Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMCGOLDRICK, NEIL Eagle Abstract Corp. A~t f~ First Ameriean Title Insurance Company of New York Dou~tas Soffey, Esq. C/O Soffey & $offey, Esqs. 233 Seventh Street Garden ~ity, New York 11530 McGoldriok Dear ~. Soffey: County Clerk's Off/ce and h~ve certified that NEI], X. Mc~OLDi~(~( Section: i16.00 Block= 04.00 ~t: 106.U04. as evidenced by the Title C~r~ifioa~i~n dated 10/26/94. April 13, 1951 and have found the same rmcital in all deeds p~rtaining to the interest in and to certain i$1end lying in said Peoonie Bay lying be~aen the high and low water Kindly be advised that the de~criptlo~ in d~d r~ords prior ~o 1951 are very involved and will requir~ e~tensive ti~e and work to e~amine. The fees involved in do%~ thi~ wo~'k may be cos~ urohiba~ive. 12-22-1994 11:51~M 51~5498976 P.01 Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. P.O. Box 058, Water Mill, New York 110~,~ UTHOLg Deerfield Green, Montauk Highway, Fax: (516) 726-4471 (516) 726-1glg , Bruce Anderson, M.S., President November 28, 1994 Mr. Albert Krupski, President Southold Board of Trustees Town Hall P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 1 i97l Re: Neit McGoldrick DearMr. KrupsM, Attached herewith please find an mended approval resolution for *,he above referenced project scheduled to be voted upon at the next meeting of the Trustees on December 22, 1994. I have/ncluded an additional penuit condition which provides ibr water quality (total and fecal coliform) testing at the mouth and/nside Halls Creek. The conditions set forth in the approval resolution should also be stated in the permit itself. Please do not hesitate to call tt,Zs office s.ould you have further questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, Brace A. Anderson RESOLUTION (Welkttuts' -'~qq~rove or iq~l~rove w modi. ficaliotO WllEREAS, an application known as Nell McGoldrick ("Applicant") to maintenance dredge 1.040 +/- channel within flails Creek extending into Peconic Bay generating approximately 5000 c y. of dredge spoil to be used as beach nourishment; repair, reconstruct or replace ('within 18 inches of existing bulkhead) 223 linear feet 0fbulkhead; repair and rebuild 70 feet of groin at the mouth of Halls Creek extending same an additional 50 feet; and repair/rebuild a second existing groin west of the mouth of Halls Creek ~'"Action"} submitted by En~Consultants, Inc. on February 26, 1991 requires a permit pursuant to Chapter 97 of the Town Code and is an Type I Action pursuant to 6 NYCRR Parl 617 (SEQRA) and Chapter 44 of the Town Code; AND WtlEREAS. the Action was referred to the Conservation Advisory Conncil who recommended approval of proposed action by vote on June 27, 1994~ AN D "WIIEREAS, the Trustees coordinated the Action among all Involved Agencies, declared itself to be Lead Agency and 'ssued a Negat've Declaration on Ociober.~,,""~ 1994, AND WllEREAS. a public hearing was held on November 17, 1994 and all comlnents raised in connection with this Action were considered, AND WIIEREAS, the Aclion complies with the standards set Ibrth in Chapter 97 of the Town Code: NOW liE IT Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. Deerfield Greon, Montauk Highway, P.O. Box 958, Water Mill, New York 11_976-0958 (516) 726-1919 Bruce Anderson, M.S., President TOWN OF November 23, 1994 Mr. Albert Krupski, President Southoid Board of Trustees Town Hall P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 1197! Re: Neil McGoldrick DearMr. Krups~, Attached herewith please find the approval raso~ation for the above referenced application. I assume the Board will be poised to approve this project at hheir next regular meeting of December 22, 1994. Please note that I have provided several special conditions which I believe should be appended to the permit. Please do not hesitate to call this office should you have further questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, Brace A. Anderson RESOLUTION ,Wetla~Tcls - approve or approve w, modification) I TOWN OF $OUTHOLD WItEREAS, an application known as Neil McGoldrick I "Applicant") to maintenance dredge 1.040 +/- channel within Halls Creek extending into Peconic Bay generating approximately 5000 c. y. of dredge spoil to be used as beach nourishment; repair, reconstruct or replace (within 18 inches of existing bulkhead) 223 iinear feet of bulkhead; repair and rebuild 70 feet of groin at the mouth of Halls Creek extending same an additional 50 feet; and repair/rebuild a second existing groin west of the mouth of Halls Creek ("Action") submitted by En-Consultants, Inc. on February 26, 1991 requires a permit pursuant to Chapter 97 of the Town Code and is an Type 1 Action pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617 (SEQRA) and Chapter 44 of the Town Code; AND WltEREAS, the Action was referred to the Conservation Advisory Council who recommended approval of proposed action by vote on June 27, 1994., AND WHEREAS, the Trustees coordinated the Action among all Involved Agencies, declared itself to be Lead Agency and issued a Negative Declaration on October 27, 1994, AND WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on November 17, 1994 and all comments raised in connection with this Action were considered, AND WHEREAS, the Action complies with the standards set forth in Chapter 97 of the Town Code; NOW BE IT RESOLVED_ that the Trustees hereby approve the Action subject to the following conditions: (1) (3) (4) (5) (6) All dredging shall take place between October I st and May 31 st. All spoil generated by the approved dredging shall be deposited as beach nourishment between the high tide mark and the southern edge of existing beach grass on the portion of the McGoldrick Property fronting Peconic Bay ("Spoil Site" I. The deposited spoil will be stabilized by plantings of beach grass t 8 inches on center throughout the Spoil Site. The deteriorated bulkhead at the western side of the mouth of Halls Creek proposed to be let~ in place shall be removed from the site with a new bulkhead constructed landward thereof as proposed. All liabilities associated with the approved project shall rest with the Applicant. Payment of $1.242.50 covering Environmental/SEQRA Review of the Action. EN,CONSULTANTS, INC. 1329 NORTH SEA ROAD, SOUTHAMPTON, NEW YORK 11968 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 516-283-6360 FAX NO. 516-283-6136 November 21, 1994 Southold Town Trustees Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 RE: NEIL MCGOLDRICK - SCTM #1000-116-4-16.4 Dear Trustees: The contractor for the dredging aspect of Mr. McGoldrick's project, James H. Rambo, Inc., calculates the overall yardage of spoil to be removed at 4540 ~ c.y. The inner channel from Mr. McGoldrick's boat basin to the inlet constitutes approximately 460 c.y. with the balance to be removed from the shoaled flat immediately inside the inlet~ I trust that this project will be approved at your next meeting. Ver~; trulw y!]rs, President RLH:jhg cc: Neil McGoldrick Douglas Soffey, Esq. James H. Rambo, Inc. ,~NrD .... ~:' b4Abb .