Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1000-116.-1-3
s of uch idly law the inly ady :age the Fort Corchaug As It Was An illustrated lecture on Fort Corchaug will be presented Sunday, Nov. 11, by Dr. Ralph Solecki, the anthropologist Who scientifically excavated the fort in the 1930s and '40s for his thesis in archaeology, The 16th Century fort stood on the west bank of what is now Downs Creek, about a mile south of Cutchogue.The Cutchogue-New Suffolk Historical Coun- cil is sponsoring the 7:30 lecture at the Cutchogue Methodist Church. It is free and open to the public. band, Dr. James Kimbrough; and John Oliver Ashton as the man with "ways and means," Mayor Crane. Completing the show were fine per- formances by Todd Bibey as Mr. Foley, Gordon Rogers as Oscar, and David K. - Guida as the policeman. Shows can often be disastrous when supporting character~ don't treat their roles scri- This Is ltl Professor to Lecture MA_'I'I~'r(JCK -- Mu*+;h,ek High SOUTHOLD--"Phvsical Anthroool- Form 10-300 (Rev. 6-72) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES INVENTORY - NOMINATION FORM (Type ali entries [ complete applicable sections) New York Suffolk FOR NPS USE ONLy CU-61 Fort Corchaug site ~,STO.,C:. t n ~AT_ION See also continua io skeet i s~- R--E-ET ^. [:IN U Nortk of New Suffolk Avenue, west of Downs Creek C TY OR TOWN J Cutchogue J Rep. Oti~ G. Pike CATEGORY ACCESSIBLE QWNERSHIP STATUS (Cfleclc One) TO THE PUBLIC [] District [] Building [] Public Public Acquisition: [] Occupied Yes: [~ Site [] Structure [] Private [~ In Process [] Unoacupied [] Restricted [] Object [] Both [] Be ng Considered [] Preservationin progress work [] [] No Unrestricted [] Agricultural [] Government [] Pork [] Transportation [-]Comments [] Commercial [] Industrial [] Private Residence ~] Other (Specify) [] Educational [] Military [] Religious [] Entertalnment [] Museum [] Scientific 'J:~'] l~n~- l~d Z J4: OWNER OF PROPERTYi William J. Baxter, Jr. ]m ~.~ -- __ j:~ ,,, Nassau Point Road /~ Cutchogue New York ~ j.5.~ .LOCAT oN OF L.EC. AL DESCRIPTION ' ~ Su~o~.~ County Court Rouse Riverl~ ad New York SURVEYS . j~; 'rR~DRES__E~NTATIgN IN EXISTING 'TL[ OF SURVEy; Archeological Sites Division for Historic Preservation ~^t£o~ su.~e*: 1973 [] Federal ~ Sfas. ~ County New York State Division for Historic Parks and Recreation. S. Swan S~r~et Albany York Inventory, New York State [] Local CU-61 DI~$CR;PTION ] (Check One) Ex¢.llent [] Good [] Fair [] Dete,iorated [] Ruins ~ Unexposed (Check One) I (Check One) ~ Altered ' [] Unabered I [] Moved ~ Original Site The Fort Corchaug site is situated on the north fork of eastern Long Island. In a dense growth of brusk and trees, the site lies about 2000 feet north of Peconic Bay on the west side of Downs Creek, approximately one-half mile south%-est of t~ village of Cutchogue. Like other contemporary structures, Fort Corchaug was located near a spring which produced a constant supply of fresh water. There was, of course, easy access to water transportation. The locale was suitable for habitation as well as defense. Archeological investigations were made at this site betweer 1936-1948, at which time the important features were sampled by the test trench method. The major portion of the site, however has not been touched. The fort was oriented nearly nortk, south, east and west ii an oblong outline. The walls measured 210 feet in length north and south, and 160 feet east and west. ~9~:i~i~.~.~gx~&~ of. wa~ construction are attested to.by slight rises in'ground level. Archeological evidence shews that Fort Corchaug, like othez of its period, was of log construction. In this instance, the sides of the fort were not similar. The west wall slanted while the north and south walls seem to have been fairly strafe :The east wall was double-palisaded for at least three-quarters of its length. Remains show that Some light living shelters ~ave been constructed against the fort walls. It is apparent that Fort Corchaug was erected purely as a defensive measure. Occupational evidence was found in negligib amounts north of the fort, to a slight degree within the fort, and in greater abundance south of tke fort, indicating that the ~orchaug village was located south of the fortification. ,. The artifact assemblage indicates that the Corchaug Indians had relationships with both Europeans as well as other Indian tribes. Both the Dutch and the English knew of the site. Europ objects found most likely represent trade items. Of the Indian- manufactured items, the most significant remains were the potter The Corchaug ware resembles that of the Shantok tradition. Thi~ clues to the relations between the Corchaugs and Indians of the England mainland. There is also evidence that tha Fort Corchaug area had bee~ occupied prehistorically. However, research to-date has only de with the historic component. CONDITION . 'SIGNIFICANCE [] Pre-ColumbianS [] 16th Century ~] lSth Century [] JTth Century . E) 18th Centu, y [] 19th Century sp~c,~,c O^TEIS, (Z~p,~i¢.b~. e.dK.ow.; C. 1640--C. 1661 [] Prehistoric [] Engineering [] Religlon/Phl. ~ Historic [] Industry Iosophy [] Agriculture [] Invention [] Science [] Architecture [] Landscape [] Scurpture E] Art Architecture [] Social/Human- [] Commerce [] Literature itarian ['-1 Communications [] Military [] Theater [] Conservation [] Music [] Tronsportatlon [] Urban Planning [] Other "The fort, at Cutchogue, Long Island, is a contact period sit of some size and importance, and is the only site of its kin~ thus far known on the island to receive archeological attentJ There is evidence that the area of the fort may have been oc~ prehistorically, but research to-date has dealt only with th~ historic component. All of the forts on Long Island seem to been more or less contemporary, dating from the middle of th~ seventeenth century. Fort Corchaug, however, was most likely occupied prior to the middle of the seventeenth century, as ~ first settlers at this end of Long Island (ca. 1640) found t~ fort in place. -J, Both the Dutch and the English were known to have visited th~ site on various occasions. This is substantiated by the num~ of European objects found in the site. It ~s assumed that t~ various artifac~ represent trade items. However, nearer to I New England than~the Hudson River, eastern Long Island wa~ more influenced by the English, than by the Dutch. It has been theorized 'that the mainland Indian cultures of Connecticut and Rhode Island, least distant from eastern Long Island, had much to do with the shaping of the prehistory ~nd history of the Corchaug Indians. This is reflected in the pottery excavated at the fort, which, for the major part, clc resembles that of the Shantok tradition of Connecticut. Remains of Fort Corchaug and associated artifacts help suppo~ the theory that the forts were used just for defense, with t~ habitation areas outside of the fortification. The village ~ probably made up of semi-permanent residences with the inhab~ tants dependent on a horticultural, in addition to a hunting and food-gathering economy. one thoug e. Evidence has been important in determining a relationship between the Corchaug Indians and European groups, and between the Corchau and Indians of the New England mainland. The site further he ~ confi~ ~,~u~ u£ £u~L uu~Lruction and the living style Fo~m 10-300a (July 1969) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES INVENTORY - NOMINATION FORM S i gn i f ic an ce (Con tlnuatlon Sheet) CU-61 Suffolk FOR NPS USE ONLY the Indians. An almost completely untouched area, hotd~ g~e&t potential for future exp~-oration. 1Ralph Solecki, "The Archeological Position of Historic · Fort Corchaug, LI, and its Relation to Contemporary Forts," Bulletin of the Archeological Society of. Connecticut, June, 1950, p. 5. Fc,~m 10-300a (July 1969) 2. Location UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE HATIOHAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES IHVENTORY. HOi'AIHATION FORM (Continuation Sheet) CU-61 New York Suffolk FOR NPS USE Please note publishable location: Fort Corchaug site Southwest of Cutchogue Suffolk County, New York J..,9; MAJOR BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES CU-6~ ~mith,July, Carlyle1954.. S. "A Note on Fort Massapeag.- _American Antiqu%~.y. ;olecki, Ralph. "The ~rcheological Postion o~ Historic Fort Corc2 LI, and its Relation to Contemporary Forts." Bulletin of th~ Archeological Society of Connecticut. June, 1~50. Jto, GEOGRAPHICAL DATA NW 40° 59' 53' 72° 29' 52' NE J 40° 59'- 53' 7~ 29' 42' SF ~ 40° 59' 37' 72~ 29' 42' SW / 4n~> qq, ~- ~ qn' ~-,-,'. , , JST ALL. STATES AND PREPARED BY L Parks and Recreation, S. Swan Street Buildinq DATE OR TOWN: Albany i2; DTATE LIAtSONOFFICERC~RTIFtCA]ION As the designated State Liaison Officer for the Na- tional Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-665), I hereby nominate this property for inclusion in the National Register and certify that it has been -valuated according: to the c-ire,ia and procedures set forth by the National Park Servtce. The recom~r, ended level of significance of this nomination is: National [] State ~ Local [~ State Historic Title Preservation Officer Date New York NATIONAL REGISTER VERIFICATION I hereby certify that this property is included in the National Register, ATTEST: Keeper o[ The National Re, isle, 41°00~ 'ED STATES ENT OF THE INTERIOR :OLOGICAL SURVEY CU-61 ~ ' cUTCHOGUE HARBOR ~H 0 N E ? ~¥~; CU-61 Dr._ William Murtagh Keeper of the National Register National Park Service Washingotn, D.C. 20240 Dear Dr. Mur~agh: As the'State Historic Preservation Officer, I am forwarding the enclosed nomination to the National Register of Historic Places: Fort Corchaug site, Cutchogue, New York, Suffolk County The above nomination has been reviewed and approved by the Committee on the Registers in'accordance with the criteria out- lined in Section 2.2 of the Grants Guide. The staff of the New York State Division for Historic Preservation, the officially designated~Preservation Agency, would welcome the opportunity to discuss this submission with your office. Sincerely, ALEXANDER ALDRICH State Historic Preservation Officer By: F. L. RATH, JR. Deputy Commissioner CU-61 ~ Fort Corchaug was in its heyday well before white contact. However, it has been mentioned in early Colonial records, so it may have been somewhat active in the mid-1600's. The fort was a rectangle 210' x 160', enclosing about three-fourths of an acre. The walls were a palisade consisting of two, and sometimes three, rows of tree trunks. The Indians had no metal, so they had no axes to cut down the trees. In- stead they wrapped the trunks in wet clay and built a fire--by friction--under the clay band. The fire was kept burning until the tree fell. The Indians had no shovels, only wood or stone tools, but they dug trenches and placed double rows of tree trunks in these for walls around the fort. Then dirt was mounded up at the base to secure the tree trunks. No one lived inside the fort. It was for defense. Study has shown that wigwams were built around the fort, on the bank of Downs Creek; A spring gave fresh water, and Downs Creek provided access to the bay. Some agricul- ture seems to have been practiced, when the community was at its height. Dr. Ralph Solecki as a boy lived on Route 25 just north of here, and col- lected arrowheads on this site. Later he became a world-famous anthropologist, and his thesis on Fort Corchaug caused the fort to be placed on the National Register of Historic Places. Fort Corchaug at its height (right), and as the site looks today (top of page). "A short Trip on Kings Highway" Jan. 26, 1985. Assoc. Suffolk County Historical Soci~ti=s. CU-61 BOUNDARY DITCH at Fort Corchaug neg. no. rsm XIII-6 ~AJOR D~BLIOGRAPH~CAL REFERENCES CU-6; ~mith, Carlyle S. July, 1954.. "A Note on Fort Massapeag.,, A~erican Anti_quitv. ;olecki, Ralph. "The Archeological Postion of Historic Fort Corch Li, and its Relation to Contemporary Forts." Bulletin of the ~rcheological Society of ConneCticut. June, 1~0. I/O. GEOGRAPHICAL DATA [Degrees Minutes Seconds Degrees Minutes Seconds Mw 40° 59' 53' 72: 29' 52' NE / 40° 59' 53' / 72~ 29' 42' Sa ~ 40° 59' 37'/ 72~ 29' 42' ^p~ 1 dP.° 5? 37' ~ 77 ~9' =~"' ' Seconds Degrees Minutes Seconds L 5 FO~'M P,9~PAR~:D BY o,~,z^r~o~ Research AssLstant New Yn~ St~= n~t~c~'~ for ~i ...... ~ ....... Parks and Recreation, S. S~an Street Buildin¢ 1973 Albany 5TATE LIAISON OFFICER C~RTIFICAIION As the designated State Liaison Officer for the Na- tional Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law $9~65), I hereby nominate this property for inclusion National [] State ~ Local [] Name State Historic Preservation Officer Title New York NATIONAL RSGISTEK' V~RIFtCATION I hereby certify that this property is included in the National RegLster. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 27'30" ~.54000~m. N. 28o Isla r~d ! <-- . 72°3(Y 41°00~ U-ol U~ITED STATES 'MENT OF THE INTERIOR ,OLOGICAL SURVEY 27'3C/' 'tl~£ "' cUTCHOGUE HARBOR id.Cove N E -" FOR OFFICE USE ONLY CU-5 [~UILDING-STRUCTURE INVENTORY FORM UNIQUE SITE NO. DIVISION FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION QUAD NEW YORK STATE PARKS AND RECREATION : : ~ SERIES. ALBANY NEW¥ORK 518 474-0479 ' ''~' '!~ NEG NO . YOUR NAME: To~ of Southold/SPLIA DATE: -: :r - ~ _- ~6 ~: .YOUR ADDRESS~O~ Hall, Nain Road TELEPHONE: 516/765-1892 ~,~. ..... :,~,'~.~- : Southold L.I N.Y. 11 1 ~'~',?~- ~ ' ~ ORGA~IZAT ON ( r ~,~)..Sou~hold To~ Co,unity Developmen~ Office ~-:c.;:~.~?. ~CCESSIBILITY TO PUBLIC: -':7' Exterio~ visible from phbli~ toad: Yes ~ ~ 6'~ accessible: Explain '_ - - c . MATERIkL 9. STRUCTURAL . a. wood frame with interlocking joints ~ ~ ~ 10. CONDITION: ~. excellent ~' b. good ~ ~. fair ~ d. deteriorated ~ -- II. INTECRITY: a. original site ~ b. moved ~ if so.when? c. Iisi major alterations and dates (if known): PHOTO'- CU r'sm vi-6 ~Fa$ade and 13. M~: N.Y.S. DOT Southold Quad ...... ~"',"~ ' 1 ' ~ ,..] Composite TO BUILDING: a. none L 0the~: ;IS. RELATED OUTBU LD NGS ,~NDPROP~RTy.' ~;2"; :7.; xn Slight concavw , °ther:-q~3r:~'to the road. OF THE BUILDING :(check more than INTERRELATIONSHIP OF BUILDING AND SURROUNDINGS: Indicate if building or structure is m an historic'district) ,:The concavity in which the house ~ies, reflects the it is near the source of Down's _Creek. the south side of Route 25, 'a low ~ road. Forests and farmland surround the area FEATURE~'OF BUILDING AND SI~'-{~nduding ............ int{rior~ .... features I ' - ' . Small .1: story Z-bay Eable roof house wxth entrnnn~ 1~ -?.,l~story,-3 bay wmng on east. 2/2 w~ndows and centered ~-himney. G FIC NCF · : 19. DATE OF. INITIAL CONSTRUCTION: ~qd half nin~teeth cen3ury. ' :- 21. on the 1909 map."' _- ~,,: ,* :: J SOURCES: 1909. W.; Belcher-Hyde. Long Island. Vol ~wo 22. THEME: BUILDER: HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL IMPORTANCE: ~ cottage was'a 'lodging 'f$~ farmhands. The building is shown as belonging to Atlas .of Suffolk County. North Side. Sound Shore.1905 ~orm prepared by Rosemary Skye Moritt, research assistant ....... . old- ~eek hys- and 'S of ide- 's of idly -law '{ate the ora inly ady age the Fort Corchaug As It Was An illustrated lecture on Fort Corchaug will be presented Sunday, Nov. 11, by Dr. Ralph Solecki, the anthropologist who scientifically excavated the fort in the 1930s and '40s for his thesis in archaeology. The 16th Century fort stood on the west bank of what is now Downs Creek, about a mile south of Cutchogue. The Cutchogue-New Suffolk Historical Coun- cil is sponsoring the 7:30 lecture at the Cutchogue Methodist Church. It is free and open to the public. band, Dr. James Kimbrough; and John . Oliver Ashton as the man with "ways and means," Mayor Crane. Completing the show were fine per- formances by Todd Bibey as Mr. Foley, Gordon Rogers as Oscar, and David K.: Guida as the policeman. Shows can often be disastrous when supporting characters don't treat their roles seri- This Is ltl Professor to Lecture MA_q?~ITIICK - M~**;', ek Hieh SOUTHOLD--"Phvsical Anthroool- Farm 10-300 (Rev. 6-72) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE · . NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES · ~' INVENTORY - NOMINATION FORM (Type all entries complete applicable sections) New York Suffolk FOR NPS USE ONLy CU-61 ¢°~°~:rt Corchaug site LOCATION See also continuation skeet Nortk of New Suffolk Avenue, west of Downs Creek CITY OR TOWNt Cutchogue New York CLASSIFICATION J Rep. Otig G. Pike i~c°u~WSu f folk CATEGORY (Check One) [] District [] Building [~ Site [] Structure I--I Object P,ivate Both Z' J4,,~ OWNER OF PROPERTy OWNERSHIP Pubilc Acqu;siHon: [] In Process [] Being Considered STATUS Occupied Unoccupied ['-~Preservotlo. ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC Yes: [] Rest,Jcted [] Unrestricted [] No [] AgricuJturoJ [] Government [] Pa,k [] Transportation [] Comments [] Commercial [] [ndu~triaJ ~1 Private I~esidence ~ Other (Spec/F/) [] Educational [] Milltary [] Religlou$ [] Entertainment [] Museum [] Scientific I ~n~ go~ uqed William J. Baxter, Jr. Nassau Point Road Cutchogue New York jE. [OCATIONOF ~GALDESCRIPTION Su~o~,. County Court House Riverkead ' J~' 'R.EPRE_S_~__NTAT 9N IN EXISTING SURVEYS York T,TL£O~SURV~¥: Archeological Sites Inventory, Division for Historic Preservation ~,T~ o~ su.,,E¥: 1973 [] Federal ~ Sio'e [] County New York State Division for Historic Pr~smrva~nn Parks and Recreation, S. Swan New York State Albany Shreet Ruil~ng Form 10- 300a (.J u~y 1969) CU-61 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES INVENTORY - NOMINATION FORM (Continuation Sheet) New York Suffolk FOR NPSUSE ONLY Please note publishable location: Fort Corchau9 site Southwest of Cutchogue Suffolk County, New York CU-61 t7. DESCRIPTION CONDITION ~ Altered ' ~] Unahered f [] Moved Th~ Fort Corchaug site is situated on the north fork of eastern Long Island. In a dense growth of brusk and trees, the site lies about 2000 feet north of Peconic Bay on the west side of Downs Creek, approximately one-half mile southwest of t~ village of Cutchogue. Like other contemporary structures, Fort Corchaug was located near a spring which produced a constant supply of fresh water. There was, of course, easy access to water transportation. The locale was suitable for habitation as well as defense. Archeological investigations were made at this site betwee~ 1936-1948, at which time the important features were sampled by the test trench method. The major portion of the site, however, has not been touched. .The fort was oriented nearly north, south, east and west in an oblong outline. The walls measured 210 feet in length north and south, and 160 feet east and west. The area enclosed by the fort is approximately three-quarters of an acre. Lines of. wall construction are attested to.by slight rises in ground level. Archeological evidence shows that Fort Corchaug, like othe] s of its period, was of log construction. In this instance, the sides of the fort were not similar. The west wall slanted outw while the north and south walls seem to have been fairly strai~h¥ i~e.~as~ wall was double-palisaded for at least three-q~arters~'] o~ ~%s ±engtk. Remains show that some light livinc shelters ma~ ~ave been constructed against the fort walls. ~ ' _ It is apparent that Fort Corchaug was erected purely as a defenslve measure. Occupational evidence was found in negligibl~ amounts north of the fort, to a slight degree with-in the fort, an~ ~_n greater abundance south of the fort, indicating that the~ Corchaug village was located south of the fortification. / ,. The art~fact assemblage ~ndicates that the Corchaug Indiansl had relationships with both Europeans as well as other Indian tribes. Both the Dutch and the English knew of the site. Europ~a objects found most likely represent trade items. Of the IndianLI manufactured items, the most significant remains were the potter~. The Corchaug ware resembles that of the Shantok tradition. This~ clues to the relations between the Corchaugs and Indians of the England mainland. There is also evidence that the Fort Corchau~ area ]~ad been occupied prehistorically. However, research to-d~te nas only de~l% with the historic component. CU-6t j~. 'SIGNIFICANCE [] Pre-Calumb~anJ [] 16Ih Cenfury [] 1SIk Century [] 17sk Century [] 19th Century I~ 20th Century S"EC,r, CO^TEIS~ (ZtA~p~c,b~o,.,~.~ .... ~ C. 1640--C. 1661 Aboriginal [] Education I [] Political [] Prehistoric [] Engineering [] Religion/Phi. ~ Historlc [] Industry Josophy ~] Agriculture [] [nventlon [] Science [] Architecture [] Landscape [] Sculplure [] Art Architecture [] Social/Human- [] Commerce [] Literature itarian [] Communfcations [] Military [] Theater [] Conse,vation [] Music [] T,ansporto/ion [] U~ban Planning [] Other (Specitr) "The fort, at Cutchogue, Long Island, is a contact period si of some size and importance, and is the only site of its kin thus far known on the island to receive archeological attent There is evidence that the area of the fort may have been oc prehistorically, but research to-date has dealt only with th historic component. All of the forts on Long Island seem to been more or less contemporary, dating from the middle of th seventeenth century. Fort Corchaug, however, was most liket occupied prior to the middle of the seventeenth century, as first settlers at this end of Long Island (ca. 1640) found t fort in place. Botk the Dutch and the Englisk were known to have visited th site on various occasions. This is substantiated by the num of European objects found in the site. it is assumed that t various artifac~ represent trade items. However, nearer to New England than~the Hudson River, eastern Long Island wa more influenced by the English, than by the Dutch. It has been theorized 'that the mainland Indian cultures of Connecticut and Rhode Island, least distant from eastern Lon. Island, had much to do with the shaping of the prehistory an. history of the Corchaug Indians. This is reflected in the pottery excavated at the fort, which, for the major part, cl. resembles that of the Shantok tradition of Connecticut. Remains of Fort Corchaug and associated artifacts help suppo the theory that the forts were used just for defense, with tJ habitation areas outside of the fortification. The village , probably made up of semi-permanent residences with the inhab tants dependent on a horticultural, in addition to a hunting and food-gathering economy. -An intact historic Indian fort site, Fort Corchaug is the on one thought to remain of its tS?e. Evidence found at the siJ has been important in determining a relationship between the Corchaug Indians and European groups, and between the Corcha, and Indians of the New England mainland. The site further h~ tu won~i~l, m~hud= u£ £ulL ~l~r%u~Liozi ~nd cli~ ~ivlng style Form 10-300a (Jul), 1969) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PaRK SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES '. INVENTORY - NOMINATION FORM 8. Significance (Continuation Sheet) the Indians. holds great potential CU-61 5T&TE. COUNTy Suffolk FOR NPS USE ONLY An almost completely untouched area, for future exploration. the site 1Ralph Solecki, "The Archeological Position of Historic · Fort Corchaug, LI, and its Relation to Contemporary Forts," Bulletin of the Archeological Society of. Connecticut, June, 1950, p. 5. MAJOR BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES ~mith,July, Carlyle1954.. S. "A Note on Fort Massapeag.'t American Antiquity. ~olecki, Ralph. "The ~rcheological Postion o~ Historic Fort Corc] LI, and its Relation to Contemporary Forts." Bulletin of the ~rcheological Society of Connecticut. June, 19--50. Degrees Minutes Seconds Deg,ees Minutes Seconds ,w 40° 59' 53' 72° 29' 52' NE I 40° 59'- 53' ~ 72° 29' 42' SE I 40° 59' 37' ~ 7~ 29' 42' sw r 40* 59' 37' ~ 77 ~9' r2" 0 R-- Degrees Minutes Seconds ['i i: 25 acres FORM PREPARED BY ~nore M. R~nn~mknrqpf. Researck Assistant Parks and Recreation, S. Swan Skreet Buildinq CITY 0t~ TOWN: Albany STATE LIAISON OFFICER C~RTIFtCA1 iON As the designated State Liaison Officer for the Na- tional Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 894565), I hereby nominate this property for inclusion in the Natlonal Register and ce£tify that it has been *-valuated accordLn~ to the c-iteria and procedures set forth by the National' Park Service. The recommended level of significance of this nomination is: National [] State ~] Local [] Title State Historic Preservation Officer Date 1973 New York NATIONAL REGISTER VERIFICATION I hereby certify that this property is included in the National Register. A~EST: 72°30, 41°00~ CU-61 UNITED STATES ~ ~ ~.-w~,,~, ~;t.~ · :OLOG1CAL SURVEY , ~ fcu~c, ~.Y. 2~ o~,. 27'3~' cUTCHOGUE HARBOR / Cove *,H 0 S~ 0 N E ' 2t Dr.. William Murtagh Keeper of the National Register National Park Service Washingotn, D.C. 20240 Dear Dr. Mur~agh: As the State Historic Preservation Officer, I am forwarding the enclosed nomination to the National Register of Historic Places: Fort Corchaug site, Cutchogue, New York, Suffolk County The above nomination has been reviewed and approved by the Committee on the Registers in'accordance with the criteria out- lined in Section 2.2 of the Grants Guide. The staff of the New York State Division for Historic Preservation, the officially designated~Preservation Agency, would welcome the opportunity to discuss this submission with your office. Sincqrely, ALEXANDER ALDRICH State Historic Preservation Officer By: F. L. RATH, JR. Deputy Commissioner cu-61 Fort Corchaug was in its heyday well before white contact. However, it has been mentioned in early Colonial records, so it may have been somewhat active in the mid-1600's. The fort was a rectangle 210' x 160', enclosing about three-fourths of an acre. The walls were a palisade consisting of two, and sometimes three, rows of tree trunks. ~ ?~:~ ~ The Indians had no metal, sososososososososos~hey had no axes to cut down the tre~s. In- stead they wrapped the trunks in wet clay and built a fire--by friction--under the day band. The fire was kept burning until the tree fell. The Indians had no shovels, only wood or stone tools, but they dug trenches and placed double rows of tree trunks in these for walls around the fort. Then dirt was mounded up at the base to secure the tree trunks. No one lived inside the fort. It was for defense. Study has shown that wigwams were built around the fort, on the bank of Downs Creek: A spring gave fresh water, and Downs Creek provided access to the bay. Some agricul- ture seems to have been practiced, when the community was at its height. Dr. Ralph $olecki as a boy lived on Route 25 just north of here, and col- lected arrowheads on this site. Later he became a world-famous anthropologist, and his thesis on Fort Corchaug caused the fort to be placed on the National Register of -listoric Places. Fort Corchaug at its height (right), and as the site looks today (top of page) .~ "A short Trip on K~ngs Highway" Jan. 26, 1985. Assoc. Su£folk County H~storical Societies. CU-61 BOUNDARY DITCH at Fort Corchaug neg. no. rsm XI!I ~ THI~ NI3W YORK TIMIE$, ~UNDA~', 5E, FTP2MBI~Ie, 4, Fight Is On to 'Save an Old Indian Fort propriate uses for the pro rt , J preserving the woodlanns as lands or walking woods, and as a~! historic site." The Town of Southold is now study-'~{~ By LINDA SASLOW FTER centuries of relative obscurity, the site of a 17th- century Indian fort in Cut- chogue has suddenly gained attention as a result of a modern-day struggle between forces that want to preserve it as a historical site and those favoring development. Efforts to preserve Fort Corchaug, which lies on the west bank of Down's Creek one mile south of the hamlet of Cutchogue, have touched off an an- nounced plan to sell the 104¥~-acre site on which the fort is situated, as well as several proposals to subdivide the land for development When the Dutch and English ex- plorers arrived on Long Island in the mid-17tb century, the fort was a gath- ering place for the Corchaug Indians, who lived in the area of the hamlet ,- price of $3.9 million. Sincb then, sev- that was later named aftei' them. lt- eral ideas have been proposed for .ship of the family of William Baxter Jr. But recently the site was put on the real estate market for an asking lng the best possible uses for the site, '.'- Supervisor Murphy said, Before '? ' Planning Board can review any posal, an environmental study quired. "Fort Corchaug is State University of New Stony Brook. "Modern archeologleal ' study and excavation of the site could ~ . TheNewYuail~mes/Sept.l.1988 · give us insight into that period of , history. By examining the remalfi~ ';~,][{l public water or water main near the we can begin tO piece together a~ld~! property, and 'it ,iii uncertain if the . understand the Corchaugs befora'a~ land can suppor~ ~he increased densi- rive European settlement, and '~ '.~.~7.~ ty that would be fiecessary for afford- European infltiencq on the Nat[v~-, able housingeto be built. All residen- ' Americans." , 1616 ~tions, - was one of four Indian forts on the ' preservation of the fort and develop-' rial land in the town is zoned for a E ........ meat of the site ~: m n mum of two acres per lot, and a asr eno oi Long ISlanO that were-:. ' ' , . ,~,~^n~.~ ~.., ~.~o,.~,; ...~. .... ~..~' ~; The Town of, Southold has ex-. -. zoning change would be needed to ~i~d,~,¢~o ~r~,.r .o .............. ~.:=, pressed interest in buying the lhnd,~ increase the dens'ty, she sa'd o h~s own fort. The other forts were on Shelter. Island and in Montauk and Southampton. Of the four, Fort Corchaug is the only one that has not been built on or de- stroyed. The site is "~vlthout peer on the who e At ant c Seaboard,". said Rfilph ~, S. Solecki. a professor' emeritus at;' Columbia Umversity who has gath-::, ered most of the information about the fort. Professor Solecki expressed the hope that the site "will one day be ' protected as ~art of Long Island's ~ cultural heritage." "Our suspicion is that the proslSi~ of trade with Europeans may hav*i altered the organization and behavll~ of the Native Americans," said possibly in conjunction wi~ New "To consider ~at property for al- ' Tu~ano. "We know ve~ little York State or Suffolk County, said fordable housing is 'a fa?fetched' this.period of biscom. ~o a~a Town Superwsor. Franci~ Murphy. proposition," she said. "In a historic never been completely su~ey~, One possibility being considered is to X. site like Fort Corchaug, we'd want to very little is k~o~ a~ut' think twice beforelncreas ng the den- t around the fort' , J use 25 acres for a cluster of afford- airy. - - . There was a great deal able housing on half-acre lots and to There are many other available .major smallpoxepidemic prese~e the majority of the land as tracts of pmmary land on Long Island Turano sald. Some groups wer~:~ historic site and tourist attraction, he that would be more appropriate for solved and absorbed said. "Everybody is in favor of preserv- affordable housing, said William Bax- groups. Each Indian group ma~ the ]and. and everybody is inter-~' ter Jr.,,the owner of the property. He had un ~ue characteristics. ~. ie~ed in affordable housing" Supervi-~ ? said tt dld not make economic sense Professor Soleckt, who, has: sot Murphy said. 9Maybe this is one ''~ to acquire such high-priced water., ered so mu~ of the lfiforma~7~:'i way we can accomplish.a little of , front land for affordable housing. · about the fort Is a form~ everything." . : "~erearemanyenvironmentalI~.:residentofCutchogue, H&~lsit~:~&~ Copies of this Essay, deposited in Jl~ lib ary j ~u~el~ mad lnsl~m~, elmaf~n~ %he Xnd~aa, · mode or l&re ami ~e- s~nnAn~ the p~oeesaes o£ aeoultu~t~on; but ~t La ve~ 1L~e2~y that they baa been subjected ~o aoeUlturat~°n tm aa aborA. reoea)le ~han~ok ~n geneM outline and pa**ewn, yet va~a~Xon8 in *eel~lque or deoo~at~on whieh uus~ be a~ooun~ed The ~probXem ~em:Lves ~,tme]A' &boul tim question, v~u, a~e ~ variations ~n teohn~q~w on & rozeMn ~otte~j' (8han~ok) :Lo. Doemntaa7 OmO aatezlal peflaAn~ns te eaatewn tons XalanA reXat~nS ~e the een,aet pe~od ~, eoul~at~ve3~y seaie~ re~ ~eaoen. atated below. J~Teheelo~toal w~t~! o! eastern X4nS ~atanS show man~ Saps ~n ou~ Imowledllo or the ab. e~4~nal eul~u~al htste,~ betueen the l~z~e4o ot' ~ho oYm~e orient feeu (R~tehie, 1044, ~. n?.L~S), Mm ear.res, ~nou culture, ~o tho ~m~nmett f~nds (sa~SAIo. lO,O), tho :2~teot eulture, dating fwott tho latte~ pe~rt er the l?th e~ntuT to · ivey ~awt e~ tho lO~b There ~o no doubt tM$ tM ~, Oenttderable stress uso IAMe4 on fao fer~Lf~eat~en feat~ve er Coreha~ fMr~, bee.uae a oeaz~th throufA azeheo. aerial ~e these authors were qule~ %o la~e advaaMe er a~, na,~mul m~a~efAO ~eemAe. ~ reu foflL~tea*~onm ~ave been remmi u~on allSM eXevs~on8 In ~ ~ ~ ~m, ,~ ~o~m we~ ia m ~me I mpm~m e~ ~unn&n~ s~mem, oa~ev~ym open~nf ~owa~l ~heae ~G~t eoab~4 ~I~ o~ ~ a~e f~uzo8, wish bXoeM ~u~a e~ gi~ version does ~ fi~ ~ o~ ~oe ~erl~$io~, ye~ $~ t~ late ~e~A~ was ~~ ~ ~l~eo. ~e t~ ~. ~ rot a Mre or leas s~-~~ re~e ~ de~eMe ~e t~ f~. ze~ (~, ~, 0~), one of She d~en~ e~ oJ~ defe~ve wo~. eeS~,e, t~l 1~ wm lime ~ With few exee)t~en~, all t~ hat,yea ~o~ in t~ teen f~*. C~aAn ~ cafll~ (~t, p, 4~) ~' eb~ w~eh ~es ~oz a fo~at~a o~ *~ wo~. ~7 bn' ~e fo~ai~n, t~ u~er e~a of v~h ~o. ~ o~ ~ ~' ~ ~ul, zm dewn ~ *~ee feel aeep w~lh -~e~, t~ e~ be~ oas~ up fez t~z bellez ~XI~ ~n~ ~ e~,o dia. A ~eatu~e o~ abe~LtneA ~'ox, tm not, often, mt~emml. &m wMa *~F ~e ~oe or ~ ~as ap~ ~ f~ on ~ ~nt~em, we ~e ~m ~d for psstlme than ~o eonque~ and su~lue theLT emmdes,' hLll, le~S, pp, 40-AI)o Lonf lnlani, beeauoe of &to neasnee8 le the ~ai!%ell auntie- aentm in Conneet&e~t, suffered ~asu~e~ona k)' tM lattez. ad~e&a&nf, warn ~mowm to the mrteh %wade~m as m~om~eum, e~ "0~ saoue", oz -o%eoke~ d&a4Z~0t" oz "eouatrl' (~o%; :~oem.: card%new, m ~ mmml Sleek %a%mmd nounS, Th~ Du~Wdt, lo~ befeze the Zmg, lA,,~ eettled thAm ~ef~on ~n 1~40, ,lemi~ b' ~sl u faAz and feztile. The Du~eh zeeof~Ltsed that the &weatez pa~ the wu~u warn made lxe~e wl~Leh eould be .mml fez fu~ e~m. e~me. X&enhovea (~eX. ~eom., To:L:, X; p, S6U) la :~0 coAXed In th]Lm low, ~Kparat&vely flat terA~Lt~e bwokon onl~ ~. ~) w~te. ~ ~e were de~. b~, wo~em, 2~lstz,ons Of ,~nfi Island !ndi~n, s ,,to Corelli, oUt ,and, The l~diaas of eaete~n Lo~ laXami were In a gen- e~ w~ ~re elo ~ related So t~ muS~zn ~e~ps ef l~iane tn aaterial a~ ~a~aSe~i~ e~S~e ie ~ western X~la~. .~ek (192~, p. 210) ~lea l~l~7 of v~us ~s~e~ ~l~a~ ~u~ ~o t~ ea~n t~ l~uqe b~ore l* oould be reoo~ed ~ deSa~. ll~uis~o data ~ta~ ~ ~w t~ o~nm of ~ttO of ~de l~ a~ t~ ~heg~q~tn of The souPCon ~ ~ die.ilo g~up ~to~s a~me. t~t nuet~ ute ~ ~e ~o~ ~elat~ ~ oz~l mubza ~ 3~ a~z~nes ~b- ~ t~ nut~zn bowel of the Mze ~lve a~ ~e o~, er ~r~ In ,~ ~e ~wn re~n er ~b up~r ~n- e~. o~ t~ neon ~ut~ea~ ~ut. te an eaot~n ~n~etSeut at & late~ date, ~z~be was ]mesenteA reo el3'e~e", ' AO) zelales out oon~e~wa~ou v~th o,he~ ~han ~Aee~nf ~e~eren°es ~o be feuml La ~he lovnoh~p o ~eubld wu aXso ltnoun at 'Tenn~eo1'. and wH nonAROXIj, o, 1902. pp. 19 ~ appr ehens ion · History on the eastern end of Lon~ IsLand with the Dutoh in the X~20,s, wh~ were aware of the of wa~p~a in the fu~ trade. TheF-eonsidered th~e ~=t their do~aLn, but it was too far ~o oontx~l f~om ~ew ~ste~d~a effeetivel~, and they never made am attempt to oolonl~e, ~ ~ token, t~ p~i~ o~ fe~ ~u~ fo~ the ~lt~ o~wn i~lude ~ Z~a~ a~ the islam ~e~ ~r~y to ~es ~a~e~ to disuse ~k a ~e of wttlew~ ~ l~ at ~ut~to~ T~ ~ ~ ~e~ded Xn ~araX ~t~ee, p~, ~O0~Ol), ~n ~ death o~ 20 Thus ~t c~e a~ut t~t ~st of the de~i~s of t~ the c~ntr~t bad dlffferent ideas as to its nature. ~hare~n th~ ~G, ~e~t~ps ~ ho~es of t~ of the ~c~ a~ t~bes ~e 1~. Z~dent~ s~h as t~ aedi~ of ~olm~e, a~ spec~c ~oation~ l~es, forts, ~ ~s~e~ea, i~l~i~ relat~ ~ve~ to~, w~ were cat~ls for 1~ loo~ tow~. w~e the resole we~ not co~eiV~ aa at~gra~e ~e~e, co.erst aa the oo~nl~a were t~ own affairs, yei tha~ ~e son.ant xe~e~z writes about t~ ~tive l~l~. The l~lan was ~t ~ti- a~ o~ a~ut, exaep~ d~ ~ea a~ I~l w~n ent d~e~ fo~ h~ to ~h fore of t~ oolonisto, attent~n. ~e e~ ~ttXers ~ one stash f~e~ ~ Z~, ~a~a~, ~ of t~ ~onta~s, w~ was a fr%end of LA~n Gardener. ~oth watched every z~ An X~lan feeXA~ ~ ~liey om ~ l~a~. ~ ~t~neaa ~ t~le to tb ~ttle~. '~e~e it ~t fo~ t~ ~te~em~on of coXo~zt8, tBe~ ~ouXd ~e been wi~ ou~ ~n t~ ear~ ye~m. ~E~l%~ ~ tr~ad to effeot a f~ re~ ao~b~nat~n to ove~e~ t~, He ~e f~equent tripe to Monta~ ~o dire~t~ to tb w~r~ora w~n ~amch was ~hsenq. 16~8, pp. 140~). T~e plot, as we~ as a late~ one, ~foiled by t~ Montauk ~eh~, ~ e~s of t~ eade~n t~ibe~ must have become ~re de~ent on t~ E~l~, two ye~a latex, they Dut t~lves ~der the ~ntwol of ~ited Colonies ro~ oounaeX ami ~*oteet~on z~ian oonspi~a~, b~ause In X640 ~u*~p*on l~deaAed ~ la~e~. (~, XO18, were a~n aXez~ a~ a~e X$ was t~ ~g~atueu~ ~n 16~, ~~ was n~ ~Fq~oe~o, beech he ~us. to ooo~a~e ~o ~e B~ (~m, ~b~., p. 6~). tion of ~ oolon~810 or beth ~e8 ex*rme~ ausptolons of ~ ]~Xtah raze ~t w~X~ ~o~ beoauoe ~u~e~nt was eeoze*~ ~V~d Z~ ~d begtn ~at~tttlm (Col. ~em., Vol. ~, p, 186). ~ hptons ~ept flz~atly ~efl, as t~ z~Z ~ed ~o~ qatn t~t tb Z~t~s weze for u ,~ -rd q~t H~et to ~e ~ ~wn ut~ free of ~ f~ as tt ts ~wn. ~ut~nv~ tb o~ ~t- tXe~ t~t wan att~kM. ~ ~wez of tb ea~e~n ~ deo~ned In ~ s~o~ ~ of d~, e~ef or tb ~nta~8, died ~ ~i~n ~n 1~9 (Baylea, 1874, p. 4~3). ~o tribe, us ~ to a* leao~ one t~ or ~,o or~l~ nmber b7 t~ 24 X88). TheTe was a ~ X~ ~ ~ X~an ~u~Xes on eonsp~my ~ upris~, but ~y we~ decca ~e ~iez Xnd~ans ~ the~ a~ zesto~ to t~ ~ t~ ~l~, 1~ mept~n or the Mont~ ~ ~~to, w~ ~ ~en the w~e ~ we~ ~o de~e~ ~oelves. (Col. ~o~., Vol. xlV, pp. 69~93, ~98.700). ~u towed ~ o~ o~ t~ l?tk oent~, ~ In- diana, fo~t~eo were on tb dow~d tre~, T~ were ney ~roubles e~d ~ v~et~, It ~o ~up~s~ t~t an epid~o ~ ~wn ~oes p~a~led a f~ ye~8 p~r to din~ (1841) wT~te8 t~ d~ t~ ye~8 1658~859 ~ d~lo p~evailed ~ b l~lan8 on ~M X~a~ w~eh ~ed~ the native Indian population b~ nearly two th.ti'de. Denton but few Xndiane left on the island. A~oordin~ to his obserYa. teens, where th~e hod been six towns, there were left sualX villages. Denton sagely reau~vked, ' .. it hath bees generally observed, that where the ~nflish ease ~o settle, ~lvine Hand makes way for them, by removir~ or outtir~ of~ thei Indians, elth~ by ware one with the othe~, or by some mortiX Disease.' ~nton (ib~., p, ~) ~l~ l~s re~nl~ we~e '~ ways h~tf~ but ra~he~ to the ~nglish', a s~atement fTom whloh we may islet that the ~nd~ane may have beooue dependent on the Eug~iJx. This ia a eXue to the fate of Lo~ l&lazd'e ori~tnaX L,~abitintL The ]astezm Lena l sXan~, One of ~he ea~lAes~ referermee 1~ ~s fou~ in ~n~op,. ~ou~ (~n~, p. 1~) wherein ~ ~ites for Oo~bez 2, l~ t~t t~ tek, the ~eso~-, ~ ~en oyez to t~ silica ~re ~e a very tzeae~e~ul 't~y ~ s~o~e of Ih bell w~pe~, Tb X~ani of eastern ~ l~ ~e fzeque~ as ~n ~n ~,to~le t~s. windup (ibid.) nen$~o~ s o~e of oonoiderable leah us~ by ~nneooe~ Xnd~an, ~wedo~ (W~*~en) a~e~ wXth fo~ ~ l~la~ before t~ ~lreoto~ 1~ a~ FoF* mterdm In 1~5 ~ offe~ ~o .e~oeo qa~t 2G the "'no~the:~n" Znd~tnn, who .~e~e e.t m~' w-t't,~ She Du'~oh (;.{ed~es, X~,O0, ~. 4,0). The assi~tenae gl, Yen by ~y&ndanah has ~ar:r:l.o~,s h~s 'been nmntione4, The £ouz easter's Lon~ Z~and t:e:l.~es a~e ~e'fe~ed b~ Teoker (188g, ~p. 2) as a ,,abnfe4eraeT# o~' ~fedezat~.on". They were governed by fou~ b~oth~,, who; uere the sachems the fou~ twtbem. The;~ ,eze PoggatuauS ef the M~anh&nlettl, V;yandaneh of She Kontauke, ~owedonoA of ~aAnneooek, and wetah of the Cozoheuge, TILe eldest brothe~, ~7o~Gatueut, was butss, or 'oontributi~i~' am Lonf Island wal vaX'iousl~ oalXed. the ~ted ¢ommAss~one~ of ~z~lAsh oo~8 at H~tto~ v~ue Sines. ~atuo~ was tb ~ o~u of l~ ~ ~m been e~l~ ~e~" (~d~l, p, 851). fe~ meh~a took u~e~ t~r ~o~ee~lem ~ t~ ot~r tzlbes on ~ l~ ~a 1~5, on fa~ wen~ al t~ U~be, ~n whe~ ~o ~w ~wa as xempste~, ~ l~a~. vl~qeo of ~eo~e, ~eeatofue, .~e~auket8, a~ ~e a~so mentionS, ~ ear~ settlers of tb ves~e~ eaate~ neat of o~oftaL~ to ob~ t~ s~n ~u~ o~ ~uMn~k to t~ deeds La o. rde~ l~t ~7 be ~e~ Tooke~ (1911, p, 57) red.tee t~t or fires, t~ fou~ trZbee of t~ e astern fede~t~on co~d bro~ht to~et~ In a ~tter of ~u~. o~e a~ Cutc~gue, t~e ~et to t~ I~1~, a~ the~ ~oss the b~ ~o t~ ~omta~ on i~ila. ~ reeo~ was fo~ of ~t~ p~tiee, ~t~ ~t~d ia plausible ~ like~. G~e~ (1~8. ~. 142~A~) in ~s "N~zatiVe" cZtel t~ use of n~t ~r~ansetta over lo~ dt~ta~e~ These fo~ tribes ~ their e~ s~ative sach~ at fo~t~ed v~ll~lm, w~ contem~ra~ ~eeo~m. ~t~ ~ra t~n giwen to t~e sZ~es a~ loea$io~, The These eonteupora~ etz~e (m%~a X6Ae) ~ n~e% been ~eq~te~ %e~ed ~a. O~ t~ fe~ re%tm, ~e been de~, (~n~ a~ ~~), ~ one %w ~ be fou~ (Hm~t~). ~r~ ~e~ ~. de~fl~ here, 28 The ~anhansett fe~t was supposed to have been looat- e~ on ~'s ~e~ om the sout~ ~de of ~eXt~ X~a~ op~- a~k~e place" (~oker, 1888).- Tho site is ~t ~wn. the~e at t~ ti~ of dis~ove~ (~les, 1874~ Dp. 39A~95). T~maa F~ret ohtain~ ~s X~ian title land fix-om the M~nh,ansatt ~ehem, Unc~enchie), who was alSo gz;.md :).888). .,-~ggatueut (a.lso called sachem o~ 2mumanaaJ~ (Tooker, At ~hinneoook, haXfea~ between southampton ~n~k ~ls was located a fo=% a~ut w~eh thews la lit- tle /~omation. It is ment~n~ In l~ de~s of t~s foTt r~d to ~s k~vl~ge. In a of t~s ~ion in 1946, Car~e ~th ~ t~ w~t~ ~veet~- gaqed a ~ll~op, eall~ 'for~ h~l' there. ~ort~q~, t~re ~s a laFge dwell~ on tb ~ll at ~esea~, at~tion of w~oh ap~ent~ obXi~e~at~ ~ ~aee abow~- gl~ ~de~e of ooeupa~n, ~s region is a ~l oou~, over~ok~ ~th t~ Ascribe ~ a~ ~he A*lan- t~e 0senn. It ~8 a batten, treeless ~ w~ept The stronghold of Wyandanoh, saohen of the Hontauks~l on %he %op of %~ h~ll %0 th~ e~st of For~ ~. T~ ~11~ by %~ Indians the '~ ~-, %o whXoh 2h~ ~ f~ %~ olde~ one ne~ the foo~ of ~ini~ ~I1~. Tooke~ (18~) ~nks %~% ~ n~e ~onta~ Is the de~riptive appel. latien of the p~ineip~ dwellt~ plsce, the '~eant~ut ~gh- 1~", as tt Is ealled in sn I~lan de~ of 1~8. The fort t~ vl~bXe outline, o~e~y, oo~ ~l~,~ deeo~lp. t~n In ~8 'C~onloles' (1~1). ~ fo~ ~ outlines ~ be a '~rfeet s~u~e- of 180 f~. The width of IhS was ~ fee$ a~ t~ ~h* was o~ a~ one~lf feet. Tooke~ fou~ no l~eations of oons$~e~loas (~we~ ~ ~) as Mnt~ ~ ~d~ne~ (ibrd). ~e sl*e h~ ~ewy appea~. ams or ~he r~ins of a ~is~ed ~olo ~e, with an euba~- menS, ~ges*~ tha~ the e~h h~ been ~p~ ~a~s$ p~ls~es. ~e entree ~$ sloss ~o the ~ut~ast a~. The ves~ front was at the ~w~e edge of the ~ w~re ~t ~o~a abFuptly down to the ~, In the interior of slope wewe ~ue fow~y ~aves, ~eportedly ~l~, eaoh ~Fk~ ~ eobble s~uee. Om the out.de a~ in olose p~ty were ~en ~we graves, w~le on ~he rela~Xve~ easy ~ll slope ~0 dr~ a~ t~Zl~.8~ b~, 0~ of ~he gz&~es ~ne~de fort w~8 m~ 'L827~,R...- Tooke~ d~d ~1 qu~ the Xn one of *b refuee hea~, Ne fo~ ~ old ~uty fo~ also V~o~t~ by ~ (~9~8, p. large hoSeX lo s~t~ a~u* where ~ ~ bee~ gl~ ~lde~e oecd be fo~ ne~by ~n a ~r~ ~th a~ the wzX*ez ~n 1947. t~ fort, but ~t ~s ~wn t~t tbze were a ~zd ~rea~ the western extreuity of the ~ontau~ douatn, aeoordtn~ to oardiner (1841, p, 38), stood an Indian fort near a pond called -2ua~n~owunk- by the nattvem ami ~reeJt l~nd by the ~n~ltsh. Xt had already fallen into deoay at tire time of the wngltsh settl~ent. ~o traoe of tbAs fort had been found tn a reoent $l survey (1947) of the ama by matth and the writeF. The set. tl~ of the looe~le is Ln den~ bzus~ a~ ~rub o~s, In a oou- ~rative~ deserte~ sec~n of ~ l~a~ ne~ the ~llo (~m~niok ~lls). Corah a The Oorcbau~a i~habite~ a large territory a.lo~ the on the west to Orient ~n~ on ~he ~at. Toekew (I~X1, p. ~ys t~ t~ n~e Core~ ~s deriv~ f~ ~Ee~uke', me~- i~ the greatest o~ p~i~i~ ~e, a ref~e for t~ womea a~ o~ldren of t~a tribe. Thexe a~e at least ~rteea dif. ferent ways of s~lll~ the n~e, 0~1~ ~n t~ p~eeeml 'Cure.gus', in t~e reoo~e dati~ b~k ~ l~. V~ia~lonl ~e &~mt ~recog~zabXe, suoh am t~ Dutoh ~l iok', of w~eh we ~ve first ~eeo~. ~t i~xequent~, ~s of X~lan tribes would be s~ll~ ~er~ d~fermt on the s~e p~e ~ e~ ~ reco~e were kept by ~ e~Xy ~ttle~B of ~ut~ld town, w~ch lnol~ea Out~gue, before i~X, beeauBe t~s ~own orally ~ its seat Ln ~ew ~ven, a~ was auto.taus (~ H~em gave ~ut~ its o~te~ in region is less well doo~en~ed ~n ~t of the sia~ of ,~ut~pton a~ ~aat~p~ on t~ south a~e. ~eaen~ In the r~o~e of t~se tow~ ~ ~te~l~ relatl~ coxehauga. ~y tnfezenoe, we ul~ht suppose that the of tho Indian l~PUl~$Xon with th~ oolonizto al tho Hamptone held 8~mlla~ly at sou~hold. one of the f~st reforen~eo ~o tho ~ of Co~- ohau~ and ~t. brothon, also t~.'oaX saeheud, ~deed dated Ap~IX X~48 (~ast~aapton, ~. l., Reoonlo, ~SV, VoX. e~ as l~. ~oe~l~ ~m was ~e~, w~ w~ ment~n~ In a deed ~n 16~ (~u~ld ~wn Re~a, tle~s ~e, as eXs~hore, f~st ~e i~o by b~i~ ~usef orlSle~ lair ~blu ~n t~ 17~ a~ lS~h oent~leo (;effez- mn, 1040, p. 25). T~o, ~ doubt, ~ a dl~pt~ effeo~ on ~ estates ~e a~ilabXe of lhe nmbew of ~F- d~os, ooupled with t~l~ w~s wi~ t~ ~ue~ ~i~ nuubew8 ~n~derab~. The e~d~o of T ~3 wlLtoh 8trut~k down the uontauko, roue1 have arrested their lat:J, on alsoo In 1698, tho Indian popu~-ation at ~ l~st~ as forty I~8 '~ ~ old' (O'C~l~n, 1849, Vol. Io P, 673), One of the last ~oro~ ~l~es d~an ~k, ~ul~. T~ Coro~ fort was deeezted ~oz to I~an ~ok was lo~ ~o th~ ~, becau~ ~t la8 t~ln open ~a~* dated ~7~ was fo~d~ to C~w~l~er colden by I~hns at ~ut~, des~Z~ est~aO*~on for, or ~he reoov. e~ of, t~r 1~8. The~ la~ ~ s~m. on q~t rese~vat~n (0'C~l~n, 1~90 Vol. Ill, ppe ~ve~ Wint~op' s b~k, t~ uBleogl~- via~ t~ Ooro~ for~ in 1~3. ~s YarTe$, on one of ~s ~ex~ viaito, aeTtai~ vizit~ the ~te la 1639. J~eg ~o~ caee, ~u~ ~wn r~e~, mentions ~n to~y ~te ~ the f~s* Httlews (ol~a 1~0) of ~wn ~ fo~ a '8~ook~e fo~t' on the east ~de of Yo~t He~ (~u~ld Town, L. l., Reoo~o, 1~2, Vol. X, ~. l~0~l). T~ ~toh were al~ oerU~ f~ll~ wl~h t~ foz$. ~re- t~y Corne~8 v~ Tie.Yen of N~ ~8~erdm, ~i~ to ~ers~ t~ ~t~ve l~ of the X~, was ~n~ *o ~opAtiate ~we~a at ~ro~ in 1~7, when le~ t~t Miantouu of *he ~rq~setts was e~eav~r~ ~o ~te t~ eastern X~ians ~ains~ ~e ~ll~ a~ DutY. ~4 Tien~oven was to report whether or not t~ eastern Indians were involved in a oonspL~ae~ ~ainst the settlers, as sus- p~t~ by t~ ~lsh (Ool. ~os., VoX. X, ~. ~). ~weta was ap~ently a ~we~f~ fig~e. A ~te in ~he ~ut~Xd town ~eo~s g~ves a fleetl~ r~ere~e In 1862 to the fort zl~e by a reeo~ of t~ s~e of l~ "~e ~rth of Fo~e ~ bou~t f~ t~ C~wa~ ~o t~ ,~i~ over ~n~ where t~ fort d~d st~" (~ut~ld ~wa Re~, 1882~ VoX, X. LLbe~ A, p. ~ ~tu~ use of t~ fort for ~r~aes of d.efe~e can be fo~ In the Xiterat~e. ~r~ ~ok contorts a~ut 200 ~ree of o~loe fa~ was divested of wood a~ ~o~F for ~d~ate t~qe, Znd~ans were ~n t~ ~b~t of buzn~ over t~ woods *o *~ bzus~ ~ t~ l~ dest~bXe. Case, *~ town ~e~r in t~ ~60ea, ~esen~s ~he 8~te of ~ Oow- ~de of t~ nook, on a deoliv~ty ~op~ ~ow~o q~ o~eek, a~ o~~ by a f~ ~r~ of ~e wate~ w~eh ~oln on ~re 3uK a~ve h~h wa~ez ~' (Mut~14 ~wn ~, voX. X, pp. ~2o~). ~. Case follow. ~ outlines of t~ fow~ with ~. ~ ~w~, ~ti~ t~t 't~ Xtnes or mt~lX ~ be tr~~. A ~ of t~ ~a~ntm subm~- tiates sux. vey~r Oase,a estimate of the area of the encloeore as t~ee-quartere of aa acre. In an lnte~ with ~. ~o~ ~. ~w~8 (1947), le~ t~t ~o gra~fathe~, u~ o~e to For~ ~ek ~n 1805, ~ told his t~t thews T~s e~tway has been lm ~ ~t~aat eo~ of the ~ell- (~late Ill, ~y Case as ~ ~eavation of eons~derable dep~ (~u~ Town Reoo~s, 1882, Vol. X, p. 121). Mr. 7o~ ~ could ~me~e~, t~ ~rth w~l of the fo~t us the moat ~ai~y visible. F~lorat:Lon of Fort Co~.a~ The fort site is ~Ltuated on the DOWNS faro, on the east side of Fort ~eak, next to DOwn= creek, between Route 25 and Old ~uth Road, one-half nile west of the village of Cutohogue in suffolk county, L. I. It is about 2,000 feet north of ~oonio Bay, In a new dense growth of b~uah and trees, between the Downs fans road a~d the crook (21ate Z, The fort wells are oriented nearl~ noFth and 8ou~, and east and west in oblong outXino. The walls ate 210 feet long north and south, and 160 feet Xong east and west. The area enoXosad i8 oxeye to three.4uarters of an aero, There are fres~ water springs rising above the bASh tide level at I /i several points on the baxLk of the oreck below the foFt. s~te lm about 11 feet above the ,reek at asia asa level. There is a bread deolivity through the east wall down to the oreek. Meet of the embankment swound the fort wan t~eable at the time (1937) the brush was olea~e~ o~f. ~he we,~erA half of the north wall was relatively ,met distinct. The baakment is on aa avernge about 15 feet wlAe. and about II feet h~ at the highest l~lnt on the noflh wall. ~everal elongate and ~hallow depressions parallel the areund the fort. These were p~obabX~ the ber~w d~tohee f~a whiol~ the earth was taken to pile a~a~ast the palAaade pOStS, is undoubtedly the feature dee~ribed by Casa and Dowus (above) The "old oartwaye" is a shallow path stiX1 traaeable running from the northJest oorner of the fort through the m~ddle of ~? With the exception of some ooo&sion~ assista~os by a~ Clifford ~a~, all of t~ ~ey eo~ ~as ~t~ by the writer a~ne. T~ t~e ~nt'on ,~ty.~en r~o~ visits to t~ site was be~een two ~ e~ht oF ~ne ~u~. a d~. T~ fiFst exploration of tb site b~ o~ Ap211 ~, 19~6 ~ t~ last was done on ~ ~, 1948, T~ hmus sever La rat~ t~n a~ ~y, o~ about two i~8 Ln t~ok~sl at ~b Mat, ~Tt~ate~, t~8 ~ea ~ n~er been ~o~d o~ d~sturb~, o~le ~l ~e features wo~d ~ve been Mm~t obliterated a~ Mz~ps ~- a~u~ the fort waXXa, oeou~lo~ debt,a, ~ b~oken ~ella, eo~d be ~en. f~vel tests well w~a ~e ~te~r of t~ fort dt~m~ no a~en~ e~ of ooou~, ~- was fo~ ~Lnte~ to tb ~th of Cor~ fo~t, but · ~ ~fuse de~stt ~m~ o~ .~1~0 was fo~ o~H ~ t~ he~ of ~wno Creek (A~ ~, X937, ~tem) on m ltttle ~11, T~ a~ea ~ the southof tb for~ down to t~ b~ tm st~n with evide~o o~ a~z~l ooQ~, ~i~t~ly ~ellf~sh r~. T~re ~ ben ~o ~est~a~ws w~ ~ ~e ~ were a ~. ~b~tt, ~ Mz. C~.e, ~. Godd~ of eaflezn ~a~. Mz. ~buzti8 ~ t~n~ oyez ~o s~l ~low ~elX de~s~to (~ate XXX, ~. ~, Y), a~u* twelve ~eet in a ooup~o rode ~u~ of tb ~utMn for~ w~. ~F. 8odd~d h~ m~e a~ exeavat~o~ ~d~atel7 ~J~en~ ~o tho de.eaton on q~ m~t~ast oor~r (~ate Ill, Fig. 5, of t~ ~r~oan I~, Keys Fou~at~on. ~yer~ F~m a~ body ~ t~ ool~eoe~on. ~ x~ords ored~t t~se ~s *o T~ee ~le H~r, ~r~h of ~ast~p~on, hu~ t~2 are the fozl. ~r. Godda~d ~8 l~t he fou~ o~e ~8qo~ble rel- iC, ~e u~erlal il ~n s~e ~ u~v~labXe fo~ stay at presen~ (~Fm~l ~oa~lon). Heather of these gentl~u h~e publl~d t~i~ f~l~o relative to the Co~ for~. The fort sl~e was m~ at ~eF~ ~n~s with ~1 test ~oavat~o~. To get M~ data o~ ~ ~t~e of t~ fortifioation. ~he wa~o were *~d ~oa the~F widt~ to *he de,seaSons on eitb~ aide. At ~er~ aa in ~ mu~heaot ooF~ of the foTt, MFS ex,essAYs were n~e. In t~ lat*e~ ~e~, t~ ~e~w~ fu8 (for ~o- files), a~ b~l ~t~d of ~e~a~ion was usd. T~ ~p- 39 s~il was re~oved prior to the inspeotion of the ocoup~tton~l ~tratumo Representative Profiles were receded a~ regula~ in. ~e~als of the trenoh faoe (~ati~n D, E). ~e a n~ feature ap~ed in a fzesh CU~, It was $~en ~e of a~ draw~ In profile and locst~ on a ~[~nt~ pla~. ~ ~olal of 49 pzof~le section dr~i~l were ~e of the test trenohee a~ excavations at Oorc~ug. ~Xthou~B open horl~mnta~lX3~ exposed features wo~ld h~ve Been better, thic method wouXd not have been praetieable. Horizontal excavation was attempted on soy. eral oeeasione but the features were lees distinot th3n whea viewed in profile. ~ h~lf-inoh screen was used to sift the earth whioh was eomDosld of loose ~ ea~d7 egll. The F~oavations (Plate Ill, Fig. 5) A. ~xcavation ma~e by (~s~*les F. Godda~d. able. data ~ avail. ~. This was a test treaeh, 45 feet loag, 9 feet wide amd 10 lnohes deep. Xt wa. a little t~o f~ west to lnel~e the ~1~ ~e w~l. Midden refu~ lnel~ed ~t~e~, debzi. goods. Of in~ezea~, wan the ~aw~ne of a ~rse fo~ ~ jthe Indian A ~all ~toh of sheba was tested on the ~uih b~ of 'the deolevity outside the east fort wall, The exeavatioa mea. outed ~-2 feet long amd X3 feet wide. The deposit, aZ= in. hee 40 deep, consisted of dark earth ml~ed with ~ell fragments. Wampum refu~e and Potsherds were found among the aboriginal m~terial. Colonial artifacts, including trade pipes and bits of brown glazed crockery were also found, sturgeon bones, bird bones and mammal bones repre'eented part of the food sup- ply · D. This test trench, §0 feet long amd 11 feet wide, yielded acme interesting data on the palisade ditch, in addition bo the specimens recovered, A storage pit, the only one found in the survey, was found in the northwest eorner of the ex- cavation. It was four feet deep amd three feet in diameter with straight sides and a flat bottom. The ~hantok '~essel (21ate V, Fig. 2) was found in this pit, the contents of which eonsisted, principally, of dark ml.~ed earth and some shellfi ah remains. The parallel ditches fcra double palisade were found cutting diagonally into the eastern section of the trench. A representative out is shown in the px~flle for Teat Trench No. 4 (~Aate II, Fl~. 9). The inner dlteh was deeper amd larger than the outside ditch and had a definite elope to the east. ~ organic remains or evtdemee of the posts could be found in the ditches, but the de~aroaticn cf the dark earth could be distingut~d pXain~ in th~ sterile yellow sand. The contents of the ditch proper was dark earth with an occasional shellfish fragment and a bit of charcoal. ,i There were two s~allow depressions on the surface paralleling both ditches on the inside and outside of the embankment. The refuse material found In F. xoavatlon D consisted of black earth mlxed with shells, broken amd ora~ked stones, animal bones and aboriginal amf Colonial material. A portion of a typical ~hantok vessel (l~late V, Fig. 1) was found in this trench. ~.. In order to ascertain the sub.surface features of a corner of the fort, a test (Excavation E, Plate II, Fig. 4) wac ma~e at the southeast corner. The embamk~ent was difficult to trace from surface indications, amd an initial test trench was necessary for location bearings. This initial test was en- larged and included in the excavatio~, which measured 28 feet long and 18 feet wide. Included among the features e~a~lned were eight psat molds, an elongate shallow pit, possibly used as a borrow pit, a firebed, and a compleX syste~ of multiple trenches, certain of which were discontinuous. These palieede! ditches evidently formed a part of the southeast corner of thei fort, and were presumably discontinuous in order te form the system of baffle entrances in vogue with the New S~gla~ In- diane of this period. The small firebed, two feet in diameter and two inches tn thickness, lay be~een the ~o sets of trenches as shown. The poet molds within the palisade ditches of the fort proper did not seem to follow any pattern in the limited area excavated. They were strung out over a dietauoe 42 of eight feet. The largest post mold was s~x inches in dis- ~meter and intruded eight inches into undisturbed soil while the smallest measured one and one-half inches and intruded four inches into undisturbed soil. Test Trench No. 7 (21ate Il, Fig. ~) shows a repre- sen~ative cut across Excavation E from north to south (Plate ilII, Fig. 5). The ditches were about an average of two feet !in depth and one foot wide at the top, taperZu~ to seven inches !toward the bottom. Aa with the other ditches or trenches, its contents were a dark stained sandy earth nixture which was the dlstingulehin~ character, with occasional flecks of charcoal, bits of clam shells, potsherds, and similar m~alX artifaote iooouring in th~ fill. The significance of tho multiple pall. ·ade ditoheo is disouseed below. IF. This exoava~lom was mfLde by Mr. Alburtio, of whose finds ;nothing is known, ~ave for the apparently roleX&belled ~ntok i sherds in the Museua of the Auerisan Xndian, Heys Foundation. iFeatures l~ ~ Two feature8 (plate Ill, Fig. 5, Fl, F2) were found well outside of the south wall of the fort. They are shown in horixontaX and vertical sections on Plate IX (Fig. X, Fig. They were marked by shallow depressions in lrreguXa~ ovoid ,~shapos approximately eight feet In diamete~. Six post molds and one fireplace was found in Feature l. FouF of the eualler post molds averaged tlLTee inches in diameter at the top, taper. lng toward thc bottom at an average depth of five inches from the general level of the sl~allow depression. The two larger molds in the aa~e feature measured eight inches across the topi diameter, and extended seven inches into the sub.soil, taper. lng somewhat toward the bottom. The latter features may not necessarily have been p~st ~olds. ~ evidence of m~lds was .found on the eastern side of the feature. Feature 2 contained i seven poet e.~lde, of which three were questionable, because !the lines of de~arcation were not clear cut. The mlds aver. aged three inches in dl~eter a~d eL laches in depth. The floor of the depression for this feature, as with Feature 1 above, averaged eight inehes in depth. A s~all pit ten inches in diameter amd twelve inches deep ocouxred on th~ northern side. The pit contained a compact deposiq of dark earth a~d broken, shells. ~oth features ooatained a gemeral mA~ture of dark eaxth and shellfia~ re.alas, The post m~lds do net seem to be in any particular arrangement. So molds were found outside the periphery of the features, with the exception of one mold outside the western b~rder of Feature 2. ~o firebed was pre. sent in Feature 2. These two features may be the re~ains of round ab. ~ original houses, each as were oe~-~n in the New ~mgland area, . although the archeologloal evidence is not as complete as might be desired. It ia possible that there had been shallow. 44 set pests on the peripheries of the features which could not be discovered. As noted, the firsbed in Feature 1 is not cen- tered, ~arrington (1924, pp. 2~8-~39) found two wigwa~ sites at the ~ebonao site, the descriptions of wbAeh tally with these features in part. The floors of these habitationl were · unk about two feet below the surrou~ding ~rfaoe of the ground in an oval of stained earth mealuzl~ l§z20 a,~ lOxl§ feet, At least one member of the Corohau~ tribe lived in a wigwaa type dwelli~ set In a de~ee~i9n at X~lan ~eek, ~u$~ld, In the ~ly ~t of ~ ~th ~em~ (~ut~ T~wn ~Reoo~l, 18~, Vol, II, p. 535). ~ia~e Dito,~e F~teen ~e.~ tre~m w~e d~ a~ v~us ~ln~s of the fo~ w~18 of the fortlfioailon (~ate III, ~. ~) In der ~ detemine a~ appraise t~ ~iu~e of the ~l~e-fca. iu~e. O~en Jest treneh profiles a~e llluel~at~ la ~ate II, F~. ~. T~ p~is~e w~l diio~ exte~ in$o the yellow an ave~qe of one foot 8i~ inches, ~d ave~qe one foot wide ai the top, laperl~ iow~d t~ botiom. The f~l depth f~m t~ se~r~ surface level to t~ bot~m of the diio~m aver. qem t~ feet. The exo~ation8 ~e~ t~t there warn ~ ~lfo~iqy in l~ dept~, Xe~t~, o~ xelation~p of the bot. row piti or ditohes to the earth emba~ment. aeriel of five teat troches was du~ bt 2he scuth. I. west corner of the fort (~late III, Fig. 5) in ozdez to deter. mine whether a moltiple.pali~s ditoh s~s~ assuaged ~e~e at ~o~ation ] O~ate Il, Fig. 4). The excavations s~wed sidle p~is~e wall approach to the oo~er from t~ ~rth eae~ aides (~ate II, Fig, ~, T.T. No. 2, T.T. ~. ~). corner, l~la~ ~st ~lds evlde~e the probability of re. enforceaent of the p~ls~e structure. Multiple p~i~de fea- tures, as at the ~u~eas~ oozner, did not appear ia the ~renohee. ~ o~e In ~he d~toh eys~ were fou~ rep~e. sent~ entranee ~a~es. ~t~h a ~aroh oyez the t~ section ~ht bzi~ more details to l~t, the treno~n ~cavated t~re i~ieate a simple ~d unbroken ~is~e O0~e The west side seems to ~ve ~ a al~e nw~l, which apparently 8lo~d outwa~ as i~icat~ by tb .~lds of reft Tre~h ~. ~ and Tes~ TreMh ~. 2 (~a~e jF~g. 3~. Oocupa*~on refuse wa8 fo~ on t~ i~er s~de of :w~l ~n ~he low ar~, w~oh vezy llke~ ~ been t~ bor~v p~ for the earth embankment a~ound the palisade wall there. ~lmilarly, a single palisade ditch was found on the north side of the fortification, althouSh the dltoh was dis. continuous at one point (Plate II, Y~. 3, T.T. Hm. 3). Either this was a fortuitous gap brought about by the arrangement of the superst~uoture of the palisade w&ll, or 8ome other fo~a of wall arrangement had been made there. ¢lea~ evidence of a single palisade ditch was fouml at three other teated ~ointa on the north wall. The east 46 wal! was doubly ~&lisnded for at least three-quarters of its length. There were borrow pits paral- leling the wall on tho inside and outside (t~late II, Fig. 5, T.T. No. 4). Tho wall sloped outward part of the way as in. dicated by tho slopes of the larger and deeper post mold ditches. For purposes of experiment, two post~ were set in the wall ditches, one in the upright wall ditch, and one in ~he outward.~lanted ditch. It was found that they crossed' each other a~ about four feet from the general surface of the ground. It is not unlikely ~hat the smaller and shallower outside ditch contained a series of propping post8 wlxtol~ helped support the heavier slanting peats set in the larger inside ditch. The complex s~ruottuee of ~he southeast oorne~ ia shown in ~Aate II0 Fig. 4, and Te~t Trenches No. § and Ho. 7, Fig. 3. Test Trench No. ~ has a th~ee-ditch a~rangement for the posts, and Test Trench NO. ? has a four.ditolL arrangement. This uae probably the ~ystem of baffles constructed for the better defense of tho entrance p&esa~e, but it could also have been the foundation feature for a quadruple paXieade as de. scribed by Beauehamp (above), ditches ~nde a rounded oornez. opposite the firebed may have entrance passage. There ia clear proof that the The openings in the ditches served as pa~t of a oomplioated Only a 8ystemat~ stripping of the topsoil 47 i and oareful exposition and plotting of all the features will !yield the final solution. A test trenoh was made in the em- ~bankment midway between T.T. ~o. 4 and T.T. No. § (~late IIX, .Fig. §). The double ditoh arrangement as desoribed for Ex. ~lcavation D was found there also. There was t~e p~bability of ta third set of post8 on the outside. ~owever, was none too clear in the p~ofile. Two test trenches were dug aerth and the evidence south of the i large pit in the northeast eorner of the fort (~late III, Fig. i5). Evidenoe of a single palisade ditoh was found in these i trenohee. It is ncr known at present whether the palisade lwall oompletely enalosed the pit without a break, althongh it ia likely. The pit is twenty feet in diameter aorose the top, .and slopes lnwaxd to a depth of five feet. i teat in the eon. :lter of the depression gave one and one-half feet of dark'mil ~a~_d hmue, below whioh was a atrattea of yellow sterile ~u~. A i stratum of gravel was found at four and a half feet below the I surfaoe of the depression in an auger test, A heavy P~eoe of 'square spike-shaped iron three and a quarter inehee long was found in the first two feet. No water was enoounte~d in the teat, although the water table say have been higher at one ti~e. The ba~k at the top of the pit is about thArteen feet above the ereek. Tooker (189~) thought that this pit eould have been a 'store house'. He thought that it was withAn the lines of the for~. There is the possibility that it was & een~t.subterranean sweat lodge ae used by the ~ew England d~ane aocord~ to t~ descriptions of ~a ~utler ~1~5). newness to water a~ 2ts ~s~t~on d~ ~n the e~de of ~ee this ~eslbility a like~ one. A well for water could have been ~re eas~y d~ lower down in the declivity, a ~re rea~ble location for a ~uroe of water ~pply. ~ stones for heati~ were fou~ in the limited excavation so.ustC, ~ut as Butler (1945, p. 14) ~te., red ~t ~one. w~e into the ~rtly ~bterr~ean sells se eaves, a~ In at least one ease rolled out ~n, before the l~lans entered ~eat. ~utler ~ds that t~ literature ef N~ E~la~ especially ~ioh in reference to t~ t~apeutio ~ reli- gious uses of the ~ea~ ~uae. In ~1 oases of ~est tre~ the fortification w~ls for data, refu~ de~sita such as broken shells,- d~k ~ed e~th, ~nea, ets., a~ simil~ re~ins were fou~ a~oiated with the ~ls~e w~X ditches (~ate iX, Fig. T.T. No. l, T.T. No, 2, T.T. ~. 3, T.T. ~. 5, T.T. ~. 6). ~st of t~ refuse r~ a~e to be fou~ on ~ lnte~ ~f the fort in t~ borrow dite~s. ~bably t~se ditches as a oo~enient dis~s~ pl~e for refuse a~ debela, altech there ~s a st~ ~ssibility t~t t~ ~tives h~ ~ae met of dwelli~ arra~eaents n~t to t~ walls. ~ t~ qu~tity of w~p~ leavl~a la a~ i~ioatLon, ~uoh of t~ w~pm was ~e witch the w.~ls of t~ fort. The sto~e pit in 49 tion D. has been noted. This pit, within the fort wall, may h6ve been associated with a house, whose remains could not be found. Two other test excavations, 250 feet and 1,O00 feet south of the fortification, were made in the survey, The first of these was a test twenty feet square, whieh contained aboriginal and Colonial m~terial similar to that found at the fort. The second test was near an old cattle well above the shore line of the mareh, which Mr. Downs says was there aa long as he could remember. It is very likely that this ia the well figured in the southold Town Reeg~ds (above). 5-ira- tified evidence of two occupational zones was found around the well. The lower stratum is non.corneAs and may link with an early foeue, while the upper ia clearly later because it eon. rains Windsor pottery. smnmar~ of ~xoavat.i?~8 and Tee. ts In the rather small scale e~coavations conducted at ~rt Corohau~, some very interesting fort~fioation and habits. tton Rata have been recovered. It ia to be realiaed that man~ features were undoubtedly massed, but these will have to re. main for future investigations. The Corohaua Fort was apparently built at the no,th. ern end of the Corohang village p~oper, as oeoupationaX evi. dense vas found in negligible amount north of the fort. ~ueh evidence was encountered in great abundance south ef the fort ~0 i down to the .~oonLo ~3ay alon~ Downs, Creek. ~uggestions of habitations were found in this area. Tho fort was within easy i reaoh of fresh water supply and at the same tlBe also close to water ~ransportation. The palisade feature is singular in that its oonstruotion was not consistently the same on the fouz . aides. The west wall had been apparently so nonst~uoted that ,!it slanted outward, while the north, and south walls Bees . have been fairly straight. The east will was double-palisaded !for at least three-quarters of its length. A hypothetioal re. i oonstruotion of heavy outward leaning po~e and lighter sup. porting poets on the outer side is suggested by the ditohes. A heavier palisade wall may have been Ju~tifLed on the oreek aide for proteotion a~ainst attack by watsrt but it does not ~appear reasonable. The somplexity of the palisade features at the southeast oorner was pzobably arranged ~o P~oteot the-es. ~ranoe. This oontraste with the simple oor~er at the south. west end. ~suibly the dLtohee represent a quadruple palisade at the southeast oorner whtoh was interlooked at the top, as mentioned above (Yeti Co. nstr.u,o~.ioa), or a double set of palL- series as desoribed by Van der Donok (also above). This would leave a passqeway between the two sets or double palLsades, oonforuing better to the evidenoe (~Aate firebed ~n F~oavation Z may have ben situated in the pat.qe. way between suoh a set of walls, Xt is evident from the oeou. pationaX remains that the palisade w~alls were a favorite haunt. Some foxes of light shelter for domestio living may have been oonstruoted against the walls, although this prooedure does not oonforu~ with tile best fortifioation praotioes. The Corohaug Indians took oars to sst their palisade posts firmly in the ditohes dug around the site, They heaped an embankment of earth against the posts, to bold them better. The posts, however, were not buried as deeply am they might have been, had the natives possessed ~uropee~ implement, with whioh to dig the holes. The use of the continuous ditoh for the retention of the posts seems to have been widespread among the Indians Just before they aoquired better tools (see e,ent, above 5. Xt is very likely, from Tooker, s de~ription that the Montauk fort was eimila~ly eonstrueted, having the pali. sade wall with diteh and e~bam~aent. $othA~g is known of the oonstruetion of the other forts in the area. ~o extensive oooupational re.sins have been found well within the fort walXs. It must be admitted that proper test trenshes have not been ~ede there yet to date. ~wever, it must met be overlooked that ooeupational evide~e ia met with everywhere on the sux-~aee to the south of the fort, while suoh remains are laekl~ on the interior, as at Fort Ma~sa- peague. ~obably the fortification was purely a defensive measure ereoted in ease of need, amd did not house t~e Co~- ohaug village or its residents. More likely than not, they preferred out side freedom to re striation within an enclosure. The . ~e o.~.me ns The araheologio&l specimens four~ at Fort Coroh~ug are discussed be~w. A numerical trait list is given on pages ~t~er~. (aboriginal) -. The discussion of t~e pot- tery found at Coroh~t~ is based on the catalog of 10~-8 body sherde, a~ 165 rio s~s, incl~t~ pieces of fillets ~des, With the exception of four gr~t t~ sherda a~ a very f~ indeterminant pieces, all the ~t~e~s are temper~. A~ least t~r~ vessels are repreaent~ in t~ eol- leotion. The d~s~O X~ between Fort ~ntok a~ Fort Coro~ la the ~t~e~, To Rouse be~o *~ or~it of first reoog~ the Yox~ ~n*ok wa~e as a d~st~notive fl~le of ~ttery (Rouse, ~045). Ke ~ted *he stro~ semis rest. bXa~e8 of t~s w~e with the 'aberrant' ~te~ of Cuto~gue dl~uss~ by ~th (~044, p. ~7) (Rouse, ~04~, p. 6). w~le ~ ~o tr~ t~t ~he dens,preen ~use (1947, ~. 14~5) gives fo~ ~n~ ~**er~ ~las qu~*e · e~ for Coro~, t~re ~e ~int8 of reeog~sabXe differe~e. T~se were, ~er~ps, to p~ve ~Fe. The pz~neip~ differe~e is to be seen t~eatment of the ~terio~ 8u~e of t~ oolX~s, lobes ~ldo, ridges, ll~, a~ ~ea, a~/or t~se stoas of rim and oollar that are deoorated. Rouse (lbid.., p. 16) ob. serves t~at no 8hell impressions have been noted on pottery in Co~eet~ou~, wh~le t~y are olearly ~n a~u~a~o on ~he 0oro~ ~t~ery. ~11 lm~ess~ons a~ Coro~ ~y be a carr~vor from the s~X1 ~auped ~tte~y of the ~iant~o stye of t~ WI~F style (Rouse, ibid., pp. 20~1). ~erefore', even t~, aa Rouse 8aya, ~n~ok ~t~ery "~8 to be oonaid- ere~ Mrs ~moge~u8 t~n the othe~s", ~here a~e ev~de~e8 w~oh seem to e~w local cultu~ ~luences on Co ra~. ~ntok potte~ ~ns~oto predo~nant~ of ~lob~ar, moot~ bodied, aastellat~, a~ oq~ ~uth~ ~ell the oollaF a~ r~, u~le the exterior a~ Anterior of the body are ~otk su~ed. Fhe ~erds ~Te a soapy feel, prob- ably due to q~ l~fe ~t of shell tenper~, w~oh ~n fl~es up to 6 ~. ~o~, u~th an aTerqe a~u* ~ ~.~o~. The ~tte~ may be f~e~ or oo~eely teuper~, ~oa~ to the a~unt a~ the f~neness o~ the shell ~t~aleo. In the m~e oosrsely tem~Fed ~tte~y, t~ ~ell flakes ~n t~ oore ~e ~ener~ly al~S~d ~r~leL to ~he outer ~rf~es of w~e. As f~ as oo~ be ~den~, the predo~nt ~n the ~ell tem~r~ ~nol~e8 oFeteT a~ ol~ s~o. ~heTe # The mort:to system tm used :tn deeer:tbln~ the artZfaote IM oonfo~m with stand&Tdo of deeorzptton. 54 ~wevez. Ooaa~o~ Inclusions of q~ts ~d hematite tiolee are fo~. Re~ard~ the d~ff~c~ty of ~dentL~ ~et~d~ of ~ell tempered ~ttery construction, Byers a~ ~o~son p. 6~) ~e ~ld, ~very l~ttle co~ern~ ~et~ds of construe. tLon co~d be dete~ fros a study o~ t~ ~ell ~ttery'. The ~ssibllity t~t the ~rt Co~o~ ~ttery was coil m~aot~ed ~es on one ft~ of an ~oidental~ piece of ~ttery ~il (~ate II, Fig. 1). ~er, mt decisive, es the fractures of t~ ehe~ds are i~egula~. It Is ~t certain as to wha~ tee~q~e of ~aoture u~. One sherd r~e~s a ki~ of '~ab~eldL~' Joint. The color of the ~t~e~ds v~ies frea blaek l~ht b~. Frequemt~ one s~rd ex,bits two o~ i~s of ooXo~ on t~ ~terio~. T~s was p~b~Xy d~ ~en fi~l~. T~ lnte~io~ e~bita a oolo~ r~e gray to bl~k. ~th interiors a~ ~terio~s are ~erate~ T~ exterior ~rfaee se~ to have ~en ~othod ~ of implement le~L~ l~t st~iat~ ua~ks. ~ere Mr~lel ~rapi~ ~rks on s~er~ interiors also. ~me t~ M~k8 ~uXd be identifL~ as t~t of ~p ~e~. Aa ~use fi~s ~n ~8 ~t~y, the ~erds ~e relative~ un~en 55 ~oaly or fl~k7 on the ~xto~ior, ~rdnesa. There is a gr~ l~ t~ ~oloz of the she~ cross ~otto~ from ~ e~terlor to the oe~tlr, w~oh t. T~ r~m8 are predom~tly ~no~te ~n a~pe a~ oollars appe~ to bo ~m~a~ye~ ~fh a~ t~eken~. The vessels ate ~o~t~ squ~e ~uth~, with tio~ a~ ~de8 ~u~unti~ the ~nerl. These ~des are eitbr pinched out ~m the ~the~' ol~ (~ate VI, Y~. 10) or applied (~ate VX, Fig. 9). ~e neoks of the OoTo~ug ves~ls a~e p~uno~ (~ate V, Fig. 2). An aberrant s~ped vessel (~ate V, Fig.l) does ~t ~e a neok in the ~tok s~lo, a~ ~s a flatten~ ~ttom (reoonstruoted fTou ~ments). ~l~* t~s t~e vessel ~pe ~oets ~ts f~u ~ntl~o (~v~le, 1920). ~e decorations a~e lt~ted to tb ooll~e, between t~ Xip ~ ~d t~ lobes oF ~o~s. The neok a~ ~ulder the ~antok vessels are b~e of d~o~atlon, wLth tb exception of an oooasion~ ~w of ~notateo in I ~e ~rL~ntaX be~een th neck a~ ~ulde~ (~ate V, Figs. X, . ~r~nal eo~u~oation fTom C~le ~ith, ~. Lg, 56 The majority of the rim sherds show an abundant use of elam shell toolln~ in the deoorattve teohntques, which in- clude stamping, punotating, trailing and incising. The ool- la~s are deoorated with band design groupings as defined by Rouse (1947, p. 16). The plat motif is found on only one shard (21ate IV, Fig. 9), whioh is aberrant to the style at Coroh~u~. The bands are either impressed or lnoised in parallel horizontal and oblique g~oupinge around the ool. lared rim. The use of clam or other sea sheLL is evidenced in the steed designe~ found on several shards (LXate IV, Figs. 7, 8~ Plate VI, Figs. 1, 2). The elam shell also figux~d in the decoration of the lips of the rima, illustrated by a row of shell impressions at right angles to the long a~is of the rim. ImPressions of the lip of a elam shell were found ia several punotate Bi, ks on the bosses and at the neek of the vessels (Plate V, Fig. 2). _~unotate ~a~ks were commonly made on the bosses (Plate VI, Figs. 1, 2, ~, 4), and are evident in a oonsiderable amount on Rouse'e shantok sherds. The nodes on the castellations are either pinohed out from the clay (Plate VI, F~gs, 6, 10) or applied (Plate VI, Fig. 9)o The majority of the castellation nodes show a Xadderwork de- coration of short elam shell iml~esstons biseoted by a Gut or impression with & ~harp edge. In several oases, it w&~ possible to identify the latter agent aa the 1Lp of a ollua shell (Plate V, Fig. 1! Plate VI, Figs. ~, 7, 8, 9). This 57 method of node decoration has been noted by P~use (ibid.). In addition, there are ~everal nodes which have been simply lm- pre,sod with stampings of the clam shell lip (Plate Plate VI, Fig. 6) across the vertical length of the node. In the minority are simple undecorated nodes (~late VI, Fig.10). The protuberances at the bases of the collars seem to fall in-i to three categories (1) the lobate, the u~ority of which are o~ele~ a~ cut out of the thickened rim of t~ ve~el (Plate IV, Figs. 4, 5, 6, 81 2late VI, Figs. 1, 2) as des~rib. ed by House (19¢?, p. 161 (2) the p~ra~.dal bossing, and t.he true ~ssin~. The p~amido~l bossed lobe (l~late V, Figs. 1, 2~ Plate VI, Figs. ~, 4, 5, 6) appea~s to 2u~ve been out out! of a collar reinforcement of applied olay fillet. T~LtS filletI seems to have been eu~othed and fashioned into a triangular protuberance running around the base of the oolla~ (l~Aate Figs. ~, 4 cross-section). ~kfter the design was nu~de on the rim, the pyramidal bosses were Out out and s~ped while the olay was still plastic. The fingers of tl~e opposing hand frs- quently left a ma~ked depression on the interior opposite the pyramid. ~even pieces of p~Tamidal bosses shewing breako4~e or~ fracture at the ~oint of application are in the collection. Tru..e bossinl0 the third category, is represented by two shewds whAch show a depression on the lnterio~ opposite a rathez modified pyramidal buige on the exterior. ~o applique or pinching is evident. ~o figure modeled lugs aa noted by Rouse were found at Corohaug. Comparin~ Norwioh-~hantok and Corohaug.~hantok, one is struck by two marked differ,noes. One diff.=enos is that the meet widespread teohnique of decoration at Norwioh was made with some sh-_~p implement, while at Corohaug, the Indians decorated their wares with the edges of shells, prinoipally the lip of the ola~ shell (Venus, mere.naris). It is felt that the use of shells in the deoorative teohnique at Corohaug made for more unifo~a designs. The other differ, nee is in the al. most meohanieal preoision and perfeotion of so~e of the lobes and pyra~idaX bosses at Oorehaug (l~late VX, Figs. 2, 3, A) contrasted with the apparently laboriously ohanneled-out or applied Norwich lobe, eaoh of whioh seems to be individuaAls- ed. The ~a~ority of the lips of the Coroha.g rims are flat- tened and faced inward, although rounded and tapering lips alSO OOOUF. several rim she.d, whioh are not of ~hAntok style were found. Two (~late III, Fig. ~) ana~er t~ the description of Rltohiet s "Vinstte l' wa~e which is very early in sew York (Ritohie, 1944, p. 164). These are reddish brown oolored, grit tempered, containing la~ge tn~luslons of quarts, atraight~ rim profiled, and oordmarked on the interior and exterior eur- faoes. Rouse (1947, p. 18) has brought fox'ward ovid.nee in favor of the antiquity of Vinette X ware in Conneotiout. In 59 addition, recent finds aq Grannis Island in Ze~ Haven have yielded this pottery at the very bottom of a shellheap of com- aidermble a~e. ~mith (1947, ~. 4) notes the OCeU~ence of Vln- ette I ware at ~lorth ~each, at the western end of Long X~land, and h~s placed it as the earliest wa~e on Lo~ Island. Bullen (1948, p. ~9) has found this wa~e in eastern He bases his observation of the antiquity of the pottery en stratig~aphi& evidence, ~le all *~ee f~s seem ~o be rs. t~= isolated ones, it ~y ~ be f~ fe%~ %e spe~ of a wides~e~ are~ ~ove~e~e few Vi~*te X ~tte~y ~n ~la~. ~ rim ~e~, (~ate XIX, F~. 4) pres~12 9f a tr~e or~n, illu~atea '~oh~k" oh~aaterLstio8 of ea~ra ~ l~a~. Xt ~s ~eddI~ eoXe~, of fi~ ~ of ~ete~te t~r. Xt has ~lew ~f ~c~a belgw t~ l~ia~n Xi~ on the ex~. ~9 ~erda (~a~e ~, Figs. 9, 10) w~eh ~y be ~oa ~ ~ vessel a~e ~ell $~pe~, a~ seem to be de. rated In the ~ lncls~ with a ~p inerrant othe~ t~ s~ll. the ~. T~s ~ to be t~ ~e~iat~e ~l~k he~ at tbs Hochester Mu~ of ~x~e a~ m~emes, ~0 There is dooumenta~y evidenoe Xndians Jouraeyed to the western eastern Long Island pottery, that the eastern Long Island end. It is possible that the dooo~ation on these ahe~ds re- p~esents oultura~ borrowings, like the borrowings of ~xantok styles of decoration. ~late IV, F~. 11 illustrates another e~otio shell tempered ahe~d with an l~vato ri~. TI~ rim face is inoised in parallel lines. Hem, too, the lstio stamp of the eastern potter is refleoted In the series of elam shell ialmessions on the inner lip of th~ Rim sherds of straight.sAde4 shell tempered vessels are shown on .~Aate XV, Figs, l, 2. The paste and texture is of the ~e~e quali~y aa the Coroh~ug.~xan~ok, A eingttla~ shell tempered rim aher~ (llate IV, ~tg. ~) lacks the lobe or pyra- mid at the reinforoed collar. Xt is penotated at the thl~k. ened buttress with a blunt inst~aent. Alth~ngh these ~he~ds do not exhibit the ~a~tok style, it Ls felt that on the basis of the temper and texture, the~ are looal sad oonte~pora~y ~ork~. They mAght be dis~egawded as si~ula~ On the baste of pottery typology, ~he Co~ba~ wa~e resembles the ~an~ok tradl$~n as define~ by Rgu~e in broadest aspeote, d~fering only in the ~etkmi of Local t~aat- ment~ The latter seems to ~e a oa~A~over from the stage of Rousers ~lnd~or strL~ (Rouse, 1947, pp. 20~), ~s been reeogniz~ on ~ l~ as a late ~e~a~rl~ t~n ~s been ~ted for eastern of pr~lous occu~2o~, t~ ~uth p~e~. The ~~e of t~ ~n~k ~tte~ at. Fort Coze~ ~ Xte be~ on t~ a~J~t of ~a~t~at~on t~ze ~ t~ ~st n~e~us ~aets ~o~ ~e t~ cut a~ ~o~k~ ool~ella of leavl~s of w~p~ ~uf~tu~, ~p~a~ fo~ ~l~ white ool~ella wexe fo~. ~ ~a t~ r~, a ~ll about~ 11 ~. lo~ was p~eferr~ to ne~ of atook, t~u, ~tl~ u~eela~ wozkl~ down of ~avie~ stooks as de~rib~ by ~u~ the midaeotion of the sto~k {about 3.5 em,) ~as apparently preferred, T~ ~p ~ ~. (~er~e) a~ ~tto~ 4.5 ~. (aver. ~e) of t~ ~e~l wexe ou~ ~ ~d d~ao~d~, ~ fatl~es, l~ Is ~ ~o~ee ~ha~ ~s~e eas~e=n 1~ ~es ~e w~e wi~h ~ ~efuse. A wor~l~ ~ekness of ~e~een 4 ~o ~ ~, of s~e~ ~s ~ ~e ~en ~efe=~ed. Wi~h =ich w~ee foe ~elee~lon of ~ e~ aa~ex~, ~he ~e. ~i~ t~ best ~lde~e ~s fou~ of eve~ ~e of {~ate VII, F~, 1, Fig. i a~), froa t~ sea e~ t~ blank stye ~ ~ ~lll~ a~ fl~s~d ~ be~; A oo~se edg~ implement. ~eh as a e~ne fl~e (F~. 2 o, ~ate VII). O~he~8 s~w olea~ly o~tt~ ~ko t~e were u~oub~ w~ be~ (~a~e Vii, F~. 2 ~) ~ been d~tll~ f~ bo~h ~ da~k w~ was fou~, altech t~ee ~s an abu~e of purple seo~onm ol~ ~o (~e~a (~a*e ~X, F~, ~ a). ~o woFk~ ~ant ~ ob3eatl of w~te oX~ shell (~ate YXI, F~. ~ b, o) were fo~, ~ o~7 obJeots of tl~e ki~d, .~n odd polished bead of ~er~ (~ate VII, F~. 2 L) ~as al~ fo~. Y~nl~ ~ne8 of t~o hi~s of gr~, VII, Y~. 4) a~ a eo~se (~ate VIX, Figs. 7, 85 .~a~e VIIX, Fig. ~) we~a rec~ver~ at t~ ~te. L~ht pe~ (~late VIIX, Fig. 1X) a~ ~e~ B~e~s~s (~ate VXX, F~a. 5, S, 9) oom~lete t~ stone i~en~ fo~ ~ ~bable pls~nts of the ~ll worke~,a twos- qu~a ~ 2~t~ite ~b- from o~ e~', quota e~ which wo~ ~ve ~ed t~ ~ell, sa~otone a~e~8 o~ ~ni~ o~neo, ~eo~ ~ 0~ (1929, pp. ~), was ~t ~e ~ ~ter t~ ~riv~ of t~ ~~. ~ge~ K~ ~GT80F ~8 were fo~ on ~e~s~o s~m, b~ n~ ~ or ~ ~XXeF variety. ~lleo~l~ tb v~ML~ of various aro~log~o*8, 0re~ e~w~ t~ ~ dema~ for w~oh ~a8 M~ ~n e~17 ~o~s, 0~ bans a~guuen~ for the late a2~Tlval of oyXlndrieal wampum on the faot of s~fl~ien~ ~o~h ~o~d ~e broken l~ d~l~, if ~t the u~wn ~ date, pxobab~ ar=~ t~ 1800'., ~ Dutch ~b- tai~d t~ flrB~ ~p~ t~e (~i~o~, 1985, p. 288). e~ of ~ I~ ~as t~ o~ s~t of t~ w~ tr~e "~os,. ~903. Vol. I. p. 50). ~t~ lntroduood to th~ b~ t~ Duloh s~ ~ in l~8, T~ Dutoh ~to~ed i~ ~e v~ul of ~ oo~i~ ~ t~ u~ves of t~ ~q~to ~n ~nq~ s~ sub~eo~i~ ~ ~ treble. ~n ~ ~q~$s weTe ~aten, t~ ~a~ansetts 6~ In the trip m~de to Lo~ I~land by Governor win. throp,s ahlp in ].633, the ~'eseaee of good wasps a~n~ the : Indians there was rooted. Its monetary vaXue war recogniaed by! the ~ngXlsh to be so laportant that it was e~presaly forbiddez in a patent of ].640 fo~ a settle~ to t~ade with the Xndiams for wampum, either dLTeetly os indireet]~y. (~dioms, 1918, p. Wampum was p~o~ably originalX~ used by the Indians merely for personal adoramemt a~ound the neok, waist, head an~ · la the ea~s' (Beauehamp, 1901, pp. ~o eomparlsoa of Co~ehaug wampmn with other oonteu. porax-y dated Lon~ XaXand sites other than with the site (Max. · apeague) deso~lbed by Burggra£ (19~8) san be sade at present. ~he white uanpuu the~e da~es '~or to ].634' (~ur~ra~, l. bid). oolmmella i~oakm is mueh heavier an~ thioke~, aXmo. f~to,ne ~.tifmotmt Abo%t~lneA ~oJeetLte points an~ other worM~l stones were tiveXy meamee at Corehau~. ~Aate VXXZ, YrS. X0 shows th~ full inwento~ or seven flamed a~ttfaetm, all of white l~ig. X0 (a) ts a n~t ~oo weXX finished flaked tmpXeuwwt wi~h a b~oken point. Fig. X0 (b,e,d) are poorly £iniebad tapered ste~ proJeotile points, y~g. lo (e) represents ~he point end of · flaked artifact. Fl~. lO (f) is a spawl of quarts ~y h~e bee~ a p~eetile ~lnt, Fig. 10 (g) is the ~d- seet~n of a ~de~ fi~ed im~nt. There were ~er~ w~te q~ta fl~es i~l~e~ ~o piecem of peo~d a~ ~1~ diogiqe, a f~. ment of w~rk~ slate, a~ ~ae e~eked a~ b~ eto~a, in. It ~s ~8e~ble t~ t~ a~1~1a ~ the d~ta ef pre~etor~e Ce~, bu~ it ts ~t ~obahle ,ids by side with n~e~ ~~ ~nt~d~tlone ~o~ ~ oo~d ~* get a substitute ~a the w~tea. ~nt ~onea T~ a~r~Me a~ ~e~ were app~ent~ fo~ of ~bblea. The fo~ g~vea a ~ brown stre~ u~a · ~le the latt~ ~tvee a re4 ~tr~. l~ t. ~t ~ea~bXe ~ sup~ee t~ t~ ~0~1~ e~ ~ee a~o~e w~e ~ ~ven cl~ eo~re~lo~ of w~oh fou~ ~e 67 (Ylate VIII, Fi~. 4 a.b.e,d) ~ave either seoTlng or rubb~ ~ke ~w~ us~e. One flat eiro~ al~ eo~tion (~ate VIII, F~. 1) is lnoX~ed ~n t~s i~ento~. The of t~s atone ~e the eu~t~ a~ wo~kl~ of It ~ easy. ~o freesia of perforated el~ s~ae, (~a~e VIII, 3)~ w~oh ~y h~e been pipe,~, attes~ ~ a~~ ~n. Of tho ee~ o~ of natuz~ oo~zetlo~ a~ ~b. blee, are the llmmnite atones, of which & total of sixteen whole and fragmentary epeoimena were found, FLYs of ~hmee Iwe~e worked, showing rubbtn~ and seottw$~ ma~ks etthme at the ends (~Aate YILI, Figs. 5, 8), worked on the flat e~de (~late VIII, Ft~s, d, 8, 9) o~ a oom~tlon or t~ ~. ~ ot~ u~orhd lim~tem were ~ fo~ ~o l~te a~em. T~ee work~ fT~entm of gra~tO (2la~ ~, F~. 4 ~a,b,o), 8ivi~ a d~k 8tFe~, complete t~ t~en~ of ~. ~t~ ptfmenta. PZeoe8 of olay sto~ a~ l~nAte m~ be ~ek~ up fore~a to the ialami, was obviously ~n~ofled f~om the ~n- ~ne work, As wtth ~e~ sto~ wo~, t~ re~de~o or ~fl ~_ O~ ~ ~dent~ ~t oo~e~ fox,ten t~ bo~ the rib cf t~ st~geon (~lat4 X, F~. 1) a~ ~ 8~e of the kl~ ~rse~e o~ (~a~ X, F~. 2), ~ o~ w~ ap. p~rent~ were fo~ lik~ ~oo~t~ for ~ ~eXty o~ ~ ~Za ~ aeries, Little lmp~en~ worked MLn~ ~oreeeboe o~a~ ~e (~Aa~e X, FiG. 4) and Y worked s~uxgeon 8pl~es (21ate X, FIG. 3, YJ~, ~) a~e ~n ea~ege~7, ~Aate X, FiG. 9 is a trian~la~ bit or ~ne eut w~h a ~p ~n~nt, M~ aM b~ ~nes were pieee of ~ ~e wl~ bo~ e~s ~ken orr lo ~ In ~ (~ate x, F~, ~0) ~ been out ~ t~s ~, 1X) w~oh ~ been o~e~ o~ ~ ~ A zepzeeenta~lve l~en~o~ of ~zo~ ~e ob~eo~a In ~Ae e~e~a~io~. The~ ~a ~ doub~ t~ ~2 xe~eeen~ tr~e l~eue obta~ ~ou ~ of ~n ('~ate ~, F~. 26) t~ok e~ to ~ a ~eoe .er azso:f o~ ~ht side of aa iA'On M,e~le, poinS (~AaSe IX, Ft~. ~). and some liable zus~ed t~oa, maXX scraps of unident~- of t~ ~ been ~foza~ ~ oontain, a ~ea~d fib~ ~*eo~ (~ate ~, F~s. O, ~o) one ~on~, .~ ~ ?0 probably been wrapped around some perishable object, two pt,els of brass the bases of which had been apparently orl!ped] around soaeth~g (.~'-~J. ate XX, Figs. 14, 15), e~d ~ piece of i spoon handle (~Aate IX, Fig, 13). In the lnventox~ of trade sera.tea vento~y are fragments of e~oeke~y, kaolin l~t~bowX and pipe. stun fraa~nente, ~ttXe glass, and o~e One piece of g~ay salt gla~ed wa~e with a blue ba~ (~Aate X~, Fig. 1) and twelve f~aente of b~wn glazed cry we, re found. These uay re~eseat liquo~ oonta~tne~s. That a ff~te t~, ii~ was d~d a~ ellen pi~, a~ ~enty~o~ b~ ~ela (~ate ~, Figs. ll, l~), w~e o~ cat~ (~ate ~, F~f. 19, a muthpieee). T~ ~ v~uable clues fo~ dati~. ~ a ~2 lisSs (~X~, in ~o ease), a~ by ~mp~ t~ pLUs ~ be t~ed to e~*aAn d~es. T~s ~vea ~ clue to ~ e~lo~ ~laq~ono of the e~ on ~wlo, as fash~no u~e oon~au~ e~. ?l oral distinQtive shapes for the different eposhs ing (2ritohard, 1923). The heels of some of the corohaug are marked "~' (Plate IX, Fig. 11), "~" (Plate IX, ~lg. 18), the Tudo~ Rose, a~ t~ eonven~lo~lized tob~oo planq. T~ '~" pipes were manufaotu~ by 2h~llip ~dwarde ~r~stol, ~la~, w~ beo~e a ~n~ae~rer in 1~9. The heel ma~ks are t~ tr~e ~a~ks o~ E~d BattXI, ~ of Br~s, tol, w~ beo~e a Journe~an in 1~0. ~s p~pes ~e on ~s~or~o l~lan sites (~eaue~p, 1898, p. 11~). The Rose was ~n vo~e durl~ the latte~ ~ ef ~he l?th oen~ (shepp~, 19~, p. 2~). T~ ~' pl~owls ~ve a milled ~zpression l~ke ~t m~e w~th t~ ~ge of a ~in on ~he rim a liitle below the Lip (~ate ~, Fig. 11). T~ lar~er bul~un type ~wls w~th u~k~ ~els (~ate ~, Fig. 12) ~ve an incision below the r~ rasher t~n t~ ~11~ ~on. T~ fou~ pApe~wls illuntra~e~ on ~a~e ~ re~enent .tome date f~ a~q t~ m~ddlt of the l?lh ~entu~ ( pa~, 1902, p. 27). T~ ~rks were ~ fou~ on Dutoh pipes o~ about the ~e )-coo~i~ ~ ~ltaM~d (~.) pl~l were ~t ~ked ia a~ way until 1~ middle of the X?qh oenqu~. may be a~her v~uable ~lue. TM ~ide~e ef the places the date of oeaupaney or Fort Co.bmug at, at least, the ye~ 1~0, ~ ~ob~ lat~. ~ouh~ it ~ ~en o~upied ~2 ~o ~ ~e of t~ 17~ cease, aa the fort ~n ~e. w~a fo~. ,~ f~me~t~ ~e~e.ent at le~t ~o gloat bot- bit of g~l (PIG~I ~, ~. 8) rep~ee~ t~ total i~nto~ for t~s Oat~O~, A ~t~y o~ t~Me ~t~ta, l~l~ mLo~opLo a~ oh~e~ angelS, wl~ oeflaL~ ~ div~de~s An t~ da~ of ~tes. It Ls ~wn t~, tb ~~ ~o- ee~seo of ~ ~n a~ sim uet~ in ~ I?G eent~ w~e d~feTe~ f~u t~Be of tb ~ d~, l~ lB t~t ~s is a fie~ re~t~ ~Lal/I~ t~qu~ ~ ~r~. ~e stm~e %lxuflnt~n of dmt~ b~ memo or pin~%nt ~stor~e eo~t 8~e, ~o~ ~a ab~ outX~ th use of t~e go~s in e~abll~ t~ ~s~te of ~obolof~d sites ~oodw~d, ~940). ~b ~b-~l~tenoe ~t iyi,t~ Agr ioultu~al complex Burning.over woods "old fields" Collecting co,npl e.x Colleotl~ cl~s, oysters, ~ntl~ a~ Ft~t~ eompl~ Deer. rabblt, fo~ Crabs, sturgeon, ets. and o thor shell fish Corem, unit[ 2~lan ,~tivit~ Village location amd plan complex Village near creek Flrebeds Firecraoked stones in refu~e deposits Storage pit ~eeat house ~xohiteotural Oompl~X Palisaded enclosure (rectangular) wigwams Battered poet molds ~elters in les of palisade (?) ed burial in area. Te.ohnologioal and ~,rtLstie Ae~,i, vit[ (aboriginal material) Pottery oompltx .~antok-like Pottery man~faoSure does not sh~w conclusive evidence of ~tery ~ell ~per~. Ves,ela are ~ob~. C~llared i~u~ate ~aa, square ~uth~, with absent shell (o1~) deeo~ation. St~pl~, bosses, appll~ ~des ~ lobate pTotuber~es, ~dy ~a~n ~rf~ em ~h s~dea. Fr~aen~a of slay pipeete~a. Ro~ 5tone co~pl~ ~eF etone~ ~nl~ atones O~pp~ stone eom~ (white quar~a predoainant) ~ojeotlle ~inte, fr~menta~ a~ w~le, l~ludi~ st e~ trla~ Flakes a~ eh~ Ground stone complex Fragment of polished 8tons, form uncertain · 'orked clay concretions Cereu~)nial oompl eX Llmonite paint atones ~ieoes of graphite Natural stone oompl~ U~o~ked geodes of l~nite 2u~ts oryst~. Bone Oompl~ tec~lque.) · wla, bone splinte~ ~lrd bone tube ~llow based antler P~Jee~lle ~intl Work~ kl~ ~ses~e crab spines Work~ sturgeon vertebrae incising ~hell oomple3~ (cutting, drillir~, grinding techniques) Finished wampum beads amd blanks (w~Lte) Quahog wampum beads and blanks (?) purple Busycon oolumella ~ottery decorators (?) Fiber complex T~lsted cord preserved on brass projectile point. De sign Comple~ Incised and stamped pottery. 01am shell use predominant. Designs restricted to the rim and collar. I Trade ~otivity Trade with Indians as far west as western Long Island, and as far north as the Cape Cod area recorded. ,Technological and Artistie Aotivit~, (Suropean material) Metal oomple~ Triangular projectile points Brass (one perforated) Irc n Scraps and fragments of eopper, iron, and brass Jew_=harps of brass and iron Sword (?) blade of iron Fragmentary iron plate Wedge of iron Bolt of iron Wrought iron nails Glass compl~ Bo*tls gl'sa Window glass (?) ~t~e:y oompl~ ~altwa~e B~own slipped ~tte~y Trade pipes of ~hite Ini~ialed ~eel pipes a~ dati~ ~i~,a 1650, of S~iL~ ~n~aetu~e. ~ell~eous ~elet~ remains of ntaots between Corohaugs a~d Europeans 1650. ?~ European Mat e,~,le~ Item ....... Aa Number Crockery Kaolin pipestems 111 Kaolin Plpehowls Xaolin pipebcwl fragments 11 Iron, mi scellaneous ~late 1 Head of wedge 1 £crap fragments ~crew head bolt 1 ~ails an~ fragments 14 Flat blades (knives?) Heavy blade (~ord?) l l~eedle 1 ~.Brass, miscellaneous Scraps amd fragments ~erforated and ~rapped= 1 Spoon handle 1 I ~ro~eotile Points Trian~ula~ Irc n Bra es I1 pe?forated) 12 roug-,y shap. 1 ed and crimp. ed base) !GXase Bottle fragments 6 Cut squared glass 1 Glass button 1 ~rasa X Iron I Gunflints and pieces of European flint 5 77 N~;J~R ICA~ ~Za~! T Aboriginal Materiaw Item Number 2 Implement (knife?) l 'Pottery Body sherd e 1028 Rim sherde (Repro senting approximately 50 vessels) LUmp tempered olay ~hell Pipee Clayetome Pil~estem fragmentl Pottery pipeeteue Bone Fragmentary polished awls Conical projectile point Bl~dbone tube, polished Worked ~orseshoe crab and sturgeon bonee (awls?) Wampum beadl Heavy bead l~ Oblong shells (implements?) 2 Columella of wampUm aanufacture 1000 2 2 Pigment stones, etc. Worked graphite ~ Worked limonite 5 Unworked lim~nite 11 Worked clay ooncretionl 4 Unworked clay oonoretio~s ~ Rough stones Large ordinary hammerstonee 5 ~mall pebble hammerstonee 2 Honing and grit stones 8 Fragments of pecked and polished stones 2 Fragment of worked slate 1 Flaked Artifacts Projectile points (white quarts) Fragments stemmed base Reworked flake ?~ !Aboriginal Mat. er_!aX (eontinued) eeellaneo ua Natural quartz crystal Fiber (preserved by verdeg~ls) 1 Historic Fort Corohaus was apparently in existence about 1640, when the firs~ settlers arrived on the eastern e~ of ~ I~a~. X~ was ~lsit~ by ~he Dutch a~ E~llsh T~IOUB oo088~on8 aa 8~wn in t~ records. The dated tr~e ~oods ~w t~t the .~te ~ been oooupl~ tOWed t~ middle of the 17th oentu~, ~ we kmw t~t ~t ~ been aba~on~ ~ter t~t time, for there is mention t~t the fort was existe~e In 1662. It la likely t~t the fort ~ stood at t~8 8~te for at least two dee~ea, a~ wa. deoert~ by enfeebl~ and deoiMted Oore~o, w~ tribal Fem~nt. ~ved to ~ia~ ~eok at ~ut~ld, where t~y la~uXah~ a~ di~p. ps.ed frou receded There ~8 evide~e t~t t~ Fort Core~ area been occupied pre~oto~ioallyj ~w~er, a ~noideration of t~s ~blem la b~o~ qbe scope of t~, paper. It lo k~wn t~t the OctoPus, aa n~ber8 of the loo~ coverlets, h~ =elations with othez Ind~a~ of the inter.utes with the l~a~ on t~ west e~ of ~ The ~8t inte=eoti~ of t~ae out.de relatio~ of the Coro~o de~o with tbir aoquie~tton of ~tte~ of ~antok otyle. T~o fo~s tb ~Jo~ ~F~lon of the w~e at OoFe~. Tb unique ~ntok .~yle ap~ed I. fo~e :in the vicinity of t~ T~o R~ve= V~I~ in Conneetieuq, 80 survived into historic times with the ~tantte sta~e of the Windsor tradition (Rouse, 1947, po 2~)o There was a looal eastern Long lslamd ware that was presen~ up to historic times called "~iantio-like' (Smith, 1947, pp. 5, 6) (somewhat Qomparable to l~lantio of OonneQti- out), which seems to have been derived from the ware of the earlier ~ebonaQ focus ware. These vessels are characterized by shell tempering, glohula~ bodies, collared ~"Ame (round mouths) and a plethora of shell.impressed deeuration, whAel~ seems te have been a carry-over from the ~ebonie stage. Of the two varieties of the P~antok style, ~o~ieh...~hantok amd ¢orohang.shantok, the latter is outstanding in that there ia a predominance of intensive shell-impressed decoration, Xt aunt be concluded thGt this was a loeal characteristic, In short, considering the facts above, we have here a concrete areheo- logical study in aocult~eation with the absor.~.tion of the ~e~uot survivors by the Oorohat~e after the defeat of the fo~mer in 1637. These data show that ~ouse'e supposition (1947, p. ~) that the ~equoq fled aerone the ~ound during early historic time is not quite true, although there is re- oo~d of a movement of 'women of esteeme& ehlldrea' to Island early in 18~? (WineXow, 1637). Remmaata of theee poe. plo seem to have been le~ ae~oss, or to have been pa~eeXed out as pa~t of the spoils of the victorious eastern Long l&land confederation (Gardener, op. 81 It is unfortunate that, to date, the ¢oroha~g site le the only one thus far known on I~g Islamd where the di~. nostio .hantok ware ~s been re~rted. I~ ~s ~p~ t~t fur- ther searoh will yield ~re ~orio st~ea of the ~e period. It does ~t see~ likely t~ t~ w~le of t~ s~vtvo~s of ~q~t war allott~ ~ the eastern ~ l~a~ I~ta~ were ooneentrat~ In ~he one encloses at Cero~, but t~s ~ve to await f~t~r study. It would be lnterent~ to f~ a p~ven ~q~t site, a~ to dete~lne w~t the un~ul~erat~ fo~ of w~e was like. T~s site would ~e t~ be dat~ prior to ineludi~ X637, when the g~up wan a ~ge~ue ~lt. lnteresti~ problem for further aroheologioal reee~oh would be to fl~ a N~r~aneett site oontem~r~eoua v~th Fo~tn ~ntok a~ Oore~, a~ tO ~te whai ~e~y type as t~ Narr~aneetta ~eo ~eoelv~ t~1r s~e of va~uleh~ ~quots (Ga~ener, o~. elf.). Fo~ ~dttlonal stay, i~ would be well al~ to fl~ (1) t~ oontem~ra~ ~lter l~a~ fort site, (2) a Montauk vlll~e site, a~ (~) a la2e ~nneoook ~r~ed wl~h t~ ~owledge of t~ ~wn htato~le, we can delve in~o the u~wn ~e~a~o~to step ~ step.* UsI~ the dtreot ~etorloal ap~oaoh, we eeo w~t oan be done on a For further elaboration of the hlstorlo~l method, 5reward, 1942. see historic archeolo~loal site, ae has been illustrated with the aid of doetaasntation. The arcl~eolo~ical evidence, coupled with the et~-h~ator~o~ ~terl~, has l~ioated what the cultural alig~ent, of easterm ~ l~a~ were. We k~w t~ in t~ eyeful ~X~ of a~t~al traXq~, t~ eastern ~ I~a~ I~iGns were ~e~ simil~ to the ~h~a~quot~ but outside of Fort O~Qha~, we ~e yet t~ learn whet~r or ~t the material o~t~e of the eontem~r~ ealte~ ~ l~ I~lans bore a relatively shilaw ~t*eTn. CONCLUSIONS Employing aroheological methods coupled with hie. torioal data, it has been shown what the relation-_~p8 of Fort Corohaug are to oontempox-a~y aboriginal forte on eastern Long Island and Connecticut, na~ely~ 1) a. ~u aboriginal tribe, the Corohaugs, who were members of a closely knit quadruple tribal alliance on eastern Long Island, occupied Fort 0orohaug o, iroa ldS0 b. The Ooreha~ge had built the fort for protee. tion against raXde by the mainland aboriginel and used it for their sachem, s residence. o. There is dooumentLt-y evidence to prove that the 0orchards had been visited by both the Dutch and the English on various occasions. Usin~ archeologXcal methods, it was POssible 2) to date the site with a reliable degree of acoura~ by the ldentifioation and the dating of the trade goods Present. Following the defeat of the A~quots on the ma~nla~l In 1637, Xt has been shown that some: surv~voFs of this tribe had been subsequently led to Fort Coreha~, 2resenoe of these sur. YXTore is manifest ~rGh~oloGLeG~3~, Ln the ~ v/ distinetive type or potte~y (Cozohau~.~hantok whioh shows a fue~on o£ the old looal mode of oeramio treatment w~th the new Shantok style of the ~Jquotm, 84 ~late X Fig. 1 - Relative location of Fort ¢orch&~g and the contempor-'. _ ary f~orte on eastern ~ lsla~ (Nos, I ~o 5) a~ ~he ~antok Fort (~. 6) in Co~eotiou~. Fig. ~ For~ Coro~, at Cutc~ue, ~ l~a~, ~ew York. m,,at e ZX Fig. 1 - Feature 1, a probable wl~wa~ found at the south of the fortificat%on wall (~Aate IIX, and C are vertical sections of Feature 1. Fig. 2. Feature 2, a probable w~am found te the ~uth of the for~lfioat~on v~l (~ate Ill, ~ig. a~ O axe vert~o~ e~one of ~eatu~e F~. ~ - seven test trench ~oftlee ~e a~ ~he west w~l, ~rth w~l, a~ esot v~l o~ the for~lfioation. Fig. 4 . ~risontal section of ~oava~lon ease corner of Fort Plate IIz Fig. Fig · Fig. Fig. ¢ Fig. 5 . A lump of shell tempered p~ttery ~lay. - One of the two pieces of ab~r~l~al olay pipestems. - ~o aordnar~, reddish, g~it tenpered ~teherda of vl~tte I a~le. Fig. 3 - Flne~ ml~ral ~empered r~m ~e~ ef t~ e~ter. istio ~o~wk" ~n R%ver style. ~late IV Fig. Fig · Fig · Fig. Fig. Fig. Figs.7,8 Fig · - ~Aa%n shell tempered rim shex~. Texture like Cot- - ~a~n ~e~ t~pezed z%m ~e~. Texture l~e coz- - ~a%n shell tem~r~ rim ~e~, w~th t~oke~ - ~ell re.wed r~m ~, c~e lobate. .~o%h in- retie= a~ exte=ior. ~%ok style. ter~o~ a~ exter~oF. ~ s~yle. impre so~ ~ ~%ok style · . ~de a~ oollaF ~ewds of ~ vessel. ~ell lip ~es~. ~%ok style. ~hell tempew~ r~u ~e~ of ~mn Rive~ ~q~la style, lines i~vidua~y i~a~ (~ with ~ell) on ~lat. ¥igo 10 .~hell tempered rim ahead, lines individually inoised with ~nrp instrtwaent, clam shell impres-'-'lons on inner lip. ~hell tempered rim sherd, lines individually inoised with sharp instrument. Clam shell impressions on inner lip. v Fig · Fig. Front and profile view of small ~nntok style yes. sol. ~hell tempered, smootlx surface on interior and exterior. Reinforoed and buttressed square-mouthed rim, with applied nodes on oastellations. The base was flattened. Bosses are py~amidaX, straight sided. Restored vessel of ~hantok style. ThAokened lip and sellout, pyramidal bosses. ?~ell tempered. Impres. siena made with elam shell fx-agnent. Capaoity about § gallonS. ~quare mouthed. _~lain interior and ex. terior. ~ody globular. Inourvate rim. ,.2l~te VI !Figs.l-lO . Rim aherds and nodes of. Oorohaug.~hantok style. iPig. I - S~ell tempered rim she,d, shantok style, Lobate. [ Lines ino~eed with small soallop shell (?). lnourv. ~ ate rim. Lip is impressed. IFlg. 2 - :-hell teapered, lobate rim sherd, Modeled lobes, ln- t cised with pointed inet~ument. Reinforoed lip, in- Fig, sized on inner side. ~ ~ - fhell tempered r~m shex~l, pyramidal bossed. 2uno. ' totes m&de with squared slam shell pieoo. iFig. 4 - Same ae Fig. ~, Pyramidal bosses appear to be e~de out of an applied fillet of olay smoothed onto the rim, Firmer sized impressions on the interior oppos. in~ the bosses, Bosses are necked with the squared edge of a elam shell, Fig. 5 - Castellated shell tempered rim sherd. ~ode appears to be applied. Bo ese8 appear to have been out out an applied fillet, Inoised. Fig. 6 - Castellationnode. ~hell tempered and finely tee. tured. Hode appears to be finger mottlded out of · mother' olay, and not applied. Th~ee applioations of elam shell lip impressionsa~roe8 face of node. Pig. 7 . Node fFom square mouthed, shell tempered vessel. Xn- wised. ~hell tempered. Fig. 8 - Coarse shell tampered rim aherd of a square mouthed and oastellated vessel, ~yramidal bosses at base of collar, ~oparately lnelaed lines on rim face. There are impressions whloh seem to indioa~e ~hat the booze were formed with the inner side of a slam shell. Fig. 9 [ s;hell tempered castellation node. applique on inner side. Vertical lines were impressed With li of o Fig. 10 j~hell_te.??ered_oaste.llation Pnode. l~e=Shsetll' caen ~ul~ up xram t~e '~ther- ow ..... o h~ve shows Juncture of[ and horizontal ~late VII Fig. 1 - ~ shell with hole peeked out on on ,ax_aS, The ty~e of shel · (~white beads~. 1 used for wampum manuf&oture Fig. 2 . ~eries of ~ells arr~ in aeque~e ~wi st p of w~p~ ~n~ae~e froa a~. L · ~ ~a~x ~, purpAe e~ of qua~g ahelX-~enus meree~rXa~ us~ for d~k b~~res~d fr~ments of unflnish~ pedants. The~e ~- ~- ~---~-~-~ _b~y Fi~. 5 Natural ordina~ quartsite ~atone. Fig. 6 - Ordina~ diorite h~eretone, Fig. 7 . Coarse sa~stone ~ni~ stone, Fig, 8 . Like ~ig. 7, Fig. 9 . Natu~l flat beach ~bble u~ as a pecki~ stone, Fig. 1 . Circula~ clay co~retion, worked. Lens c~o ss section. Fi~. 2 . PApestem of clayetone. Fig. ~atem of Oilstone. Fig, ~ [ a,b,o. ~la~ elayetoneo s~wi~ 8isno of uo~e rubbi~. ~ - ~atu~al fla~ l~nite stone rubbed a~ ba~ter~ on Fig. ~ - Natur~ ~at lignite pebbles rubbed a~ ~or~ In ~ddle concavity. FIS, 7 . Like ~lg. 6. FiS. 8 - Nat~al lignite stone well w0~, with dl~on~ ~ori~ on left aide. F~. 9 . ~atur~ flat lignite pebble rubbed a~ middle a~ on the Fig, 10 . a. Heavy w~te q~ta ~ple~emt with b~oken ~int. b. White quarts projectile point. o. ~os~ible white quarts drill d. Broken white quartz projectile point~. e. Broken white quartz P~oJeotllc points. f. White quarts flake ah~wl~ sece-,dary usage, g. White quarts flake. 87 i Fig. ll . a,b. W~tte quart~ pebbles w~o~ ends appear bat. ~ig. ~2 . ~X~t~ ob~o~ 8~stono. ~ot s ~uF~ ~Xo~d .~one. ~ate ~ Fig. 1 . ~Aeoe of salt glans crockery from the neck of a vessel. Gray color With blue enoiroll~. Fig, 2 . Dark gray gunflint. Fig. 3 - L~ht gr~ gunflint. Fig. 4 . T~ee pie,es of rubbed ,repUte. ~peoZ~n b ts fao e t~. Fig, 5 . T~n piece of bottle glasm 2 ~, ~ek. 9~een. Fig. 6 . T~n piece of bottle ~asm 2 ~. t~. Oreen. Fig. 7 . ~laok ~ass button wZ~h Z~n eye. F~, 8 - ~uar~ piece of tr~slueent ~asa, grou~ at ed,em. 2 ~. thiOk. Fig. 9 : ~rap of brass perforat~ near t~ lower e~. It ~ok. as ~h ~ ~ b~en wr~ed a~ .omethX~, Fig, 10 ~=;ap of orasm waxen AoOK8 as ~h tt ~ been wrap~d arou~ sometht~, Fig. X~ ~ ~7th cent~y ~X~n p~pe bowl, m~k~ ~ on the Fig. 12 17th centu~ k~l~a pipe bowl, u~ark~ on t~ ~el. Fig. 1~ ha~le of brass Fig. lA ~ ~leee of tria~ brass with one side or,,ed. Fig. 15 Piece of brass o~l~p~ as t~h ~o held F~. 16 Base of l?th oent~ k~lin pipe ~wl a~ked ~ sa heel. Fig. 17 i 17th century kaolin pipe bowl unmarked on the heel. Fig. '18 Eaolin pipeste~ with Flsur-de.lte lmpressiens. Fig. 19 Lip e~d of kaolin pip. stem. Fig. 20 ~ Odd piece of e~rap brass. Fig. 21 Iron ~ewmharp or vibrator. Fig. 22 Brass J~s~rp o~ vibrator, ~rk~ with letter R on outside of base. Fig. 2~ ~ Trta~ l~n p2o~eottle ~tnt. ~Fig. 24 Trt~ul~ braes P~Jaotlle ~tm$ wi~h preee~ ~F~. 25 t~ t~o~ t~ perforation in the middle. ~Ftg. 26 Tria~ brass P~eo~ile ~1n4. ~qu~e ha~ wrest t~n n~ls with ~r~tdal Fig. 27 ~lab of X~n, 2.5 to 4 ~. thick. Ve~ ~ate ~ [Fig. i sturgeon rib ~ne. Fig. 2 . Spike of kir~ h~rseshee c~ab. Two outs 8eotZon, Fig. ~ - ~turseon vertebra. ~urnsd brown at ~lnted e~. Fig. 4 . Spike en~ of king h~reeshoe arab. Two outs across emd eeotion. Fig. 5 . ~turgeon vertebra. Pointed end sh~ws usage. Fig. ~ -Worked mammal bone. Polished. Fig. ? - Polished mid.seotion of a~mal bona. Fig. 8 . Polished mid-seotion of a~nmal bone. Fig. 9 . ~ieoe of sturgeon boas cut with sharp tool. Fig. 10 - Butt en~ of maam~l bo~e out several times so,oas mid-section with an edged implement. Fig. 11 . Bird bone, out at both ends a~d polished. ~ollow. For~ Corchau~ ?lab~ I1! ~sms, ~amos TrUslOW 1918 '~story of the Town of hampton, M York. Atuate~, ~w~ B. 'H~oz~ of t~ CO~O~ of ~ ~en to ~t. Ab. mrpt~on ~n~ ~o~eo*~out'. Bayles, R~o~rd H. 1874 "~ato~io~ a~ ~e~r~pt~ve Count~- ~t ~efferMn, ]~ ~. ~893 log8 1gO1 1g05 '~.a~tbsor~.o and ~ookadeo-. Z_~ The ~e~o~ ~letXn ~. 22, ~. 95~46, ~ ~rk ~a~ eA~~ ~ or Wood In H~ ~rk'. ~ Bul- B~odhead. ~ohn Roueyn 1853 'HAstory or the ~ate of lev York-. Vol. Z (2 vole,) leu York, ~eg Yozk. Bullen, ~iple2 1948 · mae liotes on tbs BAnuro4tu~e or wma~m ATlo~ to 1664,. In s~mer~oan Antiquity-, ¥ol. 4, Is. l, pp. ~8, Herman, w~eoono~n, · sweat Houses in ~outhern ~ew Ensland A~ea-. Z~ BulletLn of Koss. AreheolosLoal ~oeLetz, Vol. 7, ~o. 1, pp. ll-lO, A~tleboro, llama. Burggraf, ,Tsmoo D. 1938 ,/ Col. Does. (0,Calln~han, E. B., ed.) 1856-60 .Doetuaente Relative to the Colont~.~ Ri e tory of the ~ate of 2(Ow York°. 11 vole, (I.~i), Albany, ~ow York, Col. Does. (yornov, B., sd,) 1883 "Doouments Relatin~ to tho Rteto~f of tho Early Colonia~ ~ttlaenil ~no~ on Colo~ ~8~ o~ the 2ta~o or ~w YorK. Denton, Daniel 1670 1887 'Reseeds of the Town of East.hampton, Lon~ Inland, ~ffoL~ Count, M Yo~Jt, with other Ano%ent Dooumentl of ILtr~or&o Value' ¥ol. l ~.~arbor, ~e~ YOrk, Ford, ~. A., and wllley, Go~don R, 1941 'An Interpretation or the ~hle~oZ~ of Eastern ~tted s~ates'. In ~meriean Anthro- poItgllt, ne S, VOl* 43, ~, Ksnaeha, WisOonnSn. Gardener, · Leafs L~on ~ardener b~e welation of the ~equot Wa~rll" In H~rtory of tim Aquot v~T0 ppo 1L~- nois. leg?, Hadlook, Wendell s. ~ ~m~riean Antb~o~olof~.st, n. s. Vol. 49, ~, 9X 3.924 "An Anoleat ¥111afe si~e of ~he ]~edse,,, H. 2.890 s~t:LlarleOO ok ]:rs. diane". In Anth~opologieal ~aplls of the ~merioa3~ ~'~setlm of l~ature~ H~ntorT, Vol. 22, ~ §, pp. ~27.~85, New ~k, ~ ~k. · ~ V~e a~ ~wn ~ ~u~n". ~ Wedge, Frede~iok Vebb (ed.) 1910 Handbook of Auerioan Indians ~oflh of Mexioo. B.A.3. Bulletin ~o, 30, ~A~ I (2 parts), Washington, D. ~/ ~hwell, George Rogers ~w York'. ~amee, ;. FrankAin (ed.) :3.909 "Represent&rise of ]rev ~etherXanA, 3.6~0- In Harrativee o~ New NetherLands, 1609-1664, pp. 293-3~4. Xel YOrk, ~rl YOrk. ~effereon, 1940 'Cutohofus, ~uthold,a Flrs~ Colon~" 3el York, Nil YOrk* LeWis, Virgil A. "First BlenniaX Reporq of the Department of Aweatveo and ILtotoF7 of the state of vest ¥1rfihii, oha Xeeton, we Ma8o~, ;ohs 1637 "A ~lef ]Lte~o~y ofthe ~equot of the ~lq~ot Wa~, PP* 1.46, oFr, 1897, Oleveland, OhiO, Alfred lO4? "The ~lpinamba". l_~ Kandbook of South X849~851 ~ ~ement~ ~.to~ of She Beale of YO~" 4 TOll, ~b~, N~ OZO~Zd, W~li~ Ce Xn ~n~bu*~, ~1. ~. ~o. 7, Muses of 9~ the ~m~erLeaa Xed&aa, Here l~undation, New York New l~rk, A~elletrau, Will,am ~. In ,Hi o 188~ ,~to~ory of the Town of S~uth~ld' ~folk count, Munse~, York, ~ 1~6 'A ~o~ of ~ X~a~' Vol. ~ ~tez RoBs 2ennypaeker, X934 .sout~Lold Re~z~Lm sever I,omt" In ~ooklyn Time UnAon, p. 6A. ~ooMAyn, ]Mw Yol~l. Kay A, 1934 ~rit oh&Td, Vol. 14. ~&a~ol, ~nalana. X903 (4 Tole.) "stFles o~ Atter~ in conee,~eut", ln.].~lleti~ Vol. ?, ~0. l, PP. 1-8. ArtiChoke, Mail "OermLio T~ad%%M~ and ~eque~ee in ConMo%~- BU. In Bulletin of the An~eelogioal ,BoWery of conneot~ou~. Ho, aX, pp. 10-20. YaLe ~outhold Town Reoo~tm "~ee on the A~ehe~legy ef X~ Xsland" ~ ~lletLa e~' the Masaa~ette AroM, eelogieaX 1947 Soo~e~3r. Vol, 5o HO,, &, pp. 58-~9. Andove~, Outline of tho Azoheolofy o~ Co&stl3, YOlk" AR ]ulletin of the Arehlolo~to~L ~o. olety of Co~e0tLeut. No. 2X, ~1~' 3-9, Yale ~ploh, yrank G. 1928 "Native Tribes and Dia~eote of Conneotiout. X~ ¢~ Annual Repor~ of t~e 3ure&u of ~aez~- oan ~thnolo~, pp. 199-~87. Vaah~n~oa, D.C. SAborJ~inal Monuments of the State of ~ew York" Vol. l~, Saitheonian Contz~bmtions ~o Xnow- ledge. WashAn~on, D. 0. XOA? William Du~oan 1035 "Aa Tntroduo~Lon ~o Jeb~aa~a A~oheolo~ smAtheonian R~aoellaneous ~olleet~ona, Vol. 9~! ~o. X0, Waah~z~ton. D. C. "H:~sIOX? Or IO~ I~LI~I' M York, M Xo~k, 1888 "The Indian Yozt at Hontauk'X~ the Gaf ~al~o~ F~eso. (][.Y.) Vol. 25, No. 3V, p. l, s~4 X88g "Indian A~Aaoe -][am~ a Re~4g o~ the ~wn o~ l~, pp. l~O, ~fo~ ~** M Yozk, 1889. (VOX. 4). lsg3 lgll -~ewe rrou ~mexioa or a IWe~ and Dlseove~le o~ ~eg ~nglanS~ l~epro~uoed TYr~e:~ll ~00, of ~me~loa, ~ookXyn, HeW York, 1902 · Van deTDonok, A~riae~ floes of wew York H~dorioaX soote~y, n. e, Vol. X, 1841, M Yo3rk, leu York. Vincent, ~lip 16~8 SA True Relation of ~he late Battell fought In -- ~Xe~O~r, ~,, ~l~el~,O~o,legv. tn loois e~oat a wteo~ ~o~ts Yte~he~' A-~inoe~oa, ~re~ winelow, Edward 1637 Lettl~ ~f Edwal~i WinoXow ~o .vote Wf.n~13~o.p, .Xn sooS. etT, ..'~eriee 4, Vol, 6, ~O$~l, I~ LOCATION MAP ,,- ,, ,, , , , , ,~~~~ ,,,, ,~, ~._~ ~ ~'~. '~/ // II ~ ..... ." ' ' ~ . ,' ', '. x~ . / II II now or formerly . ,' -----'~X I/~J Richard I Ginsberg ~ Marv,n M Brown ' , . ~ ~11 s~,,~ A-C A6~ICULTU~AL CONSerVATION I !Il su o vls,oN SKETCH PLAN i ~o¢~., STANDARD/YIELD MAP OF FIVE EASTERN TOWNS PREPARED FOR THE SUFFOLK COUNTY I SEP 7 1993 ~,,,T.~,~o~,u.~,~wo.~, : TOWN OF SOUTHOLD I , J tr C~u ' ' I : ' i ~ ~ i ~ :~, ~ , SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN , ,~o o~ ~.~ ~. INDIAN SHORES DIST, I000 ~ECT 116 BLK,, LOT ~ ' , , TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ,; , SUFFOLK COUNTY , N.Y. ,) · Young & Young, Land Surveyors - ~ .... ~[A~ SH~T NO, :1 OF now or formerly Stephen A. & Susan L, Koelin Country now or formerly Club Estates Property Owners now or formerly North Fork Country Club DOWNS CREEK ?0_ "'// '~- 10 '~ " / / " .... -~. '~ ~. ~-. I \ . /~ i .~-~ // , ~ ..... ~ ) ~'~u I.' / ~', - ~ ~ ~ 'l " ~. -'- ~'- ~ ~ ~ It ~ ~FORT CUTCHOGUE INTERPRETIVE CENTER O \\ 127400 SF % ,..-- ~ 82600 SF ......... 18.84 ACRES ® 80600 SF now or formerly Hadley B. Williams & B. Wheotley Williams 1100'_+ LOCATION MAP SCALE: 1" : 600' / 166400 SF @ 80200 SF ® B1200 SF 200' 82300 SF now or formerly Hadley B. Williams & Wife loft /j BARN ~ ' \\ % PADDOCK HOUSE i 1055'~ C) %0 now or formerly Richord I. Ginsberg & Morvin M. Brown PADDOCK HOUSE Q PADDOCK 5.67 ACRES or formerly B. Williams 270,+_ Young & Young, Land Surveyors 400 Ostrander Avenue, R{verhead, Ne~ York 11901 516-7~27-2303 Peconic Land (~) ~a-~ NOTE: ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON WERE APPOXIMA~ED FROM TOPOGRAPHICAL MAPS PREPARED BY O~4ERS AND ARE REFERENCED TO MEAN SEA LEVEL DA3qJM. Trust SITE DATA: 1. TOTAL AREA = 105.6 + ACRES 2. TQTAL LENGTH OF ROAD -- 2150 FT.+ ~--;3~ TOTAL NUBBER OF LOTS = 16 4. ZONi~G~I~SE D'lS~i~3:¢ :' * A-C AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION INDIAN SHORES At: CUTCHOGUE Town of: SOUTHOLD Suffolk County, New York Surf. Co. Tax Map: i lO00 j SOUTHOLD ~DWN DATE ; JAN. 10,1995 SCALE :1"= 100' JOB NO, :92 0747 SHEET NO, .1 OF I STATE LYVIRosMLk~TAL TYPE 2 UNLISTED ~ OTItER: NON-SIGNIFiCAh. fF__~ SIGNIFICANC~ DA~ gEIs COMPL~p~/~_iiDA~ D ST.~T OF PUBLIC COM~ P~IOD FOR DEIS~/~/~ COM~S RECEI~D ~OM: AGENcy: ] J"~ AGENCy: AGENCY: AGENCY: AGENCy: AGENCY: ~IS TO BE P~P~D BY~ ~{~ START OF PUBLIC COMME~ PERIOB FOR ~IS~/~/~ FINDINGS STA~ ADO~D BY PLANNING Pv~tc ~-~mc o~ ~s~/~/~ ~~EES PLANNING BOARD 1VIEMBERS RICHARD G. WARD GEORGE I~ITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. V~ILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 28, 1997 Charles Cuddy P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 RE: Proposed Major Subdivision Indian Shores SCTM# 1000-116-1-3 Dear Mr. Cuddy: The public comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement · dated January 1997, ended on March 20, 1997. Enclosed are the following: The transcript from the March 10, 1997 public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. o The comments on the DEIS which were received from the public and involved agencies during the public comment period. An itemized ]Jst of the correspondence is enclosed. The combined comments dated March 20, 1997, from the Planning Board and the Planning Board's consultant, together with the comments dated March 21, 1997, from Robert Kalin. Please prepare a written response to the comments. In preparing the response, please consider the foliowing: Comments should be identified as to whether they were made at the public hearing or if they were submitted as part of the written record. B. Comments should be annotated to indicate the source. C. Comments should be summarized without detracting from the nature, scope or intent of the comments. Indian Shores Page 2 D. A response for each comment must be provided. Responses should be accurate, consistent, and objective, and should be referenced to indicate source material for conclusions. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. o~ncere,y, ~ Chairman Y/,~/ eric. cc: Charles Voorhis Correspondence received on Indian Shores Date Received Name 2/10/97 Barbara Van Liew 2/20/97 Robert Kuhn 2/25/97 Barbara Van Liew 2/27/97 · Gaynell Stone DEIS Affiliation Socity for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation Socity for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities Suffolk County Archeological Association Nassau County Archeological Committee 3/9/97 3/10/97 3/10/97 3/10/97 3/11/97 3/20/97 3/20/97 3~20/97 3/20/97 3/20/97 3/21/97 · William Harris · Deb Winsor Henry Moeller William Peters - Kimberly Shaw · Deb Winsor · William Peters · Southold Town Trustees , Steve Resler Ann Lowry Frank Pearson Montaukett Tribal Member Southold Town Landmark Preservation Commission Suffolk County Archeological Association Nassau County Archeological Committee Cutchogue/New Suffolk Historical Council SC Dept. of Health Services Southold Town Landmark Preservation Commission Cutchogue/New Suffolk Historical Council NYS Department of State North Fork Environmental Council NYS Department of Transportation MINUTES March 10, 1997 Present were: Absent: Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Richard G. Ward Kenneth Edwards William Cremers Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner Melissa Spiro, Planner Robert G. Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer Martha Jones, Secretary G. Ritchie Latham Mr. Orlowski: Good evening. I'd like to call this meeting to order, it's a very nice turnout here tonight. I'd like to thank you all for coming down. First order or business, Board to set Monday, March 31, 1997 at 7:30 p.m. at ,' Southold Town Hall, Main Rd., Southold, as the time and place for the next regular Planning 8oard meeting. Mr, Cremers: So moved. Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. All those In favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? Motion carried. Southold Town Planning Board 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS SEQRA: Draft Environmental Impact Statement March 10, 1997 Mr. Orlowski: Indian Shores - This major subdivision is for 17 lots on 105.6 acres located on the south side of Main Rd. and the north side of New Suffolk Ave. in Cutchogue. This public hearing is on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated January 1997. SCTM# 1000-116-1-3. At this time I'll entertain your comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Would anyone like to start? Joe Gold: Good evening. I'm Joe Gold from Cutchogue and I'm speaking as Chairman of the Southold Land Preservation Committee. I just want to state the position of the committee. In late 1994 the committee passed a unanimous resolution recommending to the Town Board that the Town purchase the 37 acre wooded parcel that goes from the road south to the wetlands and includes.the fort site. That recommendation was based on a survey of the property, establishing the value. That survey has been checked and re-validated since then and is currently still an accurate...l'm sorry, I mean appraisal, not survey. The appraisal is still an accurate representation of the value of the property. The goat that the committee was achieving at that time was the preservatlgn of the fort. And the fort is on that wooded parcel and therefore that goat'is still achieved. I'm sure that everybody in the room shares a greater goal and that is to preserve the entire property in some way. However, the Town's step is a necessary step in any plan that preserves the property, and the recommendation of the Land Preservation Committee still stands - that the Town purchase that 37 acre parcel. Obviously, there are all kinds of could of, should of, would of's, but we have enough money to purchase that parcel, and not much more than that parcel. So that's the current position of the Land Preservation Committee. Thank you. Charles Cuddy: I'm Charles Cuddy. I just wanted to make a statement on behalf of the applicant because I wasn't sure that everybody here realized exactly what the layout of our proposal is. The maps are outside, but for those who haven't really taken a look at them, what Mr. Baxter and his family propose for this property is relatively simple. There's a 37 acre parcel which borders on the Main Rd. which would be the parcel that Mr. Gold was talking about, that would be sold to the Town. There are two parcels that are across from Pelligrini Vineyards running north Soudqold Town Planning 8oard 3 Marc,q 10. 1997 to south, so they go all the way back, virtually from New Suffolk Ave, Those parcels total about 30 acres, a little more. And those two are to be vineyards. There's a single parcel of about 5 ½ acres which borders New Suffolk Ave. which would be an equestrian or horse area. And then there are 13 single family lots which total about 32 acres. Half of those lots are along Down's Creek and half of them are interior on the parcel. So that's how it lays out. There are tonight for those who are interested, who appears on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Roberts is the Archeologist, he's to my left. Mr. Seeman is the Environmental Consultant, Mr. Abruzzo is the Surveyor and Engineer from Young and Young, and in the back is Tim Caufield and he's from Peconic Land Trust. These are the people who have gotten together to do this map which we believe is a mitigation map actually because it certainly isn't using up all of the property for single family residences. Thank you. Ronnie Wacker: Good evening. My name is Ronnie Wacker and I'm Co- chairman of the Committee to save Fort Corchaug and I want to address my remarks tonight to the DEIS. We are very concerned that this archeological treasure in our own baclo/ard not be lost to future scholars. We also recognize that Bill Baxter has been a patient man to have sat through so many negotiations over what he can do with his property. We owe him a debt of gratitude. He and his family have been guardians of this historic Native American site since his father bought it in 1959, and he has left it totally in its original state, not touching a leaf or a tree. In fact. Dr. Ralph Solecki, an internationally renowned Archeologist, who by the way comes from Cutchogue, says it is the best preserved Indian site on the entire Atlantic seacoast. But, it's time now to make hard decisions on how to keep this historic area intact. These decisions must be made very carefully. This subdivision is unlike any other we have ever had to consider in this town. The land underneath it is of more importance than what's above it. And we have an oDligation to preserve this evidence of a pre-historic civilization for future scholars. While we try to obtain the best use of this site, without placing an unfair burden, economic burden that is on Bill Baxter, we must also keep in mind that once an archeological site is gone, it is gone forever. That's why we question some of the work presented in the DEIS. Some of the statements we find confusing. For instance, on page 16 of their results, the Greenhouse Soutl~old Town Planning Board 4 March 10, 1997 Consultants say that the Fort Corchaug site is located primarily in the proposed Town Park, in lots 9 and 10. Then on page 18 of their conclusions and recommendations they say the Fort Corchaug site is located primarily in the Town Park, but probably also in lot 10. They don't include lot 9. Well, which is it - 9 and 10, or just 107 And why is any development proposed for either of the lots if the stated purpose of the DEIS ts to 'protect the cultural resources of the fort site.' Also in their conclusions they locate a pre-historic site, the rail fence well site within lots 2 through 10 and lot 16 of the proposed subdivision. To determine the exact boundaries of this ancient site that may go back as far as 3500 years, they recommend a Phase II Archeological survey. But they didn't do such a survey themselves. They suggest instead that someone else, perhaps the people who buy these lots do it. can you imagine the delight of a new lot owner on finding that in addition to all his closing costs and fees, he has to pay for an arct~eological survey? Sound a little bizarre? The New York Archeological Council has set guidelines. it's kind of like the ten commandments for archeological consultants in New York State. One of these calls for doing shovel tests every 50 feet. You're required to dig holes 50 feet apart searching for significant material. The Greenhouse Consultants dug their holes 100 feet apart. How much more information might have been unearthed if the testing had followed the official guidelines. Another disturbing aspect of the DEtS ts that no shovel tests at all were performed in the area where we believe the most important relics are likely to be found. This is the creek front. The most attractive property to a new home buyer today, just as it was to Indian settlers thousands crc years ago, And finally, the alternatives that they offer to the proposed development are no alternatives at all. They advise changing the size and shapes of a few lots within the same parcel, which incidentally is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. That archeological area most in need of preservation. Now, these alternatives offer no change from the original proposal. They simply re-shuffle the same lots around within the same dimensions. What kind of alternative is that? I suggest we really must go back to the drawing board. Thank you. Henry Moeller: My name is Henry Moeller and i'm here this evening representing the Suffolk County Archeological Association (SCAA). The SCAA Soul:hold Town Planning Board 5 Ma~h 10, 1997 wishes to support the acquisition of the entire Fort Corchaug site by the Town and other supplementary agencies and requests that development of the parcel not take place. The entire peninsula where Fort Corchaug was located was a habitation zone for the native people. The Indian Shores subdivision, particularly the waterfront area, is a major portion of this peninsula rich in cultural resources. We canhot overemphasize the importance of this evidence of the contact period between the native people and the colonial settlers. The part of the subdivision known as Fort Corchaug is of national as well as local significance as it is the only undisturbed native fort site in the northeast. Scientific excavation of the fort by Dr. Ralph Solecki and Dr. Lorraine Williams has interpreted less than 10% of the fort site area. Since no evidence of habitation was found within the fort; a living site should be located nearby. Possibly it could be the Baxter site south of the fort which was only minimally tested by the New York State Archeologist Dr. Ritchie, as well as Dr, Carlyle Smith, Dr. Burt Salwen and Dr. Solecki, Possibly it is another site Ralph Solecki feels that there may be also burial sites nearby. The large number of artifacts collected from the site over the years by local people also attests to the extensive native use of the area. Besides the inadequate archeological survey done for the EtS the submitted site plan does not provide an adequate buffer zone, especially to the south and west of the ,.' fort. If developed, neighborhood children would soon be exploring and would rapidly destroy the integrity of the sites. Evidence of the importance of this site is that there are three major archeological reports on the fort site by Dr. Ralph Solecki and Dr. Lorraine Williams wilt be the centerpiece of volume 8 of a book entitled 'The Native and Historic Forts of Long Island" of our series, 'Readings in Long Island and Archeology & Ethnohistory', to be published later this year. We ask that local government protect this jewel of its cultural resources, which if preserved can become an educational and economic resource for the Town. Thank you very much. Bill Peters: My name is William Peters, a resident of Cutchogue. I am a Trustee of the Cutchogue-New Suffolk Historical Council and a member of the Suffolk County Historical Society Board of Directors. I have read the DEIS and am very interested in the protection and preservation of the entire 105,6 acres encombassing the Fort Corchaug site. Southold Town Planning Board 6 March 10,1997 I understand and appreciate the fact that the Baxter family would like to ensure preservation of l:he pre-historic heritage of Southold, but they do not want to assume the entire financial burden to assure this. I wish to specifically address Section Vl, Part D, titled "Expanded Fort Corchaug Alternatives' in the DEIS. The four options presented therein deal primarily with minor reconfigurations of the lot lines of lot I 0, the lot 50 feet from the approximate location of the fort site. These four options are a cosmetic treatment of the fact that the entire 105.6 acres have archeological significance. I would like to present for your consideration a fifth option which consists of a north-south building lot swap. This north-south swap will provide a reasonable protection of the most critical areas of the site namely the creek front from the fort to the rail fence well site. Option 5 proposed involves: The separation of 5 acres of the fort site from the 37.47 northerly parcel (the Town Park). Subdivision of the remaining 32.47 northerly acres into 14 building lots. i'm taking the 37 acres, that's the Town Park, breaking 5 acres of the fort site away from it and having the other 32 acres be divided into 14 building' lots. Town purchase of the southerly section consisting of the 12 archeologically sensitive lots and the 5 acre Fort Corchaug site for the S900,000.00. I tested the market value of this option against 1. The market value of the subdivision, as presented in the BBS The DEIS plan including the Town purchase of 37.47 acres of the 105.6 acres for a Town Park. But suppose the Town didn't buy the 37 acres, how much is the whole thing worth, that's number 1. And then I cranked in how much the Town would pay for their 37 acres. To establish a basis for comparison I first generated an estimate of what the subdivided property in its entirety would be worth on the open market. I Southold Town Planning Board 7 March 10, 1997 used the Indian Shores subdivision map as presented, assessed values of equivalent properties as give to me by the Board ot= Assessors and a 2.75% equalization rate. This equated to 2.53 million for the market value of the entire subdivision as presented. I then applied these same factors to the plan presented in the DEIS in which the Town would purchase the 37.47 northerly acres including the Fort Corchaug site for approximately $900,000.00. Including this $900,000.00, the value of the property then equated to 2.88 million. We've gone from 2.53 to 2.88. The option 5 which I recommended studying here prlced out competitively to a value of 2.84 million. Not considered in these cost estimates is the cost of doing a Stage II Archeological Survey estimated by Mr. A. Camisa to be in excess of $$2,000.00 for 40 acres of this site. Mr. Camisa was the contract archeologist involved in the original site survey. Option 5 can truly be considered a viable alternative which should be considered. Presented for your consideration are this transcript, the letter from the Board of Assessors, upon which I based my estimates, a table presenting tl~e three estimates and a revised subdivision plan. I have a number of copies available for people who would like them. John Strong: My name is John Strong from Southampton College, and I just finished a book on the Algonquin peoples of Long Island as- published by (inaudible) University (inaudible) Studies Institute. And I want to address a couple of things. First the archeological work, I'd like to ask perhaps a representative here why wasn't...the phase report that's in your DEIS for IA recommends that shovel testing be done at 50 foot intervals, and yet when we come to the IB, also by Greenhouse, the test squares are 100 foot. Why was the decision made to expand it and again as others have pointed out here, this certainly increases the possibility of not finding an~ching. And also I would express concern that the State II that was recommended for sites 6 through 10, roughly something like $6,000 per lot if you ask those individuals who you're going to sell it to to pay for the cost, which could be very awkward. It should be done at one time by an Archeologist rather than by six different owners or however that breaks down. It seems a little bit awkward to me. Southotd Town Planning Board 8 March 10, 1997 But the other point that's related to that is that the work that has been done in village sites as Ralph Solecki himself indicated, particularly during the late woodland period reveals burials. The la[e woodland period burials were usually by the villages. You look at the Sebonic site that was excavated by Mark Harrington around the turn of the century, they found several burials. The same with Port Washington, so there's a great deal of precedent to suggest that there are undoubtedly going to be some burial sites that will be unearthed in this process. Because we also know from the building patterns that native peoples live primarily along the banks of creeks, particularly where fresh water was flowing into salt water because there are two eeo-systems that intersect there and it makes a lucrative place for food resources and so forth. And so we can expect that there will be settlements found along this area. Indeed Ralph Solecki and others have indicated that they were there at the Baxter site as well. So, it seems very likely that if they do a responsible Phase II they will be forced to go to Phase III. Now Phase II, and again if you look at the SEQRA regulations it's quite clear, they figure Phase I1 is going to cost $32,000. Stage II now means that you took at the places where they shovel test is where they found artifacts and they put trenches and test squares in those areas and if they find something they keep following it out. So the stage I1 could be at some point call for a stage III. Stage III means a complete excavation of the whole site which costs much.-.' more than $32,000.00. You're talking a great deal of increase in expenses there. Another point again, to come back to the burials, federal law requires that burial sites if they are discovered must involve the living descendants of the native peoples that were being excavated at sites that were being interfered with here. We have considerable evidence that the Montauketts were closely related to the Corchaugs and moved back and forth - intermarriage - and so I think they would meet the federal guidelines in terms of living descendants. This means in effect that they have to be involved with this process, particularly when you begin to dig in these sensitive areas. So it means that the situation is much more complicated than I think some would have them. Another point is that the area on the map that we're talking about here is also the area - I think it was lot 6 through 10 as well as the fort site - that are on the federal registry. The federal government recommended in the national landmarks decision there that this site should be preserved. We in effect are violating that. So J think it's very important to take a close look at all this in terms of all these kinds of possibilities as well. Southold Town Planning Board 9 Marci~ 10, 1997 And we have here tonight the Chief o¢ the Montauketts, Robert Pharaoh who may want to address the burial issue. Robert Pharaoh: Good evening. My name is Chief Robert Pharaoh of Sag Harbor, Chief of the Montauk nation. From our standpoint, any type of development where there could be the interment of Indian remains, to desecrate a burial site, one thing you have to keep in mind is years ago native people did not necessarily have one specific place to bury the dead. At a similar situation out in Montauk they found numerous burials in very wide spread areas. To find just one grave in an area of this size, you will more than likely find many more. There are certain tribal ceremonies that we hold for burial and on certain sites that have been disturbed either through archeologtcal digs or whatever, we really feel that we should be involved in this type of project. The Montauketts, as Dr. Strong said are related to the Corchaugs. We intermarried (CHANGE TAPE). We just feel that any type of development on a parcel on this is not what we would want to see. That's about it. Ann Lowry: My name is Ann Lowry and I'm speaking for the North Fork Environmental Council. While we appreciate all the reasons for preserving the entire site, we are only going to address some of the environmental aspects that came up in the DEIS. We are concerned primarily with groundwater and surface water, creeks and drinking water. The DEIS makes some assumptions which if the outcomes of the assumptions were different from what they say, it would have significant effects. For instance, they seem to throughout make the assumption that the agricultural land will be vineyards. This has the effect of providing less nitrogen loading in the ground and also requiring less water for irrigation. I get into nitrogen, and I'll say this right now, that this nitrogen part of the DEIS is very user unfriendly. It gives figures, it doesn't tell what they mean, it doesn't give the significance and it's very hard to make any assessment about, in very specifics tiow much is acceptable or better or worse, However, we Know that less in general is better. The DEtS also speaks of conservation measures and seems to make the assumption how the less use of water, the conservation of water, is going to happen. It states for instance that the impacts to goundwater quantities from the proposed action are assessed to be acceptable providing that the recommendations outlined in the North (inaudible) Water Supply Plan and voluntary efforts to conserve water are met. Using the word voluntary seems a little chancy to us and particularly in a sensitive area like this. Souti~old Town Planning Boara 10 Msrc~ 10, 1997 The DEIS takes pains to point out that a marine surface water system is not very sensitive to changes in groundwater quality. That is if that became contaminated it wouldn't affect the creek very much. Groundwater quality does not in fact significantly alter marine surface water systems. The findings of the DEIS later state that reducing groundwater contamination will reduce the projects impacts to Down's Creek. Finally, if the vineyard scenario and the conservation easements on the Peconic Land Trust do not materialize, these agricultural parcels could eventually be developed themselves. There are some problems with the mitigation measures. For one thing in the residential, the to be residential parcel, the 75 foot setback is given as a mitigation measure. How can that be a mitigation measure when it's required legally. It does also address that the 100 foot setback as compared to the 75, that will be a voluntary choice, does not result in an obvious or greater benefit while further on in the same paragraph in the DEIS the following statement appears: "it is impossible to qualify or quantify the benefit'. If it's impossible to evaluate the benefit of a 100 foot setback, then how can the DEIS state that it would not result in a greater benefit. The question of the impact of a Town Park is somewhat confusing also. There is an area in the DEIS that talks about a common ownership of parcel 5 through 10 and talking about the potential for development of a trail or ,,,' boardwalk as an extension of a trail system. And the DEIS says that this would in all probability have quite an unfortunate impact on the creek. However, in the Town parcel where there would be possibly upset with terrestrial wildlife and everything there are several statements made regarding the probability...l'm sorry, I'm reading the wrong part. There is no addressing that same issue in the Town parcel, that is if there were to be visitors and if there were to be trails and boardwalks it simply isn't addressed as to whether that would impact the creek or not on the Town parcel. So you have to wonder why it is on the private property to be (inaudible) and I think we all know why. The sanitary systems, it says that the soils at the site appear to be acceptable for sanitary disposal purposes. When will that determination be made? One would hope that that would be pretty clear before any digging started. There is something to be considered also that there is a golf course on the east side of the creek. Now presumably, I think it's stated in the DEIS that that does not have an unfortunate impact at this time, on the creek. I don't Southold Town Planning Board 11 Marcl~ 10, 1997 know the practices of that golf course, but I wonder about the cumulative impact of homes on the other side, the west side of the creek. And if we can really count on education and voluntary efforts to be ecologically aware of what they put on the lawns and all that sort of thing. I guess that's all. David Martinet I'd like to ask Dr. John Strong to turn the machine on. Could he put on the slide just for a few moments please? My name is David Martine and I'm from the Shinnecock Reservation in Southampton. I was going to bring a painting this evening but I wasn't able to buy it to bring it. So, I brought the slide because I wanted to give everyone an impression as to what the site with the fort on it could have looked like about 300 and some years ago. As you can see, it's a double palisaded structure and it was made of young trees that would have been placed in the ground, side by side, close enough so that you couldn't get through it and it was a place of refuge as well as a ceremonial center and it was also a place perhaps where wampum was manufactured. And those of you may not know that wampum had a lot of spiritual significance to it. It wasn't just Indian money as they talk about in schools but it had a great deal of religious significance to it. Also the land adjacent to the fort, probably there were villages there and quite correctly was stated there probably are burials there and so forth. So I wanted to give you all an impression of what the fort would have took,ed like. It's used as a ceremonial center. We also have a detail of it. Here's somewhat more of a detail. You can see the ceremonial dance taking place. Those of you who are interested can see this at White Farm Park in Commack and this is a museum that's being operated by the Suffolk County Archeological Association. So, it was a protective enclosure for my ancestors who lived in this area. And of course it's not just the fort we're talking about, it's the adjacent areas as well. i'm concerned that the parties involved in the siting of this position of this archeotogical site be made aware that if the proposed area for preservation was not enlarged, is destroyed or altered, then part ot: my heritage, and the heritage of all Native Americans of Long Island and in fact a significant piece of the heritage of this country will be destroyed forever. And I think Native Americans have lost quite enough of their heritage already. We've already lost all of Long Island for which we were never compensated. And now the most visible evidence of that which remains seems to be unfortunately a few scattered archeological sites which are still being found Southold Town Pfanning Board 12 March 10, 1997 here and there. In Southampton a few years ago, I'm trying to put this into perspective a tilde bit, we lost an ancient sacred burial site located on Sugar Loaf Hill to a developer who was not concerned with the spiritual, cultural or even scientific issues involved, with destroying forever that which is irreplaceable, Now, I'm saddened that something of a similar nature is occurring again to a place of a similar magnitude. Chief Pharaoh mentioned a little while ago about a situation in Montauk Point in which graves were located in a place that was up for development. On that particular occasion there was supposedly archeological work done. This Is another situation where they went every 100 feet, 50 feet or whatever and that was claimed to be an adequate study done for archeological purposes, and it isn't. In my opinion it isn't because it was proven so by another archeologist that came in with the best scientific techniques available and was proven that you just can't fool yourselves into thinking that by doing these little spot checks that you're finding something that may be there because it's not true. So my concern again is that burials could be discovered in these areas that have not been studied properly, or not been studied thoroughly. To go back to the Sugar Loaf Hill thing, I was going to make mention that unfortunately the guy that built the house there, he leveled 20 feet off the top of the sacred site. And there were religious principals involved, religious freedom issues. It was kind of swept under the carpet and it wasn't discussed that.' much. Also there's a situation by a hotel on the south fork at which a camp site was also discovered. Things were stopped at that site because they didn't want to get into the idea of trying to deal with where the burials were discovered. In that situation we proposed some steps that the Town Planning Board could take, if they found things that were located in the area that was of a sensitive nature, whether they be grave goods, burial remains or associated grave goods or ceremonial items. So there is, at least in the Town of Southampton, in place a series of steps that can be taken if things of a sensitive nature are discovered, I would recommend that you get a hold of those items because they're still in place and of course that was after the fact of losing this one particular site, bu~ at least if subsequent sites are discovered then these stipulations can be followed and the local Native American population can be made aware and be parc of [he process because I think that's very important. Lots of times history, especially in the archeological area or the museum area, Native Americans have been considered somewhat less than human. We've Southold Town Planning Board 13 March 10, 1997 supposedly been specimens that could be studied under the microscope or could be exhibited, but we're still around today. We still have a right to be consulted. This is a part of our heritage as well. So the spiritual nature of places is an important thing to consider. All religions, cultures and peoples involved in special places and certain places not in others. That's why the importance of place is very important in this issue. My ancestors were related to the people who built the structures which existed on this site. This place was of singular importance. It was a place of refuge, a place of creative expression and a place of ceremonial importance. It was active at the contact period of civilization..This is when the Europeans first came here and started to build their little towns and they started applying all this pressure in order to develop all this inter-tribal conflict and so my people found it necessary, or the Native American people of this area, found it necessary to construct something to protect themselves because they were not inherently warlike or aggressive so they were forced to build this structure. So I am concerned that this place be preserved to its fullest extent possible and it should be venerated even because it is of a singular importance. I ask that you do not permit this site to be destroyed or compromised in any way. Do not allow what happened in Southampton to be repeated here in ,. Southold. Please put your heads together and piece together a strategy :hat will spare this area from disturbance at the widest possible perimeter. Show that you have respect for peoples heritage that is not really your own. Can you withstand the pressure to do otherwise? Let Southotd set an example as a place which will stand up for the preservation for generations to come of a place which brings to mind for today's society the significance of a deep past, the past which speaks to us of the men, women and children who laughed and lived and died right here, generations before the first Englishman set foot on this portion of Mother Earth. Deb Winsor: My name is Deb Winsor. i'm here representing the Southold Town Landmark Preservation Commission. The Landmark Preservation' Commission was created for the purpose at: conserving, protecting and perpetuating hJstodc landmarks and districts in accordance with Chapter 56 of the Southold Town Code. I'd first like to say that I very much appreciate that representatives of the Native American communiW made it here ~:hJs evening to speak for the Corchaug community which unfortunately disappeared quietly and quickly around 1658 from diseases that were brought by the colonists. In lieu of no direct Corchaug descendants, again I Southold Town Pfanning Board 14 Marct~ 10, 1997 very much appreciate your being here tonight. Before I get into a preliminary response, the Southold Landmark Preservation Commission would like to tonight present our preliminary response to the DEIS that's been submitted. I would like to offer a copy of a letter that you have on file. It was sent to the Planning Board on July 27, 1996. I brought it sort of accidentally. It does build on the concerns that the Native American community have about burial sites in the vicinity of the fort. Again, we re- state that the fort was from what we know of fort:s of the contact period, [t was a refuge, not a residence. And it's important to make note of that because the applicant has gone to great lengths to accommodate the fort site in the plan that you have before you. However, it does not accommodate consideration for the area around the fort site, especially ' between the well to the south of it and the fort. That's why that area was included in the National Register designation as a historic site. Preliminary to that though I would like to just offer this letter to the Board from Dr. Solecki and I'll read just one sentence out of it. The former owner of the property, Mr. Downs told me in the 1930% his thesis was written in 1949, that they had found an Indian burial near the junction of his farm road and the Peconic Bay Blvd. south of the fort site. It is quite likely that other burials may be found at that area or elsewhere on the property. Future work at Corchaug would involve additional investigations on the Palisade perimeter ~n order to obtain a fuller assessment of the fortification than I have been able to present, which he later presented in his thesis. I think the paintings were wonderful. It would be great if we could actually begin to, by archeological evidence, support the paintings that we've seen tonight. Again, these are renderings based on conjecture. We'd like to see what was there and what was going on. We'll offer a copy of this, and I have copies of this for the Board. It is in your files, it was sent to you last summer. Additionally for all of you who haven't had a chance to do a little fun reading, this is the bulletin of the Archeologicat Society of Connecticut, No. 24 published June 1950. Unfortunately, this is the primary document that we can base most of our comment on tonight. It's Dr. Solecki's thesis which everyone hears a lot about. It was his masters thesis that he did, the title of which is The Archeological Position of Historic Fort Corchaug and it's relation to contemporary forts. You can all sort of wade through it at your convenience. It does mention a few precedents that I think are worth mentioning and were mentioned by representatives of the Native American tribes this evening. The first is that in 1949, I read, the Manhasset Fort located somewhere on Sachem's Neck on the south side of Shelter Island at that time the site had Southold Town Planning Board 15 Ma~h 10, 1997 not been found or known. The Shinnecock Fort in a surface survey of the region, 1946 investigated a hilltop and, I read, unfortunately there is a large dwelling on the hill at present, a construction of which has apparently obliterated all surface of aboriginal evidence. The Montauk Fort, writing in 1841 a Mr. Tooker found the outline of a perfect square of 180 feet. And then I read again in 1949, at present there is no trace of the fort. There is a large hotel situated where it had been. No evidence could be found nearby in a short survey by the author. This is writing in 1947. Again, we have a precedent in this area of disrespecting these finds. So as I introduce our preliminary response to this, I'd like the Board and the communib/to just remember that it would be nice if we could set a standard and a precedent with this site which would serve actually to be a precedent on the eastern seaboard. This is a pristine opportunib/. (CHANGE TAPE) The first concern that we have is that the proposed subdivision shall compromise the New York State and Federal designations of portions of the parcel as historic sites. As such, the applicant does not address the following consequences. Again, the national register designation as a historic site extends from the fort going south through several of the proposed lots. If as delineated in this those parcels are sold perhaps one to the Town, but other to private residences, if a National Register site is broken up like that, it's our understanding the National Register designation is either canceled or there's a lot of work that has to go into redesignating the individual sites by the owners. If the current designated area is divided into separate ownership modified by earth moving equipment or otherwise disturbed prior to completion of archeological assessment, the National Register designation may be canceled. If that's not true, it has not been clarified to the opposite by the applicant the expectation of the proposed lots would be individually redesignated as very Iow. Again, that could and should be addressed in the DEIS. So long as the property is held privately as parcels or as a whole, the cultural resource recovery is not eligible for public grants. If the National Register listing is lifted the property's eligibilib/for grants and funding is compromised, especially grants and funding that target projects that forward the recovery preservation and exhibit of artifacts that further our understanding of the cultural history of Native Americans. The second point that is of concern to us is that the DEIS is ambiguous as to Southold Town Planning Board 16 Marci~ 10, 1997 how the applicant proposes to implement the conc!usions from the Stage I archeoJogical research. The Stage I research concludes and their own consultant concludes ~hat the property merits a Stage It survey. The archeological work should be completed prior to approval of the proposed subdivision as opposed to prior to developed as its worded in the OEIS. Implied in a S~age II survey Is a requirement for uniformity of work and competent professional methodology and review. The DEIS suggests, and it's not exactly clear that it's being suggested, I might be misreading it, that the responsibility for a Stage II archeologJcal research will be transferred to the new owners conveyed by some sort of covenant. The DEIS does not address how the proposed covenants will be enforced nor who will be the monitoring agent. The Town by accepting the current proposal as it's drafted now, of partition prior to exploration and research will thereby become the agency responsible for the proper conduct of cultural assessment, is the Town qualified and prepared to assume fiscal and professional responsibility for archeological review. Again, there may be a different intent but it's not clarified in the DEIS. The applicant should clarify who will be responsible for covering the costs and defining and enforcing standards if the archeological review is to be conducted by disparate owners. The DEIS should specify a time period for archeological review as there is no representation as to when the last parcel may be conveyed. And again, I ' underscore what Dr. Strong spoke of earlier that the research on this site, the veP/nominal research that's been done considering the significance of it has been episodic. There has not been a continuum of research building upon research. It's been masters thesis aside masters thesis. The Phase lA and lB hasn't necessarily built on that. It was just an assessment of potential. The DEIS does not present viable altemative plans for the site as outlined In SEQRA. An alternative should be presented with consideration given to National Register delineation of cultural resources. There were alternatives given. One was a 42 lot plan. We have already visited that and found it not acceptable. And the other is no action at all. The DEIS extends responsibilities for currently uncontracted owners parcels, The DEIS makes several references to future contracts for ownership and or stewardship with Southold Town, Suffolk County and the Peconic Land Trust. We support those effoFcs. I can't understate enougiq. We support those efforts but for the purposes of t:he application before you, the DEtS should Southold Town Planning Board 17 Marc~q 10, 1997 clarify what will happen if these contracts are not executed. That's our preliminary response to the DEIS that you have before you. We'll present a final review later during the public comment period for this project. Walter Smith: I'm Walter Smith. I'm President of the Indian Museum. About 10 years ago I started to sit in these meetings to save Fort Corchaug. Fort Corchaug is something that must be saved. It isn't something that we should argue about. It's perhaps the most important archeological site on the east coast at present. Each time we get to a stage where we're going to get somewhere, some political maneuver fouls it up. Now I don't know where we sit on this one but looking at the map as it's laid out, I can't see how we can protect the fort site from pot hunters and other people who are going to go in and destroy what's there. Because the one site is so close, they'll go right across the fence with a rake and get things out. So this is the thing we have to consider. The best thing we can do is perhaps save the entire site, but where's the money going to come from for doing that, that I don't know. But I think the Town and the County and perhaps the State should all get involved to get the money to save the site because it is of great importance. A lot of material from that site has passed through the Indian Museum as it was excavated, Lorraine Williams, Dr. Solecki and others, and then all gone out of town. I think we have three artifacts from. Fort Corchaug (inaudible), that's it. All the rest are scattered, they're at Yale, they're at the Smithsonian, at the Hide Foundation and a lot of basements and on a lot of shelves in the area and in other areas. So one of the major things is to preserve the site. And it's going to be up to the people, the Town, the State, to figure out how to save the whole site. Now, the Indian Museum had a similar situation in upstate New York with a flint mine. No one wanted to take it on. We owned a small piece of it. So we put our own money up and we now control the entire flint mine. And that site is of very great importance to the Native Americans Itving in the middle of New York State and it's preserved and it's preserved forever. And this is what we have to think about doing. Maybe we have to start some private fundraising, I don't know. But I know the site must be preserved and there's no argument about that. And if we try this piecemeal thing, it's just going to destroy it the same as Fort Massapequa was destroyed, the Orient Focus on Sugar Loaf in Southampton was destroyed and the Orient Focus on Brown's Hill was destroyed primarily because of shortsightedness. But I think we have to, somehow or other, come up with the money to Southold Town Planning Board 18 Ma~h10,1997 preserve this site. I look in our governor's new budget with how we're spending the environmental money. [ think most of it has gone to the other part of Suffolk County. Very little has come here. Somehow or other we were hornswoggled out of that money. So someway or other it's going to be absolutely necessary for the politicians and the other people in town to figure out how to raise the money. I don't think we should figure out new plans or new ideas. Let's get down to the nltty gritty which is the money. I've got to give Mr. Baxter a lot of credit for being a tremendously patient man. Because this thing has gone on for as far as I know about ten years, I remember by County Boards. Another thing that's happening there at the Baxter site which was at the end is now under water, at every high tide. What is happening, we are getting sea level rise and no matter how you want to argue about it, it's there. I've lived here for many many years and I can see the evidence of it, and that's going to have an impact. So all these things adding up means we must act and we have to act now in order to preserve the fort and to prevent any further looting of that area. I thank you very much. Cliff Benfield: My name is Cliff Benfietd and I'm Chairman of the Southold Landmark Preservation Commission. And I want to thank Debbie Winsor for the job she did. I don't want to repeat much that she had said or others have said. The Landmark Commission wrote a letter to the Board members August 15 stating our position and it hasn't changed. We would be remiss,.4n our responsibilities as working for the Town...the Town recognizes a landmark as any place or site which has historical value, aesthetic interest by reason of its antiquity or as a part of development heritage or cultural characteristics of the town, country or nation. In other words, we are committed to protect landmarks that have been designated at every level of government. In Southotd, our code provides that we can only encourage preservation of landmarks through education and to promote and encourage historical awareness and judicious concern for designated landmarks. And that is what we are trying to do. As designated as a landmark, 25 acres are included in that square that is the national site of the 106 acres. Of that 25 acres less than 20% has been allotted to a Town Park and contains the footprint of the fort which is very nice that we could have a footprint of the fort in a Town Park. However, you have the other 80% of a national landmark destroyed if this plan goes through. Steve Wlck gave a talk at the historical society yesterday which is very interesting and I know that wampum has religious significance but we all Southold Town Planning 8oard 19 March 10, 1997 know wampum has other significance too. The site at Fort Corchaug by Dr. SolecKi was sited as one of t:he earliest mints in North America. And they manufactured wampum as Steve Wick said yesterday, the wampum of Corchaug bought the beaver fur for ~he Dutch and for the English that made New York State and developed our country. So we owe a lot to that little site. It is important to our country and it is significant. I think that you can probably hear a lot of people say the same thing and as far as what Walter has said about finding ways and means to preserve the land. I think we should do everything we can to do that. And I think there are public funds and private funds that could be available if someone had leadership on it and I believe the Town, or the people should be responsible for that leadership. The significance of the report itself I think has been brought out by many people and it does have some deficiencies as far as I'm concerned. No where in this DEIS does it show the coordinates on a map that show where the actual shovel digs were made and that is usually standard in such a preparation of document. There is either intentionally or sins of omission or comission, but on the map where the digs were made according to the notes of the archeologists themselves they did not indicate the dates where it was indicated they had found material. So, by looking at the map and the filled in holes on the map it is deceptive. As I say, probably unintentional, but nevertheless this is an imperfect document. ~,: And what I think is important as has been proven on the south fork is that when something happens like this and the Town goes ahead with it, they become liable from any group that wishes to sue and pursue test 2 and 3. And that becomes very very expensive and I think the Town should probably consider that there's a conflict of interest with archeologists that work for developers and the Town itself may well consider having an independent archeologist of their own to monitor what is done by archeologists for developers and that might be a practice that would be well advised for the rest of our history. Thank you very much. Rob White: Good evening. My name is Rob White. I didn't have any intention of speaking here tonight. I come as a private citizen. I'm quite concerned about this issue, I was trained at Comell University as a landscape architect and land planner. I graduated back in the late 60's and I worked for a fellow who taught me a hell of a lot more than Cornell University ever could have. One of the things that was his mainstays was that change is inevitable. Souti~old Town Planning Board 20 Marciq 10, 1997 Change is always going to happen. Its how we manage that change that matters. Another thing that this fellow always had, was something in his refrigerator called forever soup. And what he and his wife would do was they'd have dinner every night and no matter what it was, whether it was pork or chicken or whatever and they'd get done and whatever was left over went into this big pot in the refrigerator and each day they would put different spices in of this, that and the other thing and keep this thing going and they always had forever soup. You're probably trying to figure out what that has to do with what we're talking about here. I consider what we're talking about here, forever soup. The North Fork is changing. It has changed tremendously in the 25 years I've been here. My family grew up here. I myself have been here for 25 years and I've seen a tremendous amount of change. What we have to do I think is maintain some flavor in that forever soup that is the North Fork. 100 acres of one of the most important archeological sites that this area has to offer is not, I think, too much to ask for us to do our utmost to maintain as flavor for this forever soup that is the North Fork. The Baxters have been absolutely wonderful, in trying to help and work with the Town in making sure, or doing what they can to make this happen and I would just ask that we keep in mind that these treasures, little by little by little, not for now but for tomorrow, for 10 years from now, for 20 years from now that we still have this forever soup going with a lot of flavor to it. Did I make my point?: Elizabeth Hale: Good evening. My name is Elizabeth Hale. I'm from the Shinnecock Indian Reservation and I'd like to bring greetings from Shinnecock Nation Cultural Center and Museum. We wanted to be sure that you knew that native people, descendants of all those 13 tribes are here. Mr. David Martine whose paintings you saw is also on our Board. Marjode Martinez is here today and Chief Bob Pharaoh, and we are just a few who are saying remember the past and from where all of us came. Our people are watching how things come and how they are handled in these days and 1 think that many contributions that we have made in the past have been appreciated but have been forgotten and we don't want you to forget us. We are standing right here watching how Fort Corchaug is handled. I also belong to the New York State Museum at Albany Education Committee on Down State which is a new exhibit which is being opened during the 1990's and to the year 2000 we will see a full exhibit of New York State history. I would hope that this piece would be highly recommended there. Dr. George Hamil is the director there and he is the president of the Re- patriation Committee, national. And we don't want to get the Re-Patriation Southold Town Planning Board 21 March 10, 1997 Committee upset around here. We have a lot of things that we want to contribute and so that our descendants, your children and mine will know much more about our history and treasure it as we all do. Thank you. Robert Pharaoh: i'd just like to formerly request on behalf of the Montauk Nation that the Town of Southold keep us informed on the developments and this property, because it is very important to us. Mr. Orlowski: OK. Speaking for the Board I'd like to thank you all very much for coming out tonight. It was a very good hearing. I thank you for your comments, for your questions. Tonight we will end this public hearing and that the comment period will stay open until March 20. So between now and then if you have any other comments, anything you'd like to get to the Board that we could review before we pass it on to the applicant, we would appreciate it. Any questions from the Board? Mr. Ward: I'd just like to thank you all for coming and I'd just like to see by a raise of hands of how many would like to see the whole fort preserved, the whole site. OK, it's everybody in this room. Basically, I'd like you to ask since this is the first time that I've seen a group together of everybody that's pro save the entire site, is that I'd like to make an appeal to you to do some homework. One would be to write to Suffolk County. The Town already has committed.' up to a million dollars to help purchase this property. Let me tell you that this Planning Board and your Town Board is actively pursuing the County and the State to get some money to help pull this off. But hearing from a few politicians and Planning Board members is not enough. What we need for you to do is to write to Bob Gaffney, Suffolk CounW Executive, cc: Michael Frank who is the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation, cc: Stephen Jones who is the Commissioner of Planning. The State has come through with $200,000.00 to this project from the 1993 bond issue which was an Environmental Bond Act. I personally made a trip to Albany to talk to Winthrop Aldrich who is the head of the Environmental Protection Hlstodc Preservation for the State, Deputy Commissioner and their attitude right now is, they don't know what's happening with the bond issue money for 1996. We all voted for that bond issue. We need you to write to Governor Pataki. We need you to write to Bernadette Castro, Commissioner of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. And her Deputy who is Wint Aldrich in Albany. If you need help on those names, the Planning office wilt help you. Please everyone that's here tonight, write those letters and let's have our voice heard. There's no reason that we can't Southold Town Planning Board 22 March 10, 1997 get additional funds. Mr. Odowski: Anyone else have a comment? Mr. Edwards: You might even go a little further to the federal end of it because it is a national site, part of it and if we can get the word out some of the federal people might help. Mr. Ward: Believe me, they'll listen to this group better than they will us, so please help us out. Mr. Orlowski: Now that we've given everybody alt that homework, I'll entertain a motion to dose the hearing. Mr. Cremers: So moved. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Odowski: All those in ¢avor? Ayes: Mr. Odowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers. Mr. OrlowskJ: Opposed? Motion carried. Headngs Held Over From Previous Meetings: Mr. Ortowskl: Estate of Andrew Cassid¥ - Section I - This major subdivision is for 3 lots on 58 acres. Lot #I is a non-buildable wetland area o¢ 23.24 acres; Lot #2 is a 32.98 acre area on which the development rights have been sold and lot #3 is an 80,000 square Coot residential lot. The parcel is located on the south side o¢ Albertson's Lane in 0reenport. Section I is Cot 2 lots; a 23,24 acre non-buildable wetland lot and a 34.8238 acre lot o¢ which the development rights have been sold on 32.98 acres. SCTM# 1000-52-5-59.6. Mr. Cremers: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to offer the following resolution. Be it resolved that the Southold Town Planning Board hold the hearing open pending receipt of the final maps with Health Department approval. Mr. Edwards: Second the motion. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? NELSON, POPE & VOORHI$, LLC 572 walt Wlaimmn Road Melville, New York 11747 2°d suJomiss,'oq (516) 427-5665 Fax: 11516) 427-5620 March20, 1997 Town of Southald Town Hall, 53095 Main R~d P.O. ~x [179 Sou~ol~ N~York 11971 Att, c~d. on: MeJi_~sa Spiro I~: Indian Shams DEIS Comnum~ Dear Ms. 5piro Nelson. PoI~ & VoorMs, LLC has r~iew~cl fire D~ ~omm~ ~p~ S~t*~ (DEIS) for ~ Pro~s~ ~jor Sub~si~ - t.di~. S~r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o~ F~ 14, 1997 1~. ~e follo~g is a ccmb~ ofN,P~V ~ ~e To~ P~--i-~ D~r co~. P~e i: S~¢,,.-"3,'. A. Proposed Amen DEIS St_a,~mc~t: ~ ' · offered for pux~ha~e by .'