The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1000-15.-9-10.1, 11.1... (2) ~ '-.----.-. -- . e PART 1-PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor :~OTICE. This document is designed to assist in determining wne:r'?r the action proposed mav have a significant ~fff:c on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questIons will be consicerec as part or the application for approval and mav be s~bJect to further '/erification and public review Provide anv acCitiona 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 wor~, ts unavailable, 50 indicate and soeClfy each instance. NAME OF ACTION Exnansion of off-street oarkin facilities at ex:stin fer~ ter~inal I LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street Address. Municipality and Counly) s/S Main Road twest or terminal) and E/S Main Roa~ (east of terminal) NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR t individual:':," ::: a-s custodian) 3USINESS 7::L~::l"'CN~ Cross Sound Ferrv Services, Inc. & Adam C. Wronowski 15161 369-170C A.OOAESS c/o William W. I C1TYfPO 108 East Esseks, Esa.; Main Street, Esseks. Hefter & Angel P. O. Box 279, Ri7erhead ! STATE i ZIP CODE I NY I 1190~ BUSINESS iEL.E?!-!ONE NAME OF OWNER (If different) Same as above ADDRESS '~-" . STATE ZIP cee: CITY/PO DESCRIPTION OF ACTION The applicants are seetcing a PUD..:..:C uti2.it.y use ./"ariance to aIlo\'" parking on a 2.498 acre parcel zoned R-80. A waiver or variance with regard to ~~e size of parking spaces is also being sought in order to maximize off-street parki~g on a parcel that contains an existing gravel parking area. If the ~lariance is granted, the numb~r of spaces will increase from 69 to 80. this 1.193 acre parcel is zoned ~II Si17i: /'t.-11YV A/'1'/lOi/A>- ~ ex I'MlSI(JA) (~I2~Vil2.&O_ ~'" 'IG'N WI"- CONS/,o,,"(? GNn/Z~ :;; / rr;- Please Complete Each Question-Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, 1. Present land use: DUrban o Forest 2. Total acreage of project area: APPROXIMATE ACREAGE Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) Forested Agricultural (Includes orchards. cropland, pasture, etc.) Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECl) Water Surface Area Unvegetated fRock, ear~h or fj(1)~( earth rd, .grave' , ..p~rR~ng rencn ra~ns, wouden walks) Roads, bUlrdlngs anti' ot. er pave surfaces Other (Indicate type) beach Landscape & grass 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? Haven a. Soil drainage: .Well drained 75 % or ;ite .Poorly drained 25 % or Site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres or soii are classified within 5011 grouo-: Land Cla.ssification System' 1.69 acres. (See 1 .'iYCRR 3~O). both developed Olndustrial OAgriculture 2.498 1.193 and undeveloped areas. .Commercial CResidential (suburban) .Other 'Jacant acres (x-80) acres (MIl) =Rurai ,:nc.~-farn PRESENTL'( 1. S 1 acres AFTER COMPlE-O,'" o aces o o o o acres o '0 ?ces acres o o o aces acres acres acres aces acres 2.20 .08 ,91 , ...s0 DeaC:1 lues .76 acres .08 aces .91 acres loam. fi11.:d land ac=es & C::>.,joderateiy well drained ;;:~e;, a.c:"e~ % or site through J. of ::--= ~y 4 Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? a. What is depth to bedrock? Yes .,-"';0 (in feet) , 2 . . ......pproximate :)ercentage or proposed project sile '.\!it:--. slopes .0-10% iOO % [J10.15% % % =,5% .x greater 6 Is ;:>roject substantially contiguous to, or contain a budding, ).:e. or district. listed on the State or the "at:or.2. Registers or Historic Places? eYes .1......0 IS project substantially contiguous to a site Ijsted on the Reg!ster of 8 'What is the depth of the water taDj~? 3 -7"Z (in reetJ 9 Is site located over a primary; principal, or sole source aquifer? .',jational Natura! Landmarks? ~v .~ .es .~'o .Yes DNa 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist In the project area? DYes .No 11 Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? =Yes .No According ~o Joseoh Lombardi., Technician Identifv each soeCles -\re ~here any unique or unt.:sual land forms Oil :ne :JrOjec: )I~~? .: e c:iffs Gur;es. o::her geological for""':::0f15 =Yes .No Descibe :s ~he project site presentiv ~5ed ':)y the cor:;mwnlty or neig.-,bornood as an open space or ,-ecreatlor: ar~a/ DYes .No If yes, explain ,... Does the present site include sceniC vIews known to be impor~ant to the community? DYes .No is Streams within or contiguous to project area: N/ A a. ;'1ame of Stream and name of River to which it is tiibutar:v 16 Lakes. ponds. wetland areas within or contIguous to oroJect area a. Name Gardiners Bav b Size (In aGes) 17 Is the site served by eXIsting public utilities? .Yes :=1'10 a) If Yes. d?~s sufficient capacity exist 'to ailow connectIon? .Yes CNo b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? =Yes GJNo 18. is the site located in an agricultural district certiried pursuant to Agriculture and iv1arkets Law. Article 25-AA. Section 303 and 3047 DYes .No 19 !s the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Artlc:e 8 of the ECL. and 6 NYCRR 617.7 .Yes uNo (Peconic 3ay Es::uary) 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal or solid or hazardous wastes? =Yes .No B. Project Description Physical dimensions and scale of project (fiil In dimenSIons as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by prcJec: sponsor b. Project acreage to be deveioped: 3.691 acres initially; c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped nnone acres. d. Length or project, in miles: NA (If appropriate) e If the project is an expansion. indicate percent or expansion prooosed 220 Number or off~street parking soaces exist:ing 221 oroDosed 486 g.