$ HENRY E. RAYNOR PO BOX i459 320 LOVE LANE MATTITUCK, N.Y. 11952 516-298-8420 516-298 2127 (FAX) OF S©UTH D NOV~ 12~ 1994 SOUTHOLD TOWN TRUSTEES MR. ALBERT KRUPSKt, JR. PRES. TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 DEAR MR. KRUPSKI= I AM UNABLE TO ATTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING OF NEIL MC GOLDRICK THIS EVENING~ AS A BOARD OF EDUCATION MEETING iS ALREADY iN PLACE FOR THIS DATE4 i WISH TO EXPRESS MY FAMiLY~'S ENDORSEMENT OF THE APPLICATION BEFORE YOUR BOARD. THIS PROJECT WILL GREATLY AID iN THE TIDAL FLOW OF HALL~S CREEK. HAVING LIVED DIRECTLY TO THE EAST OF HALL~S CREEK CHANNEL FOR THE PAST i2 YEARS, MY FAMILY AND I HAVE SEEN THE DETERiORATiON OF MARINE SHELLFISH, FINFISH~ AND AT TIMES ALMOST COMPLETE STAGNATION OF THiS TOWN CREEK~ THiS PROJECT CAN ONLY HELP THE CiRCULATiON AND REPRODUCTIVE CYCLES OF THIS SMALL ECOSYSTEM, WOULD HOPE THE TRUSTEES WILL MOVE FAVORABLE ON THIS MATTER~ SINCERELY, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. Deerfield Green, Montauk Highway, P.O. Box 958, Water Mill, New York 11976-0958 (516) 726-1919 Fax: (516) 726-4471 Bruce Anderson, M.S., President November 14, 1994 Albert K_mpski, President Southold Board of Trustees P. O. BOX 1179 Southold, NY t 1971 Re: Neil McGo!drick Dear Mr. Krupsld, irow oF sour. o[ Enclosed herewith please find the following materials: (t) (2) (3) Amended Environmental Assessment (Report) Amended EAF Form Part 2; and EAF Form Part 3. The changes set forth in the Environmental Assessment and EAF Form part 2 are in accordance with the Board's recommendations. The EAF Part 3 was drm2ed to address the potentially large erosion impact relating to the placement of spoil. I have taken the position that this potentially large impact can be mitigated by project change to wit, placement of spoil will occur between the high water mark and the edge of beach grass and the spoil will be stabilized by beach grass plantings. Please do not hesitate to call should you have further questions regarding this project. Sincerely, Bruce A. Anderson McGoidrick Proiect Applicant: Neil McGoldrick SCTM: 1000-1164-16.4 Pro|eot Descril0tion: Maintenance dredge channel within Halls Creek and approach channel from Great Peconic Bay. A total of 980 + 1. f. will be dredged. Channel in Peconic bay is to be 75 + feet wide and dug to a depth of 5 ' below MLW plus 1' overcut. Channel in Halls Creek is to be 2' below MLW with 1' overcut. Approximately 6000 c. y. will be hydraulically removed and placed upon owner's land to west of creek mouth above MHW. Project was done previously by SCDPW. Copies of the permits area attached. Multi-year maintenance permit requested. Submitted on February 26, 1991. * Long Form EAF Dated February 26, 1991 attached. Amended Project Descriotion: Maintenance dredge channel within Hall's Creek and approach channel from Great Peconic Bay. A total of 1,040 +_' o£charmel will be dredged. The width of the channel will vary. The outer channel will be 50' wide (pins side slopes) and dug to depth of 5' below mean low water, plus 1' overcut. The inner channel will vary from a minimum of 20' to a maximum of 30' (both plus side slopes) and dug to a depth of 2' + 1' overcut. Approximately 5000 c. y. will be hydraulically removed and placed on owner's beach west of the creek both above and below the lines of mean high water and mean low water for use as beach nourishment. Project was previonsly done by Suffolk County Department of Public Works. Multi-year maintenance permit is requested. Existing bulkhead section nearest residence (14' return, 75') will be replaced within 18". The indented boat. slip consisting of 15~, 24', 31~, 24', will be removed and replaced in kind. The remain'mg two sections, 20' and 10' return will be replaced within 18". At the inlet to the creek, the 70' groin on the west side of the inlet, will be re-piled and repaired and extended 50'. The 160' section of bulkhead immediately to the north of the groin will be removed and replaced in kind and in place. The final northerly section of bulkhead will be left in place and a new 40~ section, plus remm will be constructed landward of the marsh that has grown behind the existing bulkhead. An existing 80' groin west of the inlet will be repiled and repaired. Long Environmental Assessment Form submitted therewith. Southold CAC recommends action be denied and instead be treated as a new dredging project by resolution dated April 4, 1991. NYSDEC Lead Agency request received indicating that the Department has no objection to the Southold Trustees serving as Lead Agency dated April 11, 1991. * NYSDOS Request for Additional Information stating in part that a portion of the proposed dredging constitutes new dredging. Correspondence from En-Consultants to NYSDOS dated April 17, 1991, conceding that Suffolk County Department of Public Works Project did not include the westerly of the channel which is proposed in this application and that no documentation apparently exists demonstrating that this section was previously dredged. Correspondence from En-Consultants to Trustees dated May 10, 1991 disclosing previous permits issued by the NYSDEC and Army Corps of Engineers permitting the dredging of 1500 feet of existing channel in Halls creek into Great Pecohic Bay generating 20,000 cubic yards of spoil used as beach spoil east and west of the inlet. Accompanying sketch indicates that the channel did not extent to McGoldrick indented boat port. Lead Agency Coordination Request from the Trustees dated June 10, 1994 to the NYSDEC, Army Corps of Engineers, DOH, CAC. Correspondence dated June 17, 1994 from NYSDOS to the Trustees stating no objection to the Trustees assuming Lead Agency. CAC recommend approval of the project as proposed by vote on June 27, 1994. Environmental Impact Review Dredging: There has been some regulatory confusion pertaining to whether or not McGoldrick Proposal constitutes new or maintenance dredging. File review uncovered a permit issued by the NYSDEC for the dredging of a 1500 foot channel extending to the Deep Hole Creek Channel. The instant proposal includes the dredging of 1,040 feet of channel. The difference between the former and present proposal is that the present proposal, if implemented, extends the channel to the boat port at the McGoldrick Property whereas the former project extended the channel further out into Pecohic Bay. Approximately 190 feet of dredging from the McGoldrick boat port eastwards toward the mouth of Hails Creek represents new dredging, with the remaining 850 feet of channel representing maintenance dredging. Field inspections of the McGoldrick Property and Halls Creek conducted on October 17, 1994 and October 21, 1994 revealed significant formation of sandy flats at the mouth of Halls Creek extending into Peconic Bay as well as the southern portion of Hails Creek adjacent to the barrier spit which is part of the McGoldrick upland parcel. Surface waters depths overlying the spit rage from zero to less than one foot at mid fide. Surface water to the west and north of the spit are approximately three to four feet and may increase with increasing distance from the spit as one travels north. This means that the flat formation constricts tidal flow and water exchange into and out Halls Creek. It is Groin Reconstruction: The instant proposal includes the reconstruction of the existing 70 foot groin located at the western shorefront at the mouth of the inlet, and further extension of same an additional 50 feet. Field inspections of the site revealed flat formation extending at least 100 feet out into Peconic Bay. In fact, the low water mark extends to the terminus of the existing groin. It therefore appears necessary to extend the groin further out into Peconic Bay as a means of preventing the immediate filling in of the dredged charmel. The proposed extension of 50 feet is minimal and necessary in protecting any newly created channel at this location. The instant proposal calls for the reconstruction of a second groin located to the west of the groin at the iulet mouth. This groin has been effective in trapping sand which is carried along with the prevailing fittoral drift from west to east. However, this groin has undergone significant deterioration. Thus, its reconstruction and repair appears to be warranted. Bulkhead Reconstruction: Most of the proposed bulkhead reconslzuction is described as in kind or in place or within 18 inches of an existing bulkhead. However, the proposal includes the construction of a new bulkhead 40 feet long with a 10 foot remm landward of an exist'rog deteriorated bulkhead at the mouth of Halls Creek. The deteriorated bulkhead would be left in place. It is recommended that the deteriorated bulkhead be removed for reasons of