At its April 2004 meeting, the Council voted its support for legislation (A10131/S05984) that authorizes Suffolk County to develop a shellfish aquaculture leasing program in the Peconic Bays.  Referring to that bill, Councilor Danielson suggested that the Council should ensure that the legislation requires the County to develop an aquaculture leasing program that does not impact essential fishery habitat in these bays.  Chairman Wise responded that the bill identifies certain types of areas that should not be leased (e.g., naturally-productive shellfish beds, underwater lands within 1000’ of shore, eelgrass beds, etc.).  The bill’s legislative findings incorporate the recommendations of two separate committees that studied the status and future prospects for commercial aquaculture in the Peconic Bays.  Mr. Wise could not recall whether and, if so, how the issue of fish habitat was handled in these recommendations.  Councilor Dave Relyea said that he thought this issue was addressed in these recommendations and that there was mention of the potential positive effects of certain aquaculture operations on fish habitat .  Ms. Alice Weber of DEC said that impacts of aquaculture leasing on fish habitat was not specifically addressed in the bill and it should be.  She also warned against restricting the application of this concern to officially designated, “Essential Fish Habitat,” which applies only to habitats used by fishes covered under federal fishery management plans; the application of the term in the context of this legislation should be broader.

Councilor Danielson moved that the Council recommend to the sponsors of this legislation that no aquaculture lease should be made by Suffolk County that would have a negative impact on any area designated as a fishery habitat.  Chairman Wise suggested that the recommendation should be more specific, such as to recommend that the language of the bill be revised to provide that any aquaculture leasing program in the Peconic Bays administered by Suffolk County should take fullest account of the fish habitat in the designation of aquaculture.  Mr. Danielson accepted this language as a revision to his motion.

The Council adopted the revised motion by a vote of 11 in favor; 0 opposed; 1 abstention.

 

Page last modified Monday, July 5, 2004 by George E. Carroll