HomeMy WebLinkAboutHurtado, JohnLandUse
January 14, 2003
Town of Southold
Board of Trustees
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Attn: Mr. Albert J. Kmpski, Jr.
Re:
Recreational Dock Application
John Hurtado, Sr.
North Bayview Road, Southold
Dear Mr. KrupsM:
Attached please find five (5) copies of a Marine Resource Assessment (Essemial Fish Habitat
Assessment) prepared relative to the above referenced project.
Kindly review and contact me with any cmmnents.
Charles W. Bownmn
CWB/ca
Enc.
2~,, ,.,, ¢.c, ur~d.~,.~nu,: .... · Baitir',g ~tc, llc,,.,., Ne,'., York · 1'1~',~'~'~ ~'-'
031 ,' z,'-z4',~0 · F-~,', J 727-z_6~,~t,
Marine Resource Assessment
for Proposed Dock Installation-
Hurtado Property, North Bayview Road
Town of Southhoid
Prepared By:
Date:
Charles W. Bowman, President
Land Use Ecological Services, Inc.
January t4, 2003
Applicant:
John and Christine Hurtado
C/O Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. (Agem)
Location:
H~ado Property, North Bayview Road, Town of Southnld, NY
SCTM No. 1000-79-05-20.013
Proposed Aetivi .ty:
As shown on thc attached site plan, thc applicant is proposing the construction of
a fixed 4' by 100' timber dock. Thc purpose of this dock construction is to provide
mooring for the applicant's recreational vessel(s). The project will impact open beach
habitat and nearshorc open waters. Saki dock will extend to open waters 4' in depth at
mcan Iow water. All timber dock pilings (6" diameter) will be installed to a depth of 10'
and will bc jetted by hand. General and special conditions stipulated in USACOE and
NYSDEC permit (Application No. 1-4738-02467/00006 and TBD) will be followed.
This document will serve to accomplish several goals including;
· to access thc impacts of this proposed project to the neatr~re benthic habitat of
the Hurtado property.
· to provide a detailed review of the life history of the fmfish species most likely
to be impacted by this project.
· to determine the imlnmts of the proposed project on these fmfish species.
· to propose mitigation measures to minimize the impacts of the proposed
construction.
Essential Fish Habitat Designations:
The waters of Southokl Bay and Shelter Island Bay have been identift~l as
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for one or more life cycle stage of 14 species of fmfish by
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), as shown in Table 1. A filled circle
indicates that these waters have been characterized as EFH for a particular life stage of a
managed species. Finfish species of particular concern, at the proposed project site, arc
winter flounder (Pleuronectes americanus), windowpane flounder (Scopthalmus
aquosus), and red hake (Urophycis chuss), as all life cycle stages of these species are
potentially influence by thc proposed dock construction.
In accordance with the 1996 amendments to thc Magnuson-Stevcns Fishery
Conservation and Management Act, an EFH consultation with will be pursued with
NMI:S for this proposed timber dock construction.
-l-
Table 1:
Species Eggs i Larvae Juveniles Adults
Atlantic Salmon < <
(Salmo salar)
Red Hake _< < < _<
(Urophyeis chuss)
Pollack < <
(Pollachius virens)
Winter Flounder < < < <
(Pleuronectes americanus)
Windowpane Flounder < < < <
(Scopthalmus aquosus)
Atlantic Sea Herring < <
(Ctupea harengus)
Bluefish _< !_<
(Pomatomus saltatrix)
Atlantic mackerel _< _< _< _<
(Scomber scombrus)
Summer Flounder < <
(Paralicthys dentatus)
Scup < < <
(Stenotomus ehrysops)
Black Sea Bass <
(Centropristus sUiata)
King Mackexel < < < <
(Scomberomorus cavalla)
Spanish Mackerel ~< _< _ _<
(Scomberomorus maculates)
Cobia < _< !5 _<
(Raehyeentrea canadum)
Assessment of impacts to Essential Fish Habitat
and I)eseription of Mitigation Measures
General Impacts of Proposed Dock Construction on Biotic Habitat Characteristics
The Hurtado property includes open beach and estuarine intertidal annd subtidal
habitats. Open beach habitats are typically vegetated by pioneer plant species that are
physiologically adapted to fi'equent exposure to salt spray and aeolian (wind-blown) sand.
Plant species con~nonly in open beach habitats include American beaehgrass
(,4mmophila breviligulata), beach pea (Lathyrus japonicus), dusty miller (.4rtemisia
stelleriana), seaside goldenrod (Solidago sempervirens), common saltwort (Salsola kali),
seaside spurge (Euphorbia po!ygonfolia), seabeach cocldebur (Xanthium strumarium)
and sea rocket (Cakile edentula). The nearshore~ subtidal habitats proximal to the
Hurtado property are characterized by sandy substrates. Field inspection of the project
site indicated that eeigrass beds are not located in the subtidal zone proximal to the
Huratdo property. The benthic community affected by this project is composed of small
benthic invertebrates, including various crustaceans, mollusks, and polycheates, typical
-2-
of shallow estuarine waters. Many of these invertebrates serve as prey for some of the
life cycle stages oftbe finfish species listed in Table t. Invertebrate species that are
expected to be particularly abundant include common spider crab (Libinia emarginata),
lady crab (Ovalipes ocellatus), horseshoe crab (Limulus polyphomus), channeled whelk
(Busycon canaliculatum), Atlantic slippersuail (Crepidula fornicata), northern oyster drill
( Urosalpinx cinera), grass shrimp ( Palaemonetes sp.) and sand shrimp ( Crangon sp. ).
Small schooling finfish such Atlantic silversides (Menidia menidia), mummichog
(Fundulus heteroclitus), striped killifish (Fundulus majalis), and shcepshead minnow
(Cyprinodon variegatus) are also likely to be abundant and serve as important prey
species for several of the piscivorous species listed on Table 1.
The proposed dock construction will certainly cause localized turbidity in areas
proximal to the site of piling installation, Thus turbidity will negatively impact the
foraging of many oftbese filter feeding benthic invertebrates and may result in some
mortality of these abundant species. However, will disturbance will be transient and will
not cause permanem damage to the habitat, as the shallow depth and will result in rapid
resettlement of susponded sediments. Ftmbermore, benthic invertebrate populations will
quickly recover from this disturbance due primarily to the large dispersal capabilities for
these species.
Few long-term impacts to subtidal habitats in Southold Bay are expected from the
proposed dock ceustmction. For instance, the propeller action of moored vessels will
have negative impacts on bottom sediments due to increased turbulence, scouring, and
abrasion. This may possible result in a small, localized area ofunmitable habitat for
benthic organisms in the immediate vicinity of the moored vessel(s).
Specific Impacts of Proposed Dock Construction on Managed Finfish Species
1. Winter Flounder (Pleuronectes americanus)
This common, righteye flounder supports important commercial and recreational
fishories throughout the mid-Atlantic and New England regions. The current winter
flounder stocks in these regions are considered overexploited as the commercial yield
from these fisheries has declined since a peak in the 1980s (Brown and Gabriel, 1998).
For instance, the stock biomass in the New England and Mid-Atlantic regions had
declined dramatically from 39,000 million tons (mt) in 1981 to 8,500 mt in 1992. The
stock biomass has since increased, to 18,000 mt in 1996, but remains overharvested. ~llais
ongoing overexploitation of the winter flounder stock mandates that practicable efforts be
taken to minimize impacts to spawning activity and larval survival.
All stages oftbe winter flounder's life cycle are highly dependent on estuafine
habitats. Adults are typically found in cool, deep waters of coastal shelves, in the
summer months and annually migrate to their natal estuaries to spawn in late winter
(Pholan, 1992). This winter influx of sexually mature (> 2-3 year old) adults occurs
between early February and March in the Navesink Estuary, New Jersey. Thus, adult
flounder would he expected to begin to enter the Peeonic Bay estuarine system at
approximately the same time or slightly later. Adult flounder then typically return to
cooler offshore waters when estuarine water temperatures begin to exceed 15° C (Howe
and Coates, 1975).
-3-
Winter flounder typically spawn in throughout the winter and early spring with
peak activity occurring during February and March in Massachusetts Bay (Bigelow and
Schroeder, 1953). Flounder spawning habitat can vary widely in both salinity and
temperature. For instance, spawning has been reported to occur from depths of less than
5m to more than 45m and at salinities between 11 and 33 ppt (Pearcy, 1962; Kennedy
and Steele, 1971). Likewise, in a study tocated in a New Jersey estuary, deposited eggs
were found at salinities between 14-32 ppt, temperatures between 0.9-10°C, and depths
from 0.5-4 maters (Scarlett and Allen, 1989).
Spawning appears to occur on alt substrate types, although sand seems to be most
eo~,~on, and the presence of submerged aquatic vegetation is not necessary (Perira et al,
1999). Given the generalistie nature of the habitat requirements for spawning winter
flounder spawning, winter flounder spawning activity is possible throughout much of the
Peconic estuary and in waters on or proximal to the Hurtado property. The spawned eggs
are demersal, adhesive, and stick together in clusters within the surficial sediments. Eggs
typically hatch 2-3 weeks after deposition, depending on water temperature.
Winter flounder larvae are initially planktonic, but then becoma inereaslugly
demersal as matamorphosis approaches. Juvenile flounder may spend the entirety of
their first year in shallow, esmarine waters (Sancet~nan and Deegan, 1991). However,
other studies report that temperature preferences and a strong photonegative response
cause first-year flounder to migrate fi'om the shallows in the late fall and early winter of
their first year. These physiological constraints may also tend to keep okter juvenile
flounder in deep, cooler waters throughout much of ibc year.
Flounder are opportunistic feeders and diet preferences change during
development. Larvae feed largely upon nauplii, polycheates, invertebrate eggs, and
phytoplankton (Pearcy, 1962). Metamorphosing and recently metamorphosed flounder
depend on copepods and harpaeticoids, while first- and second-year juveniles depend
largely on amphipods and polyeheates. Adult flounder have also been found to prey
upon bivalves (Stoner et al, 1999), capelin eggs (Frank and Leggett, 1983), and small fish
(Kennedy and Steele, 1971). Adult winter flounder are obligate sight feeders and, as a
result, foraging activity is limited to sunlight hours (Olla et al, 1969) and has been found
to be reduced on cloudy and winter days (Frame, 1971).
The preceding review of the life history and habitat requirements of winter
flounder suggests that the proposed dock construction could have several potentially
adverse impacts on winter flounder attempting to utilize the nearshore waters for
spawning habitat. Specifically, habitat disturbances and increased turbidity due to piling
installation may interfere with spawning and cause increased mortality of the demarsal
eggs and larvae. However, due to the small spatial scale of the project, this disturbance
will not have significant negative impacts on the Peconie estuary's winter flounder
stocks. Furthermore, these adverse impacts will be short-term in nature, as they are only
associated with the project's construction phase. Once the project is completed the long-
term adverse mipaets to winter flounder habitat, such as increased bottom shading,
increased human activity, and bottom scouring by propeller action, are most likely to be
inconsequential to winter flounder stocks. Habitat quality, in terms of prey abundance, is
likely to bo maintained as the primary processes dictating abundance and diversity of
trophic levels (primary production, decomposition, and organic matter export) are
unlikely to be effected by the proposed dock construction.