public safety, aesthetics and to induce an unbroken stand of Spartina alterniflora between the newly constructed bulkhead and the creek shoreline. Ownershio Submitted with the application is a photocopy ora deed which details Mr. McGoldrick's ownership of a portion of Halls Creek. The deed discloses that Mr. McGoldrick owns underwater lands to the center line of Halls Creek extending to MHW at Peconic Bay. However, a Certificate of Title other, vise known as an Owner's Search guaranteed by a Licensed New York Title Company is what is needed to more clearly establish ownership of the underwater lands of Halls Creek. Additionally, the deed makes referenced to a 1917 Survey which was referred to a recorded survey of Otto W. Van Tyle and Son dated March 25, 1951. If the owner's search reveals that Mr. McGoldrick does in fact own the underwater lands as described in the deed, then the boundaries of the privately owned underwater lands as depicted on the March 25, 1951 Survey should be transferred onto the survey accompanying this application, The issue of ownership of underwater lands is separate and apart from the environmental issues related to this proposed project. However, the ownership issue is key in assessing the required dredging fees, if any, owed by the Applicant. Amended report based upon Trustee Review: November 14, 1994 IMPACT ON WATER 3. will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? IUnder Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) [E]NO ~ayEs Examples that would apply to column 2 · Developable area of site contains a protected water body. * Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. · Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. ~ Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. ~ Other impacts: 4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water~ WNO BYES Examples that would aPply to column 2 · A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. e Construction Of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. · Other impacts: :; 5 Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? E]NO IIYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. · Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed-(proiect) action. · Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. · Construction or operation causing: any contamination of a water supply system. · Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. · Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. · Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day. · Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. · Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. · Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer s6rvices. · ProPosed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. ~ Other impacts:~OPc~.~E'D DIP~G.IA)G- WILL 6 Wilt proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? ~NO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action would change flood water flows. 1 Small to Moderate Impact O [] [] O O O O O O O O O O O O O 2 Potential Large Impact O [] [] O O O [] O O O [] O O O O O O O 3 Can Impact B~ Mitigated By Project Change OYes {:]No []Yes J~]No OYes ONo OYes ONo OYes I-]No I-lYes ONo OYes ONo OYes ONo OYes ONo OYes ONo OYes ONo OYes [-]No OYes ONo OYes ONo OYes ONo OYes ONo OYes ONo OYes ONo OYes [:]No OYes ONo []Yes ONo Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. Other impacts: _ IMPACT ON AIR Will proposed action affect air quahty? liNC E3YES Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour. Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. Proposed action wi]l allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial use. Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development within existing industrial areas. Other impacts: 1 Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large Impact [] 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change WYes ~]No []Yes ]No ~7]Yes ~]No [Yes []Yes ~]No [~Yes []No E~Yes UNo ~7]Yes [~No ~Yes [~No []Yes ~]No IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS Will Proposed Action affect ,~ny threatened or endangered species? ' E3NO lYES l~xampies that would apply to Column 2 Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes. Other impacts: Will Proposed Action substantially affect nomthreatened or non-endangered species? E3NO ilIYES ~×amples that would 'apply to column 2 Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. Proposed Action requires the removal of more than~lO acres of mature forest (over 100 years of age)*or other locally important vegetation. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10 Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? IIINO E]YES Examples that would apply to column 2 [he proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural [and (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) II © [] ]No ~Yes [~No []Yes ]No ~]Yes ]No ~]Yes ~Yes ~]No []Yes ~]No Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land. 'fha proposed action would irreversibl~ convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or. if located in an Agricultutal District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural land management sl stems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches. strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) Other impacts: Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large Impact 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change byes E3No [~Yes [~No ~]Yes [~]No ~]Yes [~No IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11 Will proposed action affect aestheQc resources? INO []YES Hf necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Secuon 617.21 Appendix B.) Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed land uses or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man*made or natural "' Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which wilt eliminate or significantly reduce their enioyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. · Proiect components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. · Other impacts: [~Yes ~No ~Yes ~]Yes ~]No ~Yes [~]No IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action ir~pact any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance? m~NO E~YES Examples that would apply to column 2 ' Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any faciht¥ 9r site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. · Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. · Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archaeologica] sites on the NYS Site Inventory. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13 Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? IExamples that would apply to column 2 [NO ~IYES ' The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. A maior reduction of an open space important to the community. Other impacts: ~t~-o~'~ ~;:~[~.o,~;' ~,t~'~ ~ ~ I~ [~Yes E~JNo [~Yes [~]No [~Yes ~]No [~Yes ~]No ~Yes ~]No [~Yes [~]No [~Yes ~No IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION Will there he an effect to existing transportation systems? ENO lYES Examples that would apply to column 2 Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. Other impacts: ~'l'l~Ola~c.c.c.c.c.c.c.c.c.c~EC~ IMPACT ON ENERGY 15 Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? INO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in t!:e use of any form of energy in the municipality. Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 Jingle or two family residences or to serve a maior commercial or industrial use. Other impacts: NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16 will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? INn DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. ~ Odors wilt occur routinely (more than one hour per day). Proposed Action will produce" operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. P~oposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. Other impacts: Small to Moderate Impact [] [] 2 Potential Large Impact [] El [] 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change []Yes [~No ~]Yes J~]No J~]Yes [~No ~Yes E~No E~]Yes [~]Yes [~]No ~]Yes [~Yes ~]No ~]Yes [~No UYes ~]No UYes t~]No IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17 will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? 1NO E3YES Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic Iow level discharge or emission. Proposed Action may'~esult in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any form (i.el toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) Storage facilities for one mil/ion or more gallons of liquified natural ~as or other flammable liquids. Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. Other impacts: []Yes [~No E~Yes J~]No l-lYes J~]No [~Yes J~]NO [~]Yes 10 IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD lg Will pr•posed action affect the character of the existlng community? JlINO ~YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the [] proiect is located is likely to grow by more than 5%. · The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services [] will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. · Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. [] · Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. [] · Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures [] or areas of historic importance to the community. · Development will create a demand for additional community services [] (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) e Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. [] · Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. [] · Other impacts: [] Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large Impact [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change []Yes •No []Yes •No []Yes []No []Yes []No [~Yes []No []Yes []No []Yes []No [~Yes []No []Yes []No 19. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse en'~[ronmental impacts? IN• ~]YES If Any Action in Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 Part 3--EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of Lead Agency Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(s) is considered to be potentially large, even if the impact(s] may be mitigated. Instructions Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1. Briefly describe the impacL '2. Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s). 3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important. To answer the question of importance, consider: · The probability of the impact occurring · The duration.of the impact · Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value · Whether the impact can or will be controlled · The regional consequence of the impact · Its potential divergence from local needs and goals · Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. (Continue on attachments) 11 Environmental Assessment Form Part The Environmental Assessment Form Part 2 identified one potentially large impact. That is, that the proposed action may cause substantial erosion. The potentially large erosion impact relates specifically to the proposed placement of dredge spoil between the high and low water marks on the barrier spit along the shoreline of Pecoulc Bay. The concern is based upon the fact that regular tidal action would inundate the newly placed dredge spoil (during high tide) thereby carrying out at least a portion of the dredge spoil into Pecoulc Bay. This potentially large environmental impact can be mitigated by project change. The Environmental Assessment of the proposed project, as amended November 14, 1994, discloses that a zone exists between the high water mark and the edge of the beach grass on the barrier spit. This zone is of sufficient size as to accommodate spoil placement. Thus, an amended project scope which utilizes this zone for spoil placement would reduce the erosion of this spoil area because this zone is not subject to regular tidal inundation. In fact, by correspondence from Roy Haje of Eh-Consultants, Inc. to the Board of Trustees dated October 28, 1994, the application amended his proposal placing the spoil above the high water mark. In addition, the stabilization of the spoil site by plantings of beach grass one foot on center would prevent erosion of the spoil site that otherwise would result during more extreme tides. Therefore, a project change provid'mg for the placement of spoil between the high water mark and the edge of beach grass on the barrier spit as well as stabilization of the spoil site by beach grass plantings reduce this potentially large erosion impact to one that is small to moderate. Albert J. Kmpski, President John Holzapfel, Vice President William G. Albertson Martin H. Garretl Peter Wenczel BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-t292 Fax (516) 765-1823 ~ NYS Department of Environmental Conservation SUNY Building 40, Room 219 Sony Brook, NY 11790 October 27, 1994 To Whom It MaY Concern: Please be advised that the Southold Town Trustees accepted Lead Agency for the action known as Neil McGoldrick during their regular meeting of October 27, 1994. Location of Action~ End of Right of Way off New Suffolk Avenue, Hamlet of Cutchogue, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York. Activities taking place on or adjacent to Peconic Bay and Halls Creek. Description of Action: Applicant proposes to maintenance dredge 850 feet of channel in Halls Creek extending into Peconic Bay and conduct new dredging 190 feet inside Halls Creek generating approximately 5t000 cubic yard of spoil to be used as beach nourishment; repair, reconstruct or replace (within 18 inches of existing bulkhead) 223 linear feet of bulkhead; repair and rebuild 70 feet of groin at the mouth of Halls Creek extending same an additional 50 feet; and repair/rebuild an existing groin. Any comments received from your Agency will be'considered and incorporated into our environmental assessmen¢ of this proposed Action. Sincerely, Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. Deerfield Green, Montauk Highway, P.O. Box 958, Water Mill, New York 11976-0958 (516) 726-1919 Fax: (516) 726-4471 Bruce Anderson, M.S., President October 22, t994 Southold Board of Trustees Town Hall P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 1197t Re: Wetlands Permit - McGoldrick Dear Board Members, As requested, I have completed my preliminary review of the above referenced application. Transmitted herewith please find the following materials for your review and consideration: (4) (2) (3) (4) Resolution to accept Lead Agency; Transmittal Letter to all Involved Agencies informing them of the Trustees acceptance of Lead Agency also requesting input from Involved Agencies; Dra~ Environmental Assessment Form, Part 2; Environmental Assessment (Report) on the environmental impacts for the proposed action; and Draft SEQR Notice of Determination of Non-Significance. I recommend that the Board assume Lead Agency for this action during their next regular meeting of October 27, 1994 with the understanding that the Board will determine the environmental significance and schedule the requisite public hearing during their next regular meeting in November. In the meantime, the Board will have had an adequate opportunity to review the Environmental Assessment Form, Part 2 along with the Environmental Assessment (Report) for this Action. Please do not hesitate to contact this office should you have further questions regarding this project. Sincerely, Bruce A. Anderson WltEREAS. an application for a Wetlands Permit to maintenance dredge 850 feet of channel in Halls Creek extending into Peconic Bay and conduct new dredging of 190 feet inside Halls Creek generating approximately 5000 cubic yards of spoil to be used