Ralicky, Thomas
From: Rod Richardson
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails.
------PS — I had not seen Curt’s reply before I sent this. But I think his response underscores the truth of my point: many will feel as shocked and betrayed as I do. — R
On May 29, 2020, at 2:52 PM, Rod Richardson
Susan,
Thank you for the response to my questions.
In the initial meetings, I and many others heard SCALP administrators say that “everything was on the table.” But if existing lease sites, particularly 840 - 841, that interfere with navigation rights, are now considered to be grandfathered- in in their current location, no matter what, no matter the objections of neighbors, and if SCALP will not begin to prohibit use of surface gear in the existing and operating sites objected to during the 10 year review process — then everything is NOT on the table. And if these things are off the table, and if you are taking zero action in the interim to limit the placement of NEW floating gear in locations where you know there are heavy objections (like 840) then this 10 year review process is a joke.
Up until now I thought you were proceeding in good faith, that everything was on the table, as was said. Now, I suspect that is no longer true. I suspect many will feel as shocked and betrayed as I do.
Information about floating gear permits being sought and issued for sites in areas under objection – and therefore highly likely to provoke and escalate conflict – should at very least have been publicly shared with all stakeholders. It was not. Certainly, this is the first I am hearing of it. Once again, the lack of transparency is resulting in lack of trust. I fear county and state bureaucrats are now conspiring – by not share key information, by making misleading statements that prove to be not quite true, by outrageous overreach – to steal the navigation rights of the public, and impair public trust doctrine environmental protections, and effectively rip them to shreds.
With respect to your question re the area west of Nappeague State Park, I am not talking about adding NEW lease site. I was responding to a question posed by someone about what areas or lease sites had been identified as least objectionable for floating gear. I was saying that the local boating club and maybe other groups, I believe, have made an offer of compromise, that would avoid further conflict. Curt can chime in if I have it wrong.
The offer is (a) SCALP eliminates lease site 838 - 847, which are right in the center of the traditional sailing instruction and regatta area; (b) SCALP relocates the only existing operating lease (841) to any available site among 848 - 853 or anywhere else that is unobjectionable. Sites 848 - 853 are less objectionable, but still objectionable…. it's a
1 compromise. Obviously, if you do nothing to prevent 840 from becoming an operating lease with floating gear, this will make compromise much more difficult. If these solutions are not even on the table now, if 840 and 841 become grandfathered in with the use of floating gear forever, compromise is probably impossible, and the review process is broken.
You could put the wheel back on the bus by agreeing to the compromise offered promptly.
Thank you for anything you can do to respond constructively.
Rod Richardson
On May 29, 2020, at 12:58 PM, Filipowich, Susan
Hello Rod,
Thank you for your participation during yesterday's Ten Year Review Advisory Group meeting.
Lease site 840 was applied for under the 2016 Lease Application Cycle, as previously noted, the lease application process takes a year plus to complete and this lease agreement was executed in 2017.
As I am working remotely, I do not have access to all my leaseholder files but I believe lease site 840 received the required approval from the ACOE in April of 2019. I may have misspoke yesterday and said August 2019. Per Debra Barnes's statement, the NYSDEC DMR issued the required off-bottom culture permit and shellfish bed permit in February of 2020.
With respect to your other inquiry about any other empty sites in Gardiner’s Bay that are seeking permits for floating gear, I assume you mean the sites that are leased but are not currently being used for shellfish farming? If so, yes, lease site 852; which many of the people you have CC'd on this email are aware of has applied for permits that would authorize the use of floating gear. I am not aware of any other leaseholders in that areas that have applied for permits for floating oyster cages.
Under this Ten Year Review all sites that were leased and still hold a lease are being grandfathered in to those locations; and are automatically being included in the Shellfish Cultivation Zone revision. As discussed, the County is responsible for the location, size and term of a lease; we do not regulate the shellfish farming or harvest methods used.
I also want to take this opportunity to address another comment you made during yesterday's meeting about adding lease areas off of Napeague State Park. Are you talking about the area I circled on the attached screen cap? If so, you will see that we already have leases west of there and that a private oyster grant is located just north; oyster grants can only be used/leased by the owner. With respect to the area east of the area I circled off Lazy Point, Advisory Group Members that represent the Town of EH and the EH Town Trustees have expressed their respective group's desire to remove those areas; additionally we received a lot of comments with respect to that area being a high boat traffic area (see second attachment). Any farther east and that goes past the County designated jurisdiction.