-4-
However, in light of the current overharvested state of winter flounder stocks, it
would be beneficial to minimize the impacts (specifically, mortality of eggs, larvae, and
juveniles) of the construction phase of the proposed project by limiting the timing of
construction to the months between October and February.
2. Windowpane Flounder (Scophth,~tamus aquasus):
The windowpane flounder is not intentionally collected by the co,auttercial fishing
industry but is ot~en caught as bycatch in bottom trawl fisheries. Windowpanes are
commonly found in shallow (< 110 m) coastal waters, but are most abundant fi'om depths
of 1-2 m to 56 m (Warfel and Merriman~ 1944; Thorpe, 1991). All life stages of this
species are common or abundant in all estuaries situated south of the Cape Cod, including
Great South Bay (Jury et al, 1994; Stone et al, 1994). Adult windowpane flounder may
migrate to nearshore and estuarine habitats in the spring through autumn. Adult fish also
occur largely on sand substrates in the Mid-Atlantic Bight and southern New England
(t~,n~on et al, 1994)
A study of gonadal development in sexually mature fish by Wilk et al. (1990)
suggests that spawning may occur fi'om April to December but is bimodal with two peaks
in spawning activity. Spawning is largely confined to the continental shelf, but may
occur in the high salinity portions of estuaries in the Mid-Atlantic. The eggs are buoyant
and may be carried into estuaries by currents and tides. Larvae spawned in the spring
spawning peak settle in both estuaries and on the continental sbelt; whereas larvae
spawned in the autunmal peak settle predominantly on the coastal shelf(Morse and Able,
1995). In waters of New York and New Jersey, these spawning peaks have heen
documented in May and September. Bottom trawl surveys of Narragansett Bay and
Hudson-Raritan Bay have found that the demersal juvenile windowpane are found
throughout the year, at nearly all depths, but show a preference for deeper water and
channels (7-17m) and salinlties of 22-30 ppt.
In contrast to the winter flounder, windowpane flounder largely do not spawn in
estuaries and the eggs arc not demersal. In addition, juvenile windowpane are expected
to he found in waters of greater depth than winter flounder juveniles. Therefore, the
impacts of the proposed dock construction project to the reproductive success of
windowpane flounder is less. Furthermore, the proposition to limit construction to the
months &October through January will serve to prevent impacts to eggs and larvae that
settle in estaaries at, er the spring spawning peak.
3. Black Sea Bass (Centropristis striata)
Adult black sea bass migrate to nearshore waters and bays in the Mid-Atlantic
Bight to New England in the spring, when water temperatures exceed 7°C, from their
overwiutering areas in decper water south of New Jersey. In northern waters, sexually
mature adults spawn on the cominental shelf (20-50m) in the summer and fall (May to
November) predominantly between Chesapeake Bay and Montauk Point (Berrien and
Sibunka, 1999). However, gravid females are not generally found in estuarine habitats
(Allen et al, 1978).
The demersal larvae settle in coastal areas and are rarely found in estuaries.
However, first-year juveniles typically migrate into estuaries from July to September
-5-
(Able and Hales, 1997), while older juveniles may begin to be found in late spring.
Within estuaries, juvenile black sea bass utilize hard substrates with shelter (marsh
boundaries, seagrass beds, oyster and mussel beds, pilings and wharves, and shoals) in
waters ofsalinities > 8 ppt. Larger juveniles may he common in deeper estuarine
channels (Allen et al., 1978). The recruitmem of first-year sea bass to estuaries is highly
variable both year-to-year and between esmarine ecosystems (Steimle et al, 1999).
During the summer months, adult black sea bass are most often associated with nearshore
coastal structures such as wrecks or jetties and are found with cunner and tautog.
However, they can also found in estuaries, as well, in areas with oyster or mussel shell
substrates and eelgrass beds. As coastal and estuarine waters begin to cool to below
14°C in the autumn, juvenile and adult black sea bass in the Mid-Atlantic Bight will
return to warmer waters to the south and offshore between New Jersey and North
Carolina (Steimle et al, 1999).
As is evident in the preceding review oftbe life history of the black sea bass,
estuarine habitats are crucial for maintenance of viable stocks. However, by limiting
construction activities to the months of October through February, temporal separation of
the construction disturbance and black sea bass abundance is achieved. Furthermore, the
com;txuction of a dock is unlikely to adversely impact black sea boss individuals or stocks
as this species is often associated with hard structures such as pilings and wharves.
Therefore, this project is not expected to eause significant impacts to the black sea bass
stocks.
4. Seup (Stenotomus chrysops)
Similar to black sea bass, juvenile and adult seup migrate to and inhabit coastal
and cstuarine waters between New Jersey and Massachusetts between spring and fall.
However, in contrast to the black sea bass, the Peeonic estuary has been cia.ss'filed as
EFH for both juvenile and adult soup life stages. Larger adults tend to arrive in these
estuaries and coastal waters earliest (early May in southern New England), followed
slightly by subadults, and finally by first-year juveniles in June (Able and Fahay, 1998;
Sisson, 1974). Sexually mature adults then typically spawn in coastal water or in large
bays and estuaries. Curiously, spawning in estuaries is highly variable in that spawning
bas been documented in Long Island Sound, Peconic, Gardiner's, and Raritan Bay
(Steimle et al, 1999) but not in Block Island Sound, Great South Bay, Great Bay, ortbe
lower Hudson River (Able and Fahay, 1998). Soup spawnlnE typically occurs in the
morning hours (Ferraro, 1980) over sandy or vegetated substrates. Larval seup feed upon
various types of zooplankton (Griswold and McKenney, 1984) and juvenile fish feed
upon polychaetes, amphipods and small crustaceans, mollusks, and fish larvae and eggs.
Juvenile seup can dominate the ichythofa~ma of larger estuaries and may he highly
abundant over a wide variety of inter- and sub-tidal substrate types including sand, silty
sand, mud, mussel beds, and eeigrass beds (Baird, 1873). Adult seup are also substrate
generalists and will he found in waters ranging in salinity from 20-31 ppt (Baird, 1873;
Eklund, 1988). Scup tend to be found in size-segregated schools with smaller fish being
found in estuaries and coastal waters and larger fish more likely to be present in deeper
waters (Morse, 1978). These fish tend to leave estuarine habitats when water
temperatures drop below 8-9°C (often around November) for warmer waters on the
continental sheffor south to North Carolina (Bowman et al, 1987).
-6-
Similar to the windowpane flounder and black sea bass, the restriction of dock
construction to the autunmal and winter months will eliminate any direct mortality of
larvae and juvenile due to construction activities. Furthermore, any long-term, localized
habitat degradation at the project site is unlikely to significantly impact individuals or
stocks of this highly abundant fish species.
5. Bluefish (Pomatotus saltatrix)
Thc bluefish is another species in which the juvenile and adult fish are seasonal
inhabitants of esmarine areas of the Mid-Atlantic Bight but predictably leaves these
waters when temperatures reach 14-16° C (Bigelow and Schoeder, 1953). Spawning
occurs in the Southern Atlantic Bight, larvae and juveniles then migrate through a
combination of passive and active transport and arrive in estuaries between late May and
early June (Cowen et aL, 1993). These fish, as well as adults, then depart from Mid-
Atlantic Bight estuaries in October for waters located south of Cape Hatteras, North
Carolina.
Juvenile and adult bluefish are highly oppommistie foragers and will feed on
locally abundant species of fish and crustaceans. Young bluefish also tend to he
genemhstic in t¢~ of preferred substrate type and have been associated with mostly
sand bottoms but also mud, clay, and silts and will also utilize bottoms vegetated with
Ulva, Zostera, Spartina, and Fucus. Adult bluefish tend to prefer more open water
estuarine habitats. Similarly, juvenile and adult bluefish have slightly different salinity
preferences as young bluefish are foumi in sslinities of 23-33 ppt, but can physiologically
tolerate lower salinities, and adults prefer near-ocean salinity (Fahay et al, 1999). The
highly motile nature of juvenile and adult bluefish suggest tlmt this species will not he
effected by the permanent dock or increased vessel traffic. Furthermore, this species will
not he ~. cted during dock construction if activity is limited to the win~er months.
6. Summer Flounder (Paralichthys dentatus)
This predatory, left-eyed flounder is only found seasonally in estuarine habitats as
the summer flounder undergoes predictable inshore-offshore migrations. Studies of
tagged .,annmer flounder released offofLong Island and southern New England have
indicated that adult and juvenile fish begin to migrate offshore in September and October
(Poole, 1962; Lux and Niehy, 1986). Spawning then occurs on the continental shelf
during this autumnal offshore migration (Packer et al, 1999) and larvae can he found on
the shelf hetwecn the Chesapeake Bay and Georges Bank by October (Able and Kaiser,
1994).
Larvae forage on the shelf for zooplankton and small crustaceans until the spring
when they enter essential estuarine nursery areas fi'om View England to North Carolina.
In fact, metamorphosi~ fi, om larval to juvenile life forms occurs alter the young flounder
have enter the estuaries (Szedlmayer et al, 1992). Data fi:om Long Island Sound indicates
that older juvenile and adult summer flounder begin to also enter inshore waters between
late April and early May (Packer et al, 1999). An exceptionally thorough review of the
diet and habitat ~ ofjuvenile and adult summer floumter by Packer et al (1999)
reveals that these fish are extremely opportunistic in terms of diet, preferred substrate,
and salinity. However, it may he generalized that juvenile fish feed upon largely upon
crustaceans (especially mysid shrimp) and polycheates and seem to prefer sandy
-7-
substmtes in lower estuaries often near salt rrexsh creeks. While adults will also prey
upon fishes and .~U'I{~ ill ~I'~ of slightly deeper water and often with sandy substrates.
In addition, studies have reported that summer flounder may fi'equent the edges of eel
grass beds, where they can easily ambush prey (Lascana, 1981).
As with the black sea bass and bluefish, estuarine habitats are crucial for
maintenance of viable stocks of summer flounder and, likewise, the temporal separation
of the construction-related disturbances and peak summer flounder abundance should
result in no significant adverse impacts for developing and mature flounder.
7. Atlantic Mackerel (Scomber scombrus)
Atlantic mackerel overwinter in the deep waters of the cominental sbelf from
Nova Scotia to Chesapeake Bay, in the spring these fish move inshore and northeast.
