Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Brick Cove Marina 1993
pCif0WN AUG 0W TOWN OF SO HOLD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEME Relating to BRICK COVE MARINA AND CHANGING IT FROM NINETY-ONE (91) BOAT SLIPS TO ONE HUNDRED TTY EIGHT (138) BOAT SLIPS, AND RELATED SITE 134PROVEMENTS TO INCLUDE PARKING; SURFACE RUNOFF CONTROL; AND UPGRADING OF BOATERS SANTTARY FACILITIES. LOCATION: 12.5 Acres including 4.2 Underwater Acres within the Town of Southold, on Sage Boulevard South of Route 25. APPLICANT: Howard H. Zehner Brick Cove Marina P. O. Box 250 Greenport, NY 11944 (516) 477-0830 LEAD AGENCY: Southold Town Trustees Main Road Southold, NY 11971 (516) 765-1892, John Bredemeyer PREPARER: Peconic Associates, Inc. Environmental Consultants One Bootleg Alley Greenport, NY 11944 (516) 477-0030, Merlon Wiggin DATE OF PREPARATION: June - August 1993 DATE OF ACCEPTANCE: �3 DEADLINE DATE FOR COMMENTS: a Q 0 0 -n II o Table of Contents and Summary Ln a U) -z DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO BRICK COVE MARINA TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE COVER SHEET - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - II. SUMMARY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 A. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION - 1 B. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY - - - - - - - - - - 2 C. OPERATIONS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - BENEFICIAL AND ADVERSE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8 E. HUMAN RESOURCES - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15 F. MITIGATION MEASURES - - - - - - - - - - - - 16 G. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 17 H. ALTERNATIVES - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 17 I. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITTMENT OR RESOURCES - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20 J. GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS - - - - - - - - - - 20 K. EFFECTS ON THE USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY RESOURCES - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20 III. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION - - - - - - III-1 A. PROJECT PURPOSE, NEED, AND BENEFITS - - - - III-2 1. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY - - - - - - - - III-2 2 . PUBLIC NEED FOR THE PROJECT - - - - - - III-30 3 . OBJECTIVE OF THE PROJECT SPONSOR - - - III-32 4 . BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION - - - - III-33 B. LOCATION - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - III-42 1. GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES - - - - - - - - III-42 2 . DESCRIPTION OF SITE ACCESS - - - - - - III-50 3 . ZONING - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - III-51 4 . DESCRIPTION OF SAGE BASIN - - - - - - - III-55 C. DESIGN AND LAYOUT - - - - - - - - - - - - - III-56 1. TOTAL SITE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - III-56 2 . STRUCTURES - - - - - - - - - - - - - - III-59 3 . PARKING - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - III-85 D. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION - - - - - - - - III-86 1. CONSTRUCTION - - - - - - - - - - - - - III-86 2 . OPERATION - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - III-89 E. APPROVALS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - III-97 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - - - - - - - - - - - - - IV-1 A. NATURAL RESOURCES (PRE, PRESENT, AND PROJECTED - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IV-2 1. SUB-SURFACE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IV-2 2 . SURFACE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IV-2 3 . TOPOGRAPHY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IV-7 B. WATER RESOURCES - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IV-8 1. GROUNDWATER - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IV-8 2 . SURFACE WATERS - - - - - - - - - - - - IV-9 C. TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY - - - - - - IV-31 1. VEGETATION - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IV-31 2 . FISH, SHELLFISH AND WILDLIFE - - - - - IV-42 HUMAN RESOURCES - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IV-64 A. TRANSPORTATION - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IV-64 1. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES - - - - - - - - IV-64 B. LAND USE AND ZONING - - - - - - - - - - - - IV-71 1. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING - - - - - IV-71 2 . LAND USE PLANS - - - - - - - - - - - - IV-73 C. COMMUNITY SERVICE - - - - - - - - - - - - - IV-74 1. POLICE PROTECTION - - - - - - - - - - - IV-74 2 . FIRE PROTECTION - - - - - - - - - - - - IV-74 3 . UTILITIES - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IV-74 4. PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY - - - - - - - - - - IV-75 5. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL - - - - - - - - - IV-75 6. DISPOSAL OF PUMPOUT WASTES - - - - - - IV-76 7. DISPOSAL OF MATERIALS ACCUMULATED IN WASHDOWN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IV-76 D. CULTURAL RESOURCES - - - - - - - - - - - - IV-77 1. VISUAL - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IV-77 V. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - - - - - - - V-1 A. IMPACT ON LAND - - - - - - - - - - - - - - V-2 THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL - - - - - - - - - V-2 PRESENT FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS - - V-6 B. IMPACT ON WATER - - - - - - - - - - - - - - V-6 THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL - - - - - - - - - V-6 PRESENT FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS - - V-16 C. IMPACTS ON FISH, SHELLFISH, AND WILDLIFE - V-17 THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL - - - - - - - - - V-17 PRESENT FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS AND ULTIMATE PROPOSED PLAN - - - - - - V-25 D. IMPACT ON PROPERTY VALUES - - - - - - - - - V-25 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE VI. MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - - - - - - - - - - - - - VI-1 A. MITIGATION MEASURES ALREADY IMPLEMENTED - - VI-1 1. DREDGED SPOIL - - - - - - - - - - - - - VI-1 2 . BOATERS TOILETS - - - - - - - - - - - - VI-1 3 . DREDGING - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - VI-2 B. MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED - - - - - - - VI-3 1. DREDGED SPOIL - - - - - - - - - - - - - VI-3 2 . LANDSCAPING - - - - - - - - - - - - - - VI-4 3 . RELOCATION OF EXISTING SANITARY SYSTEM - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - VI-4 4 . STORMWATER RUNOFF - - - - - - - - - - - VI-5 VII. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED - - - VII-1 VIII. ALTERNATIVES - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - VIII-1 A. ALTERNATIVE DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGIES - - - - VIII-1 1. SITE LAYOUT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - VIII-1 2 . ORIENTATION - - - - - - - - - - - - - - VIII-2 B. ALTERNATIVE SITES - - - - - - - - - - - - - VIII-2 C. ALTERNATIVE SIZE - - - - - - - - - - - - - VIII-3 D. ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION/OPERATION SCHEDULING - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - VIII-4 E. ALTERNATIVE LAND USE - - - - - - - - - - - VIII-5 F. NO ACTION - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - VIII-6 IX. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITTMENT OF RESOURCES - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IX-1 X. GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS - - - - - - - - - - - - X-1 A. POPULATION - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X-1 B. SUPPORT FACILITIES - - - - - - - - - - - - X-1 C. DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL - - - - - - - - - - - X-2 XI. EFFECTS ON THE USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY RESOURCES - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - XI-1 A. ENERGY SOURCES - - - - - - - - - - - - - - XI-1 B. ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES - - - - - - - XI-1 INDEX OF APPENDICES APPENDIX NO. 1 - SCOPING OUTLINE AND ARTICLE 78 APPENDIX NO. 2 - TRUSTEES RESPONSE TO PENNY APPENDIX NO. 3 - PERMITS APPENDIX NO. 4 - S.E.Q.R.A. ACTIONS APPENDIX NO. 5 - MARINA OPERATION (BRICK COVE) APPENDIX NO. 6 - ECOLOGY OF SMALL BOAT MARINAS APPENDIX NO. 7 - WATER DEPTHS AND SOUNDINGS APPENDIX NO. 8 - SOIL BORING LOGS AND ANALYSIS APPENDIX NO. 9 - SURFACE WATER SAMPLING TESTS APPENDIX NO. 10 - NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SHELLFISH AREA CLASSIFICATION AND CLOSINGS APPENDIX NO. 11 - FLUSHING OBSERVATION STUDY APPENDIX NO. 12 - VEGETATION REPORTS APPENDIX NO. 13 - FISH, SHELLFISH, AND WILDLIFE SURVEYS APPENDIX NO. 14 - COMMUNITY SERVICE APPENDIX NO. 15 - DEEDS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT A - SITE PLAN S-1 EXHIBIT B - AS BUILT DOCK LAYOUT EXHIBIT C - PARKING AND DRAINAGE PLAN S-2 EXHIBIT D - PROPOSED SANITARY SYSTEM II. SUMMARY A. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION: This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (D.E. I.S. ) is for the purpose of addressing the environmental impacts of marina improvements, specifically modernizing and improving marina operations from 91 previous boat slips to proposed 138 on a site formerly known as Young's Marina, 12.5 Acres in size of which 4. 2 Acres are owned underwater land. The preparation of this Impact Statement is unique in that the Applicant has individually decided to proceed with the preparation based on a recent court decision that an Impact Statement be prepared, even though this decision is under appeal by the Town Trustees. In addition to the increase in number of boat slips, the proposed action also includes improvement to the parking areas; marina head pump-out facilities; installation of a paved boat washdown platform with sediment and oil separation system; a storm drain interception system for the parking 1 area; and relocation and improvement to the existing on-site sanitary system. All of the above improvements have received permit approval except for the proposed relocated sanitary system, which is under review by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. Also, unique in the preparation of this D.E. I.S. is that a majority of the work has already been completed which includes installation of new, improved slips and all of the dredging except approximately 550 Cubic Yards, the storm drainage system, and the relocated sanitary system which makes it possible, on a short term basis, to evaluate the environmental impacts of the work that has already been accomplished. B. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY: This site first became a marina in 1950 and was operated under the name of Young's Marina from 1970 to 1990. In 1986 to 1988 the site was on option to the Southport Development Corporation who proposed to develop the site into an 82 room motel and 125 seat restaurant, along with an improved marina and increase in number of boat 2 slips . The Southport Development Corporation dropped this project for financial and economic reasons. In March of 1990 Southold Bay Association obtained the property and proposed making improvements including the enlargement of the marina from 91 slips to 1'38 slips. Through foreclosure proceedings the ownership of the property reverted back to Howard Zehner in September 1992 , who continued with the planned improvements . As a Professional Engineer since 1961 , and the owner of the site since 1970 , Mr . Zehner has been responsible for the sedulous planning and construction, as well as the costs , Y of the site project. The S.E.Q.R.A. Process originated in August of 1987 with the Southold Town Trustees acting as Lead Agency. In May of 1990 there was a judgement pursued under Article 78 against the Southold Town Trustees contending that a hard look was not established for the proposed project. The S.E.Q.R.A. Environmental Process was restarted in July of 1991 , again with the Southold Town Trustees declared as Lead Agency for the project classified as a Type I Action. On September 26 , 1991 the S.E.Q.R.A. Process was completed by the Lead Agency (Southold Town Trustees) by the 3 issuance of a Notice of Determination of Non- Significance (Negative Declaration) . This determination was made only after extensive environmental review and reporting by the Southold Town Trustees Environmental Consultant, Bruce Anderson. Permit applications were made for the Marina improvements from the Southold Town Trustees, the Southold Town Planning Board, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New York State Coastal Zone Management, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Marina improvement work which has been accomplished, as per the following chronological record: 1990 - Project start after all docks were removed. 24 permanent floating slips and 8 temporary floating slips installed. Underground electric service installed to dock heads. No dredging work done. 4 1991 - No significant site work accomplished. 1992 to Summer 1993 (Present)- - Shoal dredging to minus 6 Feet M.L.W. accomplished, container-barged to shore, no wetlands disturbance, dredged spoil contained on upland site with staked hay bales. All floating docks were installed to include 138 boat slips plus 3 yard slips. All docks are of braced extruded aluminum with permanent pao-lope wood decking, floatation is filled poly pontoons with wide spacing for water flow under docks. Proper setbacks from the property line were observed. Pilings were installed in the Basin to hold the floating docks and non-toxic long-life greenheart pilings were driven to 20 Ton capacity, 10 feet deep in hard clay. Landward pilings for the fixed dock and platforms were of CCA driven to the same capacity. Electric and water lines were installed to all docks and terminated on dock pedestals. Electric work was done per proper codes and water service 5 lines per S.C.D.H.S. criteria. Dock lighting was provided by low-intensity lights on the dock pedestals as well as at the ramps at the head of each main dock. Installation of a 40-gallon portable pumpout station provided to service all boat sanitary holding tanks. In January of 1993 a second judgement pursuant to Article 78 against the Southold Town Trustees and Planning Board concluded that an Environmental Impact Statement is required. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement was subsequently submitted to the Town Trustees on August 26, 1993 . Brick Cove Marina is located on one of the very few identified sites that is not only zoned for this type of use, but also -is in a position to be responsive to the increased need for marina slips in the Town of Southold. It was determined that the 1970 Marina construction was in such a condition, including poor layout and services, that it was no longer attractive to boaters. Users were declining at 6 the same time that Marina operating costs were increasing, resulting in a poor economic and non- viable operation. Approximately $1, 000, 000. 00 has been spent on marina improvements, resulting in not only a more attractive and efficient operation, but one that is now more attractive to boaters along with improved vessel services. C. OPERATIONS: Brick Cove Marina, considered a full service type Marina is one of the best managed and operated marinas in the Town of Southold, and has provided leadership in safety, the protection of the environment, surface waters, recycling, waste management, and energy conservation. Examples of these operational entities include: A recycling center; requiring all boats that have heads to have holding tanks with their overboard "Y" valves sealed; installation of a portable pumpout holding unit which provides holding tank pumpouts free of charge. 7 D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - BENEFICIAL AND ADVERSE: The environmental impacts addressed included those impacting the land, the water, fish, shellfish, wild life, human resources, and property values. The potential impact on land included the placement of dredged spoil, the construction of the washdown platform, the installation of storm drainage, the relocation of existing sanitary systems, and landscaping. All of the above impacts are considered minor because of their temporary nature of the impact to the land. (The dredging material is being removed off-site and the land disturbed by the excavation resulting from the storm drainage and the sanitary system will be regraded and revegetated. The impact of the landscaping is considered positive as the improved asthetic quality of the Marina. Potential impact on surface waters includes discharge from boaters toilets; dredging of the marina bottom; stormwater runoff; and leachate from sanitary facilities. All boats with heads 8 are now required to have holding tanks and inspected, sealed "Y" valves so that a discharge to the surface waters is practically guaranteed not to happen resulting in a significant positive impact. Potential impacts from dredging included the removal of bottom sediments, increased circulation of surface waters, improved navigation, impacts to surface water quality, and impacts to shellfishing abundance. There has been no recognizable impact to surface water quality or to shellfish abundance. Primarily because of the dredging of the Sage Basin Channel, there has been improved circulation of surface waters and improved safety of navigation. The intercepted stormwater runoff and on-site containment is a definite positive impact in that it will greatly reduce the runoff from parking lot and driveways into Sage Basin. The relocation of all sanitary leaching facilities in excess of 100 Feet away from the surface waters was not only required by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the Southold 9 Town Trustees, but will also result in a significant positive impact to surface water quality. The significant environmental impact to shellfish and wildlife will depend upon the degree to which the habitats are altered as a result of the project, and the habitats associated with the project site are determined to the greatest extent by the amount and quality of vegetation and water resources present. It is clear that in all of the areas that were dredged the marsh grasses and wetlands were preserved. The recent analysis of avian species reveal little difference between the population existing at the time when the Herderson and Bodwell Study was conducted and the present, indicating that no adverse impact has affected it. The most recent study reports thirty-one (31) species present, while the Henderson and Bodwell Study reported twenty-nine species to be present on the site. Given that the dredging and Marina improvements are complete and that there is a very limited scope of upland disruption projected for the 10 remainder of the project, there is not expected to be any noticeable environmental impact regarding avian species. The previous investigation of shellfish as well as this investigation reveal no significant change with respect to both diversity and abundance. In spite of verbal claims to the contrary, the relative lack of shells occurring in the dredged spoil deposited on the upland site, it was clear that the marina Basin bottom is not productive for shellfish, and therefore the impact on shellfish is extremely minimal. The reported diversity of finfish in this study and previous studies are similar. As the abundance of finfish is related to water quality, water circulation, and food supply, the improvements to marina operations, the improved flushing action, and the collection of stormwater runoff, there is no basis to predict any decline in finfish as a result of the project, either that which is completed, or that which is proposed. it In conclusion, all of the potentially large environmental impacts, that have either occurred or are projected to occur, are either beneficial or have or will have little or no adverse impacts. See summary on the following page. In addition to the potential large impacts above, the Town's Environmental Consultant had previously addressed small to moderate potential impacts and arrived at the following conclusions: "The Southern boundary of the project site contains a sandy beach. No potentially large impacts to this beach are expected because the proposed actions are concentrated away from these beach areas. "Impacts to groundwater are not regarded as potentially large because the predominant soil types are clay like. The depth of the water table has been estimated to be approximately 65 feet. "The proposed action is not expected to result in potentially large impacts causing erosion because the site topography is relatively flat. 12 HABITAT EFFECTS OF BRICK COVE MARINA PROJECT (See Project Chronology) _Project Status r Prior to 1992 1992 to Present (Summer 1993) Future ---� No upland or basin Dredging, new docks, pilings, and services Parking drainage, sanitary disturbances. installed. Insignificant upland disturbance. system, landscaping, off_ ! premise shoal. Vegetation No disturbance - No—is Shoal dredging accom- _ Drive area and parking area underground elec- plished with no marshland intrusion. Dredge to be temporarily disturbed. tric installed in spoil contained on upland lawn area, to be parking area. removed later. Parking area disturbance is insignificant. Wildlife Avian No Disturbance No disturbance - Marsh grasses preserved No disturbance for bird habitat. Mammal No Disturbance No disturbance - Water edge and marsh No disturbance grasses preserved for raccoon, muskrat, etc. habitat. Reptiles/Amphibians No Disturbance No disturbance - Water edge and grasses No disturbance not affected. Shellfish No Disturbance No significant disturbance - dredging No disturbance spoil showed no significant shellfish, previous bottom was not conducive to shellfish habitat. Finfish No Disturbance No disturbance - temporary dredging No disturbance turbidity was self-removed by tidal action, marsh grasses preserved for marine biological chain. "Given the many thousands of people who boat in eastern Long Island and the Peconic Gardeners Bay System and assuming that all slips are eventually rented, the project as proposed will result in a small to moderate impact in terms of recreational opportunities for boaters. " In summary, the preponderance of impacts of any kind are positive in nature. To capitalize and further enhance these positive impacts it is suggested that the policies, procedures and improvements initiated by Brick Cove Marina be applied to other properties and operations located on Sage Boulevard so as to further improve its water quality. 14 E. HUMAN RESOURCES: The potential impacts of traffic, land use, zoning, community services, and property values were reviewed. Even though no new traffic studies were accomplished the vehicle trips for the 138 boat slips would be significant y^than that that would have occurred when the site was considered for motel, restaurant, and enlarged Marina. This traffic study indicated that there would not be any significant impact as to the turning capability or traffic flow on Route 25 at the junction of it and Sage Boulevard. As the use of site as a Marina is in accordance with Southold Town Zoning Code Master Plan, no logical reason was found to consider a change or another viable economic use of the site. Community services such as utilities, fire, Police, and so forth, all have indicated that the improvements to the Marina will not impact or require them to expand their present operations. 15 F. MITIGATION MEASURES: The project is unique because a significant portion has been done along with the related mitigation measures which include: The removal of significant quantities of dredged spoil from the site and trucked to the landfill to be used in grading and covering operations; the installation of pumpout service facility and the sealing of all marine head overboard "Y" valves; and the restricting of dragline dredging from areas where tidal wetlands were in exitance, along with the use of filter cloth to protect tidal wetland grasses. Mitigation Measures proposed include the containing by hay bales of the remaining 550 Cubic Yards of dredging and the removal of all of the dredged spoil from the site and trucked to the Town Landfill for grading and capping operations. Mitigation of potential minimum erosion from stockpiled materials from the trenching excavation of the relocated sanitary facilities and stormwater runoff piping will be stockpiling of materials in such a location and manner to prevent erosion to surface waters. 16 G. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED: As the potential adverse environmental that could not be avoided are most commonly associated with dredging, water quality, fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and the fact that the phases of the work have already been accomplished that could potentially result in these adverse impacts, and have been accomplished without any recognizable adverse impacts, it is possible to conclude that there are no adverse environmental impacts that cannot be avoided if the remainder of the project is implemented. H. ALTERNATIVES: The alternatives reviewed included site layout, alternate sites, alternate sizes, alternate construction, alternate land use, and no action. Regarding Site Layout - As the marina work has already been accomplished, any changes in marina layout would result in extensive rebuilding including pile removal and resultant increase to 17 water turbidity. Because of the site's generally poor quality soil, only one site has been identified as at all practical for the relocated sanitary system. Regarding Alternate Sites - To our knowledge there are no other sites in the Town presently being considered for expanded marina operations to service the projected increased demand for boater slips. Regarding Alternate Marina Layout - The Marina layout could have been different, with provisions made for an increased number of boats, but the Applicant elected to use the 138 as the maximum number of boater slips. Regarding Alternate Scheduling - Scheduling of the work is primarily dictated by scheduling restrictions of the approving agencies. This coupled with the interruption to summer boater activities leaves little latitude for any alternate construction and operational schedules. 18 Regarding Alternative Land Use - Alternative land use consideration included one-family dwellings for which sanitary systems would be a problem; aquaculture operations which would require the replacement of most of the present facilities; boat and marine engine repair which would be an expansion of what is already done; a fish processing plant, with concern for odors and waste processing; restaurant or motel either of which would require special exception approval along with concerns about adequate sanitary systems being obtainable. A No-Action was not considered a viable alternative because that would leave the existing sanitary systems close to the surface waters; parking lot runoff not contained; the interception of boat washdown residues would not be accomplished; the screen plantings would be missing; and the entrance shoal would be a hazard, especially to sailboats at low tide; and the applicant would suffer severe economic harm. 19 I. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITTMENT OF RESOURCES: No irreversible or irretrievable committment of resources were identified that would suggest that the project be re-examined or that the proposed action should not occur. J. GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS: All growth inducing aspects of the project were considered very minor in nature and limited to a small number of full time employees, an increase in service organizations, a small increase in service industries that handle such things as recyclables, processing wastes, and maintenance and servicing of vessels. K. EFFECTS ON THE USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY RESOURCES: The primary increase of energy resources would be that electricity would approximately double in useage over the summer months. This increase would have been higher without the installation of high efficiency lamps and authomatic controls of the dock lighting. Use of gasoline and diesel fuels would increase depending on the number of boats, the types of boats, and the Owner's utilization and useage of same. 20 M m r• C+ r• O III � O Description of the Proposed Action C+ m 0 0 co CL C+ r• 0 e III - DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION: The proposed action is unique in this particular case as the preparation of the Impact Statement is based on a recent court decision that an Impact Statement to be prepared. (See Appendix 1. ) Even though this decision is under appeal by the Town Trustees, the Applicant in this case, has individually decided to proceed with the preparation of this Impact Statement. Therefore, the description of the action is clarified into three (3) different categories: (1) The original proposal; (2) Present facility improvements that have been done under the original proposal and permits; and (3) The ultimate proposed plan. It is also unique in that a more detailed Environmental Assessment and Impact can be accomplished based on actual changes and improvements to the site, rather than the more normal environmental review which is based on projected impacts. III - 1 A. PROJECT PURPOSE, NEED, AND BENEFITS: 1. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY: The Marina site was once 'the location of the Long Island Brick Company, which was established in 1887 by DeWitt Clinton Sage. The brick manufacturing was located here because of the availability of a significant supply of clay utilized in the manufacturing process. Town records indicate that over twenty million (20, 000, 000) bricks were produced here during the height of the manufacturing process. The clay mining operation for the brick material resulted in the creation of the present Sage Basin area along with adjacent fresh water basins. Sage Basin was originally a fresh water basin until the barrier beach between the Basin and Southold Bay broke through during the 1938 Hurricane. Consequently, the Basin bottom is privately owned, making it uniquely different from that of other Bays, Creeks, and so forth within Southold Town. III - 2 The site became a Marina in 1950 and was owned by Fred W. Young, from 1950 to 1970, and was referred to as Young's Marina. The site was purchased by Howard Zehner in October, 1970, who operated the site under the name of Young's Marina from 1970 to 1990. In 1986 to 1988 the site was under option to the Southold Development Corporation, who proposed to develop the site into a 82 room motel, 30 seat restaurant, and increase the Marina slips from 91 to 122 , along with related site improvements. A very comprehensive and detailed Draft Environmental Impact Statement and a Final Impact Statement was prepared for this project. The Southold Town Planning Board, which served as Lead Agency pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A. , but never completed the S.E.Q.R.A. process that would result in findings statements, as the Southold Development Corporation, for financial and economic reasons, decided not to pursue the above proposed project. III - 3 Southold Bay Association bought the property in March of 1990. The chronological list of documents from February 17 , 1986 to July 12 , 1993 provides a comprehensive and detailed background of the proposed plans to improve the Marina facilities at this site as follows: 9/26/1985 - Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Southold Development for the development of a motel-restaurant complex as well as the expansion of as existing marina facility. 2/17/86 - Addendum to Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Southport Development prepared by Land Use Company. Reports details of bottom conditions found on site and reports a low abundance of shellfish associated with the bottomlands of Sage Basin. 8/20/86 - Final Environmental Impact Statement for Southport Development; and prepared by Henderson and Bodwell and III - 4 The Land Use Company; Report Analysis of Dredge Spoil in Sage Basin and Analysis of Coliform Data. Spoil analysis indicates general dredging suitability. Coliform data indicates stormwater runoff to be of the greatest importance. 8/24/1987 - Cover letter from Peconic Associates to Trustees Application and Environmental Assessment Form Part I. Comments: Proposal to enlarge existing Marina to 138 slips; to dredge 2900 cubic yards; to include sanitary pumpout. 8/28/1987 - Trustees declare Lead Agency. 9/9/1987 - Inspection Report, Building Department. 9/10/1987 - Certificate of Occupancy by Building Department, Title, Survey. III - 5 10/14/1987 - Letter and application to Army Corps of Engineers for enlargement of Young's Marina from 91 to 138 slips and dredging of 2900 cubic yards with upland disposal. 11/9/87 - Letter from Wiggin to Milliken (NYSDOS) regarding shellfish and dredging concerns. 11/10/87 - Letter from Angione, applicant's Attorney to Trustees regarding project modification from previous application for motel/marina/ restaurant complex by Southport to marina expansion only. Response to interveners papers briefly addressed. 12/17/1987 - Southold Trustees Permit # 574 . 3/17/1988 - NYSDOS certification that the project at Young's Marina complies with the NYS Coastal Management. Program. III - 6 10/19/1988 - Letter from Flynn to Mars (Army Corps of Engineers) stating objections to the proposed project at Young's Marina. Objections are limited to the following: Bulkhead and peirhead lines, depth and width of channels, dredging, navigational channels, segmentation (SEQRA) , zoning, legal access, incomplete EAF, fresh and tidal wetlands, no public hearing required, boat (pumpout) impacts, boat (bottom paint) impacts, impacts to bottom lands owned by other private parties, shellfish impacts, public health safety and welfare, fire protection, traffic, and the standard 75 foot setback used for residential development. 11/10/1988 - Letter from Flynn to Mars (Army Corps of Engineers) stating objections to the proposed project at Young's Marina. Objections are limited to the following: Segmentation (SEQRA) ; III - 7 boat storage; possible illegal dredging; set back requirements; 75 foot residential setback not incorporated into marina plans; parking; the applicant has never abandoned proposals for a motel and restaurant; wetlands; public health, welfare and safety; impacts to wild and aquatic life; impacts to potable water; traffic; and access. 11/1/1989 - Department of Army Permit No. 15516 for marina expansion to 138 slips and dredging of 2900 cubic yards with upland disposal. 11/2/1989 - Letter from Wiggin to Trustees requesting extension of permit issued on 12/21/1987. 11/8/1989 - NYSDEC Permit No. 10-87-1618 for marina expansion from 91 to 138 slips; docks, ramps, catwalks, dredging (2900 cubic yards) . III - 8 11/17/1989 - Notification from Army Corps of Engineers of the granting a permit for dredging, piers, ramps, floats, and pilings. 1/11/1990 - Department of Army Permit No. 15516A for dredging and bulkheading the inlet. 1/25/1990 - Southold Trustees Permit No. 3882 to dredge the inlet. 2/8/1990 - Trustees grant extension of permit for Young's Marina expansion. 2/20/1990 - Constable McCarthy certifies that work done on marina was in compliance with Trustee Permit. 5/18/1990 - Article 78 Judgement against Town Trustees vacating their Wetlands Permit. (See Appendix 4 . ) III - 9 6/17/1990 - Letter from Kelley to Bredemeyer requesting notification of when the project will next appear on the Board's agenda or is scheduled for a public hearing. 6/19/1990 - Memo from Bredemeyer to Arnoff requesting legal advise on SEQRA as it effects Trustee regulation of the Brick Cove Marina Project. 8/31/1990 - Letter from Tohill to Trustees requesting meeting for reapplication for permit on behalf of Brick Cove Marina Project. 9/10/1990 - Letters to Flynn and Kelly from Bredemeyer advising them of an informal discussion on the project to be held on 9/27/1990. 11/1/1990 - Letter to Tohill from Bredemeyer advising that Anderson will be hired to execute SEQRA on behalf of the Board for the project. III - 10 12/5/1990 - Memo from Clerk with attachments of supporting afficavits and documents from legal actions taken in opposition to the project. 2/8/1991 - Special meeting held by Trustees. Present were: John Bredemeyer, III, President' Trustee Albert J. Krupski, Jr. ; Trustee John B. Tuthill; Consultant Bruce Anderson; Anthony Tohill; Merlon Wiggin; Mr. & Mrs. Howard Zehner; Chris Kelly; Frank Flynn; Henry Weisman; Bruce Wilson; Larry Penny. 9/25/1991 - Report of Larry Penny, Consultant for Mr. Flynn. 11/14/1991 - Southold Town Trustees Response to Report of Larry Penny. (See Appendix 2 . ) III - 11 In March 1990, Southold Bay Association changed the name of the Marina from Young's Marina to Brick Cove Marina and pursued its proposed improvements by 'making reapplication to the necessary involved agencies to improve, modernize, and enlarge the Marina from ninety-one (91) to one hundred thirty- eight (138) slips, the same as originally planned. Improvements included a more efficient slip layout; the addition of environmental improvements that included pump-out station, interception of storm water run-off, and the relocation of sanitary facilities further inland and away from Sage Basin. The improvements of the Marina also included the dredging of approximately 2, 900 Cubic Yards of material to better access the boating slips and to remove ridges and obstructions to vessel movement that remained after some of the original clay mining operations. The Marina property, through fore-closure reverted back to the ownership of Howard Zehner in September 1992, who continued with the planned improvements. III - 12 Specifically, the original marina improvement plan for Young's Marina included the following items of work. See enclosed Site Plan S-1 (Exhibit A) . o Removal of the existing slips and piling. o Maintenance dredge channel and extend retaining bulkhead. o Dredging to a depth of 6 feet approximate 2900 Cubic Yards of material as follows: ESTIMATED CUBIC LOCATION EXISTING DEPTH (FT. AVG. ) FEET TO BE REMOVED ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- A -4 2500 ----------------------------------------------------------- B -3 19500 ----------------------------------------------------------- C -5 10500 ----------------------------------------------------------- D -4 24000 ----------------------------------------------------------- E -3 22500 ----------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL 79000 CU. FT. OR 2926 CU. YD. ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: EXISTING WATER DEPTHS (MLW) o Installation of one hundred thirty-eight (138) modernized boat slips and associated ramps and walkways as follows: III - 13 DOCKING SUMMARY: 138 BOAT SLIPS (91 PREVIOUS) 'A' DOCK• MAIN DOCK - 208 ' LONG X 6. 67 ' WIDE WITH 20 ' LONG X 4 ' WIDE RAMP FINGER PIERS - 3 - 25 ' LONG X 3 ' WIDE 9 - 30 ' LONG X 3 ' WIDE 1 - 30 ' LONG X 4 ' WIDE 'B' DOCK• MAIN DOCK - 313 . 8 ' LONG X 6. 67 ' WIDE WITH 30 ' LONG X 4 ' WIDE RAMP FINGER PIERS - 1 - 25 ' LONG X 3 ' WIDE 8 - 35 ' LONG X 3 ' WIDE 1 - 35 ' LONG X 4 ' WIDE 7 - 40 ' LONG X 4 ' WIDE 1 - 40 ' LONG X 6. 67 ' WIDE 'C' DOCK• MAIN DOCK - 200 ' LONG X 6 ' WIDE (FIXED PIER DOCK) FINGER PIERS - 15 - 45 ' LONG X 4 ' WIDE ARTICULATING FINGERS COMPRISING: 30 ' LONG FLOATING SECTION 15 ' LONG RAMP SECTION WITH 5 ' MOUNTING 'D' DOCK: MAIN DOCK - 342 ' LONG X 6. 67 ' WIDE WITH 20 ' LONG X 4 ' WIDE RAMP FINGER PIERS - 20 - 25 ' LONG X 3 ' WIDE 4 - 30 ' LONG X 3 ' WIDE III - 14 o Protection and preservation of all designated Tidal Wetlands during the above operations which included Groundsel Tree (Baachorisa Limitolia) and Marsh Elder (Iva Frutescens) . o Installation of Marina pump-out facilities. o Installation of an on-site vessel washdown system to contain and separate sediment, oils, and so forth from going into the leaching area. o Installation of a complete surface water storm runoff interception system complete with in-ground leaching basins with a primary purpose of prevention of parking lot drainage entering the waters of Sage Basin. o Installation of a regraded and enlarged stone and gravel surfaced parking area for both boaters and employees. o Planting of hedges of Red Cedar and Hetz Junipers (Juniperus Hetzi Glauca) along the upland edge of Sage Basin to act as a screen between the Basin and the parking area. o Installation of new and upgraded marina water system to include new piping and backflow prevention devices. o Installation of new transformer electrical services to the Marina slips. III - 15 In the planning process for the proposed work the following permits were obtained. Copies of these permits are contained in Appendix 3 . PROJECT PERMITS: 12/17/1987 - Southold Town Trustees Permit # 374 issued to Young's Marina for the enlargement and rebuilding of Marina to 138 boat slips and the dredging of approximately 2900 Cubic Yards. 03/17/1988 - New York State Coastal Management Consistency Certification for proposed project. 09/18/1988 - Southold Town Planning Board Site Plan Approval for proposed upland work (parking, drainage, water lines, sanitary system, electrical service, and landscaping. 07/12/1989 - New York State Coastal Management Consistency Certification for proposed project. III - 16 11/01/1989 - Corps of Engineers - Permit # 15516 issued to Young's Marina for: "Mechanically dredge, with ten years maintenance, 2900 cubic yards of material from several shoaled areas within an existing boat basin, to a depth of 6 feet below mean low water with disposal of the dredged material from initial and subsequent dredging activities at an adjacent upland area where it will be suitable retained from re-entering the waterway. Also authorized is the removal of several existing pier assemblies and their replacement with four new pier assemblies to provide for a maximum of 138 slips of various sizes. " 11/08/1989 - New York State Department of Environmental Conservation - Permit # 10-87-1618 issued to Young's Marina for: "At basin entrance, construct a 45 ' extension to existing bulkhead and dredge 20' X 200 ' area in entrance channel to 6 ' below mean low water. Place spoil on upland landward of bulkhead. Reconstruct III - 17 and expand marina from 91 slips to 138 slips; construct new docks, ramps and catwalks. Dredge 2900 + cubic yards material from shoal areas within marina to 6 ' below mean low water and place resultant spoil on upland portions of the site. 01/11/1990 - Corps of Engineers - Permit # 15516A issued to Young's Marina for dredging inlet channel and extending channel bulkhead. 01/25/1990 - Southold Town Trustees - Permit # 3882 for Maintenance Dredging of channel at entrance to Sage Basin. 02/08/1990 - Permit # 574 Extension. 02/08/1990 - Permit # 3882 - Maintenance Dredge Channel. 11/15/1991 - Southold Town Trustees - Permit # 3959 issued to Brick Cove Marina for the enlargement and rebuilding of Marina to 138 boat slips and dredging of approximately 2930 cubic yards, plus additional conditions not contained in Permit # 574 . III - 18 02/25/1992 - New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Modification of Permit # 10- 87-1618. 05/06/1992 - New York State Department of Environmental Conservation - Permit # 10-87-1618 modified and reissued to include the following supplementary work: " (a) Additional dragline slope dredging in near-shore unvegetated areas resulting in 350 cubic yards more of dredged material. " (b) Use of a second dredge disposal area to the East and North of existing brick house. " (c) Construction of six 5 ' X 5 ' projections on the South side of the 200 linear foot long fixed dock so that 6 of the finger piers will extend further seaward. " 05/28/1992 - Southold Town Trustees - Amendment to Permit # 3959 to allow 350 cubic yards of slope dredging. III - 19 10/22/1992 - Southold Town Trustees - Amendment to Permit # 3959 for the dredging of recently discovered shoal area (550 cubic yards) and adding of a fuel dock slip, a work boat slip, and a service slip. 03/03/1993 - New York State Coastal Management Consistency Certification for removal of 550 cubic yard shoal at entrance to Brick Cove Marina. 04/06/1993 - Corps of Engineers - Permit # 199212660 issued to Brick Cove Marina to dredge a shoal area in the entrance to Sage Basin to a depth of 6 feet. The resultant 550 cubic yards of spoil to be placed on an upland site. Five foot extensions to the fixed pier assembly is authorized as are minor changes to the Marina layout. 07/12/1993 - New York State Department of Environmental Conservation - Permit # 1-4738-00609/00001- 0 issued to Brick Cove Marina for the purpose of dredging a shoal area in the entrance to Sage Basin to a depth of 6 feet. Resultant 550 cubic yards of material to be placed on an upland site. III - 20 SEQRA HISTORY (FOR DOCUMENTS, SEE APPENDIX 4) The history of the SEQRA Process is important to provide this project's environmental review background. This listing of applicatle documents is as follows: 08/24/1987 - Environmental Assessment Form, Part I, submitted. 08/28/1987 - Southold Town declares themselves Lead Agency. 11/10/1988 - Mr. Flynn files letter of objection to the SEQRA Process and the proposed marina improvements. 05/18/1990 - Judgement pursuant to Article 78 issued against the Southold Town Trustees. 07/29/1991 - Resubmittal of Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I with a narrative and analysis as supplemental information. 07/29/1991 - Request for waiver Chapter 97-215. 08/06/1991 - Declaration of intent to be Lead Agency by the Southold Town Trustees with coordination requests to the Corps of Engineers, D.E.C. , Coastal Zone Management, Suffolk County, and Town of Southold Planning Board. III - 21 09/05/1991 - Southold Town Trustees declare themselves Lead Agency and project classified as a Type I Action. 09/24/1991 - Environmental Assessment of the project prepared by the Southold Town Trustees Environmental Consultant, Bruce Anderson. This assessment included completed Parts II and III. 09/26/1991 - Notice of Determination of Non- Significance (Negative Declaration) . 09/26/1991 - Set date for Public Hearing. 11/14/1991 - Trustees response to L. Penny regarding S.E.Q.R.A. - see Appendix 2 . 01/15/1993 - Judgement pursuant to Article 78 against the Soutnold Town Trustees and Planning Board, concluding that an Environmental Impact Statement is required. See Appendix 1. 03/1993 - Applicant initiates preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement even though the Lead Agency who plans to appealed the Judgement of 01/15/1993 . 03/23/1993 - Bruce Anderson response to Article 78, Flynn vs Trustees (see Appendix 4) . III - 22 05/06/1993 - Southold Town Trustees, with the participation of the Applicant, other Agencies, and interested parties, prepare a Scoping Outline. III - 23 PRESENT FACILITIES AND COMPLETED IMPROVEMENTS (See Exhibits A and B) As of September, 1992 , the ownership of the Marina properties reverted back to Howard Zehner. The present Brick Cove Marina facilities are described as follows: Brick Cove Marina provides summer dockage, winter on- land and in-water storage, and boat services for boaters at the Marina. Boats may dock for the summer only, store for the winter only, or utilize both facilities. 30 or 50 ampere electric service and water is provided at all boat slips. A 30-Ton capacity boat lift is available for hauling and launching boats as is a 9 ' X 15 ' concrete launching ramp. Boaters toilets are available 24 hours a day, year round. Boat services include winterizing, Spring commissioning, bottom painting (only approved paints are used) , bottom washing, and repairs as requested. Outside services are used for specialized work such as fiberglass repairs. Brick Cove Marina provides additional services, most of which are not available at other marinas. These include the following: III - 24 A recycling station is provided for the sorted collection of Southold Town approved recyclable materials. Dumpsters are provided for other refuse materials. Please see photocopies in the Appendix. North Fork Sanitation Company collects and transports these materials to the Town landfill. A 40-Gallon portable pump-out station is provided to pump out boat holding tanks. This station is rolled to the boats and pumping has been performed at no charge since the Spring of 1992 . A pump-out log is maintained and provided at each year's end to the D.E.C. and Town Trustees. A toilet chemical is used in the holding tanks after pumpout that nas no formaldehyde content, hence is receptive to satisfactory disposal of holding tank waste in a private or municipal sewerage system. For the present, such wastes have been deposited in the Marina sanitary system. To guarantee no overboard dumping of holding tanks at the marina all overboard holding tank valves are sealed by the Marina and a prohibitive charge is incurred if the seal is broken. Appendix 5 includes the III - 25 notice of mandatory toilet chemical to be used, a photocopy and specifications of the portable pump- out station, a photocopy of the D.E.C. required pump-out sign, and copies of yearly notices sent to boaters (1993 Rules and Regulations, Paragraph 17) . All boats with toilets are required to have holding tanks. A french drain system, as approved by the Town Planning Board, will be provided to collect rain water and to collect boat bottom wash water in a connecting sump where solid materials may be removed. The materials for this french drain and two (2) leaching basins are on premises for the final work phase of the project. Monthly water quality tests were performed at five (5) locations in Sage Basin from June through October, 1992 by ECO Test Laboratories, Inc. Of the twenty-five (25) total coliform and twenty-five (25) fecal coliform readings taken, all were well under satisfactory limits except for one (1) total coliform reading on September 29, 1992 at the Southold Shores canal entrance. Please see Appendix 9 for data. III - 26 A commercial pool and two (2) tennis courts are provided free of charge to the boaters. The pool is operated under Suffolk County Department of Health Services permit and a lifeguard is provided having the necessary certification in pool and CPR life saving. The Marina Manager resides in a single family residence at the Marina. As such, he is available for any emergencies which might occur, environmentally or otherwise. This additional benefit is extremely valuable for 24 hours per day control of the facilities. As of August, 1993, seventy-four (74) boats total were either docked at the Marina or were under contract for dockage. The summer dockage season is from April 15 to October 15. Boat lengths vary for 16 feet to 47 feet. Boat rental slips total 138, with three (3) additional slips provided - one each for fueling, a work pram, and a boat work station at the lift berth. Fueling arrangements from the approved Marina gas tank have not been completed. Many boaters depart from their slips for boat excursions from one (1) day to three (3) weeks during the summer season. They are required to notify III - 27 the Marina of their departures, hence the Marina can be aware of checking overboard holding tank valves upon their return (see Appendix 5 for typical 1993 Agreement sent to boaters, Paragraph 17, Rules and Regulations) . The Marina receives few transient boaters who arrive by sea for a limited time, typically less than five (5) per summer season. This is because the proximity to the Village of Greenport or Southold is 1 1/2 to 2 miles and no transportation is provided. These boaters are made aware of the Marina rules and regulations both verbally, and by various notices posted on the Marina premises. The summary of the completed approved and permitted work items are as follows: o Removal of the existing slips and piling. o Permitted dredging of 3250 (2900 + 350) Cubic Yards of material. o Installation of one hundred thirty-eight (138) modernized boat slips and three (3) service slips and associated ramps and walkways. o Protection and preservation of all designated vegetated Tidal Wetlands during the above operations. III - 28 o Installation of Marina pump-out facilities. o Installation of new and upgraded marina water system to include new piping and backflow prevention devices. o Installation of transformer new electrical services to the Marina slips. 1. ULTIMATE PROPOSED PLAN The ultimate proposed plan includes all of the items contained in the original proposal plus o Removal of a recently discovered ridge at the entrance to the Marina by the dredging of approximately 550 Cubic Yards of material. o Installation of an on-site vessel washdown system to contain and separate sediment, oils, and so forth from going into the leaching area. o A new sanitary system to provide for the expanded Marina occupancy and to relocate the existing system away from all surface waters. III - 29 2. PUBLIC NEED FOR THE PROJECT Southold Town is committed to the identification, improvement, and addition of marina slips to address the future needs of the boating public. There are no identified sites for new marinas and the potential for expansion of existing marina is mostly constrained by site restrictions and environmental considerations that prevent their enlargement. Sage Basin, and particularly Brick Cove Marina, has been identified as one of the very few sites in which the Town of Southold can realistically project an increase in the number of available slips available to the boating public. The Brick Cove Marina site is in accordance with the Southold Town Master Plan and Zoning Code in that it is zoned Marine 2 (M-2) , which a permitted use is listed under A (2) : "Marinas for docking, mooring and accommodation of recreational or commercial boats, including the sale of fuel and oil primarily for the use of boats accommodated in such marina. "; A (4) : "Beach clubs, yacht clubs or boat clubs, including uses accessory to them, such as swimming pools, tennis courts and III - 30 racquetball facilities. "; and (5) : "Boatyards for building, storing, repairing, renting, selling or servicing boats, which may include the following as an accessory use: office for the sale of marine equipment or products, dockside facilities for dispensing of fuel and, where pumpout stations are provided, rest room and lanudry facilities to serve overnight patrons. " The proposed Marina improvements are planned to be responsive to the growing demand for full service boating facilities as part of the recreation and tourist demands, both now and in the future. III - 31 3. OBJECTIVE OF THE PROJECT SPONSOR The Project Sponsor and facility Owner, in this case Howard Zehner and the Brick Cove Marina, has certainly responded to the stated needs of Southold Town to improve, enlarge, and increase marina facilities in one of the few sites available in the Town. Unfortunately, the project delays (see Background and History, above) have created a financial hardship on the Project Sponsor to the point where the economic viability of the improvements have become questionable, along with the jobs and employment that go with this type of operation. The objectives of the Sponsor also include specific environmental improvements to include, but not be limited to, reloaction of sanitary leaching fields away from the boat basin, intercepting parking and access road runoff, installation of vessel pumpout facilities, improve the flushing action of Sage Basin by slip float design and dredging to remove impediments to tidal flow in and out of the Basin, and to exercise control over users to make this portion of Sage Basin a "no discharge zone", and its resultant improvement in water quality. (See Marina Operations and Instructions to Boaters - Appendix 5. ) III - 32 4. BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION a. ) SOCIAL: Recreational boating and the comaraderie that goes with it, is one of the highly desired activities of the summer season, and as such is held in high regard as a social and group activity along with the enhancement and the enjoyment of the surrounding waters of the Bays and Sounds of Eastern Long Island. b. ) ECONOMIC: The benefit of the proposed project may be separated into two considerations; economics pertaining to the marina operation itself and economics affecting the surrounding community. ECONOMIC BENEFITS TO THE MARINA PROPER: The previous marina docks were of 1970 vintage, constructed of non-treated fir wood, rotted and badly in need of repair. Storm damage had also taken its toll on the structures. The marina dockage area contained much shoaling to depths less than 3 feet below M.L.W. Electric service was inadequate and unsafe, water service was outdated and also inadequate. These conditions could not attract new boaters or permit charging III - 33 reasonable rates for services. Because of this situation only 70 slips of the 91 slips were useable. Further, yearly temporary repairs were costly, time consuming, and non- productive to the marina economy. The costs of operating the marina have increased greatly over the last five years. These increases include the cost of liability insurance, workmens compensation insurance, workers' salaries, electric, water and telephone utility charges, new government user fees, and cost of maintenance materials. These additional costs have contributed an approximate 50 percent increase to the yearly operating costs of the marina over the last 5 years. Employment at the marina before this project started consisted of the owner (full time) , and one 3/4 year employee, and one spring only employee (equivalent to 2 year round employees) . Present employment is 3 year round employees and 2 part time employees (equivalent to 3 1/2 year round employees) . Upon project completion it is expected that 6 full time employees and 2 part time employees will be required (equivalent to 7 year round employees) . III - 34 In summary, the marina could not be operated at a profit under the pre-project conditions. Storm damage to docks, dock repairs and inadequate electric and water service made the marina unattractive to boaters. Repairs to the old structures and services were no longer possible. New dock structures, dock services and shoal dredging, to prevent boat grounding, were necessary to update a run- down, unsatisfactory boating facility and have been completed at a cost of approximately 1 million dollars. costs of operation were skyrocketing with insurance, utilities, and salaries increasing greatly and new government fees and regulations being added. Yearly storm damage also required expensive repairs. The project as defined will allow the operation of a modern marina with the safety of the most modern docks, proper electric service, and satisfactory navigational water depths. Marina employment will increase 3 1/2-fold. Marina occupancy will increase eventually from the previous 91 boater slips to 138 boater slips and the marina will be able to operate at a reasonable profit after the cost of the project is amortized. III - 35 COMMUNITY ECONOMIC BENEFITS: The marina project expenditure of approximately 1 million dollars was paid directly to the outside community to various contractors and suppliers. Additional expenditures of $100, 000 for the parking drainage system and sanitary systes is expected. In addition to the direct project expenditures listed, yearly contributions to the local economy from this project are projected as follows: 5 additional employees $177, 000 Real Estate Tax Increase $ 10, 000 Utility Expense, 100% Increase $ 15, 000 Marina Supplies, 100% Increase $ 45, 000 Boater Community Spending Increase $ 33 , 000 $280, 000 The boater estimate of the community spending increase of $33, 000 is based upon 68 new boaters (138 new boater slips less 70 boat slips previously occupied) . The average boat present is now 28 feet in length and the 28 foot boater spends $2443 at the marina for basic dockage and storage. Based upon III - 36 tourist income studies, boaters and their visitors spend 20 cents outside the marina in the local community for every one dollar spent at the marina. Hence, the 70 boater increase would reflect $33 , 000 spent for restaurants, stores, gas stations, motels, etc. in the community. In summary, the marina project total monitary contributions to the outside community are: Construction Costs - Local $ 690, 000 Construction Costs - Outside Local Areas $ 410, 000 Total Fixed Construction Cost $1, 100, 000 Yearly Expenditures - Local $ 280, 000 III - 37 c. ) ENVIRONMENTAL: The proposed action would result in several significant environmental improvements over that which was presently existing in other locations which surround Sage Basin, to include the following: Probably the two most important environmental improvements are the interception of surface drainage from parking areas and access roads and the sealing of all marine heads and the pumpout facilities. This is the only portion of Sage Basin that has these types of improvement. Other areas, including State highway drainage and the residential area known as Southold Shores, allow street, highway, and storm runoff to go directly into Sage Basin and other boats are not required to have their head sealed. The relocation of all sanitary leaching systems more than one hundred (100) feet away from the shoreline. Again, this is the only portion of the shore frontage on Sage Basin that is accomplishing this. Other sites, including residence locations along Sage Boulevard and the residential development known as Southold Shores have sanitary III - 38 leaching systems much closer to surface waters. In addition, well managed marinas can be more beneficial to the environment than adjacent developed areas such as housing and commercial activities. This evaluation is based in part on a study entitled "Ecology of Small Boat Marinas" done by Graduate School of Oceanography Seagrant and the University of Rhode Island in 1973 , in which a marina area and a salt marsh cove were considered as ecological systems and compared to evaluate their differences in environmental impacts. The abstract of this report is as follows, and the total study is contained as Appendix No. 6. "In Wickford Harbor, Rhode Island, a yacht marina area and a salt marsh cove were considered as ecological systems and compared to evaluate biological populations and magnitudes of production and respiration. Volume and flushing characteristics of both areas were similar. Analyses were made in each cove on marsh grass production, suspended particulate matter, phytoplankton, nutrients, bacteria, dissolved organics, copper levels, fish and sediments. III - 39 Biomass and metabolism measurements were made on the fouling communities present on floats and pilings in the marinas. Preliminary bioassays were performed with concentrations of outboard motor exhaust water on several species of estuarine organisms. Some additional comparative measurements were taken inside and outside other marinas located in Narragansett Bay. "No major differences were found in marsh grass production, concentrations of suspended particulate matter, nutrients, bacteria, dissolved organics, infauna, or sediment metabolism. Copper levels, while lower than toxic concentrations reported in the literature, were higher in the marina cove, ranging from 0.009 ug/g in the water to 160 ug/g in the fouling community. Fish species reached the same levels of diversity in both the marina and the marsh cove, but abundance was greater in the marsh cove due to the presence of dense juvenile menhaden schools. "The fouling communities of the marinas, which appeared to be a food source for juvenile mummichogs (Fundulus heteroclitus) , exerted a significant oxygen demand on the marina cove. III - 40 Diurnal curves of dissolved oxygen showed lower concentrations at the end of the night in marina areas than in adjacent waters. For this reason, and because preliminary bioassays indicated some toxicity due to exhaust waters, it is suggested that marina sites be well flushed with oxygenated tidal waters. The luxurious fouling growths which developed in the marina cove may serve as additional food sources to complement the detritus input from the salt marsh. "In most respects the marina cove and the marsh cove appeared to be not only similar, but also compatible ecological systems. " III - 41 B. LOCATION 1. GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES: The boundaries the Site and the Project is that shown on enclosed 1" = 50 ' Scale Map, (see Exhibit A) and located on the East Side of Sage Basin, between Sage Basin and that portion of Peconic Bay known as Southold Bay, and further identified by Suffolk County Tax Map Number 1000-57-1-38. 3, and is further described in deed dated October 5, 1978 from Fred Young to Howard H. Zehner. (See Appendix # 15. ) "Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, bounded and described as follows: "PARCEL I. BEGINNING at a concrete monument set on the southerly side of a 16 feet wide Right of Way where it is intersected by the easterly line of the lands now or formerly of Killion and approximately 1740 feet easterly along the said Right of Way from State Road; Thence South 67 degrees 41' 40" East along the southerly line of said Right of Way III - 42 428.73 feet to a concrete monument and the westerly line of the lands now or formerly of Sage; Thence South 16 degrees 56 ' 40" West along said lands 760 feet to the ordinary high water mark of Peconic Bay; Thence westerly along said high water mark on a tie line course and distance North 60 degrees 16 ' 20" West 481. 58 feet to the easterly side of the former entrance to the basin; Thence North 20 degrees 28 ' 30" East along the former inlet to the basin, continuing along the basin and further continuing along lands now or formerly of Kilion 694. 83 feet to the concrete monument set on the southerly line of said Right of Way at the point or place of beginning, together with all right title and interest in and to two arms of land abutting on the west the course North 20 degrees 28 ' 30" East aforementioned and jutting into the basin;" III - 43 PARCEL II. BEGINNING at a point on the ordinary high water mark of Peconic Bay at the southeasterly corner of Lot 52 , Map of Southold Shores, Suffolk County Map # 3853; from said point of beginning running along the easterly line of said lot 52 and passing through a concrete monument North 20 degrees 08 ' 40" West 40 feet more or less to the shore of the basin; thence in a general northeasterly direction through the waters of the inlet and along the shore of said basin on a line generally parallel with a course North 75 degrees 15 ' 00" East 325 feet more or less to Parcel I; thence along Parcel I to the ordinary high water mark of Peconic Bay; thence along the ordinary high water mark of Peconic Bay and through the waters of the inlet on a line generally parallel with the course South 75 degrees 15 ' 00" West 325 feet more or less to the point or place of beginning. III - 44 PARCEL III. BEGINNING at a point on the westerly boundary line of the premises of the party of the second part which point is South 20 degrees 28 minutes 30 seconds West 175 feet from a monument at the northwesterly corner of said land of the party of the second part; from said point of beginning running thence along said westerly boundary line of the land of the party of the second part South 20 degrees 28 minutes 30 seconds West 400 feet; thence into the waters of the "basin" three courses as follows: (1) North 69 degrees 31 minutes 30 seconds West 350 feet; thence (2) North 20 degrees 28 minutes 30 seconds East 400 feet; thence (3) South 69 degrees 31 minutes 30 seconds East 350 feet to said westerly line of the premises of the party of the first part and the point or place of beginning. III - 45 PARCEL IV. BEGINNING at a monument set at the northeasterly corner of land of the party of the second part adjoining land of the party of the first part; running thence along said land of the party of the first part, two courses: (1) South 67 degrees 41' 40" East 25. 11 feet; thence (2) South 16 degrees 56 ' 40" West 777 feet, more or less to ordinary high water mark of Peconic Bay; thence northwesterly along said high water mark, 28 feet more or less, to a point 25.0 feet westerly from the last described line measured at right angles thereto, to said land of the party of the second part; thence along said land of the party of the second part, North 16 degrees 56 ' 40" East 760 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. Said parcel of land being 25 feet wide throughout. III - 46 PARCEL V. BEGINNING at a point where the division line between land of William Kilian and Zehner intersects the southerly line of a 16 foot right of way which said point is also the Northeast corner of land of William Kilian; running thence along said division line of said lands in a southerly direction 125. 0 feet to the point of beginning; running thence along land of Zehner South 20 degrees 28 ' 30" West 50 feet; running thence North 69 degrees 31 ' 30" West 50. 0 feet to other land now or formerly of Sage; running thence North 65 degrees 28 ' 30" East 70.71 feet to the point and place of BEGINNING. TOGETHER with a perpetual navigational right of way over other lands of the party of the first part in the basin adjoining the subject premise for ingress and egress to the subject premises in common with others. III - 47 PARCEL VI . ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being at Arshamomaque, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, and State of New York, being bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point where the division line between land of William Kilian and the land of Zehner intersects the southerly line of a 16 foot right of way which said point is also the Northeast corner of land of William Kilian; running thence along said division line in a Southerly direction with its prolongation of said division line 575. 0 feet to the northeast corner of land of Sage, the said point of beginning; running thence South 20 degrees 28 ' 30" West 90. 0 feet; l running thence Southwest along the shore line of Pipes Cove, 140. 0 feet; III - 48 running thence North 34 degrees 24 ' 10" West 295. 0 feet to land of Zehner; running thence South 69 degrees 31 ' 30" East 350 feet to the point or place of BEGINNING. III - 49 2 . DESCRIPTION OF SITE ACCESS: Land access is by Route 25 to Sage Boulevard, approximately 1, 740 Feet South on Sage Boulevard from Route 25. Sage Boulevard also is additionally identified as a 16 ' width Right of Way to the project site and other sites in the area. That portion of the Deed guaranteeing site access is quoted as follows: "TOGETHER with non exclusive easement of Right of Way to pass and repass for all purposes over the 16 feet wide roadway hereinbefore mentioned running from wherever said roadway contacts the premises hereinbefore described in a general westerly direction to State Road (the main highway) . " This right-of-way also functions as a Long Island Lighting Company power line right-of- way, not only for the Marina but also for properties preceeding the project site, but after it as well. (See Appendix 15. ) III - 50 Water access is by a 20 ' X 200 , X 6 ' deep channel from Southold Bay (Peconic Bay) into Sage Basin and is maintained exclusively at the expense of the project Applicant, even though it is utilized by many others who reside on the peripheral of Sage Basin and own water craft. 3• ZONING The Zoning of the proposed Site is Marine II, as identified in Article X 22, Section 100, 120-122 . Because of its specific pertinence to the project, Section 100-120, Purpose, is quoted, and Section 100-121, A, Use Regulations to include permitted uses. Please note that as of the nine (9) permitted uses, are numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9 are specifically germane to this project, therefore making the proposed use clearly consistent with the permitted use for this type of zoning. III - 51 100-121. Use regulations. "In the MII District, no building or premises shall be used and no building or part of a building shall be erected or altered which is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any uses except the following [one (1) use per eighty thousand (80, 000) square feet of land above mean high water, unless otherwise specified] : "A. [Amended 5-9-89 by L.L. No. 6-1989] Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted uses and, except for those used permitted under Subsection A(1) hereof, are subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board: (1) One (1) one-family detached dwelling per single and separate lot of record in existence as of the date of adoption of this Article. III - 52 (2) Marinas for the docking, mooring and accommodation of recreational or commercial boats, including the sale of fuel and oil primarily for the use of boats accommodated in such marina. (3) Boat docks, slips, piers or wharves for charter boats carrying passengers on excursions, pleasure or fishing trips or for vessels engaged in fishery or shellfishery. (4) Beach clubs, yacht clubs or boat clubs, including uses accessory to them, such as swimming pools, tennis courts and racquetball facilities. (5) Boatyards for building, storing, repairing, renting, selling or servicing boats, which may include the following as an accessory use: office for the sale of marine III - 53 equipment or products, dockside facilities for dispensing of fuel and, where pumpout stations are provided, rest room and laundry facilities to serve overnight patrons. (6) Mariculture of aquaculture operations or research and development. (7) Boat and marine engine repair and sales and display, yacht brokers or marine insurance brokers. (8) Buildings, structures and uses owned or operated by the Town of Southold, school districts, park districts and fire district. (9) Retail sale or rental of fishing, diving or bathing supplies and equipment if accessory to a marina or boatyard or ship's loft or chandlery. " III - 54 4. DESCRIPTION OF SAGE BASIN Sage Basin is a 14 . 5 Acre body of water with its only inlet and outlet on land owned by the Project's Applicant. Sage Basin occurred as a result of clay mining for brick manufacturing in the late 1800 's. Water depths in Sage Basin ranges from the shallow flats to deep water depths of twenty (20) feet. Average tidal range is 2 . 5 feet. The access to Sage Basin, a twenty (20) feet wide channel maintained by the Project Applicant for the use of all owners and residents of property in the peripheral of Sage Basin, including the users of Brick Cove Marina. The entrance channel of Sage Basin (see Site Plan) occurred as a result of a break through between Southold Bay and Sage Basin during the 1930 's hurricane. Prior to this it was primarily a fresh water pond. Sage Basin is directly connected via the above referenced channel to Southold Bay which is connected to Peconic Bay which recently has been included in E.P.A. 's National Estuary Program. III - 55 C. DESIGN AND LAYOUT 1. TOTAL SITE: Total site area includes 12 . 5 Acres, of which 4 .2 Acres are underwater land. The upland portion of the site is further broken down as follows: a. ) PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: No additional areas of impervious surface construction is proposed over what presently exists. These include 16, 150 Square Feet of existing building structures; a 25 ' X 50 ' in ground swimming pool with 2800 Square Feet of concrete patio; and two (2) paved tennis courts totaling 12 , 900 Square Feet. Also included in this category is 43 , 500 Square Feet of existing and proposed parking area part of which already has received a gravel surface, and the remainder will also be surfaced with gravel only so as to reduce and restrict surface runoff. III - 56 b. ) AMOUNT OF LAND WHICH HAS BEEN OR IS PROPOSED TO BE CLEARED AND/OR GRADED: The majority of the site has previously been cleared or graded when it was used in the brick yard development. This base, including the previously described structures and parking area total 7 . 17 Acres with no significant change in this amount expected as a result of the proposed Marina improvements. c. ) OPEN SPACE LAND: The site contains 6.28 Acres of natural wooded and brush covered areas, including areas along the beach on the South side of the property, and along the peninsula to the Southwest, as well as 3 ,730 Square Feet of specifically identified tidal wetlands as depicted and outlined. (See Section IV C (a) . d. ) ACREAGE OF LAND THAT WILL BE KEPT IN ITS NATURAL STATE: This includes the areas described above, or approximately 6.78 Acres, which is categorized both as open space and naturally vegetated areas. III - 57 The only difference between the two would be approximately . 5 Acres of beach area. This area varies depending on the results of storm damage, beach erosion, and natural replentishment. e. ) PROPOSED LANDSCAPING: The Sage Basin shorefront along the edge of the parking area is to be landscaped with Red Cedar and Hetz Juniper (Juniperus Hetzi Glauca) except where the prevalent phragmites anstrolis already exist. This proposed and existing landscaping will extend approximately 600 Feet minus access to boat ramps, travel lift, and so forth, for a width of six (6) to ten (10) feet. f. ) FUEL FACILITIES: The fuel facilities consist of existing Suffolk County Department of Health Services approved 2, 000 Gallon in-ground storage tank. This tank has been taken out of service because of the removal of the existing piping to the dispensing pump as a result of the replacement of docks and slips. Presently, the Owner is considering two (2) options: One is to III - 58 totally dispense with fuel facilities and have the boats go elsewhere for refueling; or request and obtain approval for new piping and dispensing equipment. The decision on which option to be explored is expected to be made after a further economic evaluation by the Owner of having on-site fueling capability. 2 . STRUCTURES a. ) Of the existing structures on the site, the majority date back to when the site was used as an active brickyard area. The existing structures include the following: o A 2, 000 Square Foot Residence. 0 6, 000 Square Feet of brick shop and storage building. 0 800 Square feet of frame building used as a marina office and boaters toilet. 0 2500 Square feet of corrogated metal storage building. III - 59 o A 36 Square Feet concrete block water service building containing water meter, RPZ Valves, and so forth. o A 25 X 50 in ground swimming pool with 2800 square feet concrete patio, and 470 Square Feet of concrete block storage building/bath house. o A 15 ' X 30, 450 Square Feet Utility Building on the East side of the property and a 28 ' X 401 , 1100 Square Feet metal and frame garage type storage building in the South portion of the Property. b. ) SITE PLAN: Reference is made to Site Plan S-1 (Exhibit A) depicting all of the existing and proposed facilities. There are no new additional structures proposed for this project. A Certificate of Occupancy was obtained in 1987 for the site when zoned as C-Light Industrial ' (See Appendix 15) . Town Master Plan zoning later converted this and similar sites to Marina II . c. ) MARINA DOCK, PIERS , AND UTILITES: The original ninety-one (91 ) marina slips have been removed and have in place the following structures : -i III - 60 DOCKING SUMMARY: 138 BOAT SLIPS (91 PREVIOUS) 'A' DOCK• MAIN DOCK - 208 ' LONG X 6. 67 ' WIDE WITH 20 ' LONG X 4 ' WIDE RAMP FINGER PIERS - 3 - 25 ' LONG X 3 ' WIDE 9 - 30 ' LONG X 3 ' WIDE 1 - 30 ' LONG X 4 ' WIDE 'B' DOCK• MAIN DOCK - 313 . 8 ' LONG X 6. 67 ' WIDE WITH 30 ' LONG X 4 ' WIDE RAMP FINGER PIERS - 1 - 25 ' LONG X 3 ' WIDE (1 SIDE FOR WORK PRAM) 8 - 35 ' LONG X 3 ' WIDE 1 - 35 ' LONG X 4 ' WIDE 7 - 40 ' LONG X 4 ' WIDE 1 - 40 ' LONG X 6. 67 ' WIDE TO INCLUDE ONE SIDE FOR FUELING 'Cl DOCK• MAIN DOCK - 200' LONG X 6 ' WIDE (FIXED PIER DOCK) FINGER PIERS - 15 - 45 ' LONG X 4 ' WIDE ARTICULATING FINGERS COMPRISING: 30 ' LONG FLOATING SECTION 15 ' LONG RAMP SECTION WITH 5 ' MOUNTING 'D' DOCK: MAIN DOCK - 342 ' LONG X 6. 67 ' WIDE WITH 20 ' LONG X 4 ' WIDE RAMP FINGER PIERS - 20 - 25 ' LONG X 3 ' WIDE 4 - 30 ' LONG X 3 ' WIDE TRAVEL LIFT AREA 30 ' FLOAT WITH 15 ' RAMP 1 - 45 ' LONG X 4 ' WIDE ARTICULATING FINGER WITH SINGLE SIDE USE ONLY FOR BOAT SERVICING III - 61 All of the proposed and approved dock and boat slip improvements are complete and no additional additions or changes are contemplated. As built layout is shown on Exhibit B. These docks are held in place by thirty- seven (37) 12-inch minimum diameter Greenheart Pilings. These pilings have been driven into hard clay to a 20 Ton load bearing capacity. Note: The Greenheart Pilings were used in spite of their additional cost because they do not leach chemicals to the water like creasote or CCA impregnated ones do. (See following information sheet. ) The docks have newly installed pedestal systems (69 - one per two boat slips) , each one containing either 30 Amp or 50 Amp electrical outlets, 1/2-inch water hose bibs with valves, and a 7 Watt flourescent waterproof dock lights. For night illumination and personnel safety, III - 62 GREENHEART (DEMERARA) INC. .Aling - Salon Cumber- Dimension Stock nssc►CIAUID COMPANIES 52 V A N D E R B I LT AVENUE ll►lrMowl �.,�!d NEW YORK, N. Y. 10017 Area Code rs mm $do# U. S. A. 1e►e:ADDRESS 20764 �"d CAMAODIus All CODW I. u W vw u I. GREENUEART (Nectandra Rodioei) DEMERARA GREENHEART, which grows only in Guyana, is rated the strongest and most durable wood for heavy construction in use today. .!., Readily available in the form of round piling, and accu- rately band-sawn lumber and timbers, reserve stocks are maintained at strategic points in the United States for quick delivery. All Greenheart piling and timbers are graded to meet A.S.T.M. and Federal specifications. All mill shipments are accompanied by an official Certificate of Inspection issued by the Guyana Forestry Department. ''Dur modern. band-mill is equipped to furnish sawn Greenheart dressed to your specifications, as well as with these addi- tional workings: 1 . Precision cutting to exact length. 2• Boring and countersinking. 3. Chamfering. 4. Beveling faces and ends. _ OUTSTANDING CHARACTERISTICS OF GREENHEART Marine Borers - "Greenheart is more resistant to teredo and other marine borers thaA SrLY of the hundreds of species of timber so far used as piling." - A.K. Armstrong, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. De_cal� - Greenheart is highly resistant to wood destroying fungi. - U.S. Forest Sefvice. i Strength - Relative Strength for constructional purposes. Greenheart 11. 5, Oak 5, Yellow Pine 5. - Hurst`s Architectural Surveyors Handbook. Durability - Authentic records show that the best grades of Greenheart surpass ron and steel when plaped in water or contact with the soil. - U.S. Forest Service, Circular 211 - C: D. Mell. s Stiffness - In the form of a beam qr post Greenheart is found to be 25% stiffer than black locust, the strongest and stiffest of 130 species of North American tested. -•U.S. Forest Service. ' r III - 63 a 150 Watt HPS floodlight is located at the head of each of the four (4) main docks. All lights, both dock and boat slip, are photo cell controlled. The replacement docks and finger piers (Walcon System 2000) are constructed as shown in the following drawings and the manufacturers detailed description and diagrams. d. ) SOUNDINGS OF UNDERWATER LANDS: On June 23 , 1993 , extensive soundings (86 separate measurements) were taken in the Marina area, adjacent areas, and the entrance channel. The listing and map of these soundings are contained in Appendix 7 . e. ) DRAINAGE PLAN: Because of the preponderance of clay soils at the site, the development of drainage plans required a special and unique approach. The primary purpose of the proposed drainage system was to intercept storm run-off from the parking areas that front the Sage Basin surface III - 64 . MHW, PLAN VIEW N PROPERTY _fIS'5E76ACKQ � � SNE /C / JnK/ST, pLI�TNS l ScT34 . _ . SAC E -5.0 - -_=' Eli C] BASIN I- IV ARK, SPOIL oISPOSAL 15' SETOACK AREA AREA , 1 O(�E,DC�INCT , TO 4' L1CW �• • .'� EB8 MHW E` O PROPERTY LINE 0 PlEi2 ASSY. NO. -$ECA SHE T T LE PECONIC BAY WETIANCS rAREA Q p iao '200 400 La SCALE AREA clizio PER N.Y STATE P,-NNE COORO►NATE SYSTEM (L.OA/Cf /SLAKD ZONE PURPOSE: Enlarge Young's Marina wuM Mean Sea Level AO ACENT ►ROPERIV D"HERS IN Sage Basin Joseph & Marie Knizak ATSouthold William Kilian COUNTY or Suffolk STATE N.Y. 3 Southold Shores Assoc. , Inc. PPLI Tlo� e. P nic Ic. 4 Harborview Realty Qngooeg ��Qey renbrMCE T orb 0ATE 0�SSOC. 14 8 Rev. 9/9/92 PIER ASSEMBLY TABLE IID NO MAIN PIER NO. & SZ. of FINGERS PILES D 6' x 342' floating 20 - 3' x 251 _ 9 w/ 20' ramp 4 - 3' x 30' r 0, 6' x 200' fixed 8 - 1 xr301 b9 land based, fixed 7 -4' x 30 ' W15' ramps 14 B 6' x 314' floating 1 - 4' x 30' w/ 15' ramp(c) 14 w/ 30' ramp 1 - 3' x 251 (b) 8 - 3' x351 1 - 4' x 35' 1 - 6' x 401(x) 1 . 7 - 41 x 40' ' A 6' x .208' floating 9 - 3' x 30' 7 w/ 20' ramp 1 - 41 x 30' ` 3 - 3' x 25' ABOVE INCLUDES: (a)1 - Fueling Slip (one side) (b)1 - Boaityard Work Pram Slip (one side) (01 - Boat Service Slip at Lift (one sided finger) 138 - Boat Rental slips y rw+►osc: Enlarge Young's Marina o•iw Mean Sea Level IN Sae Basin. A0,IACEN7 ►BOPEPTr ONNEA: AT Sage Q Joseph $ Marie Knizak So 2 William Kilian counTY or Suffolk 5wc N.Y. 3 Southold Shores Assoc. , Inc. APPLICAUM otFieconlc Assoc., Inc. 4 Narborview Realty OneSBoo� Al eyb�� , N.Y irrRev. 9/9/92 WATER ELECT 21 C L 1 NES •PA55 THRU MAIN DCXY-S HINGE TO MAIN DOCK AD' MAIN FLOATINq DocK SECTION Z W 30', 35' ole 40` F/NCER DOCK Q Z SEE 5/TE PL AN� t� MAIN RAMP DOCK 1 X (v DECKINCI Q' 5;-1 L ES ' E — ---�7 - 0 (TYP-) AOF% 5 13 i01 SPILE -e DoCIG e NCT AT • FINCIER DOCKS Y _ PLAN - FINC1E R FLOAT (n/o scALE v 0 0 Z Ix Co CECtc Q •jx8 STR�wc,c SOCK - 3 x 9 Q nJ CI LUN. / 7FA-STF-t4ED w/ ` 13 got'TS g'x4' x ►'-10" MUD POLYETHYLENE h �q' WIDE I I L'N FLOATS Q FLOATING EL E'VA1" !ON I I - 2.1 FREEBOARDS 0 FINGER k ND SECTION T142U FLOAT (NO SCAIE) 0 1 Z 3 q 5 SPILE SCALE OF AST NOTE : MAIM FLOATINCI �' FLOATING F/NCrER DOCKS HAVE SAME 35' FINCIL Z CONSTRUCTION TiWCH/V/QUES : MAIN 'TYPICAL DOCK DOCK 15 Go' WIDE, FINGERS 3 ' 024' SPILT= POUT WIDE; MAIN DOCKSECT/ONSHAVE' 8 -. X4 ,Kl=IO ` NO SCALL _- POLYETHYLENE FLOAT UNITS, F//Vc7ERS 2, 3 0x 4. ALL DOCK STT *?uCU E5 PURPOSE: Enlarge Young's Marina,r_E WELDED ALUMINUM. .. oATw Mean Sea Level ADJACENT PROPERTY O4wER5 IN Sage Basin O Joseph & Marie Knizak AT Southold 2 William Kilian COUNTY Of SuffolksuTE N.Y. 3 Southold Shores Assoc., Inc. 4 Harbory i ew Realty Qie`�ootLeg A �" ft IAc' SHUT Of DATE Rev. 9/9/92 FIXED DOCK RAMPS NO SCALE NOTE: DOCK 5T2uC- q' x 3O' FLOA,TI NC TuR¢ Is C.CAFINR�EIZS 4 _,5 `FAST ECT N �C%5 H I MCT E s!TYP.) -xCp-cI_V.' 1501-75 — ---- -- - 29 -- 2 x Cv 2 A NI P DEG K 19� w. X ISS L. RAMP CTYP.,� ZX L DECKIMOT / A I NfT E S P I L E (Pilo L�oPq o o F/xED Doc-,<O A O A O I, I SOUTH DOCK RAMP HIMCTE (TYP) EXTENS�D J1 - %0 %01----- ---- i O' — 10" -0 x16' L. SP11.ES (TYP� 2 X �• DEGKINC� 5x8 ALuM. CONSTCOC, 2•SaK10 — 3x10 CRO55 LONG 1 T U D I NAL SUPPORTS SU P02T(3) MUD LINE (AL LOW TIDE LINE4 �yo -✓1,�— IC TO c ELEVATION END VIEW 140 SCALr) (IVO SCAL PURPOSE: Enlarge Young's Marina VATRAM Mean Sea level ADJACENT PROPERTT OINERS IN Sage Basin O Joseph b Marie Knizak AT Southold 2 William Kilian COATI O. Suffolk sTATEN.Y. 3 Southold Shores Assoc., Inc. �., � or i ASsoc. 4 Harbory i ew Realty �te Bootleg Al ley, rt, Y SNEFT OF DATE REV. 9/9/92 C C A PI L F.S (TYR, 1 i i ! ! x40 DEC.KIwC, P I� I � � ! I I I � i i it ij ; ll' TYP. ! I fill �9I 2.0' CI AMC WAY FIXES ALUMINUM -~ AL-KWAY FLOATINCI DOC-IL PLAN CrI ' I II EL EVAT I ON TYPI CAL q,!ANe-WAY ELEVATION UPLAND TD �FL0Ar11y DOCKS PURPOSE: Enlarge Young's Marina CATUNMean Sea Level . ADJACENT PROPERTY DOWERS. sN Sage Basin O Joseph & Marie Knizak AT Southold 2 William Kilian COUNTY or Suffolk STATEN,Y. 3 Southold Shores Assoc., Inc. aai& ft IRcy a Harborview Realty SHEET "Y TE 4/84 I' REV. 9/9/92 1 OJ \ SYSTEM 2000 1. Walcon System 2000 frames are an all welded structure of specially designed extrusions manufactured from 6061-T6 aluminum which has proven to be totally suitable for the marine environment. 2. All Walcon frames are decked with close spaced and grooved Pau-Lope, an extremely durable untreated hardwood which provides an attractive non-slip surface. Pau-Lope is a minimal maintenance decking material and requires no painting or any sort of treatment other than a periodic washdown. The same material is also used for Tendering on walkways and fingers. 3. Walcon use specially designed foam filled polyethelene flotation units manufactured to the highest standards. The casing is .150" thick rotationally molded crosslink polyethelene and the 48" x 36" x 22" units are filled with a polystyrene foam. The System 2000 includes flotation to provide a uniform 24" dead load freeboard with a minimum 251bs.sq.ft. live load throughout the installation. 4. The aluminum side extrusions of all main walkways are specially designed to enable pile guides and unpiled fingers to be moved in accordance with pile driving or boat slip requirements. Main walkway pontoons also incorporate an integral 8" wide full length service trough on both sides of the unit to facilitate the installation and maintenance of water and electrical services. This service trough is covered by sectional aluminum plates. 5. The Walcon system has been designed and engineered to minimize the number of piles needed for an installatioih and a saving in the number of piles normally required can be as much as 40°x6 over other floating dock sytems. Unless local conditions should dictate otherwise, piles are usuallly only necessary at approximately 60' intervals along the main walkways and at the end of fingers over 35' in length. 6. All connections throughout the sytem are made using Grade 316 stainless steel nuts, bolts, washers and screws. The inter walkway and finger to walkway connections also incorporate special rubber blocks to give noise free joints with a degree of flexibility. 7. Walcon pile guides are lined with "Schlegel" which is a very durable fender material with a low coefficient of friction that decreases under an increasing load. We do not recommend the use of rollers as these have a tendency to seize, becoming sometimes noisy and worn on one side causing rotation failure. 8. 12" cast aluminum cleats are included as part of the System 2000 specification and they are designed to fit into the special track incorporated in all side extrusions allowing cleats to be positioned or moved at any time to meet specific requirements. SYSTEM 2000 9. System 2000 gangways and articulating fingers feature our special 'silent' piano ` hinge connection, which with a fixed mounting at the shore end of a unit allows the outer end to move in accordance with the water level. R, SYSTEM 2000 A modern aluminum-structured pontoon system. r _ j W- t 4 a r System 2000 at Red Brook Harbor This modern design,combining special aluminum extrusions, hardwood decking and polyethylene floats, has been developed as a result of our continuous research program and practical experience gained over the last eighteen years of being involved in the design and construction of marinas. A galvanized steel system(System 21)is also available to similar specifications. ARTICULATING FINGER PONTOO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION LOADING 15 Ibs./t2 to 25 Ibs./ftz live load,with a 25%reserve. �FREEBOARD 18'to 247 nominal unloaded freeboard. STRUCTURE _ s^ Welded aluminum braced frame from aluminum alloy >.' .,•10,+; to international designation 6082 or 6061.The structures of ramps and fingers incorporate several special extrusions, developed by Walcon i= •.. ,3-r3,*'-�,ti�",�:ai,-�kf antis '"'.;f`�:'' r`.e" •x;••�`.� DECKING 4"x 3/4'hardwood boards,planed,grooved and fixed '^ with stainless steel self-tapping screws. FLOATS , Molded,high density polyethylene casing filled with polystyrene foam. CLIMATIC CONDITIONS Maximum wave height 24 TECHNICAL PLANS RAMP SECTION: Widths: 3'or 4' Parallel Hinge Detail 5'tapenng to 3' 6'tapering to 4' Lengths: 10' 15'or 20' WALCON BARNEGAT INC. FINGER SECTION: 23 Congress Street Widths: 3'or 4' Salem, MA 01970 U.S.A. Lengths: 15'20'25'30'35'or 40' Telephone:.508-745-6094Fax: 508-741-4365 Note: Combined Ramp& Finger length— up to a max 50'overall Due to our policy of continuous product development we reserve the right to change specifications without prior notice. Y TEM,2000 ' The design has the following features: 1. Aluminum structure using specially commissioned sections. 2. Performance proven foam-filled polyethylene floats. 8. A modular design enabling most layouts to be achieved using standard units. SECTIONALIZED 4. Complete flexibility of finger positioning. SERVICE DUCT COVER 5. Full provision for the increasingly complex service requirements of modem marinas. & A sensible blend of durability and economy. The system has been used for the reconstruction of Redbrook Harbor Marina, Cataumet, MA; Heron Way Marina,Gloucester, MA.;Britannia Yacht Club, Northport, NY,Fiddlers Cove Marina, N. Falmouth, MA;Cape Ann Marina, Gloucester, MA;Viking Marina,Westerly, RI;Commercial Wharf, Boston, MA; –— --– as well as numerous projects in the United Kingdom and overseas. ,, STAINLESS -- / ADJUSTABLE STEEL FASTENINGS CAST ALUMINUM Irl' • CLEATS HARC-W " AND OF ;i FENDET SEM'1( ALL WELDED 6061T6 EXPANDE ALUMINUM STRUCTURE POLYETHYLENE POLYS'i YI CASING STANDARD RANGE DURABILITY The standard range of interconnecting units comprises: Considerable care has been taken to insure the aluminum alloy used is suitable for use in WALKWAY UNITS(WS) marine environments while keeping the system Walkway units may be used for the main concourse of a marina and reasonably priced. for many other pontoon applications.Standard nominal lengths are p advice was taken from leading 38'and 25';widths are 6',68",8;8'6',and 10 authorities on the suitability of the alloy chosen FINGER UNITS(SS) and samples have been on test for many finger units are used in conjunction with walkways,giving years.Recently a sample has been placed on berths.Fingers are supplied in nominal lengths of 20',25, test in Bahrain,which is one of the most ,4(f and 45 Units are made in a splay design with a minimum aggressive marina environments in the world. width of T The structure of fingers Is designed at a minimum length Analysis of the test samples confirms the W* of 75%of the length of the boat. term suitability of the chosen material. V - ,•�`� :awl' t.:''�'"��. '„'.,,� , :rr . 41 SYSTEM 200 yet, t Z, SS Finger Pontoon y / o POLYETHYLENE FOAM-FILLED FLOAT FULLY ADJUSTABLE FINGER MOUNTING BRACKETS \ z )OD DECK -- IONAL NG I E DUCT Tf 4 7- ENE ENE CORE Main Walkway with Service Duct WS Walkway Walkway Pile Guide .9: : •y "r �. :C '•{, .tfa:s A. ,i. _.�'.'.i,. <...+ ,•� J �.•.Y-}`";.'�q!�..V.E.' -. 'f.:;' y _ ,.j f,rl.�--.�tiY,: � CZ ra'�a��'rY[ yp��,,�, • , .Y .MC uMa a... ;n;;�: �''t'xe Ia'yti4`"'y'.-„�:.:''',"'4. .lu, _ •S. R � :A�`' R'_: STRUCTURAL >ai baa at Typical failure or boding 0 TESTING "Ib°' ""0_ �d Section � ,� �>� Qt*J Bolt bad through walkway/ A series of tests were conducted on System 2000 waWway joint 20.000 4,400 prototype units to establish their structural End bad ' to e 1.040 400 adequacy.The most important parts of any End bad applied to 30' pontoon system are the joints between each finpr 940 540 walkway unit and between the walkways and lateral load on cleat 3,800 NO fingers. A summary of the test results and their Fun rest detans are available on comparison with predicted loads is given in the request following table: I TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION TECHNICAL PLANS LOADING E___ 15 Ibs.tft2 to 25 IbsJft2 live load,with a 25%reserve. WS 1 SS15 FREEBOARD 18"to 24"nominal unloaded freeboard. SS20 STRUCTURE WS2 Welded aluminum braced frame from aluminum alloy SS25 to international designation 6082 or 6061.The structures of walkways and fingers incorporate WS3 several special extrusions,developed by Walcon. SS30 DECKING 4"x3/4'hardwood boards,planed,grooved and fixed 1h�S4 with stainless steel self-tapping screws. SS35 CONNECTIONS L3) All main connections are made with through-bolts of SS40 stainless steel and incorporate rubber blocks.A special mating extrusion gives continuous side WALKWAY UNITS: adjustment for finger to walkway connections. Widths:6 68" 8' 8'6" 10' FLOATS Lengths:Any length up to 40'to suit customer Molded,high density polyethylene casing filled with requirements. polystyrene foam. FINGER UNITS: CLIMATIC CONDITIONS Widths:3'or 4' Maximum wave height 24". Lengths: 15' 20' 25' 30' 35' 40' 45' 50'fingers also available-4 width only. 40;45'and 517 fingers are supplied with built in Exclusive North American Licensee of Walcon Float Systems finger-end pile guides as standard;but fingers ofany length can be produced and supplied with pile guides to suit customers requirements. WALCON BARNEGAT INC. Pile held fingers available with or without splays. 23 Congress Street Non standard lengths and widths available if Salem, MA 01970 U.S.A. required. Telephone: 508-745-6094 Telex: 510-100-1928 Fax: 508-741-4365 waters. The drainage plan consists of an intercepting "french" drain along the top edge of the embankment and at the base of the slopes from the crushed stone surfaced parking areas. The "french" drain consists of a two (2) feet wide by a minimum of 1. 5 feet deep section of stone at the bottom of which is installed type ADS perforated collection pipe (see following data sheet) - 1, 000 feet required. This pipe conveys the storm water run-off to two (2) leaching type storage areas (total volume 5, 000 Cubic Feet - 5 year storm) located in area containing sand and gravel sub-soils. All leaching storage areas are to be lined in Type AEF filter cloth. Collection system also includes the boat wash-down facility. Complete details of the drainage system are shown on Site Plan S-2 - Exhibit C. III - 77 ^ US CULVEnT INSTALLATION GUIDE '� SVA,' {.x� ;.� " oernr tlau r�iirlfT'I 4- S.The load bearing capability of flexible conduits is de- pe dent on the type of backfill material used and the ePPns fls+isaorrup�te�t>�6degree of compaction achieved. Crushed stone and W- 0gravel backfill materials icall reach a com action drab W meds - 7 I k able Swdificatlons and mjor on Oukbonee level of 90-95%AASHTO standard density without i SNF TubkV� 0f1 C0 5� compaction. When native soils are used as backfill L16rdSpedllauoRb,a•, ;y� 15• material, a compaction level of 85% is required. This OM25 TIA*Q. is the same minimum compaction that is recom- i Q�OM �o�sTT for mended by all culvert pipe manufacturers and can be C NQS MM�2041. nderd-ofiicelier,�pr achieved by either hand or mechanical tamping. t_ Nay .12"b24•ditrtle� Two types of installations are recommended for H-20 S. Duty fOr0 vert and Oths►hl"- live loads—the heaviest legal highway loads. These are the trench and open ditch installations. The mini- Weight Comparison (Approximate pounds-per-foot) mum height of cover recommendations are the same oma« Ao6k 7 np C for both conditions. (+¢f ss) Mrt -== � 101 2.0 s0 9.0 12" 2.5 7 10-s 1s 3.1 1033 Trench Installation Open Ditch Installation 12.9 Is" 6.6 131 15.8 !1 24" 13.6 217 194 ^"►'nnn`^� GRAVEL OR %l:i�/!,•GRAVEL OR•-•?•.. ADS corrugated polyethylene pipe is a flexible conduit, ``ACED saL `'`COY°ACED""' as is corrugated metal pipe. When properly installed, r. ADS culvert pipe has excellent load bearing strength. To ensure maximum performance, ADS pipe should be installed in accordance with the following B '- recommendations: Installation Recommendations TMMInlmwn�,.�R._ n<h« IG Ditch Iratallstlons 1. Crushed stone, gravel or compacted soil backfill WTM�� w� �"kM material should be used as the bedding and envelope ° ° ° rrw material around the culvert. The aggregate size 10 `• 'r 20" should not exceed one inch. 'r s' 1r 24- 1s51 Ir �• 2. The corrugated pipe should be laid on grade, on a layer 'r e- 12" 36• of bedding material as shown for the two types of 24• r 12r, ar installations. If native soil is used as the bedding and Note:ADS culvert pipe also is recommended for resi- backfill material, it should be well compacted in six inch layers under the haunches, around the sides and dential driveway culverts and field crossings. Because these installations are not subject to repeated heavy above the pipe to the recommended minimum height of cover. truck traffic, the recommended compaction level is 3. Either flexible (asphalt) or rigid concrete pavements 80%. This compaction typically can be achieved by P ) g )P hand tamping the backfill material around the pipe. may be laid as part of the minimum cover The minimum heights of cover for these installations requirements. are as listed in the above table. L 4. Site conditions and availability of bedding materials often dictate the type of installation method used. I =DAY, f. ) UNDERGROUND STRUCTURES: The existing underground structures consist primarily of four (4) existing sanitary systems. Two (2) of these sanitary systems are from the brick residence, and each includes a septic tank and leaching or cesspools, located less than one hundred (100) feet from the shoreline of Sage Basin. The proposed plan requires these to be discontinued and abandoned in place and the sanitary effluent rerouted to a new sanitary and leaching field. The third sanitary system, including a two thousand (2 , 000) gallon septic tank and a two thousand (2, 000) gallon sanitary system for the present boaters toilets. This system, because of the clay soil it is located in, has limited functionability and it is proposed that this will also be abandoned and its effluent directed to a new central system. The fourth sanitary system for the tennis courts and swimming pool area consists of a two thousand (2 , 000) gallon septic tank, a two thousand III - 79 (2, 000) gallon pool leaching system, and a leaching field. This system has been in place since 1976 and is working very successfully without any required degree of maintenance. A new 2 , 258 G.P.D. sanitary system is proposed and is under review by th Suffolk County Department of Health Services to replace the present residence system (relocation was a condition of the D.E.C. Permit) and the present boaters toilet system. The new system consists of additional septic tanks (900 and 2, 000 G.P.D. ) , a collection system, two (2) 29 G.P.M. pumps, a 2-inch heavy duty poly force main, and a new leaching field consisting of sixteen (16) 3-Ft. X 10 Ft. leaching pools. The site information and basis of the proposed design is as follows. The complete application Site Layout is shown on Drawing SAN-1 - Exhibit D. III - 80 S, (P7011. o, E `• 9 53. • Boz h rrN'4 s CpuRTS 0 Of N J W DC 4 - A STORAC�E STpR,� li VIP POOL (n STORA4 E AN 49 I SI-M PLAN OF IN: SOUT-HOLD BRICK - COVE MA)ZINA AT: SAC;E SASP14 N COUNTY OF: S U F F, STATE: N. Y APPLICATION BY: PECONIC ASSOG. REV. l BOOTLEALLEY 8/9/934;kE-ENP�RTO AIX 11999 SHEET I OF I DATE: Jo/30/92 ,QTY.• 8/w SITE INFORMATION TOTAL SITE ACREAGE - - - - - - - - - - - 12. 469 ACRES TAX MAP NUMBER - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1000-57-01 38. 3 FACILITIES ON SITE: SWIMMING POOL - - - - 1,230 SQ. FT. TENNIS COURTS - - - - 2 RESIDENCE - - - - - - 2, 060 SQ. FT. BOAT SLIPS - - - - - 138 STORAGE BUILDING - - 9, 000 SQ. FT. OFFICE - - - - - - - 800 SQ. FT. SANITARY CALCULATIONS SWIMMING POOL - 1230 SQ. FT. - 25 SQ. FT. /OCCUPANT 49 OCCUPANTS AT 10 GPD - - - - - - - 490 GPD TENNIS COURTS - 2 AT 100 GPD/COURT - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ - 200 GPD RESIDENCE - SINGLE FAMILY PLUS APARTMENT UNIT (300 + 150) - 450 GPD MARINA - 138 SLIPS AT 10 GPD/SLIP - - - _ _ _ _ _ STORAGE - 9, 000 SQ. FT. AT 0.04 GPD/SQ FT - _ _ _ - 1, 380 GPD OFFICE - 800 SQ. FT. X . 06 GPD/SQ. FT. - - _ _ _ _ - 360 GPD PORTABLE PUMP OUT STATION - AVERAGE 20 GPD _ 48 GPD (ESTIMATED BOATS PUMPED - 5 PER WEEK USUALLY 20 GPD OCCURRING ON A WEEK-END AT 5 GALLONS PER PUMP OUT, MAXIMUM ESTIMATED PER DAY INTO THE SYSTEM - 20 GALLONS) TOTALS - 690 GPD FOR SWIMMING POOL AND TENNIS COURTS 450 GPD FOR RESIDENCE 1808 GPD FOR MARINA FACILITIES 2258 TOTAL GPD SEPTIC TANK - NEW 900 GAL. FOR RESIDENCE, 2 , 000 GAL.FOR SWIMMING POOL (EXISTING) , AND TWO - ONE EXISTING AND ONE NEW - 2, 000 GAL FOR MARINA FACILITIES. LEACHING POOLS FOR RESIDENCE AND MARINA FACILITIES: 2258 GPD TOTAL 2258 GPD / 1.5 GPD/S.F. = 1505 S.F. OF SIDEWALL 1505 S.F. / 31.4 S.F. (10 ' DIA. POOLS) = 47. 9 VERTICAL FT. REQUIRED EFFECTIVE DEPTH OF 3 . 0 FT. (10 ' DIAMETER POOLS) 47. 9 / 3 . 0 = 15. 9 POOLS USE 16 - 3 ' DEEP POOLS III - 82 g. ) WATER SYSTEM TO DOCK: The previous dock potable water service has been removed and replaced with a new 2-inch heavy duty 200 p.s. i. poly pipe with special MAC PAC fittings. The new service piping is installed a minimum of 4 . 5 Feet below grade for frost protection. Back flow protection is provided by a new separate 2-Inch RPZ valve located in the water service building. (See Exhibit C. ) Each main dock is serviced by a separate sub-feeder with a stop and waste valve. All potable water piping has been inspected and approved by Suffolk County Department of Health Services. III - 83 h. ) STAGING AREA FOR SPOIL DISPOSAL FROM DREDGING: The dredging of the Marina to date consists of the removal of approximately 2 ,900 cubic yards of primarily clay material which was stockpiled and retained by a double staked hay bales system in the area shown on Site Plan S- 1 (Exhibit A) . All but approximately 1,900 cubic yards of this material have been removed from the site and transported to the Town Land Fill and be used as cover material. A recently discovered shoal area (see Site Plan) primarily in the channel area between the entrance of the Basin and the Marina, the removal of which requires the excavatation of five hundred fifty (550) cubic yards of material. This material will be moved to the same temporary spoil disposal site as shown on Site Plan S-1 (Exhibit A) . III - 84 3 . PARKING: The approved Marina upland Site Plan S-2 (See Exhibit C) provides for 138 boaters parking spaces, including 5 handicapped spaces, and 10 employee parking spaces. The installation of the proposed parking which includes grading, drainage, bumper logs, etc. , are detailed on Site Plan S-2 (Exhibit C) . The present Town Building Code requires one (1) parking space for each boat slip. Studies have shown that the vehicle use factor, even on peak use periods (holiday week-ends) , average 0.4 vehicles per slip. (See Appendix 6. ) The Town has given some consideration in reducing the Marina parking requirement, but as of the date of the preparation of this document it is still one (1) for each boat slip. A reduction in the requirement would permit the Owner to have more of the site as open space and thereby reduce the sites surface run-off. III - 85 D. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION 1. CONSTRUCTION a. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY STATUS The removal of the previously Completed existing slips and pilings Dec. 1989 Dredging of approximately Completed 3200 Cubic Yards of material Nov. 1992 Installation of 138 Completed modernized boat slips Nov. 1992 complete with water and electricity and associated ramps and walkways Installation of new and Completed upgraded Marina potable water Jan. 1993 system to include new piping and backflow prevention devices Install new transformer and Completed underground electrical service July 1990 Installation of Marina Completed pump out facilities April 1992 Extend existing channel Completed bulkhead 45 Ft. and Feb. 1992 maintenance dredge existing 20 ' X 200' channel to 6 ' M.L.W. b. PLANNED CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES STATUS Vehicle Parking to include All Permits installation of intercepting received drains to direct all parking except Site lot runoff to on site leaching Plan basin approval conditioned on SCDHS approval of new sanitary system III - 86 Installation of on site All permits vessel washdown system to received except contain and separate sediment Site Plan oils from going into the approval leaching area conditional on SCDHS approval of new sanitary system Installation of new sani- Final submittal tary system to include being reviewed additional septic tanks - by SCDHS and 900 and 2000 Gallon, will require collection system, force Board of Review. main, duplex pump station, Approval and leaching field expected Oct. (16 - 3 ' X 10 ' leaching pools 1993 with construction completion Spring of 1994 Dredging of recently All permits discovered shoal at entrance received. Work to the Marina scheduled for Fall 1993 C. Future Potential Development of the Site: There are no plans to develop the site beyond the scope of the present project. However, as part of the original permit process, potential development of the site, in accordance with the present zoning as Marine II, were developed and are as follows: ZONING AND PLANNING INFORMATION Zoning of Marine II Permitted uses include: Marinas; Boat Docks, slips, piers or wharves for charter boats and fishing boats; III - 87 Boatyards for building, storing, repairing or servicing of boats; Boat and marine engine repair; Retail sales or rental of boat accessory equipment. Uses permitted by Special Exception include: Restaurants; Ferry Terminals; Hotels and Motels; Fish Processing Plants. Examples of maximum potential site development based on 4. 2 Acres of water and 8. 3 Acres (352 , 800 S.F. ) of upland: MARINA 25 FT. BOATS 378 SLIPS 40 FT. BOATS 160 SLIPS (Based on information from "Marinas by Chamberlain. ) BOATYARD OR BOAT AND ENGINE FACILITIES - 105,800 S.F. 2-STORY (Based on 30% lot coverage. ) MARINE RELATED COMMERCIAL USE - 105, 800 S.F. 1-STORY - 211, 600 S.F. 2-STORY (Based on 30% lot coverage. ) RESTAURANT - 350 SEATS (Based on 30% lot coverate and 30 S.F. /Seat. ) MOTEL - 59 UNITS AND 90 GUESTS (Based on 6, 000 S.F. of land per unit. ) FISH PROCESSING PLANT - 105,800 S.F. - 2-STORY HIGH BUILDING (Based on 30% lot coverage. ) III - 88 2 . OPERATION: a. ) and b. ) OPERATIONAL ASPECTS: Brick Cove Marina, a full service type Marina, is considered one of the best managed and operated marinas in the Town of Southold. It has provided leadership in safety, the protection of the environment, clean waters, recycling, waste management, energy conservation, pump-out facilities, noise control, etc. Complete details of Brick Cove Marina operations are contained in Appendix 5. A commercial pool and two (2) tennis courts are provided free of charge to the boaters. The pool is operated under Suffolk County Department of Health Services permit and a lifeguard is provided having the necessary certification in pool and CPR life saving. The Marina Manager resides in a single family residence at the Marina. As such, he is available for any emergencies which might occur, environmentally or otherwise. This additional benefit is extremely valuable for 24 hours per day control of the facilities. III - 89 Brick Cove Marina provides summer dockage, winter on-land and in-water storage, and boat services for boaters at the Marina. Boats may dock for the summer only, store for the winter only, or utilize both facilities. 30 or 50 ampere electric service and water is provided at all boat slips. A 30-Ton capacity boat lift is available for hauling and launching boats as is a 9 ' X 15 ' concrete launching ramp. Boaters toilets are available 24 hours a day, year round. Boat services include winterizing, spring commissioning, bottom painting (only approved paints are used) , bottom washing, and repairs as requested. Outside services are used for specialized work such as fiberglass repairs. Specific highlights of the unique attention to environmental concerns and energy conservation, including instructions to boaters, are listed as follows: o Water - Being sure you turn off the spigot at the pedestal before you leave. Having a spring-loaded nozzle on you hose. III - 90 Being sure your washers are in place and in good condition. o Electricity - Being sure all unnecessary equipment is off when you leave. Being sure that your battery chargers are the type that shut down at full charge. This saves electricity and your batteries. o Plastics and Garbage - There is a new regulation that you display on board a sign detailing the laws regarding the discharge of plastics and garbage overboard. There is a fine for not having this sign displayed. We have a supply of these signs in the store. 0 oil Discharge - You must also have a sign in the engine area which states the law about the discharge of oil. These signs are also available in the store. To help assure that no oil is pumped over with bilge water we have a supply of materials for sale in the store that won't absorb water but will absorb oil. III - 91 Placing these in your bilges and changing them periodically will help assure our CREEK STAYS CLEAN. o Safety Equipment - The Coast Guard has been very active inspecting boats this spring and issuing violations. In addition to the two signs mentioned above it is a good idea to check your required safety equipment list: Make sure your flares have current dates. That life preservers are readily available and in good condition. That fire extinguishers are full. That Day Flag is available. That Whistle and bell are aboard. o Recycling - A new local law requires that we begin to recycle certain categories of trash. A small center has been established by the trash dumpster for this purpose. Items to be separated from your garbage are: Newspapers (uncolored only) ; Cans; Plastics (No Styrofoam) ; Glass clear; Glass green; Glass brown. III - 92 o Noise - All lines, halyards and loose canvas must be secured to be soundless by the boat owner, and engines must be muffled. o Cleanliness and Noise - The boat owner shall not allow any dangerous conditions on or about the boat and shall observe safety precautions requested by the management. The boat owner agrees not to create any nuisance or unnecessary noise on or about the premises or in connection with the boat. Each boat owner is responsible for the cleanliness of his slip area, and will be billed if the Marina personnel has to clean up for him. o Limited Activities - No swimming, sailing, fishing, crabbing, clamming or diving shall be permitted in the Marina. The speed limit in the channel and Sage Creek is headway speed not to exceed five (5) knots. III - 93 o Holding Tanks - The owner shall assure that any head on his boat will have a holding tank. The marina will seal "Y" valves in the holding tank position or overboard sea cocks in the closed position at its discretion. There will be $25 resealing charge if the seals are broken. The Marina offers pumpout services. No heads, oil, detergents or gasoline will be discharged in the Marina. Oil absorbing, water repelling materials will be kept in the bilges of the boat to prevent accidental discharges. In the event of an accidental spill the management will be notified immediately. Willful non- compliance is cause for immediate termination of this contract. o Pump-out Station - A 40 gallon portable pump-out station is provided to pump out boat holding tanks. This station is rolled to the boats and pumped out at no charge. A pump-out log is maintained and provided at each year's end to the III - 94 D.E.C. and Town Trustees. A toilet chemical is used in the holding tanks after pump-out that has no formaldehyde content, hence is receptive to satisfactory disposal of holding tank waste in a private or municipal sewerage system. All boats with toilets are required to have holding tanks. c. ) Length and Frequency and Type of Vessels That Dock at The Marina: The following table lists the number and type of boats at the Marina for each length from 16 feet to 47 feet, the type and approximate length of stay. Summer dockage boats often take excursions over weekends or periods up to one month. The summer dockage contract is from April 15 to October 15. Winter wet storage boats prefer to remain at the docks for wet storage only and are not inhabited at that time. III - 95 BRICK COVE MARINA DOCKAGE S = Sail , P = Power 1993 Past Winter ' s Summerockage (As of 8/6/93 ) Win a ( 11 /92-4/93 ) Length , Type Total Length , Type Total 16 1 -S 1 24 1 -S 1 17 3-P 3 25 3-S 3 18 1 -P 1 26 1 -S 1 19 2-P , 1 -S 3 27 1 -P , 1 -S 2 20 2-P 2 28 3-S 3 22 1 -P , 2-S 3 29 3-S 3 23 3-P , 1 -S 4 30 2-S 2 25 4-P , 4-S 8 33 1 -P 1 26 3-P , 2-S 5 34 1 -P 1 27 6-P , 2-S 8 36 2-P, 1 -S 3 28 2-P ,2-S 4 37 1 -P , 1 -S 2 29 3-S 3 40 1 -P 1 30 1 -P , 6-S 7 41 1 -P 1 31 1 -S 1 Total 8-P , 16S 24 32 2-P , 2-S 4 33 2-P , 2-S 4 Total Footage 740 34 2-P 2 Avg . Boat Length 30 .8 35 2-P 2 36 2-P 2 37 1 -P 1 40 1 -P 1 41 1 -P 1 42 1 -S 1 43 1 -P 1 44 1 -P 1 47 1 -P 1 Total 44P , 30-S 74 Total Footage 2090 Avg . Boat Length 28.2 The information contained on this page was obtained from Brick Cove Marina records . E. APPROVALS: The following Approvals and Permits were granted in connection with the proposed expansion and improvements on the Marina. For actual Permit documents, see Appendix 3 . PERMIT NO. TYPE OF PERMIT DATE GRANTED AND EXPIRATION DATE Southold Town Trustees (Lead Agency) 3882 Wetlands 01/25/1990 to (Maintenance Dredging) 01/25/1992 Work Complete 3959 Wetlands 11/14/1991 to (Overall Marina 11/14/1993 Improvements and Expansion - Basically a re-issuance with modification of Permit # 574 3959 Wetlands 10/22/1992 to Amendment (Dredging of Shoal Area) 10/22/1994 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 10-87-1618 Article 15, Title 5, 11/08/1989 to Water Quality and 05/31/1994 Article 25 Amendment Marina Expansion and 02/25/1992 Improvement - Plan Revision Modified Additional Dredging 05/06/1992 to 05/11/1994 1-4738-00609/ Article 15, Title 5, 07/12/1993 to 00001-0 Water Quality 05/31/1998 Article 25 Dredging Shoal III - 97 PERMIT NO. TYPE OF PERMIT DATE GRANTED AND EXPIRATION DATE Corps of Engineers 15516 Marina Expansion and 11/01/1989 to Improvement 11/01/1992 Work Complete 15516A Modification to include 01/11/1990 to Maintenance Dredging 11/01/1992 of Channel Work Complete 199212660 Dredging Shoal 04/06/1993 to 04/06/1996 Planning Board Site Plan 09/12/1988 to 09/12/1991 Re-Submittal of 11/18/1991 to Site Plan 11/18/1994 III - 98 m IV Environmental Setting C+ a N m c+ C+ ca IV - ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: Where appropriate, reasonable and practical, the Environmental Setting will be separated, analyzed, and discussed under three (3) different levels of activities as follows: PRE - Environmental settings prior to the Marina improvement activities which started in November of 1989. PRESENT - The environmental setting as a result of the accomplishment of permitted and approved activities to date. PROJECTED - The projected environmental setting when the activities and proposed plans are completed. IV - 1 A. NATURAL RESOURCES (PRE, PRESENT, AND PROJECTED: 1. Sub-Surface: Most of the site is underlain with sixty (60) to seventy (70) feet of clay. This clay is a uniquely dense type of clay as evidenced by the mining operations carried out here extensively as part of the site's history in the making of brick. 