as beach nourishmem, repmr, reconstruct or replace (within 18 inches of existing bulkhead) 223 linear feet of bulkhead' repair and rebuild 70 feet of groin at the mouth of Halls Creek extending same an additional 50 feet; and repair/rebuild an existing groin ("Action") was submitted by En-Consultams, Inc. on February 26, 1991; AND WItEREAS, the Action was coordinated among all Involved Agencies on June 10, 1994; AND WHEREAS. none of the Involved Agencies have expressed interest in assuming Lead Agency for this Action: NOW BE IT FURTItER RESOLVED. that each Involved Agency be informed of the acceptance of Lead Agency by the Southold Board of Trustees by transmittal of this resolution. October 27, 1994 Thomas Jorling, Commissioner~ NYS Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road Albany. NY 12233 Dear Commissioner Jofling, Please be advised that the Southold Town Trustees accepted Lead Agency for the action known as Nell McGoldrick during their regular meeting of October 27, 1994. Location of Action: End of Right of Way off New Suffolk Avenue. Hamlet of Cutchogue, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York. Activities taking place on or adjacent to Peconic Bay and Halls Creek~ Description of Action: Applicant proposes to maintenance dredge 850 feet of channel in Halls Creek extending into Peconic Bay and conduct new dredging 190 feet inside Halls Creek generating approximately 5000 cubic yard of spoil to be used as beach nourishment; repair, reconstruct or replace (within 18 inches of existing bulkhead) 223 linear feet of bulkhead; repair and rebuild 70 feet of groin at the mouth of Halls Creek extending same an additional 50 feet; and repair/rebuild an existing ~oin. Any comments received from your Agency will be considered and incorporated into our environmental assessment of this proposed Action. Sincerely, Albert Krupski, Jr., President * ~bstitute as appropriate.for each invoh,ed (permit gra~tit~g) aget~c),; includ#~g COE, NFSDOS and Southold Supervisor State Environmental Quality Review Negative Declaration Notice of Determination of Non-Significance This notice is issued pursuam to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law and Chapter 44 of the Southold Towel Code. The Southold Board of Trustees, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. Name of Action: Nell McGoldrick SEQRA Status: _X Type 1 Unlisted Conditioned Negative Declaration: Yes ~X No Description of Action: Applicant proposes to maintenance dredge 850 feet of channel in Halls Creek extending into Peconlc Bay and conduct new dredging of 190 feet inside Halls Creek generating approximately 5000 cubic yards of spoil to be used as beach nourishment. Applicant also proposes to repair, reconstruct or replace (within 18 inches of existing bulkhead) 223 linear feet of bulkhead Applicant proposes to repair and rebuild 70 feet of groin at the mouth of Halls Creek extending same an additional 50 feet. Applicant proposes to repair/rebuild an existing 80 foot groin. Reasons in support of the Negative Declaration: An environmental assessment and environmental assessment form did not identify any impacts which are potentially large. Furthermore: the Environmental; Assessment of the project revealed that the proposed action will increase tidal flushing into and out of Halls Creek with the corresponding benefits of improved water quality and shellfish sets. Location: End of Right of Way off New Suffolk Avenue, Hamlet of Cutchogue, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State ofNew York. Activities taking placeon or adjacent to Peconic Bay and Halls Creek. Contact Person: Albert Krupski, Jr., President Address: Southold Board of Trustees Town Hall P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11871 A Copy of this Notice has been sent to*: NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Commissioner NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Re~onal Director Town of Southold, Supervisor Suffolk County Department of Health Services NYS Department of State US Army Corps o£Engineers Applicant Town of Southold, Planning Board, ZBA Environmental News Bulletin Date of Determination: November 17, 1994 By order of The Southold Board of Trustees, Albert Krupski, Jr., President. EN-CONSULTANTS, iNC. 1329 NORTH SEA ROAD, SOUTHAMPTON, NEW YORK 11968 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES OF $OUTHO[D 516-283-6360 FAX NO. 516-283-6136 October 28, 1994 Board of Trustees Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 RE: NEIL McGOLDRICK, Private Road off New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck Dear Trustees: Pursuant to the discussion at your October 27, 1994, meeting, we wish to amend the location of the spoil so that it will be placed between the southerly edge of the beach grass and the line of mean high water on the property of Mr. McGoldrick. None of the material will now be placed below mean high water. By copy of this questing other similar action. RLH:KD Enclosures letter and revised wOrk plan, I am re- involved regulatory agencies to take cc: NYSDEC, Laura Scovazzo - ~1-4738-00265 COE, Sophie Ettinger - ~91-0186-L2 NYSDOS, Walter Meyer - ~F-91-125 Neil McGoldrick Douglas Soffey, Esq. James H. Rambo, Inc. D ,,. 1 IVOR7 cd ? Albert J. Krupski, President John Holzapfel, Vice President William G. Albertson Martin H. Gan-ell Peter Wenczel BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1892 Fax (516) 765-1823 ~, S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT APPLICATION NO. 1000-116-4-16.4 Chapt. NAME: Nell McGoldrick Chapt. DATE: October 28, 1994 97 - Wetlands 37 - Coastal Erosion RESOLVED that pursuant to Article 8 of the EnvironmentaI Conservation Law, State Environmental Quality Review and 6NYCRR Part 617, Section 617.10 and Chapter 44 of the Code of the Town of Southold, notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Trustees, as Lead Agency for the action described below, has determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also hav~ an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: Type: Unlisted DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Applicant requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge channel within Hall's Creek and approach channel from Great Peconic Bay. ~ total of 1,040'+/- of channel will be dredged. The width of the channel will vary. The outer channel will be 50' wide (plus side slopes) and dug to depth of 5' below mean low water, plus 1' overcut. The inner channel will vary from a minimum of 20' to a maximum of 30' (both plus side slopes) and dug to a depth of 2', +1' overcut. Approximately 5,000 c.y. will be hydraulically removed and placed on owner's beach west of the creek both above and below the lines of mean high and mean low water for use as beach nourishment . Project was previously done by Suffolk County Department of Public Works. Multi-year maintenance permit is requested. Existing bulkhead section nearest residence (14' return, 75') will be replaced within 18". The indented boat slip consisting of 15', 24', 31', 24', 10' will be removed and replaced in kind. The remaining two sections, 20' and 10' return will be replaced within 18". At the inlet to the creek, the 70' groin on the west side of the inlet, will be re-piled and repaired and extended 50'. The 160' section of bulkhead immediately to the north of the groin will be removed and replaced in kind and in place. The final northerly section of bulkhead will be left in place and a new 40' section, plus i0' return will be constructed landward of the marsh that has grown behind the existing bulkhead. An existing 80' groin west of the inlet will be re-piled and repaired. Location private road off New Suffolk Ave., Mattituck. LOCATION: SCTM $1000-116-4-16.4 REASONS SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: t. An on site inspection has been conducted by the Board of Trustees. 