SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER QUALITY PROTECTION AND RESTORATION PROGRAM AND LAND STEWARDSHIP INITIATIVES APPLICATION FORM

Transcription

1 May 2012 SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER QUALITY PROTECTION AND RESTORATION PROGRAM AND LAND STEWARDSHIP INITIATIVES APPLICATION FORM PROJECT TITLE: Meetinghouse Creek Water Quality Restoration Strategy Steven Bellone, Suffolk County Executive Joanne Minieri, Commissioner, Department of Economic Development and Planning Gilbert Anderson, P.E., Commissioner, Department of Public Works James L. Tomarken, MD, Commissioner, Department of Health Services William J. Lindsay, Presiding Officer, Suffolk County Legislator, 8 th District Greg Dawson, Commissioner, Department of Parks, Recreation, & Conservation Sarah Lansdale, Director, Division of Planning and Environment Bob DeLuca, Group for the East End Kevin McDonald, Citizens Advisory Committee for the Peconic Estuary Program

2

3 APPLICATION Part 1 Applicant Information 1. Application Number (leave blank - will be assigned by the WQPRP Review Committee) 2. Applicant Name Suffolk County Department of Health Services - Division of Environmental Quality 3. Federal Taxpayer ID# Phone Fax walter.dawydiak@suffolkcountyny.gov 5. Mailing Address No. & Street 360 Yaphank Ave City Yaphank Zip Code Phone Contact Person and Title Alison Branco, Marine Biologist 7. Contact Mailing Address and Information (if different from applicant) No. & Street City Zip Code Phone 8. Suffolk County Department Sponsor Contact Person and Title Mailing Address No. & Street City Zip Code Phone -Page 1 of 21-

4 Part 2 Project Information 1. Project Name Meetinghouse Creek Water Quality Restoration Strategy 2. Project Location/Address No. & Street City Riverhead Zip Code Phone 3. Suffolk County Tax Map Number(s) 4. Project Type (PLEASE SELECT ALL THAT APPLY) Nonpoint Source Abatement and Control Remediation Other Nonpoint Source Pollution - Remediation Nonpoint Source Abatement and Control Preservation No-Discharge Zone Implementation Part 3 - Project Budget Aquatic Habitat Restoration Education and Outreach Agricultural Nonpoint Source Abatement and Control Pollution Prevention Initiatives Land Stewardship Initiative Categorize anticipated project costs into the categories shown. If costs fall into a category not listed, use the other category and specify what those costs are for in the space provided. Construction inspection can be included in construction costs. Total Cost 477 Funds Requested Other Funding Source Planning 200,000 Land Acquisition Construction Site Improvements Furniture & Equipment Other * TOTAL *Specify Total WQPRP Funds Requested $ 200,000 -Page 2 of 21-

5 Specify if there are any County Personnel being utilized for or funded through this project. Please identify the title, division or office, and department of the County personnel; if the personnel are currently part of the County s existing staff; the intended duration of participation in the project; and the expenditure of funds related to the project with regard to said personnel. Title Division & Department Current Staff Yes No Duration (Seasonal/Temporary/Permanent) (Part-time/Full-time) Expenditure of Project s Funding Part 4 - Other Funding Sources Local $ Include municipal resolution if available. State $ Name Federal $ Name Other $ Name -Page 3 of 21-

