Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-8082 James F. King, President ~QF ~QUry Town Hall Annex 0`~ 0 54375 Main Road Bob Ghosio, Jr., Vice-President ~ `O p.0. Box 1179 Dave Bergen ~ ~ Southold, New York 11971-0959 John Bredemeyer G Q ` p Telephone (631) 765-1892 Michael J. Domino ~ Fax (631) 765-6641 ~~OOUNi'1,~ BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE # 0896C Date: Member 4, 2013 THIS CERTIFIES that the construction of an elevated 4'x84' fixed catwalk with 6'x 10' step-down platform at seaward end comprised entirely of untreated materials and oven- grate deckins. At 15437 Route 25, East Marion, New York Suffolk County Tax Map # 23-1-6.1 Conforms to the application for a Trustees Permit heretofore filed in this office Dated October 24, 2012 pursuant to which Trustees Wetland Permit #8082 Dated February 20, 2013 was issued and conforms to all of the requirements and conditions of the applicable provisions of law. The project for which this certificate is being issued is for the construction of an elevated 4'x84' fixed catwalk with 6'x10' step-down platform at seaward end comprised entirely of untreated materials and oven-prate decking. The certificate is issued to FREDERICK de la VEGA & LAWRENCE HIGGINS owner of the aforesaid property. Authorized Signature James E King, President O~~(:Fj)((,~.CO Town Hall, S3ll9S Main Rd. Bob Ghosio, 1r., Vice-President ~ P.O. Box 1179 Dave Bergen Southold, NY 11971 Z - John Bredetneyer ~ ~ '~c Telephone (631) 765-1892 Michael J. Domino y'~'Oj * .~a0 Fax (63l) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD DATE OF INSPECTION: v ~J - I~ ~(~~•Y~~^" Ch. 275 Ch. 111 INSPECTION SCHEDULE Pre-construction, hay bale line/silt boom/silt curtain 1St day of construction '/2 constructed Project complete, compliance inspection. INSPECTED BY: ~ COMMENTS: Ccrn lrl/ vv~..C~ ~ q~~/yt lI oc ~9-,3 D,~ %~,rue CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANC James F. King, President ~~d~0g1{fFQ(,~~OGS Town Hall, 53095 Main Rd. Bob Ghosio; Jr., Vice-President a. ~ P.O: Box 1179- Dave Bergen ~ Southold, hR' 11971 John Bredemeyer • Telephone (631) 765-1892 Michael J. Domino ~~1 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES 72 HOURS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE WORK, TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT FOR APRE-CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION. FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL BE CONSIDERED A VIOLATION AND POSSIBLE REVOCATION OF THE PERMIT. INSPECTION SCHEDULE Pre-construction, hay bale line 15t day of construction constructed Project complete, compliance inspection _ , I BOARD OF SOUTHOLD TOWN TRUSTEES SOUTHOLD,NEW YORK I I PERMIT NO. 8082 DATE: FEBRUARY 20, 2013 ISSUED TO: FREDERICK DE LA VELA & LAWRENCE HIGGINS PROPERTY ADDRESS: 15437 ROUTE 25. EAST MARION II SCTM# 23-1-6.1 AUTHORIZATION Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 275 of the Town Code of [he Town of Southold and in ill! accordance with the Resolution of the Board of Trustees adopted at the meeting held on Februar~0, 2013, and I in consideration of application fee in the sum of $250.00 paid by En-Consultants and subject to the Terms and I Conditions as stated in the Resolution, the Southold Town Board of Trustees authorizes and permits the following: Wetland Permit to construct an elevated 4'x84' fixed catwalk with 6'x10' step- down platform at seaward end, comprised entirely of untreated materials; including i open-grate fiberglass reinforced decking, and as depicted on the site plan prepared by En-Consultants, last dated January 10, 2013, and stamped approved on February 20, 2013. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Board of Trustees hereby causes its Corporate Seal to be affixed, and these presents to be subscribed by a majority of the said Boazd as of this date. cM ~ suFCn~~. C~~ Bob Ghosio Jr. - Na ~ ~ ~'~01,~, ~a°! ' • TERMS AND CONDITIONS The Permittee Frederick de la Vega & Lawrence Hieeins residine at 15437 Route 25, East Marion, New York as part of the consideration for the issuance of the Permit does understand and prescribe to the following: 1. That the said Board of Trustees and the Town of Southold are released from any and all damages, or claims for damages, of suits arising directly or indirectly as a result of any operation performed pursuant to this permit, and the said Permittee will, at his or her own expense, defend any and all such suits initiated by third parties, and the said Permittee assumes full liability with respect thereto, to the complete exclusion of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold. 2. That this Permit is valid for a period of 24 months, which is considered to be the estimated time required to complete the work involved, but should circumstances warrant, request for an extension may be made to the Board at a later date. 3. That this Permit should be retained indefinitely, or as long as the said Permittee wishes to maintain the structure or project involved, to provide evidence to anyone concerned that authorization was originally obtained. 4. That the work involved will be subject to the inspection and approval of the Board or its agents, and nou-compliance with [he provisions of the originating application may be cause for revocation of this Permit by resolution of the said Board. 5. That there will be no umeasonable interference with navigation as a result of the work herein authorized. 6. That there shall be no interference with the right of the public to pass and repass along the beach between high and low water marks. 7. That if future operations of the Town of Southold require the removal and/or alterations in the location of the work herein authorized, or if, in the opinion of the Board of Trustees, the workshall cause unreasonable obstruction to free navigation, the said Permit[ee will be required, upon due notice, to remove or alter this work project herein stated without expenses [o the Town of Southold. 8. That the said Board will be notified by the Pennittee of the completion of the work authorized. 9. That the Permittee will obtain all other permits and consents that may be required supplemental to this permit, which may be subject to revoke upon failure to obtain same. James F. King, President O_``~OF ~~VryOl Town Hal] Annex Bob Ghosio, Jr., Vice-President V` 54375 Main Road ~ O P.O. Box 1179 Dave Bergen ~ * Southold, New York 11971-0959 John Bredemeyer y ~ G Q Telephone (631) 765-1892 Michael J. Domino %2` ~ Fax (631) 765-6641 ~~~'COUHry,~ BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD February 20, 2013 Mr. Robert E. Herrmann En-Consultants 1319 North Sea Road Southampton, NY 11968 RE: FREDERICK DE LA VEGA & LAWRENCE HIGGINS 15437 ROUTE 25, EAST MARION SCTM# 23-1-6.1 Dear Mr. Herrmann: The Board of Town Trustees took the following action during its regular meeting held on Wednesday, February 20, 2013 regarding the above matter: WHEREAS, En-Consultants on behalf of FREDERICK DE LA VEGA 8~ LAWRENCE HIGGINS applied to the Southold Town Trustees for a permit under the provisions of Chapter 275 of the Southold Town Code, the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold, application dated October 24, 2012, and, WHEREAS, said application was referred to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council and to the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Coordinator for their findings and recommendations, and, WHEREAS, the LWRP Coordinator recommended that the proposed application be found Inconsistent with the LWRP, and, WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has furthered Policy 6.3 of the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program to the greatest extent possible through the imposition of the following Best Management Practice requirements: the seaward intrusion of the proposed structure has been reduced; the proposed floating dock and hinged ramp have been eliminated; the use of untreated lumber on the entirety of the dock, including open-grate fiberglass-reinforced decking; and the elimination of water and electricity; and z ~ • WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held by the Town Trustees with respect to said application on February 20, 2013, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard, and, WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area, and, WHEREAS, the Board has considered all the testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application, and, WHEREAS, the structure complies with the standards set forth in Chapter 275 of the Southold Town Code, WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the project as proposed will not affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the town, NOW THEREFORE BE IT, RESOLVED, that for the mitigating factors and based upon the Best Management Practice requirement imposed above, the Board of Trustees deems the action to be Consistent with the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program pursuant to Chapter 268-5 of the Southold Town Code, and, RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees approve the application of FREDERICK DE LA VEGA & LAWRENCE HIGGINS to construct an elevated 4'x84' fixed catwalk with 6'x10' step-down platform at seaward end, comprised entirely of untreated materials; including open-grate fiberglass reinforced decking, and as depicted on the site plan prepared by En-Consultants, last dated January 10, 2013, and stamped approved on February 20, 2013. Permit to construct and complete project will expire two years from the date the permit is signed. Fees must be paid, if applicable, and permit issued within six months of the date of this notification. Inspections are required at a fee of $50.00 per inspection. (See attached schedule.) Fees: $768.00 Very truly yours, James F. King President, Board of Trustees JFK/amn ~~~b~14FF0(,~cP~ 5 ~ lames F. King, President y ~ Town Hall Annex Bob Ghosio, Jr., Vice-President u~ x 54375 Raute 25, P.O. Box 1179 ' Dave Bergen ~.f. + Southold, NY 11971 Jotm Bredemeyer ~O,( ,~y0 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Michael J. Domino Fax (63I) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: ~ - ~D ~ 1` TKO c>_ t ~ , ~ I Please be advised that your application dated (6 2y Z has been reviewed by this Board at the regular meeting of Z 6 3 and your application has been approved pending the completion of the following items checked off below. Revised Plans for proposed project Pre-Construction Hay Bale Line Inspection Fee ($50.00) 15t Day of Construction ($50.00) Y2 Constructed ($50.00) p(,~i d Final Inspection Fee ($50.00) Dock Fees ($3.00 per sq. ft.) Permit fees are now due. Please make check or money order payable to Town of Southold. The fee is computed. below according to the schedule of rates as set forth in Chapter 275 of the Southold Town Code. The following fee must be paid within 90 days or re-application fees will be necessary. You will receive your permit upon. completion of the above. COMPUTATION OF PERMIT FEES: 4' X lott ` cal-walk - z 5(0 ~,-F~ . C~3 ~ 54 , = ~ 7io S TOTAL FEES DUE: $ 1 ~D BY: James F. King, President Board of Trustees New York State Department of Environmental Conservation _ Division of Environmental Permits, Region One SUNY @ Stony Brook, 50 Circle Road, Stony Brook, NY 11790.3409 V Phone: (631) 444-0365 Fax: (631) 444-0360 _ Website: www.dec.nv.aov Ice ~tanrns Commissioner February 19, 2013 Frederick de la Vega 344 rWest 23"~St #PHB p E C V E D New York NY 10011 FE8 2 0 ~ Re: NYSDEC Permit # 1-4738-00835/00004 Higgins and de la Vega Property 15437 Main Road East Marion SCTM # 1000-23-1-6.1 Dear Permittees: In conformance with the requirements of the State Uniform Procedures Act (Article 70, ECL) and its implementing regulations (6 NYCRR, Part 621) we are enclosing your permit. Please carefully read all permit conditions contained in the permit to ensure compliance during the term of the permit. If you are unable to comply with any conditions, please contact us at the above address. Also enclosed is a permit sign which is to be conspicuously posted at the project site and protected from the weather, and a Notice of Commencement /Completion of Construction. Sincerely, Matthew R. Penski Environmental Analyst 1 cc: En-Consultants BOH-TW File NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Facility DEC ID 1-4738-00835 PERMIT Under the Environmental Conservation Law ECL Permittee and Facility Information Permit Issued To: Facility: FREDERICK DE LA VELA DE LA VEGA &HIGGINS PROPERTY 344 W 23RD ST #PHB 15437 MAIN RD~SCTM# 1000-23-I-6.] NEW YORK, NY 10011 EAST MARION, NY 1 ]939 (212) 353-2200 LAWRENCE HIGGINS 344 W 23RD ST #PHB NEW YORK, NY 10011 (212)353-2200 Facility Application Contact: EN-CONSULTANTS 1319 N SEA RD SOUTHAMPTON, NY 11968 (631)283-6360 Facility Location: in SOUTHOLD in SUFFOLK COUNTY Facility Principal Reference Point: NYTM-E: 724.637 NYTM-N: 4557.463 Latitude: 41°08'14.6" Longitude: 72°19'24.8" Project Location: 15437 Main Road, East Marion Authorized Activity: Construct a 4 foot by 84 foot fixed catwalk having open grate decking, 3 foot wide steps, and a 6 foot by 10 foot step down platform. All work shall be performed in accordance with the plans prepazed by En-Consultants last revised on 1/10/13, and stamped "NYSDEC APPROVED" on 2/19/13. Permit Authorizations Tidal Wetlands -Under Article 25 PermitlD 1-4738-00835/00004 New Permit Effective Date: 2/19!2013 Expiration Date: 2/18/2018 Page 1 of 6 NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Facility DEC ID t-4738-00835 NYSDEC Approval By acceptance of this perrott, the permittee agrees that the permit is contingent upon strict compliance with the ECL, all applicable regulations, and all conditions included as part of this permit. Permit Administrator: JOHN A WIELAND, Deputy Regional Permit Administrator Address: NYSDEC REGION 1 HEADQUARTERS -~UNY @ STONY BROQj~~50 CIItCLE RD ( SONY BROOK, N 1'790 -3409 q n Authorized Signature: - ~ ~ / Date[/ ~ 1 / 'C U~ Distribution List EN-CONSULTANTS Habitat - TW Environmental Permits Permit Components NATURAL RESOURCE PERMIT CONDITIONS GENERAL CONDITIONS, APPLY TO ALL AUTHORIZED PERMITS NOTIFICATION OF OTHER PERMITTEE OBLIGATIONS NATURAL RESOURCE PERMIT CONDITIONS -Apply to the Following Permits: TIDAL WETLANDS 1. Notice of Commencement At least 48 hours prior to commencement of the project, the permittee and contractor shall sign and return the top portion of the enclosed notification form certifying that they aze fully awaze of and understand all terms and conditions of this permit. Within 30 days of completion of project, the bottom portion of the form must also be signed and returned, along with photographs of the completed work. 2. Post Permit Sign The permit sign enclosed with this pennit shall be posted in a conspicuous location on the worksite and adequately protected from the weather. 3. Conformance With Plans All activities authorized by this permit must be in strict conformance with the approved plans submitted by the applicant or applicant's agent as part of the permit application. Such approved plans were prepared by En-Consultants last revised on l/10/13, and stamped "NYSDEC APPROVED" on 2/19/13. Page 2 of 6 NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMEYT OF ENVIRONIDIENTAL CONSERVATION Facility DEC ID 1-4738-00835 4. No Disturbance to Vegetated Tidal Wetlands There shall be no disturbance to vegetated tidal wetlands or protected buffer areas as a result of the permitted activities. 5. Storage of Equipment, Materials The storage of construction equipment and materials shall be confined within the project work area and/or upland areas greater than 75 linear feet from the tidal wetland boundary. 6. Dock, Catwalk Size Dock or catwalk shall not exceed 4 feet in width and shall be a minimum of 3.5 feet above Bade (as measured from ground to bottom of dock/catwalk decking) over tidal wetland areas. 7. Use of Treated Wood The use of wood treated with Pentachlorophenol or other wood treatment not specifically approved by the Department for use in wetlands and/or marine waters, is strictly prohibited in the construction of structures that will be in contact with tidal waters. 8. Catwalk Decking The decking of the catwalk shall be constructed of NYSDEC-approved fiberglass grating to reduce shading impacts from the approved structure. s. Docks at Property Lines Docks/catwalks/floats must not: a. extend laterally beyond property lines, b. interfere with navigation, or c. interfere with other landowners riparian rights. 10. No Floats This permit does not authorize the installation of floats. tl. No Dredging or Excavation No dredging, excavating or other alteration of shoreline or underwater areas is authorized by this permit, nor shall issuance of this permit be construed to suggest that the Deparhnent will issue a permit for such activities in the future. 12. No Construction Debris in Wetland or Adjacent Area Any debris or excess material from construction of this project shall be completely removed from the adjacent azea (upland) and removed to an approved upland azea for disposal. No debris is permitted in wetlands and/or protected buffer areas. 13. State Not Lisble for Damage The State of New York shall in no case be liable for any damage or injury to the structure or work herein authorized which maybe caused by or result from future operations undertaken by the State for the conservation or improvement of navigation, or for other purposes, and no claim or right to compensation shall accrue from any such damage. Page 3 of 6 NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVD20NYIF.NTAL CONSERVATION Facility DEC ID 1-4738-00835 ta. State May Order Removal or Alteration of Work If future operations by the State of New York require an alteration in the position of the structure or work herein authorized, or if, in the opinion of the Department of Environmental Conservation it shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of said waters or flood flows or endanger the health, safety or welfare of the people of the State, or cause loss or destruction of the natural resources of the State, the owner may be ordered by the Department to remove or alter the structural work, obstructions, or hazazds caused thereby without expense to the State, and if, upon the expiration or revocation of this permit, the structure, fill, excavation, or other modification of the watercourse hereby authorized shall not be completed, the owners, shall, without expense to the State, and to such extent and in such time and manner as the Department of Environmental Conservation may require, remove all or any portion of the uncompleted structure or fill and restore to its former condition the navigable and flood capacity of the watercourse. No claim shall be made against the State of New York on account of any such removal or alteration. 15. State May Require Site Restoration If upon the expiration or revocation of this permit, the project hereby authorized has not been completed, the applicant shall, without expense to the State, and to such extent and in such time and manner as the Department of Environmental Conservation may lawfully require, remove al] or any portion of the uncompleted structure or fill and restore the site to its fotmer condition. No claim shall be made against the State of New York on account of any such removal or alteration. 16. Precautions Against Contamination of Waters All necessary precautions shall be taken to preclude contamination of any wetland or waterway by suspended solids, sediments, fuels, solvents, lubricants, epoxy coatings, paints, concrete, leachate or any other environmentally deleterious materials associated with the project. GENERAL CONDITIONS -Apply to ALL Authorized Permits: 1. Facility Inspection by The Department The permitted site or facility, including relevant records, is subject to inspection at reasonable hours and intervals by an authorized representative of the Department of Environmental Conservation (the Department) to determine whether the permittee is complying with this permit and the ECL. Such representative may order the work suspended pursuant to ECL 7 ] - 0301 and SAPA 401(3). The permittee shall provide a person to accompany the Department's representative during an inspection to the permit azea when requested by the Department. A copy of this permit, including all referenced maps, drawings and special conditions, must be available for inspection by the Department at all times at the project site or facility. Failure to produce a copy of the permit upon request by a Department representative is a violation of this permit. 2. Relationship of this Permit to O[her Department Orders and Determinations Unless expressly provided for by the Department, issuance of this permit does not modify, supersede or rescind any order or determination previously issued by the Department or any of the terms, conditions or requirements contained in such order or determination. Page 4 of 6 NEW YORK STATE DEPARTDt ENT OF EN V lR0 V MENTAL CONSERVATION Facility DEC ID 1-4735-00835 3. Applications For Permit Renewals, Modi£cations or Transfers The permittee must submit a separate written application to the Department for permit renewal, modification or transfer of this permit. Such application must include any forms or supplemental information the Department requires. Any renewal, modification or transfer granted by the Department must be in writing. Submission of applications for permit renewal, modification or transfer are to be submitted to: Regional Permit Administrator NYSDEC REGION 1 HEADQUARTERS SUNY @ STONY BROOK~50 CIRCLE RD STONY BROOK, NY11790 -3409 4. Submission of Renewal Application The permittee must submit a renewal application at least 30 days before permit expiration for the following permit authorizations: Tidal Wetlands. 5. Permit Modifications, Suspensions and Revocations by the Department The Department reserves the right to exercise all available authority to modify, suspend or revoke this permit. The grounds for modification, suspension or revocation include: a. materially false or inaccurate statements in the permit application or supporting papers; b. failure by the permittee to comply with any terms or conditions of the permit; c. exceeding the scope of the project as described in the permit application; d. newly discovered material information or a material change in environmental conditions, relevant technology or applicable law or regulations since the issuance of the existing permit; e. noncompliance with previously issued permit conditions, orders of the commissioner, any provisions of the Environmental Conservation Law or regulations of the Department related to the permitted activity. 6. Permit Transfer Permits are transfen~ble unless specifically prohibited by statute, regulation or another permit condition. Applications for permit transfer should be submitted prior to actual transfer of ownership. Page 5 of 6 YEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Facility DEC ID 1-0738-00835 NOTIFICATION OF OTHER PERMITTEE OBLIGATIONS Item A: Permittee Accepts Legal Responsibility and Agrees to Indemnification The permittee, excepting state or federal agencies, expressly agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Department of Environmental Conservation of the State of New York, its representatives, employees, and agents ("DEC") for al] claims, suits, actions, and damages, to the extent attributable to the permittee's acts or omissions in connection with the permittee's undertaking of activities in connection with, or operation and maintenance of, the facility or facilities authorized by the pemtit whether in compliance or not incompliance with the terms and conditions of the permit. This indemnification does not extend to any claims, suits, actions, or damages to the extent attributable to DEC's own negligent or intentional acts or omissions, or to any claims, suits, or actions naming the DEC and arising under Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Laws and Rules or any citizen suit or civil rights provision under federal or state laws. Item B: Permittee's Contractors to Comply with Permit The permittee is responsible for informing its independent contractors, employees, agents and assigns of their responsibility to comply with this permit, including all special wnditions while acting as the permittee's agent with respect to the pemritted activities, and such persons shall be subject to the same sanctions for violations of the Environmental Conservation Law as those prescribed for the permittce. Item C: Permittee Responsible for Obtaining Other Required Permits The permittee is responsible for obtaining any other permits, approvals, lands, easements and rights-of- way that maybe required to cant' out the activities that are authorized by this permit. Item D: No Right to Trespass or Interfere with Riparian Rights This permit does not convey to the permittee any right to trespass upon the lands or interfere with the riparian rights of others in order to perform the permitted work nor does it authorize the impairment of any rights, title, or interest in real or personal property held or vested in a person not a party to the permit. Page 6 of 6 ;w~T.~y_t:_f~~ LONC /BLAND SOOND 5 L z DAM POND ' I ' V 1 1 V re ~ M (ENA aOUNpApY LfN_ % ; I ~X I ~~oCES. 6 ' I. pupoze: private. rcrranmerc~ bmt dorka; i ' I offer prnatdy o..ied inderwater lad ' 2, baton: NLLW ~ ( 3 Water depths Crefaerczl to MI.LW)traisaLed r Uw:E xou5 (nv.) r I Fran hydrai~hic sirvey prepaed by Kemeth M. r Wcychk, L.S., last dated Octaba I, 2012 r I 2 4. I7ak to be carstnrted eriGrely af' utreated maF,erU/s. a °~ii ~ I ~ xic4drq open-c{ate, flL~rcllass-renfared ~argosite dedcnq.~ hardwae to be Int-dpped galvanized zt~l ~ ~ I ~ ~ 7. lak rion Yo be ergiipped with water a elecincity 4' x 84' FIXED t o ~ TIMBER cnJwuK I ~ Z ;i. p fo,E•cLa ~X'15~}37 pvute 25, Eak Mann; ~ M 75-I-6.1 xaz' 1 1 I r ice. ~ t r 1 ~ : I 6' x 10' STEP- ~ / a' DOW PLATFORM ~ ,=-MPIrox. IOP nr,RyorF ~ / r peo- 4 ' iua ~ A ~ V Y' ~ 4 0 ~ c 'J ~ CC1'Sl!~tA~JTS 1 a i ~ NORTH ~~A RD. SuL`~",i"a1PTGN. NY 11968 - ~ x,31-~g3.~ z ~p y ~ T pEV'NO fRUS f'ROPO~I7 t70CK ~Otz F~17~RICK N DAP ` e t~ I.A VGA ANt7 I.AW~NC~ NIGGINS ON 17AM pONi7, ~AS~' µo~D NINON, 51.I~FOI.K COL~tfY, NY ES.I a + T° SN~Et 10~ Z 10-2312, i -10-13 • ! iFn °PSO I ' r d Y I J ~ - z~ 'j 0 iz I ~ c a ~ _:5 'i y~ u , s-F~.. ~ Q - ~ ~ z iQ g O _ 7I n ~ ~ a~a r r~1 ~i r . i4 ~i_ ~ > R ~i~, , ~ ,'r SvJ I f .~k PtzOpO5~t7 t70CK ~Ot? ~~t~RICK t7~ LA VGA ANi7 LAVU~NC~ NIGGINS ON f7AM t'ONf7, BAST MAI;ION, SL~FOI,K COLWIY, NY 5N~~12 0~ 2 IC-23-I2, f-f0-13 GR UP FOR THE EAST END February 19, 2013 F E 8 2 1 2013 President Jim King & The Town Board of Town Trustees Southold Town Hall Annex P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Wetlands Applications (updated January 11, 2012) - de la Vega & Higgens (SCTM# 1000-23-1-6.1) Dear President King & Members of the Trustees: On behalf of Group for the East End, I would like to provide the following comments regarding the updated wetlands application (dated January 11, 2103) of de la Vega & Higgens (SCTM# 1000-23-1-6.1) located on Dam Pond, East Marion. For the record, Group for the East End does not support the construction of the proposed dock in this location on Dam Pond. Although the updated application was amended to address the size, proposed use of CCA-treated materials and proposed water and electricity, the amended proposal still poses risk to the environmental quality and ecosystem of Dam Pond. Dam Pond is located in a New York State designated Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat Area and is also designated as a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Critical Environmental Area (CEA). According to the DEC, Dam Pond possess several rare plant and animal species including, golden dock, marsh straw sedge, woodland agrimony, green parrot's feather, little-leaf tick-trefoil, large grass-leaved rush and short-fruit rush. Importantly, the original application was found to be INCONSISTENT with the Town of Southold's adopted Local Waterfront Revitalization Policy and was recommended for denial (memorandum dates December il, 2012). Impacts to wetlands, lack of demonstrated need for the structure given the Pond's restricted navigability, potential water quality impacts as well as impacts to the scenic and historical value of the area were justifiably noted in support of this position. Southold Town Code [Chapter 275-11 A (7)j provides the Board of Trustees with the authority to deny the proposed structure in critical environmental areas, such as Dam - ~r - h~° i X ~ ~Z~ ~ " F i j Y ~ €t E F Pond. For the reasons discussed above, we support the Board of Trustees denying the ~ y ~ proposed dock application in order to ensure environmental quality of Dam Pond. c ~ ~ f Thank you for reviewing our comments and concerns. Please feel free to contact me ~ F ~ should you have any questions or comments. I can be reached at (631) 765-6450 ~ a~ ext.211 or at jhartnagel~a eastendenvironment.org. a Sincerely, ~ s6 ~ ca~% a~', e, ~ ~ 1¢nn Hartnagel enior Environmental Advocate F~ , x~ . > ~ r3~ s~ ~ ~m A Q ~ ~ o `~`r x 1 x 4 L$ J Y ~c ~ 4~ Y j ~ t R a ~ a ~ ~a i ¢ v' r ~ z: ~ ~ j a3 ~ 3 eSa c Y ~ ~ y` y`~h ` i `Fa` g3~t, ~ P- 4 ~ a x:~e. C6-$..~ ~ 2 ~ae _ a r .r 'i''a~. `2'g~: ~ < ; ~c ` 'fey C k ~~¢tt1 ~~T,~z,, yy". ~;x4..