HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/11/2018 Town of Southold
Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting
Listening Session
Minutes of July 11, 2018
Opening:
The listening session meeting of the Agricultural Advisory Committee was called to order at 7:09
pm on July 11, 2018, in Southold Town Hall meeting room.
Present:
Members Present Members absent Guests
Chris Baiz John P. Sepenoski Steve Bate
Douglas Cooper Robert Carpenter
Jim Glover David Daly
Karen Rivara Salvatore Diliberto
John B. Sepenoski Jr. Scott DuBois
Tom Stevenson Ben Gonzalez
Mark VanBourgondien Karl Novak
Councilman Bill Ruland Kathryn Sepenoski
Pat Wiles
Approval of Minutes/Next Meeting:
Minutes of May 2nd and June 5d'approved for posting to Town website.Review of May 16th minutes still
pending,June 27th minutes reviewed by committee, clarifications noted.Vote on approval of June 27th
minutes pending.Next scheduled meeting of the Agricultural Advisory Committee is set for July 25, 2018
7:00 pm in the Southold Town Hall conference room.
Ongoing Business:
Letter from Super Law Group, LLC with set of proposed conditions for Tenedios site plan approval
was submitted to the Southold Town Planning Board and forwarded by Mike DiGiulio of Super
Law Group, LLC (mike car superlawroup.com) to the agricultural advisory committee. (See
attached). Review of Public Hearing of July 3, 2018 regarding the Tenedios property. Tenedios has
stated the goal for the property is an agricultural barn. Ag & Markets commented that animal
husbandry must be for personal consumption because otherwise, technically it is a commercial
venture. Why were the land development rights purchased if the residual property was not intended
to be agricultural? Chris Baiz offered to sit down with the Planning Board and go over what the
Tenedios site plan covers.
Tuesday, August 21, 2018
Town of Southold
Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting
Listening Session
Minutes of July 11, 2018
Regarding Town Code Definitions: Over a year ago, new definitions to the Code were passed but
old definitions still existed. In the Farm Stand code, the following was added: 3000 sq. ft., A/C,
heat, office, etc. Code Definitions still need to be updated and reworded. The 2007 original Farm
Stand code did not include aquaculture and mariculture so going forward, the code needs to be
modified.
Definitions including"On Farm Processing" and "On Farm Direct Marketing" are Permitted Uses
under agriculture and have to be applicable to all agriculture. There will be a Public hearing within
the next 2 months to get those definitions on the books and Chapter 72, Farm Stand Code,
transferred into Chapter 280.
There will be a new paragraph in Chapter 280, section 13 creating a"Direct Marketing Operators
Permit". This will give reasonable protection to Farm Stand operators located within Southold
Town that presently operate within the confines of Town Law. Discussion on Chapter 280-13A
Permitted Uses section 2D stating the gross dollar value of 40% of all items for sale being limited to
Southold Town and Suffolk County and items not specific to the farm site or operator. Expansion of
the limited area to New York State was discussed along with the specificity of non-agricultural
items that would eliminate "grown on Long Island" as an example.
Chapter 208-13A Permitted Uses E. "Direct Marketing Operators Permit" 42c,proof of average
gross sales as part of the application process was seen as intrusive and invasive with regard to
supplying financial documents to the Agricultural Advisory committee, Town Clerk and Town
Board. Committee members asked to review this and submit bullet points to satisfy the Town and
owner. It was also asked that this section be removed from Uses and reviewed at a later date that is
not within the growing season. Some members want to see the entire document passed and then
work on changing the language others feel the Section E of 280-13 should be reworked for
simplicity before being passed. Mention made that the Operator must also be found to be
Bona-fide by the Agricultural Advisory Committee. It was also noted that a"non-farm" Farm Stand
with a C of O will continue to be allowed to operate by the Town.
Dialogue in relation to details not in Town Code, at present, any item not covered in Town Code is
not allowed and can result in violations. Having the Code defines what is not allowed rather than
what is allowed would clarify the Code. Wording of"Allowed unless written" discussed.
It was proposed that Southold Town Code adopt what NYS law states regarding wineries which
allow grapes to be grown in any county in NYS. Licenses for wineries are issued by NYS and the
NYS Farm Winery license is a powerful tool. When wineries were established in Southold 25 years
ago, the Town allowed wineries to do"on farm processing".
Tuesday, August 21, 2018
Town of Southold
Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting
Listening Session
Minutes of July 11, 2018
It was offered that the new language in the Code to be passed 280-13A Permitted Uses (d)i &ii
should not apply to the winery and brewery industry as breweries especially, cannot source hops
totally within the Town or County. Discussion regarding all Town Agriculture being brought up to
the same level as wineries. Suggested that wineries should be separated into another Chapter in
Town Code.
Discussion involving definitions specifically "Farm Operation" to encompass property contiguous
and non-contiguous which needs to be illustrated by local municipalities through zoning.
Discussion of Chapter 280-13 E, the use of an On-Farm Direct Marketing Building, a Farm Stand
or Part of a Building. The assumption being that processing has to take place in a building.
Operators can add value to their product with"Agriculture Equipment" rather than a building.
Buildings are inspected each year by Ag & Markets.
Discussion on accessory uses Aquaculture and Mariculture, which do not have to conform to the
back-yard rule even though accessory uses must be contained in a back-yard.
Town Code Chapter 280-13:
1) E. which outlines requirements, 3. Upon receipt of complete application:
a) Discussion on eliminating office of Code Enforcement.
2) A. Permitted Uses-Farm Operations, (b) (c)
a) Encompass Suffolk County.
Dialogue on the topic of farms operating within both the Towns of Southold and Riverhead with
suggestions with the aim of addressing that issue in the Code.
"Agritainment" discussion as to being a Permitted Use. Is it a violation as it is not addressed in the
Code? Examples included U-Pick, Corn Mazes, Hayrides, etc. These items are not specifically
defined so technically not permitted within the Town. Does "On Farm Direct Marketing" include a
non-product and/or service?
Mention of referencing Ag & Markets in the Zoning Code as farms are protected by Ag & Markets
and possibly dropping the entire section of 280-13 E. If the Town will not drop the section, the
language needs to be clarified. In order to streamline the Code, the Farm Stand Chapter 72 will be
added to Chapter 280.
Tuesday, August 21, 2018
Town of Southold
Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting
Listening Session
Minutes of July 11, 2018
Discussion of the future of Agriculture regarding sun, wind and tide farming. Solar farms discussed
as a way to support existing farms. The Town Board is not at this point yet, they need to be brought
along slowly and "On Farm Processing" is a giant leap for the Town Board. Currently the most
important issue is to get input for the basis of a draft with bullet points brought to the Work Session.
Seems reasonable to connect the Code to Ag & Markets but this is not embraced by everyone.
Showing the protections in place for growers by Ag & Markets would help sell that idea to the
Town Board and overcome any reluctance on their part. Compelling reasons to offer The Town
Board and public as to the value of Agriculture in Southold Town need to be emphasized. The
producers/farmers need to feel welcomed and supported by the Town.
It is felt the best way to educate people is to bring them to the farm and show them what is involved
and the struggles that occur every day on a farm. Report on the Lavender Farm situation and it's
affect on business and residential neighbors. There is a 4 to 6 week period of restricted access to
businesses and residents because of the influx of tourists and traffic visiting the Lavender Farm.
There has been a Lavender Farm started in Riverhead Town but this will take 2 years to be viable.
General consensus is that farmers in Southold are at risk and under daily economic stresses. We
need to support each other every way we can since there has been a decline in Agricultural revenues
since 2012 in the United States.
Adjournment:
Motion to adjourn at 9:25pm by Chris Baiz seconded by Doug Cooper.
Minutes respectfully submitted by: Cheryl Kaswell
Tuesday, August 21, 2018
SUPER LAW GROUP, LLC
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL: 212-242-2273
July 6, 2018 EMAIL: reed@superlawgroup.com
Via Electronic Mail and Federal Express
Mr. Donald Wilcenski, Chairman
Town of Southold Planning Board
54375 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Proposed Conditions for Site Plan for Tenedios/Fresh&CoFarm, LLC
Agricultural Building
8410 NYS Route 25, s/w corner of Narrow River Road & NYS Route 25, Orient
SCTM 9 1000-19.-1- 1.3 & 1.4
Dear Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Planning Board:
This firm represents a group of concerned citizens who reside and own property in Orient
near the Fresh&Co/Tenedios farm property, including Ambriel Floyd Bostic, Hawes Bostic,
Douglas Gray, Clifford Cohen, Leslie Cohen, David Miller, and Judith Scofield Miller. We
write in regard to the application of Fresh&CoFarm, LLC and Steve Tenedios, as its Managing
Member, for site plan approval pursuant to Chapter 280, Article XXIV of the Town Code, which
is scheduled for a public hearing on July 9, 2018.
Attached to this letter are a set of proposed conditions that we ask the Planning Board to
include in any final site plan approval to ensure that the proposed site use does not adversely
impair the environment or otherwise affect the well-being of the community. The proposed
conditions generally fall into three categories:
(1) explicitly prohibiting special events or other activities that are proscribed by the
conservation easement that was created by the Town's purchase of development rights;
(2) ensuring that the visual impact of the barn is in accordance with the scenic and
aesthetic value of the property and surrounding environment, as well as the easement; and
(3) protecting groundwater, wetlands, surface water, and other natural resources,
including Narrow River and Hallocks Bay, from pollution or degradation.
Also attached hereto is a report entitled "Proposed Conditions and Best Management
Practice Recommendations for Fresh&Co/Tenedios Farm, Southold, NY," prepared by Donald
W. Meals, of Ice.Nine Environmental Consulting, an environmental scientist with 40 years of
experience in watershed management and a nationally recognized expert in agricultural nonpoint
source water pollution. The agriculture/water-quality-related conditions we recommend here are
based upon Mr. Meals' report.
180 MAIDEN LANE, SUITE 603 . NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10038
TEL: 212-242-2355 FAX: 855-242-7956 www.sup erlawgroup.corn
Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Board
July 6, 2018
Page 2
I.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The property being site planned and its surroundings are scenic and contain high-value
water resources, including wetlands, Narrow River, and Hallocks Bay. The Planning Board has
significant authority under the Town Code to protect community character and the Orient
environment by imposing reasonable conditions on any approval. State and Town law do not
prioritize agricultural production over environmental protection; the two goals must be
harmonized to protect health, safety, and public welfare. As submitted, the site plan does not
show all existing and proposed structures; it should be revised to do so and to show the culverts
draining to Narrow River along with their drainage areas.
Any final site plan approval should contain a condition explicitly prohibiting events on
the site as they are not permitted under the conservation easement created by the Town's
purchase of development rights, and because they would increase traffic, causing public safety
concerns, and the environmental impacts that would be caused by such events have not been
reviewed under SEQRA.
To protect scenic resources and comply with the easement, any final site plan approval
should require the proposed barn to be located 200 feet west of the currently proposed location
(as recommended by the Land Preservation Committee), which would also separate the barn
from the designated Critical Environmental Area and wetland buffer to the east. The barn's
siding should also be changed to a less contrasting color (as also recommended by the Land
Preservation Committee) and the barn should not serve as an advertisement for the Fresh&Co
restaurant chain, either through its color scheme or signage. Such signs should be explicitly
prohibited.
The Board should also include reasonable environmental conditions. First, the applicant
should be required to establish, manage, and covenant 100-foot-wide, fenced-off, vegetated
buffers between agricultural land/animal operations and wetlands or surface waters. Second, the
applicant should be required to develop and submit an approvable plan, evaluated by an
engineer, to prevent pollutants from flowing from the property through the culverts under
Narrow River Road into Narrow River and ultimately Hallocks Bay. Third, the Board should
prohibit the application of animal waste to land or crops, require the applicant to continue off-site
disposal of animal waste and bedding, and limit the numbers of animals to sub-commercial
levels in order to keep waste generation at manageable levels. Fourth, the applicant should be
required to develop and implement a farm conservation plan. Fifth, runoff from the barn roof
and other impervious surfaces should be directed away from agricultural operations. Finally,
portable bathrooms should be placed in a location away from the property line as approved by
the Board, and any bathroom facilities in the barn should be nitrogen-free.
These conditions are described below and a full list of proposed conditions is attached.
Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Board
July 6, 2018
Page 3
II.
BACKGROUND
A. The Property and its Environs
As you know, the Tenedios/Fresh&CoFarm property is in a scenic location with sensitive
natural resources both onsite and adjacent, including three different wetlands— freshwater
wetlands, a pond on the northeast portion of the property, and tidal wetlands on the southern and
southwestern portions of the property. Adjacent to the property just across Narrow River Road is
Narrow River, a tributary to Hallocks Bay, an important shellfishing and recreational resource.
There is a marina where the river widens into the bay. The bay and the river(starting at a point
adjacent to the Tenedios property) have been dedicated by the Town and the New York State
Department of Conservation as a"Critical Environmental Area."' The Bay, River, and adjacent
wetlands—including wetlands on the Tenedios property — are designated New York State
"Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat." Long Island's sole source aquifer underlies the
property, and this groundwater has a subsurface connection to the adjacent wetlands and
waterbodies.