6 Part 5 - Project Description Provide a general description of the proposed project and the expected project benefits. What is the pollutant of concern (POC) and what will be the pollutant load reduction estimate (STEPL) or equal? Provide detailed documentation illustrating the need to implement this project. Refer to Section V (Instructions for Completing ) of the Information for Applicants section of this document located at the end of this application for examples. Attach preliminary plan or additional sheets if applicable. The Peconic Estuary System of eastern Suffolk County, NY has been designated an Estuary of National Significance under the Clean Water Act. Fortunately, about 97% of the Peconic Estuary meets environmental standards and guidelines with respect to dissolved oxygen and nitrogen. However, due to poor tidal flushing and high nitrogen inputs, the environmentally sensitive western estuary is critically stressed (specifically, the Flanders Bay area including Meetinghouse Creek in Riverhead). Modeling studies have indicated that the water quality in the western Peconic Estuary is most heavily impacted by two point-source nutrient loadings: The Riverhead Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) and Meetinghouse Creek. The Riverhead STP is currently being upgraded, but the Meetinghouse Creek source remains a concern. The past operations of duck farms in the Meetinghouse Creek watershed resulted in the discharge of wastewater to the Creek and the deposition of duck sludge in creek sediments. These duck sludge deposits continue to provide nutrient loading to the Creek and contribute to reduced dissolved oxygen levels in the Creek s surface waters. Based upon data collected by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS), Meetinghouse Creek is not meeting NY State dissolved oxygen standards. Excessive nitrogen inputs have impaired the function and health of Meetinghouse Creek and Flanders Bay. The Suffolk County Department of Health Services estimates that about 250,000 cubic yards of duck sludge deposits have accumulated in Meetinghouse Creek since the last dredging cycle in Recently, the Suffolk County Department of Health Services conducted a dredging feasibility study to examine the possibility of dredging to remove these deposits from the creek. That study recommends dredging large volumes of sediment from the creek and illuminates issues that require further examination. This proposal requests $200,000 to prepare a Water Quality Restoration Strategy for Meetinghouse Creek. The high cost and potential negative impacts of dredging need to be weighed against the predicted improvements, to determine whether dredging is the best way to improve Meetinghouse Creek s water quality and ecosystem function. This will include an assessment of the positive and negative impacts of dredging and an assessment of alternatives to dredging (such as capping, in-place remediation, and natural attenuation). This Water Quality Restoration Strategy would produce the following: Summary and evaluation of previous studies and existing data sets (groundwater, sediment flux, duck farm waste treatment, etc.) relevant to nutrient loading to Meetinghouse Creek Quantitative characterization of the existing environment in Meetinghouse Creek including the area to be dredged and the areas predicted to be affected by sediment re-suspension and its deposition. Quantification of the negative impact of the duck sludge deposits including an evaluation of sediment nitrogen flux relative to other sources of nitrogen loading to Meetinghouse Creek and in context of the nitrogen Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). Quantitative assessment of the improvement expected from removal of duck sludge in terms of the stated impairments such as low dissolved oxygen Quantitative assessment of the short-term environmental impacts of recommended dredge project -Page 4 of 21-

7 Assessment of long-term environmental impacts (positive and negative) of changes caused by dredging Cost benefit analysis to determine whether a net environmental benefit can be demonstrated Analysis of alternatives to dredging and options for material placement (including beneficial re-use) Recommendations for impact mitigation measures (e.g., silt curtains, dredging windows, technology limitations, etc.) and estimates of how they will affect cost estimates and timelines. Recommendations for monitoring program during dredging to measure and minimize impacts and post dredging to evaluate the result. This Water Quality Restoration Strategy for Meetinghouse Creek is a critical step in determining whether dredging is an appropriate solution for water quality improvement at this location. If an environmental benefit is predicted and dredging is pursued, this project will also provide the assessment of environmental impacts necessary to inform the SEQRA process and satisfy permitting requirements. Permitting agencies and SEQRA participants will be consulted throughout this process to ensure the information collected is appropriate for those uses. The technical advisory committee and management committee, in addition to the program office, of the Peconic Estuary Program will also work with the consultant hired to complete this project to ensure that PEP s priorities and the Peconic Estuary TMDL are central to this strategy. -Page 5 of 21-

8 Part 6 Project Criteria The parameters followed by a Priorities Waterbodies List (PWL) in the Environmental Significance of Proposal section of Parts 6.1A and 6.1B below are identified explicitly in The 2000 Atlantic Ocean, Long Island Sound Basin Waterbody Inventory and Priority Waterbodies List (NYSDEC, April 2002). Select which criteria apply to the project and provide documentation. (select one) COMPLETE PART 6.1 BELOW FOR THE APPROPRIATE PROJECT TYPE(S) BASED ON YOUR RESPONSES TO PART 2, QUESTION 4. PLEASE SEE TABLE 1 FOR APPROPRIATE SECTIONS TO COMPLETE. Part 6.1A Nonpoint Source Abatement and Control Remediation Projects Apply to agricultural and non-agricultural nonpoint source abatement and control projects that remediate existing pollution. Environmental Significance of Proposal 1. Impairment level of affected waterbody (PWL) PLEASE CHOOSE ONE a) Precluded Frequent or persistent water quality conditions prevent all aspects of the waterbody use. b) Impaired Occasional water quality conditions prevent the use of the waterbody. c) Stressed Occasional water quality conditions periodically discourage the use of the waterbody. d) Threatened Water quality currently supports waterbody uses, but existing or changing land use patterns may result in restricted use. e) None Water quality currently supports all waterbody uses and no threat is in the foreseeable future. 2. Waterbody Classification (PWL) PLEASE CHOOSE ONE a) A, SA, GA, AA special Specially protected high quality drinking water and shellfish waters b) A, A special, GA (other), GSA Other drinking water c) B, SB, C(T), C(TS) Contact recreation, trout and trout propagation d) C, SC, I Other fishing e) D, SD, GSB Other water uses 3. Targeted pollutant and existing source of pollutant (PWL) PLEASE CHOOSE ONE a) Primary pollutant-primary source i.e. Pathogens Urban runoff b) Secondary pollutant-primary source i.e. Silt/sediment Urban runoff c) Primary pollutant-secondary source i.e. Pathogens Boat pollution d) Secondary pollutant-secondary source i.e. Silt/sediment - Hydromodification -Page 6 of 21-