Thank you again,
Susan Filipowich Senior Environmental Analyst Suffolk County Dept. of Economic Development and Planning Division of Planning & Environment H Lee Dennison Building, 2nd Fl. 100 Veterans Memorial Highway, PO Box 6100 Hauppauge, NY 11788
2 631-853-4775 Tel 631-853-4044 Fax
practiceGREEN Save a tree. Read, don't print, emails. ______
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission is intended solely for the use of the individual/entity to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential information belonging to the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the original message.
-----Original Message----- From: Rod Richardson
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails.
------Susan,
Please also clarify the options for what will happen with sites 840 and 841, as a result of the 10 year review. Is it guaranteed that they will have leases renewed allowing floating gear? Are they grandfathered in in those locations?
I am not sure I entirely understood your answer in the meeting.
Thank you for clarifying, and thank you for holding these meeting to try to resolve these user conflicts.
Rod
On May 28, 2020, at 5:24 PM, Rod Richardson
Hi Susan,
Please kindly furnish me the dates when various permits were issued for site 840. That was mentioned in the meeting but I did not have the chance to jot it down.
3 Also, have any other empty sites in Gardiner’s Bay sought or been granted permits for floating gear? If so, which ones, and please furnish the details.
Thank you!
Rod
4 Ralicky, Thomas
From: Curtis Schade
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails.
Thanks for your reply Susan.
We have worked in good faith with you and others throughout the 10 Year Review process and remain optimistic that you will take the objections to floating gear in lease sites in this area of Gardiner's Bay seriously and require the lease sites be used for bottom only cultivation with minimal surface marker buoys as intended in your Program Management Guide, or be removed from the program.
These lease sites shouldn't even exist as been made apparent by testimony from Bob Valenti who admitted that the only reason these sites were put in place is that Brad Loewen of the FAC didn't want them anywhere and Bob personally wanted to try a few by his leased aquaculture site on the east side of the bay. There was zero consideration of what was right for the residents of the Town, just one aquaculturist (John Aldred) asking a fisherman and another aquaculturist how they wanted to personally carve up a public asset; this was a complete failure to gather the kind of input that the County claimed they sought and had you managed the process then as you have now, it is crystal clear these sites would not exist.
If the goal of the 10 year review is truly as it is stated (to learn from our first 10 years of experience and position SCALP for success in the future) let's no perpetuate a bad decision from the failed ALPAC process by grandfathering in past mistakes. As Carl stated, it is not like people are fabricating this conflict; this is a very heavily used area of the bay by hundreds of recreational boaters as has been well documented in the Town of East Hampton LWRP in 1999.
With regard to lease site 840, while we understand you granted the lease in 2017, it is so disappointing that the County and the other regulatory agencies refuse to coordinate with each other or listen to public input. When we heard that the lease holder for 840 was going ahead with permits years after being granted the lease we wrote to and spoke with DEC in January, explained the conflict and asked that they hold off until the 10 year review process was complete. They ignored our concerns and reasonable request and granted the permit.; this kind of behavior really poisons the well and if SCALP is going to survive and prosper, it would be much more productive for all of us including these agencies, to work together in a coordinated fashion to find compromise. Important to note the applicant for 840 is the wife of the lessee in 841 who is a Town of East Hampton employee who works for Barley Dunne, our Town representative on the 10 year review committee. There are only 40 cages in 841 so there was zero reason to rush to grant permits for an adjacent site to the same family when there existing site was not fully utilized; the applicant had waited 3 years, who would be harmed by waiting a few more months for the 10 year review process to reach a conclusion?