This migration pattern is then reversed in the fall (Ben'ica, 1982). In April and early
May, two spawning aggregations develop, one located offNew Jersey and New York and
another in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Spawning rarely occurs in Long Island Sound or
Gardiner's Bay (Wheatland, 1956) The soatbem spawning aggregation moves to the
Gulf of Maine by June and July and returns by October. This migration results in adult
mackerel being commonly reported in the Peconic estuary during the months of April and
May and occasionafly through November. Adult mackerel may feed by filtering small
plankton from the water column utilizing their gill rakers or by preying upon small
crustaceans, such as amphipods and mysids, polychaetes, and the larvae of finfish and
decapods. Juveniles have a similar diet, except that they rarely filter feed, and exhibit an
identical migration pattern but are considerably more enmmon from the months of June
through November. Mackerel eggs and larvae are pelagic, and are oflen found in the
Peconic estuary after spawning begins in mid-March to mid-April (Stone et al., 1994).
Atlantic mackerel to be found in deeper waters, the most nearshore reports of abundant
mackerel schools are 4.9-9.8 m for juveniles in the Hudson-Raritan Bay and 10rn for
adults in coastal Massachusetts. As a result, Atlantic mackerel individuals and stocks are
not likely to be directly impacted by this proposed project if construction is limited to
winter months..
8. Red Hake (Urophycis chuss)
Adult red hake enter shallow coastal waters and estuaries, often in water less than
10m deep, from Maine to southern New England during the summer months (Stone et al.,
1994). Like many fish species, dt~htg the winter red hake migrate to deeper (>100m)
offshore waters of the Middle Atlantic Bight and the southern edge of Georges Bank.
Spawning occurs on the continental shelf from Georges Bank to eastern Long Island in
May-June (Hildebrand and Schroeder, 1928). The summer ichthyoplankton community
in the Middle Atlantic Bight is dominated by larval red hake, particularly on the mid- and
outer shelf(Comyns and Grant, 1993). The larvae typically settle out of the water
column between September and December and then utilize depressions in the sea floor,
underwater structures, or the shells of living sea scallops for shelter (Able and Fahay,
Juvenile hake typically feed upon small crustaceans including larval decapods,
mysids, Crangon shrimp, and amphipods (Bowman et al, 1987). Similarly, adult hake
will feed upon a variety of crustacean prey, but they will also forage upon larger prey,
-8-
such as fish and squid. Young red hake are very cortm~n in New England's estuaries
(and in deep estuaries south to the Chesapeake Bay), in the winter and spring, but are less
common in the summer months (Murdy et al., 1997). These juveniles are found in waters
between 5 and >50m in depth, at temperatures between 2-22°C, at salinities of 24-32 ppt,
and are found on a variety of substrates includ~_g mud (Gottsehall et al, in review).
Adults are typically found at depths greater than 10m and in salinities approaching full
sea water between 33 to 35ppt. Neither juveniles nor adult life stages are reported to
utilize marsh and intertidal habitats. Therefore, their preference for deeper waters
indicates that the proposed dock construction will have little iau, act on red hake stocks.
9. Pollack (Pollachius virens)
Spawning of this commercially important groundfish occurs between September
and April, outside of the estuary, in the Western Gulf of Maine and on the Nova Scotian
shelf (Mayo et al., 1989). Juvenile (< 2 year) pollack undertake a series of inshore-
offshore migrations in response to water temperature (Rangeley and Kramer, 1995). In
the summer months, these juveniles are distributed offshore fi.om the northern edge of
Georges Bank to coastal Long Island and New Jersey (Reid et al., 1999). During the
winter and spring, these fish may he found closer to shore in estuarine nursery areas. For
instance, first-year pollack are particularly common in subtidal marsh creeks of southern
New Jersey in early spring. Adults prefer deeper waters and are not expected to be
impacted by the proposed dock construction.
Juvenile pollack prefer salinities around 31.5 ppt and are habitat and dietary
genemlists. For instance, they feed upon many types of organisms (from euphausiids to
fish and mollusks) and have been reported over a variety ofhottom types (including sand,
mud, rocky bottoms, or vegetated areas) (Bownmn and Micheals, 1984; Hardy, 1978).
The managed species of finfish known to utilize the Peconic estuary in the winter momhs
(Atlantic mackerel and red hake), prefer deeper waters and are not likely to he impacted
by dock construction. However, juvenile pollack are expected to be present in the
Peconic estuary during the proposed construction and are more likely to he found in
subtidal habitats and near intertidal marshes. Therefore, the disturbance and increased
turbidity cause by dock construction and piling installation may result in a highly
localized and temporary loss of some developmental and foraging habitat for juvenile
pollack. This loss of habitat is not expected to result in increased mortality of juvenile
pollack due to the high motility of this species.
10. Atlantic Sea Herring (Clupea harengus)
Herring are seasonal migrants to estuarine systems of the Mid-Atlantic Bight as
these stages overwinter as far south as Delaware and Chesapeake Bay and are generally
found in waters with salinitles >25 ppt (Reid et al, 1999). Juvenile are expected to he
present and adults have been found to be abundant in estuarine system waters between
the months of November and February (Stone et al, 1994).
Both juveniles and adults are exclusively planktonivomtts, juveniles have been
shown to forage upon 15 types of zooplankton (including copepods, cladocerans, and
decapod and eirriped larvae) (Sherman and Perkins, 1971). While, adults feed
predominantly upon euphausiids, chaetognaths, and copepods (Bigelow and Schroeder,
-9-
1953) The planktonivomus diet of the Atlantic herring results in this species having little
substmte preference.
Atlantic herring are expected to be present in Peconic estuary during the fall and
winter months. Similar to the Atlantic mackerel and red hake, Atlantic herring prefer
deep waters (the shallowest reports of abundant herring catches in trawl surveys were at
4.5m) and high salinities. Therefore, the localized and transient turbidity resulting from
dock construction is not expected to adversely impact the utilization of the Peconic
estuary by herring stocks.
11. Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar)
SaLmon spawning probably does not occur south of the Connecticut River,
however, adult and juvenile salmon are primarily pelagic and will range as far south as
Gardiner's and Great South Bay during winter months. The infrequent occurrence of
Atlantic salmon in the Peconic estuarine system indicates that this project will have no
significant adverse impact on essential salmon habitat.
12-14. South Atlantic Coastal Migratory Pelagic Fishes-
King Mackerel (Scomeromorus cavalla)
Spanish Mackerel (Scomberomous maculates)
Cobia (Rachycentron canadum)
Both mackerel species are surface dwelling, nearshore fish known to from large
schools and undertake long-distance migrations. These schools may venture as far north
as Cape Cod during the summer months (June through October) and will frequent sandy
shoals of offshore bars, barrier island oceanside waters, and barrier island inlets. Their
diets consist largely ofsmatl fishes, shrimps, and squids. Cobia will utilize habitats
similar to king and Spanish mackerel and are also only found in Long Island's waters in
the summer months. Cobia tend to utilize more oftbe water cohmm, as their diet consists
of crabs and shrimp, as well as, fishes and squids. Cobia are also more likely to frequent
eelgmss beds and high salinity bays and estuaries than the pelagic mackerel species.
All three species have pelagic larvae that are dispersed by the GulfStream and, as a
result, eggs, larvae, and juveniles may be found in eelgrass beds of the Peconic estuary.
These three species infi:equently utilize estuarine habitats, and then only in the
summer months, therefore this project will not have significant adverse effects on these
species.
Proposed Mitigation
As stated in the section outlining direct impacts to fmfish species, there could be
significant, short-term impacts to managed fmfish populations during the construction of
a dock. Disturbance during the installation of dock pilings, such as increased turbidity,
may temporarily degrade the EFH of winter flounder during spawning and cause high
mortality of eggs, larvae, and juveniles, tlowever, restriction ofthe dock construction to
the months of October through February, will eliminate these negative impacts on winter
flounder sIoclcs'. Direct impacts to the EFH of other estuarine dependent species
including black sea bass, summer llounder, scup, bluefish, and windowpane flounder will
-10-
also be minimized by this restriction, as it creates a temporal separation between EFH
disturbance and the local presence of these species. The limitation of dock construction
to October 1 through February 1 will result in possible disturbance of EFH to managed
finfish species that utilize thc Peconic estuary in the winter months, such as Atlantic
mackerel, red hake, pollack, and Atlantic herring. However, these fish species, with the
possible exception of pollack, typically prefer deeper waters with higher salinities than
the proposed project site and are therefore unlikely to be significantly impacted by the
project. The South Atlantic pelagic migratory fishes also will not be adversely impacted
by this project ~ these species infrequently utilize estuarine habitats, and then only in the
summer months.
The proposal to limit dock construction to October 1 through February 1 will be
sufficient to prevent adverse impacts to the vulnerable life stages of managed fmfish
species. Therefore, the negligible im.nact oftbe proposed construction on fmfish stocks
indicates that this project will not have adverse impacts on local commercial fishing
activities. In addition, the proposed project will afford the applicant with reasonable use
of their property in a manner consistent with activities and structures on neighboring
properties.
-Il-
Literature Cited
Able, K.W. and M.P. Fahay. 1988. The first year in the life of estuarine fishes in the
Middle Atlantic Bight. Rutgers Univ. Press. New Brunswick, NJ.
Able, K.W. and L.S. Hales. 1997. Movements of juvenile black sea bass Centropristis
striata (Linnaeus) in a sonthern New Jersey estuary. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 213-153-167.
Able, K.A. and S.C. Kaiser. 1994. Synthesis of summer flounder parameters. NOAA
Coastal Ocean Prog. Decision Analysis Set. I. NOAA Coastal Ocean Office, Silver Spring, MD.
Allen, D.M., J.P. Clymer, III, and S.S. Herman. 1978. Fishes of Hereford Inlet estuary,
southern New Jersey. Lehigh University, Biol. Dept., Cent. Mar. Envir. Stud. and the Wetlands
Instilute.
BaNd, S.F. 1873. Natural history of some of the more important fond-fishes of the south
sho~e of New England. In Report on the condition of the sea fisheries of the south coast of New
England in 1871 and 1872. Rep. Commissioner U.S. Comm. Fish. Fisheries. Pt. 1.
Berrien, P. 1982. Atlantic mackerel, S~omber scromhnrs. In M.D. Grosslein and T.R.
Azarovilz eds Fish distribution. P. 99-102. MESA New York Bight Monograph 15. NY Sea Grant
Institute, Albany, NY.
Berrien, P. and J. Sibunka. 1999. Distribution patterns offish eggs in the United States
northeast continental shelfocosystem, 1977-1987. NOAA Tech Rep. NMFS 145.
Bigelow, H.B. and W.C. Shroedar. 1953. Fishes of the Gulf of Maine. US Fish abd Wildl.
Serv. Bull. 53.
Brown, R. and W. Gabriel. 1998. Winter flounder. In Clark, S.H. ed. Status of the fishery
resources offthe northeastern United States for 1998. p. 81-84. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-NE-
115.
Bowman, R~E., T.R. Azarovitz, E.S. Howard. and B.P. Hayden. 1987. Food distribution
of juveniles of seventeen northwest Atlantic fish species, 1973-1976. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-
F/NEC-45.
Bowman, R.E. and W.L. Micheals. 1984. Food of seventeen species of northwest
Atlantic fish. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-F/NEC-28.