9 4. Targeted problem documentation (PWL) PLEASE CHOOSE ONE a) Known Water quality monitoring data and/or studies have been completed and conclude that the use of the waterbody is restricted to the degree indicated by the listed severity. b) Suspected Reasonably strong evidence suggests the use of the waterbody is impacted. However, water quality data/studies that establish an impact have not been completed or there is conflicting information. c) Possible Anecdotal evidence, public perception and/or specific citizen complaints indicate that the use of the waterbody may be restricted. However, there is currently very little, if any, documentation of an actual water quality problem. 5. Problem resolution potential (PWL) PLEASE CHOOSE ONE Reflects the degree to which the expenditure of available funds and resources on the waterbody is appropriate. Factors include the degree of public interest and whether measurable results can be reasonably achieved with the funds requested. a) High b) Medium c) Low 6. Project Size (watershed area) PLEASE CHOOSE ONE a) >15 acres b) 10 to 15 acres c) 5 to 10 acres d) 0 to 5 acres 7. Pollutant of Concern (POC) Reduction PLEASE CHOOSE ONE a) % reduction b) 60 80% reduction c) 40 60% reduction d) 20 40% reduction 8. Community and User Group Support PLEASE CHOOSE ONE a) Significant support One or more groups (other than that nominating the project) have voiced support or endorsed the proposed project; must attach support letters. b) No opposition No support or opposition evident regarding the proposed restoration, or comparable opposition and support. c) Significant opposition Strong opposition by one or more groups or individuals which could likely delay or prevent the proposed project from being initiated or completed. 9. Post Project Maintenance PLEASE CHOOSE ONE a) some maintenance required (less than once per 2 years) b) regular maintenance required (greater than once per 2 years) c) frequent maintenance required (greater than once per year) -Page 7 of 21-

10 Part 6.1B Nonpoint Source Abatement and Control - Preservation Projects Apply to agricultural and non-agricultural nonpoint source abatement and control projects and pollution prevention initiatives that prevent potential pollution and/or preserve water quality. Environmental Significance of Proposal Ecological Considerations 1) Impairment level of affected waterbody (PWL) PLEASE CHOOSE ONE a) None Water quality currently supports all waterbody uses and no threat is in the foreseeable future. b) Threatened Water quality currently supports waterbody uses, but existing or changing land use patterns may result in restricted use. c) Stressed Occasional water quality conditions periodically discourage the use of the waterbody. d) Impaired Occasional water quality conditions prevent the use of the waterbody. e) Precluded Frequent or persistent water quality conditions prevent all aspects of the waterbody use. 2) Waterbody Classification (PWL) PLEASE CHOOSE ONE a) A, SA, GA, AA special Specially protected high quality drinking water and shellfish waters b) A, A special, GA (other), GSA Other drinking water c) B, SB, C(T), C(TS) Contact recreation, trout and trout propagation d) C, SC, I Other fishing e) D, SD, GSB Other water uses 3) Targeted problem documentation (PWL) PLEASE CHOOSE ONE a) Known Water quality monitoring data and/or studies have been completed and conclude that the use of the waterbody is restricted to the degree indicated by the listed severity. b) Suspected Reasonably strong evidence suggests the use of the waterbody is impacted. However, water quality data/studies that establish an impact have not been completed or there is conflicting information. c) Possible Anecdotal evidence, public perception and/or specific citizen complaints indicate that the use of the waterbody may be restricted. However, there is currently very little, if any, documentation of an actual water quality problem. -Page 8 of 21-