As for other supposed lease sites in this area: 1
848, hasn't been farmed in at least two years, is in default according to your lease document 850, has never been farmed since being granted 5 years ago, in default 851, has never been farmed since being granted 8 years ago, in default 853, has never been farmed since being granted 5 years ago, in default 856, has never been farmed since being granted 6 years ago, in defaul
We ask that you cancel these defaulted leases, and make these vacant sites (or vacant site 849) available to the lessee in 841 and direct them to relocate which you clearly have the right to do in your lease, "for public policy reasons". If resolving an avoidable conflict by restoring navigational rights to a long-standing recreational boating areas used by hundreds of local residents and creating harmony on the water and public support for your aquaculture program isn't a valid "public policy reason", I don't know what is. Can you give me any reason this compromise cannot be effected?
This solution is reasonable and will allow SCALP to move forward constructively and peacefully coexist with other uses of this safe and protected area of the bay. There is no harm to the leaseholder, farming conditions a few thousand feet to the east are no different than where he is now and if he feels he loses some of his crop by relocating this coming fall after the growing season, we would be happy to compensate him. Let's schedule a time to discuss further and we look forward to reaching an amicable solution (which does not include having floating gear in lease sites 839-847 or 854-859).
Curt Schade
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 12:58 PM Filipowich, Susan
Thank you for your participation during yesterday's Ten Year Review Advisory Group meeting.
Lease site 840 was applied for under the 2016 Lease Application Cycle, as previously noted, the lease application process takes a year plus to complete and this lease agreement was executed in 2017.
As I am working remotely, I do not have access to all my leaseholder files but I believe lease site 840 received the required approval from the ACOE in April of 2019. I may have misspoke yesterday and said August 2019. Per Debra Barnes's statement, the NYSDEC DMR issued the required off-bottom culture permit and shellfish bed permit in February of 2020.
With respect to your other inquiry about any other empty sites in Gardiner’s Bay that are seeking permits for floating gear, I assume you mean the sites that are leased but are not currently being used for shellfish farming? If so, yes, lease site 852; which many of the people you have CC'd on this email are aware of has applied for permits that would authorize the use of floating gear. I am not aware of any other leaseholders in that areas that have applied for permits for floating oyster cages.
Under this Ten Year Review all sites that were leased and still hold a lease are being grandfathered in to those locations; and are automatically being included in the Shellfish Cultivation Zone revision. As discussed, the County is responsible for the location, size and term of a lease; we do not regulate the shellfish farming or harvest methods used.
I also want to take this opportunity to address another comment you made during yesterday's meeting about adding lease areas off of Napeague State Park. Are you talking about the area I circled on the attached screen
2 cap? If so, you will see that we already have leases west of there and that a private oyster grant is located just north; oyster grants can only be used/leased by the owner. With respect to the area east of the area I circled off Lazy Point, Advisory Group Members that represent the Town of EH and the EH Town Trustees have expressed their respective group's desire to remove those areas; additionally we received a lot of comments with respect to that area being a high boat traffic area (see second attachment). Any farther east and that goes past the County designated jurisdiction.
Thank you again,
Susan Filipowich Senior Environmental Analyst Suffolk County Dept. of Economic Development and Planning Division of Planning & Environment H Lee Dennison Building, 2nd Fl. 100 Veterans Memorial Highway, PO Box 6100 Hauppauge, NY 11788 631-853-4775 Tel 631-853-4044 Fax
practiceGREEN Save a tree. Read, don't print, emails. ______
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission is intended solely for the use of the individual/entity to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential information belonging to the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the original message.
-----Original Message----- From: Rod Richardson
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails.
------
3 Susan,
Please also clarify the options for what will happen with sites 840 and 841, as a result of the 10 year review. Is it guaranteed that they will have leases renewed allowing floating gear? Are they grandfathered in in those locations?
I am not sure I entirely understood your answer in the meeting.
Thank you for clarifying, and thank you for holding these meeting to try to resolve these user conflicts.
Rod
On May 28, 2020, at 5:24 PM, Rod Richardson
Hi Susan,
Please kindly furnish me the dates when various permits were issued for site 840. That was mentioned in the meeting but I did not have the chance to jot it down.
Also, have any other empty sites in Gardiner’s Bay sought or been granted permits for floating gear? If so, which ones, and please furnish the details.
Thank you!