Of particular importance, there is also a direct connection between the property's tidal
wetlands and Narrow River through at least two culverts or other drainage infrastructure that
convey surface water from the property under Narrow River Road to Narrow River. These tidal
wetlands extend north-northwesterly from the road in a relatively narrow corridor and likely
receive runoff and snow melt from the fields to their east and the paddocks to their west. As a
result, pollutants entering the wetlands from either of these areas via stormwater(or through
direct incursion by animals into the wetlands) will flow through these point sources into the river
and bay through the culvert.
In short, the property and its environs have valuable scenic and natural resources that
make the North Fork special and deserving of protection.
B. The Application
The original site plan application listed "Steve Tenedios" as the applicant and the
property owner. In contrast, the resubmitted application, dated November 8, 2017, was on behalf
' See haps://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits ej operations pdf/hallocksbay.pdf
'See haps://www.dos.ny.gov/opd/progmms/consistency/Habitats/Longlsland/Long Beach Bay.pdf. See also April
25,2018 memorandum from Mark Terry,Assistant Town Planning Director and LWRP Coordinator,to Planning
Board at p. 10,Figure 3 (showing proposed barn location in close proximity to NYS Significant Coastal Habitat;
there would be no buffer between the barn and the habitat area).
Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Board
July 6, 2018
Page 4
of"Fresh&CoFarm, LLC' (Steve Tenedios, Managing Member)" as the property owner. Given
that crops are grown commercially on the site (by a tenant farmer)for use in the Fresh&Co
restaurant chain, and animals are raised there for what has been described as Mr. Tenedios'
personal (non-commercial) use and consumption, the Board should pay close attention to those
dual, and sometimes shifting or conflicting, roles when considering the application and drafting
conditions.
It is also important to note that the site plan itself, prepared by Jeffrey T. Butler, P.E.,
P.C., dated March 22, 2017, and received by the Board on June 28, 2017, does not accurately
reflect current conditions on the site. As noted by your staff, there are several smaller existing
structures on the site that are not shown on the plan; these should be drawn in or otherwise
indicated by the applicant on a revised plan.
Furthermore, there are currently rail-and-wire fences on the southern portion of the
property that are not shown on the site plan. These fences are visible from Narrow River Road
near the southern corner of the property, for example as in this photograph:
iM
� Pr
c �
The new fences appear to be used for containing livestock and some them may have been
erected along 100-foot wetland buffer line. If so, that is a positive step towards protecting water
resources. However, the new, existing fencing and any proposed fencing should be shown on the
site plan both so that the plan is up-to-date and accurate and so that their location relative to the
wetlands can be determined.
The site plan on file shows what is described as an existing split rail and wire fence
s The New York State Department of State,Division of Corporations website states that the entity's name is
"Fresh&CoFarm LLC." We use the name here as it is listed on the state website. The resubmitted application
transposed the words"Farm''and"Co.,"presumably in error.
Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Board
July 6, 2018
Page 5
enclosing a rectangular area closer to the center of the property. Much of this fencing and the
area it encloses crosses the 100-foot wetland buffer line and falls well within the "wetland
boundary offset," coming extremely close to the wetland itself at its northern end. This fencing
and any structures within 100 feet of the wetlands should be removed, to the extent not done
already.
The site plan should clearly show all currently existing and proposed structures, and those
structures should be outside the buffer areas.
C. The Planning Board's Authority Under the Town Code
In our April 16, 2018 letter to you, we discussed the Board's authority under Southold
Town Code §§ 280-128 & 129 to consider a broad range of factors and to impose conditions and
safeguards to protect the unique rural and open space character of the Town as well as the public
health, safety and welfare, including groundwater and surface water, all natural features on and
adjacent to the site, including but not limited to natural drainage courses, fresh- and saltwater
wetlands and wildlife habitats. We hereby incorporate by reference our April 16 letter rather
than repeating its contents herein. Naturally, your Town Attorney can, and may have already,
advised you in this regard as well.
Furthermore, the easement imposed on the property in connection with the Town's
purchase of development rights includes both agricultural and scenic components. The Southold
Land Preservation Committee has explained that the conservation easement contains both
agricultural and scenic components. As your staff explained in the March 1, 2018 staff report,
only approximately 15% of conservation easements in the Town specifically mention scenic
values, as this one does. The Land Preservation Committee therefore plays an important role in
ensuring that the easement and deed restrictions are not violated.
The Board should not be dissuaded or intimidated by threats or other unfounded
assertions from the applicant and its representatives, claiming that the Board is "micro-
managing" operations on the site or otherwise overstepping its authority. Requesting
comprehensive information regarding the proposed uses of the site, making referrals to other
agencies, carefully evaluating the proposal, and crafting reasonable conditions to protect
community character and the environment are not only right and proper; they are the Planning
Board's responsibility under the Town Code. While other agencies (such as the NYS DEC)
regulate water pollution, that does not supplant the Board's authority under the Town Code. The
Board is on solid legal ground in this regard. (See also the following section regarding alleged
farmers' rights.)
Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Board
July 6, 2018
Page 6
D. Protecting North Fork Agriculture and the Environment
The applicant, its representatives, and the Agricultural Advisory Committee have
repeatedly cited Town and State right-to-farm (or farming "bill of rights") laws as though they
might exempt the applicant from reasonable environmental safeguards. They do not. The Town
Code's right-to-farm provisions explicitly subject agricultural activities to"compliance with
applicable federal, state, county and Town laws, rules and regulations." Town Code § 280-
97(B). Further, they state that farm practices may constitute a nuisance if the activity "has a
substantial adverse effect on the public health, safety and welfare." Town Code § 280-99(B).
Left unchecked, the proposed site use may cause a substantial adverse effect on the public health,
safety and welfare. As discussed above and in our prior letter, the Planning Board has the
authority and duty to protect the natural environment and community character. The Town Code
provisions aimed at supporting agricultural activities do not supersede those responsibilities of
the Planning Board. In enacting the Town Code, the Town Board intended agricultural activities
and environmental protection to be harmonized. We understand the Planning Board to be doing
exactly that.
Similarly, the State Legislature has sought to "maintain the economic viability, and
environmental and landscape preservation values associated with agriculture." NYS
Agriculture and Markets Law § 321 (Statement of legislative findings and intent; emphasis
added). Thus, the state Agriculture and Markets Law explicitly authorizes local government to
impose reasonable restrictions and regulations on farm operations to protect the environment and
the rural landscape; only "unreasonable" restrictions are prohibited. Agriculture and Markets
Law § 305-a(1)(a). Moreover, the same provision allows a greater degree of regulation where
"the public health or safety is threatened." Id.
Furthermore, the state Agriculture and Markets Law defines "Farm operation" as land,
buildings, equipment, facilities and practices "which contribute to the production, preparation
and marketing of crops, livestock and livestock products as a commercial enterprise."
Agriculture and Markets Law § 301(l 1) (emphasis added). Likewise, it defines "land used in
agricultural production" as "land used as a single operation . . . for the production for sale of
crops, livestock or livestock product." Agriculture and Markets Law § 301(4) (emphasis added)
Notably, the applicant and its representatives contend that Mr. Tenedios is not a
commercial farmer, and that he merely raises animals for his own personal pleasure and
consumption, not for use in his restaurants or for sale to others. See letter from Steve Tenedios,
dated October 24, 2017, to Planning Board. The applicant cannot simultaneously argue that he is
not a commercial farmer and that he is entitled to benefits enacted for commercial farming
operations.
Finally, the applicant's statements, and those of the Agricultural Advisory Committee,
that it would be difficult or unnecessary to provide specific, detailed information on farming
practices because the farm is small or because farming practices change over time are incorrect
and unsupportable. While New York State regulates CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding
Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Board
July 6, 2018
Page 7
Operations) with large numbers of animals, CAFOs are not the only farms to report animal
numbers. Reporting of animal types and numbers is a standard component of most agricultural
regulatory/permitting programs for farms of all sizes.' Thus, the applicant's refusal to comply
with Item "e" (request for numbers of animals)in the Board's list of items requested has no basis
in law or fact.
The applicant's response to Item "f" (request for farm management plan)was similarly
off-base. The contention that this information is not reviewable by the Town is simply incorrect
because it directly relates to environmental impact that is squarely in the Town's purview. The
notion that a management plan cannot be prepared because farming practices change is baseless.
Larger farms report detailed management plans and nutrient management plans even though crop
rotations, field boundaries, animal numbers, etc. are routinely changing. For the same reasons,
Item "i" (request for location, size, use of structures) is relevant to site planning and the
operation's pollution potential (i.e., location of animals with respect to buffers, drainage ways).
Overall, the applicant's refusal to provide information on animal numbers and farm
management issues like the location of buildings and pastures is not reasonable. In light of the
applicant's intransigence, the Planning Board has two appropriate options. One option is to deny
the application for failure to comply with the Town Code. See Town Code § 280-131(M); see
also letter from Town Attorney William M. Duffy to Patricia Moore, Esq., dated April 5, 2018,
at 2 ("Please be advised . . . should the applicant decide not to submit [requested information],
the applicant runs the risk of having the application denied (without prejudice)if the Board feels
it does not have enough information to proceed."). The other option, in the event that the Board
were to waive the obligation to submit information such as animal numbers and more specific
farming practices or to otherwise conclude that it can proceed in the absence of such information,
is to include conditions in any final site plan approval limiting animal agricultural operations to
non-commercial activities and to small numbers of animals consistent with personal
consumption only, in order to protect the environment from the damage that a commercial
operation or a larger operation would threaten. Such conditions are reasonable and appropriate
given that the applicant has stated repeatedly in writing that raising a small number of animals on
site purely for personal pleasure is both the current practice and the future intention.
a The statement in the January 31,2018 memo from the Agricultural Advisory Committee to the Planning Board that
a request for animal numbers conflicts with CAFO regulations is patently incorrect. CAFO rules(both federal and
state)require regulation of farms above a certain size,but they do not provide that small farms have the right to keep
their animal numbers secret.
Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Board
July 6, 2018
Page 8
III.
PROPOSED CONDITIONS
This section discusses the conditions we are proposing and asking the Planning Board to
include in any final site plan approval. The imposition of reasonable, common sense conditions
is appropriate and necessary to protect community character and the environment. Many of
these conditions are based on offers or commitments already made in writing by the applicant or
its representatives, some of which may have already been implemented in whole or part.
Formalizing those measures into approval conditions will not impose any cost or undue burden
on the applicant. Further, as noted above, the water-quality-related conditions are based on the
attached report by Donald Meals, an environmental scientist and nationally recognized expert in
agricultural water pollution.
First, we discuss a few items of additional information the Board should collect before
acting on the application. Next, we discuss each proposed condition. We recognize that in past
site plan approvals, the Board has required satisfaction of certain conditions at three different
junctures: (i)prior to the Planning Board Chairman endorsing the site plans; (ii)prior to issuance
of a building permit; and (iii) after building permits are issued. We note that satisfying
conditions earlier in the process will generally lead to a better result than deferring it.
A. Completing the Application
The applicant should be required to:
• Update the site plan to show all currently existing structures including fences.
• Update the site plan to show all proposed structures including fences.
• Delineate on the site plan or another plan the culverts under Narrow River Road as well
as the areas of land on the property that drain through those culverts.
In addition, now that the applicant has submitted visual renderings and the Land
Preservation Committee has made its determination, the Planning Board should ask the Town of
Southold Architectural Review Committee to review the renderings and make its determination.
In the minutes of the Architectural Review Committee's September 14, 2017 meeting (received
by the Planning Department on September 22, 2017), the Architectural Review Committee
"determined to adjourn the application review until a N.Y.S. Department of Environmental
Conservation Permit has been issued and submitted to the Planning Department." There is no
need to wait for any action by DEC; the Architectural Review Committee determination should
precede the Planning Board's decision on the application.
Further, as you know, the Town of Southold Shellfish Advisory Committee, with
assistance from the Town Trustees, has undertaken a dye study in the Narrow River to track
where and how quickly the water flows in different tide cycles to help pinpoint where potential
contaminants originate and spread. The Planning Board should consult with the Shellfish
Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Board
July 6, 2018
Page 9
Advisory Committee and Trustees, and, if the dye study report is forthcoming soon the Planning
Board should await those results before acting on the application.
B. Approval Conditions
1. Conditions Relating to Uses of the Property
If the Planning Board approves the application, the Board should attach conditions that
ensure the property will not be used for any purposes beyond agricultural production. Any uses
such as hosting events at the property or retailing agricultural products on site should be strictly
and clearly prohibited. Such uses are proscribed by the conservation easement created by the
Town's purchase of development rights, and the applicant has stated in writing to the Board that
such events are not being proposed (despite earlier statements to the contrary in the news media
or on social media). Such a condition merely recognizes and formalizes the existing legal
relationships so that there can be no confusion going forward.
As the Planning Board and the Town of Southold Land Preservation Committee have
recognized, the Town previously purchased the development rights on the property. The Town
purchased the development rights to ensure that the "use of the property . . . be consistent with
both the agricultural value and the scenic value of the property." Deed at 5.