11 4) Problem resolution potential (PWL) PLEASE CHOOSE ONE Reflects the degree to which the expenditure of available funds and resources on the waterbody is appropriate. Factors include the degree of public interest and whether measurable results can be reasonably achieved with the funds requested. a) High b) Medium c) Low 5) Project Size PLEASE CHOOSE ONE a) >15 acres b) 10 to 15 acres c) 5 to 10 acres d) 0 to 5 acres Other Considerations 6) Community and User Group Support PLEASE CHOOSE ONE a) Significant support One or more groups (other than that nominating the project) have voiced support or endorsed the proposed project b) No opposition No support or opposition evident regarding the proposed restoration c) Significant opposition Strong opposition by one or more groups or individuals which could likely delay or prevent the proposed project from being initiated or completed. 7) Post Project Maintenance PLEASE CHOOSE ONE a) No maintenance required b) Minor maintenance required c) Major maintenance required -Page 9 of 21-

12 Part 6.1C Aquatic Habitat Restoration Projects Apply to aquatic habitat restoration projects categorized by Section 12-2(B) of the Suffolk County Charter. Environmental Significance of Proposal Ecological Considerations 1) Level of Degradation PLEASE CHOOSE ONE a) Severe There is little or no ecological function at the site for the habitat to be restored (e.g., 3 feet or more of dredge spoil on a former salt marsh). b) Medium There is limited ecological function at the site for the habitat to be restored (e.g., formerly connected salt marsh). c) Low The ecological functions of the site are present, but the habitat could be enhanced. 2) Proposed Project Size PLEASE CHOOSE ONE a) > 50 acres b) 10 to 50 acres c) 3 to 10 acres d) 0 to 3 acres 3) Habitat Contiguity/Adjacent Land Use PLEASE CHOOSE ONE a) Complete contiguity with protected area b) Partial contiguity with protected area c) Complete contiguity with undeveloped area d) Partial contiguity with undeveloped area e) No contiguous habitat 4) Target Restoration Functions PLEASE CHOOSE ONE a) Nutrient retention Proposed restoration will contribute to a reduction in or assimilation of nutrients. b) Species diversity Proposed restoration will increase species diversity. c) Groundwater protection Proposed restoration will aid in groundwater recharge or contaminant abatement. d) Food chain support Proposed restoration will contribute or enable to transfer of energy into a food chain. e) Fish/wildlife corridor Proposed restoration will facilitate the movement of fish/wildlife through the site. 5) Promotes habitat diversity in the landscape PLEASE CHOOSE ONE a) Yes The proposed restoration will increase or maintain habitat types that are being degraded or lost in the region. b) No -Page 10 of 21-

13 Other Considerations 6) Ownership PLEASE CHOOSE ONE a) Public b) Private/acquired (e.g., The Nature Conservancy, Peconic Land Trust) c) Private/easement d) Private/no protection 7) Current Stage of Planning PLEASE CHOOSE ONE a) Planning completed b) Planning underway No surveys or written plans have been completed. 8) Community and User Group Support PLEASE CHOOSE ONE a) Significant support One or more groups (other than that nominating the site) have voiced support or endorsed the proposed project b) No opposition No support or opposition evident regarding the proposed restoration c) Significant opposition Strong opposition by one or more groups or individuals which could likely delay or prevent the proposed project from being initiated or completed. 9) Post Project Maintenance PLEASE CHOOSE ONE a) No maintenance required b) Minor maintenance required c) Major maintenance required -Page 11 of 21-

14 Part 6.1D Projects To Implement No-Discharge Zones Apply to no-discharge zone implementation projects categorized by Section 12-2(B) of the Suffolk County Charter (see Appendix IV). Projects to implement vessel waste no-discharge zones can be divided into two categories; reimbursement for pump-out systems and feasibility studies for no-discharge zone designation. A) Reimbursement Program for Pump-Out Systems For the purposes of this program, a Pump-Out System is defined as a pump-out boat or a stationary land-based system. Proposal Significance Minimum Guidelines: Submit documentation that all minimum guidelines are met. 1) The specific area(s) of use must be indicated: bays, harbors, and permanent pump-out boat dock locations, etc. (GIS map, nautical chart, or Hagstrom map acceptable) 2) The need for the requested pump-out system must be clearly conveyed. A site-specific analysis must be done, including number of pump outs available, boats served by existing pump outs; boats to be served by proposed pump outs, etc. 3) Water quality benefits must be discussed (e.g., need for pollution reduction, or water quality preservation) 4) An estimate of the operation and maintenance costs, and the ability and commitment to support those costs a) Prior commitments to similar programs should be included b) Plans and commitment for education, outreach, signage, pamphlets, etc. should be discussed c) The mechanism(s) for final disposal of the wastes collected should be discussed 5) A commitment to provide an annual report, for a minimum of five years. Annual reports should discuss: a) number of boats serviced b) gallons pumped c) operational difficulties d) methods of final disposal e) strategies for future 6) Provide technical specifications of the pump out system(s) requested, to the extent that they are available, along with a summary of why a specific vessel, or manufacturer, was selected. 7) Detailed budget including match (a minimum of 50% municipality match is required) 8) List of personnel to be assigned to the program, with a CV of no more than 2 pages per person. -Page 12 of 21-

