to commence at the centre of a following locations,and may be used elsewhere if desired: joint and proceed outwards or at the centre of an assembly (a) Boundaries of weathertight decks, platforms or erec- and progress outwards towards the perimeter so that each tions,and openings therein. part has freedom to move in one or more directions.Generally, (b) Boundaries of pontoons and all other weathertight the welding of stiffener members including transverses, compartments. frames, girders,etc.,to welded plate panels by automatic (c) Other connections or attachments, where considered processes should be carried out in such a way as to minimize necessary, (e.g. in way of hinges between adjacent angular distortion of the stiffener. II articulated elements). (d) Welds where higher tensile steel is used including 3.1.6 Consumables for tack welding should be of the attachment of minor fittings to higher tensile steel. same grade as those used for the main weld.Generally,tack welds are not to be applied in lengths of less than 30 mm for 2.5.6 Where intermittent welding is used,the welding is mild steel grades and 50 mm for higher tensile steel grades. to be made continuous in way of brackets,lugs and scallops Care should be taken to ensure that tack welds,which are to and at the orthogonal connections with other members. be retained as part of the finished weld, are clean and free from defects before being incorporated.Where tack welds are III to be removed,the Surveyors are to ensure that the methods adopted to remove them will not damage the material of the structure. 3.1.7 Precautions are to be taken to screen and prewarm as necessary the general and local weld areas. Surfaces are to be dry and rapid cooling of welded joints is to S be prevented. Special attention is to be paid to preheating when low hydrogen electrodes are used for higher tensile steels on thick materials under high restraint or when applying small weld beads. 3.1.8 Where prefabrication primers are applied over areas which will be subsequently welded,they are to be of a quality accepted by LR,as having no significant deleterious • effect on the finished weld. • Lloyd's Register of Shipping ,- • Provisional Rules for Fish Farms Welding Part 3, Chapter 3 Sections 5 8 6 • SECTION 5 SECTION 6 Consumables Procedures and workmanship 5.1 General 6.1 Procedures 5.1.1 Special care is to be taken in the distribution, 6.1.1 Procedures are to be established for the welding storage and handling of all welding consumables.Aluminium of all joints including the type of consumables,joint prepara- filler metals should be kept in a heated dry storage area with tion and welding position. New procedures will be approved a relatively uniform temperature. Condensation on the metal on the basis of a detailed statement of the procedure and surface during storage and use should be avoided. Flux process parameters together with the results of examination coated electrodes and submerged arc fluxes,are to be stored and testing carried out on sample joints in the presence of under controlled conditions.Other welding consumables such LR's Surveyors.For this purpose,the sample joints are to be as bare wire and welding studs are to be stored under dry prepared under conditions similar to those which will occur conditions to prevent rusting.Effective facilities for protecting during construction of the fish farm. consumables are to be provided close to working areas. • 6.1.2 Welding plant and appliances are to be main- 5.1.2 The type and diameter of electrode or wire,the tained in an efficient condition. current,voltage,rate of deposit and number of runs,etc.,are to conform to those established in accordance with 6.1.1 Provision is to be made for checking the above parameters at 6.2 Workmanship the welding area. 6.2.1 The responsibility for selection,training and test- ing of welding operators rests with the Builders.The Builders • are to test welding operators to a suitable National Standard. Records of tests and qualifications are to be kept by the Builders and made available to the Surveyors so that they can be satisfied that the personnel employed in fish farm construc- tion can achieve the required standard of workmanship. 