-- a' ~ K ri: dG~~~_4 `~~`M ` ggV~I, I~ rt3~'~p~''r4 jWi ~il I. m ~4 t;,'~a°i i~~Jii ;i Cantrell, Elizabeth From: BKLYNPHYS@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 2:18 PM To; rldep@gw.dec.state.ny.us ~c; bklynphys@aol.com; bgdelano2@gmail.com;jhartnagel@eastendenvironment.org; ejmcneilly@earthlink.net; kachrist@rcn.com Subject: Question Re: Wetlands Permit in East Marion, NY To: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Environmental Permits, Region One Hello: My name is Michael D. Delano and I own a house and property at 15435 Route 25 East Marion, NY 11939. Recently our new neighbors, Frederick de la Vega and Lawrence Higgins (15437 Route 25 East Marion, NY 11939) applied for a Wetlands Permit from the Southold Board of Town Trustees to build awalkway-dock-structure on the shores of Dam Pond which the NYSDEC has declared an Environmentally Critical Area. On December 7, 2012 I sent a letter of objection to the Trustees. I also sent a copy of the letter to Sherri Aicher (Environmenta Analyst) who informed me that "since an application has not vet been filed NYSDEC is not involved at this point." She also suggested that I periodically check back with the NYSDEC to ask if a permit application has been filed and provided a phone number (631-444-0355) and an e-mail (rldep(cilgw.dec.state.nv.us). At a December 12, 2012 public hearing, the Trustees tabled the application because the dock-structure plan was inconsistent with Southold's LWRP (Local Waterfront Revitalization Program) recommendation of denial. En-Consultants, on behalf of the application (SCTM # 1000-23-1-6.1), asked to submit a more "environmentally friendly" plan and a public hearing is to be held on it today (February 20, 2013). The "new plan" is even more destructive to this CEA, Dam Pond, than the previous one. Following Ms. Sherri Aicher's advice I am asking: Has a permit application been filed with the NYSDEC? Sincerely, Michael D. Delano 654 East 19 Street Brooklyn, NY 11230 718-859-3366 BKLYNPHYSCg~AOL.COM 1 c:F:.4.... r. • y L V J- POR THE EAST END p ECEIVE p Februa 19 2013 D ry FEB 2 02013 President Jim King & ~d 01N1 4 "°x ' The Town Board of Town Trustees Southold Town Hall Annex v~: ~ z, P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 ~ Re: Wetlands Applications (updated January 11, 2012) - de la Vega & Higgens „ (SCTM# 1000-23-1-6.1j Dear President King & Members of the Trustees: On behalf of Group for the East End, I would like to provide the following comments regarding the updated wetlands application (dated January 11, 2103) of de la Vega & Higgens (SCTM# 1000-23-1-6.1) located on Dam Pond, East Marion. For the record, Group for the East End does not support the construction of the proposed dock in this location on Dam Pond. Although the updated application was amended to address the size, proposed use of CCA-treated materials and proposed water and electricity, the amended proposal still poses risk to the environmental quality and ecosystem of Dam Pond. Dam Pond is located in a New York State designated Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat Area and is also designated as a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Critical Environmental Area (CEA). According to the DEC, Dam Pond possess several rare plant and animal species including, golden dock, marsh straw sedge, woodland agrimony, green parrot's feather, little-leaf tick-trefoil, large grass-leaved rush and short-fruit rush. Importantly, the original application was found to be INCON515TENT with the Town of Southold's adopted Local Waterfront Revitalization Policy and was recommended for denial (memorandum dates December 11, 2012). Impacts to wetlands, lack of demonstrated need for the structure given the Pond's restricted navigability, potential water quality impacts as well as impacts to the scenic and historical value of the area were justifiably noted in support of this position. ' " Southold Town Code [Chapter 275-11 A (7)) provides the Board of Trustees with the -~-r ~ ~ authority to deny the proposed structure in critical environmental areas, such as Dam r X ~ .j G. E r. .i ..crSs. w..i+SS+«LR.~~~ r ~ :a 'i" r s ~'"rq '%k~ ~ i pF: -xez 3 ~ fi . ~y'^~ Pond. For the reasons discussed above, we support the Board of Trustees denying the ~r~~~ ~ ~ proposed dock application in order to ensure environmental quality of Dam Pond. f ~ . Thank you for reviewing our comments and concerns. Please feel free to contact me a~,a should you have any questions ar comments. I can be reached at (631) 765-6450 r.- ext.211 or at hartnagel a~eastendenvironment.org. z; _ _ _ - ~s~~>" ~,~yx~ z "~"z~" Sincerely . ~e~,~~wr,~y ~ ; J jam}/~,~-(y,~-{-,G' ~ innHartnagel - ~enior Environmental Advocate r ~ ~ is " YEr ~ ~M ~ . r f'; ' ~ ~ , , , h r~ ~ ' ; - # inn v z ro~ x xs t'om' ~i r~~ is ~ t~$~^~ .M`c~,. r: Yj ~ J v"i5 yG h ka --spite I .i ~ ~ xv ~ ~ vii f q t ~ Y ib } H r S ~u ~ f _ '~~i y b #Y Fii~{ vi 3 tl,) 1 .Eq ~`aE~ .fi,~4 k``~yi"~e`~j L JST s~"t`S Stir {.5~ 4 C~;~ d~ " ~ ~ ~ " 654 East 19u' Street Brooklyn, NY 11230 718-859-3366 BKLYNPHYS n AoLcom To: President James F. Kiag , ~ ~ 2 p p p & the Town of Southold Board of Trustees ~ IS 19 ' 54375 Main Rd. P.O. Box 1 1971 F E B 1 4 2013 Southold, NY 11971 From: Michael D. Delano, Soutirold Town Adjacent Land Owner Tr 15435 Route 25 East Marion, NY 11939 Date: February 12, 2013 Re: Proposed Wetland Permit for Frederick de la Vega & Lawrence Higgins SCTM#1000-23-1-6.1 Dear President King & the Town Board of Trustees: After carefully reexamining the original dock-structure plan, after very carefully reading the LWRP (Local Waterfront Revitalization Program) objection to the plan, after very carefully examining the revised plan in great detail, and after researching the subject matter quite extensively I am, even more than before. adamantly oooosed to this, or auv, new dock- structure in Dam Pond. While the revised plan submitted by En-Consultants has eliminated water, electricity and treated lumber, it does not, in anyway address the criticisms in the LWRP's recommendation of denial. It is also somewhat misleading in what it says and does not say: For example, the revised plan claims that the "overall seaward intrusion of the structure has been reduced by approximately 31 feet." But it fails to mention that the revised structure begins 1 foot closer to Dam Pond and, more importantly, it has been rotated 12 degrees to the South. The "revised" structure would now cover and disturb more wetlands than the previous structure and would have several unaddressed ecological consequences: Because the proposed dock-structure is to be located on the South-East shore of Dam Pond its underlying wetlands faces North-West and receives almost no direct sunlight from the Southern sky. The proposed dock-structure would shade it even further and the Sea Grass that grows there and stabilizes the shore against erosion would probably fail to thrive. In particular, Eel Grass (Zostera marina) which is submerged and requires 25% more sunlight than dry-land vegetation would almost certainly die off. Among other crucial ecological services, Eel Grass purifies the water in Dam Pond by removing dissolved COz and other polluting gaseous chemicals emitted by all the traffic on the Causeway. Additionally, installation of the proposed dock-structure with its 24 imbedded posts would fraprnent the habitat of Ribbed Mussels (Geukensia demissa) which I and others have observed there. As I emphasized when I spoke at the public hearing on December 12, 2012, populations of Ribbed Mussels play a critical role in purifying "natural salt waters" of pollutants (like the soot and oil-drops from car exhausts on Route 25). Other Ribbed-Mussel clusters on the shores of Dam Pond produce offspring, particle-like or plankton-like larvae, which drift with water currents, settle and repopulate barren shore areas. But the dock-structure would impede this water-current drifting and repopulation. A puzzlement worth mentioning was noted on page #3 of the LWRP memorandum: "The need for the dock structure has not been identified " `As you are aware the Haul-_~t~ofDam Pond is restricted due to low water deoths and the State Route 25 causeway bridge " At the December 12, 2012 public hearing about the original dock plan, one of the applicants, Mr. de la Vega, in effect said: "The dock is for kayaking in Dam Pond. "But, as far as I'm concerned, you don't need a dock for light-weight, easily transportable kayaks. In fact, every summer for the last 10 years my granddaughter and I have transported by hand a much heavier canoe to the North shore of Dam Pond (Tnxmans Beach) and have paddled azound in and explored the waters of Dam Pond. Finally, 1 must emphasized that the applicants, Mr. de la Vega and Dr. Higgins, and their contractor, En-Consultants, have provided no photos of the dock-location as required in Chapter 275-6.(13) Town of Southold, N.Y. Code. And they have not in any manner what-so-ever addressed the scenic, vegetative and marine environment of where the proposed dock structure would be located. To this end, [have enclosed for your perusal an email I sent to Mr. de la Vega and Dr. Higgins on 12121 /2012 asking them to reconsider constructing a dock on Dam Pond. [t contains photos (and a brief comment) kindly sent to me Joanne Barrette, the previous owner of their property. In particular, I call your attention to two photos: one showing a family of mute swans and the other showing a bunch of turtles (Diamondback terrapin). Both of these creatures/species aze mentioned in the LWRP memorandum of December 11, 2012 which "recommended that the Board deny this application to: 1. Meet Policy 6.3 Protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands. 2. Provide consistency in the management of high value wetland systems. 3. Protect the purpose of the Dam Pond Maritime Reserve recently renamed the Ruth Oliva Preserve at Dam Pond " In closing, I urge you in the strongest, most emphatic terms to completely ban this and all other proposed dock constructions in Dam Pond. Sin~/cerely, / ~ 1 Michael D. Delano, PhD Retired Associate Professor of Physics (Hofstra University) CC TO: Michael Domino John Bredemeyer David Bergen Bob Ghosio Elizabeth Cantrell Amanda Nunemaker . • • Page 1 of 7 Subj: To Fred 8 Larry from Mike Delano Date: 12/21/2012 3:44:21 P.M. Eastern Standard Time From: BKLYNPHYSr7a aol.com To: fdlvega(a)aol.com, drlarryhiggins(g~aol.com CC: bklvnohvsCo~aol.com, bgdelano2r7agmail.com, Barbara.Delano(gDownState.Edu Hi Below are flue of the many photos that Joanne Barrett has emailed me and Barbara. Take a look and you will get a tiny, tiny glimpse of the creatures and vegetation that thrive in your region of Dam Pond. For 21 years I've been studying and making measurements on Dam Pond and its shores. I've had help from my physician wife, my marine biologist son and an old friend, Marcia Mullings, who runs the pathology/histology lab at Beekman Downtown Hospital. (Three summers ago, Marcia and I used a professional grade microscope to examine the waters of Dam Pond and were startled by what we saw.) All in all, my guess is that there are easily 5,000 different kinds of creatures/animals (from large to microscopic) that live in and around Dam Pond; many of them unclassified.. Vegetation? OMG. For example, on its north shore a wild version of the Fox Glove plant grows (its yellow flowers give off the poison digoxyn, AKA digitalis). In the course of a year about half a billion gallons of salt water flow into and out of Dam Pond at the causeway channel to Orient Harbor. It is a 10,000 year-old dynamic living system or ewsystem that has been largely untouched by human activities. The last thing Dam Pond needs is another boat dock that will interfere and impinge on its ability to thrive/live. As far as I'm concerned, companies like EN-CONSULTANTS are clueless about what makes this pristine, natural wonder TICK. Think about it. Mike D. PS While rare, did you know that during tidal storms I've seen the water level in Dam Pond rise 9 feet above its mean level? Do you really believe EN-CONSULTANTS has any idea that this occurs and what it can do to docks? Think about it1 From Joanne Barrett Blue Heron loves that spot and comes there almost every day. The proposed Dock would run right through where he is standing. He eats there. 0 luny} D F E B 1 4 2013 Southold Town B ar of Tr stee Monday, February 11, 2013 America Online: BKLYNPHYS Page 2 of 7 r i. ~ I'A St M n } r is e~':'.`. I t~ E r e. } y k _ 1 l ~ ~r ~ F f t aq. . ,~,i ti~.. ' af~ ~ .'fir' Y tip„ ~ t~ ~~x ; ~ ~ i Y "'t 9 S l ~ ` '~~yy AMY M• '~`~C~ai~ ~ ~ ~ ^ ~:.r 4.t .x y,_ Monday, February 11, 2013 America Online: BKI.YNPHYS • ~ Pale 3 of 7 a I • - __-~r _ - - _ _ . _ r....' " .tA~•r~F ~ ra ' i n c I 1~4~j': ! } 1 i. f'i ~~Y L l , J.. '1 , ~ 1 ; S ..111! ~ 1 ~ ~ 1"'~~~ qH~~~: P7170022 Monday, February I I, 2013 America Online: RKLYNPHYS Page 4 of 7 • _ _ . .,.,ems""" _ ~ • - _ _ r - - M _ . _ ~..~-r- ~-:::may,. „~.~e,~'~ ""`~'°"~r" .y,,,.._ - - arc`- ~ _..~w,. IMG 2078 Monday, February I I. 2013 America Online: BKLYNPHYS Page 5 of 7 II • i '1 i~f ~ i s .Y ~ ~ M-~/~ ~ 1 , i F ~i~ _i f dir. r '14SYS i' t; - g'_ `s a,~ ifM j+ ~ ~ r, ~ h -Sid .F` •f~'t J ~ ~ j `4 `~-i ~ 1~~ t~ ~ 3'~'~'. ~Ly ~ ~ S° fly 4 ~ /y~. ~ - i - _ ~ ~ _ c''- f :k~ r ~ ~ ` ri Y ~~~~2 ' ~ Monday. February 1 1, 2013 America Online: BKLYNPHYS ' • ~ Pa~~e 6 of 7 ~I I I r t -.f i /M' i ~ I _ ~ ~ - - S ~ r g~y~ Sy ,t ~ ~'•'S' t B J a~~ ~y, a:. 1 ~ ~ . ,-~,-~i i T~~#F a~ a 6r cF Ta_i~ 3 ~ dZ-l 1 r' ~t ~ ~,k' ,tax ;.,r z 7 rtt t ~ ? _ ~-7~ ~~~~~444444tttttt 1 • { t f f •.s ~"'w Y i ~ * 7 ~ :3;~ i w~; i Y: !'.y """''77777 1 1 1 1 1 T i .w? ~ ~ i . ~JJt i Monday, February I I, 2013 America Online: BKLYNPHYS Pa~~e 1 of 1 ~I I Subj: NYSDEC: Dam Pond 8~ Suffolk County Date: 2/12/2013 1:19:57 P.M. Eastern Standard Time From: BKLYNPHYSCa~aol com To: Bklynphy~Aol.com 'i - - _ - t ~ S I S ~ ~O ~ Or ie nt Eas t Ma ri on Ha rbo r Marion ~ ke Areas in Red are at Risk to Static Sea Level Rise as determined by the NYSDEC The North-East corner of Dam Pond is Red and is where the proposed dock-structure would be located ~ C~C~~Ot~C~ FEB 1 ?013 Southold Town ar ofTu t 'T'uesday, February 12, 2013 America Online: BKLYNPHYS Areas at Risk to Static Sea Level Rise ,.-gt,,V::,r°-~~'~ , Suffolk County, NY ~~~K ~~.an ~~o _ ~ ~ ~ - iM. ~ ~ - ~ - _ . - - qua a<aw saiwa ;s ; _ ~ _ ~ r~ .CI - r~ a,-=-~- ,fir ~,~N` - _ ~i ~~----f`r` 20 Mtles - - - - 1 1. . ~-'~'•r~'- ~ .~yT -'yam, ~i1~ l+ 4 T"~ ` ' M ~ MaprHigAway ~ Elevation < 4 feet above mean sea level ~ i ~ ~ ~ -per ~p~,c Local Road {Il~ `r- _ _ i Lang Island Railroad Lines till "f1 `S ~ - Long Island Railroatl siatlons R'~'~ i ~ lames F. Kine, President O~p$1SF FO(,~-C A~j~ P.O. Box 1179 Bob Ghosio. Ir.. Vice-President "d Southold, NY 11971 Dave Bereen ~ ~ Telephone (631 765-IS92 john Bredemeyer ~ ~ Fax (631) 765-6641 Michael .L Domino Q`~ d,~pl ~ ~a0~'. Southold Town Board of Trustees Field Inspection/VVorksession Report Date/Time: -z / ~ 3 En-Consultants on behalf of FREDERICK de la VEGA & LAWRENCE HIGGINS request a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed timber dock equipped with water and electricity and consisting of a 4'x95' fixed, elevated walkway, a 3'x14' hinged ramp; and a 6'x20' float secured by (2) 6" diameter pilings. Located: 15437 Route 25, East Marion. SCTM# 23-1-6.1 REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AS OF 1/14/2013: To construct an elevated 4'x84' fixed catwalk with 6'x10' step-down platform at seaward end, comprised entirely of untreated materials, including open-grate fiberglass reinforced decking. Ty of area to be impacted: Saltwater Wetland -Freshwater Wetland -Sound -Bay Distance of proposed work to edge of wetland Part of Town Code proposed work falls under: _Chapt.275 _Chapt. 111 -other Type of Application: /Wetland -Coastal Erosion -Amendment _Administrative_Emergency -Pre-Submission Violation Info needed: Modifications: Conditions: ~~~~/~~/"l f ~Clc~ ~ ~ ~~~5 Pre a ere: J. King _B. Ghosio D. Bergen, . Bredemeyer Michael Domino D. Dzenkowski other Form filled out in the fie d by ~J ~ 6 Mailed/Faxed to: Date: de la Vega & Higgins ~ ~ _ 15437 Route 25, East Marion • i ~ f ~ _ _ 1 _ ,:a,. _ - -:~~w~- i a - .=!r:; -i::v' ~ ~t-~ iii. _ - - de la Vega 8 Higgins 15437 Route 25, East Marion ~~f~_ SCTM# 23-1-6.1 _ _ v _ . _ - ~ - - - - r . - ~ . - ~r ~ .-t i ,j _ a1 ~i 1 ~ ~ i~' L `4F 4 ~ fi :f' t r ~ ~1 _ # 1 1~ - spy _ ~y. - ~ ~ _ T -Y 3~_ - ~ PRr3 _ _ & S 'M f 1~, ' y t s, ~`r 'rte. i~y~ ~ s' s . c ~y ~ S 1,~~+ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 . y i'k t h ~ z- ~1' t ~ iw~;+~i1 fC :s'~~r ~'tflfi p~ ~~Ip t r`S~ i 'Mj i ''if M1 . j i ~ ~ . ~ ~ f -pia 1< ~ _Il f 3e s y ~ 9. ?y~lt i +t~ 4f 'Iii `r4; ~ + h _ 1 Y l , ..4. r, ~ f? I i.a.~' fit' } r `r, ' ~#/'t1 ,~et~~ 4n 'fl~,itt 1~ t a - 4 ~ t ~ r' i t~rllnq' t Ir ` ~I[.f~~rt~rt t•! ?~~rr; , ~ r1~}/ t yi" re rr_.~~It~ .fit 1~yY 1, . f ~ ' . w t~~'~.tvAF~ ^ r b f''-,~ f. ~~~sl~:~ !/,'I.:~ 9'~*li~, f! ~t\ ';,r`'t. "'+~fk } o- -~ti ~ b' rl ~'~~~{i ~ ~ ~ ~ '~~lly !l ~ .r° l * ' .4~ 1"q~l. i ~(~1.'n.ll~' >r It~ r~!A ~ ~ ,t ~ t"E l~"7~• 1• y ~p, f,A s ' ~i; ~ >t ~ tr ~ + _ y k,•u, ~ r 1tia t ~ w , s ,~1~ Jjr~ ~a ~ - ~.*i s y\~ 'f r ~ i I M x ~ W Y ~~8" W. e x ~ 1d~, i ~t r's~a. ~ '~1,7 } 1 ! - -t ~ f ~ ~ I} r ~'4~4}r~ S ' - r ~~~~R. l., 1 , . * # ~~:-r a,' h N ctsa, u ~ a. k ~ ' ~ „ R;p $ I !<4, h- + rX . ' 71 I • ~ef~ 1i. ~ ~ ~ i~~ 4 "p- ,w, } 4~~~{ ~ ~ f ~t~ A7 ~R rp•~/ 1 ~.~r. 'R} t~ ~"'j x t ~?~t f.~4T. , ex~ t - f r F s ~ S ~T A ,e. * y"f r r. f 1~~, ~R ~ +t, ~it;,~e~ ~ , x,. l ~ 1 , µt1. 1 ' 4k~. 4 A~ ~ 4' rr t . ~t y,,~i ~ 'ft-• ~ r~. ,f~ . ~ f~ 1 h ~ u " „~r / i . ~ li w. ~ r.k^~ .d ~ yr'' Met~d~ r+;l t'~ i.~',~ se~.~r '+Ik 1% t~ f +arP ~ 1 ' k~ ys , ; a~~ i 4~Is~~ 4 ~t t4 '~l,t,~~~M- 1 , y~} T~~4y l~t/ h rr a ~ ~1~ ,~i\F, r ~I ~~l~ _ ~~si~ '~'„1 ~ r _ ~ E .A 1 r, ~ "'S 1,l.r,hk•'~ ti- ~ s . ~ ti• ~ 44.: .1 i. ~ i'-'iri [ `i _ , ~ 1~It,1~, t. A •t r.1 1} .~i ' ' ,en w ~}~'~e ~ Y~1~. t 1. _ rst 1, r.:. M 4 ~ tis tls`+.4 ~~~fi~; ~ -~5- r+ i',i~, (r r ~.~i ~yf/ 14# N. RF•- i' Hs ~ t s~.~.~` 1~~ ~ /f ~ p A'FE ' ~ ~ ~f '1~' ~i~~`.r' t. ?,1 x~f,. 4.' ' 5` t s~. ~ I ~ , ~i x'41 it f' +.~'.n 3t I r,'t ~ t`,.+?~ ~ ~ ~ i l . (yl' ~ ~ R.1"M 1 S , - H ~ ' t ~ .kc i sr ~t !N ~yr ~ '.4+yi '~{~F 4- I ~ ~ l.~ dt ,.a y~Y `)~yy' I~1'~• t°1.~ .r4\~~w','^~[y'``{f~ ~ 't. ~ ~ ~4 1. ;h Yt~~., ( 1, z 'l :@ MRP~~ It is 1 Ct 4ii f r a~~~ f~ 'b' ` 1, .1 ~''titi fi~",r';#M` i t w ! ~ ~ ~ t~ s la. ~11~ v' i i~'Irl ?I '~{~j1 It f ,I,r i ~ 4~ ,l s'. 4 / t I'.-,~~~,~ i ri! A ~ ~ any jt ~ 11 r.'~'ttG~` R~ e, r~_•I ,~~t ~e' r y~R~ .a4 4 ~yV l ,}lM , N, ( er ~/i; ~,~t./r f 41..J~~I~,_ t ,y , r~ ~ ~ s~~ ~ r~'r * ,'~,i. a ' ,~1 r + ~~i° ~;>.4:~.1,1 I !IEEE ~ y. rd6i ~~~rN~YYF ~ , * tit y t' ~ t,-L, ~ 1, l ~t1 r f~, ~ t A; N s a + Yit, , t ~ s K l' . •e, +'~l\t' ~ys+ ef: ~ I;. 1.I dr .a w ,~te' ~ [ ql t 1`d' ~ t' r~1" tET 1 ~~M ~ s a ','~i .i ~i~ A j~ y s `t ~ ~ ~ ~,i? _ '.r %r k ~tt ~ r4s~r r~~k! d'~. .p`s h ' o }~y.~~. ~ ~i 4•~ ~ ~ 1 xYi~!',:'~~. f 41 ty,~..~ 1~'IJ.. 'r ¢~+1'°"/ i t.~.'~~(w.~ ~ ~~.~-17!`t\~1,tr4^~+f ~~~iti if ~ ~ l 1 ~ ` ~R'i ~ ~ in Ti<i' ~ 1 1 ,:~.1 ~1 ~~t 1 o!~ ~ F~ f l,~` ~ ~r ..;,,,t. + t"~~ t k~ ~ , ~_s +~i ~ t 777- L~ S ~ Vl~c *~,~v. 't ~ i '~.lly ti ,.r ~ ~~~'~k~ ~1'}a, 4r r~ i ~Y ;.y~r~~° ~ •1. ~'.'t '~r~lll ~ J~.. ~ ~ 5 ~k t ~ i~`t` r' ~~,~E. y i~ 4,y.Ay.`~~, ~ a v~• ,a I~ ~ i F 1 K. ~'G ~I i' ~ ~/~k ti• ~ t~~"~~ ) r +.`Yw`4 x~! v,~.. It,.:: h"'~~~'l`~s at rt ~'~',l'~,A' ~ ~i 1~t' ~'~!'::t.''.t+;~~~t •'f .tx ~ "`1~:. ~ _ \ y t ~tt#,~ ; i -:i°bG J~,~` : b 1Y,~ 4 ~1 ~1t 1t~" M ~ + 4'~ ~r' f- Air ,.r.' ~ + ^ r t r at. ~ t r `~I., r •1. r ~ I~l~ '4. s~ ~ .'p , ~ ~ ' l ~ F 4 ~ ~ ~17r~ N w, r_~~ ~''te~, t ~ ` ,jR:~~ , ;r`t~~~ ~t~[~(+ I .t~~ ~~iel~,aY _-:~;;t~, sf~ti 7.y a., ~ ld~-. 1. p'i~~ tj ..~e .N, "•i ~~~~~111 rt ~t'~1 !t/1 µ ~~~rll.~ 1.1. * is l ~ `r 1~ s 1. ~ ~ ( ~ , e ~ i yA ~ M ~ ~ 1. x ~ - _ ~ - r ~ ~'t,4~~~ r'~ r yr ~ }y~l k. f~t.CC. ~ 1 1~y ~l ~ '\h 4 'r~~- ti '.i . rn ~ _ `,P+ P ~ 4.~~'~P, o; i,~+~ 't r' ,~.IF ' A1' f ! t~+ _ ~ ~ ayJ. Is ~ ~'Il~~' 4 t,~,~ ~.,y~ , t i I 1 ' ~ ~ ~t~ 1~ ~ a ~ ,D r l~W r r r ~ ''h?,~',.t tLY.~ 5 t fhb k~.'!" k~t,~'' ~ ~rr~- ~~r:e"~ ,fl +V ED • "k ,~.,~r*`. .~~'14$.l .~rf x H.. ~ ~ ~ s ~ r ! Y ~ 1 ~f w ~ d r 1..~r_ i. x :....a f o Mp ll . ~1~ \ i~l r ~ ~~wae ')t. O1 O th ch ` ~ l ? ;r ~ -z'kr ~`~,~itP 1+{i~: ~ ? ; t y ~ ( ` fit.' ~ ' Ilf a i,~ /yl~ ~ r ~ ~ - ~ N ~ T ~ ~ r".: S ~ n w ~~r r P +'r~l, 1 1' i Cj > ~ # N ~ fit. t ~ r1!f~,. ~j -~,qpy,~(~~' ' ,;~fi ..4 t. t0 M~ ~ . ~ t ~ ~ ld~a ~ i,, . ~ .:1 a s s „ - - ~r '~f Vii;{,"kf :4' M - f.l~•''l 4'A , , f t . s , 's ` r ~E "I- t~, . - Pl'. 9z t- ~R ky,~ iV~' ~~9`~e 1 T p1y. ~ 1 t• j~y , t' i ~ ~ `!y.?'. D~.j UP FOR i~T END December 12, 2012 President Jim King & The Board of Town Trustees Southold Town Hall Annex PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 1 8 Re: Wetlands Permit -de la Vega & Higgins (SCTM# 1000-23-1-6.1) Dear President King & Members of the Town Trustees, On behalf of Group for the East End, I would like to provide the following concerns regarding the wetlands application of de la Vega & Higgins (SCTM# 1000-23-1-6.1) located on Dam Pond, East Marion. According to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Dam Pond possess several rare plant and animal species including, golden dock, marsh straw sedge, woodland agrimony, green parrot's feather, little-leaf tick-trefoil, large grass-leaved rush, short-fruit rush and the American burying beetle. It is also recognized as a Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat. Given its unique and diverse ecological properties we are concerned with the potential impact this project may impose on this ecosystem. Specifically, I am providing comments on the proposed use of CCA-treated timbers and the property's wetland buffer area. Proposed Use of CCA The proposed engineering drawings (Received October 24, 2012) note the use of CCA-treated timbers. 4. Structural timbers to be CCA-treated; decking to be open-grate,/iberglass- reinforced composite; hardware to be hot-dipped galvanized steel. This practice does not seem to conform to Town Code Section 275-11. Construction and Operation C (2) a.5 "In order to prevent the release o~ metals and other contaminants into the wet/ands and waters o. f Southold, the use o~ /umber pre-treated with any preservative, inc/uding but not/imited to chromated copper arsenate (also known as "¢CA")... In order to protect water quality and prevent contamination of Dam Pond please ensure that the proposed CCA materials are not utilized in the construction of this dock. . ~ ~ ~ 3~ awK< a ~ Buffering ~ a; ; Vegetated buffers are a demonstrable method of water quality protection. Buffers are an effective means of reducing nutrient stressors in aquatic system, they help to filter bacterial ' F pollutants, control sediment, act as erosion control and can also provide habitat for native plant ~~~~r and animal species. ~w" We strongly suggest that the Trustees require the creation of a permanent "non-disturbance" or _ a "landscaped buffer" area of at least 30 feet to help protect and preserve Dam Pond's water quality. This recommendation echoes the recommendation that was included in the Local Waterfront - Revitalization Program review that was completed for the previously approved wetland permit #7715 (January 2012) for this same property. Unfortunately, this recommendation was ignored. Please reconsider this recommendation while reviewing the proposed wetland permit and _ . ~ please require an adequate vegetated buffer to help protect Dam Pond's water quality ~fC~UY E ~ ~ ~ Thank you for taking the time to review my comments. Should you have any questions, I can be tiF~~~. ~ reached at (6310 765-6450 ext.211 or at Jhartnagel@eastendenvironment.org. ` a'~' ~ ~ r ~ x y,~. ~s a ~ Sincerely, °c~` / m~ IG~~~~~ 2~ ~ ` ~~~Vk~ ~ ff ~~~,~°a_ ? ~nn Hartnagel z aP~<;a ~ Sr. Environmental Advocate ~~~z ~ ,aA. fr e~Sa . ~ ~ r J ~F _ ~C~ c: 12 _ w - h . i 1~`< a` V y ~ :e i Cantrell, Elizabeth From: Standish, Lauren Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 9:24 AM To: Cantrell, Elizabeth; bob@burts.com; bergend@sunysuffolk.edu; Michael Domino (mjdsouthold@aol.com); John Bredemeyer Qbme4u@gmail.com) Subject: FW: [New Sender - ] -Dam pond FYI -----Original Message----- From: Linda Feigned son (mailto:IfeiQelson@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 9:13 AM To: Standish, Lauren Subject: [New Sender - ] -Dam pond Re application to build a dock, we live in neighboring orient where nothing can be erected or touched within a few hundred feet of wetlands, as I understand, so why would you even consider such a proposal? We cannot attend the public hearing tonight, to voice our protest, so please count this as a vote against the project. Linda &eugene b. feigelson, m.d. Sent from my iPad 1 12!11/2012 11:57 7656641 . HOARD OF TRUSTEES • PAGE 01 OEC-I1-2012(TUE) tl0;22 GROUP FOR THE EAST ENU (FAX)631 T65 6855 P. 001/001 BL1Z,11?ETHA.NItI'11.f,E TOA+IY~[ALL~ 53095MiUNfiOAU TOfYNCLE.RI~ P.Q,BDX IJ f9 1i1r01STR4R OF VITiI~ STATISTICS Fi1.1C 631-7GfN6/es 971 su,RJRT.(GEOFFICER TELEI'XDiV6+ 63J-765-id90 RECORDBJI/i1NACb:M1761YTOlr1"?C'E'R tomhsfdmwn.narlhJsrf~nd FREEDOM OFJ,fVFOJlALrlT10N OF~FICS'R ~Wf ~iS•'6 o y~ DEC 1 1 2012 ONCE OF TAE TOWN CLER>dC T01~VN Ok' SO><JTHOLD • A,Y'pI,ICATION'FOR PIIBLIC ACC~9S•TO AECORDB IMSTRUC7'ION3: Please eotnplcae section 1 of thi! fotta wtd give to Town •Cletk'e Office (fllttoY );tmodom of Inietomdoe OFAaot~. pot copy will he retorted m you is tesppt?re m gout ?e4~. of a! cep int~eim tespoose. y~~~~~~1~~~~~~~~~~• ? J W'~ 6 S1l:CT10N L • (Depathaefyt or Offuet, if t<nawoy that het the ip{etmatiop yea e~ tsqueedttg), RBCOItA YOU W191Ii 'PO INSPECT. (Desan'be dye teocrd !ought. !f pv..s~tde, sapP?Y datS file dde, tax map auolber, end esy othot peesiaayt infomcwCyoe~. ^ GwRP 51,5-fene .(,or ~n+ a n fi ~ Qe ~Ct ~ a I~t r5 cvl a evt{0. TO ~ la to I~.. , S'~rmte et,Appiiau#: Jrnni~ ~Cwnup~e?" {4p&+S4 ~ Priemd Name: fix PO OoX 179 ,S,~bold, hIY ?t9~1. trrsit:~ Addteae ~taie~mat stom.bovcl: reteplto~rwmba.,-~6~) '~G5'~64si7 e~. at) p.~ la tl 1 ED ` ~ ~ 0 EC 1 1 2012 • sliast+~.?.lS.~... Date ON 1 A Cam y ~ '~If deiayEd ar dwtyied, tee ?rverse side fog expftrsalfblt. TOOf~J saalsnsy Ft~ yg~D Nd10Z Q'IOI1Ll10S 56T9 S9L TC9 t:tld 94~6T 3f17. ZT, ZT/TT DEP Launches Pilot Ribbed I~el Ecological Project • Page 1 of 3 e~' Scare ~ Email UpcaCes I Contact Js ° a~ J ~ ~ FOR IMMED CA iE RELEASE 11-73 MORE INFORMATION August 7.01.1 4avancetl S_ e-rcM1 NVC LieV 3r[ nenr zfi CONTACT' Lnv vc Ir ertal ~rofccUOn i onnm:0lCdtiOnS k faCebO~k Farrell Sklerov /Angel Roman (7l N) 595-6600 ]ntr on r Im; as Au=lrs f 1ie1. S9-] I luny Lion Rnale~~a rd R DEP Launches Pilot Ribbed Mussel Ecological ~9~n Fluor zm.=..A.PjE~Q1f Project riusn~ny, ruv i1sr~ Home (~t8) S5ti - obnG Part of PIaNVC Effort to Improve Water Quality in CI1STOMER SERVICES Jamaica Bay Emironmen[al Rro[ection Commissloner Cas Holloway today I~ r~ nn Ways ro Pay Your Bill announced the completion of a ribbed mussel ecological ~L (Ip li - ~ 1~ 1VI ~ project to help improve the overall water qua Gty and IL 1 l5 V ll if IS tl Account Information ecology of ]amaic:a Bay. Ribbed mussels are an important r part of aquatic ecosystems, ttltering out nitrogen and 1 ? ~ I Customer Assistance bacteria to Improve water quality. The pilot project will test DEC I ~ LIZ the effectiveness and long-term viability of using ribbed Water Ratas mussels to remove nutrients and other pollutants from the waters of Fresh Creek, a tributary of ]amaica Bay. The project includes [he construction of five cargo net and A- S~IrJ;,`r~~" 70w~ Property Managers and Trade frame stru0.ures [hat resemble underwater fencing which g6a`d 01 Tres iEC5 Professionals are suspended in the middle of the creek by meta; posts. This is the first time that a structure is being installed in the WATEfl UTILITIES middle of the creek, where mussels cannot ordinarily Dunking Water establish a habitat. As the mussels grow throughout the ~ ~C~ I/ICt~ a~;C S next two years, they are expected to fully cover the p structures and filter the water passing through them to ~ C.