2. An environmental assessment, submitted by the applicant and reviewed and completed by the Board of Trustees, has indicated that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should the project be implemented as planned. cc. CAC ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate, lying and being at Mattituck, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the center line of a 20 foot right of way where the southerly line of lands now or formerly of Paust intersects the center line of said 20 foot right of way; THENCE from said point of beginning running along the southerly line of lands now or formerly of Paust North 87 degrees 58 minutes 00 seconds East 190 feet, more or less, to the ordinary high water mark of Hall's Harbor; THENCE on a prolongation of said line on the same course last mentioned to the center line of Hall's Creek; THENCE RUNNING along the center line of Hall's Creek as shown on the "1917 survey" referred to in recorded survey of Otto W. Van Tuyl & Son dated March 20, 1951, in a general southeasterly direction to the ordinary high water mark of Great Peconic Bay; THENCE along the ordinary high water mark of Great Peconic Bay in a general southwesterly direction on a tie line South 55 degrees 37 minutes 50 seconds West 640 feet, more or less, to the center line of the 20 foot right of way above mentioned; THENCE along the said 20 foot right of way the following three (3) courses and distances: 1) North 15 degrees 06 minutes 20 seconds West 275.0 feet; 2) North 6 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds West 195.63 feet, and 3) North 0 degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds West 60.0 feet to the point or place of beginning. TOGETHER with all the right, title and interest of the parties of the first part of, in and to a certain island lying in said Hall's Creek, in Hall's Creek or Mud Creek Channel, and in Peconic Bay lying between high and low water marks. TOGETHER with all the right, title and interest, if any, of the parties of the first part, in and to the lands lying below the high water mark of Hall's Creek and the Great Peconic Bay, in front of and/or abutting the premises hereinabove described. Board of Trustees -2- October 25, 1994 certified "until a trend in water quality improvement can be documented demonstrating that the [creek] should be reclassified as certified for the harvest of shellfish". It can be hypothesized that the poor water quality of Halls Creek is the result of: 1) direct fecal contamination by upland wildlife such as deer and raccoons, or waterfowl; 2) runoff from storm drains directed into the creek; 3) point or nonpoint source discharge into headwaters; 4) a combination of the above. Regardless of which cause(s) is attributing to the influx of coliforms into Halls Creek, the continued shoaling of the creek's mouth and resultant reduced flushing by the waters of Peconic Bay are limiting the potential for reduced concentrations of these bacteria. Therefore, it is likely consequently increasing cleanse the creek and bacteria therein. that dredging Halls Creek and its flushing rate will help to reduce the concentrations of yct~ yours, Enclosure: "Review of Water Quality Data", NYSDEC cc: Neil McGoldrick Doug Soffey, Esq. REVIEW OF W~TER QUALITY DATA GREAT PECONIC BAY SHELLFISH GROWING AREA~28 1990 - 1993 DATA APRIL 1994 STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION BUILDING #40t SUNY CAMPUS STONY BROOK, NEW YORK 11790-2356 I~ i~TRODUCTION/AREA DESCRIPTION This report reviews the water quality data collected from Great Peconic Bay, Shellfish Growing Area (SGA) ~28, and makes recon~mendations for a change in classification for a 9 acre portion of the Bay. Great Peconic Bay is bordered by Flanders Bay and Little Peconic Bay between the North and South Forks of Long Island. The Bay is located within the Towns of Riverhead, Southampton and Southold, in the County of Suffolk (~IGU~E 1). The average depth of Great Peconic Bay is 20 feet with an average tidal range of approximately 3 feet. The physical characteristics of the bay (large area, depth and tidal range) result in a strong flushing rate following periods of local rainfall. The Great Peconic Bay SGA contains approximately 19,060 acres. Approximately 100 acres of this growing area are uncertifLed for shellfish harvesting. Of the 100 acres closed, 68 are seasonally uncertified for shellfish harvesting from April 1st through December 14th. These shellfish lands are open to harvesting each year from December i5th through March 31st. Tributaries which may effect the water quality of Great Peconic Bay are: East Creek, Brushs Creek, Horton Creek, James Creek, Deep Hole Creek, Halls Creek, Downs Creek, West Creek, Sebonac Creek Complex, Cold Spring Pond, Shinnecock Canal, Squire Pond and Red Creek (FIGURE 2). The SGA classification of each tributary is listed in (TABLE 1) Sebonac Creek Complex (SGA #61), Cold Spring Pond (SGA #62) and Shinnecock Canal (SGA #10) are separate shellfish growing areas. These areas will be evaluated in separate water quality reports. The Peconic River flows into Flanders Bay approximately five miles west of Great Peconic Bay. The Riverhead Sewage Treatment Plant outfall flows into the Peconic River approximately one mile west of where the river meets Flanders Bay. Great Peconic Bay flows into Little Peconic Bay, through the north and south "races" by Robins Island, which drains into Gardiners Bay. Shinnecock Bay is connected to Great Peconic Bay by the Shinnecock Canal located near the south central part of the bay. Great Peconic Bay is tidally influenced by Flanders Bay, Little Peconic Bay and Shinnecock Bay. Great Peconic Bay supports a significant number of recreational boaters during the warm weather months (May to September) of the year. Access to the south shore of Long Island Bay (Shinnecock Bay) through the Shinnecock Canal has increased boating activity in Great Peconic Bay. Marina facilities are located in East Creek, James Creek, Sebonac Creek, Cold Spring Pond and Shinnecock Canal. James Creek, Sebonac Creek and Cold Spring Pond are all seasonally closed to shellfish harvesting when the marinas are active. East Creek and Shinnecock Canal are uncertified throughout the year preventing any shellfish harvesting in the vicinity of their respective marinas. Large populations of migratory waterfowl frequent Great Peconic Bay during the cold weather months (October to April) of the year. Waterfowl are a potential pollution source through direct fresh fecal discharge into shellfish growing area waters. Water sampling is conducted during the winter migratory months to monitor any effect the waterfowl may have on the growing area. Two ~nderwater lots used to receive transplanted shellfish are located near the northern end of Robins Island. These lands are owned by Mr. John Scott. Under direct supervision of the Bureau of Shellfisheries, Shellfish Management Unit, shellfish are harvested from designated uncertified growing areas (e.g. Raritan Bay) and transplanted to these certified lots (FIGURE Z) for natural biological cleansing. Sampling stations have been created to routinely monitor the water quality by these lots (FIGURE 3). II. MAP OF SA/~PLI~G STATIONS Water sampling stations are located throughout the Great Peconic Bay SGA (FIGURE 3). Sampling stations are located near actual and potential pollution sources which may adversely affect the water quality of the SGA. The majority of sampling stations in Great Peconic Bay are located near the mouths of tributary creeks which receive the discharge from storm drains during local rainfall events. These sampling stations have been established to monitor the impact of the tributary creeks on the water quality of the bay during these events. It has been.documented that stormwater runoff is a significant contributor of bacterial loading into the surface waters of shellfish growing areas. Continued shoreline development often results in increased non-point source runoff which may degrade water quality in locally affected areas. 