15 B) Vessel Waste No-Discharge Zone Feasibility Study Proposal Significance Minimum Guidelines: Submit documentation that all minimum guidelines are met. 1) Letter(s) from the New York State Department of State and/or New York State Department of Environmental Conservation evidencing state support, participation, cooperation, or other state sanction. 2) Letters of commitment form the local towns and villages in which the proposed waterbody is located. -Page 13 of 21-

16 Part 6.1E Educational Outreach Projects Apply to educational outreach projects categorized by Section 12-2(B) of the Suffolk County Charter. Proposal Significance - Public Education and Outreach Projects Minimum Guidelines: Submit documentation that all minimum guidelines are met. 1) Enhances public involvement in water quality protection and habitat restoration efforts 2) Contains a mechanism for oversight that assures that the information presented is technically correct, objective, and balanced 3) Project is recurring and/or sustainable, or is a one-time event designed to reach a significant number of residents 4) Shows clear relationship to an environmental management issue as highlighted in an Estuary Program or other credible information 5) Not merely educational - has clear goals with tangible environmental benefits -Page 14 of 21-

17 Part 6.1F Land Stewardship Initiative Apply to Land Stewardship Initiatives categorized by Section 12-2(B) of the Suffolk County Charter. Environmental Significance of Proposal Ecological Considerations 1. Level of Degradation PLEASE CHOOSE ONE a) Severe There is little or no ecological function at the site for the habitat to be restored (e.g., 3 feet or more of dredge spoil on a former salt marsh). b) Medium There is limited ecological function at the site for the habitat to be restored (e.g., formerly connected salt marsh). c) Low The ecological functions of the site are present, but the habitat could be enhanced. 2. Proposed Project Size PLEASE CHOOSE ONE a) 0 to 3 acres b) 3 to 10 acres c) 10 to 50 acres d) > 50 acres 3. Open Space and Species Protection Best Management Practices Plan to ensure open space and Species are preserved in their natural state in perpetuity while promoting public access to open spaces and Species where appropriate PLEASE CHOOSE ONE a) Complete contiguity with protected area b) Partial contiguity with protected area c) Complete contiguity with undeveloped area d) Partial contiguity with undeveloped area e) No contiguous open space 4 Land Protection Best Management Practices Plan to ensure protection of scenic and wildlife habitat resources PLEASE CHOOSE ONE a) Scenic Resources Proposed project will help to maintain existing natural scenic resources b) Wildlife habitat Resources Proposed project wildlife habitats. c) Groundwater protection Proposed project will aid in groundwater recharge or contaminant abatement. d) Food chain support Proposed restoration will contribute or enable to transfer of energy into a food chain. e) Fish/wildlife corridor Proposed restoration will facilitate the movement of fish/wildlife through the site. 5. Promotes habitat diversity in the landscape PLEASE CHOOSE ONE a) Yes The proposed Stewardship Initiatives will increase or maintain habitat types that are being degraded or lost in the region. b) No -Page 15 of 21-

18 Other Considerations 6. Ownership PLEASE CHOOSE ONE a) Public b) Private/acquired (e.g., The Nature Conservancy, Peconic Land Trust) c) Private/easement d) Private/no protection 7. Current Stage of Planning PLEASE CHOOSE ONE a) Planning completed b) Planning underway No surveys or written plans have been completed. 8. Community and User Group Support PLEASE CHOOSE ONE a) Significant support One or more groups (other than that nominating the site) have voiced support or endorsed the proposed project b) No opposition No support or opposition evident regarding the proposed restoration c) Significant opposition Strong opposition by one or more groups or individuals which could likely delay or prevent the proposed project from being initiated or completed. 9. Post Project Maintenance PLEASE CHOOSE ONE a) No maintenance required b) Minor maintenance required c) Major maintenance required -Page 16 of 21-