~ ose~ r"p~ ~ i S Wastewater remove nutrients, bacteria, and other suspended organic j ;1 }Z rM4~~G 1q substances. DEP will closely monitor the project for the next ( ~ J/ ~ Stormwater two years. This pilot project is one of several contributing to ~~~e ~,~.5 the overall goal of reducing nitrogen and other nutrients, ~ Harbor Water which can deplete the oxygen [ha[ fish and other aqudlic life need to thrive, in the bay. Long Term Control Plan (LTCP) "We are well on our way [o restoring Jamaica Bay to its rightful place as a recreational destination for New Yorkers THE WATERSHED and tourists," said Commissloner Holloway. "Building a ribbed mussel habitat to filter water in Jamaica Bay will glue Watershed Protection us crifical information on Che long-teen viability of using naWral techniques to restore and strengthen the bay's Watershed Recreation ecosystem. It is part of our larger commitment to Improving water quality in 7amaica Bay, and builds on last year's historic agreement with the state and other environmental CITYWIDE INITIATIVES stakeholders to reduce nitrogen discharges into the bay by 50% over the next 10 years. Together, all of these projects Regulatory Reform mean that [he best days for Jamaica Bay are yet to came." Environmental Education Ribbed mussels are found in great numbers along the edges of marshes, rocks and shell beds along much of the East Conservation Programs Coast, including within Jamaica Bay. They are named and distinguished from other mussel shells by the ribs [hat line *_he surfaces. Located in the eastern Canarsie area of http://www.nyc.gov/html/dap/html/press releases/11-73prshtml 12/6/2012 DEP Launches Pilot Ribbed ~sel Ecological Project • Page 2 of 3 Air Pollution Control Brooklyn, Fresh Creek's shores contain a natural population of ribbed mussels that spawn throughout the summer, Noise Codes&Complaints starting m May and ending in August Construction was completed in time for this season's spawn so that na[uralty- BUSINES5E5&PROFESSIONALS occurring mussel larvae will settle on the metal and rope panels. Forms 8 Permits The five cargo net and A-frame structures are each 15 feet Economic Development Unit long and Eve feet high. Creek water will flow through the openings of the structures on the incoming and outgoing Doing Business with DEP tides banging particulate material and nutrients to the ribbed mussels growing on the structure. The structures Asbestos Abatement consist of alternatirg panels of metal grates and rope netting suspended ir. the creek by metal posts. As these mussels grow throughout the next two years, they are Construction, Demolition & expected to fully cover the structures. the two-year study Abatement will evaluate to what extent abbed mussels can play in ABOUT OEP nutrient removal, what densities are necessary to address urban pollution and nutrient problems, and the costs Inside DEP associated with achieving vaaous levels of water quality improvement The mussel encrusted panels will be monitored for differences ir. water quality both up-current News and down-current of the pilot project to esthnate the total uEp Fea~ureu In filtering capaaty of the mussels. These nuinbcrs can then be used for potential larger-scale projects in the future. The ~it,nes ec.r DEP pilot will also be monitored during atwo-year deployment for mussel colonization and growth rates, size, coverage, c~~s Penaasee en vlron mental preferences, health and disease, and other factors such as changes in sedimenta tion and water flow patterns. The data will be used to demonstrate whether the .~iic NOUCes ribbed mussels can reduce excessive particulate matter and nutrients within the tnbu[ary. If it does, future uses could a'imo rl -~w nr~un~ include placing mussels near slonnwater outfalls to capture Comments nutrients before they enter [he bay. Capital Projects DEP has invested in a number of other ecoloyical restoration Careere at DEP Projects to improve [he quality of Jamaica Bay. Eelgrass and oysters were all once widespread throughout the harbor and the loss of these species means the loss of some of nature's Environmental Reviews finest filtration systems. Last October, GEP re-introduced oyster beds to Jamaica Bay for the first (ime sate they Interagency MOUs disappeared many decades ago. A single oyster can filter roughly 35 gallons of water per day, and the 10,000 that A to Zlndex were added wdl help to improve water qua Gty by filtering out mtmgen, wYuch can reduce oxygen levels and impact the Contact Us overall ecology of a water body. Another project laund~ed by DEP last year was the second phase of the [elg rass Reslora lion Froject. Eelgrass has the Potential to serve as an important habitat and shelter For Flsh and shellfish. Eelgrass is a type of submerged aquatic vegetation that grows in estuaries and shallow bays and forms meadows on the bay bottom, where ag vatic creatures suds as shellfish and small fish take shelter among the grass-like leaves. Much like trees do on land, eelg rass stabilizes sediments and reduces erosion, and natu 211y removes nitrogen from the water. Returniny eelgra s's to the bay is possible due to DEP`s capital investrnents which have improved wa*_er quality, enough for eelgra ss to survive. Also, New York Gty reached a historic agreement last Year with New York State and the Natural Resources Defense Counol to improve water guality and preserve marshlands in Jamaica Bay to reduce the nitrogen loads discharged into the bay from wastewater treatment plants by nearly 50 percent over the next ten years. Jaara ica Bay ~s the largest estuary warerbody in the New York Ci[y meRUpo Ltan area covering an area of approxin~ate!y 20,000 acres. The bay is a diverse ecological resource that supports multiple habitats, including open water, salt marshes, grasslands, coastal woodlands, mar,time sh ni blands, and brackish and (cosh water wetlands. ]amair_a Bav is known for its wildlife refuge and excellent http://www.nyc.gov/htmUdep/html/press releases/11-73prshtml 12/6/2012 DEP Launches Pilot Ribbed ~sel Ecological Project • Page 3 of 3 fishing and these habita [s support 91 fish speoes, 325 species of birds, and many reptile, amphibian, and srnalt mammal species. DCF manages the city's water supply, providing more than one billion gallons of water each day [o more than nine million New Yorkers, including eight million in the city. New York City's water is delivered from a watershed that extends :Wore than 125 miles fro iri the city, and compasses 19 reservoirs, and three controlled lakes. Approximately I,OOG miles of water mains, tunnels and aqueducts bring water to homes and businesses throughout the five boroughs, and 7,400 miles of sewer lines take wastewater tc 74 in-ary treatment plants. For more information, visit www.nycgoy/dep or follow us on Facebook at www.facebookcom/nvcwater. View all press releases Sgn up to receive DE~ress releases by email ('~pyriyht 2012 The City of New Vork Contac[ Us FA<)s i Vnvacy Policy i Terms uF Use S[e Map http://www.nyc.gov/htmUdep/html/press_releases/11-73prshtml 12/6/2012 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PRESERVATIVE-TREATED WOOD February 8 -11, 2004 r. ~ r- Orlando, Florida, USA ' ` ' ' ` ~ I I - GrC l l 2012 rid- p ~ y ~ ! XX i ~ S Florida Center for Environmental Solutions Gainesville, Florida (pre-conference proceedings) Effects of CCA Wood on Non-Target Aquatic Biota Judith S. Weis, Peddrick Weis Department of Biological Sciences, Rutgers University, Newark, NJ 07102 Department of Radiology, UMDNJ -New Jersey Medical School, Newark NJ 07103 Abstract; Studies are reviewed that demonstrate the leaching of Cu, Cr, and As from pressure-treated wood in aquatic environments. The metals leached out accumulate in sediments near the wood (particularly bulkheads, which have more surface area for leaching than dock pilings). The metals also accumulate in organisms, including epibiota that live directly on the wood and benthic organisms, which live in sediments near the wood. Those inhabiting sediments closer to the wood accumulate higher levels of the contaminants. Other animals can acquire elevated levels of these metals indirectly as a result of consuming contaminated prey (trophic transfer). Once organisms have accumulated metals, they may exhibit toxic effects. Effects of CCA leachates in aquatic biota have been noted at the cellular level (e.g. micronuclei, indicating DNA damage), tissue level (e.g. pathology), individual organism level (e.g. reduced growth, altered behavior, and mortality), and community level (reduced number of individuals, reduced species richness, and reduced diversity). Effects are more severe in poorly flushed areas and In areas where the wood is relatively new. Residential canals lined with CCA wood are particularly toxic. The severity of effects is reduced after the wood has leached for a few months. Deleterious effects in the aquatic environment appear to be due largely to copper. Thus, alternative formulations that lack Cr and As due [o concerns about their toxicity to humans, but contain greater amounts of Cu and leach more Cu will be more deleterious than CCA to the aquatic environment. Keywords: leaching, uptake, accumulation, toxic, pathology 32 INTRODUCTION: As shorelines are developed, many wooden structures such as bulkheads and pilings have been placed in marshes and estuaries. Many of these structures have been made of chromated copper arsenate (CCA) treated wood, which contains high quantities (<2.5 Ibs/cubic foot) of the toxic metals Cu, Cr, and As, to prevent rotting and boring by invertebrates. The wood is impregnated under pressure with a mixture of these metal salts, and the components can react with lignocellulose in the wood to form insoluble compounds, a process known as fixation. Even when wood has been properly preserved, some quantities of these toxic metals leach out into the ecosystem, especially when the wood is new. Increased drying time has been found to reduce the leaching of metals from the wood [1](Hingston et al. 2002). Many studies have focused on leaching and factors that can affect the rate of leaching [2](Hingston et al., 2001). Factors of importance during the treatment process were the fixation time and formulation (ratio of preservative components), wood anatomy (softwood species high in lignin perform better than hardwoods), preservative treatment including temperature, and loading (concentration of treatment solution). Factors in the environment into which the wood leaches include salinity (higher salinity causes greater leaching), pH (high leaching at low pH), and temperature (higher leaching at higher temperature. The rate of leaching can be affected by the amount of time the wood has been leaching. Breslin and Adler-?vanbrook [3] found that after 90 days of leaching, the rate of release decreased between 0.5 and 2 orders of magnitude. Archer and Preston [4] found that CCA-treated pine leached up to 25% of total active ingredients within six months, with total losses of 52% after 85 months. A series of studies in the 1990s demonstrated that both in the lab and in the natural environment, the metals leached out from the wood accumulated in nearby sediments and biota. Of the three metals, Cu leaches most [5] (Warner and Solomon, 1990) and is the most toxic to marine and freshwater organisms [6] (Weis et al., 1991). Metals accumulated in nearby sediments and benthos, and adverse effects in the benthic organisms (such as polychaete worms and bivalves) adjacent to treated wood bulkheads have been noted. Accumulation and effects were especially severe in areas that were not well flushed by tidal action [7,8] (Weis and Weis, 1994, Weis et al., 1998). In this paper we review information about uptake and accumulation of the metals leached from CCA wood in sediments and organisms, and the toxic effects that have been examined at different levels of biological organization. UPTAKE: In order to have a biological effect contaminants generally must be taken up into organisms, a process known as bioaccumulation. Once inside an organism, the contaminants may concentrate in particular organs and thus exert their effects. Measurements of bioaccumulation are standard parts of field assessments of environmental contamination. Uptake of Cu, Cr, and As has been studied in sediments and organisms living in the vicinity of CCA treated wood. Sediments: A mass balance in a freshwater lake in Virginia indicated that leaching of CCA-treated lumber was responsible for a large percentage of the overall levels of As in lake sediments [9] (Rice et al., 33 2002). Sediments have been studied that are adjacent to and at varying distances from CCA-treated wood bulkheads in estuaries. Metals leached from the wood accumulated in the fine particle fraction of the sediments, and were highest right at the wood and gradually declined further away [10]. Sediments adjacent to bulkheads in the northeast US generally had very low percentages of fine particles (silt and clay) but very high concentrations of the metals on these particles. Bulk sediment analysis would show low contamination because of the small percent of fine pazticles, however. Sediments further away from the bulkheads, and thus in deeper water, had higher percentages of fine particles but lower concentrations of the contaminants on them. Levels of copper were generally higher than the other two metals. Higher metal concentrations were seen in sediments in poorly flushed areas than in more open water environments. The degree of elevation of metals in the sediments was affected by the amount of water movements, the nature of the sediments (how much was fine particles) and the age of the wood [8]. Sediments in the Gulf Coast remained 99% sand, even 10 m out, so that while bulk sediment analysis would indicate low contamination, the fine particles were highly contaminated, showing the highest levels right by the CCA bulkhead (Figure 1). Similar analyses by dock pilings in moderately flushed environments did not show accumulation of the metals in the immediate vicinity of the pilings, presumably because they have less surface area for leaching. Sediment contamination was also seen under and adjacent to CCA boazdwalks (walkways) over salt marshes, and again the age of the wood was a major factor affecting the degree of contamination [l 1 Metal concentrations were highly elevated under the walkways and up to 10 m away. This study is similar to that of Stillwell and Gorny [l2] who studied contamination of soil under decks, with the difference that in tidal marshes leaching during rainfall sometimes occurs when the walkway is over water (at high tide), which will cause greater dispersion of the leachates. Dispersal of contaminants near an old walkway was greatest in the low marsh, less in the middle, and least in the high marsh, corresponding to the relative periods of tidal inundation. Accumulation under the walkway was generally greatest in the low marsh. Contamination was much higher in sediments under a new walkway than an old one, but metals had not dispersed as far. METALS IN SEDIMENTS BY CCA V'JQOD OPEN 1NATER u[!ru ~n tote ?CV 3C°- 500, ~ .._...y _ ~ 100- ~ O 1 l A • 7 R R T GR DIhTJ1NCE FRQIJ lUIKFI@AD (M) - cn ~ cu ~ wR PCMl110M~ lIM1OF IL 34 Figure 1: Concentrations of Cr, Cu, and As in Sediments by a CCA Bulkhead Organisms: Epihiota: The organisms that live attached to the wood are the organisms in which the greatest uptake would be expected. These are referred to as epibiota or the "fouling community." Green algae growing on treated wood in Long Island NY had about four times as much copper, twice as much Cr and five times as much As as algae from nearby rocks []3]. Red algae growing on a bulkhead in open water in the Gulf Coast of Florida had three times as much Cu, and two times as much As as those from nearby rocks, while those living inside a canal lined with CCA wood had much higher concentrations. The same phenomenon was seen with barnacles: those on rocks had about 1 ug g ~ Cu, while those on the open water CCA dock had 3 ug g those in the canal had about 10 ug g ~ and those attached to new wood inside that canal had about 80 ug g ~ [14]. This again indicates greater leaching and accumulation from new wood and in areas with less water movement. Oysters (Crassostrea virginica) inside the canal had highly elevated copper levels (over 150 ug g a 12- fold increase over controls, and were frequently greenish in color. Other metals did not accumulate in oysters to such a degree: arsenic concentration was about 2x that of controls. There was a negative correlation of copper level with oyster weight, indicating the concentrations are diluted as the animals grow [15]. This may have negative implications for predators that preferentially eat smaller more vulnerable oysters, since these are the ones with the highest metal concentrations. Green oysters have been previously noted in Taiwan, where they had accumulated copper from industrial sources [16] and were considered a public health risk because they had acquired copper levels far exceeding international limits for human consumption. The marine isopods Limnoria spp. (gribbles) bore through wood, including CCA treated wood, for protection and as a source of food. This is ironic, since one of the reasons for the use of wood preservatives is to prevent damage by marine borers. They can tolerate the high concentrations of metals by storing copper in granules in their digestive caecae. An increased number of copper-containing granules was seen in isopods from CCA treated wood compared to those from untreated wood. The ability to store copper in granular form which is inert may explain why this organism can bore through and consume CCA wood without suffering toxic effects [17]. Arsenic and chromium were not elevated in these granules or in digestive caeca) cells, however. Benthic organisms: Bioavailability of sediment-associated metals depends on a large number of factors including metal speciation, the degree of binding to the sediments, the degree of oxidation or reduction of the sediments, and the pH. Metals tightly bound to fine particles in the reduced state are believed to play a minor role in toxicity, while those in pore waters are considered more responsible for uptake and toxic effects. Benthic organisms living in sediments contaminated by CCA wood bulkheads have been found to have elevated levels of metals. Fiddler crabs (Uca pugilator) from intertidal burrows near CCA bulkheads had metal levels about double that of controls [13]. Metals in sub[idal benthic worms living adjacent to a bulkhead in the Gulf Coast of Florida were also elevated, and the levels decreased with distance from the bulkhead [7]. The levels in the benthic organisms generally paralleled [he levels in the sediments in which they lived [8]. 35 Saltmarsh plants (Sportina alterniflora, S. patens, and Phragmites australis) living under and near CCA walkways in Delaware were analyzed for metals together with the afore-mentioned sediments. Accumulation patterns in plants were similar to those in the marsh sediments, but the elevation of metal concentrations did not disperse as far and was not greater under the new vs the old walkway, despite the great differences in sediment concentrations [l1). In ribbed mussels (Geukensia dzmissa) collected from these locations, bioaccumulation was seldom statistically significant, due largely to small sample sizes. Additional work is needed to further investigate detritus feeding invertebrates in salt marshes under walkways. Trophic Transfer: Animals need not be directly exposed to the source of contamination (i.e. CCA wood) to accumulate contaminants from it. They may be exposed indirectly, via their food. Trophic transfer is considered the major mechanism for contaminant accumulation in larger organisms higher up in the food web. A number of motile animals such as grass shrimp, amphipods, gobies etc. are frequently found associated with wood in the field, probably feeding on [he epibiota. This provides a mechanism for contaminants to pass into the food web. Experiments were done in which algae (Ulva lactuca and Enteromorpha intestinalis) collected from CCA wood or from rocks were fed to mud snails (Ilyanassa obsoleta). The snails took up contaminants (largely Cu) from the algae and suffered harmful effects [13]. Chromium in Enteromorpha was transferred to the herbivorous rabbitfish, Siganus canaliculatus, through feeding [18]. METALS IN SNAILS, TI'JUS HAEMASTOMA EXPERIMENTAL AND FIELD-COLLECTED coro 1we- wTa xoo- 180 1001 50~ ~I 0 FEO C011TROL OBIERB FEO CG OYSTERS FROM tG OAKMGL METAL ~ COPPER ~ ARSENIC Figure 2. Metal accumulation in snails fed oysters from CCA bulkhead and a reference site, and in snails collected from a CCA bulkhead. 36 Another lab study fed oysters (Crassostrea virginica) collected from CCA wood to Thais haemastoma, a carnivorous snail. Control snails were fed oysters collected from rocks at a reference site. The experimental snails increased their body burden of copper about four-fold over an eight week experiment (Figure 2), and attained Cu levels comparable to that of snails collected in the field from a CCA bulkhead (>150 ug g Juvenile fish (spot Leiostomus xanthurus and pinfish, Lagodon rhomboides) were collected from inside and outside aCCA-lined canal. Those inside the canal had about 5 times as much Cu and 7 times as much As as reference fish. It is likely that these body burdens were obtained at (east partly from their food [19]. A field experiment was performed in which organisms were caged along with CCA and untreated wood with epibiota for three months. The epibiota on treated panels had elevated Cu and As compared to epibiota on untreated wood, and amphipods caged with the treated wood developed elevated Cu. However, caged grass shrimp (Palaemonetes puglo), naked gobies (Gobiosoma bosci) and mummichogs (Fundulus heteroclitus) did not accumulate elevated levels of the metals. Thus, trophic transfer was seen only for the amphipods. Fish may have a more efficient mechanism for regulating metal levels in their tissues [20]. TOXICANT EFFECTS: Toxicant effects can be studied at many levels of biological organization. Initially, toxic chemicals interact with molecules inside cells of organisms. Effects can move from biochemical to cellular to tissue, to organ to individual organism to population to community to ecosystem. Understanding effects at one level of organization may provide insights into effects at higher levels of organization. Research into impacts of leachates from pressure-treated wood in the aquatic environment has examined effects on cellular level, to individuals, populations, and communities. Cell Level: Oysters (Crassostrea virginica) living inside a canal in the Gulf Coast of Florida lined with CCA wood bulkheads were found to have twice as many micronuclei in gill cells as reference oysters [21], indicating that there are DNA-damaging contaminants at the site (Figure 3). When control oysters were transplanted into the canal for three months, the number of micronuclei increased significantly [21]. Both chromium and arsenic are known to be genotoxic [22, 23]. The form of Cr used in wood treatment is Cr (VI), which is highly genotoxic. Bacteria that normally degrade pentachlorophenol (Flavobacterium sp. strain ATCC 53874) play an important role in degrading and waste removal of this other chemical used as a wood -preservative. When these bacteria were exposed to CCA, which often occurs in the same places as pentachlorophenol (i.e., wood treatment facilities) their ability to degrade the PCP was inhibited. Inhibitory effects were seen in this laboratory study at concentrations thousands of times less than those used commercially [24]. Both a commercially available and a laboratory prepared CCA solution inhibited the growth of these environmentally beneficial and important bacteria, even at low concentrations [25]. 37 .f Y I Y V ~ t Figure 3. Micronucleus in cells of oysters from a CCA lined canal, on left. yl h J .1 ~ ~1. .9 v 1• . - Figure 4. Pathology of digestive gland in oysters on CCA wood. On left is normal oyster digestive gland diverticula, and on right severe change in CCA oysters with dilation of lumina and loss of cell height. Tissue Level: The oysters living inside the CCA-lined canal in Florida also had an elevated incidence of a pathological atrophic condition of the digestive diverticula (Fig. 4) [15] P. Weis et al., 1993c). This pathology had previously been noted in oysters exposed to a variety of stressors including copper [26]. The condition did not appear, however, in control oysters transplanted into the canal site for 3 months, during which time they attained about two-thirds of the copper level of the canal oysters. Iud ivid ual Orga uisms: Effects on individual organisms have been studied both in laboratory toxicity tests and in organisms in the field. There have been numerous lab tests on effects of each of the three metals individually, but there has been relatively little work on effects of treated wood leachates. ]n fresh water subject to simulated acid rain, the copper leached was far in excess of the lethal level for Daphnia magna 38 [27]. The LC50 for this species is about 0.036 mg Cu I-I which is only about 2% of the leachate concentration. Leachates from treated wood from different tree species all failed LC50 tests using fish [28]. The toxicity of leachates depends on the volume of water in which they are leaching, and the length of time the wood has been leaching. New wood leaches the fastest and is therefore the most toxic. Wood leachates were toxic to fiddler crabs (Uca pugilator), green algae (Ulva lactuca), fish (Fundulus heteroclitus) embryos, and sea urchin (Arbacia punctulata) sperm and embryos [6, 29]. The toxic effects of wood that had already leached for several weeks were much less severe. Sublethal effects observed included bleaching of the green algae, reduced fertilization and inhibition of larval development in sea urchins, and retardation of regeneration and molting in the fiddler crabs. One of the most sensitive organisms was the mud snail, /lyanassa obsoleta, which upon exposure to leachate retracted into their shells and became inactive on the bottom of the tank. If they were placed back in clean water, they recovered, but if they remained in water with CCA leachates, they died after several days. Studies using individual metals or combinations of metals indicated that the algae bleaching and the snail mortality was due to copper. This phenomenon of retraction into the shell has been reported for other gastropods after copper exposure [30, 31 When mud snails were fed green algae, Ulva or Enteromorpha, collected from CCA wood or from rocks, the snails consuming the algae from the treated wood retracted and died over a four week period. This indicates [hat trophic transfer of the contaminants can be responsible for this potentially lethal response to copper []3]. In the experiment described earlier in which carnivorous snails (Thais haemastoma) were fed oysters (Crassostrea virginica) from aCCA-lined canal, their consumption rate gradually decreased over an eight-week period compared to snails feeding on control oysters. These snails grew significantly less than the snails feeding on control oysters, and increased their body burden 4- fold over this period of time [19]). Laboratory bioassays of leachate were performed on larval oysters (Crassostrea gigas) to investigate behavioral responses [32]. Early veliger stage larvae were observed to avoid concentrated leachate, and 3- and 7-day old larvae swam faster in leachate than in clean sea water and moved up and down more in the leachate. This altered behavior may retard settlement of the larvae to metamorphose into adults, and may be involved with reducing the numbers of organisms that settle on the CCA wood (see below). Communities: Epibiotic Community: Epibiota are species that settle and attach themselves to hard structures in aquatic environments. When boazds of CCA and untreated wood were placed into an estuary in Long Island NY and examined for settlement on a monthly basis, treated wood had a reduced number of species, lower diversity index, fewer barnacles and reduced growth of those barnacles that did settle. One species of bryozoan, Bugula turrita, was found to grow at greater density on the treated wood [33]. When the epibiota were removed and the same boards placed back in the estuary, the epibiota settling subsequently on the CCA wood had less of a difference from control community, indicating that the toxicity of the wood was reduced after having soaked for a period of time. The third time there were no statistically significant differences between the community on the CCA 39 wood and the control panels [34]. However, differences in the growth of certain species including the green alga Enteromarpha and the bryozoan Conopeum were still observed. Brown and Eaton [35] assessed the epibiotic community on panels of treated and control wood after 6, 12 and 18 months. They found similar species richness on the CCA and the control panels, although the number of individuals was higher on CCA wood due to higher numbers of certain dominant species (Elminus modestus, Hydroides ezoensis and Electra pldoso) on the CCA wood, which caused the diversity index to decrease. The relative lack of impact seen in this study compared to the previous ones is probably due to the effects being seen in relatively short one- month exposures coinciding with the higher leaching rates, contrasted with the six-month or longer exposure in this study, by which time leaching had probably decreased. Benthic Community: The benthic community in sediments adjacent to bulkheads was reduced in species richness, total numbers of organisms, and diversity compazed to reference sediments with lower metal concentrations. The physical characteristics at the sites studied were very similar as was the water depth. The reduction was greater inside aCCA-lined canal compazed with an open water CCA bulkhead, but both were significantly less than the number of species, number of organisms and diversity at the reference site (Figure 5) [7]. Within the canal, only two species were found in sediments by the bulkheads, the polychaete worms Neanthes succinea and Hobsonia jlorida. A follow-up study was performed to see the spatial extent of the benthic impacts at different distances from the bulkheads. Sediments and organisms were collected at CCA bulkheads and at 1, 3, and 10 m out from them at five different sites in the Atlantic coast from New York to South Carolina. Reference areas were bulkheads made of other materials or unbulkheaded areas neazby. At most sites, effects (reduced community) were seen at 1 m but not at 3 or 10. At two of the sites, however, effects were seen at 3 or 10 m where the metal concentrations in the fine particles were less, but the percent of fine particles was greatly increased [8]. Differences in the spatial extent of impacts were attributed to the age of the bulkheads, the energy of the environment, and the nature of the sediments at the different sites. A number of sites with docks rather than bulkheads were examined, and these did not demonstrate accumulation of metals in sediments adjacent to pilings or any consistent differences in benthic communities. It appears that leachates from pilings in reasonably well-flushed areas do not have negative effects in the immediate vicinity. Wendt et al. [35] studying docks in the very well flushed ACE Basin also did not find effects of CCA dock pilings. 