3 The pollution sources for the Great Peconic Bay SGA nave not changed since the last Water Quality Report written Ln March 1991 ("Review of 1988 - 1991 Water Qualitv Data, Great Peconic Bev Shellfish Growinq Area ~28"). A complete listing of the pollution sources which have the potential to affect the Great Peconic Bay Shellfish Growing Area is contained in "Shoreline Survey Report Great Peconic Bay Shellfish Growing Area 28, April 1991". III. SAMPLING PLAN AND JUSTIFICATION A. Adverse Poliution Condition Samplinq Ail New York State shellfish growing areas must be sampled a minimum of five times per year under adverse pollution conditions (APC). APC sampling is defined as collecting water samples on an ebbing tide within 96 hours of a rainfall event between 0.25 to 2.99 inches. A rainfall event of 3.0 inches or greater in a continuous 24 to 36 hour period is considered an "excess rain" condition, In the event of an "excess rain" condition the affected growing area is temporarily closed to all shellfish harvesting. This procedure is discussed in greater detail in SECTION IV of this report. Precipitation data were collected daily at the following locations and times: (1) Riverhead Sewage Treatment Facility by Town Personnel (-0800 hours); (2) South Jamesport by Cornell Cooperative Extension Agent Tom Kowalsick (-0730 hours). These data are used to determine if AFC exist and if sampling would be appropriate. Rainfall variations have been documented throughout Long Island. Local rainfall events occurring in isolated portions of Long Island sometimes make AFC water sampling determinations difficult. When available, rain gauge readings from adjacent areas (Peconic, Southold and Southampton College, Southampton) are used to check the geographical distribution for a specific rainfall event. B. MeteoroloGical and HydroGraphic Effects and Variabi!itv in Data The variability of rainfall will affect the bacterial loading into a growing area. As was stated earlier in this report stormwater runoff is a major contributor of bacterial loading into surface waters. A rainfall event in the one to three inch range will have a greater negative impact on the growing area than one of less than an inch. 4 to the rainfall amount in TABLE 3 to ensure exclusion from the NSSP statistical analysis. The Bureau of Shellfisheries has adopted a strategy to temporarily close shellfish growing areas which have been affected by an "Excess Rain" event. This strategy was instituted because of the extraordinarily adverse effect caused by the quantity of runoff generated from a rainfall event of this magnitude. In this case an "Emergency Closure" is declared and any growing area affected is temporarily closed to all shellfish harvesting until it can be determined that water quality again meets certified growing area standards. Both the "Dry" and "Excess Rain" conditions are excluded from the APe analysis. V. SAMPLING RESULTS AND AREA CLASSIFICATION: The NSSP statistical analysis for the Great Peconic Bay Shellfish Growing Area is shown in TABLE 4. All water samples for this analysis were collected under APO. A review of the 1990 to 1993 water quality data for Great Peconic Bay shows that sampling stations #6, #TA, ~TB, #8, #SA, ~9 fail to meet the NSSP criteria for certified shellfish growing areas (TABLE 4). Stations #6 and ~7A are currently uncertified for shellfish harvesting throughout the year. Stations #8, #SA and #9 are currently uncertified for the May 1st through December t4th period of the year and station #TB is in the certified portion of Great Peconic Bay. The NSSP statistical analysis shows that station #gB fails the TC criteria and marginally passes the FC criteria for year-round certified shellfish lands. Conversely, station #9C fails the FC criteria and marginally passes the TC criteria for year-round certified shellfish lands. Statiens #gB and #9C continue to fail the criteria for certified shellfish lands during the May through November period. Both #gB and #90 are currently seasonally uncertified to shellfish harvesting from May 1st through December 14th. It should be noted that sampling stations ~gA and #10A continue to marginally pass the NSSP criteria for certified shellfish growing areas. A continued degradation of water quality at these sampling stations will require a change in their growing area classification. Seasonal Area Analysis: A seasonal analysis of the stations which fail the 6 certified growing area criteria demonstrates that all meet the criteria for the November through May certified (open) period except station ~TA (TABLE 5). VI. CONCLUSIONS AND GROWING AREA RECOMMENDATIONS: The water quality of the Great Peconic Bay SGA has remained relatively consistent since the last analysis in 1991, with one exception. This report recommends a change in classification for 9 acres of Great Peconic Bay adjacent to the mouth of Brushs Creek. Station #TA fails the NSSP criteria for certified shellfish lands and should remain uncertified year-round for the harvest of shellfish. Sampling station #TB now fails the year-round criteria for certified growing areas but meets the criteria for the November through May period. It is recommended that a year-round closure be established extending 500 feet from the entrance to Brushs Creek (FIGURE 5). Water quality will be monitored at sampling stations #TA and #7E to check on the proposed closure. This proposed closure will reclassify approximately 9 acres of certified shellfish lands as uncertified year-round. Water quality at sampling station #6 (East Creek) continues to fail the NSSP criteria for certified shellfish lands. During the cold weather months of the year water quality improves in East Creek. A Conditional Shellfish Harvesting Program has been operated in East Creek for the December through April period of 1992/93 and 1993/94. This program allows the harvesting of shellfish from this uncertified area under restricted rainfall conditions (APPENDIX 1). Additional sampling stations have been established to monitor East Creek (FIGURE 4). If a consistent trend in water quality improvement is demonstrated, the area may be upgraded to seasonal certification status. · Bacteriological water quality at stations #8, #SA and #9 continues to fail the year-round NSSP criteria for certified growing areas but meets the criteria during the November through May period (TABLE 5). It is recommended that these stations retain their current classification as seasonally certified from May 1st through December 14th, annually. Stations #gE and #9C, which are currently seasonally uncertified from May 1st through December 14th, now mar~inallv satisfy the criteria for certified shellfish 7 lands. Station #9C is located within Deep Hole Creek. The station at the mouth of the Creek (#9) continues to fail the year-round certified criteria for shellfish lands. It is recommended that stations #gB and #9C remain seasonally certified until a trend in water quality improvement can be documented demonstrating that the creeks should be reclassified as certified for the harvest of shellfish. Water quality at sampling stations #9A and #10A continue to marginally meet the NSSP criteria for certified shellfish growing areas. The degradati6n of water quality at these stations was also noted in the last evaluation of the growing area ("Review of 1988 - 1991 Water Quality Data, Great Peconic Bav Shellfish Growina Area #28"') A continuation of the water quality degradation may require a downgrading in classification for this growing area. The remaining sampling stations in the certified portion of Great Peconic Bay meet the NSSP criteria for certified shellfish growing areas and should remain open for the harvest of shellfish. Bacteriological water quality for the Great Peconic Bay Shellfish