Rod
4 Ralicky, Thomas
From: Filipowich, Susan Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 1:32 PM To: Krupski, Al Cc: Stype, John; Schroeder, Gwynn; Stark, Catherine; Lansdale, Sarah; Ralicky, Thomas Subject: RE: oysters
Legislator Krupski,
I am not aware of any ownership claims by the NYS Parks; as far as the County’s Law Dept. is concerned, the County satisfied the requirements outlined in the ECL and secured ownership to the underwater lands. Additionally, even if NYS Parks had jurisdiction to the underwater lands, I don’t think it would extend past the 1,000ft buffer.
Let me know if you have any other questions.
Thank you,
Susan Filipowich Senior Environmental Analyst Suffolk County Dept. of Economic Development and Planning Division of Planning & Environment H Lee Dennison Building, 2nd Fl. 100 Veterans Memorial Highway, PO Box 6100 Hauppauge, NY 11788 631-853-4775 Tel 631-853-4044 Fax
practice GREEN Save a tree. Read, don't print, emails.
______
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission is intended solely for the use of the individual/entity to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential information belonging to the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the original message.
From: Krupski, Al
1 From: Filipowich, Susan Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 12:03 PM To: Krupski, Al Cc: Lansdale, Sarah Subject: RE: oysters
Legislator Krupski,
I believe the area shown in the screen cap below is the area Greg Cukor was suggesting? I think the bay scallop agree that this is a good growing area! As you can see, that area was identified by commercial baymen as being a “recent/current” naturally productive and commercially harvestable area for bay scallops, which would make it ineligible for adding new lease areas.
Please let me know if you have any other questions.
Thank you, Susan
Thanks Susan,
That is the area off of the state park, I will ask about dredging there, I am not sure about water depth, although thats the area where the kelp grew well. Maybe I'll check with steve schott about the area, and pete wentzel too. Do you know if nys Parks claims anything in the bay? When Robert Moses set that up, he took some liberties. Thanks for all of your work on this, its good to work on this again.
Al
2
Susan Filipowich Senior Environmental Analyst Suffolk County Dept. of Economic Development and Planning Division of Planning & Environment H Lee Dennison Building, 2nd Fl. 100 Veterans Memorial Highway, PO Box 6100 Hauppauge, NY 11788 631-853-4775 Tel 631-853-4044 Fax
practice GREEN Save a tree. Read, don't print, emails.
______
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission is intended solely for the use of the individual/entity to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential information belonging to the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the original message.
From: Krupski, Al
Greg’s point about the area off of the state park in orient, is that suitable for oysters? The water move through there pretty well.
Al Krupski Suffolk County Legislator, 1st District 423 Griffing Ave – Suite 2 Riverhead, NY 11901 631-852-3200 631-852-3203 fax [email protected]
Please, consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
Confidentiality Warning: This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s), are confidential, and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, conversion to hard copy, copying, circulation or other use of all or any portion of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message and any attachments from your system
3 Ralicky, Thomas
From: Filipowich, Susan Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2020 4:00 PM To: Greene, Greg Cc: Ralicky, Thomas; DelGiudice, Barbara Subject: FW: Revised SCALP Maps
Greg and Tom,
Please see the emails below from Vincent Priore; he had initially wished to speak to me but I had requested he submit his questions via email to I may be better prepared to respond.
As you will see the most recent email poses questions but also includes some comments and/or opinions.
Thank you
Susan Filipowich Senior Environmental Analyst Suffolk County Dept. of Economic Development and Planning Division of Planning & Environment H Lee Dennison Building, 2nd Fl. 100 Veterans Memorial Highway, PO Box 6100 Hauppauge, NY 11788 631-853-4775 Tel 631-853-4044 Fax
practice GREEN Save a tree. Read, don't print, emails.
______
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission is intended solely for the use of the individual/entity to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential information belonging to the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the original message.
From: vincent priore
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails.
1 Hi Susan, As per your request. The following comments are mostly about the maps:
1. Alternative #1 a) - How are the privately owned oyster grants(4,575 acres) shown? Could it be color-coded? b) - How are the DEC removal areas(6,734 acres) shown? Could it be color-coded? c) - What is a TMAUA? d) - Available acres( 18,080) - are there still 859 lease sites on this map?