Brodziak, J. 1995. Atlantic butterfish. In Conservation and Utilization Division,
Northeast Fisheries Science Centex eds. Status of the fishery resources offthe northeastern United
States for 1994. NOAA Tech. Mare. NMFS-F/NEC-108.
Comyns, B.H. and G.C. Grant. 1993. Identification and distribution of Urophycis and Phycis (Pisces:
Gadidae) larvae and pelagic juveniles in the US Middle Atlantic Bight. Fisheries Bulletin (US),
91: 210-223.
Coliette, B.B. In preparation. Mackerels, Family Scombridae. Ia B.B. Coilette and G. Klein-MacPhee eds.
Bigelow and Schroeder's fishes of the Gnifof Maine. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington,
DC.
Cowan, ILK., J.A. Hare, and M.P. Fahay. 1993. Beyond hydrgraphy: can physical
processes explain larval fish assemblages within the Mid-Atlantic Bight? Bull. Mar. Sci. 53 (2):
567-587.
Eklund, A.M. 1988. Fisheries inhabiting hard bottom reef areas in the Middle Atlantic
Bight: seasonality of species composition, catch rates, and reproduction. MS thesis. Univ. of
Delaware, Newark, DE.
Fahay, M.P., P.L. Berrien, D.L. Johnson, and W.W. Morse, mid. 1999. Essential fish
habitat source document: Bluefish, Pomatomus saltatrix, life history and habitat characteristics.
NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-NE-144.
Ferraro, S.P. 1980. Dai .fy time of spawning of 12 fishes in the Peconic Bays, New York. Fisheries Bulletin
Cos), 78:455-464.
Frame, D.W. t971. Biology ofyonng winter flounder: feeding habits, metabolism, and
food utilization. PhD dissertation. Univ of Mass. Amherst, MA.
Frank, K.I. and W.C. Leggett. 1983. Multispecies larval fish associations: Accident or
adaptation? Can. J. Fish Aquatic. Sci. 40:754-762.
Griswold, C.A. and T.W. McKeoney. 1984. Larval development of the scup, Stenotomus chrysops (Pisces:
-12-
Sparidae). Fisheries Bulletin (US), 82: 77-84.
Gottschall, K. M.W. Johnson, and D.G. Simpson. In review. Thc distribution and size composition of
finfish, A~erican lobster, and long-finned squid in the Long Island Sound based on the
Connecticut Fisheries Division bottom trawl sm'vey, 1984-1994. NOAA teeh. Report.
Hardy, J.D. 1978. Development of fishes of the Mid-Atlantic Bight: An atlas of egg,
larval, and juvonile stages. Vol. 2- AnguiIlldae through Syngnathidae. US Fish Wild[ Serv. Biol.
Serv. Prog. FWS/OBS-78/12.
Hildebrand, S.F. and W.C. Schroeder. 1928. Fishes of Chesapeake Bay. Bull. U.S. Bar. Fisheries. 43('1).
Hinge, A.B. and P.G. Coates. 1975. Winter flounder movements, growth, and mortality
off Massachusettes. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 104: 13-29.
Jones, C.IL and J.R. Schubol. 1978. Distribution ofsurficial sediments and eelgrass in
New York's south shore bays: an assessment from the literature. SUNY Stony Brook, MSRC
Special Report 13.
Jury, S.H.. J.D. Field, S.L. Stone, S.M. Nelson, and M.E. Monaco. 1994. Dis~'ibution
and abundance of fishes and invertebrates in Mid-Atlantic estuaries. ELMR Rep. No. 13
NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assessment Division, Silver Springs, MD.
Kennedy, V.S. and D.H. Steele. 1971. The winter flounder Pseudopleuronectes
americanus in Long Pond, Conception Bay, Newfoundland. J. Fish Res. Board Can. 28:1153-
1165.
Lascara. J. t981. Fish predator-prey interactions in the areas ofeelgrass (Zostera marina).
MS thesis. Coll. William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA.
Langton, R.W., J.B. Pearce, J.A. Gibson. 1994. Selected living resources, habitat
conditions, and human perturbations of the Gulf of Maine: environmental and ecological
considerations for fisheries management. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-NE 106.
Lux, F.E. and F.E. Nicby. 1981. Movements of tagged summer flounder, Paralichthys
dentatus, offsouthem New England. NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS SSRF-752.
Mayo, ILK., J.M. McGlade, and S.H. Clark. 1989. Patterns of exploitation and biological
status of pollack (Pollachius virens L.) in the Scotian shelf, Georges Bank, and Gulf of Maine
area. J. Northwest Atl. Fish Sci. 9:13-36.
Monteleone, D.M. 1992. Seasonality and abundance of icthyoplankton in Great South
Bay, New York. Estuaries. 15:230-238.
Morse, W.W. 1978. Biological and fisheries data on scup, Stenotomus chry. sops (Linnaeus). US Natl. Mar.
Fisheries Service Northeast Fish&les Center. Sandy Honk Lab. Tech. Report No. 12.
Morse, W.W. and K.W. Able. 1995. Distribution and life history of windowpane,
Seophthalamus aquosus, offthe northeastern United States. Fish Bull. (US). 93: 675-693.
Murdy, E.O., R.S. Birdsnng, and J.A. Musick. 1997. Fishes of Chesapeake Bay'. Smithsonian Institution
Press. Washington, DC.
Olla, B.L., R. Wicklund, and S. Wilk. 1969. Behavior of winter flounder in a natural
habitat. Trans Am. Fish Soc. 98: 717-720.
Packer, D.B.S.J. Greisbach, P.L. Berrien, C.A. Zetlin, D.L. Johnson, and W.W. Morse.
1999. Essential fish habitat source document: Smnmer flounder, Paralichthys dentatus, life history
and habitat characteristics. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-NE- 15 I.
Pearcy, W.G. 1962. Ecology of an estuarine population of whner flounder. Parts I-IV.
Bull. Bingbam. Oeeanogr. Collect. 18(l):5-78.
Pereira, J.J., R. Goldberg, J.J. Ziskowski, P.L. Berrien, W.W. Morse, and D.L. Johnson
1999. Essential fish habitat source document: Winter flounder, Pseudopleuronenctes americanus,
life history and habitat characteristics. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-NE- 138.
Phelan, B.A. 1902. Winter flounder movements in the inner NY Bight. Trans. Am. Fish.
Soc. 121:777-784.
Poole. J.C. 1966. A review of the research concerning summer flounder and needs for
further study'. NY Fish Game J. 13:226-23 l.
Rangeley, R.W. and D.L. Kramer. 1995. Use of reeky intertidal habitats by juvenile
pollack Pollachius virens. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Sar. 126: 9-17.
Reid. R., L.M. Cargnelli, S.J. Giesbach, D.B. Packer, D.L. Johnson, C.A. Zetlin, W.W.
Morse, and P.L. Berrien. 1990. Essential fish habitat source document: Atlantic herring, Clupea
harengus, life history and habitat characteristics. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-NE-126.
-13-
Saucerman, S. 1990. Movement, distribution, and productivity of post metamorphic
~inter flounde*, in different habitat types iu Waquoit 1lay, MA. MS thesis. Univ. of Mass,
Amherst, MA.
Searlett, P.G. and ILL. Allen. 1989. results of fall and winter icthyoplankton sampling in
the Manasquan River, 1984-1086. New Jersey Dept. of Envir. Prot. Division of Fish, Game, and
Wildlife. Marine Fisheries Administration. Bureau of Marine Fisheries.
Schaefer, R.H. 1967. Species composition, size, and seasonal abundance of fish in the
surf waters of Long Island. NY Fish Game J. 14:1-46.
Sisson, R.T. 1974. The growth and movements of scup (Stenotomus chrysops) in
Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island and along the Atlantic coast. Rhode Island Dep. Nat. Resources,
Completion Rept. Project No. 3-138-R.
Smith, W.G., D.G. McMillan, C. Obenchain, P. Rosanberg, A. Wells, and M. Silverman.
1980. Spawning cycles of marine fish of northeastern United States based on broadscale surveys
of eggs and larvae, 1977-1979. ICES C.M. 1980,2.:66.
Stehnle, F.W., C.A. Zetlin, P.L. Berrien, and S. Chang. 1999. Essential fish habitat
source document: Black sea bass, Centroprisfis striata, life histoD' and habitat chamcterisfics.
NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-NE-140.
Steimle, F.W., C.A. Zetlin, P.L. Berrlen~ D.L. Johnson, and S. Chang. 1999. Essential
fish habitat source document: Scup, Steaotomus chrysops, life history and habitat characteristics.
NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-NE- 143.
Sherman, K. and H.C. Perkins. I971. Seasonal variations in the food of juvenile herring
in coastal waters of Maine. Trans. Am. Fish Soc. 100: 121-124.
Stone, S.L.. T.A. Lowery, .I.D. Field, C.D. Williams, S.M. Nelson. S.H. Jury, M.E.
Monaco, and L. Andreason. 1994. Distribution and ahnndance of fishes and invertebrates in Mid-
Atlantic estuaries. ELMR Rep. No. 12 NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assessment
Division, Silver Springs, MD.
Stoner, A.W., A.J. Bejda, J.P. Manderson, B.A. Phelan, L.L. Stehl[k, and J.P. Pessutti.
1999. Behavior of winter flounder during the reproductive season: Laboratory and field
observations on spawning, feeding, and locomotion. Fish Bull. (US). 97:999-1016.
Suffolk County Dept. of Environmental Control. 1978. Interim report on Great South Bay
salinity.
Szedhnayer, S.F., K.W. Able, and R.A. Rountree. 1992. Growth and temperature-
induced mortality of young-of-the-year summer flounder, Paralichthys dentatus, in southem New
Jersey. Copeia. 1992 (l): 120-128.
l'horpe, E.A. 1991. Aspects of the biology of windowpane flounder Scophthalamus
aquosus, in the northwest Atlantic Ocean. MS thesis, Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.
Warfek H.E. and D. Merriman. 1944. Studies on the marine resources of southern New
England. 1. An analysis of the fish populations of the shore zone. Bull. Bingham. Oceanogr.
Collection. 9(2): 1-9 I.
Wheatland, S.B. 1956. Pelagic fish eggs and larvae. In G.A. Riley et al. eds. Oceanography of kong Island
Sound. 1952-1954. p. 234-314. Bull. Bingham Oceanogr. Collection, 15.
Wi[k, S.J., W.W. Morse, and L.L. Stehl[k. 1990. Annual cycles of gonad-somatic indices
as indicators of spawning activity for selected species of finfish collected from the New York
Bight. Fish. Bull (US). 88:775-786.