6.2.2 A sufficient number of skilled supervisors is to be • provided to ensure an effective and systematic control at all stages of welding operations. 6.2.3 Where structural components are to be assem- bled and welded in works subcontracted by Builders, the Surveyors are to inspect the subcontractor's works to ensure that compliance with the requirements of this Chapter can be achieved. 6.2.4 The quality and workmanship of welding of all fittings and attachments to main structure, both permanent and temporary, are to be equivalent to those of the main element structure.Special care is to be taken when removing attachments such as lifting eyeplates and lugs of various types which have been used to maintain alignment of structure during welding operations.When complete removal of these • attachments is required,it is recommended they be burned off at the top of the fillet weld connections and the remainder chipped and ground smooth.However,alternative methods of removing these attachments will be considered.Any defects in the fish farm's structure caused by this operation are to be prepared,efficiently welded and ground smooth so as to have a defect free repair. • 6.2.5 All joints are to be prepared,aligned and adjusted in accordance with the established joint design. Excessive force is not to be used in fairing and closing the work. Provision is to be made for retaining correct alignment during welding operations. Clamps with wedges or strong-backs used for this purpose are to be suitably arranged to allow free- dom of lateral movement between adjacent elements. • • Lloyd's Register of Shipping • Provisional Rules for Fish Farms Mooring Systems Part 3, Chapter 4 Section 1 S Section 1 General 2 Environmental criteria,forces and motions 3 Mooring system—design and analysis • 4 Anchors 5 Gravity anchorages 6 Other mooring equipment • SECTION 1 1.3.2 Plans and data dealing with mooring arrange- General ments and the associated equipment are to be submitted, including the following,where applicable: 1.1 Application (a) Mooring arrangements;to include mooring patterns and details of anchor/mooring lines and fittings etc. 1.1.1 This Part specifies mooring design and manufac- (b) Mooring equipment: turing requirements and standards for Stage 3 approval. Anchors • Fairleads 1.12 The mooring system will be considered for Stage Terminals 3 approval on the basis of environmental and seabed condi- Buoys tions as defined in the Stage 2 approval,operating constraints Weights at the proposed site(s)and procedures specified by the Owner Wires/ropes and recorded in the Operations Manual. Floats (c) Winches or windlasses: 1.1.3 Additional requirements may be imposed by the Gearing • administration of the coastal state(s)with territorial jurisdiction Shafting over the waters in which it is intended to operate the fish farm. Brake systems Ratchet and pawl Drum/cable lifter 1.2 Definitions Frame 1.2.1 Permanent mooring.The fish farm is perma- 1.3.3 The following supporting plans,data,calculations nently located by means of one or more anchors or mooring or documents are to be submitted: • lines and the mooring may consist of: (a) General arrangement:to show plan views,side eleva- Anchors or anchor weights tions and end elevations of the fish farm. Anchor/mooring lines (b) Environmental forces on fish farm:wind,current and Anchor/mooring line fittings: wave drift.To include verification by direct calculation, shackles model test reports,or full-scale data,etc. connecting links (c) Motions of fish farms:First order wave motions,surge, fibre or wire rope terminations sway and yaw. Tank test data or equivalent to be li quick-release devices provided. weights (d) Mooring analysis:To include computer print-out where floats etc. relevant. Fairleads (e) Strength calculations: Winches or windlasses Fairleads Chain or rope stoppers Winches/windlasses Buoys Cable stoppers Special fittings • Where applicable the structural or mechanical connection of these items to the fish farm structure is also considered to be part of the mooring system. 