The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTR-9474 Glenn Goldsmith,President S(j�fTTown Hall Annex A. Nicholas Krupski,Vice President 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 John M. Bredemeyer III Southold,New York 11971 Michael J. Domino G Telephone(631) 765-1892 Greg Williams �r Y� Fax(631) 765-6641 N%� ' BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD January 21, 2021 Keith B. Neilson, PE Docko Inc. P.O. Box 421 Mystic, CT 06355 RE: DONALD W. YOUNG REV. TRUST & KELLY C. YOUNG REV. TRUST Off EAST END ROAD, FISHERS ISLAND SCTM#: 1000-3-2-2 Dear Mr. Neilson: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Board of Trustees at their Regular Meeting held on Wednesday, January 20, 2021. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Trustees APPROVE the Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9474 and Coastal Erosion Permit#9474C to extend pier an additional 12' landward toward house with one additional set of piles, and as depicted on the site plan prepared by Docko, Inc., last dated December 1, 2020 and stamped approved on January 20, 2021. Any other activity within 100' of the wetland boundary requires a permit from this office. This is not an approval from any other agency. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, Glenn Goldsmith President, Board of Trustees GG/dd FISHEtZS ISL AND BOARD OF I TRUSTEES N SOUND -'LOW[OF SOUTHOLD GK DA E �TE J' v 2e,2o2� ND DEELT — RAILS � DECK EL 5 _ NEW 77E-OFF PILE Wth- - -N DE-SLIDE(DP) p -014p7E DEGK EL S p a ~S 3 _ `SAND BOTTOM p CONDITIONS ' . �- p SAND BOTTOM- - - - - p GONDMON5 .2- EEL GRASS -, � p� �p NEW ELECTRIC and WATER Cl171J7I�E5 p - - - - - - . (LOCATION MAY VARY) a_ -EEL GRASS LIMIT OF ROCKS "AJ ® NEW PIER SUPPOR � NEW RAIL5(Tl< p BOULDER CrYPh PILE(TYP)T� i \ "��p R.°=a-4 SPAr�RTl NA AL'TERhIIF r'; LIMIT OF -• \ s� `-` r - fir {' .GRASSWORT ROCKS x. Po x y s a 7411, r 11 yo NA TEWIFLORA ; GRA%WORT x — _1- J r } } ► � } } } 5PARi1NA SPARTINA 1� PATENS MATE � fiIHVJL 1 } } } SPARTJNA' `} PATENS - r } } } PATENS } DUNE DEEDED APPARENT HIGH 4 GRASS }t PROPERTY LINE WATER LINE AHWL r NEW 4-FT WIDE FIXED PILE 5 5UPPORTED PIER with RAILS { } i o � REQUESTED 4-FT WIDE X 12+LF FRED PILE I \ SUPPORTED PIER EX1EN510N with RAILS III, 12tLF EXTENSION t PHRAGM NOTE: ALL IN-WATER WORK RELATED TO THE R PEEROTMATE e: CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED PIER WILL �� LINE PROPEAWPORIYA N TAKE PLACE OUTSIDE OF THE EEL GRASS r PROPERTY LINE GROWING SEASON FROM APRIL 15 TO OCTOBER 31 IN ANY GIVEN YEAR. THIS CONDITION IS N/F PROPERTY NECESSARY TO AVOID IMPACTS TO EEL GRASS LOCATED IN THE FISHERS ISLAND BEACH AREA, APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF OF NOYESN/F PROPERTY OF ,I:{:� AND TO COMPLY WITH COASTAL POLICY 6.2 Of EXISTING PATH TO BF�Gd.- THE NY CAM ACT H LAN PL�.IV �/I EW `'MIJSELJI',1 IN_G GRAPHIC SCALE 1'=40' PROJEGT NEW PIER D E:r 1 4 2020 40 20 0 40 REVISED 9-1147 DEC; LOCATION: FISHERS ISLAND-TOWN of SOUTHOLD PIER ELEVATION SUFFOLK COUNTY,,NEWIYOReC WATERWAY- FISHERS ISLAND SOUND R!.\115ED 3-20-18 DEG 0 G K .y KEir DATE: MAY 30,2017 tj�°a`y NOTE APPLIGANT: DONALD YOUNG f REVISED 43-19 DEG • r EPF-2$GRATE DEGKING AGENT-. SHEET 2 OF 3 _-- 4 r; "VI5FD6-27-19NOTE INC;. ' CHANGE Keith B.Neilson,PE OR p O - REVISED 12-1-20 DEG Mystic,GT 06355 ARD PIER EXTENSION 860 572 8939 FAX 860 572 7569 DWG 17-03-2822 0. EMAIL:ofAceC@docko.com F�th 5 Neils r,,Decko Inc 12,1/2020 RC4 AM Young-Dock-20 dHg NOTE- 1.TIE-OFF PILE HAS APPROXIMATE AREA 4.4-FT NEW TIE-OFF PILE OF GONTAGT:.5±51' �i CLEAR I� TOP EL 10±FT(7YP) WIDTH STEPS with RAILS END DECK EL 5.5±FT NEW ELECTRIC and WATER U71L1T11;5(LOCATION MAY VAR-7 II END DECK EL 3.5±FT f f PILE SUPPORTED PIER I'` NEW PER SUPPORT PILE TOP NEW E EL 4-FT ABOVE DECK(TYF 11 l with GRATE DECK(1YP) ?II —AHWL 3.5s- - — — — -MHW2.3- NEW SPLIT CLAMP and NEW TIDE-SLIDE r�GU_ _ALWL O.O- - GROSS BRACE L?YP) OFALL T1E--JFFPILES) 11 �' EELGRA55 — — Ctm PROFILE AT END OF PIER BOTTOM SEDIMENTS:SAND NOTE: ALL IN—WATER WORK RELATED TO THE NOTE: CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED PIER 1.IN SPITE OF EELGRASS BEDS IN THE VICINITY WILL TAKE PLACE OUTSIDE OF THE EEL GRAPHIC SCALE 1'=10 THERE HAS BEEN NO EELORA55 IN THIS GRASS GROWING SEASON FROM APRIL 15 TO PROPOSED DOCK AREA FOR THE PAST TEN OCTOBER 31 IN ANY GIVEN YEAR. THIS 10 5 0 10 YEARS SINGE THE ORIGINAL HYDROGRAPHIC CONDITION IS NECESSARY TO AVOID IMPACTS SURVEY FOR THE DWYERS IN 2010. TO EEL GRASS LOCATED IN THE FISHERS 2.DECKING-NOT GGA TREATED,HARDWOOD ISLAND BEACH AREA, AND TO COMPLY WITH MUST BE CERTFIED BY FOREST STEWARDSHIP COASTAL POLICY 6.2 OF THE NY CAM ACT COUNCIL OPEN GRATE DECKING ON ENTIRE PIER 12±FT NEW 4-FT WIDE PILE SUPPORTED NEW TIE-OFF PILE with TIDE SLIDE TOP EL 10+FT(TYP) EXTENSION PIER with GRATE DECK EL 63FT NEW STEPS with RAILS. DUNE GRASS NEW PIER [7ECK EL)r r APPROXIMATE NEW RAILS(TYP) ANGLE PONT ��42_-F i MUM DECK EL AHWL SLOPE 1:IO �`I 3. F7 O&FT AHWL ti MHW F7312Q:rT PREVIOUSLY A 6±Fr ' UTHQ121ZED SLOPED SPARTINA DECK EL 9±FT PIER SPARTINA -� GLASSW R�NIFLO NEW PIER SUPPORT PILE TOPpI NEW Lr1LITIE5 P05T jG PATENS EL 4-FT ABOVE DECK(P(P) (LOCATION MAY VARY) 11 REQUESTED 12±LF PIER EXTENSION P20F1L_EE — -`— — GRAPHIC 5GALE 1"=30. 30 20 10 O 30 ELEVATIONS ARE BASED CIN APPARENT LOW WATER PROJECT: NEW PIER DEC 1 4 2020 REVISED 12-1-20DEC REVISED 9-11-17 DEG LOCATION: FISHERS ISLAND-TDVN of SOUTHOLD LANDWARD PER PIER ELEVATION SUFFOLK COUNTY, NtW YORI �_ -- WATERWAY: FISHERS ISLAND SOUND �,� KEI REVISED 11-7-17 DEG DATE: MAY 30,2017 - O C If_ 'J PIER ELEVATION 9 ,e,"a SED 3-20-18 DEG APPLICANT: DONALD YOUNG # e- NOTE AGENT: SHEET 3 OF 3 fi ISED 43-19 NY PDEG ER [�OCKO, INC. C, s Keith B.Neilson,PE �► 0� 6g2 � �LSED 6-27-19 NOTE Mystic,GT 06355 P � ESS10N�� CHANGE 860 572 8939 FAX 860 572 7569 DWG 17-03-2822 EMAIL:offiice@docko.com Kziih 8.Nzil=on,Docl:o Inc.'2^:,2020§§:O3,�d" Ya rg-Dock_3H dNg Docko, 1, c. Serving the waterfront community since 1987 P.O.Box 421,Mystic,CT 06355(860)572-8939 Fax:(860)572-7569,email:office@docko.com ° January 4,2021 Mr. Glenn Goldsmith Southold Board of Trustees E Town Hall Annex lr 54375 Route 5 JAN - 202 1 PO Box 1179 �.. Southold,NY 11971 Re: Property of Donald Young SCTM No. 1000-3-2-2 Dear Mr.Goldsmith: Over the past few years,we have developed a suitable dock plan for property of Mr.Don Young on Fishers Island and have obtained all the necessary permits. The basis of the plan was to maintain the existing"non-turf'vegetation for a 10 foot buffer"as is"from the tidal wetlands to the lawn,in conformance with Town of Southold permitting standards for waterfront facilities and landscaping improvements. We understand clearly the reason for the 10-foot vegetated "non-turf'buffer by Town of Southold standards. We support this design standard and want to make the landscaping harmonious with the site.We also want to provide the proper buffer between the landscaped lawn and the tidal wetlands. The existing vegetation provides the physical separation between the two features but does not accomplish the intention of the buffer strip. The existing vegetation grows wild and unmanaged.It is not native to Fishers Island and it is invasive to the point that it has overrun the foreshore. The entire area has been overrun with Porcelain Berry (Ampelopsis brevipedunculata) which is choking out the Switch Grass and Big Bluestein that once dominated the shoreline in this area. In terms of the sensitive shoreline habitat of Fishers Island,it would be much better to cut out this vegetation and supplement the few remaining native grasses with additional plugs of Switch Grass and Big Bluestein in its place.We request approval by the trustees to implement this change. Access to the pier could be with a simple 4-foot-wide path that would be mowed, otherwise the dune vegetation would grow wild.We have,however, come up with the proposal now before you which will span the riparian vegetative buffer and do so with significant ecological benefit. We hope that you will find this vegetation replacement option attractive and permittable as a"de minimis" change. The configuration and location of the dock will not change,merely extend another 12 feet to the existing slight ridge to be consistent with all of the permits that we have received to date.In our opinion, this approach is a superior alternative to our original design. Please let me know if there is a formal process that we must go through in order to modify the shorefront vegetation as we have proposed herein,if it can be included with the administrative pier extension application subfnission on for this week.Your assistance as always is greatly appreciated. Very Truly Yours, Docko, Inc. Keith B.Neilson,P.B. KBN:cl CC: Mr.Donald Young File: 17-03-2822 DONALD YOUNG S�FFt?(� Glenn Goldsmith," `'sident O C Town Hall Annex Michael J. Domu� ,�� e G�J,q 54375 Route 25 John M. Bredemeyer III o '` P.O. Box 1179 A. Nicholas Krupski oSouthold, NY 11971 Greg Williams yqMp! Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Date/Time: Completed in field by: Docko, Inc., on behalf of DONALD W. YOUNG REV. TRUST & KELLY C. YOUNG REV. TRUST requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9474 and Coastal Erosion Permit#9474C to extend pier an additional 12' landward toward house with one additional set of piles. Located: off East End Road, Fishers Island. SCTM#: 1000-3-2-2 CH. 275-3 - SETBACKS WETLAND BOUNDARY: Actual Footage or OK=4 Setback Waiver Required 1. Residence: 100 feet 2. Driveway: 50 feet 3. Sanitary Leaching Pool (cesspool): 100 feet 4. Septic Tank: 75 feet 5. Swimming Pool and related structures: 50 feet 6. Landscaping or gardening: 50 feet 7. Placement of C&D material: 100 feet TOP OF BLUFF: 1. Residence: 100 feet 2. Driveway: 100 feet 3. Sanitary leaching pool (cesspool) 100 feet: 4. Swimming pool and related structures: 100 feet Public Notice of Hearing Card Posted: Y / N Ch. 275 Ch. 111 SEQRA Type: 1 II Unlisted Action Type of Application: Pre-Submission Administrative Amendment Wetland Coastal Erosion Emergency Violation Non-Jurisdiction Survey <_ 5 years: Y/N Wetland Line by: C.E.H.A. Line Additional information/suggested modifications/conditions/need for outside review/consultant/application completeness/comments/standards: I have read & acknowledged the foregoing Trustees comments: Agent/Owner: Present were: J. Bredemeyer M. Domino G. Goldsmith N. Krupski G. Williams Other r. FISHERS 1SL�.ND e>B N SOUND FL000 y_ 1 END DECK EL 3_%Fr 9 NEW STEPS wffh RAILS Ox\ _ DECK EL 55±Fr NEW'm-aFF PILE w � as� _ _ 71DE--SLIDE(DP) �. -NEW 4A-FT WIDE PIER with GRATE DECK EL 83rF\\ S 3 SAND BOTTOM 3+� A � GONDITON5 - fl ! g 9 SAND BOTTOM EEL GRASS - — — — — A GONDITONS— — — — — - � �`��€1� � \ p� NEW ELECT RIC and WATER U71LME5 _ (LOCA710N MAY tx, � EEL GRASS LIMIT OF ROGKS `a� _ _ _ \ a NEW PIER SUPPOR7�� NEW RAILS \ BOULDER(TYPh PL-_(lYP) SPARTINA ALTERNIFI� �' LIMIT OF '5'FT r GRASSWORT \ \ ROGKS Pri "74�, SPARTINAALTERNIFLORA f �' �/ " g*� FI*� \ p \p - -� GRASSWORT SPARTINA _1 w T ;' SPARTINA 1\ PATENS /- 'y w k` c 3' 1 SPS F PATENS XIMATE MHWL ,PATENS APPROX. DUNE DEEDED -3� APPARENT HIGH 4� GRASS PROPERTY LINE WATER UNE AHWL � \\ NEW 4-Fr WIDE F)CED P4 E 5. § v SUPPORTED PER with RAILS REQUESTED 4-FT WIDEX 12tL.F FUND I 12tLF EXTENSION \ SUPPORTED PIER EXTENSION wffh RAILS `': ?' ' PHRAGM � xhfin � NOTE: ALL IN-WATER WORK RELATED TO THE APPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINE APPROXIMATE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED PIER WILL w47F � r r ffi TAKE PLACE OUTSIDE OF THE EEL GRASS PROPERTY LINE { GROWING SEASON FROM APRIL 15 TO OCTOBER �svk3 31 IN ANY GIVEN YEAR. THIS CONDITION IS NECESSARY TO AVOID IMPACTS TO EEL GRASS N/F PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE FISHERS ISLAND BEACH AREA, APPROXIMATE U GATION OF OF NOYES AND TO COMPLY WITH COASTAL POLICY 6.2 OF EXI571NG PATH TO B N/F PROPERTY OF THE NY CAM ACT i PL_. N \/1 EW i IU I� GRAPHIG SCALE V==40' 'i ao 20 0 PROJECT- NEW PER H D Er_. 1 4 2020 REVISED 9-1117 DEG LOCATION: FISHERS ISLAND-TOWN of SOUTHOLD PIER ELEVATION SUFFOLK COUNTY,NEWLYO ®� WATERWAY: FISHERS ISLANDS UND REVISED 3-20.18 DEG DATE: MAY 30,2017 - �,��;0 isapIC CO „50 NOTE APPLICANT: DONALD YOUNG -� r } REVISED 43-19 DEC s cP R$GRATE DEGKING AGENT: SHEET 2 OF 3 f _ 4 SED 6-27-19 NOTE DOGKO, ANG. GHANGE Keith B.Neilson,PE CORP 0 O 068692 REVISED 12-1-20 DEG Mystic,Cr 06355 OFFSSI�NP ARD PIER EXTENSION 860 572 8939 FAX 860 572 7569 DWG 17-03-2822 EMAIL:ofriceQdocka.com Leith B Nelson Dccko Inc 12,1/2020110-4-AM Young-DocF;_2G&q 0 NOTE 1 TIE-OFF PILE HAS APPROXIMATE AREA 44-FT NEW TIE-OFF PILE OF CONTACT 5±SF CLEAR I� TOP EL IO±FT(TYPF\- WIDTH NEW 37-EP5 with RAILS END DECK EL 55±FT NEW ELECTRIC and WATER END DECK EL 3 S±FT UTILITIES(LOCATION MAY VA" NEW PIER SUPPORT PILE TOP NEW PILE SUPPORTED PIER ==- ; ' _-- EL 4-FT ABOVE DECK(TYP) with GRATE DECK(TYP) ;i ` ' j,; —AHWL 35±— — -MHW 2 3— - NEW SPLIT CLAMP and ° ° NEW TIDE-SLIDE(TYPICAL I GROSS BRACE(TYP)� , o — -ALWL 00- - j, OF ALL TIE-OFF PILES) j EELGRASS I' EELORA55 OTTOM PROFILE, AT END OF PER ' BOTTOM SEDIMENTS SAND ;, 'i•.,. . Iii- ,j. - NOTE: ALL IN—WATER WORK RELATED TO THE NOTE- CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED PIER 1 IN SPITE OF EELGRASS BEDS IN THE VICINITY WILL TAKE PLACE OUTSIDE OF THE EEL GRAPHIC SCALE V= THERE HAS BEEN NO EELGRASS IN THIS GRASS GROWING SEASON FROM APRIL 15 TO PROPOSED DOCK AREA FOR THE PAST TEN OCTOBER 31 IN ANY GIVEN YEAR. THIS 10 5 O 10 YEARS SINGE THE ORIGINAL HYDROGRAPHIC CONDITION IS NECESSARY TO AVOID IMPACTS SURVEY FOR THE DWYERS IN 2010 TO EEL GRASS LOCATED IN THE FISHERS 2 DECKING-NOT GGA TREATED,HARDWOOD ISLAND BEACH AREA, AND TO COMPLY WITH MUST BE CERTFIED BY FOREST STEWARDSHIP COASTAL POLICY 6.2 OF THE NY CAM ACT COUNCIL OPEN GRATE DECKING ON ENTIRE PIER 12±FT NEW 4-FT WIDE PILE SUPPORTED NEW TIE-OFF PILE with TIDE SLIDE TOP EL 10±FT(TYP) ~° EXTENSION PIER'with GRATE DECK EL 8.3±FT NEW STEPS with RAILS DUNE GRASS NEW PIER DECK EL 55± ( FT APPROXIMATE NEW RAILS TYP) 42+ANGLE POINT .� Fr MAXIMUM DECK EL AHWL SLOPE 1 10 � 35+FT AHWL _,ZZ PREVIOUSLYALWL 20±FT 6±F1 AUTHORIZED SLOPED %; :i= SPARTINA DECK ELt9±Fr PIER a ALTERNIFLORA �I �I.;, ;.I;. ;; SPARTINA GLASSWORT NEW PIER SUPPORT PILE TOP NEW UTILITIES POST EELG PATENS EL 4-FT ABOVE DECK(TYP) (LOCATION MAY VARY) REQUESTED 12+LF PIER EXTENSION F�201=I L—EE -- GRAPHIC SCALE 1'=30' (( C�J I Ef�Z �#J E 3 30 20 10 O 30 ELEVATIONS ARE BASED RA," PARENT LOW WATER(A ) PROJECT NEW PIER 'I DEC 1 4 2020 U REVISED 12-1-20 DEC REVISED 9-11-17 DEC LOCATION FISHERS ISLAND-T WN of SOUTHOLD LANDWARD PIER }Ole PIER ELEVATION SUFFOLK COUNTY,NEW RK WATERWAY FISHERS ISLAND SOUND KEi ® REVISED 11-7-17[DEC DATE- MAY 30, OfI e 2017 �----- t° B PIER ELEVATION I{ � Ci- '�' � APPLICANT DONALD YOUNG , 2� EVISED 3-20-18 DEC o 0 r� { NOTE AGENT SHEET 3 OF 3 ss SED 43-19 NY DEG DOCKO, SNC. PIER , Keith B Neilson,PE ®.$ P 0 R �►�� Q 06$682.1 �� EVISED 6-27-19 NOTE Mystic,GT 06355 �RQ�ES$1ON� CHANGE 860 572 8939 FAX 860 572 7569 DWG 17-03-2822 EMAIL.office@docko com Keith Netlsor,DockoIrc '2'/2020"03A1' Yo,rg-Dock_3H&g 1, Dock®, Inc. Serving the waterfront community since 1987 P.O.Box 421,Mystic,CT 06355(860)572-8939 Fax:(860)572-7569,email:office@docko.com 15lauembperLi0 2020 9 � D E � i�' it E r. Glen Goldsmith ----, President Town of Southold Trustees DEC ' 42020 Town Hall E PO Box 1179 Sou iiold lo;�ri Southold,NY 11971 Bo nd Of.T.-iatecs Re: Property of Donald Young Administrative Amendment Request Dear Mr. Goldsmith: On behalf of Mr. Donald Young, SCTM# 1000-3-2-2, off of East End Rd., we respectfully request an Administrative Amendment to Tidal Wetlands permit No. 9474 and Coastal Erosion Permit No. 9474C to extend the pier 12 FT landward toward the house. This is all work over land and is desired in order to better fit the grades and gradients of the property and preserve the existing nearshore vegetation, spanning over an abrupt change in grade. The pier will maintain a more or less uniform elevation of 9FT above MLW coming ashore at that elevation. The pier structure will be built in the same manner as the rest of the pier using one additional set of driven piles and spanning over the grade change with stringers typical of this pier construction. Attached are revised drawings,two sets as requested,to cover this amendment and a check in the amount of$100.00 to cover the amendment administrative fee of$50.00 per permit. Very Truly Yours, Docko, Inc. Keith B.Neilson, P.E. KBN:c1 Attachments CC: Ms. Claire Werner,NY DEC 1-4738-04558/0001 Mr. Thomas Asbery,NY ACE NAN-2017-01078-M1 Mr. Christian McGugan, Gwenmor Marine Mr. Donald Young, Owner File: 17-03-2822 DONALD YOUNG Docko, Inc. Sewing the waterfront community since 1987 P.O.Box 421,Mystic,CT 06355(860)572-8939 Fax:(860)572-7569,email:office@docko.com t ; March 27, 2020 � IMAY 2 g Southold Board of Trustees P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Donald Young Permit NO. 9474 Off East End Road, Fishers Island Work Start Notice Dear Mr. King, Mr. Young will begin work on his project starting on March 30, 2020. The contractor doing the work is Gwenmor Marina located at 12 Roseleah Drive in Mystic, Connecticut. The company phone number is 860-536-0281. Please do not hesitate to contact our office with any questions. Yours truly, S a DOC�O� INC. f Christina Lopes Project Administrator CB: tw CC: Donald Young r Dooko, Inc. Serving the waterfront community since 1987 P.O.Box 421,Mystic,CT 06355(860)572-8939 Fax:(860)572-7569,email:office@docko.com March 10, 2020 State of New York Department of State One Commerce Plaza. 99 Washington Avenue Albany,NY 12231-0001 Re: Word Start Notice Donald Young F-2019-0639 To Whom it May Concern: I have attached herewith copies of the work start notices for Donald Young,off East End Road on Fishers Island for your file. Please give us a call if you have any questions. Yours truly, DOCKO, INC. Keith B.Neilson, P.E. KBN: tw Enclosures Cc: Donald Young Docho, Inc. Serving the waterfront community since 1987 ' P.O.Box 421,Mystic,CT 06355(860)572-8939 Fax:(860)572-7569,email:office@docko.com March 10, 2020 Bureau of Habitat-TW 50 Circle Road Stony Brook,NY 11790-3409 Re: Word Start Notice 1-4738-04558/00001 To Whom it May Concern: I have attached herewith copies of the work start notices for Mr. Donald Young off East End Road on Fishers Island for your file. Please give us a call if you have any questions. Yours truly, DOCKO, INC. G Keith B.Neilson, P.E. KBN: tw Enclosures Cc: Donald Young I ()T10E'OF COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION RETURN THIS,FORWTO:COMPLIANCt OR FAX TO :'631-444-0272 Marine Habitat Protection E•MaiI:dec.sm.R1MHP'BEH@dec.ny.gov NYSDEC 50 Circle Road SUNY aO,Stony Brook Stony Brook,NY 11790-3409 PERMIT NUMBER: " a,21)U— ( EXPIRAi70N DATE: m -PERMITTEE•NAME,i&-PROJECT ADDRESS: CONTRACTOR NAME&ADDRESS: r TELEPHONE Dear Sir: 4nd�d )e !� n ions of the referenced permit,you are hereby notified that the authorized activity shall commence on We certify-,thaVwe have read the referenced permit and`approved pians and fully-understand the*auonazea $jecl permit conditions.We have in the.project site and can icompiete the project as described in the permit and'as depicted on the approved pl 1Ate"can do so,irt,full comps• with all•plan.notes,and permit condition!;.The permit,'pePmit sign;and approved' piens will be aVa►1 to 'the sit inspection in a !dance with ge erul Cond ' No. 1, B h si0natures required) PERfVUTEE: � � CONTRACTOR _ .. DATE p� THIS.NOTICE°MUST BE SENT TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS AT LEAST TWO DAYS'PRIOR W COMMENCEMENT OF THE PROjEcr AND/OR ANYASSOCIATED REGULATED AC77VI77ES. !FAILURE To RETURN THIS NOTICE,POST THE•PEPMIT SIGN,OR HAVE THE PERMIT,AND APPROVED PLANS AVAILABLE AT THE WORK SITE FOR THE DURATION OF 7`fIE PROJECT MAY SUBJECT THE CONDITION AND/OR CONTRACTOR TO APPLICABLE SANC77ONS AND PENALTIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PERMIT conrDlrionrs. a I wwwmmw�D O C k O, Inc. Serving the waterfront community since 1987 P.O.Box 421,Mystic,CT 06355(860)572-8939 Fax:(860)572-7569,email:office@docko.com March 10, 2020 Thomas Asbury Project Manager U.S. Army Coags of Engineers USACE Operations/Regulatory 16-406 c/o PSC Mail Center 26 Federal Plaza New York,NY 10278 Re: Donald Young NAN-2017-01078-MI-EME Dear Mr. Asbury: We are transmitting herewith a Work-Start Notification for Mr. Donald Young for your records. Work on this project will begin March 12, 2020. Please do not hesitate to contact our office with any questions. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Yours truly, DOCKO, INC. O'(4 G�. � Z Tana A. Wazny Administrative Assistant CBC: tw Enclosure CC: Donald Young .f - NWP WORK START WORK,START NOTIFICATION FORM (Minimum Notice: Two Weeks before Work Begins) MAIL TO: U. S.Army Corps of Engineers,New England District USACE Operations/Regulatory Policy Analysis/Technical Support Section 26 Federal Plaza New York,NY 10278 Install a new fixed pier with operi grate decking, approximately four-feet .wide by138-feet long; landing•deck, four-feet wide by 20 feet long; steps and end deck, four-feet wide by six-feet long. The new fixed structure seaward of the plane of Mean High Water (MWH) will be.supported by •forty-six (46) 12-inch diameter timber piles. Three (3) 12-inch diameter mooring piles will be installed approximately 10 feet seaward from the end of the structure. The fixed pier portion of the structure will be a minimum Of four-feet high above the vegetated wetland grade and plane of MHW, as measured from the bottom of the stringers, out to the point where the pier angles (96-linear feet seaward of the high water line).After the angle, the elevation above the water surface will incrementally decrease for the remainder of the pier.(76-linear feet). The end deck, located at the terminus of the structure, will be positioned approximately two-feet above MHW. The structure will extend a total of approximately 113 feet seaward from plane of mean low water. The people (e.g.,contractor) listed below will do the work, and they understand the permit's conditions and limitations. PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE Name of Person/Firm: Gwenmor Marine Business Address: 12 Roseleah Drive Mystic, CT 06355 Telephone Number: (860)536-0281 Proposed Work Dates: Start: March 2020 Finish:February 14,2020 PERMITTEE'S SIGNATURE: 6J�Lf 4W'—BATE:November 13,2019 PRINTED NAME: Keith B.Neilson,P.E. TITLE: Agent for Donald Young Date Permit E%uires: Sentember 7.2021 USE BY THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS PM: Submittals Required: Inspection Recommendation: Glenn Goldsmith,President *rjF SO UT Town Hall Annex Michael J.Domino ,`O�- y�lO 54375 Route 25 P.O.Box 1179 John M.Bredemeyer III J�i Southold,New York 11971 A.Nicholas Krupski G • Q Telephone(631) 765-1892 Greg Williams Fax(631) 765-6641 lyCOUNV I 'BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COASTAL EROSION MANAGEMENT PERMIT COASTAL EROSION PERMIT#9474C Applicant/Agent:-Docko, Inc. Permittee: Donald W: Young Rev. Trust& belly C. Young Rev. Trust SCTM#:- 1000-3-2-2 Project Locatioin: .off-East End,Road, Fishers Island Town Board Granted Appeal Approval: August 27, 2019 Date of Expiration: August 27; 2021 Reviewed by: Town Board:and Board of Trustees DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY: To construct a 200+/-ft.x4ft. wide fixed wood pile and timber pier including three tie-off piles with tide slides, rails, grate decking-and water/electric utilities, of which 172+/-ft is waterward of the apparent High Water Line. The 200+/-ft is including the 28+/-ft fixed ramp; and as depicted on the revised site plan prepared by Docko, Inc., received on June 27,`2019 and stamped approved on June 28, 2019. INSPECTIONS: Final Inspection SPECIAL CONDITIONS: (apply if marked) In accordance with Chapter 111-15 Erosion Protection Structures: N/A A maintenance agreement is-attached hereto and is a necessary special condition of this permit. BY: Glenn Goldsmith, President Board of Trustees i " RESOLUTION 2019-762 ' ADOPTED ;DOC ID: 15535 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO.2019-762WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON AUGUST 27,2019: r WHEREAS,the Board of Trustees denied the application of Donald W.Young Rev.Trust& Kelly C.Young Rev. Trust to construct a wood pile and timber pier located off East End Road, Fishers Island,NY SCTM#1000-3-2-2,under the Town of Southold Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Law(the"Law") of the Town of Southold pursuant to Section 111-11(c); and WHEREAS,on July 16, 2019,the Applicant submitted an application to the Town Board of the Town of Southold seeking to appeal the determination of the Board of Trustees, or in the alternative,seeking a variance from the requirements of the Law; and WHEREAS,on August 27, 2019,the Town Board conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the instant appeal with an opportunity for all interested parties to be heard and testimonyf was taken of the Applicant's consultant and other interested parties; and WHEREAS,the application has been reviewed pursuant to Chapter 268, Waterfront Consistency Review of the Town Code and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program;now, therefore,be it i RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the proposed action is classified as a Type II Action and is not subject to review pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations for this action; and be it further RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold,;does hereby-adopt the Findings; and D0teruft40#u.dated A# " st 27'20W',- Antin';the application of Donald W. Young Rev. Trust& Kelly C. Young Rev. Trust for a coasta_I-iertision:hazard`,-area'."pe`ru i#'pursuant, fri.��: V20'-6ft>ae'T+�'�v�i`of Sgufhold"-�oasta`I'Erosion Hazard Area Law and be it further RESOLVED that the Town Board had determined that this action is consistent with Chii pter 268, Local Waterfront Revitalization Program; and be it further RESOLVED that this Determination shall not affect or deprive any other agency of its properly asserted jurisdiction, separate and apart from the proceedings under the Coastal Erosion'.Hazard Areas Law considered herein. I I Elizabeth A.Neville Southold Town Clerk I i Resolution 2019-762 Board Meeting of August 27,2019 RESULT: ADOPTED [4 TO 2] MOVER; Robert Ghosio, Councilman SECONDER:Louisa P. Evans, Justice d AYES: William P. Ruland,Jill Doherty, Louisa P. Evans, Scott A. Russell NAYS: James Dinizio Jr,Robert Ghosio iz II p II III II f it t Updated: 8/27/2019 4:02 PM by Lynda Rudder i rage 2 I • .I Y TOWN BOARD COASTAL EROSION HAZARD BOARD OF REVIEW I TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the matter of the Application of DONALD W.YOUNG REV.TRUST !; { &KELLY C.YOUNG REV.TRUST FINDINGS AND Off East End Road DETERMINATION Fishers Island,NY ' SCTM#1000-3-2-2 , FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION Based upon the application, documents contained in the Board's file, site inspections and testimony received at the public hearing held on August 27, 2019, the Town Board finds and determines as follows: ISSUE Keith Neilson PE of Docko Inc. on behalf of Donald W. Young Rev. Trust& Kelly C. Young Rev. Trust has filed an application with the Town Board, as the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review(the"Board"), dated July 16, 2019 requesting the following relief: 1. A reversal of the Board of Trustees June 19, 2019 determination preventing the issuance of a coastal erosion permit in accordance with Chapter 111 of the Town Code. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY j A.Jlesoripticin of the"yroperty and ap)ilicants: The property that is the subject of this application is located at Off East End Road, Fishers Island,NY SCTM#1000-3-2-2. The property is currently improved with a single family home, decks and foundation. The property is located in the residential zone. As confirmed by the Board of Trustees, and acknowledged by the applicant,the property where the proposed work is to be performed is located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area as established by New York State in 1991. The applicant submitted an application to the Trustees seeking to construct a 200+/-ft.x4ft. wide fixed wood pile and timber; ler including three tie-off piles with tide slides, rails, grate decking and water/electric utilities, of which 172+/-ft is waterward of the apparent High Water Line. The 200+/-ft is including the 28+/-ft fixed ramp; and as depicted on the revised site plan prepared by Docko, Inc. B. Trustees Procedural History: i I E r k I I S I. Application i Y The applicant filed an application with the Board of Trustees on March 15, 2018. After subsequent amendments and redrafts of the proposed plans the applicant final plan requested to construct a 200+/-ft.x4ft. wide fixed wood pile and timber pier including, three tie-off piles with tide slides, rails, grate decking and water/electric utilities, of which 172+/,-ft is waterward of the apparent High Water Line. The 200+/-ft is including the, y 28+/-ft fixed ramp; and as depicted on the revised site plan prepared by Docko, Inc. Located: Off East End Road, Fishers Island,NY SCTM#1000-3-2-2. it .I { H. Public Hearing. The Trustees held a public hearing on this application on March 20, 2019, May 15,2019 and June 19, 2019 at which times all those interested were given the opportunity to speak. ' I f Keith Neilson PE on behalf of the applicant addressed the Town Trustees' concerns with regards to the application. It was described that the proposed structure' would be the dock extending out in to the waters of Fishers Island Sound in the Coastal � 3 Erosion Area. . .I III. Trustees-Determination and Certificate of Compliance. On June 28, 2019 the Trustees issued a determination stating that the proposed construction fell outside the jurisdiction of the Board of Trustees due to the proposed f application being located within the designated Coastal Erosion Hazard Area and square footage proposed exceeding 200 square feet, and therefore the Trustees could not issue a permit under the tidal wetlands act denied the application without prejudice, and as such further application would need to be made to the Town Board. I IV.The Town Board Proceeding I i On July 16,2019,the property owners timely filed an appeal of the Trustee'si determination pursuant to Town Code Chapter I I with the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review(the Board) seeking the reversal of the Trustees denial. The Board;held a duly noticed public hearing on August 27, 2019, at which time all interested parties f were given the opportunity to present testimony on the application. � E 7 Keith Neilson PE of Docko Inc. on behalf of the applicant addressed the Town Board's concerns with regards to the application to construct a 200+/-ft.x4ft. wide fixed 'I 3 wood pile and timber pier including three tie-off piles with tide slides,rails, grate decking and water/electric utilities, of which 172+/-ft is waterward of the apparent High Water ; Line. The 200+/-ft is including the 28+/-ft fixed ramp; and as depicted on the revised site f plan prepared by Docko, Inc. located off East End Road, Fishers Island,NY II I I r II � 2 i i �i SCTM#1000-3-2-2. This initial application being made within the Costal Erosion Act as well as the Tidal Wetlands Act. Members of the public appeared in support and opposition or submitted letters for the file on the application and the record was closed on August 27, 2019. APPEALJOV THE TRUSTEE'S DETERMINATIC?N' Pursuant to §111-24 the Town Board is designated as the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review and has the authority to "[h]ear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by the Administrator in the enforcement of this chapter."See, Town Code §111-24 (B). Furthermore,the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review has the authority to "reverse or affirm;wholly or partly, or may modify the order, requirement, decision or determination of the Administrator, including stop or cease-and-desist orders." See, Town Code §111-25. When considering appeals pursuant to §§ 111-24 &25,the Board is limited to the record on appeal and the arguments made before the Board of Trustees. In this instance, this Board finds,based upon the record before it,that the applicant has supplied the sufficient information regarding the criteria set forth in §111-9(A-C) of the Town Cofde to support the granting of a Coastal Erosion Management Permit. CONCLUSION ,. -- it Therefore, in the interests of justice and for the reasons set forth herein,this Board 11 grants the appeal of the Applicant pursuant to Chapter 111 of the Town Code to construct ; a 200+/-ft.x4ft. wide fixed wood pile and timber pier including three tie-off piles with tide slides,rails, grate decking and water/electric utilities, of which 172+/-ft is waterward of the apparent High Water Line. The 200+/-ft is including the 28+/-ft fixed ramp; and as depicted on the revised site plan prepared by Docko, Inc. located off East End Road Fishers Island,NY SCTM#1000-3-2-2. Dated: August 27, 2019 ;4 'f i I i 3 i AiFT, BOARD OF SOUTHOLD TOWN TRUSTEES SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK I PERMIT NO. 9474 DATE: JUNE 19,2019 ISSUED TO: DONALD W.YOUNG REV.TRUST & KELLY C.YOUNG REV.TRUST PROPERTY ADDRESS: OFF EAST END ROAD,FISHERS ISLAND SCTM# 1000-3-2-2 4 AUTHORIZATION Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 275 of the Town Code of the Town of Southold and in accordance with the Resolution of the Board of Trustees adopted at the meeting held on June 19, 2019, and in consideration of application fee in the sum of$250.00 paid by Donald W.Young Rev. Trust&Kelly C.Young Rev. Trust and subject to the Terms and Conditions as stated in the Resolution, the Southold Town Board of Trustees authorizes and permits the following: Wetland Permit to construct a 200+/-ft.x4ft.wide fixed wood pile and timber pier including three tie-off piles with tide slides, rails, grate decking and water/electric utilities,of which 172+/ -ft is waterward of the apparent High Water Line. The 200+/-ft is including the 28+/-ft V fixed ramp; and as depicted on the revised site plan prepared by Docko,Inc., received on Le 27,2019 and stamped approved on June 28,2019. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the said Board of Trustees hereby causes its Corporate Seal to be affixed, and these presents to be subscribed by a majority of the said Board as of the 28ffi day of June,2019. COD 16 at 2 4,� TERMS AND CONDITIONS The Permittee Donald W Young Rev. Trust and Kelly C. Young Rev. Trust,residing at off East End Road Fishers Island,New York, as part of the consideration for the issuance of the Permit does understand and prescribe to the following: 1. That the said Board of Trustees and the Town of Southold are released from any and all damages, or claims for damages, of suits arising directly or indirectly as a result of any operation 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 assumes 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 months,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 authorization was originally obtained. 4. That the work involved will be subject to the inspection and approval of the Board or 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. 5. That there will be no unreasonable interference with navigation as a result of the work 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 required, upon due notice, to remove or alter this work project herein stated without expenses to the Town of Southold. 8. That the said Board will be notified by the Permittee of the completion of the work authorized. 9. That the Permittee will obtain all other permits and consents that may be required supplemental to this permit,which may be subject to revoke upon failure to obtain same. 10. ' No right to trespass or interfere with riparian rights. 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 impairment of any rights, title, or interest in real or personal property held or vested in a person not a party to the permit. • 31 1- 14J m 49 DO 33 N .= ~1fFISHERS ISLAND SQUND.` DOCKS CHOC(:PMaUNT COVE r PROPERTY OF �• i t 4j�: 7Pir+=v PROJECT:NEW �;::r- ` YOUNG � .:.� -�='` �,'� _p PIER and R.OA'r „' •,,.+.., ,.r :-y DOCK ;�;>,.,r, �.'M,";'c•: t.aEVATOd t)A'TUM LSAaPARENT I.IV WATER 27�'3EDATAISTAKFN FROM 20177 NOAA T10E TABLES ';1'•;;'9,"':�w';�~"�"�,_. _- ,„,.�--:��w��•;�:;;:-,;;::=-�:,,;. -, . R EFERe CE.:WEST HAIR-FISHER- ISLAND NY. \_:�!.��'�"• 'S�.+M•':t;'A� •. y.�'�.'.=�Lf"-',.-'m"a�:.,_.."Fm..Y. �.yjR;+ �`••- :rte.:`.s: n :'i' r, _ r•' M: `, 3.PROJECT :. ;r” r tea;�.,�?-�"; q,.,.' .w r`h "'ex'yF; -;�.-; -• �• ,° l�F_S(".Pjpllot,,t v;< •"' . y`4 � t• �� v` N/F FIY OE+'n.GONSTRd lL? CTP s4-F7 WI17E WW PEI.E Y =di. _, _ 1.. 7D3_J. ,,. 5(?N PER INGLUIIi*IG F1LF5 ^ �' f:.,.• �. �y{J. a,:.:. ,._`.H L FE aU AND MMBER THREE ttz O = "' "U::;•; z', :,\.,y MUSEUM INC �1J(THTIU ES RA1L5,CyF;AlmDECKIi ANC7 N/F PROPERTY f G,; '-= ' :s *: '•<• ` ` '; :'v WATrz� U MIT1E5t OF Wt iai iral.>=is r HC5H WATER LIP 4F— F NOYES ,•n s, n zl>< ,;•:..a"; >..';., ".`• 4..PROJECT PURPC� THIS Ira A PRNATE DOCK FOR RECREATIONAL BD ^, AT1NG ;,..THE-!JL'!'rr+-+..r1TK?N 099 ,W NSS REPRESENT .. . . ,. . .`..�1„ .��-2__.•,. \` �'~ yp�/Ew .L L PL.a.I'J A COMMATION OF SURVEYS FOR OWR/JNMENTAL •>aSOp PEm-v PURPOSE5.THEYARE NOT CONSTRUGTIDN C CONTRACT DOCUMEtYCS.A TCJW'J BUILDING 500 PERMT(S)MAY BE BEMIRED. 6.ADJONWO PRDPERTY OWNERS: WEST- EAST JUN 2 7 2019 clo A N B. TAi.Bor1 rvcr Es A R�� ,�DI��'roR do ANN NOYES 103 COOUi7GE ROAD PO BOX 54 CONCORD.MA 0542 FLSHER5 ISLAND,NY OGaW Southold Town Boar of Trustees PRojecr•. NEW PER 941-T7 DEC LOC°`TION� FSHERS "TOWN of SOU HOLD SUS COUNT(NEW YORK {]� F PROJFGf DESCR3PTION WATE ZWAY: FSHEiZ5 LSLAND SOUND �, aCEt REVLSED'0••3-T7 DEC; OATS MAY30,2017 s p 0 C K 0 „ vr� DOCKS IN AREA APPY: DONALD YOUNG , 4? xy REVi�' 4••3-19 DEC • • PROJECT DESOZPTION AGENT: SHEET 1 OF fi DOGKO, INC. r' 0 z F 8682' CT Ops O SO �P�Q 572 8939 FAX 8GO 5727569 D/G V-M-2822 FSSt( p�(A{L vEBcet�dock000m i.,--�'*h y Vet�„r�rG•.O t>L `3:�:;c%'.'�3 rtv�t%^; "rn,n�-np�. !,^...�t:n BOARD OF I'RUSTEES_ a, JUN 2 7 2019 N DATE - S"Id Town Board o rustees NEW57FFS with RAS _ -- DECK EL 5�7 ,q NEWTso5L1t m V'ft) ''-- —NEW 4s1-FT WM FOR mh ___� ----- . - CONDMONS f3f7fTOM 3 1 ' i 1 SID BOTTOrt_ CONDITIONS NEW H 5G17s�G and WA7irR t — -- -- _ (I GE'A7A'1N MAY UAB EEL GRA65 UMIT,OP PDCK5 y� IavFIER 1PGaR7'! -- RAA,S(IM� SPARTINAALTf 1 Diff OF RCCKS �� `` � 5PAR11NAALTERRI�.,ORA �` �_ '� � a •�''� SPARnN<1 SPA. PATENS ` r jPAT� APPROX DEAD DUNE APPARENT HIC-H 4 "1 47ROPEk*f Y w WATER LINE AHW_ NEW 4-1-T Wm FDW Pm t RAroqW PER with RAO NOTE. ALL IN-WATER WORK RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED PIER. y" PH WILL TAKE PLACE OUTSIDE OF THE EEL GRASS GROWING SEASON FROM APRIL,15 TO Ppzxv:zly LINE z Appq0)gMATE OCTOBER 31 IN ANY GIVEN YEAR. THIS ` PRZP9Rri-UNE CONDITION IS NECESSARY TO AVOID IMPACTS TO EEL GRASS LOCATED IN THE FISHERS_ .sl ISLAND BEACH AREA, AND TO COMPLY WITH `---- N/F ARTY COASTAL POUCY 6.2 OF THE NY CAM ACT A��`�J/'{AMATF�/^y` TCN { Kf9 r'1rl•P4.//V1 V'�IF W�.ir111VIM OF f� EXISPNIS PAM TO BEACH K'L FERG SQI�JU F ` 1✓'L...�l°'.J `,/t�l.A/ MUSEUM INC; C�RAPh9G 5CA1 E 1'.40` PROJECT: NEW'PER 40 20 0 40 REMSED 9-1147 DEC LOC.AT0ht S BLANC)-TOVNRV of SOUTHOLD PER ELEVA11ON FOLK COUNTY.NEW YORK WATERWAY: R54�5 LSLAND SOUND 3-20-18 DEC DATE MAY 3012M p C X0 . Gj NOTEAPFUCANT-. DONALD YOUN9 #T REVISED 4-349 DEG , a :: w+ PER$GRATE DEOCN5 AGENT: StET•2 OF 3 Vol -- 6-27-19 NO'M r)OC<C�, INC. Q8669^►.'� c. GHa+AIGE 0 P0mystic-1 cr 06355 R �' FES810860 572 6939 FAX 860 572 7569 DWG 17-03-28= fes:of lcegdodco cin u� JUN 2 7 2019 TE-OFFT.TFLE KAS APl141E AREA Southold ToNrn 4A-f7 t OW 7I � OF C.CWA T'-066Fo T ustees -1=[_ 1-� X% pr W�tti sTB;;5 whh PALS 0\0cr;=1--55dT NEW aid WATER , UTLr r8(I,CG WN MAY VA" 8'D DEGK gL=L46Fr Nf�_w px;-R ar. jppcRr R E TQP NEW Pf16 fz i? 8.4-Ft A80VE cax(?tim AtfVJt a4ith GRA1E DEG; -n-W 2,3- - NtEW5R.d1''CLAMPatd _NEW11:111 1, -ALWLO.O-- cRoss S frrP3 o ai►_rte ) k1n df{ + f k�11 It k :<vlz s i Yj -xtw FOd7r'/-tz+ wt r .°-'S+r+..1`t�•''Ar � e �t:�' tom'. - 1' ' r"$ e0noM 5�TeX ' 7Y1 �ixi-x ,mss t ad t r � i•aJ'�:r`+ ,6':`. r.( 'a4`+v'"(�.r`7 'yy....y+.YS �'��yn... !`i NM ALL IN-WATER WORK RELATED TO THE ��:JC.:� V1� AOM CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED PIER L tN SM5 OF E E W THE Y CNITY WILL TAKE PLACE OUTSIDE OF THE EEL t�-10t RAS BEEN NO EE3 GRASS� GRASS GROWING SEASON FROM APRIL 15 TO PROPODOGKPAIFogEA TPA5TT1 OCTOBER 31 IN.ANY GIVEN YEAR. THIS O 10 Yyr_ 5 TW41-F11' HE 90SZAPHc CONDITION IS NECESSARY TO AVOID IMPACTS jFZS�F-7HE w NOT CCA f�ST� TO EEL GRASS LOCATED IN THE FISHERS K ISLAND. BEACH AREA. AND TO COMPL(WITH By��S�'UTAP CtXJNC,L COASTAL POLICY 6.2 OF THE NY CAM ACT GRATE DEMIsO ON ENT Pmt NEW TEOFF PLF wlth TvE sLvE Top EL vipr NEW 4+7 WTD R2 SUPPORTED NEW Plaz NEW STEPS Wtb RAR-9 PER with GRATE Dim EL 83sr-T ANNE Pte- �_ UIj 015=a D5amx EL APPRO MATE h rp) 1:to 23 1. r u Ivr 0.0— YryS��Y`F�v L; �Y' x b' .��..,< � �•4 '"i' ��..�.,nJJ+s,�,.}�,1,t��sry.��f ""' WIC n�aR �:a,^ } : nA•'. Hylr'Y..t u'r'u`F4^LL-.Vf�R.. a.'s ' `b A!, ? ' '�.;,P. e� ,% r:Lk v CRASS ALT6211� LASSWOR'r NEW SUPPORT PLE 7OP PATENS E1 4F1'ABOVE DECK M-P) {LOCATION MAY VAR` F-�Ca�TLE= cmc sc.�.��•��• 30 ao zo 0 30 ELEVATIONS AI2E 1146-90 ON APPAZE NT LOW WATER(ALWL. MEW PIER 94147 CEG LOGATXft 5 SLAND-TOWN of S0tfn40L0 ORK 0� £ EL>~vAT,I WATaZWAY- Y N H '11447 DEC DATE MAY 30P 2017 V 0 C K 0 �A✓l PM ELEVATION APPUCAM'. 00 A+LD YOUNG tin RE\T:pEV 3-20-18 DEC r NOTE aGEfYt SHEFf 3 OF 3 44 - -1�r,rrDcc ING. FER Keith 9.Netit m PE C 0 R PO i Cr 0a555 �`�OFESSI0�� REVi D 6'�� SW 572&9W FAX 8W 572 73A0 OW0 n-03-2822 EMAIL:cfte@d0ck0=m tis^' ,''+t;qn Dxr:c'IM. .�•3 7?33;G;�� Young-Dnc�..,3FA'x9 Michael J.Domino,President OpF S0 jyOl Town Hall Annex John M.Bredemeyer III,Vice-President 54375 Route 25 O P.O.Box 1179 Glenn Goldsmith 1 Southold,New York 11971 A.Nicholas Krupski G Q Telephone(631) 765-1892 Greg Williams Fax(631) 765-6641 couff I,N BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 28, 2019 Keith Neilson, P.E. Docko, Inc. P.O. Box 421 Mystic, CT 06355 RE: DONALD W. YOUNG REV. TRUST & KELLY C. YOUNG REV. TRUST OFF EAST END ROAD, FISHERS ISLAND SCTM# 1000-3-2-2 Dear Mr. Neilson: The Board of Town Trustees took the following action during its regular meeting held on Wednesday, June 19, 2019 regarding the above matter: WHEREAS, Docko, Inc. on behalf of DONALD W. YOUNG REV. TRUST & KELLY C. YOUNG REV. TRUST applied to the Southold Town Trustees for a permit under the provisions of Chapter 111 of the Southold Town Code, Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas, application dated October 1, 2018, and, WHEREAS, said application was referred to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council and to the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Coordinator for their findings and recommendations, and, WHEREAS, the LWRP Coordinator recommended that the proposed applications be found Inconsistent with the LWRP, and specifically Inconsistent with the following coastal policies: Policy 4.1 - Minimize losses of human life and structures from flooding and erosion hazards, Policy 6.3 —Protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands, and, WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held by the Town Trustees with respect to said application on March 20, 2019, May 15, 2019 and June 19, 2019, 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, t WHEREAS, the Board has considered all the testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application, and, WHEREAS, the proposed structure, as applied for, is located in a nearshore area as per Definitions in Chapter 111 Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas of the Town Code and governed by Section 111-11 C. All development is prohibited in nearshore areas unless specifically provided for by this chapter, and as per Chapter 111-6 Definitions - Unregulated Activity— docks, piers, wharves or structures built on floats, columns, open timber piles or other similar open work supports with a top surface area less than 200 square feet or which are removed in the fall of each year, and, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that for foregoing reasons, and because the proposed action is located entirely within the coastal erosion hazard area and in a nearshore area, and because the proposed action is not permitted in such areas pursuant to Chapter 111 of the Town Code, that the Trustees deem the proposed project to be impermissible under Chapter 111, and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that for the foregoing reasons, the Board of Trustees DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Coastal Erosion Permit application of DONALD W. YOUNG REV. TRUST & KELLY C. YOUNG REV. TRUST to construct a 200+/-ft.x4ft. wide fixed wood pile and timber pier including three tie-off piles with tide slides, rails, grate decking and water/electric utilities, of which 172+/-ft is waterward of the apparent High Water Line. The 200+/-ft is including the 28+/- ft fixed ramp; and as depicted on the revised site plan prepared by Docko, Inc., received on June 27, 2019 and stamped approved on June 28, 2019. This determination 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. Very truly yours, ;1� 4440 John M. Bredemeyer, Vice-President Board of Trustees DH/dd Michael J.Domino,President oOF S0(�ryOl Town Hall Annex John M.Bredemeyer III,Vice-President 54375 Route 25 4 P.O.Box 1179 Glenn Goldsmith t Southold,New York 11971 A.Nicholas Krupski Q Telephone(631) 765-1892 Greg Williams O Fax(631) 765-6641 olyCOMM BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES June 28, 2019 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Keith Neilson, P.E. Docko, Inc. P.O. Box 421 Mystic, CT 06355 RE: DONALD W. YOUNG REV.TRUST & KELLY C. YOUNG REV. TRUST OFF EAST END ROAD, FISHERS ISLAND SCTM# 1000-3-2-2 , Dear Mr. Neilson: The Board of Town Trustees took the following action during its regular meeting held on Wednesday, June 19, 2019 regarding the above matter: WHEREAS, Docko, Inc., on behalf of DONALD W. YOUNG REV. TRUST & KELLY C. YOUNG REV. TRUST applied to the Southold Town Trustees for a permit under the provisions of Chapter 275 of the Southold Town Code, the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold, application dated October 1, 2018, and, WHEREAS, said application was referred to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council and to the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Coordinator for their findings and recommendations, and, WHEREAS, the LWRP Coordinator recommended that the proposed application be found Inconsistent with the LWRP, and, WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held by the Town Trustees with respect to said application March 20, 2019, May 15, 2019 and June 19, 2019, 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 structure complies with the standards set forth in Chapter 275 of the Southold Town Code, R 2 WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has furthered Policies of the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program to the greatest extent possible through the imposition of the following Best Management Practice requirements by the applicant's submission of revised plans for a pier only with thru-flow decking; and WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the project as proposed will not affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the town, NOW THEREFORE BE IT, RESOLVED, that for the mitigating factors and based upon the Best Management Practice requirement imposed above, the Board of Trustees deems the action to be Consistent with the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program pursuant to Chapter 268-5 of the Southold Town Code, and, RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees APPROVE the application of DONALD W. YOUNG REV. TRUST & KELLY C. YOUNG REV. TRUST to construct a 200+/-ft.x4ft. wide fixed wood pile and timber pier including three tie-off piles with tide slides, rails, grate decking and water/electric utilities, of which 172+/-ft is waterward of the apparent High Water Line. The 200+/-ft is including the 28+/-ft fixed ramp; and as depicted on the revised site plan prepared by Docko, Inc., received on June 27, 2019 and stamped approved on June 28, 2019. Permit to construct and complete project will expire two years from the date the permit is approved. Fees must be paid, if applicable, and permit issued within six months of the date of this notification. Inspections are required at a fee of$50.00 per inspection. (See attached schedule.) Fees: $50.00 i Very truly yours, an M. Bredemeyer Vice-President, Board of Trustees DH/dd r� FFQL f ,� Michael J Domino, President ,V oGy�* Town Hall Annex John M. Bredemeyer, III, Vice-President y 14 54375 Route 25 Glenn Goldsmith o y P O Box 1179 A Nicholas Krupski y� ao�r,'� Southold, NY 11971 Greg Williams 'Y Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 0,1 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: DONALD W. YOUNG REV. TRUST & KELLY C. YOUNG REV. TRUST c/o DOCKO, INC. Please be advised that your application dated October 1, 2018 has been reviewed by this Board at the regular meeting of June 19, 2019 and your application has been approved pending the completion of the following items checked off below. Revised Plans for proposed project Pre-Construction Hay Bale Line Inspection Fee ($50.00) 1St Day of Construction ($50.00) % Constructed ($50.00) xx Final Inspection Fee ($50.00) Dock Fees ($3 00 per sq ft.) 30-Year Maintenance Agreement (complete original form enclosed and submit to Board of Trustees Office) The Permittee is required to provide evidence that the non-turf buffer condition of the Trustee permit has been recorded with the Suffolk County Clerk's Office as a notice covenant and deed restriction to the deed of the subject parcel. Such evidence shall be provided within ninety (90) calendar days of issuance of this permit. Permit fees are now due. Please make check or money order payable to Town of Southold. The fee is computed below according to the schedule of rates as set forth in Chapter 275 of the Southold Town Code The following fee must be paid within 90 days or re-application fees will be necessary. You will receive your permit upon completion of the above. COMPUTATION OF PERMIT FEES: , TOTAL FEES DUE: $ 50.000 BY: Michael J. Domino, President Board of Trustees V EDD JUN 1 9 2019 Southold Town Board of Trustees a - I 1 r n i tJ L= � JUN 1ID9 2019 Southold Town f� r' R. AVE JUN 1 9 2019 Southold Town r ......... ........ t , '■ .ori 11 g0:7 ^ .:Admw-- a` — Pow --. -- ij - "t .5 y i JUN 1 9 2019 Southold Town AM ' .,_ I Y. 'y s`'� • PN _t -= — — z- - amai = DiSalvo, Dia From: DiSaIvo, Diane Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2019 9:29 AM To: 'fishersislandseagrass@gmail.com' Subject: FW: FI Dock permit - Young The following communication is from Trustee President Michael J. Domino: Ms. Young: Please be advised that the above referenced application has not yet been scanned into our Town system and as such cannot be viewed by you on-line at this time. Additionally,the Trustees have reviewed the application, hydrologic information and aerial photographs of sea grass in order to determine and minimize the impact to eel grass beds in cooperation with the expeditor as is our standing policy. The applicant has made an application through the NYS DEC. From: Michael Domino Sent: Monday, June 03, 2019 5:12 PM To: DiSalvo, Diane Subject: Fwd: FI Dock permit Begin forwarded message: From: <fishersislandseagrass(aD_gmail.com> Subject: FI Dock permit Date: May 29, 2019 at 12:15:58 PM EDT To: <mjdsouthold(d_)aol.com> Hi Mike, I hope all is well with you. It has recently been brought to my attention Docko (on behalf of Donald Young) has submitted an application for a dock permit in Chocomount Cove, and there are some concerns that there may be impacts to seagrass in the area. Is the application itself currently public record? If so, is there somewhere on the town website where I could take a look at it? I'm particularly interested in looking at the eelgrass maps/survey they provided as part of the application. Also, if the application has gotten to the Trustees, has it already been through NYSDEC, or is it first approved at the town level? Thanks, i Emily Emily A. eodell Project Coordinator Fishers,Island Seagrass Management Coalition fishersislandseagrass@gmail.com 1401-871-7147 ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. z NELSON, POPE & VOORHIS, LLC ENVIRONMENTAL • PLANNING • CONSULTING vvww nelsonpopevoorrh is com May 15,2019 Town of Southold Trustees Southold Town Hall AnnexD E �' E / E 54375 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 Attn: Michael Domino,Board of Trustees President MAY 1 5 2019 New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation SUNY @ Stony Brook Southold Town 50 Circle Road ar of Trustees Stony Brook,NY 11790-3409 Attn: Andrew C. Walker,Regional Manager, Bureau of Marine Habitat Protection United States Army Corps of Engineers Jacob Javits Center 26 Federal Plaza New York,NY 10278 Attn: Lisa Grudzinksi Re: Supplemental Information Donald Young Dock Application Chocomount Cove, Fishers Island Town Trustees ID:Donald Young Property NYSDECNo. 1-4738-04558100001; Young ACOE ID:Donald Young,Fishers Island NPV No. 18276 Dear Agency Representative: As a follow-up to my letter of November 30, 2018,I would like to provide additional information and a suggested alternative to the proposed location of the pending dock application referenced above. All of the information contained in my November 30, 2018 correspondence remains relevant, and all indications are that the proposed installation will have an adverse impact on submerged aquatic vegetation(SAV), specifically eel grass(Zostera marina). Given the documented presence of eel grass in the location of the proposed pier,and the previously provided literature and references related to dock and boat operational impacts to eel grass, it is critical to consider alternatives to reduce potential impacts to SAV. It is also critical that adequate and accurate surveys of the presence of eel grass are completed. In considering alternatives, a logical option would be to decrease the area of the pier installation needed to achieve deeper water. A decreased structure size would reduce the physical impact of scouring related to installation and presence of pilings,and deeper water that would reduce impact of boat operations (i.e., propeller damage and/or physical contact). Attached is a suggested alternate location for the dock (see Attachment 1). This location, besides being much less intrusive to the inner cove,has the following advantages,which I would think would be important to reviewing agencies in order to meet their individual standards for issuance of a permit: CORPORATE OFFICE HUDSON VALLEY OFFICE 572 WALT WHITMAN ROAD,MELVILLE.NY 1 1747-21 B6 156 Route 59,Suite C6,SUFFERN,NY 10901 PHONE(631)427-5665 • FAX(631)427-5620 PHONE (B45)368-1472 1 FAX(645)366-1572 Donald Young Dock Application Chocomount Cove,Fishers Island,NY Supplemental Information for Pending Agency Reviews • The pier would truly be in a north/south in orientation, and does not "dogleg" oddly to the northwest; this would create less structure and would provide better sun exposure for the eel grass growth below the thru-flow deck. • The pier would be shorter and would reach deep water sooner;this reduces physical impact of installation and presence of pilings. The pier can also access deeper water than the currently proposed pier,which would reduce boat use impacts. • The pier would be in keeping in design and orientation other docks in the area. It is noted that the proposed location would be nearer to the neighboring property to the east. Typically, piers are offset from the extension of the property line; however, in this case, the property line of the Young site"slants"to the northwest and any structure would interfere with the property line extension. Upon further review, the property to the east is undeveloped and owned by the Henry L.Ferguson Museum,Inc. Contact with the corporation is encouraged to determine if they would be in agreement with the proposed pier orientation given the benefits to retention of eel grass in Chocomount Cove. I believe the applicant's representative continues to maintain that the proposed pier is positioned over a small spot that does not have as much eel grass; however,this is not necessarily true. The request for an independent in-water survey to confirm eel grass occurrence in this location is reiterated herein. With respect to inventory work, attached, please find a recent publication by The Nature Conservancy titled, "An Evaluation of Eelgrass Extent and Vessel Use Patterns Around Fishers Island,New York,"prepared by Matias Tong,February 28,2019(see Attachment 2). This document continues the research into loss of,and impacts to,eel grass and further supports the need for accurate in-water surveys in the area of impact and examination of alternatives to reduce impacts to SAV. Please consider this information in your deliberations on the pending permit,and if a permit is to be issued,please require that the alternative orientation be used to reduce impact to SAV. Thank you and feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Respectfully submitted, NELSON,POPE&VOORHIS,LLC Charles J.Voorhis,CEP,AICP Managing Partner cc: Martin D.Finnegan,Esq.,Twomey Latham ,j i MAY 15 2019 Southold Town ar'of Trntns ge 2 f Donald Young Dock Application Chocomount Cove,Fishers Island,NY Comment Letter on Pending Agency Reviews ATTACHMENTS DEJ Li7 R MAY 15 2019 ,�� i Scuificid ioarn BQard of imstees IIiP�"r Donald Young Dock Application Chocomount Cove,Fishers Island,NY Supplemental Information for Pending Agency Reviews Attachment 1 Alternative Pier Orientation D E C✓" E n `6'7 E rr If MAY 15 2019 Southold Town 1 pard off ruste s ., dr ;� += •• „AW4:r`� •; a"r X44 , F-7 I; �h MAY 1 5 2019 Sc,;- oA if.wn Bo2rd of Trole°s Screen shot from Google Maps image taken 5/13/19 a� AMU 60 •v. rA � r_„ u MAY 1 5 2019 F75N••IERS tSLf`+1'�It] __-- j �fnp1 caa�'r_ 5 tt CIN 110N5 t tOOTTom }"'i 1 �•�om_ It -?-- ` WLSRA56 — — �- lEW8ELT1JGadW.ATM Q,OCA7CWYWYVi1�RpY) FGRASS LMTOF Q L — � AcgviBtSLR'CRr ��' RN.S Soul r t tJ'ff OF 1 \ SpAQTCiA - - jf l 9AT9161 'PATENS APPROK N A PROPEIZIy LINE WATER . ''... rKal# / 4 gµRy f1. _ RLbE LTE NEW4.7f WLEFpwFI.E/ f_ •�' .�V ATE;ALL IN-WATER WORK RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED PSR. RAMP AND FLOAT WILL TAKE PLACE OUTSIDE APPRCAlATE.__. OF 14 EEL GRASS GROWING SEASON ROM\ PROPERrYr y ..A� APRIL 15 TO OCTOBER 31 IN ANY GNEN PRaFXirLTE YEAR. THIS CONDITION IS NECESSARY TO �•.� d in:t A)aO IMPACTS TO EEL GRASS LOCATED IN ` i? `1 THE FISHERS&LAND BEACH AREA.AND TO _. 4 TVP Y NY PLYCAM CAM ACT WITH COASTAL POLICY 6.2 OF THE ApR+QA"NTE LOCATUNOF NVF PROPERTY OF OF NOYES NY pp57 PATH TO 8FlGN H L FERGLl t•k15EU"11w, FAL-�N �/IEW 8� MAY 5 2019 Sc:,thnh:�r�t"m Donald Young Dock Application Chocomount Cove,Fishers Island,NY Supplemental Information for Pending Agency Reviews Attachment 2 An Evaluation of Eelgrass Extent and Vessel Use Patterns Around Fishers Island, New York E0E � , 4� � 11 MAY 1 5 2019 �gard of Southold Tativn ftr �,� a Y _ -r. POP- An Evaluation of Eelgrass Extent and Vessel Use Patterns Around Fishers Island, New York f,U L C Prepared by Matias Tong February 28, 2019 MAY 1 5 2019 L--- O ' Conservancy Vim' Y Acknowledgements The implementation of this project and the production of this report were made possible by the collaborative participation and broad support of the many people and organizations recognized below. Aerial vessel survey project planning and management: Chantal Collier,The Nature Conservancy in New York and Connecticut David Gumbart,The Nature Conservancy in Connecticut Stephen Lloyd,The Nature Conservancy in New York Jonathan Milne, LightHawk Conservation Flying Kyle Smith,Yale University Aerial vessel survey data collection: Chantal Collier,The Nature Conservancy in New York and Connecticut Nicole Cooper,The Nature Conservancy in Connecticut Joseph Fischetti,LightHawk Conservation Flying David Gumbart,The Nature Conservancy in Connecticut Robert Keller,LightHawk Conservation Flying Steve Kent, LightHawk Conservation Flying Tom LeCompte,LightHawk Conservation Flying Stephen Lloyd,The Nature Conservancy in New York Sally McGee,The Nature Conservancy in Rhode Island Michael McNamara,LightHawk Conservation Flying Liz Robinson,The Nature Conservancy in Connecticut Benthic eelgrass survey project planning and management: Chantal Collier,The Nature Conservancy in New York and Connecticut Soren Dahl,New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Stephen Lloyd,The Nature Conservancy in New York Suzanne Paton, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Adam Starke,The Nature Conservancy in New York Benthic eelgrass survey data collection: Chris Clapp,The Nature Conservancy in New York Chantal Collier,The Nature Conservancy in New York and Connecticut Soren Dahl,New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Todd Glavin,New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Carl Lobue,The Nature Conservancy in New York Adam Starke,The Nature Conservancy in New York Vessel and eelgrass survey data analyses,report preparation and presentation: Matias Tong,Independent Contractor for The Nature Conservancy in New York r �,, , =; rl '~ Cts ij 7 Funding and in-kind support provided by: !;-�' � l Fishers Island Yacht Club ��Y f to LightHawk Conservation Flying 5 2019 New York State Dept.of Environmental Conservation The McCance Family Southold lr Asn Scott M.Murphy Board o[Tiu_'acs t Seaview Scuba Photo Credits(Front Page):Chantal Collier(Top,Center Right,Center Left),Adam Starke(Center) Contents EXECUTIVESUMMARY.................................................................................................................................................4 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................................5 METHODS.....................................................................................................................................................................7 Objectives.................................................................................................................................................................7 BenthicEelgrass Survey............................................................................................................................................7 DiveTransects......................................................................................................................................................7 SiteChecks............................................................................................................................................................8 Analysis.................................................................................................................................................................8 AerialVessel Survey..................................................................................................................................................9 Flightand Image Acquisition.................................................................................................................................9 Areaof Interest.....................................................................................................................................................9 Digitization..........................................................................................................................................................10 Analysis...............................................................................................................................................................11 RESULTS......................................................................................................................................................................11 BenthicEelgrass Survey..........................................................................................................................................11 Mapping Eelgrass Condition and Extent.............................................................................................................13 AerialVessel Survey................................................................................................................................................17 VesselLocations by Type....................................................................................................................................20 VesselLocations by Status..................................................................................................................................22 Hotspots of Vessel Activity in the Vicinity of Eelgrass........................................................................................25 DISCUSSION................................................................................................................................................................28 Groundtruthing Eelgrass Extent.............................................................................................................................28 Variabilityin Eelgrass Beds.....................................................................................................................................29 Aerial Survey Highlights and Implications ..............................................................................................................29 ManagementOptions.............................................................................................................................................30 CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................................................32 REFERENCES................................................................................................................................................................35 Appendix A:Variation in Depth and Plant Height by Dive Site..................................................................................37 Appendix B:Additional Dive Transect Survey Maps..................................................................................................39 Appendix C:Changes in Plant Height with Depth by Transect............................................ '-;'. .....................49 Page, 3 MAY 1 5 2019 r Southold 1ni1n Board of Trustees EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Globally and locally,seagrass meadows provide many crucial ecosystem services but face intense pressures from human activities and environmental stressors. In Long Island Sound, Fishers Island harbors most of the enduring eelgrass(Zostera marina)ecosystem in the New York waters of the Sound;and,of local concern are potential impacts to eelgrass from boating related sources. During the annual boating season,the number of vessels in the Sound swells significantly,increasing pressures on sensitive eelgrass habitat from anchoring,mooring,propeller scarring,and boat wakes.To address these concerns,two surveys were conducted in 2017 around Fishers Island.One was a benthic survey,consisting of dives and underwater transects to characterize eelgrass condition and to groundtruth its extent,mapped in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Long Island Sound Eelgrass Survey(Bradley&Paton,2018).The second was an aerial survey,conducted aboard fixed wing aircraft to assess vessel use patterns around the island and to identify hotspots with greater threat to eelgrass habitat during the boating season. The benthic eelgrass survey captured considerable variation in plant height,percent cover,and bed edges at different sites, underscoring the importance of site characteristics and environmental conditions in determining eelgrass distribution.A comparison of the inshore and offshore edges of eelgrass beds measured in our survey with those mapped in the USFWS survey showed that the edges were generally well aligned,except for a few areas where eelgrass extent recorded in the benthic survey deviated from the aerial survey results in shallower or deeper eelgrass habitat. During the benthic survey,some propeller scarring was found by the docks in East Harbor,suggesting that there are also dock related impacts that remain to be further investigated. Analysis of the aerial survey data revealed most vessels observed were recreational boats,with the highest numbers recorded on weekend survey dates in July and August. Hotspots and areas of eelgrass habitat at greater risk from vessel activities include coastal waters adjacent to the Eighth Hole(at the Fishers Island Club golf course), Flat Hammock,East Harbor,West Harbor,and Hay Harbor.At these locations,impacts to eelgrass are associated with boats anchoring close to shore or directly over eelgrass,boats transiting in shallow waters, boat wakes,and to a lesser extent,the siting of moorings. In general,high vessel use in these areas reflects observations cited by local community members and demonstrates the value of including local knowledge in environmental problem identification and conservation management planning.Boat numbers reflect a conservative estimate of vessel activity given the frequency and duration of our survey flights and the likelihood of heavier use on holidays,which were not surveyed. To protect eelgrass resources from potential boating-related impacts,different management options and examples are discussed—namely, boater education and outreach,zoning and designation of special management areas,and the use of conservation moorings.A combination of different strategies is likely needed with monitoring and adaptive management,which is essential to measuring and optimizing the success of any management plan. In addition,the baselines for vessel activity captured in this study are necessary for evaluating the effectiveness of future management strategies. 1 FL L tt�7 fGa li �� MAY 1 5 2019 Soe`.hnir,to}rrn Page 14 rte' j L LA MAY 1 5 2019 INTRODUCTION I� 5c�a1o':'ln�rn od of Seagrass meadows are crucial to the long-term health of marine ecosystems and the welF=being of c-ornmunitiens-'-- ----- around the world(Cullen-Unsworth et al., 2014).As underwater refuges, nurseries,and breeding and foraging grounds,seagrass meadows sustain diverse species of marine life, including many commercially and recreationally important fish and shellfish as well as threatened and endangered species like sea turtles,dugongs,and manatees (New York State Seagrass Task Force,2009).Additionally,seagrass beds improve water quality by trapping fine suspended particles and reducing contaminants and pathogens that cause diseases in humans and marine life (Lamb et al.,2017).As highly productive ecosystems,seagrass meadows are important in the nutrient exchange of coastal waters and play key roles in the ocean's carbon cycle,where they serve as important carbon sinks(Duarte, Middelburg,&Caraco,2004; Mcleod et al.,2011).Thus,they capture and store significant amounts of carbon as organic material in the ocean, reducing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide,the primary driver of global warming and ocean acidification.Other ecosystem services provided by seagrass include wave attenuation and sediment stabilization,which help increase coastal resilience to storm surge and reduce coastal erosion(Fonseca&Fisher, 1986; Fonseca&Cahalan,1992). Given the ecological and socio-economic benefits of seagrasses,seagrass conservation is driven by a sense of urgency, because globally,seagrasses have declined at an accelerating rate(Waycott et al.,2009).Anthropogenic factors such as impaired water quality,climate change,coastal development and physical destruction have been implicated as the main drivers of decline(Waycott et al.,2009).With a 90 percent decrease in its historic extent, the loss of eelgrass(Zostera marina)in Long Island Sound,situated between the coastlines of Connecticut and Long Island, New York, is particularly acute(New York State Seagrass Task Force,2009). Since 2002,every three to five years,the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)has used aerial imagery to delineate eelgrass beds in the Sound,where the remaining eelgrass is restricted to the eastern end of the estuary. The USFWS's most recent 2017 survey was based on aerial imagery taken in June and included field verification completed from September to October,via an underwater video camera lowered from a surface vessel (Bradley& Paton,2018). Based on this survey,the waters around Fishers Island, New York,contain significant amounts of eelgrass,comprising 24%of the eelgrass extent in the Sound and 96%of the eelgrass extent in the New York portion of the Sound(Bradley&Paton,2018).Consequently, Fishers Island has become the focus of conservation efforts directed at protecting its vital eelgrass resources. Although eelgrass around Fishers Island is threatened by regional pressures similar to those impacting seagrasses worldwide(e.g.nitrogen pollution and climate change),of particular local concern are the physical impacts caused by boating activities(Collier,2016).The waters around Fishers Island are popular for boating due to their quiet and undeveloped seascape, proximity to the Connecticut coast,and productive fishing grounds. Boaters use the areas for recreational and commercial purposes,engaging in activities ranging from fishing,aquaculture,and transportation to sailing,kayaking,and swimming.During the peak of the annual boating season,the number of vessels at popular island sites can surge dramatically, raising concerns about the potential impacts this increased pressure may have on eelgrass habitat(Collier,2016).Examples of boating impacts on eelgrass include scarring and scouring from propellers(prop-scarring),anchors,conventional moorings and boat wakes. Propeller scars,which have been documented in Hay Harbor(Fishers Island Conservancy Summer Sentinel, pers. obs.), result when a boat enters shallow water containing seagrass beds near the depth of its drafts.The boat's engine propeller cuts through the plants and excavates troughs in the meadow,stirring up sediment and creating scars barren of seagrass(Sargent,Leary,Crewz, &Kruer,1995). Anchoring in seagrass habitat is also detrimental. The process of dropping,setting,and retrieving an anchor over seagrass directly crushes,scrapes,and uproots the plants, leaving depressions in the beds with the roots and rhizomes exposed (Collins,Suonpaa, &Mallinson, 2010). Furthermore, conventional swing chain moorings,which consist of a buoy attached with a chain to an Page ( 5 anchor,create circular scars in seagrass beds.To accommodate the tidal range,currents,wind and waves,this type of mooring has an extra length of chain that typically rests on the seafloor.When the tide,waves,or currents change,the chain is pulled up and down and drags along the seafloor as the surface buoy swings around its anchor, effectively scouring the area around the mooring of seagrass and leaving circular scars devoid of seagrass (Walker, Lukatelich, Bastyan, &McComb, 1989). Resuspension of sediments caused by the wake of motorboats may also scour seagrass plants and create turbidity,reducing the light they require for photosynthesis(Crawford, 2002).Although physical destruction and stress from propeller, moorings,anchor scars and boat wakes have been attributed as significant causes of seagrass habitat loss in different parts of the world, prior to this study,the level of risk associated with boating impacts at Fishers Island was unknown.This study was therefore motivated by the need to substantiate the condition and extent of eelgrass habitat around Fishers Island,to quantify the pressures it faces from boating sources,and to identify areas,opportunities and options for seagrass conservation. Study Site Fishers Island is located seven miles southeast of New London,Connecticut,at the eastern end of Long Island Sound.The island is about seven miles long and one mile wide at its widest point and according to the 2010 census, is home to 236 year-round residents, mostly on the western end of the island (U.S.Census Bureau, 2011). Politically,it is part of the Town of Southold, New York,although geographically,it is closer to Connecticut. Mass transportation access to the island is via ferry from New London,Connecticut.Although tourism is noticeably absent on the island,the number of residents swells during the summer,with the seasonal population reaching about 3000 people.The north side of Fishers Island is where the main harbors are located.West Harbor has the largest mooring and docking area and the other harbors are Silver Eel Cove, Hay Harbor, and East Harbor. Esteemed for its natural coastal scenery and historical and cultural significance, Fishers island is home to diverse coastal habitats encompassing grasslands,coastal woodlands,sandy beaches,salt marshes, rocky shores,and eelgrass meadows(Collier,2016).Dense beds of eelgrass can be seen exposed at the shoreline for several hours during lower low tides(Figure 1). Eelgrass distribution around Fishers Island is dynamic as shown in a comparison of its extent in 2012 and 2017, mapped in USFWS aerial surveys(Figure 2). Because of the island's importance as coastal habitat for protected and vulnerable species like grey seals, harbor seals,and ospreys and its significant eelgrass habitat, it was designated a New York State Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat in 1987 and as a Long Island Sound Study Stewardship Site in 2005. MAY 1 5 2019 Figure 1:Eelgrass exposed during a very low tide at Fishers Island.(Photo:Justine Kibbe) Page 6 —W � F Trend _Gain (87.o acres.+21 6%) -loss (143 2 acres,-35,6%) No Change (259.7 acres,64.4%) Other vc -Undetermined SAV from 2012 v Figure 2:Changes in eelgrass distribution around Fishers Island from 2012 to 2017.The 2012 USFWS survey also delineated beds of undetermined submerged aquatic vegetation(SAV)where eelgrass-cEwk}-potmftlfy-exfst but was not verified in the field. METHODS MAY 1 5 2019 Objectives i To assess the status of eelgrass habitat around Fishers Island and the pressures created by vessel'acttivites,two I different surveys were conducted during the summer and fall of 2017.One was a benthireeig�ass-survey with the main objectives to:(1)survey the extent and condition of eelgrass beds,and(2)supplement and groundtruth the 2017 extent determined by the USFWS aerial survey.The other was an aerial vessel survey conducted to:(1) assess patterns of vessel use around the island,(2)establish baselines for vessel activity,and,(3)identify eelgrass habitat at significant risk from boating related impacts. Benthic Eelgrass Survey Dive Transects Transects were conducted by two divers equipped with SCUBA gear at thirteen pre-selected sites around Fishers Island and the adjacent islet of Flat Hammock from September 12,2017 to October 11, 2017,during the peak of the perennial eelgrass growth cycle(Figure 3).The goal was to locate the offshore and inshore edges of the eelgrass beds,defined here as the points beyond which no eelgrass was sighted along the transect, and assess their condition and distribution by measuring percent cover and canopy height and recording eelgrass presence and absence within meadow areas.At each site,divers completed one to two transect surveys,each beginning and ending at the meadow edges(offshore and inshore), determined after swimming a sufficient distance beyond each edge to verify the bed limit had been reached.Above the divers, a surface buoy was towed containing a GPS Page 1 7 unit,which was synchronized with the lead diver's watch at the beginning of each dive to track and record data collection points along the transect.The first transect was conducted inshore to offshore,along a compass heading perpendicular to the coastline.Once the offshore edge was reached,the divers swam 100 kicks parallel to the shoreline,against the direction of the prevailing current.After which,conditions permitting,the dive team conducted a second transect survey heading back towards the shore. Percent cover and canopy height were measured at the inshore edge, offshore edge, at 5 ft depth intervals,and at periodic intermediate intervals using a 0.5 m by 0.5 m quadrat and measuring tape,following standard seagrass monitoring protocols(Short, McKenzie, Coles,Vidler,&Gaeckle, 2006).Changes in presence and absence were visually determined along the transect. Transects were terminated at two sites before the offshore edge could be reached for safety reasons as the divers would have had to go too close to breakwaters or boat channels. Site Checks Based on island resident input, locations where eelgrass was thought to be located but not shown in the 2012 USFWS extent were checked by snorkel. Site checks consisted of three surface dives within 50 meters of each point to determine eelgrass absence or presence(Figure 3). East 8"ch each East End 11 0FIat Hammock East Clay Point Side aA North Hill BeachY West Hartiol R.tirthof Doc Hay Hwbor \ Dive Sites(13) Snorkel Site Checks(6) Eelgrass Extent(2017) n Figure 3:Sites chosen for dive transects and site checks overlaid on the 2017 USFWS eelgrass extent layer. Analysis Using the time recorded for each measurement or located bed feature,relevant GPS points were selected and imported from Garmin Homeport into ArcMap.The layer was projected to NAD 1983 State Plane Connecticut FIPS 0600 Feet. Because there were several GPS points associated with each data collection time record,which was measured to the minute,we took an 'average'of the locations;this was accomplished in ArcGIS by taking the centroid of the minimum bounding convex hull polygon representing the relevant points. Page 18 Transect lines and absence and presence line segments were later created from these points and added as two separate GIS layers.All the layers were then projected over the 2017 eelgrass extent from the USFWS survey. Water depths were adjusted for tide stage to the Mean Low Water(MLW)vertical datum using NOAA tide predictions for Silver Eel Pond, NY(station ID:8510719)(NOAA,2018). MLW tide predictions were obtained in minute intervals,and because all the relevant predictions were zero or above,they were subtracted from the corresponding survey depth measurements to yield depths adjusted to the MLW datum. Aerial Vessel Survey Flight and Image Acquisition Fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft have successfully been employed in previous studies to gauge the impact of vessels on coral reefs and seagrass meadows(Behringer&Swett,2010;Sargent, Leary,Crewz,&Kruer, 1995). This survey used fixed-wing aircraft to assess the composition and location of vessels and their status(anchored, moored,underway,etc.)relative to eelgrass extent around Fishers Island.A total of seven survey flights were conducted in 2017 during four weekend and three weekday dates,as follows: • Saturday,May 27 �) �� L-� z �!