2. Alternative #2 & #3 a) - If I am understanding the distinction - alt#2 would allow no surface equipment period and alt#3 would have no surface equipment in only the yellow area. This map states that consists of 7,200 acres. How many lease sites would that affect? b)- What would happen with the current lease sites in these 2 alternatives? If surface equipment was being used would it now be changed to bottom farming? That would appear to be logical.
3. In general, I feel it might be helpful if the excluded areas on each map were color-coded. It may bring to light other potential problems. I would be happy to discuss that with you.
4. Possible Addition to the Cultivation Zone Map - It would be helpful if the possible acreage was included and how many lease sites each addition could accommodate. It would be easier to comment with that information.
5. While you are out of the office do you have a cell phone # that you can be reached on?
2
6. Are there any current lease sites that are in default?
7. How many lease sites are in each area - East Hampton I know has 25.
Looking forward to speaking with you.
Again, thanks for your time. Stay safe. Vincent
On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 6:44 PM Filipowich, Susan
Hello Vincent,
I am sorry to hear you had computer issues the other day but I am glad you were at least able to join for a portion of the Zoom Webinar meeting.
Would you mind sending me an email outlining and/or stating what information you want/need clarification? That way I am better prepared for a call and to answer your questions.
I hope you and Joan are doing well and staying safe!
Thank you,
3 Susan Filipowich
Senior Environmental Analyst Suffolk County Dept. of Economic Development and Planning Division of Planning & Environment
H Lee Dennison Building, 2nd Fl.
100 Veterans Memorial Highway, PO Box 6100
Hauppauge, NY 11788
631-853-4775 Tel
631-853-4044 Fax
practice GREEN Save a tree. Read, don't print, emails.
______
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission is intended solely for the use of the individual/entity to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential information belonging to the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the original message.
From: vincent priore
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails.
Hi Susan,
I hope you enjoyed the wonderful weather this past weekend.
4 I thought the SCALP meeting on 5/28 went well although I did miss some of it because of computer/internet problems. Therefore, I need to review some of the maps. I want to make sure my understanding is accurate. Would you be available for a 15-minute phone call sometime this week to discuss the maps? I don't think it would take longer than that.
Stay safe and well.
Vincent
I
5 Ralicky, Thomas
From: carl safina
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails.
Dear Thomas,
I’m hoping this message has found you and your loved ones well, coping, sane, and safe.
This my public comment on the SCALP 10-year review and options.
I am writing to urge the Suffolk County Aquaculture Lease Program to adopt the proposed option that does the most to avoid conflict with pre-existing, other uses of East-End bays, as you finalize your 10-year review of their shellfish leasing program. In addition, I urge that you ban floating cages in the open bays, an unanticipated development that poses unacceptable dangers in most areas of the bays.
The option of Map 6, which I support, still leaves an enormous extent of our bays open for potential leasing. View the maps here: https://www.suffolkcountyny.gov/Departments/Economic-Development-and- Planning/Planning-and-Environment/Environmental-Planning-and-Aquaculture/Ten-Year-Review- Project/Maps
BACKGROUND As you know, the Suffolk County Aquaculture Lease Program (SCALP) grants leases for private shellfish farming, mostly of oysters, in public waters of the East End.
Belatedly, its ten-year review has explored the very reasonable idea that un-leased areas in conflict with pre- existing commercial and recreational uses might be withdrawn from potential future lease sites. New SCALP maps (viewable online) propose a variety of configurations to eliminate most conflicts.
UNANTICIPATED HAZARDS Starting this program with a grab of public waterways set the stage for conflict. (Competing uses should have been considered first, a decade ago.)
Now, some growers assert entitlement to the area and the waters’ surface, not just to use as all other users do, but to occupy—to the exclusion of others. And the unanticipated switch from bottom-growing to floating cages is simply incompatible with many uses and is dangerous.
During a May 28 public meeting about the new maps, some growers asserted that sailing vessels should ‘simply learn to sail around’ floating farming gear. 1
This is not like sailing around a lobster-pot buoy. These are 10-acre sites that could each have 1,000 floating four-by-six-foot cages. In other words, the bays should now become an obstacle course for the public, so a few growers can profit by a takeover of public waters.