40 BENTHIC COMMUNITY ASSOCIATED WITH CCA BULKHEADS 70 - 3 60- -2S N SD ~ i - 2 E 30. ~ R 20, ~ I +0.5 70; 0~-- ~ IO CCA-LINED CANAL OPEN BULKHEAD REFERENCE SITE SITE ~ NUMBER OF SPECIES ~ TOTAL M INDIVIDUALS n DIVERSITY INDF% fN'1 PEN6ACOLA BEACH, FL Figure 5. Species richness, number of individuals, and diversity index in sediments from aCCA- lined canal, open water bulkhead, and reference site. Ecosystem: To our knowledge there have not yet been any studies on ecosystem level impacts in aquatic environments. However, a few studies on terrestrial soil ecosystems have been reported. Microbes in CCA-contaminated soils in the field have been shown to be negatively affected [37]. Microbial biomass cazbon and nitrogen were lower in contaminated soils. Bacterial respiration, biomass P, and derritditcation all declined with increasing CCA contamination. Soil biological activity including respiration, nitrification and sulphatase was found to be reduced in pasture soils contaminated by CCA timbers [38]. CONCLUSIONS: The recent attention devoted to CCA woad and the recent restrictions posed by the EPA are because of potential risks to humans from playground equipment and decks. Nevertheless, there have been many documented (rather than potential) deleterious effects seen in many types of aquatic organisms, not just in the laboratory where concentrations may be greater than field situations, but in the field at many sites. The effects are greater in poorly flushed azeas and when the wood is new. The environmental impact of CCA wood could be reduced considerably if it could be soaked out for a few months before being put on the market. The water into which it leached could then be recycled by being pressure-treated into new pieces of wood. Most of the harmful effects of CCA wood in the aquatic environment seem to be due largely to the copper, rather than the arsenic, which is the main concern in [he human health field. 41 There will continue to be pressure to reduce the use of Cr and As in treated wood preservative formulations. Substitute formulations of treated wood are being developed that do not contain arsenic, but contain greater amounts of copper than traditional CCA does and leach more copper than CCA wood [39]. Many well-meaning people are likely to want to use these products instead of CCA for structures in or near the water, as well as for decks and playgrounds, on the assumption that they are safer than CCA. While these new formulations are preferable for such terrestrial uses, they will be a much greater environmental risk for aquatic environments than CCA is, and they should come with warnings that they should not be used in or near the water. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Research was supported in part by NOAA Estuarine Reserves, USEPA. Research Lab, Gulf Breeze Florida, US Geological Service- Water Resources Research Institute Program, the PADI Foundation and NJ Sea Grant. REFERENCES: [1] Hingston, J.A., J. Moore, A. Bacon, J.N. Lester, R.J. Murphy & C.D. Collins 2002. The importance of the short-term leaching dynamics of wood preservatives. Chemosphere 47: 517-523. [2] Hingston, J.A., C.D. Collins, R.J. Murphy & J.N. Lester 2001. Leaching of chromated copper arsenate wood preservatives: a review. Environ. Pollut. I 1 I : 53-66. [3] Breslin, V.T. & L. Adler-Ivanbrook 1998. Release of copper, chromium and arsenic from CCA- C treated lumber in estuaries. Estuaz. Coast. Shelf Sci. 46: 111-125. [4] Archer, K., & A. Preston 1994. Depletion of wood preservatives after four years' marine exposure in Mt. Maunganui Harbour, NZ (IRG/WP94-50036). The International Research Group on Wood Preservation, Stockholm. [5] Wamer, J.E. & K.R. Solomon 1990. Acidity as a factor in leaching of copper, chromium and arsenic from CCA-treated dimension lumber. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 9: 1331-1337. [6] Weis, P., J.S. Weis & L.M. Coohill (1991). Toxicity to estuarine organisms of leachates from chromated copper arsenate treated wood. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 20:118-124. [7] Weis, J.S. & and P. Weis (1994). Effects of contaminants from chromated copper arsenate- treated lumber on benthos. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 26:103-109. [8] Weis, J.S., P. Weis & T. Proctor (1998). The extent of benthic impacts of CCA-treated wood structures in Atlantic coast estuaries. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 34:313-322. [9] Rice, K., K.M. Conko & G.M. Hornberger 2002. Anthropogenic sources of azsenic and copper to sediments in a suburban lake, Northern Virginia. Environ. Sci. Technol. 36: 4962-4967. [10] Weis, P., J.S. Weis & T. Proctor 1993. Copper, chromium, and arsenic in sediment adjacent to wood treated with chromated-copper-arsenate. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 36: 71-79. [1 l] Weis, J.S. & P. Weis 2002. Contamination of saltmarsh sediments and biota by CCA treated wood walkways. Mar. Poll. Bull. 44: 504-510. [12] Stilwell, D.E. & K.D. Gorny 1997. Contamination of soil with copper, chromium and arsenic under decks built from pressure treated wood. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 58: 22-29. [13] Weis, J.S. & P. Weis (1992). Transfer of contaminants from CCA-treated lumber to aquatic biota. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 16]:189-199. []4] Weis, P., J.S. Weis & E. Lores (1993). Uptake of metals from chromated-copper-arsenate (CCA)-treated lumber by epibiota. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 26:428-430. a2 [75] Weis, P., J.S. Weis, & J. Couch (L993). Histopathology and metal uptake in oysters (Crassostrea virginica) living on wood preserved with chromated copper arsenate. Dis. Aquat. Org. 17:41-46. [16] Han, B-C., W.-L. Jeng, T.-C. Hung & M.-S. Jeng 1994. Copper intake and health threat by consuming seafood from copper-contaminated coastal environments in Taiwan. Environ. Toxic. Chem. 13: 775-780. [17] Tupper, C., A.J. Pitman & S.M. Cragg 2000. Copper accumulation in the digestive caecae of Limnoria quadripunctata Holthuis (Isopoda: Crustacea) tunnelling CCA-treated wood in laboratory cultures. Holzforschung 54: 570-576. [l8} Chan, S.M., W.-X. Wang & 1.-H. Ni 2003. The uptake of Cd, Cr, and Zn my the macroalga Enteromorpha crinita and subsequent transfer to the marine herbivorous rabbitfish, Siganus canaliculatus. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 44: 298-306. [l9] Weis, J.S. & P. Weis (1993). Trophic transfer of contaminants from organisms living by chromated-copper-arsenate (CCA)-treated wood to their predators. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 168:25- 34. [20] Weis, P. & J.S. Weis 1999. Accumulation of metals in consumers associated with chromated copper arsenate-treated wood panels. Mar. Environ. Res. 48: 73-81. [21] Weis, P., J.S. Weis, J. Couch, C. Daniels & T. Chen 1995. Pathological and genotoxicological observations in oysters (Crassostrea virginica) living on chromated copper azsenate (CCA) treated wood. Mar. Environ. Res. 39: 275-278. [22] Nakamuro, K. & Y. Sayato 198E Compazative studies of chromosomal abberration induced by trivalent and pentavalent arsenic. Mutat. Res. 88: 73-80. [23] Tkeshelashvili, L.K., C.W. Shearman, R.A. Zakour, R.M. Koplitz & L.A. Loeb 1980. Effects of arsenic, selenium and chromium on the fidelity of DNA synthesis. Cancer Res. 40: 2455-2460. [24] Wall, A.J. & G.W. Stratton 1994. Effects of achromated-copper-arsenate wood preservative on the bacterial degradation of pentachlorophenol. Can. J. Microbiol. 40: 388-392. [25] Wall, A.J. & G. W. Stratton 1995. Effects of achromated-copper-arsenate wood preservative on the growth of a pentachlorophenol degrading bacterium. Water, Air and Soil Pollut. 82: 723-737. [26] Couch, J. 1984. Atrophy of diverticular epithelium as an indicator of environmental irritants in the oyster Crassostrea virginica. Mar. Environ. Res. 14: 525-526. [27] Buchanan, R.D. & K.R. Solomon 1990. Leaching of CCA-PEG and CuNap wood preservatives from pressure-treated utility poles, and its associated toxicity to the zooplankton Daphnia magna. Forest Prod. J. 40: 130-143. [28] Envirochem Special Projects Inc. 1992. Evaluation of leachate quality from CCA preserved wood products. Environment Canada, Pacific and Yukon Region, North Vancouver British Columbia and British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Surrey, British Columbia, Canada. [29] Weis, P., J.S. Weis, A. Greenberg & T. Nosker 1992. Toxicity of construction materials in the marine environment: A comparison of chromated-copper-arsenate-treated wood and recycled plastic. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 22: 99-106. [30] Gkxde, J.B. 1957. Copper, a possible bamer to oyster drills. Proc. Natl. Shellfish. Assoc. 47: 73-82. [31] Harry, H.W. & D.V. Aldrich 1963. The distress syndrome in Taphius glabratus (Say) as a reaction to toxic concentrations of inorganic ions. Malacologia l: 283-289. [32] Prael, A., S.M. Cragg & S.M. Henderson 2001. Behavioral responses of veliger larvae of Crassostrea virginica to leachate from wood treated with copper-chrome-arsenic (CCA): a potential bioassay of sublethal environmental effects of contaminants. J. Shellfish Res. 20: 267-273. [33] Weis, J.S. & P. Weis (1992). Construction materials in estuaries: reduction in the epibiotic community on chromated copper arsenate-treated wood. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 83:45-53. 43 [34] Weis, J.S. & P. Weis 1996. Reduction in toxicity of chromated copper arsenate (CCA}treated wood as assessed by community study. Mar. Environ. Res. 41:15-25. [35] Brown, C.J. & R. A. Eaton 2001. Toxicity of chromated copper arsenate (CCA)-treated wood to non-target marine fouling communities in Langstone Harbour, Portsmouth, UK. Mar. Pollut. Balt. 42:310-318. [36] Wendt, P.H., R. F. Van Dolah, M.Y. Bobo, T.D. Mathews & M.V.Levison 1996. Wood preservative leachates from docks in an estuarine environment. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 31:24-37. [37] Bardgett, R.D., T.W. Speir, D.J. Ross, G.W. Yeates & H.A. Kettles 1994. Impact of pasture contamination by copper, chromium, and arsenic timbers preservative on soil microbial properties and nematodes. Biol. Fertil. Soils 18: 71-79. [38] Yeates, G.W., V.A. Orchard, T.W. Speir, J.L. Hunt & M.C. Hermann 1994. Impact of pasturecontamination by copper, chromium, and arsenic timber preservative on soil biological activity. Biol. Fert. Soils 18: 200-208. [39] Townsend, T., K. Stook, M. Ward and H. Solo-Gabriele 2003. Leaching and toxicity of CCA- treated and alternative treated wood products. Final Tech. Rept. #02-4. Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, Gainesville, FL. 44 J. theor. Biol. (1995) 175, 517-524 ~ r , ~ - f n 1 1 2012 j r l,. a < r Simple Physical Constraints in Hemolysis MICHAEL D. DELANO Physics Department, Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York, NY 11550, U.S.A. (Received on 6 July L994, Accepted in revised form on 3 April 1995) The percentage of normal, red blood cells that are hemolyzed when placed in hypotonic solutions depends on a variety of factors, two important ones being the initial sphericities of the cells and [he tonicities to which they are subjected. Other, less well-understood factors that are important in hemolysis are the initial cell volumes, how much free water they wntain and the elasticity of the cell membranes. The purpose of this work is to identify the constraints a red cell must satisfy in order to be hemolyzed. Human erythrocyte data is used in a physical model that compares the balance of hydrostatic stresses in sphered cells that are on the verge of hemolysis. For hemolysis to occur we find there is a critical sphericity index that must be exceeded. It depends on tonicity, the initial, fractional water volume in the cells and the maximum fractional area dilation [he cell membranes can withstand. Membrane tensile strength and [he non-ideal osmotic behavior of hemoglobin are of relatively minor importance. But when they are taken into account, the hemolysis constraint, in the form of a remarkably simple inequality, compares favorably with clinical tests of erythrocyte osmotic fragility. ©1995 Academic Press Limited 1. Introduction thin, condensed, liquid-like, very nearly unstretchable lipid bilayer that is linked (via integral proteins) to and A normal distribution of human red blood cells supported by a highly flexible, very stretchable, protein (RBCs) suddenly placed in distilled water will swell lattice-the so-called membrane skeleton or cytoskele- ( from their usual discoid shapes to spheres. At some ton. The elastic properties of this laminar structure critical point in the sphering process hemoglobin have been measured and may be used to evaluate the molecules escape across the cell membrane into relative importance of different terms in the critical the external water. This well-known hemolysis conditions for osmotic rupture of red cells. phenomenon will be incomplete if the external water The critical conditions or constraints can be contains as little as 0.4% of dissolved NaCI. Cells obtained from a very simple, well-known analysis that are not hemolyzed do not meet or exceed some of the basic physics of a spherical cell that is just on the critical set of physical conditions, which presumably verge of hemolysis: the transmembrane pressure depends on the maximum amount of water the cells can difference must be sufficient to halt the further osmosis absorb before the rising pressure in their interiors of water into the maximally swollen cell. By examining overwhelms the ultimate tensile strength of their the necessary volume of water that must enter an membranes. The actual dynamics of the disc-to-sphere initially discoid erythrocyte in order to swell it to a transformation are unknown, but extensive studies of maximal spherical volume, we show that the fate of a red cell geometry and deformability allow the spherical red cell placed in a hypotonic solution largely depends end-state of this transformation to be described in on tonicity, the initial sphericity of the cell, the initial elementary terms. fraction of its volume not occupied by water, and, Over the past 20 years a simplified working equally important, the maximum fractional amount by model for the erythrocyte membrane has emerged which its surface area can be stretched. Interestingly, (Mohandas & Evans, 1994). The model considers a the measured value for membrane tensile strength 0022-5193/95/!60517 + 12 $08.00/0 517 " 1995 Academic Press Limited Sl8 M. D. DELANO indica[e's that it contributes only very minor resistance i[ swells to a spherical shape with an enlarged surface to the osmotic rupture of erythrocytes. The fact that area the osmotic coefficient of hemoglobin decreases as its A~ = A,(1 + a), (6) concentration decreases can easily be incorporated into the hemolysis model examined here. It too has where only a minor effect on osmotic fragility. With or without these corrections, the hemolysis a = (Az - A,)lA, constraint can be written in the form of a critical is the fractional area dilation. The sphered RBC will sphericity index (S~~ which must be exceeded if a cell have a radius is to be osmotically ruptured in a hypotonic solution Using measured parameters for normal (and abnor- r = (Azl4n)'~' mal) human erythrocytes and assuming a Gaussian and a volume distribution of sphericity indices, the fraction of any sample of cells hemolyzed at different solution Vz = 4n(Azl4rz)'~13. tonicities can be calculated and compared to clinical Or, using egos (S) and (6), tests of osmotic fragility. The model provides a ( l ) ( ) l(SIJ (7) quantitative basis for interpreting these tests. r = 3V, 4rz 1 + a and 2. The Hemolysis Model Vz = V,(1 + a)'~/(Sq"~. (8) Consider a spherical cell of radius r, wall thickness If f is the initial fraction of the cell volume not t, interior pressure P;, exterior pressure Po, interior occupied by water (e.g. taken up by hemoglobin impermeant solute concentration [C],, and exterior molecules) then the initial Hz0 volume in the cell impermeant solute concentration [C]o. For r > t and will be P; > P~, the average, circumferential, or hoop stress S in the cell wall needed to maintain hydrostatic (Vx,o), = V,(1 -f). (9) equilibrium is given by If, by osmosis, the discoid swells to the spherical volume Vz, then the new H,O volume in the cell will be where St is simply the isotropic surface tension in (V"=o)z = Vz -fV, = V,[(1 + a}'~~l(SI)'rz - j] (10) the cell membrane. If the breaking stress (ultimate In terms of the initial concentration [C,];, the new, tensile strength) for the cell wall is Ss, then the cell will diluted concentration is rupture (hemolyze) when S> Sa, or. [Cz], _ [C,];(Vxzo),/(Vx,o)a, r(P; - Po) > 2tSa. or, using egns (9) and (10), The transmural pressure difference needed to halt [C,];(1 -f) j the osmosis of water into the cell is given by van't [Cz]; _ [(1 + a)"'l(Sq'~ - f (I 1) Hoff's Law At the point of rupture, when the area dilation a is P; - Po = {~,[C], - ~o[C]o}RT, (3) the maximum possible, this concentration will be the where and ~o are osmotic coefficients, T is the minimum possible. The sphered radius r [eqn (7)] will absolute temperature and R is the universal gas be the maximum possible when cell rupture occurs. constant. The condition for cell rupture becomes Using these in eqn (4), the condition for cell rupture may be written r{~{C], - Y'o[C]o~ > 2tSs/(R7~. (4) (l -.f) ~o[C]o Consider a discoid RBC in an isotonic solution. [(1 + a)"'/(SI)"' - f ] ~;[C,]; In its interior let the impermeant solute concentration be [C,],. With volume V, and surface area A, it has a _ 2tSe(SI)'~~/(L + a)'~ ~ fi (12) sphericity index ~;[C,]iRT(3V,/4n)1° (SI) _ (36rz)"'(V,)'~'/A,. (S) Equation (12), which can be algebraically mani- pulated into many different forms, embodies the (Note that for a sphere (SI) = 1.) Suppose the cell is simplest physical constraints a RBC must satisfy in placed in a hypotonic solution such that, by osmosis, order for it to be hemolyzed. It is a necessary and PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS IN HEMOLYSIS Sl9 sufficient condition for hemolysis of a RBC placed in o = {[1 l(SAI)Z] - (SI)z}''. Using a specific density for a hypotonic solution. In its present form it involves the erythrocytes of 1.08, Freedman & Hoffman (1979) sum of three, dimensionless, terms, each of which has determined f = 0.283, the fractional cell volume not a different dependence on the initial state of the cell. occupied by H,O, by weighing packed RBCs before The first term is entirely geometrical since it does no[ and after desiccation. They also determined [he depend on the physical dimensions of the cell, changes in the osmotic coefficient for hemoglobin as a the temperature or the intracellular concentration function of its concentration. The initial intracellular of impermeant solutes. The second term is simply a concentrations [C,]; = 289.3 Mm-', [Hb,] = 7.3 Mm-' measure of the tonicity of the external solution to and their osmotic coefficients = 0.971, rb,xn = 2.86 which the cell is subjected. The third term is physical were taken from the metabolic model of Joshi & because it does depend on the cell dimensions, Palsson (1989). The average osmotic coefficient temperature and impermeant solute concentration: ~o = 0.93 assumes the external solution is composed of ~ it essentially compares the osmotic pressure inside NaCI dissolved in HrO. For physiological conditions the cell to the maximum stresses the cell membrane can T = 310 K, and the universal gas constant is withstand. To evaluate the relative importance of these R = 8.31 J(M.K)-'. The final, hemoglobin osmotic terms in determining the conditions for hemolysis we coefficient ¢znn = 1.587 and the final average intra- must use reliable data for RBCs. cellular osmotic coefficient ~z; = 0.939 (for maximally swollen cells) are calculated in the next section. 3. Human Erythrocyte Data q, Approximations, Corrections and Predicfions of Table 1 lists the pertinent RBC parameters we the Model shall use in evaluating the relative importance of the Denoting the third, or physical, term in eqn (12) by e, three terms in the hemolysis condition of eqn (l2). Linderkamp and Meiselman (1982) measured the _ 2tSn(SI)'izl(1 + a)"~ (13a) cell volumes and surface areas of 200 RBCs using a ~;[C,];RT(3F,l4rt)'"' micropipet aspiration and vieomicrographs: their results compare favorably with other methods if we use the RBC values from Table 1, then (Hochmuth, 1987; Fung, 1981). The mean sphericity e = 8.61 x ]0-'. (13b) index (SI) in Table 1 was calculated from Linder- kamp's and Meiselman's measurements for the mean For a typical RBC (mean values in Table 1) the surface area index ((SAI) = 1.39 ± 0.09) under the geometrical, or first term in eqn (12) is on the assumption that (SAq, which is the reciprocal of order 0.505, so the physical term, which depends on the (SI) is normally distributed (i.e. (SI) _ {1l(SAI)}). membrane tensile strength (tSa), is a rather minor The standard deviation for (SI), was calculated correction (1.7%) in comparison. If we neglect it by taking the square root of the variance: (which is tantamount to assuming CSa = 0), the TABLE 1 • Model Parameters for human erythrocytes Parameter Symbol Value Reference Mean, initial cell volume V, _ (8.98 ± 1.27) x 10-" m' Linderkamp &Meiselman (1982) Mean, initial cell surface area A, _ (1.341 ± 0.138) x 10 10 m' Linderkamp &Meiselman (1982) Mean sphericity index (S!) = 0.722 (See text) Linderkamp &Meiselman (1982) Sphericity, Std. dev. o = 0.047 (See text) Linderkamp &Meiselman (1982) Maximum, cell surface tension tSa = 10'- Nm-' Mohandas & Evans (1994) Maximum, fractional area dilation a = 0.03 Evans et a(. (1976) Initial, fractional cell volume no[ occupied by f = 0.283 Freedman & Hoffman (1979) water Hemoglobin, osmotic coetTicien[ ~xn = I + 0.0646[Hb] + 0.0258[Hb]' Freedman & Hoffman (1979) Extracellular solute concentration [C]o , 289.3 Mm-' Adjustable (See [ex[) Average ex[racellular osmotic coefficient = 0.93 Assumed (See text) Initial, intracellular solute concentration [C,], = 289.3 Mm-' Joshi &Palsson (1989) Initial, average, intracellular osmotic coefficient fir, = 0.971 Joshi &Palsson (1989) Initial, Hemoglobin concentration [Hb,] = 7.3 Mm' Joshi &Palsson (1989) Initial, Hemoglobin osmotic coefficient Qh xe = 2.86 Joshi &Palsson (1989) Final, Hemoglobin osmotic coetHcient = L687 Calculated (See [ex[) Final, average, intracellular osmotic coefficient = 0.939 Calculated (See text) i • $20 M. D. DELANO hemolysis constraint, eqn (12), takes the particularly which is lower than the initial value ~,xn = 2.86. Since, simple form during swelling, the amount of hemoglobin and other impermeant solutes does not change, the final average (SI) > (Sq = (1 + a) osmotic coefficient ¢z; is related to the initial value (l4a) _ ~n = _ (~~Hb - ~2Hb)[Hb,]/[C,];. (18a) That is, there is a critical sphericity index (SI)B which an Thus, for a typical erythrocyte erythrocyte must exceed if it is to be hemolyzed when placed in a hypotonic solution. To a first approxi- = 0.939. (186) mation, (SI)B only depends on tonicity (~o[C]o/~;[C,];), The major prediction of the model is that there the erythrocyte's fractional volume f not occupied by is a critical sphericity index (Sn~ that must be exceeded water and the maximum fractional dilation a of its if a RBC is to be hemolyzed. For zero tensile strength # surface area. If we include the physical term a (i.e. membranes and constant osmotic coefficients tSe > 0), the hemolysis constraint has the more _ the dependence of (Sn~ on the external complicated form of concentration [C]o is given by eqn (14a). When (SI) > (ST) - the tensile strength of the membrane and non-ideal osmotic behavior are taken into account, the (1+a){1+e(~;[C,];)/(~o[C]o)}z~ dependence of (SI)B on [C]a is given by eqn (14b). {f+(1-f)(¢,[C,],)/(~o[C]o) + ef(~,[C,],)/(~o[C]o)}z~'' However, according to eqn (13a) for c and egns (15), (lob) (16) and (18a) for _ ¢z;, these corrections depend on (SI)B. As a starting approximation, one can use the The average osmotic coefficient in eqn (14b), or its estimates e = 8.61 x 10-' and ~z; = 0.939 in eqn (14b) approximate version [eqn (14a)], is the final coefficient and then calculate (S/)~ for each [C]a. Or, starting with when the sphered cell is on the verge of rupture. It these estimates, one can numerically iterate egns (14b), would be equal to the initial average coefficient (16), (15) and (l8a) to obtain the exact values for c, before swelling, if the impermeant solutes behaved and (SI)B at each external solution concentration [C]o. ideally. However, because of the large size difference For concentrations in the range 0.25 5 %NaCI between hemoglobin and water molecules, the 0.70, the exact values for (SI]~ are about 3% larger than hemoglobin osmotic coefficient exhibits a strong those predicted by eqn (14a). The results are shown in concentration dependence. Using data for ox and Fig. 1. It is interesting to note that membrane tensile sheep hemoglobin, Freedman & Hoffman (1979) have strength and the non-ideal osmotic behavior of experimentally fit this dependence by the following hemoglobin confer a small, but measurable, degree of virial equation: osmotic stability to RBCs. This is apparent in Fig. 1: if all erythrocytes had the same sphericity index 4•xb = 1 + 0.0645[Hb] + 0.0258[Hb]z. (15) (SI) = 0.722, idealized erythrocytes with zero tensile , strength membranes and osmotically ideal solutes Consequently, as an erythrocyte swells from a discoid (broken curve) would hemolyze in hypotonic solutions to a sphere, [fib] will decrease and so will the values for with %NaCI ~ 0.442, while the realistic erythrocytes , ~Hb and The dilution of [fib] is described by described by eqn (14b) (solid curve) would hemolyze at eqn (11): the lower tonicity %NaCI ~ 0.423. The non-ideal _ [Hb,](1 -f) osmotic corrections are responsible for about [Hbz] {(1 + a)'~zl(SI)'~z - f (16) two-thirds of this small effect, the remainder being attributable to the finite tensile strength of the where [fib,] and [Hbz] are, respectively, the initial membrane. and final hemoglobin concentrations. The final concentration in any particular cell depends on its 5. The Osmotic Fragility Test specific values for (S/), a andf. We may estimate i[ for a typical erythrocyte by using the mean values The human erythrocyte osmotic fragility test is from Table 1 in eqn (16): [Hbz] = 0.5046[Hb,] = a fairly routine diagnostic procedure in clinical 3.684 Mm-'. Substituting in eqn (15), the final medicine (Brown, 1988). It provides a convenient hemoglobin osmotic coefficient, for a typical RBC, is experimental test of the validity of the hemolysis model presented here. In any sample of RBCs there will be a yQHb = 1.587, (17) distribution of sphericity indices; those cells with the PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS IN HEMOLYSIS $21 0.95 (SI) = 0.722 and a = 0.047 and the erythrocyte model parameters listed in Table 1 the results are shown in o.so Fig. 2. The shaded region displays the range of osmotic fragility curves hemolysis or F) expected for normal blood (Brown, 1988). The broken curve is for the 0.85 idealized erythrocytes described by eqn (14a) and the solid curve is for the realistic erythrocytes described by ~ o.ao eqn (14b). The general shape of these two curves is similar to the envelopes of the "normal" range, and it ~ 0.75 is again interesting to note that [he small corrections (SI) = 0.722 for membrane tensile strength and non-ideal osmotic behavior give near perfect agreement with clinical a o.7o expectations for normal RBCs. In view of some of the ~ uncertainties in the human erythrocyte data listed in o.s5 Table 1 we take this as reasonable confirmation of the ' ~ hemolysis model presented here. The osmotic fragility test is essentially a measure of oso spherocytosis; it gives a more objective measurement than visual inspection of a blood smear. While it can be 0.66 interpreted in terms of some "normal" critical sphericity index, it is incapable of saying what this index is or on what it depends. As such, it is still 0.5o a qualitative test. The hemolysis model presented 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 % NaCI FIC.LCri[icalspherici[y indezasa function ofextracellular solute 1.0 ~ e e. concentration. The solid curve includes corrections for non-ideal ` osmotic behavior and finite membrane tensile strength. The broken curve aeglects these corrections. 