� �I t • Saturday,June 10 • Monday,July 17 • Sunday,July 30 MAY 1 5 2019 • Thursday,August 3 • Sunday,August 27 i SouU:eitl lbawn • Friday,September 29 Survey flights began at Race Point,the southwest point of Fishers Island,and progressed clockwise to capture vessel patterns around the island and adjacent islets,including Flat Hammock,North Dumpling and South Dumpling.Towards the end of each survey,a cross-island loop was flown to capture the inner reaches of West Harbor. Excluding transit flight time to and from the island, each flight took,on average,27 minutes to complete and was flown at an altitude of about 400-600 m.To ensure photo quality,some flights included additional passes around the island,but no additional loops were made inside West Harbor.Aerial imagery was taken continuously, with overlapping frames, using a Ricoh G800SE digital camera with integrated GPS, pre-programmed to geotag each photo with the position and altitude it was taken from (Smith,2017). Area of Interest Prior to digitizing vessels from the aerial surveys,we defined an 'area of interest'spatial layer to help determine which boats from the aerial surrey images to include in the digitization process.This was largely because many of the aerial photographs included boat locations that were well beyond a reasonable distance from Fishers Island to likely have an impact to eelgrass. Being far from the coast also made the location of these boats more difficult to determine as there were fewer points of reference.Therefore,we only considered offshore areas up to 40 feet in depth and within 1 mile of Fishers island.While seagrass has not been documented deeper than 24 feet in the area,the generous 40 feet threshold was intended to account for some error that would be involved in geolocating boats, particularly in areas where the depth drops over short distances. In addition,this allowed for a single depth contour area that would also include North Dumpling Island when defining the area of interest.The area of interest layer was created in ArcMap by intersecting areas less than 40 feet in depth and 1 mile in distance away from Fishers Island.The resulting layer included adjacent islets and,for simplification purposes,a few deeper areas inside the resulting polygon layer.This layer was imported into Google Earth as a reference layer. Page 19 Digitization Using aerial photos to geolocate vessels in Google Earth The geotagged photos from the survey flights were converted to points inside ArcMap and then exported as a KMZ file for viewing in Google Earth. Using the position and altitude the photos were taken from and features of the coastline,the view in Google Earth was oriented to align with each aerial photo.Then, in Google Earth,vessel positions were manually located as points and added to a new point layer(Figure 4).Only boats in physical contact with seawater and within the area of interest were located and kept in the point layer.This methodology was selected as a reasonably accurate and reliable approach based on the findings in Smith(2017),which compared different methods of geolocating boats around Fishers Island aboard fixed-wing aircraft. 'i Figure 4: Method of geolocating boats from aerial photos in Google Earth. Recording and identifying vessels Each geolocated point corresponded to a record in the survey table,with each boat categorized by vessel class, type,and status(Table 1). Vessel Category Definition Options Commercial -- Class What is the vessel's purpose? Recreational Unknown Power boats i'i MAY 1 5 Type How is the vessel operated? Sailboat 2Q19 Paddle craft Unknown Smit'alr; G�vn Anchored f Docked Status How is the vessel secured? Moored Stationary Underway Table 1:Categories used to characterize vessels. Pagel 10 Boats were categorized as"unknown"for vessel class and type if they were too distant to identify and were absent of tell-tale features,such as boat wakes or sails. For vessel status, boats were determined to be "anchored" if they had a visible anchor line or in some cases,if their positions relative the shoreline or other boats necessitated it being so. Boats lacking a visible wake were classified as"stationary"for vessel status if they did not have an anchor line or adjacent mooring clearly visible.Thus, "stationary"vessels were boats that were adrift or possibly anchored or moored(likely, if near a mooring field)with the anchor line or mooring buoy not discernible from the aerial photos. During the survey,it was common to see smaller boats,such as rigid inflatable boats towed behind larger vessels like sailboats;these boats were still counted as separate boats but were not recorded as anchored even if the towing boat was anchored. In addition,boats rafted together were counted separately. Incorporating vessels from additional passes in survey flights For surveys with multiple passes,vessels from additional passes were only recorded if the boats were underway or not previously found in a location. In some cases,photos from additional passes were substituted for some areas in the first pass because of better image quality.While the number of new boats recorded in the additional passes did not make up a significant proportion of boats,they were excluded from the numerical portion of the analysis(i.e.vessel counts and other charts).They were however still included in the spatial analysis in the maps because their spatial extent provides useful information for natural resource management planning. Analysis The point layer for each survey was exported from Google Earth into ArcMap and then the layers were combined and joined to a table with the vessel information.This final layer was used for the spatial analysis.Charts were created using Microsoft Excel and R. In making charts and counting vessels,the number of distinct vessels was determined from the number of unique Boat IDs.As a result,the charts represent the actual number of vessels captured in our survey sample.The maps,on the other hand,emphasize the relative locations of these vessels because a vessel may have been recorded in more than one location in a survey(such as for boats underway or boats found in a different location in a later pass). RESULTS Benthic Eelgrass Survey Overview Along our dive transects,eelgrass was documented at depths of 0 to 17 ft below MLW with the offshore edge located at depths varying between 3 to 17 ft below MLW and the inshore edge,0 to 6 ft below MLW(Figure 5). Eelgrass grew to a maximum height of 150 cm which was recorded at 3 ft below MLW in Barleyfield Cove(Figure 3).Figure 6 shows the site by site variation in percent cover.All sites surveyed,except Clay Point and East Harbor, featured areas with 50%or greater percent cover at depths ranging from 1 to 12 ft below MLW. See Appendix A for additional charts related to variation in plant height and depth by dive site. 7i LJ ; M AY 15 2019 Board of Page 11 16- 14- 12- 10- 8- 6 6-14-12 10-8-6 i 4- • 2 0- . Inshore Edge Offshore Edge Feature Figure 5:Depths of the inshore(n=20)and offshore(n=17)edges along dive transects at different sites. 100- 7'5 • � • i � Q zs- i i w v E m W £ aO Y t U m W W W E u v t E x _o m ; S z F o m" w' m o L � o S m � Dive Site Figure 6:Variation in percent cover by dive site. l1 Page 't� " ul MAY 1 5 2019 Board of Tn,ia f During the benthic surveys,divers observed eelgrass covered with extensive epiphytes throughout the cove off Dock Beach in West Harbor and some areas were completely overgrown. Eelgrass meadows at other sites like South Beach, Clay Point, and East Harbor were patchy in distribution. For sites checked by snorkel, eelgrass was observed interspersed with macroalgae growth in East Harbor on the west side and propeller scars were found by the docks on the east side of the harbor(Figure 7). Propeller scars were also observed along dive transects at Eighth Hole, at depths up to 7 ft below MLW. Mapping Eelgrass Condition and Extent The results of all the site checks can be seen in Figure 7. For the dive transects,detailed maps of each site showing transect and absence/presence lines, percent cover measurements, and bed features are displayed in the following figures and in Appendix B. Charts of plant height by depth for each transect and dive site are in Appendix C. At Flat Hammock, percent cover exceeded 60%in several areas and decreased to 5%or less at the offshore edge (Figure 8).At Hungry Point,there was a more gradual decrease in percent cover as the offshore edge was reached (Figure 9). Here,the measured inshore edge corresponded well with the edge mapped in the 2017 USFWS aerial eelgrass survey,while the measured offshore edge extended a distance farther than that mapped.At North Hill Beach, there was a more marked difference between the measured inshore edge and that mapped in the USFWS survey(Figure 10). Diver surveys also revealed an offshore edge at South Beach, which significantly exceeded the USFWS aerial survey mapped edge. Aside from these exceptions, dives sites generally had measured edges falling within or close to the 2017 USFWS mapped extent. ti USFWS LIS Eftmom 6�9V 2017 A� �� ..�� Snorkel Site Checks(6) R;,� .• � � Eelgrass Absent M.��y Eelgrass Present Eelgrass Extent t20i_ Figure 7:Sites checked for eelgrass by snorkel at the eastern end of Fishers island. LJMAY 1 5 2010age is 1 Southold Trn:�� Boardo{T__ 'v 00 400 Feet ft Ap 1j Data Sou,ces TNC Benihic Survey 2017 NY500P High Resolution Imagery 2016 ;aUSFWS LIS Eelgrass Survey 2017 O In-bed —Absent Inshore Edge –...Absent,rocks and boulders } t Offshore Edge —Present Percent Covered • Other Present but patchy ■Percent Not Covered Eelgrass Extent(2017) Figure 8:Flat Hammock *Depth in feet below MLW Page 14 i MAY 1 5 20119 1 T,.iL Jf t 00 400 Feet c O In-bed —Absent Inshore Edge Absent,rocks and boulders Offshore Edge —Present Percent Covered • Other Present but patchy ®Percent Not Covered Eelgrass Extent(2017) Figure 9:Hungry Point 'Depth in feet below MLW Page 15 I MAY 1 5 2019 Board u`r 00 400 'R loft 7 ft 3 It 1 Dat Noy_017 US t Ss 117 '�.�._ 1 o In-bed —Absent Inshore Edge ..•..Absent,rocks and boulders ® Offshore Ede —Present 9 Percent Covered • Other Present but patchy ®Percent Not Covered Eelgrass Extent(2017) Figure 10:North Hill Beach 'Depth in feet below MLW Page 16 MAY 1 5 2019 I Aerial Vessel Survey Overview A total of 1432 boats were recorded from all seven surveys combined. Most of these boats were recreational powerboats(70.9%)followed by sailboats(16%),which suggests the prevalence of recreational activity around the island.Commercial powerboats made up 3.2%of all the boats surveyed(Figure 11)and included commercial fishing and aquaculture boats,ferries, law enforcement,and ambulatory vessels.Small business driven recreational boats,such as charter boats,were not distinguished from other recreational boats because they could not be easily identified from the aerial images. More than half of the boats were docked(51.1%)and a significant portion was moored (14.3%)(Figure 12). Combining the percentages of stationary(19.7%)and underway boats(10.1%)shows that almost a third of all the boats surveyed were likely in use. 80 1015 70 900 60 ph 2 so pp pp� 600 40 Z 30 a 300 20 94 10 31 48 17a _ p Paddle Powerboat Powerboat Powerboat Sailboat Unknown crafts (commercial)irecreational) unknown) Vessel Type Figure 11:Total number of vessels by type. 731 50 600 40 u h H > 30 0 400 s u � E z' 282 20 �o 200 205 144 10 70MEN 0, 0 Anchored Docked Moored Stationary Underway Vessel Status Figure 12:Total number of vessels by status. ►►_ _._..._.. _ ! i Page ( 17 L r' MAY 1 5 Jig .-_........... - Based on survey dates,the busiest boating days were July 30 (27.2%)and August 27(24.7%), both Sundays(Figure 13).The fewest boats were recorded near the beginning and end of the boating season, May 27 (7.3%),June 10 (7.2%), both Saturdays,and September 29 (7.5%),a Friday. Weekday and weekend differences are shown in Figure 14.An accompanying map showing the locations of these vessels by survey date can be seen in Figure 15. �0^ 389 353 120 N N N � N � d 6 `0 179 Igo �15 ? weekday y E weekend 9 0 z' }10 105 103 107 100 5 r 0 27AUy 104m 174W 30-JW 3-Aug 27,AM 29-Sep Sat Sat Mon Sun Thurs Sun Fri Survey Dates Figure 13:Number of vessels by survey dates and use level. ;% a v a ?00 N a� Weekday � Weekend .o E Z 00 rn .v a > a 0 "%.eekda; ee-en i Survey Use Level Figure 14:Average number of vessels per survey for each use level. Error bars indicate standard error. — - n!�� Page 18 MAY 1 Weekend Weekday May27(Saturday) July 17(Monday) >V+ r epp 01 JUne10(Saturday) August 3(Thursday) > t s • y 6 July 30(Sunday) September 29(Friday) August 27(Sunday) All Dates Combined 0 4 8 Miles Seagrass Beds(2017) i 1 1 I 1 Past Seagrass Distribution(2002-2012) Daca Sources Survey Extent(<40 ft in depth,1 mile from Fl) rNc Aeual Vessel Survey 2017 USFWS LIS ENgrass Surveys 20022017 Figure 15:Vessel locations by survey date and use level Page 1 19 Vessel Locations by Type The busiest survey dates(July 30 and August 27) recorded a two to threefold increase in the number of recreational powerboats and an increase in the number of sailboats within the study area of interest(Figure 16). There were some weekend and weekday differences,most notably in the average number of powerboats per survey use level(Figure 17).The map in Figure 18 shows the locations of vessels from all the surveys combined, sorted by type.Sailboat activity was concentrated on the north side of Fishers Island with only one sailboat recorded on the south side.Clusters of mostly powerboats but also sailboats were found in and around eelgrass habitat in sheltered bays and coves on the north side of the island. 400 300 N V N N j Sailboat 200 ■ Powerboat ■ Paddlecraft 6 ■ Unknown z 100 0 27-May 10-Jun 17-Jul 30-Jul 3-Aug 27-Aug 29-Sep Sal Sat Mon Sun Thurs Sun Fri Survey Dates(2017) Figure 16:Number of vessels by survey date and boat type a Z 200 N `u CL P luV 150 d Sailboat > ■ Powerboat Z ■ Paddlecraft i 100 af;::; Unknown >_ z d 50 d 0 Weekday Weekend Survey Use Level Figure 17:Average number of vessels by use level and boat type Page 20 • L .. r .. a •1 ' .r 1 Is rj• cr Padd4eaft • �•� •f • Powerboat •• • "• • • • Saliooet • • •• Unknown • f•• j ` � • • Eelgrass Extent(2017) • • -Past EelgFass Extent(2002-2012) ' • Faea of Interest(<40 tt m depth.1 mde from Fp oa•So — 0 0.5 1 2 Mlles 05F WS LIS Eelare•a SI—,y,20022017 I I I I TNC A—I vee•N Survey 2017 Figure 18:Vessel locations sorted by boat type Page 21 , r — r I -11 I MAY 1 5 2019 P i Vessel Locations by Status The busiest survey dates also presented a substantial increase in the proportion of boats that were anchored and stationary.At the peak of the boating season,the number of docked boats nearly doubled,and the number of moored boats also increased (Figure 19).Weekday and weekend differences can be seen in Figure 20.The highest number of anchored and stationary boats were observed during the July 30 and August 27 surveys and mainly found in East Harbor, Eighth Hole,and Flat Hammock. Figure 21 shows a map of vessel locations sorted by status. Some boats were found in the vicinity of eelgrass and areas of high dock use can also be seen as well.Figure 22 shows the locations of these vessels relative to the known eelgrass extent from 2002-2017. 400 300 W m m ■ Anchored ■ Moored 200 Ik Stationary ■ Docked E ■ Underway z 100 0 27-May 10-Jun 17-Jul 30-Jul 3-Aug 27-Aug 29-Sep Sat Sat Mon Sun Thurs Sun Fn Survey Dates(2017) Figure 19:Number of vessels by survey dates and boat status. T 200 3 V) n� 58.5 d150 „ ■Anchored j ■ Moored 'S Stationary 1 100 ■Docked E ■Underway E z W to Q 50 n 0 Weekday Weekend I' MAY 1 5 2019 Survey Use Level Figure 20:Average number of vessels by use level and boat status. N :. ..• tl .#�• �: .••� , .• •• , y M � r rat rilt >,x X x Yr 00 x xM X r x M(bored F j • x Docked X Moored • - x Stationery •' ��`.• K • underway ' —Eelgrass Extent(2017) • Past Eelgrass Extent(2002-2012) Area of Interest(40 fl in depth,1 mile from FI) se�.z.. 0 0.$ 1 2 Mlles ore USFWS LIS ENArese S—ys 2002.2017 I 1 1 I 1 ?NC A,fIW ^SSN Surw 2Dil Figure 21:Vessel locations sorted by status Page 23 " . z i C� MAY 1 5 2019 bcu; N 041 rj. J Vessels w.thir Seagrass Extent •' ' - Vessels w:mir Potential Seagrass Extent(Only in Past Distribution) Other Vessels .. _Seagrass Extent 12017) r -Past Seagrass Exlent(2002-2012) Area of Interest(<40 ft in depth,1 mile from FI 0 05 1 2 Mlles ° sxx 0' USFNS LIS Eels;—s Suvay 2002-2Ct1 TN=Aend Vessel Survey 2G'l Figure 22:Vessel locations relative to seagrass extent Page 24 �1 MAY 1 5 2019 Sc;ltllci(1 i�hxl Board u`T stp Hotspots of Vessel Activity in the Vicinity of Eelgrass Figure 23 outlines five hotspots of vessel activity in or around eelgrass habitat,which are shown in greater detail in subsequent figures. Inferring from the maps presented earlier in this report,these sites contain areas of eelgrass where our survey revealed greater propeller scarring,mooring,and anchoring pressures. It includes parts of East Harbor, Eighth Hole, Flat Hammock,West Harbor,and Hay Harbor. Most of these are sheltered bays or coves with calmer waters and access to the beach. At East Harbor(Figure 24), many boats were stationary or anchored in the harbor on high use survey dates with some boats venturing away from congested parts of the harbor, into shallow adjacent areas where more eelgrass is found.At Eighth Hole(Figure 25), most boats were shore anchored with two anchors,one extending onto the beach from the stern and the other into the water from the bow. Most of these boats weren't located directly over eelgrass, however,their bow anchors had impacts on the adjacent eelgrass beds. In addition,these powerboats had to move through shallow water over eelgrass to access the shore. Propeller scars were observed in eelgrass during the benthic survey at this site.At Flat Hammock(Figure 26), powerboats and sailboats were anchored close to shore,with some anchoring directly over eelgrass. At West Harbor(Figure 27),the majority of moored and docked boats were not located over eelgrass habitat. However, eelgrass habitat in the harbor is at risk of higher stress from frequent boat traffic and associated impacts such as anchoring, propeller scarring and boat wakes,which suspend sediments and reduce water clarity. Moreover,the benthic survey documented the extensive eelgrass beds north of the Dock Beach were covered with macroalgae,which may be indicative of an environment with greater disturbances. Hay Harbor(Figure 28), is a good example of an area where boats were not sighted in eelgrass habitat in the survey, but because of the location of eelgrass inside the shallow entrance channel to the harbor,the eelgrass is more vulnerable to boater impacts like propeller scarring. N ♦ •r +Nv V. Y • Ves"M vnttun Seaprass Extent Vessels wnan Potenual Seagre Extent(Onlym Past Distlftbwi rj. Other V-1. .f _Seayrass Extant(2017) - —PaN Seaprass EAert(2002.2012) Area of:,ftmat(<40 fl in d"M'mile hom r'., s 0 O S 1 2 Miles C>a�•`0°s' I I *nc a.wM 2+77off � Figure 23:Hotspots of vessel activity and eelgrass habitat at greater risk �l MAY 1 5 2_Page 25 srutl,o!d toy;'( Board of T�.i�'�_ Vessel Status Vessel Tvpe o � e o 8 . • O N �2 g �X es I k Anchored > Docked • Paddlecraft X Moored {• • Powerboat Stationary Sailboat • o Underway , • Unknown Eelgrass Extent(2017) -vast Eelgraes Extern 0 0,25 0,5 Mb(2002.2012) r Area of rnterest(<40 R in depth,1 mde from Fp A �'�" _ IbFVJS US E•p+w•S—.Y 1002.20t 1 Figure 24: East Harbor Area Vessel Status Vessel Tvpe 66 . KXX • ••. „ •.• X Anchored ., X pocked • Paddle SA X Moored • Powerboat Stationary Sadboat Ci Underway • Unknown ri r Eelgrass Extent(2017) 0 0+ o7ux. -Past Eelgmse Extent(2002-2012) Area of Interest(00 ft in depth.1 mile from FI) c.•sa d. .._._. _ TNF•.W vnw Swv.Y 101; _., .� {`1/^L _ .• .'45Ewb UC 6.W.r• �.Y.SOOI.]Ot" Figure 25: Eighth Hole --�' Page 26 MAY 1 5 �` Vessel Status Vessel Tvae • o � • i K X ! X i •• X X j • ^" •..+ .. Anchored x Docked • Paddkcraft X Moored r Powerboat 0 o Stationary • Sailboat 0 Underway I • + Unknown I Eelgnsa Extent(2017) 0 C i Main Pas!Eelprass Extent(2002-2012) - Area of Interest(140 It in depth.1 mile from FI) IN A T4C 5"usrws i,s a.ip.•u 51 2002-2011 Figure 26: Flat Hammock Vessel Status Vessel Tvoe 0 0 0 4 •• • l O ° ° 0 ° X • " • •. 0 0 0 • r o ° 00 X • • • �'r d o 0 0 0 0 s 'AX O 0 - - • • • �, xX O0 Y • " X'Fxii i�•.��b ! X Anchored • • •' 3 • X XX 'x Docked : •�� • • Paddlecraft. x Moored I �a. • Powarooat Sta!lonary • Sailboat i ° l/nderway * Unknown r Eelgrass Extent(2017) -Past Eelgraes Extern(2002-2012) s ,toren Area of interest(<4011 in depth,1 mile from FI) l,N4 A•ha•nc.e Suh•r 2a11 _..____—_.—_. USFNS V S i•QtY1 auMy.'[Wt]al' Figure 27:West Harbor I l POSE 4 7 MAY 1 5 2019 I I :i(l'u:i101(i ifWJtl Boartl a!Trtl�l„ s> Vessel Status Vessel Type I i X x • • N • � �o x ,:nd,ored 8 x X x Docked e • • Paddloaaft X Moored • Powerboat X Stationary • salbdat 8 o Underway = • unknown -Eelprass Extant(2017) -Past EeVass Extent(2002-2012) ❑ o osa o.s Miks Area of Inte est(40 11 in deptP,1 nide from FI) T: A °" 155- H...rs S.lar, 14EN5-LIS E.brn.$urv.Y Pad110+T Figure 28:Hay Harbor DISCUSSION Groundtruthing Eelgrass Extent One of the main goals of the underwater benthic survey was to use in situ transect data to verify the eelgrass extent around Fishers Island,delineated in the 2017 USFWS survey.A secondary goal was to validate the presence or absence of eelgrass at historic sites identified by the island community, but undocumented in the previous USFWS survey(2012). Before making a comparison, however, it is important to consider differences in the projects' methodologies. For example,the USFWS survey(2017)used aerial images to delineate eelgrass beds on a large scale(1:1500).These images were taken in June, showing an eelgrass extent earlier in the perennial growth cycle than that captured in our benthic survey,during September and October. For some areas,the USFWS survey(2017)did use field verification,completed around the same time as this survey,to adjust eelgrass extent.Additionally,edges in the USFWS survey(2017)were defined as when eelgrass cover dropped to 5%, whereas our definition was when eelgrass was absent(M. Bradley,personal communication). Despite these differences,the offshore and inshore edges recorded in our benthic survey generally corresponded well with the edges mapped by the 2017 USFWS survey.At most of our dive sites,the measured edges were close to the edges mapped by USFWS and differences were generally within the margin of error. In a few cases,our measured offshore edge was closer to shore than that which they mapped.At two of these sites,West Harbor and Barleyfield Cove, proximity of the offshore edge to an active vessel channel and a breakwater, respectively, and safety protocols prevented the dive team from reaching the offshore edge. At Eighth Hole,we suspect the actual outer edge was not reached even though the divers traveled a reasonable distance beyond the measured edge to verify eelgrass absence beyond that point.At three sites,our measured inshore-or-offshor"clge extended significantly farther than the edges mapped by USFWS(a difference of about 35-75 ft for the offshore edges at Page 128 SAY 1 5 2019 _�;outiiel�?- Hungry Point,North Hill Beach and South Beach,and about 150 ft for the inshore edge at North Hill Beach).These results illustrate that some areas of deeper or shallower eelgrass were not fully captured in the USFWS survey, which could be due to a variety of reasons including factors affecting the aerial image quality for the particular -date and location conditions like water clarity. Notably,these edge differences occurred in locations where field verifications were not performed as part of the USFWS survey. Despite a few limitations,our dives at selected sites demonstrate the reliability of the 2017 USFWS eelgrass extent around Fisher's Island.For local project planning and permitting purposes(e.g.siting moorings,docks, aquaculture and submerged infrastructure,such as communication cables),the USFWS eelgrass extent map is a good starting point,but for local management purposes, higher resolution information is needed.Small differences in the actual and mapped edges of eelgrass could have significant implications for conservation and management of the resource. Ideally multiple tiered studies including dive transects would resolve these differences and provide data at a finer resolution (Neckles,Kopp, Peterson,&Pooler,2012).Given limitations in resources and funding, however,one management strategy for local project decision-making is to consider eelgrass extent in the context of potential eelgrass habitat.This could be done by including past eelgrass distribution as part of the project area or including a buffer around known eelgrass extent to avoid and minimize direct and indirect impacts to eelgrass associated with local projects. Variability in Eelgrass Beds As shown in the benthic survey,there can be considerable variation in eelgrass abundance and distribution even within an eelgrass meadow.This is because eelgrass growth is determined by a suite of environmental variables such as light availability which varies with depth and water clarity,temperature,type of substrate, nutrient concentrations(dissolved oxygen and carbon),presence of toxic sulphides and the degree of physical exposure from tides,waves and currents. Eelgrass distribution is also regulated by biotic factors such as competition, disease, herbivory(Greve&Binzer,2004),and their location relative to an eelgrass patch. As a result,eelgrass distribution and condition can vary greatly due to site-specific characteristics. For example, eelgrass was recorded as growing particularly tall in Barleyfield Cove which is much more sheltered from wave action and currents compared to other sites. Besides spatial variation,eelgrass biomass can fluctuate greatly temporally. In the temperate regions where it is found,eelgrass exhibits seasonal growth patterns that are strongly influenced by water temperature. In Long Island Sound,for instance,eelgrass growth peaks in September and experiences diebacks and senescence during the winter months. Eelgrass biomass also fluctuates interannually in response to climatic changes,such as storms or phenomenon such as EI Nino and La Nina,and coastal processes that gradually shape the coastline through erosion and deposition of sediment.So,when considering eelgrass extent, it is also important to consider intrinsic variability inside eelgrass beds and the dynamic nature of eelgrass growth and expansion. Aerial Survey Highlights and Implications The aerial survey revealed areas where boating activity was particularly concentrated and where the greatest potential impacts to eelgrass are likely to occur,mainly from recreational boat activity. Hotspots like parts of East Harbor, Flat Hammock,and Eighth Hole were popular recreational boating destinations,especially during days of peak use,with some boats seen anchored directly over eelgrass.Other places like West Harbor and Hay Harbor have channels with frequent boat traffic making eelgrass beds in the vicinity more vulnerable to impacts such as propeller scarring or increased turbidity related to wakes. Overall,our findings corroborated observations by local community members,underscoring the value of local knowledge in place-based resource conservation and management(Reid,Berkes,Wilbanks&Capistrano,2006; Mackinson&Nottestad, 1998) At the Eighth Hole, another concern our study revealed was boats that were seen anchored cLose_lo_shore with their bow anchor lines extended offshore into the eelgrass(Figure 29).While these boaf�amay,notlbe'directly over , Page ( 29 ;1 MAY 1 5 2019 �- h_ Board ni eelgrass, local reports and anecdotal evidence suggest that their anchors do fall in eelgrass beds because during retrieval, boaters have been observed removing entangled eelgrass from their anchors. Moreover, to reach the beach, these vessels had to transit shallow waters, which might be one cause of the propeller scarring observed there. Figure 29:Eighth Hole,July 30(Photo:Chantal Collier) In addition, scarring observed by the docks during dives in East Harbor and docked boats found in or near eelgrass from the aerial survey suggest that there are dock related boating impacts as well.As boats travel to and from the docks,propeller scarring can occur,especially during low tide.Shading by docks and docked vessels are also important eelgrass management issues in these areas.The biggest potential impact noted in the survey is scarring from propellers and anchors as opposed to that from moorings because not many moored boats were sighted in or near eelgrass.The moored boats in the main mooring field in West Harbor,for example,were not sighted over known eelgrass extent.There are a few moorings in West Harbor and elsewhere along the north shore, however, that are in or near eelgrass so the impact from moorings cannot be ruled out. Our analysis represents a conservative estimate of vessel activity around Fishers Island in our survey area of interest.Although our survey included flights throughout the boating season,the level of boat activity is likely greater.There are likely locations with high levels of boating activity not fully captured in our survey and absolute numbers of boats are based on totals from the seven survey dates(each flight about half an hour in length). For example,due to constraints in scheduling and resources, it was not possible to conduct any survey flights on major holidays when there is potentially greater boat activity. Management Options To address boating impacts on seagrass habitat around Fishers Island,several management options are available. The options detailed here are education and outreach,designation of special management areas or zones, and alternatives to conventional moorings,such as conservation moorings. Based on our findings, management strategies at Fishers Island should prioritize reaching recreational boaters, including powerboat and sailboat users, during days of peak use to have greatest impact. For some issues like boats anchoring close to shore, boater outreach and education may be the most effective strategy,whereas for frequent boat anchoring, propeller scarring,and boat wakes in seagrass areas,a combination of different management options may be appropriate. Page 30 U E: MAY 1 5 2011y r` Boater Education and Outreach Raising awareness and public support through boater education is essential to any long-term focused seagrass conservation and management plan.With proper knowledge and active boater involvement,scarring in seagrass is preventable.Simple steps like being mindful of seagrass extent,tide levels,and the depth of a boat's draft relative to water depth;and,knowing what to do if a boat enters a shallow seagrass area(lift,drift,pole,or troll) and when propeller scarring is occurring(when the propeller wash turns brown),can go a long way toward minimizing boat-related impacts on seagrass(Texas Parks and Wildlife,2006).Boater education can also encourage cooperation through boater to boater communication,which is an efficient and effective channel for spreading seagrass awareness and best practices for boating.Given the wide geographic origin of boaters who use waters around Fishers Island,the task of outreach is not without its challenges and may require collaboration across state boundaries. Education comes in many different forms including conducting boater surveys to understand public perceptions of seagrass and to identify gaps in knowledge,distributing boaters'guides with maps showing sensitive seagrass habitat locations and alternatives to transiting and anchoring in those areas,setting up educational signage in marinas,boat launches,and yacht clubs,and stickers with navigational aids and tips on avoiding anchoring and propeller scarring in seagrass. In general,Smith and Hellmund(1993)recommend educational strategies that:(1) make boaters aware of the link between detrimental boating behavior and scarring in seagrass habitat,(2)clearly demonstrate ways of boating responsibly,and(3)foster a sense of stewardship and connection to the health of the seagrass ecosystem. One innovative example of on-the-water boater education and outreach successfully employed in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve is Team OCEAN(Ocean Conservation Education Action Network).Part of the program involves assigning trained volunteers to sanctuary and reserve boats in heavily visited reef and seagrass sites,where they go from boat to boat acquainting visitors with general information about the sanctuary or reserve and its protective zones and provide tips on boating safely.Team OCEAN volunteers distribute informational packets containing boater charts,sanctuary information, and helpful navigation tips that enhance the visitor experience and promote responsible and safe boating. By being physically present at different sites,they help prevent boaters from potentially grounding in and damaging shallow reef and seagrass areas by signaling errant boaters to move away.(Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary,2015). Building a personal connection with boaters in this way and attaching a face to the message is a powerful means of motivating boaters to care about and protect sensitive seagrass habitat. Zoning and Special Management Areas Zoning and special management areas are another option available to protect seagrass habitat around Fishers Island.Zones can be created to restrict certain activities,such as no anchor,no motor,no wake,or restricted mooring zones.Others can be established to have a more cautionary role such as reminding boaters to proceed with care in areas with seagrass.These zones can be mandatory as part of local,state or federal regulations,with or without enforcement and penalties,or may be completely voluntary,with cooperation encouraged through boater education and community watch programs. For example,in Port Townsend,WA,along the busy downtown waterfront,voluntary no anchor zones,along with a heavy focus on education and outreach,was successful in reducing the number of boats anchoring inside seagrass.The number of boats seen inside seagrass dropped from a pre-project level of 20 percent in 2003 to less than 1 percent in subsequent years. Similar to some areas around Fishers Island,like East Harbor and Flat Hammock,boats in Port Townsend only needed to anchor a short distance further offshore to avoid seagrass areas(Pearson&D'Amore,2005;Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee,2010). At Fort DeSoto Park in Pinellas County, FL,a coalition of government and citizen representatives,concerned with propeller scarring,helped create and adopt an ordinance that separated the ma an ge ,CY�erSt gg�e� ajintoilzones.;These k„ {i V —Page 131' MAY 1 5 2019 Snut11010 Trn included no motor exclusion zones,also called pole and troll zones that allowed boaters to use long poles or smaller trolling motors instead of conventional motors,and caution zones with penalties for seagrass damage.As a result of these management actions,the rate of propeller scarring was significantly reduced compared to areas with no protection (Stowers, Fehrmann,&Squires,2000). In another example, in the Redfish Bay State Scientific Area,TX,voluntary propeller-up zones were not effective in reducing propeller scarring during the five years they were implemented.Only after adopting and enforcing regulations that made it unlawful to uproot seagrass with submerged propellers and substantial boater outreach and education did propeller scarring decrease(Texas Parks &Wildlife,n.d.). For more information regarding these and other examples see Table 2. For Fishers Island,the possibility of protecting seagrass habitat by designating special management areas is afforded by the Seagrass Protection Act, passed in 2012 by the New York Legislature in response to recommendations by the Seagrass Task Force,established in 2006. More specifically,the law requires the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation(DEC)to protect existing seagrass habitat and regulate coastal and marine activities that threaten seagrass habitat or restoration efforts by: 1)designating seagrass management areas(SMA),2)developing and adopting a management plan for each SMA,and 3)consulting with local governments, recreational boaters,marine industries,fishermen,affected property owners and other stakeholders so as to effectively manage,protect and restore seagrass.The management plan adopted for each SMA helps guide the DEC in the development-of any rules and regulations needed to protect seagrass habitat and at the same time,seeks to preserve traditional recreational activities,such as boating and marina operations,as well as shellfishing and finfishing(New York Legislature,2012). Because of its extensive seagrass habitat and the proactive involvement of local community members,Fishers Island would be an ideal candidate for a SMA designation. Conservation Moorings Conservation or"seagrass friendly"moorings are another viable management option to:(1)create mooring fields with minimal impacts on seagrass,(2) replace conventional swing chain moorings and allow recovery of mooring scars,or(3)to relieve anchoring pressure on seagrass in high-use areas.One kind of conservation mooring has an elastic rod that minimizes contact with the seafloor and prevents scouring caused by heavy chains used in conventional moorings.This type of mooring also has a helical screw-in anchor with a smaller footprint than a conventional block or mushroom anchor. One consideration for setting up conservation moorings is the cost of purchasing,installing,and maintaining them. Funding from grants or partnerships or fees generated from boater use can help alleviate these costs. CONCLUSION A combination of different management options may be suitable for protecting the eelgrass ecosystem at Fishers Island from boating and other impacts.Our surveys establish baselines for eelgrass condition and extent and vessel use around the island, by which the success of different management strategies can be measured, and identify areas where management is needed most.Because of the variability inside eelgrass beds,the dynamic nature of eelgrass growth and expansion,and likely changes to boating patterns over time, management strategies need to be adaptive and managers will need to respond accordingly to new circumstances.Therefore, crucial to the development of a long-term management plan is the establishment of a monitoring program and active collaboration among local community,government and non-governmental partners;the aim is to track the location and types of marine and coastal activities occurring in and adjacent to seagrass meadows and to assess the health of the enduring seagrass ecosystem at Fishers Island,so that it can be protected for many generations to come. Page 1132 u �,! MAY 1 5 2019 1 -:;; Table 2:Examples of Management Options Management Type of Impact Description Strategies Example i An integral component of Team OCEAN(Ocean a On-the-water boater outreach and education Conservation Education Action Network)is on-the-water a Informational packets with boater charts,sanctuary boater outreach and education.In areas and on days of information,and navigation tips which enhance the high use,such as holidays,trained volunteers go boat to visitor experience and promote boater safety boat,talking to boaters and distributing informational a Outreach at events and festivals Florida Keys National Vessel packets to encourage stewardship and responsible a Informational stickers showing what to do if a boat Marine Sanctuary Groundings and boating In the Florida Keys National Monne Sanctuary, becomes grounded,distributed at marine boat rental and Rookery Bay their presence direct) a j Anchor Scars in National Estuarine P y prevents groundings by making facilities. Seagrass and boaters wary of shallow reef and seagrass areas. Program a Connections with local businesses to help raise Research Reserve,FL staff members also visit local businesses such as marinas Coral Reefs awareness and adapt strategies in response to feedback and dive/snorkel shops to disseminate brochures and hear concerns from local business owners The program has For more Information enjoyed great success and the model for on-the-water a -httos.-//Boridakeys.noaa.goy/volunteer oanortunitiesiteamoc outreach and education has been replicated in other ean.html places like the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Reserve. L_= ---- In 2003,the initiative of creating voluntary no anchor • Community input and approval zones began with public scoping followed by a trial run a Seasonal marker buoys during a popular festival in the fall.Seasonal marker buoys a Brochures and outreach to popular boating and tourism 'I were deployed alonga half mile stretch of the downtown publications and visitor guide waterfront to delineate the offshore edge of seagrass a Videos shown in educational venues,at a yacht club, beds.The buoys read"Anchor Out fpr Safety and For and in an environmental film festival. Salmon,"emphasizing that boating outside of seagrass not a Information booths during festivals Anchor only protects vital salmon habitat but also protects a Seagrass protection pledges Port Townsend,WA Damage to boaters because anchors do not hold well in seagrass. a Monitoring of boater compliance Seagrass Additionally,there was also substantial boater outreach and education including signage placed in marinas.Before i For snore information:. , the project,around 20 percent of boats were inside II- http://deptswashinat6n.edu/uwtonf/2005oseb/2005oroceed seagrass extent.After installation of the buoys,monitoring I ings/yapers/B9 PEARS.pdf °` , showing that the percentage dropped to 1.4 percent in http•/tciteseerx.istns,6.edu/viewdocldownload?doi=10.1.1.17 the 2004 boating season to less than one percent in 1 3.4721&rep=reel&tvpe-pdf< subsequent years. 4 htto:/Iwww.nwstralts arg/medla/2275/ief-2016 Page 33 MAY 1 5 2019 $OU Fiol f iOVJ11 I In 1990 in Pinellas County,meetings were held by a • Boat restriction/exclusion zones(no motor/pall or troll) o • i coalition of government and citizen representatives, • Seagrass caution zones including those representing commercial and fishing . Slow/minimum wake zones j interests,to agree on plans to protect seagrass.In 1992, • Signs at boat ramps and marinas showing regulatory { because of their efforts,an ordinance was passed that areas. separated the management area into different zones. . Enforcement and monitoring Exclusion/restriction zones prohibited the use of internal • Public information campaign Propeller combustion engines and caution zones allowed motor use, Fort DeSoto Park/ Scarring in Sign maintenance program � but boaters incurred penalties for seagrass damage.Other . Monitoring of boater compliance Tampa Bay, Seagrass and g P • � areas required boats to travel at slow speed or had no -FL Manatee restrictions.Because of these management efforts, -— -- - ' � Strikes g i-..��____�_._...._ Isignificant reductions in scarring were seen from aerial ? For more information: images in both exclusion and caution zones.Components j httm://www,resLiarcheate.net/oublication/225973454 Deed essential to the success include documenting the problem, i ,al Changes in Seagrass Distribution and,Abundance in•FIo involving all users and addressing their concerns,avoiding rida Bay(pp,58-66) assigning blame,providing feedback and adapting the httos/www.tbmtech or MEP TECH,PUBS/201B/2Q12- management program to new findings A�7 TBER'PE FINALodP{pp:234-23 ) ; In 2000,after research found extensive propeller scarring • Mandatory"no uprooting"zone in seagrass at Redfish Bay(RB),a premier fishing • Signs marking the boundary of the State Scientific Area destination,the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission and striped PVC posts to mark access lanes designated the bay as a State Scientific Area(SSA)for • Maps showing cut points that can be used to access the education,research and conservation purposes.Initially, area safely voluntary"propeller-up"zones,outlined with posts and . Boat ramp signs describing the regulatory area and rules signs,were created. However,during the five years they . Signs at marinas and boat launches showing techniques were implemented,the voluntary zones proved to minimize seagrass damage(lift,drift,poll,and troll) Propeller ineffective at reducing propeller scarring.As a result,in . Ads in Fishing Magazine and billboards,in donated ad Redfish Bay Scientific 2006,mandatory"no uprooting"rules were brought into spaces Study Area(RBSSA),' Scarring in effect for the whole RBSSA,which meant the bay was still SOutreach events eagrass TX° accessible to boaters,but it became unlawful to uproot . Monitoring and enforcement and excavate seagrass with submerged propellers;rules were enforced,and offenders were subject to fines. For more information: ' Anchoring and transiting with troll motors in seagrass was i https://ipWd',texas.gov/publications/pwdpubs/media/a allowed.After four years of enforcement and active cad br v3400 1101.odf education and outreach,monitoring found significant € https://tpwdAexas.goy/landwater/water/habitats/seagr j reductions in propeller scarring. s ass/redfish-bay Page 34 IJ L MAY 1 5 2019 I $outhoi�?ini,��7 REFERENCES Behringer, D.C.,&Swett,R.A.(2010).Determining vessel use patterns in the southeast Florida region.Miami Beach,FL.Pp 88. Retrieved September 10,2018,from https://floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/FDOU 33A O.pdf Bradley,M.,&Paton,S.(2018).Tier 1 2017mapping of Zostera marina in Long Island Sound and change analysis.Hadley, MA:U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service.Retrieved September 10,2018,from http://longislandsoundstudy.net/wp- content/uploads/2018/08/LIS 2017 report2 wAppendix REVISED-FINAL.pdf Collier,C.(2016).Comonagement of U.S.marine protected areas:current efforts and their potential implications for seagrass management at Fishers Island,New York(Master's project).Duke University.Retrieved September 10,2018,from http://hdl.handle.net/10161/11884 Collins,K.J.,SuonpM,A.M.,&Mallinson,J.J.(2010).The impacts of anchoring and mooring in seagrass,Studland Bay, Dorset,UK.Underwater Technology,29(3),117-123. Crawford,R.E.(2002).Secondary wake turbidity from small boat operation in a shallow sandy bay.Journal of Coastal Research,50-65. Cullen-Unsworth,L.C.,Nordlund,L.M.,Paddock,J.,Baker,5.,McKenzie,L.J.,&Unsworth,R.K.(2014).Seagrass meadows globally as a coupled social-ecological system:Implications for human wellbeing.Marine Pollution Bulletin,83(2), 387-397. Duarte,C.M.,Middelburg,1.1.,&Caraco, N.(2004).Major role of marine vegetation on the oceanic carbon cycle. Biogeosciences Discussions,1(1),659-679. Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.(2015).Team OCEAN.Retrieved January 1,2019,from https://floridakeys.noaa.,Rov/volunteer opportunities/teamocean.html Fonseca,M.S.,&Cahalan,J.A.(1992).A preliminary evaluation of wave attenuation by four species of seagrass. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science,35(6),565-576. Fonseca,M.S.,&Fisher,J.S.(1986).A comparison of canopy friction and sediment movement between four species of seagrass with reference to their ecology and restoration.Marine Ecology Progress Series,29(1). Greve,T.M.,&Binzer,T.(2004).Which factors regulate seagrass growth and distribution?(Chapter 4).European Seagrasses: An introduction To Monitoring and Management, 19-23. Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee.(2010).Voluntary No AnchorEelgrass Protection Zone(Progress Report). Retrieved January 2,2019,from http://citeseerx.ist.osu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.173.4721&rep= repl&tvpe=pdf Lamb,J.B.,Van De Water,J.A.,Bourne,D.G.,Altier,C.,Hein,M.Y.,Fiorenza,E.A.,...Harvell,C.D.(2017).Seagrass ecosystems reduce exposure to bacterial pathogens of humans,fishes,and invertebrates.Science,355(6326),731- 733. Mackinson,S.,&Nottestad,L.(1998).Points of View:Combining Local and Scientific Knowledge.Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries,8(4),481-490.Retrieved January 20,2019,from https://doi.or-R/10.1023/A:1008847106984 Mcleod,E.,Chmura,G.L.,Bouillon,S.,Salm,R.,Bj6rk,M.,Duarte,C. M.,...Silliman,B.R.(2011).A blueprint for blue carbon: toward an improved understanding of the role of vegetated coastal habitats in sequestering CO2.Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment,9(10),552-560. Neckles,H.A.,Kopp,B.S.,Peterson,B.J.,&Pooler,P.S.(2012).Integrating scales of seagrass monitoring to meet conservation needs.Estuaries and Coasts,35(1),23-46. New York Legislature.(2012).New York Seagrass Protection Act.NY ECL Article 13,§§13-0701-13-0705.Retrieved February 20,2019,from:http://nyw.law.streaver.net/ENV/html New York State Seagrass Task Force.(2009).Final report of the New York State Seagrass Task Force:recommendations to the New York State governor and legislature.State of New York. Retrieved SeptemberlG-.2018; https://www.dec.nv.gov/docs/fish marine pdf/finalseasrassreport.pdf Page 351 �! LIMAY 1 5 2019 ; �./ V _ joarrl„F NOAA.(2018).Tides and Currents.Retrieved January 10,2019,from https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.goy/tide predictions.html Pearson,P.,&D'Amore,J.(2005).Community Involvement in Eelgrass Protection,Port Townsend,Washington.In Proceedings of the 2005 Puget Sound Georgia Basin Research Conference.Retrieved January 10,2019,from http://depts.washinizton.edu/uwconf/2005Psgb/2005proceedings/papers/B9 PEARS.pdf Reid,W.V.,Berkes,F.,Wilbanks,T.J.,Capistrano,D.,&eds.(2006).Bridging scales and knowledge systems:concepts and applications in ecosystem assessment.Island Press,Washington,D.C.,USA.Retrieved January 10,2019 from https://www.cifor.ora/library/2179/ Sargent,F.J.,Leary,T.J.,Crewz,D.W.,&Kruer,C.R.(1995).Scarring of Florida's seagrasses:assessment and management options. Short,F.,McKenzie,L.J.,Coles,R.G.,Vidler,K.P.,&Gaeckle,J.L.(2006).SeagrassNet Manual for Scientific Monitoring of Seagrass Habitat, Worldwide edition(University of New Hampshire Publication)(p.Pp 75). Smith,D.S.,&Hellmund,P.C.(1993).Ecology of greenways:design and function of linear conservation areas.University of Minnesota Press.Retrieved January 10,2019,from https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs other/rmrs 1993 cole d001.pdf Smith,K.(2017).Aerial survey of vessel activity in Seagrass(Zostera marina)near Fishers Island,NY–data collection methods trial.Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. Stowers,J.F.,Fehrmann,E.,&Squires,A.(2000).Seagrass Scarring in Tampa Bay:Impact Analysis and Management Options (pp.47-54).Presented at the Seagrass Management:It's not Just Nutrients!,St.Petersburg,Florida.Retrieved January 10,2019,from https://www.researchgate.net/publication1225873454_Decadal Changes in Seagrass Distribution and Abundance in Florida Bay Texas Parks&Wildlife Department.(2006).Redfish Bay State Scientific Area.Retrieved January 10,2019,from https://tpwd.texas.gov/publications/pwdoubs/media/pwd br v3400 1101.0f Texas Parks&Wildlife Department.(n.d.).Seagrass Protection.Retrieved January 28,2019,from https://tpwd.texas.goy/landwater/water/habitats/Seagrass/redfish-bay U.S.Census Bureau.(2011).2010 demographic profile.Retrieved October 10,2018,from https:/Ifactfinder.census.ggv/faces/nay/isf/pages/community facts.xhtml?src=bkmk Walker,D.I.,Lukatelich,R.J.,Bastyan,G.,&McComb,A.J.(1989).Effect of boat moorings on seagrass beds near Perth, Western Australia.Aquatic Botany,36(1),69-77. Waycott,M.,Duarte,C.M.,Carruthers,T.J.,Orth,R.J.,Dennison,W.C.,Olyarnik,S.,...Hughes,A.R.(2009).Accelerating loss of seagrasses across the globe threatens coastal ecosystems.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(30),12377-12381. r— `_- fl iI E s MAY 1 5 2019 `iol;i;;olc? im.v;t w Page 36 Appendix A: Variation in Depth and Plant Height by Dive Site FF) — a MAY 1 5 2019 I_ Souihai(i r. t Page 37 Plant Height(cm) Depth(feet below MLW) • Barfoodid Cove • eartoy"d Cove Cha amount Chodomawt- • Ori pvt OW Pomt 0 EastBaach East Baac.n 7 East e#actl East End 11 East84acn East End ii JTL East Harbor So it Side- East Harbor South Sid# m TU EqM,Halt :— D----• 6gritti Hole Fiat Hamma�k E" Rot Hammock East • 0 • 5r Hay Hradr Hay Harbor' M Hungry Pont' Hungry PoOt CL Q North HiV Boscrt- North HU(86sch • < South Bosch Tcvw Road Es • South Beach Tom Road East- • West Harbor North of Oack Roach Wast Haroor North 0.'C*Ck RaacmrV ' • O 00 Appendix B: Additional Dive Transect Survey Maps M AY 1 5 2019 __ ] V': U01 iG I'Mil Page 39 Hay Harbor i 14 O In-bed —Absent Inshore Edge Absent,rocks and boulders Offshore Edge —Present Percent Covered • Other •.. Present but patchy ®Percent Not Covered Eelgrass Extent(2017) 'Depth in feet below MLW Pagel 40 L l� MAY 1 5 2019 West Harbor North of Dock Reach I� Oft px ■ xr �r Data x ^I^* 1 1 1 /1 ✓ . TM ! ,, x , . o In-bedAbsent Inshore Edge Absent,rocks and boulders Offshore Edge Present Percent Covered • Other - Present but patchy ■Percent Not Covered Eelgrass Extent(2017) *Depth in feet below l Page 41 MAY 1 5 2019 � I Clay Point 0 200 400 Feet s ft ft If Da O In-bed —Absent ® Inshore Edge ••^•Absent,rocks and boulders ♦ Offshore Edge —Present Percent Covered • Other ^•• Present but patchy ®Percent Not Covered Eelgrass Extent(2017) 'Depth in feet below MLW Page 42 ! ! MAY 1 5 2019 I .—TO-11151d inwn 3oard of Trustees Chocomount z M. v r O O Q Y . O In-bed —Absent C Inshore Edge Absent,rocks and boulders ♦ Offshore Edge —Present n Percent Covered • Other •••• Present but patchy ■Percent Not Covered Eelgrass Extent(2017) 'Depth in feet below MLW Page 43 ;I !I MAY I r2019 `1I lIV,T'd T;wn 8 _oai rd r,{Trll�tees East Harbor South Side 00 00 Feet oft r° A. a,Sou rees: a` i 14 1 r,;fid 7 '. O In-bed Absent Inshore Edge Absent.rocks and boulders Offshore Edge —Present Percent Covered • Other Present but patchy Percent Not Covered Eelgrass Extent(2017) *Depth in feet below MLW Page 44 1 MAY 1 5 2019 >cuthold-l'um Eighth Hole Data Sources j �� USFWS LIS Eelgrass Survey 2017 '. as ..• 17 ft 15 ft �. 12 ft M M O In-bed —Absent Inshore Edge ^^ Absent,rocks and boulders " Offshore EdgePresent Percent Covered • Other •.•• Present but patchy ■Percent Not Covered Eelgrass Extent(2017) 'Depth in feet below MLW Page 45 I;- `� MAY 1 5 2019 t # v_ ,nuV,.(iI d',;)r,n _r —hard Gt TrI If, S East Beach C3 O In-bed —Absent Inshore Edge " -Absent,rocks and boulders Offshore Edge Present Percent Covered • Other Present but patchy Percent Not Covered Eelgrass Extent(2017) 'Depth in feet below MLW Page 46 JT 5 2019 Barleyfieid Cove It 5 ft 4 It \3 4 Itx 6 It 7 It Data Soun:as y 2017 FAS LIS Eelgr:ss Survey 2017 NYSDOP High Resolution Imagery 2016 4 O In-bed Absent Fri GT,> 4, Inshore Edge Absent rocks and boulders • Offshore Edge Present t Percent Covered • Other Present but patchy ■Percent Not Covered Eelgrass Extent(2017) *Depth in feet below MLW Page 47 M A`! 1 5 2019 i South Beach Town Road East N it 12 It �. i Data . it 400 Feet USFWS LIS _ •'High AML O In-bed Absent ♦ Inshore Edge ^^Absent,rocks and boulders ♦ Offshore Edge Present Percent Covered • Other •••• Present but patchy ■Percent Not Covered Eelgrass Extent(2017) 'Depth in feet below MLW Page 48 1J1 , f 1j 2019 Appendix C: Changes in Plant Height with Depth by Transect Barleyffeld Cove Transect I Plant Height Barieyfield Cove Transect 2 Plant Height 150 100 90 0 80 80 M 70 65 C 50 50 50 35 40 n m m I 0 2a 2b 3 2 5a 4 5b 6 7 Depth(feet below MLW) Depth(feet below MLW) Chocomount Transect 1 Plant Height 150 E 100' U t 85 80 01 N C l6 a 50 30 0 1 4 11 Depth(feet below MLW) Clay Point Trisect 1 Plank Height 150 '610o 95 80 85 s 65 5 55 20 1� 50 30 0 m 1 4 8 13a 13b 14 Depth(feet below MLW) Page 49 East Beach Transact 1 Plant Height East Beach Transect 2 Plant Height 150 '9100 100 U v 80 80 80 m S 50 50 30 0 2 10 16 1 9 17 Depth(feet below MLW) Depth(feet below MLW) East Beach East End Transact 1 Plant Height East Beach East End Transect 2 Plant Height 150 105 110 E 1o0 100 100 =rn 75 x c CL 50 35 r, 2 9 15 2 9 13 Depth(feet below MLW) Depth(feet below MLW) East Harbor South Transect 1 Plant H"M 150 1170 FjI, f� 0 M 5 201960 j rL 50 f 35 J u'a: 0 3 9 Depth(feet below MLW) Page 50 Eighth Hole Transect 1 Plant Height 150 110 100 90 100 100 4s 75 x c 50 0 4 7 12 17 15 Depth(feet below MLW) Flat Hammock Transect I Plant Height Flat Hammock Transect 2 Plant Height 150 119 106 '9100 96 80 76 73 x 65 61 9 55 s 5o 43 28 MMINE I I 0 3s 3b 3c 7 9 2 581 5b 5c 7 8 Depth(feet tow MLW) Depth(feet below MLW) Hay Harbor Transect I Plant Height Hay Harbor Transect 2 Plant Height 150 100 90 V x_ 70 70 70 50 45 50 25 0 MEN = MEN 3 6 10 1, 1 6 8 Depth(feet below MLW) Depth(feet below MLW) �L1t Page 51 J li 1 i 1 Hungry Point Transect 1 Plant Height 150 110 110 100 90 90 rn 75 65 c W ii 50 25 0 MIIIIII 2 4 6 1 ? 14 17 Depth(feetbeiow MLW) North Hill Transect I Plant Height North Hii Transect 2 Plant Height 150 �1C0 90 75 80 80 70 S 55 IL 50 7 10 1 IN 11 Depth(feet below MLW) Depth(feet below MLW) South Beach Transect 1 Plant Height South Beach Transect 2 Plant Height 155 1 - 90 �rn 75 75 iu = 60 c �+ 50 n, 50m 1 45 20 0 6 3a 8b 3 C. 8 - Depth(feet below MLW) Depth(feet below MLW) a _`�.: l �I I - j ! Page ( 52 L111°3 } West Harbor rmnsec IPlant Height /*» y o »» 40 35 o o e Depth(feet below mu*) � MAY l 5 20.9 ' ' | Page 53 so � � all NELSON, POPE & VOORHIS, LLC ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE PLANNING Hudson Valley Office Long island Office 156 Route 59,Suite C6 572 Walt Whitman Road Suffern,NY 10901 Melville,NY 11747 - (845)368-1472 (631)427-5665 Transmittal Letter TO: Agency Representatives Date: Thursday, May 16, 2019 (see cc list) Re: Donald Young Dock Application Chocomount Cove, Fishers Island ® E G E 0 V E Town Trustees ID: Donald Young Property NYSDEC No. 1-4728-04558/00001; Young MAY 2 1 2019 ALOE ID: Donald Young, Fisher's Island NP&V #: 18276 Southold Town 00 Id o -1rustou VIA: X Regular Mail Fedex Messenger Enclosed please find the following: Quantity Description Supplemental Information Correspondence from Charles Voorhis dated 5/15/19 with 1 backup information Remarks: Dear Agency Representatives: Please see the enclosed materials sent to you per Charles Voorhis' request. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or need further assistance. Thank you. Sincerely, NELSON, POPE & VOORHIS, LLC By: Ashley Marciszyn x215 Email: amarciszvn@nelsonoopevoorhis.com (Contact me through the Long Island Office) CC: Town of Southold Trustees, Michael Domino(via US Mail) NYSDEC,Andrew Walker(via US Mail) USACOE, Lisa Grudzinkski(via FEDE)O Martin D. Finnegan,Esq.Twomey Lathan,(via US Mail) File(digital) tz AN NELSON, POPE 6 V009 11.S, LLC �Ir ENVIRONMENTAL • PLANNING • CONSULTING rwww nelsonpopevoorhis com Town of Southold Trustees May 15,2019 E C E V ED Southold Town Hall Annex 54375 Main Road, P.O.Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 MAY 2 1 2019 Attn: Michael Domino,Board of Trustees President New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation Southold Town ro Trustees SUNY @ Stony Brook 50 Circle Road Stony Brook,NY 11790-3409 Attn: Andrew C. Walker,Regional Manager, Bureau of Marine Habitat Protection United States Army Corps of Engineers Jacob Javits Center 26 Federal Plaza New York,NY 10278 Attn: Lisa Grudzinksi Re: Supplemental Information Donald Young Dock Application Chocomount Cove, Fishers Island Town Trustees ID:Donald Young Property NYSDECNo. 1-4738-04558100001; Young ACOE ID:Donald Young, Fishers Island NPV No. 18276 Dear Agency Representative: As a follow-up to my letter of November 30, 2018, I would like to provide additional information and a suggested alternative to the proposed location of the pending dock application referenced above. All of the information contained in my November 30, 2018 correspondence remains relevant, and all indications are that the proposed installation will have an adverse impact on submerged aquatic vegetation(SAV), specifically eel grass (Zostera marina). I Given the documented presence of eel grass in the location of the proposed pier,and the previously provided literature and references related to dock and boat operational impacts to eel grass, it is critical to consider alternatives to reduce potential impacts to SAV. It is also critical that adequate and accurate surveys of the presence of eel grass are completed. In considering alternatives, a logical option would be to decrease the area of the pier installation needed to achieve deeper water. A decreased structure size would reduce the physical impact of scouring related to installation and presence of pilings,and deeper water that would reduce impact of boat operations (i.e., propeller damage and/or physical contact). Attached is a suggested alternate location for-the dock (see Attachment 1). This location, besides being much less intrusive to the inner cove,has the following advantages,which I would think would be important to reviewing agencies in order to meet their individual standards for issuance of a permit: CORPORATE OFFICE HUDSON VALLEY OFFICE 572 WALT WHITMAN ROAD,MELVILLE,NY 1 1747-2188 156 Route 59,Suite C6,SUFFERN.NY 10901 PHONE (831)427-5885 • FAX (631)427-5820 PHONE (845)368-1472 • FAX (845)388-1572 r op 00 Donald Young Dock Application Chocomount Cove,Fishers Island,NY Supplemental Information for Pending Agency Reviews • The pier would truly be in a north/south in orientation, and does not "dogleg" oddly to the northwest; this would create less structure and would provide better sun exposure for the eel grass growth below the thru-flow deck. • The pier would be shorter and would reach deep water sooner;this reduces physical impact of installation and presence of pilings. The pier can also access deeper water than the currently proposed pier,which would reduce boat use impacts. • The pier would be in keeping in design and orientation other docks in the area. It is noted that the proposed location would be nearer to the neighboring property to the east. Typically, piers are offset from the extension of the property line; however, in this case, the property line of the Young site"slants"to the northwest and any structure would interfere with the property line extension. Upon further review, the property to the east is undeveloped and owned by the Henry L. Ferguson Museum, Inc. Contact with the corporation is encouraged to determine if they would be in agreement with the proposed pier orientation given the benefits to retention of eel grass in Chocomount Cove. I believe the applicant's representative continues to maintain that the proposed pier is positioned over a small spot that does not have as much eel grass; however,this is not necessarily true. The request for an independent in-water survey to confirm eel grass occurrence in this location is reiterated herein. With respect to inventory work, attached, please find a recent publication by The Nature Conservancy titled, "An Evaluation of Eelgrass Extent and Vessel Use Patterns Around Fishers Island,New York,"prepared by Matias Tong,February 28,2019 (see Attachment 2). This document continues the research into loss of,and impacts to,eel grass and further supports the need for accurate in-water surveys in the area of impact and examination of alternatives to reduce impacts to SAV. Please consider this information in your deliberations on the pending permit, and if a permit is to be issued,please require that the alternative orientation be used to reduce impact to SAV. Thank you and feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Respectfully submitted, NELSON),POPE&VOORHIS,LLC Charles J. Voorhis, CEP,AICP Managing Partner cc: Martin D. Finnegan,Esq.,Twomey Latham EC E VE 6MAY2 1 2019 Page 2 Southold Town ar f Tr s e Donald Young Dock Application Chocomount Cove,Fishers Island,NY Comment Letter on Pending Agency Reviews ATTACHMENTS ECEHE M AY 2 1 2019 Southold Town I Board of Trustees d� 00 so Donald Young Dock Application Chocomount Cove,Fishers Island,NY Supplemental Information for Pending Agency Reviews Attachment 1 Alternative Pier Orientation EG`4E � VE M AY 2 1 2019 Southold Town Board of Trustees Suggestion • better location Current planned location + s cd _ w,. 14 • 1 _ VO - , a a,,, Screen • • Google . • to y image �. , , . taken 5/13/19 rill c `� _ •�. ♦. .. � � '♦ � •� • � � � ~fit � . ~ � -. ►'!! ♦ `\ FISHERS ISLf'.ND ` t PEW STEPS W"RAILS t MCK EL 5 vFr NEW TE-ow FLE�fMr��— — -NEW 4.4 F r WX PERNkh -4i �1D65LDE(lm GRATE DECK EL 8*kT� r�' tt � 3 t t 1 -t t \BOTTOM COCITIONS IR.GRASS PEW ELEGTrdC ad WA7E2 ® t ~ t T _ (L0LAr0NYvrM'J �E GRASS L"TOF aas V-1 BOULDER AFfnD1 /\ -t- SPARTN, LMF OF t 0� • 'tit, sPAR1Y/NAAL1ERlORA _ PATENS .. i� _ L91 + +�' 3 + �ARTj lA 1 \ \PAPPPDK 1E hF1WL + + + ' + PATENS �DUCE GEEDED P AFPA�M FIGH 4 ` INY LINE WATER LIQ AHWL � PEW 4FT W10E FD�FD PtF// 9UPR7RrED PER Nf h RAILS ` NOTE ALL IN-WATER WORK RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED PIER, T C/) IRAt RAMP AND FLOAT WILL TAKE PLACE OUTSIDE AFPtpXt-lATF__ ts^ OF THE EEL GRASS GROWING SEASON FROM PROPElZIYLd.IE APRIL 15 TO OCTOBER 31 IN ANY GIVEN4`'"` to i(ti -- A� YEAR. THIS CONDITION IS NECESSARY TO al s UNE AVOID IMPACTS TO EEL GRASS LOCATED IN n r� THE FISHERS ISLAND BEACH AREA. AND TO - - _p COMPLY WITH COASTAL POLICY 6.2 OF THE OPEKFY NY CAM ACT APPROXII LATE LOCATION OF PUF�PR _.. i cU Npy55 E)35TW 9 PATH TO BEACH NUF PR4)PERTY LF s H L -ERC MUSEUM ING Donald Young Dock Application Chocomount Cove,Fishers Island,NY Supplemental Information for Pending Agency Reviews Attachment 2 An Evaluation of Eelgrass Extent and Vessel Use Patterns Around Fishers Island, New York ECEIVE MAY 2 1 2019 Southold Town Board f Trustees- Lc ` �JOL _ 4 14. An Evaluation of Eelgrass Extent and Vessel Use Patterns Around Fishers Island, New York Prepared by Matias Tong D E C E � V EDFebruary 28, 2019 MAY 2 1 2019 � TheNature outnell own Conservancy , 40 Acknowledgements The implementation of this project and the production of this report were made possible by the collaborative participation and broad support of the many people and organizations recognized below. Aerial vessel survey project planning and management: Chantal Collier,The Nature Conservancy in New York and Connecticut David Gumbart,The Nature Conservancy in Connecticut Stephen Lloyd,The Nature Conservancy in New York Jonathan Milne, LightHawk Conservation Flying Kyle Smith,Yale University Aerial vessel survey data collection: Chantal Collier,The Nature Conservancy in New York and Connecticut Nicole Cooper,The Nature Conservancy in Connecticut Joseph Fischetti, LightHawk Conservation Flying David Gumbart,The Nature Conservancy in Connecticut Robert Keller,LightHawk Conservation Flying Steve Kent, LightHawk Conservation Flying Tom LeCompte, LightHawk Conservation Flying Stephen Lloyd,The Nature Conservancy in New York Sally McGee,The Nature Conservancy in Rhode Island Michael McNamara, LightHawk Conservation Flying Liz Robinson,The Nature Conservancy in Connecticut Benthic eelgrass survey project planning and management: Chantal Collier,The Nature Conservancy in New York and Connecticut Soren Dahl, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Stephen Lloyd,The Nature Conservancy in New York Suzanne Paton, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Adam Starke,The Nature Conservancy in New York Benthic eelgrass survey data collection: Chris Clapp,The Nature Conservancy in New York Chantal Collier,The Nature Conservancy in New York and Connecticut Soren Dahl, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Todd Glavin, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Carl Lobue,The Nature Conservancy in New York Adam Starke,The Nature Conservancy in New York Vessel and eelgrass survey data analyses,report preparation and presentation: Matias Tong, Independent Contractor for The Nature Conservancy in New York D [� E E flo Funding and in-kind support provided by: Fishers Island Yacht Club MAY 2 1 2019 LightHawk Conservation Flying New York State Dept.of Environmental Conservation southold Town The McCance Family a of Trustees Scott M. Murphy Seaview Scuba Photo Credits (Front Page):Chantal Collier(Top,Center Right,Center Left),Adam Starke(Center) 00 40 Contents EXECUTIVESUMMARY.................................................................................................................................................4 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................................5 METHODS.....................................................................................................................................................................7 Objectives.................................................................................................................................................................7 BenthicEelgrass Survey............................................................................................................................................7 DiveTransects.......................................................................................................................................................7 , SiteChecks............................................................................................................................................................8 Analysis.................................................................................................................................................................8 AerialVessel Survey..................................................................................................................................................9 Flightand Image Acquisition.................................................................................................................................9 Areaof Interest.....................................................................................................................................................9 Digitization..........................................................................................................................................................10 Analysis...............................................................................................................................................................11 RESULTS......................................................................................................................................................................11 BenthicEelgrass Survey..........................................................................................................................................11 Mapping Eelgrass Condition and Extent.............................................................................................................13 AerialVessel Survey................................................................................................................................................17 VesselLocations by Type....................................................................................................................................20 VesselLocations by Status..................................................................................................................................22 Hotspots of Vessel Activity in the Vicinity of Eelgrass........................................................................................25 DISCUSSION................................................................................................................................................................28 GroundtruthingEelgrass Extent.............................................................................................................................28 Variabilityin Eelgrass Beds.....................................................................................................................................29 Aerial Survey Highlights and Implications ................................ n. ...........................' 29 ManagementOptions............................................................. �.�.... ....... -�!� �` ..................30 CONCLUSION................................................................................ ....... .......MAY...2...I...2019.......C....... ....................32 REFERENCES.................................................................................. ....................Sos#Iwkl•Tewa.................... ....................35 ar of Tr stees Appendix A:Variation in Depth and Plant Height by Dive Site..................................................................................37 Appendix B:Additional Dive Transect Survey Maps..................................................................................................39 Appendix C:Changes in Plant Height with Depth by Transect...................................................................................49 Page 13 00 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Globally and locally,seagrass meadows provide many crucial ecosystem services but face intense pressures from human activities and environmental stressors. In Long Island Sound, Fishers Island harbors most of the enduring eelgrass(Zostera marina)ecosystem in the New York waters of the Sound; and,of local concern are potential impacts to eelgrass from boating related sources. During the annual boating season,the number of vessels in the Sound swells significantly, increasing pressures on sensitive eelgrass habitat from anchoring, mooring, propeller scarring, and boat wakes.To address these concerns,two surveys were conducted in 2017 around Fishers Island.One was a benthic survey,consisting of dives and underwater transects to characterize eelgrass condition and to groundtruth its extent, mapped in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Long Island Sound Eelgrass Survey(Bradley&Paton,2018).The second was an aerial survey,conducted aboard fixed wing aircraft to assess vessel use patterns around the island and to identify hotspots with greater threat to eelgrass habitat during the boating season. The benthic eelgrass survey captured considerable variation in plant height, percent cover,and bed edges at different sites, underscoring the importance of site characteristics and environmental conditions in determining eelgrass distribution.A comparison of the inshore and offshore edges of eelgrass beds measured in our survey with those mapped in the USFWS survey showed that the edges were generally well aligned,except for a few areas where eelgrass extent recorded in the benthic survey deviated from the aerial survey results in shallower or deeper eelgrass habitat. During the benthic survey,some propeller scarring was found by the docks in East Harbor,suggesting that there are also dock related impacts that remain to be further investigated. Analysis of the aerial survey data revealed most vessels observed were recreational boats,with the highest numbers recorded on weekend survey dates in July and August. Hotspots and areas of eelgrass habitat at greater risk from vessel activities include coastal waters adjacent to the Eighth Hole(at the Fishers Island Club golf course), Flat Hammock, East Harbor,West Harbor,and Hay Harbor.At these locations, impacts to eelgrass are associated with boats anchoring close to shore or directly over eelgrass,boats transiting in shallow waters, boat wakes,and to a lesser extent,the siting of moorings. In general, high vessel use in these areas reflects observations cited by local community members and demonstrates the value of including local knowledge in environmental problem identification and conservation management planning. Boat numbers reflect a conservative estimate of vessel activity given the frequency and duration of our survey flights and the likelihood of heavier use on holidays,which were not surveyed. To protect eelgrass resources from potential boating-related impacts,different management options and examples are discussed—namely, boater education and outreach,zoning and designation of special management areas,and the use of conservation moorings.A combination of different strategies is likely needed with monitoring and adaptive management,which is essential to measuring and optimizing the success of any management plan. In addition,the baselines for vessel activity captured in this study are necessary for evaluating the effectiveness of future management strategies. ® E ' E0VE MAY 2 1 2019 Southold Town Page 14 Board of Trustees o � CEIVE MAY 2 1 2019 INTRODUCTION Southold Town Board of Trustees Seagrass meadows are crucial to the long-term health of marine ecosystems and the well-being of communities around the world (Cullen-Unsworth et al.,2014).As underwater refuges, nurseries,and breeding and foraging grounds,seagrass meadows sustain diverse species of marine life, including many commercially and recreationally important fish and shellfish as well as threatened and endangered species like sea turtles,dugongs, and manatees (New York State Seagrass Task Force, 2009).Additionally,seagrass beds improve water quality by trapping fine suspended particles and reducing contaminants and pathogens that cause diseases in humans and marine life (Lamb et al., 2017).As highly productive ecosystems,seagrass meadows are important in the nutrient exchange of coastal waters and play key roles in the ocean's carbon cycle,where they serve as important carbon sinks(Duarte, Middelburg,&Caraco, 2004;Mcleod et al.,2011).Thus,they capture and store significant amounts of carbon as organic material in the ocean, reducing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide,the primary driver of global warming and ocean acidification.Other ecosystem services provided by seagrass include wave attenuation and sediment stabilization,which help increase coastal resilience to storm surge and reduce coastal erosion (Fonseca&Fisher, 1986; Fonseca&Cahalan, 1992). Given the ecological and socio-economic benefits of seagrasses,seagrass conservation is driven by a sense of urgency, because globally,seagrasses have declined at an accelerating rate(Waycott et al., 2009).Anthropogenic factors such as impaired water quality, climate change,coastal development and physical destruction have been implicated as the main drivers of decline(Waycott et al.,2009). With a 90 percent decrease in its historic extent, the loss of eelgrass(Zosters marina) in Long Island Sound,situated between the coastlines of Connecticut and Long Island, New York, is particularly acute (New York State Seagrass Task Force, 2009). Since 2002,every three to five years,the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) has used aerial imagery to delineate eelgrass beds in the Sound,where the remaining eelgrass is restricted to the eastern end of the estuary. The USFWS's most recent 2017 survey was based on aerial imagery taken in June and included field verification completed from September to October,via an underwater video camera lowered from a surface vessel (Bradley& Paton, 2018). Based on this survey,the waters around Fishers Island, New York,contain significant amounts of eelgrass,comprising 24%of the'eelgrass extent in the Sound and 96%of the eelgrass extent in the New York portion of the Sound (Bradley& Paton,2018).Consequently, Fishers Island has become the focus of conservation efforts directed at protecting its vital eelgrass resources. Although eelgrass around Fishers Island is threatened by regional pressures similar to those impacting seagrasses worldwide(e.g.