1.3 Plans and data submission 1.3.1 The information and plans specified in 1.3.2 and • 1.3.3 are to be submitted in triplicate. • 15 D _ • Provisional Rules for Fish Farms • Mooring Systems Part 3, Chapter 4 Sections 4&5 • SECTION 4 SECTION 5 Anchors Gravity anchorages 4.1 General 5.1 Scope 4.1.1 Anchors for permanent mooring are to be suffi- 5.1.1 Provision is made in this section for: cient in number and holding power,and are to have adequate (a) Cast steel blocks. • structural strength,for the intended service.The defined sea- (b) Solid concrete blocks with or without scrap iron and bed conditions are to be considered when calculating anchor st(c) Fabricated eel ixed istth thel aggregates. ate box type anchorages holding power. intended to be filled with sand,rock,suitable iron ore or 4.1.2 The anchors are to be of an approved type. other approved ballast. • 4.1.3 The anchors are to be manufactured in accor- 5.1.2 Piles and structures assembled on site are not dance with the requirements of Pt 2,Ch 1. covered in this Section,but will be specially considered on a • case by case basis. 4.1.4 The anchors are to be proof tested in the manner laid down in Pt 2,Ch 1.The level of proof test loading for posi- tional mooring anchors is to be the greater of the following: 5.2 Materials (a) 50 per cent of the minimum rated break strength of the intended attached anchor line,or 5.2.1 Steel,other than scrap mixed with aggregates in (b) the value given in Pt 2,Ch 1. solid concrete blocks,is to comply with the requirements of Pt 2,Ch 1. • 5.2.2 Concrete is to comply with a recognized stan- dard. 5.3 Testing • 5.3.1 When anchorages are both: (a) intended for use with lines having a total breaking strength of 500kN or less, (b) designed to withstand loads greater than the breaking loads of the attached mooring lines, they are to be proof loaded to their working load. 5.3.2 When anchorages are both: • (a) intended for use with lines having a total breaking strength exceeding 500kN, (b) designed to withstand loads greater than the breaking loads of the attached mooring lines, they may either be proof loaded to their design working load, if necessary after installation on site,or they may be subjected to alternative tests or procedures agreed with LR prior to the 41 anchorages being laid. 5.3.3 Where blocks or anchorages are attached to lines having breaking loads greater than the strength of the block or anchorage the proof loads to be applied will be specially considered. In general,simple blocks will be proof tested to twice their weight in salt water. • 5.3.4 Fittings and components of anchorages and blocks intended for the attachment of mooring lines,are to be proof tested,in so far as is practicable,in accordance with the requirements of Pt 2.Where such tests are not practicable proposals for alternative tests are to be submitted for approval. • 0 Lloyd's Recster c'S^.i^o:.-l¢ • • • • APPENDIX 14 • HYDRO QUAL, INC. • IMPACTS OF NITROGEN RELEASED FROM PROPOSED FINFISH AQUACULTURE PROJECT ON LONG ISLAND SOUND DISSOLVED OXYGEN LEVELS • • • • • • MRTI0010 Report 1 -Page 1 • 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 • The proposed Mariculture Technologies, Inc. Finfish Aquaculture Project includes a growout facility covering an area of 1 x 0.31 miles. Waste from this facility will include particulate and dissolved materials, including organic carbon, nitrogen and • phosphorus. Some of this material will settle to the sediments below the pens and will affect sediment nutrient cycling and sediment oxygen demand. Part of the material will be transported away from the site, either into Long Island Sound, towards Block Island and the Atlantic Ocean, or into the "fork" of Long Island, including Little and Great Peconic Bays (Figure 1). • The goal of this analysis is to estimate the farfield impact of nitrogen and organic carbon loadings from the fish pens on dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in Long Island Sound. The farfield effects can be evaluated with existing data and modeling tools, that is, a water quality model of Long Island Sound developed for the USEPA Long Island • Sound Study Office. In particular, impacts are estimated for two regions of the Sound: the "hot spot" in the Western Long Island Sound and Eastern Long Island Sound. The region chosen for study in the Eastern Sound is the vicinity of"Response