.he Town of Scuthold for use The application Lnclude$ a. 7.,7 acre parcel _ as a cultural resources park. Please provide .addiuona! information regarding this puroh~m by the Town of Sonthald. Specifically, has the Town bee= contacted with regard to the purchase of th/s parcel. Who is the Tom conta~ and whar is the current status of negotiations. DEIS S~t: The DEIS lists six p .urpos~ of the proposed action. One oft. he six star, ed pulposes is "To pror~ cultural resources associar~ with Fort Corctmug md other historic sites." Statements, some o£ w~ch axe listed below, rna~ ;n the Reaults secUon of the Phas~ IB Arclm~olcgical Survey (pages 16-t7) and the Conclusions and Rcc, omm<mS-~dons se~/on of the Phase iB Axcha~logicaI Survey, (page lg), do not support the above menfitmed staumxent made in the DEIS. This should be clarified. As noted below, some of the cultm~ resources associated with Fort Corchaug ar~* likely w he knpa~..-d by c~rrain a~p~.~S oft. he proposed development. In a~cti~oa, there are discrepancies and eontradic~on$ b~ s~ar*m~s made in the Results scc~on and szatrxaeats made in the Conclusions and l:~?.~3~dn~;Ol~ $t~'tion. 'Fnt~'~ arc also contradictions berweea~ the ~ informa~on and tha shown on the Cultural Resource Map as not~ below..MI discrq~ancies and contradictions shou/d be ~xplamexi and clarified. Page I · The Fort Ccro~ang ~/te is located pdmuarily witt~a the Proposed Town Park and L°ts 9 ~ I 0. · The Fort Corchaug site is !~ca,.ed prkmanly within the Town Park but probably ~lso in Lot (Tm~ statement omits Lot 9, which is included ha the above menfioae~ sta~'~mm£, a~l a~d~ tha~ the For~ Corcbaug site is "probably" in Lot 10. This mu~ be clarified, kt addition, ~e Culmr~t Resource ,V~ap d~e~ aot show the Fort Corehaug site within either lot). · The Fort Corcbaug site is likely to be Umpacted by aew houses m Lots 9 and 10 and possible improvemeum to the Toga P~rk. · The Fence Raj.1 Well Site is lecated within LOts 4, 5 md 16. This site is likely t:o be imlrac~ by the proposed houSeS, roads, driveways and serwc~ connections antieipa~d as part of the subdivision. · The Fence ~ W~I sim is leca',~! ~dthin Lots 2-t0 and 16 (The above mentk:ned says t~at the Fence Raft Well Site is located wiu~_in Lots 4, 5 a~d 16. Ye~, the Cultural Resourc~ Map shows the Fence Rail Well Site ~s being located on Lot $ c~ly). · Additional prehistoric remai~ were reported/n Lots 6 throu~ i0 be~v~ the R.~I Fence Well Site a~d Fort Corehaug * The "~orth~,am aew prd~s~odc site" is located pamally within the proposed To~a Park and partially within Lot 1. Page 4: Cultural Resources DEI$ Statements: The park proposed for sale co Southold v,4,11 preserve the cuitutal resoarces. Greenhouse Comultaras, Inc. concluded no new at, pacts te cultural resource s~tes would be ecpected with the exception ora new site found dunng recent investiganons. As mentioned ~n thc prcvious cornme~at, the infommtion covt~in~l ha the Appencticcs does not support these s'mtements. The Phase lB Archaeological Survey results conclude (with the cfiscrepancies .mentioned in the above meraoned comments for Page i) tha~ the Fort ,Corc, h~g Site is likely m be rmpacted by aew houses in Lo~s 9 and I0 and the Fence Rail Well Site is IL&ely to be cnpacted by the proposed houses, roads, driw~vays and service connections anfici~tted a~ pagt of the subdivision. The park proposed for 'sale to Southold will preserve some of the cultural resources, but certainly nOt "thc" cultural resources located on thc site. Page 4: Wate~ Ru~our~ DEIS Statement: Current regulatory re~mixe, mmts will avoid significant impacts and ~ ~lards iraposed by ~ approval agamcias can be met. Ple,~e ¢lari~ fixis smtemcrct. What r~lawu r~uk~m ~ ~w ~ ~ese ~m~m avoid si~ mp~. ~ propos~ pmJ~x shoed be ~ m avoid ~ifi~: ~ ~d appr~fia~ mfi~on ~o~d be ~ ~ ~ FEIS so ~t ~ ~m~ ~y mo>~ ~e m~r~ ~o ~or F~gs ~ d;isim mm. Page 4: Aquatic & Terresmal Ecology DEIS Statement: Co~thauous buffer zones between wedmad ~ woodlaad habitats prov/de wildlife corridors. Page 2 ,,%. 75' buffer zoae ~om ',he we41and ~ been propose, d. Seventy-ilve (75) feet is the rmadard miaimum, setback requi.-ed by the Toxt='s Code for szrucmres aud impev.4ous sm%ecs from the we'daud edge The s~back does eot ~xclud¢ ¢leanng and further ac'civit¥ wi',Mn 75' under ~rnut from ~WY'$DEC. Docmv. e,~,oa referr;azq, to wildlife .management studies and pra,,-fiee~ must be provided m suppor~ the ~;at~nent ~t a sutE,,ment ~ildlif¢ eomdor is being provided, par~culaxly in -,4ew of'&e ,o. zmulative mmre of private utilization of much of the Down', Creek frontage. Page 5: Cultural Resonre, e~ Comment: V*qay axe tlzere 2 sections for Cultural Resources; om: on Page 4 and one ma P:-ge 57 sections should be combined. Page 6: D. Alternatives DEIS Statement: Thc mo~ viable plan appears to be the propo$~ action. Cor~'rlcnt~ This semlmace should be gt_~ieken since k is ~e ~on of ~e appfi~-~ ~d is not n~ly wMc~ ~ more ~ble bm~ on ~e ~n~ ~pa~ ~ ~ su~ ~ s~y, ~ Fo~ Cor~g site. Page 7: Approvals Rxxtuired Table The specific Town Depa~znenr or ~ issuing the required approvals shon~d be included in a revi~.A table. Page 9: Figme I Comment The labeled "Furore Devei~m~t A.-ea" should be relabetcd "Residential Development .~rea", ff'in fi:c: that is correct. Lf net, please ctarL-~ what the "Furore" development will be. Page 10: D~cription of the Proposed Action DEIS Statement: There is al$o a provision for ~'wo fi:nv: resid~ti~ one ~ azat one ou~uildmg on the v'meYard parcel as well as a re~id~c~ and outbuilding ra'ucmre along New Suffolk Avenue. This s'tatmmemt ~hould be clarified. Om= resMential building (not two) is allowed on ,:ach proposed "vi~cy, ard parcel". Wkat parcel is the residence and ouzbuilding structure proposed for along New Suffolk Avenue? Is k the second vine:rard parcel (lot #2) or the equeSman parcel (lot #S)? Include a ~atemeat wtaich mcLicates that th~ mctures depicted on thc subdivision map ar,: hypothetical a~d additional Term ~d use and building department approval~ will be required prior to deve!olarcamt of!ets 1-.~ ~ well as ~ther lc~ in the subdivision, Page 21: Design and Layout DEIS Statement: Devcto!;ment of tt~ sire was dictated by natur-g resources (wettrm~) and cultural resource ¢onst.mm~, wh/ch imve been ineorporaled into the overall developmmat pla~. Page 3 As d/scussed m¢c ¢nmm~nts flor P%,c t, a s/D'h~can~ ~rnoum 0£ t.~ "culsursl r~,s~c~ c~nstraints" a~e located within the development ~.-ea. Tr, e facts do not support the swxement thai development was dictated by cultural r~ourC~ cocoa-oats. Page 25: Peoonic Land Trust and Conse.wafion -Easements DEIS StatuarieS: The Applicant in~ends ~o donate conservation easements covering the two agricultural lam of' 18.84 and 11.96 acres. The intent to dona~ eon.z~xvalion easements should ~ c~. ~ ~ ~p~t ~,~;-s ~ d~c~be s~c ~o~ of ~e sim ~ ~1 be s~ fi~m ~e ~1 ~ (~ m ~e To~. ~ sp~e ~ ~ ~ meO~ni~ for ~ie~ ~ sh~ld ~ ~c~s~. ~ m~ures ~ ~ ~, ~e ~fid km~ on o~ i~ce ~uld ~ ~1o~ Page 3 l DEIS Statement: Maintenance of the road and s~rmwater system will be the responmbilky of the Town of Southold. ;Maintenance of the road and storm~vater system will not be the r~ponmbili~ of thc ii'own until the toad and drainage areas axe offered m, and accepted by doe Town. Until ~uch time that the areas axe dedicated to the Town, they ~411 be the reMxmsFoilky of the Homecr, vner ,~sociafion or developer Table 3 " DEIS Statement Approval required from Health semces is l~mding subdMsion map a~proval and SEQR. Applicafior~ m be filed at furore Approval from the Suffolk County Depanznent of Health Services is a required approval for realw subdivision. Site specific perrmts tn ennstrue~ sa~im.,'y ~/s~ems w.LLl ~ be required when iridividual buiJdi-~a are ¢o~l_eWaclefl. Page 55: Tidal Marsh DEIS Statement: Lots 6-10 have adequate area above the 10 foot contour for ~ appropriaxe bui.ldlnz envelope, and ~rea~ ~ Of ~e 10 foot con. ur can be covenanted to renm~n n-~tttt~l or r~:!uired r~ obtain a tidal wetlands pernxit if activi~ is proposed below the 10 f~t commur. Lot 5 does no~ trove adequate room for a bui]dini ~velope outside of NYSDEC jurisdiction, ~d will require wetl~ad 4~li'n~tiou and permitting. The proposed 75' wetland but~r srea should be eapaaded L~n~,vsrd m the 'I0' contour line where the contour line i~ outside (west) of the 75' buffer area. ~ ~11 er~ure rh,r all areas below the 10' contour line remam in a =araral state and will not require N"YSDEC AnScie 24 p:rmits. Lot 5 should be rrnsed or relocated so ~ a satisfactory building envelope can be lecar.~d above ~he I0' contour live and outside of the NYSDEC jurisdiction. p~e4 General Comments: Thc/ssu¢ of NYSDEC jurisdiction ov~r ~ wcdands on sit~ mu~-~ be clatLfied wi".bJn ~e FEIS. Thc DEIS (p. 54)/ndicated that a joint application was made on the subdlv/sion to the NYSDEC and An'ny Corps of ~,*~r~ m D~mmb~r of 1996. Tbe status oft~s apphCamon ~aould be n~de part of~e FEIS record, and amy expected resmctious should be included in the FEIS so tlmt it can be incorpotat~i into the Stawanent of Findin~,~. The FEIS should also clearly outline how the proposed wetland btu.%~ areas will be pror. ect~. The DEIS (p. I07) indicales that ,J~se areas whll ;eo,~;n undisturbed. Although NYSDEC restrictions would not allow buildings or paved SlU'FiW.~ within 75', clearing of v~gelal~oll wou~d, be pezmitted. The FEIS should discuss the use ofcovenant'~ m protect the buffer area, particularly in the areas of sr~p. er slo.~s, and these resm~on~ should be described so thru they may be included in the Smmmenr of Findings. The applicant is strongly encouraged to util/ze covenants ~ will remove as many tots as possible fi.om NYSDEC jurisdiction by restricting development to -,':cas above the ! 0 foot contour. Page 64: Upland Forests DEIS S*~*,~em: The v~getafion occurring at the former Fog Corchaug sim is tmique and can bes~ 5,. described as Maritime Oak Barrens. As shown on the Veg~tanon Location Map, more dian haft of the Mar/time Oak Barrens area is located within the proposed development area. Yet, no rn/riganon memures axe prolx,Sed to prote~ or conserve this unique area. Tiffs should be ~dmssed as well as general vegetaZion impacts noted in the comment below. General Conunents: The DEIS does not include a sec*~Jon on impa~ts to vegetation, although sore: appropriate tmeorn~tion is included in the rmt~,_atinn section of the docui'n~lt (p. i18). The FEIS should q~uantify both the cxiSllllg area of each habitat and the area which w/Il rema/n foUowing implementation of the proposed project. This document does briefly discuss iz. apacts to the wcdands, but does not adequately address the loss of upland vegetation. A general ~sonssion of vegetation impacts should be presented in the FEIS, followed by a more detailed discussion of the more valuable habitats. In par~cular, the st~iug section of the DF-AS (p. 65) indieales ~the southern porfic~2 oftbe site is mature oak-hickoty forest, and that few re~-~a, of this native forest remain wig,in th~ Town. The impac~ to this habita~ shculd be discussed ~ the FEIS in view of ~c rela~w: rarity of ~ plant commrmky as stated in the DEIS. Son~ mitigation has ~ mentioned in ~he DEIS (p. 113), but the FEIS should discuss exphcit mitigation measures that ca~ b~ included h~ th~ Fiva~ngs Smt~llel~ ~llC. lI a~ u~l~:ltiou of Covennnt~ to Sl:)~ci~, Cl~J'illg tintit~ and preservation of larger trees within the landscaped portions of individual lorn. In addido~ two rar~ plant~ were identified as potentially preaent on sim (DEIS, p. 68). Th~ likelihood that these species will be imp~,'r~l by the proposed project, should be discussed in tile FEIS. Page 5 Page 68: Rare Plants G~neral Comments The DEIS fails to adequately address poteatial impacts ~ ,naldlife on si~, and dee~ not contain a list of species tha~ are ex~pect, ed un the proper~y. A comptem list of wildlife wh/ch ,_re potentially present on site should be included in the FEIS, a~ wu reques-~ed ia the origi.al scoping letter. The DEIS preseats only a brief, incomplete ',dst of predominantiy wetland species (p. 62-64, 68). Severai groups of wildlife a~e not even menUOr~ in the DEIS, including the warblers :md other impor'~.nt uplaad ~auna. Ti~e wildlife list shoutd identify redly/dual species rathe.' than general ~ur~t ~roups. In garUcular, the FEI$ should discuss the proposed clear/ag on the forested potion of the site, which will be the pranary wildlife anpact. The FEIS should firs~ id~tify all ~lali~'e spec/es which would be ~xpected to tFnlize the forest habitat, then address the potenria/impacts m. these species which my result from the proposed clearing. This analysis '~'~'~'~'~'~'~'~'~3uld include a discussion differentiating between species which adapt well to development and area sensitive species which my abandon the s~te following construction. A brief, but more accuxate, discussion of reptiles and amphibians should also be h~cluded in the FEIS. The ~rogs and salamanders are not found in sa/t mr as suggested in the DEIS (p. 62), although they. might be pre~ent on site if suffident freshwar-,'r is available. The potential presence of these aPec~es should be discussed ~ thc FEIS. It ~hcmld also be noted that turtles axe reptiles, not amph/bi-~, as suggested in the DEIS (p. 62). Page 71: Cuiturai Resources DEIS Smteme~: South of this ar~a is believed ro be the hLqoric Fort Corchaug, with a possible v/Il.age also nearby. Th/s statement must be discussed further. For instance, no further mention is made of the "possible vOlage" in ~qther the DEIS or Appendices. DEIS Statement: Tlae tim phase of the inve~gafiou consisted of shovel testing at every fi_fly fee~ no. rth of the fort adjacent to the creek and the salt marshes. Page $ of the Conelusious and Recommend,at/om of the Phase lA Arclmoological Research Assessment recommends that a Phase IB Archaeological Survey be conduct, ed on the project axea and tha~ the survey should cor~ist of shovel testi~ a[ 50 foot mterval~ north of the fort along the wooded smp adjacent to' Downs Creek and also within the ~alt marshes wherever possible. However, as noted on Page 3 of the Phase lB Archaeological Survey, the parcel was invest/gazed by excavating shovel tests located on a 100 foot grid pattern, Aecordiagly, the above meamoned s~'e~nent that ~hovel testiag was done .vet-/ fifty feet is not tree. Documentation as ~o why shovel ~estiag was not done at 50 foot intervals as recammende6, mm be presented. P~e6 Page 80: Groundwater DEIS Statement: This see-ion of the DF. IS discusses the use of water-efficient plumbing, wale.: con~ervalion .me~,c<Ls, ¢:c. and concludes *,bat th~ impacts to groundwater q,,~_nrjdes fi.om the p'roposed action are assessed to be acceptable providing tlmt the recommendations out[mod i~ the No~zh Fork Water Supply Plan and voluntary, efforts to conserve water are m~. CorllrneJltl reco~ ~u~g =y of ~e ~. ~ ~bs=~ of ~c~c ~plm~uble m~es ~ ~or~ wa~r ~ ~e ~p~ ~ gro~d~a~r mu~ ~ b~i on ~e wo~ ~e sc~o. ~ is ~t be~c we~ l~ in low l~g ~ ~ arc p~ly pr~e ~o s~t w~r ~on. · Page 107: Wetland amd Wildlife DEIS Statement: Furore access to the creek via cleared paths and flo-~tinE docks could occur, b~ would be reg,,I,*,-~ on a case-by.¢.ase basis by NYSDEC, Town of Southold and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. If resmctions prohibiting cleared pa&s and flo~t.i~ docks, ¢~c. are not proposed, the statements made ia other para of the DEIS in reg~d to provisions for continuous buffer ;:ones between wetland and wo~_land habitats to provide wildlife comdors must be re,~xamined. Ther~ is ali inherent conflict b~wee= alleWmg clCar'-ng and docks, etc. and prey/drag for a wildlfl~ corridor. Page 108: Cultural Resources DEIS S tatea-nont$: TLis section agam discusses the lOCation of the pretfistoric sites wirhi~ tl~ propose~l deve~pment area. The DEIS recommends tha~ a Phase 2 .~rc~Meological Survey oftbe Fence Rail Well sit~ be undemakea prior to construction of Lots ~.-10 and 16 to determine the precise bc~-,,taries of the site ~ well as potential National Regis'tot ¢li~tbilit~, Th~ Caltural Resource Map con!_a, in_t_,xi ill thc Appealdices shows ~ entire proposed rot $ as being located within the bOtlladaries of one oflh~ prehistoric sitea (thc Rail Foaco Well Site;,. In order for the subdivision to be desigt~d to prottx:t ~ resources a.ssoc~*__~l_ with Fort ('orehaug, the Pkase 2 Survey should be completed prior to completion of tbe SI~QRA review. Only then can p~cise boundaries be der~rntmed and developm~t be designed to lessen th~ ~.'ts to cultural Lu addlrJon, ~c Fort Corchaug site, as weft as twe~aty-fivc acres of the wabj~-t property, are designatod oa th~ National ~r of Historic Place. Yet, rile e:dsmag Na~iom~l P. egist~r designation is not di~cossed. T!~ trnpac~ the proposcd developme:at will have ~ the National Retlas~r designation mu~ I~ addressed in detaq. DEIS Statement: Fo~ Corchaug is located primarily in the Town Park but probably also La Lot 10. As me."cdcned in the co~{mts on Page I, there are discrepancies and conflicts with regard to the lc, cation of the Fort Corchaug Site. What i~ defia~l as b~ng the Fo~ Corchaug site? What is me:mr by Fort Corchaug being prmmnly located m the Town Park? What percentage of the Fort Page 7 p~ ~ ~e D~S ~s ~mlusi~ ~ w ~e ~*s ~ ~e Fog Cor~Ug si~. Due to ~e ~cl~ive i~on ~ bo~s of ~e Fog Co~ sim, ~d th~ ~ of ~ si~fi~t si~ b~g ~ ~ pro~ developer ~ a p~e 2 Su~y mu~: be ~mple~ prior w ~pl~2on of ~ SEQ~ m~. ~Y ~ ~ pr~i~ ~do~,~ be c~ ~d ~velopm~t be ~i~ to I~ ~e ~pa~ to ~e culm~ msour~ s~. W~ou~ ~s ~o~fion, ~ ~ pot~U~ for ~p~bte ~d ~ev~le lo~s of cul~ ~our~- p~ 112: Mi~afi~ M~s m ~ ~ro~ ~ DEIS C°mmen;~ecific mitigation methods that %~11 (as opposed to m,sy) be used must b~ disc~seA in addition to how t.~y will be implemented and enforced. For example, on Page 115, ~ DEIS states that construction of the r~sidentml development will aot involve clear curang o£ the; lots. What provision is proposed tO ensure that clear cut6ng v~d not occur? Page 119: Cultural Kem:~rces DEIS Additional measures are proposed to midgar~ pot~t~d archeologist may need to conduct additional shovel tests prior '.o construct/on w reaieve any other significant arUfacts that could be onthe site. If desired by the prospective lot owner or appropriate agency, the foot ptir~ of the house could be moved to avoid any discovered resouxces, A Pha~ 2 archeological survey is r~ prior to d~.elopment of Lots l-lO and ~t 16 and the proposed Tov~ Park. Con~nent: The arc~"~log~sts have recornme~i~d that a phase d~velopr~mt of a rna)ori~, of ~e proposed lots (Lots 1-I0 and Lot 16). As noted in prior comments, a p~se 2 Surv~ must be cornpletxd prior ~o completion of the SEQRA review. Only then can precise boundaries of cultural resourCeS be dc~rmin~. It is not suBSciant to present as a rnkigstion method that a co,duct ad~_ 'fion~l shovel t~ts prior to construction to r~eve any other signpost artifacts and ........... r,~dat¢ agency, the foot pnnt of ~cte hons¢ co-Id be moved to avoid any discovered resources. The mimga~on measures proposed (i.~. r~.rieval of sigrf~ficant art~ctz and having aa ar~logiSt on sit~), must be discussed in depth in addition to appropriat~ responses, inclu~ag suppor~,~ information, to the foliowing · How will the above mentionod mi~igauon methods be enforced? · I~ retri~vul an acceptable mitigation method? · What will be the mahc~t for retrie'~,d and what will happen to the rcrrievod items? · Is ~etrieval an acceptable mit~gat/~n method for sites which are d~igrmr~d on the National R~gismr or which have Nsuonal R~-g~ster ¢lig~b · Wl:at w~ll happen if ~rther t~m~g sho~vs that ~ propo$.'~d d~velopment sren or bu~al sit~? a Pha~ 2 archaeological survey prior to development of*he Lots. · The apphC~t proposes to do - Ho~v ,,~fill t.bis be ~t'orc,,~L monttored and ~-vicwe. d? Page Expanded Fort Corchaug Sim Altm'nativ¢: Comment: This ~l~rnative was pro~ to provide a di~cUS~on of cluStm'ing to provide a larger prcserva~inn area in the v~cinity of Fort Corchau8. The DEIS roms that "3~s altsmative would involve exp~msion o£th¢ propos~cl 37.~,? acre Town Park to include some oX'tim pro~ re~idm~:ist to~". It is nOt: true that the Town Park would have to be expanded in order to pram'ye a larger area in the vichzity of Fort Corchan~, a ru-,vi~ed lot layout would ~ble a larg~ area in the vicinity o£ Fort Corchau$ to bc pr~rved. It is understood that in order to provide a larger pr~ervation area in the vicir~, of Fort Corchaug, a reduoM number and/or sim o the lots fronting on D~.s Cr~ck will b~ ne, c~m'y. Ho,~.-ver, it is not suPlicient ~o limit discussion of development m tho co,,~i-~s of ~ proposed d~velopm~nt ar~a. R~mov:d of Lot 10 and/or reductio~ in si~ o~'ths proposed lots witlml the e. xm:~s of the proposed development area, or tt~ Tobin's ~-tended purchas~ ora lot which d~s not exist are not tbs only almrna~ivcs. Alternative layouts for tbs ea~tlre 105 acr~ sits, which proem tim cul~ral r~souroes aasomated with Fort Corchaug, must be revicwd incluai,,g layouts which revise th~ Ixnmdaries of the de~:topabl¢ area and the proposal Town Park. This l~t~¢r pro~Sdcs the combined commentS of Planning suttT and N,P&V. If you are in agre.~m~t, it is suggested timt these commcn~ as w~ll as conuuenm rec~v~ from tbs public, involved agencies and imm~sted par6e, s, and the transcript of'the hearing l~ f'or'~rarded to tl~ apphc~ut Thank you for thc opportunity to provide you ~ith this r~iew,~ P~,e 9 tvgi .~ 16-331-.~98 ) Robert j. Kalin, P.A., P.G., Federal and New York State Certified Archaeologist, Professor of Gc~logy, $CC College, Selden, l.l., New York March 2], I9")7 Mr. Itcnnctt Crlowski, Chair)nan Planning Board, Town of $oudlold Offices, Southold, New York 11971 [)ear Mr. Orlowski: Re:fndian Shores Proposal, Cutcht~gue, Southold, Ncw York The proposed Indian Shores project is the location of the National Registry Fort C. or,,'baug Site, the only known anti best preserved Native American Fort oll Long Island which was occupied and used from 1640 to 1662. Fom'unalcly ll~c significance of the sire was recognized curly and was studied by an eminent archaeologist, Dr. Ralph Sotccki, who contributed greatly to our present knowledge. There remain, however, historic, arct~aeological and cuhuml questions related to thc site which aw~t to be addressed by more intensive studies which at the present dmc have thc poten~al to employ modern a~hacoiogical and advanced scientific techniques unavailable to ~ofe~sor SolcckL Most important, however, are thc areas which surround this National Registry site and which arc pr6scmly threatened by development that are likely re provide ~ignificam historic and cultural in~dghls, extremely impotent for a full understanding of thc site itself Evidence presenmd in th~ Greenhouse Phase [ Archaeological Report indicates that these surrounding areas are found to have evidences of several occup:atton or usc zonc~ and probably comprise a site complex consisting of at least three culturally sensitive areas. This includes the Baxter sire which is located approximately i000' soulh of the Fort, and a ~own arcs of subsurface cuhural sensitivity rcpormd to occur between the Fo~ and thc Baxter Site, furdmrmorc there are additional sensitive areas r2vaaled by the present study. 'l'hus~ tests mid obsclwadom, are rcpormd u~ reveal surface and subsurface finds over a broad area. Cultural materials were found at a distance of 190{~ feet SSW of thc Peri, 800 feet no~h of the Forl, and as far as i bO0 fee,. nomhwesr of thc Fem..Although LOtS i and 2, lot'ut~d west c)f thc : c..~ rc.sted, surface cx, idcn:'es are apparently major subdivi,si°n wera nor located there and arc scattered in both h'~t [ and 2. in broad te~s, the si~e complex appears ro cover a 300 foot or wide,- arc on rl~e western shoFe Of Downs Creek extending no~h t¥om New Suffolk Avenue fr~r over 3000 feet, with some positive finds extending well into Lot i nero' Main Road. k is our appreciation {or the sige,complcxity a~d cutrurul sensitivity of this area, its historic impo~ance, and ils significance to ri~e presem and future residents of the Town of Southold, as well as t[~c rest of the State, that motivates us rc m-ge you to request furrh~ resting and analysis prior to establist~i;ag a pl~ for su~diyision of this cu}turall7 sensitive area. !:urrher testing should include a New York Archaeological CounCil standard (1 ~94) Phase [l study, which would require thc investigators ro obtain detailed information pti the i~tegrity, precise lateral ~nits (i.e. its exteBt and boundaries), structure, function ~d cultural-historic contcx~ exist and those reported. ~cse data would c~ablc the Township and its reviewer more fully understand and appreciate thc cultural significance of the v~tous components of this comp[ex and sensitive ar~ BEFORE questions rcgardi~lg subdivision, lot size, lot location, permitted disturbance zones, set asides, and road act:ess, etc. were answered m~d decisions and comnl~tmelltS were made re~:arding these faclors. We sincerely hope t}}at you will {ake thcxe cccommcndmions inxo account prior to final disposirim: of this project Xo-bcrt j. j(alin cc: Mr. Charles Voorhis, Nelson&Pope and voorhis, Melville, New York EDWARD .J. PEt'ROM, P.E. F~EGIONAL ~)1 RECTO R STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAq]ON STATE OFFICE E~UILDINO 250 VETERANS MEHORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE, N.Y. 11788-5518 March 21, 1997 Hr. Bernard Orlowski, Jr. Chairma~ Southold Planning Board Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Indian Shores S/S Route 25, Cutchugue SCTM # 1000-116-1-3 Dear Mr. Orlowski: We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the referenced subdivision. There are no plans for improvements to Route 25 in this location in our Five Year Planning Program. As is correctly stated in the DEIS, the applicant will have to apply for highway 'work permits for access to Route 25 at the time of site plan review. For questions on permits please contact Vito Lena at 952-6025. For other questions, please contact G. Beierling at 952-6128. Thank you for the opportunity to review and con~ment on this subdivision. Very truly yours, FRANK PEARSON Planning & Program Management NORTfl FORK E:NVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL, INC. ROUte 25 at Love Lar)e, PO BOX 799, iVlettltuck, NY 11952 $16-298-8880 March 20, 1997 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Memorandum re DEIS for Indian Shores Site Plan Dear Mr. Orlowski: After reviewing the Draft. Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Indian Shores subdivision, we feel that certain aspects of the document merit discussion. Use of Agricultural Parcels Unknown: Primarily, we have concerns regarding the assumption throughout the DEIS that the two agricultural lots will eventually become vineyards. Although we regard t.his as a desirable use of the property which may reflect..' the intentions of the applicant, it is certainly not an issue which has been resolved. Conservation easements currently under negotiation with the Peconic Land Trust have not been finalized. The ag]-icultural parcels could ultimately be fhrmed as potato crops or they could be developed themselves. The DEIS should acknowledge these possibilities,. particularly in the discussion of nitrogen loading and groundwater consumption. Obviously, the assumption that the agricultural parcels will be farmed as vineyards has far-reaching effects in this DEIS. A vineyard releases less nitrogen into the ground and requires less water for irrigation than a crop such as potatoes: The DEIS calculations indicate that the overall increase in nitrogen to the ecosystem will be small and "should not negatively affect Downs Creek" (p. 104). These calculations should reflect the possibility that the crops farmed on these parcels may be something other than vineyards. What are the potential figures for nitrogen loading if the crops are potatoes, a product more common to the East End agricultural economy? The DEIS also points out that "a marine surface water system is not very sensitive to changes in groundwater quality" (p. 105). Does this statement suggest that even a high nitrogen- yielding crop such as potatoes would not negatively affect Do~vns Creek? And, if groundwater quality does not significantly alter marine surface water systems, then the DEIS has no basis for later stating that reducing groundwater contamination will reduce the project's impact on Downs Creek (p. 113). We are concerned that the DEIS is a non-profit organization for the prese¥~atlon of land, sea, air and quallW of life printed on 100% recycled paper presenting a best possible scenario in order to create an impression of low environmental impact. A discussion on nitrogen should also take into account the cumulative impact that the proposed Indian Shores development will have in conjunction with .the North Fork Country Club golf course on the east side of the creek. The current levels of nitrogen in Downs Creek should be clearly indicated and taken into consideration when evaluating the potential nitrogen loading of the proposed plan. At present, the water quality in Downs Creek only "marginally meets NSSP standards" (p. 53) for shellfishing. The nitrogen budget figures in the DEIS are generally ambiguous and'difficult to follow. Specifically, Tables 6-9 (p.88 fl) should be labelled clearly and consistently. For instance, on Table 7 (p. 91), under the heading "Cal(~ulations: Sanitary," calculations are made to determine the amount of nitrogen ~hich is expected to seep into the ground as a result of residential wastewater disposal. The result, 120,825,303 mg, is not labelled as such. The next line, "Water Supply," introduces the figures 3mg/1 and 6,631,320 liters without any indication as to where these numbers come from or what significance they have. At the bottom of the page is a figure in bold, "1.803 mg/l." Assuming that this indicates the number of milligrams of nitrogen per liter, then what does it mean? Is this the amount of nitrogen which has seeped into the ground or the groundwater? Is this per day, per year, per household, per development? The levels of nitrogen loading cannot be adequately assessed if the figures am unclear. Regarding the water consumption of a vineyard, the DEIS figures indicate that / water consumption at the site will be 37,116 gpd, or 56% of the permissive safe yield. Again, these figures assume that the agricultural pamels will be vineyards and that future vintners will voluntarily use a drip irrigation method Which uses less water than traditional systems. Problems with Mitigation Measures: The proposed plan itself is offered as a mitigation of the original plan of 42 residential lots. Is this considered valid? The application of herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers conceivably Will be minimized through public awareness programs, but is it reasonable to expect the general public to follow such suggestions7 Other mitigation measures (p. 113) similarly depend on the good citizenship of future residents, rather than on an action taken by the applicant. Given that the 75' tidal wetlands setback is required by existing law, can it be considered a mitigation measure on the part of the applicant? The issue of whether or not to increase the setback to 100' is discussed as an alternative. A distinct contradiction exists here; first the DEIS states that a 100' setback "does not result in an obvious or greater benefit" while further on in the same paragraph the following statement appears: "it is impossible to. qualify or quantify the benefit" (p. 126). If it is impossible to evaluate -2- the benefit of a 100' setback, then how can the DEIS state that it would not result in a greater benefit? Impact of Town Park: The DEIS fails to address the impact that a town park will have on the environment at Downs Creek. There is no acknowledgment anywhere that use of this land as a park will also upset the terrestrial wildlife. Several statements are made regarding the probability that animals displaced from the residential lots will find acceptable refuge at the park site, but this site may also be disturbed to a degree which makes it unsuitable ~br existing fauna. When discussing the possibility of lots 5- 10 being held in common ownership as an alternative, the DEIS states, "The potential for development ora trail or boardwalk as an extension ora trail system on the 37-acre parcel would exist, thereby potentially impacting the Creek" (p. 1.26). If a trail on the residential parcels would affect the environment, then a trail on the 37-aCre park would also have an impact on the Creek. This point is not raised. Tests/Approvals Still Needed: Before the Planning Board can make an accurate determination on the proposed plan, the following tests or approvals ne~d to be completed: 1.) Drinking water quality at the site is presently unknown and will not be determined until wells are constructed at the site. 2.) Tidal Wetland borders must be, delineated. 3.) Subdivision map must be approved by NYSDEC. 4.) The soils at the site must be evaluated tbr their acceptability tbr their use for §anitag~' disposal purposes. Miscellaneous Questions to Consider: In addition to the issues mentioned above, we feel that the following questions should be addressed in the DEIS: 1.) Will motor boats be prohibited in the creek? 2.) What impact will floating d~cks have on the: creek? 3.) Under what circumstances could the agricultural parcels eventually be developed? 4.) Can the applicant revert back to the original plan of 42 residential lots using this DEIS? The North Fork Environmental Council supports public acquisition of the entire 105.6-acre parcel not only to preserve the well-documented archeological value of the site, but also to adequately protect the fragile and unique environment of Downs Creek and the Surrounding area. Until such an acquisition becomes a reality, however, we ask that you carefully consider the pdtential of the proposed plan to negatively impact the. ecosystem of the property in question. Thank you for your attention to our concerns regarding this proposed subdivision. Very truly yours, Anne Lowry President -3- Telephone (516) 765-180! 80UTHOLD TOWN LANDMARK PRESgRVATION COMMISSION Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southo].d, New York 11971 TO: RE: Melissa Spiro, Planner Southoid Town Planning Department Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 indian Shores DEIS March 19, 1997 The Soutbold Town Landmarks Preservation Commission was created "...for the purpose of conserving, protecting and perpetuatiug historic landmarks..." as stated in Soutbold Town Code, Chapter 56, and to "...assist Southold Town and owners of places, sites, structures, and buildings io order to conserve, protect, and preserve such places, sites, structures, and buildiogs, therel~y protecting the uoique cbaracter of Soutbold Town....". The Southold Towo Landmarks Preservatioo Co~nmission finds the DEIS for Indian Shores to be ; deficient with respect to the stated objective of the Project Summary (page I) "...Protect cultural resources associated with Fort Corchaug and otber historic sites..." Further, the DE1S does uot meet tile New York State and Federal standards for review of culturally significant sites, nor does tile DEIS address the concerns expressed in the Soutbold Town Code to protect and preserve a unique and significant cultural resource. Tbe Southold Town Landmarks Preservation Commission recommeods that the Planning Board declare the Draft Environmental impact Statement for Indian Shores at Cutcbogue, New York, incomplete and unacceptable, and thereby reject the DEIS as written. Principal concerns about the DEIS are outlined as follow: I. The DEIS is comprised of incomplete and inconclusive Stage I archeological research with respect to verifying tbe cultural resources and significance of ibc site. 2. The DEIS fails to define proposed areas of surface and subsurface disturbaocc for the purpose of defioing tbe scope of required cultural resource recovery 3. The DEIS fails to offer viable alternatives to proposed site plan as required in the SEQRA scoping outline. 4.. The DEIS fails to define provisions for site use(s) in the event that referenced coatracts for ownership/stewardship are oot executed The DEIS fails to address the impact on the "National Register of Historic Sites" designation .................. Pnge l The DEIS is comprised of incomplete and inconclusive Stage 1 archeological research with respect to verifying the cultural resources and significance of the site The Phase lB survey does not follow the recommended protocols of the Phase IA: I. Shovel tests were conducted at 100 foot (lB, page 3) rather than the recommended 50 foot intervals (lA, page 8) The "walk over" inspection of the plowed field area was conducted at 10 foot intervals (lB, page 3) rather than the recommended 6 foot intervals (lA, page 8) The salt marshes (recommended, page 8) were not surveyed. (Phase IA survey references the work of Solecki and Salwen. Both of these authors reference the significance of sea level variations as it may impact on the relative locations of archeological remains. The Phase IA neglects to cite the marsh and creek areas as potentially' significant areas, and the Phase IB neglected to include these areas in the shovel test surveys.) 4. [t appears that budgetary constraints prevented the conducting of a professional and conclusive Phase I survey: "...If more time was had with the collection (of projectile points)..." (IA, Page 3), and, "... budgetary constraints brought field work to a close ..." (lB, page 4) Verification and replication of the data collected from the project site is impossible due to the fact that the Phase I work does not reference any replicable mapping coordinates ("...Shovel tests were located by measuring from existing landmarks on the survey from Young & Young..." (1 B, page 3)). Locations of the shovel tests were not surveyed, not noted in the field reports, nor are they accurately noted on the project map. The DE1S does not indicate where the artifacts are currently held. The DEIS should confirm that the artifacts are available for review. It is hoped that artifacts that were rejected during the course of laboratory analysis were not actually "discarded" as stated in the Artifact Summary. (lB, page 7). D. Resumes of the field and laboratory staff responsible for collecting and analyzing the data were not included in the DEIS. Fire cracked rocks were not considered "potentially significant artifacts", despite the possibility that they could result from deliberate heating by prehistoric, historic, or Euro-American occupants. (lB, page 7) F. The Phase lB does not verify any of the six following conditions set forth in Phase IA: I. the north and western boundaries of Fort Corchaug and the west and south boundaries of the rail fence well site 2. the possible association between the Fort Corchaug and the rail fence well site 3. whether or not a native American village had existed in the area 4. the possibility of submerged sites by testing the march area 5. the historic nature of the building remains at the north end of the project area along the main road 6. whether other unrelated prehistoric and historic sites are also present within the project area (Conclusions and Recommendations of the Phase IA (page 8) Page 2 At the conclusion of the lB, Phase 2 is recommended for lots 1-I0 and lot 16, and the proposed Town Park parcel (page l 16) The Phase IA of the DEllS establishes that previous work (Solecki) in the section of the parcel that includes the Fort Corchaug, the Rail Fence Well Site, and the area between the two sites contains archeological evidence. The DEIS does not define what are the measures proposed to mitigate impacts to cultural resources." (Section IV. Mitigation Measures to Minimize Environmental Impact, Section G, CulturalResources,(page 119) Following are the only three sentences describing measures that are intended as mitigation measures...(page 119): "...A qualified archeologist may need to conduct additional shovel tests prior to construction to retrieve any other significant artifacts that could be on the site. If desired by the prospective owner or appropriate agency, the footprint to the house could be moved to avoid any discovered resources. A Phase 2 archeological survey is recommended prior to development to Lots 1-10 and Lot 16 and the proposed town Park (if it should be developed)." The above stated do not represent "mitigation measures" but are in fact required procedures, established by the findings of the archeological work referenced in the Appendices lA and 1B. Further, the Phase 2 archeological study is required prior to approval for development. This protocol is clearly established by the NYSPRHP guidelines. The responsibility for competent and complete review of cultural resources is the applicant's, and must be completed prior to approval or acceptance of the DEIS by the Planning Board. (It is important to note that throughout the DEIS the applicant confuses mitigation measures with procedures that constitute legal compliance. It is not in the purview of the Landmarks Preservation Commission to critique other components of the DEIS, but for the purposes of illustration, on page 112, Proposed Mitigation Measures for Water Conservation: "...Water conservation can be achieved by using residential water cdnserving devices...it is likely that new, customized homes would be fitted with such devices..,." Installation of such devices does not represent a mitigation measure, but is simply a code compliance requirement already established by the Southold Town Building Code.) The field and laboratory work presented in the Phase IA &lB archeological survey is unprofessional, inconclusive, and incomplete, and should not be considered acceptable by the Southold Town Planning Board for site plan review. Page 3 DEIS fails to clearly define proposed areas of surface and subsurface disturbance for the purpose of defining the scope of required cultural resource recovery. The DEIS should include the following: Ao Identify provisions for cultural resource recovery at future traverses/constructions at the Buffer Zone, as per page 12, "...Some of the proposed building lots could potentially contain access to Downs Creek..." Define the potential allowable structures, routing, and access across the setback (Buffer zone). Define provisions for cultural resource surveys at these traverses if their construction is at a later date. Identify the impact of raising site grades (pages 112-3) on cultural resource recovery, identify mitigation measures and retrieval strategies. Table I, Estimated Site Coverage, does not accurately reflect the impact of surface disturbance on cultural resources. Table I should be supplemented by a table and map describing the Maximum Proposed Surface and Subsurface Areas of Disturbance for each lot. Surface and subsurface disturbance calculations should include maximum square foot area of all allowable structures and facilities for each lot and depths of disturbance, for each lot. To include, but not limited to: ; Building envelopes plus working area around the perimeter of each surface disturbance, post holes and fence posts, farm stands, parking areas, paths and trails, non-paved equipment storage areas, underground utilities and infrastructure iastallations, service and utility poles, sanitary disposal systems (including agricultural and equestrian systems), tree and stump removal (including stump grinding below grade), potable wells and test wells/borings, swimming pools, tennis courts, roads and driveways, drywells, and drainage containment systems, accessory structures and breezeways, subsurface landscaping impact, septic systems and leaching pools, agricultural watering systems (including equestrian and viticulture applications), etc. The Area of Disturbance calculations should reflect the maximum allowable footprint of the structure, installation, or disturbance, plus a perimeter of working disturbance that will result from the construction, installation, or maintenance. Calculations should reflect the setbacks, buffer zones, seasonal groundwater elevation considerations, and "staggered" septic layouts (where applicable) required by the appropriate enforcing agencies for each proposed lot. Page 4 The DEIS fails to offer viable alternatives to tbe proposed site plan as required in the SEQRA seoping outline. The DEIS should include Alternative(s) that reflect the National Register of Historic Sites designation. The National Register boundaries should be included on the Cultural Resources Map (Appendix 1). The DEIS should include Alternative(s) that reflect not only the immediate Fort Corchaug site but an expanded Cultural Resource area inclusive of the Downs Creek area from the Fort to the Rail Fence Well Site. C. The DEIS should include Alternative(s) that consider locating the subdivision in areas that have been previously disturbed by farming. 4. The DEIS fails to define provisions for site use(s) in the event that reference contracts for ownership/stewardship are not executed A. The DEIS makes several references to future contracts for ownership/stewardship by Southold Town, Suffolk County, and the Peconic Land Trust. The DEIS should clarify what will happen if these contracts are not executed. 5. The DEIS fails to address the impact on the "National Register of Historic Sites" designation The proposed subdivision shall compromise the New York State and Federal designation of portions of the parcel as a Historic Site. As such, the DEIS should address the following consequences: If the current designated area is divided into separate ownership, the surface modified, or otherwise disturbed, prior to completion of archeological review, the National Register designation will be canceled. The expectation that individual lots would be re-designated is Iow. Thc DEIS should present what impact the loss of the National Register designation will have, especially in terms of loss of eligibility for public and private resources that support the recovery, preservation, and exhibit of artifacts that further our understanding of the cultural history of Native Americans. If the National Register listing is removed, the property's eligibility for grants and funding is compromised. The DEIS should review what the impact will be on the publicly owned portion of the subdivision. Page 5 Recommendation: The Southoid Town Landmark Preservation Commission recommends that the Planning Board reject the DEIS in order to preserve and protect a significant historic landmark in Southold Town Deb Winsor, Chair, Fort Corchaug Sub-Committee Southold Town Landmark Preservation Commission Cliff Benfield, Chairman Page 6 George E. Pataki Alexander ETreadwell Secretary ofState March 18, 1997 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman, Planning Board Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Orlowski: S-97-009 Indian Shores (a.k.a Fort Corchaug) Environmental Impact Statement Draft The Department of State's Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization has prepared the following comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Indian Shores subdivision. ' State Coastal Consistency Requirements State agency actions within the coastal area are required by Article 42 of the State Executive Law and implementing regulations in 19 NYCRR Part 600 to be undertaken in a manner consistent with the State's coastal area policies. Land development and related activities in New York's coastal area which involve state agency direct action or funding, or requiring state permits for actions involving an EIS under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) must be consistent with the coastal area policies in Article 42, or an approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. No State agency involved in an action, as the term is defined in 6 NYCRR Part 617.2, shall carry out, fund, or approve the action until the agency has complied with the provisions of Article 42 of the Executive Law and implementing regulations contained in 19 NYCRR Part 600. If a positive declaration has been made and an ElS will be required, the draft EIS must contain an identification of the applicable coastal policies and a discussion of the effects of the proposed action on and consistency with such policies (6 NYCRR 617.9(b)(5)(vi)). The SEQRA regulations provide that no state agency shall make a final decision on the action until it has made a written finding that it is consistent with the coastal policies set forth in 19 NYCRR Part 600.5 or an approved LWRP (6 NYCRR 617.1l(e)). This provision applies to all state agencies, whether acting as lead or involved agency (6 NYCRR 617.6(a)(5)). The DEIS indicates that the State Department of Environmental Conservation is an involved agency Division of Coastal Resources and lVaterf~ont Re~itallzation Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Page 2. because the proposed activities will require a tidal wetlands permit pursuant to Article 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law and implementing regulations in 6 NYCRR Part 661. Therefore, the DEIS is required to contain an identification of the applicable coastal policies, and a discussion of the effects of the proposed action on and its consistency with those policies. This information is necessary so that the Department of Environmental Conservation can include that information in its State agency consistency determination and SEQRA findings. Since the dr~ft EIS does not include that information, it shotild be provided in the final EIS. Other Com~nents The following comments relate to specific coastal policies identified in Article 42 of the Executive Law and 19 NYCRR Part 600.5. Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats The narrative information in the DEIS fails to acknowledge Downs Creek as a State designated Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat (SCFWH), although the narrative describing the Downs Creek SCFWH has been included in Appendix 7. SCFWHs are geographic areas that have been determined to be of statewide significance, based on a quantitative evaluation of a combination of ecological factors. These factors include whether the area serves one or more of the following functions: is essential to the survival of a large portion of a particular fish or wildlife populfition supports populations of species which are endangered, threatened, or of special concern supports populations having significant commercial, recreational, or educational value exemplifies a habitat type which is not commonly found in the state or in a coastal region Downs Creek was designated as a SCFWH by the Secretary of State in 1987. The DEIS should specifically address the extent of any impacts of the development proposal on the SCFWH, and address any necessary and detailed mitigation measures that might be necessary to avoid impairments to the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the habitat area. We are particularly concerned about the future impacts on the SCFWH from the proposed parcels that would be adjacent to the western shoreline of Downs Creek. Lot #5 is a particular concern, as it appears that it does not provide for an adequate building envelope outside of the tidal wetland area. In addition, the potential for access to the Creek and the installation of floating docks within this essentially undeveloped SCFWH is a major concern. Historic, Archaeological, Architectural, and Cultural Resources The development proposal does not appear to adequately protect the archaeological and cultural resources associated with Fort Corchaug, which is listed on the State and National Registers of Historic Places. The conclusions presented in the DEIS do not appear to be fully supported by the information contained in the DEIS, which often provides conflicting information on the location of the important cultural Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Page 3. resources within the development proposal. It would appear that many of the remaining important cultural resources are located within the'proposed developed area, and not in the open space to be acquired by the Town of Southold or protected by conservation easements. The Town should consider more complete preservation of the Fort Corchaug site, particularly to the south of the fort in the vicinity of lots g9 and #10. Alternatives Alternatives should include: a full assessment of a reduced development proposal; altering the configuration of the proposed Town park; redesigning the layout/reducing the size of existing lots to prevent or avoid development in and adjacent to sensitive areas; a consideration of an alternative site layout which develops only the northern portion of the site; additional acquisition that may make it possible to preserve the resources of this important archaeological site and maintain the integrity and viability of the Downs Creek Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat area as a habitat. Federal Consistency Pursuant to federal regulations in 15 CFR Part 930, if any component of the proposal would require any authorization, funding, or a direct action by a federal agency, the proposed activities would be reviewed by this Department for its consistency with the enforceable policies of the New York State ~oastal Management Program. If the Department of State determines that the proposed activities would not be consistent with the State's Coastal Management Program, the consistency provisions of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act prohibit federal agencies from authorizing, funding, or undertaking the proposed activities. Therefore, a copy of the final Environmental Impact Statement should be provided to this Department so that the information in that document might be used in any future reviews of the proposal for its consistency with the policies of the New York Coastal Management Program. I hope this information is informative and useful. If you have any questions or need any additional information or assistance regarding this matter, please call me or Steve Ridler, your Local Waterfront Revitalization Program contact, at (518) 474q5000. SCR/bms c: Steve Ridler Supervisor of Consistency Review Coastal Management Program Albert J. Krupski, President John Holzapfel, Vice President Jim Kir~g Martin H. Garrell Peter Wenczel Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1892 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Planning Board Board of Trustees ~ Indian Shores Subdivision March 20, 1997 The Southold Town Board of Trustees has jurisdiction on lots of Indian Shores Subdivision that front on Downs Creek. The Board of Trustees jurisdiction is 75' upland from the wetlands edge. Since the proposed lots are large, we would requests no houses within our jurisdiction. Limited clearing is usually allowed to allow a waterview, as well as paths to access the water. CUTCHOGUE-NEW SUFFOLK HISTORICAL COUNCIL Cutchogue, Long Island, Ne~v York March 20, 1997 Southold Town Planning Board: Southohl, New York Re: Fort Corchaug Whereas the Fort Corchaug archaeological site in Cutchogue, Long Island is recognized as the last undisturbed Indian Fort on the Eastern Seaboard, and Whereas it is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and Whereas the Fort Site represents a unique example of the Native American Contact period with European Colonial Culture, and Whereas preliminary exploration has produced evidence of habitation south of the Fort and the possibility, of discovering burial grounds in the surrounding area, and Whereas the Fort has been shown to have been not only a refuge but also an important wampum making and trading center, and Whereas, in addition, its undisturbed woodlands, wetlands and tidal marsh have been designated a Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat by New York State, and Whereas the Southold Town Planning Board has before it an application for subdivision of 105 acres constituting the Fort Corchaug property, and Whereas the Suffolk County Archaeological Association deems it an archaeological national treasure, Therefore be it resolved that all legal action be taken to preserve this site and that additional funds be obtained to purchase the entire Fort Corchaug parcel in association with Southold Town and New York State. Unanimously approved by the Cutchogue-New Suffolk Historical Council, 2/11/97. William Peters, Trustee DEPA~RTHENT OF HEALTH SERVICES OF~I,:E CIF EO_-ILClI], '.'-. l~ '-'~'-'-'~:._z--, 4-i.F'. O~-' CC)UNT¥ OF *U~FO/K ~ ROi~ERT J. GAFFNEY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Town of Southold Southotd Planning Board Office Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 RE: Lndian Shores Draft Environment:ti Impact Statcotent SCTM# 1000-116-1-3 Dear Mr. Orlowski: The Suffolk County Dep,"utment of Health Services (SCDHS: "Department") has received the above referenced Draft Environment~'d bnpact Sta{cment (DEIS). We have several concerns which we believe should be addressed including, the requirements of the Suffolk Co,my sanitary Code, groundwater impacts, protection of natural resources and archeologically sign! ficant findings. Details of our comments are provided below. Adficle VI Avolicatlon Status: The project sponsor is encouraged to subll'fit an application {o tile departments Bureau of Wastewatcr Management at the earliest date so that a technical review of this proposals conformance with the requirements of the Suffolk County Sanitary code can be undertaken. SCDHS Compliance Requirements and Jurisdiction: Taken in tile context of the requirements of the SEQRA process, it is insignif:cant for {lie applicant to merely state an intent to meet all depar~mem',fl st,'mda.rds. It is tree that the applicant must comply with the requirements of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. including Articles W. V and Vt and relevant construction st~mdards for water supply and sewage disposal systems. Letter to Bennett Orlowski, Jr. March 1 I, 1997 Page: 2 l'4owever, design ~md flow specification a detailed engineering report, subsurface soil conditions, and complete site plan details are essep, tial to the review of this project. These considerations are reviewed completely at the time of application. SCDHS maintain> )nrisdicdon over tine final location of aewage disposal and water supply systems, The applicant, therefore, should, not undertake the construction of either system without Health Depatxment approval. The Bureau of Drinking Water has reviewed tire water resources (groundwater) portions of the DEIS for the Indian Shores Subdivision as it relates to our "Private Well Standarcs", particularly in regards to the section pertmning to specific test well requirements for malty subdivisions. Included with these comments s 'a copy et~ sections 406.4- 12(a), "General Requirements for 'rest Wells", and 406.4-12lb). "S~eeific Test Well Requir~mems for Realty Subdivisions". which deal with :he construction standards and water qu.',lity standards tbr test wells, respectively. It should be noted that there ~tre other requirements for the subdivision application process, such as test hole requirements for sewage systent construction, which are not covered by these conunents. The DEIS provides a general discussion of groundwater for the area based upon information obtained from off-site monitoring wells, private wells and irrigation wells. However. there ~as no on-site data presented, a.~ required for by application process for subdivisions. ,*11 applications for reahy subdivisions, (five or more test), reqmre test wells on-site at locations specified by our depmtmcnt. One test well is required ior e'~ery ten acres or ten lots with a tmnimum of two test wells for any subdivision. The following iuformation is presented concerning construction and water quality standards for test wells for proposed subdivisions: Con'~tr~ction Standards All test wells, along with any subsequent drinking water wells, inst~dled on the parcel for subdivision must meet with our minimum construction standards, which includes being a minimum depth of 40 feet below the water table. (see section 406.4-12(a)). Information presented on page 97 of the DEIS under the heading o( "Drinking Water Quality Impacts" indicates that Indian Shores can install test wctls with a minimum depth of ten i'ect below· the water table pursuant to Scctiou 406.4-12(d} Test Well Reouiremeuts for_I, ndivid~. However. this provision et' placing shallow wells in dtore!ine areas is not an option for propcnies pursuing subdivision, but only applicable to lots in single attd sep~trate ownership· Without the inst',dlation of test wells screened at 40 feet below the water table at the site, we can only speculate on tile suitability of the site to obta.in subdivision approval. I _W;~ter Quality Standards Letter to Bennett Orlowski, Jr. March Il, 199"/ Page 3 Test wells water analyse.s for inorganic chemical c)ntent, volatile organic compounds trod pesticides must comply with the guidelines and Maximunl Contarmnoa~t Levels (MCL's) contained in Pal't 5 of the New York Stare Sanita~ Code. Section 406.4(b) lists the ~exceptions. Of particular concern for this site is the requirement that tile arithmetic mean nitrate concentration of all u, eils (,tested on the sa.me da)') shall not exceed 6.0 mg/L. The water quality data from motlitoring wells up gradient (north) of this ~itc show many instances where the water qu.,.dity exceeds 10.0 miVT. for nitrates, In addition to the potential t'or a high nitrate concentration itl the water supply, there is also concerns about the water quality due to the pesticide Temik, (aldicarb and its mettabolites), the herbicide dacthal, along with its metabolltes, trod the fumigant 1,2-dichloroproptm¢. This is based upon the up gradient agricultural uses, and water quality data from monitoring and private wells in the area. A more comprehensive examination of the potential for agricultund chemicals to impact the water quality should be provided. Natural Resources The tidal wetlands which occur on tile subject propcrty will be 'affected by Article 25 (Tidal Wetlands), A New York State Depaxtmcnt of Environmental Conservation (NYSCEC) permit will therefore be required prior to SCDHS approval of this project. A NYSDEC-approved wetlands line should be designated on the site plan. Thc proposed development of the subject property should subsequently incorporate the maximum practicable setback from any wetlands boundaries. We recommend that no disturbance whatsoever occm' within a minium r~f 100 feet from tile tidal wetah'mds. Such a policy couold be implcmented by establishing dedicated open space, placement of scenic easments over the wet!ands and adjacent area or by cmefully restricting building envelopes. Cultural Re__sources This department concurs with the recommendations' of the Greenhouse Archaeological Rel2ort ~md believes it would be prudent to perform the Phase 2 Study prior to approval of the proposed subdivision map. If significant findings axe found in the areas indicated below, the developalent plan should be reconfigured to avoid impacts to these archaeologicM ::nd prehistoric aruas. The Report states that "The Fort Corchaug Sire is prim~ily within the proposed Town Park and lots 9 and 10" and furthermore. '"Fort Corchaug Site is likely to be impacted by new houses m lots 9 trod 10". Additionally" the fence rail well prehistoric site is located witllm lots 2- l0 and 16 of the proposed subdivision". ~' We recormnend that a phase 2 Archaeological Survey of this ~qte be undertaken prior to arty development of these lots" (emphasis added). The ~eport also Letter to Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Maxch 11, 1997 Page 4 states "the northern new prehistoric site is partially iocatcd within lot I. A possible furore house within Lot 1 would intpact this site as could c, ther improvements to this lot or tile town park. We recommend a Phase 2 ~chaeolical ~urvey ot ibis site should the plans proceed". Summary Tile DEIS provides a generalized discussion of the water quality and quantity k,r the area. but does llot provide any site-specific data that would be required for the subdivision application process and would provide a better indication of the potential for a subdivision being approved at this site. As previously indicated, the DEIS ~page 97) refers to utilizing shallow welll for the residences; however, this option is not applicable for subdivisions. The fact that shallow wells were considered leads to questions concerning the ability of the site to have drinking water wells inst~dled at thc minimum depth of 40 fcc: below the water table without encountering s',dt water. Additionally. there tire water quality impacts associated with agricultural use, such as fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and R~mJgants. which would have to be evaluated prior to the approval of any subdivision. In conclusion, site-specific test well data is required to ev~uate the suitability of this site for subdivision, as far as thc water quality i>sues are concerned. We bel eve the project site s value as u~ldeveloped open space and the cultural resources found on the site is sufficient to support full preservation as the best use of the entire parcel. Absent the opportunity for public acquisition for prese~'atlon, we believe that the site's documented sensitivity reflcct.s the need to minimize the areas of archaeological sigr,.ifiance impacted by development. If acquisition is ~ot a reality it would be in the best interest to preserve as much of the archaeological significant areas which appear to be contained with lots 9 and 10. The area of some of the larger lots may be reduced or the portions of the agricultural fields reduced in order to maintain the 14 lots. Thank you for the opportunity to review this application. If you have any questions, please feel tree to contact the Office of Ecology at 852-'2741. Sincerely, Kimberly Shaw Senior Envi.ronn'~ental Analyst KS/j s AttachineBts cc: Vito Minei, P.E. Stephen Costa. P.E. 5) Commercsal or industnal bu~l~[nqs where water n'~a~ns exist wffhin 500 feel el the 3pp~ic~J~t's preparer line. For proposed slructures larger than 5.000 gross square feet, connect'~on is required w~thln a distance equi'~aJent fo the proposed gross square fo~tage dMded by ten, e.g., wrthin 600 leer et a propelled 6,000 square foot buildlr~g. 6) Commerdal er indust~a.I su0div~sion or development where waler mains exist wilhin a distance equiva~enl to the ma.~mum buiidat31e square footage aJlowecl divided by t~)n, when mea~u~'~ed to the closest property line. I! connect~c~n to a community water system becomes feasible (due lo water maJn extensions or improved system capa.cJty) prior to or dudng construe=ion of a project p~'ev~ousiy approved by the depart~'nent loc a pdvete water ~fstem, then the approval for the pdv~te water system is voided, and the applic~3t must file a revised plan with the depar~nent. 406.4 - 12(a) GENERAL REQUIREME.N'I'~ FOR TEST W_~F~ A test well may be required in order to detecrnine the suit;~3il'rty of lhe use of individuaJ private water Systen~so wflel'e the depa~ent h-as determined that a public water supp~ is not availat:,le or accessible (see section 406.4-11 ^CCES.~ TO PUBLIC WATER). A test well or wells ~e required for any application for a realty subdivision or development, and may be required for indlviduaJ lots. order to deter'mine the dep~ at ,,~hich the best water qualtt'y is a',,-'a~lable, applicants may perform exploratory dHIlir~j by' instaJling test walls at ,.,~'iou, s dap[ha and pm-test w~er quaJity, prior fo requesting analyses by the deparbme~t_ Tes~ wells sllall be located on the subject parcel. Water quaJity tests from nearby or adjacent parcels ~ not ~_ _~r,~p. table ~ proof of locaJ water quaJit,/. An exL~ng well on the parcel can utilized as a t~'t w~ll, if the well ~ be documente~ to meet depa.rtment standards. An or unfiltered sample tap must be available for testing. Test wells sllall be cortst~cted in acco[dance wi~ all depaJ't~ent s-f;and~'~.s, if their even~a~ rise for potable water supply is antJdpated. In order tc~ protect the sallita~y and chemic31 quaJh"y o! the proposed water sourCe, and to pro',.~de a regsonable margin of safety in the event of tulle water qualit~ degmdafic, n, test welts shaJl meet the following minimum standards: (1) The top o! eacfl well sc:men must be in.5'~aled a rT'~nimum of 40 feet below the water ~ble. (2) The minimum totaJ clepth of eac~ well must be 2t least 50 feet. Prior to sa.qlpling by the department, the well driller shaJl provide the depa~nent with a signed ce~fication co~'alnlng well 10g data~ including the depth el the wail. elevation of the water table, $cz'eened intel'vel, and otfla¢ pertinent information reqt.llr~d by the department. Test wells shaJl be pumped for one hour at ten gallons per minute immediately pdor to sampling, unless otllemvfse specified by the department. 'i'13e applicant or their agent taus1 contact the depart]'nent to an'a~ge an appoint~ment for the testfng. Test wells sllaJI not be adulterated w~th water Eom another smjrce, t~'eated with chemic'~ls, or chlorinated prior t~ ~mplthg by the dep3Jlment. All water $~u'npling and ~nalyses will be ;ertormed by the department, provided proper aDpll~fion to the department has been maas and leslin9 lees have been p~id, A~al'ftJc.~l resulls wdl be deemed v~Ji~3 tot one year Item the date of sa~'npling, tl final a.opr~vedS a~e not obi~,~ned witjlin one year or if approvaJ:$ have expired, new analyses of afl test wells ma,/be required. 406.4 - 12(b) SPECIFIC TEST WF. LL REQUIRE~IE.NTS FOR REALTY SUBDIVISIONS For reaIW subciivisicn appllcat~ons (5 lots cr more), tfle depart3'ne~t will specify ~e teSt well locations. One test we~l is require<t per ~0 acres o¢ 10 subdivision lots, wi~ e minimum of 2 lest wells for any subdivision. Test wells shell be instaJled in confon'esnoe w~th ~le genemJ requirements included in seCtiOn 406.4- Water analyses for inorgg~nic chemical content, vole'die organic compounds, and pestJddes must comply wit~ t~e guidelines and Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL's) contained in Past 5 o! t~e New York State SanitgJy Code, except a.~ listed below. ('0 The ~rtthmetJc mean nitrate conce~z'afion af afl wells tested (on 'Jla sa~e day) their final s=een seffing shell not exceed 6.0 maigrarns per liter (rngA), and no well may exceed the nit~ate MCr and (i0 the c~todde concenlralJon ShaJl not exceed 100 rng/I in any well, and (ii~) the combined iron and manganese c:)nce~[i'~on shell not exceed 1.0 m~ in any weft. It water quality fails to meet the sr',~dards itemized above, ~ t~e use of private wells will not be approved, The A~ternatives 1 ~rougrt 6 listed in TAJ~LE 4 are available to the applicant proceed wlb'l I~qa pmpo,sed rearcy subdivision. TABLE 4 - ALTERNATIVES WHEN TEST WELL WATER QUALFI'Y IS UNSATISFACTORY When increasing the depth o! test wells due to unsatistaCtOq/water quality, Options A - C outl!~ned irt Alte~a~ve (4) must be strictly followed. The finding of unsatis/a~o~y water quaJity in a test well is deemed as having clemonstrated tt3at the aquifer segment is contaminated ;md is unsuitable as a drinking water source. Pulling the welt back or man:jinaJly deepening it wflhin the same aquifer segment (less than a 40 toot c~e~nge in screen setting) is not permitted. Realty de~,elopmentS a~d subdivisions approved on the bases e! deepened welEs shaJl have special covenant requirementS, and be so noted on the final map. Ind~idual let approvals from said map will require wells of similar minimum depths, unleSs additional test weil(s) demonS~ate sa~sfactory w~er quaJity. 406.4 - 12(c) SPECtF'lC TEST WELL REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENTS Test well requirements for developments (2_ to 4 Io~s) n~.ay aflow the applic~lt an additlonaJ alternative other than those outJined for ?~aJ~ subdivL'~ions- Test wales shaJl be instaJled in acc~rdanoa with the ge~eraJ requirement~ contained in section 406.4-12(a.). A minimum of otle [n~al test well shall be instaJled on the property. In general where one or roore smaJler lots a'e proposed to be dlv~ded Eoro a much la~Jer parcel, the well must be instaJled on one of the proposed smaJl lots. The applicant is responsible to ensure the proper locafioe~ of any test wells to be used as a h.qure source of potable supply. Water a~:~ysee ~'or inorganic chemical content, velafi{e organic compounds and pesfiddes m~Jst comply wffh NYS MCL's ef~d guidelines, except as noted in requirements (i~ through (~?i) specgfied in section 406.4-12(b). If water quality is unsatesfactory as siqown by the depara'nent's analyses, then the use of p~lv~lte wells w~'ll not be approved. Alteroal~/es (1), (3), (4). (5) and (6) as listed in TABLE 4 axe avaJlaJ01e fo the epplicanL In the event that these Aitema~ves do not provide acceptable water quaJity, OR due to the departments t(nowledge o! water qualY(y conditions prevalent in the ar,ga, the departtllent may allow the applicant the use of pdv--ate wells w~h an approved watm' ~eatT~qent deviCe, provided ail parcels am covenanted prohibiting any future subdivision of bge property; unless water service h'om a community water supply is provided (se~ sectJoes 406.4-9 TF{E.ATMENT and 406.4-1 COVENANTS). 9 TOTAL p. 08 COUNCIl, MEMBERS CHIEF - ROBERT PHARAOH ROBERT M. HARRIS OL~E PHA,RAOH WILLIAM PHARAOH CAROLYN PHARAOH March 9,.1997 ADVISORS Mr. Bennett Orlowski,Jr.,Chair Southo!d Town Plannin§ Office P.O. Bbx 1179 Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Or!ow~ki: ' A~...~.~n._, Montaukebt, living in the ~s one of' the ~ong Island N~tive ~outhol.'l Township, I w!~h to express ~y xhoiehearted support of the aoquls!t!on of the antirs Fort ~orchm~g site by the "Town" and. other supplementary a~encles ~,[ request th~ .~ev~lo~ment of the parcel not take place. ?he tbou~h~ of d..~.~_~?m ..... on ,.~t parcet t~ very d~,turoin~ to it i~ one more insult that we Native peoplas are .=sKid to accept for someone else's selfish ' ~n~ ......... The entire ~eni]~sula where Fort Cor- chang is located was a significant habitation zone for the Native peo- ples an~l Indiana Shores .~uod~vl~on is 8. major portion of thmo u;anlnst~l~. .,'e have been informe*t as to the inadequate archaeological survey done for the Environmental Impact Statement and feel that any further pursuit to develop this p~roel wculi reflect the ls~k of sincere efforts to preserve the Native cultural identity in the'community. It is our belief that local government shouLi put forth all effort in preserving a cultural resource that'~ both an educational and economic resource to the " Town", Please be assured that if it wer~ possible, I would express this in ~er~ou, ho~ever, d~le to ~ork schedules, I f~lt it necessary to try an type this letter, Also, I feel I've e×pressed my c- ~cern~ to other Native people '~ho will be present durinf your pub]lc hearing. Sincere!y, , ~.~_ll~m ~. oat ....... tt Tr!b~:~l !,~e,~oer Preliminary Response to "Indian Shores" DEIS submitted to Southold Town Planning Board, (presented 3/10/97 p'ublie bearing) by Soutboid Town Landmarks Preservation Commission Tile following represent points of concern to the Landmark Preservation Commission after a preliminary review of the DEIS that has been submitted to the Planning Board for the proposed "Indian Shores" subdivision in Cutchogue. The proposed subdivision shall compromise the New York State and Federal designations of portions of the parcel as Historic Landmarks. As such, the applicant does not address the follmving consequences: If the current designated area is divided into separate ownership, modified by earth-moving equipment, or otherwise disturbed prior to completion of archeological assessment and protection of the artifacts, the National Register designation will be canceled. 2. ' The expectation that proposed lots would be individually re-designated for listing on the National Register is very Iow. 3. So long as the property is held privately, the cultural resource recovery is not eligible for public grants. If the National Register listing is lifted, the property's eligibility for grants and funding is compromised, especially those resources that target projects that forward the recovery, preservation, and exhibit of artifacts that further jour understanding of the cultural history of Native Americans. The DEIS is ambiguous as to how the applicant proposes to implement the conclusions from the Stage I archeological research. The Stage I research concludes that the property requires a Stage 11 survey. The archeological work should be completed prior to approval of the proposed subdivision, not"prior to development" as suggested in the DE1S. Implied in this is the requirement for uniformity of work and a competent, professional methodology and review. The DEIS suggests that responsibility for Stage 11 archeological research will be transferred to the new owners, conveyed by covenants. The DEIS does not address how the proposed covenants will be enforced nor who will be the monitoring agency. The Town, by accepting the current proposal (as written) of partition prior to exploration, will become the agency responsible for the proper conduct of cultural assessment. Is the Town qualified and prepared to assume fiscal and professional responsibility for archeological review? · The applicant should clarify who will be responsible for recovering the costs, and defining and enforcing standards, if the areheological review if the is to be conducted by disparate owners· · The DEIS should specify a time period for archeological review as there is no representation as to when the last parcel may be conveyed. Page I ~ - .... --~ , ! Preliminary Response to "Indian Shores" DEIS submitted to Southold Town Planning Board, (preseuted 3/10/97 public hearing) by Southold Town Landmarks Preservation Commission Tbe DEIS does not present viable alternative plans for the site as outlined in SEQRA. An alternatives should be presented with consideration given to National Register delineation of cultural resources. The DEIS extended responsibilities to currently uncontracted owners of parcels. The DEIS makes several references to future contracts for ownership/stewardship with Southold Town, Suffolk County, and the Peconic Land Trust. The DEIS should clarify what will happen if these contracts are not executed. Submitted March 3, 1997, after preliminmy review of DEIS. Final review will be presented later during the public comment period for this proposed project. Page 2 SUFFOLK COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION NASSAU COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL COMMI'I-1'EE Dr. Henry Moeller J~'~ ~ representing the S.C. Archaeological Assn. SCAA wishes to support the acquisition of Corchaug site by the Town and other supplementary agencies, requests that development of the parcel not take place. .., iVlAR I 0 ,' the entire Fort and The entire peninsula where Fort.Corchaug is located was a habitation zone for the Native people. The £ndian Shores Subdivision, particularly the waterfront area, is a major portion of this peninsula rich in cultural resources. We cannot overemphasize the importance of this evidence of the Contact Period between the Native people and the Colonial settlers. The part of the subdivision known as Fort Corchaug is of national as well as local significance, as it is the only undisturbed Native fort site in the northeast. Scientific excavation of the fort by Dr. Ralph Solecki and Dr. Lorraine Williams has interpreted less than 10% of the Fort site. Since no evidence of habitation was found within the fort, a living site should be located nearby. Possibly it could be the Baxter site south of the Fort, which was only minimally tested by the N.Y.S. Archaeologist Dr. Ritchie, as well as Dr. Carlyle Smith, Dr. Bert Salwen, and Dr. Solecki~ Possibly it is another site within the creek-side corridor that was not recently tested archaeologically. Ralph Solecki feels there may also be burials nearby. The large number of artifacts collected from the site over the years by local people also attests to the extensive Native use of the area. Besides the inadequate archaeological survey done for the Environmental Impact Statement, the ~ubmitted site plan does not provide an adequate buffer zone, especially to the south and west of the fort. If developed, neighborhood children would soon be exploring and would rapidly destroy the integrity of the sites~ Evidence of the importance of this site is that three major archaeological reports on the Fort site by Dr. Ralph Solecki and Dr. Lorraine Williams will be the centerpiece of Vol. VIII, The Native & ~istor£~ Forts of Lon~ Island, of our series, Readings in Lon~ Island Archaeolog~y & Ethnohistory, to be published later this year. We ask that resources--which, economic resource local government protect this if preserved, for the Town. jewel of its cultural can become an educational and Address to Southold Town Planning Board r.e Indian Shores sub-division Good evening. My name is William Peters, a resident of Cutchogue, I am a Trustee of the Cutchogue-New Suffolk Historical Council and a member of the Suffolk County Historical Society Board of Directors. I have read the Draft Environmental hnpact Statement, and am very interested in the protection and preservation of the entire 105..6 acres encompassing the Fort Corchaug site. I understand and appreciate the fact that the Baxter familywould like to ensure preservation of the pre-historic heritage of Southold, but that they do not want to bear the entire financial burden to assure this. I wish to specifically address Section VI, Part D, titled "Expanded Fort Corchaug Alternatives" in the DEIS. The four Options presented therein deal primarily with minor reconfigurations of the lot lines of Lot 10, the lot 50 feet from the approximate location of the fort site. These four options are a cosmetic treatment of the fact that the entire 105.6 acres have archaeological significance. I would like to present for YOUr consideration a fifth option which consists of a north-south building lot swap. This north-south swap will provide a reasonable protection of the most critical areas of the site namely the creek front from the Fort to the Rail Fence Well Site. Option 5 proposed involves, 1) The separation of 5 acres of the fort site from the 37.47 northerly parcel (the Town Park) 2) Sub-division of the remaining 32.47 northerly acres into 14 building lots. 3) Town purchase of the southerly section consisting of the 12 archaeologically sensitive lots and the 5 acre Fort Corchaug site for $900,000. I tested the market value of this option against 1. The market value of the sub-division 2. The DEIS plan including Town pt~rchase of 37.47 acres of the 105.6 acres for a Town Park. To establish a basis for comparison I first generated an estimate of what the sub-divided property in its entirety would be worth on the open market I used 1. The Indian Shores sub-division map as presented, 2. Assessed values of equivalent properties as given to me by the Board of Assessors, and 3. A 2.75% Equalization rate, ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ": lilt!I ,, if' ,!i This equated to $2.53 million for the marketvalue of the sub-division. I then applied there same factors to the plan presented in the DEIS in which the Town would purchase the 37.47 northerly acres including the Fort Corchaug site for approximately $900,000. Including this $900,000, the value of the property then equated to $2.88 million. Option 5 priced out competitively to a value of $2.84 million. Not considered in these cost estimates is the cost of doing a Stage 2 Archaeological-Survey estimated by Mr. A. Camisa to be in excess of $32,000 for 40 acres of this site. Mr. Camisa was the contract archaeologist involved in the original site survey. Option 5 can truly be considered a viable alternate which should be considered. Presented for your consideration are '1. This transcript 2. The letter from the Board of Assessors upon which I based my estimates 3. A table presenting these three estimates. 4. A revised Sub-division Plan Thank You. Scott A. Russell, Chairman Durline J. Duffy, Assessor Robert I. Scott Jr., Assessor BOARD OF ASSESSORS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hull [~3095 Main l%oad P.O. Box Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 76~ 1937 F~x (516) 765-18~ 116-1-3 Current Assessment: Current Acreage ': Current Taxes : 28,600 104.5 18,281.43 (1994-95) Proposed Uses: Vineyard Section 18.84 ac. Section 11.96 ac. Town Park Horse Farm 3 AC. 2ac Res. 16.84 farm op. 2~c Res. 9.96 farm op. 37.47 5.67 Assessment per 1800/500 250/ac 1800/500 250/ac 0 1800/500 Assessment (total) 2300 4210 2300 2490 0 4135 Residential Parcels 6 water£ront ,,~6, 7, g, 9, I0 6 farmview tl~,~"~,'~l~ 1 ,,mini-estate" q 3.5~c New Assessed Value (Est.) New Taxes (Est.) (1994-95) /~/~7 3500/lot 2500/lot 1800/500 54,400 34,773.08 21000 15000 3000 54,435 ALTERNATE PROPOSAL COMPARED TO PROPOSAL BEFORE PLANNING BOARD Assessments are as per comparable assessments from assessors. Values are based on 2.75% Equalization Rate ex. farmland, building lots, land on east side of Down's creek farmview & waterview INDIAN SHORES SUB-DIVISION Section 1 Section 2 AC. Main Rd 2 ac Res. 18.84 ac 16.84 farm Assessment House I~ Land 1,800 500i 250/a~ Intedor 2 ac Res 1,800 500! 11.96 ac 9.96 farm 250/ac TOwn Park* 37.47 ac Fort 5 acwtdrnt 2 Bldg Lots Park 32.47 ac Fmvw Horse Fm Lot 3 5.67 ac 3,500/Lo~ 250/AC; 1,800/500 6 Wtrfmt 5,6,7,8,9,10 13.53 ac*' 6 Fm View 11112,13,14,I5,1E 13.53 ac** 1 mini-est 4 3.5 ac 3500/Lo( 2,500/lo~i 1,8001500 Assessed Value Sale value ' OPEN MARKET TTL Asses. Market Value Value 2,300 83,636! 4,210 153,091[ 2,300 83,8361 2,490 90,5451 7,000 254,5451 8,118 295,200i 4,135 150,3641 21,000 763,636i 15,000 545,455t 3,000 109,091i 69,553 BAXTER PLAN 'FI'L Asses. Market Value Value* 2,300 83,636 4,210 153,09t[ 2,300 83,636i 2,490 90,545; Baxter 900,000 Valustion OPTION 5 'lq'L As~ Market Value Value No Chang( 2,300 83,636 No Chang~ 4,210 153,091 No Chang~ 2,300 83,836 No Chang~ 2,490 90,545 'wn Purch. 0 14 Lots* 35,000 1,272,600 4,135 150,3641 NoChang~ 4,135 '150,364 21,000 763,636I~ , Twn Purch. 0 ~ 15,000 545,4551 iTwn Pumh. 0 "* 3,000 109~091:I No Chang{ 3,000 109,091 54,435 il 53,435 i i**Town cost 900,000 2,843,163 * "Town Park" divided into 2 waterfront lots (the 5 acres encompassing Fort Corchaug) & 32.47 acres sub-divisable into 14 farmview lots '* estimated SUFFOLK COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION NASSAU COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL COMMITTEE INCORPORATED UNOER NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW P.O. Drawer AR. Slony Brook, New York 11790 (516) 929-8725 February 27, 1997 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chair Southold Town Planning Office P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Orlowski: We wish to support the ,acquisition.of the entlre Fort Co=_h==g site by the Town and other supplementary agencies, and request that development of the parcel not take place. The entire peninsula where Fort Corchaug is located was a habitation zone for the Native people. It contains the evidence of the Contact Period between the Native people and the Colonial settlers. The Indian Shores Subdivision is a major portion of this peninsula rich in cultural resources. The part of the subdivision known as Fort Corchaug is of national as well as local significance, as it is the only undisturbed Native fort site in the northeast. Two major archaeological reports on the site by Drs. Solecki and Williams will be the centerpiece of Vol. VIII, The Native & Historic Forts of Long Island, of our series, Readings in Long Island Archaeology & Ethnohistory, to be published later this year. Besides the inadequate archaeological survey done for the Environmental Impact Statement, the submitted site plan does not provide an adequate buffer zone, especially to the south and west of the fort. If developed, neighborhood children would soon be digging and would destroy the integrity of the site. It is unthinkable that local government would not protect this jewel of its cultural resources--which, if preserved, can become an educational and economic resource for the Town. Sincerely, Ga~n~el~/ Stone, Ph.D. Museum Director Officers Alexnndei' L Smith Lloyd Manor, Lloyd Neck G~le~ society for the preservation of Long Island antiquities 93 north country road setauket, LL, new york 11733-1350 telephone 516/941-9444 fax 516/941-9184 Robert B. MacKay, Ph.D. Carolyn Oldenbusch Kaihleen Kane Ca~hie Waniell Marsha Hamilton Carol Tvaynor Public A~air~ O~cer Barbara F. Van Liew Ro~maty DeSensi Randy Staodinger February 25, 1997 Mr. Richard Ward, Chairman Southold Planning Board Office Town Hall / 53095 Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 Subject: Fort Corchaug EIS Dear Mr, Ward: Subsequent to writing to you on February 10th, the Environmental Impact Statement for Fort Corchaug has been brought to our attention, It is indeed distressing to see that the subdivision ro osed for the property will adversely impact part ~f ~his Native-American Contact-period fort which one of Long Island's most important archeological sites. As presently planned the Fort Corchaug Site is located not only within the proposed Town Park but also within Lots 9 and 10. In order to save the fort site it would seem appropriate to Lower the yield and eliminate Lots 9 and .10 or to place Lots 9 & 10 elsewhere on this large.acreage- Furthermore the Fort'Corcheug Site may be-imp possible improvements to the Town Park, therefore.! : is urged that the Site be set aside for special p 'recreational use. Trusting that the subdivision plan will be modified Mr. Richard Ward, Chairman -2- February 25, 1997 to protect the whole fort I am Sincerely yours, Barbara Van L±ew Preservation Notes area, BVL/em 2/25/97 Bernadette Castro Commissioner New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau Peebles Island, PO Box 189, Waterford, New ~ork 12188-0189 February 20, 3.997 518-237-8643 Planning Board Office Town of Southold - Town Hall 53095 Main Road - P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Planning Board: Re: DEC Indian Shores Subdivision Southold, Suffolk County 93PR2466 The Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) has received the Draft Environmental Impact Statement you provided on the Indian Shores at Cutchogue project. AS the state agency responsible for the coordination of the State's historic preservation programs, including the encouragement and assistance of local preservation programs, we offer the following comments. Based upon a review of the Archeological Survey report, the OPRHP notes that there are a number of archeological sites located within the project area including, but not limited to, a portion of the Fort Cutchogue site which is listed on the State and National Registers of Historic Places, and the Fence Rail Well site. It is our understanding that the Town is in the process of acquiring a major portion of the property in this area in order to protect the remains of the fort associated with the Fort Cutchogue site. The archeological remains within the proposed housing subdivision are also of considerable importance, and OPRHP recommends preservation and protection of these sites in place. Dow~lsizing, redesigning the project, and or additional acquisition may make it possible to preserve these sites. If these sites cannot be preserved in place, the OPRHP offers the following recommendations: Any impacts to the Fort Cutchogue site should be fully mitigated by the completion of professional archeological excavations. A research design for these investigations should be prepared and approved by OPRI4P before the work is conducted. 2 7:997 An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Agency ~ ~rh~led oh recycled pa~er Page 2 A full Phase 2 archeological investigation of the other sites within the project area should be completed to determine if these sites also warrant full mitigation. We recommend that Phase 2 investigations be submitted to OPP~P for review and comment when that work is conducted. Please note that if any State Agency is involved in this undertaking, it is appropriate for that agency to determine whether consultation should take place with OPP~HP under Section 14.09 of the New York State Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law. In addition, if there is any federal agency involvement, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's re9%/lations, "Protection of Historic end Cultural Properties" 36 CFR 800 require that agency to initiate consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer When responding, please be sure to refer to the OPRHP project review (PR) nu~er noted above. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (518) 237-8643 ext. 255. Si , . H~storic Preserva~cion Coord'nator Ffeld Services Bureau RDK:cm SUFFOLK COUNTY ARCHAEO-~IIi~...~L ASSOCIATION NASSAU COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL COMMITTEE INCORPORATED UNDER NEW YORK STATE EOUCATION LAW P.O. Drawer AR, Stony Brook, New York 11790 (516) 929-8725 (516) 671-6641 Mr. Richard G. Ward, Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall P.O. Box 1179 Southold, N.Y. 11971 February 1, 1994 Dear Mr. Ward and Members of the Planning Board, Re: Indian Shores Major Subdivision File # P 1473800-0015 Scoping Session In reference to the DEIS that will be prepared for the proposed development, Indian Shores SCTM #1000-115-i-B, given the great significance and integrity of the Fort Corchaug site, the SCAA Board of Trustees recommend the following: 1) The Cultural Resource Investigation should be done to a high standard, with the goal of preserving the integrity of the fort site and related sites. 2) Thorough Stage la and lb, and Stage 2 Surveys should be done, with maximum attention given to identifying other sites in the project area which will be impacted by the plan, including prehistoric components, Contact period and historic components. 3) Once the sites have been defined, a clear plan for documentation of these resources should be carried out. 4) A well thought out Mitigation Plan should be developed to lessen the impact to this important archaeological site and associated sites. 5) The proposed archeological work should be approved by the lead agency and the NYSOPRHP. Changes to the plans arising from new information should be reviewed and approved before work is done. 6) The terrain should be surveyed to document any earthworks that may be associated with the fort. 7) Attention should be given to the historic homestead on the property. It should be documented by a qualified architectural preservation consultant. Recommendations regarding its demolition should be carefully considered. Page Two Indian Shores 8) During any site work, professional archaeologists should be present, and given the authority to stop excavation of roads and foundations if cultural materials are encountered. 9) Impacts to the archaeological remains of the prehistoric settlement pattern along the west bank of this creek will occur under this plan, and should be carefully assessed. The settlement pattern is composed of prehistoric sites representing different activity areas, including, for example, the remains of village sites, camp sites, food procurement sites, and mortuary remains. 10) The impact of the proposed construction to the historic character of the area should be considered. Every effort should be made to minimize the impact of the proposed development on the archeological resources. These resources include: known and unknown prehistoric sites that exist on the property; the fort site itself; sites associated with the period of significance of the fort; possible remains of Native American horticulture; any historic sites, including the homestead, that exist there. Potential impacts to these resources should be predicted and a mitigation plan should be developed as information becomes available. Archaeological resources are non-renewable. This project will have a considerable impact on those remaining on this property. The best position would be to preserve the site and its related sites undisturbed. Mitigation should be achieved by changing the density of the proposed construction and siting of house lots, using easements, or preserving the property as a whole. Sincerely, Suza~ Smyth Habib Corresponding Secretary NORTH FORK ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL, iNC~. SEQRA Scoping Indian Shores Route 25, Cutchogue Planning BOard, Town of SOUthold February 1, 1994 Prepared by Sherry Johnson PrOgram Director The North Fork Environmental Cou · fOllowing i~ues addresse~ ~. =Lncll WOuld lik~ ~^ ~ Statement Which is ~ L - gu une Draft ~- · ~ ~u see the =u ce preDar=m = UuVlronmental subdivision. . ~u £Or the Ind~ .... Impact I--a' Description o~f proposed action Include a description of the project and deSCribe the settino including, SUrrounding COmmunity, adjacent land~ tidal wetlands found on the property.Uses, uplands and )iScuss public need for the project, include discussion on ,ending subdivisions within the Town. I. Environmental Settin~ ) Water resources ~Scribe the ground and SUrface Water qualities found On-site, ~d discuss the quantity and quality of the Water. SCuss groundwater, inclu ~=de~th to Water tab~d~_~haracteristics of t~ .... ~uou ct providing dri~ ~.u any Seasonal Var~ ~qUl~ers on- nsumption for k^~ -?~ng Water, dete~-~ ~%lon. Identif Scrih .... ~u~u residential =~ ~"~"= pro~ected w Y ~ -=uer COnservation pla~s~~u agricultural Uses, a~er ~cus~.Downs Creek, inclu~ . .oding, d~_ ~xrlsh production. ~:_ K rot recreation, and ~^c OUrce. ~uss the Creek's desi,~uss potential for ~r ina~o - =~oCUSs erosion and =,,~/~on as a Coastal · ~ ~ ~ac~erns a~ ~u ~uP~lcati~n ~ . Barrier crol measures ~ uue proposed drainaon-.2= uescrlbe CUrrent · ~- owueme and any runoff ~ribe the proposed Sanitary system. Oiscuss pOtential impact vetlands, Creek and bay. and Aquatic Ecology ~d wildlife ~l, ldlife present on this site and in adjacent areas. , ifv any endangered ~ ~;+~9 value. Ident ; · - ~=~itat range and =~ite'S ~au~ - ~ribe t~e~ ~ ~- ~cC~ ~ ~ m~v be presenn, ~ =.~dback terrapl~ ~ ~ ~ude the osprey \~ ~ of state slgnlt~ n,~ . ~e 1987 Departmen~ ~--m ~!!ied in mu .~ -a~itat rating ~,o~ · ~sh and wildlife n t~e role that Downs Creek plays as a nursery for DiscuSS and finfish for the Peconic Bay. ~lng opportunities in the creek. DiscuSS the fact creek has never been dredged. ~tation vegetation types on-site, discuss their value as List any rare plants found on-site or in adjacent DiscuSS potential impacts from fertilization and using native plant soecies and species that require cr no fertilization and/Or irrigation in all ~ping. :[~ands De wetlands found on-site. BiscuSS wetlands benefits J_n tidal wetlandS. DiscuSS their habitat value ~nd to wildlife. I Use and zoning ' -- ' ~ ~in initiatives that apply to this site ~y and all plan~ ,? ~. ~n~e Program and its ~e us/UK StewardShip ~'~ ~ ~tions for southold, particularly their recommendations the peconic Bay and tourism, include the benefits of that water quality is maintained or enhanced so that useS (shellfishing and boating) can co-exist. he BT CAMP study and its recommendations- AlsO ~iscuS~ s Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan and how this lomplies with these initiativeS- ~he peconic'S inclusion in the National Estuary progra~ the program'S goals and objectiveS. ~ny additional designations that apDly to this site {~ but not limited to: significant Coastal Fish & Habitat, Critical Environmental Area, and Coastal Resources. ~//IV. Traffic Discuss access to the site. Discuss existing traffic conditions on New Suffolk Avenue. Discuss current traffic generated by facility and any projected increase in traffic. Discuss any impacts to adjacent wetlands, and drainage and runoff containment plans. V. Cultural Resources A) Archaeological Discuss Ft. Corchaug. Discuss site's inclusion on the National Register of Historic Place~ Fully discuss the archaeological significance of this site, include information on all previous archaeological studies done. Describe, in detail, the archaeological work to be completed for this project, identify who will be completing the work. The entire site should be subject to archaeological investigation. B) Visual Describe scenic views and their importance. Discuss how this project will impact vistas along New Suffolk Avenue, on the creek and the bay. VI. Alternatives The NFEC would like to see the following alternatives to the proposal addressed in the A) Clustered subdivision, ~) C) Impact Statement. at allowed yield, No action. Public acquisition of entire site. on 1 acre lots. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK i RO~t£RT J. CAFFNEy ~UFFOL}{ COU~TY ~ECUTJyE ]anuat7 7, 1994 Melissa Spire Southo!d ?l:umjng Boazd Town Hall, 5309.5 Maln Road P.O. Box 1179 Sombold, New Yo~k 11971 scma#: 1000-1 i6-I-I3 Dear The Suff~!k County Dept. of lteahh e , ,. " - ..,ervices (SCDH$) has received your letter dated L'ecen:ber 9, ,99~, ctmcem~g the above-referenced project al~d offers the followbg cmmnent~. ~h~ u;~)>amnent ',n .. objectitm to your designation as lead agency. We submit '.-, , h,a, tf:e r>oleatiaI impacts associated wl:h the proposed Indim~ Snores Subdiv~smn may bc severe and ~ ninny hlst~ce8 quite irmverslble, Our recemme~datio~l is d~crefore, tidal the Town issue a pv~i.i,e declaratmn m~d at a mh~hnum iequke the applicm;t m prepare a Draft ~ - ~ta,emen~ (DEIS), De,,'elopnleat of dle envkonmen/~ly sen:;idve plecel of ~l.~paCt l~md may also ~p. c. un quo habit[ii f~r endangered a~,'t threatened species, and cause d~sturbmtce Io cult ~..~.ly s,~m ~: aat resvmccs. Issues ~I~a~ should be a,.kkessed iii 0~e DEIS include preservation of opsn space :md die character of file community, porent~ impacts to gmun,Jwazer,mld ~urface w.,tcrs, 3tonnwarer rtmuff and drainage hnl~acts as well as ~tematives. '.Se ~c!ieve ti~e camulati.,¢ mpa, ets of the prop(~scd activity in this area should be carefully tx:unh~¢d to fa.:l:,. ,e a plxakn/a~cl ftu' s~ghted [)lzumi~:~d effo~'t to allow the Town to ~est manage its ~m~_ 2 Thm~.k you for ~he op?ertuniD, ro review :his al)plication, i~' you have any q~.~esiimm plea:~e feel fie,: to concoct the Of£~ce of Ecoiogy at 852-2078. KS/amf cc: Vim Mind, P,E. Stephen Costa, Sincerely Yours, Khnherly Shaw S.", Envi~oiunenta! .Analy,, t Office of Ecology SUFFOLK COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION NASSAU COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL COMMITTEE iNCORPORATED UNDER NEW YORK STATE EOUCATION LAW P.O. Drawer AR, Stony Brook, New York 11790 (516) 929-8725 (516) 671-6641 January 7, 1994 Mr. Richard G. Ward, Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall P.O. Box 1179 Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Ward and Members of the Planning Board, Re: Indian Shores Major Subdivision SCTM#1000-115-1-B The Board of Trustees of the Suffolk County Archaeological Association would like to comment on the proposed development of the 105.6 acre property on the west side of Downs Creek, named Indian Shores (aka Fort Corchaug). As part of the Lead Agency Coordination Process on this Type I action under SEQR, we want to clarify that Fort Corchaug is National Register site CU-61, and that the answer to question #6 on the Full EAF should be yes, the project area is contiguous to and contains a site listed on the State and National Registers of Historic Places. In Part 2, Project Impacts, Impact on Historic and Archaeological Resources, the answers to all parts of question 12 should be yes. Under Other impacts: impact to the archaeological remains of the prehistoric settlement pattern along the west bank of this creek will occur under this plan. The settlement pattern is composed of prehistoric sites representing different activity areas associated with the period of significance of the fort, including a village site, food procurement sites, mortuary remains, as well as other types of sites. Given the great significance and integrity of the Fort Corchaug site, we request that a high quality Cultural Resource Investigation be done, with thorough Stage la and lb, and Stage 2 Surveys, with maximum attention to identifying other sites in the project area which will be impacted by the plan. Once the sites have been defined, a clear plan for documentation of these resources should be carried out. A well thought out Mitigation Plan should be developed to lessen the impact to this important archaeological site. During any site work, professional archaeologists should be present, and given the authority to stop excavation of roads and foundations if cultural materials are encountered. We would like to emphasize, however, that archaeological resources are a non-renewable resource. Once gone, they are gone forever. The best position to take would be to preserve the site in situ, as it is. Native American forts are rare on Long Island, and the information contained in them is extremely important to Page Two ~ndian Shores our understanding of the prehistoric and Contact Period inhabitants of the North Fork and Long Island. The Secretary of the Interiors Standards, #8, states that "Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken." Specifically for this plan, we recommend that: 1) the terrain be surveyed to document any earthworks that may be associated with the fort. 2) the 5.4 acre area including the fort be increased to include the land to the south, which may contain the remains of the village site. 3) Lots #4 through #18 be reconsidered, since it is likely that the area along the creek will contain significant prehistoric archeological remains. 4) Lots #9 through #14 be reconsidered since Lots #9 and #10 are only 30 feet away from the wall of the fort, and Lots #13 and #14 are only 62 feet away. It is inconceivable that a house lot could be made so near to a Archaeological Site listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 5) allowance for surface disturbance, such as plowing, not be given as a reason for excluding some areas from investigation, since artifacts may be found deeper than the depth of a plow. Artifacts were found as deep as 3 feet, at sites in East Moriches, located all along the west bank of a creek, representing three different prehistoric occupations of the same resource zone. Artifacts associated with the Shinnecock Fort were found at depths of 4.5 feet, with the remains of earthworks. 6) the integrity of the site be kept intact. Ail efforts to preserve the site and its related sites should be made. The Fort Corchaug Archaeological Site is extremely significant for its integrity and rarity, and for the information it contains concerning the prehistoric inhabitants on Long Island. It is important to carefully assess the impacts the proposed project will have on this site and take steps toward mitigation, possibly by redesign, the use of easements, or preservation. ~S~z~cerely' . ~ an Smith Habib Corresponding Secretary Orin Lehman Commissioner New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau Peebles Island, PO Box 189, Waterford, New York 12188-0189 518-237-8643 December 23, 1993 Mr. Richard G. Ward Chairman, Southold Planning Board Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Ward: Re: SEQRA Indian Shores Subdivision Southold, Suffolk County 93PR2466 The Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) has received the documentation you provided on your project. As the state agency responsible for the coordination of the State's historic preservation programs, including the encouragement and assistance of local preservation efforts, we offer the following com~aents. The OPRHP has no objection to the Town of Southold Planning Board assuming lead agency status for this project. Please consider this agency as an interested party in this review. The proposed Indian Shores Major Subdivision contains multiple known archeological sites. Therefore, it is our very strong recommendation that an archeological survey be conducted for this parcel. Attached is a list of qualified archaeologists. Please note that if any State Agency is involved in this undertaking, it is appropriate for that agency to determ£ne whether consultation should take place with OPRHP under Section 14.09 of the New York State Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law. In addition, if there is any federal agency involvement, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations, "Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties" 36 CFR 800 require that agency to initiate consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Agency ~r. Richard G. Ward December 23, 1993 Page 2 If you have any questions or comments on this matter, please call me at (518) 237-8643, ext. 280. Sincerely, 1~ Analyst Field Services Bureau JPW:gc Attachment: "A Word About Archeological Surveys" New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau Peebles Island, PO Box 189, Waterford, New York 12188-0189 518-237-8643 A Word About Archeoloo[cal Surveys The nature and extent of archeological resources in a project area, if any, are most efficiently determined by a two-step process. First, it is necessary to determine whether archeoiogical resources actually exist in your project area. As stated in the Office of Parks, Recreatlon and Historic Preservation's cover letter, there is a likelihood based on known sites in the immediate vicinity, that archeo!ogical resources may be present in your specific project area. Generally, a qualified archeologist, as defined by the Department of Interior's Standards, will conduct a literature and file search to define which specific types of cultural resources are likely to be encountered. Following this, the archeologist will conduct a field investigation in which subsurface testing will be the major component, unless the presence or absence of resources can be determined by direct observation. Surveys of this nature can be expected to vary in cost per mile of right-of- way or by the number of acres impacted and we encourage you to contact a number of consultants to obtain the best product. If sites have been identified, it is then necessary to conduct a more detailed site examinatlon study of each resource. The purpose of this study will be to answer the questLon: is this particular archeo!ogical site significant enough to meet the criteria for 1Lsting on the State and National Registers of Historic Places? The extent of this more detailed investigation is dependent upon the type of archeo!ogica! sLte under consideration. The following is a list of archeoiogical contractors who wish to be considered for such work in New York State and who have submitted documentation which demonstrates that they meet the qualifications of the National Park Service's 36 CFR 61. The list is provided as a convenience only and suggested additions are always welcome. The activity that is the subject of this publication has been financed in part with Federal funds from the NatLonal Park Service, Department of Interior. However the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the Interior, nor does the mention of t~ade names or products constitute endorsement or recom,mendation by the Department of the Interior. The activity has been administered by the New York State Office of Parks, RecreatLon and Historic Preservation. This program receives Federal funds from the National Park Services. RegulatLone of the U.S. Department of the Interior strictly prohibit unlawful discrimination in departmental Federally Assisted Programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, age or handicap. Any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against in any program, activlty or facility operated by a recipient of Federal assistance should write to: Director, Equal Opportunity Program, U.S. Department of the InterLor, National Park Service, P.O. Box 37127, Washington, D.C. 20013-7127. An Equal Cpportunity/Affirrfiadve Action Agency CONTRACTORS FOR Page 2 ARC~-OLOG ICAL SURVEys NA~E ADDP~ES S TELEPHONE/FAf( Bruce Aument Flora Church Lori Frye Shaune M. Skinner Christopher Stevenson Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Janice Artemel Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Thomas R. Baker, Ph.D. Prehistoric Archeoloy Historic Archeology Kenneth J. Basa!ik Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology David Bernstein/Linda Barber Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Connie Cox Bodner, Ph.D. Prehistoric Archeology Eugene J. Boesch Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology John R. Bozell Prehistoric Archeology Sylvie C. Browne Historic Archeology Hetty Jo Brum~ach Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Archeologica! Services Consultants, Inc. 4620 Indianaola Avenue Columbus, OB 43214 (614) 268-2514 Engineering-Science Inc. 1133-15th Street, ~"W Washington, DC 20005-2701 (202) 775-3495 (FAX) 775-3446 Garrow & Associates, !nc. 1101 Ligonier Street P.O. Box 919 Latrobe, Pennsylvania 15650-0919 (412) 532-1860 (F~() 532-1863 CBRS Inc. 403 E. Walnut Ave. North Wales, PA 19454 (215) 699-8005 Institute for Long Island Regional Archeology Department of Anthropology State University of New York Stony Brook, NY 11794-4364 (516) 632-7615 Research Division (716) 271-4320 Rochester Museum & Science Center Ext. 345 657 East Avenue, Box 14BO (FAX) 271-5935 Rochester, NY 14603-1480 RFD ~1 Box 188 Barrett Hill Road Mahopac, NY 10541 (914) 628-3826 (9!4) 337-6993 Anthropology Department Nebraska State Historical Soc. P.O. Box 82554 Lincoln, NE 68501 {402) 471-4789 199 Second Street Troy, NY 12tSO (518) 274-6999 Associate Curator Office: Anthropology Home: Department of Anthropology Social Sciences Building ~263 State University of New York Albany, NY 12222 (518) 442-5756 (518) 783-0346 CONTP~CTORS FOR ~R~-OLOGICAL SURVEYS Page 3 NAF~ Kirk Butterbaugh Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Alfred Cammissa Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology John C. Carbonate Prehistoric Ronald C. Carlisle, Ph.D. William Creighton Johnson Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Isabe!le Champ!in Prehistoric Archeology Michael A. Cin~ino, Ph.D. PrehSstoric Archeology Historic Archeology Jay Cohen Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Edward V. Curtin Prehistoric Archeology Mistoric Archeology Jeanette Collamer Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Garrett Cook Prehistoric Archeology Mistoric Archeology ADDRESS 428 West Delavan Avenue Buffalo, NY 14213 Tracker Archaeology Services P.O. Box 2916 North Babylon, NY 11703 Buffalo State College 1300 Elmwood Avenue Buffalo, NY 14222-1095 Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Cultural Resources Section Airport Office Park Building 3, 5th Floor 420 Rouser Road Ccracpo!Ls, PA 15108 110 Swarts Hall U. of Pit~sburg at Bradford Bradford, PA 18701 Panamerican Consultants, Inc. P.O. Box 369, 5512 Broadway Lancaster, NY 14086 EnviroPlan Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 3479, Page Park 229S Manchester Road Poughkeepsie, NY 12603 38 S. Main Street Castleton, NY 12033 Skidmore Archaeological Survey Box 2214, Skidmore College Saratoga springs, New York 12866 Co!lamer & Associates, Inc. 114 Gardner Hill Road East Nassau, NY 12062 or 73 Dove Street Albany, NY 12210 North Country Research Services P.O. Box 276 Hannawa Falls, NY 13647-0276 TELEPHONE/FAX (716) 882-3584 (516) 321-1380 (412) 269-2049 (FA~) 269-2048 (814) 362-7823 (716) 685-4198 (914) 454-1606 (518) 732-4489 (518) 584-5000 Ext. 2592 (F~X) 584-3023 (518) 766-5387 (518) 426-9624 (FAX) 426-9624 (315) 262-2120 CONTP~ACTORS FOR AR~-OLOGICAL SURVEYS Page 4 NA~ME Deborah Cox Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Nancy Davis Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Robert Dean/W. Barbour, Ph.D. Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Joseph Diamond Prehistoric Archeology HLstoric Archeology John V. Dumont, Ph.D. Prehistoric Archeology J~es P. D.wyer Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology April Fehr Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Gillian A. Flynn ~Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Joan H. Geismar, Ph.D. Historic Archeology Michael Gimigliano, Ph.D. Historic Archeolog~ Joel Grossman, Ph.D. Prehistoric Archeology ' Historic Archeology Susan D. Grzybowski Prehistoric Archeology Suzan $. Habib Prehistoric Archeology Hansen & Associates Prehistoric Archeology Public Archeology Laboratory, Inc 387 Lonsdale Avenue Pawtucket, RI 02860 407 Elk Street Albany, NY 12206 TELEPHONE/FAX (401) 728-8780 Dean & Barbour Associates, Inc. Archeological & Environmental Services 762 Auburn Avenue Buffalo, NY 14222-1417 Rd. 7, Box 50 Kingston, NY 12401 (716) 885-0259 (FAX) 883-1297 (~14) 338-0091 139 North Union St., Apt. 7 Lambertville, NJ 08530 5705 Solway Street Pittsburg, PA 15217 (~09) 397-82~3 (412) 257-6020 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. 63~A Solarex Court FredarLck, MD 21701 (301) 694-0428 (BASf) 695-5237 Flynn Archeo!ogical Consultants Hickman Estate, Route 44 Pleasant Valley, NY 12569 (914) 635-1249 40 East 83rd Street New York, NY 10028 (212) 734-6512 (F~() 650-1521 P.O. Box 383 Newton, NJ 07860 (201) 579-1847 Grossman and Associates, Ibc. 201 East 16th Street, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 (212) 473-2259 (FkX) 473-2595 Anthropology Department SUNY at Stony Brook Stony Brook, NY 11794-4364 (516) 632-7620 Box 75, Meadowlark Lane Sag Harbor, NY 11963 (516) 725-0131 Apartment 3B (716) 773-9218 2966 Grand Island Blvd. Grand Island, NY 14072 ARC~OLOGICAL SURVEYS CONTk~CTORS FOR Page 5 Karen Hartgen Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Robert J. Hasenstab Prehistoric Archeology Charles Hayes/Brian Nagel Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Janice Henke Prehistoric Archeology John Hotopp Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Richard Hunter Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Jack B. Irion Diane Beynon, Ph.D. Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Stephen R. James, Jr. Historic Archeology .Anne Marie Jensen Glenn W. Sheehan Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Ed Johannemann Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Nell Johnson Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology ADDRESS TELEPHONE/FAX Hartgen ArcheologicaI Associates, Inc. 27 Jordan Road Troy, NY 12180 (518} 283-0534 (FAX) 283-6276 Bagdon Environmental Assoc. 3 Normanskill Boulevard Delmar, NY 12054 (518) 439-8588 Rochester Museum & Science Center 657 East Avenue, Box 1480 Rochester, NY 14803 (716) 271-4320 (F~_X) 271-5935 P.O. Box 173 Argyle, NY 12805 Louis Berger & A~sociates, 100 Ha!sted Street East Orange, NJ 07019 Inc. (201) 678-1960 Hunter Research, Inc. 714 S. Clinton Avenue Trenton, NJ 08611 (509) 695-0122 (FAX) 695-0147 Archaeology Managers GAI Consultants, Inc. 570 Beatty Road Monroeville, PA 15146 (412) 856-6400 (412) 373-4100 Underwater Archaeological Consortium 1980 Hunson Road Memphis, TN 38134 (301) 373-4832 SJS Archeological Services, Inc. Continental Business Center Suite A-10 Sridgeport, PA 19405 or 386 Middle Road Ballston Spa, NY 12020 (215) 272-3144 (215) 828-7381 (518) 884-9259 Long Island Archaeology Project Oak Drive Ca!verton, NY 11933 (516) 727-3527 Headwaters Environmental Services R.D. 2 Box 688 (814} 228-3337 Genesee, PA 16923 CONTRACTORS FOR Page 6 AR~EOLOG ICAL SURVEYS Robert Kalin Prehistoric Archeology Barry Kass Prehistoric Archeology David B. Kieber Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Cece Kirkorian/Eesty Kearns Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Joel Klein, Ph.D. Sydne Marshal, Ph.D. Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Stephanie R. Korobov Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Lucianne Lavin, Ph.D. Prehistoric Archeology Edward Lenik Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Christopher Lindner, Ph.D. Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Barbara J. Little, Ph.D. Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Hark S. LoRusso Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Ann Mabe, Ph.D. Prehistoric Archeology ADDRESS Archeological Services Inc. P.O. Box 5122 Rocky Point, NY 11778 or Suffolk County Community College Selden, NY 11778 8TK Associates, Inc. 952 West Kaisertown Road Montgomery, NY 12549 Ken W. Kloeber Consulting Eng. 8397 Boston State Road Boston, NY 14025 Historical Perspectives P.O. Box 331 Riverside, CT 06878 EBASCO Services Inc. 160 Chubb Avenue Lyndhurst, NJ 07071 TELEPBON~_/FAX (516} 744-8047 (FAX) 744-6617 (516) 451-4354 (914) 457-3039 (FAX) 692-8919 (716) 941-5544 (203) 698-1147 (FAX) 698-1147 (201) 460-5907 (FAX) 460-0625 City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants 726 Carroll Street Brooklyn, NY 11215 Archaeological Research Spec. P.O. Box 612 Oxford, CN 06483 Sheffield Archeo. Consultants 24 High Street Butler, NJ 07405 (718) 965-3860 (203} 888-S~97 (201) 492-8525 Hudsonia Ltd. (914) 755-6822 Bard College Ext. 363 Annanda!e-on-Hudson, NY 12504 Dames & Hoore 7101 Wisconsin Avenue Suite 700 Bethesda, Maryland 20814-4870 12 Russell Road Albany, NY 12203 (301) 652-2215 (FAX) 656-8059 (518) 459-6813 RD 2, Box 1080 Mansfield! PA 16933 (717) 549-8!73 CONTP~ACTORS FOR ARCHEOLOGtCAL SURVEYS Page 7 NAME Ellis McDowell-Loudan, Ph.D. Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Jo-Ann McLean Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Charles L. Miller, Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeolegy Robert Miller, Ph.D. Janice Rees-Milier Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology R. Joseph Murphy Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeolegy Daniel Myers Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Brian L. Nage! 'Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Ben Nelson Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Thomas W. Neumann Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Donna I. Ottusch-Kianka Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archsology Stephen Oberon Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology ADDRESS Soc/Anthro. Dept. Box 2000, SUNY College Cortland, NY 13045 Jo-Ann McLean Archeological Consultants 4 Duene Place Lynbrook, NY 11563 Butterbaugh & Miller Archeo. Consultants, Inc. 428 West Delavan Avenue Buffalo, ~;Y 14213 Arch~olcgica! Consultants 594 Main Street Northport, NY 11768 112 Glenview Parkway Syracuse, NY 13219 Epochs Past 339 Fairhaven Road Dunkirk, MD 20754 Rochester Museum & Science Center Research Division 657 East Avenue, Box 1480 Rochester, NY 14603 Archeologica! Survey SUNY Buffalo Buffalo, NY 14261 Public Archaeology 404-9 Ivy Ridge Road Syracuse, NY 13210 62 Dubois Ave. Sea cliff, NY 11579 Heritage America Ltd. Suite 144, 521 Route 211 E. Middletown, NY 10940 TELEPHO~/FA~ '(607) 753-2485 (516) 887-2430 (716) 836-3906 (716) 882-3584 (516) 757-6244 (FAX) 757-6113 (315) 468-5070 (301) 257-3264 (716) 271-4320 Ext. 353 (F~X) 271-5935 (716) 636-2297 (F~) 636-3808 (315) 470-6552 463-8434 (516) 674-9867 (914) 341-2353 CONTP~ACTORS FOR A-RCHEOLOGICAL SURVEYS Page 8 NA~ME Peter Pagoulatos, Ph.D. Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Philip A. Perazio Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Arnold Pic~man Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Carolyn Pierce Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeo.logy Marjorie Pratt Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Michael Raber Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology John L. Reese Prehistoric Archeology Daniel G. Roberts John P. McCarthy Historic Archeology Thomas L. Struthers Robert G. Kingsley James A. Robertson Prehistoric Archeology or Anne S. Dowd Prehistoric Archeology Lauren J. Cook Historic Archeology William I. Roberts IV Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology ADD,SS Cultural Resource Consulting Group 54 Woodbridge Avenue Highland Park, NJ 08904 Kittatinny Archeologlcal Research Design, Inc. P.O. Bo× 1117 Stroudsburg, PA 18360 or 509 Third Street Brooklyn, NY 11215 East 56th S~reet New York, NY 10022 Pratt & Huth Associates 60 Earhart Drive Williamsville, NY 14221 Pratt & Pratt 6156 Ridge Road, RD 4 Cazenovia, NY 13035 Ra~= Associates 81 Dayton Road, P.O. 8ox 46 South Glastombury, CT 06073 180 South Fifth Avenue Ilion, NY 13357 John Milner Associates, Inc. 309 North Matlack Street West Chester, PA 19380 or John }~ilner Associates, Inc. 39 Mill Plain Rd., Suite 9 Danbury, CT 06811 54 Stone Street Penthouse Suite New York, NY 10004 !nc. TmLEPHONE/p~X (201) 985-4380 (FAX) 985-5989 (717) 476-7829 (212) 935-0123 (716) 633-4844 (FAX) 633-4940 (315) 687-9441 (203) 633-9026 (315) 866-0300 (215) 436-9000 (F~I) 436-9000 (203) 798-9362 (212) 514-9520 Page 9 NA~E Mark Rosenzweig, Ph.D. Prehistoric Archeology Historic A~cheology Barbara Ross Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Nan Rothschild Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Karen Rubinson, Ph.D. Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology David j. Rue Coaray Hay, Ph.D. Christopher A. Bergman Prehistoric Archeology -Historic Archeology Laurie W. Rush, Ph.D. Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Edward Rutsch Historic Archeology William Sandy Prehiatoric Archeology Historic Archeology Joseph Schuldenrein, Ph.D. Prehistoric Archeology Gary D. Shaffer, Ph.D. Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Lisa Spaulding Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology David R. Starbuck, Ph.D. Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology ADDRESS Ecology and Envirom~ent, 368 Pleasantview Drive Lancaster, NY 14086 RD 1, Bo~ 226A Westerlo, NY 12193 TELEPHONE/FAX (716) 684-8060 (FAX) 684-0844 (518) 966-4284 8arnard College 605 West 120 Street New York, NY 10027 Key Perspectives 250 West 100th Street Ballroom Suite New York, NY 10025 Archaeological and Historical Consultants, Inc. 101 North Pennsylvania Avenue P.O. Box 482 Centre Ha!l, PA 16828 P.O. 8ox 177 Clayton, NY 13624 (212) 854-4315 (212) 865-2102 (FAX) 932-8587 (814) 364-2135 Historic Conservation and Interpretation, inc. Rd 3 8o× 120 Newton, NJ 07860 53-2 Garden View Terrace East Windsor, NJ 08520 (201) 383-6385 (609)'443-3247 President/Principal Archeologist (212) 601-3861 Geoarcheology Research Associates 5912 Spencer Avenue Riverdale, NY 10471 R. Christopher Goodwin & Assoc. 636A Solare× Court Frederick, ~[D 21701 (301) 694-0428 Spau!ding C~M 147 Irving Terrace Tonawanda, ~Y 14223 (716) 877-6297 10 Riverside Street, Apt. 2 Fort Edward, NY 12828 (518) 747-2926 CONTRACTORS FOR ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEYS Page 10 NAME Michael S6ewart Prehistoric Archeology Martha Symes Prehistoric Archeology Ronald Thomas Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Nina Versaggi Prehistoric Archeology H~s~o..c Archeology Ernest A. Weigan~ I! Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Michael R. Werner Historic Archeology Slobodanka Umetich Werner Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Anthony Wonderley Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology ADDRESS Dept. of Anthropology Gladfelter Hall, Temple Univ. Philadelphia, PA 19122 SINM 780 Riverside Dr. A~. New York, NY 10032 1G F=%-~R Associates 9 Liverty Plaza P.O. Box 655 Newark, DE 19715-0655 or P.O. Box 131 Columbia, NJ SUNY Einghamton PublLc Archeology Facility Einghamton, NY 13901 Norwalk community College Route 136 Norwalk, CT 06854 40-3 Wocdlake Road Albany, NY 12203 Atlantic Testing Laboratories 698 Stevens Street Utica, NY 13502 TELEPHONE/FAX (215) 982-9145 (302) 368-5777 (FAX) 368-1571 (201) 225-9118 (607) 777-4786 (F~() 777-4000 (203) 227-6643 (203) 853-2040 (518) 442-4050 442-4044 868-1313 (315) 735-330g (315) 386-4578 BF:tr 10/06/93 W~5814 RE ATORY ,~,H^~RS [ (USE ONLY FOR UNOFFICIAL I CORRESPONDENCE) ~eed~' o~e F~ - O- REPLY ~T · PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS I~chard G. War~, Cha/rrnan George R~tchle La[ham, Jr. BcnneUt Orlowsk/, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenne[h L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE ......... TO%tN OF SOUTHOLD RE: Lead Agency Coordination Request Dear Reviewer: The purpose of this {equest is to determine under Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act-SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 the following: 1. Your jurisdiction in the action described below; 2. Your interest in assuming the responsibilities of lead agency; and 3. Issues of concern which you believe should be evaluated. Enclosed please find a copy of the proposal and a completed Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) to assist you in your response. Project Ns~ne: Requested Action: SEQRA Classification: (~) Type I ( ) Unlisted Contact Person: (516)-765-1938 C~H~.RLE$ l~. (~UDDY "i May 29, 1997 Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 This is to confirm our understanding that William J. Baxter Jr. has agreed to withdraw the existing subdivision application pending before the Planning Board upon the specific condition that the Board approve, not later than June 30, 1997, a subdivision of the parcel proposed by Peconic Land Trust into two or three lots, one of which is to be conveyed to the Town of Southold. This is to confirm that the owner, William J. Baxter Jr. indiv- idally and as co-executor of the Estate of William J. Baxter has granted permission to Peconic Land Trust to proceed with the subdivision as above indicated. In the event that the two or three lot subdivision as referred to is not completed by June 30, 1997, as evidenced by a resolution of the Planning Board, then it is the specific understanding of William J. Baxter Jr. individually and as co-executor of the Estate of William J. Baxter that the existing subdivision application and all of the proceedings in connection with that application will be reinstated. If this is not the understanding of the Planning Board or if you have any questions whatsoever concerning the contents of this letter, please promptly contact me. Thank you. Very truly yours, Charles R. Cuddy" CRC/ec L SOu ctOtO ,; .. 1 Southold Town Planning Board 2 PUBLIC I-IEARINOS SEQRA: Draft Environmental Impact Statement March 10, 1997 Mr. Odowski: Indian Shores - This major subdivision is for 17 lots on 105.6 acres located on the south side of Main Rd. and the north side of New Suffolk Ave. in Cutchogue. This public hearing is on the Draft Environmental impact Statement dated January 1997. SCTM# 1000-116-1-3. At this time I'll entertain your comments on the Draft Environmental impact Statement (DEIS). Would anyone like to start? Joe Gold: Good evening. I'm Joe Gold from Cutchogue and I'm speaking as Chairman of the Southold Land Preservation Committee. I just want to state the position of the committee. In late 1994 the committee passed a unanimous resolution recommending to the Town Board that the Town purchase the 37 acre wooded parcel that goes from the road south to the wetlands and includes the fort site. That recommendation was based on a survey of the property, establishing the value. That survey has been checked and re-validated since then and is currently still an accurate...l'm sorry, I mean appraisal, not survey. The appraisal is still an accurate representation of the value of the property. The goal that the committee was achieving at that time was the preservatl..on of the fort. And the fort is on that wooded parcel and therefore that goal is still achieved. I'm sure that everybody in the room shares a greater goal and that is to preserve the entire property in some way. However, the Town's step is a necessary step in any plan that preserves the property, and the recommendation of the Land Preservation Committee still stands - that the Town purchase that 37 acre parcel. Obviously, there are all kinds of could of, should of, would of's, but we have enough money to purchase that parcel, and not much more than that parcel. So that's the current position of the Land Preservation Committee. Thankyou. Charles Cuddy: I'm Charles Cuddy. I just wanted to make a statement on behalf of the applicant because I wasn't sure that everybody here realized exactly what the layout of our proposal is. The maps are outside, but for those who haven't really taken a look at them, what Mr. Baxter and his family propose for this property is relatively simple. There's a 37 acre parcel which borders on the Main Rd. which would be the parcel that Mr. Gold was talking about, that would be sold to the Town. There are two 3arcels that are across from Pelligrini Vineyards running north Southold Town Planning Board March '~0, 1997 to south, so they go all the way back, virtually from New Suffolk Ave. Those parcels total about 30 acres, a little more. And those two are to be vineyards. There's a single parcel of about 5 % acres which borders New Suffolk Ave. which would be an equestrian or horse area. And then there are 13 single family lots which total about 32 acres. Half of those lots are along Down's Creek and half of them are interior on the parcel. So that's how it lays out. There are tonight for those who are interested, who appears on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Roberts is the Archeologist, he's to my left. Mr. Seeman is the Environmental Consultant, Mr. Abruzzo is the Surveyor and Engineer from Young and Young, and in the back is Tim Caufield and he's from Peconic Land Trust. These are the people who have gotten together to do this map which we believe is a mitigation map actually because it certainly isn't using up all of the property for single family residences. Thank you. Ronnie Wacker: Good evening. My name is Ronnie Wacker and I'm Co- chairman of the Committee to save Fort Corchaug and I want to address my remarks tonight to the DEIS. We are very concerned that this archeological treasure in our own backyard not be lost to future scholars. We also recognize that Bill Baxter has been a patient man to have sat through so many negotiations over what he can do with his property. We owe him a debt of gratitude. He and his family have been guardians of this historic Native American site since his father bought it in 1959, and he has left it totally in its original state, not touching a leaf or a tree. In fact. Dr. Ralph Solecki, an internationally renowned Archeologist, who by the way comes from Cutchogue, says it is the best preserved Indian site on the entire Atlantic seacoast. But, it's time now to make hard decisions on how to keep this historic area intact. These decisions must be made very carefully. This subdivision is unlike any other we have ever had to consider in this town. The land underneath it is of more importance than what's above it. And we have an obligation to preserve this evidence of a pre-historic civilization for future scholars. While we try to obtain the best use of this site, without placing an unfair burden, economic burden that is on Bill Baxter, we must also keep in mind that once an archeological site is gone, it is gone forever. That's why we question some of the work presented in the DEIS. Some of the statements we find confusing. For instance, on page 16 of their results, the Greenhouse Southold Town Planning Board 4 March 10, 1997 Consultants say that the Fort Corchaug site is located primarily in the proposed Town Park, in lots 9 and 10. Then on page 18 of their conclusions and recommendations they say the Fort Corchaug site is located primarily in the Town Park, but probably also in lot 10. They don't include lot 9. Well, which is it - 9 and 10, or just 107 And why Is any development proposed for either of the lots if the stated purpose of the DEIS is to 'protect the cultural resources of the fort site." Also in their conclusions they locate a pre-historic site, the rail fence well site within Jots 2 through 10 and lot 16 of the proposed subdivision. To determine the exact boundaries of this ancient site that may go back as Par as 3500 years, they recommend a Phase II Archeological survey. But they didn't do such a survey themselves. They suggest instead that someone else, perhaps the people who buy these lots do it. Can you imagine the delight of a new lot owner on finding that in addition to all his closing costs and fees, he has to pay for an archeological survey? Sound a little bizarre? The New York Archeologicat Council has set guidelines. It's kind of like the ten commandments for archeological consultants in New York State. One of these calls for doing shovel tests every 50 feet. You're required to dig holes 50 feet apart searching for significant material. The Greenhouse Consultants dug their holes 100 feet apart. How much more information might have been unearthed if the testing had followed the official guidelines. Another disturbing aspect of the DEIS is that no shovel tests at all were performed in the area where we believe the most important relics are likely to be found. This is the creek front. The most attractive property to a new home buyer today, just as it was to Indian settlers thousands of years ago. And finally, the alternatives that they offer to the proposed development are no alternatives at all. They advise changing the size and shapes of a few lots within the same parcel, which incidentally is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. That archeological area most in need of preservation. Now, these alternatives offer no change from the original proposal. They simply re-shuffle the same lots around within the same dimensions. What kind of alternative is that? I suggest we really must go back to the drawing board. Thank you. Henry Moeller: My name is Henry Moeller and I'm here this evening representing the Suffolk County Archeological Association (SCAA). The SCAA Southold Town Planning Board 5 March 10, 1997 wishes to support the acquisition of the entire Fort Corchaug site by the Town and other supplementary agencies and requests that development of the parcel not take place. The entire peninsula where Fort Corchaug was located was a habitation zone for the native people. The Indian Shores subdivision, particularly the waterfront area, is a major portion of this peninsula rich in cultural resources. We cannot overemphasize the importance of this evidence of the contact period between the native people and the colonial settlers. The part of the subdivision known as Fort Corchaug is of national as well as local significance as it is the only undisturbed native fort site in the northeast. Scientific excavation of the fort by Dr. Ralph SoleckJ and Dr. Lorraine Williams has interpreted less than 10% of the fort site area. Since no evidence of habitation was found within the fort, a living site should be located nearby. Possibly it could be the Baxter site south of the fort which was only minimally tested by the New York State Archeologist Dr. Ritchie, as well as Dr. Carlyle Smith, Dr. Burr Salwen and Dr, Solecki. Possibly it is another site Ralph Solecki feels that there may be also burial sites nearby. The large number of artifacts collected from the site over the years by local people also attests to the extensive native use of the area. Besides the inadequate archeological survey done for the ElS the submitted site plan does not provide an adequate buffer zone, especially to the south and west of the : fort. If developed, neighborhood children would soon be exploring and would rapidly destroy the integrity of the sites. Evidence of the importance of this site is that there are three major archeological reports on the fort site by Dr. Ralph Solecki and Dr. Lorraine Williams will be the centerpiece of volume 8 of a book entitled "The Native and Historic Forts of Long island" of our series, "Readings in Long Island and Archeology & Ethnohistory', to be published later this year. We ask that local government protect this jewel of its cultural resources, which if preserved can become an educational and economic resource for the Town. Thank you very much. Bill Peters: My name is William Peters, a resident of Cutchogue. I am a Trustee of the Cutchogue-New Suffolk Historical Council and a member of the Suffolk County Historical Society Board of Directors. I have read the DEIS and am very interested in the protection and preservation of the entire 105.6 acres encompassing the Fort Corchaug site. Southold Town Planning Board 6 March 10, 1997 I understand and appreciate the fact that the Baxter family would like to ensure preservation of the pre-historic heritage of Southold, but they do not war~t to assume the entire financial burden to assure this. I wish to specifically address Section VI, Part D, titled "Expanded Fort Corchaug Alternatives~ in the DEIS. The four options presented therein deal primarily with minor reconfigurations of the lot lines of lot 10, the lot 50 feet from the approximate location of the fort site. These four options are a cosmetic treatment of the fact that the entire 105.6 acres have archeological significance. I would like to present for your consideration a fifth option which consists of a north-south building lot swap. This north-south swap will provide a reasonable protection of the most critical areas of the site namely the creek front from the fort to the rail fence well site. Option 5 proposed involves: The separation of 5 acres of the fort site from the 37.47 northerly parcel (the Town Park). Subdivision of the remaining 32.47 northerly acres into 14 building lots. I'm taking the 37 acres, that's the Town Park, breaking 5 acres of the fort site away from it and having the other 32 acres be divided into 14 building .' lots. Town purchase of the southerly section consisting of the 12 archeologically sensitive lots and the 5 acre Fort Corchaug site for the $900,000.00. I tested the market value of this option against 1. The market value'of the subdivision, as presented in the DEIS The DEIS plan including the Town purchase of 37.47 acres of the 105.6 acres for a Town Park. But suppose the Town didn't buy the 37 acres, how much is the whole thing worth, that's number 1. And then I cranked in how much the Town would pay for their 37 acres. To establish a basis for comparison I first generated an estimate of what the subdivided property in its entirety would be worth on the open market. I Soutiqold Town Planning Board 7 March 10, 1997 used the Indian Shores subdivision map as presented, assessed values of equivalent properties as give to me by the Board of Assessors and a 2.75% equalization rate. This equated to 2.53 mltllon for the market value of the entire subdivision as presented. I then applied these same factors to the plan presented in the DEIS in which the Town would purchase the 37.47 northerly acres including the Fort Corchaug site for approximately $900,000.00. Including this S900,000.00, the value of the property then equated to 2.88 million. We've gone from 2.53 to 2.88. The option 5 which I recommended studying here priced out competitively to a value of 2.84 million. Not considered in these cost estimates is the cost of doing a Stage II Archeotogical Survey estimated by Mr. A. Camisa to be in excess of $$2,000.00 for 40 acres of this site. Mr. Camisa was the contract archeologist involved in the original site survey. Option 5 can truly be considered a viable alternative which should be considered. Presented for your consideration are this transcript, the letter from the Board of Assessors, upon which I based my estimates, a table presenting the three estimates and a revised subdivision plan. I have a number of copies available for people who would like them. John Strong: My name is John Strong from Southampton College, and I just finished a book on the Algonquin peoples of Long Island as published by (inaudible) University (inaudible) Studies Institute. And I want to address a couple of things. First the archeological work, I'd like to ask perhaps a representative here why wasn't...the phase report that's in your DEIS for IA recommends that shovel testing be done at 50 foot intervals, and yet when we come to the IB, also by Greenhouse, the test squares are 100 foot. Why was the decision made to expand it and again as others have pointed out here, this certainly increases the possibility of not finding anything. And also I would express concern that the State II that was recommended for sites 6 through '10, roughly something like $6,000 per lot if you ask those individuals who you're going to sell it to to pay for the cost, which could be very awkward. It should be done at one time by an Archeologist rather than by six different owners or however that breaks down. It seems a little bit awkward to me. Soutl~old Town Planning Board 8 Ma~h 10, 1997 But the other point that's related to that is that the work that has been done in village sites as Ralph Soleckl himself indicated, particularly during the late woodland period reveals burials. The late woodland period burials were usually by the villages. You look at the Sebonic site that was excavated by Mark Harrington around the turn of the century, they found several burials. The same with Port Washington, so there's a great deal of precedent to suggest that there are undoubtedly going to be some burial sites that will be unearthed in this process. Because we also know from the building patterns that native peoples live primarily along the banks of creeks, particularly where fresh water was flowing into salt water because there are two eco-systems that intersect there and it makes a lucrative place for food resources and so forth. And so we can expect that there will be settlements found along this area. Indeed Ralph Solecki and others have indicated that they were there at the Baxter site as well. So, it seems very likely that if they do a responsible Phase II they will be forced to go to Phase III. Now Phase II, and again if you look at the SEQRA regulations it's quite clear, they figure Phase II is going to cost $32,000. Stage II now means that you look at the places where they shovel test is where they found artifacts and they put trenches and test squares in those areas and if they find something they Keep following it out. So the stage II could be at some point call for a stage III. Stage II1 means a complete excavation of the whole site which costs much; more than $32,000.00. You're talking a great deal of increase in expenses there. Another point again, to come back to the burials, federal law requires that burial sites if they are discovered must involve the living descendants of the native peoples that were being excavated at sites that were being interfered with here, We have considerable evidence that the Montauketts were closely related to the Corchaugs and moved back and forth - intermarriage - and so I think they would meet the federal guidelines in terms of living descendants. This means in effect that they have to be involved with this process, particularly when you begin to dig in these sensitive areas. So it means that the situation is much more complicated than I think some would have them. Another point is that the area on the map that we're talking about here is also the area - I think it was lot 6 through I0 as well as the fort site - that are on the federal registry. The federal government recommended in the national landmarks decision there that this site should be preserved. We in effect are violating that. So I think it's very important to take a close look at all this in terms of all these kinds of possibilities as well. Southold Town Planning Board 9 March 10, 1997 And we have here tonight the Chief o¢ the Montauketts, Robert Pharaoh who may want to address the burial issue. Robert Pharaoh: Good evening. My name is Chief Robert Pharaoh of Sag Harbor, Chief of the Montauk nation. From our standpoint, any type of development where there could be the interment of Indian remains, to desecrate a burial site, one thing you have to keep in mind is years ago native people did not necessarily have one specific place to bury the dead. At a similar situation out in Montauk they found numerous burials in very wide spread areas. To find just one grave in an area of this size, you will more than likely find many more. There are certain tribal ceremonies that we hold for burial and on certain sites that have been disturbed either through archeological digs or whatever, we really feel that we should be involved in this type of project. The Montauketts, as Dr. Strong said are related to the Corchaugs. We intermarried (CHANGE TAPE). We just feel that any type of development on a parcel on this is not what we would want to see. That's about it. Ann Lowry: My name is Ann Lowry and I'm speaking for the North Fork Environmental Council. While we appreciate all the reasons for preserving the entire site, we are only going to address some of the environmental aspects that came up in the DEIS. We are concerned primarily with groundwater and surface water, creeks and drinking water. The DEIS makes some assumptions which if the outcomes of the assumptions were different from what they say, it would have significant effects. For instance, they seem to throughout make the assumption that the agricultural land will be vineyards. This has the effect of providing less nitrogen loading in the ground and also requiring less water for irrigation. I get into nitrogen, and I'll say this right now, that this nitrogen part of the DEIS is very user unfriendly. It gives figures, it doesn't tell what they mean, doesn't give the significance and it's very hard to make any assessment about, in very specifics how much is acceptable or better or worse. However, we know that less in general is better. The DEIS also speaks of conservation measures and seems to make the assumption how the less use of water, the conservation of water, is going to happen. It states for instance that the Impacts to goundwater quantities from the proposed action are assessed to be acceptable providing that the recommendations outlined in the North (inaudible) Water Supply Plan and voluntary efforts to conserve water are met. Using the word voluntary seems a little chancy to us and particularly in a sensitive area like this. Southold Town Planning Boara 10 March 10, 1997 The DEIS takes pains to point out that a marine surface water system is not very sensitive to changes in groundwater quality. That is if that became contaminated it wouldn't affect the creek very much. Groundwater quality does not in fact significantly alter marine surface water systems. The findings of the DEIS later state that reducing groundwater contamination will reduce the projects impacts to Down's Greek. Finally, if the vineyard scenario and the conservation easements on the Peconic Land Trust do not materialize, these agricultural parcels could eventually be developed themselves. There are some problems with the mitigation measures. For one thing in the residential, the to be residential parcel, the 75 foot setback is given as a mitigation measure. How can that be a mitigation measure when it's required legally. It does also address that the 100 foot setback as compared to the 75, that will be a voluntary choice, does not result in an obvious or greater benefit while further on in the same paragraph in the DEIS the following statement appears: "it is impossible to qualify or quantify the benefit", if it's impossible to evaluate the benefit of a 100 foot setback, then how can the DEIS state that it would not result in a greater benefit. The question of the impact of a Town Park is somewhat confusing also. There is an area in the DEIS that talks about a common ownership of parcel 5 through 10 and talking about the potential for development of a trail or ,' boardwalk as an extension of a trail system. And the DEIS says that this would in all probability have quite an unfortunate impact on the creek. However, in the Town parcel where there would be possibly upset with terrestrial wildlife and everything there are several statements made regarding the probability...l'm sorry, I'm reading the wrong part. There is no addressing that same issue in the Town parcel, that is if there were to be visitors and if there were to be trails and boardwalks it simply isn't addressed as to whether that would impact the creek or not on the Town parcel. So you have to wonder why it is on the private property to be (inaudible) and I think we all know why. The sanitary systems, it says that the soils at the site appear to be acceptable for sanitary disposal purposes. When will that determination be made? One would hope that that would be pretty clear before any digging started. There is something to be considered also that there is a golf course on the east side of the creek. Now presumably, I think it's stated in the DEIS that that does not have an unfortunate impact at this time, on the creek. I don't Sou,:hold Town Planning Boara 11 March 10, 1997 know the practices of that golf course, but I wonder about the cumulative impact of homes on the other side, the west side of the creek. And if we can really count on education and voluntary efforts to be ecologically aware of what they put on the lawns and all that sort of thing. I guess that's all. David Martine: I'd like to ask Dr. John Strong to turn the machine on. Could he put on the slide just for a few moments please? My name is David Martine and I'm from the Shinnecock Reservation in Southampton. I was going to bring a painting this evening but I wasn't able to buy it to bring it. So, I brought the slide because I wanted to give everyone an impression as to what the site with the fort on it could have looked like about 300 and some years ago. As you can see, it's a double palisaded structure and it was made of young trees that would have been placed in the ground, side by side, close enough so that you couldn't get through it and it was a place of refuge as well as a ceremonial center and it was also a place perhaps where wampum was manufactured. And those of you may not know that wampum had a lot of spiritual significance to it. It wasn'tjust Indian money as they talk about in schools but it had a great deal of religious significance to it. Also the land adjacent to the fort, probably there were villages there and quite correctly was stated there probably are burials there and so forth. So I wanted to give you all an impression of what the fort would have looked like. It's used as a ceremonial center. We also have a detail of it. Here's somewhat more of a detail. You can see the ceremonial dance taking place. Those of you who are interested can see this at White Farm Park in Commack and this is a museum that's being operated by the Suffolk County Archeological Association. So, it was a protective enclosure for my ancestors who lived in this area. And of course it's not just the fort we're talking about, it's the adjacent areas as well. I'm concerned that the parties Involved in the siting of this position of this archeological site be made aware that if the proposed area for preservation was not enlarged, is destroyed or altered, then part of my heritage, and the heritage of all Native Americans of Long Island and in fact a significant piece of the heritage of this country will be destroyed forever. And I think Native Americans have lost quite enough of their heritage already. We've already lost all of Long Island for which we were never compensated. And now the most visible evidence of that which remains seems to be unfortunately a few scattered archeological sites which are still being found Southold Town Planning Board 12 March 10, 1997 here and there. In Southampton a few years ago, I'm tn/lng to put this into perspective a little bit, we lost an ancient sacred burial site located on Sugar Loaf Hill to a developer who was not concerned with the spiritual, cultural or even scientific issues involved, with destroying forever that which is irreplaceable. Now, I'm saddened that something of a similar nature is occurring again to a place of a similar magnitude. Chief Pharaoh mentioned a little while ago about a situation in Montauk Point in which graves were located in a place that was up for development. On that particular occasion there was supposedly archeological work done. This is another situation where they went every 100 feet, 50 feet or whatever and that was claimed to be an adequate study done for archeotogical purposes, and it isn't. In my opinion it isn't because it was proven so by another archeologist that came in with the best scientific techniques available and was proven that you just can't fool yourselves into thinking that by doing these little spot checks that you're finding something that may be there because it's not true. So my concern again is that burials could be discovered in these areas that have not been studied properly, or not been studied thoroughly. To go back to the Sugar Loaf Hill thing, I was going to make mention that unfortunately the guy that built the house there, he leveled 20 feet off: the top of the sacred site. And there were religious principals involved, religious freedom issues, it was kind of swept under the carpet and it wasn't discussed that ,' much. Also there's a situation by a hotel on the south fork at which a camp site was also discovered. Things were stopped at that site because they didn't want to get into the idea of trying to deal with where the burials were discovered. In that situation we proposed some steps that the Town Planning Board could take, if they found things that were located in the area that was of a sensitive nature, whether they be grave goods, burial remains or associated grave goods or ceremonial items. So there is, at least in the Town of Southampton, in place a series of steps that can be taken if things of a sensitive nature are discovered. I would recommend that you get a hold of those items because they're still in place and of course that was after the fact of losing this one particular site, but at least if subsequent sites are discovered then these stipulations can be followed and the local Native American population can be made aware and be part of the process because I think that's very important. Lots of times history, especially in the archeological area or the museum area, Native Americans have been considered somewhat less than human. We've Southold Town Planning BoarQ 13 March 10, 1997 supposedly been specimens that could be studied under the microscope or could be exhibited, but we're still around today. We still have a right to be consulted. This is a part of our heritage as well. So the spiritual nature of places is an Important thing to consider. All religions, cultures and peoples involved In special places and certain places not in others. That's why the importance of place is very important in this issue. My ancestors were related to the people who built the structures which existed on this site. This place was of singular importance. It was a place of refuge, a place of creative expression and a place of ceremonial importance. It was active at the contact period of civilization. This'is when the Europeans first came here and started to build their little towns and they started applying all this pressure in order to develop all this inter-tribal conflict and so my people found it necessary, or the Native American people of this area, found it necessary to construct something to protect themselves because they were not inherently warlike or aggressive so they were forced to build this structure. So I am concerned that this place be preserved to its fullest extent possible and it should be venerated even because it is of a slngular importance. I ask that you do not permit this site to be destroyed or compromised In any way. Do not allow what happened in Southampton to be repeated here in ,' Southold. Please put your heads together and piece together a strategy that will spare this area from disturbance at the widest possible perimeter. Show that you have respect for peoples heritage that is not really your own. Can you withstand the pressure to do otherwise? Let Southold set an example as a place which will stand up for the preservation for generations to come of a place which brings to mind for today's society the significance of a deep past, the past which speaks to us of the men, women and children who laughed and lived and died right here, generations before the first Englishman set foot on this portion of Mother Earth. Deb Wlnsor: My name is Deb Winsor. I'm here representing the Southold Town Landmark Preservation Commission. The Landmark Preservation Commission was created for the purpose of conserving, protecting and perpetuating historic landmarks and districts in accordance with Chapter 56 of the Southold Town Code. I'd first like to say that I very much appreciate that representatives of the Native American community made it here this evening to speak for the Corchaug community which unfortunately disappeared quietly and quickly around 1658 from diseases that were brought by the colonists. In lieu of no direct Corchaug descendants, again Southold Town Planning Board 14 March 10, 1997 very much appreciate your being here tonight. Before I get into a preliminary response, the Southold Landmark Preservation Commission would like to tonight present our preliminary response to the DEIS that's been submitted. I would like to offer a copy of a letter that you have on file. It was sent to the Planning Board on July 27, 1996. I brought it sort of accidentally. It does build on the concerns that the Native American community have about burial sites in the vicinity of the fort. Again, we re- state that the fort was from what we know of forts of the contact period, it was a refuge, not a residence. And it's important to make note of that because the applicant has gone to great lengths to accommodate the fort site in the plan that you have before you. However, it does not accommodate consideration for the area around the fort site, especially between the well to the south of it and the fort. That's why that area was included in the National Register designation as a historic site. Preliminary to that though I would like to just offer this letter to the Board from Dr. Sotecki, and I'll read just one sentence out of it. The former owner of the property, Mr. Downs told me in the 1930% his thesis was written in 1949, that they had found an Indian burial near the junction of his farm road and the Peconic Bay Blvd. south of the fort site. It is quite likely that other burials may be found at that area or elsewhere on the property. Future work at Corchaug would involve additional investigations on the Palisade perimeter in order to obtain a fuller assessment of the fortification than I have been able to present, which he later presented in his thesis. I think the paintings were wonderful, it would be great if we could actually begin to, by archeologlcat evidence, support the paintings that we've seen tonight. Again, these are renderings based on conjecture. We'd like to see what was there and what was going on. We'll offer a copy of this, and I have copies of this for the Board. It is in your files, it was sent to you last summer. Additionally for all of you who haven't had a chance to do a little fun reading, this is the bulletin of the Archeological Society of Connecticut, No. 24 published June 1950. Unfortunately, this is the primary document that we can base most of our comment on tonight. It's Dr. Solecki's thesis which everyone hears a lot about. It was his masters thesis that he did, the title of which is The Archeological Position of Historic Fort Corchaug and it's relation to contemporary forts. You can all sort of wade through it at your convenience. It does mention a few precedents that I think are worth mentioning and were mentioned by representatives of the Native American tribes this evening. The first is that in 1949, I read, the Manhasset Fort located somewhere on Sachem's Neck on the south side of Shelter Island at that time the site had Southold Town Planning Board 15 March 10, 1997 not been found or known. The Shinnecock Fort in a surface survey of the region, 1946 investigated a hilltop and, I read, unfortunately there is a large dwelling on the hill at present, a construction of which has apparently obliterated all surface of aboriginal evidence. The Montauk Fort, writing in 1841 a Mr. Tooker found the outline of a perfect square of 180 feet. And then I read again in 1949, at present there is no trace of the fort. There is a large hotel situated where it had been. No evidence could be found nearby in a short survey by the author. This is writing in 1947. Again, we have a precedent in this area of disrespecting these finds. So as I introduce our preliminary response to this, I'd like the Board and the community to just remember that it would be nice if we could set a standard and a precedent with this site which would serve actually to be a precedent on the eastern seaboard. This is a pristine opportunity. (CHANGE TAPE) The first concern that We have is that the proposed subdivision shall compromise the New York State and Federal designations of portions of the parcel as historic sites. As such, the applicant does not address the following consequences. Again, the national register designation as a historic site extends from the fort going south through several of the proposed lots. If as delineated in this those parcels are sold perhaps one to the Town, but the other to private residences, if a National Register site is broken up like that, it's our understanding the National Register designation is either canceled or there's a lot of work that has to go into redesignating the individual sites by the owners. If the current designated area is divided into separate ownership modified by earth moving equipment or otherwise disturbed prior to completion of archeological assessment, the National Register designation may be canceled. If that's not true, it has not been clarified to the opposite by the applicant the expectation of the proposed lots would be individually redesignated as very Iow, Again, that could and should be addressed in the DEIS. So long as the property is held privately as parcels or as a whole, the cultural resource recovery is not eligible for public grants. If the National Register listing is lifted the property's eligibility for grants and funding is compromised, especially grants and funding that target projects that forward the recovery preservation and exhibit of artifacts that further our understanding of the cultural history of Native Americans. The second point that is of concern to us is that the DEIS is ambiguous as to Southold Town Planning Board 16 Ma~h10,1997 how the applicant proposes to implement the conclusions from the Stage I archeological research. The Stage I research concludes and their own consultant concludes that the property merits a Stage Il survey. The archeological work should be completed prior to approval of the proposed subdivision as opposed to prior to developed as its worded in the DEtS. Implied in a Stage II survey is a requirement for uniformity of work and competent professional methodology and review. The DEIS suggests, and it's not exactly clear that it's being suggested, I might be misreading it, that the responsibility for a Stage I1 archeological research will be transferred to the new owners conveyed by some sort of covenant. The DEIS does not address how the proposed covenants will be enforced nor who will be the monitoring agent. The Town by accepting the current proposal as it's drafted now, of partition prior to exploration and research will thereby become the agency responsible for the proper conduct of cultural assessment. Is the Town qualified and prepared to assume fiscal and professional responsibility for archeologicat review. Again, there may be a different intent but it's not clarified In the DEIS. The applicant should clarify who will be responsible for covering the costs and defining and enforcing standards if the archeological review is to be conducted by disparate owners. The DEIS should specify a time period for archeological review as there is no representation as to when the last parcel may be conveyed. And again, I underscore what Dr. Strong spoke of earlier that the research on this site, the very nominal research that's been done considering the significance of it has been episodic. There has not been a continuum of research building upon research. It's been masters thesis aside masters thesis. The Phase lA and lB hasn't necessarily built on that. It was just an assessment of potential. The DEIS does not present viable alternative plans for the site as outlined in SEQRA. An alternative should be presented with consideration given to National Register delineation of cultural resources. There were alternatives given. One was a 42 lot plan. We have already visited that and found it not acceptable, And the other is no action at all. The DEIS extends responsibilities for currently uncontracted owners parcels. The DEIS makes several references to future contracts for ownership and or stewardship with Southold Town, Suffolk County and the Peconic Land Trust. We support those efforts. I can't understate enough. We support those efforts but for the purposes of the application before you, the DEIS should Southold Town Planning Board 17 March t0, 1997 clarify what will happen if these contracts are not executed. That's our preliminary response to the DEIS that you have before you. We'll present a final review later during the public comment period for this project. Walter Smith: I'm Walter Smith. I'm President of the Indian Museum. About 10 years ago I started to sit in these meetings to save Fort Corchaug. Fort Corchaug is something that must be saved. It isn't something that we should argue about. It's perhaps the most important archeological site on the east coast at present. Each time we get to a stage where we're going to get somewhere, some political maneuver fouls it up. Now I don't know where we sit on this one but looking at the map as it's laid out, I can't see how we can protect the fort site from pot hunters and other people who are going to go in and destroy what's there. Because the one site is so close, they'll go right across the fence with a rake and get things out. So this is the thing we have to consider. The best thing we can do is perhaps save the entire site, but where's the money going to come from for doing that, that I don't know, But I think the Town and the County and perhaps the State should all get involved to get the money to save the site because it is of great importance. A lot of material from that site has passed through the Indian Museum as it was excavated, Lorraine Williams, Dr. Solecki and others, and then alt gone out of town. I think we have three artifacts from,' Fort Corchaug (inaudible), that's it. All the rest are scattered, they're at Yale, they're at the Smithsonian, at the Hide Foundation and a lot of basements and on a lot of shelves in the area and in other areas. So one of the major things is to preserve the site. And it's going to be up to the people, the Town, the State, to figure out how to save the whole site. Now, the Indian Museum had a similar situation in upstate New York with a flint mine. No one wanted to take it on. We owned a small piece of it. So we put our own money up and we now control the entire flint mine. And that site Is of very great importance to the Native Americans living in the middle of New York State and it's preserved and it's preserved forever. And this is what we have to think about doing. Maybe we have to start some private fundraising, I don't know. But I know the site must be preserved and there's no argument about that. And if we try this piecemeal thing, it's just going to destroy it the same as Fort Massapequa was destroyed, the Orient Focus on Sugar Loaf in Southampton was destroyed and the Orient Focus on Brown's Hill was destroyed primarily because of shortsightedness. But I think we have to, somehow or other, come up with the money to Southold Town Planning Board 18 March 10, 1997 preserve this site. I look in our governor's new budget with how we're spending the environmental money. I think most of it has gone to the other part of Suffolk County. Very little has come here. Somehow or other we were hornswoggled out of that money. So someway or other it's going to be absolutely necessary for the politicians and the other people in town to figure out how to raise the money. I don't think we should figure out new plans or new ideas. Let's get down to the nitty gritty which is the money. I've got to give Mr. Baxter a lot of credit for being a tremendously patient man. Because this thing has gone on for as far as I know about ten years, I remember by County Boards. Another thing that's happening there at the Baxter site which was at the end is now under water, at every high tide. What is happening, we are getting sea level rise and no matter how you want to argue about it, it's there. I've lived here for many many years and I can see the evidence of it, and that's going to have an impact. So all these thtngs adding up means we must act and we have to act now in order to preserve the fort and to prevent any further looting of that area. I thank you very much. Cliff Benfield: My name is Cliff Benfield and I'm Chairman of the Southold Landmark Preservation Commission. And I want to thank Debbie Wlnsor for the job she did. I don't want to repeat much that she had said or others have said. The Landmark Commission wrote a letter to the Board members August 15 stating our position and it hasn't changed. We would be remiss in our responsibilities as working for the Town...the Town recognizes a landmark as any place or site which has historical value, aesthetic interest by reason of its antiquity or as a part of development heritage or cultural characteristics of the town, country or nation. In other words, we are committed to protect landmarks that have been designated at every level of government. In Southold, our code provides that we can only encourage preservation of landmarks through education and to promote and encourage historical awareness and judicious concern for designated landmarks. And that is what we are trying to do. As designated as a landmark, 25 acres are included in that square that is the national site of the 106 acres. Of that 25 acres less than 20% has been allotted to a Town Park and contains the footprint of the fort which is very nice that we could have a footprint of the fort in a Town Park. However, you have the other 80% of a national landmark destroyed if this plan goes through. Steve Wick gave a talk at the historical society yesterday which is very interesting and I know that wampum has religious significance but we all Soutlqold Town Planning Board 19 March 10, 1997 know wampum has other significance too. The site at Fort Corchaug by Dr. Solecki was sited as one of the earliest mints in North America. And they manufactured wampum as Steve Wick said yesterday, the wampum of Corchaug bought the beaver fur for the Dutch and for the English that made New York State and developed our country. So we owe a lot to that little site. It is important to our country and it is significant. I think that you can probably hear a lot of people say the same thing and as far as what Walter has said about finding ways and means to preserve the land. I think we should do everything we can to do that. And I think there are public funds and private funds that could be available if someone had leadership on it and I believe the Town, or the people should be responsible for that leadership. The significance of the' report itself I think has been brought out by many people and it does have some deficiencies as far as I'm concerned. No where in this DEIS does it show the coordinates on a map that show where the actual shovel digs were made and that is usually standard in such a preparation of document. There is either intentionally or sins of omission or comission, but on the map where the digs were made according to the notes of the archeologists themselves they did not indicate the dates where it was indicated they had found material. So, by looking at the map and the filled in holes on the map it is deceptive. As I say, probably unintentional, but nevertheless this is an imperfect document. And what I think is important as has been proven on the south fork is that when something happens like this and the Town goes ahead with it, they become liable from any group that wishes to sue and pursue test 2 and 3. And that becomes very very expensive and I think the Town should probably consider that there's a conflict of interest with archeologists that work for developers and the Town itself may well consider having an Independent archeologist of their own to monitor what is done by archeologists for developers and that might be a practice that would be well advised for the rest of our history. Thank you very much. Rob White: Good evening. My name is Rob White. I didn't have any intention of speaking here tonight. I come as a private citizen. I'm quite concerned about this issue. I was trained at Cornelt University as a landscape architect and land planner. I graduated back in the late 60's and I worked for a fellow who taught me a hell of a lot more than Cornell University ever could have. One of the things that was his mainstays was that change is inevitable. Southold Town Planning Board 20 March 10, 1997 Change is always going to happen. Its how we manage that change that matters. Another thing that this fellow always had, was something in his refrigerator called forever soup. And what he and his wife would do was they'd have dinner every night and no matter what it was, whether it was pork or chicken or whatever and they'd get done and whatever was left over went into this big pot in the refrigerator and each day they would put different spices in of this, that and the other thing and keep this thing going and they always had forever soup. You're probably trying to figure out what that has to do with what we're talking about here. I consider what we're talking about here, forever soup. The North Fork is changing. It has changed tremendously in the 25 years I've been here. My family grew up here. I myself have been here for 25 years and I've seen a tremendous amount of change. What we have to do I think is maintain some flavor in that forever soup that is the North Fork. 100 acres of one of the most important archeological sites that this area has to offer is not, I think, too much to ask for us to do our utmost to maintain as flavor for this forever soup that is the North Fork. The Baxters have been absolutely wonderful in trying to help and work with the Town in making sure, or doing what they can to make this happen and I would just ask that we keep in mind that these treasures, little by little by little, not for now but for tomorrow, for 10 years from now, for 20 years from now that we still have this forever soup going with a lot of flavor to it. Did I make my point?,, Elizabeth Hale: Good evening. My name is Elizabeth Hale. I'm from the Shinnecock Indian Reservation and I'd like to bring greetings from Shinnecock Nation Cultural Center and Museum. We wanted to be sure that you knew that native people, descendants of all those 13 tribes are here. Mr. David Martine whose paintings you saw is also on our Board. Madorie Martinez is here today and Chief Bob Pharaoh, and we are just a few who are saying remember the past and from where all of us came. Our people are watching how things come and how they are handled in these days and I think that many contributions that we have made in the past have been appreciated but have been forgotten and we don't want you to forget us. We are standing right here watching how Fort Corchaug is handled. I also belong to the New York State Museum at Albany Education Committee on Down State which is a new exhibit which is being opened during the 1990's and to the year 2000 we will see a full exhibit of New York State history, I would hope that this piece would be highly recommended there. Dr. George Hamil is the director there and he is the president of the Re- patriation Committee, national. And we don't want to get the Re-Patriation Southold Town Planning Board 21 March 10, 1997 Committee upset around here. We have a lot of things that we want to contribute and. so that our descendants, your children and mine will know much more about our history and treasure it as we all do. Thank you. Robert Pharaoh: I'd just like to formerly request on behalf of the Montauk Nation that the Town of Southold keep us informed on the developments and this property, because it is very important to us. Mr. Orlowski: OK. Speaking for the Board I'd like to thank you all very much for coming out tonight. It was a very good hearing. I thank you for your comments, for your questions. Tonight we will end this public hearing and that the comment period will stay open until March 20. So between now and then if you have any other comments, anything you'd like to get to the Board that we could review before we pass it on to the applicant, we would appreciate it. Any questions from the Board? Mr. Ward: I'd just like to thank you all for coming and I'd just like to see by a raise of hands of how many would like to see the whole fort preserved, the whole site. OK, it's everybody in this room. Basically, I'd like you to ask since this is the first time that I've seen a group together of everybody that's pro save the entire site, is that I'd like to make an appeal to you to do some homework. One would be to write to Suffolk County. The Town already has committed up to a million dollars to help purchase this property. Let me tell you that this Planning Board and your Town Board is actively pursuing the County and the State to get some money to help pull this off. But hearing from a few politicians and Planning Board members is not enough. What we need for you to do is to write to Bob Gaffney, Suffolk County Executive, cc: Michael Frank who is the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation, cc: Stephen Jones who is the Commissioner of Planning. The State has come through with S200,000.00 to this project from the 1993 bond issue which was an Environmental Bond Act. I personally made a trip to Albany to talk to Winthrop Aldrich who is the head of the Environmental Protection Historic Preservation for the State, Deputy Commissioner and their attitude right now is, they don't know what's happening with the bond issue money for 1996. We all voted for that bond issue. We need you to write to Governor Pataki. We need you to write to Bernadette Castro, Commissioner of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. And her Deputy who is Wint Aldrich in Albany. If you need help on those names, the Planning office will help you. Please everyone that's here tonight, write those letters and let's have our voice heard. There's no reason that we can't Sou,:hold Town Planning Board 22 March 10, 1997 get additional funds. Mr. Orlowski: Anyone else have a comment? Mr. Edwards; You might even go a little further to the federal end of it IDecause it is a national site, part of it and if we can get the word out some of the federal people might help. Mr. Ward: Believe me, they'll listen to this group better than they will us, so please help us out. Mr. Orlowski: Now that we've given everybody all that homeworK, I'll entertain a motion to close the hearing. Mr. Cremers: So moved. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? Motion carried. Held Over From Previous Meetings: Mr. Orlow', !state of Andrew Cassidv - Section I - This mai( is for 3 lots on; res. Lot #I is a non-buildable wetland of 23.24 acres; Lot #2 is a 32.98 area on which the develo hts have been sold and lot #3 is an residential parcel is located on the ]ne in Green Section I is for 2 lots; a 23.24 acre non-buildable 34.8238 acre lot of which the development rights have been 32,98 acres. SCTM# 1000-52-5-59.6, Mr. Cremers: Mr. Chairman resolved that the pending like to Town Planning maps with Health Mr, Mr, following resolution. Be it )Id the hearing open )roval. the motion. Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the m'otion? MICHAEL P. FORBES Ms. Julie L. McKinney Box 1632 Southold, Long Island, New York o( ~i~la~hill_qto., 73~ 20515-3201 April 17, 1997 11971 Dear Ms. McKinney: Thank you for bringing to my attention the current situation at Fort Corchaug. I understand that this is the best preserved Indian Fort on the Eastern Seaboard and I am shocked that the owner would want to subdivide this historic property. First, I would like to commend the efforts of the Town of Southold and some 18,000 residents who have come up with $800,000 to purchase the property. Unfortunately, it is not enough money, but it does show a good faith effort on behalf of the community and should help in your efforts to stop the sub- division proposal Before you do anything else, I recommend that you begin a strong lobbying campaign to the Southold Planning Board against the subdivision. Hopefully, the strong opposition to this project will be able to stop the approval of this project. In the meantime, I would like to bring this property to the attention of the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and other agencies who might be able to bring more money to the table. Please forward to me any additional information you may have on the property. Also, please send me any correspondence you or anyone else may have had with FWS or other agencies, such as the Bureau of Indian Affairs, about the possibility of purchasing the land. I look forward to your response and to receiving more information on Fort Corchaug. MPF:am Sincerely, MICHAEL P. FORBES Member of Congress APR 2 8 , PLANNING BOARD M~EMBERS RICHARD G. WARD GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southeld, New York 11971 F~x (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 16, 1997 Charles Cuddy, Esq. P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, New York 11901 RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Major Subdivision Indian Shores SCTM# 1000-116-1-3 Dear Mr. Cuddy: On February 18, 1997, you received by facsimile, a copy of the cost estimate from Charles Voorhis, the Planning Board's consultant, for review of the DEIS for the above mentioned subdivision. In response to your letter of February 20, 1997, the review fee was examined by the Planning Board and by Mr. Voorhis, and a response from Mr. Voorhis was sent to you on March 4, 1997. As you know, the review of the DEIS was completed by March 20, 1997. Please submit the outstanding review fee of $1,850.00, payable to the Town of Seuthold. If you have any questions regarding the above, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, , Melissa Spit ~d~~-~ Planner PATRIC~A L, ACAMPORA Assemblywoman 1st District Suffolk County THE ASSEMBLY STATE OF NEW YORK ALBANY # RANKING MINORITY ME~ER Consumer Affairs & Protection COMMf%rEES Aging Labor April 3, 1997 Ms. Julie L. McKinney PO Box 1632 $outhold, NY 11971 Dear Ms. McKinney, Thank you for your recent letter regarding Fort Corchaug. I am happy to assist the Town of Southold in their application for Bond Act monies forthis project. Afterthe Bond Act was passed, I wrote to the Town offering my assistance. I will use the powers of my office to work with the Town; however, the actions of the Planning Board are strictly a local matter and are not under my jurisdiction. It is important that you share your concerns with the Planning Board. Please keep me informed of your progress. If I can do anything in the future, please give me a call. Sincerely, Patricia L. Acam~¢a MEMBER OF AS~°EMBLY PLA/abs DISTRICT OFFICE: County Seat Professional Complex, 1149 Old Country Road, (Rte 58), Suite B3, Riverhead, New York 11901, (516) 727 1363, FAX (516) 369-3869 ALBANY OFFICE: Room 725 Leg s ave Off ce Building, Albany, New York 12248, (5 8) 455 5294, FAX (5 8) 455-4740 ~ on recycled paper. Printed TYPE2 INITIAL DETERMINATION: NON-SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANC£ STATE ENVIRONMENTAL 0UALITY RE~tEW STAT'US'~S'HI~T & UNLISTED OT HER: (SEORA} LEAD AGENCY COORDINATION: UNCOORDINATED REVIEW_. - /_ -: /. - COORDINATED REVIEW = START OF 30 DAY COORD. PRGCZ33~__/0 ./_~:~_/ ~ ~')~6.~ 3,~, COM~S RE~I~ FROM: ~t~ ~q Iq3 ~%~s~ ' AGENCY: t~1~51~3 ~c ,~, .~,~.~,~ - --._ ~ AGENCY: ~)~> ~a 3 ~,~¢ ~X'~ b~) ~,~,~ .~ > ~.~,. ~,g. ~ ~'e, ~ ~GATI~ DECL~ATION, DA~ /~/ CONDITIONAL ~G, DEC.~A~ / / POSITI~DECL~ATION ~ ~A~/~/qq ~'- IF POSITI~ DECL~ATION ~v' ~',"~ ~ SCOPINGSESSION ~ / / / ~q / ~I~ OF~VISIO~S TO DEIS ~ _/~b / DATEDEISCOMPLETF '-~'~' /- _//DATEDEISINCOMPLETF. q /a~ /. 9C RECEIPT OF REVISIONS TO DEIS DATE DEIS COMPLKI~. ~/~/T~J...T~_//DATE DEIS INCOMPLETE. ST~T 0r PUBLIC COM~ P~IOD FOR DEIS /__,/.__ PUBLIC HE.~I~ING ON DEIS / / C0MMENTSRECEIVEDFROM: AGENCY: AGENCY: AGENCY: AGENCY: AGENCY: AGENCY: AGENCY: AGENCY: END OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR DEIS / / lEIS TO BE PREPARED BY. lEIS RECEIVED I f lEIS COMPLETE. /, /~ START OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR lEIS / / PUBLIC HEARING ON lEIS / / FINDINGS STATEMENT ADOPTED BY PLANNING BOARD ENVIRONMENTAL F~ SCOPINGSESSION$ ,~o PAID ~-/7 /.?,~ REVIEW OF DEIS $ I oe,~ PAID '~ / ? / ct5 ADDITIONAL REVIEW OF DEIS $ 5-oc, PAID t/ / ~ / ~/g GJcz¢c, PAID __/ / $- PAID / PREPARATION OF FEIS $ PAID__/ / REVIEW OF FEIS $ PAID / /. l' MAJOR SUBDIVISION Complete application received - Yield map received =/ Application reviewed at work session Applicant advised of necessary revisions Revised submission received Sketch plan approval -with conditions Lead Agency Coordinat/on SEORA determination Preliminary maps received Preliminary maps reviewed at work session -revisions Road profiles/drainage submitted -revisions Road profiles/drainage reviewed be Engineer Sent to County Planning Commission Receipt of County Planning Report Review of $CPC report Preliminary hearing Preliminary approval -with conditions Sent to Fire Commissioner Receipt of firewell location Notification to applicant to include on final map Draft Covenants and Restrictions received Draft Covenants and Restrictions reviewed Filed Covenants and Restrictions received Bond estimate submitted Bond adopted by PB Bond adopted by TB Payment of bond Payment of inspection fee Determination of park & playground fee Park & playground fee adopted by TB Paymont of park & playground fee Open SPace documents Documents reviewed by TA Receipt of mylars and paper prints with Health approval Final Public Hearing Approval of subdivision -with conditions .,~ ,I,,l~ Endorsement of subdivision APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAT To the Plamffng Board of the Town of Southohl: Tile Undersigned applicant hereby applies for (lentative) (final) approval of a subdivisi,m plat accordance ;v/th Article 16 of the Toxvn Law and the Rules and Regnlations of the SouthoId Town Planning Board, and represents and states as follows: I. The applicant is the o;vner of record of the land name of the subdivision is to be ........ Scl edt le "5" ' ......... d ~ereto annexed. (Copy- of deed 4. The land is held by follows: the applicant m~der deeds recorded in Suffolk Cotmty Cle'k's office as Libor ..... 4605 .... Page . 380 Liber ........ ' ............ On ........ ................ Page ....... ' ......... L~ber . On ............ PaKe Liber .. ' ..................... On ....... ...................... Paffe ................ ; On I ii>er as devised under thc Last Will and Testament of .... ' ...................... ; or as dlstrlbUtee ......... ' .......... 5. The area of the land is 104.5x~ ........................................ 6. All taxes wl~ich are Gens on the land at the ,rate hereof have been paid except ..D.q~ ..... 7 T e a ~, is c ~c ~ ered by ............. 9a¢ ............................................. mortgage (s) as follows: (a) Mortgage recorded in ?Jber ...1.~ ...... Page ..... ~9 .......... in original amoun~ of $. J.00,0O.0 .... nnpaid amount $ ....... Trust Co. ' ............. held by North Fork Bank .............. address ...Nattituck, Ne~ York ...................... (b) Mortgage recorded in Liber ......... Page ........ ' ...................... in original amoont of ...... unpaid amount $ ................ ...... held by .............. address ...................... {c) ~°rtKage recorded i~ Liber ........ .... · ....... held by ....... "' o[ ............ paid at ount . address ............ the laud e×ccpt ..... tlOO~ ............... 9. ;File laud lies iu the followi ~g I0. No part o[ the land lies uudcr water whcthcr tide water, stream, pmui water oV otherwise, map ................................. as will be shown on subdivision ...... copt .............. 11. Thc applicant shall at his expeuSC install nil required public improvements. 12. The land 0t,k'~¢~) (does not) lie in a Veater District or \¥ater Suppb' District. Name et Dis- trict, i£ within a District, is . .. D-/.a' ...................................................... 13. Water mains xvill be laid by · p./.a ...................................................... anti (a) (no) charge will be made {or iusta/lillg said mains. 14. Electric lines and staudards will be installed by tO be determined .... aud (a) (uo) charge will be made ior installing saitl · determined lines, tO be .............. and (a) k , -,'icaut to )e exi.; g · SuHolk County ~lg, ~ ' i7. It streets shown on the plat arc claimed by thc npldicaut to be cxisti ~g ptd)lic streets iu the Town of Southold · llghway system, ampex Schedule "C" heretO to show same. 18. There are no exist ug buildiugs or structures ou tile laud which arc not located and shown sub- on the plat. streets which are extCUSiems of streets ou adjoiuil~g 19. hcre tile lhtt sh ws )[°l?°~Cdthere arc no reserve strips at tile cud of the streets on said ision maps hcretolorc hied, exdWilstiug maps at their coujtmctionS with the proposed streets- 20.Ill the course o[ these proceedings, the al'Plieant will ,,iht proo[ o[ title 335 o{ the V, eal property 21. Submit a copy of proposed deed ~or lots shov,'i:~g all restricti,ms, coveUants, etc. Annex Schedule "D'" Request performance bond be determined based on information from Town's Engineer and applicant's engineer. ~V ~ ~~ 93 DATE . August 27, 19. WILLIAM J. BAXTER, JR. N6RTH FORK BANK & TRUST CO. By: R~u~fmond C. Ra~tgan, Vice President, Sr. Trust Officer of · (Namg of .A. lq~licant) (Signature and T~le~i 11 i'am d. individually and as Co-Executor of the Estate of William d. Baxter (Address) North Fork Bank, and Co- Executor of the Estate of. William J. Baxter STATE OF N E\V YORK. COUNTY OF ...... ~.~(~9P~ ............ ss: On the ..... .27.t.h. ........ ,lay of ........ '...A.u.g.t:l.s.t ............. , 19..93.. before ,ne personally came William J. Baxter, Jr. to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the foreg:'oln,q' h~strument, and acknowledged that .... h.~ ......executed the shine. Nota~ Public, State ~ New York ......... ~:,.~_. ~.... ~ 6872225 Notary Poblic .......... Qualified In Suffolk County Commission Expire~ December 31, 1 ST:t'rf: OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF ..... .S.U.[[O.L.K. ..............ss: Ou the ..... 271 h ....... day .......... August. ............... r,f , 199~...., before me personally came Raymond C. Radi~an ................... to me known, who being hy me duly sworn did de- p ~se and say that ............ resides at No ..................................................... .............................. dlat .......... h..e .............. is the ...¥J.¢.e... · ~.r. es~ent., o£ N~r~h Fork Bank and Trust Company tile c.rporation described in and which executed the forvg.ingr instrtlmeot; that ..... t]~ .....knows the seal of said c~rporation; that tile seal affixed by order of tile board of directors of said corporation. and tllal ...... he .... siglled .... .h.J..S ....... name thereto by like order. CHARLES R. CUDDY Notary Public, State of New Yo~k No, 5872226 Notary Public Qualified in Suffolk County Commission Expires December 31, DISCLOSURE AFFIDAVIT STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) SS. : I, William J. Baxter, Jr., an applicant for the following relief: Major Subdivision - India~-~ $~0res at Cutchogue, Town of Southold, and being duly sworn, deposes and says: That I make and complete this affidavit under the penalty of perjury and swear to the truth thereof. That I understand that this affidavit is required by Section 809 of the ~ENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW and that a knowing failure to provide true information is punishable as a misdemeanor. Being so warned I state: That neither the applicant nor any person representing the applicant in connection with the subdivision application is an officer or employee of the Town of Southold or the State of New York and this affidavit is made with the understanding that for this purpose an officer or employee shall be deemed to have an interest in the applicant where he, his spouse, or their brothers, sisters, parents, children, grandchildren, or the spouse of any of them (a) is an applicant, (b) is an officer, director, partner or employee of the applicant, (c) legally or beneficially owns or controls stock of a corporate applicant or is a member of a ~artnership or association applicant, or (d) is a party to an agreement with such an applicant, express or implied, whereby he may receive any payment or other benefit, whether or not for services rendered, dependent or contingent upon the favorable approval of such application, petition or request. That ownership of less than five (5) percent of the stock of a corporation whose stock is listed on the New York or American Stock Exchanges shall not constitute an interest for the purposes of this section. Sworn to before me this Wil~ ' , Jr. ~ d__ay of August 1993. Notary Public /~ n ~-~olres December 31, 199~ 2Sth ~//o~ March' JAMES ][/DEAN, residing at (No Number) Main Road, New York, WILLIAM J. BAXTER and WILLIAM J. BAXTER,' JR., both st I0 Bayeau Road, New Rochelle, New York, as 'tenants In common . Interest al hereinafter set fro'th, he~s ~ ~/o~er, ~ t~t certain plot, piece or parcel With ~e butldt~ and improvements thereon erected~'~ttuate[ ly~ and at Cutchogue, tn the Town of Southold, County ~ Suffolk and State of New bounded and described as follows= ~O at s point on the southerly line of ~e Main Road, 14al feet more ~'ov'leea, westerly alo~ said Sou~erly Hne from Linden'A~enue, said point ~g berg the no~hweatevly corner of land n6w ov formerly of William xe~am; from said po[~:bt~eg~n~ ru~t~ aton~ said land now or formerly of South 16 degrees 14 minutes 00 seconds ~ast 141.33 feet; thence Nor~' T5 degrees 01 minutes 10 seconds East 70.0 feet to land now o~ formevly.o~ Muzl~c; .thence In a eeneral southerly ~lrection alo~ a ' dlrec alo~ ord~ry Mgh water mark of said Dowries Creek, about to .land now ov formerly of Ruth Houston; said land now or formerl~ of Houston, ~ courses, as follows: South 84 degrees 4~ mihutes"40 seconds Weal ~0 feet; ~~ thence Sou~ 10 degrees 48 minutes 40 'seconds West 99.65 feet~ thence South 17 degrees 54 minutes 10 seconds West 242.96 feet to an iron pipe al the northweszerly corner of land now or formerly of Robevz Dart~ thence -'lllJlJllllJlllJll!m thence (~) ¢2) along said land now or formerly of Dart, South 15 degrees 50 minutes 40 seconds West 32'7.04 feet to an iron pipe on the northerly line of New Suffolk Avenue; thence along said northerly line of New Suffolk Avenue North 84 degrees 58 minutes ~.0 seC0hds West St). 40 feet to i monument ~nd l~nd nor or formerly of Donald Wlnemanl ~lo~g said land now or formerly of Wi~e~ah, 4-courses, ~s follows: North 15 degrees ~0 minutes 40 seconds East 3~. North 17 degrees 54 minutes 10 seconds East ~41.63 feet to a monam~tl thence (3) South 64 degrees 26 minutes 40 seconds West 380.0 feet to a monument; thence (4) ., .(I) South 13 degrees 39 minutes 20 seconds West 270.0 feet to a monument on said northerly line of New Suffolk Avenue{ thence along said nol'therly · line 'of'NeW S~ffolk Avenue,. North ({4 degrees il8 minutes 20 seconds West 110~, 08 ~eet to land n~w o~'fo~merlY'of ~ndruski;" . ;'~: .,';. ' ~1o~ said land Ut Andruski, 4 cou~ses, ~e follows: North 8~ degrees 50 minutes 00 seconds East 536.10 feet to ~h t~0fl Ptpel thence ' (3) (4) thencealongsaid ¢4) North 11 degrees ~.({ minutes 30 seconds East 10({~. ~4 feet; thence North 12 degrees 24 minutes 10 seconds East 84?. 95 feet; thence North fl delirees 06 minutes 00 seconds West I078, 44 feet to said line of the Main Road; sou~erly ~e o~ the Main Road, 8 courses, as follows: No,ih 50 degrees 20 minutes R0 seconds East 298.72 feet; the~ee North 55 degrees 17 m~utes 30 seconds East 471.65 feetI thence North ~8 de~rees 21 minutes 50 seconds East 2~8. ~9 feet; thence North a2 degrees 08 minutes 50 seconds East 274.28 feet; thence North 65 degrees 10 m~utee 40 seconds East g88, 18 feet tothe p0i~t of Containing 104-1/2 acres, more ol' less, Together with all r~ht, title and interest of the party of the first part, if any, in and to the gutter lyi~tg between the above described premises and land of Muzinic to the center line thereof. Together with ali the right, title and interest of the party of the first Part, any, of in and to land below high water mark and under the waters of Downfs Creek adjacent to said p,r, emia~es. Subject to the life estate of Anna Remski ih and to the tenant house and lot located upon the above described premises as provided by the Last Will and Testament of John O.' DOwns, ~deceased, William J. Baxter an undivided three-fourths interest; William j. Baxter, Jr. an undivided one*fourth interest. tn~ Compliance with 8so. I~ o! the Lien Law. the ~rantOr will for this oonvzyanoo and will hold the right to reoeivs ~uoh t /und to be appll, ed flrst for tho purpose of paying the cost of anti will apply the sams ~rst to the payment of the cost of Df the total of the same fo~ any othev purpose. O~ thia Flfty-nin~ day of March JVtneteen t~gnd~v~ before me, the swbscrtbe~, personally JAMES ~./DEAN to me personally known and known to me to be tb~ same person in and who executed the within Instrument, and he avknowledged to me that he exeeu't~d~he sarn~ ,:, IRT 1--PROJECT INFORMA'I"IO~ , Prepared by Project -Sponsor NOTICE: l'his document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. NAME OP ACTION Indian Shores Subdivision LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Streel Address, Munlclpafl~¥ and County) Main Road, Cutchogue NAME OF APP,LICANTISPONSOR William J. Baxter, Jr., and Estate of William J. Baxter ADDRESS BUSINESS TELEPHONE f516) 369-8200 c/o Charles R. Cuddy, 180 Old Country Road, Post Office Box 1547 CITY/PO Riverhead, New York NAME OF OWNER (It different) (same) ADDRESS CITY/PO STATE I ZiP CODE NY 11901 aUSINESS TELEPHONE DESCRIPTION OF ACTION I STATE I Z!?CODE Major subdivision of 105.6 acres, SCTM #I000-116-1-3 Subdivislon sketch plan "Cluster Map Indian Shores" dated August 16, 1993 Please Complete Each Question-Indicale N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: E]Urban E]lndustrial E]Cornmercial E]Residential (suburban) J~Forest ~]Agriculture E]Ofher 2. Total acreage of project area: I05.6 acres, APPROXIMATE ACREAGE Meadow or grushland (Non-agricultural) Forested Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etcJ Wetland [Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) Water SurIace Area [~Rural (non-farm PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION 0 . 0 acres 3.0 acres 53.6 acres 34.1 acres 45.5 acres 43.0 acres 6.5 acres 6.5 acres 0 · 0 acres 0 · 0 acres acres 2.0 acres acres 7.0 acres acres 1 0 . 0 acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces Other (Indicate type) 1 awn ~ & land~;caned areas 3, What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? RdA, a. Soil drainage: ~Well drained .. 94 % of site ~]PoorJy drained 6 % of site o-0 0 0 0.0 PIA I-IModerately well drained % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are c ass)fled within soil group I through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? 45.5 acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). ' 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? OYes ~3No ' a. What is depth to bedrock? N. A. (in feet) ·; ,\pp. ro'~;mate percentage of proposed~ject site ,,',ira slope,: ~_'0-'10% _~ % ~ ~ ._15% or great~ 0 ' 6. Is p~ojec~ substantially conH~uous ~o, or contain a building, sile, or dislHcL lis~ed on [hL. State o~ d~e National ReBiHers ol His~odc Places? ~Yes 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks~ ~Yes 8. What is the depthof the water tableI 0-30 (in feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer[ ~Yes ~No 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area~ ~Yes ~No 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life Ihat is identified as threatened or endangered? ~Yes ~o According to Y0un~ & Y0ung~ L.S. Identify each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) ~Y~s ~No Describe Par f ~ · ~ 13. I~ the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area~ ~Yes ~No It yes, explain 14, Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? ~No 15. Streams within or contiguous to project a[ea: Downs Creek a. Name of Stream and name o~ River to which it is tributary ' . 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name Dowrls Creek b. Size (In acres) . 20_+ acres 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? ~]Yes []]No a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection~ [~Yes []No b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? YC]Yes ONo 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law. Article 25-A^. Section 303 and 304? []Yes fill, lo 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article g of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 RYes [No 20. ltas the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? ~]Yes filNo 8. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor 'J 05 b. Project acreage to be developed: 2 ~'. 0 acres initially; 22. c. Project acreage to remain undeve oped .8.3.6 acres. d. Length of project, in miles: .,p/a (If appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed rl/c~ %; f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing., 0 ; proposed g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour J 9.6 (upon completion of project)? h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Initially 4 2 Ultimately 42 i. Dimensions {in feet) of largest proposed structure n/a height; j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? acres. acres ultimately. Condominium length. · ft. 1500 ft. r~Jn S.R. 25 1100 N~w Suffolk Avenue 2. How much natural material (i.(. earth, etc.} will be removed from tile ~ tons/cubic yards 3. V~ill dislurbed areas he reclaimed? Y~Yes I-INo CIN/A a. If yes, for what intend.., purpose is the site being reclaimed? re$~.derlt~.a], deve].opmelqt b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ~]Yes c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ~3Yes DNo 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? 27.0 acres. 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? K'lYes 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 48 months, (including demolition). 7. Ifmulti-phased: not applicable (n/a) a. Total number of phases anticipated .. (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 . month year, (including demolition). c. Approximate completion date of final phase month year. d. Is phase I functionally dependent on subsequent phases? DYes IqNo 8. Will blasting occur during construction? DYes ~-~No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 72 ; after project is complete 0 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project ,, norle . 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? r-lYes )~[~No If yes, explain _ 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? [:]Yes ~No a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc,) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged , 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? F~Yes I-1No Type., sanitary 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? I-lYes Explain 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? F~Yes [:]No ~No 16. Will the project generate solid waste? ~3Yes DNo a. If yes, what is the amount per month 6.3 tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? [~Yes I-1No c. If yes, give name Towrt of $outh0J. d ; location Cutchogue d. Will any wastes nol go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? []Yes e. If Yes, explain , recyclab].e$ ENo 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? _ b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? DYes IX1No tons/month. years. DNo ]awn care 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)~' F1Yes [ZNo 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? ~Yes' 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? X~yes [:]No If yes , indicate type(s) ~ 1 e c t r i c ~l ] 22. If water ~upply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity 1 0 23. Total anticipated water usage per day 1 ?._. 6[~0 gallons/day. + 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? If Yes, explain gallons/minute. irrigation r"lYes []No ~No 4 City, Town. '~iU,.ge Board .:i~Yes ~No City. Towu. Village Planning I]oa:d PB ~Ye,~ ~No City· Town Zoning 0nard ~Yes ~No City. County Health Department C0. [~Yes [:]No Other Local AgenciesTown Trustees [~¥es [:]No Other Regional Agencies [~Yes [:]No State Agencies [~Yes [:]No Federal Agencies [:]Yes [~No C. Zoning and Planning Information Submiltal Type Date subdivision ~ Sept. 1993 ~'Fater supply/sewage disposal wetlands subdivision wetlands 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? i~]Yes i-INn I~ Yes, indicate decision required: [:]zoning amendment [:]zoning variance [:]special use permit ~subdivision [:]site plan [3new/revision of master plan [:]resource management plan lqother 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the s re?., A/C AqricuItural-C0nservation 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? 42 residential lots 4. What is the proposed zoning of tile sitei' r~/a 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted b~, the proposed zoning? 6. Is the proposed action consis'tent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? X~Yes 7. What are tile predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a % mile radios of proposed actioni' Zoning: A-C Agricultural Conservation Use: Agriculture ONo 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land oses within a N mile? X~]Yes [:]No 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? 42 a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? _ 38,000 sq. ft. 10. Will propos?d action require any authorization(s) for tile formation of sewer or water districtsi' I-lyes [~No 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services [recreation, education, police, fire protection)~ )~Yes [=]No a. If yes. is exisling capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? Y~)~Yes [:]No 12. Will the proposed action result In Ihe generation of traffic significantly above present levels? [:]Yes XY~No a, If yes, is tile existing road network adequate to handle tile additional traffic? I-lyes r'lNo.n/a D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. I~ there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant!Sponsor N. 4me _ Wi I I ia~.J. Baxter, Jr. S~gnature Title If Ibc aclion is in Ihe Coaslal ,~rea, and you are a s a e al:enc¥, complele the Coaslal Assessmenl Form before proceedh~g wilh It is asses~menl. NQRTH FORJ(~BANK & TRUST CO. 5 By: ~J~.~ice President, Sr. Trust Officer p~ARD Southold. N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 QUESTIONNAIRE TO BE COMPLETED AND SUBMITTED WITH YOUR APPLICATIONS FORMS TO THE!PLANNING BOARD Please complete, sign and return to the Office of the Planning Board with your completed applications farms. If your answer to any of the following questions is yes,! please indicate these On your guaranteed survey or submit other appropriate evidence~ 1. Are there any wetland grasses on this parcel? ~ No (Attached is a list of the wetland grasses defined by the Town Code, Chapter 97, for your reference) 2. Are there any other premises under your ownership ~_~ abutting this parcel? Yes 3. Are there any building permits pending on this parcel? Yes 4. Are there any other applications pending concerning this property before any othe~ department or agency?(Town , State, County, etc.) Yes 5. Is there any application pending before any other agency with regard to a different project on this parcel? : Yes 6. Was this property the subject of any iprior application to the Planning Board? ! Yes * 7. Does this property have a valid certificat~ of occupancy, if yes please submit.a copy iof same Yes · application informally submitted, but not filed I certify that the above statements are true and will be relied on by/the~Plannin~ Board in considering this application. Signature of pr~er~y owner or authorizedl agent ~at~/ Attachment to questionnaire for,'the Planning Board STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, ss: On the ~day of ~#~/---- , 1993I before me personally came William J. Baxter, Jr. to m~ known to be the individual described in'and who executed ithe foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same. ~otary Pfiblic CHARLES R. CUDDY Notary P~bJ~ State of New Yodr iNo~ 6872225 ~ Qualified in Suffolk County ' ' ~ommission Expires December 31, 1 APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAT ~'r"'-~-I To the Planning Board of the Town of Southotd: ' ~ [ acco ce w~m art:cie lo ot the loxvn aaxv and the Rules and Regulations of the $0Ui~ Planning Board, and represents and states as follows: 1. The applicant is the owner of record of the land under application. (If the applicant is not the oxvner of record of the Iand under appllcation, the applicant shall state his interest in said land under application.)The land is owned ~ by William J. Baxter, Jr. and 3/4 by the Estate of William J. Baxter The nameofthe su6d~vislon ~ ~-'Fort Corchau Major Subdivision ............. ' .... S~IM r~0 100.(1/.116/.1,/.3 The entire land under application is described in Schedule "A" hereto annexed. (Copy of deed suggested.) 4. The land is held by the applicant under deeds recorded in Suffolk Count), Clerk's office as follows: Liber ........................ Page ...................... On ....................... Liber ........................ Page ...................... On ........................ Liber ........................ Page ...................... On Liber ........................ Page ...................... On ........................ Liber ........................ Page ...................... On ........................ as devised under the Last %Viii and Testament of ....................................... or as distrlbutec ...... $ Th of the la d is 104 ~ ' . e area n · acres. 6. All taxes which are liens on the land at the date hereof have been paid. x'x~:0~: ............ ?. The land is encumbered by ....T.o.b.e..pro.v. ided ........... mortgage (s) as folloxvs: ............................... (a) Mortgage recorded in Liber .............. Page .................. in original amount of $ .............. unpaid amount $ ..................... hehl by ...................... .............. address ................................................................. (b) M'ortgage recorded in Liber ......... Page ....................... in original amount of .............. unpaid amount $ ...................... held by ...................... .............. address ............................................................... (c) Mortgage recorded in Liber .............. Page ................ in original amount of .............. unpaid amount $ ...................... held by ...................... ...................... address 8. There are no other encumbrances or liens agaiust the Iand.)e..~:gt .............. . .......... 9. The land lies in the following zoning use districts .Q ser. v. aU0n,ggr, tcul.tara] ......... 10..~o part of the land lies under water whether tide water, stream, pood water or otherwise, ex- See [nAD cept .................................................................................. Il. The applicant shall at his expense install all required public improvements. 12. The land :(~X0tl) (does not) lle in a Water District or Water Supply District. "ti' ~:+,-i{ -w i.t ~i.a- ~-Dis, t vie t-,-is .............................................................. not 13. Water mains will,6e lai4xtw ............................................................ and (a) (no) charge will be made for installing said mains. 14. Electric lines and standards will be installed by To. ,b.e .de.t.er. ltl:Jlled ...............: .... " lines. · ............. and (a) (no) charge will be made for installing- said 15. Gas mains will be installed by..T.O. .b.c....d.e.t, .e.r.m.i.n.e..d .................................... and (a) (no) charge will be made for installing said mains. ':' 16. If streets shoxvn on the plat are claimed by th.e applicant to be existing public streets in the Suffolk County Highway system, annex S~hedule "B" hereto, to show same. 17. If streets shown on the plat are claimed by the applicant to be existing public streets in the Town of Southold tlighway system, annex Schedule "C" hereto to show same. 18. There are no existing buildings or structures on the land which are not located nmi shown on the plat. 19. ~Vhere the plat shows proposed streets which are extensions of streets on adjoining sub- division maps heretofore filed, there are no reserve strips at the end of the streets on said existing maps at their conjunctions with the proposed streets. 20. In tile course of these proceedings, thc apl~licant will ~dl'cr proof of title as required by Sec. 335 of the Real Property Law. 21. Sub:nit a cop3' of proposed deed for lots showing all restrictions, covenants, 'etc. Annex Schedule "D". do not cost ofgrading and required public impr~vcment~/at this 22. The DO ~ORT~/'~ORK BANK,k TRUST CO. PAMELA A. KING, Trust (~ficer of The North Fork Bank & Trust Co. as Co-executor of the Estate of (Na~e of ~pplican~) WIL~IbM/'I3 BAXTER, ~.,/' By !d~ 'iff'~ ~'l'i/l'a/'~'j'.'' ...... (Sig Ti i Baxter, Jr. as Co-executor of the Estate of William J. Baxt William J. Baxter <~e--sO-, , ~ - ~lliam ~. 'BaxYer, Jr. STATE OF XEW YORK, COCXTY OF .Suffol-~ ............... V. ....... ss: . .~..%.~k.~...~. t~....~ :...~.~. ~.q'.~.R~ .?.g.: ......... to me known to be the individual &~¢~ihed i~ and who ! ' ~ ~4 ~ ' STATE OF NEXV YORK, COUNTY OF ...}~.[[Q~ ................. ~s: On the ...~77. ........ day ~9.~'~ ...... of ...... 1992 ...... , before me pcrsonally came pose and say that $ he resides at No. ~ ~/~ ~ 3 ~ ..... ~.~ ...................... that she is~he a Trust Officer af .The.NorLh.For. k B~k.&.~rusk.Co. ~hJ5D..i.~ ;h.~.qgy.~ecp3.qU.pf.. the Estate of W~lliam O. Baxter and thc corporation described in and which ex~cutcd thc h:[c~oi~in~truF~c.t that ..fi is authorized to execute thSs app~iction on oena/t et the corDora:~on as co-executor of the Estate of William J. Baxter ~_.'~t~r7 Public Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Gentlemen: Re: Fort Corchaug Major Subdivision SCTM No. 1000/116/1/3 The following statements are offered for your consideration in the review of the above-mentioned minor subdivision and its referral to the Suffolk County Planning Commission: (1) No grading, other than foundation excavation for a residential building is proposed. (2) (3) ~ /~ew roads are proposed and ~o changes will be made in the grades of the existing ~.pr0perty. No New drainage structures or alteration of existing structures are proposed. PART'ti--PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTI(.t Th~s document ~s designed to assist in determimngwhether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the enwronment C~fease complete the entire form. Parts A through E Answers to These questions wdl be considered as part of theapphc~uonforapprovalandmaybesublecttofurthervenflcat~onandpub(icreview Prowdeanvaddmona~ ,nformaUon you behe,,e wdl be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3 It ~s e',pected !hat complebon ct the full EAF will be dependent on ini~ormat)on currently available and WlH not ,nvoKe new stud,es re~earch or ~n~estlgabon It ~nformation requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each ~nstance NAME OF ACTION FORT CORCHAUG MAJOR SUBDIVISION iMAIN ROAD~ CUTCHOGUE NAME OF APPLICANTISPONSOP iWilliam Baxter, Jr. and North Fork Bank & Trust Co. BUSINESS TELEPHONE 15161 298-8586 ' ADDRESS iNorbh Fork Bank & Trust Co.,Trust Dept., Love Lane, Mattituck,NY 11952 CITY/PO STATE ZIP CODE iWilliam J. Baxter, Jr., 1030 East Putnam Ave. Greenwich, CT 06870 NAME OF OWNER tit chfferenl) ] BUSINESS TELEPHONE DESCRIPTION OF ACTION 'Major Subdivision of 104.5 acres, SCTM No. 1000/116/1/3 Please Complete Each Question-Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical settmg of overall prolect, both developed and undeveloped areas 1 Present land use; _-"Urban ~lndustrial _mCommercial ~Resident,al (suburban) []Rural (non-farm) )~Forest ~Agriculture ~Other 104.5 2 Total acreage of project area: acre}, ..p.n ..... .: .~o:.~: See Yield Map dated J/25/92 for oocc:,~,~ ~'~ ~,~'~'~i~r~ ~:,~,~:nind,ic~.tio,ns of respective acreage~ ......... AFTER COMPLETION eaoo o ~ us a a ~ o -dgr culturaH acres acres Forested acres acres Agncultural (includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc ) acres acres Wetland {Freshwater or t~dal as per Articles 24. 25 of ECL) acres acres Water Surface Area acres acres Unvegetated (Rock. earth or fill) acres acres Roads. buildings and other paved surfaces acres acres Other (Indicate type) acres acres 3 What ~s predommant soil type(s) on proiect site?Unknown a Soil drainage ~Well dramed 90 % of sJte ~Moderatel¥ we]l drained % of s,te ~Poorl¥ drained __. % of site b If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the N¥S Land Classification System? __ acres (See 1 NYCRR 370) Unknown 4 Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? ~Yes ~[~No a What is depth to bedrock? (in feet) 5- ^porox~mate percentage of prb'posed prolect s~te with slopes: 50-10% __ % ~_10-15% % See Yield Map dated 3/25/92 =15% or greater % 6. Is prolect substantially contiguous to or contam a buJId~n£, s~t.e, or distuc~. ~s:e~ on.~he State or the ~at~onal Registers of H~stonc Places~ ~Yes ~NoUpOn Information a~ 6e~et - No., but see part D. 7 Is prolect substantially contiguous to a s,te hsted om ~he Register of National Natural Landmarks~ ~Yes ]No UD0n information and belief - No, but see 8 Wh~t ~s the deo~h of the water tabte~ Unknow~n feet) p~r~ D. 9 Is site located over a primary, prmc~pal, or sole source aquifed ~Yes ~NO Unk~0w~ 10 OD huntmg flshmg o~ shell fishin~ opportumt~es presentl~ exist m ~he project area~ ~Yes ~No 11 Does prolect s,te contam any soec~es of plant or atonal life that is identified as threatened or endanBered~ ~Yes ~NO Accordm~ to Ilnknnwn identify each sDeoes 12 Are there any umQue or unusual ~and torres on ~he project site~ (i e, cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) ~Yes ~NO DescnbeThe site is farmland, wooded area. meadow and hnrder~ Downs Creek 13 is the prolect site presendy used b~, [he commumty or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? ~Yes L'-j(NO If yes explain 14 Does the present s~te ~nclude scemc views known to be important to the community? ~Yes ~No 15 Streams within or conbguous to prolect area: Downs Creek a Name pi Stream and name of River to which ~t is tributary Peconie 16 Lakes. ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a Name Downs Creek 17 Is the site served by ex~sting public utilities~ ~Yes ~i~No a) ]f Yes, does sufficient capaoty ex,st to allow connection? b} If Yes, will ~mprovements be necessary to allow connection? b. Size (In acres) [Jnknnwn ~¥es ~3No ~Yes ~No Not applicable 18 Is the site located m an agriculturai district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA. Secbon 303 and 304~ _--Yes ~_No Unknown 19 Is the s~te located in or substantially conbguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 pi the ECL and 6 N¥CRR 617~ ,'~_Yes ~No 20 Has the s~te ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? EYes ENo B. Project Description TBD - To Be Determined Physical dimensions and scale of prmect (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by prolect'sponsor 104.5 acres. b Project acreage to be de,,eloped :FBD acres initially; TBD acres ultimately c Proiect acreage to remain undeve!oped TBD ae~s d Length of prolect, m redes (If appropriate) See Yield Map e If the project ~s an expansion indicate percent of expansion proposed N/A f Number of off-street parking spaces existin~nimnl , proposed TBD g Maximum vehicular tr~ps generated per hourU:qknown [upon completion of proiect)? h If residential Number and type pt housing unitsTBD One Family Two Famdy Multiple Family Condominium Initially Ultimately I Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure N/A height: __ width; length i Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? __ ft. Property fronts approximately 1,500 fe3et on the Main Road, approximately 1,100 on New SufTolk Avenue. ~How much natural materrat earth, etc I wdl be removed from ~ None Will d~sturbed areas be rec!a~med~ ~Yes =NO )~N/A a It ',es tot what ,ntend . purpose ~s the site being reclaimed? N/A b W:ll topsod be stockpded for reciamahon? ~-Yes ~No N/A c Will upoer subsod be stockpiled for reclamation? ~Yes ~NoN/A Hos~ many acres ot ~egetat~on(trees shrubs ground covers) wall be removed from site? T~D acres WHI any mature forest to,er ]~ ~ears old) or other Iocally-~mDortant vegetation be removed by th~s project? ~NO TBD 6 If smile phase prolect Anticipated period of construction 7 If multi-phased: Seeking subdivision a. Total number of phases anticipated (number) b Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 c. Approximate completion date of final phase d Is phase I functionally dependent on subsequent phases? 8 Will blasting occur during construction? ~'~es X~t~No 9 Number of jobs generated: during construction 10 Number of jobs eliminated by this prolect None 11 Will prolect require relocation of any prolects or facdities? months {including demolition) tons/cubic yards month year. (including demolition) month year ~Yes []No ; after project is complete Unknnwq ~Yes ~=~No If yes, explain 12 Is surface liquid waste disposal involved~ =Yes ENo Not for Subdivision a If yes, indicate type of waste {sewage, industrial, etc) and amount Ul timatel,y residential-unknown b Name of water body into which effluent ',..ill be discharged N/A 13 Is subsurface liquid waste disposal invoived~ ~:Yes []No Type CessPool 14 Will surface area of an ex~sting water body ~ncrease or decrease by proposal? FgYes ~No Explain 15 Is proJect or any portion of project located belief - Yes 16 Will the prolect generate solid waste? ]'t'es ~No- Not the Subdivision a If yes, what is the amount per month Unknown tons b If yes wdl an existing solid waste facdit~ be used? EYes ~No N/A c If yes, g~ve name N/A location N/A d Will any wastes not go into a sewage d~sposal system or into a sanitary landfill? e If Yes. explain ,n a 100 year flood plain? fl, Yes ~No Upon information and ~Yes ~No N/A 17 Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? ~Yes ~No a If yes. what is the anticipated ra~e of d~sposal? N/A tons/month b If yes, what is the anticipated site hfe~ N/A years 18 Will project use herbicides or pest~c,des/ =Yes ~NO 19 Will prolect routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? ~Yes ~No 20 Will project produce operating no~se exceeding the local ambient noise levels? ~.Yes 21 Will project result in an mcrease in energy use~ ~Yes r~No If yes , indicate typeisl 22 If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity N/A gallons/minute 2.3 Total anticipated water usage per day N/A gallons/day 24 Does prolect involve Local. State or Federal funding? ,~Yes F~NO If Yes. explain [~No 25. Approvals Required: City, Town. \ ,'lage Bo:rd ~Yes ~No -C~.cy, Towr L.,JJalje Planning Boa,d ~(Yes ~mNo City, Town Zoning Board ~Yes ~No -C-ify~ County Health Department DYes ~No Other Local Agencms -~Yes ~mNo Other Regional Agencies ~mYes ~No State Agenoes ~Yes ~_No Federal A~ffencies EYes ENo County Planning Commission x C. Zoning and Planning Information 1 Does proposed action involve a planning or If Yes, indicate decision required ~zomng amendment zoning decision? )~Yes []No ~zomng variance []special use permit )[]subdivision ~_~new/rewslon of master plan []]resource management plan []other What is the zoning classification(slof the site? A-G Submittal Type Date E]site plan What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? 42 1 ots 4 What is the proposed zoning of the site? A-G 5 What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? 42 1 ots 6 Is the proposed acbon consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? ~]Yes 7 What are the predominant land use{s) and zoning classifications within a ¼ mile radius of proposed action? A-G ~No 8 Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a ¥~ mile? ~]Yes ~No 9 If the proposed action is the subdivision of land. how many lots are proposed? TI?~ a What ~s the minimum lot size proposed? TBD 10 Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? E]Yes E~No 11 Will the proposed action create a demand for any commumty provided services (recreation. education, police. fire protechon)~ ~Yes ~mNo Upon information and belief - Yes a If ',,es, ~s existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demandS' []]Yes ~No 12 Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? []Yes []]No . a I~¥~,s..is $he exi~t4qg road network adequa[e to handle the additional traffic? C]Yes ~No Tne su[m~ws~o~ Wlm not wqenerate~l] a~ditiona] traffic. The ultimate use of the property .f0.r residentiB] .purposes . O. imormationa ueta ~s Attach any addibonal information as may be needed to clarify your proiect, If there are or may be any aJverse ~mpacts associated w~th your proposal, ptease d~scuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them There is located in a section of the site what is understood to be an 01d Indian fort. E. Verification I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. //~/// ~"~ A licant/S ons'r NJme WilliaD J: Baxter, Jr. Date [--/ ~ ' :~,gnature [,,i/ ~.. / ~.~ Title II the action is in the (~oastal Area, anc~you ar~ a stale agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceedin~ with this assessment. 5 JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK RECEIPT 0 4 8 0 9 3 Town of Southo~d Southold, New York 11971 ~,/ Phone: 516-765-1801 DATE JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK RECEIPT 5 4 3 2 8 Town of Southold Southol0, New York 11971 Phone: 516-765-1801 DATE ~-~..~.~ 19~.~ E"ECEIVEI~ OF' ~ ~ ~ - ~ JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK Town of Southoid Southold, New york 11971 54327I RECEIPT JUDITH T, TERRY, TOWN CLERK RECEIff 049611 Town of Southold Southold, New York 11971 ,...~ ,.~...~,,._. 19~ Phone: 516-765-1~01 DATE ~CK ~' 7 .~ / a JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK RECEIPT 0 4 91 6 Town of Southold Southold, New York 11971 Phone: 516-765-1801 DATE ~ ~ 19 _~.~ "ECE,VEOOE: NING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennett Oflowski, Jr. Mad( S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (5~6) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD October 24, 1995 Charles Cuddy, Esq. P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: Major subdivision for Indian Shores SCTM# 1000-116-1-3 Dear Mr. Cuddy: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board on Monday, October 23, 1995: BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board deem the August 1995 Draft Environmental Impact Statement incomplete with respect to its scope, content and adequacy for the purpose of commencing public review. The enclosed reports from Charles Voorhis of Charles Voorhis Associates, Inc. itemizes the information that must be addressed. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, Richard G. Ward Chairman cc: Charles Voorhis, Voorhis and Associates eno. CHARLES V(~ ~?~SOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENT~~ CONSULTANTS October20,1995 Ms. Melissa Spiro Assistant Planner Town of Southold Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Draft EIS Review for Indian Shores Cutchogue, New York Dear Ms. Spiro: As per your request and in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act, we have completed a review of the Draft EIS for the above referenced project. The document was reviewed for content and adequacy in accordance with SEQR NYCRR Part 617.8 - Environmental Impact Statement Procedures. As stated in the EIS procedures, "if the Draft ElS is determined to be inadequate, the lead agency, must identify' in wntmg'' the deficiencies and provide this information to the applicant. The letter and documentation contained herein addresses the deficiencies of the Draft EIS with respect to scope, content, format and adequacy. An Environmental Impact Statement is intended to provide full di.sclosu.r...e of the anUcipated environmental effects of the action. Further, an EIS should outhne salie.nt features of a project. Based upon this information, the decision-rooking body must weigh the issues and reach a conclusion in order to render a decision on a project. To a large extent, the information required for discussion under the Draft EIS Scoping Outline (prepared for the proposed project in accordance with NYCRR 617.7) was absent or inadequate for decisio.n-mal~.' g purposes. It is our recommendation that the Draft EIS be amended to address the xssues included in this review prior to its acceptance for circulation to the general public. Our comments on the scope, content, format and adequacy of the Draft EIS are attached. If teh Board is in agreement with these findings, all appropriate sections of the Draft EIS should be altered to reflect the above comments. Thank you for the oppo _r~ur~.~ty to provide the Town of Southold Planning Board with our review of the Draft EIS for Indian Shores. Provided the above noted items are satisfactorily addressed in the revision, the document can be circulated for a 30 day comment period in order to consider the accuracy and validity of the doo:ment. We will be pleased to conduct further review at your request. Please do not hesitate to call ff you have any questions regarding this review. Very~ y93rs, . eric. 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 · (516) 331-1455 ° FAX 331-8046 INI)~ SHORES {~ ~ - REVIEW OF DRAFT In General * The organization of the DEIS does not afford clarity and intelligibility, .therefore, the format presented in the Scoping Outline should be followed. Additionally, by following the format of the Scoping Outline, review of the DEIS will be expedited. * Important sections of the DEIS are absent, particularly with resoect to oro|ect ~mpa, cts. Atp rr~ ,'mum, the information required by t'he Scopin'g Outlfne ~hould oe aoequatety adoressed. A DEIS which does not adequately address all of the information required by the Scoping Outline should not be deemed acceptable. * The DEIS should be inspected for spelling and grammatical errors prior to re- submission. Summary The Conceptual Development Plan depicts residential dwellings and other large buildings on the proposed conservation easement parcels, however, these structures are not mentioned. These ;potential structures should be discussed and the!r impacts assessed in the approp, nate sections of the Draft EIS with the understanding that future development may not be identical to the hypothetical use of these sites. * Page 1, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: the smallest proposed residential lot is indicated to be 80,300 square feet, however, the Conceptual Development Plan depicts the smallest residential lot as 80,200. Please correct the discrepancy here as well as in other portions of the Draft ElS. * Page 1, 1st paragraph, last sentence: it should be re-stated that "the balance is undeveloped woodlands and wetlands." * Page 2, ,2nd full paragraph, last sentence: change "farmstand" to "farmstead". * Page 2, last paragraph, 1st sentence, change "estuarian" to "estuanne". * Page 3, 1st paragraph: states that the enwronmental impacts of Indian Shores were "determined and classified as low to moderate". Please reference this statement. * Page 3, 3rd paragraph: Conformance to SCDHS and NYSDEC regulations should not be solely considered as mitigation. The Draft EIS mentions water co~ervation a.nd pesticide/herbicide.controls., ff the applicant is willing to implement such controls, please prowde specxfics and the potential for covenants. * Page 3, 4th paragraph: Conformance to Town and State Tidal Wetlands regulations does not obviate the need for impact analysis and mitigation. If the applicant is willing to provide additional wetlands setbacks and lime, ts o~ clearing, and ensure the same through covenants, this would be a suitable mlfigaUon measure. * Page.3, 6th paragraph: visual mitigation such as buffering should be noted. * The Impacts and Mitigation" and "Impact Assessment" sections ~.ages 3 and 4) may be combined, as the latter section provides more detailed nutigation than the former. The measures listed in the "Mitigation" section (page 114) should be summarized in this portion of the "Summary". CHARLES V~/~SOCIATES, INC. ENVlRONMEN~G CONSULTANTS Page Indian Shores @ Cutchogue Review of Draft ElS Page 5, 2nd full paragraph: not all of the Alternatives as provided in the SEQR Scoping Outline have been investigated and discussed. Description of Proposed Action * Page 7: As mentioned previously, buildings on conservation easement parcels should be noted, the smallest residential lot size should be 80,200 square feet and undeveloped portions of the subject site should be stated to include both woodlands and wetlands. * Page 9, paragraph 2, sentence 4: The site plan does. not show a buffer area along Down's Creek as a part of the Town property. Is th~s proposed as suggested in this para,apb? * As noted ~n the SEQR Scoping Outline, a discussion of site background and . history should be provided, and should include history of site ownershi]?, farrmng practices, extant structures, past uses and previous subdivision applications. Environmental Concerns * Page 8, last paragraph, 1st sentence: change "equestrian" to "estu~ine". * The text provided on page 8 would be more properly located within the discussion of site background and history. Project Need * The discussion of public need, objectives of the project sponsor and benefits of the proposed action should be contained within the Description of the Proposed Action section of the Draft EIS, consistent with the SEQR Scoping Outl!ne. * Page 9, 1st para~aph, 1st sentence: this sentence contains the first mentaon of the possibility of resxdential dwellings on the conservation easement parcels. Please expand this discussion in this and other applicable sections of the document. * As noted in the SEQR Scoping Outline, public need for the project and the objectives of the municipality should also be discussed in the Draft EIS. A statement that 'construction of individual residential dwellings, will take p.lace only after a viable buyer has been secured' would be relevant m establishing public need. Project consistency with the recommendations and goals of land use plans in addition to the Peconlc Estuary Program Action Plan would aid in establishing the objectives of the municipality for the purposes of this Draft EIS. ~These land use plans should include the-Town of Souih. old Agricultural Land ~'reservation Program, Suffolk County Farm Preservation Act, Southold Stewardship Task Force Final Report, and the Final Peconic Estuary Program Action Plan. These land use plans should also b-~ ~mmarized and reviewed in the Environmental Setting and Environmental Impact sections of the DEIS, as per the Scoping Outline. * Page 13: approval from the Army Corps of Engineers is not necessary for the project as p. roposed in the Draft EIS. Approval from the Army Corps would be necessary tt catwalks and docks were to be proposed for access to the water. If these structures are to be installed, it should be stated as such in the Draft EIS and their impacts assessed. Also, if any of the proposed uses on the subject site require variances or a special exception by the Board of Appeals, this should be indicated. CHARLES V~,~SOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMEN~G CONSULTANTS Page 2 Indian Shores @ Cutchogue Review of Draft ElS Site History, Location and Background * Page 14, 1st paragr.aph: the geographic boundaries of the site should be stated as well as site access (1.e. frontage on 2 roads and water access). This information should be contained wit. hin the Description of the Proposed Action section of the Draft EIS, consistent w~th the SEQR Scoping Outline. * Pages 14 and pages 18-22, Zoning Regulations: the DEIS should be corrected to indicate that the zoning of the subject property is .A-C, not R-80. Also, the discussion offered on zoning should be more succinct to reflect its application to the subject site and proposed project. For example, discussions of bed and breakfast uses and h'mitations are not necessary. Additionally, distinction should be made between uses permitted under A-C zoning and those permitted by special exception by the Board o.f Appeals. The dimensional restrictions for the A-C district (eg. minimum lot sxze, yard setbacks, lot coverage., etc.) .sho. uld be presented in a table format. This information should be contained within the Description of the Proposed Action section of the Draft EIS, consistent with the SEQR Scoping Outline. * Pages 23-47: these pages seem to contain information that would be better suited to be contained within a section titled "Environmental Setting". It should be noted that the SEQR Scoping Outline for the project includes an Environmental Setting section. * Page 23, Historic/Significant Resources: Please see attached review of the archaeological issues. * Page 29, Local Topography: the Draft EIS notes that the site contains some slopes over twenty percent. As such, a map depicting areas with slopes 10 to 15 percent, 15 to 20 percent, and greater than 20 percent should be provided. These slopes may be depicted using crosshatching or a similar method. The approximate acreage occupied by each of these slopes (10 to 15 percent, 15 to 20 percent, and over 20 percent) should also be given. This information will be used to determine the proper location of structures and the limits of clearing in an effort to minimize potential adverse impacts associated with stormwater runoff, erosion and siltation. * Page 29, Soil types: it should be mentioned that the Soil Survey of Suffolk County states that Plymouth loamy sand has severe limitations for lawn and landscaping uses due to a sandy surface layer. * The SEQR Scoping Outline requires a discussion of the composition and thickness of subsurface soils beneath the subject site. Test holes should be a minimum of 17 feet deep or intersect the water table. * Page 32, lstparagraph: the discussion of groundwater elevation variation is insufficient (two sentences) and the information given is not referenced. Adequate discussion of lgroundwater elevation variations should include seasonal groundwater elevation rlata for a period of approximately 10 years from a nearby monitoring well. The maximum and minimum groundwater elevations experienced at the monitoring well should also be noted and extrapolated to the subject site. The relationship of groundwater discharge to surface waters as well as the effect of tidal fluctuations should also be discussed. * The Local Hydrogeology discussion does not contain any information regarding groundwater quality beneath the site, as required by the SEQR Scoping Outline. The water quality data for nearby wells contained in Appendix 3 should be summarized in this section. The Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resource CHARLES V~/~SOCIATES, INC. ENVIRON M EN~G CONSULTANTS P~e 3 Indian Shores @ Cutchogue R~view of Draft ElS Management Plan provides water quality information (nitrates and VOCs), which should also be summarized in this section. The Local Hydrogeology discussion does not contain information regardiq, g the location of nearby public wells and water mains, the location of nearby private wells, and the source of water supply for agricultural irrigation in the area, as per the SEQR Scoping Outline. The Local Hydrogeology discussion does not contain information reg.a, rding groundwater management regulations, as per the SEQR Scopmg Outline. Page 32, 2nd paragrap, h, 5th sentence: a distance of 25. miles appears to be excessive. Please clarify this statement and support wtth references, or remove altogether. The Surface Water discussion should includ.e surface water quality data, as required by the SEQR Scoping Outline. This data is compiled by the USGS and published m their annual report "Water Resources Data, New Yor.k~". Additionally, the NYSDEC criteria for certified, seasonally uncertffied, and uncertified surface waters as well as criteria for "SC" waters should be provided for comparison purposes. The SEQR Scoping Outline requires a description of existing drainage patterns (swales, slopes an.d depressions) on site and in the area. The Draft EIS fails to either adequately describe the wetlands on site or to discuss the specific value of the wetlands as required in the scoping outline. The Phragrnites marsh is discussed briefly in the vegetation section (page 45) and general, descriptions of wetland zones are presented as classified in State regulations (page 36-38); however, there is no discussion of the tidal wetlands on site. As part of this description, the Draft EIS should list the species actually identified on site and their relative abundance either in this section or in the vegetation section of the document. Other aspects of the wetland on site should be presented as well. The Appendix discusses wetland habitats in somewhat more detail, but still fails to describe the site-specific wetlands. The general value of wetlands is presented on page 35, but the specific value of the wetlands on site within the local ecology is never discussed. The Scoping Outline also requires that the Draft EIS indicate the me.thod .of wetland delineation and "agencies contacted for verification or agencies w~th jurisdiction." Although the text briefly discusses the consultant's method of wetland delineation, there is no evidence that the State and other regulatory bodies have been contacted to verify the boundary. At a minimum, the Draft EIS should indicate which a~encies have jurisdiction and note whether they have been contacted. Ultimately, it will be necessary to have the State and/or Town confirm the wetland boundary. The Draft EIS includes direct quotes from the New York State Tidal Wetlands regulations without attribution (page 36-38). It should be made clear that text is b~in$ excerpted in the presentatxon of wetland zones, particularly as the classification here differs from that utilized elsewhere in the text. In addition, some of the zone definitions are misleading if not understood in the context of the legal document, as they differ from generally accepted scientific definitions. It should be made clear how the wetlands on site fit into the NYS tidal wetlands zones defined in the text. As described under these regulations, the site contains areas of both Intertidal Marsh and High Marsh, as well as small areas of other wetland zones. The Draft EIS indicates that the wetlands on site are Tidal Marsh, which is not a category under the NYS classification. CHARLES V~/~SOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMEN~~~G CONSULTANTS Page 4 Indian Shores @ Cutchogue Review of Draft ElS Page 38,paragraph 2: Indicate through description or map what portion of the creek is ~eshwater. The "north area" is too general. This shouldbe part of a more detailed description of the creek and wetlands, which was requested in the scoping letter. P. age 3.6, p.ara~raph 2: spelling errors nvermn; nvenne leared; leaved S. Cyanosuroides; & cyanosuroides (no capital letter) Peltaidra; Peltandra Page 36, paragraph 3, 4: Capitalize names of wetland zones for consistency - Intertidal Marsh; Coastal Shoals Bars, and Flats Page 36, paragraph 6: spelling errors Spartina patterns; Spartina patens spartina alternifiora; Spartina alterniflora (capitalize and underline) Juneus Genrdi; Juncus Gerardi Scirpos Sp.; Scirpus sp. Baecharis; Baccharis Page 37, paragraph 1: As above, capitalize names of wetland zones for consistency -Formerly Connected Tidal Marsh Page 37, paragraph 2: spelling errors Spartina sp., Phragrnites sp.: Underline Barachus; Baccharis Page 376, paragraph 4: spelling error bans; pans The vegetation section, with the attached appendix, provides a good overview of the upland communities on site, although the site specific information from the appendix should probably have been repeated in the main text. The information on the wetland communities is too general in both the appendix and text, however. These sections should include a description nfthe habitats on site with a list of species which were identified on the property. This information was presented for the upland habitats with the exception of formerly cultivated portions of the site. The vegetation of the cultivated areas should be briefly discussed as well. The Draft EIS fails to address several issues as requested in the Scoping Outline. Neither the text nor the appendix discusses the wildlife value of the habitats on site as required in the scop~ng letter, and this should be included. The scoping letter also requests that the vegetation of the surroundin~ area be discussed, and this should be presented brie.fl¥. In addition, the appendix (page 4, paragraph 1) refers to a vegetation map, which is notprovided. The Draft EIS shouldprovide a such a map to show the distribution of habitats on site, particularly as the acreages and distribution of habitats are not fully described in the text. Page 45: the setting section omits discussion of the marine wetland vegetation, and the information on marine wetlands from the appendix should be repeated here or in the wetland section. Appendix 5, page 8, paragraph 2: This discussion does not contain any description of the salt shrub community as it occurs on site. Site specific information should be included on each habitat discussed. For example, at the site this habitat forms a narrow band due to relatively steep topography. The text, however, only discusses sites with shallow topography. Also, the discussion of the salt shrub community does not indicate whi'ch species were actually identified on site. CHARLES V~/~SOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMEN~G CONSULTANTS Indian Shores @ Cutchogue Review of Draft ElS * Appendix 5, page 9, paragraph 1: This discussion of salt marsh habitats should also include site-specific reformation, including an indication of which species were actually identified on site. * Page 39, paragraph 3: Underline book titles. * Page 39, paragraph 4: Fort Cutchogue = Fort Corchaug * The discussion of wildlife falls to address most of the requirements of the scoping letter. The scoping letter required that the Draft EIS: Provide a llst of wildfile utiliTing site habitats or expected on site. Indicate dates of surveys and di,gtln~mlish species identified on site. Consult references to determine spedes expected on site based on habitat type. Contact Natural Heritage for file review of the site and area. Identify Endangered, Threatened or Species of Special Concern. Describe the habitat needs and biological characteristics of all endangered, threatened or special concern species. * The Draft EIS does not discuss the wildlife observed or expected on site. Such a discussion should make up the bulk of the wildlife section. The Na. tural Heritage Program was contacted, and text notes that the osprey is present vathin the creek. However, the threatened status of the species and it's habitat requirements are not discussed. The text does briefly discuss impacts to the osprey and other wildlife. These few sentences should be part of a more complete discussion in the impacts section. . * The SEQR Scoping Outline for the proposed project requires tlmt me Environmental Setting section of the Draft EIS include discussions of transportation, land use and zoning, land use plans, community services, visual resources arid historic/pre-historic resources. Discussion of these subject areas are non-ex~stent in the Draft EIS or, at best, are given cursory review and/or are located in an inappropriate section of the document. At a minimum, the document should present the information required by the Scoping Outline. Design and Layout The discussion of project design and layout should be contained within the Description of the Proposed Action section of the Draft EIS, consistent with the SEQR Scoping Outline. A description of the proposed project, specifically the proposed division of the site into 17 lots and the proposed use of the lots, should be included in this section. Describe the proposed layout of the site and reasons for this layout (i.e. cultural resources, wetlands, conservation easements, parkland). This section does not discuss buffering on the residential lots with the exception that it will conform to minimum setbacks pursuant to Article 25 of the ECL. Naturally veg.etated buffers sh. ould be maintained alon. g th.e side and rear yards of each res~dennal lot. It is particularly important to mmntmn naturally vegetated buffers along the wetlands associated with Downs Creek, therefore, it is recommended that these buffers be 100 feet wide as measured horizontally from the wetlands boundary as determined by an appropriate regulatory agency or extend to occupy slopes over 10 percent, which ever is more stringent. These buffers would have s~gnificant ecological value as well as significant visual screening value. Areas where these buffers would place a serious constraint on development (eg. lots 5 & 6) may be discussed and alternative buffering ENVIRONMEN~G CONSULTANTS Page 6 Indian Shores @ Cutchogue Review of Draft ElS configuration offered. Buffer areas and building envelopes should be depicted on the Conceptual Development Plan. If the applicant is willing to covenant naturally vegetated buffer areas as a mitigation measure, the document should state this as such. * The proposed natural area to remain on the residential lots is 25 percent, which is much too low for lots of this size. It should be possible to retain a much higher percentage (perhaps 65 percent of the natural vegetation on each lot) and tree clearing should be minimized as much as possible. Figure 9 shows clearing of the entire lot except for a 75 foot buffer along the wetlands. The Draft EIS should clarify how buffers are to be maintained as well as discuss retention of additional natural vegetation o.n the residential lots. * A plan depicting residential building envelopes and buffer areas should be provided. * Although the Conceptual Development Plan depicts buildings on each of the agricultural parcels and on the equestrian parcel, these are not discussed in this s~ction or in'other sections of the Draft EIS. These omissions should be corrected and the potential impacts (visual or otherwise) assessed. * If the applicant is willing the covenant the prohibition of bulkheading along Downs'Creek, the document should state this as a mitigation measure. * The potential for the construction of docks for access to Downs Creek from the residential lots should be discussed. * Provide a brief discussion of theproposed method of stormwater collectio, n/recharge, capacity anddesigu requirements. Figure 5 (42 lot subdivision) depicts drainage areas, however, Figure 6 (proposed 17 lot subdivision) does not. Wilia recharge basin be necessary? * This section should include brief discussions of proposed sanitary disposal methods and water supply and conformance to Suffolk County Sanitary Code Articles 6 and 4, respectively. * Section 5.1, page 50. Th~s section on Taxatton would be more appropriately included in a section regarding 'Community Services'. * Page 55, 2nd paragraph, last sentence: change "easement sunder" to "easements under". * Page 55, 2nd bullet: change "simpler as complicated" to "simple or as complicated". * Sections 5.2 through 5.6 (pages 52 through 60) regarding conservation easements may be more succinctly summarized to reflect the proposed conservation easements between the applicant and Peconic Land Trust. Much of the text provided in these sections should be included as an appendix. * Section 5.7 (Procedures) may be expanded to give a better understanding as to the process of making conservation easements. Additionally, the current status of the easements shouldbe indicated, as per the SEQR Scoping Outline. * Section 5.8 (draft conservation easement) should be removed from the text of the document and may be included as an appendix. In regard to the draft easement, it should be noted that: Page 63, 1st full paragraph: acreage of 'Open Area' is not given. Page 63, 1st full paragraph: mentions a 'Development Area' comprising of 4 acxes which may be developed with 2 si,gle family residences and associated appurtenances. This is the first and only mention of the potential use of 4 acres of the conservation easement area for 2 residences. In regard to the agricultural parcels, the Project Need section (page 9) stated merely "provision for single family residence". All proposed or potential dwelling~ and CHARLES V~/~SOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMEN~G CONSULTANTS Page7 Indian Shores @ Cutcho~ue Review of DraR ElS major structures on the subject site should be discussed and their impacts assessed. Page 63, 4th full paragraph: states that the "property is currently in agricultural use as a productive vineyard% The subject site was inspected on September 28, 1995 and no vineyard use was observed on the proposed conservation easement areas. If the draft easement is to be included as an appendix, this statement should be corrected. Page 64, 3rd paragraph: change "downs creek~ to "Downs Creek". The SEQR Scoping Outline for the proposed project requires discussion of method of NYSDEC Part 661 Tidal Wetlands compliance. This discussion has not been provided. The SEQR Scoping Outline for the proposed project requires discussi, o.n of procedures for Town acquisition of 37.46 acre parcel and the status ot the same. This discussion has not been provided. Environmental Concerns * ,,oT~..e di.scussions contained in this se,c, tion should be placed within a sectio.n tiff.ed Significant Environmental Impacts for consistency with the format provided in the SEQR Scoping Outline. * Pages 67 through 102, Ground and S. urface Water Impacts: In general, much of this section needs re-writing to prov;de greater clarification and ~ntelligibility. More thorough explanation of studies menttoned in the Draft EIS and their application to the proposed project and subject site is necessary. As presented, the information from these studies does not provide an adequate basts for decision-making. Additionally, the nitrogen loading analysis should conclude with a summarization of the estimated concentration of nitrogen in recharge for the entire project site (to include all proposed uses). This concentration should be evaluated tn terms of the existing nitrate concentration in ~roundwater in the vicinity of the site as well as in Downs Creek, if such information is available. * Page 67, Groundwater Use: The Draft EIS bases water consumption for the ~roposed residences on a rate of 10 gallonsper person per day, or approximately 0 gallons per dwelling. Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code estimates water consumption to be 300 gallons per day per dwelling. The figures provided by the Draft EIS appear to be in error. * Page 68: the applicant indicates the intent to require the installation of water saving fixtures in the proposed dwellings. How will this be accomplished? * Page 73, 1st sentence: this sentence does not appear to be complete. * Page 73, 2nd sentence: this sentence needs clarification. * Page 73, 1st full paragraph: the information offered in this paragraph needs to be clarified and better supported to reach the conclusion that "increases in fertilization rate on sandy loam grasses would not endanger water quality." * Page 76, last paragraph: the amount of precipitation used for this calc_,u, lation should be given in inches per year and referenced under "assumptions. * Page 76, last paragraph: based on just the turf fertilization analysis provided, it appears that the proposed project will result in an exceedance of the NYS Drinking Water Standard of 10 mg/1. If this is correct, significant mitigation measures must be offered to minimize impacts to ground and surface waters. * Page 86: the concentration of nitrogen in recharge due to animal waste has not been computed. CHARLES V~/~SOCIATES, INC. ENVlRONMEN~,G CONSULTANTS l~e8 Indian Shores @ Cutchogue Review of Draft ElS * Page 95, 1st paragraph: the document mentions the use of collectio.n basins for runoff control. The proposed method for stormwater runoff collects, on and recharge must be discussed '.m great, er detail in the document includmg the necessary structures and their locations. This discussion should be provided under "Site Design and Layout" and should be referenced in other applicable sections of the document. * Page 99, Marine Environment: conformance with tidal and freshwater wetlands regulations including setbacks and density should be discussed. The anticipated concentration of nitrogen in lgroundwater beneath the proposed project should be evaluated in co.nsideration of the existing nitrogen and dissolved o .xygen concentrations m Downs Creek and NYSDEC surface water criteria if such information is available. * Page 102, 1st paragraph: the Draft EIS states that no contravention of drinking water standards were noted in water quali~ data from wells upgradient of t.h.e subject site. However, review of the data siaeets included in Appendix 3 indicates that nitrate concentrations in wells S-53327 and S-53336 exceeded drinking water standards. Inorganic water quality data for the monitoring well nearest the subject site (well 53334) was not provided in .Appendix 3. Inorganic and organic groundwater quaiitydata for the closest momtoring well to the subject site should be provided in theDraft EIS. * Page 102, Cultural Resources: Please see the attached review of the archaeological study. Based on this review, a more detailed study of cultural resources on the portion of the subject proper~ south of the Fort site is considered necessary to determine the extent, ~mportance and sensitivity of these resources. * Page 103, Visual: simply stating that the project will have only a minlmai impact on the visual resources of the area does not constitute an adequate assessment of potential visu.al imp. acts. An adequate assessment should include at a minimum: comparison ot existxng ~suai resources and resources after the completion of the proposed project from d~fferent perspectives (including. roadways, agricultural area, Downs Creek, and the nearby golf course); identffication and location of sensitive visual receptors; the location, thickness, composition and effect of vegetated buffers; and structures on the conservation easement parcels as well as the residential parcels. * T~,e Enviro .nzm. ent_al I.mpacts section of the S.E. QR Scoping Outline requires that an aspects ot the Enwronmental Setting be dxscussed m sufficient detail to deterrnine if significant adverse or beneficial impacts are expected. The Draft EIS is severely deficient in assess~ing the potential environmental impacts of the proposea project. Discussions ot impacts to geology, vegetation, wildlife, land use and zoning: and land use plans were non-existent in the Draft EIS. Discussions of impacts to ground and surface waters, wetlands, transportation, visual resources and cultural resources were provided in the Draft EIS, but were lacking in detailed analysis and assessment necessary for decision-making. Again, the DEIS must address all requested issues and areas of concern enumerated in the Scoping Outline. CHARLES V~/~SOCIATES, INC. ENVlRONMEN~G CONSULTANTS Page 9 Indian Shores @ Cutchogue Review of Draft ElS Construction and Operation * The discussion of Construction and Operation should be included in the Description of the Proposed Action section of the Draft ElS, as per the SEQR Scoping Outline. * It is stated in the Draft EIS that construction on each of the residential lots will take place independent of one another, as each of the lots are sold. It is recommended that co~ideration be given to the time of ye.ar and period.s of wildlife sensitivity. A dtscussion of the same should be promded, as per tl~e SEQR Scoping Outline. * The use of erosion and sediment control measures should be provided for development on lots adjacent to Downs Creek. * As oer the SEQR Scoping Outline, this section should include a brie~ discussion of the maintenance of~the proposed access road and recharge basin (if required). * It should be stated that the Peconic Land Trust will be responsible for the maintenance of the proposed conservation easement areas (equestrian lot and 2 agricultural lots) and that this is provided for in the conservation easement. Minor Environmental Concerns * These discussions should be included within the "Significant Environmental Impacts" section, as per the SEQR Scoping Outline. * Page 109, Education: the Draft EIS states that approximately 30 school-age children may be generated by the proposed project. Please provide the reference used to arrive at this figure, as it is higher than would normally be expected; The approximate cost of educating these children should be assessed as well as me current fiscal and capacity situation of the school district. * The existing location of utilities in the area of the site and the improvements necessary to bring these utilities to the proposed dwellings and structures on site should be discussed. As the quality of groundwater for drinkingpurposes beneath the subject site may not be adequate, please describe the location of the nearest existing public water mains and the feasibility of bringing public water to the site. Alternatives * The SEQR Scopin~ Outline for the proposed project requires assess, ment of 5 alternatives including: standard subdivision map alternative, cultural resource preservation alternative, expanded Fort Corchaug site alternative, expanded wetlands setback alternative, and the no action alternative. The Draft EIS provides discussions of the standard subdivision map and no action alternatives as well as a third alternative (purchase and management by government) which was not required. The remainder of the alternatives required by the Scoping Outline must be discussed in sufficient detail to permit a comparative assessment of the proposed project and alternative actions in order to support or not support the proposed project as an appropriate plan for development of the site. CHARLES VCR~/~SOCIATES, INC. ENVlRONMEN~G CONSULTANTS Page 10 Indian Shores @ Cutchogue Review of Draft ElS Mitigation * Page 114, Wetlands: minimum wetlands setbacks required by NYSDEC are not considered to be mitigation. However, setbacks and covenanted buffer areas in excess of NYSDEC requirements would provide some mitigative benefits. * Page 114, Vegetation and Wildlife Habitats: mitigative measures such as buffer areas, retention of natural vegetation and indigenous landscaping should be supported by definitive proposals. A site plan that depicts cleari,n~ limits; buffers and areas to be r.e-established with indigenou.s plant species wouta proviae a basis for evaluating the value of these mitigauon measures. The use of covenants to ensure the maintenance of buffers and natural vegetation would be very useful. * While it is important to preserve the interface between upland and. wet. land habitats as suggested in this section of the document, it is also cruc~ai that unfragmented blocks of each habitat be preserved. The Draft EIS should more clearly discusspreservation of natural areas on site, and explore options for preservation of blocks of the mature forest habitat found on the southern portion of the site. This discussion should include a map or description of how the proposed natural areas will be linked with each other and with off-site natural areas. It is true that theproposed park will presexve a large area of upland habitat, but the proposedplan does not protect the mature, native woodland on the southern portion of the site. Clearing restrictions and preservation of large spectmen trees should be discussed as options for partial preservation of this resource. * Containment of stormwater to reduce run-off into the wetlands should also be discussed in detail. * Mitigation of impacts caused by individual homeowner access to the waterfront should also be d~scnssed. Contrar~ to the first sentence of this section, permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would not be required unless bulkheads (or piers) were to be installed, which, it appears, will be prohibited by covenant. This covenant should be listed as a mitigatlon measure, and should be included in the project description section. * Page 115, Cultural Resources: the Draft EIS states that additional shovel tests may be necessary in areas of potential sensitive cultural resources and that documentation of findings be prepared. The Draft EIS should indicated what will ultimately happen to the artifacts and who will maintain possession of them. Additionally, the Draft EIS should state that if significant art~'facts are found, construction in this area will be precluded or artifacts will be excavated prior to the beginning of construction. Furthermore, the intention of the Town to ~urchase 37.46 acres of the site for parkland will minimize the potential fo.r isturbance to cultural resources located on the northern and central portions of the site including the Fort Corchaug site. * Pages 115 and 116, Natural Resource Protection: proposed measures 5 and 7 are not considered mitigation measures as they are regulatory standards that must be met. Additionally, measure number 6 is an on-going monitoring program conducted by NYSDEC and is not related to the proposed project. mitigation measures provided in the Draft EIS do not provide details for adequate assessment of their value. More specific measures, including covenanting certain actions and providing some explanation of proposed implementation of measures, would aid in the assessment of impacts and in the decision-making process. CHARLES V~/~SOCIATES, INC. ENVlRONMEN~G CONSULTANTS Page 11 Indian Shores @ Cutchogue Review of Draft ElS * Page 119, Assessed Values: this discussion should be located within the Environmental Impacts section under Commun/ty Services or within the Description of the Proposed Action section under Project Benefits. * The Scoping Outline contains a list of possible mitigation measures for the proposed project. The measures on this list should be considered for maplementation. Appendices * Appendix 9: the reviewer's copy of the DEIS did not contain a complete Long EAF Part I. CHARLES V~,~SOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMEN~G CONSULTANTS Page 12 ARCHAEOLOGICAL REVIEW OF SUBMITTED REPORT "ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH ASSESSMENT OF THE BAXTER PROPERTY, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY NEW YORK" by Alfred Camissa, GREENHOUSE CONSULTANTS INC. 40 EXCHANGE PLACE, NEW YORK, N,Y. 1005 DATE OF REPORT: January 1994 REVIEW PREPARED BY: ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES INC. POB 1522, ROCKY POINT, NEW YORK 11778 REVIEW OF: STAGE 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH ASSESSMENT OF THE BAXTER PROPERTY, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD , SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK Completion date of this file: October 17, 1995 SIGNED: DATE: R IEW ~l: Q ERTl. KALIN ROBERT J. KALIN PROFESSOR, SUFFOLK COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE PROFESSIONAL ARCHAEOLOGIST/GEOLOGIST NEW YORK STATE CERTIFIED ARCHAEOLOGIST U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE CERTIFIED ARCHAEOLOGIST PRESIDENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES INC. POB 1522, ROCKY POINT, NEW YORK 11778 (516) 331-5980 (516-451-4354) FAX (516) 744-6617 Review of Stage 1 Baxter Report REVIEW SUMMARY This report has much valuable data regarding both historic and prehistoric finds. Apparently a great deal of time-consuming and careful work was completed. It is, however, in its present form wanting in many critical areas and these inadequacies compromise its utility as an instrument useful for further research or as a planning document for one of the most historically sensitive sites in the County. In regard to the Stage IA investigation, this report should be able to stand alone as a complete, coherent document. Thus it should incorporate a general site map, and a description of the proposed action including areas that are to remain in their natural state and areas that are to be altered by this proposal, so that the town planners and the archaeological community can understand the research strategy and plan of the study. An important historic reference map omitted is the U. S. Coastal Survey series. For the Stage lB a complete documentation of methods and strategies is required and a full revelation of where all tests were dug. A justification is required for expanding the grid to one-hundred (100) foot intervals. However, considering the sensitivity of this site we do not consider this test hole density sufficient. A test probe map with a scale, established datum point, and standard test hole symbols should be included in the archaeological report. Test hole designation according to standard usage in meters or feet from datum is preferable over the system used by the author. Information is required on which areas were surface studied and which were not. A satisfactory map of all historic features, including standing structures, roads, road traces, cellar holes, etc. should accompany the completed report. Additional deep tests should be dug in those areas which may have potential for siltation--where artifacts may have been deeply buded. An explanation of why some collected materials were discarded should be included in the report. Documentation of the credentials of those actually collecting materials in the field should be provided. asi I Review of Stage 1 Baxter Report Part 1. General Comments 1. Abstract. An abstract or management summary should be included to serve as a brief outline of the proposed project, proposed action, investigation and results as well as recommendations. 2. Description of Proposal. A full description of the proposed action including areal limits, nature of land alteration, probable impact to soil or subsoil and possible alternatives should be included. 3. Artifact Repository. A description of the temporary and or permanent repository for collected artifacts should be included. Where are they at present? 4. Maps. Maps of the project general area, specific area, and internal site areas are either inadequate, incomplete or missing. A project area map that will make clear what areas are to be impacted and what areas are to be studied should be included. Most importantly, include a map of all test holes, both those that were culturally positive and also negative ones so that a meaningful assessment of the test grid, test hole density, and clear assessment of the resulting data can be made. 5. Background Research. The report makes no mention of past human or natural disturbances. Include information on how the site may have been altered over time. 6. Documentation. No reference was made of several important historic maps including the U. S. Coastal Survey map series of the mid 1500s and late 1800s, and the Army Map Service 1940-44 series. The former would provide accurate important and relevant data on coastal characteristics, flora patterns, property lines and locations of structures in the mid and late 19th century. This information, if referenced, is not noted. 7. Research Design. The research design is not formally stated. 8. Field Methods and Procedures. The strategies and methods are not fully stated or are incomplete. (For example, in regard to the walkover survey, was the entire plot visually studied by walked transects? The report does not make this clear? If not, which areas were tested this way. In those areas studied, how were these data collected? What were the results? Where were these data tabulated?) The statement regarding collection methods should explain why some evidences, though field collected, were later rejected? What were the criteria for collection? What were the criteria for rejection? Credentials and qualifications of the field staff should also be included, as well as a description of how the field staff was supervised. asi 2 Review of Stage 1 Baxter Report Part 2. Specific Questions: Stage IA Report Page 1' The the identity and addresses of all interviewees should be clearly stated. Page 2. The archaeological report should be able to stand alone as a complete coherent document. Please incorporate a general site map, and a description of the proposed action, including areas that are to remain in their natural state and areas that are to be impacted and to what level, so that the archaeological community and others can understand the general testing strategy and reason for the study. Please include a tabulation and full description of all existing structures. Where are they precisely located? What is their state of repair? Are they to be removed or razed? How old are they? How do they relate to the historic documentation provided, and the history of the site? include a map of the general location which will show the structures. Key the structure descriptions to the map. Page 3. Please explain when, and by whom, the Baxter Site was renamed the "Rail Fence Well S~te . Page 4. The author states that "There may also be the possibility that deeply buried cultural horizons exist on the project area". What strategies were proposed or carried out to evaluate this hypothesis? Page 5. A detailed tabulation of all the historic structures and features of the site as well as a map depicting all of the historic elements should be included. Page 7. In regard to the selection of historic maps for reference, a glaring omission is the U. S. Coastal Survey series. See additional comments above. Page 8. The author records three areas where prehistoric "remains" have been identified during this aspect of the survey, but provides plan of the general locations of these zones. asi 3 Review of Stage 1 Baxter Report Stage lB Report Page iii., See Figure 2. The reviewer assumes that Figure 2 is the map enclosed with the report and identified only as the "Conceptual Development Plan, Indian Shores" (Young and Young Jan. 10, 1995). The map has hand drawn indications of what appear to be test sites and historic structures. The map which is not labeled as Figure 2, indicates no datum point for archaeological data, does not show the test grid, or grid scale, does not use standard symbols for test locations, does not have a proper key, and does not indicate the locations of all test holes. Page 1. On page 1 the report states that a "Stage lB survey consisting of shovel tests on a 50 foot grid pattern was recommended for all of the project area" (Also see Recommendations of Stage IA report). However, on page 2 of this report the author states that the "parcel was investigated by excavating shovel tests on a 100 foot grid pattern". Why was the normally standard 50 foot grid abandoned? Furthermore, the author does not indicate clearly which areas were tested and which were not. Reasons why any areas were excluded from testing should be clearly and completely stated. Page 2. The report does not define terms such as "context system", "good surface visibility", "fairly intensive visual examination", and "potentially significant artifacts". The "walkover" or visual sudace study data reported as "plotted on the project maps" does not appear in the report or the project map supplied. Furthermore, the report is not clear regarding wt~ich areas were surface collected and which were not. Page 3. The stratigraphic information is useful and important, however, its usefulness is compromised by the fact that the author did not use standard test hole grid designation numbers and makes no reference to a project or other datum point. Furthermore, the data is not supported with a map of the site which shows where the tests from which the data were extracted were dug. Thus a reviewer is unable to evaluate this information without knowledge of the location of the tests, either by map position or by standard archaeological designation, e.g. "N 50/E 150 in meters from datum." Page 5. The author does not define the term "non artifact". What were the criteria used to determine which materials recovered in the field were later "discarded". Why were non-artifacts collected? What are the credentials of field workers used in this project? Page 6. Re: Table 2 Sudace Finds. Please include plotted locations so these data can be properly evaluated. The author's presentation of results precludes answering essential questions such as the sudace density and clustering of artifacts, factors asi 4 Review of Stage 1 Baxter Report which would be critical in directing further testing. Were any surface artifacts clustered? Furthermore, explain why and what criteria were used for discarding collected artifacts. Page 7. These data as presented does preclude answering questions regarding the subsurface density and subsurface clustering of artifacts which would be critical in directing further testing. Where were these collected? Page 8. There is no explanation of how these data are or are not related to the historic sites reported in the northern end of the property. Page 10. The author .concludes (last paragraph on page 10) that the pottery is indicative of a "Terminal/Transition al/Woodland occupation", though there is no description of the materials collected. Page 12. The author assumes that historic and prehistoric evidences located in the proposed town park and the proposed vineyard are unlikely to be impacted. We question that assumption. Abandoned historic sites are prone to vandalism, fire, and of course natural decay. It is the function of the Stage I research to provide information on these sites as they exist at present, since it is unlikely that they will receive further study. Furthermore, any buried site located in an area that is proposed as vineyard could be subject to soil disturbances related to post hole digging, deep plowing, and emplacement of irrigation systems. Thus such sites should not be discounted as within an area not to be impacted. In addition: on Page 4 of the Stage IA report the author states that there is the possibility of deep cultural horizons due to probable siltation effects from Downs Creek. There is no evidence within the report that deep tests were dug to evaluate this hypothesis. Though several residences are indicated to be in the study area in the maps reviewed, there is only scanty information relating these to cultural materials recovered in study area. Clear disclosure of where historic materials were recovered should be made. Further research seems to be needed to document the relationship if any between the documentary evidence and the physical evidence reported in the Stage lB report. asi 5 CHARLES 1~. CUDDY 2~TTORNEY AT LAW 180 OLD OOUNTRY ~OAD (RTE, ~8) P. O. BOX 1547 ~IV~AD, ~Y 11~01 October 6, 1995 Planning Board Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Indian Shores at Cutchogue Gentlemen: This will confirm my request, made on behalf of the applicant, that the Board, the planning staff or the consultant communicate any deficiencies or problems with the DEIS to us so that response can be made and those matters corrected or responded to in appropriate fashion. Very truly yours, Charles R. Cuddy ~ CC: Maguire Group Mr. William Baxter SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennett Odowski, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD October 3, 1995 Charles Cuddy, Esq. P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: Proposed major subdivision for Indian Shores SCTM# 1000-121-4-9 Dear Mr. Cuddy: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, October 2, 1995: BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board take one additional thirty (30) day period to determine whether to accept the Draft Environmental Impact Statement with respect to its scope, content and adequacy for the purpose of commencing public review. This extension will run until November 6, 1995. Please contact this office if there are any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, Richard G. Ward Chairman cc: Charles Voorhis & Associates, Inc. GHARLES ]~. G~DDY 180 OLD GOUNTRY I~O~D (RTE. September 7, 1995 Planning Board Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Attn: Melissa Spiro Re: Indian Shores at Cutchogue Dear Ms. Spiro: This is to confirm that I hand delivered four (4) copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement to your office on this date. I am also delivering a copy to Charles Voorhis & Associates, together with a $1,000 check as the fee for the initial Review of the Draft EIS. I have enclosed a copy of the check for your records. CRC/ejc Enc. cc: Charles Voorhis & Associates Very truly yours, Charles PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennet! Odowski, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kennelh L. Edwards Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 8, ! 995 Charles Voorhis Voorhis & Associates 54 N. Country Road Miller Place, NY 11764 RE: Proposed Major Subdivision for Indian Shores, Cutchogue SCTM# 1000-116.1-3 Dear Mr. Voorhis: The Planning Board received the Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated August 5, 1995 on September 7, 1995. I have been notified by the applicant that a copy was delivered to your office along with the $1000.00 review fee. The Southold Town Planning Board hereby authorizes you to proceed with your review of the document to determine whether it is satisfactory with respect to its scope, content and adequacy for the purpose of commencing public review. The next Planning Board meeting within the thirty (30) day review period is October 2, 1995. Please advise if you will be able to complete your review by this date or if additional time will be required. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, /~ pMi ae I~ SnS~e?~P~r. ~'.~' ~¢'- Maguire Group Arch~tects/[ 3237 Route 112 Medford, NY 11763 Telephone 516/696 6007 I:a× 516/6% 6054 GROUP September 5, 1995 Town of Southold Planning Board Office Town Hall, Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Indian Shores Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Planning Board Members, We are pleased to submit the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Indian Shores at Cutchogue, SCTM # 1000-116-1-3. This document consists of two (2) volumes containing the main text and referenced appendices, and represents the DEIS pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, Part 617. Please advise if additional copies are required. Thank you for your cooperation. Environmental Director A New York Professi, mal Selt,icc (?m?,,m~titm ill Association with Ma?,uire (Jroup Inc. July 31, 1995 Ms. Melissa Spiro Assistant Planner Town of Southold ?.~.c..:n P. oad Southold, New York 11971 Re: Review of Draft ElS Indian Shores, Cutchogue Dear Melissa: . As per your request, this letter provides you with a proposal for services in connection w~th the above referenced project. Consistent with other projects we have reviewed for your offices, the following services and costs are anticipated: - 1) Initial Review for Acceptance $1,000.00 2) Subsequent Reviews for Acceptance (if necessary) 500.00 3) Critical Review After Acceptance (if necessary) 750.00 Please review this correspondence and advise me if you require anything further. I await your authorization to commence review of the project. Cho, de-5 yours, SDUTHOLD IO:/~N , PLANNING BOARD 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 ° (516) 331-1455 ° FAX 331-8046 July 27, 1995 V~A FAC~ 765-3136 Planning Board Town of Southold §2095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Attn: Melissa spiro Re: Indian Shores subdlvlslo (Baxter Dear Ms. Spiro: We anticipate having a draf~ fo the envlronmen'~al impact statement available for r,eview within the next week. In this connection we would appreczate your advising as to the anticipated cost of review by the Town's consultant. Please let me hear from you at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, ~arles R. Cuddy; CRc/ejc SOU]HOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennett Odowski, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD May 2, 1995 Charles R. Cuddy 180 Old Country Road P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, New York 11901 RE: Proposed Major Subdivision Indian Shores Cutchogue SCTM~ 1000-116-1-3 Dear Mr. Cuddy: The following resolutions were adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, May 1, 1995: Be it RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board. acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, assumes lead agency status on this Type 1 action, Be it further RESOLVED that the Planning Board, as lead agency, finds that the action may significantly effect the environment, and makes a determination of a Positive Declaration. Enclosed is a copy of the Positive Declaration and a copy of the comments received from the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. A summary outline of the scoping session that was held on April 19, 1995 and was concluded at the Planning Board's April 27, 1995 work session is enclosed also. Please use it as a guide when compiling the draft Environmental Impact Statement. Copies of this outline are being sent to all the coordinating agencies. If any of these agencies want additional information to be added to the summary outline, you will be so notified. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Richa Chairman Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 eric. Page 2 Indian Shores - Positive Declaration May 1, 1995 Reasons Supporting This Determination: The applicant has prov~ided the lead agency with a Long Environmental Assessment Form. The LEAF has been reviewed by the Planning Board, the Planning Board's Environmental Consultant, and other involved agencies. The Indian Shores project is expected to have a potential significant impact particularly in view of site sensitivity regarding historic and archaeological resources, and wetlands, with related issues including open space and visual resource impacts. The project was reviewed by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation IOPRHP). In a letter dated April 10, 1995, the OPRHP recommended that an archeological survey of the development site be conducted to identify archeologlcal resources and to plan for avoidance or mitigation of possible impact to those resources. The Southold Town Planning Board has determined that an Environmental Impact Statement be prepared in order to provide a means to assess the significance of the impacts of the project, to obtain input from involved agencies and the community, and to research possible alternatives and mitigation measures. For Further Informatlon: Contact Person: Melissa Spiro, Planner Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 [516) 765-1938 A copy of this notice sent to: Albert Krupski, Board of Trustees Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Vito Minei, Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services Roger Evans, NYSDEC, Stony Brook Langdon Marsh, NYSDEC, Albany Vito Lena, NYSDOT James Warren, OPRHP Public Bulletin Board PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennelt Odowski, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New Yo~k 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD State Environmental Quality Review POSITIVE DECLARATION Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft ElS Determination of Significance May 1, 1995 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The Southold Town Planning Board, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed action described below may have a significant effect on the environment and that a draft Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared. Name of Action: Proposed Major Subdivision Indian Shores SCTM~f 1000-116-1-3 SEQR Status: Type 1 Description of Action: 17 lot subdivision on 105.6 acres including; a) A 36.t17 acre parcel to be purchased by the Town of Southold for a cultural resources park, b) Two 12) agricultural lots of 18,84 and 11.96 acres; c) An equestrian related lot of 5.67 acres, and d) Thirteen (13) single-family lots ranging in size from 80,300 to 166,[~00 square feet in area. Location: North side of New Suffolk Avenue and Southold side of Main Road {N.Y.S, Route 25}. Cutchogue. Town of Southold SCTM~f 1000-116-1-3 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Town Hall, 530~)5 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Slate Environmental Quality Review POSITIVE DECLARATION Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft ElS Determination of Significance May 1, 1995 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 IState Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law, The Southold Town Planning Board, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed action described below may have a significant effect on the environment and that a draft Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared. Name of Action: Proposed Major Subdivision Indian Shores SCTM~ 1000-116-1-3 SEQR Status: Type I Description of Action: 17 lot subdivision on 105.6 acres including; a) A 36,47 acre parcel to be purchased by the Town of Southold for a cultural resources park. b) Two (2) agricultural lots of 18,84 and 11.96 acres; c) An equestrian related lot of 5.67 acres, and d) Thirteen |13) single-family lots ranging in size from 80,300 to 166.400 square feet in area, Location: North side of New Suffolk Avenue and Southold side of Main Road (N.Y.S. Route 25), Cutchogue. Town of Southold SCTM# 1000-116-1-3 Page 2 Indian Shores - Positive Declaration May 1, 1995 Reasons Supporting This Determination: The applicant has prov~ided the lead agency with a Long Environmental Assessment Form. The LEAF has been reviewed by the Planning Board, the Planning Board's Environmental Consultant, and other involved agencies. The Indian Shores project is expected to have a potential significant impact particularly in view of site sensitivity regarding historic and archaeological resources, and wetlands, with related issues including open space and visual resource impacts. The project was reviewed by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation [OPRHP). In a letter dated April 10, 1995, the OPRHP recommended that an archeologlcal survey of the development site be conducted to identify archeological resources and to plan for avoidance or mitigation of possible impact to those resources. The Southold Town Planning Board has determined that an Environmental Impact Statement be prepared in order to provide a means to assess the significance of the impacts of the project, to obtain input from involved agencies and the community, and to research possible alternatives and mitigation measures, For Further Information: Contact Person: Melissa Spiro, Planner Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 (516) 765-1938 A copy of this notice sent to: Albert Krupski, Board of Trustees Judith T. Terry. Town Clerk Vito Minei. Suffolk County Dept, of Health Services Roger Evans, NYSDEC. Stony Brook Langdon Marsh. NYSDEC. Albany Vito Lena. NYSDOT James Warren. OPRHP Public Bulletin Board PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennett Ortowski, Jr. Ma~ S. McDonaid Kenneth L. Edwards Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NewYod~ 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD May 2. 1995 Charles R. Cuddy 180 Old Country Road P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, New York 11901 RE: Proposed Major Subdivision Indian Shores Cutchogue SCTM# 1000-116-1-3 Dear Mr. Cuddy: The following resolutions were adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday. May 1. 1995: Be it RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, assumes lead agency status on this Type 1 action. Be it further RESOLVED that the Planning Board, as lead agency, finds that the action may significantly effect the environment, and makes a determination of a Positive Declaration. Enclosed is a copy of the Positive Declaration and a copy of the comments received from the New York State Office of Parks. Recreation and Historic Preservation. A summary outline of the scoping session that was held on April 19, 1995 and was concluded at the Planning Board's April 27, 1995 work session is enclosed also. Please use it as a guide when compiling the draft Environmental Impact Statement. Copies of this outline are being sent to all the coordinating agencies. If any of these agencies want additional information to be added to the summary outline, you will be so notified. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. SincereJ~7 / /~/ / // Chairman /~ enc. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennett Odowski, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TO: All Involved Agencies FROM: Melissa Spiro. Planner RE: Scoping Session for Indian Shores SCTM~ 1000-116-1-3 DATE: May 2. 1995 A scoping session was held in the Southld Town Hall on April 19, 1995 for the above-noted subdivision. Enclosed you will find the summary outline of that session. This outline will be used by the applicant to compile a draft Environmental Impact Statement. The Planning Board will use this outline to determine the completeness of the draft, As a coordinating agency, the Planning Board would appreciate your reviewing the enclosed document to ensure that the concerns of your agency are included, If they are not. please commit them to writing within the next few weeks, so that this summary outline can be amended as needed. If we do not hear from you. we will assume your agreement with the contents of this summary outline. Thank you for your time, eric. cc: Albert Krupski. Board of Trustees Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Vito Minei. Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services Roger Evans. NYSDEC. Stony Brook Langdon Marsh, NYSDEC. Albany Vito Lena, NYSDOT James Warren. OPRHP PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennett Ortowski, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: FROM: RE: Antonia Booth, Town Historian Haltock Tuthill, Cutch.-New Suffolk Historical Council Walter Smith, Indian Museum Joseph Gold, Southold Town Land Pres. Committee Melissa Spiro, Planner ~.~ Scoping Session for Indian Shores la.k.a- Fort Corchaug) DATE: May 2, 1995 Enclosed please find a copy of the scopincj outline for the above mentioned subdivision for your information. i~DIAN SHORES, CUTCHOGUE SEQ]~ SCOPING OUTLINE April 27, 1995 The subje~ application was previously reviewed by the Planning Board as a Type I action invol ~v~g a 42 lot major ~ubdivision lying between Suffolk Avenue and Mai~ Rbad, Cutchogue. In roview of tho action, the Planning Board i~ued a Positive Declaration on January 10, 1994, thereby, require, the prepar.afi0n' of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (F. IS). A scoping ~ to c~etermme tho content of the Draft EIS was conduc~ on ~ 1, 1994, ami a scoping outline was generated. Sub~que. ntly, the ~pplicant amended the application to a project involving a 17 lot subdivision- The amended map includes a 37.47 acre parcel to be ~ by the Town of Southold for a cultural resources park, two (2) agricultural lots of 18.84 and 11.96 acres, an equestrian related lot of 5.67 acres in size, and tffirteen (13) additional lots ranging in size frbm 80~300 to 166,400 square feet. -- In review of the amended map, the pl~nnlno Board consensus was that an EIS should be prepared for the 17 lot project, particularly in ~ew of site sensitivity regarding historic a.n. darchaeolo~cal resources, ~ wetlands, with related hsues in¢ludin~ open space and visual resource unpacts. A scopmg meeting was conducted on April 19, 1995 with rep.resentati.ves of the Planning Board, CVA, and the applicant. This outline provides a revised scopmg document reflecting the issues ~ at the scoping meeting, input from the consultant and further del/beratiom with the Planning Board. · .Overall, the P..l~m/n~ Board h .seeking a detailed . .Df..~.ri..'ption of ~.the Pro .p. osed Project mclodmg documentation of the following: background and history, location, demgn and layout, recharge handlln~o, water supply, san/tary disposal, quantifies of site coverage, site access, m.e~_~, for open sp .ace preservation, proposed Town parcel acquhition and site access. The Environmental Setting and Potential Significant Impacts section are required, with the understanding that resource evaluation,.di~s!on and. analysis sbal! be .concenu-ated on the pro.posed development portions of the subject property. Accordingly, it ~s expected that an over~ew of resources across the site will be presented, with a greater level of analysis on the soutbem portion of the site. Primary...~ requir~, in-depth environmental analysis remain as follows: cultural resource sensitivity, preserva~on of open space, visual resource impact, and potential impact on wetlands. Several alte .matives have been proposed to address other scenarios regarding key resources. The follovnn~ outline provides an updated form for the content and preparation of the Draft ElS for Indian Shores. TABLE OF CONTg2frS AND SUMMARY A Table o~ Cooten~ and & brle, f summary zre rexluired for ti~ Draft l~-Ig Th~ Table of Contents will ,~ s. Si~fificant, ~lvene ~nd be. aeCu~l impacU (i~ og ~oveaw muu be sp~C~l). CRAMER, V~~SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT~~G CONSULTANTS ~aSe ! L DESC~&'iON OF THE PROPOSED ACTION PROJECT P~ N~.'~'n AND ~ 4. ~ d tho Actioe - Open spacc, bomin~ apiculmral mo, culmrd rcso~coL Co DESIGN AND LAYOUT 1. Total Site Area 3. 4. 5. 6. ~ des{~ features mcoqx~'ated into amended map to address unique site re. sources C])I",{STRU i.-I'ION ~ OPE,RA. TION 1. ~ a) ~atic~pat~ pea'iod o~ ~mmar~itm. b) Schcdulcd con~3~fion activitic~ -- Lc. Wildlife scnsltivity and weJhnds resources. 2. Operafioa a) lViaaagr, me~t of open space hnd~ APPROVALS 1. Ponnit approvals - L/st ~ncy, permit and status. ENVIRONMENT~~G CONSULTANTS a) Town og SouthoM Phnni~ Board - subdivisk~ b) Town o/Somho~d Trustees - Wetlands if applicable and acqui~itlo~ c) Town d Southold - Vm'hncc if rcquirod for i~ngth o/cul-de-sac. d) Suffolk County Department d H,~lth Services --Water supply and sanitary disposal. e) Olher - ~i,~ otl~r agency porm~* requlrezi a~ applicable. Nntnr~ l~-~s A. GEOLOGY &) c~q~io= ~t thicim~ of sui~rf~ material - To depth of 17 fe~ o~ groundw~, provlde a summary o/test i~e iuformatio~ 2. Surface a) Li~ of soil tyl~ pe~ Suffolk Coumy Soll Storey. b) c) d) lde~ify imlx~,~ ~&'ur~l soils ~ a re~urce. 3. Topography a) De~cryti~ o~ topography ~t p~ojcc~ dt~ s~p~ * nXop~ adjacent wetXand~ WATER RESOURCES 1. Groundw~cr d~pth of w~r ~bl~ ia dev~opmeat ~e~ discuss groundwatcr-sur/acc water intcr-relationr, hlp; d~hurge to surface dcte. rmine e0drd~ water quality beneath the site in anticipated water supply zones. dir~tion o~ flow b) ldenti6cati/m of pre~ us~ ~md level o( u~ of ~roundwatcr pub~/p~ate w~ter supv~y c) Groundwatcr/watcr maaagement regulu~as -2/]8 study, special 2. Surfacc Water a) Dcsm~ Dow~ Creek estuazy- inlcts/o~ NYSDEC surfacc wat~ ~ wat~ Ouanty ~nd sannity 3. Drslnn~ C. TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY Pi~e3 2. Hum~ R,~oure~ A. Bo Co Indian Shores, Cutchogue Scopin8 Outline TRANSPORTATION 1. Transportin~ ~ a) Dcscril~ion ~ to th~ si~ and in~m~ road clr~d~,t~on~ b) Descrip~on oi a~ent level of us~ of servi~_: vehicle m~= c) Make not~ of peAe~trian enviro~meat ~nd public tra~portafion, if applicable. LAND USE AND ZONING 1. F. aizting land me and zo-;-~ a) De.~:riptioa of tl~ existing l*-a me of the project site and thc surrounai-g area. b) Dcscril~ion d c~sting z~ing o~ ~e and surroundi-g &rea. Land us~ phns a) de, acriptlon of any hind usc phns G~ nui~r ph,~ which incl~d~ project site and surroundln~ mca. COMidUNITY SERVICES 2. Polic~ prote, alon Pase4 3. F'u~ prote~ion 4. Re~entional ~ 5. utillti~ b) dem, iption of site from viev~w, ds ak~g Main Road, New Suffolk Avenue and b) Detormine ~ of exi~ng hi~otic atructurex on site -- provide map and c) Contact NYS Office of Park~ Ret~.atinn nad Historic Presen~on, Historic Prew. rvatloa Fgld Se,-vices Bu~ean for information per~ninin~ to history and d) C. ompil~ inteq~et and angment information WaXalalng to Fort Corchang IV. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT~ Ide~ify thO~ a~pe~ts of ~ envirenmental ~ in Section IV that may be adwrsely or beneficially affect~l by tl~ prolx~ed actina ami requir~ di~u~o~ ~ ail ~ of Eaviroamental 8~tting in sut~cient detail to determim~ if slgnif~.~at adver~ or ~ impacU are ~ Identify impar~ a~ long or aho~t term where possible. Provide ~reator detail in the following area~: Wetlands - Diseu~ conformance with tidal tad freshwater we~lan,t~ regulation* incluain~ aetback~ ami demity. Di~u~ any c~ in valuable ~ function~ dentifled in S~tti,~ Land Use - Ability to Wese~'w ~ spac~ in coagom~ace v~h Peco~ic Land Trust and Town commo~ opaa Ipa~ ~ goais. Visual - Chan~ in ~ charactex d ~e ~a affect en viewing popn!ations. Cultural Resources - Provide significant discu~ioa regarding We-historic sensitivity of rite, mitigatin~ me~va~ Wopa~ and ~leatuacy of mi~ to avo/d irreveTaible and irretrievable be~d oa ingormatioa colle~_e~ by l~ofe.~u~ud archae~o~t and intorpre~d in coatext of environmental plannin~ v. MmGATION MEA~UR[~ TO MINIMITX ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Describe measures to reduce or avoid pore, mia1 advorte impact~ identified in Seaion IV. The following is a brief li~tin~ of typical measures ~ fo; some of the major area~ of impact. Natural Resource A. GEi3LOGY Sub~udace a) u~ oxcavatod materlal for land rednmatinn Surface Page5 a) avokl cmlitructi~ o,i n'e~ d' ite~.p dop~ b) de~i~n adequate wll e~o~on d~vice~ to potect areas of steep ~k~p~ Co TERRESTRIAL AND AOUATIC ECOLOGY b) presex~ part c~ sit~ ns a natural area c) nfte~ co~truction, landsca~ site with harm-ally occurring vegetati~ ¢) ~ovide linkag~ to other sites and iabitats Humnn Resources A. TRANSPORTATION 1. Transpott~ion - de~ti~ adequate and safc _n,:ce___~ to project site to kand~ projected LAND USE AND ZONING 1. F..xi~Rng land -r.,, and zoaln~ a) aeon p~ojett to ~om~ with eai~ing laud u~ ptt~ b) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~lin~ f~ to ~ ~d ~d ~ for ~c ~in2 ~ ~ Co COMMUNtx'~' SERVICES 1. Polic~/~'n'e Protection -- ensure ~ ~_~_~_~ to residences on the site. 3. Utilifi~ a) inm~i utilay atrvic~ uad~r~round b) ~at~ ~*~- savin~ fixtures hto faculty deign c) incorporatc cacrgy-savln~ n~asurcs into f~l;~ de.~gn ENVIRONMENT~~G CONSULTANTS Pa~6 V'mud m VL ADVERSE _ AL ~'~1~ THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMEN'~tO STANDARD SUBDIVI,~ON MAP - lh'ovid~ discu~ioa og beae, f~ o/clmteri~, co~ervation EXPANDED FORT CORCHAUG $rt~ ALTERNATIVE - lh-ovi~ a discuss/on of cluster to provide a larger la~.rvatima area in th~ vicinity of Fo~t Corchaug as iden~Cu,A ~ ~ p~ ~ Do NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 1. Impacu d ao ~ctio~ a) effect om public need b) effect on paivate develoi~rs' need VlIL IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF Rg-qOURCES made nrmvailab~e fol' future use. APPENDICE.q Followi~ is a list og materiah VA~,~y reed ia support og tlu: EIS. A. List og underlying studies, reports and information considered and relied on in preparing statement. B. Te-~h~icai e. xifibit~ (if any) at a l~gible scale. CRAMER, V~~SOCIATES Albert $. Kmpski, President John Holzapfel, Vice President William G. Albertson Martin H. Garrell Peter Wenczel BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1892 Fax (516) 765-1823 TO: Melissa Spiro, Planner FROM: Board of Trustee ~ RE: Indian Shores ~J SCTM#116-1-3 DATE: April 24, 1995 The Board of Trustees review the above referenced project and have the following comment. The Board would like to see the building envelopes on lots 5-10 to be located outside our 75' jurisdiction. Thank you for your consideration. Bernadette Castro Commissioner New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau Peebles Island, PO Box 189, Waterford, New York 12188-0189 Ms. Melissa Spiro Planner Town of Southold Planning Board Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 April 10, 1995 518-237-8643 Re: DEC/SEQRA Indian Shores Major Subdivision Southold(T), Suffolk County 93PR2466 Dear Ms. Spiro: Thank you for your memorandum of March 29, 1995 by which you issued notice of a scoping session for the above project, to be held April 19, 1995. The office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) has no objection to the Town of Southold Planning Board assuming lead agency status for this project; please consider this office to be an Interested Party in deliberation conducted in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act. We are please to have our comments of December 23, 1993 considered by the planning board. We continue our strong recommendation that an archeological survey of the development site be conducted to identify archeological resources and to plan for avoidance or mitigation of possible impact to those resources. If you have any questions or comments on this matter, please contact Dr. Robert Kuhn at 518/237-8643, ext. 255. ren nalyst Field Services Bureau JPW:cm An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Agency April 5, 1995 Planning Board Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Attention: Melissa Spiro Re: Indian Shores Subdivision (Baxter) Dear Ms. Spiro: In accordance with your request enclosed are checks in the sum of $400 and $350 with reference to the requirements of the scoping session. Very truly yours, Charle~ R. Cuc~¥ CRC/pc Encls. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennett Odowski, Jr. Mark S~ McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NewYork 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 March 31, 1995 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Cramer, Voorhis & Associates Environmental and Planning Consultants 54 N. Country Rd. Miller Place, NY 11764 Re: Review of EAF Major Subdivision for Indian Shores SCTM# 1000-116-1-3 Dear Messrs. Cramer & Voorhis: The Southold Town Planning Board hereby refers the Environmental Assessment form for the above mentioned subdivision to your office for review. Also enclosed are: 1. Sketch plan dated March 20,1995. 2. The Planning Board's letter dated March 28, 1995. The Planning Board started the lead agency coordination process on March 27, 1995. The $400.00 review fee has been submitted by the applicant. If all is in order, the Board will make their SEQRA determination at the May 1, 1995 public meeting. The scoping session for this project has been scheduled for Wednesday, April 19, 1995, at 1:00 p.m., in the Meeting Hall at Southold Town Hall. The purchase order will be sent to you under separate cover. Please contact this office if there are any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, J' Melissa Spiro /~' ' Planner encs. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 March 28, 1995 Charles R. Cuddy 180 Old Country Road P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, New York 11901 RE: Proposed Major Subdivision Indian Shores Cutchogue SCTM# 1000-116-1-3 Dear Mr. Cuddy: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, March 27, 1995: WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board has received an application for a major subdivision of a 105.6 acre parcel into a total of 17 lots (16 lots and a 37.47 acre Town Park); and WHEREAS, this application has been submitted in place of a 42 lot subdivision application which was made on September 7, 1993, and withdrawn by the applicant on January 31, 1995; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located adjacent to a Critical Environmental Area (Downs Creek); and WHEREAS, the subject property contains an area of archeological significance, namely Fort Corchaug, a double-palisaded Indian fort used for defensive purposes; and Page 2 Proposed Major Subdivision for Indian Shores March 28, 1995 WHEREAS, the environmental and historical issues pertaining to the site may be a determining factor in the design of the layout of the site; and WHEREAS, it is the Planning Board's opinion that the environmental review should be conducted prior to determining the yield or the design of the layout of the site; be it therefore RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board start the lead agency coordination process on this Type 1 action. The Long Environmental Assessment Form has been forwarded to the Board's environmental consultant for review. There is a $400.00 fee for this review. This must be paid in full by your client before authorization can be given to the consultant to proceed with the review. The check should be made payable to the Town of Southold. In early 1994, the Planning Board conducted a 30 day lead agency coordination period, issued a Positive Declaration and held a scoping session on the now withdrawn 42 lot proposed subdivision for the subject property. The Planning Board has decided that since the SEQR review was conducted within the last year, in order to proceed with the SEQRA review process for the revised application in a timely fashion, the Planning Board will schedule the scoping session prior to the issuance of the SEQR determination. The scoping session has been scheduled for Wednesday, April 19, 1995 at 1 P.M. in the Meeting Hall at Southold Town Hall. The $350.00 review fee for the scoping session must be submitted in full before the session will be held. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, Richard G. Ward Chairman cc: Charles Voorhis PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennett Odowski, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 To; From: Re: All Involved Agencies Melissa Spiro, Planner Scoping Session for Indian Shores (a.k.a. Fort Corchaug) SCTM# 1000-116-1-3 Date: March 29, 1995 A scoping session has been set for Wednesday, Apdl 19, 1995 at 1:00 p.m. for the above mentioned subdivision. The scoping session will be held in the Meeting Hall at Southold Town Hall. Please refer to the attached letter dated March 28, 1995 for information pertaining to this proposed subdivision. If you are unable to attend the scoping session, please send any comments you may have as to items you wish addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, to the Planning Board office. The Board's fax number is 765-3136. cc: Albert Krupski, Board of Trustees Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Vito Minei, Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services Roger Evans, NYSDEC, Stony Brook Langdon Marsh, NYSDEC, Albany Vito Lena, NYSDOT James Warren, NYS Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation eric. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NewYork 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Re: Lead Agency Coordination Request Dear Reviewer: The purpose of this request is to determine under Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act-SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 the following: 1. Your jurisdiction in the action described below; 2. Your interest in assuming the responsibilities of lead agency; and 3, Issues Of concern which you believe should be evaluated. Enclosed please find a copy of the proposal and a completed Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) to assist you in your response. Requested Action: ~;~ ~;o;>;,~ ~ ,~.~ ~ ~ :~ e I~, SEQRA Classification: (~ Type I ( ) Unlisted Contact Person: ~e.\',ss,~ ~' ~,~o (516) 765-1938 Page 2 Lead Agency Coordination Request The lead agency will determine the need for an environmental impact statement (ELS) on this project. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter, please respond in writing whether or not you have an interest in being lead agency. Planning Board Position: ~ ) This agency wishes to assume lead agency status for this action. ) This agency has no objection to your agency assuming lead agency status for this action. ) Other (see comments below) Comments: -- -- , I -. 11 -- I II Jl z/ x Please re""--- ~* el free to contact this~office fodfurther inform,~tion. ' / ' ' Sincerely, __ ,/~ Richard G. Ward ~5 Chairman CC: ~Board of Trustees Building Department Southold Town Board ~Suffolk County Department of Health Services ~NYSDEC - Stony Brook ~NYSDEC - Albany -~ New York State Department of Transportation * Jim Warren, NYS Of ce of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation *Maps are enclosed for your review rev. 4/94 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennett Odowski, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516} 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 28,1995 Charles R. Cuddy 180 Old Country Road P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, New York 11901 RE: Proposed Major Subdivision Indian Shores Cutchogue SCTM# 1000-116-1-3 Dear Mr. Cuddy: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, March 27, 1995: WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board has received an application for a major subdivision of a 105.6 acre parcel into a total of 17 lots (16 lots and a 37.47 acre Town Park); and WHEREAS, this application has been submitted in place of a 42 lot subdivision application which was made on September 7, 1993, and withdrawn by the applicant on January 31, 1995; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located adjacent to a Critical Environmental Area (Downs Creek); and WHEREAS, the subject property contains an area of archeological significance, namely Fort Corchaug, a double-palisaded Indian fort used for defensive purposes; and Page 2 Proposed Major Subdivision for Indian Shores March 28, 1995 WHEREAS, the environmental and historical issues pertaining to the site may be a determining factor in the design of the layout of the site; and WHEREAS, it is the Planning Board's opinion that the environmental review should be conducted prior to determining the yield or the design of the layout of the site; be it therefore RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board start the lead agency coordination process on this Type 1 action. The Long Environmental Assessment Form has been forwarded to the Board's environmental consultant for review. There is a $400.00 fee for this review. This must be paid in full by your client before authorization can be given to the consultant to proceed with the review. The check should be made payable to the Town of Southold. In early 1994, the Planning Board conducted a 30 day lead agency coordination period, issued a Positive Declaration and held a scoping session on the now withdrawn 42 lot proposed subdivision for the subject property. The Planning Board has decided that since the SEQR review was conducted within the last year, in order to proceed with the SEQRA review process for the revised application in a timely fashion, the Planning Board will schedule the scoping session prior to the issuance of the SEQR determination. The scoping session has been scheduled for Wednesday, April 19, 1995 at 1 P.M. in the Meeting Hall at Southold Town Hall. The $350.00 review fee for the scoping session must be submitted in full before the session will be held. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, Richard G. Ward Chairman cc: Charles Voorhis - '~,, 1--PROJECT IN FORMAT~ ,~. ., ?repared by Project Sponsor NOTIC£; This document is designed to assist io determining whether the action proposed may bare a significant on the environment. Please complete tim entire form, Parts ^ through E. ^nswers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be snbject to (uHber verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 ami 3. It is expected that completion of tim full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research o~ investigation. If information requirin§ such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. NAME OF ACTION Indian Shores Subdivision Main Road, Cutchogue NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR J BUSINESS TELEPtIONE Wit]iam J. Baxter, Jr., and Estate of W~]liam J. Baxter (516) 369-8200 I c/o Charles R. Cuddy, 180 0Id Country Road, Post 0trice Box 1547 New York "' ~:'":'~'~ ' NY 11901 NAME OF OWNER (1! dlltmenl) j (same) J BUSINESS TELEPNONE t )369-8200 ADDRESS CITY/PO DESCBIPTION OF ACTION STATE I ZiP CODE Major subdivision of 105.6 acres, SCTM #1000-116-1-3 Subdivision Map - Indian Shores for 16 Iots at Town of Southold. Please Complete Each Quesllon-Indicale N.A. ii not applicable A. Site Description Pbysical setting o~ overall project, bod~ developed and undeveloped areas. 1. PCesentland use: E]Urban ~Forest 2. Total acreage of project area: APPROXIMAT£ ACREAGE Fllndustrial L]Commercial ~]Agriculture ~Otber 105.6 ~Residential (suburban) ~Rural (non-farm) Meadow or Brushland (Non-asricultural) Forested Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) WetlaDd (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24. 25 of ECL) Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) Roads. buildings and other paved surfaces Other (Indicate type) I awn q ~ landgca~ areas 3. Wbat i~ predominant soil type[s) on project ~ite~ RdA, 0.0 53.6 45.5 6.5 0.0 0 n 0,o PI^ PRESENTEY ^FT~ ~ 6C.5OMPL ETiON acres acres 39.35 acres 4 2.0 acres 6.5. acres 0 . 0 acres , 2.0 acres acres 5. 0 I acres b . a. Soil drainage: ~Well drained 94 % of site l-]Moderately well drained % of site I~lpoorly drained 6 % of site b. if any agricultural land is involved, bow many acres ol soil are classified within soil group 1 tbrougb 4 o[/be Land Classification Systenff 45.5 ac~es.{See 1 NYCRR 370), 4 Are there bedrock outcroppings on p~oject site/ ~Yes ~No a. What is depth to bedrock? N. A. (if, ~eet) Z o~, ,H.~ .Requ;"ed: City. Town. ~,li,,.ge Boaru ~Yes ~No City. Town. Village Planning Bo~rd ~Ye~ City. Town Zoning Board ~Yes '~No City, County Health Department ,~Yes Other Local Agencies Town Trustees {~Yes nNo Other Regional Agencies aYes i-INo State Agencies f~Yes {-INo Federal Agencies r-lyes ~No Type subdivision water supply/sewage disposal wetlands subdivision wetlands Submillal Dale Sept. 1993 C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? r~Yes CINo If Yes, indicate decision required: r'lzoning amendment I-Izoning variance r-[special use permit ~subdivision I-lsite plan I-Inew/revision of master plan i-lresource management plan i-lother 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? A-C Agricultural Conservation 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? 42 residential lots 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? n/a . 5, What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? n/a .~ 6. Is the proposed action consis'tent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? Y~Yes 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a % mile radius of proposed action Existing: A-C Agricultural Conservation Uses: Agricultural and Residences []]No 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a {A mile? Y~Yes 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? 16 lots a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? 80,200 sq. ft. min. 10. Will propos.ed action require any authorization{s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? C]Yes 11. Will the proposed action cr6ate a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, {ire protection)? {~Yes I-INo a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? bYes DNo 12. Will the proposed action result'in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? [Yes ~No a. If 'yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? I~lYes DNo n/a D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant!Sponsor..Name William J. Baxter, Jr. - by Charles R. Cuddy as attor~a~e 3//S~/95 Il Ihe ac ion is in tile Coaslal Area, and ybu are a stale agency, complele the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with Ibis assessment. 5 //3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? Yi~Yes I-1No E]N/A resldentt a ~' a. Ii yes, [or what intend.,, purpose is lire site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamalion? ~Yes ~c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamalion~ ~Yes ~No 4. How many acres or vegetation [Irees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from sile~ ~. 0 acres. 5. Will any mature rarest (over 100 years old~ or olber locally-important vege[alion be removed by Ibis project? ~No 6. if single phase project: Anticipated period at construction 48 7. Ilmulti-pbased: not applicable (n/a) a. Total number of phases anticipated (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 c. Approximate completion date of final phase .., d. Is phase I functionally dependent on subsequent phases1 & Will blasting occur during construction? ayes ~(-~No 9. tous/cubic yards development months. (including demolition). ,nonth year, (including demolilion). month year. I-lYes E]No Number of jobs generated: during construction __ 35 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project . none 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities1 __; after project is complete 0 I-lyes )J[~No If yes, explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? EYes ~No a. If yes, indicate type of waste [sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13, Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? I~lYes [:]No Type sanitary 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? I-lYes Explain 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? [~Yes [:]No J~]No 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Will the project generate solid wastei' ~]Yes ENo a. If yes, what is the amount per montb , 2.52 tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? I~Yes IL}No c. If yes, give name _Town of S0uthoid ; location rutcho~lue d. Will any wastes nol go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? I~Yes e. If Yes. explain . recyclab]es []]No Will tl,e project involve the disp~)sal of solid waste? a. If yes, wbal is tt~e anticipated rate of disposal? b. If yes, what is tire arrticipated site lifet' , Will project use berblcides or pesticides? J~]Yes I-lYes IXINo tons/month. years. rlNo lawn care Will project routinely produce odors (more d~an one bout per (lay)? EYes ~'][No Will project produce operating noise exceeding tile local ambient noise levels~' E]Yes Will project result in an irrcrease in energy use( X[~Yes ENo If yes , indicate type(s) P I e ¢: 1-. r J c a ] If water ~upply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity I0 Total anticipaled water usage per day l?.:6r)0 gallons/day. + Does proiect involve Local, State or Federal funding~ If Yes. explain gallons/minute. irrigation I-lYes ~No i~lNo 4 / ,'mate percentage ol propo, roiecL siLe with slopes: ~'O-1O';i, _.~_ /~1S% or ~reaN. r 0 ~ls p~ject subs(amially comi~uous ~o or contain a buildin~ si~e or dis~ric~ is ~;[d:,', ~i~,,s o, Historic ~laces, ~Yes ~o ~ Is p~,j~t substantially conti~uous la a site lis~ed on Ibe Register of National Natural Landma~ks~ & Wba~is tbedeptho~ the water tablel 0-30 (in leer) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquiferl ~Yes ~No 10. Do hunting, fishiu~ or shell fishin~ opportunities presendy exist in tl~e project areal ~Yes ~No 11. Does project sile contaio any species o~ plant or animal lite II, at is identified as threatened or endan~ered~ ~Yes ~o Accordin~ to Young & Y0unfl~ L.S. lden[i~y each species 12. Are Ihere any unique or unusual land ~orms on the project silel (i.e.. cli[[s, dunes, other ~eolo~ical ~ormations) ~Y~s ~No Describe Par~ of the siCe is c0n~iguous to Do~q~ C~eek (tidal 13. Is d~e project site presendy used by the communiW or neighborhood as a~ open space or recreation area~ ~Yes ~No I~ ~es. expiaiu 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community~ ~Yes ~No 15. Streams wRhin or conti~nous to project area: DOWNS Creek a. Name o~ Sl~eam and name o~ River to which it is tributary P~nn 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to proiect area: a. Name b. Size (In acres) 20-+ acres 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities~' ~]Yes []b~o a] If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow conneclion~ ~Yes ~No b) If Yes. will improvements be necessary to allow connection~ ~Yes l& Is the site Iocaled in an aaricuhura] district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law. Article 25-AA. Section 303 and 30,I~ ~Yes ~No 19. Is the site located in or substantially conti~uous to a Crilical Environmental Area designated pursuant oJ the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6171 ~Yes ~No 20. Ilas the site ever been used for Ibe disposal o~ solid or hazardous wastesl ~Yes ~No B. Project Descr!ption 1. Physical dimensions and scale ol project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total conUguous acreage owne~J or controlled by project sponsor 105,6 b. Projec~ acreage ~o be developed: ' 10 , 0 acres inidaNy; 10 . ~ c. Project acreage to remaio undeveloped 95.6 acres. d. Length of project, in miles: n/a (1~ appropriate} e. Il the project is an expansion, indicate percent o[ expansion proposed fl/a %; [ Number o~ oil-street pa~king spaces existing 0 .; proposed 32 ~ 8. Maximum vebicula¢ trips gene[aled per hour 9 . 6 (upon completion o[ p[oject)~ b. I[ residenlial: Number and lype o[ housing uniis: One Family Two Family Multiple Family hlitially Ultimately 16 i. Dimensions (in feel) of largesl inoposed structure ~ beighl; ~ width: j [hlea~ feel o~ J~onla~e along a public lborough~are prolecl will occupy ist ~ 3 acres ultimately. Condomininm ~ length 1500 ft. Main S.R. 25 1100 i/~v SJFfolk Avenue PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Mark S, McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 To: From: Re: Date: Antonia Booth, Town Historian Hallock Tuthill, Cutchogue-New Suffolk Historical Council Walter Smith, Indian Museum Joseph Gold, Southold Town Land Preservation Committee Melissa Spiro, Planner Scoping Session for Indian Shores (a.k.a Fort Corchaug) March 29, 1995 A scoping session has been set for Wednesday, April 19, 1995 at 1:00 p.m. for the above mentioned subdivision. The scoping session will be held in the Meeting Hall at Southold Town Hall. Please refer to the attached letter dated March 28, 1995 for information pedaining to this proposed subdivision. enc. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Mad~ S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NewYork 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 March 28, 1995 Charles R. Cuddy 180 Old Country Road P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, New York 11901 RE: Proposed Major Subdivision Indian Shores Cutchogue SCTM# 1000-116-1-3 Dear Mr. Cuddy: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, March 27, 1995: WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board has received an application for a major subdivision of a 105.6 acre parcel into a total of 17 lots (16 lots and a 37.47 acre Town Park); and WHEREAS, this application has been submitted in place of a 42 lot subdivision application which was made on September 7, 1993, and withdrawn by the applicant on January 31, 1995; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located adjacent to a Critical Environmental Area (Downs Creek); and WHEREAS, the subject property contains an area of archeological significance, namely Fort Corchaug, a double-palisaded Indian fort used for defensive purposes; and Page 2 Proposed Major Subdivision for Indian Shores March 28, 1995 WHEREAS, the environmental and historical issues pertaining to the site may be a determining factor in the design of the layout of the site; and WHEREAS, it is the Planning Board's opinion that the environmental review should be conducted prior to determining the yield or the design of the layout of the site; be it therefore RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board start the lead agency coordination process on this Type 1 action. The Long Environmental Assessment Form has been forwarded to the Board's environmental consultant for review. Them is a $400.00 fee for this review. This must be paid in full by your client before authorization can be given to the consultant to proceed with the review. The check should be made payable to the Town of Southold. In early 1994, the Planning Board conducted a 30 day lead agency coordination period, issued a Positive Declaration and held a scoping session on the now withdrawn 42 lot proposed subdivision for the subject property. The Planning Board has decided that since the SEQR review was conducted within the last year, in order to proceed with the SEQRA review process for the revised application in a timely fashion, the Planning Board will schedule the scoping session prior to the issuance of the SEQR determination. The scoping session has been scheduled for Wednesday, April 19, 1995 at 1 P.M. in the Meeting Hall at Southold Town Hall. The $350.00 review fee for the scoping session must be submitted in full before the session will be held. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, Richard G. Ward Chairman cc: Charles Voorhis TO: FROM: RE: DATE: FILE Melissa Spiro. Planner Status of Indian Shores Proposed Subdivision March 23. 1995 9/ 7/93 Major subdivision application submitted: Proposal for 42 clustered lots, 10/25/93 Lead Agency coordination initiated, 1/10/94 Positive Declaration issued, 2/ 1/94 Scoping session held on 42 lot proposal. (Applicant did not submit DEIS to Planning Board) 1/23/95 Maps for minor subdivision submitted: Lot 1:18.84 acres Lot 2:11.96 acres Lot 3: 5,67 acres Lot 4:39.76 acres Town Park (Lot 5): 37.47 acres Proposal for 5 lots; Maps for Conceptual Development Plan submitted: Proposal to subdivide Minor Subdivision Lot 4 into 13 lots, Total Number of lots: 17, Lot 1:18.84 acres Lot 2:11.96 acres Lot 3: 5,67 acres Lots 4 - 16: Approx. 2 acres or larger Town Park (Lot 17): 37.47 acres 2/2/95 Correspondence from Charles Cuddy explaining that 1993 application for a major subdivision (42 lots) withdrawn and minor subdivision submitted in place and instead of the major subdivision. 1/23/95- 2/27/95 The Planning Board discussed the review process at work sessions during this time period and determined that the Conceptual Plan (17 lot) would be the plan subject to subdivision and SEORA review. The Planning Board requested that the applicant re-submit the application materials and map as a major subdivision showing the proposed development. 3/22/95 As requested. Charles Cuddy submitted subdivision map and revised LEAF for proposed major subdivision. Total Number of lots: 17, Lot 1:18.84 acres Lot 2:11.96 acres Lot 3: 5.67 acres Lots 4 - 16: Approx. 2 acres or larger Town Park (Lot 17): 37.47 acres The Planning Board determined that the application fee submitted for the original subdivision 142 lot proposal) was sufficient for the application submitted on 3/22/95. However. the applicant must submit additional payment for review of the revised LEAF and for another scoping session, The SEQR review (lead agency coordination) for the new application is to be initiated at the Planning Board's next meeting on March 27. 1995. GHAltLES lq. GUDDY 180 OLD GOLrNTYIY I~OAD (I~TI~. 58) ~IVEY~I-LEAD, ~Y 11~01 March 21, 1995 Planning Board Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Attention: Melissa Spiro Re: Indian Shores Subdivision Dear Ms. Spiro: In accordance with our several telephone conversations I am enclosing the following: 1) Revised Environmental Assessment Form to reflect 16 lots. 2) The subdivision map labeled as a subdivision sketch plan. 3) The existing application form which is for this application and does not appear to need revision. It is my understanding that the Board will be approving a resolution with reference to the lead agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and further make a determination so that we may proceed with this matter. Very truly yours, Charles R. Cuddy ~/ CRC/pc PoS. Mr. Voorhis indicated he would give us his proposed scoping outline a few days prior to the scoping session if you would make that request; would you please do so. ' r/, ~ART 1--PROJECT INFORMAT~I~I ., Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist itl determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. NAME OF ACTION Indian Shores Subdivision LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Slreel Addlese, Munlcipelll¥ end Courtly) Main Road, Cutchogue NAME OF APPIJCANTISPONSOR I BUSINESS I'ELEPttONE William `j. Baxter, ,Jr., and Estate of William `jo Baxter I t5161 369-8200 ADDRESS c/o Charles R. Cuddy, 180 01d Country Road, Post 0trice Box 1547 CITY/PO STATE ] ZiP CODE Riverhead, New York NY 11901 J BUSINESS TELEPHONE ( 1369-8~00 NAME OF OWNER (U different) (same) ADDRESS CITY/PO I ERASE J z!.. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Major subdivision of 105.6 acres, SCTM #1000-116-1-3 Subdivision Map Indian Shores for 16 lots at Cutchogue, Town of Southold. Please Complete Each Queslion-lndicate N.A. if not applicable A, Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: E]Urban E]lndustrial ~Forest ~]Agriculture 2. Total acreage of project area: 105.6 APPROXIMATE ACREAGE Meadow or Brushland [Non-agricultural) Forested C]Colnmercial E]Other acres. []Residential (suburban) Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) Wedand (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24. 25 of ECL) Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock, eartl~ or fill) Roads. buildings and other paved surfaces Other (Indicate type1 1 awns ,~ landscar~ 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? RdA, a. Soil drainage: ~Well drained 94 % of site I~lPoorly drained 6 % of site 1995 [-IRural (non.farm) PRESENTLY AFT~ .r. ~3OMPLETION 0.0 acres acres 53.6 acres 39.35 acres 4 5.5 acres __4 2.0 acres 6.5 acres 6.5, acres 0 · 0 acres 0 · 0 acres 0.(] dcres . 2.0 acres 0 0 acres __ 5. 0 0,0 acres . 6.1 acres PIA E]Moderately well drained __ % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified w IlLin soil group I through 4 of the NYS Land C assification System? 4 5.5 . acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). ,I. Are there bedrock outcroppings on projecl sile? ~JYes ~]No a. What is deplh to bedrock? N. A. (in feet) , .'\l~l~iox."mate percentage of proposOoject site witb slopes: ~'0-10';i, :15% or great~,r . 0 6. Is project substantially contiguous [o, or contain a building, site, or dis?rieL listed on tl~ Sta~e or the Nalional Registers o[ Historic Places~ ~Yes ~o 7. Is projecl substantially contiguous Io a site listed on the Register o~ National Natural Landmarks? ~Yes ~No & What is d~edeplho~ the water table? 