-nitrogen pollution and climate change),of particular local concern are the physical impacts caused by boating activities(Collier, 2016).The waters around Fishers Island are popular for boating due to their quiet and undeveloped seascape, proximity to the Connecticut coast,and productive fishing grounds. Boaters use the areas for recreational and commercial purposes,engaging in activities ranging from fishing,aquaculture,and transportation to sailing, kayaking, and swimming. During the peak of the annual boating season,the number of vessels at popular island sites can surge dramatically, raising concerns about the potential impacts this increased pressure may have on eelgrass habitat(Collier, 2016). Examples of boating impacts on eelgrass include scarring and scouring from propellers (prop-scarring),anchors,conventional moorings and boat wakes. Propeller scars,which have been documented in Hay Harbor(Fishers Island Conservancy Summer Sentinel, pers. obs.), result when a boat enters shallow water containing seagrass beds near the depth of its drafts.The boat's engine propeller cuts through the plants and excavates troughs in the meadow,stirring up sediment and creating scars barren of seagrass(Sargent, Leary,Crewz, &Kruer, 1995). Anchoring in seagrass habitat is also detrimental. The process of dropping,setting,and retrieving an anchor over seagrass directly crushes,scrapes,and uproots the plants, leaving depressions in the beds with the roots and rhizomes exposed (Collins,Suonpaa, & Mallinson, 2010). Furthermore,conventional swing chain moorings,which consist of a buoy attached with a chain to an Page 15 anchor, create circular scars in seagrass beds. To accommodate the tidal range, currents, wind and waves,this type of mooring has an extra length of chain that typically rests on the seafloor. When the tide,waves,or currents change,the chain is pulled up and down and drags along the seafloor as the surface buoy swings around its anchor, effectively scouring the area around the mooring of seagrass and leaving circular scars devoid of seagrass (Walker, Lukatelich, Bastyan, & McComb, 1989). Resuspension of sediments caused by the wake of motorboats may also scour seagrass plants and create turbidity, reducing the light they require for photosynthesis (Crawford, 2002). Although physical destruction and stress from propeller, moorings, anchor scars and boat wakes have been attributed as significant causes of seagrass habitat loss in different parts of the world, prior to this study,the level of risk associated with boating impacts at Fishers Island was unknown. This study was therefore motivated by the need to substantiate the condition and extent of eelgrass habitat around Fishers Island, to quantify the pressures it faces from boating sources, and to identify areas, opportunities and options for seagrass conservation. Study Site Fishers Island is located seven miles southeast of New London, Connecticut, at the eastern end of Long Island Sound. The island is about seven miles long and one mile wide at its widest point and according to the 2010 census, is home to 236 year-round residents, mostly on the western end of the island (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). Politically, it is part of the Town of Southold, New York, although geographically, it is closer to Connecticut. Mass transportation access to the island is via ferry from New London, Connecticut. Although tourism is noticeably absent on the island,the number of residents swells during the summer, with the seasonal population reaching about 3000 people.The north side of Fishers Island is where the main harbors are located. West Harbor has the largest mooring and docking area and the other harbors are Silver Eel Cove, Hay Harbor, and East Harbor. Esteemed for its natural coastal scenery and historical and cultural significance, Fishers island is home to diverse coastal habitats encompassing grasslands, coastal woodlands, sandy beaches, salt marshes, rocky shores, and eelgrass meadows (Collier, 2016). Dense beds of eelgrass can be seen exposed at the shoreline for several hours during lower low tides (Figure 1). Eelgrass distribution around Fishers Island is dynamic as shown in a comparison of its extent in 2012 and 2017, mapped in USFWS aerial surveys (Figure 2). Because of the island's importance as coastal habitat for protected and vulnerable species like grey seals, harbor seals, and ospreys and its significant eelgrass habitat, it was designated a New York State Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat in 1987 and as a Long Island Sound Study Stewardship Site in 2005. � VA .�: . MAY 2 1 2019 Southold Town a o r s Be Figure 1: Eelgrass exposed during a very low tide at Fishers Island.(Photo:Justine Kibbe) Page 6 w J . Trend 10 � !Gain (87 0 acres.�2 t 6% Loss (143 2 acres.-35.6% Oft SoLmm -- � No Change (259.7 acres.64.4%.: ocn.r -Undelermmed SAV hom 2012 Figure 2:Changes in eelgrass distribution around Fishers Island from 2012 to 2017.The 2012 USFWS survey also delineated beds of undetermined submerged aquatic vegetation(SAV)where eelgrass could potentially exist but was not verified in the field. METHODS Objectives To assess the status of eelgrass habitat around Fishers Island and the pressures created by vessel activities,two different surveys were conducted during the summer and fall of 2017. One was a benthic eelgrass survey with the main objectives to: (1)survey the extent and condition of eelgrass beds, and (2)supplement and grouncitruth the 2017 extent determined by the USFWS aerial survey.The other was an aerial vessel survey conducted to: (1) assess patterns of vessel use around the island, (2)establish baselines for vessel activity,and, (3) identify eelgrass habitat at significant risk from boating related impacts. Benthic Eelgrass Survey Dive Transects Transects were conducted by two divers equipped with SCUBA gear at thirteen pre-selected sites around Fishers Island and the adjacent islet of Flat Hammock from September 12, 2017 to October 11, 2017,during the peak of the perennial eelgrass growth cycle(Figure 3).The goal was to locate the offshore and inshore edges of the eelgrass beds,defined here as the points beyond which no eelgrass was sighted along the transect, and assess their condition and distribution by measuring percent cover and canopy height and recording eelgrass presence and absence within meadow areas. At each site, divers completed one to two transect surveys,each beginning and ending at the meadow edges (offshore and inshore), determined after swimming a sufficient distance beyond each edge to verify the bed limit had been reached. Above the divers, a surface buoy was towed containing a GPS a jJ. Page 17 — UD MAY 2 1 2019 unit,which was synchronized with the lead diver's watch at the beginning of each dive to track and record data collection points along the transect.The first transect was conducted inshore to offshore, along a compass heading perpendicular to the coastline. Once the offshore edge was reached,the divers swam 100 kicks parallel to the shoreline,against the direction of the prevailing current.After which,conditions permitting,the dive team conducted a second transect survey heading back towards the shore. Percent cover and canopy height were measured at the inshore edge, offshore edge,at 5 ft depth intervals,and at periodic intermediate intervals using a 0.5 m by 0.5 m quadrat and measuring tape,following standard seagrass monitoring protocols (Short, McKenzie, Coles,Vidler,&Gaeckle, 2006).Changes in presence and absence were visually determined along the transect. Transects were terminated at two sites before the offshore edge could be reached for safety reasons as the divers would have had to go too close to breakwaters or boat channels. Site Checks Based on island resident input, locations where eelgrass was thought to be located but not shown in the 2012 USFWS extent were checked by snorkel. Site checks consisted of three surface dives within 50 meters of each point to determine eelgrass absence or presence (Figure 3). 2 Miles Eighth Ho East Beach \S$Rleach East End 11 Hungry •• Flat Hammock East Ebs or Side i Clay Point Cliocomaunt Y, eyfield Cove North Hill Beach -.4 West Harb7ftrthAof Doickaglee Hay Harbor 41 .� Dive Sites(13) Snorkel Site Checks(6) • Eelgrass Extent(2017) N USFWS LIS EeIgmss Suivey 2017 NY'SDOP High Resoubon Im9ery 2016 Figure 3:Sites chosen for dive transects and site checks overlaid on the 2017 USFWS eelgrass extent layer. Analysis Using the time recorded for each measurement or located bed feature, relevant GPS points were selected and imported from Garmin Homeport into ArcMap.The layer was projected to NAD 1983 State Plane Connecticut FIPS 0600 Feet. Because there were several GPS points associated with each data collection time record,which was measured to the minute,we took an 'average'of the locations;this was accomplished in ArcGIS by taking the centroid of the minimum bounding convex hull polygon re rP{evant poi_nt-s. Page 8 MAY 2 1 2019 Transect lines and absence and presence line segments were later created from these points and added as two separate GIS layers. All the layers were then projected over the 2017 eelgrass extent from the USFWS survey. Water depths were adjusted for tide stage to the Mean Low Water(MLW) vertical datum using NOAA tide predictions for Silver Eel Pond, NY(station ID:8510719) (NOAA, 2018). MLW tide predictions were obtained in minute intervals, and because all the relevant predictions were zero or above,they were subtracted from the corresponding survey depth measurements to yield depths adjusted to the MLW datum. Aerial Vessel Survey Flight and Image Acquisition Fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft have successfully been employed in previous studies to gauge the impact of vessels on coral reefs and seagrass meadows (Behringer&Swett, 2010; Sargent, Leary, Crewz, & Kruer, 1995). This survey used fixed-wing aircraft to assess the composition and location of vessels and their status (anchored, moored, underway, etc.) relative to eelgrass extent around Fishers Island. A total of seven survey flights were conducted in 2017 during four weekend and three weekday dates, as follows: • Saturday, May 27 • Saturday,June 10 • Monday,July 17 • Sunday,July 30 • Thursday, August 3 • Sunday, August 27 • Friday,September 29 Survey flights began at Race Point, the southwest point of Fishers Island, and progressed clockwise to capture vessel patterns around the island and adjacent islets, including Flat Hammock, North Dumpling and South Dumpling.Towards the end of each survey, a cross-island loop was flown to capture the inner reaches of West Harbor. Excluding transit flight time to and from the island, each flight took, on average, 27 minutes to complete and was flown at an altitude of about 400-600 m. To ensure photo quality, some flights included additional passes around the island, but no additional loops were made inside West Harbor. Aerial imagery was taken continuously, with overlapping frames, using a Ricoh G800SE digital camera with integrated GPS, pre-programmed to geotag each photo with the position and altitude it was taken from (Smith, 2017). Area of Interest Prior to digitizing vessels from the aerial surveys,we defined an 'area of interest' spatial layer to help determine which boats from the aerial survey images to include in the digitization process.This was largely because many of the aerial photographs included boat locations that were well beyond a reasonable distance from Fishers Island to likely have an impact to eelgrass. Being far from the coast also made the location of these boats more difficult to determine as there were fewer points of reference. Therefore, we only considered offshore areas up to 40 feet in depth and within 1 mile of Fishers island. While seagrass has not been documented deeper than 24 feet in the area,the generous 40 feet threshold was intended to account for some error that would be involved in geolocating boats, particularly in areas where the depth drops over short distances. In addition,this allowed for a single depth contour area that would also include North Dumpling Island when defining the area of interest. The area of interest layer was created in ArcMap by intersecting areas less than 40 feet in depth and 1 mile in distance away from Fishers Island. The resulting layer included adjacent islets and,for simplification purposes, a few deeper areas inside the resulting polygon layer.This layer was imported into Google Earth as a reference layer. 1+� M AY 2 1 2019 Page 19 Southold Town Digitization Using aerial photos to geolocate vessels in Google Earth The geotagged photos from the survey flights were converted to points inside ArcMap and then exported as a KMZ file for viewing in Google Earth. Using the position and altitude the photos were taken from and features of the coastline,the view in Google Earth was oriented to align with each aerial photo. Then, in Google Earth,vessel positions were manually located as points and added to a new point layer(Figure 4). Only boats in physical contact with seawater and within the area of interest were located and kept in the point layer.This methodology was selected as a reasonably accurate and reliable approach based on the findings in Smith (2017),which compared different methods of geolocating boats around Fishers Island aboard fixed-wing aircraft. �j Figure 4: Method of geolocating boats from aerial photos in Google Earth. Recording and identifying vessels Each geolocated point corresponded to a record in the survey table, with each boat categorized by vessel class, type, and status (Table 1). Vessel Category Definition Options Commercial Class What is the vessel's purpose? Recreational Unknown Power boat Type How is the vessel operated? Sailboat Paddle craft Unknown Anchored Docked Status How is the vessel secured? Moored Stationary D � C E I (�I� Underway �/ Table 1:Categories used to characterize vessels. MAY 21 2019 Pagel 10 Southold Town ar o rustee Boats were categorized as "unknown" for vessel class and type if they were too distant to identify and were absent of tell-tale features,such as boat wakes or sails. For vessel status, boats were determined to be "anchored" if they had a visible anchor line or in some cases, if their positions relative the shoreline or other boats necessitated it being so. Boats lacking a visible wake were classified as "stationary"for vessel status if they did not have an anchor line or adjacent mooring clearly visible. Thus, "stationary"vessels were boats that were adrift or possibly anchored or moored (likely, if near a mooring field) with the anchor line or mooring buoy not discernible from the aerial photos. During the survey, it was common to see smaller boats, such as rigid inflatable boats towed behind larger vessels like sailboats;these boats were still counted as separate boats but were not recorded as anchored even if the towing boat was anchored. In addition, boats rafted together were counted separately. Incorporating vessels from additional passes in surveytlight For surveys with multiple passes,vessels from additional passes were only recorded if the boats were underway or not previously found in a location. In some cases, photos from additional passes were substituted for some areas in the first pass because of better image quality. While the number of new boats recorded in the additional passes did not make up a significant proportion of boats,they were excluded from the numerical portion of the analysis (i.e.vessel counts and other charts).They were however still included in the spatial analysis in the maps because their spatial extent provides useful information for natural resource management planning. Analysis The point layer for each survey was exported from Google Earth into ArcMap and then the layers were combined and joined to a table with the vessel information. This final layer was used for the spatial analysis. Charts were created using Microsoft Excel and R. In making charts and counting vessels, the number of distinct vessels was determined from the number of unique Boat IDs. As a result,the charts represent the actual number of vessels captured in our survey sample. The maps, on the other hand, emphasize the relative locations of these vessels because a vessel may have been recorded in more than one location in a survey(such as for boats underway or boats found in a different location in a later pass). RESULTS Benthic Eelgrass Survey Overview Along our dive transects, eelgrass was documented at depths of 0 to 17 ft below MLW with the offshore edge located at depths varying between 3 to 17 ft below MLW and the inshore edge,0 to 6 ft below MLW (Figure 5). Eelgrass grew to a maximum height of 150 cm which was recorded at 3 ft below MLW in Barleyfield Cove (Figure 3). Figure 6 shows the site by site variation in percent cover. All sites surveyed, except Clay Point and East Harbor, featured areas with 50% or greater percent cover at depths ranging from 1 to 12 ft below MLW. See Appendix A for additional charts related to variation in plant height and depth by dive site. aEC `VE M AY 2 1 2019 D1 Southold Town Rnnrd of TrwJPAz Page 1 11 16- • 14- �12 •. J C 10- • Ql • • Z 8- N L a 6- • N 4- • 2- 0- • Inshore Edge Offshore Edge Feature Figure 5: Depths of the inshore(n=20)and offshore(n=17)edges along dive transects at different sites. 100- 75- 4) > 0 U N 50- • 25- • '2 E 2 a m a Ir o s T = w W w E _ _ o W U s o E S >= m m m o 0 0 m ° F L m = 10 LL O N d Lll W m O CLQ �- Dive Site MAY 2 1 2019 I Figure 6:Variation in percent cover by dive site. Southold Town Page 12 Board of Trustees During the benthic surveys, divers observed eelgrass covered with extensive epiphytes throughout the cove off Dock Beach in West Harbor and some areas were completely overgrown. Eelgrass meadows at other sites like South Beach, Clay Point,and East Harbor were patchy in distribution. For sites checked by snorkel, eelgrass was observed interspersed with macroalgae growth in East Harbor on the west side and propeller scars were found by the docks on the east side of the harbor(Figure 7). Propeller scars were also observed along dive transects at Eighth Hole, at depths up to 7 ft below MLW. Mapping Eelgrass Condition and Extent The results of all the site checks can be seen in Figure 7. For the dive transects, detailed maps of each site showing transect and absence/presence lines, percent cover measurements, and bed features are displayed in the following figures and in Appendix B. Charts of plant height by depth for each transect and dive site are in Appendix C. At Flat Hammock, percent cover exceeded 60% in several areas and decreased to 5%or less at the offshore edge (Figure 8). At Hungry Point,there was a more gradual decrease in percent cover as the offshore edge was reached (Figure 9). Here,the measured inshore edge corresponded well with the edge mapped in the 2017 USFWS aerial eelgrass survey, while the measured offshore edge extended a distance farther than that mapped.At North Hill Beach,there was a more marked difference between the measured inshore edge and that mapped in the USFWS survey(Figure 10). Diver surveys also revealed an offshore edge at South Beach,which significantly exceeded the USFWS aerial survey mapped edge. Aside from these exceptions, dives sites generally had measured edges falling within or close to the 2017 USFWS mapped extent. ` • • • % • • !; . '.., • , � � Snorkel Site Checks(6) Data Soufms �� !r' � • Eelgrass Absent �`#M, .y � � • Eelgrass Present Eelgrass Extent(2017) r 1 O25 / USFWS LIS Eelgmle Su,ey 2017 DO•High RewUion Imsgery 2016 Figure 7:Sites checked for eelgrass by snorkel at the eastern end of Fishers Island. ECEIVE Page 13 MAY 2 1 2019 Southold Town Board of Trustees N 1 200 411 Feet 09ft , T fr 0 Dat - Sources TNC Benthic Survey 2017 USFWS LIS Eelgrass Survey 2017 NYSDOP High Resolution Imagery 2016 O In-bed Absent Inshore Edge ••• Absent, rocks and boulders Offshore Edge —Present Percent Covered m _ 0 Other Present but patchy Percent Not Covered 1 Eelgrass Extent(2017) 0 0 ` Figure 8: Flat Hammock *Depth in feet below MLW CC> Page 14 N 1 200 400 Feet 17 It 14 ft 14 I't ft 6 ft �T Data INC Benthic Survey 2017 USFWS LIS Eelgrass Survey 2017 NYSDOP High Resolution Imagery 2016. O In-bed —Absent Inshore Edge •••• Absent, rocks and boulders Offshore Edge Present Percent Covered • Other Present but patchy Percent Not Covered W Eelgrass Extent(2017) i, 0 o N v to V yLr" Figure 9: Hungry Point *Depth in feet below MLW i( Page 1 15 N II 400 Feet - lift , ? loft Data So TNC Ben. Vrvey 2017 N ♦ d #.; —� y" USFWSL ._ _ o In-bed —Absent Inshore Edge ----Absent, rocks and boulders Offshore Edge —Present Percent Covered • Other Present but patchy � � i Percent Not Covered -nG Eelgrass Extent(2017) r— o Figure 10: North Hill Beach *Depth in feet below MLW N ca Page 16 Aerial Vessel Survey Overview A total of 1432 boats were recorded from all seven surveys combined. Most of these boats were recreational powerboats (70.9%)followed by sailboats (16%),which suggests the prevalence of recreational activity around the island. Commercial powerboats made up 3.2%of all the boats surveyed (Figure 11) and included commercial fishing and aquaculture boats,ferries, law enforcement, and ambulatory vessels. Small business driven recreational boats, such as charter boats,were not distinguished from other recreational boats because they could not be easily identified from the aerial images. More than half of the boats were docked (51.1%) and a significant portion was moored (14.3%) (Figure 12). Combining the percentages of stationary(19.7%)and underway boats(10.1%)shows that almost a third of all the boats surveyed were likely in use. so 1015 70 900 60 N d N 50 rn 600 40 a E 0 z 30 d 'm t° 300 20 229 94 10 31 46 17 _ Paddle Powerboat Powerboat Powerboat Sailboat Unknown crafts (commercial)(recreational) (unknown) VesselType Figure 11:Total number of vessels by type. 731 50 600 40 N d N N > 30 ro 0 400 m � E z 282 20 0 v 2 ~ 200 205 144 10 70 ONE 0 E0 E ms- �' nD Anchored Docked Moored Stationary Underway Vessel Status !M0211 2019 Figure 12:Total number of vessels by status. Page 17 Southold Town ar of Trustee Based on survey dates,the busiest boating days were July 30 (27.2%) and August 27 (24.7%), both Sundays (Figure 13).The fewest boats were recorded near the beginning and end of the boating season, May 27 (7.3%),June 10 (7.2%), both Saturdays, and September 29 (7.5%), a Friday. Weekday and weekend differences are shown in Figure 14. An accompanying map showing the locations of these vessels by survey date can be seen in Figure 15. 389 353 N aJ N N a) i 0 196 weekday - 179 weekend s o Z10 105 103 107 100 0 0 27-May 10-Jun 17-Jul 30-Jul 3-Aug 27-Aug 29-Sep Sat Sat Mon Sun Thurs Sun Fri Survey Dates Figure 13: Number of vessels by survey dates and use level. 300 ' a) 5 a a N N N Weekday � ° Weekend �Lf- E rn Z 0 Co Q rf M cv < VIP Survey Use Level L=� Figure 14:Average number of vessels per survey for each use level. Error bars indicate standard error. Page 18 Weekend Weekday WOO May27(Saturday) July 17(Monday) do June 10(Saturday) August 3(Thursday) 4w s 40 1. r r July 30(Sunday) September 29(Friday) August 27(Sunday) All Dates Combined U 4 8 Miles Seagrass Beds(2017) I - Past Seagrass Distribution(2002-2012) Data Sources Survey Extent(<40 ft in depth, 1 mile from FI) TNC Aerial Vessel Survey 2017 USFWS LIS Eelgrass Surveys 2002-2017 Figure 15:Vessel locations by survey date and use level D E C, Page 1 MAY 2 1 2019 SOUthO d town RPi'i of T...m, Vessel Locations by Type The busiest survey dates (July 30 and August 27) recorded a two to threefold increase in the number of recreational powerboats and an increase in the number of sailboats within the study area of interest (Figure 16). There were some weekend and weekday differences, most notably in the average number of powerboats per survey use level (Figure 17). The map in Figure 18 shows the locations of vessels from all the surveys combined, sorted by type. Sailboat activity was concentrated on the north side of Fishers Island with only one sailboat recorded on the south side. Clusters of mostly powerboats but also sailboats were found in and around eelgrass habitat in sheltered bays and coves on the north side of the island. 66 53 N W N N > Sailboat o 200 Powerboat a 39 Paddlecraft � Unknown z 100 0 23 27-May 10-Jun 17-Jul 30-Jul 3-Aug 27-Aug 29-Sep Sat Sat Mon Sun Thurs Sun Fri Survey Dates (2017) Figure 16: Number of vessels by survey date and boat type 338 T > 20C y d v 5C N 31.3 Sailboat Powerboat ° Paddlecraft a' 10c Unknown G c z LAIm v (U 50 'r v, > (( 1% q ry 17 �.JLl1 Weekday Weekend �L— Survey Use Level Figure 17:Average number of vessels by use level and boat type Page 20 % �.• i -91• C M rj. Paddlecraft •t Powerboat •, w • • Sailboat •• • •• • moo Unknown • • • - Eelgrass Extent(2017) • •• -Past Eelgrass Extent(2002-2012) Area of Interest(,40 ft in depth,1 mile from FI) Data Sources 0 0.5 1 2 Mlles USFWS LIS Eeigrass Surveys 2002-2017 I I I TNC Aerial Vessel Survey 2017 Figure 18: Vessel locations sorted by boat type l MAY 2 1 2019 Page 1 21 I Southold Town e Vessel Locations by Status The busiest survey dates also presented a substantial increase in the proportion of boats that were anchored and stationary. At the peak of the boating season,the number of docked boats nearly doubled, and the number of moored boats also increased (Figure 19). Weekday and weekend differences can be seen in Figure 20. The highest number of anchored and stationary boats were observed during the July 30 and August 27 surveys and mainly found in East Harbor, Eighth Hole, and Flat Hammock. Figure 21 shows a map of vessel locations sorted by status. Some boats were found in the vicinity of eelgrass and areas of high dock use can also be seen as well. Figure 22 shows the locations of these vessels relative to the known eelgrass extent from 2002-2017. 43 17 46 U) a, N 112 91 Cu I' Anchored > � <CC �= Moored �' Stationary 4 Docked 3 4 Underway z cc 0 27-May 10-Jun 17-Jul 30-Jul 3-Aug 27-Aug 29-Sep Sat Sat Mon Sun Thurs Sun Fri Survey Dates (2017) Figure 19: Number of vessels by survey dates and boat status. 16.5 a 273 W _00 CL 1 3In 58.5 Z 32 _ AnchoredUIJ Moored 16 Cr) o . Stationary o 100 Docked c� -12 Underway m E p CV G =1Z �li o TC'-) o 50 m 'A'ec-dao Weekend Survey Use Level Figure 20:Average number of vessels by use level and boat status. Page 22 • 100111101111litt• X • • ti • r ♦ ' X Y « x X X t X x • x X x Anchored X r tr x Docked • • x Moored X x Stationary •• Uncerway • �c ' • . ' ` Eelgrass Extent (2017) • r Past Eelgrass Extent(2002-2012) Area of Interest(<40 ft In depth,1 mile from FI) 0 0.5 1 2 M112S Data Sources USFWS LIS Eelgrass Surveys 2002-2017 '� t i i i I I i i I TNC Aerial Vessel Survey 2017 Figure 21:Vessel locations sorted by status I�AY 2 1 2019 Page 23 Southold Town Boar -Trustee N • Okit • • S J• •t Vessels within Seagrass Extent • • • • • Vessels within Potential Seagrass Extent(Only in Past Distribution) .• • . • Other Vessels i� • • • _ Seagrass Extent(2017) • • - Past Seagrass Extent(2002-2012) Area of Interest(<40 ft in depth,1 mile from FII 0 0.5 1 2 Miles Data Sources USFWS LIS Eelgrass Survey 2002-2017 I r i r I i r i I TNC Aerial Vessel Suvey 2017 r7M UU Figure 22:Vessel locations relative to seagrass extent Y 2 1 2019 Page 24 Southold Town oar at Trustees Hotspots of Vessel Activity in the Vicinity of Eelgrass Figure 23 outlines five hotspots of vessel activity in or around eelgrass habitat,which are shown in greater detail in subsequent figures. Inferring from the maps presented earlier in this report,these sites contain areas of eelgrass where our survey revealed greater propeller scarring, mooring, and anchoring pressures. It includes parts of East Harbor, Eighth Hole, Flat Hammock, West Harbor, and Hay Harbor. Most of these are sheltered bays or coves with calmer waters and access to the beach. At East Harbor(Figure 24), many boats were stationary or anchored in the harbor on high use survey dates with some boats venturing away from congested parts of the harbor, into shallow adjacent areas where more eelgrass is found. At Eighth Hole (Figure 25), most boats were shore anchored with two anchors, one extending onto the beach from the stern and the other into the water from the bow. Most of these boats weren't located directly over eelgrass, however, their bow anchors had impacts on the adjacent eelgrass beds. In addition,these powerboats had to move through shallow water over eelgrass to access the shore. Propeller scars were observed in eelgrass during the benthic survey at this site. At Flat Hammock (Figure 26), powerboats and sailboats were anchored close to shore, with some anchoring directly over eelgrass. At West Harbor(Figure 27),the majority of moored and docked boats were not located over eelgrass habitat. However, eelgrass habitat in the harbor is at risk of higher stress from frequent boat traffic and associated impacts such as anchoring, propeller scarring and boat wakes, which suspend sediments and reduce water clarity. Moreover, the benthic survey documented the extensive eelgrass beds north of the Dock Beach were covered with macroalgae, which may be indicative of an environment with greater disturbances. Hay Harbor(Figure 28), is a good example of an area where boats were not sighted in eelgrass habitat in the survey, but because of the location of eelgrass inside the shallow entrance channel to the harbor,the eelgrass is more vulnerable to boater impacts like propeller scarring. lip '.y • Wei .• �j Vessel.—tin Seagr—Extent • ) Vessels wdh•)Potential Seagrass Exten:(Only in Past Cislnbubon) Other Vessels •t -Seagrass Extent(2017) • •, + _Past Saagrass Extent(2002.2012) ' ' • ' Area of n.erest(<40 It in depth.1 mile from R) • • 0 05 1 2 Miles USFWS LIS E I I —_J TNG A-W Venal Si-V 20l;�z.zpt7 Figure 23: Hotspots of vessel activity and eelgrass habitat at greater risk ECS' QVE - PD fi MAY 2 1 2019 Page 125 Southold Town aro T Vessel Status Vessel Type 0 e • o 8 0 • 00 '6o�p XX x • xx Anchored x Docked 1 PadtllecraR 1 x Moored Powerboat Stationary Sailboat o Underway • Unknown -Eelgrass Extent(2017) ❑ -Past Eelgrass Extent(2002-2012) �b1" Area of Interest(<40 ft in depth,1 mile from FI) -. � r:Sf�M IpSEM9raa�'i�. Y.11l..JO Figure 24: East Harbor Area Vessel Status Vessel joe *"� � •• ••ter' r x Anchored x Docked • Padtlleaafl x Moored • Powerboat Stationary Sailboat o Underway • Unknown -Eelgrass Extent(2017) o 0+ 0 7 M-1- Past Eelgrass Extent(2002-2012) Area of Interest(<40 fl in depth,1 mile from FI) ora a TNF Ad $un y 7011 USFWS I15 E*W E•Iwr•u S,rny 7007-7017 Figure 25: Eighth Hole ! -- ._-_ MAY 2 1 2019 Y V+�Vf]W TW v Vessel Status Vessel Type • I i O O i X • a X • X •• X X • X • X Anchored X Docked • Padtllecraft X Moored • Powerboat O O Stationary • Sailboat O Underway • • Unknown O _Eelgrass Extent(2017) ❑ _Past Eelgrass Extent(2002-2012) L ._i_ i 111,- Area of Interest(<40 ft in depth,1 mile from Fp eaa so��a . :!Sr�1'S�!5 Esigraas Sriwr�^-03-2"' Figure 26: Flat Hammock Vessel Status Vessel Type o °° ° o o V o • • • 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 • • • 0 0 ° o • • • 0 °o • • 0 0 o 0 0 • • • o o ° 0 0 • ° o / • / • ° i00o, X y • • • x z X :of • � M X X Anchored It • S x zX x Docked •= I ` . Paddlecraft x Moored L Powerboat StationarySailboat At • o Underway Unknown • _Eelgrass Extent(2017) -Past Eelgrass Extent(2002-2012) 0 05 W" Area o1 Interest(<IO fl in depth.1 mile from Fp 1-1 t N TNC V r uSfWSLIS E*qr,Swy 2002 Zqt l Figure 27: West Harbor lJ U MAY 2 1 2019 Vessel Status Vessel Tvpe ILL— • o o � n m I 11 i X x • =� X x • • q,, M • ,po x x Anchored •1• 8 x x x Docked 00 • • • PadtllecraN X Moored • Powerbcat X Stationary • Sailboat e 0 Underway • Unknown I -Eelgrass Extent(2017) 0 5 Maes Past Eelgrass Extent(2002-2012) Area of Interest(<40 N in depth,i mile from FI) A 5TNC 1NF FL1 V•'a SwS "2 i1eFM15 LIS Erpnr� 12007 7017 Figure 28: Hay Harbor DISCUSSION Groundtruthing Eelgrass Extent One of the main goals of the underwater benthic survey was to use in situ transect data to verify the eelgrass extent around Fishers Island, delineated in the 2017 USFWS survey. A secondary goal was to validate the presence or absence of eelgrass at historic sites identified by the island community, but undocumented in the previous USFWS survey(2012). Before making a comparison, however, it is important to consider differences in the projects' methodologies. For example,the USFWS survey (2017) used aerial images to delineate eelgrass beds on a large scale (1:1500). These images were taken in June, showing an eelgrass extent earlier in the perennial growth cycle than that captured in our benthic survey, during September and October. For some areas,the USFWS survey (2017) did use field verification, completed around the same time as this survey, to adjust eelgrass extent. Additionally, edges in the USFWS survey (2017) were defined as when eelgrass cover dropped to 5%, whereas our definition was when eelgrass was absent (M. Bradley, personal communication). Despite these differences, the offshore and inshore edges recorded in our benthic survey generally corresponded well with the edges mapped by the 2017 USFWS survey. At most of our dive sites,the measured edges were close to the edges mapped by USFWS and differences were generally within the margin of error. In a few cases, our measured offshore edge was closer to shore than that which they mapped. At two of these sites, West Harbor and Barleyfield Cove, proximity of the offshore edge to an active vessel channel and a breakwater, respectively, and safety protocols prevented the dive team from reaching the offshore edge. At Eighth Hole,we suspect the actual outer edge was not reached even though the divers traveled a reasonable distance beyond the measured edge to verify eelgrass absence beyond that point. At three sites, our measured inshore or offshore edge extended significantly farther than the edges mapped by USFWS (a difference of about 35-75 ft for the offshore edges at Page 1 28 Hungry Point, North Hill Beach and South Beach,and about 150 ft for the inshore edge at North Hill Beach).These results illustrate that some areas of deeper or shallower eelgrass were not fully captured in the USFWS survey, which could be due to a variety of reasons including factors affecting the aerial image quality for the particular date and location conditions like water clarity. Notably,these edge differences occurred in locations where field verifications were not performed as part of the USFWS survey. Despite a few limitations,our dives at selected sites demonstrate the reliability of the 2017 USFWS eelgrass extent around Fisher's Island. For local project planning and permitting purposes(e.g. siting moorings,docks, aquaculture and submerged infrastructure,such as communication cables),the USFWS eelgrass extent map is a good starting point, but for local management purposes, higher resolution information is needed. Small differences in the actual and mapped edges of eelgrass could have significant implications for conservation and management of the resource. Ideally multiple tiered studies including dive transects would resolve these differences and provide data at a finer resolution (Neckles, Kopp, Peterson, & Pooler, 2012). Given limitations in resources and funding, however, one management strategy for local project decision-making is to consider eelgrass extent in the context of potential eelgrass habitat.This could be done by including past eelgrass distribution as part of the project area or including a buffer around known eelgrass extent to avoid and minimize direct and indirect impacts to eelgrass associated with local projects. Variability in Eelgrass Beds As shown in the benthic survey,there can be considerable variation in eelgrass abundance and distribution even within an eelgrass meadow.This is because eelgrass growth is determined by a suite of environmental variables such as light availability which varies with depth and water clarity,temperature,type of substrate, nutrient concentrations (dissolved oxygen and carbon), presence of toxic sulphides and the degree of physical exposure from tides, waves and currents. Eelgrass distribution is also regulated by biotic factors such as competition, disease, herbivory(Greve& Binzer, 2004), and their location relative to an eelgrass patch. As a result,eelgrass distribution and condition can vary greatly due to site-specific characteristics. For example, eelgrass was recorded as growing particularly tall in Barleyfield Cove which is much more sheltered from wave action and currents compared to other sites. Besides spatial variation,eelgrass biomass can fluctuate greatly temporally. In the temperate regions where it is found, eelgrass exhibits seasonal growth patterns that are strongly influenced by water temperature. In Long Island Sound,for instance,eelgrass growth peaks in September and experiences diebacks and senescence during the winter months. Eelgrass biomass also fluctuates interannually in response to climatic changes,such as storms or phenomenon such as EI Nino and La Nina, and coastal processes that gradually shape the coastline through erosion and deposition of sediment. So,when considering eelgrass extent, it is also important to consider intrinsic variability inside eelgrass beds and the dynamic nature of eelgrass growth and expansion. Aerial Survey Highlights and Implications The aerial survey revealed areas where boating activity was particularly concentrated and where the greatest potential impacts to eelgrass are likely to occur, mainly from recreational boat activity. Hotspots like parts of East Harbor, Flat Hammock, and Eighth Hole were popular recreational boating destinations,especially during days of peak use,with some boats seen anchored directly over eelgrass.Other places like West Harbor and Hay Harbor have channels with frequent boat traffic making eelgrass beds in the vicinity more vulnerable to impacts such as propeller scarring or increased turbidity related to wakes. Overall,our findings corroborated observations by local community members, underscoring the value of local knowledge in place-based resource conservation and management(Reid, Berkes, Wilbanks &Capistrano, 2006; Mackinson& Nottestad, 1998) At the Eighth Hole, another concern our study revealed was boats that were seen anchored close to shore with their bow anchor lines extended offshore into the eelgrass (Figure 29). While these boats may not be directly over rrggI''gE 0age 129 2 1 2019 eelgrass, local reports and anecdotal evidence suggest that their anchors do fall in eelgrass beds because during retrieval, boaters have been observed removing entangled eelgrass from their anchors. Moreover, to reach the beach, these vessels had to transit shallow waters, which might be one cause of the propeller scarring observed there. N L � Q N d Figure 29:Eighth Hole,July 30(Photo:Chantal Collier) In addition,scarring observed by the docks during dives in East Harbor and docked boats found in or near eelgrass from the aerial survey suggest that there are dock related boating impacts as well.As boats travel to and from the docks, propeller scarring can occur,especially during low tide. Shading by docks and docked vessels are also important eelgrass management issues in these areas.The biggest potential impact noted in the survey is scarring from propellers and anchors as opposed to that from moorings because not many moored boats were sighted in or near eelgrass.The moored boats in the main mooring field in West Harbor,for example,were not sighted over known eelgrass extent.There are a few moorings in West Harbor and elsewhere along the north shore, however, that are in or near eelgrass so the impact from moorings cannot be ruled out. Our analysis represents a conservative estimate of vessel activity around Fishers Island in our survey area of interest. Although our survey included flights throughout the boating season,the level of boat activity is likely greater.There are likely locations with high levels of boating activity not fully captured in our survey and absolute numbers of boats are based on totals from the seven survey dates (each flight about half an hour in length). For example, due to constraints in scheduling and resources, it was not possible to conduct any survey flights on major holidays when there is potentially greater boat activity. Management Options To address boating impacts on seagrass habitat around Fishers Island,several management options are available. The options detailed here are education and outreach,designation of special management areas or zones, and alternatives to conventional moorings,such as conservation moorings. Based on our findings, management strategies at Fishers Island should prioritize reaching recreational boaters, including powerboat and sailboat users, during days of peak use to have greatest impact. For some issues like boats anchoring close to shore, boater outreach and education may be the most effective strategy,whereas for frequent boat anchoring, propeller scarring,and boat wakes in seagrass areas,a combination of different management options may be appropriate. Page 130 Boater Education and Outreach Raising awareness and public support through boater education is essential to any long-term focused seagrass conservation and management plan. With proper knowledge and active boater involvement, scarring in seagrass is preventable. Simple steps like being mindful of seagrass extent,tide levels, and the depth of a boat's draft relative to water depth; and, knowing what to do if a boat enters a shallow seagrass area (lift, drift, pole, or troll) and when propeller scarring is occurring(when the propeller wash turns brown), can go a long way toward minimizing boat-related impacts on seagrass (Texas Parks and Wildlife, 2006). Boater education can also encourage cooperation through boater to boater communication, which is an efficient and effective channel for spreading seagrass awareness and best practices for boating. Given the wide geographic origin of boaters who use waters around Fishers Island,the task of outreach is not without its challenges and may require collaboration across state boundaries. Education comes in many different forms including conducting boater surveys to understand public perceptions of seagrass and to identify gaps in knowledge, distributing boaters'guides with maps showing sensitive seagrass habitat locations and alternatives to transiting and anchoring in those areas, setting up educational signage in marinas, boat launches, and yacht clubs, and stickers with navigational aids and tips on avoiding anchoring and propeller scarring in seagrass. In general, Smith and Hellmund (1993) recommend educational strategies that: (1) make boaters aware of the link between detrimental boating behavior and scarring in seagrass habitat, (2) clearly demonstrate ways of boating responsibly, and (3)foster a sense of stewardship and connection to the health of the seagrass ecosystem. One innovative example of on-the-water boater education and outreach successfully employed in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve is Team OCEAN (Ocean Conservation Education Action Network). Part of the program involves assigning trained volunteers to sanctuary and reserve boats in heavily visited reef and seagrass sites, where they go from boat to boat acquainting visitors with general information about the sanctuary or reserve and its protective zones and provide tips on boating safely. Team OCEAN volunteers distribute informational packets containing boater charts, sanctuary information, and helpful navigation tips that enhance the visitor experience and promote responsible and safe boating. By being physically present at different sites,they help prevent boaters from potentially grounding in and damaging shallow reef and seagrass areas by signaling errant boaters to move away. (Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, 2015). Building a personal connection with boaters in this way and attaching a face to the message is a powerful means of motivating boaters to care about and protect sensitive seagrass habitat. Zoning and Special Management Areas Zoning and special management areas are another option available to protect seagrass habitat around Fishers Island. Zones can be created to restrict certain activities, such as no anchor, no motor, no wake, or restricted mooring zones. Others can be established to have a more cautionary role such as reminding boaters to proceed with care in areas with seagrass.These zones can be mandatory as part of local,state or federal regulations, with or without enforcement and penalties, or may be completely voluntary,with cooperation encouraged through boater education and community watch programs. For example, in Port Townsend, WA, along the busy downtown waterfront,voluntary no anchor zones, along with a heavy focus on education and outreach, was successful in reducing the number of boats anchoring inside seagrass. The number of boats seen inside seagrass dropped from a pre-project level of 20 percent in 2003 to less than 1 percent in subsequent years. Similar to some areas around Fishers Island, like East Harbor and Flat Hammock, boats in Port Townsend only needed to anchor a short distance further offshore to avoid seagrass areas (Pearson & D'Amore, 2005;Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee, 2010). At Fort DeSoto Park in Pinellas County, FL, a coalition of government and citizen representatives, concerned with propeller scarring, helped create and adopt an ordinance that ,sopa ated the management area int zones. These i� is _ i Page 131 MAY 2 1 2019 Cn ithnld Tnyn included no motor exclusion zones,also called pole and troll zones that allowed boaters to use long poles or smaller trolling motors instead of conventional motors, and caution zones with penalties for seagrass damage.As a result of these management actions,the rate of propeller scarring was significantly reduced compared to areas with no protection (Stowers, Fehrmann, &Squires, 2000). In another example, in the Redfish Bay State Scientific Area,TX,voluntary propeller-up zones were not effective in reducing propeller scarring during the five years they were implemented. Only after adopting and enforcing regulations that made it unlawful to uproot seagrass with submerged propellers and substantial boater outreach and education did propeller scarring decrease (Texas Parks &Wildlife, n.d.). For more information regarding these and other examples see Table 2. For Fishers Island,the possibility of protecting seagrass habitat by designating special management areas is afforded by the Seagrass Protection Act, passed in 2012 by the New York Legislature in response to recommendations by the Seagrass Task Force, established in 2006. More specifically,the law requires the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)to protect existing seagrass habitat and regulate coastal and marine activities that threaten seagrass habitat or restoration efforts by: 1) designating seagrass management areas (SMA), 2)developing and adopting a management plan for each SMA,and 3)consulting with local governments, recreational boaters, marine industries,fishermen,affected property owners and other stakeholders so as to effectively manage, protect and restore seagrass.The management plan adopted for each SMA helps guide the DEC in the development of any rules and regulations needed to protect seagrass habitat and at the same time,seeks to preserve traditional recreational activities,such as boating and marina operations, as well as shellfishing and finfishing(New York Legislature, 2012). Because of its extensive seagrass habitat and the proactive involvement of local community members, Fishers Island would be an ideal candidate for a SMA designation. Conservation Moorings Conservation or"seagrass friendly" moorings are another viable management option to: (1) create mooring fields with minimal impacts on seagrass, (2) replace conventional swing chain moorings and allow recovery of mooring scars, or(3)to relieve anchoring pressure on seagrass in high-use areas. One kind of conservation mooring has an elastic rod that minimizes contact with the seafloor and prevents scouring caused by heavy chains used in conventional moorings.This type of mooring also has a helical screw-in anchor with a smaller footprint than a conventional block or mushroom anchor. One consideration for setting up conservation moorings is the cost of purchasing, installing,and maintaining them. Funding from grants or partnerships or fees generated from boater use can help alleviate these costs. CONCLUSION A combination of different management options may be suitable for protecting the eelgrass ecosystem at Fishers Island from boating and other impacts. Our surveys establish baselines for eelgrass condition and extent and vessel use around the island, by which the success of different management strategies can be measured, and identify areas where management is needed most. Because of the variability inside eelgrass beds,the dynamic nature of eelgrass growth and expansion,and likely changes to boating patterns over time, management strategies need to be adaptive and managers will need to respond accordingly to new circumstances.Therefore, crucial to the development of a long-term management plan is the establishment of a monitoring program and active collaboration among local community,government and non-governmental partners;the aim is to track the location and types of marine and coastal activities occurring in and adjacent to seagrass meadows and to assess the health of the enduring seagrass ecosystem at Fishers Island,so that it can be protected for many generations to come. ECEIVE MAY 2 1 2010 Page 132 Southold Town TrusteesBoard of Table 2: Examples of Management Options Management Type of .. D- . - An integral component of Team OCEAN(Ocean . On-the-water boater outreach and education Conservation Education Action Network) is on-the-water . Informational packets with boater charts, sanctuary boater outreach and education. In areas and on days of ! information,and navigation tips which enhance the high use,such as holidays,trained volunteers go boat to visitor experience and promote boater safety boat,talking to boaters and distributing informational . Outreach at events and festivals Florida Keys National Vessel Packets to encourage stewardship and responsible Marine Sanctuary Informational stickers showing what to do if a boat Groundings and boating.In the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, becomes grounded,distributed at marine boat rental and Rookery Bay ' Anchor Scars in their presence directly prevents groundings by making facilities.Estuarine Seagrass and boaters wary of shallow reef and seagrass areas. Program . Connections with local businesses to help raise Research Reserve,FL staff members also visit local businesses such as marinas Coral Reefs awareness and adapt strategies in response to feedback and dive/snorkel shops to disseminate brochures and hear concerns from local business owners.The program has For more information: enjoyed great success and the model for on-the-water httos://floridakeys.noaa.eov/volunteer opportunitiesAeamooc outreach and education has been replicated in other ean.html places like the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Reserve. In 2003,the initiative of creating voluntary no anchor • Community input and approval zones began with public scoping followed by a trial run . Seasonal marker buoys during a popular festival in the fall.Seasonal marker buoys . Brochures and outreach to popular boating and tourism were deployed along a half mile stretch of the downtown publications and visitor guide waterfront to delineate the offshore edge of seagrass . Videos shown in educational venues,at a yacht club, beds.The buoys read "Anchor Out for Safety and For and in an environmental film festival. Salmon,"emphasizing that boating outside of seagrass not . Information booths during festivals Anchor only protects vital salmon habitat but also protects e Seagrass protection pledges Port Townsend,WA Damage to boaters because anchors do not hold well in seagrass. . Monitoring of boater compliance Seagrass Additionally,there was also substantial boater outreach and education including signage placed in marinas. Before For more information: the project,around 20 percent of boats were inside htto://depts.washinpton.edu/uwconf/2005pssb/2005proceed seagrass extent.After installation of the buoys, monitoring ings/papers/B9 PEARS.pdf showing that the percentage dropped to 1.4 percent in http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.17 the 2004 boating season to less than one percent in 3.4721&req=rep1&tvoe=odf subsequent years. http://www.nwstraits.org/media/2275/aef-2016- noanchorzone.odf MAY Page 133 Southold Town Board of Trustees In 1990 in Pinellas County, meetings were held by a • Boat restriction/exclusion zones(no motor/poll or troll) j coalition of government and citizen representatives, • Seagrass caution zones including those representing commercial and fishing • Slow/minimum wake zones interests,to agree on plans to protect seagrass. In 1992, • Signs at boat ramps and marinas showing regulatory because of their efforts,an ordinance was passed that areas. separated the management area into different zones. • Enforcement and monitoring Propeller Exclusion/restriction zones prohibited the use of internal • Public information campaign Fort DeSoto Park/ Scarring in combustion engines and caution zones allowed motor use, • Sign maintenance program but boaters incurred penalties for seagrass damage. Other Tampa Bay, Seagrass and g of boater compliance areas required boats to travel at slow speed or had no . Monitoring FL Manatee restrictions. Because of these management efforts, Strikes significant reductions in scarring were seen from aerial For more information: images in both exclusion and caution zones. Components https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225873454 Decad essential to the success include documenting the problem, al Changes in Seagrass Distribution and Abundance in Flo involving all users and addressing their concerns,avoiding rida Bay (pp.58-66) assigning blame, providing feedback and adapting the https://www.tbeptech.orp/TBEP TECH PUBS/2018/2012- management program to new findings. 2017 TBEP PE FINAL.pdf (pp.234-235) In 2000,after research found extensive propeller scarring • Mandatory"no uprooting"zone in seagrass at Redfish Bay(RB),a premier fishing • Signs marking the boundary of the State Scientific Area destination,the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission and striped PVC posts to mark access lanes designated the bay as a State Scientific Area(SSA)for • Maps showing cut points that can be used to access the education,research and conservation purposes. Initially, area safely voluntary"propeller-up"zones, outlined with posts and • Boat ramp signs describing the regulatory area and rules signs,were created. However,during the five years they • Signs at marinas and boat launches showing techniques were implemented,the voluntary zones proved to minimize seagrass damage(lift,drift, poll,and troll) ineffective at reducing propeller scarring.As a result, in • Ads in Fishing Magazine and billboards, in donated ad Redfish Bay Scientific! Propeller 2006, mandatory"no uprooting"rules were brought into Scarring in spaces Study Area(RBSSA), effect for the whole RBSSA,which meant the bay was still . Outreach events TX Seagrass accessible to boaters,but it became unlawful to uproot • Monitoring and enforcement and excavate seagrass with submerged propellers;rules were enforced,and offenders were subject to fines. For more information: Anchoring and transiting with troll motors in seagrass was htti)s://tpwd.texas.gov/publications/pwdoubs/media/r) allowed. After four years of enforcement and active wd br v3400 1101.pdf education and outreach monitoring found significant https://tpwd.texas.gov/landwater/water/habitats/seapr reductions in propeller scarring. ass/redfish-bay U AY 2 1 2019 - --- Page 134 Southold Town B ar of Trus- e REFERENCES Behringer, D.C.,&Swett, R.A.(2010). Determining vessel use patterns in the southeast Florida region. Miami Beach, FL. Pp 88. Retrieved September 10,2018,from https://floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/FDOU 33A 0.Pdf Bradley, M.,&Paton,S.(2018). Tier 12017 mapping of Zostera marina in Long Island Sound and change analysis. Hadley, MA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Retrieved September 10,2018,from http://Iongislandsoundstudy.net/wp- content/uploads/2018/08/LIS 2017 report2 wAppendix REVISED-FINAL.pd Collier,C. (2016).Comanagement of U.S.marine protected areas:current efforts and their potential implications for seagrass management at Fishers Island, New York(Master's project). Duke University. Retrieved September 10,2018,from http://hd1.handIe.net/10161/11884 Collins, K.J.,Suonpaa,A.M.,&Mallinson,J.J.(2010).The impacts of anchoring and mooring in seagrass,Studland Bay, Dorset, UK. Underwater Technology,29(3), 117-123. Crawford, R. E.(2002).Secondary wake turbidity from small boat operation in a shallow sandy bay.Journal of Coastal Research,50-65. Cullen-Unsworth, L.C., Nordlund, L. M., Paddock,J., Baker,S., McKenzie, L.J.,&Unsworth, R. K. (2014).Seagrass meadows globally as a coupled social—ecological system: Implications for human wellbeing.Marine Pollution Bulletin,83(2), 387-397. Duarte,C. M.,Middelburg,J.J.,&Caraco, N.(2004). Major role of marine vegetation on the oceanic carbon cycle. Biogeosciences Discussions,1(1),659-679. Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.(2015).Team OCEAN. Retrieved January 1, 2019,from https://floridakeys.noaa.gov/volunteer opportunities/team ocean.htmI Fonseca, M.S.,&Cahalan,J.A.(1992).A preliminary evaluation of wave attenuation by four species of seagrass. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science,35(6),565-576. Fonseca,M.S.,&Fisher,J.S. (1986).A comparison of canopy friction and sediment movement between four species of seagrass with reference to their ecology and restoration. Marine Ecology Progress Series,29(1). Greve,T. M., &Binzer,T. (2004).Which factors regulate seagrass growth and distribution?(Chapter 4). European Seagrosses: An Introduction To Monitoring and Management, 19-23. Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee. (2010). Voluntary No Anchor Eelgrass Protection Zone(Progress Report). Retrieved January 2,2019,from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.173.4721&rep= repl&type=pdf Lamb,J. B.,Van De Water,J.A., Bourne, D.G.,Altier,C., Hein,M.Y.,Fiorenza, E.A.,...Harvell,C. D.(2017).Seagrass ecosystems reduce exposure to bacterial pathogens of humans,fishes,and invertebrates.Science,355(6326),731- 733. Mackinson,S.,&Nottestad, L.(1998). Points of View:Combining Local and Scientific Knowledge.Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries,8(4),481-490. Retrieved January 20,2019,from https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008847106984 Mcleod, E.,Chmura,G. L., Bouillon,S.,Salm,R.,Bj6rk, M.,Duarte,C. M.,...Silliman, B. R. (2011).A blueprint for blue carbon: toward an improved understanding of the role of vegetated coastal habitats in sequestering CO2.Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment,9(10),552-560. Neckles, H.A., Kopp, B.S., Peterson, B.J.,&Pooler, P.S.(2012). Integrating scales of seagrass monitoring to meet conservation needs.Estuaries and Coasts,35(1),23-46. New York Legislature.(2012). New York Seagrass Protection Act. NY ECL Article 13,§§ 13-0701-13-0705. Retrieved February 20,2019,from: http://nyw.law.streaver.net/ENV/html New York State Seagrass Task Force.(2009).Final report of the New York State Seagrass Task Force:recommendations to the New York State governor and legislature.State of New York. Retrieved September 10,2018,from https://www.dec.nv.gov/docs/fish marine pdf/finalseagrassreportpdf — D E r CQ P . e 65 M AY 2 1 2019 NOAA.(2018).Tides and Currents. Retrieved January 10,2019,from https://tidesandcurrentS.noaa.gov/tide predictions.html Pearson, P.,&D'Amore,J.(2005).Community Involvement in Eelgrass Protection,Port Townsend,Washington. In Proceedings of the 2005 Puget Sound Georgia Basin Research Conference. Retrieved January 10,2019,from http://depts.washington.edu/uwconf/2005psgb/2005proceedings/papers/B9 PEARS pdf Reid,W.V., Berkes, F.,Wilbanks,T.J.,Capistrano, D.,&eds. (2006). Bridging scales and knowledge systems:concepts and applications in ecosystem assessment. Island Press,Washington, D.C., USA. Retrieved January 10,2019 from https://www.cifor.org/library/2179/ Sargent, F.J.,Leary,T.J.,Crewz, D.W.,&Kruer,C. R.(1995).Scarring of Florida's seagrasses:assessment and management options. Short, F., McKenzie, L.J.,Coles, R.G.,Vidler,K.P.,&Gaeckle,J. L. (2006).SeagrassNet Manual for Scientific Monitoring of Seagrass Habitat Worldwide edition(University of New Hampshire Publication)(p. Pp 75). Smith, D.S.,&Hellmund, P.C.(1993).Ecology of greenways:design and function of linear conservation areas. University of Minnesota Press. Retrieved January 10,2019,from https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs other/rmrs 1993 cole d001.Pdf Smith, K.(2017).Aerial survey of vessel activity in seagrass(Zostera marina)near Fishers Island, NY—data collection methods trial.Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. Stowers,J. F., Fehrmann,E.,&Squires,A.(2000).Seagrass Scarring in Tampa Bay:Impact Analysis and Management Options (pp.47-54). Presented at the Seagrass Management: It's not Just Nutrients!,St. Petersburg, Florida.Retrieved January 10,2019,from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225873454 Decadal Changes in Seagrass Distribution and Abundance in Florida Bay Texas Parks&Wildlife Department.(2006).Redfish Bay State Scientific Area. Retrieved January 10,2019,from https://tpwd.texas.gov/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd br v3400 1101 pdf Texas Parks&Wildlife Department.(n.d.).Seagrass Protection. Retrieved January 28,2019,from https://tpwd.texas.gov/1andwater/water/habitats/seagrass/redfish-bay U.S.Census Bureau.(2011).2010 demographic profile.Retrieved October 10,2018,from https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/isf/pages/community facts xhtml?src=bkmk Walker,D. I., Lukatelich, R.J., Bastyan,G.,&McComb,A.J.(1989). Effect of boat moorings on seagrass beds near Perth, Western Australia.Aquatic Botany,36(1),69-77. Waycott, M., Duarte,C. M.,Carruthers,T.J.,Orth, R.J., Dennison,W.C.,Olyarnik,S., ... Hughes,A.R.(2009).Accelerating loss of seagrasses across the globe threatens coastal ecosystems.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(30), 12377-12381. ECEIVE MAY 2 1 2019 Southold Town BoarLf Trustees Page 136 Appendix A: Variation in Depth and Plant Height by Dive Site EC FIVE MAY 2 1 2019 Southold Town Board of Trustees Page 137 Variation in Depths Where Eelgrass Was Observed and Measured 15- • 9O 10- • • d TT t • • y 5- • • • • 0- • v o U a- o lL U) S W EO m _ L L m U m N h J L Y m m .°' U U w = w E 2 L �o Q `m m O 0 0 m o `m S Z F L m S m L Y N �p W W m m O L L m O = u) yN Dive Site Variation in Plant Height by Dive Site 120- . • . E d a • cT CD O J O N O m O m m ~ O C -- E �, m W L L x = d o W m m U N J Lo m T L U (A W E S Q. W W O 4=_I O m m m = N ~ L I .�r•S- m m L n W W W `o L L m o � r Dive Site Page 38 Appendix B: Additional Dive Transect Survey Maps i� E S AVE In rJ '�I MAY 2 1 2019 Southold Town Board of Trustees Page 39 Hay Harbor 11 400 Feet 10 aft\6ftt n` � .�♦ r v FWSLIS elgrass Survey 0. SDOP Hig Resolution Injagery0 0 0 f .J O In-bed Absent Inshore Edge ••• Absent. rocks and boulders ,V Offshore Edge Present Percent Covered C • Other Present but patchy Percent Not Covered Eelgrass Extent(2017) *Depth in feet below MLW Page 40 West Harbor North of Dock Reach LAW l t�r 1 ft 1 r. tI ! 1 yeti �. � . Data Sources 0 200 400 Feet TNC Benthic Survey • V NYS••'High Resolution Lagery 2016 C —< o 0 0 � o O In-bed Absent / ca t •_';; Inshore Edge .... Absent rocks and boulders Offshore Edge —Present Percent Covered • Other ...I Present but patchy Percent Not Covered Eelgrass Extent(2017) *Depth in feet below MLW Page 41 �nl ' 0 200 400 Feet .tr •13ft •13ft Oft �L, rJthlC rJUfVeY�o� - _ IS Eelgras ey 2 Clay Point j�1i - - High Reso �U1� In-bed -Absent OffshoreC3 Inshore Edge ---Absent, rocks and boulders Edge —Present Percent Other PresentPercent -. Chocomount �� 0 200 400 Feet 1. 11 ft • � � �. 4 ft ' _ = Data Sources; .. - �; �` y� - TNC Berlthic Survey 2017 _ ' �+' ;;' C7$FW$LIS Eelgrass Survey 2:Q1) _ ;�, ``*. ,_ '. -• � NYSpOP Nliph Resolution Im16 CD co 0 In-bed —Absent C3 Inshore Edge ---Absent, rocks and boulders Offshore ••- —Present Percent Other .... Present but patchy Percent Not Covered Eelgrass1 *Depthbelow • East Harbor South Side N r p - ;,! e r Fc::)iInshore o In-bed —Absent Edge •• Absent, rocks and boulders (j Offshore Edge —Present Percent Covered — —J— 0 Other Present but patchy Percent Not Covered Com. -- - Eelgrass Extent(2017) *Depth in feet below MLW Page 44 Eighth Hole NT_ Data Sources 1 200 400 Feet USFWS LIS Eelgrass Survey 2017 DO 17 ft i' 17.ft ft r y N__2 � r O o In-bed a--Absent �l Inshore Edge Absent rocks and boulders t� _ Offshore Edge Present Percent Covered • Other Present but patchy j Percent Not Covered Eelgrass Extent(2017) *Depth in feet below MLW Page 45 East Beach DU I 1 200 •11 Feet 16 ft 17 ft 13 ft pa 9tt 15 ftv 00 Pie ift 4A } 1 ---� ., . iA J m � �•'ir�Y, w .• Ur N 0 CA _O CO M _v _ O In-bed Absent 4 Inshore Edge Absent, rocks and boulders ♦ Offshore Edge Present Percent Covered • Other Present but patchy Percent Not Covered Eelgrass Extent(2017) *Depth in feet below MLW Page 46 Barleyfield Cove AA A-.06, Oft'W'v 2 ft f„ �. ## 1 e �. • 4 ft 6 ft 3 A 04ib 7 ft � 4 Data Sources n 0 200 400 Feet TNC Benthic Survey 2017USFVVS LIS Eelgrass Survey 2017 -< NYSDOP High Resolution Imagery 2016 i O e =� o O In-bed Absent ca L� Inshore Edge Absent rocks and boulders COffshore Edge —Present Percent Covered -- • Other •••• Present butatch P Y ■Percent Not Covered Eelgrass Extent(2017) *Depth in feet below MLW Page 47 South Beach Town Road East 'e 6 ft 4A 4 t 3 1 Data Sources TNC Benthic Survey 2017 0 200 400 Feet USFWS LIS Eelgrass Survey 2017 NYSDOP High Resolution Imagery 2016 Q o In-bed —Absent r Inshore Edge Absent. rocks and boulders ♦ Offshore Edge —Present F]Percent Covered • Other •... Present but patchy ®Percent Not Covered Eelgrass Extent(2017) *Depth in feet below MLW Page 48 Appendix C: Changes in Plant Height with Depth by Transect Badeyfield Cove Transect I Plant Height Badeyfield Cove Transect 2 Plant Height 150 150 100 90 80 80 70 65 c FL 50 50 50 35 40 0 MEN I 0 2a 2b 3 2 5a 4 5b 6 7 Depth(feet below MLW) Depth(feet below MLW) Chocomount Transect 1 Plant Height 150 '9100 v 85 t 80 6 C a 50 30 0 11 Depth(feet below MLW) Clay Point Transect 1 Plant Height 150 ?100 95 U t 80 85 = 65 55 FL 50 30 a MIIIII ECEIVE 1 4 8 13a 13b 14 Depth(feet below MLW) MAY 2 7 2019 Page 49 Southold Town r o Tr -tee East Beach Transect 1 Plant Height East Beach Transect 2 Plant Height 150 E 100 100 u 80 80 80 m x CL 50 50 30 0 0 6 9 17 Depth(feet below MLW) Depth(feet below MLW) East Beach East End Transect 1 Plant Height East Beach East End Transect 2 Plant Height 105 110 E 100 100 100 75 x 50 35 0 2 9 15 2 9 13 Depth(feet below MLW) Depth(feet below MLW) East Harbor South Transect 1 Plant Height 150 E 100 U L _m N C a 50 50 35 Depth(feet below MLW) C, ;HIE C E I V E M AY 2 1 2019 Sol't,101d Tawn _3arl of;rusts-0a __ Page 50 Eighth Hole Transect 1 Plant Height 150 110 100 100 100 90 m 75 x c � 50 0 1 11 4 7 12 17 15 Depth(feet below MLW) Flat Hammock Transect I Plant Height Flat Hammock Transect 2 Plant Height 119 106 '9100 96 U so 76 73 x 65 61 0 55 50 43 28 MMINE O 3a 3b 3c 7 9 2 5a 5b 5c 7 S Depth(feet below MLW) Depth(feet below MLW) Hay Harbor Transect I Plant Height Hay Harbor Transect 2 Plant Height 151, Ioc 90 ami 70 70 70 5 a 50 45 50 25 0 6 10 1 » Depth(feet below MLW) Depth(feet below MILAI) EC E I V E MAY 2 1 2019 Page 51 Southold Town Rnard of Trustee Hungry Point Transect 1 Plant Height 110 110 100 90 90 75 2 65 c jZ 50 25 0 EIIIIII 2 4 6 7 9 14 17 Depth(feet below MLW) North Hill Transect I Plant Height North Hill Transect 2 Plant Height 150 '9100 90 75 80 80 70 50 50 55 0 3 7 10 10 11 Depth(feet below MLW) Depth(feet below MLW) South Beach Transect 1 Plant Height South Beach Transect 2 Plant Height 100 90 0 so .Qo 75 75 m x 60 V 50 45 50 on 20 m 0 0 6 Be 8b 3 6 8 12 Depth(feet below MLW) Depth(feet below MLW) E C E I V E 0 MAY 2 1 2019 Page 1 52 Southold Town ___ Boar of Trus e West Harbor Transect 1 Plant Height i 51 E �.. U L m N C l� 5L 40 35 2 Depth(feet below MLW) E C E VE MAY 2 1 2019 Southold Town B ar o Tr ee Page 53 NELSON, POPE 6 VOORHIS, LLC ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING CONSULTING 'I www.nelsonpopevoorhls com May 15, 2019 Town of Southold Trustees Southold Town Hall Annex 54375 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179 ru X19 2Southold,NY 11971 �J EAttn: Michael Domino, Board of Trustees President 1 5 2019New York State Dept. of Environmental ConservationSUNY @ Stony Brook 50 Circle Road thold TownStony Brook,NY 11790-3409 of Tr;tee Attn: Andrew C. Walker, Regional Manager, Bureau of Marine Habitat Protection United States Army Corps of Engineers Jacob Javits Center 26 Federal Plaza New York,NY 10278 Attn: Lisa Grudzinksi Re: Supplemental Information Donald Young Dock Application Chocomount Cove, Fishers Island Town Trustees ID:Donald Young Property NYSDECNo. 1-4738-04558/00001; Young ACOS ID:Donald Young, Fishers Island NPV No. 18276 Dear Agency Representative: As a follow-up to my letter of November 30, 2018, I would like to provide additional information and a suggested alternative to the proposed location of the pending dock application referenced above. All of the information contained in my November 30, 2018 correspondence remains relevant, and all indications are that the proposed installation will have an adverse impact on submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), specifically eel grass(Zostera marina). Given the documented presence of eel grass in the location of the proposed pier,and the previously provided literature and references related to dock and boat operational impacts to eel grass, it is critical to consider alternatives to reduce potential impacts to SAV. It is also critical that adequate and accurate surveys of the presence of eel grass are completed. In considering alternatives, a logical option would be to decrease the area of the pier installation needed to achieve deeper water. A decreased structure size would reduce the physical impact of scouring related to installation and presence of pilings, and deeper water that would reduce impact of boat operations (i.e., propeller damage and/or physical contact). Attached is a suggested alternate location for the dock (see Attachment 1). This location, besides being much less intrusive to the inner cove,has the following advantages,which I would think would be important to reviewing agencies in order to meet their individual standards for issuance of a permit: CORPORATE OFFICE HUDSON VALLEY OFFICE 572 WALT WHITMAN ROAD, MELVILLE,NY 1 1747-21 BB 156 Route 59,Suite C6,SUFFERN,NY 10901 PHoNe(631)427-5665 • FAX(631)427-5620 PHONE:(845)36B-1472 • FAX.(645)368-1572 Donald Young Dock Application Chocomount Cove,Fishers Island,NY Supplemental Information for Pending Agency Reviews • The pier would truly be in a north/south in orientation, and does not "dogleg" oddly to the northwest; this would create less structure and would provide better sun exposure for the eel grass growth below the thru-flow deck. • The pier would be shorter and would reach deep water sooner;this reduces physical impact of installation and presence of pilings. The pier can also access deeper water than the currently proposed pier,which would reduce boat use impacts. • The pier would be in keeping in design and orientation other docks in the area. It is noted that the proposed location would be nearer to the neighboring property to the east. Typically, piers are offset from the extension of the property line; however, in this case, the property line of the Young site"slants"to the northwest and any structure would interfere with the property line extension. Upon further review, the property to the east is undeveloped and owned by the Henry L. Ferguson Museum, Inc. Contact with the corporation is encouraged to determine if they would be in agreement with the proposed pier orientation given the benefits to retention of eel grass in Chocomount Cove. I believe the applicant's representative continues to maintain that the proposed pier is positioned over a small spot that does not have as much eel grass; however, this is not necessarily true. The request for an independent in-water survey to confirm eel grass occurrence in this location is reiterated herein. With respect to inventory work, attached, please find a recent publication by The Nature Conservancy titled, "An Evaluation of Eelgrass Extent and Vessel Use Patterns Around Fishers Island,New York,"prepared by Matias Tong, February 28, 2019(see Attachment 2). This document continues the research into loss of,and impacts to,eel grass and further supports the need for accurate in-water surveys in the area of impact and examination of alternatives to reduce impacts to SAV. Please consider this information in your deliberations on the pending permit, and if a permit is to be issued, please require that the alternative orientation be used to reduce impact to SAV. Thank you and feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Respectfully submitted, NELSON,POPE&VOORHIS,LLC l_ Charles J. Voorhis, CEP, AICP Managing Partner cc: Martin D. Finnegan, Esq., Twomey Latham � V i MAY 1 5 2019 Socthold Lown Page 2 U. W -- F',ar of Trustees Donald Young Dock Application Chocomount Cove,Fishers Island,NY Comment Letter on Pending Agency Reviews ATTACHMENTS EC E BVE MAY 1 5 2019 Southold Town Board of Trustees Donald Young Dock Application Chocomount Cove,Fishers Island,NY Supplemental Information for Pending Agency Reviews Attachment 1 Alternative Pier Orientation ECEVE MAY 1 5 2019 Southold Town Board of Trustees s IOU* y� mom Ak _ t ,i - _ dal.. ►� �-#' � -�.�~, •�� E C E I VE M AY 1 5 2019 Southold Town Board f Trustees Screen shot from Google Maps image taken 5/13/19 y A. ECS E QVE MAY 1 5 20119 Southold Town Bard of Tru5tees FISHERS ISLAND SOUND � •?- __ ` I PEW STEPS wit RA" EL 55dT ItEW �f—:P -PEW4A4-7WPM ft � ` — f 1 5FATELFLaC6._a3*7Saw earTom � 5 1\!d'f 1 1 1 t-1 _ eorton----- commas 1 AewELbcr1!c.dWATaa _ — A,�,�',y,�,� _ _ ptr.�navrwrw�arl ,- Ea6aASS Wil OF- ppp�11 PEW PlJl4i OPCRf 2p$ BOLLMVSPARTIiA ~ tl7T CR \ 96.FT a00= 00 'tip SVART%AL as oR� ! A SPARTINA -r ~ + 1 O 1 c7 • SPARTNA PA7815 A . t T 3 1 �ARfAIA `P ' APPOOK >ti O TE Mi M. 1 1 T1 1 DulE i rte /t' ALV,^TBJT NGI 4GRASS 1 PY lJ'E WAIFR LNE A1gWL. _� ' �w�-PrwtEP�FltF j 9� \ .'S SL RiED F6t oth RALS NOTE ALL IN-WATER WORK RELATED TO THE i = CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED PIER, RAMP AN ftMT WALL TAKE PLACE OUTSIDE APPROiPM147€ OF THE EEL GRASS GROWING SEASON FROM PROPERTY LINE s,,,• AFPQCWATE APRIL 15 TO OCTOBER 31 IN ANY GIVER - `vk7PERTY LtE YEAR. THIS CONOfDON IS NECESSARY TO \ (/ '�'•$ AVOID DAPACTS TO EEO.GRASS LOCATED IN THE FISHERS ISLAND 8&1CFi AREti AND TO '•�O -i t yr PROPERTY DO PLY WITH COASTAL POLICY 6.2 OF THE APP�'tATE To OF NOYES NY CAM ACT pySTNG PATH TO 8FiW1 NH F'RDO�OF -� H L FERIilJBON MUSEUM WG t�LAf V \/I EW I MAY 1 5 20119 soutno!o Toren Board of Trustr,, Donald Young Dock Application Chocomount Cove,Fishers Island,NY Supplemental Information for Pending Agency Reviews Attachment 2 An Evaluation of Eelgrass Extent and Vessel Use Patterns Around Fishers Island, New York To Aj3Fzt 3 t. .0 a * `... cA ,,�"��" a✓ An Evaluation of Eelgrass Extent and Vessel Use Patterns Around Fishers Island, New York Prepared by Matias Tong [� E C E III February 28, 2019 MAY 5 2019 TheNature Conservancy 10-7 Southold Town ar of Tr s ees � l Acknowledgements The implementation of this project and the production of this report were made possible by the collaborative participation and broad support of the many people and organizations recognized below. Aerial vessel survey project planning and management: Chantal Collier,The Nature Conservancy in New York and Connecticut David Gumbart,The Nature Conservancy in Connecticut Stephen Lloyd,The Nature Conservancy in New York Jonathan Milne, LightHawk Conservation Flying Kyle Smith,Yale University Aerial vessel survey data collection: Chantal Collier,The Nature Conservancy in New York and Connecticut Nicole Cooper,The Nature Conservancy in Connecticut Joseph Fischetti, LightHawk Conservation Flying David Gumbart,The Nature Conservancy in Connecticut Robert Keller,LightHawk Conservation Flying Steve Kent,LightHawk Conservation Flying Tom LeCompte,LightHawk Conservation Flying Stephen Lloyd,The Nature Conservancy in New York Sally McGee,The Nature Conservancy in Rhode Island Michael McNamara, LightHawk Conservation Flying Liz Robinson,The Nature Conservancy in Connecticut Benthic eelgrass survey project planning and management: Chantal Collier,The Nature Conservancy in New York and Connecticut Soren Dahl,New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Stephen Lloyd,The Nature Conservancy in New York Suzanne Paton, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Adam Starke,The Nature Conservancy in New York Benthic eelgrass survey data collection: Chris Clapp,The Nature Conservancy in New York Chantal Collier,The Nature Conservancy in New York and Connecticut Soren Dahl,New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Todd Glavin,New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Carl Lobue,The Nature Conservancy in New York Adam Starke,The Nature Conservancy in New York Vessel and eelgrass survey data analyses,report preparation and presentation: Matias Tong, Independent Contractor for The Nature Conservancy in New York ® E C E V E Funding and in-kind support provided by: Fishers Island Yacht Club LightHawk Conservation Flying MAY 1 5 2010 New York State Dept.of Environmental Conservation The McCance Family Southold Town Scott M. Murphy Board of Trustees Seaview Scuba Photo Credits(Front Page):Chantal Collier(Top,Center Right,Center Left),Adam Starke(Center) f� Contents EXECUTIVESUMMARY.................................................................................................................................................4 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................................5 METHODS.....................................................................................................................................................................7 Objectives.................................................................................................................................................................7 BenthicEelgrass Survey............................................................................................................................................7 DiveTransects.......................................................................................................................................................7 SiteChecks............................................................................................................................................................8 Analysis.................................................................................................................................................................8 AerialVessel Survey..................................................................................................................................................9 Flightand Image Acquisition.................................................................................................................................9 Areaof Interest.....................................................................................................................................................9 Digitization..........................................................................................................................................................10 Analysis...............................................................................................................................................................11 RESULTS......................................................................................................................................................................11 BenthicEelgrass Survey..........................................................................................................................................11 Mapping Eelgrass Condition and Extent.............................................................................................................13 AerialVessel Survey................................................................................................................................................17 VesselLocations by Type....................................................................................................................................20 VesselLocations by Status..................................................................................................................................22 Hotspots of Vessel Activity in the Vicinity of Eelgrass........................................................................................25 DISCUSSION................................................................................................................................................................28 GroundtruthingEelgrass Extent.............................................................................................................................28 Variabilityin Eelgrass Beds.....................................................................................................................................29 Aerial Survey Highlights and Implications ..............................................................................................................29 ManagementOptions.............................................................................................................................................30 CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................................................32 t REFERENCES................................................................................................................................................................35 Appendix A:Variation in Depth and Plant Height by Dive Site..................................................................................37 Appendix B:Additional Dive Transect Survey Maps..................................................................................................39 Appendix C:Changes in Plant Height with Depth by Transect.......r-. ...