The recorded Deed of Development Rights requires that the property owner"shall only
use the premises ... for the purpose of agricultural production" and grants the Town the right to
"restrict the use of the premises exclusively for agricultural production as that term is presently
defined in Chapter 25 of the Town Code of Southold and . . . to prohibit or restrict the use of the
premises . . . for any purposes other than agricultural production." Deed at 1, 4. Chapter 25 of
the Town Code of Southold defines "agricultural production" as "the production for commercial
purposes of crops, livestock and livestock products, but not land or portions thereof used for
processing or retail merchandising of such crops, livestock or livestock products." Town Code §
70.3 (emphasis added).
After reviewing the initial application and the Deed restrictions the Land Preservation
Committee concluded that any uses beyond agricultural production would "not be allowed within
the area subject to the recorded Deed." Land Preservation Committee Letter, October 4, 2017.
The terms of the Deed clearly prohibit the applicant from using the property as an event venue or
as a retail space of any kind.
Accordingly, the Board should include the following conditions in any application
approval:
• Any and all uses other than agricultural production are and shall be
strictly prohibited on the site.
Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Board
July 6, 2018
Page 10
• No events, retail operations, or other commercial activities shall occur
on the site. "Events, retail operations, or other commercial activities"
include but are not limited to festivals, special events, or other events
open to the public. Any violation of this prohibition is a violation of*the
Approval, the Deed Restriction on the property, and the Town Code, and
will subject the applicant to revocation of this Approval, administrative
and/or judicial enforcement, a cease and desist order, and monetary
penalties.
In addition to preserving the agricultural and scenic character of the land, prohibiting
commercial activities on the property will prevent the serious traffic problems along Route 25
that would result. A substantial increase in traffic would negatively affect the well-being of the
immediate neighborhood and the wider community. This is not only because traffic causes air
and noise pollution, reducing scenic value, but also because increased traffic would create public
safety issues. Route 25 is an emergency evacuation route, is utilized by emergency services
vehicles, and is subject to significant traffic tie-ups. Anything that causes traffic to back up
along Main Road, especially long lines of cars entering or leaving the site, would cause
significant public safety concerns and could even result in loss of life by delaying the response
time for first responders.
Furthermore, allowing events on the site would be inconsistent with the Board's
determination that the project qualifies for a State Environmental Quality Review Act
("SEQRA") Type II exemption. On August 15, 2017, the Planning Board determined that the
application qualified as a Type II action under SEQRA, Part 617.5(c)(3)because the action falls
within the definition of farm management practices. If the Board allows the applicant to use the
proposed barn or the site as an event space, the project would no longer qualify as exempt from
SEQRA under the farm management practice exception because holding events goes beyond the
mere construction, maintenance, or repair of farm buildings and structures in a manner consistent
with the generally accepted principles of farming. Thus, allowing events would not only violate
the Deed Restriction, it would also trigger violations of SEQRA, invalidating the Type 11
determination and necessitating a SEQRA determination of significance. In other words,
prohibiting events is consistent with the Board's Type II determination.
2. Conditions Relating to the Visual/Scenic Impact of Barn
If the Planning Board approves the application, the Board should attach conditions that
require the barn be built in a way that minimizes the visual and scenic impacts of the proposed
barn with respect to its design, color, and placement.
The Town-held development rights require that"the use of the property be . . . conducted
in a manner that does not detract from, or adversely affect the open space and scenic value" of
the property. Deed at 7. Your staff has noted that"only about 15% of all easements held by the
Town specifically mention scenic values." Staff Report, March 1, 2018, at 8. As discussed
Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Board
July 6, 2018
Page 11
above, the easement on the Tenedios property is one of them. On May 30, 2018, in response
from requests from the Planning Board and the Land Preservation Committee, the applicant
submitted renderings depicting how the barn would look after construction. In those images the
barn is painted green and white—the color scheme of the Fresh&Co restaurant chain— and is
visually prominent when viewed from Route 25 and Narrow River Road.
On June 21, 2018 the Land Preservation Committee, after reviewing the renderings for
consistency with the development rights easement held by the Town, recommended moving the
barn approximately 200 feet westward in order to"retain the length of the view from Main Road
and Heath Drive southeastward across the farm, Narrow River Road, and the open lands
beyond." Land Preservation Committee Memo, June 21, 2018. We support that
recommendation. Moving the barn westward would also provide environmental benefits by
adding separation between the barn and the Significant Coastal Habitat area (and wetlands
buffer)that come right up to the edge of where barn is shown in the site plan.
Accordingly, the Board should include the following condition in any approval:
• The barn shall be built 200 feet west of*the location identified in the
submitted March 22, 2017 site plan in order to mitigate the visual impact
on the property. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan
consistent with the revised location prior to the Planning Board
Chairman Endorsing the site plans.
The Land Preservation Committee also recommended that the barn's color should be
changed to reduce the visual impact of the building on the property. Land Preservation
Committee Memo, June 21, 2018. The barn as currently proposed contains bright green and
white colors that starkly contrast both with the open land aesthetic of the property and the other
buildings nearby. Other North Fork barns are designed to be in harmony with the landscape,
with natural wood siding or a less contrasting color scheme such as those below.
Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Board
July 6, 2018
Page 12
The Town's interest in harmonizing the architecture in the community is even greater where, as
here, the Town has a legal responsibility to maintain the aesthetic and scenic value of this
particular parcel of land.
Moreover, the applicant's proposed green and white colors are associated with
Fresh&Co, the applicant's restaurant chain. Fresh&Co has a history of using agricultural
structures as advertisements for its restaurants, as can be seen in this image, which was provided
by Fresh&Co to the Long Island Business News,' from an unknown location:
r.
i
i
Beyond clashing with the natural beauty of the landscape, the green and white color scheme
proposed for the barn, and any commercial signage that might be displayed, would serve a
corporate, commercial purpose beyond agricultural production. This violates the Deed
restrictions that prohibit using the property in any other manner beyond agricultural production
or in a manner that reduces the scenic value of the property.
s"Taking Farm Fresh to a New Level",Long Island Business News, August 14,2017.
https://Iibn.com/2017/08/14/taking-farm-fresh-to-a-new-level/
Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Board
July 6, 2018
Page 13
With respect to signs, it should be noted that the Checklist for Site Plan Application
Completeness, dated July 24, 2017, contains an "V next to the item stating "The location and
plans for any outdoor signs must be in accordance with applicable sign regulations." This may
be because the Board recognizes that no signs are allowed. This prohibition should be
formalized in the conditions.
Accordingly, the Board should include the following conditions in any approval:
• Prior to the Chairman endorsing the Site Plan, the applicant shall
provide the Board with images of*the barn with a low-contrast color
scheme. Once endorsed by the Chairman, the applicant shall adhere to
the approved color scheme.
• The applicant is prohibited from installing any signs or other advertising
for Fresh&Co or any other commercial enterprise on the site.
As noted above, on September 22, 2017, the Architecture Review Committee reviewed
the initial application and determined to adjourn the application review until a New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation permit has been issued and submitted to the
Planning Department. To date the Architecture Review Committee has not reviewed the
proposed barn.
Accordingly, if the Board proceeds prior to receiving a determination from the
Architecture Review Committee, the Board should include the following condition in any
approval:
• This approval is contingent on the Architecture Review Committee's
approval of*the designs.
3. Conditions Relating to Water Quality/Water Pollution from Animal
Agriculture
The site is located in an environmentally sensitive area with designated Significant
Coastal Habitat onsite and adjacent, underlain by a sole source aquifer that provides drinking
water to the local population, near high-value tidal and non-tidal wetlands, and draining to the
Narrow River and Hallock Bay, an ecologically and economically important shellfishing
resource that has been designated as a Critical Environmental Area. Animal manure and other
agricultural wastes can contaminant water resources with pathogens, excess nutrients, and other
pollutants, trigger harmful algal blooms, reduce dissolved oxygen and water clarity, precipitate
losses of fish and wildlife and beneficial plant life, and cause other human health and
environmental harms. Accordingly, conditions designed to protect those resources from
pollution or degradation are critically important. The following proposed water-quality-related
conditions are drawn from the attached report entitled "Proposed Conditions and Best
Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Board
July 6, 2018
Page 14
Management Practice Recommendations for Fresh&Co/Tenedios Farm, Southold, NY,"
prepared by Donald W. Meals, of Ice.Nine Environmental Consulting.
a. Establish and Manage Vegetated Buffers; Exclude Livestock from
Wetlands, Wetland Buffer, and other Vegetated Buffers—
The Board should include the following conditions in any approval wetlands,
drainageways, and surface waters within and adjacent to the property:
• The applicant shall establish and manage 100 foot wide vegetated
buffers between agricultural land/animal operations and wetlands,
drainageways, and surface waters within and adjacent to the property.
• Vegetated buffers must be designed and maintained to USDA-NRCS
specifications and managed to stabilize soils, slow water runoff*and
enhance infiltration, trap particulate pollutants in surface runoff and
dissolved pollutants in subsurface flow, and nutrient uptake and
denitrification.
• Animal grazing within the vegetated buffers is prohibited
• Livestock on pasture or in other outside enclosures shall be excluded
from drainageways, wetlands, wetland buffers, and other vegetated
buffers.
• The applicant shall erect and at all times maintain fencing along or
outside the 100 foot buffer lines.
• The applicant shall remove any structures currently within the wetlands
or buffer areas.
• Nutrient and pesticide applications are prohibited within the vegetated
buffers except as required for vegetation establishment.
• Herbaceous vegetation within the buffers may be mowed annually to
control brush but shall not be harvested for hay or other forage.
Livestock exclusion prevents direct deposition of animal wastes into waterways and deposition
into riparian areas where nutrients and/or pathogens can be carried into waterways by overland
or subsurface flow. The 100-foot vegetated buffers are critical for environmental protection,
were also recommended by the Town's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP)
coordinator, and it appears that the applicant has no objection to them.
Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Board
July 6, 2018
Page 15
The LWRP coordinator also recommended that the Planning Board"[r]equire a covenant
that establishes the boundaries, maintenance activities and supplemental plantings within the
vegetated buffers." LWRP memo, dated April 25, 2018, at 2. This is a good idea. Accordingly,
the Board should include the following condition in any approval:
• Prior to the Chairman endorsing the Site Plan, the applicant shall enter into a
covenant that establishes boundaries, maintenance activities and supplemental
plantings for 100 foot wide vegetated buffers between agricultural land/animal
operations and wetlands, drainageways, and surface waters within and adjacent to the
property.
b. Prevent Pollutants from Leaving the Site Through Culverts into the
Narrow River—
At present, there appear to be at least two locations where concentrated now leaves the
farm property and flows under Narrow River Road in a culvert—which are point sources of
water pollution—into the Narrow River. These locations are indicated in Figure 2 in the attached
report by Donald Meals. As an immediate step, these culverts must be located on a plan or map
and their drainage areas within the farm property delineated. Measures to prevent pollutant
flows through these channels must then be taken, through source reduction within the
contributing areas and/or treatment of the flow before exiting the property (e.g., through
bioswales, settling basins, or similar). Because this drainage flows through culverts under a
public highway, hydraulic evaluation of any proposed measures must be conducted by an
engineer in order to protect public infrastructure.
Accordingly, the Board should include the following conditions in any approval to
protect wetlands, drainageways, and surface waters within and adjacent to the property:
• Prior to the Planning Board Chairman endorsing the site plans, the applicant
shall submit a revised site plan or other plan or map indicating (1) all culverts
or other drainage features that allow water to flow from the property under
Narrow River Road, and(2) the associated drainage areas within the property.
• Prior to the Planning Board Chairman endorsing the site plans, the applicant
shall develop and submit a plan to prevent pollutant flows through culverts
under Narrow River Road The plan shall utilize source reduction and/or
treatment methods and shall be evaluated by an engineer.
Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Board
July 6, 2018
Page 16
C. Prohibit the Application of Animal Waste to Land; Continue Off-site
Disposal of Animal Waste and Bedding; Limit the Numbers of
Animals to Sub-Commercial Levels in Order to Maintain Current
Waste Disposal Practices—
The applicant has stated that the current animal waste management practice on the farm
includes collection and off-site disposal of all recoverable waste. This is a good practice and
should be continued. Land application of animal wastes should be prohibited on this site because
of the very close proximity of animal pastures and paddocks to tidal wetlands that drain to the
Narrow River and Hallocks Bay, an ecologically and economically important shellfishing
resource that has been designated as a Critical Environmental Area.6 The application of animal
wastes to land or crops should also be strictly prohibited for human health and safety reasons, to
avoid pathogens entering the food supply. The applicant does not have a plan in place to safely
apply animal waste to crops destined for human consumption and to meet all applicable
regulations, such as those under the federal Food Safety Modernization Act. Accordingly, land
application of animal waste should be prohibited at the site.
Wastes should also be properly managed prior to off-site disposal. However, there has
already been one documented recent incident of manure and animal bedding being piled up,
presumably temporarily, in a location in or near wetlands and drainage features that drain to
Narrow River. See email and photograph provided to Planning Department on April 24, 2018.
Contrary to the claims of Mr. Tenedios, this area is frequently wet, not only after record storms,
as it is in or very near to tidal wetlands. Moreover, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) as defined the term "adjacent" in the context of defining surface waters to include
wetlands that are separated from open bodies of water by a road or berm and/or have a shallow
subsurface connection to those waters. Manure and bedding must not be placed within the
wetlands or the vegetated buffers. Conditions should be included to prevent this.
