Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1000-116.-6-24.1Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. Newman Village, Suite E, 2322 Main Street, P.O. Box 2003, Bridgehampton, New York 11932-2003 (631) 537-5160 Bruce Anderson, M.S., President Fax: (631) 537-5291 November 15, 2005 SCTM#: Mr. Mark Terry~ LWRP Coordinator Southold Town Hall P.O. Box 1179 '~,~x/ \~%'~ Southold, NY 11971 Re: Kimogenor Point Company Property Situate: Kimogenor Point Road (western end) New Suffolk; Town of Southold, New York 1000 - 116 - 6 - 24.1 Dear Mr. Terry, This correspondence is submitted in response to your memorandum, dated October 21, 2005, in which you declare that the proposed action is inconsistent with the Town's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP). Applicant seeks to construct a low-profile bulkhead to address erosion concerns. Applicant has monitored the easterly shoreline and has documented the loss of intertidal wetland vegetation due to the collapse of the underlying bog. Attached herewith are a series of photos that document the receding shoreline and loss of tidal wetlands due to the collapse and erosion of the underlying bog. The proposal, if approved, would enhance and add to the intertidal wetlands and would stabilize the underlying bog. Applicant also proposes for re-sheathing of the northerly bulkhead to protect the upland portion of the site and to reduce the turbidity/siltation impacts presently occurring as a result of the prevent failing bulkhead. In regards to your comment that the proposal is inconsistent with LWRP Policy 5.3, which states "The Town of SouthoM recognizes the importance of maintaining high water quality in its surface waters. Impairments to its salt andJgesh waters from careless landpractices, stormwater runoff, malfunctioning on-site wastewater treatment systems and boater pollution are the main concerns.", and more specifically, "protect and enhance water quality of coastal waters...in three ways: A) Protect water quality based on an evaluation of physical factors (pH, dissolved oxygen, dissolved solids, nutrients, odor, color and turbidity..., please note that the proposed bulkhead reconstruction and low-sill bulkhead will not alter the pH due to West Creek being a tidal wetland system naturally buffered by calcium carbonate, which is the chemical compostition of shells. Please remember that the existing sheathing and wales are not being removed, only refaced, and that all proposed fill being imported would be from a clean upland source. The proposed bulkhead reconstruction will not alter the dissolved oxygen content as there will be no addition of material to West Creek that would raise it. Nor will the proposal lower dissolved oxygen content as it will involve no deposition of organic matter that would then be decomposed and lower the oxygen content in West Creek by the same degredative biological processes. No portion of the proposal involves use, or release of, substances that would alter the odor or color of West Creek. ~ Concerning your implication regarding potential health factors (pathogens, chemical contaminants and toxicity) that could result from this project, please note that the l>roposed bulkhead reconstruction involves no septic related activities, thereby removing the potential for contamination of West Creek by pathogens as a result of the proposed actioh. The materials to be used in the reconstruction will all be NYSDEC approved t.~ construction materials and will contain no harmful chemicals. Again, the existing sheathing and wales will not be removed, thereby keeping potentially contaminated soils away from the surface waters. For all of the aforementioned reasons, the proposed bulkhead reconstruction will cause no increase in the toxicity of West Creek either. ~g~,rning the issues involving aesthetic t~ctors (oils, floatables, refuse, and~ ag~, please note that the proposed bulkhead reconstruction will no~ cause any ae'gthetic impacts such as oils, floatables, refuse, and/or suspended solids. As explained above, impacts relating to suspended solids are ultimately reduced because the tidal wetlands and underlying bog will cease to erode into the surface waters of West Creek and the bulkhead construction will preclude the release of solids into the water column. B) Minimize disturbances of streams and creek, g including their bed and bank~ in order to prevent erosion of soil, increased turbidity, and irregular variation in velocity, temperature, and level of water. As previously stated, piles cannot be driven into a creek bed without some disturbance. Using proper bulkhead construction practices will keep this disturbance to a minimum, as is the intention of this subpolicy. Completion of the proposed actions will more aptly prevent soil erosion, especially in the area of the Iow sill bulkhead installation on the east side of the proposed work area, where no structure exists now to brace that side of the peninsula. Please r~fer to the attached photo package that indicates the large amount or wetland erosion at the site. In addition, the proposed action will in no way cause "irregular variation in velocity, temperature, and level of water" in West Creek. ¢) Protect water quality of coastal waters from adverse impacts associated with excavation~tredging, and disposal of dredged material. The proposed bulkhead reconstructiGn involves no dredging, or disposal of dredged material, nor does it involve any excavation. The fill to be used to level the grade of the project site will be from a clean upland source and will be placed landward of the proposed bulkhead. No fill will be deposited into West Creek. Therefore, the proposed action is consistent with Policy 