�..`��j...��.... ... ................49 Page � 3 1 5 2019uthold To�eunr of Trustees EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Globally and locally,seagrass meadows provide many crucial ecosystem services but face intense pressures from human activities and environmental stressors. In Long Island Sound, Fishers Island harbors most of the enduring eelgrass(Zostera marina)ecosystem in the New York waters of the Sound;and,of local concern are potential impacts to eelgrass from boating related sources. During the annual boating season,the number of vessels in the Sound swells significantly,increasing pressures on sensitive eelgrass habitat from anchoring,mooring, propeller scarring,and boat wakes.To address these concerns,two surveys were conducted in 2017 around Fishers Island.One was a benthic survey,consisting of dives and underwater transects to characterize eelgrass condition and to groundtruth its extent, mapped in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Long Island Sound Eelgrass Survey(Bradley&Paton,2018).The second was an aerial survey,conducted aboard fixed wing aircraft to assess vessel use patterns around the island and to identify hotspots with greater threat to eelgrass habitat during the boating season. The benthic eelgrass survey captured considerable variation in plant height,percent cover,and bed edges at different sites,underscoring the importance of site characteristics and environmental conditions in determining eelgrass distribution.A comparison of the inshore and offshore edges of eelgrass beds measured in our survey with those mapped in the USFWS survey showed that the edges were generally well aligned,except for a few areas where eelgrass extent recorded in the benthic survey deviated from the aerial survey results in shallower or deeper eelgrass habitat.During the benthic survey,some propeller scarring was found by the docks in East Harbor,suggesting that there are also dock related impacts that remain to be further investigated. Analysis of the aerial survey data revealed most vessels observed were recreational boats,with the highest numbers recorded on weekend survey dates in July and August. Hotspots and areas of eelgrass habitat at greater risk from vessel activities include coastal waters adjacent to the Eighth Hole(at the Fishers Island Club golf course), Flat Hammock,East Harbor,West Harbor,and Hay Harbor.At these locations,impacts to eelgrass are associated with boats anchoring close to shore or directly over eelgrass,boats transiting in shallow waters,boat wakes,and to a lesser extent,the siting of moorings. In general,high vessel use in these areas reflects observations cited by local community members and demonstrates the value of including local knowledge in environmental problem identification and conservation management planning.Boat numbers reflect a conservative estimate of vessel activity given the frequency and duration of our survey flights and the likelihood of heavier use on holidays,which were not surveyed. To protect eelgrass resources from potential boating-related impacts,different management options and examples are discussed—namely, boater education and outreach,zoning and designation of special management areas,and the use of conservation moorings.A combination of different strategies is likely needed with monitoring and adaptive management,which is essential to measuring and optimizing the success of any management plan. In addition,the baselines for vessel activity captured in this study are necessary for evaluating the effectiveness of future management strategies. ECE0117E MAY 1 5 2019 Page 14 Southold Town arD-M of Tr s+e INTRODUCTION Seagrass meadows are crucial to the long-term health of marine ecosystems and the well-being of communities around the world(Cullen-Unsworth et al.,2014).As underwater refuges, nurseries,and breeding and foraging grounds,seagrass meadows sustain diverse species of marine life, including many commercially and recreationally important fish and shellfish as well as threatened and endangered species like sea turtles,dugongs,and manatees (New York State Seagrass Task Force,2009).Additionally,seagrass beds improve water quality by trapping fine suspended particles and reducing contaminants and pathogens that cause diseases in humans and marine life (Lamb et al.,2017).As highly productive ecosystems,seagrass meadows are important in the nutrient exchange of coastal waters and play key roles in the ocean's carbon cycle,where they serve as important carbon sinks(Duarte, Middelburg,&Caraco,2004; Mcleod et al.,2011).Thus,they capture and store significant amounts of carbon as organic material in the ocean, reducing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide,the primary driver of global warming and ocean acidification.Other ecosystem services provided by seagrass include wave attenuation and sediment stabilization,which help increase coastal resilience to storm surge and reduce coastal erosion(Fonseca&Fisher, 1986; Fonseca&Cahalan, 1992). Given the ecological and socio-economic benefits of seagrasses,seagrass conservation is driven by a sense of urgency, because globally,seagrasses have declined at an accelerating rate(Waycott et al.,2009).Anthropogenic factors such as impaired water quality,climate change,coastal development and physical destruction have been implicated as the main drivers of decline(Waycott et al.,2009).With a 90 percent decrease in its historic extent, the loss of eelgrass(Zostera marina)in Long Island Sound,situated between the coastlines of Connecticut and Long Island, New York,is particularly acute(New York State Seagrass Task Force,2009). Since 2002,every three to five years,the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)has used aerial imagery to delineate eelgrass beds in the Sound,where the remaining eelgrass is restricted to the eastern end of the estuary. The USFWS's most recent 2017 survey was based on aerial imagery taken in June and included field verification completed from September to October,via an underwater video camera lowered from a surface vessel (Bradley& Paton,2018). Based on this survey,the waters around Fishers Island,New York,contain significant amounts of eelgrass,comprising 24%of the eelgrass extent in the Sound and 96%of the eelgrass extent in the New York portion of the Sound(Bradley&Paton,2018).Consequently, Fishers Island has become the focus of conservation efforts directed at protecting its vital eelgrass resources. Although eelgrass around Fishers Island is threatened by regional pressures similar to those impacting seagrasses worldwide(e.g. nitrogen pollution and climate change),of particular local concern are the physical impacts caused by boating activities(Collier,2016).The waters around Fishers Island are popular for boating due to their quiet and undeveloped seascape, proximity to the Connecticut coast,and productive fishing grounds. Boaters use the areas for recreational and commercial purposes,engaging in activities ranging from fishing,aquaculture,and transportation to sailing,kayaking,and swimming.During the peak of the annual boating season,the number of vessels at popular island sites can surge dramatically, raising concerns about the potential impacts this increased pressure may have on eelgrass habitat(Collier,2016).Examples of boating impacts on eelgrass include scarring and scouring from propellers(prop-scarring), anchors,conventional moorings and boat wakes. Propeller scars,which have been documented in Hay Harbor(Fishers Island Conservancy Summer Sentinel,pers. obs.), result when a boat enters shallow water containing seagrass beds near the depth of its drafts.The boat's engine propeller cuts through the plants and excavates troughs in the meadow,stirring up sediment and creating scars barren of seagrass(Sargent,Leary,Crewz,&Kruer, 1995). Anchoring in seagrass habitat is also detrimental. The process of dropping,setting,and retrieving an anchor over seagrass directly crushes,scrapes,and uproots the plants,leaving depressions in the beds with the roots and rhizomes exposed (Collins,Suonpaa, &Mallinson, 2010). Furthermore,conventional swing chain moorings,which consist of a buoy attached with a chain to an Page ( 5 LMAY5 2019 Southold Town anchor,create circular scars in seagrass beds.To accommodate the tidal range,currents,wind and waves,this type of mooring has an extra length of chain that typically rests on the seafloor.When the tide,waves,or currents change,the chain is pulled up and down and drags along the seafloor as the surface buoy swings around its anchor,effectively scouring the area around the mooring of seagrass and leaving circular scars devoid of seagrass (Walker, Lukatelich, Bastyan, &McComb, 1989). Resuspension of sediments caused by the wake of motorboats may also scour seagrass plants and create turbidity, reducing the light they require for photosynthesis(Crawford, 2002).Although physical destruction and stress from propeller, moorings,anchor scars and boat wakes have been attributed as significant causes of seagrass habitat loss in different parts of the world, prior to this study,the level of risk associated with boating impacts at Fishers Island was unknown.This study was therefore motivated by the need to substantiate the condition and extent of eelgrass habitat around Fishers Island,to quantify the pressures it faces from boating sources,and to identify areas,opportunities and options for seagrass conservation. Study Site Fishers Island is located seven miles southeast of New London,Connecticut,at the eastern end of Long Island Sound.The island is about seven miles long and one mile wide at its widest point and according to the 2010 census, is home to 236 year-round residents, mostly on the western end of the island (U.S.Census Bureau,2011). Politically,it is part of the Town of Southold, New York,although geographically,it is closer to Connecticut. Mass transportation access to the island is via ferry from New London,Connecticut.Although tourism is noticeably absent on the island,the number of residents swells during the summer, with the seasonal population reaching about 3000 people.The north side of Fishers Island is where the main harbors are located.West Harbor has the largest mooring and docking area and the other harbors are Silver Eel Cove, Hay Harbor, and East Harbor. Esteemed for its natural coastal scenery and historical and cultural significance, Fishers island is home to diverse coastal habitats encompassing grasslands,coastal woodlands,sandy beaches,salt marshes, rocky shores,and eelgrass meadows(Collier,2016).Dense beds of eelgrass can be seen exposed at the shoreline for several hours during lower low tides(Figure 1). Eelgrass distribution around Fishers Island is dynamic as shown in a comparison of its extent in 2012 and 2017, mapped in USFWS aerial surveys(Figure 2). Because of the island's importance as coastal habitat for protected and vulnerable species like grey seals,harbor seals,and ospreys and its significant eelgrass habitat, it was designated a New York State Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat in 1987 and as a Long Island Sound Study Stewardship Site in 2005. clj f� 3 Figure 1:Eelgrass exposed during a very low tide at Fishers Island.(Photo:Justine Kibbe) Page 6 t Trend _Gatn (87.0 acres,+21.896) -losa (143.2 acres,•35.896) No Chartye (259.7 acres,84.496) "�: -Undetermined SAV hom 2012 Figure 2:Changes in eelgrass distribution around Fishers Island from 2012 to 2017.The 2012 USFWS survey also delineated beds of undetermined submerged aquatic vegetation(SAV)where eelgrass could potentially exist but was not verified in the field. METHODS Objectives To assess the status of eelgrass habitat around Fishers Island and the pressures created by vessel activities,two different surveys were conducted during the summer and fall of 2017.One was a benthic eelgrass survey with the main objectives to:(1)survey the extent and condition of eelgrass beds,and(2)supplement and groundtruth the 2017 extent determined by the USFWS aerial survey.The other was an aerial vessel survey conducted to:(1) assess patterns of vessel use around the island,(2)establish baselines for vessel activity,and, (3)identify eelgrass habitat at significant risk from boating related impacts. Benthic Eelgrass Survey Dive Transects Transects were conducted by two divers equipped with SCUBA gear at thirteen pre-selected sites around Fishers Island and the adjacent islet of Flat Hammock from September 12,2017 to October 11,2017,during the peak of the perennial eelgrass growth cycle(Figure 3).The goal was to locate the offshore and inshore edges of the eelgrass beds,defined here as the points beyond which no eelgrass was sighted along the transect, and assess their condition and distribution by measuring percent cover and canopy height and recording eelgrass presence and absence within meadow areas.At each site,divers completed one to two transect surveys,each beginning and ending at the meadow edges (offshore and inshore), determined after swimming a sufficient distance beyond each edge to verify the bed limit had been reached.Above the divers, a surface buoy was towed containing a GPS ( Page 17 MAY 1 5 2019 Southold Town .T . a unit,which was synchronized with the lead diver's watch at the beginning of each dive to track and record data collection points along the transect.The first transect was conducted inshore to offshore,along a compass heading perpendicular to the coastline.Once the offshore edge was reached,the divers swam 100 kicks parallel to the shoreline,against the direction of the prevailing current.After which,conditions permitting,the dive team conducted a second transect survey heading back towards the shore. Percent cover and canopy height were measured at the inshore edge, offshore edge, at 5 ft depth intervals,and at periodic intermediate intervals using a 0.5 m by 0.5 m quadrat and measuring tape,following standard seagrass monitoring protocols(Short,McKenzie, Coles,Vidler,&Gaeckle, 2006).Changes in presence and absence were visually determined along the transect. Transects were terminated at two sites before the offshore edge could be reached for safety reasons as the divers would have had to go too close to breakwaters or boat channels. Site Checks Based on island resident input, locations where eelgrass was thought to be located but not shown in the 2012 USFWS extent were checked by snorkel. Site checks consisted of three surface dives within 50 meters of each point to determine eelgrass absence or presence(Figure 3). Miles Eight ol�East Beach each East End 11 Hungry Pmrq,".r Flat Hammock East Ensftlarbor South Side Clay Point C41066mooft- eyfield Cove North Hill Beach -4 West Harb Jlftrth�pf r .. Dive Sites(13) Snorkel Site Checks(6) ck a Hay Harbor N South B.ac Beac ad East Eelgrass Extent(2017) NYSD()P-n,Re�ojuficm Imagery 2016 Figure 3:Sites chosen for dive transects and site checks overlaid on the 2017 USFWS eelgrass extent layer. Analysis Using the time recorded for each measurement or located bed feature,relevant GPS points were selected and imported from Garmin Homeport into ArcMap.The layer was projected to NAD 1983 State Plane Connecticut FIPS 0600 Feet. Because there were several GPS points associated with each data collection time record, which was measured to the minute,we took an 'average'of the locations;this was accomplished in ArcGIS by taking the centroid of the minimum bounding convex hull polygon representing the relevant points. DDIPage 8 U MAY 1 5 2019 Southold Town Transect lines and absence and presence line segments were later created from these points and added as two separate GIS layers.All the layers were then projected over the 2017 eelgrass extent from the USFWS survey. Water depths were adjusted for tide stage to the Mean Low Water(MLW)vertical datum using NOAA tide predictions for Silver Eel Pond,NY(station ID:8510719)(NOAA, 2018). MLW tide predictions were obtained in minute intervals,and because all the relevant predictions were zero or above,they were subtracted from the corresponding survey depth measurements to yield depths adjusted to the MLW datum. Aerial Vessel Survey Flight and Image Acquisition Fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft have successfully been employed in previous studies to gauge the impact of vessels on coral reefs and seagrass meadows(Behringer&Swett,2010; Sargent, Leary,Crewz,&Kruer, 1995). This survey used fixed-wing aircraft to assess the composition and location of vessels and their status(anchored, moored, underway,etc.)relative to eelgrass extent around Fishers Island.A total of seven survey flights were conducted in 2017 during four weekend and three weekday dates,as follows: • Saturday, May 27 • Saturday,June 10 • Monday,July 17 • Sunday,July 30 • Thursday,August 3 • Sunday,August 27 • Friday,September 29 Survey flights began at Race Point,the southwest point of Fishers Island,and progressed clockwise to capture vessel patterns around the island and adjacent islets, including Flat Hammock, North Dumpling and South Dumpling.Towards the end of each survey,a cross-island loop was flown to capture the inner reaches of West Harbor. Excluding transit flight time to and from the island, each flight took,on average,27 minutes to complete and was flown at an altitude of about 400-600 m.To ensure photo quality,some flights included additional passes around the island, but no additional loops were made inside West Harbor.Aerial imagery was taken continuously, with overlapping frames, using a Ricoh G800SE digital camera with integrated GPS, pre-programmed to geotag each photo with the position and altitude it was taken from(Smith,2017). Area of Interest Prior to digitizing vessels from the aerial surveys,we defined an 'area of interest'spatial layer to help determine which boats from the aerial survey images to include in the digitization process.This was largely because many of the aerial photographs included boat locations that were well beyond a reasonable distance from Fishers Island to likely have an impact to eelgrass. Being far from the coast also made the location of these boats more difficult to determine as there were fewer points of reference.Therefore,we only considered offshore areas up to 40 feet in depth and within 1 mile of Fishers island.While seagrass has not been documented deeper than 24 feet in the area,the generous 40 feet threshold was intended to account for some error that would be involved in geolocating boats, particularly in areas where the depth drops over short distances. In addition,this allowed for a single depth contour area that would also include North Dumpling Island when defining the area of interest.The area of interest layer was created in ArcMap by intersecting areas less than 40 feet in depth and 1 mile in distance away from Fishers Island.The resulting layer included adjacent islets and,for simplification purposes, a few deeper areas inside the resulting polygon layer.This layer was imported into Google Earth as a reference layer. ECEIVE Page 19 MAY 1 5 2019 Solithoid Tarin Board of Tfustees Digitization Using aerial photos to geolocate vessels in Google Earth The geotagged photos from the survey flights were converted to points inside ArcMap and then exported as a KMZ file for viewing in Google Earth. Using the position and altitude the photos were taken from and features of the coastline,the view in Google Earth was oriented to align with each aerial photo.Then, in Google Earth,vessel positions were manually located as points and added to a new point layer(Figure 4).Only boats in physical contact with seawater and within the area of interest were located and kept in the point layer.This methodology was selected as a reasonably accurate and reliable approach based on the findings in Smith(2017),which compared different methods of geolocating boats around Fishers Island aboard fixed-wing aircraft. a, Figure 4:Method of geolocating boats from aerial photos in Google Earth. Recording and identifying vessels Each geolocated point corresponded to a record in the survey table,with each boat categorized by vessel class, type,and status(Table 1). Vessel Category Definition Options Commercial Class What is the vessel's purpose? Recreational Unknown a, Power boat " Type How is the vessel operated? Sailboat L .o Paddle craft — Unknown Q C11) Anchored I� Docked Status How is the vessel secured? Moored L`---� Stationary Underway Table 1:Categories used to characterize vessels. Pagel 10 Boats were categorized as"unknown"for vessel class and type if they were too distant to identify and were absent of tell-tale features,such as boat wakes or sails. For vessel status, boats were determined to be "anchored" if they had a visible anchor line or in some cases, if their positions relative the shoreline or other boats necessitated it being so. Boats lacking a visible wake were classified as"stationary"for vessel status if they did not have an anchor line or adjacent mooring clearly visible.Thus, "stationary"vessels were boats that were adrift or possibly anchored or moored(likely, if near a mooring field)with the anchor line or mooring buoy not discernible from the aerial photos. During the survey,it was common to see smaller boats, such as rigid inflatable boats towed behind larger vessels like sailboats;these boats were still counted as separate boats but were not recorded as anchored even if the towing boat was anchored. In addition, boats rafted together were counted separately. Incorporating vessels from additional passes in survey flights For surveys with multiple passes,vessels from additional passes were only recorded if the boats were underway or not previously found in a location. In some cases,photos from additional passes were substituted for some areas in the first pass because of better image quality.While the number of new boats recorded in the additional passes did not make up a significant proportion of boats,they were excluded from the numerical portion of the analysis(i.e.vessel counts and other charts).They were however still included in the spatial analysis in the maps because their spatial extent provides useful information for natural resource management planning. Analysis The point layer for each survey was exported from Google Earth into ArcMap and then the layers were combined and joined to a table with the vessel information.This final layer was used for the spatial analysis. Charts were created using Microsoft Excel and R. In making charts and counting vessels,the number of distinct vessels was determined from the number of unique Boat IDs.As a result,the charts represent the actual number of vessels captured in our survey sample.The maps,on the other hand, emphasize the relative locations of these vessels because a vessel may have been recorded in more than one location in a survey(such as for boats underway or boats found in a different location in a later pass). RESULTS Benthic Eelgrass Survey Overview Along our dive transects,eelgrass was documented at depths of 0 to 17 ft below MLW with the offshore edge located at depths varying between 3 to 17 ft below MLW and the inshore edge,0 to 6 ft below MLW(Figure 5). Eelgrass grew to a maximum height of 150 cm which was recorded at 3 ft below MLW in Barleyfield Cove(Figure 3). Figure 6 shows the site by site variation in percent cover.All sites surveyed,except Clay Point and East Harbor, featured areas with 50%or greater percent cover at depths ranging from 1 to 12 ft below MLW. See Appendix A for additional charts related to variation in plant height and depth by dive site. D ECE � �! E LMAY 2019 Southold Town Page 1 11 B a Tr tee 16- 114- 12- 10- 2 6-14-12-10-2 V 8 i . n. 6- 4- 2- 0- Inshore -4-2- 0- Inshore Edge Offshore Edge Feature Figure 5:Depths of the inshore(n=20)and offshore(n=17)edges along dive transects at different sites. (Y)- { 75- i . • O • • i • U j V 50- d • L • • • • • Z5- • e W ro. � A O LM N C T V U U lLl LU W S �° m e S Z F IYl L w n �' m Z w W U Q7 `o m o S � y j D E C E I V Dive Site v Figure 6:Variation in percent cover by dive site. M AY 15 2019 Page 12 Soui o!d b w n Board 3f Trustee During the benthic surveys,divers observed eelgrass covered with extensive epiphytes throughout the cove off Dock Beach in West Harbor and some areas were completely overgrown.Eelgrass meadows at other sites like South Beach,Clay Point,and East Harbor were patchy in distribution. For sites checked by snorkel,eelgrass was observed interspersed with macroalgae growth in East Harbor on the west side and propeller scars were found by the docks on the east side of the harbor(Figure 7). Propeller scars were also observed along dive transects at Eighth Hole,at depths up to 7 ft below MIW. Mapping Eelgrass Condition and Extent The results of all the site checks can be seen in Figure 7. For the dive transects,detailed maps of each site showing transect and absence/presence lines, percent cover measurements,and bed features are displayed in the following figures and in Appendix B.Charts of plant height by depth for each transect and dive site are in Appendix C. At Flat Hammock, percent cover exceeded 60%in several areas and decreased to 5%or less at the offshore edge (Figure 8).At Hungry Point,there was a more gradual decrease in percent cover as the offshore edge was reached (Figure 9). Here,the measured inshore edge corresponded well with the edge mapped in the 2017 USFWS aerial eelgrass survey,while the measured offshore edge extended a distance farther than that mapped.At North Hill Beach,there was a more marked difference between the measured inshore edge and that mapped in the USFWS survey(Figure 10). Diver surveys also revealed an offshore edge at South Beach,which significantly exceeded the USFWS aerial survey mapped edge.Aside from these exceptions,dives sites generally had measured edges falling within or close to the 2017 USFWS mapped extent. N OW 441 pa ,� .+ 11 s a � � ;4 +�«• Snorkel Site Checks(8) *. ;� � _ Eelgrass Absent 4�, 4 - �, Eelgrass Present �� Eelpress Extent(201 ..• Figure 7:Sites checked for eelgrass by snorkel at the eastern end of Fishers Island. 1 0 Page 13 MAY 1 5 ?019 Southold Town Board of 1rustoes 0 200 400 FOW 1jjjjj[[jW.A'* 3 ft USFWS LIS Eelgrass Survey 2017tDale Sou,cesTNC Henthic Survey 2017 �. o In-bed —Absent Inshore Edge --Absent,rocks and boulders • Offshore Edge —Present ❑percent Covered • Other - Present but patchy Percent Not Covered Eelgrass Extent(2017) Figure 8:Flat Hammock 'Depth in feet below MLW Page 114 ECEV MAY 1 5 2019 Southold Town B ar o Trus s 0 G G _ G G UV O In-bed Absent * Inshore Edge --Absent.rocks and boulders • Offshore Edge —Present ❑Percent Covered • Other Present but patchy ■Percent Not Covered Eelgrass Extent(2017) Figure 9,Hungry Point `Depth in feet below MLW Page 15 I ECEI E MAY 1 5 2019 Southold Town Board f Trustees ti 0 200 4Feet 00 y, 9. 7 fl USF' Y 1 . ti s'+ O In-bed —Absent Inshore Edge •—Absent,rocks and boulders ♦ Ofthore Edge —Present Percent Covered • Other ^Present but patchy ■Percent Not Covered Eelgrass Extent(2017) Figure 10:North Hill Beach *Depth in feet below MLW Page 116 % � "T il" E ID M AY 1 5 2019 Southold Town Board f Trustees Aerial Vessel Survey Overview A total of 1432 boats were recorded from all seven surveys combined. Most of these boats were recreational powerboats(70.9%)followed by sailboats(16%),which suggests the prevalence of recreational activity around the island.Commercial powerboats made up 3.2%of all the boats surveyed(Figure 11)and included commercial fishing and aquaculture boats,ferries, law enforcement, and ambulatory vessels.Small business driven recreational boats,such as charter boats,were not distinguished from other recreational boats because they could not be easily identified from the aerial images. More than half of the boats were docked(51.1%)and a significant portion was moored(14.3%)(Figure 12).Combining the percentages of stationary(19.7%)and underway boats(10.1%)shows that almost a third of all the boats surveyed were likely in use. 80 1015 70 901 60 N 50 600 40 D z 30 m 300 228 20 94 10 48 17 _ 0 — 0 Paddle Powerboat Powerboat Powerboat Sailboat Unknown crafts (commercial)(recreational) (unknown) Vessel Type Figure 11:Total number of vessels by type. 731 50 600. j 40 a � 30 rn $ 400: z 282 20 - . _ _ __ ►�— 2001 205 _ 70 I -- FIN � MEIE w n 0 0 Anchored Docked Moored Stationary Underway O izVessel Status y o Figure 12:Total number of vessels by status. t is Page 17 Based on survey dates,the busiest boating days were July 30(27.2%)and August 27(24.7%),both Sundays(Figure 13).The fewest boats were recorded near the beginning and end of the boating season, May 27(7.3%),June 10 (7.2%), both Saturdays,and September 29(7.5%),a Friday. Weekday and weekend differences are shown in Figure 14.An accompanying map showing the locations of these vessels by survey date can be seen in Figure 15. 400 389 353 25 L 300 w 20 0 200 179 196 15 CO, ■ weekday c ■ weekend z' 10 105 103 107 100 5 0 0 27-May 10-Jun 17-Jul 30-Jul 3-Aug 27-Aug 29-Sep Sat Sat Mon Sun Thurs Sun Fri Survey Dates Figure 13:Number of vessels by survey dates and use level. 300 d i= y N CL 200 ■ Weekday ■ Weekend Cr) Ea o z' 100 0 N Ln :2 t am L 0 Weekday Weekend Survey Use Level Figure 14:Average number of vessels per survey for each use level. Error bars indicate standard error. Page 18 Weekend Weekday May27(Saturday) July 17(Monday) JUne10(Saturday) August 3(Thursday) July 30(Sunday) September 29(Friday) 4V August 27(Sunday) K, r' `' All Dates Combined 0 4 &Miles Seagrass Beds(2017) Past Seagrass Distribution(2002-2012) Data Sources Survey Extent(<40 ft in depth, 1 mile from Fl) TNC Aenai Vessel Survey 2017 14 USFWS LIS Ee:grass Surveys 2002.2017 EC E I V E Figure 15:Vessel locations by survey date and use level D Page 1 19 M AY 1 5 2019 Southold bwn Vessel Locations by Type The busiest survey dates(July 30 and August 27) recorded a two to threefold increase in the number of recreational powerboats and an increase in the number of sailboats within the study area of interest(Figure 16). There were some weekend and weekday differences,most notably in the average number of powerboats per survey use level(Figure 17).The map in Figure 18 shows the locations of vessels from all the surveys combined, sorted by type.Sailboat activity was concentrated on the north side of Fishers Island with only one sailboat recorded on the south side.Clusters of mostly powerboats but also sailboats were found in and around eelgrass habitat in sheltered bays and coves on the north side of the island. 400 3 300 m w m > ® SaiboW 0 200 Powerboat Paddlecraft q) E Unknown z 100 ` 0 27-May 10-Jun 17-Jul 30-Jul 3-Aug 27-Aug 29-Sep Sat Sat Mon Sun Thurs Sun Fri Survey Dates(2017) Figure 16:Number of vessels by survey date and boat type ✓'� FSt �€p fir' .}y. Z 200 Ci CL 150 9 � a N l t rf�a9 iu�ay�JICS�I[i t�tl'P�'«aic �` N .. Sailboat Powerboat o Paddlecraft n 100 ® Unknown E 10 50 `w M a s 0 C b 0 p u p Weekday Weekend o n Survey Use Level r.� N o Figure 17:Average number of vessels by use level and boat type i� Page 20 A ► 040 • • • 440• ;: •.�, •• ' Paddlecraft , +may.. y, •� • Powerboat ,`_�"��r • sailboat Unknown %t% , ,• • • . . .. OW Eelgrass Extent(2017) • -Past Eelgrass Extent(20024012) Area of Interest(<40 R in depth.1 mile from FI) Dom.S- 0 0 5 1 2 Miles UsFws u$E Wii—su 7007.1017 I 1 I TNC Aft V• S—"7017 Figure 18:Vessel locations sorted by boat type Page 21 � ECEBIfE MAY 1 5 2019 10 Southold Town Board Trustees Vessel Locations by Status The busiest survey dates also presented a substantial increase in the proportion of boats that were anchored and stationary.At the peak of the boating season,the number of docked boats nearly doubled,and the number of moored boats also increased (Figure 19).Weekday and weekend differences can be seen in Figure 20.The highest number of anchored and stationary boats were observed during the July 30 and August 27 surveys and mainly found in East Harbor,Eighth Hole, and Flat Hammock. Figure 21 shows a map of vessel locations sorted by status. Some boats were found in the vicinity of eelgrass and areas of high dock use can also be seen as well.Figure 22 shows the locations of these vessels relative to the known eelgrass extent from 2002-2017. 400 300 Anchored 200 Moored o Vie, Stationary Docked E Underway z 100 0 27-May 10-Jun 17-Jul 30-Jul 3-Aug 27-Aug 29-Sep Sat Sat Mon Sun Thurs Sun Fn Surrey Dates(2017) Figure 19: Number of vessels by survey dates and boat status. 200 �� Q d 1501 ■Anchored ■Moored Stationary 100 Docked E Underway 3 z d 50 �C a' M 0 w D Weekday Weekend m a � c Survey Use Level � T � U Figure 20:Average number of vessels by use level and boat status. o c Page ( 22 co j4" • • • • • •••k .. � . • • ''', +a X x x . . "%x x f • Xxr x ,fr x Anchored x Docked x Moored ,_ • Stationary ' a Underway ' • ' aM Eelgrass Extent(2017) • I�Past Eelgrass Exent(2002-2012) Area of Interest(<40 ft in depth,1 mile Com Fry 0 2 Miles "'•s°°"'� JSIWS LIS Eelgmss Surveys 2002-2017 1 Ir 1 I i 1 I 7NC Aenel'.ne Survey 2017 Figure 21:Vessel locations sorted by status Page 1 23 D VE MAY 1 5 2019 Southold Town B a t Ir N • '°r• °1 Vessels within Seagrass Extent ' Vessels wdhm Potential Seagrass Extent(Onty In Past Dstributlon) x • � Other Vessels • Seagrass Extent j2017) • .° ° Past Seagrass Extent(2002-2012) Area of Interest(<40 ft in dept.,1 mile from Fry 0 05 1 2 Miles oaeso..— UNCASLIS-15 —or-,ZC:OC2 Se�T I 1 I I I TN�=PeI•.ei VC5sel S�mq K:) Figure 22:Vessel locations relative to seagrass extent Page 24 M AY1 5 2019 Southold sown B ar o11� . e Hotspots of Vessel Activity in the Vicinity of Eelgrass Figure 23 outlines five hotspots of vessel activity in or around eelgrass habitat,which are shown in greater detail in subsequent figures.Inferring from the maps presented earlier in this report,these sites contain areas of eelgrass where our survey revealed greater propeller scarring,mooring,and anchoring pressures. It includes parts of East Harbor, Eighth Hole, Flat Hammock,West Harbor,and Hay Harbor. Most of these are sheltered bays or coves with calmer waters and access to the beach. At East Harbor(Figure 24),many boats were stationary or anchored in the harbor on high use survey dates with some boats venturing away from congested parts of the harbor, into shallow adjacent areas where more eelgrass is found. At Eighth Hole(Figure 25), most boats were shore anchored with two anchors,one extending onto the beach from the stern and the other into the water from the bow. Most of these boats weren't located directly over eelgrass, however,their bow anchors had impacts on the adjacent eelgrass beds. In addition,these powerboats had to move through shallow water over eelgrass to access the shore. Propeller scars were observed in eelgrass during the benthic survey at this site.At Flat Hammock(Figure 26), powerboats and sailboats were anchored close to shore,with some anchoring directly over eelgrass.At West Harbor(Figure 27),the majority of moored and docked boats were not located over eelgrass habitat. However, eelgrass habitat in the harbor is at risk of higher stress from frequent boat traffic and associated impacts such as anchoring,propeller scarring and boat wakes,which suspend sediments and reduce water clarity. Moreover,the benthic survey documented the extensive eelgrass beds north of the Dock Beach were covered with macroalgae,which may be indicative of an environment with greater disturbances. Hay Harbor(Figure 28),is a good example of an area where boats were not sighted in eelgrass habitat in the survey,but because of the location of eelgrass inside the shallow entrance channel to the harbor,the eelgrass is more vulnerable to boater impacts like propeller scarring. N •f All r p { " �" 1 " . • Vessels-thtn Seagra Extent Vessels whin Potential Seapress Exten!(Onty in Pest D15!nEu4Cn) I Other Vessels mf I Seayrass Exten!(2017) I + -Past seapresa Extent(2002-20121 Asea of,ntemat(140 n in depth,t mile from Flj USE.larau 2002-10t1 INCAialMa I mIC AwWl Burv"202011 Figure 23:Hotspots of vessel activity and eelgrass habitat at greater risk DEC', E ED] Page 125 M AY 1 5 2019 Southold Town Board -r Vessel Status VesselType e P o / . . lt, Sf e9 ° Aka- 71u'. + wry' • .. fit" �,o, �*r� • Anchored x Docked a Paddlecraft x Moored • Powerboat Stabonary Sailboat a 0 Underway • Unknown Eelgrass Extent(2017) 0 Past Eelgraan 0.25 9 Extent(2002.2012) I '5 Mllas Area of Interest(<40 If in depth,t mile from FI) N 11 me s« .. mc w wn.«sww z9+r �5rw5 U9 EMgrxw Swvrr T9022011 Figure 24:East Harbor Area Vessel Status Vessel TVpe x es9 r XXX {��e'•++f •• X, Anchored x Docked • Paddlecrall x Moored • Powerboat Stationary Sailboat O Underway s Unknown ,. Eelgrass Extent 12017) 3 -Past Eelgrasa Extent(2002.2072) Area of Interest(<40 It In depth,t mile from FO TIC 4'I...S—,1011 UW wS U4 E.1—Sw 290&2011 f� V E Figure 25:Eighth Hole ID Page 126 MAY 1 5 2019 Southold Town boar'of lruste Vessel Status Vessel TyGe r' o • r I - i X � ��s` • { ry • X X r? y X Anchored X Docked • Paddkxraft X Moored • Powerboat o p Stationary r SaJboat 0 Underway, • • Unknown E•Igrass Extent(2017) Past Eeiprass Extent)20022012) o o.1 e t Maes Area at Interest 1e40 ft in depth.7 mile from fp N ATWM . Try'NrLIS EoVS S 7,T USFAS LIS EPpr.a 3:xt•Y Yx#-?Ctl Figure 26:flat Hammock Vessel Status Vessel Tvos 0 0 ° 0 y +► 0 o a' 0 0 0 LX S y • • • 0 ° 0 • • • o ° 00 x • ' O 0 0 • • i If 0 X x x o 0 ,. i. y• • ,.. 6 ° x r:,•a ' r vi % 00 ) ,• + + 0°0 � • x X x Anda xed t • t X • • X 'X xx X Docked = •v 0• • Padd4ecraft x X Moored d Powerboat Stationary Sailboat 0 Underway 4 + Unknown Eelgrass Extent 12017) M Past Eeigrass Extent(2002-20121 e o a ,Naw Area of Interest(<40 It in depth,l mea Porn FI) N A °NC�" TNF�«,Y 5.W 11 " UefNB US 6.k1rM.8uMy X02 2017 ��, [..� figure 27:West Harbor , E � V 0 r i--- Page 1 27 �j M AY 1 5 2019 I Southold Town Board of Trustee Vessel Status Vessel Type M x Anchored •`• • X X • r x Docked • • r Paod'ecraft x Moored r . Powerboat X5 Stationary • Sa;lboat o Underway -Eelgraes Extent(2017) Past Eelgrass Extent(2002-2012) ❑ L 12B _ o s raiw:m Area of Interest(40 fl in depth,t mite from FI) N A ic— Vo w s .M17oUSMSJS Ereu S,ry2 M9+7 Figure 28:Hay Harbor DISCUSSION Groundtruthing Eelgrass Extent One of the main goals of the underwater benthic survey was to use in situ transect data to verify the eelgrass extent around Fishers Island,delineated in the 2017 USFWS survey.A secondary goal was to validate the presence or absence of eelgrass at historic sites identified by the island community, but undocumented in the previous USFWS survey(2012). Before making a comparison,however, it is important to consider differences in the projects' methodologies. For example,the USFWS survey(2017) used aerial images to delineate eelgrass beds on a large scale(1:1500).These images were taken in June, showing an eelgrass extent earlier in the perennial growth cycle than that captured in our benthic survey,during September and October. For some areas,the USFWS survey(2017)did use field verification,completed around the same time as this survey,to adjust eelgrass extent.Additionally,edges in the USFWS survey(2017)were defined as when eelgrass cover dropped to 5%, whereas our definition was when eelgrass was absent(M. Bradley, personal communication). Despite these differences,the offshore and inshore edges recorded in our benthic survey generally corresponded well with the edges mapped by the 2017 USFWS survey.At most of our dive sites,the measured edges were close to the edges mapped by USFWS and differences were generally within the margin of error. In a few cases,our measured offshore edge was closer to shore than that which they mapped.At two of these sites,West Harbor and Barleyfield Cove,proximity of the offshore edge to an active vessel channel and a breakwater, respectively, and safety protocols prevented the dive team from reaching the offshore edge. At Eighth Hole,we suspect the actual outer edge was not reached even though the divers traveled a reasonable distance beyond the measured edge to verify eelgrass absence beyond that point.At three sites,our measured inshore or offshore edge extended significantly farther than the edges mapped by USFWS(a difference of about 35-75 ft for the offshore edges at Page 128 Di MAY 15 Southold Town Hungry Point, North Hill Beach and South Beach,and about 150 ft for the inshore edge at North Hill Beach).These results illustrate that some areas of deeper or shallower eelgrass were not fully captured in the USFWS survey, which could be due to a variety of reasons including factors affecting the aerial image quality for the particular date and location conditions like water clarity. Notably,these edge differences occurred in locations where field verifications were not performed as part of the USFWS survey. Despite a few limitations,our dives at selected sites demonstrate the reliability of the 2017 USFWS eelgrass extent around Fisher's Island. For local project planning and permitting purposes(e.g.siting moorings,docks, aquaculture and submerged infrastructure,such as communication cables),the USFWS eelgrass extent map is a good starting point, but for local management purposes, higher resolution information is needed.Small differences in the actual and mapped edges of eelgrass could have significant implications for conservation and management of the resource. Ideally multiple tiered studies including dive transects would resolve these differences and provide data at a finer resolution (Neckles, Kopp, Peterson,& Pooler, 2012).Given limitations in resources and funding, however,one management strategy for local project decision-making is to consider eelgrass extent in the context of potential eelgrass habitat.This could be done by including past eelgrass distribution as part of the project area or including a buffer around known eelgrass extent to avoid and minimize direct and indirect impacts to eelgrass associated with local projects. Variability in Eelgrass Beds As shown in the benthic survey,there can be considerable variation in eelgrass abundance and distribution even within an eelgrass meadow.This is because eelgrass growth is determined by a suite of environmental variables such as light availability which varies with depth and water clarity,temperature,type of substrate, nutrient concentrations(dissolved oxygen and carbon), presence of toxic sulphides and the degree of physical exposure from tides,waves and currents. Eelgrass distribution is also regulated by biotic factors such as competition, disease, herbivory(Greve& Binzer,2004), and their location relative to an eelgrass patch. As a result,eelgrass distribution and condition can vary greatly due to site-specific characteristics. For example, eelgrass was recorded as growing particularly tall in Barleyfield Cove which is much more sheltered from wave action and currents compared to other sites. Besides spatial variation,eelgrass biomass can fluctuate greatly temporally. In the temperate regions where it is found,eelgrass exhibits seasonal growth patterns that are strongly influenced by water temperature. In Long Island Sound,for instance,eelgrass growth peaks in September and experiences diebacks and senescence during the winter months. Eelgrass biomass also fluctuates interannually in response to climatic changes,such as storms or phenomenon such as EI Niho and La Nina,and coastal processes that gradually shape the coastline through erosion and deposition of sediment.So,when considering eelgrass extent, it is also important to consider intrinsic variability inside eelgrass beds and the dynamic nature of eelgrass growth and expansion. Aerial Survey Highlights and Implications The aerial survey revealed areas where boating activity was particularly concentrated and where the greatest potential impacts to eelgrass are likely to occur, mainly from recreational boat activity. Hotspots like parts of East Harbor, Flat Hammock,and Eighth Hole were popular recreational boating destinations,especially during days of peak use,with some boats seen anchored directly over eelgrass.Other places like West Harbor and Hay Harbor have channels with frequent boat traffic making eelgrass beds in the vicinity more vulnerable to impacts such as propeller scarring or increased turbidity related to wakes. Overall,our findings corroborated observations by local community members, underscoring the value of local knowledge in place-based resource conservation and management(Reid, Berkes,Wilbanks&Capistrano,2006; Mackinson&Nottestad, 1998) At the Eighth Hole, another concern our study revealed was boats that were seen anchored close to shore with their bow anchor lines extended offshore into the eelgrass(Figure 29).While these boats may not be directly over EC EIV E Page 129 MAY 1 5 X019 Southold Lown eelgrass, local reports and anecdotal evidence suggest that their anchors do fall in eelgrass beds because during retrieval, boaters have been observed removing entangled eelgrass from their anchors. Moreover, to reach the beach, these vessels had to transit shallow waters, which might be one cause of the propeller scarring observed there. .......... Figure 29:Eighth Hole,July 30(Photo:Chantal Collier) In addition,scarring observed by the docks during dives in East Harbor and docked boats found in or near eelgrass from the aerial survey suggest that there are dock related boating impacts as well.As boats travel to and from the docks,propeller scarring can occur,especially during low tide.Shading by docks and docked vessels are also important eelgrass management issues in these areas.The biggest potential impact noted in the survey is scarring from propellers and anchors as opposed to that from moorings because not many moored boats were sighted in or near eelgrass.The moored boats in the main mooring field in West Harbor,for example,were not sighted over known eelgrass extent.There are a few moorings in West Harbor and elsewhere along the north shore,however, that are in or near eelgrass so the impact from moorings cannot be ruled out. Our analysis represents a conservative estimate of vessel activity around Fishers Island in our survey area of interest.Although our survey included flights throughout the boating season,the level of boat activity is likely greater.There are likely locations with high levels of boating activity not fully captured in our survey and absolute numbers of boats are based on totals from the seven survey dates(each flight about half an hour in length). For example,due to constraints in scheduling and resources, it was not possible to conduct any survey flights on major holidays when there is potentially greater boat activity. Management Options To address boating impacts on seagrass habitat around Fishers Island,several management options are available. The options detailed here are education and outreach,designation of special management areas or zones,and alternatives to conventional moorings,such as conservation moorings. Based on our findings, management strategies at Fishers Island should prioritize reaching recreational boaters, including powerboat and sailboat users, during days of peak use to have greatest impact. For some issues like boats anchoring close to shore, boater outreach and education may be the most effective strategy,whereas for frequent boat anchoring, propeller scarring,and boat wakes in seagrass areas,a combination of different management options may be appropriate. EU07V � Page 130 MAY 1 5 2019 Southold Town Board of 1rustees Boater Education and Outreach Raising awareness and public support through boater education is essential to any long-term focused seagrass conservation and management plan.With proper knowledge and active boater involvement,scarring in seagrass is preventable.Simple steps like being mindful of seagrass extent,tide levels,and the depth of a boat's draft relative to water depth;and, knowing what to do if a boat enters a shallow seagrass area(lift,drift, pole,or troll) and when propeller scarring is occurring(when the propeller wash turns brown),can go a long way toward minimizing boat-related impacts on seagrass(Texas Parks and Wildlife,2006). Boater education can also encourage cooperation through boater to boater communication,which is an efficient and effective channel for spreading seagrass awareness and best practices for boating.Given the wide geographic origin of boaters who use waters around Fishers Island,the task of outreach is not without its challenges and may require collaboration across state boundaries. Education comes in many different forms including conducting boater surveys to understand public perceptions of seagrass and to identify gaps in knowledge, distributing boaters'guides with maps showing sensitive seagrass habitat locations and alternatives to transiting and anchoring in those areas,setting up educational signage in marinas, boat launches, and yacht clubs,and stickers with navigational aids and tips on avoiding anchoring and propeller scarring in seagrass. In general,Smith and Hellmund(1993) recommend educational strategies that: (1) make boaters aware of the link between detrimental boating behavior and scarring in seagrass habitat,(2) clearly demonstrate ways of boating responsibly,and(3)foster a sense of stewardship and connection to the health of the seagrass ecosystem. One innovative example of on-the-water boater education and outreach successfully employed in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve is Team OCEAN(Ocean Conservation Education Action Network). Part of the program involves assigning trained volunteers to sanctuary and reserve boats in heavily visited reef and seagrass sites,where they go from boat to boat acquainting visitors with general information about the sanctuary or reserve and its protective zones and provide tips on boating safely.Team OCEAN volunteers distribute informational packets containing boater charts,sanctuary information, and helpful navigation tips that enhance the visitor experience and promote responsible and safe boating.By being physically present at different sites,they help prevent boaters from potentially grounding in and damaging shallow reef and seagrass areas by signaling errant boaters to move away.(Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary,2015). Building a personal connection with boaters in this way and attaching a face to the message is a powerful means of motivating boaters to care about and protect sensitive seagrass habitat. Zoning and Special Management Areas Zoning and special management areas are another option available to protect seagrass habitat around Fishers Island.Zones can be created to restrict certain activities,such as no anchor,no motor, no wake,or restricted mooring zones.Others can be established to have a more cautionary role such as reminding boaters to proceed with care in areas with seagrass.These zones can be mandatory as part of local,state or federal regulations,with or without enforcement and penalties,or may be completely voluntary,with cooperation encouraged through boater education and community watch programs. For example, in Port Townsend,WA, along the busy downtown waterfront,voluntary no anchor zones,along with a heavy focus on education and outreach,was successful in reducing the number of boats anchoring inside seagrass.The number of boats seen inside seagrass dropped from a pre-project level of 20 percent in 2003 to less than 1 percent in subsequent years. Similar to some areas around Fishers Island, like East Harbor and Flat Hammock, boats in Port Townsend only needed to anchor a short distance further offshore to avoid seagrass areas(Pearson&D'Amore,2005;Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee, 2010). At Fort DeSoto Park in Pinellas County, FL,a coalition of government and citizen representatives,concerned with propeller scarring, helped create and adopt an ordinance that separated the management area into zones.These Page 131 M AY 1 5 2019 Southold Town Usaa of star included no motor exclusion zones,also called pole and troll zones that allowed boaters to use long poles or smaller trolling motors instead of conventional motors,and caution zones with penalties for seagrass damage.As a result of these management actions,the rate of propeller scarring was significantly reduced compared to areas with no protection(Stowers, Fehrmann,&Squires,2000). In another example, in the Redfish Bay State Scientific Area,TX,voluntary propeller-up zones were not effective in reducing propeller scarring during the five years they were implemented. Only after adopting and enforcing regulations that made it unlawful to uproot seagrass with submerged propellers and substantial boater outreach and education did propeller scarring decrease (Texas Parks &Wildlife, n.d.). For more information regarding these and other examples see Table 2. For Fishers Island,the possibility of protecting seagrass habitat by designating special management areas is afforded by the Seagrass Protection Act, passed in 2012 by the New York Legislature in response to recommendations by the Seagrass Task Force,established in 2006. More specifically,the law requires the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation(DEC)to protect existing seagrass habitat and regulate coastal and marine activities that threaten seagrass habitat or restoration efforts by: 1)designating seagrass management areas(SMA),2)developing and adopting a management plan for each SMA,and 3)consulting with local governments, recreational boaters, marine industries,fishermen,affected property owners and other stakeholders so as to effectively manage, protect and restore seagrass.The management plan adopted for each SMA helps guide the DEC in the development of any rules and regulations needed to protect seagrass habitat and at the same time, seeks to preserve traditional recreational activities,such as boating and marina operations,as well as shellfishing and finfishing(New York Legislature, 2012). Because of its extensive seagrass habitat and the proactive involvement of local community members, Fishers Island would be an ideal candidate for a SMA designation. Conservation Moorings Conservation or"seagrass friendly"moorings are another viable management option to:(1)create mooring fields with minimal impacts on seagrass, (2) replace conventional swing chain moorings and allow recovery of mooring scars,or(3)to relieve anchoring pressure on seagrass in high-use areas. One kind of conservation mooring has an elastic rod that minimizes contact with the seafloor and prevents scouring caused by heavy chains used in conventional moorings.This type of mooring also has a helical screw-in anchor with a smaller footprint than a conventional block or mushroom anchor. One consideration for setting up conservation moorings is the cost of purchasing, installing,and maintaining them. Funding from grants or partnerships or fees generated from boater use can help alleviate these costs. CONCLUSION A combination of different management options may be suitable for protecting the eelgrass ecosystem at Fishers Island from boating and other impacts.Our surveys establish baselines for eelgrass condition and extent and vessel use around the island, by which the success of different management strategies can be measured, and identify areas where management is needed most. Because of the variability inside eelgrass beds,the dynamic nature of eelgrass growth and expansion, and likely changes to boating patterns over time, management strategies need to be adaptive and managers will need to respond accordingly to new circumstances.Therefore, crucial to the development of a long-term management plan is the establishment of a monitoring program and active collaboration among local community,government and non-governmental partners;the aim is to track the location and types of marine and coastal activities occurring in and adjacent to seagrass meadows and to assess the health of the enduring seagrass ecosystem at Fishers Island,so that it can be protected for many generations to come. � C [ Page 32 M AY 1 5 2019 Southold Town uar' f;r� ee Table 2:Examples of Management Options DescriptionManagement Type of Impact Example An integral component of Team OCEAN(Ocean • On-the-water boater outreach and education Conservation Education Action Network)is on-the-water • Informational packets with boater charts,sanctuary boater outreach and education.In areas and on days of information,and navigation tips which enhance the high use,such as holidays,trained volunteers go boat to visitor experience and promote boater safety boat,talking to boaters and distributing informational • Outreach at events and festivals Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Vessel packets to encourage stewardship and responsible • Informational stickers showing what to do if a boat Groundings and ; boating.In the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, becomes grounded,distributed at marine boat rental and Rookery Bay i their presence direct) groundings y g facilities. National Estuarine Anchor Scars in P y prevents roundin s b making Seagrass and boaters wary of shallow reef and seagrass areas. Program • Connections with local businesses to help raise Research Reserve,FL Coral Reefs staff members also visit local businesses such as marinas awareness and adapt strategies in response to feedback and dive/snorkel shops to disseminate brochures and hear concerns from local business owners.The program has For more information: enjoyed great success and the model for on-the-water httosJ/floridakeys.noaa.gov/volunteer 0000rtunities/teamoc'. outreach and education has been replicated in other ean.html places like the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Reserve. In 2003,the initiative of creating voluntary no anchor • Community input and approval zones began with public scoping followed by a trial run • Seasonal marker buoys during a popular festival in the fall.Seasonal marker buoys • Brochures and outreach to popular boating and tourism j were deployed along a half mile stretch of the downtown publications and visitor guide waterfront to delineate the offshore edge of seagrass • Videos shown in educational venues,at a yacht club, beds.The buoys read"Anchor Out for Safety and For and in an environmental film festival Salmon,"emphasizing that boating outside of seagrass not • Information booths during festivals Anchor only protects vital salmon habitat but also protects . Seagrass protection pledges Port Townsend,WA Damage to boaters because anchors do not hold well in seagrass. • Monitoring of boater compliance Seagrass Additionally,there was also substantial boater outreach and education including signage placed in marinas.Before For more information: the project,around 20 percent of boats were inside htto://deots.washiniton.edu/uwconf/2005oseb/200513roceed seagrass extent.After installation of the buoys,monitoring Ines/pacers/89 PEARS.odf showing that the percentage dropped to 1.4 percent in http:/Iciteseemist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.17:i the 2004 boating season to less than one percent in 3.4721&rep=reo1&tvoe=odf subsequent years htto://www.nwstralts.org/media/2275/ief-2016 noanchorzone.odf Page 33 I � LFI � MAY 1 5 2019 Southold Town ar of lr e In 1990 in Pinellas County,meetings were held by a . Boat restriction/exclusion zones(no motor/poll or troll) coalition of government and citizen representatives, • Seagrass caution zones including those representing commercial and fishing • Slow/minimum wake zones interests,to agree on plans to protect seagrass.In 1992, i • Signs at boat ramps and marinas showing regulatory S because of their efforts,an ordinance was passed that areas. separated the management area into different zones. • Enforcement and monitoring Propeller Exclusion/restriction zones prohibited the use of internal • public information campaign P combustion engines and caution zones allowed motor use, Fort DeSoto Park/ ! Scarring in • Sign maintenance program but boaters incurred penalties for seagrass damage.Other • Monitoring Tampa Bay, Seagrass and g of boater compliance areas required boats to travel at slow speed or had no FL Manatee restrictions.Because of these management efforts, Strikes significant reductions in scarring were seen from aerial For more information: images in both exclusion and caution zones.Components https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225873454 Decad essential to the success include documenting the problem, at Changes in Seagrass Distribution and Abundance In Flo involving all users and addressing their concerns,avoiding rida Ba v(pp.58-66) assigning blame,providing feedback and adapting the https://www.tbet)tech-orgnBEP TECH PUBS/2018/2012- management program to new findings. 2017 TBEP PE FINAL.odf(pp.234-235) i In 2000,after research found extensive propeller scarring • Mandatory"no uprooting"zone in seagrass at Redfish Bay(RB),a premier fishing • Signs marking the boundary of the State Scientific Area destination,the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission and striped PVC posts to mark access lanes designated the bay as a State Scientific Area(SSA)for • Maps showing cut points that can be used to access the education,research and conservation purposes.Initially, area safely voluntary"propeller-up"zones,outlined with posts and • Boat ramp signs describing the regulatory area and rules signs,were created. However,during the five years they • Signs at marinas and boat launches showing techniques were implemented,the voluntary zones proved to minimize seagrass damage(lift,drift,poll,and troll) Propeller ineffective at reducing propeller scarring.As a result,in • Ads in Fishing Magazine and billboards,in donated ad Redfish Bay Scientific P 2006,mandatory"no uprooting"rules were brought into P s aces Study Area(RBSSA), Scarring in effect for the whole RBSSA,which meant the bay was still . Outreach events TX Seagrass accessible to boaters,but it became unlawful to uproot • Monitoring and enforcement and excavate seagrass with submerged propellers;rules were enforced,and offenders were subject to fines. For more information: Anchoring and transiting with troll motors in seagrass was https://ti)wd.texas.izov/publications/`pwdpubs/media/p allowed. After four years of enforcement and active wd br v3400 11O1.odf education and outreach,monitoring found significant https://tpwd.texasitov/landwater/water/habitats/seagr reductions in propeller scarring. ass/redfish-bay Page 134 E C �� VE M AY 1 5 2019 Southold Town Buard of Trustees E C E VE MAY 1 5 2019 REFERENCES S076rki 7"! Behringer,D.C.,&Swett,R.A.(2010).Determining vessel use patterns in the southeast Florida region.Miami Beach,FL.Pp 88. Retrieved September 10,2018,from https://floridadep.jzov/sites/default/files/FDOU 33A 0.pdf Bradley,M.,&Paton,S. (2018).Tier 12017 mapping of Zostera marina in Long Island Sound and change analysis. Hadley, MA:U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service.Retrieved September 10,2018,from http://Ionizislandsoundstudy.net/wp- content/uploads/2018/08/LIS 2017 report2 wAppendix REVISED-FINAL.pdf Collier,C.(2016).Comanagement of U.S.marine protected areas:current efforts and their potential implications for seagrass management at Fishers Island,New York(Master's project). Duke University.Retrieved September 10,2018,from http://hdl.handle.net/10161/`11884 Collins,K.1.,Suonpaa,A.M.,&Mallinson,J.J.(2010).The impacts of anchoring and mooring in seagrass,Studland Bay, Dorset, UK.Underwater Technology,29(3),117-123. Crawford, R.E.(2002).Secondary wake turbidity from small boat operation in a shallow sandy bay.Journal of Coastal Research,50-65. Cullen-Unsworth,L.C.,Nordlund,L. M.,Paddock,J.,Baker,S.,McKenzie,L.J.,&Unsworth, R.K.(2014).Seagrass meadows globally as a coupled social—ecological system: Implications for human wellbeing.Marine Pollution Bulletin,83(2), 387-397. Duarte,C.M.,Middelburg,J.J.,&Caraco,N.(2004). Major role of marine vegetation on the oceanic carbon cycle. Biogeosciences Discussions,1(1),659-679. Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.(2015).Team OCEAN.Retrieved January 1,2019,from https://floridakeys.noaa.eov/volunteer opportunities/teamocean.html Fonseca,M.S.,&Cahalan,J.A.(1992).A preliminary evaluation of wave attenuation by four species of seagrass. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science,35(6),565-576. Fonseca,M.S.,&Fisher,J.S.(1986).A comparison of canopy friction and sediment movement between four species of seagrass with reference to their ecology and restoration.Marine Ecology Progress Series,29(1). Greve,T. M.,&Binzer,T.(2004).Which factors regulate seagrass growth and distribution?(Chapter 4). European Seagrosses: An Introduction To Monitoring and Management, 19-23. Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee.(2010). Voluntary No Anchor Eelgrass Protection Zone(Progress Report). Retrieved January 2,2019,from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.173.4721&rep= reel&tvpe=pdf Lamb,J.B.,Van De Water,J.A.,Bourne,D.G.,Altier,C., Hein, M.Y., Fiorenza,E.A., ...Harvell,C.D.(2017).Seagrass ecosystems reduce exposure to bacterial pathogens of humans,fishes,and invertebrates.Science,355(6326),731- 733. Mackinson,S.,&Nottestad, L.(1998).Points of View:Combining Local and Scientific Knowledge.Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries,8(4),481-490. Retrieved January 20,2019,from https://doi.ora/10.1023/A:1008847106984 Mcleod,E.,Chmura,G.L.,Bouillon,S.,Salm,R.,Bj6rk,M.,Duarte,C.M.,...Silliman,B. R. (2011).A blueprint for blue carbon: toward an improved understanding of the role of vegetated coastal habitats in sequestering CO2.Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment,9(10),552-560. Neckles,H.A.,Kopp, B.S.,Peterson,B.J.,&Pooler,P.S.(2012).Integrating scales of seagrass monitoring to meet conservation needs.Estuaries and Coasts,35(1),23-46. New York Legislature.(2012).New York Seagrass Protection Act. NY ECL Article 13,§§ 13-0701—13-0705.Retrieved February 20,2019,from:http://nyw.law.streaver.net/ENV/html New York State Seagrass Task Force.(2009).Final report of the New York State Seagrass Task Force:recommendations to the New York State governor and legislature.State of New York. Retrieved September 10,2018,from https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/fish marine pdf/finalseagrassreport.pdf Page 135 NOAH.(2018).Tides and Currents.Retrieved January 10,2019,from https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.goy/tide predictions.html Pearson, P.,&D'Amore,J.(2005).Community Involvement in Eelgrass Protection,Port Townsend,Washington. In Proceedings of the 2005 Puget Sound Georgia Basin Research Conference. Retrieved January 10,2019,from http://depts.washington.edu/uwconf/2005psgb/2005proceedings/papers/B9 PEARS pdf Reid,W.V.,Berkes,F.,Wilbanks,T.J.,Capistrano,D.,&eds.(2006).Bridging scales and knowledge systems:concepts and applications in ecosystem assessment.Island Press,Washington,D.C.,USA.Retrieved January 10,2019 from https://www.cifor.org/library/2179/ Sargent,F.J.,Leary,T.J.,Crewz,D.W.,&Kruer,C. R.(1995).Scarring of Florida's seagrasses:assessment and management options. Short,F., McKenzie,L.1.,Coles,R.G.,Vidler,K.P.,&Gaeckle,J.L.(2006).SeagrassNet Manual for Scientific Monitoring of Seagrass Habitat Worldwide edition(University of New Hampshire Publication)(p.Pp 75). Smith,D.S.,&Hellmund,P.C.(1993). Ecology of greenways:design and function of linear conservation areas.University of Minnesota Press. Retrieved January 10,2019,from https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs other/rmrs 1993 cole d001.pdf Smith,K.(2017).Aerial survey of vessel activity in seagrass(Zostera marina)near Fishers Island,NY—data collection methods trial.Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. Stowers,J.F.,Fehrmann,E.,&Squires,A.(2000).Seagrass Scarring in Tampa Bay:Impact Analysis and Management Options (pp.47-54).Presented at the Seagrass Management:It's not Just Nutrients!,St.Petersburg,Florida.Retrieved January 10,2019,from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225873454 Decadal Changes in Seagrass Distribution and Abundance in Florida Bay Texas Parks&Wildlife Department.(2006).Redfish Bay State Scientific Area.Retrieved January 10,2019,from httPs://tpwd.texas.gov/publications/pwdpubs/media/owd br v3400 1101 pdf Texas Parks&Wildlife Department.(n.d.).Seagrass Protection.Retrieved January 28,2019,from https://tpwd.texa s.gov/1 a n dwate r/water/habitats/seagra ss/`redfish-bay U.S.Census Bureau.(2011).2010 demographic profile. Retrieved October 10,2018,from https://factfinder.census.izov/faces/nay/fsf/pages/community facts.xhtml?src=bkmk Walker,D.I.,Lukatelich,R.J.,Bastyan,G.,&McComb,A.J.(1989).Effect of boat moorings on seagrass beds near Perth, Western Australia.Aquatic Botany,36(1),69-77. Waycott,M.,Duarte,C. M.,Carruthers,T.J.,Orth,R.1., Dennison,W.C.,Olyarnik,S.,... Hughes,A. R.(2009).Accelerating loss of seagrasses across the globe threatens coastal ecosystems.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(30),12377-12381. ECS. E I V E MAY 1 5 2019 Southold Town Eloard of Trustees Page 136 Appendix A: Variation in Depth and Plant Height by Dive Site EOEIVE M AY 1 5 21019 Southold Town Board r Page 37 L Variation in Depths Where Eelgrass Was Observed and Measured I. I. 510-v 15- 10- V • • O 5- T T. 0- • U CLm tll N I w ® a m W o � O 3• p O ,]C m m = Z t . V U- a Z W lll CD o w o S (A � Dive Site Variation in Plant Height by Dive Site 120 . U • • i 110 40- • TO • 1 i . To. • � i (L 00'y c (1) S w 'o w ro tf o m W t S �. (Ew a t ro w W p E a O1 d. z V m r o LTJ m o S m F r o w � LL w Z '1 w m Dive Site Page 38 m �I Appendix B: Additional Dive Transect Survey Maps EC EIVE MAY Southold Town Board of Trustees Page 1 39 Hay Harbor 00 � t s. { p T o In-bed —Absent t Inshore Edge --Absent.rocks and boulders s Offshore Edge —Present Percent Covered • Other •••• Present but patchy ®Percent Not Covered Eelgrass Extent(2017) 'Depth in feet below MLW Pagel 40 E C fr.V MA' i Southold Town aro r West Harbor North of Dock Reach Data 0 200 400 Feet USFWS 201 OW XI r r f.� s, O In-bed —Absent Inshore Edge Absent,rocks and boulders Offshore Edge —Present Percent Covered • Other .... Present but patchy Percent Not Covered Eelgrass Extent(2017) 'Depth in feet below MLW Pagel 41 Lam.. O N V E MAY 1 5 2019 Southold Town Board of Trustees Clay Point 0 200 400 �14 It c 6 .✓r O In-bed —Absent 6' - Inshore Edge ^^.Absent.rocks and boulders ♦ Offshore Edge —Present ❑Percent Covered • Other ..•^Present but patchy ■Percent Not Covered Eelgrass Extent(2017) 'Depth in feet below MLW Page 42 InD E C E � V, EF" M AY 1 5 2019 Southold Town Doard of Trustees Chocomount • •• ••• Feet ff 9 it 11 J 4 O In-bed —Absent C � Inshore Edge ••••.Absent,rocks and boulders 4 Offshore Edge —Present Percent Covered • Other Present but patchy ■Percent Not Covered Eelgrass Extent(2017) 'Depth in feet below MLW Page 143 fjD ECG = VE M AY 1 5 2019 FD Southold Town Board of Trustees East Harbor South Side MS -r ,��art •� o In-bed —Absent G Inshore Edge ^^Absent,rocks and boulders -` Offshore Edge Present Percent Covered • Other •••• Present but patchy ■Percent Not Covered Eelgrass Extent(2017) *Depth in feet below MLW Page 144 Q L 6� M AY 1 5 2019 Southold Town ar r Eighth Hole Data Sources 1 200 400San FeetTNC Benthic Survey 2017 SFWS LIS Eelgrass Survey 2017 �� 17 12 It 7 It7 It - r� Ilk l o In-bed —Absent Inshore Edge --,Absent,rocks and boulders Offshore Edge —Present Percent Covered • Other •••• Present but patchy Percent Not Covered Eelgrass Extent 12017) `Depth in feet below MLW Page 45 rECM rE V ED 1 5 2019Ln Southold Town a free East Beach A 200, 400 Feet 16" ft I'd tt Itu - my; C O In-bed "'"Absent Inshore Edge ^"Absent,rocks and boulders Offshore Edge --Present Percent Covered • Other Present but patchy Percent Not Covered Eeigras Extent(2017) 'Depth in feet below MSW Page 46 M AY 1 5 2019 Southold Town Board of lrustns Barleyfield Cove o Oft 4 ft 4) 6 \3 ft Data Sou,ces .0 400 Feet TNC Banthc Survey 2017 2017 NYSDOP High Resolutm Imagery 2016 O In-bed —Absent S 0 Inshore Edge Absent,rocks and boulders Offshore Edge Present Percent Covered • Other Present but patchy Percent Not Covered Eelgrass Extent(2077) `Depth in feet below MLW Page 147 E0E. VE M AY 1 5 2019 Solfthold Town Board of 1rustees South Beach Town Road East Ar Pr i 8 ft a It 12 111 Data Sources TNC Benthic,Survey 2017 �� Feet USFWS LIS Eelgrass Survey 2017 DO•High Resolution Imagery 2016 O In-bed —Absent Inshore Edge ^^Absent,rocks and boulders ♦ Offshore Edge Present Percent Covered • Other ....�Present but patchy Percent Not Covered Eelgrass Extent(2017) -Depth in feet below MLW Page 48 D E -' LE Ili V M AY 1 5 2019 (� Southold Lown Board of Trustees Appendix C: Changes in Plant Height with Depth by Transect Barleyfield Cove Transect I Plant Height Barleyfield Cove Transect 2 Plant Height 150 150 100 90 t 80 80 = 70 65 C 50 50 35 40 50 0 0 2a 2b 3 2 5a 4 5b 6 7 Depth(feet below MLW) Depth(feet below MLW) Chocomount Transect 1 Plant Height 150 '9100 86 r 80 a x 50 30 0 14 11 Depth(feet below MLW) Clay Point Transect 1 Plant Height 150 ECE � VE 85 ?100 95 r 80 65 M AY 1 5 2019 55 50 30 milli, Southold Town 0 ar of r� 1e 1 4 8 138 13b 14 Depth(fleet below MLW) Page 149 East Beach Transect 1 Plant Height East Beach Transect 2 Plant Height 150 100 100 v rn 80 80 80 "m 50 2 50 30 0 2 10 16 1 9 17 Depth(feet below MLW) Depth(feet below MLW) East Beach East End Transect 1 Plant Height East Beach East End Transect 2 Plant Height r 105 110 �100 100 100 75 x c jE E0 35 0 2 Depth(feet below MLW) 15 2 13 Depth(feet below MLW) East Harbor South Transect 1 Plant Height 150 '9100 /J(J Y/ LE x 50 35 50MAY 1 5 2019 o Southold Town 3 9 aar 0 rSe Depth(feet below MLW) Page 150 Eighth Hole Transect 1 Plant Height 150 110 '9100 100 100 90 75 x C 50 0 11111 Depth(feet below MLW) Fiat Hammack Transect I Plant Height Flat Hammock Transect 2 Plant Height 150 119 106 '9100 96 v 80 76 73 _ 65 61 1c 55 50 43 28 MMINE I I 0 3a 3b 3c 7 9 2 5a 5b 5c 7 8 Depth(feat below MLW) Depth(legit below MLW) Hay Harbor Transect I Plant Height Hay Harbor Transect 2 Platt Height 150 '9100 90 t $° 70 70 70 x if 50 45 50 25 0 MEN = MEN 36 10 1 4 6 8 Depth(feet below MLW) Depth(feet below MLW) D ECEHE Page 151 M AY 1 5 2019 Southold Town Board of 1rustees Hungry Point Transect 1 Plant Height 150 110 110 100 90 90 rn 75 = 65 c i£ 50 25 0 ■ 111111 2 4 6 7 9 14 17 Depth(feet below MLW) North HiR Transect I Plant Height North Hill Transect 2 Plant Height 150 100 90 75 80 80 � 70 55 50 50 0 3 7 10 NINE Depth(feet below MLW) Depth(feet below MLW) South Beach Transect 1 Plant Height South Beach Transect 2 Plant Height 150 100 90 75 75 = 60 S50 50 on 20 0 6 88 8b 3 6 8 12 Depth(feet below MLW) Depth(feet below MLW) � 1EQVE � Page 52 MAY 1 5 2019 Southold Town Board of 1rustees West Harbor Transect 1 Plant Height 150 6 100 V L m C FL 50 40 35 om � 0 2 Depth(feet below MLW) EC EE VE M AY 1 5 2019 Southold Town Board of Trust e Page ( 53 STATE OF NEW Y(.+ DEPARTMENT OF,STATE ONE COMMERCE PLAZA ANDREW M.CUOMO 99 WASHINGTON AVENUE GOVERNOR ALBANY,NY 12231-0001 ROSSANA ROSADO WWW.DOS.NY.GOV SECRETARY OF STATE February 21,2018 Mr. Keith Neilson Docko, Inc. PO Box 421 Mystic, CT 06355 Re: F-2017-0781 D E C, E 0 VE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/New York District Permit Application—Young Property Dock Build timber pier, ramp,float,and tie-off piles MAY 1 5 2019 Off East End Road Fishers Island,Town of Southold, Suffolk County Conditional Concurrence with Consistency Southold Town Certification oar of Trustees Dear Mr.Neilson: The Department of State(DOS)has completed its review of the consistency certification and data and information for the above referenced proceeding in accordance with the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). Pursuant to 15 CFR §§ 930.4 and 930.62, DOS conditionally concurs with the consistency certification for the project under the applicable policies of the New York State Coastal Management Program (CMP). The siting of such projects within the New York State Coastal area requires due consideration be given to applicable New York State Coastal Policies. The avoidance and minimization measures proposed by the applicant and the conditions enumerated herein will ensure that the project can proceed in a manner that is fully consistent with the enforceable policies of the CMP. I. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK FOR CONSISTENCY REVIEW The Coastal Zone Management Act(CZMA) authorizes a coastal state to review federal agency activities in or outside of the coastal zone affecting any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone for their consistency with the enforceable policies of the state's approved Coastal Management Program(CMP). Under this regulatory framework, for federal authoritative actions,the state coastal agency can concur with, conditionally concur with, or object an applicant's consistency certification for a project. In this matter,DOS has conditionally concurred with the certification. This project is located within the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program(LWRP)boundary so the federal consistency review will be completed using the coastal policies of this local program. Within 30 days of receipt of the conditional concurrence pursuant to 15 CFR§§ 930.4 and 930.62, the applicant must amend its federal application(s)to include the State's conditions. The Federal agency or the applicant shall immediately notify the DOS if the conditions are not acceptable. If the condition set forth in Section V is met,the federal agencies can proceed to make decisions on amended applications that incorporate the condition. If the application is not amended or either the Federal agency or the applicant notifies DOS that the conditions are not accepted,the conditional concurrence will be considered an objection. NEW YORK Department STATE OF OPPORTUNITY. of State . If the conditional concurrence is considered to be an obj�%.;«on,then pursuant to 15 CFR§ 930.63(e), the applicant has the opportunity to appeal the objection to the US Secretary of Commerce within 30 days after receipt of the conditional concurrence. In order to grant an override request,the Secretary must find that the activity is consistent with the objectives or purposes of the Coastal Zone Management Act, or is necessary in the interest of national security. A copy of the request and supporting information must be sent to the New York State Coastal Management Program and the federal permitting or licensing agency. The Secretary may collect fees from you for administering and processing your request. II. SUBJECT OF THE REVIEW Donald Young is proposing to construct a 150 foot by 4 foot wide fixed wood pile and timber pier including rails and water/electric utilities at his property on East End Road (Tax Map ID 1000-3.-2-2) on Fishers Island, in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County. In addition,Mr. Young proposes to install an 8 foot by 20-foot float with access ramp and three tie-off piles at the waterward end of the proposed pier. The stated purpose of the proposed structure is to provide for recreational boating. The project would occur within the boundary of the Fishers Island Beaches, Pine Islands and Shallows Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat(SCFWH). III. APPLICATIONS FOR REGULATORY APPROVALS On August 21,2017, the Department of State received Mr. Young's Federal Consistency Assessment Form(FCAF), consistency certification and certain supporting information regarding the Project, a copy of which was filed concurrently with their Joint Application to both the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation(DEC)and the United States Army Corps of Engineers(ACOE). On September 18,2017,DOS was provided with a completed Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Worksheet, as required by ACOE, as well as modified site plans making minor changing to the length and height of the proposed pile supported pier to minimize impact to eel grass beds in the vicinity of the proposed structure. IV. COASTAL POLICY ANALYSIS Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Policy 6.2-Protect and restore Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats. The project would occur within the Fishers Island Beaches,Pine Islands and Shallows SCFWH. The location and design of the proposed structure and the modifications to the initials plans reduced some of the potential impacts to known eel grass beds. However there still remains potential for the SCFWH to be impacted during the construction of the structure. In particular, eelgrass beds play an important ecological role in the habitat as documented in the habitat narrative: The 2002 U.S. Fish& Wildlife Service eelgrass (Zostera marina)survey for Eastern Long Island Sound, Connecticut, and New York has documented moderate to heavy densities of this submerged aquatic species within much of the marine shallows areas along the north shore of Fishers Island. Eelgrass beds range at depths from 4.5 to 14 feet at mean low water; about 194 acres of beds have been documented and mapped. Eelgrass meadows provide critical habitat for a great diversity of aquatic species, including numerous finfish, shellfish, and crustacean species. These eelgrass meadows represent the only substantive populations of this species along the New York State shoreline portion of Long Island Sound. Historically, eelgrass beds were documented along the south shore of Fishers Island as well as within some of island's coves and harbors. According to the survey results, these sites no longer support eelgrass beds.I D EC� E� VE See Fishers Island Beaches, Pine Islands and Shallows SCFWH narrative at p.3. 