The Board should include the following conditions in any approval:
• Land application of*animal waste is strictly prohibited
• All recoverable animal waste shall be collected in a dumpster and
disposed off-site.
• Prior to the Planning Board Chairman endorsing the site plans, the
applicant shall submit a plan for collection and temporary storage of
manure/bedding (ie., storage prior to off-site hauling) that will
eliminate contact with surface or ground water and avoid build-up of
6 It should be noted that the fact sheets and other materials submitted by the applicant's agent in February 2017
regarding animal stocking rates(i.e.,NRCS Balancing Your Animals With Your Forage,OK Cooperative Extension
Service Stocking Rate.... ,and NDSU Extension Livestock Water Requirements)are mostly irrelevant to the issue at
hand because they focus on maintaining adequate feed for livestock population;these publications do NOT address
the land carrying capacity for accepting(and using)nutrients from the animal waste.
Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Board
July 6, 2018
Page 17
large masses of*manure in grazing or housing areas.
The applicant's Managing Member (Steve Tenedios) has stated in writing that he raises
animals only for his personal (including family and friends)use and consumption and has no
intention of becoming a commercial farmer of livestock or breeder of horses. This is very
important because if animals were raised commercially on the site, or if the numbers of animals
raised there were to approach commercial levels, then the amount of animal waste would
increase and the applicant might seek to halt off-site disposal and to commence land application
of wastes, which, as noted, should be prohibited on this site.
The applicant should not be permitted to claim that he is not a commercial farmer, that
only a few animals are raised on site, and that animal waste is hauled off-site, all to gain site plan
approval, only to then become a commercial farmer, dramatically increase the numbers of
animals, and/or change waste disposal practices once the approval has been obtained. The
applicant should be held to his word.
As discussed above, commercial farms of all types and sizes routinely provide detailed
information regarding their operations, including the maximum numbers of animals to be raised
on site. Given that the applicant has thus far refused to do so here, based on claims that only a
few animals are kept for personal consumption, any approval should prohibit material changes
from that scenario on which the application was predicated.
Accordingly, the Board should include the following conditions in any approval:
• Commercial animal agriculture operations are prohibited on the site.
• The numbers of*animals maintained on site shall be consistent with
personal, not commercial, use.
Should the applicant's intentions change in the future, the applicant would need to seek
an amendment to the site plan approval, make the disclosures typical for a commercial
farming operation, and develop and implement conservation and waste disposal or reuse
plans suitable for such operations.
d. Develop and Implement a Farm Conservation Plan—
The Board should include the following conditions in any approval:
• The applicant shall contract with the USDA-NRCS to develop and
implement a farm conservation plan that addresses all forms of potential
agricultural pollution to both surface and ground water.
Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Board
July 6, 2018
Page 18
• The farm conservation plan should include at a minimum a nutrient
management plan for cropland on the site, measures to control erosion
from cropland and animal operations, measures to address animal waste
storage and management as appropriate and vegetated buffers.
• The farm conservation plan shall provide for reduced tillage and
minimization of*agrichemical usage.
• The applicant shall follow and strictly adhere to the USDA-NRCS farm
conservation plan and nutrient management plan. Implementation of
the plan must occur irrespective of*the availability of*USDA or other
cost-share assistance.
e. Collect Roof Runoff from the Proposed Barn—
The Board should include the following conditions in any approval:
• Roof runoff*and any other runoff generated from impervious surfaces
associated with the proposed barn shall be collected, diverted away from
sources of*agricultural pollutants, and safely directed to prevent erosion
and sediment transport.
The applicant references dry wells, presumably for such purpose. That is a good approach to
managing this runoff.
D. Conditions Relating to Water Quality/Water Pollution from Human Sewage
The applicant's attorney has stated that only portable bathrooms are presently on site, that
the applicant will agree to keep them a certain distance from the property line, and that"if a
permanent bathroom is provided in the building at a later date, [the applicant] would install a
nitrogen free system." Letter from Patricia C. Moore, Esq., to Planning Board, dated Feb. 8,
2018, at 3. As you know, Long Island's coastal waters are plagued by an overabundance of
nitrogen from wastewater travelling to surface waters though groundwater, as well as fertilizer
run-off. The Board should include the following conditions in any approval:
• Prior to the Planning Board Chairman endorsing the site plans, the
applicant shall submit a plan showing the existing and proposed
locations of*temporary bathroom facilities for review and approval. The
applicant shall place temporary bathroom facilities only in the approved
location(s).
Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Board
July 6, 2018
Page 19
• Any septic system or other sanitary system discharging to groundwater,
surface water, or subsurface soil shall include a state-of-the-art
advanced de-nitrification treatment system.
Thank you for considering our input in this application process. The Planning Board has
taken a carefully approach to the application thus far, which we acknowledge and appreciate.
We respectfully urge you to continue to protect the environment and Orient's community
character by imposing these conditions on any approval you consider.
Sincerely,
Reed W. Super
Mike DiGiulio
Attachments:
(1) List of Proposed Conditions
(2) "Proposed Conditions and Best Management Practice Recommendations for
Fresh&Co/Tenedios Farm, Southold, NY," Donald W. Meals, Ice.Nine Environmental
Consulting
cc (via email):
Town of Southold Board of Trustees
Town of Southold Land Preservation Committee
Town of Southold Architectural Review Committee
Town of Southold Agricultural Advisory Committee
Town of Southold Shellfish Advisory Committee
William M. Duffy, Town Attorney, Town of Southold Attorney
Mark Terry, Local Waterfront Revitalization Coordinator, Town of Southold
LIST OF PROPOSED CONDITIONS
Fresh&CoFarm, LLC (Steve Tenedios)
Uses of the Property
• Any and all uses other than agricultural production are and shall be
strictly prohibited on the site.
• No events, retail operations, or other commercial activities shall occur
on the site. "Events, retail operations, or other commercial activities"
include but are not limited to festivals, special events, or other events
open to the public. Any violation of this prohibition is a violation of*the
Approval, the Deed Restriction on the property, and the Town Code, and
will subject the applicant to revocation of this Approval, administrative
and/or judicial enforcement, a cease and desist order, and monetary
penalties.
Visual/Scenic Impact of Barn
• The barn shall be built 200 feet west of*the location identified in the
submitted March 22, 2017 site plan in order to mitigate the visual impact
on the property. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan
consistent with the revised location prior to the Planning Board
Chairman Endorsing the site plans.
• Prior to the Chairman endorsing the Site Plan, the applicant shall
provide the Board with images of*the barn with a low-contrast color
scheme. Once endorsed by the Chairman, the applicant shall adhere to
the approved color scheme.
• The applicant is prohibited from installing any signs or other advertising
for Fresh&Co or any other commercial enterprise on the site.
• This approval is contingent on the Architecture Review Committee's
approval of*the designs.
Water Quality /Water Pollution from Animal Agriculture
• The applicant shall establish and manage 100 foot wide vegetated
buffers between agricultural land/animal operations and wetlands,
drainageways, and surface waters within and adjacent to the property.
• Vegetated buffers must be designed and maintained to USDA-NRCS
specifications and managed to stabilize soils, slow water runoff*and
enhance infiltration, trap particulate pollutants in surface runoff and
dissolved pollutants in subsurface flow, and nutrient uptake and
denitrification.
• Animal grazing within the vegetated buffers is prohibited.
• Livestock on pasture or in other outside enclosures shall be excluded
from drainageways, wetlands, wetland buffers, and other vegetated
buffers.
• The applicant shall erect and at all times maintain fencing along or
outside the 100 foot buffer lines.
• The applicant shall remove any structures currently within the wetlands
or buffer areas.
• Nutrient and pesticide applications are prohibited within the vegetated
buffers except as required for vegetation establishment.
• Herbaceous vegetation within the buffers may be mowed annually to
control brush but shall not be harvested for hay or other forage.
• Prior to the Chairman endorsing the Site Plan, the applicant shall enter
into a covenant that establishes boundaries, maintenance activities and
supplemental plantings for 100 foot wide vegetated buffers between
agricultural land/animal operations and wetlands, drainageways, and
surface waters within and adjacent to the property.
• Prior to the Planning Board Chairman endorsing the site plans, the
applicant shall submit a revised site plan or other plan or map indicating
(1) all culverts or other drainage features that allow water to flow from
the property under Narrow River Road, and(2) the associated drainage
areas within the property.
• Prior to the Planning Board Chairman endorsing the site plans, the
applicant shall develop and submit a plan to prevent pollutant flows
through culverts under Narrow River Road. The plan shall utilize
source reduction and/or treatment methods and shall be evaluated by an
engineer.
• Land application of*animal waste is strictly prohibited.
• All recoverable animal waste shall be collected in a dumpster and
disposed off-site.
• Prior to the Planning Board Chairman endorsing the site plans, the
applicant shall submit a plan for collection and temporary storage of*
manure/bedding (ie., storage prior to off-site hauling) that will
eliminate contact with surface or ground water and avoid build-up of
large masses of*manure in grazing or housing areas.
• Commercial animal agriculture operations are prohibited on the site.
• The numbers of*animals maintained on site shall be consistent with
personal, not commercial, use.
• The applicant shall contract with the USDA-NRCS to develop and
implement a farm conservation plan that addresses all forms of potential
agricultural pollution to both surface and ground water.
• The farm conservation plan should include at a minimum a nutrient
management plan for cropland on the site, measures to control erosion
from cropland and animal operations, measures to address animal waste
storage and management as appropriate and vegetated buffers.
• The farm conservation plan shall provide for reduced tillage and
minimization of*agrichemical usage.
• The applicant shall follow and strictly adhere to the USDA-NRCS farm
conservation plan and nutrient management plan. Implementation of
the plan must occur irrespective of*the availability of*USDA or other
cost-share assistance.
• Roof runoff*and any other runoff generated from impervious surfaces
associated with the proposed barn shall be collected, diverted away from
sources of*agricultural pollutants, and safely directed to prevent erosion
and sediment transport.
• Prior to the Planning Board Chairman endorsing the site plans, the
applicant shall submit a plan showing the existing and proposed
locations of*temporary bathroom facilities for review and approval The
applicant shall place temporary bathroom facilities only in the approved
location(s).
• Any septic system or other sanitary system discharging to groundwater,
surface water, or subsurface soil shall include a state-of-the-art
advanced de-nitrification treatment system.
Proposed Conditions and Best Management Practice
Recommendations for Fresh&Co/Tenedios Farm, Southold, NY
Prepared by
Donald W. Meals
Ice.Nine Environmental Consulting
Burlington, VT
July 5, 2018
1. Introduction
I was asked by Super Law Group, LLC, on behalf of its clients, residents of Orient, New York,
in the vicinity of the subject property, to evaluate the application materials and to make
recommendations on proposed conditions to be included in any final site plan approval as well as
recommended Best Management Practices that are designed to minimize environmental impacts
from animal farming operations, with a focus on preventing pollution of groundwater and surface
water(including wetlands)from nutrients and other pollutants from animal and row crop
agriculture.
I am an environmental scientist with 40 years of experience in watershed management, design
and operation of water quality monitoring networks, field research in agricultural nonpoint
source pollution, assessment of Best Management Practices, and evaluation of watershed project
effectiveness. I am a nationally recognized expert in agricultural nonpoint source water pollution
and have published extensively in peer-reviewed journals and technical reports to USDA-NRCS,
USEPA, and other government agencies. My curriculum vitae is attached.
2. Characteristics of the property
The Fresh&Co/Tenedios farm is a 34.5 acre property in mixed agricultural use located near the
junction of Main and Narrow River Roads in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York.
A proposal made for development on the property has triggered discussion and review by local
and regional authorities. Part of this review has focused on potential environmental impacts of
agricultural operations on the property, particularly with regard to surface and ground water
quality. These issues are particularly important considering that the property is located in an
environmentally sensitive area with designated Significant Coastal Habitat onsite and adjacent,
underlain by a sole source aquifer that provides drinking water to the local population, near high-
value tidal and non-tidal wetlands, and draining to the Narrow River and Hallock Bay, an
ecologically and economically important shellfishing resource that has been designated as a
Critical Environmental Area (Fig. 1). Furthermore, as documented in their draft 2020
Comprehensive Plan, the Town of Southold recognizes the need to control potential pollutants
(sediment, nutrients, pathogens, and agrichemicals)in surface and ground waters to protect
1
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Hallock's Say Critical Environmental Area (CEA)
ffenfive Date of Designati w° 3-24-08 De5ignating Agency: Town of Slo-m,itholw
m am
Al "��dYrr ''�a "o
w
P", ;9P CH
`" ^ w r
W t✓�,
1-4
"E„,
mmb la� � �A" �� r
u
r��� ✓ m r �� a if
jl Al
W,
Al
0AIR&PS '�" mmWlr
' wp
u rerwimr mmrfa.�� ����� Aarat
gi
mil
JIM JO
v �(
" ;,. �r,�m r•'P ,.