\I\aximum vehicular trips generated per hour :b': '-uoon comoletion or s-roject]? :b'cSee attac::ec h if reSIdential: ,'iumber anc :'/oe or hbuslng Units: NI A letter from Dunn -::nginee:-::1g One Famliv . wo =31'7:11', V.u::ro!e ~amjiv Condomrnr:..;m 6.468 acres 6,468 acres ultimately (i. e. "approved & pre-existing pa-:cels %, inltlaJlv L'lt:matejy Dimensions (in feet) of !arges: :Jrooosed stiuCi:~re \1/.1 height; width; 88 leng:h Linear feet or frontage along a public thcrG:?ugr.~are orOJec: wiil OCCUPy is? ft. 3 . . ,., H,JW much natural materia! (i,e. rock, earth ete.) will be removed from the site? , *dredge spoil previously 3. \Vi!1 disturbed areas be recJaimed? .Yes C'No ='~/I\ a. If yes, for what jntend_~. purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamatlonl .Yes ONo c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? DYes 940" tons/cubic varc5 deposited on 5::2 parking area .No 4 How many acres or vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers] will be removed from site? 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed DYes .No 1. 51 acres. by this proJect? 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 2 months, (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased: NI A a. Tota! number or phases antiCIpated o ,A.nticipated date of commencement phase 1 c. Approximate completion date of final phase d :s phase i functionally deoendent on subsequent phases? (number). month year. (including demoli::c- year month ::JYes =No 8. \Nill blasting occur during construction? DVes 9. :'../umber of jobs generated: during construction .No none after project is complete 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project none 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? DYes .No If yes, explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? DVes .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? DYes .No Type 14. Will surface .area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? DYes " Explain 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year ilood plain? .Yes DNo .No - ' 16. Will the project generate solid'waste? DVes .No l1YJ.olno~ SOU/) 1/V'tH"n: 1'1/t"( a. If yes, what is the amount per month tons I!IC" ~TfSO ffS .+ aTSr<.J"Z-r(2r b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? DYes DNo I'~s~ /K-nVl Tf c. If yes, give name location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfili? eYes ONo e. If Yes, explain , - Will the project involve the disposal of solid wastel '::Yes .No ,/ a. Ii yes. what is the anticipated rate of disposall tons/month. b Ii yes. what is the anticipated site life? years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? eVes .No 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? DYes .No 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? DYes 21 Will project result in an increase in energy use? .Yes DNo If yes, indicate type(s) Electricit'1 for oarkino; area lio;htino; /JO{S~ /MI'/'t"CTS .No M/fY ~70 Ifr P~JNC"'- 22. If water supply is from wells. indicate pumoing capacitv N/A gallons/minute. 23 Total anticipated water usage per day N/A gallons/dav 14. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? If Y~s, explain OYes .No 4 .\ . Type SubmIttal Date 25. Approvals Required: Ci~v Town, Village Board C:tY', Town, Village Planning Board (i::v Town Zoning Board CoY County Health Department DVes .1'10 .Yes =,"0 .Yes ="0 C;Ves .No Site Plan Public Utility Use variance ParKlnq space Slze var:ance Pending 11/9/95 Other Local Agencies Otner Regional Agencies . DVes Suffolk Ctv. p ~annlng COI11llJlYes .Yes ."0 ~No Zoning Action Tidal Wetland Permit oendi:1g pendi:1g S ta te A.gencies NYSDEC Federal Agencies =No CYes .No C. Zoning and Planning Information Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? .Yes DNa 'if Yes, indicate decision required: _zoning amendment .zoning variance especial use permit: :Jsubdivlsion , =newjrevision or master plan Cresource management plan Gather .Slte plan ~ 'vVhat IS the zoning c!assification(s)or the site? HII & R-80 3 What is the maximum potential deveJopment of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? 69 aarkinsz spaces on H.-II Darcel & 219 spaces on R-80 parcel -+ \Nhat is the proposed zoning of the site? Pllh 1 i c Ht; 1 i tv Use 5 What is the maximum potential development 01 the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? Current oroposal represents maximum development 6 Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? .Yes =No 'Nhat are the'predominant land use(s) and zoning cl~ssifications within a v.. m~le radi.us.of(Qro.po.sed action?, ' rommercial lZovernmental and parkinsz 1M II) to west; Resldentla~ R-~O) to nortn ana E~~'npni,~l ~ governmen~a~ rR 6U] to east ~ 8 is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a 14 mile? 9 if the proposed action is the subdivision of land. how many lots are proposed? N/ A a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? :0 'Nil! proposed action require- a'"y authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? .Yes =No CYes .NO i 1 Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, pOllce, fire protection)? DYes .No a. If yes. is existrng capacity suflicient to handle projected demand? DYes 01'10 12 Will the proposed action result in the generation of ~raffic Significantly above present levels? DYes C'Io a, If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? *,', :=Yes eNo ** see attached letter from Dunn Engineering D. Informational Details 7Yf~I'a..,el1177()/() /MI'I'f'r:.r.