1 � D http://www.dos.ny.gov/opd/programs/consistency/Habitats/Longlsland/Fishers_lsland_ c Is_Pire filadVhry Ivs.p CUUII�� SOL41101d iomm Further,the I yrs Island Beaches, Pine Islands and SI•',_ %ws SCFWH narrative states"Docks may be detrimental to eelgrass beds because of shading, and review of any proposed new docks in this habitat area should be conducted with potential impacts to eelgrass beds fully considered."' In applying the required habitat impairment test, a determination of consistency with this policy shall be that the proposed project shall not be undertaken if such action would destroy the habitat or significantly impair the viability of a habitat.3 V. CONDITONS As described in the applicant's ACOE application for CWA § 404/Rivers and Harbors § 10 permits,the project with the proposed modification set forth in the September 18, 2017 correspondence would not be consistent enforceable coastal policy 6.2 in the Town of Southold LWRP. DOS has developed a condition that, if adopted by the applicant,pursuant to 15 CFR §930.4, would allow the project to be found consistent. This condition is that: • All in-water work related to the construction of the proposed structural will take place outside of the eel grass growing season from April 15 to October 31 in any given year. This condition is necessary to avoid impacts to eel grass located in the Fishers Island Beaches, Pine Islands and Shallows SCFWH and to avoid a finding of inconsistency with coastal policy 6.2 As proposed, the structure for the Young's property is likely to have adverse effects on Coastal Policy 6.2 of the Town of Southold LWRP. The SCFWH requirements,when combined with the condition set forth above as applied specifically to this proposed project, are necessary for a finding of consistency with coastal policy 6.2. The applicant's acceptance of the above condition, and modification of the ACOE application to include this condition,will further minimize any potential impacts to eel grass beds in vicinity of the proposed project. VI. CONCLUSION The project is found consistent with the enforceable policies contained within the New York State Coastal Management Plan subject to the condition identified in this document. Should the presented condition not be acceptable,this:conditional concurrence shall be treated as an objection as the proposed activity would not be consistent with the Town of Southold Location Waterfront Revitalization Program Policy 6.2. Since'rel , egory L. Capobianco Office of Planning, Development and Community Infrastructure GLC/dn ecc: COE/New York District, Lisa Grudzinski (NAN-2017-01078-EME) - NYSDEC/Region- 1 Rodger Evans(1-4738-04558) Town of Southold LWRP-Mark Terry D E E n V E M AY 1 5 2019 Z Id. at 4. 3 Id.at 5. Southold Town Board of Trustees DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S.ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,NEW YORK DISTRICT r JACOB K.JAVITS FEDERAL BUILDING 26 FEDERAL PLAZA NEW YORK NEW YORK 10278-0080 SEP 0 7 2018 Regulatory Branch SUBJECT: Permit Number NAN-2017-01078`issued to Donald Young for installation of a new fixed,pier, ramp, and float in Fishers Island Sound,Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. PERMITTEE: D [ � V E Donald Young 3640 Piping Rock Lane Houston,TX 77027 MAY 1 5 2019 (218) 870-8402 Dear Mr. Young, Southold Town and of Trustee We have completed our review of Department of the Army Application Number NAN- 2017-01078-EME. Pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.of 1899 (33 USC 403), you are hereby authorized by the Secretary of the Army to: ACTIVITY: By Letter of Permission, install anew fixed pier, fou.-foot wide by 160- foot long, access ramp,three-and-a-halffoot wide by 24-foot long, and float, eight-foot wide by 20-foot long, including thirty=four•(34) 12-inch diameter timber piles, The fixed pier portion of the'structure will be a minimum of four-feet high above the vegetated grade and water, surface, as measured from the bottom'of the stringers, out to the point where the pier angles (approx. 96 feet seaward of the high water line). After the angle, the elevation'above-the Waiter,surface-will incrementally decrease for the remainder of the-pier and ramp (approx. 55 feet). The minimum water depth under the float will be four-feet below mean low water-. The structure will extend a total of approximately 113 feet seaward from mean low water. WATERWAY: Fishers Island.Sound LOCATION: East End Road, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York The activity authorized herein mustbe completed within three years of the date of thisspermit. This authorization is subject tathe enclosed conditions. Please find enclosed' two forms to be used to submit to this office, as required, the dates of commencement and completion for the authorized activity. This letter contains an initial proffered permit for your activity. If you abject to this permit decision because of certain terms and"conditions therein, you may.request that the PERMITTEE: Donald Young PERMIT NO.: NAN-2017-01078 - 2- SEP 0 7 2018 permit be modified accordingly under Corps regulations at-33 CFR 331. Enclosed you will find a combined Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) and Request for Appeal (RFA)form. If'you object to this permit decision you must submit a completed RFA form to the New York District Office at: Stephan A. Ryba Chief, Regulatory Branch New York District Corps of Engineers 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1937 New York, New York 10278-0090 In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determirne.that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal under-33 CFR Part 331.5, and that it has been received by the District Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Shouldou decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by NOV 9 6 201$ It is not necessary to submit-an RFA form to the District Office if you do not object to the permit decision in this letter. The authorized activity must be performed in accordance with the enclosed plans. If any material changes in the location or plans of the subject work are found necessary, revised plans should be submitted to the District Engineer. These plans must receive the approval required by law before work begins. Notice is hereby given that the permittee should recognize that a possibility_exists that the structures permitted herein may be subject to wavewash from passing vessels. The issuance of this permit does not relieve the permittee from taking all proper steps to insure the integrity of the structures permitted herein and the safety of boats moored thereto from damage by wavewash and the permittee shall not hold the United States liable for any such damage. In order for us to better serve you, please complete our Customer Service,Survey located at httr)://www.nan.usace.army.mil/Missions/RegulatorylCustomerSurvey.asox. If any questions should arise concerning this matter, please contact Ms. Lisa Grudzinski, of my staff, at(917) 790-8428 or lila.a.grudzinski@usace.army.mil. Sincerely, For and In bahal# Thomas D. Asbery Colonel, U.S.Army District Engineer D E � [� Q Enclosures MAY 1 5 2019 Copy furnished: Docko, Incorporated Attn: Keith Neilson (agent) Southold Town Board of Trustees PERMITTEE: Donald Young PERMIT NO.: NAN-2017-01078 SEP 0 7 2Q(S PERMIT CONDITIONS: NOTE: The term "you" and its derivatives, as used in this permit means the permittee or any future'transferee. The term "this office" refers to the appropriate district or division office of the Corps of Engineers having jurisdiction over the permitted activity or' appropriate official of that office.acting under the authority of the commanding officer. GENERAL CONDITIONS: 1. The time limit�for completing the work authorized, ends within three years of the-date of this permit. 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 four months before-the date is reached. 2.. You must maintain the activity authorized by this permit in good condition and in conformance'with the terms arid-conditions 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 upon.written notification to this office. 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 modifica_tion 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 coordination 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. 4. 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 term's and conditions of your permit- Special Special Conditions: (A) The permittee shall ensure no in'water-worts;shall occur from April 15th to October 31 of each year, during the eelgrass growing season, in order to minimize impacts to eelgrass. (B) The permittee shall ensure the fixed pier is a minimum height of four feet above the wetland-grade and surface of mean high water as measured from the bottom of the stringers,for the full length of the pier, in order to minimize,impacts to wetland and submerged aquatic vegetation. MAY 152019 i Soutiloid Town Rnnrd of TrititanR t PERMITTEE: Donald Young PERMIT NO.: NAM-2017-01078 SEP 0 7 2018 (C) The permitted shall, to the extent practicable, utilize a vibratory hammer for pile installation. If an impact hammer,is used, a minimum 20- minute"soft start" and a wooden block should be used to buffer the noise and vibrations during hammering. (D)The permittee shall,to the extent practicable,utilize best management practices to ensure turbidity is minimized in the water. (E) The.permittee shall ensure the water depths in,the mooring area are a minimum of four feet deep as measured at mean low water, in order to min imize,the risk of propeller dredging and.scour damage to eelgrass. (F) The permittee shall ensure staging of equipment or vessels in submerged aquatic vegetation beds does not occur". (G) The permittee shall ensure that during construction, equipment and vessels shall transit through and work in submerged aquatic vegetation beds only during periods of high tide in order to minimize'the potential for construction related impacts on submerged aquatic vegetation. (H) The permittee shall take actions to prevent construction materials, including debris,from entering any waterway to become drift or pollution hazards. (1) The permiittee understands and agrees that, if future operations by the United States require the removal, relocation, or other alteration, of the structure or work herein authorized, or if, in the,opinion of the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative, said structure or work shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of the navigable waters, the permittee will be required, upon due notice from the Corps of Engineers, to remove, relocate, or alter the structural work or obstructions caused thereby, without expense to the United States. No claim shall be made against the United States on account of any such removal or alteration. Further Information: 1. Limits of 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. -4 - , E C E V E DD M AY 1 5 2019 Southold Town PERMITTEE: Donald Young PERMIT NO.: NAN-2017-01078 SEP 0 7 2018 c. This permit does not.a6thorize any injury'to the property or rights-of others. d. This permit does not-authorize interference with any-existing or proposed Federal project. 2. Limits to Federal Liability. In issuing this permit, the Federal Government does hot 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 of uses'thereof as result of current or future activities undert6ken by or on behalf of the United States in the public interest. c. Damages to.persons, property, or to other permitted or unpermifted activities: or structures caused by the activity authorized by this permit. d. Design or construction deficiencies associated with the permitted work, e.. Damage claims associated with any future modification,,suspension, or revocation of this permit. 3. Reliance on Applicants 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. 4. Reevaluation of Permit Decision: This's 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 the permit. b. The information provided by you in support of your permit application proves to have been false, incomplete, or inaccurate (See 3 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 procedures contained in 33 CFR 325.7 or enforcement procedures such,as thosb contained,in 33 CFR 326.4 and 326.5. The referenced enforcement procedures provide for the issuance of an - 2— ECE VE M Ay 1 5 2019 Southold Town PERMITTEE., Donald Young PERMIT NO.: NAN-2017-6078 SEP 0 7 2018 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 ih-certain situations (such as those specified in 33 CFR 209.170) accomplish the corrective measures-by contract or otherwise and bill you for the post. 5. Extensions, General condition 1 establishes a time limit for the completion of the, activity authorized by-this permit. Unless there are circumstances requiring eithera prompt completion of the authorized activity or a reevaluation of the public interest decision, the Corps will normally give favorable consideration to-a reque§t far an extension of this time limit. rE C E � V E MAY1 5 2019 Southold Town _AgrLof TrusLee USACE FILE: NAN-2017-01078 ••rllL. 4.i M RZ �-•-Y�� ti, tt� FiSNE#�S �{51.At�p SQUNpr; ..,..,...• Ft�H�f�a l�"aLt�NL�5G?UNO �t!�'°•,(,,u ., n ,�� `•t; 8q�,,1�t � _ c SITE` r^..«"^. O • -moi l_ 4' f/.i!ii ��,� ,xh,tr", l.«t• v y3,of LG?G,�'+71UN I" /444 1 F AZ �rcc o goon 24 FM( CH0C0M0UNT CV15 i'�ti(�_111 ��ti%,,44•. flVt� " '�,=:••,r:�"<' 1�20X(:;r-NEW P1 opegTY of ,•'h•.;,., . , aOAT Ycxlrt9 jt,; =:t" z-R �r�F�armN0.AA`R*`AM.E9, PIRand DEt7ArAla T Q L�'`',' �'•' a.E T t�-F15t•tERBIG•l:W�iv NY, ti•`,•y��..t; .,'i-;;i,.-�r- 0•}:,,t:�:,•>...`` .;:�i•j.3.FCIJEGT VG•�'..,i•+PtlCa'�k t.ti ; '1'•%'i•'.;t t •['.r't.•.�:.':• '` C `' f�OF�t-f t- Yx'SYE 1 vwp YYaQj.j{'� '�t.�,Y��.., ��i'1•i�li".:,�i jet:• •tt��•,�SY N�ll�li Y.:{IKWI s�i •f .,t:`' �`•, • ,�' ! !�jj �'}•s YJ •s:�.- j' , Af,{�I.ns,,t�Cp 1'u.r+�♦�•��tr•� ryesµ_ _ s i�•::1`"a`':'.x.:•."•" !s7"' 2. -,i"'"{'r'x'1•t'., ? La. y..'..t.. !"`!iv!X st,n.e� � Vt•VVt�N'vt�•.:+ •`"�l,i��`,(•'•x, 4 .4r,"3�'Y�:t'y`"��;1i} `.,-.: •�i- •T, 1.e:• AND �J,/tl-11FW� �.'"`•' '•j( 'q�'�]• <a`r"�t'ti'' r1:.." �t�'t3 t� i' .%:cis+ 15 WA•�,t' wt,� �•T}SAPP�T'MH WATFR•�t..JNFN• Y.�:,�:,=:I.;• �:T�''. •t... tT,ii�,•!`F+%�!:s...'iSl�vT IF�•.q " 4•„•{,.:•./�•[�ry/.�[. i( �:�.•�•�' .4== Yat!'Y-�-/'"t•V'/ ,X A✓'socA'l5D •iti,. ,. .x;: '!,:: rpt�It.•.+t, i.,.x ij Ss•Fi•'n�«t+ta"9, 4°1'F ,-ts 7"1�O ER • OF, ::. •:'r. ; •r`��;`:%-'.'•>';t:�- � s':••"w s}'� ?�}�%"` ,`. 2L�f'E�QATI�JITti i I2A 1p fWD•ftipw(!E OFF F' es t�.•t4z�:�''��•�fiY {�•'f'•r,t,:i;:tt`{•;� .�p�s'%j4'{;y, n .x ,.�•,�'':1!-7 Fa M:+4Y-�•r•.. �F�+!'s.,5.+i:+`.1S i .,s, ,t 1': i` yti ;'t::r'x,,� �.,,{��/.��,t`,t,+• •G PURPOSE•' ',�•::�`:'._.. it: �.•,Y•.�.�`L.t•s.�s. j�t}.L+,i�}�'�:tt:•i• '.��'•:�ItV.7FV1-I G•N �j:• .1 i"•r v=•+x-. •T��Bt�ATt� • t�{��''p�/•�•y�/r�7�� i 5•S+E•,,"i'• "( „r,� �;•t ,.. Ns��"�••T'FT� •�'' ,,'I`Y( I'fMd!'l.•I•Y111- lak�.4x•''• •SY�.,t•.t:il....•i.�• k• •�:�5•' " •1•'! ^ a_a' i «"i ,ti`••r ..�rj�, s�.� ,.{.1 f'i��'�'(�"{ D�FM PA •,,�� ;`' URL�URTr;t'�;�c:, • ',x.��,•, ,�y's:.,,•:;�:irt `F';,a'r >~,••.: 't tgt9A t-'a►vATE ;; tt;, t t:,;.�'•:•.'..., k;� :tri -,:::+ 5,JE-ce/ P k%AT0q DRAWNO'JlREPW-SVW y<.,+•„r•{�,r•!�:�; <;t.",tr:�'�':'i.z FI�HI~R�a 154.�!*11:�/?5:�;:.,.:t CC7�3..r7TzUG1 N .�: ``zY:•.;',,..Tt�VJF�1 cif:3CD ''� PER•t"�T"PURP SE5.- FY?RE t,'C71 '; �t? ' ":•. . �,,.;t:,. "'r r;��,_.•: �::;':..-c DOG�MEr`ttS,ATQV w Bumt\i � s`. ,^t;iii '`" ?.;• , i•. ) ,. !-4 t . e pop g m1 k VG. G�Xt�iT.cV. G7`�✓' f rl..L.» PLAN 6 AV lank,*PPOPER1Y CnMdEM WFST's, FAST: cmc V. t boJ�oL D a.Huff.1iz H t~FaFrotsoN my-0eum etc t M SANDPA L.HURL BURT ATTK MEAC9 RAFFF.F'rfY DrMaOk +tp0 ° 400 7014 SHFAW LANS PO BOX 54 poRT WA-cHNo-f0N,PA 19434 FtHEFa MAO td i'X990 PRQ fi=GT NEW PIER and FLOAT ,RSD 9.11-t7 vEC �'tK� ��-TOVvi�aftOLv C'' � PRD,t�CT f�PTTOtV TF�A`� WR:M t5tAN4'?50lNEW vYORK sw.Et"1 of:3 ! - ��_ �GKO, IhJG. ,� ,�,��► M AY 1 5 2019 �ttn c a o 8939 FAX 8605`T2'7569 DWC3 T7-a3? 7� afAcaVdxko m" rccnlCi�c• ctc�tu+ rarn,,.�ghsi;a;- +nt7E ori YCQ,� PAGE 1 OF 3 U; �'E FILE: NAW2017-01078 MOAT Sp CONCITM t �.. tom. ---- _... __... _.__. .__,• , � ""-, ---y, �Arr�t'�arvAr� w-- -� E&c >/ SPAMWA t II�I1 c7t^ 00 4, r.• 4 WAIM •i NOTE: ALL.IN--WATER WORD RELATED TO THE --~ "" • CONSTRUCTION_OF THE PROPOSED PIER, � PH RAMP At4Q FLOAT WILL TAKE PLACE OUTSIDE tit tAr- OF THE EEL GRASS GROWING SEASON FROM' PIzoPER7`fi'ulm ;ems Rp} q APRIL 15 TO OCTOBER 31_ IN ANY GIVEN, .LWE YEM. THIS CONDITION IS NECESSARY TO AVOID IMPACTS TO EEL. GRASS LOCATED IN THE FISHERS ISLAND BEACH AREA„ AND TO WFPROPERTY COMPLY WITH COASTAL POLICY 6.2 OF THE W" tt 1,�YCS W CAM ACTD>gtytp,TELOCA'ftC,}I.1 NIF OF PATH To BEACHH I.I ly SON as o. , .ao Pt�Q.If= NEW PER curd FLOAT 93t-Tl C?�C t.iC1GA'iKi�t IStft+(C�-T�VJIH�f�ittfFtCti.D PER 9LEVAICN swaxcouw NEW yow KEt e WA'IMMAY: FK+0G I5l.*V �l VAr= MAY30,20111* li V/ 1 t def mowYt7l.Ihk� • f�• r s t^ r • 11 r VAM AY 1 5 2019 & PE �0 �t►` � �'QOFt`cSStO��• 8w5727 R P-03-2= fl ---- --- -- VWG n ,,$.r � ;•: gyma�cK PAGE 2 OF 3� ---- SEP 0 7 2018 US. _ • FILE: NAN-2017-01078 t R C?AT ISTR�UNf PILES Ai+ 7 � - RAMP AsM WT SHGTtviRl N THS VS L T FLE HAS AX*60MATO AWA NEW4L CWandWA7MR IJMnJ 9 X0CAWN MAY VA" t+f WPMRS4JPfYMFl9TCS to ,Tl:AW"d ma4t' vu � --•r4L.WL OA- ATMVOFM 991 om •yA•�r�;g3ryu�l�§3�xf^�,tT.��r fs'@.,�yCr^47rrutC,.vAy,'�,1r5s�I9'�r'P�:cT.:c,ry+"am3�aYs:AA��1ar')?`'y•&y7.�?r" a�^'.•'N i "r n�Y.�:'i3�y^.,.oaXy1I=?°u" 0 r«j 10. M0 0 �{"�fr tY�v{'{�:+�'�+'rxr,�v�'Yia�y=•3l�".`'�.yW»:r�+F'+w '. 'S•�+ � .t_ia-^��M� to2 •.`,�;'t`��s?P t'r`'•txr::r.:i��ri''�":.�:aS*a�,'S::`"•Lair�.� �s�>,t'z°i ?K:t�.f';k.."..�•'nTa�� fe.c..�� a�"a war.�i� �:�r.'-^v ALL IN-WATER WORK RELATED TO THENOM CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED PIER, 1 IN Sd=CSF 914.9RASS SE 09 ON THE lIrY RAMP AND FLOAT WILL TAKE PIACE OUTSIDE 1.3*10. THM HAS BEEN NO Eras-rte IN T S OF -RiE EEL GRASS GROWING SEASON FROM � , � � � P iSr€Dc7GK��TttEPASTT�I APRIL i5 TO acTaaF 3i 1N ANY GIVEN Y 5 iEc�IrL�rrD�>�HC 2010. YEAR. THIS CONDITION IS-NECESSARY TO Wr NO rru ,ct�iN AVOID IMPACTS TO EEL GRASS LOCATED IN 2 �- �+�`�"HARt?W THE FISHERS ISLAND BEACH AREA, AND TO COMPLY WITH COASTAL POLICY 6.2 OF THE NY CAM ACT NEW 10.OFF PMVR.CA7"E57' f?'PW rOP EL t7AFrO Y'P'1 rEW FLRATIO wht 71TP a. NEW4+TvMPESUS CCJ�1OUS FLOATATION PEzi��xe�T PER tNi'x24+'TI a- —civ t liE I: I ,aP� �..-- X ,APPROMIA E MV 23 r a i F a ALWL OD_ 10, o?.'}��r a J (Gi }T3 ra SPAtZT�i t Ni±4V U> t 5t PLO TDF'F3.4Ft 5, PAI (fi t tC,A.TU7V I-WY VARY A8dVE VIXX{I'YP} Gam:t t•� i 30 20 10 '0 ao a"AS ARS SASED ON APPA['LQ1tti!WATEf� WL i'moxzc,t'; NaW PER and F7 OAT � p� N t r 1W OW PP.R Fevega gt VAWN �� SLA WATOtWAY: * UVATM APM CAW l .D Y „ z + Ate: SHMT 3GF$ Dom, INC. ��v b6 �sasg2` R� o1� r or omm a fi i V-0-1-2m FES MAY 1 5 2019 t� '?2 f,►, I~A�C 800 51.�7E+cz9 Ei"'�L;tfil�dcdrvcom Southold Town SEP 7 2018PAGE 3 OF 3 ar of Tr stee Applicant:Donald Young Pile Number:NAV-2017-01078 Date: Attached is: See Section below d INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter ofpermission) A PROFFERED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter ofPermissionB PERMIT DENIAL C APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E . ETIflN "= li tI€iwin +�ettlies.yrur.rltt . nl czpfcnsrditl - a �iinistrativ appal a ;fi dlarve clecisiciit Aclr�itictz�al� nfortn�tioai may be;fci�rtci gat �A � .. , _ "° ., - . a° htt"':l v ww.usace.arm .tnilllijl-i siottslCivilWor I latof P r r"andl!etin%tela als.as r Corgis ; ,ire ' latirr�ns at 33SPR Part��3:1.�' : _ A: INITIAL PROFI;EIt ED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit. • ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit,you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final authorization: If you received a Letter of Permission(LOP);you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety,and waive all rights to appeal the permit,including its terms and conditions,and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit. • OBJECT: If you object to the permit(Standard or LOP)because of certain terms and conditions therein,you may request that the permit be modified accordingly.You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice,or you will forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the fhture. Upon receipt of your letter,the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may:(a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns,(b)modify the permit to address some of your objections,or(c)not modify the permit having determined that the.permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections,the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration,as indicated in Section B below. B: PROFFERED PERMIT:You may accept or appeal the permit • ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit,you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission(LOP),you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety,and waive all rights to appeal the permit,including its terms and conditions,and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit. • APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit(Standard or LOP)because of certain terms and conditions therein,you tmay appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section 11 of this form and sending the form to the division engineer, This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. C: PER.tMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new information. • ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of this notice,means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety,and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD. • APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD,you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the preliminary J.D. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, ou may request an approved JD(which may be appealed),by contacting the Corps district for furthe ruE ILP AEU o .rn� provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the M AY 1 5 2019 Southold lown Board of T-,+- J itl%U10 N"PT il,� REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial profted permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.) ADDITIONAL INIFORMATION-The appeal is limited to review of the administrative record,the Corps memorandum for the, record of the appeal conference or meeting,and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add,new informatidn or analyses to the record. However, you may provide Additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative record. If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the appeal If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may process you may contact: also contact: Mr.Stephan A.Ryba James NV.Haggerty,Regulatory Program Manager Chief,Regulatory Branch'(CENAN-9P-I2.) North Atlantic Division,U.S.Army Engineer Division, NY District;U.S.Army Corps of Engineers Fort Hamilton,Military Community 26 Federal Plaza,Room 1937 Go-neml'Lee Avenue,Building 301 Now York,NY 10278-0090 Brooklyn,NY 11252-6700 Telephone number.917-790-8512 Telephone number-,(347)3704650 RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps ofEngineers personnel,and any government consultants,to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a,15 day notice of any'site investigation,and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations. Telephone number-.' D C E V E Sioature'of appellant or.agent. MAY M 19 AY 1 5 201UJ 019 L-- Southold-Town Appendix 2-PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL,DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM �ACKGRQUbIQ INFORMATION A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: September 18, 2017 B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD: Donald Young,3640 Piping Rock Lane,Houston,TX 7.7027 C. DISTRICT OFFICE;FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: NAN-2017-010,78-EME D. PROJECT LOCATION(S)AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: (USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR, AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES) State: New York County/parish/borough: Suffolk County City: Town of Southold Center coordinates of site(lattlong in degree decimal format): Lat.:41.278889 Long,: -71.977778 Universal Transverse Mercator: Name of nearest waterbody. Fishers Island Sound E. Rt--VIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION(CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):' FEJ Office(Desk) Determination. Date: September 18, 2017 171 Field Determination. Date(s): TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN,RtViEW AREA WHICH"MAY BE-SUBJECT TO REGULATORY JURISDICTION. Site Latitude Longitude Estimated amount Type of aquatic Geographic authority number (decimal (decimal of Aquatic resource resource(i.e.,wetiand 'to-which.the aquatic degrees) degrees) in review area vs.non-wetland resource"may W (acreage and linear Waters) subject(i.e.,section feet,If applicable) 404 or Section 101404) 41.278889 -71.977778 Inter"tidal Wetland Section 10 41.278a89 -71.9777780..04-acm(apMx 17841newfeet) Non-wetland waters Section, 10 E-CE V/ E M Ay 1 5 2019 Southold—Town -- Board of Trustees t 1 1) The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option to request and obtain an approved JD(AJD)for that review area based on an informed decision after having discussed the various types of JDs and their characteristics and circumstances when they may be appropriate. 2) In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a Nationwide General Permit(NWP)or other general permit verification requiring "pre- construction notification"(PCN), or requests verification for a non-reporting NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an AJD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware that: (1)the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit"authorization based on a PJC),which does not make an official determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2)the applicant has the option to request an AJD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit, authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an AJD could possibly result in less;compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions-, (3)the applicant has the right to,request an individual permit rather than accepting,the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5) undertaking any activity in reliance upon the,subject ,permit authorization without requesting an AJD constitutes-the applicant's acceptance of the use of the PJD; (6)accepting a permit authorization (e.g.,signing a proffered individual permit)or'undertaking any activity in reliance on-any form of Corps permit authorization based on a PJD constitute&agreement that all aquatic resources in,the review area affected in any way by that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and waives any challenge to such jurisdiction in any administrative or Judicial compliance or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether the'applicant elects-to use either an AJD or a.PJD,the JD will be processed as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual permit(and all terms and conditions contained therein), or.individual permit denial can be administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 339. If, during an administrative appeal, it becomes appropriate to make,an official determination whether geographic jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional aquatic resources iii the review area,the Corps will provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable. This PJD finds that there "may be"waters of the U.S. and/or that there"may be"navigable waters of the U,S:on_the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in the review area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information: EG" E VE MAY 1 5 2019 Southold Town Board of Trustees SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD(check all that apply) Checked items should be included in subject file. Appropriately reference sources below where indicated for all checked items: 0 Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by, or on behalf of the PJD requestor: Map: Maps and drawings in,permit application,by Docko,Inc.,dated September 11,2017 ❑ Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on.behalf of the PJD requestor. [j Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report. ❑ Office does not concur'with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale: ❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps: ❑ Corps navigable waters'study: _ ❑ U.S,Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: ❑ USGS NHD data. ❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit NUC maps. ❑ U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale&quad name: ❑ Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: ❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:. ❑ Statellocal wetland inventory map(s): ❑ FEMA/FIRM maps: ❑ 1'00-year Floodplain Elevation is: .(National Geodetic Vertical Datum.of 1929) Q Photographs: on Aerial(Name&Date): Google-Earth or ❑/ Other(Name&Date): Color photos of site in permit application ❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter: ❑ Other information(please specify): IMPORTANT NOTE:The information recorded on this form has not necessarily been verified by the Corps and should not-be relied`upon for later jurisdictional determinations. D E C 2 V E f GRUDZINSKLUSA.ANN.1 2631434651 rsm+.omncw ""�N° n 21,19 Signature and,date,of Signature and dateLJD Regulatory staff member person requesting _completing PJD (REQUIRED, unleaining ,> . - 10'[1 the signature is im1 Ei ar of r staes Districts may establish timeffames for requestor to return signed PJD forms.if the requestor does not respond within the established time frame,the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is necessary prior to finalizing an action. DEPARTMENT 61F THE ARMY U.B.ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,NEW YORK DISTRICT JACOB K.JAVITS,FEDERAL BUILDING 26 FEDERAL PLAZA NEW YORK NEW YORK 10278-0090 CENAN-OP-R IMPORTANT This,letter must be;completed and mailed to the Regulatory Branch at the above address prior to commencement of any work authorized under the-permit. Permittee: Donald Young Permit No. NAN-2017-01078 Date Permit Issued: S2 Q 7 2018 Expiration Date: SJEP 0 7 2421 Waterway: Fishers Island,Sound Project Location: East End Read Town of Southold Suffolk County, New-York Work will commence on or about: Name,Address&Telephone Number of Contractor. Signature of Permittee Date Fold this-form into thirds,with-the bottom third facing outward. Tape it together and mail to the address below or'FAX to(212)264.4260. Place Stamp Here- Department of the Army D E C� 3Town New York District Corps of Engineers Jacob K.Javits Federal Building MAY 26 Federal Plaza,Room 1937 ATTN: CENAN-OP-R New York, New York 10278-0090 SouB ar DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S.ARRAY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,NEW YORK DISTRICT JACOB K.JAVITS FEDERAL BUILDING �- 26 FEDERAL PLAZA NEW YORK NEW YORK 10278-0090 CENAN-OP-R. IMPORTANT This letter must be completed and mailed to the Regulatory Branch at the above address following completion or cancellation of work authorized under the permit. Permittee: Donald Young Permit No. NAN-2017-01078 Date Permit Issued: CGp ft 7 2010 Expiration Date: 4P 0 7 Waterway: Fishers Island Sound Project-Location: st End Road,Town Of Southold,-,SUffolk County, N��York Check and complete applicable dem(s)listed below: 'F-1 Work was completed,on Q Work will not be performed on the project, Deviation from work authorized in permit is explained below. C]' Other(explain) For dredging projects, list the volume of material dredged, and'the amount placed at each disposal location(if more than one). cubic yards placed at cubic yards placed at. • cubic yards placed at Signature of Permittee Date, Fold this form into thirds,with the•bottom third facing outward. Tape it,together and mail to the address below or FAX to(212)264.4260. Place Stamp Here Department of the Army E C / IENew York District Corps of Engineers Jacob K.Jayits Federal Building 26 Federal Plaza;Room 1937 ATTN: CENAWOP-R MAY 5 2019 New York, New York 10278-0090 Southold Town ar of r steel Michael J.Domino,President 0f SOUTyO Town Hall Annex John M.Bredemeyer III,Vice-President ,`O l0 54375 Route 25 P.O.Box 1179 Glenn Goldsmith Southold,New York 11971 A.Nicholas Krupski • Q Telephone(631) 765-1892 Greg Williams O�C�(1 Fax(631) 765-6641 l �,�� BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 21, 2019 Keith B. Neilson, P.E. Docko, Inc. P.O. Box 421 Mystic, CT 06355 RE: ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO NEW YORK STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT NYCCR PART 617 DONALD W. YOUNG REV. TRUST & KELLY C. YOUNG REV. TRUST OFF EAST END ROAD, FISHERS ISLAND SCTM# 1000-3-2-2 Dear Mr. Neilson: The Southold Town Board of Trustees adopted the following Resolution at a meeting held on Wednesday, March 20, 2019: DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Docko, Inc. on behalf of DONALD W. YOUNG REV. TRUST & KELLY C. YOUNG REV. TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to construct a ±160 linear foot long by 4 foot wide fixed wood pile and timber pier including railings on both sides, water, and electrical utilities of which ±132 linear feet of the pier to be waterward of the Apparent High Water Line; install an 8'x20' floating dock supported by four (4) piles with associated 3.5'x24' hinged access ramp off of seaward most end of fixed pier; and install three tie-off piles. Located: Off East End Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-3-2-2 S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE: WHEREAS, the Southold Town Board of Trustees are familiar with this project having visited the site on February 28, 2019, and having considered the plans for this proposed project submitted by Docko Inc. dated May 30, 2017, showing the proposed dock and water depths at the Trustee's March 18, 2019 work session; and, WHEREAS, on March 20, 2019 the Southold Town Board of Trustees declared itself Lead Agency pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and, Page 1 of 2 WHEREAZ,--_,.1 Mar.,-, 20, 2019 the Southold Ti Boars _'Trustees classified the application-as an unlisted action pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and, WHEREAS, in reviewing project plans submitted by Docko, Inc. dated May 30, 2017 and water depths it has been determined by the Board of Trustees that all potentially significant environmental concerns have been addressed as noted herein: • Navigation: The proposed dock meets standards and does not extend beyond 1/3 across the water body. Depths for the dock terminus are within Town Trustees, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and United States Army Corps. of Engineers guidelines and there is no recognized Federal/New York State/Town navigation channel in the immediate vicinity of the proposed structure. • Scope: The proposed dock is comparable to docks on neighboring properties in an area where docks historically are used for commercial and recreational purposes. • Scope in relation to the riparian rights of shellfishers: The plan allows a standard ramp to4loat design that will not impede access for those seeking shellfish and crustacea in season. • Scope in relation to view sheds: The seaward end of the proposed dock will not extend appreciably beyond existing docks. As such the perspective will not be discernibly different from the existing view. • Environmental upkeep: The dock design projects a usual lifespan of 30 years, with limited pile replacement so as to minimize disturbance of the bottom. THEREFORE, according to the foregoing, the Southold Town Board of Trustees Approve and Authorize the preparation of a Notice of Negative Declaration pursuant to SEQRA for the aforementioned project. Very truly yours, Michael J. Domino, President Board of Trustees Page 2 of 2 ��guFF0 Michael J. Domi' esiderit , s Town Hall Annex John M. Bredemeyer I1Tv ice-President �� 54375 Route 25 Glenn Goldsmith o P.O.Box 1179 A.Nicholas Krupski Southold,NY 11971 Greg Williams �® �Ol,{j Telephone(631)765-1892 Fax(631)765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Date/Time: l/ Completed in field by: Docko, Inc. on behalf of DONALD W. YOUNG REV. TRUST & KELLY C. YOUNG REV. TRUST requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a ±160 linear foot long by 4 foot wide fixed wood pile and timber pier including railings on both sides, water, and electrical utilities of which ±132 linear feet of the pier to be waterward of the Apparent High Water Line; install an 8'x20' floating dock supported by four (4) piles with associated 3.5'x24' hinged access ramp off of seaward most end of fixed pier; and install three tie-off piles. Located: Off East End Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-3-2-2 CH. 275-3 - SETBACKS WETLAND BOUNDARY: Actual Footage or OK=4 Setback Waiver Required 1.; Residence: 100 feet 2. Driveway: 50 feet 3. Sanitary Leaching,Pool (cesspool): 100 feet 4. Septic Tank: 75 feet 5. Swimming Pool and related structures: 50 feet 6. Landscaping or gardening: 50 feet 7. Placement of C&D material: 100 feet TOP OF BLUFF: 1. Residence: 100 feet 2. Driveway: 100 feet 3. Sanitary leaching pool (cesspool) 100 feet: 4. Swimming pool and related structures: 100 feet Public Notice of Hearing Card Posted: Y / N Ch. 275 ✓ Ch. 111 SEQRA Type: 1 II Unlisted Action f Type of Application: Pre-Submission Administrative Amendment Wetland astal Erosion Emergency Violation Non-Jurisdiction Survey <_ 5 years: Y/N Wetland Line by: C.E.H.A. Line ' Additional information/suggested modifications/conditions/need for outside review/consultant/application completeness/comments/standards: (fC)Y)ce-F- ews, I have read & acknowledged the foregoing Trustees comments: Agent/Owner: / Present were: J J. Bredemeyer M. DominoG. Goldsmith N. Krupski G. Williams Other f -- I r v e ' , 77, .s. t . ,.. :.ta' .. , � ., _. ice, • .dry y .gip �� -_ _. �f77, t _ 2 / 28 /2019 14 r 55 v.p y J / .. `fir ♦_�� \ , �� 7" _o-i,/w- { \ _' __. . '. ,.. � � � ,� {. ��),h'l� �,. 111 1 PIA r.. NIN E i r 2 / 28 /2:019 1k4 56 111 " -•., T._- 1 �,'„!'r, 'qlr .• �� ,may.�.,` k •f. ;`4 � �k•� '� 'b dt':', ` ._ '� .fin. 77--. x, • ': 2/28/2019 r `DiSalvo, Diane From: Nick Noyes <nick@insight-experience.com> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2018 12:21 PM To: DiSalvo, Diane Cc: Jeremiah Bogert Subject: Concerns about Young Trust dock permit on Chocomont Cove, Fishers Island Diane, Nice to speak with you this morning. Per your suggestion, I am noting the purpose of my call in this email. The neighbors of the Young property on Chocomont Cove on Fishers Island have significant concerns about plans for a proposed dock there. I am the immediately abutting neighbor to the West, and Jeremiah Bogert, copied here, is a neighbor on the Cove as well,to my West. Both of our thoughts are represented in this email. Our primary concern about this project is the impact on seagrass, in particular the eel grass beds which dominate Chocomont Cove, especially in our area. I am sure the Trustees are well aware that eel grass is in precipitous decline in Long Island Sound (90% reduction), and that Fishers Island represents 98%of the remaining eel grass habitat in NY state waters. Chocomont Cove holds a significant proportion of the remaining beds. The permitting and planning work for the dock has been done by Docko, Inc., and we have reviewed those plans in detail (I have also personally surveyed the area multiple times over the past year). While we respect the professional work of Docko,we believe the plans presented do not accurately reflect the current state of the seagrass and eel grass beds in the proposed construction area. We are not aware of a true and current survey of the area, and believe a current, independent in water biological survey of the area is critical before taking any action on the proposed plans. I believe this is consistent with the Town of Southold 2020 plan,with a focus on Fishers Island as a Critical Environmental Area. This has been recommended to,us by The Nature Conservancy(Chantal Collier), and by Chris Pickerell (Marine Program Director of the Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County), although they have clarified that they do not generally provide written testimony on these matters with private landowners. Beyond a current proper in-water survey,we are aware of the work in progress by the Fishers Island Seagrass Management Coalition. As you are likely aware, the Ferguson Museum received a NY Conservation Partnership Program grant to support the work of the Fishers Island Seagrass Management Coalition. This work is underway, but still in relatively early stages. The Coalition is scheduled to talk about the impacts of docks in the upcoming January meeting. We believe the work of the Coalition is important as it may inform the potential designation of seagrass management areas by the DEC under the Seagrass Protection Act in NY waters. We understand that Soren Dahl's oversight position for seagrass management remains unfilled, and that the process for designating seagrass management areas is still being clarified. We feel strongly that it's important to allow the work of the Coalition to proceed before taking action on a project like this that could have significant impact on such a sensitive eel grass area. I believe this is the third consecutive owner of the current Young property who has attempted to build a dock on this property in the heart of Chocomont Cove. Both previous owners abandoned their efforts. The other homeowners in this particular area of Chocomont Cove, it should be noted, have boats, but we do not have docks. Our boats are kept in West Harbor(where Mr Young presently keeps his boat). The innermost part of Chocomont Cove,where we have lived for 40 years, is a rare and precious haven of unspoiled coastal marine habitat, and we believe it is very important that it be preserved. Thank you for providing this forum to voice our concerns. We are available by email or phone should the Trustees have any questions, and would be delighted to speak with any of the members. 1 Sincerely, Nick Noyes and Jeremiah Bogert Nick Noyes 978-618-8877 (m) nick@insight-experience.com_ z DiSalvo, Diane From: Nick Noyes <nick@insight-experience.com> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2018 12:21 PM To: DiSalvo, Diane Cc: Jeremiah Bogert Subject: Concerns about Young Trust dock permit on Chocomont Cove, Fishers Island Diane, Nice to speak with you this morning. Per your suggestion, I am noting the purpose of my call in this email. The neighbors of the Young property on Chocomont Cove on Fishers Island have significant concerns about plans for a proposed dock there. I am the immediately abutting neighbor to the West, and Jeremiah Bogert, copied here, is a neighbor on the Cove as well, to my West. Both of our thoughts are represented in this email. Our primary concern about this project is the impact on seagrass, in particular the eel grass beds which dominate Chocomont Cove, especially in our area. I am sure the Trustees are well aware that eel grass is in precipitous decline in Long Island Sound (90% reduction), and that Fishers Island represents 98%of the remaining eel grass habitat in NY state waters. Chocomont Cove holds a significant proportion of the remaining beds. The permitting and planning work for the dock has been done by Docko, Inc., and we have reviewed those plans in detail (I have also personally surveyed the area multiple times over the past year). While we respect the professional work of Docko, we believe the plans presented do not accurately reflect the current state of the seagrass and eel grass beds in the proposed construction area. We are not aware of a true and current survey of the area, and believe a current, independent, in water biological survey of the area is critical before taking any action on the proposed plans. I believe this is consistent with the Town of Southold 2020 plan,with a focus on Fishers Island as a Critical Environmental Area. This has been recommended to us by The Nature Conservancy (Chantal Collier), and by Chris Pickerell (Marine Program Director of the Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County), although they have clarified that they do not generally provide written testimony on these matters with private landowners. Beyond a current proper in-water survey,we are aware of the work in progress by the Fishers Island Seagrass Management Coalition. As you are likely aware, the Ferguson Museum received a NY Conservation Partnership Program grant to support the work of the Fishers Island Seagrass Management Coalition. This work is underway, but still in relatively early stages. The Coalition is scheduled to talk about the impacts of docks in the upcoming January meeting. We believe the work of the Coalition is important as it may inform the potential designation of seagrass management areas by the DEC under the Seagrass Protection Act in NY waters. We understand that Soren Dahl's oversight position for seagrass management remains unfilled, and that the process for designating seagrass management areas is still being clarified. We feel strongly that it's important to allow the work of the Coalition to proceed before taking action on a project like this that could have significant impact on such a sensitive eel grass area. I believe this is the third consecutive owner of the current Young property who has attempted to build a dock on this property in the heart of Chocomont Cove. Both previous owners abandoned their efforts. The other homeowners in this particular area of Chocomont Cove, it should be noted, have boats, but we do not have docks. Our boats are kept in West Harbor(where Mr Young presently keeps his boat). The innermost part of Chocomont Cove, where we have lived for 40 years, is a rare and precious haven of unspoiled coastal marine habitat, and we believe it is very important that it be preserved. Thank you for providing this forum to voice our concerns. We are available by email or phone should the Trustees have any questions, and would be delighted to speak with any of the members. 1 Sincerely, Nick Noyes and Jeremiah Bogert Nick Noyes 978-618-8877 (m) nick@insight-experience.com 2 i a , NELSON, POPE VOORHIS, LLC ENVIRONMENTAL' PLANNING CONSULTING Hudson Valley office Long island office 156 Route 59, Suite C6 572 Walt Whitman Road 1 Suffern, NY 10901 Melville, NY 11747 g (845)368-1472 (631)427-5665 10 2018 Transmittal LetterI Southold Toss ---J ar fTr eS TO: Town of Southold Trustees Date: Tuesday, December 04, 2018 Southold Town Hall Annex 54375 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Re: Donald Young Dock Application Southold, NY 11971 Chocomount Cove, Fisher's Island Attn: Michael Domino, Board of Trustees, President (additional addressees listed in cc) NP&V #: 18276 VIA: X Regular Mail (Town & NYSDEC) Fedex (ACOE) Messenger Enclosed please find the following: Quantity Description 1 Correspondence with attachments from Charles Voorhis dated 11/30/18 Remarks: Dear Mr. Domino, Mr. Walker & Ms. Grudzinkski: Please see the enclosed materials sent to you per Charles Voorhis' request. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or need further assistance. Thank you. Sincerely, NELSON, POPE & VOORHIS, LLC By: Ashley Marciszyn x215 Email: amarciszvn(@nelsonijor)evoorhis.com (Contact me through the Long Island Office) CC: Andrew Walker, NYSDEC(via US Mail) Lisa Grudzinski, USACOE, Room 1937(via FEDEX) File � 1 • NELSON, POPE & VOORHIS, LLC II� ENVIRONMENTAL • PLANNING • CONSULTING www nelsonpopevoorhis corn November 30, 2018 Town of Southold Trustees Southold Town Hall Annex 54375 Main Road,P.O.Box 1179 Q r C E ll �Ikv L Southold,NY 11971 Attn: Michael Domino,Board of Trustees President ) DEC 1 ® i New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation SUNY @ Stony Brook SoutWd Town 50 Circle RoadRnnrdnfThm+nae Stony Brook,NY 11790-3409 Attn: Andrew C. Walker, Regional Manager, Bureau of Marine Habitat Protection United States Army Corps of Engineers Jacob Javits Center 26 Federal Plaza New York,NY 10278 Attn: Lisa Grudzinksi Re: Donald Young Dock Application Chocomount Cove, Fishers Island Town Trustees ID:Donald Young Property NYSDECNo. 1-4738-04558100001; Young ACOE ID:Donald Young, Fishers Island Dear Agency Representative: This letter is provided in opposition to the proposed dock installation referenced above. This opposition is based on concern for protection of eelgrass present in Chocomount Cove,Fishers Island,NY. Eelgrass (Zostera marina) is critical to the marine ecosystem and has been diminishing as a result of various environmental and anthropogenic stresses. Significant eelgrass has been mapped in Chocomount Cove and this area represents some of the healthiest and most significant presence of eelgrass along the Long Island Sound/Fishers Island Sound estuarine waters,New York State and lower New England. There is documented concern for the protection of eelgrass in New -----�., York State. According to the New York State Dept. of r Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) website, the Seagrass Protection Act of 2012 prioritizes the designation t of Seagrass Management Areas and developing -. Management Plans in consultation with local governments and stakeholders.' The picture included herein is from the NYSDEC website, as is the caption, which presents an ;;4,; : f rh ;i # example of healthy eelgrass on'Fishers Island. The utmost care and concern must be exercised to properly inventory k; _;. ' ,} eelgrass beds and ensure management and protection of the '3 y' species. Eelgrass(Zostera marina) in Fishers Island' 1 https://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/I10813.htm1 2 Ibid CORPORATE OFFICE HUDSON VALLEY OFFICE 572 WALT WHITMAN ROAD, MELVILLE, NY 1 1747-2199 15B Route 59, Suite C6, SUFFERN,NY 1 0901 PHONE (631)427-5685 • Fax(631)427-5620 PHONE (645)36B-1472 • Fax (845)368-1572 Donald Young Dock Application Chocomount Cove,Fishers Island,NY Comment Letter on Pending Agency Reviews Furthermore, if permitted, the proposed dock of Donald Young will be located within the Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat designated as critical and irreplaceable habitat within New York State. Fishers Island Beaches, Pine Islands and the Shallows have been identified as having the most extensive series of beds of this submerged aquatic vegetation along the New York State shore of Long Island Sound.3 The proposed dock of Donald Young may adversely impact important eelgrass beds. At present there is insufficient information to render an informed decision and there is evidence that the proposed installation will cause severe impact to the species in contravention of Town, State and Federal regulations and policies designed to protect such significant marine resources. Overview The deficiencies noted with respect to the pending application must be addressed to ensure that a sound decision is made and to take all measures and precautions to protect eelgrass in Chocomount Cove. Information presented herein is based on review of available materials related to the pending application reviews by the Town of Southold Trustees, the NYSDEC Region 1 office, and the US Army Corps of Engineers New York District. A review of inconsistencies, discrepancies and issues regarding potential adverse impacts to eelgrass are noted herein. Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC (NP&V) is a professional environmental planning consulting firm with expertise in marine ecology, wetlands permitting and environmental science. Information pertaining to firm qualifications may be found at the web link: www.nelsonponevoorhis.com. NP&V worked collaboratively with WBL and Associates,LLC (WBL)(Environmental Consultants,Fort Salonga,NY)to review the pending application. Information pertaining to WBL qualifications may be accessed at: www.wbiandassociates.com. The findings of both firms are consistent,noting that there are discrepancies in application materials,that resources have not been adequately mapped and that the proposed installation is in contravention of regulations and policies of permitting agencies as adverse impacts to eelgrass are expected. The WBL report is included herein as Attachment A, and further review findings are provided below. At present, the project plans do not appear to match with the project descriptions in the environmental questionnaire submitted to permitting agencies. Most significant is that the information in the application materials do not match the "empty spot" or area void of eelgrass in the field. The break in the eel grass noted by the applicant in the correspondence with the NYSDEC is not reflected in the photographs depicting the extent of eel grass provided by Nick Noyes, neighboring property owner, dated October 26, 2018 and attached hereto (Attachment B). Brief Literature Review Seagrass meadows are highly productive ecosystems that provide refuge, food resources, and nursery grounds for a number of commercially and recreationally harvested species 4. For this reason the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration(NOAA) considers seagrass meadows as essential fish habitat(EFH). Moreover,seagrass beds are further classified by NOAA as Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) as the serve major ecological functions, are sensitive to decline and stress from development and are rare habitatss. 'https://www.dos.ny.gov/opd/programs/consistency/Habitats/LongIsland/Fishers_Island_Beaches_Pine_Islands_Sha Ilows.pdf 4 Habitat Value Of Natural Versus Recently Transplanted Eelgrass,Zostera Marina,For The Bay Scalwp, Argopecten Irradians:https://www.st.mnfs.noaa.gov/spo/FishBull/871/smith.pdf s https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/habitat-conservati n7esse tia -,habitat#esgential-fish-habitat-mapper C WN a J� ; Page 2 SII' DEC 1 0 201 L .._ Donald Young Dock Application Chocomount Cove,Fishers Island,NY Comment Letter on Pending Agency Reviews The coastal waters of New York have lost extensive areas of eelgrass habitat in past years. Reports indicate that seagrass habitat has been reduced from approximately 200,000 acres in the 1930 to approximately 21,000 acres as of 20096. Loss of seagrass habitat has been attributed to multiple stressors including changes in landscape. Change in land use, including the addition of hardened structures such as docks can potentially impact established seagrass beds leading to further decline. Numerous scientific studies indicate urban structures including docks may affect or change the biological, chemical and physical parameters of the benthos8'. As eelgrass beds are particularly sensitive to alterations in water quality parameters including temperature, salinity, light penetration, organic matter concentration, and the presence of pollutants10 the construction of a structure has the potential to greatly impact submerged aquatic vegetation. The New York State Department of State has designated Fishers Island Beaches, Shallows and Pine Islands as Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat which contain the most extensive series of beds of this submerged aquatic vegetation along the New York State shore of Long Island Sound. The State recognizes this habitat as critical and irreplaceable while acknowledging that the construction of shoreline structures, such as docks, in areas not previously disturbed by development may result in the loss of productive areas. Application Review Upon review of the provided application materials, some inconsistencies were noted. These inconsistencies within the application are not addressed sufficiently and therefore the decision-making agencies may be unable to understand the full breadth of potential environmental impacts the proposed project may have. The inconsistencies notes are as follows: • Tie-off piles are proposed within the reported eel grass bed. The installation of these piles risks irreparable damage to the eel grass beds as the limit of disturbance is expected to be greater than the 5 square feet(SF) of surface area the piling will take up. Solid structures such as the pier and floating dock and the vessel utilizing the pier would limit light penetration and could potentially shade the eelgrass bed. • On page 2 question 7 of the Federal Consistency Assessment Form the applicant has indicated that the proposed project is not in nor does it adjoin a state listed Critical Environmental Area. This is incorrect. The entirety of Fishers Island was designated as a Critical Environmental Area on March 16, 199011 6 Final Report of the New York State Seagrass Task Force:Recommendations to the New York State Governor and Legislature.December 2009 7https://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationPractices/Marine/HabitatProtectionandRestoration/Pages/South ern-New-England-and-New-York-Seagrass-Research-Initiative.aspx 8 Airoldi et al.2005.An ecological perspective on the development and design of low-crested and other hard coastal defence structures.Coastal Engineering 52:1073-1087. 9 Fonseca MS et al. (2000)Integrating biology and economics in seagrass restoration: How much is enough and why?Ecol Engin 15:227-237. 'Ohttps://www.dos.ny.gov/opd/programs/consistency/Habitats/Longlsland/Fishers_Island_Beaches_Pine_Islands_Sh allows.pdf https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/fishersisland.pdf Paij � �' 3i�1 DEC 1 0 2018 1 LEY Donald Young Dock Application Chocomount Cove,Fishers Island,NY Comment Letter on Pending Agency Reviews • On page 3 of the Environmental Questionnaire provided to the Town Trustees the applicant indicated that the tops of the eel grass blades are visible at low tide. As the proposed berth is located above the eel grass beds it would stand that the tops of the blades will be in direct contact with any vessel utilizing the berth. As such,the berthing of the vessel will not only directly impact the eel grass in this area but will provide significant shading to the bed in this area. These actions will have a direct impact on the eel grass bed and could potentially cause a loss of vegetation in this area. • The elevations depicted on the project plans are in direct contradiction with the explanation provided on Page 4 of the Environmental Questionnaire. The response to Policy#4 indicates that the vessel will not be berthed directly over eel grass beds. However,the elevation depicted in the project plans indicates that due to dock placement and the placement of the tie-off piles,any vessel utilizing the proposed berth will be located directly above the eel grass bed to the west. • Other examples of insufficient information and deficiencies are noted below: Page 29 of the Trustees application indicates that the proposed dock is located at the site of an historic structure. The historic imagery (1962) indicates that no such structure was present Page 29 Timber vs. Open grate indicated the entirety of the dock will be open grate. Further under response to Policy 42 it is indicated that only the terminal 30 feet will be "Flowthru" decking. Though it is difficult to interpret on the plans received and reviewed, it appears as though the bathymetry starts to rise in the area where boats will be moored. The boat will be potentially moored directly over the eelgrass bed with very little space between the boat and bottom of the Cove. This will directly impact eelgrass from physical impact if the boat is sitting on bottom, as well as shading and boat operation including propeller wash. Agency Standards for Permit Issuance Town of Southold Trustees The Town of Southold Board of Trustee is tasked with administering all activities within 100 feet of the Town's wetlands and the underwater lands owned by the Trustees for its citizens. Per Section 275- 11C(2)(b)(1) of the code that guides the Trustees "No dock shall be erected or extended if, in the opinion of the Trustees, such structure would adversely affect navigation, fisheries, shell,fisheries, scenic quality, habitats or wetland areas." Review of the application materials finds that there is a potential impact to fisheries, shell fisheries, habitats and/or wetland areas. NYSDEC Per 6 NYCRR 661.1,New York State set forth in the Tidal Wetlands Act to protect and preserve all Tidal wetlands and tidal wetland adjacent areas and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) is tasked with enforcing the regulations designed to preserve, protect and enhance the present and potential values of tidal wetlands. While some specific standards for issuance may be met,as a State Regulatory Agency,NYSDEC may fail to grant permits for select projects where site designations are coupled with site specific information that indicates placement and usage would have adverse impacts to the area. This is inclusive of projects that are inconsistent with the nature of the nearby area and the bisection of valuable habitats such as expansive E C iLE � V 0 EC 1 o 2018 I Donald Young Dock Application Chocomount Cove,Fishers Island,NY Comment Letter on Pending Agency Reviews submerged aquatic vegetation beds12 as present at this site. Review of the application materials finds that there is a potential to adversely impact to essential functions associated with tidal wetlands and habitat, specifically related to eel grass beds which are noted to be a significant resource by New York State as referenced herein. USACE The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE) Regulatory Program involves the regulating of structures or works in navigable waters of the United States, under section 404 of the Clean Water Act and section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. As the proposed Young Dock is located within navigable waters of the United States the USACE has jurisdiction of the project. As part of the permitting process,USACE will conduct an agency-to-agency review with NOAA regarding potential impacts of the proposed structure to EFH. New York State Department of State The New York State Department of State is responsible for administering the New York State Coastal Management Program(NYS CMP). The agency is committed to balancing competing land and water uses in the coastal zone and utilized consistency review as the tool which enables the DOS to manage coastal uses and resources. The"consistency" of a proposed activity with the NYS CMP is determined through a set of coastal policies and procedures designed to enable appropriate economic development while advancing the protection and preservation of ecological,cultural,historic,recreational,and esthetic values. Specifically, NYS CMP Policy#7 states "Significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats will be protected, preserved, and where practical, restored so as to maintain their viability as habitat." Based on a review of the proposed Young Dock and application materials submitted to the Town of Southold, the proposed project is inconsistent with Policy#7. Findings Based on review of the information submitted by the applicant to date, there are three (3) findings that should be considered by the permitting agencies: 1. The information submitted is inadequate for permit review 2. There is a potential for significant adverse impacts to important eelgrass beds. 3. The proposed project is in contravention of resource protection regulations and policies. SEQRA As a result, it is respectfully submitted that the application be denied. If further information is entertained by the permitting agencies either in support of denial, or through additional permit review, this information should be presented in the form of an Environmental Impact Statement. The State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and regulations contained in 6NYCRR Part 617 mandates that if one or more potential [emphasis added] environmental impacts may occur as a result of a proposed action, a Positive Declaration should be issued and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS) should be prepared.13 A DEIS would allow for the proper inventory to be prepared and presented. A DEIS would ensure that an objective assessment of potential adverse environmental impacts is conducted. A DEIS would provide an evaluation of mitigation measures and an examination of alternatives to the proposed project that would reduce or eliminate adverse 12 https://www.dee.ny.gov/docs/fish_marine�df/twcatwalkguidance.pdf �� E, I! a 1 13 SEQRA Part 617; §617.7(a)(2) i nD I ttz,l- % R: age Southold Town R�nrd rif TmOep-g Donald Young Dock Application Chocomount Cove,Fishers Island,NY Comment Letter on Pending Agency Reviews environmental impacts. A DEIS would ensure that all agencies have the same information for review instead of piecemeal, uncoordinated review of the materials. Finally, a DEIS would allow for public and inter-agency involvement in.the review process to ensure that a"hard look" is taken at the action before any permits are issued. The preparation of a DEIS is required in the case of the Donald Young dock application. Conclusion The proposed Donald Young dock may result in significant adverse impact to important eelgrass beds in Chocomount Cove,Fishers Island. The existing eelgrass has not been adequately mapped to provide a full assessment of potential adverse impacts; however, evidence suggests that impacts will occur. Impacts to this sensitive area need to be fully investigated as this area is a state listed Critical Environmental Area, Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat,NOAA Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat of Particular Concern. There are discrepancies in application materials. Review of available information finds that standards for issuance of permits applicable to permitting agencies are not met. As a result, the application should be denied. If the application is to be further entertained by permitting agencies, a DEIS is required. Please consider this application carefully to ensure protection of important marine resources, specifically eelgrass (Zostera marina) present in Chocomount Cove, Fishers Island, NY. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this review. Respectfully submitted, NELSON,POPE&VOORHIS,LLC Charles J. Voorhis, CEP,AICP Managing Partner cc: Martin D. Finnegan,Esq., Twomey Latham 1 f]D E0 % Q ! E ` DEC 1 0 2018 Southold Town Board of Trustees Page 6 Donald Young Dock Application Chocomount Cove,Fishers Island,NY Comment Letter on Pending Agency Reviews ATTACHMENTS rc_ C',' 1LE F1 DEC 1 0 2018 Soulhuld Town Boal 6 of Trustees Donald Young Dock Application Chocomount Cove,Fishers Island,NY Comment Letter on Pending Agency Reviews Attachment A WBL and Associates, LLC Letter Report .a 11i DEC 1 0 2018 fir Sout:o!d Ta1Nn Board of Trustees tes 0,/11 WBL and Associa LLC ENVIRONMENTAL,CONSULTING 1o3 Fort Salon Road-Stike 6 Fort Saloriga,NY 11-168 www.wl)lztti(lassoriates.com November 12,2018 Mr. Charles Voorhis,CEP,AICP Nelson,Pope&Voorhis 572 Walt Whitman Road Melville,NY 11747 Re: DEC Application#1-4738-04558/00001-Proposed Dock-Chocomount Cove,Fishers Island Dear Mr.Voorhis, Thank you for allowing WBL and Associates, LLC the opportunity to review the Young application before the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), Army Corps of Engineers, New York State Department of State Coastal Zone Management and the Town of Southold for the proposed fixed pier and floating dock on Fishers Island, Suffolk County. Per your request, WBL personnel have reviewed the NYSDEC submission materials for the Young dock application in regards to how this proposal might affect the beds of common eelgrass (Zostera marina) which exist along the northern coast of Fishers Island. In addition to reviewing the application materials, scientific reports regarding eel grass status as well as remote resources concerning eel grass occurrence were researched in conjunction with this effort.' Reviewing the application materials and researching these resources, in combination with over 40 of years analyzing similar properties for these types of concerns have allowed WBL and Associates,LLC to come to an objective opinion regarding this application. Mr. Youngs property lies on the north shore of Fishers Island, in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County on a body of water called Chocomount Cove;just north of Middle Farms Pond, and due south of Ram Island, Connecticut. This waterfront property is bordered on its west by a similar type of residential property and to its east by a wooded property owned by the Henry L Ferguson Museum. It is bordered to the south by East End Road, and to the north by its shoreline with Chocomount Cove. Aerial imagery and the proposed site plans suggest the subject property consists of a large single family dwelling with ancillary structures including a detached garage and pool. On August 21, 2017, NYSDEC Region 1 was in receipt of an application (#1-4738- 04558/00001) by Mr. Donald Young to construct a fixed pier,ramp,and floating dock as well as to install mooring pilings off his shoreline on Chocomount Cove. This proposed activity would go directly through an area mapped by NYSDEC as known, extensive eelgrass beds (See Figure 3). The project area is also mapped and apart of the study entitled Tier 1 2017 Mapping of Zostera marina in Long Island Sound and Change Analysis authored by the University of Rhode No site visit was conducted as part of this review. NPVFSH01-01 DEC 1 0 201 I Southold Town Island, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services and the United States Geological Survey (USGS). See Figure 4-below. The submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) presence at this location is substantial and expansive. and has the potential to grow and expand throughout this area, even to patches where there may not be SAV presently as the existing eel grass beds occur on multiple sides of and immediately adjacent to bare patches. These tidal wetland areas are providing essential benthic habitat for foraging, feeding, resting, breeding and protection from predation for the wildlife species using the site. The proposed float and decking would result in excessive shading of SAV resulting in a reduction of marine food production, wildlife habitat and degradation of habitat. Therefore, this proposal will have undue adverse impacts on the present values of the affected tidal wetland area or adjoining or nearby tidal wetland areas for marine food production, wildlife habitat, flood and hurricane and storm control, cleansing ecosystems, absorption of silt and organic material, recreation, education, research or open space and aesthetic appreciation. For these reasons, the proposed action does not appear to meet NYSDEC standard for permit issuance set forth in Environmental Conservation Law 6CRR-NY 661.9(b)(1)(I)which reads: "The department shall issue a permit for a proposed regulated activity on any tidal wetland only if it is determined that the proposed activity is compatible with the policy of the act to preserve and protect tidal wetlands and to prevent their despoliation and destruction in that such regulated activity will not have an undue adverse impact on the present or potential value of the affected tidal wetland area or adjoining or nearby tidal wetland areas..." In addition, per NYSDEC DFW-6 Guidance for Residential Catwalks and Docks (IV) Guidance: "granting of a permit for a dock/catwalk ramp and float should take into account the overall conditions of the site in which the structure is proposed. Piers, docks and catwalks, shall be designed and constructed to avoid ... impacts to ecological functions, critical area resources such as eelgrass beds and fish habitats." Further stated in this Guidance, under When valuable habitat...may result in denial of permit: "Some of the estuaries surrounding Long Island have estuary management plans or other official habitat designations that recommend management actions and implementation of projects in support of protecting and restoring significant habitats threatened by pollution, development and/or overuse. When these supportive...site designations are coupled with...the bisection of valuable habitats such as expansive [emphasis added] marsh or SAV beds, the standards for permit issuance may not necessarily be attainable." In review of the application materials, it does not appear the proposed structure was conceptualized or designed in order to avoid impacts to eelgrass and will bisect SAV beds. At present, few docks exist along the shoreline of Chocomount Cove. These structures are largely older, with three (one now dilapidated) having been built before the Environmental Conservation Laws were enacted (existing on 1974 NYSDEC maps2). Except for one dock built in 2014, the remainder of the docks on Chocomount Cove appear to have been built no more recently than 2001. Presumably these newer docks were all approved before measures were taken to preserve extensive beds of eelgrass, for example the creation of the Seagrass Task Force established in 2006 and the passage of New York State's Seagrass Protection Act in 2012. At the time of this letter (2018), the NYSDEC, as well as other agencies, are working to preserve the eelgrass beds of Fishers Island in order to continue to provide essential fish habitat, ensure food Z See NYSDEC Tidal Wetland Maps 752-572 and 752-574(Map Index 5). DuI, NPVFSH01-01 DEC tl U 206 Southold Town is provided for marine organisms, and protect this important natural community which has been declining across New York waters. As noted above,in reviewing the application materials pending before the NYSDEC and other agencies,it appears the proposed fixed pier,ramp,floating dock and tie-off piles will have adverse impacts on known, extensive eelgrass beds on the north shore of Fishers Island. Because this proposed action will have such an adverse impact on the local eelgrass community (and therefore the local ecology as a whole), the proposed project cannot by definition meet NYSDEC standard for permit issuance set forth in the ECL. An application has also been submitted to the New York State Department Coastal Zone Management. The shoreline of the project site is"within an area deemed Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat (see Figure 5). For reasons stated above, this project is inconsistent with the programs policies. Fishers Island is home not only to rare plants and significant concentration of birds, but also harbor seals. Per the Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Form - Fishers Island Beaches, Pine Island and Shallows, are significant habitat areas, described as follows: "The 2002 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service eelgrass (Zostera marina) survey for Eastern Long Island Sound, Connecticut, and New York has'documented moderate to heavy densities of this submerged aquatic species within much of the marine shallows areas along the north shore of Fishers Island. Eelgrass beds range at depths from 4.5 to 14 feet at mean low water; about 194 acres of beds have been documented and mapped. Eelgrass meadows provide critical habitat for a great diversity of aquatic species, including numerous finfish, shellfish, and crustacean species. These eelgrass meadows represent the only substantive populations of this species along the New York State shoreline portion of Long Island Sound. " In addition,the Assessment Form states: "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 Fishers Island Beaches,Pine Islands, and Shallows habitat. Elimination of salt marsh and intertidal areas, through loss of tidal connection,ditching, excavation, or filling,would result in a direct loss of valuable habitat area." As an application was also submitted to, the Army Corps of Engineers, many Federal agencies will review this application and provide comments. These agencies include U.S. Fish and Wildlife (FWS), National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As mentioned previously, the project area is also mapped and apart of the study entitled Tier 12017 Mapping of Zostera marina in Long Island Sound and Change Analysis authored by the University of Rhode Island, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services and the United States Geological Survey (USGS). This location is part of a 28.40 acre eelgrass bed that was surveyed as part of the mapping. This is also consistent with a survey that was done by FWS in 2002, entitled Eelgrass Survey of Eastern'Long Island,Connecticut and New York. The evidence of SAV presence at this location is great and has the potential to,grow and expand throughout this area, even to patches where DVi V NPVFSH01-01 n� u DEC 1 0 2018 !' there may not be SAV presently. Again,these tidal wetland areas have the potential to provide essential benthic habitat for foraging, feeding, resting, breeding and protection from predation for the wildlife species using the site. Further, although this review focused mainly on the presence of SRVs, it is noted that the Environmental Assessment Form submitted with the Donald Young application stated that no threatened or endangered species occur within the vicinity of the project site. Further, the application materials submitted did not include any records from the New York State Natural Heritage Program (NYS NHP) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) in regards to rare, threatened or endangered species. This area does provide habitat for such state and federal listed species such as Least Tern (Sternula antillarum) and Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) both of which are known to breed on the coastline of Fishers Island. Finally, a review of the Town of Southol&s Town Code Chapter 275- Wetlands and Shorelines and application materials, which reflect the information provided in both the state and federal applications, provides no further details or statistics that the proposed construction of the dock, ramp and float will not create an adverse impact to the existing SAVs and the habitat they provide. Chapter 275, Article II, Permits, requires the Trustees to determine "Whether the dock will result in the destruction of or prevent the growth of vegetated wetlands, seagrasses including eelgrass (Zostera marina) and widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima) or shellfish." The structure is atypical in nature as it is considerably longer than usually permitted; both by the Town and state guidance. In view of the evidence provided herein,it would appear that the proposed application on behalf of Donald Young will result in potential adverse impacts to seagrasses including eelgrass. As such, it is our opinion that this application does not meet the standards for permit issuance from the state,the federal,or the local government agencies. If you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me as provided in the letterhead above. Sincerely, Taylor SturmD �,� Associate Scientist _ 1 : DEC 1 0 2018 r 1 Sautho{d Foam Board of Taistees NPVFSH01-01 i v Figure Site Location Cfi ocomount Cove ,: ✓✓' ~- -: ' if - ,4, i' _ TOP o r ' 'd3o1 rte vifestane ro Ilk 9a`Fteyfie?d Cove a j Gedab¢ *-A hocomounti "' \ " odd 1 arms Pond f Treasure Po d i - (batanby Flock 4 'N, i 1 Jr + f Barlow Po,,..l ' a and Pond Beach Pon\O, d 00 e earth 3000 ft ,z 2U18 i;rory1 s a Figure 2 Site Location Map- Local - A INN Location a _ dv Akr + • �+� � �"� * ,yam i,' `_ .�{+, �,i •. +�. t ♦ 46 w _ r - 4• % 4 ' �' f it 0 .4 0 * ♦ A �•� �..� � r. a A j *' ,rel , &V Alt �'.► J r t�•�ai .�'S� �� s�• ` ,�L �s'1 �''�r tea 7'M f. �. � ;_-,y► ✓ v C • ,x I� .r-Ask DEC 1 0 2018 Saw"6" NYSDEC Statewi eag. Map NYStatewideSeagrass .c SITE LOCATION s �i A 1 a A6 The most current available seagrass maps from the Long Island Sound Study, Peconic Estuary Program, and the South 200ft Shore Estuary Reserve have been integrated to create one map for New York seagrass habitat. CRCOG/State of CT, New York State, Microsoft FIGURE 3 NYSDEC STATEWIDE SEAGRASS MAP YOUNG PROPERTY - FISHERS ISLAND CHOCOMOUNT COVE r DEC 102018 Boat ,� Tr `acs USFWS Long Islai ind Eeli, Surveys 2017 USFWS Long Island So... SITE LOCATION f ..� ``. ��i� �t a ••]�fitn .�* `k ,/ J,J- ,• � ♦] A, ♦ ,fir ,`., # .f}'�`•� `� ZZZ� .k i. ` t .. 