Growing Area will continue to be routinely monitored throughout the year. The area recommended for reclassification and areas which marginally satisfy the certified growing area criteria will be monitored for water quality improvement or degradation which may necessitate subsequent action. Supplemental changes in growing area classification will be addressed in future water quality evaluation reports. PREPARED BY: Christopher J. LaPorta Marine Resources Specialist April 1994 28wQ.94 TABLE 1: SHELLFISH GROWING AREA CLASSIFICATION OF THE GREAT PECONIC BAY SGA TRIBUTARIES. NAME OF TRIBUTARY Brushs Creek Cold Spring Pond Shellfish Growing Area ~62 Deep Hole Creek Downs Creek East Creek Halls Creek Hortons Creek James Creek Red Creek Pond Sebonac Creek Shellfish Growing Area ~61 Shinnecock Canal Shellfish Growing Area ~10 Squires Pond West Creek SHELLFISH GROWING AREA CLASSIFICATION Uncertified Seasonally Uncertified: May 15 through October 15 Seasonally Uncertified: April 1 through December 14 Certified Uncertified Seasonally Uncertified: April 1 through December 14 Certified Seasonally Uncertified: April 1 through December 14 Certified Seasonally Uncertified: May 1 through November 30 Uncertified Certified Certified 9 ~o~o~o~o~oo~oooo~o~s~~r..... . .. . Record# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 TABLE 3 - Great Pecon:~ ~Bay 1990 - 1993 Environmental ] ~abase DATE TIDE R0 24 0i/25/90 EBB 0Hi0 05/17/90 LE 1.25 06/20/90 HE ~ 0.00 07/03/90 EBB 0.00 07/'i3/90 ME 1.00 07/17/90 ME 0.00 09/17/90 HE 0.30 09/18/90 HE 0.00 09/27/90 ME 0.50 12/11/90 ME-LE 0.00 01/10/9! ME-LE 0.80 02/08/91 ME-LE 0.25 03/13/9i HE-ME 0.00 03/22/91 LE 0.00 03/25/91 HE 0.10 04/23/91 ME-LE 0.10 04/24/91 HE 0.00 05/03/91 LE 0.00 05/07/91 ME 0.35 05/09/91 LE-LS 0.00 06/06/91 ME 0.20 06/13/91 HE 0.40 06/20/91 ME 0.25 07/08/91 HE 0.15 07/18/91 LE 0.00 08/20/91 ME 2.95 11/13/91 LE 0.00 05/11/92 HE 0.10 07/09/92 HE 0.30 08/11/92 ME 0.00 09/08/92 ME 0.42 11/05/92 HE 0.00 12/15/92 FL 10.00 12/18/92 LE 0.80 03/30/93 LE-LF 0.00 04/28/93 ME-LE 0.00 07/28/93 HE 1.20 09/22/93 ME 3.50 09/23/93 ME 0.00 10/14/93 HE 0.00 12/01/93 HS-HE 0.00 R24 48 0Hi0 ,0.00 0.25 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0 00 0 00 0 35 0 4O 0 10 0 35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.10 0.10 0.00 1.90 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.20 3.50 1.25 0.00 R48 72 0H00 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.05 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 1.00 0.40 0 50 0 O0 0 35 0 80 0 00 0 00 0 25 0 00 0 00 0 40 0 80 0.00 0.40 0.00 1.02 0.20 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.20 0.00 1.70 R72 96 0~t5 0.25 0.00 1.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 O0 0 O0 0 2O 10 O0 0 O0 0 O0 APC WINDIR W!NDVEL NO 0 YES* ESE 15 YES 0 YES 0 YES 0 NO 0 YES* WNW 20 YES* WNW 20 YES 0 YES* NW 13 YES* NW 20 YES* VAR. 0 NO WNW 12 YES ENE 12 YES ESE 8 YES SW 10 YES S 5 YES NW 18 YES WNW 18 YES 0 YES 0 YES NW 20 YES W 8 YES SW 10 NO SW 10 YES* 0 YES NNW 12 YES ENE 15 YES W 10 YES SW 12 XS 0 YES NE 12 XS 0 YES 0 YES NNE 7 YES E 13 YES VAR 0 XS* NE !3 XS* 0 YES 0 YES 0 TABLE 4 - Great Peconic Bay /'~ar-Round APC Water Quality DaY-'Analysis DRY DATA AREA NO. = 28 DRY DATA AREA NO. = 28 STATION N MEDIAN % > 330 STATION N MEDIAN FC--1A 4 2.9 TC--1A 4 2.9 0.0 TC-2 4 3 . G 6. S FC-2 4 3 . 0 TC--4 4 5.5 0.0 FC--4 4 3 . 5 FC--4A 4 13.0 TC--4A 4 13.0 0.6 FC--6 5 7.0 TC--6 5 7.0 0.0 FC--6A 4 6.0 TC--6A 4 5 . 5 0 · 0 TC--7A 5 93 .O 20.0 FC-TA S 93 .S TC--7B 5 93.0 0.0 FC-7B ~ 43 · 0 TC--7C ~ 4.0 0. O FC--7C 5 2.9 TC--8 5 9 ~ 0 0.0 FC--8 5 9 · 0 TC--SA 5 9 · S 0 · 0 FC--TA 5 4. S TC--SA 5 7.0 0.0 FC-9A 5 3 · 0 TC--SB 5 9.0 0 · 0 FC-9B 5 4 · 0 TC--SC ~ 23 · 0 0 · 0 FC-9C 5 23 · 0 TC--SD 4 4 · 0 0.0 FC--SD 4 2.9 TC--1O 5 2.9 O. 0 FC-iS 5 2.9 TC--1 OA 5 9.0 0.0 FC--10A 5 4.0 TC--10E 4 17.0 0.0 FC-10B 4 8. S TC--15 4 6 · 5 0.0 FC--15 4 3.5 TC--15A 4 3.5 O. 0 FC--15A 4 2.9 TC--16 4 2.9 0.0 FC--16 4 2.9 TC--16A 4 4.0 0,0 FC--16A 4 3. S % >49 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 6S.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.S 0.0 0.0 0.0 MODERATE RAIN AREA NO. = 28 MODERATE RAIN AREA NO. = 28 % >49 0.0 0.0 3.5 7.4 S.0 63,3 3.4 20.7 35.7 6.7 17.2 3.6 S.O 9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 EXCESS RAIN AREA NO. = 28 EXCESS RAIN AREA ND. ~ 28 Mln= 0.25 Max~ 2.99 Emerg-- 10.00 Min= 0.25 Max= 2.95 Emerg= 10.00 STATION N MEDIAN STATION N MEDIAN % > 330 FC i 1 2.9 TC I 1 4.0 0.~ FC-1A 2 39.5 TC-1A 2 232.0 50.0 FC-2 3 43,0 0.0 50.0 66.7 40.0 25.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 30.0 63.7 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 Great Peconic Bay 1990 - 1993 APC Water Quality Data Analysi November to May Period DRY DATA ARFJk NO. = 28 Min= 0.25 Max= 2.99 Emerg= 10.00 STATION N MEDIAN % > 330 TC 6 3 7.0 0.0 TC--7A 3 21.0 0.0 TC--7B 3 23.0 0.0 TC--8 3 9.0 0,0 TC--SA 3 9.0 0.0 TC--9 3 15,0 0.0 TC--9B 3 4; 0 0.0 TC--9C 3 23 . 0 0.0 DRY DATA AREA NO. = 28 Min= 0.25 Max= 2.99 Emerg= 10.00 STATION N MEDIAN % FC 6 3 7.0 39.3 FC--7A 3 3.0 30.3 FC--7B 3 23 . 0 0 . 0 FC--8 3 4 . 0 0 , 0 FC--SA 3 2.9 0 . 0 FC--9 3 9.0 0.0 FC--9B 3 2 . 9 0 . 0 FC--9C 3 23.0 O. 0 MODEP~kTE RAIN AREA NO. = 28 Min= 0.°25 Max= 2.99 Emerg= 10.00 STATION N MEDIAN TC 6 14 23.0 TC--7A 16 93.0 TC--7B 15 15.0 TC--8 16 22,0 TC--SA 15' 43.0 TC--9 16 23.0 TC--SB 15 39.0 TC--SC 15 21.0 Min: 0.25 Max= 2.99 Emerg= 10.00 % > 330 STATION N MEDIAN % > 49 0.0 FC 6 14 12.0 0.0 12.5 FC--TA 1S 33.0 43.8 6.7 FC--TB 15 2 . 9 S . 7 0.0 FC-8 16 4.0 0.0 0.0 FC-8A 15 4.0 S. 7 26.7 FC--SB 15 4,0 6.7 6.7 FC--9C 15 4.0 EXCESS RAIN A~qEA NO. = 28 Min= 0.25 Max= 2.99 Emerq= i0.00 TC 6 1 460.0 TC--7A 1 150.0 TC--7B 1 240.0 TC--S 1 240,0 TC--SC 1 2501.0 EXCESS ~IN AREA NO. : 28 % > 330 STATION N MEDIA~M % > 49 100.0 FC 6 1 23.0 0.0 0.0 FC-TA 1 75.0 100.0 0.0 FC--7B ! 23.0 0.0 100.0 FC-SA i 43.0 0.0 100.0 FC--9 1 39.0 0.0 100.0 FC--SB 1 20.0 0.0 !00.0 FC-SC 1 93.0 100.0 ,,~,BLE 6 Great Peconic Bay 1990 -'1993 APC Water Quality Data Analysis May to November Period DRY DATA A-REA NO. = 28 Min= 0,25 Max= 2.99 Emerg= 10.00 STATION N MEDIAN TC 6 2 13.0 TC--TA 2 305.0 TC--7B 2 93.0 TC--8 2 31.0 TC--SA 2 58 . 0 TC--9 2 23.0 TC--9B 2 29.0 DRY DATA A_REA NO. = 28 Min= 0.25 MaxTM 2.99 E~erg= 10.00 % > 330 STATION N MEDIAN % > 49 0.0 FC 6 2 6.0 0.0 50.0 FC--7A 2 195.0 t00.0 0.0 FC--7B 2 43.0 0.0 0.0 FC--8 2 23.0 0.0 0.0 FC--SA 2 16.0 0.0 0.0 FC--9 2 13.5 0.0 0.0 FC--gB 2 23.5 0.0 0.0 FC--9C 2 51.0 50.0 MODERATE RAIN AREA NO. = 28 Min= 0.25 Max= 2.99 Emerg= 10.00 STATION N MEDIAN TC 6 19 43,0 TC--7A 20 460.0 TC--TB 19 43.0 TC--8 19 240.0 TC--SA 19 93 . 0 TC--9 20 43 . 0 TC--gB 20 43.0 Tc--gc 20 43 . 0 MODERATE RAIN AREA NO. = 28 Min= 0.25 Max= 2.99 Emerg= 10.00 % >330 STATION N MEDIAN % > 49 15.8 FC 6 19 15.0 10.5 60.0 FC--7A 20 460.0 90.0 21.1 FC--7B 19 43.0 36.8 31.6 FC--S 19 23,0 31.6 26.3 FC--SA 19 43 . 0 47.4 25.0 FC--9 20 23.0 30.0 15.0 FC--gB 20 14 . 5 5.0 5.0 FC_--9C 20 33.0 25.0 EXCESS ~AIN AREA NO. = 28 Min= 0.25 Max-- 2.99 Emerg= 10.00 STATION N MEDIAN TC 6 4 1297.0 TC--7A 4 2501.0 TC--7B 3 240.0 TC--8 3 75.0 TC--SA 2 240.0 TC--9B 3 240 . 0 TC_--9 C 2 596.5 EXCESS RAIN AREA NO. = 28 Min= 0.25 Max= 2.99 Emerg= 10.00 STATION N MEDIAN % > 49 % >330 FC 6 4 233.5 50.0 50.0 FC--7A 4 1100.0 100.0 100.0 FC--7B 3 43.0 33.3 33.3 FC--8 3 4.0 33.3 33.3 FC--SA 2 33.0 0.0 0.0 66.7 FC 9 3 75.0 66.7 Fc--gB 3 150.0 66.7 33.3 FC--9C 2 39.5 50.0 50.0 "i Fieure 2 · ~-~ Great Peconic $a¥: Depth Contours, ~ Underwater Aquaculture Lands, -.?~ ~ Tributaries. · , , Z_.J~ S ~ - "-~ " JAMES CREEK; DEEP HOLE CREEK DOWNS CREEK - ::~ CRE K --.<.:.~ . _UNDERWATER SHELLFISH LANDS Mr, JOHN SCOTT Lot #57:225 Acres (7/18/7 Lot #61:71 Acres {3/7/78) Lot #64:50 Acres (10/17/7 POND F~qure 3 ~ Great Peconic Bay: Water Quality '" Sampling Stations .% ~IGURE 4 East Creek Conditional Program', Water Quality Sampling Stations. STRi S Public B,each