Albert J. Krupski, President
James King, Vice-President
Artie Foster
Ken Poliwoda
Peggy A. Dickerson
Town Hall
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-1366
Janua~ 24,2003
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OFSOUTHOLD
Re: Lead Agency Coordination Request
Dear Reviewer:
The purpose of this request is to determine under Article 8 (State Environmental
Quality Review Act-SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6
NYCRR Part 617 the following:
1. Your jurisdiction in the action described below;
2. Your interest in assuming the responsibilities of lead agency; and
3. Issues of concern that you believe should be evaluated.
Enclosed please find a copy of the proposal and a completed Environmental
Assessment Form (EAF) to assist you in your response.
Project Name:
Requested Action: ~O~.~"¥CL.~'[" (~ 5~' X(~(~' ~ ~'~
SEQRA Classification:
( ) Type I
(X) Unlisted
Contact Person: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President
(631) 765-1892
Page 2
Lead Agency Coordination Request
The lead agency will determine the need for an environmental impact statement
(ELS) on this project. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter, please
respond in writing whether or not you have an interest in being lead agency. If no
response is received from you, it will be assumed that there is no objection to the
Board of Trustees assuming lead agency status.
Comments:
Please feel free to contact this office for further information.
Very truly yours,
Albert Krupski, Jr.
President
CC:
Army Corp. of Engineers
Dept. of State
DEC
(*Maps are enclosed for your review)
' 14-1'G-2 {9/9~} -- 7c
617.20
Appendix A
Slate Environmental Quality Review
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
SEQR
Purpose: The full E^F is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project ·
or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequent-
ly, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. 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 I~ave knowledge in one particular area may not be ·ware of the broader concern~ affecting
the question of significance.
The full £AF is 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 ai:tion.
Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts:
Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given proje~:t and its site. By identifying basic project
data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes pi·ce in Parts 2 and 3.
Par~ 2: Focuses on Identlfl~ing the range of possible impa~ts that may occur from a project br action. It provides
guidance as to whether an impact is likely to he considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially-
large impact- The form ·iso identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced.
Part 3: If any imp·ct in Pad, 2 is identified as potentially-large, thee Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the
impact is actually important_
DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE--Type I and Unlisted Actions
Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: CI Fad I C3 Part 2 [~Part 3
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Part~ '1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting
information, and considering both the magnitude and importance of ~ach 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 · ne[ative declaration vail be prepared.
B. Although the project could have a significant effect ou the environment, there will not be a significant
effect fo~ this Unlisted Action because tJ~e mitigation measures described in PART 3 have bec~ required,
therefore a CONDITIONED aegaUve declaration ~l! be ~'ep~ed.*
C. The project may result in one or mom large and Imlxxtant Impacts that may have a significant impact
on the environment, therefore a podtlve declaration vail be prepued.
* A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions
Name of Action
Print o~ Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lend Agency
Signature of ResponSible Officer in Lead Agency
Name of Lead Agency
Title of ResponSible Officer
Signature of Preparer (If*different from responsible officeri
D ate
PART 1--PROJECT INFORMATION
Prepared by Project Sponsor
IOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect
,n the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered
s part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional
~formation you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3,
t is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve
ew studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify
ach instance.
NA~E OF ACTION
LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street A~'est, Municipality and County)
log 9'_9 HO. /3A?V/ v / OAD
NAME OF APPUC~NT/SPONSOR
o~l'Ti~o
NAME ~ ~R ~ ~ff~
JSTATE J ZIP CODE
,u,?: //? 7/
· J BUSINESS( ) TELEPHONE
J.STATE I ZiP
lease Complete Eac~ Questlon--lndic~te N.A. if not applicable
~ Site Description
hyslcal setting of overall project, bo~ developed End undeveloped areas
Present land use: 1-10rban Olndustrial [:]Commercial ~(gesklentiai (suburban)
rqForest . I-IA~dculture [:3Other
Total acreage of project areac ~ acres.
APPROXIMATE ACREACE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION
Meadow or Brushland (NOn'agricultural) acres acres
Forested acres acres
Agricultural (Includes o~cherds, cropland, pasture, etc.) acres acres
Wetland (Freshwater oe tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) acres acres
Water Surface ,&rea acres acres
Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) acres acres
Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces acres acres
Other (Indicate type) acres * acres
. What Is predominant soil type(s) on project stte~
a. Soil drainage: ~l~Well drained % of site nModerately well drained % of site
DPooe'ly drained % of site
b. If any agricultu[al land ts i~volved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group I through 4 of the NYS
Systemt' ~//~ acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370).
Land
Classification
Are there bedrock outcroppings on project., slte~ OYes
depth to bedrockJ.. /~//A (in
What
is
feet)
2
~]Rural (non-farm)
~. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slope~: · 10% % [310-15% %
[315% or greater %
6,. Is project substantially contiguous to, or ~o~tain a building, site. or district, listed on the State or the National
Registers of Historic Places? [3Yes
7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? [3Yes '~No
8. What is the depth of the water table? /t//~A~ (in feet)
9. Is site located over a prin~ary, principal, or sole source aquifer? [3Yes ~No
'10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the proje'c~t area? [3Yes .~o
'il. Does project site,,c~tain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered~'
[3Yes~No According to
Identify each species
12. Are there any uniq_q_q~e or unusual land forms on the proiect site? (i,e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations)
(:]Yes I~No Describe
13. Is the project site~e ,presently used by the community or neighborhood Ks an open space or recreatio~ area?
[3Yes ~o . If yes, explain
14. Does the present s~te include scenic views known to be important to the community?
[3Yes ~No
15. Streams within or contiguous to projec~ area: ~Ou ?/-/~- ~) ~ ~
a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary
16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to pro}ect area:
a. Name b. Size (in acres)
17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? I-lyes
a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow ¢onnectlon~' [3Yes [:]No
b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection~' [3Yes I-INo
18. Is the site located in an agricultura~l/district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA.
Section 303 and 304? I-lyes ~lqo
19. I~ the site located in or substantially contlgu ~ous,,,to a. Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8
of the ECL. and 6 NYCRR 617[ I-lYes ,,~lqo
20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes~ C:]Yes
13. Project Description
'1. Physical dimensions and s. cale of project {fill in dimensions as appropriate)
a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor A///~ acres.
b. Project acreage'to be developed: ~ / c- acres initially; acres ultimately.
c. Project acreage to remain undevel?ped acres.
d, Length of project, in miles: /t///~ (if appropriate).
e, 'If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of exR~nsion proposed
f.
Number
of
off-street
parking spaces existing i ; proposed
g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour ~'~'/~' - (upon' completion~of peoject)~'
h. If I'esidential: Number and type of housing units:
One Family Two Family MulUple Family Condominium
Initially [ ~ ----" '~'"
Ultimately / ~ ~ / ., -
L Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure, height; width; length.
J. Linear feet of frontage alon~ a public thoroughfare project will occupy is! ~) fL
How much natural material (i.e., rock, earth, etc.) will be rem,/Oved from the site?
Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? OYes OHo
a. If yes~ for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed?
b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? OYes ONo
c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? OYes OHo
Ho~, many acres of vegetation (trees. shrubs, groun~ covers) will be removed~rom site? ' (~) acres.
Will any mature/forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project?
OYes J~LINo
If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 2 ¥~'-~ ~ moat*h~-, (including demolition).
If multi-phased: /~/~'
a. Total number of phases anticipated (number).
b. Anticipated date o( commencement phase 1 . month
c. Approximate completion date of final phase . month
d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? OYes nNo
Will blasting occur during construction? ' OYes ,'~'.Ho ./.
Number' of jobs generated: during construction . ~L/~,R' ; after 'project is complete .
,. Number of jobs eliminated by this project
· Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? OYes ~No If yes, explain .
tons/cubic yards
year, (including demolition).
year. ~
. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? OYes
a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount
b. Hame of water body into which effluent will be discharged
. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? OYes .~o Type
. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal?
Explain
OYes' .'~ltqo
· Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? I-lYes
,. Will the project generate solid waste? ' OYes
a. Ii~ yes, what is the amount per month, tons
b. If y~s, will an existing 'solid waste facility be used~ I-lyes nNo
c. If yes, give name .. .; location
d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill?
e. If Yes, explain
OYes C)No
'. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste?
a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposalt'.
b. Iir yes, what is the anticipated site Ii(e?
L Will project use herbicides or pesticides~' OYes
nyes I~
tons/month.
years.
L Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? [3Yes
). Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels['
I. Will project result in an increase in energy use[' (3Yes _~o
If yes , indicate type(s)
~-~No
[3Yes
If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity ,/'///~ gallons/minute. '
Total anticipated water usage per day /~// gallons/day.
Does project involve Local, State or Federal fundingt' (3Yes J~l~o
I( Yes, explain _
4
· 25. Approvals Required:
City. Town, Village Board ,l~Yes ONo
City, Town, Village Planning Board I~Yes DNo
City, Town Zoning Board [3Yes C]No
City, County Health Department DYes
Other Local Agenc!es DYes
Other Regional Agencies.' [3Yes
State Agencies I~Yes [3No
Federal Agencies ~Yes
Type
A~ Cc) ~
Submiual
Dale
C. Zoning and Planning Information
'1. Does proposed, action involve a planning or zoning decision? DYes
- If Yes. indicate decision required:
Dzoning amendment [qzoning variance Dspecial use permit ' I-Isubdivision I-Isite plan
Dnewlrevision of master plan Dresource management plan Doth~r
2. Whet is the zoning classification(s)of the site? fi, C_ S ID~ t.2 ,'~/A C.
3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning?
4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? P/~ IL/6~?'L~ Re 31D/~'7'!4 L ~A?'r')tl-~4o~-~
S. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning?
6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? ./~es DNo
7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a ~ mile radius of proposed action?
8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a ~A mllel .~es riND
9. 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) foe the formation of sewer or water districts[' DYes ~f~o
11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police,
fire protection)? I-lYes
a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? DYes r'lNo
12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels~ DYes' .~No
a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? [3Yes [3No
D. Informational Details
Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your pro~ect. 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.certlfy that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge.
If the action is In the Coastal Area, and you are a stale l]en~ ~mple{~ the Coa[lal Ass~smenl ~o~ belore p~ceedin[
~lh ~ls ~menL
Part 2--PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE
Responsibility of Lead Agency
;eneral Information (Read Carefully)
In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and determinations been
reasonable1 The reviewer is not expected to be an'expert environmental analysL
The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of
magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and
for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate
for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3.
The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and
have been offered as guidance, They do nqt constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question.
The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question.
In identifying impacts, cgnsider long term, short term and cumlative effects.'
Instructions (Read ~arefully)
a. Answer eaoh of the 20 questions In PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any Iml~acl.
b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers.
c, If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 c~ 2) to indic, ate the potential size of the
Impact. If Impact threshold equals or exoeeds any example provided, check column 2. If Impact will occur but
threshold Is lower than example, oheck column 1.
d. Iden(Ifylng that an Impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that It Is also necessarily slgnllloant.
Any I~rge Impact must be evaluated In PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an Impact In column 2 simply
asks that It be looked at further.
e. If reviewer has doubt about size of the Impact then consider the Impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3.
f. If a potentially large Impact checked In column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) I~ the projeot to a small to moderate
Impact, also oheck the Yes box In column 3. A.No response Indicates that such a reduotlon Is not possible. This
must be explained In Peri 3.