41 ..r+{ �u ' ,tom. L .j r tom. .r' �° ,'� - •� . a N fr`.t FIGURE 4 *` r , : 2017 USFWS Zostera marina MAPPING 'Af'r YOUNG PROPERTY - FISHERS ISLAND CHOCOMOUNT COVE Suffolk County, MassGIS, UConn/CTDEEP, Esri, HERE, Garmin, IN... DEC 1 0 2018 i http://edc.maps.arcgis.com/appsNiew/index.html?appid=5e9065b777dl4249a5dbdO5bf84ab955 L-Southold Town 0=4 Fishers Island SITE LOCATION ' F y i / Significant coastal fish &wildlife habitats- NYS Dept of State EDFederall-ands_NY FIGURE 5 - NYS DOS SIGNIFICANT COASTAL FISH & Coastal_Boundary_Polyline_update Coastal Bou ndary_Polygon_March2017 WILDLIFE HABITAT MAP NItwYotit�c Department The New York Department of State(DOS)gives no warranty,expressed or implied,as to the accuracy,reliability,or completeness of data shown on this map product. of tate DOS does not assume responsibility for the use or application of any information represented on this map nor responsibility for any error, omission or other discreoancv between the electronic and printed versions of documents. Donald Young Dock Application Chocomount Cove,Fishers Island,NY Comment Letter on Pending Agency Reviews Attachment B Photographs of Chocomount Cove Eelgrass (photographs by Nick Noyes, neighboring property owner dated October 26, 2018) L E D JPD DEC 1 0 201 '� Southold Town Boar'of Tru f— MV�d1 Chocomont Cove Proposed dock site, Young Property, Fishers Island NY October 261 2018 (t//�1' DEC 1 0 2018 Southold bsm Q ar'eT Trustees Eel grassarea Chris Pickerell f- - DEC 1 ;ww► 4- a ' ' 8 i Town B Of Tr St r { rCEstimated siting ~` ',�•. ' of dock and location of r � 4 o #- _ — •� close-up r �s photographs W. _�. white triangle marks approximate location of white lobster buoy noted in y�� ♦ . photographs IF DEC �_ I Looking in towards *- -�, � --- shore from white — --.___ buoy DEC 1 � 0 2018 � Boar &A.M yM t y _ - - Looking in towards shoe —�- - and to - - "" right/west DEC 1 0 2018 SO!I Id Board of Tru ,e-s Looking o u t -�' towards white buoy (North) i MLE: 018 ' s 1 r o- a1.� .. �. T ..1+rw .. �r �. � •ti►47� wn�F- -'M�n.+ryM�`r'. �.! .�HFr �1✓��.. ��"M'�F�' Looking out towards white buoy (North) 0 rn C4 n E a G O � N 00 v �� ,,• Looking out - towards white buoy (North) m w Looking out towards white buoy (North) D c Q ; DEC 1 0 2018 Southold;own Boar of Tru eeS 1Y 'WA r e Y Looking out towards white lk buoy (North) E Ed' � � � �1 D EC 1 0 2018 Southold Town Boar ofi Truste Looking out towards white buoy (North), from closer in to shore I• D EC 1 0 2018 Southold Town ar I of Trustee r- Looking out towards white buoy (North), from - closer in to shore ; IEC DEC 1 0 2018 ar of.r stee � ' x r C. t 9- 7-- Looking - _ - - - __ - --- - - - towa rd � shore - - y - - I-D 1 DEC 1 0 2018 t Boar f r(L':ICS 1F i AMM mel •� Looking tow r a d - -- shore Ap saw - r — F 1 DEC 1 0 2018 I Southold Town auard of Tru;te ti .• sem.. _-. _ .,r. a - �_ _ �job — p --- - �- - _ - Looking toward s - - shore t _ Ar- M , +mow. ate► ,ra ..- �� - DEC 1 0 2018 J SOUTF Board ci „u,_rls • Property of Donald Young Property Off East End Road, Fishers Island N,: „ ,,...fir_ ,... 0 Property of Donald Young Property Off East End Road, Fishers Island •':'"`gym. .,� �x.��„�'. " y 0 Property of Donald Young Property Off East End Road, Fishers Island ! •Ib Asm ML 4 + T!.E q4 . -VOW a I s 45 NEW LONDON-BLOCK lSLANLT I �/� ' i -------------- 75 ----- -------------- 72 f---------_ 53 - 30 '0 -w Yogi East Clump I i I � 1 I 67__.ffo 1 - -y i • i 53 54 1 -,E�- Micl yJ 1 I1• #- Glum.pl I 35 72_ West- 42 ,Clump I `" Fiock `` 1 Pine I I9lends Pmnt � - ) "ongry Eas27 i , Harb _ _ � - � �G/ I ^�� - - -^' ��- � � J � ��` "�'• } Fou lJ 12 ..I- .-3a-=-=- - -�� - -is �\�( I t:�J�riio� � �#,/`_-\ - i�. ,OQ` �;�,i�J.• *� ,�;,..> y`"`-- 1 -Kj' ••�''"+.__� ',� a \>t)I,(,,F -�_ .t\� �t ' 'lu -' ',� 1 '�='r � 6.` Al { �w�} a � 31 t `;f., " acv � { Ib ?0`1 •sp ? *"mod`.---12 0.,, I _ i 1. ,,i �O_ L Y ,✓ ll ----� } .—I-c--•�� --*Key Post a —I Fidal f - %' .I Flat' - i em 30fsl nd Pn» + $� 116 / _ k,,: I 21 0° 0' LOCATION MAP l L 25 PROJECT: "NEW PIER AND FLOAT" Y 1 36 WATERWAY: FISHERS ISLAND SOUND LOCATION: FISHERS ISLAND,TOWN OF SOUTHOLD — _ — '` SUFFOLK COUNTY,NEW YORK ------ - -- --- -- - - -- APPLICANT: DONALD YOUNG AGENT: DOCKO,INC. j Docko, Inc.1C. Serving the waterfront community since 1987 P.O.Box 421,Mystic,CT 06355(860)572-8939 Fax:(860)572-7569,email:office@docko.com December 20, 2017 Mr. David J.Newman i D EC 2 6 2017 New York Department of State 1 Commerce Plaza sa:tno�d iown 99 Washington Avenue Boar f Tru tee Albany,New York 12231-0001 RE: F-2017-0781 U.S Army Corps of Engineers/New York District Permit Application—Young Property Dock Build timber pier,ramp, float, and tie-off piles Off East End Road Fishers Island, Town of Southold, Suffolk County Dear Mr.Newman, In response to your letter of November 21st regarding application number F-2017-0781, we offer the following additional information: 1. Attached is a revised and signed Federal Consistency Assessment Form(FCAF). Question number 2A has been marked yes as suggested in section C on the form. 2. Attached is a written policy analysis of coastal policy number 12 as requested. 3. We have reviewed the archeological sensitive area mapping on the cultural resources GIS site. While the area seems to be designated as an archaeologically significant area, or a sensitive area,we would offer the following review of site conditions: - This site has been developed as a home site and has existed as such for almost 100 years (Circa 1926). The house that currently exists replaced the previous home which was the childhood residence of Mr. Charles Rafferty,who has spent his life time on Fishers Island. Mr. Pierce Rafferty knows of no cultural or archeological finds on this site, and he has been a collector of the Island heritage for decades. He and his family have also been instrumental in the development of the Fishers Island Museum and as such would have firsthand knowledge of significant archeological discoveries at this site. - The entire rear yard of the site has been excavated, bush whacked, cleared, graded and landscaped with provisions for patios, gardens, irrigation and essential sanitation services in the form of a sub-surface sewage disposal system, in order to form the basis for the existing and previous homestead. - The proposed development for this site involves driving four sets of piles on land, which could be regarded as landward of the upper intertidal zone and foreshore. The entire upland pier support area of contact is less than 8 SF, 40 feet landward of the Apparent (Spring) High Water Line. There is no excavation proposed,and the likelihood of hitting archeologically significant remains is extremely limited. Each pile occupies an area of less than a square foot when driven into these soil conditions. Pile driving will be done from a barge just offshore at high tide. 4. Attached is a copy of the Coastal Erosion Management permit application, which was prepared for submittal to the Town several months ago, concurrently,with filing this application. The Town Board of Trustees has asked that we not submit dock applications for their approval until we have received the other State and Federal authorizations and so this application is still pending with the Town. 5. We have been assured repeatedly that a dock previously existed on this site based on the first-hand childhood recollections of Mr. Pierce Rafferty whose Grandfather Charles grew up at this site. Attached are photographs that we have obtained, which shows this dock in the same area as it is proposed herein. The attached photographs show the massive pier which accounts for the stone in the area and could account for the void in the eel grass bed,which I believe is where the crib supported pier head was located. 6. Attached are copies of the materials forwarded to the DEC in response to their letter of September 27, 2017. That application has cleared the regulatory review, and is currently under evaluation by the Marine Habitat Protection Bureau. In the course of preparing these application documents, we met personally with the Director of the Marine Habitat Protection Bureau,and agreed upon the configuration and location of the proposed dock facilities as being the most suitable,taking into account the resources of the site and the anticipated construction methodology. The Director, Mr. Andrew Walker, was agreeable to the proposed location and configuration of his dock facility. I trust that you find this information adequate and appropriate for you to issue the requested Consistency Determination. Please feel free to contact me at your convenience if further discussion is desired. Yours truly, D E JV E DOCKO, INC. DEC 2 6 Keith B.Neilson, P.E. Southold 1ovan B ar of Trusters CC: Mr Andrew Walker, Director Marine Habitat Protection Bureau,NYS DEC Mr. Michael Domino, President Southhold Trustees Mr. Donald Young File: 17-03-2822 YOUNG i NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Federal Consistency Assessment Form An applicant,seeking a permit,license,waiver,certification or similar type of approval from a federal agency which is subject to the New York State Coastal Management Program(CMP),shall complete this assessment form for anyproposed activity that will occur within and/or directly affect the State's Coastal Area. This form is intended to assist an applicant in certifying that the proposed activity is consistent with New York State's CMP as required by U.S. Department of Commerce regulations(15 CFR 930.57).It should be completed at the time when the federal application is prepared. The Department of State will use the completed form and accompanying information in its review of the applicant's certification of consistency. A.APPLICANT (please print) �ll 1.Name: Donald Young 2.Address: 3640 Piping Rock Lane, Houston,TX 77027 L= but o tl Town 3.Telephone: Area,Code(281) 870-8402 ar of Trus ee B.PROPOSED ACTIVITY 1.Brief description of activity: Construct 150(+/-)LF of 4-FT wide fixed wood pile and timber pier including rails and water/electric utilities, of which 133(+/-)LF is waterward of the Apparent High Water Line, install an 8-FT x 20-FT float with associated hinged access ramp and three tie-off piles. 2.Purpose of activity: The purpose of this project is to construct a dock for private recreational boating use by the Young family. 3.Location of activity: Suffolk Fishers Island.Town of Southold Off East End Road County City,Town,or Village Street or Site Description 4.Type of federal permit/license required: US ACOE 5.Federal application number,if known: Pending 6.If a state permit/license was issued or is required for the proposed activity,identify the state agency and provide the application or permit number,if known: C.COASTAL ASSESSMENT Check either"YES"or"NO"for each of these questions. The numbers following each question refer to the policies described in the CMP document(see footnote on page 2)which may be affected by the proposed activity. 1.Will the proposed activity result in any of the following: YES/NO a.Large physical change to a site within the coastal area which will require the preparation El Iff of an environmental impact statement? (11,22,25,32,37, 38,41,43). . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . b.Physical alteration of more than two acres of land along the shoreline,land under water or coastal waters? (2, 11, 12,20,28,35,44). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. . . . c.Revitalization/redevelopment of a deteriorated or underutilized waterfront site? (1) . . .. . . Q d.Reduction of existing or potential public access to or along coastal waters? (19,20) .. .. . . Q e.Adverse effect upon the commercial or recreational use of coastal fish resources? (9,10) . . . Q- -M f. Siting of a facility essential to the exploration,development and production of energy resources in coastal waters or on the Outer Continental Shelf? (29). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . EL -9 g. Siting of a facility essential to the generation or transmission of energy? (27). . . . . . . . . . . h.Mining,excavation,or dredging activities,or the placement of dredged or fill material in coastal waters? (15,35) . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . Q 19 i.Discharge of toxics,hazardous substances or other pollutants into coastal waters? (8, 15,35) [1 .0 j.Draining of stormwater runoff or sewer overflows into coastal waters? (33).. .. . . Q k.Transport,storage,treatment,or disposal of solid wasttov r s iaf I .,(( 6, Q 1.Adverse effect upon land or water uses within the Statarbors '(4 :'�- �,. Q -9 FF 2.Will the proposed activity affect or be located in,on,or adjace �fh�flo ing17 YES/NO a.State designated freshwater or tidal wetland? (44) . . .. . . . . . . . .S0!1thald icadn.. . . . . . . . . b.Federally designated flood and/or state designated er &&?af(!Qtal2� _ c.State designated significant fish and/or wildlife habitat? (7). .. . . .. .. . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . d. State designated significant scenic resource or area? (24). . . .. .. . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . .. . _ e.State designated important agricultural lands? (26). .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . .. . . 0 f.Beach,dune or barrier island? (12). . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . g.Major ports of Albany,Buffalo,Ogdensburg,Oswego or New York? (3). . . .. . . .. .. . . . . Q h. State,county,or local park? (19,20). . . . . . . .. .. . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i.Historic resource listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places? (23). . . . . . . . 3.Will the proposed activity require any of the following: YES/NO a.Waterfront site? (2,21,22). . . . . . . .. . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . b.Provision of new public services or infrastructure in undeveloped or sparsely populated sections of the coastal area? (5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . 0 c.Construction or reconstruction of a flood or erosion control structure? (13, 14, 16) . . . . . . . Q d. State water quality permit or certification? (30,38,40). . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . e. State air quality permit or certification? (41,43). . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . .. . .. .. . . . . . . 4. Will the proposed activity occur within and/or affect an area covered by a State approved local waterfront revitalization program? (see policies in local program document). . . . .. .. . . .. . . El D.ADDITIONAL STEPS 1.If all of the questions in Section C are answered"NO",then the applicant or agency shall complete Section E and submit the documentation required by Section F. 2.If any of the questions in Section C are answered"YES",then the applicant or agent is advised to consult the CMP,or where appropriate,the local waterfront revitalization program document*. The proposed activity must be analyzed in more detail with respect to the applicable state or local coastal policies. On a separate page(s),the applicant or agent shall: (a) identify,by their policy numbers,which coastal policies are affected by the activity,(b)briefly assess the effects of the activity upon the policy; and,(c)state how the activity is consistent with each policy. Following the completion of this written assessment,the applicant or agency shall complete Section E and submit the documentation required by Section F. E.CERTIFICATION The applicant or agent must certify that the proposed activity is consistent with the State's CMP or the approved local waterfront revitalization program,as appropriate. If this certification cannot be made,the proposed activity shall not be undertaken. If this certification can be made,complete this Section. "The proposed activity complies with New York State's approved Coastal Management Program,or with the applicable approved local waterfront revitalization program,and will be conducte , gram" D Applicant/Agent's Name:Donald Young Address: 3640 Piping Rock Lane, Houston,TX 77027 1 DEC 2 6 2017 Telephone: Area Code( 281 ) 870-8402 --;-;--� - ilJ�a-�c�Jr.L-. luc� Bc�rdo� auc� Applicant/Agent's Signature: ) Date: ► F. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS 1.The applicant or agent shall submit the following documents to the New York State Department of State,Office of Coastal,Local Government and Community Sustainability,Attn:Consistency Review Unit,1 Commerce Plaza,99 Washington Avenue-Suite 1010,Albany,New York 12231. a.Copy of original signed form. b.Copy of the completed federal agency application. c.Other available information which would support the certification of consistency. 2.The applicant or agent shall also submit a copy of this completed form along with his/her application to the federal agency. 3.If there are any questions regarding the submission of this form,contact the Department of State at (518) 474-6000. *These state and local documents are available for inspection at the offices of many federal agencies,Department of environmental Conservation and Department of State regional offices,and the appropriate regional and county planning agencies. Local program documents are also available for inspection at the offices of the appropriate local government. { j Young Property Dock- F-2017-0781 Policy No. 12 The proposed dock facility is a wood pile and timber pier with a hinged ramp to a floating dock. This is an "open wood" structure which will not impede water flow and circulation, nor will it change wave dynamics in the cove or drainage patterns during rainfall. This structure requires no excavation and, therefore will not induce erosion and will in no way affect flood and erosion inpacts to which this site may be exposed.The dock structure will also not adversely impact natural resources and protective features of the coast such as the beach or vegetated foreshore. The existing shoreline, between the house and waters of Fishers Island Sound, consists of a landscaped lawn with gardens and a fringe of wilderness,trees and understory. The foreshore is a minor dune, overgrown with vines saplings and meadow type grasses transitioning to marine grasses,beach grass, glasswort and a variety of other tidal wetlands and dune vegetation. This project is to build a pier which will span the tidal wetland and dune features as well as the shallow subtidal waters to reach a viable docking site. The piles will be 12 inches nominal butt diameter, pressure treated Southern Yellow Pine. The piles will be stout and tough, adequate to deal with the flood elevations and sea states associated with this site and typical storm exposures. The split caps and deck stringers will be minimum 3X Grade 2 or better timbers and double bolted (I inch galvanized bolts) to each other and the piles. Decking will be screwed down. Piles would be driven to 15-foot embedment. Normally the pier would be at an elevation of 6-feet above Mean Low Water. This would provide appropriate clearance for normal 3-foot waves at normal high tides.The deck would be underwater at storm surge high tide, so the waves would break over it, not into it. A pier built with these specifications will withstand most storms to which Fishers Island is exposed and which we have personally experienced in this area since Hurricane Gloria in 1985. Gwenmor Marine Contractors will build the dock. They have been in business for more than 60 years and have built most of the docks on Fishers Island, all of which are still standing as a testimony to their workmanship. n I DEC 262017 t 11,s '��'" sem► �, . �� ... e x, �'"�. •+iso'',: -�% .:�rY. --- ._._. -..,..,� „,.. ;�►, IW ,w�� ►. �" �..�. .. ..,. «'s'"� � � '�.�� '�... .+ .rr. 4 py fi r to y =� ..'°�••f .rMAI .s,..a� r�',. xr�L - -•r"'"`'W,§".«: i r ,_p•'.. _s _ ''•I�!9'y . -4 g_.: .,_° 5�,.. � ° �+ir 'r y'�f7r � _� vV. •. 't., � +" -:74f ,' rtt .. �,. :T` �rte' �� .. �_,. d... •�f`a`.•� t�" r VW 4 x -y N any k a"`,yxte�a ,rr i"r, - 4 .I'' w a !"'� e � re!* �• �# r.P Oc,a . t . � '' i�:. a • e di t T�_ f '.a v "°' *b.� :+�' s y�.s � � a ,ys;. e P'7r'd 7N's y.. '•Z y ,!*5 CUr' 1'r''-r. Il` - v� +'f� r4! .moi' {�"{�'° � #-�!#'^Y' ,}a.� e'4+ '�r ��• • .. a ? .r• 1 ys. ..t. rI•'Yw ' T[- !w. ` � � i A � ..4 .yJ,�4 T� .� �y.. S .�'." z��i3� , F ,� _fi - .w.. y� '4.,t' qqT. j�..iw � p •� .+.� i'. y'r• 'y�. � ' ,fr. �4YF.... .:�; ' � tis ,�i ��,• T" �� A�,;� .�� .- � '�,�, �• � •� �� .A ` # "Iu,,k�. •}`��*•�' c t r-. ' ,y. N,r r,T a� r � -+�°� `��; �!' f•"� �+�'�; ° RSA._ � � ��A�y � •, .i.• � } ,l p.� `<yy.� •'.r+e• j 3s.•4"A}��(�j fs '' 'f '�,+'• � � r ` , t I`I'e��. �.' y-yhe�� ,. a e�� • 1.� 4� `'!�. _ �` t ,lacy;ar i _ .R. o Z . { a b a y p « • � Rw" r. cg . s } 'i Asa y.�—� _"�'•� /1"i�'� �. � �, as '� � ,,... �� ` `� r •• f i ."jai�v,.l'a nt" � � Si '� w TY•M1b, 3�` N 7 � t °+.. w �'� ' '. "" C IIF, �r ... I .. - t b ♦�' - .. �s .j •+��r�t�i. �� 1 � .t - w s v Docko Inc. _ � Serving the waterfront community since 1987 P.O.Box 421,Mystic,CT 06355(860)572-8939 Fax:(860)572-7569,email:office@docko.ct October 12, 2017 Ms. Claire Werner New York State DEC Region I Headquarters SUNY@ Stony Brook 50 Circle Road Stony Brook,NY 11790 RE: Young Property Application I.D. 1-4738-04558/00001 Dear Ms. Werner: We are transmitting herewith two copies of the Young property survey and 5 copies of an overall plan which shows the location of other existing structures in relation to the proposed new dock facility. I trust that you will find that this response meets all of your requirements and that you can continue to process the requested permit. Please let us know if you have need for any further information. Your assistance in processing this application is greatly appreciated. nD 1 - I1 � E Yours truly, DEC 2 6 2017 DOCKO, INC. Southold Town ar f Tr Keith B.Neilson, P.E. KBN: cb Enclosure CC: Mr. Donald Young File: 17-03-2822 YOUNG � ��—•� zz zt E�r'�� \ N FlNERS_ ISLAND SOUND. ` �^^^' 1=15HE12� ISL�NO .�OUN�7 �� - • ?�� -- "• 40 3131 a 1 [\�Q•b\ vim(, . ..' / 50 �, 1 .�.�71 ice' �` ,F-•• •�' 't., r'= ra DEC 2 6 2017 v�Mi ,'I�f �I .bi'v •''��r dpi .T-'t• V f./.. I • Sou;held Tod•in LOG�T10lV f"T�P RE�1GE and of Trust.es C�WI�RT:t32t4 —�-� GRAPHIC SGAI.E DOCKS DOGK� 3000 0 3000 N FEET '' ' GHOGOMOUNT CO'�/E �"""_''•�'' '• yr.. +PROPT3ZIY� �.I}•4-^'�'• -�` PRGtJEGT NEW YOUNG T``;< ` 1.ELEVATION DATUM 19 APPARENT LOW WATER(AWA PER \ cam'>' �, 2 ,. •,�^- :;; ,F:�;;_•;°, f �"- ��., :'t;�''' TIDE DATA 15 TAKEN FROM 2017 NDAA TIDE TABLES DOCK REFERENCE:WEST HARBOR-FISHERS ISLAND ' r4i �' '�.4- .. � /'�''y+•,"..::',I"�^•1: Ij ,.5.,^:N 3.PIV/jr=crcx :IRIr IIV � m h, tIONSTRU l IgOF A. 1 V VE FIXED WOOD PILE tLF �: .'r,, ,. _ _ y G�'. 't_'"" `T ;, ti r; -y'°�•:AND TIMBER PER INCLUDING RAILS AND �= `t '.�, '•�� r�_•_ �,,. ''''�'WATERJEL6Gl'R1G UTILITIES,OF WHICH 132sLF IS WATE'RWAM OF THE APPARENT HIGH WATER LINE, r:s(Y. `r;'•.i. 'c;� ti�.�n.�'•.'•- 14,•s. .i2=�� -- _ - :'" '%•• `-'.^'-•Y. �� -��z �� PROPERTY OF' INSTALL AN 8-FT X 20-FT FLOAT WITH ASSOG'IATED .;f} RAMPANDTHREET1PrOFFPILES. ti:_:H L FERGUSON HINGFF�ACGESS MU_ -cMM INC 4.PROJECTPURP05E N/F PROPERTY OF.- + ' >• :y i -; -: THIS IS A PRNATE DOCK FOR RECREATIONAL BOATING a:. .a..•::s: ,•'+'` �•.nor,�'�c'., HURLBURT " ": FIBF-IHF�S ISL ILIO s:'' ':z'_ TION DRAwiNGS REPRESENT 5.THESE of 50UTHOL.O A COMPLA11ON OF SURVEYS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL s ` PERMIT PURPOSES. TOWN THEY ARE NOT CONSTRUGiION CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.A TOWN BUILDING ;� :;T• ,; 't•`. .',�` `. .. �:, a s-�..PEWIT(S)MAYBE REQUIRED. O�/�RALL PL.AIV 0.ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS: GRAFFAG SCALE t•=500' WEST: FAST: HAROLD O.HURLBURT JR H L FERGUSON MUSEUM INC. 500 0 500 acid SANDRA L HURLBURT A17R FIERCE RAFFERTY DIRECTOR 7014 SHEAFF LANE PO BOX 54 FORT WASHINGTON,PA 19034 FIS-IMS ISLAND.NY 06390 PROJECT: NEW PIER and FLOAT REVISED 9 -17 DEC LOGATIO>•k ISHER5 ISLAND-TOWN 1f SOmOLD Qf N PRO:JEGT DESGRiPTiON SUFFOLK COUNTY.NEW YORK I T Q WATERWAY: PEI �A{VD SOUK PREVISED 10-3-T7 DEG DATE MAY 30.2017 U 0 C $O �=5O y�� DOCKS IN AREA APPLIGpdVT: DONALD YOUNG ' f Lu AGENT: SHEET r rz 1 O O, INC.Kafth S.Nelm PE X68 692.E �,a MY�GT C6�5 Olt P 0 'R AR�FESSI��P\' 800 672 8019 FAX 800''"1275H9 rDWG 17-03-?$22 EMAIL-offiCedUado."M keti+5 Nelson,Docko Inc Yourg-Dack_1c d,,g •� l .er •� IL Ar 01, ; ."�,.v.,y, •fir ti �* ♦ 1 j 'moi'`• 7 n ♦ w cp 1 ............ • � - � �` _ .. '�� -' .. ". � • y ! / .r'' '. may`. ®? Town Hall Annex Michael J.Domino,President John M.Bredemeyer III,Vice-President ,►�%'fi " fiD 54376 Route 25 P.O.Box 1179 Charles J.Sanders' Southold,New York 11971 Glenn Goldsmiths Telephone(631)765-1892 A.Nicholas Krupski � Fax(631)765-6641 Co BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD December 18, 2017 nil Mr. Keith B. Neilson, P.E.Docko, IncorporatedP.O. Box 421Mystic, CT 06355 RE: Boat Lift Permittability Young Property, Fishers Island Dear Mr. Neilson: During the past several months you have made presentations regarding increased pressure by Federal (USACOE) and State (DOS, DEC) agencies to make use of boat lifts in the course of designing dock facilities on private and public property for recreational boating usage. As you know, Chapter 275 of the Southold Code of Regulations, cited as the "Wetlands Law of the Town of Southold" (LL No.6-2004 adopted by the Southold Town Board on 2-24- 2004), Chapter 11, Construction and Operation Standards, Section C, in-water Structures, Paragraph (2)(c) Regulations for placement and configuration of docking facilities, [1] [6], states that residential boat lifts are prohibited except in privately owned basins on private property at the discretion of the Board of Trustees (Amended 12-18-2007 by LL No. 23-2007). We have attached a copy of the cited regulation for your usage. This project Is not located on private property; it is in the Public Trust Waters of the State and not in a private basin. The Board of Trustees will not approve a boat lift at this site based on the strict interpretation of our Town law. I trust that you find this information is in keeping consistent with terms of our discussions at the recent workshop meeting for this and other similar projects on which you are working. Very Truly Yours, r Michael J. Domino, President Board of Trustees EFH ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET FOR FEDERAL AGENCIES (modified 08/04) PROJECT NAME: New Pier and Float DATE: August 2017 PROJECT NO.: LOCATION:Young Property, East End Rd, Fishers Island, NY PREPARER: Keith B. Neilson, P.E., DOCKO, INC., Step 1. Use the Habitat Conservation Division EFH webpage,Guide to Essential Fish Habitat Designations in the Northeastern United States to generate the list of designated EFH for federally-managed species for the geographic area of interest (http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/index2a.htm). Use the species list as part of the initial screening process to determine if EFH for those species occurs in the vicinity of the proposed action. Attach that list to the worksheet because it will be used in later steps. Make a preliminary determination on the need to conduct an EFH Consultation. =,fir •.max:s=.�r;.,r.-sXh'B..=.m;z;t� t;f;=:,�u. :.:w:,�t':'sm�=�-"-'c .,r,.sn _r�-rm= hl-.'(1�a.» ar �;�,�r_a..3. �N��'��Y,l`5�� %,�,y1 VN�-a-r�,-r'-.= cy�=�'r;-a t- ,ami',..ss�,:..�,..1,:"�r,..o�..>"..��fw'�.:;`-Y.':.y�j��:.n„`-""�...:�•.-._.��9.k.s rr'H°�:- .oro =2 xi"'"-J.^a ,t _-'«ix.. y',r;.x1..,�» ••:ii`2h� � ud� v`FV"=., .-._»n... rS�2"x'ft� ',�r'S'o,:J'";.:0.}Su,` rr S;v:3.a.�.n,-+i' vyRlt �,± <i� Y,Y�r�n,.-.nf:?k=«�1.i��,4x::�.f-'.�";`n''i«:1: t "'�u'-�;;" .,u''M1�'_.. ,�,»��. �;a" """.zC'��'�u._.. ,z.=. .t�„e,.N”�.' ��,. Tw.,,., ,•,>• ��n. 1wp , s;�,,.c,,..p-,W,r >,.,�;.'�i,�k� "•�"._¢�a' .r at z:�.kF°9�;3"�,,,a,; ^.,ilr,s� �'�=i'Yar•r,",�,,,',� ."-�•.is" y, �� ',�°"x'''�`.,�`� -'w"_n �g-'�'rt"�,w�"�_ r '�:t,(' .+�aai u+�"�^"�.`k� r �4, r„-�.2 _� 1 � �i !•x'�.�iti. r.^`,e,e� r4,.T,. �P>. ''�a'�+, t- a'u�_..'y�,-e,-�,.•Iw "+�, i�..."ti i'usb:$, .g„ _;r"",?-;vf ��k�:^'x ry-;r,_e,.��rr � r'-r,;.'§� r+.0 X� 3;xaa, t.,,.;d,3.5.w.�r �-a*'�5�::r;'�"-�'uta' :1.' "^•':�a;tom",;t�' Is the action located in or adjacent to EFH designated for eggs? X Is the action located in or adjacent to EFH designated for larvae? x Is the action located in or adjacent to EFH designated for juveniles? X Is the action located in or adjacent to EFH designated for adults? X Is the action located in or adjacent to EFH designated for spawning adults? x If you answered no to all questions above,then EFH consultation is not required -go to Section 5. If you answered yes to any of the above questions proceed to Section 2 and x complete remainder of the worksheet. E e ° DEC 262017 Sourhold loan Board of Ti ustees Step 2.In order to assess impacts,it is critical to know the habitat characteristics of the site before the activity is undertaken. Use existing information,to the extent possible,in answering these questions. Please note that, there may be circumstances in which new information must be collected to appropriately characterize the site and assess impacts. :a.`; a.w.,W,`�.�_".-3, �$;". ..� .�.�€;-�=i,:s�e,.Mz _?S-._ v.`-'.�._�t�:�,- � s_.. _ !��xxn.'.�;:>..:rr::�,"-y�..�r. 3rza�✓.":-,�^`yS'.,� _ .�c<..=.�_i7lrltiV�!.!�'�I'1 '�.,_<. - ' �^��:��' y`.-'vti��'-....'�`^.',i*Pn�,;o-� r. _-. "Y-;.��F7�' ,n=A'e,'�M-'_mss--+-`xr�:n:�;`-�is:'�'�'.3:?�•.s„> 'ci,..ai.Ya34�`%`="w��.=Fr".<fim,sk:�',s;;_aa.a.:,rtx�-g.._��a�-�k..ce..s'&:.., - x.;y+�yw_-,<::� _ `•ro_;,.,M.. .�;�:sem.=.�x � � ,��'6-".= °_ :�W 0. RE...;4n .a�3,.3v.. .>''�t's $`.!'%3., ,r;��,::�.;3.�i "� 3�`` -cc,.,�.:Ty. � a``"e.F,: F' 4,�t '"11 f ?".gZ�e"yii;�,�.e•..'Iw.. r""'�>E'7��i"��:.a�..'r� .,,r .� �� . §w 3 5;E Site=.Charaerisias Des�ri tiorf :n , w_r��.Y,<A,.r{, Is ythe site intertidal,sub-tidal, or This project is to construct a new dock facility consisting of wood pile water column? and timber with floating dock and associated hinged access ramp and tie-off piles. The project will encompass parts of the shoreline,the intertidal zone and shallow subtidal zone approximately 0.10 acres in size. See attached narrative and drawings. What are the sediment The existing intertidal and shallow subtidal sediments are coarse- characteristics? grained sand and approximately 25%gravel with frequent exposed stone(boulders cover over 50%of the area). Is Habitat Area of Particular The site is an existing open water exposure.The shoreline at the site Concern (HAPC)designated at is eroding due to exposure to normal tidal and climatic conditions, or near the site? If so what despite the moderate to heavy boulder and rock cover at the type, size, characteristics? foreshore and thick vegetation above the rocky shoreline.The dock site originates off a beach transitioning to a field of boulders in the intertidal zone then a moderately sloping gravel shallow subtidal zone with eel grass beyond. Is there submerged aquatic There is a band of SAV in the offshore subtidal waters out 200 feet vegetation (SAV)at or adjacent beyond the mean high-water line as surveyed and depicted on the to project site? If so describe application drawings.The SAV is a broad band of eel grass light the spatial extent. density at first but abundant in density out beyond the proposed dock site 50 feet and with a clearly defined boundary.The dock has been configured to stop short of the submerged aquatic vegetation in an area that has been devoid of SAV for the past 7 years. What is typical salinity and Salinity varies somewhat seasonally but is typically in the 30 ppt temperature regime/range? range.Temperature varies seasonally from approximately 30 degrees in the winter to 70 degrees in the summer. What is the normal frequency of Boating usage varies seasonally but there is regular boating access to site disturbance, both natural and from the other dock facilities along Fishers Island north shore. and man-made? Most boating activity is recreational between April and November. What is the area of proposed Approximately 1110 acre will be directly impacted by this dock impact(work footprint$far construction project. The pier will be high, Dock Elevation 9 feet afield)? MLW, but lower at the pier head for ramp attachment at elevation 6. 'R DEC 262017 �Soutt�o,d(onn Boar"of irustFos Step 3. This section is used to describe the anticipated impacts from the proposed action on the physical/chemical/biological environment at the project site and areas adjacent to the site that may be affected. ':.:: u',;,`.+.•«"' ta,w-T.."•;'.ti•.;..:e .;. a`i.'. >q ',r3'ua*�eY'="3'''_i. i:5`=-'moi-.`-?isx-x-,;`--` a i'..r--.:Fut'ks'T 's;= 'S.`.:t';':�x*et, = s qr n ` ^7} ',� t s S .yy `a' .`' .€.:,,:n =_'t•; *4.E.., „.mx�.',,x^.�� r.F�.,3 ..r.rsys^.n.9_..zzc'.r>=z;.'.4'�•=t-,sccs-:v':;_ "x:.a=fi`.�v=�=ti.'ata::�-t_�=a_.hy.�x�,��Er�"_,#�'G2�_sr�.'�,.-*'c.'=. .�.��,.,. _-s,.`-i. ' `-�.`.�;� 5..-` -'��4«,:-y ^e `*".:=c-v;yy'tis"'`�--�.�-s-,�, ..=s•�s.„t Man CC((/\_ '_!_;+ 5: i,.ct� V <ezjie^�DESC R1 'd'!'I l\e C"l\/I?+'.` "V,'- '!.Yrxv-r^h-`-'S•.:'_=°royf^'Y...:-..,4_ '_.e. .-''"'Y S`„-_.?'-. ,.,.,{tx e_ v2> _�'_*s kn_.v.,'s ivy n4� .r.'�"if'..t,'S r�i-,,;4r.t,`: ,._=. �e n .; ;-•tc+ef.•}ti'« - . ..�s'r ,�_Wn "-rF Rva€�•.'r4., V_,.*'-4 - .Tma d x ;v .-v i ".s:..•.-',� 9.t� .-f_ •w-e'.-;;1'z,-- ,::4 -+.. ,su '. c-%.ra.....•;:S'..: e'r':.' .zv.;,:.r-. - P^..;-�"^.;•4 s�a`i=.�kss�... ,,.;�-n.,a gg,fi�+�:�`•_ _ - „' • j"''' =z.;-e`'. ",,,.,;�. �r. ,.,. .- --v? ,• ...Y,• • a3,�.t: M.- .wr .,a n ':' µ`• Vi; �r• � r F ms,,�. -4r ,�•+� 's. �#`wt. ins Y`ar' •Nw^3-e�, r'4' _ ,. ;:a,..;; ...w'F„a-:''„v. �:' c :�� w�,�;,y,�^ri� zw�µ �.: b"''��== � �' r«4...,a• �""x ,s;#. °:�av�'�. „r�,A' •.�• °'�, �we•", `� k;s�,., Q';P„�..-�M� ,x,s ..�•.`t�' ._�'+,... `-``'„r� '�"k'<' ' 3-r;N«*aa'x`T'�^ `:;��: ""',w.4t4i?.y:.�,n:e.�_.,.. k .” ,'y�.y r7 -� "-�,.,$u_;N .v„ui;.;..s,ci'�_�d.e w'._ m,-�„c.,�" .,yf`ef=�w,a,y,k'.i�'�.s+-;sr _3 c,i'? �^y�";m` n=:ia£k....,s.,4u_<w u+:_ •"^''�, � 'E�_ .:3' Nature and duration of = f It is anticipated that the adverse impacts from construction of activity(s) x this project will be small because of the nature of the work.The project can take place in as little as a month but will likely take > L k two months tide and weather permitting. Barge access will be j at high tide. The dock facility will be used on a seasonal basis. Will benthic community be x The benthic community will be only marginally disturbed by disturbed? the marine construction barge and dock facility which will be of open timber and piles. No boulder excavation or"in water" filling is proposed and so shellfish habitat will not change;this will remain a high wave energy site. Will SAV be impacted? X An offshore bed of SAV, has been documented in the survey beyond the project area but that will not be disturbed by the marine contractor's access or construction.The crane barge will float in over and adjacent to the SAV to drive piles.Work will be done after September and before June. Will sediments be altered and/or X Sedimentation rates in the shallow sub-tidal zone will not sedimentation rates change? increase as a result of this project. Will turbidity increase? X Turbidity, on a day to day basis, will not change significantly from existing conditions. (See attached Narrative Statement). Bottom sediments will only be minimally disrupted during berthing operations at low tide because of the 4-foot water depth. Will water depth change? X No changes in water depth are proposed by or for construction equipment access or for boating operations. The bottom shoreline sediments and characteristics will not change. Will contaminants be released X The likelihood of contaminant will be minimal. Standard into sediments or water construction products and best management practices will be column? utilized for the project. Will tidal flow, currents or wave X The wood pile supported timber pier will not change water patterns be altered? flow and circulation patterns or wave field characteristics. Will ambient salinity or X No -temperature regime change? Will water quality be altered? X Water quality should not change as a result of this project beyond the low tide bottom sediment disturbances resulting from construction, marine equipment repositioning and low tilde boating operatgp s These impacts will be isolated and of Iimited_duratioir the ji ater is fairly deep just out beyond the dock site reaching a cf pth of 6 feet 100 feet further out. DEC 262017 SOUaitll� �UV:II 5u�rd of irisr�'cs Step 4. This section is used to evaluate the consequences of the proposed action on the functions and values of EFH as well as the vulnerability of the EFH species and their life stages. Identify which species from the EFH species list (generated in Step 1) will be adversely impacted from the action. Assessment of EFH impacts should be based upon the site characteristics identified in Step 2 and the nature of the impacts described within Step 3. The Guide to EFH Descriptions webpage(http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/list.htm)should be used during this assessment to determine the ecological parameters/preferences associated with each species listed and the potential impact to those parameters. "aa,�` x-v-"mac�2--�. -_ �:v�� - '-�.�`��e -w:R`a=�_ ,=tee - -`=�:,._x�+ ,x:i: -�a y-" At-r� _ -,�'=_�.5;:-`:r. .`�_ .;.,:,:� _�•,ar,. 'fir, - _ -mC.�,+�,.r:F _-.:�ca-e,. +� t �s�K>-m+ - _..-5�'<n,,.�, — .�-a-:na5 •e P, - ,i.�aF_ '�-"'- - •`�'�-,.ahr�y' ` "x'�:`_-.,'•?'..,X �;r � r�r'"_�,.: =F�.... � ,.:q.>.. .,,,_ �y - - .,` 33• „�,,--., '_�°�._.r.'p! E IV[EN 2 ., _. . }' ,=ry .e f; ? w' .EE�=1 : SSSS, .�- .. •-, 'as'-,-v, „s._.a.3. - 7:. „ ; � +'*Y sss vt� '.G" �.e;,. j'. ^;- iY' :'''Y,i,.ia;"_'- :u;__ - _ _'�-;sa.r a>r r.�:; _ ;.a<*`.�>'a „i;=x :e• 4F.asa'ra.;a' - " _ - - .;�>x..�,„ry, ..r-'•M• "�-`_• z `"+ix';r?=u, r...�m'*,�,ars;af�...,,rr:.`>..° � t�-, ,- , �N;:z ;._.,,t+_�,:a"z:. �•-,..�„; ,.+ �•� ,.� •.5;.^='_ pi7-;e �,.>- !'""!-`��•,r.� �c:.":-c ��-s ''+'-_,<..r, ,u, ra 5r :=a--��.� �F m..' _ +s ,h'��,�r,s�l,,. ;',7?:xr�.,,� "+�!,• .;_ '^ =,r, �. '�''� x ,-- .�„_,_ _ rte' x,� i d Values r-tea '; =Y*'>l ; Descr�bec abitat t''`° e;species-anculife:stages to berad ersely >r Furict ons,an_ ,tti§='s2 ,-rs+ai. .ri,--.= 7th� :•� F:-K;. w_�� .,;-„"''•�`v :,kr"m,�;, ;`ek:"�%k-^;=,2'c_,- -„�"Ta�X. -_ :.,i w, '�',° =�y. y�.'e,�ry*�'F N:,t,r. <dt� .�,.,.:c+'� Mi"v" "„`s �` ��. '-�� aCted„�`rP.,.��w,e}!°',�<��"':•,�,.�.�>�Gir�Wk,,,_�F',x-gi°a ��s�'i .'�-'-.,. ,a .,Fy,_a`,iCS a.n ,r'.4.:i ,.{,a�;+�,k,��i`�.`�'.��'��;.r��'C,:r��,'�"i�.,_�,«":a!,b.,t�,�=,+,f•t,*rs,.aµ,r.,,.__ =ter>�^' - _ �*��,:r=�[.,;.,>s.::a',��'s,7�:,�,3„sfx'�.r�`_`r�n!�'� sA�,. "!�=W'�"_�s':,��'�;. :u`�.',:.,-=r^ ::�-".�'a:��r_.s�xrwa"�.e6-„-+1 _ --'?F'._•�'.A�',_�.-�.. �.�.s'-K..r�� =:�: gar ,r- �;�.�-"�. .�'-:_::''S;�s: '•� - 2-day;_=x x;�- 'k'r''- ' y......>i'•x:. mac-”+§�h- "�-�1=:.�sr"�"a��s,�-+�.�.7 m,'��2uSh#'§a nrf?:-a��''n�s�._�' ..y tv "aT°i�,,','_iP,,-'ro u-,n^<,=°Tq:-rfw-Fi�I=S � F.��_��n`.'3Y'�'.gV�k"'r'�'-n•_,� Wi:��_'' ..,..�,:r .�`+�` ,"=n,B::',�.'' - `•i,`" -a,.-_ :a k'�z^.a•--�'�`-��_>!t_,� ��"'��,aHFxa.'�:`��f,+•��, -r> - �_i=s�'C•,a_ ��;^ s�,r;=,'.�v'-a�,�s- z,`t=�'a?e: Y,e�;�,',i�-.N�°`�w-=.� - �.�i t;,;��_C'�+;-K�gu-'_.,,na_. t- r�.,+e"�.. _ �r=d,�-��=� ?' ' usa�-4`=' and values of ;m <. ,,. =i Will functions ,v •.,- ,7$ ,,,_ .: ,a - ;t- :2 •..,,,, 4s � ' :'; . ;;,, ,; w<°•, ry +F;, •t-�'; h-"", s ^d'-�-.' ��+P,`�-+-`vim.=__.`C�r,`-,- •<=-'"w v ,d��a^->' ', =u EFH be impacted for: r_,,_ .t:u a.r± p ;: ,�,»__y 5 t , :�5+1R:lN.. x_+�e-F�.�•,f�. k�=�:v. n�'v, .� -rvl,i.-..�-.�a� ;�.�.-ar`--"'� - t'�+,',�F<':,:ar_t;;.,',..,4 x_ The inter-tidal and shallow sub-tidal zone and inter-tidal zone are Spawning currently sandy gravel strewn with stones and boulders and will remain X so without regard to this project. No alterations of the benthos or underwater habitat are proposed or will result from the project. The water is too rough for spawning in this area,except for shellfish. Nursery X There are features in these shallow subtidal waters suitable for a nurserywhich include the eel grass bed out beyond 3 to 4 feet of depth. There are no proposed alterations of the benthos or underwater habitat. The inter-tidal zone and shallow sub-tidal zone out to 2 feet deep is sandy gravel devoid of vegetation and will remain unchanged by this project. Forage X The shallow subtidal zone and intertidal zone are currentlysandy gravel with extensive boulders and will remain so without regard to of this project. Out beyond-3 feet of depth there is a broad bed of eel grass. No adverse impact to submerged aquatic vegetation due to shading or boating activity is anticipated where eel grass exists in nearby waters beyond the dock site. Shelter X The subtidal zone eel grass bed sediments are sandy gravel and will remain without regard to this project. The pier may provide some shelter, but neither the dock or boating facility will have an adverse impact on submerged aquatic vegetation beyond the dock site due to construction or usage. Experience shows that juveniles congregate in areas around docks and so this structure in the water column is beneficial. = = =£= It is envisioned that any construction or boating impacts will be Will impacts be temporary or t emporary and not permanent. The area of coverage of the proposed ermanent? p high dock facility is small compared to the area of the near shore V{ waters and the dock landing is located in a niche in the eel grass bed =` = that has existed continuously for at least the past seven years and no change or consequence is proposed compared to the overall fringe n :o��a habitaad nk Fisf Island. II DEC 2 6 2017 So'�il,o;tl �o•ran Board�f T'.��t�s Step 5. This section provides the Federal agency--s determination on the degree of impact to EFH from the proposed action. The EFH determination also dictates the type of EFH consultation that will be required with NOAA Fisheries. _ - -, y_.�,-d--•.--w .�?;4r�.a'.^.,zr.,-.-;��„r,z+.:�;�•:.;..�whi="'^=;•af',��'r��_5 x+^i4--V-='ate :��,, :cs;'��,.=moi=,Asa"'°`�=.�E;"-?,,.F.s,?r,'�,�'-"•,.�.:f�!a. ':x`>�x-s- ,_,_..,:lt,- �+�.=�". y,s 7�- �,-..'rs„v.wu _ .'r .mss _i•z�,�."d` `� f�'»:~i==..1>{L ,a�aa.�z.x._:. .r .:I-a�''--s•`.'�-�.i-12r�-t,,,_-=�M-,$-, :E,;E:`:� •'-'�`r , Y,_ - - y.«..".i. _ sF' '_:'� ,-.`.^�_-_a��t,..a rY._'`r.fs>'iv�p s,- Yay ••. ";z„ __ Ino-- ys�k-Pg,"h='}-3:w.-.j>+_::,;<;'a,�;R�'F°a '•i '. °:sib.- ._ ..,,,;,3_Y='!ry-y - ...,�-� o- -,$-, _ reJ 4:. :ham¢,":`mss-.:s-:nx, -,_,.. ,w- -N�,'x.s».a�-e 3F-;�_s_>_;--y z= ...F. z 5:.x DET€RIVI NATIO,INI'M-•IMPA T _ ;T � � = _ �� '_.vq �'-,�� ' �' r„yv"�' ,r'..k�•f: ....�,,'4<-s�--�'=6� x»r�__ �::'av`?�'r^- ,<:�- "��•�v:+ - -• $mr �; y�`,'a`F` vz .r. =-'="�r"�'�. .ri; »' * ,.m,7W-:":� ca-,k5�.'�� --; ;< ��fr�==w�.'..sr ,.k .f:`'n.:;u+ :fi.:>2-,�'�u,'-"=rr�y.>�s�,.?�..a» <a,s;'i��£�',�::#.,.n = , S.,.aiT¢'�e i Y y'S,.,t4wy b;`-.MH'ru.':i, ;,-�"`i= '-_�$a'.: `�'- - .'f,-',g,� y, _.hut:.i.l.W�.�'v`"��K kms. :rsa n..s�.'.e_-,t"-. _-::c'�'"" !-s. - Fecleal; ► enc =SL E .Qe = G ;r',. � t' � ., = ' ./; , terrrinaticsrt_ rw - ter+ ..:.��,�`E , •_ u.,, �»hs3 r�'t_ J:�e+`-=r.F '�".. �;;.;r#,J. �Yr � '.fir *4'-3-y°K d.= .r• "•- c'. ':_'„rs�;, ;�, ,;.e. 3° a '+_`_� =� "'{• '�`' Y`:..,+:..,!7c, -,'s". rhe � a_ - ;=,.*z. ;fir .<�,,`r.^h,`,a.rp °-s"•w„_ _ �-"• "kk''; -v-''',.,'-,`.wS' •,E--u a:-" -,t'<1'e m' �" •,::SiF%' .� �a,:.�E,-k �»�,_ _�,>+-�.,�_+�..r• �-'� i=r � :w �-�.^� t?��, '�v �._ �`' `s�w� �T_4. -�e,'• �;�"a:' -��!?,a._�,r�„�3r,�' t�'ir,� ._ry.r?..a; �� ,-u.,x'+rr,.:;.."'' ,J.Sk':r�?�v,�..-ei_ai4 � r• �,,. .4,�,.,=:"r'r#rip r�i ��Y.`�_4_.,e °,-r-'nom,,•,-, :�, �,`�:`""'Y' °�=�';~r.�m•;�:3. +::�i,�yt.•' '':�,.:a .�'_�"'�#'-'.t§S,�:a q.-. t v.. zea,-,.;�:°-.5.'.0 .� > v)•rS� tea. ,�e,^ys,:.i < 1 t,F„ .;,�.- e,• ,- -.n{L..,,.r. ;.z`"s+ .. t�.x'R :.tf��-: v'- ES�'" `-':=Y At : �?-s:;e"x,. _ ��;_--*'�:+, :�.T.u;-• - �,.*'z:Y-� `�wn'�.��.?:t - :i:.v:;•4-°,�.«r�' _ f, i �i� X 'There is no adverse effect on EFH Overall degree of EFH Consultation is not required adverse effects on EFH (not including The adverse effect on EFH is not substantial. compensatory mitigation)will be: This is a request for an abbreviated EFH consultation.This worksheet is being submitted to NMFS to satisfy the EFH (check the appropriate Assessment requirement. statement) The adverse effect on EFH is substantial. This is a request for an expanded EFH consultation. A detailed written EFH assessment will be submitted to NMFS expanding upon the impacts revealed in this worksheet. Step 6. Consultation with NOAH Fisheries may also be required if the proposed action results in adverse impacts to other NOAA-trust resources,such as anadromous fish,shellfish,crustaceans,or their habitats. Some examples of other NOAH-trust resources are listed below. Inquiries regarding potential impacts to marine mammals or threatened/endangered species should be directed to NOAA Fisheries' Protected Resources Division. - ':1 yv.-r 5.:,�: .. - '�"n.-"2 =`:`a-x. "'vF-xv,••l e fi-r.-e�.ac}}.K�]1'!.-'�u�'Y i4�1.:-="_'.r-- _ _ ti=7 r�''r y$"''°v�'i�� 9�tl y=�.e,::,�u:��_,_xxx�'.v''''-"-"'�>h�i.'n��_rtG-µP+9x'Y.]'4i e'�-'x"i!t ;is-:y ..'sk':•��;"�.,r..'---'[`-fta`<7,.;.-!_j��*,Hfs�. >".=s`h W a"fh+�.-_•�,�,__..'Y:,��.k.�.. � -e i't'-'��'rt=:,_�,,>' ,w.,?5;..�_�_�.. Yom.., r„'” '�;� _•,fiµ :,w - ,'.cs-��-„��`£''+�."r"�a 'pF N'x»asatc:.t _t'a,_ti+;_r_ ASS ^,': _ 1, '' x�;:a:tom:;�:=x-s,.•�``=�,.r_-s,ts?.+�rs�;,�',,��"�'�-'# IVCti” = I XST RLSQt L$ P.&II_�F�AGY AS:SF—SSME� 'sass _ _ .nrs' T :. ,c?.c:' ts:et;Y,- ,i, ;3 •..r...s,Fa ; dc_ �=`:ti;v-'..+.Y.:4;,si .R'`-.%::..k.;`-'2 '`s'-,'=` --*'"'v,-.-�:_ "_- =•'; :'?-:: i'`:-�`.-"-- __ __ _ :;�':{. ==. ..s:, z,-�;N'i; r ia.°.; r;d, m.oC s�e's:c%•.,. ..ve'x esS:S` ^`�w ,7,z ;,'h5. f;n_t-�;�c�-""�;t,�.'�-,-,,.-r:,�>-k= r ®virrrtotoccur r Describes fiabitat,irrt�act}type', ie: physwcal,chemicah oir biolocical � r'F Speciesvicli ( - L%r1v�a"h"�z±- .1: .,s,;�.; ;�+:,+..;-',qtr,"' _>i,•; _rr- r�};�� •,4.^�� -r%� ,.��'a ari�_S�tr• fi,gY.e"�:, ;ft`'_.",�r"t:�:'m^.- ��r,."'�; '�rT:, V!iw' 't�a{�-;stt` a list{`others=uthatv •,. ;;disiup�an�ofYzspawn�ng�andlo�egg�eleveldpmen�habitat �uVenlle�nur�ery -�fi.:.v.T- �(.,, .*w,y°T��'t�stfw^=."h'�`.-^lrs.,*z?u,,.=ts"nt„',.r-.p_ _�d„+�w�f.��n4"ihw"',,rv's:?�r":�.F �.,- :,Sa t_,a^':ga"= :�,.f�,�;_a �:k., �'��,S�h�.�Wn�+'{7G�•.cfi,w igratlo .x�xY�.,M,P,',;_�').,;r.s w ,�. .�•v'a'�'�-'�'�'" '.-';�'• 'w.=i,Y ✓x[y._T,=��i,,,^S'"`- ._^:°:_c'�:i`r.,t.,;i�,-r�;z="i�'s. :fi;:""' 3-'�:�Es�":;'fir Y,s,r �; t' ,.?�=:�*d`=.w.':�.'��h,',';�,u3;•.�3-r�t?i4� Atlantic Cod Adults-No Impact on egg or larval forms,juveniles and adults will relocate. Atlantic Sea Herring Adults-No Impact on egg or larval forms, juveniles _ff- adult$�a---i rye e.Y American Eel Minimal physical changes, not disruptive,no adve seA W=_'ft_ 11- V" r. American Lobster Minimal physical changes, not disruptive,new ha i a Blue Mussels Minimal physical changes, not disruptive, new ha ' a Bluefin Tuna Minimal physical changes, not disruptive,no adv rse irk aa- . 2 F 2017 f Cobia Minimal ph sical changes, not disruptive to any sae .r migration, Long Finned Squid Minimal physical changes, not disrupt! e,no adv rse i acct stage_ Mackerel: King,Spanish Minimal physical changes, not disruptive to an a e or mi ra ra` ni"' -Quahog Minimal physical changes,not disruptive- no adver or gyrus ees Sharks: Sand Tiger,Dusky Minimal physical Changes, not disruptive,no adverse impact to larval or juvenile Summer Flounder'* Minimal physical changes,not disruptive,no adverse impact to any stage. Based on the essential fish habitat description for Atlantic Cod,Atlantic Sea Herring and Mackerel(Spanish and Kin it appears that this species will not be found in the vicinity of this project for the egg lava for juvenile forms or stages because of water depths. It is possible that spawning adults could utilize the waters north of Fishers Island Sound since the depths would be 10 to 45 meters and a range of oceanic salinity is the 30 ppt range. It should be p2inted out that the site of the proposed dock is one meter of water,and clearly not in the typical conditions that would be utilized by thesespecies. The Dusky and Sand Tiger Sharks and Flounder,on the other hand could use these near and offshore waters for egg laying but will almost never be in such shallow waters for any extended times and probably only at higher tides. Because of these very shallow water depths it is unlikely that construction or usage of this boat docking facility will have an of the listed species. ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE r 1 This is inten&: .'to supplement ENG Form 4345, application for Department of the Army Permit, or the Joint Application for Permit used in the State of New York. Please provide complete answers to all questions below which are relevant to your project. Any answers may be continued on separate-sheets) of paper to be-attached to this form. PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT The purpose of this form is to provide the Corps of Engineers with basic information regarding,your project. This information will be used to facilitate evaluation of your permit application and for public dissemination as required by regulation. Failure to provide complete information may result in your application being declared incomplete for processing, thereby delaying processing of your application. GENERAL-APPLICABLE TO ALL PROJECTS 9. Explain the need for, and purpose of, the proposed work. Construct 160(+/-)LF of 4-FT wide fixed wood pile and timber pier including rails and water/electric utilities, of which 132(+/-)LF is waterward of the apparent High Water Line, install an 8-FT x 20-FT float with associated hinged access ramp and three tie-off piles. This is a private dock for recreational boating. 2. Provide the names and addresses of property owners adjacent to your work site (if not shown on the application form or project drawings). West- Harry O. Hurlburt, Jr. and Sandra L. Hurlburt, 7014 Sheaff Lane, Fort Washington, PA 19034. East- H.L. Ferguson Museum Inc., Attn: Pierce Rafferty, Director, P.O. Box 554 Fishers, Island NY 06390. (Please note that depending upon the nature and extent of your project, you may be requested to provide the names and addresses of addition0'_,e 1 o9v ,e proximate to your project site to ensure proper coordination.) 'IPf 1 Erz F ____, iIED, DEC 262017 3. Photographs of the project site should be submitted, or pro�ec st;irg11 aiIareas, photographs of the waterway vicinity should be taken at ►s ii2ezearate copy of your plan view, indicate the location and direction of each photograph as well as the date and time at which the photograph- was taken. Provide a sufficient number of photographs so as to provide a clear understanding of conditions on and proximate to your project site. Photographs showing existing site features and resources are attached. See attached. 4. Provide a coy of any environmental impact stament, or any other environmental report which was prepared for your project. See attached narrative, Short Environmental form and EFH worksheet. 5. Provide a thorough discussion of alternatives to your proposal. This discussion should include, but not necessarily be limited to, the "no action" alternative and alternative(s) resulting in less disturbance to waters of the United States. For filling projects in waters of the United States, including wetlands, your alternatives discussion should demonstrate that there are no practicable alternatives to your proposed filling and that your project meets with current mitigation policy (i.e-. avoidance, minimization and compensation). Alternatives considered included wider, higher, lower, shorter and longer piers, fixed pier versus floating docks, boat lifts, utilities, different locations on the site, use of open grate decking, orientation of docking facilities and the like, all of which are discussed in the narrative. The proposed configuration provides for optimal berthing, minimal environmental disturbances and no adverse impact to navigation or Public Trust access to or use of the stretch of shoreline. The project has been previously reviewed in detail with the Southold Board of Trustees and the NYSDEC Marine Habitat Protection Bureau prior to the application process to make sure that the proposed construction techniques were suitable and appropriate for the site and scope of work and anticipated environmental impacts would be minimal preserving the site's habitat quality and avoiding despoliation of tidal wetlands vegetation and submerged aquatic vegetation around this site. A detailed discussion of the alternatives follows: e Length- The length of the pier has been determined based on the unique features along the shore front which require the pier to span over tidal wetlands vegetation, pass over a boulder field running along the near shore edge of the tidal wetlands fringe marsh, across very shallow waters, and eventually stopping short of a bed of eel grass. The irregular edge of the eel grass bed is unique in that it has existed in the same form for more than seven years and has been documented in successive site visits. The width of the pier is shown as four feet; five feet would be better because it would be able to accommodate the batter braced support piles beneath the footprint of the decking, however, the width of the pier has already been discussed with agencies including the Marine Habitat Protection Bureau in the NYS DEC and the Town of Southold Trustees and 4 feet was agreed upon. e Height- The height of the dock is dictated by two different features. One is keeping the dock high enough so it will not adversely impact the growth of tidal wetlands vegetation or submerged aquatic vegetation. The second is keeping the height of the pier low enough so that the end of the pier can function properly for boat boarding-acceshile nroviding adequate slope and not excessive slope which might tie use of the.�pie� h 3 dous in slippery conditions. 17 -- -��- DEC 2 6 2017 J So,.,bilu iov,n Board cf lrusurs • Location- The cation of the dock selected happen to be the location of the historic dock located on this JR50 years ago. • Fixed Pier Full Length- The fixed pier full length would be a reasonable alternative, however, in view of the boating needs and the lack of growth of the eel grass at the selected dock site, a floating dock should be adequate and is certainly preferable from the owner's perspective based on boarding and disembarking ease and safety. • Open Grate Vs. Timber Decking- Open grate decking will be used for the full length of this pier in order to minimize shading. In addition, the height of the pier and it's north south orientation provide the opportunity for sunlight to reach the bottom sediments, marsh and benthos beneath the pier, from the east in the morning and the west in the afternoon. • Construction Materials- It's anticipated that the higher dock stretch will be built out of Southern Yellow Pine, pressure treated with CCA Type 3 in accordance with the study conducted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in the year 2000. The piles may be pressure treated Southern Yellow Pine or Greenheart. There will be 40 piles in the complete dock facility. • Environmental Resources- The environmental resources at this site include the tidal wetland vegetation in the near shore area and the eel grass bed out in deeper water around the peripheral of the proposed dock facility. Other than that, the wood pile and timber construction will provide an open unencumbered structure which will not preclude or in any way inhibit free water flow and circulation consistent with the existing site conditions. There are a number of US Fish & Wildlife eel grass avoidance and impact minimization efforts undertaken in the design of this dock facility. They are as follows: Policy 1- In-water work should be avoided during the eelgrass growing season from April 15 to October 31. The dock site has been strategically set in an area that has been devoid of eel grass for seven years. Work can be scheduled in the fall through spring to comply wi I_this criteria if the permits are received in a time) manner. There was more eel grass exte clime fd'orth from the U~ p Y g �g�� ,,,s pier. The float was beyond the end of the pier specifically so as not to a' � sely-impacian observed SAV growth area and chains will not be used in any respect p nchor the float only piles will be used. u DEC 2 6 2011 Policy 2- Construct the fixed pier a maximum of four feet wide to minimizi sh din . Souihofd Town The pier all the way out to the ramp landing has been minimized in its si criteria from the Town of Southold as well as the recommendations of NMFS. The landing is 4 feet. Please note also that the last 30 feet, the lower end of the pier and ramp landing is to be decked with open "Thru Flow" grate type decking. Also, the hinged ramp is 3 % feet wide, narrower than the recommended 4-foot width. Policy 3- Construct the dock a minimum of four feet above the surface of the water measured at Mean High Water and 4.5 feet over the surface of the marsh with height measured from the bottom of the stringers, not the top of the deck. The standard for deck height is to keep the structure 4.5 feet above the surface of the "marsh." It should be noted that there is a limited fringe marsh in this location, and the prevailing pier deck height is at an elevation of approximately 8 feet above Mean Low Water. The 4-foot-wide pier head and ramp landing platform is at 6 feet above MLW. The water depth where the eel grass bed was noted is approximately 3 feet and 3 feet is the typical length of the eel grass blades. This has been confirmed in repeated observations where the tops of the blades of eel grass are visible at low tides. The stringers are 10 feet or so above the adjacent eel grass bed sediments and 6 to 7 feet above the tops of the eel grass blades but. most importantly, the pier siting is such as to avoid the eel grass altogether. This 8-foot pier elevation was maintained until the pier reached past the marsh and intertidal zone. Policy 4- To mi : the risk of propeller dredging ar :our, extend the fixed portion of the pier so that the a«r depths in the mooring area are a-.:iinimum of four feet deep measured at Mean Low Water, or if the SAV bed extends further than the proposed dock, extend the dock beyond the vegetation. One of the reasons that the floating dock was put at the end of the pier was to avoid the necessity of boat traffic berthing over the SAV bed of eel grass. The bed on the west side of the pier is located farther from the pier. There was no eel grass noted in the area of the float at the end of the pier during our design work, and confirmed as of the date of this report. By keeping the float inside of the SAV bed, we have pretty much assured that the boat will not berth over the eel grass bed. Additionally, by keeping the float in 4-feet of water, the potential for prop damage to the eel grass is minimized. Policy 5- Eliminate the ramp and float to reduce shading effects. We understand that the purpose of this criteria (precluding the float) is to avoid or reduce shading on the eel grass. However, the surveys that we conducted prior to the original permitting for this dock construction project and visually confirmed this month indicated that there was no eel grass in this dock site or beneath the floating dock and hinged ramp. We feel that elimination of a float is an unnecessarily restrictive "practice" when there was no eel grass in the floating dock location. Policy 6- Install a lift for each vessel moored at the dock unless not practicable (e.g. sailboat). The boat(s) should be moored in the lift(s)when not in use. This is to reduce shading effects, minimize the potential for scour, and reduce the potential for the bottom of a docked boat to damage the SAV bed. The criteria in this case emphasizes the use of a boat lift. We were unable to obtain a permit for a lift for the vessels berthed at this dock. The prohibition is related to Tidal Wetlands Law No. 6 issued by the Town of Southold. We have attempted to get a boat lift approved by the Town of Southold, however, the Tidal Wetlands Law No. 6 prohibits the installation of a boat lift unless the applicant owns the harbor bottom. In this case, the applicant does not own the harbor bottom and, therefore, a lift is not permittable under Town of Southold law. Attached is a letter from the President of the Town of Southold Board of Trustees confirming this. Policy 7- To minimize potential for scour, in-water construction equipment should only transit within the work area footprint at periods of high tide while construction is occurring within eelgrass beds. The prevailing water depth in the area of the floating dock is 3 to 4 feet deep, and this is the area where the barge will be set at the end of the pier early in the year when the pier will be built. Pile driving and setting heavy timbers will be accomplished in a matter of a week or three at the most weather permitting. The ramp and float are to be manufactured offsite, towed to the site, set in place and then secured with driven piles; the potential for scour in this area is negligible at this point. The work will be done at a high tide so that there will be a water depth of 7 to 8 feet during times of barge access. Policy 8- To avoid minimizing impacts, GIS lavers of mapped eelgrass beds within the project area should be provided to the contractor so they are aware of the eelgrass locations at all times. The contractor will be furnished with the permit drawings prior to the pier construction project. The same contractor will be furnished with copies of the permit(s) modifications for this project and is well aware of the typical best practt for rc k _ ui rig is p e ' ity to eel �� 1 Y � t Lh grass. The drawings show the submerged aquatic gena#ion'tha Aasle n epeatedly verified at the time of the original survey. DEC 2 6 2017 dP Boas cf Tryst;�s There will be no si nificant adverse impacts to air qualit as a result of this structure and the construction of ock should not diminish overall onmental considerations in Fishers Island Sound an ill protect water quality, the qua of the ecosystem and minimize or avoid degradation of environmental resources. • Boulder Relocation- It is possible that some boulder relocation might be required by this project because of the number of boulders in this most desirable path considering least resource impact. If boulder relocation is required, the boulders will be set on unvegetated bottom sediments in the path of the pier between bents to keep the environmental impacts localized. Q V 07 LE DREDGING PROJECTS Answer the following if your project involves dredging. 1. Indicate the estimated volume of material to be dredged and the depth (below mean low water) to which dredging would occur. Would there be overdepth dredging? There is no dredging associated with this project. The floating dock and berthing area have been located so that the dock facilities footprint avoids almost all of the boulders observed thus maintaining the benthic characteristics and habitat quality of the area. 2. You can apply for a ten-year permit for maintenance dredging. If you wish to apply for a ten-year permit, please provide the number of additional dredging events during the ten-year life of the permit and the amount of material to be removed during future events. No dredging is required or requested. 3. Indicate of your drawings the dewatering area (if applicable) and disposal site for the dredged material (except landfill sites). Submit a sufficient number of photographs of the dewatering and disposal sites as applicable so as to provide a clear indication of existing conditions. For fen-y F-maintenance dredging permits, indicate the dewatering/disposal sites for future d aha etiei is i if,kngwn� ! DEC 2 6 2017 Not Applicable Southold Town B ar of Tru ee 4. Describe the method of dredging(i.e. clamshell, dragline, etc.) and the expected duration of dredging. Not applicable for dredging. If boulder relocation is required, a clamshell bucket or digging bucket will be utilized to grapple and reset the boulder. 5. Indicate the physical nature of the material to be dredged(i.e. sand, silt, clay, etc.) and provide estimated percentages of the various constituents if available. For beach nourishment projects, grain size analysis data is required. Not Applicable 6. Describe the ethod of dredged material contai ent (i.e. hay bales, embankment, bulkhead, etc.)# whether return flow from the d wring/disposal site would reenter any waterway. Also indicate if there would be any barge overflow. Not Applicable MOORING FACILITIES Answer the following if your project includes the construction or rehabilitation of recreational mooring facilities. 1. It is generally recommended that any fixed piers and walk ramps be limited to four feet in width, and that floats be-limited to eight feet in width and rest at least two feet above the waterway bottom at mean low water. Terminal floats at private, non- commercial facilities should be limited to 29 feet in length. If you do not believe your proposal can meet with these recommendations, please provide the reason(s). The pier will be 4-FT wide and 160(+/-)FT long complying with all of these provisions as measured from the Mean High Water Line. The float is to be 20 feet long and 8 feet wide. The pier height will vary from 8 feet above Mean Low Water from the point of origin until 50 feet from the end to avoid adverse impacts to tidal wetland vegetation and submerged aquatic vegetation with the exception of the floating dock, all policies of the US Fish & Wildlife Service have been accommodated in this dock configuration. The floating dock will be situated in an area devoid of submerged aquatic vegetation. 2. Using your plan view, show to scale the location(s), position(s) and size(s) (including length, beam and draft) of vessel(s) to be moored at the proposed facility, including those of transient vessel(s) if known. :- - -- A typical vessel is shown on the plan view of the applicatioFF1 awings-The boafwi�� probably be a motor boat 25 feet or so in length. U DEC 262017 3. For commercial mooring sites such as marinas, indicate t e capacity of the facility and indicate on the plan view the location(s) of any propos d f�elingsan##,oar-sewa4e pumpout facilities. If pumpout facilities are not planned, pl se discMigsWionale below and indicate the distance to the nearest available pumpout station. Not applicable-There are no pump out facilities and no fueling facilities proposed at this site. Those functions are taken care of elsewhere on Fishers Island provided by commercial pumpout operator from the mainland, however, any boat using their facility could and would use the pump out facilities at local marinas where fuel is sold. 4. Indicate on your plan view the distance to adjacent marine structures, if any are proximate and show the locations and dimensions of such structures. There are only a half dozen dock structures in Chocomount Cove, the nearest being 1,000 feet away, one east, two west, as shown on the attached Google aerial photograph. S. Discuss the need for wave protection at the proposed facility. Please be advised that if a permit is issued, you would be required to recognize that the mooring facility may be subject to wave action from wakes of passing vessels, whose operations would not be required to be modified. Issuance of a permit would not relieve you of ensuring the in nfy of the authorized structure and the United States would not be held respc§rble for damages to the structLW) and vessel(s) moored thereto from wakes from passing vessels. There is no good opportunity for wave protection at this site. Waves from the prevailing wave field northwesterly to northeasterly of the site are unobstructed in their approach which is why the shoreline consists of boulders, the only natural material and formation the waves cannot move. The pier located within the boulder field will be somewhat protected by the seabed character. The boulder field will cause many of the waves to break offshore beneath the higher section of the pier. BULKHEADING/BANK STABILIZATION/FILLING ACTIVITIES Answer the following if your project includes construction of bulkheading (also - retaining walls and seawalls) with backfill, filling of waters/wetlands, or any other bank stabilization fills such as riprap, revetments, gabions, etc. 1. Indicate the total volume of fill (including -backfill behind a structure such as a bulkhead) as well as the volume of fill to be placed into waters of the United States. The amount of fill in waters of the United States can be determined by calculating the amount of fill to be placed below the plane of spring high tide in tidal areas and below ordinary high water in non-tidal areas. The shoreline will remain stabilized by the existing boulder field and landward of the spring High Tide Line. There is no proposal to import and place fill in waters of the United States. J If r,r�1I � 1 2. Indicate the source(s) and type(s) of fill material. 2 There is no proposed fill to be utilized in this project. So�rhold Tu;vn -----° B ar o h 3. Indicate the method of fill placement (i.e. by hand, bulldozer, crane, etc.). Would any temporary fills be required in waterways or wetlands to provide access for construction equipment? If so, please indicate the area of such waters and/or wetlands to be filled, and show on the plan and sectional views. Boulders will be removed from the pile driving area only if required and it will be done mechanically by crane operated from the deck of a marine construction barge and reset. The foregoing , quests basic information on th- --iost common types of projects + requiring Dep' ,vent of the Army permits. It i, , )ended to obviate or reduce the need for requesting additional information; however, additional information may be requested above and beyond what is requested in this form. Please feel free to add any additional information regarding your project which you believe may facilitate our review. See the attached narrative. DEC 262017 Southold Towrn Board of Trustan T ® _ Docko, Inc. Serving the waterfront community since 1987 P.O.Box 421,Mystic,CT 06355(860)572-8939 Fax:(860)572-7569,email:office@docko.con August 8, 2018 Ms. Claire Werner nn Environmental Analyst H—Division of Environmental PermitsNYSDEC—Region 1SUNY @ Stony Brook 50 Circle RoadStony Brook,NY 11790-3409 Re: Young Property,Fishers Island Application No. 1-4738,(-04558/00001 Dear Ms.Werner: r U Thank you for your letter of July 24th, 2018. In response to the questions you have asked, I offer the following additional information: 1. When we went to the Young site to prepare these application documents, the survey was conducted to extremely accurate standards, (using T2 level of vertical accuracy), and A2 for lateral accuracy, roughly (one eighth inch). The spot elevations and soundings were taken at regular intervals forming transects from which the contouring could be generated by computer. The boulders were located on the high points, and the diameter of the folders were measured in field and then transferred information to the survey documents and drawn to scale. The edges of the wetlands vegetation were documented precisely using the same survey degree of accuracy and walking along the entire fringe of all vegetation. The same was done with submerged aquatic vegetation, except that access was provided by a boat so that the eel grass could be viewed from overhead and the survey rods could be placed precisely to pick up the meandering edge line of vegetation. Attached are photographs and sketches, including diagrams that were used in the formulation of the dock- project for Mr. Young. The perimeter of this submerged aquatic vegetation was confirmed in September of 2017, prior to the in the fall defoliation. 2. The plans last revised March 20th,2018,sheets 2 and 3,are the most current revisions. I have spoken with Mr. Andrew Walker on a couple of occasions over the last year about this project and other projects involving eel grass documentation and I just wanted to stress the level of detail that we strive to achieve in our surveys. We know how resources are regarded by the DEC and other permitting agencies, and we do our best to provide extremely accurate information so that proper balances can be reached between resource preservation and use of shorefront for legitimate recreational boating opportunities and structures consistent with state law. I trust that you find that this explanation and the information that we have provided is suitable to complete processing on this project. If you would like to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Your assistance,as always, is greatly appreciated. Very Truly Yours, Docko,Inc. Keith B.Neilson,P.E. ti R -7::E ElKBN:cI AS Attachments cc:Ms.Lisa Grudinski,USACOESouthold Town Mr.Andrew Walker,NYSDEC Ms.Elizabeth Cantrell,Southold Trustee Mr.Donald Young,property, owner File: 17-03-2822 DONALD YOUNG 4. Y' .A I ` V IOPLF 9i E "r Scuthoid]own Board of c y- 1. DONALAD YOUNG PROPER? .• y L cja, of Trntces 1 } DONALAD YOUNG PROPERTY , Fishers Island , AUG 1 4 2018 Southold Town 31 so 28 33 B':FISHERS ISLAND SOUNDn' FISHERS 1 SLAND SOUND 3, mt L wnP.�,5a ,;; ',�+9 ,�A-2w 19 N D 24 i SO 31 - '2' SITE 110, C'vc l^ t At P _� 46 21 dr-\r'•.; °=- 'S-'`.lam II Ij ' �• , •-'-Fond' (—,/'�/) ' -F^'� 3 4y$1 / •Q�. u VjdAl,F1\d` v ` .Y ,g s`�5' �11 •1� t �/ O� 'llemnO � B` ' 13 AUG 1 4 2018 ;; P `� y ,✓,,5y ' Sout?`oid Town REFERENCE R02rd of Trus e CHART 1321t- DOCK GRAPHIC SCALE DOCKS ' 3000 O 3000 IN FEET GHOOOMOUNT CC)VE SITE PROPERTY of NOTES PROJECT NEW YOUNG 1 ELEVATION DATUM 15 APPARENT LOW WATER(ALW) PIER and FLOAT Doc, 2 TIDE DATA IS TAKEN FROM 2017 NOAH TIDE TABLES �� ;�, f•.--- '' REFERENCE WEST HARBOR-FISHERS ISLAND NY. 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION '> CONSTRUCT 1GOtLF OF 4-FT-WIDE FIXED WOOD PILE .+ a `-t^ _ AND TIMBER PIER INCLUDING RAILS AND _- r•{ Y NCLUDIN WATER/ �f' �• --=-___ --_= - `�,,�''°�-• ELECTRIC UTILITIES,OF WHICH 132tLF IS _- `- WATER OF THE APPARENT•,'' -- :, a- " �/ ENT HIGH WATER LINE, N/F PROPERTY`OF INSTALL AN 8-FT X 20-FT FLOAT WITH ASSOC IATED ~•' w`, '`z t:- FERGUSONREE TIE-OFF PILES ' • _. •• _ �y,. ``�.�-,_ -,__O� >'�:' _'". H L FERGU HINGED ACCESS RAMP AND THREE MUSEUM INC N/F PROPERTY _ ff GT PURPOSE: DF NOYES ;' , : ``t- THIS IS A PRIVATE DOCK FOR RECREATIONAL BOATING �< = FISHERS f✓—L.AIVD =',". : 5 THESE APPLICATION DRAWINGS REPRESENT A COMPILATION OF SURVEYS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL `,;'; 1•TOWN of SOUTHOLD PERMIT PURPOSES THEY ARE NOT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT DOCUMENTS A TOWN BUILDING ' PERMIT(S)MAY BE REQUIRED O�/E=FR.a.L_L_ PL SIV (5 ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS GRAPHIC SCALE 1'=500' WEST EAST• NICHOLAS B.E TALBOTT NOYES H L FERGUSON MUSEUM INC. 500 0 500 c/o ANN NOYES ATTN,PIERCE RAFFERTY DIRECTOR 103 COOLIDGE ROAD PO BOX 54 CONCORD,MA 01742 FISHERS ISLAND,NY 06390 PROJECT: NEW PIER and FLOAT e REVISED-9-11-17 DEC LOCATION. FISHERS ISLAND-TOWN of SOUTHOLD ,Of GOnf F�'�, PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUFFOLK COUNTY,NEW YORK ��,.••••., C* WATERWAY: FISHERS 15L AND SOUND KO, REVISED 10-3-17 DEG DATE: MAY 30,2017 0 C j{ N DOCKS IN AREA APPLICANT: DONALD YOUNG ® � O ° AGENT. SHEET 1 OF 3 ' r __ __ DC)G KO •, No.o441 ; INC,.I NG. Keith B.Neilson,PE ' 0 00••""'x'' � Mystic,CT 06355 CO p ® �' s s®® `�� 860 572 B-939 o X 860 572 7569 DWG 17-03-2822 k:e,*B Ned5or,Docko'rc 3!1°'/208 205 PM Yourg-Dock-1C cvg Y L t `� ` AUG NEW 8-FTX 2 F7 Pll — Il RESTRAINED OAT �outhdd Town g oard of r Pe 10'± NEW TIE-OFF PILE — ` _ NEW 3.5 F7X 24-F7'HINGED RAMP _a SANDBOTTOM Il Il g \ \ GONDMONS 31+� I I 17±FT �� g� SAND 30-70N— — —— - -2— EEL GRASS — — (Typ) �� Il ` CONDITIONS Il NEW ELECTRIC and WATER UTR.171E5 (LOCATION MAY UAR� g LIMIT OF ROCKS g g Il g — �g EEL GRASS I� NEW PIER SUPPORT J ' g EW RAILS(7)'P� \ \ BOULDER,(?Y -`FILE/ (Typ) �- \ ` SPARTINA ALTERNIFL� _IMIT OF 9 L GRAS5WORT \ \ ROCKS 1� \ 00 / J,� SPAR I INA AL I ERNIFLORA fir,, pY x = O —� GRASSWORT 2 ` 3 } �1� i d4x 1 ,• P � r L ',� ATENS� — �r v _ ` OPEN i 9� 1 x SPARTINA Ell) ` 1� i ;I;•,/ • .' ► u GRATE SPAf>TN y �PATENSi ` 2 !APPROXIMATE MH � WL DEO} } /PA`ENS APPROX. - mak, � � * ' x'f +• ° - APPARENT HIGH I' DUNG DEEDED `3 A WATER 1 µ GRASS PROPERTY LINE LINE AHWL v n a' NEW 4-FT WIDE FIXED PILE LE SLOPE A Y SUPPORTED PIER with RAL5 1 f \\\\\ v NOTE: ALL IN-WATER WORK RELATED TO THE f CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED PIER, PH2AGMI ;x.a•4 ,,:�� RAMP AND FLOAT WILL TAKE PLACE OUTSIDE APPROXIMATE 1�Y�k,•Y�I {f. c OF THE EEL GRASS GROWING SEASON FROM APRIL 15 TO OCTOBER 31 IN ANY GIVEN PROPER Y LINE APPROXIh'IATE �li�•r,,:yz Y' PROPERTY LINE YEAR. THIS CONDITION IS NECESSARY TOV. G AVOID IMPACTS TO EEL GRASS LOCATED IN _8 THE FISHERS ISLAND BEACH AREA, AND TO N/F PROPERTY COMPLY WITH COASTAL POLICY 6.2 OF THE NY CAM ACT APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF OF NOYES EXISTING PATH TO BEACi- N/F PROPERTY OF H L FERGUSON PL.,gIV �/IEW MUSEUM INC GRAPHIC;SCALE 1'=40' PROJECT NEW PIER and FLOAT 40 20 0 40 ``t%I a I i REVISED 9 11-17 DEC LOGATION FISHERS ISLAND-TOWN of SOUTHOLD `ae �F G NF'�•o PIER ELEVATION SUFFOLK COUNTY,NEW YORK '0� '��'. •• '•. / REVISED 3-20-18 DEG WATERWAY- FISHERS ISLAND SOUND ��Q �CI�O, ,•(�� N DATE MAY 30,2017 0 C IC 0 APPLICANT: DONALD YOUNG o AGENT- SHEET 2 OF 3 j No. 441 ` 1DOG<O, INC. 0 . Keith B Neilson, PE �,�, Mystic,CT 06355 0 R PO # R o l 860 572 8939 FAX 860 572 75G755-9`,,t o 11 e Bit",,�o, EMAIL office@docko com DWG 17-03-2822 Ka"+8 Nedsor,Docko'rc 3/21/20181647 API YoLrg-Dcck_2D cnvg NNEW 77E-cFr PLEOTE FLOAT RESTRAINT PILES AND TOP EL 17+FT(TYP) VOTE RAMP ARE NOT SHOWN IN THIS VIEW 1 TIE-OFF PILE HAS �=T A�)-'ROXI"ATE AREA -►i DEC< Imo- OF CONTACT 55F WO -I I END DECK EL 6.5±FT NEW PILE SUPPORTED PIER whth RAILS NEW ELEG7RlG and WA TER UT7J77ES(LOCATION MAY VAR-) NEW PIER SUPPORT PILE TOP EL d-FT ABOVE DECK(TYP) NEW 8-FTX 20-FT PILE RESTRAINED FLOAT NEW SPLIT CLAMP and GROSS BRACE(TYP) 3OTCM a2C=1_E -,,-AT END 0=PIER I E_ GZA55 -CRLE AT FLOAT BOND"SED NEN-5 5A\0 NOTE: ALL IN-WATER WORK RELATED TO THE SND N%/!EEW NOTA CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED PIER, 1 IN SP,TE OF EELGRASS BEDS IN THE VICINITY RAMP AND FLOAT WILL TAKE PLACE OUTSIDE CRAP-1C 5GAL_ ',•=10 THERE I-AS BEEN NO EELGR ,55 IN-HiS OF THE EEL GRASS GROWING SEASON FROM FEEEEEE9 PROPOSED DOCK AREA FOR THE PAST TEN APRIL 15 TO OCTOBER 31 IN ANY GIVEN 1O -5 0 10 Y=-ARS SINGE THE ORIGINAL HYDROGRAP-ilC YEAR. THIS CONDITION IS NECESSARY TO SJRVEY FOR THE DWYER5 IN 2010. AVOID IMPACTS TO EEL GRASS LOCATED IN 2 DEC<NO-NOT GCA TREATED,HA2DWOOD THE FISHERS ISLAND BEACH AREA, AND TO h'UST BE GERTFIED BY FOREST STEWARDSHIP COMPLY WITH COASTAL POLICY 6.2 OF THE COUNCIL NY CAM ACT NEW FLOAT RESTRAINT PILE TOP EL 17-F•T(TYP) NEW TIE-OFF NEW 8-FT x 20-FT FLOAT with P LE TOP EL NEW 4-FT WIDE PILE SUPPORTED CONTINUOUS=LOATATION 17+F7(NP) PIER DECK EL 8 3±FT I--OPEN GRATE DECKING--1 NEW PI=R NEW 3 5-F7 x 24-FT RAMP ANGLE POINTDECK EL A'PDXIMATE EW PA-`�YP) SLOPE AH f 1.10 6.5±FT _ -AHWL 3 5± -- 96±FT AHWL A- _MHW 23 DLNE SPARTINA DECK EL 9_=' —ALW=O O- GRASS A_TE2NIFLORA �� I ( --NEW PIER SUPPORT SPARTIN LA55WORT NEW UTILIT,ES POST BILE TOP EL 4 FT PATENS (LOCATION MAY VA2Y) EL�RAS5" ABOVE DECK(TYP) 02APHIG SCALE I'=30' 30 20 10 C 30 ELEVATONS ARE BASED ON APPARENT LOW WATER(ALWL) PROJECT NEW PER and FLOAT REVISED-9-11-17 DEC LOCATION- FISHERS ISLAND-TOWN of SOUTHOLD iii N f�i PIER ELEVATION SUFFOLK COUNTY,NEW YORK WATERWAY, FISHERS ISLAND SOUND % REVISED 11-7-17 DEC��i. °°•° •. 'tQ;O0CK0, PIER ELEVATION DATE MAY 30,2017 D 0 `C $ 0 co • °• APPLICANT DONALD YOUNG OT 1 ENT: SHEET 3 OF 3 j _ _=£__ r • s N0.0441ith B.Neilson,PE 9 °°°••.••°°• 0R P 0 R ystc,GT06355 ®i-_,NcncE • AUG 14 2018 60 572 8939 FAX 660572756-9 DWG 17-03-2822 a1 1 MAIL office@docko com Southold Town — Board of T Ictaac ; Property of Donald Ig Property Off East End Road, Fishers Island w. a t ;.t f AUG 1 4 2018 ,f tvr!' Y 1 '. ..�..... _ }",�tya Property of Donald `r ; Property Off East End Road, Fishers Island ' _ r s, 1 4 2018 t — IL n t a -Mr � Y _. Property of Donald Yc _ Property Off East End Road, Fishers Island IL At,; `{ #•rte.:.4s. Ate, mow. V {` AUG 1 4 2018 Southold Town Board Trustees f .&CIS ,' E]D rAUG - 1 4 2018 s „ Southold Town He 4 F ` i� 133_7� ` 4——— —- r tail 4 ~1 x MI!/botton• /1• \ \ � -- —~— 100 347 100, 000 1000, .POO r'k79 r/ 'rtemu "IN �. ` �``,�► tie � /// �'4" '� \� Qob*-90*L owl AM \ f JA9 129 f 1 233 232 +_ 1 \ �p /r0`21 ,r g fNOr. _ 70si� y �•I/ prl s11 z spill spot Isilpal Qs 1 1 fpp! 1 stl "r\ stl / s .2 t sPai \ � 1834. 4 261 sit 4 $u p11.7 xs All 1 l 2�4 . r/ i 1 sll �s30 s � 24 WW spn1�� urrf 283 -W W� ` s 284 sP01 ` ��\ pay �. � 3 spps 1 prl IM R /pill sM/r \ ` 93 �,�p 1 T d 1 a71 3sq 297 �t4 / 92 V"e r 7t y� Vsp2 dvm 3igl VVV___ `'1► � M/ vile 4 \\ 78 1 ZI ♦ dW2♦ ewa qun. ♦ PLAN �/11*W ♦ GRAPHIC WALE t• - sd 20 10 0 20 _ YY y i Docko, Inc. Serving the waterfront community since 1987 P.O.Box 421,Mystic,CT 06355(860)572-8939 Fax:(860)572-7569,email:office@docko.com 018 91 , x, i Ms.Lisa Grudzinski U.S.Army Corps of Engineers Jacob Javits Center AUG 14 2018 26 Federal Plaza New York,New York 10278-0090 Southold Tawn a ees Re:Donald Young,Fishers Island Eel Grass Survey Dear Ms.Grudzinski: Following up on our emails last week,we had the opportunity to go out to the shoreline at property of Mr.Donald Young on Fishers Island in Chocomount Cove.We went out specifically to verify the location of the dock and to determine if eel grass growth areas have changed in the last year. As you can see from the photographs, the area of the eel grass and the void in the eel grass bed has not changed.The area is still as it was depicted in our survey from 2016. The lighter greenish color in the photographs is rock weed and algae. The darker adjacent areas are eel grass of varying plant densities.This small buoy represents the approximate end of the float,but its placement was not done by our surveyor. The docking facilities and the boat slip will remain within the area devoid of eel grass short of the small buoy. I hope that this new information will be advantageous for you to move forward to issuance of the requested permits.I believe that we have now demonstrated that eel grass is not present in this area for the past seven years. It seems as though National Marine Fishery Service would be hard pressed object to the evidence that we have submitted and should allow this project to move forward. I am copying Mr.Andrew Walker,Director of NYSDEC,Marine Habitat Protection Bureau, as you suggested, and we have met with Mr. Walker on several occasions over the years and consistently demonstrated the suitability of this site for a dock facility as it was first utilized in the late 1920's.May I respectfully request that if there is anything else that we need to do that you let us know right away,since eel grass will start to defoliate- in another six weeks.Your assistance, as always,is appreciated. Very Truly Yours, Docko,Inc. I Keith B.Neilson,P.E. KBN:c1 Attachments cc:Mr.Andrew Walker,NYSDEC Ms.Claire Werner,NYSDEC Mr.Michael Domino,Town of Southold Trustee Mr.Donald Young,property owner File: 17-03-2822 DONALD YOUNG . r _ } t � ✓`, r� "1' .x4„ e ;�y� r� h�,�?, ti DONALAD YOUNG PROPERTY ! Fishers island K l��r' � a =•:_ fl i AUG 1 4 2018 ONALAD YOUNG PROPERTY Fishers Island AUC t f AIMe+ q l� w+fit � ,c-►`�' �► - DONALAD YOUNG PROPERTY i Fishers Island Aar i AUG 14 2016 I Southold Town t .y . . aWU d .......... d �4 g7nl, 0 2a m O O6 FlSWpS (m No m I 33 � a2 3SA a1 11A LL 15A O S1 1M 4 n � 11 32 2M 4 aM 3.3 2aA(q RQ —. y , 20A 3a r T 112 12 Ij A LM 2AArq 31A 11.1 1 TA 72 O 2-M aM 4 e PgryA �" Se 1.Wq � 2Wq u UtW`7 M1 12A1q - 3 e •� e 3.1A ZI ;IAA tij (> e •n J / �//' . 