A GRAB OF PUBLIC SPACE During the public meeting, some shellfish growers asserted their “right” to farm throughout the bays. They denigrated traditional uses of the bays enjoyed by thousands of people. They posed growing oysters as “productive,” in contrast to recreational fishing and boating.
Imagine opening county parks to farming—then hearing the farmers complain that hikers and birders are “unproductive” and should get smaller areas. The logic is identical.
DISMISSIVE ATTITUDE TOWARD PRE-EXISTING TRADITIONAL USES At the public meeting several oyster growers argued that they work 40 hours a week while a recreational user might boat 40 hours a year, dismissing the many thousands of recreationalists who inject hundreds of millions of job-supporting dollars to pursue their pleasures.
Some growers said that recreation is “non-essential” while growing oysters “produces food for people.” Actually, thousands of people’s recreationally-caught fish make up vastly more of their food supply than do oysters.
The fact is: No one needs oysters. Oysters aren’t potatoes, corn, or cod by any stretch. Oysters don’t stave off famine. No parent worries that their children will go to bed without oysters. Oysters are a boutique snack, served mainly at high-end parties before the real food. Oysters are purely recreational. And a farmed oyster is far less important than sailing a sunfish with your child or catching porgies with your grandkids. Farmed oysters have their place, but they are, absolutely, “non-essential.”
However, people do need—and possess—legal rights to safe, free navigation, fishing, and the waterways’ sheer essential beauty.
THE WAY FORWARD None of this conflict was necessary. Many potential shellfish-growing sites and methods could coexist alongside traditional uses of the East End region. If growers and the leasing program respectfully sought to slot appropriate gear into the right places, likely they’d have been welcomed.
During this comment period SCALP administrators now have the opportunity to bring this program into balance, in a way that recognizes and respects pre-existing uses of the East End and does not ignore the enjoyments that drive the region’s water-centered, recreation-oriented economy—the reasons people are actually drawn here.
SCALP officials should finalize the 10-year review by 1) Choosing Map 6: withdrawing all mapped conflict zones from potential future leasing consideration, 2) mandating that gear used must be on the bottom as originally envisioned and that the danger, eyesore, and affront posed by floating gear be prohibited in most areas.
Farming can coexist compatibly with all pre-existing uses of our bays if—only if—appropriately sited and
2 configured.
Sincerely,
~ Carl Safina, PhD
Inaugural Holder of the Endowed Chair for Nature and Humanity, Stony Brook University Founding President, The Safina Center Ecologist, author, MacArthur “genius-prize” Fellow
Cell: 631 838 8368
There is no folly of the beasts of the earth which is not infinitely outdone by the madness of men —Herman Melville, Moby-Dick
3 Ralicky, Thomas
From: Filipowich, Susan Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 11:10 AM To: DONNA EDGAR Cc: Ralicky, Thomas; Greene, Greg Subject: RE: SCALP Program Review
Hello Paulette,
Thank you for submitting your comments; I appreciate your taking the time to comment on the SCALP Ten Year Review Project.
Thanks again,
Susan Filipowich Senior Environmental Analyst Suffolk County Dept. of Economic Development and Planning Division of Planning & Environment H Lee Dennison Building, 2nd Fl. 100 Veterans Memorial Highway, PO Box 6100 Hauppauge, NY 11788 631-853-4775 Tel 631-853-4044 Fax
practice GREEN Save a tree. Read, don't print, emails.
______
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission is intended solely for the use of the individual/entity to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential information belonging to the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the original message.
From: DONNA EDGAR
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails.
Regarding the Scalp Program, This 10-year review offers an opportunity to bring the SCALP program into balance, in recognition of other uses of Long Island's East End waters. As you are aware, our Island's economy is built on aquatic recreation. SCALP officials should finalize the 10-year review by 1) withdrawing all mapped conflict zones from potential future leasing consideration, 2) mandating that gear used must be on the bottom as 1 originally envisioned and that the danger, eyesore, and affront posed by floating gear be eliminated and prohibited. Shellfish farming can coexist with our other uses of Long Island's bays, but only if shellfish farms are appropriately sited and arranged. Thank you for your consideration. Paulette D Edgar
Sent from my iPhone
2