Of
PlY
s
Legend CW 4,Lm 2,M 4,O Wim 8,10m
= y
twillih-amk'viv i'duvq m,l'm Fed',
hmm mm), I„IW'*rtlWV!'k IxYr PINvI w aGrPc Iwmamma om. "4 inch t IA 2,000 f"I
47ffm ('Xmi mnrYWfomm o agmmirq Ow mremmma m..mrrtmmm W d Fd mmmm°�alrm lm.
r�mm�m,m ml O�mmmm�al)y blA IN nal,91j a�umrm�Wm��aW NYS ETC Fick m�mmmlwmmmam�l',Ap Nm m�ww
Nm krom!m+�ummsa+�m�sw.I
'o ki I# n�NW�1�m� Ple agr�w molv,m 0 Ibe e�+m kjlod ro�rtg mildilurr°WW�rc�f
a(k
]lkwaal lr&il r°m^1 r Nm,W Ill NmAlmm1m y r�aiad.r�iWAmY,��s�rr
Figure 1. Map showing Hallock's Bay CEA. (Source: NYS DEC)
2
locally sensitive areas, the local environment, and concerns of local residents. At the same time,
the Town also recognizes the need to support an economically viable agriculture within the town.
The property comprises a total of 34.5 acres in the R-200 zoning district, with development
rights on 29.5 acres held by the Town of Southold, NY. The land is quite flat and is located on
soils generally mapped as the Haven-Riverhead Association, soils that are deep, nearly level to
gently sloping, well-drained, and of medium to coarse texture. A recent(2017) onsite inspection
by USDA-NRCS reports that the majority of the soil at the site is Haven loam (HaA), a well-
drained medium textured soil over coarse sand and gravel. A portion of the property is cropped,
typically in broccoli, cauliflower, tomatoes, parsley, cilantro, basil, corn, strawberries and
brussels sprouts, according to an article published last year.1 According to information filed by
the applicant in October 2017, some livestock is housed on the property, including a variable and
uncertain number of chickens, pigs, goats, and horses; when resident on the property, most of
these animals graze in paddocks and are sheltered in small structures scattered at variable
locations within the property (Figure 2). According to the applicant, all of the recoverable
animal waste and used bedding is collected regularly and sent off-site in the solid waste stream.
One incident of release of manure/bedding has been noted by a local resident(4/24/2018 email
and photograph from Bredemeyer).
d
Figure 2. View of pasture area looking north from
Narrow River Rd. Photo shows several outbuildings
and at least 25 goats. (April 28, 2018)
The property is bounded on three sides by two highways (Main Rd. and Narrow River Rd.) and
is separated from the Narrow River immediately to the east by Narrow River Rd. There appear
to be multiple culverts draining unknown portions of the property (possibly a pasture and/or
wetland/wetland buffer area)under Narrow River Rd. along the southern boundary of the
' https://www.laneasterfanning.com/news/northern_edition/nyc-farm-to-table-restaurateur-buys-his-own-
farm/article OeO35cd6-eabd-5227-bfcb-8elf6c93916c.html
2 Recoverable manure/bedding is defined as waste that can be collected and contained for management(e.g.,
disposal) such as manure deposited in a barn or a barnyard. Manure deposited by animals on pasture or from
spillage is considered non-recoverable and still represents a potential pollution source.
3
property that drains to the Narrow River. It is unknown if this drainage is the result of long-past
ditching on the property. Rough locations of two such culvert areas identified from NarrowRiver
Rd. are shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Google Map showing rough locations of culverts (circled)
conveying drainage from farm property to Narrow River.
An example of one of the drainages under Narrow River Rd. is shown in Figure 4 and 5. This
appears to show the western drainageway from the farm toward the road from Figure 3, but the
exact location is uncertain as that Google Map image was taken in 2017 and changes occurred on
the farm property between 2017 and 2018 when the photographs in Figures 4 and 5 was taken.
r t r
i
` II
Figure 4. View looking north of apparent Figure 5. View of culvert draining
drainageway from farm property toward a culvert into Narrow River under Narrow
under Narrow River Rd. (March 18, 2018). River Rd. (April 28, 2018)
Potential sources of quality impacts associated with the property include:
• Animal waste (manure and used bedding);
• Soil erosion from cropland and animal concentration areas;
4
• Runoff and leaching from cropland;
• Runoff from structure roofs and other impervious areas; and
• Drainage through the culverts under Narrow River Rd.
Pollutants from these sources can move and be potentially delivered off-site by surface runoff,
through the culvert or otherwise, or infiltration to groundwater.
Potential pollutants include:
• Sediment
• Nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus)
• Pathogens3 (from animal waste)
• Runoff water
• Agrichemicals (insecticides, herbicides, fungicides)
3. Approach
The Natural Resources and Environment chapter of the draft 2020 Southold Comprehensive Plan
states goals for the protection of both surface and ground water quality by avoiding and/or
minimizing nonpoint source pollution of surface water, ground water, and coastal waters through
implementation of improved management on agricultural (as well as other) lands in the Town.
In addition, the draft Agriculture chapter of the plan cites an important goal of preserving
agricultural land and the agricultural economy, while protecting and improving both land and
water from excess erosion, nutrients, and agrichemicals.
The principal means of achieving both of these goals is the implementation of improved
management on agricultural land, including structural measures. Such measures and practices
may act to reduce inputs of nutrients and agrichemicals, reduce movement and transport of these
potential pollutants within the site, and reduce off-site delivery to receiving waters. Such
activities are variously termed Best Management Practices, Conservation Practices, or
Management Measures; for this report, the term Best Management Practice (BMP)is used to
refer to a structural or management practice or combination of practices that represents effective
and practicable (including technological, economic, and institutional considerations)means of
preventing or reducing the amount of pollution generated by nonpoint sources to a level
compatible with water quality goals.
Regardless of the specific characteristics of individual BMPs, there are some key principles that
guide the effort to reduce agricultural nonpoint or point source pollution. These principles focus
on controlling the availability of pollutants, their movement and transport, and their delivery to
receiving waters. In practice, most agricultural BMPs strive to accomplish the following:
• Maintain vegetative cover to prevent erosion and soil loss;
• Control runoff and concentrated overland flow;
• Reduce nutrient and agrichemical inputs to reduce availability of potential pollutants;
s The term"pathogen"used here and elsewhere in the report includes nonpathogenic indicator organisms such as
coliform and E. coli bacteria that are typically used as indicators of possible presence of true pathogenic organisms
5
• Manage animal waste to minimize potential losses;
• Reduce pathogen content of animal wastes;
• Keep grazing animals away from water courses to avoid direct inputs of pollutants to
waterways and riparian areas;
• Capture and treat concentrated flows before they leave the site; and
• Provide effective vegetated buffers between agricultural land and adjacent surface waters.
The conditions and individual BMPs proposed below address these principles.
4. Proposed Conditions
4.1 Background
The following sections recommend conditions that the Planning Board should include in any site
plan approval for the Fresh&Co/Tenedios Farm property to reduce potential environmental
impacts of the operation to surface and ground water, both on- and off-site. In general, the
earlier in the process the conditions are satisfied, the better the results will be.
4.2 Recommended Conditions
4.2.1 Establish and Manage Vegetated Buffers
Establish and maintain 100 ft wide vegetated buffers between agricultural land/animal operations
and wetlands, drainageways, and surface waters within and adjacent to the property. These
buffers should be designed and maintained to USDA-NRCS specifications and managed to
stabilize soils, slow water runoff and enhance infiltration, trap particulate pollutants in surface
runoff and dissolved pollutants in subsurface flow, and nutrient uptake and denitrification.
Vegetated buffers can include existing trees and understory vegetation and should otherwise be
managed to maintain close-growing herbaceous vegetation. Nutrient and pesticide applications
should be prohibited within the vegetated buffer except as required for vegetation establishment.
Herbaceous vegetation may be mowed annually to control brush, but not harvested for hay or
other forage. Animal grazing within the buffer should be prohibited.
4.2.2 Develop and Implement a Farm Conservation Plan
The landowner should contract with the USDA-NRCS (i.e., through the Suffolk County Soil and
Water Conservation District) and/or through their technical service provider(s) or certified crop
management consultant(s)to develop and implement a farm conservation plan that addresses all
forms of potential agricultural pollution to both surface and ground water. The plan should
include at a minimum a nutrient management plan for cropland on the site, measures to control
erosion from cropland and animal operations, measures to address animal waste storage and
management as appropriate and vegetated buffers. BMPs should be selected from the list
presented in Section 5, or others as appropriate. While the Conservation Plan should be
developed under the standards and specifications of the USDA-NRCS and its funding programs
(e.g., cost-share support), its implementation should occur irrespective of the availability of
USDA or other cost-share assistance.
6
4.2.3 Implement Reduced Tillage and Cover Cropping on Cropland
Consistent with common practice in Suffolk County, reduced tillage should be implemented on
the farm cropland to prevent erosion and soil loss and to promote soil quality. Furthermore,
cover crops should be planted and managed during fallow periods to protect the soil from
erosion, to take up residual soil nutrients, and promote soil quality.
4.2.4 Manage Agrichemicals
To the extent possible, the use of pesticides should be reduced through the application of
Integrated Pest Management practices. When use of agrichemicals is necessary, a safe handling
facility should be implemented that protects surface and ground waters from contamination
during mixing, loading, and clean-up operations.
4.2.5 Manage Animal Waste and Bedding
Current animal waste management practice on the farm includes collection and off-site disposal
of all recoverable waste. As long as this practice continues, additional animal waste
management need only include the provision of temporary manure/bedding storage protected
from contact with surface or ground water and measures to avoid animal concentrations leading
to build-up of large masses of manure in grazing or housing areas. It should be emphasized that
the farm site is not well-suited for land application of animal waste because of its location on
coarse soils over a sole-source aquifer and proximity to sensitive surface waters. Moreover, it is
usually inadvisable to apply animal waste to vegetable crops intended for direct human
consumption because of the risk of pathogen transmission. Therefore, it is strongly
recommended that animal numbers not increase beyond current levels and that land application
of wastes be avoided. However, should animal populations increase significantly or manure no
longer shipped off-site, waste management practices must be revisited in a revised farm
conservation plan. This revision should focus on manure utilization in the context of a nutrient
management plan, the land carrying capacity for animals and use of manure nutrients,
microbiological safety, and measures to prevent runoff and leaching of nutrients and pathogens
from stored and/or land-applied manure. At minimum, the operator must follow regulations
governing land application of animal waste to crops destined for human consumption under the
Food Safety Modernization Act(FSMA) and the National Organic Program (NOP)requiring a
90-120 day delay between manure application and crop harvest.
4.2.6 Exclude livestock from Wetlands,Wetland Buffer, and other Vegetated Buffers
Livestock on pasture or in other outside enclosures should be excluded from drainageways,
wetlands, wetland buffers, and other vegetated buffers. This exclusion should be accomplished
by permanent fencing. Livestock exclusion prevents direct deposition of animal wastes into
waterways and deposition into riparian areas where nutrients and/or pathogens can be carried
into waterways by overland or subsurface flow.
4.2.7 Prevent Pollutants from Leaving the Site Through Culvert(s) into the Narrow River
At present, there appear to be at least two locations where concentrated now leaves the farm
property and flows under the Narrow River Road in a culvert, and into the Narrow River. As an
immediate step, these culverts must be located on a map and their drainage areas within the farm
property delineated. Measures to prevent pollutant flows through these channels must then be
7
taken, through either source reduction within the contributing area(s), or treatment of the flow
before exiting the property (e.g., through bioswales, settling basins, or similar). It should be
noted that because this drainage flows through culverts under a public highway, hydraulic
evaluation of any proposed measures must be conducted by an engineer in order to protect public
infrastructure.
4.2.8 Collect Roof Runoff from the Proposed Barn
Roof runoff and any other runoff generated from impervious surfaces associated with the
proposed barn must be collected, diverted away from sources of agricultural pollutants, and
safely directed to prevent erosion and sediment transport. The purpose is to prevent"clean"
water from becoming contaminated with agricultural pollutants and prevent its addition to water
requiring further management and/or treatment. Discharge of collected roof runoff to drywells
or diversion of surface flow to a safe discharge point are appropriate ways of handling roof
runoff.
4.2.9 Relocate the Proposed Barn
The Town has proposed moving the location of the proposed barn 200 ft. to address potential
visual impacts. Because such a move will move the building footprint away from the wetland
buffer boundary, relocation can be endorsed as a pollution reduction measure as well.
5. Proposed management practices
5.1. Background
The following sections recommend management practices that should be implemented
on the Fresh&Co/Tenedios Farm property to reduce potential environmental impacts of
the operation to surface and ground water, both on- and off-site. These BMPs should be
incorporated into the Farm Conservation Plan and Nutrient Management Plan discussed
above, as they apply. In the course of development of a Conservation Plan, the
landowner/operator will need to disclose specific information on animal types and
numbers, location and size of shelters, feeding areas, and other structures, locations and
types of manure storage, and other farm management information. Such information is
needed to assess pollution potential and identify management opportunities and is
standard practice in BMP planning and design.