Zone #10" of the Long Island Sound Water Quality Model (Figure 1). • This calculation does not provide a nearfield analysis, that is, an estimate of impacts in the immediate vicinity of the fish pens. This is because accurate estimates of the nearfield impact requires a full analysis of the effects of particulate material released from the pens on the metabolism of the benthic community and the subsequent impacts on the water column under the fish pens and adjacent to them. • The analysis was approached using the Long Island Sound Water Quality Model (LIS-3) in two ways: (1) by comparing estimated nitrogen and carbon loadings from the fish pens with loading estimates for Long Island Sound tributaries for which information on impacts is available, and (2) by estimating nitrogen concentrations throughout the • Sound that result from operation of the facility and then comparing those calculated values with values calculated by LIS-3 for existing conditions in the Sound. Nutrient Loading Calculation • The impacts of the nitrogen and organic carbon loadings from the proposed facility were calculated using results of LIS-3. The structure of LIS-3 permits estimation of the impacts of individual nutrient sources on the dissolved oxygen concentrations • HydroQual, Inc. • MRTI0010 Report 1 -Page 2 • throughout the Sound. The impact estimates reported below were computed using a spreadsheet that summarizes the results of existing model simulations; no water quality simulations were actually performed for this portion of the project. For the purposes of exploring the impacts of various sources, LIS-3 is divided • into 15 management zones. The proposed facility lies closest to Management Zone #1 (MZ#1), which includes the Thames River. Therefore, the impacts due to nutrient releases from the fish pens 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 provides a reasonable basis for comparison with the proposed • facility even though it is located on the north shore of the Sound, because of the high degree of mixing in the Sound. Nitrogen and carbon loads from the growout facility were calculated based on results of several years of experience with fish farming in Holland and Denmark (Olesen • 1996). It should be noted that for this analysis, a conservative approach was taken, whereby all of this waste material is assumed to be in a dissolved form, that is, none of the carbon and nitrogen loading settles and is lost from the system via burial in the sediment bed. For comparison, in general about 75-80% of the nitrogen discharged from Nordic fish farms is in dissolved form (Enell 1995). BOD loadings listed by Olesen • (1996) were converted to organic carbon using Equation 1: C = BOD _ 2.67 (1) in which: • C = organic carbon (mgC/L) BOD = biochemical oxygen demand (mgO2/L) 2.67 = the number of mgO2 per mg C. • Annual average nutrient loads were calculated based on the Phase VI conditions, with maximum proposed fish population size (Table 1). The nitrogen load from a typical Nordic fish farm has been reported to be 0.055kg N/kg fish produced (Enell 1995), compared with the nitrogen loadings used here (Olesen 1996): (7.48 X • 10-4 lb/kg fish-day)x(1 kg/2.2)x(210 day growing season) = 0.071 kg N/ kg fish. The C:N ratio of the estimated loads is 634=1713 = 0.37. This value is 1/16 of the C:N ratio that might be expected for biological material based on a long history of analyses of plankton and water column particulate material (the "Redfield ratio", approximately 6). However, it is reasonable to expect that the C:N ratio of waste • material should be smaller than that of the feed because of respiratory loss of carbon. To bound the potential impacts, two calculations were performed here: one with the reported N and C loads and one with the reported N loads and the C loads multiplied by • HydroQual, Inc. • MRTI0010 Report 1 -Page 3 • 16 to give the Redfield ratio in the waste material from the fish pens. The impacts due to carbon and nitrogen loads from the net pens on DO levels were calculated together. The LIS-3 model computes Sound water quality over an • annual cycle using hourly time steps, and therefore calculates DO values every hour. Annual minima of the 30-day moving