2 . Surface: a. ) Types of Soils: The project site soils are those which are identified by the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with Cornell Agricultural Experiment Station, and based on Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York. About ninety percent (90%) is classified Ma, or Made Land. This classification is because of the previous mining and brick IV - 2 production operations constructed on the site which resulted in a considerable amount of soil and brick debris that has been scattered and leveled over the site during this period. Approximately ten percent (lo%) of the area is disignated as CuB, or Cut and Fill Land gently sloping. Again, this surface condition is described because of the extensive mining operations and identifies those slopes that go from the Made Land to the salt and fresh water basin that resulted from the clay mining operation. This cut and fill land is additionally identified as having severe limitations in the establishing or maintaining lawns and landscaping. b. ) Soil Characteristics: Ma (Made Land) is defined as follows: IV - 3 "Made land is made up of areas that are mostly covered with pieces of concrete, bricks, trash, wire, metal and other non-soil material. Some areas are on the surface of the original soil, others are in large holes dug for disposal purposes and still others are in old gravel pits converted to this use. " Cut and Fill land is defined as follows: "Cut and fill land is made up of areas that have been altered in grading operations for housing developments, shopping centers and similar non-farm uses. Areas of Cut and fill land contain deep cuts in or near the sandy substratum of the soil or sandy fills of 28 inches or more. Generally, cuts are so deep or fills so thick that IV - 4 identification of soils by series is not possible. The soil material that remains after grading operations are completed has low available moisture capacity, is droughty and is low to very low in natural fertility. The areas of Cut and Fill land have severe limitations to use in establishing and maintaining lawns and landscaping. These areas are not suited to farming operations because of the alteration existing soil material and the presence of buildings and other works of man. " Nearly all of the site has very poor drainage characteristics because of the clay underlayment that occurs generally throughout the site. Based on extensive sail boring and explorations, there is an approximately 2. 5 Acre site in the Northeast corner of the property IV - 5 which is covered by two (2) to three (3) feet of loam and brick debris underlain with eight (8) to ten (10) feet of sand and gravel and then clay from sixteen (16) to fifty-three (53) feet, with a water table of approximately four (4) feet below the surface. This is the area identified for the installation of the relocated and improved sanitary leaching facilities. A groundwater hydrology report was made in August of 1986 by Henderson & Bodwell and included extensive borings throughout the site and resultant analysis. This complete report is contained in Appendix 8. IV - 6 3 . Topography: a. ) The site is basically level with contours ranging from six (6) to ten (10) feet (MSL) , with the slopes generally from North to South and less than 10%. Existing buildings are centered at the old factory site in the approximate center of the parcel with a tennis court and pool complex located towards the eastern property line. Shoreline areas are of varied slopes from gentle to moderate with several sections of structural controls such as bulkheading and rip-rap. The Southold Bay/upland interface forms a sandy beach front that has maintained it's natural function and appearance. IV - 7 B. WATER RESOURCES: 1. Groundwater (Pre, Present, and Projected) : The project site groundwater is unique because of the extensive impervious clay layer and occurs at two (2) levels - that above the clay layer and that below. The groundwater above the clay layer is perched and is created by having a layer of porous sand and gravel overlaying an impervious clay underlayer. When this situation exists, the rainfall which lands on the ground surface percolates vertically through the porous sand and is trapped by the relatively impervious clay barrier. The water then fills the voids within the sand and the water level rises until an escape path is found. The project site varies in areas of sand and gravel to none over most of the area (clay extends to the surface) to a small area in the Northeast section of the property. IV - 8 Because of the varying top depths of the clay barrier, the water table also varies at different site locations. In the area (Northeast) proposed for the relocated sanitary system the groundwater level is very consistant at approximately four (4) feet below the surface. Also, see Appendix 8. 2 . Surface Waters: a. ) Location: The project includes a 4 .2 Acre portion of the 14 . 5 Acres Sage Basin that is connected via a twenty (20) feet wide dredged channel connecting it with Southold Bay and Peconic Bay and the Peconic Estuary. b. ) Surface Water Classification (Pre, Present, and Projected) : New York State Department of Environmental Conservation classifies surface water as follows: IV - 9 SA - Suitable for shellfishing for market purposes and for primary and secondary contact recreation. Coliform shall not be in excess of 70/100 ml. Disolved Oxygen shall not be less than 5. 0 mg/l at any time. Toxic Waste and deleterious substances - none in amounts that will interfer with use for primary contact recreation or that will be injurious to edible fish or shellfish, or the culture or propagation thereof. SB - The water shall be suitable for primary and secondary contact recreation and any other use except for the taking of shellfish for market purposes. All of Sage Basin, including that portion occupied by the Marina, is classified SA. Shellfishing is prohibited during summer months, May 15th to October 31st each year. Southold Bay is classified SA. No aspect of the proposed activity is IV - 10 expected to result in any change in these surface water classifications. c. ) Bacteriological Water Quality Information: Pre - Water quality sampling and testing was accomplished in January and February 1986 by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation at three (3) locations in Sage Basin for both total and fecal coliform (MPN/100 ml) . The results were as follows: IV - 11 Total Coliform MPN/100 ml Date Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Tide Rainfall 1-27-86 240 4 240 High Ebb 1-27 - 1.46" 1-26 - 0.41" 2-3-86 3 3 3 Low 2-2 - 0.38" 2-13-86 3 7 3 Mid- No Rain Flood * Rainfall recorded at the Southold Police Station Fecal Coliform MPN/100 ml Date Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Tide Rainfall 1-27-86 93 3 4 High Ebb 1-27 - 1.46" 1-26 - 0.41" 2-3-86 3 3 3 Low 2-2 - 0.38" 2-13-86 3 7 3 Mid- No Rain Flood Using a three tube MPN test, bacteriological water quality at a station is acceptable if the median total coliform MPN/100 ml is 70 or less and no more than 10% of the samples exceed at total coliform MPN/100 ml is of 330; or if the median fecal coliform MPN/100 ml is 14 or less and no more than 10% of the samples exceed a fecal coliform of MPN/100 ml of 49. Review of the aforementioned date would indicate that the higher coliform counts were attributable to overland (storm water) runoff entering the basin area in the vicinity of station numbers 1 and 3 (Area adjacent to Sage Blvd. and Tarpon Road Canal vicinity. See map for specific sample locations) . It should also be noted that significant rainfall occurred during this period and that the said stations 1 and 3 were located adjacent to single family dwellings and/or road improvements not incorporating storm water management systems. During the test period covered by data analysis, an average of 3 vessels were moored in the subject vicinity. IV - 12 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1 IIJVV.. QUdbrT-r eC-•f{w�(�owa LOvar•(lo�a1 -�Q�t—ry+�'F'f-vr-vC4orMtct.rT- . I , i avow OOI-D , 1 j -tut 1,�0 _.u�iE _G0. .—t�•�o�+C,- �'�r�--�L�t' - -- .••--•..��=.� or.1� i w Total and Fecal Coliform Tests were also taken by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation at the entrance to Sage Basin from July of 1988 to August of 1991 as per the following enclosed chart. Analysis of the data gives a median total coliform count of 9 MPN/100 ml (70 is acceptable) and median fecal coliform count of 4 MPN/100 ml (14 is acceptable. You will note that the higher readings occurred in August of 1988, 1989, and 1991. At first glance this would lead one to believe that these dates coincide with maximum Marina use. However, one of the two highest total coliform readings occurred in November of 1989 when the Marina was closed and boats were out of the water. Thus, the concentrations of coliform could not be attributed with certainty to marina use. IV - 14 DAIL GTATKIN 11: SROM POND PAINFALL (hers prior to samplirw3) N Date Yr. Tim Tatal Fol-al 0-24 24-48 4N-72 72-9b 't-46 1 -iUL;S 88 EBB 4 4 0.42 0.66 0.52 0.05 = 2 JUL26 F113 ERN q3 43 13.31 O.Oq 0 0_02 3 HUGLF9 613 EBB 240 2.9 0 1.54 n O 4 SEP137 69 EM 23 n 0 T 0.96 O 5 OCTLC M EBB 43 23 13 0.07 0.26 0.31 6 01'125 98 EBB 23 23 0 0 0.0 1 .75 7 OEMG 8H EBB 23 U it 0 0 O DE C,-!9 18 INC 43 43 U U 1l p q RPRO4 89 EBB -- -- 13.21 0.07 0 O 10 RPROS 8q EBB 2.9 2-9 0- 13 0.21 0.f17 f) 11 APPOF;. 89 EBB 23 %_q O.33 0. i 0.21 11 1' RPP 12 }N EBB 2.q 2.y U O fj_ 17 . 0. 13 1.3 APP13 09 LIHM; 2.9 2.9 1l O O 0. 17 14 RUG 14 8q EBS 1100 150 0.0? 0.07 ?13.95 1.132 15 RI_G16 B`1 EBB 43 4 f.1.61 0-nb' 0-02 0.07 16 AIj:3n 89 EBB 9 9 1. 14 O n 13 17 ri0'-0013 Pq ERB 11110 23 13.83 0 1.1_n4 0 18 Novi 3 S9 EBR 4 2.-4 O U 13. 11 0.51 Iq 1HN11 'all EB$ 4 4 i 0 0_83 11 20 MH'r"31 90 E RB 9 2.4 O.02 l 0 O 21 1ULI C- 2.9 0.56 0.44 2.07 O 22 _1111 U 90 EBB 9 1.•3 f+ 0.56 0.4? 2.07 3 OCT 16 911 EBB 9 4 U O 1 .43 0. 13 24 BEC 17 911 F RB 4 2.9 Ll 0.85 0 O 25 JHN 1 f3 91 FE1H 'a 2.9 0.71 0.02 r1 i 26 MRP27 91 EBB 9 4 O 0 O.Oq G.67 T HFN??S n I EBB / 2.9 U fJ 0-02 O.b �0 RIJG21 1 EBB 24fi 93 1 _67 3- 33 1 Present - Total coliform and fecal coliform sampling was done on the following dates in 1992 : 6-29-92 7-23-92 8-27-92 9-29-92 10-28-92 Sampling was done at five (5) different locations - see following sampling location map. # 1 - at the entrance channel. # 2 - in the center of the Marina Slips. # 3 - at the entrance to the canal residential area. # 4 - in the very North section of Sage Basin close to entrance of highway drainage. # 5 - at the inland end of the canal residential area. IV - 16 } IdoSov�o�o <f �� lb No.-I Sdr 4 'fir-. M tm ix og ' S • •NConkli. ' VICINITY MAP D®aa! ' O eno Q SCAA Or rRom J✓.*fOLC AIA JTRAMIW-4 r 0 5 AGE t�►I n-G ¢.5 / MLW M L W 'x'''•1 d • loo 200 400 0 f 8C�1.� S 1" • 200►1 Io.S -X/ST/ff PLAN VIEW PURPOSE: ENz,,4 k j ydo VF s •44RIIV,4 IN: SAy,6' a,"1A1 DATUM: M,f,4,V ..s Eq 4owr4. AT: soorwOl A> ADJACENT PROPERTY ONMERS: COUNTY OF:5& r&4-<STATE: N4' t) 2) MI�L�iA� K����N APPLICATION BY: OECoViG -4JA04- cwa' aoa re-,FF .+44100 3)30JNo•2es #Jd0r--, /Mc• yR6"eo/Po // �er w-*m pie le 4) NA,eBoz✓ir w )RE.fLrO' SHEET i OF (0 \GATE: .4•y/.W 1 J �•v The results are contained in Appendix 9 and are summarized and commented on as follows: Test of 629-92 - Highest Test of 23 for both Total and fecal occured at Location # 5. Test of 7-23-92 - Highest Test of 75 for both total and fecal occurred at Location # 5. Tests of 8-27-92 - All tests were very low with the highest test of 9 for both total and fecal coliform occurring at Location # 5. Tests of 9-29-92 - All tests were low except for Total coliform of 240 at Location # 3 adjacent to the residential areas. Possible reasons for the high coliform concentrations detected in waters adjacent to the residential area include: (1) stormwater IV - 18 runoff; (2) pet waste; (3) inadequate or poorly sited septic systems; and (4) waterfowl. Tests of 10-28-92 - All tests were very low. In summary, it should be noted that all of the highest tests occurred at or in the canal bordering residential development. A logical conclusion would be that either leachate from residential sanitary systems is entering Sage Basin at this location (soils in this area are mapped as having more sand and gravel strata than the Marina site) or from street runoff, or both. The total coliform levels in the Marina site # 2 were 4 , 43 , 4 , 23, and less than 3 - all under the acceptable level of 70. It should also be noted that starting in 1992 the Marina operator sealed all "Y" overboard valves on holding tanks and installed holding tank pumpout procedures. IV - 19 Projected - The following projected activities are expected to have a positive impact on the water quality of Sage Basin: The existing septic tank and leaching system by the Northernmost pier is to be relocated a minimum of 100 ' landward of mean high water. Head pumpout facilities are installed and are available to boats as no charge. The potential for direct discharge of boat waste into the surface waters is reduced by requiring all boat users to have their overboard discharges, including "Y" valves, closed and sealed by the marina before allowing the boats to use the marina facilities. Realizing that this operation may not be totally one hundred percent, the FDA calculations for up to five IV - 20 boats doing overboard discharge has been calculated and are enclosed in Appendix # 10. You will note that using this number of boats that may accidentally get by the marina operation, that the closure is limited to a little over one acre, which is well within the boundaries of the Marina (4 . 2 Acres underwater) , therefore making it Possible for the DEC to permit shellfishing outside of the marina area. Presently all of Sage Basin (14. 5 Acres) is closed by DEC to shellfishing from May 15 to October 31 or each year. (See Appendix 10. ) NOTE: These attached calculations only apply to the proposed Brick Cove Marina and do not take into consideration the docking of other boats on the other side of Sage Basin. IV - 21 As the present Marina operation, which included sealed "Y" valves on holding tanks and free pumpout facilities, are scheduled to continue, there is no reason to expect any adverse change to the present high water quality except adjacent to the residential areas where high coliform counts would be expected to continue until mandatory sanitary pumpouts are required and/or street runoff is adequately contained on site. d. ) Other Water Quality Issues: One of the principal concerns of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation is that of the impact of marine heads on the water quality within marinas. Consequently, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation routinely closes all waters within all marinas during the summer months, usually from May 15th to October 31st. (See Appendix 10. ) IV - 22 Pre - Prior to 1992 this closure policy was applicable to all Marinas, including Sage Basin. The forementioned D.E.C. policy resulted in the closure of the entire Basin to shellfishing from May 15th to October 31st. Present - Presently, however, Marinas, because of the stringent policy to have all holding tanks sealed and monitored, the chances of overboard discharge have been reduced to the point that New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has been asked to reconsider their closure policy for Sage Basin. - Two (2) things are negative to this consideration at this time: 1. ) Proof of the success of holding tank closure over a period of time (it was implemented in 1992) ; and 2 . ) The non-committment that all other boats, especially in the recently expanded Southold Shores, would adopt the same policy and controls. IV - 23 Brick Cove Marina's very strict Policy and control over all marine heads is best described by the following condition for each boater that uses this Marina and has to agree to as follows: "The owner will assure than any head on his boat will have a holding tank. The Marina will seal "Y" valves in the holding tank position or overboard sea cocks in the closed position at its discretion. There will be a $25 resealing charge if the seals are broken. The Marina offers pumpout services. No head, oil, detergents or gasoline will be discharged in the Marina. Oil absorbing, water repelling materials will be kept in the bilges of the boat to prevent accidental discharges. In the event of an accidental spill the IV - 24 management will be notified immediately. Willfull non- compliance is cause for immediate termination of this contract. " The Marina operator further promotes compliance with the above head control policy by providing free head pumpout. Projected - No expected improvements over present water quality unless all boaters are required to comply with policies equally stringent to Brick Cove, especially those at Southold Shores and residence sanitary system control and highway runoff restrictions are implemented. IV - 25 e. ) Drainage Pattern: Pre and Present - Historically driveway and parking stormwater drains into Sage Basin. This runoff is recognized as a potential source of surface water degredation. Sampling and recent testing, however, have not shown this to be a major cause of poor water quality. (See Appendix 9. ) Projected - The approved plans incorporate the following to reduce and potentially eliminate overland runoff into surface waters, which historically have been a source of pollution to creeks and bays: The edge of the upland next to the Basin is to be regraded and sloped back to a french type drain, the bottom of which will contain perferated conveyance piping to convey all surface runoff to leaching basins. Presently this surface runoff runs directly into Sage Basis and Southold Bay. IV - 26 All parking areas will be covered with crushed stone to slow down and collect surface runoff and provide maximum recharge into the soil as practical, considering the clayey nature of the sub-soil. The installation of a 18 ' X 501asphalt boat washdown area. The pavement surface will be sloped to the center, which will contain a collection basin with sediment trap and oil separator. The overflow of this catch basin will be connected to the surface runoff system and be conveyed to the leaching basins referenced above. In the interest of improving the water quality in Sage Basin, it is suggested that similar limits and control of street and road runoff be incorporated in other areas around the Marina. Previous water IV - 27 tests for coliform counts only occurred on the West side of Sage Basin, which may be an indication that preventive measures should also be considered in this area as well. Unless the improvements for this site are matched by other major runoff areas such as New York Department of Transportation and Southold Shores, the maximum potential improvement by the interception of major stormwater runoff into Sage Basin cannot be realized. f. ) Flooding, Siltation and Eutrophication: None of the Marina improvements are expected to have any impact on flooding or siltation or erosion. Very little evidence of any of these is in existance except possibly at the northwesterly point of State Highway storm drainage. IV - 28 The relocation of all present sanitary systems in excess of 100 feet from all surface waters is expected to reduce the influx of nutrients, especially nitrogen, but because of the extensive flushing that occurs within the Basin (see Appendix 11) eutrophication is not expected to be an area of concern presently or in the future. g. ) Flushing: Pre - An extensive flushing observation study was accomplished June 9 - 10, 1986 (see Appendix 11) . The calculated tidal prism (that volume which enters and subsequently flushes from the embayment during each tidal cycle) was a maximum of 2 , 187, 000 Cubic Feet and the minimum was 1, 797, 700 Cubic Feet. By conversion, the maximum volume flushed is 50. 2 Acre feet while the minimum volume flushed is 41. 3 Acre feet. IV - 29 As the total Acres of Sage Basin is 14 . 5 Acres, this means that the amount of water flushed in and out on each tide equals the total surface area to a depth of between 2.8 and 3 . 5 Feet, which represents a highly significant tidal flush. Present and Projected - This same study also made reference to some restriction to flow at the throat of the channel. Since this study, the Channel has been maintenance dredged and a more efficient tidal flow has occurred. Even though no new study was conducted the flushing flow is predicted to have increased as a result of the channel dredging and shoal dredging already accomplished within the Marina. Future permitted shoal dredging between the Marina and the inlet will further enhance such flushing. (See Exhibit A. ) IV - 30 C. TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY 1. Vegetation: a. ) Pre - A comprehensive assessment of the upland site's vegetation was made by Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. in August 1986 and this report is contained in Appendix 12 . No record could be found that the aquatic vegetation was assessed in the 1986 Impact Statement. Present - The upland vegetation was re-inspected in July of 1993 by Eric E. Lamont, Ph.D. , Botanical Consultant, and his report is contained in Appendix 12 . One of the principal requirements for Lamont's vegetation inspection was an evaluation as to changes, if any, to the presence and abundance of the present vegetation since the improvements to the Marina to date IV - 31 as compared with the presence and abundance of the vegetation pre improvements. This evaluation from the Lamont Vegetation Report is summarized as follows: "Upon close inspection of the vegetation comprising the intertidal plant community on-site, it can be unequivocally stated that there has been no disturbance or negative environmental impact to this area during the past year. This statement is based upon a direct comparison of the current vegetation with the original vegetation as described in th 1986 vegetation study conducted by Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, and comparitive photographs of the shoreline before and after expansion of the marina. IV - 32 There has also been no negative environmental impact to the shrubland community forming the border between the salt marsh vegetation and the upland vegetation. Destruction of and/or disturbance to shrubs would be very obvious, and no signs of disturbance are currently evident. " It should be noted that the Marina dredging was accomplished in 1992 . Projected - As the remaining approved and permitted Marina improvements will occur only on previously disturbed upland areas, except for removal of an offshore newly discovered shoal, no foreseen adverse impacts (except for minimal short term during construction) are foreseen as a result of completing the remainder of the work. IV - 33 b. ) Tidal Wetlands: Environmental impact on the Tidal Wetlands is one of the most important considerations- to be reviewed for this project. Article 25 of New York State Department of Conservation of the Environmental Conservation Law states the following: "Tidal wetlands constitute one of the most vital and productive areas of the natural world and collectively have many values. These values include, but are not limited to, marine food production, wildlife habitat, flood and storm and hurricane control, recreation, cleansing ecosystems, sedimentation control, education and research, and open space and aesthetic appreciation. Therefore, the protection and preservation of tidal wetlands are essential. IV - 34 Several ecological zones exist in tidal wetlands. These several zones are as follows: coastal fresh marsh; intertidal marsh; coastal shoals, bars and flats; littoral zone; high marsh or salt meadow; and formerly connected tidal wetlands. In addition, adjacent areas, which are important to the protection of tidal wetlands values, adjoin these tidal wetlands zones. " Intertidal marsh and coastal fresh marsh tidal wetlands are the most biologically productive of all. The Tidal Wetlands Map of Sage Basin follows and includes two (2) areas of intertidal marsh, IM, on the site. In addition to that shown on the D.E.C. Wetlands map, additional wetlands have been identified and outlined on Site Plan S-1 (Exhibit A) . These areas were undisturbed by the Marina construction. IV - 35 Y # i ! g rn r t,. • r: TIDAL WETLANDS MAP NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION MAP 718-550 INDEX MAP NUMBER 4 COPIES OF TIDAL WETLAND MAPS AND INDEX MAPS ARE AVAILABLE FROM ; NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 1 BUILDING NUMBER 40,STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK ti STONY BROOK,NEW YORK 11794 SCALE 1 :2400 i ! e ' 200 0 200 400 800 800 FEET 60 0y > SO 100 180 METERS �•. ..,,wr,,.,,.,,,�„w„�„R,..,,y„�., ,..w-a.w-n11tae�--w-ra .i�.tiYt;ppy�:..r' rya .',•r.r..�.,,!M0.••,i'iiiiSiAMrM.++ica-... .. .�.._ tincva., ,. i'.,•�,n-i.•: .�w��. .�..,,.. .:...:�'�••,;1+-�C.... ANFr.� w•�... y'a'cr� .,1MY� -,l�•,•'•- :rM'�r• +c�,c .vi 'A?4'MwClr4isngi./.�lt� ^.�+�wrw+t.,. 1 k• 4,550,000 M t` sf; l— v' W u- 9 p �_ tf N Ori final Issue 9�ihtI77 {/AmencJec§I per Order o-Or Deter A. A . 13er le Cornlissioner on ia, 25/78. 1 1 H /I to F' , Remove -R-R. Orrorn HM r Photomap Prepared by Epbh Satellite Corpwation•Mark Hurd Now York Transverse Mercator Grid shown at 1000 matter A*" Surveys. Inc. from Wot infrared photographs taken 10 { intervals, August through 9 October 11474. latitude and longitude ticks shown at 1 minute intervals. Position and scale of phgto image besed on bait fit to Now 2000 foot ticks based on the New York Plane Coordinate Grid. York state 0epartmo t of Transportation 7.5 minute plani- IN maps. long Island Zone. •.auMr..��n .I.� �fF•��tya.•.{,+��r/�-rIf •, ...•Tr�1M..�.��• .r4� • �I - .. ,st :fr1 , tib'='O!4+'.�;� 'r y ' vr,. 4`h1 )~�:_• •`y f t• T '', inti f w �• .�� �•`erl� +•..S_�.n' �'}r{' 1. i *' � yam' ',� � �; �••l♦I��...s�^��'j t� n.t-� � �y� M st r Ve Ir ws PU low 44 `t.•• r `� ��;� r ���,_� � ?, -; ,tea ; _a��{;.� ���•�._t ,� �����s�i•� ..Mr � � ; j,rti,��,��. j �� i �....�`�• `'•fes= � f � �•F • � 1 � •' � •- �Ir'• t '�� }•�+ �,��Wit• �,'�•'+` a�F'- .�• t� . . R.iii /,f. .�).3 i•�Y.� .. � t ..�'_.ts •. q?!'['moi ; .� �#,"' •'t.:%1 *� . � `'. ,,I}. '�, „Mr's •1•p"rK .�,�f `��• .rpt. •j.y Y� �� 7_ 41 lot Zw bA y .,.'^ ♦ .i1 1 S S„i .'tib+" s„r• �;,"'l+.±t3a�} �! �'�N;�� ,.1 �• '} � • a;,•ac.�i...q � s . ♦. •'rte. T`�y'� .r3i ' LY '�•`� �'+ • � �� , c. ) Submerged Aquatic Vegetation and Rare Plants: The intertidal plant community occurring between the highest tide level and the lowest tide level is dominated by saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina alteriflora) , salt-meadow grass (Spartina patens) , spikegrass (Distichlis spicata) , black-grass (Juncus gerardi) , sea-lavender (Limonium carolinianum) , and grasswort (Salicornia europaea) . A characteristic marine algae attached to the rocks at the low tide level is rockweed (Fucus vesiculosus) . Eel grass (Zostera marina) , which occurs along the shoreline bordering Southold Bay, does not occur along the shoreline within Brick Cove. No rare plants were identified on the site. IV - 39 d. ) Values to Wildlife of Various Vegetation: The value of vegetation to wildlife is extremely limited throughout most of the project area. As disclosed in the analysis of vegetation, most of the site is characterized as being highly disturbed. Additionally, phragmites australis has invaded numerous areas of the site. Phragmites provide only limited cover and virtually no food source for wildlife. Intertidal marsh habitats on site provides limited value to trophically higher forms of wildlife but provides better habitat values to lower trophic forms and shellfish, particularly ribbed mussels. The beach fringe vegetation to the South is not known to support wildlife of significant diversity. IV - 40 Present and Projected - No evidence was found that the completion of the Marina improvements to date has had any adverse impacts to vegetation and especially aquatic vegetation. Special care was taken during the Marina improvement portion of the project to protect all wetlands. This portion of the project is complete and the wetlands are healthy and thriving. As all remaining projected work will occur on disturbed upland, no significant adverse impact is likely to occur to vegetated tidal wetlands. IV - 41 2 . FISH, SHELLFISH AND WILDLIFE Wildlife resources associated with Brick Cove Marina, surrounding upland habitats and Sage Basin (connected to Peconic Bay) which includes fish, shellfish and wildlife, were investigated on numerous occations dating back to 1985. In September of 1985, a study of wildlife resources was prepared by Land Use Company for a more intensive development proposal for the Brick Cove Marina Site which included a Motel and Marina Complex. The study prepared by Land Use Company was further refined by Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. and Henderson and Bodwell for inclusion into a Draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared by Henderson and Bodwell. Subsequently, the original proposal was abandoned and the present less intensive development proposal was pursued. In the course of the investigating and analyzing impacts to wildlife for the less intensive proposal, additional information on wildlife resources was gathered. This information, shown in Appendix 13, included an Affidavit dated May 17, 1989 dealing with shellfish resources, an investigation of shellfish abundance conducted on September 22 , 1991, the Environmental Assessment Form dated September 24, 1991, and the IV - 42 Affidavit of May 18, 1993 regarding the absence of shellfish in the dredging spoil. Finally, an investigation of wildlife resources was conducted by J. M. O. Consulting for inclusion in this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Appendix 13) . These investigations took place on June 14, 1993 (morning) , June 26, 1993 (morning) , July 16, 1993 (afternoon) , July 30, 1993 (afternoon) and August 10, 1993 (afternoon) . Data was collected by means of visual observation conducted on site and in adjacent habitats as well as by direct sampling techniques. Collected samples were identified and immediately returned to the locations in which they were obtained. Finally, the significant dredging of bottomlands contained within the site afforded an opportunity to evaluate shellfish presence by visually inspecting the resultant spoil deposited on the upland portion of the site and this information was employed in assessing shellfish diversity and abundance. The numerous studies on wildlife resources enable comparisons to be made with respect to the environmental effects resulting from partial development of the site for the less intensive IV - 43 development proposal which is the subject of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement. For the purposes of drawing comparisons, the original studies including the 1985 Land Use Company Study, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared by Henderson and Bodwell with assistance from Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. , the May 17, 1989 Affidavit, the shellfish study of September 22, 1991, and the May 18, 1993 Affidavit ' are employed herein as "baseline data" . The raw data collected as part of the investigation of wildlife resources of J. M. O. Consulting represents wildlife resources as they presently or potentially exist. Finally, the impacts resulting from the total completion of the project as proposed is disclosed under Significant Environmental Impact. Previous Studies Before ,Present Project - Prior 1990 The 1985 Land Use Company Study and the 1986 Study prepared by Henderson and Bodwell with assistance from Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. disclosed the following species to be present on the site before the present project commenced in the Spring of 1990: IV - 44 Avian Great Egret Casmerodius albus Snowy Egret Egretta thula Green-backed Heron Butorides striatus Mallard Anas platyrhynchos American Black Duck Anas rubripes Mute Swan Cygnus olor Oldsquaw Clangula hyemalis Ring-billed Gull Larus argentatus Common Tern Sterna hirundo Tree Swallow Trachycineta bicolor Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos House Wren Troglodytes aedon Gray Catbird Dumetella caroliniensis Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottus American Robin Turdus migratorius European Starling Sturnus vulgaris Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia Red-Winged Blackbird Agaius phoniceus Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus House Sparrow Passer domesticus IV - 45 Black Duck Anas rubripes Canada Geese Branta canadensis Greater Scaup Arythya marila Herring Gulls Larus argentatus Importantly, the Henderson and Bodwell Study disclosed that the House Wren, American Robin, European Starling, Song Sparrow, House Finch, and House Sparrow nested on site at the time when the study was performed. Unfortunately, the Henderson and Bodwell Study did not disclose the precise locations of the nests for these avians. However, all such species are common and are associated with habitats impacted by humans. Additionally, the Henderson Bodwell Study disclosed that Mute Swans and Mallards were nesting on the small islands in the Cove (Sage Basin) . The Henderson and Bodwell Study disclosed the potential occurrence of Blue Jays, Gray Catbirds, Yellow Warblers, Red-winged Blackbirds and Common Grackles on site. In fact, the study disclosed that each of the above mentioned avians may nest on or adjacent to the site. Importantly, all of these avians are common and display varying tolerances to human habitation. No Tern nesting has been observed on the project site and presence of those species was as flyover only. IV - 46 Mammals The Henderson and Bodwell Study disclosed the following mammals to be present on site: Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridamus Eastern Mole Scalopus aquaticus The Henderson and Bodwell Study disclosed the possible presence of additional mammals based upon the available habitat found on site. These additional species included gray squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis) , eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus) , raccoon (Procyon lotor) , striped skunk (Mephites mephites) , and white tail deer (Odocoileus virginianus) . Furthermore, the Henderson and Bodwell Study disclosed the potential for these species to nest on site. Reptiles and Amphibians The Henderson and Bodwell Study reported that no reptiles nor amphibians were observed on the site. However, the study disclosed the possible presence of Fowler"s Toad (Bufo woodhouseii fowleri) , Northern spring peeper (Hyla c. crucifer) , Eastern Box Turtle (Terrepene caroliniensis) and Eastern Garter Snake IV - 47 (Thamnophis s. sirtalis) . However, the study also disclosed that none of the aforementioned amphibians breed in the cove (Sage Basin) because of existing salinity and the presence of fish. Importantly, the study disclosed that the wetland areas across Sage Boulevard (off site) should provide habitat for a number of amphivian and reptile species. Shellfish The Henderson and Bodwell Study and the earlier work done by Land Use Company disclosed the presence of the following shellfish species: Ribbed Mussel Modiolis demissus) Blue Mussel Mytilus edulis Eastern Oyster Crassostrea virginica Hard Clam Mercenaria mercenaria Fiddler Crab Uca pugnax Periwinkles Littorina sp. Bay Scallop (shells) Argopectens irradians These studies disclosed the ribbed mussel and blue mussel to be the dominant shellfish found on site. A small oyster and hard clam observance was in the Sage Basin but primarily outside the site boundaries. IV - 48 The earlier shellfish study conducted by Land Use Company disclosed the possible presence of the following species: Hermit Crab Pagurus plollicaris Blue Clawed Crab Calinectes sapidus Calico Crab Ovilapes ocellatus Spider Crab Libinia dubia Blood Ark Anadare ovalis Bay Scallop Argopecten irradians Razor Clam Ensis directus Soft-shell Clam Mya arenaria Channel Whelk Busycon canaliculatum The three shellfish affadavits previously mentioned indicate very insignificant shellfish resources on the site. Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. (1986) reported the occurrence of small baitfish including killifish, silversides, sticklebacks, sheephead minnows and anchovies, bluefish, Atlantic menhaden, American Eel, and Flounder to be present in the Cove. IV - 49 Finf ish Additionally, Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. (1986) analyzed the natural resources of the site and concluded that the following finfish potentially occurs on the site: Atlantic Needlefish Strongylura marina Sheepshead Minnow Cypinodon variegatus Mummichog Fundulus majalis Striped Killifish Fundulus majalis Northern Pipefish Syngnathus fuscus Scup Stenotomus chrysura Silver Perch Bairdiella chrysura Northern Kingfish Menticirrhus saxatilis Striped Mullet Mugi1 cephalus White Mullet Mugil curema White Perch Morone americana Winter Founder Pseudopleuonectes Americanus Northern Puffer Sphoeroides maculatus IV - 50 Present Study - Summer of 1993 (Project Near Completion As previously declared herein and as a follow up to the numerous previous investigations on fish, shellfish and wildlife, the site and its surrounding environs were again investigated in great detail by J. M. O. Consulting during the Summer of 1993 for inclusion into this Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Avians J.M.O. Consulting confirmed the following avians to be present on site or in adjacent off site habitats: Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia Snowy Egret Egretta thula American Black Duck Anas rubripes Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata Green-backed Heron Butorides striatus Mallard Anas platyrhyncos Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Herring Gull Larus argentatus American Crow Corvus brachyrhyncos House Wren Troglodytes aedon Northern Mockingbird Mimus Polyglottus IV - 51 European Starling Sturnus vulgaris Tufted Titmouse Parus bicolor Mourning Dove Zenaida macrura Canada Geese Branta canadensis Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia Green Heron Butorides virescens Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Mute Swan Cygnus olor Common Tern (fly over) Sterna hirundo Catbird Dumetella caroliniensis American Robin Turdus migratorius Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phonecious Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus House Sparrow Passer domesticus Flicker Colaptius auratus Black-capped Chickadee Parus atricapillus Osprey (fly over) Pandion haliaetus The site was thoroughly investigated for the presence of nests. However, no nests were detected. The aforementioned spotted sandpiper was spotted on the IV - 52 high energy beach on site fronting Peconic Bay. Both the green backed heron and green heron were identified as flyovers. Similarly, the common tern, a NYSDEC designated threatened species, was observed as a flyover in the adjacent Peconic Bay and is not connected to the site in terms of nesting and feeding. Finally, two flyovers by two (2) ospreys were observed. One osprey was observed circling in the Northeast corner of the basin. None of these nest on or adjacent to the marina site. While not observed, the following species are regarded as potentially present in the general area due to the availability of habitat: Old Squaw Clangula hyemalis Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia Greater Scaup Arthya manila Canvasback Aythya valisineria Mammals The site and surrounding environs were investigated for the presence of mammals by J. M. O. Consulting and the following mammals were found to exist: IV - 53 Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus Meadow Vole Microtus pennsylvanicus Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus Raccoon Procyon lotor Gray Squirrel Sciurus caroliniensis Eastern Chipmunk Tamias striatus Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus Domestic Cat Felis domesticus Reptiles and Amphibians Detailed investigations were conducted to determine the presence of reptiles and amphibians. No reptiles and amphibians were detected on site and in nearby adjacent habitats even though numerous logs, brush, stones and debris were moved in search of them. No snake turtle traces were observed even though soft silty sands were specifically investigated in hopes of detecting the presence of scrapes. Nevertheless, reptiles and amphibians discussed in the previous impact statement could potentially utilize some of the upland and freshwater wetland habitats adjacent to the site. However, none are expected to utilize the flooded wetlands and surface waters as the presence of fish and the high salinities would preclude them from doing so. IV - 54 Shellfish Several field inspections were conducted on site and in adjacent tidal areas. Methods employed in assessing shellfish presence and abundance included visual inspection, inspection of dredge spoil deposited on the approved upland site and direct sampling The project area was divided into five sampling areas and the map of the project site was used as a base map for sampling purposes. The following equipment was employed in assessing shellfish presence and abundance: 26 tooth clam rake with 2 1/2 inch teeth; 26 tooth clam rake with 4 1/2 inch teeth; scallop dredge; and 14 foot work boat with a 7 horsepower engine. The following species were observed by means described above: Bay Scallop (one) Argopectens irradians Easterm Oyster (one) Crassostrea virginica Hard Clam (shells only) Mercemaria mercenaria Moon Snail Natica sp. Fiddler Crab Uca pugnax Ribbed Mussel Modiolis demisus Green Crab Carcinus maenus Grass Shrimp Palaemonetes sp. IV - 55 Of the species mentioned above, the ribbed mussel is clearly the dominant shellfish species found on site and in surrounding aquatic environs. The second most dominant species is clearly the fiddler crab. It is certain that Sage Basin in the area of Brick Cove Marina does not support commercial quantities of hard clams, soft clams, razor clams, oysters, blue mussels, blue claw crab, bay scallops as evidenced by the sampling of bottomlands, inspection of the intertidal zone, and inspection of the dredge spoil deposited on the upland portion of the property, and the lack of eel grass and the previous Brown Tide. Nevertheless the following species may be potentially present: Blue-claw Crab Calinectes sapidus Periwinkles Littorina species Blue Mussel Mytilis edulis Calico Crab Ovilapes ocellatus Spider Crab Libinia dubia Blood Ark Anadare ovalis Razor Clam Ensis directus Soft-shell Clam Mya arenaria Channel Whelk Busycon canaliculatum Knobbed Wheld Busycon carica IV - 56 Finf ish Sage Basin particularly including the surface waters contained within the Marina boundaries and adjacent areas was investigated for the presence of finfish using visual observation and direct sampling techniques. Finfish was sampled by means of scallop dredge towed behind a 14 foot work boat powered by a seven horsepower engine and an 8 ' X 45 ' seine with 3/4 inch mesh. The following finfish were observed or sampled: Oyster Toadfish Opsanus tau Tautog Tautoga onitus Mumichog Fundulus heteroclitus Spotfin Killifish Fundulis luciae Northern Pipefish Syngnathus fuscus Striped Mullet Mugil cephalus Four-spine Stickelback Apeltes quadracus Menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus Atlantic Silverside Menidia menidia IV - 57 Of the finfish listed above documented to occur, Menhaden and Atlantic Silverside are the dominant fish species. The remaining species occur in low numbers scattered about in the waters within and adjacent to the marina boundaries. Nevertheless, the following species may inhabit these waters: American Eel Anquilla rostrata Blue Fish Pomatomus saltatrix Atlantic Needlefish Strongylura marina Sand Shark Carcharhinus plumbeus Scup Stenotomus chrysura Northern Kingfish Syngnathus fuscus Silver Perch Bairdiella chrysura White Mullet Mugil curema White Perch Morone americana Winter Flounder Pseudopleuoneectes americanus Northern Puffer Spheoeroides maculatus Northern Sea Robin Prionotus carolinus Bay Anchovy Anchoa mitchilli Butter Fish Peprillus triacanthus Porgy Stenotomus chrysops Fluke Paralichthys dentatus Weakfish Cynoscion regalis IV - 58 The Brick Cove Marina, Sage Basin site is not a New York State designated Significant Habitat. However three (3) New York State Department of State Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats are found in the general area of the Marina site. (See Appendix 13 . ) They are: Conkling Point, Hashomomuck Pond, and Port of Egypt Island. Conkling Point - 0.47 Miles From Site New York State Department of State describes the significant habitat as Conkling Point as follows: "The fish and wildlife habitat is approximately 25 Acres in size, consisting of a narrow, sparsely vegetated, sand peninsula, a small protected bay, salt marsh, and tidal flats. Conkling Point is generally undeveloped and privately owned. However, the area is bordered by high density residential development to the North, resulting in some recreational disturbance of the habitat. Conkling Point is a relatively small coastal wetland area, similar in nature to many other points around the Peconic Bay's shoreline, but important as a habitat for wildlife. This area has served for many years as a IV - 59 nesting site for least terns (E) and piping plovers (T) , with both species present in 1983 , 1984 and 1985. In 1985 an estimated 25 pairs of least terns and 2 of piping plover were observed nesting in the area. In 1984, approximately 100 pairs of least terns and 5 pairs of piping plovers were present. Approximately 45 pairs of least terns and 6 pairs of piping plovers were present in 1983 . The concentration of terns nesting at Conkling Point were the second largest on the North Fork of Long Island in 1983 and 1984, respectively. Overall, the population levels of least terns and piping plovers were unusual in Suffolk County. The tidal wetlands at Conkling Point serve as feeding areas for the least terns and many other wildlife species. There are no significant human use activities associated with wildlife resources of this site. " Conkling Point supported 2 piping plovers and 45 least tern in 1989 (Long Island's Beach Nesting Shorebird Habitat: Protection and Management of A Vulnerable Resource, by NYSDOS Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization and the Nature Conservancy, 1991) . IV - 60 Hashomomuch Pond - 0.25 Miles From Site New York State Department of State describes the significant habitat at Hashomomuck Pond as follows: "The fish and wildlife habitat consists of an approximately 200 Acre bottom, marsh and inlet creek (Mill Creek) . There is moderate to high density residential development on the North and Northwest sides of the pond and marina development at the mouth of Mill Creek. Hashomomuck Pond is a valuable pond/wetland on the North Fork of Long Island but its value is reduced by human disturbance and water pollution. The pond still provides a valuable habitat for a variety of fish and wildlife. Osprey (T) nest on platforms at two locations in the pond and utilize this area for feeding. Diamondback terrapin (SC) nest at the head of Mill Creek. The pond also serves as a habitat for finfish and shellfish including bay scallops and hard clams. The pond is one of the top six areas for scallops, of significance in Suffolk County. Hashomomuck Pond was closed seasonally to shellfishing in the fall of 1984 but opened again in the winter. It remains the most important clamming site in the Town during the winter. " IV - 61 Port of Egypt Island - 0. 67 Miles From Site Port of Egypt Island is a significant fish and wildlife habitat. It is a narrow, sparsely vegetated, sand island, approximately four (4) Acres in size. This island is located at the mouth of Mill Creek, just offshore from an area that is heavily developed with marina and port facilities. Port of Egypt Island is a very small sand island, similar in nature to many other areas around the Peconic Bays shoreline, but very important as a habitat for wildlife. The island has served for many years as a major nesting site for common terns (T) and blacks skimmers, and occasionally for roseate terns (E) and piping plovers (T) . In 1984, approximately 500 pairs of common terns and 20 pairs of black skimmers nested in the area. In 1985, an estimated 262 breeding pairs of common terns and 12 pairs of black skimmers were observed at this site along with at least one pair of piping plovers. Similar numbers of common terns and skimmers were reported nesting here in 1977, along with 2 pairs of roseate terns. Although population estimates are not available for the intervening years, Port of Egypt Island was active as a nesting area throughout the period. The concentration of common terns at this site IV - 62 was among the 6 largest on Long Island in 1984, of statewide significance. There are no significant human use activities associated with the wildlife resources at Port of Egypt Island. Port of Egypt Island, found at the mouth of Mill Creek, supported 2 piping plovers, 80 least terns, 4 black skimmers and 200 common terns in 1989 (Long Island's Beach-Nesting Shorebird Habitat: Protection and Management of a Vulnerable Resource prepared by NYSDOS Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalizaiton and the Nature Conservancy, 1991) . New York State Department of State also describes this more distant significant habitat. IV - 63 HUMAN RESOURCES The principal human or built resources which contribute to the environmental setting or context of a particular site are its transportation accessibility, existing land use and zoning controls which guide its future development, the community services and facilities available at the location, its demographic context and any cultural resources that may be present. A. TRANSPORTATION 1. Transportation Services: The principal highway transportation arteries servicing the North Fork of Long Island are Middle or North Road (County Road 48) and Main Road (New York State Route 25) . Route 25, an east-west roadway, is a two-lane improved roadway passing through the hamlet centers of the North Fork, including Mattituck, Cutchogue and Southold within the Town of Southold, and the Village of Greenport. The Marina site is serviced by a 16-Feet right-of-way off from Route 25, approximately 1. 5 miles West of Greenport. IV - 64 An area capable of providing parking for 148 vehicles has been designated on the Marina upland site. Entrance to Sage Basin and Brick Cove Marina is via a 20-Feet wide channel immediately to the Southwest of the Marina. This channel is owned and maintained by the Applicant. Pre - A Traffic Impact Study was done for the Southport Development Project by Dunn Engineering in 1985 for the proposed use, which included a motel, restaurant, plus a Marina, which would have generated much more traffic than the present and projected Marina use. The 1985 Study of volumes and available capacity is quoted as follows: "Available traffic flow information was obtained from the New York State Department of Transpotation. According to the information obtained, the average daily traffic on Route 25 in the vicinity of the site is approximately 7,450 vehicles. IV - 65 An examination of the traffic volume information revealed that the peak traffic conditions occur during the weekday hours of 8: 00 - 9: 00 A.M. and 4 : 00 - 5: 00 P.M. "The available traffic information consists of machine traffic volume counts at the following location: 1. Route 25 between Oaklawn Avenue in Southold and Route 114 in Greenport. AVAILABLE GAPS In order to appraise the opportunities for safe ingress and egress from the site at the intersection of Sage Boulevard and Route 25, two variations of safe gap studies were performed. The first type appraised the opportunities available to make right turns out of the site. The second variation of the safe gap study examined the simultaneous gaps in both directions of travel on Route 25. The results of this second study are generally used to evaluate the opportunities to make left turns out of the site. IV - 66 Our observations revealed that based on the acceptable gaps of 8 seconds, there will be 7. 5 acceptable gaps available per minute during the peak hours of highway traffic. Since 44 vehicles per hour are being generated as additional traffic from the site that desire to make right turns out of Sage Boulevard onto Route 25, there will be a demand for less than one vehicle per minute to utilize these available gaps. Thus, only one gap out of the available 7. 5 gaps will be utilized. Therefore, the additional traffic from the site that desires to make a right turn out of Sage Boulevard can be readily accommodated without creating any traffic operational problem or deterioration in the level of service of this unsignalized intersection. This situation occurs since there is sufficient available roadway capacity on Route 25 that exceeds the demand of the site-generated traffic to make the right turn. The average headway in the northbound traffic stream on Route 25 is 12 seconds, which is 50% greater than the acceptable gap utilized in this IV - 67 analysis, resulting in even greater available capacity to accommodate these turns. Thus, it is anticipated that there will be sufficient available gaps to accommodate the safe right turns out of the site from Sage Boulevard onto Route 25. In a similar manner, an examination was made of the simultaneous gaps in the flow of traffic on Route 25 that are required for a vehicle to make a left turn out of Sage Boulevard onto Route 25. With 29 vehicles making left turns out of the site during the peak hour of operation on a Saturday afternoon, there is a demand for less than one vehicle per minute to utilize the available gaps. Thus, there is less demand to make the left turn out of Sage Boulevard than the available roadway capacity. No operational levels of service will occur at this intersection of Sage Boulevard and Route 25. The average headway for both directions of flow in the traffic stream on Route 25 is 8. 5 seconds, which is again greater than the acceptable gap utilized in the analysis, resulting in even IV - 68 greater available capacity to accommodate the left turns out. Thus, based on the anticipated traffic volumes, there will be sufficient simultaneous gaps in both directions of traffic flow on Route 25 to permit the safe egress of left turns from the site onto Route 25. " Present and Projected - Even though 1992 and 1993 Traffic Studies have not been done, the present Marina activities, as well as the projected activities, when the Marina is totally occupied is expected to have less than the traffic flow projected for the Southport Development Corp. 138 boats with 1 car per boat, 50 percent occupancy on the busiest 8 hour day (July 4th or Labor Day) , gives an 18 car per hour maximum flow, less than the 29 or 44 car equivalent for Southport Development. Much has been said regarding the inadequacy of Sage Boulevard. This concern was analyzed by Dunn Engineering in regard to the then proposed Southport Development plans for motel, restaurant, and a Marina and with the following results: IV - 69 "The applicant has closely studied the existing 16 ' right-of-way and, further, has retained the services of Dunn Engineering, PC, a professional traffic engineering firms, to evaluate current conditions at Sage Boulevard. To summarize Dunn Engineering's findings: With the proposed improvements currently within the jurisdiction of Southport Development, namely repaving, establishing road center lines, clearing of side vegetation and posting of speed limits, the existing right-of-way will adequately and safely serve Southport Development as well as the adjacent owners using this right-of-way. " Marina parking is proposed for 138 vehicles, including 5 handicapped, Plus 10 employees per the S-2 Parking and Drainage Site Plan (Exhibit C) . The 20 Feet wide, 6 Feet minimum depth channel will continue to be maintained by the Applicant for use of all boaters entering Sage Basin. The actual inlet is 80 feet wide at mean low water (2 . 5 foot tide) , sloping upwards toward the sides from the channel (see cross-section in Appendix 7 ) . IV - 70 B. LAND USE AND ZONING 1. Existing Land Use and Zoning: Pre, Present, and Proiected - The existing Marina site is zoned as Marine II, which as per the Southold Town Code is for the following purpose: "The purpose of the Marine II (MII) District is to provide a waterfront location for a wide range of water-dependent and water-related uses, which are those uses which require or benefit from direct access to or location in marine or tidal waters and which, in general, are located on major waterways, open bayfronts or the Long Island Sound. Permitted uses under this district include the following which are directly applicable to the pre, present and projected uses of the site: o Marina for the docking, mooring and accommodation of recreational or commercial boats, including the sale of fuel and oil primarily for the use of boats accommodated in such marina. IV - 71 o Boat docks, slips piers or wharves for charter boats carrying passengers on excursions, pleasure or fishing trips or for vessels engaged in fishery or shellfishery. o Beach clubs, yacht clubs or boat clubs, including uses accessory to them, such as swimming pools, tennis courts and racquetball facilities. o Boatyards for building, storing, repairing, renting, selling or servicing boats, which may include the following as an accessory use: Office for the sale of marine equipment or products, dockside facilities for dispensing of fuel and, where pumpout stations are provided, rest room and laundry facilities to serve overnight patrons. o Boat and marine engine repair and sales and display, yacht brokers or marine insurance brokers. All other zoning within 1/4 mile of the project site is R-40 residential developemnt to the northwest across Sage Basin and R-80 (vacant land) to the North, East and South of the project site. IV - 72 2 . Land Use Plans: The use of this site as a Marina is in conjunction with both the Town Southold Master Plan, Zoning, and the US/UK Stewardship Program. IV - 73 C. COMMUNITY SERVICE 1. Police Protection: Police protection to the proposed development is the responsibility of the Southold Town Police, located on Route 25 in Peconic. State Police protection is available from the Riverhead Barracks on Route 24 . Ability to provide protection to the proposed development is contained in a letter from the Chief of Police in Appendix 14 . 2 . Fire Protection: Project site is located within the Greenport West Fire District with station approximately 2 miles from the project site. Greenport Fire Officials responded verbally that none of the projected scope of activities would result in any impact on existing fire facilities i and equipment, (see Appendix 14 for written response) . 3 . Utilities: A Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) feeder line to Shelter Island is located along Sage Boulevard. (See Appendix 14 . ) Electric, water, and telephone service, as well as cable television, is supplied to the project site directly fron Sage Boulevard. No changes to these services are contemplated for the future. IV - 74 4. Public Water Supply: The Village of Greenport maintains a fifteen (15) square mile franchise area which extends from the East side of Shipyard Lane in East Marion to Peconic Lane in Peconic, including the Bayview Peninsula in Southold. The project site is presently serviced by an 8-Inch main along Sage Boulevard with a 2-Inch feed to the site which is adequate for the proposed Marina improvements (See Appendix 14) . The total Village water plant capacity is calculated at 4 . 0 m.g.d. per day. 5. Solid Waste Disposal: The Town of Southold operates a landfill site on a thirty-two (32) Acre parcel North of Route 48 and West of Cox Lane. This landfill is scheduled to be closed to most wastes in October of 1993 . In June of this year the Public Works Department indicated that the present and projected improvements to the Marina, including the increase in number of boats and the resultant dredging material, could be accepted in their normal course of operation. (See Appendix 14) . IV - 75 6. Disposal of Pumpout Wastes: Pre - There was no holding pumpout facility available. Present and Priected - Holding tank sanitary pumpout wastes are collected and bled into the existing septic tank. The same procedure will be utilized with the new sanitary system. 7. Disposal of Materials Accumulated In Washdown Pre and Present - All boat bottom growth, including loose bottom paint, ends up on the washdown slab which has no collection system. Some surface runoff from the washdown operation runs into Sage Basin along with that from the parking lot. Projected - The planned and approved storm drain collection system includes a new sediment and oil separating system for the boat washdown area (See Exhibit C) . All collected oils will be disposed of with waste oil and collected sediment will be inspected for toxic materials and if found, disposed of by an approved disposal firm. IV - 76 D. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Visual: Pre and Present - Sage Basin is an attractive body of water surrounded by the residential development of Southold Shores to the Southwest, residential properties on its North shore, Brick Cove Marina with its historic brick buildings on the East side, and scenic Southold Bay on the South. Of particular scenic beauty is the natural wooded and pond (clay pits) areas to the North of Sage Boulevard. Projected - The only change to the visual resources projected is the planned screen type planting along the top of the shore bank of the Marina. This planting will screen the vehicles in the parking area and to a large part boats in upland winter storage. IV - 77 PROPERTY VALUES The following are assessed property values of the residential properties closest to Brick Cove Marina. The four (4) residences on Sage Boulevard preceding the Brick Cove Marina have assessed evaluations as follows on the 1993-1994 assessment rolls: ASSESSED EVALUATION PROPERTY VALUE MOST RECENT ASSESSMENT $5, 200. 00 $160, 500. 00 03/28/1991 $6, 900. 00 $213 , 000. 00 04/24/1970 $7, 600. 00 $234, 500. 00 05/28/1992 $3 , 600. 00 $111, 100. 00 02/05/1986 The Town Assessor Office has advised that the assessed evaluations of the forementioned properties should not be affected by the proposed site project. IV - 78 V) co V Significant Environmental Impacts a C+ M 0 0 c+ cu cv n V - SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Impacts of the proposed action which are regarded as potentially large include: Impact on Land; Impact on Water; and Impact on Fish, Shellfish, and Wildlife. Normally, the identification of a project's significant environmental impacts are projections based on the D.E.I.S. preparers background, knowledge and experience. This project is unique in that a large percentage of the project's work is already accomplished and therefore there is a unique opportunity to access the impact of the completed work at least on a short term basis. Therefore, the impacts are sub-divided into (1) The Original Proposal; (2) Present Facilities and Improvements; and (3) The Ultimate Proposed Plan. V - 1 A. IMPACT ON LAND: The Original Proposal - It is noted on the EAF Part 2 that the proposed action will result in a physical change to the project site. The EAF Part 2 Addendum lists four impacts on land. They are: (1) the temporary or permanent placement of dredge spoil; (2) the construction of washdown platform and associated drainage; (3) landscaping; and (4) relocation of an existing septic system. Collectively, these impacts are regarded as potentially large. (1) The temporary or permanent placement of dredge spoil. Description of Impact: The applicant has proposed the dredging of approximately 3830 cubic yards of spoil from shoal areas within the marina to 6 ' below mean low water and the placement of resultant spoil on the upland portions of the site. This includes the 2930 Cubic Yards first proposed for the Marina, plus 350 cubic yards of Marina slope dredging, plus a 550 cubic yard removal of a newly discovered shoal. The project survey prepared by Peconic Surveyors last amended on September 18, 1991 ("survey") indicates the proposed location where dredged spoil will temporarily be placed (Exhibit A) . V - 2 Type of Impact: Negative impacts resulting from the temporary or permanent placement of dredge spoil are not important. In contrast, the positive impacts resulting from either the removal of dredge spoil from the site or the utilization of dredge spoil to achieve positive drainage are regarded as important. The probability of the positive impacts resulting from proper management of the spoil occurring is high. Its duration is permanent if the spoil is used for grading materials, temporary if the spoil is to be removed from the site, as is expected. The impact will not result in permanently lost resources of value. The impact will be controlled. There is no divergence of this impact from local needs and goals. Regional consequences related to the temporary or permanent placement of spoil are not considered to be significant. (2) The construction of washdown platform and associated drainage. Description of Impact: The applicant has proposed a washdown platform and associated drainage adjacent to the existing travel lift. The construction will involve grading for the construction of the platform and excavation for V - 3 its associated drainage. The purpose of the platform is to provide for the collection and management of pollutants associated with boat bottoms as they are cleaned. Type of Impact: The interception of boat washdown water and the prevention of it draining into the adjacent surface waters and the separation of oils and sediment is a significant positive type impact. (3) Landscaping. Description of Impact: The applicant proposes landscaping to improve the aesthetics of the project site. Landscaping can cause negative environmental impacts if exotic species are proposed due to maintenance requirements including the application of fertilizers and biocides. Type of Impact: Overall, the impact resulting from landscaping is regarded as positive. The use of indigenous vegetation will result in improved aesthetic quality of the marina as is consistent with local and regional efforts to preserve and V - 4 enhance the environment. Landscaping is regulated by the Southold Planning Board as part of its site plan process. There are no important negative impacts associated with landscaping. (4) Relocation of an existing Sanitary System. Description of Impact: The installation of a new sanitary system replacing the ones closer than 100 feet from surface waters and the replacement of the marginal functioning system for the boaters toilets will result in a certain amount of excavation for the collection system, the pump station, and the leaching fields. Type of Impact: The relocation of sanitary systems 100 feet or more from mean high water is regarded an important positive impact. The movement of sanitary systems away from surface waters and wetlands are consistent with local and regional efforts to protect same. The impacts associated with the relocation process are not considered important. These impacts are temporary in nature, do not result in permanently lost resource of value, are controlled, pose no regional consequences and is not divergent from local needs and goals. V - 5 Present Facilities and Improvements - The Marina work is completed including all of the dredging, except 550 cubic yards, and no other impact of significance, including the ones described above, have occurred. The dredging spoil is not intended to be used on site, and is only temporarily stockpiled, to be removed from the site at a later date. Ultimate Proposed Plan - The remainder of the work includes the installation of the boat washdown interception system, landscaping, and the relocation of the existing sanitary systems. The positive impacts of these two (2) items cannot help but be realized. B. IMPACT ON WATER: The Original Proposal - Description of Impact: The developable area of the site contains a protected water body, Sage Basin. Sage Basin is a tidal embayment of approximately 14 . 6 Acres (See Exhibit A) . The impacts to this water system are based upon the expansion of the marina from 91 to 138 slips in V - 6 which it is assumed that all slips will be occupied. The expansion of dock facilities over waters of Sage Basin will have a small to moderate impact on the circulation, biological productivity and ecology of Sage Basin. 1) . Boaters Toilets: One of the more serious concerns relating to marinas is their potential impacts to surface waters as caused by the direct discharge of boater sewage wastes to surface waters. The presence of marinas has a direct impact on the certification of surface waters for shellfishing. Guidelines have been established by the Federal Food and Drug Administration ("F.D.A. ") pursuant to their Shellfish Sanitation Program and are included in Appendix 10. The D.E.C. implements the FDA guidelines for New York State. Presently, the waters of Sage Basin are seasonally certified (See Appendix 10) . The DEC has closed Sage Basin to shellfishing from May 15 through October 31 based upon the presence of a marina and the potential for discharge of sewage from marina (boater) toilets. V - 7 The certification of Sage Basin is based upon the potential for discharge of sewage wastes rather than from existing bacterial contamination of the surface waters of Sage Basin. Previous investigations of Sage Basin by the DEC have revealed surface waters to be relatively free from bacteriological contamination (See Appendix 9) . Nevertheless, the potential for boater discharge of sewage into these waters provides a basis for the seasonal closure that exists today. In the absence of capability to collect and treat boater sewage, the potential for direct discharge of boater wastes to surface waters increases as the number of boats docked or moored at Sage Basin increases. Brick Cove Marina obtained approvals to replace the 91 previous boat slips to 138. The permit requirement did not specifically require all boats to have holding tanks or have their "Y" valves sealed making a direct discharge of boat of boat sewage to surface waters possible. In addition, an adjacent marina is located to V - 8 the West of Brick Cove Marina providing for 11 slips. This marina, locally known as Southold Shores, has applied for an expansion to roughly double the amount of slips. The DEC has calculated the closure of Sage Basin based upon the potential discharge of boater wastes to surface waters (See Appendix 10) . Their analysis is partially based upon the occupancy of 95 boats resulting in a closure area which exceeds the size of Sage Basin. When the total number of boats at Sage Basin is factored into the analysis, the closure area increases accordingly. The impacts to waters of Sage Basin and its adjacent waters resulting from the proposed marina expansion, the existence of other vessels at Sage Basin and the potential expansion of the Southold Shores marina are regarded as potentially large. The fate of boaters wastes can be responsibly disposed of in three ways: (1) Treatment at the scavenger waste treatment plant in V - 9 Greenport; (2) disposal in relocated and existing septic systems as permitted by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (present plan) ; and (3) disposal at the Bergen Point treatment plant. The applicant has initiated communication with the treatment plant at Greenport. Neither of the three disposal methods are regarded as causing potentially large impacts. Type of Impact: The applicants willingness and requirement to (1) maintain restroom facilities for the use of their patrons; (2) provide a pumpout facility for the use of their patrons and other boaters who come to the marina; (3) promote the use of the pumpout facility; (4) maintain a log of the use of the pumpout facility to insure effective enforcement of its proper use; (5) seal all discharge valves otherwise knows as sea cocks in their closed position and (6) ban boats having toilet facilities but not holding tanks from Brick Cove Marina, rendering this potentially large impact to one that is small to moderate in magnitude. V - 10 The probability of an adverse impact occurring is viewed as remote. The impact does not result in a permanently lost resource of value and this impact is controlled to the maximum extent reasonable. There are no regional (negative) consequences of this impact and there is no potential divergence from local needs and goals resulting from this impact. Therefore, the potentially small adverse impact is ultimately viewed as positive. 2) . Dredging: Description of Impact: Dredging of approximately 3830 cubic yards from shoal areas within the marina to 6 feet below mean low water. The applicant has proposed dredging to take place by means of a clam shell or other closed "bucket" and drag line. Impacts associated with dredging include removal of bottom sediments, increased circulation of surface waters; improved navigation; impacts to surface water quality; and impacts to shellfish abundance. V - 11 Type of Impact: Positive impacts associated with dredging include increased circulation of surface waters. Exhibit A accurately depicts all of the shoal areas both previous and existing. Increased depths at these locations has enhanced circulation of these surface waters. Also, the dredging of the entrance is expected to improve the flushing of all of Sage Basin (See Appendix 11) . Positive impacts associated with dredging also include improved navigation. These dredged areas will reduce the probability of navigational accidents which directly satisfies the public health and safety responsibilities of the Trustees as expressed in Chapter 97-28 (F) of the Town Code. Potential impacts resulting from dredging include impacts associated with surface water quality. Specifically, organic materials and other materials contained within the excavated dredged materials can be liberated V - 12 to the water column causing potantially large impacts. These impacts have been mitigated in two ways: (1) Dredging is restricted from June 1 through September 30 each year; and (2) The use of a clamshell or closed "bucket" dredge minimized the release of dredge sediments back into the water column. Restriction of the timing of dredging mitigates impacts to surface water quality as surface waters are most vulnerable to degradation during the warmer months of the year. Impacts to shellfish resulting from dredging are not regarded as significant because the portions to be dredged including their adjacent areas do not support important or large concentrations of shellfish. Affidavits submitted indicates shellfish abundance at Sage Basin to be relatively low. Field inspection of these areas support this same conclusion (See Appendix 13) . V - 13 Impacts associated with the dredging as proposed is not regarded as important for several reasons: (1) All important impacts associated with dredging have been sufficiently mitigated to reduce this potentially large impact to one that is small to moderate; and (2) dredging as proposed will result in some positive impacts as previously explained. The probability that a potential large impact will occur is small. The duration of any negative impacts are expected to be short while the duration of positive impacts such as improved navigation and circulation is long. The impact does not result in any permanently lost resources of value and there are no regional consequence of this action. Finally, there is no potential divergence from local needs and goals as related to this impact. 3) . Stormwater Runoff: Description of Impact: The proposed project will subsequently reduce stormwater runoff from the project site to adjacent waters. V - 14 Studies done by the Long Island Regional Planning Board, including most notably the National Urban Runoff Program ("NURP") , have implicated stormwater runoff to be the overwhelming source of bacteriological contamination to marine surface waters of Suffolk County. While the vast majority of improvements proposed for the site include a marina expansion and other in water improvements, the applicants proposal to manage stormwater runoff on site mitigates existing impacts related to stormwater runoff. The implementation of stormwat3r control on site is regarded as a positive design feature that results in a positive potentially large impact to surface waters. Type of Impact: The applicants proposal to properly manage runoff associated from the site and runoff resulting from the power washing of boat bottoms and the Trustees' ability to require such improvement reduces this potentially large impact to one that is V - 15 small to moderate. The impact of stormwater runoff in connection with the proposed project is therefore not important. The probability of the impact occurring as well as its duration is small. The impact will not result in any permanently lost resources of value and has no regional consequences. The implementation of the proposed stormwater control is not divergent from local needs and goals. Present Facilities and Improvements - The Marina work is completed including all of the dredging except 550 cubic yards. All boats with heads are required to have holding tanks and their "Y" valves are physically sealed and inspected by the Marina Manager. A free pumpout service is provided. See detailed Marina operations contained in Appendix 5. All improvements to the present facility are considered to have positive impacts or low to non-existing negative impacts. V - 16 Ultimate Proposed Plan - The relocation of sanitary facilities away from the surface waters and the interception and on-site containment of storm water runoff will add additional positive impacts. C. IMPACTS ON FISH, SHELLFISH, AND WILDLIFE: The Original Proposal - The significant environmental impacts to Fish, Shellfish and Wildlife are dependent upon the degree to which habitats are altered as a result of the project as proposed. Habitats associated with project site are determined to the greatest extent by the amount and quality of vegetation and water resources present on the site. With respect to marine vegetation, it is clear that in all areas which were dredged the marsh grasses were preserved. The remaining upland habitats which include woodlands, wetlands (both tidal as found on site and freshwater as found in adjacent areas) and beaches will not undergo substantial change or degradation and are in fact preserved under this proposal. V - 17 The most recent analysis of avian species reveal little difference between avian populations existing at the time when the Henderson and Bodwell Study was conducted and this study. The Henderson and 'Bodwell Study reported twenty-nine (29) species to be present on the site whereas this study reports thirty-one (31) species to be present. Twenty-one (21) avian species were identified in both studies of which seven (7) are associated with the surface waters and tidal wetlands of Sage Basin. The remaining fourteen (14) species are either associated with upland habitats or freshwater wetlands adjacent to Sage Boulevard. Given that these upland habitats and the tidal wetlands and surface waters of Sage Basin are not expected to undergo significant change, there is no expectation that the avian diversity is expected to significantly change. Importantly, this study reports the presence of spotted sandpiper which is associated with the high energy beach facing Peconic Bay. However, no physical changes are expected to occur to the beach and accordingly, there is no expectation that the spotted sandpiper will be significantly effected. V - 18 Two (2) rare species are reported in this study, Common Tern and Osprey. The occurrence of the Common Tern and Osprey were classified as flyovers and thus were not directly associated with this site or Sage Basin. Nevertheless, their occurrences are not expected to change by virtue of their tolerances to marina activities as evidenced by the Port of Egypt Tern Colony located approximately 200 feet from a much larger marina complex which continues to support terns in far greater concentrations than that which was observed in this study. Similarly, the osprey observed in this study is not expected to be significantly impacted by the proposed project as osprey, in fact, nest and hunt in Mill Creek and yet is not effected by the greater development occurring in the Mill Creek Area including the larger marina complexes found therein. The investigation for the presence of mammals revealed much greater mammalian diversity than that which was observed or expected to occur in the earlier studies. All such mammals are common and exhibit tolerances to human activity. The earlier study reported the existence of the striped skunk which was not included V - 19 in this study. However, declines of striped skunk have occurred throughout Long Island to the point where the striped skunk has essentially been extirpated from this region. However, the exact causes of the decline of striped skunk are largely unknown. Nevertheless, the decline or extirpation of the striped skunk cannot be attributed to marina redevelopment or expansion in this or any other locale. The previous investigations of shellfish and this investigation have revealed insignificant change with respect to both diversity and abundance. As evidenced by the relative lack of shells occurring in the dredge spoil deposited on the upland site, it is clear that bottomlands contained within the marina and adjacent thereto have never been productive for shellfish. Accordingly, the change in bottomlands has not effected shellfish to a significant degree. However, significant declines in shellfish have occurred in other areas of Eastern Long Island and such declines have been largely attributed to the occurrence of Brown Tide. However, there is no scientific link between the occurrence of Brown Tide and the redevelopment and expansion of this or any other marina. V - 20 The reported diversity of finfish in this and previous studies are similar; the difference being that this study provides a clearer indication of what species are present or are likely to use Sage Basin. The diversity and abundance of finfish is related to water quality, circulation and food supply. With respect to water quality, it is clear that with additional management controls put in place on this site to control and improve water quality, there is no basis to predict that finfish will decline as a result of the project as proposed. The additional boats, including additional surfaces of bottom paint in contact with surface waters, is not expected to cause acute or prolonged toxicity to finfish, because of circulation which is expected to improve as a result of dredging at the mouth of Sage Basin. Other effects to finfish resulting from changes in circulation attributed to additional docks are minor because the docks proposed and installed are of the floating variety thereby allowing water to pass underneath. Finally, there is no expectation the food supply will significantly dwindle as a result of the proposed project and accordingly, this pathway of impact is precluded to a major extent. V - 21 It is noted herein that three Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats are found in the general area of the project site. Impact assessment for the first Significant Habitat, Conkling Point, is described by the New York State Department of State as follows: "Nesting shorebird species inhabiting undeveloped sand beaches of Long Island are highly vulnerable to disturbance by humans from mid-April through July. Significant pedestrian traffic or recreational vehicle use of the Conkling Point peninsula could easily eliminate the tern and plover populations, and should be minimized. Fencing and/or annual posting of the area should be provided to help protect the nesting bird species. Unregulated dredge spoil disposal in this area would be detrimental, but such activities may be designed to maintain or improve the habitat, by setting back vegetative succession. Loss of salt marsh habitat, through excavation or filling, would reduce its value as a food producing area for many wildlife species. Introduction or attraction of mammalian predators to the site would also be detrimental to the populations of nesting birds. " Obviously, the proposed project cannot have any impact to this Significant Habitat because the site is located approximately 0.47 V - 22 miles from the Significant Habitat. And given that Port of Egypt Island supports the same rare species in far greater abundance and is approximately two hundred (200) feet from a much larger marina complex, there is no basis to even speculate that the proposed project will effect in any way, this Significant Habitat. Impact assessment for Hashomomuck Pond is described by the New York State Department of State as follows: "Any activity that would further degrade the water quality in Hashomomuck Pond would adversely affect the biological productivity of this area. All species of fish and wildlife are effected by water pollution such as chemical contamination (including food chain effects) oil spills, excessive turbidity, and waste disposal. Hashomomuck Pond is presently polluted from several point and non-point sources of sewage and nutrient laden runoff. Both the point and non-point sources of pollution should be reduced or eliminated to enhance this habitat for shellfish and other fish and wildlife species. Alteration of tidal patterns in Hashomomuck Pond (e.g. by modifying the Mill Creek Inlet) could have major impacts in fish and wildlife species present. Barriers to fish migration, whether V - 23 physical or chemical, would have major impacts on the fisheries resources in Hashomomuck Pond. Elimination of salt marsh and intertidal areas, through dredging excavation, or filling, would result in a direct loss of valuable habitat area. Nesting osprey and terrapin inhabiting the area may be vulnerable to disturbance by humans from April through mid-August. Recreational activities near the nexting sites should be minimized during this period. Construction of shoreline structures, such as docks, piers, bulkheads, or revetments, in areas not previously disturbed by development, may result in the loss of productive areas which support the fish and wildlife resources of the Hashomomuck area. " Obviously, the proposed project cannot have any impact on the Hashomomuck Area Significant Habitat. Furthermore, there can be no down gradient hydrological effects between the site and the Significant Habitat. In actuality, the site is located more than a quarter mile Southeast of Hashomomuck Pond. Finally, it is apparent that the marina at Port of Egypt which is located at the mouth of Mill Creek has nad no effect whatsoever on the Hashomomuck Significant Habitat. V - 24 The Port of Egypt Island Significant Habitat is located 0. 67 mile from the Brick Cove Marina site and is not affected by the site project. It should be noted that a criteria of less than two hundred (200) feet between a project site and protected nesting areas has been established by New York State Department of State and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation for assigning of "windows" for such projects. The three significant habitats in the general vicinity of the Marina project site far exceed this criteria. Present Facilities and Improvements and Ultimate Proposed Plan - In the completing of the proposed, approved and permitted work there is no element that is considered to have an impact different than that described in the preceding original proposal. D. IMPACT ON PROPERTY VALUES: The Town Assessor has stated that the site project, as approved, will not affect the property values in the area surrounding the site. V - 25 X r• c+ r• C+. CF 3 !D VI Mitigation Measures to Minimize N Environmental Impact �* 0 3 r• r• N lD M r• 0 0 (D Qj a n c+ VI - MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: Mitigation measures for the project are divided into those already implemented and those proposed. A. MITIGATION MEASURES ALREADY IMPLEMENTED: 1. Dredged spoil - Approximately 1, 000 cubic yards have been removed from the site and used in Town landfill operations. 2 . Boaters Toilets - Mitigation of potential impacts relating to discharge of sewage from boats has been accomplished in several ways: (1) The applicant has provided full restroom facilities for marina patrons which are open 24 hours a day; (2) the applicant has been required and has agreed to install a pumpout facility to service all boats from Brick Cove Marina as well as to service all boats which come to Brick Cove Marina; (3) the applicant has agreed to promote the use of the pumpout VI - 1 station by erecting proper signs to encourage the use of the required pumpout facility; (4) the applicant has been required to maintain a log of pumpout usage for enforcement purposes; (5) the applicant has agreed to have all "sea cocks" or "discharge valves" sealed in their closed position and (6) the applicant has agreed to ban all boats having toilet facilities without holding tanks. These requirements and agreements are contained in Appendix 5. As these requirements come into effect, DEC will have a basis to re-examine the closure status of Sage Basin, possibly resulting in a re- certification of these waters for shellfishing on a year round basis. 3 . Dredging - The impacts associated with the removal of sediments have been mitigated to greatest extent possible. Clamshell dredging, barged to and unloaded at the lift berth, was accomplished offshore and represented 90 percent of the dredging work accomplished. Dragline method of dredging VI - 2 (10 percent) was used in Area "A" East, and "D" East as indicated on the survey. One advantage of using the dragline method of dredging is that it resulted in a bottom underwater contour that is smoother than obtained using clam shell or closed "bucket" technologies. Dragline methods of dredging were restricted to areas where tidal wetlands were quite small or absent entirely, with filter cloth placed over the wetlands during the process. B. MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED: 1. Dredged Spoil - Impacts associated with the additional 550 cubic yards of dredging proposed can be mitigated by requiring the temporary placement of haybales, where required, to contain spoil on the previous temporary disposal site. All of the dredged Spoil is proposed to be removed from the site and conveyed to the Town's Landfill for use in grading and capping operations. VI - 3 2 . Landscaping - The impact associated with the maintenance of exotic landscaping can be mitigated in total by requiring indigenous vegetation. Phragmites Australis already exist along most of the parking lot to the Marina basin interface. 3 . Relocation of Existing Sanitary System - Mitigation from the trenching and excavation work is to stockpile materials in such a manner to prevent erosion to surface waters, or when the former cannot be accomplished protect with haybales and to re-establish disturbed vegetation as soon as practical. The proposed location of the sanitary system is on a disturbed lawn and unused loam tennis court, 180 feet distant from the nearest surface water. VI - 4 4 . Stormwater Runoff - The impacts related to stormwater runoff associated with the site as it exists today will have been mitigated by the proposal to provide for stormwater runoff on site including runoff from the parking field and runoff associated with the power washing of boats. The applicant has proposed an impervious washdown platform as depicted in the survey and the proper collection and management of solids and oils resulting from the power washing of boat bottoms. During this construction the removed materials will be contained as necessary before removal from the site to prevent erosion into the Marina basin. VI - 5 a m VII Adverse Environmental Effects 0 0 w m fi -fi fD n VII - ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED: Areas of the most potential adverse environmental impacts include those actions associated with surface water quality as a result of dredging, increase in the number of boat slips, etc. That these phases of the work have. already been accomplished without any recognizable adverse environmental effect provides to a high degree of certainty that there will be no adverse environmental effect. VII - 1 n VIII Alternatives VIII - ALTERNATIVES: A. ALTERNATIVE DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGIES: 1. Site Layout - The only practical time to review alternate boat slip layouts is prior to start of construction. All approvals were received for the present project. As this phase of the work is complete a different site layout would require substantial removal of the existing work and resultant adverse environmental impact. Pilings driven 10 feet into hard clay would be almost impossible to remove. Return of the dredge spoil to the surface waters would create extreme turbidity and side effects. Boat slip removal, installed at great expense with associated underground electric and water service, would require significant upland and in-water disturbance. VIII - 1 Parking for a Marina needs to be reasonably adjacent to boat slips, as proposed, to permit ease of transfer of personal gear to and from boats and vehicles. As the parking area is also utilized for winter boat storage and has compacted agregate, locating to the rear of the property, for example, on unstabilized clay soils would be undesireable. 2. Orientation - Extensive soils investigation has been accomplished at the request of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services for a suitable area for the relocated sanitary system. Because of the extensive Poor drainage soils only one (1) area (see Exhibit A) has been identified as potentially acceptable. B. ALTERNATIVE SITES: A safe, functional marina requires a site with natural protection from normal winds and wave actions. The applicant owns one of the few potential sites in Southold Town for VIII - 2 i enlarged marina operations. Other sites within Sage Basin would provide a potential for marinas but are not associated with the necessary uplands or public utilities (water and eXectrical) . Also, none of these sites are presently zoned or identified in the Town's Master Plan for marina operations (M II) . Dockage consideration on nearby Peconic Bay is completely precluded because of the exposure to prevailing southwest winds, waves , and storms . C. ALTERNATIVE SIZE: Based on the size of underwater land (4 . 2 Acres) and on planning information from "Marinas" by Chamberlain, 378 25-Feet boats could be accommodated, or 160 40-feet boats. The present mix of boat slip lengths and widths (see Exhibit A) has been selected to be responsive to the present and projected boater requirements and is in fact limited to only the 138 boater slips, varying from 25 to 40 feet, already permitted and installed. VIII - 3 D. ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION/OPERATION SCHEDULING: The remaining proposed work includes the following considerations: Dredging work has been and will continue to be scheduled during the non-summer months. Dredging is specifically prohibited from June 1 to September 30. Therefore, the alternative of doing construction in the summer months is not a viable alternative. The sanitary system, per Contractor ARTCO Drainage, is best accomplished in the clay surface during any non-rainy period and is not affected by boater activity. The landscaping and drainage may be accomplished during summer weekdays, or in the fall, winter, or spring when boater activity is minimal. VIII - 4 E. ALTERNATIVE LAND USE: The following are examples of land use of the site that could be permitted with the present zoning (M II) . o One family dwellings - Sanitary systems would be potential problems. o Mariculture or Aquaculture Operations - This type of use is considered a practical alternative requiring the replacement of present facilities. o Boat and Marine Engine Repairs, etc. - This type of use, if expanded greatly from the present boat work don on site, is considered a practical alternative requiring the addition to present facilities. o Fish Processing Plant - Special exception required - odors and waste processing would be of concern. VIII - 5 o Restaurant - Special exception required. Would be a very scenic location. Adequate sanitary system could be difficult to obtain. o Hotel or Motel - Special exception required. Adequate sanitary systems could be difficult to obtain. F. NO ACTION: Impacts of No Action would mean that the completed boat slips would be without the planned, approved and permitted upland improvements, including the following: I. Inadequate sanitary facilities for boaters toilets and holding tank pumpout. 2 . Existing sanitary leaching system would reamin close to surface waters. 3 . Parking lot runoff would continu entering Sage Basin. 4. There would be no interception of boat washdown residues. 5. There would be no screen planting accomplished. VIII - 6 6. The entrance shoal will continue to be a hazard, especially to sailboats at low tides. 7. The public would not have future adequate dockage for boating needs. 8. The Owner-developer would suffer severe economic damage. VIII - 7 -s 0 0 -s r• Cr I X `D a Irreversible and Irretrievable Q Commitment of Resources -s C+ r• m 0 r• C-+ m C-+ 0 0 Ln 0 m N I% - IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITTMENT OF RESOURCES: If the Brick Cove Marina project is completed as proposed, the following human and natural resources will be consumed, converted or made unavailable for future use: 1. The present property will be made unavailable for alternate future development plans. 2 . The water provided the Marina by the Village of Greenport will result in a small increase annual pumpage. 3 . A small increase in electrical demand will add additional load to the Long Island Lighting Company's distribution lines and switch gear. There is, however, no irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources identified that would suggest that the proposed project be re-examined, or the proposed action should not occur. IX - 1 0 C+ a X � r• Growth Inducing Aspects D (D n C-+ 0 X - GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS: A. POPULATION: There is expected to be minor increase in resident population by virtue of having several full time employees instead of the previously part time employees. As all boat slips are used by residents and full-time summer boaters, there should be no increase in transient population. B. SUPPORT FACILITIES: There is expected to an increase in some service industries as a result of the marina improvements to include but not be limited to the following: o The handling and separation of recyclables to include newspapers; plastics; clear, green and brown glass; and cans. o The collection and processing of waste oils by a licensed New York State Deparment of Environmental Conservation operator. o Maintenance and servicing of vessels due to the increase from the previous 91 up to 138 by outside services (e.g. fiberglass repair) and boat and boater supply agencies. X - 1 C. DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL: There is little or no reasonable development potential. To increase the number of boat slips would require extensive reconfiguration of the Marina with very limited economic benefit, and the upland improvements have been sized, laid out, and planned to adequately support the planned Marina improvements including the increase in the number of boat slips. X - 2 0 N 0 XI a Conservation of Energy Resources o 0 -n m 0 cn m N O C f� (D N BI - EFFECTS ON THE USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY RESOURCES: A. ENERGY SOURCES: The types of energy associated with this project are electricity and fuels. Electricity - It is estimated that an increase of approximately 220 K.W.H. per day will occur during the summer months. Fuels - Gasoline and diesel for both vehicles and boats will increase based on owners utilization of their boats. B. ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES: The installation of high efficiency lamps and automatic controls on all dock lighting is a primary measure of saving electricity that has already been incorporated. The dredging of the entrance channel and the future removal of the entrance shoal will make the Marina more accessible to deeper draft sail boats which consume a much smaller amount of fuel. XI - 1 a CL x N () Appendix #1 0 Scoping Outline and cn Artlicle 78 0 c r+ a CL a -z c+ n V co i s Y State Environmental Quality Review Act Scoping Outline Application of Brick Cove Marina March 25 , 1993 Revised: April 29 , 1993 Revised: May 6 , 1993 The Scoping Outline presented herein is based on the Scoping Checklist which appears as Appendix D in SEQRA Part 617. 21 . The intention of the Scoping Outline presented herein is to identify the relevant areas of environmental concern, de-emphasize non-significant issues and eliminate non-relevant issues , identify the extent and quality of necessary information, identify reasonable alternatives to the proposed project , and identify and discuss mitigation measures designed to eliminate or reduce the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. This Scoping Outline and any amendments thereto relies on the wealth of existing environmental information generated iti previous environmental assessments of the proposed project , previous comments submitted on the application and any and all reasonable comments received from Involved Agencies and the General Public resulting from the circulation of this document. The resulting Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS" ) should concisely address all topics raised in this Scoping Outline. Further, the Applicant is encouraged to include all previous relevant environmental analyses in the DEIS by integration of such existing analyses into the DEIS narrative, appropriate reference and/or inclusion as Appendices. The proposed Brick Cove Marina expansion has previously applied for and received several permits from several involved agencies and thus has already completed various improvements. For the purposes of preparing a DEIS that is clear , its is necessary to place the proposals previously set forth in prior applications , the degree to which improvements have been implemented and the ultimate or complete project proposed. Accordingly, separate reference and discussion in the DEIS should be afforded with respect to the original proposed project, the present status of the project (including improvements already in place) and the proposed complete project. I . Cover Sheet All EIS 's (Draft or Final) shall begin with a cover sheet that includes : A. Whether it is a 4vaft or final statement B . Name or other desc�ltive # tle of the project C. Location (Count and Town) of the project D . AA®e and roes of tFie Lga4,"ancy and the t.olepbgne number :.of a per"n at th*..agency to be contacted -MFIffther information 1 . t E. Olwww"Nomddress of the preparers of any portion of the statement and the name and telephone number of A_naxAwn,4et the pgepcy -to be contacted for further Mn ormation F. Date of acceptance of the DEIS G . In the case of a te; 'the Avad"W6 4ate be which com@W*ire ..due ..$hoard-i--indicated II . Table of Contents and Summary A table of contents and a brief summary are required for Draft and Final EIS ' s . The Table of Contents and Summary should be organized to include ( 1) the original proposal ; (2) present facilities and improvements ; and (3) the ultimate proposed plan. The summary should include: A. Brief description of the action B. Significant, beneficial and adverse impacts , (issues of controversy must be specified) C. Mitigation measures proposed D. Alternatives considered E. Matters to be decided (permits approvals , funding) III . Description of the Proposed Action. The Description should address (1) the original proosal ; (2) present facilities and improvements ; and (3� the ultimate proposed plan. A. PROJECT PURPOSE, NEED AND BENEFITS 1 . Background and history. A detailed account of the proposed project is warranted. The preparer is encouraged to discuss the previous proposals for the use of the project site, the previous description of the project submitted to the Southold Trustees, all previous approvals for the project and any new modifications to the proposed project. 2. Public need for the project , and municipality objective based on adopted community development plans . Here, the applicant may determine the public needs related to marinas as well is whether or not the proposal is in n conformance with the Tows adopted Master Plan and Zoning Code. 3. Objectives of the project sponsor 4. Benefits of the proposed action a. social b. economic c. environmental (aspects of the proposal which may improve the environment) B . LOCATION 1 . Establish geographic boundaries of the project 2. (use of regional or local scale maps is recommended) 2. Description of access to site (include water access and road access) . The DEIS should include information ( ie. 'deed) guaranteeing road access . 3. Description of existing zoning of proposed site 4 . Description of Sage Basin and its relationship to Southold Bay and the Peconic Bay Estuary C. DESIGN AND LAYOUT 1 . Total site area (include underwater land) a. proposed impervious surface b. amount of land which has been or is proposed to be cleared and/or graded c. ) open space ( lands which will preserved such as vegetated tidal wetlands and beaches , ect. ) d. ) provide acreage of land that will be revegetated or allowed to revert to its natural state. e-. describe proposed landscaping. f. describe fuel dock and compliance with all applicable rules and regulations pertaining thereto Structures a. ) provide a narrative which describes all --- structures found on subject parcel. (Structures include buijdings, tennis courts , bulkheads , septic, docks , ect. ) It is advisable discuss all structures within the historical and regulatory context of this project. Further, it may be useful to include a brief description of the previous use of this site as a brick yard as some structures may date back to this use. !�b. ) site plan showing layout of all existing and proposed structures ,Le. ) engineering drawings of the proposed dock depicting 1 . width and length 2 . number.-of pilings 3. utilities 4. cross-sectional composition . ) Map including depth soundings of underwater lands. Soundings to be verified by Bay Constable Ne . drainage plans f. underground structures and piping (septic and/or drainage structures) 3. g. ) describe proposed extension of potable water to the docks h. ) staging area for material handling (dredge spoil) i. ) describe construction of fuel tanks and delivery system � -� Parking a. ) parking area (reference and include site plan) number of parking spaces and layout (reference site plan) D. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION I . Construction a. ) discuss previous construction activities on site in the context ,of previous regulatory decisions . b. ) schedu�of construction (describe when structures were erected within the context of regulatory decisions in force at that time) C. ) future potential development on site (Include previous development scenario provided as part of the previously issued wetlands permit . Later , such scenario can be presented in Part VIII . Alternatives 2. Operation a. ) describe operational aspects of- marinas (ie. service, boat storage , maintenance) b. ) describe operational aspects which may be unique to Brick Cove Marina such as collection of boat wastes , material recyclingf ect . ' c. ) Describe length frequency of vessels docked at marina F. APPROVALS a. ) List and describe all previous approvals granted in connection with the expansion of the marina. List all other activities pending agency approval. Describe the proposed gasoline facilities in relation to all applicable rules and regulations. Alread agranted.y of the approvals (permits) y IV. Environmental Setting: Where appropriate, reasonable and practical, separate the analysis and discussion into (1) the original proposal; (2) present facilities and improvements ; and (3) the ultimate proposed plan. Natural Resource 4. 2 . Surface a. ) List of soil types and discuss their distribution on site b. ) Discussion of soil characteristics. (physical proMfiltration) ties including hydrological capabilities, and engineering properties (soil bearing capacity) ) Reference Suffolk County Soil Survey . 3 . Topography a. describe the topographical conditions of the site (ei. slopes and unique features) B . WATER RESOURCES 1 . Groundwater a. ) describe groundwater conditions beneath the site. b. ) identify present uses and level of use of groundwater (if any) . 2 . Surface Waters a. ) location and description of surface waters located on project site or adjacent thereto (ie. Sa a Basin, Hashomack Pond and Peconic Bay b. ) list the present NYSDEC Surface water classification and discuss what effects , if any, that the existing marina has had on surface water classification c. ) discuss recent water quality information (coliform data) in connection with the existing marina and other surrounding land uses. Also, discuss the potential sources of coliform loadings to surface waters. d. ) discuss other water quality issues pertaining to marinas relying on existing studies and reports . Include discussion of pump-out station and methods adopted to enforce its use. e. ) discuss existing drainage patterns in connection with stormwater runoff impacts f. ) discuss potential, for flooding, siltation, erosion and eutrophication resulting from the project as originally proposed, existing and ultimately proposed g. ) description of channel and shoaling locations S. y C. TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY 1 . Vegetation a. ) list vegetation types found on site particularly vegetative wetlands each grass communities or other natural areas. Also, describe wetlands found adjacent to the unimproved road which provides access to the site. Assess qualitatively the following: 1 . species presence and abundance a. ) age b. ) size c. ) distribution d. ) dominance e. community types f. ) unique , rare, and endangered species b. ) Relate values listed in Article 25 of the ECL in connection with existing wetlands c. ) Disclose the presence of submerged aquatic vegetation (for example, eel grass) and the presence of any unique and rare plant species d. ) Discuss values to wildlife which other vegetation types (natural areas) may offer 2. Fish, Shellfish and Wildlife a. ) list of fish, shellfish and wildlife species on project site and wit1lin surro tiding -Axe—a including migrator an4 resident species b. ) disclose the presence of any species designated of special concern, threatened or endangered ("Rare Species") . Preparer should include a list of any Rar�ecies found in nearby habitats such as Sage Basin, Hamoshomack Pond, Peconic Bay and -ConZc73ng' -- Point Point and "what potentials c's s or these species- to be using or relying upon habitats found at Brick Cove Marina. (Quote directly from: Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat: Conklings Point: Location and Description of Habitat, Fish and Wildlife Values, Impact Assessment prepared by NYSDOS) c• ) discussion of fish, shellfish and wildlife population characteristics including abundance, distribution, dominance, productivity. (relate shellfish abundance to dredging 6. ' u activities already undertaken) d. ) present and analyze FDA Guideline Calculation for required shellfish . closure based upon number of slips ex i-sting prior to expansion. _ Human Resources A. TRANSPORTATION 1 . Tr nsportation Services a .� description of size, capacity and conditions of services including roads , navigational channels , parking facility and traffic control . b. ) description of current levels of use of roads and channels with regards to existing marina use; also, preparer should reference marina .traffic and parking needs with existing published or circulated narratives addressing this issue B. LAND USE AND ZONING 1 . Existing land use and zoning a. ) description of existing land use of project site and the surrounding area (within 1/4 mile or beyond) including commercial (marina) , residential, and vacant. b. ) description of existing zoning of site and surrounding area within 1/4 mile or beyond; preparer should refer to Town of Southold Zoning Map 2 . Land use plans a. ) describe the proposed project in relation to the Town's existing Master Plan, US/UK Stewardship Program (if any) , BTCAMP Study (if any) . Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (if sufficiently developed) C. COMMUNITY SERVICE (for this section include a list of existing facilities and a discussion of existing levels of usage and projected future needs) 1 . Police protection 2 . Fire protection 3. Utilities 4. Public water supply 5. Solid waste disposal .6 . Disposal of pump-out wastes collected 7. Disposal of materials accumulated in washdown collection structure. D. CULTURAL RESOURCES I . Visual resources 7. a. description of the physical character of the community within 1/4 mile of project site. (ex. vacant , residential, commercial b. description of natural areas of significant scenic value within 1/4 mile (ex. Sage Basin, its shoreline, Peconic Bay (Southold Bay) and its shoreline) c. list property values (assessed values of all properties fronting Sage Basin) V. Significant Environmental Impacts , Identify and discuss those aspects of the environmental setting in Section IV that may be adversely or beneficially affected by the proposed action. Additionallyt the range of Potential environmental impacts relating to this proposal were previously categorized into (1) the construction and dreding proposed; (2) overland runoff into surface waters; and The activities associated with the marina operation and use. The previously prepared Environmental Assessment Form identified potentially large IMPACTS TO LAND including �1� the temporary or permanent placement of dredge spoil ; 2the construction of a washdown1 atform ociated drainage; (3) landscaping and (4) relocationaof annd existingseptic system; IMPACTS ON WATER including (1) discharge of boater sewage wastes including its impact to shellfishing; (2) dredging (including circulation) ; (3) stormwater runoff impacts . These impacts should be discussed in connection with development that has already taken place as well as that which has yet to be undertaken. This section of the DEIS should be organized to include (1) the original proposal ; (2) present facilities and improvements ; and (3) the ultimate proposed plan. Additionally, the DEIS should relate data that has shown environmental impacts , or lack of (where they can be identified) regarding actions already undertaken. Finally, the DEIS should state an opinion from the Town Assessor as to whether property values have been or will be significantly affected as a result of the project. Emphasize significant environmental impacts with respect to commercial shellfishing (regulatory: closure; abundance ect. ) , commercial finfishing and impacts to wildlife usage. Also, relate (1) the oriincl proposal; (2) present facilities and improvements ; and the ultimate proposed plan to Impact Assessment contained in the NYSDOS Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitatp Impact Assessment for Conklings Point and the Brown Tide Comprehensive Action Management Plan ("BTCAMP") Summary Document. VI . Mitigation Measures to Minimize Environmental Impact. Describe measures to reduce or avoid potential adverse 8 . ✓ impflts identified in Secti�4n V. In the previous app cat on much of the miitigation measures were proposed by the applicant and have since been implemented. Those measures already implemented should be disclosed. The DEIS should evaluate the effectiveness of these previously implemented mitigation measures. Additionally, the preparer should address mitigation measures previously proposed but not as yet implemented. Finally, the DEIS should examine any further mitigations measures that area appropriate. VII . Adverse Environmental Effects that Cannot be Avoided if the Project is Implemented. Identify those adverse environmental effects in Section V that can be expected to occur regardless of the mitigation measures considered in Section VI. VIII . Alternatives . This section contains categories of alternatives with examples . Discussion of each alternative should be at a level sufficient to permit a comparative assessment of costs , benefits afid environmental risk for each alternative. It is not acceptable to make simple assertions that a particular alternative is not feasible. The DEIS should appropriatel draw comparisons between (1) the original proposal; (25 present facilities and improvements ; and (3) the ultimate proposed plan. Finally) The DEIS should examine the alternative of restoring the site to its original condition before applications were filed to improve, enlarge and modernize the marina. A. ALTERNATIVE DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGIES I . Site layout a. ) density and location of structures. Previous comments concerning the proposed expansion suggested that docks be located on Peconic Bay to reduce impacts to Sage Basin. This alternative should be evaluated. b. ) location of parking 2 . Orientation a. ) compatibility with slope and drainage patterns b. ) site size and setback requirements. (septic system) 3. Technology a ) pollution control equipment 4 . Mix of activities a. ) addition of businesses which would affect the operational nature of the facility. 9 r � - B . ALTERNATIVE SITES 1 . Limiting factors a. ) availability of land b. ) suitability of alternative site to accommodate design requirement c. ) compatibility with local zoning and master plan C. ALTERNATIVE SIZE 1 . Increase or decrease project size to minimize possible impacts 2 . Increase or decrease project size to correspond to market and community needs . D. ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION/OPERATION SCHEDULING 1 . Commence construction at a different time. Discuss the timing of dredging activities both completed and proposed. Discuss construction scheduling, part which has been completed and part of which has yet to be completed. E. ALTERNATIVE LAND USE 1 . Suitability of site for other uses. Discuss the full range of uses permitted by Zoning and evaluate the range of impacts associated with those uses . F. NO ACTION (No action in this case refers to the environmental setting and operation of the marina prior to the last expansion proposal) I . Im acts of no action a. effect on public need b. effect on private developers ' need c. . beneficial or adverse environmental impacts . IX. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Identif those natural and human resources listed in Section IV that will be consumed, converted or made unavailable for future use. Identify resources that have already been committed as well as including those resources projected. • X. Growth Inducing Aspects Describe it this section the potential growth aspects the proposed project may have. A. POPULATION I . increases in resident population (by virtue of employment) and transient population (by virtue of providing boat slip for non-residents) . 