0.9 ` highest indices (most spherical) are at greatest risk for o.8 hemolysis. According to eqn (14a) or (146), all cells with sphericity indices greater than (Sn~ will be 0.7 hemolyzed. To obtain the fraction F hemolyzed at a particular solution tonicity, we assume a reasonably os narrow, normalized Gaussian distribution of spheric- ity indices and integrate over (SI), from (SI)B to w o.5 infinity. Note, the error in letting (SI) > 1 in the integration is minimal for a narrow distribution (small standard deviation). The result can be written in terms o.4 of the error function Erf(x) (Abromowitz & Segun, 1968): ( ) 0.3 F=2{1-~~~Erf(XU(2u'a))}, (19) 0.2 ( ) o.l where X = (SI)r - (SI). (20) 0.8 0.7 0.6 ~0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 (SI)B, which depends on ~o[C]o, is calculated from ~ NaCI either eqn (14a) or (14b), depending on the accuracy F[c. z. osmotic fragility curves. Fraction F hemotyud as a deSlred. function of external solute concentration. The shaded region indicates normal clinical range. The solid curve is for model By varying ¢o[C]o we may compute Fas a function parameters in Table 1. The broken curve neglects osmotic and of [C]o for any choice of model parameters. For [ensile-strength corrections. S22 M. D. DELANO TABLE 2 Model parameters in hereditary spherocytosis Parameter Symbol Value Reference Mean, initial cell volume Vi = 8.00 x 10-"m' Williams et al. (1990) Mean sphericity index (S//) = 0.792 Bes[ fit [o data from Cooper & Bunn (1977) Sphericity, Std. dev. a = 0.0765 Bes[ fit [o data from Cooper & Bunn (1977) Maximum, cell surface tension tS° = 10-'- Nm-' Mohandas & Evans (1994) Maximum, fractional area dilation a = 0.03 Evans el a[. (1976) Mean corpuscular Hemoglobin concentration MCHC = 38 gdl-'RBC Coope[ & Bunn (1977) Initial, fractional cell volume not occupied by water f = 0.319 Estimated (see [ex[) water Initial, Hemoglobin concentration [Hbi] = 8.65 Mm-' Estimated (see text) Initial, Hemoglobin osmotic coefficient ~ixn = 3.49 Estimated (sce text) Initial, intracellular solute coacent[a[ion [G], = 278.2 Mm ' Estimated (ace text) Initial, average intracellular osmotic ccefhcien[ ~n = 1.01 Estimated (sce text) Ex[racellular solute concentration [C]o ~ 289.3 Mm-' Adjustable (see [ex[) Average extracellular osmotic coefficient ~o = 0.93 Assumed (see [ex[) J here is potentially useful because it provides a broader, globin concentration is elevated to MCHC = 38 gdl-' more quantitative way of interpreting the fragility RBC (Cooper & Bunn, 1977). Using these clinical curves in terms of the model parameters. An abnormal values in egns (A.1}{A.9) in the Appendix, we have the fragility curve would suggest an abnormality in one or following erythrocyte model parameters for hereditary more of the erythrocyte parameters listed in Table 1. spherocytosis: The fragility curve alone, however, is not sufficient to V, = 8.00 x 10-" m', determine where the abnormalities lie; other clincial tests must be made to assess the state of a person's j= 0.319, erythrocytes. If we use the model parameters in Table 1 as prototypical for erythrocytes, then it is shown in the [Hb,] = 8.65 Mm-', Appendix how clinical measurements for mean corpuscularvolume,MCV,infl,andmeancorpuscular Qt,an=3.49, hemoglobin concentration, MCHC, in grams per [C,]; = 278.2 Mm-', deciliter of packed red cells (g dl-' RBC), can be used to generate the person's model parameters for V,, and, [Hb,], f, (~1,xn, [C,]; and These new model parameters can then be used to assess the abnormalities - 1.01. in a person's osmotic fragility curve, as we now show. The disparity between the normal RBCs (as described by [he parameters in Table 1) and HS cells is worth commenting on: HS cells are smaller with 6. Osmotic Fragility in Hereditary spherocytosis a greater fraction of their volumes not occupied by In hereditary spherocytosis (HS), i[ is believed HzO. Their hemoglobin concentrations are about (Mohandas & Evans, 1994; Palek, 1990) that 18.5% greater than normal and their intracellular membrane mechanical instabilities due to deficiencies impermeant solute concentrations are low by 4%, in spectrin (and possibly other proteins) in the but have an abnormally high average osmotic cytoskeleton lattice lead to lipid bilayer loss. The coefficient Since the defect in HS is not believed to resulting cells tend to be smaller and more spherical directly involve the elastic properties of the lipid than normal, with elevated hemoglobin concen- bilayer, which offers virtually all the resistance to trations. The disease can vary from mild to membrane surface area dilation, we shall take the life-threatening, the most severe cases having large following values from Table 1 as representative of populations of hyperchromic cells lacking central HS cells: depressions. Accordingly, the osmotic fragility test for tSa = 10-Z Nm-' this disorder can vary from near normal [o highly abnormal. a = 0.03. In the most common form of this anemia, mean corpuscular volume is on the low side of normal Missing from our list of HS model parameters, (MCV = 80.0 fl) and the mean corpuscular hemo- but included in Table 2, is the mean sphericity (SI) and PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS IN HEMOLYSIS S23 1.0 7. Discussion In summary, we have described a physical model for 0'9 red cell hemolysis. An experimentally based set of data for normal human erythrocytes, which is independent o.B of the model, has been used to evaluate the relative 0 importance of different factors in the hemolysis of red 0.7 cells. By examining the balance of hydrostatic stresses in a sphered RBC that is on the verge of hemolysis, it o.s has been shown that there is a critical sphericity index for hemolysis that is only weakly dependent on erythrocyte membrane [ensile strength and the w o.5 non-ideal osmotic behavior of hemoglobin. We have shown that the physical constraints in hemolysis 0.4 reduce to an ine ualit amon q y g geometrical parameters ~ for RBCs and the solution tonicities they are placed in. 0.3 When corrections for tensile strength and non-ideal ° osmotic behavior are included, the model is consistent 0.2 with clinical osmotic fragility tests. It provides a quantitative basis for interpreting these tests. From ° routine clinical measurements on a person's blood, we 0.1 o have shown how to generate erythrocyte parameters 0 that are specific for that person. For the particular case o.B o.7 Os o.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 of hereditary spherocytosis, when the appropriate %NaCI parameters are used in the hemolysis model, it yields an osmotic fragility curve that is consistent with the FIG. 3.Osmotic fragility curve in Hereditary spherocytosis. Data CIIritCal Carves m this dls0[de[; It also COm IeteS the points taken from Cooper & Bunn (1977). The solid curve is best fit p using model parameters in Table 2: (SI) = 0.792, a = 0.0765. The profile Of Che Cells in HS by indicating their mean shaded region indicates clinical range expected for normal SpherlCl[IeS and hOw b[Oadly these SpheriClheS are erythrocytes. distributed. I thank Mr. Joe Howard, Dr. Man S. Oh and Dr. Barbara its standard deviation a. These may be obtained by Delano for informative discussions. finding the best fit to an actual HS osmotic fragility curve. That is, we use the above model parameters • in egns (14}-18), of Section 4, and egns Q9) and REFERENCES (20), of Section 5, while using different trial values Aeaomowtaz, M. & Seoorv, L A. (1968). In: Handbook of for (SI) and a t0 generate many differeffi, theOCetlCal, Mathematieal Functions, 5th edn, pp. 295-311. New York: Dover. • osmotic fragility curves. The curve that best Sts the Baowrv, B. A. (1988).In: Hematology, Principles and Procedures, 5th experimental HS fragility curve yields the HS edn, p. 124. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger. Coorrrz, R. A. & Burvrv, H. F. (1977). Hemolytic anemias and model values for (SI~ and a. The best fit [o the hemoglobinopathies, In: Principles of Mterna! Medicine, 8th edn data taken from Cooper and Bunn (1977) is shown (Thorn, G. W., Adams, R. P., Braunwald, E., Iselbacher, K. J. & in Fig. 3. The shaded region shows the normal Petersdorf, R. G., eas) pp. 1674-1697. New Ynrk: McGraw-Hiu. clinical range. The fit was obtained for (S//) = 0.792 Dnwosxorv, 1. sc HENRx, L s. (t97a). m: c[lnical Diagnosis bt' Luboruton• Methods, 15th edn, pp. 130.133. Philadelphia: and v = 0.0765, which indicates that [his is a w. B. Saanders. broader distribution of cells that are somewhat more Evnus, E. A., Wnucx, R. & Mrtrvtx, L. (1976). Elastic area spherical than normal. The fact [hat the model is compressibility modulus of red cell membranes. Bioph vs. J. 16, 585-595. COnSiStent WIIh ChnlCal measurements i5 agalri taken FREEDMAN, L C. & HOFFM"N, 1. F. (1979). Ionic and osmotic t0 be reasonable COrifi[matlOn of ICS validity. equilibria of human red blood cells treated with nys[an[in. J. Cen. Ph vsiol. 74, 157-185. Importantly, the quantitative value of the model F71NC, Y. c (19sq. Red blood teas ana their deformability. in interpreting the fragility curve is quite evident In: eiomeehanics, pp. lol-13s. New York: sponger-vedag. for here it yields meaningful numbers which Hocxmurx, R. M. p9s7). Properties of red blood teas. m: clearly indicate that this distribution of cells is Handbook ofeioengineermg (Skalak, R.&chein, eds). New YOrk: McGraw-Hill. abnormal. Josx4 A. & PALSSON, B. O. (1989). Metabolic dynamics in the human 524 M. D. DBLANO red cell. Part-I A comprehensive dynamics. Part-II Interactions CIinlCal meaSlliement does not Specify [be actual with [he environment. J. lheor. Bial. 141, 529-545. LINDERKAMP, O. B[ MEISELMAN, H. J. (I982). GCOtnelrlC ana concentration [Hb] in the cell. For a RBC with volume mechanical properties of density separated human red cells. B/oad V, and Mxn moles of hemoglobin, only the fractional 59, u2l-nzz volume (1 -f) is occupied by water so MOHANDAS, N. & Evnxs, E. (1994). Mechanical properties of [he red cell membrane in relation to molecular structure and genetic the COttCentratinn inside the Cell IS: defects. In: A. Rev. Biaphys. & Biomolec. Slrucr. (Stroud, A. M., Cantor, C. R. & Pollard, T. D., eds) 23, 787-818. [Hb] =Mxn/{(1 - f]V,}. (A.4) PALEK, J. (1990) Hereditary spherocy[osis. In: Hematology (Williams, W. Beutler, E., Erslev, A. J. &Lichtman, eds) (From Table 1, [Hb] = 7.3 Mm_s (Joshl & Palsson, pp. 9-23. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1989), V, = 8.98 x 10-" mr (Linderkamp & Meisel- WILLIAMS, W. J., NELSON, D. A. & MORRIS, M. W. (1990). man, 1982) and f = 0.283 (Freedman & Hoffman, Examination of [he blood. In: Hematology (Williams, W. J., Beutleq E., Erslev, A. J. &Lichtman, eds) pp. 9-23. New York: 1979), this wOUld mean a specific cellular hemo- McGraw-Hill. globin content of Mxn = 4.7 x 10-16 M and a specific normal MCH = 30.3 pg/RBC or a specific normal APPENDIX MCHC = 33.8 gd 1-'RBC. It is significant that separate model parameters from three different ~ Clinical Measurements for Erythrocyte research groups combine to give an acceptable, normal Model Parameters clinical value.) The erythrocyte model parameters in Table 1 were If we make the simplifying assumption that the cell pooled from the measurements of many separate volume not occupied by water, fV,, is proportional to researchers using blood samples from an even larger the number of moles of Hb in the cell, fV, _ Mxn, number of donors. As such they do not represent the then from the values in Table 1, ~ = 0.05407. parameters for any one person, but because of their Consequently, for any cell of volume V, containing inner consistency and success in predicting the normal Mxn moles of Hb the fractional volume not occupied osmotic fragility curve, they may be treated as the by water may be estimated from prototypical parameters for all normal erythrocytes. f= 0.05407Mxb/V,. (A.5) Many of these parameters correspond to a particular set of normal values in some of the fairly routine Once f is known, [Hb] may be calculated from clinical measurements made on human blood. Making eqn (A.4) and its osmotic coefficient determined from some simplifying assumptions, they may be used to the Freedman-Hoffman equation: generate another set of normal (or abnormal) rbxn = l + 0.0645[Hb] + 0.0248[Hb]'. (A.6) parameters from any other particular se[ of clinical measurements. Presumably, the external milieu of any distribution For example, a RBC count and hematocrit will yield of RBCs, normal or otherwise, is typical isotonic a mean corpuscular volume MCV which is related to plasma whose osmolarity may be calculated the mean cell volume V, by: from the values in Table L rb;[C]; = 0.971[289.3] _ V, = MCV x 10-'s ms, (A.1) 280.9 osM m-'. If we assume that all intracellular solutes, S, other than Hb, behave ideally with constant where MCV has the normal range 80.0 to 96.1 fl osmotic coefficients = 0.93 then (for V, = 8.98 x 10-" m', in Table 1, this would correspond to a normal MCV = 89.8 fl). rbxb[Hb] + 0.93[S]; = 280.9 osM m-'. (A.7) Another clinical measurement, the mean corpuscu- Since the total intracellular concentration is lar hemoglobin (MCH), is related to the number of moles of hemoglobin Mxn in an average red cell [C]; _ [Hb] + [S];, according to: we may use eqn (A.7) to solve for Mxb = 1.5504 x 10-'r(MCH) M, (A.2) [C], = 302.04 - [Hb](1.0753rdxn - I) Mtn (A.8) where MCH, in picograms per red cell, has the normal and its average osmotic coefficient range MCH = 27.5 to 33.2 pg/RBC (Williams et al., 1990). Sometimes the mean corpuscular hemoglobin = 280.9/[C];. (A.9) concentration (MCHC) is measured: Thus, the specific results of clinical measurements MCHC = 100 MCH/MCV, (A.3) for MCV, and MCHC (or MCH) will, using egns where MCHC has [he normal range 33.4 to (A.1~(A.9), generate a specific set of erythrocyte 35.5 gdl-'RBC (Williams et al., 1990). However, this model parameters for V,, j, [Hb,], r6,xn, [C,]; and • • 654 East 19`" Street Brooklyn, NY 11230 718-859-3366 BKLYNPHYS@AOL.COM December 7, 2012 TOcPresidentJimKing&theBoardofTownTrustees ~',`r ~ Southold Town Hall Annex ~ ~ PO Box 1179 i t Southold, NY 11971 _ O E~ ~ ~ 2~j2 i,"" .Dear President Jim King & the Board of Town Trustees: i a - My name is Michael D. Delano and my wife's name is Barbara G. Delano. For 21 years weliaJe owned a house and 2.5 acres of land located at 15435 Route 25 in East Marion, NY 11939 and, across an Adjacent Property north of us, we have walking-right-of- way access to Dam Pond and Trumans Beach . This Adjacent Property, located at 15437 Route 25, East Marion, was purchased about a year and a half ago by Frederick de la Vega & Lawrence Higgins and we recently learned by certified mail that they have requested a permit to construct acatwalk/ramp/dock on Dam Pond's wetlands and that their request was open to public comment at a Town Hall meeting that has been rescheduled for December 12, 2012. Since my wife and I will not be able to attend this public meeting, I am writing this letter to you which details our very strong objections to the proposed construction project . For your convenience I have enclosed a copy of the NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER and a copy of the map and construction details of the project, SCTM # 1000-23-1-6.1, which was sent to us by EN-CONSULTANTS. 1) Let me begin by bringing to your attention two blatant violations of the "Wetlands Law of the Town of Southold" (Chapter 2751. The enclosed map/plan contains six notes numbered 1. - 6. According to note 5. "5. Dock to be equipped with water and electricity " but no details or plans for their installation are specified which clearly violates the Town Code: f 13~ Utilities and Water: If power and/or water are to be installed on a dock, plans for the installation must be provided to the Trustees at the time of application, Installation of such amenities on an existing permitted dock requires obtaining a permit amendment from the Trustees. [Added 10-11-2005 by L.L. No. 17-2005 According to note 4. "4. Structural timbers to be CCA-treated; decking to be open-grate, fiberglass-reinforced composite; hardware to be hot dipped galvanized steel" which clearly protects humans walking on the deck from the toxic effects of CCA but not the water in which and with which the CCA-treated structural timbers come in contact. This violates the Town Code: [11 Ll In order to prevent the release of metals and other contaminants into the wetlands and waters of Southold, the use of lumber pre-treated with any preservative, including but not limited to chromated copper arsenate (also known as "CCA"), commercial copper quat (CCC1), panto products, Alkaline Copper Gtuat (ACC!), or homemade wood preservatives is prohibited for use in sheathing and decking on structures in the wetlands as well as on any part of a structure in low tidal flow wetland areas as determined by the Trustees. The use of creosote is prohibited. The use of tropical hardwoods is prohibited unless it is certified by the Forest Stewardship Council or similar organization. Materials used for structural components shall be at the discretion of the Trustees. [Amended 12-18-2007 by L.L. No. 23-2007] 2) Let me continue my objections to the proposed construction by quoting from the enclosed NOTICE: "Construct a fixed timber dock equipped with water and electricity and consisting of a 4' x 95' fixed, elevated walkway, a 3' x 14' hinged ramp; and a 6' x 20' float secured by (2) 6"diameter pilings, all as depicted on the project plan prepared by En-Consultants, dated October 23, 2012." Not even considering the disruptions and barriers created by this project it would mean, at the very least, that 542 square feet of vegetated land (dry, wet and submerged) would be shielded from sunlight and die which would certainly fit the dangerous category definition of Habitat Fragmentation in section 2 of chapter 275 of the Town Code: HABITAT FRAGMENTATION Destruction or impairment of habitat such that it results in breaks in areas of contiguous habitat. Habitat fragmentation can also cause a greater distance between adjacent (noncontiguous) habitats. These actions prevent the transfer of organisms, natural materials and energy within a habitat. Habitat fragmentation can result from the placement of physical barriers within a contiguous habitat or between adjacent habitats, but can also occur as a result of removal of vegetative cover, changes in sediment characteristics and/or changes in hydrology. If you carefully examine the enclosed proposed Dock-map it appears to come very close to the Adjacent Property of the Blickman's (formerly owned by R. W. Gillispe III) and extends more than 71' across the shoreline waters of Dam Pond which would certainly make one suspicious that it falls into the category of Habitat Fragmentation. To quote from a 11/21/2012 email from Richard Blickman: "In addition to our yesterday mail one could also argue that the proposed 95 feet dock by Fred and Larry would form a dominent'Iandmark' as compared to the other docks. Dam pond is a wetland and should not become a dockland." 3) While our primary residence is in Brooklyn, we have in the last 21 years spent about 100 days a year out at our East-Marion/Dam-Pond residence and I have easily walked along the north shore of Dam Pond (Trumans Beach) with my Golden Retrievers at least 2,000 times. I've learned quite a bit about this unique, stunning ecosystem. For instance: Southold and the NYDEC has listed Dam Pond as a Critical Environmental Area and an "An Area of Concern" and that the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program has identified Dam Pond as "A Significant Coastal Fish And Wildlife Habitat:' I'm sure you know that 30 acres adjacent to Dam Pond's north-west shore is a Maritime Reserve, but did you know that a rare form of Sea Lavender blossoms on its north-east shore in early autumn and houses a colony of several hundred fiddler crabs in its mud flats? Did you know that on the [21 Dam Pond section of Trumans Beach is a deer path next to which a wild form of the Fox Glove plant grows and produces yellow flowers which may contain the dangerous pollen Digoxin (AKA digitalis)? I could go on and on about this natural wonder, but relevant to my objections to the proposed Dock let me informyou of the following: About 19 summers ago I found a strange bed of mussels which our son, Kenneth Delano who was going for his master's degree in marine biology, identified as Ribbed Muscles. Ken went on to explain to me in great detail the absolutely crucial role that Ribbed Muscles play in purifying the waters so other marine creatures could thrive and live there. Ken also pointed out to me that in the US and worldwide the populations of Ribbed Muscles were declining which was of great concern to fishermen and ecologists. In this regard the following Town Code restrictions are not surprising: § 219-12. Mussels. C. Ribbed mussels shall be contained by handpicking only. Raking for mussels in peat bog areas shall be prohibited. D. The containment of mussels is further regulated by New York State. For your perusal I've also enclosed a news release from the NYC Department of Environmental Protection which discusses the role of Ribbed Mussels in a project to improve water quality in Jamaica Bay. My son, Ken, also pointed out to me that Ribbed Mussels feed on phytoplanktons (algae) which require sunlight for growth and Joanne Barrett, the previous owner of the relevant Dam Pond shore area, recently informed me that it is filled with clusters of Ribbed Mussels. If the proposed dock shades the underlying ground water from sunlight, as discussed above, the local phytoplankton would die and so would the local Ribbed Mussels with potentially disastrous consequences for the purity of the local waters. 4) I would like to raise two final objections to the proposed dock on Dam Pond. First, the preservatives used in treated timber are not just toxic to Humans. They are also toxic to aquatic creatures as discussed in the enclosed scientific paper. Second, if the fresh water supply in the proposed dock ruptures and spills into Dam Pond it will decrease the local salinity of the water and may lead to osmotic rupture of the cells of aquatic creatures. To this end, I've enclosed a 1995 paper I published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology. I've included it, not to brag, but to point out that I'm a well qualified scientist on the osmotic rupture of cells. While the paper deals with human red blood cells it received many international citations in Salmonoid Fish-Farming Journals because salmon migrate from fresh water to salt water and then migrate from salt water back to fresh water where they spawn and die. I urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to reject de la Vega's & Higgins' application for a permit to build a dock on Dam Pond because the structure would cause severe damage to this pristine ecosystem. Sincerely, ~ Michael D. Delano, PhD Retired Associate Professor of Physics (Hofstra University) [3] PS Please read my wife, Barbara's comments below. Thank you. Hello: I am a Full Professor in the School of Medicine and a Full Professor in the School of Public Health at the State University of New York, Downstate Medical Center. I have fully read and helped edit the above letter regarding my husband's objections to the project. And, I too, urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to reject de la Vega's & Higgins' application for a permit to build a dock on Dam Pond because the structure would cause severe damage to this pristine ecosystem. Sincerely, Barbara G. Delano, MD, MPH, FACP CC To: MICHAEL SCARANO, P.E. Deputy Chief of Regulatory US Army Corps of Engineers New York District Operations Division 2C> Federal Plaza, Room 1937 New York, NY 10278-0090 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Environmental Permits, Region One Attention: Sherri 1. Aicher SUNY at Stony Brook 50 Circle Road Stony Brook, NY 11790 [4] NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNEI~~~;°" BOARD OF TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ~ In the matter of applicant: SCTM# loon-z3-1-6.1 y Frederick dela Vega & Lawrence Higgins YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1. That it is the intention of the undersigned to request a Permit from the Board of Trustees to: Construct a fixed timber dock equipped with water and electricity and consisting of a 4' x 95' fixed, elevated walkway, a 3' x 14' hinged ramp; and a 6' x 20' float secured by (2) 6" diameter pilings, all as depicted on the project plan prepared by En-Consultants, dated October 23, 2012. 2. That the property which is the subject of Environmental Review is located adjacent to your property and is described as follows: 15437 Route 25, East Marion 3. That the project which is subject to Environmental Review under Chapters 96,111 and/or 275 of the Town Code is open to public comment on: DATE: November 14th, 2012 L 6:00 P.M. You may contact the Trustees Office at 765-1892 or in writing. The above-referenced nropnsal is under review ~f the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold and does not reference any other agency that might have to review same proposal. Frederick de la Vega & Lawrence Higgins PROPERTY OWNERS NAME: 344 west 23rd Street, #PHB MAILING ADDRESS: New York, NY 10011 PHONE#: 917-912-4084 AGENT: En-Consultants MAILING ADDRESS: 1319 North Sea Road, Southampton, NY 11968 PHONE 631-283-6360 Enc: Copy of sketch or plan showing proposal for your convenience. 1 _ ~ ~s _ _ DAM POND ' I ~ - ~ 4~,;, aiR'dk Canty Nagstran Map 99 w y , ' I a I Notes: C C6HA BOUNIMRY LIN- 1. pllfpa3e: RflVate, Iwr•ORNllacl~ boat dOCkaye ° ~ ~ wer prwately arced urlerwater lard i ~ I 2. 7atixn: hN-I.W 3. Water depths C refererrxd to MI.I-W) trarcnlxd I from hydra1r~hic slxvey prepaed by Kertleth M. URGE ItOGxS (rro.7 I Wa.~chuk, L.S., last dated October 2012 6' x 20' FLOA7 I `1. StfllGtllra Umbers t0 be ~l~-treated; deckitq 6" PILE (TYP O / ~ I v to ~ q~-clue. fibergass-reirlfaced canposite; g o ~~j ~ I ~ hadwae to Ix hot dipped galvanized steel 5. 7ak to be egulpped with water art eectriclG{ is: _o ~ x 95' FIxEO ~ 13 b. V'roJect loratkn: 15h3~ Rate 25, East Maw,; mn_ ~O TIMBER CATWALK / o ~ SCTM ~I000'23'1-fi~i 3~ x I4 AM / la Z / I ~ i a. I i~j ~ z_ lY i 1 I r~APPPGX. tOP OF SLOPE ~ i I EX. PAiH ~ ~ / l I s°~ ~ ' z ' ~ Y i ~ ~a- ,I a O L Y 5 ~ 2 EP1-C.Qfi~SULTAfvTS \O 13 i 9 PJORTH S~ A f~D. • SOUTHAfV1P±0f1', N,Y. 11968 ' ~ 631-233-6360 y ~ ~ i ~5~ i pE?'NO w_ ~ e p~Op05~17 r70CK ~Otz ~~f~t21CK f7~ LA VGA ANt7 I,AW~NC~ ~TO MM^'" ~ ~ HMA~'ION OSU~~OI,K CO N11', NY - ~ RpW z5 5f~~1 10~ 2 10-23-12 s~crioN r~~u ~po~os~n eocK - 95' EIXEn TIMCEk CA1WPlK ~la~ eaMp~, _ ~ ~ oan c~~ nc~k~ ~ '~~R i ~ ,L- ~ ~ Jr ~ ~2,~ - r ~ Q~~ VEGEfAtEY/rlnPl MA25N=_--' ~ ~ ex GC'PDE i~ ~ . ~i. III a..: 4" GC515 CD 6" EILES r- 'y I' Page 1 of 5 • • Nunemaker, Amanda From: David Bergen [bergend@sunysuffolk.edu] Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 12:08 PM To: Nunemaker, Amanda Subject: FW: Town Hall Meeting RE: SCTM # 1000-23-1-6.1 FYI From: Standish, Lauren [mailto:Lauren.Standish@townsouthold.ny.us] Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 12:07 PM To: bob@burts.com; David Bergen; jbme4u@gmail.com; mjdsouthold@aol.com Cc: Cantrell, Elizabeth Subject: RE: Town Hall Meeting RE: SCTM # 1000-23-1-6.1 FYI From: BKLYNPHYS@aol.com [mailto:BKLYNPHYSCa~aol.com] Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 11:14 AM To: Cantrell, Elizabeth; Standish, Lauren Cc: b~nohvsCalaol.com Subject: Town Hall Meeting RE: SCTM # 1000-23-1-6.1 Hello: Below is a copy of a letter I sent via snail-mail to President King & the Board of Town Trustees regarding my objections to the application for a permit to build acatwalk/ramp/dock on Dam Pond's wetlands (SCTM # 1000-23-1-66.1). I hope to read it aloud at a Town Hall Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, December 12, 2012 so it will become part of the public record. At this point I'm not entirely sure if I will be able to attend and was informed by telephone from someone in Ms. Standish's office that the letter had to be received by Monday, December 10, 2012 in order that President King and the Trustees will have a chance to read it. While I' sent the letter and some other documents via US Priority Mail I'm not sure it will arrive on time, hence the copy of the letter below. Please include it in the public record and, if necessary, please let me know if you need the additional documents mentioned in the letter. Thank you, Michael D. Delano, PhD 654 East 19th Street Brooklyn, NY 11230 718-859-3366 BKLYNPHYS@AOL.COM BKLYNPHYSC<ilAOL.COM December 7, 2012 TO: President Jim King & the Board of Town Trustees Southold Town Hall Annex PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 12/10/2012 Page 2 of 5 • • Dear President Jim King & the Board of Town Trustees: My name is Michael D. Delano and my wife's name is Barbara G. Delano. For 21 years we have owned a house and 2.5 acres of land located at 15435 Route 25 in East Marion, NY 11939 and, across an Adjacent Property north of us, we have walking-right-of- way access to Dam Pond and Trumans Beach . This Adjacent Property, located at 15437 Route 25, East Marion, was purchased about a year and a half ago by Frederick de la Vega & Lawrence Higgins and we recently learned by certified mail that they have requested a permit to construct acatwalk/ramp/dock on Dam Pond's wetlands and that their request was open to public comment at a Town Hall meeting that has been rescheduled for December 12, 2012. Since my wife and I will not be able to attend this public meeting, I am writing this letter to you which details our very strong objections to the proposed construction project . For your convenience I have enclosed a copy of the NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER and a copy of the map and construction details of the project, SCTM # 1000-23-1-6.1, which was sent to us by EN-CONSULTANTS. 