0-30 fin lee~] 9. Is si~e located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer~ ~Yes ~No 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell ~ishing opportunities presently exist in the project area~ ~Yes ~No 11. Does project site contain any species o~ plant or animal lite that is identified as threatened or endangered[ ~Yes ~o According to Younq & Younfia L.S. Identify each species 12. Are there any uniqne or unusual laml for~ns on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) ~Y~s ~No Describe Part 0¢ the site is contiguous to Douqs Creek (tidal 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? ~Yes ~No H yes. explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the communityl ~No 15. Streams witbin or contiguous ~o project area: Downs Creek a. Name of Sheam and name of River to which it is tributary Pmnnn i r .~ay 16, Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name b. Size (In acres) 20--. acreS 17. Is tbe site served by existing public utilitiesi' ~]Yes [:]No a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? I~Yes [:]No b) If Yes. will improvements be necessary to allow connectioni' )~Yes [:]No lg. Is the site located in an agricnltural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA. Section 303 and 304~' [qYes []No 19. Is tile site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Fnvironmenta[ Area designated pursuant to Article 13 o( tbe ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 ~Yes [~No 20. Ilas the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? l-lYes I~No B. Project Descri.ption 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate} a. Total contiguous acreage owne~l or controlled by project sponsor 105, ~ b. Proiect acreage to be developed:l~ 10 ,0 acres initially; 10 .0 c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped .9~. 6 acres. d, Length of project, in miles: rl/a (If appropriate) e. If the project Is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed n/cq %; I'. Number of off-street parking spaces existing 0 .; proposed 32 g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour 9_ · ~ _. {upon completion of project)~' h. If residential: Nnmber and type of honsing units: One Family Two Family Muhiple Family Initially 16 Ultimately 16 i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure FI/fl height; width; __ j. Linear feet of (rontage along a public tborougbfare proiect will occupy is? acres. acres ultimately. length. 1500 ft. M~in S.R. 25 1100 N~v Suffolk Avenue Condominium '2. Ilov~ much natural m~Uerial (i.O,ck' earth, etc.) will be removed from title? n0r~ 3. Will dislurbed areas be reclairne(J? ~]Yes ~No ~NIA a. If yes, foiwhat intend.,, pn~pose is the site being reclaimedl ~es[deR(]a] b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamalionl ~Yes ~No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamalionl ~Yes ~No 4. How many ac~es of vegetation {l~ees, shrubs, ground cove~s) will be removed from sitel 22.0 acres. 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this projectl ~No 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction ~8 months, (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased: not applicable (n/a) a. Total number of phases anticipated (number). b. Anlicyated dale of commencement phase 1 . month .. c. Approximate completion date of final phase _ month .. d. Is phase I functionally dependent on subsequent phasesl ~Yes ~No & Will blasting occur during conslructionl ~Yes ~o 9. Number of jobs generated: du~ing construction 35 ; after project is complete. 0 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project _ none 11. Will project require relocaUon of any projects or facilities[ ~Yes ~No If yes, explain .. tons/cubic y.~rds development, year, (including demolition). year. 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? [=]Yes ~No a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged. 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? [~Yes [:]No Type san it,ary '14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? I-lYes [:]No Explain 15. Is project or any porlion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? ~Yes [:3No 16. Will the project generate solid waste? ~3Yes ~No a. If yes, what is the amount per month . ?.§2 _ tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? [~Yes [=]No c. If yes, give name _Town of $outho]d ; location Cutchogue d. Will any wastes not go into a selvage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill~ fflyes I'qNo e. If Yes, explain _ recyclabies 17. Will tile project involve the disposal of solid waste? a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? . b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? J3Yes [=]Yes IXINo tons/month. years. r'lNo lawn care 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day][ I-lYes 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding tile local ambient noise levelsi' []Yes' 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? ,V~yes I-INo If yes, indicate type(s) elect, rio. al 22. If waler ~upply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity .. 1 0 gallons/minute. 23. TotaJ antictpated water usage per day 17.~00 gallons/day. + irrigation 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? 0-1Yes ~No Il Yes. explain K1No 4 ~ ?5: ~App. ro~,~,.~ .Requ;-en: City, To~vn. ViiL,ge Board 7-~.Yes .~No City. Town. Village Planning Board ."~Ye.~ I"lNo City. Town Zoning Board ~Yes ~No City. County Health Department ~Yes C!No Other Local Agencies Town Trustees ~Yes Other Regional Agencies ~Yes CINo State Agencies ~Yes r-lNo Federal Agencies I-lYes I'~No Type subdivision water suppIy/sewage disposal wetlands subdivision wetlands Submittal Dale Sept. 1993 C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision~ ~Yes I-INo If Yes, indicate decision required: C]zoning amendment r'lzoning variance I'-Ispecial use permit ~subdivision r-isite plan I-lnew/revision of master plan I-Iresource management plan Clother 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site~ A-C Agr!cultural Conservation 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? 42 residential lots 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? n/a ... 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning~ fl/a '~ 6. Is the proposed action consis'tent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? Y~Yes 7. What are the predominant land use{s] and zoning classifications within a ~A mile radius of proposed action? Existing: A-C Agricultural Conservation Uses: Agricultura! and Res!dences nNo 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a ~,~ mile? ~Yes [:]No 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? 16 [0ts a. What is the minimbm lot size proposed? 80,200 sq.i 10 Will propos?d action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? Ciyes ~,No 11. Will the proposed action ct&ate a demand for any community provided services (recreation, .education, police, fire protection)? ~Yes DNo a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? ~Yes I-1No 12. Will the proposed action result'in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? i"lYes [qNo a. If yes. is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? I~lyes I-1No n/a D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clari~y your project. I~ there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E, Verification I certil=y that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant!Sponsor,~,N~me William J. Baxter, Jr. - b~v Ch?les R. Cudd¥ as attor[~ea~e 3/~/95 Signature (////~,-~, ~,~ Title Owner~ ~*'/-/?C~',',e~/ I! lhe action is in Ihe Coaslal Area, and ybd are a state agency, complete Ihe Coasl:~l Assessment Form before proceeding wilh Ihis assessment. 5 APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAT To the Planniag Board of tile Town of Southohl: The undersigned applicant hereby applies for {tentative) (final)approva of a subdivisi,m plat i. accordance with Article 16 of the Town Law and Ihe ]{isles and Regulatim,s of the Southohl Town Planning Board, ami represents and states as follows: 1. The applicant is the turner of record of the laml under application. (fl the applicant is not the owner of record of tile land uader a,,licath,n the applicant slmll_sl~te lam tm~er app[ cat on.) ~ ownership int~mst 1S 0ne-quarter in Nllll~ql d. · ~hree-quarters in the Estate of Willi~n J. ~axter. 2. The name of the subdivision is to I,e ..... ......... !.n.d.ig.n...S.h.qr..e.s ..................... 3. The entire land umler applicatiou is described in Schedule "A" hereto a,mexed. (Copy of deed suggested.) Schedule "^" from deed 4. The land is hehl hy the applicant re,der deeds recorded i,, Suffolk Co,,nty Clerk's office as follo~vs: Liber ..... 4605 Page 380 o,, .~or~h.~L,..!9~ Liber ........................ Page ...................... 0,, ....................... : Liber ........................ Page ...................... On ....................... ; f. iber ........................ Pa~c ...................... On f.il)er ........................ Page ...................... On ....................... ; as devised umler the Last \Viii and Testament of ................................ 5. The area of tile land is ~O~.B acres. 6. All taxes which arc liens on the land at the ,late hereof have 7. The la,,d is enc,,ndmred by ............. Ofl.~l ............................................. mortgage (s) as follows: (a) Mortffag'e recorded iii l.iher ...1.6.3..5~ ...... Pa~e ..... ~..~.0 .......... in or|.qinal ammmt of $..1.00,00.0. .... mq,aid amount $ ..................... hehl I,y .N.o..r.t.h..F.o.r.k' .B.a.I).k..&.. .t..qo. ! :. YPr. ....................................... (b) Ivlortgage recorded in I.iber ......... Page ....................... ill original arno.at of .............. ,mpald amou.t $ ...................... held by ...................... .............. address ............................................................... (c) Mortgage recorded in l.il~cr .............. I'a,,..c ................ [n original amount of .............. unpaid amount $ ...................... heh[ by ...................... ...................... address ......................................................... 8. Thc~'c arc no other cncumbrauccs or liens against the laud except ..... qO~ ............... 9..Thc land lies in the follo~ving zoning usc districts .... ~.~.C ............................. 10. No part of the laud lies undtu' water whether tide water, stream, l,,md water or otherwise. ¢~pt . A~. p.i.~ ~. p~.. ~Dg~.q. 90..~q~9.i.~ ~ ~ ~9.q.~gP ....................................... 11. The applicant shall at his expense install all rcquit'ed imbllc hnprovemculs. 12. The land ~) (does not) lie i~l a XVatcr 1)istrict or Water Supply Dist,'icl. Name of Dis- trict, if within a Dist,'itt, is ... D.~ ....................................................... 13. Watch' mains will be laid by . n/a ...................................................... and (a) (no) charge will be made for installing said mains. 14. Electric lines and sta,tdards will l,e is,slallc,I ly ....~9. k~ .~gk~U~P~d ..................................... aud (a) (uo) charge will be made for iastalliug said lines. 15. Gas mains will I,e iastallcd I,y ....................... ;9. ................. and (a) (no) charge will be made for installing said mains. 16. If streets shoxw~ on the plat arc claimed by IIle applicant to be cxistl,g public streets in the Suffolk Comity Ilighway system, annex Schedule "IV' hereto, to show same. 17. If streets shown on the plat are claimed by the apl~llcaut to be existing public streets in the Towel of Scmthold Ili~hw;ty system, am;ex Schedule "C" hereto to show same. 18. Thet'e are no cxistint~ buihlittgs or structures (m the land which arc not located and shoxw~ on the plat. 19. Where thc plat shrews prop~scd sl~'ects which ave extensions of slx'cots ,at a~ljoiulng sub- division maps heretofore filed, there :u'c ~o reserve strips at thc cad of lite streets on sahl existiug$ maps at their conjtu~ctions with thc proposed streets. 2f). I~ the course of these proceedings, the :qq~llca.t will oib.r prtnJ[ t~[ tlth: as required by Sec. 335 of thc Ileal lh'operty Law. 21. Submit a copy of proposed deed for If)ts ,shoxvi:~g all restricti,ms, covenants, t~t¢. Schedule "13". Request performance bond be determined based on information from Town's Engineer and applicant's engineer. .......... as itemizec il Sc ~edule "F" ,. -, ,-,,,,'c, tx.,v,x×xx××xy'xxxxy'y'xx''' ' · "cr'-k~a~,vmm requests that the maturit of 7,7,~XT,~XXg./<r'"~ .................. years. ! lie Performance Bond will be wrhten by DATE August 27, 93 N~RTH FORK BANK & TRUST CO. R~mond C. Ra~igan, Vice President, Sr. Trust Officer of North Fork Bank, and Co- Executor of ~e Estate of William J. Baxter STATE OF NEW YORK. COUNTY OF .... SUFFOL~ ........... WILLIAM J. BAXTER, JR. · (Name of !\Pl~lic.qnt) . ,, o. individually and as 6c-Executor of the Estate of William J. Baxter (Address) On the ..... ~7.t.h. ........ ,lay of.. August 19..93... I,er,,re ,,,e perso,,ally came William J. Baxter, Jr. .................................... tn Ina kno',vn to }~e tile individual described hi and v.'ho executed the foregohlg iustrument, and acknnwledged that .... h..~ ...... e×ccuted the same. ~otal~ Public, State of New York No. 6872225 Oualifl~ n Suffolk Coun~ otnry Publi~ ' ' ........ ~mm ssion ~ires December 3L I S'FATE O1: NEW YORK, COUNTY OF ..... ~.q[[0L~. .............. ss: o. the ..... 27~h ....... da)' .....A.u.g.u.s.t...~ ............... 199.3. .... before ,,,e per,~o,,aUy came Raymond C. Radi§an ..................... to me kn,.wn, who being by ,ne duly swot ~ dM de- .pose and say that ............ resides at No ..................................................... ................................ that he is the .VJ¢.~. .... ~.P.~esident.. of ...~9~. ~gFk Bank and Trust Company Ihe corporation described in and which executed the fore~[oinff hlstrtlmeut; tirol ..... ~ ..... knows thc seal of said cm'poratim~;that the seal affixed by order of the board o{ ~ rcc ors of said corlmrat m. ;.,I that ...... he .... signed .... ~. ...... name thereto by like order. CHARLES R. CUDDY N~e~ Publi~ StateofNewYo~k No. 5872225 Qualifiedin SuffolkCounW Notary Public ~4'" ....... March 16, 1995 Cramer Voorhis & Associates, Inc. 54 North country Road Miller Place, New York 11764 Attn: Charles Voorhis Re: Indian Shores Subdivision SCTM $1000-116-1-3 Dear Mr. Voorhis: Enclosed is a proposed scoping outline from Jeffrey Seeman of the Maguire Group. In accordance with our discussion I would appreciate your forwarding your proposed scoping outline to the Southold Town Planning Board prior to the actual scoping session. It is my understanding, from speaking with Melissa Spiro of the Southold Town Planning Board, that session will be scheduled at the end of March. Please note that we have changed the designation on the map from "Conceptual" to "Major Subdivision". When I have copies of that plan with the new designation, as prepared by Young & Young of Riverhead, I will forward a copy to you. Very truly yours, Charles R. Cuddy CRC/ejc Enclosure cc: Town of Southold Planning Board Attn: Melissa Spiro Outline for Indian Shores Key Environmental Issues Outline (14 Residential Unit plan) Southold, New York As£de from the standard ElS requirements (existing conditions section etc.). The key issues of the new Plan are: 1. Land Use i. Existing'ZOn4ng & land use vs proposed. 2. open, space and park needs in Southold. 3. ,Agricultural needs. 4. Cluster vs single lot sub' divisions- 5. Tex revenue. Archeological .& cultural Resources water Resources 1. sanitary disposal & groundwater/Downs Creek. 2, Wetlands 3. Drinking water demand. 4. Irrigation and agricultural,ch~mlcals' 5. Drainage and runoff controls. Alternatives 1. Ho build. 2. Max yield density (As of Right). Other? A ~w York pr~essionaI Service Corporation in Association wiH~ Maguire Group Inc. I do not see a need to evaluate all the studies identified in the original scoping since the proposed action is As of Right. The thirty si~ acre 'agricultural use and thirty seven acre Town park greatly minimizes any impacts which were reflected in the original for~y two lo= plan. One must recognize the new 'plan. as a mitigation/alternative plan of the original forty two lot sub division, and .the s¢oping requirements reflect only the significant environmental concerns (if indeed these can. be identified and validated by =he Lead Agency). Marc 15, 1995 Feb~ ua~y ~l~ 1995 P.O. Box ~0~ £utchogue~ NY 11935 Thomas Wickham, Supervisor l_ouisa P. Evans, Councilmember Alice J. Hussie, Councilmember Joseph J. Lizewski, Councilmember R~th D. Oliva, Councilmembe~ Joseph L. Townsend, Councilmember ~/Richard Ward, Chairman, Planning Board Dear Members of the Town Board and Planning Board, .,,,,,FEB 2219 SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD This letter is to voice objection to a pending deal to purchase with Open Spaces Preservation funds 37.4? acres of the Baxter property nearly $900,000, which includes the Fort Corchaug site. I think this is not a very good deal for the Towr~ and the taxpayers, and is at courlke~- purposes with the farmland preservation policy. Far from preserving farm- ]a~d, ~t appears ko me that the pending deal, if conrluded, would faci]}tate the conversion of fanm]and to developed land. 1) The parcel does not have any special features of natural beauty that would suggest it as a park site. Preserving the site of Fort Corchaug seems to be the only reason for considering the purchase. But the amount of land proposed ~or purchase is far ~acger khan what is necessary to preserve the Fort Corchaug site. Therefore, the anticipated cost: is far higher than it has ~o be. In addition, the per acre cost seems unreasonably high to me and ~s much higher than the average e~e have paid in the past. 2) Spending about $900,000 for that s~ngle parcel would nearly deplete the ~unds approved in ~987 hy the voter's for open spa~ e preservation. Thus, to keep the open spaces program operating ~t will soon be necessary to go back to the voters again. I doubt that the voters expected that one-half of the funds they were approving ~*ould be shot on one deal, (lne that w~ II ]ikely end up causing loss of farmland. 3) Rathe~ than preserving farmland, the proposed deal will fur'the~ enrich an already wel~ to do man~ providing him the funds to enable development of the remainder of his parcel. Th~s, the Town will end up paying to destroy farmland~ not t~ preserve it. So one 4) Historical site preservation should not be a role for the Town when private organizations already ex~st f(~r that pur-p(~se. ~f those organizations will not do it, why should taxpayers' dollars be spent instead? The purchase of the 37.47 acres has an apparently noble (,bjertive behind it: the preservation of the site of old Fort Corchaug. However, when I visited the site I must say that it was an unde~whelming experience. There is nothing there. It was equally under,helming to read the archeo]o~ica] research paper hy Ralph Solecki~ published 1950 ~n ~he Bulletin of the Archeol~gical Society of Con~ectic~t. The art~facts he uncovered seemed to me to be few and comparitively insignificant. In addition~ even the slightly raised earth berm aro~nd the old fort perimeter, present when Solecki did his excavations~ has now disappeared~ having been mostly hauled away. To me, Fort LTorchau(~ seems to be somewhat a case of the emperor having no clothes. Motwithstanding the lack of impression which the Fort Corcha~cl site made on me, it is true that many good people in the town have worked for over two decades to try and preserve that site. O~t respect for them, I am in favor of trying out some alternative plans for acquiring the site, as ~ollows: ~ ) Reduce the size of the parcel to be acq~ired to only an area surrounding the fort site, plus a narrow access strip encompassing the proposed trail shown or~ the attarhed map, plus an area at the Main Road for parking. A possible plot plan of the area I propose for acquisition is marked in green on the attached map. It comprises abo~t 15.5 acres. 2) Negotiate with the owner to have him sell this smalle~ parce; at little or no cost_, to the To~,~, in return ~nr the ~o~,~n~s a~.;reement to suitable development plans for the remainder of his parcel. If he agrees to that, the Town would then immediately resel! the I)a~( e; ~o the Cutchogue-New Suffolk Historical Council at the Town's cost, and they would be responsible for the site development and mainkenm~t e. 3) In the event the owner will not agree to the approach in ~) and ~) above, then any purchase decision would be made not by the but by the Cutchogue-New S~ffolk Historical Council (or the C~tchogue and Southo~d Historical Councils jointly). The Count_ils have the financial wherewithal to make the purchase, since the two Councils were recently each given $500,000 from the estate (,~ Mildred Bainbr idge. alternative plan has the follow,nc; advanta~es and logi~ : a) The Open Spaces Preservation Fund would not be vastly depleted by the p~ c'hase, but left intaut ~or other good t~es, and the would not be in the position of paying to cause the loss of farmland. b) The ~]timate decision abo,~t preserving a ~storil~al site be made by an organization which exists for that purpose. But if they decide that it is not worth spending their money at all? the~l why should taxpayers~ money be used? This approach would test ~he sincerity of convictions that the Fort Corcha~g site sho~ld be served. c) The ~uture ~se and development of the site wouJd be managed by an organization which exists for that purpose. It is best that the Town government not be saddled with that conti~l~,ed ~espo~sib~ 1~ ~:y and expense. actively opposing the proposed purchase because of the objecti~ns listed above, but other members o~ the Committee feel oth~rwise. The idea ko 3 bring in the Historical Councils and ko ~educe the plot size ~e~enkly occurred to me~ s~a I am writing yo~ to ~rge that yo~ put it up t~ the Historical Co~n~.il(s) and use the Town's leverage to strike m bette~ dea]. If the Councils are not interested enough in the Fort Corchmug preservat~m to puk up their own money, then why sh(~uld the taxpayers foot the b~i9 ~ahan cc: .Joe Gold~ Chairman DOWNS CREEK IND~N SHORES Peconic Land Trust CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN .... '~ Gax~m~s R. A~TO~N~¥ ~ Lxw 180 OLD Godfrey ROAD (RTE. January 31, 1995 Planning Board Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Indian Shores Subdivision SCTM #1000-116-1-3 Dear Board Members: You have recently received the conceptual development plan and minor subdivision plan for the Indian Shores subdivision at Cutchogue. These plans include a 38 acre lot which it is proposed to sell to the Town of Southold. Based upon the applicant's submission of the minor subdivision plan and the proposal to sell part of the parcel to the Town of Southold, it is respectfully requested that the Board promptly review the minor subdivision in place and instead of the major subdivision and issue a declaration pursuant to SEQRA. As discussed at the work session on January 30th, the major sub- division proposal is withdrawn without prejudice in order to permit your consideration of the minor subdivision. I reiterate that fur the app!x~an~ to proceed wl,.h the sale to the Town it is necessary to have an expeditious determination with respect to the minor subdivision. Very truly yours, Charles R. CRC/ec SOU ,"? ~ O ] t--- GHARLE$ R. C~I-DDY z~TTORI~y AT LA~V ~80 0~ Go~ Rolo (l~. Rxv~, NY ~0~ January 20, 1995 Planning Board Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 southold, New York 11971 Attn: Melissa spiro Re: Indian Shores subdivision SCTM #1000-116-1-3 Dear Melissa: Please find enclosed 10 prints of the revised subdivision map showing four (4) lots together with 10 prints of the concept mapS. I have forwarded copies of these prints to Charles voorhis at Cramer Voorhis and Associates for his review. ' s In accordance with our several conversation , would you please schedule a scoping hearing so that the scoping requirements for this subdivision may be reconsidered- Very truly yours, Charles R. Cuddy[~ CRc/ejc Enclosures 2 3 1995 SOUTHOLD T0?,'N PLANNING B{)-!RD 1030 E. PUTNAM AVENUE, GREENWICH, CONNECTICUT 06836 · {203) 637-4559 November 11, 1994 Hr. Tom Wickham Town Hall Office of the Supervisor Southold, NY. Dear Tom: I noted in the November 3rd Suffolk Times an anonymous Southold official said that the owner of Fort Corchaug "is unwilling to sell the 106-acre property for its appraised value and had been unwilling to agree on a price with the town." Since I had not yet responded to your last offer, I find it surprising to hear that I am unwilling to agree on a price with the town. The fact of the matter is we have had a series of meetings with the Peconic Land Trust, our attorney and the firm of Young & Young to prepare a plan combining public ownership and limited development of the Fort Corchaug site. It is our objective to have a detailed conceptual plan available for your consideration within 30 days. So far I am impressed with the progress resulting from the combined efforts of the Peconic Land Trust and Young & Young. I look forward to discussing this plan with you as soon as the work is completed. WJB:rs Sincerely, THOMAS H. WICKHAM SUPERVISOR Town Hall, 53095 Main l<,~a~i P. O, Box 1179 Southold, New York 1197i Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1889 Mr. William J. Baxter Baxter Investment Management 1030 E. Putnam Avenue Greenwich, Connecticut 06836 Dear Mr. Baxter: Thank you for your letter of November lJth, reiterating your interest in preserving Fort Corchaug and a possible role for Southold Town in that effort. I am very pleased that. you are making progress with the Peconic Land Trust and your engineers and I look forward to meetlng with you as soon as you're ready. Fort Corchaug continues to be o~ high priority in Southold Town and I believe there is support for Town acquisition along the lines that we have discussed. I continue to be optimistic: that a Town acquisition ~s Jn your interests and the Town ' s. As w~ discussed ] ecoa'lit ly, however, there is interest in severa~ ether possible acquisitions J.n the Town, and I am not sure we will continue to have funds for Fort Corchaug beyond December' ef this 'i'honlas WJckham Supervisor LAW OFFICES WlCKHAM, WlCKHAM & BRE$$LER, P.C. MAIN ROAD, PO. BOX 1424 MATTITUCK, LONG ISLAND NEW YORK 11952 October 20, 1994 1,40 ~TGAG E OFFICE 516 ~98-5300 TELEfAX NO 516 298-2012 Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Attn: Melissa Re: Subdivision "Indian Shores" by Baxter Dear Melissa: I am enclosing a xerox of two of Mr. Baxter's lots on the Main Road at the northeast corner of the subdivision. You will note that I have pencilled a drain under the road and continued it to the head of the gutter of Downs Creek. In heavy rains or in melting of the snow, there is a great quantity of water which comes down in the gutters on either side of the road. This drainage originates to the west, almost to the Pellegrini Vineyards. From the road, there is merely an open ditch. If this should become blocked either by a tree falling over or the sides of the ditch falling in, the property of Jimenez to the east, would be completed inundated. I sold this property to Jimenez several years ago and it is likely that I will have to take it back. I sincerely believe that this drainage problem should be looked into in order to construct a safer =ystem for the road drainage. 30-baxterlr now or formerly Stephen A. ~ Suson Kaelin / Plattsbur h STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK g May 17, 1994 CENTER FOR EARTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE PROGRAMS: ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE GEOLOGY MAPPING SCIENCE NATURAL RESOURCES PLANNING Ms. MeliSsa Spiro, Planner Southhold Town Planning Board Town Hall 53395 Main Road Southhold, New York 11971 Dear Ms. Spiro: I am interested in obtaining free or extra copies of the following Environmental Impact Statements for educational purposes. Please inform me if such copies are available and where they might be obtained. Proposed Indian Shores (Clustered) Subdivision Both the draft EIS, and the final EIS which contains public comments and responses, would be of interest as would any hearing transcripts. Because timeliness is not one of our considerations, any copies which would normally be discarded at the end of the review process would be fine. yOU. RFL:CJT The documents will be used in a course titled Environmental Impact Assessment. Thank Sincerely, Richard F. Lamb Associate Professor MAY 2 3 1994 SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George RitchJe Latham, Jr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Thomas Wickham. Supervisor Robert G. Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer East End Economic & Environmental Institute/Fort Corchaug land acquisition DATE: March 22, 1994 This is in response to your note regarding State funding for Fort Corchaug. I discussed this matter with Tom Twomey today to get his input on how we should proceed. Tom mentioned that he is setting up a meeting with Langdon Marsh the newly appointed acting commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation and the Institute to discuss land acquisition. As you are a member of would be an ideal time acquisition. the Institute, Tom indicated that this to discuss funding for the Fort The meeting is planned for April/May, you will receive notice of the date when finalized. As you know, the recommendation for acquisition was in the task force report and is strongly endorsed by Tom and the Institute. CC: Planning Department Town Clerk, Judith Terry Community Development Town Attorney Landmark Preservation Commission CHARLES 1~. GUDDY 180 OLD COUNTRY ROAD (RTE. 58) January 10, 1994 Town of Southold Planning Board 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Attn: Melissa Re: Indian Shor~ Subdivision Dear Melissa: Enclosed is a copy of the letter written to Thomas Twomey Chairman of the Governor,s East End Task Force. CRC/ec Very truly yours, Charles R. Cuddy as October 14, 1993 Thomas A. Twomey, Esq. Twomey, Latham, Shea & Kelly 33 West Second Street Post Office Box 398 Riverhead, New York 11901 Re: Indian Shores, Cutchogue, New York Dear Mr. Twomey: I represent William Baxter, Jr., who has filed a subdivision map 'with the Town of Southold for a 106-acre parcel located on the west side of Downs Creek between New Suffolk Avenue and the Main Road (New York State Route 25) at Cutchogue. This acreage has been the subject of considerable discussion and negotiation amongst the Town, County and local environmental groups. The parcel contains what is believed to be the vestiges of an Indian settlement known as Fort Corchaug, which gave its name to the community. Mr. Baxter for a number of years has discussed the acquisition of this parcel by the Town or County. At one time there was interest to the point that the Town set aside considerable funds for the purchase, and the County agreed to participate. The County then withdrew that participation. Since part of the interest in the property is in the estate of Mr. Baxter's father, it is neces- sary to make some disposition of the parcel. To this end, after waiting four to five years to determine if in fact the Town or County would purchase it, Mr. Baxter has filed a subdivision application. We believe the subdivision will ultimately be approved. However, the North Fork Environmental Council and other community members have expressed the hope that the parcel might still be acquired. Mr. Baxter has offered thirty acres of the parcel, including the Indian Fort site, to the Town for $1 million. He is willing to accept $3 million for the entire 106-acre parcel. This is based upon the present level of invest- ment and before he must undertake extensive environmental studies to proceed with the ubdlvlslon. Since the cqulsltlon of this parcel has been supported by a number of community groups throughout the North Fork, I thought it would be worthwhile contacting you as Chairman of the Governor's Task Force to request your consideration of this matter and to A. Twomey, Esq - 2 - Oct¢~ r 14, 1993 is a member of the Sour ~old Town Planning Staff, i situated to provide yo~ with further insight into may wish to contact hin I would also be pleased discuss this with you s id look forward to your res onse. ~ermine if there was ~ssistance available from t permit the public acquisition of the parcel. , who I underst~ id is a member of your Task e State that Mr. Robert Force and also uniquely his matter. You o further Very truly yours, Charles R. Cuddy :File ~Tumber : :P1--473800--00115 SOIPIIIOLD INDIAN MUSE UM lbyv i r,w ,~ou l;lm I d, P',I b 1. i .'q h edl bY: Incorporated L,ong I~lnnd Chnpter, N~w York ~t'nhm Archaeological. A~socJatJon, P.O. Box 2~, Southold NY 11971 Vol. IX, NO. 1, February, 1994 Supplement FEBRUARY MEETING NOTICE February 20, 1994, we will be showing a video of a lecture on Fort Corch~ug presented by Dr. Lorrain Williams at the time of the anniversary of the settlement of Southold Town. 350th Fort Corchaug, in Cutchouge, NY, was built by American Indians some time in the early 17th century to protect thier wampum production and trade. The Board Meeting will begin at 1:00 p.m. FUTURE NEW YORK STATE MEETINGS A conference on The Archaeology of The Hudson Valley will be held at the New York State Museum in Albany, New York on March 5, 1994. For further information call (518)474-5813 Ethnobiology: Prespectives and Practice in the Northeastern United States and Eastern Canada will be the topic of several papers presented at the Rochester Museum and Science Center, Rochester, New York on November 12-13, 1994. Address your requests for information to: Ethnobiology Conference % Charles F. Hayes, III Rochester Museum & Science Center 657 East Avenue Box 1480 Rochester NY 14603-1480 or phone (716) 271-4552 ex. 345 FEB I 5 Igg/l ~HARLES P~.. ~UDDY ATTO~EY AT LAW 180 0~D C;OUN'r~Y RO2~D (RT~. 58) RIVERH~D, NY 11901 February 3, 1994 Town of Southold Planning Board 53095 Main Road, Post Office Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Baxter - Indian Shores Attn: Melissa Dear Melissa: Enclosed herewith is a check in the sum of $350.00 representing the applicant's fee in connection with the scoping session held pursuant to the SEQRA requirements. Very truly yours, Charles R. Cudd CRC/ec enc. FEB ? 1994 '~=ILE NUMB~R:::::::::Pla73800-OOllS::::::::::?:::Town of SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK Counby -E,AD AGENCY:!E!!!!E!¢~75800iiiiiii::iiii::i;:i::::::::::::::i::::::::::ii::Town of SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK Counby ~ i ii?=i?,iiiiiiiiiiiiii!iiii{!iiiiiiiiii i{{ E iii~, iii?~il :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ii i i i iii ill i iiii{~iii;iii!iiii!?=====~=~==~===================,~==~=~ ~ !=~ ~=~= ~.~, ~.z~ i~ ~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~========~ ~=,=,~ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~=~i~!!~. ~i=, :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~= E~CRIPTION:::::Res. subd.tv, of A2 single family lobs om 105.6ac. loc. N/S Now '~EVELOPMEN'F ]'Y~.'..~'. ......................... ~.iiEiiRes id ~ nt lal subdivision!iii ~iiiiiiiCommerciai Main Rd. SS :~.. ] ATL o :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::i::::i::::iii::iChanged To Neg DeoEiililE!E!ilEE!! ~EiEOK Withdrawn ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: !::::::iiiiiiflFinal ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Current Record IMPORTANT > > File Number : P1--473800--00115 correspondence about this oction! To the Lead Agency: The obove information confirms thor filings on the described Po$~bive Declaration were officially received by, and entered ~n the SEQR Repository on the dote(s) shown in the box headed DATE RE'CEIVED above. Tho latest riling is indicated by the moat necent' dato in that box. The dote and time itl lshe second line show when this document was pn~nted~ Please check the information above carefully. For' corrections or questions oo~dxact Char, les Lockrow, (5ia)a57-2224, or WP.~ be SEQR Repository NYSDEC Division of Regulab;ory Atfa~r:~ 50 Wolf Road, Room 5J./, A Lbor]y ~ NY 12235 Town or SOUTI.4OLD Pi arming Board 53095 Moin Road-P.O. Soul;ho 1. d, NY ]197] FEB 7 19~ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard O. Wadi. Chalrma~ George Rltchte [,at. ham, Jr. Bennett Orlowskl. Jr. M~rk S, McDonald Kenneth I~ Edwards T¢Icphone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTt L. HARRIS Supervisor Town HaH, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax {516) 765 - 1823 February 9, 1993 Jeffery Seeman REA, REM, CEI, CEP Environmental Director Magurie Group Inc. 3237 Route 112 Medford, NY 11763 RE: Proposed DEIS for Indian Shores Dear Jeff, As discussed, I am enclosing a paper I had written on a site near my home. As this site is not far from the Fort Corchaug Site the artifacts may be useful in identifying those recovered from the fort location. The area of greatest sensitivity is south of the fort to Peconic Bay according to surveys made to date. If I can be of any assistance please contact me at the Planning Board office. 'jR6~e~IG. Kassner Site Plan Reviewer PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennett Orlowski. Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L Edwards Telephone (516] 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD February 8, 1994 SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Bex 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765 - 1823 To: Ail Involved Agencies Re: Scoping Session for Indian Shores SCTM~ 1000-116-1-3 A scoping session was held in Southold Town Hall on February 1, 1994 for the above-noted subdivision. Enclosed you will find the summary outline of that session. This outline will be used by the applicant to compile a draft Environmental Impact Statement. The Planning Board will use this outline to determine the completeness of the draft. As a coordinating agency, the Planning Board would appreciate your reviewing the enclosed document to ensure that the concerns of your agency are included. If they are not, please commit them to writing within the next few weeks, so that this summary outline can be amended as needed. If we do not hear from you, we will assume your agreement with the contents of this summary outline. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, ~~ r°~ Mel~ssa Spi Planner encs. cc: Albert Krupski, Board of Trustees Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Vito Minei, Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services Roger Evans, NYSDEC-Stony Brook Commissioner Jorling, NYSDEC-Albany Vito Lena, NYSDOT James Warren, NYS Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation Stephen Jones, Suffolk County Planning Commission NOTE TO FILE Enclosures with 2/8 letter to Charles Cuddy re: Indian Shores scoping session: - STF Draft Outline of Recommendations - Sign in sheet for scoping session Correspondence from: -Health Department 1/7/94 -SCAA 2/1/94 -SCAA 1/7/94 -NYS Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation 12/23/93 -Roger Evans, NYSDEC 12/23/93 -NFEC 2/1/941 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G, Ward. Chairman George Ritehie Latham, Jr, Benne~: Orlowskl, Jr. Mark S, McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF $OUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIs Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O, Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax [516) 765 - 1823 February 8, 1994 Charles Cuddy Attorney at Law P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: Scoping Session for Indian Shores SCTM# 1000-116-1-3 Dear Mr. Cuddy: At the February 1 scoping session, you received an outline of the scoping session. Please use it as a guide when compiling the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Copies of this outline are being sent to all the coordinating agencies that have been participating in the review of these applications. If any of these agencies want additional information to be added to the summary outline, you will be so notified. I have enclosed copies of correspondence received to date from involved agencies and interested parties for your review. If ~here are any questions or objections about the outline, please call me. Sincerely, Melissa Spiffo Planner encs. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS l~chard O. Ward, Chairman George Rltchle Latha. rn. Jr. Bennett Orlowskl, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516] 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ScoTr L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Ha]]. 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516J 765 - 1823 To: Antonia Booth, Town Historian William Peters, Cutchogue-New Suffolk Historical Council Walter Smith, Indian Museum John Stack, Landmark Preservation Commission From: Melissa Spiro, Planner z~ Re: Scoping Session for Indian Shores SCTM~ 1000-116-1-3 Date: February 8, 1994 Enclosed please find scoping outline for the above mentioned subdivision, for your information. NORTH FORK ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL, INC. SEQRA Scoping Indian Shores Route 25, Cutchogue Planning Board, Town of February 1, 1994 Southold Prepared by Sherry Johnson Program Director The North Fork Environmental Council would like to see the following issues addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement which is to be prepared for the Indian Shores subdivision. I. Description of proposed action Include a description of the project and describe the setting including, surrounding community, adjacent land uses, uplands and tidal wetlands found on the property. Discuss public need for the project, include discussion on pending subdivisions within the Town. II. Environmental Setting A) Water resources Describe the ground and surface water qualities found on-site, and discuss the quantity and quality of the water. Discuss groundwater, include characteristics of the aquifers on- site, depth to water table and any seasonal variation. Identify method of providing drinking water, determine projected water consumption for both residential and agricultural uses, and describe water conservation plans. Discuss Downs Creek, include project impact on creek and Peconic Bay. Discuss current value of the creek for recreation, and for finfish and shellfish production. Discuss potential for flooding, discuss the creek's designation as a Coastal Barrier Resource. Discuss erosion and eutrophication. Describe current drainage patterns and the proposed drainage scheme and any runoff control measures. Describe the proposed sanitary system. Discuss potential impact on wetlands, creek and bay. FEB 2 1994 B) Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology 1. Fish and Wildlife List all wildlife present on this site and in adjacent areas. Describe site's habitat value. Identify any endangered species that may be present, describe their habitat range and needs. Include the osprey (T) and diamondback terrapin (SC) as identified in the 1987 Department of State Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat rating form. Discuss the role that Downs Creek plays as a nursery for shellfish and finfish for the Peconic Bay. Discuss shellfishing opportunities in the creek. Discuss the fact that this creek has never been dredged. 2. Vegetation Describe vegetation types on-site, discuss their value as habitat. List any rare plants found on-site or in adjacent areas. Discuss potential impacts from fertilization and erosion. Discuss using native plant species and species that little or no fertilization and/or irrigation in all landscaping. require 3. Wetlands Describe wetlands found on-site. Discuss wetlands benefits found in tidal wetlands. Discuss their habitat value and value to wildlife. III. Land Use and Zoniqg Discuss any and all planning initiatives that apply to this site. Include the US/UK Stewardship Exchange Program and its recommendations for Southold, particularly their recommendations regarding the Peconic Bay and tourism. Include the benefits of ensuring that water quality is maintained or enhanced so that multiple uses (shellfishing and boating) can co-exist. Discuss the BT CAMP Study and its recommendations. Also discuss Southold's Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan and how this project complies with these initiatives. Discuss the Peconic's inclusion in the National Estuary Program. Describe the Program's goals and objectives. Discuss any additional designations that apply to this site including but not limited to: Significant Coastal Fish & Wildlife Habitat, Critical Environmental Area, and Coastal Barrier Resources. IV. Traffic Discuss access to the site. Discuss existing traffic conditions on New Suffolk Avenue. Discuss current traffic generated by facility and any projected increase in traffic. Discuss any impacts to adjacent wetlands, and drainage and runoff containment plans. V. Cultural Resources A) Archaeological Discuss Ft. Corchaug. Discuss site's inclusion on the National Register of Historic Place. Fully discuss the archaeological significance of this site, include information on all previous archaeological studies done. Describe, in detail, the archaeological work to be completed for this project, identify who will be completing the work. The entire site should be subject to archaeological investigation. B) Visual Describe scenic views and their importance. project will impact vistas along New Suffolk and the bay. Discuss how this Avenue, on the creek VI. Alternatives The NFEC would like proposal addressed in the to see the following alternatives to the Impact Statement. A) Clustered subdivision, B) No action. C) Public acquisition of at allowed yield, on 1 acre lots. entire site. SUFFOLK COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION NASSAU COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL COMMITTEE INCORPORATED UNDER NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW P,O, Drawer AR, Stony Brook, New York 11790 (516) 929-8725 · (516) 671-6641 February 1, 1994 Mr. Richard G. Ward, Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall P.O. Box 1179 Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Ward and Members of the Planning Board, Re: Indian Shores Major Subdivision File # P 1473800-0015 Scoping Session In reference to the DEIS that will be prepared for the proposed development, Indian Shores SCTM #1000-115-i-B, given the great significance and integrity of the Fort Corchaug site, the SCAA Board of Trustees recommend the following: 1) The Cultural Resource Investigation should be done to a high standard, with the goal of preserving the integrity of the fort site and related sites. 2) Thorough Stage la and lb, and Stage 2 Surveys should be done, with maximum attention given to identifying other sites in the project area which will b impacted by the plan, including prehistoric components, Contact period and historic components. 3) Once the sites have been defined, a clear plan for documentation of these resources should be carried out. 4) A well thought out Mitigation Plan should be developed to lessen the impact to this important archaeological site and associated sites. 5) The proposed archeological work should be approved by the lead agency and the NYSOPRHP. Changes to the plans arising from new information should be reviewed and approved before work is done. 6) The terrain should be surveyed to document any earthworks that may be associated with the fort. 7) Attention should be given to the historic homestead on the property. It should be documented by a qualified architectural preservation consultant. Recommendations regarding its demolition should be carefully considered. FEB 2 Page Two Indian Shores 8) During any site work, professional archaeologists should be present, and given the authority to stop excavation of roads and foundations if cultural materials are encountered. 9) Impacts to the archaeological remains of the prehistoric settlement pattern along the west bank of this creek will occur under this plan, and should be carefully assessed. The settlement pattern is composed of prehistoric sites representing different activity areas, including, for example, the remains of village sites, camp sites, food procurement sites, and mortuary remains. 10) The impact of the proposed construction to the historic character of the area should be considered. Every effort should be made to minimize the impact of the proposed development on the archeological resources. These resources include: known and unknown prehistoric sites that exist on the property; the fort site itself; sites associated with the period of significance of the fort; possible remains of Native American horticulture; any historic sites, including the homestead, that exist there. Potential impacts to these resources should be predicted and a mitigation plan should be developed as information becomes available. Archaeological resources are non-renewable. This project will have a considerable impact on those remaining on this property. The best position would be to preserve the site and its related sites undisturbed. Mitigation should be achieved by changing the density of the proposed construction and siting of house lots, using easements, or preserving the property as a whole. Sincerely, Suza~ Smyth Habib Corresponding Secretary ;! q ENVIRON M ENT~//~i~G CONSULTANTS To" From: Date: Re: Scoping Meeting Participants Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc. February 1, 1994 Indian Shores - Major Subdivision SCTM No. 1000-116-1-3 Draft ElS Scoping Documentation FOR USE AND DISTRIBUTION AT SCOPING MEETING OF FEBRUARY 1, 1994 Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc. is providing the enclosed documents to assist the Town of Southold Planning Board in the scopmg process for the abov. e refere.nced site. These documents are provided as a vehicle for discussion at the scopmg meeting, and to ensure that the Draft EIS which is prepared for this project pursuant to the Positive Declaration will provide a baseline of ~nformation which is necessary to consider in the decision-making process. Please review the attached information which reflects the Town's concerns as expressed through the consultants review of the project and contact with the Town on this matter. Attachment I includes the Positive Declaration which provides insight into the reasons for requiring the Draft EIS. Attachment II is CVA project review outlining resources and environmental concerns. Attachment III is an outline which has been compiled specifically for this project using the NYSDEC SEQR Scoping Checklist. This outline should be followed for format as well as content. The depth of detail required should be commensurate with the magnitude of the impact. The Draft EIS should be accurate, concise, and consistent, and information contained within should be referenced and supported. The Draft EIS should be prepared using accepted practice and literature for such documents, and analysis and conclusions must be objective. Impacts should be quantified where possible; however, qualitative discussions are appropriate where quantification is not appropriate or feasible. This package should be used by a professional environmental consultant as a guide for the issues to be included in the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS will be compared against the attached information and notes from the Scoping Meeting, in order to determine completeness in addressing issues of concern as expressed by the lead agency. Please review this ~nformation, and feel free to contact the Town for additional input during the preparation of the document. 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard O. Ward. Chairman George Ritchle Latham, Jr. Bennett Orlowskl. Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCO'IT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Flail, 53095 Main Road P. O. [~ox 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765 - 1823 State Environmental Quality Review POSITIVE DECLARATION Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft EIS Determination of Significance January 10, 1994 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The Southold Town Planning Board, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed action described below may have a significant effect on the environment and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared. Name of Action: Proposed Major Subdivision Indian Shores SEQR Status: Type 1 Description of Action: Residential clustered subdivision. 42 single family lots on 105.6 acres. 39 of the proposed lots range between 40,000 and 87,300 square feet in area. Remaining 3 lots are 4.7, 12.1 and 20.5 acres. 5.4 acres are proposed as a park and recreation area. This parcel is located in the east central part of the site, coincident with the primary location of a documented Indian fort site. Parcel located in Low-Density Residential (R-80) Zoning District. Location: North side of New Suffolk Avenue and South side Road (N.Y.S. Route 25.) Cutchogue, Town of Southold " SCTM~ 1000-116-1-3 of Main Page 2 Indian Shores Positive Declaration January 10, 1994 Reasons Supporting This Determination: The applicant has provided the lead agency with a Long Environmental Assessment Form. The LEAF has been reviewed by the Planning Board, the Planning Board's Environmental Consultant, and other involved agencies. The Indian Shores project is expected to have a potential significant impact on ecological and wetlands resources. In addition, the project is expected to result in irreversible and irretrievable loss of historic and archaeological resources. The project was reviewed by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP). In a letter dated December 23, 1993, the OPPd4P stated that the site contains multiple known archeological sites and that an archeological survey should be conducted for the parcel. The project was reviewed by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS). In a letter dated January 7, 1994, the SCDHS stated that potential impacts associated with the proposed subdivision may be severe and in many instances quite irreversible. The SCDHS recommended that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement be prepared to address the issues of preservation of open space and the character of the community, potential impacts to groundwater and surface waters, stormwater runoff and drainage impacts, as well as alternatives. The Southold Town Planning Board has determined that an Environmental Impact Statement be prepared in order to provide a means to assess the significance of the impacts of the project, to obtain input from involved agencies and the community, and to research possible alternatives and mitigation measures. For Further Information: Contact Person: Melissa Spiro, Planner Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 (516) 765-1938 Page 3 Indian Shores - Positive Declaration January 10, 1994 A copy of this notice sent to: Albert Krupski, Board of Trustees Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Vito Minei, Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services Roger Evans, NYSDEC -Stony Brook Commissioner Jorling -NYSDEC -Albany Vito Lena -N.Y.S. Department of Transportation James Warren, NYS Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation Stephen Jones, Suffolk County Planning Commission Chic Voorhis, Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc. Public Bulletin Board January 3, 1994 Mr. Richard G. Ward, Chairman Southold Planning Board · Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Review of EAF -- Major Subdivision Indian Shores SCTM No. 1000-116-1-3 Dear Mr. Ward: As per the your request, we have completed a preliminary review of the above referenced project. Tasks and completed actavities are identified as follows: Review Part I LEAF The parcel has been field inspected by CVA, and the I.RAF has been reviewed and amended as necessary. A copy of same is attached. Prepare Part H LEAF The Part II I.RAg checklist has been completed and is also attached. Additional information concerning our findings is included below. Environmental and Planning Considerations The parcel has been inspected and environmental references concerning the site and area have been consulted. The site consists of 105.6 acres of land, of which approximately 53.6 acres is forested, and 45.5.acres is establishe.d in e?s. ting agricultural use. The balance of the project site (6.5 acres) consists of udal wetlands. The proposed project involves subdiv/dlng the property into 42 lots. Of these lots, 39 would range between 40,003 and 87,300 square feet in size and would be developed for single family residential homesites. Lot 1 c.onsists of 4.7 acres, and would be promoted as a farm related site (equestrian) vath frontage on New Suffolk Avenue. The majority of the existing agricultural field would be divided into two lots of 12.1 acres and 20.5 acres each, and would be promoted for farming uses (vineyard). Two drainage areas would be prov/ded to accommodate stormwater generated from impervious surfaces. Finally, the proposal calls for retention of 5.4 acres of land as a park and recreation arem This parcel is located in the east central part of the site, coincident with the primary location of a documented Indian fort site. The subject site is zoned Agriculture-Conservation District and requires lot sizes of a minlmum size of 2. acres. The proposed development map is based on yield map of 42 units with reqmred lot sizes. It is noted that lots 3842 border wetlands associated with Downs Creek.. A line of wetlands is depi.ct, ed on the map; how. ever, the source of the wetiands location should be noted, ff the line has not been verified by the Town Trustees and the NYSDEC, thin should be accomplished and so noted on the map. 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MrLLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 J~dinn Shore~, Cutcho~uc Long EAP Rcvicw The yield ~ should be feasibly buildable in accordance with recognized . envi~nment~l and zoning requiremenls. Accordingly, the exact ~eld..sh.o. ul..d remain uncer~in until it is demonstrated that lots 34-42 cohform to prinopal bui~,q,-~ wet!:m .ds setbacks of 75 feet and the required fro. nt yard zo .nu~g. setbacl?. The m.ost. constrmned lot appears t.o be Lot 36, therefore, ~t. may. be a~ .d.d~ble to nav~e ? ty~.~ ~ca~. homesite depicted on ~h,s lot to.demo, nstrate .conlorm~ty. c~mer aspects oz me )aeia map appear to be consistent wi~ zo,,n[ reqmrements. The environmental resources of the site have been reviewed as related to the proposed development. The elevation of the property varies~ ,between appro,xim~a?,ely 5 and 30 feet with an average elevation of 20 feet over most or me central parts or me site. Slopes are generally less than 6 percent, except in are.as where the elevation decreases eastward toward Downs Creek Average slopes m these areas are in the range of 12-18 per. cent with some locally greater slopes., parti~larly within proposed Lots 18-23. A variety of soil types are present on the site dominated by Plymouth loamy sand..~IA, P1B and PIC.), .an.d also '.m.clu~ding Haven lo~m; Riverhe?~d sand.~... loam and T~dal Marsh. The s~te ~s locatea m c, rounowater m. anagement/.,one ~v out is not within the North Fork Water Budget Area. The elevatmn of groundwater beneath the site is ap. proximately 1 foot above mean sea.level~, .',mdi .catin~a dep. th to water of 4-29 feet, vath an average of 19 feet in the interior oime s~te. xuere ~s adequate elevation on ~ .of the proposed lots to.allo,w for sigh '.ti~. g of on-s!te ~anitary disposal systems. I~. additaon, the proposed de~lty, or no~m,ore~ man 42 ,umw. ~s consistent with Article 6 of the Suffoll~. County :~amtary uooe for grounaw.ater management. It is noted that the site ~s presently farmed, and may be subject .t.o. application of fertili:,erg thereby resulting i~. mtrog.en load.under pr.esent co,n0~t,mns., Tl~e area north of the site is identified as be.rog subject to. elevateo m. trogea. ~eve~s uno the areas around and including the subject s~te are xdentified as having aldicarb contamination as a result of faa'ming activities. Water supply is proposed to be fi.om. an on site source, and on-site sanitary disposal is proposed.. Water supply will reqmre approval of the Suffolk County Depa~ tment of Health Services. The site includes a variety of habitats including first growth woods .with dom. lnant . locust on the northern woodedportio, ns of the site, dry o. ak forest vath dominant oax species on the southern wooded pomons of the site, agricultural field on the western part of the site, and tidal marsh on the east side of the site. Wildlife or evidence observed on site during ~s. pection included: white tailed deer, squirrel, chickadee, sparrows and other.perching and songbirds. In addition, two grea, t blue ,her.o.n.we.re observed in the agricultural field, andan active osprey nest was ooserveu wltlnm the wetlands area south of New Suffolk Avenue. The wetlands are identified in the National Wetlands Inventory as estuarine, intertidal, emergent marsh. The wetlands are regulated under both Article 25 of the New York Environmental Conservation Law and the Town of Southold Wetlands Ordinance. It is noted that the majority of single family res.identi~ development is placed in the fore.sted .areas and. Lots 4-9 and 14-22 are all adjacent tadal wetlands. As not.ed in corn?, ectaon vnth the )acid map, the wetlands should be confirmed by the regulatm~ agenoes to establish adequate developme, nt setbacks. The T.o.¢:m may wish to~ex~lore ~ternativ. e open space . configuratio .m. to preserve additional forested areas p .articularly .m ste.e.l~ slope re~ons ad'acent to t~dal wetlands. Such concepts could work m connectaon mm mcreaseo o~n space in connection with the identified Indian fort site. CRAMER, V~ ,~ASOCIATES ENVIRONMENT~~G CONSULTANTS Long FAF Review RTho~rOru~'A oroJea will he,crate tra~c; however, there is dual access to Main .west. This dism'bution, and thc ad .equal, of emst~ng, r. oaos m. mcates..that .tr~..mc ~mnaCtS would be ~ to be minor. The project ~s consistent w~th ems~.n~ zoning- and is compa, tib. l.e' 'with. surrounalng land ..u?,s. Li?ewise .the proje,ct ~s n,~ot .. exvect~d to have a significant unpact on commnmty servIc~.s or oemograp?y., l?e stte co'ntninn sinnifieant c~tural sensitivity in the form of hist. onc and archaeological reso.ur .ces. "The site incl.udes a doo~mented Indian fort site, Fort .C~, rchang. Prehmmnry arch .aeolog~cal study was conduct.e~, by Ralph S~.lecki between 19.36-1948 and documented m a Master's Thesis (Solecki, 1949). The site has been nominated for the N. ational Register of Historic Places_ ~. The concludln~ s~tement qn ~e . nominaUon form concludes the following: An ~almost..com. plete, l~ unt. oucn.e? area, the site holds great potenU~ for furore exploration. U?h,~.aUon o[.m~ e s~t,e .wire. o.m ,. tmders[onding the ramifications represen.ts.a po, te,nttat.trre, versmie .an? m'e,m, evap~e loss of mapor~ant cultural resour..c~s. AddiUonat pi .a~..g. ts war~. a~.~a to ~ete.rmme, the b.o. un.. daries of the feature, w~th the intent of maintaining a?~m .c~t_pomon o~ the sue m a natural state for furore cultural research. In addiUon to the Fort Corchaug feature, there is partiall.y, e, xt~. t historic ,farmhouse str~,cture,on, the n,o,r~.,h part 9f the site. The structure exhibits laand-hewn ~eam~, cut naus, an?,p,~.~ter/,lam, e Interior surfaces as well as other 19th centu~ architectural features. ^omtionat om- buildings and farm equipment is present in the vicinity. The area.o.f first growth. woods ~as likely cleai'edin coaniction with historic f ,.ar~ ~ act~.Dues, and. .has s.mce. overgrown, The structure shg.uld be reviewed by a q.uamaea .arclute.ctural...mstonan to document information regarding site and structure history prior to clemoLmon. Recommendations Tho cit~ onnt:ain~. URirlue and valuable ecoloftical features in the form of habitat dj' ~r~s'i'-ty,~m''d tidal we'tlands.. Forested .areas~w~th slopes in .ex?ss,.o.f ,20 ~er. centm slope eastward toward the tidal wetlands. This area ~s prop?ed to ~. ~va?.eo ]. to. ,, individual lots with the excepuou of a 5.4 acre recreauon area mcmmng me.m.m, an fort site. The boundary of the wetlands should be verified and refe?n~ced (ff t.h~has not been done), and adequate wetlands setbacks should be ensureo, uovenantea buffer areas should be established in the rear of lots backing on the wetlands. Co.m. !deration should be given to alternative clnst, er propos.als that would preserve addiUonal forested steeper slope areas adjacent ~e weuanos. It is noted that the subdivision map identifies "vegeta.t!on ret.e, nfion buffers" i~. areas that are currently not vegetated. The map should indicated ff thes.e ares are mt, ended to be landscaped, or ff successional field vegetation will be allowed to grow in mese areas. The site contain~ unique historic and archaeological resources. A Sta.~e I Cultural Resources Assessment is recommended '.m o.r. der to update and compile all avail, able archival an.d field documentation of the s~gnificance of these .resources on the. site. Through this study, efforts .~. ould be mad.e to further d..etermm.e, the ,boundaries .of the Fort Corchang Indian fort ate and,relatea use a:r. ,eas..rreservauo. n, ota conse,rvauve area that includes.these resources ~ encourage, ri m oroer to provaoe a m.ed. mr future archaeolol0cal research. As an alternative, recovery of archaeological CRAMER, V~ ~J~ASOCIATES ENVIRON MENT.~~G CONSULTANTS Iv~ian Shore~, Cutchogu¢ Lon~ EAF Review resources could occur prior to develop, re. tnt of some_ore..as' on, the..'.fr~, e of the .I~.dian fort and activity areas in order to pro. de a mea~. of ut/l~?ntion o! tm.~ l.and. If the current co .n~. gth'ation of 1 .an,d dey. elop,m, en.t, l.e~.vmg only a 5.4 acre.arre~ch~a ,~lP~o~, documentation of thc relative cul~a~ msl~(~mmcance or rccover~ or,arc ~ ~ -- information would be required prior to approval of thc such a oevelopmcm proposar. The Indian Shores project as proposed is expected to have .a potential significant impact on ecological and wetlands resources. In addition, the project is expected to r. es.u[.t in irreversible and~rretrievable loss of historic and archaeological resources.. As a result tt ~, recommended that additional environmental documenta..fio, n be prepared m order to provme a means to .a~ess the si~ificance of these impacts, obtain .rap.ut ~ro__m involved.a_g.encies and the commnmt, y: and research possible alte.matives a~.d_ miuga~om ll~e m. os.t_.e~__~e.n.t .re. eons of ac.hi.'eving thi~ would be through an Envtronmental Impact State,_m. ent (,e.;ta)..'~,ms letter 'lxov~des a $11mmary of resources an.d impa .c?,. and wonl. d sery. e to scope ao.wn me content bf an EIS to those issues which re.qmre detailed _~,olys~s. This would make me process more efficient and allow for project rewew under the framework of the EIS doo~ment If y.o.u have any questions or wish any further input with regard to th{~ matter, please do not hemate to call. Very truly yours, Charles J. Voorhis, CEP, AICP enc: Long EAF Part I, H CRAMER, V~ ~,~SOCIATES CONS ,' A S Pa~4 INDIAN SHORES - MAJOR SUBDIVISION SEQR SCOPING OUTLINE TABLE OF CONTENTS AND SUMMARY A table of contents and a brief summary are required for Draft ElS The summary wiLl include: B. C. D. E. Brief description of the action Significant, beneficial and adverse impacts, (issues of controversy must be specified) Mitigation measures proposed Alternatives considered Matters to be decided (permits, approvals, funding) I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION PROJECT PURPOSE, NEED AND BENEFITS 1. Background and history -- History of ownership, farming, extant structures and past use; prior studies relating specifically to the parcel 2. Public need for the project, and mtmidpality objectives based on adopted community developments plans -- summarize municipal objectives from land use plan section 3. Objectives of the project sponsor 4. Benefits of the proposed action a) social b) economic LOCATION 1. Establish geographic boundaries of the project (use of regional and local scale maps is recommended) 2. Description of access to site -- frontage on two roads; water access 3. Description of existing zoning of proposed project site DESIGN AND LAYOUT 1. Total site area a) describe and present yield determination to justify number of lots proposed b) describe unique features of the site which constrain use: tidal wetlands freshwater wetlands surface water shallow groundwater unique habitat agricultural soils archaeological sensitivity 2. Site Coverage Quantities -- prepare a table of estimated site coverage quantities a) estimated building coverage b) estimated driveway coverage c) estimated subdivision road coverage CRAMER, V~ g~SOCIATES Page 1 Indian Shores - M~or Subdivision SEQRA Scoping Checklist d) estimated landscaped area (fertilized/unfertilized) e) estimated natural area f) wetlands protected g) proposed agricultural land use Structures -- expected structures based on market demand, lot sizes and zoning code Water Supply -- ability to meet Article 4, private water system standards and water quality parameters Sanitary Disposal -- system design based on single family residential system requirements and depth to groundwater; identify constrained lots Stormwater Disposal -- capadty and design requirements Open space -- ownership, dedication and management of park and recreation area, and remaining agricultural use CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION 1. Construction a) total construction period anticipated --timing of development b) schedule of construction activities --particularly due to wildlife sensitive periods c) future potential development, on site or on adjoining properties 2. Operation a) type of operation -- road/reehargn dedication; open space dedication if applicable; are any future piers or waterfront structures contemplated b) schedule of operation -- if applicable APPROVALS 1. Permit approvals -- list agency, permit and status a) b) c) d) e) Town of Southold p!~..;ng Board --subdivision Town of Southold Trustees -- wetland, if applicable SC Dept. of Health Services -- sanitary disposal and water supply NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation -- tidal wetlands; protection of waters; water supply if greater than 45 gpm Army Corps of Engineers -- if activity below spring high water; CZM consistency review, if applicable I!. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Natural Resource A. GEOLOGY 1. Subsurface a) composition and thickness of subsurface material -- provide and summarize test hole information Surface a) b) List of soil types as per Suffolk County Soil Survey (SCSS) discussion of soil characteristics, limitations and suitability for use based on SCSS c) distribution of soil types at project site d) Identify important agricultural soils as a resource Topography -- utilize topo map based on 2' contour intervals, subdivision map is based on 5' intervals CRAMER, V~ ¢&SOCIATES ENVlRONMENTA~~G CONSULTANTS Page 2 Indian Shores - Major Subdivision SEQRA Scoping Checklist description of topography at project site - slopes adjacent wetlands - interior site swales, prominent or unique features WATER RESOURCES 1. Groundwater a) depth to groundwater in various portions of the site b) seasonal fluctuations/tidal fluctuations c) water table contours and dia'ection of flow d) discuss groundwater-surface water inter-relationship; discharge to surface water; tidal fluctuations e) determine existing water quality beneath the site in anticipated water supply zones f) identification of present uses and level of use of groundwater - location of existing wells - agricultural uses 2. Surface Water a) describe Downs Creek estuary -- inlets/outlets b) NYSDEC surface water classification c) determine tidal influences d) present water quality and salinity e) present use and level of us 3. Drainage a) describe existing drainage patterns on site and in the are b) make note of drainage swales and natural collection areas TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY 1. Vegetation a) list vegetation types on the project site and within the surrounding area; classify into habitats b) discussion of site vegetation characteristics species presence and abundance age, size, distribution, dominance community types unique, rare and endangered species value as habitat for wildlife relative productivity c) contact NYS Natural Heritage Program for information concerning unique vegetation, habitats or wildlife species on site or in area, and provide discussion/analysis as appropriate in text d) describe habitat needs and biological characteristics of all endangered, threatened and species of special concern 2. Wildlife a) perform on-site field inspections to determine wildlife occupying or utilizing the site b) consult references to determine spedes expected to occupy site based on habitat type c) list spedes assodated with site; differentiate between species observed on site and species present on site; identify endangered, threatened and species of special concern CRAMER, V~ gASOCIATES E N VI R O N M E N T~AblE~,~,I~ G CONSULTANTS Page 3 Human Resources A. Bo Indian Shores - Major Subdivision SEQRA Scoping Checklist d) contact NYS Natural Heritage Program for information concerning unique vegetation, habitats or wildlife species e) describe habitat needs and biological characteristics of all endangered, threatened and species of special concern Wetlands a) describe wetlands and characteristic b) outline NYSDEC wetlands dassificatlous and discuss importance/benefits of each type on or adjacent to the site TRANSPORTATION 1. Transportation Services a) describe access to the site and internal road circulation b) describe existing level of use on adjacent roads -- seasonal traffic - a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic flow - vehicle mix - source of existing traffic c) make note of pedestrian environment and public transportation, if applicable LAND USE AND ZONING 1. Existing land use and zoning a) description of the existing land use of the project site and the surrounding area b) description of existing zoning of site and surrounding area 2. Land use plans a) description of any land use plans or master plans which include project site and surrounding area Master Plan Draft LWRP Critical Environmental Area designation 208 Study and Article 6 NURPS Report Southold Land Use Task Force draft recommendations BTCAMP Study Governors Task Force draft recommendations COMMUNITY SERVICES 1. Educational facilities 2. Police protection 3. Fire protection 4. Recreational facilities 5. Utilities CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Visual resources a) description of the physical character of the area b) description of site from viewsheds along Main Road, New Suffolk Avenue and Downs Creek with c) discussion of viewing potential based on exposure and number of viewers ENVIRON M ENT~'~JI~G CONSULTANTS Page 4 Indian Shores - M~or Subdivision SEQRA Scoping Checklist Historic/Archaeological Resources - include Cultural Resources Assessment, if completed a) describe r.,x~tino~ historic areas or structures listed on State or National Register or designated by the community, or included on Statewide Inventory b) determine significance of existing historic structures on site -- provide map and literature search, record of architecture, use, photo documentation, etc.. c) contact NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau for information pertaining to history and prehistory of the sit d) compile, interpret and augment information pertaining to Fort Corchang identifying boundary of sensitivity IlL SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Review each aspect of the environmental setting in Section IV and provide a qualitative discussion of impacts with quantification of impacts where possible. Impacts that are not si~ificant need only be discussed to the point where this is demonstrated. Si~ificant impacts should be discussed in detail appropriate for the scope of the impact. The following key issues are noted: Buffer areas, setbacks and protection measures should be discussed as related to protection of wetlands and prevention of erosion along Downs Creek. Excavation for basements, sanitary systems and recharge basins, should be discussed as related to soil quantities and erosion prote~un. Discuss project in view of,Sa'fide 6 density and SCDHS sanitary system design criteria. Nitrogen concentration in recharge and environmental/ecological impact on Downs Creek and Peconlc River Estuary via groundwater underflow. A nitrogen budget should be performed, and discussion of direction of flow and setbacks should be discussed as related to these impacts. Water quality beneath site and suitability for water supply wells in conformance with Article 4 and private water standards. Impact of the project on surface water by overland runoff from roads and fertilized areas, Impact due to alteration of existing drainage patterns and natural collection areas on the subject site. Impact on wildlife habitats and specific species associated with these habitats. Consideration should be given to availability of similar habitat in area, and impact of habitat fragmentation. Impact on ability of NYSDEC designated wetlands to continue to provide benefits identified in Section II. Conformance of project to land use plans and plannlng efforts/open space preservation strategies in the Town of Southold. Vehicle trip generation and ability of roads to accommodate traffic. Change in visual character of site and affect on viewing populations. Irreversible and irretrievable loss of cultural resources including historic structures/uses and impact on Fort Corchang in context of valuable archaeological resources. Impact discussion should be based on information collected by professional archaeologist and interpreted in context of environmental plnnnlnoo. CRAMER, V~ ~ASOCIATES CO.SU,T^ TS Page 5 Indian Shores - Major Subdivision SEQRA Scoplng Checklist IV. MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Describe measures to reduce or avoid potential adverse impacts identified in Section HI. The following is a brief listing of typical measures used for some of the major areas of impact. Natural Resource A. GEOLOGY 1. Subsurface use excavated material on site reuse topsoil for landscaped areas a) b) Surface a) b) use topsoil stockpiled during construction for restoration and landscaping minimize disturbance of non-construction sites -- proposed buffer areas and conservation easements c) design and implement soil erosion control plan Topography a) avoid construction on areas or steep slope b) design adequate soil erosion devices to protect ureas of steep slope WATER RESOURCES 1. Groundwater a) ensure adequate ~mitary design b) maintain permeable areas on the site 2. Surface water a) ensure uae of soil erosion control teehniques during construction and operation to avoid siltation examples: - hay bales - temporary restoration of vegetation to disturbed areas - landscaping b) design adequate stormwater control system TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY 1. Vegetation a) restrict clearing to only those areas necessary b) preserve part of site as a natural area c) after construction, landscape site with naturally occurring vegetation d) time construction activities to avoid wildlife impacts Human Resources A. TRANSPORTATION 1. Transportation -- design adequate and safe access to project site to handle projected traffic flow LAND USE AND ZONING 1. Existing land use and zoning a) design project to comply with existing land use plans b) design functional and visually appealing facility to set standard and precedent for future surrou~din~ land use ENVlRONMENT%%&ND~G CONSULTANTS Page 6 Co Indian Shores - Major Subdivision SEQRA Scoping Checklist COMMUNrr ¥ SERVICES 1. Police./F'tre protection -- ensure efficient access to residences on the site 2. Utilities a) install utility services underground b) incorporate water saving fixtures into facility design CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Visual resources a) provide buffering to improve aesthetics b) minimize road surface area and significant land disturbance 2. Historic/Archaeological -- preserve adequate portion of site to provide for archaeological resource use, research and management V. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED Identify those adverse environmental effects is Section IV that can be expected to occur regardless of the mitigation measures considered in Section IV. VI. ALTERNATIVES This section contains categories of alternatives with examples. Discussion of each alternative should be at a level suffident to permit a comparative assessment of costs, benefits and environmental risks for each alternative. It is not acceptable to make simple assertions that a particular alternative is or is not feasible. Conceptual sketch plans should accompany alternative design plans to provide a basis for comparison and analysis. ALTERNATIVE DESIGN - alternative duster designs should be considered that protect a greater area of the site in the vicinity of Fort Corchaug and the wetlands adjacent Downs Creek, possible design alternatives are noted below 1. Preserve a larger portion of Archaeologically Sensitive Area through reduced lot size cluster with lots of no less than 20,000 square feet. 2. Preserve a larger portion of Archaeologically Sensitive Area through utilization of some or all of the agricultural areas. 3. Preserve a larger portion of Archaeologically Sensitive Area and wooded areas adjacent to Downs Creek through smaller lot size (no less than 20,000 square feet), and utilization of some or all of the agricultural areas. ALTERNATIVE USE -- determine other viable potential site uses, noted in Southold Land Use Task Force and/or Governors Task Force land use recommendations that may reduce environmental impacts 1. Transfer of Development Rights -- determine other potentially suitable lands to receive development rights from all or a portion of the subdivisions with the intent of minimizing impact upon sensitive areas 2. Acquisition -- discuss feasibility of acquisition of all or the most sensitive portions of the overall project site in order to minimize impact upon sensitive NO ACTION 1. Impacts of no action Page 7 a) b) c) Indian Shores - M~or Subdivision SEQRA Scoping Checklist effect on public need effect on private developers' need beneficial or adverse environmental impacts VII. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES Identify those natural and human resources listed in Section IH that will be consumed, converted or made unavailable for future use. VIII. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS Indicate if project will cause additional growth in the area which would not otherwise occur. Consider access, utilities and precedent. IX. EFFECTS ON THE USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY RESOURCES Identify use and commitment of energy resources and methods to reduce impact on same. APPENDICES Following is a list of materials typically used in support of the EIS. List of references including; underlying studies, reports, information and personal communication considered and relied on in preparing impact statement Technical exhibits (ff any) at a legible scale Relevant correspondence regarding the projects may be included ENVIRON M ENT~/D~////~G CONSULTANTS Page 8 2--ILE NUMBER:i~;!Pli73800-OOllSiiiiiiiiTown of SOUTHOLO, SUFFOLK County ~-EAD AGENCY:iiiiiiiiiiiii75800iiiii!iiii!!i!i!!!i!!!!!(!!i!i!!rown of SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK Cotmby ======================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================= s'['~'~i~'['[Z~ ~'~'~¢E N[~ I C E Z S: :. ::N ::~::::}~::::~ ~:~ :.~:f.:.~:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:f.:.:f.:.~:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:,:.:,:,~:f,~ ~ . ...................................... ;TITLE:ii,Indian Shores Type iEEEEEEEENCON INVOLVEO:~iN~E~! ~DESCRIPTION:!~!REs. subdiv, o¢ A2 single family lots on 105.6 mo. icc. N/S Neq¢ S/S Main Rd. iDATE' :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: EEl:Pos L ti ve ::::::::::::::::::::::: Notice CompietionEE!EE / / ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Withdrawn IMPORTANT > > File Number: P1--4738OO--OOl15 Use the above ndmber in mil To the Lead Agency: The above information confir'ms that filings on the described Positive Declaration were officially received by, and entered in the SEQR Repository on the date(s) shown in the box headed DATE RECEIVED above. The latest filing :La ind:icated by the most recent date tn that box. The d~te sad time ~n the second li~e show whe~ this document w~s printed. Please check the information stove cspeffully~ For' coppections op questio~]s cow, act Charles Lockr'ow, (518)~57-2224, o~ wpite to: SEQR Repository NYSDEC Division of Regulatory Affairs 50 Wolf Road, Room 5],4 Albany, NY 122S5 Town of SOUTHOLD Planning Board 55095 Mm,tn Road-P. O. Box ll;~9 JAN3 I~":':~,.,., , Scut ho l.d, NY 11971 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Wand, Chairman George Ritehie Latham, Jr. Bennett Orlowsk[, Jr, Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOIT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 South~ld, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765 - 1823 To: From: Re: Ail Involved Agencies Melissa Spiro, Planner ~;~ Scoping session for~ Indian Shores SCTM~ 1000-116-1-3 Date: January 18, 1994 A scoping session has been set for Tuesday, February 1, 1994 at 1:00 P.M. for the above mentioned subdivision. The scoping session will be held in the Supervisor's conference room at Southold Town Hall. A copy of the Positive Declaration is enclosed. If you are unable to attend the scoping session, please send any comments you may have as to items you wish addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, to the Planning Board office. The Board's fax number is 765-1823. CC: Albert Krupski, Board of Trustees Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Vito Minei, Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services Roger Evans, NYSDEC -Stony Brook Commissioner Jorling - NYSDEC, Albany Vito Lena - N.Y.S. Department of Transportation James Warren, NYS Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation Stephen Jones, Suffolk County Planning Commission Chic Voorhis, Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765 - 1823 January 18, 1994 Charles R. Cuddy Attorney at Law P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: Scoping Session for Indian Shores SCTM~ 1000-116-1-3 Dear Mr. Cuddy: Pursuant to our conversation, a scoping session has been set for Tuesday, February 1, 1994 at 1:00 P.M. for the above mentioned subdivision. Please notify your environmental consultant of this date. The scoping session will be held in the Supervisor's conference room at Southold Town Hall. A copy of the Positive Declaration was sent to you under separate cover. The fee for the session will be $350.00, must be paid one week prior to this meeting. and If this is not convenient, please notify us immediately and the session will be re-scheduled. If you have any questions, please contact the Planning Board office at 765-1938. Sincerely, Melissa Spi~-~ Planner PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward. Chairman George Rltchle Latham. Jr. Bennett Orlowskl, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516} 765 - 1823 To: From: Re: Date: Antonia Booth, Town Historian William Peters, Cutchogue-New Suffolk Historical Council Walter Smith, Indian Museum John Stack, Landmark Preservation Commission Melissa Spiro, Planner/79~ Scoping session for Indian Shores SCTM~ 1000-116-1-3 January 18, 1994 A scoping session has been set for Tuesday~ February 1~ 1994 at 1:00 P.M. for the above mentioned subdivision. The scoping session will be held in the Supervisor's conference room at Southold Town Hall. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchle Latham, Jr. Benne~ Orlowskl, Jr, Mark $. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone {516} 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF $OUTHOLD SCOTt L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southoid, New York 11971 Fax {516) 765 - 1823 TO: FROM: Antonia Booth, Town Historian William Peters, Cutchogue-New Suffolk Historical Council Walter Smith, Indian Museum John Stack, Landmark Preservation Commission Melissa Spiro, Planner ,~ RE i Proposed Major Subdivision Indian Shores (a.k.a. Fort Corchaug) Cutchogue SCTM# 1000-116-1-3 DATE: January 11, 1994 Please see the attached in regard to the above mentioned subdivision. I will notify you under separate cover when the scoping session has been scheduled. enc. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennett Odowski, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L, Edwards Telephone {516) 765-1938 January 14, 1994 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUI'HOLD SCOTT L. HARPJS Supen~sor Town Hail. 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax {516} 765 - 1823 Charles R. Cuddy 180 Old Country Road P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, New York 11901 RE: Proposed Major Subdivision Indian Shores S/s Main Road and N/s New Suffolk Ave. Cutchogue SCTM# 1000-116-1-3 Dear Mr. Cuddy: The following resolutions were adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, January 10, 1994: Be it RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, assumes lead agency status on this Type 1 action. Be it further RESOLVED that the Planning Board, as lead agency, finds that the action may significantly effect the environment, and makes a determination of a Positive Declaration. A copy of the Positive Declaration is enclosed. I have also enclosed, for your information, copies of the comments received from other involved agencies and a copy of the report from the Board's environmental consultant. Please contact the Planning Board within two (2) weeks to schedule a scoping session. There will be a review fee for both the scoping session and the review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The $350.00 review fee for the scoping session must be submitted in full before the session will be held. Page 2 Proposed Major Subdivision - Indian Shores January 11, 1994 Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, ,"?.-- Richard G. Ward Chairman enc. cc: Albert Krupski, Board of Trustees Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Vito Minei, Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services Roger Evans, NYSDEC -Stony Brook Commissioner Jorling - NYSDEC, Albany Vito Lena - N.Y.S. Department of Transportation James Warren, NYS Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation Stephen Jones, Suffolk County Planning Commission Chic Voorhis, Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Lathan~ Jr. Bennett Orlowski. Jr. Mark $, McDonald Kenneth L, Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765 - 1823 State Environmental Quality Review POSITIVE DECLARATION Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft EIS Determination of Significance January 10, 1994 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The Southold Town Planning Board, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed action described below may have a significant effect on the environment and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared. Name of Action: Proposed Major Subdivision Indian Shores SEQR Status: Type 1 Description of Action: Residential clustered subdivision. 42 single family lots on 105.6 acres. 39 of the proposed lots range between 40,000 and 87,300 square feet in area. Remaining 3 lots are 4.7, 12.1 and 20.5 acres. 5.4 acres are proposed as a park and recreation area. This parcel is located in the east central part of the site, coincident with the primary location of a documented Indian fort site. Parcel located in Low-Density Residential (R-80) Zoning District. Location: North side of New Suffolk Avenue and South side of Main Road (N.Y.S. Route 25.) Cutchogue, Town of Southold SCTM~ 1000-116-1-3 Page 2 Indian Shores Positive Declaration January 10, 1994 Reasons Supporting This Determination: The applicant has provided the lead agency with a Long Environmental Assessment Form. The LEAF has been reviewed by the Planning Board, the Planning Board's Environmental Consultant, and other involved agencies. The Indian Shores project is expected to have a potential significant impact on ecological and wetlands resources. In addition, the project is expected to result in irreversible and irretrievable loss of historic and archaeological resources. The project was reviewed by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP). In a letter dated December 23, 1993, the OPRHP stated that the site contains multiple known archeological sites and that an archeological survey should be conducted for the parcel. The project was reviewed by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS). In a letter dated January 7, 1994, the SCDHS stated that potential impacts associated with the proposed subdivision may be severe and in many instances quite irreversible. The SCDHS recommended that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement be prepared to address the issues of preservation of open space and the character of the community, potential impacts to groundwater and surface waters, stormwater runoff and drainage impacts, as well as alternatives. The Southold Town Planning Board has determined that an Environmental Impact Statement be prepared in order to provide a means to assess the significance of the impacts of the project, to obtain input from involved agencies and the community, and to research possible alternatives and mitigation measures. For Further Information: Contact Person: Melissa Spiro, Planner Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 (516) 765-1938 Page 3 Indian Shores - Positive Declaration January 10, 1994 A copy of this notice sent to: Albert Krupski, Board of Trustees Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Vito Minei, Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services Roger Evans, NYSDEC -Stony Brook Commissioner Jorling -NYSDEC -Albany Vito Lena -N.Y.S. Department of Transportation James Warren, NYS office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation Stephen Jones, Suffolk County Planning Commission Chic Voorhis, Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc. Public Bulletin Board (]]HARLES R. (]]UDDY 180 OLD COUNTRY ROAD (RTE. 58) January 10, 1994 Town of Southold Planning Board 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York Attn: Melissa 11971 Re: Indian Shor~ Subdivision Dear Melissa: Enclosed is a copy of the letter written to Chairman of the Governor's East End Task Force. CRC/ec encs. Thomas Twomey Very truly yours, Charles R. Cuddy as JAN I 1199; October 14, 1993 Thomas A. Twomey, Esq. Twomey, Latham, Shea & Kelly 33 West Second Street Post Office Box 398 Riverhead, New York 11901 Re: Indian Shores, Cutchogue, New York Dear Mr. Twomey: I represent William Baxter, Jr., who has filed a subdivision map with the Town of Southold for a 106-acre parcel located on the west side of Downs Creek between New Suffolk Avenue and the Main Road (New York State Route 25) at Cutchogue. This acreage has been the subject of considerable discussion and negotiation amongst the Town, County and local environmental groups. The parcel contains what is believed to ~e the vestiges of an Indian settlement known as Fort Corchaug, which gave its name to the community. Mr. Baxter for a number of years has discussed the acquisition of this parcel by the Town or County. At one time there was interest to the point that the Town set aside considerable funds for the purchase, and the County agreed to participate. The County then withdrew that participation. Since part of the interest in the property is in the estate of Mr. Baxter's father, it is neces- sary to make some disposition of the parcel. To this end, after waiting four to five years to determine if in fact the Town or County would purchase it, Mr. Baxter has filed a subdivision application. We believe the subdivision will ultimately be approved. However, the North Fork Environmental Council and other community members have expressed the hope that the parcel might still be acquired. Mr. Baxter has offered thirty acres 6f the parcel, including the Indian Fort site, to the Town for $1 million. He is willing to accept $3 million for the entire 106-acre parcel. This is based upon the present level of invest- ment and before he must undertake extensive environmental studies to proceed with the subdivision. Since the acquisition of this parcel has been supported by a number of community groups throughout the North Fork, I thought it would be worthwhile contacting you as Chairman of the Governor,s Task Force to request your consideration of this matter and to A. Twomey, Esq. -2 - October 14, 1993 ,termine if there was assistance available from the State that permit the public acquisition of the parcel. Mr. Robert ~assner, who I understand is a member of your Task Force and also is a member of the Southold Town Planning Staff, is uniquely situated to provide you with further insight into this matter. You may wish to contact him. I would also be pleased to further discuss this with you and look forward to your response. Very truly yours, Charles R. Cuddy COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ROI~£R*r J. GAFF'NEy January 7, 1994 Melissa Spire $outhold PlmmJng Boai'd Town Hall, 53095 Main Road PD. Box 1179 $oulbold, New York 11971 ~: Indi;m Shores ' Majo~ oubdiv~sion scrm#: 1000-I16-1~13 Dear Ms. Spir~; The Sufi\,lk County Dept. of Heahh Services ($CDHS) has received your letter dated December 9, !.993, c~mceming the above-referenced project m~d offers the follow~g cmmnents. Thi~ ~, ..... We submit that the poteatial impacts associated wi,,h the proposed Indian Sho~es Subdivision may be severe and ~ ninny h~st~ces quite irreversible. Our recommendation is therefore, that the Town issue a positive declaration m~d at a ll~lbnunl ~equke the applicm~t to prep~e a Dtaf~ Envirotunent~d Impact Statement (DEIS). Develo m~ent of the eno' .., , . t ~omnent~ly sen:,ihve p,ucel of land may also h~pact unique habita for endangered ctflka'alIy significant resources. Issues that should be ahkessed DE,S include preservafion of open space .'md Ihe character of flte community, pomnfi~ h~pacts to 8roundwater,a~d ~urrace w~tcr$, stonnwaier runoff and drainage hnpac~s as well as ~temadves. We bc!ie.,.e ;- t,e cumtllati,~e imf, actS of file proposed activity in lhis area Should be carefully - fac,htr~te a ~mdcm a~d fcu' sighted pkumi,g effort to allow die Towll [o ~est lllallage i[s Th,'u~k you for ~he oppormnis, [o review this application. If you have any q,~estions, please fcel flee to comacl the Office of Ecology at 852-2078. KS/amf cc: Vim IVlinei, P.E. St%[$~en Costa, F'r;mk Dowlh~g, SC Plamfing Sincerely Yours, Kimberly Shaw Sc, Envko~unental Aa~aly~ t Office of Ecology Southold Town Planning Board 18 January 10, ]99n Me~'.s.~Spiro: On this project, I don't think so. Mr. Mc~nald: I don't think we have a SEQR, so obvious'ly until you get a SEQR/et~.rmination from us, you can't go to the health. Yo~ can make the app~j_c_~tj .~ but they can'~ proceed. They won't act on ~t[ But get your paperwork to~her, and we 11 try to get the SEQR Bob. Baying: OK~.~_When talking to ~ob Kassner abou~,~he environmental im- pact portion of th~project, essentially we're waiting to hear from you and from Robert, and I h~'t heard, so Mr. McDonald: We're waiting to get, what's{n our minds, the completed plans. Bob Bayley: Whatever you Mr. Ward: Any other questions appreciate your submission and project going. Donald Curry: Fine, I ho~/so. Thank Mr. Ward: Is this the/ery first time ation on your own, ra/~her than Cai--wall. Donald Curry: Ye~,, it is. Mr. McDonald/There's not another building Donald Cur~: Not that I know of. Mr. War/.' We're going to be it, huh? Mr. ~wards: New York City. /~anald Curry: You've got to start somewhere. We'll pursue. the Board at this point? OK, well we we'll certainly try and keep the ~ing a fiberglass with the insul-- this any place? Mr. Ward: Is there anybody, before we close the meeting tonight, who would like to address the Board. We will be going into a work session following this meeting. Mr. O'Connetl: I'm here from the Southold Indian Museum. I couldn't really quite hear what happened as far as the Baxter situation is concern-- ed. Do I understand that you are putting off consideration of that to a later date? Mr McDonald: No, we issued a Positive Declaration on the environmental impact statement, which means he must prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement on this site. So we're going to bring all the issues up in this environmental review. Everything's got to be gone through, environmentally. Mr. O'Connell: And that's at a later time? Southold Town Planning Board 19 January 10, 1994 Mr. McDonald: The process begins now, and we'll hold a Scoping Session where we'll outline all the items which he must address in this statement. Mr. O'Connell: Does that mean that you're going to be working on it or talking about it tonight? Mr. McDonald: No. Melissa Spiro: You say you're from the Soutbold Indian Museum? Mr. O'Connell: Yes. Melissa Spiro: In writing up the letter for the Planning Board, we are sending a copy of what we did tonight to you, so you should get that in the mail. It's addressed to Walter Smith. Mr. Ward: The attorney for the applicant would like to say something. Charles Cuddy: Mr. O'Connell, I'm Charles Cuddy, we've talked on the phone. What I was going to ask the Board, and just so that you're aware of it, is that perhaps that at the end of this month or the beginning of next month we could set up the Scoping Session, so you would be aware, that's a time when you might want to come back, because we're going to try and narrow some of the issues that we're going to address. And we'll have people here to discuss the various issues. If we could maybe possibly schedule that for the 31st, or the following week, that would be helpful, but that's up to the Board. Mellssa Spiro: I've been sending a letter to the Indian Museum, letting them know, and the letter that is going out tomorrow tells thom that we're going to send them a letter when the Scopin~ Session is scheduled, so I don't want to leave anyone out. Mr. O'Connell: Unless there be any misunderstanding, the interest of the museum is simply to preserve, as a historical and archeological place, the inm~diate area where the fort was. Which I understand, the fort itself was about 3/4 of an acre. And an area around that 3/4 of an acre would be adequate for future parking, if you needed parking, to make that something our area would be proud of and would be something that really is one of the few historical and archeological places left in this whole area. So, that's our sole interest. We're not trying to suggest any way to place houses or anything else. We simply want that preserved and the other thing that would go with it is a means of access to it from either New Suffolk Rd. or Main Rd. or both. You would need that in order to ever have the fort area it-- self useful. That is the sole interest of the museum. So if you understand that, maybe you'll understand why we have an interest in it. It would a little bit more, maybe 5 or 6 acres surrounding the area where the fort was located. And the fort can be located physically on the property to do what we think someday might be needed to do. Thank you very much for letting me talk. Mr. Richard G. Ward, Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall P.O. Box 1179 Southold, N.Y. 11971 SUFFOLK COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION NASSAU COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL COMMITTEE INCORPORATED UNDER NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW P.O. Drawer AR, Stony Brook, New York 11790 (516) 929-8725 (516) 671-6641 January 7, 1994 Dear Mr. Ward and Members of the Planning Board, Re: Indian Shores Major Subdivision SCTM#1000-115-1-B The Board of Trustees of the Suffolk County Archaeological Association would like to comment on the proposed development of the 105.6 acre property on the west side of Downs Creek, named Indian Shores (aka Fort Corchaug). As part of the Lead Agency Coordination Process on this Type I action under SEQR, we want to clarify that Fort Corchaug is National Register site CU-61, and that the answer to question #6 on the Full EAF should be yes, the project area is contiguous to and contains a site listed on the State and National Registers of Historic Places. In Part 2, Project Impacts, Impact on Historic and Archaeological Resources, the answers to all parts of question 12 should be yes. Under Other impacts: impact to the archaeological remains of the prehistoric settlement pattern along the west bank of this creek will occur under this plan. The settlement pattern is composed of prehistoric sites representing different activity areas associated with the period of significance of the fort, including a village site, food procurement sites, mortuary remains, as well as other types of sites. Given the great significance and integrity of the Fort Corchaug site, we request that a high quality Cultural Resource Investigation be done, with thorough Stage la and lb, and Stage 2 Surveys, with maximum attention to identifying other sites in the project area which will be impacted by the plan. Once the sites have been defined, a clear plan for documentation of these resources should be carried out. A well thought out Mitigation Plan should be developed to lessen the impact to this important archaeological site. During any site work, professional archaeologists should be present, and given the authority to stop excavation of roads and foundations if cultural materials are encountered. We would like to emphasize, however, that archaeological resources are a non-renewable resource. Once gone, they are gone forever. The best position to take would be to preserve the site in situ, as it is. Native American forts are rare on Long Island, and the information contained in them is extremely important to Page Two Indian Shores our understanding of the prehistoric and Contact Period inhabitants of the North Fork and Long Island. The Secretary of the Interiors Standards, #8, states that "Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken." Specifically for this plan, we recommend that: 1) the terrain be surveyed to document any earthworks that may be associated with the fort. 2) the 5.4 acre area including the fort be increased to include the land to the south, which may contain the remains of the village site. 3) Lots #4 through #18 be reconsidered, since it is likely that the area along the creek will contain significant prehistoric archeological remains. 4) Lots #9 through #14 be reconsidered since Lots #9 and #10 are only 30 feet away from the wall of the fort, and Lots #13 and #14 are only 62 feet away. It is inconceivable that a house lot could be made so near to a Archaeological Site listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 5) allowance for surface disturbance, such as plowing, not be given as a reason for excluding some areas from investigation, since artifacts may be found deeper than the depth of a plow. Artifacts were found as deep as 3 feet, at sites in East Moriches, located all along the west bank of a creek, representing three different prehistoric occupations of the same resource zone. Artifacts associated with the Shinnecock Fort were found at depths of 4.5 feet, with the remains of earthworks. 6) the integrity of the site be kept intact. Ail efforts to preserve the site and its related sites should be made. The Fort Corchaug Archaeological Site is extremely significant for its integrity and rarity, and for the information it contains concerning the prehistoric inhabitants on Long Island. It is important to carefully assess the impacts the proposed Project will have on this site and take steps toward mitigation, possibly by redesign, the use of easements, or preservation. Corresponding Secretary FP'OI'I : DELTA ELE']]P!C - _Tar-,. 07 l-q'94 04: }~Prl F'I Pages to follow: FAX COVE~ SHEET ..AN I 0 199/ TO: Date~ Re: Planning Board Town of $outhold Suffolk county Archaeological Association~ January 7, 1994 Indian Shore~ Major subdivision Meeting January 10, 1994 comments: This iea corrected copy of the letter that was sent before. Please use this one to make copies for Board ~embers for th~ meeting on Monday. Thank you. TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FAX COVER SHEET Pages to follow 2 PLANNING BOARD Suffolk County Archaeological Assoc~ation January 7, 1994 Indian Shores Major S~bdivision Meeting January 10, 1994 Comments: I hoped to deliver thin by hand, but due to the snowy weather could you please xerox this and give one to each Board Member. Thank you. Please call 725-4252 ~f there are any quest:.ons. SUFFOLK COUNTY ARCi4AEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION NASSAU COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL COMMITTEE P,O, Drawer AR, Sto~y Brook,, New York 11790 ($16) 929-8725 ' (516) 67',-6641 ,January 7, 1994 Mr. Richard G. Ward, Chairman Southotd Town P~anning Soard Town Hall P.O. Box 1179 Southold, N oY. 11971 Dear Mr. Ward and Members of the Planning Board, Re: Indian Shores Major Subdivision SCTM# 1000-115-1-B Th~ board of Trustees of the Suffolk County Archaeological Association would like to comment on the proposed development of the 105.6 acre property on the west side of Downs C~eek, named Indian shores (aka Fort Corchaug). As part of the Lead Agency Coordination Process on this Type i action under SEQR, w.~ want to Clarify that Fort CorCbaUq is National Re~ister site CU~61, and that the answer to q~estion #6 on the Full EAF should be yes, Tl~e project area is contiguous to and contains a site l~.st-~ on the State and National Registers of H~.stor~c P]aces~ in Part 2, Project Impacts, Impact on H~.stor.ic and Areha{~otogical Resources, the answers to all parts of question 12 should be yes. Under Other impacts: impact to the archaeological remains of the prehistoric settlement pattern alo:~g the west bank of this creek will occur under this p!an~ Tho settlement pattern is composed of prehistoric sites repregenting ~lffe~ent actlv~ y areas associated with the period of significance of the fort, including a village site, food procurement sites, mortuary remains, as well as other types of sites. Given the great significance and integrity of the Fort Corchaug site, we request 'that a high quality Cultural ~ ~urc.. ~nvestigat]on be done, with thorough Stage la and lb, and Stage 2 Surveys, with maximum attention to identJ, fy~ng other sites in the project area which will be impacted Dy tile plan. Once the sites have been defined, a clear plat~ for documentation of these resources should be carried out. A well thought out Mitigation Plan should be developed to lessen the tmpact to this important archaeo!ogic~i site. During ally site work, professional . ~.~ ~e~ should be present, and given the authority to stop e×cava~lon of )loads and foundations if cultural materials a~e encountered. We would like to empi%asize, however, that archaeological resources are a non-renewable resource. Once go~e, they are gone forever. The best position take would be to preserve the site in sitU, as it is. are rare.on !,cng Is].and,oand th.~ Native American fgr~s information contained ~n t~e~ is extremely imp rtant our understanding of tbs prehistoric and Contact Period inhabitants of the North Fork and Long Island. The Secretary of the Interiors Standards, #8, states that "Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be 6isturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken.,, Specifically for this plan, we recommend that: !) the terrain be surveyed to document any earthwork~ that may be associated with the fort. 2) the 5.4 acre ares including the fort be increased inc!ud~ ~ ...s land to the south, which may contain the remains of the village site. to 3) Lots #4 through #18 b~ reconsidered, since it is likely that the ~rea along the creek will contain significant prenzs~or.~, archeologxcal remains. 4) Lots #9 through #1¢ be reconsidered since Lots #9 #10 ar~ only 30 feet away from the wall of the fort, ~nd Lots #13 and $14 are only 62 f~et away. It is inconceivsble that a house lot could be built so near to a ~:r~.ae,~ >~c,.l Site ~.~.ed on the National ~eglst~r Historic Places. 5) al~owance for surface disturbance, such as plotting, not be given ~s ~ reasoB for excluding some are~ from investigation, since artifacts may be found as deeper than the depth of a ~low. Artifacts were found as deep as feet, at ~itos ~n East Moriches, located al/ along west bank of a creek, representing three different p:?ehi~toric occupations of the same resource zone. Artifacts associated with the Shinnecock Fort were found at 4.5 feet along with the remains of earthworks. 7) tbs integrity cf the site be kep~ intact. All. effo:~ts tn pr~s~r~ ~h~ ~it~ a~d its related sites s~ouid be made. · The ~'ort Corchau~ Archaeological site is extreme!v s:gnlficant for ~ts integrity and rarity, and for the" information it onta~ns concerning the prehistoric inhabitants on Long Island. It is }.mportant to carefully assess the impacts tile proposed project will have on uhls site and t~k~ steps towar(~ mitigation, possibly by r'edesigD, tho use of easements, or preservation. Sincerely, Suza~f Smyth l{abib Corresponding Secretary E N VI RON M E NT.~J~/~ G CONSULTANTS January3,19~ Mr. Richard G. Ward, Chairman Southold p]nnnlno' Board Town Hall, 5309~Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Review of EAF -- Major Subdivision Indian Shores ~ il ~ SC'FM No. 1000-116-1-3 Dear Mr. Ward: :' ~ As per the your request, we have completed a preliminary review of the above referenced project. Tasks and completed activities are identified as follows: Review Part I LE/iF The parcel has been field inspected by CVA, and the I.F~AF has been reviewed and amended as necessary. A copy of same is attached. Z ~pare Part H I,F. dF . e Part II LEAF checklist has been completed and is also attached. Additional information concerning our findings is included below. Envbonmenta/and P/ann/rig Cons/dera~ns The parcel has been inspected and environmental references concerning the site and areahave been consulted. The site consists of 105.6 acres of land' of which app. roximately 53.6 acres is forested' and 45.5 acres is established in existing agricultural use. The balance of the project site (6.5 acres) consists of tidal wetlands. The proposed project involves subdividing the property into 42 lots. Of these lots, 39 would range b~.. twee. n. 40,.0~.. and 87,300 square feet in size and would be developed for single family resulential h~mesites. Lot 1 consists of 4.7 acres, and would be promot .ed as a farm related site (equestrian) with frontage on New Suffolk Avenue. 'll~e majority of the existing agricultural field would be divid, ed into ~tw.o lots of 12.1 acres and 20.5 acres each, and. .would be promoted for farming uses (vineyard). Two drainage areas would be provaded to accommodate stormwater generated from impervious surfaces. Finally, the proposal calls for retention of 5.4 acres of land as a p~k .a{l. d re~.eation ~ea. This parcel is located m the east centralpart of the site, comodent wath the pnmary location of a documented Indian' fort rite. T~.e. subjea, site is zoned Agriculture-Conservation District and requires lot s/zes of a l~mmm!!m size of 2 acres. The proposed development map is based on yield map of 42 units with required lot sizes. It is noted thatlots 38-42 border wetlands associated with Downs Creek. A line of wetlands is depi.ct, ed on the map; however, the source of _the wetlands location should ~ noted. If the line has not been verified by the Town Trnstees and the NYSDEC, this should be accomplished and so noted on the map. 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 Shorc~, Cu~chogu¢ Long F. APP. cvicw The yield map should be feaa"oly bnildable in accordance with recognized eoviro .mnen .t~....an.d zoning requirements. Accordingly, the exam. ~eld..sh.o. ul..d rem~tln uncertain until it rs demonstrated that lo~ 34-42 confo .nn to principal ,bulld~,ing wetlan .ds setbacks of 75 feet and the reqmred [ro. nt yard zo .m?~. semacxs, the m.ost constrained lot appears t.o be Lot 36, therefore, it_may, be advisable to have a ty~.lcal homesite depicted on th~.~ lot to demonstrate contornuty. Other aspects of the y~eld map appear to be consistent with zoning requirements. The environmental resources of the site have been reviewed as related to the proposed dev.e!opment. The eleva, tion of the property varies between appro~dmately 5 and30 feet w~th an average elevation of 20 feet over most of the central parts of the site. Slopes arc generally less than 6 percent, except in ar .ea._s where the elevation decreases eastward toward Downs Creek. Average slopes m. these are. as.are in the ran~ae of 12-18 percent with some locally greater slope~,, parti .oflarly wlthm proposed Lots 18-23. A variety of soft types are present on the site dominated by Plymouth loamy sand.(PIA, PIB and PIC.), .and also in.eluding Haven lo..mn, Riverhead sandy loam and Tidal Marsh. The gte rs located m Groundwater .M. anagement Zone IV but is not within the North Fork Water Budget Area. The elevatio.n o.f gr.oundwater beneath the site is approximately 1 foot above mean sea level, mdi .catmLa dep. th to water of 4-29 feet, with an average of 19 feet in the interior of the s~te. There rs adequate elevation on all of the proposed lots to allow for sighting of on-site sanitary disposal systems. In addition, the proposed density, of no more than 42 units is consistent with Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code for ground,w, .ater management. It is noted that the site is presently farmed, and may be subject t.o al~nlication of fertiliTers, thereby resulting in nitrogen load under present conditions. The area north of the site is identified as ]being subject to elevated nitrogen levels and the areas around and including the subject site are identified .as having aldicarb conmmlnation as a result of farming activities. Water supply rs proposed to be [rom an on site source, and on-site ~nitary disposal is proposed.. Water supply will require approval of the Suffolk County Department of Health Scvacos. The site includes a variety of habitats including first growth woods with dominant locust on the northern woodedportions of the site, city oak forest with dominant oak species on the southern wooded portions of the site, agricultural field on the western i~art of the site, and tidal marsh on the east side of the site. Wild!iCe or evidence bbserved on site during inspection included: white tailed deer, squirrel, chickadee, sparrows and other perching and songbirds. In addition, two great blue her.on.were observed in the agricultural field, and an active osprey nest was observed within the wetlands area south of New Suffolk Avenue. The wetlands are identified in the National Wetlands Inventory as estuarine, intertidal, emergent morsh. The wetlands are regulated under both Article 25 of the New York Environmental Conservation Law and the Town of Southold Wetlands Ordinance. It is noted that the majority of single family residential development is placed in the forested areas and Lots 4-9and 14-22 are all adjacent tidal wetlands. As noted in connection with the yield map, the wetlands should be confirmed by the regulating agencies to establish adequate development setbacks. The Town may wish to explore alternative open space co.zffigurations to preserve additional forested areas particularly in steep slope regions adjacent to tidal wetlands. Such concepts could work in connection with increased open space in connection with the identified Indian fort site. CRAMER, Vq~~SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT~~G CONSULTANTS Pal~e 2 RTho~rOposed project will generate traffic; however, there is dual access to Main and New Suffolk Avenue, with a proposed future tap to adjacent lands to the west. This distribution, and the adequacy of existing roads indicates that traffic impacts would be expected to be minor. The project is consistent with existing zonin~ and is compatible with surrounding land uses. Likewise the project is not expected to have a significant impact on community services or demography. The site contains sil~cant cultural sensitivity in the form of historic and archaeological resources. The site includes a documented Indian fort site, Fort Corchang~ Prelimina~ archaeological study was conducted by Ralph Solecki between 1936-1948 and doo!mented in a Master'sThesis (Solecki, 1949). The site has been nominated for the National Register of Historic Places. The concluding statement on the nomination form conc!udes the following: ".An almost, completely untouched area, the site holds ~.eat potenual for future exploration". Utilization of the site without underst_~a~aing the ramifications represents a potential irreversible and irretrievable loss of important cultural resources. Additional planning is warranted to determine the boundaries of the feature, with the intent of maintaining a significant portion of the site in a natural state for future cultural research. In addition to the Fort Corchang feature, there is partially extant historic farmhouse structure on the north part of the site. The structure exhibits hand-hewn beams, cut nail.% andplaster/lathe interior surfaces as we~ as other 19th century architectural features. Additional out= buildings and farm eqmpment is present in the vicinity. The area of first growth woods was likely cleared in connection with historic farming activities, and has since overgrown. The structure should be reviewed by a qualified architectural historian to document informotion regarding site and structure history prior to demolition. 4. Recommendations .Th.e si.te con..t..ai~..s., unique and valuable ecological features in the form of habitat diversity, and tidal wetlands. Forested areas with slopes in excess of 20 percent slope eastward toward, the tidal wetlands. This area is proposed to be divided into individual lots w~th the exception of a 5.4 acre recreation area including the Indian fort site. The boundary of the wetlands should be verified and referenced (ff this has not been done), and adequate wetlands setbacks should be ensured. Covenanted buffer areas should be established in the rear of lots backing on the wetlands. Consideration should be given to alternative cluster proposals that would preserve additional forested steeper slope areas adjacent the wetlands. It is noted that the subdivision map identifies %egetation retention buffers" in areas that are currently not. vegetated. The map should indicated if these ares are intended to be landscaped, or ff successional field vegetation will be allowed to grow in these areas. The site contains uniqu.e historic and archaeological resources. A Stage I Cultural Resources Assessment is recommended in order to update and compile all available archival an.d field documentation of the significance of these resources on the site. Through this study, efforts s.hould be mede to further determine the boundaries of the Fort Corc.haug Indian fort rote and related use areas. Preservation of a conservative area that includes these resources is encouraged in order to provide a means for future archaeological research. As an alternative, recovery of archaeological ENVIRONMENT.~q~~G CONSULTANTS Pa~3 Shores, Cutchogue Loog F_,AF Review resources could occur prior to development of some are...as on. the fringe of the .I~.dian fort and activity areas in order to provide a mea.rts of utd~7~tion of this .hind. ffthe current configuration of land development, leaving only a 5.4 acre area is pursued,, docmnentation of the relative cul .tural insignificance or recovery of archaeological information would be reqmred prior to approval of the such a development proposal. The Indian Shores project as proposed is expected to have .a potential significant impact, on. ecololp'cal and. wetlands resour .~s.. In addition,, ~e I~roject is exl~. ed to r_ .~.ul.t in h-reversible and Lrretnevable loss of histonc and archaeological resources.. AS a result it is. recommended that additional environ, men .tal docume, nta. tio. n be l~rep~r, ed ,m order to~orovid, e a menns to assess the signlficallce of these impacts, obtmn mput ti'o__m mvolveg.a_g.enc~es aha the commtlBity~ and research possible alternatives and mitigation. 'l~e most eftioe, nt mean~ of ac. hi.'eving this would be through an.Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This letter provides a si!rurality of resources and unpack.., and wo .uld serve to 'scope down' the content of an ElS to those issues w. hich re.quire detailed ~nalysis. This would make the process more efficient and allow for prolect review under the framework of the EIS doc~ment. If you have a .~. questions or wish any further input with regard to this matter, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, Charles $. Voorhis, CEP, AICP enc: Long EAF Part I, II CRAMER, V~ ~J~SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT~~G CONSULTANTS Page4 Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form. Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. ' It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve ne~v studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. NAME OF ACTION Indian Shores Subdivision LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Streel Addgesa, Munlclpallly and Courtly) Main Road, Cutchogue NAME OFAPP$ICANTISPONSOR William J. Baxter, Jr., and Estate of William J. Baxter IBUSINE$STELEPItONE t516t 369-8200 ADDnESS c/o Charles R. Cuddy, 180 Old Country Road, Post Office Box 1547 CITY/PO Ri verhead, NewYork ISTATE IzIPc°DE NAME OF OWNER (if dUlerenll N Y 11901 (same) I BUSINESS TELEPHONE "ADDRESS ( ClTYIPO DESCRIPTION OF ACTION STATE I ZIP CODE Major subdivision of !.05.6 acres, SCTM #1000-116-1-3 Subdivision sketch plan "Cluster Map Indian Shores" dated August 16, 1993 Please Complete Each Queslion-lndicale N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description ' Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: I~Urban FIIndustrial ;~:Forest ~Agriculture 2. Total acreage of project area: 105.6 APPROXIMATE ACREAGE Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) Forested []Cotnmercial (3Other acres. E]Residential (suburban) PRESENTLY 0.0 acres 53.6 . acres Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24. 25 of ECL) Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces 4 5.5 acres 6.5 acres 0.0 acres 0. I~ acres I1 0 acres r-lRural (non-farm) AFTER COMPLETION 3.0 acres 34.1 acres 43.0 acres 6.5 acres 0.0 acres 2.0 acres 7. C) acres Other (Indicate type,t 1 awn q & land~ca~ areas 3, What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? adA, a. Soil drainage: ~Well drained 94 % of site ~Poorly drained , 6 % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are c assif ed w t ~ Land Classification System? 45.5 acres. (See I NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? ~Yes ~No a. What is depth to bedrock? N.A. (in feet) ~00~ ~ 0.0 acres ~ 0 acres FIMo~erately w/ell drained ~"-'~"~o ot soil group 1 ti)rough 4 of Ihe NYS 4, r;~'7"':';-'g--~ · 6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on th~ State or the Nalional Registers of Historic Places? E3Yes X~o ,,~'~ ~M~,.~'r~ 7. Is project substantially contiguous lo a site listed on the Register o~ National Natural Land ~arks? ~Yes ~No 0. What is the depth of the water tablel 0-30 .(in fee~) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole s~urce aquiferl ~Yes ~No 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project areal ~Yes ~No 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered~ ~Yes ~o According to Youn~ & YouR~t L.S. ' 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) ~Y~s ~No Describe .Pair of ¢~e s[~e ]~ con~guouR ~0 Do~ns 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area~ ~Yes ~No I~ yes, explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the communityl ~No 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: Oo~ns a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary. Pp~nn 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to pro)ect area: a.'Name DOWelS Creek b. Size (In acres) 20+ acres 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? ~3Yes f-INo a) If Yes. does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? [~Yes [:]No b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? Y[3Yes I-INo ';18. Is lhe site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA. Section 303 and 304? C]Yes glNo 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a. Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article · of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 [~Yes []]No 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or haza[dous wastes? I-lyes []N(~ B. Project Descr!ption 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a, Total contiguous acreage owne}J or controlled by project sponsor 105,6 b. Project acreage to be developed: 22,0 acres initially; 22.0 c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 83.6 acres. d. Length of pro)ect, in miles: n/a Jif appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed n/a %; f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing 0 ; proposed 04 . g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour 1 9. {~ (upon completion of project)? h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Initially 42 Ultimately ' 42 acres. acres ultimately. Condominium i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure n/a heighl; .width; length. j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? ft. 1500 ft. rain S.R. 25 t 100 New Suffolk Avenue 2: 't'li°:v much natural malerial ti. ' eartl'L etc.) '.'viii be removed from ton~/cubic y:~rds 3~ Will disturbed areds he reclaimed? ~Yes ~No ~N/A a. Ii yes. Jot what intend., purpose is the site being reclaimed1 Pestdentta] deve]opmen~ b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation( ~Yes ~No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclama/ion~ ~Yes ~No 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be temoved from site~ ~ ~. 0acres. 5. Will any mature [otest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by Ibis project( ~Yes ONo 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 48 7. If multi-phased: not, applicable (n/a) a. Total number of phases anticipated . (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 c. Approximate completion date of final phase d. Is phase I functionally dependent on subsequent phases? 8. Will blasting occur during construction? l-lyes 9. Number of jobs generated: du~ing construction . 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project none 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilitiesi~ months. (including demolition). month year, (including demolition). month year. []Yes ; after project is complete 0 [Yes ~[~No If yes, explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? i-lyes ~No a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount , b. Name of Water body into,.which effluent will be discharged., 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? [~Yes [No Type S a n 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? [3Yes Explain 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? ~Yes l-lNo 16. Will the project generate solid wastei' )/~lYes E]No a. If yes, what is the amount per month .. 6.3 tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? [~Yes nNo c. If yes, give na. me Town of SouthoId ; location Cutcho~]ue d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill?[~Yes e. If Yes, explain recyclab]es FINo 17. Will the project involve the disppsal of solid waste? a. 1( yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? . b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? 1§. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? ~]Yes [Yes ~No tons/month. years. [No ]awn care 19, Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? OYes 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding lee local ambient noise levels? []-]Yes' ~No 21. Will project result in an inciease in energy use? X~lYes (:]No If yes . indicate type(s) P] ~nt.t'f e,~ ] 22. I[ waler 3upply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity 1 0 gallons/minute. 23. Total anticipated water usage per day ~.: 6013 gallons/day· + irrigation 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? I-lYes ~No : If Yes, explain, : Cil¥'. Town. \ iU,,ge board City. Towl~. \"illat;e Planning I]oard DB ~Ye: L']No City, Town Zoning Board ~Ye~ City. Count,; Health Department CO. ~iYes ' [3Mo Other Local AgenciesTOt'/n Trustees ~¥es ONo Other Regional Agencies ~Yes [3No State A§encies r~Yes rtNo Federal Agencies I-lyes ~]No subdivision uater suppiy/sewage disposa! ~etiands subdivision wetlands ONo C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zonin~ decision? ~]Yes ONo If Yes, indicate decision required: [3zoning amendment Ozonin~ variance {:]special use perndt [~subdivision [3site plan Onewhevision ot master plan [3~esource management plan Ootber 2. What is the zoning classification(s)ol file site? A/C r~,qrJ, cu].¢ural-Conserva~iorl 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site it developed as permitted by the present zoning? 42 resident~a! lots 4, What is tile proposed zoning of tile $ite~ n/a ~. What is tile maximum potential developmen~ of the site if developed as permitted b~ tile proposed zonin§~ ~ 6. Is the proposed action coasts'tent with tile recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? X~Yes 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications witlfin a 'A mile radius ol proposed action? Zoning: A-C Agricultural Conservation Use: Agriculture $.bmit;al Dale Sept. 1993 8. Is tile proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a 'A mile? X~]Yes {:]No 9. If tile proposed action is Ihe subdivision ol land. how many lots are proposed? 42 a. What is tile minimum lot size proposed? . 38,000 sq. ft. . 10. Will propos,ed action require any authorization(s) for tile [ormation of sewer orwater districts? ~Yes ~No 11. Will the proposed action c[~ate a demand for any community provided se[vices {recreation. education, police, lire protection}{ ~Yes a. Il yes. is exisling capacity su[[icient Io handle projected demandr ~Yes ~No 12. Will the proposed action result'in the generalion of traffic significantly above present levels? ~Yes X~No a, If yes. is the existing road nelwork adequate to handle the addiliona[ traffic~ D. Informatlonal Detalia Attach any additional Information as may be needed lo cla[ify your project. If Ihere are or may be any adverse Impacts associaled with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measu[es which you propose to miligale or E. VerllJcalion I ~e~li[y Ibat the Into[mai!on provided above is I[ue Io the best o[ my knowledge. ApplicanUSpon~o~ Name ~W~l][a~J. Baxter, Jr. Date 9/3/93 IIIheatlionisinlbeCoasla ~ea, amlyouareaslaleagency, complelelbeCoasl~lAssessmenlformbeforeproceedlng w I ~ I ds assessmenl. N~TH F0~BA~K & TRUST C0. '5 Part 2--PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE · ' Req>o~bl~lty of te~d General Informatlofl (Read Carefully) · In completini the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and ,~-.terminations been rea~able! The reviewer is no~ expected to be an expert envkonmental analyst. · Identifyinl that an Impact will be potentially large (column 2) do~s not mean that it is also necessarily Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. · The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by'showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would t~iuer a responsa in column 2. The examples are Ben, rally applicable throughout the State an, for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other eocamples an~o~ lower thresholds may be appropdat: fo~ a Potential Large Impact re~lx~se, thus ~cluiring evaluatio~ in Part 3. · The impacts of each p~oject, on each site, in each locality, will va~. Therefore, the examples are illustrative an, have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaust~e list of impacts and thre-~olds to answ~' each que~-t~on · The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each questino. · In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumlative effects. ImtruCtlon~ (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be an7 impact. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a question then cbeck the appropriate box (column 1 o~ 2) to indicate th~ potential size of th impact. If impact threshold equals or exce~s any example prov~ed, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshol is lower than example, check column 1. d. If reviewer has doubt about size of th~'impact then considei ~ impact as pote~t~lly large and proceed to PART e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitiffated by change(s) [n the i~'oj~ct to a small to moderat impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicate~ that ~uch a reduction is not poss~'ble. Th · must be explained in Part 3. IMPACT ON LAND ...... ' - to the project !it~ 1. Will the proposed actkxl result Example~ that would apply to column 2 · Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise pe~ 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the proiect area exceed 10%. · Construction on land where the depth to the water table is le~s than 3 feel · Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehiclm. · Construction on land where I:~:lrock is expose~ or generally wRhin 3 feet of existing ground surface. · . Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or invoiv~ more than one phase or stage. · Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil} per year. · Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. · Construction in a designated floodway. · Other impacts I 2 3 Sm~ll to Potential Ca~n impact E Moderate Large Mitigated BI -'c~t*' ~mpact Project C~i 0 0 OY~ O~ 0 0 OY~ O~ 0 0 OYe~ O~ 0 0 OY~ O~ 0 0 OY~ O~ 0 0 OYes 0 2. will there be an effect tr. -.,y un,que or unusual land fo~s found on the sitei' (i.e., cliffs, duneS, geological formations, etc.)/~NO I-lYES · Specific land forms: IMPACT ~WATER 3 Will proposed action affect any wate~ body designated as protected? (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conse~at[on Law, ECL) /~NO OYES · Example~ that would apply to column 2 · Developable area of site contains a protected water body, · Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material'from channel of a protected stream. e Extensio~ of utility distribution facilities through · p~otected water b~xly. · Construction in a designated freshwater or t~al wetland. · Other impacts: 4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected e×isti~N~)newoyl~~ of water? Example~ that would apply to column 2 · A 10% increase or decrease in the sudace area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. · Construction of a body bf water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. · Other impacts: " 5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater qu.ality or quantity? ONO ,,~ES EumpJes that would apply t~ column 2 e Propo~"d Action will require ~ discl',arge permit. · Proposed Action requires use of a ~>urce of water that does not have approval to. serve pm~(pm~ect)action. · Pro~ Action 'requires wate.r supply from wells with greater than 45 ~allons per minute pumpin~ Capacity. · Construction of operation cattslng a~y contamination of · water supply system.' · Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. · Liquid effluent will be conveye~ off the site to facilities wh;ch presently do not exist or have inadequate capaciW. · proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day. · Proposed Action will ]ikel,' cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of wat~'~ t,~ the e>:tcnt that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. · Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. . · Proposed Action Will allow residential uses in areas'without water and/or sewer services. · Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. ·Other impacts: patterns, or surface Will proposed action alter drainage flow or ,~NO OYES water runoffl E~z.'~plt~ that would apply to column 2 P~op~,s,ed Action v, ogJd c~nge flood water fJc~s 1 ~ll~dael I to rate Impact O O [] D O 0 O 0 [] [] [] 0 2 Potential Large Impact O O [] 0 0 O 0 0 [] [] [] [] [] [] 3 J C&n Impact Be J Mitigated By J PrOject Change OYes ONo OYes ONo f-lyes I-]No OYes J~NO OYes I-]No []]]Yes ONc OYes ONe OYes OYes ON, OYes OYes E]N OYe~ :'ON OYe~ ON E]Yes ON OYes ON OYes E]~ OYes Oh O~ OYes Or OYes OYes [] · Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. · Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. · Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON ~IR 7. Will proposed action affect air quality~ /~O imlYES E~mples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action will induce 1.000 or more vehicle trips in any given · Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. · Emission rate of total contaminan~ will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. · Proposod action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial use. · Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development within existing industrial areas. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? {:]NO ~ES Examples that Would apply to column 2 ~ · Reduct3cm of or~ or more specie~ listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. · Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitaL · Application of pesticide or herbicide more than t~ice a year, other than for agricultural purposes. · Other imf 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-~reatened or non-endangered species? CNG .,~ES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. · Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10. Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resourcest' QNO [OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) S4~all to Mo~ate O O O 0 [] [] [] [] [] 0 0 [] [] C3 [] Sotantlal Large Impact O [] O O [] [] [] [] [] [] Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change OYes Ohio OYes ONo OYes ONo OYes OYes [:]No OYes []]}No OYes [:]No OYes [:3No OYes [:3No OYes FINo OYes '[:]No OYes F-iNo l-lyes []No [:]No OYes F-INo CNG OYes [:3No Srn~t to · Construction activity would excavate or comPact the ~oil profile of I-'1 agricultural land. · The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres F"I of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultural District. more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. · The prop~ actio~ would dbrupt o~ prevent installation of airicultural I"1 land management systems (e.l., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping);, o~ create · need for such me,Mutes (e.g. cause & farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) · Other impacts: IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? C]NO (if necessary, use the Visual gAF Addendum in Section'61?.21, Appendix B.) ' Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from ['"J or in sharp conuast to current surrounding land use patterns, whet~r' man-made or natural· , · Proposed land uses, or project components' visible' tO users of [] aesthetic resources which will eliminate o~ significantly reduce their · enjoyment of the' aesthetic qualities of that resource. Project components that will result in the elimination or significant ~creening of scenic views known to be important to the area. · Other impacts: [] IMPACT ON HISTORIC ANO ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, p. re- historic or paleontological importance? C]NO Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially [] contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. · Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the [] project site. · Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for [] archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. · Other impacts: [] IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? _ Examples that would apply to column 2 riNG ,t~ES (.. )The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunm~. [] "~"A major reduction of an o~oen space ..... important to the c~mu_n~.~L.. · Other impacts: M~ll'ate I~l~ct Potential Large Imp·ct [] [] [] Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project C~nge []Yes [3Yes [3No I-lyes []No []Yes []No []Yes []No DYes []No []Yes []No []Yes •No []Yes /~Yes []No ,,~Yes []No I-lyes []No I-lYes []No f-lyes •No OYes I'-INo '~ IMPACT ON qONSP,O, RTATION 14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation s~j~ [OYES E,amples that would apply to column 2 * Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. * Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON ENEROY 15. Will proposed action affect the community's source) of fuel or energy supply~' ,~O F'IYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of any form of energy in the municipality. · Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an ener~, transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. · Other impacts: NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibra~(~s a result of the Prc~posed ActJo~t' * ' OYESr Examples that would apply to column 2 · Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. · Odors will qccut routinely (more than o~e hour per day). · Proposed Ac~o~ will produce oper'~fin$ noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for n~ise outside of structures. · Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17, Will Proposed Action affect public health and saf~NO [OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset Conditions, or there may be a chronic Iow level discharge or emission. · Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, hishly reactive, radioactive, irrltatin~ infectious, etc.) · Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural gas or other flammable liquids. · Pro'posed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2,000'feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. · Other impacts: IJ~a ii to erate Impact O O D [] O O [] 2 Potential Large Impact O O D [] O O [] 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 $ Can Impact E Mitigated By Project Chang DYes ON< []Yes ON, O~, []Yes E~N- OYes ON []Yes [ON OYes F'lYes OYe~ []Ye~ DYes OYes [] OYes OYes t- OYes OYes IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD will proposed'action affect the character of the existing comm.un~tyf 18. . ONO /I~E S Eaample~ that would apply to column 2 · The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located is likely to grow by more than $%. · The municipal bedlet for capital expenditures o~ operating services will increase by more than 596 per year as a result of this project. · ProPOSed actio~ will conflict with officially adopted pi·ns or goals. · Proposed action will cause · change in the density of land use. · Pro.posed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. · Development will create a demand for additional community services (e,g. schools, police and fire, etc.) · Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. · Proposed Action will Create or eliminate employment. ' · Other impacts: ~ 2 II to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change 0 E) OYes · 0 0 OYes riND 0 0 OYes ONo ~0 C) OYes ONo I-1 OYes 0~o [] O OYes ONo 0 0 OYes ONo · O OYes ONo [] O OYes ONo 19. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? ONO ~ES If Any Action in Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or It You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 Part 3--EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of Lead Agency Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(s) is considered to be potentially ~arle, even il the impactts} rn~y [ mltlptc'~. Instructions Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1. Briefly describe the impact. 2. Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change( 3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is importanL~. To answer the question of importance, consider: · The probability of the impact occurring · The duration of the impact · Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value · Whether the impact can or will be controlled · The regional consequence Of the impact · Its potential divergence from local needs and goals · Whether known obiections to the project relate to this impact. (Continue on attachments) Orin Lehman New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau Peebles Island, PO Box 189, Waterford, New York 12188-0189 518-237-8643 December 23, 1993 Mr. Richard G. Ward Chairman, Southold Planning Board Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Ward: Re: SEQRA Indian Shores Subdivision Southold, Suffolk County 93PR2466 The Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) has received the documentation you provided on your project. As the state agency responsible for the coordination of the State's historic preservation programs, including the encouragement and assistance of local preservation efforts, we offer the following comments. The OPRHP has no objection to the Town of Southold Planning Board assuming lead agency status for this project. Please consider this agency as an interested party in this review. The proposed Indian Shores Major Subdivision contains multiple known archeological sites. Therefore, it is our very strong recommendation that an archeological survey be conducted for this parcel. Attached is a list of qualified archaeologists. Please note that if any State Agency is involved in this undertaking, it is appropriate for that agency to determine whether consultation should take place with OPRHP under Section 14.09 of the New York State Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law. In addition, if there is any federal agency involvement, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations, "Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties" 36 CFR 800 require that agency to initiate consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Agency prrnted on recycled pape~ Mr. Richard G. Ward December 23, 1993 Page 2 If you have any questions or comments on this matter, please call me at (518) 237-8643, ext. 280. Sincerely, Field Services Bureau JPW:gc Attachment: "A Word About Archeological Surveys" New York State Office of Parks. Recreation and Historic Preservation Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau Peebles island. PO Box 189, Waterford, New York 12188-0189 A Word About Archeoloqical Surveys 518-237-8643 The nature and extent of archeological resources in a project area, if any, are most efficiently determined by a two-step process. First, it is necessary to determine whether archeological resources actually exist in your project area. As stated in the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation's cover letter, there is a likelihood based on known sites in the immediate vicinity, that archeo!ogical resources may be present in your specific project area. Generally, a qualified archeologist, as defined by the Department of Interior's Standards, will conduct a literature and file search to define which specific types of cultural resources are likely to be encountered. Following this, the archeologist will conduct a field investigation in which subsurface testing will be the major component, unless the presence or absence of resources can be determined by direct observation. Surveys of this nature can be expected to vary in cost per mile of right-of- way or by the number of acres impacted and we encourage you to contact a number of consultants to obtain the best product. If sites have been identified, it is then necessary to conduct a more detailed site examination study of each resource. The purpose of this study will be to answer the question: is th£s particular archeologLcal site significant enough to meet the criteria for listing on the State and NatLonal Registers of Historic Places? The extent of this more detailed investigation is dependent upon the type of archeo!ogLcal site under consideration. The following is a list of archeological contractors who wish to be considered for such work in New York State and who have submitted documentation which demonstrates that they meet the qualifications of the National Park Service's 36 CFR 61. The list is provided as a convenience only and suggested additicns are always welcome. The activity that is the subject of this publication has been financed in part with Federal funds from the National Park Service, Department of Interior. However the costents and opinioms do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the Interior, nor does the mention of trade names or products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the Department of the Interior. The activity has beee administered by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreat£on and Historic Preservation. This program receives Federal funds from the National Park Services. Regulations of the U.S. Department of the Interior strictly prohibit unlawful discrimination in departmental Federally Assisted Programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, age or hand£cap. Any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against in any program, activity or facil£ty operated by a recLpient of Federal assistance should write to: Director, Equal Opportunity Program, U.S. Department Of the Interior, National Park Service, P.O. BOM 37127, Washington, D.C. 20013-7127. An Equal OpportunRy/AUirmadve Action Agency CONTRACTORS FOR ARCHBOLOGICAL SURVEYS Page 2 NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE/FAX Flora Church Lori Frye Shaune M. Skinner Christopher Stevenson Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Jan[ce Artemel Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Thomas R. Baker, Ph.D. Prehistoric Archeoloy Historic Archeology Kenneth J. Basa!ik Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology David Bernstein/Linda Barber Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Connie Cox Bodner, Ph.D. Prehistoric Archeology Eugene J. Boesch Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology John R. Bozell Prehistoric Archeology Sylvie C. Browne Historic Archeology Hetty Jo Brumbach Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Archeologica! Services Coesultants, Inc. 4620 Indianaola Avenue Columbus, OH 43214 (614) 268-2514 Engineering-Science Inc. 1133-15th Street, N"W Washington, DC 20005-2701 (202) 775-3495 (FAX) 775-3446 Garrow & Associates, Inc. 1101 LigonLer Street P.O. Box 919 Latrobe, Pennsylvania 15650-0919 (412) 532-1860 (F~I) 532-1863 CHRS Inc. 403 E. Walnut Ave. North Wales, PA 19454 (215) 699-8006 Institute for Long Island Regional Archeology Department of Anthropology State University of New York Stony Brook, NY 11794-4364 (516) 632-7615 Research Division (716) 271-4320 Rochester Museum & Science Center Ext. 345 657 East Avenue, Box 1480 (FAX) 271-5935 Rochester, NY 14S03-1480 RFD #1 Box 188 Barrett Hill Road Mahopac, NY 10541 (914) 628-3826 (914) 337-6993 Anthropology Department Nebraska State Historical Soc. P.O. Bo× 82554 Lincoln, NE 6~50! (402) 471-4789 199 Second Street Troy, NY 12180 (518) 274-6959 Associate Curator Office: Anthropology Home: Department of Anthropology Social Sciences Building ~263 State University of New York Albany, NY 12222 (518) 442-5756 (518) 783-0346 CONTRJ%CTORS FOR A-RCHEOLOGICAL SURVEYS Page 3 NAM~ Kirk Butterbaugh Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Alfred Canuuissa Prehistoric Aurcheology Historic Archeology John c. Carbonara Prehistoric Ronald C. Carlisle, Ph.D. William Creighton Johnson Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Isabella Champ!in Prehistoric Archeology Michael A. Cinquino, Ph.D. Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Jay Cohen Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Edward V. Curtin Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Jeanette Collamer Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Garrett Cook Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology ADDP~ESS 428 West Delavan Avenue Buffalo, NY 14213 TELEPHONE/FAX Trackar Archaeology Services P.O. Box 2918 North Babylon, NY 11703 (516) 321-1380 Buffalo State College 1300 E!mwood Avenue Buffalo, NY 14222-1095 Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Cultural Resources Section Airport Office Park Building 3, 5th Floor 420 Rouser Road Coraopo!is, PA 15108 (412) 269-2049 (FkX) 269-2048 110 St.;arts Hall U. of Pittsburg at Bradford Bradford, PA 16701 (814) 382-7623 Pa.,= ..... ~a.. Consultants, Inc. P.O. Box 369, 5512 Broadway Lancaster, NY 14086 (716) 688-4198 EnviroPlan Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 3~79, Page Park 229B Manchester Road Poughkeepsie, NY 12603 (914) 454-1606 38 S. Main Stre_~o~ Castleton, NY 12033 (518) 732-4489 Sk£dmore Archaeological Survey (518) 584-5000 Box 2214, Skidmore College Ext. 2592 Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 (FA2() 584-3023 Co!lamer & Associates, Inc. 114 Gardner Hill Road East Nassau, NY 12062 73 Dove Street Albany, NY 12210 (518) 766-5387 (518) 428-9624 (F.mD() 428-9624 North Country Research Services P.O. Box 276 Hannawa Falls, NY 13647-0276 (315) 262-2120 ~-R OLOGICAL SURVEYS CONTRACTORS FOR Page 4 Deborah Cox Prehistoric Archeology Mistoric Archeology Nancy Davis Prehistoric Archeology Mistoric Archeology Robert Dean/W. Barbour, Ph.D. Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Joseph Diamond Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology John V. Dumont, Ph.D. Prehistoric Archeology J~es P. Dwyer Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology April Fehr Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Gillian A. Flynn Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Joan H. Geismar, Ph.D. Historic Archeology Michael Gimigl[ano, Ph.D. Historic Archeolog~ Joel Grossman, Ph.D. Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Susan D. Grsyboweki Prehistoric Archeology Susan S. Habib Prehistoric Archeology Prehistoric Archeology ADDRESS Public Archeology Laboratory, Inc 387 Lonsdale Avenue Paw~ucket, RI 02860 407 Elk Street Albany, NY 12206 TELEPHONE/FA~ (401) 728-8780 Dean & Barbour Associates, Inc. Archeological & Environmental Services 762 Auburn Avenue Buffalo, NY 14222-1417 Rd. 7, Box 50 Kingston, NY 12401 (716) 885-0259 (FAX) 883-1297 (914) 338-0091 139 North Union St., Apt. 7 Lambertville, NJ 08530 5705 Solway Street Pittsburg, PA 15217 (609 397-8263 (412) 257-6020 R. Christopher Goodwin Associates, Inc. 636A Solarex Court Frederick, }ID 21701 (301) 694-0428 (F~) 695-5237 Flynn Archeo!ogical Consultants Hic~man Estate, Route 44 Pleasant Valley, NY 12569 (914) 635-1249 40 East 83rd Street New York, NY 10028 (212) 734-6512 (FkX) 650-1521 P.O. Box 383 Newton, NJ 07860 (201) 579-1847 Gross~an and Associates, Inc. 201 East 16th Street, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 (212) 473-2259 (FAX) 473-2595 Anthropology Department SUNY at Stony Brook Stony Brook, NY 11794-4364 (516) 632-7620 Box 75, Meadowlark Lane Sag Harbor, NY 11963 (516) 725-0131 Apartment 38 (716) 773-9218 2966 Grand Island Blvd. Grand Island, NY 14072 CONT~CTORS FOR ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEYS Page 5 NA/%E ADDP~S$ Karen Hartgen Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Robert J. Hasenstab Prehistoric Archeology Charles Hayes/Brian Nagel Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Janice Henke Prehistoric Archeology John Hotcpp - Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Richard Hunter Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Jack B. Irion Diane Beynon, Ph.D. Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Stephen R. James, Jr. Historic Archeology Anne Marie Jensen Glenn W. Sheehan Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Ed Johannemann Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Neil Johnson Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Hartgen ArcheoIogical Associates, Inc. 27 Jordan Road Troy, NY 12180 TELEPHONE/FAX (518) 283-0534 (FAX) 283-6276 Bagdon Environmental Assoc. 3 Normanskill Boulevard Delmar, NY 12054 (518) 439-8588 Rochester Museum & Science Center 657 East Avenue, Box 1480 Rochester, NY 14603 (716) 271-4320 (F~) 271-5935 P.O. Box 173 Argyle, NY 12809 LouLs Serger & Associates, Inc. 100 Ha!sted Street East Orange, NJ 07019 (201) 678-1960 Hunter Research, Inc. 714 S. Clinton Avenue Trenton, NJ 08611 (609) 695-0122 (FAX) 695-0147 Archaeology Managers GAI Consultants, Inc. 570 Beatty Road Monroeville, PA 15146 (412) 856-6400 (412) 373-4100 Underwater Archaeological Consortium 1980 Munson Road Memphis, TN 38134 (301) 373-4632 SJS Archeological Services, Inc. Continental Business Center Suite A-10 Bridgeport, PA 19405 or 386 Middle Road Ballston Spa, NY 12020 (215) 272-3144 (215) 828-7381 (518) 884-9259 Long Island Archaeology Project Oak Drive Ca!verton, NY 11933 (516) 727-3527 Headwaters Environmental Services R.D. 2 Box 688 (814) 228-3337 Genesee, PA 16923 CONTRACTORS FOR ~%RCHEOLOGICA/~ SURVEYS Page 6 NAF~ Robert Kalin Prehistoric Archeology Barry Kass Prehistoric Archeology David B. Kieber Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Cece Kirkorian/Besty Kearns Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Joel Klein, Ph.D. Sydne Marshal, Ph.D. Prehistoric Archeology HistorLc Archeology Stephanie R. Korobov Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Lucianne Lavin, Ph.D. Prehistoric Archeology Edward Lenik Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Christopher Lindner, Ph.D. Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Barbara J. Little, Ph.D. Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Mark S. LoRusso Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Ann Mabe, Ph.D. Prehistoric Archeology ADDRESS Archeological Services Inc. P.O. Box 5122 Rocky Point, NY 11778 or Suffolk County ComMunity College Selden, NY 11778 BTK Associates, Inc. 952 West Kaisertown Road Montgomery, NY 12549 Ken W. Kloeber Consulting Eng. 8397 Boston State Road Boston, NY 14025 Histor[cai Perspectives P.O. Box 331 RivsrsLde, CT 06878 ESASCO BervLces Inc. 160 Chubb Avenue Lyndhurst, NJ 07071 TELEPHONE/FAX (516) 744-8047 (FAX) 744-6617 (516) 451-4354 (914) 457-3039 (FAX) 692-8919 (716) 941-5544 (203) 698-1147 (FAX) 698-1147 (201) 460-5907 (FAX) City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants 726 Carroll Street Brooklyn, NY 11215 Archaeological Research Spec. P.O. Box 612 Oxford, CN 06483 Sheffield Archeo. Consultants 24 HLgh Street Butler, NJ 07405 Hudso~ia Ltd. Bard College Annanda!e-on-Hudson, NY 12504 7101 Wiscomsin Avenue Suite 700 Bethesda, Maryland 20814-4870 12 Russell Road Albany, NY 12203 RD 2, Box 1080 Mansfield! PA 16933 (718) 965-3560 (203) 888-8597 (201) 492-S525 (914) 758-6822 Ext. 363 (301) 652-2215 (FAX) 656-8059 (516) 459-6813 (717) 549-8!73 CONTR3%CTORS FOR ~d{CHEOLOG!CAL SURVEYS Page 7 ADDRESS Ellis McDowell-Loudan, Ph.D. Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Jo-Ann McLean Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Charles L. Miller, II Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Robert Miller, Ph.D. Janice Rees-Mitler Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology R. Joseph Murphy Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Daniel Myers Prehistoric Archeology H£storic Archeology Brian L. Nage! Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Ben Nelson Prehisteric Archeology Historic Archeology Thomas W. Neumann Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Donna I. Ottusch-Kianka Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Stephen Oberon Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Soc/Anthro. Dept. Box 2000, SUNY College Cortland, NY 13045 Jo-Ann McLean Archeolcgical Consultants 4 Dunne Place Lynbrook, NY 11563 Butterbaugh & Miller Archeo. Consultants, Inc. 428 West Delavan Avenue Buffalo, NY 14213 Archeolcgica! Consultants 594 Main Street Northport, NY 11768 112 Glenview Parkway Syracuse, NY 13219 Epochs Past 339 Fairhaven Road Dunkirk, MD 20754 Rochester Museum & Science Center Research Division 657 East Avenue, Bo:( 1480 Rochester, NY 14603 Archeologica! Survey SUNY Buffalo Buffalo, NY 14261 Public Archaeology 404-9 Ivy Ridge Road Syracuse, NY 13210 62 Dubois Ave. Sea Cliff, NY 11579 Heritage A~nerica Ltd. Suite 144, 521 Route 211 E. Middletown, NY 10940 TELEPHONE/FAX (607) 753-2485 (516) 887-2430 (716) 836-3906 (716) 882-3584 (516) 757-6244 (FAX) 757-6113 (315) 468-5070 (301) 257-3264 (716) 271-4320 Ext. 353 (F~X) 271-5935 (716} 636-2297 (F~X) 636-3808 (315) 470-6552 4~3-8434 (516) 674-9867 (914) 341-2353 CONTRJ%CTORS FOR Ai~CHEOLOGICAL SURVEys Page 8 ADDRESS Peter Pagoulatos, Ph.D. Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Philip A. Perazio Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Arnold PLoWman Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Carolyn Pierce 'Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Harjorie Pratt Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Michael Raber Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology John L. Raese Prehistoric Archeology Daniel G. Roberts John P. McCarthy Historic Archeology Thomas L. Struthers Robert G. Kingsley James A. Robertson Prehistoric Archeology or Anne S. Dowd Prehistoric Archeology Lauren J. Cook Historic Archeology William I. Roberts IV Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Cultural Resource Comsulting Group 54 Woodbridge Avenue Highland Park, NJ 08904 Kittatinny Archeological Research Design, Inc. P.O. Box 1117 Stroudsburg, PA 18360 or 509 Third Street Brooklyn, NY 11215 East 56th Sureet New York, NY 10022 Pratt & Muth Associates 60 Earhart Drive Williamsville, NY 14221 Pratt & Pratt 6156 Ridge Road, RD 4 CazenovLa, NY 13035 Raber Associates 81 Dayton Road, P.O. 8ox 46 South Glastoabury, CT 06073 180 South Fifth Avenue Ilion, NY 13357 John MLiner Associates, Inc. 309 North Matlack Street West Chester, PA 19380 or John ~[ilner Associates, Inc. 39 Mill Plain Rd., Suite 9 Danbury, CT 06811 Greenhouse Consultants, 54 Stone Street Penthouse Suite New York, NY 10004 TELEPHONE/F~X (201) 985-4380 (FAX) 985-5989 (717) 476-7829 (212) 935-0123 (7!6) 633-4844 (FAX) 633-4940 (315) 687-9441 (203) 633-9026 (315) 866-0300 (215) 436-9000 (F~) 436-9000 (203) 798-9362 (212) 514-9520 Page 9 NAME Mark Rosenzweig, Ph.D. Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Barbara Ross Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Nan Rothschild Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Karen Rubinson, Ph.D. Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology David J. Rue Conray Hay, Ph.D. Christopher A. Bergman Prehistoric Archeology -Historic Archeology Laurie W. Rush, Ph.D. Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Edward Rutsch Historic Archeology William Sandy Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Joseph Schuldenrein, Ph.D. Prehistoric Archeology Gary D. Shaffer, Ph.D. Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology M. Lisa Spaulding Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology David R. Starbuck, Ph.D. Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology ADDRESS Ecology and Environment, Inc. 368 Pleasantview Drive Lancaster, NY 14086 RD 1, Box 226A Westerlo, NY 12193 TELEPHONE/FAX (716) 684-8060 (FAX) 684-0844 (518) 966-4284 Barnard College 606 West 120 Street New York, NY 10027 Key Perspectives 250 West 100th Street Ballroom Suite New York, NY 10025 Archaeological and Historical Consultants, Inc. 101 North Pennsylvania Avenue P.O. Box 482 Centre Ne!l, PA 16825 P.O. Bo× 177 Clayton, NY 13624 (212) 854-4315 (212) 865-2102 (FAX) 932-8587 (814) 364-2135 Historic Conservation and I~terpretatLon, Inc. Rd 3 Box 120 Newton, NJ 07860 53-2 Garden View Terrace East Windsor, ~J 08520 (201) 383-6355 (609) 443-3247 President/Principal Archeologist (212) 601-3861 Geoarcheology Research Associates 5912 Spencer Avenue Riverdale, NY 10471 R. Christopher Goodwin & Assoc. 636A Solarex Court Frederick, MD 21701 (301) 694-0428 Spaulding C~M 147 Irving Terrace Tonawanda, NY 14223 (716) 877-6297 10 Riverside Street, Apt. 2 Fort Edward, NY 12828 (518) 747-2926 CONTRACTORS FOR ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEYS Page 10 NAF~ Michael S6ewart Prehistoric Archeology Martha Symes Prehistoric Archeology Ronald Thomas Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Nina Versaggi Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Ernest A. Weigan~ II Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Michael R. Werner Historic Archeology Slobodanka Umetich Werner Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology Anthony Wonderley Prehistoric Archeology Historic Archeology BF:tr 10/06/93 W05814 ADDRESS Dept. of Anthropology Gladfelter Hall, Temple Univ. Philadelphia, PA 19122 SINM 780 Riverside Dr. Apt. New York, NY 10032 ~AR Associates 9 Liverty Plaza P.O. Box 655 Newark, DE 19715-0655 P.O. Box 131 Columbia, NJ SUNY 8£nghamton Public Archeology Facility 8i~ghamton, NY 13901 Norwalk Community College Route 136 Norwalk, CT 06854 40-3 Wocdtake Road Albany, NY 12203 Atlantic Testing Laboratories 698 Stevens Street Utica, NY 13502 TELEPHONE/FAX (215} 982-9145 (302) 368-5777 (FAX) 368-1571 (201) 225-9118 (607) 777-478~ (F~) 777-4000 (203) 227-6643 (203) 853-2040 (518) 442-4050 442-4044 869-1313 (315) 735-330g (315) 386-4578 TO: [)ATE: INT~IR-OFFICE SPEED MEMO FROM: SUBJECT: REPLY DEC 2 7 '~' PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchle bat. ham. Jr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE ....... · -~-. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTI' L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1]79 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765- 1823 RE: Lead Agency Coordination Request Dear Reviewer: The purpose of this request is to determine under Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review ACt-SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 the following: 1. Your jurisdiction in the action described below; 2. Your interest in assuming the responsibilities of lead agency; and 3. Issues of concern which you believe should be evaluated. Enclosed please find a copy of the proposal and a completed Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) to assist you in your response. Requested Action: SEQRA Classification: (~) Type I ( ) Unlisted Contact Person: (516)-765-1938 GHARLES R. CUDDY fikTTOR~EY AT LAW 180 OLD COITNTRY ROAD (RTE. 58) RIVERILEAD, NY 11901 December 20, 1993 Town of Southold Planning Board 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Attention: Melissa Re: Indian Shore Subdivision Dear Melissa: Enclosed is our check in the sum of $400 payable to the Town of Southold. Please have the Town's environmental consultants proceed with their review of this subdivision application. Very truly yours, Charles ~ ~ · CRC/pc Enc. DEC2 I GHAltLES ~. GIIDDY ATTOI~N]~Y AT LAW 180 OLD GOUNTRY ~OAD (~TE, 58) RIVERHED, NY 11~01 December 10, 1993 Town of Southold Planning Board 53095 Main Road, Post Office Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Attention: Melissa Gentlemen: Re: Indian Shores Subdivision In accordance with your request, we are enclosing two additional copies of the cluster map for the Baxter Indian Shores Subdivision. Enclosures Very truly yours, Charles R. Cuddy(J DEC I 3 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward. Chairman George Ritchle Latham, Jr. Bennett Orlowskl. Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L, Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF $OUTHOLD SCOTt L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Ha]/, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765 - 1823 TO: FROM: RE: Antonia Booth, Town Historian William Peters, Cutchogue-New Suffolk Historical Council Walter Smith, Indian Museum John Stack, Landmark Preservation Commission Melissa Spiro, Planner~ Proposed Major Subdivision Indian Shores (aka Fort Corchaug) S/s Main Road and N/s New Suffolk Avenue Cutchogue SCTM9 1000-116-1-3 DATE: December 9, 1993 As you know, the Planning Board has received an application for a major subdivision on the above mentioned property. On October 25, 1993, the Planning Board did a resolution to start the lead agency coordination process. However, Mr. Cuddy, the attorney for the applicant, requested that the Planning Board wait to start the coordination process until the applicant submitted additional information. On December 3, 1993, the Planning Board received a letter from Mr. Cuddy requesting tha~ although the additional information had not been submitted yet, the coordination process be initiated. The Planning Board initiated the coordination process on December 9, 1993. I have enclosed a copy of the Board's October 25, 1993 resolution for your information. The Long Environmental Assessment Form has been forwarded to the Board's consultant for review. It is expected that the consultant's report will be reviewed at the Planning Board's January 10, 1994 meeting. Please contact me at the Planning Board office if you have any questions regarding the above. enc. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward. Chairman George R]tchie Latham. Jr. Bennett Orlowsld, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenne~J~ L. Edwards Telephone (516} 765-1938 October 26, 1993 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTF L. HARRIS Superv/sor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P, O. Box 1179 Southo]d, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765 - 1823 Charles R. Cuddy 180 Old Country Road 'P.O. Box 1547 .Riverhead, New York 11901 RE: Proposed Major Subdivision Indian Shores S/s Main Road and N/s New Suffolk Ave. Cutchogue SCTM~ 1000-116-1-3 Dear Mr. Cuddy: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, October 25, 1993: WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board has received an application for a major subdivision of a 105.6 acre parcel into 42 lots; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located adjacent to a.Critical Environmental Area (Downs Creek); and WHEREAS, the subject property contains an area of archeological significance, namely Fort Corchaug; and WHEREAs, the environmental and historical issues pertaining to the site may be a determining factor in the design of the layout of the site; and WHEREAS, ~t is t~e Planning Board's opinion that in order to proceed with review of the application with undue environmental review should be conducted prior to delay, the the yield or the design of the layout of the site;determining be it therefore RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board Start the lead agency coordination process on this Type 1 action. Indian Shores October 26, 1993 Page 2 The Long Environmental Assessment Form has been ~orwarded to the Board's environmental consultant for review. The~e is a $400 fee for this review. This must be paid in full by yo~r client before authorization can be given to the consultant to proceed with the review. The check should be made payable to the Town of Southold. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, Richard G. Ward Chairman PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Wan/, Chairman George Ritchle Latham, Jr. Benne~ Orlowsld, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kermeth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF $OUTHOLD ScoTr L. HARRIS Superv/sor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765 - 1823 December 9, 1993 Cramer, Voorhis & Associates Environmental and Planning Consultants 54 N. Country Road Miller Place, New York 11764 RE: Review of EAF Major subdivision Indian Shores SCTM~ 1000-116-1-3 Dear Messrs. Cramer and Voorhis: The Southold Town Planning Board hereby refers the Environmental Assessment Form for the above mentioned subdivision to your office for review. Also enclosed are the following: 1. Yield map dated August 16, 1993. 2. Sketch plan dated August 16, 1993. Planning Board letter dated October 26, 1993. Copy of thesis written by Ralph Solecki in February 1949 pertaining to Fort Corchaug. Information pertaining to the designation of The Fort Corchaug site on the National Register of Historic Places Inventory. The Planning Board did a resolution to start the lead agency coordination process on October 25, 1993. However, Mr. Cuddy, the attorney for the applicant, requested that the Planning Board wait to start the coordination process until the applicant submitted additional information, probably in the form of an expanded Part III. On December 3, 1993, the Planning Board received a letter from Mr. Cuddy requesting that although the additional information had not yet been submitted, the Coordination process be initiated. Indian Shores Page 2 December 9, 1993 The $400.00 review fee has been submitted by the applicant. If all is in order, the Board will make their SEQRA determination at the January 10, 1994 public meeting. Please submit your report no later than January 3, 1994 in order for the Board to review it before the meeting date. The purchase order will be sent to you under separate cover. Please call me if you require any additional information. Sincerely, ~ e issa Sp~ro Planner enc. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchle Latham, Jr. Bennett Orlowskl. Jr. Mark $. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L, HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765 - 1823 RE: Lead Agency Coordination Request Dear Reviewer: The purpose of this ~equest is to determine under Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act-SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 the following: 1. Your jurisdiction in the action described below; 2. Your interest in assuming the responsibilities of lead agency; and 3. Issues of concern which you believe should be evaluated. Enclosed please find a copy of the proposal and a completed Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) to assist you in your response. Requested Action: SEQRA Classification: (~) Type I ( )Uniisted Contact Person: (516)-765-1938 The lead agency will determine the need for an environmental impact statement (EIS) on this project. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter, please respond in writing whether or not you have an interest in being lead agency. Planning Board Position: ( ) This agency wishes to assume lead agency status for this action. ) This agency has no objection to your agency assuming lead agency status for this action. ) Other. ( See comments below Comments: Please feel free to contact this office for further information. Sincerely, Richard G. Ward Chairman cc: *Suffolk County Planning Commission ~Board of Trustees Southold Town Board ~Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services ~NYSDEC - Stony Brook XNYSDEC - Albany £.C. De~t. of Public Worku U.S. Army Corp of Engincoru ~N.Y.S. Dept. of Transportation * Jim Warren,NYS Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic * Maps are enclosed for your.~eview Coordinating agencies Preservation ' ,T 1--PROJECT INFORMATIO ~1~' Prepared by Project Sponsor i,OTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subiect to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. NAME OF ACTION Indian Shores Subdivision LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Streel Address, Municipality and Counly) Main Road, Cutchogue NAME OF APP~ICANTISPONSO. William J. Baxter, Jr., and Estate of William J. Baxter ADORESS BUSINESS TELEPNONE 15161 369-8200 c/o Charles R. Cuddy, 180 Old Country Road, Post Office Box 1547 CITY/PO I STATE I ZIP CODE Rtverhead, New York NY 11901 NAME OF OWNER (If dlnecenl) (same) I BUSINESS TELEPHONE ADDRESS ( ) CITY/PO STATE I ZIP CODE DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Major subdivision of 1,05.6 acres, SCTM #1000-116-1-3 Subdivision sketch plan "Cluster Map Indian Shores" dated August 16, 1993 Please Complete Each Queslion-lndicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: E]Urban [::]Industrial ;~Forest ~]Agriculture 2. Total acreage o( project area: 105.6 acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE Meadow or Drushland (Non-agricultural) Forested Agricultural llncludes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) Wetland IFreshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces Other (Indicatetypel l awn~ 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? RdA, a. Soil drainage: ~Well drained 94 % of site ~]Poorly drained 6 % of site [:]Co~nmercial I~Otimr E]Residential (suburbani E]Rural [non-farm) PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION 0 , 0 acres 3 * 0 acres 53.6 acres 34.1 acres 45.5 acres 43.0 acres 6.5 acres 6.5 acres 0 · 0 acres 0 · 0 acres (~ . C) dcres 2.0 acres 0 . N acres 7, {') acres 0.0 acres 1 0.0 acres PIA E]Moderately well drained __ % of site b.If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified w t Land Classification System? 45.5 acres. {See 1 NYCRR 370), 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? [:]Yes ~No a. What is depth to bedrock? N.A. (in feet) · 6. Is project '.~ubstantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or distr,: iisted on th~, State oF the National Regrsters ol Historic t lac(.s £JYes ~,~No 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks~ ~Yes 8. What is the depth of the water table? 0-30 (in feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? ~Yes 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist m the project area? ~lYes L]No 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as tl~reatened or er. dangered~ ~3Yes ':~'No According to Young & Y0un~L~ L.S. Identify each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formationst ~]Y~s f-INo Describe .Dart of the site is contiguous to Downs Creek (t. idal w~t]andq) 13. Is tile project site presently used by tile community or neighborhood as an open spate or recreation area? F'lYes rE,No If yes, explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? ~]Yes []No 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area:, Downs Creek a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary P~cnni c Rav 16. Lakes. ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a, Name Downs Creek b, Size (In acres) 20+ acres 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? Y~Yes C]No a) If Yes. does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? I~Yes [3No b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? )~Yes []No 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? [Yes E]hlo 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical [nvironmental Area designated pursuant to Article of the ~CL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 I~Yes ~No 20. Itas the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? []Yes ~]No B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owne~ or controlled by project sponsor 105.6 b. Project acreage to be developed: 22,0 acres initially; 22.0 C. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 83.6 acres. d. Length of project, in miles: ~/a (If appropriate) e. If tile project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed n/a %; f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing 0 ; proposed ~4 g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour 1 9, ~ (upon completion of proiect)? h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Initially 42 Ultimately ., 42 i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure n/a height; .width; j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? , 3 acres ultimately. Condominium lengtb. ft. 1500 ft. Fain S.R. 25 1100 Naw S~ffolk Avenue City, Town. kd,,.~e Board ':]Yes ',~No City. Town. Village Planning Boa:d PB ~Ye~ ~No City. Town Zoning Board ~Yes ~No Cily. Counly I'lealtb Department CO. ~Yes OUter Local AgenciesTow~ T~us~ees Otber Regional Agencies ~Yes ~No State Agencies ~Yes Federal Agencies ~Yes ~'No Submil~al Date subdivision Sept. 1993 water suppiy/sewage disposal wetlands subdivision wetlands C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? ~]Yes F'INo If Yes. indicate decision required: I~zoning amendment [3zoning variance [3special use permit I~subdivision [3site plan []new/revision of master plan I-Iresource management plan I~lotber 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site~ .. A/C AqriculturaI-C0nservation 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? 42 residential 10ts 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site~ n/a 5, What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning~ n/a .t 6. Is the proposed action consis'tent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans~ X~]Yes 7. What are the predominant land use(s} and zmring classifications within a % mile raclius ol proposed action? Zoning: A-C Agricultural Conservation Use: Agriculture [:]No 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a % mile? X~]Yes [:]No 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision ol land. how many lots are proposed? 42 a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? .. 38,000 sq. ft. 10. Will propos,ed action require any anthorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts~ I-]Yes 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for arry community provided services (recreation, education, police. lire protection)? )[]OYes [:]No a. If yes. is existing capacily sulficient to Irandle projected demand~ ~L)~Yes [3No 12. Will the proposed action result 'in tim generation of traffic signilicantly above present levels? EYes X~No a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? [:]Yes [3No,n/a D. Inlormallonal Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarily your project. If there are or may be any adverse Impacts associated witb your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification I certify tbat the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/Sponsor Name. W.illiagz. J. Baxter, Jr. Date 9/3/93 If. Ibc aclion is in Ibc Coas a )~ea and you are a sla · agency, complele lire Coash{I Assessmenl Form before proceeding w I ~ I tis assessmenl. NO~RTH F~& TRUST C0. '5 By: ~'~ ice PPe~iderCc, Sr. TruCe Officer 2. Ilbw much natural material(i.t. :~ earth, etc.) will be removed [rom tile 3. Will disturbed areas be ~eclaimed? ~Yes ~No ~N/A a. ff ~es, lot what intend , purpose is the site being reclaimed? ~eg~den~] b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ~Yes ~No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ~Yes ~No 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? 22.0 ..... acres 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old} or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? ~Yes ~No 6. I[ single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 48 months. (including demolition). 7. Ifmulti-phased: not applicable (n/a) a. Total number of phases anticipated (numbe~). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 month c. Approximate completion date of final phase month d. Is phase I functionally dependent on subsequent phases[ ~Yes ~No & Will blasting occur during construction[ ~Yes 9. Number o~ jobs generated: during construction 75 ; after project is complete 0 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this p~oject ~0~e 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilitiesl ~Yes ~No If yes, explain .... year, (including demolition) year. 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? OYes [~No a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? [~Yes ONo Type S a n ~. t 8 r~ 14. will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? ~Yes Explain J~]No 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? 16. Will the project generate solid waste? )~E]Yes ONo a. If yes, what is the amount per month 6.3 tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? ~Yes i-lNo c. If yes, give name Town of South0].d ; location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? e. If Yes, explain recyclab]es ~Yes ENo Cutchogue ~Yes E1No 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? ~]Yes OYes I~No tons/month. years. E]No ]a~n care 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? OYes 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding tile local ambient noise levels? OYes' 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? X~Yes ONo If yes , indicate type(s) f~'[ ectrf Cfi] ]2. If water ~upply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity 1 0 gallons/minute, 23. Total anticipated water usage perday 12..600 gallons/day. + [rrigati0n 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? r-lYes ~No If Yes, explain ~No PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS R/chaa-d G, Ward. Chairman George Rttchle Lathara. Jr, ~ennett Orlowski. Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF $OUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. BoxI179 Southold, New York 11971 F~({516) 765 - 1823 October 26, 1993 Charles R. Cuddy 180 Old Country Road .P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, New York 11901 RE: Proposed Major Subdivision Indian Shores S/s Main Road and N/s New Suffolk Ave. Cutchogue SCTM~ 1000-116-1-3 Dear Mr. Cuddy: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, October 25, 1993: WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board has received an application for a major subdivision of a 105 6 acre parcel into 42 lots; and ' WHEREAS, the subject property is located adjacent to a Critical Environmental Area (Downs Greek); and WHEREAS, the subject property contains an area of archeOlogical significance, namely Fort Corchaug; and WHEREAS, the environmental and historical issues pertaining to the site may be a determining factor in the design of the layout of the site; and WHEREAs, it is the Planning Board's opinion that in order to proceed with review of the application with undue delay, the environmental review should be conducted prior to determining the yield or the design of the layout of the site; be it therefore RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board start the lead agency coordination process on this Type 1 action. Indian Shores October 26, 1993 Page 2 The Long Environmental Assessment Form has been forwarded to the Board's environmental consultant for review. There is a $400 fee for this review. This must be paid in full by your client before authorization can be given to the consultant to proceed with the review. The check should be made payable to the Town of Southold. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, Richard G. Ward Chairman ATTORNEY AT 180 OLI) C~)UNTHY i~OAD (i~TE. December 3, 1993 Town of Southold Planning Board 53095 Main Road, Post Office Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Attention: Melissa Gentlemen: Re: Indian Shores Subdivision I had earlier requested that you hold in abeyance forwarding this matter to the environmental consultant. At this time, after discussing this matter with our environmental consultant, we believe it is appropriate, without submitting further informa- tion, to have the matter reviewed by Cramer & Voohris, the Town's environmental consultants and therefore ask that you submit this application to Cramer & Voohris. Very truly yours, Charles R. '""',q" DEC GIt.MtI,ES R. GUPPy lso OLr~ Go~T~¥ 1~o~ (l~. RI~Z~w~IF~kD, N~ 11901 November 3, 1993 Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Attention: Melissa Re: Indian Shores Dear Melissa: This ..... is to confirm our conversation with respect to your forwarding this file to Kramer and Voohres for environmental review. I would appreciate your waiting until the applicant has submitted additional information which probably will be in the form of an expanded Part III of the EAF. As soon as that information is available, I will forward it to you. Very truly yours, Charles R. Cuddy CRC/pc NOV 5 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Wa~t, Chairman George Pdtchle I~atham, Jr. Bennett Orlowsk/, Jr. Mark S. McDonald germeth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTF L. HARRIS Supcr~sor To~rn Hall, 53095 Main Road P, O, Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax {516) 765 - 1823 October 26, 1993 Charles R. Cuddy 180 Old Country Road P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, New York 11901 RE: Proposed Major Subdivision Indian Shores S/s Main Road and N/s New Suffolk Ave. Cutchogue SCTM~ 1000-116-1-3 Dear Mr. Cuddy: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, October 25, 1993: WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board has received an application for a major subdivision of a 105 6 acre parcel into 42 lots; and ' WHEREAS, the subject property is located adjacent to a Critical Environmental Area (Downs Creek); and WHEREAS, the subject property contains an area of archeological significance, namely Fort Corchaug; and WHEREAS, the environmental and historical issues pertaining to the site may be a determining factor in the design of the layout of the site; and WHEREAS, it is the Planning Board's opinion that in order to proceed with review of the application with undue delay, the environmental review should be conducted prior to determining the yield or the design of the layout of the site; be it therefore RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board start the lead agency coordination process on this Type 1 action. Southold Town Planning Board 19 September ]3, ~993 Mr. x~dwards: Second. Mr. Motion seconded. All in favor? Ayes: Mr.~cDonald, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr./W/aard. Mr. Ward: Oppbqed? Motion carried. APPROVAL OF PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Mr. Ward: Board to approme the April 12, 199~/minutes. Mr. Orlowski: So moved. Mr. Ward: Is there a second? Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Ward: All in favor? Ayes:Mr. McDonald, Mr./Wrlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. EdwRrds, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? ~otion carried. Board 6~ approve the May 24, 1993 minutes. Mr. Latham: Move/~t. Mr. 0rlows cond.. Mr. Ward~/Moved and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes~/b~.--~McDonald, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards,'Mr. Ward. / Mr/Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. ~, OTHER Mr. Ward: Further tonight we have before us, under Other Miscellaneous, we have Indian Shores - Applicant to discuss proposed major subdivision with the Plan-- ning Board. SCTMI~ ]000--116--1-2. Charles Cuddy: I'm Charles Cuddy, I represent Mr. Baxter and the estate of William A. Baxter who are the owners of this property. It's a 106 acre parcel, you are familiar with it I think, but it runs from the south side of the Main Rd. in Cutchogue through to New Suffolk Ave. We delivered to you last week the copies of the plans and the application, but we thought it worthwhile, Mr.Baxter, Mr. Abruzzo from Young and Young, and myself maybe address some of the reasons that we've worked out the lot configurations we have. There's a yield map, there's also a cluster map. We'd like to show you those maps and explain to you the motivation behind the layout and propose some things to you. If we may, I'd like to have Mr. Abruzzo come up and discuss with you the map. Do you have the copies of the map before you? If not, I Southold Town Planning Board 20 September 13, 1993 Ken Abruzzo: Good evening. Without me going through alot of rhetoric on the yield map, I think there's a plan developed showing 42 lots that are 80,000 square feet or above, including the park and recreation area and the recharge basin, and I believe this map does conform to the Town of $outhold's criteria in the fact that we/established that this property can yield 42 lots. We then went in and tried to develop under the cluster map, taking ~nto consideration Down's Creek, and the natural beauty o4 the woods on this site; a development plan that would also yield the 42 lots. If you look on the westerly part of this property you will see two very large parcels that we left. There's a 12 acre parcel and a 20 acre parcel to be left as lots that will support a vineyard. I understand that there are potential purchasers for these parcels that do wish to put vineyards on this property. We've also left an approximately 5 acre parcel on the southerly end on New Su'ffolk Ave. for some horses and paddock area in there. The rest of the site we've developed, taking into account Down's Creek and the woods row and of course the Indian Fort and develop what there would be some larger lots along Down's Creek. That enabled us to have some setbacks away from the wetlands and that area to have suitable building envelopes and yet make the building setback requirements as require under your code and also the DEC code. The road we proposed runs from Main Rd. right through to New Suffolk Ave. with a tap street going to the west. We've left approximately a 5.4 acre park and recreation area and we have some scattered drainage areas throughout the site that would pick up any stormwater that might flow. Along the vineyard site is just about the area where the natural woods line runs. As you can see we've also left a 50 foot buffer in the rear of all those lots in order to keep a separation between what would be a vineyard area and a residential area to leave some of that natural woods buffered in there as a retention area. If there are any questions regarding this design maybe I can answer them at this time. Mr. Cuddy: The design is that good? That's good. Mr. Ward: What other alternatives did you look at in terms of layout? Mr. Abruzzo: Well, you've done land planning; we've probably done four or five different things that we put in the heap and scrapped along the way until we develop a plan that we think is feasible to do, not only economically but environmentally, and this plan we feel takes into account some of the natural area of the woods, the setbacks and the wetlands, so this was one of the plans that we thought met with the most merit. Mr. Cuddy: When you say alternatives, you're suggesting a different type of layout? Southold Town Planning Board 21 September 13, 1993 Mr. Ward: Well I'm just saying that basically what's developed here is you're putting into the most sensitive areas, in my opinion anyway, the housing. Whereas, if we use more of the open space and the fields and that for the hous- ing and preserve the more sensitive areas it would obviously be a different lay-- out than what we see. Mr. Cuddy: It would be an entirely different layout, but I thine there's a reason for doing it the way we did and that's maybe what you're asking. We're preserving, as the code suggests that we do, the areas that are agricultural areas and I think in clustering that's one of the things that you as~{ us to do. But we're also preserving I think the integrity basically of the wetland areas and the tree areas because we would certainly go into those areas (inaudible) economically and on practical basis' you couldn't avoid going into those areas even if you put everything up in the agricultural area. But, we think those areas are presently open. What's showing here, vineyard areas, are open areas right now, and we have people that are interested, as Mr. Abruzzo indicated to you, in using those areas as vineyards. We also have people that are interested in using the area that's near New Suffol!~ Ave. for !~orses, so that ~e're pre- serving, we think, the best of both parts. Preserving that area which is currently dormant land but is open land. We're taking large, and they ar~ significantly large lots, alon§ the ~.~terfront, bac'~ from the wetland area and those are only a few lots that are along there, not an enormous number of lots. We didn't know the ~.my we would have more lots. So, I understand ~at you're saying but we thought about that and we thought this ~.~s the best way for both sides. Mr. Ward: Does the Board have any questions or comments? Mr. McDonald: Fort Corchaug has been in the news for about ]2 million years, long before I was around. The problem I'm facing with this is, of course you want to get to a sketch so we can get into the SEQRA on this, but by the same extent without the SEQRA, it's hard to k-n~{...I mean you put the fort site here and I have no reason to d~]bt you, but I don't ]enow where the fort site is. Mr. Curry: Well, maybe Mr. Baxter who is here would be happy to talk to you about the fort site. He ]enows it better than me. Mr. McDonald: Sure, he knows it better than me, that's for sure. Mr. Baxter: The fort site isn't very easy for anyone to spot; visually there's no tip off to anyone. I've been there with various archeologists over the years and there is an excavation pit which is marbled on the archeologists survey and Howard Young's company transformed the perimeter of the fort wall that the arch- eologists felt were there fnto the small dotted area in here. So what we have tried to do is to preserve the actual fort site as well as an appropriate buffer zone surrounding it. I don't think anybody...I mean if you walk down there tomorrow you still wouldn't see the fort site unless I went %zith you. It's not going to be something that's going to stand out for anyone. We're really preserving what's under the ground, whatever may be under the ground. And why are we preserving it? Basically for future archeological studies, I think that's the main reason and to also just to plain set it aside because this was the site of Indians, so I thin~{ we have preserved the most important part of the fort site. Southold To~fn Planning Board 22 September 13, 1993 Mr. Ed%rards: Have there been digs on other areas of the property? Mr. Baxter: At various times there have been other digs. (inaudible) w~s the most important one and the monographs have been written by his excavation and he's the one that determined that this %~as where the actual settlement ~as. This ~ras around 1640 or so, so there were people here then and it's probably a little easier to pinpoint the site than something hundreds of years before there were settlements. Mr. McDonald: The other studies didn't show anything or they were inconclusive? Mr. Baxter: I don't recall offhand %~nat some of the other studies showed. There were v~rious ones and I've got records of them and over here the museum has copies of them as well. We are well a~re that in the process, here there will be a requirement for an archeological study made and I thi~ anything relevant will come out of it and... Mr. McDonald: Thats's where I'm coming from. The problem is you need to move ahead, you need the sketch to move ahead but by the sa~e extent you're trying to get a sketch that's going to be the best sketch you can get close to the preliminary, though we don't have any idea what's under the ground here. We have some idea, I shouldn't say we don't have any. We have some rough idea but there's a lot of uncertainty. Did you thi~( that the fort site actualy added something to your subdivision in the sense of saleability or...this is just a curiosity, you don't have to answer that. Mr. Baxter: Time will tell, I guess. Some people may say it's an obstacle. was just taking a few notes before coming here and one was I know that in Dec-- ember of 1988 Gregg Blass and Steve Englebright submitted a bill to the County to go ahead and acquire it. In January of '89 we signed a contract with North Fork Bank Development Corp. for them to acquire the property -- a six month con-- tract. The negotiations continued on with the County and the Town throughout that sixmonth period. At the end of the period we let lapse the North Fork Development Corp. contract, we didn't know it was for a higher price than either the County or the Town was offering in combination, because we decided to cast our lot with the To~ or County because we were as interested as other people are in preserving it. We felt it was a unique resource for the residents of the To%m of Southold. We've done everything we can to preserve it, suing the County to make them preserve it. They're ignoring us. The Town of Southold made an offer to acquire a significant portion of the 30 acres. The Town has turned their ba~z on us. So, I'm a co--executor of my father's estate; the estate owns 7~ of the property, I own 2~. The North For~ Bank is the other co--executor. I have a fiduciary responsibility, the North Fork Ba~( has a fiduciary respon-- sibility to turn the land into revenue producing investments. My mother is still alive, she is the immediate beneficiary and we must do something with the prop- erty. I cannot, as my o~fn personal investment standpoint...I ~nt to keep hold-- lng it but as a fiduciary I must take whatever actions are necessary to convert this vacant land into an income producing asset. So we are beyond the point of I've done everythin~ I can to preserve it; we've come forward now with what we think is an environmentally sensitive and sensible plan. We are aware that there will be much discussion and we're interested in (CHANGE TAPE) the input from the Planning Board or the North For~c Environmental Council. Southold To~-m Planning Board 23 September !3, ]993 Mr. McDonald: We have fairly free reign to, I take it by the application we automatically have permission to go down there an~ inspect the site, is that a correct assumpt ion. Mr. Cuddy: I thln.~ we ~.~ould like to ~now that you are going do~m there. Cer- tainly part of the process is for them to go do~ and loo~( at the s~te so we might be able to find things easier if you contact us. Mr. Baxter: I'd be glad to rage you on a tour. Mr. McDonald: Clearly ~'re going to have to get a good look at this. Mr. Cuddy: You sbould. Mr. Abruzzo: I might %cant to add Mar~, Bill said that when be '~s talking about the fort he mentioned a ,~all. You're not going to see a wall. A slight mound is about all you can identify. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Abruzzo: Mr. McDonald: He made it clear, ~e're not going to find it. You might not see it if you're standing on it. Could I have your topographics? Mr. Baxter: I would li~e to reiterate one thing that Ken said and this is why did we put the homes ~,~here we put them. An important fact of preserving the agriculture is the visual imoact and whet']er it's ~0 ~ o~ 30 homes, every house would be within the woodland. People driving up and down Bay Blvd. or Rt. 25 really would not see houses. If you placed them on out in the farmland this would be another big (inaudible). ~here are wall to ~all houses development and I don't think that's what anybody ~nts on the North Fork. Mr. Cuddy: Are there any other questions we could answer? Mr. Ward: I would just li!<e to arrange for a site visit. Mr. Cuddy: ~]at's fine. I would just li,~e to add one thing. I thin!z most of you, probably as I did, read the Suffolk- Times and I ~as somewhat concerned that the Supervisor of this to~eq see~d to say that the environmental process was virtually a bludgeon that could be used to stop the subd, ivision. I've al~rays assumed that everyone came in on a level playing field, and T would just like this Board to confirm to us that no matter ~Wnat the process brings, and certainly it will bring forth a numar of things, that we come in certainly on that level playing field, ~ecause that's important to us and I thin!{ the Supervisor perhaps at a bad time, said something that shouldn't have been said. I assume, Mr. Chairman that the environmental process will go along as every environmental process does in that there's no predjudice to us, even by his statements. Mr. Ward: I think you can be safely assured t~at this Board will loo'~ at it in the !i§ht of what it is and the conmlents from any elected official is not going to sway us as it hasn't in the past. Sour%old Town Planning Board 24 September 13, I993 Mr. Cuddy: And again, we encourage you to come to us and to let us lcnow what your concerns are. We'd be happy to address those concerns. Ken Abruzzo is available, Howard Young is available, Mr. Baxter's here, I'm here. We have other people that can provide answers if we don't have an answer, so thank you for the hearing. Mr%~ard: Is there anybedy else this evening that would have any questions/Or wou~like to address the Board? Llnda~vy: I'm Linde Levy, the Southold coordinator for the North Fork Emvlr-- onmentaI~Council and I wanted to just speak with the Board briefly tonigl~t about the Burge~Kin9 and the Dunkin Donuts applications. I not? that you tooI~ lead agency ton~ht.on both of those. We would li!¢e to take thls opportunity to re-- quest ?~e a~3 that a full SEQRA review be initiated on the Burger King application. ~4hile we are aware that this is an unlisted action, and therefore doesn't required%at you do a full SEQRA review, we believe that the potential impact to our con~nity of a fast food restaurant demands an environmental im-- pact study. As weltered in our memo to you of August 5, we believe that there are many sections o{Nthe law that apply to the determination of significance of this action. These include substantial changes in noise and traffic levels, increase in solid wastekproduction, impairment of neighborhood character and an change in intensity of usb. ' ' In addition, the consequenti~ significance of this action needs to be assessed. We a~e fully awa~e t~at the ZB~has ruled this is the same application as that of t~e 1970 application for a MC~Donald's restaurant on the same site How ~hat_appllca~ion was withdrawn he, re many of the issues raised were'addre~' Dy t~e Planning Board..We do not ~x~lieve that these applications are the same n bne current application is ma~e. The New Yor~c State legislature has directed that SEQRA be administered to'he fullest extent ssible po . Given the overwhelming community response to the 0 McDonald's application, a full SEQRA review must be applied to the new prb~osal so that the impact to our cor~unity may be completely understood. We are concerned about the Du~klnDonuts applic.~ion before you as well. We believe that many of the same issues, traffic imNact, storm runoff, etc. apply to this proposal. Most important, however, is t}~change in intensity in use of the site. The burden of such increased intensity m~st _he assessed. Regardless of rulings by other.agencies, and here I'm referring~o the ruling by the Build-- in9 Dept. that porm~s the second use on this s~te, we~belleve that the Planning Board must require that impacts on our COmmunity and en~onment ~e mitigated. R~cently we've?teen made aware that a building is being constructed without a s~te plan approval at the Mattltuck Airport. We all know that a used car lot has been ~l/!/owed to operate despite the fact that it's not p~f~itted under our zoning co~e and now we have these two appllcatlons,.Burger King,and Dun'~in Donuts,~J~o be situated on the already dangerously congested Main~d. in Mattik/ffcl<. ~]ese are the types of actions that led to the destruc~on of the rural, character of all the t?wns west of Sour%old. Tonight we request that the So~.~old Planning Board use its legal authority to fully review these'+~wo j}pplications. 'The law states the lead agency shall mal{e every reasonable effort to involve applicants, otheragencies' and the public in the SEQRA process. Only through a full review can this charge be met. Thank you. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Rltchle la[ham, Jr. Bennett Orlowsld. Jr. Mark S, McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTI-IOLD SCO'IT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765 - 1823 October 26, 1993 Charles R. Cuddy 180 Old Country Road .P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, New York 11901 RE: Proposed Major Subdivision Indian Shores S/s Main Road and N/s New Suffolk Ave. Cutchogue SCTM~ 1000-116-1-3 Dear Mr. Cuddy: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, October 25, 1993: WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board has received an application for a major subdivision of a 105.6 acre parcel into 42 lots; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located adjacent to a Critical Environmental Area (Downs Creek); and WHEREAS, the subject property contains an area of archeOlogical significance, namely Fort Corchaug; and WHEREAS, the environmental and historical issues pertaining to the site may be a determining factor in the design of the layout of the site; and WHEREAS, it is the Planning Board's opinion that in order to proceed with review of the application with undue delay, the environmental review should be conducted prior to determining the yield or the design of the layout of the site; be it therefore RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board start the lead agency coordination process on this Type 1 action. Indian Shores October 26, 1993 Page 2 The Long Environmental Assessment Form has been forwarded to the Board's environmental consultant for review. There is a $400 fee for this review. This must be paid in full by your client before authorization can be given to the consultant to proceed with the review. The check should be made payable to the Town of Southold. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, Rlcnar~ G. Wara Chairman C;I~I.AP~LE$ R. OUDDY 180 OLD 0OUNTiRY ]~OAD (]~TE, 58) RIVERI-rEAI), ~ 11901 September 14,' 1993 Town of Southold Planning Board 53095 Main Road, Post Office Box 1179 $out~olo, New York 11971 Re: William J. Baxter Jr. and Estate of William J. Baxter Indian Shores Major Subdivision SCTM #1000-116-1-3 Attention: Melissa Dear Melissa: This is to confirm our recent conversation and advise that the applicant and his representatives would be pleased to meet with the Planning Board to further discuss this application. It is my understanding that the Planning Board members will examine the site and once this has been completed we should be in a position to meet and discuss the application. Please let me hear from you at your earliest convenience. CRC/ec Very truly yours, (~HAI~I.tiI$ Pt. C;IIDDY 180 OLD GOUNTHY ROAD (~. /~I%7F~I~Fi~A/), 1~ 11901 September 14, 1993 Town of Southold Planning Board 53095 Main Road, Post Office Box 1179 $outhola, New York 11971 Re: William J. Baxter Jr. and Estate of William J. Baxter Indian Shores Major Subdivision SCTM #1000-116-1-3 Attention: Melissa Dear Melissa: This is to confirm our recent conversation and advise that the applicant and his representatives would be pleased to meet with the Planning Board to further discuss this application. It is my understanding that the Planning Board members will examine the site and once this has been completed we should be in a position to meet and discuss the application. Please let me hear from you at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, Charles R. Cuddvv CRC/ec SEP 16 :<' CI{ARLE$ R. ClfDDY 2~TTOI~Y AT LAW leo OD COUNTRY I{OAD (]~. 50) P, O. BOX 1~47 ~I), ~ 11901 September 3, 1993 Town of Southold Planning Board 53095 Main Road, Post Office Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Gentlemen: Re: Indian Shores Major Bubdivision - SCTM #1000-116-1-3 Enclosed herewith are maps and documents with respect to the major subdivision application for a parcel at Cutchogue owned by William J. Baxter, Jr. and the Estate of William J. Baxter as follows: ~ Eight copies of yield map Eight copies of a cluster subdivision map Application for major subdivision · Long form environmental assessment · Disclosure affidavit · Questionnaire · Check in the sum of $11,500 payable to the Town of Southold representing the application fee. We request that you place this matter on your agenda for consideration and advise us when this will be so that the applicant may appear and discuss the subdivision with you. While the application fee is being delivered at this time, we also do that with reservation since it appears that this is the entire filing fee and should not be due at the sketch plan level. In this connection, please advise whether some or all of this fee should be paid at a later date, i.e. when the preliminary map is filed We look forward to your early advice. Very truly yours, Charles R. Cuddy Enclosures P.S. An additional check for $100 is enclosed since the map acreage is greater than the acreage set forth in the deed. LAND PRESERVATION COMMITTEE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1801 December 17, 1992 William J. Baxter Baxter Investment Management 1030 E. Putnam Avenue Greenwich, CT 06836 Dear Mr. Baxter: Re: Fort Corchaug Property SCTM 1000-116-1-3 Thank you for your letter of December 8, 1992 adding acreage to your earlier offer to the Town of Southold for purchase of open space. With the revised configuration on the map which Young & Young sent me on December 9, 1992, Lot #18 now consists of 30 acres, including the fort site. Our committee reviewed your new proposal last night and we will share it with the Town Board, together with whatever comes in from the preservationist groups. I want to keep the record open. for a reasonable time. As you know, I reported our meeting of November 17th to the Town Board in some detail on November 20th. I was told that the Board would set up a meeting of representatives of the Planning Board, the Town Board, the Land Preservation Committee and the Town Attorne~t's office to discuss the fort site. I am waiting for word of the date. Sin Frederick A. Ross~ Chairman Land Preservation ~~ ..... cc - Land Preservation Committee >:~",~ ' Town Board Planning Board Town Attorney j B; IXte~ INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT ~/~ 1030 F. PUTNAM AVENUE, GREENWICH, CONNECTICUT 06836 · 12031 63?- 4559 ~.~J~ December 8, 1992 Mr. Frederick A. Ross Land Preservation Commistee Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Ross: I noted in a recent article in Suffolk Life that Councilman Joseph Lizewski expressed reservations over the $46,000 per acre cost for the Fort Corchaug acquisition. I understand there are some other town officials who share his concern. If you will note on Plan C that was submitted to you lots 8 through 22 would be included in the area to be acquired by the town. Looking at it from a developer's standpoint, 15 lots for $1 million would be only $66,666 each. Given the fact that they are two-acre wooded lots, that would appear to be a very conservative valuation even in this depressed market. I would assume that the current market for one acre lots at Country Club Estates would bear this out. A Selling price of $100,000 per lot would produce a total value 50 percent above our offer to the town. I have indicated in the past that our family has been willing to forgo some profit in the interest of helping to preserve the Fort site. As a further demonstration of this, I have instructed Howard Young to increase the size of the parcel to be acquired by the town to 30 acres at no change in price. He is sending you a copy of a revised map incorporating these changes. The new configuration would bring the cost per acre to the town down to $33,333.33. AS I've indicated before, you or other representatives of the questions you may have. we are very willing to meet with Town of Southold to discuss any WJB:rs Very truly yours, W i~l~'l~am~ j .~B a~ Baxter 1030 E. PUTNAM AVENUE, GREENWICH, CONNECTICUT 06836 . {203) 637- 4559 '~,..~/~"~.~ December 8, 1992 Mr. Frederick A. Ross Land Preservation Commistee Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 n, EC 1 5 Dear Mr. Ross: I noted in a recent article in Suffolk Life that Councilman Joseph Lizewski expressed reservations over the $46,000 per acre cost for the Fort Corchaug acquisition. I understand there are some other town officials who share his concern. If you will note on Plan C that was submitted to you lots 8 through 22 would be included in the area to be acquired by the town. Looking at it from a developer's standpoint, 15 lots for $1 million would be only $66,666 each. Given the fact that they are two-acre wooded lots, that would appear to be a very conservative valuation even in this depressed market. I would assume that the current market for one acre lots at Country Club Estates would bear this out. A selling price of $100,000 per lot would produce a total value 50 percent above our offer to the town. I have indicated in the past that our family has been willing to forgo some profit in the interest of helping to preserve the Fort site. As a further demonstration of this, I have instructed Howard Young to increase the size of the parcel to be acquired by the town to 30 acres at no change in price. He is sending you a copy of a revised map incorporating these changes. The new configuration would bring the cost per acre to the town down to $33,333.33. AS I've indicated ~efore, we are very willing to meet with you or other representatives of the Town of Southold to discuss any questions you may have. WJB:rs Very truly yours, Wi½1lam J.~Baxter. YOUNG & YOUNG PLANNING. ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING 400 OSTRANDER AVENUE. RIVERliEAD, NEW YORK 11901 Telephone 516-727~2303 Facsimile 516~727~144 December 9, 1992 Art Ross, Chairman Land Preservation Committee Town of Southold Main Road Southold, New York 11971 RE: WILLIAM J. BAXTER at Cutchogue, T/O Southold, New York (92-0747) Dear Mr. Ross: At the direction of Mr. William J. Baxter, we are enclosing herewith four (4) prints of the map entitled "Subdivision Sketch Plan A prepared for William J. Baxter, at Cutchogue, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York" last dated December 9, 1992. This map has been revised to indicate a different arrangement of lots adjacent to the main road. The lot being considered for preservation is Lot No. 18 and contains 30 acres. HWY/'~ Encl. -- cc: Mr. William J. Baxter Mr. Bob Wendell Very truly yours, Howard W. Young + 1 Print + 1 Print ALDEN W, YO[ING HOWARD W. YOUNG THOMAS C. WOLPERT KENNETH F. ABRUZZO Professional I~nglneer Land Su~eyor Professional Engineer Land Surveyor PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski..ir.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (5161 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTt L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 December 2, 1992 William J. Baxter Baxter Investment Management 1030 E. Putnam Avenue Greenwich, Connecticut 06836 RE: Proposed Major Subdivision Fort Corchaug Cutchogue, New York SCTM~ 1000-116-1-3 Dear Mr. Baxter: Your letter of November 23, 1992 in reference to the above mentioned proposal has been received by this office. Please note that the proposal Daniel Ross submitted on your behalf on April 8, 1992 is not a complete application due to the fact that the application fee has not been submitted. Rather, it is classified as an incomplete application having no status before the Board. When the application fee is submitted, the review process will be initiated, unless we are directed by the Town Attorney not to do so because of unresolved litigation. regarding the above, please If you have any questions contact this office. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr/~J Chairman cc: Scott L. Harris, Supervisor Harvey A. Arnoff, Town Attorney Judith T. Terry, Town~Clerk Art Ross, Chairman, Land Preservation Committee Baxter INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT 1030 E. PUll, lAM AVENUE, GREENWICH, CONNECTICUT 06836 · (203) 637-455g November 23, 1992 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Orlowski: This is in reference to my letter of May 15, 1992, regarding a major subdivision at Fort Corchaug. The discussions with the Land Preservation Committee relating to acquisition of a part of this land by the Town of Southold are continuing. I would appreciate it if you put our application on hold until we notify you to proceed. WJB:rs .~B~xte~ LAND PRESERVATION COMMITTEE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall. 53095 M'a~nn ~'ltU~ _ P.O. Box 1179 Sou~ho/d, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1801 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Members of Town Board Art Ross, Chairman, Land Preservation Committee November 20, 1992 "Fort Corchaug" This is a report of our meeting of November 17, 1992 in response to your request that we process and consider William Baxter's offer to sell 21.7 acres of his family's farm, including Fort Corchaug, to Southold Town for $1,000,000. The meeting was well attended. The audience included repre- sentatives of the Save the Fort Committee, Southold Indian Museum, the Cutchogue-New Suffolk Historical Council, the North Fork Environmental Council and several members of the press and public. We began with a brief review of the history of the fort designated as an Historic Place on the National Register on January 28, 1974. We ack- nowledged the Baxter family's cooperation in preserving the site during their 33 years of ownership. Mention was made of the efforts to sell the total acreage (104) to the County and Town in 1989, when it was appraised at $3,172,000 or $30,900 per acre. We took note of the lawsuit brought by the Baxter interests when the sale failed to materialize. The committee is considering a unique parcel of land which contains treasure beyond price. While the boundaries of the fort are finite, the site is part of our infinite American heritage. Our first speaker was Mr. Baxter, who provided excellent details of his present Plan A for a subdivision of 18 homesites, preserving 21.7 acres, which includes the fort site. He also presented Plan B, a subdivision of 32 homesites, preserving 3.2 acres of park land which includes the fort site. This Plan B is the plan filed with the Town planning office April 6, 1992. It has been placed "on hold" by Mr. Baxter. He explained that his duty as fiduciary (co-trustee) of his father's estate gives him no choice but to make the most profitable use he can of this property. He offers the Town 21.7 acres under Plan A for $1,000,000. -2- This comes to $46,083 per acre. If the Town cannot purchase the acreage offered, he intends to go forward with Plan B, the more densely developed subdivision. A series of questions followed with Mr. Baxter and his surveyor, Howard Young, providing very complete answers. The tone of the meeting was cordial. It seems fair to say that the men and women representing preservationist organizations strongly favor purchase by the Town, many insisting that all 104 acres be acquired. The single speaker in opposition mentioned the depressed economy as his reason for opposing acquisition. The committee invited all present to make contact with any governmental or private resource which might provide funds for or towards a purchase of the 21.7 acres by the Town. The preservationists have heard from Dr. Solecki and James Grathwohl, who also wrote a letter to the committee. Those present agreed to canvass all agencies which might be of assistance to the Town Board in reaching a decision on Mr. Baxter's offer. The next meeting of our committee is December 15th. Before then, I should meet with the Board for a discussion and the benefit of your preliminary reaction. TO: FROM: DATE: RE: LAND PRESERVATION COMMITTEE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Member of Town Board Art Ross, Chairman, Land Preservation Commit1 November 20, 1992 "Fort Corchaug" Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 $outhold. New York ~ 1971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-~01 RECEIVED NOV 2, $1992 Southold r ..... This is a report of our meeting of November 17, 1992 in response to your request that we process and consider William Baxter's offer to sell 21.7 acres of his family's farm, including Fort Corchaug, to Southold Town for $1,000,000. The meeting was well attended. The audience included repre- sentatives of the Save the Fort Committee, Southold Indian Museum, the Cutchogue-New Suffolk Historical Council, the North Fork Environmental Council and several members of the press and public. We began with a brief review of the history of the fort designated as an Historic Place on the National Register on January 28, 1974. We ack- nowledged the Baxter family's cooperation in preserving the site during their 33 years of ownership. Mention was made of the efforts to sell the total acreage (104) to the County and Town in 1989., when it was appraised at $3,172,000 or $30,500 per acre. We took note of the lawsuit brought by the Baxter interests when the sale failed to materialize. The committee is considering a unique parcel of land which contains treasure beyond price. While the boundaries of the fort are finite, the site is part of our infinite American heritage. Our first speaker was Mr. Baxter, who provided excellent details of his present Plan A for a subdivision of 18 homesites, preserving 21.7 acres, which includes the fort site. He also presented Plan B, a subdivision of 32 homesites, preserving 3.2 acres of park land which includes the fort site. This Plan B is the plan filed with the Town planning office April 6, 1992. It has been placed "on hold" by Mr. Baxter. He explained that his duty as fiduciary (co-trustee) of his father's estate gives him no choice but to make the most profitable use he can of this property. He offers the Town 21.7 acres under Plan A for $1,000,000. This comes to $46,083 per acre. If the Town cannot purchase the acreage offered, he intends to go forward with Plan B, the more densely developed subdivision. A series of questions followed with Mr. Baxter and his surveyor, Howard Young, providing very complete answers. The tone of the meeting was cordial. It seems fair to say that the men and women representing preservationist organizations strongly favor purchase by the Town, many insisting that all 104 acres be acquired. The single speaker in opposition mentioned the depressed economy as his reason for opposing acquisition. The committee invited all present to make contact with any governmental or private resource which might provide funds for or towards a purchase of the 21.7 acres by the Town. The preservationists have heard from Dr. Solecki and James Grathwohl, who also wrote a letter to the committee. Those present agreed to canvass all agencies which might be of assistance to the Town Board in reaching a decision on Mr. Baxter's offer. The next meeting of our committee is December 15th. Before then, should meet with the Board for a discussion and the benefit of your preliminary reaction. Baxter INVF~TMENT MANAGEMENT ~ ~ 1030 E. PUTNAM AVENUE, GREENWICH, CONNECTICUT 06836 - (203) 637- 4559 May 15, 1992 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Orlowski: On April 8, 1992, Daniel Ross filed on my behalf an application for a major subdivision at Fort Corchaug. You subsequently responded indicating that the application was incomplete inasmuch as the fee was not included. I did not include the fee at the time because I have been contacted by town officials regarding acquisition of Fort Corchaug. On May 14, I attended a meeting with various members of the Peconic Land Trust and town officials. Based on what was discussed at that meeting, I have decided to put my application for a subdivision on hold for a period of 90 days commencing May 15, 1992. Very truly yours, / ~~r. Wi~l~i '~a~ j Baxt er, WJBjr:rs cc: Ray Radigan Peconic Land Trust William Esseks PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 7654938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box II79 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 April Daniel C. Ross Wickham, Wickham & Bressler, P.C. Main Road P.O. Box 1424 Mattituck, New York 11952 17, 1992 RE: Proposed Major Subdivision Fort Corchaug Cutchogue SCTM# 1000-116-1-3 Dear Mr. Ross: The Planning Board has received the application materials for the above mentioned subdivision proposal. Please note that the application is incomplete, and the review process will not be initiated, until the application fee is received. If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact this office. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Chairman LAW OFFICES WICKHAM, WICKHAM & BRESSLER, MAIN ROAD. P.O. BOX 1424 MATTITUCK. LONG ISLAND NEW YORK 11952 516-298-8353 TELEFAX NO. 516-298-8565 April 8, 1992 Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Attention: Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Re: Fort Corchaug Major Subdivision SCTM# 1000/116/1/3 Dear Mr. Orlowski: Enclosed herewith please find the following documents with respect to an application for a major subdivision of the referenced property: 1. Application for major subdivision; 2. A copy of a prior deed with respect to the premises dated March 25, 1959; 3. A copy of the mortgage on the property referred to in the application dated October 5, 1990; 4. An authorization letter; 5. Part one of a long environmental assessment form signed by Mr. Baxter on April 4, 1992; 6. Three (3) copies of a map entitled, "Sketch Plan Proposed Subdivision made for William J. Baxter et al at Cutchogue, N.Y." We are submitting the map herewith as a yield map and for purposes of determining the yield only. The placement of lots, sumps, roads and park designated on the map is intended for determination of yield purposes only. We would also note that if the Board intends to require funds in lieu PtANNING BOARD ..... DCR:vm cc: Mr. William J. Baxter, Jr. cc: North Fork Bank & Trust Co. Attention: Raymond Radigan, Esq, baxext76 of park land, we respectfully suggest the park be eliminated from the yield map. Vice President LAW OFFICES WICKHAM, WICKHAM & BRESSLER, e.c. MAiN ROA~), P.O. BOX 14~4 MATTITUCK, LONG ISL~NE} NEW YORK iI95~ 516-298-8353 TELEFAX NO. 516'298-8565 MORTGAGE OFFICE TELEFAX NO 516-298-20~ April 2, 1992 Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Attention: Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Re: Fort Corchaug Major Subdivision $CTM # 1000/116/1/3 Dear Mr. Orlowski: This will confirm that Wickham, Wickham & Bressler, P.C. is authorized to act on our behalf with respect to the subdivision application referred to above, and is authorized to communicate with the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, and Southold Town Planning Board. WILLIAM J. B~TER, .~r., individually.and as co-executOr of the Estate of William J. Baxter NOR~TH.~ BANK ~ TRUST CO. P~ELA A. KING,. a~-executor Estate of WilliamS. ~axter of the baxor176 ~'!?Sth ' d~y of March .'~'netecn Hioldr,.d 'WILI~IAM $. BAXTER and WILLIAM J. BAXTER, JR. both l'esidir~ mt 10 ]~ayeau Boad, New Rochelle. New York, as tenants in comrnun of the flr~! part./~a' ........................ ~TEN ................................. ~lla~ be~ ~fSO~t~ld county of Suffolk and State ~f New follows: ?y of Rhth Houston;[ t ) %: q4 d,,~z' ~ mJn~s 2.~ seconds We~t ~p {0 feet tou h ~. degrees ~ ruinutes 40 ~onda Wes~ ~ 0 feet to a monume~t~ N r~h 12 ~egrees zL minutes 10 seconds East 847 95 [eet t e 8 degrees' 06'minutes O0 seconds West ~0~8.44 feet to said aouth~rl~ 'ins o[ the M~(~ R~d; , r21 mmu:es 50 seconds East 238.69 feet; thence minutes 50 seconds Eaet~ 274, 26 feet~ thence ~dl the of the first p~'rt, ill land bdi Down's -h~use and lot bed ,)remises as provided [1~Y the Last Will and Dist 1000 Sec. 116.00 Block Lot 03.00 TH~ MORTGAGE. made the 5th day of October , nineteen hundred amdninety BL-TWE. E~ THE NORTH FORK BANK & TRUST COMPANY, a New York banking corporation wi~ office and principal place of business at 245 Love Lane, Mattltuck. New York 1191 as Co-Executor of the Estate of William J. Baxter, deceased and WILLIAM J. BAXTEb JR., residing at 4 Windrose Way, Greenwich, CT. 06830, individually and as Co- Executor of the Estate of William J. Baxter, deceased. and ,the mortgagor, THE NORTH FORK BANK & TRUST COMPANY, a New York banking corporation with office and principal place of business at 245 Love Lane, Mattituck, New York 119~ , the mortgagee, WITNF~$1[TH, that to secure the payment of an indebtedness in the sum of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND AND 00/100 .......................... ($100,000.00) ......................... doIlar$. PmXmnm~mx~ai~x~g~x~x *~x x~xxx~~xxxxk~9~x a~,R~R~ ~xxxxxx× xxx according to a certain bond, note or obligation bearing even date herewith, the mortgagor hereby mortgages to the morlgagee ALL that cerlain plot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate, lying and being la,that more fully described as follows: ALL that certain plot, pfece or parcel of land, wdth the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate, lying and being in Cutchogue, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the southerly line of the Main Road, 1421 feet more or less westerly along said southerly line of Linden Avenue, said point of beginning being the northwesterly corner of land now or formerly of William Wickham. from said point of beginning running along said land now or formerly of Wickham. two courses as follows: 1. South 16 degrees 14 minutes 60 seconds East 142.33 feet; thence 2. North 75 degrees O1 minute 10 seconds East 70.0 feet to land now or formerly of Muzdnic; thence in a general southerly direction along a gutter and land of Muzinic, about 2500 feet to Down's Creek; thence still in a general southerly direction along ordinary high water mark of said Do*rn's Creek, about 1420 feet to land now or formerly of Ruth Houston; THENCE along said land now or formerly of Bouston~ ~hree courses as follows: 1. South 84 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds West 270 feet; 2. South 10 degrees 48 minutes 40 seconds West 99.65 feet; thence 3. South 17 degrees 54 minutes 10 seconds West 242.96 feet to an iron pipe at the northwesteriy corner of land now or formerly of Robert Dart; thence TOGETHER with all right, title and interest of the mortgagor in and to the land lying in the streets an roads in front of and adjoining said premises; TOGETHER with a flxtnres cha e s and articles of personal property now or hereafter attached o or use in connection with said premises, ncluding but not limited to fur aces boil piping, cos stokers lmnbin and bath . . , ers, od burners, radiators an, . , P g room fixtnres, re r geratlon, air conditim ng and sprinkler s3stem~ TOGETHER with all awar Is heretofore and hereafter made to the mortgagor for taking by emlnen dmnah same towardPthe payment of the mot gage debL notwithstanding the fac hat the amount owing thereon may not then be due and payable and the saki mortgagor hereby a revs u on r deliver a and all n ' g , p eque.t, o ake, execme an 1. That the mortgagor will pay the indebtedness as hereinbefore provided 2. That the mortgagor will keep he mild ngs on he premises nsured (i) agains oss by fire for the benefit of file mortgagee, (ii) agains oss hy flood if the prem scs are Iocat ha ~g special flood hazards and n wh ch flood that he will ass ~ and d · · nineteen htndred slxt -vi h; . g ehver the pohc~es to the mortgagee; and that he wd[ rem~burse the mortg~Y~eegfor any premmms paid for insura ce made by the mortgagee on the mortgagor's default in so insuring the buildings or'in so assigmng and delivering the pobcies.' 3. That no building on the premises shall be altered, removed or demolished without the consent of the 4, That the whole of said prin¢ pa sum and nterest shall I:eeome due at the option of the mortgagee: after default in the payment of any instalment of princ pal or of in crest for fi teen da s or after defaul n the pay- fault after notice and demand either in ass gning and delivering the policies insurin the buddin s a by fire or in relmburs ng the mortgagee for rem urns d o ' g . g galnst foss · . . p pa n such ~nsurance, as here nbefore after defau[t upon .reques n furmshmg a statement of the amount due on the m promded, or ortgaga and whether any off- sets or defenses exist against the mortgage fleb , as hereinafter provided. An assessment which h~s been made payable in instalments at the app cation of the mortgagor or lessee o he premises shall neverth purpose of this paragraph, be deemed due and payab e in its ent/ret on he da t . eless, for tho ....... ~, o.~, u~ palu uy toe mortgagor, togetger with interest thereon at the rate of six ~gr cent, per annum, SCNEDULE along said land now or formerly of Dart, South 15 degrees 50 minutes 40 seconds West 327.04 feet to an iron pipe on the ~ortherly line of New Suffolk Avenue; thence along said northerly line of New Suffolk Avenue North 64 degrees 58 minutes 20 seconds West 30.40 feet to a monument and land now or formerly of Donald Wineman; THENCE along said land now or formerly of Wineman, four courses as follows: 1. North 15 degrees 50 minutes 40 seconds East 322.73 feet; thence 2. North 17 degrees 54 minutes 10 seconds East 241.63 feet to a monument; 3. South 64 degrees 26 minutes 40 seconds West 380.0 feet to a monument; 4. South 13 degrees 39 minutes 20 seconds West 270.0 feet to a monument on said northerly line of New Suffolk Avenue; thence along said northerly line of New Suffolk Avenue, North 64 degrees 58 minutes 20 seconds West 1107.06 feet to land now or formerly of Andruski; THENCE along said land of Andruski, four courses as follows: 1. North 83 degrees 50 minutes 00 seconds East 536.10 feet to an iron pipe; thence 2. North 11 degrees 28 minutes 30 seconds East 1055.34 feet; thence 3. North 12 degrees 24 minutes 10 seconds East 847.95 feet; thence 4. North 8 degrees 06 minutes 00 seconds West 1078.44 fee~ to said southerly line of the Main Road; THENCE along said southerly line of the Main Road, five courses as follows: 1. North 60 degrees 20 minutes 20 seconds East 236.72 feet; 2. North 55 degrees 17 minutes 30 seconds East 471.65 feet; thence 3. North 58 degrees 21 minutes 50 seconds East 238.69 feet; thence 4. North 62 degrees 08 minutes 50 seconds East 274.26 feet; thence 5. North 65 degrees 10 minutes 40 seconds East 288.16 feet to the point of BEGINNIN( Containing 104-1/2 acres, more or less. Together with all right, title and interest of the party of the first part, if any, in and to the gutter lying between the above-described premises and land of Muzinic to the center line thereof. Together with all the right, title and interest of the party of the first part, if any, of, in and to land below high water mark and under the waters of Down's Creek adjacent to said premises. RIDER TO MORTGAGE MADE BY: THE NORTH FORK BANK & TRUST COMPANY, AS CO-EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF WILLI~4 J. BAXTER, DECEASED, AND WILLIAM J. BAXTER, JR., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM J. BAXTER, DECEASED DATED: October 5 , 1990 TO: THE NORTH FORK BANK & TRUST COMPANy R-1 The whole of said principal and interest shall become due at the option of the Mortgagee in the event of sale or transfer of the premises, or sale or transfer of an interest whether equitable, legal or otherwise, in Mortgagor, without the prior written approval of Mortgagee. R-2 The unpaid principal sum secured by this mortgage shall bear interest at a rate equal to two (2 1/2%) per cent over THE NORTH FORK BANK & TRUST COMPANY Prime Lending Rate, per annum, adjusted daily, except as same may be increased by R-7 herein, on and after the occurrence of any event of default or condemnation ' of the mortgaged premises and until the entire principal sum hereof has been fully paid, but in no event shall the rate exceed the highest rate of interest permitted under applicable New York or Federal law. R-3 In the event of a default under this mortgage, and if the mortgaged premises shall be abandoned or vacated by the Mortgagor, or any successors in title, the Mortgagee shall be entitled to take possession of the premises and to take whatever steps are necessary to protect and conserve the Mortgagee's security. R-4 In the event this mortgage or the note secured hereby or both are placed in the hands of an Attorney, (i) for collection of any sum payable hereunder or thereunder, (ii) for the foreclosure of this mortgage, or (iii) for the enforcement of any of the terms, conditions and obligations of this mortgage or the note secured hereby, whether by suit or any other means whatsoever Mortgagor agrees to pay and Mortgagee shall be entitled to an award from the Court (in the event of suit) of all costs of collection (including reasonable counsel fees and expenses) incurred by Mortgagee. All such costs as incurred shall be deemed secured by this mortgage and collectible out of the proceeds of this mortgage in any manner permitted by law or by this mortgage. R-5 Mortgagee's attorney shall be paid a reasonable fee for preparation of a satisfaction or assignment of this mortgage. R-6 Mortgagor waives any benefit of the credit for the fair market value of the mortgaged property in any action for foreclosure of the mortgage or a deficiency judgment, including any credit under Section 1371 of the New York State Real Property Actions and Proceeding Law. In any such action or proceeding the deficiency judgment shall be for an amount equal to the sum of the amount owing by the party liable as determined by the judgment, including interest, costs, expenses, allowances and attorneys fees, plus the amount due on all prior liens and encumbrances plus costs and disbursements of the action, including referee's fees and disbursements, less actual sales price of the property at the foreclosure sale. R-7 Mortgagor agrees that in the event of a default hereunder, the interest rate on the entire unpaid principal sum, commencing at time of default, shall be increased by three (3%) per cent over the interest rate otherwise secured hereby, but in no event exceeding the maximum legal rate chargeable by law, such additional rate to continue until the entire amount due has been fully paid, such amount to be added to the amounts secured by this mortgage. R-8 In any litigation arising out of this mortgage, or the note it secures, mortgagor waives the right to trial by jury. THE NORTH FOPJ{ B~NK & TRUST COMPANY, CO-EXECUTOR By: Ra~ond Radigan, Vice President William J. Baxter, Jr., Individually and as Co- Executor frisrdr:95 13. That the mortgagor hereby assigns to rtgagec the ten s, ssues and profits of lhe prem scs as fur he security for the payment of said i debledne_~nd he mot Fagot grants to thc mortgagee the right to entc upon and to take possession of tbe premises for the purpose of collecting the same and ~o let the premises o any part thereof and to apply the rents, issues and profils, after paymen of all necessary charges and expense-' on account of said indebtedness. This assignment and grant shall continue in effect until this mortgage is paid The mortgagee hereby waives the right to enter upon and to take possession of said premises for the purpose o collecting said rents issues and profi s, and the morlgagor sha be entitled to collecl and receive said rente issues and profits until default under any of the covenants conditions or agreements contained in this mort collec~ rent from an:,' tenant o sa d Iremises or any par ~hereo or a period of more than ~ffn~gmon:h in ad 14 That the whole of said principal sum and the interest shall become due at Ihe option of the mortgagee (a) alter tallure to exhibit to the mortgagee, within ten days after demand, receipts showing payment of al removal of any building on the premises without ~he written consent of the mortgagee; or (c) after th. (,d) i! !he buildings on said premises are not maintained in reasonab y good repair; or (e) after failu~ tgo~ c~m ment claiming jurisdiction over the premises within three months from the istuance thereof; or If) ~f o~ application of the mortgagee two or more fire insurance companies lawfully doing business in the State of Ne;~ York refuse to issue policies insuring the bu~ldinga on lhe premises; or (g) ?n the event of the removal, dcm olition or destruction in whole or in part of any of the fixtures, chattels or articles of personal ropert) cumbrances thereon and tee rom any reservation of title thereto; or (h) after thirty ~ays' notice to th: mortgagor, in the event of the passage of any law deducting from the value of land for the purposes of taxatloi any lien thereon, or changing in any way the taxation of mortgages or debts secured thereby for state or Inca purposes; or (i) if the mortgagor fails to keep, observe and perform any of Ihe other covenants, conditions o~ agreements contained in this mortgage. 15. That the mortgagor will, in compliance with Section 13 o{ the Lien Law, receive the advances secured hereby and will hold the right to receive such advances as a trust fund to be applied first for the purpose of paying the cost of the improvement and will apply the same first to the payment of the cost of the improve- ment before using any part of the total of the same for any other purpose. having their own separa:e cooking facilities. SEE ATTACHED RIDER FOR ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS This mortgage may not be changed or terminated orally. The covenants contained in this mortgage shall run with lhe land and bind die morlgagor, the heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns of the mortgagor and all subsequent owners, encumbrancers, tenants and subtenants of the premises, and shall enure to the benefit of the mortgagee, tbe personal representatives ,successors and ass g~s of the mortgagee and all ubsequent holders of Ihis mortgage The word "mortgagor shall be construed as if it read 'mortgagors" and the word "mortgagee" shall be construed as if it read "mortgagees" whenever the sense of this mortgage IN WITNESS WHF-.RF..OF, this mortgage has been duJy executed by the mortgagor. IN r~NC~ O~: NORTH FORK BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Co-Executor By: Raymond Radigan, Vice President William J. Baxter, Jr., Individually and execuledcxtehceutlOregoing instrument, aud acknowledged who Notary Public STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY 05 SUFFOLR On the 5th day of October f990 , before perso.al]y came Raymond Radigan to me known, who, being by me duty sworn, did depose and say ~hat he resides a~ No. 1865 Highland Road, Cutchogpe New York 11952 ; Fork Bank & Trust Company as Co- affixed by order of the board o dreeto $ of said corpora. On thc day of pcrson~ly Came 19 , before m to me known to be the indi'ridual described in and wh, execu{ed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged tha On the day of 19 , before mc personally came the subscribing witness to the foregoing instrument, with whom I .am personally acquainted, who. being by me duly sworn, d:d depose and say that he resides at No'. to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument; that he, said subscribing witness, was present and saw execute the same; and that he, said witness. Notary Public aq~lorlgag~ and ~ILLIAH d. HAXT~, dR., lnd~vldualZy and as Co- TO TICOR TITLM GUARANTE~ ~ o. -~o~ t 8 fi' ~DETERM_LN ATION: NON-SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE "~ Lf. AP_~ N CY COORDINATION: UNCOORDINATEDREV1EW - / ': /-' . pRCrC£.53(//o COORDINATED REVIEW - START OF 30 DAY C~RD. ~ ~ ~'~ ~, ,,p ~,,,.,a'~ ~OMME~S RECEI~D FROM; AGENCY: 'l'b'~ ~((';~ '""~""~ %~' ,,C ~.~,~". ' ~E~..RMI N ATIO~ NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATE ./--/ CONDITION AL NEG, DEC.___~-DATE--/ / POSITIVEDECLARATION '/', I~' pOSlTI~ DECLARATION ^ ,,o;.~ SCOPINGSESSION '~ / t /.qq CEI 'rOFDEIS 'I.._1 / DATE gElS COMPLkTE___7'-~--?~--//DATE gElS INCOMPLETE REffIPT OF REVISIONS TO gElS_ % -/%6 / ~ DA~DEISCOMPL~ '--~'-77 _//DA~DEISINCOMPL~ RECEIPTOFREV1SIONSTODEIS C Id; I~{'., DATE DEIS COMPLETE /~ / .//DATE gElS INCOMPLETE ~/' sTART OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR gEIS ;Z / I '~ ./ ~'7. PLIBLICHEARING ON gEIS ~ ./ JC)j COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM: AGENCY: oV~x" (zJ~7~'l') AGENCY: AGENCY: AGENCY: AGENCY: AGENCY: AGENCY: AGENCY: END OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR DEIS / FEIS TO BE pREPARED BY FEIS RECEIVED /--/~ EElS COMPLETF --/ ./.~ START OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR FEIS ./--/ PUBLIC HEARING ON EELS--./ /- FINDINGS STATEMENT ADOPTED BY PLANNING BOARD .-/ SCOPING SESSION $ ,:~0 REVIEW OFDEIS $ I ADDITIONAL REVIEW OF DEIS $ $ ON OF FE1S VIEW OF ~IS $ PAID ~1. 17 ./ PAID '~ 17_Z_I q5 .PAID _q--/ PAID I /3X_/ PAID PAID__/ PAID /--/. JUO.T.T..~.RY, TOW. C~.K RECEIPT 0 5 8 4' Town of Southold Southold, New York 11971 DATE Phone: 516-765-1800 f~ CASH BY: JUDITHT. TERRY, TOWN CL~RK Town of Southold Southold, New York 11971 ' RECEIVED OF: ~5-1800 RECEIPT 060404 JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK Town of Southold Southold, New York 11971 Phone: 516-765-1800 r~ CASH BY: RECEIPT 0 6 0 6 3 0 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD : COUNTY OF SUFFOLK In the Matter of INDIAN SHORES SUBDIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE STATE OF NEW YORK) : ss: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) KAREN L. FRITZ, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I am not a party to the action, am over 18 years of age and reside at 22 Captains Blvd., Waterford, NY 12188. On February 18, 1997 I served the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Indian Shores consisting of two volumes, the Statement and Appendices by hand delivery to the following: NYS office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau Peebles Island Waterford, New York NYSDEC - Albany 50 Wolf Road Albany, New York Notary Public 1997. N~. 5872225 Karen L. Fritz TOWN OF SOUTHOLD : COUNTY OF SUFFOLK In the Matter of INDIAN SHORES SUBDIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE STATE OF NEW YORK) : COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) ss: KEITH CUDDY, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I am not a party to the action, am over 18 years of age and reside at On February 18, 1997 I served the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Indian Shores consisting of two volumes, the Statement and Appendices by hand delivery to the following: NYS Dept. of State Division of Coastal Resources 41 State Street Albany, New York 12231 ' I Keith ~u~{dy ~ Sworn to before me this day of 1~, 1997. Not~y Pub~ ~/ LESLIE KING Notary Public, State of New Yoek No. 4884612 Qualified in ~r Count~_ Commission Expires i/z/. /~' NeW York State Department of Environmenta! Conservation ~ 6 Building 40 - sUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11 ~$0-235 Telephone (516) 444-0365 Facsimile (516) 444-0373 John P. Cahlll Ac[lng Commissioner March 31, 1997 Me!issa sDiro, Environmental Planner Town of Southold Planninq Board Town ~all 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: UPA # 1-4738-01281/00002 Owner-William Baxter Facility-Indian Shores Subdivision s/$ Main Rd,n/s New suffolk Ave. $CTM# 1000-116-1-3 Cutchogue Dear Ms. Spiro: As indicated in our telephone conversation this morning, since the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the referenced proposal was not sent directly to my attention, I did not receive it until today ( eleven days after the proposed close of the public comment period on March 20, 1997). The Department, therefore, has not had the opportunity to properly review and possibly comment on this DEIS and accordingly requires that the co~ent period be extended to April 31, 1997. please confir~ Chat the comment period has been so extended and feel free to call me at 516-444-0368 if you have any questions. sincerel~ ~a~ra Soova~o ~nvironmen~al Analyst I Cc: j. Seeman/Coastal C. Cuddy Esq. W. Baxter File Environmental corp APR PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS RICHARD G. WARD GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 28, 1997 Charles Cuddy P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 RE: Proposed Major Subdivision Indian Shores SCTM# 1000-116-1-3 Dear Mr. Cuddy: The public comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement : dated January 1997, ended on March 20, 1997. Enclosed are the following: 1. The transcript from the March 10, 1997 public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 2. The comments on the DEIS which were received from the public and involved agencies during the public comment period. An itemized list of the correspondence is enclosed. 3. The combined comments dated March 20, 1997, from the Planning Board and the Planning Board's consultant, together with the comments dated March 21, 1997, from Robert Kalin. Please prepare a written response to the comments. In preparing the response, please consider the following: A. Comments should be identified as to whether they were made at the public hearing or if they were submitted as part of the written record. B. Comments should be annotated to indicate the source. C. Comments should be summarized without detracting from the nature, scope or intent of the comments. Indian Shores Page 2 D. A response for each comment must be provided. Responses should be accurate, consistent, and objective, and should be referenced to indicate source material for conclusions. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. o,ncere,y, ~ ~ enc. cc: Charles Voorhis SHINNECOCK NATION CULTURAL CENTER AND MUSEUM Shinnecock Reservation, P.O. Box 5059, Southampton, NY 11969 Phone: 516-287-4923 Board Members Edwin Garmt~. l~sident Betty Cromwell, Vice president Elizabeth Haile. Se~ratary Dennis King Lu¢ille Bosley Eugene Cuffee, II April 16, 1997 Southold Town Planning Board Office of Supervisor, Town Hall Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 Dear Sirs, The Board of Directors of the Shinnecock Nation Cultural Center and Museum wish to join you in your concern for the preservation of the valuable archaeological site at Fort Corchaug in Southold Township. It has been respectfully suggested that Southold Town develop Stipulations which would be adhered to by those who will be responsible for archaeological excavations at the Fort Corchaug site. Enclosed please find the Memo dated April 19, 1991 which was the format for excavation control at the Klugh/Mecox site in Southampton Town. As the Board of Directors of the Shinnecock Nation Cultural Center & Museum, we wish to be at your service if called upon for advice regarding human remains at the Fort Corchaug site. We understand that Southold Town is hoping to avoid losing this archaeological treasure and is working towards acquisition of the entire parcel. We support you in this for the preservation of our common heritage. Very truly yours, The Board of Directors ~t~'~9~"~innecock Nation Museum Seal . ~ Ap, i/. ]9, ]991 F' I', ~ H' 'J'(}: .dlB.ll,. , : HEHO ,qll .I lgl~ I'.( .O(.K NATION ARCIIAEOLOGICAL ADVISORY COHM1TTEE HR. 'roil TItOP, SEN-SOUTllAHPTON TOWN PLANNING DEPT. HR. ROY WINES-SOUTHAHPTON TOWN PLANNING BOARD CLOVER ARCIIAEOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC. · ~;TIPIII.A'I']ONS PERTAINING TO STAGE 3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL E×C/~VATION AT KLUGII/HECO× SITE STIPULATIONS lee:t lhiee(3) Shinnecock I)e~ple, aPl)roved'by the 5J~JnHecotk Archaeological Advisory Committee (SAAC), I~c 1,1 CSt'lit at ail times during the excavations, ti('ilw~lJn~[ as. trainees in the excavation process. ]',hlic arc(.:;:; to the site i.,,il] be strictly limited to Lilovc~ I~'~:;m, nc], Shin]~ccock t~ainees, and individuals :~l*p~-vc~.l 'by the SAAC. a. There, will be no photography, video taping, and/o~ other methods of archival documentation un](,f;~ a's a major part of the excavation' process uli]izcd by Clover or approved by the SAAC. objects recovered at the site wiil be p~ofessionally talalogued and studied by Clover and temporarily kept under kcvping l,y C/over with access available to the ~ccoc~ A~chaeological Advisory Committee.' . . objects recovered at the: site'wili"becom~'a' part of permanc,t collections of the Shinnecock Nation Huseum/ c,llura] Cc,ter Cmq~lex upon completion of the pbysicai f;~ci]~ties. They will be made available to the general p,,biic lt~r ~ edv. Excavation ::ire should be placed under *:u~veillance patrol' b)" loeal'.~015'~e~5'n :~g:lin.';t vandelism and desecration. some sort of order ¢o g~ard 19 , 199 I Page t.i E uncovared ~:x,'avation at Lbo site o£ tile human remains ui.l] cease immediately, followed by immediate temporary reburial. 'Only enough.evidence may be ~,'mo:.ed in order to prove the nature or age of ~h.: ,','mains. Excayations may continue elsewhere. Cycle period o£ eight (8) weeks will be set, during which human remains will be held in t,:mporary internlent until the medicine person ,:an be present to officiate at removal and l,e~manent reburial. t:. ~hinnecock Archaeological Advisory Committee will t¢,nlact a shaman or medJcine person and minister, ., t. o. versee rcburJal. Travel expenses and accomo- dar i.n..; for medicine person will be fun'3ed as part ~,f the excavation l:[ocess. d. ]:cburi'al ~Oll.occur al a place known only to I!atJve Anmrican people and will be private. ¥!]'itten acknowledgement.and agreement to these stipulations by the Southampton Town Planning Baard and Department and Clover Archaeological 5ervlces Inc. must be received by the Shinnecock A~:chaeological Advisory Committee no later than eight (8) weeks prior to the beginning of., D;lvid l!unn l'lartide, Shinnecock Nation Advisory Committee 11969 P. [). [31~x 1285 Church .~;onthalnpt,.m, N.Y. Shinnecock Nation .Advisory Committee David gunn Martine Harry Williams Eugene Cu£fee, Trustee Archaeologigal Ar cl~aeological PLANNING BOARD M~EMBEI~ RICHARD G. WARD GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 1, 1997 Charles Cuddy, Esq. P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, New York 11901 RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Major Subdivision Indian Shores SCTM# 1000-116-1-3 Dear Mr. Cuddy: Attached please find correspondence from Laura Scovazzo of the NYSDEC requesting that the comment period be extended for the above mentioned DEIS review. The Planning Board did not formally extend the comment period, but will forward any comments received from the DEC to you upon receipt. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely~, /~ Planner cc: Laura Scovazzo (~tIART.ES R. ~TJDDY ~TTORNEY AT ~AW March 31, 1997 Planning Board Town of Southold Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Attn: Melissa Re: ~ Subdivision Dear Melissa: Enclsoed please find additional affidavits of service with regard to the DEIS being served upon appropriate agencies in Albany. One of the affidavits had to be revised and that is the reason for the delay in submitting these to you. Very truly yours, CRC/ec enc. APR I~ Correspondence received on Indian Shores Date Received Name 2/10/97 Barbara Van Liew 2/20/97 Robert Kuhn 2/25/97 Barbara Van Liew 2/27/97 Gaynell Stone 3/9/97 3/10/97 3/10/97 3/10/97 3/11/97 3/20/97 3/20/97 3~20~97 3/20/97 3/20/97 3/21/97 · William Harris Deb Winsor Henry Moeller William Peters Kimbedy Shaw Deb Winsor William Peters · Southold Town Trustees , Steve Resler Ann Lowry Frank Pearson DEIS Affiliation Socity for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation Socity for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities Suffolk County Archeological Association Nassau County Archeological Committee Montaukett Tribal Member Southold Town Landmark Preservation Commission Suffolk County Archeological Association Nassau County Archeological Committee Cutchogue/New Suffolk Historical Cou, ncil SC Dept. of Health Services Southold Town Landmark Preservation Commission Cutchogue/New Suffolk Historical Council NYS Depa~ment of State North Fork Environmental Council NYS Department of Transportation MINUTES March 10, 1997 Present were: Absent: Bennet~ Orlowski, Jr., Ohairman Richard G. Ward Kenneth Edwards William Cremers Valerle Scopaz, Town Planner Melissa Spiro, Planner Robert G. Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer Martha Jones, Secretary G. Ritchie Latham Mr. Orlowski: Good evening. I'd like to call this meeting to order. It's a very nice turnout here tonight, i'd like to thank you ali for coming down. First order or business, Board to set Monday, March 31, 1997 at 7:30 p.m. at ,' Southold Town Hall, Main Rd., Southold, as the time and place for the next regular Planning Board meeting. Mr. Cremers: So moved. Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Orlowskl: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? Motion carried. Southold Town Planning 8pard 2 PUBLIC HEARINOS SEQRA: Dra~ Environmental Impact Statement March 10, 1997 Mr. Orlowski: Indian Shores - This major subdivision is for 17 lots on 105.6 acres located on the south side of Main Rd. and the north side of New Suffolk Ave. in Cutchogue. This public hearing is on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated January 1997. SCTM# I000-116-1-3. At this time I'll entertain your comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Would anyone like to start? Joe Gold: Good evening. I'm Joe Gold from Cutchogue and I'm speaking as Chairman of the Southotd Land Preservation Committee. I just want to state the position of the committee. In late 1994 the committee passed a unanimous resolution recommending to the Town Board that the Town purchase the 37 acre wooded parcel that goes from the road south to the wetlands and includes.the fort site. That recommendation was based on a survey of the property, establishing the value. That survey has been checked and re-validated since then and is currently still an accurate...l'm sorry, I mean appraisal, not survey. The appraisal is still an accurate representation of the value of the property. The goal that the committee was achieving at that time was the preservatlgn of the fort. And the fort is on that wooded parcel and therefore that goai'is still achieved, i'm sure that everybody in the room shares a greater goal and that is to preserve the entire property in some way. However, the Town's step is a necessary step in any plan that preserves the property, and the recommendation of the Land Preservation Committee still stands - that the Town purchase that 37 acre parcel. Obviously, there are all kinds of could of, should of, would of's, but we have enough money to purchase that parcel, and not much more than that parcel. So that's the current position of the Land Preservation Committee. Thank you. Charles Cuddy: I'm Charles Cuddy. I just wanted to make a statement on behalf of the applicant because I wasn't sure that everybody here realized exactly what the layout of our proposal is. The maps are outside, but for those who haven't really taken a look at them, what Mr. Baxter and his family propose for this property is relatively simple. There's a 37 acre parcel which borders on the Main Rd. which would be the parcel that Mr. Gold was talking about, that would be sold to the Town. There are two parcels that are across from Pelligrini Vineyards running north Southold Town Planning 8oard 3 March 10, 1997 to south, so they go all the way back, virtually from New Suffolk Ave. Those parcels total about 30 acres, a little more. And those two are to be vineyards, There's a single parcel of about 5 ½ acres which borders New Suffolk Ave. which would be an equestrian or horse area. And then there are 13 single family lots which total about 32 acres. Half of those lots are along Down's Creek and half of them are interior on the parcel. So that's how it lays out. There are tonight for those who are interested, who appears on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Roberts is the Archeologist, he's to my left. Mr. Seeman is the Environmental Consultant, Mr. Abruzzo is the Surveyor and Engineer from Young and Young, and in the back is Tim Caufield and he's from Peconic Land Trust. These are the people who have gotten together to do this map which we betleve is a mitigation map actually because it certainly isn't using up all of the property for single family residences. Thank you. Ronnie Wacker: Good evening. My name is Ronnie Wacker and I'm Co- chairman of the Committee to save Fort Corchaug and I want to address my remarks tonight to the DE[S, We are very concerned that this archeological treasure in our own backyard not be lost to future scholars. We also recognize that Bill Baxter has been a patient man to have sat through so many negotiations over what he can do with his property. We owe him a debt of gratitude. He and h'is family have been guardians of this historic Native American site since his father bought it in 1959, and he has left it totally in its original state, not touching a leaf or a tree. In fact. Dr. Ralph Solecki, an internationally renowned Archeologist, who by the way comes from Cutchogue, says it is the best preserved Indian site on the entire Atlantic seacoast. But, it's time now to make hard decisions on how to keep this historic area intact. These decisions must be made very carefully. This subdivision is unlike any other we have ever had to consider in this town. The land underneath it is of more importance than what's above it. And we have an obligation to preserve this evidence of a pre-historic civilization for future scholars. While we try to obtain the best use of this site, without placing an unfair burden, economic burden that is on Bill Baxter, we must also keep in mind that once an archeological site is gone, it is gone forever. That's why we question some of the work presented in the DEIS. Some of the statements we find confusing. For instance, on page 16 of their results, the Greenhouse Southold Town Planning Boara 4 March 10,1997 Consultants say that the Fort Corchaug site is located primarily in the proposed Town Park, in lots 9 and 10. Then on page 18 of their conclusions and recommendations they say the Fort Corchaug site is located primarily in the Town Park, but probably also in lot 10. They don't include lot 9. Well, which is it - 9 and 10, or just 107 And why is any development proposed for either of the lots if the stated purpose of the DEIS is to "protect the cultural resources of the fort site.' Also in their conclusions they locate a pre-historic site, the rail fence well site within lots 2 through 10 and lot 16 of the proposed subdivision. To determine the exact boundaries of this ancient site that may go back as far as 3500 years, they recommend a Phase I1 Archeological survey. But they didn't do such a survey themselves. They suggest instead that someone else, perhaps the people who buy these lots do it. Can you imagine the delight of a new lot owner on finding that in addition to ail his closing costs and fees, he has to pay for an archeological survey? Sound a little bizarre? The New York Archeological Council has set guidelines. it's kind of like the ten commandments for archeological consultants in New York State. One of these calls for doing shovel tests every 50 feet. You're required to dig holes 50 feet apart searching for significant material. The Greenhouse Consultants dug their holes 100 feet apart. How much .,,' more information might have been unearthed if the testing had followed the official guidelines. Another disturbing aspect of the 0ElS is that no shovel tests at all were performed in the area where we believe the most important relics are likely to be found. This is the creek front. The most attractive property to a new home buyer today, just as it was to Indian settlers thousands of years ago. And finally, the alternatives that they offer to the proposed development are no alternatives at all. They advise changing the size and shapes GE a few lots within the same parcel, which incidentally is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. That archeological area most in need of preservation. Now, these alternatives offer no change from the original proposal. They simply re-shuffle the same lots around within the same dimensions. What kind of alternative is that? I suggest we really must go back to the drawing board. Thank you. Henry Moeller: My name is Henry Moeller and I'm here this evening representing the Suffolk County Archeological Association (SCAA), The SCAA Soul;hold Town Planning Board 5 March 10, 1997 wishes to support the acquisition of ~he entire Fort Corchaug site by the Town and other supplementary agencies and requests that development of the parcel not take place. The entire peninsula where Fort Corchaug was located was a habitation zone for the native people. The Indian Shores subdivision, particularly the waterfront area, is a major portion of this peninsula rich in cultural resources. We cannot overemphasize the importance of this evidence of the contact period between the native people and the colonial settlers. The part of the subdivision known as Fort Corchaug is of national as well as local significance as it is the only undisturbed native fort site in the northeast. Scientific excavation of the fort by Dr. Ralph Solecki and Dr. Lorraine Williams has interpreted less than 10% of the fort site area. Since no evidence of habitation was found within the fort; a living site should be located nearby. Possibly it could be the Baxter site south of the fort which was only minimally tested by the New York State Archeologist Dr. Ritchie, as well as Dr, Carlyle Smith, Dr. Burr Salwen and Dr. Solecki. Possibly it is another site Ralph Solecki feels that there may be also burial sites nearby. The large number of artifacts collected from the site over the years by local people also attests to the extensive native use of :he area. Besides the inadequate archeological survey done for the ElS the submitted site plan does not provide an adequate buffer zone, especially to the south and west of the ,,,' fort. If developed, neighborhood children would soon be exploring and would rapidly destroy the integrity of the sites. Evidence of the importance of this site is that there are three major archeological reports on the fort site by Dr. Ralph Solecki and Dr. Lorraine Williams will be the centerpiece of volume 8 of a book entitled "The.Native and Historic Forts of Long Island" of our series, 'Readings in Long Island and Archeology & Ethnohistory', to be published later this year. We ask that local government protect this jewel of its cultural resources, which if preserved can become an educational and economic resource for the Town. Thank you very much. Bill Peters: My name is William Peters, a resident of Cutchogue. I am a Trustee of the Cutchogue-New Suffolk Historical Council and a member of the Suffolk County Historical SocietY Board of Directors. I have read the DEIS and am very interested in the protection and preservation of the entire 105.6 acres encompassing the Fort Corchaug site. Soul:hold Town Planning Board 6 March 10, 1997 I understand and appreciate the fact that the Baxter family would like to ensure preservation of the pre-historic heritage of Southold, but they do not want to assume the entire financial burden to assure this. I wish to specifically address Section VI, Part D, titled 'Expanded Fort Corchaug Alternatives' in the DEIS. The four options presented therein deal primarily with minor reconfigurations of the lot tines of lot I0, the lot 50 feet from the approximate location of the fort site. These four options are a cosmetic treatment of the fact that the entire 105.6 acres have archeological significance. I would like to present for your consideration a fifth option which consists of a north-south building lot swap. This north-south swap will provide a reasonable protection of the most critical areas of the site namely the creek front from the fort to the rail fence well site. Option 5 proposed involves: The separation of 5 acres of the fort site from the 37.47 northerly parcel (the Town Park). Subdivision of the remaining 32.47 northerly acres into 14 building lOtS. I'm taking the 37 acres, that's the Town Park, breaking 5 acres of the fort site away from it and having the other 32 acres be divided into 14 building,' lots. Town purchase of the southerly section consisting of the 12 archeologically sensitive lots and the 5 acre Fort Corchaug site for the $900,000.00. I tested the market value of this option against 1. The market value of the subdivision, as presented in the DEIS The DEIS plan including the Town purchase of 37.47 acres of the 105.6 acres for a Town Park. But suppose the Town didn't buy the 37 acres, how much is the whole thing worth, that's number 1. And then I cranked in how much the Town would pay for their 37 acres. To establish a basis for comparison I first generated an estimate of what the subdivided property in its entirety would be worth on the open market. I Southold Town Planning Board 7 March 10, 1997 used the Indian Shores subdivision map as presented, assessed values of equivalent properties as give to me by the Board of Assessors and a 2.75% equalization rate. This equated to 2.53 million for the market value of the entire subdivision as presented. I then applied these same factors to the plan presented in the OEIS in which the Town would purchase the 37.47 northerly acres including the Fort Corchaug site for approximately $900,000.00. Including this $900,000.00, the value of the property then equated to 2.88 million. We've gone from 2.53 to 2.88. The option 5 which I recommended studying here priced out competitively to a value of 2.84 million.- Not considered in these cost estimates is the cost of doing a Stage II Archeological Survey estimated by Mr. A. Camisa to be in excess of $$2,000.00 for 40 acres of this site. Mr. Camisa was the contract archeologist involved in the original site survey. Option 5 can truly be considered a viable alternative which should be considered. Presented for your consideration are this transcript, the letter from the Board of Assessors, upon which I based my estimates, a table'presenting t~e three estimates and a revised subdivision plan. I have a number of copies available for people who would like them. John Strong: My name is John Strong from Southampton College, and I just finished a book on the Algonquin peoples of Long Island as. published by (inaudible) universiW (inaudible) Studies Institute. And I want to address a couple of things. First the archeological work, I'd like to ask perhaps a representative here why wasn't...the phase report that's in your DEIS for IA recommends that shovel testing be done at 50 foot intervals, and yet when we come to the lB, also by Greenhouse, the test squares are 100 foot. Why was the decision made to expand it and again as others have pointed out here, this certainly increases the possibility of not finding anything. And also I would express concern thai the State II thai was recommended for sites 6 through 10, roughly something like $6,000 per lot if you ask those individuals who you're going to sell it to to pay for the cost, which could be very awkward. It should be done at one time by an Archeologist rather than by six different owners or however that breaks down. it seems a [ittle bit awkward to me. Sou~:hold Town F!anning Board 8 March 10, 1997 But the other point that's related to that is that the work that has been done in village sites as Ralph Solecki himself indicated, particularly during the late woodland period reveals burials. The late woodland period burials were usually by the villages. You look at the Sebonic site that was excavated by Mark Harrlngton around the turn of the century, they found several burials. The same with Port Washington, so there's a great deal of precedent to suggest that there are undoubtedly going to be some burial sites that will be unearthed in :his process. Because we also know from the building patterns that native peoples live primarily along the banks of creeks, particularly where fresh water was flowing into salt water because there are two eco-systems that intersect there and it makes'a lucrative place for food resources and so forth. And so we can expect that there will be settlements found along this area. Indeed Ralph Solecki and others have indicated that they were there at the Baxter site as well. So, it seems very likely that if they do a responsible Phase I1 they will be forced to go to Phase III. Now Phase II, and again if you look at the SEQRA regulations it's quite clear, they figure Phase II is going to cost $32,000. Stage II now means that you look at the places where they shovel test is where they found artifacts and they put trenches and test squares in those areas and if they find something they keep following it out. So the stage Ii could be at some point call for a stage III. Stage Iit means a complete excavation of the whole site which costs much more than $32,000.00: You're talking a great deal of increase in expenses there. Another point again, to come back to the burials, federal law requires that burial sites if they are discovered must involve the living descendants of the native peoples that were being excavated at sites that were being interfered with here. We have considerable evidence that the MontaukeEts were closely related to the Corchaugs and moved back and forth - intermarriage - and so I think they would meet the federal guidelines in terms of living descendants. This means in effect that they have to be involved with this process, particularly when you begin to dig in these sensitive areas. $o it means that the situation is much more complicated than I think some would have them. Another point is that the area on the map that we're talking about here is also the area - I think it was lot 6 through 10 as well as the fort site - that are on the federal registry. The federal government recommended in the national landmarks decision there that this site should be preserved. We in effect are violating that. So I think it's very important to take a close look at all this in ~erms of all these kinds of possibilities as well. $outhold Town Planning Board g March 10, 1997 And we have here tonight the Chief o~ the Montauketts, Robert Pharaoh who may want to address the burial issue, Robert Pharaoh: Good evening. My name is Chief Robert Pharaoh of Sag Harbor, Chief of the Montauk nation. From our standpoint, any type of development where there could be the interment of indian remains, to desecrate a burial site, one thing you have to keep in mind is years ago native people did not necessarily have one specific place to bury the dead. At a similar situation out in Montauk they found numerous burials in very wide spread areas. To find just one grave in an area of this size, you will more than likely find many more. There are certain tribal ceremonies that we hold for burial and on certain sites that have been disturbed either through archeotogical digs or whatever, we really feel that we should be involved in this type of project. The Montauketts, as Dr. Strong said are related to the Corchaugs. We intermarried (CHANGE TAPE). We just feel that any type of development on a parcel on this is not what we would want to see. That's about it. Ann Lowry: My name is Ann Lowry and I'm speaking for the North Fork Environmental Council. While we appreciate all the reasons for preserving the entire site, we are only going to address some of the environmental aspects that came up in the DEIS. We are concerned primarily with groundwater and surface water, creeks and drinking water. The DEIS makes some assumptions which if the outcomes of the assumptions were different from what they say, it would have significant effects. For instance, they seem to throughout make the assumption that the agricultural land will be vineyards. This has the effect of providing less nitrogen loading in the ground and also requiring less water for irrigation. I get into nitrogen, and I'll say this right now, that this nitrogen par~ of the DEIS is very user unfriendly. It gives figures, it doesn't tell what they mean, it doesn't give the significance and it's very hard to make any assessment about, in very specifics tiow much is acceptable or better or worse. However, we know that less in general is better. The DEI$ also speaks of conservation measures and seems to make the assumption how the less use of water, the conservation of water, is going to happen. It states for instance that the impacts to goundwater quantities from the proposed action are assessed to be acceptable providing that the recommendations outlined in the North (inaudible) Water Supply Plan and voluntary efforts to conserve water are met. Using the word voluntary seems a little chancy to us and particularly in a sensitive area like this. SouCiqold Town Planning Board 10 Marci~ 10, 1997 The gElS takes pains to point out that a marine surface water system is not very sensitive to changes in groundwater quality. That is if that became contaminated it wouldn't affect the creek very much. Oroundwater quality does not in fact significantly alter marine surface water systems. The findings of the DEIS later state that reducing groundwater contamination will reduce the projects impacts to Down's Creek. Finally, if the vineyard scenario and the conservation easements on the Peconic Land Trust do not materialize, these agricultural parcels could eventually be developed themselves. There are some problems with the mitigation measures. For one thing in the residential, the to be residential parcel, the 75 foot setback is given as a mitigation measure. How can that be a mitigation measure when it's required legally. It does also address that the 100 foot setback as compared to the 75, that will be a voluntary choice, does not result in an obvious or greater benefit while further on in the same paragraph in the DEIS the following statement appears: 'it is impossible to qualifY or quantifY the benefit". If it's impossible to evaluate the benefit of a 100 foot setback, then how can the DEIS state that it would not result in a greater benefit. The question of the impact of a Town Park is somewhat confusing also. There is an area in the DEIS that talks about a common ownership of parcel 5 through 10 and talking about the potential for development of a trail or ,, ,' boardwalk as an extension of a trail system. And the DEIS says that this would in all probability have quite an unfortunate impact on the creek. However, in the Town parcel where there would be possibly upset with terrestrial wildlife and everything there are several statements made regarding the probabillty...l'm sorry, I'm reading the wrong part. There is no addressing that same issue in the Town parcel, that is if there were to be visitors and if there were to be trails and boardwalks it simply isn't addressed as to whether that would impact the creek or not on the Town parcel. $o you have to wonder why it is on the private property to be (inaudible) and I think we all know why. The sanitary systems, it says that the soils at the site appear to be acceptable for sanitary disposal purposes. When will that determination be made? One would hope that that would be pretty clear before any digging started. There is something to be considered also that there is a golf course on the east side of the creek. Now presumably, I think it's stated in the DEIS that that does not have an unfortunate impact at this time, on the creek. I don't Soul:hold Town Planning Board 11 March 10, 1997 know the practices of that golf course, but I wonder about the cumulative impact of homes on the other side, the west side of the creek. And if we can really count on education and voluntary efforts to be ecologically aware of what they put on the lawns and all that sort of thing. I guess that's all. David Marline: I'd tike to ask Dr. John Strong to turn the machine on. Could he put on the slide just for a few moments please? My name is David Marline and I'm from the Shinnecock Reservation in Southampton. I was going to bring a painting this evening but I wasn't able to buy it to bring it. So, I brought the slide because I wanted to give everyone an impression as to what t:he site with the fort on it could have looked like about 300 and some years ago. As you can see, it's a double palisaded structure and it was made of young trees that would have been placed in the ground, side by side, close enough so that you couldn't get through it and it was a place of refuge as well as a ceremonial center and it was also a place perhaps where wampum was manufactured. And those of you may not Know that wampum had a lot of spiritual significance to it. It wasn't just Indian money as they talk about in schools but it had a great deal of religious significance to it. Also the land adjacent to the fort, probably there were villages there and quite correctly was stated there probably are burials there and so forth. So I wanted to give you all an impression of what the fort would have looked like. It's used as a ceremonial center. We also have a detail of it. Here's somewhat more of a detail. You can see the ceremonial dance taking place. Those of you who are interested can see this at White Farm Park in Commack and this is a museum that's being operated by the Suffolk County Archeological Association. So, It was a protective enclosure for my ancestors who Ilved in this area. And of course it's not just the fort we're talking about, it's the adjacent areas as well. I'm concerned that the partles involved in the siting of this position of this archeological site be made aware that if the proposed area for preservation was not enlarged, is destroyed or altered, then part of my heritage, and the heritage of all Native Americans of Long Island and in fact a significant piece of the heritage of this country will be destroyed forever. And I think Native Americans have lost quite enough of their heritage already. We've already lost all of Long Island for which we were never compensated. And now the most visible evidence of that which remains seems to be unfortunately a few scattered archeological sites which are still being found Southold Town Planning Board 12 March 10, 1997 here and there. In Southampton a few years ago, I'm tPcing to put this into perspective a little bit, we [cst an ancient sacred burial site located on Sugar Loaf Hill to a developer who was not concerned with the spiritual, cultural or even scientific issues involved, with destroying forever that which ts irreplaceable. Now, I'm saddened that something of a similar nature is occurring again to a place of a similar magnitude. Chief Pharaoh mentioned a little while ago about a situation in Montauk Point in which graves were located in a place that was up for development. On that particular occasion there was supposedly archeologicat work done. This is another situation where they went every 100 feet, 50 feet or whatever and that was claimed to be an adequate study done for archeological purposes, and it isn't. In my opinion it isn't because it was proven so by another archeologist that came in with the best scientific techniques available and was proven that you just can't fool yourselves into thinking that by doing these little spot checks that you're finding something that may be there because it's not true. So my concern again is that burials could be discovered in these areas that have not been studied properly, or not been studied thoroughly. To go back to the Sugar Loaf Hill thing, I was going to make mention that unfortunately the guy that built the house there, he leveled 20 feet off the top of the sacred site. And there were religious principals involved, religious freedom issues. It was kind of swept under the carpet and it wasn't discussed that,.,' much. Also there's a situation by a hotel on the south fork at which a camp site was also discovered. Things were stopped at that site because they didn't want to get into the idea of trying to deal with where the burials were discovered. In that situation we proposed some steps that the Town Planning Board could take, if they found things that were located in the area that was of a sensitive nature, whether they be grave goods, burial remains or associated grave goods or ceremonial items. So there is, at least in the Town of Southampton, in place a series of steps that can be taken if things of a sensitive nature are discovered. I would recommend that you get a hold of those items because they're still in place and of course that was after the fact of losing this one particular site, but at least if subsequent sites are discovered then these stipulations can be Followed and the Focal Native American population can be made aware and be part of the process because I think that's very important. Lots of times history, especially in the archeological area or the museum area, Native Americans have been considered somewhat less than human. We've Soul:hold Town Planning Board 13 March 10, 1997 supposedly been specimens that could be studied under the microscope or could be exhibited, but we're still around today. We still have a right to be consulted. This is a part of our heritage as well. So the spiritual nature of places is an important thing to consider. All religions, cultures and peoples involved in special places and certain places not in others. That's why the importance of place is very important in this issue. My ancestors were related to the people who built the structures which existed on this site. This place was of singular importance. It was a place of refuge, a place of creative expression and a place of ceremonial importance. It was active at the contact period of civilization. This is when the Europeans first came here and started to build their little towns and they started applying all this pressure in order to develop all this inter-tribal conflict and so my people found it necessary, or the Native American people of this area, found it necessary to construct something to protect themselves because they were not inherently warlike or aggressive so they were forced to build this structure. So I am concerned that this place be preserved to its fullest extent possible and it should be venerated even because it is of a singular importance. I ask that you do not permit this site to be destroyed or compromised in any way, Do not allow what happened in Southampton to be repeated here in Southold. Please put your heads together and piece together a strategy that will spare this area from disturbance at the widest possible perimeter. Show that you have respect for peoples herltage that is not really your own. Can you withstand the pressure to do otherwise? Let Southold set an example as a place which will stand up for the preservation for generations to come of a place which brings to mind for today's society the significance of a deep past, the past which speaks to us of the men, women and children who laughed and lived and died right here, generations before the first Englishman set foot on this portion of Mother Earth. Deb Winsor: My name is Deb Wtnsor. I'm here representing the Southold Town Landmark Preservation Commission. The Landmark Preservation' Commission was created for the purpose of conserving, protecting and perpetuating historic landmarks and districts in accordance with Chapter 56 of the Southold Town Code. i'd first like to say that I very much appreciate that representatives of the Native American community made it here this evening to speak for the Corchaug community which unfortunately disappeared quietly and quickly around 1658 from diseases that were brought by the colonists. In lieu of no direct Corchaug descendants, again I Sou[hold Town Planning 8pard 14 Marcl~ 10, 1997 very much appreciate your being here tonight. Before f get into a preliminary response, the Southold Landmark Preservation Commission would like to tonight present our preliminary response to the DE]S that's been submitted. I would like to offer a copy of a letter that you have on file. It was sent to the Planning Board on July 27, 1996. I brought it sort of accidentally, it does build on the concerns that the Native American community have about burial sites in the vicinity of the fort. Again, we re- state that the fort was from what we know of forts of the contact period, it was a refuge, not a residence. And it's important to make note of that because the applicant has gone to great lengths to accommodate the fort site in the plan that you have before you. However, it does not accommodate consideration for the area around the fort site, especially between the well to the south of it and the fort. That's why that area was included in the National Register designation as a historic site. Preliminary to that though I would like to just offer this letter to the Board from Dr. Solecki, and I'll read just one sentence out of it. The former owner of the property, Mr. Downs told me in the 1930% his thesis was written in 1949, that they had found an Indian burial near the junction of his ~rm road and the Peconic Bay Blvd. south of the fort: site. It is quite likely that other burials may be found at that area or elsewhere on the property. Future work at Corchaug would involve additional investigations on the Palisade perimeter in order to obtain a fuller assessment of the fortification than I have been able to present, which he later presented in his thesis. I think the paintings were wonderful. It would be great if we could actually begin to, by archeological evidence, support the paintings that we've seen tonight. Again, these are renderings based on conjecture. We'd like to see what was there and what was going on. We'll offer a copy of this, and I have copies of this for the Board. It is in your files, [t was sent to you last summer. Additionally for all of you who haven't had a chance to do a little fun reading, this is the bulletin of the Archeological Society of Connecticut, No. 24 published June 1950. Unfortunately, this is the primary document that we can base most of our comment on tonight. It's Dr. Solecki's thesis which everyone hears a lot about. It was his masters thesis that he did, the title of which is The Archeologicat Position of Historic Fort Corchaug and it's relation to contemporary forts. You can all sort of wade through it at your convenience. It does mention a few precedents that I think are worth mentioning and were mentioned by representatives of the Native American tribes this evening. The first is that in 1949, I read, the Manhasset Fort located somewhere on Sachem's Neck on the south side of Shelter Island at that time the site had Soutl~old Town Planning 8pard 15 Marctu 10, 1997 not been found or known. The Shinnecock Fort in a surface survey of the region, 1946 investigated a hilltop and, I read, unfortunately there is a large dwelling on the hill at present, a construction of which has apparently obliterated all surface of aboriginal evidence. The Montauk Fort, writing in 1841 a Mr. Tooker found the outline of a perfect square of 180 feet. And then i read again in 1949, at present there is no trace of the fort. There is a large hotel situated where it had been. No evidence could be found nearby in a short survey by the author. This is writing in 1947. Again, we have a precedent in this area of disrespecting these finds. So as I introduce our preliminary response to this, I'd like the Board and the community to just remember that it would be nice if we could set a standard and a precedent with this site which would serve actually to be a precedent on the eastern seaboard. This is a pristine opportunity. (CHANGE TAPE) The first concern that We have is that the proposed subdivision shall compromise the New York State and Federal designations of portions of the parcel as historic sites. As such, the applicant does not address the following consequences. Again, the national register designation as a historic site extends from the fort going south through several of the proposed lots. If as delineated in this those parcels are sold perhaps one to the Town, but other to private residences, if a National Register site is broken up like that, it's our understanding the National Register designation is either canceled or there's a lot of work that has to go into redesignating the individual sites by the owners. If the current designated area is divided into separate ownership modified by earth moving equipment or otherwise disturbed prior to completion of archeological assessment, the National Register designation may be canceled. If that's not true, it has not been clarified to the opposite by the applicant the expectation of the proposed lots would be individually redesignated as very Iow. Again, that could and should be addressed in the DEIS. So long as the property is held privately as parcels or as a whole, the cultural resource recovery ts not eligible for public grants. If the National Register listing is lifted the property's eligibility for grants and funding is compromised, especially grants and funding that target projects that forward the recovery preservation and exhibit of artifacts that further our understanding of the cultural history of Native Americans. The second point that is of concern to us is that the DEIS is ambiguous as to $outhold Town Planning Board 16 March 10, 1997 how the applicant proposes to implement the conclusions from the Stage I archeologJcal research. The Stage I research concludes and their own consultant concludes that the property merits a Stage II survey. The archeological work should be completed prior to approval of the proposed subdivision as opposed to prior ~o developed as its worded in the DEIS. Implied in a Stage II survey is a requirement for uniformity of work and competent professional methodology and review. The gElS suggests, and it's not exactly clear that it's being suggested, I might be misreading it, that the responsibility for a Stage II archeological research will be transferred to the new owners conveyed by some SOFt Of covenant. The DEtS does not address how the proposed covenants will be enforced nor who will be the monitoring agent. The Town by accepting the current proposal as it's drafted now, of partition prior to exploration and research will thereby become the agency responsible for the proper conduct of cultural assessment. Is the Town qualified and prepared to assume fiscal and professional responsibility for archeological review. Again, there may be a different intent but it's not clarified in the DEIS. The applicant should clarify who will be responsible for covering the costs and defining and enforcing standards if the archeologJcal review is to be conducted by disparate owners. The DEIS should specify a time period for archeological review as there is n,,o representation as to when the last parcel may be conveyed. And again, I underscore what Dr. Strong spoke of earlier that the research on this site, the very nominal research that's been done considering the significance of it has been episodic. There has not been a continuum of research building upon research. It's been masters thesis aside masters thesis. The Phase lA and lb hasn't necessarily built on that. It was just an assessment of potential. The DEIS does not present viable alternative plans for the site as outlined In SEQRA. An alternative should be presented with consideration given to National Register delineation of cultural resources. There were alternatives given. One was a 42 lot plan. We have already visited that and found it not acceptable. And the other is no action at all. The DEIS extends responsibilities for currently uncontracted owners parcels. The gElS makes several references to future contracts for ownership and or stewardship with Southotd Town, Suffolk CountY and the Peconic Land Trust. We support those efforts. I can't understate enough. We support those efforts but for the purposes of the application before you, the gElS should Soul:hold Town Planning Board 17 Marcl~ 10, 1997 clarify what will happen if these contracts are not executed. That's our preliminary response to the DEIS that you have before you. We'll present a final review later during the public comment period for this project. Walter Smith: I'm Walter Smith. I'm President of the Indian Museum. About 10 years ago I started to sit in these meetings to save Fort Corchaug. Fort Corchaug is something that must be saved. It isn't something that we should argue about. It's perhaps the most important archeological site on the east coast at present. Each time we get to a stage where we're going to get somewhere, some political maneuver fouls it up. Now J don't know where we sit on this one but looking at the map as it's laid out, I can't see how we can protect the fort site from pot hunters and other people who are going to go in and destroy what's there. Because the one site is so close, they'll go right across the fence with a rake and get things out. So this is the thing we have to consider. The best thing we can do is perhaps save the entire site, but where's the money going to come from for doing that, that I don't know. But I think the Town and the County and perhaps the State should all get involved to get the money to save the site because it is of great importance. A lot of material from that site has passed through the Indian Museum as it was excavated, Lorraine Williams, Dr. Solecki and others, and then all gone out of town. I think we have three artifacts from. Fort Corchaug (inaudible), that's it. All the rest are scattered, they're at Yale, they're at the Smithsonian, at the Hide Foundation and a lot of basements and on a lot of shelves in the area and in other areas. So one of the major things is to preserve the site. And it's going to be up to the people, the Town, the State, to figure out how to save the whole site. Now, the Indian Museum had a similar situatlon in upstate New York with a flint mine. No one wanted to take it on. We owned a small piece of it. So we put our own money up and we now control the entire flint mine. And that site is of very great importance to the Native Americans living in the middle of New York State and it's preserved and it's preserved forever. And this is what we have to think about doing. Maybe we have to start some private fundraising, I don't know. But I know the site must be preserved and there's no argument about that. And if we try this piecemeal thing, it's just going to destroy it the same as Fort Massapequa was destroyed, the Orient Focus on Sugar Loaf in Southampton was destroyed and the Odent Focus on Brown's Hill was destroyed primarily because of shortsightedness. But I think we have to, somehow or other, come up with the money Southold Town Planning Board 18 March 10, 1997 preserve this site. I look in our governor's new budget with how we're spending the environmental money. I think most of it has gone to the other part ot: Suffolk County. Very little has come here. Somehow or other we were hornswoggled out of that money. So someway or other it's going to be absolutely necessary for the politicians and the other people in town to figure out how to raise the money. I don't think we should figure out new plans or new ideas. Let's get down to the nltty gritty which is the money. I've got to give Mr. Baxter a lot of credit for being a tremendously patient man. Because this thing has gone on for as far as I know about ten years, I remember by County Boards. Another thing that's happening there at the Baxter site which was at the end is now under water, at every high tide. What is happening, we are getting sea level rise and no matter how you want to argue about it, it's there. I've lived here for many many years and I can see the evidence of it, and that's going to have an impact. So all these things adding up means we must act and we have to act now in order to preserve the foFc and to prevent any further looting of that area. I thank you very much. Cliff Benfietd: My name is Cliff Benfield and I'm Chairman of the Southold Landmark Preservation Commission. And I want to thank Debbie Winsor for the job she did. I don't want to repeat much that she had said or others have said. The Landmark Commission wrote a letter to :he Board members August 15 stating our position and it hasn't changed. We would be remiss. 4n our responsibilities as working for the Town...the Town recognizes a landmark as any place or site which has historical value, aesthetic interest by reason of its antiquity or as a part of development heritage or cultural characteristics of the town, country or nation. In other words, we are committed to protect landmarks that have been designated at every level of government. In Southold, our code provides that we can only encourage preservation of landmarks through education and to promote and encourage historical awareness and judicious concern for designated landmarks. And that is what we are tn/lng to do. As designated as a landmark, 25 acres are included in that square that is the national site of the 106 acres. Of that 25 acres less than 20% has been allotted to a Town Park and contains the footprint of the fort which is very nice that we could have a footprint of the forc in a Town Park. However, you have the other 80% of a national landmark destroyed if this plan goes through. Steve Wlck gave a talk at the historical socieW yesterday which is very interesting and I know that wampum has religious significance but we all Southold Town Planning Board 19 March 10, 1997 know wampum has other significance too, The site at Fort Corchaug by Dr. Solecki was sited as one of the earliest mints in North America. And they manufactured wampum as Steve Wick said yesterday, the wampum of Corchaug bought the beaver fur for the Dutch and for the English that made New York State and developed our country. So we owe a lot to that little site, It is important to our country and it is significant. I think that you can probably hear a lot of people say the same thing and as far as what Walter has said about finding ways and means to preserve the land. I think we should do everything we can to do that. And I think there are public funds and private funds that could be available if someone had leadership on it and t believe the Town, or the people should be responsible for that leadership. ' The significance of the report itself I think has been brought out by many people and it does have some deficiencies as far as I'm concerned. No where in this DEtS does it show the coordinates on a map that show where the actual shovel digs were made and that is usually standard in such a preparation of document. There is either intentionally or sins of omission or comission, but on the map where the digs were made according to the notes of the archeologists themselves they did not indicate the dates where it was indicated they had found material. So, by looking at the map and the filled in holes on the map it is deceptive. As I say, probably unintentional, but nevertheless this is an imperfect document. And what I think is important as has been proven on the south fork is that when something happens like this and the Town goes ahead with it, they become liable from any group that wishes to sue and pursue test 2 and 3. And that becomes very very expensive and I think the Town should probably consider that there's a conflict of interest with archeologists that work for developers and the Town itself may well consider having an independent archeologist of their own to monitor what is done by archeologists for developers and that might be a practice that would be well advised for the rest of our history. Thank you very much. Rob White: Good evening. My name is Rob White. I didn't have any intention of speaking here tonight. I come as a private citizen. I'm quite concerned about this issue. I was trained at Cornell University as a landscape architect and land planner. I graduated back in the late 60's and I worked for a fellow who taught me a hell of a lot more than Cornell University ever could have. One of the things that was his mainstays was that change is inevitable. SouthoId Town Planning Board 20 Ma~n10,1997 Change is always going to happen. Its how we manage that change that matters. Another thing that this fellow always had, was something in his refrigerator called forever soup. And what he and his wife would do was they'd have dinner every night and no matter what it was, whether it was pork or chicken or whatever and they'd get done and whatever was left over went into this big pot in the refrigerator and each day they would put different spices in of this, that and the other thing and keep this thing going and they always had forever soup. You're probably trying to figure out what that has to do with what we're talking about here. I consider what we're talking about here, forever soup. The North Fork is changing. It has changed tremendously in the 25 years I've been here. My family grew up here. ! myself have been here for 25 years and I've seen a tremendous amount of change. What we have to do I think is maintain some flavor in that forever soup that Is the North Fork. 100 acres of one of the most important archeological sites that this area has to offer is not, I think, too much to ask for us to do our utmost to maintain as flavor for this forever soup that is the North Fork. The Baxters have been absolutely wonderful, in trying to help and work with the Town in making sure, or doing what they can to make this happen and I would just ask that we keep in mind that these treasures, little by little by little, not for now but for tomorrow, for 10 years from now, for 20 years from now that we still have this forever soup going with a lot of flavor to it. Did I make my point?; Elizabeth Hale: Good evening. My name is Elizabeth Hale. I'm from the Shinnecock Indian Reservation and I'd like to bring greetings from Shinnecock Nation Cultural Center and Museum. We wanted to be sure that you knew that native people, descendants of all those 13 tribes are here. Mr. David Martine whose paintings you saw is also on our Board. Marjorie Martinez ts here today and Chief Bob Pharaoh, and we are just a few who are saying remember the past and from where all of us came. Our people are watching how things come and how they are handled in these days and 1 think that many contributions that we have made in the past have been appreciated but have been forgotten and we don't want you to forget us. We are standing right here watching how Fort Corchaug is handled. I also belong to the New York State Museum at Albany Education Committee on Down State which is a new exhibit which is being opened during the 1990's and to the year 2000 we will see a full exhibit of New York State history. I would hope that this piece would be highly recommended there. Dr. George Hamil is the director there and he is the president of the Re- patriation Committee, national. And we don't want to get the Re-Patriation Soul:hold Town Planning Board 21 March 10, 1997 Committee upset around here. We have a Iot of things that we want to contribute and so that our descendants, your children and mine will know much more about our history and treasure it as we all do. Thank you. Robert Pharaoh: I'd just like to formerly request on behalf of the Montauk Nation that the Town of Southold keep us informed on the developments and this property, because it is very important to us. Mr. Orlowski: OK. Spealdng for the Board I'd like to thank you all very much for coming out tonight. It was a very good hearing. I thank you for your comments, for your questions. Tonight we will end this public hearing and that the comment period will stay open until March 20. So between now and then if you have any other comments, anything you'd like to get to the Board that we could review before we pass it on to the applicant, we would appreciate it. Any questions from the Board? Mr. Ward: I'd just like to thank you all for coming and I'd just like to see by a raise of hands of how many would like to see the whole fort preserved, the whole site. OK, it's everybody in this room. Basically, I'd like you to ask since this is the first time that I've seen a group together of everybody that's pro save the entire site, is that I'd tike to make an appeal to you to do some homework. One would be to write to Suffolk County. The Town already has committed/ up to a million dollars to help purchase this property. Let me tell you that this Planning 8oard and your Town Board is actively pursuing the County and the State to get some money to help pull this off. But hearing from a few politicians and Planning Board members is not enough. What we need for you to do is to write to Bob Gaffney, Suffolk County Executive, cc: Michael Frank who is the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation, cc: Stephen Jones who is the Commissioner of Planning. The State has come through with $200,000.00 to this project from the 1993 bond issue which was an Environmental Bond Act. I personally made a trip to Albany to talk to Winthrop Aldrich who is the head of the Environmental Protection Historic Preservation for the State, Deputy Commissioner and their attitude right now is, they don't know what's happening with the bond issue money for 1996. We all voted for that bond issue. We need you to write to Governor Pataki. We need you to write to Bernadette Castro, Commissioner of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. And her Deputy who is Wint Aldrich in Albany. If you need help on those names, the Planning office wilt help you. Please everyone that's here tonight, write those letters and let's have our voice heard. There's no reason that we can't Mardq 10, 1997 Southold Town Planning Board 22 get additional Funds. Mr. Odowsl<h Anyone else have a comment? Mr. Edwards: You might even go a little Further to the Federal end oF it because it is a national site, part o¢ it and if we can get the word out some oF the Federal people might help. Mr. Ward: Believe me, they'll listen to this group better than they will us, so please help us out. Mr. Orlowskh Now that we've given everybody all that homework, I'll entertain a motion to close the hearing. Mr. Cremers: So moved. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: All those in ¢avor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers. Mr. Orlowskh Opposed? Motion carried. Hearings Held Over From Previous Meetings: Mr. Odowskt: Estate o¢ Andrew Cassidy - Section I - This major subdivision ~s For 5 lots on 58 acres. Lot #I is a non-buildable wetland area oi= 25.24 acres; Lot #2 is a :52.98 acre area on which the development rights have been sold and lot #:5 is an 80,000 square Coot residential lot. The parcel is located on the south side o¢ Albertson's Lane in Oreenport. Section I is Cot 2 lots; a 2:5.24 acre non-buildable wetland lot and a :54.82:58 acre lot o~ which the development rights have been sold on :52.98 acres. SCTM# I000-52-5-59.6. Mr. Cremers: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ofFer the Collowing resolution. Be it resolved that the Southold Town Planning Board hold the hearing open pending receipt o~ the Final maps with Health Department approval. Mr. Edwards: Second the motion. Mr. Odowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? NELSON, POPE & VOORtlI$, LLC 572 Walt Whilman Road Melv/lle, New York 11747 2°d ECt~m/s$;O0 (:516) 42%5665 Faxx '516) 427-5620 March 20. 1997 Town of Souflmld planning ~ Town Hall, 53095 Main Road PO. Box 1179 Southold, NewYork 11971 Atlmatio~: Melig~a Spiro R~: Indian Shores DEI$ Dear Ms. Spiro Nelson. PCl~ J~ Voorhis, LLC has r~view~t thc D~ ~m~ ~p~ S~ (DEI$) for ~ Pr~s~ ~jor Sub~si~ - ~alan S~r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Feb~ i4, 1997 1~. ~e follo~g is a c~mb~fi~ *fN,P~V ~ ~e To~ ~l~,~{,g D~ent Co~. P~c !: Sm'y A. Proposed Ac~on DEIS The apphcanon includes a ~-7.-~, acre parcel off~ for pmebase by ~e To~ or Seu~old for ~e ~ a c~m~ r~ur~ p~k. Comment: Please provide addiuonal iaformation regarding this put, l,,?. by rt~ Town of Southold. Specifically, has '~h¢ Town be~n contacted with regard to the purchase of this parcel. Who is Tcwa contact, and what is the current status of negotiations, DEIS Statement: The DEtS 1i$~s six purlx~es of~e proposed action. One of the six stated purposes is "To prot~ cultural resources associated w~th Fort Corchaug and other historic sites." Comm~n~.; Statements, ~ome o£ ~ch are listed below, made ia ~ ~ se~ of the P~ lB ~l~i~ S~ey ~s 16-I~ ~d ~e Concl~ ~d R~fio~ s~on of ~e P~e LB ~1o~ Su~ey ~ge lg), ~ ~t mppo~ ~e ~vc ~ ~U~t ~ m · e D~S. ~is should be cl~. As aoced below, some of ,.he c,altural resottrces assOOar~i with Fort Corchaug ar: likely to I~ impa~w~d, by eelTM aspects of the proposed dev¢lopmerrr. In add/t/on, there are ~scr,pancies and eontrmOJ~:i~ berwe~ s~a~emeau made ia time Results sec~on and statememts made in the Conclusions and Reco~dm/ons section. Tn~'~ arc also contradict/om berwe,~r~ the slated inforrn~on and th-.~ shm~n en the CuR=al Resource Map as noted b~low..~dl d/screpancies and contr~ictions should be explained and clarifl~. Page 1 ....... 516 ---, =~:ZO P.03 !0 · Tim Fort Carehm,g Site is localed primzrily within the proposed Town Park and Lots 9 ~ t0. · The Fort Corchaug site is located pmmanly within the Town Park but p~bably xlso in Lot I0. (~ni~ l~tememt omits Lot 9, which is included in the above mentioned smteraenl:, and adds thai the For; CoreMug site is "probably" in Lot 10. This must be ¢iarlfi~l. Irt addition, the Cullllral l~source Map dO~S not show t.~ Fort Careha, tg site within either lot). · The Fort Corchaug sit~ is likely to be Unpacted by new house~ in Lots 9 and 1.9 and possible impro,aunents to the Town Park. Ti~e Fence Rail Well Site is lecated within Lots 4, 5 and 16. This site is likely 1:o be impaa-ted by the pro.tx~sed house, roads, driveways and serx4ce ¢oonecfion¢ an~aeigamd as paxt of the sub4ivision. · The Fence Rail Well site is located ~6thin Lots 2-10 and 16 (The above mentioned ~,a'ment says that the Fence Rail Well Site ia located within Lots 4, 5 and 16. Y~n, thc Cultural Resourc~ ;Map shows the Fence Rail Well Site as being located on Lot 5 only). · Additional prekiston¢ r~aiw were repot'md iu Lots 6 through 10 betw~n the Kill Fence Well Site and Fort Corehaug. The '~aorthern new prekisto~c sim" is located pamally within ;he proposed To,nm Park and partially within LOt 1. Page 4: Cultural Resources DEIS Statements: TN: park proposed for sale to $outhold will preserve the cultural resoarce$. Greenhouse Comsulmnt~, Inc. concluded no new uripacts m cultural resource sites would be ~xpecr. ed with the exception of a new site found dunng recent investigatior~. ,as mentioned in the previous comment, the information eon*,i,,~l in thc Appeactices does not support thele statements. The Phase lB Aretm~logicul Survey results conclude (vath the discrepancies mentioned in th~ above me~6oned comments for Page l) that the Fort ,Corcbaiig Site is likely ;o be mapacted by new houses in Lots 9 and 10 and the Fence Rail Well Site is lil~ly to be impacted by the p~oposefl houseS, roads, drix~vays and service connection~ anticipl~d a~ pan of the subdivision. The park proposed for '~ale to Southold u-ill preserve some of the cultural resources, but certainly not "thc" cul~rat resources located on the site. Page 4: Water R~onrce~ DEIS Stateme~: Current regulator/requitemea~ will avoid si~mfieant impacts and thc s~andards iraposed by the approwal agencies can be met. Ptea~e ¢lari~ this statemcnt What r~gulatory requirements and how will tlms~ n:quircram~ avoid si?ificant impacts. Thc proposed pr~je~ should be des~ned to avoid si~mifica~; impacts and appropriar~ rnitlgatioa should be al. retailed in the FEIS so that each agency, may ino~rporate the~e measures into their Findings ami decision documents. Page 4: Aquatic & Te~exmal Ecology DEIS Statement: Continuous buffer zones between ;ve~land and wxxxtland habitats provide wildlife cor.'idors. Page 2 CommcnKi A 7Y buffer co= from '~ w~md ha~ ~ pro~. S=v~-~= (Tf) f~ k ~ ~d w~d ~¢. ~¢ sc~back d~ act exclude cl~ ~d ~r ~5' ~ 75' ~r pro~d~ ~ mppm ~e fmtmmt &t a s~ent ~it~fe ~dor is p~cul~ly in -~ew of~e cmuhfive ~m~ of pnva~ u~imfioa of much of~e Dom't Cr~k fkon~. Page 5: Cutmral Resources Commc~t[: Why are there 2 s~,'c'tions f~r Cultural Resources; om: on Page 4 and one on Page 5? sections should be combined. Page 6: D. Altemative~ DEIS Staternont: The most viable plan appears to be the proposed ac'd°n. Corrlm~K~ This sent:nc: should be smcken smc~ k W ~ ~on of ~e apph~ ~ is not nece~ly su~ by d~mmfim ~v~ ~e issu~ w~ r~ ~.. ~m ~y be ~er p~ w~ch ~ m~re ~able b~ on ~e ~n~ ~Pa~ m ~ su~ ~ s~y, ~e Fort Cor~ug snc. Page 7: Approvals Rextmred Table Comment: The specific Tom Department or Board issuing 'due required approvals shontd be included in a revised table. Page 9: Figure I Comment The labeled "Future Dev¢!opme~t .-~-ea" should be relabeled "Residential Development Area". Lf in fact that is correct. If net, please clarify what the "Future" development w/Il be. Page 10: D~scription of Il~ Proposed Action DEIS Statemem: There is also · provision for two fi~ma-'~ resid~nhaL one retail and one outbuilding on the vamyard parcel as well as a reside, am and ou~uildin$ structure along New Suffolk Avenue. Comment: Th/s statement should be ctahfied. One resid~tial building (not nvo) is allowed on ,-.ach proposed "vineyard parcel". What parcel is the residence and o~b~ld~ s~e pmpos~ tbr ~ong N~ SuffoLk Argue? ~ k ~e s~nd ~e~d p~ (1~ ~2) or ~c ~ ~1 (lot ~3)7 ~cl~ a m~t who m~tes ~t ~ mmr~ d~i~ on ~c ~mion ~p ~,: h~o~ ~d ~&fi~ Tom ~d use ~ buiMin8 d~ appro~s Mll ~ ~uk~ prior m Page 21: Design and Layout DEIS Statement: Development of *Jae sire ~-as dic~ted by natura/ resonr~'s (well,nde) and ~mhural resource ¢onsf_mln~, whic2u have been incc~orated Mo t&e overall developmem plan. Page 3 discussed m ~h¢ commcn~ £or P~¢ t, a ~/,~m/:/can~ ~.moum of' d~ "cuL'urzl re, source co~-amt~" are locate~l wit.bm thc d¢~lopmeat a-ea. The £act~ do not suppo~ the ~mteme~t that develepme~ was d/¢ta~ed by cuttura] r~ourCe constraints. Page 25: Pec°mc La~ Tru~ DEIS S ta~e~at: %~ Applicant kxm~ to donate ~serVauoa ea~m~ts cover~g th: two agneulm~l lots of 18.g4 describ~ sp~zi~¢ porrio~ of ~¢ ~it~ tha~ will be sepa-~cd from ~¢ parent and &ma~i m -,he Tow~. T~ ~p~ci~c areas and leg~ mecb~,~ms for ~,-H~¢vm~ ~ should be disems~L Oth~ m~.bods o£ ot~m spacedcom~.wado~ eas~'~a~ prote~ion might al~o be consi&n'~. If no such l~gal measur~ ~an b~ ackL~ved, the potential L, npa~ on o~:~m space should be disclosed. Page 3 t DEIS Smtmment: Mainren.~r~c~ of the mad and ~t~rmwater system will be the responsibility ofth~ Town of $outhold. Col'flmc~lE ,Mamt~uancc of t~¢ road and stormv~t~r s~ ~11 ~t bc ~ ~o~ib~ of ~e T~ ~ ~c ro~ and ~e ~ ~ off~ m, ~d ~ by ~e To~. Until m~ ~ ~t ~ ~ ~e d~a~ m ~e To~, ~' m~ be ~ r~mfoffiW of ~ ~r J~on or dewloper Table 3 : / DEIS Smt~: Appr~'~ ~ from ~ S~a~ ~ ~ sub~v~on ~p ~pm~ ~ SEQR. Approval from thc Suffolk County Deparu~m of Heal~ Servicea i~ a ~ approval for realty subcliv/sion. Site specific permits to construct samtary ~stems will them be r~quired whm individual buildings ate c. oastru~o~d. ?~c 55: Tidal Mar~h DEIS Statement: Lots 6-10 have ad~:tuam a~a abow ~ 10 f~ ~ for ~ a~r~fi~ Mildhg m~, and w~ pe~t ff a~ ~ pm~ ~l~ ~c 10 f~r ~our. ~t 5 d~ ~ trove ~m r~m for a b~Ai~ mvct~ ou~i~ of~SDEC ju~, ~ ~ r~e ~ ~ ~ pe~g. ComJ"n¢~l£: Tb~ proposed 75' wctlo, nd but~fer area should be ~xpand.~ landward m ~e 10' ~ur ~ where ~ ~to~ ~ is oumidc (we~) of ~c 75' burr ~. ~ ~11 ~um ~ ~ ~ ~low ~e I0' ~ntour l~c r~ ~ a r~m~ ~ ~d ~ not r~mm ~SDEC ~cte 24 p~. Lot 5 ,houtd ~e r~s~ or mt~ so ~r a satB~U bufl~g ~ve[~ ~ be 1~ above ~e 10' ~nmur line ~ oumi~ of~e ~SDEC juns~mon. P~e4 G~n~ral Comments: The issue of N~'$DEC jurisdiction over ~e wet~ on si~ mu~ be ~ wi?bin ~e FEIS. Vae DEIS ~. 54) ~ ~x a jolt appfi~ w~ ~e on ~ m~visi~ ~ ~e ~SDEC ~ ,~y Co~s of E~ m D~r of 1996. ~ ~ms of ~s appfl~on ~ao~d be ~e p~ of~e FEIS r~rd, ~ ~y ~ ~ shodd ~ ~clud~ ~ ~e FEIS ~ ~x it ~ be m~o~ ~to ~ Sm~t of F~s. The FEIS should also clearly outthie how th~ proposed we~.ud buffer areas will be protecrzd. The DEIS (p. I07) ladic, ates rlust *a,.zse areas will r~i- undisturbed. Although NYSDEC restrictious ' would not allow buikti,~ or paved surfac~ within 75', clearing of v~on would, be The FEI$ should discuss the use ofcovenantq to protect the buffer area, particularly/- the areas of s-a~p, er slopes, a,cl these resmc~:ioes should be described so tea[ they may be irmluded in the Statement of Findings. The applic, am is strongly encouraged to util/ze covenants ttu,r will remove as rna~y lots as possible from NYSDEC jurisdiction by restricti,,g dev~toprrumt to a::ea.s above the 10 foci contour. Page 64: Upland Forests The vegetation occurring at the former Fog Corchaug sit~ is umique and_ can best be described as Mamime Oak Ban-~xs. As shown on tl~ vegeannon l_~caUon Map, more ubau half of ~e ~me O~ B~ ~ ~ l~t~ ~ ~e p~os~ ~vel~m~t ~. Y~ no ~fi~on m~ ~ pr~ m p~ or co~c~¢ ~s ~qu¢ ~. ~ ~ould ~ ~dr~S~ ~ we~ ~ g~ vcg~on ~p~ m ~he ~t ~1~. G~eral Comments; The DEIS do~s not include a sc~don on impels to veg~ation, a/t.hough scan: appmpriau: m_Cormation is included m the nu~gat/ma sexuon of tl~ document (p. 118). The FEIS should quzntif? both thc ~-~XiSlillg area of ~ollh habitat and the area which will remain foliowing implem~utarion of the proposed project. The documeut does brie~ty discuss impa~ts to the wet. lands, but does not ade. quaxety addre~ the loss of upland vegetation. A general discussion of vegetation impacts should be presented in the FEI$, followed by a more derailed discussion of the more valuable habitats. In paracular, thc setting s¢~on of the DEIS (p. 65) ladic, ax~ ~ the southern portic~a of thc site is marare oak-kickory forest, and that few rem--,.-~ of this native fore~l remain wiri/n the Town. The impacts to this habitat should be discussed w/et, i, thc tq:lS in vi~v of thc relaxiw: mx'ity of ,Jais plant community as ~tated in the DF-iS. Some mitigation has beau mentioned in th~ DEI$ (p. 118), but the F£IS should discuss explicit mitigation measures that eau be included in the Fh~aing~; Smtemant. such as utilization of coveuants t~ specify, clearing limits and preservation of larger r. ru,~ within the landscaped portior~ of individual lots. Ia additiou, two ram planta were id~mi_qed as potentially preaent on si~ (DEIS, p. 68). Th~ like!iheod that r. he~ species will be impaoted by the proposed project should be dii:cussed in the FEIS. Page 5 Page 68: Rare Plants C~meral Commenm The DEIS fails to ~equat¢ly adckess po*~nfial impac~ ~o w~ldli£e on si~, and do~ not co~min & list of ~pecies that are ex-p~ted on the property. A ~mplete list of ~ildlife which we pote~6~l~y pre~ent on site should be included in the FEIS, *s was requested in the origi,~! ~c, oping letter. The DEIS presets only a brief, incomplete Ii~t of predo~ranantly wetl,nd sixcies (p. 62.64, 68). S~werai groups of wildlife are not even rnenuoned in the DEIS, including the warblers and otl~r impo~'~.nt ugla~.d fauma. The wildlife li~ should identify Lm:ti¼dual species rathe.' than general faunal groups. In parUcular, the FEIS should discuss the proposed clearing on the refereed pertain of the sim, which w/ll be the pranary wildlife impact. Thc FEI$ should first ideal~,y all ~41dlife Slx:des which would be axlaected to u*i~;~ the forest Labirat, rhea address the potential impacts m these species which may result from th~ proposed clearing. This analySiS should include a discussion diff'erent/a~ing bet'ween spec/es which adapt well to development and area sensitive species wtzich may abandon tt~ site following con.mmction. A brief, but mare accurate, discussion of reptiles amd amphibia,ns should also be hacluded in the FEIS. The frogs and ~lamanders are not found in salt wamr as suggested in the DEI$ (la. 62), although they. might be present on sim if sufficient fi-e~water is available. Th~ pot~atial presen~ of'uhese species should be discussed in thc FEIS. It ~hould also be noted tlmt mrtl¢,s are repliles, not alTlphi~nn% as $11~ ill th~ DEtS (p. 62). Page 71: Cultural l~sonrces DEIS St,temmx: Soulh ofth/s area is believed to b~ *.he hi_qor/c Fort Corchaug, w/th a possible village also nearby. This statement must be discussed filrther. For instance, no ~rther mamtion ia made of the "possible Ytllage" in Other the DEIS or Appendices. ." DEtS Statement: The flrst pk~e ~'~¢ inv~dgation con$%~ of shovel testing a; ¢very fi_~ feet aorth of the t'on a~jacent to tl~ ¢~eek a~d ~ salt m~r~hes. Page $ of ti~ Conclusions and Recommendations of the Phase lA Archaeological R~esrch Assessment recommends that a phase lB Archaeological Survey be conducted on the project area and that the survey should ¢omist of shovel testing at 50 foot intervals north of the fort along the wooded stop adjacent to Downs Creek and also <thin ~ salt marshes wh~m,wer possible. However, as noted on Page 3 of the Phase lB Archaeological Survey, the parcel was Luvesfigaald by exca'~afing shovel tests located on a 100 foot grid pattern. Aee, ordingly, the abov~ mentioned srat=rient that shovel testing was don~ ever7 fifty feet is not true. Documentation as to why skovel tesling was not done at 50 foot iatervals as recommendad, must be presented. P~e6 Pa~e 80: C-roundwaler DEIS Statement: This section o£ the DF.IS discusses the use of water-eflScie~t plumbing, w,,.~.: co~erVa~on ,'netheds, etc, aud concludes that the impacts to groundwater q.~nrities from the p'mposed action are ~sessed to be ac~ptable pro,,iding t,M£ the recerra-nendat/o~s outlined ia the No~ Fork Water Supply Plan a~d voltmmry efforts t~ co~serve ~ater axe m~. Altheug.h the DEIS stales thai it is likely thai water ccase~atica methe<is will be used, it claes not recommend .~quiring any of these toe. ods. I~ absence of specific implement~ble mitigation measures to e~force wamr cor~ervatica, the impacr~ ta ground~ter must I:~ ba.s~l on the worst ca~e sc~ano. ~ is important because wells lac, azed in low l.~t'~g coo.stol areas arc parficui,~rly prone to sal~ water iumasion. Page 107: Wetland and Wildlife DEIS Statemex~t: Future access to the creek via cleared paths and floamag ciocl~ c~uid occur, but would be regn,l~,~ on a czse-by,~ase basis by NYSDEC, Town of Southold and the U.S. Army Corps oFEngme~s. If resmctio~ prohibiting cleared paris and fl~n~ decki, eta. a~c no~ proposed. ~ ~,atements made in other par~ of the D£tS in regard to provisicas for conUnuou~ buffer z~nes be'~¢ca wetland and wec4!m~d habitu~ to provide wildlife comdors must be re'eXamined. There is au inherent conflict bet,,veen allcveieg ¢leanng ~d docks, etc. and providing for a wildlii~ e~mdor. Page 108: Cultural Resources DEIS Sra,~ments: This section again disc-asses ~e lOea~on of ~ae prehis~ric skes ~tl~a the proposal deveraSpmen£ axe. a. The DEIS recommends fk~t a Pb. aS¢ 2 .~rcilag~olo~ca] S~!1%'6y Of ~tl~ F~n~ ~il We~l site b~ undertaken prior ta ccaswaction of Lots ,1-10 and 16 to determine the precise boundaries of the site a~ well as porerxial Nati~ Register eligibility. The Cultural Resource Map contained in the Appendices shows the ~e proposed ILex 5 as being located within the boundaries of one of the prehistoric site~ (the Rail Fence Well Site). In order for the subdivision m be designed to prote~ .~lxual resources associat~i wifla Fort Corchaug. the Phase 2 Survey should be completed prior to completion of the SEQRA re,dew, t~aty the~ can p~eise boundaries be determined and development be designed to lessen the u-trig:ts to culmi-al resourc~ sites_ In ~dkion, the Fo~ Corchaug site, a~ well as twenty-five acres of the subject property, are designated ca the National Re~,sler of His,ode Places. Yet, the e:m-t~$ National P, egis~r designation is not discussed. The anpacts the proposed development will have o~ the National Re~ster designation must be addressed in detail. DEIS Statement: Fort Corchau$ is located priraa~y in ~e Tow~ Paxk but probably also in Lot I0. Corrffn~nE .-ks mentioned in the comments on Page l, there axe discrepancies and c,,~n~ict, s w~h regard to the locauon of the Fort Corcbaug Site. What is defined as bc~n~ the Fog Corchaug site? Wbax b meant by Fort Corchaug being primarily located in the Town Park? W'mat pereenta4ge of the Fort Page 7 site is lo..ted ~i',hin ,-he prop~s~ de¥¢icpm~at ~m? ~ sup~g ~c~lo~ r~ pmsm~ si~fic~t si~ b~g ~ ~ pro~ development ~ z P~ 2 Su~ey mu~: be ~mpl~ prior ~velopmen/ be d~i~ to ~o~fion, ~ ~ pot~U~ for i~p~ble ~d ~e~ev~le loss of culm~ rmour~- p~e ~ 12: Mi~ M~ DEIS ~e foEo~ B a de~fipfion of t~qu~ ~at ~y be ~ploy~ m ~ ~o~e~ C°mmen~ecific mitigation methods that ~-ill (as ~posed w my) be used must be diseased. La addition w how they will be implemented ~nd euforeed. For example, on P~ge llg, ~e DEI$ states that construction of the residemial developmeIat will not involve clear cutmag of the lots. What provision is proposed to ensur~ -d~at clear cutting will not o~cur'? Page 119: Cultural Resousces DEIS Stat~-m~t~: .. Additional measures ~ pro~ to ~u~ po~ ~ ~ ~m~ r~our~;. A qu~li6~ ~cheolo~st ~Y n~ ~ ~u~ ~o~ ~ov~ ~ prior ~ ~ ~ r~i~ ~y o~er si~fi~t ~a ~t ~d be once ~- ~i~ by ~ pros~ ~ o~er or appr~m ~, ~e f~ p~ o~ ~e ~e ~d be ~v~ to avoid ~y ~s~e~ ~so~:s. A P~ 2 p~ To~ P~. d~l~p~t of a ~jo~ o~ ~ p~os~ 1o~ (~ 1-10 ~ ~ 16). .~ n~ ~ pHor co~e~, a P~ 2 S~ m~ be compl~ p~or ~ ~mpl~on of ~e SEQ~ review. ~t ~ ~ ~e pms~ ~ o~r or ~pr~e ag~', ~ ~t P~ o~e h~se ~d be mo~ to svoid ~y ~ ~o~. ~e ~ ~ ~ (i.~. ~ of si~ ~ md ~g ~a ~1o~ on sim), m~ be ~s~ in ~ ~ ~on to approp~m r~, i~lu~ sup~ ~o~on, to ~e follo~ qu~: . H~ ~ ~e a~ove ~on~ ~uon m~ be ~r~? * Is r~ m ~le ~ . ~ ~1 ~ ~e m~ ~r ~e~ ~d w~ ~ ~p~ m ~e ~ i~? , ~t ~ MPP~ if ~er ~ shows ~ ~ peo~ ~velcpm~t ~ is a ~e sim or bu~ si~? _ ~ su~ P flor ~ develop~nt , ~ apph~t pmpo~ ~ ~ a P~e ~ ~c~lo How .~11 '~s be ~e~ mommr~ ~d Page 122-127: Alternatives Cultural Resource. Prcscrvanon Alternative: Comment: This al~na~ve was proposed to ~dress the ad~uacy of a r~co,~ry meth~ of mitigamug ar~cologicai impacCc$ az compared m avoia~-e~ ~rf r~sourc.~. Howev~, 'd~ DEI$ compass rex. overy m avoidanc~ withinTo~ ~ro~ed buildi~ lo~ only. Thc adotuac7 of a mcovm3t m~hod must lac compared to avail:lance tl~ough revision of lot layout In ahdition, as mc~t/oned in thc ~ for Page 119, the ~coVery me~hod mus~ be discusr~d in Expanded Fort Corchaug Sim Allm'nafive: Comment: , . · This al~:mative was pro.sod to pro~4d~ a discusmoo of cluStOnng to provi~ a larger prc$cawazion axr, a il~ thc vicinity of Fort Corchaug. Th~ DEIS stats ~ 'q'his air. native would involve expansion o£ thc p~posed 3%~7 acre Town Park m include some of ~ p~osed ~idcmlnt Iota". It is not: truo thaz tim Town Park would have to be ~xpanded in order to prcserve a larger area in thc vichfity o~Fort Corchaug, a revised lot layout would ~mbl~ a la/gcr area Lu th~ vitrify of'Fort Corchaug to be preserved. It is understoc~ that in order ~o provide a larg~' prc~rvation area Lu the vicinity, of Fort Corchaug, a reduoxt number and/or size o the lots fron~5.'ng on Downs Creek will be not sufli¢ieat ~o limit discussion of dcvciopmcnt to thc confines of tJ~ proposed deucloPrn~t area. Rcmov;d of Lot 10 and/or reduction ha size o~'th~ propos~ lots w-ithi~ development area, or th~ To~'a's ~-tended purchaso of a lot which does not exist axe not thc only aiternalix~,.~. Alt~rp. ativc layouts for th~ ¢ntir8 105 a~r8 $i~, which prc~i'v¢ tl~ c, ul~r~l resources assOmated with Fort Corchaug. must be revicwod inclu01n~ layouts which revise thc boundaries of thc developable area and the proposed Tourn Park. This letter pro~6dcs thc combined comments o£ Planning .~t3/~ alld N,P~V. Lfyou a~c m agreement, it is suggested that r~c$o comments as well as comm~ats ~ccive.<l from tl~ public, Mvolvcd agencies and imm-ca'teA pa~e$, and the transcript of the heanng be forwarded to th~ applicant Thank you for ".he opporrUmty to pro,Adc you v~h this rc~v,~eau°ns' N~ZS6N, PO~ & VOo~, LLC P~e9 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES INCORPORATED P.O.B. i522, RCCKY IK)INT, NI:'W YORK 11778 TIE.et'HONE 516-331-5980 FAX 516-331-5930 Robert j. Kalin, P.A., P.