IMPACT ON LAND
Will the proposed action result in a physical change t.o the project site?
I:]NO [3YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
Any col~truction on slopes of 15% or 8rester, (15 foot rise per 100
foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed
10%.
Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than
3 feel
Construction of paved parking srea for 1,000 or more vehicles.
Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generallywithin
3 feet of existing ground surface.
£onstruct|on that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more
than one phase or stage.
Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000
tons of natural material [i.e., rock or soil} per year.
Construction oJ' expansion of a sanitary landfill.
Construction in a designated floodway.
Other impacts
Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on
the sltei' (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.)ONO OYES
Specific land forms:.
6
I 2 3
Small to Potential .Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact Impact Project Change
O O [:]Yes ONo
[] O OYes [:]No
0 [] OYes ONo
[] [] OYes [=]No
O [] OYes ONo
[] n [:]Yes {:]No
[] O OYes [:]No
O [] OYes ONo
Ct l=] []Yes Otto
[] [] []Yes ONo
IMPACT ON WATER
3. Wilt proposed action affect any water body designated as protected?
(Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL)
ON• OYES
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 waterf I'-INO OYES
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.
· Construction of a body o.f water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area.
· Other impacts:
5. Will Proposed Action 'affect surface or groundwater
quality o~ quantity? ON• OYES
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 (project) 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,
· Liqulcl effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which present!y
do not exist o~ have inadequate capaclty.
· Proposed Action would use water tn excess of 20,000 gallons per
day.
· Proposed Action will likely cause slltatio~ 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 services.
· Proposed Action locates commercial ancot inclustria[ uses which may
require new or expansion of e~isting waste treatment ancot s. torage
facilities.
· Other impacts:
6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow ~' patterns, or sudace
water nJnoffi' ON• I-lYES
Example~ that would apply to column 2
· Proposed Action would change flo~l water flows.
7
Be
By
0
0
!o
0
I 2 3 -
Small fo Potential Can Impact
Moderate Large Mitigated
Impacl Impact Project Cha~
O O OYes OI
[] 0 OYes
O [] OYes []r
0 [] []]]Yes
0 O OYes
O O OYes
0 O OYes ON
O 0 OYes
0 0 OYes
0 O OYes
0 0 OYes
0 0 OYes
0 0 OYes
~ ~ ~es
~ 0 OYes ~No
~ O OYes Oao
~ O OYes ~o
O ~ OYes ON•
~ ~ OYes ~o
'roposed Action may cause substantial erosion.
'roposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns.
'roposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway.
)they impacts:
1
Small to
Moderate
Impact
2 3
Potential Can Impact Be
Large Mi[igated By
Impacl Project Change
O O OYes ONo
O O []Yes ONo
O O OYes [~]No
[] O OYes
IMPACT ON AIR
Will proposed action affect air quality~' ONO DYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
roposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given
our.
roposed Action will result in the incineration of more than I ton of
:fuse per hour.
mission rate of total contaminants will exceed S lbs. per hour or a
.-at source producing more than.10 million BTU's per hour.
roposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed
, industrial use.
roposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial
:velopment within existing industrial areas.
they impacts:
[]
O
'0
O
0
O
O' OYes
O OYes ONo
O OYes ONo
O OYes ONo
O OYes ONo
O. OYes ONo
IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Viii Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered
;pecies[' ONO nyE5
-'xamples that would apply to column 2
~uction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal
t, using the site, over or near site or found on the site.
;moral of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitaL
~plicat'io~ of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other
an for agricultural purposes.
[her impacts:
O O DYes ONo
0 O -lyes ONo
O 0 OYes ONo
O O DYes ONo
Viii Proposed Action substanUally affect non-threatened or
on-eodangered specles~ DNO OYES
~amples that would apply to column 2
oposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or
gratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species.
~posed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres
mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important
getation.
IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES
Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources~
DNO OYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
e proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural
ad (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture; vineyard, orchard, etc.)
8
OYes ONo
OYes ONo
0 0 Dyes
· Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of []Yes
agricultural land.
· The proposed action would irreversibly 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 systems le.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:
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
11, Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources[ OHO [3YES
(If necessary, use the Visual I~AF Addendum in Section 617.20,
Appendix B.)
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from
or in sharp contrasi to current surrounding land use patterns, whether.
man-made or natural,
· Proposed land uses. or project components visible to users of
aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their
enjoyment 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:
IMPAOT ON HISTDRIO AND AROHAEOLO~IOAL RESOUROE$
12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of hist•dc, pre-
historic or paleontological importance~ [3NO [3YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Prop•ged Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially
contiguous to any facility or 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
archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory.
· Other impacts:
IMPACT ON OPEN $PACE AND RECREATION
13. Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or
future open spaces or recreational opportunltles~
Examples that would apply to column 2 [3NO OYES
· The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity.
· A major reduction of an open space important to the community.
· Other impacts:
1 2
Small to Potential C~
Moderate Large
Impact Impact Pr
[] [] F
.0 []
[] [] [3'
0 0
0 0 0~
[] [] Oy
0 0
0 [] ny
0 I-1 •y
n 0 OY
Impacl
Mitigated
Project Chan.c
[}N,
[]Yes ~N,
[:]Yes ON.
[]N.
E]Nr
]Yes r-IN<
FIN(
IMPACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS
Will Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique character-
istics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to
subdivision 6 NYCRR 617.14(g) ? ONO OYES
List the environmental characteristics that caused the designation ol
the CEA.
Examples that would apply to column 2
roposed Action to locate within the CEA?
roposed Action will result in a reduction in the quantity of the resource?
roposed Action will result in a reduction in the quality of the resource?
roposed Action will impact the use. function or enjoyment of the
.source?
,ther impacts:
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?
· [:]NO OYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
Iteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods.
roposed Action will result in major traffic problems.
ther impacts:
IMPACT ON ENERGY
Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or
energy supply? ONO OYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
roposed Action will cause a 8rearer than 5% increase in th~ use of
W form of energy in the municipality.
roposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy
ansmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family
.sidences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use.
,ther impacts:
1
Small lo
Moderate
Impact
0
0
0
0
O
O
0
[]
O
2
Pote~lial
Large
Impact
[]
0
0
O
Mitigated By
Project Change
OYes ONo
OYes ONo
[:]Yes ONo
OYes ONo
OYes ONo
OYes [~No
OYes [~]No
OYes ONo
[~JYes
OYes
OYes [~]No
10
1
NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS Small to
17. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result Moderate
of the Proposed Acti'on~' ON• OYES Impact
Examples that would apply to column 2
"Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive []
facility.
- Odors will 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.
· Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a I-]
noise screen.
· Other impacts: []
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
· 15. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety[
[:]NO' OYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous
substances (i.e. off, 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 result in the burial of "hazardous wastes'~ in any
form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating.
infectious, etc.)
· Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural
gas or other flammable liquids.
· Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance
within 2,000 fe~t of a site used for the disposal of solid or. hazardous
waste.
· Other impact~:
IMPAOT ON GROWTH ANp CHARAgTER
OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
19. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing communlty~'
ON• [:lYE5
Examples that would apply to column 2
· The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the
project is located b likely to grow by more than 5%.
· The municipal budget fo~ capital expenditures or operating se~i~es C]
will increase by more than S% 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.)
· Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future'projects. []
· Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. []
· Other impacts: []
2
Potential
Large
Impact
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
0
D
[]
[]
[]
[]
Can Impact Be
Mitigated By
Project Change
[]Yes [:]No
[~Yes []No
[]Yes [:]No
OYes IN•
[]Yes []No
[]Yes •No
[]Yes •No
OYes •No
[]Yes ON0
[]Yes •No
OYes [~No
-1yes •No
[]Yes [:]No
[]Yes I-IN•
[]Yes I~No
[]Yes []No
[]Yes [3No
OYes [:]No
[]Yes ~No
20. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts~'
[3NO OYES
il any a,.~Uo~ In Part 2 Es Identified as a potenlJal large Impacl or It you r, mlnot detecmlne the magnitude o! Impiot, proceed to Part ~
11
Part 3--EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS
Responsibility of Lead Agency
t 3 must be prepared il one or more impacl[s) is considered to be potentially large, even if the impact(s) may be
igated.
[ructions
cuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2:
Briefly describe the impact.
Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s).
Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important.
To answer the question of importance0 consider.
· The probability Of the impact occurring
· The duration of the impact
· Its i~reversibility, including permanently lost resources o( value
· Whether.the impact can or will be controlled
· The regional consequence ~)f the impact
· Its potential divergence from local needs and goals
· ' Whether. known objections to'the projef:t relate to this impact.
:ontinue on attachment~}
12
617.20
Appendix B
State Environmental Quality Review
Visual EAF Addendum
This form .may be used to provide additional information relating to Question ] ] of Part 2 of
the Fu}l EAF.
(To be completed by Lead Agency)
Distance Between
Visibility
1. Would the project be visible from:
· A parcel of land which is dedicated to and available
to the public for the use, enjoyment and appreciation
of natural or man-made scenic qualities?
· An overlook or pamel of land dedicated to public
observatloJ% enjoyment and appreciation of natural
or man,made scenlc qualities?
· A site or structure listed on the National or State
Registers of Historic Places?
· State Parks?
° The State Forest Preserve?
· Hational Wildlife Refuges and state game refuges?
° National Hatural Landhiarks and other outstanding
natural features?
· Hational Park Service lands?
· Rfvers designated as National or State Wild, Scenic
or Recreational?
"Any transportation corridor ol~ high exposure, such
as part of the Interstate System. or .Amtrak?
· A governmentally established or designated Interstate
or Inter-county for trail, or one formally proposed for
establishment or designation?
· A site. area. lake. reservoir or highway designated as
scenic?
· Municipal park, or designated open space?
· County road?
· State?
· Local road?
Project and Resource (in Miles)
0-~,~ 'A-Vz I/z.3 3-5 5+
[] [] [] (3 13
[] [] O E) 0
[] [] [] [] []
[] O [] [] 13
[] [] [] [] []
-0 [] [] [] []
O [] [] [] 0
[] O 0 [] []
[] [] [] O 0
[] [] [] O []
O 0 0 0 0
[] [] [] [] []
0 C] [] [] C]
C] [3 0 0 []
O [] [] 0 []
2. Is the visibility of the project seasonal? (i.e., screened by summer foliage, but visible during other
seasons)
[]Yes C]No
.3. Are any of the resources checked In question i used by the public during the (line of year
during which the project will be visible?
•~'es ON•
DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING VISUAL EHVIRONI4EI'~T
4. From each item checked in question l, check those which generally describe the surrounding
environment.
