On Monday night, at the December informal meeting of the Common Council, there was another letter from the Army Corps of Engineers, this one dated November 25, 2015. The letter acknowledged that some of the information requested had been received but additional clarification and information was needed. The specific issues were:
- The drawing provided "fails to clearly and accurately depict the replacement of the existing bulkhead."
- The drawing states the bulkhead repair will be 220 linear feet, but "measuring the plan while utilizing the provided scale indicates the length to be approximately 75 linear feet." (This discrepancy had already been pointed out by the South Bay Task Force.)
- An assessment of the project's effects on the federal endangered Shortnose Sturgeon and Atlantic Sturgeon and on Essential Fish Habitat protected under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
|Photo and caption: South Bay Task Force|
After identifying what is unclear and what is missing, the letter goes on to say:
Please be advised, that any authorization from this office is conditional on the applicant's receipt of the required coastal zone management concurrence or waiver from the New York State Department of State (NYSDOS). No work may be accomplished until the required approval from the NYSDOS has been obtained.
The full text of the letter can be found here.
COPYRIGHT 2015 CAROLE OSTERINK
Thank you for the update, Gossips.ReplyDelete
It was the South Bay Task Force that had first notified the NYSDOS of the existence of the proposal. They were quite surprised not to have been told. We implored them to make contact with the Army Corps of Engineers as soon as possible.
Next we informed the Army Corps of Engineers of the discrepancy in the site plan drawing.
The remaining challenge is the boundary discrepancy, which dates to 1836. The Common Council has agreed to examine that issue.