These recommendations are made with several caveats. First, it should be emphasized
that BMPs must be designed and implemented on a site-specific basis through a
comprehensive conservation planning process that applies and adapts the practices to the
requirements, physical setting, and current management operations of the site. Such a
planning process can be accomplished through the USDA-Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS)via the Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation
District. The NRCS conservation planning process can provide both technical (design)
and financial (cost-share) support for implementation of a conservation plan at the
request of a landowner. A USDA-NRCS conservation plan (especially if cost-shared)is
not considered implemented until all practices have been installed and certified by a
technical service provider. In addition, an independent crop management consultant or
technical service provider can be engaged to develop a plan. Such individuals are
8
usually certified by an authority such as the USDA-NRCS. Crop nutrient management
plans, for example, are typically designed and maintained by a crop management
consultant, usually based on the NRCS practice standard (590). Conservation planning
on the Fresh&Co/Tenedios Farm property should consider application of risk-assessment
tools such as the New York Phosphorus Index and the New York Nitrate Leaching
Index. These tools are often required as part of the implementation of a nutrient
management BMP.
The second caveat relates to BMP definitions. Management practices may be defined or
named slightly differently by different jurisdictions or authorities. In New York, for
example, BMPs may be defined by USDA-NRCS, the Chesapeake Bay Program, the
Long Island Sound Program, Agricultural Environmental Management(AEM), or
Cornell University Cooperative Extension. It is beyond the scope of this report to select
the best precise practice name or definition from among these multiple sources (that
level of specificity is developed in the farm conservation plan). Because USDA-NRCS
typically sets the standard upon which other entities base their BMPs, in many cases this
report will recommend BMPs identified by USDA-NRCS practice code and definition.
Standards and specifications for these practices are documented in the NRCS Field
Office Technical Guide, specifically in Section IV Conservation Practices. This use of
NRCS practice codes does not imply that these are the only practices to apply in this
case. Other slightly different BMPs that address the same goals or principles may be
referenced by other authorities. For example, the NRCS practice for Residue and Tillage
Management, Reduced Till (Code 345) calls for managing plant residue left at the soil
surface and limiting soil-disturbing activities on cropland. There are, however,
numerous techniques and farm implements that can accomplish the principles of this
measure that are suitable for the specific soils and cropping practices of the area. The
precise definition of reduced tillage may, therefore, be found in practices documented by
other agencies. Such issues will typically be worked out in the conservation planning
process.
Finally, it should be noted that BMPs rarely address single individual pollutants. BMPs
that reduce erosion and soil loss, for example, reduce not only sediment but also
pollutants like phosphorus or metals that tend to be carried by soil particles. Measures
that manage animal waste my influence pathogens as well as nutrients in runoff Thus,
while BMPs will be listed in the following sections under their primary target or sector,
benefits may accrue for other concerns as well.
5.2. Recommended BMPs
Individual BMPs will be recommended below, referenced by USDA-NRCS practice
code (where applicable)within their primary area of concern or pollutant reduction
focus. A brief definition of the practice and its primary purpose(s) are given.
5.2.1. Soil Erosion and Sediment
• 327 Conservation Cover
Definition: Establishing and maintaining permanent vegetative cover
9
Purpose: Reduce sheet, rill, and wind erosion and sedimentation; reduce ground
and surface water quality degradation by nutrients and surface water quality
degradation by sediment
Application: To over-grazed areas, travel paths, denuded areas around housing or
feeders
• 342 Critical Area Planting
Definition: Establishing permanent vegetation on sites that have, or are expected
to have, high erosion rates
Purpose: Stabilize areas with existing or expected high rates of soil erosion;
stabilize stream and channel banks, pond and other shorelines
Application: To over-grazed areas, areas of animal concentration, stream and
channel banks
• 329 Residue and Tillage Management, No-Till
Definition: Limiting soil disturbance to manage the amount, orientation and
distribution of crop and plant residue on the soil surface year around
Purpose: Reduce sheet, rill and wind erosion and excessive sediment in surface
waters; reduce tillage-induced particulate emissions; maintain or increase soil
health and organic matter content
Application: To land in continuous or rotational row crops
• 345 Residue and Tillage Management, Reduced Till
Definition: Managing the amount, orientation, and distribution of crop and other
plant residue on the soil surface year-round while limiting soil-disturbing
activities used to grow and harvest crops in systems where the field surface is
tilled prior to planting
Purpose: Reduce sheet, rill, and wind erosion and excessive sediment in surface
waters; reduce tillage-induced particulate emissions; improve soil health and
maintain or increase organic matter content
Application: To land in continuous or rotational row crops
• 350 Sediment Basin
Definition: A basin constructed with an engineered outlet, formed by an
embankment or excavation or a combination of the two
Purpose: To capture and detain sediment laden runoff, or other debris for a
sufficient length of time to allow it to settle out in the basin. Also traps nutrients,
metals, and other chemicals carried by sediment particles; reduces pathogens.
Application: To runoff or discharge conveyed in channels from cropland, areas of
exposed soils or active erosion, animal concentration, structures, or flow in
ditches or other constructed waterways
• 638 Water and Sediment Control Basin (WASCOB)
Definition: An earth embankment or a combination ridge and channel constructed
across the slope of minor watercourses to form a sediment trap and water
detention basin with a stable outlet
10
Purpose: 1.To reduce watercourse and gully erosion
2. To trap sediment and associated pollutants
3. To reduce and manage onsite and downstream runoff
4. Also reduces pathogens
Application: To runoff from cropland, or natural or constructed drainageways
5.2.2. Nutrients
• 590 Nutrient Management
Definition: Managing the amount(rate), source, placement(method of
application), and timing of plant nutrients and soil amendments. A NM plan
considers all available sources and forms of nutrients, existing soil nutrient stocks,
crop needs for expected yields, and nutrients remaining after crop harvest.
Purpose: 1. To budget, supply, and conserve nutrients for plant production
2. To minimize agricultural nonpoint source pollution of surface and
groundwater resources by reducing excess nutrient supply or residual
soil nutrients after crop harvest
3. To properly utilize manure or organic by-products as a plant nutrient
source
4. To protect air quality by reducing odors, nitrogen emissions, and the
formation of atmospheric particulates
5. To maintain or improve the physical, chemical, and biological
condition of soil
Application: To land in continuous or rotational row crop or forage production
• 340 Cover Crop4
Definition: Grasses, legumes, and forbs planted for seasonal vegetative cover on
row crop land
Purpose: Reduce erosion from wind and water; utilize excess soil nutrients
(especially nitrogen)to prevent runoff or leaching to groundwater;
maintain/increase soil health and organic matter content
Application: To land in continuous or rotational row crops
• 656 Constructed Wetland
Definition: An artificial wetland ecosystem with hydrophytic vegetation for
biological treatment of water
Purpose: To treat wastewater or contaminated runoff from agricultural
processing, livestock, or aquaculture facilities; to remove nitrogen from runoff by
denitrification
Application: To organic wastes or runoff from livestock facilities or areas of
animal concentration or to cropland runoff
4 In some cases,farmers use herbicides to kill overwintered cover crop vegetation before planting new crops. This
practice should be strictly avoided;mechanical means should be used to plant in an overwintered cover crop,
consistent with any reduced tillage practices employed.
11
5.2.3. Animal Waste
According to information provided by the applicant, all recoverable animal waste and
bedding from the facility is managed by collection and shipment off-site in the solid
waste stream. Intensive animal waste storage and management practices are therefore not
highly applicable to this operation at present as long as the animal numbers remain low
and off-site disposal of all recoverable waste continues. Even so, short-term storage of
recovered animal waste must be done so as to minimize leaching and runoff, e.g.,
collected in a tank or stacked on a concrete pad with curbing to prevent runoff. Any
short-term collection or storage areas must be located away from ditches, swales or other
surface runoff conveyances and outside designated buffer areas. Non-recoverable animal
waste—manure deposited on pasture or grazing areas— should be managed in such a way
that heavy concentrations of animals (such as around feeding areas) are minimized, e.g.,
dispersed through rotational grazing. Livestock grazing should not occur within
designated buffer areas or within 100 feet of ditches, swales, or other runoff conveyances.
As noted in Section 4.2.5 above, expansion of animal numbers and land application of
animal waste are not advisable on this site. Should animal populations increase
significantly or off-site waste export cease, it will be essential to address animal waste
management in a revised farm conservation plan. If these conditions occur and land
application of animal waste on the farm site takes place, the ability of the land/cropping
system to safely accept and utilize waste nutrients will need to be reflected in the nutrient
management plan (see Section 5.2.2 above). Furthermore, animal waste storage and on-
farm management will become very important to contain recoverable animal waste from
contact with surface and ground waters and to minimize runoff and leaching losses from
wastes applied to cropland. These concerns can be addressed by a number of specific
BMPs which will need to be developed as part of a revised farm conservation plan.
• Animal Waste Storage
Definition: Containment of recoverable animal waste (solid and liquid) and used
bedding protected from contact with water from overland flow and prevention of
infiltration into soil and/or groundwater
Purpose: To minimize runoff and leaching losses of nutrients and pathogens from
stored animal waste
Application: Collection and storage of recovered animal waste and bedding from
animal holding areas. Specific techniques and mechanisms depend on form of
waste (solid vs. liquid), volume of waste, and collection system (barn vs.
barnyard), and other site-specific variables.
• Animal Waste Management
Definition: Utilization of animal waste for crop production or soil fertility
management consistent with a crop nutrient management plan while avoiding
environmental losses
Purpose: To utilize manure nutrients for crop production in a way that provides
adequate nutrients to growing crops while minimizing losses to surface and ground
waters or build-up of excessive nutrients in soils
Application: Storage and land application of animal wastes to cropland by
12
mechanical means (i.e., not from grazing animals)in the context of an approved
nutrient management plan. Specific techniques and schedules for waste utilization
depend on form of waste (solid vs. liquid), application equipment(surface
application vs. injection), tillage systems (conventional vs. reduced tillage), and
crop needs.
5.2.4. Pathogens
It should be noted that many of the practices currently used to reduce nutrient and
sediment loads from agricultural land have also been observed to reduce pathogen
loading. Vegetated buffers, grazing management, and constructed wetlands, for example,
may provide reductions of coliform or E. coli bacteria on the order of 50— 90 percent.
Thus, many of the concerns for animal waste management for nutrients also apply to the
issue of pathogens. As long as all recoverable animal waste and bedding from the facility
is managed by collection and shipment off-site in the solid waste stream, pathogen losses
from this source are likely to be low. Intensive animal waste storage and management
practices for pathogen reduction are therefore not highly applicable to this operation at
present as long as the animal numbers remain low and off-site disposal of all recoverable
waste continues. As long as short-term storage of recovered animal waste is done well
(see Section 5.2.3)pathogen concerns will be addressed. Pathogen loss from dispersed,
non-recoverable waste, however remains of concern and similar measures to those
discussed in Section 5.2.3 should be followed. Grazing animals should be managed to
avoid heavy concentrations of manure on pastures, near drainageways, or within buffers.
Rotational grazing and livestock exclusion from waterways will address these issues.
Livestock grazing should not occur within designated buffer areas or within 100 feet of
ditches, swales, or other runoff conveyances.
• Animal Waste Storage
Definition: Containment of recoverable animal waste (solid and liquid) and used
bedding protected from contact with water from overland flow and prevention of
infiltration into soil and/or groundwater
Purpose: To promote die-off of microorganisms in animal wastes
Application: Collection and storage of recovered animal waste and bedding from
animal holding areas. Specific techniques and mechanisms depend on form of
waste (solid vs. liquid), volume of waste, and collection system (barn vs.
barnyard), and other site-specific variables.
• Grazing Management
Definition: Manage stocking rates and pasture rotations
Purpose: To maintain healthy vegetation, minimize congregation areas and travel
lanes, and concentrated deposition of animal waste
Application: Pastures or other land areas where animals are held for grazing or
other purposes. Grazing management should provide adequate feed to livestock
5 It is widely documented that waste storage alone reduces pathogen populations by 90—99%because of heat,UV
radiation,desiccation, and other environmental conditions that promote microorganism die-off.
13
while maintaining healthy pasture vegetation. Stocking rate (animals/acre), time
on pasture, rotation among pasture paddocks are variables to be considered.
While animal numbers are low(as reported at present), grazing management can
be relatively simple. If animal numbers increase, the intensity and sophistication
of grazing management will need to increase as well. Note that an assessment of
the capacity of the farm land to support larger numbers of livestock must be based
not only on feed generation but also on ability of the land to support recycling of
nutrients from animal wastes if land application of manure is undertaken.
Grazing management may be accomplished with a number of individual
component practices, e.g.,
o 528 Prescribed grazing
Definition: Managing the harvest of vegetation with grazing and/or
browsing animals with the intent to achieve specific ecological, economic,
and management objectives
Purpose: 1. Improve or maintain desired species composition, structure
and/or vigor of plant communities
2. Improve or maintain quantity and/or quality of forage for
grazing and browsing animals' health and productivity
3. Improve or maintain surface and/or subsurface water quality
and/or quantity
4. Reduce soil erosion, and maintain or improve soil health
Application: Vegetated land where animals are regularly confined for
grazing or other purposes
o 472 Access control
Definition: The temporary or permanent exclusion of animals, people,
vehicles, and/or equipment from an area
Purpose: Achieve and maintain desired resource conditions by monitoring
and managing the intensity of use by animals, people, vehicles, and/or
equipment
Application: Control of access to and use of pastures or grazing areas
• Livestock Exclusion [various practices depending on animal species and numbers
and proximity to water]
Definition: Excluding grazing animals from direct access to water, riparian areas,
or buffers
Purpose: To prevent direct deposition of animal waste into streams or riparian
zone and to prevent disturbance of vegetation and soil by trampling
Livestock exclusion may be accomplished with permanent or temporary fencing,
bridges or armored crossings, and provision of off-stream water supplies.