(;,, Federal and New York State Certified Archaeologist, ?rofes'~or of Geology, iCC College. Selclen, LI., New York March 21, 1997 Mr. Itennert Orlowaki, Chairman Planning Board, Town of $outhold Offices, SourhoId, New York ] ] 971 Dear Mr. Re:Indian Shores l-¥oposal, Cutchogue, Southoid, New York The proposed Indian Shores project is the location of the National Registry For'. Cor,,'haug Site, the only Mmwn and best preaerved Native American Fort on Long island which was occupied and used from 1640 to 1602. l:orrunalety ibc slgniftcance of the sire was rec~gnizcd curly and was studied by an eminent archaeologist, Dr. Ralph Sotccki, who contributed greatly to our present knowledge. There remain, however, historic, archaeological and cultural questions related to linc site which await to be addressed by more intensive studies which at the present t/mc have th(: potential to employ modern archaeological and advanced scientific techniques unavailable to Professor Solecki. Most Important, however, are lbo areas which surround this National Registry site and which are presently threatened by development that are likely to provide significant historic and cultural insights, extremely important for a fuiI understanding of the site itself. Evidence presc~ltcd in the Greenhouse Phase I Archaeological Report indicates that these surroundii~g areas are found to have evidences of several occupation or usc zones and probably comprise a site complex consisting of at least three culturally sensitive areas. This includes the 8~ter $ire which is located approximately i000' south of the Fo~, and a ~own arcs of subsurface cultural sensitivity rcpt>rlcd to occur between the 5orr and ~hc Baxter Site, furd:ermorc there are additional sensitive arca~ revealed by the present study. These tests m~d obsc~atlon>~ are reported m re,,eai surface and sucsurfa{ e finds over a broad area. Cuttural mulct'isis were found ar a dBrancc of 900 Feet SSW of thc For~, 800 Feet no~h of the Fora, and as far as i bOO feet nomhwest of tI~c Forl. Although [~t$ I ~ld 2, !oca~ed west of thc major' subdivision were nor subsurface tested., r..~ cx, idcnces are apparendy located there and arc scattered in bot~ ~'~t I and 2. in broad rems, the sba cumplcx appears to cover a 300 foot or wider arc on the western s~ore of Downs Creek cxtendin¢ no~h from New Suffolk Ave:me for over 3000 fcc[, with some positive finds extending well into Lot I nam' Mom Road. Ir is our appreciation for the sige,c~mplcxity ~nd cultural sensitivity of this area, ira historic impedance, and its significance to the present and futur~: residents of thc Town of Southold, as well as thc rest of the State, that motivates us tc urge you to rcques~.fur~h~ testing and analysis prior to establishing a plm~ for suEdivision of this cultu, ally sensitive area. !:urthcr tc~ttng should inctudc a New York Archacol-gical Coundl standard (1094) ?hose II ~tudy, w~ic¢ would require thc investigators ro obtain detailed information on me iBtegrlt~, pre~isc latcr~ gmits (i,e. i~s extCBt and boundaries), ~iructure, function ~d culmml-hislortc contcx~ of the cultural evidencc~ kaown to exist and tho~c reposed. These data would c~ablc the Township and its reviewer lo more fully understand and appreciate 0m cultural significance of the v~Ious components of this comp[ex and ~en~itivc ar~ 8[FOR~ questions regarding subdivision, lot ,i2e, lot location, permitted disturbance zunes, set a~ides, and ?ad uti:ess, etc. were ans~vered mid decisiolls and cr~mnl~tmelllS were made rc[2rOlllg these feelers. We sincerely hope that you will take these rccommcndation~ into account prior to final disposition of this project CC: Mr. Charles Voorhis. Nelson&Pope and Voorhis, Melville, New York EDWARD ,J. PETROU, P.E, REGIONAL DleECTOR STATE Of NE'~V YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STATE OFFICE BUILDING 250 VETERANS ~V~EMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE, N.Y. 117~8-5518 Marc]] 21, 1997 Hr. Bernard Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Indian Shores S/S Route 25, Cutchugue SCTM ~ 1000-116-1-3 Dear Mr. Orlowski: We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the referenced subdivision. There ars no plans for improvements to Route 25 in this location in our Five Year Planning Program. AS is correctly stated in the DEIS, the applicant will have to apply for highway work permits for access to Route 25 at the time of site plan review. For questions on permits please contact Vito Lena at 952-6025. For other questions, please contact G. Beierling at 952-6128. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this subdivision. Very truly yours, FRANK PEARSON Planning & Program Management NORTH FORK E:NVIRONME:NT ,L COUNCIL, INC. Route 25 at Love Lane, PO BOX 799, Mattltuck, NY 11952 516-298-8880 March 20, 1997 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Memorandum re DEIS for Indian Shores Site Plan Dear Mr. Orlowski: After reviewing the Draft. Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Indian Shores subdivision, we feel that certain aspects of the document merit discussion. Use of Agricultural Parcels Unknown: Pr/marily, we have concerns regarding the assumption throughout the DEIS that the two agricultural lots will eventually become vineyards. Although we regard t~is as a desirable use of the property which may reflect,' the intentions of the applicant, it is certainly not an issue which has been resolved. Conservation easements currently under negotiation w/th the Peconic Land Trust have not been finalized. The agricultural parcels could ultimately be thrrned as potato crops or they could be developed themselves. The DEIS should acknowledge these possibilities,. particularly in the discussion of nitrogen loading and groundwater consumption. Obviously, the assumption that the agricultural parcels will be farmed as vineyards has far-reaching effects in this DEIS. A vineyard releases less nitrogen into the ground and requires less water for irrigation than a crop such as potatoes: The DEIS calculations indicate that the overall increase in nitrogen to the ecosystem will be small and "should not negatively affect Downs Creek" (p. 104). These calculations should reflect the possibility that the crops farmed on these parcels may be something other than vineyards. What are the potential figures for nitrogen loading if the crops are potatoes, a product more common to the East End agricultural economy? The DEIS also points out that "a marine surface water system is not very sensitive to changes in groundwater quality" (p. 105). Does this statement suggest that even a h/gh nitrogen- yielding crop such as potatoes would not negatively affect Downs Creek? And, if groundwater quality does not significantly alter marine surface water systems, then the DEIS has no basis for later stating that reducing groundwater contamination will reduce the project's impact on Downs Creek (p. 113). We are concerned that the DEIS is a non-profit organization for the pre,el ration of land, sea, air and quallW of life printed on 100% recycled paper presenting a best possible scenario in order to create an impression of low environmental impact. A discussion on nitrogen should also take into account the cUmulative impact that the proposed Indian Shores development will have in conjunction with .the North Fork Country Club golf course on the east side of the creek. The current levels of nitrogen in Downs Creek should be clearly indicated and taken into consideration when evaluating the potential nitrogen loading of the proposed plan. At present, the water quality in Downs Creek only "marginally meets NSSP standards" (p. 53) for shellfishing. The nitrogen budget figures in the DEIS are generally ambiguous and'difficult to follow. Specifically, Tables 6-9 (p.88 fi) should be labelled clearly and consistently. For instance, on Table 7 (p.91), under the heading "Caldulations: Sanitary," calculations are made to determine the amount of nitrogen ~hich is expected to seep into the ground as a result of residential wastewater disposal. The result, 120,825,303 mg, is not labelled as such. The next line, "Water Supply," introduces the figures 3mg/l and 6,631,320 liters without any indication as to where these numbers come from or what significance they have. At the bottom of the page is a figure in bold, "1.803 mg/I." Assuming that this indicates the number of milligrams of nitrogen per liter, then what does it mean? Is this the amount of nitrogen which has seeped into the ground or the groundwater? Is this per day, per year, per household, per development? The levels of mtrogen loading cannot be adequately assessed if the figures am unclear. Regarding the water consumption of a vineyard, the DEIS figures indicate that .; water consumption at the site will be 37,116 gpd, or 56% of the permissive safe yield. Again, these figures assume that the agricultural parcels will be vineyards and that future vintners will voluntarily use a drip irrigation method Which uses less water than traditional systems. Problems with Mitigation Measures: The proposed plan itself is offered as a mitigation of the original plan of 42 residential lots. Is this considered valid? The application of herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers conceivably will be minimized through public awareness programs, but is it masnnable to expect the general public to follow such suggestions? Other mitigation measures (pl 113) similarly depend on the good citizenship of future residents, rather than on an action taken by the applicant. Given that the 75' tidal wetlands setback is required by existing law, can it'be considered a mitigation measure on the part of the applicant? The issue of whether or not to increase the setback to 100' is discussed as an alternative. A distinct contradiction exists here; first the DEIS states that a 100' setback "does not result in an obvious or greater benefit" while further on in the same paragraph the following statement appears: "it is impossible to qualify or quantify the benefit" (p. 126). If it is impossible to evaluate -2- the benefit of a 100' setback, then how can the DEIS state that it would not result in a greater benefit7 Impact of Town Park: The DEIS fails to address the impact that a town park will have on the environment at Downs Creek. There is no acknowledgment anywhere that use of this land as a park will also upset the terrestrial wildlife. Several statements are made regarding the probability that ardmals displaced from the residential lots will find acceptable refuge at the park site, but this site may also be disturbed to a degree which makes it unsuitable tbr existing fauna. When discussing the possibility of lots 5- 10 being held in common ownership as an alternative, the DEIS states, "The potential for development of a trail or boardwalk as an extengion of a trail system on the 37-acrc parcel would exist, thereby potentially impacting the Creek" (p. 1,26). Ifa trail on the residential parcels would affect the environment, then a trail on the 37-acre park would also have an impact on the Creek. This point is not raised. Tests/Approvals Still Needed: Before the Planning Board can make an accurate determination on the proposed plan, the following tests or approvals ne~d to be completed: 1.) Drinking water quality at the site is presently unknown and will not be determined until wells are constructed at the site. 2.) Tidal Wetland borders must be, delineated. 3.) Subdivision map must be approved by NYSDEC. 4.) The soils at the site must be evaluated ~br their acceptability ~br their use tbr ~anitary disposal purposes. Miscellaneous Questions to Consider: In addition to the issues mentioned above, we feel that the following questions should be addressed in the DEIS: 1.) Will motor boats be prohibited in the creek? 2.) What impact will floating docks have on the. creek? 3.) Under what circumstances could the agricultural parcels eventually be developed? 4.) Can the applicant revert back to the original plan of 42 residential lots using this DEIS? The North Fork Environmental Council supports public acquisition of the entire 105.6-acre parcel not only to preserve the well-documented archeological value of the site, but also to adequately protect the fragile and unique environment of Downs Creek and the surrounding area. Until such an acquisition becomes a reality, however, we ask that you carefully consider the p6tential of the proposed plan to negatively impact the. ecosystem of the property in question. Thank you for your attention to our concems regarding this proposed subdivision. Very truly yours, Anne Lowry President -3- Telephone (516) 765-1801 SOUTHOLD TOWN LANDMARK PRESgRVATION COMMI$81ON Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P,O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 TO: Mclissa Spiro, Planner Southold Town Planning Department Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Indian Shores DEIS March 19, 1997 The Southold Town Landmarks Preservation Commission was created "...for the purpose of conserving, protecting and perpetuating historic landmarks..." as stated in Soutbold Town Code, Chapter 56, and to "...assist Soutbold Town and owners of places, sites, structures, and buildings in order to ceoserve, protect, aud preserve such places, sites, structures, and buildiegs, thereby protecting the unique character of Southold Town....". The Soulbold Town Landmarks Preservation Cmnmission finds the DEIS for Indian Shores to be : deficient with respect to the stated objective of/be Project Summary (page I) "...P~otect cuRnral resources associated with Fort Corcbaug and otber historic sites..." Further, the DEIS does not meet the New York State and Federal standards for review of culturally significant sites, nor does the DEIS address the concerns expressed in the Soutbold Town Code to protect and preserve a unique and significant cultural resource. The Southold Town Landmarks Preservation Commission recommends that the Planning Board declare the Draft Environmental hnpact Statement for Indian Shores at Cutchogue, New York, incomplete and unacceptable, and thereby reject the DEIS as written. Principal concerns about the DEIS are outlined as follow: 2. 3. 4. 5. The DEIS is comprised of incmnplete aed incouclusive Stage I archeological research with respcct to verifying thc cultural resources and significance of thc site. The DE1S fails to define proposed areas of surface and subsurface disturbance for the purpose of defining the scope of required cultural resource recovery The DEIS fails to offer viable alternatives to proposed site plan as required in the SEQRA scoping outline. Thc DEIS fails to define provisions for silo use(s) in the evcet that refcrcnccd contracts for ownership/stewardship are not executed The DEIS fails to address the impact on thc "National Register of Historic Sites" designation .......................... Page The DEIS is comprised of incomplete and inconclusive Stage 1 archeological research with respect to verifying the cultural resources and significance of the site A. The Phase lB survey does not follow the recommended protocols of the Phase IA: 1. Shovel tests were conducted at 100 foot (lB, page 3) rather than the recommended 50 foot intervals (lA, page 8) 2. The "walk over" inspection of the plowed field area was conducted at 10 foot intervals (IB, page 3) rather than the recommended 6 foot intervals (lA, page 8) 3. The salt marshes (recommended, page 8) were not surveyed. (Phase IA survey references the work of Solecki and Salwen. Both of these authors reference the significance of sea level variations as it may impact on the relative locations of archeological remains. The Phase IA neglects to cite the marsh and creek areas as potentiall~ significant areas, and the Phase lB neglected to include these areas in the shovel test surveys.) 4. It appears that budgetary constraints prevented the conducting of a professional and conclusive Phase I survey: ',i'"If more time was had with the collection (of projectile points)..." (IA, Page 3), and, ... budgetary constraints brought field work to a close ..." (lB, page 4) Verification and replication of the data collected from the project site is impossible due to the fact that the Phase I work does not reference any replicable mapping coordinates ("...Shovel tests were located by measuring from existing landmarks on the survey from Young & Young..." (lB, page 3)). Locations of the shovel tests were not surveyed, not noted in the field reports, nor are they accurately noted on the project map. The DEIS does not indicate where the artifacts are currently held. The DEIS should confirm that the artifacts are available for review. It is hoped that artifacts that were rejected during the course of laboratory analysis were not actually "discarded" as stated in the Artifact Summary (lB, page 7). D. Resumes of the field and laboratory staff responsib[e for collecting and analyzing the data were not included in the DE1S. Fire cracked rocks were not considered "potentially significant artifacts", despite the possibility that they could result from deliberate heating by prehistoric, historic, or Euro-American occupants. (lB, page 7) F. The Phase lB does not verify any of the six following conditions set forth in Phase IA: 1. the north and western boundaries of Fort Corchaug and the west and south boundaries of the rail fence well site the possible association between the Fort Corchaug and the rail fence well site 3. whether or not a native American village had existed in the area 4. the possibility of submerged sites by testing the march area 5. the historic nature of the building remains at the north end of the project area along the main road 6. whether other unrelated prehistoric and historic sites are also present within the project area (Conclusions and Recommendations of the Phase lA (page 8) Page 2 At the conclusion of the lB, Phase 2 is recom~nended for lots 1-10 and lot 16, and the proposed Town Park parcet (page 116) The Phase IA of the DEIS establishes that previous work (Solecki) in the section of the parcel that includes the Fort C0rchaug, the Rail Fence Well Site, and the area between the two sites contains archeological evidence. H. The DEIS does not define what are the measures proposed to mitigate impacts to cultural resources." (Section IV. Mitigation Measures to Minimize Environmental Impact, Section G, Cuttural Resources, (page 119) Following are the only three sentences describing measures that are intended as mitigation measures..~(page 119): "...A qualified archeologist may need to conduct additional shovel tests prior to construction to retrieve any other significant artifacts that could be on the site~ It' desired by the prospective owner or appropriate agency, the footprint to the house could be moved to avoid any discovered resources. A Phase 2 archeological survey is recommended prior to development to Lots I-t0 and Lot 16 and the proposed town Park (if it should be developed)." The above stated do not represent "mitigation measures" but are in fact required procedures, established by the findings of the archeological work referenced in the Appendices IA and lB. Further, the Phase 2 archeological study is required prior to approval for development. This protocol is clearly established by the NYSPRHP guidelines. The responsibility for competent and complete review of cultural resources is the applicant's, and must be completed prior to approval or acceptance of the DEIS by the Planning Board. (It is important to note that throughout the DEIS the applicant confuses mitigation measures with procedures that constitute legal compliance. It is not in the purview of the Landmarks Preservation Commission to critique other components of the DEIS, but for the purposes of illustration, on page 112, Proposed Mitigation Measures for Water Conservation: "...Water conservation can be achieved by using residential water conserving devices...it is likely that new, customized homes would be fitted with such devices..;." Installation of such devices does not represent a mitigation measure, but is simply a code compliance requirement already established by the Southold Town Building Code.) The field and laboratory work presented in the Phase lA &lB archeological survey is unprofessional, inconclusive, and incomplete, and should not be considered acceptable by the Southold Town Planning Board for site plan review. Page 3 DEIS fails to clearly define proposed areas of surface and subsurface disturbance for the purpose of defining the scope of required cultural resource recovery. The DEIS should include the following: Identify provisions for cultural resource recovery at future traverses/constructions at the Buffer Zone, as per page 12, "...Some of the proposed building lots could potentially contain access to Downs Creek..." Define the potential allowable structures, routing, and access across the setback (Buffer zone). Define provisions for cultural resource surveys at these traverses if their construction is at a later date. Identify the impact of raising site grades (pages 112-3) on cultural resource recovery, identify mitigation measures and retrieval strategies. Table I, Estimated Site Coverage, does not accurately reflect the impact of surface disturbance on cultural resources. Table I should be supplemented by a table and map describing the Maximum Proposed Surface and Subsurface Areas of Disturbance for each lot. Surface and subsurface disturbance calculations should include maximum square foot area of all allowable structures and facilities for each lot and depths of disturbance, for each lot. To include, but not limited to: .. Building envelopes plus working area around the perimeter of each surface disturbance, post holes and fence posts, farm stands, parking areas, paths and trails, non-paved equipment storage areas, underground utilities and infrastructure installations, service and utility poles, sanitary disposal systems (including agricultural and equestrian systems), tree and stump removal (including stump grinding below grade), potable wells and test wells/borings, swimming pools, tennis courts, roads and driveways, drywells, and drainage containment systems, accessory structures and breezeways, subsurface landscaping impact, septic systems and leaching pools, agricultural watering systems (including equestrian and viticulture applications), etc. The Area of Disturbance calculations should reflect the maximum allowable footprint of the structure, installation, or disturbance, plus a perimeter of working disturbance that will result from the construction, installation, or maintenance. Calculations should reflect the setbacks, buffer zones, seasonal groundwater elevation considerations, and "staggered" septic layouts (where applicable) required by the appropriate enforcing agencies for each proposed lot. Page o The DEIS fails to offer viable alternatives to the proposed site plan as required in the SEQRA scoping outline. The DEIS should include Alternative(s) that reflect the National Register of Historic Sites designation. The National Register boundaries should be included on the Cultural Resources Map (Appendix 1). The DEIS should include Alternative(s) that reflect not only the immediate Fort Corchaug site but an expanded Cultural Resource area inclusive of the Downs Creek area from the Fort to the Rail Fence Well Site. C. The DEIS should include Alternative(s) that consider locating the subdivision in areas that have been previously disturbed by farming. o The DEIS fails to define provisions for site use(s) in the event that reference contracts for ownership/stewardship are not executed A. The DE1S makes several references to future contracts for ownership/stewardship by Southold Town, Suffolk County, and the Peconic Land Trust. The DEIS should clarify what will happen if these contracts are not executed. The DEIS fails to address the impact on the "National Register of Historic Sites" designation The proposed subdivision shall compromise the New York State and Federal designation of portions of the parcel as a Historic Site. As such, the DEIS should address the following consequences: If the current designated area is divided into separate ownership, the surface modified, or otherwise disturbed, prior to completion of archeological review, the National Register designation will be canceled. The expectation that individual lots would be re-designated is low. The DEIS should present what impact the loss of the National Register designation will have, especially in terms of loss of eligibility for public and private resoumes thru support the recovery, preservation, and exhibit of artifacts that further our understanding of the cultural history of Native Americans. If the National Register listing is removed, the property's eligibility for grants and fimding is compromised. The DE1S should review what the impact will be on the publicly owned portion of the subdivision. Page 5 Recommendation: The Southoid Town Landmark Preservation Commission recommends that the Planning Board reject the DEIS in order to preserve and protect a significant historic landmark in Southold Town Deb Winsor, Chair, Fort Corchaug Sub-Committee Southoid Town Landmark Preservation Commission Cliff Benfield, Chairman Page 6 George E. Pataki Alexander E Treadwell Secretary ofState March 18, 1997 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman, Planning Board Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Orlowski: Re: S-97-009 Indian Shores (a.k.a Fort Corchaug) Draft Environmental Impact Statement The Department of State's Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization has prepared the following comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed indian Shores subdivision. State Coastal Consistency Requirements State agency actions within the coastal area are required by Article 42 of the State Executive Law and irnplementing regulations in 19 NYCRR Part 600 to be undertaken in a manner consistent with the State's coastal area policies. Land development and related activities in New York's coastal area which involve state agency direct action or funding, or requiring state permits for actions involving an EIS under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) must be consistent with the coastal area policies in Article 42, or an approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. No State agency involved in an action, as the term is defined in 6 NYCRR Part 617.2, shall carry out, fund, or approve the action until the agency has complied with the provisions of Article 42 of the Executive Law and implementing regulations contained in 19 NYCRR Part 600. If a positive declaration has been made and an EIS will be required, the draft ElS must contain an identification of the applicable coastal policies and a discussion of the effects of the proposed action on and consistency with such policies (6 NYCRR 617.9(b)(5)(vi)). The SEQRA regulations provide that no state agency shall make a final decision on the action until it has made a written finding that it is consistent with the coastal policies set forth in 19 NYCRR Part 600.5 or an approved LWRP (6 NYCRR 617.11(e)). This provision applies to all state agencies, whether acting as lead or involved agency (6 NYCRR 617.6(a)(5)). The DEIS indicates that the State Department of Environmental Conservation is an involved agency Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Page 2. becanse the proposed activities will require a tidal wetlands permit pursuant to Article 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law and implementing regulations in 6 NYCRR Part 661. Therefore, the DEIS is required to contain an identification of the applicable coastal policies, and a discussion of the effects of the proposed action on and its consistency with those policies. This information is necessary so that the Department of Environmental Conservation can include that information in its State agency consistency determination and SEQRA findings. Since the dr~ft ElS does not include that information, it shofild be provided in the final EIS. Other Comments. The following comments relate to specific coastal policies identified in Article 42 of the Executive Law and 19 NYCRR Part 600.5. Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats The narrative information in the DEIS fails to acknowledge Downs Creek as a State designated Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat (SCFWH), although the narrative describing the Downs Creek SCFWH has been included in Appendix 7. SCFWHs are geographic areas that have been determined to be of statewide significance, based on a quantitative evaluation of a combination of ecological factors. These factors include whether the area serves one or more of the following functions: is essential to the survival of a large portion of a particular fish or wildlife popul~ition supports populations of species which are endangered, threatened, or of special concern supports populations having significant commercial, recreational, or educational value exemplifies a habitat type which is not commonly found in the state or in a coastal region Downs Creek was designated as a SCFWH by the Secretary of State in 1987. The DEIS should specifically address the extent of any impacts of the development proposal on the SCFWH, and address any necessary and detailed mitigation measures that might be necessary to avoid impairments to the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the habitat area. We are particularly concerned about the future impacts on the SCFWH from the proposed parcels that would be adjacent to the western shoreline of Downs Creek. Lot//5 is a particular concern, as it appears that it does not provide for an adequate building envelope outside of the tidal wetland area. In addition, the potential for access to the Creek and the installation of floating docks within this essentially undeveloped SCFWH is a major concern. Historic, Archaeological, Architectural, and Cultural Resources The development proposal does not appear to adequately protect the archaeological and cultural resources associated with Fort Corchaug, which is listed on the State and National Registers of Historic Places. The conclusions presented in the DEIS do not appear to be fully supported by the information contained in the DEIS, which often provides conflicting information on the location of the important cultural Mr. Bennett Ortowski, Jr. Page 3. resources within the development proposal. It would appear that many of the remaining important cultural resources are located within the'proposed developed area, and not in the open space to be acquired by the Town of Southold or protected by conservation easements. The Town should consider more complete preservation of the Fort Corchaug site, particularly to the south of the fort in the vicinity of lots g9 and gl0. Alternatives Alternatives should include: a full assessment of a reduced development proposal; altering the configuration of the proposed Town park; redesigning the layouffreducing the size of existing lots to prevent or avoid development in and adjacent to sensitive areas; a consideration of an alternative site layout which develops only the northern portion of the site; additional acquisition that may make it possible to preserve the resources of this important archaeological site and maintain the integrity and viability of the Downs Creek Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat area as a habitat. Federal Consistency Pursuant to federal regulations in 15 CFR Part 930, if any component of the proposal would require any authorization, funding, or a direct action by a federal agency, the proposed activities would be reviewed by this Department for its consistency with the enforceable policies of the New York State ~'oastal Management Program. If the Department of State determines that the proposed activities would not be consistent with the State's Coastal Management Program. the consistency provisions of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act prohibit federal agencies from authorizing, funding, or undertaking the proposed activities. Therefore, a copy of the final Environmental Impact Statement should be provided to this Department so that the information in that document might be used in any future reviews of the proposal for its consistency with the policies Of the New York Coastal Management Program. I hope this information is informative and useful. If you have any questions or need any additional information or assistance regarding this matter, please call me or Steve Ridler, your Local Waterfront Revitalization Program contact, at (518) 474q5000. SCR/bms c: Steve Ridler Supervisor of Consistency Review Coastal Management Program Albert J. IQupski, President John Holzapfel, Vice President Jim Kin_g Martin H. Garrell Peter Wenczel Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765- 1892 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Planning Board FROM: Board of Trustees ~ RE: Indian Shores Subdivision DATE: March 20, 1997 The Southold Town Board of Trustees has jurisdiction on lots of Indian Shores subdivision that front on Downs Creek. The Board of Trustees jurisdiction is 75' upland from the wetlands edge. Since the proposed lots are large, we would requests no houses within our jurisdiction. Limited clearing is usually allowed to allow a waterview, as well as paths to access the water. CUTCHOGUE-NEW SUFFOLK HISTORiCAL COUNCIL Cutchogue, Long l~land, New York March 20, 1997 Southold Town Planning Board: Southold, New York Re: Fort Corchaug Whereas the Fort Corchaug archaeological site in Cutchogue, Long Island is recognized as the last undisturbed Indian Fort on the Eastern Seaboard, and Whereas it is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and Whereas the Fort Site represents a unique example of the Native American Contact period with European Colonial Culture, and Whereas preliminary exploration has produced evidence of habitation south of the Fort and the possibility, of discovering burial grounds in the surrounding area, and Whereas the Fort has been shown to have been not only a refuge but also an important wampum making and trading center, and Whereas, in addition, its undisturbed woodlands, wetlands and tidal marsh have been designated a Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat by New York State, and Whereas the Southold Town Planning Board has before it an application for subdivision of 105 acres constituting the Fort Corchaug property, and Whereas the Suffolk County Archaeological Association deems it an archaeological national treasure, Therefore be it resolved that all legal action be taken to preserve this site and that additional funds be obtained to purchase the entire Fort Corchaug parcel in association with Southold Town and New York State. Unanimously approved by the Cutchogue-New Suffolk Historical Council, 2/11/97. William Peters, Trustee DEPARTMENT OF' H£ALTH SERVICES S,]DHS, !SF~'ICE OF E]OLOG, ~ COUNTY OF SUFFOL SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE March [1. Ic)97 Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Town of Southold Southold Planning Board Office Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.OBox 1179 Southold, New York 11971 RE: Indian Shores Draft Environment~ Impact Statement SCTM# I000-116-1-3 De~r Mr, Orlowsld: The Suffolk County Dep~'tment of Health Services (SCDHS; "Department") has received the above referenced Dratk Environment~'d Inlpact Statement (DEIS). We have several concerns which we believe should be addressed including, the requirements of the Suffolk County sa'nitro'g,' Code, groundwater impacts, protection of natural resources and archeologically sign! tic,tnt findings. Details of our comments are provided below. Article VI Appl[catlon Status: The project sponsor is encouraged to submit an application to the depamnen*:s Bureau of Wastewatcr Management at the earliest date so that a technical review of this propo,~:als conformance with the requirements of the Suffolk Count}' Sanitary code can be undertaken. SCDHS Compliance Requirements and Jurisdiction: Taken in the context of the requirements of the S£QRA process, it is insignif:cant for the applicant to merely state an intent to meet all deparunenta/stmldards. It is tree that the applicant must comply with the requirements of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. including Articles IV. V and VI and relevant construction standards for water supply and sewage disposed s3stems. Letter to Bennett Orlows~, .ir. M~ch I I, 1997 Page 2 However, desigp and flow speci fication a detailed engineering report, subsurface soil conditions. and complete site plan details are essential to the reVieW of riffs prqject. These considerations are reviewed completely at the time of appticat~on. $CDHS maintains jurisdiction over the final location of .,ewage disposal and water supply systems. The applicant, therefore, should, not undertake the construction of e~ther sy.~tem without Health Department approval. The Bureau of Drinking Water has reviev.'cd the water resources (groundwater) portions of the DEIS for the Indian Shores Subdivision as it relates to our "Private Well Standarcs", pardculasly in regards to the section pertaining to specific test well requirements t'or malty subdivisions. Included with these comments is ~ copy ut' sections 406.4- 12(a). "Genural Requirements rot Test Wells", and 406,4-12lb), "S~ecific Test Well Requiremen~is for Realty Subdivisions". which deal with :he construction standards and water qua. lily standards tbr test w~lls, respectively, l,t should be noted Ihat there ,ue other requirements for the subdl ¢ision application process, such as test hole requirements for sewage system consU-uctiot~, whic I are not covered by these comillents. The DEIS provides a general discu.~sion of groundwater for the ,tree based upoa information obtained froth off-site rrtonitonng wells, private wells and irrigation wells. However. there was no on-site data presented, as required for by application process for subdivisions. All applications for realty subdivisions, (five or more lost), reqmre test wells on-sire at locations specified by our department. One test well is required [or every ten acres or ten lots with a nxinimum ut two test wells for any subdivision. The following information is presented concerning consuuctiot~ and water quality standard.q rot test wells for proposed subdivisions: Constr¢cti.on Standards All test wells, along with any subsequent drinking water wells, inst~dlcd on the parcel for subdivision must meet with our minimum construction standards, which includes being a rmnimum depth of 40 feet below the water tablc. (see section 406.4-12(a)). Information presented on page 97 of the DEIS under the heading of "Drinking Water Quality Impacts" indicates that Indian Shores can inst~l test wells with a minimum depth of ten feet below' the water table pursuant to Section -406.4-12(d) Test Well Reouirements for Individual Lots. However, this provision of placing shallow wells in ~horeline areas is not an option for propcmes pursuing sttbdivision, but only applicable to lots in single and separate ownership. Without thc inst'allation of test wells screened at 40 feet below tile water table at the site, we can only speculate on the suitability of the site to obta.in subdivision approval. ~Water Quality Standards Letter to Bennett Orlowski, Jr. March Il, 1997 Page 3 Test wells water analyse.,, for inorganic chemical content, volatile organic compounds trod pesticides must cc)reply with the guidelines and M~c~mtum C~mtamin,'mt Levels (MCL's) cont~.ined in Part 5 of thc New York State Sanita~ Code. Section 406.4(b) lists the ,exceptions. Of particular concern for this site is the requirement that rile arithmetic mean nitrate concentration of all wells (tested on the sttme day) shall not exceed 6.0 mg/L. The water quality data from mouitoring wells up gradient (north) of this site show many instances where the water quality exceeds I0.0 mg/L for nitrates. In addition to the potential [or a high nitrate concentration m the water supply, there is also concerns about the water quality due to the pesticide Temik, (aldicarb and its mcttabolites), thc herbicide dacthal, along with its metabolites. ;md the fumigant 1,2-dich[oroproptme. This is based upon the up gradient agricultural uses, and water quality data t'rom monitoring and private wells in the area. A more comprehensive examination of the potemial for agricultund chenticals to impact the water quality should be provided. Natural Resources The tidal wethtnds which occur on the subject property will be a/'fected by Article 25 (Tidal Wetlands). A New York Sta~e Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSEEC) permit will therefore be required prior to SCDHS approval of this project. A NYSDEC-approved wetlands line should be desigrmted on the site plan. Thc proposed development of the subject property should subsequently incorporate the maximum practicable setback from m,y wetlands boundaries. We recornmend that no disturbance whatsoever occur within a minium of 100 feet from the tidal wetahmds. Such a policy couold be implemented by establishing dedicated open space, placement of scenic ea.m~ents over the wet!ands and adjacent area or by carefully resmcting building envelopes. Cultural Resources This department concurs with the recommendations'of the Greenhouse Archaeological Report :md believes it would be pmdem to perform the Phase 2 Study prior to approval of the proposed subdivision map. If significant findings are found in the ureas indicated below, the development plan should be reconfigured to avoid impacts to these archaeological rod prehistoric ~ll'eas. The Report states that "The Fort Corchaug Site is primarily within the proposed Town Park and lots 9 and 10' and furthermore, "Fort Corchaug Site is likely to be impacted by new houses tn lots 9 trod i0". Additionally" the fence rail well prehistoric site is located within lots 2- 10 and 1 § of the proposed subdivision". ~' We recormnend that a phase 2 Archaeological Survey of this me be undcrtakeupr/or to any development of these lots" (emphasis added), The Report also iCE !l:P- E.* -~LOG, 516 ,=,_ =_-, ,4~,P.05 Letter to Bennett Orlowsld. Jr. ,March l l, 1997 Page 4 states "the northern new prehistoric site is partially iota,ed within lot I. A possible fulure house within Lot 1 would impact £Ns site as could other inlprovements to this lot or the town Park. We recommend a Phase 2 archaeolical survey et' this site should the plans proceed". Summary The DEIS provides a generalized discussion of the water quali,y and quantity for the arcs. but does not provide any site-specific data that would be required for the subdivision application process and would provide a better indication of the potenti',.d for a subdivision being approved at this site. As previously indicated, the DEIS ~,page 97) refers to utilizing shallow welll for the residences; however, this option is not applicable for s, ubdivisions. The fact that shallow wells were considered leads to questions conceruing the ability of the site to have drinking water wells instMled at thc minimum depth of 40 fee: below the water table without encountering sMt water. Addition'ally, there ~e water quality impacts associated with agriculturM use, such as fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and fum.iganta, which would have to be evaluated prior to the approval of any subdivision. In conclusion, site-specific test ,.,.ell data is required to evaluate the suitability of this site for subdivision, as far as the water quality issnes are concerned. Vv'e believe the project site's value as t~ndeveloped open space and the cultural resources found on the site is sufficient to support full preservation as tile best use of the entire parcel. Absent the opportunity for public acquisition lb,' preservation, we believe that the site's documented sensitivity refl¢ct.q the need to minimize the arc,ts of archaeological signifiance impacted by development. If acquisition is not a reality it would be in the best interest to preserve as iTiuch of the archaeological significant areas which appear to be contained with lots 9 and 10. The area of some of the larger 10ts tnay be reduced or the portions of the agricultural fields reduced in order to maintain the 14 lots. Thank you for the opportunity to review this application. If you have any questions, please feel tree to contact the Office of Ecology at 852-2741. Sincerely, Kimberly Shaw Senior Environmental Analyst KS/js A ttac'~-nllel~ ts cc: Vile Minei, P.E. Stephen Costa. P.E. 5) Commercial or hal buildings where water mains exis~ wO 500 feet of the aDplica~t's properly ;ina. For propo~ structures larg~ [han 5.~ ~ross square f~t. ~nn~on is r~uir~ ~hin a d~l~ ~uiv~ent to the pro~sed gross squ~e f~mge d~ded Dy ten, 9.g., ~in 6~ feet of a pm~ 6,000 square toot buiid[r~g. 6) Comm~ or indus~ su~i~sion o~ devalopm~ ~em ~er m~nS exis~ ~in a di~ ~uiv~ent to ~e m~imum bu~daOle squ~e f~tage ~low~ di~d~ by t~n, when me~u~ to t~e closest pmpe~ line_ I! canneCtion to a community water system becomes fee'=ibis (due to water main extensions or improved system capa.cJty) prior to or dudncJ construction of a proiect previously approved by the depart~nent for 3. pdvate water system, then the appmvaJ lot the private w-'~ter system is voided, and the applicant must file a revised plan with the depe~'nent. 406.4 - 12(a) GENERAl.. REQUIREMF-N'I~ FOR TEST W~[C~ A test well may be mquired in order to de!eh'nine the suit3birdy of the use of individual private water systems, wbe~'e the depailTnent has determined that a public water s~pply i¢ not ;lvallal:,le or accessible (see sect$on 406.4-11 ACCESS TO PUBLIC WATER). ^ test well or welts [S required for any a,oplicatJon for a malty subdlvtsio~l or development, and may be required for individual lots. order to deten'nine the depth at which the best water qual[W is mc'a~'l~hle, applicants may perform explorat~n/drilling by installing test wells at various depths and pm-test water quality, pdor to requesltng analyses by the depa~m"ient. Test wells st~all be located on the subiect p~rcal. Water quaJ~ leS'Is from nearby or adjacent parcels are not ~.,.~ep_ table as proof of IocaJ w-a~er quality. An exLstJng wall on the parcel can utllL~ed as a test w~l, ~f the well can be documented to meet dopar~nent standards. An urTa~ ated or unfilterecl sample ta,o must be av'aJlable for testing. Test wells shall be consti'~JCted in acco~ance ~ ail depar~nent sl:andards, if their evan~aJ rise for potable water' supply is an~idpated. In order t~. protect Re sanitary and chemic31 quaJlty of the proposed water' soun:s, and to provide a reesonal31e margin of seJety in the event of ft.~re water quallt~/degradation, test wells shall meet the following minimunl st~ndarcts: (1) The top ot each well screen n'~st be insl~led a minimum of 40 feet belczw the water ~uble. {,2} The minimum total depth of each well must be at least 50 feet. Prior to san3piing by the depa/l'nent, the well driller shall pn3vide the depa,'tment wflh a signed ce~fic~tion COntaining well 10g data. including the depth o! the wall, elevation of the water table, screened i~, and other pertinent {nformalion required by tlle department. Test wells shall be pl.~-mped for one hour at ten gallons per mln~e immediately pdor to sampling, unless otl~er~,4se specified by the department. The applicant or their agent must contact the departnlent to amaslge an appointTnent for the testing. Test wells Stlall ~lot be adulterated with water h'am another source, free!ed wflfl chemicals, or chlorinated prior to sampling by the depa~'tment. .All water S;a.r'npling and anaJyses will be performed by the depart:mont, provided proper aDpllc:~lfiofl to th~ dep~dment h~ b~n maae And Jesling I~s have b~n prod, ~alyd~l resutls will b~ d~ v~id lot one year from the ~AIG OJ s~pling, M tin~ ~pmv~ ~e not ob~ ~in one or if approves have expir~, new ~yses ot ~1 test wel~ m~ ~ require. 406.4 - 12(b) SPECIFIC TF-ST WELL REQUIREME.N'TS FOR REALTY SUBDIVISIONS For reaJ['y' subdivision applications {5 [e~ or more), t~e depat'cme~t will'specify the teSt well locationS. One test wetl is reduice~ per 10 acres o¢ 10 subdivision lots, ~ a minimum of 2 lest wells for arty sul~lvision. Test wells shell be installed in corffo~ce wit~ ~he general requirements included in section 4.06.4- Water a~alyses for inorganic chemtcaJ content, v01a~Je omj,anic compounds, And pes~cldes must comply witl~ the guidelines a~d Ma.~Jmum Contaminant Levels (MCL's) con'caJned {n Part 5 of ~e New York State Sanitary' Code, except ~ listed below. ('0 Tho ~fl~mefiC mean nitrate concs, na'ation of ~Jl wells tested (on the same day) their (inaJ screen seffing shell not exceed 6.0 miJli~aJ'ns per liter (rog/l). a~d no well may exceed the nitr~te MCI_ and (JO ~.e c~fl{odde Concenmaflon shaJl not exce~l 100 m~/1 in any well, a~d (ii;~ t~e combined iron and mangAnese concer~on shaft not excee~ 1.0 mg~ in an~, well. tf w~ef quality fails to meet ~e stan~a,'ds itemized above, then ~e use of privste wells w~ll n3t be approved. 'I'Ve Alte~es 1 through 6 llsted in TABLE 4 are available t~ ~he applicant to proceed wibh Itle proposed realty subdivision. TABLE 4 - ALT~:INA'r]vES WHEN TE.b-T WJ=~L WATF.~ QUAL.J"i'Y IS UNSATISFACTORY (I) F. xte~d p~¢ ~ to ~ all prc~sed ~. o~ C~. . . : ~u~. VVhec~ increa'=ir~g the depth el test wails due to unsatisfactory '~rater quality, Options A - C outl!~ned in Alternative (4) must 1se strictly followed. The finding of unsatisfactory wate¢ quality in a test well is deemed a~ having (Jemons~ated ff~at the aquiter secjment i~ coctaminatad and is unsutt=hle as a drinking water source. Pulilng the well bad< or man:jthaJly deepening it within the same aquifer segment (less than a 40 foot chencje in screen setting) is not permitted. Realty de;/elopments a~nd subdivisions approved on the basis of deepened wells shall have speclaJ covenant requirements, and be so noted on tile Anal map. individual lot approvals from said map wil! require watts of similar minimum depths, unles~ additional test wail(s) demon$1rate satisfactory water quality. 4436.4 * 12(c) SPECIFIC TEST WELL REQUIREMENTS F-QR DEVE[.OPMENT$ Test well requirements for developments (2. to 4 lots) may allow the applicant ~m additional a~tematlve other ~han these outlined for (salty subdiv~ions- Test wails shall be installed in ~::ordaxlCe with the general fequirement~ contained in section A minimum of one initial test well shall be installed on the property, in generaJ, where one or more smaller Iot~ are proposed to be dlv~ded from a much laffJer parce{, the well must be in.stalled on one of the proposed small lots. The applicant is responsible Io ensure the proper Io__c'~_'q~ of any test wells to he used as a h..,ltJre source of potable supply. Water an~yses for inorganic cflemic=aJ content, volatile organic compounds ~nd pestic~das mtJst comply vvfft~ NYS MCL's at~d guidelines, except as noted in rec[uimments ts') through (~?~ specified in section 406.4-12(b). If water quality is unsatiSfactory ~ shown by the department's analyses, then the use of priv~tte wells wfll not be approved. AltemaJJves (1), (3), (4), (~) and (6) as listed in TABLE- 4 are available to the applicant. In the event that tl~ese Alternatives do not provide acceptable wal:er quaJity, OR due to the depar~nent's knowledge o! w~ler quality conditions prevalent in the ar,ea, the department may eJIow the applicant the use of prfvate welts ~ an approved water' fresh'neet device, provided aJ[ pa~'cels am covenanted prohibiting any future subdivision of the property, unless water serv-lce trom a community wa~er supply is provided (se~ sections 406.4-9 TF~E. ATMENT and 406,4-1 5 COVENANTS). TOTAL P.08 COUNCIL MEMBERS CHIEF - ROBERT PHARAOH ROBERT M. HARRIS OLIV~ PHARAOH WILLIAM PHARAOH CAROLYN PHARAOH March 9,2997 ADVISORS Mr. Bennett Orlowski,Jr.,Chalr Southold Town Planning Office P.O. Bbx 1179 SoutholA, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Or!owski: ~- i ~ Amerlzans, Monteukebt, li~ing In the As one of tbs Bong Island N~t w~ · ~outhol,'l Township, I ,~,.~h to expres~ my ~,~hoi~hearted support of the acquisition of ~he antirs Fort Corchau~ site by the ~ To~n" and other ~upp].ementary agencies ~n,l request tb~t levelo~:meut of the parcel not take place. _ ~"~y =-,~ ,. ,~t o~.~ 1. ~n very .disturbing to me The tk'o,.:z'hb of d..~t._m.~..,. O~ ~:'' .~"'~ it !;s one more insult that we Nat~e peop!ss are =:,:<~d to accept for someone else's selfish ' "~ ~n~.r~._. The eDtire peni]~sula where Fort Cor- chaug Is located was a sl~ul~ican~ habitation zone for the Native peo- .'e ha~e been ~o~me,~ as ~o bhe 2n~e~uabe a~ahaeo~o~Z~ca~ su~e~ ~one for the Enviro~enb~,l Impact Statement and feel that any further pursuit to develop this p~l wculi re~lect the la~k of sincere efforts to preserve the Native cultural identity In the community. It is our belief that local government shoul.i put forth all effort in preserving a cultural resource that'~ both an e,tucational and economic resource to the "Town", Pleaee be assured that if It w~r~ posslble~ I would express this in per~o~, however, due to work schedules, I felt it neces,ary to try an type this letter. Also, I feel I've expressed my a'.~cern~ to other Native people who will be present during your public hearing. submitt~gll~'reliminaryw Response to "Indian Shllllis" DEIS Southold Town Planning Board, (presentc~'10/97 p'ublic hearing) by Southold Town Landmarks Preservation Commission The following represent points of concern to the Landmark Preservation Commission after a preliminary review &the DEIS that has been submitted to the Planning Board for the proposed "Indian Shores" subdivisioo in Cutchogue. The proposed subdivision shall compromise the New York State and Federal designations of portions of the parcel as Historic Landmarks. As such, the applicant does not address the following consequences: If the current designated area is divided into separate ownership, modified by earth-moving ~equipment, or otherwise disturbed prior to completion of archeological assessment and protection &the artifacts, the National Register designation will be canceled. 2. ' The expectation that proposed lots would be individually re-designated for listing on the National Register is very Iow. 3. So long as the property is held privately, the cultural resource recovery is not eligible for public grants. If the National Register listing is lifted, the property's eligibility for grants and funding is compromised, especially those resources that target projects that forward the recovery, preservation, and exhibit of artifacts that further jour understanding of the cultural history of Native Americans. The DEIS is ambiguous as to how the applicant proposes to implement the conclusions from the Stage I archeological research. The Stage 1 research concludes that the property requires a Stage 1[ survey. The archeological work should be completed prior to approval of the proposed subdivision, not "prior to development" as suggested in the DEIS. lmplied in this is the requirement for uniformity of work and a cmnpetent, professional methodology and review. The DEIS suggests that responsibility for Stage ii archeological reseamh will be transferred to the new owners, conveyed by covenants. The DEIS does not address how the proposed covenants will be enforced nor who will be the monitoring agency. The Town, by accepting the current proposal (as written) of partition prior to exploration, will become the agency responsible for the proper conduct of cultural assessment. Is the Town qualified and prepared to assume fiscal and professional responsibility for archeologicai review? · The applicant should clarify who will be responsible for recovering the costs, and defining and enforcing standards, if the archeological review if the is to be conducted by disparate owners. · The DEIS should specify a time period for archeologicat review as there is no representation as to when the last parcel may be conveyed. Page l ~,0[:T~SUt3 5 :! d~l~eliminary Response to "Indian Short~ DEIS submitted I~buthold Town Planning Board, (presented ~/97 public hearing) by Southold Town Landmarks Preservation Commission The DEIS does not present viable alternative plans for tbe site as outlined in SEQRA. An alternatives should be presented with consideration given to National Register delineation of cultural resources. The DEIS extended responsibilities to currently uncontracted owners of parcels. The DE1S makes several references to future contracts for ownership/stewardship with Southold Town, Suffolk County, and the Peconic Land Trust. The DEIS should clarify what will happen if these contracts are not executed. Submitted March 3, 1997, after preliminary review of DEIS. Final review will be presented later during the public comment period for this proposed project. Page 2 SUFFOLK COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION ~"~, NASSAU COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL COMMITTEE (516) 929-8725 : ~; -"::¢ ':L:' Dr. Henry Moeller representing the S.C. Archaeological Assn. SCAA wishes to support the acquisition of Corchaug site by the Town and other supplementary agencies, requests that development of the parcel not take place. the entire Fort and The entire peninsula where Fort.Corchaug is located was a habitation zone for the Native people. The indian Shores Subdivision, particularly the waterfront area, is a major portion of this peninsula rich in cultural resources. We cannot overemphasize the importance of this evidence of the Contact Period between the Native people and the Colonial settlers. The part of the subdivision known as Fort Corchaug is of national as well as local significance, as it is the only undisturbed Native fort site in the northeast. Scientific excavation of the fort by Dr. Ralph Solecki and Dr. Lorraine Williams has interpreted less ~han 10% of the Fort site. Since no evidence of habitation was found within the fort, a living site should be located nearby. Possibly it could be the Baxter site south of the Fort, which was only minimally tested by the N.Y.S. Archaeologist Dr. Ritchie, as well as Dr. Carlyle Smith, Dr. Bert Salwen, and Dr. Solecki. Possibly it is another site within the creek-side corridor that was not recently tested archaeologically. Ralph Solecki feels there may also be burials nearby. The large number of artifacts collected from the site over the years by local people also attests to the extensive Native use of the area. Besides the inadequate archaeological survey done for the Environmental Impact Statement, the submitted site plan does not provide an adequate buffer zone, especially to the south and west of the fort. If developed, neighborhood children would soon be exploring and would rapidly destroy the integrity of the sites. Evidence of the importance of this site is that three major archaeological reports on the Fort site by Dr. Ralph Solecki and Dr. Lorraine Williams will be the centerpiece of Vol. VIII, The Native & Historic Forts of Long Island, of our series, Readings in Long Island Archaeology & Ethnohistory, to be published later this year. We resources--which, if preserved, economic resource for the Town. ask that local government protect this jewel of its cultural can become an educational and Address to Southold Town Planning Board re Indian Shores sub-division Good evening. My name is William Peters, a resident of Cutchogue, I am a Trustee of the Cutchogue-New Suffolk Historical Council and a member of the Suffolk County Historical Society Board of Directors. I have read the Draft Environmental hnpact Statement, and am very interested in the protection and preservation of the entire 105..6 acres encompassing the Fort Corchaug site. I understand and appreciate the fact that the Baxter family would like to ensure preservation of the pre-historic heritage of Southold, but that they do not want to bear the entire financial burden to assure this. I wish to specifically address Section VI, Part D, titled "Expanded Fort Corchaug Alternatives" in the DEIS. The four Options presented therein deal primarily with minor reconfigurations of the lot lines of Lot 10, the lot 50 feet from the approximate location of the fort site. These four options are a cosmetic treatment of the fact that the entire 105.6 acres have archaeological significance. I would like to present for your consideration a fifth option which consists of a north-south building lot swap. This north-south swap will provide a reasonable protection of the most critical areas of the site namely the creek front from the Fort to the Rail Fence Well Site. Option 5 proposed involves, 1) The separation of 5 acres of the fort site from the 37.47 northerly parcel (the Town Park) 2) Sub-division of the remaining 32.47 northerly acres into 14 building lots. 3) Town purchase of the southerly section consisting of the 12 archaeologically sensitive lots and the 5 acre Fort Corchaug site for $900,000. I tested the market value of this option against 1. The market value of the sub-division 2. The DEIS plan including Town purchase of 37.47 acres of the 105.6 acres for a Town Park. To establish a basis for comparison I first generated an estimate of what the sub-divided property in its entirety would be worth on the open market I used 1. The Indian Shores sub-division map as presented, 2. Assessed values of equivalent properties as given to me by the Board of Assessors, and 3. A 2.75% Equalization rate, This eqtlated to $2.53 million for the marketvalue of the sub-division. I then applied there same factors to the plan presented in the DEIS in which the Town would purchase the 37.47 northerly acres including the Fort Corchaug site for approximately $900,000. Including this $900,000, the value of the property then equated to $2.88 million. Option 5 priced out competitively to a value of $2.84 million. Not considered in these cost estimates is the cost of doing a Stage 2 Archaeological Survey estimated by Mr. A. Camisa to be in excess of $32,000 for 40 acres of this site. Mr. Camisa was the contract archaeologist involved in the original site survey. Option 5 can truly be considered a viable alternate which should be considered. Presented for your consideration are 1. This transcript 2. The letter from the Board of Assessors upon which I based my estimates 3. A table presenting these three estimates. 4. A revised Sub-division Plan Thank You. Scott A. Russell, Chairman Durline J. Duffy, Assessor Rober~ [. Scott Jr., Assessor BOARD OF ASSESSORS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hull 53095 Muiu ]hind P.O. Box 1139 Southold, New York 11971 Te}ephone (516) 705-1937 Fnx (516) 705-1823 116-1-3 Current Assessment: 28,600 Current Acreage ': 104.5 Current Taxes : 18,281.43 (1994-95) Proposed Uses: Vineyard AC. Section 1 ~{A~,u ~ 2ac Res. 16.84 farm op. 18.84 ac. Assessment per 1800/500 250/ac Section 2 [PTF~I~ 2ac Res. 1800/500 11.96 ac. ~.'~v~' 9.96 farm op. 250/ac 37.47 Town Park Horse Farm 3 5.67 0 1800/500 Assessment (total) 2300 4210 2300 2490 0 4135 Residential Parcels 6 waterfront ~ ~!7, ~ 9,/0 6 farmview b~lL,I~,,~'~ [~ 1 ,,mini-estate" q 3.5~ New Assessed Value (Est.) New Taxes (Est.) (1994-95) 54,400 34,773.08 3500/lot 2500/lot 1800/500 21000 15000 3000 54,435 ALTERNATE PROPOSAL COMPARED TO PROPOSAL BEFORE PLANNING BOARD Assessments are as per comparable assessments from assessors. Values are based on 2.75% Equalization Rate ex. farmland, building lots, land on east side of Down's creek farmview & waterview INDIAN SHORES SUB-DIVISION Section I AC. Main Rd 2 ac Res. 18.84 ac 16.84 farm Section 2 Interior 2 ac Res 11.96 ac 9.96 farm Town 37.47 ac Fort 5 acwtrfmt 2 Bldg Lots Park 32.47 ac Fm'zw Home Fm Lot 3 5.67 ac 6 Wtrfmt 5,6,7,8,9,10 13.53 ac** 6 Fm View 11,12,13,14,15,1E 13.53 ac** 1 mini-est 4 3.5 ac Assessment House lot Land 1,800 500 250/a~ 1,800 50~ 250/a 3,500/Lo~ 250/A01 i 1,800/500 3500/Lot 2,500/~0~ 1,800/500 Assessed Value Sale value 'OPEN MARKET 'rTL Asses. Mamet Value Value 2,300 83,636 4,210 153,091 2,300 83,836 2,490 90,545 7,000 254,545 8,118 295,200 4,135 150,364 21,000 763,636 15,000 545,455'i 3,000 109,091 69,553 BAXTER PLAN i'Fi'L Asses. Market Value Value* 2,300 4,210 2,300 2,490 Baxter Valustion 4,135 21,000 15,000 3,000 83,636: 153,0911 83,636 i 90,545; i ITwn Purch. 900,000~ i 114 Lots* 150,364 i No Changt 763,636 iTwn Purch. 545,465 ITwn Purch. 109,091; i NoChang~ OPTION 5 'Ff'L As," Market Value Value No Chang~ 2,300 83,636 No Chang~ 4,210 153,091 No Chang~ 2,300 83,836 No Chang~ 2,490 90,545 35,000 1,272,600 4,135 "150,364 0 ~ 3,000 109,091 54,435 ii 53,435 i?Towncost 900,000 2,529,399i, 2,879,455i i 2,843,163 "Town Park" divided into 2 waterfront lots (the 5 acres encompassing Fort Corchaug) & 32.47 acres sub--divisable into 14 fan'nview lots *~ estimated SUFFOLK COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION NASSAU COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL COMMITTEE P.O. Drawer AR. Stony Brook, New York t 1790 (516) 929-8725 February 27, 1997 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chair Southold Town Planning Office P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Orlowski: We wish to support ~ .acquisition.of the entire Fort Corchaug site by the Town and other supplementary agencies, and request that development of the parcel not take place. The entire peninsula where Fort Corchaug is located was a habitation zone for the Native people. It contains the evidence of the Contact Period between the Native people and the Colonial settlers. The Indian Shores Subdivision is a major portion of this peninsula rich in cultural resources. The part of the subdivision known as Fort Corchaug is of national as well as local significance, as it is the only undisturbed Native fort site in the northeast. Two major archaeological reports on the site by Drs. Solecki and Williams will be the centerpiece of Vol. VIII, The Native & Historic Forts of Long Island, of our series, Readings in Long Island Archaeology & Ethnohistory, to be published later this year. Besides the inadequate archaeological survey done for the Environmental Impact Statement, the submitted site plan does not provide an adequate buffer zone, especially to the south and west of the fort. If developed, neighborhood children would soon be digging and would destroy the integrity of the site. It is unthinkable that local government would not protect this jewel of its cultural resources--which, if preserved, can become an educational and economic resource for the Town. Sincerely, Museum Director Office. Wyckoff ltouxe, Brooklyn society for the preservation of Long Island antiquities 93 north country road setauket, LI., new york 11733-1350 telephone 516/941-9444 fax 516/941-9184 Robert B. MacKay, Ph.D. Director Camtyn Oldenbusch A~£ Curator Kathleen Kane CaO~ie Wardell Development Officer Marsha Hamilton Ca,vi Traynor Public Affai~ Officer Barbara F. Van IJew Rosen!my DeSensi Randy Staudinger February 25, 1997 Mr. Richard Ward, Chairman Southold Planning Board Office Town Hall / 53095 Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 Subject: Fort Corchaug EIS Dear Mr. Ward: Subsequent to writing to you on February 10th, the Environmental Impact Statement for Fort Corchaug has been brought to our attention. It is indeed distressing to see that the subdivision ro osed for the property will adversely impact part ~. P P ative Americ'an Contact-period fort which is'~ of this N - one of Long Island's most important areheological sites. As presently planned the Fort Corchaug Site is located not only within the proposed Town Park but also within Lots 9 and 10. In order to save the fort site it would seem appropriate to lower the yield and eliminate Lots 9 and !0 or to place Lots 9 & 10 elsewhere on this .l~[ge acreage. Furthermore the Fort-Corchaug'Site may he, imp possible improvements to the Town Park, t½erefore i : /is urged that the Site be set aside for speaial~ pass: 'recreational use. Trusting that the subdivision plan will be modified Mr. Rich~d Ward, Chairman -2- February 25, 1997 to protect the whole fort area, I am Sincerely yours, Barbara Van Liew Preservation Notes BVL/em 2/25/97 NEW YORK STATE Bernadelte Castro Commissioner New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau Peebles Island, PO Box 189, Waterford, New ~ork 12188-0189 February 20, 1997 518-237-8643 Planning Board office Town of Southold - Town Hall 53095 Main Road - P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Planning Board: Rs: DEC Indian Shores Subdivision Southold, Suffolk County 93PR2466 The Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) has received the Draft Environmental Impact Statement you provided on the Indian Shores at Cutchogue project. As the state agency responsible for the coordination of the State's historic preservation programs, including the encouragement and assistance of local preservation programs, we offer the following comments. Based upon a review of the Archeological Survey report, the OPRHP notes that there are a number of archeological sites located within the project area including, but not limited to, a portion of the Fort Cutchogue site which is listed on the State and National Registers of Historic Places, and the Fence Rail Well site. It is our understanding that the Town is in the process of acquiring a major portion of the property in this area in order to protect the remains of the fort associated with the Fort Cutchogue site. The archeological remains within the proposed housing subdivision are also of considerable importance, and OPP~qP recommends preservation and protection of these sites in place. Downsizing, redesigning the project, and or additional acquisition may make it possible to preserve these sites. If these sites cannot be preserved in place, the OPPd{p offers the following recommendations: Any impacts to the Fort Cutchogue site should be fully mitigated by the completion of professional archeological excavations. A research design for these investigations should be prepared and approved by OPRHP before the work is conducted. An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Agency Page 2 A full Phase 2 archeological investigation of the other sites within the project area should be completed to determine if these sites also warrant full mitigation. We recommend that Phase 2 investigations be submitted to OPP~HP for review and comment when that work is conducted. Please note that if any Stats Agency is involved in this undertaking, it is appropriate for that agency to determine whether consultation should take place with OPP~qP under Section 14.09 of the New York State Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law. In addition, if there is any federal agency involvement, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations, "Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties" 36 CFR 800 require that agency to initiate consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). When responding, please be sure to refer to the OPP, HP project review (PR) number noted above. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (518) 237-8643 ext. 255. Si , . H~storic Prsserv~ion Coordinator Ffeld Services Bureau RDK:cm .,-¢ -=_,,:.~,~ ~lc '£-:~; ] PCPE,LL¢ %lE, 42'-' 5620 p. O2'q-O NELSON, POPE .~ VOORttI$, LLC $72 Walt Whiunan Road Melville, New York ! 1747 (:316) 427-5665 Fax: (516) 427-5620 Town of Southold Pla,,ing Board Office Town Hall, 53095 l~i,, Road P.O. Box 1179 $outhold, New York 11971 Attention: Mdissa Spiro March 20, 1997 i1 ? 2 P,e: Indian Shores DEIS Dear Ms. Spire Nelson, Pope &; Vcorhia, LLC has reviewed the Dra~ Environmemal Impact Stateraent (DEIS) for the Prol~sed Major Subdivision - Illtlian Shofe..~ ill a0¢ordallce with th~ ~ February 14, 1997 biter. The folloWing is a combination of N,P,i'V and the Town planning Department comments. Page 1: Summary A. Proposed Action DEIS St_a,-nent: The application includes a 37.47 acre parcel offered for purchase by the Tov~ of Seuthold for use as a cultural resources park. Com~¢llt; ,; Please provide .additional information regarding this par~h~ by the Town of S~uthold. Specifically, has the Town been contacted with regard to the purchase of this parcel. Who is the Towa contact and what is the current g~atus of negotiations. DEIS Statement: The DEI$ lists six purtx~ of the proposed aation. One oftbe six stat~l purposes is "To prOt,~ cultural resources associat~ with Fen Corchaug and other historic sites." Comment: St_ailments, some of wkich are list~i below, nmda in the l~sults section of the Phase lB Atcha~logical Survey (pages 16-17) and the Conclusions and Recommendations section of tho Pba~e lB Archaeological Survey (gage lg), do not support the above numrioneci stau;ment made in the DEI$, This should be clarified. As noted below, some of the cmltural resources associated with Fort Corchaug arc likely to be impa~t~t by certain aspects of the proposed development, la addition, there are discrepancies and contradictions between szarc'me.~:~ made in the Results section and $taternents made in the Conclusions aid Recommendations section. There axe also contratlicfions betwee~ the staled information and that shown on the Cultural Resource Map as noted below. All discrepancies and exmtradiction~ should be explained and ¢lahfied. P~el !4ELI-~Of4 3, POF'E,LLP The Fort Corehang site is located primarily within the proposed Town Park and Lots 9 and 10. The Fort Corehaug site is located primarily within the Town Park but probably also in Lot (Ths~ statement omits Lot 9, which is included in the above menfoaed statement, and adds that the Fort Corchaug site is "probably" in Lot 10. This must be clarified. Irt addition, the Cullxu'al Resource Map does not show the Fort Corchaug site within either lot). The Fort Corchau§ site is likely to be impacted by new houses in Lots 9 and 13 and possible improvements to the Town Park. The Fence Rail Well Site is located within Lots 4, 5 and 16. This site is tJlcely 1:o be impacted by the proposed houseS, roads, driveways and service connections anticipated as past of the subdivision. The Fence P, ml Well site is located within Lots 2-10 and 16 (The above mentioned statement says that the Fence Rail Well Site is located within Lots 4, 5 and 16. Yet, the Cultural Resource Map shows the Fence Rail Well Site as being located on Lot 5 only). Additional prehistoric r~nains were reported in Lots 6 through 10 between the R. ffi Fence Well Site and Fort Corelmug ' ' The "northern aew prehistoric site" is located parUally with/m the propos~ Town Park and partially within Lot 1. Pase 4; Cultus~ Resources DEIS Statements: The park proposed for s~e C~, ~. ~nclu~ ex~on ora new site fo~ du~ ~t Comment: AS mentioned in the pr;vious comment, the reformation c. ontamed in the Appendices does not support these statements. The Phase lB .~a'chaeological Survey results conclude (with the discrepancies mentioned in the above mentioned comments for Page I) that the Fort ,Cotcha~g Site is likely to be impacted by new houses in Lots 9 and 10 and the Femce Rail Well Site is likely to be impacted by the proposed houses, roads, driveways and se~ice cosmoctions ant~ciI~d as pair of the subdivision. The park proposed for sale to Southold will preserve some of the cultural resources, but certainly nOt "th~" cultural resources located on the site. Page 4: Water Resources DEIS Statement: Current regulatory requixements will avoid significant imp~ts and thc standards kaposed by the approval agencies casa be met. Ptease ¢lari~ tiffs statement. What regulatory r~luirements and how will these requirements avoid si~ificant impacts. The proposed project should be des~ed to avoid sign/tim: impa. c~ and appropdam mitigalaon should be d~ailed in the FEIS so that ca, ch agency, may mo>rpora~ these measures irno their Findings and decision doctanents. Page 4: Aquatic & Terrestrial Ecology DEIS Statement: Continuous buffer zones between w~dand and woodland habitats provide wildlife corfdors. Page 2 A 75' buffet zone from ',he wetland has been proposed. Seventy-five (75) feet is the s-tandard rrd~imum setback required by tl2e Town's Code for structures and impervious su~.?aog$ from the wetland edge The sc~back does not exclude ¢leals~ and further activity within 75' under perrmt from NYSDEC. Documentation referring to wildlff.e management ~'udies and pr~ce$ mm be provided to support the ~tatement that a suffieieot wildlife corridor is being provided, particularly in view of the cumulative nature of pnvat~ utilization of much of thc Dorm's Creek iiontage. Page 5: Cultural P,~ouree~ Comment: Why are there 2 So¢fio~s ~r Cultural Resources; one on Page 4 ~nd one on Pe$e 57 sections should be combined. Page 6: D. Alternatives DEI$ Statement: The mo~ viable plan appears to be the proposed acti°n. Comment: This sentence should be si-nc, ken sine¢ it is the opimon of the applicant and is not necessarily supported by documentation given the issue~ wNch remain outstanding.. There may be other plans wh.ich are more viable based on the potential impact to the surrounding a~ea, specifically, the Fort Corehaug site. Page 7: Approvals Required Table Commit: The specific Town D~armaen: or Board issuing the required approvals should be included m a revi~l robie. / Page 9: Figure 1 Comment The labeled "Future Deve!opmem Acea' should be relabeled "Residential Development Area", ff' in fa~ that is correct, ff.aot, please clarify what the "Future" development w~ll be. Page 10: Description of the Proposed Action DEIS Statement: There is also a provision for two future residential, one retail and one outbuilding o:a the vineyard parcel as well as a residence and outbuilding structure along New Suffolk Avenue. This statement ~hould be clarified. One rezidemial building (not t~x~) is allowed on ,..ach proposed "vineyard parcel". What parcel is the residence and outbuilding swaeture proposed for along New SuffoLk Avenue? Is it the second vineyard parcel (lot ;~2) or thc equestrma parcel (lot #3)? Include a ~atement which mdiea~ that the structures depicted on the subdivision map are hypothetical alld addiLinnal Town land use and building department approvals will b¢ required prior to developrmmt of lots 1-3 as well as other lots in the subdivision Page 21: Design and Layout DEIS Statement: Development of the size was dictated by natur~ resources (wetlands) and ¢uhural resource constraints, wh/ch have been incorporated into ~ overall development plan. Page 3 .¢uIq ~ FC~PE,LLP Comn~nE As discussed in the commenls for Page 1~ a si~£cant amount of thc "cul'.~ral resource constraints" are located within the development a~-~a~ The ~a~ts do not suppor~ tile slat~nent t~ developmem was dictated by cultural r~o-rce con~aints~ Page 25: Peconic Land Trust and Conservation -Eacv~ments DEIS Star, cment: "Fac Applicant mr-ends to donate conservation ease, meats coveting the two agncultural lots of 18.1g4 and 11.96 acres. Commelll: The intern *.o dona~ ~mtvation easements should be clarified. Is *.he applicant in..-a;.g to describ~ sp¢citic po~iom of the site ~ will be separated from the parcel and donated to the Town. The specific area~ and legal meehanism~ for =~hieving INs should be disc~t~sed. Other m~thods of open spm:¢/comervation e.~rn~nt prote~ion might also be cor~id~red. If no such legal me. amre~ can be ackieved, the potential impa~s on open space should be disclosed_ Page 3 t DEIS Statement: Mal~,enaue~ of the road and stormwaler system will be the rcspomsibility of the Town of'Southold. Maintenance of the road and stormwater system will not be the responsibility, of the Town until the road and drainage areas ate offered to, and accepted by the Town. Until such tinm that the areas are dedicated ~o thc Town, they will be the responsibility of the Homeowner Association or dewloper Table 3" DEIS S~atemera: Approval required from Health semces is pending subdivision map a~proval and SEQR. Applications to be filed at future date. Approval from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services is a required approval for realty subdivision. Site specific permits to eomtmet sanitary, systems will then be r~quired when individual bufidin£s are com-tru~ted. Page 55: Tidal Marsh DEIS gtatenm~t: Lo~ 6-10 have adequate area abow the 10 foot contour for an appropriale building envelope, and areas ~ of the 10 foot contour can be covenanted to remain natural or required to obtain a tidal wetlands permit if activity is proposed below the 10 foot contour. Lot 5 does not have adequate room for a buildi-~ envelope outside of NYSDEC jurisdiction, and will require wgtla:ad delineation The proposed 75' wedand buf~ area should be expanded landward m the 10' contour line where the contour l/ne is outside (west) of' the 75' buffer area. This will ensure ',hal all areas below the 10' contour line remain in a natural state and will not require NYSDEC Article 24 permits. Lot 5 should be rewsed or relocated so that a satisfac'mry building eav¢lope can be located above the 10' contour line and outside of thc NYSDEC jurisdiction. Pa~e 4 ?!AF,'-2_:-1997 !i:C~ ~!EL'-2Z'N :i POPE,LLP $i6 427 ~*E20 P.08 I0 General Coraments: Thc issue of N'ffSDEC jurisdiction over ~ wctlaads on site must bc cia.rifled ~:'Jnn the FEIS. The DEIS (p. 54) indicated that a joint apphcarion was made on the subdivision to the NYSDEC and Army Corps of Engineers in December of 1996. The stares ofthls application s:aould be made paa of thc FEIS record, and any expected rem. rietion.s should be included in the FEI.q so that it can be incorporatzd into the Sate, meat of Findings. Thc FEI$ should also clearly outline how thc proposed wetland buffer areas will be proteeted. The DEI$ (p. 107) indicates that these areas vdll remain undi~oxbed, Altho,,gh NYSDI,.'C restrictions would not allow bulldinEs or paved $~.e.~ within 75', clearing of vegetation would, be genuittgd. 2-ne FEIS should dison~s the use of covenants to protect the buffer area, particularly in the areas of steeper slopes, and these resmetions should be described so that they n~y be included in the Statement of Findings. The applicant is strongly encouraged to utilize covenants ~t ~4SI remove as man5, lots as possible from NYSDEC jurisdiction by restricting development to a:reas above the 10 foot contour. Page 64: Upland Forests DEIS State~nem: The vegetation o~cu.rring at the former Fort Corchaug site is uaique and can best 5; described as M~mtime Oak Barrens. As shown on the Veg~ation Location Map, more than half of the Maritime Oak Barrens area is loeated within the proposed development area. Yet, no mkiganon measures axe proposed to protect or conserve this uinque area. This should be addressed as well as general vegetation mapacts noted in the comment below. General Comments: The DEIS does not include a section on impacts to vegetation, although sore: appropriate reformation is included in the mitiga~n section of tbe document (p. I18). The FEIS ~hould qua_~tjfy, both th~ existing area of each habitat and the area which w/il rema/n following implementation of the proposed project. The document does briefly discuss irapaets to the wetlands, but does not adequaiely address the loss of upland vegetation. A general discussion of vegetation impacts should be presented in the FEIS, followed by a more detailed dis,:ussion oft. be more valuable habitats. In parucular, the setting section of the DEI$ (p. 65) indicates that the southern portien of thc site is mature oak-hickoiy foregt, and that t~'w remnants of this native forest remain wiri~ the Town. The impacts to this habitat should be discussed within the FEIS in view of the retarkx: rarity of this plant community as stated in the DEIS. Some mitigation has been mentioned in the DEI$ (p. 118), but the FEIS should discuss exphcit mitigaUon measun:s that can be included in thn Findings Statement, such as utilization of covenan*a tO Specify. cleating limits and presen'ation of larger trees within the landscaped portions o£ individual lots. In addition, two rare plant~ were identtfled as potentially present on ~ite (DEIS, p. 68). The kkelihood that lhese species v/Il bc impacrixi by the proposed project should be di.,:cnssod in ~e FEIS. Page 5 Page 68: Rar~ Plants General Conunenrs Thc DEIS fails to adequately address potential impa~ts to vntdiif¢ on si~e, and docs not contain a list of species thai are expected on the propeay. A complete list of ~ildlLCe which .axe pot~6nliy present on si~¢ should be included in the FEIS, as was requested ia the original scoping l~er. The DEIS presents only a brief, incompk~¢ list of predominantly wetland species S~veral groups of wildlife are not eve~ menlioned in thc DEIS, including the warblers ~ ottmr ~npot'tam upland fauna. Thc wildiit% list should identify individual species mth~r than general ~aunal g~oups. In parUcular, the FEIS should d~scuss the proposed clearing on the forested portion of the sire, which will be the primary wildlife impaq. The FEIS should first identify all wildlife species which would be ~xpecred to u~ze thc forest habitat, then address thc potential impels rc these spccios which may result from thc proposed clearing. This ,,~lysis should include a discussion diff¢~cntiating betw~m species ~hich adapt well to d~vclopmcnt and area sensitive species which may abandon thc sire following construction, A bri¢~, but mom accusate, discussion of' reptiles and amphibmns should also be h~lud~ in thc FEIS. Thc flogs and salamanders are not Found m salt warer as suggested in the DEI$ (p. 62), although th~' might be present en sim it' suffic/cnt fi~shw'atcr is ava/labl¢. Th~ potential presenc~ of' these sp~ies should be discussed in thc FEIS. It should also he noted that turtk,s are reptiles, not amphibian% as suggested in the DEI$ (p. 62). Page ?1: Cultural l~sources DEIS Stmement: South of this area is believed to be ,..he historic Fort Corchaug, with a possible village also nearby. This statement mu~t be discussed further. For instance, "possible village" in either the DEIS or Appeadices. no fixcther rr~mtion is m~,~e of the DEIS Staremcut: Thc first phase of thc inv¢~igaticra cor~isted of shovel testing at every fifty feet north of the fort adjacent to tix¢ creek and thc salt mar{hcs. Comment: Page 8 of thc Conclusions and Recommendations of th~ Phase 'lA Archaeological Research Assessmen~ recommends that a Phase lB Archaeological Survey, be conductad on the project area and that th~ survey should consist of shovel testing at 50 foot intervals uoz%h of thc fort along the wooded strip adjacent to Do~nxs Creek and also within the salt marshes whon:vet possible. However, as noted on Page 3 of the Phase lB Archaoologie. al Survey, t~¢ parcel was invesfigared by excavating shovel tes~s located on a 100 foot grid pattern. A¢cordhmgly, the abov~ mentioned staremcnt that {hovel testing was dou¢ every fiJ~y feet is not true. Documentation as to why shovel rest~g was not dona at 50 foot mrervals as recomm~ must be pres,'ired. P~e6 ~, POPE,LL~ El6 4=, _.~=U P.OS Page 80; Groundwater DEIS Statement: This section of the DEIS dhscusses the use of water-~fficient plumbing, wa~: conscrvahon .methods, crc. and concludes that thc impacts to groundwater quantifies fi.om the p:ropos~d action are assessed to be acceptable providing that the recommendations outlined in the Nm~h Fork Water Supply Plan and voluntary, e~orts to conserve water arc Coillment: Alri~ugh the DEIS staIes th~ it is likely that wa~r conservation methods will be used, it does not r~commend requiring any of th~s¢ methods. In absence of specific implcmentsble mitigation measures to enforce water consolation, the impacts rn groundwater mu~ be bas~l on the worst case scenario. This is important because wells located m low l)ing coastal areas are particularly prone to salt water intrusion. Page 107: Wetland and Wildlife DEIS Statement: Fumm access tn the creek via cl~[red paths and flo~ti-g docks could occur, but would be mgula~d on a case-by-case basis by NYSDEC, Town of Sonthold and the U.S. Army Corps o ~ Engineers. If restrict/om prohibiting clear~l paths and flo~tin~ dockS, gig. are not proposed, d~ statements made in other parts of the DEIS in regard to provisions for ¢oramuous buffer ;:ones bctwc~ wetland and woodland habitats to provide wildlife corridors must be re.~xammed. There is an inherent conflict ~ alleWmg clearing and docks, etc. and providing for a wildli/b corndor. Page 108: Cultur*t Resources DEIS Statements: This section again discusses the location of the prehistoric sites within thc propoml devel6pment area. The DEIS recommends that a Phase 2 Archaeological Survey of the Fence Rail Well site be undertak~a prior to construction of Lots 4-10 and 16 to determine th~ precise boundaries of the site as well as po~nti,~ National Register eligiblliB/. Th~ Cultural Resource Map contained m the Appendices shows th~ entire proposed Lot 5 as being locat~l within thc boundaries of one of thc prehistoric sires (the Rail Femcc Well Sit~;,. la order for the subdivision to be designed to protect cultural resources associated with Fort Corchaug. the Phase 2 Survey should be completed prior W complctiou of the SEQRA review, l>nty men ~ precise bou~-4~ries be dt~tmnmed and d~,elopment be designed to lesse~ the impm~ ~o cultural r~sourc~ sites. In ~dditJon, the For~ Corchaug site, as well as twenty-five acres of the subject property, arc designated on the National Register of Histnric Places. Yet, the ex/sung National Register designation is not discussed. The n~npa~s thc proposed development w/Il have on thc National Regis~r designation must be addressed in de~il. DEIS Statement: Fort Corchaug is locat~t primarily in the Town Park but probably also in Lot I0. As mentioned in the comments on Page I, there are discrepancies and cxaffiicts with regard to thc location of the Fort Corchaug Site. What is defm~d as being the Fort Corchaug site? Vv%at i< meant by Fort Corchaug being primarily located in the Town Park? What percenta?.e of the Fort Page 7 sit~ is located ~,4thin the proposal development area? ~¢ sup~g ~c~1c,¢~ r¢ch p~s~ ~ Ce DEIS is ~lusi~ ~ ~ ¢~ ~es o¢ ~e Foe Co~u8 si~=. D~ to Ce ~clusive l~on ~ ~s of ~e Fort Co~ si~. ~ ~e l~e:~ of ~ si~fi~t si~ b~g ~ ~e pro~ ~velopmem ~, z P~e 2 Su~ mu~: be ~mple~ prior ~ ~mpl~on of ~e SEQ~ ~ew. ~y ~ ~ pr~i~ ~ ~ c~ ~d ~velopment be ~i~ m less~ ~ ~pa~ to ~e culm~ res~ur~s s~. Wi~out ~s ~o~fion, ~m is po~ for ~p~blc md ~etfi~le loss of culm~l r~our~ P~e ~ 12: Mi~6~ M~s ~ ~ ~mro~ ~P~ DEIS ~e fo~o~ is a ~scfipfion of t~qu~s ~at ~y be empioy~ m mi~ ~o~ ~p~. Specific mitigation methods that v~ll (as opposed to may) be used mu~ be cli~sed, in addition to how they will b~ implemented and =d'orc~d. For example, on Ps$e llg, the DIEIS smms that construction of the residential development wgl aot involve clear cutUng of th~' lots. Wha~ provision is proposed to ensure that ¢lca~ cutting will not occur? Page 119: Cultural Rcso~ccs DEIS Smr~aents: to r~tiga.~ potential ~ to c~m~ r~our~:;. A q~li~ A~6o~ m~ur~ ~ pro~s~ · ~cheolo~st ~Y n~ ~ ~u~ ~o~ shovel ~ prior to ~ m r~a~e ~y ~er si~fi~t ~ ~t ~uld be on ~ sim. W&si~ by ~ prosp~ ~ o~r or ~pr~mte ~, ~e f~t p~ of ~e ho~e ~d be ~v~ to avoid ~y ~s~e~ m~s. A P~ ~ch~logi~ su~ p~ To~ P~. Con~t: ~e ~s~ Mve d~l~t of a ~jofi~ of ~e p~S~ lorn (~ 1-10 ~ ~ 16). As not~ ~ p~or co~en~, a P~ 2 S~ m~ ~ ~mpt~ prior ~ ~l~on of~e SEQ~ review. ~y ~ ~ pr~i~ bo~ of cul~ ~our~s bc ~. It is n~ sufficient m pre~t ~uct ~ shovel ~t ~ ~s~ by ~e pms~ l~ o~ or approp~te ag~, ~e f~t p~t of the ~se ~d be mov~ to avoid ~y ~v~ ~e ~g~U~ m~ pro~s~ (i.e. ~ of sight ~cm ~d ~ aa ~ch~l~ on sim), m~t be &s~s~ in ~ ~ ~&fion to spprop~ rest, ~lu~ sup~ ~o~on, to ~e follo~ qu~: H~ ~ ~ above ~on~ ~uoa m~ be ~or~? · Is r~ ~ a~mble ~g~on m~ for sims w~ch ~e ~si~ on ~e N~o~ ~smr or w~ ~ve Ns~ ~ eli~bi~W? ·~at ~ happ~ if ~r or bun~ sim? ~ appoint pmpo~s to ~ a P~ 2 ~c~[~c~ su~ey prior ~ develo~at of ~e ~. Ho~v ~11 ~s be ~or~ monttor~ ~d Pa~e 122-127: AlternativeS Cultural ReSourc~ Pres~vat/on Alternative: Comment: This aim~aliv¢ was proposexl to address ~e adequacy of a rectory m~hod of miti~a~in~ archoological impacts as c~apared tn avoid~-c~ of resources. Hoxvcv~, ~ DF~IS ~ompat~s recovery to avoidance within'thc propOsod buildin~ lots only. The ado:luacy of a r~cov~y method must be c~rnpared to a~]dance through revision of lot layout. In a~dition, as m~tioned in the comment for Pa$¢ 119, th~ recovery m~hod must be discussed in d h. Expaucl~ Fort Corchaug Site Alternative: C~t: This alu-xtu~ivo was proposed to provid~ a disCus~ou of clust~'in8 w provid~ a lar{~ promerva~on ar~a in ri~ v~cmi~y of Form Corchaus. The DEIS ~ Uhat "This alu,-,ranfive would involve ~xpansion of'the proposed 37.47 acre Towu Park to include sorae oftbe propos~ resider~_'_~) lots". It is nOt: true that the Town Park would have to be ,xlmmled in order to pr~erv¢ a larger area in the vicb~ity of Fort Corchaug, a r~vi~d lot layout would ~a~able a later a~ea in the vicinity of Fort Corchaug to be preserved. It is understood that m order to provide a larger pr~rvation area in the vicinit~ of Fort Corchaulg a reduoxi number and/or $iz~ o the lois fronting on Do~s Cr~ will be necessary. However, it is not sufticiea~ to limit discussion of d~vdoprnent to the co,~fin~s of the proposed de~lopm~rit ama. Removifl of Lot I0 md/or reductiou in size oftl~ proposed lots within th~ con,~l~s of the proposed development area, or the Town's ~tend~ pureha-~ of a lot which do~ not exist are not th~ only alternatives. Alternative layouts for the ~,niire 105 a~r* site, which preserve th~ cultural resources associated with Fort Corehaug, must be r~vi~ed in¢lvttinE layouts which r~se the boundaries of the d~;lopable area and the proposed Town Park. This l~er pro~idcs the combined comments of Planning staff and N,P&V. If you ar~ in a~e. ement, it is suggestexl that thes* comments as w~ll as cornrtm~ r~ctqved from the public, involved asencies and ~ pattie, s, and the transcript of the hearing be forwarded to ~h~ applicant. ]'hank you for ':he opportunity to provide you with this r~iew, and please ~1 if ~q._q~ hav~,a~ questions. NSL.S~A'4, POPE & VOOP. HI$, LI P~o9 EDWARD .J. PETROU, P.E. REGIONAL DIRECTOR STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STATE OFFICE BUILDING 250 VLIP-RANS ~V~EMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE, N.Y. 11788-5518 March 21, 1997 Hr. Bernard Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Indian Shores ~-/S Route 25, Cutchu~tle SCTM # 1000-116-1-3 Dear Mr. Orlowski: We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the referenced subdivision. There are no plans for improvements to Route 25 in this location in our Five Year Planning Program. As is correctly stated in the DEIS, the applicant will have to apply for highway work permits for access to Route 25 at the time of site plan review. For questions on permits please contact Vito Lena at 952-6025. For other questions, please contact G. Beierling at 952-6128. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this subdivision. Very truly yours, FRANK PEARSON Planning & Program Management i,'iAR 2 O i99'[ ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES INCORPORATED P.O.B. 1522, ROCKY POINT, NEWYORK 11778 THZPHONE 516-331-5980 FAX 516-331-5980 Robert J. Kalin, P.A., P.G., Federal and New York State Certified Archaeologist, Professor of Geology, SCC College, Selden, L.I., New York Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Chairman Planning Board, Town of Southold Offices, Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Orlowski: March 21, 1997 2 0 !: 97 Re:Indian Shores Proposal, Cutchogue, Southold, New York The proposed Indian Shores project is the location of the National Registry Fort Corchaug Site, the only known and best preserved Native American Fort on Long Island which was occupied and used from 1640 to 1662. Fortunately the significance of the site was recognized early and was studied by an eminent archaeologist, Dr. Ralph Solecki, who contributed greatly to our present knowledge. There remain, however, historic, archaeological and cultural questions related to the site which await to be addressed by more intensive studies which at the present time have the potential to employ modern archaeological and advanced scientific techniques unavailable to Professor Solecki. Most important, however, are the areas which surround this National Registry site and which are presently threatened by development that are likely to provide significant historic and cultural insights, extremely important for a full understanding of the site itself. Evidence presented in the Greenhouse Phase I Archaeological Report indicates that these surrounding areas are found to have evidences of several occupation or use zones and probably comprise a site complex consisting of at least three culturally sensitive areas. This includes the Baxter site which is located approximately 1000' north of the Fort, and a known area of subsurface cultural sensitivity reported to occur between the Fort and the Baxter Site, furthermore there are additional sensitive areas revealed by the present study. These tests and observations are reported to reveal surface and subsurface finds over a broad area. Cultural materials were found at a distance of 1900 feet SSW of the Fort, 800 feet north of the Fort, and as far as 1600 fegt northwest of the Fort. Although Lots 1 and 2, located west of the major subdivision were not subsurface tested, surface evidences are apparently located there and are scattered in both Lot 1 and 2. In broad terms, the site complex appears to cover a 300 foot or wider arc on the western shore of Downs Creek extending north from New Suffolk Avenue for over 3000 feet, with some positive finds extending well into Lot 1 near Main Road. It is our appreciation for the size,complexity and cultural sensitivity of this area, its historic importance, and its significance to the present and future residents of the Town of Southold, as well as the rest of the State, that motivates us to urge you to request further testing and analysis prior to establishing a plan for subdivision of this culturally sensitive area. Further testing should include a New York Archaeological Council standard (1994) Phase II study, which would require the investigators to obtain detailed information on the integrity, precise lateral limits (i.e. its extent and boundaries), structure, function and cultural-historic context of the cultural evidences known to exist and those reported. These data would enable the Township and its reviewer to more fully understand and appreciate the cultural significance of the various components of this complex and sensitive area BEFORE questions regarding subdivision, lot size, lot location, permitted disturbance zones, set asides, and road access, etc. were answered and decisions and commitments were made regarding these factors. We sincerely hope that you will take these recommendations into account prior to final disposition of this project Yours ~ly Pre~,dent ASI cc: Mr. Charles Voorhis, Nelson&Pope and Voorhis, Melville, New York NORTH FORK E:N¥1RONME:NTAL COUNCIL, INC. Route 25 at Love Lane, PO Box 799, Mattltuck, NY 11952 516-298-8880 March 20, 1997 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Memorandum re DEIS for Indian Shores Site Plan Dear Mr. Orlowski: After reviewing the DraffEnvironmental Impact Statement for the proposed Indian Shores subdivision, we feel that certain aspects of the document merit discussion. Use of Agricultural Parcels Unknown: Primarily, we have concerns regarding the assumption throughout the DEIS that the two agricultural lots will eventually become vineyards. Although we regard this as a desirable use of the property which may reflect the intentions of the applicant, it is certainly not an issue which has been resolved. Conservation easements currently under negotiation with the Peconic Land Trust have not been finalized. The agricultural parcels could ultimately be farmed as potato crops or they could be developed themselves. The DEIS should acknowledge these possibilities, particularly in the discussion of nitrogen loading and groundwater consumption. Obviously, the assumption that the agricultural parcels will be farmed as vineyards has far-reaching effects in this DEIS. A vineyard releases less nitrogen into the ground and requires less water for irrigation than a crop such as potatoes. The DEIS calculations indicate that the overall increase in nitrogen to the ecosystem will be small and "should not negatively affect Downs Creek" (p. 104). These calculations should reflect the possibility that the crops farmed on these parcels may be something other than vineyards. What are the potential figures for nitrogen loading if the crops are potatoes, a product more common to the East End agricultural economy? The DEIS also points out that "a marine surface water system is not very sensitive to changes in groundwater quality" (p. 105). Does this statement suggest that even a high nitrogen- yielding crop such as potatoes would not negatively affect Downs Creek? And, if groundwater quality does not significantly alter marine surface water systems, then the DEIS has no basis for later stating that reducing groundwater contamination will reduce the project's impact on Downs Creek (p. 113). We are concerned that the DEIS is a non-profit organization for the pre~'~atlon of land, sea, air and quality of life printed on 100% recYcled paper presenting a best possible scenario in order to create an impression of low environmental impact. A discussion on nitrogen should also take into account the cumulative impact that the proposed Indian Shores development will have in conjunction with the North Fork Country Club golf course on the east side of the creek. The current levels of nitrogen in Downs Creek should be clearly indicated and taken into consideration when evaluating the potential nitrogen loading of the proposed plan. At present, the water quality in Downs Creek only "marginally meets NSSP standards" (p. 53) for shellfishing. The nitrogen budget figures in the DEIS are generally ambiguous and'difficult to follow. Specifically, Tables 6-9 (p.88 fi) should be labelled clearly and consistently. For instance, on Table 7 (p. 91), under the heading "Calculations: Sanitary," calculations are made to determine the amount of nitrogen which is expected to seep into the ground as a result of residential wastewater disposal. ']7he result, 120,825,303 mg, is not labelled as such. The next line, "Water Supply," introduces the figures 3mg/1 and 6,631,320 liters without any indication as to where these numbers come from or what significance they have. At the bottom of the page is a figure in bold, "1.803 mg/l." Assuming that this indicates the number of milligrams of nitrogen per liter, then what does it mean? Is this the amount of nitrogen which has seeped into the ground or the groundwater? Is this per day, per year, per household, per development? The levels of nitrogen loading cannot be adequately assessed if the figures are unclear. Regarding the water consumption of a vineyard, the DEIS figures indicate that water consumption at the site will be 37,116 gpd, or 56% of the permissive safe yield. Again, these figures assume that the agricultural parcels will be vineyards and that future vintners will voluntarily use a drip irrigation method which uses less water than traditional systems. Problems with Mitigation Measures: The proposed plan itself is offered as a mitigation of the original plan of 42 residential lots. Is this considered valid? The application of herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers conceivably will be minimized through public awareness programs, but is it reasonable to expect the general public to follow such suggestions? Other mitigation measures (p. 113) similarly depend on the good citizenship of future residents, rather than on an action taken by the applicant. Given that the 75' tidal wetlands setback is required by existing law, can it be considered a mitigation measure on the part of the applicant? The issue of whether or not to increase the setback to 100' is discussed as an alternative. A distinct contradiction exists here; first the DEIS states that a 100' setback "does not result in an obvious or greater benefit" while further on in the same paragraph the following statement appears: "it is impossible to qualify or quantify the benefit" (p. 126). If it is impossible to evaluate -2- the benefit of a 100' setback, then how can the DEIS state that it would not result in a greater benefit? Impact of Town Park: The DEIS fails to address the impact that a town park will have on the environment at Downs Creek. There is no acknowledgment anywhere that use of this land as a park will also upset the terrestrial wildlife. Several statements are made regarding the probability that animals displaced from the residential lots will find acceptable refuge at the park site, but this site may also be disturbed to a degree which makes it unsuitable ~br existing fauna. When discussing the possibility of lots 5- I0 being held in common ownership as an alternative, the DEIS states, "The potential for development of a trail or boardwalk as an extension of a trail system on the 37-acre parcel would exist, thereby potentially impacting the Creek" (p. 126). Ifa trail on the residential parcels would affect the environment, then a trail on the 37-acre park would also have an impact on the Creek. This point is not raised. Tests/Approvals Still Needed: Before the Planning Board can make an accurate determination on the proposed plan, the following tests or approvals need to be completed: 1.) Drinking water quality at the site is presently unknown and will not be determined until wells are constructed at the site. 2.) Tidal Wetland borders must be delineated. 3.) Subdivision map must be approved by NYSDEC. 4.) The soils at the site must be evaluated for their acceptability tbr their use Ibr sanitary disposal purposes. Miscellaneous Questions to Consider: In addition to the issues mentioned above, we feel that the following questions should be addressed in the DEIS: 1.) Will motor boats be prohibited in the creek? 2.) What impact will floating docks have on the creek? 3.) Under what circumstances could the agricultural parcels eventually be developed? 4.) Can the applicant revert back to thc original plan of 42 residential lots using this DEIS? The North Fork Environmental Council supports public acquisition of the entire 105.6-acre parcel not only to preserve the well-documented archeological value of the site, but also to adequately protect the fragile and unique environment of Downs Creek and the surrounding area. Until such an acquisition becomes a reality, however, we ask that you carefully consider the potential of the proposed plan to negatively impact the ecosystem of the property in question. Thank you for your attention to our concerns regarding this proposed subdivision. Very truly yours, Anne Lowry President -3- George E. Pataki Alexander E Treadwell Secretary of State March 18, 1997 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman, Planning Board Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Orlowski: Re: S-97-009 Indian Shores (a.k.a Fort Corchaug) Environmental Impact Statement Draft The Department of State's Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization has prepared the following comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Indian Shores subdivision. State Coastal Consistency Requirements State agency actions within the coastal area are required by Article 42 of the State Executive Law and implementing regulations in 19 NYCRR Part 600 to be undertaken in a manner consistent with the State's coastal area policies. Land development and related activities in New York's coastal area which involve state agency direct action or funding, or requiring state permits for actions involving an EIS under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) must be consistent with the coastal area policies in A~icle 42, or an approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. No State agency involved in an action, as the term is defined in 6 NYCRR Part 617.2, shall carry out, fund, or approve the action until the agency has complied with the provisions of Article 42 of the Executive Law and implementing regulations contained in 19 NYCRR Part 600. If a positive declaration has been made and an ElS will be required, the draft ElS must contain an identification of the applicable coastal policies and a discussion of the effects of the proposed action on and consistency with such policies (6 NYCRR 617.9(b)(5)(vi)). The SEQRA regulations provide that no state agency shall make a final decision on the action until it has made a written finding that it is consistent with the coastal policies set forth in 19 NYCRR Part 600.5 or an approved LWRP (6 NYCRR 617.11(e)). This provision applies to all state agencies, whether acting as lead or involved agency (6 NYCRR 617.6(a)(5)). The DEIS indicates that the State Department of Environmental Conservation is an involved agency Division o] Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization Albany, NY 12231-0001 Vob~: (518) 474-6000 Fa~: (518) 473-2464 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Page 2. because the proposed activities will require a tidal wetlands permit pursuant to Article 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law and implementing regulations in 6 NYCRR Part 661. Therefore, the DEIS is required to contain an identification of the applicable coastal policies, and a discussion of the effects of the proposed action on and its consistency with those policies. This information is necessary so that the Department of Environmental Conservation can include that information in its State agency consistency determination and SEQRA findings. Since the dr~ft EIS does not include that information, it should be provided in the final EIS. Other Comments The following comments relate to specific coastal policies identified in Article 42 of the Executive Law and 19 NYCRR Part 600.5. Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats The narrative information in the DEIS fails to acknowledge Downs Creek as a State designated Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat (SCFWH), although the narrative describing the Downs Creek SCFWH has been included in Appendix 7. SCFWHs are geographic areas that have been determined to be of statewide algnificance, based on a quantitative evaluation of a combination of ecological factors. These factors include whether the area serves one or more of the following functions: is essential to the survival of a large portion of a particular fish or wildlife population supports populations of species which are endangered, threatened, or of special concern supports populations having significant commercial, recreational, or educational value exemplifies a habitat type which is not commonly found in the state or in a coastal region Downs Creek was designated as a SCFWH by the Secretary of State in 1987. The DEIS should specifically address the extent of any impacts of the development proposal on the SCFWH, and address any necessary and detailed mitigation measures that might be necessary to avoid impairments to the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the habitat area. We are particularly concerned about the future impacts on the SCFWH from the proposed parcels that would be adjacent to the western shoreline of Downs Creek. Lot #5 is a particular concern, as it appears that it does not provide for an adequate building envelope outside of the tidal wetland area. in addition, the potential for access to the Creek and the installation of floating docks within this essentially undeveloped SCFWH is a major concern. Historic, Archaeological, Architectural, and Cultural Resources The development proposal does not appear to adequately protect the archaeological and cultural resources associated with Fort Corchaug, which is listed on the State and National Registers of Historic Places. The conclusions presented in the DEIS do not appear to be fully supported by the information contained in the DEIS, which often provides conflicting information on the location of the important cultural Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Page 3. resources within the development proposal. It would appear that many of the remaining important cultural resources are located within the proposed developed area, and not in the open space to be acquired by the Town of Southold or protected by conservation easements. The Town should consider more complete preservation of the Fort Corchaug site, particularly to the south of the fort in the vicinity of lots #9 and #10. Alternatives Alternatives should include: a full assessment of a reduced development proposal; altering the configuration of the proposed Town park; redesigning the layout/reducing the size of existing lots to prevent or avoid development in and adjacent to sensitive areas; a consideration of an alternative site layout which develops only the northern portion of the site; additional acquisition that may make it possible to preserve the resources of this important archaeological site and maintain the integrity and viability of the Downs Creek Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat area as a habitat. Federal Consistency Pursuant to federal regulations in 15 CFR Part 930, if any component of the proposal would require any authorization, funding, or a direct action by a federal agency, the proposed activities would be reviewed by this Department for its consistency with the enforceable policies of the New York State Coastal Management Program. If the Department of State determines that the proposed activities would not be consistent with the State's Coastal Management Program, the consistency provisions of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act prohibit federal agencies from authorizing, funding, or undertaking the proposed activities. Therefore, a copy of the final Environmental Impact Statement should be provided to this Department so that the information in that document might be used in any future reviews of the proposal for its consistency with the policies of the New York Coastal Management Program. I hope this information is informative and useful. If you have any questions or need any additional information or assistance regarding this matter, please call me or Steve Ridler, your Local Waterfront Revitalization Program contact, at (518) 474-6000. SCR/bms c: Steve Ridler Supervisor of Consistency Review Coastal Management Program Telephone (516) 765-1801 SOUTHOLD TOWN LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 TO: RE: Melissa Spiro, Planner Southoid Town Planning Department Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Indian Shores DEIS March 19, 1997 The Southold Town Landmarks Preservation Commission was created "...for thc purpose of conserving, protecting and perpetuating historic landmarks..." as stated in Southold Town Code, Chapter 56, and to "...assist Southold Town and owners of places, sites, structures, and buildings in order to conserve, protect, and preserve such places, sites, structures, and buildings, thereby protecting the unique character of Southold Town....". The Southold Town Landmarks Preservation Commission finds the DEIS for Indian Shores to be deficient with respect to the stated objective of the Project Summary (page 1) "...Protect cultural resources associated with Fort Corchaug and other historic sites..." Further, the DEIS does not meet the New York State and Federal standards for review of culturally significant sites, nor does the DEIS address the concerns expressed in the Southold Town Code to protect and preserve a unique and significant cultural resource. The Southold Town Landmarks Preservation Commission recommends that the Planning Board declare the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Indian Shores at Cutchogue, New York, incomplete and unacceplable, and thereby reject the DEIS as written. Principal concerns about the DEIS are outlined as follow: 1. Thc DEIS is comprised of incomplete and inconclusive Stage I archeological research with respect to verifying the cultural resources and significance of the site. 2. The DEIS fails to define proposed areas of surface and subsurface disturbance for the purpose of defining the scope of required cultural resource recovery 3. The DEIS fails to offer viable alternatives to proposed site plan as required in the SEQRA scoping outline. 4. The DEIS fails to define provisions for site use(s) in the event that referenced contracts for ownership/stewardship are not executed 5. The DEIS fails to address the impact on the "National Register of Historic Sites" designation Page I 0 1. The DEIS is comprised of incomplete and inconclusive Stage 1 archeological research with respect to verifying the cultural resources and significance of the site A. The Phase lB survey does not follow the recommended protocols of the Phase lA: 1. Shovel tests were conducted at 100 foot (lB, page 3) rather than the recommended 50 foot intervals (lA, page 8) 2. The "walk over" inspection of the plowed field area was conducted at 10 foot intervals (lB, page 3) rather than the recommended 6 foot intervals (IA, page 8) 3. The salt marshes (recommended, page 8) were not surveyed. (Phase lA survey references the work of Solecki and Salwen. Both of these authors reference the significance of sca level variations as it may impact on the relative locations of archeological remains. The Phase lA neglects to cite thc marsh and creek areas as potentially significant areas, and the Phase lB neglected to include these areas in the shovel test surveys.) 4. It appears that budgetary constraints prevented the conducting of a professional and conclusive Phase 1 survey: "...If mom time was had with the collection (of projectile points)..." (IA, Page 3), and, ... budgetary constraints brought field work to a close ..." (lB, page 4) Verification and replication of the data collected from the project site is impossible due to the fact that the Phase 1 work does not reference any replicable mapping coordinates ("._ Shovel tests were located by measuring from existing landmarks on the survey from Young & Young..." (1 B, page 3)). Locations of the shovel tests were not surveyed, not noted in the field reports, nor arc they accurately noted on the project map. The DEIS does not indicate where the artifacts are currently held. The DEIS should confirm that the artifacts are available for review. It is hoped that artifacts that were rejected during the course of laboratory analysis were not actually "discarded" as stated in the Artifact Summary (lB, page 7). D. Resumes of the field and laboratory staff responsible for collecting and analyzing the data were not included in the DEIS. Fire cracked rocks were not considered "potentially significant artifacts", despite the possibility that they could result from deliberate heating by prehistoric, historic, or Euro-American occupants. (1 B, page 7) F. The Phase I B does not verify any of the six following conditions set forth in Phase IA: 1. the north and western boundaries of Fort Corchaug and the west and south boundaries of the rail fence well site 2. the possible association between the Fort Corchaug and the rail fence well site 3. whether or not a native American village had existed in the ama 4. the possibility of submerged sites by testing the march area 5. the historic nature of the building remains at the north end of the project area along the main road 6. whether other unrelated prehistoric and historic sites are also present within the project area (Conclusions and Recommendations of the Phase lA (page 8) Page 2 At the conclusion of the lB, Phase 2 is recommended for lots 1-10 and lot 16, and the proposed Town Park parcel (page 116) The Phase lA of the DEIS establishes that previous work (Solecki) in the section of the parcel that includes the Fort Corchaug, the Rail Fence Well Site, and the area between the two sites contains archeological evidence. H. The DEIS does not define what are the measures proposed to mitigate impacts to cultural resources." (Section IV. Mitigation Measures to Minimize Environmental Impact, Section G, Cultural Resources, (page 1 l 9) Following are the only three sentences describing measures that are intended as mitigation measures...(page 119): "...A qualified archeologist may need to conduct additional shovel tests prior to construction to retrieve any other significant artifacts that could be on the site. If desired by the prospective owner or appropriate agency, the footprint to the house could be moved to avoid any discovered resources. A Phase 2 archeological survey is recommended prior to development to Lots 1-10 and Lot 16 and the proposed town Park (if it should be developed)." The above stated do not represent "mitigation measures" but are in fact required procedures, established by the findings of the archeological work referenced in the Appendices lA and lB. Further, the Phase 2 archeological study is required prior to approval for development. This protocol is clearly established by the NYSPRHP guidelines. The responsibiIity for competent and complete review of cultural resources is the applicant's, and must be completed prior to approval or acceptance of the DEIS by the Planning Board. (It is important to note that throughout the DEIS the applicant confuses mitigation measures with procedures that constitute legal compliance. It is not in the purview of the Landmarks Preservation Commission to critique other components of the DEIS, but for the purposes of illustration, on page 112, Proposed Mitigation Measures for Water Conservation: "... Water conservation can be achieved by using residential water conserving devices...it is likely that new, customized homes would be fitted with such devices..." Installation of such devices does not represent a mitigation measure, but is simply a code compliance requirement already established by the Southold Town Building Code.) The field and laboratory work presented in the Phase lA &lB archeoiogical survey is unprofessional, inconclusive, and incomplete, and should not be considered acceptable by the Southold Town Planning Board for site plan review. Page 3 o DEIS fails to clearly define proposed areas of surface and subsurface disturbance for the purpose of defining the scope of required cultural resource recovery. The DEIS should include the following: Bo Identify provisions for cultural resource recovery at future traverses/constructions at the Buffer Zone, as per page 12, "...Some of the proposed building lots could potentially contain access to Downs Creek..." Define the potential allowable structures, routing, and access across the setback (Buffer zone). Define provisions for cultural resource surveys at these traverses if their construction is at a later date. Identify the impact of raising site grades (pages 112-3) on cultural resource recovery, identify mitigation measures and retrieval strategies. Table I, Estimated Site Coverage, does not accurately reflect the impact of surface disturbance on cultural resources. Table I should be supplemented by a table and map describing the Maximum Proposed Surface and Subsurface Areas of Disturbance for each lot. Surface and subsurface disturbance calculations should include maximum square foot area of all allowable structures and facilities for each lot and depths of disturbance, for each lot. To include, but not limited to: Building envelopes plus working area around the perimeter of each surface disturbance, post holes and fence posts, farm stands, parking areas, paths and trails, non-paved equipment storage areas, underground utilities and infrastructure installations, service and utility poles, sanitary disposal systems (including agricultural and equestrian systems), tree and stump removal (including stump grinding below grade), potable wells and test wells/borings, swimming pools, tennis courts, roads and driveways, drywells, and drainage containment systems, accessory structures and breezeways, subsurface landscaping impact, septic systems and leaching pools, agricultural watering systems (including equestrian and viticulture applications), etc. The Area of Disturbance calculations should reflect the maximum allowable footprint of the structure, installation, or disturbance, plus a perimeter of working disturbance that will result from the construction, installation, or maintenance. Calculations should reflect the setbacks, buffer zones, seasonal groundwater elevation considerations, and "staggered" septic layouts (where applicable) required by the appropriate enforcing agencies for each proposed lot. Page 4 o The DEIS fails to offer viable alternatives to the proposed site plan as required in the SEQRA scoping outline. The DEIS should include Alternative(s) that reflect the National Register of Historic Sites designation. The National Register boundaries should be included on the Cultural Resources Map (Appendix 1). Bo The DE1S should include Alternative(s) that reflect not only the immediate Fort Corchaug site but an expanded Cultural Resource area inclusive of the Downs Creek area from the Fort to the Rail Fence Well Site. C. The DEIS should include Alternative(s) that consider locating the subdivision in areas that have been previously disturbed by farming. The DEIS fails to define provisions for site use(s) in the event that reference contracts for ownership/stewardship are not executed A. The DEIS makes several references to future contracts for ownership/stewardship by Southold Town, Suffolk County, and the Peconic Land Trust. The DEIS should clarify what will happen if these contracts are not executed. The DEIS fails to address the impact on the "National Register of Historic Sites" designation The proposed subdivision shall compromise the New York State and Federal designation of portions of the parcel as a Historic Site. As such, the DEIS should address the following consequences: If the current designated ama is divided into separate ownership, the surface modified, or otherwise disturbed, prior to completion of archeological review, the National Register designation will be canceled. The expectation that individual lots would be re-designated is Iow. The DEIS should present what impact the loss of the National Register designation will have, especially in terms of loss of eligibility for public and private resources that support the recovery, preservation, and exhibit of artifacts that further our understanding of the cultural history of Native Americans. If the National Register listing is removed, the property's eligibility for grants and funding is compromised. The DEIS should review what the impact will be on the publicly owned portion of the subdivision. Page 5 Recommendation: The Southold Town Landmark Preservation Commission recommends that the Planning Board reject the DEIS in order to preserve and protect a significant historic landmark in Southold Town Deb Winsor, Chair, Fort Corchaug Sub-Committee Southold Town Landmark Preservation Commission Cliff Benfield, Chairman Page 6 CUTCHOGUE-NEW SUFFOLK HISTORICAL COUNCIL Cutchogne, Long Island, New York March 20, 1997 Southold Town Planning Board: Southold, New York Re: Fort Corchaug Whereas the Fort Corchaug archaeological site in Cutchogue, Long Island is recognized as the last undisturbed Indian Fort on the Eastern Seaboard, and Whereas it is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and Whereas the Fort Site represents a unique example of the Native American Contact period with European Colonial Culture, and Whereas preliminary exploration has produced evidence of habitation south of the Fort and the possibility of discovering burial grounds in the surrounding area, and Whereas the Fort has been shown to have been not only a refuge but also an important wampum making and trading center, and Whereas, in addition, its undisturbed woodlands, wetlands and tidal marsh have been designated a Significant Coastar Fish and Wildlife Habitat by New York State, and Whereas the Southold Town Planning Board has before it an application for subdivision of 105 acres constituting the Fort Corchaug property, and Whereas the Suffolk County Archaeological Association deems it an archaeological national treasure, Therefore be it resolved that all legal action be taken to preserve this site and that additional funds be obtained to purchase the entire Fort Corchaug parcel in association with Southold Town and New York State. Unanimously approved by the Cutchogue-New Suffolk Historical Council, 2/11/97. William Peters, Trustee Albert J. Kmpski, Presidem John Holzapfel, Vice Presidem Jim King Martin H. Garrell Peter Wenczel <,..~ Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1892 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Planning Board Board of Trustees (~ Indian Shores Subdivision March 20, 1997 The Southold Town Board of Trustees has jurisdiction on lots of Indian Shores Subdivision that front on Downs Creek. The Board of Trustees jurisdiction is 75' upland from the wetlands edge. Since the proposed lots are large, we would requests no houses within our jurisdiction. Limited clearing is usually allowed to allow a waterview, as well as paths to access the water. RICHARD G. WARD GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 14, 1997 Charles Voorhis Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC 572 Walt Whitman Rd. Melville, NY 11747 Re: DEIS Review for Indian Shores SCTM# 1000-116-1-3 Dear Mr. Voorhis: Enclosed please find: ~ The transcript from the public headng on the DEIS for Indian Shores - Suffolk County Health Department comments ~ Comments submitted by interested parties at the public hearing Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, Melissa Spiro Planner enc. New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Long Island Region - Belmont Lake State Park, P.O. Box 247, Babylon, NY 11702-0247 Phone: (516) 669-1000 State Park Police: (516) 669-2500 Bernadette Castro, Commissioner Margaret P. Reilly, Regional Director Edward E. Wankel, Deputy Commissioner Peter L. Krarner, Commission Chairman P~ March5, 1997 Planning Board's Office of the Town of Southold at Town Hall Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New Yor/~ Gentlemen: Re: Drcdt Environmental Irn~act Statement for Indian Shores at Cutchocrue The subject proposal does not appear to affect state parkland on Long Island. We have referred the Draft Environmental Impact Statement to our Division of ,r-fistoric Preservation in Albany for review regarding potential impacts on cultural resources. Thank you very much for allowing us to review the Indian Shores proposal. NR:sp cc: Mr. Wankel Ms. Ram Otis Ms. Ruth Pierpont w/attach. An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Agency Nell ,~ Rosenb. e,r~,, P.E. Diredtor of Engineering iV~AR I 3 190~ DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ROBERT J. GAFFNEY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE MARY E. HiBBERD, M.D., M.P.H. March 11, 1997 Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Town of Southold Southold Planning Board Office Town Hail, 53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 RE: Indian Shores Draft Environmental Impact Statement SCTM# 1000-116-1-3 Dear Mr. Orlowski: The Suffolk County Department of Heaith Services (SCDHS; "Department") has received the above referenced Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). We have several concerns which we believe should be addressed including, the requirements of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code, groundwater impacts, protection of natural msoumes and archeologically significant findings. Details of our comments are provided below. Article VI Application Status: The project sponsor is encouraged to submit an application to the departments Bureau of Wastewater Management at the earliest date so that a technical review of this proposals conformance with the requirements of the Suffolk County Sanitary code can be undertaken. SCDHS Compliance Requirements and Jurisdiction: Taken in the context of the requirements of the SEQRA process, it is insignificant for the applicant to merely state an intent to meet all departmental standards. It is tree that the applicant must comply with the requirements of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code, including Articles IV, V and VI and relevant construction standards for water supply and sewage disposal systems. DIVISrON Of ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COUNTY CENTER Letter to Bennett Orlowski, Jr. March 11, 1997 Page 2 However, design and flow specification a detailed engineering report, subsurface soil conditions, and complete site plan details are essential to the review of this project. These considerations are reviewed completely at the time of application. SCDHS maintains jurisdiction over the final location of sewage disposal and water supply systems. The applicant, therefore, should, not undertake the construction of either system without Health Department approval. The Bureau of Drinking Water has reviewed the water resources (groundwater) portions of the DEIS for the Indian Shores Subdivision as it relates to our "Private Well Standards", particularly in regards to the section pertaining to specific test well requirements for realty subdivisions. Included with these comments is a copy of sections 406.4-12(a), "General Requirements for Test Wells", and 406.4-12(b), "Specific Test Well Requirements for Realty Subdivisions", which deal with the construction standards and water quality standards for test wells, respectively. It should be noted that there are other requirement8 for the subdivision application process, such as test hole requirements for sewage system construction, which are not covered by these comments. The DEIS provides a general discussion of groundwater for the area based upon information obtained from off-site monitoring wells, private wells and irrigation wells. However, there was no on-site data presented, as required for by application process for subdivisions. All applications for realty subdivisions, (five or more lost), require test wells on-site at locations specified by our department. One test well is required for every ten acres or ten lots with a minimum of two test wells for any subdivision. The following information is presented concerning construction and water quality standards for test wells for proposed subdivisions: Construction Standards All test wells, along with any subsequent drinking water wells, installed on the parcel for subdivision must meet with our minimum construction standards, which includes being a minimum depth of 40 feet below the water table, (see section 406.4-12(a)). Information presented on page 97 of the DEIS under the heading of "Drinking Water Quality Impacts" indicates that Indian Shores can install test wells with a minimum depth of ten feet below the water table pursuant to Section 406.4-12(d) Test Well Requirements for Individual Lots. However, this provision of placing shallow wells in shoreline areas is not an option for properties pursuing subdivision, but only applicable to lots in single and separate ownership. Without the installation of test wells screened at 40 feet below the water table at the site, we can only speculate on the suitability of the site to obtain subdivision approval. Water Quality Standards Letter to Bennett Orlowski, Jr. March 11, 1997 Page 3 Test wells water analyses for inorganic chemical content, volatile organic compounds and pesticides must comply with the guidelines and Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL's) contained in Part 5 of the New York State Sanitary Code. Section 406.4(b) lists the exceptions. Of particular concern for this site is the requirement that the arithmetic mean nitrate concentration of all wells (tested on the same day) shall not exceed 6.0 mg/L. The water quality data from monitoring wells up gradient (north) of this site show many instances where the water quality exceeds 10.0 mg/L for nitrates. In addition to the potential for a high nitrate concentration in the water supply, there is also concerns about the water quality due to the pesticide Temik, (aldicarb and its mettabolites), the herbicide dacthal, along with its metabolites, and the fumigant 1,2-dichloropropane. This is based upon the up gradient agricultural uses, and water quality data from monitoring and private wells in the area. A more comprehensive examination of the potential for agricultural chemicals to impact the water quality should be provided. Natural Resources The tidal wetlands which occur on the subject property will be affected by Article 25 (Tidal Wetlands). A New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) permit will therefore be required prior to SCDHS approval of this project. A NYSDEC-approved wetlands line should be designated on the site plan. The proposed development of the subject property should subsequently incorporate the maximum practicable setback from any wetlands boundaries. We recommend that no disturbance whatsoever occur within a minium of 100 feet from the tidal wetalands. Such a policy couold be implemented by establishing dedicated open space, placement of scenic easments over the wetlands and adjacent area or by carefully restricting building envelopes. Cultural Resources This department concurs with the recommendations of the Greenhouse Archaeological Report and believes it would be prudent to perform the Phase 2 Study prior to approval of the proposed subdivision map. If significant findings are found in the areas indicated below, the development plan should be reconfigured to avoid impacts to these archaeological and prehistoric areas. The Report states that "The Fort Corchaug Site is primarily within the proposed Town Park and lots 9 and 10" and furthermore, "Fort Corchaug Site is likely to be impacted by new houses in lots 9 and 10". Additionally" the fence rail well prehistoric site is located within lots 2- 10 and 16 of the proposed subdivision". "We recommend that a phase 2 Archaeological Survey of this site be undertaken prior to any development of these lots" (emphasis added). The Report also Letter to Bennett Orlowski, Jr. March 11, 1997 Page 4 states "the northern new prehistoric site is partially located within lot 1. A possible future house within Lot 1 would impact this site as could other improvements to this lot or the town Park. We recommend a Phase 2 archaeolical survey of this site should the plans proceed". Summary The DEIS provides a generalized discussion of the water quality and quantity for the area, but does not provide any site-specific data that would be required for the subdivision application process and would provide a better indication of the potential for a subdivision being approved at this site. As previously indicated, the DEIS (page 97) refers to utilizing shallow wells for the residences; however, this option is not applicable for subdivisions. The fact that shallow wells were considered leads to questions concerning the ability of the site to have drinking water wells installed at the minimum depth of 40 feet below the water table without encountering salt water. Additionally, there are water quality impacts associated with agricultural use, such as fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and fumigants, which would have to be evaluated prior to the approval of any subdivision. In conclusion, site-specific test well data is required to evaluate the suitability of this site for subdivision, as far as the water quality issues are concerned. We believe the project site's value as undeveloped open space and the cultural resources found on the site is sufficient to support full preservation as the best use of the entire parcel. Absent the opportunity for public acquisition for preservation, we believe that the site's documented sensitivity reflects the need to minimize the areas of archaeological signifiance impacted by development. If acquisition is not a reality it would be in the best interest to preserve as much of the archaeological significant areas which appear to be contained with lots 9 and 10. The area of some of the larger lots may be reduced or the portions of the agricultural fields reduced in order to maintain the 14 lots. Thank you for the opportunity to review this application. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the Office of Ecology at 852-2741. Sincerely, KS/is Attachments cc: Vito Minei, P.E. Stephen Costa, P.E. Kimberly Shaw Senior Environmental Analyst 5) Commercial or industrial buildings where water mains exist within 500 feet of the applicant's properly line. For proposed structures larger than 5.000 gross square feet. connection is required within a distance equivalent to the proposed gross square footage divided by ten, e.g., within 600 feet of a proposed 6,000 square foot building. 6) Commercial or indust~al subdivision or development where water mains exist within a distance equivaJent to the maximum buildable square footage allowed divided by ten, when measured to the closest property line. If connection to a community water System becomes feasible (due to water main extensions or improved system capacity) prior to or dudng construction of a project previously approved by the department for a pdvate water system, then the approval for the pdvate water system is voided, and the applicant must file a revised plan with the department. 406.4 - 12(a) GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FORTESTWm I _~ A test well may be required in order to determine the suitability of the use of individual private water systems, where the department has determined that a public water supply is not available or accessible (see section 406.4-11 ACCESS TO PUBLIC WATER). A test well or wells is required for any application for a malty subdivision or development, and may be required for individual lots. In order to deten'nine the depth at which the best water quality is available, applicants may perform exploratory drilling by installing test wells at various depths and pre-test water quelity, pdor to requesting analyses by the department. Test wells shall be located on the subject parcel. Water quality tests fi'om nearby or adjacent parcels are not acceptable as proof of local water quality. An exis'dng well on the pamel can be utilized as a test well, if the well can be documented to meet depexlment standards. An u,~ated or unfiltered sample tap must be available for testing. Test wells shall be consa'ucted in accordance with all department standards, if their eventual use for potable water supply is anticipated. In order t~) protect the sanitary and chemical quality of the proposed water source, and to provide a reasonable margin of safety in the event of future water quality degradation, test wells shall meet the following minimum standards: (1) The top of eac~ well screen must be installed a minimum of 40 feet below the water table. (2) The minimum total depth of each well must be at least 50 feet. Pdor to sampling by the department, the well ddller shall provide the department wfth a signed cerfitication containing well log data, including the depth of the well, elevation of the water table, screened intenral, and other pertinent information required by the department. Test wells shall be pumped for one hour at ten gallons per minute immediately pdor to sampling, unless otherwise specified by the department. The applicant or their agent must contact the department to arrange an appointment for the testing. Test wells shall not be adulterated with water fi'om another source, treated with chemicals, or chlorinated prior to sampling by the department. All water sampling and analyses will be performed by the department, provided proper application to the departmen! has been made and lesting lees have been paid. Analytical results will be deeme~ valid for one year from the date of sampling, it final approvals are not obtained within one year or if approvals have expired, new analyses ot aJt test wells may be required. 406.4 - 12(b) SPECIFIC TEST WELL REQUIREMENTS FOR REALTY SUBDIVISIONS For realty subdivision applications (5 lots or more), the department will specify the test well locations. One test well is required per 10 acres or 10 subdivision lots, with a minimum of 2 test wells for any subdivision. Test wells shall be installed in conformance with the generaJ requirements included in section 406.4-12(a). Water anaJyses for inorganic chemical content, volatile organic compounds, and pesticides must comply with the guidelines and Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL's) contained in Part 5 of the New Yor~ State Sanitagy Code, except as listed below. (0 The arithmetic mean nitrate concentration of ail wells tested (on the same day) at their finaJ screen setting shall not exceed 6.0 milligrams per liter (rog/l), and no well may exceed the nitrate MCL, and (il) the chlodde concentration shall not exceed 100 raga in any well, and (ii~) the combined iron and manganese concerti fall;on shall not exceed 1.0 mg/1 in any well. If water quality fells to meet the standards itemized above, then the use of private wells will not be approved. The Alternatives 1 through 6 listed in TABLE 4 are available to the applicant to proceed with the proposed realty subdivision. TABLE 4 - ALTERNATIVES WHEN TEST WELL WATER QUAUTY IS UNSATISFACTORY (1) Extend public water to senm all proposed lots, or (2) Cor~iruct an on-~te community water system rnest~ng ail appacablo New Yo~k State and Suffo~ County (3) Reconficjture file subdivis~o~ so that all lots are greater than 5.0 acres. No additlonel test wells are required for sutxfivisicn approval. Lots must be cx~venanted against fu~be~ suediviskm, unless water se~dc:e from a community supply is ~ovided, or (4) Deepe~ ttlose test well(s) that exceed the deparirttent's w~er qlJa~ stattda/d~ according to opticrts A, B, or C listed below. OPTION ,~, ~ ~ te~t well(s) from th® upper ~aclaJ i~o ~ Mago~hy aqtJifer, a,qd ~t the comlde(e OPTION B. Deepen the te~t well(s) through an aquidude or cozening day layer whic~t would impede the vmtieaJ flow et contaminants, and repea/t~e ~ wster analysis. Welt logs o~ ~tler infonnstion satisfactory to the def~rt~e~t must be submitted which veff~y ttm pm~e~qce of an aquiciude. OPTION C. Deepen the tast well(si a minimum et ,t0 fee~ to a deeper s4~rmmt witbln the same aquifer where c~mteminants may not be present, and r~oeat the complebe wster analysL~ Test walls deepened by utilizing Options A. B, or C listed above shal mes~ the water quality standa~s listed above in ~ sec~on. 406.4-I 2(b). including (/)-(i~, or (5) install a test well on each proposed lot in contorrnance with the requimme~s contained in secUon 406.4- 12(a). Wster quaJity parameters must comply with the guidalines and Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL's) contained in Part 5 et the New York S~ste Sanitary Code. exc~ the combined iron and manganese concer~alion which shall no~ exceed 1.0 mg/I. as individual building lots (see section 406.4-12(d)). l! wate~ quality exceeds these standards on any propped individual kd(s), Itlat It~ will net be approved as a building lot and shalJ be so noted on the subclivislon map. A covena~ salis~ast~y to the de~ent will be required fo~ any unbuddable ints. If future testing by It~ depam~ent shows a~;ab~ wster quality. or if public water beeoene~ available, the lot may be a~oproved for dev~t. Individual I~ test wells may be deepened utilizing the requkements et Options A, B. or C Bsted in Altemstive (4). (6) In shoreline areas, where all prc~ lots a~e greater than 2.0 am'es and whm-e fresh water is not Levels (MCL's) conteined in Part 5 of the New Yonk State Sanitary Code. exc~a~t the comb~necl iron and mancjanese c~lcentrafion whic~ shell not exceed 1.0 mg/1, as inif~,duaJ building lots (see sectio~ 406.4- 12(d)). It wa~er quality exceeds these standa~is o~ any proposed indiv~ual lot(s), t~at lot w~il not be apl:xoved as a building lot and shaJl be so noted ~n the s~ map. If futu~e test~ by the a~e requited for ail lots. When i~creasing the depth of test wells due to unsatisfactory water quality, Options A - C outlined in Alternative (4) must be strictly followed. The finding of unsatisfactory water quality in a test well is deemed as having deroonstrated that the aquifer segment is contaminated end is unsuitable as a ddnking water source. Pulling the well back or marginally deepening it within the same aquifer segment (less then a 40 foot change in screen setting) is not permitted. Realty de;/elepments and subdivisions approved on the basis of deepened wells shall have spedai covenant requirements, and be so noted on the final map. Individual lot approvals from said map will require wells of similar minimum depths, unless additional test well(s) demonstrate satisfactory water quality. 406.4 - 12(c) SPECIFIC TEST WELL REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENTS Test well requirements for developments (2 to 4 lots) may allow the applicant an additional alternative other than those outlined for realty subdivisions. Test walls shall be installed in accordance with the general requirements contained in section 406.4-12(a). A roinimuro of one initial test well shall be installed on the property. In general where one or roore sroailer lots are proposed to be divided from a much larger parcel, the well must be installed on one of the proposed small lots. The applicant is responsible to ensure the proper location of any test wells to be used as a future source of potable supply. Water analyses for inorganic chemical content, volatile organic compounds and pesticides must comply with NYS MCL's and guidelines, except as noted in requirements (~) through (iii) specified in section 406.4-12(b). If water quality is unsatisfacto~/as shown by the department's analyses, then the use of private wells will not be approved. Altemafives (1), (3), (4), (5) and (6) as listed in TABLE 4 are available to the applicant. In the event that these Alternatives do not provide acceptable water quality, OR due to the department's knowledge of water quality conditions prevalent in the area, the department roay aitow the applicant the use of pdvate wells with an approved water treatment device, provided all parcels are covenanted prohibiting any future subdivision of the property, unless water service lrom a community water supply is provided (see sections 406.4-9 TREATMENT and 406.4-15 COVENANTS). 9 SUFFOLK COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION NASSAU COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL COMMITTEE INCORPORATED UNDER NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW P.O. Drawer AR. Stony Brook. New York 11790 (516) 929-8725 February 27, 1997 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chair Southold Town Planning Office P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Orlowski: We wish to support the acquisition of the entire Fort Corchau§ site by the Town and other supplementary agencies, and request that development of the parcel not take place. The entire peninsula where Fort Corchaug is located was a habitation zone for the Native people. It contains the evidence of the Contact Period between the Native people and the Colonial settlers. The Indian Shores Subdivision is a major portion of this peninsula rich in cultural resources. The part of the subdivision known as Fort Corchaug is of national as well as local significance, as it is the only undisturbed Native fort site in the northeast. Two major archaeological reports on the site by Drs. Solecki and Williams will be the centerpiece of Vol. VIII, The Native & Historic Forts of Long Island, of our series, Readings in Long Island Archaeology & Ethnohistory, to be published later this year. Besides the inadequate archaeological survey done for the Environmental Impact Statement, the submitted site plan does not provide an adequate buffer zone, especially to the south and west of the fort. If developed, neighborhood children would soon be digging and would destroy the integrity of the site. It is unthinkable that local government would not protect this jewel of its cultural resources--which, if preserved can become an educational and economic resource for the Town. Sincerely, Ga~n~el~'/ Sto~-e, Ph.D. Museum Director COUNCIL MEMBERS CHIEF - ROBERT PHARAOH ROBERT M. HARRIS OLIVE PHARAOH WILLIAM PHARAOH CAROLYN PHARAOH ~arch 9,1997 Mr. Bennett Orlowski,Jr.,Chair Southold Town Planning Office P.O. BOx 1179 Southold, N.Y. 11971 ADVISORS 11963 Dear Mr. Orlo~;ki: As one of the Long Island Native Americans; Montaukett, living in the $outhol~ Township, I ~ish to express my wholehearted support of the acquisition of the entire Fort Corchaug site by the "Town" and other supplementary agencies an~i request that develoFment of the parcel not take place. The thought of d. eveloime~t o~ that parcel is very disturbing to me as it is one more insult that we Native peoplss are asked to accept for someone else's selfish interests. The emtire peninsula where Fort Cor- chaug is located wms a significant habitation zone for the Native peo- ples and Indian Shores SuDdivison is a major portion of this peninsula. :Jo have been informed as to the inadequate archaeological survey done for the Environmsntal Impact Statement and feel that any further pursuit to develop this parcel would reflect the leek of sincere efforts to preserve the Native cultural identity in the community. It is our belief that local government should put forth all effort in preserving a cu~tur~.l resource that's both ~n educational and economic r~souroe ~o the " Town". Please be assured that if it we~ possible, I would express this in peri, on, however, due to work schedules, ~ felt it necessary to try an type this letter. Also, I fset I've expressed my e ~cer~s to other Native people ~ho will be present during your public hearing. J SOLiTd!}LS lOkN P~ninary Response to "Indian Shore~EIS submitted to Southold Town Planning Board, (presented 3/10/97 public hearing) by Southold Town Landmarks Preservation Commission The following represent points of concern to the Landmark Preservation Commission after a preliminary review of the DEIS that has been submitted to the Planning Board for the proposed "Indian Shores" subdivision in Cutchogue. The proposed subdivision shall compromise the New York State and Federal designations of portions of the parcel as Historic Landmarks. As such, the applicant does not address the following consequences: If the current designated area is divided into separate ownership, modified by earth-moving equipment, or otherwise disturbed prior to completion of archeological assessment and protection of the artifacts, the National Register designation will be canceled. 2. ' The expectation that proposed lots would be individually re-designated for listing on the National Register is very Iow. 3. So long as the property is held privately, the cultural resource recovery is not eligible for public grants. If the National Register listing is lifted, the property's eligibility for grants and funding is compromised, especially those resources that target projects that forward the recovery, preservation, and exhibit of artifacts that further ~our understanding of the cuItural history of Native Americans. The DEIS is ambiguous as to how the applicant proposes to implement the conclusions from the Stage I archeological research. The Stage 1 research concludes that the property requires a Stage II survey. The archeological work should be completed prior to approval of the proposed subdivision, not "prior to development" as suggested in the DEIS. Implied in this is the requirement for uniformity of work and a competent, professional methodology and review. The DEIS suggests that responsibility for Stage I1 archeological research will be transferred to the new owners, conveyed by covenants. The DEIS does not address how the proposed covenants will be enforced nor who will be the monitoring agency. The Town, by accepting the current proposal (as written) of partition prior to exploration, will become the agency responsible for the proper conduct of cultural assessment. Is the Town qualified and prepared to assume fiscal and professional responsibility for archeological review? · The applicant should clarify who will be responsible for recovering the costs, and defining and enforcing standards, if the archeological review if the is to be conducted by disparate owners. · The DEIS should specify a time period for archeological review as there is no representation as to when the last parceI may be conveyed. " I 0 199'i Page l . , Pr~inary Response to "Indian Shores'~IS submitted to Southold Town Planning Board, (presented 3/10/97 public hearing) by Southold Town Landmarks Preservation Commission The DEIS does not present viable alternative plans for the site as outlined in SEQRA. An alternatives should be presented with consideration given to National Register delineation of cultural resources. The DEIS extended responsibilities to currently uncontracted owners of parcels. The DEIS makes several references to future contracts for ownership/stewardship with Southold Town, Suffolk County, and the Peconic Land Trust. The DEIS should clarify what will happen if these contracts are not executed. Submitted March 3, 1997, after preliminary review of DEIS. Final review will be presented later during the public comment period for this proposed project. Page 2 SUFFOLK COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION NASSAU COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL COMMITTEE INCORPORATED UNDER NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW P.O. Drawer AR, Stony Brook, New York 11790 (516) 929-8725 Dr. Henry Moeller <~,~ 4,~,.,r,~ representing the S.C. Archaeological Assn. MAR I 0 SCAA wishes to support the acquisition of the entire Fort Corchaug site by the Town and other supplementary agencies, requests that development of the parcel not take place. and The entire peninsula where Fort Corchaug is located was a habitation zone for the Native people. The indian Shores Subdivision, particularly the waterfront area, is a major portion of this peninsula rich in cultural resources. We cannot overemphasize the importance of this evidence of the Contact Period between the Native people and the Colonial settlers. The part of the subdivision known as Fort Corchaug is of national as well as local significance, as it is the only undisturbed Native fort site in the northeast. Scientific excavation of the fort by Dr. Ralph Solecki and Dr. Lorraine Williams has interpreted less than 10% of the Fort site. Since no evidence of habitation was found within the fort, a living site should be located nearby. Possibly it could be the Baxter site south of the Fort, which was only minimally tested by the N.Y.S. Archaeologist Dr. Ritchie, as well as Dr. Carlyle Smith, Dr. Bert Salwen, and Dr. Solecki~ Possibly it is another site within the creek-side corridor that was not recently tested archaeologically. Ralph Solecki feels there may also be burials nearby. The large number of artifacts collected from the site over the years by local people also attests to the extensive Native use of the area. Besides the inadequate archaeological survey done for the Environmental Impact Statement, the submitted site plan does not provide an adequate buffer zone, especially to the south and west of the fort. If developed, neighborhood children would soon be exploring and would rapidly destroy the integrity of the sites. Evidence of the importance of this site is that three major archaeological reports on the Fort site by Dr. Ralph Solecki and Dr. Lorraine Williams will be the centerpiece of Vol. VIII, The Native & Historic Forts of Long Island, of our series, Readings in Long Island Archaeology & Ethnohistory, to be published later this year. We resources--which, economic resource ask that local government protect this jewel of if preserved, for the Town. its cultural can become an educational and Address to Southold Town Planning Board re Indian Shores sub-division Good evening. My name is William Peters, a resident of Cutchogue, I am a Trustee of the Cutchogue-New Suffolk Historical Council and a member of the Suffolk County Historical Society Board of Directors. I have read the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and am very interested in the protection and preservation of the entire 105_6 acres encompassing the Fort Corchaug site. I understand and appreciate the fact that the Baxter family would like to ensure preservation of the pre-historic heritage of Southold, but that they do not want to bear the entire financial burden to assure this. I wish to specifically address Section VI, Part D, titled "Expanded Fort Corchaug Alternatives" in the DEIS. The four Options presented therein deal primarily with minor reconfigurafions of the lot lines of Lot 10, the lot 50 feet from the approximate location of the fort site. These four options are a cosmetic treatment of the fact that the entire 105.6 acres have archaeological significance. I would like to present for your consideration a fifth option which consists of a north-south building lot swap. This north-south swap will provide a reasonable protection of the most critical areas of the site namely the creek front from the Fort to the Rail Fence Well Site. Option 5 proposed involves, 1) The separation of 5 acres of the fort site from the 37.47 northerly parcel (the Town Park) 2) Sub-division of the remaining 32.47 northerly acres into 14 building lots. 3) Town purchase of the southerly section consisting of the 12 archaeologically sensitive lots and the 5 acre Fort Corchaug site for $900,000. I tested the market value of this option against 1. The market value of the sub-division 2. The DEIS plan including Town purchase of 37.47 acres of the 105.6 acres fora Town Park. To establish a basis for comparison I first generated an estimate of what the sub-divided property in its entirety would be worth on the open market I used 1. The Indian Shores sub-division map as presented, 2. Assessed values of equivalent properties as given to me by the Board of Assessors, and 3. A 2.75% Equalization rate, This equated to $2.53 million for the market value of the sub-division. I then applied th~ same factors to the plan presented in the DEiS in which the Town would purchase the 37.47 northerly acres including the Fort Corchaug site for approximately $900,000. Including this $900,000, the value of the property then equated to $2.88 million. Option 5 priced out competitively to a value of $2.84 million. Not considered in these cost estimates is the cost of doing a Stage 2 Archaeological Survey estimated by Mr. A. Camisa to be in excess of $32,000 for 40 acres of this site. Mr. Camisa was the contract archaeologist involved in the original site survey. Option 5 can truly be considered a viable alternate which should be considered. Presented for your consideration are 1. This transcript 2. The letter from the Board of Assessors upon which I based my estimates 3. A table presenting these three estimates. 4. A revised Sub-division Plan Thank You. This equated to $2.53 million for the market value of the sub-division. I then applied there same factors to the plan presented in the DEIS in which the Town would purchase the 37.47 northerly acres including the Fort Corchaug site for approximately $900,000. Including this $900,000, the value of the property then equated to $2.88 million. Option 5 priced out competitively to a value of $2.84 million. Not considered in these cost estimates is the cost of doing a Stage 2 Archaeological Survey estimated by Mr. A. Camisa to be in excess of $32,000 for 40 acres of this site. Mr. Camisa was the contract archaeologist involved in the original site survey. Option 5 can truly be considered a viable alternate which should be considered. Presented for your consideration are 1. This transcript 2. The letter from the Board of Assessors upon which I based my estimates 3. A table presenting these three estimates. 4. A revised Sub-division Plan Thank You. Scott A. Russell, Chairman Darline J. Duffy, Assessor Robert, I. Scott Jr., Assessor BOARD OF ASSESSORS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1937 Fax (516) 765-1823 116-1-3 Current Assessment: Current Acreage : Current Taxes : 28,600 104.5 18,281.43 (1994-95) Proposed Uses: Vineyard Section 1 ~l~ ~P 18.84 ac. Section 11.96 ac. Town Park Horse Farm AC. 2ac Res. 16.84 farm op. 2ac Res. 9.96 farm op. 37.47 5.67 Assessment per 1800/500 250/ac 1800/500 250/ac 0 18oo/5oo Assessment (total) 2300 4210 2300 2490 0 4135 Residential Parcels 6 water ront 6,7 6 f armview 1 ,,mini-estate" ~ 3.5 6C 3500/lot 2500/lot 1800/500 New Assessed Value (Est.) : 54,400 New Taxes (Est.) : 34,773.08 (1994-95) 21000 15000 3000 54,435 ALTERNATE PROPOSAL COMPARED TO PROPOSAL BEFORE PLANNING BOARD Assessments are as per comparable assessments from assessors. Values are based on 2.75% Equalization Rate ex. farmland, building lots, land on east side of Down's creek farmview & waterview INDIAN SHORES SUB-DIVISION Section 1 AC. Main Rd 2 ac Res. 18.84 ac 16.84 farm Assessment House lot Land 1,800 500 250/a{ Section 2 Interior 2 ac Res 11.96 ac 9.96 farm 1,800 500 250/ac Town Park* 37.47 ac Fort 5 acwtrfrnt 2 Bldg Lots Park 32.47 ac Fmvw 3,500/Lot 250/ACI Horse Fm Lot 3 5.67 ac 1,800/500 6 Wtrfrnt 5,6,7,8,9,10 13.53 ac** 3500/Lot 6 Fm View 11,12,13,14,15,1E 13.53 ac** 2,500/Iot 1 mini-est 4 3.5 ac 1,800/500 Assessed Value Sale value ' OPEN MARKET TTL Asses. Market Value Value 2,300 83,636 4,210 153,091 2,300 83,836 2,490 90,545 7,000 254,545 8,118 295,200 4,135 15,000 545,455 3,000 109,091 69,553 2,529,399i BAXTER PLAN TTL Asses. Value 2,300 4,210 2,300 2,490 Baxter Valustion 4,135 21,000 15,000 3,000 54,435 Market Value* 83,636 No Change 153,091 No Change 83,636 No Change 90,545 No Change Twn Purch. 900,0001 ! 14 Lots* 150,364 No Change 763,636 Twn Purch. 545,455 Twn Purch. 109,091 No Change OPTION 5 TTL As.. Market Value Value 2,300 83,636 4,210 153,091 2,300 83,836 2,490 90,545 35,000 1,272,600 4,135 150,364 0 ** 3,000 109,091 ~ 53,435 I**Town cost 900,000 I * "Town Park" divided into 2 waterfront lots (the 5 acres encompassing Fort Corchaug) & 32.47 acres sub-divisable into 14 farmview lots ** estimated -'~ ",,, ..-~. /"-f~ , :1 -~..- , , t ....... .'-'-..~, ,...- ........ ......-r~... ,~ ~ X .? ~ ~,::.-.'-:'I ~ - ,. P-.'..~':..", .- -- ,,: .==. :. ,> ., __/-- ,//...,~.'~.~,..,~..~_ . _~-.. ! ; ..... ~ .l--.['_/p~/~. ... ..-.._.--. :.,,, ., ..... _ .......... ....... _ .... ._____- . ~~ .. ..._ , .. .~, ....... · _ . .. ... · ~ ~:- · _ ..... - .. ....... , .... . _ '-::.. ..... --".~ '~ ~ .... . ~:!., z,--.. . ", ......-'_ .~ ~ ~, . . . ..... __ .... .._. ....... ,....,,_.,, ,,., ., , _ .-_, . ...., .... . . ,,. ....... . t~ ~ - ~ .~' ~/~' : . I.~,~-~- ./,-- ~, ,.-.- - .... :~- ..~......::..... Iff ~.~¢ k ~ .... ... .. '>~ 7 ~1_ 4, _,...-_..._.-,-:-,., / ~~-A:"-: .,-,,~-... .... -:. --~,., '~:, ":'l ...... ::'::.'.-'. .. ,.-:.. ' ...... .' . '. .' .... .- :, ~,:' I I'.. ..,--z-: ,..,,;-:.-~ ..... -;-"-.,-.~-t l~"'-K'%:~'q ~ . ".? ~, ., .~. ',,. . ,~,',· .-. "'' . ...... ; .,~.' ...... .--~. '."-- · ' . ~ . I..-d-.o"t..-~. ~ ~'":-:'°~ .-' ;,......~::w I / L_.I..?~::,!.~-I-' ,..","~, ...... "; . :X.,.'.-"'~:--~....-.=.,=: , :-_. ~" _----' ',' '.. ~q-).~-~-~ '~'/ / / I~L ;'ki:i -.. ....X ...., · . ',, .~.-~ , --..-...-' .~ ' . - .... .'-,'-' - . , f ,'~ ~' /.,f,/E~/,'".,it~, ....- ...... ,..,,..~ ,... .... . .. ,. . , ., ., . ~ .... . ->~ ':~ }:' ' ' ', : .. .--, ~ ./.'"'£:-'.~, ~'~ ..'1 ~. ~. ?'f \tl i'.1 I IL~,~.-~'zJ .-'~'~ ..,..." ','%. -~.-.:.'>--, . · .,~' " '/ I f ' ~.' // ~/ ~, /:-~-~---~'-~t.~___.-. :~...~_:...-~-_ .~. · ~ . 5 ~-' / ~ ~ t . : / . ~ / .t-'~- ........... ~-'-- . ..-.. -.'-, -:,~"~------'~: ',.~ .'-:'--- '-:~' ..:' '-~'-.. . , ' .... ,. .............. ...=-..-~,~,7~ ."~' -'.... ' :~.~. ._:.. --~.-=::..., , ,,, ,. ,, .~.~ .... ~---: ..... ~. ~ ...... .~, · .., ., ,.~~ j ...... . ,, - (y-~J~ × ~-. _-=.~_. · .__.. , ..,..,..~______~______.,____~_________:__:~ .... ,,__. .. · % ,;, :'~ ,,,, '. ,. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS RICHARD G. WARD GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKt, JR. 'WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOV~N OF SOUTHOLD March 11, 1997 Charles Cuddy, Esq. P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, New York 11901 RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Major Subdivision Indian Shores SCTM# 1000-116-1-3 Dear Mr. Cuddy: The following took place at a meeting of the Southold Town Planning Board on Monday, March 10, 1997: The public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated January 1997, was closed. The public comment period on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, which began on February 18, 1997, will end on Thursday, March 20, 1997. Please contact this office ff you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. // - Chairman SUFFOLK COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION NASSAU COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL COMMITTEE INCORPORATED UNDER NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW P.O. Drawer AR, Stony Brook, New York 11790 (816) 929-8725 February 27, 1997 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chair Southold Town Planning Office P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Orlowski: ,,= w~o~, to support the acquisition of ~ =~.t~e Fort ~u,~h~g site by the Town and other supplementary agencies, and request that development of the parcel not take place. The entire peninsula where Fort Corchaug is located was a habitation zone for the Native people. It contains the evidence of the Contact Period between the Native people and the Colonial settlers. The Indian Shores Subdivision is a major portion of this peninsula rich in cultural resources. The part of the subdivision known as Fort Corchaug is of national as well as local significance, as it is the only undisturbed Native fort site in the northeast. Two major archaeological reports on the site by Drs. Solecki and williams will be the centerpiece of Vol. VIII, The Native & Historic ~orts of Long Island, of our series, Readings in Long Island Archaeology & Ethnohistory, to be published later this year. Besides the inadequate archaeological survey done for the Environmental Impact Statement, the submitted site plan does not provide an adequate buffer zone, especially to the south and west of the fort. If developed, neighborhood children would soon be digging and would destroy the integrity of the site. It is unthinkable that local government would not protect this jewel of its cultural resources--which, if preserved, can become an educational and economic resource for the Town. Sincerely, Ga~r~ell~ Stone, Ph.D. Museum Director NELSON, POPE & I/OORHIS, LLC 572 Walt Whitman Road Melville, New York 11747 (516) 427-5665 Fax: (516) 427-5620 February 28, 1997 Melissa Spiro, Planner Planning Board Office Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Proposal Major Subdivision Indian Shores SCTM No. 1000-116-1-3 Dear Melissa: 1 am in receipt of the letter dated February 20, 1997 from Charles Cuddy, attorney for the applicant, regarding the review fee for critical review of the draft EIS for the above referenced project. I appreciate Mr. Cuddy's points of concern, and I am sympathetic toward the applicant for the unfortunate delays which the statutory compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (6 NYCRR Part 617) has caused. However, I must respectfully disagree with Mr. Cuddy's implication that the process has been in some way willfully delayed, or that the delay and fees for review are somehow unjustified. The subject application received a Positive Declaration prior to the current SEQR amendments, and therefore was reviewed under procedures of SEQR adopted on March 6, 1987 and effective Ju.