Within
'~1/4 mile '~ 1 mile
Essentially undeveloped [~ [~
Forested [] []
Agricultural [] [~
Suburban residential [] []
Industrial [] []
Commercial [] []
Urban [] [~
River, Lake, Pond [] [~
Cliffs, Overlooks [] [~
Designated Open Space [] [] ·
mat [] []
Hilly [] []
/V[ountalnous [] []
Other [] [~
HO'[~' add attachments as needed
Are there visually similar projects within:
*Vz mile r-lYes I--I No
*1 miles I-lYes []No
'2 miles r-lyes
*3 miles [--~ Yes I-]Ho
* Distance from project site are provided for assistance. Substitute other distances as appropriate,
EXPOSURE
6. The annual number of viewers likely to observe the proposed project is
NOTE: When user data is unavailable or unknown, use best esUmate.
CONTEXT
T. The situation or activity in which the viewers are engaged while viewing the proPOsed action is
Activity
Travel to and from work
Involved In recreational activities
Routine travel by residents
At a residence
At workslte
Other
FREQUENCY
Holidays/
Dally Weekly Weekends Seasonally
[] [] C) []
0 [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] 0 []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
'lPR°JECT L°' N'UuBER
617.20
Appendix C
Slate Environmental Quality Review
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
· For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only
PART I--PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Appllcanl or Project sponsor)
1. APPUCANT /~PONSOR J 2. PROJEGT HAME
!
3, PROJECT LOCATION:
SEQR
e. WiLL Pfloeo$(~ AGI~O~ OO~PLY WIT14 EXISTING ZONING O~ OTHf~ [Dt~rlk~ LANO USE flESTRICTIONS?
lib. DO~ ~ il4~VE A PERMIT APPrOVAl., O~ FUND~H~ ~ OR UL11MATELY FROM ~ OTHER GOVERNMEHTAL AGENOY (F~ '
~t. ~ Am' Ar,~Ec'r OF Ti~ Ao'no~ ~AVE A OURREmLY V,~J~ ~m~r OR ,~q~ROVALt
I CER~FY ~t~T'mE I~r-om~ATIo~ PRO, OEO AeOVE tS TRUE 'tO 'mE nEST oF MY ~tOWt. EOGE
I( tho action Is In 'the Coastal Area, and you am a state agency, complete the
Coastal Assessment Form'before proceeding with this assessment
OVER
I
ART II--ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by Agency)
A. ODES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 15 HYCRR. PART e17.47 ii yes. cOO(diXie the review p~oce.s$ and use Ihe FULL EAF.
E]Yes
S. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEVV AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR. PART ~,17.67 II No. a negalive decla*al;on
C. COULD ACTfON RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: tAnswer$ may be handwrilterL il legible)
E.'I~ THERE, OR IS THERE UKELY TO eF..~ ~NTROVERb~Y RELATED TO POI~NTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAl.. IMPACTS?
~,RT Ill--DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by Agency)
INSTRUCTIONS: For each advert, e effect Identified above, determine whether II Is substlmtlal, large, important or otherwise si~niticant.
Each efleot should be assest~d In coflflactlen with Its (a} acltiflg (i.e. ucban or rural); (b) pnfoat:41ily ol occurring;, to} duration; (cl)
Iffevefslb~l#~, (e) geO~lK~lo t, oo~e.; ~ (~ m~g~fltucla. If I~oea&aq', add atlao~meflts or rel'ef~loe r~ i1mte~lala. Entmm that
explanations COfltaln lufllcleflt detail to show that III esleYaM adverse Impectl'have been idenllited eacl adequalel¥ &dd~es~ed. If
quesitofl D of Part II wis checked yes, Ihe detemtlnatkx~ and IlgnlfleaRCe'must evaluate the potential Impact o! the proposed ectkm
en the efl'droflmefltll ohamotecistlos o! the ~
D Chock this box If you have Identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse Impacts which MAY
occur. Then proceed cIIrsctly to the FULL FAF and/o~ prepare & positive declaration.
D Chock this box If you have determlfled, based mi the Information and analysis above and any supporting
documentation, that the p~oposed action WILL NOT result In any signlflean! adverse environmental Impacts
AND provide off attachments as necessary, the reasons supporting this determination:
2
Albert J. Krupski, President
James King, Vice-President
Henry Smith
Artie Foster
Ken Poliwoda
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Office Use Only
Coastal Erosion Permit Application
.,~'Wetland Permit Application "'"-Major
Waiver/Amendment/Changes
,~eceived Application:~
~eceived Fee:$ ~
,C~Smpleted App~
__~Qmplete_
RA Classification:
~ype I Type II Unlist .ed
-/~oor-~nation:(date s~nt)
-~-'~AC Referral Sent:~
~Date of Inspection: I~ll](b~ Receipt of CAC Report:
Lead Agency Determination:__
Technical Review:
~---drublic Hearing Held~:~
Resolution:
Minor
Town Hall
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-1366
>oc K
Name of Applicant
Address ~ ~_..),
Suffolk County Tax Map Number: 1000- _~ '7 f O
Property Location: /O?qf .]Jd)A ~/--// AA .~ L///(--h
(provide L~LCO Pole #, distance to cross str¢~-'~, and location)
AGENT:
(If applicable)
Address:
Phone:
Land Area (in square feet):
Area Zoning: /~ - ~' O
Previous use of property:
Intended use of property:
Board of Trustees Application
GENERAL DATA
.A cwe3
Prior permits/approvals for site improvements:
Da e
__ No prior permits/approvals for site improvements.
Has any permit/approval ever been revoked or suspended by a governmental agency?
t-/ No Yes
If yes, provide explanation:
Project Description (use attachments if necessary):.
WETLAND/TRUSTEE LANDS APPLICATION DATA
Purpose of the proposed operations:
Board of Trustees Application
i I %/o
Area ofwetlands on lot: (c~'~;$ ~'-/~/ arefeet
Percent coverage of lot: L~$~ ~,(~// %
Closest distance between nearest existing structure and upland
edge of wetlands: / Ooo -4' feet
Closest distance between nearest proposed structure and upland
edge of wetlands: /r~oO 4; feet
Does the project involve excavation or filling? J No Yes
If yes, how much material will be excavated? (.) cubic yards
How much material will be filled? (_..) cubic yards
Depth of which material will be removed or deposited:_.
Proposed slope throughout the area of operations:
Manner in which material will be removed or deposited:
feet
Statement of the effect, if any, on the wetlands and tidal waters of the town that may result by
reason of such proposed operations (use attachments if appropriate):
State Environmental Quality Review
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
For UNLISTED ACTIONS Cnly
PART [--PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by AeDlicam or Proiec= sponsor)
SEQ
/3,
5. IS ROlO ACTION:
PRO SED
YNe
w [] Exl~ans~on ~ Modificaliontalleration
5. WILL FROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING --~ND USE ~ESTRICTICNS~
~e$ I~ No If NO, descr¢~e briefly
DOES ~
ANY ASP T OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALIO PERMIT OR APPROVAL?
I~ Yes' l! '/es. list agency name and permit/approval
If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the
Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment
OVER
!
PA~T iI--ENVI~O;IME?iTA' ES.~MEblT T] se csms:ese~- s¥ Igenc
mART iiiIOETERMINATICN OF SiGNIFtCANCc ~TO me cmmole[ed Dy Agency)
Board of Trustees Application
County of Suffolk
State of New York
~-~{/L/ L, Ht~//CT~x DC) BErG D~Y SWO~
DEPOSES ~ ~F~S THAT ~/S~ IS ~ ~PLIC~T FOR T~ ~O~
DESC~ED PE~(S) ~ T~T ~L STATE~NTS CONT~D ~ ~
~ TO ~ BEST OF ~S~R ~O~EDGE ~D BEL~F, ~ ~T ~L WO~
~L BE DO~ ~ ~ ~R SET FOR~ ~ Tiffs ~PLICATION ~ AS MAY
BE ~PRO~D BY ~ SOUTHOLD TO~ BO~ OF TRUSSES. T~ ~PLIC~
AG~ES TO HOLD ~ TO~ OF SOUTHOLD ~D T~ TO~ TRUSTEES
H~ESS ~ ~E ~OM ~Y ~ ~L DAMAGES ~ CLA~S ~S~G
~ER OR BY ~ OF S~ PE~T(S), ~ G~TED. ~ CO~LET~G ~S
~PLIC~rION, I ~BY AUTHO~E T~ TRUS'I~FS, T~IR AGENT(S) OR
~P~SE~ATI~S(S), TO EN~R ONTO ~ PROP~g I'Y TO ~SPECT T~
P~SES ~ CON~CTION ~ ~W OF D{IS ~'PL!CATION
Signaffire -
SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS / J ~ DAY OF _:(L-_(.3__L~__ ,20 O L-
Public -
ELIZABETH A STATHI$
NOTARY PUBLIC, Share of New York
No. 01ST6008173. Suffolk Co..upty
Term Expires June 8, 20..~
PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE
ATTACH CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS
Address:
'; OF NEW YORK
iTY OF SUFFOLK
~_[/.~' l.-. t~lL~A.?"~tO0 ,residingat~/O~.~ ~ ~A7~ Id/~qo./ fo~ D
£~/.7-//Ot,/9 gJ. Y' , being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the
~c~_..~ dayot~ D~Y¢- ,200,2, deponent mailed a true copy ofthe Notice
:'orth. in the Board of Trustees Application, directed to each of the above named
,sons at the addresses set opposite there respective names; that the addresses set
Jpposite 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 .500 7'//otr) //q 7 / _, that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by
(certified) (registered) mail.
Sworn to before me this
Dayof D6"C. .,20
· Not~ Public
Albert J. Krupski, President
James King, Vice-President
Henry Smith
Artie Foster
Ken Peliwoda
Town Hall
· 53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-1366
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BOARD OF TRUSTEES: TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
In the Matter of the Application
of
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK)
STATE OF NEW YORK)
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
I, ~0~ L, /~, residing at /~ ~/. ~/~Lc-
30of/¥o v. P'. //9 7/
being duly sworn, depos~ and say:
That on the /~f~day of b6( , 200L, I personally posted the
property known as /~ //, ~y~/~.w ~O~ ~ ~-~//JO~ D
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
~~7' Date of ,hearing noted thereon to be held ~_~0
Dated:
~ture)
Sworn to before me this
/1~4~~ day of ~)¢ C. 200
Notary Public
The Town o~ $~uEhuld's Code cf £bhics p~ohibibs cos[licte ut
interest on the part of teen office~s and emplo~ Tile
purpose of this form is to provide information which can
alert the tovn of possible conflicts of interest and allow
it {~o take whatever action ie necessary to avoid same.
uthe~ mntiby, .uuh )8 m cu~pany. I~ mu, indiumte
NATURR OF APPLI~ATIONt (Cheek ail thak sppl¥.)
Tax grievance
Variance
change of sons
ARp~al of plat ,
Exeiptio. from plat or offieisl map
Other
by b~oodt narria~ or business interest.