Application: Land where animals graze or are held that is adjacent to artificial or
natural drainage ways, wetlands or wetland buffers, surface waters, or designated
buffer areas
14
• 561 Heavy Use Area Protection [barnyard management]
Definition: Stabilizing a ground surface that is frequently and intensively used by
animals (e.g., barnyards and loafing areas)
Purpose: To provide a stable non-eroding surface for areas frequently used by
animals and to protect water quality by containing deposited wastes and/or runoff
for collection and/or treatment
Application: Areas of regular animal concentration, including barnyards, loafing
areas, feeding or watering sites
• Concentrated overland flow treatment
Heavily contaminated concentrated overland flow (e.g., from a barnyard)is
treated by passage through vegetated areas engineered to promote sheet flow and
avoid concentrated flow channels. Several component practices may apply:
0 393 Filter strip
Definition: An engineered strip or area of herbaceous vegetation that
removes contaminants from overland flow
Purpose: 1. Reduce suspended solids and associated contaminants in
runoff and excessive sediment in surface waters
2. Reduce dissolved contaminant loadings in runoff
Application: Runoff from contained sites generating heavily
contaminated runoff such as barnyards, loafing areas, animal waste
storage sites.
0 635 Vegetated Treatment area
Definition: An area of permanent vegetation used for agricultural
wastewater treatment
Purpose: Improve water quality by using vegetation to reduce the loading
of nutrients, organics, pathogens, and other contaminants associated with
livestock, poultry, and other agricultural operations
Application: Overland flow from areas where livestock graze or are
housed or where crops are grown
5.2.5. Runoff Management
Managing and controlling surface runoff—especially areas of concentrated overland flow
—will help reduce pollutant transport from the farm and delivery to surface waters.
Concentrated overland flow from a barnyard or loafing area or from a building roof or
other impervious surface should be avoided to the extent possible, with remaining flow
diverted or captured and treated before exiting the property. A cardinal rule of runoff
management is to prevent"clean water" (e.g., roof runoff, natural runoff from up-
gradient)from becoming contaminated by diverting it from contact with agricultural
pollutant sources.
• 558 Roof Runoff Structure
Definition: A structure that will collect, control and convey precipitation runoff
from a roof
15
Purpose: 1. Protect surface water quality by excluding roof runoff from
contaminated areas
2. Protect a structure foundation from water damage or soil erosion
from excess water runoff
3. Increase infiltration of runoff water
Application: New construction and any existing construction that involves more
than 100 sq. ft. of impervious roof area
• 362 Diversion [may be challenging in areas of flat topography]
Definition: A channel generally constructed across the slope with a supporting
ridge on the lower side
Purpose: 1. Break up concentrations of water on long slopes, on undulating land
surfaces and on land that is generally considered too flat or irregular for
terracing
2. Divert water away from farmsteads, agricultural waste systems, and
other improvements
3. Intercept surface and shallow subsurface flow
4. Divert water away from active gullies or critically eroding areas
Application: Anywhere where overland flow concentrates and threatens to
promote gully erosion; protection of structures and active gullies or critically
eroding areas
• Vegetated Buffers6
Definition: An area of grass, shrubs, and/or trees located between agricultural
operations and watercourses or water bodies (riparian buffer) or between
agricultural operations and adjacent land parcels
Purpose: 1. To slow surface runoff and enhance infiltration
2. To trap pollutants in surface and subsurface flow
3. To promote denitrification and nutrient uptake
4. To stabilize soils
5. To separate agricultural influences (e.g., nutrient applications,
grazing) from surface water or adjacent property
Application: Between agricultural activities and drainageways, waterways,
wetlands, wetland buffers within the farm property and between the farm property
and similar adjacent features
Comment: It is essential that agricultural activities such as grazing, animal
housing, tillage, cropping, and fertilizer application (except for initial
establishment of vegetation)be prohibited from the buffer area. Buffers must also
be managed to prevent concentrated overland flow channels from developing
through the buffer area.
One specific issue of runoff water management is water flow through one or more
culverts that passes under Narrow River Rd. at the southern edge of the property and
6 Excellent proposals requiring 100'vegetated buffers are discussed in the 4/25/2018 LWRP memo to the Town of
Southold Planning Board and are further discussed above under recommended conditions.
16
discharges to the Narrow River. Runoff that is conveyed to these culverts must be
controlled and/or treated before it enters the culverts. Possible measures include
diversion, bioswale, filter strip, sediment basin or WASCOB. Such measures must be
carefully engineered to protect both the farm property and the public highway; specific
design recommendations are beyond the scope of this report. As an immediate measure,
these culverts must be accurately mapped and the drainage areas within the farm that
contribute to them identified.
5.2.6. Agrichemicals
The extent to which insecticides, herbicides, and other agrichemicals are used on this
farm is unknown. If used, such chemicals must be managed carefully to avoid surface
water loss and groundwater contamination. This is especially important considering the
location over a sole-source aquifer and proximity to an important shellfishing area.
Management should be focused on efficient use of necessary agrichemicals and
prevention of groundwater contamination from spills.
• 595 Integrated pest management
Definition: A site-specific combination of pest prevention, pest avoidance, pest
monitoring, and pest suppression strategies
Purpose: 1. Prevent or mitigate pesticide risks to water quality through leaching,
solution runoff and adsorbed runoff
2. Prevent or mitigate pesticide risks to soil, water, air, plants, animals
and humans through drift and volatilization
3. Prevent or mitigate pesticide risks to pollinators and other beneficial
species through direct contact.
4. Prevent or mitigate cultural, mechanical and biological pest
suppression risks to soil, water, air, plants, animals and humans
Application: Cropland or other land within the facility that requires or receives
treatment for pests
• 309 Agrichemical Handling Facility
Definition: A facility with an impervious surface and perimeter curbing to
provide an environmentally safe area for the handling of on-farm agrichemicals
Purpose: To provide an environmentally safe facility to store, mix, load and clean
up agrichemicals and to retain incidental spillage or leakage
Application: A designated area within the farm for the storage and handling of
agrichemicals
6. Discussion
The above list of BMPs applicable to the Fresh&Co/Tenedios Farm is based on current
knowledge of the land and the agricultural operations. The list is not necessarily exhaustive. For
example, it is not known whether any part of the property is artificially drained with subsurface
(tile) drainage. Tile drainage discharge is often a significant source of nutrients (especially
17
nitrogen). Management practices such as 605 Denitrifying bioreactor or 554 Drainage Water
Management should be considered if tile drainage exists.
It must also be noted that in some cases BMPs may have potentially contradictory effects. A
practice that reduces surface runoff, for example, may tend to increase water infiltration to
groundwater. A nutrient management recommendation to incorporate (plow down)fertilizers or
soil amendments into the soil may conflict with requirements for reduced tillage. These potential
conflicts must be considered and resolved by making choices in the conservation planning
process.
Finally, the importance of operation and maintenance activities for implemented BMPs cannot
be overemphasized. Most structural BMPs — such as sediment basins or vegetated filter strips—
require periodic maintenance such as clean-out of accumulated sediment or rejuvenation of
vegetation. Buffers need to be monitored to ensure that areas of concentrated flow (channels or
gullies) do not develop; such flow through a buffer short-circuits the treatment process and does
not provide effective water quality treatment. Management BMPs require regular monitoring to
verify that provisions of the practice continue to be met and that the practice is effective.
Nutrient management plans, for example, need to be regularly updated to accommodate changes
in crop rotations and yields, nutrient sources, etc. Regular soil testing (e.g., for phosphorus or for
post-harvest soil nitrate levels) is required to update nutrient rate recommendations and to assess
the overall effects of nutrient management on soil nutrient status. Finally, the entire farm
conservation plan needs to be updated periodically (e.g., every 5 years)to reflect changes in
animal populations, cropping patterns, land use, and management.
7. Conclusions
The Town of Southold and its citizens have adopted planning goals to protect and improve
environmental quality and to promote and support agricultural activity in the town. The
proposed development on the Fresh&Co/Tenedios Farm can be managed to achieve both of these
goals if certain conditions are met.
Management on the farm property should focus on these principles:
• Maintain vegetative cover to prevent erosion and soil loss;
• Control runoff and concentrated overland flow;
• Reduce nutrient and agrichemical inputs to reduce availability of potential pollutants;
• Manage animal waste to minimize potential losses;
• Reduce pathogen content of animal wastes;
• Keep grazing animals away from water courses to avoid direct inputs of pollutants to
waterways and riparian areas;
• Capture and treat concentrated flows before they leave the site; and
• Provide effective vegetated buffers between agricultural land and adjacent surface waters.
The following specific conditions are proposed for the proposed development project:
• Establish and Manage Vegetated Buffers
18
• Develop and Implement a Farm Conservation Plan
• Implement Reduced Tillage and Cover Cropping on Cropland
• Manage Agrichemicals
• Manage Animal Waste and Bedding
• Exclude livestock from Wetlands, Wetland Buffer, and other Vegetated Buffers
• Prevent Pollutants from Leaving the Site Through Culvert(s)into the Narrow River
• Collect Roof Runoff from the Proposed Barn
• Relocate the Proposed Barn
These conditions and specific BMPs that can be implemented to achieve them are discussed fully
in Sections 4 and 5. The key to this effort is a comprehensive farm plan meeting USDA-NRCS
standards that identifies current and potential areas of concern and recommends specific
applications of BMPs to address the concerns. Implementation of the practices identified in the
plan is— of course—paramount.
Finally, the importance of operation and maintenance activities for implemented BMPs cannot
be overemphasized. In addition to physical maintenance of structural BMPs and regular
monitoring and updating of management BMPs, the entire Farm Conservation Plan needs to be
updated periodically to reflect changes in animal populations, cropping patterns, land use, and
management.
19
DONALD W. MEALS
84 Caroline Street 802-598-8140
Burlington, Vermont 05401 dmealsgburlingtontelecom.net
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Principal, Ice.Nine Environmental Consulting, 84 Caroline St., Burlington, VT 1995 -present
Clients/projects:
■ Champlain Water District, S. Burlington,VT, Use of water treatment residuals for phosphorus
management(2005-present)
■ Resolve,Washington D.C. The Way Things Work:How effective watershed projects are
organized and what we can do to improve public and private sector watershed programs Report
to the Natural Resources Conservation Service,USDA (2015)
■ North Carolina State University, Synthesis ofLessons Learned from the NIFA-CEAP Projects.
Report to USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (2009—2012)
■ USDA-NRCS: Part 602, National Water Quality Handbook(2004-2006).
■ USDA-NRCS Watershed Science Institute, Analyzing Effects of Conservation Practices Using
Network Modeling, with M. Watzin and E.A. Cassell, UVM-SNR(2003)
■ North Carolina State University/US EPA,A Farmer's Guide to Agriculture and Water Quality
Issues, content development for USDA/US EPA Ag Compliance Center web sites and fact
sheets on nutrient management, erosion control,pesticides,pathogens, and wetland/riparian
protection (1999-2003)
■ North Carolina State University,North Carolina Wellhead Protection Guidebook(2002)
■ USDA-NRCS Watershed Science Institute A Tool for Assessing Bacterial Pollution at Watershed
Scale with E.A. Cassell,UVM-SNR(1999-2002)
■ USDA-NRCS Watershed Science Institute,Dynamic Simulation Modeling of Phosphorus
Budgets for Agricultural/Forested Watersheds-the Inland Bays Watershed, Delaware, with
E.A Cassell,UVM-SNR and Richard Croft,NRCS-WSI(1997-1998)
■ U.S. EPA/North Carolina State University,Writer and co-editor for national EPA Guidance on
Controlling Agricultural Sources ofNonpointPollution (1997-1998)
♦ Senior Scientist, Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA 2001 —present
■ Environmental and Agronomic Implications ofManure Processing and Irrigation in Kewaunee
Co. WI, for USEPA (2016)
■ Yakama Nutrient Management Code, for Yakama Nation,WA (2016)
■ Lake Champlain Basin Nutrient Trading Feasibility Study and Market Analysis, for VT ANR
(2014-2015)
■ Agricultural Nonpoint Source Control Analysis and Guidance: Nutrient Imbalance Analysis,for
USEPA (2011-2013)
■ Support for Chesapeake Bay Program Agriculture Work Group including technical support for
Nutrient Management, Cover Crop, and other Expert Panels,for USEPA (2011 -present)
■ Technical Support for the Implementation of the EPA National CAFO Program, for USEPA
(2011-2012)
■ Support for EPA National Nonpoint Source Monitoring Program, for USEPA (2005 —present)
■ Technical assistance in nonpoint source monitoring design and analysis for USEPA Section 319
projects (AR, IA, IL, IN, KY, LA, MI,MO,NM, and TX) and for USDA/USEPA National
Water Quality Initiative (NWQI) (CA, GA, MD, MA,NH,NJ, OH, OR, RI) (2007-2015)
■ San Jacinto Watershed Integrated Dairy Management Plan and Management Practices to
Reduce Nutrient Loads from Agricultural Operations in the San Jacinto Watershed, for Western
Riverside County Agricultural Coalition(2007 -20 10)
■ Nonpoint Source Monitoring Guidance, for USEPA (2010—present)
■ Technical guidance publications,workshops, and webinars on nonpoint source monitoring design,
data analysis,project management, critical source areas,flow measurement,lag time,for
USEPA (2005 —present)
■ Review of San Diego County MS4 Monitoring Program, for San Diego County(2005)
■ Contributor, editor-Handbook-for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our
Waters (2005)
Senior Scientist, Stone Environmental, Inc., Montpelier, VT 2003 —present
■ Assessment of Tile Drainage System Impacts to Lake Champlain and Phosphorus Loads in Tile
Drainage in the Jewett Brook Watershed of St. Albans Bay, for Lake Champlain Basin Program
and VT Dept. of Ag,Food, and Markets (2016 - present)
■ Agricultural Practice Monitoring and Evaluation, for VT Dept. of Ag,Food, and Markets (2012—
present)
■ Identification of Critical Source Areas of Phosphorus Within the Vermont Sector of the
Missisquoi Bay Basin, for Lake Champlain Basin Program (2010—2011)
■ Assessment of Dairy Manure Management Practices to Reduce Pathogen Runoff Losses in
Agricultural Watersheds, for USDA NIFA (2007—2011)
■ Demonstration of Methods to Reduce Indicator Bacteria Levels in Agricultural Runoff, for Lake
Champlain Basin Program (2003-2004)
♦ Watershed Modeling Consultant,Associates in Rural Development, Inc., Burlington, VT
(1998 —2006)
■ Balancing Economic and Environmental Impacts of Phosphorus Management; application of
watershed P load/land treatment optimization model coupled with farm-level economic
simulation to assess impacts of alternative nonpoint source reduction strategies on farm income.