10. B. SUPPORT FACILITIES I . Service industries created to supply new facility C. DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL I . Introduction or improvement of infrastructure (septic, navigational channels) 2. Creation of further growth potential by construction of improved infrastructure XI . Effects on the Use and Conservation of Energy Resources Identify energy sources to be used, anticipated levels of consumption and ways to reduce energy consumption. A. PROPOSED ENERGY SOURCES AND ALTERNATIVES B. ANTICIPATED SHORT TERM/LONG TERM LEVELS OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION 1 . Increased levels of traffic due to the proposed project 2 . Increased boating activity by virtue of marina expansion C. ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES Discuss methods of reducing energy usage that may reasonably be incorporated into the proposed project. XII . Appendices Following is a list of materials typically used in support of the EIS : A. List of underlying studies , reports and information considered and relied upon in preparing statement B . List of all federal, state, regional, or local agencies , organizations, consultants and private persons consulted in preparing the statement C. Relevant correspondence regarding the project. 11. MEMORANDUM SUPREME COURT, SUFFOLK COUNTY IAS PART X FRANK FLYNN, - BY: DANIEL F. LUCIANO, J.S.-C. Petitioner, . DATE 1_50. 1993 For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules , INDEX NO. 92/1763 -against- MOTION DATE 2/10/92; 3/9/92 CALENDAR DATE 7/27/92 BENNETT ORLOWSKI , JR. , Chairman, CDISPSJ GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. , RICHARD: C. WARD, MARK S . MacDONALD and KENNETH L. EDWARDS , constituting the Planning Board of the Town of Southold, and JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, III , President, HENRY P. SMITH, Vice President, ALBERT J. KRUPSKI , : JR . , WILLIAM G. ALBERTSON, JOHN B. : TUTHILL, constituting the Board of : Town Trustees of the Town of Southold , and VICTOR LESSARD, Building Inspector of the Town of Southold, Respcndents . TWOMEY, LATHAM, SHEA & KELLEY, ESQS . MATTHEW G. KIERNAN, ESQ. Attorneys for Petitioner Attorney for Respondents 33 West Second Street Town Attorney' s Office Post Office Bos 398 Town of Southold Riverhead, New York 11901 53095 Main Road Post Office Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 The petitioner, Frank Flynn, commenced this Article 78 proceeding seeking a judgment : "annul [ ling ] and set[ting ] aside the resolution of site plan approval issued on November 18 , 1991 , by the respondents constituting the Planning Board of the Town of Southold; . . .annul [ ling ] and setting] aside the resolution of November 14 , 1991 , by which the respondent Town Trustees issued a wetlands permit pursuant to Chapter 97 of the Southold Town Code; enjoining the respondent Building Inspector from issuing a building permit for the subject project; and remanding the matter back to the Southold Town Trustees and the Southold Town Planing Board for the preparation of an Environmental ImFact: Statement" . Litigatlon concerning the project which is the subject of this dispute, the expansion of what was Young ' s Marina , and is now Brick Cove Marina , located in the Toter. of Southold, was previously- before this Court . The earlier determinations concluded, inter alfa , that PAGE 2 - FLYNN V. ORLOWSKI INDEX NO. 92/1763 the "negative declaration" issued upon the environmental assessment of the project was not adequately supported by proof that the involved agencies had taken the requisite "hard look" at relevant areas of environmental concern. Subsequently, acting as lead agency the respondent, Board of Town Trustees, purported to undertake a proper environmental assessment and again issued a negative declaration by a determinaticn dated September 26 , 1991 . The petitioner, Frank Flynn, again alleges that such negative declaration is not properly supportable. In addition, the petitioner, Frank Flynn, alleges violations of section 280-a of the Town Law and section 100-235 of the Southold Town Code. There is no dispute that the subject property is located in a "Critical Environmental Area of the Peconic Bay Estuary" and that the proposed project is a Type I Action. While a Type I Action generally will require the preparation of an environmental impact statement , that is not always the case. (Hare v. Molyneaux , 182 A.D.2d 908 . ) For reasons discussed below, however, the Court does not find that this instance is an exception to the general rule requiring an environmental—impact statement for a Type I Action. In Shawangunk Mountain Environmental Association v. Planning Board of the Town of Gardiner, ( 157 A.D. 2d 273, 275-276 ) , the Court offered a discussion reflecting the more common requirements with respect to Type I Actions: . . . in a Type I project, there is a relatively low threshold for requiring an EIS (see, H.O.M.E.S. v New York State Urban Dev. Corp. , 69 AD2d 222 , 232; see also, Chinese Staff & Workers Assn. v City of New York, 68 NY2d 359, 364-365 ) . The EIS process is especially designed to insure the injection of full , open and deliberative consideration of environmental issues into governmental decision-making (Akpan v Koch, 75 NY2d 561 , 569) . The EIS process guarantees comprehensive review of a project' s adverse environmental effects, consideration of less intrusive alternatives to the proposed action, including "no-action" , and consideration of mitigation measures (ECL 8-0109 [ 21 ; 6 NYCRR 617 .14 [fl ; Matter of Jackson v New York State Urban Dev. Corp. , 167 NY2d 4001 supra , at 416 ) . To assure accountability of the lead agency and avoidance of any oversight in that agency' s assessments , the regulatory scheme requires public access to the information by making the draft and final EIS available with sufficient lead time to afford interested persons an opportunity to study the project, its environmental effects and proposed mitigating PAGE 3 - FLYNN V. ORLOWSKI INDEX NO. 92/1763 measures , and then comment thereon (ECL 8-0109 [ 4] ; 6 NYCRR 617. 8 [c ] ] ; 617. 9 [a ] ; Matter of Jackson v New York State Urban Dev. Corp. , supra, at 415-416 ) . Additional safeguards are found in the substantive requirements that the lead agency must act and choose among alternatives-so as to minimize adverse environmental consequences, consistent with other social , economic and policy considerations, and must then make appropriate written findings to that effect (ECL 8-0109 [ 11 , [ 8 ] ; 6 NYCRR 617 . 9 [c ] ; Matter of Jackson v New York State Urban Dev. Corp. , supra, at 416 ; see, Akpan v Koch, supra, at 570 ) . In the present case the petitioner, Frank Flynn, alleges, in part: 35 . . . . The Trustees convened a special meeting on September 26 , 1991 to determine the significance of the action pursuant to SEQRA. Petitioner only became aware of this special meeting approximately one week before it was to take place . By letter dated September 26 , 1991 , to respondent Trustees from counsel to petitioner, . . . petitioner submitted comments critiquing the Environmental Assessment Form, Part I and asking for additional time to submit comments prior to the Board making its determination pursuant to SEQRA. At that time, an EAF, Part II had been prepared by the trustees' consultant, Bruce Anderson, but was not made available to the public. By the letter, request was also made for permission to review the EAF, Part II . 36 . Petitioner, with his counsel and consultant, Laurence Penny, appeared at the special meeting of the Trustees on September 26 , 1991 , and submitted the aforementioned letter, together with comments of the consultant, Laurence Penny. . . . Without taking the time to consider the comments of the petitioner or its attorney or its consultant, the Trustees resolved to issue a negative declaration. In response the respondent, Zoning Board, asserts, "the record demonstrates that all of the potential impacts associated with this project were identified by Bruce Anderson in his environmental review" and that "these potential impacts were fully discussed and considered by the Trustees before they issued their negative declaration. " (Affirmation in opposition of Harvey A. Arnoff, Esq. , paragraph 18 . ) While the environmental assessment purporting to support the negative declaration in this case gives the appearance of having reviewed all areas of environmental concern -andihaving provided the necessary reasoned articulation of the conclusions reached with respect to each of them, the petitioner, Frank Flynn, challenges many of the statements therein. In large measure the present dispute is one between the petitioner ' s, Frank Flynn, expert, Laurence T. Penny, an environmental planner and professional environmental scientist PAGE 4 - FLYNN V. ORLOWSKI INDEX NO. 92/1763 serving as the National Resources Director for the Town of East Hampton, and the expert relied upon by the respondent, Board of Trustees , Bruce Anderson. It is not the Court' s function, nor is it within the Court' s competence, to determine which of the many disputed conclusions , which these two highly trained experts appear to have, may be correct. It is the Court' s role, however, to assure that the mandates of SEQRA have been complied with in a meaningful way, and that they not be satisfied in appearance only. Since the petitioner, Frank Flynn, has offered specific criticisms of the conclusions and methods employed by Bruce Anderson , — ( see Comments Concerning the Brick Cove Marina Application SEQRA Ana ysis and Determination_by__Southcld Town Board of Trustees prepare y Larry Penny,_dated_ Septemhcr 25 , 1991 ) , and in view of the istory o this matter in which the petitioner' s , Frank Flynn, opposition to the proposed project has been well-known for many years , the Court concludes that a reasoned articulation in support of a negative declaration which does not address the specific allegations of adverse environmental significance cannot be deemed sufficient . One concern of which the Court takes note involves threatened and endangered species. In his affidavit in support of the petitioner, Laurence T. Penny, has identified a number of waterfowl and waterbirds which, he asserts , use the project site as a habitat including the endangered "and/or" threatened species of osprey, piping plover, common tern and least tern. Mr . Penny further alleges that " [t ]he proposed project would have a serious deleterious effect on the value of--this- a-b-1 at for threatened endangered species identified including the other important species identified . . . above. " The Court does not find a discussion constituting a reasoned elaboration by the respondent, Zoning Board, reflecting a "hard look" at this environmental concern to be a part of the record before it. The following discussion of the Appellate Division, Third Department, in West Branch Association, Inc . v. Planning Board, Town of Ramapo , A.D.2d , 576 N.Y.S . 2d 675, 677, is relevant to the matter before the Court: In making a determination of significance, the lead agency must review the environmental assessment form, the criteria contained in 6 NYCRR 617 .11 and any other supporting information to i en i y the relevant areas of environmental concern ( see, 6 NYCRR 617 .6 [g ] [ 21 [ ii ] ) . In pertinent part , 6 NYCRR 617 . 11 a vi es a es e. criteria are considered indicators of significant effects on the environment. *** 2) *** substantial adverse effects on a threatened or endangered species of animal or plant, or the habitat of such a species" . Additionally, "SEQRA insures that agency decision-makers - enlightened by public comment PAGE 5 - FLYNN V. ORLOWSKI INDEX NO. 92/1763 where appropriate - will identify and focus attention on any environmental impact of [a ] proposed action" (Matter of Jackson v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp. , 67 N.Y.2d 400, 414-415 , 503 N.Y.S.2d 298 , 494 N.E.2d 429 ) . Thus, in West Branch Association , Inc. v. Planning Board, Town of Ramapo, supra, where the record was devoid of any evidence that the lead agency had taken a hard look at one of the areas of environmental concern, identified threatened and endangered plants at the project site, the Court was constrained to remand the matter to the lead agency for further proceedings . In the environmental assessment supporting the negative declaration there is a discussion of osprey in which it is concluded that no nests are included in the project site, and that " [ n ]o impacts to the nesting and foraging needs of the osprey are expected to occur as a result of the project as proposed. " It does not appear, however, that the respondent, Zoning Board, considered the other endangered or threatened species mentioned by Laurence T. Penny, the piping plover, common tern and least tern. As in West Branch Association, Inc . v. Planning Board, Town of Ramapo, supra , therefore, this matter must be remanded for further proceedings . If the dispute between experts were the only issue, the respondent , Planning Board, might be able to establish that a negative declaration was proper by merely offering a reasoned articulation in support of the conclusion that Laurence T. Penny was incorrect in his many assertions that Bruce Anderson acted inadequately in his methods and erred in his conclusions. , The Court concludes, however, that in this circumstance that remedy will nct suffice because the preparation of an environmental impact statement is required. The environmental assessment reflects the conclusion that collectively (1 ) the temporary or permanent placement of drainage soil ; ( 2 ) the construction of a washdown platform and associated drainage; ( 3 ) landscaping, and ( 4 ) the relocation of an existing septic system could have a potentially large environmental impact absent mitigation. In Holmes v. Brookhaven Town Planning Board, ( 137 A.D. 2d 601 , 603 ) , the Appellate Division, Second Department, stated: The Environmental Conservation Law mandates that an EIS be prepared where there is to be any proposed action that "may have a significant effect on the environment" (ECL 8-0109[ 2 ] [emphasis added ] ) . Because the operative word triggering the requirement of an EIS is "may" , " 'there is a relatively low threshold for impact statements '" (H.O.M.E.S . v New York State Urban Dev. Corp. , 69 AD2d 222, 232) . Inasmuch as the DEP, as the lead agency, initially determined that the proposed project constituted a Type 1 action with a possibly significant impact upon the environment, an EIS should have been prepared. PAGE 6 - FLYNN V. ORLOWSKI INDEX NO. 92/1763 (See also New York Archeological Council v. Town Board of the Town of Coxsackie, 177 A.D.2d 923 , 924 , ( "As the instant project was determined by the Town Board, to be a Type I action with two possibly significant impacts upon the environment, the preparation of an EIS is required. " ) Similarly, an environmental impact statement is required in this instance as well . In addition, the petitioner, Frank Flynn, has argued that the respondent, Planning Board, also improperly issued a de facto conditioned negative declaration. In this regard the Court agrees . Considering a similar situation in Shawangunk Mountain Environmental Association v. Planning Board of the Town of Gardiner , supra , 276-277 , the Court stated: Respondent' s determination was , at best, equivalent to a conditioned negative declaration, a dispositional option only permitted under the regulations for unlisted actions , not Type I actions such as this ( see, 6 NYCRR 617 .2[h] ) . Although the negative declaration states that the mitigations respondent found sufficient to eliminate all environmental effects were "proposed by the applicant and made part of the filed application" , it is abundantly evident from the record that the mitigating measures proposed were concessions extracted from Petone by respondent and its consultant as necessary prerequisites to the issuance of the negative declaration. Indeed, as late as the September 20 , 1988 meeting of' respondent , Petone' s attorney was requesting the members "to make a consensus in regard to the mitigations referred to in the Town Planners memorandum" which ultimately formed the basis of the negative declaration, and then a vote was taken. Thus , it can hardly be disputed that the mitigating measures were in fact conditions precedent to the negative declaration, fashioned in the first instance by respondent' s planning consultant. The negative declaration in the present case similarly imposes conditions which are in the nature of conditions precedent to the issuance of a negative declaration. Examples of such imposed conditions are apparent with regard to impact on water (e .g . "the applicant has been required and has agreed to install a pumpout facility to service all boats from Brick Cove Marina as well as to serve all boats which come to Brick Cove Marina" ; ,"the applicant has been required to maintain a log of pumpout usage for enforcement purposes" ) . With respect to the alleged violation of section 280-a of the Town Law and section 100-235 of the Southold Town Code the Court C PAGE 7 - FLYNN V. ORLOWSKI INDEX NO. 92/1763 agrees with the contentions of the respondents that the arguments should be rejected as premature. Nevertheless, in vk6w of the circumstances considered herein the Court is constrained to direct that an environmental impact statement is required. (See Shawangunk Mountain Environmental Association v. Planninq Board of the Town of Gardiner, supra. ) Settle judgment. J.S.C. D (D CL X N Appendix #2 Trustees Response to L . Penny N C+ cD (D N O O N (D fi O r -v CD �c kov e7 r _ ZguFF01�►ctc�ti {� TRUSTEES John M.Bredemeyer,DI,President c >, t SUPERVISOR Hurry P.Smith,Vice President W �`,: ,;• ,* SCOTT L. HARRIS Albert J.Krupski,Jr. John L.Bednoski,Jr. y'1lpl �`a�! Town Hall Johq B.Tuthill 53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 - Telephone(516)765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Southold,New York 11971 Fax(516)765-1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BRICK COVE MARINA RESPONSE COMMENTS OF SOUTHOLD TOWN TRUSTEES November 14, 1991 Response to report of Larry Penny, Environmental Consultant dated September 25, 1991: Page 21 Paragraph 1 - allude to material submitted to the Trustee file by Board consultant, Bruce Anderson and alleges they were not made available for review or distribution. Mr. Penny is alluding to the Environmental Assessment report of Bruce Anderson of September 24, 1991 which was reviewed by the Board IN TOTO at our September 26, 1991 public meeting, which was attended by Mr. Penny. Even if the Board were obligated to distribute this material -prior to reviewing it, it would not be an official document of this Board until approved', denied or otherwise passed on by this Board. a Page 2, Paragraph 2 - with respect to Mr. Penny's comment, "the instant file is thin and the materials hardly sufficient" seems to point to the notion that the pendency and quality of a review is directly proportional to its mass it} pounds or kilograms: The Board feels that with a thicker document the only relation that can safely be ascertained from its heavier weight would seem to be a waste of forest products and paper, hardly what we would expect would curry favor with environmentalists. I Mr. Penny, an ardent and well known biologist-naturalist then goes on to state "SEQRA anticipates that such large actions as the one proposed when placed in an estuary setting will significantly harm the environment" . SEQRA only commands that we treat an action on our type I list or in a CEA as a type I action. SEQRA requires we carefully review a LEAF and adhere to type I procedures as a lead agency, as we have done. Page 3, Paragraph 1 - Although detailed in the Bruce Anderson report of September 24, 1991, we affirm that we consider the wetland areas as set forth in LEAF Part one A.2 as accurate and representative of what is standard practice, further supported by the fact that our wetlands ordinance is principally a ' - Brick Cove Marina 2 "Vegetative Code" and that ECL Article 25 imposes no criteria on SEQRA or this Board and that underwater areas of the project site are accurately described in the submissions to the Board. Page 3, Paragraph 2 - The Trustees have reviewed the fact that the site is poorly drained and after reviewing the SEQRA analysis of Mr. Anderson, and the drainage plans for this site, ' are confident the systems planned are adequate and substantially beneficial to any proposed marina related activity. Page 3, Paragraph 3 - Mr. Penny's assertion that hunting, fishing and shellfishing opportunities will be foreclosed is entirely inaccurate and relies on conclusions purposefully drawn from misleading information he presents. He alleges .water quality degradation in the entirety of Sage Basin since 1986. In fact the closure of Sage Basin to shellfishing in 1990 was based on public health protection presumptions of discharge of sewage; which are fully discussed in mr. Anderson reports as being mitigated through proper controls such as pump outs, tagging "Y" valves, etc. , Absent such mitigation as considered in this project, the basin' ill always be closed to shellfishing. Based on the ]Boards experience in these matters we expect to have all but the marina proper opened to shellfishing through our close and cooperative relationship with the shellfish control authority, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) . We have produced prior permits which have achieved this goal in the marina setting. Although Mr. Penny chooses to compare Sage Basin to Mattituck Creek he fails 'to discuss what we know from empirical testing of Mattituck Creek water by ourselves and NYSDEC and that most of the contamination there results from runoff from roads, cattle and horse farms in addition to unregulated boat and marina activity. The water at the entrance to Sage Basin was tested by NYSDEC for the last three years under "worst case" conditions of warm weather, Ebbing and/or low tide, after heavy rains so as to be indicative of the water quality inside the interior of the basin. These tests revealed that historic marina operations (and other activities) here did not transect the "in water" quality standards of the National Shellfish Sanitation Program. The marina is' clean but a potential health problem in relation to shellfish, the mitigation offered and reviewed by the Board is considered a positive and very substantial aspect of the proposal. As far as the Boards experience with hunting opportunities ( one Board member is a NYSDEC hunter safety instructor) we can safely state that there are little or no hunting opportunities to -foreclose because firearms discharge laws prevent such activity here. As far as the Boards experience with fishing F opportunities here (one Board member commercially fishes) we would expect an increase in water access to fishing grounds and possible improvements to eel and flounder on the site based on our personal experience with dredge sites in creeks such as this. Brick Cove Marina 3 Page 4, Paragraph 2 - Mr! Penny, as a well known biologist in this bio-region (which be correctly identifies as unique) , fails to even postulate what endangered or threatened species exist on our use the site. In addition to supporting the conclusions of Mr. Andersons report, two members of the Board of Trustees hold Baccalaureate degrees from major universities with significant course work in botany; are fully capable of using tools which as dichotomous plant keys and guides and have never seen any questionable species on site during the Boards numerous visits there. The Board may however wish to require an Osprey nesting platform for the site. One member of our Board is an Osprey lover who has participated in and is familiar with Osprey research having appeared in several popular films on the subject aired on National Educational Television. He feels the marina environment here will not negatively impact the Osprey should the expansion be completed. Page 4, Paragraph 3 - The Board members do not believe that ambient noise levels will increase for this site as a result of an increase of activity as§"ociated with this expansion but may wish to review whether the mArina requires engine mufflers and provides for language in leases requiring sailboat halyards to be tied-off. The closing comments of Mr. Penny continue to confuse "in-water"/actual water quality with the highly protective public health closures of shellfish lands recently enforce by the NYSDEC in their capacity as the state shellfish control authority under the National Shellfish Sanitation Program guidelines. This is akin to blighting the reputation of a person who has had a blood transfusion by claiming they have Aids without the knowledge of a blood test. The subtle difference is of course that mitigation may even eliminate potential injury to this site. We agree with Mr. Penny that we are at�the crossroads in in the Peconic Estuary's history; our Board was created 315 years ago to manage common lands in the Town specifically for the protection of common rights in underwater land waters, fish and fowl. This site, as private land with underwater land ownership, was seriously scoured as a brick factory. As a recovered estuary we believe it will be preserved substantially with the mitigations offered. Nothing we have seen in Mr. Penny's report of September 25, 1991 is deemed meritorious of a DEIS or any change in the SEQRA status of the project. Report of Larry Penny of October 17, 1991 1. Claims that the marina expansion will render the bottom unfit for shellfish grow out contradict Mr. Penny's assertion that the area is productive shellfish land in that the area was previously cut and dredged when it was a clay mine for a brick Prick Cove Marina 4 yard. In the intervening years the area has improved to what the Trustees now regard as a poor shellfishing area based their personal observation and knowledge of the area. We agree with the finding of few shellfish of Mr. Anderson and prior surveys conducted in the area. The survey of William Leverage, dated October 17, 1991 is commensurated with what we have seen in numerous visits to the site , i.e. little shellfishing goes on here. The Board is on solid ground when it states NYSDEC sampling at the entrances to this Basin is within SA water quality conditions. 2. Item two enforces and endorses Mr. Penny's report of September 25, 1991. WE DO NOT ENDORSE that report as having a factual basis. 3. The Southold Town Code Section 97-28 is believed by this Board to be the appropriate bench mark and activator for discussions under SEQRA #beady concluded by this Board. We support Mr. Andersons analysis. 4. Again we must re-iterate this Board has no obligation under ECL 25, albeit very similar to Town Code Chapter 97. In regard to minute cumulative impacts the Board has a history under its Andros Patent powers and relationship with the Town Board which will enable it to promptly act as we have in the past should some unforeseen pfoblem such as a dangerous bio-toxin like TBT be associated with this or any marina in the future in Southold. Noted for the record is our ban on 'TBT which predated state action in this area. 5. Several members of the Board regularly operate vessels greater than 25' in length and in their,experience do not anticipate any significant siltation effect to be seen with vessels operating at safe speeds in the depths proposed for this site. The U.S.C.O.E. and the N.Y.S.D.E.C. are particularly cautious in granting discharge permits when silting may be a problem in construction activities. They have already granted such permits for this site. 6. The SEQRA review of a project is not designed to be an exhaustive compendium of research. Mr. Andersons shellfish survey seems to support the experience of the Board concerning shellfish resources here. They are few and far between. The marina property is private land which we do not anticipate affecting any adjoining ,shellfish lands any more negatively than currently is the case. The basin will continue to be a viable place for fish, Crustacea and all manner of birds. Slight and relatively minor changes in animal habits in the deeper waters of a dredged basin are to be expected, such as an increase in Brick Cove Marina 5 r the frequency of use by the diving ducks; mergansers or goldeneye ducks in the Winter as they prefer depths in excess of 4 feet to dive for . food. The mitigation discussed by Mr. Anderson and encouraged by this Board of not disturbing intertidal and high marsh areas will result in little or no loss of habitat for king fishers, sandpipers, rails, herons, dabbling ducks, loons and grebes. Mr. Penny is apparently unaware of the essentially forgiving nature of the marine environment with respect to anthropogenic impacts. Since this site proposes to control all potential sewage discharges as well as control surface run off there should be no direct BOD loading of the Basin, which would be undesirable. 7. We no not feel Mr. Penny is qualified to discuss navigation or such things as drag.- The Board has reviewed the proposal with respect to Mr. Andersons environmental review and we believe that the type of docks proposed will substantially reduce frictional water losses. The experienced boaters on the Board have navigated this Ohannel with several large vessel's and have never occasioned any problem entering or leaving the Basin or marina area. We do not share Mr. Penny's interpretation of the code as to these matters. We believe substantially affecting navigation or flow of water to mean that "a prudent mariner would have to change his or her course or line of travel or would physically see a change in the tidal flow of a stream as a direct result of the proposed activity. We do not anticipate a ptoblem such as this. 8. Again we do not share Mr. Penny's interpretation of the Code as to "change the course of any channel or natural movement or flow of any waters. We believe the natural flow for this site will remain largely the same based on the large amount of vertical structure already on site which will convert to horizontal structure and the stable configuration of the inlet which was the subject of prior approvals of this Board, NYSDEC, USCOE. 9. Unequivocally, this project as proposed fully stabilizes all lateral land features. Permit conditions of NYSDEC and t USCOE setting bottom slopes and requiring preservation of existing natural vegetation are all stabilizing features. 10. We believe Mr. Penny is unqualified to speak at all to the issues of health, safety and general welfare of our citizens. The police and fire departments have already found no problem i with larger projects proposed for this site. As previously discussed, Mattituck Creek's shellfish closures are indeed much more closely related to the kind of abuse seen in Easthampton, t where Mr. Penny lives and works. The existing marina on site is p prick Cove Marina 6 t viewed by this Board as a credible steward of the estuary by virtue of the independent water analysis of the NYSDEC which has shown no marina related problems to date. . Although long term- impacts might be considered substantial if reviewing a de novo application for a 138 boat marina where no history of operations exists, there is nothing that this Board has encountered in reviewing this and prior lengthy DEIS/FEIS reports for larger projects proposed for the site which would alarm us at all in such areas as traffic and safety. Should other uses be considered which are not traditional for this site, then this argument would bear serious consideration by this Board and possibly others. Mr. . Penny's final comments are not generally note worthy as they are unsupported opinions. This Board is however of their own opinion that this site is unusual in being derived from a seriously impacted historic clay mining center and not at all similar to our native creeks and underwater lands. As such, we do not believe a modest expansion at Brick Cove Marina (no matter how it is tallied) inn be compared with or be a precedent for the public lands under our control which remain as the largely undredged, fully vegetated, broad alluvial, wind, rain and tidally drive •estuaries not unlike the time this Board was created over 315 years ago. We believe the new National Shellfish Sanitation Program guidelines are a call to action and are a valuable threshold to embrace for this historic Board. We fail to appreciate Mr. Penny's apparent attempt to confuse them, especially knowing he is'a well respected environmental official of another Eastern bong Island Town, a former resident and employee of Southold. r y Letter of Christopher Kelley of October 16, 1991 Page 2, Paragraph 3 - The Trustees do not believe there has been any short sitedness in discussing the groundwater issues '- surrounding this site. We stand by the LEAF and Mr. Anderson's report. r Page 2, Paragraph 4 - The activities already surrounding the • marina and neighboring homes are expected to have had a prior effect on the migratory birds in this cove. We stand by Mr. + Anderson's report. Page 2, Paragraph 5 - The Trustees are fully aware of this cove as a shellfish producing area. It can only be reopened to shellfish with the cooperation of this marina through the pending permit process or through blanket legislation which appears unlikely at this time. Page 2, Paragraph 6 - We do not contend to know why boats in large numbers will appear beautiful to one person and ugly to Brick Cove Marina 7 another. Our review is under the Towns wetland ordinance and this ordinance has little to do with the aesthetics of an existing marina site. • Page 2, Paragraph 7 - The Trustees agree with all reports to date which concur with their own observations that traffic is not a problem for this site. Page 2, Paragraph 8 - We stand by Mr. Andersons report with respect to small to moderate impacts on circulation, biological Productivity and ecology of Sage Basin. Page 2, Paragraph 9 - Discharge of sewage to subsurface disposal systems greater than 75' from waters edge are substantially beyond the jurisdiction of this Board. This Board has directed the Bay Constable and made investigations and complaints to the county Health Dept. and- NYSDEC to effect compliance over failing subsurface sewage .systems at other marinas in Southold, but has never had a complaint on this facility. We regularly include permit language to.9ffect compliance and enforcement. We do not appreciate that this concern is important. From our experience marina operators stun very visible operations and are usually very cooperative in maintaining their sanitary facilities. Page 3 - In response to Mr. Kelley's conclusions; this Board does not see anything in his letter which points to any failing on our part to honestly embrace SEQRA. We can assure him, that the Board would not entertain any discussion on the alternative of placement of dock$ on the bayside of this property in any environmental report, even if court mandated. The notion is on face value beyond comprehension. Southold Bay in this area is well known for its finfish and shellfish populations which should be left alone save for monitoring and harvesting. Our experience with Bay sited docks leads us to believe they are more prone to severe storm and Winter damage and will likely result in the need for continuing dredge operations over time. The Board of Trustees and conservation council of Southold are usually very cautious over projects and have required many impact statements for activities in Southold. Our experience and review to date for this site further support our position that a DEIS is not necessary here. There is consensus on our Board that the emotional and legal barrage of Mr. Kelley's clients is damaging our appreciation of SEQRA as a valuable tool to protect the environment. We believe our obligations to the people of Southold have been met in this process despite the negative cloud surrounding one of his clients. The Chairman of this Board does not believe the upset and disruption one of MR. Kelley's clients caused the clerk to the Board concerning photocopies last year, was ever met with a sincere apology. Such behavior is no less polluting the human and social environment of a small Town than an unforeseen impact on its Brick Cove Marina 8 physical environment. The Board believes it has made no serious omissions this time around. a m n. x w APPENDIX #3 PERMITS m Southold Town Trustees 3 Southold Town Planning Board NYS DEC NY Coastal Zoning Management US Corp. of Engineers HENRY P. SMITH, President 11N M. RREDEMEYER, ViwPros. Ln TE _ULUP J.GOUBEAUD p • IiM)/iarlNi ALBERT KRUPSKI.JR. 1 F.LLEN M. L.ARSEN BOARD OF TORN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOL.D Towp,Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Soutliold, New York 11971 December 21. 1987 r Mr. Merle Wiggin Peconic Associates, Inc. One Bootleg Alley Greenport, New York 11944 Re: _Application No. 574 Deur Mr. Wiggin: The following resolution was adopted by the Board of Town Trustees during their regular meeting held on December 17. 1987 regarding the application for Youngs Marina, No. 574 as follows: WHEREAS. Peconic Associates. Inc. on behalf of Youngs Marina applied to the Southold Town Trustees for a permit under the provisions of the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold. application dated August 24. 1987, and WHEREAS said application was referred to the Southold Town . Conservation Advisory Council for their findings and recommendations. and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Town Trustees with respect to said application on October 29, 1987 at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard, and WHEREAS. the Board members have personally viewed and are " familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area. and WHEREAS, the Board has considered all the testimony and documentation submitted Concerning this application, and ; . WHEREAS, the Board ,has determined that the project as proposed will t not affect =he health. safety and general welfare of the people of 1 the town. NOW. THEREFORE; BE IT RESOLVED that Peconic Associates on behalf of Youngs Marina BE AND HEREBY ARE GRANTED PERMISSION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE WETLAND ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Enlarge and rebuild marina for 138 boats to include 4 main docks and 9 finger piers ,and approximately 2900 cu. yds. of dredging. Property is located on Sale Road, Southold. This approval is subject to they following provisions: •' r -Page 20 Pf conic Associates on behalf of Youngs Marina i. The number of boqts is limited to 138. A pump out facility will be designed by the Trustees. Upon feceipt of said plan, a pump out facility is to be installed within 90 days of receipt of said plan. and will meet the criteria established by the Board of Trustees for said facility. 1. There is to be no construction within 15 feet of the plot line as requested to insure navigational safety. 3. The lift well will have a wash down area for the containment of run off. This is to be installed within 90 days of receipt of a plan from the Trustees for same. 4. There is to be no sale of TBT. S. Signs for the wash down area will be prominently displayed along with tho r directions for use of the wash down area. 6. Signs for' the pump out facility will be prominently displayed along with the directions for same. 7. Navigational signs will be prominently displayed as to regulating the speed to S mules sn hour or less. This permit will expire on December 17. 1989 if work has not commenced by said date. There are two inspections required and the Trustees are to be notified upon the completion of the work. Prior to the issuance of said permit by the Clerk, the applicant shall file with the Clerk a certificate that he has public liability insurance policies insuring against any liability which may arise in the performance of the operations pursuant to such permit in such amount as shall be fixed by the Trustees, which said policies shall name the Town as a name insured. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. Vote of Board: Ayes: Trustees. Smith. Bredemeyer, Krupski, Goubeaud -Ahstainr.L14a'r_s##W PLEASE RETURN TO THE BUILDING DEPT. FOR A DETERMINATION ON THE NEED OF ANY OTHER TOWN •PERMIT THAT MAY BE REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT. , Please remit $10.00 inspection fee at this time. ` Very truly yours, Isw Henry P. Smith, President Board of Town Trustees HPS:ip cc: Commissioner Thomas C. Jorling, D.E.C. , Albany a 'Pag4'%3 Peconie Associates on behalf of Youngs Marina , t Robert A. Greene. D.E.C. . Stony Brook Stephen Mars, Army Corps of Engineers Thomas Hart, Coastal Management John Holsapfel. Chairman, Southold Town C.A.C. Victor Lessard. Admin. , Building Dept. Planning Board Board of Appeals Trustees file Y (a I l i 1 •r ' sq - 1 � w STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE ALSAW.N.Y. 12221.0001 GAIL S.SHA"" IQCRETAM OF NATE March 170 1988 Mr. Merlon E. Wiggins Ph.D.s M-2- Presidents Peoonic Associates, Inc. Engineering i Planning Consultants One Bootleg Alley P. 0. Bos 672 Greenport, •Z 11944 Be: F-87-614 O.S. Aroy Corps of Engineers/New York District - Permit Application d87-1377-L2 (Boward Zehner) Dear Mr. Piggin: The Department of State has completed its evaluation of your Federal Consistency Assessment Fora and certification that the above proposed permit activity oomplies with Now York State's approved Coastal Management Programs and will be oonduoted 1n a scanner oonsistent with this program. Purevant to 15 CFR Section 930.630 and based upon the project information submittedg the Department of State concurs with your consistency certification. This ooncurrenoe is without prejudice too and does not obviate the need to obtain all other applicable licenses, permits, and approvals required under existing State statutes. The O.S. Army Corps of Engineers L being notified of this decision by oopy of this letter. Sinoerely, C4 AA-V--e *k'1 4 George R. Stafford Director j r ` Division of Coastal Resources i Yaterfront Revitalisation ORS:IJC:ps so: COEImy District - Steren Mars 3 s � . o � Town Hall, 53095 Main Road 0 P.O. Box 1179 Q Southold, New York 11971 1 �� TELEPHONE (516)76$-1936 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 15, 1988 Mr. Howard Zehner 1670 Sage Blvd. Greenport, NY 11944 RE: Young's Marina SCTM #1000-57-1-38.3 Dear Mr. Zehner: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board on Monday, September 12, 1988. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the site plan, survey dated March 23 , 1988, for Young's Marina subject to the following conditions: The final Certificate of Occupancy will not be granted until the following have been met: 1. The drainage system has been determined to be working correctly. (During construction, should a conflict arise between the location of the existing sanitary leaching basin and the proposed drainage for drainage area #2, the drainage system must be modified in accordance with the Town Engineer's recommendations, as approved by the Planning Board. ) 2. A supplemental landscape plan has been submitted which shows a double staggered row of Hetz junipers : (-Juniperus Hetzi Glauca) planted 4 feet o.c. , and a series of clustered red cedars, between four and six feet in height, within the juniper border. The plantings are to be placed between the parking area and the surface waters of the marina and the bay. (The drainage system shall lie between the bumper logs of the parking area and these plantings.) r If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Ver ly yours, ..G�t BENNETT ORLOWSKI,JR. CHAIRMAN jt .T STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE ALBANY• N.Y. 12231-0001 GAIL S.SHAFFER SECRETARY OF STATE July 12, 1989 Mr. Merlon E. Wiggin Peconic Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 672 Greenport, NY 11944 Re: F-89-319 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/New York District - Permit Application Young's Marina Maintenance dredging (c/o Mr. Howard Zehner) Town of Southold Dear Mr. Wiggin: The Department of State has completed its evaluation of your Federal Consistency Assessment Form and certification that the above proposed permit activity complies with New York State's approved Coastal Management Program, and will be conducted in a manner consistent with this program. Pursuant to 15 CFR Section 930.63, and based upon the project information submitted, the Department of State concurs with your consistency certification. This concurrence is without prejudice to, and does not obviate the need to obtain all other applicable licenses, permits, and approvals required under existing State statutes. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is being notified of this decision by copy of this letter. Sincerely, George R. Stafford Director Division of Coastal Resources & Waterfront Revitalization GRS:ak i cc: COE/NY District - Steven Mars r ' DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY • NEW YORK DISTRICT. CORP& OF ENGINEERS JACOB K. JAVIT& FEDERAL BUILDING NEW YORK. N.Y. 10278-0090 November 1, 1989 �L•p �T7{r��04• Regulatory Branch SUBJECT: Department of the Army Permit NO. 15516 Young's Marina i P.O. Box 250 Greenport, NY 11944 Dear Si r: Enclosed is a Department of the Army permit for your work. Please display the enclosed Notice of Authorization sign at your work site. You are required to submit to this office the dates of commencement and completion of your work. Enclosed are two forms for you to use to submit the required dates. For permits authorizing construction and/or installation of pile supported or floating structures, the permittee hereby recognizes the possibility that the structure permitted herein may be subject to damage by wave wash from passing vessels. The issuance of this permit does not relieve the permittee from taking all proper steps to insure the integrity of the structure permitted herein and the safety of boats moored thereto from damage by wave wash, and the permittee shall not hold the United States liable for any such damage. Passing vessels will not be required to alter their current procedures to reduce the wake caused by their operation, which may impact the structure authorized by this permit. If for any reason, a change in your plans or construction methods is found necessary, please contact us immediately to discuss modification of your permit. Any changes must be approved before they are undertaken. Sincerely J se J. ebode ie , Re tatory Branch Enclosure ` QSac• N. V DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT Permittee_ Y_ounfs HarinaP.O. Box 2.50, Greenport, New York 11944 (516) 477-0830) Permit No. 15516 LsuingOffice NY nistrirt rorpr, of Engineers (Public Notice No. 13262-81-1373-L2) NOTE: The term "you" and its derivatives, as used in this permit, means the permittee or any future transferee. The term i "this office" refers to the appropriate district or division office of the Corps of Engineers having jurisdiction over the permitted activity or the appropriate official of that office acting under the authority of the-commanding officer. You are authorized to perform work in accordance with the terms and conditions specified below. Project Description: i Mechanically dredge, with ten years maintenance, 2900 cubic yards of material from several shoaled areas within an existing boat basin, to a depth of 6 feet below mean low water with disposal of the dredged material from initial and subsequent dredging activities at an adjacent upland area where it will be suitably retained from re-entering the waterway. Also authorized is the removal of several existing pier assemblies and their replacement with four new pier assemblies to provide for a maximum of 138 slips of various sizes. All work shall be performed in accordance with the attached drawings. Project Location: IN: Sage Basin, Shelter Island Sound AT: Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York Permit Conditions: General Conditions: 1. The time limit for completing the work authorized ends o November 1, 1992 If you find that you need more time to complete the authorized activity, submit your request for a time extension to this office for consideration at least one month before the above date is reached. Maintenance dredging and disposal activities are authorized until November 1, 1999. Z. You mpst maintain the activity authorized by this permit in good condition and in conformance with the terms and condi- pons of this permit. You are not relieved of this requirement if you abandon the permitted activity, although you may make a good faith transfer to a third party in compliance with General Condition 4 below, Should you wish to cease to maintain the authorized activity or should you desire to abandon it without a good faith transfer, you must obtain a modification of this permit from this office,which may require restoration of the area. 3. If you discover any previously unknown historic or archeological remains while accomplishing the activity authorized by this permit, you must immediately notify this office of what you have found. We will initiate the Federal and state coordina- tion required to determine if the remains warrant a recovery effort or if the site is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. ENG FORM 1721,Nov U EDITION OF SEP 82 IS OBSOLETE. (33 CFR 320.330) 1145-2-303b (Shelter Island Sound - Howard Zehner, dredge with upland disposal , 4. If you sell the property associated with this permit, you must obtain the signature of the new owner in the space provided and forward a copy of the permit to this office to validate the transfer of this authorization. 5. If a conditioned water quality certification has been issued for your project,you must comply with the conditions specified In the certification as special conditions to this permit. For your convenience, a copy of the certification is attached if it con- tains such conditions. 8. You must allow representatives from this office to inspect the authorized activity at any time deemed necessary to ensure that it Is being or has been accomplished in accordance with the terms and conditions of your permit. Special Conditions: iA� n +pn fnn+ hiiffpr Shall NP maintA4nwl he+wPpn the wa+erward P1r+pn+ of +I p mArChps and +he hpart of the slonp of the r1ree4fl4nn. th 1 Tha+ no Orprin;nn tha l l nmir r+tpri nn +hP 1 i Fe of +he mA i ntenance normit from Anri1 1 +hrniinh nr+nhpr 1. Z Further Information: 1. Congressional Authorities: You have been authorized to undertake the activity described above pursuant to: 0() Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899(33 U.S.C. 403). ( ) Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(33 U.S.C. 1344). ( ) Section 103 of the Marine Protection,Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1413). 2. Limits of this authorization. a. This permit does not obviate the need to obtain other Federal,state,or local authorizations required by law. b. This permit does not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges. 1 c. This permit does not authorize any injury to the property or rights of others. d. This permit does not authorize interference with any existing or proposed Federal project. B. Limits of Federal Liability.In issuing this permit,the Federal Government does not assume any liability for the following: a. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of other permitted or unpermitted activities or from natural causes. b. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of current or future activities undertaken by or on behalf of the United States in the public interest. c. Damages to persons, property, or to other permitted or unpermitted activities or structures caused by the activity authorized by this permit. d. Design or construction deficiencies associated with the permitted work. 2 e. Damage claims associated with any future modification,suspension,or revocation of this permit. 4. Reliance on Applicant's Data: The determination of this office that issuance of this permit is not contrary to the public interest was made in reliance on the information you provided. b. Reevaluation of Permit Decision. This office may reevaluate its decision on this permit at any time the circumstances warrant. Circumstances that could require a reevaluation include, but are not limited to,the following: a. You fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit. b. The Information provided by you in support of your permit application proves to have been false, incomplete, or Inaccurate(See 4 above). C. Significant new information surfaces which this office did not consider in reaching the original public Interest decision. Such a reevaluation may result in a determination that it is appropriate to use the suspension, modification, and revocation i procedures contained in 33 CFR 325.7 or enforcement procedures such as those contained in 33 CFR 826.4 and 826.6. The referenced enforcement procedures provide for the issuance of an administrative order requiring you to comply with the terms and conditions of your permit and for the initiation of legal action where appropriate. You will be required to pay for any corrective measures ordered by this office, and if you fail to comply with such directive, this office may in certain situations (such as those specified in 33 CFR'209.170) accomplish the corrective measures by contract or otberwise and bill you for the cost. 6. Extension&. General condition 1 establishes a time limit for the completion of the activity authorized by this permit. Unless there are circumstances requiring either a prompt completion of the authorized activity or a reevaluation of the public Interest decision, the Corps will normally give favorable consideration to a request for an extension of this time limit. Your signature below,as permittee,indicates that you accept and agree to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit. V 14JV�� 6� S�� o 01 / 9 rq (PERMITTEE) UM-140n7rM17D 6WAtFe, (DATE) This pe met effective wh e F ral official designated to act for the Secretary of the Amy,has signed below. November 1, 1989 (DISTRICT GI El$ OJ-OV it beha1� (DATE) M . ielson onel , Corps of Engineers When the structures or work authorized by this permit are still in existence at the time the property is transferred,the terms and ` conditions of this permit will continue to be binding on the new owner(s)of the property.To validate the transfer of this permit and the associated liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions,have the transferee sign and date below. (TRANSFEREE) (DATE) 3 *US oro:19e11-420-ar4 r, 1145-2-303b (Shelter Island Sound - (Young's Marina) Howard Zehner, '. hedge with upland disposal - piers, ramps, float, pilings) N - , i t 6 •' i '!�UTHO LC M Irw ` 00,• S Q7 •� o La VICINITY MAP Ea i •� o SCAL& /N FF T Q FROM 1u�fQLK i DO GN7r HA TXG A T� PROPERTY LIUf txuc� 1:m*Y4 1 4.5 ! Mew S 5 ^511.1 1n�w � ti • " 5 O 100 2W 400 FT � SCwI! : 1" • 200f1 �c•s EX/ST//YPLAN VIE-L./ PURPOSE: Ew[.A,Zjr you.vy's W,4R/,v.4 IN: %5,4jE ifs/n/ DATUM: ME•4,v •sEq tE✓Ez. AT: loorW-04 J ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: 1 ) JOSEPH ( •+7, ,eie_. XvvZ.f.0 COUNTY-,OF:.SuFfoc.r STATE: /V.JP 2) wILt,, M <1",4A1 APPLICATION BY: DEcoAlic A-izoc. 3) 30uTNOLD s y08c'_S iFJ30L., /NC• U'vE Boa TtEs A44.0 w R6e/v o0 A2 r, ov•,P i/9yy 4) h�.l�8oz✓it w .?�.�crr HEFT i OF b DATE: i-q_gg • r� 1145-2-303h (Shelter Island Sound - (Young's Marina) Howard Zehner, dredge with upland disposal - piers, ramps, float, pilings) � µow PLAN VIEW i � o i i A tx►ST1N6 OEPZ►.i - PbtIOW M6W SNowv l-)o.0 z Pf A S I W PARK'S a pQIDGCD SPOIL AQt'�' DISDO��►L ►RtA DRUMIkA PL►ywEq I FLOOD 4 �I •� M E 4►J 6044 WAZERUNE MEAN H16NM/ pQopt q-PIESE &*iy wo, o. L I T T CE PEC ow ► k SEE 140v1 Im �1 o 100 200 600 A00 2►. v �CI►LE GQ1pPEQ 1J•V. IiUTE PLA MC CooQO►N►Z ' ---- - Wi LONG IS�440 ZONE) , PURPOSE: EN(fa it ibuogy MAR/i✓/I DATUM: /V ",4,A �,. A L A�JACENT �ROPERTY-OWNERS: AT: .3oCJ7Ci(x I LAGC-E MA����- ',�ivi 2�9� COUNTY..AF:_-k) F X t STATI: -/,v/,h" 2 W/zl A"// 1,AA1 APPLICATION BY:Pt ew/c 4ssoc. f, qc �icc.� ✓��t ��✓ hE�4 SGC �/ °`'E 66C E� t �o2 T1 ��� L7 , E i 9S/5/ T2. OF l( 1�'_ 1145-2-303b (Shelter Island Sound - (Young's Marina) Howard Zehner, -dredge with upland disposal - piers, ramps, float, pilings) PIER ASSEMBLY TABLE ID. NO. MAIN PIER NO. & SZ. of FINGERS PILES G] 6' x 355' floating 12 - 41. x 24' 56 W/ 20' ramps 10 - 4' x 30' Q 6' x 200' fixed 16 - 4' x 30' 65 w/ ramps © 6' x 315' floating 10 - 4' x 30' 59 w/ 20' ramps 8 - 4' x 40' 41 6' x 240' floating 6 - 4' x 40' 41 w/ 20' ramps 5 - 4' x 30' 1 - 4' x 24' PURPOSE: ENtARff YoaVjr .s 0MRW4 IN: SAFE 13AsIN DATUM: AIX,-qN ",4 LFYEL AT: .5oonvoc A ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: COUNTY OF: STATE: 1 ) ( I►4.I.ZlF APPLICATION BY: PE�oNiC �I130C. 2) Wittii4� K/ci�/�/ oNE 130o 7-4 Ef ��c EY 3)3ocJTNoc D .?r,�oREs �fssoc ., /4/c. REEi✓PoRT, ^/./.-, /i 9 yy 4) NlI RBoR ✓I e w Re,4t Ty SHEET,ZAOF (o DATE:,,/,44/ SI 1988 1145-2-303b (Shelter Island Sound - (Young's Marina) Howard Zehner, .dredge with upland disposal - piers, ramps, float, pilings) W p.'TEVZ 4 tLEC'MC. LNJES pk iS TIAZA MMU Pock$ M4 1"cis TO M► i VA DOCK -t 40FT MS11,1 FL0kT1►.1Q DOCK Mp.X 7 T; 2AFT.90FT CQ 40FT FlUUIL POCK e SEE ab%TE fa Lok,*4 LL, f RA.MV d 2t( B vLcKIMG 10 a II 9 ' O Q 4x4 POETS. C• pER FIMGtR FLOhT 5P%LE i4DOCK R11.Ua A►T 5P1 LE FI I!dtT?- nocKs --f(TXP.) P L p. N - F I NGE2 F LO AZ .140 sCkLE 25-SOFT &-1&# _8. 4X4 ? cc 1A, ZPI'LC'b PD cel 2x8 VEGK pOC1C dTT Stll12 STRII� um ( RING I '0�tk 11 S�tKaO, 'I M LW TOP Suter 'Lx a umtT fa.L�- MOUMP TO P120- b 2x4Px9=o`I_ SOT- ' TECT 3Tvko"AM 3T`{RO, LOG dbuwT, 0 4FT LOyS `9 (I� p,IQ t,,cca FL01►'T�G 3-2X CoX4=0"LG �u� • FtIJGER S?YRo. 1.00 'TOP I I UNE 2.4"x 20.►x 1 O'-O" 'SUPPORTS PF.Q I I 'STYROFOAM 5 1.04 _ EU LEVA.'T10VJ ' 1 SECTIOQ 1N2.0 F LO AT 3 44 to tRT I.IOTE: a w000 ►s GcPk, ZYPICA�6 VO CI, M ki►4 FLO►.ZIMG t VL0167%LIG 1=1WGER OOS H M E 'S WE CO 1.15T Rk1 cT l ow TEc R W k G)U Vb; M AI&A 0CGK3 59M. i-S GF7 W IM,$ FWOUZ5 4 F T W1DE' VAh,,%u pOcK LA K-% lb L„p OUT �T`(R1�FOAM LOG F1uGERS 2. I.LL 00C-K &bTRucTUM* FASZE►1tD *414TH Ile# G KLV. L A vcL%1'--G[ 5QL.T-% 110 I ..,eOSE: : w, �,, y YUuNys M�1k'iN.q IN: �`fI v�'ViN DATUM: AT:. SOu7f �D AQJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: COUNTY OF:--s&4FF4LK STATE: /%/I. 1 , • '-E -, '/ '``~" /\/V/2A APPLICATION BYIAEccA11(c- /i-'-X�• 2 W le t 1AM A i Z if1A/ 0A1,F 43co t -- f 4� A" . I - � , - .ter .vl ti/ i/yy�/ ,� fi OATS: io iy 7 . .• •1145-2-303b (Shelter Island Sound - (Young's Marina) Howard Zehner, -dredge with upland disposal - piers, ramps, float, pilings) No�z: FIXED DOck # 2NMPS w000 Is CCS , 4 FT X30' FLoe.Tln1a FINGE2 9T2UCTua►L FksTemik4cl5 tS I/z"#CA M.4. P)OLT1. 2�ca L2AMP pECK j` p) 2x0 DECK6 I-IIQGE 5P1 LE O A I FIXC-D POCK AQ IStillI 0 to r ZDiia P L � � • coP►►.E'� (TYP •- 2xb n6CK'G 3rcg 31GGS 3*a Lay 11up, 11.1�L SUDD�QT(3 F F? RAMP W►TH � G TOC MU0*LtMt (Ab LSC LOW —4- 2-Sxd CQo,)S I I I ( of ►ot 1.11 O V.ikLJ SuDDotm t_J 6j Q 1 Ir-l r-1 rl 0 ► Z is 4 5 10 Ll Lj LJ ff"Iwila f-Vb 1 ION A-p, f N D S 1 EYN S C►,Lt PURPOSE:4 YOUNys MAkirq lE cs�'siN DATUM: /�i� -,�,. - - -, IN: �► Yc . �JAT: 56uTf/cc l> ACENT PROPERTY OMNERS. COUNTY OF,.*,-14 ,rale STATE:,^ 2 w,« ����.� ,` , _ APPLICATION0A1BY:�EcO^/ici1ESSGY. SG(J TJ`!GL J ,•S- j/�t .� /9.�►SOc /N� 1. C NdPoRT i�,q.E a_,: Vrt-w /ZE.gL Th o OF 4 ORIF.: �0•/- e7 • , 1145-2-303b (Shelter Island Sound - (Young's Marina) Howard Zehner, ` . dredge with upland disposal - piers, ramps, float, pilings) n'irP) cc A. :O �� lb 4. v I f�1cl.D ?0-O"jZ AMP W�►��c wAY i �xb i I MLW U14 b�.TIOW TY P 1 C AL Q A�/1P E�.�YL�T�01�1 . e�� e U [�LAW�7 'tp F �&63t1.1G S>OC S PURPOSE: evz,4-efE yow✓s.s ,�R,,vv IN: .S,4jr ,&q,.siN DATUM: &IE,41✓ .SES [E✓EL AT• .5oo7w c D ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: COUNTY OF:SoFL'oe,< STATE: 1 ) APPLICATION BY: Orco.✓/c �/3•sOc. 2) ave ,BooTct j* ,Qz4ee 3) 3ou7r✓o c J -swo zFz A.s_soc., /.vc. y,QFEi✓1b27- Al Y /,,,qV 4) Nrf�?l3o,Z✓/E►,✓ �?Eil� Ty. SHEET JA OF ro DATE:.O,_,f_gg 1145-2-303b (Shelter Island Sound - (Young's Marina) Howard Zehner, dredge with upland disposal - piers, ramps, float, pilings) • I�PLANO L1M1T WETLANDS ♦ 10 of CitEOC,INC� . . F►1t EDD C WETL^NDS' VPLANO L1MIZ Q�� Qf DttpC,l NG"j Ex�'ST�►.1G - � MLWp GTZADE 1 .F•�1.16j.SZ-- CLAY QCs —' mom _ r (40 D 2EDGED f►QEA EXIST 1"G U iu0IST1.1RbE0 TO up I-hModb P IZO F I L, E "T IRU FIXED 0 OCtiG- 0 5 W 20WczMW:::: 40 40 o io SECT1CW A-A NQQ 1ZOIJTI►L o5 1015to V ERT C AL PURPOSE: sNls�,r� I s�ovn/;s �9A.�'i�✓.4 �. IN: 5��� LAS/�✓ DATUM: NJ; .I, - : V�L AT• ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: COUNTY OF:.S'vFF o� STATE: IVR 1140 LSr t'-1 � ,*4/k•.' A/V 1.2A,( 2 Wa i M ^ is �.•��✓ APPLICATION BY:AiFcao /C XSSQC, 3 .Sou 7�U,c G iw.Pr s ,4z-SOC, INC. �'1�� Tc E �!t c E r 4 i/fl�.'L�Uh'N�E h/ :PE�9cTY r n I-V //9VV QEK S'=24-B . 1:45-2-303b (Shelter Island Sound - (Young's Marina) Howard Zehner, dredge with upland disposal - piers, ramps, float. pilings) W FLOAT/NS• DOCK EL 0.00 1 � 20' 40' FCGAT irvN41,CR FLOAT MLH/ O �E—OLD F/I(E DOCA LOCATION EX/ST/NCS' sRADE �—FLOATING DOCK :P/L C5 (-)/O fj ao 0 HORIZONTAL 0 VERTICAL PROF/LE THRU FLOATIM DOCK SECTION 5-8 PURPOSE: _ / . -! ; > . J ��ilh iN,q �. s/�✓ DATUM: �� IN: fly - AQJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: AT: 5 our fic�c v 1 COUNTY OF: ��f-cu/t' STATE: /✓Y. 2 ., ,. . 1,4 A -, APPLICATION BY: �r��✓��A,S,So�. 3 *)C,_ 7i/: . i,ie f �':.;,c /ti's• c,,✓r l3oOre e',' f A�'r tnif�j /eT� ^/� /iyy5/ /-/ Ac's�� r' SkET &OF (o DATE: /o iy 6 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Region 1 Headquarters SUNY, Building 40, Stony Brook, NY 11794 ( 516) 751-7900 Thomas C. Joding Commissioner Nov. 8, 1989 Young's Boatyard and Marina (Howard H. Zehner) P.O.Box 250, Sage Blvd. Greenport, N.Y. 11944 i Re: permit No. 10-87-1618 Dear Mr. Zehner: In conformance with the requirements of the State Uniform Procedures Act (Article 70, ECL) and its implementing regulations ( 6NYCRR, Part 621 ) we are enclosing your permit . Please read all conditions carefully. If you are unable to comply with any con- ditions, please contact us at the above address. Also enclosed is a permit sign which is to be conspicuously posted at the project site and protected from the weather . Very truly yours, Robert N. Thurber RNT:rw Sr. Environmental Analyst enclosure i 95-2ub(31841-2W NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMINTAL CONSERVATION DEC PLRMIT NUMBER EFFECTIVE DATt 10-87-1618 C Nov 8 . 1989 FACILITY/PROGRAM NUMBIR(s) PERMIT EXPIRATION DATL(s) Z/A Under the Environmental Conservation Law May 31, 1994 Article Aquatic Pesticides tides 27 N Water Quality 8. Article 25: 3 8Certification Tidal Wetlands Article 15, Tifle 5: Article 17, Titles 7, 8. Article 27, Title 7; 6NYCRR 360: Protection of Water SPOES Solid Waste Management' Article 15, Title 15: Article 19. Article 27, Title 9, 6NYCRR 373: Water Supply Air Pollution Control' Hazardous Waste Management Article 15, Title 15: Article 23, Title 27: Article 34: Water Transport Mined Land Reclamation Coastal Erosion Management Article 15, Title 15: Article 24: Article 36: Long Island Wells Freshwater Wetlands Floodplain Management Article 15, Title 27: N—New, R—Renewal, M—Modification, Articles 1, 3, 17, 19, 27. 37; Wild, Scenic and Recreational C—Construct ('only), 0—Operate ('only) 6NYCRR 380: Radiation Control Rivers PERMIT ISSUED 10 Young's .Boatyard & Marina (Howard H. Zehner) ADDRESS Of PERMITTEE P.O.Box 250, Sage Blvd. , Greenport, NY 11944 AGENT FOR PERMITTEE/CONTACT PERSONTEIFPH()NI NIIMIIIR Peconic Assoc. ,P.O.Box 672-One Bootleg Alley, Greenport, NY 11944 NAME AND ADDRESS OF PROJECT/FACILITY(If different from Permittee) Sage's Basin, 1370 Sage Rd. LgCATION OF PROJECT/FACILITY COUNTY TOWNJCN*?i:6YA'tN UTM COURUINAII! areenport Suffolk Southold ESCRIPTION OF AUTHORIZED ACTIVITY Part I: At basin entrance, construct a 45' extension to existing bulkhead and dredge 20' x 200' area in entrance channel to 6' below ace spoil on upland an ward of bulkhead. Part II: Reconstruct and expand marina from 91 slips to 138 slips: construct ramps and catwalks. Dredge 2900t cubic yards material from shoal areas within marina to 6' below mean low water and place resultant spoil on upland portions of the site, AlLI work o be in accordance with attached plans stamped approved by NYSDEC. GENERAL CONDITIONS By acceptance of this permit,the permittee agrees that the permit is contingent upon strict compli- ance with the ECL,all applicable regulations and the conditions specified herein or attached hereto. 1 The permittee shall file in the office of the appropriate regional permit administrator or other office designated in the special conditions,a notice of intention to commence work at least 48 hours in advance of the time of commencement and shall also notify him/her promptly in writing of the completion of the work 2 The permitted work shall be subject to inspection by an authorized representative of the Department of Environmental Conservation which may order the work suspended it the public interest so requires pursuant to ECL 17141301 and SAPA§401(3) 3 The permittee has accepted expressly,by the execution of the application,the full legal responsibility for all damages,direct or indirect,of whatever nature and by whomever suffered,arising out of the project described herein and has agreed to indemnify and save harmless the State from suits,actions,damages and costs of every name and descrip tion resulting from the said project 4 The Department reserves the right to modify, suspend or revoke this permit at any time after due notice,and, it requested, hold a hearing when a) the scope of the project is exceeded or a violation of any condition of the permit or provisions of the ECL and pertinent regulations are found, or b) the permit was obtained by misrepresentation or failure to disclose relevent facts,or c) newly discovered information or significant physical changes are discovered since the permit was issued 5 To maintain a valid permit, the permittee must submit a renewal application. including any forms, fees or supplemental information, which may be required bf the Department. at least 30 days prior to the expiration date of the existing permit(180 days prior for State pollution discharge elimination system permits(SPDE S). Solid waste management facilities permits(SWMF), or Hazardous waste management facilities permits(HWMF)) b This permit shall not tw consttued as conveying to the applicant any right to trespass upon the lands or interfere with the riparian rights of others in order to perform the permitted work or as authorizing the impairment of any rights title or interest in real or personal property held or vested in a person not a party to the permit 7 The permittee is responsible for obtaining any other permits,approvals, lands. easements and rights-ot-way which may be required for this project N Issuance of this permit by the Department does not,unless expressly provided for modify supersede or rescind an order on consent or determination by the Commissioner isued heretofore bl the Department or any of the terms,conditions or requirements contained in such order or determ"I' ,ns modification of this permit grant by the De anm nt must be in writing and attached hereto KWULATORY ALLlAIRB Ril IUM PERMIT I OV.�iD1989 PERMIT A MINIS RATOR ADDRESS grArl: UNIVERSITY OF NEW Christine J. Costo oulos x II -iiiijis Page 1 of 4 AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE • •`'v"'l 95-20ba(1/86)—;sc ADDITIONAL GENERAL CONDITIONS Fft ARTICLES 15(Title 5124, 25, 34, 36 and 6 NYCRR Part 608 ( ) 10 That if future operations by the State of New York require an al- other environmentally deleterious materials stow weed with the teration in the position of the structure or work herein authorized,or project. if, in the opinion of the Department of Environmental Conservation 14 Any material dredged in the prosecution of the work herein permitted it shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of said shall be removed evenly,without leaving-large refuse piles,ridges across waters or flood flows or endanger the health, safety or welfare of the bed of a waterway or floodplain or deep holes that may have a the people of the State, or cause loss or destruction of the natural tendency to cause damage to navigable channels or to the banks of resources of the State,the owner may be ordered by the Department to a waterway remove or alter the structural work,obstructions,or hazards caused 15 There shall be no unreasonable interference with navigation by the work thereby without expense to the State,and if, upon the expiration or herein authorized. revocation of this permit, the structure, fill, excavation, or other 16 If upon the expiration or revocation of this permit,the project hereby modification of the watercourse hereby authorized shall not be com- authorized has not been completed,the applicant shall,without expense pleted, the owners, shall, without expense to the State, and to such to the State,and to such extent and in such time and manner as the extent and in such time and manner as the Department of Environmental Department of Environmental Conservation may require,remove all or Conservation may require,remove all or any portion of the uncompleted any portion of the uncompleted structure or fill and restore the site structure or fill and restore to its former condition the navigable to its former condition. No claim shall be made against the State of and flood capacity of the watercourse.No claim shall be made against New York on account of any such removal or alteration. the State of New York on account of any such removal or alteration. 17 If granted under Article 36, this permit does not signify in any way 11 That the State of New York shall in no case be liable for any damage that the project will be free from flooding. or injury to the structure or work herein authorized which may be caused 18 If granted under 6 NYCRR Part 608, the NYS Department of Environ- by or result from future operations undertaken by the State for the mental Conservation hereby certifies that the subject project will not conservation or improvement of navigation,or for other purposes,and contravene effluent limitations or other limitations or standards under I no claim or right to compensation shall accrue from any such damage. Sections 301, 302, 303, 306 and 307 of the Clean Water Act of 1977 12 Granting of this permit does not relieve the applicant of the responsi- (PL 9S-217)provided that all of the conditions listed herein are met. bility of obtaining any other permission, consent or approval from 19 All activities authorized by this permit must be in strict conformance the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,U.S.Coast Guard,New York State with the approved plans submitted by the applicant or his agent as part Office of General Services or local government which may be required. of the permit application. 13 All necessary precautions shall be taken to preclude contamination Peconic Assoc. of any wetland or waterway by suspended solids, sediments, fuels, Such a proved tans were prepared by date 3/3 788-marina expansion and 12/1-5/88 solvents,lubricants,epoxy coatings,paints,concrete,leachate or any ng Part I: SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1. Bulkhead extension must be completed before dredging the channel and backfilling. 2. Rocks existing at the washout area must be relocated along the seaward side of the bulkhead after it is installed. C3� Dredging must be a minimum of 20' from the bulkhead to avoid undermining and collapse of this structure. 4. There is to be no disturbance to tidal wetlands vegetation near the washout area. 5. Spoil must be placed behind the bulkhead or adjacent to the south side of the berm on the peninsula. Part II: 1. All dredged material shall be disposed on an upland site and be suitably retained so as to not reenter any water body or tidal wetland area. 2. Prior to the dragline dredging of Section A-East, the permittee must contact the NYSDEC Bureau of Marine Habitat Protection a minimum of 5 business days beforehand. A representative of this Bureau must be present during initial stages of using a dragline to determine if impacts to the marsh will occur. If it is determined that substantial impacts will occur, the method of dredging must be changed to bucket/ clamshell. 3. No machinery is allowed to traverse the marsh at any time. 4. Filter cloth, tarp or other approved protection must be placed over wetlands areas to prevent bucket drippage of dredge material directly on marsh. 5. A silt fence must be installed and maintained along the seaward edge of the parking area before construction commences to prevent siltation of the wetlands and waterway. DEC PERMIT NUMBER 10-81-1618 PROGRAMIFACILITY NUMBER 7 95.206f(7/87)-25c NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 0 SPECIAL CONDITIONS (continued) For Articles 15 & 25 f Protection of Water & Tidal WEtlands 1 6. During the dredging operation, the permittee and his contractor shall make every effort to restrict spillage of sediment during excavation and haulage. Dredging shall be accomplished with a clam shell or other closed "bucket" equipment. 7. Excavated sediemtns shall be placed directly into the disposal site or conveyance vehicle. No sidecasting (double dipping) or temporary storage of dredge material is authorized. 8. Dredged sediments shall be contained in sealed water tight trucks. 9. There shall be no disturbance to vegetated tidal wetlands as a result of the permitted activity. 10. Dredging is specifically prohibited from June 1 through September 30 each year to protect spawning shellfish. 11. Equipment operation below mean high water is strictly prohibited. 12. Dock or timber catwalk shall not be greater than 4 feet in width and be a minimum of 3 feet above grade* over vegetated tidal wetlands (* distance is measured from ground to bottom of dock sheathing). 13. Floats and ramps may not rest on vegetated tidal wetlands. 14. No permanent structures may be built on dock without first obtaining Department approval. 15. Docks may not extend laterally beyond property lines, be placed so that docked boats extend over adjacent property line, interfere with navigation ,or interfere with other landowners riparian rights. 16. The existing septic tank and leaching system by the northernmost pier must be relocated a minimum of 100' landward of mean high water. The relocation of these facilities must be approved by the Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services. 17. Portable pumpout facilities must be installed and operational within one year of issuance of this permit. Plans and details of these facilities must be sent to NYSDEC prior to installation. 18. Signs, a minimum of 2'x3' , are to be posted at this marina with language in accordance with the attached "Sample Language for Pumpout Signage in Marinas." 19. A yearly log of usage and servicing of the pumpout facilities and holding tank is to be kept, with a copy sent to the NYSDEC Bureau of Marine Habitat Protection for each boating season ending Oct. 31st by November 30 each year. Supplementary Special Conditions (A) thru (J) attached. DEC PERMIT NUMBER 10-87-1618 --F- FACILITY ID NUMBER N/A PROGRAM NUMBER Page _3.._ of SUPPLEMENTARY SPECIAL CONDITIONS The following conditions apply to all permits: A. If any of the permit conditiois are unclear, the permittee shall con- tact the Division of Regulatoty Affairs at the addgess and telephone noted below. B. A copy of this permit with supplementary conditions and approved plans shall be available at tie project site whenever authorized work is in progress. C. The permit sign enclosed with the permit or a copy of letter of approval shall be protected from the weather and posted in a con- spicuous location at the work site until completion of authorized work . D. At least 48 hours prior to commencement of the project, the permittee shall complete and return the top portion of the enclosed receipt form certifying that he is fully aware of and understands all provisions and conditions of this permit . Within one week of completion of the permitted work, the bottom portion of that form shall also be com- pleted and returned. E. For projects involving activities to be accomplished over a period of more than one year, the permittee shall notify the Regional Permit Administrator in writing at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of resumption of work each year . F. If project design modifications take place after permit issuance, the permittee shall submit the appropriate plan changes for approval 6y the Regional Permit Administrator prior to undertaking any such modi- fications. The permittee is advised that substantial modification may require submission of a new application for permit . G. All necessary precautions shall be taken to preclude contamination of any wetlands or waterway by suspended solids, sediment, fuels, solvents, lubricants, epoxy coatings, paints, concrete, leachate or any other environmentally deleterious materials associated with the project work. H. Any failure to comply precisely with all of the terms and conditions of this permit, unlp^- violation of the F I . The permittee i be required f* District, 2F Functions ' J . The gra respor appr S� a� . rn '4 to a M S r DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY �''�irtp; NEW YORK DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS JACOB K. JAVITS FEDERAL BUILDING NEW YORK. N.Y. 10278-0090 Jnr to •TTWON OFJAN 11 1590 Regulatory Branch SUBJECT: Permit No. 15516A Young's Marina c/o Mr. Merlon Wiggin, Ph.D. , M.E. Peconic Associates Environmental Planners and Consultants P.O. Box 672 Greenport , New York 11944 Dear Gentlemen: In accordance with the provisions of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 ( 33 USC 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344) you were issued Department of the Army Permit No. 15516 by the District Engineer on October 6 , 1989. This permit authorized you to reconfigure and expand your mooring facility located in Sage Basin, Shelter Island Sound at Southold, Suffolk County, New York. The above permit is hereby specifically modified to include dredging, with ten years maintenance, of 100 cubic yards of material from the Sage Basin entrance. The material will be disposed of west of the basin entrance behind a retaining wall measuring 45 feet in length, where it will be suitably retained from reentering the waterway. This letter and enclosed drawing are to be attached to the original permit to reflect this modification. The original conditions to which the authorized work was made shall remain in effect. incerely f0 and In chaff 0 R 1ph .M. 169nielson Colonel , Corps of Engineers District Engineer Enclosure i - SOUTIAOL Col., PROD-CT r ULKNEAO- N �• LAT. 11'1' 46'yA ' MHW MLW ;o I 2v -SO-TT OK 'F 1� 0QL0tyE CI•NAN-fE A OUT FIOLO DAY i Y. SEo?IOt �=DrzEDz,-o CNANN� SCALE: I• .�o' VICINITY MAP w gpgT = BASIN FLOOD so .:s o .40 1. PROPOSED NEW blJLKFIEAD SCALE IM MIL-ILS L.NGTH 4S�(N07 TO SCALE) M AQINA " FRoM: N05c _r,ARr ►��Q 3,,3 BE ASSS i0 A4 4, 4 (�jppT (A .2 r �� y., .: E_PRiSEI✓E t' YOVNS 8 RO 7 'v T , AVATION ,0o CU.YDS. 1f.L TO CIF .• DQEDCIGD -To C, FT GELOW 0 Jr`IO^On �p 'ate O� PR�REDHANNEL '.L.W. MAZERIAL TO CSE 1 Cj Cy PLACED IN JLTTY Crr_Mv7 5 ORES NL O �9 "'• '3v�KFIEAO �Z ?ALKCILL. D1ZeDiINC, TO 3E 3Y DRAS - �' •M.H.W. • RF LINE CrZANE FTCrM JETTY. EXIST. STEL L 5OU T H OL D BAY PL AIV IDO 50 too 200 3'o 5CALE IN FEET (1" = 100' I " CCA Ln M.H.W. TIE +JLS 3/1'. O.D. oN GCA 4'-0" CENTERS �TaI =R •V KL �rI.ET ST=_=L. N' :'A. C'A F:4T dQ i 20• !: oc. byp) Ul0 v SEeTION A-A Or TO SCALD f PURPOSE: EXTENv S&L Ae*elD � Eos W4 NCE IN; sA�E OA.S�iV I DATUM: ME�►N 3'E�1""LF✓EC. AT: .5ou7✓/ocD 1A JACENT PRoPER�TY OWNEROeF-S .14S / COUNTY OF: 3u-cFocK STATE: NY. I. APPLICATION BY: PEcoAllc 145soc. . r7/VE s3oo7-CE9 /gGCCI� JZEE.V PoQT, Al Y /.2// 8 / • 9-/5as - o��FFo��r�oG TRUSTEES T SCOTT L. HARRIS A Bredemeyer, III, President M � Supervisor Henry P Smith, Vice President �vl Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Albert J. Krupski, Jr. P.O. Box 1179 John L. Bednoski, Jr. John B. Tuthill Southold, New York 11971 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1892 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Telephone (516) 765-1800 February 14 1990 Merlon Wiggin Peconic associates One Bootleg Alley Greenport, NY 11944 RE: Youngs Marina maintenance dredging Dear Mr. Wiggin: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Board of Trustees on Thursday, January 25, 1990: WHEREAS, the maintenance dredging was approved by the Army Corp. of Engineers at 20 ' x 200 ' after thorough review; WHEREAS, the Trustees believe the current application does not encroach on the private land of others based on the map provided; WHEREAS, the tidal of lands upon which a Trustee permit is issued are a matter between the private parties should it come to a question in a future date; WHEREAS, the New York State DEC has made a cautioned review and approved the dredging project which was before it; WHEREAS, the project has met the consistency requirement of the New York State Department of State; WHEREAS, improved access will benefit many land owners in the basin; WHEREAS, the Marina in question, has been a good neighbor and a non-polluter as evidence by the satisfactory surface water quality at New York State Shellfish Station, located at the entrance to Sage Basin; WHEREAS, the project is part of the larger Youngs Marina expansion, which helps maintain access and consistent depth with the parent body of water, Peconic Bay; WHEREAS, the Original permit that was considered by the Army Corp. was pre-Town S.E.Q.R.A. implementation and; WHEREAS, this project is thusly considered grandfathered and; WHEREAS, this project is considered a minimal impact project of approximately 100 c.y. of maintenance dredging; therefore, be it RESOLVED that Southold Town Trustees approve the project with the following requirements: 1. That a final survey shall be prepared by a licensed marine surveyor to establish compliance with the project and submitted within ninety days of completion of the dredging. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Very truly yours, J2 - ohn M. Bredemeyer, III President, Board of Trustees JMB: jmt L Board Of Southold Town Trustees SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK PERMIT NO. 3882 DATE: ...1/.25/90 ISSUED TO Young's .Marina. ... ... ................. Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 615 of the Laws of the State of New York, 1893; and Chapter 404 of the Laws of the State of New York 1952; and the Southold Town Ordinance on- k titled "REGULATING AND THE PLACING OF OBSTRUCTIONS AND ON TOWN WATERS AND PUBLIC LANDS and the REMOVAL OF SAND, GRAVEL OR OTHER MATERIALS FROM LANDS UNDER TOWN WATERS;" and in accordance with the Resolution of The Board adopted at a meeting held on janu4ry..25 19 .9.0 and in consideration of the sum of $ paid by ..... ... ... of ........ .... N. Y. and subject to the Terms and Conditions listed on the reverse side hereof, of Southold Town Trustees authorizes and permits the following: V aintainence dredging with the following requirements: `? That a final surveyor to establish compliance with the project and submitted within ninety days of completion Ilk dredgi In accorTagce with the detailed specifications as presented in the originating application. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The said Board of Trustees hiere- by causes its Corporate Seal to be affixed, and these presents to be subscribed by a majority of the said Board as of this date. t C= ............ J Ln r w4W' 4 f 0150KW Me? r I W TERMS and CONDITIONS The Permittee Yrningc Marina raiding at 1670 Sage Blvd. . Green!nrt N. Y., as part of the consideration for the issuance of the Permit does understand and prescribe to the fol. lowing: L That the said Board of Trustees and the Town of Southold are released from any and alt damages, or claims for damages, of suits arising directly or indirectly as a result of any oiler. ation performed pursuant to this permit, and the said Permittee will, at his or her own expense, defend any and all such suits initiated by third parties, and the said Permittee ■ssumas full liability with respect thereto, to the complete exclusion of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold 2. That this Permit is valid for a period of 24 mos. which is considered to be the estimated time required to complete the work involved, but should circumstances warrant, request for an extension may be made to the Board at a later date. 3. That this Permit should be retained indefinitely, or as long as the said Permittee wishes to maintain the structure or project involved, to provide evidence to anyone concerned that auth- orization was originally obtained d. 7bat the work involved will be subject to the inspection and approval of the Board at its agents, and non-compliance with the provisions of the originating application, may be cause for revocation of this Permit by resolution of the said Board. S. That there will be no unreasonable interference with navigation as a result of the wort herein authorized. 6. That there shall be no interference with the right of the public to pass and repass along the beach between high and low water marks. 7. That if future operations of the Town of Southold require the removal and/or alterations in the location of the work herein authorized, or if, in the opinion of the Board of Trustees, the work shall cause unreasonable obstruction to free navigation, the said Permittee will be requited, upon due notice, to remove or alter this work or project herein stated without expenses to the Town of Southold. S. That the said Board will be notified by the Permittee of the completion of the work auto. orized. 9. That the Permittee will obtain all other permits and consents that may be required sup• plemental to this permit which may be subject to revoke upon failure to obtain same. y f Nit TRUSTEES �': 'z SCOTT L. HARRIS `. ,rw r4. amdemeyer. 1u. President �+p� �► O� Supervise "cary P. Smith. Vice President '�1 �`a Albert J. Krupski. Jr. Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Bon 1179 Jolty L. Bednoski, Jr. Sixitho , New York John B. TutWil BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Faxl(S 6) 765-1823971 Telephone (516) 765-1892 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Telephoae (516) 765-1800 February 8, 1990 Merlon Wiggin Peconic Associates One Bootleg Alley Greenport, NY 11944 f RE: Youngs Marina Expansion Project , PC72n1r/AoP'-1c.rnt'J ao. 97T 6CT- slStosl Dear' Mr. Wiggin: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Board of Trustees on Thursday, January 25, 1990. WHEREAS, the Trustee Board and members participated in numerous meetings with concerned citizens, government agencies and issued a Negative Declaration after thorough review and; WHEREAS, the Trustee members are familiar with this project and) WHEREAS, this project was approved pre-County CEA designation and; WHEREAS, no County Agency is currently involved in this project approval; WHEREAS, the project will improve environmental conditions in . the basin by installing intercepting drains to restrict surface runoff into the basin and; WHEREAS, an existing sanitary leaching pool will be located away from the basin and sanitary facilities will be installed for vessel's at the Marina and; WHEREAS, special woods and materials are to be employed, which will not, contain. CCA derivative products, arsenic and copper and; WHEREAS, a polyethylene float system will be employed which will help maintain circulation in the basin; therefore, be it v • RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Trustees extend, for one year, the project known as the Youngs Marina expansion proje9t, which was previously approved by the Board. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this pf f ice. Very truly yours, John M. Bredemeyer, III President, Board of Trustees JMB:jmt F t Mir TRUSTEES mo . L ren SCOTT L. HARRIS � M. Bradeeyer. II1. President ��-•'r�_ •s�'` Supervisor Henry P. Smith, Vice President Albert J. Krupski;Jr. I `'� Town Hall, 53095 Main Road John L. Bednoski, Jr. P.O. Box 1179 John B. Tuthill Sou BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Fax( 5 6) 765-1923971 Telephone (516) 765-1892 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Telephone (516) 765-1800 February 8, 1990 Merlon Wiggin Peconic Associates One Bootleg Alley Greenport, NY 11944 ' RE: Youngs Marina maintenance dredging , F6AnsT/APPLtc47noN No. 3"2- Dear 582Dear Mr. Wiggin: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Board of Trustees on Thursday, January 25, 1990: WHEREAS, the maintenance dredging was approved by the Army Corp. of Engineers at 20' x 200' after thorough review; WHEREAS, the Trustees believe the current application does not encroach on the private land of others based on the map provided; .4c WHEREAS, the tib of lands upon which a Trustee permit is issued are a matter between the private parties should it come to a question in a future date; WHEREAS, the New York State DEC has made a cautioned review and approved the dredging project which was before it; WHEREAS, the project has met the consistency requirement of the New York State Department of State; WHEREAS, improved access will benefit many land owners in the basin; WHEREAS, the Marina in question, has been a good neighbor and a non-polluter as evidence by the satisfactory surface water quality at New York State Shellfish Station, located at the entrance to Sage Basin; WHEREAS, the project is part of the larger Youngs Marina expansion, which helps maintain access and consistent depth with the parent body of water, Peconic Bay; WHEREAS, the Original permit that was considered by the Army Corp. was pre-Town S.E.Q.R.A. implementation and; WHEREAS, this project is thusly considered grandfathered and; WHEREAS, this project is considered a minimal impact project of approximately 100 c.y. of maintenance dredging; therefore, be it RESOLVED that Southold Town Trustees approve the project with the following requirements: 1. That a final survey shall be prepared by a licensed marine surveyor to establish compliance with the project and submitted within ninety days of completion of the dredging. r Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Very truly yours, _- J� 6Fo-hn�n M. Bredemeyer, III President, Board of Trustees JAB:jmt i o��5UfF0(,(cOG TRUSTEES yA John M.Bredemeyer,III,President SUPERVISOR Henry P. Smith,Vice President C#* i = SCOTT L.HARRIS Albert J.Krupski,Jr. John L.Bednoski,Jr. y'�>�l ,���� Town Hall John B.Tuthill 53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Telephone(516)765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Southold,New York 11971 Fax(516)765-1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD November 15, 1991 Merlon Wiggin Peconic Associates One Bootleg Alley P.O. Box 672 RE: Brick Cove Marina SCTM #1000-57-1-38.3 PEA"I-r/APOc-idea Po. 39S9 Dear Mr. Wiggin: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Board of Trustees on November 14, 1991 at their regular meeting; Whereas, the Trustees have concluded SEQRA in this action on September 26, 1991 having completed our second and thorough SEQRA process for this site; Whereas, the Board of Trustees as an operating entity was created over 315 years ago to help manage the Towns common natural resources; Whereas, the Town Board has chosen this Board to steward ita wetlands ordinance for the people; Whereas, the Board of Trustees has reviewed the instant ptu` onal in light of the standards set forth in the wetlands ordinatroui Whereas, this Board has considered all relevant comments rained in this application process including but not limited to: complete application process, SEQRA process, (including Environmental Assessment) , comments on the LEAF and SEQRA process, wetlands ordinance, public hearing and meeting discussions; Whereas, the Board of Trustees policy of visiting sites of proposed project led to atleast 5 on site- visits by the entire Board to this location; Therefore be it RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Trustees approve the wetlands permit in the matter of the '.Brick 1Cove Marina 2 application of BRICK COVE MARINA by Peconic Associates on behalf of Southold Bay Associates, map dated as amended September 18, 1991, with the following permit conditions: i 1. The temporary stockpiling of spoil resulting from dredging shall be limited to the "Temporary Spoil Disposal and Dewatering Location" as designated on the survey prepared by Peconic Surveyors, P.C. , last amended September 18, 1991. 2. Lateral movement of spoil shall be controlled by the placement of haybales placed end to end and firmly staked into place along the boundaries of the "Temporary spoil disposal and dewatering location" as designated on the survey prepared by Peconic Surveyors, P.C. , last amended September 18, 1991. Haybales shall remain in place until spoil is removed. 3. All power washing of boat bottoms shall be limited to the washdown platform as depicted on the survey prepared by Peconic Surveyors P.C. , last amended September 18, 1991. 4. The overflow of the catchment provided as part of the washdown platform shall be properly plumbed with."T' s" directed to the stormwater control improvements along the western shore front of the parcel. 5. Haybales shall be placed end to end and firmly staked with two stakes into place along the western shore front of the parcel adjacent to Sage Basin at the onset of stormwater control improvements are in place and soils on the upland portion of the site are suitably stable. 6. All proposed landscaping within 75 feet of mean high water shall be of species native to Long Island as to preclude the necessity of fertilizer and biocide application. 7. The marina shall continue to provide clean restrooms available 24 hours a day for the use of the marina patrons. 8. A boat pumpout facility shall be installed and maintained for the collection of boat wastes for the use of all boaters docked at Brick Cove Marina and vessels coming to same. The marina may charge a fee for the use of the pumpout as to cover its costs of purchase and operation. 9. All boats docked at the marina having fixed installu4l toilets shall also be equipped with holding tanks which permit the collection and pumpout of boater waste. 10. All seacocks of sanitary system "Y" valves shall be in closed position and sealed by means of suitable tag with serial number. 11. Logs shall be maintained of use of the pumpout facility and shall indicate for each boat having been servicodi ', Brick,Cove Marina 3 the date of pumpout; the name of the employee servicing pumpout; the vessel registration number; the volume of pumpout; and serial number of "Y" valve seal tag. 12. Logs shall be made available to the Trustees, Bay Constables and any federal, state or local public health, environmental or building code enforcement official requesting same on any unanounced inspection. 13 . The applicant shall erect signs promoting the use of the pumpout facility as per DEC permit condition. 14. Collected boat waste shall be disposed at the scavenger treatment plant at Greenport, or other scavenger wastes treatment plant, or in the relocated septic system on situ. '1,11ti marina shall maintain records including receipts from treatxgirit plants if appropriate, or date and volume of pumpout if dispuwu41 in an on-site septic system. 15. The marina shall install an osprey nesting platform at a mutually agreed location of Mr. Bruce Anderson,, consultant to the Board. 16. Specific language in the leases of prospective marina patrons shall include provisions to control engine noise with mufflers and secure all loose halyards with proper tie offs or face loss of marina privileges. 17. Docks proposed as the innovative floating design shall be maintained with the same functional attributes as described in the literature submitted to the file. 18. All other governmental permit conditions shall be adhered to. 19. All operations subject this permit shall be concluded in one continuous action of as short a duration as possible without endangering personnel, these permit conditions or the general environment, excepting that an operating pumpout station must be in service by April 15, 1992 on site and all "Y" valve/toilet restrictions/toilet signage and toilet sealing activities of marina patron boat heads must commence immediately. 20. The Trustee office shall be notified within 5 days of completion of DREDGE ACTIVITIES. i 21. A survey by a licensed surveyor or engineer shall xl►„w the completed dredge area depths at not more than 1 ' (ono fool ) increments of elevation as soundings in 20 locations throughout the dredged area. Said survey shall be submitted within 90 days of the completion of dredge activities. 22. The marina shall perform concurrent water quality monitoring of Sage Basin with grab samples collected at minimum Brick Cove Marina 4 water once monthly from April thru October by an approved public or private laboratory for total and fecal coliforms according to the National Shellfish Sanitation Program guidelines and the appropriate testing methods recognized by the state shellfisl► control authority (NYSDEC) . at minimum, said samples shall be taken on ebbing/low tide and have accompanying data sheets denoting time of sampling, location, tidal cycle and weatt►o[ list the previous 24 and 48 hours and any other information consistent with NYSDEC shellfish regulations. Samples stall be collected at the following locations: One at the inlet entrance. One within the confines of the marina but greater than 50' from shore. One at a written designated location of Bruce Anderson Environmental Consultant, which may be changed annually. One at the entrance to the bulkheaded canal at Southold Shores. One at a written designated location within the project area by Larry Penny, Environmental consultant, which may be changed annually. Should Mr. Penny not elect a site an additional site of Mr. Anderson's choice shall be sampled. 23 . Once annually in the fall of the year the surficial bottom sediments underlying the sites described in condition number 23 shall be sampled and tested by a certified laboratory according to EPA/Standard Methods for the minimum of the following heavy metals sometimes associated with marina operations: Copper, Zinc, Nickel, Lead, Cadmium, Mercury, Tin, Chrome. 23a. The Board will review all test results after the first year and may elect to continue the sampling program. l 24. The Trustees may, upon the finding of any Natiot►al Estuary Program final report which identifies: limiting nutrient(s) , trace element(s) , a chemical or biological process(s) directly associated with marina activities as causing or contributing to the Brown Tide (Anorexia anophagefferens) or other positively identified undesirable marine organisms, cause a hearing to be held pursuant to Chapter 97 at which time additional environmental mitigation shall be considered for the site including but not limited to requiring increased water quality monitoring, environmental controls and absent any alternative, control method reduction in the size and number of vessels to a lower limit of 95 (the number which was established by the prior certificate of occupancy) . 25. There shall not be more than 138 boats on the site exclusive of prams or dinghies or unmotorized row boats. • Brick' Cove Marina 5 26. A copy of the water quality data and pumpout log ehAli be provided to the Trustees at the end of the boating season during the calendar year in which it is collected. 27. - No additional costs associated with setting up the water quality monitoring program for this site shall accrue to the Town. 28. Only "non-toxic" Anti-freeze shall be used on site. 29. Inspections pursuant to Chapter 97 and this permit shall be performed by the Board or Bay Constable upon 24-48 hours notice for: a. Installation of haybale and dredge spoil retentive features (2 inspections) . i b. supervision of dredge operations ( 5 inspections) . C. Installation of parking lot drainage prior to clum1Iiu up construction ( 1 inspection) . d. Inspection of operating pumpout facility for fiiml year ( 2 inspections, one unscheduled) . E. Inspection of all signage and boat lease additions ( I inspection) . F. Inspection of removal of old sanitary system ( 1 inspection) . g. Final dredge and dock installation inspection ( 1 inspection) . NOTE: Wherein more than one activity may be inspected or reviewed in .a single visit, the applicant may request in writing a return of any remaining fees upon the 'complotiun of the project. Total fees for 13 inspections at $35.00 per inspection = $455.00 30. The Board at its discretion may annually charge the operation for one inspection at the prevailing inspectional fee rate in order to offset ongoing expenses to the Town in monitoring the pumpout compliance and sampling requirements of this permit. 31. A copy of these permit conditions will be posted on site. i Vote of the Board: All Ayes. , Brick' Cove Marina 6 If you have any questions or problems, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Very truly yours, 69John M. Bredemeyer, III President, Board of Trustees JMB:jmt i cc: Planning Board Building Dept. CAC Bruce Anderson NYSDEC NYSCOE SCDHS Anthony Tothill Howard Zehner Larry Penny Chris Kelley . i o�oSUFFot,��oG NNING BOARD MEMBERS H Z SCOTTL. HARRIS ocnnett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Oy� O�.F Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. a Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 November 19, 1991 Howard Zehner Brick Cove Marina 1640 Sage Boulevard P.O. Box 250 Greenport, New York 11944 Re: Site plan application for Brick Cove Marina Sage Road, Southold SCTM # 1000-57-1-38. 3 Dear Mr. Zehner: The Planning Board adopted the following resolution at its meeting on November 18, 1991. BE IT RESOLVED That the Planning Board confirm and acknowledge for the record that it participated as an involved agency during the environmental review of this proposal in which the Southold Board of Town Trustees was the lead agency; and that the Board of Trustees issued a Negative Declaration on September 26, 1991, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. Therefore be it resolved that the Planning Board conditionally approves the site plan dated November 4, 1991 subject to receipt of the November 4, 1991 site plan bearing the approval stamp of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services and all conditions required by the Town Board of Trustees. If you have any questions, please call this office for assistance. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, J Chairman cc: John Bredemeyer, III , President, Board of Trustees Victor Lessard, Principal Building Inspector New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Building 40—SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11790-2356 Am ( 516) 751-1389 FAX ( 516) 751-3839 'F ��v��i�,� 2 $1 AMENDMENT TO PERMIT / Thomas C. Joriing Former Commissioner Permit ( if any) : Owner : RE: Permit No. & Location: �Q-��f—��/� STS ''�'1"'�/ 370 �r�c�2 Cove I✓16wt.��G, (4z-yts,%&e,/(� yvu 'sv4ila-►�� p, o s'� S '31'W </ /�� ��-e G D,e a r w �y �* A— Your recent request to extend the above permit has been reviewed tFrS uant to 6NYCRR, Part 621 . The expiration date is extended ` Your recent request to modify the above permit has been reviewed ursuant to 6NYCRR, Part 621 . It has been determined that the proposed modifications will not substantially change the scope of the permitted actions or the existing permit conditions . Therefore, the permit is amended to authorize: c G�Yv�• d C�-4 No 5- 1 S - ,Z P cP CS-1 a 4 GCasX //Z 7/�� �. �1�-e144.0 s'f rocv�sr�d d4l.4 or i AW, t c, Oma. Srw u.-ey sa-F,�.,, .b� cz, spa ��d v, .h,:, � nW4" o{ OC be, ScgrC-J,� h,'G, • r /� — 1, �Oafti.-�✓Jh CctCG ��:tS � r✓l"us rte t� W,0.S�,+ti'c � 5 arc.`>'ti-, Wla��r��e Sc.✓ ,au "-4e-y�. his letter is an amendment to the original permit and as such, shalt, posted at the job site. All other terms and conditions remain as written in the original permit . Very truly yours, Deputy Regional Permit Administrator cc: 6-MW r J J ?S' - ANE, peWAniZING t�.ATO,.4 ` 12,o I it %5o'% 4.5': 29 50 Cy I ( sv,-rAr3LY ee r^i NE D) C Y Of NEy' y.� ~� C.• � • .I .I TITLE BRICK -COVE MAR I NA ES . Inc . PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS LOCATION ARSHAMOMOQUE� NEW YORK i , SCALE AS SNowN REVISED 46ZULY I1141f DRAWING No. ort, N.Y. 11944 18 SEPT 1991 DRAWN BY JL13 _ I 1 1 APPROVED j �A_Pl*OVFD DA iSE14 JuN I°19 I Y .... .. j � 89 - 461 • EXCEPT IN VICINITY or LEACMIMC SA51MS SOILS ARf PREDOMIIrATELY CLAY. • P¢RR. PIPE EQUAL' TO A.D.S HI(�FIWAY WC14Hr- AGl#4T0 SPEC. CORPis'ATr-D POLycr"yLLrNE' - 901 . 4 LIVE LOAb 4 ro &00 LBS. PE'R L//VEAL N'S FORMULA) • MINIMUM PIPE cov" - /2a FOOT (MgR$TO • SASIN PIPE ENTRANCE INVERTS, To at CSTABLlSNtD IN rHC riECD ro mTr INSTALLEV SLOPE Of COLLEcr,oN TTIPEN(H PIPINq NflSCAP�N D'JSN><S WILL BE' BLUE; METtJUNIPERB (LATIIy _ JUNIPERUS HETZI gLAUCA) O SPACE: 4' O.G. AND 2' DENIND BUMPER L005 O V CLUSTERED REB CEpA►R -1Z?Ee.S ¢'To ,'(4T.P oR LITTLE L_rAF LINDEN TREES C-n w Gc 1Z DarA) 3o,O.c. E�cISTIN� EPS Pl•FaAGMirEs Cv►rtMUN15� tE of *C4, 0 INA.9 * s s i,• 7� i s D T. c �• JIF A: 11fit 'TEtir14 IA:,D C:)NV-,'i 40 :7 CV alp •k le Sri shk BRICK COVE _3C IIATIESF � • MAR �Na FORMERLY YOUNG _ MARINA t !! 1� t s A'PSHAMOMAQE, TOVM SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK Y2 er"MOOPti, h.Y. 1044 IN""° L CO., NY Z•zs•S15 M.�s «. •o0J0 �,� .. - PrRPIC prC 3' 1q•B0' , l v.t.ls•.91 ' - z7 -88 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Building 40—SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11790-2356 Am (5 16) 751- 1389 lame Thomas C. Jorting Commissioner May 6, 1992 Young's Boatyard b Marina (Howard H. Zehner) P. 0. Box 250 Sage Blvd. Greenport, NY 11944 RE: MODIFIED PERMIT #10-87-1618 Dear Permittee: In conformance with the requirements of the State Uniform Procedures Act (Article 70,ECL) and its implementing regulations (6NYCRR, Part 621) we are enclosing your permit. Please read all conditions carefully. If you are unable to comply with any conditions, please contact us at the i above address. Also enclosed is a permit sign which is to be conspicuously posted at the project site and protected from the weather. Very truly yours , -47Robert N. Thurber Sr. Environmental Analyst RNT/rw enclosure I I 9S 206110190)-2Sc NEN'YORK SIATI DEPAR7M[N1 Of ENVIRONMINTAI CONSIRVA11ON DEC PERMIT NUMBER EIFECIIVE DATE 10-87-1618 May 6, 1992 FACILITY/PROGRAM NUMBER(s) PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE Under the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) May 11, 1994 TYPE Of PERMIT(Check All Applicable Boses) ❑New ❑Renewal EJModlfication ❑Perms to Construct ❑Permit to Operate Article 15, Title 5 Article 17, Titles 7, 8 Article 27, Title 9, 6NYCRR 373 Protection of Water SPDES Hazardous Waste Management Article 15, Title 15: Article 19 Article 34: Water Supply F1 Air Pollution Control 17 Coastal Erosion Management Article 15, Title 15' � Article 23, Title 27. � Article 36 Water Transport Mined Land Reclamation Floodplain Management Article 15, Title 15 Article 24. Articles 1, 3, 17, 19, 27, 37, Long Island Wells Freshwater Wetlands 6NYCRR 380 Radiation Control Article 15, Title 27. Article 25. Other. Wild, Scenic and Recreational X Tidal Wetlands Rivers Article 27, Title 7; 6NYCRR 360 6NYCRR 608: Solid Waste Management Water Duality Certification PERMIT ISSUED TO TkLIPHONI NUMBIR Young's Boatyard 6 Marina (Howard H. Zehner) 1 ) ADDRESS Of PERMITTEE P. 0. Box 250, Sage Blvd. , Greenport , N.Y. 11944 CONTACT PERSON FOR PERMITTED WORK TE LEPHOr;[ NUMBIR Yeconic Assoc. ,P.O.Box 672,One Bootleg Alley,Greenport ,NY 11944 —T I I 4AMI AND ADDRESS OF PROJECT/FACILITY Sage's Basin, 1370 Sage Rd. LOCATION OF PROJECT/FACILITY Greenport COUNTY I 1OWN/Canxilliro" WAIERCOURSE/WEILAND NO NY1M COORDINATES Suffolk Southold E _ N. _ DESCRIPTION OF AUTHORIZED ACTIVITY Part 1: At basin entrance, construct a 4 extension to bulkhead and dredge 20' x 200' area in entrance channel to 6' below mean low water. Place spoil on upland landward of bulkhead. parr TT- Rprnnstrtirt and expand marina from 91 sli �s to 138 slips; construct new docks, ramps and catwalks.n h, below mean low waterDrege and0placebresic ultantmstoilaonfuplandportions of rom shoal within e site. Supplemental work approved by this modified permit as described in Special Condition #23 must be in accordance with attached pans stamped approved by FITSULLo. By acceptance of this permit, the permittee agrees that the permit is contingent Opon strict compliance with the ECL,all applicable regulations,the General Conditions specified(See Reverse Side)and any Special Conditions included as part of this permit. ,LRMl1 A MINI BATOR ADORLSS if��ZtsII 1 .51d'0. 4c, E D'�Y David DeRidder arbatc x,Y. >t170C_sas6 AL'1HORIZIO SICNAIURE DAII 5/6/92 10(1""e- �� — -- ----- Page 1 of GENERAL CONDITIONS Inspections 1. The permitted site or facility,including relevant records,is subject to inspection at reasonable hours and intervals by an authorized representative of the Department of Environmental Conservation(the Department) to determine whether the permittee is complying with this permit and the ECL. Such representative may order the work suspended pursuant to ECL 71-0301 and SAPA 401(3). A copy of this permit, including all referenced maps, drawings and special conditions, must be available for Inspection by the Department at all times at the project site. Failure to produce a copy of the permit upon request by a Department representative is a violation of this permit. Permit Changes and Renewals 2. The Department reserves the right to modify, suspend or revoke this permit when: a) the scope of the permitted activity is exceeded or a violation of any condition of the permit or provisions of the ECL and pertinent regulations is found; b) the permit was obtained by misrepresentation or failure to disclose relevant facts; c) new material information is discovered; or d) environmental conditions, relevant technology,or applicable law or regulation have materially changed since the permit was issued. 3. The permittee must submit a separate written application to the Department for renewal, modifica- tion or transfer of this permit.Such application must include any forms, fees or supplemental infor- mation the Department requires. Any renewal, modification or transfer granted by the Department must be in writing. 4. The permittee must submit a renewal application at least: a) 180 days before expiration of permits for State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(SPDES), Hazardous Waste Management Facilities(HWMF), major Air Pollution Control (APC)and Solid Waste Management Facilities (SWMF); and b) 30 days before expiration of all other permit types. 5. Unless expressly provided for by the Department, issuance of this permit does not modify,supersede or rescind any order or determination previously issued by the Department or any of the terms, con- ditions or requirements contained in such order or determination. Other Legal Obligations of Permittee 6. The permittee has accepted expressly, by the execution of the application,the full legal responsibili- ty for all damages, direct or indirect, of whatever nature and by whomever suffered, arising out of the project described in this permit and has agreed to indemnify and save harmless the State from suits, actions, damages and costs of every name and description resulting from this project. 7. This permit does not convey to the permittee any right to trespass upon the lands or interfere with the riparian rights of others in order to perform the permitted work nor does it authorize the impair- ment of any rights,title,or interest in real or personal property held or vested in a person not a party to the permit. 8. The permittee is responsible for obtaining any other permits, approvals, lands,easements and rights- of-way that may be required for this project. Page 2 of _7 95-204a(10190)-2Sc ADDITIONAL GENERAL CONDITIONS FOR ARTICLES 1S (Title S), 24, 2S, 34, 36 and 6 NYCRR Part 608( ) 9 That if future operations by the State of New York require an al- other environmentally deleterious materials associated with the teration in the position of the structure or work herein authorized,or project if, in the opinion of the Department of Environmental Conservation 13 Any material dredged in the prosecution of the work herein permitted it shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of said shall be removed evenly,without leaving large refuse piles,ridges across waters or flood flows or endanger the health, safety or welfare of the bed of a waterway or floodplain or deep holes that may have a the people of the State, or cause loss or destruction of the natural tendency to cause damage to navigable channels or to the banks of resources of the State,the owner may be ordered by the Department to a waterway remove or alter the structural work,obstructions,or hazards caused 14 There shall be no unreasonable interference with navigation by the work thereby without expense to the State,and if, upon the expiration or herein authorized revocation of this permit, the structure, fill, excavation, or other 15 If upon the expiration or revocation of this permit,the project hereby modification of the watercourse hereby authorized shall not be com- authorized has not been completed,the applicant shall,without expense pleted, the owners, shall, without expense to the State, and to such to the State, and to such extent and in such time and manner as the extent and in such time and manner as the Department of Environmental Department of Environmental Conservation may require,remove all or Conservation may require,remove all or any portion of the uncompleted any portion of the uncompleted structure or fill and restore the site structure or fill and restore to its former condition the navigable to its former condition No claim shall be made against the State of and flood capacity of the watercourse No claim shall be made against NeN York on account of any such removal or alteration. the State of New York on account of any such removal or alteration 16 If granted under Article 36, this permit does not signify in any way 10 That the State of New York shall in no case be liable for any damage that the project will be free from flooding or injury to the structure or work herein authorized which may be caused 17 If granted under 6 NYCRR Part 608, the NYS Department of Environ- by or result from future operations undertaken by the State for the mental Conservation hereby certifies that the subject project will not conservation or improvement of navigation,or for other purposes,and contravene effluent limitations or other limitations or standards under no claim or right to compensation shall accrue from any such damage Sections 301, 302, 303, 306 and 307 of the Clean Water Act of 1977 11 Granting of this permit does not relieve the applicant of the responsi- (P1.95.217)provided that all of the conditions listed herein are met bility of obtaining any other permission, consent or approval from 18 All activities authorized by this permit must be in strict conformance the U.5 Army Corps of Engineers,U.S Coast Guard, New York State with the approved plans submitted by the applicant or his agent as part Office of General Services or local government which may be required of the permit application 12 All necessary precautions shall be taken to preclude contamination of any wetland or waterway by suspended solids sediments, fuels, Such approved plans were prepared by solvents,lubricants,epoxy coatings,paints,concrete,leachate or any on SPECIAL CONDITIONS **APPROVED PLANS: Prepared by Peconic Assoc. dated 3/31/88 - marina expansion and 12,15/88 - entrance channel, bulkhead and dredging; and additional plans prepared by H. Zehner dated 6/25/91 last revised 9/18/92 with additional notes submitted on 4/21/92. Part I : 1. Bulkhead extension must be completed before dredging the channel and backfilling. 2. Rocks existing at the washout area must be relocated along the seaward side of the bulkhead after it is installed. 3. Dredging must be a minimum of 20 ' from the bulkhead to av,,id undermining and collapse of this structure. 4. There is to be no disturbance to tidal wetlands vegetation near the washout area. 5. Spoil must be placed behind the bulkhead or adjacent to the south side of the berm on the peninsula . Part II : , 1 . All dredged material shall be disposed on an upland site and be suitably retained so as to not reenter any water body or tidal wetland area . EC ItRMIT NUMBER PROGRAM'IACILITI Numbl Y of 9S.20-6t(7/87)-25C NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT Of ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SPECIAL CONDITIONS For Article 25 Tidal Wetlands 1 2. Prior to the dragline dredging of Section A-East, the permittee must contact the NYSDEC Bureau of Marine Habitat Protection a minimum of 5 business days beforehand. A representative of this Bureau must be present during initial stages of using a dragline to determine if impacts to the marsh will occur. If it is determined that substantial impacts will occur , the method of dredging must be changed to bucket/clamshell . 3. No machinery is allowed to traverse the marsh at any time. i 4 . Filter cloth, tarp or other approved protection must be placed over wetlands areas to prevent bucket drippage of dredge material directly on marsh . 5. A silt fence must be installed and maintained along the seaward edge of the parking area before construction commences to prevent siltation of the wetlands and waterways. 6. During the dredging operation, the permittee and his contractor shall make every effort to restrict spillage of sediment during excavation and haulage. Dredging shall be accomplished with a clam shell or other closed "bucket" equipment. 7. Excavated sediments shall be placed directly into the disposal site or conveyance vehicle. No sidecasting (double dipping) or temporary storage of dredge material is authorized . 8. Dredged sediments shall be contained in sealed water tight trucks. 9. There shall be no disturbance to vegetated tidal wetlands as ' a result of the permitted activity. 10. Dredging is specifically prohibited from June 1 through September 30 each year to protect spawning shellfish. 11 . Equipment operation below mean high water is strictly prohibited. 12. Dock or timber catwalk shall not be greater than 4 feet in width and be a minimum of 3 . 5 feet above grade* over vegetated tidal wetlands (* distance is measured from ground to bottom of dock sheathing) . 13. Floats and ramps may not rest on vegetated tidal wetlands. = - IEC PERMIT NUMBER lo-87-1618 FACILITY ID NUMbf k PROGRAM NUMB[k Pape — of 95."