averages of these hourly values are presented in Table 2. The impacts of nutrient loads on Long Island Sound DO levels were explored in two regions: the western basin (Response Zone (RZ) #2), which includes the "hot spot" • or the region of minimum DO in the western Sound, and the eastern basin (RZ#10), which includes the fish pens. The DO level was calculated for the critical model segment in each region, that is, the segment with the lowest DO level. Values were calculated for the 1988 and the 1989 calibration periods. • Rows (1) through (4) in Table 2 contain dissolved oxygen levels calculated under three conditions: Pastoral conditions represent an estimate assuming pre-Columbian nutrient loads (row (1)). The Enrichment loads are those derived from human activity (row (2)). Row (3) contains DO levels calculated using loads based on both current human activity and fish pens. Row (4) contains the same as row (3), with carbon loads • multiplied by 16. It is apparent that as more loads are added to the Sound, the average dissolved oxygen levels decline. The impact of human activity on DO levels was calculated by subtracting the Enrichment level from the Pastoral level (row (5)). Similarly, the impact of the fish pens on DO levels was calculated by subtracting each of the Pastoral+Enrichment+Fish pen values from the Pastoral+Enrichment value (rows • (6 and 7)). Finally, to estimate the impact of the fish pens relative to that of other human activities, the ratios of the Fish pen impacts/Enrichment impacts were calculated (rows (8 and 9)). The averages of the ratios for the two years of simulations are presented in rows (10 and 11). • In the critical segment in the vicinity of the "hot spot" (Response Zone #2), the fish pens are estimated to increase the impacts of human activities on the annual minimum 30-day average DO level by 0.18%, or 0.0054 mg/L. Using the alternative carbon load (16X the value reported by Olesen 1996), the impact of the fish pens is estimated to be 0.20%, or 0.0062 mg/L. Thus, the impact of nitrogen is greater than the impact of carbon. In the eastern portion of the Sound (Response Zone #10), the fish pens are estimated to increase the impacts of human activities by 0.60%, or 0.0043 mg/L (0.96%, or 0.0067 mg/L if the carbon loads are multiplied by 16). • • HydroQual, Inc. • • • • • • • • • • • MRTI0010 Report 1 -Page 4 Table 1. Nitrogen and Carbon Loads from the Growout Facility Parameter & description Nitrogen Carbon Units Basis Reference Load from aquaculture 7.48e-04 2.77e-04 lb/ Results achieved Olesen, 1996 kg fish-day in Holland and Denmark Weight of fish in the pens 2.29e4-06 kg Projected 2001 Cameron (Phase VI) annual Engineering, P.C. average 1996, Table 8E Annual average load from 1713 634 Ib/d Calculation the fish pens 1 I Q. 0 c a) 5 • MRTI0010 Report 1 -Page 5 • Table 2. Dissolved Oxygen Levels and Impacts of Fish Pen Operation in Two Critical Regions of the Long Island Sound Conditions Units Response Zone#2 Response Zone#10 • ("Hot Spot") (Eastern Basin) 1988 1989 1988 1989 (1) Pastoral mg/L 5.8010 6.3090 6.7410 6.6090 (2) Pastoral +enrichment mg/L 2.7300 3.3750 6.1220 5.7830 • (3) Pastoral+ enrichment+ mg/L 2.7225 3.3717 6.1178 5.7787 fish pens (4) Pastoral +enrichment+ mg/L 2.7215 3.3712 6.1148 5.7768 fish pens (Cx16) • (5) Impact of enrichment= mg/L 3.0710 2.9340 0.6190 0.8260 (1) -(2) (6) Impact of fish pens= mg/L 0.0075 0.0033 0.0042 0.0043 (2)-(3) • (7) Impact of fish pens mg/L 0.0085 0.0038 0.0072 0.0062 (Cx16)= (2) -(4) (8) Impact of fish pens= Percent 0.24% 0.11% 0.68% 0.52% impact of enrichment= (6) + (5) • (9) Impact of fish pens Percent 0.28% 0.13% 1.16% 0.75% (Cx16) + impact of enrichment= (7) +(5) (10) Average of(8) Percent 0.18% 0.60% • (11) Average of(9) Percent 0.20% 0.96% Note: DO levels represent the annual minima of 30-day moving averages of values calculated hourly. • • • HydroQual, Inc. • MRTI0010 Report 1 -Page 6 • Model Simulation The Long Island Sound Water Quality Model framework was used to estimate the nitrogen concentrations in Long Island Sound that would result during full-scale • operation of the fish pens. The purpose of this calculation was to provide validation of the nutrient loading calculation