Mhiuh ~h~ town officer or employee ha, ~ven
~h~ town officer or e~pioyee ovn. more than
/
If you anav~red 'YRS,". complete the balance u~ ~his {Corm and
dabs and ei~ ~h~re indicaeed.
Name of pecson~employ~d by bh~ ToYs o~ Soubhold
and ~he ~own office~ ~r employee. Eikher check ~h~
appropriate lin~ A) ~rough D) and/or d~uribe in khe ~pac~
provided. /
The town o;fluer or empl~ee or his or her spouse~ sibling,
parent, or c~ld is (ch;c~all ~ha~ apply)~
A) ~he ovneu og grea~e~ ~han 5% o~ ~he shares o~
corporate s~ock o~ ~ npplie~n~ (when ~he
, Is a ootpora~ion)l ~ ,
- B) ~he legal otbbne~icial~n~u o~ any inbere~k in a
non~orpota~en~i~y (vhe~he appilemn~ is nu~ a '
corpora~ion)~ , ~ '
. C) an o~r~ ~ee~ur~ pat~.~ or employe~ o~
app~caob / or ~ -
. D) bhe ~bual. appiicank, ~ ~ ·
·. *, , ~,, 5,~,
STATE OF N--EW YORK
DEPARTNENT OF STATE
4 I STATE STRE~I-
ALBANY, NY I 2~'3 I -000 I
GEORGE E. PATAKI
Mr. Dan Hall
Land Use Ecological Services, Inc.
2576 Sound Avenue
Baiting Hollow, NY 11933
Southold Town
Board of Trustees
Re: F-2003-0039
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/New York District Permit
Application - John Hurtado, Sr - Construct 4' x 108' fixed
catwalk; proposed to utilize (4) 4" x 4" timber dock piles and
(26) 6" dia CCA timber dock piles
Southold Bay, Town of Southold. Suffolk County
General Concurrence
Dear Mr. Hall:
The Department of State received your Federal Consistency Assessment Form and consistency certification and
supporting intbrmation for this proposal on January 1, 2003.
The Department of State has determined that this proposal meets the Department's general consistency
concurrence criteria. Therefore, further review of the proposed activity by the Department of State is not
required, nor is the Department's concurrence with an individual consistency certification for it.
When communicating with us regarding this matter, please contact us at (518) 474-6000 and refer to our file
it F-2003-0039.
Coastal Resource Specialist
Consistency Review Unit
sm
COE/New York District - Marc Helman
NYSDEC/Region 1-John Pavacic
REPLy TO
A I'~EN TION OF
Eastern Permits Section
SUBJECT: Application No.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARI
NEW YORK DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINI
JACOB K. JAVITS FEDERAL BUILDIN*
NEVV YORK, N.Y. 10278-0090
January 30, 2003
FEB 1 9 2003
Southold Town
Board o~ '[r~Jstees
2003-00052-L2 by John L. Hurtado
The New York District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, has
received a request for Department of the Army authorization for the
following activity:
APPLICANT:
ACTIVITY:
John L. Hurtado
P.O. Box 1925
Southold, NY 11971
Install a 4' x 108' fixed timber pier, as shown on
the attached drawings. The purpose of this project
is to provide a safe recreational mooring facility.
WATERWAY: Southold Bay, Shelter Island Sound
LOCATION: Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York
As this is minor in nature, authorization may be by Letter of
Permission. This is in accordance with current Federal Regulations
governing work in navigable waters of the United States. To
accomplish the coordination required, prior to the issuance of a
Letter of Permission, your review of Uhe enclosed drawincs is
requested. ~
Pursuant to Section 307 (c} of the Coastal Zone Management Act
of 1972 as amended (16 U.S.C. 1465 (c) (3/ (A)), the applicant has
certified that the activity complies with and will be conducted in
a manner that is consistent with the approved state coastal zone
management program.
To allow for the timely processing of the subject application,
your comments are requested within 15 days of the date of this
leEter.
Enclosure
Sincerely,
Marc Helman
Acting Chief
Eastern Permits Section
o
SEQRA RESOLUTION RE: JOHN L. HURTADO SCTM#79-5-20.13
Resolved by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold that the application
of JOHN L. HURTADO, more fully described in the public hearing section #17 of
the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, December 18, 2002 is, pursuant to the
SEQRA rules and regulations, an Unlisted Action; and be it
Further resolved that the applicant is required to submit Part 1 of the Long
Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF); and be it
Further resolved that upon receipt of the LEAF the Clerk of the Trustees is
hereby directed to commence a coordinated review pursuant to SEQRA.
NOTICE ~O AI~ACE~T PBOPERTY OWNKR
B~AItD OF TRUSTBJL~, TOt~ OF $O~J~HOLD
YOU AR~ HEREBY GXVE~ NOTICe:
~eLlCtt £~om &-h~ Boaz~! of ?_~un~eos
located id~acen~ ~o your prope~:y &nd kS d~c~kl~ mi
._?ou f'# o ,' D / X /IC/71
c,~n~ on~.~ You m&y cofl~ecc ~he T~us~ees Off~Ce at*
765 ~892 o~ tn-w~k~kng.
The mbove =e~mL~ncmd p~oposal ko ufld~F revAev of ~he BomEd et
TZmmteel of the ~fl of $outhoXd and doee not Eeference Any
otlmr agency that mVghC have ~o revtew lame p~oposa]..
F~.: COpy o( sketch or pXan eho~l.g prolpO~aZ tot your
Telephone
(631) 765-1892
Towu H',~.II. 53095 Maiu Road
P.O. Box 1129
,Bout. hold. New York 11971
SOUTHOLD TO~N
CONSERVATIOi~ ADVISORY COUNCIL
At the meeting of the Southold Town ConserVation Advisory Council held Thursday,
December 12, 2002, the following recommendation was made:
Moved by Tom Schlicter, seconded by Bob Ghosio, it was
RESOLVED to recommend to the Southold Town Board of Trustees DISAPPROVAL of
the Wetland Permit Application of JOHN L. HURTADO to construct a 5 ½' X 96' wood
dock into Southold Bay.
Located: 10995 North Bayview Rd., Southold. SCTM#79-5-20.13
The CAC recommends Disapproval of the application because of the following reasons:
The shallow water where the dock is proposed is teaming with
shellfish.
The structure is not consistent with the area.
The use of CCA materials would have a negative impact.
A 5 './2' wide dock would cast a large shadow over the underwater
lands.
Vote of Council: Ayes: All
Motion Carried
LOCATION MAP
JOItlll L. HURTADO
PO. BOX 1925
80UITIOLD, NY 11971
J)oCK
NORTH
$OUTHOLD BAY
TEST HOLE DATA
f5
N74'42'10"W
SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
HAUPPAUGE, N.Y.
DATE
SERVICES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE PROPOSED REALTY SUBDIVISION OR DEVELOPMENT
FOR IN THE
.WITH A TOTAL OF LOTS WAS
APPROVED ON THE ABOVE DATE, WATER SUPPLIES AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL
FAClLI~IES MUST CONFORM TO CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS IN EFFECT AT THE
TIME OF CONSTRUCTION AND ARE SUBJECT TO SEPARATE PERMITS PURSUANT TO
THOSE STANDARDS. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID ONLY IF THE REALTY
SUBDIVISION/DEVELOPMENT MAP IS DULY FILED WITH THE COUNTY CLERK WITHIN
ONE YEAR OF THIS DATE. CONSENT IS HEREBY GIVEN FOR THe FILING OF THIS
MAP ON WHICH THIS ENDORSEMENT APPEARS IN THE OFFICE OF THE OOUNTY
CLERK IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF THe PUBLIC HEALTH LAW AND THE
SUFFOLK COUNTY SANITARY COBE,
DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
now or formerly
Peconic Land Trust
Co iN
1999
74-0.30'
PARCEL 1
/ /
t I
800.50'
ooW or (ormerl¥
George 3, BerrY,
0
NORTH
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THIS SUBDIVISION PLAN HAS BEEN APPROVED
BY ARTICLE 16 OF THE TOWN LAW.
CHAIRMAN
DATE OF APPROVAL DATE OF CERTIFICATION
"I HERESY CERTIFY THAT THIS MAP WAS MADE BY ACTUAL SURVEYS COMPLETED
APRIL 04, 2002 AND THAT ALL CONCRETE MONUMENTS SHOWN THUS: · ACTUALLY
EXrST AND THEIR POSITIONS ARE CORRECTLY SHOWN AND ALL DIMENSIONAL AND
GEODETIC DETAILS ARE CORRECT, THE DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL LOTS
"R-~0 & A-C" ZONING USE DISTRICT.
DAVID H~ FOX DATE
N,Y.S L.S # 50234
"1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE WATER SUPPLIES AND/OR SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS FOR
DESIGNED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION. BASED ON A CAREFUL
AND }F THe SOIL, SITE AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS, ALL LOTS,
AS P 0 THE SUFFOLK COUNt( DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
I ~ ~~IN EFFECT AS OF THIS DA~."
J~S'~;~ FI SOH ETTI, PR-- ~ D~TE
(0 MLW)
SOUTHOLD BAY
/29"E
NOv 2 5,
20 O'
I
cou~ ¢1
L__,~j
PARCEL 2
.o
>~
-c E
E~
Co
5
OWNER
CHRISTINE C. HURTADO, JOHN L. HURTADO, SR.,
DEBRA J, HURTADO & JOHN L, HURTADO, JR,
R,O. BOX 1925
SOUTHOLD. NY, 11971
NOTE
1. TOPOGRAPHICAL DATA SHOWN HEREON IS FROM SURVEY PREPARED BY
ANTHONY LEWANDOWSK], L.S, LAST DATED NOV, 09, 20DO AND IS
REFERENCED TO TOPOGRAPHICAL MAPS "5 EASTERN TOWNS"
2, WETLANDS LINE SHOWN HEREON IS FROM SURVEY PREPARED BY
ANTHONY LEWANDOWSKI, L.S. LAST DATED NO% 09, 2000.
5. PARCEL 2 NOT TOBE FURTHER SUBDIVIDED
SITE DATA
TOTAL AREA
ZONING USE DISTRICT
SCHOOL DISTRICT
FIRE DISTRICT
24,043 ACRES
R-40 & A-C
SOUTHOLD
SOUTHOLD
NYNEX, LIPA
(ALL UTILITIES TO BE INSTALLED UNDERGROUND IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISJON REGULATIONS)
SCALE: 1"=100'
JOB N0:2002-051
DATE; REVrSION-
JULY 03, 2002 PLA&pREPArED
SCALE 1 =100
FOX LAND SURVEYING
PO BOX 22~
SPEONK, N.Y. 11972
(6B1) 525-2902
Set Off Prepared For:
"CHRISTINE C. HURTADO,
JOHN L. HURTADO, SR.,
DEBRA J. HURTA O &
JOHN L. HURTABO, JR."
At
B ayview
Town of
$o~f/~o[d
Suffolk County, New York
Suffolk County Tax Map:
Dlst. 1000 Sect. 079.00 Block 05.00 Lot 020.013