(7/87)-25C NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SPECIAL CONDITIONS For Article 25 Tidal Wetlands 14 . No permanent structures may be built on dock without first obtaining Department approval . 15. Dcoks may not extend laterally beyond property lines, be placed so that docked boats extend over adjacent property line, interfere with navigation or interfere with other landowners riparian rights. 16. The existing septic tank and leaching system by the northernmost pier must be relocated a minimum of 100 ' landward of mean high water. The relocation of these facilities must be approved by the Suffolk County Dept . of Health Services . 17. Portable pumpout facilities must be installed and operational within one year of issuance of this permit . Plans and details of these facilities must be sent to NYSDEC prior to installation. 18. Signs, a minimum of 2 ' x 3 ' , are to be posted at this marina with language in accordance with the attached "Sample Language for Pumpout Signage in Marinas. " 19. A yearly log of usage and servicing of the pumpout facilities and holding tank is to be kept , with a copy sent to the NYSDEC Bureau of Marine Habitat Protection for each boating season ending Oct . 31st by November 30 each year . 20. All side slopes of the dredged channel will have a maximum of 1 :3 slope . 21 . All dredging shall be conducted so as to leave a uniform bottom elevation free of mounds or holes. 22. Dredging shall be undertaken no more than once in any calendar year unless specifically authorized by the Department . 23. Supplementary work approved by this modified permit is shown in red on attached approved plans and is described as follows: (a) additional dragline slope dredging in near-shore unvegetated areas resulting in 350 cubic yards more of dredged material . (b) use of a second dredge disposal area to the east and north of existing brick house . (e) construction of six 5 'x5 ' projections on the south side of the 200 linear foot long fixed dock so that 6 of the finger piers will extend further seaward. NOTE: This additional work is subject to the other conditions in this permit . DEC IERMIT NUMBER 10-87-1618 IACILITI ID NUMBER PROCRA.' NUMBER Pape �_ 01 _� 95-2"f 17157)-2$c NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION . o SPECIAL CONDITIONS For Article 25 Tidal Wetlands 24. The permittee must submit before and after pictures of dredged areas and tidal marshes upon completion of dredging adjacent to tidal marshes. Supplementary Special Conditions (A) thru (J) attached. i DLC PERMIT NUMBER I0-87::JfiJ8 IACIL17V ID NUMBER PROGRAI' NUMBIk Parr 6 of I SUPPLEMENTARY SPECIAL CONDITIONS The following conditions apply to ail permits: � A. If any of the permit conditions are unclear , thet! con- tact the Division of Regulatory Affairs at the address andshall telephond noted below. I B. A copy of thispp permit with supplementary conditions and approved plans shall be available at the project site whenever althorized L work is in progress. C. The permit sign enclosed with the permit or a copy of litter of approval shall be protected from the weather and poste d� in a of con- spicuous location at the work site until completion of uthorized work . D.IAt least 48 hours prior to commencement of the project, the permittee shall complete and return the top portion of the enclos d receipt form certifying that he is fully awar',e of and understands al provisions and conditions of this permit . Within one week of completi6n of the permitted work, the bottom portion of that form shall a so be com- pleted and returned. E. For projects involving activities to be accomplished over a more than one year , the permittee shall notifythe Re period of Permit Administrator in writing at least 48 hours pror to thecommencement of resumption of work each year .: project design modifications -take place after permit '; issuance, the permittee shall submit the appropriate plan changes for "approval by the Regional Permit Administrator prior to undertaking any such modi- fications . The permittee is advised that substantial any may require submission of a new application for permit . ) G. All necessary precautions shall be taken to preclude colntawination of any wetlands or waterway by suspended solids, sediment , !, fuels, solvents, lubricants, epoxy coatings, paints, concrete, ,tleachate or any other environmentally deleterious materials associated with the project work . , H. Any failure to comply precisely with all of the terms and conditions of this permit , unless authorized in writing, shall be treated as a violation of the Environmental Conservation Law. I . The permittee is advised to obtain any permits or approvals be required from the U.S. Department of Army Corps ofEfigineerst NYy District, 26 Federal Plaza, New -York, NY 10278, (Attention: Regulatory Functions Branch) , prior to commencement of work authorized herein. J. The granting of this permit does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility of obtaining a grant, easement , or other necessary approval from the Division of Land Utilization, Office of General Services, Tower Building, Empire State Plaza, Albany, N 12242, which may be required for any encroachment upon State-owned 1 nds underwater . Regional Permit Administrator NYS Dept . of Environmental Conservation Bldg. 40, SUNY-Room 219 Stony Brook, NY 11790-2356 . ( 516) 751-r389 -PC # 7- 161g J '7 of i ,I 'I I t I (fairs 4 h w 'tet l TfcMPo4ARY SR�11. ASP054L ?Iyy?. _ AN01 _FCWAn Q I NCS I�VAT,04 120lx-150/1K 4.5,r Z930CY 5VITAUY RETA►NEP) t� OF ytt, �O , it-�7'{ " n PERMIT NO- PATE 5 2 ~•int �t�iloRA� t TITLE t BRICK -COVE MAR I NA i n c . PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS LOCATION ARSHAMOMOGUEo NEW YORK SCALE As SHOWN REVISED a-6?uuy Ig91 DRAWING W 1944 DRAWN 6r JLB 18 SEAT 1991 S - J APPROVED ' APPROVED DATE Z,7 89 - 461 TRUSTEES �o%ofFoc,�co SUPERVISOR ' John M. Bredemeycr, UI. Presidento�0 Gy1 SCOTT L HARRIS berl J. Krupsl'i.Jr.,Vice President Heart' P. Smith O - •* Town Hall IoM► B. Tuthill y • `� 53095 Main Road William'G. Alpertson 'tlpl �a� P.O. Box 1179 Soulhold, New York 11971 Tglcphoac (516) 765.1892 Fix (516) 765.1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES 'OWN OF SOUTHOLD June 30, 1992 Peconic Associates, Inc P.O. Box 672 Greenport, NY 11944 gS; Brick Cove Marina SCTM #1000-57-1-38.3 Dear Mr. Wiggin; The following action was taken at the Southold Town Board of Trustees May 281 1992 regular meeting; RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Trustees approve the proposed amendment to Permit #3959 allowing six (6) 5' X 5' '• finger pier extensions, and an additional 350 cubic yards dredging in accordance with the DEC Permit #10-87-1618 provided said dredging shall not commence prior to Brick Cove Marina securing a bond in the amount of $5,000.00 assuring performance to these specifications in the name of the Southold Town Trustees. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, Joliq M. Bredemeyer,, III �' President, board of Trustees JMB;jmt cc; Town Attorney = ' TRUSTEES ��SUf�G SUPERVISOR John M. Bredemeyer, 11I, President ���: i' OGy� SCOTT L. HARRIS Albert J. Krupski, Jr., Vice President Henry P. Smith n=, Town Hall John B. Tuthill y, '� �� 53095 Main Road William G. Albertson SOI : �a0 P.O. Box 1179 Telephone (516) 765-1892 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD October 26, 1992 Peconic Associates, Inc. Merlon Wiggin One Bootleg Alley P.O. Box 672 Greenport, NY 11944 RE: Brick Cove Marina Permit #3959 Dear Mr. Wiggin: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Board of Trustees on Thursday, October 22, 1992: RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board Trustees grants an amendment to permit #3959 to add the following: To dredge a recently discovered shoal area at the entrance to the Marina, approx. 550 c.y. to a depth of 6' . To add a fuel dock slip, a work .boat slip for 14' Pram, a work boat slip for boats to pull in that need repairs or servicing. The above will be all in accordance with revised plans dated August 31, 1992 and subject to incorporating the dredging into the current performance bond. Two inspections will be done. One by the Town Engineer and one by the Town Bay Constable at a charge of $35.00 per inspection to be paid by the applicant. Please note that this is an amendment to the existing permit and all other terms and conditions are still in effect. This amendment does not constitute approvals from any other agencies. A If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Very truly yours, Pohn^M. Bredemeyer, III President, Board of Trustees JMB:jmd cc: Bay Constable Town Engineer ' Town Attorney H. Zehner i STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE ALBANY. N.Y. 1223 1-0001 GAIL S.SHAFFER SECRETARY OF STATE March 3, 1993 Mr. Merlon E. Wiggin, Ph.D., M.E. President, Peconic Associates, Inc. One Bootleg Alley, P.O. Box 672 Greenport, New York 11944 I Re: F-92-598 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/New York District Permit Application #92-12660-L2 Brick Cove (Young's) Marina Village of Greenport DEC 110-87-1618 Dear Mr. Wiggin: The Department of State has completed its evaluation of your Federal Consistency Assessment Form and certification that the above proposed permit activity complies with New York State's approved Coastal Management Program, and will be conducted in a manner consistent with this program. Pursuant to 15 CFR Section 930.63, and based upon- the project information submitted, the Department of State concurs with your consistency certification. This concurrence is without prejudice to, and does not obviate the need to obtain all other applicable licenses, permits, and approvals required under existing State statutes. In order to minimize adverse water quality impacts and protect shellfish, it is recommended that no dredging be done between June 1 and September 30 of any calendar year. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is being notified of this decision by copy of this letter. ySincely, R. S X Prector Division ofstalResources GRS/mm & Waterfront Revitalization cc: COE/NY District - Sophie Ettinger DEC/Region I - Robert Greene Village of Greenport - Lorna Catus 0 gX~d on wyckd papef 1145-2-303h (Shelter Island Sound - Brick Cove Marina - Pier, Dredge with Upland Disposal ) • a►Hw PL AN V I E fin/ N ML W Jam` O PROPERTY �lSSf7BACK Q � / xjeisT. OCPTHS ' BELOW_J"1LW ,� sNo wM gA51 N D ,- - - + DREDGED Spoil- DISPOSAL ED 1 , AREA AREA SETBACK ' r•A FLG - �--� DREDCyIN�� T H[ W EL OH/ MLWA ✓ O PEZOPEfZ'TY LINE \ SHELTER ISLAND SOUND wrTLANDS AREA 200 Oo 400 Q� or'Id m 5CAL£ SYSTEM -TASLANOL ZOnJE�ANC 00 R p�NATE PURPOSE: Enlarge Young's Marina DATUM Mean Sea Level AD ACEMT PROPERTY OPHM' IMSage Basin 1 Joseph & Marie Knizak ATSouthold William Kilian COUNTY Or Suffolk STATE N.Y. 3 Southold Shores Assoc., Inc. PPLI T1o1, e1 P nic ssoc. I c. 4 Harborview Realty �nj ,,00jleg �►�4E re ngbr , lHCfT Of CATS 0 �4 $/ Rev. 9/9/92 313 Rev. 12/22/92 "D DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY c� qy, NEW YORK DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS r JACOB K. JAVITS FEDERAL BUILDING NEW YORK. N.Y. 10278-0090 star to. April 6, 1993 - A"VO M OF operations Divisi�n Regulatory Branch SUBJECT: Department of the Army Permit No. 199212660 Mr. Howard Zehner, P.E. Brick Cove Marina P.O. Box 250 - Sage Blvd. Greenport, New York 11944 Dear Mr. Zehner: Enclosed is a Department of the Army permit for your work. Please display the enclosed Notice of Authorization sign at your work site. You are required 'to submit to this offia the dates of commencement and completion of your work. Enflosed are two forms 1&,r you to use to submit the required dates. For permits authorizing construction and/or installation of pile supported or floating structures, the permittee hereby recognizes the possibility that the structure permitted herein may be subject to damage by wave wash from passing vessels. The issuance of thispermit does not relieve the permittee from taking all proper steps to insure the integrity of the structure permitted herein and the safety of boats moored thereto from damage by wave wash, and the permittee shall not hold the United States liable for any such damage. Passing vessels will not be required to alter their current procedures to reduce the, wake caused by their operation, which may impact the structure authorlivil by this permit. i If for any reason, a change in your plans or construction putliods is found necessary, please contact us immediately to discuss modification of your permit. Any changes must be approved befora that' are undertaken. CSincereyacru � ccJ!�1X� ose eebode hief, latory Branch Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT permittee Brick Cove Marina, P.O. Box 250, Sage Boulevard, Greenport, New York 11Y44 (Tel . No. : (516)477-0830) Permit No. 199212660 Issuing Office New York District, Corps of Engineers (Public Notice No. : 92-11661J.•t[) NOTE: The term "you" and its derivatives, as used in this permit, means the permittee or any future transfamis. The term "this office" refers to the appropriate district or division office of the Corps of Engineers having jurisdiction over the Permitted activity or the appropriate official of that office acting under the authority of the commanding officer. You aro authorized to perform work in accordance with the terms and conditions specified below. Project Description: Dredge a shoaled area within the previously permitted boat basin and accessway to Shelter Island Sound to a depth of 6 feet below mean low water, removing approximately 550 cubic yards of material to be disposed of on an adjacent upland property where it will be suitably retained from reentering the waterway. Add eight (8) five foot by five foot fixed pier extentions to the southern side of fixed pier assembly No, 7. Make minor changes to the previously authorized marina layout which will not resyit in an increase in the previously authorized total of 138 boat slips. All work will be performed in accordance with the attached drawings. Project Location: IN: Sage Basin, Shelter Island Sound AT: Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York Permit Conditions: i General Conditions: 1. The time limit for completing the work authorized ends on Ap ri 1 61, 1996 If you find that you need more time to complete the authorized activity, submit your request for a time extension to this office for consideration at least one month before the above date is reached. 2. You must maintain the activity authorized by this permit in good condition and in conformance with the terms and condi- tions of this permit. You are not relieved of this requirement if you abandon the permitted activity, although you may make a good faith transfer to a third party in compliance with General Condition 4 below. Should you wish to cease to maintain the authorized activity or should you desire to abandon it without a good faith transfer, you must obtain a modification of this permit from this office,which may require restoration of the area. 9. If you discover any previously unknown historic or archeological remains while accomplishing the activity authorized by Ws permit, you must immediately notify this office of what you have found. We will initiate the Federal and state coordina- 'ion required to determine if the remains warrant a recovery effort or if the site is eligible for listing in the National Register f Historic Placa. ENO FORM 1721,Nw U EDITION OF SEP 82 IS OBSOLETE. (83 CFR 825(Appendix A)) 1145-2-303b (Shelter Island Sound - Brick I ove Marina - Pier, Dredge with Upland Disposal ) 4. If you sell the property associated with this permit, you must obtain the signature of the new owner in the spare provided and forward a copy of the permit to this office to validate the transfer of this authorization. 5. If a conditioned water quality certification has been issued for your project,you must comply with the cundillww specified in the certification as special conditions to this permit. For your convenience. a copy of the certification is eltached If it gull tains such conditions. 8. You must allow representatives from this office to Inspect the authorized activity at any time deemed nersawI W eMuve that it is being or has been accomplished in accordance with the terns and conditions of your permit. Special Conditions: a. As a special condition you must adhere to the restriction outlined in th& enclosed copy of a March 3, 1993 letter from the New York State Department of State. i Further Information: 1. Congressional Authorities: You have been authorized to undertake the activity described above pursuant to. ()v Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899(33 U.S.C.403). ( ) Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(33 U.S.C. 1344). ( ) Section 108 of the Marine Protection,Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972(33 U.S.C. 1413). 2. Limits of this authorization. a. This permit does not obviate the need to obtain other Federal,state,or local authorizations required by low l b. This permit does not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges. c. This permit does not authorize any injury to the property or rights of others. d. This permit does not authorize interference with any existing or proposed Federal project. 8. Limits of Federal Liability. In issuing this permit,the Federal Government does not assume any liability for the following: L Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of other permitted or unpermitted activities or from natural causes. b. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of current or future activities undertaken by or on behalf of the United States in the public interest. c. Damages to persons, property, or to other permitted or unpermitted activities or structures caused by the activity authorized by this permit. d. Design or construction deficiencies associated with the permitted work. 2 e. Damage claims associated with any future modification,suspension,or revocation of this permit. 4. Reliance on Applicant's Data: The determination of this office that issuance of this permit is not ounlrwy iu abp puWls interest was made in reliance on the information you provided. 6. Reevaluation of Permit Decision. This office may reevaluate its decision on this permit at any time the etiswr oss" es warrant.Circumstances that could require a reevaluation include, but are not limited to,the following: a. You fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit. b. The Information provided by you in support of your permit application proves to have been false, kwomplete, or inaccurate(Bee 4 above). c. Significant new information surfaces which this office did not consider in reaching the original public interest decialon. Such a reevaluation may result in a determination that it is appropriate to use the suspension, modification, and revocation i procedures contained in 33 CFA 326.7 or enforcement procedures such as those contained in 33 CFA 326.4 and $24A The referenced enforcement procedures provide for the issuance of an administrative order requiring you to comply wilt We term" and conditions of your permit and for the initiation of legal action where appropriate. You will be required to poo for air corrective measures ordered by this office, and if you fail to comply with such directive, this office may In sertaM mlluatlone (such ss those specified in 33 CFR 209.170)accomplish the corrective measures by contract or otherwise and bw you for the cat. - 6. Extension. General condition 1 establishes a time limit for the completion of the activity authorized by this Meeh. Unless there am circumstances requiring either a prompt completion of the authorized activity or a reevaluation of the paMle Interest decision, the Corps will normally give favorable consideration to a request for an extension of this time limit Your signature below,as permittee,indicates that you accept and agree to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit. X ov- 404X A 1 19Q 3 (PERM17TEE) SDCE IvbRojootrEn& CAJOT e0V4:itAC4*-0 (DATE) BRICK COVE MARINA i Thisderal official,designated to act for the Secretary of the Army,bee 9yaed%Oiuw. pe becomes effe 'v wh the e X April 6, 1993 (D1STR1 "GIN ER) (DATE) rlor ankAn behalf Wes" Thomas A. York Colonel , Corps of Engineers When the structures or work authorized by this permit are still in existence at the time the property is transferred,the terms and conditions of this permit will continue to be binding on the new owner(s)of the property.To validate the transfer of this permit and the associated liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions,have the transferee sign and date below. (TRANSFEREE) (DATE) 3 oU S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE-1964—111125 STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE ALBANY.N.Y. 12231-0001 GAIL S.SHAFFER SECRETARY OF STATE March 3, 1993 Mr. Merlon E. Wiggin, Ph.D., M.E. President, Peconic Associates, Inc. One Bootleg Alley, P.O. Box 672 Greenport, New York 11944 Re: F-92-598 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Now Vurk District Permit Application 192-12660-L2 Brick Cove (Young's) Marina Village of Greenport DEC #r10-87-1618 Dear Mr. Wiggin: The Department of State has completed its evaluation of your Federal Consistency Assessment Form and certification that the above proposed permit activity complies with New York State's approved Coastal Management Program, and will be conducted in a manner consistent with this program. Pursuant to 15 CFR Section 930.63, and based upon the project inlurmallult submitted, the Department of State concurs with your consistency cerLlflvaltool. This concurrence is without prejudice to, and does not obviate the meed t., obtain all other applicable licenses, permits, and approvals required unjok existing State statutes. In order to minimize adverse water quality impacts and protect rhelifish, it is recommended that no dredging be done between June 1 and September 30 of any calendar year. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is being notified of this decision by copy of this letter. ygeSincely, R. Stord lector Division of oastal Resources GRS/mm & Waterfront Revitalization cc: COE/NY District - Sophie Ettinger - DEC/Region I - Robert Greene Village of Greenport - Lorna Catus t 1 o`rnred on recycled paper Jig 4f), 4 VICINITY MAP V APPLICANT: MICK COVE MARINA If SHEET I OF 3 12/22/92 3,x- off "A' w gm '25 n* 2 JS W2,at, S T I R L I N G f 7t", Life Wt. I N." r CA 4!8 0 71 _ NA, Co. 0 'A Wt. ?v Lit ID ft Kill JON CT Sit., N 0"91tOAO T 'r IMP w 14, d 9 E,N RTH TZ 0 0 .DW mv, Ir ENTER 's T P.11 D. v w pigs DE�A SOU N D4 r A FRONT El D& R E—E 0 R T Q ST 0 W'GGIN 25 J. .5hisr Sr J, 'Wk- ch- 2S LiNt ineSe 47, 6 c, 4 i UP L4*, cElf. P, Bering Pf 971 PIPES;4ii-COV F, 0/ 'a 9 -AN e ud R. CA c- Shefterlsi C2 Yf�tf 4 j4-t,' ISLA V-Ew LA NA % _k1in ,000-. -"Coh %6, nos CAW jennt L H LIUR �E ISLAND OR 1196 0 ND RO 28 4__!!E1d;4TS D I c--j czwrEgr N A n Qw)v4i, .-J6- 'Zi T= clm 1145-2-303b (Shelter Island Sound - Brick Cove Marina - Pier, Dredyu Willi Upland Disposal ) ' MHw PLANVIEW � N MLw ` PaoPtRrr t iNC _1I5"SETBACI( i , X-JCIST, pEPTHS „ A BELOW-s?"' r��S SHOWN d,3 IS SPS - - _ DREpCstt� PARK, SPo � c•���•„bp� I . AREA AREA SETBACK FL PLANNED �' -rO MLW MLW EBB MHW O PQOPERTY LINE SHELTER ISLAND SOUND 7 L. N140% Alt 9k Io p p p p 00 400 l SCALE 1VID PER N•Y STATE PI—ANE COORDINATE SYSTEM (LOA/q— ISLAND ZO/VE) PURPOSE: Enlarge Young's Marina DATUM Mean Sea Level AD AGENT PROPERTY ORNERS ',"Sage Basin I Joseph & Marie Knizak 'ATSouthold William Kilian COUNTY Or Suffolk ST,T[ N.Y. 3 Southold Shores Assoc. , Inc. PPI TIof, e, P nicNowl c. 4 Harborview Realty noo leg �rHeyrTc� 87 Rev. 9/9/92 Rev. 12/22/92 1145=2-303b (Shelter Island Sound - Brick Cove Marina - Pier, Dredge with Upland Disposal ) FAXED DOCK RAMPS NOTE: 00cw- sT R uc- F'I N E 2F5 A-f l N •ryC1 -� - lz� `Is ccs. -5T$2UCTUrZAL -FAST E I N H 1 MCS E (TYP.� -AP-E: !I/,q" 0�S C1ALV. BOLTS - — = 2 x (P eAM P DEC K '��w• x lS' L. RAMP (7-YR) IK (0 DECKINCy rL�5141 - - N C.�E SPI LE A AFI XED DOCK I 1 r _SIC_ O O O �� SOUTH COG -RAMP HINC1E (TYP) FXTENS/ON5, 10 101 l O' - - .SPILES (TYP� � ',r M �1 �lM• CoN►r�I�, 2AMP , 2.SK10CROSS I LONC� ITUD/NAL ' i SUPPORTS SuPPO.2T.(3) MUD -LILAC (AL' Z 4-1 lD' SPILE i LOW TIDE LINT-) >a- C TO C- y Y ELEVATION END VIEW NO SCALE NO SCALE PURPOSE: Enlarge Young's Marina DATUM Mean Sea Level ADJACENT PROPERTY O%NCRS I"Sage Basin Q Joseph &.Marie Knizak AT Southold 2 William Kilian O KII O:Suffolk sTATEN.Y. 3 Southold Shores Assoc. , Inc. p�e�n1 Assn. 4 Harbory i ew Realty Ie �00�5 A�Igy, 11 -N:i' SHE[ or 3 DATE REV. 9/9/92 • Rev. 12/22/92 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Building 40—SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11790-2356 (516) 444-0365 FAX (516) 444-0373 Thomas Q Jorling Commissioner July 12, 1993 Brick Cove Marina P.O. Box 250, Sage Blvd. Greenport, NY 11944 RE: 1-4738-00609/00001-0 Dear Permittee: In conformance with the requirements of the State Uniform Procedures Act (Article 70, ECL) and its implementing regulations (6NYCRR, Part 621) we are enclosing your permit. Please read all conditions carefully. If you are unable to comply with any conditions, please contact us at the above address. Also enclosed is a permit sign which is to be conspicuously posted at the project site and protected from the weather. Very truly GJ� Robert Thurber Environmental Analyst I RT/nw enclosure NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DEC PERMIT NUMBER EFFECTIVE DATE 1-4738-00609/00001-0 July 12 1993 FACILITY/PROGRAM NUMBER(S) PE I T EXPIRATION DATES) May 31, 1998 Ikder tilme Environmental Cornervation Law TYPE OF PERMIT a New 0 Renewal 0 Modification 0 Permit to Construct 0 Permit to Operate a Article 15, Title S: Protection B 6MYCRR 608: Water Duality 0 Article 27, Title 7; 6NYCRR 360: of Waters Certification Solid Waste Management 0 Article 15, Title 1S: Water 0 Article 17, Titles 7, 8: SPDES 0 Article 27, Title 9; 6NYCRR 373: Supply Hazardous Waste Management 0 Article 19: Air Pollution 0 Article 15, Title 1S: Water Control 0 Article 34: Coastal Erosion Transport Management 0 Article 23, Title 27: Mined land 0 Article 15, Title 15: Long Reclamation 0 Article 36: Floodplain Island Walls Management 0 Article 24: Freshwater Wetlands 0 Article 15, Title 27: Wild, 0 Articles 1, 3, 17, 19, 27, 37; Scenic and Recreational Rivers a Article 25: Tidal Wetlands 6NYCRR 380: Radiation Control 0 Other: PERMIT ISSUED TO TELEPHONE NUMBER Brick Cove Marine Attn: Howard Zehner (516) 477-9556 ADDRESS OF PERMITTEE P.O. Box 250, Sage Blvd., Greenport, NY 11944 CONTACT PERSON FOR PERMITTED WORK TELEPHONE NUMBER Peconic Associates One Bootleg Alley, Box 672, Greenport, NY 11944 (516) 477-0030 NAME AND ADDRESS OF PROJECT/FACILITY Brick Cove Marina Property 1670 Sage Rd. LOCATION OF PROJECT/FACILITY Southold COUNTY TOWN WATERCOURSE NYTM COORDINATES Suffolk Southold C.IiIPTI(N (F AJrFMiZE) ACTIVITY Dredge a shoal area in the entrance to Sage Basin, partly within marine promises and partly in the off-premises access charnel to 6' (maximum) below mean low water. Resultant 550 cubic yards of material wilt be place on an upland site. work to be in accordance with attached plans stamped approved by NYSDEC. By acceptance of this permit, the permittee agrees that the permit is contingent upon strict compliance with the ECL, alt applicable regulations, the General Conditions specified Case page 2) and any Special Conditions included as part of this permit. DEPUTY REGIONAL PERMIT ADMINISTRA- ADDRESS TOR: David DeRidder AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE DATE /WI P4✓ July 12, 1993 Page 1 of 5 CE1EiAL OTDITIOG Inspections 1 . The permitted site or facility, including relevant records, is subject to in- inspection at reasonable hours and intervals by an authorized representative of the Dapartment of Envirommntal Cbnservation (the Department) to determine whether the permittee is ca plying with this permit and the ECL. Such represen- tative rey order the work suspended pursuant to ECL 71-0301 and SAPA 401 (3) . copy of. this permit, including all referenced rreps, dravings and special conditions, rust be available for inspection by the Department at all times at the project site. Failure to produce a copy of the permit upon request by a Department representative is a violation of this permit . Permit Changes and Rwww l s 2. The Department reserves the right to rmd1fy, suspend or revoke this permit when: a) the scope of the permitted activity is exceeded or a violation of any condition of the permit or provisions of the ECL and pertinent regula- tions is found; b) the permit was obtained by misrepresentation or failure to disclose relevant facts; c) newrreterial information is discovered; or d) environmental conditions, relevant technology, or applicable law or regulation have reterIaIIy ganged since the permit was issued. 3. The permittee rust sub-nit a separate written application to the Department for renam 1 , m)dification or -transfer of this permit. Such application crust include any forms, fees or supplemntal information the Department requires. Any rerxw 1 , codification or transfer granted by the Department rrust be in writing. 4. The pe mnittee crust submit a renamI application at Ieast: a) 180 days before expiration of permits for State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ODES), Hazardous Wbste Ktnagemnt Facilities (WW), me j o r Air Po I I ut ion Control (APC) and Sol id Wbste Nhnagerrent Facilities (W) ; and b) 30 days before expiration of al other permit types. 5. lhless expressly provided for by the Department, issuance of this permit does not modify, supersede or rescind any order or determination previously issued by the Department or any of the terms, conditions or requirements contained in such order or determination. Other Legal Cbligat Ions of Plermittee 6. The permittee has accepted expressly, by the execution of the application, the full legal responsibility for all dareges, direct or indirect, of whatever nature and by Wi rover suffered, arising out of the project described in this permit and has agreed to indemify and save harmless the State from suits, actions, dareges and costs of every nage and description resulting fran this project. 7. This permit does not convey to the permittee any right to trespass upon the lands or interfere with the riparian rights of others in order to perform the permitted work nor does it authorize the irrpa i anent of any rights, title, or interest in real or personal property held or vested in a person not a party to the permit. B. The permittee is responsible for obtaining any other permits, approvals, lands, ease•rents and rights-of-my that rray be required for this project . Pace 2 of 5 95 2063(7192)-2Sc kDDITIONAL GENERAL CONDITIONS FOR ARTICLES 15 (Title S), 24, 25, 34 and 6 NYCRR Part 608 9 That if future operations by the State of New York require an al- other environmentally deleterious materials associated with the teration in the position of the structure or work herein authorized,or protect if, in the opinion of the Department of Environmental Conservation 13 Any material dredged in the prosecution of the work herein permitted it shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of said shall be removed evenly,without leaving large refuse piles,ridges across waters or flood flows or endanger the health, safety or welfare of the bed of a waterway or floodplain or deep holes that may have a the people of the State, or cause loss or destruction of the natural tendency to cause damage to navigable channels or to the banks of resources of the State,the owner maN be ordered by the Department to a waterway remove or alter the structural work,obstructions,or hazards caused 14 There shall be no unreasonable interference with navigation by the work thereby without expense to the State and if, upon the expiration or herein authorized revocation of this permit, the structure, fill, excavation, or other modification of the watercourse herebN authorized shall not be com- 15 if upon the expiration or revocation of this permit,the project hereby pleted, the owners, shall without expense to the State and to such authorized has not been completed,the applicant shall,without expense extent and in such time and manner as the Department of Environmental to the State, and to such extent and in such time and manner as the Conservation may require remove all or ani portion of the uncompleted Department of Environmental Conservation may require,remove all or structure or fill and restore to its former condition the navigable any portion of the uncompleted structure or fill and restore the site and flood capacity of the watercourse No claim shall be made against to its former condition No claim shall be made against the State of the State of New York on account of anN such removal or alteration New Nork on account of any such removal or alteration 10 That the State of New York shall in no case be liable for any damage 16 If granted under 6 NYCRR Part 608, the NYS Department of Environ- or injury to the structure or work herein authorized which may be caused mental Conservation hereby certifies that the subject project will not by or result from future operations undertaken by the State for the contravene effluent limitations or other limitations or standards under conservation or improvement of navigation,or for other purposes,and Sections 301, 302, 303, 306 and 307 of the Clean Water Act of 1977 no claim or right to compensation shall accrue from any such damage (PL 95-117)provided that all of the conditions listed herein are met 11 Granting of this permit does not relieve the applicant of the response- 17 All activities authorized by this permit must be in strict conformance bility of obtaining anN other permission consent or approval from with the approved plans submitted by the applicant or his agent as part the U S Army Corps of Engineers, U S Coast Guard, New York State of the permit application Office of General Services or local government which maN be required Such approved plans were prepared by 12 All necessary precautions shall be taken to preclude contamination 12/14/92 of any wetland or waterssaN by suspended solids sediments, fuels, on solvents, lubricants,epo%N coatings,paints,concrete leachate or any SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1. Prior to commencement of dredging, the permittee shall obtain landowner approval to remove sediments that are not on the permittee's property. 2. All dredged material shall be disposed on an upland site and be suitably retained so as to not reenter any water body or tidal wetland area. 3 . During the .dredging operation, the permittee and his contractor shall make every effort to restrict spillage of sediment during excavation and haulage. Dredging shall be accomplished with a clam shell or other closed "bucket" equipment. 4. Excavated sediment shall be placed directly into the disposal site or conveyance vehicle. No sidecasting (double dipping) or temporary storage of dredge material is authorized. 5. There shall be no disturbance to vegetated tidal wetlands as a result of the ,permitted activity. 6. A filter fabric curtain weighted across the botom and ,s4*4>P_;)ded onto floats shall be positioned,ta surround the work site before commencing dredging. The curtain shall remain in place while all dredging is occurring and remain in place for one hour after dredging termination. Df C PtRMII NUMB[R 1-4738-00 - PROGRAM'[ACH ITN NUmBI R Page _3__ of �_ 95.206f(12/85)-25t NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SPECIAL CONDITIONS For Article 25 f Ti Aa 1 taut I ADA- 7. The dredging authorized by this permit shall be confined to the shoal area identified on the -approved plans. No other work or work areas'are authorized. Supplementary Special Conditions (A) thru (F) attached. )EC PERMIT NUMBER E11 4738-00609/00001-0 AMlFACILITY NUMBER Page __I._ ,Of 5 SUPPLEMENTARY SPECIAL CONDITIONS The following conditions apply to all permits: A. • A• copy of this permit, including all conditions and approved plans, shall be available at the project site whenever authorized work is in progress. The permit sign enclosed with the permit shall be protected from the weather and posted in a conspicuous location at the work site until all authorized work has been completed. B. The permittee shall require that any contractor, project engineer, or other person responsible for the overall supervision of this project reads, understands, and complies with this permit and all its general, special, and supplementary special conditions. Any failure to comply precisely with all of the terms and conditions of this permit, unless authorized in writing, shall be treated as a violation of the Environmental Conservation Law. If any of the permit conditions are unclear, the permittee must contact the Division of Regulatory Affairs at the address on page one or telephone (516) 751-1389. C. If project design modifications become necessary after permit issuance, the permittee shall submit the appropriate plan changes for approval by the Regional Permit Administrator prior to undertaking any such modifications. The permittee is advised that substantial modification may require submission of a new application for permit. ). At least two days prior to commencement of the project, the permittee and contractor shall sign and return the top portion of the enclosed notification form certifying that they are fully aware of and understand all terms and conditions of this permit. Within 30 days of completion of the authorized work, the bottom portion of that form shall also be signed and returned, along with photographs of the completed work and, if required, a survey. E. For projects involving activities to be undertaken in phases over a period of more than one year, the permittee shall notify the Regional Permit Administrator in writing at least 48 hours prior to recommencing work in subsequent years. F. The granting of this permit does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility of obtaining a grant, easement, or other necessary approval from the Division of Land Utilization, Office of General Services, Tower Building, Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12242 (518) 474-2195, which may be required for any encroachment upon State-owned lands underwater. DEC Pe=-4 t No. 1- 73 9 4,060 0 9?16,0AA Page J of 9s2o-t (e�e�-9d New York State Department of Environmental Conservation vNOTICE mv v The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has issued permit(s) pursuant to the Environmental Conservation Law for work being conducted at this site. For further information regarding the nature and extent of work approved and any Departmental conditions on it, contact the Regional Permit Administrator listed below. Please refer to the permit number shown when contacting the DEC. Regional Permit Administrator Permit Number7��� x000 Expiration Date NOTE; This otic* is NOT a rwrrnit .....••,.v _� 55U c. • . Y�s.',(svizA�LY REZA►tiE.p) - 0 9 MHW _ 064 z8" 30 CDs Sob a d � I i H -CON I C BAY N T 8 D 8 C APPROVED AS PER TERMS AND CONDITIOti3 OF / PERMIT �tj_)O 7 ' Qq/�Zev�-O �, pF pt DATE �/p S �1 �JZ TjTA` 'LAN - 6EE Dk'Aw I N - I "+ �.0 • B1rI CK COvE MARi/vAl ty,lw a TITLE IC ASSOCIATES - InBRICK GovE MARINA C ■ SHOAL DREDC, INC, LOCATION cons u It a n t s ARSHAMUMOQUEl NEW YOK K AEYIiED ♦Ilex P.O. Box 672 Greenport, N.Y. 11944 SCALE !,r =, SO# D.AwNIG No S16 . 477-0030 DM T•.r KOLLEN A►I�OYED AMROVM DA I D lD Appendix #4 a SEQRA Actions X N m D D n c+ O O N PECONIC -ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEERING do PLANNING CONSULTANTS One Bootleg Alley P.O. Box 672 Greenport,New York 11944 Telephone- (5 16)47 7-0030 August 24 , 1987 ASSOCIATIrS. F41rwrathriiMown Arc'HNrc'n [;.111110 hlentui4 Southold Town Board of Trustees /:Nglnc•rIs Southold Town Hall _ R P Mei mw Main Road Wucwp 1*vgil Southold , L . I . 11Ijmwra I:,r41 New York - 11971 '/1Wiucu/u•//rul Plwuulig wcUcrl►n Adwilic Cu Re : Young ' s Marina. /�!/iu/cc'wl f'l4fUll/1K Gentlemen : Enclosed is application and drawing for the proposed enlargement and modificatio f Young ' s Marina to qWo hundred thirty-eight ( ) boat slips , and related support facilities . i Request _an informal discussion on the proposal prior to making formal application to other regulatory agencies . Also , if it is appropriate , could we be advised if the Town Trustees to -declare themselves as Lead Agency in regard to the S. E. Q.R .A. process . Sincerely , PECONIC ASSOCIATES, INC. e ion E . Wiggin 111*Mr,M. E . President Enclosure : Application 6 Copies of Proposed Site Plan . '+ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT — PART I PROJECT INFORMATION `10T:CE: This document Is lesioned to assist in determini-ig .net.`.er =* action proCosea ray have a significant sff!c: m the :nvircnment. Please coomiets t..:e entire Oau Sheet. Answom to `est luestions ft.1 be comaered U part of vie acglication for aooroval and may be subject to partner vortficstion and Public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed :o cmolete PMTS 2 and 3. is excec:ed tnat :mmoletion of t.'+e EAF will be de0andesmt an Informration currently available and fill not Involve new studies. resaam*t or investigation. if information reouirinq such jddi:ional wark 15_unava!�01e, so indicate and soe:ify tate instance. SAME -IF PQOJEC : _ U%C 1.10 SOCaESS OF NNER !(f 01 ff:rent) Youngs Marina Howard Zehner .amre P . O. Box 250_ A09Rr55 140 1A,ME OF 001 t'-MT: ��reits Greenport , N. Y. 11944 Peconic Associates P-3.#I (Staid) t.:o :lame; One Bootleg Alley 3USiMESS Pw.-#E:L,,"( 516) 477-0830 trees; Greenport , N . Y . 11952 .I fatal -ip1 OESy19'20" OF PeOJEC': (9riefly describe type of project sr action) (PL ASB C"LETr EACH CUESTiON - indicate N.A. if not toolic3al.) A. St'. :Est21PTi0`1 (PNysicri jetting of overlll project, both develocet and ;:ndevelcood areas) 1. General c:sarac:er of the land: Generaily uniforms slope X Goneraily uneven and roiling dr irregular ?resent 'and ase: Urban Industriai Cormrval . Suouroan aural . Forest Agricultur! __ ther 3. Tatsi acnide of -3roject area: 12.40acres. Aooroximate acreage: Presently .after Complation Presently After Cma lotion veidew or 3rushland jCras :tater Surface ;ria 4 1012: 4 icr:s ?ores tae aC-es dins Unvegl to ted ;Mcx, tar m or fill; acres —acrs Aqr-cuituril tcr_s ac-ls iCiC7, nildirgs 'ttl and ;---s.1wat'r or ar z, ^:.ter 2av«1 rfcai :a Ser :rpt::!s iur-im Mlis iC"S :d. ?S :r acres ^•'!" ftai^3'2 pel �al!s Wine � HTEdS a. What Is orlteminint sail Py0!(S) on 7r9;eCt i`U. i. a. Art -It—! ]edmc% 3utC-0..-oings 3n sr-jjet: a::e? !*a X X90 is deat.: 3 tedmcx? r 6. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: 0-10: S: 10-155 ; 15: or greater 7. Is project contiguous to. or contain a building or site listed on the National Register of Historic Places? _Yes X No ' 8. What is the depth to the water tablet feet variable to 65 ft. (clay). 9. Do hunting or fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? Yes (2—No 10. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered - Yes X_o, according to - Identify each species 11. Are there any unique or unusual land forma on the project site? (i.e. cliffs, dunes, other geological formations - Yes _1L No. (Describe _ 12. Is the project site presently used by the commu. ity or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area - —es -No. 13. Does the pr entosite offer or include scenic views or vistas known to be important to.the community? Yes 14. Streams within or contiguous to project area: N/A a. Name of stream and name of river to which it is tributary 15. lakes, Ponds, Wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Nairn Sage Basin ; b. Size (in acres) ± 17 acres 16. What is the dominant land use and zoning classification within a 1/4 mile radius of the project (e.g. single family residential. R-2) and the scale of development (e.g. 2 story). - residential 2-A 8. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Physical dieensions and stile of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned by project sponsor acres. b. Project acreage developed: _acres initially; acres ultimately. • c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped d. length of project, in miles: N/A (if appropriate) e. If project is an expansion of existing, indicate percent of expansion proposed: building square foo age developed acreage f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing14�_t proposed .147 _. g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour �—(upon completion of project) h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: N/A One'Fud ly Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initial --- Ultimate I. If: Orientation Neighborhood-City-Regional Estimated Employment Commercial Industrial �. Total height of tallest proposed structure N/A feet. —2— 2. Now such natural material (i.e. rock, earth. etc.) will be removed from the site - tons cubic yar 3. Now many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, grouna covers) will be reproved from site - _acres. 4. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be reproved by this project? Yes -L-140 S. Are there any plans for re-vegetation to replace that removed during construction? X Yes ____Na S. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 6 months, (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased project: a. Total number of phases anticipated _ No. - b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 month _ year (includinc demolition) c. Approximate completion date final phase month gear. d. Is phase 1 financially dependent on subsequent phases? Yes F S. Will blasting occur during constriction? =es X No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction after project is complete 5_ 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0_ 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? Yes No. If yes, explain: 12. a. Is surface or subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? X Yes No. b. If yes. indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) sewage - boat holding tanks c. If surface disposal we of stream into which effluent will be discharged 13. Will surface area of existing lakes, ponds, straws, bays or other surface waterways be increased or decreased by proposal? Yes X No. ' 14. Is project or any portion of project located in the 100 year flood plain? X Yes No 15. a. Does project involve disposal of solid waste? =es b. If yes, will an existing solid waste disposal facility be used? Yes No c. If yes, give name: ; location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? r Yes 16. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? Yes -L-40 17. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? Yes X NO 18. Will project produce operdting noise exceeding the local ambience noise levels? Yes _ No 19. Will project result in an increase in energy use? X Yes _ No. If yes, indicate type(s) 20. If water supply is from wells indicate pumping capacity N/A gals/minute. 21. Total anticipated water usage ;or day _690 gals/day. 22. Zoning: a. What is dcminant 'zoning classification of site? C-1 ig h t b. Current specific zoning classification of site C- 1 i g h t = c. Is proposed use consistent with present zoning? Y E S d. If no, indicate desired zoning -3- - . • 26. Approvals: a. Is any Federal permit rewired? X Yes NO b. Does project involve State or Federal funding or financing? Yes X No c. Local and Regional approvals: • Approval Required Submittal Approval (Yes, No) (Type) (Date) (Date) City, To+ � Village Board X City, bitn, Village Planning Board City, TgKmi-Zoning Board City, ount Health Department Other locaI agencies __ �_ • Other regional agencies State Agencies Federal Agencies x Lorp , nf .._�. ngineers C. INFORIMATIGNAL DETAILS Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with the proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which can be taken to mitigate or avoi4jhem. PREPARER'S SIGMATURE: TITLE: Ptesident REPRESENTING: Youngs Marin a DATE: August 24 , 1987 —4— MEMORANDUM f-tom. /,6,rr, � �'�y�qf SUPREME COURT, SUFFOLK COUNTY IAS PART X HENRY WEISMANN and FRANK FLYNN , BY : DANIEL F. LUCIANO, J. S. C. Petitioners , For a Judgment pursuant to Article DATED ��� 1990 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules , -against- INDEX NO. 4911/88 JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, III , President , MOTION DATE 5/5/89 HENRY P. SMITH, JOHN BEDNOSKI , JR. , CDISPSJ ALFRED KRUPSKI , constituting the f , Board of Southold Town Trustees , Respondents TWOMEY, LATHAM, SHEA & KELLEY, ESQS. JAMES A . SCHONDEBARE, ESQ. Attorneys for Petitioners Attorney for Respondents 33 West Second Street 53095 Main Road Post Office Box 398 Post Office Box 1179 Riverhead, New York 11901 Southold, New York 11971 This is an Article 78 proceeding by which the petitioners , Henry Weismann and Frank Flynn, seek to have the Court annul and set aside the issuance of a wetlands permit by the respondent, Board of Trustees , issued pursuant to Chapter 97 of the Southold Town Code to the applicant, Peconic Associates , on behalf of Young 's Boatyard and Marina (hereafter Young's Marina) . The said wetlands permit serves to further the efforts of the owners of Young 's Marina to expand that facility . The petitioners , Henry Weismann and Frank Flynn, are owners of residences separated from Young's Marina by Sage Cove, a distance of approximately 250 feet of underwater land . They contend that they will be injured by increased ollution and the destruction of wildlife habitat if t e complained of expansion of Young's Marina is Fermi e . The respondent, Board of Trustees , is the body charged with the duty of determining whether to issue wetlands permits. (Southold Town Code , section 97-20. ) , Prior to the proposed expansion of Young's Marina which is currently under review the applicant had sought approval of a plan to expand the existing marina to allow 121 boat ,61ips , an 82 unit motel , a 125 seat restaurant with parking for 238 cars and a boatyard for the maintenance and storage of boats . After extensive proceedings , •' PACE 2 - WEISMANN V. BREDEMEYER INDEX N0. 88/4911 which included environmental study and the preparation of an environmental impact statement in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) (Environmental Conservation, Law section 8-0101 et . seq . ) theprior proposal was withdrawn. The proposal which is the subject of this Article 78 Proceeding is for expansion, of the existing marina from 1 , 600 linear feet of dockage to over 3, 200 linear feet, of dockage . As expanded the facility will include four main docks and 669 finger piers . It will require dredging of approximately 2, 900 cubic yards 4f material . Nine grounds are offered as reasons for vacating the wetlands permit issued by the respondent, Board of Trustees . First, the petitioners , Henry Weismann, and Frank Flynn , contend that the respondent, Board of Trustees , acted without jurisdiction and in violation of section 97-21 of the Southold Town Code since that section requires , permit may be issued upon, an application wh�ichtincludes hat the wetlar,ds " [d)ocumentary proof that all other necessary permits and approvals have been obtained. " It is not disputed that the subject wetlands permit was issued prior to receipt of other necessary permits and approvals . ', Section 97-21 of the Southold Town Code appears to make receipt of such other necessary permits and approvals a condition which must be met prier to issuance of a wetlands '' pbcLter AAssoci a . .s v Tnw►, permit . 4~vertheless , since it a of Wehst. 59 N. Y . 2d 220 , 229 . ) L ppears that necessary permits and approvals G have now been received from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the United States Army Corp of Engineers this deficiency has been effectively cured and does riot cerve as a basis for vacating the wetlands ; permit . As a second g +� '1�--� ►iF•tlands ground for vacating the issuance of the subject permit it is contended that the respondent, Board of 1 'rrustees , which acted as the lead agency in the SEQRA review* t,o take the required "hard oak" (see, failed Town Planning RoI3 A.D rd , 1d 6()1 may, Holme v BrQn 72 N. Y . 2d 807) at relevant areas kh:�ve; sof environmental concern . Specifically under attack is the "negative declaration" if--sued by the respondent Board of Trusteeson September 25, 1987 t,hich reflected the conclusion that the pro n Of 11:,rina "will not have a significant effect onstheeenvironment, Young's ►J•�' i As noted in the decision issued herewith brought against the :'outhold Planning Board it appears that the Planning Board also d(:clared itself lead agency. This discrepancy may have cured . If 11r,t, the appropriate course is to seek a determination from the mmissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation pursuant section 8-0111 (6) . .-PAGE- 3 - WEISMANN V. BREDEMEYER INDEX NO. 88/4911 Offered as the reasons supporting the determination were : 1 . An environmental assessment form has been submitted which indicated that there would be no adverse effect to the environment should the project be implemented as planned. 2. Because there has been no response in the allotted time from the Southold Town Building Dept. and the New York State D. E. C. it is assumed that there are no objections nor comments from those agencies . The petitioners , Henry Weismann and Frank Flynn, assert that the environmental assessment form relied upon was not fully ,:ompleted and that the portions which were completed were prepared by the applicant's agent. In the petition (paragraph "19" ) it is 11eged: With unusual speed , as can be seen from the notations at the top of Exhibit "F" , the Trustees received the application at 4 : 15 p. m . on August 24th and by the end of business that day had circulated the application with the L << Purported complete EAF to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council and the New York State Department of r; `•' Environmental Conservation . A copy of the letters , advising those agencies of the application, and the notice of the application posted in Town Hall are annexed hereto as Exhibit "J" . Given the only forty-five minute time lapse from receipt of the application to referral out , it is clear that the EAF, Part II was not prepared by ; respondents . In the affidavit of Board of Trustee member and former President , Henry P. Smith , it is acknowledged that the respondent, fl�ard of Trustees, did not. prepare the environmental assessment form taut asserts that "this Board reviewed Part I and Part II and found no riec-d for changes . " As evidence that the respondent, Board of Trustees , did consider environmental issues Mr . Smith notes the r-onditions which were attached to the approval of the wetlands r,ermit. �.n.-�G►- �� ,�..-,a-�_�r cam- t�-�..w�. The listing of conditions to which the wetlands permit was ecubject , however, does not establish that the respondent, Board of Trustees , satisfied its SEQRA obligations . Before it was entitled to i .ssl`ue a negative declaration and dispense with an environmental Impact statement the respondent, Board of Trustees , was required to " identify the areas of environmental concern , take a 'hard look ' at them, and make a seasoned elaborattio of the basis for its l " �nme declaration of envi•rtntal nonsignificance . . .: +(Tehan v._ � - a � �.r ani, 97 A . D. 2d 769 , 770 , citing �O. M. E. S . v New York State Wi-L1, e(C 11-rli�n�s°ticlopmen T•n 69 A . D. 2d 222. ) The intervenors , Howard Zehner and Dorothy Zehner, have argued that the substantial and detailed examination of the earlier 'roposed , larger expansion of Young's Marina , which proposal included i restaurant and motel , clearly shows that the respondent, Board of PAGE' 4 - WEISMANN V. BREDEMEYER INDEX N0. 88/4911 Board of Trustees , acted with a full awareness of the relevant environmental concerns . The petitioners , Henry Weismann and Frank Flynn , have raised rrrrir,y issues as to which the respondent, Board of Trustees , has failed to demonstrate it has taken the requisite "hard look" , including I,ar•mful effects on finfish and shellfish as well as birds and mammals in this apparently environmentally sensitive area . As noted above, the assessment of that earlier proposal had required an examination pursuant to an environmental impact r;tatement . In view of the close scrutiny given to the prior proposal it may well be true that the respondent , Board of Trustees , was fully familiar with all relevant environmental issues when issuing the instant negative declaration . Nevertheless , the possibility or ever, the probability that an agency considered all appropriate factors in ireuing a negative declaration is not a Substitute for an articulated reasoned elaboration justifying the conclusion whic w 11 perm 1r1te lger) review . While the respondent , Board of Trustees , is not precluded from utilizing information gained in a prior _revi_ew, it mus nevertheless set-forth such information in -justifying a negative declaration . (Tehan v. S rivar supra at 771 , ( " . . . a conclusory statement , unsupported by empirical or experimental data , scientific ,uthorities or any explanatory information will not suffice as a reasoned elaboration for its determination of environmental significance or insignificance*' ) . ) Accordingly , the failure of the respondent , Board of Trustees , to demonstrate that it properly undertook an environmental =+Fr:essment of the project approved requires that the relief requested by the petition be granted . In the current circumstances , the respondent, Board of Trustees , may well be able to satisfy its SEQRA responsibilities by preparing a reasoned , written explanation which compares its _iscFssment of the current proposal , which it concludes will have no r:ignificant environmental impact, to the prior proposal which r•F•qui red an environmental impact. st�ternent .__-That is -to say, although flirt necessary "hard look" may have been taken as a result Of the prior environmental study, and the respondent, Board of Trustees , may wall be able to rely upon the knowledge accumulated by the prior rtrr(jy , it remains the obligation of the respondent, Board of TI'L)St.ees , as lead agency , to articulate the basis for its negative doc,laration . An explanation of what differences in the current proposal , aspposed to the�ripr_proposa f, ha e led to a different '�_�nclusion aso-t-6-tri en`Tf-ronmental significance , if adequately done , in-,y serve as the requisite "reasoned elaboration" of the reasons r upporting the negative cor�cluslon ---- ,.._---.._--- It should be noted that this case is distinguishable from � :_b�t�r A; sonia s v Town of Webeter, supra, in which the Court of Appeals excused the omission of a discussion of an alternative rop(?sal in 'a draft envirQnmental _impact statement .— In--that case 11(7!1'e was no indication that the environmental effects of the '•r,F)roved proposed project were not taken into account and the Court PAGE- 5 - WEISMANN V. BREDEMEYER INDEX NO. 88/4911 of Appeals was able to conclude from the history of the matter that, full consideration had been given to the alternative proposal . In this case, to accept the assertion that the respondent, Board of Trustees , gave proper consideration to the environmental issues would }ie simply to accept on faith that this had been done . This was not a failure to discuss an alternative proposal which had undoubtedly been considered . It was a failure to discuss the proposal actually approved _— - Accordingly , since the wetlands permit was issued without prior appropriate compliance with SEQRA the petitioners, Henry Weismann and Frank Flynn , are entitled , on this ground , to a judgment v:,cat.ing the wetlands permit and remanding the matter to the r•,-r_.pondent , Board of Trustees , for appropriate action . With respect to the third ground upon which this request ford, r•el.ief is based , which is the respondent, Board of Trustees , did not i. t.r;elf prepare the environmental assessment form, the Court agrees vyit;h the assertion of Board of Trustees member Henry P. Smith that " [ t )he issue is not whose hand holds the pen but whether or not the findings contained therein are the Board ' s . " A lead agency may r is-quire the applicant to prepare the environmental assessment form . ( F. F . S . Ventures Corp v Foster, 71 N . Y. 2d 359 , 372 . ) As a fourth ground for vacating the respondent's , Board of Trustees , issuance of the wetlands permit the petitioners , Henry Weismann and Frank Flynn , assert that the determination that the r•ro posed project would have no significant effect on the environment substantively erroneous . In view of the limited role of the ilidiciary to assure an agency's compliance with SEQRA and not to ► eplace the agency as the decision-maker (see Jackson v . New York 1,-:tt t?nevelopm n C�tiporatio,n , 67 N . Y . 2d 400 , 416 ) the Court ) clines to make a determination of the significance of the All, •:r,vironmental impact of the proposed project. Only after receipt of ,�r` ��E, 'Aie "reasoned elaboration" of the respondent , Board of Trustees , in -r-lil)port of its negative declaration will the Court be able to determine if the respondent identified the areas of environmental ,•concern , took a "hard look" at them, and thereupon made a decision reasonably supportable by the facts . It is for the Court to make i that determination and not for it to be the body which makes the iar -,ccessment of the environmental significance of the proposed project . ((t�W an v. Carey, 88 A. D. 2d 77 , 80 , motion for leave to avpeal Jif.,.rriissed , 57 N .Y. 2d 672 , ( "Regardless of this court's personal views vn the possible deleterious impact the proposed action might have . . . [ it is] bound by the statutes to determine whether (the r•r-spondent , Board of Trustees has) satisfied the statutory requirements of SEQRA , and not to substitute [ its] judgment for that 1,f [ the respondent, Board of Trustees] if those requirements have i },r-•rp satisfied . . . The fifth ground for relief is the assertion that the iscuance of the subject wetlands permit and the approval of the . � proposed project violated the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of "uuthold . 4 FAGE' 6 - WEISMANN V. BREDEMEYER INDEX NO. 88/4911 This argument, however, was based upon the provisions •111,plicable to a C-Light Industrial Zone . As the Court has now been Informed that the zoning of the area has been changed to an M-1 3eneral Multiple Residence Zone this argument is rejected as moot . Aoreover, questions concerning the applicability of the Zoning (Irdinance are within the province of the Board of Appeals (Southold 'fawn Code section 100-121 ; Town Law section 267( 2) . ) The sixth ground set forth in support of the petition is \ that the complained of wetlands permit was issued in violation of \ vection 280-a of the Town Law which , in subdivision 1 , provides : No permit for the erection of any building shall be issued unless a street or highway giving access to such 3 Proposed structure has been duly placed on the official map or plan , or if there be no official map or plan , �c unless such street or highway is (a) an existing state ,county or town highway, or (b) a street shown upon iY a plat approved by the planning board as provided in d sections two hundred seventy-six and two hundred seventy-seven of this article , as in effect as the time such plat was approved , or (c) a street on a plat duly .' filed and recorded in the office of the county clerk or register prior to the appointment of such planning board � L and the grant to such board of the power to approve plats . It is asserted that this section was violated because oung 's Marina "does not have any frontage on a public road or ighway or on a road on an improved plot" and that "the only access to the subject property is by a 16-foot wide right of way over 1 , 740 � r feet in length which access to the property out to New York State � Route 25 . " J The only defense to this assertion set forth by the "- r•ef,pondent , Board of Trustees , is that it is one of the petitioners ' , lir•nry Weismann and Frank Flynn , claims which are not within the Juriydiction of the respondent , Board of Trustees . The Court concludes that the issuance of the subject ::r:tlands permit pursuant to Chapter 97 of the Southold Town Code was not issued in violation of section 280-a of the Town Law. The factors considered by the respondent, Board of Trustees , in -_or,r,ection with the issuance of a wetlands permit are not the same as the factors to be considered with respect to the issuance of a hiii.lding permit and it is in regard to the issuance of a building Prrn,it that the requirements of Town Law section 280-a must be taken ; ii,to consideration . (See e.9 . , Brouf; v Smith , 3(14 N . Y . 164 . ) With respect to the seventh asserted ground for vacating the�, r-c-pondent' s , Board of Trustees , issuance of the subject wetlands c1ri*mit is that the respondent, Board of Trustees , improperly approved i,I,•. expansion of a non-conforming use . PAG'E. 7 - WEISMANN V . BREDEMEYER INDEX N0. 88/4911 Aside from the fact that the Court agrees with the respondent's, Board of Trustees , contention that this is not an issue within their jurisdiction ( the Court having noted above that zoning questions are for the Board of Appeals and not for the Board of Trustees) , as previously indicated the subject area has been rezoned and the use may no longer be a non-conforming one . �'-L '** - As-an eighth ground for seeking to have the wetlands permit ,:racated the petitioners , Henry Weismann and Frank Flynn , assert that the respondent, Board.�of-�u�tees , failed to comply with the t� provisions of section 97-28 of the Southold Town Code . Pursuant to this section the res��� Board of Trustees , may issue a wetlands permit only if it determines that the applications approved would not have any of nine specifically enumerated effects such as , for example , that it would not "[clause damage from erosion, turbidity or siltation" or "[aldversely affect fish , shellfish or other beneficial J 1031*ine organisams (sic) , aquatic wildlife and vegetation or the r,a Lural habitat thereof. " The Court agrees that the respondent, Board of Trustees , Friiled to comply with mandate of section 97-28 of the Southold Town Cod e . In the absence of a reasoned statement demonstrating : 1 ) that Uie respondent, Board of Trustees , has considered each of the listed ,.,riteria and , 2 ) that the determination that such standard would not hF, violated by the contemplated operation is factually supportable , it is not possible to determine whether the respondent , Board of l Trustees , has properly taken account of the standards which it was V mandated to consider. Accordingly, the Court concludes that this matter must also be remanded to the respondent, Board of Trustees , , for its failure to provide a reasoned statement indicating that it has reflected upon the criteria set forth in section 97-28 of the ' 'Newthold Town Code . Such reasoned statement must include the factual `r ba6is for the respondent's , Board of Trustees , conclusion that the -approved operation will not have the adverse effects which it is required to consider. (Qf� 2 Anderson , New York Zoning Law and Practice , third edition , section 24 . 25 ( regarding the requirement of ;i Board of Appeals to make findings relative to the standards imposed by the ordinance when considering a special permit application) . ) The ninth and final ground raised for vacating the subject tic-Alands permit is the contention that the respondent, Board of Trustees , ignored the advice of other agencies in granting_t}-ie ruLject wetlands permit . — e This does not state an adequate ground for reversal of the respondent 's, Board of Trustees , action . First , it is for the respondent , Board of Trustees , to make a determination with respect to the issuance of the wetlands permit and , therefore , merely because ` ' another agency disagrees• with its conclusion does not establish that the respot�deilt, Board of Trustees , acted improperly. Moreover, since the Court has herein determined that the matter must be remanded to r the respondent , Board of Trustees , for a reasoned statement in cuPPort of issuance of the subject wetlands permit (both with respect to SEQRA and section 97-28 of the Southold Town Code) it would be ,remature at this stage to review the question of whether there is PAGE 8 - WEISMANN V. BREDEMEYER INDEX NO. 88/4911 inadequate factual support in the record to support the respondent's , Board of Trustees , issuance of the subject wetlands permit . It is y not for the Court to substitute its judgment for that of the respondent, Board of Trustees , but only to insure that the respondent , Board of Trustees , has acted in accordance with the procedural mandates of the Southold Town Code and that it does not J undertake to act in a manner which is irrational , arbitrary and J capricious , or totally unsupportable by the record . Accordingly, on the grounds set forth above the petitioners , Henry Weissman and Frank Flynn , are entitled to a judgment vacating the sub ect wetlan �i—ustees , ermit and remanding this ma ter to the c'espondent, Board ofor action consistent with this opinion . Settle judgment. bun J . S. C. PECONIC ASSOCIATES, INC. Environmental Planners & Consultants One Bootleg Alley P.O.Box 672 Greenport,New York 11944 (516)477-0030 Fax(516)477-0198 July 29 , 1991 Board of Town Trustees Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P . 0. Box 728 Southold , L . I . New York - 11971 Re : Brick Cove Marina Proposed Expansion Project Dear Members of the Board : In accordance with your letter of July 19 , 1991 , please find enclosed the complete Application for Brick Cove Marina . Enclosed is : 1 . Board of Trustees Application ; 2 . Part 1 of the Full Environmental Assessment Form with attached Narrative and Analysis - An Expanded Environmental Assessment ; 3 . Authorization to Peconic Associates from Southold Bay Associates ; 4 . Survey depicting existing improvements (as is ) ; 5 . Proposed Site Plan of marina improvements ; 6 . Copies of approved permits from New York State D. E. C . , Corps of Engineers , as well as the approval of the Consistency Review from the Department of State ; 7 . Planning Board approval complete with plans ; and 8 . A Summary of Proposed Actions to Mitigate Envoronmental Impact with attached F . D.A. Guideline Calculations for required closure . Board of Town Trustees July 29 , 1991 Page 2 Based on previous meetings , discussions , and legal opinions and interpretation of the processing of this application , we believe that the attached documents constitute a complete application . It is the applicant ' s expectation that the Southold Town Board of Trustees will declare themselves Lead Agency . After the designation of Lead Agency is established , we believe that the next appropriate step is to meet with the Lead Agency , review the application , and at that time be prepared to provide additional details and environmental information to assist the Lead Agency in determining the environmental impact of the proposed work . The additional information would also be expected to be utilized during the Phase 2 and 3 of the SEQRA process . If you have any questions , please do not hesitate to contact us . Sincerely , PECONIC ASSOCIATED , INC. Merlon E . Wiggin , . D. , M. E. President Enclosures : Per Text cc : Mr . Howard Zehner Mr. Christopher Kuehn File -14.16-2 (2187)-7c 617.21 SEC ` Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a proje or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequer ly, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmgasureable. It is also understood that those who determir significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in environment analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affectir the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determinatic process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature,yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a projector actio Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic proje data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provid, guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentiall large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used evaluate whether or not ti impact is actually important. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE-7T 1 and Unlis d Actions identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: L! Part 1 Part 2 /Part Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that. A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not have a signiricant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. ❑ B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.' ❑ C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. • A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions - Name of Action ourH OLS�v��� of 2uSTE�S Name of Lead Agency Print or type Name or risible Officer in Lead Agency Title or Responsible 0iiicer gnature of Responsible Of ricer i Lead Agency Signator Preparer(If different from responsible otficer laz6 /�� 0`1'j Date 1 PART 1—PROJECT INFORMATION • Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant . on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be cons) as part of the application for approval and maybe subject to further verification and public review. Provide any addi information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. _ It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not in new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable,so indicate and sF each instance. NAME OF ACTION BRICK COVE MARINA LOCATION OF ACTION(Include Street Address,Municipality and County) 1670 SAGE ROAD, SOUTHOLD TOWN, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR BUSINESS TELEPHONE PECONIC ASSOCIATES, INC. (516 ) 477-0030 ADDRESS ONE BOOTLEG ALLEY - P. 0. BOX 672 CITY/PO STATE ZIP CODE GREENPORT, L. I. NY 111944 NAME OF OWNER(It ditterent) BUSINESS TELEPHONE SOUTHOLD BAY ASSOCIATES (516 ) 734- 6308 ADDRESS 2625 WEST CREEK AVENUE CITY/PO STATE ZIP CODE CUTCHOGUE, L. I. N 111935 - DESCRIPTION OF ACTION IMPROVE, MODERNIZE, AND ENLARGE EXISTING MARINA (138 SLIPS) . IMPROVEMENT TO INCLUDE A MORE EFFICIENT SLIP LAYOUT AND THE ADDITION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS THAT ( INCLUDE PUMP-OUT STATION, INTERCEPTION OF STORM WATER RUN-OFF, AND LANDSCAPING. I Please Complete Each Question—Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. (SINGLE FAMILY HOME) 1. Present land use: OUrban Olndustrial ®Commercial EIResidential (suburban) ORural (non-f, OForest OAgriculture OOther 2. Total acreage of project area: 12.47 acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETIO, Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) 0.61 acres 0.54 Forested 5.58 acre acres 4.66 acrf. Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc ) -- acres -- acre Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) 0. 1 acres 0. 1 acre Water Surface Area 4.2 acres 4.2 Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) _- -- acre acres .ere Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces 1 .57 acres 2.56 POOL AND TENNIS 0.41 acr.• Other (Indicate type) acres 0.41 acre 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? CLAY a. Soil drainage: O`Nell drained % of site O,`loderately well drained of site Woorly drained 100% °o of site b. If any agricultural land Is Involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the ; Land Classification System? N/A acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? 0Yes 121slo a. What is depth to bedrock? NONE (in feet) I S. -Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: ®0-10% qR-5 °.o ®10-150% 0.3 • M15% or greater 1 .2 % (BANKS) 6.'Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a budding, site, or district, listed on the State or the Nation Registers of Historic Places? ❑Yes MNo ' 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? OYes ®I` 8. What is the depth of the water table? (in feet) VARIABLE TO 65' FEET (CLAY) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? OYes ®No 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? []Yes ONo 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangere, ❑Yes [ANo According to Identify each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formation OYes MNo Describe 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation are. MYes ONo If yes, explain RECREATIONAL - MARINA, BOATYARD, POOL, AND TENNIS 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? OYes ®No 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: NSA a Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds. wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name SAGE BASIN b. Size (In acres) ± 14.5 ACRES 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? ®Yes ONo WATER, ELECTRIC, CABLE TV a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? [&Yes ❑No b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? OYes 9No 18 Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-A Section 303 and 304? ❑Yes KJNo 19 Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area des i Hated ursuant to Article of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? MYes ❑No SAGE BASIN IS NOT, BUT IS eBNNECYED TO 20 Has the site ever been used for the disposal of soliP orr`haiarc7ous W asteH1 IS' OYes XC7No B. Project Description * INCLUDES ALL PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT OF 6.18 ACRES. 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor 12.47 acres • b. Project acreage to be developed. 7.17 acres initially;* 7.17 acres ultimately. e. Project acreage to remain undeve!oped 5.30 acres. d. Length of project, in miles: NSA (If appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed 45 (BOAT SLIPS I. Number of off-street parking spaces existing 50 ; proposed 133 - 95 TO 138) g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour 36 (upon completion of project)? h If residential Number and type of housing units One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initially 1 Ultimatt•Iv 1 i. Dimensions (in teet) or largest proposed structure NSA height, NSA width, NSA length. j. Linear feet or frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? 0 ft. 3 2. How much natural material (i.e., rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site? 2930 tons/cubic yards 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? I6Yes ONo ON/A a. If yes, for what intend..,: purpose is the site being reclaimed? PARKING DRAINAGE CONTROL, LAND- b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? MYes ONo SCAP NG c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ®Yes ONo 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? .07 acres. 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? OYes LNo 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 12 months, (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated 1 (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 NOV. month 1991 year, (including demolition) c. Approximate completion date of final phase NOV. month 1992 year. d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? OYes ®No 8. Will blasting occur during construction? OYes MNo 9 Number of jobs generated: during construction 6 - 10 ; after project is complete 5 10 Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 11. WWII project require relocation of any projects or facilities? (Ayes ONo If yes, explain RELOCATE ONE (1 ) SEPTIC TANK AND LEACHING SYSTEM (SEE PLAN). 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? OYes ®No' a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13 Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? LYes ONo Type SEPTIC TANK & LEACHING POOLS 14 Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? Oyes MNo Explain 15 Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year Hood plain? IXYes ONo 16 WWII the project generate solid waste? ®Yes ONo (GARBAGE) a. If yes, what is the amount per month 1 tons AVERAGE (SUMMER ONLY) b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? MYes ONo c. If yes, give name SOUTHOLD TOWN LANDFILL location CUTCHOGUE d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? Oyes [XNo e. If Yes, explain 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid %vaste? OYes ®No a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? years. 18 Will project use herbicides or pesticides? OYes (K]No 10 WWII project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? ❑Yes CANo ' 20 Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? Dyes Q No 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? C Yes ONo If yes , indicate type(s) ELECTRICAL - 222 KWH/DAY INCREASE (SUMMER) 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity N/A gallons/minute. 23 Total anticipated water usage per day 170 gallons/day WINTER - 2070 GPD DURING SUMMER MONTHS 24 Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? Oyes ®No If Yes, explain 4 APPROVAL 25.'Approvals Required: UKKAIM Type Date City, Town, Village.Board OYes ®No • -- City, Town, illag Planning Board [XYes ONo c1TF PLAN 09/12/88 City, Town Zoning, Board OYes K)No City, County Health DepartmentIMYes ONo SUFFOLK COUNTY HEALTH DEPT. Other Local Agencies MYes ONo Sol ITHni n TnWN TRINTUR Other Regional Agencies ❑Yes KINo State Agencies I)Yes ONo NYSDEC WETLANDS 11/08/89 Federal Agencies MYes ONo CORPS OF ENGINEERS 11/01/89 X YES NYS DOS CONSISTENCY REVIEW 03/17/88 C. Zoning and Planning Information 1 . Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? OYes MNo _ _ If Yes, indicate decision required: Ozoning amendment ❑zoning variance Ospecial use permit ❑subdivision Osite plan Onew/revision of master plan Oresource management plan Oother 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? MARINE II 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? SEE ATTACHED 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? N/A 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? N/A 6 Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in'adopted local land use plans? MYes C 7 What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a S'4 mile radius of proposed action? RESIDENTIAL 8 Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a 'A mile? XYes C 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? N/A a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? 10 Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? OYes ix I 11 Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, pol fire protection)? OYes MNo a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? ❑Yes ONo 12 Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? OYes QL N a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? OYes ONo D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may he needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adv impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigat avoid them E. Verification certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge Applicant; ons o N me P ONIC ASSOCIATES, INC. Date JULY 29. Aal Signature Title PRESIDENT 11 the action is in the Coastal Area, and are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before procee• with this assessment. 5 VIM 2—FRUJEC MPACTS AND THETA MAGNITUDE • Responsibility of Lead Agency ' General Information (Read Carefully) • In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and determinations been reasonablell The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. Identifying that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. • The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3. • The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and have been offered as guidance.They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. • The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. • In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumlative effects. Instructions (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided,check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1. d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the project to a small to moderate impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This must be explained in Part 3. 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be IMPACT ON LAND Moderate Large Mltlgated By 1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? Impact Impact Project Change ONO M(YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. • Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 3 feet. • Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. n ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 3 feet of existing ground surface. • Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No than one phase or stage. • Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No tons of natural material (i.e.. rock or soil) per year. • Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO • Construction in a designated floodway. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No Other impacts Af'_o-VW Ldkedk EM PoArt- Z ❑ G/es ❑No Q uw� Will there be an effect t, ...ty uri,que or unusual land forms found on the site?(i.e.,tliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.)ONO MES • Specific land forms: b ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 6 2 11 ., Small to Potential Can Impact Be IMPACT ON WATER Mod •-ute Large Mitigated By 3. Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? Impact impact Project Change (Under Articles 15,24, 25 of the Environmental Conserva❑t on La`" EfQ amples that would apply to column 2 0 d Wye, s ❑No - �,�velopable area of site contains a protected water bcdy. d No • Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a ❑ protected stream. ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No • Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. ❑ Dyes ONG • Construction in a designated freshwater dal wetland ❑ ❑Yes - ONO • Other impacts: 0X-A r,c c C i C V_& as.Sri��hC� 4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing grr new body of water? [w 0 OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 ❑ ❑Yes ❑:��� • A 10°b increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water ❑ or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. ❑ ❑Yes ❑Nu • Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area 0 ❑ ❑les D40 f • Other impacts: 5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater VE or uantityi' ONO s quality q Examples that would apply to column 2 ❑ ❑ Dyes C:ka • Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. ❑ Dyes ONO • proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not ❑ ave approval to serve proposed (project) action. 13Oyes ON(, ! • rreposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 ❑ gallons per minute pumping capacity ❑ ❑ C-1 Yes ONQ • Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water supply system. d ❑ Dyes ❑yo • Proposed Nction will adverse', affect groundwater. ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No • liquid effluent will be convey-d off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity D ❑Yes ❑NU • Propo,ed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per ❑ defy. ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Proposed action will likely C,aus,- siltation or other discharge into an ❑ existing body of water to toe exte,t that there will be an obvious visual contrj�,t to naturai conditions. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. ❑ 0 ❑Yes ❑No • Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Proposed Action locates commercial waste and/or�eatment and/orustrial uses hich may storage require new or expansion of existing facilities. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Other impacts: Will proposed action alter drainage f,,ow or patterns, or su�rf�e water runoff. [ ONO rcS Exa-iples that would apply to column 2 ❑ r] CLYes CNo • Prct-r•sed Action would change flood water flows 7 1 2 3 , Sn :.'I to Potential Can Impact Ele M.. .. rate Large Mitigated By laitlact Impact Project Change ,oposed Action may cause substantial erosion. ❑ ❑Yes ❑No :oposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Proposed Action will allow development in a designated flo�;dway. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Other impacts: Pr'upgw& keX u— ❑ C�' QKes ❑No S�Qrrhwoka- ruheF� p��ic# stet to act�.r=u.�t' ��, IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? 0440 OYES .. Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No hour. • Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No refuse per hour. • Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs per hour or a ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑Ku heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. w • Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed ❑ ❑ ❑1',:s Cl j p to industrial use. + • Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial ❑ ❑ M :7Y�� irlr.a development within existing industrial areas. -- , • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑V" EJ�vu IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS �+ Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? ONO AYES t I Examples that would apply to column 2 _/ • Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal LJ ❑ ❑Yes 0,%U list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. l • Removs' of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. ❑ ❑ ❑Y,:; DNo 1 • Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other ❑ ❑ ❑Yea ❑roc, than for agricultural purposes. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ 01'r� ❑Nu 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or J non-endangered species? ONO 5 YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or ❑ ❑Yes []No migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. • Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important , vegetation. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10 Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resod ces? QNO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 he proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural ❑ ❑ ❑Yes []No land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) 8 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change :onstruction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No agricultural land. 1:1 Oyes ❑No • The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres C1 of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultutal District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural ❑ lard management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Other impacts: IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11 will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? ON 6ikE5 (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.21, Appendix B.) Examples that would apply to column 2 ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural ❑ Dyes ❑No • Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of 11 aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. ❑ ❑Yes []No Project components that will result in the elimination or significant- ❑ screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. ❑ ❑ []Yes ❑No • Other impacts: IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of rOtori AYES pre- historic or paleontological importance? A Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially ❑ ❑ ❑Yes [:)No contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. ❑ GYes ❑Nn • Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the ❑ project site. ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for ❑ archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Other impacts: • Y IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13 Will Proposed Acton affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? ONO AES Examples that would apply to column 2 ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity ❑Yes ❑No • A major reduction of an open space important to the community ❑COY o • Other impacts: P�w�Kt w+�, lM��nc� are44; Oyes ❑No oDDor}UN��►'lf 'FW bad&�=''e 9 IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION so, ill to Potential Can Impact Be 14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? /� M,.Jarate Large Mitigated By ONO BYES Impact Impact Project Change Examples that would apply to column 2 Iteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO • Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. V ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Other impacts. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No IMPACT ON ENERGY 15. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fueell °r Y energy supply? ONO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will cause a greeter than 5% increase in the use of ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑!Jo any form of energy in the municipality. • Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy ❑ ❑ Oyes ONO transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use • Other impacts: e-ICE'cr►cul ' 7-12 1<.W H / Dd-`f ❑ ❑Yes ❑Nu I-AW cmc "16%!=!+ S t M.w . 1*4 NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibratio as a result of the Prcposed Action? ;N0 DYES Er,amples that would apply to column 2 • Cla�,ting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑��� Icility. !dors Hi!I occur routinely (more than one hour per day). ❑ El ❑Yrs ❑too • Pruposed Action will pr„duce operating noise exceeding the local ❑ ❑ ❑Yvs ❑No anibient noise levels for noise outside of structures • Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a ❑ ❑ ❑l'es ❑.�o noise screen. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yrs ❑No 9 IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17 Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? ONO 54ES Eiimples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No sjL;tances G.e. oil.pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc )in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission. • Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO, form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, Infectious, etc.) 1*rorage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑r4o •►s or other flammable liquids -noed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of sold or hazardous •r impacts: �t�1JC ILkILa] �COctu Ver �M' ❑ L7 Yes ❑No Wcv tt1r��,rp1 . iDoa AA.%c%lie t,11�t tl�rrivw CS u, i,,,,,nCtb &,% 10 1 2 3 IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER Small to Potential Can Impact Be OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD Moderate Large Mitigated By tg WWII proposed action affect the character of the existing commun ty? Impact Impact Project Change ONO ES imples that would apply to column 2 • i ne permanent population of the city, town or village in which the ❑ 1:1 ❑Yes ONO project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%. • The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services ❑ 11 ❑Yes ONO will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. ❑Yes [--]No • Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. ❑ ❑ • Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures ❑ ❑ ❑Yes -ONO or areas of historic importance to the community. • Development will create a demand for additional community services 1:1 ❑ ❑Yes ONO (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) • Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO • Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. Q� 13 ❑Yes ONO • Other impacts:114WRIt boultr eats tp 4L balls O.A-I, d ❑ ❑Yes ❑No a.&gm4L SoVVAaX% 0AAXft6Vr SCS 0, IKf'aK OAKa�— WQ1rKV4-"11A* U)WVV~I 19. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? ONO I(ES If Any Action In Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 - Part 3—EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of lead Agency Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(s) is considered to be potentially large, even if the impact(s) may be mitigated. Instructions Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 1 of Part 2: 1. Briefly describe the impact. 1. Describe(if applicable)how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s). 3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important. To answer the question of importance, consider: • The probability of the impact occurring • The duration of the impact • Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value • Whether the impact can or will be controlled • The regional consequence of the impact • Its potential divergence from local needs and goals • Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. 11--•ntinue on attachments) 11 EAF Part 2 Addendum Impact on Land Other impacts: (1) the temporary or permanent placement of dredge spoil; (2) the construction of washdown platform and associated drainage; (3) landscaping; (4) relocation of an existing septic system; Y � EAF Part 3 is Evaluation of the Importance of Impacts The Trustees should be aware that a law suit was filed in connection with this project site. In it , a variety of objections were stated. The legal complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit D. Impact on Land It is noted on the EAF Part 2 that the proposed action will result in a physical change to the project site. The EAF Part 2 Addendum lists four impacts on land. They are: (1) the temporary or permanent placement of dredge spoil; (2) the construction of washdown latform and associated drainage; (3) landscaping; and (45 relocation of an existing septic system. Collectively , these impacts are regarded as potentially large. It is also noted that these impacts have been mitigated. The applicant has proposed the mitigation of several of these impacts . Further, mitigation of these impacts have already been required pursuant to several of the agency approvals obtained by the applicant. The proposed and required impact mitigation measures are expected to result in an overall environmental improvement of the site from what exists today. (1) The temporary or permanent placement of dredge spoil. Description of Impact: The applicant has proposed the dredging of approximately 2900 cubic yards of spoil from shoal areas within the marina to 6 ' below mean low water and the placement of resultant spoil on the upland portions of the site. Project survey prepared by Peconic Surveyors last amended on September 18 , 1991 ("survey") indicates the proposed location where dredged spoil will temporarily be placed. Mitigation of Impact: The impact can be mitigated in two ways. The spoil once piled up at the proposed location can be removed from the site in its entirety or can be used as grading material in the accomplishment of positive drainage for stormwater control. The DEC issued a permit for dredging as part of the overall project (See Exhibit B) . Special conditions 1 and 7 require mitigation of this impact. The designation of a temporary spoil location on the survey also mitigates this impact by restricting the temporary location of spoil deposition to a relatively small area. The use of spoil to achieve positive drainage for the control of stormwater runoff is regarded as a positive design feature. 6 Importance of Impact: Negative impacts resulting from the temporary or permanent placement of dredge spoil are not important. In contrast, the positive impacts resulting from either the removal of dredge spoil from the site or the utilization of dredge spoil to achieve positive drainage are regarded as important. The probability of the positive impacts resulting from proper management of the spoil occurring is high. Its duration is permanent if the spoil is used for grading materials , temporary if the spoil is to be removed from the site. The impact will not result in permanently lost resources of value. The impact will be controlled. There is no divergence of this impact from local needs and goals. Regional consequences related to the temporary or permanent placement of spoil are not considered to be significant. (2) the construction of washdown platform and associated drainage. Description of Impact: The applicant has proposed a washdown platform and associated drainage adjacent to the existing travel lift. The construction will involve grading for the construction of the platform and excavation for its associated drainage. The purpose of the platform is to provide for the collection and management of pollutants associated with boat bottoms as they are cleaned. Mitigation of Impact: Impacts associated with this impact can be mitigated by requiring the temporary placement of haybales seaward (adjacent to the existing bulkhead) of the proposed platform and associated drainage. In doing so., this potentially large impact is reduced to a small to moderate impact. Importance of Impact: While the probability of the impact occurring is high the duration of the impact is temporary. There are no permanently lost resources of value associated with this impact. There are no significant regional consequences of this impact and its potential divergence from local needs and goals are not regarded as significant. This impact is not regarded as important because the impact can be mitigated to the greatest possible extent. (3) Landscaping Description of the Impact: The applicant proposes landscaping to improve the aesthetics of the project site. Landscaping can cause negative environmental impacts if exotic species are proposed due to maintenance requirements including the application of fertilizers and biocides. 7 Mitigation of the Impact: The impact associated with the maintenance of exotic landscaping can be mitigated in total by requiring indigenous vegetation. Importance of the Impact: Overall, the impact resulting from landscaping is regarded as positive. The use of indigenous vegetation will result in improved aesthetic quality of the marina as is consistent with local and regional efforts to preserve and enhance the environment. Landscaping is regulated by the Southold Planning Board as part of its site plan process. There are no important negative impacts associated with landscaping. (4) Relocation of an existing septic system. Description of Impacts : The survey indicates an existing septic system/ leaching field 29 feet from mean high water which will be relocated 100 feet from same. The relocation of the septic system is a permit requirement of the DEC (See Exhibit B: Special Condition # 16) . In relocating the septic system, a certain amount of excavation will occur. Mitigation of Impact: The impact of moving a septic system (excavation) can be mitigated in two ways: Materials piled along side of the existing septic system during the excavation and removal process can be retained in a confined area by the use of haybales. These materials can be redeposited into the resulting "hole" along with additional fill if necessary as to achieve the desired final grade. Importance of the Impact: The relocation of the septic system 100 feet from mean high water is regarded as an important positive impact. The movement of septic systems away from surface waters and wetlands are consistent with local and regional efforts to protect same. The impacts associated with the relocation process are not considered important. These impacts are temporary in nature, do not result in permanently lost resource of value, are controlled, pose no regional consequences and is not divergent from local needs and goals . Impact on Water Description of Impact: The developable area of the site contains a protected water body: Sage Basin. Sage Basin is a tidal embayment of approximately 14. 6 acres (See Exhibit E) . The impacts to this water system are based upon the expansion of the marina from 91 to 138 slips in which it is assumed that all slips will be occupied. The expansion of dock facilities over waters of Sage Basin will have a small to moderate impact on the circulation, biological productivity and ecology of Sage Basin. 8 One of the more serious concerns relating to marinas is their potential impacts to surface waters as caused by the direct discharge of boater sewage wastes to surface waters. The presence of marinas has a direct impact on the certification of surface waters for shellfishing. Guidelines have been established by the federal Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") pursuant their Shellfish Sanitation Program and are attached hereto as Exhibit F. The DEC implements the FDA guidelines for New York State. Presently , the waters of Sage Basin are seasonally certified (See Exhibit E) . The DEC has closed Sage Basin to shellfishing from May 15 through October 31 based upon the presence of a marina and the potential for discharge of sewage from marina (boater) toilets . The certification of Sage Basin is based upon the potential for discharge of sewage wastes rather than from existing bacterial contamination of the surface waters of Sage Basin. Previous investigations of Sage Basin by the DEC have revealed surface waters to be relatively free from bacteriological contamination (See Exhibit G) . Nevertheless , the potential for boater discharge of sewage into these waters provides a basis for the seasonal closure that exists today. In the absence of capability to collect and treat boater sewage, the potential for direct discharge of boater wastes to surface waters increases as the number of boats docked or moored at Sage Basin increases. Although Brick Cove Marina has obtained approvals allowing 91 slips , the present marina operation provides for the dockage of 38 boats of which 21 are power boats and the remaining 17 being sail boats . Of these vessels docked at the marina, 27 vessels have holding tanks of which 20 are equipped with "Y" valves making direct discharge of boat sewage to surface waters possible. Also, three boats docked at the marina have installed toilet facilities without holding tanks making direct discharge to surface waters likely. In addition, an adjacent marina as defined by the FDA Guidelines attached hereto as Exhibit F is located to the west of Brick Cove Marina providing for 11 slips . This marina, locally known as Southold Shores , has applied for an expansion to roughly double the amount of slips. Finally , additional slips within Sage Basin totals 15. Therefore, the total existing number of slips in Sage Basin today equals 64. Given that Brick Cove Marina has already obtained previous approvals for 91 slips the total number of boats at Sage Basin could rise to 117 . Considering that the proposed expansion of Brick Cove Marina (if granted) would result in an additional 47 slips and that private residents living along the shoreline could also receive approvals for private docks and the like, the total number of boats at Sage Basin could exceed 164. Accordingly, the potential for 9 direct discharge from boats to surface waters could likewise increase. The DEC has calculated the closure at Sage Basin based upon the potential discharge of boater wastes to surface waters (See Exhibit E) . Their analysis is partially based upon the occupancy of 95 boats resulting in a closure area which exceeds the size of Sage Basin. When the total number of boats at Sage Basin is factored into the analysis , the closure area increases accordingly. The impacts to waters of Sage Basin and its adjacent waters resulting from the proposed marina expansion, the existence of other vessels at Sage Basin and the potential expansion of the Southold Shores marina are regarded as potentially large. Mitigation of Impact: Mitigation of potential impacts relating to discharge of sewage from boats has been accomplished in several ways : (1) the applicant has provided full restroom facilities for marina patrons which are open 24 hours a day; (2) the applicant has been required and has agreed to install a pumpout facility to service all boats from Brick Cove Marina as well as to service all boats which come to Brick Cove Marina; (3) the applicant has agreed to promote the use of the pumpout station by erecting proper si ns to encourage the use of the required pumpout facility; (4� the applicant has been required to maintain a log of pumpout usage for enforcement purposes ; (5) the applicant has agreed to have all "sea cocks ' or "discharge valves" sealed in their closed position and (6) the applicant has agreed to ban all boats having toilet facilities without holding tanks. These requirements and agreements area attached hereto as Exhibits B and H, respectively. As these requirements come into effect, DEC will have a basis to re- examine the closure status at Sage Basin possibly resulting in a re-certification of these waters for shellfishing on a year round basis . The fate of boaters wastes can be respon ably disposed of in three ways : (1) t4reatment at the scavenger waste treatment plant in Greenport; (2) disposal in relocated and existing septic systems as permitted by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services; and (3) disposal at the Bergen Point treatment plant. The applicant has intiated communication with the treatment plant at Greenport (See Exhibit H) . NA"ther of the three disposal methods are regarded as causing potentially large impacts. Importance of Impact: The applicants willingness and requirement to (1) maintain restroom facilities for the use of their patrons ; (2) provide a pumpout facility for the use of their patrons and other boaters who come to the marina; (3) promote the use of the pumpout facility; (4) maintain a log of the use of the pumpout facility to insure effective enforcement of its proper use; (5) seal all discharge valves 10 otherwise known as sea cocks in their closed position and (6) ban boats having toilet facilities but not holding tanks from Brick Cove Marina renders this potentially large impact to one that is small to moderate in magnitude. The probability of this impact occurring is viewed as remote. The impact does not result in a permanently lost resource of value and this impact is controlled to the maximum extent reasonable. There are no regional (negative) consequences of this impact and there is no potential divergence from local needs and goals resulting from this impact. Therefore, the impact is not viewed as important. Description of Impact: Dredging of approximately 2900 cubic yards from shoal areas within the marina to 6 feet below mean low water. The applicant has proposed dredging to take place by means of a clam shell or other closed "bucket" and drag line. Impacts associated with dredging include removal of bottom sediments , increased circulation of surface waters ; improved navigation; impacts to surface water quality; and impacts to shellfish abundance. Mitigation of Impact: The impacts associated with the removal of sediments are mitigated to greatest extent possible. The applicant has proposed that a drag line method of dredging be used Area "B" , "E" and "C West" as indicated on the survey. One advantage of using the dragline method of dredging is that it results in a bottom underwater contour that is smoother than obtained using clam shell or closed "bucket" technologies . Dragline methods of dredging are restricted to adjacent areas where tidal wetlands are quite small or absent entirely. The use of clam shell or closed "bucket" dredging methods are restricted to the remaining areas pursuant to DEC permit conditions (See Exhibit B) . Positive impacts associated with dredging include increased circulation of surface waters . Previous aerial photographs attached hereto as Exhibit I clearly show some of the shoal areas to be dredged. The survey accurately depicts all of the shoal areas to be dredged. Increased depths at these locations will enhance circulation of these surface waters. Positive impacts associated with dredging also include improved navigation. These dredged areas will reduce the probability of navigational accidents which directly satisfies the public health and safety responsibilities of the Trustees as expressed in Chapter 97-28 (F) of the Town Code. Potential impacts resulting from dredging include impacts associated with surface water quality. Specifically, organic materials and other materials contained within the excavated dredged materials can be 11 liberated to the water column causing potentially large impacts . These impacts have been mitigated in two ways : (1) dredging is restricted from June 1 through September 30 each year (See Exhibit B) ; and (2) The use of a clamshell or closed "bucket" dredge minimizes the release of dredge sediments back into the water column. Restriction of the timing of dredging mitigates impacts to surface water quality as surface waters are most vulnerable to degradation during the warmer months of the year. Impacts to shellfish resulting from dredging are not regarded as significant because the portions to be dredged including their adjacent areas do not support important or large concentrations of shellfish. An affidavit which indicated shellfish abundance, submitted by the applicant and attached hereto as Exhibit J indicates shellfish abundance at Sage Basin to be relatively low. Field inspection of these areas support this same conclusion. Importance of Impact: Impacts associated with the dredging as proposed is not regarded as important for several reasons: (1) all important impacts associated with dredging have been sufficiently mitigated to reduce this potentially large impact to one that is small to moderate; and (2) dredging as proposed will result in some positive impacts as previously explained. The probability that a potential large impact will occur is small. The duration of any negative impacts are expected to be short while the duration of positive impacts such as improved navigation and circulation is long. The impact does not result in any permanently lost resources of value and there are no re ional consequence of this action. Finally , there is no po ential divergence from local needs and goals as related to this impact. Description of Impact: The proposed project will substantially reduce stormwater runoff from project site to adjacent waters. Studies done by the Long Island Regional Planning Board including most notably the National Urban Runoff Program ("NURP") have implicated stormwater runoff to be the overwhelming source of bacteriological contamination to marine surface waters of Suffolk County. While the vast majority of improvements proposed for the site include a marina expansion and other in water improvements , the applicants proposal to manage stormwater runoff on site mitigates existing impacts related to stormwater runoff. The implementation of stormwater control on site is regarded as a positive design feature that results in a positive potentially large impact to surface waters . Mitigation of Impacts: The impacts related to stormwater runoff associated with the site as it exists today have been mitigated by the proposal to provide for stormwater runoff on site including runoff from the parking field and runoff 12 contaminated by the power washing of boats. The Trustees can require such improvement. The applicant has proposed and the Trustees may require a concrete washdown platform as depicted in the survey. Further , the applicant has proposed and the Trustees may require the proper collection and management of contaminants resulting from the power washing of boat bottoms. Importance of the Impact: The applicants proposal to properly manage runoff associated from the site and runoff resulting from the power washing of boat bottoms and the Trustees ' ability to require such improvement reduces this potentially large impact to one that is small to moderate. The impact of stormwater runoff in connection with the proposed project is therefore not important. The probability of the impact occurring as well as its duration is small. The impact will not result in any permanently lost resources of value and has no regional consequences . The implementation of the proposed stormwater control is not divergent from local needs and goals . 13 PECONIC ASSOCIATES, INC. Environmental Planners & Consultants One Bootleg Alley P.O.Box 672 Greenport,New York 11944 (516)477-0030 Fax(516)477-0198 NARRATIVE AND ANALYSIS AN EXPANDED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ( SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION TO APPLICATION) July 29 , 1991 INTRODUCTION : Based on previous meetings , discussions and advise of the various attorneys , this supplementary application information is prepared so as to provide the necessary information for a complete application . It is the intent of the applicant , and based on further discussions and requests by the Lead Agency , that this supplementary information will be expanded to assist the Lead Agency to make a more comprehensive environmental impact during Phases 2 and 3 of the SEQRA process . I . CONSTRUCTION AND DREDGING ACTIVITIES : Details , requirements , and restrictions to the construction and dredging activities , including those imposed by D. E. C. , are as follows : 1 . No bulkheading construction activity . 2 . All dredged material shall be disposed on an upland site and be suitably retained so as to not re-enter any water body or tidal wetland area or directly conveyed to an approved upland site ( see # 8) . 3 . Prior to the dragline dredging of Section A-East , the permittee must contact the NYSDEC Bureau of Marine Habitat Protection a minimum of 5 business days beforehand . A representative of this Bureau must be present during initial stages of using a dragline to determine if impacts to the marsh will occur . If it is determined that substantial impacts will occur , the method of dredging must be changed to bucket/clamshell . 4 . No machinery is allowed to traverse the marsh at any time . 5 . Filter cloth , tarp or other approved protection must be placed over wetlands areas to prevent bucket drippage of dredge material directly on marsh . 6 . A silt fence must be installed and maintained along the seaward edge of the parking area before construction commences to prevent siltation of the wetlands and waterway. 7 . During the dredging operation , the permittee and his contractor shall make every effort to restrict spillage of sediment during excavation and haulage . Dredging shall be accomplished with a clam shell or other closed "bucket" equipment . 8 . Excavated sediments shall be placed directly into the disposal site or conveyance vehicle . No sidecasting (double dipping ) or temporary storage of dredge material is authorized . 9 . Dredged sediments shall be contained in sealed water tight trucks . 10 . There shall be no disturbance to vegetated tidal wetlands as a result of the permitted activity . 11 . Dredging is specifically prohibited from June 1 through September 30 each year to protect spawning shellfish . 12 . Equipment operation below mean high water is strictly prohibited . 13 . Floats and ramps may not rest on vegetated tidal wetlands . 14 . Docks may not extend laterally beyond property lines , be placed so that docked boats extend over adjacent property line , interfere with navigation or interfere with other landowners riparian rights . 15 . All docks and finger piers are to use the separated pontoon floats rather than continuous styrofoam so as to permit better movement of surface water and improved flushing . 