4.� 1. 1O SFOEER Sf'ECFl WNO . e2 i 3.OA e s ! W.ASa03.10 2.3 3 2WU O 2°A + � t 111(q 2M r �s 22A '� aw '1JF O �a _ N e] 2 / SAW-) 5 1]A � 21A ana � � 2 / u al RD � 11y(U ® 10 1.eNU i3KC) 2tNU J.,] 2)Ncl 0.1,+ t, A 2.eA ' �1339 �e 3 W ]>A(cl 2 S. c) s °L u 1� 2-WC) 9.Mrawtmn © JA r O 63A(o) A..A(cl �. p. L1Nq twat wc. ifs / A r 2.3Ac) 1Wa1 d A F a2Alq C a $ s3A(U s?eA Mtemu Fnms�PCL� 61 m 2 .0 syq �Me lND f oimE Sa1�o. e- 011 1 ewol�2e A. r' x.f F. r nuTCR _�—_----- �uRE 0 O � i 4E gc xo am IMTCH UN \Q _ _ NOTICE COUNTYOFSUFFOLK © K ,» ,tA.fn f0177rtOlD SECTION NO L —�— (21) --2 -- •---— �� --�-- Mi Real Property TaxSernceAgenCy r ,N,A��F M a� oa ao 003 a w•fxf NA:,x,A ' _ '..� .-- sr.u�--�-- F}W,V"�� A PROPERTY MM 2,N=1 —— fie,yf4iM i[ O C ICO, Inc. Serving the waterfront community since 1987 P.O. Box 421,Mystic,CT 06355(860)572-8939 Fax:(860)572-7569,email:office@docko.com May 3, 2019 VIA FEDEX Mr. Michael J. Domino, President 2d�� t 1 LMAY 6 Town of Southold Board of Trustees Town Hall Annex 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971-0959 Re: Donald W. Young Revocable Trust New Pier Facility Dear Mr. Domino: Following up on our brief conversation on Thursday, we are transmitting, herewith, revised application drawings for a Wetlands Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a new fixed pier off East End Road, Fishers Island, at the property of Mr. and Mrs. Donald Young. There have been several changes made to the application based on discussions during the initial public hearing back in March, and conversations earlier that day with the New York DEC, all of which I believe make this project more acceptable from an environmental perspective. These revisions include the following: ➢ The dock facility will be a full-length fixed pier. The pier head split landing will be accessed via a 42-foot sloped section in the main pier which transitions from the inshore section access walkway nominal 8.3-foot elevation. The floating dock and hinged ramp have been removed from the project. The fixed pier will have a two-stepped section with an end elevation of 5.5 feet for the primary landing platform and 3.5 feet for the 30 SF low-water access platform at the end. ➢ The tie-off piles along the west side of the berthing slip at the end will be limited to 10 feet above mean low water cut-off elevation for aesthetic concerns expressed by the westerly neighbor, Mr. Nicholas Noyes. These tie-off piles will be fitted with "tide slides"which will allow precise tie-off position control over the moored boat. ➢ The deck system will utilize ThruFlow decking from the point where the dune vegetation is crossed by the pier all the way to the end. Mr. Michael J. Domino Page 2 May 3,2019 ➢ The project thus abides by the criteria and preferences set forth by Town, the regulatory preferences of the DEC, and the Federal standards which include National Marine Fisheries Service guidelines for construction of dock facilities in or in proximity to eelgrass beds. Because of the reduction in width from the 8-foot floating dock to the 4- foot fixed pier, the slip is also two feet narrower, which brings one of the tie off piles out of the eelgrass area and leaves only one pile driven in any area of eel grass with the total area of less than one square foot. Chapter 111 of the Town Law stipulates a dock structure not exceed 200 ft.' in the Coastal Erosion Zone or stipulates that the structure must be removable. It is not possible to build a removable structure that will stand up to the typical climatic and environmental forces encountered in an open water dock facility such as this. Repetitive pile driving and especially extraction would diminish the holding power of the bottom sediments and jeopardize the stability of future dock structures. It will be, in fact, necessary to utilize 12-inch Class B piles driven 12 to 15 feet of embedment in order to hold this structure securely in place against typical storm conditions. ThruFlow decking will allow much of the upward force of waves to be dissipated through the gaps in the decking rather than imposing significant structural stress on the pier structure frame. I trust that you will find these revisions and this design rationale conforming to terms of our discussions at the hearing and that you will find this application now acceptable. Please do not hesitate to give me a call if you would like to discuss any of these elements in greater detail. I will look forward to seeing you on the 15th. Yours truly, DOCKO, INC. Keith B.Neilson, P.E. KBN:ls Enclosures cc: Mr. Donald Young .� File: 17-03-2822 DONALD YOUNG OFFICE LOCATION: Irtsf S0(/�y®l V MAILING ADDRESS: Tovm Hall O P.O. Box 1179 54375 State Route 25 l Southold,NY 11971 (cor. Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.) �, Southold,NY 11971 ® �� Telephone: 631 765-1938 couffm LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM To: Michael Domino, President Town of Southold Board of Trustees From: Mark Terry, LWRP Coordinator Date: March 19, 2019 Re: Request for Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit for DONALD W. YOUNG REV. TRUST & KELLY C. YOUNG REV. TRUST SCTM# 1000-3-2-2 Docko, Inc. on behalf of DONALD W. YOUNG REV. TRUST & KELLY C. YOUNG REV. TRUST requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a ±160 linear foot long by 4 foot wide fixed wood pile and timber pier including railings on both sides, water, and electrical utilities of which ±132 linear feet of the pier to be waterward of the Apparent High Water Line; install an 8'x20' floating dock supported by four(4) piles with associated 3.5'x24' hinged access ramp off of seaward most end of fixed pier; and install three tie-off piles. Located: Off East End Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-3-2-2 The proposed action has been reviewed to Chapter 268, Waterfront Consistency Review of the Town of Southold Town Code and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) Policy Standards. Based upon the information provided on the LWRP Consistency Assessment Form submitted to this department, as well as the records available to me, it is my recommendation that the action is INCONSISTENT with the below listed Policy Standards and therefore is INCONSISTENT with LWRP. 4.1 Minimize losses of human life and structures from flooding and erosion hazards. The following management measures to minimize losses of human life and structures from flooding and erosion hazards are suggested.- A. Minimize potential loss and damage by locating development and structures away from flooding and erosion hazards. The proposed dock structure is within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area (CEHA). All development is prohibited in the nearshore area pursuant to 111-11. unless specifically provided for by Chapter 111, COASTAL EROSION HAZARD AREAS. Pursuant to § 111-6, allowable activities in these areas may include open timber piles or other similar open work supports with a top surface area of less than 200 square feet which are removed in the fall of each year. The proposed action is prohibited in the nearshore area pursuant to Chapter 111, COASTAL EROSION HAZARD AREAS as it is not removable. § 111-6. Definitions. UNREGULATED ACTIVITY --Excepted activities which are not regulated by this chapter include but are not limited to elevated walkways or stairways constructed solely for pedestrian use and built by an individual property owner for the limited purposes of providing noncommercial access to the beach; docks, piers, wharves or structures built on floats, columns, open timber piles or other similar open work supports with a top surface area of less than 200 square feet or which are removed in the fall of each year;normal beach grooming or cleanup; maintenance of structures when normal and customary and/or in compliance with an approved maintenance program,planting vegetation and sand fencing so as to stabilize or entrap sand in primary dune and secondary dune areas in order to maintain or increase the height and width of dunes; routine agricultural operations, including cultivation or harvesting, and the implementation of practices recommended in a soil and water conservation plan as defined in§ 3, Subsection (12), of the Soil and Water Conservation Districts Law,provided, however, that agricultural operations and implementation of practices will not be construed to include any activity that involves the construction or placement of a structure. 6.3 Protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands. A. Comply with statutory and regulatory requirements of the Southold Town Board of Trustees laws and regulations for all Andros Patent and other lands under their jurisdiction 1. Comply with Trustee regulations and recommendations as set forth in Trustee permit conditions. It is recommended the Board assess the dock structure to § 275-11 Construction and operation standards C. 2 (d) of the Southold Town Code; in particular: [6] Whether the dock will cause habitat fragmentation and loss of significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats; The dock structure is proposed in the New York State Significant Coastal and Fish and Widlife Habitat Area/ NYSDEC Critical Environmental Area. At the discretion of the Board of Trustees, any operations proposed in critical environmental areas (§ 275-2) may be subject to more stringent requirements than detailed in this section. Such requirements may include, but are not limited to, denial of certain operations, shortening or reducing the size of structures, and increasing the width of non-disturbance buffers. Alteration of tidal patterns in the Fishers Island Beaches, Pine Islands, and Shallows habitat could have negative impacts on the fish and wildlife communities present. Construction of shoreline structures, such as docks and piers in areas not previously disturbed by development may result in the loss of productive areas which support the fish and wildlife resources of the Fishers Island Beaches, Pine Islands, and Shallows habitat. Unrestricted use of motorized vessels including personal watercraft in the protected, shallow waters of this habitat can have adverse effects on aquatic vegetation and fish and wildlife populations. Use of motorized vessels should be controlled (e.g., no wake zones, speed zones, zones of exclusion) in and adjacent to the area's shallow waters and vegetated wetlands. Eelgrass beds are particularly sensitive to alterations in water quality parameters including temperature, salinity, light penetration, organic matter concentration, and the presence of pollutants. Docks may be detrimental to eelgrass beds because of shading, and review of any proposed new docks in this habitat area should be conducted with potential impacts to eelgrass beds fully considered. (NYSDOS) [7] Whether the dock will result in the destruction of or prevent the growth of vegetated wetlands, seagrasses including eelgrass (Zostera marina) and widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima) or shellfish; The occurrence of vegetated emergent, wetlands and eelgrass habitat is documented in the area where the dock structure is proposed. [11] Whether the cumulative impacts of a residential and commercial dock will change the waterway or the environment and whether alternate design, construction, and location of the dock will minimize cumulative impacts; and The continued construction of dock structures within a Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat/Critical Environmental Area will affect the public use of the area and degrade the ecological quality of the area through introduction of contaminants, disruption of marine life habits etc. .... Correspondingly, physical and functional loss to wildlife has been found to occur through the loss and/or impairment of habitat, disruption of habits and migration patterns (structure and activity) and introduction of harmful contaminants. The most common contaminant associated with docks is wood preservatives impregnated into the wood used to prolong the life of a dock. Three trace metals; arsenic, chromium and copper are the most common. These three metals have the greatest potential to increase in estuarine environments from docks (Sanger and Holland 2002). The use of treated materials should be minimized. In the event the action is approved, it is recommended that: 1. That a vegetated buffer be established to mitigate the local impacts from the dock structure to public surface waters and bottomlands. Pursuant to Chapter 268, the Board of Trustees shall consider this recommendation in preparing its written determination regarding the consistency of the proposed action. Cc: Damon Hagan, Assistant Town Attorney Peter Young,Chairman Town Hall,53095 Main Rd. Lauren Standish,Secretary P.O.Box 1179 �► Southold,NY 11971 �'� �` Telephone(631)765-1889 y' Fax(631)765-1823 Conservation Advisory Council Town of Southold At the meeting of the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council held Wed., November 7, 2018 the following recommendation was made: DONALD YOUNG to construct 160 If. of 4' wide fixed wood pile and timber pier including rails and water/electric utilities of which 132 If. is waterward of the apparent high water line. Install an 8' X 20' float with associated hinged access ramp and three tie-off piles. Located: Off East End Rd., Fishers Island. SCTM#3-2-2 The CAC did not make an inspection, therefore no recommendation was made. BOARD OF TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Office Use Only Coastal Erosion Permit Application Wetland Permit Application / Administrative Permit <V/ r "-- Received Application ) j S± h; ;rr' `,1 L i Received Fee: $ Completed Application P PP J0.5 fg �! L7: Incomplete L 1SEQRA Classification / t 2018 Type I_ Type II_ UnlistedCoordination Date:(Date Sent)LWRP Consistency Assessment Form j�,2.� uod Town CAC Referral Sent /O.Z , Boar of TiusiueS Date of Inspection `— Receipt of CAC Report Lead Agency Determination: Technical Review: Public Hearing Held: Resolution: Name of Applicant: Mr. Donald Young Address: 3640 Piping Rock Lane, Houston, TX 77027 Phone Number: (281)870-8402 Suffolk County Tax Map Number: 1000-3.-2-2 Property Location: Off East End Road on Fishers Island (provide LILCO Pole#, distance to cross streets, and location) AGENT: Docko, Inc. (If applicable) Address: P. O. Box 421, Mystic, CT 06355 Phone: (860) 572-8939 1 �o) Board of Trustees Application GENERAL DATA Land Area(in square feet) : 2.11 ACRE Area Zoning: RESIDENTIAL Previous use of property: RESIDENTIAL Intended use of property: RESIDENTIAL Covenants and Restrictions: Yes —X—No If"Yes",please provide copy. Does this project require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals Yes X No If"Yes",please provide copy of decision Prior permits/approvals for site improvements: Agency Date X No prior permits/approvals for site improvements. Has any permit/ approval ever been revoked or suspended by a governmental agency? X No Yes If yes,provide explanation: Project Description (use attachments if necessary) : Construct 160(+/-)LF of 4-FT wide fixed wood pile and timber pier including rails and water / electric utilities of which 132(+/-)LF is waterward of the Apparent High Water Line. Install an 8-FT x 20-FT float with associated hinged access ramp and three tie-off piles. Board of Trustees Application COASTAL EROSION APPLICATION DATA Purposes of proposed activity: To construct a new pier, ramp and float at a private dock for recreational boatiniz. Are wetlands present within 100 feet of the proposed activity? —X—No Yes Does the project involve excavation or filling? X No Yes If Yes,now much material will be excavated? None (cubic yards) How much material will be filled? None (cubic yards) Manner in which material will be removed or deposited: Not Applicable Describe the nature and extent of the environmental impacts to the subject property or neighboring properties reasonably anticipated resulting from implementation of the project as proposed, including erosion increase or adverse effects on natural protective features.(Use attachments if necessary): It is envisioned that there will be little environmental impact of significance. The pier is to be built in an active wave break zone with no tidal wetlands vegetation and no SAV within 150(+1-) feet of shore. The authorized pier being built will be open wood pile and timber structure which will not adversely affect water flow and circulation and neither will the new floating dock. See attached narrative for more details. Board of Trustees Application WETLAND/TRUSTEE LANDS APPLICATION DATA Purpose of the proposed operations:To construct a new pier, ramp and float at a private dock for recreational boatiniz. Area of wetlands on lot: square feet Percent coverage of lot: % Closest distance between nearest existing structure and upland edge of wetlands: feet Closest distance between nearest proposed structure and upland edge of wetlands: feet Does the project involve excavation or filling: No Yes If yes,how much material will be excavated? cubic yards How much material will be filled? cubic yards Depth of which material will be removed or deposited: feet Proposed slope throughout the area of operations:_ Manner in which material will be removed or deposited: Statement of the effect,if any,on the wetlands and tidal waters of the town that may result by reason of such proposed operations(use attachments if appropriate): _It is anticipated that there will be no adverse impacts or tidal wetlands vegetation,in tidal waters of the Town caused by this project See attached narrative for more detailed discussion. Kli Town of Southold Erosion, Sedimentation & Storm-Water Run-off ASSESSMENT FORM g PROPERTY LOCATION: S.C.T.M.#k THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS MAY REQUIRE THE SUBMISSION OF A pl STORM WATER,GRADING,DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN s-6T t 1ct acton -MC—r- T- CERTIFIED BY A DESIGN PROFESSIONAL IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK. SCOPE OF WORK - PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ITEM# / WORK ASSESSMENT Yes- No a. What is the Total Area of the Project Parcels? I Will this Project Retain All Storm-Water Run-Off (Include Tota(Area of all Parcels located within j + Generated by a Two(2')Inch Rainfall on Site? the Scope of Work for Proposed Construction) I(S.F./Acres) (This item will include all run-offcreated by site ❑ b. What is the Total Area of Land Clearing clearing and/or construction activities as well as all and/or Ground Disturbance for the proposed )U4-J— Site Improvements and the permanent creation of construction activity? (S.F.!Acres) impervious surfaces.) PROVIDE BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION fP�•Add� -Naeaed) 2 Does the StPlan ands Survey Show All Proposed — ElDrainage Structures Indicating Size&Location?This ✓ Item shall include all Proposed Grade Changes and !dA1� ct /6b Lir ri)f q-r� wt� Slopes Controlling Surface Water Flow. J 3 Does the Site Plan and/or Survey describe the erosion ❑ U-) il6L,2I -e-&4L4 JU,1 b4,L IOLU4and sediment contra(practices that will be used to control site erosion and storm water discharges. This 1�y Pf1� � /1CLLs4a. lcL(�; �� LCC1 item must be maintained throughout the Entire Construction Period. L .+Ltl-ha 4 Will this Project Require any Land Filling,Grading or `�` �i� ,p / Excavation where there is a change to the Natural ix 211z/I I17Lu-cam- t) C-Ut (L4A h�� fd4y� Existing Grade Involving more than 200 Cubic Yards — of Material within any Parcel? (�rYrj Will this Application Require Land Disturbing Activities if2�?s � 1 ')�C�.. Encompassing an Area in Excess of Five Thousand fA()f( tl� t1 (GSSO ❑ ✓_ ''A��yy (5,000 S.F.)Square Feet of Ground Surface? u eur�L( '1 AILP, -ham-0 /Lv 6 Is there a Natural Water Course Running through the Site? Is this Project within the Trustees jurisdiction ❑ General DEC SWPPP Requirements• or within One Hundred(100')feet of a Wetland or Submission of a SWPPP Is required for all Construction activities involving soli Beach? disturbances of one(1)or more acres; including disturbances of less than one acre that 7 Will there be Site preparation on Existing Grade Slopes are part of a larger common plan that will ultimately disturb one or more acres of land; Which Exceed Fifteen(15)feet of Vertical Rise to Including Construction activities involving sod disturbances of less than one(1)acre where One Hundred(100')of Horizontal Distance? El the DEC has determined that a SPDES permit is required for storm water discharges. (SWPPP's Shall meet the Minimum Requirements of the SPDES General Permit 8 Will Driveways,Parking Areas or other Impervious ❑ for Storm Water Discharges from Construction activity-Permit No.GP-0-10-001.) Surfaces be Sloped to Direct Storm-Water Run-Off 1.The SWPPP shall be prepared prior to the submittal of the Not.The Not shag be into and/or in the direction of a Town right-of-way? submitted to the Department prior to the commencement of construction activity. 2.The SWPPP shall describe the erosion and sediment control practices and where 9 Will this Project Require the Placement of Material, M required,post-construction storm water managementpractices that will be used andfor Removal of Vegetation and/or the Construction of any constructed to reduce the pollutants In storm water discharges and to assure Item Within the Town Right-0f--Way or Road Shoulder compliance with the terms and conditions of this perniL In addition,the SWPPP shag Area?Inds Item will NOT Include the Installaaan of Driveway Aprons.) Identify potential sources of pollution which may reasonably be expected to affect the quality of storm water discharges. NOTE: If Any Answer to Questions One through Nine is Answered with a Check Mark 3.All SWPPPs that require the post-construction storm water management practice in a Box and the construction site disturbance is between 5,000 S.F.&1 Acre In area, component shah be prepared by a qualified Design Professional Licensed in New York a Storm-Water,Grading,Drainage&Erosion Control Plan is Required by the Town of that is knowledgeable in the principles and practices of Starr Water Management Southold and Must be Submitted for Review Prior to Issuance of Any Building Permit. (NOTE A Check Mark(.F)and/or Answer for each Question is Required for a Complete Application) MIT OF 1'fW`i-6M Gt�`r►nPf i"/cf�� (�COUNTY OF.. tR ./ ...........SS That I K: - � f 1 im ...................being duly swom,deposes and says that he/she is the applicant for Permit, ...... ...................n .................... (Name of individual signing Document) Andthat he/she is the .......... .... ............p.�.�... .A........................................................................................ / (Owner,Contractor Agent.Corporate Ofitce,eta) Owner and/or representative of the Owner or Owners,and is duly authorized to perform or have performed the said work and to make and file this application;that all statements contained in this application are true to the best of his knowledge and belief;and that the work will be performed in the manner set forth in the application filed herewith. Sworn to before me this; .........................................I.....day of........................................... .20..... NotaryPublic: ........................................................................................ ........ . "..-.. ..///�' /.. . (Signature of Applicant)• /r FORM - 06/10 617.20 r 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 projector action may be significant. The question of whether an action maybe significant is not always easy to answer. Frequently, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasurable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may not be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. Thefull EAFis intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible enough to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. 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 project 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 provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially-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 to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. THIS AREA FOR LEAD AGENCY USE ONLY DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE-- Type 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: 0 Part 1 ©Part 2 Part 3 '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 magnitude 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 significant 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.* MC. 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 New Pier and Float Name of Action Name of Lead Agency Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer(If different from responsible officer) website Date PART 1--PROJECT INFORION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional 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 involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable,so indicate and specify each instance. Name of Action New Pier and Float Location of Action(include Street Address, Municipality and County) Off East End Road Name of Applicant/Sponsor Donald Young Address 3640 Piping Rock Lane City/PO Houston State TX Zip Code 77027 Business Telephone 281-870-8402 Name of Owner(if different) Address City/PO State Zip Code Business Telephone Description of Action: Construct 160(+/-)LF of 4-FT wide fixed wood pile and timber pier including rails and water/electric utilities,of which 132(+/-)LF is waterwarc of the Apparent High Water Line, install an 8-FT x 20-FT float with associated hinged access ramp and three tie-off piles. Please Complete Each Question--Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. SITE DESCRIPTION Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present Land Use:E]Urban 0 Industrial 0 Commercial 17 Residential (suburban) �Rural (non-farm) ©Forest ©Agriculture 0 Other Coastal Shoreline 2. Total acreage of project area: 2.11 acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) 0.6 acres 0.6 acres Forested 0.3 acres 0.3 acres Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) acres acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24,25 of ECL) 0.4 acres 0.4 acres Water Surface Area acres acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) 0.1 acres 0.1 acres Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces 0.6 acres 0.6 acres Other (Indicate type) acres acres 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? a. Soil drainage: RWell drained 80% of site Moderately well drained % of site. 0 Poorly drained 20% of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? acres (see 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? ® Yes 50 No a. What is depth to bedrock (in feet) 5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: F70-10% 100°/, M10- 15% % F-1115% or greater % 6. Is project substantiall contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or National Registers of Historic Places? Yes 0 No 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? ©Yes RNo B. What is the depth of the water table? 15(in feet) g. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? F1Yes 1;7 No 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? Yes 0 No 1 1. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identifieu cis threatened or endangered? Yes No According to: Identify each species: 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations? ®Yes F- 1 No Describe: The foreshore is a tidal wetland complex with several varieties of vegetation terminating at a boulder field of a hundred foot width,all of which can be spanned by the pier.There is a linear bend of eel grass a hundred feet or so offshore with a notable void near the center of 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? 0 Yes EiNo If yes, explain: 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? ®Yes ®No 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: None a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: None b. Size (in acres): f 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? to Yes ©No a. If YES, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? RYes �No b. If YES, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? Yes ®No 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? ©Yes to No 19. Is the site located in or substantiall contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? 0 Yes No 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? El Yes ®No B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate). a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor: 2.11 acres. b. Project acreage to be developed: 1,000 SF-acres initially; 1,000 SF-acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped: 1.4 acres. d. Length of project, in miles: 190 LF (if appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed. % f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing 6; proposed 6 g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour: NA(upon completion of project)? h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initially 1 Ultimately 1 i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure: 10 Foot height; 4 Foot width; 160 Foot length. j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? NAft. 2. How much natural material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.)will be removed from the site? 0tons/cubic yards. 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed ©Yes ©No �N/A a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? Yes ® No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? Yes No 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers)will be removed from site? N/A acres. 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? 0 Yes ® No 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction: 3 months, (including demolition) 7. If multi-phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated (number) b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1: month year, (including demolition) c. Approximate completion date of final phase: month year. d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? F1 Yes M No 8. Will blasting occur during construction? 0 Yes M No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 3; after project is complete 0 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project NIA 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities?F71 Yes 0 No If yes, explain: 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? 0 Yes EnJ 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? ©Yes 1;V1 No Type 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? riYes r%7 No If yes, explain: 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? LMWJ Yes QNo 16. Will the project generate solid waste? Q Yes �No a. If yes, what is the amount per month? tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? 0 Yes 0 No c. If yes, give name location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? riYes ® No e. If yes, explain: 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? MYes RNo 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? E]Yes 0 No 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? rYes RNo 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? RYes No 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? ©Yes R No If yes, indicate type(s) 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity N/A gallons/minute. 23. Total anticipated water usage per day N/A gallons/day. 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? M Yes R No If yes, explain: 25. Approvals Required: Type Submittal Date Town of Southold City, Town, Village Board MYes 0 No Board of Trustees Sept 2018 Town Board City, Town, Village Planning Board MYes No City, Town Zoning Board 17Yes ® No City, County Health Department ©Yes M No Other Local Agencies Yes No Other Regional Agencies Yes No State Agencies R Yes No NYS DEC Tidal Wetlands Aug 2017 � NYSDOS Consistency Aug 2017 US ACOE Aug 2017 Federal Agencies Yes No C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? ®Yes El No If Yes, indicate decision required: Zoning amendment ® Zoning variance New/revision of master plan Subdivision Site plan 0 Special use permit Q Resource management plan E] Other 2. What is the zoning classification(s) of the site? Residential 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? Single Family Residence 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? Residential 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? No changes to zoning requested 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? ®Yes F- 1 No Ih variance is needed to allow a dock of more than 200 SF to be built in the flood zone.200 SF of the pier is located landward of e MLW 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a'/a mile radius of proposed action? The land use of the adjacent properties in this area are predominately classified as residential. 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses with a'/a mile? ®Yes ®No g. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s)for the formation of sewer or water districts? ❑Yes S No 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services(recreation, education, police, Fre protection? Yes G1 No a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? ❑Yes ❑No 12.Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? ❑Yes a No a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic. ❑Yes ❑No D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such Impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification I certify that the information provided above Is true to the best of my knowledge. Donald Young Date 08/08/2017 Applicant/Sponsor Name 8 Signature Title Property Owner If the action is In the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency,complete the Coastal Asssssmara Form before proceaftli with this assessment. Page 10 of 21 Neve York State Depaartment of Environmental Conservation PERMISSI®N TO INSPECT PROPERTY By signing this permission form for submission with an application for a permits)to the Department of Environmental Conservation("DEC"),the signer consents to inspection by DEC staff of the project site or facility for which a permit is sought and,to the extent necessary,areas adjacent to the project site or facility. This consent allows DEC staff to enter upon and pass through such property in order to inspect the project site or facility,without prior notice,between the hours of 7:00 a.m.and 7:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday. If DEC staff should wish to conduct an inspection at any other times,DEC staff will so notify the applicant and will obtain a separate consent for such an inspection. Inspections may take place as part of the application review prior to a decision to grant or deny the permit(s) sought. By signing this consent form,the signer agrees that this consent remains in effect as long as the application is pending,and is effective regardless of whether the signer,applicant or an agent is present at the time of the inspection. In the event that the project site or facility is posted with any form of"posted"or"keep out"notices,or fenced in with an unlocked gate,this permission authorizes DEC staff to disregard such notices or unlocked gates at the time of inspection. The signer further agrees that during an inspection,DEC staff may,among other things, take measurements, may analyze physical characteristics of the site including,but not limited to, soils and vegetation(taking samples for analysis),and may make drawings and take photographs. Failure to grant consent for an inspection is grounds for, and may result in, denial of the permit(s)sought by the application. Permission is granted for inspection of property located at the following address(es): Young Property(Parcel 1000-1-2-2)of East End Road,Fishers Island,MY 08390 By signing this form,I affirm Bender penalty of perjury that 1 ane authorized to give consent to entry by DEC staff as described above. I understand that false statements made herein are punishable as a Class A misdemeanor pursuant to Section 210.45 of the Penal Law.* Donald Young,Property Owner 08/08/2017 Print Name and Title Sign lure Date *The signer of this form must be an individual or authorized representative of a legal entity that: • owns fee title and is in possession of the property identified above; • maintains possessory interest in the property through a lease,rental agreement or other legally binding agreement;or • is provided permission to act an behalf of an individual or legal entity possessing fee title or other possessory interest in the property for the purpose of consenting to inspection of such property. Permission to looped Property Application Supplement 12108 NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Federal Consistency Assessment Form An applicant,seeking a permit,license,waiver,certification or similar type of approval from a federal agency which is subject to the New York State Coastal Management Program(CMP),shall complete this assessment form for anyproposed activity that will occur within and/or directly affect the State's Coastal Area. This form is intended to assist an applicant in certifying that the proposed activity is consistent with New York State's CMP as required by U.S. Department of Commerce regulations(15 CFR 930.57).It should be completed at the time when the federal application is prepared. The Department of State will use the completed form and accompanying information in its review of the applicant's certification of consistency. A.APPLICANT (please print) 1.Name: Donald Young 2.Address: 3640 Piping Rock Lane, Houston,TX 77027 3.Telephone: Area Code(281) 870-8402 B.PROPOSED ACTIVITY 1.Brief description of activity: Construct 160(+/-)LF of 4-FT wide fixed wood pile and timber pier including rails and water/electric utilities, of which 132(+/-)LF is waterward of the Apparent High Water Line, install an 8-FT x 20-FT float with associated hinged access ramp and three tie-off piles. 2.Purpose of activity: The purpose of this project is to construct a dock for private recreational boating use by the Young family. 3.Location of activity: Suffolk Fishers Island.Town of Southold Off East End Road County City,Town,or Village Street or Site Description 4.Type of federal permit/license required: US ACOE 5.Federal application number,if known: Pending 6.If a state permit/license was issued or is required for the proposed activity,identify the state agency and provide the application or permit number,if known: 5. Is the proposed action, NO YES N/A a.A permitted use under the zoning regulations? ❑ ✓❑ ❑ b.Consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan? ❑ ❑✓ ❑ 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the predominant character of the existing built or natural NO YES landscape? ❑ 7. Is the site of the proposed action located in,or does it adjoin,a state listed Critical Environmental Area? NO YES If Yes,identify: ❑ 8. a.Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels? NO I YES b.Are public transportation service(s)available at or near the site of the proposed action? IZI 1 ❑ c.Are any pedestrian accommodations or bicycle routes available on or near site of the proposed action? ❑ ❑ 9.Does the proposed action meet or exceed the state energy code requirements? NO 1 YES If the proposed action will exceed requirements,describe design features and technologies: ❑ ❑ 10. Will the proposed action connect to an existing public/private water supply? NO YES If No,describe method for providing potable water. ❑ 7 11.Will the proposed action connect to existing wastewater utilities? NO YES If No,describe method for providing wastewater treatment: Z ❑ 12. a.Does the site contain a structure that is listed on either the State or National Register of Historic NO YES Places? ❑ b.Is the proposed action located in an archeological sensitive area? ❑ 13.a.Does any portion of the site of the proposed action,or lands adjoining the proposed action,contain NO YES wetlands or other waterbodies regulated by a federal,state or local agency? El 0 b.Would the proposed action physically alter,or encroach into,any existing wetland or waterbody? ❑ Lid If Yes,identify the wetland or waterbody and extent of alterations in square feet or acres: ThTomie t is in Fishers'sl^^a c^ na and well^^^Ipy nppmximatetyI,nnn SF of the water c Urfa. (n n3 am-q) --_ 14. identify the typical habitat types that occur on,or are likely to be found on the project site. Check all that apply: 0 Shoreline O Forest ❑Agricultural/grasslands ❑Early mid-successional m Wetland ❑Urban 0Suburban 15.Does the site of the proposed action contain any species of animal,or associated habitats,listed NO YES by the State or Federal government as threatened or endangered? ❑✓ ❑ 16.Is the project site located in the 100 year flood plain? NO YES 17.Will the proposed action create storm water discharge,either from point or non-point sources? NO YES If Yes, � ❑ a.Will storm water discharges flow to adjacent properties? ❑NO AYES b.Will storm water discharges be directed to established conveyance systems(runoff and storm drains)? If Yes,briefly describe: ❑NO AYES Page 2 of 3 18.Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that result in the impoundment of NO YES water or other liquids(e.g.retention pond,waste lagoon,dam)? If Yes,explain purpose and size: ❑ ❑ 19.Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the location of an active or closed NO I YES solid waste management facility? If Yes,describe: ❑ ❑ 20.Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the subject of remediation(ongoing or NO YES completed)for hazardous waste? 21D If Yes,describe: I AFFIRM THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE 1S TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant/spo r ame: Donald Youn® Date; 08/08/2017 Signature: PRINT FORM Page 3 of 3 No,or Moderate small to large impact impact may may occur occur 10. Will the proposed action result in an increase in the potential for erosion,flooding or drainage ❑ problems? 11. Will the proposed action create a hazard to environmental resources or human health? Part 3-Determination of significance. The Lead Agency is responsible for the completion of Part 3. For every question in Part 2 that was answered"moderate to large impact may occur",or if there is a need to explain why a particular element of the proposed action may or will not result in a significant adverse environmental impact,please complete Part 3. Part 3 should,in sufficient detail, identify the impact,including any measures or design elements that have been included by the project sponsor to avoid or reduce impacts. Part 3 should also explain how the lead agency determined that the impact may or will not be significant.Each potential impact should be assessed considering its setting,probability of occurring, duration,irreversibility,geographic scope and magnitude. Also consider the potential for short-term, long-term and cumulative impacts. F] Check this box if you have determined,based on the information and analysis above,and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action may result in one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts and an environmental impact statement is required. Check this box if you have determined,based on the information and analysis above,and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental im acts. Town of Southold-Board of Trustees Namof ea gency Datle Mich ae1 J. `Domino President Print or TypJeame f R p s ble Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Re ponsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer(if different from Responsible Officer) PRINT Page 4 of 4 ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTI—NAIRE This is intended to supplement ENC Form 4345, Application for Department of the Army Permit, or the Joint Application for Permit used in the State of New York. Please provide complete answers to all questions below which are relevant to your project. Any answers may be continued on separate-sheet(s) of paper to be-attached to this form. PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT The purpose of this form is to provide the Corps of Engineers with basic information regarding your project. This information will be used to facilitate evaluation of your permit application and for public dissemination as required by regulation. Failure to provide complete information may result in your application being declared incomplete for processing, thereby delaying processing of your application. GENERAL-APPLICABLE TO ALL PROJECTS 1. Explain the need for, and purpose of, the proposed work. Construct 160(+/-)LF of 4-FT wide fixed wood pile and timber pier including rails and water/electric utilities, of which 132(+/-)LF is waterward of the apparent High Water Line, install an 8-FT x 20-FT float with associated hinged access ramp and three tie-off piles. This is a private dock for recreational boating. 2. Provide the names and addresses of property owners adjacent to your work site (if not shown on the application form or project drawings). West- Harry O. Hurlburt, Jr. and Sandra L. Hurlburt, 7014 Sheaff Lane, Fort Washington, PA 19034. East- H.L. Ferguson Museum Inc., Attn: Pierce Rafferty, Director, P.O. Box 554 Fishers, Island NY 06390. (Please note that depending upon the nature and extent of your project, you may be requested to provide the names and addresses of additional property owners proximate to your project site to ensure proper coordination.) 3. Photographs of the project site should be submitted. For projects in tidal areas, photographs of the waterway vicinity should be taken at low tide. Using a separate copy of your plan view, indicate the location and direction of each photograph as well as the date and time at which the photograph- was taken. Provide a sufficient number of photographs so as to provide a clear understanding of conditions on and proximate to your project site. Photographs showing existing site features and resources are attached. See attached. 4. Provide a copy of any environmental impact statement, or any other environmental report which was prepared for your project. See attached narrative, Short Environmental form and EFH worksheet. 5. Provide a thorough discussion of alternatives to your proposal. This discussion should include, but not necessarily be limited to, the "no action" alternative and alternative(s) resulting in less disturbance to waters of the United States. For filling projects in waters of the United States, including wetlands, your alternatives discussion should demonstrate that there are no practicable alternatives to your proposed filling and that your project meets with current mitigation policy (i.e-. avoidance, minimization and compensation). Alternatives considered included wider, higher, lower, shorter and longer piers, fixed pier versus floating docks, boat lifts, utilities, different locations on the site, use of open grate decking, orientation of docking facilities and the like, all of which are discussed in the narrative. The proposed configuration provides for optimal berthing, minimal environmental disturbances and no adverse impact to navigation or Public Trust access to or use of the stretch of shoreline. The project has been previously reviewed in detail with the Southold Board of Trustees and the NYSDEC Marine Habitat Protection Bureau prior to the application process to make sure that the proposed construction techniques were suitable and appropriate for the site and scope of work and anticipated environmental impacts would be minimal preserving the site's habitat quality and avoiding despoliation of tidal wetlands vegetation and submerged aquatic vegetation around this site. A detailed discussion of the alternatives follows: • Length-The length of the pier has been determined based on the unique features along the shore front which require the pier to span over tidal wetlands vegetation, pass over a boulder field running along the near shore edge of the tidal wetlands fringe marsh, across very shallow waters, and eventually stopping short of a bed of eel grass. The irregular edge of the eel grass bed is unique in that it has existed in the same form for more than seven years and has been documented in successive site visits. The width of the pier is shown as four feet; five feet would be better because it would be able to accommodate the batter braced support piles beneath the footprint of the decking, however, the width of the pier has already been discussed with agencies including the Marine Habitat Protection Bureau in the NYS DEC and the Town of Southold Trustees and 4 feet was agreed upon. • Height- The height of the dock is dictated by two different features. One is keeping the dock high enough so it will not adversely impact the growth of tidal wetlands vegetation or submerged aquatic vegetation. The second is keeping the height of the pier low enough so that the end of the pier can function properly for boat boarding access while providing adequate slope and not excessive slope which might make the use of the pier hazardous in slippery conditions. • Location- The to on of the dock selected happens t a the location of the historic dock located on this site :bu years ago. • Fixed Pier Full Length- The fixed pier full length would be a reasonable alternative, however, in view of the boating needs and the lack of growth of the eel grass at the selected dock site, a floating dock should be adequate and is certainly preferable from the owner's perspective based on boarding and disembarking ease and safety. • Open Grate Vs. Timber Decking- Open grate decking will be used for the full length of this pier in order to minimize shading. In addition, the height of the pier and it's north south orientation provide the opportunity for sunlight to reach the bottom sediments, marsh and benthos beneath the pier, from the east in the morning and the west in the afternoon. o Construction Materials- It's anticipated that the higher dock stretch will be built out of Southern Yellow Pine, pressure treated with CCA Type 3 in accordance with the study conducted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in the year 2000. The piles may be pressure treated Southern Yellow Pine or Greenheart. There will be 40 piles in the complete dock facility. • Environmental Resources- The environmental resources at this site include the tidal wetland vegetation in the near shore area and the eel grass bed out in deeper water around the peripheral of the proposed dock facility. Other than that, the wood pile and timber construction will provide an open unencumbered structure which will not preclude or in any way inhibit free water flow and circulation consistent with the existing site conditions. There are a number of US Fish & Wildlife eel grass avoidance and impact minimization efforts undertaken in the design of this dock facility. They are as follows: Policy 1- In-water work should be avoided during the eelgrass growing season from April 15 to October 31. The dock site has been strategically set in an area that has been devoid of eel grass for seven years. Work can be scheduled in the fall through spring to comply with this criteria if the permits are received in a timely manner. There was more eel grass extending north from the pier. The float was beyond the end of the pier specifically so as not to adversely impact any observed SAV growth area and chains will not be used in any respect to anchor the float, only piles will be used. Policy 2- Construct the fixed pier a maximum of four feet wide to minimize shading. The pier all the way out to the ramp landing has been minimized in its size based on approval criteria from the Town of Southold as well as the recommendations of NMFS. The landing is 4 feet. Please note also that the last 30 feet, the lower end of the pier and ramp landing is to be decked with open "Thru Flow" grate type decking. Also, the hinged ramp is 3 '/2 feet wide, narrower than the recommended 4-foot width. Policy 3- Construct the dock a minimum of four feet above the surface of the water measured at Mean High Water and 4.5 feet over the surface of the marsh with height measured from the bottom of the stringers, not the top of the deck. The standard for deck height is to keep the structure 4.5 feet above the surface of the "marsh." It should be noted that there is a limited fringe marsh in this location, and the prevailing pier deck height is at an elevation of approximately 8 feet above Mean Low Water. The 4-foot-wide pier head and ramp landing platform is at 6 feet above MLW. The water depth where the eel grass bed was noted is approximately 3 feet and 3 feet is the typical length of the eel grass blades. This has been confirmed in repeated observations where the tops of the blades of eel grass are visible at low tides. The stringers are 10 feet or so above the adjacent eel grass bed sediments and 6 to 7 feet above the tops of the eel grass blades but most importantly, the pier siting is such as to avoid the eel grass altogether. This 8-foot pier elevation was maintained until the pier reached past the marsh and intertidal zone. i Policy 4- To minimi ^she risk of propeller dredging and -.�-Iar, extend the fixed portion of the pier so that the water depths in the mooring area are a minimum of four feet deep measured at Mean Low Water, or if the SAV bed extends further than the proposed dock, extend the dock beyond the vegetation. One of the reasons that the floating dock was put at the end of the pier was to avoid the necessity of boat traffic berthing over the SAV bed of eel grass. The bed on the west side of the pier is located farther from the pier. There was no eel grass noted in the area of the float at the end of the pier during our design work, and confirmed as of the date of this report. By keeping the float inside of the SAV bed, we have pretty much assured that the boat will not berth over the eel grass bed. Additionally, by keeping the float in 4-feet of water, the potential for prop damage to the eel grass is minimized. Policy 5- Eliminate the ramp and float to reduce shading effects. We understand that the purpose of this criteria (precluding the float) is to avoid or reduce shading on the eel grass. However, the surveys that we conducted prior to the original permitting for this dock construction project and visually confirmed this month indicated that there was no eel grass in this dock site or beneath the floating dock and hinged ramp. We feel that elimination of a float is an unnecessarily restrictive "practice" when there was no eel grass in the floating dock location. Policy 6- Install a lift for each vessel moored at the dock unless not practicable (e.g. sailboat). 'The boat(s) should be moored in the lift(s)when not in use. This is to reduce shading effects, minimize the potential for scour, and reduce the potential for the bottom of a docked boat to damage the SAV bed. The criteria in this case emphasizes the use of a boat lift. We were unable to obtain a permit for a lift for the vessels berthed at this dock. The prohibition is related to Tidal Wetlands Law No. 6 issued by the Town of Southold. We have attempted to get a boat lift approved by the Town of Southold, however, the Tidal Wetlands Law No. 6 prohibits the installation of a boat lift unless the applicant owns the harbor bottom. In this case, the applicant does not own the harbor bottom and, therefore, a lift is not permittable under Town of Southold law. Attached is a letter from the President of the Town of Southold Board of Trustees confirming this. Policy 7- To minimize potential for scour, in-water construction equipment should only transit within the work area footprint at periods of high tide while construction is occurring within eelgrass beds. The prevailing water depth in the area of the floating dock is 3 to 4 feet deep, and this is the area where the barge will be set at the end of the pier early in the year when the pier will be built. Pile driving and setting heavy timbers will be accomplished in a matter of a week or three at the most weather permitting. The ramp and float are to be manufactured offsite, towed to the site, set in place and then secured with driven piles; the potential for scour in this area is negligible at this point. The work will be done at a high tide so that there will be a water depth of 7 to 8 feet during times of barge access. Policy 8- To avoid minimizing impacts, GIS lavers of mapped eelgrass beds within the project area should be provided to the contractor so they are aware of the eelgrass locations at all times. The contractor will be furnished with the permit drawings prior to the pier construction project. The same contractor will be furnished with copies of the permit(s) modifications for this project and is well aware of the typical best practices for dock building in proximity to eel grass. The drawings show the submerged aquatic vegetation that has been repeatedly verified at the time of the original survey. There will be no sig cant adverse impacts to air qualiti- -- a result of this structure and the construction of the '%;a ..:k should not diminish overall env, 'mental considerations in Fishers Island Sound and will protect water quality, the quality of the ecosystem and minimize or avoid degradation of environmental resources. • Boulder Relocation- It is possible that some boulder relocation might be required by this project because of the number of boulders in this most desirable path considering least resource impact. If boulder relocation is required, the boulders will be set on unvegetated bottom sediments in the path of the pier between bents to keep the environmental impacts localized. DREDGING PROJECTS Answer the following if your project involves dredging. 1. Indicate the estimated volume of material to be dredged and the depth (below mean low water) to which dredging would occur. Would there be overdepth dredging? There is no dredging associated with this project. The floating dock and berthing area have been located so that the dock facilities footprint avoids almost all of the boulders observed thus maintaining the benthic characteristics and habitat quality of the area. 2. You can apply for a ten-year permit for maintenance dredging. If you wish to apply for a ten-year permit, please provide the number of additional dredging events during the ten-year life of the permit and the amount of material to be removed during future events. No dredging is required or requested. 3. Indicate of your drawings the dewatering area (if applicable) and disposal site for the dredged material (except landfill sites). Submit a sufficient number of photographs of the dewatering and disposal sites as applicable so as to provide a clear indication of existing conditions. For ten-year maintenance dredging permits, indicate the dewatering/disposal sites for future dredging events, if known. Not Applicable 4. Describe the method of dredging(i.e. clamshell, dragline, etc.) and the expected duration of dredging. Not applicable for dredging. If boulder relocation is required, a clamshell bucket or digging bucket will be utilized to grapple and reset the boulder. 5. Indicate the physical nature of the material to be dredged(i.e. sand, silt, clay, etc.) and provide estimated percentages of the various constituents if available. For beach nourishment projects, grain size analysis data is required. Not Applicable 6. Describe the m `pd of dredged material contains t (i.e. hay bales, embankment, bulkhead, etc.) an. .:hether return flow from the dews___ Ing/disposal site would reenter any waterway. Also indicate if there would be any barge overflow. Not Applicable MOORING FACILITIES Answer the following if your project includes the construction or rehabilitation of recreational mooring facilities. 1. It is generally recommended that any fixed piers and walk ramps be limited to four feet in width, and that floats be-limited to eight feet in width and rest at least two feet above the waterway bottom at mean low water. Terminal floats at private, non- commercial facilities should be limited to 29 feet in length. If you do not believe your proposal can meet with these recommendations, please provide the reason(s). The pier will be 4-FT wide and 160(+/-)FT long complying with all of these provisions as measured from the Mean High Water Line. The float is to be 20 feet long and 8 feet wide. The pier height will vary from 8 feet above Mean Low Water from the point of origin until 50 feet from the end to avoid adverse impacts to tidal wetland vegetation and submerged aquatic vegetation with the exception of the floating dock, all policies of the US Fish & Wildlife Service have been accommodated in this dock configuration. The floating dock will be situated in an area devoid of submerged aquatic vegetation. 2. Using your plan view, show to scale the location(s), position(s) and size(s) (including length, beam and draft) of vessel(s) to be moored at the proposed facility, including those of transient vessel(s) if known. A typical vessel is shown on the plan view of the application drawings. The boat will probably be a motor boat 25 feet or so in length. 3. For commercial mooring sites such as marinas, indicate the capacity of the facility and indicate on the plan view the location(s) of any proposed fueling and/or sewage pumpout facilities. If pumpout facilities are not planned, please discuss the rationale below and indicate the distance to the nearest available pumpout station. Not applicable-There are no pump out facilities and no fueling facilities proposed at this site. Those functions are taken care of elsewhere on Fishers Island provided by commercial pumpout operator from the mainland, however, any boat using their facility could and would use the pump out facilities at local marinas where fuel is sold. 4. Indicate on your plan view the distance to adjacent marine structures, if any are proximate and show the locations and dimensions of such structures. There are only a half dozen dock structures in Chocomount Cove, the nearest being 1,000 feet away, one east, two west, as shown on the attached Google aerial photograph. 5. Discuss the need for wave protection at the proposed facility. Please be advised that if a permit is issued, you would be required to recognize that the mooring facility may be subject to wave action from wakes of passing vessels, whose operations would not be required to be modified. Issuance of a permit would not relieve you of ensuring the inter - y of the authorized structure(s) 1 the United States would not be held responsiw.'� for damages to the structure(_; _ind vesse/(s) moored thereto from wakes from passing vessels. There is no good opportunity for wave protection at this site. Waves from the prevailing wave field northwesterly to northeasterly of the site are unobstructed in their approach which is why the shoreline consists of boulders, the only natural material and formation the waves cannot move. The pier located within the boulder field will be somewhat protected by the seabed character. The boulder field will cause many of the waves to break offshore beneath the higher section of the pier. BULKHEAD/NG/BANK STABILIZATION/FILLING ACTIVITIES Answer the following if your project includes construction of bulkheading (also - retaining walls and seawalls) with backfill, filling of waters/wetlands, or any other bank stabilization fills such as riprap, revetments, gabions, etc. 1. Indicate the total volume of fill (including backfill behind a structure such as a bulkhead) as well as the volume of fill to be placed into waters of the United States. The amount of fill in waters of the United States can be determined by calculating the amount of fill to be placed below the plane of spring high tide in tidal areas and below ordinary high water in non-tidal areas. The shoreline will remain stabilized by the existing boulder field and landward of the spring High Tide Line. There is no proposal to import and place fill in waters of the United States. 2. Indicate the source(s) and type(s) of fill material. There is no proposed fill to be utilized in this project. 3. Indicate the method of fill placement (i.e. by hand, bulldozer, crane, etc.). Would any temporary fills be required in waterways or wetlands to provide access for construction equipment? If so, please indicate the area of such waters and/or wetlands to be filled, and show on the plan and sectional views. Boulders will be removed from the pile driving area only if required and it will be done mechanically by crane operated from the deck of a marine construction barge and reset. The foregoing re I _,sts basic information on the n t common types of projects requiring Departr:.,w,d of the Army permits. It is int-=_ Jed to obviate or reduce the need for requesting additional information; however, additional information may be requested above and beyond what is requested in this form. Please feel free to add any additional information regarding your project which you believe may facilitate our review. See the attached narrative. NOAA FISHERIES NORTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE EFH ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET FOR FEDERAL AGENCIES (modified 08/04) Introduction: The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act mandates that federal agencies conduct an EFH consultation with NOAA Fisheries regarding any of their actions authorized, funded, or undertaken that may adversely effect essential fish habitat(EFH). An adverse effect means any impact that reduces the quality and/or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects may include direct or indirect physical, chemical, or biological alterations of the waters or substrate and loss of, or injury to,benthic organisms,prey species and their habitat, and other ecosystem components. Adverse effects to EFH may result from actions occurring within EFH or outside of EFH and may include site-specific or habitat-wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions. This worksheet has'been designed to assist Federal agencies in determining whether an EFH consultation is necessary, and developing the needed information should a consultation be required. This worksheet will lead you through a series of questions that will provide an initial screening to determine if an EFH consultation is necessary, and help you assemble the needed information for determining the extent of the consultation required. The information provided in this worksheet may also be used to develop the required EFH Assessment. Consultation through NOAA Fisheries regarding other NOAA-trust resources may also be necessary if a proposed action results in adverse impacts. Part 6 of the worksheet is designed to help assess the effects of the action on other NOAA-trust resources. This helps maintain efficiency in our interagency coordination process. In addition, consultation with NOAA Fisheries may be required if a proposed action impacts marine mammals or threatened and endangered species for which we are responsible. Staff from our Northeast Regional Office,Protected Resources Division should be contacted regarding potential impacts to marine mammals or threatened and endangered species. Instructions for Use: An EFH Assessment must be submitted by a Federal agency to NOAA Fisheries as part of the EFH consultation. An EFH Assessment must include the following information: 1)A description of the proposed action. 2) An analysis of the potential adverse effects of the action on EFH, and the managed species. 3)The Federal agency--s conclusions regarding the effects of the action on EFH. 4)Proposed mitigation if applicable. In some cases, this worksheet can be used as an EFH Assessment. If the Federal agency determines that the action will not cause substantial impacts to EFH, then this worksheet may suffice. If the action may cause substantial adverse effects on EFH,then a more thorough discussion of the action and its impacts in a separate EFH Assessment will be necessary. The completed worksheet should be forwarded to NOAA Fisheries Northeast Regional Office, Habitat Conservation Division(HCD) for review. The information contained on the HCD website(http://www.nero.noaa. og v/hcwill assist you in completing this worksheet. The HCD web site contains information regarding: the EFH consultation process; Guide to EFH Designations which provides a geographic species list; Guide to EFH Species Descriptions which provides the legal description of EFH as well as important ecological information for each species and life stage; and other EFH reference documents including examples of EFH Assessments and EFH Consultations. 1 \ EFH ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET FOR FEDERAL AGENCIES (modified 08/04) PROJECT NAME: New Pier and Float DATE: August 2017 PROJECT NO.: LOCATION:Young Property, East End Rd, Fishers Island, NY PREPARER: Keith B. Neilson, P.E., DOCKO, INC., Step 1. Use the Habitat Conservation Division EFH webpage,Guide to Essential Fish Habitat Designations in the Northeastern United States to generate the list of designated EFH for federally-managed species for the geographic area of interest (http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/index2a.htm). Use the species list as part of the initial screening process to determine if EFH for those species occurs in the vicinity of the proposed action. Attach that list to the worksheet because it will be used in later steps. Make a preliminary determination on the need to conduct an EFH Consultation. _n=t-'-,r- T 41` 'IN•TIAL_ ��CONS DEO S_ _ :,E I I RATI N, k' Y •y ',,:f - };a ,•Edi;_ .-v„ - _�.,t'.. ,-'Y o''1 A`�-�'"+ -- ."1�.�',-- `-n. Y' ,iia".:f,vim ryFi'"�"^ , �4. _ tis". Alin `'"" .d°.,`,� FEFH Desi""nat�oris_ - Yei "o'., Is the action located in or adjacent to EFH designated for eggs? X Is the action located in or adjacent to EFH designated for larvae? x Is the action located in or adjacent to EFH designated for juveniles? x Is the action located in or adjacent to EFH designated for adults? x Is the action located in or adjacent to EFH designated for spawning adults? x If you answered no to all questions above,then EFH consultation is not required -go to Section 5. If you answered yes to any of the above questions proceed to Section 2 and x complete remainder of the worksheet. Step 2.In order to assess impacts,it is critical to know the habitat characteristics of the site before the activity is undertaken. Use existing information,to the extent possible,in answering these questions. Please note that, there may be circumstances in which new information must be collected to appropriately characterize the site and assess impacts. 2. "SITE CHA_R_�fCTERISTIC_S�`�+- _ - Site'Cliaracteristcs' - -Is the site intertidal, sub-tidal, or This project is to construct a new dock facility consisting of wood pile water column? and timber with floating dock and associated hinged access ramp and tie-off piles. The project will encompass parts of the shoreline,the intertidal zone and shallow subtidal zone approximately 0.10 acres in size. See attached narrative and drawings. What are the sediment The existing intertidal and shallow subtidal sediments are coarse- characteristics? grained sand and approximately 25%gravel with frequent exposed stone(boulders cover over 50%of the area). Is Habitat Area of Particular The site is an existing open water exposure.The shoreline at the site Concern (HAPC)designated at is eroding due to exposure to normal tidal and climatic conditions, or near the site? If so what despite the moderate to heavy boulder and rock cover at the type,size, characteristics? foreshore and thick vegetation above the rocky shoreline. The dock site originates off a beach transitioning to a field of boulders in the intertidal zone then a moderately sloping gravel shallow subtidal zone with eel grass beyond. Is there submerged aquatic There is a band of SAV in the offshore subtidal waters out 200 feet vegetation (SAV)at or adjacent beyond the mean high-water line as surveyed and depicted on the to'project site? If so describe, application drawings.The SAV is a broad band of eel grass light the spatial extent. density at first but abundant in density out beyond the proposed dock site 50 feet and with a clearly defined boundary.The dock has been configured to stop short of the submerged aquatic vegetation in an area that has been devoid of SAV for the past 7 years. What is typical salinity and Salinity varies somewhat seasonally but is typically in the 30 ppt temperature regime/range? range.Temperature varies seasonally from approximately 30 degrees in the winter to 70 degrees in the summer. What is the normal frequency of Boating usage varies seasonally but there is regular boating access to site disturbance, both natural and from the other dock facilities along Fishers Island north shore. and man-made? Most boating activity is recreational between April and November. What is the area of proposed Approximately 1/10 acre will be directly impacted by this dock impact(work footprint&far construction project. The pier will be high, Dock Elevation 9 feet afield)? MLW, but lower at the pier head for ramp attachment at elevation 6. f Step 3. This section is used to describe the anticipated impacts from the proposed action on the physical/chemical/biological environment at the project site and areas adjacent to the site that may be affected. '10F, 3,• DESCRIPTIQN, '-_7136s'd—fil p-t- i o n-.- 23 Nature and duration of It is anticipated that the adverse impacts from construction of activity(s) this project will be small because of the nature of the work.The project can take place in as little as a month but will likely take two months tide and weather permitting. Barge access will be at high tide. The dock facility will be used on a seasonal basis. Will benthic community be x The benthic community will be only marginally disturbed by disturbed? the marine construction barge and dock facility which will be of open timber and piles. No boulder excavation or"in water" filling is proposed and so shellfish habitat will not change;this will remain a high wave energy site. Will SAV be impacted? X An offshore bed of SAV, has been documented in the survey beyond the project area but that will not be disturbed by the marine contractor's access or construction. The crane barge will float in over and adjacent to the SAV to drive piles.Work will be done after September and before June. Will sediments be altered and/or X Sedimentation rates in the shallow sub-tidal zone will not sedimentation rates change? increase as a result of this project. Will turbidity increase? X Turbidity, on a day to day basis, will not change significantly from existing conditions. (See attached Narrative Statement). Bottom sediments will only be minimally disrupted during berthing operations at low tide because of the 4-foot water depth. Will water depth change? X No changes in water depth are proposed by or for construction equipment access or for boating operations. The bottom shoreline sediments and characteristics will not change. Will contaminants be released X The likelihood of contaminant will be minimal. Standard into sediments or water construction products and best management practices will be column? utilized for the project. Will tidal flow, currents or wave X The wood pile supported timber pier will not change water patterns be altered? flow and circulation patterns or wave field characteristics. Will ambient salinity or X No temperature regime change? I Will water quality be altered? X Water quality should not change as a result of this project beyond the low tide bottom sediment disturbances resulting from construction, marine equipment repositioning and low tide boating operations. These impacts will be isolated and of limited duration. The water is fairly deep just out beyond the dock site reaching a depth of 6 feet 100 feet further out. Step 4. This section is used to evaluate the consequences of the proposed action on the functions and values of EFH as well as the vulnerability of the EFH species and their life stages. Identify which species from the EFH species list (generated in Step 1) will be adversely impacted from the action. Assessment of EFH impacts should be based upon the site characteristics identified in Step 2 and the nature of the impacts described within Step 3. The Guide to EFH Descriptions webpage(http://Www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/list.htm)should be used during this assessment to determine the ecological parameters/preferences associated with each species listed and the potential impact to those parameters. •EFH'ASSESSMENT - - - — :Furictioris arid'Values Yr _vN-' `Describe.h iu - --F : - 'j, _ ab tata'ype;<species arid,;life stagesao;be adversely,, ;•1.3` ..a" v"f._ i'i�.m.t- >g•. i n``h� tPr'x� '�, „+� efil'.r - __ __ - - - u.. -' G `- _ - _r•�•i"x__ __ - '•_- _ 7r-, - .4.— -r _ - - _ -:t,r't'w _ f. �r•��Y '�.,' ^t,-t f'Y ;-,T. V,f F Will functions and values of EFH be impacted for: yl ri'q' 'life' a,'S The inter-tidal and shallow sub-tidal zone and inter-tidal zone are Spawning currently sandy gravel strewn with stones and boulders and will remain X so without regard to this project. No alterations of the benthos or underwater habitat are proposed or will result from the project. The water is too rough for spawning in this area,except for shellfish. Nursery X There are features in these shallow subtidal waters suitable for a nurserywhich include the eel grass bed out beyond 3 to 4 feet of depth. There are no proposed alterations of the benthos or underwater habitat. The inter-tidal zone and shallow sub-tidal zone out to 2 feet deep is sandy gravel devoid of vegetation and will remain unchanged by this ro'ect. Forage X The shallow subtidal zone and intertidal zone are currently sandy gravel with extensive boulders and will remain so without regard to of this project. Out beyond-3 feet of depth there is a broad bed of eel grass. No adverse impact to submerged aquatic vegetation due to shading or boating activity is anticipated where eel grass exists in nearby waters beyond the dock site. Shelter X The subtidal zone eel grass bed sediments are sandy gravel and will remain without regard to this project. The pier may provide some shelter, but neither the dock or boating facility will have an adverse impact on submerged aquatic vegetation beyond the dock site due to construction or usage. Experience shows that juveniles congregate in areas around docks and so this structure in the water column is beneficial. Will impacts be temporary or "' V F: It is envisioned that any construction or boating impacts will be temporary and not permanent. The area of coverage of the proposed permanent? high dock facility is small compared to the area of the near shore waters and the dock landing is located in a niche in the eel grass bed that has existed continuously for at least the past seven years and no _.I change or consequence is proposed compared to the overall fringe ,''''Y, habitat and coastal shoreline of Fishers Island. 0 0 Step 5. This section provides the Federal agency=s determination on the degree of impact to EFH from the proposed action. The EFH determination also dictates the type of EFH consultation that will be required with NOAA Fisheries. 1AIP ,5,.,",.��..DE-�T�ERMINA�,T-ION"- PIMPATf�'-;, J—PT- 4-- H-' etb .....2-,� Federal gency*4,EF D eMina ioni Z., j, X There is no adverse effect on EFH Overall degree of EFH Consultation is not required adverse effects on EFH (not including The adverse effect on EFH is not substantial. compensatory mitigation)will be: This is a request for an abbreviated EFH consultation. This worksheet is being submitted to NMFS to satisfy the EFH (check the appropriate Assessment requirement. statement) The adverse effect on EFH is substantial. This is a request for an expanded EFH consultation. A detailed written EFH assessment will be submitted to NMFS expanding upon the impacts revealed in this worksheet. Step 6. Consultation with NOAA Fisheries may also be required if the proposed action results in adverse impacts to other NOAA-trust resources,such as anadromous fish,shellfish,crustaceans,or their habitats. Some examples of other NOAA-trust resources are listed below. Inquiries regarding potential impacts to marine mammals or threatened/endangered species should be directed to NOAA Fisheries' Protected Resources Division. IM PAd.