1) Let me begin by bringing to your attention two blatant violations of the "Wetlands Law of the Town of Southold" (Chapter 275). The enclosed map/plan contains six notes numbered 1. - 6. According to note 5. "5. Dock to be equipped with water and electricity " but no details or plans for their installation are specified which clearly violates the Town Code: [13] Utilities and Water: If power and/or water are to be installed on a dock, plans for the installation must be provided to the Trustees at the time of application, Installation of such amenities on an existing permitted dock requires obtaining a permit amendment from the Trustees. [Added 10-71-2005 by L.L. No. 17-2005 According to note 4. "4. Structural timbers to be CCA-treated; decking to be open-grate, fiberglass-reinforced composite; hardware to be hot dipped galvanized steel" which clearly protects humans walking on the deck from the toxic effects of CCA but not the water in which and with which the CCA-treated structural timbers come in contact. This violates the Town Code: f 3J In order to prevent the release of metals and other contaminants into the wetlands and waters of Southold, the use of lumber pre-treated with any preservative, including but not limited to chromated copper arsenate (also known as "CCA"), commercial capper quat (CCQ), yenta products, Alkaline Copper Quat (ACQ), or homemade wood preservatives is prohibited for use in sheathing and decking on structures in the wetlands as well as on any part of a structure in low tidal flow wetland areas as determined by the Trustees. The use of creosote is prohibited. The use of tropical hardwoods is prohibited unless it is certified by the Forest Stewardship Council or similar organization. Materials used for structural components shall be at the discretion of the Trustees. [Amended 12-78-2007 by L.L. No. 23-2007] 2) Let me continue my objections to the proposed construction by quoting from the enclosed NOTICE: 12/10/2012 Page 3 of 5 • • "Construct a fixed timber dock equipped with water and electricity and consisting of a 4' x 95' fixed, elevated walkway, a 3' x 14' hinged ramp; and a 6' x 20' float secured by (2) 6" diameter pilings, all as depicted on the project plan prepared by En-Consultants, dated October 23, 2012." Not even considering the disruptions and barriers created by this project it would mean, at the very least, that 542 square feet of vegetated land (dry, wet and submerged) would be shielded from sunlight and die which would certainly fit the dangerous category definition of Habitat Fragmentation in section 2 of chapter 275 of the Town Code: HABITAT FRAGMENTATION Destruction or impairment of habitat such that it results in breaks in areas of contiguous habitat. Habitat fragmentation can also cause a greater distance between adjacent (noncontiguous) habitats. These actions prevent the transfer of organisms, natural materials and energy within a habitat. Habitat fragmentation can result from the placement of physical barriers within a contiguous habitat or between adjacent habitats, but can also occur as a result of removal of vegetative cover, changes in sediment characteristics and/or changes in hydrology. If you carefully examine the enclosed proposed Dock-map it appears to come very close to the Adjacent Property of the Blickman's (formerly owned by R. W. Gillispe III) and extends more than 71' across the shoreline waters of Dam Pond which would certainly make one suspicious that it falls into the category of Habitat Fragmentation. To quote from a 11/21/2012 email from Richard Glickman: "In addition to our yesterday mail one could also argue that the proposed 95 feet dock by Fred and Larry would form a dominent'landmark' as compared to the other docks. Dam pond is a wetland and should not become a dockland." 3) While our primary residence is in Brooklyn, we have in the last 21 years spent about 100 days a year out at our East-Marion/Dam-Pond residence and I have easily walked along the north shore of Dam Pond (Trumans Beach) with my Golden Retrievers at least 2,000 times. I've learned quite a bit about this unique, stunning ecosystem. For instance: Southold and the NYDEC has listed Dam Pond as a Critical Environmental Area and an "An Area of Concern" and that the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program has identified Dam Pond as "A Significant Coastal Fish And Wildlife Habitat." I'm sure you know that 30 acres adjacent to Dam Pond's north-west shore is a Maritime Reserve, but did you know that a rare form of Sea Lavender blossoms on its north -east shore in early autumn and houses a colony of several hundred fiddler crabs in its mud flats? Did you know that on the Dam Pond section of Trumans Beach is a deer path next to which a wild form of the Fox Glove plant grows and produces yellow flowers which may contain the dangerous pollen Digoxin (AKA digitalis)? I could go on and on about this natural wonder, but relevant to my objections to the proposed Dock let me inform you of the following: About 19 summers ago I found a strange bed of mussels which our son, Kenneth Delano who was going for his master's degree in marine biology, identified as Ribbed Muscles. Ken went on to explain to me in great detail the absolutely crucial role that Ribbed Muscles play in purifying the waters so other marine creatures could thrive and live there. Ken also pointed out to me that in the US and worldwide the populations of Ribbed Muscles were declining which was of great concern to fishermen and ecologists. In this regard the following Town Code restrictions are not surprising: S 219-12. Mussels. 12/10/2012 Page 4 of 5 • C. Ribbed mussels shall be contained by handpicking only. Raking for mussels in peat bog areas shall be prohibited. D. The containment of mussels is further regulated by New York State. For your perusal I've also enclosed a news release from the NYC Department of Environmental Protection which discusses the role of Ribbed Mussels in a project to improve water quality in Jamaica Bay. My son, Ken, also pointed out to me that Ribbed Mussels feed on phytoplanktons (algae) which require sunlight for growth and Joanne Barrett, the previous owner of the relevant Dam Pond shore area, recently informed me that it is filled with clusters of Ribbed Mussels. If the proposed dock shades the underlying ground water from sunlight, as discussed above, the local phytoplankton would die and so would the local Ribbed Mussels with potentially disastrous consequences for the purity of the local waters. 4) I would like to raise two final objections to the proposed dock on Dam Pond. First, the preservatives used in treated timber are not just toxic to Humans. They are also toxic to aquatic creatures as discussed in the enclosed scientific paper. Second, if the fresh water supply in the proposed dock ruptures and spills into Dam Pond it will decrease the local salinity of the water and may lead to osmotic rupture of the cells of aquatic creatures. To this end, I've enclosed a 1995 paper I published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology. I've included it, not to brag, but to point out that I'm a well qualified scientist on the osmotic rupture of cells. While the paper deals with human red blood cells it received many international citations in Salmonoid Fish-Farming Journals because salmon migrate from fresh water to salt water and then migrate from salt water back to fresh water where they spawn and die. I urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to reject de la Vega's & Higgins' application for a permit to build a dock on Dam Pond because the structure would cause severe damage to this pristine ecosystem. Sincerely, Michael D. Delano, PhD Retired Associate Professor of Physics (Hofstra University) PS Please read my wife, Barbara's comments below. Thank you. Hello: I am a Full Professor in the School of Medicine and a Full Professor in the School of Public Health at the State University of New York, Downstate Medical Center. I have fully read and helped edit the above letter regarding my husband's objections to the project. And, I too, urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to reject de la Vega's & Higgins' application for a permit to build a dock on Dam Pond because the structure would cause severe damage to this pristine ecosystem. Sincerely, Barbara G. Delano, MD, MPH, FACP CC To: 12/10/2012 Page 5 of 5 MICHAEL SCARANO, P.E. Deputy Chief of Regulatory US Army Corps of Engineers New York District Operations Division 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1937 New York, NY 10278-0090 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Environmental Permits, Region One Attention: Sherri L. Aicher SUNY at Stony Brook 50 Circle Road Stony Brook, NY 11790 12/10/2012 Cantrell, Elizabeth From: Standish, Lauren Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 2:47 PM To: Cantrell, Elizabeth Subject: FW: To Standishl from Delano Re: SCTM #1000-23-1-6.1:Dam Pond Wetlands Permit Attachments: RE: [New Sender - ] -Fwd: To Hartnagel from Delano Re: Dam Pond Wetlands Hi Liz, Please forward to the Trustees. Thank you! From: BKLYNPHYS@aol.com [mailto:BKLYNPHYS@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 12:04 PM To: Standish, Lauren Cc: jhartnagel@eastendenvironment.org; bgdelano2@gmail.com; bklynphys@aol.com; kachrist@rcn.com; lynne726@gmail.com; nvblickman@hotmail.com; efranco@francofg.com; merelineblickman@hotmail.com; Ifeigelson@aol.com Subject: To Standishl from Delano Re: SCTM #1000-23-1-6.1:Dam Pond Wetlands Permit Dear Secretary Standish Thank you very much for forwarding on to the Town Board my preliminary comments to Jenn Hartnagel regarding our new neighbors (de la Vega & Higgins) application for a permit to build a walkway/dock on the wetlands of Dam Pond. Upon further reviewing the plans sent to me by EN- CONSULTANTS Ihave discovered two Town Code violations that would invalidate the application: SCTM # 1000-23-1-6.1. Ihave also uncovered quite a few ecological facts, laws and restrictions that would seriously question granting the applicants permit request. I plan to write a more extensive letter of objection and send it to the following officials (kindly provided by Jenn Hartnagel): President Jim King & the Board of Town Trustees Southold Town Hall Annex PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Environmental Permits, Region One Attention: Sherri L. Aicher SUNY at Stony Brook 50 Circle Road Stony Brook, NY 11790 But time is of the essence here and I'm not sure of when an actual public hearing on the matter will be held. Below, in red, are Jenn's (11/20/2012) answers to questions I raised and the next Board meeting is apparently scheduled for December 12, 2012. But is it just a "work session" or is it followed by a public hearing? I've tried the Trustees Office at 764-1892 several times but no one answers. I would very much appreciate any information you could give me regarding the date or dates for public comments and Board decisions. t In closing here is a point that may alarm you: In the walkway/dock plan sent to me there are explanatory numbered notes (1. - 6.) and note 4. begins with "Structural timbers are to be CCA- treated:" The "A" in CCA is arsenate which contains the deadly poison arsenic. Here is what the Town Code has to say about CCA and other wood preservatives: j31 In order to prevent the release of metals and other contaminants into the wetlands and waters of Southold, the use of lumber pre-treated with any preservative, including but not limited to chromated copper arsenate (also known as "CCA"), commercial copper quat (CCQ), yenta products, Alkaline Copper Quat (ACQ), or homemade wood preservatives is prohibited for use in sheathing and decking on structures in the wetlands as well as on any part of a structure in low tidal flow wetland areas as determined by the Trustees. The use of creosote is prohibited. The use of tropical hardwoods is prohibited unless it is certified by the Forest Stewardship Council or similar organization. Materials used for structural components shall be at the discretion of the Trustees. [Amended 12-18-2007 by L.L. No. 23-2007] Sincerely, Michael D. Delano, PhD 654 East 19 Street or: 15435 Route 25 Brooklyn, NY 11230 East Marion, NY 11939 718-859-3366. 631-477-9531 Questions: ~ Who actually makes the ultimate decision regarding the Dock Application? Southold Board of Trustees? Suffolk County? NY State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)? Both the Southold Board of Trustees as ~meil as the DEC make the final dec(s(an as they both issue permits. The applicant is responsible for complying with any and ah recomn'iendations each of the agencies require. Many times, the application processes run concurrently. Usually, the Board of Trustees moves faster than the DEC- Although, sometimes an applicant will submit to one agency first and provide an approval with an application to the other. When I looked into this file the applicant indicated that they had not yet received a permit from the DEG. 2) Should the US EPA be contactedlconsulted about this application? The US EPA doesn't really have any jurisdiction. The DEC as well as the Town both consider any of the US EPA's species of concerns, however. I would encourage you to point these out in any comment letters you plan on providing to ensure that this issue is addressed. ~ When will the hearing be rescheduled for? I was told by the Trustees office that the hearing was postponed until December 12 It was postponed last time because the applicant did not properly post hearing on fhe xaual site 4~ Can you recommend an environmentally-savvy lawyer that my wife,Barbara G. Delano, MD, MPH, and I can hirer to represent us in opposing this application? You can try Jeffrey Bragman- He is based in East Hampton. His numbe.~r is - 324-3737 and his websde is www.bragmanlaw.com. 2 - - 654 East 19a' Street Brooklyn, NY 11230 November 9, 2012 To: Board of Trustees, Town of Southold Three days after hurricane Sandy struck I received a certified letter dated Oct. 23, 2012 from EN-CONSULTANTS that contained: - _ - _ NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER NOV 13 2012 BOARD OF TRUSTEES, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD _ In the matter of applicant: , Fredrick de la Vega & Lawrence Higgins SCTM # 1000-23-I-6.1 The notice went on to describe the intentions of the applicants to build a walkway and dock on the tidal wetlands of Dam Pond, East Marion, NY and informed me: "That the project which is subject to Environmental Review..........is open to public comment on: DATE: November 14`h Ca, 6:00 PM You may contact the Trustees Office at 765-1892 or in writing." This is very short notice, to say the least, and I repeatedly tried to ask for a postponement by calling the above number which was not answered. My wife and I aze completely opposed to the project as are the three other Adjacent Property Owners: Buckman, Franco and Piekarski (only two of whom received the notice two days ago). I respectfully ask that the Environmental Review, open to public comment, be postponed to a date that is convenient and accessible to all concerned. For your perusal, I have enclosed a copy of an email I sent to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. It gives a brief outline of my objections to the project SCTM # 1000-23-1-6.1. Sinc~erel~y, Q y~ Michael D. Delano, PhD 14/11 '12 WED 10:28 FA% 831 8145 SODTHOLD TOWN CLER% Trustees I~J001 11/1:i/'1N12 14:,1b 7b5664~ BOARD OF TRU5TE~ PAGE 01 ELIZABETHA. NEVILLE TOWJVfIALL, 53095 MIAINROA.II TOWN CL,GKK P.O. ROX 1179 REGISTRAR O.F VITAL STATISTICS b`OIITIIO.CD NY 11971 M.9RRIAGE OF,FXCER FAX.' 631-765-~ 6145 RECORDSMANsiGEMENTOFFlCER TEL,B'PFIONEa 63I-76S-X80D .F~tEE9)Ot'~fOF,(N,FORMATIONOFFICER soulholdtowrtnprlhfnrknel tiU~~ ~ t `n Z ~L~I >7 ~ o~rzc~ of xz~I~ TowN c~.~RZ~ ~ ~ d TO WN Off' SOUTHOLD AI~I~~ir.ICA,'x'ION k'QR PiBLIC ACCESS TO RECORDS INSTRUCT'LONS: Please complete section I of this form and give to Towa Clerk's Office (agency freedom of Information Officer). One copy will be returned to you in response to your request,ot• as am interim response. srcTZON z. _ ro: _ I rHS~e~ s _ (I7epsttotent or OIYcer, if known, that has the inforin:ation you are requesting). It)TCORl7~ XOU R'i'Sli, iTU LIVSPG.CT: (Describe the record sought. If hossibla, supply date, t'rle title, tax map number, and any other pertinent iaformstion), . _ _Dn s+°r ~uloliG._~eOrihC~ /'I'y /a_-- Signature ofApplicant: Ptipted Name; _ ~ nn i ~P r~ ~ r~nc,~F • Address: (Jp_ ~ ~7ga ~ f~y -I Asa Mailing Address (if different from abov\e): r_t.,_r...__,....._~e~. 6311 765-(4so ~lI l l ~l [..:°.J. _APPROVi~D•__'.o,.__: ( ~ DENIED= [ ] APPROVCD WiTFIiaELAY* •a~Q REC;EIV~p lizabetl1 A. Neville -Date ~reedom of Information OfFcer Hand carry to depsrrtment? N~V l Q 2~i2 Accepting Clerk's Initials _ Yes__ No` A.pplicant's initials _ ~autholrl ToWa Clerl, *LJdelayed or denied, see reverse srde for explanation, • • Page 1 of 2 t Subj: Wetlands Permit In Southod, Suffolk County, NY t Date: 11/5/2012 11:39:07 A.M. Eastern Standard Time NOV ) From: BKLYNPHYS(a~aol.com i ~ ~ 3 2~~2 To: depprmtC~gw.dec.state.nv.us CC: bklvnphysCoaol.com,Barbara.Delanot7aDownState.Edu ( i__ To: DEPARTMENT OF ENIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ~ ` Ihave been informed by certified mail that Frederick de la Vega & Lawrence Higgins plan to: "Construct a fixed timber dock equipped with water and electricity and consisting of a 4' x 95' fixed, elevated walk way, a 3' x 14' hinged ramp; and a 6' x 20' float secured by (2) 6" diameter pilings, all as depicted on the project plan prepared by En-Consultants, dated October 23, 2012." Since the ro osed rooect will be on the tidal wetlands of Dam Pond, 22 GB-76 including P 395 Dam Pond Q-30ne SA SA East Marion, Suffolk County, NY, and since Dam Pond and its adjacent wetlands have been designated Environmentally Critical by Suffolk County, I respectfully ask that Frederick de la Vega & Lawrence Higgins apaly for a DEC Tidal Wetlands Permit before a public hearing by the BOARD OF TRUSTEES, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD is held. Moreover, the Notice I received by certified mail states that: "2. That the propertty which is subject to Environmental Review is located adjacent to your (my) property is described as follows: 15437 Route 25, East Marian" " 3. That the project which is subject to Environmental Review under chapters 96, 111 and/or 275 of the Town Code is open to public comment on :DATE: November 14th, 2012 CD6:00 PM" which would certainly seem to override the legal jurisdiction of the New York State Department Of Environmental Conservation. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the Permit applicants Frederick de la Vega & Lawrence Higgins .SCTM # 1000-23-1-6.1 clearly violate section 267 of the Town Law and the Code of the Town of Southold under which this once vacant parcel of land was-granted a permit for the construction of a dwelling. Specifically, I quote from NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS which appeared on page 13 in the January 13, 1994 edition of The Traveler-Watchman: "7:18 P.M.- In the matter of SUZANNE SWICK to construct a one family dwelling with excavation for foundation, slab, and septic system with no activity within 35' from top of bluff. Located Route 25, East Marion. SCTM No. 23-1~.1" Obviously the application for a construction permit of a dock on the wetlands contradicts the stipulation of "..with no activity within 35' from top of bluff." I would very much appreciate it if the DEC could temporarily halt the scheduled hearing and investigate tt?e matter so I can avoid taking legal action to prevent the construction of this ecglogically dangerous Dock on pristine wetlands. I would also very much appreciate acknowledgement of receipt of this email. Friday, November 09, 2012 America Online: BKLYNPHYS Page 2 of 2 Sincerely, Michael D. Delano, PhD 654 East 19 Street Brooklyn, NY 11230 718-859-3366 15435 Route 25 East Marion, NY 11939 631-477-9531 BKLYNPHYS(a~AOL.COM . _ A ~ ' NOV 1 3 2012 _ Friday, November 09, 2012 America Online: BKLYNPHYS Cantrell Elizabeth From: Standish, Lauren Sent-_ Tuesday, November 13, 2012 3:06 PM To: Cantrell, Elizabeth Subject: FW: [SPAM] -Fwd: Delano Re: Dam Pond Tidal Wetlands Permit _ From: BKLYNPHYS@aol.wm [mailto:BKLYNPHYS@aol.com] ' Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 2:09 PM ~ ~ 3 212 To: Standish, Lauren Subject: [SPAM] -Fwd: Delano Re: Dam Pond Tidal Wetlands Permit From. BKLYNPHYS@aol com w~. . To venetia@handsconsulting.com, efranco@francofg.com, lynne726@gmail.com, merelineblickman@hotmail.com, aural@chaudhuri.com, Ifeigelson@aol.com, Barbara.Delano@DownState.Edu, bklynphys@aol.com CC: ejbarrett3l @me.com, jfried172@gmail.com, maryannlib85@aol.com, merlesylevine@yahoo.com, ruthwcam@aol.com Sent: 11I13I2012 11:06:46 A.M. Central Standard Time Subj: Delano Re: Dam Pond Tidal Wetlands Hi Venetia, Edmund, Lynne, Mereline & Richard, Aural, Linda and everyone else who is interested. Last Friday I sent a cover letter via next-day-mail to Southold Town Hall asking them to postpone a meeting scheduled for Wednesday, Nov. 14, 2012 that was open to public comment regarding the building of a walkway on the tidal wetlands and a dock on Dam Pond by our new neighbors Frederick de la Vega and Lawrence Higgins who now own the property of our previous neighbors Ed & Joanne Barrett. This next-day-snail-mail also contained a copy of an email I sent to the NY State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) which outlined some of my objections to the project. The cover letter and the DEC email can be read below. My wife, Barbara, has pointed out to me a passible error in my cover letter: Namely, that we are not certain that our new neighbors, the Blickmans. who live in Holland, are completely opposed to the project. Also not mentioned in the cover letter is the fact that three docks already exist on the southeast shore of Dam Pond on properties owned by the Whiteheads, the Rubins, and Paul & Judith Fried. But these docks were built in the early part of the 20tH century and are protected by grandfather clauses (two of them are in near disrepair and I've only seen Paul Fried use his for kayacking and to haul building material to Trumans Beach where he put up an osprey nest.) At some other point in this debate I will list and elaborate on some of the grave dangers I believe this dock-project poses to the ecological wonder that is Dam Pond. As just one example, the dock would disrupt the habitat of Horse Mussels which play an extremely crucial role in purifying the water so other marine creatures can safely live there. (Take a look way below at the Science News release and you will get an idea of what I'm talking about.) I strongly urge you to read the cover letter and DEC email and forward it on to others who may be interested in opposing this environmentally destructive project. Best regards and thanks, Mike Delano - 654 East 19`h Street Brooklyn, NY 11230 t November 9, 2012 To: Board of Trustees, Town of Southold Three days after hurricane Sandy struck I received a certified letter dated Oct. 23, 2012 from EN-CONSULTANTS that contained: NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER BOARD OF TRUSTEES. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the matter of applicant: Fredrick de la Vega & Lawrence Higgins SCTM # 1000-23-1-6.1 The notice went on to describe the intentions of the applicants to build a walkway and dock on the tidal wetlands of Dam Pond, East Marion, NY and informed me: "That the project which is subject to Environmental Review..........is open to public comment on: DATE: November 14`h (c~ 6:00 PM You may contact the Trustees Office at 765-1892 or in writing." This is very short notice, to say the least, and I repeatedly tried to ask for a postponement by calling the above number which was not answered. My wife and I are completely opposed to the project as are the three other Adjacent Property Owners: Blickman, Franco and Piekarski (only two of whom received the notice two days ago). I respectfully ask that the Environmental Review, open to public comment, be postponed to a date that is convenient and accessible to all concerned. For your perusal, I have enclosed a copy of an email I sent to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. It gives a brief outline of my objections to the project SCTM # 1000-23-1-6.1. Sincerely, 2 Michael D. Delano, PhD From: BKLYNPHYS@aol.com To: depprmt@gw.dec.state.ny.us CC: bklynphys@aol.com, Barbara.Delano@DownState.Edu Sent: 1119/2012 10:39:07 A.M. Central Standard Time Subj: Wetlands Permit In Southod, Suffolk County, NY To: DEPARTMENT OF ENIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION I have been informed by certified mail that Frederick de la Vega & Lawrence Higgins plan to: "Construct a fixed timber dock equipped with water and electricity and consisting of a 4' x 95' fixed, elevated walk way, a 3' x 14' hinged ramp; and a 6' x 20' float secured by (2) 6" diameter pilings, all as depicted on the project plan prepared by En-Consultants, dated October 23, 2012." Since the proposed project will be on the tidal wetlands of Dam Pond, 22 GB-76 including P 395 Dam Pond E Q-30ne ~ SA SA East Marion, Suffolk County, NY, and since Dam Pond and its adjacent wetlands have been designated Environmentally Critical by Suffolk County, I resaecffully ask that Frederick de la Vega & Lawrence Higgins apply for a DEC Tidal Wetlands Permit before a aublic hearing by the BOARD OF TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD is held. Moreover, the Notice I received by certified mail states that: "2. That the property which is subject to Environmental Review is located adjacent to your (my) property is described as follows: 15437 Route 25, East Marion" "3. That the project which is subject to Environmental Review under chapters 96, 111 andlor 275 of the Town Code is open to public comment on :DATE November 14th 2012 (c~6:00 PM" which would certainly seem to override the legal jurisdiction of the New York State Department Of Environmental Conservation. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the Permit applicants Frederick de la Vega & Lawrence Higgins , SCTM # 1000-23-1-6.1 clearly violate section 267 of the Town Law and the Code of the Town of Southold under which this once vacant parcel of land was granted a permit for the construction of a dwelling. Specifically, I quote from NOTICE 3 OF PUBLIC HEARINGS which'~ppeared on page 13 in the January, 1994 edition of The Traveler-Watchman: "7:18 P.M.- In the matter of SUZANNE SW ICK to construct a one family dwelling with excavation for foundation, slab, and septic system with no activity within 35' from top of bluff. Located Route 25, East Marion. SCTM No. 23-1-6.1" Obviously the application for a construction permit of a dock on the wetlands contradicts the stipulation of "..with no activity within 35' from top of bluff." I would very much appreciate it if the DEC could temporarily halt the scheduled hearing and investigate the matter so I can avoid taking legal action to prevent the construction of this ecologically dangerous Dock on pristine wetlands. I would also very much appreciate acknowledgement of receipt of this email. Sincerely, Michael D. Delano, PhD 654 East 19 Street Brooklyn, NY 11230 718-859-3366 15435 Route 25 East Marion, NY 11939 631-477-9531 BKLYNPHYSCa.AOLCOM - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Science News from universities, journals, and other research organizations L~Save Email Prlnt Share Saving Strangford Horse Mussels ScienceDaily (Jan. 22, 2009) -Queen's University Belfast is working on a three-year study to conserve and restore endangered horse mussel reefs in Strangford Lough. Marine biologists based at the University's marine research and outreach centre in Portaferry in County Down, which is part of the School of Biological Sciences, will provide scientific and technological research to map and monitor the species and undertake trials to restore it. 4 Horse mussel reefs are important to t~marine environment because they are'bio~ical engineers' which improve water quality through filtering it when they feed and also because many other species depend on them for survival. Funded by the Department of Agriculture and the Rural Development and the Department of the Environment, the project follows amulti-agency report in 2004 which said that the beds were in serious decline. DARD, supported by DOE, imposed a temporary ban on fishing in the Lough with mobile gear, from December 2003, which still remains in place. As horse mussels were one of the features used in the conservation designation of Strangford Lough the UK government is obliged to protect them under European directives. Although the horse mussel reef communities in Strangford Lough were once very rich they have declined at an alarming rate in some areas. They are usually found in the central and northern part of the Lough, with their hard shells part buried in the soft mud sediment. Horse mussels are important because they provide a hard surface for other species to grow on, in otherwise soft muddy areas. Other organisms also hide and shelter in the crevices and niches of clumps of horse mussels. They create a habitat for around 100 other species. Dr David Roberts, from Queen's, who is Principal Investigator on the study entitled Modiolus Restoration Research, said it was the first of its kind for the species. He said: "Queen's has expertise in the restoration of the European native oyster, freshwater pearl mussels and a long history of marine research. The University is therefore ideally positioned to undertake research to develop techniques and recommendations for the restoration of horse mussel reefs in Strangford Lough. "One year into the study we have found that horse mussel reefs as not as widely distributed as they were in the 1970s and that same beds have extremely poor mussel density -less than 25% of what we would consider a good density. "In terms of intervention we have started to culture the animals in the lab at Portaferry. "Mussels are very important to the marine environment as they act as biological 'engineers' in both freshwater and marine ecosystems. When they feed they filter vast quantities of water thereby improving water quality. A frequently cited example is that of a population of blue mussels which were capable of filtering the entire contents of the Albert Dock in Liverpool in two days. "Horse mussels work in the same way; they also provide habitat for over a hundred other species, serving as a nursery ground for species of commercial importance." Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google: 5 • ~~~g>JFFO(,~CO • ti Peter Young, Chairman C Town Hall, 53095 Main Rd. Lauren Standish, Secretary ~ ~ P.O. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 y'~Ql ~~Or' Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631)765-6641 Conservation Advisory Council Town of Southold The meeting of the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council scheduled for Wed., November 7, 2012 at Down's Farm Preserve was cancelled due to damage to residential areas as well as power outages caused by Hurricane Sandy and a Nor'easter on the day of the meeting. Several of the Conservation Advisory Council members conducted their inspections and provided the following recommendations/comments: FREDERICK de la VEGA & LAWRENCE HIGGINS to construct a fixed timber dock equipped with water and electricity and consisting of a 4'X 95' fixed, elevated walkway, a 3'X 14' hinged ramp; and a 6'X 20' float secured by (2) 6" dia. pilings. Located: 15437 Route 25, East Marion. SCTM#23-1-6.1 Audrey Horton inspected the property on Tues., November 6th and the project was not staked. Doug Hardy inspected the property and Supports the project. J i ~ 1 L. ~OV ~ 3 2~~2 I 1 _ - _ ~ Frederick cle la VecJa 8 Lawrence Hi[H~Jins - _ _ - _ _ 1b~37 Route 25, East Marion - l ~ ~ ~ ~ f'- ~4 b A ~ ~ F ~ ~ _ _ _ - _ - ~ r ~ - - - ~.'4b k' '1§- j nN + t Py - - - n 'tom 3=' -d - a ~ _ '43i~`~,~,,. `t~ rg " ';d T2'~~~~ ~ ' - ' _ _ _ Ry'a T ~&'~`f~-n#`~°r ~ y Y J~'~'s{YL L - t ~a¢ ~a~ y.. 4T' ~ ,r. ~ k 1 4 t~M ~ e f s a~ t suFFO«. James f. King, President C N.O. box I U9 Bob Ghosio. Jr.. Vlce-Pres'Ident ~j ~Z Southold. NY 11971 Davc Bereen ~ ~ ~ Telephone (631 76~-1892 John Bredemeyer G ~ Fax X631)765-6641 Michael 1. Domino ~~p~ad-. Southold Town Board of Trustees Field Inspection/VVorksession Report Date/Time: ~ ~ ~ - En-Consultants on behalf of FREDERICK de la VEGA & LAWRENCE HIGGINS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed timber dock equipped with water and electricity and consisting of a 4'x95' fixed, elevated walkway, a 3'x14' hinged ramp; and a 6'x20' float secured by (2) 6" diameter pilings. Located: 15437 Route 25, East Marion. SCTM# 23-1-5.1 Typgg of area to be impacted: saltwater Wetland -Freshwater Wetland -Sound -Bay Distance of proposed work to edge of wetland ~a ' ~of Town Code proposed work falls under: _Chapt.275 _Chapt. 111 -other Type of Application:Wetland -Coastal Erosion -Amendment _Administrative_Emergency Pre-Submission Violation Info needed: Modifications: Con tions: C7/=~ ~'t)C~~(c / ~~1~^J ~!Y c?,~c-r~ itp ~19 Pr sent Were: ~J. King / B. Ghosio / D. Bergen, ~J. Bredemeyer Michael Domino D. Dzenkowski other Form filled out in the field by Mailed/Faxed to: Date: • FRF,DERICK DE LA VEGA AND LAWRENCE HIGGINS, 15437 ROUTE 25 EAST MARION p a :9~w.~+ p• ' ~ :a 4~fi3C ii n ~ - .r.- -fir s , M1:E, ; II t+ ~ ' +t ~ r'a5 ,t n - J'~ e far M M1 I i 1 7 i ~ r-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4~'~/.M'' rJ.~ ~ i yl~ aj~";y Fa ~y9/,~ r F _ _ r yy.. ~ o'{ vt+f`~r' l~+Pt`Y °r'1~Y f. ~`'14~~T.. r• F N t N~ A` ~ ~ f ~r f v~%: ~a, k.t ~t~+ t a ~s ~ `~~~~t ~3~ ! }14~~f a- w !c i r I w to 'a 1 ~ nt [Y k c7•x' .feLrF> kM~ f{ "..r '~.~{rr, tf ~ ~y- rte _ ~ S ji Y it j y i ~ r , l y~ q~a~,~~j~~a k1¢ T~ fwi~ ~ A+ ~'t ~4,c ~y}'t l1 ~~i. ~ ! 1 '~kt Syr` ~ R r .r} aK T`t'~~ a} ~ C E t ~,,yt~~~'t ~ ~ f ~f ttyl Y s r r m r ; a 5K d y~~ s ~ a' Fr r! itf r y. ~ ~ ~ d e f~~r ~ ~{~4~. ~,~`yad d{~ C ~ SG3 ~ 4`1° f r ~g ! 1i111'' ~ ;y r~g ~.~k ~f~a'a +~r ~^,,~;~„[~~{~~ki14K~~ ~tL~'k~~ ~1 i 4;r , t4 nr} ' ~ ~ Y ~ 1~'igure 1. Aerial photo of subject property and adjoi~rirrg developed shoreline and docks. Photo by Microsoft Corporation. -r f~~ I_ i_ OCT 2 4 ?n~ t , y~ry~ y7 ~ L ° ?jf'. s i']~~- _ ,S ` y- y=~ r r,- 7 - • K r 5~ I v ~ r > e r ~ `r~~s stew o - t'I` ,„.-s~,b~~4 ~ a. '~i r q - l.. ~a4~16 1' f I yl r r 1 a~& F bi i~ k r r r~ A l s~-~~~ ~ M+ u ~~q,,, t a'rC ti + , ~ 1 y~ 11 F 1 t 1 ~ I ~ rk ,~y' Y l I ~~I 1''. ~ al f . II ~ K~ ~ ;c~ HS .4 s, t ~Iq g ,e I c e; I K., ~ 3 ( ~ I 1 Y r 9.. I i;;«re Loukrrrg nurthµ~est aver /ucrrtiurr of proposed duck toward developed westerly shoreline of Drrm Pand and existing docks. FREDERICK DE LA VEGA AND LAWRENCE HIGGINS 15437 ROUTE 25 EAST MARION ' .s ~4~~~. t 6 e t s n i ~ ~ r rGtr~ ~ ~ f y,~ ~.,E t ~ A ~ti ~ t~x5 r$ 5~ ht~ ~q~ 1~ ~ ~ ;`}t r. ~ ~n~ ~ :,r s, r a >r. r ~ 1~sq y ' y' t., 4 „ iia ~l Y 1~ tail ~ ~i~} 1 >~,."r a ~ ~ v ' ~ trYtr4' ~6i ~ ~ ~g x {t ~ ~ y t ~ ~~'~w~ ~ 1, 1~ { 8 4 ~t ~ t~ ~ t~#w' ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~v S ~ _k, 9 ~u Y~~ fh''~'+~~:p~d '4 ~ s~~d ` ~ 1j 5,~~y~ to 5df~' s'~4~ t Q- Figure 3. Looking nortkeasl over location of'proposed dock toward undeveloped easterly ~ltotelir?e r~J E~efr~ i-' I i - -1 L~ _ L~, - N: ~ ~T..~ OCT 2 4 2012 _,y, . ~ r' ~ « j ,.w . ~ _-qa;4' <.~a :E ~ - A ~ _ . .a-.°~' s - - - _ N _ - - ~ v~` :Mss ~~s= _ - w - ' ` ~ Via.- ~3 ..2~-~-+~.-__ Figure 4. Looking soutlr.from Dam /'o?nl over location nTpruprr~cdt r/nrr, rr~,c•~soi ~d~rltrrtdf untl r.ti~tirr;; ~u?rh. I fit. ~ . N ~ , rz - ~ , - j ~ a b t::! /l Foxe rn.ow oo io S ss ~ ~o ~ zR~'~ 5 v ~ _ _ a~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ _ _ ~7 p9'~ ~f - ~i' i % ~ 4~~ ~ ~ og ~ ~ ~ xxu°" s io ~ ~ ~ ~a~ ~~Y~~ ~ Qj o, o. ^~us ~ a w ~S ~ ~Q, ~ $ 4 ~xi :ixn / ~ ~ `:fir ~ . 9 ~ i .re' .,°rM .~A a~ eye a nK•~ ~ ~o.ea +wio j~ ~ / ~ al ~ it _ ~ ~ nn u 0 ~ W COUNtt OF SUFFOLK © ~ a nax Reel~r^~RYT Service NYancl' a ~s._ a.,.ww.....a.~ oeoPExrv.w 4 ~ CC # : C12-20961 • ` • x Y illy ~~rl~~".R~ COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OI' SUPPOI,K I, JUDITH A. PASCALE, Clerk of the County of Suffolk and the Court of Record thereof do hereby certify that I have compared the annexed with the original DECLARATION recorded in my office on 0512 3/20 7 2 under Liber D00012694 and Page 113 and, that the same is a true copy thereof, and of the whole of such original. In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County and Court this 05/23/2012 I ~ ~ ' SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 4 1 n ~ OCT 2 20 2 ~ii, drs,C. Q. Ya.o.c~~ _._l < < • _ '---a JUDITH A. PASCALE R.^.' - SEAL ~ • I IIIIIII IIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII IIII IIII 111111 VIII (IIII IIII IIII SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK RECORDS OFFICE RECORDING PAGE Type of Instrument: DECLARATION Recorded: 05/23/2012 Number of Pages: 4 At: 09:02:46 AM Receipt Number 12-0058976 LIBER: D00012694 PAGE: 113 District: Section: Block: Lot: 1000 023.00 01.00 006.001 EXAMINED AND CHARGED AS FOLLOWS Received the Following Fees For Above Instrument Exempt Exempt Page/Filing $20.00 NO Handling $20.00 NO COE $5.00 NO NYS SRCHG $15.00 NO TP-584 $0.00 NO Notation $0.00 NO Cert.Copies $5.00 NO RPT $60.00 NO Fees Paid $125.00 THIS PAGE IS A PART OF THE INSTRUMENT THIS IS NOT A BILL JUDITH A. PASCALE County Clerk, Suffolk County • Number of pages i:~+:isrnent vvili Ix pr!hEkd_ „I i>leas~ rem~wr III ~ al ,r~etirity IJtarlilrer. i~ ~r i<, YF~cQrdincE. Deed /Mortgage Instrument Deed /Mortgage Tax Stamp Recording /Filing Stamps 3 FEES Page /Filing Fee Mortgage Amt. 1. Basic Tax Handling 20. 00 2. Additional Tax TP-584 Sub Total Spec./Assit. Notation or i EA-52 17 (County) Sub Total Spec. /Add. TOT. MTG. TAX EA-5217 (State) i Dual Town Dual County R.P.T.S.A. Held for Appointment Comm. of Ed. 5. 00 ~ Transfer Tax Mansion Tax Affidavit The property covered by this mortgage is Certified Copy ~ or will be improved by a one or two NYS Surcharge 15. 00 family dwelling only. Sub Total YES or NO Other Grand Total If NO, see appropriate tax clause on page # of this ins r men i,~ . 4 Dist. 1000 02300 0100 006001 ,001 5 Community Preservation Fund - - Real Proper ~ p T S Consideration Amount $ Tax Service Ih R SFL .A~ Agency \07-MAY-1~' CPF Tax Due $ Verificatior ~~,i Improved 6 Satisfactions/Discharges/Releases List Property Owners Mailing Address RECORD & RETURN TO: Vacant Land En-Consultants TD 1.319 North Sea Road TD Southampton, NY l 1968 TD Mail to: Judith A. Pascale, Suffolk County Clerk 7 Title Company Information 310 Center Drive, Riverhead, NY 11901 Co. Name www.suffolkcou ntyny. gov/clerk Title # g Suffolk County Recordin & Endorsement Pa e This page forms part of the attached _ Declaration of Covenants _ made by: (SPECIFY TYPE OF INSTRUMENT) Frederick de la Veda The premises herein is situated in Lawrence f1iR~,ins SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK. TO In the TOWN of Southold Town of Southold In the VILLAGE Board of'I7ustees or HAMLET of East Marion BOXES 6 THRU 8 MUST BE TYPED OR PRINTED IN BLACK INK ONLY PRIOR TO RECORDING OR FILING. over ECLARATION OF COVENANTS 'HIS DECLARATION made this _Z_5 t„, day of _~j';<' i L , 2012, by Frederick de la Vega & Lawrence Higgins, residing at 3a~4 West 23"~ Street, New York, NY 10011 hereinafter referred to as "DIiCL.ARANTS": WITNESSE"f H: WHEREAS, DECLARANTS are the owners of certain real property located at 15437 Route 25, East Marion, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York, described in the Suffolk County 'Tax Map as District IOOQ Section 23, 131ock L Lot 6.1, which is more particularly bounded and described as set forth in Schedule "A" annexed hereto, hereinafter reterrcd to as the Nroperty; W I IEREAS, the Property is situated on lands within the jurisdiction of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold (hereinafter the "'Trustees") pursuant U~ Chapter 275 of the 'I'owa Code of the Town of Southold or its successor, and various activities- conducted upon the property may thus be subject to the regulation and approval of the'frustees prior to being conducted; WHEREAS, the DECLARANTS therefore made application to the 'Trustees for a permit pursuant to the Wetlands Law ofthe Town of Southold to undertake certain regulated activities; and WHEREAS, as a condition of the granting of a Wetlands Permit to undertake such regulated activities, the Trustees required that an approximately 5,600 square foot "nonharf buffer" be established and maintained adjacent to and landward of the wetland boundary, NOW, TIiEREFORE, the DECLARANTS do hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1) Upon the substantial completion of the afz~rementioned permitted activities there shall be established and subsequently maintained adjacent to and landward of the wetland boundary nn the subject premises an approximately 5,600 square foot "nonturf buffer" as defined by Chapter 275 of the Town Code; and 2) These covenants shall run with the land and shall be binding on the DECLARANTS, their heirs, assigns, purchasers, or successors in interest and may he modified only upon resolution of the Board of 'T'rustees. IN WI"fNESS WIIEREOF, the owners have duly executed this instrument this ~ day of f~, : ~ 2012. 91 J Fre/d/erick/JJJde la Vega I aWl'CnCC (~~t~TM1f13- S I A I L OP ~(5V SS: couN~rv op ' On the day of Ail I ~ , in the year 2012, before me the undersigned, a Notary Puhlic in ~ and for said State, personally appeared Frederick,de la Vey personally known to me or proved Co me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged tp me that he executed the same in his capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument, the individual or the person on behalf of which the individual acted, executed the instrument. LINDA MARYANOV ~ ' Notary Public, State of New York ~ ~y - No.02MA4855227 Pl.'(i`,~I Qualified in Nassau County Co"m~mission Expires Maroh 3, 20 ~ ~ Notar P Iblic S"fA"TC OP ~ yC~( ss: COUN"I'Y OF On the day of t 1 ~ , in the year 2012, before me the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appealed Lawrence Hi~>;ins personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument, the individual or the person on hehaH'of which the individual acted, executed the instrument LINDA MARYANOV Notary Public, Stata of New York No.02MA4855227 Notary r tic Qualified in Nassau County Commission Expires March 3, 20 f SCHEDULE A ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of Iand, situate, lying and being at F,asl Marion, 'T'own of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, being bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the northerly side of Main (State) Road 5500 feet more or less east of Stars Road; RUNNING "THENCE, North I S degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds West, 435.00 feet to the southwest corner of the ,object property and true point or place of beginning; KUNNWG TTIENCE North IS degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds West. 719.63 feel to the ordinary high water mark of Long Island Sound; KUNNWG "THENCE on a tie line course North 79 degrees 44 minutes Fast, 199.92. feel; KUNNWG THENCE South 17 degrees 06 minutes 30 seconds East 618AA feet; KUNNWG THENCE South 53 degrees 39 minutes 50 seconds West, 231.77 feet k> the point or place of BEGINNING. TOCiF;THFR with a right of way 25 Teet in width for the purpose of ingress and egress fi~om die Main (State) Road to the southwest corner of the premises. 3 LONG I,s LAND SI UND L f~ GEC 1 2 2012 DAM POND ! I ~I U 'I a a~ a~,xn~Y~ ~ I I 2 ' I I n~.~ ~ o, I o / I -o ~ i I ~ O ~ TIMBERZCA XX'ALK tat' /~j I ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ i I ~ l ~ I s' x~io sTFP- , DOW PUTFORM ~ ~N'~%~ 7~ of ~E I i i / ~ ry ~i' w ~ 4 i ~ ~ o 1 ~ ~ _ 5`~r~y' 0 \O O I ~ J' i8y~,ya ~'r ~e ~ i N/o/F I I I 1[NN RDAD RO* ~ -n EN-CONSULTANTS April 10, 2013 D ~ ~ V ~ D 2013 Town of Southold APR 1 2 Board of Trustees 54375 Main Road m0I Post Office Box 1 179 Southold, New York 1 1971 Attn.: Elizabeth Cantrell Re: Frederick DeLaVega & Lawrence Higgins 15437 Route 25, East Marion SCTM # 1000-23-1-6.1 Dear Ms. Cantrell: Enclosed is the property owner's check #405 in payment of the associated permit fees of $768.00 for the above referenced property. I hope this submittal shall enable issuance of the Wetland Perm rt. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Kim ephei Enc. _ 1319 North Sea Road Southampton. New York 11968 p 631283.6360 - 631.?836136 - _ i. i~U'il'1°i~l a' CD'F-i I'. li'~J ~ EN-coNSU~TANTs January 11, 2013 James King, Chairman Board of Trustees D E Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 ~ ~ . lj' Southold, NY 11971 ~ 1 42013 i i Re: de la Veea and Hieeins,15437 Route 25, East Marion outhmA Tawn f Trc~-'~ rs Dear Mr. King: In response to concerns over the originally proposed floating dock that were expressed by the Trustees, LWRP Coordinator, and speakers at the 12 December 2012 public hearing, please find enclosed (3) copies of a project plan that has been revised in accordance with discussions held both at the hearing and during the Board's field inspection on December 5, 2012. Specifically, whereas the previously proposed floating dock was to 1) be constructed with CCA-treated timber; 2) be equipped with water and electricity; and 3) extend approximately 71 feet into Dam Pond, the revised plan reflects the following changes: 1) The 6' x 20' floating dock and 3' x 14' hinged ramp have been eliminated; 2) The overall proposed seaward intrusion of the structure has been reduced by approximately 31 feet; 3) All proposed CCA-treated materials have been eliminated, and the dock will be constructed entirely of untreated materials, including open-grate, fiberglass-reinforced decking; and 4) The proposed water and electricity has been eliminated. Therefore, the proposed project description should be modified as follows: Construct an elevated 4' x 84' fixed catwalk with 6' x 10' step-down platform at seawazd end, comprised entirely of untreated materials, including open-grate, fiberglass reinforced decking, all as depicted on the project plan prepared En- Consultants, last dated Januazy 10, 2013. Please let me know if you have any questions or require any additional information prior to the continuation of the public hearing in February. Res ectfully yours, Rob E. Herrmann Coastal Management Specialist - I r9 Norm ~c~ Road So ithar-~ptor Ncw York 1968 p 631 L83 6360 i f 631 83.6136 ~ - - .i rl.i r i,~li-..~ OFFICE LOCATION: O~~QF $~(/jyOl MAILING ADDRESS: Town Hall Annex ~ Q P.O. Box 1179 54375 State Route 25 * # Southold, NY 11971 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY 11971 ~ Q Telephone: 631 765-1938 ~ i~ Fax: 631765-3136 ~~~~#UNi'I,N~ LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM To: Jim King, President DEC 1 2 2012 Town of Southold Board of Trustees From: Mark Terry, Principal Planner LWRP Coordinator Date: December 11, 2012 Re: Proposed Wetland Permit request for FREDERICK de la VEGA & LAWRENCE HIGGINS SCTM#1000-23-1-6.1 NOTE that Dam Pond is a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Critical Environmental Area and New York State Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat Area (Orient Harbor Complex). En-Consultants on behalf of FREDERICK de la VEGA & LAWRENCE HIGGINS request a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed timber dock equipped with water and electricity and consisting of a 4'x95' fixed, elevated walkway, a 3'x14' hinged ramp; and a 6'x20' float secured by (2) 6" diameter pilings. Located: 15437 Route 25, East Marion. SCTM# 23-1-6.1 The proposed action has been reviewed to Chapter 268, Waterfront Consistency Review of the Town of Southold Town Code and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) Policy Standards. Based upon the information provided on the LWRP Consistency Assessment Form submitted to this department, as well as the records available to me, it is my recommendation that the proposed action is INCONSISTENT with the below listed policy standards and therefore INCONSISTENT with the LWRP. Policy 6. Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosystem 6.3 Protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands. A. Comply with statutory and regulatory requirements of the Southold Town Board of Trustees laws and regulations for all Andros Patent and other lands under their jurisdiction. Chapter 275 Wetlands and Shorelines of the Southold Town Code regulates the siting of docks in navigable waters through the following sections: § 275-11 Construction and operation standards. A General (7) Critical environmental areas. At the discretion of the Board of Trustees, any operations proposed in critical environmental areas 275-2) maybe subject to more stringent requirements than detailed in this section. Such requirements may include, but are not limited to, denial of certain operations. shortening or reducing the size of structures, and increasing the width of nondisturbance buffers. The proposed action is located within the NYSDEC Critical Environmental Area (CEA); Peconic Bay and Environs. To be designated as a CEA, an area must have an exceptional or unique character with respect to one or more of the following: 1. a benefit or threat to human health; 2. a natural setting (e.g., fish and wildlife habitat, forest and vegetation, open space and areas of important aesthetic or scenic quality); 3. agricultural, social, cultural, historic, archaeological, recreational, or educational values; or 4. an inherent ecological, geological or hydrological sensitivity to change that may be adversely affected by any change. Dam Pond provides open space and scenic qualities, fish and wildlife habitat and historic and recreational values. (2) Docks C (2)(b)Dock locations and lengths. (Amended 10-11-2005 by L.L. No. 17-2005] (1] No dock shall be erected or extended if, in the opinion of the Trustees, such structure would adversely affect navigation, fisheries, shell fisheries, scenic quality, habitats or wetland areas. As indicated above the grooosed action is located within an area designated as a New York State Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat Area (includina Orient harborl. The Coastal Fish and Wildlife Assessment Form (attached) describes the area as a wintering waterfowl area of regional significance. Species observed included American black duck, mallard, mute swan, merganser, scaup, goldeneye, bufflehead, oldsquaw, and Canada goose. Orient Harbor (Dam Pond) is also inhabited by several nesting pairs of osprey (a species of special concern) during the breeding season, which utilize man-made nesting platforms located in the salt marsh north of the harbor. The potential exists for additional nesting pairs at this site. Diamondback terrapin have been observed here but the extent to which the area is used by this species is not adequately documented. This area may also provide important breeding habitat for horseshoe crab, but additional documentation is required. Orient Harbor (Dam Pond) is also a productive habitat for marine finfish and shellfish. This area is one of the top scallop producing areas on Long Island, supporting a commercial shellfishery significant in the northeast region of the United States. Any activity that would substantially degrade water quality in Orient Harbor would affect the biological productivity of this area. All species of fish and wildlife would be adversely affected by water pollution, such as chemical contamination (including food chain effects resulting from bioaccumulation). It is essential that high water quality be maintained in the area to protect the bay scallop fishery. Unrestricted use of motorized vessels including personal watercraft in the protected, shallow waters of bays, harbors, and tidal creeks can have adverse effects on aquatic vegetation and fish and wildlife populations. Use of motorized vessels should be controlled (e.g., no wake zones, speed zones, zones of exclusion) in and adjacent to shallow waters and vegetated wetlands. The narrative emphasizes that the "Construction of shoreline structures, such as docks in areas not previously disturbed by development (e.g., natural beach or salt marsh), may result in the loss of productive areas which support the fish and wildlife resources of Orient Harbor (Dam Pond). The need for the dock structure has not been identified. As you are aware the navigability of Dam Pond is restricted due to low water depths and the State Route 25 causeway bridge. Additionally, the proposal includes the use of CCA treated structural timbers in this sensitive system. The rate of flushing in this area of Dam Pond is unknown and no information has been provided by the applicant for the Boards assessment. Recognizing the toxicity of CCA treated woods in Town marine waters, the Board prohibited the use of lumber pre-treated with anv preservative, including but not limited to chromated copper arsenate (also known as "CCA"), commercial copper quat (CCQ), yenta products, Alkaline Copper Quat (ACO), or homemade wood preservatives in sheathing and decking on dock structures. The law also prohibits such treatments on any part of a structure in low tidal flow wetland areas (as determined by the Trustees). The ecological and scenic values of Dam Pond are equal to, if not greater than that Hashamomuck Pond, Pipes Cove and Hallocks Bay, therefore the management of dock structures within these systems should be consistent citing ecological functions and values and cultural historic and scenic values. The high ecological quality of the area is further substantiated by the Towns purchase and management of the Dam Pond Maritime Reserve recently renamed the Ruth Oliva Preserve at Dam Pond. Chapter 275 prohibits dock structures in the water bodies "over vegetated wetlands or such that it causes habitat fragmentation of vegetated wetlands". The proposed action in Dam Pond would occur over vegetated wetlands and fragment the low and high marsh system. Therefore, it is recommended that the Board deny this application to: 1. Meet Policy 6.3 Protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands. 2. Provide consistency in the management of high value wetland systems. 3. Protect the purpose of the Dam Pond Maritime Reserve recently renamed the Ruth Oliva Preserve at Dam Pond. Pursuant to Chapter 268, the Board of Trustees shall consider this recommendation in preparing its written determination regarding the consistency of the proposed action. Enc. Cc: Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney - ~ ~OgpFFO(,r~o ti~ ~l Jill M. Doherty, President ~ l'own Hall, 53095 Main Rd. James F. King, Vice-President w. ~ P.O. Box 1179 Dave Bergen ~ ~ Sou[hold,NY 11971 Bub Ghosio, Jr. ~ Telephone (631) 765-1892 John Brederneyer QI * Fax (631)765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Office Use Only Coastal Erosion Permit Application Wetland Permit Application Administrative Permit " _Amendment/Transf r/Ex ns~on /Received Applicatio ~ _ I~ ~ Received Fee.__,~~ ` ~ ~ la L~ I'R,~. Completed Application ~rj . (;'C - ~/I r lncomplete • ~ ~"11 I j SEQRA Classification ~ I ! ~ Type I Type IIUnlisted a; V ~~T 2 4 2~~2 • i r Coordination. (date sent) 2. f ~ ~ j LWRP Consistency Ass~jssmegt Form c ~ r r CAC Referral Sent: 1'L{Qfp p.., 7 Date of Inspection: 111 - L._.-_. Receipt of CAC Report: Lead Agency Determination: Technical Review: Public Heazing Held: Resolution: Name of Applicant Frederick de la Vega & Lawrence Higgins 344 West 23rd Street, #PHB Address New York, NY 10011 Phone Number: 91 912-4084 Suffolk County Tax Map Number: 1000 - 23-t-6.1 Property Location: 15437 Route 25, East Marion (provide LILCO Pole distance to cross streets, and location) AGENT: En-Consultants (If applicable) Address: 1319 North Sea Road, Southampton, NY 11968 Phone:631-283-6360 r~ I'~')~ ~oard of Trustees Applic~n GENERAL DATA Land Area (in square feet): 139,337 Area Zoning: R-80 Previous use of property: Residential, single-family dwelling and accessories Intended use of property: Same, with dock. Covenants and Restrictions: X yes No If "Yes", please provide copy. Copy included Does this project require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals Yes X No If "Yes", please provide copy of decision. Will this project require any demolition as per Town Code or as determined by Building Dept. Yes X No Does the structure(s) on property have a valid Certificate of Occupancy X Yes No Prior permits/approvals for site improvements: Agency Date Southold Tmstees #4307 4/30/94 Southold Trustees #7715 1/18/12 NYS DEC #1-4738-00835/00001-0 (NJ) 2/7/94 NYS DEC #1-4738-00835/00003 2/23/12 No prior permits/approvals for site improvements. Has any permit/approval ever been revoked or suspended by a governmental agency? X No Yes If yes, provide explanation: Project Description (use attachments if necessary): Construct a fixed timber dock equipped with water and electricity and consisting of a 4' x 95' fixed, elevated walkway, a 3' x l4' hinged ramp; and a 6' x 20' float secured by (2) 6" diameter pilings, all as depicted on the project plan prepared by En-Consultants, dated October 23, 2012. 1~rd of Trustees Application WETLAND/TRUSTEE LANDS APPLICATION DATA Purpose of the proposed operations: Private, noncommercial boat dockage. Area of wetlands on lot: +/-96,285 square feet Percent coverage of lot: +/-69 Closest distance between nearest existing structure and upland edge of wetlands: +/-42 feet (patio) Closest distance between nearest proposed structure and upland edge of wetlands: 0 feet (dock) Does the project involve excavation or filling? X No Yes If yes, how much material will be excavated? N/A cubic yards How much material will be filled? N/A cubic yards Depth of which material will be removed or deposited: N/A feet Proposed slope throughout the area of operations: N/A Manner in which material will be removed or deposited: N/A 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): The project consists of construction of a fixed timber dock similar to others located along the developed shoreline of Dam Pond and will not cause any fragmentation of ecological communities. The most landwazd portion of the fixed catwalk will be constructed within the limits of an existing foot path leading to the water and the dock and will traverse the narrowest portion of vegetated tidal wetlands on the property; the terminal float will be located at least 15' off the westerly side property line; the dock will inttvde less than 25% into Dam Pond at mean lower low water; and decking will be untreated as required by code, thus minimizing or preventing any physical loss, degradation, or functional loss of ecological components. The proposed dock will also be located entirely over and within the limits of privately owned underwater land and would thus not interfere with any public access along the shoreline, as no such public access exists at this site. With respect to public navigation through the waters of Dam Pond, the proposed dock would intmde less than 1/3 the width of the waterway and would not interfere with navigation. Therefore the project will be consistent with the standards for petmit issuance set forth by Chapter 275 and will no[ have any significant adverse impacts on the adjacent wetlands and tidal waters. • el~.zo ~ SEQR PROJECT ID NUMBER APPENDIX C STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM for UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART 1-PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by A plicant or Project Sponsor) MP4ICANL /SPONSOR 2. PROJECT NAME reddenekk de l9 Vega 8r. Lawrence Higgins by En-Consultants 3. PROJECT LOCATON: Municipality East Marion County Suffolk T. PRECISE LOCATION: S[ree[ Address and Road Intersections. Prominent landmarks etc - or provide map 15437 Route 25, East Marion, Town of Southold, SCTM #1000-23-1-6.1 5. IS PROPCSED ACTION: ®New ? Expansion ? Modificafion /alteration 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: Constmct a fixed timber dock equipped with water and electricity and consisting of a 4' x 95' fixed, elevated walkway, a 3' x 14' hinged ramp; and a 6' x 20' float secured by (2) 6" diameter pilings, all as depicted on [he project plan prepared by En-Consultants, dated October 23, 2012. 