16 . Dredging the marina area to a depth of six feet and removing the ridge of high spots left over from the brick manufacturing dredging operations will improve the movement of the water and improve the flushing action during the tidal changes . II . LAND RUNOFF INTO SURFACE WATERS: The proposed project incorporates the following to reduce and potentially eliminate overland runoff into surface waters , which historically have been a source of pollution to creeks and bays : 1 . The edge of the upland next to the basin is to be regraded and sloped back to a french type drain , the bottom of which will contain perferated conveyance piping to convey all surface runoff to leaching basins . Presently this surface runoff runs directly into Sage Basin and Southold Bay . 2 . All parking areas will be covered with crushed stone to slow down and collect surface runoff and provide maximum recharge into the soil as practical , considering the calyey nature of the sub-soil . 3 . The installation of a 18 ' X 50 ' asphalt boat washdown area : The pavement surface will be sloped to the center , which will contain a collection basin with sediment trap. The overflow of this catch basin will be connected to the surface runoff system and be conveyed to the leaching field referenced above . The Southold Town Trustees have requested the opportunity to make input to the actual design of this collection basin and details of same will be included in the final plan submittal . 4 . In the interest of improving the water quality in Sage Basin , it is suggested that similar limits and control of street and road runoff be incorporated on other areas surrounding the marina . Previous water tests for coliform counts only occurred on the West side of Sage Basin , which may be an indication that preventive measures should also be considered in this area as well . III . ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH MARINA OPERATION ESPECIALLY INCLUDING THOSE THAT IMPACT WATER QUALITY AND SHELLFISH : The following activities are expected to have an impact on the water quality of Sage Basin : 1 . The existing septic tank and leaching system by the Northernmost pier is to be relocated a minimum of 100 ' landward of mean high water . The relocation of these facilities must be approved by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services . 3 2 . Portable pumpout facilities are to be installed and operational within one year of issuance of this permit . Plans and details of of these facilities will be sent to NYSDEC prior to installation . ( Southold Town Trustees are making input into the type of pumpout facilities and these details will be incorporated into the final plans . ) 3 . A yearly log of usage and servicing of the pumpout facilities and holding tank is to be kept , with a copy sent to the NYSDEC Bureau of Marine Habitat Protection for each boating season ending October 31st by November 30 each year. 4 . The potential for direct discharge of boat waste into the surface waters is to be reduced by requiring all boat users to have their overboard discharges , including wye valves , closed and sealed by the marina before allowing the boats to use the marina facilities . Realizing that this operation may not be totally one hundred percent , the FDA calculations for two boats accidentally having overboard discharge has been calculated and is attached . You will note that using this number of boats that may accidentally get by the marina operation , that the closure is limited to under four acres , which is well within the boundaries of the marina (4.2 Acres underwater ) , therefore making it possible for the DEC to permit shellfishing outside of the marina area . Presently all of Sage Basin ( 14 . 5 Acres ) is closed to DEC to shellfishing from May 15 to October 31 of each year. NOTE : These attached calculations only apply to the proposed Brick Cove/Young ' s Marina and do not take into consideration the docking of other boats on the other side of Sage Basin . A PECONIC ASSOCIATES, INC. Environmental Planners & Consultants One Bootleg Alley P.O.Box 672 Greenport,New York 11944 (516)477-0030 Fax(516)477-0198 July 29 , 1991 -EEOF d 9 .� ,_ Board of Town Trustees S�UTHO�� Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P . 0. Box 728 Southold , L . I . New York - 11971 SUBJECT: Request for Waiver - Chapter 97 - 21J Dear Members of the Board : Re : Application - Brick Cove Marina - Dated July 29 , 1991 . Request a waiver of the above referenced paragraph of the Southold Town Code because of its conflict with 6 NYCRR, Part 617 , State Environmental Quality Review Act . As previously discussed by the Applicant ' s Attorney , Mr. Tohill , this paragraph of the Town Code is considered preemptive to the State ' s law and , in practicality , would make it impossible for the Lead Agency to fulfill its responsibilities . Sincerely , PECONIC ASSOCIATED, INC. Merlon E. Wiggi Ph . D. ,M. E. President cc : Mr. Howard Zehner Mr . Christopher Kuehn File 4� ,�FFdsy y©� TRUSTEES `_,. %• John M.Bredemeyer,III,President SUPERVISOR Henry P. Smith,Vice President k� ,,? SCOTT L. HARRIS Albert J.Krupski,Jr. , , �1s,�-'• � John L. Bednoski,Jr. ���1 a�� Town Hall John B.Tuthill 53095 Main Road � - P.O.Box 1179 Telephone(516)765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Southold,New York 11971 Fax(516)765-1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RESOLUTION Whereas Chapter 97-22 authorizes issuance of waivers under 97-21-J ; and Whereas Peconic Associates on behalf of Southold Bay Associates have requested a waiver from the requirement as set forth in Chapter 97-21-J of the Town Code for the action known as Brick Cove Marina ; and Whereas there is familiarity with the site and the submitted application among the Trustees ; and Whereas the relocation of septic systems away from the water ' s edge is already a permit condition of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation pursuant to their permit issued to Young' s Boatyard & Marina (Howard H. Zehner) on November 8 , 1989 ; and Whereas the applicant ' s agent has already begun communication and proceedings with the Suffolk County Department of Health Services , Bureau of Wastewater Management for the relocation of the septic tank and leaching system; now be it RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Trustees hereby grant a waiver from the requirement set forth in Chapter 97- 21-) to the applicant ' s agent , Peconic Associates , for the applicant known as Southold Bay Associates , for the action known as Brick Cove Marina. TRUSTEES John M.Bredemeyer,III Presidenta ' c , • SUPERVISOR Henry P. Smith,Vice President " ,? SCOTT L. HARRIS Albert J.Krupski,Jr. + John L. Bednoski,Jr. �l y �b0 Town Hall John B.Tuthill 53095 Main Road BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES P.O.Box 1179 Telephone(516)765-1892 Southold,New York 11971 Fax(516)765-1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION DATE: August 1, 1991 DESCRIPTION• Pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, Part 617 Title 6 of NYCRR and Chapter 44 of the Southold Town Code (Environmental Quality Review) the Southold Town Trustees have reviewed the (Chapter 97, Wetlands/Chapter 32 Boats Docks and Wharves) permit application of: Peconic Associates on behalf of Southold Bay Associates for Brick Cove Marina expansion to 138 slips, dredging of approx. 2900 cubic yards and other improvements to Marina. at SCTM #1000- 57 - •1 - 38.3 being situated at: Sage Boulevard Town of Southold at Sage Basin and Southold Bay Street, Town Body of Water/Wetland Area At our 8 / 1 / 91 Regula /Special) meeting and by resolution of this Board i been determined that said application is complete. The Board EP/will not) seek lead agency status for this proposal as we commence our Environmental Review in this matter which we have typed as a Type 1 action. Located not located in a Critical nvironmen a rea. ) copies to: Town Clerks Bulletin Board on �/6 /-'q Conservation Advisory Council Planning Board Zoning Board Building Department Suffolk Times 2/6 /9( Mattituck Traveler/Watchmen �/ 6 /�( I Applicant/Agent t r Bruce Anderson Environmental Consultant TOWN OF SOUTHOLD To: John Bredemeyer, President Southold Town Trustees 42 From: Bruce Anderson Date: August 3, 1991 Re: Lead Agency Coordination Request - Brick Cove Marina Attached please find the following lead agency request coordination notices: Army Corps of Engineers NYSDEC (2) SCDHS Southold Planning Board NYSDOS . Please sign these notices . Have Al Krupski sign SCDHS ��nrave Jill attach all copies of all appropriate permits Ind approvals in addition to application, EAF Part I , survey and send. Notice to Planning Board is to be hand delivered. Please make sure that Planning Board stamps notice received. f 475 Rambler Road, Southold, NY 11971 (516) 765-4071 O��spFFo(�cO TRUSTEES John M.Bredemeyer,III,President c SUPERVISOR Henry P. Smith,Vice President coo SCOTT L. HARRIS Albert J.Krupski,Jr. �6,f, • !'1� John L.Bednoski,Jr. '11Q1 �a0 Town Hall John B.Tuthill 53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Telephone(516)765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Southold,New York 11971 Fax(516)765-1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LEAD AGENCY COORDINATION REQUEST August 6 , 1991 TO : Aldo Andreoli Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Center Riverhead, NY 11901 Enclosed is a permit application , survey and a completed Part I of the Environmental Assessment Form. The Southold Town Trustees are interested in your agency ' s comments in acting as SEQRA Lead Agency for: Brick Cove Marina 1670 Sage Road, Southold, Suffolk County , New York Description of Action: Im rove , modernize , and enlarge existing marina (138 slips. Improvement to include a more efficient slip layout and the addition of environmental improvements that include pump-out station , interception of stormwater runoff , landscaping , dredging of approximately 2900 cubic yards of material from the shoal areas and the relocation of an existing septic system 100 feet landward of mean high water. Please be aware that the applicant has initiated communication with Robert Jewel , for a permit for the relocation of a septic system. Propose] project has been classified as Type I pursuant to SEQRA. Please contact John M. Bredemeyer , III , President, within 30 days and be advised that the Southold Town Trustees want to assume lead agency. Please indicate your desire or preference to serve as lead agency and include any comments/ reasons you may have regarding lead agency status. �� Z(/-?' Z_�__ a- - Albert rupski , Jr. , ustee TRUSTEES - N John M.Bredemeyer,III,President ='' n SUPERVISOR Henry P. Smith,Vice President v y` SCOTT L. HARRIS Albert J.Krupski,Jr. John L. Bednoski,Jr. ,_ ��� ���' ry Town Hall John B.Tuthill 53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Telephone(516)765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Southold,New York 11971 Fax(516)765-1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LEAD AGENCY COORDINATION REQUEST August 6 , 1991 TO: Bennet Orlowski , Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Town of Southold Town Hall P . 0. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Hand Delivered A permit application, survey and a completed Part I of the Environmental Assessment Form are available in the Trustees Office for your review. The Southold Town Trustees are interested in your agency ' s comments in acting as SEQRA Lead Agency for: Brick Cove Marina 1670 Sage Road, Southold, Suffolk County , New York Description of Action: Im rove , modernize , and enlarge existing marina (138 slips. Improvement to include a more efficient slip layout and the addition of environmental improvements that include pump-out station , interception of stormwater runoff , landscaping , dredging of approximately 2900 cubic yards of material from the shoal areas and the- relocation of an existing septic system 100 feet landward of mean high water. Please be aware that the Southold Planning Board has already ranted approval of the site plan for this project September 15 , 1988) . Project has been classified as Type I pursuant to SEQRA. Please contact John M. Bredemeyer , III , President, within 30 days and be advised that the Southold Town Trustees want to assume lead agency. Please indicate your desire or preference to serve as lead agency and include any comments/ reasons you may have regarding lead ag y state . ohn M. Bredemeyer, III, President TRUSTEES John M.Bredemeyer,III,President ' �- ; . --'' % SUPERVISOR Henry P. Smith,Vice President `4 4; ct SCOTT L. HARRIS Albert J. Krupski,Jr. r ` John L. Bednoski,Jr. ��1 ti Town Hall John B:Tuthill 53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Telephone(516)765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Southold,New York 11971 Fax(516)765-1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LEAD AGENCY COORDINATION REQUEST August 6 , 1991 TO : George R . Stafford , Director Division of Coastal Resources & Waterfront Revitalization NYS Department of State 162 Washington Ave. Albany , N . Y. 12231-0001 Enclosed is a permit application , survey and a completed Part I of the Environmental Assessment Form. The Southold Town Trustees are interested in your agency ' s comments in acting as SEQRA Lead Agency for: Brick Cove Marina 1670 Sage Road, Southold, Suffolk County , New York Description of Action: Im rove , modernize , and enlarge existing marina ( 138 slips. Improvement to include a more efficient slip layout and the addition of environmental improvements that include pump-out station , interception of stormwater runoff , landscaping , dredging of approximately 2900 cubic yards of material from the shoal areas and the relocation of an existing septic system 100 feet landward of mean high water. Please be aware that the NYSDOS has already granted a Consistency Certificationfor this project (March 17 , 1988) . Proposed project has been classified as Type I pursuant to SEQRA Please contact John M. Bredemeyer , III , President , within 30 days and be advised that the Southold Town Trustees want to assume lead agency . Please indicate your desire or preference to serve as lead agency and include any comments/ reasons you may have regarding lead agency status . Proposed project has been classified as Type I pursuant to SEQRA. Ain M. Bredemeyer, III , President TRUSTEES John M.Bredemeyer,III,President SUPERVISOR ..., . Henry P. Smith,Vice President ` ",z '., SCOTT L. HARRIS Albert J.Krupski,Jr. �►>., John L. Bednoski,Jr. i���lj� : J� �ti Town Hall John B.Tuthill 53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Telephone(516)765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Southold,New York 11971 Fax(516)765-1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LEAD AGENCY COORDINATION REQUEST August 6 , 1991 TO: Joseph J . Seebode , Chief Regulatory Branch Department of the Arrly , Corps of Engineers New York District Jacob Javits Federal Building New York, N. Y. 10278-0090 Enclosed is a permit application, survey and a completed Part I of the Environmental Assessment Form. The Southold Town Trustees are interested in your agency ' s comments in acting as SEQRA Lead Agency for: Brick Cove Marina 1670 Sage Road, Southold, Suffolk County , New York Description of Action: Im rove , modernize , and enlarge existing marina (138 slips. Improvement to include a more efficient slip layout and the addition of environmental improvements that include pump-out station , interception of stormwater runoff , landscaping , dredging of approximately 2900 cubic yards of material from the shoal areas and the relocation of an existing septic system 100 feet landward of mean high water. Please be aware that the Army Corps of Engineers has already granted a permit for this project (Permit # 15516 , November 11 1989) . Proposed project has been classified as Type I pursuant to SEQRA. Please contact John M. Bredemeyer , III , President, within 30 days and be advised that the Southold Town Trustees want to assume lead agency. Please indicate your desire or preference to serve as lead agency and include any comments/ reasons you may have regarding lead agency status . Jo� . Bredemeyer , III , President TRUSTEES ; John M.Bredemeyer,III,President c i SUPERVISOR Henry P. Smith,Vice President SCOTT L. HARRIS Albert J. Krupski,Jr. John L. Bednoski,Jr. '�._«, .�� Town Hall IN John B.Tuthill � �J}; �`''} 53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Telephone(516)765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Southold,New York 11971 Fax(516)765-1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LEAD AGENCY COORDINATION REQUEST August 6 , 1991 TO : Thomas Jorling , Commissioner New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road Albany , New York 12233 Enclosed is a permit application , survey and a completed Part I of the Environmental Assessment Form. The Southold Town Trustees are interested in your agency ' s comments in acting as SEQRA Lead Agency for: Brick Cove Marina 1670 Sage Road, Southold , Suffolk County , New York Description of Action: Im rove , modernize , and enlarge existing marina ( 138 slips. Improvement to include a more efficient slip layout and the addition of environmental improvements that include pump-out station , interception of stormwater runoff , landscaping , dredging of approximately 2900 cubic yards of material from the shoal areas and the relocation of an existing septic system 100 feet landward of mean high water. Please be aware that the NYSDEC has already granted a permit for this project (Permit # 10-87-1618 ; issued 11/8/89 - expiration 5/31/1994) . Proposed project has been classified as Type I pursuant to SEQRA. Please contact John M. Bredemeyer , III , President, within 30 days and be advised that the Southold Town Trustees want to assume lead agency. Please indicate your desire or preference to serve as lead agency and include any comments/ reasons you may have regarding lead agency status . n M. Bredemeyer , III , President � t TRUSTEES ' John M.Bredemeyer,III,President t;Yc SUPERVISOR Henry P. Smith,Vice President. , SCOTT L. HARRIS ot Albert J. Krupski,Jr. M John L. Bednoski,Jr. Town Hall John B.Tuthill53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Telephone(516)765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Southold,New York 11971 Fax(516)765-1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LEAD AGENCY COORDINATION REQUEST August 6 , 1991 TO : Raymond Cowan , Director , Region 1 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Building 40 , SUNY Stoney Brook, New York 11790 Enclosed is a permit application , survey and a completed Part I of the Environmental Assessment Form. The Southold Town Trustees are interested in your agency ' s comments in acting as SEQRA Lead Agency for: Brick Cove Marina 1670 Sage Road, Southold, Suffolk County , New York Description of Action: Im rove , modernize , and enlarge existing marina (138 slips. Improvement to include a more efficient slip layout and the addition of environmental improvements that include pump-out station , interception of stormwater runoff , landscaping , dredging of approximately 2900 cubic yards of material from the shoal areas and the relocation of an existing septic system 100 feet landward of mean high water. Please be aware that the NYSDEC has already granted a permit for this project (Permit # 10-87-1618 ; issued 11/8/89 - expiration 5/31/1994) . Project has been classified as Type I pursuant to SEQRA. Please contact John M. Bredemeyer , III , President , within 30 days and be advised that the Southold Town Trustees want to assume lead agency. Please indicate your desire or preference to serve as lead agency and include any comments/ reasons you may have regarding lead agency status . hdi -M . Bredemeyer , qII , President o�oS�FFo�,��o TRUSTEES John M.Bredesneyer,III,President c .�� SUPERVISOR Henry P. Smith,Vice President �ae SCOTT L. HARRIS Albert J.Krupski,Jr. _f, • �`F John L. Bednoski,Jr. ,- �a0 Town Hall John B.Tuthill 53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Telephone(516)765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Southold,New York 11971 Fax(516)765-1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 27, 1991 RESOLUTION: BRICK COVE MARINA Whereas, an application for wetlands permit was submitted by Peconic Associates, Inc. on behalf of Southold Bay Associates for an action known as Brick Cove Marina on July 29, 1991; and Whereas, the application was deemed complete by the Southold Board of Trustees on August 1, 1991; and Whereas, the Southold Board of Trustees declared Lead Agency on September 5, 1991; and Whereas, an Environmental Assessment Form ( "EAF") Part 2 and 3 were prepared; and whereas, the Southold Board has familiarity with the site, the proposed project; the impacts associated with the project, the mitigation of those impacts and the importance of those impacts; and Whereas, the Southold Board of Trustees agree with the contents and accuracy of the EAF Part 2 and 3 ; Now Be it RESOLVED, that the Southold Board of Trustees hereby adopt the complete packet of the Environmental Review of the matter of Peconic Associates on behalf of Southold Bay Associates for the action known as Brick Cove Marina including EAF Part 2 and 3 and exhibits provided by the applicant. o�oSUFFoc�-oo TRUSTEES John M.Bredemeyer,III,President c SUPERVISOR Henry P. Smith,Vice President W - ,? SCOTT L. HARRIS Albert J.Krupski,Jr. .F John L. Bednoski,Jr. y'flp ��� Town Hall John B.Tuthill 1 53095 Main Road BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES P.O.Box 1179 Telephone(516)765-1892 Southold,New York 11971 Fax(516)765-1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 27, 1991 RE: BRICK COVE MARINA The following action was taken by the Southold Town Board of Trustees at the Special meeting on Thursday, September 26, 1991; Whereas, an application for wetlands permit was submitted by Peconic Associates, Inc. on behalf of Southold Associates for an action known as Brick Cove Marina on July 29, 1991; and Whereas, the application was deemed complete by the Southold Board of Trustees on August 1, 1991; and Whereas, the project was classified as a Type 1 action pursuant to SEQRA; and Whereas, an Environmental Assessment Form ( "EAF" ) Part 2 and 3 was prepared; and Whereas, the Southold Board of Trustees conducted a review of the information recorded in the EAF Part 1,2,3 ; and Whereas, the magnitude and importance of each impact has been considered and reasoned elaboration given, and Whereas, the Southold Board of Trustees have considered all criterion under Section 97-28 of the Town Code; Now be it RESOLVED that the project Brick result in any largeandsCMarina l importantimpactsand, thereforewill not have a significant impact on the environment; and be it further RESOLVED, that a negative declaration shall be prepared and filed with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and all other involved agencies as provided for in ECL Article 8 NYCRR Part 617. Vote of the Board: All Ayes. TRUSTEES John M.Bredemeyer,III,President G SUPERVISOR Henry P. Smith,Vice President .ter- SCOTT L.HARRIS Albert J.Krupski,Jr. �,y • !� John L.Bednoski,Jr. '�Q! ��� Town Hall John B.Tuthill 53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Telephone(516)765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Southold,New York 11971 Fax(516)765-1823 TOWN OF SO=OLD State Environmental Quality Review NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The Southold Board of Trustees as lead agency, has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. Name of Action: Brick Cove Marina SEOR Status: Type 1 0 _ Unlisted ❑ Conditioned Negative Declaration: ❑Yes E No Description of Action: Reason(s) in support of the Type I Action Classification: Project was classified as a Type I action because of its location in a Critical Environmental Area. S . C. Tax Map No. : 1000-57-1-38. 3 Improve, modernize and enlarge an existing marina to 138 slips . Dredge approximately 2900 cubic yards of shoal areas in and around marina to 6 below mean low water and place resultant spoil on upland portions of the site. Improvement to include a more efficient slip layout and the addition of environmental improvements that include pump-out station, interception of stormwater runoff , and landscaping. Page 2 Reasons in support of the Negative Declaration: An EAF Part 1,2,3 is attached for your information and in support of the negative declaration. All impacts associated with the project as proposed were identified and analyzed. All impacts identified as potentially large were reduced to small to moderate as a result of mitigation. None of the impacts are significant. No impacts were concluded to be important. Location: 1670 Sage Road Southold Town Suffolk County New York For Further Information: Contact Person: John M. Bredemeyer, President Address: Board of Trustees Town Hall P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11871 A copy of this notice has been sent to: NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Commissioner NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Regional Director Town of Southold, Supervisor Suffolk County Department of Health Services NYS Department of State US Army Corps of Engineers Peconic Associates, Inc. , Applicant, Brick Cove Marina Town of Southold, Planning Board Date of Determination: September 26, 1991 By order of the Southold Town Board of Trustees, John M. Bredemeyer, III, President. TRUSTEES _ 1 John M.Bredem ,eyer,III,President H f SUPERVISOR Henry P. Smith,Vice President z SCOTT L. HARRIS Albert J.Krupski,Jr. John L.Bednoski,Jr. ��Ql : .:y0� Town Hall John B.Tuthill 53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Telephone(516)765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Southold,New York 11971 Fax(516)765-1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 26, 1991 Howard Zehner P. 0. Box 250 Greenport , NY 11944 Re: Brick Cove Marina Dear Mr. Zehner, Please be advised that the above referenced project was classified as a Type I action by the Southold Board of Trustees. In accordance with SEQRA, written coordination with involved agencies was conducted for the purpose of establishing Lead Agency. Upon receiving no objection from other involved agencies , within the mandated time period, the Southold Board of Trustees assumed Lead Agency status and rendered a NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Enclosed please find a NOTICE OF DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE which has been sent to the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, for publication in the Environmental News Bulletin. Sincerely, John Bredemeyer, President Southold Board of Trustees Enclosed: Notice of Non-Significance - TRUSTEES John M.Bredetneyer,III,President c .�� SUPERVISOR Henry P. Smith,Vice President 0 ': ,? SCOTT L. HARRIS Albert J.Krupski,Jr. John L.Bednoski,Jr. '�pl �p� Town Hall John B.Tuthill 53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Telephone(516)765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Southold,New York 11971 Fax(516)765-1823 TOWN OF SOUT HOLD September 26 , 1991 Scott Harris , Supervisor Town of Southold Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Brick Cove Marina Dear Mr. Harris, Please be advised that the above referenced project was classified as a Type I action by the Southold Board of Trustees. In accordance with SEQRA, written coordination with involved agencies was conducted for the purpose of establishing Lead Agency. Upon receiving no objection from other involved agencies , within the mandated time period , the Southold Board of Trustees assumed Lead Agency status and rendered a NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Enclosed please find a NOTICE OF DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE which has been sent to the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, for publication in the Environmental News Bulletin. Sincerely, John Bredemeyer, President Southold Board of Trustees Enclosed: Notice of Non-Significance _T TRUSTEES John M.Bredemeyer,III,Presidentc SUPERVISOR Henry P. Smith,Vice President a SCOTT L.HARRIS Albeit J.Ktupski,Jr. ;rj �� John L. Bednoski,Jr. 'j!Q! : O Town Hall John B.Tuthill 53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Telephone(516)765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Southold,New York 11971 Fax(516)765-1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 26, 1991 Bennet Orlowski, Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Town of Southold Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Brick Cove Marina Dear Mr. Orlowski, Please be advised that the above referenced project was classified as a Type I action by the Southold Board of Trustees. In accordance with SEQRA, written coordination with involved agencies was conducted for the purpose of establishing Lead Agency. Upon receiving no objection from other involved agencies , within the mandated time period, the Southold Board of Trustees assumed Lead Agency status and rendered a NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Enclosed please find a NOTICE OF DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE which has been sent to the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, for publication in the Environmental News Bulletin. Sincerely, John Bredemeyer , President Southold Board of Trustees Enclosed: Notice of Non-Significance TRUSTEES John M.Bredemeyer,III,President c "c SUPERVISOR Henry P. Smith,Vice President SCOTT L. HARRIS Albert J.Krupski,Jr. John L. Bednosld,Jr. �Pl ��� Town Hall • John B.Tuthill 53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Telephone(516)765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Southold,New York 11971 Fax(516)765-1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD . September 26, 1991 Mr. Joseph J. Seebode, Chief Regulatory Branch Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers New York District Jacob Javits Federal Building New York, NY 10278-0090 Dear Mr. Seebode, ' Re: Brick Cove Marina Dear Mr. Seabode, Please be advised that the above referenced project was classified as a Type I action by the Southold Board of Trustees. In accordance with SEQR.A, written coordination with involved agencies was conducted for the purpose of establishing Lead Agency. Upon receiving no objection from other involved agencies , within the mandated time period , the Southold Board of Trustees assumed Lead Agency status and rendered a NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Enclosed please find a NOTICE OF DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE which has been sent to the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, for publication in the Environmental News Bulletin. Sincerely, Jo n Bredemeyer, President Southold Board of Trustees Enclosed: Notice of Non-Significance TRUSTEES o�O��FFO(,f-cow �Z John M.Bredemeyer,III,President c 1 SUPERVISOR Henry P. Smith Vice President "' 2 SCOTT L.HARRIS Albert J.Krupski,Jr. John L. Bednoski,Jr. : Town Hall John B.Tuthill 9 53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Telephone(516)765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Southold,New York 11971 Fax(516)765-1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 26, 1991 Mr. Aldo Andreoli Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Center Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: Brick Cove Marina Dear Mr. Andreoli, Please be advised that the above referenced project was classified as a Type I action by the Southold Board of Trustees . In accordance with SEQRA, written coordination with involved agencies was conducted for the purpose of establishing Lead Agency. Upon receiving no objection from other involved agencies , within the mandated time period, the Southold Board of Trustees assumed Lead Agency status and rendered a NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Enclosed please find a NOTICE OF DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE which has been sent to the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation , for publication in the Environmental News Bulletin. Sincerely, John Bredemeyer, President Southold Board of Trustees Enclosed: Notice of Non-Significance OFF04 TRUSTEES 501 CGGy John M.Bredemeyer,III,President c 1 SUPERVISOR Henry P.Smith,Vice President ,? SCOTT L. HARRIS Albert J.Krupski,Jr. y .F John L. Bednoski,Jr. 'flpl .��� Town Hall John B.Tuthill 53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Telephone(516)765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Southold,New York 11971 Fax(516)765-1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 26, 1991 George R. Stafford, Director Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization NYS Department of State 162 Washington Ave. Albany, N. Y. 12231-0001 Re: Brick Cove Marina Dear Mr. Stafford, Please be advised that the above referenced project was classified as a Type I action by the Southold Board of Trustees. In accordance with SEQRA, written coordination with involved agencies was conducted for the purpose of establishing Lead Agency. Upon receiving n-o objection from other involved agencies , within the mandated time period , the Southold Board of Trustees assumed Lead Agency status and rendered a NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Enclosed please find a NOTICE OF DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE which has been sent to the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, for publication in the Environmental News Bulletin. Sincerely, Yj John Bredemeyer , President Southold Board of Trusteep Enclosed: Notice of Non-Significance o�OSUE FQ(,rcoG John M.BredemyeEr,F TRUSTS,President r y� SUPERVISOR N F Z Henry P. Smith,Vice President 0-- � SCOTT L. HARRIS Albert J.Krupski,Jr. ^� '� John L.Bednoski,Jr. Ol a ��! Town Hall John B.Tuthill �,. 53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Telephone(5 16)765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Southold,New York 11971 Fax(516)765-1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 26 , 1991 Mr. Raymond Cowan, Regional Director N. Y. S . Department of Environmental Conservation Region 1 Building 40, SUNY Stony Brook, N. Y. 11794 Re: Brick Cove Marina Dear Mr. Cowan, Please be advised that the above referenced project was classified as a Type I action by the Southold Board of Trustees. In accordance with SEQRA, written coordination with involved agencies was conducted for the purpose of establishing Lead Agency. Upon receiving no objection from other involved agencies , within the mandated time period , i the Southold Board of Trustees assumed Lead Agency status and rendered a NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Enclosed please find a NOTICE OF DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE which has been sent to the Commissioner of the New York State. Department of Environmental Conservation, for publication in the Environmental News Bulletin. Sincerely , John Bredemeyer , President Southold Board of Trustees Enclosed: Notice of Non-Significance Y'z�� v�gUfFO(O TRUSTEES G John M.Bredemeyer,III,President c ti SUPERVISOR Henry P. Smith,Vice President W J: ,ze SCOTT L. HARRIS Albert J.Krupski,Jr. John L. Bednoski,Jr. Town Hall John B.Tuthill 53095 Main Road BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES P.O.Box 1179 Telephone(516)765-1892 Southold,New York 11971 Fax(516)765-1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 26, 1991 Mr. Thomas Jorling , Commissioner N. Y. S. Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road Albany, New York 12233 Re: Brick Cove Marina Dear Mr. Jorling, Please be advised that the above referenced project was classified as a Type I action by the Southold Board of Trustees . In accordance with SEQRA, written coordination with involved agencies was conducted for the purpose of establishing Lead Agency. Upon receiving no objection from other involved agencies , within the mandated time period , the Southold Board of Trustees assumed Lead Agency status and rendered a NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Enclosed please find a NOTICE OF DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE which has been sent to the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation , for publication in the Environmental News Bulletin. Sincerely, ohn Bredemeyer , President Southold Board of Trustees Enclosed : Notice of Non-Significance O��SUFFO(�-cO TRUSTEES John M.Bredemeyer,III,President c SUPERVISOR Henry P. Smith,Vice President coo SCOTT L.HARRIS Albert J.Krupski,Jr. A John L.Bednoski,Jr. y�1Ql Town Hall John B.Tuthill 53095 Main Road BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES P.O.Box 1179 Telephone(516)765-1892 Southold,New York 11971 Fax(516)765-1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 27, 1991 RE: Brick Cove Marina The following actions were taken by the Southold Town Board of Trustees on Thursday, September 26, 1991 at the Special Meeting: RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Trustees set Thursday, October 17, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. for a Special meeting. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Trustees set Thursday, October 17, 1991 at 7:05 p.m. for a public hearing in the matter of the application of Peconic Associates on behalf of Southold Bay Associates for the action known as Brick Cove Marina. NOTICE OF HEARINGS ON WETLAND APPLICATIONS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE TOWN TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, AT THE SOUTHOLD TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1991, ON THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION FOR PERMITS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE WETLAND ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN. 7:05 P.M. - Pursuant to NYCRR Part 617 and Article 8 of the ECL the Southold Town Trustees as Lead Agency in the Type I action (Negative Declaration of 9/26/91) set a public hearing in the matter of the application of Peconic Associates on behalf of Southold Bay Associates for the action of known as Brick Cove Marina to improve, modernize, and enlarge existing marina ( 138 slips) . Improvement to include a more efficient slip layout and the addition of environmental improvements that include pump-out station, interception of stormwater runoff, landscaping, dredging of approximately 2900 cubic yards of material from the shoal areas and the relocation of an existing septic system 100 feet landward of mean high water. ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN SAID MATTERS SHOULD APPEAR AT THE TIME AND PLACE ABOVE SPECIFIED AND WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. COMMENTS MAY BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING PRIOR TO THE HEARING. Dated: September 27, 1991 John M. Bredemeyer, III, President Board of Town Trustees By: Jill Thorp, Clerk ------------------------------------------------------------------ PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, THURSDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1991 AND FORWARD ONE AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, III , PRESIDENT, BOARD OF TRUSTEES, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, 11971. Copies to: L.I. Traveler-Watchman, Suffolk Times, Town Clerk's Bulletin Board. 4�oS��Fot,��oG John M.Bred me�E I,President cz SUPERVISOR Henry P. Smith,Vice President c'1 t ,? SCOTT L.HARRIS Albert J.Krupski,Jr. ��► John L.Bednoski,Jr. 4i'� ��4� Town Hall John B.Tuthill l 53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Telephone(516)765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Southold,New York 11971 Fax(516)765-1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BRICK COVE MARINA FINDINGS PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 97-28 (wetlands-standards) These findings, in addition to those of Bruce Anderson, consultant to the Board, which were fully considered, reviewed and approved on September 26, 1991 concluding SEQRA for this action and the subsequent reports of October 19, 1991 and November 5, 1991 of Bruce Anderson, are to be considered as the basis of our determination in this matter. 97-28A - The project as proposed will not substantially adversely affect the wetlands of the Town because all the commonly accepted standard mitigative strategies have been considered, innovative construction of docks in proposed, affects of activities surrounding the construction and operating phases have been considered and reflected on, and all vegetated wetlands on site will be undisturbed. 97-28B - The project as proposed will not substantially cause damage from erosions turbidity and siltation because the Board has carefully considered and requested operational and structural attributes of this project such as vegetative buffers, low dredge slopes and bucket dredging which will have only minimal affects on siltation, turbidity and erosion. 97-28C - The project will not cause any substantial intrusion of saltwater into freshwaters of the Town by virtue of the soil conditions of the site as disclosed in the environmental review of the project. 97-28D - The proposed operations will not substantially adversely affect fish, shellfish or other beneficial marine organisms, aquatic wildlife and vegetation or the natural habitat there of because all impacts as disclosed in the SEQRA review are small, the Board has been to the site numerous occasions and is familiar with its marine resources, and the Board has successfully prevented and or reopened closed shellfish areas in Southold by similar mitigation and enforcement methods to those proposed for this site. i 97-28E - The project as proposed and evaluated will not substantially increase the damage of flood and storm damage because no major coastal barriers or structures are considered for this site and the proposed site improvements are actually believed to reduce impediments to flow in the harbor. 97-28F - The proposed project will not likely affect the navigation or flow of tidal waters in the area as this area is already an operational marina which has not been subject of navigation problems. Dock layout is orderly and provides sufficient channels for maneuvering and water flows in the area are not expected to be substantially altered because of innovative floating docks which greatly reduce vertical supports. 97-28G - The proposed project will not substantially change the course of any channel and the natural flow of waters is expected to change little from the present state, as no substantial change to the tidal inlet was approved by a prior wetlands permit issued for the area and the natural movement of waters will not likely be impeded or changed on account of minimal dredging, maintenance of existing shoreline features and elimination of many vertical dock supports. 97-28H - The project as proposed will not substantially weaken the lateral support of other lands in the vicinity as all load bearing angled land surfaces will remain vegetated with indigenous plant species and all sub marine slopes conform to the standard protective measures required by USCOE and NYSDEC; and no new bulkheading is proposed for this site. 97-28I - The project as proposed will not likely otherwise adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the Town because: police and fire protection needs will not be affected greatly, traffic associated with marinas is not considered a problem for such expansion of boat numbers, the t potential of reopening previously closed shellfish lands is great thus reducing public health risks and the concurrent environmental controls on the site will ensure safe swimming and fishing in Sage Estuary. Bruce Anderson Environmental Consultant To: Harvey Arnoff Town Attorney John Bredemeyer, President Southold Board of Trustees From: Bruce Anderson Date: March 23, 1992 Re: Brick Cove Marina Article 78: Frank Flynn vrs. Town Trustees Pursuant to yoursrequest I have reviewed the Article 78 filed against the Board of Trustees in the Brick Cove Marina Wetland Permit Process and identified the salient points r-Aised. Accordingly, I have constructed technical arguments refuting the allegations raised in the Article 78 Petition. In doing so, I have drawn from the record exhibits which substantiate the points I have raised. These exhibits appear in parenthesis in this text, and are further identified in "References" which follows the text. Mr. Bredemeyer assures me that all exhibits are available in the files in the Trustees ' Office. However , should you have difficulty in finding some of these exhibits, be advised that I can :f-4irnish these exhibits for you. Let me know if you have further questions regarding the regulatory process which lead to the granting of this wetlands permit. Page 2-3. Item #5: "Althoughthe applicant contends that this enlargement will expand the marina' s capacity from 95 boat slips to 138, given the historical boat size that is accommodated at the marina, the expansions result in accommodations for over 200 boats. ' Response: The statement that the marina expansion will provide accommodations for over 200 boats is totally unsubstantiated. There are no historical accounts in the record that would support the notion that an expansion from 95 to 138 boat slips results in docking accommodations for over 200 vessels. Compliance with all wetland applications including marinas is checked by the Southold Bay Constables. Their inspections have not revealed historical boat accommodations in excess of the permitted number of slips. 475 Rambler Road, Southold, NY 11971 (519) 7615-4071 PAN � Page 5-10 Items 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 , 18 , 19 , 20, 21 , 22 , 23, 24, 25 , 26 , 27 , 28: These items are statements pertaining to the regulatory history of Young' s Marina. Response: These items , in total , strictly deal with the previous application of Young' s Marina in which an expansion to the marina and boat yard and the construction of an 82- unit motel and a 125 seat restaurant was proposed. However, the most recent application made to the Southold Board of Trustees ("Trustees") for which their regulatory decision is based upon, details a moderate marina expansion, dredging of approximately 2900 cubic yards of privately owned underwater land, and other marina related appurtenances (2) . The project description in which the Trustees acted upon appears in the EAF Part 1 (1) and the wetlands permit application (2) , the Trustees Lead Agency Coordination Requests to all involved agencies dated August 6 , 1991 (3) , follow-up letters to all involved agencies dated September 5 , 1991 (4) , the Trustees Resolution adopting lead agency status dated September 5 , 1991 (5) , the Environmental Assessment prepared by Bruce Anderson, Consultant to the Trustees dated September 24, 1991(6) and attached to EAF Pai<ts 2 and 3 (7 , 8) the Trustees negative declaration of September 27 , 1991 (9j , the Trustees Notice of Public Hearing issued on September 27 , 1991 (10) and the wetland permit issued by the Trustees on November 15, 1991 (12) . Pae 11 . Item #30. "subject premises was rezoned "Marine II which allow the marina as a permitted-use." Response: Importantly , the project as proposed is in conformance with the Master Plan and complies with zoning. Page 13. Item #35 and 36. "The respondent Trustees assumed lead agency status by resolution dated September 5 , 1991. Thereafter , the Trustees convened a special meeting on September 26, 1991 to determine the significance of the action pursuant to SEQRA. . .By letter dated September 26, 1991, to the respondent Trustees from council to the petitioner submitted comments critiquing the Environmental Assessment Form, Part I and asking for additional time to submit comments prior to the Board making its determination pursuant to SEQRA. At that time, an EAF, Part II had been prepared by the Trustees ' consultant , Bruce Anderson, but 475 Rambler Road, Southold, NY 11971 (516) 765-4071 was not made available to the public. By the letter, request was also made for permission to review the EAF, Part II . Petitioner, with his council and consultant, Laurence Penny , appeared at a special meeting of the Trustees on September 26, 1991 , and submitted the aforementioned letter, together with comments of the consultant , Laurence Penny. . . .Without taking the time to consider the comments of the petitioner or its attorney or its consultant , the Trustees resolved to issue a negative declaration. Response: Following the Trustees acceptance of lead agency status on September 5 , 1991 (5) , the Trustees issued a negative declaration on September 26 , 1991 (9) . The Trustees meeting of September 26, 1991 (10) , was noticed in the local papers on September 12 , 1991 thereby alerting the public of the meeting 15 days ahead of time. The petitioners could have submitted comments well in advance of when they actually did so. SEQRA mandates that the Lead Agency determine environmental significance 15 days following lead agency designation. SEQRA does not mandate a public hearing in order to make a determinatioF.of significance. Further, SEQRA does not require" the Trustees to evaluate comments submitted by the petitioners prior to the declaration of significance. Nevertheless, the Petitioners were advised by the Trustees that pursuant to SEQRA, the Trustees would evaluate any and all new information that would have a regulatory effect on the project. The Petitioner' s requests and subsequent arguments that the Trustees should have postponed their decision until after the Petitioners had submitted their comments on the all EAFs is not a requirement of SEQRA and in fact are clear perversions of the processing requirements as set forth in SEQRA. It is important to recognize that the petitioners are not considered an involved agency and no comments from the involved (government) agencies suggested that the project may require an EIS. Page 14. Item #39 . "On October 17 , 1991 , a public hearing was held by the Trustees at which numerous groups and individuals , including the petitioner, appeared in opposition to the granting of a wetlands permit , and to request that the Board require the preparation of a DEIS on the application." 475 Rambler Road, Southold, NY 11971 (516) 765-4071 s. Response: It is important to note that a number of individuals attending the public hearing expressed support for the project as proposed. Page 15. Item #42. "The approvals by the Board of Trustees. . .made a mockery of this Court' s prior determinations." Response: The Court' s prior determinations on Brick Cove Marina and the provisions in SEQRA and the Town Code were strictly adhered to in the processing of the application. Page 15 . Item #43. "Hell-bent on approving the application regardless of the requirements of SEQRA, both agencies took it upon themselves to push the application through without requiring an Envirpnmental Impact Statement, and while providinfi a post hoc environmental rationalization for their actions. Response: The Trustees negative declaration was arrived at in accordance with all procedures set forth`rtn SEQRA and the prior Court decision on Brick Cove Marina. Page 16. Item #45 "They conducted an environmental review just as perfunctory as the review they did on the application this court found to be inadequate. . ." Response: The most recent environmental review conducted for this project was far more detailed than the previous environmental review. The record clearly demonstrates this. Page 16. Items 48 , and 49. These arguments deal with shellfishing and wildlife concerns. Response: The analysis pertaining to wildlife is extremel detailed and was represented in the EAF Part 2 and 3 (71 8�. At the request of the Trustees , the applicant submitted documentation indicating that Sage Basin supported only limited shellfish resources in comparison to other creeks in the Town of Southold (21) . This documentation was subsequently confirmed by the Bruce Anderson, Consultant to the Trustees (26) and is presented in the Environmental 475 Rambler Road, Southold, NY 11971 (516) 765-4071 MR Assessment of this project (6) including the pertinent Environmental Assessment Forms. (7 , 8) Page 17. Item #50 and Item #51. Impacts pertaining to increased number of boats and dredging. Response: These items are totally unsubstantiated and unfounded and are contrary the environmental assessment performed on the project. It is apparent that the Petitioners chose to completely ignore the very detailed environmental assessment of .the project. Finally, all references to the Town' s Draft Waterfront Revitalization Program ("Plan") , are not germane to the processing of this application since this draft report has not been accepted by the Town nor the State and does not specifically address this project as proposed. In fact , the Plan quoted in the Petition has since been abandoned by the Town because of short comings in the Plan. Page 21. Item #61 . Type I actions are considd more likely than not to require the preparation of an environmental impact statement since they are considered in almost all instances to have a significant effect on the environment. (6 N.Y.C.R.R. 617 . 12)" Response: This item represents only the opinion of the Petitioner. Not all Type I actions require an EIS. The environmental assessment conducted for this project and all related regulatory actions from other involved agencies have clearly identified that this action will not have a significant impact on the environment. The Trustees' review of the project led them to conclude that the project would not result in a significant effect to the environment. Therefore , a negative declaration was issued for this project by the Trustees. The First Claim For Relief THE TRUSTEES FAILED TO TAKE A "HARD LOOK" AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT AND REQUIRE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT EVEN THOUGH ONE WAS PRESUMED TO BE REQUIRED. 475 Rambler Road, Southold, NY 11971 (516) 765-4071 The Trustees processing of the wetland application was carried out in strict conformance with the provisions in SEQRA, Section 97 of the Town Code, as well as the earlier court decision issued by Judge Luciano. Before the issuance of the negative declaration of environmental significance, the Trustees set out on a very detailed fact finding mission to evaluate the proposed project with respect to its potential impacts upon the environment . The process began with the Trustees request to have an initial report com leted by its Environmental Consultant , Bruce Anderson (13�. The initial report entitled, "Brick Cove Marina: Recommended Application Procedure" , specifically addressed the necessary components of a complete application including the completed applications forms : wetlands permit application and Environmental Assessment Form Part 1 as well as the need and provision for a narrative and analysis submitted by the applicant on the environmental effects of the proposal including the mitigation of those potential impacts proposed by the applicant. The submission of the Report was followed by a meeting on February 8 , 1991 between the Trustees, the Trustees ' Consultant the Applicant, the Applicant' s Consultant and Attorney and theg peral public including the Petitioners, the Petitioner's Consultant and Attorney. Minutes of the meeting were taken thereby documenting what the initial environmental concerns of the Trustees and the procedural requirements of the regulatory process as well as all other comments. raised (14) . Importantly, the procedural requirements of the wetlands application and SEQRA were addressed in great detail. Significantly, the Petitioners , and the Petitioners ' Attorney and Consultant participated in the meeting and their comments appear in the minutes of the meeting (14) . Pursuant to the wishes of the Trustees as provided in SEQRA as well as directed in the earlier decision rendered by the courts, the Applicant submitted a detailed narrative as part of their expanded environmental assessment of the project which specifically addressed the major environmental concerns raised at the February 8 , 1991 meeting (14) . Additionally, the Applicant's Consultant provided the Trustees with a listing and summaryof mitigate environmental impact (17) and F. D. A. actions to Calculations (Shellfish Sanitation Branch Guideline Foll the receipt and review of all materials submitted withotheg application, the Trustees resolved to deem the application complete also reserving their right to request additional 475 Rambler Road, Southold, NY 11971 (516) 765-4071 s� � information (19) as not to Preclude the Trustees from taking the prerequisite "hard look '. The Lead Agency Coordination Request(s) (3) which followed the Trustees finding of complete application requested agency comment on the project also pursuant to the "hard look" criterion. By correspondence dated August 10, 1991 , the Consultant to the Trustees regrested technical input from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("NYSDEC") on the impacts to shellfish closure resulting from the ro 'ect as proposed as part of the prerequisite "hard look" . The NYSDEC responded to the Consultant on behalf of the Trustees by letter dated September 11 , 1991. This response was reviewed by the Trustees and was included in the Environmental Assessment and Environmental Assessment Forms appearing as Exhibit E (61 7 , 8) . On September 5, 1991 , the Trustees issued follow-up letters to all involved agencies (4) requesting agency comment pertaining . to the impacts of the pro ct, specifically in preparation of the Environmental Assessment Forms Parts 2 and 3 as consistent with the required "hard look". The applicant submitted additional materials pertaining to shellfish abundance and gas storage facilities on September 6, 1992 enabling the Trustees to take a "hard look" on these two environmental issues . On September 14, 1991 , the Trustees ' Consultant requested supplemental information pertaining to wetlands and solid waste practices at Brick Cove Marina as consistent with the "hard look" criterion (22) . Information regarding the designation of wetlands on site was subsequently confirmed in the field as documented in correspondence from Bruce Anderson to the Trustees dated September 20, 1991 (23) . On September 18 , 1991 , the Trustees Consultant requested additional information from the applicant regarding boater pumpout because of is potential environmental impacts to the surface waters and the ecology of Sage Basin and as consistent with the Trustees ' mandate to take a "hard look" at the these potential impacts . This request for additional information was followed up by 475 Rambler Road, Southold, NY 11971 (516) 765-4071 PM / -nether request dealing with the control of boater pumpout and therefore the control of its associated environmental impacts (25) . The applicant adequately responded to all requests made by the Trustees and the Trustees ' Consultant, and these responses were attached as exhibits in the Environmental Assessment Report as Part of the Long Environmental Assessment Forms completed for the project (19 69 71 8) . The Trustees thoroughly analyzed and considered these materials prior to making a regulatory decision on the project. On September 22, 1991 , the Trustees ' Consultant performed a field inspection which confirmed the Applicant' s earlier submissions pertaining to shellfish abundance in and around the project site at Sage Creek. The Trustees were advised of the findings of this field inspection by way of correspondence dated September 22 , 1991 (26) . In summary, it is clear that the Trustees recognized and fulfilled their responsibility to take a Is look" at the potential impacts resulting from the project as proposed. The numerous requests for detailed information on the potential impacts resulting from the proje¢r as proposed, the Applicant' s responses to all requested information, the Trustees' careful analysis of all information received from the applicant , other involved agencies , the Environmental Assessment, Environmental Assessment Forms (Parts 1 , 2 , and 3) , and the Wetlands Application submitted by the Applicant constitute their "hard look". Page 27 . Item #77 . "The so-called "hard look" test set forth in 6 N.Y.C.R.R. 617 .6 (g) was not met by the Trustees in the SEQRA review conducted on subject project." Response: There is no doubt that the hard look criterion was met by the Trustees in the SEQRA review conducted on subject project. The Trustees made frequent requests for additional information to the applicant and the NYSDEC which was subsequently analyzed and included in the Environmental Assessment for the project. These analyses revealed that the project as proposed would not have a significant effect on the environment. 475 Rambler Road, Southold, NY 11971 (516) 765-4071 Page 27 . Item #78 . "In issuing a negative declaration, the Trustees ignored the evidence before it of the potential significant effects of the project." Response: The evidence before the Trustees including the Environmental Assessment and Environmental Assessment Forms Part 1 , 2 , and 3 clearly indicated that the project would not have a significant effect upon the environment. The Trusteeslissuance of a Negative Declaration was completely consistent with all evidence before it. Page 27 Item #81 . "First , the Trustees ignored the fact that the project was located within a Critical Environmental Area. . . Response: The Trustees did not ignore the fact that the project was located in a Critical Environmental Area. The initial report to the Trustees from their Consultant, Bruce Anderson dated February 6, 1991 , stated that the project was classified as a Type I Action because the project was located in a Critical Environmental Area (13) . The minutes of the Special Trustee Meeting of February 8 , 1T91 also state(► that the project is a Type I Action because of its location in a Critical Environmental Area (14) . Importantly , the February 8th meeting was attended by the Petitioner, the Petitioner' s Consultant and Attorney. The Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant and dated July 29 , 1991 , correctly indicated the project to be located in a Critical Environmental Area (1) . The Trustees recognized the project' s Type I designation and directed the preparation of the Long Environmental Assessment Forms as required by SEQRA. Additionally, the project' s Type I status appears in The Lead Agency Coordination Reuest letters to all involved agencies dated August 6 , 1991 8) , the Notice Of Hearings On Wetlands Application published on September 12 and October 3 , 1991 (10, 11) . Finally , the Negative Declaration issued by the Trustees for the project September 26, 1991 describes the action as Type I because it is located in a Critical Environmental Area (15) . Page 28 . Item #82. "Second, the Trustees ignored the fact that subject property lies on Conkling Point which has been designated by the Department of State of the State of New York as a "Significant Coastal Wildlife and Fish 475 Rambler Road, Southold, NY 11971 (516) 765-4071 Habitat. . .The boundaries of the designated wildlife habitat immediately abut the subject premises. " Response: This argument is to be addressed by John Bredemeyer, President of the Board of Trustees. The responses to this argument should include the following: First , the Town had full knowledge of the Si nificant Coastal Wildlife and Fish Habitat ("Habitat$I prior to and during the processing of this a plication. In fact , the Town formed a select committee g 'Committee") to address the Habitat. The Committee' s deliberations lead to the designation of Conkling' s Point as the Habitat. Trustee Bredemeyer and Trustee Smith served on the Committee. Second, the project site is located approximately 1/3 mile from the Habitat. The boundaries do not abut subject premises by land although Conkling' s Point is partially surrounded by water. If one is to conclude that the designated Habitat abuts subject premises (by water) then the same habitat also abuts Portugal, Spainlrthe Azores and Africa. High density development including associated land disturbance is extensively found between the project site and the Habitat. In fact, the narrative accompanying the Designation as approved by the New York State Department of State on the Habitat declares that the area is bordered by high density residential development to the north (in between subject premises and the Habitat) resulting in some recreational disturbance of the Habitat. Therefore, given the project ' s location away from the Habitat , it is inconceivable that the project as proposed could have any effect on the habitats found at Conkling' s Point. Third, the Applicant received full regulatory approval for the project by the United States Army Corps. of Engineers and the New York State Department of State. Approvals from both agencies require that impacts resulting from the project as proposed be analyzed with respect to nearby Habitats pursuant to the New York State Coastal Management Program which is an outgrowth of the Federal Coastal Management Program. In effect, the granting of the Coastal Consistency Permit by the New York State Department of State confirms that the project as proposed would not result in the destruction of the Habitat at Conkling' s Point. Fourth, the Environmental Assessment Form Part 2 specifically addressed Significant Coastal Wildlife and Fish Habitats. No impact was appropriately indicated in the 475 Rambler Road, Southold, NY 11971 (516) 765-4071 Environmental Assessment Form because the project would not result in the removal of any portion of a Significant Wildlife Habitat. Page 28. Item 83. "Third, the Trustees failed to analyze or even acknowledge in the Town' s possession to the effect that certain threatened and endangered species actually used the subject premises and surrounding areas as habitat." Response: The Trustees were fully cognizant of potential impacts to endangered species. The Environmental Assessment Form correctly indicated that the proposed project action would effect endangered and threatened species and correctly indicated that the impact to threatened and endangered species would be small to moderate (7) . The judgement of small to moderate impact to threatened and endangered species was further supported by the Environmental Assessment (6) attached to the Environmental Assessment Forms , Parts 1 , 2, and 3 (11 7 , 8) and made available for public inspection. Yr The Second Claim For Relief THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TRUSTEES WAS LEGALLY DEFECTIVE IN THAT IT FAILED TO CONTAIN A REASONED ELABORATION OF THE REASONS FOR ITS ISSUANCE. The Trustees properly executed their Negative Declaration on the project. Utilizing the form provided in the SEQRA Handbook, the exact reasons for the Trustees ' determination were stated and appropriately referenced. The Petition alleges that the sole basis for the issuance of the negative declaration is as follows: ( that) "All impacts associated with the project as proposed were identified and analyzed. All impacts identified as potentially large were reduced to small to moderate as a result of mitigation. None of the impacts are significant. No impacts were concluded as important." However , the Petition ignores the preceding line in the Notice of Determination of Non- Significance which reads as follows , "Reasons in support of the Negative Declaration: An EAF part 1 ,2 ,3 is attached for your information and in support of the negative declaration." Importantly, the reasoned elaboration which led to the Trustees ' issuance of a Negative Declaration is 475 Rambler Road, Southold, NY 11971 (516) 765-4071 _ their review of the Environmental Assessment (6) and the Environmental Assessment Forms Parts 1 , 2 , 3 (1,7,8) which were attached to the Notice of Determination of Non- Significance. The completed Negative Declaration including all such attachments were routed to all involved agencies and maintained in the files of the Trustees for public inspection. In summary, the Trustees utilized the correct form, Notice of Determination of Non-Significance as provided in the SEQRA Handbook, which provides only limited space for their reasons in support of the Negative Declaration and appropriately referenced and attached the Environmental Assessment (6) and all Environmental Assessment Forms (1 , 7, 8) . The entire package constituted their reasoned elaboration for their issuance of the Negative Declaration. Page 33. Item #95. No reference is made in the negative declaration to the various impacts on surface water, groundwater, traffic, animal or plant populations , ect. . . Response: As previously pointed out, all impacts were specifically referenced in the Notice of Determination of Non-Significance (Negative Declaration) on the project. Detailed analysis of all impacts reasonably expected to occur was provided in the Environmental Assessment and all Environmental Assessment Forms (1 , 6 , 7 , 8) . Importantly, the criteria of environmental significance and importance as set forth in SEQRA were secifically addressed in the Environmental Assessment (6) and Environmental Assessment Form, Part 3 (8) for all impacts previously identified. The Third Claim for Relief THE APPROVAL OF THE TRUSTEES AND PLANNING BOARD WAS BASED ON AN ILLEGAL CONDITIONED NEGATIVE DECLARATION There are basically two principle arguments in support of this claim which are found in items 99 , 100, and 105 appearing on pages 34-38 of the Petition: 475 Rambler Road, Southold, NY 11971 (516) 765-4071 First , "Since there is no mitigation identified in the negative declaration, one can only look to the permit conditions themselves for the mitigation allegedly imposed by the Trustees to mitigate the environmental effects of the project and avoid the need for an Environmental Impact Statement. " Second, "The negative declaration read in conjunction with the subject permit indicates that in essence the negative declaration is what is termed a "conditioned negative declaration" or "CND" in that, presumably , without the mitigation identified in the permit, the negative declaration could not be issued, and a EIS would have to be prepared." The underlying premise in the first principle argument is that there was no mitigation identified in the negative declaration. Therefore, one can only look to the permit conditions". This principle argument is fatally flawed because the negative declaration consisted of both the Notice of Determination of Non-Significance (15) , the Environmental Assessment of the Project (6)` iid Environmental Assessment Forms (1 , 7 , 8) . These documents attached into one package, routed to all involved agencies including the Southold Planning Board , and maintained in the files of the Trustees for public inspection, listed and explained in detail all impacts and all mitigation to those impacts. In essence, while the Petitioner asserts that one can only rely on the permit conditions , the Petitioner could also have relied on the Negative Declaration which referenced and attached these other documents. The second principle argument brought forth by the Petitioner is that the Trustees in effect issued a conditioned negative declaration ("CND") for the project. The Petitioner correctly points out that CND' s can only be issued for unlisted actions pursuant to SEQRA. However, the Trustees have recognized from the very beginning of the regulatory process that the project was a Type 1 Action because of its location in a Critical Environmental Area. The Trustees recognition of this fact is found in the Initial Report prepared by the Trustees ' Consultant dated February 6 , 1991 (13) , the minutes of the Special Trustee Meeting of February 8 , 1991 (14) , the Environmental Assessment Form, Part 1 prepared by the Applicant (1) , the Trustees performance in directing the preparation of Environmental Assessment Forms Parts , 2 and 3 (71 8) , the 475 Rambler Road, Southold, NY 11971 (516) 765-4071 Lead Agency Coordination Request letters to all Involved Agencies (3) , and the Notice Of Hearings On Wetlands Application published on September 12 and October 3, 1991 (10, 11) . Finally and significantly , the project was listed as a Type 1 Action and the Conditioned Negative Declaration was rejected in the Notice Of Determination of Non- Significance (Negative Declaration) (15) . Importantly, the Notice Of Determination of Non-Significance did not require mitigation as a basis for the Negative Declaration but rather referenced the substantive mitigation proposed by the Applicant in justifying the Negative Declaration. Therefore, it can only be concluded that the Trustees did not in any way, imply or otherwise pursue, the regulatory processing of this application in accordance with a Conditioned Negative Declaration as defined in SEQRA. The vast majority of the conditions attached to the Wetlands Permit issued by the Trustees for this project were done so in an attempt to provide for the enforcement of the mitigation measures which were proposed by the applicant. These conditions are essentially performance stpndards that the applicant proposed in writing and in conju�rc!tion with their application for Wetlands Permit. For example, the Applicant' s Agent submitted, "Listing and Summary of Proposed Actions to Mitigate Environmental Impact" dated July 29, 1991 (17) in conjunction with the Application for Wetlands Permit (2) . Additionally , the Applicant proposed other mitigation strategies such as those having to do with the control of boater pumpout which are contained as exhibits in the Long Environmental Assessment Forms. The Applicant, by way of the survey submitted with the Wetlands Application, proposed mitigation of potential stormwater runoff impacts , potential septic system impacts , boat pumpout impacts, bottom paint impacts (by way of providing for a wash down basin) , gas storage impacts , and dredge spoil deposition impacts. The Trustees issuance of a Wetlands Permit including most of the special conditions attached thereto constituted their response and acceptance of the mitigation strategies proposed by the Applicant. SEQRA, specifically including the Environmental Assessment and Environmental Assessment Forms , was used in a Positive way providing for detailed analysis of mitigation strategies substantially proposed by the applicant and written in such a way so that the General Public could understand the reasoning behind the Trustee' s subsequent 475 Rambler Road, Southold, NY 11971 (516) 765-4071 f ,` im, regulatory decisions on this project. In fact, the Environmental Assessment and the Environmental Assessment Form, Part 3 specifically addressed the mitigation of environmental impacts in terms of what the applicant proposed. The Fourth Claim for Relief RESPONDENTS ACTED ON AN INCOMPLETE APPLICATION The Petitioner argues that the Trustees acted on an incomplete application because (1) no Environmental Impact Statement was required and (2) no legally sufficient determination of no significance was made. The first argument by the Petitioner in support of the their Fourth Claim for Relief relates directly to the Petitioner' s First Claim for Relief (ie. the alleged requirement of an Impact Statement) . Since the First Claim of Relief is refuted earlier in this docume?l+-, the first argument of the Fourth Claim for Relief is likewise refuted. Clearly the Trustees acted on a complete application in the processing of the Wetland Permit even though they did not require an Environmental Impact Statement. The second argument by the Petitioner in support of their Fourth Claim for Relief (ie. no legally sufficient determination of no significance was made) relates directly to the Second and Third Claim for Relief (ie. the alleged lack of a reasoned elaboration for the issuance of a Negative Declaration and the alleged illegal conditioned negative declaration) . Since both the Second and Third Claims for Relief were refuted earlier in this document , the second argument of the Fourth Claim is likewise refuted. It is clear that the Trustees acted on a complete application with respect to their determination of no significance. - The Fifth Claim For Relief THE PERMITS GRANTED BY THE RESPONDENTS ARE IN VIOLATION OF 280-a OF TOWN LAW AND SOUTHOLD TOWN CODE 100-235 475 Rambler Road, Southold, NY 11971 (516) 765-4071 The Fifth Claim for Relief is refuted by the earlier court decision on Young' s Marina. Judge Luciano has written, "The Court concludes that the issuance of the subject wetlands permit pursuant to Chapter 97 of the Town Code was not issued in violation of section 280-a of the Town Law. " May 18 , 1990 Index No. 4911/88. By logical extension, the issuance of a wetland permit by the Trustees is not in violation of Southold Town Code 100-235. References (1) Environmental Assessment Form Part 1 (2) Wetlands Permit Application prepared by the Applicant (3) Lead Agency Coordination Request dated August 61 1991 (4) Follow-up letters to all Involved Agencies dated September 5, 1991 (5) Trustees Resolution adopting Lead Agency Status dated September 5, 1991 (6) Environmental Assessment prepared by Bruce Anderson dated September 24, 1991 (7) Environmental Assessment Form, Part 2 (8) Environmental Assessment Form, Part 3 (9) Trustees Negative Declaration dated September 27 , 1991 (10) Trustees Notice of Public Hearing dated September 12, 1991 (11) Trustees Notice of Public Hearing dated October 3, 1991 (12) Trustees Wetlands Permit dated November 15, 1991 (13) Initial Report from Bruce Anderson to the Board of Trustees dated February 6, 1991 475 Rambler Road, Southold, NY 11971 (516) 765-4071 (14) Minutes from the Trustees Special Meeting of February 8 , 1991 (15) Negative Declaration issued by Trustees dated September 26, 1991 (16) Narrative and Analysis: An Expanded Environmental Assessment (Supplemental Information to Application) prepared by Pecan Associates dated July 29, 1991. (17) Listing and Summary of proposed actions to Mitigate Environmental Impact prepared by Pecan Associates dated July 29, 1991 (18) F. D. A. Guideline Calculations (Shellfish Sanitation Branch) prepared by Pecan Associates dated July 29, 1991 (19) Trustees Resolution deeming application complete dated August 1, 1991 (20) Correspondence from Bruce Anderson to NYSDEC regarding impacts to shellfish closure dated Augiirt 10, 1991 (21) Correspondence from Peconic Associates to Trustees regarding shellfish abundance ib Sage Basin and gas storage dated September 14, 1991 (22) Correspondence from Bruce Anderson to Peconic Associates regarding wetlands line and solid waste practices dated September 14, 1991 (23) Correspondence from Bruce Anderson to Trustees confirming wetlands line dated September 20, 1991 (24) Correspondence from Bruce Anderson to Applicant requesting additional information regarding boater pump-out dated September 18, 1991 (25) Correspondence from Bruce Anderson to applicant regarding the control of boater pump-out dated September 21 , 1991 (26) Correspondence from Bruce Anderson to Trustees regarding shellfish abundance dated September 22 , 1991 475 Rambler Road, Southold, NY 11971 (516) 765-4071 MEMORANDUM PREME COURT , SUFFOLK COUNTY IAS PART X FRANK FLYNN , BY : DANIEL F . LUCIANO, J.S .C . Petitioner , DATE 1-57 1993 For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules , INDEX NO. 92/1763 -against- MOTION DATE 2/10/92 ; 3/9/92 CALENDAR DATE 7/27/92 ? BENNETT ORLOWSKI , JR. , Chairman , CDISPSJ GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR . , RICHARD : C . :•:ARD, m10K S . MacDONALD and KENNETH L . EDWARDS , constituting the Planning Board of the Town of Southold, and JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, III , President , HENRY P . SMITH, Vice President , ALBERT J . KRUPSKI , JR . , WILLIAM G. ALBERTSON, JOHN B . TUTHILL, constituting the Board of Town Trustees of the Town of Southold , and VICTOR LESSARD , Building Inspector of the Town of outhold , Res cndents . TWOMEY, LATHAM, SHE?, & KELLEY , ESQS . MATTHEW G. KIERNAN, ESQ . Attorneys for Petitioner Attorney for Respondents 33 West Second Street Town Attorney' s Office Post Office Bos 398 Town of Southold Riverhead , New York 11901 53095 Main Road Post Office Box 1179 Southold , New Ycrk 11971 The petitioner , Frank Flynn , commenced this Article 78 proceeding seeking a judgment : "annul ( ling ] and set(tingl aside the resolution of site plan approval issued on November 18 , 1991 , by the respondents constituting the Planning Board of the Town of Southold ; . . .annul ( ling ] and setting ] aside the resolution of November 14 , 1991 , by which the respondent Town Trustees issued a wetlands permit pursuant to Chapter 97 of the Southold Town Code; enjoining the respondent Building Inspector from issuing a building permit for the subject project ; and remanding the natter back to the Southold Town Trustees and the S-outhclu Town Plining Board for the preparation of an Environmental Impact, Statement" . Litigati-;n c :ncerning the project which is the subject of this dispute , the expansion of what was Young ' s Marina , and is new Brick 'ove �Iarina , located to the T^::n of Southold , was previously bef^.re -his Court . Th(_ earlier d`tP_Clnat:.ons concluded , inter alta , that PAGE 2 - FLYNN V . ORLOWSKI INDEX NO. 92/1763 the "negative declaration" issued upon the environmental assessment of the project was not adequately supported by proof that the involved agencies had taken the requisite "hard look" at relevant reas of environmental concern. Subsequently, acting as lead agency the respondent , Board of Town Trustees , purported to undertake a proper environmental assessment and again issued a negative declaration by a determination dated September 26 , 1991 . The petitioner , Frank Flynn , again alleges that such negative declaraticn is not properly supportable . In addition , the petitioner, Frank Flynn, alleges violations of section 280-a of the Town Law and section 100-235 of the Southold Town Code . There is no dispute that the subject property is located in a "Critical Environmental Area of the Peconic Bay Estuary" and that the proposed project is a Type I Action . While a Type I Action generally will require the preparation of an environmental impact statement , that is not always the case . ( Hare v. Molvneaux , 182 A.D . 2d 908 . )* For reasons discussed below, however, the Court does not find that this instance is an exception to the general rule requiring an environmental impact statement for a Type I action . In Shawangunk Mountain Environmental Association v Planning Board of the Town of Gardiner , ( 157 A .D. 2d 273 , 275-276 ) , the Court offered a discussion reflecting the more common requirements with respect to Type I Actions : . . in a Type I project, there is a relatively low threshold for requiring an EIS ( see , H .O.M.E .S . v New York State Urban Dev. Corp. , 69 AD2d 22- , 232 ; see also , Chinese Staff & Workers Assn . v City of New York, 68 NY2d 359 , 364-365 ) . The EIS process is especially designed to insure the injection of full , open and deliberative consideration of environmental issues into gcvernmental decision-making (Akpan v Koch , 75 NY2d 561 , 569 ) . The EIS process guarantees comprehensive review of a project ' s adverse environmental effects , consideration of less intrusive alternatives to the proposed action , including "no-action" , and consideration of mitigation measures ( ECL 8-0109 ( 21 ; 6 NYCRR 617 . 14 ( fl ; Matter of Jackson v New York State Urban Dev. Corp. , ( 67 NY2d 4001 supra , at 416 ) . To assure accountability of the lead agency and avoidance of any oversight in that agency ' s assessments , the regulatory scheme requires public access to the information by making the draft and final EIS available with sufficient lead time to afford interested persons an opportunity to study the project , its environmental effects and proposed mitigating Z PAGE 3 - FLYNN V. ORLOWSKI INDEX NO . 92/1763 measures , and then comment thereon ( ECL 8-0109'• [ 4-] ; 6 NYCRR 617 . 8 [ c ] ] ; 617 . 9 [a ] ; Matter of Jackson v New York State Urban Dev. Corp. , supra , at 415-416 ) . Additional safeguards are found in the substantive requirements that the lead agency must act and choose among alternatives so as to minimize adverse environmental consequences , consistent with other social , economic and policy considerations , and must then make appropriate written findings to that effect ( ECL 8-0109 [ 1 ] , ( 81 ; 6 NYCRR 617 . 9 [ c ] ; Matter of Jackson v New York State Urban Dev. Corp. , supra , at 416 ; see , Akpan v Koch , supra , at 570 ) . In the present case the petitioner, Frank Flynn, alleges , in part: 35 . . . . The Trustees convened a special meeting on September 26 , 1991 to determine the significance of the action pursuant to SEQRA. Petitioner only became aware of this special meeting approximately one week before it was to take place . By letter dated September 26 , 1991 , to respondent Trustees from counsel to petitioner,. . . . petitioner submitted comments critiquing the Environmental Assessment Form, Part I and asking for additional time to submit comments prior to the Board making its determination pursuant to SEQRA. At that time, an EAF, Part II had been prepared by the trustees ' consultant , Bruce Anderson, but was not made available to the public . By the letter , request was also made for permission to review the EAF, Part II . 36 . -Petitioner, with his counsel and consultant , Laurence Penny, appeared at the special meeting of the Trustees on September 26 , 1991 , and submitted the aforementioned letter, together with comments of the consultant, Laurence Penny. . . . Without taking the time to consider the comments of the petitioner or its attorney or its consultant , the Trustees resolved to issue a negative declaration. In response the respondent , Zoning Board, asserts , "the record demonstrates that all of the potential impacts associated with this project were identified by Bruce Anderson in his environmental review" and that "these potential impacts were fully discussed and considered by the Trustees before they issued their negative declaration. " (Affirmation in opposition of Harvey A. Arnoff , Esq . , paragraph 18 . ) While the environmental assessment purporting to support the negative declaration in this case gives the appearance of having reviewed all areas of environmental concern and having provided the necessary reasoned articulation of the conclusions reached with respect to each of them, the petitioner, Frank Flynn, challenges many of the statements therein . In large measure the present dispute is le between the petitioner ' s , Frank Flynn, expert , Laurence T . Penny, .a environmental planner and professional environmental scientist PAGE 4 - FLYNN V. ORLOWSKI INDEX NO. 92/1763 serving as the National Resources Director for the Town of East uampton, and the expert relied upon by the respondent, Board of rustees , Bruce Anderson . It is- not the Court ' s function , nor is it within the Court ' s competence , to determine which of the many disputed conclusions , which these two highly trained experts appear to have , may be correct . -It is the Court ' s role, however , to assure that the mandates of SEQRA have been complied with in a meaningful way, and that they not be satisfied in appearance only . Since the petitioner, Frank Flynn , has offered specific criticisms of the conclusions and methods employed by Bruce Anderscn , ( see Comments Concerning the Brick Cove Marina Application SEQRA Analysis and Determination by Scuthcld Town Board of Trustees prepared by Larry Penny, dated September 25 , 1991 ) , and in view of the history of this matter in which the petitioner ' s , Frank Flynn , opposition to the proposed project has been well-known for many years , the Court concludes that a reasoned articulation in support of a negative declaration which does not address the specific allegations of adverse environmental significance cannot be deemed sufficient . One concern of which the Court takes note involves threatened and endangered species . In his affidavit in support of the petitioner, Laurence T . Penny , has identified a number of waterf::�wl end waterbirds which , he asserts , use the project site as a habitat .ncluding the endangered "and/or" threatened species of osprey, . piping plover, common tern and least tern . Mr . Pennv further alleges that " [ tJhe proposed project would have a serious deleterious effect on the value .of this habitat for threatened endangered species identified including the other important species identified . . . above. " The Court does not find a discussion constituting a reasoned elaboration by the respondent , Zoning Board , reflecting a "hard look" at this environmental concern to be a part of the record before it . The following discussion of the Appellate Division , Third Department, in West Branch Association , Inc . v . Planning Board , Town of Ramapo , A.D . 2d , 576 N .Y . S . 2d 675 , 677 , is relevant to the matter before the Court : In making a determination of significance , the lead agency must review the environmental assessment form, the criteria contained in 6 NYCRR 617 . 11 and any other supporting information to identify the relevant areas of envircnmental concern ( see , 6 NYCRR 617 . 6 ( g ) ( 21 ( iil ) . In pertinent part , 6 NYCRR 617 . 11 (a ) provides that " [ t ]hese criteria are considered indicators of significant effects on the environment . -* ** 2 ) *** substantial adverse effects on a threatened or endangered species of animal or plant , or the habitat of such a species" . Additionally, "SEQRA insures that agency decision-makers - enlightened by public comment PAGE 5 - FLYNN V . ORLOWSKI INDEX NO . 92/1763 where appropriate - will identify and focus attention on any environmental impact of [a ] proposed action" (Matter of Jackson v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp. , 67 N. Y. 2d 400 , 414-415 , 503 N.Y.S . 2d 298 , 494 N .E . 2d 429 ) . Thus , in West Branch Association , Inc . v. Planning Board , Town of Ramapo , supra, where the record was devoid of any evidence that the lead agency had taken a hard look at one of the areas of environmental concern, identified threatened and endangered plants at the project site , the Court was constrained to remand the matter to the lead agency for further proceedings . In the environmental assessment supporting the negative declaration there is a discussion of osprey in which it is concluded that no nests are included in the project site, and 'that " [ nlo impacts to the nesting and foraging needs of the osprey are expected to occur as a result of the project as proposed . " It does not appear, however, that the respondent, Zoning Board, considered the other endangered or threatened species mentioned by Laurence T . Pehny, the piping plover, common tern and least tern . As in West Branch Association, Inc . v . Planning Board , Town of Ramapo , supra , therefore, this matter must be remanded for further proceedings . If the dispute between experts were the only issue , the respondent , Planning Bcard , might be able to establish that a ^egative declaration was proper by merely offering a reasoned rticulatien in support of the conclusion that Laurence T. Penn- was .incorrect in his many assertions that Bruce Anderson acted inadequately in his methods and erred in his conclusions . The Court concludes , however, that in this circumstance that remedy will not suffice because the preparation of an environmental impact statement is required . The environmental assessment reflects the conclusion that collectively ( 1 ) the temporary or permanent placement of drainage koil ; ( 2 ) the construction of a washdown platform and associated drainage; ( 3 ) landscaping , and ( 4 ) the relocation of an existing septic system could have a potentially large environmental impact absent mitigation. In Holmes v . Brookhaven Town Planning Board, ( 137 A.D. 2d 601 , 603 ) , the Appellate Division, Second Department , stated : The Environmental Conservation Law mandates that an EIS be prepared where there is to be any proposed action that "may have a significant effect on the environment" ( ECL 8-0109 [ 2 ] [ emphasis added ] ) . Because the operative word triggering the requirement of an EIS is "may" , " ' there is a relatively low threshold for impact statements '" ( H.O.M. E .S . v New York State Urban Dev. Corp.•, 69 AD-1d 222 , 232 ) . Inasmuch as the DEP, as the lead agency, initially determined that the proposed project constituted a Type 1 action with a possibly significant impact upon the environment , an EIS should have been prepared . PAGE 6 -- FLYNN V. ORLOWSKI INDEX NO . 92/1763 ( See also New York Archeological Council v. Town Board of the Town of Zoxsackie, 177 A.D. 2d 923 , 924 , ( "As the instant project was determined by the Town Board, to be a Type I action with two possibly significant impacts upon the environment, the preparation of an EIS is required. " ) Similarlv , an environmental impact statement is required in this instance as well . In addition , the petitioner , Frank Flynn , has argued that the respondent, Planning Board, also improperly issued a de facto conditioned negative .declaration . In this regard th•e Court agrees . Considering a similar situation in Shawangunk Mountain Environmental Association v. Planning Board of the Town of Gardiner, supra , 276.-277 , the Court stated : Respondent ' s determination was , at best , equivalent to a conditioned negative declaration, a dispositional option only permitted under the regulations for unlisted actions , not Type I actions such as this ( see, 6 NYCRR 617 . 2 ( hl ) . Although the negative declaration states that the mitigations respondent found sufficient to eliminate all environmental effects were "proposed by the applicant, and made part of the filed application" , it is abundantly evident from the record that the mitigating measures proposed were concessions extracted from Petone by respondent and its consultant as necessary prerequisites to the issuance of the negative declaration . Indeed , as late as the September 20 , 1988 meeting of respondent , Petone ' s attorney was requesting the members "to make a consensus in regard to the mitigations referred to in the Town Planners memorandum" which ultimately formed the basis of the negative declaration, and then a vote was taken . Thus , it can hardly be disputed that the mitigating measures were in fact conditions precedent to the negative declaration, fashioned in the first instance by respondent ' s planning consultant . The negative declaration in the present case similarly imposes conditions which are in the nature of conditions precedent to the issuance of a negative declaration. . Examples of such imposed conditions are apparent with regard to impact on water ( e •g . "the applicant has been required and has agreed to install a pumpout facility to service all boats from Brick Cove Marina as well as to serve all boats which come to Brick Cove Marina" ; "the applicant has been required to maintain a log of pumpout usage for enforcement purposes" ) . With respect to the alleged violation of section 280-a of the Town Law and section 100-235 of the Southold Town Code the Court e PAGE 7 - FLYN`N V. ORLOWSKI INDEX NO . 92/1763 agrees with the contentions of the respondents that the arguments hould be rejected as premature. Nevertheless, in view of the circumstances considered herein the Court is constrained to direct that an environmental' impact statement is required . ( See Shawangunk Mountain Environmental Association v. Planning Board of the Town of Gardiner, supra . ) Settle judgment . J.S .C . i a �v cu I CL x Appendix #5 w Marina Operations (Brick Cove Marina ) 0 �v m -s a r+ 0 W C-) 0 m 3 a —s cu BRICK COVE MARINA Sage Blvd. P.O Box 455 Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 477-0830 July 14, 1993 Mr. Douglas Feldman Suffolk County Department of Healt'n Services Bureau of Wastewater Manage:ient Suffolk County Center Riverhead, N.Y. 11901 SUBJECT: Brick Cove Mlarina Boat Punnp-Out Operations Dear htr. Feldman: Enclosed is information you requested in regard to the boat waste pump-out operations at Brick Cove i-carina. A 40 gallon portable pump-out station is provided to pump out boat holding tanks. This station is rolled to the boats and pumping has been performed at no charge since the spring of 1992. A pump-out log is maintained and provided at each year's end to the D.E.C. and Town Trustees. A toilet chemical is used in the holding tanks after pump-out that has no formaldehyde content, hence is receptive to satis- factory disposal of holding tank waste in a private or municipal sew- erage system. For the present, such wastes have been deposited in the marina sanitary system. To guarantee no overboard dumping of holding tanks at the marina, all overboard holding tank valves are sealed by the marina and a prohibitive charge is incurred if the seal is broken. All boats with toilets are required to have holding tanks. The portable pump-out cart used by the marina is made by Edson International and utilizes a hand pump. Specifications and photocopies of the unit are enclosed as well as a schematic of the pump-out and disposal operation. The cart houses the 40 gallon collection tank, manual pump, 2 hoses, and adapter fittings. To pump out boat wastes, the cart is rolled on its 24 inch wheels to the boat and a 25ft. 12" hose with a quick-disconnect fitting, sight tube to observe flow, and turn-off valve is connected to the boat waste outlet fitting after the boat waste cap is removed. Adapter fittings are supplied for insert into the boat waste outlet fitting (typically 1i inches) and the valve is opened after insertion. The other end of this 25ft. hose is permanently connected to the ca pump inlet. A shorter hose is permanently connected to the pump cart outlet, the other end of which has a quick disconnect attached to the top of the cart collection tank. A few strokes of the long pump handle easily removes the boat wastes to the collection tank. The- pump has a very good P,-action ,.. with easy strokes. No odors are experienced during this operation ex- cept a faint odor from the collection tank vent. After completion, a non-formaldehlyde toilet chemical is poured into the boat waste outlet BRICK COVE MARINA, INC. Sage Blvd., P.O. Box 455, Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 477-0830 fitting and the outlet cap replaced. After boat waste pump-out is complete, the valve at the boat end of the 25ft. waste suction hose is turned off and the hose withdrawn and coiled on the cart. The cart is then rolled to the waste receptacle, in this case the boater toilets' septic tank. The shorter hose is quick- disconnected from the collection tank input and placed into the septic tank top and a quick-disconnect cap placed on the tank opening. The longer hose end with the shut-off valve, sight tube, and quick-disconnect fitting is snapped onto the collection tank output standpipe after re- moval of its quick-disconnect cap. The valve is opened and the collection tank is then pumped into the septic tank. After completion and the shorter hose is drained,- water and toilet chemical are poured in the cart collection tank and also pumped into the septic tank. The shut-off valve is then closed and the shorter hose from the pump output is coiled into the cart. Minimal odors are encountered in this operation. A pump-out notice is posted at the marina and a marina agreement with rules and regulations is sent to the boaters each year. Please see the enclosed. Rules and regulations para. 17 regulates holding tank operations. A log is kept of the marina pump-out operations and a copy is sent at the end of each boating season to the D.E.C. and Town Trustees. Please see the enclosed 1992 log which was submitted. All boats, espe- cially smaller ones, do not have toilets, but all boats with toilets are required to have holding tanks. If they have a holding tank overboard dis- charge valve, this valve must be sealed by the marina. Many boaters use their boats infrequently, and do not necessarily use their toilets during each marina visit. The marina has also agreed to pump out boats from a neighboring marina (Southold Shores Association) and any other outside boats that so desire. This information is enclosed. Monthly water quality tests, total coliform and fecal coliform, were performed at 5 locations in the marina basin from June thru October 1992 with excellent results. The non-formaldehyde boat toilet chemical used by the marina is the Thetford Corp. Aqua-Kem Green available from East End Marine Supply Corp. in Greenport, N.Y. or other marina distributors. Information is enclosed for this toilet chemical showing that it contains active commercial waste plant ingredients as well as odor-stopping properties and no formaldehydes to prevent waste bacterial action. A copy of the notice posted at the marina is enclosed, advising boaters they should use this chemical or equivalent if they add chemical to their toilets between marina pump-out operations. As indicated in the enclosed 1992 pump-out log, the frequency of p np-out by the marina for particular boats varies greatly with varied boat and boat toilet use. Unlike home toilets, the quantity of salt water input to a boat toilet during each flush is usually less than 1 gal- lon. An active boater and pump-out situation, Mr. Crawford'd 34ft. power boat, consisted of 17 pump-outs from May 29, 1992 to December 9, 1992 for a total of- 121 gallons, or an average of 7 gallons per pump-outoit pump-out is done per boater request and since holding tank over valves, if installed, are sealed, boaters tend to request more frequent pump-outs BRICK COVE MARINA, INC. Sage Blvd., P.O. Box 455, Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 477-0830 than necessary. Most boat holding tanks are 20 to 40 gallon capacity. I hope you find the enclosed information useful. Please call Mr. Wiggin or myself if we can be of further assistance. Very truly yours, Howard H. j r (Owner, Brick Cove Marina) cc: Peconic Associates, Mr. Merlon Wiggin Mr. Charles T. Hamilton, Dept. of Environmental Conservation ' enclosures: Specifications for Edson Pump-Out Cart, Model 282rB, used by the marina Photocopies of the model 282MB Edson Pump-Out Cart Schematic of Pump-Out Cart Operation Marina Pump-Out Notice Sign 1993 Marina Agreement with Rules and Regulations Photocopy of 1992 Pump-Out Log Non-Formaldehyde Toilet Chemical Information (7pages) Marina Notice - Only Non-Formaldehyde Toilet Chemical Use Permitted i i i . �CF-{� MA '7' IGZ PvhP- Ou-r 0PEf<'A'T—t OtJ i ?b�ALL . CAP ' W�' 4 CAP I rJ o F�� � FRaH Co t_LE''c.TeatJ c A 4�T P..•+P •TA#JK J�crto�-► Pyrr P Ho SES 1eA-�'7AtN Pi PE ON PUMP) C AOL'r C CLkEe-7700J ' S Ia+�T TUdF SMWT•OFr "T7lNK vAluF� Q.�. l F Q a•�1 t3 •AT ���OtO�V4 T7�w+K •vr'LFT WA31EF►'inJ BOAT- NoTFj SoL A Lrri s = So 4r PvnP- o,;T TD c-#4 Ar I C Tran 1 Aj Po"P• e- T7!wK I , Q . D, = C�a i c-K con,wl W-e-T- ; i I f�i HEAD OVERBOARD WAYES MUST BE SEALED AND HMW TAW PIA+PED OUT BY N 4 . 1 s r 4 Edson EDSON PUMP-OUT-C RT- MODEL 282 The Edson Pump-Out Cart is the answer for small marinas who have limited need for a pump-out service; for marinas whose permanent slip customers have had to put up with the inconvenience of moving their boat to a fixed pump-out station; for marinas with difficult to reach sewer systems; for marinas that need a convenient pump-out system when hauling boats. The Edson Pump-Out Cart comes complete with a powerful bronze Edson pump with manual, electric, or gasoline power, a large 40 gallon capacity collection tank, a lightweight 25 ft., 1-1/2' PVC pump-out hose atwem- bly, and the necessary adapters for waste deck pilings, all mounted in a rugged coated aluminum dock cart (60' x 36' x 27), with 24' wheels. The Edson Pump-Out Cart includes a unique sewage transfer system that makes emptying the collection tank quick and easy. A 25 ft. transfer hose assembly is standard with each Pump-Out Cart. Additional 25 ft. transfer hose assemblies can be 8dws MoM 282 PumpOut Can abwo with your ordered as required. sbuoe of Manual Fica is or Campbne_Pump. !Nude- 282MB Size 18) Pump-Out Cart w/Manual Bronze Pump........................................................... Model 282EN Sim 20 Pump-Out Girt w/Dectric Bronze Pump...................................................................:3260.00 Model U2G6 Slur 40 Pump-Out Curt w/Gasoline Bronze Pump..............................................................». $3178.00 4 FEd /. s. Irl/ fir► n ,,TER,AT,OAL •. 46U INDUSTRIAL PARK ROAD,NEW BEDFORD,MA 02745.1292•TEL.508-995-9711 •FAX 5011.995-50Y1 ' I �� •_ ,fw � �� ' ;�` � � J -. ti ,�r k' i{ �Jh;`' 7 _ ',��• 3 � _ ,�,. I J � .-:7t1 rY. r , rK �)' •. r t , .� I 1 r � �� I • I 1 Bruce Anderson Environmental Consultant September 21 , 1991 Howard Zehner K P. 0. Box 250 • Greenport, NY 11944 Re: Brick Cove Marina Dear Mr. Zehner, Pursuant to our conversation of today it is my understanding that you have expressed a willingness to have overboard discharge valves sealed for boats having holding tanks otherwise capable of discharge to surface waters and to ban boats form your marina having toilet facilities without holding tanks . i Sincerely, Bruce Anderson cc. John Bredemeyer, President Southold Board of Trutees 7. We Crtw(a 475 Rambler Road, Southold, NY 11971 (516) 765-4071 CK COVE MARINA Sage Blvd., P.O. Box 455, Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 477-0830 January 15 , 1993 Town of Southold Board of Town Trustees Town Hall 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 8ttn: Mr. John M. Bredemeyer, III , President Dear Mr. Bredemeyer: Per Condition No. 26 of Permit No. 3959 we have attached the pumpout log for 1992 through the end of the boating season. The final pumpout on Dec 24 , 1992 completed the pumpout of all holding tanks on boats with heads prior to winterizing for storage. Very truly your P, William R. Leverich, Manager Howard Zehner , Owner MICK CM:KAkIN.A-gUtgY-QUt_LoG 1992 SLASON THE FOLLOWING IS A TRUE COPY OF THE WORKING PUMPOUT LOG KEPT AT BRICK COVE MARINA DATE CUSTOMER REGISTRATION OPER AMT GAL DISPOSAL SEAL HCftE PRI' 5-29 CRAWFORD KY8532JR MS U ON SITE YES BCH 6-01 BALDWIN KY8412JU M; 11 ON :;ITL YE:; bCA 6-26 CRAWFORD HE 10 YES BC]f 6-29 CRAWFuRIJ Hu b YLIS bill 7-2 BALDWIN HB 11 YES BCJ! 7-6 CRAWFORD HE 6 YES BCH f SINNING KY4436JA Hb 15 YES BCH 7-15 ALLARD DOC H6 10 YES STONY W, 7.16 YACHT HYLIN UNKNOWN HE 15 NO NLWPOkT 7.20 CRAWFORD HE 5 •' YES bCH 7.30 BALDWIN Hb 7 YE:: Btu CRAWFORD HE 6 YES BCH ADELSON DOC HE 5 YES BQ1 8-10 CRAWFORD HB 6 YES bc" BALDWIN HE 6 YES BCM WODIACK MY017LDU HE 4 YES bCOt LEE NY8710LP HB 12 YES BCM MITCHEL DOC HE 10 YES BCH 8-22 CItAWFORD WL 10 YES Bal 8-22 GERGEYES D.00 WL 10 YES BCM 8-21 KOZAN DOC HE 6 YES BCl1 8-21 CRAWFORD HB 6 YES BC11 8-21 ADELSON HE 4 " YES BCJI 8-24 KOZAN HE 6 YES Bt�l CRAWFORD HE 6 YES BC)1 ADELSON HE 4 YES bCH r 8-27 MITCHEL HE 10 _ YES bCA - 8.31 LEE Hb 0 yl;:-; bol +' DATE CUSTOMER REGISTRATION 1 OPER AMT GAL DISPOSAL SEAL HOME PNT. DATE CUSTOMER OPER AhT.GALS DISPOSAL SEAL HOME PHT 8-31 GRUBMAN NY9142HK Hb 15 ON SITE YES BCM i 1 8-31 BALDWIN Hb 6 ON SIT£ YES BCM MATURA DOC HB 10 YES BCM SINNING Hb 8 YES Baf 9-4 CRAWFORD WL a YES BCH ROUNDS NY51216 WL 8 YES OCR 9-10 GRUBMAN Hb 15 YES BCM CRAWFORD Hb 8 YES bCM 9-17 bALDWIN Hb 8 YES bCM KOZAK Hb 8 YES BCH 10-1 BALDWIN Hb 12 YES BCM CRAWFORD Hb 8 YES 8CM 10-9 BALDWIN CH 6 YES BCJ! CRAWFORD CH 8 YES BiM ROUNDS WL 12 YES BCM KAERS NY9950UC CH 16 YES 8CM KOZAN CH 11 YES bCM 10-16 GREEN DOC CH 10 toNO SOUTHOLD GRUBMAN CH 15 YES BCM ` SCHICK KY4470EN CH 5 PORT bCM A ROCCHIO NY2137JV CH 1 toYES BG! 10-13 ROCCHIO CH 6 YES BCH SCHICK CH 3 toPORT B(7!I A KOZAN CH 6 YES BClf ' GRUBMAN' CH 12 YES BCM 10-24 MONE KY7352JA CH 8 toYES r It CRAWFORD CH 8 YES BCM 10-25 KERR DOC WRL 35 NO GREEN PkT I � Iu i DATE CUSTOMER REGISTRATION # OFER ANT.GAL DISPOSAL SEAL HOKE M_MT DATE CUSTOMER REGISTRATION OPER AMT GALS DISPOSAL SEAL HOME PHT 11-2 CRANF'ORD CH 6 YES dcM 11-2 BALDWIN CH 10 YES BCM 11-2 ROCCHIO CH 8 YES BCH 11-2 SINNING Hb 12 " YES BC!! 11-10 ROUNDS CH 10 YES BCH 11-10 LACEY DOC CH 14 YES ba 11-6 HAUGLAND DOC CH 40 YES bcm 11-7 rREDA DOC CH b YES BCJI 11-7 MURRAY KY4719PO CH 8 yES B 11-7 ADELSON CH 6 YES BCJf 11-7 SCHICK Hb PORTA N/A BCM 11-10 YhMOMITZ DOC CH 7 YES BCM , 11-10 BEEbE KY2264PH CH 8 YES BCH 11-11 VULIN KY2386JT HB 6 YES BCM 11-12 IORIO DOC CH 15 YES B� 11-15 MOVE CH 0 YES bc" 11-15 STOCKER DOC CH 12 " NO GRX PkT IL 11-16 SINNING CH 15 " YES BCM 11-17 MIEDERMAN KY3901PP CH PORTA N/A BCM 11-21 PEDDLE GCC HE 4 " NO SOUTHOLD 11-21 ARIDAS NY3187JY CH 11 YES BCH 11-25 • GRUBMAN CH 9 YES bc," 11-25 KOZAN CH b YES I BCM 11-26 LACEY CH 4 YES bc" 11-27 VAN LAR MOV HY4410EL NB b YES B� 11-26 NELSON DOC HB 12 NO SHELTER-1 12-3 MOULTON NYb258cv CH 6 " YES BCEI 12-6 RELYEA I DOC CH 13 YES bCM 12-7 LEWIH NY7168UF CH 6 YES BCl1 DATE CUSTONER REGISTRATION ! OPER AHT.GAL DISPOSAL SEAL HOHF VkT +� _ I DATE CUSTOKER REGISTRATION OPER ANNT GALS DISPOSAL SEAL BCam I 12-8 BALDWIN Hb 6 ON SITE YES Bpl 12-9 CBANFORD Hb 6 YES Bpm 12-14 ROCCHIO Hb 11 YES bpm 12-24 HAM NY91830C CH 6 NO PORT JEFF r •': a 7r , , t e , , ' �• t ,. ,. YS •V�1���tVt r r�� t e 1 ... +.�• I�:: .. fit: ._ n 7>:7�''a{ .`f t ew, .� • br � ,, , -.t Sri. �. •.. ttr 1+'.� ��,. 5 r5 ~� �1'` �',.ss.'v y ?4 'f r ' !F �R �! � I.+ a' ` ., >M t:�`!11 q.�•: H s L ; >Y. K dyy. �, 7� I; ,� t?� r \�•Z .�f Is+rY• "*k �.,s e;.'•s�r x'.11 !'i>Yf r � •'t�{.. ,:;t�.;' , �'1 �'1 t �,,v��►(4'h��l1f`I( Y'[t�.,",it` Cr.h. ' t r��' ��' ty t j + �, r .Q'A1�� L>*,�'- 5 '' �( .rt� _' .� f ,�.��.�}.h�� 1�•�'' �, �, '�, .4��!ri i' �5 �,rC'l ..r,� 4� •t �� +L ���; � ':t';7��•.S H�r :1- '� +, 5t•�y1��t�ti l n " i F {'h t i �a T •r h "M', y�� "l' K� i�, J N1GM�75f,`";,'ci ,',�.r�' ,xJl '1"''L�' ��tFTl�i�'r ���.• Y }�.; 1.HITn �. nit• 1 is - �, ,, .I�E�111i l� � �� •� rte....• - - :i._ i� _— •KEM- ,,�►ot,t"n19et AQUA-KEM" selling boldin tank deodorant br4nd ,. for r 15 a ---tn a new,'NON-'Pas 1 1 • , ilgJatraducing AQUA_ MIL f ' , •.. - J1 -KEM -GREEN is 100%gon-toxic ,� • • ,��,y ;:' ;,". � � , o_F&hWdehyde and no UATS' !t'r c „' •1 . i 1 ,f lite-ireatr}ent plant sale .in(act,tt ;,FK.'� • � ncorporates-one-o!the-4ctiveingredietfts'�""'�' �H provides great odor-Mopping power$nd ,_'gar;, '� n ' ° ,1 ''+ este-di estin a ion UWAQUA. FJ} '` « M a� Only Tbettord lets you take youX / ? 1Y5�: ��1,k }( 'tir'y" �'��!? 1 J�:'it4,+�,1* ice.-AgUA•KEMs liquid,-h -nation number-,one seller,DRI•KEM for those ' { tR �a who prefer granules and AQ A•KEMaar i , ofj•1Rs"-,theultimatein-convenien ..end now AQUA-KEM Gthe trongest NON-TOXIC holding tank a,x Gz h. 'No Thetford conswner prod to contain t`1 i ' ".fit,s' ,� 3 UATS(Quarternary Ammonium Com nda NOTICE ! NOTICE ! NOTICE ! ' PLEASE USE ONLY TOILET CHEMICALS WHICH ARE FORMALDEHYDE FREE AQUACHEM GREEN OR THE EQUIVILANT USE OF FORMALDEHYDE PRODUCTS WILL INCUR LARGE ADDITIONAL CHARGES FOR SPECIAL DISPOSAL t I W ont[o foug in Hoc otol C I ing tank deodorant is so unique that Thetford has applied for a patent for the product Aqua-Kem Green is a pine-scented liquid whose active ingredient is a high-molecular-weight polyelecu-olyLic material. This polyalectrolyto pos- sesses a very high charge.The highly charged product controls odors by 4 -acting the odor-causing moluculeS AQ" atti -c within the waste. The new product physically entraps the odur nuilti-cules so that they cannot escape One major benefit of Aqua-Kern Green is its compatibility with waste treatment systems According to Thetford Corporation has Thetford officials,the product cannot introduced a new generation of its possibly harm a waste treatment sys- tem In fact, the product is said to Aqua-Kem holding tank chemical, assist waste treatment systems in operating more effectively, Camp- ground owners will welcome the new product because of its compati- bility with their systems, and users of the product will not have to be The subject of holding tank chemicals to Mary Burruwb, SL1pC1'Vib01' of concerned with dumping restrictions frequently arises when motorhome Thetford's chemical laboratory. MS Aqua-Kem Green has been evalu- owners gather. The May 1986 issue of BurruwS is well-known to many FMCA ated using standards developed by Family Motor Coaching contained a convention-goers, its she of tell Visits the United States'Consumer Product comprehensive article about this topic, the association's conventions, where Safety Commission (CPSC) for mea- tilled"The Basics of Black Water Odor she fields technical questions at surfing toxicity of consumer products Control."Photocopies of this article are Thetford's exhibit booth. The CPSC sets these standards in available to FMC readers who submit MS. BUrVUWS' gFUL1I) launched the order to regulate the cautiullary such a request, along with a seT• project by engaging in the tedious labeling required for. off-the-shelf addressed stamped envelope, to the task of analyzing and evaluating a products. Products are rated either FmCA national office. The following number of possible ingredients.Some as highly toxic, toxic, or nontoxic. article presents information about the ingredients that appeared promising According to these standards,Aqua- development of a totally new product in the early stages of the project fell Kem Green qualifies for a nontoxic that makes use of an innovative tech- short of the criteria set by man- rating This is good news for motor- nology for the treatment of black agement. homers who may have been con. water — Editor. One of the active ingredients that cerned about the hazards involved in Ms. Burrows and her group tested using other types of holding tank Three years ago, management was surprising in its performance — deodorants. officials at Thetford Corpora- a chemical used in municipal Waste Thetford officials report that Aqua- tion decided to develop a new treatment systems to improve the Kem Green has-an indefinite shelf life product to treat black water holding efficiency of such systems. After and works within the same temper- tanks.At that time,it was determined thousands of hours of testing various ature range as does the original that the product should be: formulas incorporating this active Aqua-Kem. The product is available i. Nontoxic ingredient, Ms. Burrows hit upon a in 32-ounce bottles and in four-packs 2. AS effective in treating black unique way to enhance deodorizing of eight-ounce bottles. water As the company's existing capabilities.Before the new product in a world that is increasingly eco- Aqua-Kem product was introduced,extensive laboratory logically sensitive, it appears that 3. "User friendly" — noncorrosive tests and field tests were conducted Thetford Corporation has made a and easy to use The final product met all of Thet- step forward. 4. Environmentally safe ford's requirements. Hence, Aqua- Thetford,P.O. Box 1285,Ann Arbor, 5. Completely compatible with ex- Kern Green was born. it should be Ml 48106; (800) 521.3032 outside l6ting waste treatment systems noted that the product is proprietary, Michigan, (313) 769.6000 inside The research project was assigned and the use of this chemical as a hold- Michigan. @W � • BRICK COVE MARINA INFORMATION FOR THE 1991 SEASON Ire & Newspapers- Please note that Newsday is available on the Honor System. Drop money or note to bi11 through mail slot. The same is true for ice. The attached slip of paper has current ice box combination. Please keep confidential. Electricity- it costs plenty and we plan to prorate for next year based on this year's usage. Help us keep the cost down by: 1- Being sure all unnecessary equipment is off when you Leave. 2- Being sure that your battery chargers are the type that shut down at full charge. This saves electricity and your batteries. Water- It oosts plenty also. Help us keep the cost down by: i 1- Being sure you turn off the spigot at the pedestal beforeY ou leave. 2- Having a spring-loaded nozzle on your hose. 3- Being sure your washers are in place and in good condition. Tying Up- P3 ease review the way you tie up your boat when you Leave. 1- Doose ends (not eyes) should be on the dock cheats. This allows marina personnel to make adjustments when necessary without boarding which can be diff+ct>>t during stormy conditions. 2- Be sure lines are in good condition and of adequate size. 3- It takes 5 lines to properly tie up if you are on a finger. One from boat to main dock , One from bow to finger One from stern to finger One from mid ship to finger forward.(sprirg) One from mid ship to finger aft.(spring) (See diagram below) Please don't hesitate to ask for our as ;srance in getting this right. Even though we do not assume responsibility for the safety of your boat, the marina crew tries very hard to watch for problems that may arise and take corrective action to help protect your boat. FfNGt_R Fihc E� SI,)E 8Y insurance- Please remember you have a contractual responsibility to have a Yacht insurance policy in force at all times while you are a Brick Cove Marina customer. This policy coves any damage that occurs to you or other when the boat is handled or stored in the Marina. Be sure for everyone's sake that your policy is up to date and adequate. Federal & State Regulations: 1- A SIGN ABOUT PLASTICS DISCHARGE: There is a new regulation requiring that you display on board a sign detailing the laws regarding the discharge of Plastics and garbage overboard. There is a fine for not having this sign displayed. We have a supply of these signs in the store. 2- A SIGN ABOUT OIL DISCHARGE: You must also have a sign in the engine area which states the law about the discharge of oil. These signs are also available in the store. To help assure that no oil is pumped over with bilge water we have a supply of materials for sale in the share that won't absorb water but will absorb oil. Placing these in your bilges and changing them periodically will help assure our CREEK STAYS CLEAN. 3- US COAST GUARD SAFETY EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS: The Coast Guard has been very active inspecting boats this spring and issuing violations. In addition to the two signs mentioned above it is a good idea to check your required safety equipment list- A- istA- Make sure your flares have current dates. B- That life preservers are readily available and in good condition. C-That fire extinguishers are fulL D- That Day Flag is available. E- That Whistle and bell are aboard. As a service we will be glad to review with you at no charge these requirements as they pertain to your boat. 0- HEADS: In local waters your head valves must be in the tank or treatment position. This is especially true when you are in 'the marina. To y comply with our local permits to expand the marina all boats that stay with us ne&t: season will be required to have legal head installations. We will offer an economical plan to bring your boat into into compliance this winter if it does not already qualify. The Marina does have the ability to pump out holding tanks now and we will be upgrading this equipment during the fall and winter. 