5.3 and all of its sub-policies. In regards to your comment that the proposal is inconsistent with LWRP Policy 6.1, Policy 6 states: "Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosystem.", and which includes Policy 6. I, which specifically intends to "...protect and restore ecological quality throughout the Town of Southold." by adhering to three sub-policies, including sub-policy A, which intends to "avoid adverse changes to the Long Island Sound and Peconic Bay ecosystems that would result from impairment of ecological quality as indicated by: 1) Physical loss of ecological components, 2) Degradation of ecological components, 3) Functional loss of ecological components", please note the following: A) There will be no appreciable loss of ecological components as a result of the proposed action, fhere is no planned excavation of the situate wetland. Only 150 ± cubic yar4fl~2" of clean fill are proposed to be dispersed between two (2) sites. North of the existing, ~ '~k, frame building, approximately 100 cubic yards ± of clean fill will be deposited on the ~grd side Of th~: wet!a~d~rea .~ f~ai~ I~ eiv~tj~o~ So Ileal i~._ is~ 19~[~t,h ~ [~faeed~l;~. No wetland is being lost in this case as once construction is completM, native vegetation will undoubtedly propagate and thrive in that filIM ar~. In the ar~ of the Iow sill bulkh~d installation, approximately flay (50) cubic yards of clean fill will be plac~ at a 1.0' · maximum depth betw~n the proposed bulkhead and the s~ward edge of the ,5~artina plantings. ' ~ ~ ~roj~t. Rather the propos~ actious will iucrease wetlands. B) There will be no degradation of ecological components as a result of the proposed action. This policy states that "degradation occurs as an adverse change in ecological quality, either aa' a direct loss originating within the resource area or as an indirect loss originating from nearby activities. Degradation usually occurs over a more extendedperiod t~'time than physical loss and may be indicated by increased siltation, changes in community composition, or evMence of pollution'." This assessment already demonstrates that on site wetlands and surface waters will be protected and enhanced. The Iow sill bulkhead will allow high tide waters to flow over that portion of the wetlands leaving the hydrolo~ of the site unchanged. The northern area of construction is already improved with a bulkhead, lherefbre refacing said bulkhead will not alter the existing hydrology. In addition, as the proposed action is located in an area that is used to dock boats, tJ~na~ilfltife i~ aeeuatorn~d.to~ ~hani .ZAXl disturban.e,~ and should not be adversely affected by the construction of the improvements. Therefore, the proposed action is consistent with Policy 6. I and all of its sub-policies. In regards to your comment that the proposal is inconsistent with Policy 6.3 A, which states, "Comply with statutory and regulatory requirements r( the SouthoM Town Board of Trustees laws and regulations for all .4ndros Patent and other lands under their jurisdiction ", the proposed project complies witb the rules and regulations of the Town Trustees. Additionally, Policy 6.3B states, "Comply statutory ami regulatory requirements of the State's wetland laws." The proposed project complies with the regulatory requirements of the state. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has been consulted in this project and has indicated to the applicant that the proposed project will be approved as applied-for. Policy 6.3C ( I ) states, "Avoid placement o/tiff in, or, excavation q£vege/ated wetlands; a. choose alternative sites that would not result in adverse impacts on wetlamls; b. reduce scale, or intensity of development to avoid excavation or J~ll; c. choose design alternatives that wouM ~N avoid excavation orfill." Please note that the proposed bulkhead replacement and Iow-sill bulkhead are habitat-protection features that prevent further loss of wetlands (and other habitat) because it will increase the amount of wetlands, as well as preventing erosion, which is presently destroying the wetlands. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with these policies. Policy 11 states, "Promote sustainable use oJ'living marine resources in Long Island Sound, the Peconic Estuary and Town waters." Please note that the proposed project is consistent with this policy because it promotes the sustainable use ot'living marine resources. It does so by protecting and enhancing wetlands. For the reasons stated above, I request you reverse your earliest determination of December 21, 2005, and provide the Board of Trustees with a short memorandum that this project is consistem with the Town's LWRP. Should you have any questions or comments concern'rog this matter, please contact me at any time. ~Since~ j~ __ Bruce A. Anderson attachment CC~ B. Fox A. Krupski (c/o Southold Board of Trustees) Clubhouse Island Monitoring Kimogenor Point August 20, 1996 Bob Fox Placed throe 6' rodwood stakes in the ground along the east side of the Clubhouse island. Slakes aro located exactly six feet along the ground (not horizontally, see sketch) from the edge of the bank along the west side of the creek channel. The tops of the stakes are painted light blue. The distance between the stakes and the edge of the bank' can be measured annually to, monitor the rate of erosion of the bank. Took photos of all of the stakes in location. Also photographed the large (3" +/-) locust (?) post located about mid-way along the south side of the island. This post is approximately one foot from the bank edge. There is another locust (?) post approximately 18' east of the bridge. This post is approximately three feet from the bank edge.