19 Part Programmatic Significance Applies only to project types 1-5 as shown in Table 1 of the Information for Applicants section at the beginning of this application. Detail the extent/severity of the water quality/natural resource problem or issue addressed by the project. Is the project in a TMDL watershed and will POC be mitigated by the project implementation? The development of project and activity proposals should capitalize on existing information and the recommendations found in the PEP, LISS and the SSER management programs. Attach additional sheets if applicable. You may view the documents at: PEP LISS SSER 1. Estuary Management Plan Relevance a) Implements a specific estuary management plan recommendation: Identify recommendation as quoted in the Comprehensive Management Plan (provide page number.) An overarching Peconic Estuary Program management principle is to support management decisions based on comprehensive, site specific studies (monitoring, modeling, land use, etc.) for the main bays and main watershed, as well as in subwatersheds such as Meetinghouse Creek. p 3-25 N-1.1(Priority) Integrate monitoring and modeling data, studies, and reports to evaluate the application of the 0.45 mg/l total nitrogen guideline to the Peconic Estuary as a means of attaining and maintaining dissolved oxygen standards and for use in developing regional load allocation strategies, a CWA Section 303(d) listing, and TMDL establishment, to attain and maintain the dissolved oxygen standard. p 3-25 N-2.1 (Priority) Develop and implement water quality preservation plans to protect existing water quality for waters east of Flanders Bay where water quality meets or exceeds established standards, criteria, or guidelines. Plans should address potential point and nonpoint pollutant sources as well as strategies for preventing and/or mitigating impacts. p3-25 N-3.1 (Priority) Initiate the development of load allocation targets and implementation strategies for nitrogen loading to the entire estuary, with particular emphasis on subwatersheds for peripheral creeks and embayments (e.g., Meetinghouse Creek). p3-25 b) Part of an integrated subwatershed approach, consistent with a: (PLEASE CHOOSE ONE) i) general estuary program recommendation ii) individual project, consistent with a general estuary program recommendation iii) not consistent with a general estuary program recommendation (d)/TMDL Applicability a) Does the project aim to reduce a POC per TMDL requirement? Yes No -Page 17 of 21-

20 b) Will the project reduce a POC for a 303(d) waterbody? Yes No -Page 18 of 21-

21 Part 7 - Community Support Identify community groups that are in favor or against the project. Include letters of support if available. Group Name For or Against? -Page 19 of 21-

22 Part 8 - Project Readiness 1. Has the SEQRA process been initiated? Yes No Not applicable 2. What is the SEQRA classification for this project? Type I Type II Unlisted 3. Specify lead agency: Suffolk County requests that the local municipality designate themselves as lead agency for Type I and II projects. 4. Has the lead agency made a determination of significance? Yes No Not applicable If yes, specify determination: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of New York State Register and Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York. Specify date of determination: 5. Will the project require permits? Yes No If yes, specify permit type and permitting agency: Agency Type Approved? (y/n) 6. Will the project result in land disturbance of one acre or greater? Yes No 7. Planning / Design Stage a) Have construction plans, specifications, and estimates been prepared? Yes No N/A if yes, what stage (by %) are documents in: (PLEASE CHOOSE ONE) 0-30% conceptual 30-60% preliminary 60-90% preliminary/final 100% final/ready to go to bid -Page 20 of 21-

23 b) Has a detailed topographic survey been prepared? Yes No N/A c) Have all viable alternatives been considered? Please discuss briefly how current alternative(s) were selected. -Page 21 of 21-

24 Part 9 Project Personnel Identify the name, title, and qualifications of the individuals who will participate in project implementation. Include curriculum vitae of participating staff if possible. Be sure to identify a Project Manager who will provide project supervision. If there are any County personnel being utilized for or funded through this project, applicants are required to provide detailed information regarding these participants separately under Part 3 of this application. This project will be completed by a qualified contractor with expertise in environmental impact assessments for dredging projects to be hired via an RFP process. RFP creation and project management will be the responsibility of the Division of Environmental Quality within the Suffolk County Departemnt of Health Services. Part 10 Project Schedule Milestones Date Project Start Kick-off January 2013 Inventory of existing environment completed October 2013 Draft dredging cost-benefit analysis June 2014 Final Strategy Complete December 2014 Project Complete -Page 22 of 21-

25 Part 11 Enforcement Status Is the municipality under enforcement to construct the project? Yes No If yes, include a copy of the enforcement instrument. Part 12 Certification I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that information provided on this form and attached statements and exhibits is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. False statements made herein are punishable as a Class A misdemeanor pursuant to Section of the Penal Law. Official Designee (print name) Walter Dawydiak Signature Title Acting Director, Division of Environmental Quality Date June 11, Page 23 of 21-

26