5- RECYCLING: A new Local law requires that we begin to recyle certain catagories of trash. We will set up a small center by the trash dumpster for this purpose. Items to be separated from your garbage are: Newspaper (uncolored only) Cans Plastics (No Styrofoam) Glass clear - Glass green Glass brown Your cooperation in this program wi71 be greatly appreciated. Simply keep the recyclable items separate and place them in the recepticles provided. We have presented this information in a plastic envelope in the hope that you will keep it with your strips papers for easy reference. Thanks for your attention to thele items, and the whole crew at Brick Cove Marina stands ready to be of assistance in making your boating season safe and fun. i BRICK COVE MARINA Sage Blvd. P.O. Box 455 Southold, N.Y. 11971 March 6, 1992 ►Jo-rr S A M P l f L E TT E R S SC•rr 'Tro F�L�. f 9 g Z ��MM�Q 8a ►I"t'E`f�S Dear Jack It has been a really great winter for BRICK COVE MARINA. The weather has been mild and the completion of our marina expansion is well underway. We have dredged to better than six feet at low tide in the channel and throughout the entire marina basin. As I write to you, the new docks are being assembled and towed into place. We have enclosed our Spring Work Planner and the new 1992 dock layout for you to review. We have circled the work we would suggest. Please put an X in the circles by work you wish to authorize and fill in the requested launch date. If you wish to change slips, indicate your new choice for 1992 at the top of the Work Planner. Then return as soon as possible. As you consider work you need to have done this spring please keep in mind that our construction permits require the Marina to be a no discharge location. To comply with this the head seacocks on all boats will be sealed in the closed position while the boats are in the marina . You may wish to upgrade holding tanks and be sure they are working properly so they can be used. The Marina is equipped to provide Pump Out Services and we will continue to upgrade our facilities on land. Oil Sorbs will be placed in all bilges to prevent oily discharges with bilge water. We believe that the small increase in costs these procedures will cause will be more than compensated for by the assurance of the water quality in Sage Creek. The construction project has been very expensive and we would like to thank all of you who helped out with early payments. The whole Crew at BRICK COVE looks forward to seeing you in the spring. Cordially, Bill Leverich General Manager ' Ig42 RULES AND;REGULATIONS 1.All boat owners must leave all keys and/oq:7aQlnbinat ions to their boats with the Marina management. l .( � , 2.Boat owners shall notify the Marina if they\'plan to be absent from their slip for more than one night. The Marina reserves the right �o rent such slips for transient docking. 3.Boats for sale must be listed with the Marina on a non-exclusive basis, and the Marina shall be entitled to normal brokerage commissions on the sale of any boat sold by the Marina. No private "for sale" signs are permitted. 4.Boat owners shall not store supplies, materials, accessories or debris on the docks and shall not construct or place any lockers, chests, cabinets, steps, ramps or similar structures on any dock, except with the prior written permission of the Marina. All hoses, shore power cords, lines, etc. must be properly stowed off the docks when not in use. All water hoses must be fitted with a shut-off nozzle end, 15-All pets must be kept on a leash at all times, and owners must clean up after their pets. 6.The use of yard electricity is at the sole risk of the boat owner and user, and the Marina shall be exempt from any and all liability for any damage or injury to any person or property caused by or as a result of the use of any electrical appliance. Shore power cord(s) must be approved by the Marina. They shall not be plugged into any other outlet than the one designated to the boat owner by the Marina. 7.All canopies, biminis, boat covers, loose gear lying on the boat, flapping windows or doors must be secured by the boat owner. In the event of a storm or hurricane, the owner is solely responsible for taking all emergency measures possible, and the Marina shall not be responsible for the protection of the boat or for damages to the owner's boat or other property. A fee will be charged if the Marina must secure any boats or items oil boats. 8.Any emergency services or repairs, such as re-tying or pumping out of boats will be done at the sole discretion of the Marina, and the boat owner will be billed accordingly. When necessary, the boat owner grants the Marina the right to operate his vessel, And no liability shall arise from such use in the absence of the Marina's gross negligence. 9-Facility damage or any unsafe condition should be reported to the management immediately. 10.The boat owner shall not permit any dangerous conditions on or about the boat and shall observe safety precautions reque�FtPd by the management. The boat owner agrees not to create any nuisance or unnecessary noise on or about the premises or in connection with the boat. Each boat owner is responsible for the cleanliness of his slip area, and will be billed if the Marina personnel has to clean up for him. 11.No open fires of any nature or paint-burning are permitted in the Marina. Barbecuing is not permitted on the docks. 12.No swimming, sailing, fishing, crabbing, clamming, diving shall be permitted within the: limits of the Marina. The speed -limit within the Marina basin and the Sage Inlet is headw. speed not to exceed five (5) knots. 13.No fish may be cleaned at the docks or placed in the Marina's garbage pails. 14-Absolutely no fueling of boats anywhere within the Marina except using Marina personnel and facilities. 15.All work on boats is restricted to the owner and his immediate family. Any work that will create dust, dirt or debris is expressly forbidden at the docks. Any work done by th. owner or his family is at his own risk.. Equipment belonging to the Marina is not for use rent by the boat owners. The Marina can provide all service, maintenance and repair work. \` Any outside labor will be arranged by and billed through the Marina. J 16.The Owner will assure that any Head on his boat is of approved design. No heady detergents, oils or gasoline may be discharged into the Marina area. In the event of an accidental spill, the management of the Marina must be informed immediately. The Owner will make every effort to cooperate with the recycling program at the Marina. 17.411 service, maintenance or repair work must be paid in full before the boat is released or launched. No work will proceed on boats with delinquent accounts and no boats Will be launched with outstanding bills. The Marina reserves the right to secure or haul an owner's vessel for his failure to meet obligations incurred for any serviae. maintenance or repair work performed. Outstanding accounts, including dock rental, shall accrue interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 1 r1113 i . RULES AND RECULATIOMS All boat owners must leave keys and/or combinations to their boats with the Marina management. '. Boat owners shall notify the Marina if they plan to be absent from their slip for one or more nights. The Marina eserves the right to rent such slips for transient docking. 1. Boat* for sale must be listed with the Marina on a non—exclusive basis, and the Marina shall be entitled to a .02 brokerage commission on the sale of any boat sold by the Marina. No private "for sale's signs are peraitted. �. Boat owners shall not store anything or construct any lockers, steps or similar items on docks or timers without iritten permission of the manager. All hoses, shore power cords, lines etc. must be properly stored off the docks +hen not in use. All water hoses must be fitted with a spring loaded nossle end. .J 1. All pets must be kept leashed, and owners must clean up atter their pets. S. The use of yard electricity is at the sole risk of the boat owner and user, and the Marina shall be exempt from %my and all liability for any damage or injury to any person or property caused by or as a result dt the use of any slaetrical appliances. Shore power cords must be approved by the Marina and only plugged into assigned outlets. ?. All lines, halyards and loose canvass must be secured to be soundless by the boat owner, and engines must be auffled. B. In the event of a storm or hurricane, the owner is responsible for taking all emergency measures possible. and the Marina shall not be responsible for the protection of the boat or for damages to the owner's boat or property. fee will be sharsed it the Marina secures any boats or items on the boat. Any emsrgsasy services or repairs, such as retyins, pumping out, or salvage will be done at the sols discretion of the Marina. and the boat owner will be billed accordingly. When necessary, the boat owner grants the Marina the right to operate his vessel, and no liability shall arise from such use in the absence of the Marina's gross negligence. 10. Facility damage or any unsafe condition should be reported to the management. 11. The boat owner shall not allow any dangerous condition* on or about the boat and shall observe safety precautions requested by the management. The boat owner agrees not to create any nuisance or unnecessary noise on or about the premises or in connection with the boat. Each boat owner is responsible for the cleanliness of his slip area, and will be billed it the Marina personnel has to clean up for his. 12. No open tires of any nature or paint burning are permitted in the Marina. Barbecuing is not permitted on the docks. 13. No swimming, sailing. fishing, crabbing, clamming or diving shall be permitted In the Marina. The *peed limit in the channel and Sage Creek is headway speed not to exceed five (5) knots. 16. No fish may be cleaned at the docks or placed in the garbage. 13. Absolutely no fueling of boat* anywhere within the Marina except using the Marina personnel. 16. All work on boats is restricted to the owner and his family. Any work that will create dust, dirt ordebris is expressly forbidden at the docks. Any -work done by the owner or his family is at his own risk. Equipment belonging o the Marina is not for use or rent by the boat owners. The Marina can provide all service, maintenance and repair rk. Any outside labor will be arranged by and billed through the Marina. 17. The owner will assure that any'head on his boat will have a holding tank. The Marina will goal Y valves in they holding tank position or overboard sea cocks in the closed position at its discretion. There will be a$25 resealing charge it the seals are broken. The Marina offers pumpout services. No heads, oil, detergents or gasoline will be discharged in the Marina. Oil absorbing, water repelling materials will be kept in the bilges of the boat to prsvatt accidental discharges. In the event of an accidental spill the management will be notified immediately. Willful non- compliance is cause for immediate termination of this contract. `14. The owner will make every effort to cooperate with the recycling program at the Marina. All garbage will be placed in the appropriate containers at the Marina. 19. All service, maintenance or repair work must be paid in full before the boat is released or launched. No work will proceed on boats with delinquent accounts, and no boat* will be launched with outstanding bills. The Marina .tserves the right to secure or haul an owner's vessel for his failure to meet obligations incurred for dockage, r' .%*rvice, maintenance or repair work performed. Outstanding accounts, including look rental, shall arcane service charges at the rate of 182 per annum. 20. All dinghies will be stored on land or on the boat and not in the slip. 1 21. A second slip must be rented for second boats. � ' PECONIC ASSOCIATES, INC. Environmental Planners & Consultants One Bootleg Alley P.O.Box 672 Greenport,New York 11944 (516)477-0030 Fax(516)477-0198 September 20 , 1991 Board of Town Trustees Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road/P. 0. Box 728 Southold , NY 11971 i SUBJECT: Request for boat waste pumpout data per B. Anderson Letter of 9/18/ 1991 . Dear Members of the Board : Per your request , Brick Cove Marina hereby states that , upon completion of the expansion , it will accept boat wastes for pumpout from Southold Shores Association boats or any other outside boats that come to the Marina for that purpose . The boat lift berto or a designated Marina work dock would be available for that purpose. The Town of Southold is. in the process of upgrading the Scavenger Waste Plant . Phase II of this upgrading is to include additional facilities and equipment to more effectively handle marina pump-out waste in anticipation of a significant increase over that now being processed . Sincerely , PECONIC ASSOCIATES, INC. % e �nE . Wiggin , P ,M. E. President cc : Mr. Bruce Anderson Mr. Christopher Kuehn Anthony Tohill , Esq . Howard Zehner Ale The SuWkTimB6* 5ebtemher_S`'1§01 , M• Crunch Time �om In o f r ec clip . g ey Ruth Jemick SOU THOLXD• The push is on. Commercial recycling has am yet be- come mandatory in Southold Town. "but it will be. before the end of the ` :h year," Councilwoman Ruth Oliva t` *I �'+,?.ft warned Tuesday. iy, .i And businessmen worried about com- pliance may want to take a peek at Bill �•- L.everidge's prototype recycling center at + Brick Cove Marina."We're awful lazy." :�. Mr.L+everidge confided this week about his labor-saving creation that masquer- ades as a plywood shed."We looked for something simple to handle.We tried to make it easy for ourselves, and it's �' e'�`,. ;`• .`,� working. People are cooperating. We , fill it up every week." the marina man- Di an- > tU.,4 A:., ager said. t t;•yyTM; ' ;k� ri �' 'r":: '. The large recycling bin at the marina " � � �•'�+•,. .w , is compartmentalized for segregation of green,brown and clear glass;cans;pl - { o,=jar}f► " `? +�„' J; ►r �y,�t �R` .�� tics; and newspapers. "Each one has a ,r �,(,�, plastic bag in it,but were still working the bugs out of it," said Mr. L.everidge. .� +�• .<^ :,, •�-. - :, "The glass receptacle is going to have to - „ ..:-` Wit;, •':�,'�•�">:':`-'�:.;.''" �.'-`�_�:�,•,'r�':•;" „w ; �� sem;- :. ~� � • ' be replaced something sturdier be- _ .r ,;. *, _f _ cause the glass cuts through the bags." .M .•� - p r ..� ao..".u.r. :,a.- _ .. `Nothing to It' IT'S by Judy Ahrens Brick Cove's recyclables are picked up ITS IN THE BAG—Diana Leveridge sorts recyclables at Brick Cove Marina on Tuesday. weekly by North Fork Sanitation Service, which began special commeri- cat recyclable mutes on Wednesdays this summer. and Mr. L.everidge had high praise this week for NFSS owner Roy Over 80 years Schelin: "He made it terrifically simple for us.His guys go right in the bins and of producing only take the bags out. My daughter. Diane. checks the-bins and sorts things once a v+en't had too GENUINE week. but if people hu much to drink out of those bottles, they usually get them into the right slot. -LONG SL ND There's nothing to said D 'v .0 fD Appendix #6 x Ecology of Small Boat Marinas rn M 0 0 0 0 N w W 0 w C+ 3 w -s w N 'C ` f ABSTRACT Ns l FrrFya� US National Automobile Parking & Marina Use Surftj,,988 Nell W. Rosa ti41��„r President International Marina Institute Wickford,Rhode Island During the 1988 summer boating season, the International Marina Institute conducted a national survey in the United States of public and private marina facilities to ascertain the levels of boat use and the number of automobiles parked in the marinas. Surveys were conducted on doze summer days, all with good boating weather conditions reported. Ile first count was on the predicted highest use day during the three day July 4th weekend,and two non holiday August days: it high use weekend day and a normal weekday. Marinas were asked to make three counts on the July 4th weekend: morning, midday,and late afternoon/eariy evening. Based on the preliminary returns which showed the mid-day to be the highest usage, the two days in August were counted in mid-day for comparison. To determine the level of boat use,counts were made of empty slips, moorings and dry racks,plus counts of boats which had people aboard on moorings and in slips. At the same time, all vehicles parked' in the marina were counted. • One hundred and siltry-nine facilities pamcipated in 23 states and the Virgin Islands using a standard self survey firm. Of these, 136 were private for profit facilities, 3 were non-profit clubs, and 10 were government owned(S Ioal,4 starve, l federal facility). Total storage capacity (slips,moorings d dry racVwW storage) was 36,303 boats, with the average facility with 224; the - largest marina had 938 boats; 91% were filled to seasonal cap—ity, with most empty slips reserved for transients; average boat population was 38% sail,62% power; 73 boats tamps were reported; 11 full time employees average. 'Ile national average estimate reported was 3 people on each boat used. Parsing caappacity totaled 33,2.54; the average facility had 236 autospaces; 25 had restaurants ; present. Ae highest use day,as prodict4 was July 3rd with the highest usagecount at midday with preliminary analysis showing 4096 of the boats in use or mod; compared to the August weekday use ramof 496,and 1296 on the weekend Without subtracting car parking for time restaunnts, the July peak midday auto parsing ratio was .44 cu/bQat storage capacity,and .89=Uat used(the 4096); August weekday ratios were .07 car/boat capacity, and .7 car/boat used(4%); August weekend ratios were .2 car/boat capacity, and.75 car/boat used (12%). Some variables remain lo be calculated and the ratios may change somewhat due to differences In region, boat sizes,dry rack storage, sail to power unix,restaurant,6 month vs 12 boating season length,or slip rental rates. Patterns of use were found to be similar to other previous studies done in individual marinas. However, the significance of this study was to quantify on a broad national base for the fust time that auto parkin8 standards which exceed one car for every two boars are excessive in most situ. r Y the RI Statewide Planning Program (purpose: to count as many boats at dock as possible, not empty slips). From the photos we were not surprised to find very few cars parked on the low use days. As a follow-up, a recommendation was made for a high use-day count to determine actual boat use. In fact, on Labor Day, 1978, an aerial photo survey of Rhode Island's marinas wee done by Clarkson Collins and published in the Recreational Boating in RI's i Coastal Waters: A Look Forwards- The Rhode Island's average car count represented 0.33 cars per slip or mooring for a higi;-use day, well under ASCE's 1 .5-2.5 cars per slip and below Chanberlain's 0.5 ratio. Collins recommended that the state Coastal Resource Management Council (CRMC) use 0.5 cars/slip figure as a liberal guide for marina construction permits (instead, the state Coastal Resources Management Program6 regyures 0.75 parking space for each boat). Similarly, a 1984 Lake Erie Access Studv7, of boat ramps and marinas in Ohio, estimated that only 40Z of the boats in marinas were in use on peak days. w These actual counts in Rhode Island and Ohio suggest that requirements of one parking space or more per slip for most marinas may be unrealistic. One marina owner wrote to me suggesting, 'if pesistent lack of parking spaces and overcrowding occurs, it is the responsibility of the marina/restaurant to remedy some by providing more spaces on or off property, or reducint the number of seats or slips. Make it a condition of the general business permit.09 Obviously each case must be measured separately for its own traffic attraction. For example, when a restaurant or other traffic generating feature Is present, then add parking spaces. For those few peak parking days per year, most marinas have surplus boat storage, repair areas and lawns which can be pressed Into short term service. When discussing the need for parking, also considered the need to minimize Stormwater run-off into the marine environment from parking areas. In general, run-off Is a major source of a variety of contaminants into the notion's waterways. To reduce run-off from parking spaces In marinas it is recommended that paving of parking areas be avoided and that porous surfaces be encouraged.8 Crushed stones or shells, grassy swales, settling ponds and other vegetative buffers are effective in decreasing run-off. Also, why do cars need to be parked near the bulkhead? In many locations consider providing convient off-loading zones near pierheads and have cars parked away from the shore. Allow people, not cars, to have use of the foroshore to spend money shopping, eating, socializing and enjoying the marina view. t Based on what is known about what actually happens with marina use (and the standards listed below), one car for every two boats seems adequate as a national guideline. .................................................................................................................................................................. Recently adopted minimum auto parking/boat borth regulations: California(1980) 10 0.60 parkllig spaces/recreatlonal boat 2.00 parking spaces/commercial fishing boat 1.000 fast furthest distance from any berth to parking 9x20 feet space dimension Large visual expanses of asphalt parking are to be avoided; use planter islands or strips encouraged New Jersey(1982) 11 0.6-0.8 parking spaces/boat slip 500-600 feel furthest distance from head of pier to parking Main parking area set back from waterfront for appearance and safety Parking areas can be used for winter storage Rhoda Island(1983)6 ' 0.75 perking space/each boat 0.6 parking spaces/per employee 300 sq.ft area per space New South wales,Austral la 0985) 12 0.6 parking spaces/wet berth 0.2 parking spaces/dry storago borth 0.5 parking spaces/marina omployee , 0.2 parking spaces/swing mooring licensed to marina 0.15-0.2 parking spaces/swing mooring licensed to public 300 meter (964 ft)maximum distance from any berth to parking remote (off-site)parking may be used If insufficient waterfront land parking area cannot detract from visual appeal of marina ........................... Author's Note: This brier paper is a working discussion of this Important Issue. Readers are Invited by IM author to send references to other relevant studies and comments to him at: Marine Advisory Service University of Rhode Island Nerragsnsott, Rhode Island 02002 References I. Chamberlain, W. Clinton J. Personal communications. November 2, 1984 and June 28, 1985. 2. Chamberlain, W. C. J. 1983. Marinas - Recommendations for Design. Construction andManagement, Volume I. National Marine Manufacturers Association, Inc. , Chicago. 3. Task Committee on Small Craft Harbors. 1969. Report on Small Craft Nlrbors. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York. p. 17. 4. Johns, W. E. , N. W. Ross, et al. 1978. Areawide Water Quality Manaaement Plan, Preliminary Evaluation. Marinas Task prepared for RI Statewide Planning Program, Providence. Raytheon Co. , Portsmouth. Chapter IV, pp 1-14. 5. Collins, C. and S. Sedgwick. 1979. Recreational Boating in Rhode Island's Coastal Waters: A look Foryfard. University of Rhode Island Coastal Resources Center, Narragansett. Marine Technical Report 75, pp. 55-56. 6. Olsen, S. and G. L. Seavey. Amended June 28, 1983. The Storeof Rhode Island Coastal Resources Manaaement Proaram. University iversity of Rhode Island Coastal Resources Center. p. 71. 7. Office of Outdoor Recreation Services. July 1984. Lake Erie Access Study. Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 8. Chmura, G.L. and N.W. Ross. 1978. The Environmental Impacts of Marinas and Their Boats. University of Rhode Island Marine Advisory Service. pp. 4-6. 9. Kingman, T.W. February 25, 1985. Kingman Marine, Inc. , Cataumet, MA. 10. State of California. 1980. layout and Design Guidelines for Small Craft Berthina Facilities. CA Department of Boating & Waterways, Sacramento. p. 10. i . Ropers, Golden 6 Happern. 1982. Developing a Marina in New Jersey: A Handbook. NJ Department of Environmental Protection, Division of , Coastal Resources. p. 48. 12. New South Wales. 1985 Interim edition. Marina Guidelines. NSW Public Works Department, Fishing/Tourist Port Advisory Committee, Sydney, Australia. Section 7. 19. 1 . cry 1s`,'r��tG,�n f Ex�e•rc,�s��,,Sp S•��r� -to �y�sry�(4 ECl441. COf O Y of Srn alb Qoa t Mari gas Scott assistant Pro n fess or q• 0, or of oceano earCh att graph lecturer ;n o oc,ate and y Sharon L. N ceanography research as°stabs nt Graduate SCh Sea Grant oo, of Oceano graph y MarinMarne • Technical Re �fY °f Rhode Kingsto Port Series NO. n 1973 Sland 5 � 1 a Abstract Acknowledgement$ In Wickford Harbor, Rhode Island, It yacht marina This research was supported by the Office of Sea as.ecological Crant Programs, NOAA, U. S. Dcpartrncnt of Conrnnncree, area and a salt nrarsh cove were considered gical poptilations and carried out in cooperation with the University of Rhode systems and comPar�rodu tion landte brrespiration. Volu ne Island 1.larine Advisory Service (NIAS) and the Rhode and magnitudes of p Island marine Trades Association. Wel aRcs rrrcesre grateful Marina Analysesflushing were madetinn e h coveoon mar h gnus proJn c- )lhode Island Department of Nature lrticulate matter, phytoplankton, nutri- Fisheries Section in Wickford and the National Marine tion, suspended p• copper levels, fish and Water Quality Laboratory, Environmental Protection ents, bacteria, diuolvcJ organics, Agency, in West Kingston for providing egnipmcnt and sediments. Biomass and nnetah nese measurements were made field support. The owners and Quigle►ss of nkfordl Cove, the marinas. Pg oil the fouling reliminary b oass ys nt owcrcatper[orrs and neJ fivitlI marinas cooperated in the study: Qug Y severa Wickford Shipyard, Norton's, AS Cove, Port Edge- concentrations of outlwarJ motor exhaust water on lrati r wood, Ida Lewis and Coat Island. T.fuclr of the extensive species rot estuarine organisms.kerinsideoandme aoutsidelotl err marinas field and laboratory work could not have been camp No malar differences were found in marsh grass pro- without the help of Ann Call, William NJ-icy, Fred Short, located in Narragansett an>'• particulate matter, :leve llobbs, Jim O Itcilly, Joyce Ilcmpstcad, Pandora Ra), am Brown and Nigel Blakely. i►10 W. Ross ithode eMAS critrations of suspended lsland nutrients, bacteria, dissolved organics, infauna, or sediment A Charles Dickerson, pre nnetalmlism. Copper levels, while lower than toxic con- A Trades Association, were instrumental in develop- the in the water to the project and serving as liaison with thein metal centr nocovC, ranging nfront 10.00q vg/gene higher in the ina owners. Henry Stebbins ran the heavy in the fouling community. Fish species rcacht•d acing atomic absorption equipment provided by Robert 160 ug/9 and Cerald Hoffman at tilt Un`eo(t)N,nrC Ra sett marsh euate the ros-ecsels of lrut abundance wtas greaterrin tare marina marsh rn`�e )1 of Oceanography. Parc culture. hytoplankton were provided by Paul ulture raves rout due Thel'fon ling presence communities ofvtheem Inas, which aden Op- niversity's marine phytoplankton c pealed to be a food source for juvenile munrmichogs (Fundulus heteroclitus), exerted a significant oxygen de- mand on the marina cove. Diurnal cures of dissolved oxygen showed lower concentrations at the end of the night in marina areas than in adjacent waters. For this reason, and because preliminary bioassays indicated some toxicity due to exhaust waters, it is suggested that marina sites be well [tushed with oxygenated tidal waters. The lux- urious fouling growths which developed in the marina nal copies of this report are ravailable of $1-0le cove the d crit ns input serve air additional in the salt food sources to complement 4arine Advisory Service, University Irl most respects the marina cove '-,I'd tare marsh covc $gansett Bay Campus, Narragarrcctt, Rhode appeared to lie not only similar, but also compatible eco- Make checks payable to the University of logical systems. 1 List of Figures Contents iv Fig. 1. Wickford Harbor showing the two 1 Introduction major study areas, Wickford Cove in the south, and Mill Creek salt marsh cove in the 1 Study Areas north. Depths are in feet at mean low water 3 Methods, Results and Discussion (AILW). 2 Fig. 2. Hypsographic curves for Wickford 3 Alarsh Crass Production Cove and 141 ill Creek Cove. 3 Suspended Particulate Matter 4 Fig. 3. Height class frequency for tall Spar- tina alterniflora at the end of the growing sea- 3 Phytoplankton Abundance and son near Wickford Cove marinas and in the Plankton Mill Creek marsh. Metabolism 5 Fig. 4. Suspended particulate matter on up- 5 Nutrient Concentrations strearn-downstream transects through marinas. 6 Bacteria 7 Fib. 5. Ultraviolet absorption spectra for fil- tered water samples from Wickford Harbor. 7 Dissolved Organics 9 Fig. 6. Number of species and total number 7 Copper Levels of animals captured in two-day trap sets. 9 Fig. 7. Number of fish species and total num- 8 Fish Abundance and Diversity ber of fish captured in two-day trap sets. 12 Fouling Communities 9 Fig. 8. Diversity of felt in trap captures,using Sanders'(1968)rarefaction plot. 15 Sediments 10 Fig. 9. Diversity of fish in 17 m seine cap- 16 Prelirnintary Bioassays tures, using Sanders'(1968) rarefaction plot. 18 Summary and Conclusions 11 Fig. 10. Diversity of fish in 67 m seine cap- tures,using Sanders'(1968)rarefaction action plot. lg References 11 Fig. 11. Size-frequency distribution for corn- mon mummichog, Fundulus heteroclitus, in Wickford trap captures. 11 Fig. 12. Size-frequency distribution for cont- nnon muntntichog, Fundulus heteroclitus, in 17 in seine captures in Wickford. 12 Fig. 13. Size-frequency distribution for corn- rrton rrtuntntichog, Fundulus ltcteroclitus, in 17 m seine captures in Appvnaug Cove. 14 Fig. 14. Biomass of organic matter on repli- cate plastic plates set in Wickford Cove and Afill Creek salt marsh cove in June. Values have been corrected for ash content. 14 Fig. 15. Diurnal curves of dissolved oxygen in surface water inside and outside of four marinas in early August. Ten Toro TI',1 ►olo N •wlf lmu. L - ` w CI[I w.i. I CM 2 4 .I f! 1 r � 'MN• 1 Cpl ( 4 - 1l: _ �r • f •f.a1r —,...C" � � 1• 4 1 \ 1L r i +IX.YO s i j _r•1 1 � 1 �• COtrClIYS '` 3 2 ty �` 12 . . t•i I •� `� _:j IT 6 2 2 1 ` 1 5 10 2 1 4 9 14 3 4 l 9 13 104 4 9 WICKFORD 4 •' 9 " 13 15 9 IO t . S 9 a 1 13 Ott 'FORD 100vcC D " s . i e _ 14 - � s 3 14 a 3 e J ' 6 2 WE O e 1 1 4 a o_ E :o_o Introduction The coastal zone provides a source of continu- development projects would place tlse value of ing controversy between the increasing numbers of Spartina alterni/lora marsh at less than $25 per acre. those who wish to develop and expand man's hoes- In contrast, the value increases dramatically to ing, recreation, and other activities there, and those $12,000 per acre if Odum's (1971) energy analysis, who wish to preserve nature's long-standing pat- which is based on a ratio of average national dollars terns. Part of the controversy involves the conflict- to kilocalories of 1:10,000, is applied to marsh pro- ing demands of marina owners and users, and salt cluction. But both ecosystem evaluations fail to in- marsh conservationists. And, in part, this conflict clude the time dimension. For example, any type of arises because both marinas and marshes require cash crop production might be permanently re- similar conditions for development, including pro- moved by development, snaking the value range tection from strong waves and currents. from $2.5 to $12,000 per acre per year, depending Coastal ecologists have made a great effort over oil one's point of view. Thus, neither of these meth- the years to study marshes and document their im- ods of accounting seems satisfactory, one, perhaps, portance in estuarine ecology (Chapman 1960, Teal resulting in figures too low and the other, too high. 1962. Odum and de la Cru 1967, Udcll et al 1969, A more realistic approach may be to evaluate the Williams and Murdoch 1969, Pomeroy et al 1972, replacement costs for floods and services provided Nixon and Oviatt in press, in). In contrast, little is by a systcm to the hiosphere as well as to man. As known about the environmental impact or ecology a first step icu this direction for the marina system, of marinas as alternative systems. A recent descrip- we have made some basic ecological measurements tive study of a large marina in southern California of its production, respiration, diversity, and major by Bowerman and Chen (1971) emphasized the populations for comparison with those of estuarine chemical impact of storm drainage into the area, salt inarslucs and other natural communities. rather than general ecology. A few studies have at- tempted to show the effects of outboard motor ex- haust on freshwater lakes and fish. These include Study Areas work by Lagler et al (1950), the Environmental Protection Agency (1971), Kuzminski and Jackivicz Wickford l I:trloor, off the West Passage of Nar- (1972) and the well known Lake X project by En- ragansctt 13ay, Rhode Island, is one of the finest and vironmental Engineering, Inc. (1970). Studies of most popular small bont harbors in New England trash and sewage pollution by boats have also been (Marra-ansett Times 1972). It also provides a mor- carried out by Clarke (1968), Furfari and Verber phology and development pattern that is almost for the United States Public Health Service (1969), ideal for a study of the ecology and ecological im- Griseom (1972) and others. pact of coastal marinas. Two similar coves open While there have been few, if any, attempts to into the harbor. The first, NVickford Cove, contains look at the marina as an ecological system, Isard et three nsnrinas and numerous moorings, while the al (1972) made a recent analysis of the economic second, Mill Creek, is bordered by a fringing Spar- effects of coastal marina developments. They con- tine alterni/lora marsh with no boats, docks, or sidered some environmental factors and evaluated moorings (Fig. 1). It is thus possible to make coin- the ecological "trade-off" of marina construction for parative measurements in each cove. the one-year market value of the clams, mussels, The marina area contained 300-400 boats worms, and fish that the marsh system would have throughout the summer, including 13.9 percent sail, produced. They did not consider that the exploited 40.3 percent outboards and 45.8 percent inboards d" marsh was not a mnnaged mariculture system, that nag a survey sou June. 'fie relatively large pro- the marina might be evaluated as an environment portion of boats with inboard power reflects the in its own right, or tint the ecological "trade-offs" size distribotinn io the nc:trinas, where the following between marshes and marinas might not all be neg- distributiun of boats by length was found: ative. The "ecologic cost" which Isard suggested as a concept for widespread use in many resource less thin 15 feet 1.4% -20 feet 32.4% Fig.1. Wickford }harbor showing the two mnior shiny 21-30 feet 31.4% areas, Wickford Cove in (fie south, and ?Mill Creek salt vl-4U feet 26.2% marsh cove in the north. Depths are in feet at u►can low 41-50 feet 5.0% water (MM. Narrngansett Bay, nhocle lsinnd, is shown in the insert, which includes additional study sites. over 5U Ieet 4.0°l0 1 ♦ M The great numbers of larger boats in these marinas The locations of these areas are also shown (sec fin- is in contrast to the general distribution of regis- cert, Fig. 1); they include East Greenwich Bay, tered pleasure craft in 1970 in the state, where 92 Providence River, Newport Harbor, Jerusalem and percent were less than 27 feet and almost 80 per- Bissel Cove. cent were powered by sail and /or outboard motors (liorholm and Feld 1971). It is, however, represent- 0 ative of the general size distribution of boats in full- time commercial marinas, since 85 percent of boats WICKFORD COVE were in the 16-40-foot class statewide, and 90 per- cent were in this category in Wickford. I Dredging of a five-to-seven-foot channel in E Wickford Cove had produced deeper water and a somewhat greater volume of it in the marina area; a. otherwise, the hydrographic conditions in each cove o were similar. 2 Wickford Cove Mill Creek Area 73 X 10'm' 72 X 10'm' (18 acres) (18 acres) 3 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Marsh area ACCUMULATIVE VOLUME,M3 z 103 in marinas 2.4 X 10'm' 112.5 X 10'm' (0.6 acres) (27.8 acres) above marinas 42.9 X 10'm' (10.6 acres) Mean depth (MLW) 1.1m (3.7ft) 0.8m(2.6ft) 0 WICKFORD MILL CREEK Channel depth (MLW) 2 m (6.8 ft) .......... E Volume (MM 83 X 10'm' 56.8 X Win' (21.9X1(rgal) (15.0x1(rgal) I a. Tidal prism 10 X 10'm' 9.8 X 10'm' o (26.4 X 10'gal) (25.8 X 10'gal) Hypsographic curves for the two coves are 2 shown in Figure 2. If complete mixing of the tidal 10 20 30 40 50 60 water is assumed, both areat were flushed more ACCUMULATIVE VOLUME,M3X IO3 than 50 percent on each tidal cycle. Additional marina and marsh areas were also Fie.2. II)T)sographic curves for Wickford Cove and Mill sampled occasionally to provide comparative data. Creek Cove. 2 Methods, Results and Discussion Marsh Grass Production weighed Reeve Angel No. 934 All glass fiber filters The height and weight of the tall form of Spar- nttd (tried at 105-110C before re-weighing. Com- parative data were also taken from three other ma- ting alterniffora were measured on grass growing rings on upstream transects through each area. around the marinas and in the Mill Creek marsh. Ten samples were taken at the end of the growing Results The concentration of suspended par- season in each area by random toss of a t/4 mZ ticulate rnntter on ebb tides from both areas was quadrat. All of the grass within the quadrat was remarkably uniform throughout the summer, aver- clipped at ground level, dried at 105-110C, and aging about 20 mg/liter for both the marinas and weighed. Twenty blades from each sample were the marsh ill Wickford (Table 2). No statistically selected at random for measurement of length prior significant difference was found between the two to drying. areas.The results of transect measurements on three Results The standing crop of tall S arti»a al- other marinas are shown in Figure 4. No consistent g P P effect of the marinas on the concentration of par- terniflora growing in patches around the Wickford ticulates is apparent, since the levels decrease in marinas averaged 857 g dry weight/tn2, while the one location, increase in another, and remain the Mill Creek marsh values averaged 1146 g/m2 sncne at a third. While there are many possible (Table 1). This difference was not statistically sig- sources for this material, including marsh grass nificant at the 95 percent confidence level, although detritus, fragments of fouling communities, pinnk- a mean difference in height of the grass in the two ton, land run-off, and resnspendcd sedimentary ma- areas of 8 cm was significant (Table 1, Fig.3). This terial, the particulate matter in total may serve as a small difference was not visually apparent in the valuable food source for estuarine organisms. Al- field. Both the height and weight data for Wick- though there is little, if any, difference in gross ford coves were similar to other marshes in this abundance of suspended particulate matter be- area of the Bay (Nixon and Oviatt in press,b). tween the marina and marsh area, differences in Table 1. Height and standing crop of the tall form of chemical composition or nutritional value may exist. Spartina altemiffora growing around the Wick- Table 2. Concentration of suspended parliculnte matter on ford Cove mnrinas and in the Mill Creek salt ebb ticics from Wickford Cove marinas and Mill marsh. Creek salt marsh. Sample Height, cm* Standing Crop,R/m' Date Number of Samples Concentration,mg/l• Afarinas Marsh Marinas Afarsh Marinas Marsh 1 116±21 111 ± 9 648 687 6-13-72 6 22.5±2.6 20.4±6.1 2 109±20 129±21 650 587 6-29-72 6 22.7 ±-5.6 21.7 -�-2.7 3 120±31 123:t 11 928 1327 7-13-72 6 20.9 ±7.8 18.3±6.9 4 144± 16 116± 19 1138 557 7-17-72 4 19.6''5.7 15.5±4.6 5 119 ±-21 101 ± 19 931 826 7-27-72 5 15.6.t 3.7 18.5:±9.5 6 129± 14 157± 9 989 1681 8-11-72 6 22.9±4.7 21.1 ±2.8 7 131 ±23 164 -F- 15 1173 1717 9- 7-72 7 22.0±6.2 22.3±-4.1 8 113:t 10 145:± 11 536 1375 R 21.1 ±5.5 10.0 '±5.6 9 119± 16 129 ± 17 911 1001 10 154 ± 15 155±24 672 1702 • Af con {'1 standard deviation. X 125±23 133±20 857 t 219 1146:L 471 Phyloplankton Abundance and Plankton •Afean±1 standard deviation,N=20. Metabolism The relative abundance of phytoplanktort in Suspended Particulate Matter water ebbing from the coves was estimated by The concentration of suspended particulate nt(•asuremcnts of the plant pigment, chlorophyll a matter on ebb tides wns measured at the month of (Strickland and Parsons 1968). A1'ater snmplcs were each cove on seven clays (luring; the summer. Water taken hourly at the mouth of each cove daring the samples were taken hourly, filtered through pre- ebb tide out three days, filtered through 0.8 micron 3 membrane filters, and the filters extracted with the 95 percent level of confidence, while for those acetone. in August the comparable level of confidence was Photosynthesis by the phytoplankton and res- 90 percent. If the chlorophyll content of phyto- piration by the phytoplankton and zooplankton plankton is taken as 1 percent of their dry weight were measured by the light-and-dark-bottle method. (Parsons ct al 1961), then the levels of particulate Oxygen concentrations were determined by Win- matter found in booth areas may consist of from 2.5 kler titration (Strickland and Parsuns 1968). Sam- perccut to 25 percent phytoplankton by 'weight, pies were taken in triplicate at three or more sta- with the rest corning from zooplankton, detritus, tions (head, middle, mouth) in each cove on six and otheruntrces. days during the summer. Incubations were made The higher chlorophyll levels in the marsh wa- for four hours during the mid-day at 0.5 m depth. ter diel not result in greater production. With the cxccptinn of n single day when there was a phyto- Results Concentrations of chlorophyll a ap- plankton bloom in the marsh cove, gross production peered higher in water ebbing from the marsh cove valves in marina water avernged 0.21 mg U_/1/hr on each of the three days measured, %with a mean while the vnlucs in the marsh average 0.08 mg value for the Mill Creek marsh of 21.5 pg/I com• U•,/I/hr (Table 4). Itespiration values for the plank- pnred with 11.8 ug/1 in Wickford Cove (Table 3). ton community in both areas were similar, averag- The differences observed in July were significant at ing 0.08 and 0.06 mg 02/l/hr in the marina and 20 OMorina Stations, N=200 18 ■ Marsh Stations, N=200 16 14 0 12 T C: 10 Q) 0- (V 8 L LL 6 4 2 0 m m m rl—A- cl) m m m m rn m m m m to co 0) O — N M Q U') to r` co tT O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ' O O tD N m Oi O _ N M Iq to tD r- W O Height, cm Fig.3. Height class frequency for tall Spartina afiemi/iora at the enol of the growing season near Wickford Cove ma- sines and in the Mill Creek marsh. 4 Table 3. Concentrations of chlorophyll a in water ebbing Marsh, Ympectivcly. While the plankton species from the Wickford Cove marinas and the Mill composition nlny have differed in the two locations, Creek salt marsh. the marinas did not appear to have any inhibitory effect on overall plankton photosynthesis or res- Date Tide Chi a,v6/l piration. Marina Marsh 6-29-72 high slack+ 1 hr 19 33 Nutrient Concentrations +5 hr 8 29 Concentrations of ammonia and phosphate were 7-27-72 high slack+ 1 hr 14 27 treasured three times in transects down each cove +2 hr 22 — using the mcthods of Solarzano (1969) and Strick- +3 hr 24 48 land and Parsons (1968). A series of measurements +4 hr 5 25 of ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate was taken hourly +5 hr 15 39 during one ebb tide at the mouth of each cove. The concentrations of nitrite and nitrate were measured 8-11-72 high slack 8 8 with a Technicon Autoanalyzer. + lhr 7 8 +2 hr 8 11 Results The few nutrient samples analyzed +3 lu 7 12 did not indicate that either area showed abnormally high levels of phosphate or ammonia. The most +4 hr 9 11 complete series of nitrogen measurements, taken in +5 hr 9 7 June when almost all of the boats were in the water, slinwed higher levels of ammonia, nitrite, and ni- trate in the marsh cove (Table 5). There did not PORT EDGEWOOD, PROVIDENCE RIVER • NORTON'S MARINA, GREENWICH COVE O APPONAUG HARBOR MARINA • \ 30 APPONAUG COVE rn E w t- Q 20 W Q J 10 Q a • 2 I 0 1 2 3 4 DISTANCE FROM MARINA, Km Fig.4. Suspended particulate matter on upstream-downstream transects through marinas. 5 Table 4. Plankton metabolism in the Wickford Cove marinas and the Mill Creek salt marsh. • Date Gross Production* Respiration* Net Production mg 0,/I/hr mg 03/l/hr nig 0,/I/hr Marinas Marsh Marinas Marsh Marinas Marsh 5-8-72 0.24 ±0.01 0.04 ±0.04 0.07±0.04 0.04 ±0.03 0.17 0.00 5-11-72 0.30±0.13 0.I 1 ±0.05 0.11 ±0.08 0.07 ±0.05 0.19 0.03 6-27-72 0.16±0.09 0.00±0.06 0.08±0.09 0.04 ±0.04 0.08 0.02 7-25-72 0.27±0.05 0.12±-0.14 0.09±0.02 0.08±0.04 0.18 110-1 8-24-72 0.29±0.04 1.03'+0.41 0.13±0.05 0.12±0.02 0.16 041 10-12-72 0.06:t 0.02 0.07±0.00 0.04 ±0.04 0.05±0.04 0.02 0.02 X f 0.22 0.23 0.09 0.07 0.13 0.17 R I 0.21 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.13 0.02 •Afeon ± I standard deviation from triplicate samples of three or more stations; 1 mean for all samples; 1 mean with 8-24-72 deleted. appear to be any indication that the boats in Wick- trainsccts through other marinas, ant] also at the ford Cove were a major source of nutrient enrich- mouth of the coves in Wickford harbor on three ment. ebb tides. Sampling days were included at the be- Table S. Nutrient levels in the Wickford Cove marinas ginning and end of the week to get "before-and- and the Mill Creek salt marsh. after" estimates of total and fecal coliform bacteria across the weekend period of heavy boat use. Snni- ples were nnalyzed by sanitary engineers in the Transect Measurements,µmoles/1 University's Department of Environinental Engi- Date Nutrient Alarina Marsh neering. mid- mid- Results No clear pattern is evident in the bac- head die mouth head dle mouth teriological auialysis of water samples for coliforin 5-10-72 ammonia 4.31 4.39 4.34 2.95 2.95 0.03 and fecal coliforin bacteria carried out by the engi- 5-17-72 phosphate 0.99 124 0.99 0.99 0.81 0.81 teems. In almost all cases, counts in both areas 7-27-72 ammonia ND ND ND ND 4.54 ND are high, often exceeding the 70/100 nil limit used by the U.S. Public health Service in closing areas Ebb Tide Measurements Near Mouth 6-13-72,µmoles/l to the taking of shellfish (Table 6).Additional sain- Tide Marina Marsh pies were taken on transects through marinas at Apponaug in East Greenwich Bay and at the Ida omnwnia nitrite nitrate ommonia nitrite nitrate Lewis and Goat Island Marinas in Newport harbor. highslack 1.18 ND 0.03 0.86 ND 0.28 Alain, the background levels of coliforin resulting ebbing 1 1.88 ND 0.04 2.35 ND 0.98 from land-based sc,.Vage input were so high that no ebbing 2 2.59 ND 0.04 3.35 0.09 2.89 impact of the marinas could be detected. As Fur- ebbing3 2.91 ND 0.05 5.74 0.20 10.01 fari and Writer (1969) point out in a detailed bnc- low slack 2.53 ND 0.04 3.76 0.12 5.72 tericological study of the effect of boats on water duality in Potter Cove, Narragansett Bay, the tradi- tional c nuts of voliform bacteria are probnbly not -useful in detecting pollution f>;oit>r boats...Since the Bacteria input fain boats is in the form of fresh fecal mate- rial rather than sewage, the associated coliforin On three clays water samples were collected noniber is low with respect to standards based on with sterile bottles in the Wickford marina rind salt city scwage. 1'he counts of fecal coliforin are much marsh coves. Additional samples were taken on more indicative of fresh pollution. 6 i 1 1 Table 6. Bacteriological nnalysis of water from the Wick- 010 ford Cove marinas and the Alill Creek salt marsh. I I i wICKFORp COVE -- MILL CREEK Date Tide N Bacteri2—MNP/100 ml i I i --- BREAKWATER 009 Marina Marsh I , t Total Fecal Total Fecal 1 i Coli- Coli- Coli- Coli- form form form form 008 5-10-72 (W) ebb 3 70 6 33 5 1 7-13-72 (Th) ebb 2 1100 59 7-17-72 (M) ebb 3 53 110 ` 7-27-72 (Th) ebb 3 52 15 10u9 815 F- 1 9-4-72 (M) ebb 6 0.6 3 Z I1, �� W ` Dissolved Organics004 ` J 1 ` Water samples from both coves as well as from U other areas in Wickford Harbor were collected on `2 a Monday morning in July for analysis by absorp- a 003 � tion spectrophotometry. It was hoped that collec- 0 � __,3 \`� �• tion at this time would reflect heavy weekend use of boats and motors. Levy (1971) has suggested 1 that ultraviolet absorption characteristics may be 002 useful in identifying machine hydrocarbons.Samples I were filtered through 0.8-micron membrane filters 2 and their absorption measured from 220 to 350 nm 3 in a Cary 15 recording spectrophotometer. Quartz 001 cuvettes were used with a NaCl distilled water solution as reference. Results Ultraviolet absorption spectra of w•a- \�Z- ter samples from the Wickford Cove marinas, Mill o00 p 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 Creek salt marsh, and the Wickford Harbor break- X,nm water are shown in Figure 5. All of the curves ap- pear very similar except for differences in the con- centration of absorbing compounds. The spectra do Fig.5. Ultraviolet absorption spectra for filtered water not resemble those shown by Levy (1971) which samples from Wickford Harbor. The numbers 1, 2, 3 repre- indicated oil pollution in the marine waters of east- sent stations at the head, middle, and mouth of each cove. ern Canada. A closer similarity is found to the ab- sorption pattern reported by Sicburth and Jensen (1968) for a freshwater bog, except that the peaks Copper levels here are broader and more distinct, and shifted about 50 mn further into the ultraviolet. It appears Samples of characteristic marsh and marina or- that much of the dissolved organic matter in both ganisms, as well as sediments and water, were nna- coves is similar, and consists of breakdown products lyzcd for capper content. Except for water samples, from decaying marsh grass, Spartitw (Sicburtlr, per- the materials were dried at 60C and ground to a sonal communication). The lower concentration of powder before wet-asking with concentrated these materials in the marina cove reflects the IINOa. Water samples were prepared according to smaller amount of marsh grass in the area and per- Environmental Protection Agency directions (1971). haps greater dilution by Bay water. It was not pos- Concentrations of copper were determined with a sibic to identify any oil or gasoline "fingerprint" in Perkin-Elmer 303 atomic absorption unit, using an spectra from the marinas. external copper standard. 7 Results The concentrations of copper in com- The concentration of copper in the water in mon organisms, water, and sediments from the two both coves, about 10 ug/l, was higher than that in Wickford coves are summarized in Table 7. In three seawater (3-5 pgA, hlandelli 1969). This may be cases—a green alga, Ulva lactuca or sea lettuce; the more n reflection of general)), higher concentrations fouling communities that developed on suspended of copper in Narragansett Bay resulting from jew- plastic plates, and the sediments—there was a sig- elry and other metal industry effluents than it is of nificantly higher concentration of copper in the any local influence from boats. The concentration marina area. High levels of copper were also found in the marina water was well below the levels that in the established fouling community growing on have been found to inhibit growth of estuarine phy- foats in the marinas. Since copper is the most com- toplankton. Erickson et al (1970) report an 80 per- mon heavy metal in the antifouling paint used on cent inhibition of growth in Olisthodiscus luteus, boats, it is not surprising that high concentrations an abundant component of the summer plankton, it appear in these stationary parts of the marina com- 50 µg copper/I, and a 36 percent inhibition in Skcl- munity. The copper in the fouling community does etcntenta co.statuni, In characteristic Ray phytoplank- not appear to move through the food chain into the ter, at IM pg/l. Another study by Alnndelli (1969) fish or shrimp, but only adult animals were meas- has shown copper inhibition at concentrations tired. Other evidence, discussed in the section on ranging from 30-500 JLg/l, with an inhibition of fish, indicates that juvenile common mummichog cell division in Skeletoneuia at 50 pg/l. In geocral, may use the fouling organisms for food.They should flagellates appear more sensitive than diatoms. be carefully checked in future work, as well as the Mandc1li also points out that the effective concen- sport fish that prey on them. trations of copper in coastal waters may be much higher than culttire experiments indicate clue to the presence of chclators, such as carboxylic acids, Table 7. Concentrations of co nttlino acids, etc., that can inactivate copper ions. copper f nrgmii a rims and In n study of the impact of large inputs of copper sediments from cute Wickford Cove marinas and the hill Creek salt marsh. on the ecology of a Texas Ingoon, Marin ct nl (1961) found no lasting effect of concentrations from about 6-25 pg1l on phytoplauktuu, zooplank- Sample N Copper,µg/g• toil, barnacles or snails. Marina Marsh Common mummichog Fish Abundance and Diversity (f) 5,5 12:t 0.6 13±3.3 The species composition, relative abundance, Common mummichog and size of fish in marina and marsh areas were fol- (m) 5,5 11 {-2.1 8.8± 1.4 lowed throughout the summer. Three to five small S;Iversides baited traps (7 min mesh) were left overnight and (M.menidia) 5,5 3.1 i-0.2 f 4.9±0.7 collected once or thvice each week from the two Crass shrimp Wickford coves. Additional samples were taken oc- (P.pugio) 5,5 150±27 134 ± 12 casionally from traps placed in four other marinas Algae(Ulva lactuca) 5,5 27 ±0.5 f 18 3. 1.0 and ndjacl•nt marsh arcus around the Ray. Nionthl), Folding community 17 in seine hntils (7 min mesh) were also made in on plastic plates 4,7 76.3± 15.7 f 20:t 8.8 90-degree arcs from shore at six stations in the Fooling community AVic•klord eovls and inside and outside of the other on docks 2,0 160 ntarinns. Ll early summer and fall, 67 in (15 mm Marsh grass detritus nu sli) sc for hauls were made in n similar manner (Spartina) 0,1 17 at three stations in the i narinn and marsh cove. In Quahog(At.merce- all cases, the fish xvcre identified and the number naris) 111 16 18 of species and iodivithinls connted. Tic st;utdard Bottom worms 1,1 31 32 lengths of the abundant conunat mummichog (Fun- Scdiment 5,5 39±5.7 f 12:-3.2 lulus hetcroclitu.$) were measured from the traps Nater(ebb tide) 5,5 0M.-t OW 0.012±0.002 and the 17 tit seine hauls. A preliminary estimate of sports fishing activity • Mean ± 1 standard deviation; t signibcart difference at in thv two Wickford coves was begun by interview- the 95% confidence level. iug fishermen oil three clays at the cud of summer. 8 Results The numbers of small animals and in August when juvenile fish moved into the ma- total number of species captured in weekly trap rings (Fig. 8). Interpretntion of the August data is measurements were highly variable, but throughout complicated by the crossing of the species number the summer showed no apparent difference between curves for the two areas. the marina or marsh areas (Fig. 6). The total num- 6 ber of animals, including small fish, snails, crabs • o and shrimp, increased in late summer. The same W seasonal pattern in species abundance lies been 0 aw 4 °• • 0 0 0 0 0 shown in detail for a nearby marsh area (Nixon and 0 N ° • o • Oviatt, in press, n). If only fish are considered,in z s 2 00 0 • o0 0 • • • the trap counts, the resulting seasonal pattern and In 0 • • the similarity between the two arcus remain un- 0 d 75 *MARSH STATIONS changed (Fig. 7). However, an analysis of the di- w OMARINA STATIONS versity of fish in the trap data by month using San- C a tiers' (1968) rarefaction method slowed n greater a < 50 • diversity of small fish in the marsh during June. < \ O o This trend narrowed in July and may have reversed o 25 0 • 0 • = z o • • ui 0 0 as 10 FL • • 0 o • • 0 JUNE JULY AUGUST En 8 0 • O Fie.7. Number of fish species and total number of fish W • O captured in two-day trap sets. L) 6 0 0 0 rn O • 00 •o CB 2 LL 4 00 • o 00 0 0 0 • • 0 2 0 • z 0 • e t *MARSH STATIONS • a OMARINA STATIONS 150 In 5 4 5 W W 3 C; 125 LL 0 4 e o • IX Ijj 100 ° i 3 a • • I WICKFORD MARINAS, JUNE 1972 C • Q 2 WICKFORD, MILL CREEK MARSH, ,NNE 1972 V 75 3 WICKFORD MARINAS. JULY 1972 • 4 WICKFORD, MILL CREEK MARSH, JULY 1972 N O 2 S WICKFORD MARINAS, AUG 1972 J 50 • O e 6 WICKFORD. MILL CREEK MARSH, AUG 1972 Q ° 00 • z O • 0 1 Q 25 0 00 0 • Y •• o 0 0 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 JUNE JULY AUGUST NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS Fig.6. Number of species and total number of animals Fig.8. Diversity of fish in trap captures, using Sanders' captured in two-day trap sets. (1968) rarefaction plot. 9 The results of 17 m seine hauls, which captured Greater number of animals caught in the marsh re- larger anilnnls,showed a greater number of fish and fleets large schools of juvenile menhaden that were n higher diversity in the Mill Creek marsh than in often captured in marsh samples. Only a few strays the Wickford Cove marinas (Fig. 9). Results from of these fish were ever found in the marina area. other areas, however, show that this pattern does Since menhadcu are very sensitive to a variety of not always hold. The diversity of fish in the Ap- environmental factors, more work is needed to sec ponaug Cove marina appeared higher than in two if the menhaden really do avoid marina areas and of the marshes, while diversity for the Bissel Cove serve as a warning of declining water quality. The marsh was similar to that found in the polluted seine data from Rabbit Island, near the marsh cove, Providence River. While a wide variety of environ- show that fish pnpulations in the area do not ap- meutal factors and stresses influence the diversity pear to have changed much in three years. of species in nn arca, it does appear from the Wick- An interesting pattern wns also apparent in the ford data that under comparable conditions, the di- size-frequency distribution for the most abundant versity may he lower in marinas than in salt mnrsh fish, the common mummichog, Funrhslus hetero- areas. An analysis of data from the larger 67 m seine clitus. While trap data for June and July showed hauls shows a similar pattern of slightly higher di- nlmost identical normal distributions for the size versity in the Wickford marsh (Fig. 10). The much classes of fish in the Wickford marinas and marsh, 16 14 12 2 10 a W_ V W N 8 W O 4 M W m 6 5 6 f D z 4 1 WICKFORD, MILL CREEK MARSH, SUMMER 1972 2 WICKFORD MARINAS. SUMMER 1972 3 APPONAUG COVE MARINAS, SUMMER 1972 4 JERUSALEM MARSH, AUGUST 1969 2 S PORT EDGEWOOD MARINA, PROV RIVER, SUMMER 1972 6 SISSEL COVE MARSH, JUNE 1970 00 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1600 2000 NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS Fig.9. Diversity of fish in 17 m seine captures, using Sanders' (1968) rarefaction plot. 10 1 20 N � W_ U 2 W 0- V) 0 3 w 10 CID I WICKFORO. MILL CREEK MARSH, SUMMER 1972 2 WICKFORD, RABBIT ISLAND, SUMMER 1969 Z 3 WICKFORD MARINAS, SUMMER 1972 01 11_ 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS Fig.10. Diversity of fish in 67 in seine captures,using Sanders' (1968) rarefaction plot. the data from August, when "young-of-the-year" 0 MARINA STATIONS. N-401 fish become large enough to catch, showed a Tela- 40 ■ MARSH STATIONS, N-308 tively greater number of small fish in the marinas (Fig 11). The same trend was also found in the 17 to seine data from Wickford (Fig. 12) and in a JUNE AND JULY series of seine hauls in a transect through the Ap- 20 ponaug Cove marinas in late summer (Fig 13). •It appeared that the hardy juvenile common mummi- chugs may feed on the abundant fouling organisms 0 0 MARINA STATIONS, Nr304 O MARINA STATIONS, N=250 >- ■ MARSH STATIONS, N-346 ■ MARSH STATIONS, N=323 U Z W � o 0 60 AUGUST U Z W 40 O O W LL 20 O O O O O O O M Q in tD ti CID 0i O=l I- - I J r I r r L r I r O O O O O O O O O a Or N to V d) tD r` to 0) rn h tD P m r r r r r r C4 on W r to ,: m of 0 STANDARD LENGTH, cm STANDARD LENGTH, cm Fig. 12. Sim•-frcgnency distribution for common mtunmi- Fig. 11. Size-frequency distribution for common mummi- chug, Fundulus heicroclitus, in 17 in seine captures in ehog,Fundulus heteroclitus, in Wickford trap captures. Wickford. 11 found in the marinas. Their presence also appeared amphipods, algae, and bacterial slimes, was meas- to be effective in drawing larger predatory sport tired at the beginning and end of the summer on fish, such as bluefish, into the marinas. A prelim- floats and pilings in the Wickford marinas and in inary survey of sport fish caught in the marina and three other marinas around the Bay. At each loca- marsh areas was made on two weekdays and one tion, five quadrats of 625 cm2 were scraped by weekend in )ate summer. In ten hours of fishing in scuba divers from the undersides of randomly se- each area, the catch/unit effort was 5.5 fish/hr in lected marina floats. The collected material was the marina and 1.5 fish/hr in the marsh. dried at 105-110C, weighed, and ashed for duce )tours in a muffle furnace at 525-550C to determine its organic content. Long thin areas measuring 10 Fouling Communities cm by 62.5 cm were also scraped from the inter- The biomass of fouling communities, including tidal and upper subtidal sections of five pilings in associations of barnacles,mussels,tunicates,sponges, each marina. Field measurements of the respiration rate of fouling communities in the three Wickfurd marinas were made on 14 occasions by fastening a plastic 40 dome to the underside of floats and monitoring the Apponaug Cove marsh area concentrations of dissolved oxygen under the dome 30 900 meters with a Winkler calibrated Yellow Springs (Y.S.I.) from marina oxygcn meter and self-stirring probe. Readings were N: 100 taken every ten minutes for one to two }tours. Lab- 20 oratory measurements were also made on fouling community respiration at temperatures from 5-20C. 10 Duplicate samples of the communities were taken from NVickford marinas by removing slices of plas- 0 tic foam from floats and placing them in 4-liter marsh area aquariums containing filtered Bay water. Plastic 30 300 meters film was placed on the water surface to prevent from marina diffusion. Measurements were run in a controlled N = 100 environment chamber in the dark, using a Winkler 20 calibrated Y.S.I. oxygen meter. Estimates of the rate of settlement and growth >. 10 of fouling communities in the two Wickford coves U were made using replicate sets of 900 c1111 plastic � 0 pintos that were suspended in each area during Cr mid une. A plate was removed from each area L_ in merino 1 LL 40 N=35 each tttunth through October, rind the species com- position, dry weight and organic content were de- termined. 30 Results Almost any free surface placed in 20 coastal water will quickly develop an association of plants, aninnals and bacteria living on it. While the 10 buttotns of bunts are painted with copper or outer poisons to inhibit this growth, the undcrsnrface of floats and the wooden pilings used in dock con- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o struction are usually not painted and often develop tit (c ►� m ?� o a luxurious growth of fouling cominuni,ties that in- ,n v 9) G ti m �, o creases each summer and dies back during the winter. Standard Length, cm The species comprising this growth differed Fig.13. Size-frequency distribution for common mummi- slightly from marina to marina and nt different chog, Fundulus heterochius, in 17 m seine captures in times durhig the summer. In general, the commu- Apponaug Cove. nitics were characterized by the following: 12 Solitary ascidian, Alolgida manhattensis Table 8. Biomass of fouling commmnitics on floats' in Compound ascidian, Botryllus schlosseri some Narragansett Bary uaarinns. Barnacle, Balanus balanoides Amphipod, Corophium sp. h12riu2 Date Biomass,g/Wt Hydroids, Obelia and Campanularia Polychaetes A (Wickford) 6-15-72 1202±426 Gastropods C (Wick ford) 6-19-72 1136± 567 Nudibranchs D (E.Greenwich) 6-19-72 772:t 171 Anthozoa, llletridurn senile and Haliplanella E (Apponnug) 6-19-72 2399± 1045 luciae F(Providence) 7-14-72 124 ±80 Mussel, Mytilus edulis A (Wickford) 9- 5-72 2283±976 Ectoproct, Bugula sp. C (Wickford) 8-28-72 877:t 492 Mud crabs,Neohenupe texana E (Apponnug) 8.30-72 5299± 1114 Encrusting sponges - — Scale worths ' SmPiples taken /ruin synthetic Jona, floats that had brei in Algne, Enteromorpha sp., Polysiphonia sp., the nvntrr rnntAnnor+%ly for at Ira.st oar year. In nnarino Fucus sp. D, the Monts land been removed briefly for repair two months prior to sannpling. just as decaying grass may serve as an input ( Dry weight, mean of 5 samples -t I standard deviation. of detritus in marsh coves, the fragments of organic matter continually broken off the fouling commu- nity may be an important detritus input in marinas. This input may be especially large in the fall, when Table 9. Bimnnss of fouling communities on pilings in the fouling communities arc dying back and the sumo Narragansett Bay marinas. greatest numbers of fish, particularly juveniles, are in the area. The intact communitics may be an im- Marina Date Biomass,g/m'' portant food source for fish during the summer (Sutherland 1972). Intertidal Snbridai The biomass of fouling organisms on floats and A (Wickford) 6-23-72 390{ 39U 880±253 pilings in a number of marinas is summarized in B (Wickford) 7- 7-72 221 ±90 387±253 Tables 8 and 9. The low value for the Providence D (E.Gr•enwich) 6-22-72 162 ± 233 298:L- 167 River marina probably results from occasional low E (Apponaug) 7-10-72 658 --383 1426±295 oxygen stress in the river near high sewage inputs G (Newport) 7-11-72 2755-t 915 825±544 from the city. Except for Newport, the subtidal sec- G (Wickford) 8-29-72 381 ± 166 925 ±748 tion of pilings had a substantially larger biomass E (Appomrag) 8-31-72 3214±4395 5435±3113 than the more stressed intertidal regions. While the maximum biomass of the fouling communities •Dry weight, nicaa+ of 5 samples = 1 standard deviation. reached 5000 g/m2, almost five times the standing crop of marsh grass, the organic content of the foul- ing communities averaged only 31 percent of its dry weight. The comparable value for Spartina is 89 the food value of grass detritus appears to result percent (Udell et al 1969). Thus, a fouling comma- from the secondary development of bacteria and nity must develop about 3000 g/a,2 to equal the or- fungi on the grass particles (Odunn and do la Cruz ganic content of a 1000 g/1112 marsh. This material, 1967). however, is all available for consumption by fish, Tliv growth of foaling communities on exposed shrimp, etc., while only some 45 percent of the blastic plates was greatest in the marsh arca, with marsh production ever enters the water (Teal 1962). the fastest rate of increase in early August (Fig. In terms of food production available to the aquatic 14). Maximum biomass on the marsh plates was community, only about 1500 g/n>z of fouling must over seven times that in the marina with the dif- be developed to equal the input from a square fcrence due to increased barnacle growth in the meter of marsh. Even though the growth of the marsh. Since the levels of suspended particulate fouling organisms represents largely secondary pro- matter were equal in the two areas (Table 2), and duction, while the growth of marsh grasses results phytopinnkton production was higher in the ma- from photosynthetic primary production, much of rina (Table 4), the decreased growth on the ma- 13 400 Ie O Morino 16 �- • Morsh 14 ru 350 \ \ —'PORT EDGE WOOD (T B BUOY 'B- PROv Rlv 6 200 0 14 12 -.. 10 0 100 E B APPONAUG MARINAS GREENWICH BAY te0-_-___----0 10 J J A S 0 B __ c E 6 �\ Fig. 14. Biomass of organic matter on replicate plastic c ° \� —WICKFORD MARINAS plates set in Wickford Cove and Mill Creek salt marsh cove Z --WICKFORD,MILL CREEK in June. Values have been corrected for ash content. 10 rina plates may have resulted from copper inhibi- E IDA LEWIS, NEWPORT tion or from low nighttime oxygen concentrations o" 6 --ROSE Is, NEWPORT (Fig. 15). Even though no difference was found in 24 4 B Iz 16 20 24 the levels of copper in the water of the two areas, TIME the concentration of copper in the marina fouling Fig. 15. Diurnal curves of dissolved oxygen in surface community was significantly higher than in the marsh (Table 7). water inside and outside of four marinas in early August. Field and laboratory measurements of the me- tabolism of marina fouling communities showed a high rate of respiration and no net photosynthetic production. Field measurements in situ showed a The correlation coefficient for the equation is 0.82, range in community respiration from 0.17 to 3.03 with 44 percent of the variance accounted for by g 0•_/mz/hr, with a mean of 1.80 g 0•,/m2/hr (Table temperature and 25 percent by oxygen. At 20C and 10). While not statistically sigiacant, there ap- 100 percent oxygen saturation, the respiration of the pcared to be a trend toward lower rates of uptake fouling community is about 1.34 mg/l/hr, or 75 in moving from the head to the mouth of Wickford percent of the maximum reported by 0thun and de Cove. Laboratory measurements showed a depend- )a Cruz (1967) for Spartina detritus in water. ence of respiratory rate on temperature and dis- When coupled with the large amount of sur- solved oxygen concentration, which indicates ndap- face area occupied by fouling communities in na- tation to low oxygen concentrations. Using multiple rinas, these high respiration rates may have a sub- regression, an analysis of the data gave the follow- stantial effect on the oxygen budget of, the,water. ing expression for the relationship: For example, in Wickfurd Cove the oxygen demand for the 3600 1112 of floats was about 146 4W 0:/da R —0.096 T+0.064 0,— 1.063 � g y with an additional demand for the 255 pilings of where R is fouling respiration,mg Oz/g dry weight/hr 9600 g 0./ciay for a total oxygen consumption of T is water temperature,C about 156,0(x1 g/clay. This is equivalent to all of the 02 is dissolved oxygen concentration, mg 02/1 oxygen contained in over 20 million liters of com- 14 Table 10. Summer respiration rates of fouling communi- sediment. Oxygen concentrations were monitored ties in the Wickford Cove marinas. over a two- to three-hour period with a Winkler calibrated Y.S.I. oxygen meter and self-stirring Date Respiration,g 0,/m'/hr probe. Marina A Marina B Marina C Resltlis Higher rates of respiration by the sediments cony also contribute to the lower diurnal e-29-72 1.12 oxygen levels in the Wickford marinas (Table 11, 7-11-72 1.33 Fig. 15). The mean values for the marina sediments 7-11-72 1.31 appear almost twice as high as those in the marsh, 7-18-72 3.03 with the difference statistically significant at the 7-18-72 2.15 90 percent confidence level. In both areas, the rates 7-19-72 2.26 arc very close to the 0.07 g/mz/hr predicted by 7-19-72 2.24 Hargrave (1969) on the basis of a regression anal- 7-24-72 0.71 ysis of many sediment respirati011 rates reported 8-16-72 1.52 hum varying marine and freshwater environments. B-16-72 1.07 Oxygen uptake by the sediments, including chem- 8-21-72 1.94 ical oxidation as well as the respiration of bacteria and larger infauna, was about 20 times lower than 8-21-72 1.92 8-22-72 1.89 that of the fouling communities. 8-22-72 2.67 X 2.04 ±0.58 1.94 ±0.85 1.44 ±0.51 Table 11. Summer sediment respirnlion rates in the Wick- ford Cove marinas and Mill Creek salt marsh. Respiration,g 0,/m°/hr pletely saturated Bay water, or 25 percent of the Wickford Cove Marinas Mill Creek Salt Marsh average total volume of the Wickford Cove. The effect of this large oxygen demand was evident in a 007 001 series of diurnal oxygen curves taken inside and 0.12 0.07 outside of four marinas (Fig. 15). In the Provi- 0.08 0.03 dence River, Apponaug Cove, and Wickford Cove, 0.08 0.02 oxygen levels in the marinas were lower than in 0.09 0.14 adjacent waters. At Newport, where no floats were R 0.09 0.029 R 0.05 ±0 050 present, high rates of tidal mixing and diffusion ob- scured the small effect of piling communities. •Mean {• 1 standard deviation. SedimentsThe biomass of larger infauna was variable in both areas, but in all of the station-to-station com- Three sediment cores were taken to a depth of parisons, values in the marina were greater than or 10 cm at the head, middle and mouth of each cove. equal to those in the marsh (Table 12). While The samples were dried at 105-110C and asked in a counts of individual species were not ninde, the su- muffel furnace at 525-550C for three hours to de- perficial number of species in both areas appeared termine organic content. similar. In a more detailed study of shellfish in Samples were also taken twice at the head, Wickford harbor by the Rhode Island Dcpnrtmcnt middle, and mouth of each cove with a Petersen of Natural Resources, 13 stations were sampled in dredge and screened through 3.2 mm mesh. All of the marsh cove and 7 in the marina areas (Kuvack the animals retained by the mesh were dried at 1968). Densities of quahogs, llfercenaria mercenaria, 105-110C and weighed. ranged from 5-18/m' in both areas, with the cxcep- Oxygen uptake by the sediment community in tion of one region of the marina where 10-40 ani- each cove was measured at five locations on tract- mals/ml were found.The distribution of size classes, sects down the coves. Measurements were made as a percentage of the stations in which they were with large, black plastic domes placed over the found, is shown below: 15 Size,mm Marina,% Alarsh,% Preliminary Bioassays 48 14 18 Since most, if not all,studies of the toxic effects 48-70 57 64 of outboard motor exhaust have been concerned 71-92 57 27 with freshwater organisms (sec review by Kuzrnin- 92 43 0 shi and Jackivicz 1972) some preliminary studies of acute effects on estuarine species were begun. Ex- haust water was prepared by idling a 1970 model No soft-shelled clams, Af ya arenaria, were found at 40 h.p. Evinnide motor for one hour in a 180-liter the marina stations. They were abundant at only container of Ray water. Various organisms, inclod- two of the marsh stations where sandy sediments fug the common imi nntichog,Fundulus heteroclitrts; were present instead of silt-clay. the grass shrimp, Palaenionetes pugio; mixed zoo- plankton (mainly Acartia); a green isopod, Idotca baltica, and two species of phytoplankton (pure Table 12. Dioniass of infauna in the sediments of the cultures of Skeletonema costaturn and Olisthodiscus Wickford Cove marinas and the Mill Creek salt luteits), were subjected to concentrations of tip to marsh. 75 percent exhaust water. The number of animals dying within a 24-hour period was recorded for each concentration, while the growth of the phyto- Date Sample Location Biomass,g/m, plankton in cultures enriched with phosphonis and Marinas Afarsh nitrogen (Guillard and Ryther 1962) was followed fur over 20 days using a fluorometric measure of 7-7-72 head 10.8 2.9 chlorophyll pigments. middle 12.0 0.4 mouth 7.9 0.4 Results Only very preliminary indications of the acute effects of outboard motor exhaust water 8-10-72 head 6.4 0.9 on estuarine organisms were obtained. hor example, middle 1.3 1.4 grass shrimp, Palnentonetes pugin, appeared quite mouth 263.0 5.8 resistant and could survive for at least several hours in concentrations of 50 percent exhaust water under aerated conditions. On the other hand, a 50 per- cent concentration killed mixed zooplankton in two Organic content of the sediments was high,with hours. The common mummichog, Fundulus hetero- a mean of over 8 percent in each area (Table 13). clitus, showed 100 percent survival over 24 hours in There was no significant difference between the concentratimis at Icast as high as 10 percent exhaust means at the 95 percent confidence level. In both water. Response of the isopod, Idotea baltica, was cases, the organic content was highest near the observed in more detail: head of the cove where Bushing was probably least Time to 50% Mortality, effective. 46 Exhaust Water N flours 75 40 0.5 Table 13. Organic content of sedinient in the Wickford 50 42 1.0 Cove marinas and the Mill Creek salt marsh. 25 35 1.5 15 30 47.0 10 31 (197o at 53 hours) Location Organic Content,%• 0 14 (14% at 53 hours) Afarinas Marsh head 13.17 ±2.21 10.37 :t 0.27 middle 6.44 ±0.95 7.77 ±0.38 The diatom SkOcionernn costattim showed no mouth 6.68±0.28 7.91 0.41 growth inhibition over a week or longer in concen- R 8.76±3.52 8.68 ± 1.31 trations tip to 2.5 percent exhaust water in one ex- periment and 5 pereent in another. A single trial •Surface to 10 cm, meari ± 1 standard deviation, N e 3. with the flagellate Olisthodiscus !utero showed no 16 growth inhibition at concentrations tip to 5 percent. However, since the water in the experimental tank Above this level, growth was strongly inhibited or had passed through the engine cooling system many did not occur. times during the hour run, and since the fuel waste While these results are preliminary, they do of the engine is very much a function of speed, age, suggest that there is a definite toxicity associated and tune, it is not possible to calculate the probable with outboard motor exhaust water, even using a concentrations or toxic effects of exhaust water in well "tuned," newer motor with recycling features. the field. 17 Summary and Conclusions A small boat marina forms an ecological system Levels of copper, however, were higher in marina similar in many ways to that of a coastal salt marsh sediments, attached benthic algae, and fouling corn- cove. However, important differences are apparent. munities. Copper enrichment was not found in Both the marina and the marsh cove are estu- higher trophic levels. arine environments with salinity and temperature There was no clear pattern of difference in fish stresses that result in low diversity and large stand- abundance or diversity between marina and marsh ing crops of their relatively few species. While the areas, although Atlantic menhaden, a sensitive and emergent grasses of the marsh show high primary important commercial species abundant in marsh production, both the marsh coves and the marinas coves, was seldom found in the marina areas. Pre- . are heterotrophic systems, dependent on imports of liminary evidence does suggest that sport fish are organic matter. The development of extensive foul- more abundant in marina areas, perhnps attracted ing communities in the marina may be analogous to there by large numbers of juvenile bait fish that the production of rich grass detritus in the marsh. prefer the marinas. The input of large pieces of organic matter from Since fouling communities appear to be an im- the emergent marsh appears to come in midwinter portant food source for fish, espccinlly the juveniles and early spring (Nixon and Oviatt in press, a), which attract sport fish, painting the undersides of while much smaller particulate detritus is added marina floats with antifouling paint should be dis- more regularly throughout the year (Shultz and eouraged.The environmental benefits of this practice Quinn, in press). The fouling communities with may be omch greater than the small cost associated their maximum abundance in late summer, followed with a slightly decreased life span for unprotected by their breakup into the water in fall, may serve floats. It may also be possible to develop antifouling as an important food supplement during the time paints which will reduce or eliminate the amount of when juvenile fish are abundant and larger numbers heavy metals which flake off of boat bottoms. Pre- of adult fish are present in the marsh cove areas. liminary development nod testing of nn antifouling Thus, in terms of the delivery of food, the marshes paint based un the antibiotic activity of seaweed and marinas may be compatible systems. has already been described by Sieburth and Cun- Instead of dumping dredge spoil from marina over (1965). channels in deep water or on the emergent marsh While many features of the marina make it the grasses, it may be possible, with methods described most acceptable of possible alternatives for mnrsh by Woodhouse et al (1972), to use the spoil to in- development, especially when compared to road crease the area and shoreline of adjacent intertidal constnnction,housing, dredge spoil disposal, and ref- marsh. Since the main input of Spartina detritus use clumping, certain qualifications must be added. comes from the band of grass along the edge of the For example, this study did not consider the often marsh, an effort should be made to increase the ef- important details of species composition in the fective length of shoreline by forming a rounded, plankton or the infauna of the marsh and marina dentate coast. It may also be possible to use grass areas. The relative abundance and distribution of plantings instead of rip-rap or bulkheading to sta- waterfowl and mammals in the two areas was not bilize filled areas. studied, and it seems very unlikely tlrnt either of At least in Wickford Cove, the production and these groups would rest in or make extensive use respiration of the plankton community did not re- of marinas. Mallard ducks nein -dher nib.ged species fleet any detrimental effects from boat use, nor did adapted to man may he vN;cr 1imr; The m me and they respiration and nbundanee of sediment orgi- chronic rift-cls of copper, hychuc:ubrnns. and motor nisms. No evidence of environmental deterioration exhaust products on the survival and reproduction from boat-derived sewage or rubbish was apparent. of estuarine species remain almost unknown. 18 References Bowerman, F. R. and K. Y. Chen. 1971. Marina del Ray: a Levy, E. M. 1972. The identification of petroleum products study of environmental variables in a semi-enclosrd in the marine environment by absorption spectropho- coastal water. Sea Grant Pub. No USC a SG4-71, tomctry. Water Research 6: 57-69. Univ. Southern Calif., Los Angeles, 59 p. Manrlclli, E. F. 1969. The inhibitory effects of copper on Chapman. V. J. 1960. Salt marshes and salt deserts of the marine phytoplankton. Cont. Marine Sci., Univ. Texas, world. L. hill, London, 392 p• 14: 47-57. Clarke, B. D. 19(17. Houseboat wastes mrtlrnds for collec- Marvin, K. T., L. r1. Lansford, and R. S. Wheeler. 1961. tion and trcahnent. Tech. Proj. Branch, Report No. Effects of copper ore on the ecology of a lagoon. Fish- USDI-FWPCA, N.W. Region, Corvallis, Ore. er-v Bull. 184, U.S. Dept. Interior, 61: 153-160. Clarke, B. D. 1968, llousebont waste characteristics and Narragansett Times. 1972. Wickford is top-notch harbor. treatment. Tech. Proj. Branch, Report No. PR-G USDI- South County Boating Guide, April 30. FWPCA. Nixon, S. \V. and C. A. Ovintt. Ecology of a New England Environmental Engineering. Inc. 1970. Effect of power boat saltinarsh. In press,a. Ecological Monographs. fuel exhaust on Florida lakes. Report to the Marine Nixon, S. W. and C. A. Ovintt. Analysis of local variation Exhaust Council, Gainesville, Fla. in the standing crop of Spartina alterniffora. In press, b. Environmental Protection Agency. 1971. Methods for chemi- Botnnica Marina. cal analysis of water and wastes. Analytical Quality Odum, E. 1. and A. A. de la Cruz. 1967. Particulate or- Control Lab., Cincinnati, Ohio. ganic detritus in a Georgin salt marsh-estuarine ecosys- Environrnental Protection Agency. 1971. Control of pollu- tern, p. 383-388. In C. I1. Lauff (ed.), Estuaries. AAAS tion from outboard engine exhausts: it recomrnissavice Publ. 83, Washington, D.C. study. Project No. 15020 ENN, Rensselaer Polytechnic Odum, If. T. 1971. Environment, power, and society. Wilcy- Inst., Troy, N.Y., 37 p. Interscience, N.Y.,331 p. Erickson, S. J., N. Lackic, and T. E. Maloney. 1970. A Parsons, T. R., K. Stephens, and J. D 11. Strickland. 1961. screening techuictne for estimating copper toxicity to On the chemical eompo%ition of eleven species of ma- estunrine phytoplankton. J. Water Poll. Cont. Fed., 43: rine phytoplankton.J. Fish. lies. Bd. Canada, 18: 1001- 11270-11278. 1016. Furfari, S. A. and J L. Verber. 1969 Boat wnstc survey, Pomeroy, L. R., Ir R. Shenton, R. D. li )ones, and R. J Potter Cove, Rhode Island, summer 1968. N.E. Tech. Reimold. 1972. Nutrient flux in estuaries, p 274-283 In Scr. Unit, Davisville, R.I., U.S. Dept. ficalth, Educa- C. E. Likens (ed.), Nutrients and eutrophication. ASLO tion, and Welfare, Public Health Sen-ice, 27 p. Spec. Symp. No. 1. Criscorn, C. A. 1973. An environmentalist looks at boating. Rorholm, N. and S. Feld. 1971. Rhode Island marinas and Talk presented to the Second Boating in New England boat yards 1970. NE•Allfll' Special Report, Publication Conference,Jan. 9-11, 1973, Boston, Mass. P-IG, Univ. lthode Island, Kingston. Cuillard, R. R. and J. H. Ryther. 1962. Studies of marine Sanders, 11. L. 1968. Marine benthic diversity: a compara- planktonic diatoms. I ClIclotella nana Ilosted, and five study. Amer. Natur., 102: 243.282. Detorrula conferoacea (Cleve). Gran. Can.J. hlicrobiol. Shultz, D. and J. G. Quinn. Fatty acid composition of or- 8: 229-239. ganic detritus from Spartina ahrrniffora. In press. Hargrave, B. T. 1969. Similarity of oxygen uptake by ben- Sieburth, J. McN., and J. T. Conover. 1965 Sargasanrn thic communities. Limnol. Oceanogr. 14: 801-805. tannin, an antibiotic which retards fouling. Nature, Isard, W., C. L. Choguill, J. Kisson, R. H. Seyfarth, R. Tat- 208: 52-53. lock, and others. 1972. Ecologic-economic analysis for Sieburth, J. McN., and A. Jensen. 1968. Studies on algal regional development. The Free Press, New York, substances in the sea. 1. Cclbstolf (humic material) 270 p. in terrestrial and umrine waters. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Kovach, K. A. M. 1968. Shellfish survey of Wickford liar- Ecol.,2: 174-189. bor. Marine Fisheries, R.I. Div. of Conservation, Dept. Solarzarm, L. 1969. Detrrmination of ammonia in nntimil Nat. Iles., Wickford, 11.1. Leaflet No.24. waters by the phenolhypochloritc method. Linrool. Kuzminski, L. N. and T. P. Jnckivicz, Jr. 1972. Interaction Occanogr., 14: 799-801. of outboard motors with the aquatic environment- Strickinnd, J D. I1. and J. R. Parsons. 1968. A practical causative factors and effects. Rep No. EVE 29-72-2. lumudbook of sea water analysis. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada, Environmental Engineering, Univ. Mass., Amherst, Bull. 167, Ottawa, 309 p. Mass. Water Resources Comm., 33 p. Sutherland, J. P. 1972. Elfects of fish predation on the Lagler, K. F., A. S. Hazzard, W. E. Ilazen, and W. T. structure of fouling communities. Ecol. Soc. Amer. Tompkins. 1950. Outboard motors in relation to fish Bull., 54: 10. behavior, fish production, and angling success. Fif- Teal, J. AI. 1962. Energy flow in the salt marsh ecosystem teenth N. Amer. Wildlife Conf. Trans.,p. 280-303. of Gcorgia. Ecology, 43: 614-624. 19 Udell, H. F., J. Zarudsky, T. E. Doheny, and P. R. Burk- 431-439. In D. J. Nelson and F. C. Evans (eds.), Pro- holder. 1969. Productivity and nutrient values of plants ccedings of the Second National Symposium on Radio- growing in the salt marshes of the town of Iiemp- ecology, AEC. stead, Long Island. Bull. Torrey Dot. Club, 96: 42-51. Woodhouse, W. W., Jr., E. D. Seneca, and S. W. Broomc. Williams, R. B. and M. B. Murdoch. 1969.The potential im- 1972. Marsh building with dredge spoil in North portance of Spartina alterni/ioro in conveying zinc, Carolina. Ag. Exp. St. Bull. 445, North Carolina State manganese, and iron into estuarine food chains, p. University, Raleigh, N.C.,28 p. 20 i as .} The Environmental impacts of Marinas and Their Boats F A Literature Review with Management Considerations Gail L. Chmura Neil W. Ross ii i R.I. Department of Environmental Management Marine Advisory Service NOAA/Sea Grant University of Rhode Island Marine Memorandum 45 • f I THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF MARINAS AND THEIR BOATS I A Literature Review with I Management Considetatiotls i f I By Gail L. Chmura Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management and Neil W. Ross University of Rhode Island I Marine Advisory Service University of Rhode Island it,U.S.Department of Narragansett. RI 02882 rnment is authorized to •s notwithstanding any 1978 avallaWs at$1.00 per copy Campus,Narragansett,R.I. Wo Island. $1.00 4 Contents Page Acknowledgments 1 Foreword 1 Introduction 3 i - Chapter I: THE MARINA FACILITY Marina Site Location ........................ 4 Dredging .................................... 6 Bulkheads ...................................10 Breakwaters .................................11 Piers, Docks, and Wharves ...................12 Marina Use ..................................13 i Chapter II: BOATS ................................... Boat Use .16 I Boat Motors .................................17 Outboard Motor Exhaust ......................18 Boat Sewage .................................21 Boat Maintenance ............................24 Literature Cited ............................26 : 1 i Acknowledgments The authors wish to identify Warren Johns of the Raytheon Company as key to the preparktion of this report for providing funding, technical suggestions, and editorial assistance. Daniel O'Neill also helped with technical assistance and critical reviews. Special appreciation goes to the University of Rhode Island Marine Advisory Service, a Sea Grant Program of NOAA, for financial and clerical aid. Foreword This literature review is revised and updated from Chapter II of the Rhode Island "Areawide Water Quality Management Plan, Preliminary Evaluation MARINAS TASK" by the Raytheon Company, Portsmouth, R.I., for the Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program, Providence, R.I. 02907, January 1978. Some management recommendations are specific to Northeastern boat- ing states. Current marina management practices and structures may vary from region to region. Much of the literature cited pertains to saltwater environments, and this reflects the bias of the report for Rhode Island planning use and that such of the research to date has been done only on salt water. Readers should keep the above limitations in mind when developing management plans for other areas. The purpose of this review is to summarize all aspects of marina and boat-related environmental effects. Discussion will focus on studies of each component's effects, the management options needed to reduce negative effects and expand positive ones, and future research needs. I i 3 1 Introduction Any alteration or change in the physiographic features of the shoreline may be assumed to have an environmental impact. Marinas are shoreside facilities for servicing recreational boats. They alter the shoreline and thus are capable of having complex impacts, both positive and negative. on a small portion of shoreline. In this report. "marina" refers to the facility also called boatyard, yacht club, community dock, tow dock, etc., serving recreational craft. Defining and measuring the impact of any marina requires that each component be viewed first individually and then as part of the whole system. In addition to environmental effects, marinas have additional importance for society. Although privately managed, they are major public access points to -recreational waters. They have j economic value to local communities through employment and tax revenues and they concentrate boating activities, storage, and access, thus freeing shore frontage for other uses. I In addition to providing space for mooring boats, the marina facilities often include other services: I Launching ramps Fuel docks Bull and engine repair shops Sales rooms for boats, engines and accessories Open or enclosed dry-land boat storage Boat haul-out facilities (crane, travel lift, railroad) Restrooms, showers and locker rooms Restaurants Groceries Bulk ice Bait and tackle Propane gas Laundry facilities Swimming pools Gift shops Motels Picnic areas Children's playgrounds Parking lots Much of the literature available today adequately describes the components of a marina's impact on the environment, but it provides little hard scientific data to support any conclusions as to the severity of that impact. The reports "Marina del Ray: A Study of Environmental Variables in a Semi-enclosed Coastal Water" (S) and "Ecology of Small Boat Marinas" (36) are two notable exceptions. After searching for such quantitative studies, we find that the qualitative discussions far outnumber the quanti- tative reports. In fact, there are few scientific reports available that explore the effects of any alteration specifically due to the construction and use of marinas. I rk 4 Chapter I: The Marina Facility and its stormwater di the storm drain disch MARINA SITE LOCATION effect on the water q Effects Aesthetics: The coas aesthetic resource V The location, preparation and design of marina facilities the shoreline's aesth (which should include planning for vehicular traffic, access and smells foreign to to navigable and recreational waters, fresh water supply, I tained marinas may fu and utilities) are the first factors to be considered when aesthetic considerati assessing the impact of a marina. The primary negative impacts environment are diffi are habitat lose, pollution by stormwater runoff, and aesthetic which made this attem (visual) pollution. A marina's impact can also have positive marina situated on a features, since it provides for the concentration of shoreline effect, while one pla development (as opposed to many scattered private docks) and may actually improve may increase the diversity of shoreline habitat, e.g., providing I of the waterfront. substrate for fouling communities. Habitat Loss: To provide protection for its facilities and i Management Considerat safe moorings for boats, most marinas are located on calm, ' sheltered shorelines. At one time, salt marshes were preferred When building a new m sites for marinas because they exist on sheltered shorelines optimal choice would and were regarded as wastelands (44). People have now recog- does not include salt nized that salt marshes are important marine ecosystems providing available. Gianno an valuable wildlife habitat and nursery grounds for many species. for marina developmen They export plant material into adjacent waters, where it becomes example of a composit an important link in the estuarine food chain (35). If a salt Their guidelines incl marsh is removed or covered over to make room for marina to establish new prod facilities, this important marine habitat is lost. Loss of adequate flushing to marsh vegetation production can be estimated, but adequately nutrients and prevent estimating the loss of other components is nearly impossible. areas within the marit Once altered, natural habitat cannot be returned to its original food source, can pros; condition. The marina does, however, provide an artificial water quality so that habitat with its own unique environment. � Fouling communities = Runoff: The construction of land-based marina facilities may marsh systems by sery necessitate the removal of natural vegetative cover and its juvenile and adult fi replacement with impermeable surfaces such as buildings and I nutrient export is to pavement, which reduce available area for stormwater percolation have suggested that and cause surface runoff. This runoff can carry a variety of j contribute to biologi pollutants, including sediment, pesticides, oil and other road replace other valuabl dirt, heavy metals, and nutrients, which are all capable of I Although mammal and w degrading water quality. The environmental effects of storm Nixon, Oviatt,and Nor drainage on the water quality of Marina del Ray (southern of these groups would California) were studied by Chen, Bowerman and Petridis (10). Some wildlife species Their results indicated that heavy metals, such as mercury, to man's presence, ma cadmium and lead, precipitated and/or settled out of storm water In order to maintain within a short distance from its point of discharge. The area as possible shou presence of a pond intercepting one storm drain seemed to reduce the influx of heavy metals into marina waters. Though Marina del Ray is one of the largest manmade marinas in the world i 5 and its stormwater discharge includes mostly urban runoff, the storm drain discharge appeared to have little direct effect on the water quality of the marina (10). I Aesthetics: The coastal zone may be regarded as a valuable aesthetic resource (77). The presence of a marina may change as facilities the shoreline's aesthetic value by introducing sights, sounds, tsaffic, *accsss and smells foreign to the natural environment. Poorly main- water supply, I tained marinas may further degrade aesthetic values (44). Both onsidered when aesthetic consideration and man's alterations to the aesthetic ry negative impacts i environment are difficult to measure; no studies were found noff, and aesthetic which made this attempt. However, it may be assumed that a loo have positive marina situated on a pristine shoreline will have a negative stion of shoreline affect, while one placed on a developed or urban waterfront ivats docks) and may actually improve the appearance and environmental quality tat, e.g., providing of the waterfront. i facilities and Management Considerations catod on calm, i preferred When building a new marina or expanding an old one, the rhes were pr tersd shorelines optimal choice would be a protected area of shoreline that • have now sacog- I does not include salt marsh. This option is often not ecosystems providing available. Cianno and Wang (18) have prepared guidelines for marina development in a marsh environment and offer an s for many species. ass, whore it becomes example of a composite design to maintain biological productivity. a (35). If a salt Their guidelines include: 1. Using dredge spoil from the marsh m for sari" to establish new productive marshes elsewhere; 2. Providing lost. Loss of adequate flushing to promote water circulation, which cycles but adequately nutrients and prevents eutrophication; 3. Providing contact early impossible. I areas within the marina so fouling communities, an organic teed to its original food source, can prosper and multiply; and 4. Controlling i artificial water quality so that estuarine species can thrive in the marina. Fouling communities may actually complement neighboring salt U& facilities may marsh systems by serving as an important food supplement for a cover and its juvenile and adult finfish, particularly at seasons when marsh buildings and I nutrient export is lowest (36). Nixon, Oviatt, and Northby (36) ormwat percolation i have suggested that although fouling communities in marinas army a variety of contribute to biological production, they may not adequately oil and other road replace other valuable components of salt marsh ecosystems. all capable of I Although mammal and waterfowl populations were not studied, affects of storm Nixon, Oviatt.and Northby (36) felt it was unlikely that either effects (southern of these groups would rest in, or make extensive use of, marinas. Rayad Psouthertridis (10). some wildlife species, such as mallard ducks, which have adapted uch as mercury, to man's presence, may be able to utilize marina areas (36). out of storm water In order to maintain fish and wildlife habitat, as much marsh d d out o The area as possible should be retained at the marina site. ain seemed to a waters. Though sarins, in the world . w '1 r - 4 f L 6 Retaining marshland along the water margin of a marina will Both the act of dredgi also provide a natural buffer to stormwater runoff and prevent affect the marine envi the release of untreated runoff directly into marina and not always the same or coastal waters (38). The report "Coastal Facility Guide- used and the character lines" (38) suggests the following: that drainage systems inhabitants. DredginE be designed to regulate the release of water back into the waters by increasing t environment; that outfall sites be chosen so that effluents the buildup of sedimer return into well-flushed waters such as the mouth of a organisms, disrupting marina or adjacent open coastal water; and that the volume "stagnant deepwater or of water entering storm drains be reduced by minimizing the 18). amount of land area waterproofed with asphalt and concrete. Acceptable alternatives to pavement are crushed stones or Turbidity: Slotta (45 shells. If a marina is designed with as much porous land clude that the tempora surface and vegetative cover as possible, atormwater runoff waters because of dred and its impact may be significantly reduced. I ficant impact on the s made in part because A pleasingly landscaped and well-kept marina is also an in a localized area vF Important consideration for the maintenance of the beauty and periodic, high lev of the area. Ill-kept and sloppy marinas may discourage systems (49). business and create safety hazards, making poor economic sense for the marina operator (44). One owner of a well- Temporary Reduction of landscaped marina on Cape Cod is convinced that his invest- found that during the ment in flowers, grass and shrubs is returned several times content was reduced to over in good will and sales income. Therefore, both the I They proposed that thi marina operator and local planner should be concerned with resuspended sediments pride, planning and maintenance of marinas. A good reference ! available for oxygen-p which considers landscaping is Marinas: A Working Guide to Their Development and Design by Donald Adie (1). Burial of Organisms: burial of up to 21 cm DREDGING which are sessile (per easily killed by such Effects Disruption and Removal A wealth of literature has been published regarding the ef- Community Characterist fects of dredging and dredge material disposal, but most of munities of a boat har these studies are concerned with the dredging of rivers and after its construction large boat harbors, rather than small, recreationally oriented jacent upland areas. marinas. For this reason, the specific effects of marina- gray, clay bottom had related dredging are difficult to define and often misrepre- those existing in othe sented. The waters of many marinas are not deep enough to accommodate all recreational craft, and sites are often dredged I As a result of his pre during their initial construction. However, the most common possibility that, in a dredging practices in marinas are "spot" and maintenance ; bottom communities may dredging to remove sediments from small problem areas in boat sistant community. A channels or near docks. of dredging in the Atl supports Slotta's hypo benthic community was However, little change and, within two months community similar to t I 7 a sarin& will Both the act of dredging and disposal of sediments may adversely moff and prevent affect the marine environment. The severity pf this effect is marina and not always the same and is dependent upon the dredging method Facility Guide- used and the characteristics of the bottom sediment and its drainage systems inhabitants. Dredging may alter the marina and the adjacent or back into the waters by increasing turbidity, reducing oxygen content, causing so that effluents the buildup of sediments and burial of benthic (bottom-dwelling) e mouth of a organisms, disrupting and removing bottom habitat, creating that the volume "stagnant deepwater areas," and altering water circulation (11, by minimising the alt and concrete. "bed stones or Turbidity: Slotta (49) reports that most investigators con- uch porous land clude that the temporary increase in the turbidity of local storswater runoff waters because of dredging activities does not represent a signi- d, ficant impact on the environment. This conclusion is probably made in part because increases in turbidity generally occur as is also an I in a localized area which can be avoided by pelagic species, e of the beauty and periodic, high levels of turbidity are natural in estuarine may discourage systems (49). poor economic wner of a well- Temporary Reduction of Oxygen Content: Brown and Clark (7) that his invest- found that during the dredging of a tidal waterway the oxygen aed several times content was reduced to levels of from 16% to 33% below normal. fore, both the They proposed that this reduction was due to the oxidation of e concerned with resuspended sediments and a decrease in the amount of light A good reference available for oxygen-producing photosynthesis by local flora. •Workinx Guide to a (1 Burial of Organisms: Some burrowing organisms may withstand burial of up to 21 cm of sediment, but those benthic species which are sessile (permanently attached to a substrate) may be easily killed by such burial (47). Disruption and Removal of Bottom Sediments and Change in Benthic rding the of- Community Characteristics: Reish (41) studied the bottom com- , but most of munities of a boat harbor in southern California for three years ipg of rivers and after its construction, which included initial dredging of ad- reationally oriented I jacent upland areas. He found that within one year, the soft, facts of marina- gray, clay bottom had been colonized by communities similar to ad often sisrepre- ! those existing in other portions of the bay. t deep enough to ter are often dredged As a result of his preliminary studies, Slotta (49) notes the r, the most common possibility that, in an estuary subject to repeated dredging, ad maintenance bottom communities may become modified into a relatively re- oblen areas in boataistant community. A study by Stickney and Perlmutter (52) of dredging in the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Georgia supports Slotta's hypothesis. In a muddy bottom area, the benthic community was completely removed by hydraulic dredging. However, little change in the sediment composition occurred and, within two months, the dredged area supported a benthic community similar to the original. v Lt ., • l 8 Creation of Stagnant Water Conditions: Possible water stag- 3. The length of time nation in marinas with dead end canals has been mentioned ial is allowed to staff (11) but no specific location was cited. It is presumed that the quality of the efi such descriptions applied only to areas with extensive Venetian canal development, commonly seen in the southeastern 4. The dredging of pc United States. impair water quality i 1 Positive Effects of Dr General Water Quality: Windom (62) studied the effect of adverse effects. It u dredging in a salt marsh estuarine environment of the south- i inlets, Increase the t eastern Atlantic Coastal Waterway. He analyzed dissolved I and help to flush and oxygen, chemical and biochemical oxygen demand, pH, sus- materials are sometime pended sediment concentration, mercury, iron, and phosphate struction (49) or for in the water from the surrounding area before, during, and Dredge materials have after dredging. The results of these analyses indicated that marshes (64) and to ci there was no significant change in water quality attributable by important bird spec to the dredging. Management Conaiderati Dredge Material Disposal: The effects of dredge material on the environment is relative to the nature of the sediments Marina designers may i (whether or not they contain toxic substances) and the selec- of dredging by good pl tion of the dump site. When open-water sites are selected, deep draft should be t the benthic habitat may be drastically altered and large marina, and piers and volumes of sediment may be resuspended in the water column (47). into deep water to mir Disposal in wetlands can destroy these valuable habitats, and If maintenance dredgir disposal on upland areas may cause pollution of groundwater a choice of sites for and topographic and vegetative alterations, to the detriment These materials may be of native wildlife (40). storage areas, or ever to the marina shorelir. Windom (62), in a report previously mentioned, has examined the it should be planned t diffusion of heavy metals into water from polluted and unpolluted restricted inlets. F1 dredge spoils. His study reveals that reduced iron (which is the width and depth of soluble) was oxidized to iron hydroxide (insoluble) in sus- navigable waters (54). pended sediments during dredging. The presence of hydroxide encouraged the precipitation of heavy metals out of solution Bottom community and e and allowed them to concentrate in sedimenta deposited on a into account and the c salt marsh. As conditions favoring a reduction reaction again critical periods in ti Increased. the trapped metals became soluble and were re- (11). Proper timing c leased into overlying waters. On the basis of this and other oxygen reduction by di phases of his study, Windom drew the following conclusions: concentrations are not it would seem that dre 1. In natural and relatively unpolluted areas dredging has boating months. In R} no significant effect on water quality whether diked or un- swat be given to the t diked (dredge material) confinement techniques are used. which spawns in Febris, to both the commercia: 2. In polluted marine areas, the water quality impairment caused by dredging does not necessarily bear any simple relation Most reports on the e: to the composition of the sediments to be dredged. need for more researcl regarding the effects review "Environmental 9 le water stag- 3. The length of time which water mixed with other dredge mater- ► mentioned ial is allowed to stay in the spoil area will greatly influence is presumed that the quality of the effluent from the spoil bank. a sxtan-Iva a the southeastern 4. The dredging of polluted sediments does not necessarily impair water quality in estuarine environments. Positive Effects of Dred in : Dredging does not always have the effect of adverse effects. It may elp to improve circulation in choked ant of the south- i inlets, increase the availability of food to fish and shellfish, yzed dissolved and help to flush and dilute polluted waters (49). Dredge and, pH, sus- I materials are sometimes suitable as sand and gravel for Ion- a, and phosphate i struction (49) or for use in creating artificial habitat. re, during, and Dredge materials have successfully been used to build salt sea indicated that marshes (64) and to create islands suitable for colonization ality attributable by important bird species (61). Management Considerations redge material on f the sediments Marina designers may reduce or eliminate the need for and coat as) and the aelec- of dredging by good planning. For example, &lips for boats of as are selected, deep draft should be built in the naturally deeper waters of the red and large marina, and piers and docks should be extended as far as possible he water column (47). into deep water to minimize the need for dredging around them. able habitats, and If maintenance dredging is expected, the plans mat include a of groundwater a choice of sites for the drying and disposal of dredge materials. to the detriment These materials may be spread on the surface of parking lots or storage areas, or even used to build salt marsh, on or adjacent to the marina shoreline (63). When dredging must be employed, d, has examined the it should be planned to prevent dead-end Venetian channels and olluted and unpolluted restricted inlets. Flushing should be encouraged by increasing cad iron (which is the width and depth of the marina channels or canal out into ble) in sus- navigable waters (54). of hydroxide gut of solution Bottom community and sediment characteristics should be taken s.deposited on a into account and the dredging timed so as not to conflict with tion reaction again critical periods in the life cycle of important animal species a and were re- (11). Proper timing can also help to reduce the impact of of this and other oxygen reduction by dredging in colder months when oxygen ing conclusions: concentrations are not critical (7). In the New England area, it would seem that dredging should be done in the cold non- sea dredging has boating months. In Rhode Island, however, special consideration her diked or un- must be given to the reproductive cycle of the winter flounder, uas are used. , which spawns in February and March and is extremely important to both the commercial and recreational fisheries. lity impairment r any simple relation Most reports on the effects of dredging (49, 51, 62) stress the redged. need for more research before accurate predictions can be made regarding the effects of dredging at a specific site. In his review "Environmental Aspects of Dredging in Estauries^ 10 (62), Windom states, "The impact of dredging on coastal and If bulkheads or ripral estuarine environments is site-specific. This means that the be located behind all results of studies in one area may be quite different from with access over wetli those in another. It is clear...that conclusions drawn from in bulkheads will allc studies of the effects of dredging on a given coastal or estua- rine area cannot be applied to predict the effects in another Where deep waters may without a degree of uncertainty." require shallow waters (20) suggest that bulb BULKHEADS they will be wetted me (or less) of the time Effects r BREAKWATERS Bulkheads are vertical, walled structures built parallel to the shoreline to protect it from erosion or to provide boat Effects docking convenience (11). Bulkheads are usually made of stone, concrete, sheet metal, or wood. The most severe effects of Breakwaters are linea: bulkheads occur when they are constructed within or along water and provide she] the shores of wetlands and used to hold fill deposited on the facilities by dissipat wetland (11). As well as preventing free water circulation to any posed of a wide variet wetland behind it, a bulkhead can also prevent the natural see- wood, tires, fiberglae page of groundwater into local waters (11). The vertical face bottom (fixed positior of a bulkhead protects the upland by taking the brunt of wave Since breakwaters proN energy, but in so doing it creates reflection waves which the amount of shorelir disturb sediments (13) and encourage scouring at the base The fouling communitio of the bulkhead. Reflected waves may also result in increased the biological product marina maintenance costs and discomfort for pleasure boaters. Chen, Bowerman and Pet water constructed aroc Heiser and Finn (20) found that bulkheads which protrude too mulated organic debris far out into the water may increase predation on migrating sal- in the depletion of d! mon fry because shallow water, which is required for protection which harmed the bentl from large predators, is absent. Vertical structures which can be traps for large replace shallow water habitat may have similar effects on other which becomes an aestt animals adapted to shallow water. Heiser and Finn (20) r Management Considerations barriers for migratinf indicated that young e Bulkheads are expensive to build (9) and for that reason should installed in breakwate be kept to a minimum. If erosion on the marina waterfront is a problem, a sloping riprap wall with underlying filter cloth Breakwaters can also J is the preferable form of shore protection. Riprap walls can ment of sediments. Mf be less expensive, provide more surface area for the growth f that solid (surface tc of fouling communities, and create habitat for fish fry (20). opening for water circ Problems of scouring and wave reflection are less severe mentation patterns anc because riprap wall surfaces are irregular and sloping. Since move pollutants from r the structure is not solid, it also allows seepage of ground turbance is difficult water into the marina. Sloping riprap walls do require more marina; thus no report space than vertical bulkheads, and space limitations or specific to quantify this effm marina services (e.g., travel lift wells) may preclude their use. 1 • 11 co"tal and If bulkheads or riprap walls are deemed necessary, they should means that the be located behind all marshland and as far upland as possible ferent from with access over wetland on piers. Features such as "weepholos" isions drawn from in bulkheads will allow water to pass through (11). in coastal or eatua- iffects in another Where deep waters may subject young fish (or other animals which require shallow waters) to increased predation, Keiser and Finn (20) suggest that bulkheads be placed at a water level where they will be wetted more than one foot deep approximately 102 (or less) of the time during the critical migration period. BREAKWATERS silt parallel to to provide boat Effects ,ally made of stone, were effects of Breakwaters are linear structures which extend out into the dthin or along water and provide sheltered conditions for craft and marina L deposited on the facilities by dissipating wave energy (1). They may be con- iter circulation to ally posed of a wide variety of materials (stone, concrete, metal, sat the natural see- wood, tires, fiberglass) and constructed to either sit on the The vertical face bottom (fixed position) or float on the surface (movable). the brunt of wave Since breakwaters provide calm water, they may also increase )a waves which the amount of shoreline available for salt marsh building. ig at the base The fouling communities which grow on breakwaters can add to -asult in increased the biological productivity of the area and attract fish. pleasure boaters. ' Chen, Bowerman and Petridis (10), however, found that a break- water constructed around the entrance of Marina del Ray accu- sich protrude too mulated organic debris. The breakdown of this material resulted to on migrating sal- in the depletion of dissolved oxygen in the bottom water, sired for protection which harmed the benthic fauna (10). Certainly, breakwaters structures which can be traps for larger floating debris (bottles, boards, bags), .or effects on other which becomes an aesthetic problem as well (44). Keiser and Finn (20) report that breakwaters can act as barriers for migrating juvenile salmon. Their study also indicated that young salmon do not readily use the culverts •that reason should installed in breakwaters to aid fish passage. -inn waterfront is ying filter cloth Breakwaters can also interrupt longshore currents and the move- Aiprap walls can ment of sediments. Many authors (11, 13, 20, 38, 42) mention for the growth that solid (surface to bottom) breakwaters, which restrict the or fish fry (20). ` opening for water circulation within a marina, will alter sedi- less severe mentation patterns and the natural flushing which can help re- Lad sloping. Since move pollutants from marina waters. The impact of such a dia- +sepage of ground turbance is difficult to measure and probably unique to each i do require more marina; thus no reports have been published which have attempted dtations or specific to quantify this effect. ky preclude their t ' 3 ' 12 Management Considerations Management Considerat A floating breakwater can be a cheaper and more environmentally The effects of docks, sound alternative to the common, solid breakwater, although it are constructed high does not provide the same degree of protection. These may be reach the surface. T constructed from a variety of materials; for example, one success- far enough to reach a ful breakwater is built with floating tires (45). The floating not be required for b breakwater is preferred for shore protection because it allows piers will have the 1 free passage of fish, does not alter current and sediment pgt- should be used in pro terns, and therefore does not have the adverse effects of a solid breakwater. Because these structu growth of fouling coma When solid breakwaters are used, their location must be planned painting the underwat with consideration of natural current and sediment flow, wave Further studies on th patterns, and overall flushing characteristics of the marina tives are necessary, basin. Modeling studies (6, 42, 50) are useful in this regard use should not be bats and may be used to plan for adequate flushing of new marinas, lasting materials suc. or to remedy problems at existing ones. From this modeling should be encouraged. work, Richey (42) suggests that breakwaters include as many tives are used, the h openings as possible to maximize wave protection while allowing preferred. Numerical. adequate water flow and fish passage. Sloping riprap type have a highs a2'"E—r con breakwaters are preferable to vertical structures because Increasingly popular irregular surfaces provide protective habitat for small fish more slowly and is to passing around the structure and are more effective in dis- 50 years (21). Metal sipating wave energy. for docks, piles and g cost, use of handling PIERS, DOCKS, AND WHARVES preferred material foi Effects Docks are most common: (or billets). Metal t Piers, docks, and wharves can have detrimental effects on both concrete (foam or air salt and freshwater marshes by blocking light and water flow. Many local marina owne As happens with bulkheads and breakwaterso water flow within use of the more expens the marina basin may be altered, especially 1f piers are sup- foam (Dow Chemical; or ported by closed (solid) bases. foam (Cellulite; whit* longer, doesn't absorg Wood, a major component of many piers, pilings and docks, is animals, and doesn't t usually treated with a preservative (such as creosote, copper foam breaks up more ea napthenate or various cooper and zinc salts (9)) which dis- and accumulating along courages the establishment of fouling organisms. To be effec- the orange foam be ust tive, these preservatives must be of a poisonous nature and of + docks. To date, thert ow water solubility, which results in a slow leaching rate mental effects of var: 9). Most studies have concentrated on the effectiveness of preservatives (9, 44), but not on the environmental effects. MARINA USE A report published by a wood products company (60) discusses the toxicity of creosote to non-target organisms. Although Effects and Management these laboratory testa found that creosote was moderately toxic, by EPA standards, to selectee fiahtppe;ies (bluegills There are many activit at 990 ppb and rainbow trout at 880 ppb), toxic effects under tions that may damage normal field conditions were not explored. have restroom facilit: 13 Management Considerations •snvironmsatally The effects of docks, piers and wharves can be minimized if they +star, although it are constructed high enough above marshes to allow light to 3n. These may be reach the surface. These structures should also extend out example, one success- far enough to reach adequate water depths so that dredging will (45). The floating not be required for boat access. Floating docks and pile/timber because it allows piers will have the least effect on water circulation, thus and sediment pat- should be used in preference to solid structures. ss effects of a Because these structures provide additional substrate for the growth of fouling communities, marina operators should avoid ion must be planned painting the underwater surfaces with anti-fouling paints (36). iiment flow, wave Further studies on the environmental effects of wood preserve- as of the marina tives are necessary, but, until results are available, their ful in this regard use should not be banned. Meanwhile, prudent use of long- & of new marinas, lasting materials such as pressure-treated piles and lumber a this modeling should be encouraged. For example, when creosote preserva- include as many tives are used, the highly refined material (grade one) is tion while allowing preferred. Numerically higher creosote grades (2, 3, etc.) ag riprap type have a higher tar content and leachaster newer and tures because Increasingly popular colorless preservative (CCA salt) leaches t for small fish more slowly and is estiipated to be effective for approximately festive in dis- SO years (21). Metal, fiberglass, or concrete can be used for docks, piles and piers, but historical use patterns, lover cost, ease of handling and availability have made wood the preferred material for marina use in the Northeastern region. Docks are most commonly kept afloat with plastic foam logo (or billets). Metal barrels, fiberglass tanks and reinforced 41 effects on both concrete (foam or air filled) chambers are less commonly used. t end water flow. Many local marina owners in the Northeast seem to prefer the flow within use of the more expensive petroleum-resistant polystyrene Lars are sup- foam (Dow Chemical; orange colored) over the expanded bead foam (Cellulite; white color), because the orange foam lasts longer, doesn't absorb water, resists burrowing by marine is and docks, is animals, and doesn't break apart easily. Since the white creosote copper foam breaks up more easily with resulting white beads floating off 9 which die- and accumulating along the shore, it is recommended that ems. To be effec- the orange foam be used where it is to be exposed under ous nature and of I docks. To date, there has been no research on the environ- w-leachins rate mental effects of various flotation materials. effectiveness ironmental effects. MARINA USE y (60) discusses isms. Although Effects and Management Considerations as moderately ecies (bluegills There are many activities associated with regular marina opera- xic effects under tions that may damage the local environment. Nearly all marinas have restroom facilities, and a small number have facilities is . S O. n 14 for pumping out the holding tanks of boats. If municipal Since recreational boa sewer systems are not available, the marina must have its greatest environmental own septic system. Overloaded or poorly located septic sys- is likely to occur dur tem may allow sewage effluents to leach into marina waters, months, the primary me causing an increase in the nutrient supply and in biological tion of ice damage to oxygen demand. Local shellfish beds may be affected by the prevent the formation possible introduction of pathogens. These problems can be bottom and allowing it avoided if septic systems are designed with adequate capacity marina owners have fou and located in proper soils sufficiently far away to prevent the turbidity of local the leaching of contaminants into local waters. on pilings active, but systems have not been Fuel docks may also be a source of pollution through small but numerous all spills of gas and diesel fuel. These oil spills can be minimized by equipping fuel pumps with back- pressure, automatic-shutoff nozzles, which prevent fuel over- flow. Constant maintenance of pumps, hoses and other fueling equipment by careful fuel attendants (38) will also help reduce spills. Similarly, sloppy maintenance practices may also contribute to the pollution of marina waters. For example, when docks and other shoreline structures are painted, care should be taken to keep paint from dripping into the water. Spray painting particularly is to be avoided where it may be toxic. Marinas are the center of boat-related activities; thus they are also centers of the noise and disturbance associated with these activities. Boat engines contribute to noise, but this disturbance is limited to brief periods when boats leave or enter the marina. Manufacturers, however, should continue to develop methods for reducing the noise levels of boat engines (44). Another noise typically associated with marinas is the incessant clang of sailboat rigging, which Adie (1) suggests can be remedied with a piece of string. Noise levels from outboard motors have been re- ported to reach a maximum of 80 decibels at 50 feet (66). This is not a high level, but the annoyance of different types of noise is highly variable from listener to listener (65). Unnecessary disturbances, such as loud televisions and radios, late-night parties and over-used P.A. systema, are usually the most annoying (44). Since sound travels easily across the water, marina operators should show con- sideration for neighbors as well as customers by posting and enforcing rules against unnecessary noise. The "Marina and Pleasure Boating Facilities Study for Narragansett Bay" (55) points out the exemplary operating policies of the Nantucket Boat Basin, Massachusetts. This policy is backed by strong enforcement and includes control of littering. Littering can be further discouraged by providing strategically placed and frequently emptied trash receptacles, convenient for boater use. • 15 'f smanicipal Since recreational boating in Rhode Island is seasonal, the Lot have its greatest environmental impact (aside from new construction) _gad septic syr- is likely to occur during the boating season. During winter oto marina waters, months, the primary maintenance required at marinas is preven- and in biological tion of ice damage to piers and docks. Many northern marinas s affected by the prevent the formation of ice by piping compressed air along the problems can be bottom and allowing it to bubble up around the docks (9). Some d adequate capacity marina owners have found that these bubbling systems reduce tr away to prevent the turbidity of local waters and keep the fouling communities tars. on pilings active, but the actual biological effects of these N systems have not been studied. 