using a time-variable computation of the fate of material released from the fish pens, incorporating advective and dispersive processes in the Sound. • A conservative approach was used: • all loads were assumed to be in the dissolved form, and nothing was assumed to settle and remain in the sediment bed below or adjacent to the fish pen. • • nitrogen was assumed to be a conservative substance, that is, losses due to denitrification, volatilization and uptake by biota were assumed zero. Nitrogen loadings listed in Table 8E of Cameron Engineering (1996) provide a • seasonal profile of loadings, but the values are greater than those likely to be released, based on a comparison of the weight-specific loading estimates: 1.5 X 10-3 lb/kg fish- day (Cameron Engineering 1996 p.7) and 0.75 X 10-3 lb/kg fish-day (Olesen 1996). Therefore, the monthly loads provided by Cameron Engineering (1996) were multiplied by 0.75/1.5 = 0.5 to give the loadings used in the model (Table 3). • One model simulation was performed for a five-year period, during which time steady state on an annual basis was reached. That is, after four years of simulation, nitrogen levels continued to vary seasonally due to seasonal variation in load, but concentrations in the same month in each successive year were similar. • The spatial profile of nitrogen concentrations calculated in the fifth year of the model simulation are presented in Figures 2 through 4. The lines represent values calculated in model segments running East-West down the center of the Long Island Sound (see Figure 1). Note that the segment containing the fish pens ("F" in Figure 1) • is not analyzed here, because this analysis is focused on far field impacts. The results of the LIS-3 simulation for existing conditions are indicated by the solid line, and the results of the simulation in which the only nitrogen source was the fish pen are indicated by the dashed line. The ratio of these two results (fish pen nitrogen level/best estimate nitrogen level) is indicated by the dash/dot line, with values given on the right- • hand axis. This ratio is calculated in order to provide an estimate of the additional impact on nitrogen levels caused by the fish pens as compared to existing conditions. Concentrations resulting from the fish pen operation are presented for May (Figure 2), • HydroQual, Inc. • MRTI0010 Report 1 -Page 7 • at the start of the growing season, for August (Figure 3), when dissolved oxygen levels are generally the lowest, and for November (Figure 4), at the end of the growing season. Table 3. Nitrogen loadings from the fish pens used in • the model simulation Nitrogen Load (Ib/day) May 2058 • June 2378 July 2678 August 2963 • September 3240 October 3503 November 3750 • Sources: Cameron Engineering (1996) and Olesen (1996); see text In the vicinity of the "hot spot" (approximately mile 13-17), the fish pens are • calculated to contribute on average an additional 0.14% to the existing total nitrogen levels in November (Figure 3), and 0.22% in May (Figure 2). In the vicinity of the critical segment of Response Zone #10 (mile 80), the fish pens are calculated to contribute an additional 1.3% to the existing levels in November, 1.0% in August, and 0.6% in May. • 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 . • HydroQual, Inc. • MRTI0010 Report 1 -Page 8 • 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 two sets of estimates of the maximum impacts of the fish pens on Long • Island Sound are consistent: 0.18 to 0.20% vs 0.22% near the "hot spot" and 0.60 to 0.96% vs. 1.0% (in August) in Response Zone #10. Differences between the two methods are due to differences in the assumptions inherent in each analysis. First, there are strong east/west spatial gradient in nitrogen levels in the vicinity of the "hot spot" (Figures 2 and 3). This causes the calculated impacts to be sensitive to the exact • locations in which values are calculated. Second, the critical segment in Response Zone #10 used in the loading calculation is not the same as the segments analyzed in the spatial profile of the model simulation (see Figure 1); cross-Sound gradients would lead to differences in the calculation. • These estimates are upper