-M-A RU 'REtbURCES11 -NOA ,,S'!§E8SMEW J, THEW NOAH =TRUST. 6c" M N-ji6bltat-'impdb I- t-typ bisicali--cht cur-- escri w p_Le.,,,p m i,dal,'o-e, gic-a' ,mdnt*a6itac--,iu�6nild`,nUrserw-,f at,site(list,others that, � 1 ` may'-apply). T-,A—ndiokwadultJe6ding corhigratko - 'I bi M _ 1. P,Y) Atlantic Cod Adults-No Impact one or larval forms,juveniles and adults will relocate. Atlantic Sea Herring Adults-No Impact one or larval forms,juveniles and adults will relocate. American Eel Minimal physical changes, not disruptive, no adverse impact. American Lobster Minimal physical changes, not disruptive, new habitat. Blue Mussels Minimal physical changes, not disruptive, new habitat. Bluefin Tuna Minimal physical changes, not disruptive, no adverse impact. Cobia Minimal p ysical changes, not disruptive to any stage or migration. Long Finned Squid Minimal physical changes, not disruptive, no adverse impact to any stage Mackerel: King,Spanish Minimal physical changes, not disruptive to any stage or migration. Quahog Minimal physical changes, not disruptive, no adverse impact. Sharks: Sand Tiger,Dusky Minimal physical Changes, not disruptive, no adverse impact to larval or juvenile Summer Flounder" Minimal physical changes,not disruptive, no adverse impact to any stage. Based on the essential fish habitat description for Atlantic Cod,Atlantic Sea Herring and Mackerel(Spanish and King)it appears that this species will not be found in the vicinity of this project for the egg lava for juvenile forms or stages because of water depths. It is possible that spawning adults could utilize the waters north of Fishers Island Sound since the depths would be 10 to 45 meters and a range of oceanic salinity is the 30 ppt range. It should be pointed out that the site of the proposed dock is one meter of water,and clearly not in the typical conditions that would be utilized by these species. The Dusky and Sand Tiger Sharks and Flounder,on the other hand could use these near and offshore waters fore laying but will almost never be in such shallow waters for any extended times and probably only at higher tides. Because of these very shallow water depths it is unlikely that construction or usage of this boat docking facility will have any of the listed species. Board of Trustees Application County of Suffolk State of New York Donald Young BEING DULY SWORN DEPOSES AND AFFIRMS THAT HE/SHE IS THE APPLICANT FOR THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PERMIT(S) AND THAT ALL STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE TRUE TO THE BEST OF HIS/HER KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, AND THAT ALL WORK WILL BE DONE IN THE MANNER SET FORTH IN THIS APPLICATION AND AS MAY BE APPROVED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES. THE APPLICANT AGREES TO HOLD THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD AND TOWN TRUSTEES HARMLESS AND FREE FROM ANY AND ALL DAMAGES AND CLAAIMS ARISING UNDER OR BY VIRTUE OF SAID PERMIT(S), IF GRANTED. IN' COMPLETING THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY AUTHORIZE THE TRUSTEES, THEIR AGENT(S) OR REPRESENTATIVE(S), TO ENTER ONTO MY PROPERTY TO INSPECT THE PREMISES IN CONJUNCTION WITH REVIEW OF THIS APPLICATION. Signature SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS V DAY OF S`� l . , 20 Ho ; ;. ANDREA EDh1UNOSON t Public . :' My NotaryIDIS 128829589 •*` Eow Nwwdw 18,20021 Board of Trustees Application AUTHORIZATION (where the applicant is not the owner) I, Donald Young residing at Off East End Road (print owner of property) (mailing address) FISHERS ISLAND_ NY do hereby authorize DOCKO, INC, (Agent) MYSTIC, CT � to apply for permit(s) from the Southold Board of Town Trustees on my behalf. vu A' ,., (Oxtier�s signature) Board of Trustees App', - dation County of Suffolk State of New York Kelley Young BEING DULY SWORN DEPOSES AND AFFIRMS THAT HE / SHE IS THE APPLICANT FOR THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PERMIT(S) AND THAT ALL STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE TRUE TO THE BEST OF HIS/HER KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, AND THAT ALL WORK WILL BE DONE IN THE MANNER SET FORTH IN THIS APPLICATION AND AS MAY BE APPROVED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES. THE APPLICANT AGREES TO HOLD THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD AND TOWN TRUSTEES HARMLESS AND FREE FROM ANY AND ALL DAMAGES AND CLAIMS ARISING UNDER OR BY VIRTUE OF SAID PERMIT(S), IF GRANTED. IN COMPLETING THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY AUTHORIZE THE TRUSTEES, THEIR AGENT(S) OR REPRESENTATIVE(S), TO ENTER ONTO MY PROPERTY TO INSPECT THE PREMISES IN CONJUNCTION WITH REVIEW OF THIS APPLICATION. Sign re SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS 01 DAY OF 001 WL , 20 I� 1 to PublicANDM. NDSON Rfty ID#129629589 '`QNovember 18,2021 T Board of Trustees A ' _ration PPS.,, AUTHORIZATION (where the applicant is not the owner) I, Kelley Young residing at 3640 Piping Rock-Lane (print owner of property) (mailing address) Houston,TX 77027 do hereby authorize DOCKO,INC. , (Agent) P.O. Box 421, MYSTIC, CT 06355 to apply for permit(s) from the Southold Board of Town Trustees on my behalf. �K-- —a7�,� (Owner, sig tur Board of Trustees Application County of Suffolk State of New York Donald Youn BEING DULY SWORN DEPOSES AND AFFIRMS THAT HE/ SHE IS THE APPLICANT FOR THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PERMIT(S) AND THAT ALL S'T'ATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE TRUE TO THE BEST OF HIS/HER KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, AND THAT ALL WORK WILL BE DONE IN THE MANNER SET FORTH IN THIS APPLICATION AND AS MAY BE APPROVED BY THE SOUTTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES. THE APPLICANT AGREES TO HOLD THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD AND TOWN TRUSTEES HARMLESS AND FREE FROM ANY AND ALL DAMAGES AND CLAIMS ARISING UNDER OR BY VIRTUE OF SAID PERMIT(S), IF GRANTED. IN COMPLETING THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY AUTHORIZE THE TRUSTEES, THEIR AGENT(S) OR REPRESENTATIVE(S), TO ENTER ONTO MY PROPERTY TO INSPECT THE PREMISES IN CONJUNCTION WITH REVIEW OF THIS APPLICATION. Signature �— SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS V DAY OF S�1 l - , 20 Ho Vt'alPublic :: " ;.- ANDREA EDMUNDSON _.• : : My Nowt'ID#129629589 - +�- E)OW November 18,2021 an.. Board of Trustees Application AUTHORIZATION (where the applicant is not the owner) I, Donald Young residing at Off East End Road (print owner of property) (mailing address) FISHERS ISLAND NY do hereby authorize DOCKO, INC. , _ (Agent) _ MYSTIC, CT to apply for permit(s) from the Southold Board of Town Trustees on my behalf. (Owner° s signature) APPLICANUAGENUREPRESENTATIVE TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM The Town of Southold's Code of Ethics prohibits conflicts of interest on the part of town officers and employees.The ngmse of this form is to provide information which can alert the town of possible conflicts of interest and allow it to take whatever action is necessary to avoid same. YOUR NAME: —Do dco, oc— (Last name,first name,rpiddle initial,unless you are applying in the name of someone else or other entity,such as a company.If so,indicate the other person's or company's name.) NAME OF APPLICATION: (Check all that apply.) Tax grievance Building Variance Trustee Change of Zone Coastal Erosion Approval of plat Mooring Exemption from plat or official map Planning Other (If"Other",name the activity.) Do you personally(or through your company,spouse,sibling,parent,or child)have a relationship with any officer or employee of the Town of Southold? "Relationship"includes by blood,marriage,or business interest"Business interest"means a business, including a partnership,in which the town officer or employee has even a partial ownership of(or employment by)a corporation in which the town officer or employee owns more than 5%of the shares. YES NO If you answered"YES",complete the balance of this form and date and sign where indicated. Name of person employed by the Town of Southold Title or position of that person Describe the relationship between yourself(the applicant/agent/representative)and the town officer or employee.Either check the appropriate line A)through D)and/or describe in the space provided. The town officer or employee or his or her spouse,sibling,parent,or child is(check all that apply): A)the owner of greater than 5%of the shares of the corporate stock of the applicant (when the applicant is a corporation); B)the legal or beneficial owner of any interest in a non-corporate entity(when the applicant is not a corporation); C)an officer,director,partner,or employee of the applicant;or D)the actual applicant DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP Submitted th' ay of 1, 200_ Signature Print Name . `'s�,•- ta,,G �• r Form TS I PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTI�E ATTACH CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS Name: Address: Please see the attached names and addresses. STATE OF CONNECTICUT COUNTY OF NEW LONDON _DOCKO, INC. , residing at 14 HOLMES STREET, MYSTIC, CT 06355, being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the ao day of (,Qchsh," , 20 It, deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth in the Board of Trustees Application, directed to each of the above named persons at the addresses set opposite there respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the address of said persons as shown on the current assessment roll of the Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Office at MYSTIC, CT, that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by (certified) (registered)mail. Sworn to before me this 31 sf Day of OgZoSER , 20 % otar'y Public I PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE Fishers Island Ferry District F.I. Ordinance Building, LLC c/o Weintraub Project Service Co., LLC 32 Tallman Avenue Nyack,NY 10960 TJS Enterprises Inc. P.O. Box 202 Fishers Island,NY 06390 TWILLIAMS/BTSEIN, LLC 22 Central Park S New York,NY 10019 Fishers Island Garbage &Refuse P.O. Box 22 Fishers Island,NY 06390 Battery Barlow LLC, c/o Petrucci &Associates P.O. Box 263 Rockland, DE 19732 iFishers Island Development Corp P.O. Box 464 Fishers Island,NY 06390 United States Government Washington, DC 20000 Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 I I o Ak 117 NN i run M C3 FIBk �' `5, s� Pd0sl Vii' rn - s CQ ° 07� 1 � 0355 h[ [`- Ce(trfied Mad Fee $3.50 i5� tl ^' �- 21 Certrfied Mad Fee $7 5t1 03555. eD $ te) Extra�Servlces&Fees(check box,add re • `I $ 21 etum Recelpt(hardcopY)- Postmark 1:13Extra Services&Fees(check box,add fee te) C3 ❑Retum Receipt(electronic) $ 0-- lturn Receipt(hardcopy) $ O Here � �Certified Mall Restricted Delivery $ 1-- C3 ❑Return Receipt(electronic) S �.00 Postmark Q Adult Signature Required $--$13.1)0— C3 --$13.1)0 — C3 11 Certified Mall Restricted Delivery $. �— Here P!■ 1.1 �Adult Signature Required $ Adult Signature Restricted Delivery$�Adult Signature Restricted Delivery$ V m Postage I� $1.15 /'I $ 02/2$/2019 i I E3 Postage S r9 rq Total Postage and Fees '� Total postage /t'S / 02/28/2019 $ $7.45 r--4 $7.45 L Se _ I -- 'a �i �c.,-h[o fps ��------G=-------------------------------- � $ - - Sent o _ l7 - -- $ Cf f`kAn�� Street and Apt.Ivo.,or Pt3 Box o. __bt_ oS - O a� ------------ --------------- -Set and Ap.No,ar PO ox N�. --------- :ao 1•. Crry,state St�LP/1 S S 0�l(G� o C1�0 !U Cr'1 bt ;Z%P+o k _ �li A`7 - can _j - Vs---e- mt,yj01 3,. -y%n`c;:`"r. q•fiP,)�4`r 2, ¢� 15NC W 4) N0.co rq oo Ln •Dar "Y c -- I 0 m ©'•�1 m'� ¢r�_ v ¢ I ' rr ° ,�, • • \ dt 2� 6 ® 'mph mQjZ c cin rn �n FI SP O <. 3 a¢¢o¢�inv�¢^ E �_ O ❑❑❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑O r` Certitied Mad Fee $3 50 ��'� 0355 I S d a .. r` $ 21 (` e) a d m Extra yServwes&Fees(checkbox,add fee C� ❑ 2, stun Receipt(ha dcep� Postmark d d d - [I Return Receipt(electronic) $ ❑ 01 Z • Here '$ O p r ❑Certified Mall Restricted Delivery $ ;L I (] t]Adult Signature Required $ .2 '" I Adult Signature Restricted Delivery$ �tJ�'- `- •p C3 t= ry N d N• Postage $1.155' � f°°: o. tT' �OS �� ra $ 02/28/2014 ; m _��_c: 28 (� Total Postage and$F7 s4� ` p`� n°'m m s° v� `7 C7 � ��O} _ f $ — W— �� KQQ11N Se To 6 7l filC.L2 t�L rn m cdoo [300 rq d m� ❑ �iiysratabNoX. r�P s�x�doto Ao " 117-1 Bu I. � -----N Ur 6� ��; i�1 I MLn ErC iu �I • c 7 r �� aNtI.fes-` ITE TOo f M� r%-(D ce) n o•2O (O z , U �M II t C1 d 'O •p O. ® w C] r II I O ro C L 0 r H a C ` N -O3 *' Q r �iD +O' N 2 — N E E roc N r/1 O r i • '' aoi y° �' - a �i Do Z� Cl) to 'ocw ° NI, u- � a oQoLnU � � II SENDER-COMPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETF THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3. A. n ure ■ Print your name and address on the reverse 13 Agent so that we can return the card to you. 4;kMdrei4see ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, B. Receiv by(Print d e) C. Dat of D (very or on the front if space permits. n ��/ - l 1. Article Addressed to: D. Is delivery address different Yom Item 1? ❑Y& •�—�bd+ g )(�(�i�I nO�tJ If YES,enter delivery addr s below: DNo 1 I 163 �W udv- 4,zg--- CmCOTCL II I IIIIII I'II III I I I I II I II I'II II II I I I III I I 3.❑Adult e Signature El Priority Mall❑Registered M pssO Tm Ea❑Ad ignature Restricted Delivery ❑Registered Mail Restricted 9590 9402 3312 7196,3579 33 rtified Mad® Delivery ❑Certified Mail Restricted Delivery ❑Return e urn Ree iipt for ❑Collect on Delivery F-1 Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery 13Signature ConfirrnationTm 2N (transfer_. Article umber from service label) —_,``❑Insured Mail ❑Signature Confirmation 7 018 1130 0000 8475 3026 I❑Insured Mad Restricted Delivery Restricted Delivery- (over$500) PS Form 3811,July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 Domestic Return Receipt i' 1 i S _ T PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE ATTACH CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS Name: Address: Talbot Noyes Nicholas B.Noyes c/o Ann Noyes 103 Coolidge Road, Concord,MA 01742 Ferguson Museum, c/o Pierce Rafferty, Dir. P.O. Box 554, Fishers Island,NY 06390 F.I. Utilities Co. Inc. Fishers Island,NY 06390 STATE OF CONNECTICUT COUNTY OF NEW LONDON _DOCKO,INC. ,residing at 14 HOLMES STREET,MYSTIC,CT 06355,being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the Ar day of - 20_A,deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth in the Board of Trustees Applicatio , directed to each of the above named persons at the addresses set opposite there respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the address of said persons as shown on the current assessment roll of the Town of Southold;that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Office at MYSTIC, CT, that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by(certified) (registered)mail. Sworn to before me this Day of /}'f �f� , 20,/c/ cm- � Notary.Public Michael J.Domino,President 5Z", Town Hall Annex John M.Bredemeyer III,Vice-President * w 54375 Route 25 al Glenn Goldsmith yP.O.Box 1179 A.Nichulas Kiupskixr: .: Southold,NY 11971 Greg Williams _ Telephone(631)765-1892 Fax(631)765-6641 F BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TRUSTEES: TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter of the Application of DONALD W.YOUNG REV.TRUST&KELLY C.YOUNG;REV.TRUST,. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK i STATE OF NEW YORK AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING THIS FORM IS TO BE COMPLETED AFTER POSTING REMAINS IN PLACE FOR AT i LEAST SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE f 11-e.L jSfn ,6,.residing at/dba t v Ict C being duly sworn, depose and says That on the Ay day of �, �, ,2019 , I personally posted the property known as Dyntd 0(—)4 U?x y1GV by placing the Board of Trustees official poster where it can easily be seen,'and that I have checked to be sure the poster has remained in place for eight days prior to the date of the public hearing.Date of hearing noted thereon to be held,Wednesday,'March 20;.20.19. Dated: Ad, (signature) Sworn to before me this day of Ibr 20, No ry Public f O C ICO, In C. Serving the waterfront community since 1987 P.O.Box 421,Mystic,CT 06355(860)572-8939 Fax:(860)572-7569,email:office@docko.com March 11, 2019 a Mr. Michael J. Domino Town Hall Annex WAR 2D� 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 RE: Young Property, Fishers Island Meeting Paperwork Dear Mr. Domino: We are transmitting herewith a copy of the photograph of the sign,posted at the Young property. Also attached are the original copies of the Certified Mailing Receipts, the signed returned green card and a copy of the proof of mailing notice,for the upcoming meeting on Wednesday March 20, 2019. Please give our office'a call should you have any questions about the attachments. Yours truly, DOCKO, INC. Keith B. Neilson, P.E. CMB: cb Cc: Donald Young File: 17-03-2822 YOUNG - v � t �� rr ` l�:E 'Y .,;-_� , '�ir�i��o�'' - Vic=.'=^ :Y� F^�'� z.,�•— � ,_ � � . . II y � ?". v�� •� �� _.�' _ "/ice:"" - � .•,. + r A ! �41 ,�� `" _ rd inow !f � ?� �^•a ,:t u�p��'::yy��d ,��_s.. � �' F nc r,� �3' �j}f�.,j.� 1.. � � r` ! :.I6 f '�i .FflF H'�tir i.�;W,� ':j ��'�i� a•. �/ �r" � � F. .� i.1�a� s 2,�1'�+'�. f.�� _ •a..'�1�1h1ppNN.eitl .1'�L�I' +J a•. Iy�{@f,. 1. J s� _ NOTICE OF HEARING M R' y_. •� J .'�1.5�1r "I7".}i r(t �` v ,� `•,+K �1.• S'�'"ya11 - ��,♦ �•. �*T f'... f✓ 1' ',^� PNM�'� � �� k :.+� ,ice,__ _ e�•� � j�. µ(��' 1i� i ' �,J 1. -� 3 �� ,� y !7C•�f 1 � �r t N 'X' } ip>�� :i. le �n int 1._ + � ��p�, _S ) .�- �.� !/� .: J '�y _ � 'f� i�F` e0 •%ori ^� li � 'sem\ ��pVa1'YY �'`'AAs•�'IT 1�� ;t. � '. ! �!�„' ',"� 3''�1' ^rev �I�ler \, i." �ZT.� m +� i 'ti 5 ti- ^ 1F` •^,t + 7 .�+ \12�'� i /,�s { .c y.'� •J i,,. , •�! i Jl�, � ��-`t� '�"S' y , ��- .�+.fit,�. , , �.� �� r. `i"t s, ;[ tf- i,+.� ��. )e! �.• ,�i� �� ilr` �l s 7 "r� q1� �e �� $ \"- ae �. ." 4 s •;�li-:` f`st�'t� �!.`1 1; �.�'•\ t �r 1 y'.�1, � �v ��'Z1��.s`- ♦�,� .:.r �,i_, :.0;c�. t .. .1� Lti ,:•Z J� J °,r.,rrs-... . �1'Cd�• za r.' •�i� .n . > :Sr��'r,,.. '� .�..aro.�. .r. �1 ty:V) �.l�i,�'!..� ,.�F _,� i NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER BOARD OF TRUSTEES, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the matter of applicant: SCTM# 1000-3-2-2 YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: That it is the intention of the undersigned to request a Permit from the Board of Trustees to: 1. Construct 160(+/-)LF of 4-FT wide fixed wood pile and timber pier including railings and water/electric utilities of which 132(+/-)LF is waterward of the Apparent High-Water Line, install an 8-FT x 20-FT float with associated hinged access ramp, and three tie-off piles. 2. That the property which is the subject of Environmental Review is located adjacent to your property and is described as follows: Off East End Road, Fishers Island 3. That the project which is subject to Environmental Review under Chapters 32, 37, and/or 97 of the Town Code is open to public comment on: DATE: Wednesday March 20, 2019 — at or about 5:30 P.M. You may contact the Trustees Office at 765-1892 or in writing. The above-referenced proposal is under review of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold and does not reference,any other agency that might have to review same proposal. PROPERTY OWNERS NAME: Donald W Young and Kelly C Young Revocable Trust MAILING ADDRESS: 3640 Piping Rock Lane, Houston, TX 77027 PHONE #: 281-870-8402 AGENT: Docko, Inc., Keith B. Neilson, P.E. MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 421, Mystic, CT 06355 PHONE#: 860-572-8939 Enc: Copy of sketch or plan showing proposal for your convenience. 53 M/ddte ClvmA+✓ffrJ3'15 9`` 3. 38 21 7 N 'TISHERS ISLAND SOUND'` FISHERS ISLAND SOUND ``"'#`"°�Pa`� � 38 �'f' 34 41 31, _SITE rZ^.'4t7 ryl,_•.',;.�, .g - X28Q "-.,! • ,µ'n`..` 9':`,i�15�• ,� on r F G ,•,``�C17E' '� C ^d n`•�5 v t LOGATfON 1"IAF� R CHAJZr:13214 DOCK GRAPHIC SCALE DOCKS 3000 0 3000 IN FEET el PROPERTY of ,` NOTES PROJECT NEW YOUNG1.ELEVATION DATUM 15 APPARENT LOW WATER(ALW). PIER and FLOAT p `, ( DOCK / 2 TIDE DATA 15 TAKEN FROM 2017 NOAA TIDE TABLES REFERENCE:WEST HARBOR-F95HERS ISLAND NY. 3.PROJECT DESCRIPTION: C.ONSTRUGT 160tLF OF 4-Fr WIDE FIXED WOOD PILE AND TIMBER PIER INCLUDING PALS AND ' - WATERJELEGTRIC UTILITI ^y^ • --- - - ES,OF WHICH 132tLF IS WATERWARD OF THE APPARENT HIGH WATER LINE, AN 8-FT X 20-FT FLOAT WITH ASSOCIATED PROPER iY OF^ INSTALL HL FERGUSON HINGED ACCESS RAMP AND THREE TIE-0FF PILES. MUSEUM INC N/F PROPERTY '=° '= 4.PROJECT PURPOSE `�` THIS IS A PRIVATE DOCK FOR RECREATIONAL BOATING OF NOYES , FISHEIZ� ISLAND�:=; ? S.THESE APPLICATION DRAWINGS REPRESENT TOWN of VI : A COMPILATION OF SURVEYS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL • sOUTHOLI� PERMIT PURPOSES.THEY ARE NOT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.A TOWN BUILDING PERMIT(S)MAY BE REQUIRED. O�/E=fLL PL_�1V 6.ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS: GWPHIC,SCALE 1'=500' WEST: EAST: NICHOLAS B.$TALBOTT NOYES H L FERGUSON MUSEUM INC. 500 0 500 do ANN NOYES ATTN;PIERCE RAFFERTY DIRECTOR 103 COOL IDGE ROAD PO BOX 54 CONCORD,MA 01742 F15HERS ISLAND,NY 06390 PROJECT NEW PIER and FLOAT REVISED 9-n T7 DEC LOCATION: FISHERS ISLAND-TOWN oF50UTHOLD PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUFFOLK COUNTY,NEW YORK REVISED 10-317 DEC WATERWAY FISHERS ISLAND SOUND DATE: MAY 30,2017 0 C K 0 DOCKS IN AREA AppUr DONALD YOUNG ' ' p ,46ENT: SHEET 1 OF 3 Keith B.NdWm,PE 0 P Q R A Mystic CT 06355 860 572 8939 FAX 860 572 7569 DWG 17-03-2822 EMAIL•offlce@docko.czn Ke.th 5 Nelson.Docko Inc 3/19/2018 2 00 PM Young-Dock_1G dwg FISHERS lSL..AN� � N NEW&FfXXL- PILE t RESTRNNED FLOAT ` NEWT51-OFPIL5 -1 t NEW3.rk7X24-FT`IN5ED RAMP 3 SAND BOTTOM II t t 3kFT ` CONDITIONS 1 t 17fFf �—t SAND BOTTOM-— —— — 2— CONDITIONS t NEW EL 81,— !C&d WATER U11LlTIE5 a-aO- 710N MAY LIMIT OF ROCKS I II II 1 �l Q EEL GRA55 NEW PIER SUPFh7RT�� NEW BOULDER 1 \ �PILE L� � � � ---t -f-- \ _ RAILS SPARIINAALTERNIFI:�F LIMIT OF $GRASSWORT ` \ ROCKS ` SPARTiNAALTERNIFLORA s _ d, �'� 4 -� GRASSWORT �✓ : " a ` PATENS _ J 5PARTINA RIMA E MHWL y} } GRATE } SPAR�1 DIA \ �PATENSI ATENS APPROX DECK } /P HIGH .,' DUNE DEEDED WATER LINE AHWL 4 GRASS PROPERTY UN 28 Fr )PE NEW 4FT WIDE FRED PILE ] 5- — = s SUPPORTED PER wNh RAILS } 1 Q NOTE: ALL IN-WATER WORK RELATED TO THEPHRA (- CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED PIER, - ru 'M RAMP AND FLOAT WILL TAKE PLACE OUTSIDE % MATE 1a '"OF THE EEL GRASS GROWING SEASON FROM APPROXI n APPROXIMATE APRIL 15 TO OCTOBER 31 IN ANY GIVEN PROPERTY UNE PROPERTY UNE YEAR. THIS CONDITION IS NECESSARY TO ;. AVOID IMPACTS TO EEL GRASS LOCATED IN Y3� {1 THE FISHERS ISLAND BEACH AREA, AND TO COMPLY WITH COASTAL POLICY 6.2 OF THE f f �� NY CAM ACT +� APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF OF NOYES EXISTING PATH TO BEACH NSF PROPERTY OF H L FERGUSON hL IV �/1 E\A/ MUSEUM INC GRAPF c sc,�t•-ao o PROJECT NEW PIER and FLOAT 40 20 40 REVISED 94-17 DEC LOCATION: FISHERS ISLAND-TOWN oFSOUTHOLD PER ELEVATION SUFFOLK COUNTY,NEW YORK REVISED 3,20--18 DEC WATERWAY: FISHERS ISLAND SOUND NOTE DATE MAY W.2017 0 C IC U APPLICANT DONALD YOUNG AGENT SHEET 2 OF 3 ' _ • INC. rJ - 4 Keith B.Nelison,PE My3k Cr 06355 R P 860 572 8939 FAX 8W.672 7569 DWG 17-03-2822 EMAIL:o�lce@dodw com Keith 5 Neilson,Docko Inc 3/2/2018 10 47 AM Young-Dock_2D dwg • f r NOTE FLOAT RESTRAINT PILES TE-OFF RLE LES AND TOP EL 17tF'1'(TYP)�� NOTE RAMP ARE NOT SHOWN IN THIS VIEW 1.TIE-OFF PILE HAS 4-FT APPROXIMATE AREA DECK OF CONTACT:.SsSF WIDTH END DECK EL 6_947 PIER wlfh RAILS NEW RLE SUPPORTED NEW ELECTRIC and WATER ��Ee a.CCATION MAYVARI) NEW PIER SUPPORT'RLE TOP_ EL 4-FrABOVE DECK(TYP) NEW S-FT X 20-FT RLE o.lRESTRAINED FLOAT — NEW SPUfCLAMPand —AFiWL35:— GR0S5 BRACE(7YP) — — — — —MHW 23- — BOTTOM PROPLE VIII IIII illl dIl fAr END OF RER 5 �•',.•i-�! <r• - rya _ .�src• r'�;:• 4m, f'-,.,f•�. f...fu r- 'f•:x;?-:t...iA.• 'sr.yu' ,,rrwr"" ;x,+•4 .�"•-�. . r?t3`C,-krs�d• s„.<�z r. r•c:N s«r Y� r 't a. S.,rr z r•�x J;�.""•µ�'.-`�iz.J.,�_.,;•')c2.^'�a�o .4ki; -"' s :£r"Y.ysw' _t:,,=:_ :t",•`"i':3vs:ai�-i-r s;s��,t,`,•; � ,� fi"'}:a:�,; FLOAT Wit,• ,. ,s•: „�,..yf,-.,:. a�''„",'-'i_X,.w=�,. y .:, rc%:�':..`.: .cr;,3:r:•'- t.rr'.f_.t -.',�--BOTTOM PROFlLEAT �;-.c=',c-,,' •'•.: ix'.;.r,',�, ��ri ;^t=Y.:�,,.t`i:Ri C✓'?:_:`+,%"=�i �<�•�`i.' f,"�� -\,hF��: 4N r.: .•f=,- +tw �Y t�"'i^=7 ,..4...:F:,`•�t ,,��;;�� it z R-. .rs°• =it '-r- z .-i:?34S` i. .�„_.::.k ,.;y ,r r`r�.. ,��.:. Lz .,,,,. r.y „s.:i..,r^tt�'iv :s:-±c e r:..,' ,°r•S�. -w':•:?��.0 �z �.c5,r...r?".r..t.= acl(,�4=. •'y:� ^.a t='.-si.:;,:a r jam•','..� rM1,y�s 3c_I•�2' ,�•. �� ,s ,.s' ":.r,,,��r...,.rr-'x•,.. S. z a.. •rI'r?1=.a,r 3• -c�,� .1 ✓:4 .r, t 37 s...�i- r.t.-.,;=':�orkr, 'r^1 T^'^Ia Y'•,` t f' o.�•e.i....Jiria•.ow r,. a�zB _TOMSEDiMENTS:r..xAND'r', :..yi "$.<s:;.a ��;?;^'vrt•t'{-• w-•.:(r.`.^u.�<.`•��'7a-' cr;;.x X;,g_•..-'•�.).,.r,...;�..,.,tJr.�•^,.�"�`•c Oi ..• '�'" :;ft,. 4; s:�-� I.e�r, s---.yX.�.i_.,r t3 s-5 ��,,'r';r, .x^J':xvr_•.cr x%§narf., KTr.h-.:4 '�'r a! :c:=:�`:ar.'r i..:- M.:,1 �r.']r•J{c �.;r '-i:ir�_ary.,n"�i.;�.± f "`>T``-�”.-s._. • w., r'r)s ,r`--:;.-h, ,ra a4r risi�.Y�••",•*rC�;F` '.'. tyM r. - n ,y-r,._..,r..v, r ri�y f-:-r;<rrrd''..:i-.,->,` r�c,,r• ='''?:?�r`Y}'�af�rL.�.Ft;.+ar�„?:r ..�'s+rtderr.fps,;eF^-r-��,�'.%tY%S<'z:_•:.'r--=cr•:;'r�'f.�^�� .Sr'.Yn.r sd �`.fri:..,w�y'.',.r-'::�to�t i3tiYi.:�:�'ys�i�,=rcr �'�"-^t�;rt.-�%<::?-t•��r�Y'',"��.[u� NOTE: ALL IN-WATER WORK RELATED TO THE EFIVLD \/I1�W NOTE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED PIER, 1.IN SPITE OF EEL.GRASS BEDS IN THE VICINITY RAMP AND FLOAT WILL TAKE PLACE OUTSIDE GRAPFZ SCALE 1'=1O' THERE HAS BEEN NO ER PASS IN THIS OF THE EEL GRASS GROWING SEASON FROM =4 PROPOSED DOCK AREA FOR THE PAST TEN APRIL 15 TO OCTOBER 31 IN ANY GIVEN 10 s 0 10 YEARS SINGE THE ORIGINAL HYDROGRAPHIC YEAR. THIS CONDITION IS NECESSARY TO SURVEY FOR THE DWYERS IN 2010. AVOID IMPACTS TO EEL GRASS LOCATED IN 2 DECKING-NOT CGA TREATED,HARDWOODc THE FISHERS ISLAND BEACH AREA, AND TO MUST BE CERT19ED BY FOREST STEWARDSHIP COMPLY WITH COASTAL POLICY 6.2 OF THE COUNCIL NY CAM ACT NEW FLOAT RESTRAINT RLE TOP EL 17tFT PP) NEW TIE-OFF NEW 8-FT x 20-FT FLOAT wh PILE TOP EL NEW 4-FT WIDE RLE SUPPORTED CONTINUOUS FLOATATION 7tFT o� PIER DECK EL 8r3tFT NEW 35-FT x 24+T RAMP tom--OPEN GRATE DECKII�- 1 NEW PER MUM DECK APPROXIMATE RAILS AN (iYP) GLE POINT 5�0 G5sFf 1:10 AHWL 3.5t _F_MHW 23 'r '�:iyS;f' 't>:�ti'<: .a fi',' }y r ,i'� :•i �"'y.'c`�.5:%'tr jr,°i`.'r;t. SPARTINA 0 DECK EL 9tFT �r �-W-O.O- GRASS r T •c� f:�., 2,.4'5 •:i 1L = r':r 1 r.TM., 1•:•- y:i::r•' .Y,n,r r,.,.e:,.rx ALTERNIF-ORA �''" S-ilk.:.: ..3�.�,. ij�x'x>�aa .'t;�!•";5�.ztl '=£ NEW RER SUPPORT `. <- :irirM. . T; z<nr.; /d", Sf� LASSWORT NEW UTILITIES F175T� •.;�, ,h aQ�s PATENS (LOCATION MAY VARY) PILE TOP EL 4-Ft ABOVE DECK rM PF20F=1 L-E GRAPHIC SCALE 1"=30' 30 20 10 O 30 ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON APPARENT LOW WATER K\?vL) PROJECT: NEW PIER and FLOAT REVISED 941-7 DEC LOCATION: FISHERS ISLAND-TOWN of SOUTHOLD PIER ELEVATION SUFFOLK COUNTY,NEW YORK REVISED 11-7-17 DEC WATERWAY: FISHERS ISLAND SOUND PIER ELEVATION DATE MAY 30,20T7 0 C K 0 3-20-18 DEC APPLICANT DONALD YOUNG D �l NOTE AGENT: SHEET 3 OF 3 G.� DOG KO INC.' � - 4 kh KeB.Neibm,PE ��. fir,Cr 06355 c 0 R P 0 860 572 8939 FAX 860 572 7569 DWG 17-03-2822 EMAJU ofAce@docko.com Irl °• ° li 1.1 o • • _..,� Inj '^^I",, _ ;"r:' 3F g^"•,?< j )A i� ;H •i,::.a F�l'I �'-xa 15 .j if�"�" 4 j°nµz la .� C;;?i i`' . YLn Ln Certified Mail Fee Certified Mad Fee s sL6, $ ate) t17rY� �� I � EMre Services&Fees(check bow add fee a ap nato Ip rr%- Extra Services&Fees(check box,add fe [�p urn Receipt(hardcopy) $ /J [] tum Receipt(hardcopy) $ �Q�i/j O Pos'Fh�g11 ❑Return Receipt(electronic) $ O P Her j C3 ❑Return Receipt(electronic)t $ H O E]Certified Mad Restricted Delivery $ ir CI ❑Certified Mall Restricted Delivery $' f" � E]Adult Signature Regmred $ O []Adult Signature Required $ 1 I= []Adult Signature Restricted Delivery$ 13 []Adult signature Restricted Delivery$ v, � O Postage `{S�W C3 Postage � V a-. $, p- $ r'a Total Postage and Fees r-q Total Postage and Fees $ `� S tT �.{. 0 sent T r� � �Q_!! �------- r=1 -!,� - r 9 ---- - f -e 5.: - - = p 1 Street i dWpt.No.,or ox No. -- O Street and Apt.No..orPO ox No. - f0 -------------------------- �b ______________________ r. -------------- r%- �1�.�[!n-_ W.�------- 1 ' City, tate,ZIP+4® CityS te,ZIP+4� ��` J, obij.0 �, d :,, i „ ,•, I�'• • t • 1, IU :,,� ::a t r..s Ft'J e}p.i1 • V i ?) `pt �..� ::. s )} •).�..^ '£..a ;� Iii,.-� t"s l�ro� 6u,'s� twr,; •';`� i:::«a I Certified Mad Fee r' Extra Services&Fees(checkbox,add fee l9gap new te) g4Oe—tum Receipt(hardcoPy) S O ❑ReturnReceipt(electronic) $ ' ®VO Po W. ❑Certified Mall Restricted Delivery $ Here 0 Adult Signature Required $ i C3 Adult Signature Restricted Delivery$ Postage ri Total Postage and Fees o rte. Sen o -lacN r r NoPOBNorox . f`- IJ V_----of --------------------------------------------------------- ciry�`ate fz�P+9®t-'S d l'1•Z .U1� (� :•0 1 11 111•1' _ f I i f Y I� I f PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE ATTACH CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS Name: t.'+. ,', .,. SrY.J. '6,'t. ..>1'.-4 ire+.i'•yp<& ..::�i. STATEOF NEW YORK _ •; ' COUNTY OF SUFFOLK residing at being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the day of , 20 , deponent mailed a-true copy of the Notice set forth in the Board of Trustees Application, directed to each of the above named persons at the addresses set opposite there respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the address of said persons as shown on the current assessment roll of the Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Office at , that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by CERTIFIED MAIL/RETURN RECEIPT. Sworn to before me this Day of , 20 Notary Public ' I r • A. S' ria re ❑Agent and 3. ❑Addressee i ■ Complete items 1,;2, / to of Delivery, t ■ Print your name and address on the reverse' B. Received by(Printed ER so that we can return the card to you• ® ; � Attach this card to the bpe l�osthe mailpiece, m s or on the front if spaceD. Is delivery a i If YES,enter delive ad ress be 1• Article Addressed to rnxt Vj-u� A018 -vir �lr• 1 `�i 1-e� �° 1 0639p 3q 0 Prionty Mail Express® 3, Service Type 0 Registered Mad II II II I III IIIIII III p Ad It signature Restricted Delivery 0 Registered eliver] Mail Restricted IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ertifiedMaO ERetumpeceiptfor 467 08 0 Certified Mail Restricted Delivery Merchandise 9590 9402 3312 7196 3 0 Collect on Deliver] 0 Signature Contirmation'TM 0 Signature Confirmation t 0 Collect on Delivery Restricted}Delivery f f Restricted Delivery i y v v ; ;1 i 'insured Mail Restricted Delivery !` L2. -�7 7 7 5�e112 4 3 8 —insured (over it Domestic Return Receipt i I'7 aoo'a_=-- --- 0 -- - I PS Form 3811,July 2015 PSN 7530-02-0—00 • I -IA WaQ • • - • A. Sign u e 0 Agent ddressee i I Complete items 1,2,and 3. elivery ■ Comp �D ■ Print your name and address on the reverse B Received by( rinted Na SO that we can return the card to you leve, + permits. mite 1? 0 A ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailp' pis delivery address diffa dre s beiFO or on the front if spar If YES,enter delivery LU lv 1• Article Addressed to'I( �e 06 3 93 bu Mail Expresso ❑Priority ma 3, Service Type 0 Registered Mail IIII I'II II I Till II III ❑Adult Signature p Registered Mail Restricted III�IIIII I'll IIIIIII I II p t Signature Restricted Delivery ified Mall® 0 Return me rchandise tfor i p Celled on Delivery Restricted Deliver] 0 Signature confirmation 9590 9402 3312 7196 3467 15 0 Certified Man Restricted Delivery signature Restricted Delivery _ < rcle Number-firansfer_from service 12 4 4 5 0j insured Mad Restricted DeLvery 2•-Art (over$500 Domestic Return Receipt s 71 13000 7?i77 ]17 x1905___--- - -- -- - - Jul 2015 PSN 7530-02c000-9053, PS F`rm 3811,E l y 1! I i i I i -- Michael J.Domino President Town Hall Annex John M. Bredemeyer II1,Vice-President �� q 54375 Route 25 Glenn Goldsmith CM a P.O.Box 1179 A.Nicholas Krupski Southold,NY 11971 Greg Williams , Telephone(631)765-1892 Fax(631)765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TRUSTEES: TOWN OF SOUTHOLD --------------------------------------------------------------- In the Matter of the Application of DONALD W. YOUNG REV. TRUST & KELLY C. YOUNG REV. TRUST COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING THIS FORM IS TO BE COMPLETED AFTER POSTING REMAINS IN PLACE FOR AT LEAST SEVENDAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE I, �„�,t�, r� t I�S , residing at/dba �5Q being duly sworn, depose and say: da UJ 0E That on the y of 1� ��1C�, 201 ll, I personally posted the property known as /1 J3--b tri�7' 94.-J 0_1> f--t5q-6-iZe,;, i *CA-.,J D >ks y-- by placing the Board of Trustees official poster where it can easily be seen, and that I have checked to be sure the poster has remained in place for eight days prior to the date of the public hearing. Date of hearing noted thereon to be held Wednesday, November 14,2018. Dated: ti 117,/`6 (signature) Sworn to before me this �%.•'`1111 11o ' �a14 day of/V bL,, 20/P' No ary Public JASON DRENA ° Notary Public 01-State of 4¢ewYorkNo Oual;fied in Suffolk County �1My Commission Expires November 7,2020 � DOC ICO! Inc. Serving the waterfront community since 1987 P.O.Box 421,Mystic,CT 06355(860)572-8939 Fax:(860)572-7569,email:office@docko.com � November 8, 2018 Mr. Michael J. Domino Town Hall Annex 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 RE: Young Property, Fishers Island Meeting Attachment Paperwork Dear Mr. Domino: We are transmitting herewith a copy of the photograph of the sign, posted at the Young property. Also attached are the original copies of the Certified Mailing Receipts, the signed returned green cards and a copy of the proof of mailing notice for the upcoming meeting on Wednesday November 14, 2018. Please give our office a call should you have any questions about the attachments. Yours truly, DOCKO, INC. ck 6r &-, ,� Keith B. Neilson,P.E. CMB: cb Cc: Donald Young File: 17-03-2822 YOUNG �� ^y tum .. .,•� _ A 1 n � : w- a,+ 40 HEARING 0 " NOTICE NOTICE 15 HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing wdl be heed Yorke concerning this Southold Tow,Board of v- - Trustees at the Town Hall,53095 Main Road.Southold, OWNER(S)OF R___---ECOR DONALD W.YOUNG REV.TRUST& b Y fA y KELLY C.YOUNG REV.TRUST . For a Wetland Permit and a Coastal - SUBJECT—�F PUBLICS b 4footwidefizedwootlprle Line. `L .. - •-. railings linear both sides.water,and alfectric.htWale.of �3 Erosion Permit to construct a!780 linear loot long Y ' and timber pier including ,. pier to be watemard4 f the with as 3.5•z2a � „ ` +t 32 linear feet of the p orted by four( i P and' nd install three neaff _ Y which_ dock suPP ier: `.., - oft of seaward most end of fixed 1000'3-2'2 •r install an 8'x20'floating Island hinged access ramp td Road.Fisher's pdes. Located Oft East Er HEARING j -i ��'`! 3�.♦ - OF PUBLIC TIME&OATE 4 2018-at or about 5:30P^M(2 ee ber 1 T fae(:l wh pV2fn .t dt view th d betty._^ Wednesday,N ea,Yon+ . n a`inB�Pmalbys 6311)65.I� w.,. ll hea B- inthisPrthedaYofthe S + "t,�. il •},r� .� an interest iDYYN Of 60UiMOlO X If You have ror to Or TpUSTEES' ,,tion P BOARD available for msp d aP nS the hours of 8 a.rr!• '._ > ` .K - �'r >Wf/ � • t t. q,M ��i�.��: ,NUTILt: Uim Ht: AKIN--G NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held by the Southold Town Board of Trustees at the Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York, concerning this property. OWNERS) OF RECORD: DONALD W. YOUNG REV. TRUST & KELLY C. YOUNG REV. TRUST SUBJECT OF PUBLIC HEARING : For a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a ±160 linear foot long by 4 foot wide fixed wood pile and timber pier including railings on both sides, water, and electrical utilities of which ±132 linear feet of the pier to be waterward of the Apparent High Water Line; install an 3'x20' floating dock supported by four (4) piles with associated 3.5'x24' hinged access ramp off of seaward most end of fixed pier; and install three tie-off piles. Located: Off East End Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-3-2-2 TIME & DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING : Wednesday, November 14, 2018 — at or about 5 :30P. M . If you have an interest in this project, you are invited to view the Town file(s) which are available for inspection prior to the day of the hearing during normal business days between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. BOARD OF TRUSTEES * TOWN OF SOUTHOLD * (631) 765-1892 fq Town of Southold LWRP CONSISTENCY ASSESSMENT FORM A. INSTRUCTIONS 1. All applicants for permits* including Town of Southold agencies, shall complete this CCAF for proposed actions that are subject to the Town of Southold Waterfront Consistency Review Law. This assessment is intended to supplement other information used by a Town of Southold agency in making a determination of consistency. *Except for minor exempt actions including Building Permits and other ministerial permits not located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. 2. Before answering the questions in Section C, the preparer of this form should review the exempt minor action list, policies and explanations of each policy contained in the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. A proposed action will be evaluated as to its significant beneficial and adverse effects upon the coastal area (which includes all of Southold Town). 3. If any question in Section C on this form is answered "yes" or "no", then the proposed action will affect the achievement of the LWRP policy standards and conditions contained in the consistency review law. Thus, each answer must be explained in detail, listing both supporting and non-supporting facts. If an action cannot be certified as consistent with the LWRP policy standards and conditions, it shall not be undertaken. A copy of the LWRP is available in the following places: online at the Town of Southold's website (southoldtown.northfork.net), the Board of Trustees Office, the Planning Department, all local libraries and the Town Clerk's Office. B. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSED ACTION SCTM# 1000—1-2-2 PROJECT NAME: New Pier,Ramp and Float-Mr. Donald Young The Application has been submitted to (check appropriate response): Town Board Planning Board Building Dept. Board of Trustees X 1. Category of Town of Southold agency action(check appropriate response): a) Action undertaken directly to Town agency (e.g. capital construction,planning activity, agency regulation, land transaction) b) Financial assistance (e.g. grant loan subsidy) c) Permit, approval, license, certification: X Nature and extent of action: Construct 160(+/-)LF of 4-FT wide fixed wood pile and timber pier including rails and water / electric utilities of which 132(+/-)LF is waterward of the Apparent High-Water Line. Install an 8-FT_x_ 20-FT float with associated hinged access ramp and three tie- off piles. 1 Location of action: Property off of East End Road on Fishers Island Site acreage: Parcel= 2.1 Acres Present Land use: Residential Present Zoning Classification: Residential 2. If an application for the proposed action has been filed with the Town of Southold agency, the following information shall be provided: a) Name of applicant: Mr. Donald Young b) Mailing Address: 3640 Piping Rock Lane, Houston, TX 77027 c) Telephone number: Area Code (281) 870-8402 d) Application number, if any Will the action be directly undertaken, require funding, or approval by a state or federal agency? Yes X No If yes, which state or federal Agency?U. S. ACOE,NYS DEC C. Evaluate the project to the following policies by analyzing how the project will further support of not support the policies. Provide all proposed Best Management Practices that will further each policy. Incomplete answers will require that the form be returned for completion. DEVELOPED COAST POLICY Policy 1. Foster a pattern of development in the Town of Southold that enhances community character, preserves open space, makes efficient use of infrastructure, makes beneficial use of a coastal location, and minimizes adverse effects of development. See LWRP Section III —Policies; Page 2 for evaluation criteria. X Yes No Not Applicable The new dock facility makes appropriate beneficial use of the waterfront site and complies with environmental design factors published by the NYS DEC, and the DOS Coastal Management Program, Southold Local Law No. 6, 2004 and the Southold LWRP. The pier to be built will be at a 4-foot deck height (8 FT MLW elevation level) over the bottom sediments at the Apparent High-Water Line until passing the Apparent Mean High-Water Line where the clearance will be approximately 5 feet and gradually increasing. Rails will be 42 inches above the deck. The float will be installed beyond to the pier head. There will be no impairment of waterflow, navigation or public access. Policy 2. Protect and preserve historic and archaeological resources of the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III—Policies Page 3 through 6 for evaluation criteria. Yes No X Not Applicable 2 Policy 3. Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III—Policies Pages 6 through 7 for evaluation criteria Yes No X Not Applicable This project proposes to construct a dock facility built to meet current standards consistent with safe boating and public access standards and typical climatological conditions. The float will be typical in construction to floating docks in these same coastal waters around Fishers Island Sound. NATURAL COAST POLICIES Policy 4. Minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion. See LWRP Section III—Policies Pages 8 through 16 for evaluation criteria. Yes No X Not Applicable This new dock facility will be constructed on Fishers Island Sound which is acknowledged to be in a flood-prone area; there is prevailing wind induced wave exposure at this site. The floating dock will be designed to accommodate seasonal climatic conditions and resist hydrodynamic uplift pressures due to waves typically experienced during the summer. The height of the pier decking is specifically tailored to be above high tide storm and waves so as to minimize its susceptibility to damage in such conditions. The pier height over the water was specifically required by the National Marine Fisheries Service in deference to protecting habitat and suitable growing conditions for eel grass. Policy 5. Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III—Policies Pages 16 through 21 for evaluation criteria. Yes No X Not Applicable This project will not have any affect on suitability of or availability of drinking water on Fishers Island. Policy 6. Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosystems including Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats and wetlands. See LWRP Section III — Policies; Pages 22 through 32 for evaluation criteria. X Yes No Not Applicable This project is consistent with this policy because it proposes the elevation of the pier at an acceptable height above the bottom sediments through which adjacent tidal wetlands vegetation and eel grass in the shallow subtidal water may spread. The siting for the dock is the same location as the crib supported dock, circa mid-1920's, was built. No adverse impact on tidal wetland or submerged aquatic vegetation is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. In addition, the NYS DEC prepared a study showing that the proposed pressure-treated Southern Pine timber products construction materials are suitable for this type of project in this location, except for decking which will be of untreated woods or composite (or plastic) materials. As mentioned earlier, the design parameters shown on the drawings provides an optimum balance between acceptable design and access standards without depriving the wetlands vegetation the opportunity to spread. 3 i Policy 7. Protect and improve air quality in the Townof Soutiiold. See LWRP Section III — Policies Pages 32 through,34 for evaluation criteria. Yes No X Not Applicable There are no air quality issues related to this project. No emissions will be generated by the dock faciliy. Policy 8. Minimize environmental degradation in Town of Southold from solid waste and hazardous substances and wastes. See LWRP Section III — Policies; Pages 34 through 38 for evaluation criteria. Yes No X Not Applicable There is no solid waste or-hazardous substances to be generated from this project. The pressure-treated wood trimmings from the dock construction will be collected and disposed of in accordance with current regulations so as to minimize any harmful affect. PUBLIC COAST POLICIES Policy 9. Provide for public access to, and recreational use of, coastal waters, public lands, and public resources of the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III — Policies; Pages 38 through 46 for evaluation criteria. Yes No X Not Applicable This project is being built emanating from private land. The Public Trust Lands and Waters constitutes the area between the Mean High-Water line and Mean Low Water line and the resources are from the High tide line, out. These environmental resources are being_protected by the design standards dictated by the NYS DEC, Town' of Southold and the U. S. ACOS. There is virtually no public use of the waterfront in this area and the new dock facility above or below the Apparent High-Water line are not likely to influence or change this fact. WORKING COAST POLICIES Policy 10. Protect Southold's water-dependent uses and promote siting of new water-dependent uses in suitable locations. See LWRP Section III — Policies; Pages 47 through 56 for evaluation criteria. X Yes No Not Applicable This project is to build a pier for water-dependent, recreational and transportation boating. This usage is defined as water-dependent in the LWRP because the pier will for recreational boating and provide boat transportation access to the mainland. The elevated pier to shore is to provide access while protecting existing habitat. Policy 11. Promote sustainable use of living marine resources in Long Island Sound the Peconic Estuary and Town waters. See LWRP Section III — Policies; Pages 57 through 62 for evaluation criteria. Yes No X Not Applicable 4 This pier is not used for commercial fishing or shellfish industries c'C-Caiterprises. Policy 12. Protect agricultural lands in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III — Policies; Pages 62 through 65 for evaluation criteria. Yes No X Not Applicable This pier is not used for or in support of any agricultural or aquaculture industries or enterprises. Policy 13. Promote appropriate use and development of energy and mineral sources. See LWRP Section III—Policies; pages 65 through 68 for evaluation criteria. Yes No X Not Applicable This pier is not used for or in support of any energy or mineral mining or processing operations. PREPARED BY Keith B.Neilson,P.E. Docko, Inc. TITLE Agent DATE September 19, 2018 5 i PROPERTY OF DONALD YOUNG CHOCOMOUNT COVE,FISHERS ISLAND SOUND NARRATIVE STATEMENT & SUPPLEIVIENTAL INFORMATION FOR NYS DEC,NYS DOS AND TOWN OF SOUTHOLD APPLICATIONS AUGUST 2017 GENERAL Donald Young, the Applicant, owns parcel 1000-3.-2-2 off East End Road located along the north shoreline of Fishers Island Sound on Fishers Island. The site is gently to moderately sloped, sandy gravel earthen materials, vegetated with grass, brush, ground cover and trees with a sloping lawn to the shoreline which is lined with tidal wetlands vegetation and numerous large stones and a beach to the east. The frontage of the property is approximately 300 feet along Fishers Island Sound at the easterly end, abutted by Harold O. Hurlburt, Jr. and Sandra L. Hurburt to the west and H.L. Museum Inc. to the east. This is a high energy waterfront site. It is Mr. Young's desire to build a pier with a floating dock in virtually the same location as the dock which existed at the site in the 1980s. The end of this new pier will be an elevation of 6 feet above Mean Low Water (MLW), crossing over the boulder-strewn intertidal zone at a typical height of 6 feet above the bottom sediments and a level landing to shore landward of the tidal wetlands. Attached are application drawings prepared for this project showing this configuration and pertinent details. This supplemental narrative has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Town of Southold, Ordinance No. 6, 2004, and the Waterfront Revitalization Program related to docks and shorefront improvements. In addition, various coastal policies under the New York State Coastal Management Act are addressed herein for review by the New York State Department of State and Department of Environmental Conservation. DESCRIPTION OF WORD As mentioned in the introductory paragraph, this project is to construct a fixed wood pile and timber pier from the shore with a floating dock out into Fishers Island Sound in accordance with existing guidelines set forth in the Town of Southold ordinance No. 6, 2004. Boulder relocation will be minimal if any at the end of the dock facility to provide for safe berthing and stopping short_of local eel grass beds. It is envisioned that this structure will be built utilizing the following general sequence and methodology. ➢ The marine contractor will arrive by water with a barge-mounted crane and push boats. ➢ New piles will be driven starting at the new shore landing end of the pier and proceeding waterward at roughly 10-foot intervals to the waterward end of the pier approximately 150 feet from the Apparent High Water Line. These piles will be driven by double-acting air hammer to a bearing capacity of about 20 tons and pull-out resistance of approximately 10 tons. This generally results in about ten feet of embedment of the pile in the bearing stratum. These piles will be 12-inch nominal diameter measured at three feet from the butt. 1 ➢ After the pees are installed, split clamps/caps consl..ing of a pair of pressure treated Southern Pine timbers, 3 x 10 to 4 x 10 nominal dimension, will be double bolted at each pile transversely forming a pile bent. Stringers will be then laid on the split caps parallel to the length of the pier. In all likelihood, three runs of stringers will be set and will probably consist of 3 x 10 pressure-treated Southern Pine. ➢ The outer stringer on each side will be bolted or spiked to the pile at each bent to secure it against uplift forces that this pier will typically be exposed to. ➢ After the stringers have been connected to the piles and split caps, the decking will be installed. In accordance with the Town of Southold's Ordinance No. 6, 2004, this decking will not be CCA pressure-treated Southern Pine as noted on the drawings. Decking will be oak, cedar hardwood or plastic / composite such as "Timber Tech" or similar synthetic, composite or plastic material with the brushed side mounted up. If composites or plastic are used, decking will be either gray, brown or natural in color. Decking can also be "Thru-Flow" to minimize shading. Decking will be attached to the stringers utilizing galvanized nails or stainless steel Phillips or Flathead square-drive stainless steel wood screws about 4 inches long and will be set with a 1/a" gap between deck planks. ➢ The over-water decking will run at an elevation of approximately 6 feet MLW above the existing bottom sediments (not including boulders). See Sheet 4 of the application drawings for the pier profile. ➢ The piles will terminate about 42 inches above the deck surface and have horizontal rail members mounted to them. ➢ A rail of cedar, oak, hardwood or Timber Tech material will be installed for safety. The mid- rail can be timber or cable and both details are shown. ➢ Water and electricity will be trenched into the lawn and run out in conduits on the pier in the space between the stringers so that trickle chargers on the boat may be powered during tie-ups. The water will allow boats to be rinsed off after usage. A power post with an internal light will be mounted to the end of the fixed pier with receptacles to provide power to the boats from extension cords. The power post will also have coiling arms for storage of the electric service cord and hose between uses. Because the dock may be used during the hours of darkness, low-intensity lights will be mounted on staggered piles or dock rail posts to illuminate the deck and the walking surface up the bank. This system will be manually or radio controlled with_a_shut-off timer so that the lights will only - orLwhen neccessary for safety of the users. Trenching for�_utilities Will_ within the confines of the lawn and not enter the tidal wetlands. LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION POLICIES The Town of Southold, LWRP policies that are applicable to the Young dock proposal are a local refinement of the Long Island Sound Regional Coastal Management Program policies that apply throughout Long Island Sound. The Young site is in Fishers Island Sound on Fishers Island could be characterized as Developed Shorefront because of the house and landscaped grounds, however, the shoreline is completely, naturally protected by boulders which constitutes a glacial deposit despite the appearance of human development. The developed coast policies are applicable as follows: ➢ Policy 1 is to foster a pattern of development that enhances community character and preserves natural resources to the maximum extent and minimizes adverse impacts on the environment, ➢ Policy 2 is to preserve historic resources, ➢ Policy 3 is to enhance and protect scenic resources and visual quality. 2 The proposed dock facility for the Young's is Rosistent with waterfront development on Fishers Island and;in coastal areas. The length is a balance of minimal encroachment,boulder and eel grass avoidance and encroachment to reach a depth of water to avoid bottom contact and benthic disturbances in accordance with longstanding permitting standards. The pier is made of suitably-sized timbers requiring 12 inch class B piles because of wave exposure and utilizes the materials allowable under Local Law#6. This proposal is consistent with other adjacent dock facilities and characteristics for the visual and scenic considerations. The length is made necessary due to the boulder field to be crossed to reach navigable water. The encroachment has been minimized to be consistent with DEC policies, Southold'Local Law #6, US ACOE policies and the structure is as low profile as possible, and high enough to avoid or minimize shading the tidal wetlands and eel grass, consistent with the safe and efficient use of the waters and consistent with the tidal range of this site. The length and geometrics of the,dock facility have been reviewed with both the Town Trustees and DEC Marine Habitat Protection Bureau in fair detail to assure consistency with both State and local permitting standards and guidelines. Lighting will be minimal for operational safety and otherwise off, and lights will be utilized only when necessary for boating purposes so that during hours of darkness there will be no adverse,impact NATURAL COAST POLICIES The Natural Coastal Policies are 4 through 8 and require consideration as follows: ➢ Policy 4—'Minimize loss of life, structures and natural resources from flooding and erosion, ➢ Policy 5—Protect and improve water quality ➢ Policy 6—Protect and restore the quality and function of the eco-system, ➢ Policy 7—Protect and improve air quality, ➢ Policy 8 - Minimize environmental degradation primarily from solid waste and hazardous substances. The proposed structure for the Young recreational boating facility has been laid out and configured so as to be consistent with the Town and DEC permit requirements for dock structures. As such, it provides 'adequate height to clear environmental resources of concern and the materials to be utilized are consistent with Town of Southold's Local Law #6 regarding environmental quality and the use of pressure-treated Southern Yellow Pine timber components in particular. The length and geometrics of the dock facility have been reviewed with both the Town Trustees and DEC Marine Habitat Protection Bureau in fair detail to assure consistency with both State and local permitting standards and guidelines especially as they relate to eel grass beds. US Fish & Wildlife policies relating to eel grass impacts are addressed as follows: Policy 1- In-water work should be avoided during the eel rg assr��owing, season from April 15 to October 31. There is no eel grass in the site of the floating dock. Work can be scheduled in the fall through spring to comply with this criteria if the permits are received in a timely manner. There was more eel grass extending north from the pier. The float was beyond the end of the pier specifically so as not to adversely impact any observed SAV growth area and chains will not be used in any respect to anchor the float only. Policy 2- Construct the fixed pier a maximum of four feet wide to minimize shading. The pier all the way out to the ramp landing has been minimized in its size based on approval criteria from the Town of Southold as well as the recommendations of NMFS. The landing is 4 feet. Please note also that the last 30 feet, the lower end of the pier and ramp landing is to be decked with open "Thru Flow"' grate type decking. Also, the hinged ramp is 3 '/z feet wide, narrower than the recommended 4 foot width. 3 I Policy 3- Construct the dock a minimum of four feet above-die surface of the water measured at Mean High Water and 4.5 feet over the surface of the marsh with height measured from the bottom of the stringers, not the top of the deck. The standard for deck height is to keep the structure 4.5 feet above the surface of the "marsh." I would point out there is a limited fringe marsh in this location, and the prevailing pier deck height is at an elevation of approximately 8 feet above Mean Low Water and the 4 foot wide pier head and ramp landing platform is at 6 feet above MLW. The water depth where the eel grass bed was noted is approximately 3 feet and 3 feet is the typical length of the eel grass blades. This has been confirmed in our own observations at this site where the tops of the blades are visible at low tides. The stringers are 10 feet or so above the adjacent eel grass bed sediments and 6 to 7 feet above the tops of the eel grass blades but again the pier siting is such as to avoid the eel grass altogether. This 8 foot pier elevation was maintained until the pier reached past the marsh and intertidal zone. Policy 4- To minimize the risk of propeller dredging and scour, extend the fixed portion of the pier so that the water depths in the mooring area are a minimum of four feet deep measured at Mean Low Water, or if the SAV bed extends further than the proposed dock, extend the dock beyond the vegetation. One of the reasons that the floating dock was put at the end of the pier was to avoid the necessity of boat traffic berthing over the SAV bed of eel grass. The bed on the west side of the pier is located farther from the pier. There was no eel grass noted in the area of the float at the end of the pier during our design work, and confirmed as of the date of this report. By keeping the float inside of the SAV bed,we have pretty much assured that the boat will not berth over the eel grass bed. . Policy 5-Eliminate the ramp and float to reduce shading effects. We understand that the purpose of this criteria (precluding the float) is to avoid or reduce shading on the eel grass. However, the surveys that we conducted prior to the original permitting for this dock reconstruction project and visually confirmed this month indicated that there was no eel grass in this dock site or beneath the floating dock and hinged ramp. We feel that elimination of a float is an unnecessarily restrictive"practice"when there was no eel grass in the floating dock location. Policy 6- Install a lift for each vessel moored at the dock unless not practicable (e.g. sailboat). The boat(s) should be moored in the lift(s) when not in use. This is to reduce shading effects, minimize the potential for scour, and reduce the potential for the bottom of a docked boat to damage the SAV bed. The criteria in this case emphasizes the use of a boat lift. We were unable to obtain a permit for a lift for the vessels berthed at this dock. The prohibition is related to Tidal Wetlands Law No. 6 issued by the Town of Southold. We have attempted to get a boat lift approved by the Town of Southhold, however, the Tidal Wetlands Law No. 6 prohibits the installation of a boat lift unless the applicant owns the harbor bottom. In this case, the applicant does not own the harbor bottom and, therefore, a lift is not permittable under Town of Southhold law. Policy 7- To minimize potential for scour, in-water construction equipment should only transit within the work area footprint at periods of high tide while construction is occurring within eelg[ass beds. The prevailing water depth in the area of the floating dock is 3 to 4 feet deep,and this is the area where the barge will be set at the end of the pier early in the year when the pier will be built. Pile driving and setting heavy timbers will be accomplished in a matter of a week or three at the most weather permitting. The ramp and float are to be manufactured offsite, towed to the site, set in place and then secured with driven piles; the potential for scour in this area is negligible at this point. The work will be done at a high tide so that there will be a water depth of 7 to 8 feet. 4 Policy 8-To avoia-minimizing impacts, GIS layers of mapp i elgrass beds within the project area should be provided to the contractor so they are aware of the eelgrass locations at all times. The contractor will be furnished with the permit drawings prior to the pier reconstruction project which was already completed. The same contractor will be furnished with copies of the permit(s) modifications for this project and is well aware of the typical best practices for dock building in proximity to eel grass. The drawings show the submerged aquatic vegetation that has been repeatedly verified at the time of the original survey. There will be no significant adverse impacts to air quality as a result of this structure and the construction of the dock should not diminish overall environmental considerations in Fishers Island Sound and will protect water quality, the quality of the ecosystem and minimize or avoid degradation of environmental resources. PUBLIC COAST POLICIES Policy 9 sets forth a priority to provide for public access and recreational use of coastal waters, public lands and public resources of the Town. This project recreates a recreational boating facility for the Young's property that has been absent from the site for years and so is consistent with this policy and will not adversely affect public access to or use of Public Trust Lands or Waters of the State. WORKING COAST POLICIES The policies of this section relate to the following: ➢ Policy 10 — Protection of the Town's water-dependent uses and promoting new water- dependent uses in suitable locations, ➢ Policy 11 —Promoting sustainable use of living marine resources, ➢ Policy 12—Protect agricultural lands, ➢ Policy 13 —Promote appropriate use and development of energy and mineral resources. While most of the Working Coast Policies are not applicable to this site or this type of project, Policy 10, promoting water-dependent uses and the siting of water-dependent uses in appropriate areas is applicable. The proposed project has been laid out to make the most beneficial use of the land and locating the dock facility in the most appropriate point of the land where access from the shore will not require excessive structural facilities and the alignment depicted is to minimize impacts on valuable habitat and environmental resources including the tidal wetlands and eel grass documented at the site. This project has been laid out with specific reference and review of the Waterfront Devitalization Program policies and is considered to be consistent. In summary, the dock is typical of recreational boating facilities throughout the area and all along coastal New England. The structure has been minimized in size, height, and structure so as to be consistent with other facilities of a similar nature and the minimum necessary components to accommodate safe and efficient boating operations from this site safely in a variety of climatic conditions,while preserving and minimizing wetland and eel grass impacts. This project does not interfere with public access or use of Public Trust Waters and Lands of the State, it does not interfere with navigation, it will not create soil or sedimentation erosion problems, it does not adversely affect environmental resources and in the area where the facility must 5 span the intertid�ai zone at the shore line, the facility h_.. been located in the area of rocks where environmental resources have already been diminished so as not to worsen any of these conditions and where waters are fouled by the boulders to the extent that they are not navigable. The height of the structure has been specifically addressed so as to allow tidal wetlands vegetation of the shoreline to grow if other conditions are conducive to such growth. The dock facility has also been located reaching out to the deepest water in Fishers Island Sound short of established eel grass beds, so that the alignment has favored boulder avoidance but if required, the boulders to be removed, if any, and will be relocated beneath the pier in the existing boulder field so as not to change the site characteristics and not to extend impacts into adjacent resource areas. Dredging will not be an issue in the future, thus further minimizing adverse environmental impacts. More than 98% of the Youngs' 300 foot shoreline in Fishers Island Sound will remain in a natural state as a result of these considerations for design. There is no loss of valuable marine and wetland habitat and no water quality degradation as a result of this project. No natural protective features or processes will be adversely impacted as a result of the proposed docking facility. The dock spans over an area of nearshore boulders and there is a natural and longstanding void of submerged aquatic vegetation specimens in the proposed dock or berthing area. Reference is made to the NYS DEC study from 2000 indicating the suitability of pressure- treated Southern Yellow Pine piles and super-structure components for this type of purpose. In accordance with Local Law #6, decking for the pier deck treads will be of woods other than Southern Yellow Pine. This project is consistent with zoning policies and ordinances for the Town. The dock facility will be an accessory to the home located at this site. There will be no development of the upland related to this dock facility that will create point sources of pollution or drainage. The site is already a developed home site. This project is considered to be providing recreational boating and water usage opportunity compatible with the natural resource values and characteristics of the site. REOUIREMENTS OF SECTION 97-25 OF THE SOUTHOLD WETLANDS LAW 6,2004 The permittee acknowledges that the validity of this permit is subject to the approval of other governmental or municipal authorities. The permittee does, by the acceptance of this permit, assume all responsibility'for operations undertaken pursuant to this permit, and shall take all precautions for the prevention of injuries to persons and property resulting from such operations. By such acceptance, the permittee also agrees to indemnify and save harmless the Town and its officers. The permittee gives consent to the Town and its officers, employees and agents to enter upon the premises where such operations are being conducted to make such inspections to determine whether said operations are being conducted in conformity with the permit. The permittee will notify the Trustees in writing one week prior to initiation of any and all operations. The permittee will notify the Trustees in writing upon completion of operations such that the site can be inspected for issuance for a certificate of compliance. In response to Sub-section 2a and the General Rules for Standards of Residential and Commercial Docks, the following additional information is offered. 6 t 1. Peirnits for the work are being applied for ti,.eo'altaneously through the US ACOS, NYS DEC and a coastal zone consistency determination by the NYS DOS. When issuance of the State and Federal permits are close or assured, the Town permit application will be submitted. 2. The new piles to be installed will be 12 inch diameter Class B wood, of sturdy, durable and stable materials, in all likelihood, Greenhart, Kakaralli or CCA pressure-treated Southern Yellow Pine (SYP)piles with new split caps and braces of the same SYP materials. These members will be a minimum of 3 x 10 timber with double 3/a" bolts per connection, or in some cases, one 1-inch bolt per connection. These sizes are predicated based on sea conditions during rough weather. This pier is a fixed, pile-supported timber structure with a float and therefore will not adversely affect the free circulation of water or reduce the effects of fluctuating water levels in Fishers Island Sound; only piles will span the water column. In addition, the pier does not present any adverse modification of the shoreline. The pier's end elevation is such that in extreme high flood tides in storm surges the structure will be inundated. The structure's SYP timber materials represent the standard of the industry being specifically grown for this type of usage and are capable of withstanding full immersion. With the connections described above, this structure will be able to survive repeated inundations and even direct waves at high tide elevations with a structural life of approximately 20 years. Severe storm performance cannot be guaranteed. 3. The pier support, because of its height, will include driving new 12 inch diameter Class B piles at 10-foot intervals to the maximum extent possible in order to obtain the desired pier alignment and support intervals; 12 inch piles will be used for the tie-offs.Twelve inch piles are required for this pier because of the difficult pile driving conditions in the boulder laden bottom sediments. The use of CCA pressure-treated piles and timbers can be approved for this project in accordance with Local Law 6. Ten foot bent intervals will vary as necessary to accommodate pile driving conditions. 4. The pier will not be decked with CCA pressure-treated Southern Pine. This pier/ walkway provides a safe pedestrian surface for access to the berthed boat. Rails may be installed on the pier for safety of the users. 5. The pier is located near the center of the property. The 15-foot clearance specified in this paragraph has been more than honored and lateral clearance should not be an issue because the proposed pier does not represent a significant encroachment into the boating operations area of the neighbors to the east or west. The dock facility does not project into the navigation way for other boaters in the Sound. The deck width of 4 feet is considered desirable and appropriate for boating safety because of the angled exposure to waves from the north, inherent stability, and the agility of some of the users. 6. Upon receipt of the permit for this project, appropriate permit numbers and a Town permit placard will be affixed to the most seaward face of the pier for identification from the water. 7 7. T1'6-only permanent structures located a': T:'e the pier decking other than the power post and railing which are fixed by function, are the dock box and kayak racks over the boulder at the shore side landing. 8. It is possible but not necessary to provide a five-foot passage beneath the pier between the Mean High and Mean Low Water Lines. Foot traffic in this area is rare, if at all, and so the additional structure of an up and over stairway has been left out of this pier layout. NEW YORK STATE COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM These application documents include a copy of the Federal Consistency Assessment Form utilized for the New York State Coastal Management Program under the jurisdiction of the New York State Department of State. The following policies have been identified as pertinent to this application and the reason for consistency associated with this project is outlined in each respective case. Policy 2—Water Dependent Uses—This project is to construct a fully functional water dependent use, a dock facility at this site in support of recreational boating. Policy 5 — Use of Existing Developed Shorefront—There is no developed shoreline on this site. This project utilizes existing shorefront which is dominated by an accumulation of stone which has diminished resources but does support growth of tidal wetlands vegetation. The project will be to build a pier and extend it to a logical shoreward terminus to make it safe and reliably usable in most weather conditions. The location is similar to the previous dock at this site. Policy 7 — Significant Fish & Wildlife Habitat— Protection of significant fish and wildlife habitat has been considered in the development of this project layout. The pier, to the shoreward point beginning, will maintain 5 feet above the rocky intertidal sediments and should not jeopardize the integrity of any vegetation outcrops, should they colonize this area in the future. Typically there is a slight environmental benefit to a pier project because of the creation of structure in the water column where barnacles, algae and crustaceans will colonize and grow. Policy 8 — Protection & Preservation of Habitat—Protection and preservation of habitat has also been considered in this project and the dock structure is being kept to its minimal configuration and of height and materials consistent with standards of the industry and restrictions set forth in the Wetlands Law,No. 6,2004 set forth by the Town of Southold and standards of the NYS DEC. The pier has been sited over a stony part of the beach to make use of the most obstructed, least desirable habitat and minimize damage to natural resources. See Natural Coast Policies on page 3 of this narrative. Policy 11 —Minimize Damage to Natural Resources - The dock construction project has been laid out in such a way so as to minimize damage to natural resources as identified in Policy 8 above. The dock facility has been sited in the area where large boulders on the beach have already impacted shoreline vegetation. US Fish and Wildlife Service Guidelines for eelgrass beds have been substantially complied with as addressed in the Natural Coast Policies on page 3 of this narrative. Policy 14 — No Measurable Increase in Flooding - This project consists of construction of an open wood pile and timber pier which in no way adversely affects water flow and circulation in Fishers Island Sound or flooding potential of the area. Flood levels all around Fishers Island are dictated by water levels in Long Island Sound, and Block Island Sound and this structure will have no adverse influence or in any way impact on those levels. 8 Policy 15 —No Dredging=Dredging, per se, is not required in this project, however, boulders will be moved from the float and berthing area and relocated to the footprint of the per consistent with the benthic characteristics of the site. The floating dock system has been laid out in its current location and configuration to avoid any dredging requirements. The depth of 2 feet, as generally recommended by the US ACOE, and 4 feet as recommended by the NYS DEC has been reached. This is an exposed site such that the boat must be berthed bow out. Policy 19 — Impact on Public Access —Public access will not be jeopardized or impeded as a result of this project. As a matter of fact, there is almost no public access usage of the public trust lands or waters at this site except kayaking and canoeing which are also rare. The upper intertidal zone and shallow subtidal zone is significantly covered by boulders and tidal wetlands fringe marsh vegetation and the shallow sub-tidal waters do not present any opportunity for navigation or enticement for public access in the area. The Sound is three miles wide so the pier occupies far less than the landward 25% of the waterway width in accordance with US ACOE policies. Thus, public access to the State's lands and waters will not be adversely affected by the project. Policy 20 — Public Trust Compatibility with Existing Adjoining Properties and Land Uses- Public Trust compatibility with existing adjoining properties and land uses have also been considered in this project. Some nearby properties have small docking facilities similar to this one and this docking facility will not interfere with existing or the likely configuration of future facilities on nearby properties or the logical allocation of littoral development rights. Policy 21 —Water Dependent Recreation—This project is consistent with water-dependent recreational opportunities policies set forth in this section. Policy 24 —Scenic Resources, Impairment or Loss - This policy is designed to prevent impairment or loss of scenic resources. The construction of the fixed wood pile and timber .pier will not represent such an extent of encroachment or structure which would create a loss of scenic resources. The inboard landing section of the pier will be largely over-shadowed by the fringe plant growth. This facility will really only be visible from the water and the Noyes property. Policy 25 —Enhance Overall Scenic Quality-The new dock structure will be consistent with the scenic quality of the area and prevent loss of scenic resources as described in Policy 24 above. This facility will really only'be visible from the water and the Noyes property to the west and the Spurtles. Policy 44—Preserve and Protect Tidal Wetlands—The tidal wetland vegetation on the rocky shorefront is a diverse but narrow fringe marsh including glasswort and spartina alterniflora between the lawn and the beach at the dock site. The construction of the fixed wood pile and timber pier has taken advantage of the least profuse existing vegetated strip of the beach in order to avoid adverse wetlands impact. The pier height and alignment also avoids eel grass beds which dominate the beach east of the dock site. The height of the pier should allow opportunities for the growth of the spartina fringe marsh naturally up to, and to an extent, beneath the wood pier seeing that other conditions appear to be suitable. The pier being orientated north-south will allow sunlight in from the east in the morning and the west in the afternoon and stops well short of submerged aquatic vegetation. 9 SUMMARY This project proposes a new fixed pier with a floating dock for recreational boating access for the property of Donald Young on Fishers Island, incorporating extensive measures to make use of a productive habitat, while maintaining habitat values and avoiding despoliation of tidal wetlands or submerged aquatic vegetation. A copy of all US Army Corps of Engineers, NYS DEC and NYS DOS applications and supplemental drawings and photographs are attached as substantiation for this project. This project complies with applicable standards of the New York State Coastal Management Act, NYS / DEC Tidal Wetland Regulations and criteria for approval and the Town of Southold Waterfront Revitalization Program and Local Ordinance No. 6,2004; its approval is thus respectfully requested. Respectfully submitted, DOCKO, INC. Keith B. Neilson,P.E. 10 Docko, Inc. Serving the waterfront community since 1987 P.O.Box 421,Mystic,CT 06355(860)572-8939 Fax:(860)572-7569,email:office@docko.com September 25,2018 ichael J. Domino, President Southold Board of Trustees Town Hall Annex 54375 Route 25 j P.O. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 it Re: Donald Young Property, Fishers Island New Pier and Float Dear Mr. Domino: On behalf of Mr. Donald Young, we enclose herewith the following in support of his permit application for a ne%pier and float in Fishers Island Sound on Fishers Island,NY. ➢ Two prints each of plans titled: Project: "New Pier and Float" Location: Fishers Island, Town of Southold OCT — 1 2018Suffolk County,New York I Waterway: Fishers Island Sound i Applicant: Donald Young - �rnwr u,,; F0-;[] _ Agent: Docko, Inc. ➢ Two copies of the Southold Board of Trustees permit application, Transactional Disclosure Form, Erosion, Sedimentation & Storm-Water Run-off Assessment Form, Short Environmental Assessment Form, LWRP Consistency Assessment Form, Full Environmental Assessment Form (SEAR), Environmental Questionnaire,Narrative, Location Map, Tax Assessor's Map and Photographs. ➢ Two checks in the amount of$250.00 payable to the Town of Southold. ➢ One copy of each of the other applications to regulatory agencies (USACOE, NYS DOS,NYS DEC). I trust that you;will find this application package complete and acceptable; please let me know if the need for further,information arises. E Very truly yours, DOCKO, INC. 'i Keith B.Neilson, P.E. KBN: cb Enclosure CC: Mr. Donald Young US ACOE NYS DEC: Environmental Permits NYS DOS File: 17-03-2822 YOUNG