3n through small fuel. These oil pumps with back- prevent fuel over- s and other fueling rill also help reduce ztices may also ca. For example, ars painted, care Into the water. ad where it may •+ •. Lvitiaaj thus they ace associated Lbute to noise, ariods when boats however, should to noise levels ally associated Lboat rigging, piece of been re- feet (66). a of different :iner to listener Htd televisions :d P.A. systems, sound travels should shoe con- } era by posting and 1 Study for } Lary operating chusetts. This includes control couraged by ly emptied a. A - r. 1 16 Chapter II: Boats be set to reduce distr minimum distance requi BOAT USE nesting bird colonies basis, e.g., colonies Effects rocky cliffs or shield at closer distances th In the early 1900's motorboat use was blamed for major declines protective management in waterfowl populations in Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island. bluffs above Lake Supe "That this has been brought about within the last five or six gested that people be years, and through the sole agency of the steam, naptha, and 100 yards during the b electric launch, there can be no question." Increased bird species of nesting bir populations, however, during the 20s, 30s and 40s seemed to considered when determ discount the validity of their conclusions (43). passage (3). Batten ( be planted in strategi By making secluded wildlife habitat accessible, boating can - popular waterfowl area be detrimental to wildlife populations. Studies have been con- ducted in England (3) and the U.S. (19) to explore the impact BOAT MOTORS of boating on colonies of nesting waterfowl. Several species of duck no longer utilize a London-area reservoir because of Effects Increasing boat activity (3), and Harris and Matteson (19) report that nesting success in gull and tern colonies is Most studies regarding probably reduced by boaters passing by or visiting otherwise the environment focus secluded colonies on Lake Superior. tion has been publishe on shoreline erosion, In New Zealand, Sutherland and Ogle (53) examined the effects or the physical disrup of jet boats on salmon (Oncorhynohus tshawryteoha) eggs. The notable exceptions are propulsion system and movements of jet boats create water pres- motors in relation to sure fluctuations which disturb salmon spawning areas in Zieman's report of the shallow stream beds. From laboratory and field experiments sia testuidinum) in so (53), it was estimated that salmon egg mortality can reach 20 field studies on fresh to 40 percent from these disturbances. that although a consi moved by outboard moto Lagler et al. (30) were interested in the impact of motorboating not measurably lncreas on angling success. Their study was conducted on a 36-acre to minimize the turbul freshwater pond with no previous history of motor use. For in frequently used boa study purposes, the pond was subjected to the use of motorized inches of the bottom ( boats on alternate days. Both statistical evidence and fisher- bottom organisms was s men surveys showed that there was no difference in angling suc- Zieman found that regu cess between motor and non-motorized days (30). However, long- turtle grass beds in a term effects (over several years) have not been studied. proportionately, less •► oxidation-reduction po Management Considerations boat tracks (71). Impact on reproductive success can be nearly eliminated if Management Considerati boating is restricted from nesting and spawning areas during critical seasons (3, 19). The visible presence of humans is Physical disruption of a critical factor in wildlife breeding success; thus regulations occurs in shallow wate regarding minimum distances from wildlife nesting areas should the problems of maneuv marked channels would communities by boat tr 17 be set to reduce distrubance by passing boats (19). The minimum distance required to prevent the disturbance of nesting bird colonies must be determined on a site-specific basis, e.g., colonies which are inaccessible because of rocky cliffs or shielded by vegetation can be safely approached d for major declines at closer distances than those that are more exposed. For protective management of herring gull colonies situated on ty. Rhode Island. I bluffs above Lake Superior, Harris and Matteson (19) sug- ,e last five or six gested that people be restricted from approaching within .team, napths. and 100 yards during the breeding season. The number and Increased bird species of nesting birds are also important factors to be .ad 40s seemed to considered when determining distance restrictions to boat (43). passage (3). Batten (3) further suggests that vegetation be planted in strategic places to provide screening for ble, boating can popular waterfowl areas. udies have been con- explore the impact BOAT MOTORS . Several species orvoir because of Effects d Matteson (19) a Colonies is Most studies regarding the interaction of boat motors and isiting otherwise the environment focus on chemical pollutants. Little informa- tion has been published regarding the effects of boat wakes on shoreline erosion, the turbulence created by propellers, &mined the effects or the physical disruption of benthic fauna and flora. Two UAW eggs. The notable exceptions are a study by Lagler et al. on outboard a create water pres- motors in relation to fish behavior and production (30), and aing areas in Zieman's report of the physical damage to turtle grass (Thalas- isld experiments sia testuidi.num) in southern Florida (71). Lagler conducted ality can reach 20 field studies on freshwater ponds with muddy bottoms and found that although a considerable amount of bottom material was moved by outboard motors in shallow water, the turbidity was ----t of motorboating not measurably increased (30). Beds of aquatic plants helped on a 36-acre to minimize the turbulence created, but plants did not develop or use. For in frequently used boat paths where motors were within 12 no use of motorized inches of the bottom (30). It was also found that the number of evidence and fisher- bottom organisms was substantially reduced in these shallow paths. ance in angling suc- Zieman found that regular boat use had the effect of destroying 30). However, long- turtle grass beds in shallow water (71). In addition, there was, aeon studied. proportionately, less fine sediment, reduced pH, and a reduced oxidation-reduction potential in bottom sediments below these boat tracks (71). eliminated if Management Considerations ting areas during ance of humans is Physical disruption of bottom life and sediments usually ass; thus regulations occurs in shallow waters. Most boaters would prefer to avoid sating areas should the problems of maneuvering in shallow waters, and properly marked channels would minimize physical damage to bottom communities by boat traffic. t' 1 18 OUTBOARD MOTOR EXHAUST The Boating Industry Agency (Grant No. R-8 Effects by three research gro of Pollution from Mar Motorized recreational boats are generally propelled by out- (57)• board motors, inboard/outboard (I/0) or inboard engines. Both inboard/outboard and inboard motors are four-cycle engines After analyzing amiss which burn either gasoline or diesel fuel. Little information out drainage recyclin Is available on the composition or effects of their exhaust, EPA researchers ident but information on the emissions from four-cycle engines of centrations in outboa land vehicles is well documented and might be applied to in- board motors (4). This discussion centers on outboard motors, 1. Carbon monoxide e since most research on the environmental effects of boat generally observed fr motors has been directed toward them. percent of carbon mon 1000 rpm, to 6.5% at In "A Review of Outboard Motor Effects on the Aquatic Environ- ment, (23). Jackivicz and Kuzminski provide a detailed descrip- 2. Carbon dioxide in tion of the operation of a two-cycle outboard motor as it rpm, to 7.52 at 4000 relates to pollutant emissions. By design, two-cycle engines are less efficient than four-cycle engines. In four-cycle 3. Hydrocarbon conce engines, burned fuel is released from the cylinder before of n-hexane [C6H14))i new fuel enters on the next piston stroke; in two-cycle 1000 rpm to a low of engines, fuel intake and exhaust are accomplished in the in exhaust gases were same stroke. As a result of these combined steps, unburned 20-302 aromatics. and fuel can be released with exhaust gases, decreasing fuel carbon emissions were efficiency and adding pollutants to the water. Another important higher than chose of a difference between the designs of two-and four-cycle motors is the manner of lubrication of their internal parts. Lubricating 4. Kuzminski (29) re oil is admitted directly into the crankcase of four-cycle dent on the speed of engines. But in two-cycle engines, oil must be mixed with of the motor. The.amt fuel to reach and lubricate internal engine parts. Old (pre- 1.84-122 of the lead 1972) outboard motors are equipped with valves in the crank- case to discharge oil directly into the water. By 1972, once exhausts are rel, "scavenger" devices were developed to recycle this crankcase become suspended in ti drainage back into the fuel system, significantly reducing others concentrate at the output of oil. (27). Almost all of bottom sediments (29) English at al. conducted comprehensive laboratory and field studies on exhaust.the effects of outboard motor exhaust (14. 15), but exhauustst..Sensitivity to petrol: their results were based on the operation of motors which were may be highl; not equipped with crankcase drainage recycling devices. Two affected organisms as comprehensive studies identifying the components and effects pollutant. Clark et of outboard motor exhaust have been reported since the early #&Zia) were more sena i effluent than oysters studies by English et al. (14, 15). Kuzminski directed a � series of studies for the Division of Water Pollution Control, their shells for long Massachusetts Water Resources Commission (Contract No. 15- refined petroleum prof 51451), on the effects of outboard motor exhaust on water more quickly by these quality and associated biota of small lakes (26, 27, 28, 29). viscous refined produ� (31) have discovered I 19 The Boating Industry Association and Environmental Protection Agency (Grant No. R-801799) jointly sponsored another study by three research groups, published under the title "Analysis of Pollution from Marine Engines and Effects on the Environment �ropsllsd by out- (57)• 3ard engines. a four-cycle engines After analyzing emissions from outboard motors with and with- Little information out drainage recycling devices and of varied horse-powers, the 3f their exhaust, EPA researchers identified the following components and con- :ycle engines of centrations in outboard motor eihaust: 3e applied to in- 3n outboard motors, 1. Carbon monoxide emissions were high compared to those facts of boat generally observed from four-cycle automotive engines. The percent of carbon monoxide in emissions ranged from 4.5Z at 1000 rpm, to 6.5% at 5000 rpm. is Aquatic Environ- a detailed descrip- 2. Carbon dioxide in emissions ranged from 5.4% at 1000 cd motor as it rpm, to 7.5% at 4000 rpm. two-cycle engines In four-cycle 3. Hydrocarbon concentration (expressed in parts per thousand ;1lnder before of n-hexane (C6H141)in emissions ranged from 7.75 ppt at Ln two-cycle 1000 rpm to a low of 4.5 ppt at 4000 rpm. The hydrocarbons Lished in the in exhaust gases were found to be composed of 20-30% olefins, steps, unburned 20-30% aromatics, and approximately 50% paraffins. Hydro- :reasing fuel carbon emissions were found to be approximately ten times ar. Another Important higher than those of a typical four-cycle gasoline engine. )ur-cycle motors is parts. Lubricating 4. Kuzminski (29) reports that lead emission is most depen- of four-cycle dent on the speed of operation and prior operational history c be mixed with of the motor. The amount discharged in exhaust varied from parts. Old (pre- 1.84-12% of the lead in the fuel (29). ise in the crank- By 1972. Once exhausts are released into the water, some hydrocarbons his crankcase become suspended in the water at propeller depth. while .ly reducing others concentrate at the surface, where they may evaporate (27). Almost all of the lead discharged eventually reaches bottom sediments (29). catory and field iaust (14, 15), but Sensitivity to petroleum pollutants, such as outboard motor f motors which were exhaust, may be highly dependent on the characteristics of Lng devices. Two affected organisms as well as the physical properties of the ants and effects pollutant. Clark et all. (12) found that mussels (Mytilue 1 since the early edulis) were more sensitive to diluted outboard motor iki directed a „' effluent than oysters (Oetrea lurida), which can close pollution Control, their shells for long periods of time. The lighter, more .)ntract No. 15- refined petroleum products (e.g., diesel oil) are taken up -Aust on water more quickly by these shellfish than are the heavy, more (26, 27, 28, 29). viscous refined products (12). However, URI researchers (31) have discovered that in one boating harbor (Wickford, RI), I 20 concentrations of aromatic hydrocarbons (probably from petro- BOAT SEWAGE leum fuels) actually decreased during the boating season. It was suggested by researchers that these hydrocarbons might Effects be removed from the water by evaporation, or possibly degraded biologically or photo-chemically during the summer. Although boat sewage ca: contribute to the biolo; The concentrations of exhaust found in waters after normal out- (38), the primary conce- board motor use did not inhibit the growth of two species of causing pathogens. Pro freshwater algae (Selenastrum capri.cornutum and Anabaena flag- released in the vicinit: aquae) studied by Kuzminski and Fredette (26). The EPA/Boating waterways with limited . Industry study (57) also found that there was no significant 5 difference between diatom communities, zooplankton communities At present, total and ft or organic production in control ponds compared with those cators of sewage pollut. subjected to outboard motor use. Both the EPA/Boating Industry boating season, Pufari t report (57) and a report of another general study on Lake X in fish and sediment sampl, Florida (22) concluded that outboard motor emissions under Island (Potter Cove) an( normal field conditions do not significantly affect aquatic coliforms was boat waste systems or seriously degrade water quality. i.e., cows, seagulls. ( Labor Day weekend, coli, Results of field and laboratory studies conflict regarding the shellfish in direct reli quantity of fuel that can be used per volume of water before an estuarine area on tbt becoming noticeable in water or fish. After field tests, the study, Barbaro at al. 1 Boating Industry Association-EPA study (57) reported that up during the summer boatit to 110.5 gallons of fuel could be used per million gallons of Marina waters contained water before any alteration in the taste of fish was demonstrated. and fecal streptococci c In laboratory studies by Kuzmiaski at al. (28), one gallon of Results of a study repos outboard motor fuel was exhausted into 400 gallons of tap water dictory to those conclut in a stainless steel tank and subsamples at various dilutions in two small boat harbor were presented to test panels. The odor threshold concentration _ boating season, counts : was found to occur at less than one-third (1/3) gallon of fuel water inlet, but decreat per million gallons of water. ment on Puget Sound. Bc inconclusive because co: Management Considerations facts of boat wastes art number of people per bot Little can be done to reduce the impact of boat motor emissions samples were taken, and other than reducing boating pressure. Results of boat motor is difficult to determir exhaust studies suggest that threshold guidelines cannot be animal waste. generalized, and any management of motorboat use must consider each waterway individually by reviewing the use and characteristics Mack and D'Itri (34) stt of each system. Obviously, more research is required on the found that fecal colifor effects of boat motor exhaust. However, research and development frequently used by yacht by marine engine manufactuars aimed at reducing the pollutants number of coliforms was in emissions, enabling the use of unleaded fuel, and increasing the marina, but no groat fuel efficiency will be of value in minimizing environmental marina. In a subsequent effects. the source of a large nt local streams feeding it 1 ere have found that watt ble to measure the effec boat use (58), or that t resulting from land-bast boating-related impact c 21 -"y from petro- BOAT SEWAGE B season. It bons might Effects possibly degraded summer. Although boat sewage can be a repulsive visual pollutant and contribute to the biological oxygen demand of marina waters + after normal out- (38), the primary concern is its potential for carrying disease- ' two species of causing pathogens. Problems may occur if boat sewage is end Anabaena flaa- released in the vicinity of shellfish beds or into enclosed o. The EPA/Boating waterways with limited flushing. + Ao significant ` +nkton communities At present, total and fecal coliform counts are used as indi- ad with those cators of sewage pollution in waterways. During one summer :PA/Boating Industry boating season, Pufari and Verber (17) analyzed water, shell- +tudy on Lake Y in fish and sediment samples from a saltwater cove in Rhode ,issions under Island (Potter Cove) and reported that the primary source of affect aquatic coliforms was boat waste, although other sources were present, i.e., cows, seagulls. Cassin at al. (8) also reported that on Labor Day weekend, coliforms increased in the water column and Lict regarding the shellfish in direct relations to a small boat population of of water before an estuarine area on the New York coast. In a comparison field tests, the study, Barbaro et al. (2) sampled marina and non-marina waters :sported that up during the summer boating season on a Mississippi reservoir. Lllion gallons of Marina waters contained significantly higher fecal coliform :ish was demonstrated. and fecal streptococci counts than non-marina waters (2). J), one gallon of Results of a study reported by Seabloom (48) may be contra- sllons of tap water dictory to those conclusions. Coliform counts were taken iarlous dilutions in two small boat harbors of -Washington State. During the sshold concentration boating season, counts increased 11 percent in a small fresh- /3) gallon of fuel water inlet, but decreased 38 percent in a salt water embay- ment on Puget Sound. Boat waste studies can be confusing and inconclusive because coliform counts and other measurable ef- fects of boat wastes are influenced by boat densities, the number of people per boat, tides, the day of the week the motor emissions samples were taken, and other factors (16). In addition, it cq of boat motor is difficult to determine if coliforms are from human or Lines cannot be animal waste. use must consider is* and characteristics Mack and D'Itri (34) studied a freshwater marina area and required on the ( found that fecal coliforms increased in the dock slips most larch and development I frequently used by yachts. They also concluded that the Lug the pollutants number of coliforms was related to the number of yachts in sel, and increasing the marina, but no gross pollution was occurring at the Lng environmental marina. In a subsequent study, Mack (33) discovered that the source of a large number of coliforms was actually from local streams feeding into the boating water. Other research- era have found that water quality in some areas is too varia- ble to measure the effect of pollution due to concentrated boat use (58), or that the background levels of coliforms resulting from land-based sewage input were so high that no boating-related impact could be detected (36). Alt. Y 3"T +S 22 Since coliform counts in surface waters are not always a Management Consideratio dependable measure of water pollution by boats (33), Kassebaum (24) explored the possibility of using measurements of coli- If Coast Guard regulati form concentration in oysters to indicate the impact of be effective, the publi boat wastes. Unfortunately, it was found that variation in of using and maintainin coliform bacteria concentrations in the oysters was not direct- available pumpout facil ly related to boat use in the marina. very limited, marina op vide more of these faci Pessoney et &1 (39) counted Salmonella and Shigella pathogens boats contain permanent rather ;ban total and fecal coliform along the Mississippi do may use Type I and I coast. While sporadic positive tests were found for the i out. Therefore, only s pathogens, they concluded that the water quality in the large numbers of boats marinas and harbors tested did not differ greatly from that out facilities availabl of the adjacent Mississippi Sound (39). with enforced holding t docks provide the most There is no epidemiological evidence that boat wastes cause services. disease, but there is the possibility that raw sewage from boats may contain organisms which, when concentrated by Regulations concerning shellfish, might transmit disease (16). For this reason, difficult to enforce; t some state health departments restrict the harvesting of necessary. In marina r shellfish in areas proximate to marinas, even without proof could contaminate shell of water contamination (59). if marinas provide shore be convenient to the do On the federal level, the EPA and Coast Guard have promulgated and be well maintained. regulations requiring that vessels with permanently installed number of toilets need heads be equipped, by 1980,with marine sanitation devices (MSD). should be based on the On inland waters, all boats must be equipped with holding tanks characteristics. (Type III, devices designed to prevent discharge of any sewage), but those boats on marine and "navigable waters" may utilize Boat wastes are considc devices which release treated sewage (MSD Type I b II) if the inland waters and semi- effluent meets certain water quality specifications. If these is minimal. In probler regulations can be adequately enforced, raw sewage from boat regulated. Size, deptl wastes will no longer pose a health hazard, but related pro- of boat use must all be blems may exist. One of the recommended marine sanitation capacity of a waterway devices is the holding tank, but it can be too large and culated how many boats cumbersome for some recreational craft and is dependent on (assuming a background the presence of shorebased pumpout facilities (38). Boat standards of 70 colifot wastes from numerous holding tanks can then accumulate at baum (24) also calculat marine pumpout stations, generally to be transferred to maintain coliform stanc municipal sewage systems. Disinfectants used in holding tanks, calculations are to be such as formalin, could become a problem by reducing the normal water basin on an igdil efficiency of sewage treatment plants (38). An alternative to holding tanks are macerator-disinfectors, which release Once boats are underwa; physically and chemically treated sewage. Proper maintenance discharged overboard Is of these devices is difficult to enforce and the chemicals impact. When all boat used to disinfect the sewage may be more harmful than the tial for contamination raw sewage. No published scientific studies have been found or eliminated. Thus, regarding the effects of chemical additives from marine sanita- of shellfish from wate tion devices. Preliminary studies (25), however, indicate evaluated in light of that these additives could cause significant environmental should be allowed dura; affects and merit extensive research. quality should be rout vide the basis of clos 23 it always a Management Considerations 1 (33), xassebaum ...cements of coli- ( If Coast Guard regulations on marine sanitation devices are to :he impact of be effective, the public must be made aware of the importance :hat variation in of using and maintaining these devices. Since the number of ;tars wan not direct- available pumpout facilities for holding tanks is presently very limited, marina operators should be encouraged to pro- vide more of these facilities. It is clear that not all Shigella pathogens boats contain permanently installed heads, and those that the Mississippi do may use Type I and II MSDa, which do not require pump- found for the out. Therefore, only selected marinas, in harbors with iality in the large numbers of boats containing heads, need to have pump- ;reatly from that out facilities available. Marina experience on waterways with enforced holding tank use indicates that existing fuel docks provide the most convenient location for pumpout )oat wastes cause services. raw sewage from ,centrated by Regulations concerning marine sanitation devices will be .r this reason, difficult to enforce; thus other management tools are still harvesting of necessary. In marina waters where higher levels of pathogens ,an without proof could contaminate shellfish, boat toilet use can be reduced if marinas provide shoreside restrooms. These restrooms should t be convenient to the docks, provide hot showers and wash basins, .rd have promulgated, and be well maintained. Reasonable guidelines for the required manently installed number of toilets need to be established. These guidelines tation devices (MSD). should be based on the capacity of the marina and its use d with holding tanks characteristics. barge of any sewage), .tars" may utilize Boat wastes are considered a problem primarily on enclosed We I i II) if the inland waters and semi-enclosed coastal waters, where flushing ications. If thee* is minimal. In problem areas, boating can be monitored and sewage from boat regulated. Size, depth, tidal flushing and the characteristics C related pro- of boat use must all be considered to determine the sewage e sanitation capacity of a waterway. As an example, Fufari (16) has cal- ., large and culated how many boats may be allowed in shellfish areas is dependent on (assuming a background count of zero coliforms) to maintain as (38). Boat standards of 70 coliforms per 100 milliliter of water. Kasse- accumulate at baum (24) also calculated the allowable number of boats to ansferred to maintain coliform standards, but emphasizes that if such ed in holding tanks, , calculations are to be accurate, they must be derived for each reducing the normal water basin on an individual basis. An alternative which release Once boats are underway and outside of the marina, any sewage Proper maintenance discharged overboard is readily diluted, and has a negligible d the chemicals impact. When all boats meet MSD standards in 1980, the poten- rmful than the tial for contamination of shellfish will be sharply reduced a have been found or eliminated. Thus, current restrictions on the harvesting from marine sanita- of shellfish from waters adjacent to marinas need to be re- waver, indicate evaluated in light of increasing use of MSDs. Shellfishing t environmental should be allowed during nonboating seasons and the shellfish quality should be routinely monitored in marina waters to pro- vide the basis of closure when necessary. R' i • I � • l 'I .. ' L��(JI . I .T. 1 •�f 24 mo studies were found on the environmental effects of "gray" Copper is the most coma water, i.e., galley and shower waste water. Since some con- and is found at high le cern has been raised about the wisdom of allowing overboard Ing communities in marl discharge of "gray" water, it is briefly discussed here. This concentrations were sig discharge of water, soap, and grime probably has considerably boat harbors. It has a less impact than boat sewage and creates little or no threat of is released into the me shellfish contamination. However, boat owners concerned about but Young (68) feels tha 1 their environment can make use of non-polluting soaps for on- before repainting. Alt board washing. Until scientific research proves otherwise, found to be significant discharge of "gray" water does not need regulation. 68), little is known ab chains or long-range is BOAT MAINTENANCE the fate of copper in i need to develop and mar Effects and Management Considerations based anti-fouling pain operators can reduce cc Regular and seasonal maintenance of boats involves washing, surfaces and by collect draining bilge water, sanding and painting. All these activi- boat scraping and paint ties may have minor, but potentially adverse, effects on the alternatives to existir marine environment. For example, the amount of detergent in- prudent use could conti troduced into the water when washing boats may be small, but it can cause increased nutrient levels in marina voters and even- tually cause a decrease in the dissolved oxygen concentration. Whenever possible, boat owners and marina operators should limit the use of detergents, or use non-polluting detergents. Individual boat owners can also reduce the amount of petroleum pollutants introduced into the marina when emptying bilge water. In fact, EPA and Coast Guard regulations prohibit the discharge of any oil or oily waste that causes a visible film or sheen on the surface of the water (32). This form of oil pollution can be controlled by the use of oil filtration devices on boat bilge pumps, or devices such as commercial oil- absorbent pads placed in the bilge to soak up fuel and oil be-fora bilge water is discharged. Though pollution by visible oil may be controlled, some petroleum compounds may be dis- solved in bilge water and transferred unnoticed to aquatic ecosystem (32). Other toxic materials may also be transferred to the aquatic environment from the anti-fouling paints which are used on boat hulls, floats and buoys within the marina. After sampling both harbor and coastal mussels, Young (67, 69) found signifi- cantly higher PCB (polychlorinated biphenyls) levels in mus- sels located near centers for the scraping and repainting of boats. Mayor brands of anti-fouling paint currently used do not contain significant amounts of PCBs, but samples of old anti-fouling paint have shown concentrations as high as 10 percent of the dry weight of the paint (69). ss eta of "gray" Copper is the most common heavy metal used in anti-fouling paints nce soma con- and is found at high levels in sea-water, sediments, and foul- Lvwang overboard ing communities in marinas (36). Young (67, 70) found copper icussod here. This concentrations were significantly higher in mussels taken from I has considerably boat harbors. It has not been estimated at what rate copper ctle or no threat of is released into the marine environment from antifouling paints, ars concerned about but Young (68) feels that an "important fraction" aunt be released is soaps for on- before repainting. Although copper concentrations have been coves otherwise, found to be significantly higher in the marine environment (36, elation. 68), little is known about its transfer through local food 4 chains or long-range impact. Thus, more research is needed on the fate of copper in marina environments, and manufacturers need to develop and market less toxic alternatives to copper- based anti-fouling paints (38). In the meantime, marina operators can reduce copper levels by not painting non-boat .evolves washing, surfaces and by collecting and removing paint particles from All theme activi- boat scraping and painting areas (38). Until reasonable effects on the alternatives to existing anti-fouling paint are available, c of detergent in- prudent use could continue. may be small, but it 4a waters and even- igan concentration. ?orators should limit detergents. amount of petroleum aaptying bilge clone prohibit the sea a visible film This fora of of oil filtration a as comercial oil- usl and oil bo- on by visible ,. may be dis- Lced to aquatic ad to the aquatic Lch are used on ins. After sampling 69) found signifi- s) levels in mus- and repainting of currently used do t samples of old I as high as 10 w t aidVZr ty JJyyltt�.�y�4i y 47 26 LITERATURE CITED 11. Clark, R.C., Jr. John Wiley 6 Sona, 12. Clark, R.C., Jr., . 1. Adie, D.W. 1975. Marinas: a working guide to their Acute effects of o: development and design. Cahners Books, Boston, Mass. shellfish. Envirot 336pp. 8(12):1009-1014. 2. Barbaro, R.D., B.J. Carroll, L.B. Tebo, and L.C. Walters. 13. Darnel. R.M., W.E. 1969. Bacteriological water quality of several recrea- R.A. Defenbaugh. 1 tional areas in the Ross Barnett Reservoir. Journal in wetlands of the Pollution Control Federation 41(7):1330-1339. EPA by Tereco Corp. 3. Batten, L.A. 1977. Sailing on reservoirs and its effects 14. English, J.N., G.N. on water birds. Biological Conservation 11(1):49-58. Pollutional effects studies. Journal i 4. Bond, R.G., C.Y. Straub and R. Prober (eds.). 1972. Hand- 35(7):923-931. book of environmental control, Volume 1: Air pollution. The Chemical Rubber Company. 576pp. 15. English, J.N., E.W. Pollutional effects 5. Bowerman, F.A. and K.Y. Chen. 1971. Marina Del Ray: a studies. Journal U study of environmental variables in a semi-enclosed coastal 35(9):1121-1132. water. University of Southern California Environmental Engineering Program, Los' Angeles, USC-SG-4-71. 59pp. 16. Fufari. S.A. 1968. the National Shellf 6. Brandsma, K.G., J. Lee and F.R. Bowerman. 1973. Marina Marine Health Servi Del Ray: Computer simulation of pollutant transport in Service, Davievills a semi-enclosed coastal water body. University of Southern California Ocean Engineering Program, Los Angeles, 17. Fufari, S.A. and J. USC-SG-1-73. 113pp. Potter Cove, Rhode Health Services Lab 7. Brown, C.L. and R. Clark. 1968. Observations on dredging Davieville, RI. 27 and dissolved oxygen in a tidal waterway. Water Resources Research 4(6):1381-1384. 18. Gianno, S.P. and H. for marinas in tida 8. Cassin, J., K. Smith and K. Frenke. 1971. Sanitary impli- University of Delaw cations of small boat pollution in an Atlantic estuary. 105pp. Environmental Letters 2(2):59-63. 19. Harris, J.T. and S.' 9. Chaney, C.A. 1961. Recomendations for design, construction indicators of map's 1 and maintenance (2nd edition). National Association of of Wisconsin Sea Gr, Engine and Boat Manufacturers, Inc., NY. 247pp. Madison, WI, Sea Gr. 10. Chen, K.Y., F.R. Bowerman and M. Petridis. 1972. Environ- 20. Heiser, D.W. and E. mental impact of storm drain on a semi-enclosed coastal I juvenile chum and p water.. Preprint of the Eighth Annual Conference of the areas. Supplement& Marine Technology Society. (Sea-Grant Library Abstract Studies, State of W. (SCU-R-72-003) and Research Divisi, 21. Hess, E.P. 1977. 1 sizing Ice Damage is November, 1977. Spo Cooperative Extensio 1 • 27 11. Clark, R.C., Jr. 1977. Coastal ecosystem management. John Wiley 6 Sons, NY. i 12. Clark, R.C., Jr., J.S. Finely and G.C. Gibson. 1974. aide to their Acute effects of outboard motor effluents on two marine Boston, Mass. shellfish. Environmental Science and Technology 8(12):1009-1014. sad L.C. Walters. 13. Darnel. R.M., W.E. Pequenst, B.H. James, P.J. Benson and several recrea- R.A. Defenbaugh. 1976. Impacts of construction activities Lr. Journal ' in wetlands of the United States. Prepared for the U.S. -1339. EPA by Tereco Corp. 392pp. ca and its effects 14. English, J.N., C.N. McDermott and C. Henderson. 1963. 11(1):49-58. Pollutional effects of outboard motor exhaust - laboratory studies. Journal Water Pollution.Control Federation Is.). 1972. Hand- 35(7):923-931. Air pollution. 15. English, J.N., E.W. Surber and G.N. McDermott. 1963. Pollutional effects of outboard motor exhaust - field Gina Dal Ray: a studies. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation ai-enclosed coastal 35(9):1121-1132. i Environmental -4-71. 59pp. 16. Fufari, S.A. 1968. A problem paper on boat wastes and the National Shellfish Sanitation Program. Northeast 1973. Marina Marine Health Services Laboratory, U.S. Public Health at transport in i Service, Davisville, RI. 27pp. +srsity of Southern I s Angeles, 17. Fufari, S.A. and J.L. Verber. 1969. Boat waste survey, Potter Cove, Rhode Island, summer 1968. Northeast Marine Health Services Laboratory, U.S. Public Health Service, ;tions on dredging Davisville, RI. 27pp. iter Resources 18. Gianno, S.P. and H. Wang. 1974. Engineering considerations for marinas in tidal marshes. College of Marine Studies, 1, Sanitary impli- University of Delaware, Lewes, DE, Sea Grant No. DEL-SG-9-74. Lantic estuary. 105pp. 19. Harris, J.T. and S.W. Matteson. 1975. Gulls and terns as design, construction ( indicators of man's impact upon Lake Superior. University Association of of Wisconsin Sea Grant Program Technical Report No. 227, 247pp. Madison, WI, Sea Grant No. WIS-SG-75-227. 46pp. a. 1972. Environ- 20. Heiser, D.W. and E.L. Finn, Jr. 1970. Observations of aclosed coastal juvenile chum and pink salmon in marina and bulkheaded .iference of the areas. Supplemental Progress Report, Puget Sound Stream Lbrary Abstract Studies, State of Washington Dept. of Fisheries, Management and Research Division, Seattle, WA. 28pp. 21. Hess, E.F. 1977. Panel statements at Conference on Mini- mizing Ice Damage in Small Harbors and Marinas, Hyannis, MA. November, 1977. Sponsored by the University of Massachusetts Cooperative Extension Service, Hyannis, MA. 4: r.. 3 y � �'�;:< .•�C fad 1 28 22. Jackivicz, T.P.. Jr. and L.N. Kuzminski. 1972. The effects 32. Lysyg, I. and E.C. of the interaction of outboard motors with the aquatic environ- from an oil film it ment - a review. Environmental Research 6:436-454. (ed.). Fate of pol ments, Part 1. Wil 23. Jackivicz, T.P.. Jr. and L.N. Kuzminski. 1973. A review of outboard motor effects on the aquatic environment. Journal 33. flack, M.N. (no dat4 Water Pollution Control Federation 45(8):1759-1770. of the coliform bac Institute of Water 24. Kassebaum, C.R. 1974. The use of oysters as a mechanism for East Lansing, MI. determining amounts of fecal discharge from small boats in a marina. Master's Thesis. Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univer- 34. Mack. N.N. and F.M. sity of Washington, Seattle, WA. 87pp. area by watercraft Federation 45(1)nS 25. Klos, E.G. 1973. Toxic and corrosive effects of Wilcox- Crittenden's permanent toilet deodorant. Graduate School of 35. Nixon. S.W. and C.A Oceanography, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, RI. ` England salt marsh. Unpublished. 36. Nixon, S.W., C.A. C 26. Kuzminaki. L.N. and 0. Fredette. 1974. The effects of out- of small boat maria board motor subsurface exhausts on the growth characteristics Technical Report No of two common freshwater algal species. Progress Report for the Division of Water Pollution Control, Massachusetts Water 37. Noden, D. and T. Br Resources Commission, Boston, MA, Report No. Env. E. 41-74-5. marina and boatyard 123pp. Institution, Ithics 27. Kuzminski, L.N., T.P. Jackivicz, Jr. and D.A. Bancroft. 1973. 38. Office of Coastal Z Identification and fate of organic compounds emitted from out- guidelines. U.S. L board motor subsurface exhausts. Progress Report for the and Atmospheric Ada Division of Water Pollution Control, Massachusetts Water Resources Commission, Boston, MA, Report No. Env. E. 31-73.2. 39. Pessoney, G.F.. C.1 129 pp. P.K. Stocks. 1975. the coastal zone. 28. Kuzminski. L.N.. G.A. Lake and F.M. Sayer. 1974. The effects Grant. January, 197 of outboard motor subsurface exhausts on the sensory properties Sea Grant Consortiu of recipient water. Progress Report for the Division of Water Pollution Control, Massachusetts Water Resources Commission, 40. Raimold, R.J. 1977 Boston, MA, Report No. Env. E. 41-74-4. 37pp. p589-593 IN Clark, John Wiley i Sona, 29. Kuzminski, L.N. and L.T. Mulcahy. 1974. A study of the fate of lead emitted from two-cycle outboard motor subsurface 41. Reish, D.J. 1961. exhausts. Progress Report for the Division of Water Pollution constructed boat ha Control. Massachusetts Water Resources Commission, Boston, MA, 42(1):84-91. Report No. Env. E. 38-74-1. 37pp. 42. Richey, E.P. 1971. 30. Lagler, K.P., A.S. Hazard, W.E. Hazen and W.A. Tompkins. 1950. ! in Puget Sound. p24 Outboard motors in relation to fish behavior, fish production r on Estuaries of the and angling success. Transactions of the 15th Annual North sity Engineering Ex American Wildlife Conference. p280-303. vallis, OR. 31. Lee, Wal-Ping. 1976. Hydrocarbon analysis of surface seawater 43. Rorholm, N., H.C. L and beach sand by infrared absorption methods. Ph.D. Thesis, economic study of N Department of Chemistry, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI. of Food and Resourc Kingston, RI. 206p 29 • The effects 32. Lysyg, I. and E.C. Russell. 1977. Transfer of organics aquatic environ- from an oil film into water. p135-144 IN Suffet, I.H. 6-454. (ed.). Fate of pollutants in the air and water environ- 1973. A review of ments, Part 1. Wiley-Interscience. Lronment. Journal 33. Mack, M.N. (no date). The occurrenceand-possible source :1759-1770. of the coliform bacteria on the shoreline of Lake Michigan. Institute of Water Research, Michigan State University, � as a mechanism for East Lansing, MI. Unpublished. 16pp. ,m small boats in a :nginearing, Univer- 34. Mack, M.N. and F.M. D'Itri. 1973. Pollution of a marina area by watercraft use. Journal Water Pollution Control acts of Wilcox- Federation 45(1):97-104. Graduate School of 35. Nixon, S.W. and C.A. Oviatt. 1973. Ecology of a New Narragansett, RI. England salt marsh. Ecological Monographs 43(4):463-498. 36. Nixon, S.W., C.A. Oviatt and S.L. Northby. 1973. Ecology ha effects of out- of small boat marinas. University of Rhode Island Marine •wth characteristics Technical Report No. 5, Narragansett, RI. 20pp. rogress Report for ,assachusetts Water 37. Noden, D. and T. Brown. 1975. The New York commercial o. Env. E. 41-74-5. marina and boatyard industry, 1972. New York Sea Grant 1 Institution, Ithica, NY, NY-SGP-RS-75-020. 92pp. .A. Bancroft. 1973. 38. Office of Coastal Zone Management. 1976. Coastal facility ds emitted from out- guidelines. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic Report for the and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC. 96pp. chusetts Water o. Env. E. 31-73-2. 39. Pessoney, G.F., C.R. Brent, B.J. Grantham, B.G. Bufkin and P.K. Stocks. 1975. The impact of marinas and harbors in the coastal zone. IN Report on Mississippi-Alabama Sea -_74. The effects Grant, January, 1974 June, 1975. Mississippi-Alabama .nsory properties Sea Grant Consortium, Ocean Springs, MS. -vision of Water ources Commission, 40. Reimold, R.J. 1977. Constructive use of dredge spoil. 7Pp• p589-593 IN Clark, J.B. Coastal ecosystem management. John Wiley b Sons, NY. A study of the fate for subsurface 41. Reish, D.J. 1961. A study of benthic fauna in a recently a of Water Pollution constructed boat harbor in southern California. Ecology aission, Boston, MA, 42(1):84-91. 42. Richey, E.P. 1971. Hydro-ecological problems of marinas d.A. Tompkins. 1950. i in Puget Sound. p249-271 IN Proceedings, Technical Conference jr, fish productionon Estuaries of the Pacific Northwest. Oregon State Univer- l5th Annual North sity Engineering Experiment Station Circular No. 42, Cor- vallis, OR. j of surface seawater 43. Rorholm, N., H.C. Lampe and J.F. Farrell. 1969. A socio- )ds. Ph.D. Thesis, economic study of Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island. Department 1s Island, Kingston, RI. of Food and Resource Economics, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI. 206pp. • .'.fY t ' 30 44. Ross, N.W. 1976. Marinas: the environmental impact. 55. The Urban Design G p33-37 IN Proceedings of the Ninth National Conference ciates. . 1975:&Ma: on Access to Recreational Waters, October 20-23, 1975, study for Narragaa Galveston, TL. Published by the Outboard Boating Club Department-oicacm of America, Chicago, IL. 56. U.S.D.A. Forest $a 45. Ross, N.W. 1977. Constructing floating tire breakwaters. handbooks rood M University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, RI. Publication _ Handbook Ns. 12s a No. 581. 21pp. 57. U.S. Onitammstai 46. Roy Mann Associates, Inc. 1974. Recreational boating pollutioe frm aim Impacts: Chesapeake and Chincoteague Bays, Part 1: mat. Noggin las# boating capacity planning system. Draft prepared for the Coastal Zone Management Program, Department of 58. U.S. Public Nmltb Natural Resources, State of Maryland, Annapolis, MD. I problem of seattat 152pp. 82(3):227-228. 47. Saila, S.B., S.D. Pratt and T.T. Polgar. 1972. Dredge 1 59. U.S. Public Health spoil disposal in Rhode Island Sound. University of subject to "niter, Rhode Island Marine Technical Report No. 2. 48pp. east Technical Ser 48. Seabloom, A.W. 1969. Bacteriological effect of small 60. Webb, D.A. (no data boat wastes on small harbors. 1969. Completion Report, Published by Loppei Office of Water Resources, State of Washington Water i Research Center, USDA, Seattle, WA, Research Report 61. Wiese, J.H. and T. No. 161-34-103-3996-3013. 20pp. called Pea Patch. 49. Slott&, L.S. and L.J. Williamson. 1974. Estuarine impacts 62. Windom, B.L. 1972 related to dredge spoil. p20-37 IN Center for Dredging estuaries. Journal Studies, Proceedings of the Sixth Dredging Seminar, Texas Division, Proceedir A 6 M University, College Station, TX, TAMU-56-74-104, WW4:475-487. Center for Dredging Studies Report No. CDS-176. 63. Woodhouse, W.W., Jr 50. Slott&, L.S. and S.M. Noble. 1976. Use of benthic sedi- Marsh building vitt meats as indicators of marine flushing. Ocean Engineering Carolina State Univ Department, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. Bulletin 445, Rale: 51. Spencer, J. 1975. Review of dredge spoil and spoil dis- 64. Woodhouse, W.W., Jr posal characteristics in Massachusetts. Massachusetts Propagation of Spai Coastal Zone Office, Boston, MA. 50pp. nation and salt mai Research Center, Ai 52. Stickney, R.R. and D. Perlmutter. 1975. Impact of intra- No. 46, Washington, coastal waterway maintenance dredging on a mud bottom benthos community. Biological Conservation 7(3):211-226. 1 65. Wurzback, Y.F. and sound survey. Depe 53. Sutherland, A.J. and D.G. Ogle. 1975. Effect of jet boats Marine Co., Fond di on salmon eggs. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 9(3):273-282. 66. Wurzback, W.F. and product line surve; $4. Tipple, V.L. 1975. Sedimentary processes in coastal canals Research Memoranduc of southwest Florida, M.S. Thesis, Graduate School of Oceano- graphy, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, RI. 31 al impact. 55. The Urban Design Croup. Inc.. and Economic Research Asso- Lanference ciates. 1975. Marisa and pleasure boating facilities c su-23, 1975, study for Narragansett Bay. Prepared for Rhode Island d Boating Club Department of Ecomomic Development, Providence, RI. 56. U.S.D.A. Forest Service Products Laboratory. • 1974. Wood tire breakwaters. handbook: wood as an engineering material. Agriculture . RI. Publication Handbook No. 72, Washington, DC. 57. U.S. Enviroomsntal Protection Agency. 1974. Analysis of tional boating ' pollution from marine engines and effects on the environ- ys. Part is mot. Boating Industry Association, Chicago, IL. 62pp. prepared for artment of 58. U.S. Public Health Service. 1967. Marina, watercraft napolis, MD. problems of sanitation studied. Public Health Reports 82(3):227-228. 1972. Dredge 59. U.S. Public Health Service. 1972. Classification of areas niversity of subject to sanitary waste discharges from boats. North- 2. 48pp. east Technical Services Unit, Daviaville, RI. Unpublished draft. ffec; of small 60. Webb, D.A. (no date). Creosote...environmental considerations. mplation Report, Published by Koppers Company, Inc.. Pittsburgh, PA. 12pp. ington Water arch Report 61. Wiese, J.H. and T. Smith-Kenneally. 1977. A heron colony called Pea Patch. Delaware Conservationist 21(2):8-15. Estuarine impacts 62. Windom, H.L. 1972. Environmental aspects of dredging in or for Dredging estuaries. Journal Waterways, Harbors and Coastal Engineering og Seminar. Texas Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers 'AMU-56-74-104, WW4:475-487. :DS-176. j 63. Woodhouse, W.W., Jr., E.D. Seneca and S.W. Broome. 1972. benthic sedi- Marsh building with dredge spoil in North Carolina. North _.an Engineering Carolina State University Agricultural Experiment Station vallis, OR. j Bulletin 445, Raleigh, NC. 28pp. oil and spoil dis- + 64. Woodhouse, W.W., Jr., E.D. Seneca and S.W. Broome. 1974. Massachusetts I Propagation of Spartina alterniflora for substrate stabili- zation and salt marsh development. Coastal Engineering i Research Center, Army Corps of Engineers Technical Memorandum Impact of intra- No. 46, Washington, DC. 155pp. a mud bottom -Lou 7(3):211-226. 65. Wurzback, W.F. and M. Freund. 1975. Snowmobile sight and sound survey. Department of Industry Affairs, Mercury Effect of jet boats Marine Co., Fond du Lac, WI. 19pp. Marine and Freshwater 66. Wurzback, W.F. and R.A. Lampheer. 1973. Mercury outboard product line survey. Mercury Marine Co., Fond du Lac, WI, isa in coastal canals Research Memorandum No. 6-MS2-19. 38pp. uta School of Oceano- cagansett, RI. 1 L •' y. 'may-� • ow�:•%'.tet r `�-:.,:�j� •i�� 1 32 67. Young. D.R. and T.C. Hessen. 1974. Inputs and distri- butions of chlorinated hydrocarbons in three southern California harbors. p51-67 IN Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Technical Conference on Estuaries of the Pacific Northwest, March 14-15, 1974. Oregon Experiment Station Circular No. 50, Corvallis, OR. 68. Young, D.R., T.C. Hessen, D.J. McDermott and P.E. Smokler. ;..a,;•uM�.`:: �� �; 1974. Marine inputs of polychlorinated biphenyls and ,��..v�; Y;��. ��.•; copper from vessel antifouling paints. Southern California �-�j+o� � •+ ;. Coastal Water Research Project, El Segundo, CA, Rep. TM 212. 69. Young. D.R. and D.J. McDermott. 1975. Trace metals in harbor mussels. p139-142 IN Southern California Coastal Water Research Project Annual Report for Year Ended 30 June 1975, E1 Segundo, CA. 70. Young, D.R.. D.J. McDermott. T.C. Hessen and T.K. Jan. 1975. Pollutant inputs and distributions off southern California. p424-439 IN Church. T.M. (ed.). Marine chemistry in the coastal environment. ACS Symposium Series 180 American Chemical Society, Washington, DC. 710pp. 71. Zieman, J.C. 1976. The ecological effects of physical damage from motor boats on turtle grass beds in southern Florida. Aquatic Botany 2:127-139. 72. Zube, E.H. 1977. Aesthetics and perceived values. p562-577 IN Clark, J.R. Coastal ecosystem management. John Wiley i Sons. NY. a -v a x C+ Appendix #7 fD -s Water Depths and Soundings o m C+ N d O C Q N Ff0( SUPERVISOR John M. B edemrr ,TRUSTEES President ���� SCO SCOTT L HARRIS Albert J. Krupski. Jr..Vice President c � Henry P. Smith = Town Hall John B. Tuthill Oy !� 53095 Main Road William G. Albertson P.O. Box 1179 �Ol 41 ��� Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1892 Fax(516) 765-1823 ]BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: John M. Bredemeyer, President Southold Board of Trustees FROM: Kent Mc Carthy bosm Bay Constable Marine 2 DATE: June 23, 1993 RE: Depth Measurements - Brick Cove Marina Please be advised that on June 23, 1993, I provided the requested oversight for the above referenced project. In attendance were: Bruce Anderson and Howard Zehner. This is to certify that the attached measurements (raw data) with the corresponding survey showing location of measurements are accurate. i IN L E-T- uex -De -R-e6" sez I-idt ,c z Al- Z �' ,d" 4 : 00 Ol 6 9 :10 G 7 , O,� I/c G ' g � 8 � , �o ,► � 24 off 10 CTuAL -rgaCC . A D 53 Ar A V 4� RAW l--)Ar-TjA 4.ep� o vt:&c,,Lo(,s - 07 `, io" 3 6' � 2� G 3 S3 7, 0 , Sy 31 � 'f S' 3 3o G 41 qvSSc 7 so SC 32 4v I jo 33 5 f 3 3y .S9 10 �, � ,, 35- L, S ., 6 0 3, . . •' 5 o'' 6 J �' o " -*. /Ta 3 G 7' q'' 38 6' b 6 3 ''Z T� T l 1--)L p - q �% o 61FW - a 41 69 l7 JoOf _ lo A l ~ ' o r y7 �� �,, 1� S y o r : g =oo _2 8` -'y SUMMARY - JUNE 23, 1993 BRICK COVE MARINA DEPTH STUDY (All Readings Referenced to Official Mean Low Water) CONTROL (NON-DREDGE) READINGS (A thru 0) : 8: 30 - 9: OOAM, Tide Variation -2" to 0" , Correction +1"=+0. 083 ' INLET READINGS (il thru i12) : 9: 00 - 9: 10AM, Tide Variation 0" to 0", Correction = 0. 0 ' BASIN DREDGE AREAS (1 thru 63) : 9: 25 -10: 10AM, Tide Variation +1" to +8" ,Correction -4"=-0. 33 ' CONTROL READINGS (A thru 0, Tide Correction = +0.083' ): BEFORE DREDGING- Circled Readings on Drawing Avg. Depth = 7.22' (MLW), Corrected Depth = 7.22' AFTER DREDGING - Raw Data A thru 0 Avg. Depth = 6.37', Corrected Depth = 6.45 ' INLET READINGS (il thru i12, Tide Correction = 0.0' ): INLET (ROSS-SECTION (il thru i5) - See 1986 Throat Section for Data INLET CHANNEL (i6 thru i12) BEFORE DREDGING - Shoaling at other than Throat Section, 6' MLW Dredg- ing Permitted Per 200'x20' Area on Map. AFTER DREDGING - Avg. Depth = 6.44' , Corrected Depth = 6.44' ,Includes Previous 8' Center Depth on Section Drawing BASIN READINGS (1 thru 63, Tide Correction = -0.33' ): BEFORE DREDGING - Shoal Areas A thru E Shown on Map, 6' Dredging Permitted. AFTER DREDGING: Area A(Raw Data Nos.53 thru 61 ) 5.56'Avg. , 5.23'Corrected Depth Area B(Raw Data Nos.48 thru 52,62,63) 5.93'Avg. , 5.60'Corrected Depth Area C(Raw Data Nos.33 thru 47 ) 6.32'Avg. , 5.99'Corrected Depth Area D(Raw Data Nos. 1 thru 24 ) 6.08'Avg. , 5.75'Corrected Depth Area E(Raw, Data Nos.25 thru 32 ) 6.27'Avg. , 5.94'Corrected Depth NOTES: 1. The tide board reference used is located per Peconic Surveyors, P.C. 2. Basin dredging of shoal areas was accomplished before the docks were installed. The docks were then located "as built" Wythe S-i &-aw±rg. „4,7UL ,awn (eX- t4 t-991T S) . "D 0 DOC K / / AREA ���•• O DRE OC,INC� A / 58 50 5 i — 5q 5e DOCK - 48 97 J46 95 q3 'C42 310 3 D R E DCti►N q AREA "C" --- -- -- +.Ib 30 9 u ' '► r�uJn / ' e _ DOC K 3� 27 ;�9 II 3 � DREDC� I�1C.� DREDC,INCy \ ' vl- ,AREA O K AREA �•p.. J M DOCK o -- F3RICK COVE MARINA ARSHAMOMOQUE, N.Y. WATER DEPTHS AND SOUNDINGS LOCATIONS - JUNE 7-3, 1913 b 3 4 - �,IS �IS� '\,I� t..lAl�.►TENANCEPP�oVEO� �� DREDC�►NCI CA 10 � Iil Flevatian Above Qtiacmel Bottom JUNE 23, 1993 INLET (ROSS-SECTION DEPTH READINGS it THRU i5 o w N w A tA 0+ %J m 1.0 Superimposed on June 9-10, 1986 Inlet Throat Section o ' N � observed Higher High hater, 10 JUN, +2.6 ft • r w . i' 4[Q0 Datum, L.W. 0710, 10 JUN 1 FAST IST I 2 Q N rl �I n. - ri.5 3 4 i � a 5 0 6 :,4 7 L3 0 o I 9 01 20 40 60 80 100 i•- np Distance From Horizontal Reference, ft : tar EMBAYMM TEROAT S MCK FuseM OBSERVATT STUDY IN Yang'a Marina F MMMport• Town of Southold, Suffolk County, NY A MOM APPROVED Gy' DRAWN 81JUN 86 EXPRFSS EPJ= SIG SYS EMOBic. • Fla= 10 EMBAYMEW TWO" VE[n ITY CS DRAWING WJr9tA �Z J b -v m a x co Appendix #8 Soil Boring Logs and Analysis 0 0 -s cn r 0 (n N a CL a a N N vb) HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS • APPENDIX B SOIL BORING LOGS MEN - 1 CONSULTING ENGINEERS -� HENDERSON AND BOOVYELL Solt. -TTfoR • 'moi O U -T H r!a G L N/ L O ipp- I.I o R."T 17C yo uTrtoLC Iwplc..Zt�► s rr�b 1.1 o TE: i.LL '%4Fot?-WT 1 ou ^riG.•l H N^&P • •. onTe�•rav f�.o�r ib: 1-qw rt.&uP+T(NLW `f R�rre�t It 0 PREP�•1tED RfY of I-T4R1�.�1Tl.T RL �►er". TN L L^,N P UA,E (iO. Lo�,ERv.•Zlo�+ -►tRvl�.c IM ioDpiiATlOuJ 1r•117M ro IDox '9 L.1 b.1.C��.,G 1t�v6R GoC►�E�►. �.42�L1.1L'Zs,IRaL H.Y. �11�► 1 E'<r i.1C..�H 61v T �iT^�l e� r's�• Ci ,11dti r 2-106 HENDERSON AND B0DMIELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS GEOLOGY AND SOILS The proposed project will not affect the geology of the site or the surrounding area. The soils present on the site consist of Made Land (Ma) and Cut and Pill Land (_CuB) which were either placed by mechanical means or altered in •the course of previous land uses. The soils will • be further sMif Led by the proposed project as necessary for construction. Such modifications will include the placing and regrading of toposil for the establishment, of lawn areas, removal and/or regrading of subsurface soils for the construction of the sanitary disposal system and the proposed drainage system. The operations will be discussed in the appropriate sections of this report. Another modification required by this project involves the dredging of the marina portion of this property. This operation will necessitate the disposal of dredged material either on-site in the upland portions or off-site at a suitable location. The high clay content of these soils, as evidenced by the former brick making operation on the site, will likely require the addition of supplements or amendments to allow the material ' to be used for construction. It is also expected that due to the requirements of the sanitary and drainage disposal system, some of the soil will not be suitable and will have to be disposed of off-site. Disposal of this material will require the -approval of the Town Of Southold, at a location to be determined or proposed by the applicant. TOPOGRAPHY - , The topography•• will be a=ffected, bye the construction of this project. The marina portion will be dredged and the *slating spit near the center of the basin will be eliminated 4-1 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENOtNEE�s FatOllow for better flushing action as well as a more efficient marina pattern. The upland portion of the site will also be modified to accomodate the proposed development. The Sanitary Disposal System will require a portion of the southeast corner of the property to be filled approximately seven feet. The area ehere the building is to be constructed will also be filled. Parking and lawn areas will be regraded to achieve positive overland flow and to allow for the containment of storm water lunoff within the project's boundary. (see Surface Water ` Rydrology ) . None of these modifications will have any significant impacts on the topograpy of the site. GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY Ten test holes were augered across the Southport Marina Site in an effort to. better quantify the locations and elevations of the groundwater underlying the parcel. These soils tests , numbered P-1 through P-10 , found that the groundwater elevations in the northern portion of the property is at approximate elevation of 4. 5 feet above sea level. This groundwater is perched and is created by having porous sand overlaying an impervious clay underlayer. When this situation exists, the rainfall which lands on the ground J surface percolates vertically through the porous sand and is trapped by the relatively impervious clay barrier. The hater 1 then fills the voids within the sand and the water level i rises until an escape path is found. The elevation of this escape path would -approximate the elevation of the perched groundwater. A profile of the soils information is enclosed as Section A-A on Page 4-4. If the clay barrier did not exist, the elevation of the groundwater would approximate 0. 5-1 feet above sea level due ` to the parcel 's proximity to Southold Bay, the Marina Basin •nd the inlet to the east. In fact, a water table elevation 4-2 NENDERWN AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS $OIL BORING LOCATION PLAN_ lo ot 01 4. 1 lb 1 1 9•a I — I .•a,1 6.8 law- ✓ J/ i r:: 1 rx r � � T-1 / / 1 ♦7-6 / ♦ 7-4 1\�_♦'.r / 11 •, __� J SOUTHPORT RESORT AND MARINA GREENPORT NEW YORK t 1 4-3 P- t to WSW L p � rn ..#' 501)— S ` GeOUND WATEQ A Z 1 Rj A ' r 4 r. 2 / Q A I. _ I t .z � - I ��a = SECTION A — A re I AA/FOFfZo� ,BIZ SG�c,�y'�'.fTBat/,V(r•t �/tf'�-�41/E'7�J 7 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 7of s range is found in Boring B-1 in the northeast corner of the site. Apparently, this boring was located beyond the clay barrier and in a normal, for Long Island, sand layer. With the exception of the northern portion of the parcel, the remainder of the site soils are found to be predominantly clay. No indication of any groundwater elevations could be found due to the hardness of the clays encountered. 1 The proposed Sanitary Disposal System will be located over the perched groundwater in the northern portion of the parcel. This artificial watertable elevation' will be respected insofar as the design of the Sanitary Treatment Facility is concerned. Therefore, site development should not adversely effect the groundwater under the parcel . SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY Under the current Town of Southold Regulations, there must be a zero stormwater discharge from this site into the marina basin or into Southold Bay. Additionally, the wstormwater runoff from a 6 inch rainfall must be retained onsite. This requirement is easily met on the more normal sites in the Town of Southold via the use of stormwater leaching rings or recharge basins. These facilities collect and store the stormwater runoff and allow it to slowly percolate vertically through the subsurface ' soil into the groundwater regime and thence laterally to Southold Bay or Long Island Sound. The Southport Resort and Marina site differs from a typical Long Island parcel in that portions of the subsurface soil consist predominantly of clay. This clay is impervious and prevents the downward movement of surface runoff. In the areas where there are sand siratas overlying the" cla'y°, the t sand itself fills with water and creates an artificial water table, very much of the way a bowl forms a water level. The 4-5 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Fbowlfills with water because no water can precolate through the impervious bottom. The water in the bowl rises until water starts to spill over the edge. This spillover determines the water elevation in the bowl. On the Southport Resort Site, the sand/clay interface acts as the -edge ,of the bowl and sets the artificial water table elevation. Soil probes across the site indicate that this artificial water table elevations is at approximately 4 . 5 feet above sea level . As the ground water passes over : this clay/sand interface, it drops down to the true groundwater ' elevation which is approximately 0. 5-1 feet above sea level. . In the areas where no sand strata overlays the clay, there is no artificial water table. Instead, surface water enters the clay in miniscule amounts and over very long periods of time , works its way through the clay to the underlying sand strata many feet below the surface. It can I be stated that there is no practical water movement through the clays due to their extreme density. Therefore, in severe storms, much of the rainfall on these areas is transferred directly into ' runoff and enters the surrounding surface waters. It is still practical to develop the Southport Site under the above stated conditions. One method of development would be to treat the artificial water table elevation as unchangeable and construct drainage leaching rings above this water elevation. This would require the use of an inordinate amount of of shallow drainage rings ( 1-2 ' depths ) or the filling of the site to elevation 12. 5 and above and utilizing a lesser number of 4 ' deep drainage rings. Another method for the disposal of stormwater runoff is to lower or eliminate the artificial water table in the areas of the proposed drainage leaching rings. This would allow the placement of the bottom of the rings at a significantly Z lower elevation and permit the development of the site to elevation 9 and above. This would be at approximately the t 4-6 I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS elevation the site would be developed if it were a typical Long Island site without the existing clay barrier. In order to lower the artificial water table, a transport medium or conduit must be installed to *connect the I artificial water table with a pervious strata or other water table at a lower elevation. , : A soils investigation, consisting of probes and augers, was undertaken to see if the existing sand in the dunes along Southold Bay extended northward under the clay towards the motel area of the site. These auger holes indicated that the dunes themselves consist of clay (probably placed by mechanical means ) which have been covered by sand in an acretion process. Only a small continuous sand strata was found to extend from Southold Bay northward into the site. It was deemed more- pra-ctical to connect the transport system into the marina basin rather than disturb the existing sand dunes along Southold Bay. The ropo d tr sport syst will nsist of a ten f of wide, our a one a oot eep Print�h lined with f ter fab c and ille with oken stork ./fihe i regu r s pe of ! t brok s will rea ' a 1 rge void ea 0$, r more) i rhichill p rmit t e tr9s or of stor ate ru f. Th undi t sone w' 1 f It any wate7 f ilt�r dab c sur �g en erir g he sys m as :well;as esery the /1 eg ity of the � oids y prev ting,'' the /en ranc si, an� fine sand parti es. / r / r The tr"sport/ system will be com ed of,' two elemgnts. Th first/ with /a boVto elevation 2. 5 ;feet abov� sea 1 vel , w' 1 tr;4porx a storm wat X ac oz's the sit to a / _! locatio appr mat 1 75 fe t fro he mar,'na basin. Here , � r the se nd t nspo syst if' 1 o nect the ' rst sy tem, at / a hot om el v do of 2 t th mari a base , a a water/ ele ation zero. T se on transpor system i n effe4 series of shoft f ' gens ich will release the ter at Ja slow r to into th mar,in basin. This system dupl cote a 4-7 • � 1 rte• , �... T Z '�. �.. m N O 2 D 2 v o� O N v 1 m CD r °D r A O C . /' r � 1 n 'MST DpRe IGCATiON! P...i—•tet' • .�..� r„ m rr ••••• ` :.ta"W TNT soon* awpow PR I tsL Vii. ���� t»u�o��Ttrt► HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SLACKE TEST BORING, INC. 4 MAIN STREET,P.O. SOX 64,KINGS PARK,LI..NEW YORK 11754•(516)5"48W ltrn I Serly Aee Slette•Prer;leel (s me No 1 /ob No 2242-85 Da►ed: March 26, 1985 Igo I«t,� "'oungs Mar(noe, Sooe Road, Crernpory, Town or S,ruthold, Surrulk County, NY /,e 1 l.I,ce f�e.eren Mare,leer n 9'2" brio- G.ovmd S Isco M • M-se.w hr..".. 4ulltetelrarr M Wit er se.— casms tows .� Topsoil. Loan, Gravel, small pieces DRILLED IN w Broken Bricks USED Coarse to Medium Brown Sand, somr Afediu-n to Fine Gravel, some Srlt Sample I 1 I S' to 7 12-11-11- 14 24" Sanple 1 2 • 10' to 12' J4-19-14- 24" MSample / 2 / 15' to JT 6-9-10 10 24" t sr Gray Cloy Samp le 1 4 • 20, to 22, 6-8-12-12 24" Sor►ipIt 1 5 • 25' to 27, 6-12-17-1 24" Sample 1 6 • 20' to 22' 4-11-18-1 24" Sample 0 7 • 40' to 42' 6 12-16-2 241' Somp le I d 0 SO' to 52' 7 13 17 20 24" 1 IN' Ccor-se to Fine Light Brown Sits.). Sarre Fine Cruvel Sc'njrlr 1 0 • 35' to ST ILI 10 11 1 24" Simple 1 10 0 57' to 59' y I1 11 1' 24" r 2-109 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS I. SLACKE TEST BORING, INC. j 1 MAIN STREET. PO BOX 64.KINGS PARK.L V. NEW YORK 11751.1516f W 04W u I161r1 1 Seng A014 Sbct@.►re644111 ds,Fla No t toe No 3?12-85 Doted Murch 26. 19S5 Jct leca,.c" •Youngs Afarinoe. Sage Road. Crlc•cnport. Town of Southold. Suffulk Cuur,f,,. 111 N w - 2-3-fr'wr Surfeit EIevNOn Water Level.� below G•ound Surface «.A M•'e..... r......w.. CL&SWO 1011 Or 9" 1...06 .r M.r c&2MG womb so- 61, Topsoil DRILLED F CAST rra� USED d' t Loam. trace Gravel 10' Coarse to Aledium Brown Sand. some Gravel. some Silt Cray Clay Sample i1 J 0 10' to 12' 8-13-17-2( 21" Samp fe 0 2 • 20' to 22' 1]- 13.16 21 24" I _ Sample f 3 0 30' to 32' 5-9-IJ 15 2 Sample s 4 • 40' to 42' 10-JI 16 24' I r 33' Cuarse to Fine Light Brown Sapid. su e Finc G,vvel Sample I S • 55' to 57' 7-lu 11► 1 24" I Z 2-110 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING LOGS F%OJECT Southport Marina GATE May 1, 1986 LOCAT10 PROJECTY HOLE 11! DEPTH SOIL DESCF.PTION CONDITIOUS AAD REN.ARAS F O TO P-1 0 1' TOPSOIL, Broom-Gray 1' 2' SAND, trace Clay - Light Brown 2' 6' CLAY, trace Sand, Light Brown No Water P-2 0 4' TOPSOIL - Gray 4" 1' CLAY, some Sand - Light Brown 1' 3' Moist SAND, trace Silt Iti Clay some Gravel After 3 Hrs Groundwater at 3' 3' 4' Saturated SAND with some Clay - Tan 4' 6' Gray CLAY, firm, minimal trace of Sand, very wet P-3 0 4" SAND Brown 4" 8" CLAY - Red Brown 8" 2'-6" SAND, trace Gravel - Red Brown After 21, Hrs Groundwater at 3'-4" 2'-6' 6' Course SAND, some Gravel moist to wet - Light Brown 1 ! - P-4 0 4" GRAVEL, some Sand 4" 1'-3" SND and Clay - Red Brown 1'-B" SAND, trace Clay - Brown No Water 1'-8'I 2'-3" CLAY, some Sand - Brown 2'-3' 3'-4" CLAY, trace Sand - Dark Gray 3'- 5'-6" light Gray CLAY, some Brown Sand 51-616' Brown & Gray mottled CLAY trace of Sand. a HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING LOGS f OJECT fouthport Marina DATE May 1. 1986 %tC1.TIC'4 PROJECT Nt ^' .[ 141 E[ � TO SOIL 0ES�f.PTIOr: CONDITIOUS AND REMARKS I•� 0 6" Brown TOPSOIL 6" V-30 Red Brown SAND mixed with Clay and Bricks 1'-3" 2' Orange SAND After 2 hrs Groundwater at 3'-3" 2' S' Orange Brown coarse SAND, trace Clay and Silt ' Damp at 3'. wet at 4'. 5' 5'-6" Dark Brown SAND, saturated 5'-6" 6' Gray Brown mottled CLAY very firm P-6 0 1'-6" Fill material ; Brown CLAY trace of Bricks No Water 1-6" 2' Brown CLAY, very hard 2' 2'-6" SAND and Silt, Trace Clay - Red 2'-6" 4' Brown CLAY, very hard Unable to augger further P-7 0 8" Sandy TOPSOIL Upper 2'-8" all fill material 8" 1'-6" Brown CLAY, some Sand Gravel and Brick 1'-6" 2' SAND, trace Clay - Brown No Water - 2' 2'-8" Gray Brown CLAY, some Brick 2'-8" 3' Wet SAND 3' 4'-6" Gray CLAY, very hard 4'-6 4'-9" Brown CLAY, very hard Unable to augger further HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING LOGS #�& ECT Southport Marina May 1. 1986 LGV CATIZ- DATE ! PROJECT N M( a 1.! nrrTH S T OIL DES'F.PTION CONDITIONS AND REMARKS ptd11 ►-d 0 3" CLAY. some Brick No Mater 3" 1' Tan SAND, some Brick 1 3'-6" Gray CLAY. trace Gravel and Brick, very hard iron oxide @ 3' 3'-6" 4'-6" Brown CLAY, very hard Unable to augger further P-9 0 3" TOPSOIL 3" 9" SAND, some Clay, trace Silt After 1 hour groundwater at 9" 3' Coarse SAND - moist - Red Brown 3' 4' Tan wet SAND, fine at top, coarse at bottom 4' S' Gray Brown mottled CLAY, very hard Unable to augger further P-10 0 4" TOPSOIL After 1 hour Groundwater _ at 2'-6" 4" 3'-6" SAND, trace Silt 3'-6 6' Tan SAND. saturated � Y � I Z HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING LOGS PROJECT Southport Marina DATE June 2, 1986 LOCATION PROJECT N• NOL[ IMI DEPTH SOIL DESCRIPTION CONDITIONS AND REMARKS T-1 TO 0TOPSOIL FROM SAND and Clay - Brown 4' 71 CLAY and Brick - Brown After 3 Hrs Groundwater at 1' '-7" SAND - Brown 8'-7" 11' CLAY - Gray ' 1-2 0 4" TOPSOIL 4" 3' Sandy CLAY - Brown 3' 6'-6" CLAY - Gray 6'-6" 1'-6" SAND - Brown No Water 1'-6" 11'-6" CLAY - Gray T-3 0 4" TOPSOIL 4" 2'-6" Sandy CLAY - Brown After 3 Hrs Groundwater at 8' 2'-6" 6'-6" CLAY and Brick - Brown 6'-6" 8' SAND and Brick 8' 11' CLAY - Gray T-4 0 4" TOPSOIL 4" 2'-6" Sandy CLAY - Brown 2'-6" 5'-6" CLAY - Brown No Water 1 5'-6" 5'-10 SAND - Light Brown 5140 11' CLAY - Gray a ' s HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING LOGS JECT Southport Marina DATE dune 2. 1986 FMOLOVOCCATION PROJECT N1 HOLE Mt RDEPTT SOIL DESCRIPTION CONDITIONS AND REMARKS FI T-S 0 4' TOPSOIL 4" 3' Sandy CLAY - Brown 3' 7' CLAY - Brown No Water 7' 11' CLAY -.Gray 7-6 0 4" TOPSOIL 4" 5'2" CLAY - Brown 5'-2" 5'-B" SAND - Light Brown No Water 5'-8" 11' CLAY - Gray 7-7 0 4" TOPSOIL — 4" 3'10"CLAY. some Sand - Brown ` V-10 4'-10" SAND - Light Brown No Water 4'-10 11' CLAY - Gray T-8 0 4" TOPSOIL 4" 3' Sandy CLAY - Brown No Water 3' II' CLAY - Gray T-9 0 4" TOPSOIL 4" 11' Brown CLAY - very hard No Water L D .d (D CL r• X lD N C 'S -b Appendix #9 c� Surface Water Sampling Tests C+ -s N a r• cn c+ N C+ N CO EST LABORATORIES, INC. ENVIRONMENrAL TESTING 377 SHEFFIELD AVE. • N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703 • (516)422-5777• FAX(516) 422.5770 LAB NO. C922487/5 07/09/92 John M. Hallman Ltd P. O. Box 423 Shelter Island Heights NY 11965 ATTN: SOURCE OF SAMPLE: Brick Cove Marina, Sege Blvd. , Greenport COLLECTED BY: JH/EcoTest DATE COL'D:06/29/92 RECEIVED:06/30/yI SAMPLE: Mater sample, 4:15 pm .IP r ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS T. Coliform, MPN/100mL 15 Fecal Coli MPN/100mL 7 cc: REMARKS: DI OR rnr 1 / 1 d0 Irvr^nnrr •n v . n��r. 70TEST LABORATORIES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING 377 SHEFFIELD AVE. • N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703 • (516)422-5777• FAX (516) 422-5770 LAS NO. C922487/6 07/09/92 John N. Hallman Ltd P. O. Box 423 ATTN: Shelter Island Heights NY 11965 SOURCE OF SAMPLE: Brick Cove Marina, Sage Blvd. , Greenport COLLECTED BY: JH/EcoTeat DATE COL'D:06/29/92 RECEIVED:06/3riM/ SAMPLE: Mater sample, 4:26 pa -i :z ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS rT. Coliform, MPH/100mL 4 Fecal Coli MPN/100mL 4 ccs ' REMARKS: - OR •-+. --- -------- rn= 11150 NYSDOH IDS► 10320 \ CD EST LABORATORIES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL TEST/NA 377 SHEFFIELD AVE. • N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703• (516) 422.5777• FAX (516)422.5770 LAB NO. C9224S7/7 07/09/92 John M. Hallman Ltd P. O. Box 423 ATTN-. Shelter Island Heights NY 11965 SOURCE OF SAMPLES Brick Cove Marina, Sage Blvd. , Greenport COLLECTED BY: JH/EcoTest DATE COL'D:06/29/92 RECEIVED:06/30/92 SAMPLE: Water sample, 4:19 pm # 3 ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS T. Coliform, MPH/100mL <3 Fecal Coli MPH/100mL <3 cat REMARKS: ECTOR • CO EST LABORATORIES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL TfSTINO 377 SHEFFIELD AVE. • N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703 (516)422-5777• FAX (516) 422.5770 LAB NO. C922487/a 07/09/92 John M. Hallinan Ltd P. O. Box 423 ATTN: Shelter Island Heights NY 11965 SOURCE OF SAMPLE: Brick Cove !farina, Sage Blvd. , Greenport COLLECTED BY: JH/EcoTest DATE COL'D:06/29/92 RECEIVED:O6/30/Va SAMPLE: Water sample, 4:22 pm ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS �. Colitoru, MPN/1O0mL <3 Fecal Coli MPN/100mL <3 i cc: REMARKS: RECTOR rn= 11152 NYSDOH ID#► 10320 CO EST LABORATORIES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING 377 SHEFFIELD AVE. * N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703• (516) 422.5777• FAX(516)422.5770 LAB NO. C922497/9 07/09/92 John W. Hallman Ltd P. O. Box 423 ATTN: Shelter Island Heights NY 11965 SOURCE OF SAMPLE: Brick Cove Marina, Sage Blvd. , Greenport COLLECTED BY: JH/EcoTest DATE COL'D:06/29/92 RECEIVED:06/30/04 SAMPLE: Mater sample, 4 :17 ps :g S ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS N'- Coliform, MPN/100sL 23 Fecal Coli MPN/100aL 23 i ccs REMARKS: 4IRECTOR ------ --- ------------ CO EST LABORATORIES, INC. r ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING 377 SHEFFIELD AVE. • N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703 • (516) 422-5777• FAX (516) 422-5770 LAB NO. C922877/7 07/30/92 John N. Hallman Ltd P. O. Box 423 Shelter Island Heights MY 11965 ATTN: SOURCE OF SAMPLE: Brick Cove Marina, Sage Blvd. , Greenport COLLECTED BY: JH/EcoTest DATE COL'D:07/23/92 RECEIVED:07/23/92 SAMPLES Mater sample, 1, 8:38 as ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS T. Coliform, MPN/100mL 23 Fecal Coli MPN/100mL 23 6"1 97 cc: REMARKS: e A7 DIRECTOR r. s 17A�A VVCnnW Tni 10")IM 7 CO EST LABORATORIES, INC. • .. ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING 377 SHEFFIELD AVE. • N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703 • (516) 422-5777• FAX(516) 422.5770 LAB NO. C922877/a 07/30/92 John W. Hallman Ltd P. O. Box 423 Shelter Island Heights NY 11965 ATTN: SOURCE OF SAMPLE: Brick Cove Marina, Sage Blvd. , Greenport COLLECTED BY: JH/EcoTest DATE COL'D:07/23/92 RECEIVED:07/23/91 SAMPLE: Water sample, 2, 8:50 a• ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS T. Colitoru, MPN/100mL 43 Fecal Coli MPN/100mL 43 wo cc: REMARKS: DIRECTOR_ i rwCAEST LABORATORIES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL, TESTIW 377 SHEFFIELD AVE. • N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703 • (516) 422.5777• FAX(516) 422.5770 LAB NO. C922877/9 07/30/92 John M. Hallman Ltd P. O. Box 423 Shelter Island Heights NY 11965 ATTN: SOURCE OF SAMPLE: Brick Cove Marina, Sage Blvd. , Greenport COLLECTED BY: JH/EcoTest DATE COL'D:07/23/92 RECEIVED:07/23/92 SAMPLE: Mater sample, 3, 8:44 an ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS T. Calif arm, MPN/100mL ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS 'Fecal Coli MPH/100mL 4 4 cc: REMARKS: DIRECTOR rn• 12860 NYSDOH IDp 1032A i CO EST LABORATORIES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL YES 1Mri 377 SHEFFIELD AVE. • N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703• (516) 422-5777• FAX (516) 422.5770 LAB NO. C922877/10 07/30/92 John M. Hallman Ltd P. O. Box 423 ATTN: Shelter Island Heights MY 11965 SOURCE OF SAMPLE: Brick Cove Marina, Sage Blvd. , Greenport COLLECTED BY: JH/EcoTest DATE COL'D:07/23/92 RECEIVED:07/23/92 SAMPLE: Mater sample, 4, 8:47 am ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS T. Coliform, MPH/100mL 9 rFecal Coli RPM/100mL 9 CC: REMARKS: 41- -e- ------------ - DIRECTOR me 12861 NYSDOH ID& 10320 it F OTST LABORATORIES, INC. ENVlRONMENTi1i rE81wwy 377 SHEFFIELD AVE. • N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703 • (516) 422-5777• FAX(516)422•ollo LAB NO. C922877/11 07/30/92 John M. Hallman Ltd P. O. Box 423 ATTN: Shelter Island Heights NY 11965 SOURCE OF SAMPLE: Brick Cove ?farina, Sag& Blvd. , Greenport COLLECTED BY: JH/EcoTest DATE COL'D:07/23/92 RECEIVED:O7oA3 i SAMPLE: Yater sample, 5, 8:42 as A ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS T. Coliform, MPN/100mL AHALYTICAL PARAflETlCftii Fecal Coli MPN/100mL 75 75 cc: REMARKS: DIRECTOR me 12862 NYSDOH IDf 10320 17 Cv EST LABORATORIES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING 377 SHEFFIELD AVE. • N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703 * (516) 422-5777• FAX (516) 422.5770 LAS NO. C923395v8 09/01/92 John W. Hallman Ltd P. O. Box 423 ATTN: Shelter Island Heights NY 11965 SOURCE OF SAMPLE: Brick Cove ?farina, Sage Blvd. , Greenport COLLECTED BY: JH/EcoTest DATE COL'D:08/27/92 RECEIVED:08/27/92 SAMPLE: Water sample, #1, 3:00 pm ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS • T. Coliform, 100 mL 4 Fecal Cali MPH/100mL 4 oO� OtMARKS: '' . DIRECTOR___ Ohio 14954 NYSDOH ID• 10320 CO EST LABORATORIES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING 377 SHEFFIELD AVE. • N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703• (516)422-5777• FAX (516) 422-5770 LAB NO. C92339SX9 09/01/92 John M. Hallman Ltd P. O. Box 423 Shelter Island Heights NY 11965 ATTN: ` SOURCE OF SAMPLE: Brick Cove Marine, Sage Blvd. , Greenport COLLECTED BY : JH/EcoTest DATE COL'D:08/27/92 RECEIVED:08/27/92 SAMPLE: Meter sample, #2, 2:49 pm ' ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS • T. Coliform, 100 mL 4 Fecal Coli MPH/100mL ' 4 Z . a set PCHARKS: '' •. DIRECTORh11- ____-- -------- f�• 14955 NYSDOH IDS 10320 ad-OA EST LABORATORIES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING 377 SHEFFIELD AVE. 0 N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703 • (516) 422-5777• FAX(516) 422.5770 LA• NO. C923395/10 09/01/92 John M. Hallman Ltd P. O. Box 423 Shelter Island Heights MY 11965. ATTN: i;OURCR OF SAMPLE: Brick Cove Marine, Sage Blvd. , Greenport COLLECTED BY : JH/EcoTest DATE COL'D:08/27/92 RECEIVED:08/27/92 SAMPLE: Mater sample, #3, 2:54 ps - ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS T. Coliform, 100 mL <3 <3 Z J Des NEMARKS: `' •. _ DIRECTOR_-- -- -- ----------- 111 14936 NYSDOH ID# 10320 .- C01 EST LABORATORIES, INC. - .. ENVIRONMENTAL It I TIN 377 SHEFFIELD AVE. • N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703 • (516)422.5777• FAX (516)422.61 H l LAB NO. C923395/11 09/01/92 John M. Hallman Ltd P. O. Box 423 Shelter Island Heights NY 11965 ATTN: SOURCE OF SAMPLE: Brick Cove Marine, Sage Blvd. , Greenport COLLECTED BY: JH/EcoTest DATE COL'D:08/27/92 RECEIVED:08/27/92 SAMPLE: Mater sample, 04, 2:51 pm L ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS T. Coliform, 100 mL <3 Fecal Coli MPH/100mL <3 oc: REMARKS: DIRECTOR____ _ _ _ __________ ,-.. - / d0�7 ► VCf111fJ TnJ► 117"1'7? .- COI EST LABORATORIES, INC. - ENVIRONMENTA( 10 w 11t*i 377 SHEFFIELD AVE. • N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703 • (516)422-5777• FAX(516) 422.67?0 LAS NO. C923395/12 09/01./92 John W. Hallman Ltd P. O. Box 423 Shelter Island Heights NY 11965 ATTR: SOURCE OF SAMPLE: Brick Cove Marina, Sage Blvd. , Greenport COLLECTED BY% JH/EcoTest 'DATE COL'D:08/27/92 RECEIVED:O6/27/92 SAMPLE: Water sample, #5, 2:56 ps ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS T. Coliform, 100 mL 9 - Fecal Coli MPH/100mL 9 cc: REMARKS: DIRECTOR -)�---,/--------- - - rn= 7 495A NY4nnta Tnr 10,17P CO EST LABORATORIES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL US TINQ 377 SHEFFIELD AVE. • N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703 • (516) 422-5777• FAX (516) 422.5770 LAB NO. C923874/5 10/06/92 John M. Hallman Ltd P. O. Box 423 ATTN: Shelter Island Heights NY 11965 SOURCE OF SAMPLE: Brick Cove Marina, Sage Blvd. , Greenport COLLECTED BY : JH/EcoTest DATE COL'D:09/29/92 RECEIVED:09/29/92 SAMPLE: Water sample, I1, 4:21 pm - ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS TF, Coliform, MPN/100mL Fecal Coli MPN/100mL 4 ' i cc: REMARKS: f I►IRECTCGR __��/- -- ---------- rn= 17128 NYSDOH IDI 10320 CO EST LABORATORIES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL TESTINO 377 SHEFFIELD AVE. • N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703 • (516) 422-5777• FAX (516)422-5770 LAB N0. C923874/6 10/06/92 John M. Hallman Ltd P. O. Box 423 Shelter Island Heights NY 11965 ATTN: SOURCE OF SAMPLE: Brick Cove !farina, Sage Blvd. , Greenport COLLECTED BY: JH/EcoTest DATE COL'D:09/29/92 RECEIVED:09/29/92 SAMPLE: Mater sample, #2, 4 :23 pm ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS T,. Coliform, MPN/l00mL 23 Fecal Coli .MPN/100mL 9 • i CC., REMARKS: DIRECTOR rn= 17129 HYSDOH ID#► 10320 CO EST LABORATORIES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL TES TINQ .. 377 SHEFFIELD AVE. • N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703 • (516) 422.5777• FAX (516) 422.5770 LAB NO. C923874/7 10/06/92 John W. Hallman Ltd P. O. Box 423 Shelter Island Heights NY 11965 ATTN: SOURCE OF SAMPLE: Brick Cove Marine, Sage Blvd. , Greenpart COLLECTED BY: ]H/EcoTest DATE CGL'D:09/29/92 RECEIVE0:09/29/92 SAMPLE: Water sample, 03, 4 :19 p■ ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS Tf. Coliform, MPH/100mL 240 Fecal Cali MPN/100mL 7 i cc: REMARKS: DIRECTOR rn= 17130 NYSDOH ID# 10320 CO EST LABORATORIES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING 377 SHEFFIELD AVE. • N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703 • (516) 422-5777• FAX(516) 422.5770 LAB NO. C923874/8 10/06/92 John M. Hallman Ltd P. O. Box 423 Shelter Island Heights NY 11965 ATTN: SOURCE OF SAMPLE: Brick Cove Marina, Sage Blvd. , Greenport COLLECTED BY: JH/EcoTest DATE COL'D:09/29/92 RECEIVED:09/29/92 SAMPLE: water sample, #4, 4 :10 pm ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS T. Coliform, MPN/100mL 9 Fecal Coli MPN/100mL 4 cc: REMARKS: DIRECTOR__ - - ------------ rn= 17131 NYSDOH ID#► 10320 CO EST LABORATORIES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING 377 SHEFFIELD AVE. • N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703• (516) 422.5777• FAX (516)422.5770 LAB NO. C923874/9 10/06/92 John W. Hallman Ltd P. O. Box 423 Shelter Island Heights NY 11965 ATTN: SOURCE OF SAMPLE: Brick Cove Marina, Sage Blvd. , Greenport COLLECTED BY : JH/EcoTest DATE CGL'D:09/29/92 RECEIVED:09/29/92 SAMPLE: Water sample, #5, 4 :15 ps ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS T. Coliform, MPN/100mL 23 Fecal Coli MPN/100mL 23 cc: REMARKS: DIRECTOR -e-1-e 0i----------- rn= 17132 NYSDON IDS► 10320 MCOI EST LABORATORIES, INC. - ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING 377 SHEFFIELD AVE. • N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703 • (516) 422.5777• FAX(516) 422.5770 LAS NO. C924314/11 11/04/92 John M. Hallman Ltd P. O. Box 423 Shelter Island Heights NY 11965 ATTN: SOURCE OF SAMPLE% Brick Cove Marina, Sage Blvd. , Greenport COLLECTED BY: JH/EcoTest DATE COL'D:10/26/92 RECEIVED:10/29/92 SAMPLE: Mater sample, 41, 3:50 r ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS T. Coliform, MPH/100mL 4 Focal Coli MPN/100mL 4 cc: REMARKS: DIRECTOR ------------ W-COI EST LABORATORIES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL TEST/NO 377 SHEFFIELD AVE. • N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703 • (516) 422-5777• FAX (516) 422-5770 LAB NO. C924314/12 11/04/92 John M. Hallman Ltd P. O. Box 423 Shelter Island Heights NY 11965 ATTN: SOURCE OF SAMPLE: Brick Cove Marina, Sage Blvd. , Greenport COLLECTED BY : JH/EcoTest DATE COL'D:10/28/92 RECEIVED:10/29/91 SAMPLE: Mater sample, 42, 4 :03 F ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS T. Coliform, MPH/106sL <3 i Fecal Coli MPH/100mL <3 cc: REMARKS: 4,1 DIRECTOR r CO EST LABORATORIES, INC. •. . ENVIRONMENTAL USTINQ 377 SHEFFIELD AVE. • N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703 • (516) 422-5777• FAX(516)422.5770 LAB NO. C924314/13 11/04/92 John M. Hallman Ltd P. O. Box 423 Shelter Island Heights NY 11965 ATTN: SOURCE OF SAMPLE: Brick Cove Marine, Sage Blvd. , Greenport COLLECTED BY: JH/EcoTest DATE COL'D:10/28/92 RECEIVED:10/25/94 SAMPLE: Yater sample, 83, 3:51 ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS T. Coliform, MPN/106ml. 9 Fecal Coli MPN/100mL 9 i cc: REMARKS: DIRECTOR__/M-- _______________ CO FST LABORATORIES, INC. - .. % ENVIRONMENTAL IfSTINCI 377 SHEFFIELD AVE. • N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703 • (516) 422-5777• FAX (516) 422.5770 LAS NO. C924314/14 11/04/92 John M. Hallman Ltd P. O. Box 423 Shelter Island Heights NY 11965 ATTN-. SOURCE OF SAMPLE: Brick Cove Marina, Sage Blvd. , Greenport COLLECTED BY: JH/EcoTest DATE COL'D:10/28/92 RECEIVED:10/29/5o4 SAMPLE: Mater sample, #4, 4:00 ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS T. Coliform, MPN/1"ul. 4 Fecal Coli MPH/100mL 4 i cc: REMARKS: DIRECTOR CO EST LABORATORIES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL TEWINQ 377 SHEFFIELD AVE. • N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703 • (516)422.5777• FAX (516)422.0/10 LAB NO. C924314/15 11/04/92 John Y. Hallman Ltd P. O. Box 423 ATTR: Shelter Island Heights NY 11965 SOURCE OF SAMPLE: Brick Cove Marina, Sage Blvd. , Greenport COLLECTED BY: JH/EcoTest DATE COL'D:10/28/92 RECEIVED:10/29iV4 SAMPLE: Yater sample, 45, 3:54 r ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS T. Coliform, MPN/100mL 7 Fecal Coli MPH/100mL 7 i cc: REMARKS: DIRECTOR rl-1T 14 V VICINITY MAP jCA44V LST QQ FRont J,,sso�r �' �v GNsI: HA JrR&n r Q SAGE E x►��'a ''�� tx►,�.� ' /4MLW.5 • MLW y 40 0 - too 700 4001 t �o•s EX/ST/N� PLAN V/E'W PURPOSE: rwz Aejr ya ov$7's .44RIV-4 IN: .SASE 44S1A1 DATUM: MEAN .JEq 4,cvFd- AT: SOOrrrocJ ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: COUNTY OF:50FF&'-<STATE: N4' 1 Z) „`�� Ki�i./�v APPLICATION BY: ACCO d/C 00-"09• ave 3)3ourHOd.p' 10YO2d.5 #J60r-•, SNC. yRa-e v#Po.2T, N•/I �I r✓✓ SHEET / OF b DATE: /•df.W n (D CL x 0 Appendix #10 NYS DEC N Shellfish Area Classifications and o Closures cD -ti V) n D, N r• 0 D1 C+ O N O d n O V) C 'S (D N PEcomc ASSOCIATES, INC. .nvironmental Planners & Consultants One Bootleg Alley P.O.Box 672 Greenport,New York 11944 (516)477-0030 Fax(516)477-0198 F . D.A. CALCULATIONS April 19 , 1991 No more than 5 Boats or 3. 6% Number of Boat Slips = 138 Boats with No Holding Tanks = . 036 Average People per Boat = 1 . 5 Slip Occupancy (Weekends ) _ . 80 Average Depth = 2 Meters Number of People = 1 . 5 X .036 X . 80 X 138 = 6 Number of FC = 6 X 2 X 109 = 12 X 109 Dilution Volume = 2 X 109 Required X144 X 100 140 V = 1 .43 X 107 Liters- ----------w------------ ------------------------------------ Closed iters"------------------------------------------------------------ Closed Area = 1 . 4 X 107 = 4 .6 X 103 � m2 3 X 1000 or 4 . 6 X 103 X 10 .07 = 46 , 322 SF or + 1 Acre New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Building 40—SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11790-2356 Bureau of Shellfisheries 751-6381 1111% owe Thomas C. Jorling Commissioner 11 September 1991 i Mr. Bruce Anderson Environmental Consultant 475 Rambler Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Anderson: Your letter dated August 10 , 1991 concerning Brick Cove Marina was forwarded to my office . I monitor water quality and sanitary conditions of shellfish lands in the Towns of Southold and Shelter Island and I am already familiar with the shellfish closure in Sage Pond. Currently Sage Pond is seasonally certified. The area is closed to shellfish harvesting from May 15 through October 31 . The closure went into effect in .Tune 1989 . It was established in Sage Pond because of the presence of an active marina capable of servicing boats which can accommodate people living onboard. The purpose of the closure is to prevent the harvest of shellfish from an area which may receive fresh fecal contamination from marine toilets . I have reviewed the dilution analysis enclosed with your letter. Most of the assumptions upon which the analysis was based are reasonable and in accordance with the recommendations in the Food and Drug Administration ' s guideline . However, there are specific assumptions which may have to be changed in order to more closely follow the FDA guideline . The FDA requires that a minimum loading factor of ten percent be assumed in a dilution analysis . In the analysis forwarded to me a value of 2 was assumed for the number of boats capable of Polluting. When ten percent is assumed for the occupied boats which may discharge the value in this particular instance will be greater than 2 . The following equation was used in the analysis to determine the total number of fecal coliform bacteria: 2 x 2 x 0 . 54 x 2 x 10' = 4 . 32 x 109 An assumed value of 2 was used for the number of boats capable of Polluting, and further more the total number of boats was not included in the equation. The following equation will more accurately determine the total number of fecal coliforms . In this equation I used the ten percent minimum loading factor and included the total number of boats in the marina. (2 people/boat) x (10%) x (54%) x (95 total boats) x (2 x 109 FC/person/day) 20 . 5 x 109 fecal coliforms The calculation is continued: 20 . 5 x 109 FC Dilution volume required = ---------------------- 14 FC 1000 ML ------- x -------- 100 ML liter 1 . 5 x 10' liters Average depth in marina = 2 meters 1 . 5 x 10' liters Closed area required = ------------------------- 1000 liters 2 meters x ------------ cubic meter 7 . 5 x 10' square meters 8 . 1 x 10' square feet 18 . 6 acres The radius of a half = ( 2/n x 8 . 1 x 10° ) ' circle closure encompassing 18 . 6 acres 718 feet This is a larger area than the area calculated in the analysis you sent . In fact , it exceeds includes the total area of Sage Pond by four acres . The applicant ' s conclusion that shellfish harvesting could be considered immediately outside the marina during summer months is not in the best interests of public health. i The current closure in Sage Pond, which includes the pond and all tributaries , is adequate to dilute any discharge . Restrooms and showers are available to marina patrons . This fact should decrease the potential for boaters to use their marine toilets or empty their holding tanks into the pond. Tidal flow flushes the area of the marina, but the narrow inlet limits the amount of flushing with each tide , and hence limits any contamination of adjacent waters . However, if more pollution sources are found in Sage Pond which can impact water quality or threaten public health, the Bureau of Shellfisheries would consider expanding the current closure . The applicant' s proposals are commendable and should be instituted, however, enforcement can be difficult to implement. Total compliance by all marina patrons is not easy to maintain 24 1 hours a day, seven days a week, all summer. The minimum ten protect public health should percent loading factor is used to there be less than full enforcement or accidental discharges . In the interests of public health, a shellfish closure which can adequately dilute any Waters surroundingilet hactiveumarinasstablished and maintained in th The values used in the above analysis and in the analysis submitted by the applicant reflect marina use prior to the marina expansion. Once the marina d closure has re ar area will 1 also e tincrease .tal e1The boats increases the req applicant -may wish to conduct tlaedilution an thelnumber of boats to expansion which will re flectbe docked at the ecloed in future .marina . sanalysis should Itmay indicate be possible more area may need to b to reduce the size of the closure area outside the marina if people were prohibited from staying onboard their boats . I hope this information will be helpful to you in examining the applicant' s permit . If I can be of further assistance, pi ease feel free to contact my office . Sincerely, `I li, �L U i --: k�,;1<" cj Maureen Davidson Marine Resources Specialist cc : John Bredemeyer, President, Southold Town Board of Trustees Enclosure FDA. Guideline Shellt!3h Sanitation Bran::.i 200 'C' Street S.W. (HFF-3.4-L) Washington, D.C. 20204 EVALUATION OF MARINAS BY STATE SHELLFISH SANITATION CONTROL OFFICIALS The following guideline is provided to ensure the uniform application of the National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP) criteria, as adopted by the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference (ISSC) , for the evaluation and classification of shellfish growing waters in and around docks, marinas or other boat mooring areas. 04C(GROUND A marina policy was developed at the August 1986 ISSC meeting (1) . It was recognized that a marina in a shellfish growing area is a potential pollution source, and that a closure zone is required to prevent the harvest of shellfish for human consumption in and around occupied marinas. The purpose of the policy was to establish a uniform national approach to developing marina closures. At the July 1988 ISSC meeting, approval was given to incorporate the marina policy into the definition and growing area classification sections of the r NSSP :a . Mlis policy is now incorporated into the 1988 Revision of the me NSSP Manual of Operations - Part I under Section C.9 (2) . GUIDED Z'he follawing definition is from the 1988 revision of the NSSP Mant,31 o= Qperaticns: arrutia: Any structure including docks, ramps, and floating docks which is utilized for docking, storing or otherwise mooring vessels, and Usually but not necessarily for providing se--vice s to vessels such as repairing, fueling, security, or other related activities. Addeline 1.0 - 1 - June 1989 Because every 3isch:as;2 E--=t a marine toilet has the potential to tri�t patt:oge.-s, every water—_t, (barge, houseboat, or boat) public or privace, that can produce a discharge frc:n a marine toilet shall be considered when ising this guideline to evaluate shellfish growing waters. In view of the fact that many marina facilities are adjacent to shellfishing areas, and that waste disch—arges are :not uniformly distributed in the water column, detection of low l-�-:rels of eoliforirs frvn waste disc:arges b:• current polluticn Tcnitor ig :;ether may not provide sufficient information tc properly classify the waters in or adjacent to a marina. TY:e high p%iciic health risk associated wit; -.rr/ discharge of untreated waste, requires that- each hateach marina and mooring area closure be considered separately. The State Shellfish Control Authority (SSCA) will calculate the dilut�cn volume necessary to reduce the theoretically derived wasteload of bacterial indicators to a safe level, without regard to levels-observed•by-monitoring% Since marine toilets provide only limited or no treatment, and the environmental exposure time for the discharge is short, human waste discharges from boats contain essentially unattenuated fecal bacteria and viruses. For this reason, discharges from marine toilets represent a greater public health risk than other discharges of sanitary waste, and no correlation of health risk with indicator densities observed by bacteriological monitoring can be expected. The NSSP anua states that a classification other than approved is required for the area within a marina proper as well as for adjacent waters: This requirement is based on-the public health requisite that waters receiving taste discharges from marine toilets are not suitable for the direct harvest �f shellfish destined for human oonsun tion. Section C, Paragraph 2.b follows: "b. A prohibited area shall be established as a safety zone adjacent to each sewage treatment plant outfall and other waste discharyes.�� (e phasis added) The NSSP Manual (Section C, Paragraph 9.b) also states that a dilution analysis will be used for making marina closure determinations. The number of boats in the marina and the number of people on them will determine the potential pollution impact. i The per capita discharge of fecal coliforms, coupled with the population in the marina, can be used to estimate a closure zone. Closures for existihq-bf proposed marinas'shall be developed asmm ing 100% boat slip oocupancy, -two persons per boat, And a 2 x 109 fecal coliform (FC) contribution per person Per day, unless actual 6oa45ancy and discharge rates are documented by sure conducted for individual marinas on a case by case basisi' This documentation shall be maintained as specified by the NSSP Manual Part I, Section C, ' Paragraph 1.f, for reevaluation of sanitary survey information. Similarly, any expansion, modification, or change in the operation of the marina will necessitate the reevaluation of the marina occupancy rate. uideline 1.0 - 2 - June 1989 t , In determining the above loading rates, a minimum factor should be conside-ed to provide protection against intentional or unintentional waste disrtoxges from boats in the :marina. Even if overboard discharges are prohibited, -a' Closure zone i5 reruired•and the SSCA should stipulate a minimun loading factor of 10 percent (i.e. a minimma marina ocogmncy rate) . The theoretical waste discharge based on the occupancy and discharge rate, Will be Considered to be ecmpletely mixed in and around the marina. The marina closure zone shall be calculated to reduce the as_mmied bacterial load to a FC value of 14 MW per 100 mL, in the volume of water in the vicinity of the marina. If the results of hydrographic studies are used, the estimated fecal coliform contribution can be distributed throughout the volurne of water calculated to flaw by the site in 24 hours (3) . Harvesting of shellfish for controlled purification or relay shall not be permitted from within the marina proper when boats are present. If the shoreline survey properly assesses the other actual or potential pollution sources, the area of the marina closure zone outside of the marina proper may bs classified restricted to permit harvesting of shellfish for relay. Harvesting of shellfish for controlled purification shall not be permitted fran this zone. If boats are not present in certain seasons (as in some geographical areas) the marina closure zone may be reclassified to permit opening to harvest for either direct marketing, controlled purification, or relay; but only if detailed studies have been conducted over sufficient periods of time to verify that the shellfish can purge themselves and do not present a public health hazard. . During such periods the SSC A shall dominent that the area meets the specific NSSP criteria for the classification allowing harvest. APPLICATION OF NSSP C�tI'I'E32IA Factors which shall be considered in assessing the potential impact frown marinas are: 1. Ouantity of Waste The use of 2 x 109 for the theoretical fecal coliform contribution per person per day has been accepted by the ISSC. This value is generally recognized in scientific literature (4) . 2. Manber of People Contributing Waste The quantity of waste potentially originating in a marina depends on the number of people Who are present in the marina. The fewer boats that are found to be 0oc.1Pied, the smaller the effected impact from the marina will be. The Manua provides for establishing an occupancy rate for each marina. The occupancy rate of the marina shall be documented by actual observation of marina operations. Each marina shall be considered separately. Three considerations shall be documented: a. The number of boats with installed toilets in the marina having the capability to discharge to the environment during the day or night. Guideline 1.0 - 3 - June 1989 b. The number of people on board the boas in the marina. This inventory shall be taken during the expected high usage tiaras such as weekends and holidays. The inventory shall have oOrninLlity so that changes in population during the day or night can be documented. Regional differences in boat usage and therefore, the period of high usage will vary. C. The availability arra use of putout facilities at the marina (5) . Without the above site specific inforrrat_cn, the NSSP requires that two perscm per boat be used for sizing the closed area around the marina (2) . 3. Dilution Hydrographic studies may be used to determine the water volume available for dilution and limits of travel of discharges from a marina. The area to be closed shall provide sufficient water volume for calculations to show that theoretical discharges from the marina are diluted to 14 fecal coliforms per 100 mL of water (6) . In situations where there are no hydrographic studies, the closed area is to be established on a volumetric basis as though the wastes are completely mixed and uniformly distributed in and around the marina. The closed area volume is based upon average water depth and shall be sufficient to dilute the assumed waasteload to a value of 14 fecal coliforms per 100 mL. - Guideline 1.0 - 4 - J1me 1989 EX-AKnzCATL 7he following exilples show haw various factors are to be considered in closure area determinations arcund marinas: Case: No Documentation of Occupancy or Discharge Rates. Mmber of Boat Slips = 50 Nlmiber of People = 2 x 50 = 100 Ntmber of FC = 100 x 2 x 109 = 200 x 109 Dilution Volume Required = 200 x 109 FC 14 FC x 1000 mL 100 mL liter V = 1.4 x 109 liters (5.0 x 107 cu ft) ' Average Depth in Vicinity of Marina = 3 meters (10 ft) Closed Area Required _ 1.4 x 109 liters 3 meters x 1000 liters cubic meter A = 4.7 x 105 square meters (5.0 x 106 sq ft) Radius of Half circle (fora e le) R = 550 meters (1800 ft) * Mote: This example of a half circle closure ( typical for a .marina on a straight shoreline facing open water ) represents the minimal closure area In an Idealized situation. In most states, unless closure buoys are used, a specific point to point closure encompassing a somewhat larger area, would be required so that the marina closure can be effectively enforced. Actual volumes of other geometries such as narrow waterways, coves or lagoons should be used to calculate the minimum closure area for each site specific marina closure . Guideline 1.0 - 5 - June 1989 Case 2: Boat Slip occx.Wancy, Population, Holding Tanks and P RPout Facilities Documented. Number of Boat Slips = 50 Slip occupancy - Holiday Weekends 40 (80%) Boats with No Holding Tanks = 16 (16/40 = 40%) Average People per Boat = 1.5 Number of People = 1.5 x 40% x 80% x 50 = 24 Numiber of FC = 24 x 2 x 109 = 48 x 109 Dilution Volume 48 x 109 FC Required 14 FC x 1000 mL 100 mL liter V = 3.4 x 108 liters (1.2 x 107 cu ft) Average Depth in , Vicinity of Marina = 3 meters (10 ft) 3.4 x 108 liters . Closed Area Required = 3 meters x 1000 liters cubic meter A = 1.1 x 105 square meters (1.2 x 106 sq ft) Radius of Half Circle Closed Area (for example) R = 265 metem (870 ft) * Pumpout facilities consistently used. increase percentage If ' otherwise . ** Ste Note for Case 1 . (sideline 1.0 - 6 - Jtme 1989 (D a X Appendix #11 Flushing Observation Study V) 0 U N fD G C-I. O N C+ C CL 1G i 6ZOET X=ox AaN tuo}jaAws - OU xce 'O'd 'S'd 'saguq 'r iet Au S£T£T x-70x AaN �xivamw 88£ xoH 11T ad lad llaums uWaS 'M a6aago21 ', uyor 986T 'OT-6 ZNnr 'bT1VOfJ0 )r]DC dOs lQ7O Ejrr 630 NMpL ' Qmm sm AMW NOMAMS80 =HS473 ki ro<<•zec•t�a oar.to rw H3moM ros xoo o •ami 'srn��ss�s ONiOaaxcr ssaxaxa • 1 CONTENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE 1 INTRODUCTION 1 - 2 SITE DESCRIPTION 2 3 STUDY CONDITIONS 5 4 INSTRUMENTS & EQUIPMENT 7 5 SURFACE DROGUE MOVEMENT 10 9 JUN - P.M. EBB • 10 JUN - A.M. EBB 9 JUN - P.M. FLOOD 10 JUN - A.M. FLOOD 6 ENTRANCE THROAT CONDITIONS 20 BATHYMETRY VELOCITY DATA 7 OBSERVATIONS & ANALYSIS 23 1S �wVD� S na si A SL) 17 . - o Ar Af SPIT 9j P,*Ps s fn, C�1 C h� •; tij•� . • • ' DOCK 4 • .• ' f �':'�! DOCK EJXMND S. ♦ X11.••1SYy.f(�.:•�"�TT7P•J.. Pqw 8allm Area. N DOCK 1 _.. •�- Mr TEL wmy'am MAP ► New AM* EEC Mip 718-55D 16" 4 SOUTHOLD BAY 41 J PLUSBIIM OBSERVATION STUDY Yot"•a Marina (kverWortv ftw of Southold. "folk Ccmtye NY xucl* : 220I A►►Rovco 01: oNAwN r jCt oAre 9-10 JUR 86 EXPRESS DRJMGIM SY57MS#IIRC. �n�ee FIGURE 2 SITE DETAIIS TAWMG MuwIrm EDSI . 6. ENTRANCE THROAT CONDITIONS A detailed determination of the embayment entrance bathymetric and flow characteristics was conducted as an integral part of the flushing study. The geofietry of the throat section of the entrance channel was determined. Velocity profiles at two locations within the entrance throat were measured at both the mid-flood and mid-ebb tidal stages . BATHYMETRY The embayment throat section was measurd by lead line, referenced from the measured low water datum, on 10 JUN. The approximate trapezoidal section shown on Figure 10, is slightly skewed to the west which results in a shallower section slope on the eastern side of the entrance channel . The western side of the channel is stabilized by a driven sheet pile bulkhead. Maximum depths in the channel range between 8 ft and ' approximately 10.5 ft depending upon tidal stage. The channel bottom appears to be stable and is armored with bricks and cobble. Grasses are well established in the intertidal zone on the eastern shoreline of the channel . No evidence of channel meandering was observed. Elevation Above Channel Bottom Et o ►.+ N w A. v� o+ v ao �o o ' �~ N � Observed Higher High Plater, 10 JON, +2.6 ft • rw '� �IQ ►` 0 Datum, L.W. 0710, 10 JUN 1 EAST "EST 1 2 N .� 4 5 ~ w 6 7 J ~ I 9 • 0 0 20 40 60 s0 100 ►r ro Distance Prom Borizontal Reference, ft EMBAYMERr THROAT SHMCN A � Q L FLUSHIM C S UDIr (� N Young's Marina A Ckmenport, Torn of Southold, Suffolk Oaanty, MY w Kee • OAR: 9-10 JUN 86 EXPRESS DREDGUC SYSTEM,INC. o N • � FIGURE 10 @BAYM°W TERQAT VELOCITY CHARACTERISTICS DRAWING"UNDER EDS1 VELOCITY DATA Velocity profiles at two stations within 'the throat section were determined at both the mid-flood and mid-ebb stages. This data is plotted on Figure 10. The profiles are generally uniform with typical flood velocities ranging over depth of between 0.34 and 0.48 ft/s. Ebb velocities were slightly higher, ranging between 0.32 and 0.65 ft/s. Visual observations of the flow patterns through the entrance channel identified several significant events. During flood tide, horizontal flow distribution across the throat section appeared to be generally uniform. However, during the ebb tide, an eddy extended from the eastern shoreline of the i throat to approximately the 35 ft horizontal reference station of Figure 10. This eddy zone was essentially quiescent, with no measurable velocity over the entire 4 ft depth. This zone represents approximately 15% of the throat cross sectional area. 22 7. OBSERVATIONS & ANALYSIS The embayment , which includes the Young's Marina development site, is characterized by its unique geometry and by Its unimpeded exposure to the prodominant local wind conditions. Water surface elevations within the embayment are primarily driven by the astronomical tides affecting Southold Bay. Surface water transport within the embayment, as traced by the drogues in this study, is highly affected by local instantaneous winds. The wind field dominated the tidal induced motion during both the flood and ebb cycles of this study. The tidal excursions noted during this study were typical of this site, and representative of normal daily conditions. � - TIDAL PRISM + The approximate surface area of the embayment is 848 ,000 i _ sq. ft. ( 19.47 acres) . The maximum range of the tide observed j during this study was 31 in ( 2.58 ft ) , whi1e the minimum range was 25.5 in ( 2.12 ft) . The tidal prism is that volume of water t j which enters and subsequently flushes from the embayment during each tidal cycle. The maximum tidal prism of the embayment was j _ 2 , 187,800 cubic feet , and the minimum tidal prism was 1 ,797 ,700 cubic feet. � - ENTRANCE THROAT CONDITIONS The embayment entrance throat has a cross sectional area of approximately 345 sq. ft. at low water. At higher high water, 23 I I the wetted cross section includes an area of approximately 620 sq. ft. Based upon the tidal prism approximation, the time averaged tidal velocity at any profile through the throat during flood would be approximately 0.20 ft/s and the maximum time averaged profile velocity would be approximately 0.28 ft/s. This Is in general agreement with the observed velocities measured in the entrance throat . These computed velocities would be valid for ebbing l conditions if the ebb flow through the throat was uniformly distributed. However, the stagnant zone observed during the ebb i cycle incorporates approximately 15% of the throat cross section. The computed ebb velocities would be approximately 15% higher i than the flood velocities. This was .verified by the field measurements . EMBAYMENT CIRCULATION Water movement within the embayment appears to be influenced by three primary factors : 1 ) Astronomical tides 2) Local Winds 3) Westerly oriented interior spit Ebb flow, unaffected by wind, was observed to move uniformly through the study area with the exception of the formation of a large eddy to the south of the interior spit. Removal of this spit could reduce the formation of this eddy and thus ensure uniform flushing of the embayment . i 24 1 Flood flow was observed, during those intervals with no wind effects , to move through the embayment entrance and flow luniformly into the embayment. Flow appeared to be skewed towards the developed marina reach and was not measurable in the upper reaches of the NW quadrant. L Local winds were observed to significantly influence the movement of surface water within the emayment during both ebb and flood flows. Wind effects should be taken into account for any - flushing considerations in this embayment. Figure 11 includes typical directional wind roses for the Brookhaven National I_ Laboratory located approximately 30 miles west of the study site. The wind rose is a-graphical depiction of the frequency of wind direction. On an annual basis, the winds which effected these studies could be expected to occur approximately 17% from the NW w and 10% from the N. The data contained in these illustrations is a summary of hourly readings taken between Aug 1948 and JUL 1951. While not adequate for design purposes, this data set does IIndicate the presence of significant winds at the study site. These winds are the primary driving force for circulation within the embayment. j The spit, which includes the Dock 3 structure and runs in a westerly orientation into the embayment, also impacts circulation and flushing in the system. Ebbing tidal flow from the upper NE and NW portions of the empayment is constricted through a 1 25 r Abar s a.. A n —m� -- NOW N NNE NNE -NNW NN NB Nw 29k NS 15 15 ENEWNWFMB WNW W 7% E W 0% B ESE WSW ESE WSW v / r SW SE SW SE SSW SSE SSW S SSB S Wind Direction Rose, 37-ft Leval Wind Direction Rose, 37-ft Level ANNUAL 'nom Ft'vm: Nagle, C.M. 