7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: mitlauy 3.19 acres Ultimately 3.19 acres 8. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY W[TH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER RESTRICTIONS? Yes ®No If no, describe briefly: 9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? (Choose as many as apply.) ® Residential ~ lndusbial ? CommercialAgriculture ~ Park /Forest /Open Space ?O[her (describe) 16. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT MPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTTMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVEIWIvIENTAL AGENCY (Federal, State or Local) ®Yis ? No If yes, list agency name and permit /approval: DEC, COE, DOS 11. DOES ANY ASPECC OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? ?Yes ®No If yes, list agency name and permit /approval: 12. AS A LT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/ APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATTON? ? Yes No I CERTIFY T T THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY IINOWLEDGE Applicant /Sponsor Nam Robert E. Hemnann, Coastal Management Specialist Date: October 23, 2012 Signature If the action is a Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment PART 11 - IMPACT ASSESSMENT To be tom leted b Lead A enc A. DOES ACTION F~CCEED ANY TYPE 1 THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 817.4? If yes, coordinate the review process and use the FULL FAF. Yes a No B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.67 If No, a negative dedaretion may be superseded by another involved agency. Yes ~ No C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (Answers may be handwrttten, tt IegWle) C1. Existing air qualtty, surtace or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic pariem, solid waste protludion ar disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain bdefly: C2. Aesthetic, agdcultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood chamdeR Fxplatn briefly: C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, sgnificent habitats, or threatened or endangered spades? Explain briefly: C4. A community's existing plans or goals as offidally adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain bdefly: C5. Growth, subsequent devebpment, or relatetl activities likely to be induced by the praposetl adion? Explain briefly: - C6. Long term, shon term, wmulalive, or other effects not identifietl in Ci-C5? Explain briefly: C7. Other im ads inctudin than es in use of either uantit or t e of ene ? Ex lain briefl : _ - D. WILL THE PROJECT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA CFA ? If es, ex lain briefl Yes ~ NO E. IS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? If es a atn: Yes ~ No PART III -DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by Agency) INSTRUCTIONS: For each adverseeffedidentifiedabove,determinewhetheritissubstantial,large,importantorotherwisesign~pnt. Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (i.e. urban or rural): (b) probability of okxurrirg; (c) duration; (d) irrevereibilily; (e) geographic scope; and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain - - sufficientdetail to show that ad relevant adverse impacts have been identfied and adequately addressed. If question d of part ii was checked yes, the detertninadon ofsignificance mustevaluate the potential impact ofthe proposed adion on the environmental charadedstics of the CFA. Check this box ttyou have IdeMifred one or more potentially large orsignificant adverse Impacts whidt MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the FU FAF and/ar prepare a positive dedaredon. Check this box if you have determined, based on the Infomtation and analysts above and any supporting doamentation, that tfre proposed adio WILL NOT result in any signfiwM adverse environmental impacts AND provide, on attachments as necessary, the reasons supporting ttti detenninadon. Board of Trustees o U 7 Za / Z Name of Lead Agency Dale c/ ~ 1sT ~5 r--~ lCi,t~ C,' President ~ Print or Type ame of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible O~cer ~ Sign ure of Responsible Officer in Lead envy Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer) NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER BOARD OF TRUSTEES, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD NOV - 5 2012 In the matter of applicant: Frederick de la Vega & Lawrence Higgins SCTM# 1000-23-1-6.1 YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1. That it is the intention of the undersigned to request a Permit from the Board of Trustees to: Construct a fixed timber dock equipped with water and electricity and consisting of a 4' x 95' fixed, elevated walkway, a 3' x 14' hinged ramp; and a 6' x 20' float secured by (2) 6" diameter pilings, all as depicted on the project plan prepared by En-Consultants, dated October 23, 2012. 2. That the property which is the subject of Environmental Review is located adjacent to your property and is described as follows: 15437 Route 25, East Marion 3. That the project which is subject to Environmental Review under Chapters 96,111 and/or 275 of the Town Code is open to public comment on: DATE: November 14th, 20]2 @ 6:00 P.M. You may contact the Trustees Office at 765-1892 or in writing. The above-referenced proposal is under review of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold and does not reference any other agency that might have to review same proposal. Frederick de la Vega & Lawrence Higgins PROPERTY OWNERS NAME: 344 West 23rd Street, #PHB MAILING ADDRESS: New York, NY 10011 PHONE#: 917-912-4084 AGENT: En-Consultants MAILING ADDRESS: 1319 North Sea Road, Southampton, NY 11968 PHONE 631-283-6360 Enc: Copy of sketch or plan showing proposal for your convenience. ~OOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE ATTACH CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS Name: Address: Robert Gillespie, III P.O. Box 377 East Marion, NY 11939 654 East 19th Street Michael Delano Revocable Living Trust Brooklyn, NY 11230 Linda Piekarski I 1 Campden Road Scarsdale, NY 10583 Edmond Franco 316 West 84th Street New York, NY 10024 STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK Robert E. Herrmann doing business at En-Consultants 1319 North Sea Road Southampton, NY 11968 ,being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the St-h day of October ,20 12 ,deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth in the Board of Trustees Application, directed to each of the above named persons at the addresses set opposite their respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the address of said persons as shown on the current assessment roll of the Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United Stales Post Office at Southampton ,that said Notices were Mailed to each of said persons by (certified)(se~i )mail. KIM N, STEPHENS NOTARY PUBLIC Sworn to before me this ~Sr-1, STATE 0 F NEW Y O R K day of October ,2012 CONMISSION N0. 5015931 ~ aUAIIFIEO IN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXPIRES AU6UST 2. 2013 Notary l c ~ ~ , ~ _ r s r ~ ~ ~ ? J ~ 7 rri Postage $ rTl Postage $ $ ~ ~F ~ Certfied Fee .J 97 Certified Fee oa Q 's9 O Retum RecalPt Fee o~stmark a O Ratum Receipt Fee C P ~-p p (Endorsement Requiretl) rOHere O O (Endorsement Requlred) v Hw O ~ ~ Restdc[ad Delivery Fee v ? ~ Restdctetl Delivery Fee V~ rya Z (Endorsement Required) ~ ~ (Endorsement Requlred) p ~ O N v M1 tJl Total Posfage P - `F ~ Total Postage Q ~ ~ Edmond Franco ~ senrro Michael D. Delano evo~b~e Searro _ Livin Trust ~ ~ ~ 316 West 84'" Street t,; 3ireei, apt No., g p Siear..ipi Ao:; Fs M1 POe°xN°. 654 East 19`" Street r °'POB°"^'°. New York, NY 1002 city siaie,'zia+: $rooklyn, Nl' 11230 cm; srara, z~w ~ ~ ~ s „ . ra RJ 1 ~ AI 7 ~ S i ~L ~ (Ti Postage $ rrl Postage $ cr'"'~ ~ So~~ti' to ~T9 Certified Fea ~ T/y Certifietl Fee r•R Poark ~ P~nark ~,q O Retum Receipt Fee / Q O Retum Receipt Fea C re ~ p (Endorsement Requrtetl) rN , J p (Entloreement Required) ~ O ~ Restricted Delive Fea ~ n O O Restrcted Delive Fee ~ 'Z ~ (Endorsement Repaired) `J~ ~ ~ O (Endorsement Requlred) `r ~ ? v7 Total Postage A \ V'1 Total Postage A ra { Sent TO anf TO ~ ra Robert Gillispie, III ,a Linda Piekarski i~ o Sireegad~ N°;' P.O. Box 377 ~ " o 'sneer apt iv°. 1 1 Campden Road r` POee.N° EastMarion,NY 119° ~ arPOBO+"°' r` Scarsdale, NY 10583 Clry Sfate, ZlP+~ Clry Siete. Z/F :ri :rr • A~Jr~O~QC~VFFQ(~{'~OG + • ~a ~ .lames G King. PrcsidenL N ' Down I lall. ~309~ Main Rd. Bob Ghosio_ Jr_Vice-President ~ P.O. Bos 1179 Dave Bag.en ~ ~ Southold. NY 11971 John Bredcmcyer 7/Q ~O'P Telephone (631) 76~-1892 Michael .I. Domino 1 # Fas (631) 76~-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TRUSTEES: TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter of the Application of FREDERICK de la VEGA & LAWRENCE HIGGINS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I, Robert. E. Herrmann .residing at /dba En-Consultants 1319 North Sea Road,SOUthampton, NY 11968 being duly sworn, depose and say: -That on the 'day of 20121 personally posted the property known as 15437 Route 25 East Marion, NY, St•rna x/1000-23 1 6 by placing the Board of Trustees official poster where it can easily be seen, and that I have checked to be sure the poster has remained in place for eight days prior to the date of the public hearing. Date of hearing noted thereon to be held Wednesda November 14 2012. Dated: (signature) Sworn to before me this /'/`day of ;'l d )2~0 /S d ~ 1Votary ubl~ is KIM N. STEPHENS NOTARY PUBLIC STATE DF NEW YORK COMMISSION N0. 5D 15931 OUALIFIEO IN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXPIRES ACSPST 2. 13 Board of Trustees Application AUTHORIZATION / (where the applicdant is not the owner) I l V-L~QV•U~ Q~ Un V2~residin/g at 3 yY ~t3~Z3.-cl S~2f~ ~ P~B (print owner of property) (mailing address) t I~QI.~ Yv~N~ rllY l ~D (l do hereby authorize EN ' CO%~~ l-!a.~.~3 (Agent) to apply for permit(s) from the Southold Board of Town Trustees on my behalf. ~ ~ (Owner's signature ~(yuN^t 4 S :S~ Board of Trustees Application County of Suffolk Nc uI ~~..L State of New York Fede yr c~ de ~ti ~-Qqe. BEING DULY SWORN DEPOSES AND AFFIRMS THAT HE IS THE APPLICANT FOR THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PERMIT(S) AND THAT ALL STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE TRUE TO THE BEST OF HIS/HER KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, AND THAT ALL WORK WILL BE DONE IN THE MANNER SET FORTH IN THIS APPLICATION AND AS MAY BE APPROVED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES. THE APPLICANT AGREES TO HOLD THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD AND THE TOWN TRUSTEES HARMLESS AND FREE FROM ANY AND ALL DAMAGES AND CLAIMS ARISING UNDER OR BY VIRTUE OF SAID PERMIT(S), IF GRANTED. IN COMPLETING THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY AUTHORIZE THE TRUSTEES, THEIR AGENT(S) OR REPRESENTATIVES(S), TO ENTER ONTO MY PROPERTY TO INSPECT THE PREMISES IN CONJUNCTION WITH REVIEW OF THIS APPLICATION. Sigtature SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS--~~~6-~-DAY OF~/~_,20~ HOWARD MARTIN FORMAN Notary Public, State of New York No ubliC No. 02F04646170 Qualified in New York County M ~ Commission Exphes May 31,0^'5 APPLICANT/AGENT/REPRESENTATI VE TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM The Town of Southold's Code of Ethics prohibits conflicts of interest on the Hart of town officers and employees. The yurpose of this form is to provide information which can alert the town of possible conflicts of interest and allow it to take whatever action is necessary to avoid same. c / YOUR NAME: ~e ~Q ~e-q~r / Y~tl E'Y~L~ C. (bast name, Erst ham ,mid le initial, unless you are applying in the name of someone else or other entity, such as a company. If so, indicate the other person's or company's name.) NAME OF APPLICATION: (Check all that apply.) Tax grievance Building Variance Trustee Change of Zone Coasml Erosion Approval of plat Mooring Exemption from plat or official map Planning Other (If "Other", name the activity.) Do you personally (or through your company, spouse, sibling, parent, ar child) have a relationship with any officer or employee of the Town of Southold? "Relationship" includes by blood, manage, or business interest. "Business interest" means a business, including a partnership, in which the town officer or employee has even a partial ownership of (or employment by) a corporation in which the town officer or employee owns mom than 5% of the shares. YES NO If you answered "YES", complete the balance of this form and date and sign where indicated. Name of person employed by the Town of Southold Title or position of that person Describe the relationship between yourself (the applicanUagenUrepresentative)ahd the town officer or employee. Either check the appropriate line A) through D) and/or describe in the space provided. The town officer or employee or his or her spouse, sibling, parent, or child is (check all that apply): A) the owner of greater than 5% of the shares of the corporate stock of the applicant (when the applicant is a corporation); B) the legal or beneficial owner of any interest in anon-corporate enfity (when the applicant is not a cerpomtion); C) an oRcey director, partner, or employee of the applicant; or D) the actual applicant. DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP Submitted this 1 d y of 209' l y Signature ia~ Print Name ~'({4.l1~.Qy„f[- ~ G l~dfY Forth TS 1 Town of Southold • • LWRP CONSISTENCY ASSESSMENT FORM A. INSTRUCTIONS I . All applicants for permits* including Town of Southold agencies, shall complete this CCAF for proposed actions that are subject to the Town of Southold Waterfront Consistency Review Law. This assessment is intended to supplement other information used by a Town of Southold agency in making a determination of consistency. *Except minor exempt actions including Building Permits and other ministerial permits not located within the Coastal Erosion Kazard Area. 2. Before answering the questions in Section C, the preparer of this form should review the exempt minor action list, policies and explanations of each policy contained in the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. A proposed action will be evaluated as to its significant beneficial and adverse effects upon the coastal area (which includes all of Southold Town). if any question in Section C on this form is answered "yes" or "no", then the proposed action will affect the achievement of the LWRP policy standards and conditions contained in the consistency review law. Thus each answer must be explained in detail, listing both supporting and non- supporting facts. If an action cannot be certified as consistent with the LWRP policy standards and conditions, it shall not be undertaken. A copy of the LWRP is available in the following places: online at the Town of Southold's website (southoldtown.northfork.net), the Board of Trustees Office, the Planning Department, all local libraries and the Town Clerk's office. _ ` r B. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSED ACTION _ SCTM# 23 - 1 _6.1 j~~ _ L: OCT 2 4 2012 _ PROJECT NAME Frederick de la Vega & Lawrence Higgins j _ ~ ~;_t 'd T:~~~n M The Application has been submitted to (check appropriate response): ~ 1r~~~~~~,~s ---~.J) Town Board ? Planning Board? Building Dept. ? Board of Trustees Category of Town of Southold agency action (check appropriate response): (a) Action undertaken directly by Town agency (e.g. capital ? construction, planning activity, agency regulation, land transaction) ? (b) Financial assistance (e.g. grant, loan, subsidy) (c) Permit, approval, license, certification: Nature and extent of action: Construct a fixed timber dock equipped with water and electricity and consisting of a 4' x 95' fixed, elevated walkway, a 3' x 14' hinged ramp; and a 6' x 20' float secured by (2) 6" diameter pilings, all as depicted on the project plan prepared by En-Consultants, dated October 23, 2012. Location of action: 15437 Route 25, East Marion Site acreage: 3.19 Acres Present land Use: Residential, single-family dwelling Present zoning classification: R-8o 2. If an application for the proposed action has been filed with the Town of Southold agency, the following information shall be provided: (a) Name Of applicant: Frederick de la Vega & Lawrence Higgins (b) Mailing address: 344 west 23rd Street, #PHB New York, NY 10011 (c) Telephone number: Area Code 917-9t2-4084 (d) Application number, if any: Will the action3l~l~i~f8~~j~ltl'Yd?tDt~iX require 6tl3tddlf~~r approval by a state or federal agency? Yes ®No ? If yes, which state or federal agency?NYS DEC & USA COE C. Evaluate the project to the following policies by analyzing how the project will further support or not support the policies. Provide all proposed Best Management Practices that will further each policy. Incomplete answers will require that the form be returned for completion. DEVELOPED COAST POLICY Policy 1. Foster a pattern of development in the Town of Southold that enhances community character, preserves open space, makes efficient use of infrastructure, makes beneficial use of a coastal location, and minimizes adverse effects of development. See LWRP Section III -Policies; Page 2 for evaluation criteria. Yes ? No ®Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 2. Protect and preserve historic and archaeological resources of the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section II[ -Policies Pages 3 through 6 for evaluation criteria ? Yes ? No ®Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 3. Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III -Policies Pages 6 through 7 for evaluation criteria ®Yes ? No ? Not Applicable The project will be consistent with Policy 3, as [he dock will be located along [he developed shoreline of DatnPond, which is characterized by other similazly constructed docks. Attach additional sheets if necessary NATURAL COAST POLICIES Policy 4. Minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion. See LWRP Section III -Policies Pages 8 through 16 far evaluation criteria ?Yes ? No ®Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 5. Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III - Policies Pages 16 through 21 for evaluation criteria ®Yes ? No ? Not Applicable 7~o the extent [hat Policy 5 is applicable to the project, the proposed dock will be consistent because it will be constructed with untreated decking as required by chapter 275. Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 6. Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosystems including Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats and wetlands. See LWRP Section III -Policies; Pages 22 through 32 for evaluation criteria. ®Yes ? No ? Not Applicable The project consists of construction of a f~imber dock similar [o others located along tt`?eloped shoreline of Dam Pond and will not cause any fragmentation of ecologt communities. The most landward portion of fixed catwalk will be constructed within the limits of an existing foot path leading to [he water and the dock and will traverse the narrowest portion of vegetated tidal wetlands on the property; the terminal float will be located at least 15' off [he westerly side property line; the dock will intrude less than 25% into Dam Pond at mean lower low water; and decking will be untreated as required by code, thus minimizing or preventing any physical loss, degradation, or functional loss of ecological components. Therefore, the project will be consistent with Policy 6, and the statutory and regulatory requirements of the New York Slate Tidal Wetlands Act and Chapter 275 of the Town Code. Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 7. Protect and improve air quality in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III -Policies Pages 32 through 34 for evaluation criteria. ? Yes ? No® Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 8. Minimize environmental degradation in Town of Southold from solid waste and hazardous substances and wastes. See LWRP Section III -Policies; Pages 34 through 38 for evaluation criteria. ? Yes ? No ®Not Applicable PUBLIC COAST POLICIES Policy 9. Provide for public access to, and recreational use of, coastal waters, public lands, and public resources of the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III -Policies; Pages 38 through 46 for evaluation criteria. ® Yes ? No ? Not Applicable The proposed dock will be located entirely over and within the limits of privately owned underwater land and would thus not interfere with any public access along the shoreline, as no such public access exists a[ this site. With respect to public navigation through the waters of Dam Pond, the proposed dock would intrude less than 1/3 the width of the waterway and would not interfere with navigation. Attach additional sheets if necessary WORHING COAST POLICIES Policy 10. Protect Southold's w~ dependent uses and promote siti~f new water-deQendent uses in suitable locations. See LWRP Section III -Policies; Pages 47 through 5 for evaluation crlteria. ? Yes ? No ®Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 11. Promote sustainable use of living marine resources in Long Island Sound, the Peconic Estuary and Town waters. See LWRP Section III -Policies; Pages 57 through 62 for evaluation criteria. ? Yes ? No ® Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 12. Protect agricultural lands in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III -Policies; Pages 62 through 65 for evaluation criteria. ? Yes ? No ®Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 13. Promote appropriate use and development of energy and mineral resources. See LWRP Section [II -Policies; Pages 65 through 68 for evaluation criteria. ? Yes ? No ® Not Applicable PREPARED BY TITLEconsTn>J MGMT sPeclA~lsr DATE toi23nz ROBERT .HERRMANN Amended on 8/!/OS 1319 North Sea Road Southampton, New York 11968 631-283-6360 EN-CONSULTANTS Fax: 631-283-6136 www.enconsultants.com ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING October 23, 2012 ~,i ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ I I OCT 2 4 2012 Town of Southold ~ Board of Trustees 1'-"-'-c~" ~~~-rc°:n J SJ 54375 Main Road gs~ ?ro~te•~s i Post Office Box 1179 ~ Southold, New York 11971 Re: Frederick de la Vega & Lawrence Higgins 15437 Route 25, East Marion SCTM #1000-23-i-6.1 Dear Board of Trustees: In regard to the above referenced property, enclosed are the following for the Board of Trustees review: 1. Three (3) Wetland Permit Applications including: a) Short Environmental Assessment Forth; b) Authorization & Disclosure Forms; c) project plans; and d) survey. 2. One (1) set of site photographs. 3. Copy of Covenant. 4. Application fee of $250.00 wetlands. 5. Three (3) LWRP Consistency Assessment Forms including: a) project plan. 1 trust this information shall allow you to process our permit request. Should any additional information be required, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sin rely, Robe E. Hemnann Coastal Management Specialist /khs Enc. ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ tCT F1tCRER1Y) LONG ISLAND SOUND 1 JAN 1 42813 outhol down ~~a L ~o ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ 25 ~ ~ ~~s DAM POND ' I 'I :~ATak Canw 1'ta~.rao Map 44 w ~ I ~ z:~; y V I V i I I y~ ~ ggyA BOUNDARY WN- I NVWS: 8 I. P Private, rrxeanmercial boat dx I I uryoe: kaa' i ~ I aer pnvately owned u~lerwater lad 2. 17atum: MLLW I I 3. Water depths C referereed to MLLW)tra5cribed i uxe aogxs (Tw.) i from hydroc~~hic sirvey prepaed by Kemeth M. i I Watrlwk, L.S., last dated October I, ZOIZ ~ ~ T I ? 4, Dak to be ccmtructed entirely of ieltreated materials, o ~ I ~ ireludirq open~q'ate, filxrc~ass~relnFet-ced composite decku-q; hadwa'e to be hot dipped galvanized steel -o ' / I ~ 5. lock rot to be equipped with water a electricity q 4' x 84• FIXED O ~j TIMBER CATWALK I ~ O ro)e aa~,xxi~. 19~f'~1~50 , ~ / ~ _ SCfM RAVED BY t~s i ' , , I ; sJ2 ' ` ' I = ~ BOARD OF TRUSTEES e' x 10' STEP- ~ ; TOWN OF SOUTHOLD DOW PIATFORM ~ ,:-APPaox. roP or s~oPe I ~ DATE I ~ ~ 20 Ez. PATn ~ ' !3 i ~ ~ A: - ' I" + ' , I a N ~ ~M15~,~ d = E N -CONSULTANTS ~ ' 1319 NORTH SEA RD, SOUTHAMPTON, NY 11968 1631-283-6360 ~ _ y ~'rr oew ~ ~sr pt;OpO5~l7 DOCK ~Of? ~~t7~t;ICK a t7~ LA VGA ANn ~AW~NC~ i OIF M / , d/ NIGGINS ON f7AM pONf7• BAST r y5 R * ~o A~ ROAD MARION, SU~FOI.K COUNTI', NY SN~~T 10~ 2 10-23-12, -10-13 e% PAfO M xi I ~I 6 °ll N ~ ~ - ~ __j } I i~ ~~O ,E z m D a I ~ -z` ~ O = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x ~ a ? ~ _ = ~ ~ g ~ a ~ i0 - ~ ' ~ ~~-.I i' I 7 ~ I i } s ~ ~ II I. o- I~ ~ E N - CONSULTANTS ° 1319 NORTH SEA RD. ~ ~ SOUTHAMPTON, NY 11968 I 631-283-6360 pt;Of'OS~f7 r70CK ~Of? ~~f7~t?ICK f7~ LA VGA ANl7 ~AIN~NC~ NIGGINS ON t7AM t'ONf7. BAST MARION, Sl.1~~01.K COUNTY, NY SN~~12 0~ 2 10-25-12, 1-10-13 S.C.T.M.# DISTRICT 1000 SECTION 23 BLOCK 1 LOT 6. 1J r r LONG ISLAND J r r _ rrr r SOUNDr I • rirrrii frr � r fr 'ti I m N79"44'00" r IS (� �;y y; E ne nLaNe ws" wnTER µygN HIGH WATER MAR(l r r r r m r r 1s9.sz' �IJ OCT 2 4 2012 N`6'a oo'• E m 1 �•••• � SHOWN�PRFAOUS 601;15!1' 0.62' W 1 Eonihultl lo�ln � SOI36' 600rd of lrusl�rss .__J � I UPLAND LOT AREA 43,052 SQ.FT. or C 98 ACRES t DAM POND, WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION AREA 96,285 SQ.FT. or 2.21 ACRES t m TOTAL LOT AREA 139,337 SQ.FT. or 3.19 ACRES to u o'z;; � F N g oW� m I m LOT COVERAGE: °tiy zw� EXISTING DWELLING W/DECKS, PATIO CANTILEVER AND APRON. 2,890 SQ.FT. or 6.71% 3�0 POOL & PATIO AREA 2,745 SQ.FT. or 6.37% INCL. FRONT WALK & RET. WALLS W TOTAL COVERAGE 5,635 SQ.FT. or 13.08% - m (PERCENTAGE CALCULATED USING UPLAND AREA ONLY — 43,052 SQ.FT.) PROPERTY LINE SU&IECT PARCEL I II qqII MATCH LINE I E/ I I COASTAL EROSION HAZARD BOUNDARY / AS SHOWN ON SHEET iT PHOTO No. 47-647-63 IDATED AUG. 29, 19BB Lo U W Lo I U0 OPS I I W 3 yI z II a DO µo Z)w v I I 0 a5 OL I IW W souovens,wE Q "� O Z ava.EMEO ns N. BE1Lw 0 0 Inw Low nwE [] ON JUNE m, 3 9rl F -29' O nit' Z 9 Q3 I W PLV2' t29 .s• 2n4z� Y/2 z a_ 5 / ^ O 2.5' EL j.15 _ 5 o I I r 0 g WFL 257 r 2'¢ rf.s' alb a / FL �/ +r z I I U + ¢z1 nd,d .w,dw s•...w. w.m. � IQ :b UW abb O o bp^ 4� he/ -'Jim1M-ooenw000ib j Ig g �' sE.Pwc +e �w a � 'yfA • as�mLs° dGdR R / Q 3 / WbN4Pwa �p nW P' ' W a 26. O LY / o� a O N O 59.7' 'b°r> EsS u4 ®tOv riacou CDm CD ^i ]I O f1 YflllW16 n\��N Go d "' `o e 5,• se b,' LL ti 5,500' f 75' / 46 L.P. b4 W555956 Oh / MAIN (S.R. 25)ROADpE / jeo / RP 53 n�'GO+ j / / 55535M1cNP��" p mooTHE TIONS SHUOWN ARE FROM FIELDOBSERVATIONS L CESSPOOL LOCA MATCH LINE 1JaND ANO OR DATA OBTAINED FROM OTHERS ELEVATION DATUM' UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION OR ADDITION TO THIS SURVEY IS A NOTATION OF SECTION 7209 OF ME NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW. COPIES OF THIS SURVEY MAP NOT BEARING THE LAND SURVEYOR'S EMBOSSED SEAL SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE A VALID TRUE COPY GUARANTEES INDICATED HEREON SHALL RUN ONLY TO THE PERSON FOR WHOM THE SURVEY IS PREPARED AND ON HIS BEHALF TO THE THELE COMPANY, GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY AND LENDING INSVIVRON USTED HEREON, AND TO THE ASSIGNEES OF RIE LENDING INSTITUTION, GUARANTEES ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE. ME OFFSETS OR DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON FROM RIE PROPERTY LINES TO ME STRUCTURES ARE FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND USE THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT INTENDED TO MONUMENT TIE PROPERTY LINES OR TO GUIDE RIE ERECTION OF FENCES ADDITIONAL STRUCTIRE5 OR AND OMER IMPROVEMENTS. EASEMENTS AND/OR SUBSURFACE STRUCTURES RECORDED OR UNRECORDED ARE NOT GUARANTEED UNLESS PHYSICALLY EVIDENT ON RIE PREMISES AT WE TME OF SURVEY SURVEY OF: DESCRIBED PROPERTY CERTIFIED TO: FREDERICK de to VEGA; MAP OF: LAWRENCE HIGGINS; FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE; FILED: MERILL LYNCH CREDIT CORP.; (ACCESORS/ASSIGNES ASSUILT FOR SWIMMING POOL 10-01-12 SITUATED AT: EAST MARION UPDATE SURVEY 12-15-11 ADD PROPOSED POOL/PATIO 12-06-11 TOWN OF: SOUTHOLD KENNETH M. BOYCHTJK L.S. REVISED 10' CONTOUR LOCATION 12-03-11 1 SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK Land Surveying and Deem CORRECT EASTERLY LOT DIMENSION 07-14-11 P.O. Box 3, Mattituck, New York 11952 REVISED SURVEY 06-01-11 FITS 11-34 SCALE: 1"=40' DAIE: MAY 19, 2011 Mw Phone (631) 298-1588 Fax (631) 298-1588 N. T S. LIC N0, 50227 d .bwvlwe Umw ,eo oL Roheel T. a—.'