■ Interactive Spatially Dynamic Framework-for Sustainable Watershed Phosphorus Management,
combining mass-balance modeling, GIS, and P Index principles into an analytical framework to
allow understanding, evaluation, and visualization of long-term spatial and temporal dynamics of
alternative watershed P management scenarios.
♦ Water Quality Project Manager, New England Interstate Water Pollution Control
Commission/Vermont Dept. Environmental Conservation, Waterbury, VT (1996 -2001)
Description: Principal Investigator for long-term watershed research project on effects of improved
agricultural management on water quality: Lake Champlain Basin Agricultural Watersheds Section 319
National Monitoring Program Project, 1993-2001
♦ Research Associate, School of Natural Resources, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT
(1977 — 1996)
Description: Research Faculty, responsible for planning and direction of externally-funded
interdisciplinary research in agricultural nonpoint source pollution,nutrient dynamics in
aquatic ecosystems,watershed management, and land use/water quality interactions. Designed and
maintained complex water quality monitoring systems, including experimental design, data analysis,
and communication of results. Taught undergraduate, continuing education, and professional
development courses in water resources and water pollution.
Responsibilities and accomplishments:
• Established and implemented nationally recognized long-term agricultural watershed monitoring and
evaluation programs:
-St. Albans Bay Rural Clean Water Program Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation
Project 1980- 1991. (USDA/USEPA)
-LaPlatte River Watershed PL-566 Monitoring and Analysis Program, 1979-1990. (USDA)
• Advised USDA in national evaluation of effectiveness of HUA and Demonstration Projects on
water quality restoration: Physical Impact Assessment of USDA Water Quality Projects, 1991-1996.
• Led and teamed on multidisciplinary research projects in nonpoint source pollution, water quality
impacts of agricultural conservation practices, and fate/transport of phosphorus in aquatic systems
-Phosphorus Retention in Managed Riparian Zones and Impacts on Water Quality, 1994- 1998
-Phosphorus Cycling, Transport, and Storage in Stream Ecosystems, 1993-1996.
-Implementation, Demonstration, and Evaluation ofBMPs for Water Quality:Methods for
Improved Managemen tofManure Nutrients, 1993-1995
-Lake Champlain Basin Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment, 1993-1994.
EDUCATION
Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH B.A., Biology June, 1972
University of Vermont, Burlington, VT M.S. Natural Resources Planning May, 1977
Service: Committees/Work Groups
■ Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, Conservation/Environmental Commissioner
(2004—present)
■ Conservation Board, City of Burlington,VT (1998—present)
■ Ecosystem Indicators Task Force, Lake Champlain Basin Program(2005)
■ Englesby Brook(VT)Urban Watershed Restoration Project Planning/Oversight Committee (1999)
■ Association of Vermont Conservation Commissions, Board of Directors (1999-2004)
■ Agricultural Advisory Council, Lake Champlain Basin Program(1993-1996)
■ Vermont Accepted Agricultural Practices Steering Committee,VT DAFM(1993-1995)
■ Participant,USDA-SCS Scientific Exchange to Belgium and France (1992)
■ Vermont Agricultural Nonpoint Control Policy Work Group,VT Dept. of Agriculture (1990-1993)
■ Technical Advisory Committee,Nonpoint Source Subcommittee, Lake Champlain Management
Conference (1991-1996)
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS
Meals,D.W., S.A. Dressing,J.A. Ferrando,E. Kress, and Y. Ichishima. 2016. Temporal Trends in Five Decades of
Published Agricultural Nutrient and Sediment Export Data.J.Environ. Qual. (in revision).
Dressing, S.A.,D.W. Meals,J.B. Harcum,J. Spooner,J.B. Stribling,R.P. Richards, C.J. Millard, S.A. Lanberg, and
J.G. O'Donnell. 2016. Monitoring and Evaluating Nonpoint Source Watershed Projects. EPA 841-R-16-010,
USEPA Office of Water,Nonpoint Source Control Branch,Washington,DC https://www.epa.gov/polluted-runoff-
nonpoint-source-pollution/monitoring-and-evaluating nonpoint-source-watershed
Winchell,M.F., S. Folle,D.W. Meals, J. Moore,R. Srinivasan, and E.A. Howe 2015.Using SWAT for sub-field
identification of phosphorus critical source areas in a saturation excess runoff region.Hydrol. Sci.J. 60(5):844-862.
Osmond,D.L.,D.W.Meals,D.L.K. Hoag,M. Arabi,A.E. Luloff, G.D. Jennings,M.L. McFarland,J. Spooner,A.
Sharpley, and D.L. Line. 2012. How to Build Better Agricultural Conservation Programs to Protect Water Quality
The NIFA-LEAP Experience. The Soil and Water Conservation Society,Ankeny, OH.
Meals,D.W., S.A. Dressing,and T.E. Davenport. 2010. Lag time in water quality response to best management
practices.J Environ Qual. 39:85-96.
Meals,D.W.,E.A. Cassell,D.Hughell,L. Wood,W.E. Jokela,and R.Parsons. 2008. Dynamic spatially explicit
mass-balance modeling for targeted watershed phosphorus management, L Model development. Agric. Ecosys. and
Environ. 127:189-200.
Meals,D.W.,E.A. Cassell,D.Hughell,L. Wood,W.E. Jokela,and R.Parsons. 2008. Dynamic spatially explicit
mass-balance modeling for targeted watershed phosphorus management, IL Model application. Agric. Ecosys. and
Environ. 127:223-233.
Meals,D. W.,J. Fay, and M.Barsotti. 2007. Effects of water treatment residual addition on phosphorus in liquid
dairy manure. J.Am. Water Works Assoc. 100(4):140-150.
Meals,D.W. and D.C.Braun. 2006. Demonstration of methods to reduce E. coli runoff from dairy manure
application sites. J. Environ Qual. 35:1088-1100.
Meals,D.W.,E.A. Cassell,D.Hughell,L. Wood,R.Parsons, and W. Jokela. 2006. Interactive spatially dynamic
framework for sustainable watershed phosphorus management. Final project report to USDA-CSREES. Associates
in Rural Development,Inc.,Burlington, VT.
Meals,D.W. and D. C. Braun. 2005. Demonstration of Methods to Reduce Indicator Bacteria Levels in Agricultural
Runoff in Vermont. Technical Report,Lake Champlain Basin Program, Grand Isle, VT.
Meals,D.W. 2004. Water quality improvements following riparian restoration in two Vermont agricultural
watersheds. pp. 81-96 in Lake Champlain:Partnership and Research in the New Millennium. T. Manley et al.,eds.
Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Jokela, W.E.,J.C. Clausen,D.W.Meals, and A.N. Sharpley. 2004. Effectiveness of agricultural best management
practices in reducing phosphorus loading to Lake Champlain. pp. 39-52 in Lake Champlain:Partnership and
Research in the New Millennium. T. Manley et al.,eds. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Watzin,M.C.,E.A. Cassell, and D.W. Meals. 2003. Analog Effects of Conservation Practices Using Network
Modeling. Final Project Report to NRCS Watershed Science Institute,UVM School of Natural Resources,
September 30,2003.
Meals,D.W. and R.B. Hopkins. 2002.Phosphorus reductions following riparian restoration in two agricultural
watersheds in Vermont,USA. Water Sci. &Technol. 45(9):51-60.
Cassell,E.A.,D.W. Meals, S.G.Aschmann„D.P. Anderson,B.H. Rosen,R.L. Kort, and J.M.Dorioz. 2002. Use of
simulation mass balance modeling to estimate phosphorus and bacteria dynamics in watersheds. Water Sci. &
Technol. 45(9):157-168.
Meals,D.W. 2001.Lake Champlain Basin Agricultural Watersheds Section 319 National Monitoring Program
Project,Final Project Report: May, 1994-September,2000. Vermont Dept. of Environmental Conservation,
Waterbury, VT,227 p.
Meals,D.W. 2001. Water quality response to riparian restoration in an agricultural watershed in Vermont,USA.
Water Sci. &Technol. 43(5):175-182.
Cassell,E.A.,R.L. Kort,D.W. Meals, S.G. Aschmann,J.M. Dorioz, and D.P Anderson. 2001. Dynamic phosphorus
mass balance modeling of large watersheds: long-term implications of management strategies.
Water Sci. &Technol. 43(5):153-162.
Meals,D.W., S.N. Levine,D. Wang,J.P. Hoffmann,E.A. Cassell, J. C. Drake,D.K.Pelton,H.M. Galarneau, and A.
Brown.1999. Retention of spike additions of soluble phosphorus in a eutrophic northern stream. J.N.Am. Benthol. Soc.
18(2):185-198.
Wang,D., S.N. Levine,D.W. Meals,J.P. Hoffmann,J.C. Drake, and E.A. Cassell. 1999. Importance of in-stream
nutrient storage to phosphorus export from a rural,eutrophic river in Vermont,USA. In Lake Champlain in
Transition:From Research Toward Restoration,eds. T.O.Manley and P.L. Manley,pp. 205-223. Water Science
and Application, Vol. 1,American Geophysical Union,Washington,D.C.
Meals,D.W. and L.F. Budd. 1998.Lake Champlain Basin nonpoint source phosphorus assessment. J Am. Water
Resour.Assoc.34(2):251-265.
Cassell,E.A.,J.M. Dorioz,R.L. Kort,J.P. Hoffmann,D.W. Meals,D. Kirschtel, and D.C. Braun. 1998. Modeling
phosphorus dynamics in ecosystems: mass balance and dynamic simulation approaches. J Environ. Qual. 27(2):293-
298.
Meals,D.W. 1996. Watershed-scale response to agricultural diffuse pollution control programs in Vermont,USA.
Water Sci. &Technol. 33(4-5):197-204.
Jokela, W. E., S. Bosworth, and D.W. Meals. 1995. Implementation,Demonstration, and Evaluation of BMPs for
Water Quality: Application Methods for Improved Management of Manure Nutrients. Demonstration Report No. 5,
Lake Champlain Basin Program, Grand Isle, VT.
Meals,D.W. 1992. Water quality trends in the St. Albans Bay, Vermont watershed following RCWP land treatment.
pp 47-58 in The National Rural Clean Water Program Symposium, September, 1992, Orlando,FL,US EPA ORD,
EPA/625/R-92/006.
Meals,D.W. 1992.Relating land use and water quality in the St.Albans Bay watershed,Vermont. pp 131-144 in
The National Rural Clean Water Program Symposium, September, 1992, Orlando,FL,USEPA ORD,EPA/625/R-
92/006.
Vermont RCWP Coordinating Committee. 1991. St. Albans BE Rural Clean Water Program,Final Report, 1991.
Vermont Water Resources Research Center,University of Vermont,Burlington.
Meals,D.W. 1990. LaPlatte River Watershed Water Quality Monitoring and Analysis Program: Comprehensive
Final Report. Program m Report No. 12. Vermont Water Resources Research Center,University of Vermont,
Burlington.
Clausen,J.C. and D.W. Meals. 1989. Water quality achievable with agricultural best management practices. J. Soil
Water Cons. 44(6):593-596.