'Climatology of Brookhaven National Laboratory, 1949 Through 1973', Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton• NY, November 1975 FIAISMaM OBSERVATION ST= Young'a [Marina OCeenport, Town of Southold. Suffolk County, NZ Note: Periods of Calm are Noted ...Rovco.r at Center of Rose. scum None o��+ �r Q EXPRESS DREDGIIC SYSZFi�LS,INC. ogre 9-10 JUN 86 *"Sao FIGURE ll 8IS1CItICAL WIND DIREMCM DASA oaArnfto uuw[o EDSI relatively narrow reach at the tip of the spit. Shedding of f low from the tip is a likely cause of the eddy which was observed between docks 2 and 3. Removal of this spit could be the most significant influence on generating uniform flow through the embayment. This could enhance flushing of the system. I r � a � D .0 (D Q. r• X Appendix #12 N Vegetation Reports C (D to (D C+ 0) C-1- 0 +O (D O C+ VEGETATION REPORT: BRICK COVE MARINA , SOUTHOLD TOWNSHIP , SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK PREPARED FOR: PECONIC ASSOCIATES, INC. , ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNERS & CONSULTANTS ONE BOOTLEG ALLEY: P.O. BOX 672 GREENPORT. NEW YORK 11944 PREPARED BY: ERIC E. LAMONT, PH.D. BOTANICAL CONSULTANT 586-H SOUND SHORE ROAD RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK 11901 JULY 1993 2 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 METHODS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 ORIGINAL STATUS OF VEGETATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 CURRENT STATUS OF VEGETATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 PROJECTED STATUS OF VEGETATION AT PROJECT COMPLETION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 RARE PLANTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 VEGETATION ADJACENT TO SAGE BOULEVARD. . . . . . . . . . 9 LITERATURE CITED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this vegetation report is to describe the current vegetation at Brick Cove Marina, and to assess whether there have been impacts upon the vegetation during the past year as a result of expanding the marina from 91 slips to 138 slips. Finally, discussion will be presented on the projected status of the site's vegetation after the final completion of the project . METHODS Three site inspections of the property were conducted during June , 1993. Each inspection consisted of a 100 percent walkover of the site. In addition. the vegetation within a minimum 200 foot wide area on either side of Sage Boulevard was surveyed. The status of the property's vegetation before the expansion of the marina was determined by : 1 ) the use of extensive photographs provided by Howard Zehner , documenting the original vegetation along the entire shoreline of the marina; 2) comparing the current vegetation with the vegetation as described In a study performed in August , 1986, by Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc . ; and 3) studying the current vegetation of adjacent areas along Brick Cove that were not Influenced by expansion of the marina. 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION INTRODUCTION. Most of the vegetation at Brick Cove' Marina is composed of non-native plant species that characteristically occur in disturbed habitats. A narrow band of native plant species occurs along the border of Brick Cove , but even this zone is being Invaded by the non-native reed, Phracmites australis. ORIGINAL STATUS OF VEGETATION. The following discussion of the original vegetation at Brick Cove Marina (prior to expansion of the marina) is based upon the 1986 vegetation report prepared by Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, and detailed photographs of the Brick Cove Marina shoreline taken in 1992. Current Inspections of off-site , adjacent shoreline areas of Brick Cove confirms the accuracy of the following description of the original status of the vegetation on-site . The Intertidal plant community occurring between the highest tide level and the lowest tide level is dominated by saltmash cordgrass (Saartina alteriflora) , salt-meadow grass t (Spartina Patens) , spikegrass (Distichlis spicata) , ` black-grass (Juncus aerardl ) , sea- lavender (Limonium carolinianum) , and glasswort (Salicornia europaea) . A characteristic marine algae attached to the rocks at the low 5 tide level is rockweed (Fucus yesiculosus) . Eel grass (Zostera marina) , which occurs along the shoreline bordering Southold Bay , does not occur along the shoreline within Brick Cove . A shrubland community forms the transition zone between salt marsh and upland vegetation . Characteristic shrubs Include groundsel -tree (Baccharis halimifolia) , saltmarsh-elder (Lv frutescens) , multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) , and poison Ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) . The upper border of the saltmarsh community (throughout the entire shoreline of Brick Cove) Is being aggressively Invaded by Phracanites reed. The upland vegetation on-site Is dominated by forbs and grasses that colonize areas that have been cleared and then abandoned. Small areas of successional woodland occur around the perimeter of the property and also comprise a narrow hedgerow along the east side of the entrance road. Characteristic herbs of the succesional areas Include goldenrods (Solidaao canadensis var. scabra, a. nemoralis, $. ruvosa, 2. .iuncea, and Euthamia araminifolia) , bluegrasses (FQA pratensis, F_. compressa) , timothy grass (Fhleum pratense) , sweet vernal grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum) , orchard grass (Dactvlis alomerata) , common chickweed (Cerastium arvense) , common evening primrose (Oenothera blennis) , aster (Aster simplex , B. laterlflorus, and g. ollosus) , wild strawberry (Fraaaria viroiniana) , Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota) , ragweed (Ambrosia 6 artemisiifolia) , hawkweed (Hieraclum caesPltosum) , daisy fleabane (Eriaeron striaosus) , tansy (Tanacetum vulaare) , and white sweet clover (Melilotus alba) . Several species of vines and shrubs on-site are berry-producers and provide food, habitat , and nesting sites for animals: characteristic vines Include oriental bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus) , sawbrier (Smilax alauca) , Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) , poison Ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) , fox grape (Vitis labrusca) , and Virginia creeper (Parthenosissis auinQifolia) ; characteristic shrubs include northern bayberry (Myrica Pennsylvanica) , multiflower rose (Rosa multiflora) , groundsel -tree (Baccharis halimifolia) , and northern arrowwood (Viburnum recoQnitum) . Some trees are widely Interspersed throughout the successional uplands, and are more concentrated along the perimeter of the property ; characteristic species include : black cherry (Prunus serotina) , mazzard cherry (Prunus avium) , white oak (Quercus alba) , black locust (Robinia Pseudoacacia) , and black willow (Salix nlara) . CURRENT STATUS OF VEGETATION. Upon close Inspection of the vegetation comprising the Intertidal plant community on-site , it can be unequivocally stated that there has been no disturbance or negative environmental Impact to this area during the past year . This statement is based upon a direct comparison of the current vegetation with the original vegetation as described 7 In the 1986 vegetation study conducted by Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, and comparative photographs of the shoreline before and after expansion of the marina. There has also been no negative environmental Impact to the shrubland community forming the border between the salt marsh vegetation and the upland vegetation . Destruction of and/or disturbance to shrubs would be very obvious, and no signs of such disturbance are currently evident . The original upland vegetation on-site was described by Terrestrial Environmental Specialists as follows: "Most areas have been disturbed and as a result , pioneer species predominate . Compaction and disturbance has resulted In a limited vegetative succession in the recolonization of the site . The predominate vegetation type is herbaceous roadside weed species, able to withstand adverse conditions. " This statement remains an accurate description of the current upland vegetation on-site . The upland areas of the property were originally highly disturbed, and they currently remain highly disturbed. Some of the original disturbed areas have been re-disturbed. For example , dredge spoils were deposited over a weedy lawn area at the southeast corner of the property . Already , the dredge spoil Is being colonized by plants from surrounding areas; most notably , Phragmites reed Is aggressively Invading the spoil from adjacent land. Other plant species colonizing the dredge spoil Include white sweet clover (Melilotus alba) , seaside goldenrod (Solidaao semaervirens) , velvet grass 8 (Holcus lanatus) , knotweed (Polvoonum aviculare) , and ox-eye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum) . Additionally, the peninsula that reaches to the fixed dock was trenched for water and electric lines and six pads for dock ramps were installed thereon . This disturbance was performed in a weedy lawn area which has since been reseeded with grass. Finally , freeze-proof water lines were Installed In the drive and parking areas at the head of each of four docks and to the boater's toilets. Most of the trenched area was originally without vegetation , but some small ( less than 300 square feet ) weedy grass areas were trenched and have subsequently been reseeded with grass. PROJECTED STATUS OF VEGETATION AT PROJECT COMPLETION. I forsee no negative environmental Impacts to on-site vegetation resulting from the final plans to complete the marina expansion project . There are no plans to disturb the vegetation between the high tide level and the low tide level , nor will the shribland vegetation be disturbed. There are plans to develop some upland areas currently dominated by the pioneer plants mentioned previously In this report . These plans will basically re-disturb some of the disturbed upland areas on-site . Specifically , a french drain , boat wash collection sump , and two leaching basins are proposed for Installation . The drain will be along the basin edge of the parking area, in the parking area. The two leaching basins will be located in weedy lawn areas at 9 lower elevation to collect the drainage from rain storms. A sanitary system leaching pool area is proposed for Installation somewhere to the east of the clay tennis courts (the exact loccation has not yet been determined) . RARE PLANTS. The field Investigation failed to reveal any rare , threatened, or endangered plant species or plant communities on site , as defined by the New York Natural Heritage Program (Young, 1992; Reschke , 1990) . No rare, threatened, or endangered plants have been historically reported from the site (Young, personal communication) . VEGETATION ADJACENT TO SAGE BOULEVARD. The area is forested and dominated by freshwater wetlands: red maple swamp , shrub swamp, and vernal pools. Characteric species Include red maple (Acer rubrum) , swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor) , tupelo (Nvssa svlvatica) , winterberry ( Ilex verticillata) , northern arrowwood (Viburnum recoanitum) , sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia) , spicebush (Lindera benzoin) , and swamp azalea (Rhododendron viscosum) . Characteristic herbs include cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea) , royal fern (Osmunda revalls) , sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis) , skunk cabbage (Svmplocarous foetidus) , and wool grass (Scirpus cvperinus) . The area has value as wildlife habitat and open space . 10 Trimming trees and shrubs along the roadside border of Sage Boulevard should have no negative environmental Impact upon adjacent plant communities. Trimming branches and topping some deciduous trees actually promotes new lateral growth which can produce hardy individuals that are better able to withstand severe storms than tall , single-trunked individuals. The complete removal and/or destruction of trees and shrubs along the roadside border of Sage Boulevard could have a negative environmental impact upon adjacent plant communities. LITERATURE CITED Reschke , C. 1990 . Ecological communities of New York State. N .Y. Natural Heritage Program, N.Y.S. Dept . Envlron . Conservation, Latham, NY. 96 P. Young, S. M. [ed. ] 1992. New York rare plant status list . N.Y. Natural Heritage Program, N.Y.S. Dept . Environ. Conservation , Latham, NY. 78 p. An of the lietural Aesources of the Southport Motel i Marina Site Prepared for: eenderson & Bodwell 120 Express Street Plainview, New York 11803 Prepared by: Terrestrial Ravirombental Specialists, Inc. ) ? i R.D. 1, Box 388 Phoenix, New York 13135 August, 1986 ;•k's. Introduction this report provides an assessment of the natural resources (vegetation, Wildlife, shellfish, and fisheries habitat) for the site of the proposed Southport Notel and Marina complex (Figure 1). The report Is partially based upon observations made by staff members of The Land ; Use Ocmq nny, Henderson 6 Bodwell, and Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. and was prepared by Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. Terrestrial Resources ' vegetation 1he upland Rortion of the site is approximately 9 acres. Much of the upland portion of the project site has been disturbed by previous development and site use. Itktural vegetation (Hardwoods and Shrub) is limltod primarily to the northeastern, eastern, and part of the southern margins of the site. As indicated in Figure 2, a hardwood area extends around much of the northeast and most of the east border of the site. Thew- hardwoods are less than 5 acres in total area, most of which lies outside the site boundary. Shrub areas are found along the site entrance from Sage Boulevard and on the dune area along the south side of the site. In addition, a foundation plantings and other landscape plantings provide some habitat. The shrub areas and the plantings around the buildings cover about one acre. the hardwoods areas contain Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), Black merry (Prunus serotina), Oaks (Quercus spp.), Sassafras (Sassafras albidus), and Willows (Salix op.). The shrub areae and borders of the hardwoods contain sumac (Rhus op.), Arrowwood (Virburnum sp.), :... .Greenbrier- (Smilax sp.), Wild Grape (Vitas sp.), Honeysuckle shrubs ` (Imieera op.), and Poison Ivy (Rhus radicans) . The shrdb strip along the beach area on the south side of the site is predominately Poison Ivy. ! _ 1hyberry (Myrica pensylvanica), Sumac and Cannon Reed (Phragmites australis). , ' - Foredune vegetation and vegetation along the water's edge includes Oanron Reed, Beach Grass (Ammo ila sp.), Cord Grass (S artina � - alterniflora), and Salt Bay (Spartina patens). Landscape plantings include Juniper (Juniperus sp.), Autumn Olive (Else *umbellata), Bush L _ Noneysuckle (Lonieera sp.), and Apple (Pyru- malus) . Much of the central portion of the site is lawn and/or grasbes and herbaceous weeds. Unpaved roadways and parking areas of compacted soils with little vegetation surround the buildings, pool, and tennis courts. Buildings, roadways, parking areas, the pool, and tennis court occupy approximately 3 acres of the site. Wildlife Table 1 lists the wildlife species that have been observed an the site. hhile many more species can be expected to occur during different parts of the year, the species observed are characteristic of developed shoreline areas with isolated stands of trees and shrubs. Bird species that nest on the site include the Souse Wren, Ametican Robin, European Starling, Song Sparrow, House Finch, and House Sparrow. Mute Swans and Mallards also nest on the small islands in the cove. In all lihlihood, 1 -- Blue Jays, Gray Catbirds, Northern Mockingbirds, Yellow Warblers, Red- winged Blackbirds, and Common Crackles nest on or adjacent to the site. Bile the.only mammals observed on the site were the Eastern Cottontail and the burrows of Eastern Holes, other small mammals should inhabit the wooded portions of the site. Cray Squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis) and Eastern Chipmunks (Taenias striatus) should be common in the hardwoods on the site. Species such as the Raccoon (Procyon lotor), Striped Skunk (Mephites me ites) , and MAte-tailed Dyer (odocoiletz virginianus) would also be expected to occur on the site. 7he Raccoon -N4 5;TERMTRiAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIAUST% © •ADE BLVD. LLLA 10000, P> =W wwvv� i e - _... - ^- SOUTHOLD BAY o zoo scam r=Zoor± toot Figure 2. Existing Upland Area A fD Q X w Appendix #13 Fish , Shellfish and Wildlife N [D -h N W d d fi fD May 17, 1989 i i To Whom It Mtay Ooncern g The following information regarding the st.itus of shellfish in the $age Basin is offered (note that it is not a creek but a man-made basin)3 ' hard Olam Habitat - Many other areas in the Town of Southold have in the pest and still offer much better elauuning than the Sage Basin. Some of these are as follows$ Mill Greek (Haahamomuck Pond) Uoose Creek Jockev Greek Town Creek Peters '.Jock (Oriagti) *Msattituck Inlet Oorey Creek Halloek Bay (Orient) OXater Population - There has never been an oyetor population worthy of any commercial activity in the Sage Basin. Further, the few oysters in this krea have been eliminated by the brown tide as they haave in all other areas of Southold Town. This is also true of the only small mussel arw in the Suge basin. doalloa Habitat - The Sage Fusin has not been a significant habitat for d gallops since at least 1970. Dredging for scallops has been attempted on a Pew ooeaaions with no64tiva results. The basin does not have the type bottom with eel grass in which ucullopa thrive. 84,ge Basin to be Recommended as Part of a "1. '.S. Significant Habitat Program - It is difficult to conceive of a 17 acre man-myde basin containing 2 msrinas, and bordered by a conforming. boutysrd, a large subdivision (Southold Shores) and several private homes being considered a N.Y.S. Significant Habitat Region. The limited quantity of shellfish available and the controls already imposed by N.Y.S D.E.O. and Southold Town Trueteee make further "outside agenov" controls unneceesury, burdensome, and probably non-enforceable. The following shellfishermen are very familiar with the Sage Basin Id a roe with the previous text ,rbr.// ���rc �ki�tild P[-fin,/ N/. Dimitri B"on 307 4th St. f Greenport, N.Y. 119 4 f��v Lk&n bVb.%r , v 507 4th St. arvenrurt, X.Y. 1194�t�H,�w�/�L `f xi;-A �, rtX•, it A! MELROSE MARINE SERVICE, INC. 500 ROBINSON ROAD, GREENPORT NEW YORK 11944 (516)477-1546 Brick Cove Marina Sage Blvd P.O. Box 455 Southold,NY 11971 May 18, 1993 To Whom it may concern: During our 1992 dredging operation in the Sage Basin for Brick Cove Marina, and during the removal of the spoil to the upland disposal site,we did not,to the best of our knowledge, observe clams, oysters, or shellfish of any kind in the dredging material. Sincerely, Melrose Marine Service,Inc. es Melrose,Pres. Bruce Anderson Environmental Consultant To: John Bredemyer, President Southold Board o Trustees From: Bruce Anderson Date: September 22, 1991 Re: Brick Cove Marina A field inspection that took place today of shellfish in the shoal areas within and adjacent to Brick Cove Marina ' did not reveal abundances of shellfish in commercial quantities. Three hard clams and one oyster was caught using hand rake techniques. Shoal areas are characterized as being comprised of clay like sediments mixed with gravel and sand. Numerous rocks are found throughout' the shoal areas . Shells from hard clams , oysters and soft clams were observed. No sea grasses were observed in the shoal areas or in adjacent areas. 475 Rambler Road, Southold, NY 11971 (516) 765-4071 j.M.O. CONSU[TINq p.o. box 447 QUOgUE, N.Y. 11959 (516) 653.0607 August 10, 1993 Mr. Merlon E. Wiggin Peconic Associates, Inc. One Bootleg Alley P. O. Box 672 Greenport, NY 11944 Re: Brick Cove Marina Dear Mr. Wiggin: Our staff visited the Brick Cove Marina site on June 14, 1993 (morning) , June 26, 1993 (morning) , July 16, 1993 (afternoon) , July 30, 1993 (afternoon) , and August 10, 1993 (afternoon) , and the presence of various species of wildlife, shellfish, and fish were noted. The project site was first divided into five (5) sampling areas. I have enclosed a copy of a map of the project site, which was previously prepared for the project by Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. , which we utilized as a base map. Please note that I have drawn in the five (5) sampling areas which have been labelled A-E. When sampling the areas for the presence of finfish and shellfish the following gear was used: 1. 8 ' X 45' seine with 3/4" mesh 2 . 26 tooth clam rake with 2 1/211 teeth 3 . 26 tooth clam rake with 4 1/2" teeth 4 . 14 ' workboat with 7 HP engine 5 Scallop dredge. It should be noted that in each area we used the same sampling method. The seine was used first so that we did not "spook" any fish out of the area by first using the rakes or dredge. Once we finished seining an area we then towed the scallop dredge through the area and finished off the sampling of each area by raking. The following is a breakdown of each sampling area: Area A This area is bordered by a narrow area of intertidal marsh which is approximately 8 ' X 10 ' wide which is comprised of cordgrass Snartina alterniflora. Amongst the cordgrass there is a population of Atlantic Ribbed Mussels; Modiolus demissus. The set of mussels, which is located on a bog, does not extend below the MLW line and located solely in the intertidal marsh. It was observed that in that area located below the MLW line there was very little vegetation and pieces of brick and stone littered the bottom. At 2 : 35 P.M. the seine was first used. High tide of the site was at approximately 5:30 P.M. The following is the list of what was found: 1. 2 Oyster Toadfish Opsanus tau 1/2"-3/4" 2 . 1 Tautog Tautoga onitus 4" 3 . 1 Mummichug Fundulus heteroclitus 3" 4. 19 Spotfin Killifish Fundulus luciae less than 1" 5. 1 Northern Pipefish Syngnathus fuscus 5 1/2" 6. 1 Striped Mullet Mugil cephalus 3 1/2" 7. 2 green Crabs Carcinus maemis less than 1". The scallop dredge was then towed through the area utilizing the workboat. In each tow we found a very small amount (6 - 10 strands) of dead eel grass; Zostera marina but no live eel grass, 3 - 4 stalks of Codium; Codium fragile and small amounts of Ceramium; Ceramium fastigiatum. In the four (4) tows made in this area one live Atlantic Bay Scallop; AequiRecten irradians was found (1 1/211) , and three (3) Scallop shells (2" - 311) were found. Assorted detritus such as decaying leaves from upland trees was also found. When raking the area, utilizing both rakes, it was noted that the bottom consisted of clay with a thin layer of detritus on top of the clay. The bottom also consisted of large amounts of broken bricks, pieces of brick, core stone (2" - 611) and a noted lack of shellfish exoskeltons (shells) or vegetation. There was so much of this material on the bottom that the clam rakes constantly filled up with the stone and brick. In raking the following was found: 1. 1 Eastern Oyster Crassotiea virginica 4 1/2" 2 . No shells of Hard Clams Mercenaria mercenaria 3 . 1 Moon Snale; Natica sp. 1 1/2" 4 . 2 Scallop shells 2" and 311 . Area B: This area is bordered on the south by a small finger of uplands which is bordered by a very narrow strip of high marsh which is populated by Spartina patens and Groundsel; Baccharis halimifolia. Seaward of this lies an area of intertidal marsh which is made up of Spartina alterniflora and Glasswort; Salicornia europaea. As in Area A a population of Atlantic Ribbed Mussels can be found in the intertidal zone. Here again in that area below the MLW line there is little if no vegetation and once again pieces of brick and stone littered the bottom. This area was then seined and the following was found: 1. 3 Oyster Toadfish 1/2" - 3/4" 2 . 11 Mummichugs 2" - 311 3 . 12 Spotfin Killifish less than 1" 4. 4 Green crabs less than i" In using the scallop dredge we found no live eel grass, no Codium and small amounts of Ceramium. In the four (4) tows in the area we found no living shellfish and fragments of very few Hard Shell Clam shells, small amounts of Atlantic Ribbed Mussel shells and the same type of detritus found in Area A. At times in this area, the dredge would become fouled with pieces of clay. When raking in this area the rakes immediately filled up with the clay. In amongst the intertidal zone I did notice numerous Fiddler Crabs; Uca Ducmax and their burrows. Area C: This area is bordered on the East by a narrow area of intertidal marsh which is comprised of Cordgrass. As in the aforementioned areas a population of Atlantic Ribbed Mussels was found in the intertidal area and there was no vegetation found below the MLW line. The bottom consisted of the same clay bottom which was again littered by sections of broken brick, stone and large 611 - 18" core stone. In seining the area the following was found: 1. 1 Oyster Toadfish 1/211 - 3/411 2. 10 Mummichugs 1 1/2" - 311 3 . 14 Spotfin Killifish less than 1" 4 . 2 Green Crabs less than 1" 5. 1 Grass Shrimp less than 1" In using the scallop dredge we once again caught no live shellfish only a fragmented Hard Clam, Scallop and Atlantic Ribbed Mussel shells along with no living Eel Grass or Codium and large amounts of the aforementioned detritus which was made up of small amounts of dead eel grass and upland tree leaves. When raking in the area we found no live shellfish. There were few broken and whole Hard Clam Shells as well as 3 Scallop shells. A large amount of the 6" - 18" core stone was raked up in this sample area. Area D• This area is bordered on the East and South by a narrow (10 ' - 151 ) band of intertidal marsh which was comprised of Cordgrass. As in the previous sample areas a population of Atlantic Ribbed Mussels was found in the intertidal area but no vegetation was found below the MLW line. The bottom consisted of clay which had a layer of beach stone (1/2" - 311) on top of the clay. Seining of the sample area produced the following: 1. 37 Mummichugs 2" - 3" 2 . 42 Spotfin Killifish less than i" 3 . 4 Green Crabs less than 1" When dredging the area we found no live shellfish, less than 6 fragmented Scallop shells and 3 Hard Clam shells. We did once again catch very small amounts of dead Eel Grass, Caramium, and stone and the aforementioned detritus. When raking we found no live shellfish. There were a few assorted Hard Clam shells and Scallop shells as well as quite a number of beachstorn. Area E• This area is located betweem the Western ends of the Marina's docks and the two (2) islands located West of the docks. There is a small bank of intertidal marsh vegetation (Cordgrass) surrounding the islands. There were no live shellfish such as the Atlantic Ribbed Mussels found here. It appears that a population of Canadian Geese are utilizing the islands for resting, but probably not for feeding since we could find no upland grasses of Sea Lettuce; Ulva lactura which the geese like to feed upon. The islands themselves contain large quantities of broken brick and stone. In seining the area we found: 1. 1 Fourspine Stickleback; Apeltes guadracus 1 1/2" 2 . 5 Green Crabs less than 1" 3 . 4 Oyster Toadfish 1/2" - 3/4" When dredging the area we found little dead Eel Grass, 6 - 10 strands of live or recently alive Eel Grass, Ceramium and no live shellfish. Raking produced numerous stones, pieces of broken brick and 4 fragmented Hard Clam shells and 8 fragmented Scallop shells. A small school of Peanut Bunker (2" - 3" Menhaden) were observed in the area of the boat launching ramp and assorted schools of Atlantic silversides; Menidia menidia were noted throughout the entire basin. It appears that all of the finfish in the basin were small baitfish and they were mostly found in or adjacent to those areas of intertidal marsh. They would typically be found in such areas seeking either food or safety. While at the site, J.M.O. Consulting confirmed the following avians to be present on site or in adjacent off site habitats: Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia Snowy Egret Egretta thula American Black Duck Anas rubripes Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata Green-backed Heron Butorides striatus Mallard Anas platyrhyncos Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Herring Gull Larus argentatus American Crow Corvus brachyrhyncos House Wren Troglodytes aedon Northern Mockingbird Mimus Polyglottus European Starling Sturnus vulgaris Tufted Titmouse Parus bicolor Mourning Dove Zenaida macrura Canada Geese Branta canadensis Song Sparrow Melospiza melodic Green Heron Butorides virescens Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Mute Swan Cygnus olor Common Tern (fly over) Sterna hirundo Catbird Dumetella caroliniensis American Robin Turdus migratorius Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phonecious Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus House Sparrow Passer domesticus Flicker Colaptius auratus Black-capped Chickadee Parus atricapillus Osprey (fly over) Pandion haliaetus The site was thoroughly investigated for the presence of nests. However, no nests were detected. The aforementioned spotted sandpiper was spotted on the high energy beach on site fronting Peconic Bay. Both the green backed heron and green heron were identified as flyovers. Similarly, the common tern, a NYSDEC designated threatened species, was observed as a flyover in the adjacent Peconic Bay and is not connected to the site in terms of nesting and feeding. Finally, two flyovers by two (2) ospreys were observed. One osprey was observed circling in the Northeast corner of the basin. None of these nest on or adjacent to the marina site. While not observed, the following species are regarded as potentially present in the general area due to the availability of habitat: Old Squaw Clangula hyemalis Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia Greater Scaup Arthya manila Canvasback Aythya valisineria The site and surrounding environs were investigated for the presence of mammals by J.M.O. Consulting and the following mammals were found to exist: Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus Meadow Vole Microtus pennsylvanicus Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus Raccoon Procyon lotor Gray Squirrel Sciurus caroliniensis Eastern Chipmunk Tamias striatus Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus Domestic Cat Felis domesticus Detailed investigations were conducted to determine the presence of reptiles and amphibians. No reptiles and amphibians were detected on site and in nearby adjacent habitats even though numerous logs, brush, stones and debris were moved in search of them. No snake turtle traces were observed even though soft Silty sands were specifically investigated in hopes of detecting the presence of scrapes. Nevertheless, reptiles and amphibians discussed in the previous impact statement could potentially utilize some of the upland and freshwater wetland habitats adjacent to the site. However, none are expected to utilize the flooded wetlands and surface waters as the presence of fish and the high salinities would preclude them from doing so. Upon your review of this material please feel free to contact our office at any time to discuss any comments or questions you may have. Si G1 71E. Just Ir MA • , s }�� �� ,N yrs- 'i• }'` �it 77M PI ep w AsseB�lent Of the 1ldtural FMKM OM . + of the Soatbport Motel i Marina Site Prepared for: Henderson i 8odwell 120 Express Street Plainview, New York 11803 Prepared by: ItaI rrestrial Bnviromental Specialists, Inc. ? R.D. 11 Box 388 Phoenix, New York 13135 !� August, 1986 1 � TRBIE OF 0ONrENrS Page �)A 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Nilcll.ife . . . . • . . . • . . • . . . • . . . . . . 4 AQLV= RFSO(]RCES . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Shellfish • . . . 9 6 Fisheries . . . . . o 6 IMALT5 AM DWACT I MG%TION . o. . . . . . . . . 11 Terrestrial Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Aquatic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 z 1 i I= OFFIGMS AND VMZS Pale z Figure 1. Project Site. t • ' Existing upland Area. . . . . . . • • 3 Figure 2. Table 1. Wildlife nerved on Southport Site • 5 Existing 7 Figure 3. Dove Area. . 1 _ i _ the beach area on the south side of the site is predominately Poison Ivy, Bayberry (Myrica pensylvanica), Sumac and Common Reed (Phragmites australis). , ' - Pbredune vegetation and vegetation along the water's edge includes Oomon Reed, Beach Gass (Ammo ila sp.), Cord Grass Gina � - alterniflora), and Salt Say (S ina patens). Landscape Plantings include Juniper (Juniperus sp.), Autumn olive (Elae us 'umbellata), Bush I _ Honeysuckle Monicera sp.), and Apple (Pyr_ malus) . Much of the central portion of the sibe is lawn and/or grasbes and herbaceous weeds. Unpaved roadways and parking areas of conpacted soils with little vegetation surround the buildings, pool, and tennis courts. Buildings, roadways, parking areas, the pool, and tennis court occupy approximately 3 acres of the site. Wildlife Table 1 lists the wildlife species that have been observed an the _ site. Mile many more species can be expected to occur during different parts of the year, the species observed are characteristic of developed shoreline areas with isolated stands of trees and shrubs. Bird species that nest on the site include the Souse Wren, American Robin, Su+opean - Starling► Song Sparrow, House Finch, and Souse Sparrow. Mute Swans and Mallards also nest on the small islands in the cove. In all liklihood, Blue Jays, Gay Catbirds, Northern Mockingbirds, Yellow Warblers, Red- winged Blackbirds, and Common Grackles nest on or adjacent to the site. Wile the only mammals observed on the site were the Eastern _ Cottontail and the burrows of Eastern Holes, other small mannals should inhabit the wooded portions of the site. Gay Squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis) and Eastern Chipmunks (Taenias striatus) should be common in the hardwoods on the site. Species such as the Raccoon (Prosy lotor), Striped Skunk OIEe rtes me rtes) , and hhite-tailed Det Cldocoileus virginianus) would also be expected to occur on the site. Zhe Raccoon ' 4 Msble t Wildlife observed on the Southport Site (a) Birds Winter ging Sumer Great Egret (Casmerodius albus) X gwwy Bgret (Bgretta thula) X Green backed Heron (But_or_ str_) X Mallard (Arras platyrhyrmahos) X X X knerican Black Duck (Anas rubri s) X Mite Swan (Cygnus olor) X X X Oldsquaw (Clangula hyarelis) X Ring-billed Gull (Lacus delawarensis) X Herring Gull (Larus argentatus) X X Owmn Tern (Sterna _) X nee Swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) X earn Swallow (eirunao _) X Blue Jay (22nocitta cr_) X "rican Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchus) X House Wren (Troglodytes aedon) X X Gray Catbird (_ carolinensis) X Northern Mockingbird (Mlimus polyglattos) X American Robin (Turdus migratorius) X - European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) X Yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia) X - Sorg Sparrow (Melospiza melodic) X X ' Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius, phoeniceus) X X Cbnm xi Grackle (Ouiscalus quiscula) X X House Finch (Carpodacus mexicanus) X House Sparrow (Passer damesticus) X Mammals Eastern Cottontail (sylvilagus floridanus) X Eastern Mole IScalopus aquaticus) ; X Y a. Winter sightings by Land Use omrpany (1986): spring and summer sightings by TES and Henderson A Bodwell staff. and Striped Skunk probably forage along the shoreline of the cove and Southold Bay regularly. 1_ While no amphibians or reptiles have been observed on the site,, ca mon species such as Pbwler's Tbad (Bufo woodhousefi fowlers) , rbrthern Spring peeper (Hyla S. crucifer) , Pastern Box Turtle (Terrepene carolinensis), and Eastern Garter Shake (Thamnophis s. sirtalis) should occur. hThibi.ans could not successfully breed in the cove because of the salinity and the presenoe of fish. 7he wetlard areas across Sage Boulevard to the east of the site should provide habitat for a number of amphibian and reptile species. Aquatic Resources Shellf ish y Figure- 3 illustrates the cove, the placement of existing docking facilities, the location of the small island areas, and the location of gravel bars adjacent to the islands and shoreline. 2e cove is approximately 16 acres in size, of which about one-fourth is within the a project boundary. The cove provides shallow water habitat for a variety of shellfish. The most abundant species appeared to be the Atlantic Ribbed Mussel (Modiolus demissus) which was emum during spring and summer along the shoreline, especially near the inlet. Ihis species, along with Blue Mussels ( ilus edulis) and Eastern oysters (Crassostiea ` 1 vi=ica), are also found around the dock pilings and in other shallow ' water areas with rocky substrate. A particularly important cat. rcial species in the region is the NRard Clam (Meroenaria mercenaria). During Pthruary 1986, 7he Land Use Oompany performed a shellfish survey of the northern portion of the cove (Land Use Company 1986). only three Hard Clams were found during the samp,ling. While the time of year might reduce the effectiveness of the smpling to same extent;more clams would be expected if a sdbstantial population existed in the area led. poP� �p • 6 11F V •rT T ;j • ' 4 w 'try .ti• c !� A •,j•r l" 5i'�mY•'�+���x.',`�`�^ t� `4+r►.; �� •`� ` i1� �1� � "� 'rte 1 •....1� .lam .l� ..��I �y. ).�, n _ ? K��,�� 7?� 7� �•'' s� • • , '( ;l•ri_u.� .a ytil •i A1�s l�',,i�+�." �'�i • 10 '3 !` vim"• . �.���'� �•,� � f^.1 ♦ ill'lA_J n'C 4� �• ]x.1+1 f' �JrTsl••_S` r�q Babitat suitability in the cove accounts for the small numbers of pard Clams sailed. In areas Where there is a high percentage of waste brick in the substrate, Bard Clans would find little suitable habitat. In addition, densities of Bard clams are inversely related to the percentage of silt-clay in the substrate since silt and clay in the substrate affects clam growth (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984) . 1hus, since the cove Was created by the mining of clay to produce brick and much of the substrate in the cove is clay or a silt-clay mix, it is not unexpected that Bard Clam densities Would be low. Overall, the areas of the cove that contain soft sediments wound support small numbers of clams. Sykes and Ball (1970) demonstrated that soft sediments Were the principal factor limiting the abundance and diversity of benthic mollusks. Extremely hard substrate containing bricks and large cobble, would also limit the abundance and diversity of benthic mollusks. Sane suitable habitat does exist in the sand and gravel bars adjacent to the small islands. Figure 3 indicates several areas Where Hard Clams can normally be found (Zehner, pers. ccmm .). I* density of Bard clams is also a reflection of current • velocities. Velocities of 30 to 50 cm/s are considered optimal for the Hard Clam (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984). 7te current velocities V in the cove are far below this range (EDSI 1986). Srbidity also affects the growth of Bard Clams. In shallow Wager areas around marinas, the growth of larval and adult clangs would be inhibited by turbidity resulting from normal marina activities. menus, the snail number of Bard Clans found in the Immediate vicinity of the marina is not unexpectd. Thus, While a variety of shellfish occur in the cove within and -adjacent to the existirsg marina area, habitat conditions in the area are not conducive to supporting very large populations. Mile there are undoubtedly areas of suitable habitat within the cove, and But Clare can L be taken in these areas, the cave as a whole does not represent goad habitat for this species. 'lbo other species of estuarine macroinvertebrate are also coma in the cove. Fiddler Crabs (Oca op.) and Periwinkles (Littorina sp.) are found along the shorelines. 2e crabs are concentrated in the cove near the marina, while the Periwinkles Were most cam-on along the beach bordering Southold Bay. Fisheries A large number of fish species could potentially occur in the cove. 8ttdies in coves on nearby Gardiner's Island (Reisman and Nicol 1973). *Allow Water estuaries of Long island (Briggs 1975s, Briggs and O'Connor 1971), and on sportfishing in the inshore waters of eastern Tong Island (Briggs 1968) provide data on the fish species that are typical of the shallow bays and small inlets near the study area during the summer months. the species that are most canon include: American Bel (Anguilla rostrata) ' Atlantic Menhaden (Brevoortia annus) Atlantic Needlefish (Strongylura marina) rSheepshead Minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus) Mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus) Striped Killifish (lulus ma alis) Atlantic Silverside (Mmidia menidia) Tidewater Silverside (_ beryllina) ' Pburspine Stickleback (Mites racus) NDrthern Pipefish (Syngnathus fuscUS) Bay Anchovy (Anchoa mi_) Bluefish (_ saltatrix) SCUP (Stenotomu.s ) Silver Perch (Bairdiella chrysura) Northern "fish (Menticirrhus saxatilis) Striped Mallet ("it cephalus) White Mullet (Mugil curema) Sumner Flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) White Perch (Moron americana) Winter Flourder (Pseudopleuonec,-tes americanus) Northern Puffer w •. _ (Sphoeroides maculatus) 9 r w _ VIery few people fish in the cove, since sportfish are not cry -- (Zehner, pers. cam.). During the winter months when the cove freezes over, fishermen,do take American Bels. Most of the fish observed in the cove are small baitfish (kinifish, Silversides,.Sticklebacks, Sheephead Minnows, and Anchovieb, etc.). During the late spring, wmmr and fall months, small Bluefish r ("snappers") enter the cove on the tide to feed on schools of these baitfish and some Summer Plower are also presnt. Flounder are rarely r _ f i shed for in the cove (Zehner, pers. ca tt, . Atlantic Menhaden, referred to locally as bunker, have been observed !n the.cove. Mr. Boward Zehner, who has owned the property for 16 years, has observed a large school of Menhaden on only one occasion (Zenner pers. cam.). i Some juveniles of other sportfish species undoubtedly enter the owe. 8owever, the cove would not be considered as good nursery habitat because of the lack of aquatic vegetation and marsh habitat which are important to young fish. -s 01 A 10 , HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEEIa SECTION - VEGETATION - WILDLIFE ' COMMM *Does the 'representational species list' NO. 18: represent actual observation? If so, why call it 'representation'? No shellfish survey of any kind was done or cited. A study of this kind should be done in this area so potential impact can be discussed, along with any mitigation measures.* RESPONSE: A vegetation inventory of the site was con- ducted and those species observed were listed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. As stated, most are herbacious roadside weei species able to withstand poor site conditions. It should be noted that vegetational cover presently exists on only 10 percent of the subject property. At the request of the lead agency, a shellfish survey was undertaken in order to determine the composition and extent of the shellfish populations within the project boundaries. Said survey was conducted on February 1, 1486 r by Land Use Company staff. The location of sample points are shown on a map included in -37- HENDERSOP -011MULflNG ENGINEERS the supplemental exhibits. Survey results are as follows by species: SHELLFISH SCRVEY On February 1, 1986, Land Use Company staff conducted a shellfish survey within the project rboundaries. During said survey, it was noted that in areas 'A'. IS" and OV (see map in supplemental exhibits) that the bottom appeared to be made up of black silt, clay and small stones (1-1/2 to 2 inches in diameter) . In the remaining area 'C', the bottom consisted of clay and sand with numerous rocks, bricks and pieces of brick. While taking in this area, the rake continually filled up with this debris even after covering only a foot or two of bottom. It was also noted that there appears to be an almost complete lack of vegetation on the bottom y in all four areas. Minute quantities of Sea Lettuce (L'lva lactuca) and Codium (Codium r Fracile) were found during the shellfish ' survey. Greater arvunts were found growing on all the existing float docks. -38- J t 2-42 f i . y HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEEQK r x. a The following equipment vas employed during the shellfish survey: Clam rake, 28-inch opening, tooth length 2-1/2 inches; Songs, 18-inch opening, tooth length 2 inches; Scallop dredge; 11-foot workboat, 25 horsepower motor. Hermit Crab - Pagurus Pollicaris - An extremely common species which prefers shallower water. They use shells of Periwinkles, Mudsnails, Whelks and Moons as their 'homes.' gone found during either survey or inspection. Blue Clawed Crab - Callinectes Sapidus - inhabits muddy shores and is common in bays and mouths of estuaries. Nov* into deeper water in winter. Although no living or dead specimens were found, this species is surely L an inhabitant of the area. Calico Crab - Ovalipes Ocellatus - Prefers sandy bottoms. None found during inspection or survey. Tiddler Crab - Cca Pugnax - Prefers the dryer parts of sandy beaches and salt marshes. Feeds E -39- i HENDERSON AND BpDWEII CONSULTING ENGINEEIK A on organic material in the sand. gone found during inspection. Absence is probably due to the topographic characteristics of the site. Spider Crabs - Libinis Dubia - prefer kelp beds and tidal pools. No dead or living members of the species found at site. Blood Ark - Anadara Ovalis - A species native to the region, commonly found on shallow sandy bottoms. They are regularly caught by bagmen as an incidental catch. None found in project • area. Blue Mussel - Mytilus Fdulis - A very common local species, found attached to rocks and pilings. It is bighly valued as tablefare. During the shellfish survey, a small population was found existing on pilings in the dock area. Atlantic Ribbed Mussel - Modiolus Der..issus - Another species common to the region, it is not edible but sometimes utilised as bait or chum. Found in the marsh banks within the Intertidal sone. Topographic characteristics of the site limit the population of this species. c -40- 2-44 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1 ' Atlantic say Scallop - Requipecteh irradians Probably one of the region's most important shellfish species. They prefer shallow bay bottoms, creeks, etc. They are often found among beds of Codium «odium rragile) or . ' Eelgress (zosters Marina) - Wo living specimens were encountered during the survey and only less than 45 shells were found during both the survey and inspection- ' Therefore, no standing crop of adult-sized scallops is present, nor have there been any In recent times. Razor Clam - Ensis Directus - This species is found in sand bars and shallow sand banks within _ the intertidal tone. not believed to be a • locally important commercial species, they are prized by some as tablefare. None were found during the shellfish survey or site inspection, but during the course of conversation with local residents, a small population vas recognized In an area located on the opposite (westerly) side of the basin. Soft-shell Clam - Mya Arenaria - They prefer shallow, muddy, intertidal sones. Mo evidence of any standing adult stock was found. l ' 41- 2-45 1- 2-45 HENDERWN AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEER= Topographic characteristics of the site . attribute to their absence. , Channeled Welk - susycon Canaliculatum This is a much sought-after species by .both t commercial baymen and people gathering them for their own consumption. This species is usually found on harder sandy bottoms. They are carnivores and scavengers, usually feeding on bivalves. None were found during the Inspection or survey. rastern Oyster - Crassostiea Virginica - This species is found attached to rocks, roots and shells. They are highly valued as tablefare. During the shellfish survey, one adult oyster was found. Upon a site Inspection along the existing rock 'dock- area, a small adult population was observed. During both the shellfish survey and the ' site inspection, the absence of any appreciable amounts of oyster shells would Indicate that in recent times there has been so sizable standing crop of adult oysters. s -4 2- _1 ' 1-46 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEER= jHard-shell Clam - Mercenaria Mercenaria This species is found in different habitats: IOne is in shallow muddy areas near the -low tide mark in estuaries, etc.t another is in the sandy stations found in open, deeper bays , or ocean bottom. They are highly valued as • tablefare. on first thought, when inspecting the site, it appeared that this species would be abundent= however, on actual inspection of the flats by boat, wading and walking, it was evident that the minute amount of dead shells Indicates that in recent times there has been no standing crop of adult-sized members of this species. This conclusion is supported • by the results of the shellfish survey, which showed only three hard clams caught within the survey area. :4l- 2-47 111111111111lipIF ` 40 ONE ILI r L ■■■■, ■■■ ' ,• I. ..... ',.irY1 r■■■■■■w .w■■r■■■.■'.■r■■r .:1�fir:� .,�, Sri.: y" ■VA, son r■ice-=-�■�■"■■■ � .� : . IN J MENO �r■■ ■EN■■ HENDERSON AND 60DWELL CONStJLTiNdENGINEERS SECTION - VEGETATION - WILDLIFE COMMENT OWhy aren't the bird and fish species actually PO. 193 cited named? on what dates were observations made? This is supposed to be an inventory.' RESPONSE: The following represents a list of waterfowl Z actually observed on February 1, 1986. This list is submitted in addition to the representational species list contained within the Draft Environental Impact Statement. Common Mallard Mas platyrhynchos platyrhynchos Sy population, this is the foremost duck in the United States. 15 to 20 were observed in the area of the boat launching ramp and were not ` vary of humans. It is believed that they are used to being fed at the site. Mallards are catholic in their selection of nest sites. They prefer upland to marsh, but the distance ' i _ from the water varies greatly with the habitat. Sites on levees, small islands, or where potholes iare numerous often limit maximum distances from water to a few feet or a few yards. Most studies indicate that nests are located within 100 yards . of water (/ellrose, 1980) . _„_ i • 2-48 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Black Duck - Anas Rubripes - Regarded by sportsmen as one of the most prised membets. of their bag due to this species, wariness. Black ducks nest in a variety of habitats, depending upon the cover available. On the east shore of Chesapeake Day, iS percent nested in upland areas, 17 percent in T marshes and 19 percent in old duck blinds. Most of the nests in the upland areas were In wooded tracts (Bellrose, 1980) . Three members of this species were noted. Mute Swan - Cygnus olor - four members of this species were found. They are thought to be permanent residents of the site. • Oldsquaw - Clangula Byemalis -.This species prefers open, deep waters. They do not nest locally. One member of this species was ` i observed. E'ISFISA A more detailed representational list of finfish resources in the area is as follows: 2-49 J ' • HENDERWN AND 80DWELL CONSULTING ENGINEER! J_ •tinter Flounder - pseudopleurnoectes Americanus - Probably found in some of the deeper, ruddier areas. Hone were found during the shellfish survey even though they are commonly caught while shellfishing. They prefer a soft, muddy bottom (commonly where there are patches of eel grass) to a moderately hard one. Note: during shellfish survey, no eel grass was found. Rogchocker - Trinectes Maculatus - This_Apecies Is probably found in the area, even though none were found during shellfish survey. From past experience, they are commonly caught in clam rakes and scallop dredges, prefer immediate vicinity of the coast, and are most common in bays and estuaries, where water is more or less brackish. They sometimes run into wholly fresh waters. They are of no commercial value due to ` their small size, but are said to be a 1 delicious-tasting fish. F, Windowpane Flounder or sundail - Scophthalmus Aquosus - None were found during the shellfish survey. Again, this is a species often caught -46- 2-SO ' HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS i i accidently while shellfishin . Prefers a shallow water area or a sandy bottom. i Fluke or Summer Flounder - Paralichthys iDentatus - Mentioned as a probable inhabitant of the area. in reality, they are usually , caught at 10 to 10 fathoms by commercial draggers. This species comes into shallower j water on sandy or muddy bottoms in summer and tends to actively feed in moving waters where they will actually chase bait. They might stray into the boat basin on occasion but not in an area where an angler would seek them. Minter Skate - Raja Ocellata - Commonly found while angling for winter founder. it is • thought to confine itself to sandy or gravelly bottoms in shoal water. None are actually { believed to inhabit subject area. r 4' American tel - Anguilla Mostista - Definitely thought to inhabit the subject area, since this species is found over muddy bottoms and wherever food can be found. -47- 2-51 l HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS IAmerican Shad - Moss Sapidissima - this species might enter the subject area on , =are occasions. Andromous, they enter fresh water only to spawn. Menhaden or Bunker - srevoortia Tyrannus Frequently found at or near surface, they are plankton feeders. They may be driven Into the subject area by feeding bluefish, Z weakfish or striped bass. Oyster Toadfish - Opsanus Tau - This species could possibly be found in the subject area. They prefer shoal water, usually over sandy or muddy bottom where they hide among eel grass or stones waiting for prey. Mursrichog - Fundulus seteroclitus -,Found chiefly in shallow brackish water and fresh- water, they prefer muddy bottoms. This species can probably be found in the subject area. 6potfin Willifish - Fundulus Luciae - This species is probably found in the subject _+ area, as they prefer coastal areas, living in brackish waters. t _ �f 2-52 ' HENDERMN AND 80DWELL CONSULTINO ENGINEERS Shiner or Tidewater Silverside - Menidis leryllina - They are surely found in the, , subject area, and are most common in brackish Mater. Northern pipefish - Svngnathus Fuscus This species is probably found in the subject area. They are found more often over smooth hard grounds than over mud or rocks. i Striped Searobin - prionotus [volans - _ P They are probably found in the subject area. Longhorn Sculpin - Mvoxocephalus Octodecemspinosus This species is found in the subject area. They t inhabit coastal waters, roving into deeper water In colder weather then returning in spring. White perch - Morone Americana - They are found most frequently in brackish waters and are generally close to shore in saltwater, rarely In deep water. if found in the subject area, they are surely only a rare visitor. -49- � 9 2-53 " HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Striped bass - Monroe Saxatilus - They are not thought to be normally found in subject area, but may stray into it while chasing bait fish. Bluefish - Pomatomus Saltatrix - The young bluefish, commonly known as snappers, are definitely to be found in the subject 1 area during the late summer. Scup or Porgy - Stenotomus Chrysops Probably none would ever be found in the subject area. They prefer, in summer, fairly shallow waters over snooth bottoms. Weakfish - Cynoscian Pegalis - They might on occasion be found in sutject area while chasing bait`ish. They prefer wa m.. water and are sensitive to sudden cooling. Blackfish or Tautoo - Tautoga onitis They are probably not found in subject area even though they inhabit Peconic and Southold Bays. This species is normally found very close to the shoreline, usually among rocky shores, breakwaters. Fie:s and docks. -So- 2-54 HENDERSM AND BODWELL uLrNa ENGINEERS American sandlaunce or Sandeel - 'Ammoydytes Americanus - This species might occasionally be found in subject area after being chased by predators. They prefer sandy bottoms. Worthern Puffer, Balloon Fish or Blowfish - Spaercides Maculatus - They might on occasion be found in subject area, and they are almost always found close to store in relatively T shallow water. r � 1 -51- 2-55 j.M.O. CONSU[TINq p.o. box 447 QUOgUE, N.Y. 11959 (516) 653.0607 August 10, 1993 Mr. Merlon E. Wiggin Peconic Associates, Inc. One Bootleg Alley P. O. Box 672 Greenport, NY 11944 Re: Brick Cove Marina Dear Mr. Wiggin: Our staff visited the Brick Cove Marina site on June 14, 1993 (morning) , June 26, 1993 (morning) , July 16, 1993 (afternoon) , July 30, 1993 (afternoon) , and August 10, 1993 (afternoon) , and the presence of various species of wildlife, shellfish, and fish were noted. The project site was first divided into five (5) sampling areas. I have enclosed a copy of a map of the project site, which was previously prepared for the project by Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. , which we utilized as a base map. Please note that I have drawn in the five (5) sampling areas which have been labelled A-E. When sampling the areas for the presence of finfish and shellfish the following gear was used: 1. 8 ' X 45' seine with 3/4" mesh 2 . 26 tooth clam rake with 2 1/2" teeth 3 . 26 tooth clam rake with 4 1/2" teeth 4 . 14 ' workboat with 7 HP engine 5 Scallop dredge. It should be noted that in each area we used the same sampling method. The seine was used first so that we did not "spook" any fish out of the area by first using the rakes or dredge. Once we finished seining an area. we then towed the scallop dredge through the area and finished off the sampling of each area by raking. The following is a breakdown of each sampling area: FA ti STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE GAIL S.SHAFFER REPLY TO SECRETARY OF STATE ❑ 162 WASHINGTON AVENUE ALBANY.NY 12231 RECENED (518)474-4750 ❑270 BROADWAY FEB 2 61987 NEW YORK CITY.NY 10007 (212)587-5800 'l;owr Cle-rk' '-niothaW Dear Sir/Hadar: Pursuant to 19 ?JYCRR 602.4, I have determined to designate significant fish and wildlife habitat areas within or adja- cent to your municipal boundary. I am required to mare appropriate area identifications and file copies of amended maps with your office pursuant to 19 11YCRR 602.4(d) . Provided with this letter are habitat boundary maps and supporting documentation which constitute amendments to the coaztal area map. Please make these habitat boundary maps available along with the coastal area map previously filed with your office. Pursuant to 19 i1YCRP. 602.4(e) , designation for each of these areas will be effective on March 15, 1987. Should you have any questions, please call Thomas Hart or Andrew Milliken at (518) 474-3642. Thank you for your assistance. Sir-ce re!y, Gail S. Shaffer Enclosures C � COASTAL FISH b WILDLIFE HABITAT RATING FORM -------------------�_ �__���_���- ---- ------ •-------------------- Name of Area: Conkling Point County(ies): Suffolk 1 Town(s) : Southold FEB. 6 1887 7.5' Quadrangle(s) : Greenport. NY; Southold. NY (IS) (R) (ISzR) Individual Replace- Final Score ability Score ECOSYSTEM RARITY (ER): 9 z 1.0 = 9.0 Relatively small. undeveloped. sand spit and marsh. rare on north fork of Long Island. SPECIES VULNERABILITY (SV) : 48.5 z 1.0 = 48.5 Least tern (E) and piping plover (T) nesting. additive division: 36 + 25/2 = 48.5. HUMAN USE (HU) : 0 z 1.0 = 0.0 No significant fish or wildlife related human uses of the area. POPULATION LEVEL (PL): 4.0 z 1.0 = 4.0 One of the two largest concentrations of nesting least terns on the north fork in 1983 and 1984. of county-level significance. REPLACEABILITY (R) : 1.0 Uncertain of ability to replace. SIGNIFICANCE _ [(ERzR) + (SVzR) + (HUzR) +• (PLzR)) = 61.5 ***SIGNIFICAN COAS-�AL FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT*** . PROjECe DESCRIP I0i•: COIIKLING POINT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT: rConkling Poir.� is located approximately two miles southwest of the jVillage of Greenport , on Shelter Island Sound , in the Town of Southold , Suffolk County (7 .5 ' Quadrangles: Greenport , N.Y. ; and Southold, N.Y. ) . The fish and wildlife habitat is approximately 15 acres , in size , consisting of a narrow, sparsely vegetated , sand peninsula, a small protected; bay, salt marsh, and tidal flats . Conkling Point is generally undeveloped and privately owned . -however , the area is bordered by high density residential development to the north, resulting in some recreational , disturbance of the habitat . V F-TSH AND WILDLIFE VALUES: Conkling Point is a relatively small coastal wetland area, similar in nature to many other points around the Peconic Bays shoreline, but important as a habitat for wildlife . This area has served for many years as a nesting site for least terns (E) and piping plovers (T)•, with both species present in 1983 , 1984 and 1985. In 1985 an estimated 25 pairs of least terns and 2 pairs of piping plover were observed nesting in the area. In 1984, approximately 100 pairs of least terns and 5 pairs of piping plovers nested in the area. Approximately 45 pairs of least terns and 6 pairs of piping plovers were present in 1983 . The concentrations of terns nesting at Conkling Point were the second largest and largest on the north fork of Long Island in 1983 and 1964, respectively. Overall, the population levels of least terns and piping plovers were unusual in Suffolk County. The tidal wetlands at Conkling Point serve as feeding areas for the least terns and many other wildlife species. There are no significant human use activities associated with the wildlife resources of this area. IMPACT ASSESSMENT: Nesting shorebird species inhabiting undeveloped sand beaches of Long Island are highly vulnerable to disturbance by humans from mid-April through July. Significant pedestrian traffic or recreational vehicle use of the Conkling Point peninsula could easily eliminate the tern and plover populations, and should be minimized. Fencing and/or annual posting of the area should be provided to help protect the nesting bird species. Unregulated dredge spoil disposal in this area would be detrimental , but such activities may be designed to maintain or improve the habitat, by setting back vegetative succession. Loss of the salt marsh habitat, through excavation or filling , would reduce its value as a food producing area for many tiiile;1i.1Le species . Introduction, or attraction of r.:ar<<;-,,aiian predators to the area would also be detrimental to the populate-; ons of nesc.ing birds. KNOWLEDGEABLE CONTACTS: Tom Bart or Andrew Milliken N.Y.S. Department of Stage Division of Coastal Resources & WaterfronL- Revitalization 162 Washington Avenue Albany, NY 12231 Phone: (518) 474-3642 Harry Knoch, Wildlife Manager 1iSDEC - Region 1 State University of New Yoik , buil%-Jing 40 Stony Brook, NY 11790 Phone: (516) 751-7900 Louise Harrison Suffolk Coun;:y Department of Health Services Bureau of Environmental Management Coun%.y Center: Riverhead, NY 11901 Phone: (516) 543-3064 Dave MacLean, Staff biologist Seatuck Research Program Cornell University Laboratory of Ornithology P.O. Box 31 Islip, NY 11751 Phone: (516) 581-6908 NYSDEC - Significant Habitat Unit Wildlife Resources Center Delmar, NY 12054 Phone: (518) 439-7486 .1 reenIS 1320000 •. ��• ^ K am , � A" - �• < \ •v....� _ Pipes OF �RCove. � , Shiloh • „� , r .. Ch lob X. db \ r• •`• .ti•t �, a •► b • s ••,jRw . �• � ••,�•..• �T�%••- .rte• 6 • rte_• ,o�'_�. •� :� .' �� ••• a a CoMME Pt IV 100, eSSOtt'o'^N. .1;. :•• " .� : ' . it T • dlnrtinQS P ' •'' `• •'.. • • S1 • t` �'`• to 4L ro Beixedo •. - aEs4tes . = a � s and_ :ti 330 L•:0 • � J ow: �C� 1 , S Founders p „�. C'ir3:-ma ftrk ` SHELTER ISLAND ' ° — Harpers f » '+ pt j Cr'. V -A Southold Bay s S •� • Quad: Southold. NY Area Namat Conkl ing Point • Habitat Boundary �.,.. •• "'•• � Page 1 of 2 v, Q• vu•.•a . •C J� 0• M O� Light •r _ Bch • � ^� `\•;- �:. et • r J R i Of / e �,✓ 10, oLights J7 I �� ti �� - - _� - - 'Jp . • WAer ' 6 k ^ rtL'tt +,`. pipe' 320000 sem, • •' �i�� •'fi g _ r : ofFannin /t/All 16 _\ - �. r Harbor • - / •e 1 Chequit •'.Our Leo of the Isley Ll i I .�' Gem Beeth Clu t •a s __ `; Shelter 111 eMt Club gE - • - - -� Island; •Ir,:. ao - •. ._--' Heightslid 0 wit t6 ' •/ -Ia b4 r ..rc �i • " __ �_ ' . •.• icksm cinklin wonA OU 1� A. • am keri 46 1 _ I r '. �.�• • • ••• •3� •7 Y • _•.�. l,sl)000nt.(�. a3 a -- O �•��- / • • • �' I _• '• 111 \ - �K �' , N. - $ • • . • , . - meter • O _ e ••• lis4nd Ar 310000 � a�• West Neek f •. • - _ Bay „ '•rrt"' '�; .. . F :� '� • • .• .� i .- - .• w ••• go `o• n ate. , .oma , • .' '. Irk • ;;, is •` Quade Greenport, W - • Area Name: Conkling Point Area ;t .1 - 0000 ` o _ ., ro Habitat Boundary- �, `r • • •4 Pate 2 os 2 . • •Crab Cree • d •• q S vex h _ COASTAL FISH b WILDLIFE HABITAT RATING FORM • Name of Area: Hashamomuck Pond County(ies) : Suffolk Town(s) : Southold FEB. i '7.5' Quadrangle(s) : Southold, New York (IS) (R) (ISzR) Individual Replace- Final E Score ability Score 19COSYSTEM RARITY (ER) : 0 z 1.2 = 0.0 Relatively large brackish pond. with some undeveloped shoreline and marsh; rare on the north fork. but rarity diminished by human disturbance. Geometric mean: 1/393*= 0. SPECIES VULNERABILITY (SV) : 33 z 1.2 = 39.6 • Osprey (T) nesting in 1983 and 1984. --_- Importance of the pond as a feeding area is not well documented. Diamondback terrapin (SC) nesting. Additive division: 25 + 16/2 = 33. HUMAN USE (HU) : 6 z 1.2 = 7.2 Commercial and recreational shellfishing of county-level significance. Additive division: 4 + 4/2 = 6. POPULATION LEVEL (PL) : 4 z 1.2 = 4.8 No unusual concentrations of any fish or wildlife species in the area. Concentrations of shellfish. especially hard clams. significant in the county. REPLACEABILITY (R) : 1.2 Irreplaceable SIGNIFICANCE _ [(ERzR) + (SVzR) + (HUzR) + (pLzR)) = 51.6 or c C ***SIGNIFICANT COASTAL FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT*** PROJECT DESCRIPTION HASHOMOMUCK POND LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT: Hashomomuck Pond is located west of Conkling Point emptying through Mill Creek into Shelter Island Sound in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County (7 .5 ' Quadrangle: Southold, NY) . The fish and wildlife habitat consists of an approximately 220 acre area consisting of a large, shallow brackish pond with a hard bottom, marsh and inlet creek (Mill Creek) . There is moderate to high density residential development on the north and northwest sides- of the pond and marina development at the mouth of bill Creek . FISH A14D WILDLIFE VALUES: Hashomomuck Pond is a valuable pond/wetland on the north fork of Long Island but its value is reduced by human disturbance and water pollution. The pond still provides a valuable habitat for a variety of fish and wildlife. Osprey (T) nest on platforms at two locations in the pond and utilize the pond and marshes for feeding areas . A variety of duck species also utilize this area for feeding. Diamondback terrapin (SC) nest at the head of Mill Creek . The pond also serves as a habitat for finfish and shellfish including bay scallops and hard clams . The pond is one of the top five areas for the harvesting of clams in Southold and are of the top six areas for scallops, of significance in Suffolk County. Hashomomuck Pond was closed seasonally to shellfishing in the fall of 1984 but was opened again in the winter . It remains the most important clamming site in the Town during the winter . IMPACT ASSESSMENT: Any activity that would further degrade the water quality in Hashomomuck Pond would adversely affect the biological productivity of this area. All species of fish and wildlife are affected by water pollution such as chemical contamination (including food chain effects) , oil spills , excessive turbidity, and waste disposal . Hashomomuck Pond is presently polluted from several point and non-point sources of sewage and nutrient laden runoff. Both the point and non-point sources of pollution should be reduced or eliminated to enhance this habitat for shellfish and other fish and wildlife species. Alteration of tidal patterns in Hashomomuck Pond (e.g. by modifying the Mill creek inlet) could have major impacts in the fish and wildlife species present. Barriers to fish migration whether physical or chemical would have major impacts on the fisheries resources in Hashomomuck Pond. Elimination of salt marsh and intertidal areas, through dredging, C � excavation, or filling , would result in a direct loss of valuable habitat area. Nesting osprey and terrapin inhabiting the area may be vulnerable to disturbance by humans from April through mid-August. Recreational activities near the nesting sites should be minimized during this period. Construction of shoreline structures , such as docks , piers, bulkheadsp. or revetments, in areas not previously disturbed by development, may result in the loss of productive areas which support the fish and wildlife resources of the Hashomomuck Pond area. KNOWLEDGEABLE CONTACTS: Tom Hart or Andrew Milliken N.Y.S. Department of State Division of Coastal Resources & Waterfront Revitalization 162 Washington Avenue Albany, Ni 12231 Phone: (518) 474-3642 Harry Knoch, Wildlife Manager NYS DEC - Region 1 State University of New York , Building 40 Stony Brook, NY 11780 Phone: (516) 751-7900 John Poole, Marine Resources Specialist IV Bureau of Marine Finfish and Crusteaceans NYS DEC - Region 1 Same address and phone as above Pieter Van Volkenburgh, Chief Bureau of Shellfisheries NYS DEC - Region 1 Same address and phone as above NYS DEC - Significant Habitat Unit Wildlife Resources Center Delmar, NY 12054 Phone: (518) 439-7486 Paul Stoutenburg, Martin Garrell, or Jim McMahon Town of Southold Town Hall , 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Phone : (516) 765-1801 Chris Smith NYS Sea Grant Extension Service Cornell University Laboratory 37 Sound Ave. Riverhead, NY 11901 Phone: (516) 727-3910 c � Ralph Condit 46A Pine Tree Road Cutchogue , VY 19935 Phone: (516) 734-5547 Louise Harrison Suffolk County Department of Health Services Bureau of Environmental Management County Center Riverhead, NY 11901 Phone: (516) 548-3064 I 60 sem• j��1 �i" G 63 en - , t 69 Ali&.13F UT /6 �' •:� •.. � �� L '�; __ _ ' .' Pipes 10 rt 4 _ _ .>� _�o:� l •� ,, 6n,•: '� �• - -•—"�- Core IN Shiloh Mari f `. vo ' Jennings i t •-••• ' sr/ 90 51 _. / [•' � ,`, �' ;� ,.• •. :,`�_. to • • �, ��\ Beixedon • ,p:. I �,T s s+and o .a 4 •�i' A. CJI 1 • ri.`��t�� S` .�� 1J,1:,EIl _ athol 93 SM32 _w , ,. IS L A JD- OF : 5 . 1 •' 5 founders 6s \ is s alma Park SHELTER ISLAND :• L o• �. �ll � •�• ' _ 1 Harpers t ti \ a . Southold :~ " �_.;'✓ Bay „ Quad: Southold, NY Area Name: Hashomomuck 6 Habitat Boundary: ----. i Page 1 of 1 •. • -.i/ — p '.. 117i • • . •. // Pars:S! `\ + _ '' :.. •.• Southold 6 �� tE .� ` Yacht CIo Pcir G� D ` s • r' COASTAL FISH b WILDLIFE HABITAT RATING FORM ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of Area: Port of Egypt Island County(ies) : Suffolk FEB. 16 198T Town(s) : Southold 7.5' Quadrangle(s) : Southold, New York ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (IS) (R) (ISxR) Individual Replace- Final Score ability Score --------------------------------------- ECOSYSTEM RARITY (ER) : 0 x 1.0 = 0.0 --------- --------- ------ Small, sparsely vegetated sand island; not a rare ecosystem type. SPECIES VULNERABILITY (SD) : 25 x 1.0 = 25.0 Common tern (T) nesting; roseate ~ terns (E) and piping plover (T) have nested here, but not adequately documented. HUMAN USE (HU) : 0 x 1.0 = 0.0 No significant fish or wildlife related human uses of the area. POPULATION LEVEL (PL) : 16 x 1.0 = 16.0 One of the largest common terra concentrations in New York State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- REPLACEABILITY (R) : 1.0 TechniqueE for habitat replacement allow reasonable likelihood for success, but uncertain of ability to replace the population level. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNIFICANCE _ [(ERxR) + (SVxR) + (HUxR) + (PLxR)] = 41 .0 C ***SIGN1FICA117T COASTAL F:S:i Ai1D 'WILDLIFE HAEiTAT*** PROJDCT DESCRIPTION PORT OF EGYPT ISLAND LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT: Port of Egypt Island is located approximateiy two miles ea:;t of the hamlet of Southold , on Shelter Island Sound, in the Toon of Southold , Suffolk County (7 .5 ' Quadrangle : Southold, N.Y. ) . The fish an;: wildlife habitat is a narrow, sparsely vegetated, sand island , approximately 4 acres in size . This island is located at the mouth of Idi1i Creel: , just offshore fro-.., an are& t'at is heavily developed with marina and port facilities . FIS.. AN'L^i WILDLIFE VALUES : Port of Egypt Island is a very s„iall sand island , similar in nature to many other areas around the Peconic Bays shoreline, but very important as a habitat for Yildlife . The island has served for many years as a major nesting site for common terns (T) and black skimmers , and occasionally for roseate terns (E) and piping plovers (T) . In 1984 , approximately 500 pairs of common terns and 20 pairs of back skimmers netted in the area. In 1985, an estimated 262 breeding pairs of common terns and 12 pairs of black skimmers were observed at this site along with at leant one pair of piping plovers. Sir„filar numbers of common terns and skimmers were reported nesting here in 1977 , along with 2 pais o� roseate terns. Although population estimates are not available for the intervening years , Port of Egypt Island waS active as a nesting area throughout the period. The concentration of common terns at this site was among the 6 largest on Long Island in 1984, of st&tew1de significance. There are no significant human use activities associated with the wildlife resources at Port of Egypt Island. IMPACT ASSESSMENT: Nesting shorebird species inhabiting undeveloped sand beaches of Long Island are highly vulnerable to disturbance by humans from mid-April through July. Significant recreational activity (e .g. , boat landing) on the Port of Egypt Island could easily eliminate the tern and skimmer populations. Fencing and/or annual posting of the area should be provided to protect the nesting bird species. Unregulated dredging and dredge spoil disposal -in this area would be detrimental , but such activities may be designed to maintain or improve the habitat. Introduction or attraction of mammalian predators to the area would also be highly detrimental to the populations of nesting birds. . C C KNC Y LEDGEALLI; C0:^AC^S: Tone Hart or Andre:: I-:illiken N.Y.S. Department of State Division of Coastal Resources & Waterfront Revitalization . 162 Washington Avenue Albany, &'Y 12231 Phone : (518) 474-3642 Harry Knoch, Wildlife !Manage. rNYSDEC - Region 1 ,State University of Net: York , Building 40 Stony Brook, NY 11790 Phone: (515) 751-7900 14YSDEC Significant Habitat Unit Wildlife Resource-- Centex Delmar, NY 12054 Phone: (518) 439-7466 Lpuise Harrison Suffolk County Department of heath Services Bureau of Environmental t:anager„ent County Center Riverhead, NY 11901 Phone: (516) 548-3064 Dave I•IacLean, Staff Biologist Seatucl: Research ProgrG:. Cornell Uni' versity Laboratory of Ornithology P.O . Box 31 Islip, ANY 11751 Phone: (516) 581-6908 •1l •-:�-Gree t 1 -Theater.. • Is •� •�` d4 ` : Pipes Ar .. �_ � ` X10- �'p'i-. M. ,•• +• ' , • 4. _ •. •. ."0.; :•�=' •ry •�'. ala .n. -Z Core • �AiloA a� .• I i ch .• � . .. ♦Q' � •. i :. 7 •� .. • :• ;� 't Gam,•.: - � . • e V:� .. - - •��?� OCG • a add a � i conklms P1 �! /_ c • / • •:� •• s Jennings P; 8 00 • 71 f ti n F: a �; ' t5 n t1Te;� �Beiaedo a _ a , LOA I S L A M ` , •�• _ ` \3 S Founders na • ' Landing SHELTER `s as ' `�• • _•; H.►�e►: t 'Pe`k j, \ I S L A ND ,,. , `y • C Southold Boy \ ?_ �• n Quads Southold: NY Area Namtk: Port Af ENYPt _ • Habitat Boundary - -- -• i . •••.:: Page 1 of 1 r - , 40 D (D d X �P (7 Appendix #14 0 Community Services r+ l< U) cD PECONIC ASSOCIATES, INC. Environmental Planners & Consultants One Bootleg Alley P.O.Box 672 Greenport,New York 11944 (516)477-0030 Fax(516)477-0198 May 18, 1993 Mr. James I. Monsell - Superintendent Public Utilities 236 Third Street Greenport, NY 11944 SUBJECT: Brick Cove Marine Gentlemen: Peconic Associates is in the process of preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Brick Cove Marina which has plans to change its marina layout and increase its number of boating slips from 95 to 138 slips. Also included as part of this project is some additional dredging of the Marina, its relocation of boater sanitary system to meet New York State Department of Environmental Conservation requirements, installation of a storm drainage system to prevent parking lot runoff going into Sage Basin, installation of a marine pump-out facility, and other related activities. As part of the Scoping Requirements of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement we are requested to contact your office and ask for response as to whether the above activities will have any impact on your existing facilities, levels of useage, and projected needs. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, PECONIC ASSOCIATES, INC. Merlon . iggin, Ph.D. . President �1► 01laye of tgreeir orfOJJ st�s � SUPERINTENDENT OF UTILITIES INCORPORATED 1878 NEW INCORPORATION APRIL 7.1868 JAMES 1.MONSELL MAYOR RE-INCORPORATION UNDER GENERAL LAW MAY 78.1894 ASST.SUPT.OF UTILITIES STEPHEN L.CLARKE ,n �j WATER I WASTEWATER V4L - GERALD W HICKSON TRUSTEESr Ic �V1�W/�••.• ... .. ti ELECTRIC JOHN A.COSTELLO v� '••.••!•••.•.• ARTHUR J.APICELLO pNG ISLAND JOANNE DOLINAR E�,, �+� UTILITY OFFICE GEORGE W HUBBARD `� e.u.r.a •r•'E 15161477-174% VICTORIA SWENSEN 236 THIRD STREET FAX(316)477.1707 VILLAGE ATTORNEY GREENPORT, NEW YORK 11944 POWER PLANT DANIEL C ROSS 45161477-0172 August 25 , 1993 VIA FAX AND REGULAR MAIL Merlon E. Wiggin, Ph. d. , M.E. President Peconic Associates, Inc. One Bootleg Alley Greenport, NY 11944 RE: Brick Cove Marina Request of May 18, 1993 Dear Mr. Wiggin: The increase of boating slips from 95 to 138 slips will not have an adverse impact on the demand for water. We will be able to meet the increased flow with the present service facilities . The marine pump-out facility will continue to be serviced by the Town Scavenger Waste Plant . There is no digging planned near the 8" cast iron water main. If I can be of further service, please call . Sincerely, L'Q Mel_� �James . Monsell uperntendent of Public Utilities JIM:dm pc: Gerald W. Hickson /lair. 1/1/1 V��►r of/'`nmm�rnifi, Ccniinp PECONIC ASSOCIATES, INC. Environmental Planners & Consultants One Bootleg Alley P.O.Box 672 Greenport,New York 11944 (516)477-0030 Fax(516)477-0198 May 18, 1993 Southold Town Police Department 41405 Route 25 Peconic, NY 11950 SUBJECT: Brick Cove Marine Gentlemen: Peconic Associates is in the process of preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Brick Cove Marina which has plans to change its marina layout and increase its number of boating slips from 95 to 138 slips. Also included as part of this project is some additional dredging of the Marina, its relocation of boater sanitary system to meet New York State Department of Environmental Conservation requirements, installation of a storm drainage system to prevent parking lot runoff going into Sage Basin, installation of a marine pump-out facility, and other related activities. As part of the Scoping Requirements of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement we are requested to contact your office and ask for response as to whether the above activities will have any impact on your existing facilities, levels of useage, and projected needs. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, PECONIC ASSOCIATES, INC. Merlon E. Wiggin, Ph �.E. President POLICE POLICE DEPARTMENT, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ® ADMINISTRATIVE PECONIC, NY 11958 '"•`` I 516-765-2600 TELEPHONE 516-734-6022 Stanley Droskoski EMERGENCY DIAL 911 FAX 516-765-2715 CHIEF OF POLICE June 7 , 1993 Peconic Associates , Inc . One Bootleg Alley P.O. Box 672 Geeenport , New York 11944 Dear Mr. Wiggin, I am in receipt of your letter requesting a response as to whether the installation of a storm drainage system and installation of a marine pump-out facility and other related activities will have any impact on this department . My response would be to the negative (it would not affect this department in any manner or form) . Good luck with your project . Sincerely, _ Stan e o1.oski Chief Police PECONIC ASSOCIATES, INC. Environmental Planners & Consultants One Bootleg Alley P.O.Box 672 Greenport,New York 11944 (516)477-0030 Fax(516)477-0198 May 18, 1993 Greenport Fire Department Third Street Greenport, NY 11944 SUBJECT. Brick Cove Marine Gentlemen: Peconic Associates is in the process of preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Brick Cove Marina which has plans to change its marina layout and increase its number of boating slips from 95 to 138 slips. Also included as part of this project is some additional dredging of the Marina, its relocation of boater sanitary system to meet New York State Department of Environmental Conservation requirements, installation of a storm drainage system to prevent parking lot runoff going into Sage Basin, installation of a marine pump-out facility, and other related activities. As part of the Scoping Requirements of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement we are requested to contact your office and ask for response as to whether the above activities will have any impact on your existing facilities, levels of useage, and projected needs. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, PECONIC ASSOCIATES, INC. jonE. iggin, h. President GPeENPO i P.O. BOX 58 (516)477-9801 - STATION 1 THIRD STREET (516)477-9803- STATION 2 GREENPORT, NY 11944 ' (516)477-1943-CHIEFS OFFICE SIRE,.D01 Organized 1845 August 27 . 1993 Merlon Wiggin Peconic Associates P .O. Box 672 Greenport , NY 11944 Dear Mr. Wiggin. In answer to your recent letter , the expansion of Brick Cove Marina, we have determined as follows : The expansion of Brick Cove Marina from 91 boat slips to 138 boat slips should not present any problems involving fire protection or suppression. Sincerely. " f"si Andrew Ficurilli , Fire Chief HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGIN ISS i k .a4 W �\ t - c f Q"ENv t �' { t latch ) 196 Jos•ph rischett, ,;r. Pa. r 0 Box 616 Southold. N Y 11971 �* Mr. Joseph eischetti jr: In reply to your letter of uanua y 29 th. rP: Southport Lev- elopement, Youne s Marina, Greenport.7y. . �arania will Construction of theunda ty (990) room Motel and expansiono." the � sent. y hi;, on the ;,^eenport ire De;.art— rs t ly, .0/rc a+:ul',ua. %ir .hioi :reen_.a -t : .e,s^tjent e S W i rY 3-4 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COM PANV rawrc�rouar,� 600 DOCTORS PATH - RD 2 • RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK 11901 Direct Dial Number: (516) 548-7031 July 15, 1993 Brick Cove Marina P. 0. Box 455 Sage Blvd. Southold, NY 11971 Re: LILCO Ref. #69407-340 Sage Boulevard, Southold Dear Mr. Zehner: This letter is to confirm our conversation of July 13, 1993 verifying that the Long Island Lighting Company requires access to the electric facilities located along Sage Blvd. (Brickyard Rd.) in Southold, New York. An alternate feed to Shelter Island presently exists in this area. Please contact me at (516) 548-7031 if I can be of further assistance. Very truly yours, )'Yj &t t,J )-ki. '4/0'o Mary M. Genoy Design Engineer Eastern Suffolk Division MMG:rh FC 8689.4-SS PECONIC ASSOCIATES, INC. Environmental Planners & Consultants One Bootleg Alley P.O.Box 672 Greenport,New York 11944 (516)477-0030 Fax(516)477-0198 May 18, 1993 Mr. James Bunchuck Southold Town Landfill Peconic Lane P. O. Box 178 Peconic, NY 11950 SUBJECT: Brick Cove Marine Gentlemen: Peconic Associates is in the process of preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Brick Cove Marina which has plans to change its marina layout and increase its number of boating slips from 95 to 138 slips. Also included as part of this project is some additional dredging of the Marina, its relocation of boater sanitary system to meet New York State Department of Environmental Conservation requirements, installation of a storm drainage system to prevent parking lot runoff going into Sage Basin, installation of a marine pump-out facility, and other related activities. As part of the Scoping Requirements of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement we are requested to contact your office and ask for response as to whether the above activities will have any impact on your existing facilities, levels of useage, and projected needs. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, PECONIC ASSOCIATES, INC. Merlon E. Wiggin, Ph.D., President Public Works Department Town of Southold Peconic Lane Peconic, N.Y. 11958 RAYMOND L.JACOBS (516) 765-3140 Commissioner (516) 734-5211 FAX (516) 765-1750 June 7 , 1993 Merlon B. Wiggin, President Peconic Associates, Inc. One Bootleg Alley P.O. Box 672 Greenport, NY 11944 Dear Mr . Wiggin: I am writing in response to your letter of May 18 to my assistant at the Town Landfill , Jim Bunchuck, concerning the impact on the Landfill or on Southold's solid waste plans from the dredging and expansion project at Brick Cove Marina. Any additional solid waste generated as a result of the activity planned for Brick Cove, including dredge material and treated sludge, may be accepted at the Landfill through our normal course of operations. The overall impact of this activity on Southold's solid waste system will be slight. I hope this information meets your needs. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Sin r y, a o L. Jacobs Comm ssioner of Public Works cc: Jim Bunchuck, Solid Waste Coordinator D .D (D d X Cn Appendix #15 Deeds 0 n. N FORM NO.4 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT Office of the Building Inspector Town Hall Southold, N.Y. Certificate Of Occupancy UPDATED PRE C .O. No. Z,16 153. . . . . . . . . . Date . .S` ?.� : . .IO , .19.8.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . THIS CERTIFIES that the building . Boa t Yard a n d M a!.i n a . location of Property . . 1. 7 0 .Sage Road , Greenport . . . House No. 8trect �Hamlat County Tax Map No. 1000 Section57 .Block . .f. . . . . . . . . . . . .Lot 3 8 . 3 . . .Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i SubdiyWon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Filed Map No. . . . . . . . .Lot No. . . . . . . Requirements for a private one- family dwelling built prior Conforms substantially to thelri&AXiliXtjj&)fltiW5A"X to A ril 23 1957 CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY . . �* . . . 1 . . .'. . . I . . . . . . . pursuant to whichal3 UJ dl{ig7P1 AWK No. .7. 1 . .1.5 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . dated .S e P t... . , 19 8 7.; . . . . . . . . . was issued, and conforins to all of the requirements R' — ■►. of the applicable provisions of the law. The occupancy fur which this certificate is issued is . . , . . .i . . $�.Fi .��IS,PECTI,ON, REPORT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . YOUNGS BOATYARD 6 MARINA The certificate is issued to . . . . . . . . . . . P O t+(4 M ,tl . 5 D 0 K O T I l Y J . Z L•'H N L•'R , (owner,/#il1!tX��X►?lDt X X of the aforesaid building. Suffolk County Department of Health Approval . . . . . . . . .N/A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UNDERWRITERS CERTIFICATE NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .N/A FLUM$SRS CERTIFICATION DATED: N/A Updates Pre C .O . #27404 Updates Pre C .O . #216153 Building Inspector Na.1/81 f TEL. 765-1802 ���Ff OLIr�O TOWN OF SOUTHOLD OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR P.O. BOX 728 TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD,N.Y. 11971 INSPECTION REPORT NAME : Young ' s Boatyard & •Marina DATE : Sept . 9 , 1987 OWNERS : Howard H . & Dorothy J . 'Lehner LOCATION : 1670 Sage Road , Greenport , N . Y . 11944 CO. TAX Y : District 1000-Sectiun 057-Block I Lot 38 . 3 rr ZONE : Industrial Light "C" zone LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY : 1 . Approximately-95 Boat slips 2 . Four tennis courts B .P . 1187492 c: .0 . Z7842 3 . Swimming Pool-public B . P . 118749•!.-C .O . Z7H41 i 4 . Bath House H . P . #8749Z-C . U . Z7842 5 : Large metal storage shed Pre C . O . Z15811 6 . Wood boat shed barn Pre C .O . Z15817 7 . Small storage building . 8 . One large building consisting; of three sections Pre C .O . Z15817-C .O . Z7404 & C .O . Z7286 9 . One private one family dwelling; B . P . IU94Z- C .O. 21139 10 . One stable with fence around 11 . One small cottage Pre C .Q . 215817 NO VIOLATIONS WERE FOUND . i Inspected by: " Curtis W. Horton Senior Building Inspector orvw wick oldno alsposal - piers, rampst tloac. pilings) � PRE-EXISTING DOCKAGE, 95 BOAT SLIPS Certificate of Occupancy No. Z16153 Dated September 10, 1987 r' N • t SouT"o%.o IV I ""K , 6 �j /� • Gelili• ' p 1CIMIT Y MAP Des K s •• IrF oO0 fpm .160. . �f PROPE�Z7Y 1.111E ' • • • a __•5 w •: r' 5 ^5 t 1J y loo 200 400 FT �: •, � �Cwl! : L" • 200►1 4 ` ► to.s rx/5T/NPLAN VIEW r . PURPOSE: PV4-,4,e j yOOAIF s .24a?i•V.4 IN: 5,41E A45IA/ DATUM; *014oV JZ4 LF✓FL : AT: .sovry✓,04 J ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: `" 1 ✓Ol�'IN �' �•*Rii �Gv�x•+� -K. COUNTY OF:.Saisoc&STATE: IY•/'- ' ,,. , APPLICATION BY: f�ECorti//CA.330C. 1Mo Zc'.J 4.f SiOG.,/NC• R r #, .I# lfl t? 1�hGY,�Bp�✓ir'W .P�.�.cl/' SHEET / OF (, DATE:/•1-8q- i . A _ FaL iiju I � fDl70 134S/C jfoora4 �j Pj z41, ,o, IZ { ,-sXATj OF NEW TO/K, COUNTY F, S~ . FOLK .s: STATE OF NEW TO, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK us On the 5 thday of Oct gbe'r 19 70, before ine On the 5 they of October 1970 , before me perfiotta]ly came 1 personally came FRED W. YOUNG HOWARD H. ZEHNER to me known to be the individual described in and who to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same. he executed the same. ��•/� ROBERT W TASKER ROBERT W. T15KER NOTARY PUBLIC, State of Now York NOTARY PUBLIC, State of Now York Suffolk Lounly No 52 790725 Suffolk County No. 62.39'1))25 Torm Expiios March 30, 1911 Term Explros March 30, 1971 STATE OF NEW YORK. COUNTY OF ss: STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF p; On the day of 19 before me On the day of 19 , before me personally came personally carne to me known, who, being by me duly sworn, did depose and to me known, who, being by me duly sworn, did depose and sayR-tim he resides at No. say that he resides at No. *w-"I he is the � I that he is the of of the corporation described , the corporation described in and which executed the foregoing instrument; that he in and which executed the foregoing instrument; that he knows the seal of said corporation; that the seal affixed knows the seal of said corporation; that the seal affixed to said instrument is such corporate seal; that it was so to said instrument is such corporate seal; that it was so affixed by order of the board of directors of said corpora- affixed by order of the board of directors of said corpora- tion, and that he signed h name thereto by like order. tion, and that he signed h name thereto by like order. anb male Meeb I . ' .' N • SECTION W III �.OVLNAN NSI GRANIUK's Acis LE No. 268545 BLOCK LOT FRED . YOUNG COUNTY OR TOWN TO HOWARD H. ZEHNER Recorded At Request of The Title Guarantee Cumpany RETURN BY MAIL TO:n "ANOARO Iwwtt Of NEW YORK 1IOARD Oi TITLE UNOERWRITERS ROBERT W. TASKER, ESQ Dinributed by 425 Main Street HE 717LE GUARANTEE COAIPA.NY Greenport, N.Y . 11944 _ I 7� Zip No. t � RECORDED A y. OCT 21 197 41Q. klIRAO NIOAjnsM. (ES�ER OA"LERTSON �+ 30 YV3�1 L Clerk of Suffolk County ' �o Lite ,. _• c, CONSULT YOUR LAWYER -ORE SIGNING THIS INSTRUMENT—THIS INS MENT SHOULD of USED BY LAWYERS ONLY. THIS INDENTURE, made Lite 5th day of October , nineteen hundred and seventy BETWEEN FRED W. YOUNG, ' residiQg at 'Arshamomaque, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, O� party of the first part, and i; HOWARD H.- ZEHNER, residing at 46 Revere Road, Port Washington, Nasguy.•County, New York, Y . party of the second Dart, . WITNESSETH, that the party of the tint Dart, in cun-ldcratton of One ' dell�t •, lawful money of the United State,. by the'party of the second bare, doc, hereh\ grant and rcica,c unto the party (if the• Dart; tiir'is-tri .,r ,V successors and assigns of the park' of the �,ccund Dart Ifirever, Ap 01 ALL that certain hluti hicaa(,r parcelluf land, \\tth thy' huddings and unl,n)�cn cw' tltrrr m , rcctcd lying and being in tite Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, bounded and described as follows : PARCEL, I . BEGINNING at a concrete monument set on the southerly side of a 16 feet wide Right of Way where it is intersected by the easterly line of the lands now or formerly of Killion and approx- imately 1740 feet easterly along the said Right of Way from State Road; Thence South 67° 41 ' 40 " East along the southerly line of said Right of- Way 428 . 73 feet to a concrete monument and the westerly line of the lands now or formerly of Sage; Thence South 16 ' 50 ' 40" West along said lands 760 feet to the ordinary high water mark of Peconic Bay; Thence westerly along said high water mark on a tie line course and distance North 60 ° 16 ' 20" West 481. 58 feet to the easterly side of the former entrance to the basin; Thence North 20 ' 28 ' 30" East along the former inlet to the basin, continuing along the bassin and further continuing along lands now or 'formerly of Kilion 694. 83 feet to the concrete monument set on the southerly line of said Right of Way at the point or place of beginning, together with all right title and interest in and to two arms of land abutting on the west the course North 20 ' 28 ' 30" East afore- mentioned and jutting into the basin; TOGETHER with non exclusive easement of Right of Way to pass and repass for all purposes over the 16 feet wide roadway hereinbefore. mentioned running from whereever said roadway contacts the premises hereinbefore described in a general westerly direction to Sate Road i (the main highway) . " krAl ES1AT►: ��� STA]i OF • T ts^Nt �f' �? t� F`., Yf�4 Ti "" o, iuxnhat, ocrztto 1 3 2. 0 0 J FALL PARCEL Il . BEGINNING at a point on the ordinary high water mark of Peconic Bay at the southeasterly corner of Lot 52, Map of South- old Shores , Suffolk County Map # 3853; from said point of beginning running along the easterly line of said Lot 52 and passing through a concrete monument North 20° 08 ' 40" West 40 feet more or less to the shore of the basin; thence in a general northeasterly direction through the waters of the inlet and along the shore of said basin on a line generally parallel with a course North 75 ° 15 ' 00" East 325 feet more or less to Parcel I ; thence along Parcel I to the ordinary high water mark of Peconic Bay; thence along the ordinary high water mark of Peconic Bay and through the waters of the inlet on a line generally parallel with the course South 75 ° 15 ' 00" West 325 feet more or less to the point or place of beginning. r TOGETHER with all the right, title and interest of the party of the first part the lands under the waters of Peconic Bay and the basin and between those bodies of water. BEING AND INTENDED TO BE the same premises conveyed to the party of the first part by deed dated March 21, 1950 , recorded April 18 , 1950 in Liber 3066 of Deeds at page 82 , and by deed dated August 17 , 1962 , recorded August 20, 1962 in Liber 5217 of Deeds at page ' 35 in the Office of the Clerk of the County of Suffolk. TOGETHER with all the easements and appurtenances in said deeds provided and subject to the covenants therein. i TOGETHER H•ith all �ht, title and interest, if any, of"the party u. the first part in and to any streets and roads abutting the above described premises to the center lines thereof, TOGETHER with the al,purtenances and all the estate and rights of the party of the first part in .,nd to said premises, TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the premises herein granted unto the party of the second pan, the heirs or successors and assigns of the party of the second part forever. The party of the second part , Howard H. Zehner, herebelow affixes his signature to this instrument evidencing his agreement to assume and pay the existing mortgage on the premises herein conveyed, which mortgage was made to The North Fork Bank & Trust Company by the party of the first part on May 10, 1966 , and recorded May 12, 1966 in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office in Liber 4937 of Mortgages at page 185 , on which the present remaining principal balance is $20, 131.23, with interest paid to September 20, 1970 r s AND the party of the first part covenants that the party of the first part has not done or, suffered anything whereby the said premises have been incuinhered in any way whatever, except as aforesaid. AND the party of the first part, in compliance with Section 13 of the Lien 11a%v, covenants that the party of the first part will receive the consideration for this conveyance and will hold the right to receive such can.,id- eration as a trust fund to be applied first for the purpose of paying the cost of the improvement and will apply the sante first to the payment of the cost of the itnprovernent before u5inb an), part of the total of the ,aine for any other purpose. The word "party" shall be construed as if it read "parties" whenever the sense of this indenture so requtrt�. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the party of the first part has duly executed this deed the day and year firit written. l IN PRESENCE OF: 0 Fred W Young Howard H. Zeh r jk;1""AI•t Qi MW Y"Oft1(t COUNTY Suffolk y OF Suf ns, ;;fq�� za Qf Mw YpAX. GN1l.w1Y �Jr the'•ly day of Decem}� 1970 ', before me Ort'the '►'" df� beEo personal came VrRA Y. SAGE personally came, �' ... 1p ,• ro me :` to me known 'to be the individual � � • • 1 ,;• � •' � � . !• ;�.. •�f1 . described in and who to me known to'be 'the individual described in and who executed'the 'fgre��oing instrument, and acknowledged that -executed the 1oregpig' instruj�ent,.and acknowled od that she executed the same, executed the same.it : ^� - • ^ I..•a v � 1 . 4 r .. , � . 1/i ,. , 'L,'/, •1�1 r�,` r Ir ,t . t S`, •` ;; ,t ' . ` •!.�' , ' " IRVING' .'PRICEt JPS.' {•• �'+ ,,:', ;'i., f,,' > �' • -VOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW YORK •'' '� lcdding in Skffulb Co.at t++Ra of r�j*ntnient I , .; �'..�t!: .,+'`'.t!' ' r„•., '{; . 't / 7• htt Commission Exvlres harsh �, 39 7� t4')�1! '''”' C'-ta l,•" '1 1 { �; ' '! •�^!'i• .p. ` .j: /.f., ,,' ��V M*�`t�r•��'�®ff`� :h ' '•', ♦ :�''.t2 .1•'mi �1�('�•• f�' •• r •! •r , `I' '. +t STATE OF NEW-YORK►'COUNTY OF•;' I-. r /'•'J a : '' STATE'OF NEW VORK. �.,I ,i ss:r. .. On the :' day of 19 , before.me On the dily of ., lg personally came • personally came r before me to me known, who, being by me duly sworn, did,depos+;"'and the pubscribing Witness- to the-,foregoing instrumm:.with $ay that . 'he resides at No.,,.,' 1 , , : whomx iuu personaUy acquainted, who, being by rpe 4u1X that hers p r " sworn,,.did•depose and s!y:that . he resides at No 1 �f �,�, ,.� 'N .'1,,. ••J• ti .1'•1,.. .1 L , r that be knows the corporation described •,' . '> in and which executed the foregoing instrumepi; that he to be the individual ` knows `$he,seal of said corporation; that -the' seal' affixed described j'0' and 'whp�executed{the foregoing instrument;, to said instrument is such corporate seal; that it was so that, I he,, said subscribing witness, was present and .-saw affixed f-by order of the board of directors of said corpora, execute the same; and that' he, said witness, tion, ,;wd thAt"i/he signed h name thereto by like order: at .the sarpe time subscribed h name as witness therfto. ; ` .� t.• .T.. ,' I 1.+ C ' , ,, .. .. ... . � fir•' ' , .. .,� r"� ,. : �, �3ar�nt;t tt:t� ��lt; �ecD '' � - .1" - 't'1 ,1~ `' • ' , ' •, � ',. WITH COVENANT,AGAINST GRANTOR'S ACTS `1 l• SECTION'' ms No. sLoC ' LOT.,' COUNTY OR TOWN,"''' ,.. _ ;'VE'R�;.Y; SAGE r, . � r' t, -', .r• ; tr c;l ' �r_ � . f, • � • . •.... '= • ,. . • r i.�!r. V, , , •,n; 1'11 i �1 ' C',. '.._ .. - - �,• � �• . .,rte, ,.:�:� t R..yf , 1r t , HOWARD•H.1'ZEHNER Accorded Al Rcqueu of The Tisk Gua cc l:ornpaar a C , ='-i•,Ir' 'RB'TUM'BY'1"M T4: RANDARD fORH.Oi N&Wjt ORK WARD of ili1E'Y►iDERWRITERi' �.i Ijr.1� '�7r+ .'c,f1 :� 'Qil't r r''• r K "• iL���p�}��a� ! W. Taa�iker, Esq. . ,,.,,�IJJI%`Yled ht•• •'" L �'• , „ ',: .1,1 •f i✓!i,.^�il.�'�'��uiii', t1;, lLY1{Li� 31.di�� .' '1, '!}• t• ,e l ^L. ar TITLE .+GJI�IIf'�1NT�L� COMPA -•'` ` r! : ,r` w NY t: . , ;. Attorney' at �aw•�.I , 425 Maisn•'15tr�et t.a 'fI� Nj,W.trpwK. I• .J.} '�,•�aa:r•,�1. }' ,'} .•.n.• .L , .', .�. QJrAIR T. tw 1 , �';• }r. , v>. 8.•w, rey�°TDcrt :N , 1 944 '1 •a, � • r• � y y , 'J� � 1 11'1' •t• , .. - ..��,. . .. �h . '•'f'%'�•"+•�,^..iT'�,-+ «,. y.-�7'•��.�'�f !'lS�'�.I'r�,.^q'�r"•"*1!'r.•'--•l�•Tw•.j ar••..-r-� •v. ..�I' • � ' .. rt..:'LIIt:•1'�J,IS�„ 'i J 'I' '1It'�' P' ;(� �, ' 1.•�•; . �. ,. . . ,, a • t ' ` '. � ' ,;+' `,'/•. :,'t, •J, ` ` �,a •r,'. s' .. '• • � �� + ,S t•'w. '.•l r�'� "!'' `71S''L .!.Jy' I'.,� .� .Y 1 ; • 1. , r . . Shziw-uiuc- USLU UYLA.Wyiu.&:L. D_-ceniber ninetecu IlUadi'mj and seventy VE)IL-A V. SAC,,i?,,, J:%'I`J(jiTjj.J` `i-t 817 Main Street, Greenport, Town of 0-M-LY (if SLIM)Lk glad SINI'LtLo of 'Qw Y:o rk, tarty U the fii-.t hart, and 110WARI) it. ZEHNUi 116, Sage Boulevard (no number), Towii of Southoid, Courity of SuffoI4 and State of New York, i?any Gi dia zzcuid hart, the party of the first part, in consideration of Ten Dollars and other valuable consideration i;,i., Ly Li,,: I,_i:,y(if the secolid part, duets hereby grant and release unto tli.;- party of the secoud part,,the heirs %3r _�t -Irld -."Ili:;iis of the party of the ,ezuad p;,rt Jorcver, �_K 0,at i el of land, with the buildings and th.-,,"coa erected, situate, Till." piece or parcel n at Arslia- mon-Laque, in the Town of Southold,' Suffolk County, York, fjouncled utid d(ascribod as follows- , fl BJE�GMNING at a point on the westerly boundary line of the premises of the paviy $ji the s(.'LOIICI part which point is South 20 degi-ees 213 minutes 30 seconds r ii %V,:-z3t 175 feet from a monument at the northwesterly corner of said land of the party of the second part; from said point of beginning running thence along said LUGI-Idary line of the land of the party of the second part South 20 degree 30 seconds West 400 feet; thence into the waters of the "basin" three COLLI-Si--i a.3 i0HOWS: North (.9 degrees 31 ininutes 30 seconds West 350 feet; thence �.(jrth 20 degrees 28 minute.; 30 ;seconds East 400 feet; thence f' (31) South 69 degrees 31 minutes 30 seconds East 350 feet to said westerly lino of the premises of the party of the first part and the point or place of be- TOGE THE'R with all of the right, title: and interest, if any, of the party of thc; first part of, in and to at-ly and all strips and gores of land, including land Uill,lar viater, between the above described premises and other lands of the party of tae second part. fl TOG E.Tl I ER with all right, title and interest, if any, of the party of the first part in and to any streets and roods ::butting the above described premises to the center lines thereof; TOGETHER with the appurtenances M!d .il the and rights of the party of the first part in and to said premises; TO HAVE AND TO I I OLO Itis lir,mi:.es herein granted unto the party of the second part, the heirs or successors and a'5Sij;Ds Of tliu- 11--fty of the second part forever. I'IND dit- p.irty of the first part covenants that the party of the first part has not done or suffered anythin.- wI,i:!iy the :,.Lid premises have been encun-Lacd in any way whatever, except as aiuresaill. ,.NI) oie 1;.Lrty tif the first 1xin.. in cnmp:'-:nue with SCCtiOn 13 of the Lien Law, covenants that the [girty of the ii*;.L part will -CCCiVc the C0113i&11011 for this couveyance and will hold the sight to receive such cou_,,id- as a trisa imid to be apljlicd lirst fur lthe purpose of paying the cost of the iinproveikictit and will ipjAy itz any Tnrt :J ♦tht !-,t--1 -l` the s=w: for .ay 'purpose. ;t The "party" sliall bt! construed as if it read "parties" whenever the sense of this indenture so requires. I' III"A'S iZ"S VIE=EX" the party of the first part has duly executed this decd the day and year first above �,-:Szxcr. or: souSA`1-76-1UM—Executor's Used—Indiki Corpuuuou(single sheet) / . Y Lw Ayr-- CONSULT OUR LAWYER BEFORE SIGNING THIS INSTRUMENT—THIS INSTRUMENT SHOULD BE USED BY LAWYERS ONLY.CLS'sA(r♦ 7M INDENTURE, made the /1( day of , ETnineteen hundred and eighty—one BWEEN t 04574 IRVING L. PRICE, JR. , 828 Front Street, Greenport, New York as executor of the last will and testament of VERA Y. SAGE , late of /^ Greenport, New York t who died on the 15th day of February , nineteen hundred and eighty party of the first part, and HOWARD ZEHNER and DOROTHY J. ZEHNER, his wife, both residing at 1670 Sage Boulevard, Greenport, New York party of the second part, WITNESSETH,that the party of the first part, to whom letters testamentary were issued by the Surrogate's Court, Suffolk County, New York on June 10, 1980 and by virtue of the power and authority given in and by said last will and testament, and/or by Article 11 of the Estates, Powers and Trusts Law, and in consideration of One Thousand Five Hundred ($1,500.00) ------------------------dollars, paid by the party of the second part, does hereby grant and release unto the party of the second part, the distributees or successors and assigns of the party of the second part forever, ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon erected situate, lying and beingawag at Arshamomoque, near Greenport, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, and State of New York, more particularly bounded Iand described as follows: )TRICT BEGINNING at a monument set at the northeasterly corner of land of )0 the party of the second part adjoining land of the party of the first part; .TION 13.00 running thence along said land of the party of the first part, two courses: (1) South 67° 41' 40" East 25.11 feet; thence (2) South 160 )CK 56 ' 40" West 777 feet, more or less, to ordinary high water mark of )5. 0 Peconic Bay; I0 mark, 28 feet more or less � � thence northwesterly along said high water ma , , 11.000 to a point 25.0 feet westerly from the last described line measured at right angles thereto, to said land of the party of the second part; thence along said land of the party of the second part, North 16° 56 ' 40" East 760 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. Said parcel of land being 25 feet wide throughout. ` TOGETHER with all right, title and interest, if any, of the of the first art in and to an streets Y PAY P Y and roads abutting the above described premises to the center lines thereof; TOGETHER with the appurtenances, t and also all the estate which the said decedent had at the time of decedent's death in saidpremises, and also 1 the estate therein, which the party of the fust part has or has power to conveyor dispose of, whether individ- ually, or by virtue of said will or otherwise; TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the premises herein granted unto the parr;of the second part, the distributees or successors and assigns of the party of the second part for ver. AND the party of the first part covenants that the party of the first part has not done or suffered ything whereby the Said p.re>pi;es have been incumbered in any way whatever, except as aforesaid. Subject to.ti ,-trtis,�i4,proyisions.of section thirteen of the Lien Law. The word "putA- bavvastrued as if it read "parties" whenever the sense of this indenture so i equires. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the party of the first part has duly executed this deed the day and year fiz st above written. IN >PUMNCs or: IrECEV AL ESIrvin L. Price, Jr. SEr 11 L�81 Ti,. , ;,FER ►HX is t=FOLK LOUfJTY A A 81 SEP II A10 : 51 A M • w CLERK O � SUFFOLK COUNTY �' A 0 r� z 'gyp ° j °`� apA Marl •��[oduaaa� I A�n►dWO�lIWLL1/:01u4now q aaaj S uTEW £O ioetT A N'PQiww►ia ..� O&V 14p Aatiaogw PWIS Uisw•M car IIi�S3C3.Z •r 1i�i2I3a32i3 JJJoA MON jO AYi4W07 30N)vunSN1311113dM4�1 . :As POP ODOW HaNHHZ •r LH10HOa We UHNHU CIHVk._d W. . ' - . __ ssxuaav a.axu.ts 3�KS 'x H2I3A 3o 4u6u1pgsas 5 TTTM 4spZ 8144 30 waoiaoAzxaoa ao4noaxa se •lir 4a:)jHd 'Z 9HIA2II aoz 330`19 64L9E—ZS—T8 'ON VuLi r xot.za3s Qaagg 0,2opuaxg) r o}A.wy+ swu*^ ," au= paquacgns auk aures aq; it •aapao a j iq o;aaaq; auisu q pau8ts aq ;eq; pug 'uoi4 'isau}i,u p196 'aq ;eq; pue :awes aq} a;naaxa -wodaoa pies ;o saoiaaarp }o paeoq aq; }o aapao dq paxt�e robs pus ;wsaad 'ceA► 'csaui!Aa Su�quasgns pies 'aq IMPos M& ;c 4e43 :jeas aieaodaoa gars si ;uawna}suc pigs o; 1uawru;su4 9ujo9aao; aq} pa}naaxa oqm pug uc paquasap paxiHe jras aq; ;eq; :uonwodaoa pies 3o Iw atp sasotq jVnpfn;pul aq} aq 03 all Imp :ivaumgsut 8uto8aao} aq; pa;naaxa VRA► pug ut pagpaasap uogwodaoa ;np ' sAaoux aq imp ; ' '011 ig iaplsaa aq req; .des pug acodap prp 'uaoms aq; st 09 Imp 9[np am A gutaq 'oqm 'pa;uienbae Slivuosaad me I uwgm -ON 3e saptsaa aq ;eq; Cgs q};m quataulsul 8uto9aao} aq3 W csau;tAn 8uiquasgns aga pue asodap p►p 'uaoms Ajnp aw dq 9ucaq 'ogAs 'uAsoun am o; aures ijpuosaad aum 41"osaad' aw 0401 61 3a TP OLD uO am aao}aq ' 61 30 (gp aq; U0 tss ' 10 ALM03 'XVOA AUN !O UVLS sss !O AAM04 'XVOA SUN !O uVli Y✓( �wno3 41614ns_61 Pompno g VN 40A MON W ms VWW w1oM � i: ,,� ,• OIiY�1/n111h'�A4LL11�1 oTTc[nd 40M 'awes aq3 pa}naaxa •aures alp pa;naaxa a** 3gg3 paBWI PUV 13uaam.gsui 9mo8aao; aq; pa;naaxa IMP pa2paimou:q3e pue '3uauni4su4 BU102a40; Dtp W;n3a oqA► pug 'u pa(L tenpwiput alp aq o; UAW" aur o; ogAs Pug U1 Paquasap •jenpiAipui aq; aq o; uAw in aw ear 'aaTad •Z buinal awp ,Cpeaosaad � maga �CAgaocsad 9 61 ;o Agp xp u0 am wo;aq 'T 8 6I � 4( P 7~1 Wo a0 do A1MAoa `31HOA A"M 10 .SAW"" z 1IrI033f1S eo AIM02 '�P►�al�f��'�'!�flll CONSULT YOUR LAWYER iEfOtE SIGNING THIS INS L ;.p 'i• t �h�INSTRUMENT SHOULD EE USED EY LAWYERS ONLY CAWOM 09PAGER8 -'Ar THIS INDENTURE,madehe 1Ft4 day of December ,nineteen hundred and eigV wo BETWEEN � ' Y/ �-1� CHARLOTTE SAGE, residing at (No #) Sage Boulevard, Greenport New York; MICHAEL SAGE, residing at 805 Kerwin Boulevard, Greenport, New York; JAMES' SAGE, residing at 495 Sterling Place, Greenport, New York; and PATRICIA SAGE, residing at 217 Sixth Street Green or York , P t, New t` party of the first part,and HOWARD H. ZEHNER and DOROTHY J. ZEHNER, his wife, both 1 residing at (No #) Sage Boulevard, Greenport, New York r REQ; i1i L f; 7— REAL ESTATE --- party of the second part, 15386 JAN 10 1983 WITNESSE TRANSFER TAX TH, that the party of the first part,in consideration of SUFFOLK 6""y TEN ($10. 00)-------------------------- - __ COUNTY dollars, ?E7, lawful mqpey of the United States, and other good and valuable consideration paid -7.01 by the party of the second part, does hereby grant and release unto the party of the second part, the heirs or successors and assigns of the party of the second part forever, CEt 1: ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, 1byLjcbngzx ttChNDEOti9d, situate, tin d bei lying anng)iz*e at Arshamomaque , Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York , being bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point where the division line ?Between land of William Kilian and Zehner intersects the southerly line of a 16 foot right of way which said point is also the Northeast corner of land of William Kilian; ing thence along said division line of said lands in a southerly direction 125. 0 feet to the point of beginning; g ping thence along land of Zehner South 200 28' 30" West 50 feet; running thence North 690 31' 30" West 50. 0 feet to other land now or formerly of Sage; running thence North 650 28' 30" East 70. 71 feet to the point and place !; of BEGINNING. s TOGETHER with a perpetual navigational right of way over other lands of the party of the first part in the basin adjoining the subject premises for ingress and egress to the subject premises in common with others. 'CEL 2: ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and .P. being at Arshamomaque, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, and State of New York, being bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point •:here U:=e division line between land of William Kilian and the land of Zehner intersects the southerly line of a 16 foot right of way which said point is also the Northeast corner of �t^� land Of William Kilian; 3kion ming thence along said division line in a Southerly direction with too its prolongation of said division line 575. 0 feet to the northeast Ick corner of land of Sage, the said point of beginning; running thence South 20° 28' 30" West 90.0 feet; C, running thence Southwest along the shore line of Pipes Cove, 140. 0 4. 001 feet;. ,,: x i iC •a' .ta 8. uaFQ9z%psGE51g running thence North 340 24' 10" West 295.0 feet to land of Zehner; running thence South 69° 31' 30" East 350 feet to the Of BEGINNING. point or place TOGETHER with a perpetual navigational right of way over other lands o the party of the first part in the basin adjoining the subject for ingress and egress to the subject premise s J premises in common with others. Y r- z , i. R t, k �a T t T c a E F LIK19296PAGE520 TOGETHER with all right, title and interest, if any, of the party of the firstrt_' Pa �n and to any streets and x roads abutting the above described prenaip s to the center lines thereof, TOGETHER with the appurtenances and all the estated i hts of the �',,�'g early of the first part in and to z said premises, TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the premises herein granted unto the � party of the second part, the heirs or 4 successors and assigns of the party of the second part forever. - 1 a 1 ' Y r r AND the party of the first part covenants that the party of the first part has not done or suffered anything whereby the said premises have been incumbered in any way whatever, except as aforesaid. AND the party of the first part, in compliance with Section 13 of the Lien Law, covenants that the party of the first part will receive the consideration for this conveyance and will hold the right to receive such consid- eration as a trust fund to be applied first for the purpose of paying the cost of the improvement and will apply the same first to the payment of the cost of the improvement before using any part of the total of the same for any other purpose. The word "party" shall be construed as if it read "parties" whenever the sense of this indenture so requires. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the party of the first part has duly executed this deed the day and year first above F written. {` IN PREUNCE oF:4 ,/v� ^y V A to 45- /5/ Charlotte Sage da;V I/ 157 Michael Sage Sage R ' Patricia-Sal-e- FLORMAL STATE OF K MMt]CdK COUNTY OF P/AIXII.O S SS: STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF Suffolk SSf On the day of December 1982 , before me On the 1F day of December 1982 , before me O -ersonallq came personally came Michael Sage, James Sage Charlotte Sage and Patricia Sage eL to me known to be the individual described in and who to me known to be the individual'§ described in and who Q3 executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that executed the foregoing instrument; and acknowledged that �.2 she executed the same. they executed the same. `,;'���' •' f Notary Publiq S A�kQ�/� MG�r�M, No ry ub is l w �� ; ,f )• _ 'c+i`gt'. saa� ,� 1/ «�/a+ IRVING L PRICE; JR. � kav `�^^ roc LIS" WITAWY PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW YORK ,,� �U ���' `';• (� aesiding in sedfslk Co.It time of ettNint:mn� My Commission Expires March 30, 19fg3 STATE'div IiEMMrMbRN(. COUNTY Of , SS: STATE Of NEW YORK. COUNTY OF Sf: On the / day f A.E,e j / 19 z-, before me On the day of 19 before me personally came (: personally came to me known, who, being q me my orn, did depose and the subscribing witness to the foregoing instrument, with say that he resides at No. whom I am personally acquainted, who, being by me duly that he is the sworn, did depose and say that be resides at No. of that he knows the corporation described in and which executed the foregoing instrument; that he to be the individual 1--tows the seal of said corporation; that the seal affixed described in and who executed the foregoing instrument; said instrument is such corporate seal; that it was so that he, said subscribing witness, was present and saw . ..fixed by order of the board of directors of said corpora- execute the same; and that he, said witness, tion, and that he signed h name thereto by like order. at the same time subscribed h name as witness thereto. Bargain anb Oult Web WITH COVENANT ACAiNsT GRANTOR'S ACCs t' SECTION TITLE NO. 82-52-41482 U ��h /��/ r� BLOCK SAGE ! LOT TO COUNTY OR TOWN ZEHNER Recorded at Request of &VAM&M .fir.. Return by Mail to Recorded By: 0�-IJFE TITLE INSURANCE Company of New York 127 W.Main Street Frederick J. Tedeschi Riverhead N.Y.11901 ec- Attorney at Law Return to: 218 Front Street �r II Greenport, N.Y.20 No. 11944 W V c ' tp ' z � :o V o W 3��i3 j.r ,3�Hi N Hits 6E T.n R CA �3a�p�3b w