bounds, because: • all nitrogen and carbon was assumed to be in the dissolved form, • nitrogen in the model simulation was assumed to be conservative, and • all estimates are for the month of the year with the maximum impact, so • the annual average impact is less than the values given. Finally, the estimates of impacts are linearly related to loads. Thus, if the fish pens are operated at 1/2 of the projected Phase VI capacity, then the calculated impacts will be 1/2 of those calculated here. • References Cameron Engineering, P.C. 1996. Application for SPDES Permits for Mariculture • Technologies, Inc. Fish Hatchery and Net Pen Grow-Out Site. Prepared for Peconic Associates, One Bootleg Alley, Greenport, New York 11944. Enell, M. 1995. Environmental impact of nutrients from Nordic fish farming. Water Sci. Technol. 31:61-71. • HydroQual, Inc. 1996. Long Island Sound Water Quality Model, LIS 3. Olesen, J.O. 1996. Managing Director of Aquaculture Development Advanced Systems, Aalsgaarde, Denmark. Letter to Merlon Wiggins, Peconic Associates • July 19, 1996. • HydroQual, Inc. • 0 • • • 0 • • • • • 50 LONG ISLAND SOUND COLLAPSED GRID I I I } I i I 1 Quinn. R Thames R. fr` V T'` Conne. R. . 1 _ e 40_ Housatonic R. C r'+ -- ""� j - AM r -.. p.-- 30_ c Norwalk A. ' F in we i..,iiiii A" "4 , ' . , • 1 '-7.- /111:1 tOil E V 401/01".11AIR:44,1._ J Airiv4, 10_ , /I Gly _ -,�-„�M �� RZ#10 .iaN LONG ISLAND - '1 RZ#2 0 - 20 40 BD BO 100 120 140 X [mile) The following are indicated: Grid: Water quality model segmentation I Line through the center of the Sound: Segments used in the spatial profiles presented in Figures a 2 and 3. ooRZ#2 and RZ#10: Critical segments in Response Zones #2 and 10 L 0 F: Model segment containing the fish pens 0 F Figure 1 . Long Island Sound Li _ C Ratio of (Release from Pen)/(Existing Conditions) co o 0 08 , co C171 o o L 0 0 00 0o a o CL Ci O ..... . . . 1111. 1 1 1 I 1111, . I 1 I 11111 1 . 1 I 11111 . 11 1 5 •p C. - a c >, .- 0 - (. - a I �o E � H D - oal o 0. 1 - EO c a) - - $ t. a W. 0 C 0 O / - mca V Q. Ci . 0 _ o COC ` CCO ' - co co c + .r Cf O ca F+ d 01 E 'co r. o d _ O •X = 0 Cl) - 0 ihs- H0 ` O C; - w o oc a 1 o o v 1 0 - a o m o m E to 7a a• d Z5 1 - \ - N ... ` ' ' O ' _ o E E Ig 0- •� _ M M ! O • �/� 11� aw+ vlIlli 1 1 l I1:::; l s l I I l I 1111111 1 1 I l l. . . 1 I ,,,ll u 1. . . l o �/ Y/ ; W N 6 0 W. O 1 O J J €0 cc .0 N�i 0 o c I i aY o y = 4,a [1/6w] ua6oJ4IN ppm. - o CACI r) tis 0 CL LLCA a rt <; !I 12�o a • • • • • • • 0 • • • 10- , 1 i 1 , 1 , I , 1 . I , 1 , 1 , I , I , I , I , I , I , 1 23 Co • a. _ **6 O 1 ALT V =0.1 Ci. co - jal _ co • J - ° g g p g p A p v Q co co E 0.1_ _ a — 0.01 _ CD /' — - -17 o - /- - m m • r - Z 0.01_ -I. =0.001 k / ~ �• - • 0.001.. __ :0.0001 p, o - _ w • 0.0001 , I , I i I , I , I , I , I , I , I , I , I , I , I , I , 0.00001 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 Miles from the Battery • LIS-3 model simulation for existing conditions, depth-averaged (August, 1988). LIS-3 model simulation for nitrogen released from the fish pens, depth- • averaged (August, Year 5). — —.— Ratio of release from pen over existing condition. Plot symbols: A - surface data. V - bottom data. • Figure 3. Total Nitrogen spatial profile for August. • HydroQual, Inc. Tug Aug 13.1996 16:45:21 -power4-neng0034-DYE_for_PLUM-PLOT_for_DAVI-spatUnk).gdp • • 101 I I ' 1 t I I I t I t I t I I I . I I I , I . 1 . I . I . .1 23 ' m :re • O 4 ;_0.1- oco o a o ° _ eo • J _ ° ,\' m E 0.1: �...�•�• `. :0.01 C d 0) / m ° _ _ i • z 0.01.. I. :0.001 r F- - f3, • ............. --- - o • 0.001_ a - o . co) • 0.0001 t I . I . 1 . 1 1 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 o 1 t I t 1 • 1 1 I . I t 0.00001 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 Miles from the Battery • LIS-3 model simulation for existing conditions, depth-averaged (November, 1988). LIS-3 model simulation for nitrogen released from the fish pens, depth- . averaged (November, Year 5). —'–e— Ratio of release from pen over existing condition. Plot symbols: o - surface data. v - bottom data. • Figure 4. Total Nitrogen spatial profile for November. • HydroQual, Inc. Tue Aug 13.1996 16:50:23 -power4-neng0034-DYE_for_PLUM-PLOT_f or_DAVI-spet(jnk].gdp