~e 1, 1987. Accordingly, the following references to SEQR regulations will cite the earlier regulations. ElS procedures contained in Part 617.8 (b)(1) indicate that the lead agency must determine whether to accept an EIS as "... satisfactory with respect to its scope, content and adequacy for thepurpose of commencing public review". As noted in the NYSDEC SEQR Handbook, "The SEQR Regulations place no limit on rejection ora draft EIS, except that the lead agency must identify the deficiencies in writing to the project sponsor. Ifa lead agency's request for the inclusion of necessary information is ~gnored or refused, the agency may continue to reject the document". In the case of the subject EIS, the document was repeatedly found to be deficient in responding to prior requests for revisions and information, as documented in Mr. Cuddy's synopsis of the series of rejection letters which the consultant provided for the Board's consideration. The number of rejections and the nature of those rejections demonstrate the extreme difficulty that the applicant's consultant had in preparing a professional level Indian Shores Draft ElS Review document. An adequate document would address the concerns and issues which were identified by the lead agency in the earliest reviews of the project prior to the Positive Declaration, listed in the Positive Declaration, and itemized in the series of rejection letters. The end result is a delayed process which was caused not by the Planning Board or the Board's consultant, but by the applicant and the applicant's consultant. Therefore, while the result is lamentable, the cause does not lie with the lead agency. Further, the only abuse which may have occurred was abuse that the Planning Board was subject to in the loss of time of the citizens, staff, administrators and consultant which comprise and serve the Planning Board. With respect to the acceptance ora draft EIS, the SEQR Handbook goes on to state that "the lead agency shouM remember that a draft EIS does not need to be perfect." This is an important point of which we are fully aware. The document was so grossly deficient in the succession of drafts, that the intent at acceptance was to get the draft EIS to the minimum point where it could be responsibly circulated to the public for review. The SEQR Handbook states that "The purpose of the public comment period is to allow all involved agencies and the public to review the draft EIS and comment on its inadequacies. These can usually be corrected in the final EIS". The document in its current form is not perfect, and the remaining inconsistencies, areas for clarification, inaccuracies, questions, comments and areas for additional information would be expected to be addressed in the final EIS. We are not aware of any restriction which would prevent the lead agency from commenting on the draft ElS once it is accepted. To the contrary, the Matthew Bender legal reference Environmental Impact Review in New York State indicates that the H.O.M.E.S. test (i.e. taking the requisite "hard look") has been adopted for EIS review in SEQR case law. Therefore, we believe it is incumbent upon the Planning Board to ensure that relevant environmental issues are identified and properly assessed through the draft and final EIS in order to form a sound basis for a Findings Statement and ultimate decision on the project. Given the circumstances surrounding this application the time expended, and the fees charged have been more than fair and reasonable. In fact, the Board has spent more time on this project than what is covered by ordinary fees. From the standpoint of the consultant, I assure you that the fees charged were significantly less than the time expended in review of the project. Furthermore, our firm has worked in all Suffolk County Towns, most Nassau County municipalities, as well as in Westchester County. We have performed municipal review and consulting services to the Town of Brookhaven, the Village of Port Jefferson, and the Village of Upper Brookville, and have submitted projects on behalf of applicants in other jurisdictions. I can state with authority that the fees charged by the Town of Southold for review of an EIS are far less than nearly every other jurisdiction in which I have been involved. With regard to fees, Mr. Cuddy's letter notes an original review proposal dated July 31, 1995. This proposal from the consultant to the Board outlines a fee schedule of $1,000 for initial review, subsequent review fees of $500, and a critical review fee after acceptance of $750. The proposal indicates that review for acceptance could involve a series of review fees if necessary due to submission of an inadequate document. The proposal also clearly indicates that there Page 2 of 3 Indian Shores Draft EIS Review would be a critical review fee after acceptance of the document. When the proposal was prepared, there was no way of knowing that the review would still he active nearly two (2) years later, and that the level of environmental analysis prepared for the project would be so negligent. The passage of time and resulting changes in circumstances in evolution of the SEQR process with regard to this project, provide a basis for a change in fees to allow the Planning Board and the consultant to be adequately compensated for the additional time necessary to ensure that the review of this project is legally sufficient. With regard to the process, I would encourage the Planning Board to ensure that the review of this project is properly conducted and as "air tight" as possible, particularly given the environmental sensitivity of the parcel. From the applicant's standpoint, this offers protection from potential litigation which could ensue and cause further delay of the project if the process is not properly conducted. I believe that the proposed fee of $1,850 is totally appropriate. In fact this fee may underestimate the time necessary for technical review of the draft EIS, which will include final review of site archaeology, traffic considerations, groundwater issues, wetlands, slopes, and other appropriate concerns of the Board with regard to the proposed development. The potential for inconsistencies has been elevated due to the number of revisions of the document. For instance, the archaeologist has indicated that there are several parts of the Cultural Resource Assessment that are now included in the accepted draft EIS that he will be seeing for the first time. We have already noted inconsistencies between statements in the Appendices and how they are interpreted in the main body of the document. These inconsistencies resulted from the piecemeal manner in which the document was prepared and reviewed. It is unfortunate that the review for this project took the path that it did; however, I must again state that this blame does not lie with the lead agency. The Board has moved the process along as fairly and expeditiously as possible, and now must complete the process in the same manner. We are available to assist at your discretion for the fee indicated in my letter of February 14, 1997. I will again indicate that my office will work fairly and quickly to meet your needs and to respect the SEQR time frames and the needs of the applicant. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to Mr. Cuddy's letter, and please feel free to call if you have any questions. NELSON, POPE & VOORHIS, LLC Page 3 of 3 PLANNING BOARD M~MB~S RICHARD G. WARD GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 4, 1997 Charles Cuddy, Esq. P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, New York 11901 RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Major Subdivision Indian Shores SCTM# 1000-116-1-3 Dear Mr. Cuddy: The Planning Board forwarded your February 20, 1997, correspondence in regard to the review fee for the DEIS for Indian Shores to Charles Voorhis. Enclosed please find the response from Mr. Voorhis which has been reviewed and adopted by the Planning Board. Please contact me i~ you have any questions regarding the above. Melissa prc~--- -~ Planner enc. cc: Charles Voorhis PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS RICHARD G. WARD GEORGE RITCHIE LATH.AM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 F~x (516) 765-$136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Tov~rN OF SOUTHOLD February 28, 1997 Charles Voorhis Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC 572 Walt Whitman Road Melville, New York 11747 RE: DEIS review for Indian Shores SCTM# 1000-116-1-3 Dear Mr. Voorhis: Enclosed please find the correspondence the Planning Board has received to date in regard to the above mentioned DEIS review. Please call me if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely,. ~ Officers Alexander J. Smith President Carol L. Prisaat Vice President Anthony K. Baker Vice President Richard Gachot J. Gregory Riley Trustees Bruce W. Addison Joanna Badaml Rodney B. Berens George W. Campbell Allan A.A. }7lynn Mrs, Roger G. Gerry Natalie Gliedman Huyler C. Held Linda M. Holmes Floyd A. Lyon Richard T. Nicodemus Verity O'Brien NichoLas R. Parks Nancy B. Pearsall Palrlcia Randolph Frank E. Richardson Patricia P. Sands Mary Ann Spencer Joan B. Trlpp Elizabeth L. Watson Paula Youngs Weir Mrs. E. Thomas Wdllams, .Ir. E. Lisk Wyckoff llonorary Trustees Mrs. William D. Denson Brendan Gill Mrs. Alfred E. Loomis, .Ir. Miss Dorothy McGee Charles D. Webster llistorlc llouses Opeu 1995 Custom House, Sag Harbor Lloyd Manor, Lloyd Neck Sherwood-Jayne tlouse, Ec~t Setauk~t (By Appt.) AffiRated Sites Rock Hall, Lawrence ~ckqff llouse, Brooklyn Gallery society for the preservation of Long Island antiquities 93 north country road Robe. B. MacKay, Ph.D. Carol Traynor setauket, L.L, new york 11733-1350 telephone 516/941-9444 fax 516/941-9184 Director Public Affairs Officer Carolyn Oldenbusch Barbara F. Van Liew Asst. Curator Editor of Presereation Notes Kathleen Kane Rosemary DeSensi Director of Education Executive Secretary Cathie Wardell Randy Staudinger Development Officer Property Manager Marsha Hamilton Registrar February 25, ]997 Mr. Richard Ward, Chairman Southold Planning Board Office Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 Subject: Fort Corchaug EIS Dear Mr. Ward: Subsequent to writing to you on February lOth, the Environmental Impact Statement for Fort Corchaug has been brought to our attention. It is indeed distressing to see that the subdivision proposed for the property will adversely impact part of this Native-American Contact-period fort which is one of Long Island's most important archeological sites. As presently planned the Fort Corchaug Site is located not only within the proposed Town Park but also within Lots 9 and 10. In order to save the fort site it would seem appropriate to lower the yield and eliminate Lots 9 and 10 or to place Lots 9 & 10 elsewhere on this large acreage. Furthermore the Fort Corchaug Site may be impacted by possible improvements to the Town Park, therefore it is urged that the Site be set aside for special passive recreational use. Trusting that the subdivision plan will be modified Mr. Richard Ward, Chairman -2- February 25, 1997 to protect the whole fort area, I am Sincerely yours, Barbara Van Liew Preservation Notes BVL/em 2/25/97 02 FILE NUMBER: P1473800-00115 Town of SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK County LEAD AGENCY: 473800 Town of SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK County )ESCRIPTION:iiiiilRes. subdiv, of 42 single family lots on 105.6ac. loc. N/S New Suffolk Ave & Main Rd. SS '94 RECEIVED: Dec ~ a~a~ i~hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!i ? 0 i~ i 8/94! 11 00 IMPORTANT >> File Number: P1-473800-00115 Use the above number in all correspondence about this action! To the Lead Agency: The above information confirms that filings on the described Positive Declaration were officially received by, and entered in the SEQR Repository on the date(s) shown in the box headed DATE RECEIVED above. The latest filing is indicated by the most recent date in that box. The date and time in the second line show when this document was printed. Please check the information above carefully. For corrections or questions contact Charles Lockrow, (518)457-2224, or write to: Town of SOUTHOLD Planning Board 53095 Main Road-P.O. Southold, NY 11971 Box 1179 SEQR Repository NYSDEC Division of Regulatory Affairs 50 Wolf Road, Room 514 Albany, NY 12233 FEB 2 $ ~2 Main Rd. SS '94 TYPE: / / / ? 11 00 IMPORTANT >> File Number: P1-473800-00115 Use the above number in all correspondence about this action! To the Lead Agency: The above information confirms that filings on the described Positive Declaration were officially received by, and entered in the SEQR Repository on the date(s) shown in the box headed DATE RECEIVED above. The latest filing is indicated by the most recent date in that box. The date and time in the second line show when this document was printed. Please check the information above carefully. For corrections or questions contact Charles Lockrow, (518)457-2224, or write to: SEQR Repository NYSDEC Division of Regulatory Affairs 50 Wolf Road, Room 514 Albany, NY 12233 Town of SOUTHOLD Planning Board 53095 Main Road-P.O. Southold, NY 11971 Box 1179 FEB 2 8 subdiv, of 42 single family lots on 105.6ac. loc. N~S New Main Rd. Residential 11 00 IMPORTANT >> File Number: P1-473800-00115 Use the above number in all correspondence about this action! To the Lead Agency: The above information confirms that filings on the described Positive Declaration were officially received by, and entered in the SEQR Repository on the date(s) shown in the box headed DATE RECEIVED above. The latest filing is indicated by the most recent date in that box. The date and time in the second line show when this document was printed. Please check the information above carefully. For corrections or questions contact Charles Lockrow, (518)457-2224, or write to: SEQR Repository NYSDEC Division of Regulatory Affairs 50 Wolf Road, Room 514 Albany, NY 12233 Town of SOUTHOLD Planning Board 53095 Main Road-P.O. Southold, NY 11971 Box 1179 February 26, 1997 Planning Board Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Attention: Melissa Spiro Re: Indian Shores Dear Ms. Spiro: Enclosed is the Affidavit of Service for all of the service completed in Suffolk County. I am obtaining the Affidavit of Service for the three services made in Albany and will forward that to you next week. Very truly yours, Charles R. Cuddy k3 CRC/pc Enc. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD : COUNTY OF SUFFOLK In the Matter of INDIAN SHORES SUBDIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE STATE OF NEW YORK) : ss: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) JOHN E. CLARK, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I am not a party to the action, am over 18 years of age and reside at Mattituck, New York. On February 13, 1997 I served the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Indian Shores consisting of two volumes, the Statement and ~ppendices by hand delivery to the following: Nelson, Pope & Vorrhis 572 Walt Whitman Road Melville, New York Suffolk County Department of Health Services County Center, Riverhead, NY Suffolk County Planning Commission Attn: Stephen Jones, Director 220 Rabro Drive Hauppauge, New York NYSDEC - Stony Brook NYS Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation Belmont Lake State Park Babylon, New York NYSDOT - NYS office Building Bldg. 40, SUNY Room 219 Stony Brook, New York Cutchogue Library Main Road Cutchogue, New York Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York Attn: Vito Lena, Regional Director, Region 10 Sworn-to before me this ~~ISN t~ ii!rusty' J,'~,~'-~.~ 1997. ' ~a~ Public, Sta~3 ~. h~ k)¥~, yodl ~ in $~o~ Cmu~ 4 C~ ,/John E. Clark Bernadette Castro Commissioner New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau Peebles Island, PO Box 189, Waterford, New York 12188-0189 February 20, 1997 518-237-8643 Planning Board Office Tow~ of Southold - Town Hall 53095 Main Road - P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Planning Board: Re: DEC Indian Shores Subdivision Southold, Suffolk County 93PR2466 The Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) has received the Draft Environmental Impact Statement you provided on the Indian Shores at Cutchogue project. As the state agency responsible for the coordination of the State's historic preservation programs, including the encouragement and assistance of local preservation programs, we offer the following comments. Based upon a review of the Archeological Survey report, the OPRHP notes that there are a number of archeological sites located within the project area including, but not limited to, a portion of the Fort Cutchogue site which is listed on the State and National Registers of Historic Places, and the Fence Rail Well site. It is our understanding that the Town is in the process of acquiring a major portion of the property in this area in order to protect the remains of the fort associated with the Fort Cutchogue site. The archeological remains within the proposed housing subdivision are also of considerable importance, and OPRHP recommends preservation and protection of these sites in place. Downsizing, redesigning the project, and or additional acquisition may make it possible to preserve these sites. If these sites cannot be preserved in place, the OPRHP offers the following recommendations: Any impacts to the Fort Cutchogue site should be fully mitigated by the completion of professional archeological excavations. A research design for these investigations should be prepared and approved by OPRHP before the work is conducted. FEB 2 7 An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Agency ~ printed on recycled paper February 20, 1997 Page 2 A full Phase 2 archeological investigation of the other sites within the project area should be completed to determine if these sites also warrant full mitigation. We recommend that Phase 2 investigations be submitted to OPRHP for review and comment when that work is conducted. Please note that if any State Agency is involved in this undertaking, it is appropriate for that agency to determine whether consultation should take place with OPRHP under Section 14.09 of the New York State Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law. In addition, if there is any federal agency involvement, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations, "Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties" 36 CFR 800 require that agency to initiate consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). When responding, please be sure to refer to the OPP/~P project review (PR) number noted above. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (518) 237-8643 ext. 255. Si , Fzeld Services Bureau RDK:cm GHAi~L~S ]~. G~TDDY February 20, 1997 Town of Southold Planning Board 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Attn: Melissa Spiro Re: Indian Shores Subdivision Dear Melissa: Thank you for forwarding the memorandum of February 14, 1997 from Charles Voorhis. I believe the memorandum requires clarification. Mr. Voorhis was retained by the Planning Board to review the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted on behalf of my client, William Baxter, in connection with subdividing a 105 acre parcel into 17 lots. This included a 37 park acre parcel to be conveyed to the Town and retaining two farm or vineyard parcels totalling an additional 30 acres. There is also a 5.6786 equestrian use parcel. The remaining 32 acres is divided into 13 single family home lots, each exceeding 2 acres. The initial DEIS was thoroughly scrutinized and resulted in 11-1/2 page analysis, single spaced, prepared by Mr. Voorhis. The applicant resubmitted the DEIS on April 29, 1996. The response by Mr. Voorhis included a further 5 page analysis, single spaced, and a 2 page Addendum. In May of 1996 the applicant and his consultants met with Mr. Voorhis to again review the DEIS. Onc~ again a revised DEIS was submitted and commented upon. Pursuant to the instructions of Mr. Voorhis the DEIS was further revised. On December 20, 1996 Mr. Voorhis indicated "the latest revised Draft EIS satisfactorily addressed all of the comments contained in the November 1996 comment letter". He went on to note there were a few minor errors and asked that they be corrected when copies of the Draft EIS and Appendices were submitted for public comment. As your records reflect the Draft EIS has just been submitted for public review and comment. The applicant is now faced with Mr. Voorhis indicating that "we fully intend to direct more specific comments to content and accuracy of the document" and further "we propose to comprehensively review the Draft EIS for a fee of $1,850.00." Town of Southold Planning Board Attn: Melissa Spire February 20, 1997 Page 2 One is constrained to inquire what the previous 20 pages of comments represent. The Draft EIS has been reviewed in extraordinary detail. If it is now necessary for the Town's consultant to "comprehensively review" the Draft EIS, what was accomplished previously? Is the process being deliberately protracted? It's time the applicant is treated with minimum sensitiveity and provided with meaningful answers. If the prior review was inadequate, why? If it was adequate we should proceed with a review of the latest revision only. Not parenthetically, William Baxter has paid the consultant a total of $3,900.00 including fees for the EAF review and scoping session. On. Ju r. Voorhis indicated that his fees in connection ith~_~~tter would be as follows: (1) $1,000 initial review fee (2) Subsequent review fee $500 (3) Critical review after acceptance $750. Exceeding his own fee schedule is lamentable. Proposing a further comprehensive review is abusive. The consultant's review should be confined to the last revision. Otherwise the time, effort and expense in preparing the DEIS and having it reviewed is meaningless -- except for delay. I look forward to proceed appropriately. CRC:ejc the Board's early response so that we may Very truly yours, Charles R. Cuddy~ LEGAL NOTICE Notice of Public Hearing NOTIC£ IS HEREBY GIVEN Ihat pursuant to Section 617.9 (4) of theq State Environmental Qualily Review Act, a public hearing will be held by the Southold ~lo~n Planning Board, at the Town II,~11, Main Road, Southold, New York in said Town on tb¢ 10th day of March, lt)Ct7 on thc question of the following: 7:30 P.M Public hearing on the Draft Environmental impact Statement da ed January I997 for the proposed major subdivision for Indian Shores, in Cutchogue, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York, Suffolk Counly Tax Map Number 1000-116-1- 3 The propcrty is bordered on the north by Main Road; on the east by land now or formerly ol William & Sheryl Ann Eminez, by land now or formerly of Stephen A. & Susan L. Kaelin, by land now or formerly of Country Club Estates Property Owners, by land now or formerly of North Fork Country Club, by Downs Creek, by land now or formerly of Hadley B. Williams & B. Wheafley Williams, and by land now or formerly of Hadley B. Williams & wife; on the south by land now or formerly of Hadley B. Williams & wife, and by New Suffolk Ave.; and on the west by land now or formerly of Richard I. Ginsberg & Marvin M. Brown. Dated: February 18, 1997 BY ORDER OF '[HE SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD Bennett Orlowski, Ir. Chairman 8872-1TF20 ~TATE OF NE~RK) ) SS: COUNTY OF SI~)L]i) ~ a~d Co~, bcl~ d~y sworn, aais that 1~ Pr~clpal Clerk of THE 8~FOLK TIMES. Wee~y Newspaper. published at Mattituck, in the To~ of Southold. County of Suffolk and State of New York. and ~at the Notice of which ~e ~nexed ~ a p~ted copy, h~ been ~- ly p~lishcd in said Ncwspa~r once each week for t weeks su9c~ssively,~mmcnci~ on ~ dayof~ 1~ Principal Clerk ,~t,T'ARY DIANA FOSTER RK NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF N~ ¥0 NO. 52-4655242, SUFFOLt( COUNIY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUGUST 31, 19c~'~ GHAI~LES R. GUDDY ATTORNEY AT LAw February 19, 1997 Town of Southold Planning Board 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Attn: Melissa Spiro Re: Indian Shores Subdivision Dear Melissa: This is to confirm that the DEIS consisting of two volumes was delivered to you for distribution as follows: Planning Board Members/Staff Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Landmark Preservation Commission Southold Town Land Preservation Committee Cutchogue-New Suffolk Historical Council The remaining 10 volumes, in accordance with your Circulation List of December 18, 1996 were hand delivered and I will deliver to your office next week Affidavits of Service. Very truly yours, Charles R. Cuddy iff CRC:ejc FEB 2 I Officers Alexander J. Smith Carol L. Prisant 9~ce Presidem Anthony K. Baker Richard Gaohot L Gregory Riley Trustees Brace W. Addison Joanna Badami Rodney B. Borons George W. Campbell Allan A.A. Flynn Mrs. Roger G. Gerry Natalie Gliedman Huyler C. Held Linde M. Holmes Floyd A. Lyon Richard T. Nicodemus Verity O'Brien Nicholas R. Parks Nancy B. Pearsall Pedricin Randolph Frank E. Richardson Patricia P. Sands Mary Ann Spencer Joan B. T6pp Elizabeth L. Watson Paula Youngs Weir Mrs. E. Thomas Williams, Jr. E, Lisk Wyckoff llonorary Trustees Mrs. William D. Denson Brendan Gill Mrs. Alfred E. Loomis, Jr. Miss Doro[hy McGee Charles D. Websler llistoric llouses Opeu 1995 Custom ltouse, Sag tlarbor Lloyd Manor, Lloyd Neck SherwoodJayne flouse, East Setauket (By Appt.) Aff'fllated Sites Rock Hall, Lawrence ~ckqff Hou~e, Brooklyn GalleD' Main St., Cold Spring Harbor society for the preservation of Long Island antiquities 93 north country road setauket, L.I., new york 11733-1350 telephone 516/941-9444 fax 516/941-9184 Robert B, MacKay, Ph,D. Director Carolyn Oldenbusch Assr, Curator Kathleen Kane Director of Education Cathie Wardell Development Officer Marsha Hamilton Registrar Carol Traynor Public Affairs Officer Barbara F. Van Liew Editor of Preservation Notes Rosemary DeSensi F~tecutive Secretary Randy Staudinger Property Manager February 10, 1997 Mr, Richard Ward Chairman Southold Planning Board Main Road Southold, i,.I., 11971 Subject Fort Corchaug Dear Mr. Ward: It is good efforts to forward. news indeed to learn that finally save Fort: Corchaug are moving The fate of this most important Native America Contact-period forts one of Long Island's old- est and rarest antiquities, has long been a matter of grave coneern to our members. We hope that by next: year we will be able include Fort Corchaug in our Preservation Notes' "Saved" column. to :incerely yours, Barbara Van Liew Preservation Notes ~ BVL/em 372 Walt Whitman Road Melville, New York 11747 =.c ~2T ~E,20 c'.02 P2 Fax: ($16) 427-$620 To: Melissa Spiro' From: Chic Voorhis Date: February 14, 1997 Re: Inalma Shores Review of Dra~ ElS Dear Melissa: As per your reques';, NP&V proposes to review the Dra~ ElS for the above referenced project. Since the document has been revised so many times, and since we fully intended to direct more specific conmaents to content and accuracy of the documem, we propose to comprehensively review the Dra~ ElS for a fee of $1,850.00. This fee includes both traffic and archaeological review as well as review of the full content of the Draft ElS Comments will be provided to the Beard for consideration prior to the close of the comment period, provided we are authorized to proceed by the end of next week. I will be out of town today and next week. Please contact Steve McGinn at your earliest convenience to notify us of your acceptance and schedule, or if you need to speak with me, please call a week from Monday. Thank you for your attention to this manor. Charles I. Voorhis, CEP, AICP TOTAL P. 02 Submission Without a Cover Letter SCT~I#: 1000- PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS RICHARD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD February 13, 1997 Charles Voorhis Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC 572 Walt Whitman Road Melville, New York 11747 RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Major Subdivision Indian Shores SCTM# 1000-116-1-3 A copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated January 1997, and the accompanying Appendices dated January 1997, for the above mentioned proposed subdivision, was delivered to your office by Charles Cuddy. Please develope a cost estimate for review of the document. Please take note of the following dates: The public comment period will begin on February 18, 1997; The public comment period will end on March 20, 1997; The Planning Board will hold a public hearing on the DEIS on March 10, 1997, at 7:30 P.M. in the meeting room at the Southold Town Hall. If you have not received the Draft Environmental Impact Statement please call me immediately. Sincerely, Planner PLANNING BOARD MEMBE~ RICHARD G. WARD GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Interested Agency Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman~///~ Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Major Subdivision Indian Shores (a.k.a. Fort Corchaug) South side of Main Road, North side of New Suffolk Ave., Cutchogue SCTM# 1000-116-1-3 February 13, 1996 The Planning Board accepted the DEIS as complete with respect to scope and content for the purpose of commencing public review on December 23, 1996. Since complete sets of the DEIS were not available at the time the document was deemed complete, the Board noted that the public comment period would not start until submission of a complete DEIS. On February 13, 1996, the Planning Board received a complete copy of the DEIS. Please take note of the following dates: The public comment period will begin on February 18, 1997; The public comment period will end on March 20, 1997; The Planning Board will hold a public hearing on the DEIS on March 10, at 7:30 P.M. in the meeting room at the Southold Town Hall. The DEIS is available at the Cutchogue Library and at the Planning Board Office for review. If you require any additional information, please contact Melissa Spiro at this office. cc: See attached PLANNING BOARD NfEMBERS RICI-L~RD G. WARD GEORGE RITCYIIE LATi~IAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSPLi. JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: FROM: RE: Reviewing Agency Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Major Subdivision Indian Shores (a.k.a. Fort Corchaug) South side of Main Road, North side of New Suffolk Ave., Cutchogue SCTM# 1000-116-1-3 DATE: February 13, 1997 A copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated January 1997, and the accompanying Appendices dated January 1997, for the above mentioned proposed subdivision, was sent to your office under separate cover. The Planning Board accepted the DEIS as complete with respect to scope and content for the purpose of commencing public review on December 23, 1996. Since complete sets of the DEIS were not available at the time the document was deemed complete, the Board noted that the public comment period would not start until submission of a complete DEIS. On February 13, 1997, the Planning Board received a complete copy of the DEIS. Please take note of the following dates: The public comment period will begin on February 18, 1997; The public comment period will end on March 20, 1997; The Planning Board will hold a public hearing on the DEIS on March 10, 1997, at 7:30 P.M. in the meeting room at the Southold Town Hall. If you have not received the Draft Environmental Impact Statement or ff you require any additional information, please contact Melissa Spiro at this office. cc: See attached PLANNING BOARD MEMBEO RICHARD G. WARD GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: FROM: RE: Reviewing Agency Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman~ Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Major Subdivision Indian Shores (a.k.a. Fort Corchaug) South side of Main Road, North side of New Suffolk Ave., Cutchogue SCTM# 1000-116-1-3 DATE: February 13, 1997 Enclosed is a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated January 1997, and the accompanying Appendices dated January 1997, which were received by the Southold Town Planning Board on February 13, 1997, for the above mentioned proposed subdivision. The Planning Board accepted the DEIS as complete with respect to scope and content for the purpose of commencing public review on December 23, 1996. Since complete sets of the DEIS were not available at the time the document was deemed complete, the Board noted that the public comment period would not start until submission of a complete DEIS. On February 13, 1997, the Planning Board received a complete copy of the DEIS. Please take note of the following dates: The public comment period will begin on February 18, 1997; The public comment period will end on March 20, 1997; The Planning Board will hold a public hearing on the DEIS on March 10, 1997, at 7:30 P.M. in the meeting room at the Southold Town Hall. If you require any additional information, please contact Melissa Spiro at this office. cc: See attached CC: THE FOLLOWING HAVE RECEIVED A COPY OF THE DEIS: Roger Evans, NYSDEC -Stony Brook Thomas Cahill, NYSDEC -Albany Steve Ridler, NYS Dept. of State Vito Lena, NYSDOT James Warren, NYSOPRHP Edward Wankel, NYSOPRHP Stephen Jones, Suffolk County Planning Department Vito Minei, Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services Albert Krupski, Jr., Southold Town Trustees Clifford Benfield, Southold Town Landmark Preservation Commission Deb Winsor, Fort Corchaug Sub-Committee of Landmark Preservation Comm. Joseph Gold, Southold Town Land Preservation Committee William Peters, Cutchogue-New Suffolk Historical Council Cutchogue Library THE FOLLOWING HAVE RECEIVED NOTIFICATION THAT THE DEIS HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE PLANNING BOARD: Jean Cochran, Southold Town Supervisor Judith Terry, Southold Town Clerk Walter Smith, Southold Indian Museum Antonia Booth, Southold Town Historian Gaynell Stone, Suffolk County Archaeological Association/ Nassau County Archaeological Committee Timothy Caufield, Peconic Land Trust George Priois, Assistant to County Executive Environmental Notice Bulletin New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Building 40 - SUNY, Stony Brook, NY 11790-2356 Phone {516) 444-0365 Fax # (516) 444-0360 John p. C~kn! Acting Commf~sioner January 14, 1997 Mr. Jeffrey L. Seeman Coastal Environmental Corp. 263 Lakeview Avenue West, PO Box 602 Brightwaters, NY 11718 Re: UPA #1-4738-01281/00002 Applicant - William Baxter Dear Mr. Seeman: Department technical staff have completed their initial review of the referenced proposal and have the following comments: The 10 foot contour elevation on the submitted survey is &P.P.r.!;~iJll!g!~. The actual USGVD referenced contours must be indicated in order to make a formal jurisdictional determination. A field inspection was attempted but staff could not locate access way to property. Please provide directions as to how to access the lot. 3. Final survey must show existing and proposed structures. The 75 foot setback line must be staked and photo evidence of stake locations provided so that field verification can be accomplished. Please advise what materials are proposed to comprise the trail. SOu ,,d,.,. ~ ,,'~ Mr. Jeffrey L. Seeman Page 2 January 14, 1997 Upon receipt of all of the above, as well as that requested in my 12/31/96 Notice b f Incomplete Application, processing will resume. Feel free to call me at (516) 444-0368 should you have any questions. Sincerely, Laura J. Scovazzo Environmental Analyst I LJS:cg cc: W. Baxter L. Chiarella - BMHP File New York~ate Department of Environmental C~servatlon Notice of Incomplete Application - This is NOT a Permit Applicant WILLIAM BAXTER 1030 EAST PUTNAM GREENWICH CT 06830 OwnerlD 1062309 Applica~on lD 1-4738-01281/00002 Facility BAXTER PROPERTY EAST TWO BLOCKS OF ROUTE 25 AND LOCUST A M#1000-116-1-3 CUTCHOGUFJSOUTHOLD NY Batch Number 306315 Pem3it(s) Applied I · ARTICLE 25: TIDAL WETLANDS Proi~ctis/ocat~ in SOUTHOLD IN SUFFOLK COUNTY. Your application for Permit ia Incomplete, the following items are required: · Completed Part I of the Long Environmental Assessment Form (enclosed). · Completed Part I of the Structural-Archaeological Assessment Form (enclosed). · Project plans ( 4 copies). · Signed letter from landowner giving you permission to apply for a permit on his/her property. · Representative color photographs of the project area and surroundings. Please label each with a description and date taken ( 4 copies). · The project is being reviewed pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR). A designation of Lead Agency and a determination of significance for the purposes of SEQR are necessary before your application can be considered complete. Additional Information: AS INDICATED IN YOUR COVER L~-i ~ ER, THIS APPLICATION IS PENDING SUBMISSION OF A NUMBER OF ITEMS, SOME OF WHICH ARE LISTED ABOVE AND BELOW, AND WILL REMAIN INCOMPLETE UNTIL ALL REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED. 1 .PLEASE PROVIDE ORIGINAL(NOT PHOTOCOPY) PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SITE. 2.PLEASE SUBMIT COPIES OF ALL OPRHP CORRESPONDENCE AS WELL AS THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY THAT WAS REQUIRED. 3.PLEASE SEND TWO COPIES OF THE DEIS. 4.AS YOU ALLUDED IN YOUR COVER LE'[-rER, ULTIMATELY FOUR COPIES OF THE FINAL/FORMAL SITE PLANS WILL HAVE TO BE SUBMI'CI'ED. 5.THIS IS A MAJOR PROJECT WHICH WILL HAVE TO BE PUBLISHED WHEN COMPLE ~ ~-. YOU WILL BE NOTIFIED ACCORDINGLY AS TO WHEN TO ACCOMPLISH THIS. CC: JEFFREY SEEMAN/COASTAL ENVIRONMENTAL CORPON/ENCLOSURES) LAURA J SCOVAZZO Signature: Date: DECEMBER 31, 1996 Teleph~le Number:. (516) ~. ~. ~. -0365 PLANNING BOA.RD M~EMB]~ RICHARD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCHIE LATIqAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSK/, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS IKENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box i179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 December 24, 1996 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Charles Cuddy, Esq. P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, New York 11901 RE: Proposed Major Subdivision for Indian Shores South side of Main Road, North side of New Suffolk Ave., Cutchogue SCTM# 1000-116-1-3 Dear Mr. Cuddy: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board on Monday, December 23, 1996: WHEREAS, on May 1, 1995, the Southold Town Planning Board, as lead agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, issued a Positive Declaration on the Indian Shores proposed 17 lot subdivision which includes: a) thirteen residential lots ranging in size from 80,300 sq. ft. to 166,400 sq. ft.; b) two agricultural lots, one 18.84 acres and the other 11.96 acres; c) an equestrian-related lot of 5.67 acres; and d) a 37.47 acre parcel proposed to be purchased by the Town of Southold as a cultural resources park; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a scoping session on the proposal on April 19, 1995; and WHEREAS, the applicant submitted a Draft Environmental Impact Statement on September 8, 1995; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board deemed the DEIS incomplete with respect to its scope, content and adequacy for the purpose of commencing public review on October 23, 1995; and Page 2 Indian Shores December 23, Igg6 WHEREAS, since the time of the original DEIS submission, the DEIS has been revised and re-submitted several times but each time has been deemed incomplete with respect to scope, content and adequacy by the Planning Board; and WHEREAS, the latest revision was submitted in two parts, the archaeological portion of the DEIS was submitted on November 22, 1996, and the revised DEIS was submitted on December 10, 1996; and WHEREAS, the latest submission was reviewed by the Planning Board and the Planning Board's Environmental Consultant; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Consultant's report dated December 20, 1996, lists a few minor errors which must be corrected prior to circulation of the DEIS; and WHEREAS, the applicant has made certain revisions requested by the Planning Board (on pages 124 and 125 of earlier documents), but has stated that he reserves the right to reintroduce the original statements; and WHEREAS, as noted in the Environmental Consultant's report dated December 20, 1996, any changes to the Expanded Fort Corchaug Alternative (Section VI,D of December 1996 DEIS; pages 124-126) must be consistent with the previous revisions, unless further documentation and support of the applicant's position is provided for review and prior approval; and WHEREAS, neither the Planning Board nor the Planning Board's Environmental Consultant necessarily agree with or support all of the information contained in the DEIS; and WHEREAS, additional analysis of the project will be conducted during the DEIS review period and the Final ElS process; be it therefore RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board accept the Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated December 1996, the Phase lB Archaeological Survey revisions dated November 1996, and the Appendices, as complete with respect to scope and content for the purpose of commencing pul31ic review. The Planning Board will initiate a thirty (30) day public comment period and will schedule a public hearing on the DEIS upon receipt of eighteen complete copies of the revised DEIS and Appendices. The appropriate pages of the DEIS must be revised to reflect the minor comments contained in the Environmental Consultant's December 20, 1996 report. The Appendices must be up to date in terms of revisions and amendments, particularly with regard to the Stage lB Archaeological Survey, the NYSDEC Joint Application and the NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Determination. P~ge 5 Indisn Shores Deceml~er 25, 1996 Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, _ Richard G. Ward ,l~] Chairman enc. cc: Tim Caufield, Peconic Land Trust CHARLES V~ ~'~/~CIATES, INC. December 20, 1996 Ms. Melissa Spiro Assistant Planner Town of Southold Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re~ Draft ElS Review for Indian Shores Cutchogue, New York Dear Ms. Spiro: As per your request and in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act, we have completed a review of the Draft EIS for the above referenced project. The document was reviewed for content and adequacy in accordance with SEQR NYCRR Part 617.8 - Environmental Impact Statement Procedures. The original Draft EIS for the Indian Shores project was prepared by the applicant's consultant, Maguire Group, in August 1995. The document was reviewed and a comment letter issued on October 20, 1995 by CVA identified deficiencies in the scope and content of the Draft EIS. The Draft ElS underwent several subsequent revisions dated March 1996, June 1996 and September 1996. The latest revised Draft EIS (December 1996) has satisfactorily addressed all of the comments contained in the November 15, 1996 comment letter. However, a few minor errors were noted in the Draft EIS and are listed in the attached comment letter. The archaeological portion of the Draft EIS was reviewed by Robert Kalin of Archaeological Services Incorporated (ASI). Mr. Kalin has indicated that the latest revisions on pages 2, 4, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 21 of the Stage lB Archaeological Survey as well as the amendments to Figure 2, satisfactorily address his previous comments. If the Board is in agreement with these findings, the appropriate pages should be altered to reflect the attached minor comments and a complete copy of the Draft EIS and Appendices should be submitted to the Town for review. The Appendices must be up to date in terms revisions and amendments, particularly with regard to the Stage lB, the NYSDEC Joint Application and NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Determination. Additional analysis of the Indian Shores project may be conducted through the Final EIS process. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Town of Southoid Planning Board with our review of the Draft EIS for Indian Shores. Once the minor errors are satisfactorily addressed, the document can be circulated for a 30 day publi.c comment period in order to consider the accuracy and validity of the document. Appendices to the Draft EIS must accompany the document at the time of circulation. We will be pleased to conduct further review at your request. Please do nOt hesitate to call if you have any questions regarding this review. %C ?.3 ~996 Charles J. Voorhis, CEP, AICP 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 · (516) 331-1455 · FAX 331-8046 INDIAN SHORES (& CUTCHOGUE - REVIEW OF DRAFT ElS The latest Draft EIS revision submitted by the applicant dated December 1996, satisfactorily addressed the comments contained in the comment letter dated November 15, 1996, with a few minor exceptions. The appropriate pages of the Draft EIS in need of correction must be submitted to the Town in the form of a complete Draft EIS with Appendices for review. If the corrections are found to be satisfactory, the Town will request copies of the Draft EIS, which will be circulated for a 30 day public comment period. The comments regarding the revised Draft EIS (December 1996) are as follows: The bar graph on page 44 erroneously indicates that the test hole on the subject site is located approximately 1,000 feet from Indian Shores and Downs Creek. The graph should be corrected to indicate correct distances. Two errors in Table 11 on page 102 were noted: - The dilution factor for precipitation should be 244,907,953 liters. - The nitrogen loading for vineyard irrigation should be 1,466,594 milligrams. * Page 91 was out of sequence in the Draft EIS. Note: Any changes to the Expanded Fort Corchaug Alternative (Section VI.D of December 1996 Draft EIS; pages 124-126) must be co~istent with the previous revisions, unless further documentation andsupport of the applicant s position is provided for review and prior approval. CHARLES VO~iS & :~SsoclATES, INC. ENViRONMENTA~&~ ¢~l~4G CONSULTANTS PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS RICI-IARD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCt{IE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD December 11, 1996 Charles Voorhis 54 North Country Road Suite 2 Miller Place, NY 11764 RE: Major Subdivision Indian Shores SCTM# 1000-116-1-3 Dear Mr. Voorhis: On December 10, 1996, the Planning Board received a revised DEIS dated December 1996 for the above mentioned subdivision. I have enclosed a copy for your review. The application for the tidal wetlands permit and a non-jurisdiction letter for the freshwater wetlands were submitted also. I have enclosed copies. Please refer to the December 10, 1996, letter from Charles Cuddy which notes that the owner and applicant reserve the right to reintroduce certain statements which were revised to comply with your report. Please call if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely., MeliSsa p'r" Planner ~HARLE$ R. ~UDDY December 10, 1996 Members of the Planning Board Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Indian Shores Subdivision Dear Planning Board Members: Enclosed please find three (3) sets of the Indian Shores DEIS which reflect the comments received from the Lead Agency on the September 1996 version. The Appendix remains as is with the exception that we will add the application for the tidal wetlands permit and also the non- jurisdiction letter for the freshwater wetlands, copies of which are enclosed for your information. While this matter has been pending for an extraordinary period, and we appreciate your consultant's efforts as set forth in the comments included with his letter of November 15, 1996, the owner and applicant must reserve the right to reintroduce the statements made at pages 124 and 125 in the earlier version of the DEIS. We believe that the request for revision of these pages, while intended to expedite acceptance of the DEIS, also eliminates the applicant's reasoning with respect to the proposed subdivision layout. We look forward to your further advise as to distribution. advice that the DEIS is now accepted and how many copies are necessary for CRC:ejc Encs. c: \ siteplan, sub\baxter. PB Very truly yours, 0 , 95-19-3 (6/95)--7e DEC APPLICATION NUMBER DISTRIBUTION 1st COPy Permit Administrator NEW YORK STATE~ V 2nd COPY Corps of Engineers DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 3rd COPY Program US ARMY CORPS APPLICATION NO UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 4th COPY NYS Agency JOINT APPLICATION FOR PERMIT 5th COPY . Applicant Please read ALL instructions on back before completing this application. Please type o'r print clearly in Ink. Attach additional, Information, as needed, [] FRESHWATER WETLANDS ~-IDAI~ WETLANDS [] WATER SUPPLY [] LQNG ISLAND WELL . [] PRO'~ECTION OF WATERS FOR: " [] A. Construction or placement of docks and moorings [] B. Construction, reconstruction, or repair of a DAM or other impoundment structure [] C. Disturbance of a S'I-R~AM BED or BANKS or excavation in or fill of NAVIGABLE WATERS [] 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION [] COASTAL EROSION CONTROL [] LAKE GEORGE PARK COMMISSION (Docks and Moorings) [] WILD, SCENIC OR RECREATIONAL RIVERS [] AQUATIC PEST CONTROL FOR: [] A. Aquatic Vegetation Control [] S. Fish Control [] C. Insect Control 1. LIST PREVIOUS PERMIT/APPLICATION NUMBERS AND DATES (If any) IF OTHER THAN INDIVIDUAL, PROVIDE ' :' TAXPAYER ID NUMBER 2. APPLICANT IS A/AN '[~Owner [] Operatbr [] Lessee [] Municipality/Governmental Agency (Check as many'as apply) MAILING ADDRESS , I TELEPHONE ~here can be reached during day~ STATE ' 1 ZIP CODE,' 4. NAMEOF., ,.- ~Owner - : ~ntlContact Perso (Check one) "' POST FFICE ~ ZIP CODE 5. PROJECTIFACILI~ LOCATION (Mark location on map, see Number la on reverse side) STREET ADDRESS/LOCATION (If different from applicant) .' POST OFFICE STATE ZIP CODE DEC USE ONLY 7. HAS WORK BEGUN ON PROJECT? If YES, attach explanation on staffing work without permit, include dates. 8. PROPOSED STARTING DATE Show work on map and/or drawing. ~ Yes ~No 10. PROPO ED USE: 11. WILL PROJECT OCCUPY~TATE LAND? 12. PRO~OSE~ PURPOSE: · 13. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: (e.g, quantity and type of material to be excavated, dredged or us~ for fill or rip rap, location of disposal sites; type of structure to be installed; height of dam; size of impoundment; capacities of proposed water sources; extent of distribution system; size of marina and type of docks ~nd moorings to be installed; etc.) 14. WILL TH~S PROJECT REQUgRE ADDITIONAL FEDERAL, STATE AND/OR LOCAL PERMITS? ~es ~ No If yes, please list: 1~. Separate Authorization or letter of NO JURISDICTION Should be Received lrom DEC and the US Army Co~s Prior to Initiation of Work I~ Wetlands and Wate~ays. I hereby afhrm that information provided on this form and all attachments submitted herewith is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. False statements made herein are Dunishabie as a Class A misdemeanor pursuant to Section 210.45 of the Penal Law. Further, the applicant accepts full responsibility for all damage, direct or indirect, of whatever nature, and by whomever suffered, arising out of the project described herein and agrees to indemnify and save harm[ess the State from suits, actions, damages and costs of every name and description resulting from said project. In addition Federal Law, 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides for a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both, where an applicant knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up a material fact; or knowingly makes or uses a false, f[cUUous or fraudulent statement. Number 4, bore ~lt this lic behalf, ' S~ ~AGENT/CONTACT PERSON ~ITLE Dec. 4 '96 ~1:54 w York State Department of Environmental Conservation d~ng 40 ~. SUNY, Stony l~ook, Now y~k 11790-2356 26 i~ebmary 1996 O;ee~w~c~, CT 06830 FRX P, 3 3237 Rm~t~ 112 below, ~1~ New York State ~ of Eaviroameuml Co~ has de~,,,'a that ~a r the Fres~w~r Wetlands Act (A"dale 24 of ~ N~w York $1~o Navi_mnmenm ~.~rvanon Law). Loc~tion: eas~ two blocks of Route 23 ,and Locust Avemm Town: CutchogueYSouthold Tax Map Numbs. 1000-116-1-$ does not ~ }~u of th~ ~ty of ob~.' I ~ ~ ¢ o~ ~ f~m Very truly yours, cc: Bu~a. u of ~nvizonmemal Pint. ion PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS RICHARD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETI~i L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 'Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fsx (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD November 25, 1996 Charles Voorhis 54 North Country Road Suite 2 Miller Place, NY 11764 RE: Major Subdivision Indian Shores SCTM# 1000-116-1-3 Dear Mr. V,orhis: On November 22, 1996, the Planning Board received revised pages 2, 4, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, the Title Page, the Table of Contents and Figure 2 for the archaeological section of the DEIS. Please proceed with your review of the document to determine whether it is satisfactory with respect to its scope, content and adequacy for the purpose of commencing public review. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, Planner enc. GHARLE$ 1~. GUDD¥ ~-TTORNEY AT LAW November 20, 1996 Planning Board Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Attention: Melissa Spiro Re: Indian Shores Subdivision Dear Ms. Spiro: Enclosed herewith in connection with the DEIS and the Archaeological Survey for the subdivision of the Baxter parcel are pages 2, 4, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, the Title Page and the Table of Contents. These have been revised to reflect appropriate responses to the comments from the Town's consultant. Would you please substitute these pages in your copies of the Archaeological Survey, i.e. the Phase lB Survey, and forward the additional copies to whomever the Survey was distributed. Very truly yours, Charles R. Cuddy CRC/pc Encls. November 15, 1996 Ms. Melissa Spiro Assistant Planner Town of Southold Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Draft ElS Review for Indian Shores Cutchogue, New York Dear Ms. Spiro: As per your request and in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act, we have completed a review of the Draft EIS for the above referenced project. The document was rexaewed for content and adequacy in accordance with SEQR NYCRR Part 617.8 - Environmental Impact Statement Procedures. The original Draft EIS for the Indian Shores project was prepared by the applicant's consultant, Maguire Group, in August 1995. The document was reviewed and a comment letter issued on October 20, 1995 by CVA identified deficiencies in the scope and content of the Draft EIS. A revised document was submitted to the Town on March 26, 1996, was reviewed CVA and again was found to be ina.dequate with respect to scope and content in a comment letter datedApri129, 1996. A meeting was held on May 22, 1996 at the request of the applicant's consultants (Jeffrey Seeman of then Maguire Group and Charles Cuddy, Esq.)to discuss and clarify the contents of the April 29 comment letter. A second revised Draft EIS was submitted to the Town of Southold on June 11, 1996 and was again found inadequate with respect to scope and content in a co .1~. ent letter dated June 21, 1996. A third revision of the Draft EIS, dated September 1996, is reviewed herein. The latest revised Draft EIS has satisfactorily addressed many of the comments contained in the June 21 comment letter, with the exception of several comments. The attached comment letter contains suggested amendments to the document. In order to expedite the review process, it is recomanended that the applicant's consultant incorporate the amendments and indicate any and all pages where changes occurred. These pages should be submitted for review and acceptance prior to circulation of the Draft EIS to the general public. Appendices to the Draft EIS must accompany the document at the time of circulation. Additional analysis of the Indian Shores project may be conducted through the Final EIS process. Our comments on thc scope,, content and adequacy of the Draft EIS are attached. Robert Kalin has been in contact wath the applicant's archaeological consultant, Greenhouse Consultants, resarding adequacy of the Phase IB Archaeological Survey Report. The results of this review wall be provided to the Board upon completion of necessary revisions. If the 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 ° (516) 331-1455 ° FAX 331-8046 Board is in agreement with these findings, all appropriate sections of the Draft EIS should be altered to reflect the attached comments. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Town of Southold Planning Board with our. review, of the Draft EISfor Indian Shores. Once theganeral scope and content are satisfactorily ad.dressed, the document can be circulated for a 30 day public comment period in order to consider the accuracy and validity of the document. We will be pleased to conduct further review at your request. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions regarding this review. Charles J. Voorhis, CEP, AICP eric. CHARLES VOORHI~ ~ ~SsOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENT,~L ~ CONSULTANTS INDIAN SHOI~S (~ C~CHOGUE - ~ OF DRAFT EIS The latest Draft EIS revision submitted by the applicant dated September 1996, satisfactorily addresses comments contained in the comment letter dated June 21, 1996, with several exceptions. Recommended amendments to the Draft EIS are provid.ed below. Language recommended to be incorporated into the Draft ElS is printe.d i~. italics. Additional analysis of the Indian Shores project may be conducted through the Final EIS process. Miscellaneous * Page 2 - The first sentence of the second full paragraph should be amended to read: "...~is parcel is the location of on.e historic and four prehtstonc sites." * Page 53 - NYSDEC jurisdiction xs vaguely discussed in theproposed .Draft E_IS and has been discussed on several additional occasions withthe applicant. 'lhe applicant must apply for a no jurisdiction letter under Article 24. In addition, the applicant must apply for a NYSDEC tidal wetlands permit under Article ~5. The last two sentences of paragraph 1 under Tidal Marsh should be removed (~e tidal wetland/upland ... the wetland boundary.") and replaced as follows: "The subject site does not appear on the Southold or Southampton .q~t..r.angle. s ~of. the NYSDEC freshwater wetlands maps, therefore a letter of no jurisdiction ts betn~ sought from NYSDEC under Article 24. A copy of request for No Jurisdiction letter in Appendix **. The subdivision of land is subject to jurisdiction under Article 25 of the NYS Environmental Conservation Law. A copy of the Joint Application for Permit to NYSDEC under Article 25 is included in Appendix **. The exact tidal wetlands boundary has not been delineated in the field because the tidal wetland/upland line is distinct, with an abrupt change in elevation and vegetatiora In addition, NYSDEC jurisdiction under Article 25 ends at the I0 foot contour provided there is no escarpment or significant potential erosion impact to wetlands. Lots 6-10 have adequate area above the 10 foot contour for an appropriate building envelop, and areas east of the 10 foot conto, ur can be covenanted to remain natural or required to obtain a tidal wetlands permtt if activity is proposed below the i0 foot contour. Lot 5 does not have adequate room for a building envelop outside of NYSDEC jurisdiction, and will require wetland delineation and permitting. NYSDEC input regarding subdivision layout will be sought through the Article 25 permit process and dunng review., of the Draft EIS. The submission of the Tidal Wetlands permit application wall facilitate this process." The asterisks in the above passage should be replaced with the appropriate appendices numbers. * Page 67 - The last sente,n, ce of the second paragraph under Transportation should be amended as follows: ...Fort Corchaug Interpretive Center and Park, and uses associated with Lot 1." * Page 119 - The firstparagraph under Cultural Resources should be removed ("I~he conveyance of... acre parcel."). The following should be added to the beginning remaining paragraph: "Disturbance to some on-site cultural resources will be avoided through the conveyance of approximate~ 37 acres to the Town of Southold as parkland. Additional measures are proposed to mitigate potential impacts to cultural resources. A qualified archaeologist..." CHARLES vO6~1~i$ &:~SSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRON M ENTAL ~A,N,D CONSULTANTS Page 1 of 5 Indian Shores @ Cutchogue Review of Draft EIS Water Table Level Variation and Sanitary System Separation Distance The discu.ssions provided in the Draft ElS regardin~ groundwater elevations and variation m relation to sanitar~ system separation distances (pages $9-45 and 87-88) were found to be adequate. Flo~ever, se~,eral corrections/additions, listed below, are necessary for completion. * Pal~¢ 45 - The graph should be corrected to show the elevation of groundwater beneath the sul)ject site to be 1.8 feet above mean sea level, consistent with test hole data. * Pages 87 & 88 - The last paragraph of page 87 should be amended as follows: - Replace first sentence as follows: '54s determined in the Water Resources setting, section of this document, average high ground~vater elevations beneath the area of.the proposed dwellings are expected to be approximately $.3 feet ~, ,,ove with possible peak water table elevations reaching 4. 7feet above msL "...between the bottom of the leaching pool andthe groundwater .e. leva.tion. To assure this separation distance, SCDHS standards for single family residences (SCDHS, November 15, 1995) requires a minimum depth to groundwater of feet for one to four bedroom residences and a minimum dep. th to ground}rater of 11feet for residences of more than four bedrooms. The soils appear to be acceptable ..." "...and the bottom of the sanitary leaching pool. It '.ts likely that th~4 technique will be necessary on several of the proposed lots, particularly lots $, and 5. Since soil is excavated for..." Concentration of Nitrogen in Recharge * Page 78 - Residential water usage should be 1.75 million gallons per year. * Pages 81 through 101 - Acreages of land uses should be made consistent with Table 11. * Pages 81 through 102 - Calculation of the anticipated concentration of nitrogen in recharge should be amended to show the final nitrogen concentration in consideration of all nitrogen loadings and all dilution factors. An amended Table 11 is offered below, followed by the necessary calculations. Thc table and calculations may be incorporated into the appropriate sections of the Draft EIS. The appropriate sections of the Draft EIS should be reviewed to assure consistency with the table and calculations. Based on the table, the anticipated concentration of nitrogen in recharge is 3.54 mg/l. CHARLES vo~RHis &ASsoCIATES, INC. ENVIRON M ENTAE ~ ~?~NNi~ CONSULTANTS Page 2 of S Indian Shores @ Cutchogue Review of Draft ElS Table 11 Annual Nitrogen Loading and Dilution Factors source Nitrogen Dilution Lo&ding (mg) Factor (1) Precipitation 55,104,289 244,907,953 Irrigation Turf 1,781,130 3,958,067 Vineyard 1,466,594 3,259,097 Fertilization Turf 155,424,037 --- Vineyard 281,179,139 --- Sanitary 120,825,303 6,631,320 Water Supply 9,946,980 --- Animal Waste Pets 8,925,170 --- Horses 280,578,231 --- Total 915,230,873 258,756,437 Recharge Calculations: Precipitation 45"lYf = 3.75'/yr 3.75~/_~_ x 50%~,nf?ration -- 1.88'/yr 1.88/yr x 43,456 x 105.6 ac = 8,647,879.68 cuft 8,647,879.68 x 28.32 (conversion) -- 244,907,953 liters 31 a,c x~ 45~%J~,a~,dscaped = 13.95 ac 5.5"/yr = 0.46/yr 0.46'~yr x 50% infiltration = 0.23'/yr 0.23'/yr x 43,560 x 13.95 = 139,762.26 cuft 139,762.26 cuft x 28.32 (conversion) = 3,958,067 liters Vineyard ~ 31 a6 x 620 gal/ac/day = 19,220 gpd 19,220 x 3.5 days/week x 32 weeks/yr = 2,152,640 gpy 2,152,640 gpy x 40% infiltration = 861,056 gpy 861,056 gpy x 3.785 (conversion) = 3,259,097 liters CHARLES VOORHIS &ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAl ~D G CONSULTANTS Page 3 of 5 3~!~/dwelling x 16 dwellings = 4,800 gpd 4,800 gpd x 365 days = 1,752,000 gpy 1,752,0130 gpy x 3.785 (conversion) = 6,631,320 liters Nitrogen Loading Calculations: Precioitation 244,907,953 1 x 1.5 mg/1 (SCDHS, 1987) = 367,361,929.5 mg 367,361,929.5 mg x 15% leaching rate = 55,104,289 mg 3,958,~]Tx 3 mg/1 (estimated) = 11,874,201 mg 11,874,201 mg x 15% rate = 1,781,130 mg 3,259,0971 x 3 mg/1 (estimated) = 9,777,291 mg 9,777,291 mg x 15%leaching rate = 1,466,594 mg Turf Fertilization 2.4 lbs/I,000 sq ft x 43,560 ft/ac = 104.54 lbs/ac 31 ac x 45% fertilized area = 13.95 ac 13.95 ac x 104.54 lbs/ac = 1,458.33 lbs 1,458.33 x 23.5% leaching rate -- 342.71 lbs 342.71 lbs x 453,514.74 (conversion) = 155,424,037 mg ~ Fertilization 40 lbs/ac x 31 ac = 1,240 lbs 1,240 lbs x 50% leaching rate = 620 lbs 620 lbs x 453,514.74 (conversion) = 281,179,139 mg ~r~capita x 3.03 persons/dwelling = 133.32 gl>d/dwell 133.32 x 16 dwellings = 2,133.12 gpd 2,133.12 gpd x 365 days/year = 778,588.8 gpy 778,588.8 gpy x 3.785 (conversion) = 2,946,958.61 liters 2,946,958.61 1 x 82 rog/1 = 241,650,606.02 mg 241,650,606.02 mg x 50% leaching rate = 120,825,303 mg Water ~ 3 rog/1 × 6,631,320 liters = 19,893,960 mg 19,893,960 mg x 50% leaching rate = 9,946,980 mg Animal Waste Pets - 0.82 lbs/person/yr x 48 people = 39.36 lbs/yr 39.36 lbs/yr x 50% leaching rate = 19.68 lbs/yr 19.68 lbs/yr x 453,514.74 (conversion) = 8,928,170 mg Horses - 0.3 lbs/day/horse x 10 horses = 3 lbs/day 3 lbs/day x 365 days/year = 1,095 lbs/year 1,0951bs/yr x 56.5% leaching rate = 618.68 lbs/yr 618.68 lbs/yr x 453,514.74 (conversion) = 280,578,231 mg Indian Shores @ Cutchogue Review of Draft ElS CHARLES VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL AND G CONSULTANTS Page 4 of~; Indian Shores @ Cutchogue Review of Draft ElS Expanded Fort Corchaug Site Alternative The following text should be amended as follows: * Page 1.24 - The last 3 sentences of the first paragraph ("Such a development.., and aesthettc impacts") should be deleted. . . * Page 124 - The last 2 sentences of the second paragraph ('Unis results m... m tt~ s plan") should be deleted. * Page 124 - The second sentence of the second paragraph should be amended as follows: "...also become narrower, with the exception of lot 5 which would remain the current size due to environmental constraints." * Page 124 - The first sentence of the third paragraph should be ,,amended as foLlows: "...a reduced number and/or size of the most valuable .... * Page. 124 and others - The size of the proposed Town parkland should be made consistent .t~oughout the text, figures, tables and siteplan. At least three different s~zes were noted in the document (37.02, 37.46 and 37.47 acres). * Page 124 - The last two sentences of the first paragraph under .Option 1 shoul, d be re~ove.d !'The narrowing of... for this option.") and replaced witla the followmg: "Th/s mlmmum lot width could be mitigated through a cluster map under NYS Town Law 278." * Page 125 - Thc first full sentence of the,first paragraph should be amended as follows: "Narrow lots may also reduce .... * Pa~c 125 - Thc second full sentence of the first paragraph should be deleted ( T~hts is expected.., pubhc health risk. ), and the follovnng sentence should be inserted in its place: "However, this can be mitt'gated through proper design.". * Page 125 - In the description of Option 2, the word "relocated" should be spelled correctly. * Page 125 - The last two sentences of the first paragraph under Option 2 should be removed ('The narrowing of... for this option.") and replaced with the following: "This minimum lot width could be mitigated through a cluster map under NYS Town Law 27& " * Page' 125 - The third sentence of the second paragraph under Option 2 should be amended as follows: "Narrow lots may also reduce the distances...". * Page 125 - The forth sentence of the second p~agraph under O~tion 2 should be deleted ('~l~is is expected.., public health risk. ), and the following sentence should b~ inserted'in its place: "However, this can be mitigated through proper design. ". CHARLES INC. ENVIRONMENTA~;ANp CONSULTANTS Page ~ of 5 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS RICHARD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 F~x (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD November 25, 1996 Charles Voorhis 54 North Country Road Suite 2 Miller Place, NY 11764 RE: Major Subdivision Indian Shores SCTM# 1000-116-1-3 Dear Mr. Voorhis: On November 22, 1996, the Planning Board received revised pages 2, 4, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, the Title Page, the Table of Contents and Figure 2 for the archaeological section of the DEIS. Please proceed with your review of the document to determine whether it is satisfactory with respect to its scope, content and adequacy for the purpose of commencing public review. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, Planner enc. October 12, 1996 Mr. Richard Ward, Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 re: INDIAN SHORES Dear Mr Ward: The Peconic Land Trust performs a very admirable service to the east end of Long Island as it acts to preserve the open space and agricultural heritage and rural quality of the two forks It is an organization that deserves much praise and credit for many jobs well done. Yet, it must be acknowledged that the Trust is not a panacea for all of the ills and pressures that the Town of Southold (as well as other east end towns) face from the encroachment of residential development. In the case of the development of Indian Shores, the presence of the Peconic Land Trust is inappropriate and counter-productive. At the same time, the Town of Southold's agreement to buy 37 acres of land is also inappropriate for the same reasons that the Peconic Land Trust's actions are; both parties are aiding the owner in creating a high end, private enclave at the expense of the taxpayers of Southold Town. These organizations are also aiding in the destruction of a National Landmark and a prehistoric archaeological site. The Town of Southold's intention to buy 37 acres of the least desirable land from a real estate point ofviexl is ludicrous. The Town should not be dictated to as to which land it can or cannot purchase. If anything it should have the option to buy the land where the fort was as well as the archaeologically significant land where the ancient village sat. Southold should not be forced to buy a parcel which in effect will buffer the developed lots from the sound of the highway and si~nultaneously insure the visual privacy of an exclusive enclave The owner of the land is also being treated by the Peconic Land Trust to the development of extra facilities, both scenic and recreational, which will in turn increase the value of the developed lots. While it is lovely that 30 of the 105 acres may be used as a riding facility and a vineyard these acres will create a scenic backdrop and buffer the developed lots, especially those which are not on the water, from the possibility of future developments being "too close." This factor will increase the market value of these in-land plots. While it canot be said that there is no benefit to the public from the measures expected to be taken by the Town of Southold and the Peconic Land Trust it would be insulting the intelligence of the people of Southold to say that they will benefit at a level anywhere near the level the current and future owners oflndian Shores will benefit. Will the Town of Southold be proud to say to its taxpayers that they've helped to create another exclusive waterfront enclave that they'll never enjoy as much as the residents and whose residents will not be paying their full share of taxes for the benefits they'll enjoy? Can the Peconic Land Trust really claim to the IRS that this is a "genuine public benefit?" Do they really believe a conservation minded buyer will just come along and magnanimously buy the ancient village site now slated for a building lot and donate it to the Town? Does the Planning Board have faith in such an unlikely scenario? Perhaps the Town of Southold should let the owner go ahead and develop the entire parcel into 42 lots. This way the Town could have the option to buy the land which is a National Landmark that really is significant to the cultural heritage of this region and the nation. And, the owner would have to meet the demands of the market just like the rest of us taxpayers! Mr. Ward, please do not let the Planning Board be duped into aiding the next great real estate coup! Sincerely, Barbara Chapman Jones Greenport 1030 E. PUTNAM AVENUE, GREENWICH, CONNECTICUT 06836 · (203) 637' 4559 c~h~q~ in d r~ PLANNING BOARD M~EMB~S RICItARD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCHIE LATH/MM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD October 8, !996 Charles Voorhis 54 North Country Road Suite 2 Miller Place, NY 11764 RE: Major Subdivision Indian Shores SCTM# 1000-~_11:-1-3 Dear Mr. Voorhis: The Planning Board nas received the review fee of $600 for review of the Stage ~B Archaeolof?cal Study and the Draft EIS. Please proceed with your review of '~he document to determine whether it is satisfactory with respect to its scope, content and adequacy for the purpose of commencing public review. On September 24, i396, Charles Cuddy submitted replacement pages 21 and 22. Please insert these pages in your copy. Please ¢,.on~a:t me if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, ~elissa Sp iv~ Planner enc. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS~ RICHARD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD October 1, 1996 Charles Cuddy 445 Griffing Avenue P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 RE: Major Subdivision Indian Shores SCTM# 1000-116-1-3 Dear Mr. Cuddy: Enclosed please find a copy of the cost estimate from Charles Voorhis for review of the Stage IB Archaeolog~ical Study and the Draft EIS. I will authorize Mr. Voorhis to proceed with his review upon receipt of the review fee. Please con.tact me ~you have any questions regarding the above. / Sincerely, ~weuss~a ~p~r~' Planner enc. Tow,",,. of' P!an.n/ng Boa.rd P,O. Box 1 I79 Sou~hoM, N~w Y~rk I Indi~ Shore~, B~:er Progeay Stage ~ .&mhzeoio~cal Sur~ey Dear Bob: We ~re {n ;ec,*'.'pr of[he :c,,ised Drad E2S fcr the *_bore referenc~ proj~r. Please be ~d,Ased ~hat the :ev~ew fec Sot rav~ew of Cue S~xge ~ ~-chae&o~c~ Study Drx~ HIS {s S600.00.00 We ex~ecz ~o complete :he review wtmin z~prc~mambf ] weeks ofmtnodz~dcn ~o proceed. Thank you for your a[rendon ro this maker, md ~[e~e carl 2' questions. Very truly yours~- Chides 7. Voerbis, CF-P, SUFFOLK COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION NEWSLETTER Representing Nassau & Suffolk Counties "V Vol. 22 Fall tSSN --_~ . No. 3 1996 1079-2198 PRESERVATION ACTION FOR FORT CORCHAUG Fort Corchaug, a Native American Contact-period fort located on the West bank of Downs Creek in the North Fork village of Cutchogue has been the subject of archaeological interest since the 1950s. Ralph Solecki, then a graduate student at Columbia University, wrote his master's thesis based on his limited excavations at the site. The artifacts from the site were placed in the Smithsonian Institution, American Museum of Natural History, and Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History. An overview of this research was published by the Archaeological Society of Connecticut Bulletin No. 24:3-40, 1950. Carlyle Smith, for his doctoral dissertation on The Archaeology of Coastal New York, used the data from Fort Corchaug to develop his proposed Shantok aspect or focus (American Museum of Natural History, Anthropological Papers Vol. 43, Part 2, New York, NY, 1950). Ralph Solecki, now professor emeritus at Columbia University, first tested the "well" or Baxter site, a short distance south of the fort in 1938 when he was working on his master's thesis, and he and Carlyle Smith excavated part of it in 1947. Bert Salwen, a graduate student of Dr. Solecki's at Columbia, in 1960 excavated 2 five meter squares at the Baxter site (named after the owner, William J. Baxter). It was probably a living area, although no post molds indicating a shelter were found. The subsistence data from this sample was an important part of Salwen's doctoral dissertation on Sea Levels and Archaeology in the Long Island Sound Area {later published in American Antiquity, Vol. 28:1, 46-55, 1962; reprinted in SCAA's VoL V, The Second Coastal Archaeology Reader, James Truex, ed., 1982:35-43). New York State Archaeologist William A. Ritchie further excavated the Baxter site in 1961, and found a Woodland period occupation level as well as an earlier Orient period one. His analysis of the shellfish debris of the two periods questioned Salwen's position on the correlation of Orient period sites with major differences in sea levels. (The Archaeology of New York State, Natural History Press, Garden City, NY, 1965:167ff). A decade later Lorraine Williams, a graduate student of Bert Salwen's at New York University, conducted excavations at the site in 1968 through a Smithsonian Institution Research Associateship and reanalyzed Solecki's artifacts housed there. Her excavation of seven additional areas at the fort and report on three in her dissertation benefited from the comparative materials Salwen and students had been excavating at Fort Shantok, Connecticut {Ft. Shantok and Ft. Corchaug: A Comparative Study of Seventeenth Century Culture Contact in the Long Island Sound Area, New York University, University Microfilms, 1973). Lynn Ceci, later a professor at Queens College, marshaled agronomical, documentary, and archaeological evidence to support her doctoral thesis contention that European contact and trade contributed to the shift of Coastal natives from mobility to sedentism. The archaeological data of Solecki and Williams from Fort Corchaug was an important part of her evidence (The Effect of European Contact and Trade on the Settlement Pattern of Indiana in Coastal New York, 1524-1665: the Archaeological and Documentary Evidence, City University of New York, University Microfilms, 1977). Ralph Solecki, returning to the topic, examines Ceci's opinion that the 'forts' of Southern New England and Long Island were 'trading stations,' and finds the archaeological evidence does not support that use for all of them. Fort Corchaug is a significant part of that evidence, being both a refuge and a trading station. ("Indian Forts of the Mid-17th Century in the Southern New England-New York Coastal Area," Northeast Historical Archaeology, Vols. 22-23, 1992-93:64-78). Society's Brush Barn October 6th; a slide-lecture on the New York African Burial Ground at Adelphi University October 9th; the same lecture at Dowling College, Oakdale, on October 7th. The Mid-Atlantic Association of Museums 1996 Annual Meeting will be held on Long Island November 10-13, sponsored by the Long Island Museum Association, of which SCAA is a member. There will be exhibits, a resource room, programs, and tours throughout the Island. For information call MAAM at 302-731-1424. "Oral History, Memory, and the Sense of Place," annual meeting of the Oral History Association will be held in Philadelphia, PA on Oct. 9- 11. For information call 817-755-2764. South Street Seaport's "Digging Around Town" Lecture Series has weekly lectures from Oct. 16th to 30th. Dr. Alan Gilbert of Fordham University will report on his excavations of Rose Hill Manor on the campus on October 23rd. For information call 212- 748-8757. Council for Northeast Historical Archaeology conference will be held October 18-20 in Albany at the Ramada Ion Albany Downtown. A major focus will be on Dutch archaeology and material culture, and there are numerous tours and workshops. For information call 518-747-2926. Council Northeast Historical rchaeolo~;y Prehistoric American Indian Ceramic Workshop will be held Sept. 24 and a second date on Staten Island, sponsored by the N.Y. Institute of Anthropology. For information call 718-815-3460. N.Y. Archaeological Council general meeting, September 28th at the Best Western Airport Inn, Syracuse, NY. For information call 518-474-5813, Historic Iron-making Conference, sponsored by the North Jersey Highlands Historical Society, is October 19 and 20th at Ringwood State Park. For information call Edward Lenik at 201-492-8525. L.I. Council for the Social Studies conference and materials exhibit, October 21st at the Huntington Hilton, Melville. For information write LlCSS, P.O. Box 348, E. Setauket. PUBLICATIONS OF THE SUFFOLK COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION Readings in LI Archaeology & Ethnohistory: Alt volumes are $35. except Vol. III which is $75. + tax and shipping. Vol.s I & VI are out of prinL I. Eady Papers in Long Island Amhaeology II. The Coastal Agchaeology Reader IlL The Hist¢~/& Amhae~ngy of the Montauk, 2nd Edition IV. Languages & Lore of the Long Island Indians V. The Second Coastal A~'chaeolngy Reader VI. The Shinnecock Indians: A Culture History VII. The Historical Archaeology of Long Island: Part I: The Sites Stud~t Series: Boolde~ A Way of Life: Prehistoric Natives of LI $5.50 Study Pictures: Coastal Native Americans $7.50 Wall Chert: Native Technology (26X39" 3 colors) $13.00 Map: Neltve Long Island (26X39" 3 cokxs) $13.00 Exhibit Catal~e: The Montauk: Native Americans of Eastern L1 $3.50 Women's Work: Native & African Americans of Lf $3.50 CHARLES VCJb~[~ ~i~,~l~CIA' ~b, irqg,. E N V I R O N M E N T~A~..L~ ~_ .0~,~\¢ CONSULTANTS ~ '~t/// \\\\\ September 26, 1996 Bob Kassner Town of Southold Planning Board Office Town Hall, 53095 Main Road PD. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Indian Shores, Baxter Property Stage IB .~'chaeological Survey Revised Draf~ ElS Dear Bob: We are in receipt of the revised Drag EtS for the above referenced project, Please be advised that the review fee for review of the Stage IB Archaeological Study and the Draf~ ElS is $600.00.00 We expect to complete the review withia approximately 3 weeks of authorization to proceed. Thank you for your attention to this matter, a~d please call if questions. Very truly yours.,: Charles I. Voorhis, £EP, AIC? " ' ~UJ~--- 2, MILgER PLACE, NY 11764 "(516) 331-1455 * FAX 331-8046 54 NORTH COUNT,"%Y mOAD, C;HAHLES ~. (~UDDY 2~TTOHNEY AT LAw September 24, 1996 Planning Board Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Attn: Melissa Re: Indian Shores Estates Dear Melissa: I am enclosing replacement pages 21 and 22 (2 copies) for the Indian Shores DEIS. These pages were apparently not copied properly in the documents submitted to you. Please insert the pages in your copies. Thank you. Very truly yours, Charles R. Cuddy~ CRC:ejc Encs. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS RICHARD G. WARD Chalrnlan GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, Now York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telophone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 23, 1996 Charles J. Voorhis Charles Voorhis & Associates, Inc. 54 North Country Road Suite 2 Miller Place, New York 11764 RE: Major Subdivision Indian Shores SCTM# 1000-116-1-3 Dear Mr. Voorhis: Enclosed please find the Phase lB Archaeological Survey dated August 1996, for the above mentioned subdivision, which was received by the Planning Board on September 23, 1996. Please proceed with your review of the document to determine whether it is satisfactory with respect to its scope, content and adequacy for the purpose of commencing public review. As requested in my letter of September 18, 1996, please advise what the review fee is for review of the enclosed report and the revised DEIS which was sent to you under separate cover. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Planner enc. GHARLES 1~. GUDDY ATTORNEY AT LAW September 18, 1996 Planning Department Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Indian Shores Dear Members: Supplementing my previous correspondence enclosed please find two copies of the Phase lB Archaeological Survey Report which has been compiled to respond to all of the comments made by the Town's archaeological consultant. With the revised DEIS and this Archaeological Survey Report I believe the applicant has now complied with the Town's consultant's requirements and request that you confirm this so that the comment period may commence. Very truly yours, Charles R. Cudd~ ) CRC/pc Enc. (~I-IA.I:tL/~S lq[. (]]3UDDY ATTORNEY AT LAW September 17, 1996 Planning Board Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Indian Shores Dear Board Members: I am enclosing two copies of the revised DEIS for Indian Shores. The DEIS has been revised in accordance with the comments made in the June 21st, 1996 letter from Charles Voo~is and Associates. The specific areas addressed are as follow: Water Table Level Variations and Sanitary Separation Distances. pp. 39-52 & Figure 16a; Vegetation Map - pp. 55; Please also note that a separate report is Greenhouse Consultants which will address comments made by the Town's consultants. 3. Concentrations of Nitrogen in Recharge - pp. 83-107; 4. Expanded Fort Corchaug Site alternative - pp. 124-126; 5. Relocation of Well 53336 - Figure 10. being the forwarded by archeological Based upon our meetings and discussions I believe that the document as submitted is now complete and I would ask that Town's counsel to confirm their completeness so that we may proceed. One other point of information - please note that the McGuire Group is no longer present on Long Island and the DEIS is being completed by its original author, Jeffrey L. Seeman through Coastal Environmental Corporation. CRC/ec enc. cc: Mr. William Baxter Very truly yours, PLANNING BOARD M~EMBERS RICHARD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR.. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 18, 1996 Charles J. Voorhis Charles Voorhis & Associates, Inc. 54 North Country Road Suite 2 Miller Place, New York 11764 RE: Major Subdivision Indian Shores SCTM# 1000-116-1-3 Dear Mr. Voorhis: Enclosed please find a copy of a letter dated September 17, 1996 from Charles Cuddy, and a copy of the revised DEIS dated September 1996, for the above mentioned subdivision. Please proceed with your review of the document to determine whether it is satisfactory with respect to its scope, content and adequacy for the purpose of commencing public review. As noted in Mr. Cuddy's letter, a separate report is being forwarded by Greenhouse Consultants in regard to the archeological review. I will forward a copy upon receipt. Please advise what the review fee is for both reports. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Melissa Splx:O Planner enc. · ~ ' PI--~kNNING BOA]RD .~vlENIB RICHARD G WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCI-IIE ~, JR. BENNE~ O~OWS~, ~. ~LLL~M J. CREMERS ~NNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 5309.5 Main Road PO. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-i938 PI-,AzNrNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Jean Cochran, Town Supervisor Town Board Members FROM: Melissa Spire, Planner RE: Status of proposed subdivision for Indian Shores (Fort Corchaug sire) SCTM~ 1000-116-1-3 DATE: August 27, 1996 As per your request for a status update, please find the following in regard To the above mentioned subdivision: - The subdivision application before the Plarm2ng Board contains the following: a) A 36.47 acre parcel proposed to be purchased by the Town of Southold. b) Two (2) agricultural lots of 18.84 and I1.96 acres apiece. (Voluntary conservation easements are proposed which would Limit these lots to one residence per lot. ) c) A 5.67 acre lot proposed as an equestrian related lot w/th one residence; d) Thirteen (13) single-family lots ranging in size from slightly less than 2 acres to slightly more than 3.5 acres in area. - On May 1, 1995, the Planning Board, acting as lead agency, made a determination of a Positive Declaration under SEQRA on the proposed subdivision. - The Draft Environmental Impact Statement was received by the Planning Board on September 8, 1995. Indian Shores Page 2 August 27, 1996 The original DEIS and two subsequent revisions have been deemed incomplete by the Planning Board. The last revision was deemed incomplete on July 8, 1996. The Planning Board awaits information, mainly in regard to historical data, from the applicant in order to once again review the document for completeness in respect to its scope and content for the purpose of commencing public review. Charles Voorhis, the Planning Board's Environmental Consultant, informed me that the archeologists hired by Mr. Baxter and the archeologists hired by Mr. Voorhis, have been discussing the outstanding information, and that the information requested should be submitted soon. - When the Planning Board has determined that the DEIS is adequate for public review, a minimum 30 day public comment period will be initiated. -Although the public comment period has not been initiated, the Planning Board has started to receive correspondence in regard to the development of the site. As you know, Fort Corchaug is designated on the National Register of Historic Places. The designated area includes 25 acres with specific latitude and longitude coordinates. I asked Jack Sherwood of the Assessors Office to locate the approximate designated area on the proposed subdivision map. (The boundary lines are approximate only, as Jack transferred the lines from a map with a scale of 1" equals 24,000' to one with a scale of 1" equals 100 feet.) As shown on the attached map, all of the proposed lots, with the exception of the proposed "equestrian" lot and one of the thirteen single-family lots, are located within the area designated on the National Register of Historic Places. eno. I~ ~,~ ~..,-~..~,~'r _ INDIAN SHORES '~ Fo~" S~ Young & v ,-, ~aa~, ----% Telephone (516) 765-1601 To~vn Hall. 53095 Main Road P,O. Box 1179 Southold, Nev~ York 1197J- SOUTHOLD TOWN LANDMARK PRI~SilRVATION COMMISSION TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Supervisor Jean Cochran and Town Board Members Cliffo~en fleld, Chairman August 15, 1996 Southold Landmark Preservation Commission's Position and Recommendations Concerning the Fort Corchaug National Historic Site. The Southold Town Code established its Landmark Preservation Commission so as to assist the Town and owners of places, sites, etc., to conserve, protect and preserve the Town's unique character. As defined (56.3), such landmarks can have historical significance whose quality is based upon its identification with historic persons or events in the Town of Southold. By its own definition, the Town recognizes a landmark as any place or site which has historical value or aesthetic interest by reason of its antiquity or as part of the development, her- itage or cultural characteristics of the Town, County or Nation. As provided by Town Code 56.5, the duties of the commission are to: 1. Encourage preservation of landmarks through education. 2. Pro- mote and encourage historic awareness and judicious concern for designated landmarks. The Fort Corchaug site is designated as a National Landmark by the U.S. Department of the Interior. It includes 25 acres of archeo- logical sensitive land. As privately owned, it is not covered by the 1966 Federal Law protecting historic sites. The Fort Corchaug site not only includes a 17th century refuge fort site, but the site of an established Indian village dating back some 2200 years. It has been declared as the most intact archeological site of Indian life on the East Coast. Wampum used by the Indians and the 16th and 17th century white immigrants was manufactured at the site and warrants it being called the earliest mint in North America. -2- It cannot be disputed that these 25 acres are valuable to the essence of Southold's historic past. At this time these 25 acres are included in a plan to develop a 106 acre tract. In consideration of its reason for being, it is appropriate that the Southold Landmark Preservation Commission present its recommend- ations concerning Fort Corchaug to the Town Board in the order of their desirability: 1. In the interest of National and community pride for now and especially for posterity, that all 25 acres of the National site be left intact, with all possible public efforts to compensate the private owner for his loss of economic opportunity or the use of current funds, developed funds and tax benefits from all levels of government by whatever~means are feasible. 2. While the Town [s prepared to purchase 37-38 acres outlining the fort and access, for a million dollars, it should be recognized that the most archeologically sensitive area is south of the fort and along the shoreline and contains the historic and prehistoric indian village and gravesites. [t is paramount that these lots be pre- served. The current proposal to preserve the empty fort outline, its access and thirty feet surrounding the site (even with the prospect of collected artifacts being turned over to the appropriate authorities) is a poor pres- ervation of the National site. There are many ways to economically manage a public owned Fort Corchaug site eg: a restricted trail could preserve the site for future scholarly research. Volunteer personnel has never been lacking for worthy Town projects. This site could become a "Mecca" for the research of historic northeast Indian life and the impact of the white immigrant invasion. All efforts, including leadership, should be taken by the Town, State or National Government to preserve this site. The efforts of our preservation may not be tasted in our lifetime, but can be there to be enjoyed by our progeny. cc - Planning Board James McMahon SUFFOLK COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION NASSAU COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL COMMITTEE INCORPORATED UNDER NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW P.O. Drawer AR. Stony Brook, New York 11790 (516) 929-8725 August 9, 1996 Mr. Richard Ward, Chair Southold Planning Board Town Hall, Main Road Southold, NY 11971 AU612 i9o Dear Mr. Ward: We understand that there will soon be hearings regarding the acquisition by the Town of acreage around the Fort Corchaug site. We cannot emphasize too strongly the importance and value of this site. Some land is purchased by the county, various towns {the Shinnecock Fort site by Southampton Town, for example), Nature Conservancy, Peconic Land Trust, etc. to protect agricultural or environmentally sensitive parcels. Even more important to preserve for the future are prehistoric and historic cultural resources, such as Fort Corchaug. They are non-renewable, and a region loses a major part of its patrimony and history when they are allowed to be destroyed. S.C.A.A. is currently producing the 8th volume in its series, Readings in Long Island Archaeology & Ethnohistory, titled The Native Forts of Long Island. Long Island has the largest number of Native American forts in the Northeast. The centerpiece of this 400+ page book will be two chapters on Fort Corchaug by Drs. Ralph Solecki and Lorraine Williams. Other chapters will be on the fort at Montauk, Fort Shinnecock, and Fort Marsepeague; the Shelter Island fort has not yet been located. Even with the major part of the book about Fort Corchaug, much is still not known, so it remains an lmporEant sl~e ~or further archaeological research which would also benefit the area. While the Town should purchase the site to protect it, it is also acquiring a major historic attraction, which, if interpreted, would provide jobs for local people and revenue for businesses from the ancillary tourist spending. It would also be attractive for educational programs for regional schools, another source of income. We urge Southold Town to purchase the acreage Corchaug as a civic duty and as an investment health of the Town. surrounding Fort in the economic Sincerely, Gaynell Stone, Ph.D. Publications Editor TEXAS A&M UNIVERSI TY DEPARTMENT OE ANTHROPOLOGY COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77B43-4352 (409) 845-5242/5260 Mr. Richard Ward, Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall, Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Ward, July 27, 1996 Dr. Gaynell Stone of the Suffolk County Archaeological Associa- tion has informed me that the $~uthold Planning Board is entering into negotiations about the purchase of some acreage of the Baxter property on Downs Creek. Our special interest in this is that the 17 century Indian fort site, Fort Corchaug, is situated on this prop- erty. Fort Corchaug is certainly the best preserved of the three known contemporary Indian forts on eastern Long Island. Indeed, tQ my knowledge, it has no counterpart on the eastern seaboard of the United States. Fort Corchaug formed the basis of my masters dissertation at Columbia University (1950), and in part the doctorate dissertation of Dr. Lorraine Williams (1972) of the New Jersey State Museum. While we know something from these investigations about the fort site, which includes about 3/4 of an acre, we have knowledge of only about 20% of the fort perimeter, leaving a good deal for fut- ure archaeological investigations. The Fort Corchaug area, including the woods along the west bank of Downs Creek, has never seen the plow or cultivation from the time of its occupation by the Indians. It is one of the few archaeolog- ical sites known in this pristine condition on Long Island. The in- ground information under the top soil is undisturbed and intact for us to recover. The Corchaug Indians knew of this place well into prehistoric times. It was first occupied about at least 1000 B.C. by the holders of the so-called Orient Culture, who possessed a distinctive grave culture. At Fort Corchaug, the Orient Culture occupation traces are found stratified under the Historic and Woodland Period Culture layers. The former owner of the property, Mr. Downs, told me in the 1930's that they had found an Indian burial near the junction of his farm road and the Peconic Bay Boulevard south of the fort site. It is quite likely that other burials may be found in that area, or elsewhere on the property. Future work at Fort Corchaug would involve additional investigations on the palisade perimeter in order to obtain a fuller assessment of the fortification than I have been able to present. Moreover~ we need to know where the fort entry points were, and whether there were any houses or habi- tations inside the fort. A full excavation of the "well" in the northeast corner of the fort site, exploration to the north in the area of several shell heap traces~ and stripping of the Archaeol~y Conse~ation Ethnology ~lore Geoamhaeo~gy Nautical Archaeology Nutritional Anthropo~gy ~leoethnobo~ny ~lynology Ph~ical Anthropology Zooarchaeology of the topsoil to the immediate south of the fort for the tracing and excavation of additional suspected house structures is recom- mended. This may have been the village site of the 17th century Corchaug Indians. Such a proposed archaeological project might be conducted under the aegis of university trained archaeologists with the assistance of their students. Precedent for this has already been established in work on Shelter Island by archaeologists from SUNY Stony Brook. As at some archaeological site parks,i.e. Fort Shantok at Norwich, Conn., a complete or partial actual reconstruction of Fort Corchaug~ preferably to the north of the site, might be made. This would make for a valued educational attraction as a tangible bit of historic Indian/Colonial lore. Amplifying such an exhibit, a diorama showing what the fort looked like in the 17th century w6uld be highly instructive. I believe that the preservation of Fort Corchaug represents a trust to Southold Town as a unique.'cultural heritage of its early colonial history. Very sincerely yours, Ral~ S/'~6Ieckt Life Member Long Island Chapter and Past President New York State Archaeological Association Professor Emeritus, Columbia Univ. TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS COkLEGE STAT[ON~ TEXAS 77843-4352 (409) 845-5242/5260 Aug. 1, 1996 Mr. Richard Ward, Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall, Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Ward, I am enclosin~ a copy of one of my published papers which was not in the mailin~ I sent you last week. It relates to Fort Corchau~. For your information, Fort Corchaug publication, Suffol~ County Archaeological Association Gaynell Stone. I am writin~ an epilogue to my original which is planned to appear in one of the series edited by Dr. Sincerely yours, Adj. Prof. Archaeology Conservation Ethnology Folklore Geoarchaeology Naut;cal Archaeology Nutrltional Anthropology Paleoethnobotany Palynology Physical Anthropology Zooarchaeology T XAS A&M UNIVERS FY DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY Aug. 1, 1996 Mr. Richard Ward, Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall, Main Road Southold, Mew York 11971 Dear Mr. Ward, I am enclosin~ a copy of one of my published papers which was not in the mailin~ I sent you last week. to Fort Corchau~. For your information, Fort Corchaug publication, Suffol~ County Archaeological Association Oaynell Stone. It relates I am writin~ an epilogue which is planned to appear in one of series edited by Dr. to my original the Sincerely yours, AdJ. Prof. Archaeologt Conservation Ethnology ?olk/ore Geoarchaeolog~ ,%autica! Ar chaeolo~ ~, ' r~, Fat'ts of Nesa Enghtn~-Heva Yorl4eoolect:i INDIAN FORTS OF THE MID-17TH CENTURY IN THE SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND-NEW YORK COASTAL AREA Ralph S. Solecki According to a recent hypothesis in connection with the emergence of the wampum trade, some 17th-century Indian forts in the southern New England-New York coastal area were built as trading stations rather than for defense or refuge. This proposition has not been fully explored An examination of the data from the known Indian forts on Long Island and across the Long Island Sound in Connecticut and Rhode Island indicates that the proposition needs review. Only three out of nine forts discussed here appear to qualify as trading stations. These date comparatively late in the second half of the 17th century. Selon une rEcente hypothese concernant l'Emergence du commerce du wampoum, certains forts amErindiens du XV[I~ dans la region cfti~re du Sud de la Nouvelle-Angleterre et de New York ont EtE construits comme postes de traite plut~t que de defense ou de refuge. Cette hypoth~se n'a pas ErE explorEe dans le detail. II y a lieu de la revoir ~ la lumi~re d'un examen des donnEes provenant des forts amErindiens connus de Long Island et d'au-del~ du detroit de Long Island au Connecticut et au Rhode Island. Seulement trois des neufs forts portEs ~ l'attention semblent constituer des postes de traite. Ces forts remontent a une Epoque relativement tardive de la seconde moitiE du XVI~ sikcle. Dissenting from the general opinion that the accepted function of the pal- isaded Indian forts in the southern New England-New York coastal area were defensive or refuge structures, we have the recent suggestion that at least some of them were built primarily for the dian trade. Lyrm Ceci (1980), who has made an analysis of the rote of the wampum trade in the northeast, ap- pears to think that Indian forts built on waterways were purposefully located for access by colonial traders. Her proposition is an interesting one and well worth exploring. Construction of forts by the Indians appears to have been known well before the arrival of the Europea-~s (Ford and Willey 1941: 357-359; Hadlock 1947: 217; Squier t850: 10; Thomas 1894: 667, 671). Beauchamp (1891: 51) estimates that nearly 200 defensive works were noted by ali observers in New York state. When ChamplaIn visited the coast of New England in 1605, he found in Maine a permanent Indian settlement surrounded by a palisade wall. Outside were scattered wigwams and small gar- dens. The Indians took refuge tn the fort when attacked (Bushnell 1919: 18- 19). Bushnell (1919: pl. 4a, 4b) illustrates two Indian forts from the 1651 Map of Novi Belgii, which he as- cribes to Van der Donk. One is a rectangular palisaded Mahican village, and the other ts a Minisink Northeast Historical Archaeology/VoL 21-22, 1992-1993 65 vLLlage enclosed by a round palisade enclosure with an overlapping entry way. Williams (personal communication, 1968) says that no evi- dence of fortification has been found in the Minisink area despite intensive survey and excavations. Brasser (1978: 198) says that the Mahican Indians usually selected hilltops near the river for their palisaded villages. Beauchamp (1891: 10-11), on the other hand, notes that although camps were on the river in New York, towns and forts were almost always some distance from them. The Mahicans wanted not only strong positions, but situations where they could not be reached by waterways and canoes. Similarly, Ritchie and Funk (1973: 363) say that Iroquois sites of the early contact period between 1615 and 1635 on the Mohawk River were located well back on high, readily defended hills. Regarding fort construction, it is re- ported by Beauchamp (1905: 13-14) that the Indians used logs burned to three paces in length (about 15 fi, 4.5 m) for their palisades. Champlain and Cartier (FIodge 1910: 471) had observed that some Iroquois fortifications had 20-ft-t-tigh walls (6 m). One especially towering structure had quadruple inter- locked palisades 30 ft high (9 m) (Beauchamp 1905: 113). Van der Donck (1656: 197) describes a fort construction that, upon disinte- g-ration, would leave no trace. He says that the indians first laid down large logs along the ground in the outline de- sLred, adding smaller logs in a heap. They set logs upon both sides of the heap in a kind of inverted "V,' so that the upper ends crossed each other. The upper ends were joined together for sta- bility. Finally, tree trunks were placed in the crossed upper ends, which solidi- fied the whole structure in a firm bul- wark. it did not requh-e any buttressing or any excavation. Beauchamp (1905: 111-112, pl. 2) suggests that the earlier indian forts had this kind of construc- tion. A kind of gallery along the top of the works could be set up around the whole perimeter for defense. The more economical use of timber for making a palisade was to set indi- vidual logs in the ground around the perimeter, and to bank earth against both sides for stability. Thee methods of setting the posts in place were ap- parently known in the New York-New England area. The first method was to scoop out individual holes in the ground for each post. This involved the labor of excavation using either a wooden spade or scoop or a similar implement, or perhaps a large marine shell. The logs were then set in and firmed up. An- other method, best used in sandy soil, was to excavate a continuous trench with a hoe of some kind to a depth of two and a half or three feet (Willoughby 1906: 105). The logs were then set down into the trench and stabi- lized with earth on both sides of the wall. These first two methods could be done without benefit of any European metal tools. The third method, which appears to have been used in the post- contact period, was to sharpen the basal ends of the palisade logs, and to drive the posts down into the ground. Whether the posts were driven down is an open question, as it would appear that someone would have to clamber up somehow to the top of the structure and pound the posts home with some kind of heavy mallet. We find support for the above methods in early documentation and ar- chaeologically. PhiLip Vincent (1638: 105) of Mystic Fort, Connecticut mas- sacre fame, gives us a much quoted de- scription for fort construction in New England. He says that the palisade posts at Mystic were about as thick as a 66 Forts ~' New En ~hmd-N~o yor~ man's thigh or the calf of his leg. The posts were about 12 ft (3.6 m) high, and were rammed into the ground about three f~et, "with undermining." Earth was cast up around the walls for extra protection. The palisade defenders shot arrows at their ~ggressors through "loop holes" La the palisade wall. These holes were formed by fitting un- dressed logs together, leaving spaces between individual logs. Squier (1850: 82) thought that an embankment of earth from the surrounding ditch was essential in fort construction for the erection and support of the palisade. He suggests that when iron implements became available, the laborious work of digging and propping up the posts be- came unnecessary. To Squier, this ex- ptaLaed the finding of palisades with- out trenches and accompanying em- bankments of earth. Regarding the change from circular or round to rectangular or oblong forts, Squier (1850) thin_ks that the modifica- tion was probably the result of imitat- ing the Europeans, or came from the newer modes of fighting with firearms. Given the practicahty of the matter, however, it was most certainly the troduction of the ixon i~mplements that was the deciding factor. The bastion, as a fort feature in this area, appears to have been a late post-contact phe- nomenon, most Likely following the Eu- ropean mode of fort construction, be- cause it was not found on more ancient Indian fortifications (Squier 1850). Beauchamp (1905: 114) says that the French showed the indians how to use the bastion, and the English built forts and blockhouses for them. The palisade structures were no doubt adequate defense for the Indians in pre-contact times, and provided secu- rity for women and children. They were, however, usually very flimsy and no match against the guns of the colo- nials, with their European industry and talent in waging war. As a matter of fact, as Van der Donck (1656: 197) has observed, the palisaded villages did more injury than good, as they proved to be a death trap. To the European, war was a deadly business for professionals. To the indians, it was a kind of manly sport (Denton 1670: 9; Underhill 1638: 40-41). The Long Island Indi,xn Forts At present we know of five, or pos- sibly six, Indian forts on Long Island (FIG. I; Parker 1922; Solecki 1950). Tooker (1888) believed that each of the "13 tribes" of Long Island had a fort, or at least a place of refuge. This is not an unlikely possibility given the strained relations of the late prehistoric and early historical times on Long Island. We have some archaeological knowl- edge proving the existence of four of the forts. The fifth, on Shelter Island, is fairly well documented ~n the colonial Literature, but has not yet been located archaeologically. A sixth, near Mon- tauk Point, is fleetingly mentioned in the literature and its status is uncon- firmed. The Long Island for~s are sum- marized as follows. Fort Massapeag Located in the town of Massapequa, a suburban community on western Long Island's south shore off South Oyster Bay, Fort Massapeag is on the edge of a salt marsh Ln an area known since the late 17th century as "Fort Neck." It is on a small rise of ground about 660 yd (594 m) from the bay, and about the same distance &om a creek to ~he west. Still preserved by the township in a mini-park, the site ties about 8 to l0 ft above mean sea level. It is situated lq~;ure 1. Locatiorts of Indian forts in the southern New England-New York area. ~8 F~ts ~f N~s~ En~h~d-Ne~ about 500 yd (450 m) southwest from the main Massapequa Indian village and burial ground. Attention was first drawn to the fort earthworks through a communication in 1811 of a local resident, Judge Samuel Jones, to the New-York Historical Society (Clinton 1821). Jones said that there had been another Indian fort, long since eroded away, on the southern most point of the salt meadow on the bay. Fort Massa- peag was very likely gone before the Fort Neck properties were drawn up in 1684 (Barck 1926-1927: 57, figure oppo- site p. 92). No traces of either fort are shown on the map, but the surveyor in- dicated that at least seven Indian houses were present on Fort Neck. It is very likely that the palisade posts, precious commodities in a timber-poor area, were removed after the forts were abandoned. Judge Jones could be blamed for starting the unfounded tale that Cap- rain John Underhill, also of Mystic Fort massacre fame, slayed the Massapequa Indians near Fort Massapeag in 1653 (Solecki n.d.). The fort was brought to scholarly attention in an archaeologi- cal journal by Burggraf (1938). About the same time in the 1930s, Smith (1950, 1954) and Solecki (n.&, 1985) in- dependently and together visited and measured the site. All of the fort ditches and embankments were plainly prominent. The fort was almost exactly 100 ft square (30 m) within the ditches. There were two bastions, one on the northwest comer and one on the south- east comer, and a break in the embank- ment on the northeast comer, which may have been one entryway, albeit a narrow one. The major entryway ap- pears to have been at the southeast bastion head, where there was no ditch or embankment. The ditches measured about 6 ft (1.8 m) across. The embank- ment was about a foot higher than the interior of the fort. An ovate refuse midden composed mainly of shell refuse was present at the southeastern side of the fort. In the midden were found abo- riginal artifacts, including Shantok ware (Smith t950; Solecki n.d.) as well as datable colonial trade items. Some were datable to between c. 1635 to 1660. We can perhaps fix the date by ex- amining the colonial documents (Brodhead 1859: I: 387). The principal sachem of the Massapequa Indians was Tackapausha, who was intermediary and signatory for his tribe, first with the Dutch and later with their succes- sors, the English. We are very fortu- nate that the site never saw the plow in its entire history. It appears that the Dutch (within whose sphere of influence Massapequa fell) had directions to construct a fort for trade and safeguard in the Oyster Bay area in 1656. We cannot be positive that Fort Massapeag was built by the Dutch or under their supervision, but a number of indications point to their involvement. We- have knowledge of at least six pal- isade post ends (Johannemann 1983; Smith 1954; Solecki n.d.), that were re- covered from the area of the west wall. Four of these were lost. Examination of the two remaining showed that they had been pointed with a sharp chop- ping tool like an axe. The posts were from 6-10 in (8.5-25.4 cra) in diameter, and appear to have been made of red cedar. Of incidental note, there was no indication of a linear trench dug into the ground for the placement of the posts. From this we infer that the posts had been driven into the sandy soil. Burggraf (1938) was very much Lrn- pressed by the quantity of the wampum manufacturing debris he recovered at Fort Massapeag. He made a study of the technique of wampum making at Massapeag from raw material to fin- Horthe~st Historical Arckaeolog3dVoL 21-22, 1992-1953 69 ished product. In the same refuse mid- den, a number of handwrought iron nails whose pointed ends were clinched at right angles were recovered. This would indicate that some sawn boards were used in the fort construction. A couple of shovel tests within the fort perimeter revealed no occupational traces. Indeed, the interior area, 10,000 ft2 (900 m2), was too small to house the Massapequa population. Their eccupa- tional remains covered several acres outside the fort (Solecki, n.d.). Fort Corchaug Located near Cutchogue, on a neck of land known since the 17th century as "Fort Neck," Fort Corchaug is the best preserved fort site knoWn on Long Island (Smith 1950; Solecki 1950, 1985; Tooker 1911; williams 1972). The site is situ- ated on the west bank of Downs Creek, a shallow tidal creek emptying into the Peconic Bay in the south. The fort was known and visited by both the Dutch and EngEsh before the middle of the 17th century. Although the Dutch made strong overtures to the Corchaug Indians in this area they called "Crommegow," they lost out to the En- glish. The latter, based in closer Con- necticut, brought their influence to bear as seen in the quantity of EngLish trade goods at Corchaug. Both English and Dutch were particularly interested in wampum, a lucrative good that was easily convertible into furs in the Iro- quois country. Wampum manufacturing featured rather heavily in the economy of Fort Corc,haug. The fort was built about 1640 and appears to have gone by 1662 (Solecki 1950). It was a palisaded structure, roughly oblong in shape, with two ex- tensions, presumably bastions, one on the northwest end and one on the north- east end. The embankments enclosed an area of about three quarters of an acre. The enclosure measured about 210 ft (63 m) north-south and 160 ft (48 m) east- west. The embankments on the four sides measured a max'm~um of about 15 ft (4.5 m) wide and about 1.5 ft (0.45 m) high. There was a single row of pal- isade posts along the north, west, and much of the south walls, plus double and even multiple paLisades on the east wall facing the creek. At the southeast coruer there were multiple palisade wails, like a set o[ baffles. The site is about 10 ft (3 m) above the creek level. j. Wickham Case (1882: 120-121) noted an entry in the town records dated February 16, 1662, stating that the fort that had stood by the creek had been erected about the time of the settlement of Southold town (c. 1640) for refuge and as a secure place for the Indian women and chilc[ren in case of invasion and as- sault by neighboring tribes. They were often at war with groups from the mainland, particularly the Narragartsetts, who took the place of the Pequots as aggressors. Excavations in the palisade area at various points revealed that the pal- isade posts had been set into linear trenches dug about 2.5 ft (0.75 m) deep. Earth was heaped both in.side and out- side of the palisade. No occupational traces were noted inside the fort area. Several small wigwam sites were found to the south of the south palisade wail (Solecki 1950), however. The major village of the Corchaug indiar~s was on the next neck of land to Lhe east. The name of the Corchaug sachem who figured in the early Southold town records was gomoweta. He was succeeded by Paucamp, who signed away the last parcels of Corchaug land to the English. By then (at least by 1662), the fort had probably been aban- doned and the palisade posts had been stripped from the fort as valuable 70 Forts of Neva England-New York/Solecki wood. There is no record that the fort had ever been attacked.' Fort Shinnecock A sister fort of Fort Corchaug was situated across i~econic Bay in the Shin- necock Hills in the township of Southampton. Tooker (1892) says that fort was probably located at a place called 'Sepunak,' but the exact site was unlcnown. The site of the fort was located in 1989 by Robert Miller during an archaeological survey of the Bay- berry HilLs site, Shinnecock HilLs, in the township of Southampton (Miller 1990). The maximum elevation of the elongated hill on which the fort was located is about 95 ft (28.5 m) asl. Down.slope to the south from the knob of the hill were found five embankments at about the 70 ft (21 m) elevation. These traces measured between 300 (90 m) and 400 ft (120 m) long in the area investigated. They were roughly parallel, extending east and west following the hill contours. There were indications that a quadruple embankment enclosed the in- nermost part of the Bayberry site. Miller (1990: 41) believes that this site was occupied during the middle of the 17th century, or between c. 1630-1660. The Shinnecock Indians under their sachem, Nowedonah, undoubtedly built the fort for protection against their en- emies, the Narragansett Indians of Rhode Island (Bayles 1874: 400). He (1990: 45) also suggests that the struc- ture had entrances at the eastern and western ends. Miller does not report the finding of any substantial postmolds in the embankments, nor a trench in which palisade posts could have been placed. There were a number of postmolds, only a few centimeters in diameter, found in a line paralleling one of the embank- ments. To explain the absence of size- able palisade postmolds or trenches, we would have to resort to some specula- tion. Since this area was virtually treeless in Indian times and wood was precious, it is possible that either the palisade posts, which may not have been set in a trench, were removed after the fort fell into disuse, or another method of fortification was used. We may hypothesize that a linear cage of boughs was woven closely together, filled with earth, and topped with some kind of impeding structure. The traces of the associated Shin- necock village covered about 30 acres (Miller 1990: 48). With the exception of one gunflint spall, all of the artifacts recovered in the test excavations were aboriginal in origin. They appear to be primarily rough stone tools including anvil stones, adzes, hammerstones, hoes, sinew stones, and burned stones. No mention is made of projectile points, chipping debitage, or wampum manu- facturing debris. The only European item was the gumqint spall. It should be mentioned that test digging was dif- ficult, for there was a 3--4 ft (0.9-1.2 m) accumulation of soil over the original 1(:~O ground surface (Miller 1990: fig. 1). Fort Montauk Since it is impossible to trace the outlines of Fort Montauk today, our best description is the one by Tooker (1893). He visited the site in 1885, and appears to have taken measurements. He found the earthen outlines to be a perfect square, 180 ff (54 m) on each side. The earth embankment was about 6 ft (1.8 m) wide and 1.5 ft (0.45 m) high. There were no signs of any bastions or other features on the comers. The entrance was close to the southeast comer. The area enclosed was about three quarters of an acre. The elevation of Fort Hill, as it Ls called, is about 90 ft (27 m). It is Northeast Historical Archaeology/Vol. 21-22, 1992-1993 71 located just to the northeast of Fort Pond. There is a precipitous bluff down to the pond from the site on its western edge and a more gradual slope on the eastern side. There is a panoramic view from the hilltop to the north, west, and south. ~ fort was called the "new fort," and it was still standing in 1661 (Johannemann 1983: 7-8, 74). Tooker (1893) said that he saw 40 Indian graves inside the fort, each marked by cobbles. Outside the perimemr he counted 10 more, and down the slope to the northwest were 86 more graves, a total of 136 burials. All were marked in some manner. On many of the hill sides and neighboring valleys Tooker reports that there were shallow depressions and heaps of stones marking old Indian cabin sites. Edward Johannernarm (1983) pre- pared an initial cultural resource survey of Fort Hill and vicinity in Montank for the town of East Hampton. While unable to confirm completely Tooker's observations because of modern construction, notably a World War I installation and a later hotel, Johannemann had some success. Destroyed by the construction was much of the fort, village area, and the burial ground. Johannemann (1983: 76, figs. 27, 28) was fortunate in recovering what appears to be evidence of one of the palisade walls. It consisted of a trench about 2.5 ft (76 cra) deep with a mid- section width of about 10 in (25 cra). The trench stain was fairly consistent in depth. There was an elevation of the ground surface above the trench, and a hearth pit to the east lying in a hollow area. An aboriginal potsherd was found in the pit. Johannemann's (1983: 87-92) find- ings included aboriginal as well as Eu- ropean trade goods. Among the former are quartzite flakes, projectile points including a Levarma point, and ceram- ics, including Shantok-type rim and body sherds. Among the European items were copper projectile points, heavily rusted objects of iron and steel, and broken white day trade pipes. The excavators also recovered subsistence remains, indudirtg fish and shellfish. Johanneman (1983: 91) remarks that it was curious that not one wampum bead or any evidence of wampum n-~nu- facture was found anywhere in the ex- cavations on Fort Hill, although the sachem of the Montauks, Wyandanch, was known to have paid a huge ransom in wampu.m for his daughter who was kidnapped by the Narragansetts, mor- tal enemies. It is quite possible that the. fort was used principally as a refuge during attacks as Tooker (1893) suggests. The wampum makers would understandably have preferred to do their work in close proximity to the source of their raw material on lower lying land. We have no definite dates, but the fort was probably built about the mid- dle of the 17th century, and as we have noted, was reported to be st:ill standing in 1661. Johannemann (1983: 76) makes an interesting observation regarding the fate of the palisade wails. He says that since wood was a scarce commodity durLng and following the 17th century, the walls were probably dismantled when the fort was abandoned. The same fate probably happened to the other forts on Long Island, notably Forts Corchaug, Shirmecock, and Massapeag. Shelter Island Tooker (1888) says that there was supposed to be art Indian fort on Shelter Island on Sachem's neck opposite Sag Harbor. The site was not known in Tooker's time, and has never been lo- cated to our knowledge. 72 Forts af New England-N~ Yorklc~lec~i Fresh Pond Fort An old Montauk fort was reportedly situated on the eastern extremity of Montauk Point near Fresh Pond; the pond is near the Hither CNominick) Hills. The fort ha,d supposedly fallen into decay by the time the English ar- rived in 1640. Smith and Solecki vis- ited the area on a survey in 1947, but no trace of the fort could be seen (Solecki 1950: 13). The Connecticut Indian Forts We have some documentary and ar- chaeological knowledge of three In~tian forts in Connecticut, one of was built by the Mohegans (Fort Shantok), two by the PequotS (Mystic Fort and Fort Hill). Of the three fortS, Fort Shentok is best known archaeologically. It is Mystic Fort whose fame is legendary, however. Eyewitness reportS of the massacre that took place at the site were indelibly fixed in history over 350 yearS ago. The forts are described below. Fort Shantok This palisaded Mohegan Indian fort site is located on the west bank of the Thames River on a triangular promontory formed the junction of this river with the Shantok Brook from the west. The site is about 3 mi (4.8 km) south of Norwich, Connecticut, and rests about 50 ft ( 15 m) above the river level. There were two major indian occupationS; the first was between c. 1635 to 1680, and the second was a reOccupation of the site between c. 1710 and 1750. We are concerned with the earlier occupation. The site was listed in the National Register of Historic Places on March 20, 1986. It is now protected in a state park and occupies about an acre, or 200 x 200 ft (60 x 60 m). In the park is the fortified vLilage as well as the Mohegan Indian cemetery (Gruner 1990: 141; Salwen 1966; Williams 1972: fig. 2). The site, naturally defensible, is easily reached by boat. Uncas, sachem of the Mohegans, made Shantok' his home during the 17th century. His name figured heavily in the early history of Connecticut. He died in 1683. The site was excavated by Bert Salwen with the help of studentS dur- ing the sttmmers of 1962 through 1968 and 1970. He set up the chronological sequence for the site. Three linear pat- terns of palisades were found, which are believed to represent three distinct episodes of fort construction. Palisade No. 1, which defended the western side toward Shantok Brook and the southern neck approaCh, was set in a linear trench. According to Williams (1972: 77), this was presumably evidence of an early period before the Mohegan obtained metal tools. palisades Nos. 2 and 3 appear to be additions to or reinforcementS of the original structure. These palisades were identified as consisting of individually set pointed postS. This is reminiscent of the Fort Massapeag construction, which appears to have had axe-pointed posts that were driven into the earth, but there is no mention of embankments at Fort Shantok. There was abundant evidence that there was a village within the preCinCtS of the fort, including hearthS, pitS, and building structures. Aborigi- nal and colonial trade artifacts were recovered Ln numbers. Williams (1972: 158) believes that the fort existed be- fore 1635-1640. She suggests that the Shantok fort of this period was used only as a place of refuge during periods of threat of attack. During the later Northeast Historical Archaeology/VoL 21-22, 1992-1993 73 Early Htstnrical Period (1635-1660), Williams (1972: 181) believes that Fort Shantok was a fortified settlement or village, not a seasonally occupied site or a place for intermittent refuge. It was during the Middle Historical Pe- riod (c. 1660-1680) that Palisade No. 3 was built, going around the stone foun- dation of a building that must pm~iate the construction of the palisade. The manner of the const~'uction of the stone building indicated to Williams that it was built by Europeans rather than by Lndians. Palisade No. 3 was probably built about 1670-1675 in connection with King Philip's War, enclosing a much smaller area than the original fortifi- cation. There was a heavy concenl~:a- lion of occupational debris around the stone foundation at the southeast corner of the fort. There was a very large amount of wampum manufacturing debris recov- ered at Fort Shantok datable to the Early Historical Period (Williams 1972: 180). Wampum manufacture ap- pears to have declined markedly in the Middle Historic Period. Fort Shantok is the type site for the historic Shantok aboriginal ceramics (Rouse 1947; Smith 1950). Mystic Fort The Mystic Pequot Fort is one of the best known Indian forts in New England history (McBride 1990; Orr 1897; Sal- wen 1978; Washburn 1978). It was raised to prominence by the disastrous massacre of the indians by the English and their allies on May 26, I637. We have several eyewitness accounts and even a drawing of the battle scene (Underhill 1638). The indian allies of the English were the Mohegan, Narra- gensett, and Niantics. The Pequots, un- der their sachem, Mamoho, were re- ported in the colonial literature to have had their palisaded village atop a great hill a quarter of a mile west of the Mystic River. There was a small brook on the west side, about a quarter of a mile down the hill. Mystic Fort is estimated to have contained as many as 70 wigwams, which would have repre- sented a fairly large population. In- deed, Captain Underhill, one of the En- glish leaders, says that 400 "souls" per- ished in half an hour (Ceci 1990: 60; Underhill 1638). The fort compound, in a circular palisaded structure, encom- passed about two acres. The description of the fort construction ts given by Philip Vincent, one of the participants in the baffle (Vincent 1638). The site of what ts believed to be the Mystic Fort was located in 1987 by KevIn McBride of the University of Connecticut. The area, a hilltop, is presently referred to as Pequot Hill, and has recently been developed for housing. Farmers in previous days had picked up aboriginal Indian and colo- nial artifacts from neighboring plowed fields. A local resident reported that his father had told him about a circu- lar embankment that had extended for several rods in diameter across a field on the sUmrmt of Pequot Hill (McBride 1990: 98). Plowing turned up charred wood, corroded bullets, and Indian relics in this area. Among the artifacts recovered, McBride (1990) says that the most im- portant find was pottery similar to the Niantic-Hackney Pond type in the Windsor tradition. This is a special kind of ceramic found only on late 16th- and early 17th-century sites in eastern Connecticut. They are distinguishable from the Fort Shantok types of wares found associated with Mohegan sites along the Thames River. No menhon was made of wampum manufacturing debris on Pequot Hill. Like Forts Shin- necock and Montauk, which were also 74 Forts of Nc'el England-New York/SolecJci placed on high hills some distance from estuaries, we believe that wampum manufacturing took place close to the raw material source. McBride suggests that the existence of fortified villages,, at least in eastern Connecticut, is related to European con- tact. The fortified villages were larger than standard Pequot villages, which were "almost without exception" situ- ated along estuaries (McBride 1990: 101). In 1636, John Endicott razed two Pequot villages (unfortified) on the Thames River. This action sparked the Pequot War of 1637. Fort Hill A lesser known Pequot fort, a con- temporary of Mystic Fort on Pequot Hill, was located on Fort Hill at Wein- shauks, near Groton. It was on the east side of the mouth of the Thames River (see FIG. 1). The paramount sachem of this fort was Sassacus (McBride 1990: 101-t03). It has a termInus date of 1637, following the defeat and dispersion of the Pequots by the English. Some Pequots were assigned to the .EngLish as spoils of war. About 200 to 300 Pequot warriors, and presumably their families as well, melded into the Mohegan tribe during the period following the Pequot War (McBride 1990: 105). Rhode Island Indian Forts Fort Ninigret, now a part of Fort Ninigret State Park, m Charlestown, Rl-tode Island, was the focus of investi- gations under the direction of Bert Sal- wen (Grumet 1990: 369; Salwen and Mayer 1978). The site was hsted on the National Register of Historic Places on April 28, 1970. Salwen and Mayer (1978) thought that Fort Ninigret was established primarily as a trading cen- ter. Its location on a protected water- way made it readily accessible to ship- borne traders. It is thought that the fort was used during the spring and summer months, mainly by Niantic men. During these periods, the occupants lived within the fort enclosure~ The fort, which had been pal- isaded, now comprises a roughly squared earthworks, each side not quite 160 ff (48 m), with a total area of about 25,500 sq ft (229.5 m2) or a bit larger than half an acre. There were bastions on three of the corners. There is a con- tinuous iow embankment around the perimeter composed of stone rubble and earth. The embankment evidently was thrown up to support the palisade walls. According to the description of the works, the posts were apparently driven into the ground. From this it is inferred that the ends of the posts had been pointed, most likely with a Euro- pean iron axe. All of the features of the structure suggest that this fort had been engineered after European design with the help of European tools. The site takes its name from the historic Niantic chief, Ninigret, whose name was a household word in early historical Connecticut. Fort Ninigret is dated between 1620 and 1680. Within the precincts of the enclosure evidence of occupation was recovered. These in- clude aboriginal hthic tools and deb- itage waste, European trade goods, and food refuse. Ninigret is notable as a wampum manufactory. Following Ce- ci's (1980) reasoning, Fort Ninigret may have been essentially set up as a trad- ing post where wampum was made for the trade. Great Swamp Fort It was only a matter of txme before the Narragansetts, the successors to the Northeast Hist~ria~l Archaeolog~/Vol. 21-22, 1992-1993 75 Pequots, had their power broken by Eu- ropeans in a rather similar massacre in 1675 (Brasser 1978; Washburn 1978). Theiz large palisaded village in the Great Swamp near West Kingston, like the Mystic Fort, became a virtual death trap for the occupants. About 300 warriors and more than 300 women and children were killed. The site of the battle has never been precisely located (Grnmet 1990: 137-138). The fort was also known as King Philip's Fort. It was located in a swamp on a piece of firm ground about three or four acres in area. The fort was palisaded, but was never quite finished. Inside the perimeter was reported to be a clay wall. The earthworks were built under the direction of "StonewaLl John," an Indian engineer. He may have been aided by a renegade white man. The Great Swamp Fort was described by Lion GardIner (,lohanneman 1983: 8-9; Penhallow 1859: appendix 181-183). Ellis and Morris (1906: 150-151) say that the fort had flankers and block- houses in addition to the stockade. The attackers were able to cross the swamp because it was frozen at the time. Other Forts in the Coastal Area Undoubtedly there were other forts within the area of our survey, but we have no firm knowledge of them. Men- tioned in the literature was an indian "fort" that had been attacked by the Dutch in 1644 on Strickland's Plains at Poundridge, Westchester County, New York (Brodhead 1859:I: 390-391). Some 500 Indians were said to have been slaughtered there, while the Dutch suffered orfly 15 wounded. No archaeo- logical reports that we know of have confirmed this event. McBride (personal commUracation, 1991) investigated the Fort Island site on Block Island, Rhode Island. It was described as a native fort in 166t and an English fortification in 1705. Grumet (1990: 138), citing McBride's 1989 re- port, says that there was no evidence of village palisades or of wampum pro- duction, although both had been noted in the records. Conclusion In this survey of nine contact period Indian fort sites in southern New Eng- land and coastal New York, we have some definitive information with which to test Ceci's (1980) hypothesis. She (Ceci 1980: 78, 82) suggests that the Indians who wi.shed to encourage Euro- pean traders seeking wampum located their sites close to deeper waters so that their ships could dock. Ceci (1980: 84) took the position that the Indian "forts" (her quotations), which were in use between 1635-1665, appear to be a new type of site in the local area. She was of the opinion that they had been specifically promoted by European in- production of wampum for the trade (Ceci 1982, 1990). Only one site on Long Island, Fort Massapeag, which may have been built under the supervision of the Dutch i~ 1656, meets Ceci's criteria for a trading station. Because of its small size, it could not have served as a refuge from possible attack for a large Indian popu- lation. It was a wampum manufactory. Fort Corchaug, although it is accessible to a major waterway, appears to have functioned as a refuge as well as a was evidently done witheut the aid of metal tools. Forts Montauk and Shin- necock, located on commanding hilltops, well away from navigable 76 Forts of N~'to England-Nero york./Solacki possible attack. No wampum or wampum manufacturing debris was found on either site, although the exca- vation tests were limited in scope. In Connecticut, the only known site meeting Ceci's criteria is Fort Shantok. It was only in the liter period of the fort's occupation that we have wampum in considerable quantity, however. The other two forts, Mystic Fort and Fort Hill, were on commanding elevated hilltops, well away from navigable water. No wampum manufacturing debris is recorded from these sites. It should be also noted that both Mystic Fort and Fort Hill were built in the early circular style, without bastions. In Rhode Island, we have one clear candidate for a wampum atading sta- tion, Fort NLnigret. Wampum manufac- turing debris was recovered in quantity from the site. We know much less about King Philip's Fort site. We have no ev- idence from it regarding wampum pro- duction. But the site was not on naviga- ble water, and it was evidently purely a large defensive structure, apparently built with knowledgeable supervision and. European methods. Current ar- chaeological investigations on the Block Island site may resolve the ques- tions about the native fort that report- edly existed there in the 17th century. The building of forts by local coastal Indians appears to have been well under way before the Europeans arrived. The conclusion from this is that they were built as defensive mea- sures against hostile neighbors. We know that the manufacture of wampum was not necessarily tied in with de- fenses. Some large fortified structures which apparently housed large indian populations were not trading posts. This leaves us with the conclusion that out of the nine forts considered here, we have three structures (Forts Massapeag, Shantok, and Ninigret) that may be considered as bona fide In- dian trading stations. One of these, Fort Shantok, had apparently been con- structed in pre-contact times, and was only later readapted for use as a trad- ing station. Hence while Ceci's argu- ment for the use of Indian forts as trad- ing stations appears to be a reasonable claim, it cannot be applied as a blanket statement. References Bardq Dorothy C., ed. 1926- Papers of the Lloyd Family of the 1927 Manor of Queens VUlage, Lloyd's Neck, Long Island, New York, 1654-1826. Collections of the New-York Historical Socie~ 59- 60. Beauchamp, W. M. 1891 Earthworks and Stockades. The American Antiquarian and Orien- tal [ournal 13(1): 42-51. 1905 Aborigunal Use of Wood in New York. New York State Museum Bulletin 41: 75--146. Bayles, Richard N. 1874 Historical and Descriptive Sketches of Suffolk County. Port Jefferson, NY. Brasser, Theodore J. C. 1978 Early Indian-European Contacts. In Northeast, ed. by Bruce G. Trig- ger, 77-88. Vol. I5 of Hand-book of North American Indians, ed. by William G. Sturtevant. Smithsc- nian Institution Press, Washing- ton, D.C. Brodhead, John Romeyn 1859 Histor~j of the State of New York, 1609-1664. Harpers, New York. Burggraf, James D. 1938 Some Notes on the Manu/acmre of Wampum Prior to I654. American Antiquity 15: 53-58. Bushnell, David L. 1919 Native Villages and Village Sites East of the Mississippi River. Bu- reau of American Ethnolog~j Bul- letin 69. Washington, D.C. Northeast Historical Archaeology~Vol. 21-22, 1992-1993 Case, J. Wickman 1852 Southold Town Records. The Towns of Southold and Riverhead, N.Y., Vols. 1, 2, Libers A-C. Cec/, Lynn 1980 The First Fiscal Crises in New York. Economic Development and Cultural C.h~,.n. ge 28(4): 839-847. 1982 Tbe Value of Wampum Among the New York Iroquois: A Case Study in Artifact Analysis. Journal of Anthropological Research 38(1): 97-107. 1990 Native Wampum as a Peripheral Resou_me in the Sevextteenth-C. en- fury World-System. In The Pe- quots in Southern Nero England, ed. by [a~ NL I-b. uptma~ and James D. Wherry, 48-63. Univer- sity of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Clinton, De Witt 1821 A Discourse Delivered Before the New-York Historical Society De- cember 6, 1811. Collections of the New-York Historical Society for the Year 1821 3: 321-367. Denton, Daniel 1670 A Brief Description of New York; Formerly Called New Netherlands. Ed. by G. Furman, 1845. New York. Ellis, George W., and j',ohn E. Morris 1906 King Philip s War. New York. Ford, James, and Gordon Willey 1941 An Interpretation of the Prehis- tory of the Eastern United States. American Anthropologist 43: 325- 363. Grumet, Robert I990 Historic Contact. Indians and Colonists in Northeastern North America, 1497-1783. National Historic Landmark Theme Study, National Park Service, distribu- tion draft 1, PhJ. ladelphia. Hadiock, Wendell S. 1947 War Among the Northeastern Woodland Indians. American An- thropologist 49(2): 204-221. Menasha, Wisconsin. Hodge, Fm:,derick Webb, ed. 1910 Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico. Bulletin No. 30, Pt. I. Bureauof American Ethnol- ogy, Wash/ngton, D.C. Johannemann, Edward 1983 Stage I Cultural Resource Surveg of Fort H~II and Vicinity, Montau~, Suffolk County. Long_Island Ar- chaeological Project, Department of Anthropology, State University of New York, Stony Brook. McBride, Kev[n A. 1990 The Historical Archaeology of the Mashantucket Pequots, 1637- 1900: A Preliminary Analysis. In The Pequots in Southern New Eng- land, ed. by Laurence M. Haupt- man and James D. Wherry, 96- 116. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Miller, Robert L. 1990 Stage II Archaeological Investiga- tion of the Bayberry Hills Site Shinnececk Hills, Town of Southampton. Clover Archae- ological Services, inc., Northport. Orr, Charles 1897 History of the Pequot War. The Contemporary Accounts of Ma- son, Underhlil, Vincent and Gar- dener. Reprinted from the Collec- tions of the Massachussets Histori- cal Society. The Helman-Taylor Co., Cleveland. Parker, Arthur C. 1922 The Archeological History of New York, 2 parts. New York State Museum Bulletin, Nos. 235- 236, 237-238. The University of the State of New York, Albany. Penhallow, Samuel, Esq. 1859 The History of the Wars of New- England with the Eastern Indians (I726). J. Harpel, Cincinnati. Ritchie, William A., and Robert E. Funk 1973 Aboriginal Settlement Patterns in the Northeast. Memoir No. 20. New York State Museum and Sci- ence Service, Albany. Rouse, Irving Benjamin 1947 Ceramic Traditions and Sequences in Connecticut. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut 21: 10-25. Salwen, Bert 1966 European Trade Goods and the Chronology of the Fort Sbantok Site. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut 34: 5-39. 78 Forts of New England-N~a~ York/SoledrJ 1978 Indians of Seuthem New England and Long Island: Early Period. In Northeast, ed. by Bruce G. Trigger, 160-176. Vol. 15 of Handboo[~ of North American Indians, ed. by William G. Sturtevant. Smithso- nian Institution Press, Washing- ton, D.C. Salwen, Bert, and. Susan N. Mayer 1978 Indian Archaeology in Rhode Is- land. Archaeology 31: 57-58. Sm/th, Carlyle Shreeve 1950 The Archaeology of Coastal New York. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 43(2). New York. 1954 A Note on Fort Massapeag. American Antiquity 20: 67~;8. Solecki, Ralph S. 1950 The Archeological Position of Fort Corchaug, L.1. and Its Rela- tions to Contemporary Forts. Bul- letin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut. 24: 3-40. 1985 Recent Field Inspections of Two 17th-Century Indian Forts on Long Island, Forts Massapea~ and Corchaug. Bulletin ana Journal of the New York State Archaeological Association 91: 26-31. n.d. The Archaeology of Fort Neck, Massapequa, Long Island, New York and Vicinity. Squier, F. G. 1850 Aboriginal Monuments ot: the State of New York. Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, 1849, Vol 2. Washington, D.C. Thomas, Cyrus 1894 Report on the Mound Explo- rations of the Bureau of Ethnol- ogy. 12th Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology for the Years 1890-1891. Washing- ton, D.C. Tooker, William Wallace 1888 The Indian Fort at Montauk. The Sag Harbor Express 29(37), Pt. Sag Harbor, New York. 1892 Lecture November 21, 1892 at the Brooklyn Institute (see MilIer, Robert 1990: 49). 1893 Indian Relics. Long Island Maga- zine, April. Brooklyn, New York. 1911 Indian Place-Names on Long land, New York. New York. Underhill, John 1638 News from America or a New and Experimental Discoverie of New England. Reproduced in 1902 by the UnderhillSociety of America, Brooklyn, New York. Van der Donck, Adriaen 1656 A Description of New Netherland. Collections of the New-York Historical Society, Vol. I (1841). Vincent, Philip 1638 ATrue Relation of the Late Bat- tell Fought in New England. In History of the Pequot War. The Contemporary Accounts of Mason, Underhill, Vincent and Gardener, ed. by Charles Orr, 1897. The Helman-Taylor Co., Cleveland. Visscher, Nicholas 1651 Map entitled, Novi Belgli etc. tab- ula multis in locis emendoat a Nicolao Joannis Visschero. In The [conography of Manhattan Is- land, 1498-I909, by I. N. Phelps Stokes. VoL 1, PL 7(b). New York, 1915. Washburn, Wilcomb E. 1978 Seventeenth-Century indian Wars. In Northeast, ed. by Bruce G. Trigger, 89-100. VoL 1S of Handbook of North American Indians, ed. by William G. Sturtevant. Smithsonian Institu- tion Press, Washington, D.C. Willoughby, Charles C. 1906 Houses and Gardens of the New England Indians. American An- thropologist 8(1.): I15-132. Williams, 1972 Lorraine Fort Shantok and Fort Corchaug: A Comparative Study of Seventeenth Century Culture Contact in the Long Island Sound Area. Ph.D. diss., New York University. Uni- versity Microfilms, Ann Arbor. Ralph S. Solecki Texas A&M University Department of Anthropology College Station, TX 77843-4352 PLANNING BOARD MEMBE~ RICHARD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 July 9, 1996 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOVv-N OF SOUTHOLD Charles Cuddy, Esq. P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, New York 11901 RE: Proposed Major Subdivision for Indian Shores SCTM# 1000-116-I-3 Dear Mr. Cuddy: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Board on Monday, July 8, 1996: BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board deem the revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated June 1996 incomplete with respect to its scope, content and adequacy for the purpose of commencing public review. The reports, which were sent to you under separate cover, include Charles Voorhis' review dated June 21, 1996, and Bob Kalin's review of the Greenhouse Consultants, Inc. letter dated May 6, 1996, The reports itemize the information which must be addressed. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above, Sincerely, Richard G. Ward Chairman enc. cc: Charles Voorhis, Voorhis and Associates, thC. Jean Cochran, Town Supervisor Southold Town Board PLANNING BOARD NIEMBERS~ RICHARD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCI-IIE LATI4AM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 june 27, 1996 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Charles Cuddy, Esq, P.©. E~ox 1547 RJverhead, NY 11901 Re: Proposed major subdivision for Indian Shores - DEtS review SCTM# I000-116-1-3 Dear Mr. Cuddy: Enclosed ptease find a copy of the invoice from Charles Voorhis & Associates, Inc. for services rendered for the above mentioned subdivision. Please forward a check to this office, payable to the Town of Southold. Sincerely, Metissa Spiro Planner enc. CHARLES VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES, INC, Environmental & Plannin§ ConsuJtants 54 N. Countr7 Road Suite 2 MILLER PLACE, NEW YORK 11764 (516) 331-1455 Invoice June 24, 1996 8outhold Planning Board _~:wngall, 53095 Mmin P.O. Box 1179 Southold, ~ 11971 6/24/96 Invoice % ~-086 2086 Indian Shores Draft EIS Pevi~w Meeting of [May 22 Principal & staff Review of June 1996 sufm~ission i for ?n%~ronm~ntal content including coordination ~qeview of March 26, 1~96 and ~y 1996 submissions for archaeological content S 300.00 a00.00 350.00 $31O50.O0 CHARLES VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. , ..... co .... Ms. Melissa Spiro Assistant Planner Town of Southold Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re; Draft ElS Review for Indian Shores Cutchogue, New York June 21, 1996 Dear Ms. Spiro: As per your request and in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review ~oCt, we have comt~leted~ ~a review of the Draft EIS for the above referenced project. The cument was revlewea ~or content and adequacy in accordance with SEQR NYCRR Part 617.8 - Environmental Impact Statement Procedures. . The ~o,riginal D~raft ElS fo.r the Indian Shores project was prepared by the applicant's consultant, aaaguire tsroup, in August 1995. The doCUment was reviewed and a comment letter issued on October 20, 1995 by CVA identified deficiencies in the scope and content of the Draft EIS. A revised document was submitted to the Town on March 26, 1996, was reviewed CVA and again was found to be ina.dequate with respect to scope and content in a comment letter datedApril 29, 1996. A meeting was held on May 22 1996 at the reauest of t.h.e applicant's consultants (Jeffrey Seeman of Maguire Group and Charles Cuddy, E~sq.) to d~scuss and clarify the contents of the April 29 comment letter. A second revised Draft EIS was submitted to the Town of Southold on June 11, 1996 and is reviewed herein. Altho. ugh the latest revised Draft EIS (June 11) has addressed many of the comments contained in the ~!~eril 29 comment letter, several areas of the Draft EIS remain inadequately addressed. re are no_ new comments in this review, The nature of the deficiencies in the current Draft EIS were previously stated in our April 29 comment letter ana were aiscussed at the May 22 meeting. These comment were not addressed at all, or were not adequately addressed. Therefore, we suggest that the Draft EIS be amended to address the issues included in this review prior to its acceptance for circulation to the general public. Our comments on the scope, content and adequacy of the Draft EIS are attached. Comments on the cultural resources portion of the Draft EIS, reviewed by Robert Kalin, were forwarded to the applicant on June 12, 1996. If the Board is in agreement with these findings, all appropriate sections of the Draft EIS should be altered to reflect the attached comments. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Town of Southold .P. lanning Board with our review of the Draft EIS for Indian Shores. Once the general scope and content are 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 · (516) 331-1455 · FAX 331-8046 satisfactorily addressed, the document can be circulated for a 30 day public comment period in order to consider the accuracy and validity of the document. We will be pleased to conduct further review at your request. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions regarding this review. Very trulv~/r~.~Y ~ enc. CHARLES iS, INC. ENVIRON M ENTA[;~A~D 'S INDIAN SHORES (~_ CUTCHOGUE - REVIEW OF DRAFT ElS Water Table Level Variation and Sanitary System Separation Distance The following comments are applicable to p. ages 24, 40, 51, and 86 of the Draft EIS. These comments were provided in the April 29, 1996 comment letter and were discussed at the May 22, 1996 meeting. The latest edition of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) "A r v ' · · ' ' ,-, pp!o al _o,f Plan, s a. nd Construction -Sewage Disposal Systems for Smgle-Family ,~.esmences regulations (November 13, 1995) requires a minimum separation nistance of 3 feet between the bottom of leaching pools and the highest recorded gro.undwater level me. asurement for conventional sanitary systems. Alternative samtary systems require a separation distance of 2 feet, however, SCDHS has determined that alternative systems are inapp, ropriate for subdivisions and will not be approved. SCDHS regulations require a nmmmum depth to water of 9-11 fee.t for one to four bedroom residences and a minimum depth to water of 11-13 feet for five to bedroom residences. The Draft EIS states that sanitary systems will be located downgradient of proposed private wells. It can be assumed therefore that the sanitary systems will be located in the rear yards of the lots adjacent to Downs Creek..An analysis of anticipated water table level variation should be provided to determine whether the depth to water beneath the site (particularly proposed lots 3 through 10) is adequate to support conventional s,_an!?ary systems. Due to the direction of grounawater flow and the project site s proximity to surface waters, inadequate depth to water may cause unnecessary nitrogen loading to Downs Creek and Peconic Bay. The discussion of water table level variation from the previous Draft EIS submission .haq..been. rem. oved and no additional information is given. The applicant's consultant ~nalcated at the time of the May 22 meeting that a water table level variation of 0.5 feet in the area of the site can be referenced from a study conducted by Porter, however, no such reference is given in the current Draft EIS. Monitoring well data contained in A,?p~e, ndix 3 indicates water table level variations between 3.3.and 6.8 feet. The Draft t~IS should provide a discussion of water table level variation beneath the~roject site. The test hole data.provided on the site plan shows the water table at .1.§ ~eet.ab?e mean sea level and the water table at the edge of Downs Creek may be lmerrea to t~e at mean sea level. The elevation of the water table at the time of the test hole boring can be interpolated from these water table spot elevations. Studies or well data. should be us. ed to estimate the range of water table level variation. This range may then be addea to water table elevations interpolated from the test hole data to provide a conservative estimate of the highest water table elevation to be expected beneath the site. All studies and data should be referenced. A different methodology may be employed to estimate water table level variation, however, the methodology should be clearly stated and referenced. The possible effect of groundwater discharge to Downs Creek as well as the effect of tidal fluctuations should be noted. Vegetation Map The map of vegetative habitats on theproject site included at the end of Appendix 5, should be referenced in the Terrestrial Ecology Setting section of the Draft ElS, as discussed at the May 22 meeting. CHARLE, S, INC. ENVIRONM CONSULTANTS Page 1 of 2 Indian Shores @ Cutchogue Review of Draft ElS Location of Well S-53336 The location of well S-53336 is different in Figures 10 (page 43) and 15 (page 95). The figures should be corrected to show the proper location of the well, as per the April 29 comment letter and May 22 meeting. Concentration of Nitrogen in Recharge Theanal following_ comments .are . apl~licable to pages 83 throu, gh 97 of the Draft EIS . The yses of nitrogen loading lnd~cates only the total load m pounds, but does not evaluate the impact in terms of recharge water quality .ar~d effect on ~round and surface waters. ~Typical methods of analysis conclude with a calculataon of the concentration of mtrogen in recharge. The impact should be noted and evaluated in th.e discussions on d.rinking water quality and surface waters. The Healy method for .mtr~ogen ~on~centrauons only considers nitrogen from sanita~ systems and is lnaoe~uate Ior assessin~g potential groundwater impacts from the proposed proje.ct as a whole. The impact o~ nitrogen in recharge should be determined in consideration of all anticipated nitrogen loadings and dilution sources, as stated in the April 29 comment letter and as discussed at the May 22 meeting. Expanded Fort Corchaug Site Alternative This alternative should be corrected and expanded. As discussed at the May 22 meeting, there are a number of ways in which this alternative could be acco. m. plished without imposing a significant economic hardship to the applicant. At a rmmmum, the following possible options should be considered: 1) Lot 10 could be removed and an additional lot could be accommodated within the existing proposed development area by reduction of lot sizes. As s, tate.d at the May 22 meeting, it is recognized that Lot 5 presently has development constraints and, therefore, the reduction in lot sizes should not include Lot 5. The resultant lots would remain in the 1-2 acre size range. 2) Lot 10 could be moved 50 to 100 feet further to the south and can be acco .mmodated by making lots 6 through 10 narrower. Lot sizes would remain in the 1 to 2 acre range. 3) A naturally vegetated side yard buffer of 50 feet or more could be c, ovena, n. ted along, the northern property line of Lot 5. 4) ,,x commnation of moving Lot 10 further to the south (25 to 50 feet) and a covenanted side yard buffer 25 to 50 feet) could be a viable alternative. .These techniques were discussed at the May 22 meeting, yet no meaningful discussion ~s provided in the current draft. The revision should provide a full objective discussion of these measures with sufficient information provided to weigh the pros and cons of each. The reference regarding the archaeological significance of Lots 2-10 should be corrected in view of the deficiencies in the State IA/B Archaeological Reports. CHARL[ INC. ENVIRONMEI' CONSULTANTS Page 2 of 2 PLANNING BOARD IV[EMBERS RICHARD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J, CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF.SOUTHOLD June 12, 1996 Charles J. Voorhis Charles Voorhis & Associates, Inc. 5_4 North Country Road Suite 2 Miller Place, New York 11764 RE: Major Subdivision Indian Shores SCTM# 1000-116-1-3 Dear Mr. Voorhis: Enclosed please find a copy of the revised DEIS dated 6/96 for the above mentioned subdivision. Please proceed with your review of the document to determine whether it is satisfactory with respect to its scope, content and adequacy for the purpose of commencing public review. In addition, please advise what the review fee is. A purchase order will be sent to you under separate cover. Bob KaHn's report was forwarded to the applicant on June 12 1996. The applicant's response will be forwarded to you upon receipt. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, Melissa Spir~ Planner enc. GHAItLES l~. GIJDDY June 10, 1996 Planning Board Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Indian Shores Dear Board Members: Enclosed herewlth.~aNO two Copies of the revision made to the DEIS after the meel iMr. Voorhis. Would you please have Mr. Voorhis review ; each of which has been underlined, and advise whether thei~Sfatement, as now submitted, is acceptable so that the DEIS may be cirCulated amongst interested agencies. Very truly yours, Charles CRC/pc Encls. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS RICHARD O. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCI-IIE LATHA.M, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSI4/, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 12, 1996 Charl~i Cuddy, Esq. P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, New York 11901 RE: Major Subdivision Indian Shores SCTM# 1000-116-1-3 Dear Mr. Cuddy: Enclosed please find a copy of a letter from Charles Voorkis dated June 4, 1996. The letter addresses Bob KaHn's review of the Greenhouse Consultants, Inc. letter dated May 6, 1996. The Planning Board reviewed the report at the June 10, 1996 work session and asks that you comply with the report in order to complete the Draft EIS. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, Planner ene. cc: Charles Voorhis June 4, 1996 Melissa Spire Town of Southold Town Hall, Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Indian Shores, Cutchogue Draft Environmental Impact Statement Cultural Resources Assessment 6 ',996 Dear Melissa: As a follow-up to our meeting of May 22, 1996, we have completed a review of the memo supplied by the applicant's attorney regarding the above referenced matter. Subsequent to the May 22 meeting, this office received the letter from Greenhouse Consultants, Inc. dated May 6, 1996. The letter was referred to Bob Kalin, of Archaeological Services, Inc. (ASI), a state certified archaeologist that has been assisting with the review of technical aspects of the Draft EIS relating to cultural resources. Attached, please find ASI's response to the May 6 IO~ter from Cn'eenhouse Coasultants, which explains the standards applied to cultural resource investigations based on New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) requirements from 1983, and NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (NYSOPRHP) requi~ments from 1986. As noted in the ASI response, the cultural resource assessment as it currently stands does not adequately characterize the archaeological resources of the subject parcel for the purpose of deterraining potential significant environmental impacts, developing mitigation measures, or exploring alternatives. Accordingly, it is suggested that the applicant be directed to provide informafioa ennsistent with NYSDEC and NYSOPRHP standards, particularly in view of the fact that the archaeological sensitivity of the site is one of the primary constraints associated with the subject property. As discussed at the meeting of May 22, we are available to provide whatever assistance may be appropriate to ensure that the Draft EIS can be accepted and circulated within the shortest possible time frames. Mr. Kalin has also offered his time and availability to address any questions that the applieunt's archaeologist may have. Thank you for the opportunity to providc you w/th this information, and please feel free to call if you have any questions. Charles J. Voorhis, CEP, AICP 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 · (516) 331-1455 * FAX 331-8046 Response to Wfl#am Roberts Men:.~ra~du,.m ~'; May 6, 1996 RE,,~?ON~E TO HAY ~3, 1996 I~EMORANDUM '~ 1/I/~3 HEW YORK STATE D E C "MAJOR STAGES OF CULTURAL RE~OURC.c INVESTIGATIONS" FROM PAGE 2, PART 2, PARAGRAPH 2 "The final Stage IB report presents the results of the field investigation, including: a description of the survey design and methodo!ogy (based on results of the Stage IA); complete records of soil stratigraphy; an artifact cs:L:log including identification, estimated date range and age and quantity or weight, as appropriate. The locations of all test un/ts must be accurately plotted on a project area map, with locations of identified resources clearly defined. PI;otographs which illustrate salient points of the surve;/ ars a necessary component of the f,'nal r,?port. Detailed recommendations and supporting rationale for additional investigat~'~,~ ¢,'",ust be incorporated into the co¢:,c¢'u,sions of the Stage lB study': ~"~.~W YORK $'TA'¥E ,.?FF!C~ OF P,~RF:.~,~ P~OR~.~T!~N AND HISTORIC ~:~RESE~VA i'iUN "MAJOR STAGES OF CULTURAL RE~OURCE ~NVESTIGATIONS' F~O~ PAG~ 1, PART 2, PARAGRAPH 4. ...... "Subsurface tesfin9 is the majur component o;' !iris ievel of survey and is required ~;~]ees the/~¢"esence or absence of resource,: c.~?n be determined by direct observat/{2n o~ bY e.~v~mination of spe::~fic documented re;'erence~ ....... the careful location of these [escun:'es with respect ~o the areas o,~ impact of g;,;¢ ~..;';~nosed p¢oject is (to be) established. The author of the May 6, memorandum, Mr. Roberts, cites regulatory sk:,,.ndards oi: the NYSOPRHP. ,v... note .~r,d reproduce here standards of the NYSDEC which superseded those r," [he NYSOPRHP and were cleaHy i~ force ~ ..;~ ~' ~,~.,.~ ~ne ~,ianning and ,:.,.~" ..... ~.,u.,on phrase of this s~udy. The ahoy(; ,ne planmng and ~',- .a~g~o of the r~,~,~r~ ,:~ ~p,-, '.cttv what th~ ~taq~: ~ , ' ....... " should pre~u~. Fhuy cierJ;,'~f in,]icate that even Dy these ca,lief s'[arl[tai'as the Stage lB repoA was inadequate and incomplete. F thermate, budgetary' limitations can not be cited for limiting test coverage of the site. ~t is plainly and clearly the profession~ai responsibility ol the supewising ~rcL~e .... g,~.-- n this case the ,ac p of,.so~u ,~., who would evaluate this site regarding its cultural sensitivity prior to :ts development-to be ceaain that to the best ct his or her abil~y tha~ the s~te ha~: been tested adequateh.,. ASI--1 , Response to ~/i#iam Roberts Memorandum o! May 5, 1996 ~3ased on these sta~'~dards, earlier .:,uestions regarding the walk-over survey and reasons for excJusion of some areas from testing Jemain unanswered. Where are positive tests r~,lative to the proposed areas of ~npact? Furthermore, in reference to the more specific requirements published by the NYSDEC which were in force at that date, significant questions regarding the research design, field methods and procedures remain unanswered. Please--what was the research design, what were the methods used. Moreover, since these were the standards that were in force and should have been followed, where where the tests dug, what were the results from each test, what were ;:he numbers of artifacts collected, what was the stratigraphy, wh;,t was the age or cult~ral affiliation of the materials recovered, where is the photographic record?. As the report stands if i,-. ~ ~r,~,-:,~,er ~',;-,I¢. ',,. .... ~-+ ...... , ..... ,..,~ ~,-~..~,,, standard.; and hy standards in force at the time the study was conducted. AS I-2 l~3OR STAGES OF ' ' ... 'CULTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGAZION ~! investigation of cultural resources is divided into a number of stages Lng in intensity and detail. An outlin.; of these stages and a sun, nary of ~ relationship is presented below, It must be noted thsr proposed . ~ ~'~ pr,.j ~ct · . cions developed as a result of redesign will USually require a reevaluation ~ uitural resources for the affected areas. · ':~age I Surveys hhe Stage I survey is designed to determine the presence or absence of .... ;r~hl resources i~ the project's potenti~J impact area. To facilitate plan- ,; , e Stage I sut~ey is divided !:]to tw,, logically progressive units of ~ , briefly d~scribed be]ow, · Stage IA: Literature Search .~.~ bis is the initial levei of suz~ey and is carried out to evaluate the verall sensitivity of tl~e project area for the presence of cultural ~source.~, a~ well as"to guide the fielq investigation that follows. he Stage IA work must be conducted early during the planning acti- ities for each project. ~is aliows'the information derived from this urk to be used in developing and Scre~, i~ig alternatives. In carrying ,~Lt the literature Search, SOurces at ~he State Historic Preservation ffice (SHPO), universities, local libraries, m~se~ns, historical socie- fas, etc., are consulted. An initial field inspection of the project rea for famli~}arization purposes is made at this tiz~a. The resulting .ocument contains a cultural histo?y of the project area, and an evalua- ~£on of the area~s known and potential sensitivity for cultural resources .i~ich might be effected by possible constrnction impacts. Further, the ~age IA report will contain reco~-~endat.lons for the subsequent c, tage lB ~rvey process, ~a_~e_.IB: Field Investi~ati_~.~ ~he £La~ ~B survey ~c Zs necessary t~ determine the presence or ab- ~nce of cultural resources in the probable impact areas, The areas to subjected to a ~urve3 are selected o~ the basis of the data gathered the Stage ~iA evaluation and the probable locations of ground distur- i.~:~ce activities. Subsurface testing is the major component of thi~ level survey and is required unless the presence or absence of resources can determined by direct observation or c- cxam~nation of specific docu- 1 ~tted references. Detailed evaluation of specific resources is not car- : :~d out at this level, but rather the caters; location of these resources u; .h respect to areas of impact of the proposed project is established. An EquaJ OpPortunity/Affirmative Action Agency If no cultural resources are discovered the survey process is com- pleted. If resources are discovered a~ a result of this survey, modifications to the proposed project can often be developed to avoid or minimize potential impacts. If resources are identified during the Stage IB survey or are kno%.~, to exist as a result of the Stage IA evaluation, and cannot be readily avoided, then additional consideration of their sigmificance is necessary. B. Sta~e II Surveys The Stage II surVey ia a detailed evaluation of an identified cultural re- source(s) that ¢~_g_t be avoi~d-l~'~l~b-l~lqf~ation to the prop0s~d-~ ~o~~~--emrri~o~-~c-~--~'~-T~ntified r~§0~es to pro- %~de adequate data to allow a dete'~d.natiom of the resource's eligibility to the National ~gister of Historic ~laces. ~e Stage II report should include, at a ~nim~, info~tlon on bo%md=lies, !r;:egrlty and significance of the resource(s) and ev~u~t~ nF th~ ~.?~t ~ th~ propesed project ac well ~s ~y addition~ data necessa~ to evaluate ~iigibility. C. Miti~ation Mitigation is conducted if a resource included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Ragiste~ of ~{istortc Places is identified and impacts to this resource by the proposed project are anti,~ipated. If a mitigation plan is developed, it shall be based on engfneeris~, environmental, economic and resource preservation concerms~ Mitigation may take the form of avoidance through cost- effective redesign, reduction of the direct impact on the resource and/or data recovery prior to construction, 1/86 Attachment B MAJOR STAGES OF CULTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATION The investigation of cultural resources is: divided into a number of stages varying in intensity and detail. An out. line of these stages and a summary of their relationship to the Construction Grants Program and the environmental review (See Section B-7) process is presented below. Proposed new facility loea~Iens developed as a result of redesign will usually require a reevaluation of cultural resouree,~ for the affected areas. It must be noted t~t proposals foe any cultural resou~e survey, h~eluding a detailed scope of work and estimated costs, must be submitted for review b.~ NYSDEC. ^. Survey) The Stage i survey is Cosigned to tJetc-~'~ine the presence o~ ausenee of cuiiumi resources in the project,s potential impact ~rea. The Stage IA .~ork must be conducted early during the plannin~ activities for vach project. This allows the informatioa derived from this work t° be used in developing and screening alternatives to minimize direct and indirect impact':on historic maa archaeological propertie~. For the purpose of this survey, the study area /s the pla~lning area of the proposed wastewater ~'eatment project. To facilitate plann!n~., the Stage ! survey is divided into two loKically progressive units of study. [. Stage IA: Literature, Sea~eh and Sensitivity Study, - The Stage !A is the initial level of surv'~y and requires comprehensive documentary roseate!', designe~ to identify any known oe potential historical, architectural and/or archeological resources within a project area. A ~rirr~a~y objective of the study is to evaluate the different/al sensitivity of the .orc~j.~et area for the presence of cultural resources; this information will be us~J to guide the field investigation that follows. In ea~¥inE out the litara'.t.~ search, sources at the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), univer:.:ities, local libraries, museums, histor'ical societies, et~., are consulted. In ad~ition, the nature and extent of the proposed project is evaluated, an initial completed identifyin~ eultpral resources is asse..'sed. The final document must focus on the project area and minimally'includes: a brief project description; a description the environmental settin~ as it pertains to actual o~ poteatial cultural resource locations; a ~nthests of prehistoric ac~d historic cultural develovment and land use patterns; and a definition ~ seasitivily zones with explicit criteria for ranking. This document must include infoema~ion about identified sites within, or [ri close proximity to, the project area. This .nformation must inolude all properties that are ali~ible, listed or bein~ considered for inclusion in the National Refflstar of Hlstoele Places.. Areas where substantial land modification is evident sh_ould be clearly identified. It is also appropriate to include materials (e.~.: maps, photo~, soil t)oeit~ lo~) which support conel.usions presented ia the text. Further, the Stage IA repoet will~onta/~ :ecommendations for the subsequent Sta~e [8 survey process. - Be level of surveym~d is r~qu-]~'ed un]e~ the p~senee cw absence of ~e~ can be ~termined ~ ~et ~*~-~ t n by ' ~ ~o.. or' ~xaml~ticn of ~ifie ~mented referen~s. ~ ar~ ~o ;:~ ~'.~je~:~ ~ a ~"vey are sel~t~ on the ~s~ of the ~ ~red {r~ t~ Stage lA ~/~uali~ ~d the p~bable locations of the ~tment faeiUties. DetaJl~d ev~uation of ~eeific resoure~ ~ not carri~ out at ~ lev~, howev~ l~ ~ ~ee~y ~o ree~d ~d de~ribe sites as fuUy po~ible ~ aid ~ the formu~tion of r~ommendatio~ for avoid~ee or further ev~uati~. ~e ~ful ]oeati~ of identEi~ re~urces with ~t to ~eas of impact of the pr~ p~ojeet mu~t be es~blished. ~e ~ 8t~e ~ ~p~t p~s~ the ~ of the field inve~igation, including: a deseripti~ of the ~rvey desist ~.~ meth~olo~ (b~ on resul~ of the Stage IA); complete ~e~ds of ~il :,trat~aphy; an ~tEaet ca~o~e including ident}fi~tion, estimat~ date r~ge and qu~ti~ or wei~t, as appropriate. l~ati~s of ~ te~ uni~ mu~ be aecu~tely plott~ on a P~J~t ~ea map, with lo~tio~ of tdentifi~ ~sourees c!aarly defined. Phot~raphs which iU~t. ra~e salient ~ints of t~ survey ~ a neee~y component of the ~nal Detatl~ r~mmen~tio~ ~d su~portt~ rationale for addition~ investigation mu~ be i~p~ated into the e~e}:zsions of the Stye IB study. If ~ c~t~r~ re~ure~ identif{~ t~rough the St~e IA ~d/or Stage IB ~rvey~ w~ not be tmpaet~ by the [>~pos~ p~ject, the ~rvey p~ee~ ~ complete. c~tur~ re~ur~es identift~ by tF,~,c ~tudies are with~ the prop~s~ impact area, fu~her ev~uati~ may be. ~qui~<{ to determine the potenti~ eligibU}ty of the ~souree for inel~i~ in the Nation~ Red,tar of Historic Places. ~e e~ent of additi~ eultU~l ~urce ~tudy may be ~dueed by P~J~t m(~ifieattons (e.g.: red.men!, reloe~tio~) which avoid or m~imize po~enti~ impacts. ~t~e ~ ~Site D~nitt~n ~ Ev'.~u8~io~ ~e Stye ~ ~rvey ~ a d~tailed ev~:~t{~.~ of ~ identified cultur~ ~$ource(s) ca~ot be avoided by ~a~nable m~ii'catio]; to the propos~ P~j~t. Research ca~i~ out on each identifi~ r~s;uurce ~o pro¥ide ad~uate data to ~I,:,,~ > determi- l~ati~ of the ~uree'~ elig{b[lity fo: ?:sting in the ~aticn~C ~is~er of Pla~s. ~:e S!~e ~ report should , ~ . , . . . ne,u:,=, at a mm~mt;m~ informa:lr~n ,~q integrity ~d ~nffmanee ~f ~me ~c~rce(s) ~d ev~uation of the impact of the prop~ P~j~t, ~ we~ ~ any addkional data neee~a~ to evaluate eli~bility. Submi~ion of a ~aft eligib~t~ synops~ P~p~ed according to Department of ~n~erior ~idelines, may be }~uired. Mitigation is conducted if a resource ir. or eligible for inclu~,on in, t~e National Register of Historic Places is identified and in'~>acts to this resource by thc proposed project are a~ttcipated. If a mitigation plan is developed, it engineering, environmental, economic and resource re may take the form of avoidance th ..... k .... ? s. erva l,on ?oncerns. Mitigatior, direct impact on the -,.~,,- cu~-e~lectlve redesign, reduet!on 'of the resource and/or data recovery prior to construction. LimltatI~s an~ ~e..lustC~ EPA is bound by ~ National Historic P?eservatton Act of 1986 and NEPA to refrain from delegadr~ decisions regardtr~ the ImpaCts o~. ,~ropo~ed water pollution control facilities on cultural resources that are o~ o~ eligible t~e {aoluston on the National Register of ltistoric Places. References. Attachment A: ~efere~mce~ Attachment B: MaJoe Stages of Cultural l~,esource Investigation. Standards for Cultural Resource Investigations and the Curation of Archaeological Collections in New York State by The New York Archaeological Council © 1994 The New York Archaeological Council Ail rights reserved. New York Archaeological Councii Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction .............. 2.0 Phase I Cultural Resource Investigations: Preliminary Reconnaissance ........ 2.1 Goals of Phase I Investigations ........ 2.2 Phase IA: Literature Search and Sensitivity Assessment ........... 2.2. I Environmental/Physical Setting ....... 2.2.2 Background Research ........... 2.2.3 Sensitivity Assessment ........... 2.3 Phase lB: Field Investigation Guidelines .... 2.3.I Systematic Surface Survey ......... 2.3.2 Subsurface Shovel-Testing ......... 2.4 Phase lB Report ............. 2.5 Disposition of Collections ......... 3.0 Phase II Cultural Resource Investigations: Site Evaluation ............. 3.1 Go=Is of Phase II Investigations ....... 3.1.1 Site Boundaries/Site Size ......... 3.1.2 Temporal and/or Cultural Affiliation ..... 3.1.3 Intra-Site 3xtifact/Feature Patterning ..... 3.1.4 Site Function and Context ......... 3.I.5 Data Potential and Site Integrity ....... 3.2 Phase II Documentaty Research ....... 3.3 Phase 1I Field Work/Excavation Guidelines . 3.3.I. Surface Investigation Guidelines ....... 3.3.2. Subsurface Testing/Excavation Guidelines 3.4 Phase II Analyses and Report ........ 3.5 Urban Contexts ............. 3.6 Under, rater Sites ............ 3.7 Supplemental Phase II Investigations ..... 3.8 Disposition of Collections ......... 4.0 Phase III Cultural Resource Investigations: Data Recovery ............. 4.1 Goals of Phase III Data Recover5'/ Impact Mitigation ............ 4.2 Phase III Research Design/Data Recover-/Plan . 4.3 Phase iii Field Work/Excavation Guidelines 4.4 Phase III Analyses and Report ........ 4.5 Supplemental Phase III Investigations ..... 4.6 Disposition of Collections ......... Page 1 5.0 6.0 1 6.1 1 6.2 6.3 1 6.4 1 6.5 I 6.6 2 6.6.1 2 3 3 3 3 Discovery of Huma~ Remains ....... Page 9 7.0 Standaxds for the Curafion of Archaeological Collecdons ........ 12 7. I Definitions .............. 12 7.1.1 Collection .............. 12 7.1.2 Material Remains ............ 12 7.1.3 Associated Records ........... 13 7.1.4 Curatorial Services ........... I3 7.1.5 Qualified Museum Professional ....... I3 7.2 Responsibilities of'the Archaeologist ..... I4 7.3 Guidelines for Selecting a Repositoty ..... 14 7.4 Criteria for Institutions Serving as Repositories for Archaeological Collections ......... 14 7 7 Appendix A Laws, Regulations, and 7 Guidance Document~ ........ 16 8 AppendLx B NYAC Burial Resolution (1972) .... 17 8 AppendLx C NYAC Code of Etkics and Practice . . . 17 8 AppendLx D Glossary ............. 18 St:mdards for the Production of CRM Reports 9 Title Page .............. 9 Table of Contents ............ 9 Management Summary .......... 9 Introduction .............. 9 Environmental/Physical Setting ....... I0 Background Research and Sensitivity Assessment I0 Background Research .......... I 0 6.6.2 Sensitivity Assessment . . ......... 10 6.7 Research Design ............ 10 6.8 Field Methods and Procedures ....... 10 6.9 Results ................ 11 6.9.I Components of a Phase I Report ....... 11 6.9.2 Components ora Phase II Report ...... 11 6.9.3 Components of a Phase III Repor~ ...... 11 6.9.4 Project Map Specifications ......... 11 6.10 Summary,, Conclusions, and Recommendations . I2 6.10.1 Components ora Phase I Report ....... 12 6.10.2 Components ora Phase II Report ...... 12 6.10.3 Components ora Phase III Repor~ ...... 12 6.11 References Cited ............ 12 New York Archaeological Council 1.0 INTRODUCTION Standards for Phase IA, IB, II, and III Cultural Resource Investigations; the Production of Cultural Resource Management Reports; and the Curarion of Archaeological Collections, have been developed in order to ensure a degree of uniformity in the approach taken by archaeologists in New York State. It is hoped that all archaeologists, private developers, local, stare, and federal agencies will make use of these stzmdards towards the fulfillment of their preservation obligations under a variety of federal, stare, and local laws and preservation ordinances. The purpose of these guidelines is to ensure that archaeological work of thc highest caliber is carried our in New York. These guidelines will help to clarify expectations for the often diverse approaches to cultural resource investigations utilized by the increasing numbers of individuals and corporate groups that are becoming involved in cultural resource compliance reviews. Ali professional/supervisory level personnel must meet the qualifications sec forth in 36 CFR 61. Their aim is to promote consistent, high-quality performance, and documentation. &[though detailed in some cases, these guidelines are not intended to be all-encompassing nor to address all possible situations. It is likewise expected that published guide{ines will result in more acceptable, efficient, and cost-effective research on New York archaeological sites. Innovation beyond the scope of these recommended procedures is expected and encouraged. Good judgement and common sense must prevail. These guidelines will be subject to periodic revision sd refinement. 2.0 PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATIONS: RECONNAISSANCE 2.1 Goals of Phase I Investigations The primary goals of Phase I Cultural Resource Investigations are to identify archaeologically sensitive axeas, cultural/sacred areas, and standing structures that are at least 50 years old, that may be affected by a proposed project and co locate ali prehistoric and historic ct~kural/archaeological resources that may exist within the proposed project area. The goals of Phase I work need to be flexible to reflect the size of the project and stage of project pIannin~, and can be undertaken in subphases (Phaae b~ and lB), if approprmce. When a review process determines that a project will not affect any known or recorded site(s) but is located in an area where insufficient previous sur~ey has been conducted, and where there is a moderat: or high probability chat previously unrecorded sites may occur, Phase I cultural resource investigations should be conducted. The purpose of these investigations is to locate all surface and/or subsurface sites rhar occur within the project area. Site locations axe frequently discovered as a result of documentary research, informant interviews, land-surface inspection, and subsunCace testing. Due to the complexities often characterizing projects and sites located in urban settings, these guidelines apply primarily to projects situated in non-urban environments. At some point in ~e near future, guidelines will be established for Phase I work in urban environments (cf. Pennsylvania guidelines) as well as under,rater contexts. 2.2 Phase IA: Literature Seaxch and Sensitivity Assessment Phase iA investigations are intended to gather information concerning the environmental/physical setting of a specific project area as well ax its cultural setting. It is the interreIationship of thc physical environment and the cultural/ historical setting that provides the basis for the sensitivity assessment. This research should include a consideration of relevant geomorpho[ogy and soils information, culture history, and previous archaeological research to provide for the development of explicit expectations or predictions regarding the nature and locations of sites. Regardless of the proiect size, archaeologists should consider all relevant data in developing these expectations. The specific sources from which background information should be drawn will var7 according to project size and the availability of comparative data. The information presented and analyses performed should assist reviewers in understanding and evaluating the importance of environmental and cultural/historical resources within and surrounding the project area. Finally, it should also provide the rationale for developing the research design, the sensitivity assessment, and for selecting appropriate Phase IB field mer~hodotog7 as well as for evaluating ?roject impacts. 2.2.L EnvironmentagPhysical Setting A summary of relevant information, with accompanying maps (where appropriate), concerning the environmental/physical setting should address the following: geology, soils, hydrology, physiography/geomorpholoD., climate, flora, fauna, and recent human/natural disturbances. 2.2.2. Backgaotmd Reseaxch Background research should include a preliminaty review of manuscripts, maps, atlases, historical documents, unpublished notes, previous surveys, state and local site inventories, and published material relevant to the project area to locate possible sites and provide the basis for documenting the cu2tural setting for the proiecr area. The specific sources from which background information should be drawn will vary according to project size and the availability o[- comparative data. Where information pertaining to the specific project area or environs is nor availabte, expectations should be developed from regional or state pla.ns for the conservation of archaeological resources, investigations of similar environments outside the local area, or other environmental data. The results of this background research should be included in the report as documentation and justification for the sensitivity assessment and site tocadon predictions. The following list of topics may be useful in considerations of cultural setting. A comprehensive trearwnent of the cultural setting of a project area will most likely only involve some subset of this New York &chaeologica] Council list. These have been adapted from a list of historic contexts developed by the New York State Historic Preservation. Office (NY5 SHPO). · Transportation · Economy Industry, Agriculture · Social Organization Education · Social Change Contact and Settlement Post-Revolutionary War Expansion Social and Political Movements · Religion · Communication · Recreation Entertainment Tourism · Demography Immigration Emigration · Community Planning and Development · Engineering · Architecture · Art and Literature · Ethnicity It is recognized that a variety of individuals, especially chose interested in or living near a specific project area, may have important information not availabIe from any other source. Such information can enhance the data gathered from the written record alone. Informant interviews with persons {e.g. avocational axchaeologists, landowners, state or local government agency, staff) who may be familiar with the project area and possible archaeological sites can make a valuable contribution to these investigations. A field visit to the project asea should be undertaken to determine the possibility of prior disturbance/destruction and the physiographic evidence for potential sites. Where conditions at the time of the field visit differ from those portrayed on map re. sources, the current conditions shouM be described and the map resources a~nended accordingly. If the initial field check shows that any sites have been previously destroyed, or that for other ob¼ous reasons no sites e.~ist there, the appropriate review agency should be consulted. It may be determined that no further Phase I survey is required. The basis for such conclusions must be submitted in writing with supporting documentation (e.g. building/grading plans, photographs). 2.2.3 Sensitivit'y Assess ment An estimate of the archaeological sensitivity of a given area provides the archaeologist with a tool with which to design appropriate field procedures for the investigation of that area. These sensitivity projections are generally ba~ed upon the following factors: statements of [ocational preferences or tendencies for particular settlement systems, chazacteristica of the local environment which provide essential or desirable resources (e.g. proximity to perennial water sources, well-drained soils, floral and faunal resources, raw materials, and/or trade and transportation routes), the density of known archaeological and historical resources within the general asea, and the extent of known disturbances which can potentially affect the integrity of sires and the recovery of material from them. The analysis of data gathered for the environmental/physical setting and the cultural setting must address the following · questions: Given the data gathered for the environmental/physical setting and the cultural setting of the project area what is the likelihood of finding prehistoric or historic cultural/archaeological resources? What types of sites are likely to be found? What is the likely condition of aires that might be found? 2.3 Phase lB: Field Investigation Guidellnes Appropriate field investigations comprise a systematic, on-site field inspection designed to assess archaeologically sensitive area~ and environmental characteristics relevant to site locations and formation processes. Such investigations include, but are not limited to systematic surface su~'ey, subsurface shovel-testing, a~d remote sensing studies. Subsurface testing is olSen the major component of this level of investigation and is required except in those cases in which the presence or absence of resotzrces can be determined by direct observation (e.g. surface survey), by the examination of specific docgmented references, or by the detailed documentation of prior disturbance of such a degree that all traces of intact cultural resources have been erased. Field-testing procedures for PS. ese IB Field Investigations should verify site locations provided by informants, confirm site locatioi~.s suggested by the literature search, and discover previously unknown sites· The areas to be subjected to a field sur~,'ey are selected on the basis of the data gathered during the Phase L~. evaluation and all probable locations of project construction, staging areas, or any other areas of potential impact. Detailed evaluation of specific resources is not carried out at this level; however, it is necessary to record and describe sites as tinily as possible to aid in the formulation of recommendations for avoidance if site boundaries are adequately defined or furth¢} evaluation. The precise locations of identified resources with respect to area~ of impact of the proposed project must be clearly established. Because portions of project axe= often differ in the likelihood of containing sites, contracted archaeologists encountering or anticipating considerable diversity in site densities within the project area should devise survey strategies in consultation with the appropriate review agency. In cases where sampling specific portions (or strata) of a project area is planned, sampling designs that ensure equal probability of identifying sites in all su~'eyed locales must be devised. 5ome areas may, however, be eliminated 2 New York AzchaeologicaJ. Council from survey due to the lesser probability that sites would occur. Areas characterized by more than 12-15 per cent slope may fail into this category; obvious exceptions to elimination of such areas of slope would include terraces and possible rocksheker sites. W'nere the field testing or literature search reveals areas of disturbance in which no sites could re~ain intact, documentation of this disturbance via photographs, construction plans, srtadgraphic profiles, soll borings, etc. must be included in the report. Areas of standing water may also be excluded from testing, if appropriate and if reasonable explanations for avoiding such areas are presented. Areas not subjected to intensive archaeological investigations should be documented photographically in the archaeological report and on project area maps. 2.3.1 Systematic Surface Smwey Areas that have not been plowed and disked in the past should not be plowed or disked to facilitate a systematic surface survey. If previous plowing cannot be documented, a Iimited shovel-testing program to document the presence of a pIowzone should be undertaken. Each systematic surface survey should be performed according to the following standards, unless alternative methods have been developed in consultation with the appropriate review agency. A limited subsurface shovel-testing program should also be conducted in conjunction with (and prior to) all surface surveys in order to assess plowzone depths and characteristics of underlying soils. If all non-wooded, previously cultivated portions of the project area can be plowed and disked, a systematic surface investigation can be undertaken once the area bas been prepazed and subjected to a steady rainfall. Systematic controlled surface surveys may o~,.iy be performed if adequate surface viaibiliry (i.e. 70% or better) exists. Plowing and disking in strips witb inter~'ening areas of unplowed ground no wider than 15 meters may be an acceptable me~ns of field preparation if and only if shovel tests ~re excavated at 15- meter intervals throughout the unplowed areas. Archaeological field crews should align themseIves at 3-meter to 5- meter intervals in a straight Iine and pass across the prepared areas searching the surface for artifacts. Each artifact find spot or azri£ac: concentration should be dearty marked and assigned a unique fieId number. After the artifacts have been flagged, a surface map identifying artifact locations and/or concentrations, depending upon the specific situation and number of artifacts, should be prepared. 2.3.2 Subsurface Shovel-Testing Subsurface shovel-testing programs should be performed according to the following standards, unless alternative methods have been developed in consultation with the appropriate review agency. Where surface visibility is impaired (e.g. grass lawns, wooded area.s), the field survey consists of the e~ccavasion of 30- to 50-centimeter minimum diameter test units to undisturbed or non-artifact bearing subsoil at a ma.'dmum of 15-meter intervals (or 2 per 460 square meters of surface asea = t6 tests per acre = 44 tests per hectare). Ail excavated soils should be screened through I/4-inch_ hard~vare aloth. Transects should be established with a compass and taped and/or paced me~urements depending upon Iocal conditions. Transects and shovel tests should be numbered in a sysr'ematic fashion. Soils excavated from shovel tests should be carefully screened as noted above in order to recover cultural material. All stratigraphic profiles should be described in field notebooks or on appropriate field forms. Information recorded in notebooks should include, but not be confined to, descriptions of soil type, texture, color, condition, and the presence or absence of cultural materials or cultural features. Documentation of field work activities should include the recording of field observations in notebooks and on appropriate forms. Photography should be employed to document fie!d conditions, observations, and field techniques. ~"hen cultural materials are discovered in isolated shovel-rest units, a minimum of four additional units should be dug in the vicinity or the initial test units should be expanded to insure against mistaldng evidence of actual sites for "stray finds." If no cultural resources identified through the Phase L~- and/or Phase lB surveys will be impacted by the proposed project, then the surve? process is complete, tf cultural resources identified by these studies are widain the proposed impact azea, ~urther evaluation may be required to determine the potential digibiliD' of the resourcets) for inclusion in the State or National Registers of Historic Places (NRHP). The exrem of additional cultural resource study may be reduced by project modifications (e.g. realignment, relocations) that avoid or minimize potentiaJ impacts, oni7 if sufficient testing to define valid site boundaries or buffer zones has been completed. 2.4 Phase IB Report The final Phase lB report should present the results of the field investigations, including a description of the survey design and methodology; complete records of soil stratigraphy; and an artifact cacalog including identification, estimated date range, and quanfiU' or weight, as appropriate. TEe [ocations of all rest units must be accurately plotted on a project area map, with locations of identified resources clearly defined. Photographs that illustrate salient points of the sur~ey are an important component of ~¢ final report. Detailed recommendations and supporting rationale for additional investigation mu.st be incorporated into the conclusions of the Phase IB study. For a de:ailed summaO' of the requirements for Phase I Reports refer to the NYAC Standards for Production of CIL¥[ Reports (Section 6). 2.5 Disposition of Collections Provision for the responsible curarion of the archaeological collection (material remains and associated records) generated as a result o£ Phase ~ investigations, is an integral parr of any reconnaissance-level survey. Coliections made during Phase I field investigations are ofzen the only collections made from a site, especially if mitigation measures include site avoidance. These collections may represent the remains of resources eligible for listing on the State and/or National Reglsrer. However, since the 3 New York Archaeological Council sites will be avoided, no Phase II investigations are conducted and evaluation of the site cannot be completed based solely upon the rexulrx of Phase I work. ~-rangements musr be made in advance of any field work for the proper processing, documentation, and curadon of collections as oudined in Standards for the Curation of Archaeological Collections (Section 7). 3.0 PHASE II CULTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATIONS: SITE EVALUATION 3.1 Goals of Phase II Investigations The primary goals of Phase II Cultural Resource Investigations are to obtain detailed information on the integrity, limits, structure, function, and cultural/historical context of an archaeological site su~cient to evaluate its potential National Register eligibiliry. These objectives neces, sirate the recovery and analysis of artifacts, their context and distribution, and any other pertinent data necessary for an adequate evaluation. Based on this information, each site can be assessed to determine its eligibility for the State or National Registers of Historic Places. A site's significance and eligibiliry are direcdy related to data collected during a Phase II investigation, the site's integrity, research questions that may be answered at the site, and the site's importance in relation to the known archaeological resource base. A site is eligible for the National Register if it meets one or more of the following criteria (as set forth in 9 N'YCR~ 427 and 428 or 36 CFR 800): A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; C. Embodies the distinctive chazaczeristics ora type, period or method of construction; or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or, D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Specific data are needed to adequately address these criteria amd to prepare a proper site significance evaluation. These include, but may not be limited to, site boundaries and an estimate of site size; temporal and/or cultural affiliation; intra-site artifact/feature patterning; site f~nction; and placement within geographic and interpretive contexts. Additional important factors include the potential that the data present on rhe site have for yielding additional important information and both the physical and temporal integrity of the site. This multivariate evaluation of site significance will also provide the initial framework on which to base a subsequent data recovery program if one is required as par~ of the data recovery plan for the site. 3.1.1. Site Botmdaries/Site Size An esdmate of the extent of the site is one dimension of variability important in interpreting site significance. Establishing site boundaries is also essential in determining how much of an impact a proposed project will have on a potentially eligible site. Since project limits are arbitrazily defined in geographic space, it may be necessary to esdmate thc likelihood that the site extends outside the project boundaries. National Register Bulletin Number 12 outlines vazious ways of estimating site boundaries. Site size is also an important factor in pIacing the occupation within regional and cultural setdement ~'sterns. 3.1.2 Temporal and/or CulturalA-C-~adon Assigning a site to a general time period or specific cultural phase or tradition is am integral aspect of significance. This information helps place the site within an initial context for interpretation and may interface with divisions of interest in the State Plan. Temporal/cultural divisions may vary horizontally across the site or vertically wid~in the natural stratigraphy of the soils. 3.1.3 Intra-Site Artifact/Feature Patterning Artifacts roay be distributed across a site area in a uniform, random, or clustered fashion. Identi~?ing the characteristics of the horizontal and vertical distribution pattern provides the initial structure for interpreting the site. The presence of features (e.g. hearths, pits, cistern, privT, well, postmolds) adds an additional component to the structure of the occupation as well as providing an information-rich element for analyzing the site's placement within the temporal/cultural amd subsistence/settlement ~s~ems. Power-assisted stripping should not be undertaken as pazt o£site evaluation unless accompanied by intensive recovery a~d analysis of plowzone darn. As a rule, power machinery use should be restricted to data recoveo' (Phase III) and the removal ofsterile o~'erburden. 3.1.4. Site Funcdon and Contex~ Using the existing information on intra-site clustering, artifact type distribution, s, amd feature presence, a preliminary' assessment of site function allows tentative placement of the ske wi:bin the known temporal, regional, and developmental context of the azea. This classification and placement may also relate to stud'.; units defined az important in the State Nan. 3.1.5. Data Potential and Site Integrity The criteria for eligi.biliw to the State and National Registers specifically requires the archaeologist to assess whether the data present on the site have the potential to yield information important to understanding the area's history and prehistoty. Part of this assessment necessitates an evaluation of whether the site h~ suffered pbysical impacts that have destroyed its research potential. Likewise, archaeologists must determine if temporal components exist in unmixed contexts, whether they be horizontal or vertical, and evaluate to what extent mixing has affected the research potential of the sire. Certain methods have a proven record of efficiendy obtaining information relevant to the State or National Register criteria from archaeological sites. These procedures a~e outlined below. 3.2 Phase II Documentary Research For both prehistoric and historic sites, Phase II documentary New York Aschaeological Council research provides cwo types of information: (1) information on the types of data expected from the site as derived from previous work on the site and/or on known sites in the locale and region; and (2) local, regional, and national contexts within which ro evaluate the importance of the site and to identify reseaxch questions that can be addressed. Research efforts should include more intensive interviews with local informants as well a~ regional and state experts; specific research of published and unpublished site reports from the region to determine how the site may fit within local and regional chronologies, subsistence/settlement systems, and established theoretical contexts; construction of expectations concerning the types of data that may be present and the types of field strategies appropriate for obtaining thee data; and review of research issues and theoretical contexts within the disciplines of anthropology, archaeology, and history to which the data on the site might be relevant, Research questions for historic sites should focus on issues that cannot be addressed solely through written records. The results of this review should form the basis for any future data recovery, plans. 3.3 Phase II Field WorldExcavafion Gtfidelines Phase II field work is not limited to the documentation of the presence/absence of anifacrs ms in the Phase IB investigations, nor to a specific impact zone as in a Phase III data recovery program. The Phase II investigation is often the last rime a site will be examined and the last opportunity for an a~chaeologisr to collect information from the entire site area. It is essential that basic or "base-line" information be collected at the Phase II level of investigation for future reference and research. 3.3.1. Surface Investigation Guldelines Systematic controlled surface surveys may only be performed if adequate surface visibiliW (i.e. 70% or better) exists. A systematic surface survey of the project/site area may help provide a tentative estimate of a site's horizontal boundaries and the presence/absence of artifact concentrations. With landowner permission, ir may be possible to quickly check outside the project limits to determine if the site extends beyond these arbitrary boundaries. No area should be plowed that has not been previously ptowed. Depth of plowing should not exceed the depth of the existing plowzone. This depth can be determined from the Phase lB shovel-testing program. A systematic surface survey will provide information only on those sitek present in the plow zone. If the Phase IB investigations showed that sub-ptowzone components are present, then additional subsurface excavations will be necessary to estimate site boundaries. In either case, subsurface testing is warranted to maximize the recovery of information from the piow'zone, sub-plowzone, and to appropriately address the criteria for eligibility. Systematic surface survey inckides, but is nor limited to, walking close-interval transects (5-meter intervals or less) as~d marking each artifact location for point provenience mapping or collecting within standard units or ceils established ac a systematic interval across the project/site area. All artifact locations identified during a systematic surface survey must be documented either tbxough piece plotting or by surface collec=ion cell. If artifacts are collected by surface ceils, both the size amd spacing of the units should be determined on the basis of the results of the Phase lB su~'e7 and any other appropriate considerations, if a site appears to have low artifact density (e.g. less than 5 artifacts per collection cell), then a larger collection ceil may be justified. Collection ceil size shoutd not exceed 5 meter x 5 meter since it is unlikely that the plowing process moved artifacts more than this. In general, the size and spacing of the cells should be less than that used in the Phase lB investigations. If the artifacts appear to be evenly distributed across the project a.rea, then an inter'al as large as 10 meters could be justified. If the a~tll'acts appear to be tightly clustered, then intervals of 5 meters or less may be warranted. In the case of historic sites, where evidence of a foundation was found during the Phase lB investigation, a more clustered or radial pattern of coliection could occur using the foundation walls or an historic feature as a focal point. 3.3.2 Subsurface Testing/Excavation Guidelines Subsurface testing is an essential component of a site evaluation. Methods include, but are nor limited to, a systematic shovel-test program, test-unit excavations, and remote sensing. In most cases, the majority of the information used in evaluating a site's significance and eligibility for ir,.clusion on the State or National Registers derives from this testing. As with surface inspection, subsurface investigations should be designed to gather sufi~cient data to provide an accurate estimate of site boundaries, both for plowzone ~d sub-plowzone components. In addition, information on the presence and degree of artifact clustering is derNed from this method. Artifacts analyzed by cluster contribute to interpretations o(site function as does evidence of features collected during resting. Subsurface methods increase the volume of soil examined, thereby increasing the chances of recovering diagnostic cultural material and radiocarbon samples that will help identi ,fy the temporal components present. Recove ,fy of tools assists in identi~.'ing intra-site structure and contributes to the overall interpre~'ation of site u'pes. Subsurface testing is a maior means of assessing the physical and cultural integri~ ora site ar.d provides valuable information on the data potential present. Shovel Tests: The excavation of shovel-test units (round or square no larger than 0.25 square meters) within a project/site area is a quick and efficient method of obtaining site-specific information. In order to obtain data on site boundaries and axtifact variabili .w both horizontally and vertically on the site, the spacing and depth of units should be carefully sdected. As previously discussed under Surface Investigation Guidelines (Section 3.3.1), information from the Phase tB surv~' should be used to establish these parameters. For example, if the results of the Phase IB investigations revealed that a large, uniform distribution of artifacts was present, then shovel tests spaced at 10-meter intervals may be justified. However, if discreet artifact clustering is identified, then intervals no greater than 5 meters are warranted. Similarly, if the Phase lB investigations isolated a sub-plow'zone component, then depths of all shovel tests should exceed the maximum depth of artifacts previously identified by at least I0 centimeters. On deep, flood- New York Archaeological Council deposited soils, it may be prudent to extend all shovel-tests to a minimum depth of 1.0 meter, if information obtained in the previous Phase I investigations, Phase II excavations, or soil borings indicate that deeply buried stratified cultural deposits may exist in a project area, mechanically excavated trenches may be appropriate to determine the presence/absence of such phenomena. All excavated soil should be screened through hardware cloth no greater than I/4 inch in size. If it is expected that large numbers of small artifacts may be present, such a.s beads and micro-flakes, then a sample of the soil should be passed through l/8-inch or smaller mesh, aa well. Artifacts from the plow-zone and different soil levels should be provenienced separately. The results of the shovel-resring program should be sufficient to provide an accurate estimarion of site boundaries, at least within the project limits and to prepare a distriburion map identifying the amount, degree, and type of artifact clustering present. Test-Unit F~,ccavations: Test-unit excavations are larger, more rigorously controlled excavation units than shovel-test units. Common types of test units axe squares and trenches. Units usually measure a minimum of 1.00 square meter and rarely exceed 5.00 square meters. This range accommodates 1.00 x 1.00 meter squares as well as 1.00 meter wide x 5.00 meter long trenches. The size, configuration, and depth of excavation units are contingent upon parameters derived from the Phase lB survey as well as the information collected during surface survey and shovel-testing. Excavation units should be placed in those areas of the site most likely to yield data relevant to adequately address the goals and objectives of the Phase [I investigations. Placement of test units should reflect the results of the U'stematic surface survey and/or shovel-testing program as well as the expectations regarding site wpe/function. For prehistoric sites, this may mean excavation of test units within dusters of high artifact concentrations; on historic sires, placement of units adjacent to foundation walls or in suspected midden locations may be appropriate. During the Phase II field work, it is not necessary, to aim for excavation of a specific sampling fraction of the entire site axea. Rather, it is more important to provide coverage of all the artifact clusters and strucrural features present since these are the areas likely to yield the most information on the site. The choice of natural vs. arbitra~Dz excavation levels and level thickness should facilitate the controlled collection of information necessary for evaluating sire significance. Units should be excavated by h~d using trowels or shovel skimmed; features should always be trowelled. It is common for the plowzone to be removed as one natural layer. However, it is rarely appropriate to remove the subsoil as a layer. Ins'cead the subsoil (and unplowed topsoils) should be excavated in arbitrary levels within natural strarigraphic layers. The thickness of each arbitrary level should never exceed 10 centimeters. In general, all measurements should be recorded in the metric system with English equivalents reported in parentheses. Ho~vever, in cases of historic sites, when considered appropriate and approved by the SHPO, measurements may be recorded in feet and inches with metric equivalents reported in parentheses. In urban sexings, where mechanized equipment is used to remove asphalt and fill, particular care must be taken to maintain vertical and horizontal control via careful measurement in those instances where excavation in predetermined thicknesses is not possible. Ail excavation units must have appropriate documentation including profiles of at least one wall, feature plans and profiles, and photographic documentation. All appropriate samples should be collected even when funds are not immediately available for their analysis. For instance, soil samples from features and unit levels and carbon samples should be routinely collected for present or future analysis. Remote Sensing: Remote sensing covers ali techniques that use other than excavation and physical inspection methods to obser'~e and record subsurface phenomena. Frequently, techniques include soil resistivity, proton magnetometer, gradiometer, ground penetrating radar (GPR), and various photographic techniques (aerial, infrared, etc.). In order for the data collected through the use of remote sensing techniques to be of value in evaluating the nature, extent, and importance of an archaeological resource, caution is necessary' in using these techniques and interpreting their resuks. First, the archaeologist must clearly understand the charac:eristics o~' the data recovered and the potential limitations of the technique being utilized. Second, the natural geophysical properties of an area are importer and will directly affect the results. Close coordination bev.veen ~e archaeologist and the geophysical specialist are thu~ nec:ssax7 ~o ensure accurate interpretation of the data. Third, thc nature and importance of phenomena identi~ed through remote sensing must be evaluated through actual excavation and recording of some, or all of the phenomena unless anomalies will be avoided. 3.4 Phase II Analysis and Report The archaeologist must provide sufficient information about the site to allow the review agency to make a determination of eligibility ro the Stare or National Register of Historic Places; to assess the expected impacts to the site from the proposed construction; and to offer recommendations to mitigate thes~ adverse impacts either through avoidance, redesign, data recoveo', recordation, or a combination of these. The archaeologist should provide an explicit discussion of the site(s) eligibility, or non- eligibility for listing on the Stare or National Register based on r.he data coiIecred during the Phase II investigations. The rationale for evaluation of significance should be clearly stated and justified. Tbe report should also include a discussion of the impacts that axe [ikely to occur on the sire(s) if the project proceeds as planned and offer appropriate recommendations for resource management or impact mitigation. New York Archaeological Council If site avoidance is recommended for a cultural resource, the repor~ should include detailed sire protection reqp. irements ro be implemented before, during, and after construction to ensure that the resource is not accidentally impacted. If Phase III data recovery investigations are recommended for ail or part of a site as an appropriate means of mitigation, the archaeologist should provide recommendations that should be used as the basis for developing a data recovery plan (see Section 4.2). 3.5 Urban Contacts Due to the complex and diverse nature of implementing research methods in urban contexr, s, Phase II fle~d strategies should be undertaken only after intensive documentary and map research has been completed for the parcel under study. The field strategies selected to obtain sufficient information for addressing the State or National Register criteria should be formulated in consultation with the appropriate reviewing agency. 3.6 Underwater Sires As with urban contexts, submerged sites constitute a special category of cultural resources. Phase Ii methods should be designed in cooperation wida the reviewing agency in compliance with specific guidelines for the systematic and scientific conduct of these types of investigations. 3.7 Supplemental Phase II Investigations In specific cases, where a site with unique, historically documented data is excavated, but the Phase II excavations do not recover the physical evidence expected, it may be appropriate for ail involved parties to consider additional Phase II investigations, undertaking archaeological monitoring during the initial phases of construction, or site stripping. As an example, if strong documentary evidence e,'dsts for the presence of human burials, but none is discovered during the field investigations, it may be appropriate to conduct supplemental monitoring during preliminary sire preparation or construction to identify such features if present. Where such monitoring is employed, contingency plans should be made to impfement resource evaluation and data recovery, and such plans should be accounted for in archaeological and construction schedules. Monitoring is, however, never a substitute for adequate Phase II investigations. 3.8 Disposidon o f Collections Provision for the responsible curation of the archaeological cnllection (material remains and associated records) generated a~ a result of Phase II investigations at an acceptable repository is an integral paxt of any sire evaluation. Arrangements must be made in advance of any field work for the proper processing, documentation, and curation o£ collections as outlined in Standards for the Curation of Arcbaeologicai Collections (Section 7). 4.0 PHASE III CULTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATIONS: DATA P,.ECOVERY Phase III Cultural Resource Investigations are required if an archaeological/historical resource listed on or eligible for ieclusion on the State or National Registers of Historic Places is identified and impacts to this resource by a proposed project are anticipated. When a data recovery plan is developed, it should be based on a balanced combination of resource-preservation, engineering, environmental, and economic concerns. Mitigation may rake the form of avoidance through project redesign, reduction of the direct impact on the resource with data recovery on the portion to be destroyed, data recovery prior to construction, recordation of structural remains, and/or a combination of the above. 4.1 Goals of Phase III Data Recovery/Impact Mitigation While varying quantities and quality of data are collected during Phase I and Phase II cultural resource investigations, Phase III investigations are specifically designed to recover information contained in a significant archaeological site before all or part of it is destroyed. Thus, the goals of Phase III Data Recovery/Impact Mitigation excavations focus on collecting and prese~wing cultural, environmental, and any other data of value from a site before it is lost. Due to dae project-specific nature of this phase, data recovery, plans should be developed on a case-by-case basis in consultation with the SHPO, project sponsor, interested parties, and other involved state and federal agencies. 4.2 Phase III Reseaxch Design/Data Recovery, Plan A research design is an integral part of any professional archaeological project. In any Phase III investigation, a research design takes the form ora data recovery, plan that must be approved by the SHPO and other involved state and federal agencies prior to commencement of work. The data recovery, plan sha]I be consistent with the Secretaa'y of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological Documentation (48 FR 44734-37) and take into account the Council's publication, Trearmer~r of Archaeological Properties (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, (draft) 1980). The data recovery plan should re:'Iect a knowledge of the existing archaeological/historical database and research questior, s considered important at the local, regional, a~d/or nation, al level. The data rezovery plan must provide a detailed discussion of the reseaxch topics and questions to be addressed; the fy?es of data that must be gathered in order to address these questions; strategies and methodnlog7 for recovery of the necessa~, data; methods of analyses and interpretation; a schedule for completion of the various aspects of the investigations; the names and bac.~round of al! key proiect personnel and consultants who will participate in the research; disposition of collections and field records; and any or.her necessary information deemed appropriate by the SHPO ~d other involved state and federal agencies or the Advisor?,, Council on Historic Preservation. 4,3 Phase III Field \VorldExcavadon Guldellnes Data recovery should be as complete az possible. It should be taSlored ~o the research questions established in the data recovery plan, and ~o whatever degree possible, to future archaeological research. The basic field work and excavation guidelines established for Phase I and Phase ~I investigations should be followed for any similar work undertaken in ~his phase. As a general rule, artifactual information should not be sacrificed for feature information and vice versa. Whenever possible, mechanized New York Archaeological Council stripping should be restricted to that portion of the site expected ro be destroyed. When preparing to undertake field work for a Phase III data recovery program an archaeologist must be prepared to provide the following: an explicit statement of the procedures used to collect the archaeological data; an explanation and justification of the methodology employed in data collection and recording; a discussion of the system for identifying and recording the spatial and contextual provenience of cultural material and other physical data; detailed descriptions of specialized procedures such as florarion, soil chemistry (pH, phosphates, etc.), and collection of radiocarbon samples; and any other relevant information as deemed appropriate by the reviewing agency. Structural components such as depositional strata and cultural features identified during subsurface testing should be fully and accurately described and documented by acceptable means. Locations' of all sampling and testing units should be recorded on project/site maps. Any important contextual relationships and associations between objects, cultural features, and environmental features should be described and explained. Unless a site is to be completely destroyed, permanent reference points should be established ar the site ro facilitate relocation of excavation units and features. 4.4 Phase III Analysis and Report The Phase III report is expected to be special in both content and format. The description, analysis, and interpretation of information collected should consider all forms of data collected. The reader should be given as complete and accurate an understanding of the site, its function, temporal and cultural affiliations, ere. as possible. ?all types of data analyzed (e.g. faunal, floral, geological or geomorphological, architectural, historical) should be integrated into site interpretation. Any additions or modifications to the approved darn recovery plan should be explained and justified. In addition, decisions made after field work has been completed as to wheth, er or not to analyze ali data collected should be a~tdressed. Excavation units and any other subsurface tests should be described in detail incIuding strarigraphic profiles, soil conditions and characteristics; depths of deposits; and description and justification for excavation techniques. Depending on the nature and complexity of the site, it may be appropriate to discuss individual excavation units separately or to treat common deposits located in more than one un/t together. All laboratory procedures relevant to artifact and special sample processing, differential handling of certain classes of material, artifact identification and cataloging, and storage should be discussed. Any previous applicable work should be incorporated into the analysis of the site. Examples of such work would include, but not be restricted to local and regional work that is directly related to the site, culture(s), or time period(s) represented; related work in other geographic areas; theoretical or descriptive archaeoiogical work; and any relevant research or information from other disciplines that have direct bearing on the analyses and interpretation of data collected at the site. The report should inciude a discussion of contributions and potential contributions the Phase III investigations have made or could make to state, local, or national prehistory or history a~i appropriate. It may also be possible to discuss the studfs contributions to broad anthropological and theoretical issues or to the State Plan if data generated during the investigations are suitable for such purposes. Finally, the archaeologist should disseminate the information ro the archaeological community and the lay public. An integral parr of any data recovery should be publications, presentations ar meetings and/or community programs, such as shde talks and ex/xibirs. 4.5 Supplemental Phase III Investigations If an approved Phase III data recovery plan does not result in the recovery of the physical evidence known to exist at a particular site and if the site will be destroyed, then ali involved parties should strongly consider undertaking archaeological monitoring during the initial phases of construction or additional Phase investigations which could possibly include mechanized site stripping. Archaeologically supervised stripping or sire destruction under archaeological control can be a very effective means of evaluating the validity of a project field research design. particularly if the data recovery plan employs a sampling regime. provides an means of assuring that data collected during the implemearasion of the darn recovery plan are representative of the true nature of the archaeological site. Destruction under control may also be app[icable to situations where looting of uncollec:ed materials within the project impact zone may occur following the completion of data recovery. As previously noted, Phase Iii investigations are specifically designed to recover information contained in a significant archaeological sire before all or part of it is destroyed. If deemed appropriate, this supplemental work should ensure that the goals of P.h. ase III are satisfied before rke site and its associated darn are lost. Under no circumstances should such activities be undertaken on sites or portions of sites nor subject imminent destruction. Monitoring is not a substitute for an adequate Phase III invesrigarion. 4.6 Disposition of Collections Provision for the responsible curation of the archaeological collection (material remains and associated records) generated as a result of Phase III investigations ar an acceptable repository is an integral part of any data recovery plan. Arrangements must be made in advance of any field work for the proper processing, documentation, and curation of collections as outlined in Standards for the Curation of Archaeological Collections (Section 7). 8 New York Archaeological Council 5.0 DISCOVERY OF HUMA2N REMAINS The discovery of human remains and items of cultural patrimony as defined by Section 3001 of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation AcT (NAGPRA.) in any phase of cultural resource investigations requires special consideration and care. Any discoveries of human remains on State lands must be reported to the State Museum. At all times human remains mttst be treated with the utmost dignity and respect. Should human burials be encountered, the location should immediately be secured and protected from damage and disturbance. Unless burial excavation is the purpose of or an explicit component of the approved research design, human remains should be left in-situ until consultation with the project sponsor, the SHPO, federally recognized Native American groups, concerned parties, and involved state and federal agencies has taken place. The excavation, study, and disposition of human remains should take place in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws. The NYAC Policy on Human Remains (dated 1972, Appendix B) and Guidelines for Consideration of Traditional Cultural Values in Historic Preservation Review published by the President's Advisory Council on Historic Preservation can provide helpful guidance on the proper treatment of human remains. 6.0 STANDARDS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF CILM REPORTS The following report guidelines summarize general content and suggested formats for any CK.¥[ report, ir is understood that reports written for agencies that b. ave their own specific report requirements should be written accordingly, but these reports should also include the information outlined in these standards. The National Park Service report format is also an appropriate model for reports. These standards have not been designed to exclude categories of information not listed, nor to offer a rigid format for final reports. It is also important to note that reports are expected to pertain only to the level of research and analysis appropriate to the level of cultural resource investigation undertaken. In addition, these standards have been prepared under the assumption that CIk.'vi reports must fulfill the needs of the lead agency involved as well as those of any other reviewer. Finally, any report prepared in accordance with NYAC standards should include completed New York State Prehistoric or Historic Archaeological Site Forms and Building Structure inventory forms where appropriate. For the purposes of these guidelines, a "reviewer" is anyone who reads, examines, or studies the report for a lead agency, municipality, citizen group, university, or similar body in order to evaluate the cultural resource investigations completed, the results, and the recommendations. Given the potential distribution of the CK.*vi report, it is also important to provide information that will allow appropriate reviewers the opportunity to make informed evaluations but at the same time protect the fragile archaeological/historical resource base from potential dangers posed by unscrupulous individuals. As such, some type of non-disclosure statement or method of sire location protection within the report will be required. 6.1 Tide Page Each report should contain a tide page that provides at least the following: the title of the report, including the level of' investigation (e.g. Phase IA, IB, I, II, or III); the name and location of the minor civil subdivision (city/village/town, county, state) of the proiect; any pertinent project identification number (e.g. Highway PIN, Permit Number); author(s), contributor(s), project director(s), principal investigator(s); date report was prepared; name and address of the projec~ sponsor for whom the report was prepared; and the organizational affiliation with address of the archaeological consultant. 6.2 Table of Contents The tabIe of contents should be arranged in a logical manner and should constitute a list of primary and secondary internal divisions of the report with their beginning page numbers. Lists of figures, tables, and plates (with page numbers) should immediately follow the list of section headings. They may be listed on separate pages if the lists are lengthy. It may also be appropriate to list authors of sections and subsections in the proper place within the table of contents. A typical report table of contents may include the following: Management Summary; Introduction; Environmental/Physical Setting; Background Research and Sensitivity Assessment; Research Design; Field Methods and Procedures; Results; Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations; References Cited; Acknowledgments; AppendLxes; List of Figures; List of Tables; and List of Photographs/Plates. 6.3 NIanagement Summary. The management summary, like an abstract, should serve as a bric?; clea~ outline of the proposed project, the investigations, results, and recommendations. It is often used by non-archaeologists and should be written with this categoty of reader as well as any agent/ reviewer in mind. The management summary should include sections outlining the following: project location, project description, project size, regulator7' and/or lead agency, landform/environment, wot!5 completed, problems encountered, results, and conclusions and recommendations. 6.4 Introduction The introduction should outline and summarize all pertinent sections of the report and should include at least the following: (I) The nawnes of the project sponsor and the contact person; the date on which the consultant was contacted to perform the work; the date on which the parties contracted to perform the investigations; contract numbers and permit/project numbers; legislation relevant to the work New York Archaeological Council (2) A written description of the proposed project including the nature of the construction or [and alteration, geographic limits of the project areas, potential impacts, and project alternatives, if any are known (3) The purpose of the investigations, discussion of the scope of work, and the report format (4) The composition of the research staff and the dates of investigation (5) The temporary and permanent repositories of field data, artifacts, and other importamt project materials (6) Sufficient maps and illustrations to identify the project location including, bur not necessarily restricted to, the Iocarion of the project within the state and county, the location of the project area on a named USGS 7.5' topographic map or DOT map, and a project ~ea map 6.5 Envlxonmental/Physical Set-ting This section of the report should summarize the environmental factors relating ro actual and potential cultural resources, including archaeological sites, landscapes and extant structures, within or adjacent to the project area. This information is necessary, for both developing research methods and for evaluating project impact. Minimally, the following should be included, with accompanying maps where appropriate; geology, soils, hydrology, physiography/geomorphology, climate, flora, fauna, and recent human/natural disturbance. 6.6 Backgrotmd Research and Sensitivity Assessment The section summarizing the background research and sensitivity assessment should be written in such a manner as to assist reviewers in understanding and evaluating the importance of archaeological resources in the project area as well as the rationale for any further research recommended. The following general guideIines apply for reporting the results of the background literature search and sensitivity assessment: specify the steps taken in obtaining information; cite all sources including oral testimony, and provide full references in the report; explain omissions and lack of cultural activity where pertinent to the conclusions of the sensitivity assessment; provide a summary of the cultural background and environmental attributes and limitations of the area; review information on known archaeological and other cultural resources and previous studies in the area; include information on the foci and extent of previous coverage of the area and the research questions addressed; and specify where all records resulting from the background research will be curated. DO NOT provide specific site locations in reporr, s for public distribution; 6.6.1 Background Research Summaries of the following should be covered under Background Research: site file searches at the state and local levels; archaeological literature search, including both published and unpublished sources; examination of historic maps and archival information; searches of State and National Register files at SHPO, specifying SRHP/NRHP-Iisted, SRHP/NRHP-eligible, and SRHP/NRHP-inventoried sites; informant interviews; examination of institutional and private artifact collections; consultation with other professional a~chaeologists, locally active historians, and municipal authorities; field visit(s); the person(s) involved, the date of the visit, and the observations made. Atab[e listing the known cultural resources within a one-mile radius of project area should be included in the report with maps (see above re reports for public distribution) and pb_otographs where appropriate. 6.6.2 Sensitivity Assessments Summaries of the following should be covered under Sensitivity Assessment: the sensitivity rating expressed as low, moderate, high, or mixed, that reflects the likelihood that cultural resources are present within the project area; definition of the raring ~'srem used and its implications for further research; discussion of the types and conditions of cultural resources likely to be found within the project area; rationale for assigning the sensitivity rating; and relevant environmental and/or historic contexts such as those in SHPO's iisi developed for state-wide planning (see Section 2.2.2). 6.7 Research Design The research design should reflect a knowledge of the existing database and research questions considered important ac least at the local and regional levels. The degree of complexity or detail should be appropriate ro the level of investigations undertaken. This section of the report should include the fo[lowing: an identification of the theoretical goals as stated iv. cbc form of specific hypotheses to be tested or problems to be investigated; the identification of the relevant analytical variables; specification of the data necessary for empirical testing; specification and justification of the methods and techniques for collecting and studying the data; and discussion of possible outcomes of the amalyses. 6.8 Field Methods and Procedures This section of' a Phase I report should include discussions of the following: walkover survey strategies designed to determine the presence of visibIe foundations, artifact scatters, disturbed ground, excessive slope, etc.; the type and size of excavation/colIection unit used to locate resources and the reasons for this selection (e.g. shovel-test units for artifact recovery, larger units for surface collections, trenches for identifying buried historic £oundations 6r deeply buried prehistoric sites); testing interval and design (e.g. single transect, regular grid, staggered grid) and rationale for this selection; wken plowing and collecting, the length and interval between furrows, whether cultural material was piece-plotted or collected in s-,'srematically placed units, ~Te of weather and ground conditions (elg. cloudy vs. bright sun, dry vs. moist soii, adequacy of potential artifact visibility); excavation and artifact recovery techniques (e.g. shovel vs. machine excavation, natural vs. arbitrary lavers/levels, depth to sterile soil, remote sensing methods, soil st~-ipping strategies) and rationale; average depth of test units; typical soil profiles; the size of screen mesh; the adequacy of horizontal and vertical survey coverage; areas nor surveyed and 10 New York Aschaeological Council reasons why; and the porentiai biases in results (if any) from gaps in This section of a Phase I! report should, in addition, include discussions of the following: the type and size of excavation/collection unlr$ used during the site examination; the field sampling strategy and rationale for its selection; the excavation/collection techniques and how these relate ro the data expected; and any impediments to the site examination that may have influenced the results. This section of a Phase III report should, in addition, include discussions of the following: dxplanation of and justifications for the data recovery field strategy and methods; the treatment and analysis of floral, faunal, or other organic matter recovered; and all laboratory procedures relating to the stabilization, labelling, cataloging, and storage of artifacts and records, including the curation facility. 6.9 Result The results section ora report should clearly outline in the text a~d on maps the project boundaries, testing strategies, and culturaI resources identified during resting. Depending upon the specific nature of the project and the investigations undertaken, ir may be the site(s), standing structures, single test units, or single artifacts recovered from a plowed field that serve as the primary unit of discussion. Descriptions may be organized by starting at one end of a project area and moving to the other or by grouping similar resources together (e.g. all prehistoric resources separate from historic resources and standing structures). 6.9.1 Components ora Pha~e I Report Key components of this section of the text for a Phase I report should include the follo,ving: project size; the number of and intervals between shovel test units (with the shovel-test unit records included az an appendL<); the number of tests actually excavated; the number of units, if any, that produced cultural material; the numbers and types of artifacts recovered and their cultural affiliation, if known (with the artifact list/catalog included as an appendix); the nature of the artifact distribution (e.g. clusters of artifacts, uniform scatter, random distribution, features); physiographic context of the artifacts (e.g. floodplain, terrace, swamp, lake); strarigraphic context of the artifacts (e.g. surface, p[owzone, buried); lists of all standing structures that are at Ieast 50 years old as well as structures that are [ess than 50 years old and are exempt from Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) guidelines; site and structure inventory forms for all prehistoric and historic archaeological sites and standing structures that are at least 50 years old; and a master project map that derails the testing strategy and results. 6.9.2 Components of a Phase II Report Key components of this section of the text for a Phase II report should include the following: the number of each type of excavation unit used in the site examination including detailed descriptions of typical and unusual profiles of excavation units; the range of artifact .types recovered from testing (with the artifact catalog included as an appendix); the average density of material per unit as well as other summary statistics that help describe the site; the estimated site size and the proportion of the site contained within the project boundaries; the size of the area actually excavated (total sq m); the nature of the vertical stratification of the site (e.g. site contained within the plowzone, sub-plow'zone, layered in the sub-plowzone); any internal clustering within the site; the types of features present (with photographs, floor plans, and profiles included as appropriate); temporal associations of the sites based on diagnostic artifacts or radiocarbon dating if available; summaries of floral, faunal, and other specialized analyses; summaries of functional, technological, and stylistic analyses of specific artifact groups; interpretations of site function; interpretations of the place of the site within a larger temporal, regional, or theoretical context; and research potential of the site. 6.9.3 Components of a Phase III Report Key components of this section of the rexr for a Phase III report should include rb_e following: complere artifact inventories integrating all phases of investigation; results of artifact analyses; results of ali floral, faunal, and radiocarbon analyses; integration and interpretation of the results of all tests and analyses; the application of these integrated results to the research questions ~d goals of the study as made explicit in the research design; all pertinent plans and secrlons of excavation units and features encountered; and any biases or extraneous factors that may have affected the outcome of the excavations awed analyses. All Phase III report photograt~hs tables maps and other graphics should be of publishable qualir? and follow National Park Service guidelines. 6.9.4 Project Map Specifications Project maps should include the following: an outline of the project boundaries in reference to fixed features such as roadways, power lines, rivers, canals, and railroads; the locations of ali important features within the project boundaries such as standing structures, ditches, and disturbed areas; the locations of all rest units actually excavated or collected differentiated according to those that contained artifacts and those that did not; the locations of all suspected artifact clusters and features such as foundations, weils, and middens; the identifications of ali structures that are ar least 50 years old or other important standing structures in the project ~rea; numbered photo angles of all photographs included in the text; a title block identi~ing the project name, location, dare of investigation, and contractor performing the survey; key to all symbols used on the map; a bar scale using both English and metric measurements; and a north arrow (specify whether grid, magnetic, or geographic). Maps accompanying a Phase II report should, in addition to the information listed for project maps, include the following: estimates of site boundaries; detailed maps of all individual sire excavations; site locations labelled with site name and number; locations of features and any radiocarbon dated samples. Maps accompanying a Phase Iii report should also include the locations of all excavation units, backhoe trenches, and areas of machine stripping. I1 New York Archaeological Council 6.10 Surmmary, Condu.~ions, and Recommendations The final section ofa.n archaeological survey report should serve a~ a stand-alone summary' of the activities and findings reported in detail in &e body of'the report. 6.10.1 Components ora Phase I Report For a Phase 1' report, this section should summarize the scope, methodology, areal coverage, and findings of the investigations; identify any areas where archaeological materials were discovered; point out gaps in survey coverage or areas where weather, owner- access re£usal, or other conditions prevented or necessitated less than thorough investigations; indicate the institutional repository for artifacts, field notes, and records for the project; evaluate the result~ of the investigations in terms of the project's theoretical orientation, bias, and assumptions identified in the research design; compare the results of the investigations co those of ochers conducted in the area; place the study within a regional context in terms of its contribution to regional knowledge and the degree to which its results reflect what is known of the area; assess the project impact; explain the need for and general scope of additional work, if any; make and justify recommendations for project modifications to protect sites if accurate site boundaries can be established; and consider secondary' effects of the project as well as the direct impacts (e.g. housing development resulting from road, sewer, or waterline construction or site isolation resulting from gravel mining). 6.10.2 Components of a Phase II Report For a Phase II report, this section should summarize the arguments regarding the significance or non-significance of the resources investigated; state whether or not sufficient information has been collected to address the criteria for eligibility for listing on :he State or National Registers of Historic Places such as information pertinent to the integrity, research potential, and the adequacy, of horizontal and vertical boundary information; and present possible options for the treatment of any' resources considered significant (e.g. avoidance through redesign, protective conditions, and/or data recovery) along with specific recommendations as to how these might be implemented. 6.10.3 Components of a Phase III Report For a Phase [II report this section shoed include summaries of the research design and of rg.e recovery, analysis, and interpretation of information collected during the data recovery program; an evaluation of the success of the data recovery plan and any modifications made ~o it; an interpretation of data recovered from the site(s) and their importance in relation to the relevant historic context(s) established for the region; a discussion of contributions the Phase III investigations have made to the current state of knowledge of' prehistory or history and the state plan; recommendations for updating or revising research questions, goals, a-qd preservation priorities in the state historic preservation plan; recommendations for supplemental Phase iii investigations, if appropriate (Section 4.5); recommendations for the conservation, short-term, a.nd long-term curation of the collecdon; a~d finally, recommenda:ions for dissemination of all appropriate information to thc archaeological community and public outreach programs. 6.11 References Cited Every effort should be made to insure that this part of'the repor~ is complete and accurate. We urge the consistent adoption of the American Antiquity format and refer readers to its most recendy published style guide. 7.0 STA.NDARDS FOR THE CURATION OF ARCFLMEOLOGICAL COLLECTIONSI 7.1. Det~xitions For the purposes of these standards, the following definitions apply: 7.1.1. Collection means material remains that are excavated or removed during a survey, excavation or other study of a prehistoric or historic resource, and associated records that are prepared or assembled in connection with the survey, excavation, or other stud7. 7.1.2. Material remagns means artifacts, objects, specimens and ocher physical evidence chat are excavated or removed in connection with efforts to locate, evaluate, document, scud?', preser~-e or recover a prehistoric or historic resource. Classes of material remains (and illustrative examples) thac may be in a collec~on include, buc are not limited to: (A) Components of structures and features (such as houses, mills. piers, forzificarions, raceways, ear~hwor~, and mounds); (B) Intact or fragmentary artifacts of human m~ufaccure (such tools, weapons, pottery, basketry, and reviles); (C) InTact or fragmentary natural objects used by humans (such as rock c.'?gcals, feathers, and pigments); (D) B?products, waste products or debris resulting from the manuf'acture o r use of man-made or natural materials (such as slag, dumps, cores, a-nd debitage); (E) Organic material (such as vegetable and animal remains, and coprolites); (F) Human remains (such as bone, teeth, mummified flesh, burials, :md cremations); (G) Components of petrog!yphs, pictographs, intaglios or other wot 'ks of a~istic or symbolic representation; (H) Components of shipwrecks (such as pieces of the ship's hull, rigging, armaments, apparel, tac~e, contents, and c~go); (I) Environmental and chronometric specimens (such as polIen, seeds, wood, shell, bone, charcoal, tree core samples, soil, sediment cores, obsidian, volcanic ash, and baked clay); :md 0) Paleontological specimens thac are found in direct physical relationship with a prehistoric or historic resource. l Adapted from Depa-,'zment of the Interior, National Park Service 356 CFR Pare 79 ~nd the Standards of Research Performance of the Society of Professional Axchaeologists. 12 New York Archaeological Council 7.1.3. Associated records means original records (or copies thereo~) that are prepared, assembled and document efforts to locate, evaluate, record, study, preserve, or recover a prehistoric or historic resource. Some records such as field notes, artifact inventories, and oral histories may be originals that axe prepared as a result of the field work, analysis, and report preparation. Other records such as deeds, survey plats, historical maps and diaries may be copies of original public or archival documents that are assembled and studied as a result of historical research. Classes of associated records (and illustrative examples) that m~.y be in a collection include, but a.re not limited to: (A) Records relating to the identification, evaluation, documentation, study, preservation or recovery of a resource (such as site forms, field notes, drawings, maps, photographs, slides, negatives, films, video and audio cassette tapes, oral histories, artifact inventories, laboratory reports, computer cards and tapes, computer disks and diskettes, printouts of computerized data, manuscripts, reports, and accession, catalog, and inventory records); (B) Records relating to the identification of a resource using remote sensing methods and equipment (such as satellite and aerial photography and imagery, side scan sonar, magnetometers, subbottom profilers, radar, and fathometers); (C) Public records essential to understanding the resource (such as deeds, survey plats, mllkaw/and census records, birth, marriage and death certificates, immigration and naturalization papers, tax forms, and reports); (D) Archival records e~ential to understanding the resource (such as historical maps, drawings and photographs, manuscripts, architectural and landscape plans, correspondence, diaries, ledgers, catalogs, and receipts); and (E) Administrative records relating to the survey excavation or other study of the resource (such as scopes of work, requests for proposals, research proposals, contracts, antiquities permits, reports, documents relating to compliance with Section ~.06 of the National Historic Preser,-ation Act [~.6 U.S.C. 47f], and National Register of Historic Piaces nomination and determination of eligibility forms). 7.1.4 Curatorial sera'ices means providing curatorial services means managing and. preserving a collection according to professional museum and archival practices, including but not limited to: (A) Inventorying, accessioning, labeling, and cataloging a collection; (B) Identi~'ing, evaluating, and documenting a collection; (C) Storing and maintaining a collection using appropriate methods and containers,and under appropriate environmental conditions and physically secure controls; (D) Periodically inspe~ing a collection and talcing actions as may be necessary to preserve it; (E) Providing access and facilities to study a collection; and (F) Handling, cleaning, stabilizing, and conserving a collection in such a manner to preserve it. 7.1.5 Qualified museum professional means a person who possesses training, knowledge, experience, and demonstrable competence in museum methods and techniques appropriate to the nature and content of the collection under the person's management and care, and commensurate with the person's dutie~ and responsibilities. In general, a graduate degree ia museum science or subject matter applicable to archaeology, or equivalent training and experience, and three years of professional experience are required for museum positions that demand independent professional responsibility as well as subject specialization (archaeology) and scholarship. Standards that may be used, as appropriate, for classifying positions and for evaluating a person's qualifications include, but are not limited to, the following federal guidelines: (A) The Office of Personnel Management's "Position Classification Standards for Positions under the General Schedule Classification System" (U.S. Government Printing Office, stock No. 906-028-00000-0, 1981) are used by Federal agencies to determine appropriate occupational series and grade levels for positions in the Federal service. Occt~pational series most commonIy associated with museum work are the mnse'~m curator series (GS/GM-1015) and the museum tech~iclan and specialist series (GS/GM-IO16). Other scientific and professional series that may have collateral museum duties include, but are not limited to. the archivist series (GS/GM-1420), tee archeologist series (GS/GM-193), the anthropologist series (GS/GM-190), and the historian series (GS/GM-I70). in general, grades G5-9 and below are assisramts and trainees while grades GS-11 and above are determined according to the level of independen~ professional responsiblliU-, degree of specialization and schdlarship, and the nature, va;ieW, complexi~, U'pe. and scope of the work. (B) The Office of Personnel Management's "Qualificario= Standards for Positions under the Genera! Schedule (Handbook X-118)" (U.S. Governmen~ Printing Office. stock No. 906-030- 00000-4, 1986) establish educational, experience and training requireme.~ts for employment with the Federal Government under the various occt~pational series. A graduate degree in museum science or applicable subject matter, or equivalent training and experience, a~qd ~ree yea~s of professional experience are required for museum positions at grades GS-11 ~d above. (C) The "Secretary of the Interior's St~da~ds and Guidelines for Archedlo~,' and Historic Preservation" (48 FR 44716, Sept. 29, 1983) provide technical advice about archeological and historic preservarion activities and methods for use by Federal, State and local Governments and others. One section presen'.s qualificario~ standards for a number of historic prese~'ation professions. While no standards are presented for collections managers, museura curators or technicians, standards are presented for other professions (i.e. historians, archeologists, architectural historians, architects, amd historic arcSitects) that ma?' have collateral museum duties. 7.2 Responsibillties o f the Archaeologist 1. If material remains are collected as a result of a sur~ey, excavation, or other study of a prehistoric or historic resource, a system for identifying :md recording their proveniences mus~ be maintained. 13 New York Archaeological Council 2. All ~ssociated records from an archaeological project should be intelligible to other archaeologists. If terms lacking commonly held referents are used, they should be clearly defined. 3. During accessioning, analysis, and storage of the material remains and associated records in the laboratory, the archaeologist must rake precautions to ensure that correlations between the maretial remains and the associated records are maintained, so that provenience, contextual relationships, and the like axe not confused or obscured. 4. The archaeologist must ensure that a collection resulting from a project will be deposited at a repository that can provide curatorial serqices, that employs at least one qualified professional with experience in collections managementJcuration. 5. The initial processing of the material remains (including appropriate cleaning, sorting, labeling, cataloging, stabilizing, and packaging) must be completed, and associated records prepared and organized in accordance with the repository's processing a_nd documentation procedures. 6. A professional archaeologist should refuse to participate in any research which does not comply with the above criteria. 7.3 Guidelines for Selecting a Repository 1. \Vhen possible, collections from New York should be deposited in a repository that: (i) is in the State; (ii) stores and maintains other collections from the same site or project location; or (iii) houses collections from a similar geographic region or cultural area. 2. The collection should not be subdivided and stored at more than a single repository untess such subdivision is necessary to meet special storage, conservation, or research needs. 3. Material remains and associated records should be deposited in the same reposiroty to maintain the integrity and research value of the collection. 7.4 Criteria for Institutions Ser'C-ng as Repositories for Archaeological Collections 1. The institution must be chartered as a museum by the Board of Regents of the State of New York or similar body, or be an institution of higher education recognized by the State of New York. 2. The repository must certify, in writing, that the collection shall be cared for, maintained, and made accessible in accordance with the standards in this part. 3. The repository must be able to provide adequate, long-term curatorial services including: (A) Accessioning, labelling, cataloging, storing, maintaining, inventorying and conserving the particular collection on a long- term basis using professional museum and archival practices; and (B) Comply with the following, as appropriate to the nature and content of the collection; (1) Maintain complete and accurate records of the collection, including: (a) records on acquisitions; (b) catalog and artifact inventory' lis=; (c) descriptive information, including field notes, site forms, and reports; (d) photographs, negatives, and slides; (e) locational information, including maps; (f) information on tbe condition of the collection, including any completed conservation treatmenss; (g) approved loans and other uses; (h) inventory and inspection records, including any environmental monitoring records; (i) records on ar~y deaccessions and subsequent transfers, repatriations, or discards; (2) Dedicating the requisite facilities, equipment, and space in the physical plant to properIy store, study, and conserve the collection. Space used for storage, study, conservation, and, if exhibited, any e:thibition must not be used for non-curatorial purposes that would endanger or damage the collection; (3) Keeping the collection under physical[y secure conditions with storage, laboratory, study, and any exhibition areas by (a) having the physical plant meet local electrical, fire, building, health and safety codes; (b) having an appropriate and operational fire detection and suppression system; (c) having an appropriate and operational intrusion detection and deterrent system; (d) having an adequate emergent/management plan that establishes procedures for responding to fires, floods, natural disasters, civil unrest, acts of violence, structural failures, and failures of mechanical ~-srems within cbc physical plant; (e) providing fragile or valuable items in a collection with additional securiv? such a~ locking the items in a safe, vault or museum specimen cabinet, as appropriate; (f) limiting and controlling access to keys, the collection, and the physical plant: and (g) periodically inspecting the physical plant for possible security weaknesses and environmental control problems, and taking necessaD' actions to maintain the integrity of the collection; (4) Requiring staff and any consultants who are responsible for managing and preserving the collection, and for conducting inspections and inventories aa described in sections 3.(B)(7) and 3.(B)(8), to. be either qualified museum professionals or professional archaeologists guided by a professional museum conservation consultant. (5) Handling, storing, cleaning, conserving and, if exhibited, exhibiting the collection in a manner that (a) is appropriate to the nature of the material remains and associated records; (b) protects them from breakage and possible deterioration from adverse temperature and relative humidity, visible light, ultraviolet radiation, dust, soot, gases, mo[d, fungus, insects, rodents, and general negtect; and (c) preserves data that may be studied in future laboratory analyses, when material remains in a collection are to be treated with chemical solutions or preservatives that will permanently alter the 14 New York Archaeological Council remains, when possible, retain untreated representative samples of each affected artifact type, environmental specimen or other category of material remains to be treated, untreated samples should not be stabilized or conserved beyond dry' brushing; (6) Storing site forms, field notes, artifacts, inventory lists, computer disks and tapes, catalog forms, and a copy of the final report in a manner that will protect them from theft and fire (a) storing the records in an appropriate insulated, fire resistant, locking cabinet, safe, vault or other container, or in a location with a fire suppression system; (b) storin~ a duplicate set of records in a separate location; or (c) ensuring that records are maintained and accessible through another party. For example, copies of final reports and site forms frequently arc maintained by the State Historic Preservation Of Ecer, the State Archeologist or the State Museum or university. The Tribal Historic Preservation Officer and Indian tribal museum ordinarily maintain records on collections recovered from sites located on Indian lands. The National Technical Information Service and the Defense Technical Information Service maintain copies of final reports that have been deposited by Federal agencies. The National Archeological Database maintains summary, information on archeological reports and projects, including information on the location of those reports. (7) Periodically inspecting the collection or having a professional conservation assessment done regularly for the collection for the purposes of assessing the condition of the material remains and associated records, and monitoring those remains and records for possible deterioration and damage; and performing only those actions as are absolutely necessary to stabilize the collection a-nd rid it of any agents of deterioranion. (a) Material remains and records of a fragile or perishable nature should be inspected for deterioration and damage on a more frequent basis than lithic or more stable remains or records. (b) Because frequent handling will accelerate the breakdown of £ragile materials, material remains and records should be viewed but handled as little as possible during inspections. (8) Periodically inventorying the collection by accession, lot, or catalog record for the purpose of verifying the location of the material remains and associated records (a) Material remains and records ora valuable nature should be inventoried on a more frequent basis than other less valuable remains or records. (b) Because frequent handling will accelerate the breakdown of fragile materials, material remains and records should be viewed but handled as iittle as possible during inventories. (9) Providing access to the collection for scientific, educational, and religious uses, subject to such terms and 'conditions as are necessary to protect and preserve the condition, research potential, religious or sacred importance, and uniqueness of the collection, such as (a) Scientific and educational uses. A coliecrion shall be made available to qualified professionals for study, loan and use for such purposes as in-house and traveling exhibits, teaching, public interpretation, scientific analysis, and scholarly research. Qualified professionals would include, but not be limited to, curators, conservators, collection managers, exhibitors, researchers, scholars, archaeological contractors, and educators. Students may use a collection when under the direction of a qualified professional. (b) Religious uses. Religious remains in a collection shall be made available to persons for use in religious rituals or spiritual activities. Religious remains generally are of interest to medicine men and women, and other religious practitioners and persons from Indian tribes, and other indigenous and immigrant ethnic, social, and religious groups that have aboriginal or historic ties to the lands from which the remains are recovered, and have traditionally used the remains or class of remains in religious rituals or spiritual activities. (c) The repositoO' shall not allow uses that would alter, damage, or destroy an object in a collection unless the repository determines that such use is necessary for scientific studies or public interpretation, and the potential g~in in scientific or interpretive information out~veigbs the potential loss of the object. When possible, such use should be limited to unprovenienced, non-unique, non-fragile objects, or roa sample of objects drawn from a larger collection of simila; objects. (d) No collection (or part thereoi-) shMl be loaned to any person without a written agreement ber~veen the repository and the borrower that specifies the terms and conditions of the loan. At a minimum, a loan agreement shall specify (1) the collection or object being loaned; (2) the purpose of the (3) the length of the loan; (4) any restrictions on scientific, educational or rehgious uses, including whether any object may be altered, damaged or destroyed: (5) except as provided in section 2(9)(c), the stipulation that the borrower shall handle the collection or object being borrowed during the term of the loan so as not to damage or reduce its scientific, educational, religious, or cultural value; and (6) any requirements for insuring the object 15 New York Archaeological Council or collection being borrowed for any los. s, damage or destruction during transit and while in the borrower's possession. (e) The repository shall maintain administrative records that document approved scientific, educational, and religious uses of the collection. AppendLx A FEDERAL LAWS, REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. 36 CFR Parr 800 Protection of Historic Properties 36 CFR Part 60 National Register of Historic Places 36 CFR Part 61 Procedures for Approved State and Local Government Historic Preservation Programs 36 CFR Part 79 Curation of Federally Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of Interior's Standards and Guidelines Department of Transportation Act of 1966 National Environmental Policy Act of I969 Archaeology and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 Archaeological Resource Protection Act of 1979 43 CFR Part 7 Protection of Archaeological Resources: Uniform Reguhtions Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 Abandoned Shipwreck Act Guidelines Native American Grave and Repatriation Act of 1990 NEW YORK STATE LAWS &.ND REGULATIONS State Historic Preservation Act - Article 14 0£ Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law 9 NYCKR Part 426 Authority' and Purpose 9 NT'CRR Part 427 State Register of Historic Places 9 i'x/YCRR Part 428 State Agenw? Activities .~:fecr~ng Historic and Cultural Properties State Environmental Quality Revie~v Act - Article 8 of Environmental Conservation Law 6 NYCRR Parr 617 State Environmental Quality Review The SEQR Handbook (I992 edition) PERTINENT GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS AND "HOW TO" MATERIALS Advisory Council on Historic Preservation The Treatment of Archaeoioglcal Properties Section 106 Step-by-Step U. S. Department of the Inretior Technical Brief No. tl Legal Background of Archaeological Resource Protection National Register Bulletins #12 Definition of National Reglsrer Boundaries for Archaeological Properties 715 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation #16A How to Complete National Register Registration #16B How to Complete National Register Multiple Property Documentation Form #29 Guidelines for Restricting Information About Historic and Prehistoric Resources #36 Evaluating and Registering Historical Archaeology Sites and Districts #38 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties #41 Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Cemeteries and Burial Places #43 Defining Boundaries for National Register Properties To obtain copies and or updated versions of the above documents, please address your request to the relevant agencies listed below. Advisory Council On Historic Prezervation 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 809 Washington, DC 20004 National Register of Historic Places National Park Service U.S. Dept. of Interior P.O. Box 37127 Washington, DC 20013-7I 27 Archaeological Assistance Division National Park Service U.S. Dept. of Interior P.O. Box 37127 Washington, DC 20013-7127 New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau Peebles Island P.O. Box I89 Waterford, ~ 12188-0189 Phone 518-237-8643 New York State Museum Anthropological Survey Cultural Education Center Empire State Plaza Albany, NY'12230 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road Albany N~' 12233 16 Ne~v York Archaeological Council AppendLx B NYAC BURLAJL tLESOLUTION 15 September 1972 Whereas, the Native Americans of New York State regard the disturbance of their burials in the ground as disrespectfu~ to their dead; and Whereas, the New York Archaeological Council, the representatives of the majority of the professional archaeologists working in New York State recognizes that the same legal and ethical treatment shou2d be accorded all human burials irrespective of racial or ethnic origins; and Whereas, NYAC recognizes that despite our position the disturbance of burials by others is and will be a reality; therefore, Resolved, 1) That the New York Archaeological Council urges a moratorium on planned burial excavation of Indian skeletons in New York Stare until such time as public opinion regards the recovery of skeletal data as a scientific endeavor irrespective of racial or ethnic identity, 2) That we oppose the excavation of burials for teaching purposes aa pedagogically unnecessary and scientifically destructive, 3) That ~ve agree in the Future to reburial of Indian skeletons in a manner and at a time prescribed by the Native Americans whenever burials are chance encounters during archaeological excavations or other earth moving activities, 4) That we request the opportunit7 to study these skeletons for their scientific and historic significance before reburial, and 5) That when a burial ground is being disturbed by untrained individuals, a committee of local Native Americans and archaeologists should jointly plan the salvage of information a~d the preservation of remains. Appendix C NYAC CODE OF ETHICS/k.ND PtL~.CTICE ,~rchaeology is a profession, and the privilege of professional practice requires professional morality and professional responsibility, as well as professional competence, on the past of each practitioner. A. The Archaeologist's Responsibility to the Public: (I) An archaeologist shalh a. recognize a commitment to present archaeolog7 and its research results to the public in a responsible manner; b. actively support conservation of the archaeological resource base; c. be sensitive to, and respect the legitimate concerns o£ groups whose culture histories are the subjects of archaeological investigations; d. avoid and discourage exaggerated, misleading, or unwarranted statements about archaeological matters that might induce others to engage in unethical or illegal activity; e. support and comply with the terms of the UNESCO Convention on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export, and transfer of ownetship of cultural property. (2) An archaeologist shall not: a. engage in any illegal or unethical conduct involving archaeological matters or knowingly permit the use of her/his name in support of any illegal or unethical activity involving archaeological matters; b. give a professional opinion, make a pubIic report, or give legal testimony involving archaeological matters without being as thoroughly informed as might reasonably be expected; c. engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation about archaeological matters; d. undertake any research that affects the archaeological resource base for wbich she/he is not qualified. B. The Archaeologist's Responsibility to Her/His Colleagues: (1) An archaeoIogist shall: a. give appropriate credit for work done by others; b. keep informed and knowledgeable about developments in her/his Eeld or fields of specialization; c. accurately, and ~vithout undue delay, prepare and properly disseminate a description of research done and its results; d. communicate and cooperate with colleagues having common professional interests; e. give due respect to colleagues' interest in, and rigbt to, inform about, sizes, areas, collections, or data ~vhere there is a rnutua] active or potentially active research concern; £. know and comply with all laws applicable to her/his archaeological research, as well aa with any relevant procedures prom~gated by duly constituted professional organizations; g. report lm. owledge of violations of this Code to proper authorities. (2) An archaeologist shall not: a. falsely or maliciously attempt to injure the reputation of another archaeologist; b. commit plagiarism in oral or written communication; c. undertake research that affects the archaeological resource base unless reasonably prompt, appropriate analysis and reporting can be expected; d. refuse a reasonable request from a qualified colleague for research data. C. The Archaeologist's Responsibility to Employers and Clients: (1) An archaeologist shall: 17 New York Archaeological Council a. respect &e interests of her/his employer or client, so far as is consistent with the public welfare and this Code of St:mdards; b. refuse to comply with any request or demand of an employer or client which conflicts with the Code or Standar&; c. recommend to employers or clients the employment of other archaeological or other cxper~ consultants upon encountered archaeological problems beyond her/his competence; d. exercise reasonable care to prevent her/his employees, colleagues, associates and others whose services are utilized by her/him from revealing or using confidential information. Confidential information means information of a non- archaeological nature gained in the course of employment which the employer or client has requested be held inviolate, or the disclosure of which would be embarrassing or would be likely to be detrimental to the employer or client. Information ceases to be confidential when the employer or client so indicates or when such information becomes publicly known. (2) An archaeoIogist shall not: a. reveal confidential information, unless required by law; b. use confidential information to the disadvantage of the client or employer; or c. use confidential information for the advantage of herself/himself or a third person, unless the client consents afier f~ll disclosure; d. accept compensation or anything of value for recommending the employment of another archaeologist or other person, unless such compensation or thing of value is fully disclosed to the potential employer or client; e. recommend or participate in any research which does not comply with the requiremenrz of the SOPA Standards of Research Performance Appendix D GLOSSARY Adverse impact: A damaging change to the quality of the cultural resource's significant characteristics. An adverse impact will result in the loss of important information. Archaeological resources: The subsurface remains of buildings, fireplaces, storage pits, habitation areas, and other features of past human activity. Investigating archaeological resources requires the use of a specialized set of techniques and methods for extracting the maximum information from the ground. Archaeological resources can be either prehistoric or historic in origin. Archaeological sites: One type of cultural resource, unique in that they are the only way to learn about people who kept no written records. They also can be used to confirm, correct, and expand upon the written records left by our ancestors. Archaeology: A set of methods and techniques designed ro recover important information about the life-ways of past peoples and cultures from the remains they [eft in the ground. Artifact: See Material remains. Collection: Any material remains that are excavated or removed during a survey, excavation or other study of a prehistoric or historic resource, and associated records that are prepared or assembled in connection with the survey, excavation, or other scud?.. Cultural resources: The collective evidence of the past activities and accomplishments of' people. They include buildings, objects, features, locations, and structures with scientific, historic, and cultural value. Extant resources: Buildings or structures which are still standing in much the same form as when they ~vere first constructed. Historic houses, bridges, and farmsteads are examples. Feature: Intact evidence of cultural activity, DTiCally in the form of hearths, pits, cisterns, privies, wells, postmolds, or other intentional, permanent alterations of the ground surface. Historic property.,. Any building, structure, object, district, place, site, or area significant in the histo~, architecture, archaeolo~', or culture of the State of New York, irs communities, or the Nation. Impact: Any change, whether good or bad, in the quality of a cultural resource's significant historic, architectural, or archaeological characteristics. Impact mitigation: A course of action which lessens the harm that will be inflicted upon a cultural resource. It may include ~vork restrictions, repair, restoration, documentation, the installation of a protective covering, or the planned removal ora resource. In the case of archaeological sites, the latter typically involves full-scale excavations. Material remains: Objects, specimens and other physical evidence that a;e excavated or removed in connection with efforts to locate, evaluate, document, study, preserve or recover a prehistoric or historic resource. National Rog/stet of Historic Places: The nation's official list of historic, architectural, archaeological, and cultural resources worthy of preservation. The Re~ster contains individual sites and historic districts of national, state, or local significance. The Register is maintained by the United States Department of the Interior. NYAC: New York Archaeological Council, a not-for-profit association of professional archaeologists with an interest in New York State archaeology. 18 New York Archaeological Council Prehistoric/historic resources: Prehistoric resources date to the time before written records for a specific area, ':vhile historic resources axe those dating to the time of written records. In North America, the time of written records began about A.D. 1500 with the arrival of European explorers. However, some parra of the country were not visited by outsiders until much later. Reviewer: Anyone who reads, examines, or studies the report for a lead agency, municipality, citizen group, university, or similar body in order to evaluate the cultural resource investigations completed, the results, and the recommendations. SHPO: Stare Historic Preservation Offlcer, who is an appoinged offlcial responsible for administering the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) within a state government or jurisdiction. Significant properv/: A cultural resource that meets the criteria of the State or National Register of Historic Places. 19 PLANNING BOARD MEMBEe RICHARD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 April 30, 1996 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Charles Cuddy, Esq. P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: Major subdivision for Indian Shores SCTM# 1000-116-1-3 Dear Mr. Cuddy: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board on Monday, April 29, 1996: BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board deem the revised February 1996 Draft Environmental Impact Statement incomplete with respect to its scope, content and adequacy for the purpose of commencing public review. The enclosed report dated April 29, 1996 from Charles Voorhis of Voorhis Associates, Inc. and Robert Kalin's review of the cultural resources portion of the DEIS, itemize the information that must be addressed. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Richard G. Ward '~ Chairman cc: Charles Voorhis, Voorhis and Associates, Inc. Jean Cochran, Supervisor Southold Town Board enc. 11971 Re: Drax, -~I3 R~mew for [nd/an Shores Cutchogue, .New Yor× ocr your re~ue-:t 0axd in accordmnce with the State Eavironmemnl Quality Rev/ow na;/e comoleted a review oI ~he Drar: ElS rot :he above rerereneed p~:o~e~ The was :e-,aewe.q rot conient ~nd adequacy m accordance w~th SEQIf N'5'CRR Pan En¼rop..men',al [mpac,. Statement Pro~'"dures. . T.;e ~!o,i,.,..¢n; ~va~. are ~mus~y. ~ ~e'aed oy C/A mad comments reg~omg the 'a'er~ ro~ce~ to your o~ce on October 20, !995. T~e aopRc~fs Group, revised ~Le Dry2 EIS and resub~tred ~e docume~l for 2archer review, wh~c'h :ece~vea ,y ,Ac To~ of 5ourhold Pl~ning Board on ~ch 26, 1996..~ou~ the re~sed Dr~ EIS h~ addressed most of the co--eau coat,ned ~ the O~ober 20, !995 lea=r, a number of ~e~ fn ~he Dr~t EIS were not adequately addressed ,~d~ reaoe~ to 5cove ~d conlann ~2ere are ao new co,meat5 in ~his re,Aew. The nature of the' ~e,~c~nc,es~ ..... · mcmae commen~a from our October 20 ~euer' ' the: were nor addr,~ssed al al, or '*~ere no~ adequately addressed. ~aerefore, we su~es~ that the Dr~t EIS be mended .~,.b ...e ,_~es ,nc. uded .n ..rs ,cae ~nor .o .,_ .c,eot~c. for ,,,ca.anon ,o the gene.~ Our com~mem, s on the ~cooe, coment and adequacy of the Draf'~ ElS m:e Corr'.~nents on ~e malmr~ resour2~s pomon of ~e DrY: ~IS, re~ewed by Robert a~acnea as well. ~ ~he Bom-d ~s in a~cement ~h these findings, all appropriate se~ons of . ~S should be ~ker~ to r~]em the ~ove cow, eau. ~m%: you for *.he oooomunit¥ ~o orov/de ~he Town of $ourhoid P'ann nz Bo~d M~ our. e z~e,~ or ..~e D,~ E.S.or ._m~ Snore~. P, omded ~e acove not.d rter,~ ~e iatisfac~oniy addressed N the revision, ~e document c~ be cir~alated for a 30 day co~ent ~er, o~ m oreo, .o com~der rh~ =c~ura~ ~d v~d~p/or ~e do~ment. We ~d oe ole~ed to questions reg~ding '&is re,Sew. Very tl:u. ly ,,tours, ~, M--,~h"art~o'"fhis, C:EP, .~C? Summary Pace t: Please state that cor~trucfion of s~gle-farr~ly residences and out bmqdings is likely to occur on the agricultural parcels. Page 2, last para.~raph: The boundary of the ffdal wetland on the eastern port/on of the project sit[ must be flagged b~v NYSDEC and depicted on the site plan for Be proposed oroiect The current site plan indicates that the wetlands have only oeen flal~ed 6v ~e applicant's consultant. Page 6: me discussion of alternatives should oe expanded to surmnar/ze all alternatives, Page 6: .4. est o.f necessary approvals is required, aster the Seep!hq Outline. Page 9: Taote ~ indicates that 40 percent of earn of'the residenua] lots will be established in landscaped vegetat,.on. Fertilization practices on this large area may adversely impact groundand surface wa[er quality. Measures to rairdmize this potenti~i should be stated ~n.: the approprmte sections of the Draft EIS. Substantive comments on othe, sections on the Draft EIS should be reflected in the Summary Section as appropriate. Description of Proposed Action ' Page 17: DiscdssJ~on et' existing zoning sinould include wAn/mum lot size a_nd other dimensional restrictions for residences. ' Page 19: 'Fnis section does not discuss buffering on the residential lots with the ,.xc,.euon ~hat ~ will ,.e~orm to nummum setbacxs pursuant to ArUcte -,5 of the ECL. Natura2iy vegetated buffers should be maintafned along the side yards of each residential lot. R ispardculady important to maintain n~tturally ve'getated buffers along the wetlanffs associated with Downs Creek, therefor{:, h is recommended tha~ these buffers '?e 100 feet wide as measured hofizonta.!ly from the wetlands boundary as determined by NYSDEC or extend to occupy slopes ¢ver I0 perce~t, whicfi ~ver is more stringent. These buffers would have si~mficant eco~ogicM va:ue as well as significant visual screening value. Areas where these, buffers would place a sehqus constrai.nt on devetg~pment (es. lots 5 & 6) may be discussed and alternative buffering conflzuration offered. Buffer areas and building eavetop, es should be depicted on the ~onceptual Development Plan. [f <qe applicant is wi/ling to covenant naturally vegetated'buffer areas as a n'ddgau'on measure, the clop. merit should state this ~ such. ' Page 2J?: Stormwater runoff :rom roofs should be collected ,Aa gut:er and leader system~ and recharge throush drTwetls. * Page 22: The need rot a recharge basin should be deterrn/ned at this time in error to assess impacts. The proposed road of over 2,000 linear feet will re0uire drainage control. If a recharge basin is required t.o handle stormwater runoff g,enerated on the project site, where will itbe located? What changes to [he site man ~,11 be necessar7 to facilitate the construction of a recharge basin? * ~age 22.: The latest edition of the Suffolk Countj. Department of Health Serv/ces (SCDHS) "A~orova! of Plans and Construction - Sewage Dis~:osal Systerns for $ingle-Famil9 .'Residences" reg, a!ations (November 13, i995) ~'equi:es a m/n/mum se~aza.:ion distance of 3 feet between the bottom of leaching pool., and the hi~i~est recorded groundwater level measurement for convention~'i sanitar/ .... I~ONb-N ,~L AND PLANN[NG CONSULTANTS P~el ~'de~ o! 1]r'a. ft ElS :ee~,,nowever, ~CDmS oas ~e:ermmed :,hat alternanve systems are ~pproo~are $rounawarer [~el vanat~on mouldbe pro, ced to dete~me whether the doeth to wa:er beneath the sire ~s adequate to support convention~ sml:~ svste~. Admu~na~ co--outs reg~mng groundwater level vanauop~ ~e c,romded below under :he Envirommenral ~etring heading. , ' Page 22: ~ne discussion on o~en s~ace should stare mat our buil~n~ ~d 2 reaaences may ~e const, ac,ed on the agricultural (cor~emanon ¢~c~ls..~didoaaiiy, the ~ddpated ~mount of [~d on the ~ement ?~ce!s to be used ~or residenfi~ or other~se nen-ag~c'Smr~ uses should be stated. Pa~e 30: ~!ease ~,a[e .... ;ge' erosion and sedimentation controls .~ro¢osed. to be u~Ezed on-site. r_ge ~*' Will a variance :or me :engm or me proposed cai-de-sac 5e Eavironmental Setting: percent. As such, a map depicting are~ with slopes 10 :o 1~ percen~ 15 t6 20 ~ercenr, ~d g~eat~r rhaa *0 eercent should be erovided These stooes may be percent) should also se Wen. ~s mformatmn ,ail se usedto detemme the 9rover location o~ st~cxures and :he um~ts or ceding ¢O:g~tI~ adverse impacts ~soclated 'mm s;ormwater runoff, erosion ~d Page 3~: Tze SEQR Scopin: OmHne required ~ disoassion of the composition ~_a aS.cx,ess or su~sur,ac, sofia beneath ~e :or ~Se ~roleCt sz~e .u~pic,~u un the sffe plan) &scass~on or sous. Being logs for off-rite wells are nor necess~ ~n ~eu of the more aoecific on-me borings. should be stereo. According to ~CDHS Water :~ough ;hegreundwa~er flow ~ ~rom north [i~eiy to i~]uenc~ groundwater flow ~o :he southeast. Page 38: Toe disc~sion of g?mndwater elevation variation ~s imuffident (~o sen~eaces) and :h~ i~o~mauon given ~ nut referenced. Adequate ~ouqdwater e!eva~on e~iaticm should ~de se~on~ ~oundwater elevation ~ata rot a ~er~od of appro~telv [0 7e~s from no,by mo~torfi~g wells. m~mum ~d ~nimum gro~d~ater e!evadop2 e~en%nced at :he mo~to~g wells sho~d also be aorta ~d ex~aoo[ared ~o :ae subject site. ~e text shoed indicate :hat m~mer in which " ' ' are ~rounawater vanauo~ extrapolated to the projec~ sffe, underMng asumptmns ~d reference any ~e~ent studies g, o~.uw,mr ,e eel ~an,~,ons adjac--, ~o .,del c, .~k, or rivers. ~ne posszble effect oi groundwater disch~ge to surface waters ~ wei1 ~ the effe~ of rid~ fluctuations should also be discussed. Monitoring well ~ata contained ~n A:¢end~ o seems to indi~ta :hat ~rou=dwater fluctuation at the site is ~earer th~: 0.5 (eot. Deterwanadon of th~ v~iation !repot:am :o ensure the proper ~unc:ioning Page ,~,.~ .~ ~,< ,5. Due :o :he direcIion of groundwater flow and :he .crol'ecr site's oro:d~2w ~o ~udace water% inadequate depnk :o water may cause m~rogen ,oamng to Dow~ ~,eek ~d Po.omc Bay. ~:e ~cai Groundwater di~ssioa does not contain ~y i~o~adon toe.ding ~roundwater cualir¢ in the area of ~e site, ~ required by due SEC?R Outage, ~qe wa:er ~uahqe ~ata ~or nervy '~eils contame~ m Apg,cn~ a should 0e summarized In this sec:lo~ InGrate ware{ q~ data (p~(~iy for severM or]the nearby weih ~e not ~nclude2 ~ Apoendix :Z Tze source or irri~atio~ water supoiv for ~t ag~calt~M acti~ffe:~ on the project si~e saould be iden~Eed. It ~he source ~s an on-s~te trnganon well, ~e capaci~ =d condition should be stated. Pd~e 54, Fibre ! i: ~e !oca~ion of uhe dr~nage ditch ~d extent of ~eshwarer we:i~ds vege:anon notefl m ~eh remsed Dry: miS, saoutd be deprived on :i= (i-esh'Jarer wed=ds should be fla~ed by N~SDEC). If ~is ~ does [amaln ffeshwamr weft=ds, the 5mplicatiorm mud restricno~ on rise prooosed use of ~e sire (agncalmr~, ogxlmnd or res~dennM) snoula 0e stored. Fa~e ~0: T~e pnotosvaon or use presumably dead ~eer Should be removed from ,he Dr~k EIS. ~e ohotogramh s :naporocn=te and, contrar/ro tls capno~ not representanve o~ :he gray or species thai comprises !ocM<lclffe on vroject site. P, ~e 6; ~ sr ~ara~ra~h' Clam svedes on the aghcult~ pordon of only a ¢onion of the a~ricuitur~ oarce2s a~oeared ~o Se recendy f~ed. EMa~ng plato .p.c~es ,~ overgro~ ne~d$ snou!d be obseaed =d noted Page o:: ~ ~er ~e Scoping Outline ~:d theg~or commen~ letten d~c~sio~ of imnd use :l~{s (intent. ~o~s and reccmmenearions ~ avp~ed to ~e projem site) should b~ :rovi~ed. ~{e re.Aew shouid inciude the fotldwlng ~l~s: 208 Study, NURP S~dy, PecocJc E~mm~/Progrmm Act/on P!mn, Southo]d ~ad P-o~rm, Suffoik Coun~ Farm Presercarion Ac~ Sourhoid To~ :5tew~dsmo T~ Force, ~d o~e. apohcaote The seeping ie:;er requests ;ha; the vegetation of ;he area surrou~zding ~e site be dis,tossed. , ne Dr=, ElS should vro~de a vegetation map to show ~he appromte a!srr:ounon oI each or me hamtats on s~re. ~xe ~ppro~mate acreages of the habitats should be presemed ~ well. Environmental Impacts Geolo~,ic imoacts Mc!ud/ng impaczs on soils and topo~aphv as w¢:lt as the :[oFos'ed i,.,~'~;or:.ation of top scsi] :o the ?reject site should Se discassed a.s per ~oo~g Ounine. , . Pag~./6: T'ne !as: cara~rapn refers to :ne use of native vegetation for. !aadscap/.ng and e, rip irr{gatioH for ~.he'prooosed vineyards. It should be stated whether o~: not ~heqe ;~ganon control men,res ~1 indeed be implemented. Moron smtin[. rnese me~ure~ w~mout implementation ,gill not reduce the project's &emro ~a~. ,u~p%. If srric~ xnd ~eE~2t¢ implementation of [hose me~ures is .... e..~e& ~n~ ~n.lys.s v. ~;c.~ared ~ter u.age should be ~ended .o reflect a Pag~ s sentence indi~rJ~ the ex,cc:ed sev~a~on distance baleen the bo[tom of [eacnmff ¢oot~ an~ Ch, wa,er ;nolo snou!d be ~ended ~ accesser. Page 95: ~e !:car:on or we:l 5-:0~,6 ~s dmcrcnt in Fibres 15 ~(1 10 ~page 40). ~is should be reconciled. ~age: 80 throug ~: ~a!yses of nitrogen load~ indicates ordy the ~oad in ¢ounds, bu~ does ,~et evauate the impact in ~rms of rec~arg~ water qu~w/~d e~ecr on grouna an: surface waters. T~ memo~ or ~ys~s conclude '~m a calcmlarion of :he concenxa~on of Mtrcgea in teenage. impact shoed be ::red and ev~uated in ~e ~scassiom on dfi~:g water ~u~li~/(page 90) ~d suakce waters (page 94). , from s~ >ys~ems. B~e~ on Table l!, it is noted tha~ residenil~ use ~cco~ :or ,ess ~han .... one-~mm or [ne tot~ ~troeen load. Ta¢ ~oa~ of, Nar:gert in rechage ~houid be detemned N consideration of ~ mir:gert sources (as discussed oa :ages 80-89 in the DrY: ELS). ' potatoes ~d celeU, howeve?, other portions of t~e ~raR EIS ~d A~oendices ~iare '~ar use or:joe: site is oeec=fed by vinev~ds or h~ lain f~low {dr a or/ea~:. ~ue condmon xgncu~tura p~cms should oe c!~ned ~d table l: on page 95 ~ended if nece~saU. Page 9,, ora :~a~aen: ~ne stazemenr mol ~ounawazer Dri~l~ flows away from me we~fana~ creea sneu!a oe referenced. Acc:roma to ~he gCDHS Water ~ note Lorn:ur Ma=, ane diremion of groundwater ~ ' now i~to rBe scu~, however, ,s~ "~.7 ~ "ha" gr~u..a~ar~. ~ '" · ' ~. ,:~sc,~ar~e" ~. m Dowm Creek irXluen~s th.e dkec~on of ~ounawater r: the 5ourne~r. ~.~erefore, ,tm anuc~pated ~har ~c~dwater ~eneam the ~rojee: site :lows ~ow~d [he creek. Page 98: ImPacts :o ~ vegetative co~umdes on the oro~ea site should be srazed. A :~ele com=~ing ~is~nz svecffic habitat are~ ~u~ oro~>osed site coverages [Tao!e ;} wom~ oe le~prm m assessing ~mpac=. ~ae estab~hmen: of 40 ¢erc~nt o~ each residenti~ lot in landscape vegetation ' .~,t,~a..on :may resuk ~ an adverse imva~ r: ~und ~d surface ,a'atem As norad in aorevious ,- *' ~ *' ' ~omment, m~ ,=t~mated cc.ncen=adon of .m, o~e., ,n teenage m consmeratmn or ~ mir:gert loadings Should be c~c~azed. Fezilizazion =ractices ~d/'or ~he 0to::sod extem of I~caoe vege,atmn mould oe &mended ~r cai~lated mx:gert concentrauo:~ ~e Dis~sio=~ in the Dr~r ElS Mternate be~een a 75 foot ~d l~ :foot ~de buffer bevaeen wetl~ds ~d proposed devetoomenr. This issue should he reconciled. ~; is recow~ended that a 100 foot wide~uffer be maintained ~ong ae wefl~d :o lactose the retention of natural vegetation, to provide ~ adequate ~Id~e corridor and for aesthetic :urn:scs. ~ ne :=at does aneW =~s~s$ lmDacls to ~ne osprey and other wlldhle. ~ese semeaces should be Dart of I mbre comNete aisoassion in dne WE!dlife Imoaoa incre~ed hum~ ac:ivW shoui~ also be =roMded. Page 99: g~ ,er the Sco,in~ Outline, ap0ilcabie !~d use =1~ should be imenr, go~s ~q~ reca~enaanons of ~he ' '" pmn= >nould be s,ated. A sin~e P~e4 lismd in a pr¢¼ous ,:orr~r. enr. Mitigation ~e Scopin~ Oud£",e com:~ns a iis~ of possible instigation mc~ure~ for ~hc orooo~ed ~roj¢~:. ;nc me,utes on ~h~s ks, snou!d%e co~dercd cor 2a~e ~,~: Groundwaer r2dgadon me,utes number 4, 6 zed 7 would be more ¢ro~edy located under surface wa:ers. Page ~0~, ~s~ ~a~apn: me maintenance or a [~ root vegetated hurter be~ccn orooosed development and surface waters would ~elB ~o deue!opm'eni~ impacu te sever~ rcsourcc~ including ~hsual, :c rem~ nar~ would be an effe~ive ~kmation memure ~d ~e restfi~e~ Page ~/, ~nc 2~agrapn: ~ ne use or dU wells rot rne rccn~ge of :~tomwater runoff ~enerat[d on roof surfaces is recommended. Page :v/. ~m o~agra~n: Is me a~pnc~r ,~thng to coven~qt that aatu~v ve~em[ed buffers w~il 'rem~n bergen the prooosed residend~ lo~s? Page :08, 4da para,ach: Ir S ~ra:ed that ~'~fdgsired by the orosoecdve iot o~er' :ne :co,tm: or oroposec nouaes may be moved to avmd &ny dmcovered resources. Tnis}entenca 3hould be amended zo smze: "~f desired by prospective lot owner or appropriate agent/../. Page ~0, :s~ .o~r,~rape. It ~nomd be stated :hat mere are 7 ~ternadve discussed. Page ~'~ ~,* 2n~ full ~agrapn: ~ne Mitigation Me,utes section of ~e Dr~ EiS smms Jug benefi~ of ~ I00 foot wide naturally venerated buffer ~ong the wed&ads, however, Akemative E szates ~ha: i 106 foot buffer doe~: not pro~de ~ddifionai beneMu. ~s ~ssue should be reconciled. 2~gc llL Kxp~ded Fort Corchaug Ske .~tcrnative: ~nis akemative should corr:cred and exo~ded. There h~ been no re~ues~ for attached ::esidemi~ mu~u, or ou~ v: ~.~ac~e. residential ~ou, mere[ore, ~e reference to condominiums should be removed. There are a number of ways ~n which ~rerna~ve co~d be ~ccomolished and ar a minimum, the folloMng possible opdom shouid be considered: Lot i0 oa the map could be removed, and the ac,misidon area could be expanded :hereby providing compensation *.o the ).andowxer. -Lot !0 could be removed, .',,nd an aaamonal lot coulo be ~.ccom.modated ~u'v-n ~,e ex,sang ?rooosea aevetooment area bv reduct.,m of !or sizes. ~ne ,.;suLam ,eL would .gmara m ~e [-. a¢~e s~ze range. L~T ;0 coma oe removed, a_ne the proposed develoomem area could oe e~anded ro achieve ~he same yield. ' MEMOEANDUM TO: Mr. Charles R. Cuddy, Attorney at Law FROM: Wi[Iiam I. Roberts D', Chief Archaeoiogist /~,//,//~'-- DATE: May 6, 1996 40 Exchan~. Place. ISth B~r ,"qew York Ne~y~.% DO0S Fax ~,o.~. 480-~80 RE: Indian Shores Project The Indian Shores project was begun during Inly or' I993. The Stage lA background research and the planning for the Stage lB testing were completed by the end of December I993. Budgets were prepared and submkted at that thne. Stage iB testing was developed prior to any publication of standards by the New York Archaeological Council. During this planning process in 1993 the Town of Southold had no standards for archaeological testing. Had the Town established standards, then such standards could have been used in designing the Stage lB testing program and in preparing the budget for it. in lieu of any standards by the Town of Southold we employed the regulatory ~tandards of the New York State Office of Parks. Recreation and Historic Prese~ation (OPRHP). Budgetary limitations were also considered in establishing testing coverage. Certain ;areas were eliminated from Stage lB testing because they were the locations of already l~own archaeological sites. Two such sites were known prior to our testing: Fort Corchaug and the Rail Fence Well Site. Both had been reported by Ralph Solecki during 1950. N'o subsurface testing was done within these Iclown site locations. Since the pu~ose of Stage lB testing was to provide evidence on the presence or absence of archaeological sites, the:se locations could still be included in the analysis by using the previously reported data. The reasons why certain lots received more intensive coverage than others is dependent on our overall testing strategy. After covering all of the project area west of [he existing dirt pathway and east'bf the existing fields with an appro×im~te' !00 foot grid p~ttern, the' remaining time and effor~ were used to increase coverage near Fort Corchaug. As a result Lots 12 and 13, as indicated on the figure, received greater attention before budgetary oonstrair ts brought the fieldwork to a close. The ter)'~ "fairly intensive'visual examination" is defined in this case as the field crew walldng abreast no more than ten feet apart and examining the ground surface carefully for artifacts as they walk. Any artifacts found were ~aggeO and their locations plotted based on distance~.~ from'obvious landmarks such as [he edges of the fields or :urns in the pathways. This type. of surface collecting is a method found acceptable as part of professional surveys by the NYSOPRHP. Indian Shores Project May 6, 1996 Page 2 The term 'potentialIy significant artifacts" is defined as any artifact that could provide us with evidence regarding the occupation or use of the project area during specific time periods. For example, .all prehistoric pottery and worked lithics were inciuded, but fire-cracked rocks were excluded. Fire-cracked rocks could result from deliberate heating by prehistoric people, but could also be a result of natural forest or brush fires, or historic Euro-American$ firing fields to clear fcr farming. Historic artifacts were judged on a similar basis. All historic ceramics, all clay pipes, and all coins or tokens were included. Container glass with rims, bases, or embossed, etched or painted details was included, 'out flat glass and plain container glass body shards we.re excluded. Obviously modern items such as beer or soft drink bottles or cans were excb.~ded. Construction materials were excluded excepting marked bricks or obviously hand wrought nails. The areas surface collected are as follows: all pathways and roads that were not paved, and all of the existing open fields that could be plowed. This turned our to be only tl~e northern field since we were unable to arrange for the southern field to be plowed. In addition, surface collecting was done on the obvious refuse deposit found near the ruined farm buildings at Shovel Test 77, We did not set up an independent datum poin[. Ail measurements were made relative to existing landmarks or property lines, relying upon the sur,'ey by Young and Young. Figure 2 znd the artifact mven,ory, Appendix 2, answer the question about artifact clus,enno. None were clustered excepting the historic refu~e found near Shovel Test 7'7,. No further investigations were done to determine whether any subsurface materials extended laterally from those found in the Shovel Tests. 'This type of investig?.tion is generally part of a Stage 2 testing program. This project included only Stage lb testing to provide evidence of the presence er absence of archaeological'sites, As stated on page 3 of our addendum, all prehistoric potter7 in New York State dates to the Terminal Archaic or Transitional Period through the Woodland Period to the Contact Period. Since no other evidence indicated the Contact Period, the date range of Terminal Archaic or Transitional through Woodland was supplied. The six sherds range in size from 1.8 - 3.35 cm with a thickness of 0.45 -,0.95cm. Ail are body sherds with an brownish yellow exterior, 10YR6/6 and an interior col6md a very dark grey, 10YR3/1. No decoration is present on the sherd:;. The exterior surface is smoothed and the mxture is relatively fine. We have not assumed that the historic site located within the proposed Town Park will not be impacted. Our repor~ states only that no impacts are presently planned. Once the Town of Southcld develops plans for the park, then :he effects of the proposed impacts on this site Indian Shores Project May 6, 1996 Page 3 and the others within the park can be evaluated. This is also true of the prehistoric site located pardy within the proposed park and partIy within Lot I of tile Minor Subdivision, The proposed house in Lot l, as well as any impacts from the proposed vineyard that are deeper than the plowing done over the past century, may affect the site. Irrigation systems and fenceposts may require excavation deeper then the recent plowing. Our report recommends possible further work on the historic farm site, and a Stage 2 investigation of the new prehistoric s~te shouId the house be built. This si~ould also ~ncIude possible impacts from use as a vineyard, but planning for Stag~ 2 investigations is dependent upon the possible gutur~ improvements ~at may be mad~ by the Town and the owner of the minor subdivision. ,~ewew cf Zaxfer ,~ep.~rt ACdendu.m, EVALUATION OF: ADDENDUM TO PHASE tA AND PHASE lB ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORTS, THE BAXTER PROPERTY; TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,. SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK ADDENDUM DATED: FEBRUARY 1996 Note: The Township should ~e aware of standards for archaeological research pu~t~s,,ea ~n: ,.,,=nd~r~.s for Culture! Resource Investiqations and Curation of Archaeotoqicai Cotiections in New York State" by The New York Archaeological Council, 1994. The Addendum was not compiete, many questions raised about the Stage IA report were ur~answered. Additional data provided in tl~e .-~ddendum raised further questions regarding the Stage lB repo:'t. The following are considered the most serious. Sta~;e iB Report. The iollowing questions were not addressed or were inadequately answered in '.~e ~.ddendum. Page i. The test design, as indica{ed by Figure 2, reveals ;.h.a~. many areas were {ess ;,~an adequateiy ~ested. "Limitaaons in ~e budge¢ can not be cited as a reason icr ;he Town cf SouthoiC ~o accept a ',ess than adequate Iest design..--or example, Lot 15 has six (6) subsurface tests indicated. See Figure 2. 'The area (about 1.8 acres) would require aprroxima~e!y 29 tests ec$ording to New York Archaeological Council s~andards. Thus in :his area (he testing reported is only one-fifth of what would ~ormally be accepta~ie by the ,crofessiona~ community. Furthermore. the Addendum does no,, explain ~hy some lots were more .h, eaviiy tested than o~hers. For example. Lots 12 and 13 have a ~otal cf 40 tests (NYAC standards would require 80 for this area). Thus this area has 86% of '.he requisite tests while o~her near-by a. reas have only 20%. if !here is a purpose for this disparity, the test design should have made thfs - c!ear. Furthermore, reasons why some areas were excluded from testing should be cieady and ¢cmpJetety stated. ?age 2. The Addendum does no~ define terms such as, "fairly intensive ~isual examination", and "~ote~tialt,/sig¢ificar~t ~r~,a..~ ,,,e addendum does not answer ;ne question regarding w~ich areas were surface collected and which we:m not. Page 3. The author makes sc reference Ioa project or other datum point. --he author's presentation of resui~s omits answering essentJaJ questions such as the surface decsity and c:usr, ering cf artifacts, factors which would be criticai in directing as ~ ,~' "' ' "='- ~'~ ~ Addendum where positive tests were = .... t=r¢~ ~ acswer ~h_ question regarding ;ispersion of Page 10. '.ne author ,...nc.ude.. da~, paragrapt~ on page 10) that the pottery ts indicative of a "Terminal/Transition a!A^/oodtand occupation", though there ts no descriotion of :h~ ~=age !2. The author does not address the question regarding assumptions regarding po~.ential disturbances to existing sites. Agandoned historic sites are prone to vandaiism, fire, and of course na[urai decay, it is ~he function of the S~age t research to provide ;nforma~ion on these sites as they exist at present, since it is uniik.ety ~,hat they will receive tut. her study. Furthermore. *_.ny buried site !oca[ed ;n an, area that is ¢.,,--m~¢u~.~.~ as vineyard ~'~',..,.,,ld be ~-u~jec~-' ' to soil disturbances related to .post hole digging, deep plowing, and emplacement of irrigation systems. Thus sucaq sites s~ould '~ot ~e discounted as within an area not to be impacted. as 2 CHARLES V(~ ~&SOCIATES, INC. ENVIRON M ENT~'~G CONSULTANTS April29, 1996 Ms. Melissa Spiro Assistant Planner Town of Southold Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Draft EIS Review for Indian Shores Cutchogue, New York Dear Ms. Spiro: As per your request and in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act, we have completed a review of the Draft. EIS for the above referenced proleet. The d~cument was reviewed for content and adequacy in accordance with SEQR Nn/CRR Part 6 7.8 - Environmental Impact Statement Procedures. o The d.o .c~ment was_previously reviewed by CVA and comments regarding the same were ~rorwarded to your office on October 20, 1995 The annlieant's consultant M~o, are Gro.up, ,r,evis.,ed ~e Dra~,t~EIS.and resub .mitred the ~ioeume~ for further review', w~e~'~as rece~veo oy me xown ot ~outlaold Plamung Board on March 26, 1996. Although the revised Draft EIS has addressed most of the comments contained in the October 20, 1995 comment letter, a number of areas in the Draft EIS were not adequately addressed with respect to scope, and content. There are no new comments in this review. The nature of the deficiencies include comments from our October 20 letter that were not addressed at all, or were not adequately addres.sed. Therefore, we suggest that the Draft EIS be amended to ad~.ess the issues included m this review prior to ~ts acceptance for circulation to the general pUOUC. C Our comments on the scope, content and adequacy of the .Draft EIS are attached. omments on the cultural resources portion of the Draft EIS, revaewed by Robert Kalin_ are attached as well. If the Board is in agreement with these findinos all appropriate sections of the Draft EIS should be altered to reflect the above comments.~' ' Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Town of Southold Planning Board with our review of the Draft EISfor Indian Shores. Provided the above noted items are satisfactorily addressed in the revision, the document can be c;~culated for a 30 day comment perigd in. order to consider the accuracy and validity of the document. We will be pleased to conauct turtl~er review at your request. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions regarding this review. enc. (2) ~~Very Jl:u~y y_ours,. 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 * (516) 331-1455 ,, FAX 331-8046 I~IAN ~ ~ _CJZT__C, It_O_Cz]~ - ~EW OF DRAFT EIS Smnmsry * Pa~.e 1: Please state that construction of single-family residences and out buildings is likely to occur on the agricultural~.arcels. * Page 2, last paragraph: The boundary of the t~dal wetland on the easte, rn portion of the project site must be flagged by NYSD.EC and depicted on the s~te plan for the proposedproject. The current site plan mdicates that the wetlands have only been fla~ed by the applicant's consultant. * Page 6: lne discussion of alternatives should be expanded to summarize all 7 alternatives. * Page 6: A list of necessary approvals is required asper the Scoping Outli~e. * Page 9: Table 1 indicates that 40 percent of eac.h of the residenti.al, lots will be established '.m landscaped vegetation. Fertilization practices on this large area m.ay aoverse~y unpact groundand surface water quality. Measures to minimize this potential should be stated in the appropriate sections of the Draft EIS. * Substantive comments on other sections on the Draft EIS should be reflected in the Summary Section as appropriate. Description of Proposed Action * Page 17: Discussion of existing zoning should include minimum lot size and other dimensional restrictions for residences. * Page 19: This section does not discuss buffering on the residential lo. ts with the exception that it will conform to nlJmmum setbacks pursuant to Article 25 of the ECL. Naturally vegetated buffers should be maintain.ed along the side yards of each residential lot. It is particularly important to maintain naturally v. egetated buffers along the wetlands associated with Downs Creek, therefore, it ~s recommended that these buffers be 100 feet wide as measured horizontally from the wetlands bound.my as determined b.y NYSDEC or extend to occupy slopes over~0 percent, which ever is more stringent. These buffers would have significant ecological value as well as significant visual screening value. Areas wnere these buffers would place a serious constraint on development (eg. lots 5 & 6) may.b.e, discussed and alternative buffering configuration offered. Bulfer areas and build.re, g envelop..e.s should be depicted on the Conceptual Development Plan. If ~e applicant is willing to covenant naturally vegetated-buffer areas as a rmugatlon measure, the document should state this as such. * Page 22: Stormwater runoff from roofs should be collected via gutter and leader systems and recharge through drywell, s. . * Pa~e 22: The need for a recharge basin should be determined at this time in o, ro.er to assess impacts. The proposed road of over 2,000 linear feet will require uramage control. If a recharge basin is required to handle stormwater runoff generated on the project site, where will itbe located.9 What changes to the site plan will be necessary to facilitate the construction of a recharge basin? * ,Poaj~e~.2~2.~ ,T~,, .e latest edition of the Suffolk County Departme. nt ~f Health Services toctaxa,) ,'~pprovai of Plans and Construction - Sewage Disposal Systems for Single-FamilyResidences" regulations (November 13, 1995) reaulres a minimum se. paration distance of 3 feet between the bottom of leaching pools and the highest recorded groundwater level measurement for conventional sanitary CHAR LES vo~Ri~IS ~OCIATES INC E NVI RON U E NT,'~:~AND' G CONSULTANTS Paae I Indian Shores @ Cutchogue Review of Draft ElS systems. Alternative sanitary systems require a separation distance of 2 f~eet,h,ow,.ev.e.r, SCDHS.has determined that alternative systems .are inapi?opriate for sun. olvxszons and vail not be approved. Therefore, an analysis of anticipated grounowater level variation should be provided to determine whether the depth to w.at. er b.eneath the site is adequate to support convanti.onal sanitary systems. Ad,ditlo. nat_comments regarding groundwater level variatlom are provided below unaer tt~e lznvironmental Setting heading. Page_ 22: The discussion on open space sliould, state that out buildin, gs and 2 residences may be constructed on the agricultural (conservation easement) parcels. Additionally, the anticipated amount of land. on the conservation easement parcels to be used for residential or othenmse non-agricultural uses should be stated. Page 30: Please state the erosion and sedimentation controls proposed to be utilized on-site. Page 32: Will a variance for the length of the proposed cul-de-sac be necessary? Environmental Setting: * Page 35: the Draft EIS notes that the site contains some slopes over twenty percent. As such, a map depicting areas with slopes 10 to 15percent, 15 to 20 percent, and greater than 20 percent should be provided. These slopes may be depicted, using crosshatching or a similar method. The approximate acreage occupied by each of these slopes (10 to 15 percent, 15 to 20percent, and over 20 percent) sho.uld also be given. This information will be usedto determine ~e proper location of structures and the limits of clearing in an effort to minimize potential adverse impacts associated with stormwater runoff, erosion and siltation. * Page 35: The SEQR Scoping Outline required a discu..ssion of the composition ?d .thickness of subsurface soils beneath the subject site. Test hol.e information mr the project site (depicted on the site plan) should be a stated vathin the discussfon of soils. Boring logs for off-site wells are not necessary in lieu of the more specific on-site borings. * Page 38: The inferred direction of groundwater flow in the area of the project site should be stated. According to SCDHS Water Table Contour Map, it appears as though ~e_groundwater flow is from north to south, however, Downs Creek is likely to influence groundwater flow to the southeast. * Page 38: The discussion of groundwater elevation variation is insuffi.cient/two sentences) and the information given is not referenced. Adequate discussion of groundwater elevation variations should include seasonal groundwater elevation data for a period of approximately 10 years from nearby monitoring wells. The maximum and minimum groundwater elevations experienced at the monitoring wells should also be noted and extrapolated to the subject site. The text shoulil indicate that manner in which ~roundwater variations are .extrapolat.ed to the project site, underlying asumptlons and reference any pertinent studies groundwater level varmtions adjacent to tidal creeks or rivers. The possible effect of groundwater discharge to surface waters as well as the effect of tidal fluctuations should also be discussed. Monitoring well data contained in Appendix 3 seems to indicate that groundwater fluctuation at the site is greater .than 0.5 feet. Determination of the variation in groundwater elevation is Important to ensure the proper functioning of sanitary systems and conformance CHARLES VOORH~$ &~,%SOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONM ENTAL ~I~D ~NING CONSULTANTS Pal~2 Indian Shores @ Cutchogue Review of Draft i~I$ with Article 6. Due to the direction of groundwater flow and the project site's p.r.oximi~ to ,s.ufface,,waters, inadequate depth to water may cause unnecessary mtrogen loaumg to ~Jown:s.. Creek and Peconic Bay. * The l.Q. cal Groundwater d~scussion does not contain any information regarding groundwater quality in the area of the site, as required by the SEQR Scoping ,Outline. T[a.e w.ater .quality data for nearby wells contained in Appendix 3 should Ce summarized m this section. Inorganic water quality data (pamcularly nitrates) zor several of the. ne .arby wells are not included in Appendix 3. * The s, ource of arngataon water supply for past agricultilral activities on the p.roject site Should be identified. If the source is an on-site irrigation well, the location, capacity and condition should be stated. * Page 54, Figure 11: The location of the drainage ditch and extent of freshwater wetlands vegetation noted in teh rexased Draft EIS, should be depicted on the site plan (freshwater wetlands should be flagged by NYSDEC). If this area does contain freshwater wetlands, the implications and restrictions on the proposed use of the site (agricultural, parkland or residential) should be stated. * Page 60: The photograph of the presumably dead deer should be removed from the Draft EIS. The photograph is inappropriate and, contrary to its caption, is not representative ot the array of species that comprises local wildlife on the project site. * Page 65, 1st paragraph: Plant species on the agricultural portion of the site .are not listed. At the time of CVA site inspection for theprevious EIS submission, only a portion of th.e a~ricultural parcels appeared to be recently farmed. Existing.plant species in overgrown fields should be observed and noted as appropriate. . . * Page 65: As per the Scoping Outline and the prior comment letter, discussaons of land use plans (intent, goals, and recommendations as applied to ~e project site) should be provided..The review should include the followingplans. 208 Study, NURP Study, Pecomc Estuary Program Action Plan, SoutholdLand Preservation Program, Suffolk County Farm Preservation ACt Southold Town Stewardship Tas]~ Force, and other applicable plans. ' * The scoping letter requests that the vegetation of the area surrounding the site be discussed. * .Th.e ..Draft EIS should provide a vegetation map to show the approximate distribution of each of the habitats on site. The approximate acreages of the habitats should be presented as well. Environmental Impacts * Geologic impacts including impacts on soils and topography as well as the proposed importation of top soil to the project site should be discussed as per the Scoping Outline. * Page 7.6: .TI? last paragraph refers to the use of native vegetation for landscal>in~ .and d~i.'p.lrn!gation for the proposed vineyards. It should be stated whether o~no~ t.laese lrngataon co.n. trol me~ures will. indeed be implemented. Merely stating these measures w~thout implementation will not reduce the project's demand-for .water.supply. If stric, t and definite implementation of these measures is not intended, the anal. ysls of anticipated water usage should be amended to reflect a worst-case scenario. ENVlRONMENTA~;AND ~'l'q~ff~G CONSULTANTS Indian Shores @ Cutchogue Review of Draft EIS sPhage 82: The sentence referring to a 1 foot fluctuation in groundwater elevation ould be referenced (see comment on ~oundwater setting above). The sentence indicating the expected separation distance between the bottom of leaching pools andthe water table should be amended as necessary. Th~sPage- should91" ThebelOcatiOnreconcqled.. of well S-53336 is different in Figu res 15 and 10 (p ag e 40 ) . Pages 80 through 89: The analyses of nitrogen loading indicates only the total load in pounds, but does not evaluate the impact in te. rms of recharge water. quality and.effect on ground and surface waters. Typical methods of analysis .conclude vath a calculauon of the concentration of nitrogen in recharge. The ~mpact should be noted and evaluated in the discussions on drinking water quality (page 90) and surface waters (page 94). . Page 92: The Healy method for nitrogen conc. entratlons only considers nitrogen from sanitary systems. Based on Table 11, it .~s noted that residential use accounts for less than one-third of the total mtrogen load. The impact of nitrogen in recharge should be determined in consideration of all anticipated nitrogen sources (as discussed on pages 80-89 in the Draft EIS). . Page 94 and 95: The text implies that the existing crops on the project s~te ~nciude potatoes and celery, however, other portions of the Draft E. IS and Appendices state that the proje.ct site is occupiedby vineyards or has 1.a:? fallow ftr a period of years. The condition agricultural parcels should be clarified and Table 11 on ~}ge 95 amended if necessary. ge 97, 3rd paragraph: The statement that groundwater primarily flows away from the wetland/creek should be referenced. Accordi.ng to the SCDHS Water Table Contour Map, the direction of groundwater flow ~s to the sou .t~. ho.wever, it is likely that groundwater discharge to Do .w~s. Creek influences the direction of grounOwater to the southeast. Therefore, it is anticipated that groundwater beneath the project site flows toward the creek. Page 98: Impacts to all vegetativ, e communities on the project site should be stated. A table comparing existing specific habitat areas with proposed site coverages (Table 1) would be helpful in assessing impacts. The establishment o.f 40 percent of each residential lot in landscape vegetation and subsequent ferulization may result in an adverse impact to ground-and surface waters. As noted in a previous comment, the estimated concentration of ni,tro~en in recharge i.n consideration of all nitrogen loadings should be calcmated. Fertilization practices and/or the proposed extent of landscape v__e. getation should be amended if calculated nitrogen concentrations are high. Discussions in the Draft EIS alternate between a 75 foot and 100 foot wide buffer Ibte.tween wetlands and proposed development. This issue should be reconciled. ~.s recommended that a 100 foot wide buffer be maintained along the wetland to increase the retention of natural vegetation, to provide an adequate wildlife corridor and for.aesth.e, tic purposes. The text does briefly discuss impacts to the osprey a~.d other wildlff..e: These few sentences should be part of a more complete discussion in the Wildlife Impacts section. A discussion of existing wildiffe that are expected to be intolerant of increased human activity should also be provided. Page 99: As per the Scoping Outline, applicable land use plans should be .described. The proposed project's conformance or non-conformance .to the intent, goals .and recommendations of the. plans, should, be. stated. A. single sentence stating that the proposed project ~s consistent vath the zoning code and CHARLES VOORH:[S &~?~SOC ATES INC ENVIRON M ENTA[~,!AND CONSULTANTS Page 4 Ipdi~n Shores @ Cutcho~ue Review of Draft EIS two land use plans is not adequate. The plans that should be reviewed have been listed in a previous comment. Mitigation Measures * The Scoping Outline contains a list of possible mitigation measures for thc proposed project. The measures on this list shouldbe considered for implementation. * Page 104: Groundwater mitigation measures number 4, 6 and 7 would be more properly located under surface w.aters. * Page 107, 1st paragraph: Thc maintenance of a 100 foot vegetated buffer between proposed development and surface waters would help to mitigate developmental impacts to several resources including visual, surface waters, vegetation and wildlife. A statement that this 100 foot buffer will bc covenanted to remain natural would be an effective mitigation measure and the restricted area could be depicted in the map and made part of Planning Board review. * Page 107, 2nd paragraph: Thc usc of dry wells for thc recharge of stormwatcr runoff generated on roof surfaces is recomm.e, nded. * Page 107, 4th paragraph: Is the applicant willing to covenant.that naturally v_egeta.?.d .bu. ffers will remain between th,e, proposed residential lots? * .r, age~ lU~, 4tn paragraph: It is stated that fides[red by the pro.spective lot owner", me xootprint of proposed houses may be moved to avo!d any dascovered cultural resources. This sentence should be amended to state: if des[red by the prospective lot owner or appropriate agency...". Alternatives * Page 110, 1st paragraph: It s.h. ould be stated that there are 7 alternative discussed. * Page 112, 2nd full paragraph. The Mitigation Measures section of the Draft EIS sta?s ~e benefits of a 100 foot wide naturally vegetated buffer along the weuanns, however, Alternative E states that a 100 foot buffer does not provide additional benefits. This issue should be reconciled. * Page 111, Expanded Fort Corchaug Site Alternative: This alternative should be co.rrected and.expanded. There has been no request for attached residential umts, or out ot character residential lots, therefore, the reference to condominiums should be removed. There are a number of ways in which this alternative could be accomplished and at a minimum, the following possible options should be considered: 1) Lot 10 on the map could be removed, and the acquisition area could be expanded thereby providing compensa.tion to the-landowner. 2) Lot 10 could be removed, and an additional lot could be accommodated within the existing proposed development area by reduction of lot sizes. The resultant lots would remain in the 1-2 acre s~ze range. 3) LOt 10 could be removed, and the proposed development area could be expanded to achieve the same yield. oe ,re.f. erence on Page 112 re~arding the archaeological significance of Lots 2-10 urn. oe correc,teo m. view otthe de_fi~encies in the State IA/B Archaeological eports as notea in other portions o[ this review. ENVIRON M ENT/~?AN~ ' CONSULTANTS Page~ Review of Baxter Report Addendum EVALUATION OF: ADDENDUM TO PHASE lA AND PHASE lB ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORTS, THE BAXTER PROPERTY, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK ADDENDUM DATED: FEBRUARY 1996 Note: The Township should be aware of standards for archaeological research published in:" Standards for Cultural Resource Investigations and Curation of Archaeoloqical Collections in New York State" by The New York Archaeological Council, 1994. The Addendum was not complete, many questions raised about the Stage lA report went unanswered. Additional data provided in the Addendum raised further questions regarding the Stage lB report. The following are considered the most serious. Stage lB Report. The following questions were not addressed or were inadequately answered in the Addendum. Page 1. The test design, as indicated by Figure 2, reveals that many areas were less than adequately tested. "Limitations in the budget" can not be cited as a reason for the Town of Southold to accept a less than adequate test design. For example, Lot 15 has six (6) subsurface tests indicated. See Figure 2. The area (about 1.8 acres) would require approximately 29 tests according to New York Archaeological Council standards. Thus in this area the testing reported is only one-fifth of what would normally be acceptable by the professional community. Furthermore, the Addendum does not explain why some lots were more heavily tested than others. For example, Lots 12 and 13 have a total of 40 tests (NYAC standards would require 60 for this area). Thus this area has 66% of the requisite tests while other near-by areas have only 20%. If there is a purpose for this disparity, the test design should have made this clear. Furthermore, reasons why some areas were excluded from testing should be clearly and completely stated. Page 2. The Addendum does not define terms such as, "fairly intensive visual examination", and "potentially significant artifacts". The addendum does not answer the question regarding which areas were surface collected and which were not. Page 3. The author makes no reference to a project or other datum point. The author's presentation of results omits answering essential questions such as the surface density and clustering of artifacts, factors which would be critical in directing as I Review of Baxter Report Addendum further testing. Were any surface artifacts clustered? What procedures were used where positive tests were encountered to answer the question regarding dispersion of subsurface materials laterally? Page 10. The author concludes (last paragraph on page 10) that the pottery is indicative of a "Terminal/Transition al/Woodland occupation", though there is no description of the materials collected. Page 12. The author does not address the question regarding assumptions regarding potential disturbances to existing sites. Abandoned historic sites are prone to vandalism, fire, and of course natural decay. It is the function of the Stage I research to provide information on these sites as they exist at present, since it is unlikely that they will receive further study. Furthermore, any burieci site located in an area that is proposed as vineyard could be subject to soil disturbances related to post hole digging, deep plowing, and emplacement of irrigation systems. Thus such sites should not be discounted as within an area not to be impacted. as 2 PLANNING BOARD M~EMBER~~ RICI-IARD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCH/E LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSK.I, JR. WILLIAM 3'. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hail, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 1, 1996 Charles Voorhis & Associates, Inc. Environmental and PIanning Consultants 54 N. Country Rd. Miller Place, NY 11764 Re: Proposed Major Subdivision for Indian Shores SCTM# 1000-116-1-3 Dear Mr. Voorhis: The Southold Town Planning Board received the Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated February 1996 and the Appendices dated January 1994, on March 26, 1996; and the $500 review fee on April 1, 1996. The Southold Town Planning Board hereby authorizes you to proceed with your review of the document to determine whether it is satisfactory with respect to its scope, content and adequacy for the purpose of commencing public review. The next Planning Board meeting within the thirty (30) day review period is April 29, 1996. Please advise if you will be able to complete your review by this date or if additional time will be required. The purchase order will be sent to you under separate cover. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, Melissa Spiro Planner enc. Submission Without a Cover Letter Subject: SCTM# 1000- Comments: GHAI{L~$1~. GIIDDY ~TTOR~EY AT LAW March 25, 1996 Southold Planning Board Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Indian Shores - Baxter' Dear Sirs: Delivered by hand are six copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and appendices for the Indian Shores subdivision. This has been revised in accordance with the comments received from the Planning Board and the Board's consultant. Please confirm the amount of the additional review fee so that a check may be forwarded to you. Very truly yours, CRC/pc Encls. cc: Mr. William Baxter Southold Town Plan ~g Board 10 October 2, 1995 Mr. Criers: Second. Mr. Ward:~tion seconded. Ail in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orl~wski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwin, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Ward Mr. Ward: Oppos~ Motion carried./ APPROVAL OF PLANNING TES Mr. Ward: '.The last orde~W o~f~business is the approval of the Planning Board minutes/ Boa~ to approve the September tl, 1995 minutes. ~ Mr. Latham: So/oved. Mr. Orlowski/Second. Mr. Ward/Moved and seconded. All in Ayes~Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edward~Mr. Cremers, Mr. Ward Mr/Ward: Opposed? Motion Charles Cuddy: t appear on behalf of Mr. Baxter and Indian Shores Subdivision. I'm concerned that during the period of 30 days that you have just granted yourself, that there be some minimum communication to the applicant. Obviously, the applicant has spent some time doing what he's done in preparing the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. I have spoken to Melissa and I appreciate her candor in saying to me that there are some concerns that the Board had to address. But it would be helpful if either at a worksession or just through some communication process if you could tell us some of the things that seem to concern the Board, because I think if there are, we may be able to cure them if we're in agreement during that period of time. And just so we could move it along as quickly as we can. Mr. Ward: Ail right. We'll look into that. Mr. Cuddy: If you would, I'd appreciate it. I think it just might help us. Mr.~one else wish to address the Board? ~- Peter Danowsk~.~.~Just two rather simpi~_ma/ct'~s, but now that Mr. Macari had one su6~i~z/~ion appl~c~tio~ on...I know it's been awhile since I addressed the B~aJ&~L~T-t~ink at a worksession, with regard to Laurel Lake subd~s~i~n,~ know that at that time there had been some pub~b~b~b~b~b~b~b~b/~nterest and als~s~q~e interest within Town Hall, to pos~sib~have the County buy that pi~op~y.