> rePA4 Cl./JUC1\/"r fV'eR,f77g,us ,/11t1'y' -\ttach any additional information as may be needed to clarifv your project, If there are or may be any adve~se 'maac:s assocrateo With your orooo::.aJ olease diSCUSS su h Impac, ~ ff ~fes which yOu propose to mltrgate or wOle :hem I<GV,(;)VLr:-(J $'1 : ~(" C$ ,v~ 7'0 B~ (}~/M E. Verification : certify that the information provided above is true to the best of rnv knowledge. . / .. John J. Raynor, P.E., L.S., p.c. as agent for the appllcant sponsor Applicant/Sponsor ~'if'e ,--; Date - 11/9/95 Signature (2-; -l,ITO>r.Imd; (Joseph Lombardi! Title Technician If the acgn is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. , 5 Part 2-.i..ROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAG~lITUDE . Responsibility of Lead Agency . General Information (Read Carefullv) . In completing the form the reviewer should be guided bV the question: Have mv responses and determinations been reasonablel The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analvst. . Identifying that an impact will be potentiallv large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarilv significant. Anv large impact must be evaluuted 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 bV showing tvpes of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generallv applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But. for anv specific project or site other examples andlor lower thresholds mav be appropriate for a Potential Large Impact response. thus requiring evaluation in Part 3. . The impacts of each project. on each site. in each localitv. will varv. Therefore. the examples are illustrative and have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. . The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. . In identifving impacts. consider long term. short term and cumlative effects. Instructions (Read carefullv) a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 21 to indicate the potential size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided. check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example. check column 1. d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. e. If a potentiallv large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated bV change(s) in the project to a small to moderate impact. also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This must be explained in Part 3. IMPACT ON LAND 1. Will the proposed action result in a phvsical change to the project site? DNa ~ES Examples that would applv to column 2 . Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater. (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length). or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. . Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. . Construction of paved parking area for 1.000 or more vehicles. . Construction on land where bedrock is-exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. . Construction that will continue for more than 1 vear or involve 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 soil1 per vear. . Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. . Construction in a designated floodway. . Other impacts 5'1-r'1r 6/Z.AilIA,/r,., 5:'111/ ,/!r.vf;fOt/A-L .<WD I'~ KI"'" / t7 7'" ("mils. .:aIX17IlA J. 2. Will there be an effect to anv unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (Le.. cliffs. dunes. geological formations. etc.)JllCNO DYES . Specific land forms: . '< .:"; 6 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change I 0 0 Dves ~No D 0 :iYes CNO n D DVes LNo ~ [j C UYes rNo 0 [! CVes L~O 0 0 nves DNo 0 0 DVes CNo 0 0 ~Yes eNo J(. 0 DVes eNo - 0 0 DVes "No ., . IMPACT ON WATER 3. will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) . DNO ~E5 Examples that would apply to column 2 . Developabie area of site contains a' protected water body. . Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. . Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. . Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. . Other impacts: (;;ItJ~{j{J7IJ,(.J A.1l ~1":tV,- ~A//r iC<:71n~..Ql" AAm (}/2/5tl/'r cG74 4 Will proposed action affect any non-protected existi~Jl new body of waterl . ~O DVES Examples that would apply to column 2 . A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. . Construction of a body of water that exceedo. 1 0 acres of surface area. . Other impacts: : 5 Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? DNO 'liVES Examples that would apply to column 2 /" . Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. . Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed (project) action. . Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. . Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water supply system. . Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. . Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. . Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day. . Proposed Actie... will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visuai contrast to natural conditions. . Proposed Action will require the storage of petroieum 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 commerciai and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facIlitIes. . o:;",~rn;a,::~~~os:~~X&r;;;;:o;:;y 6 Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or ~ce water runoff? DNO ~ E5 Examples that would apply to column 2 \ . Proposed Action would change flood water)L9ws. !J d , ;j I I -. 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change 0 0 OVes ONo 0 0 OVes ONo 0 0 OVes ONo 0 0 DYes DNo 0 ~ DVes DNo Q r: QYes ~No Q 0 DVes ONo D D DYes. ~No ~ 0 OVes QNo 0 D OVes DNo D [J DVes "No 0 :J DYes 'No 0 0 DVes ~No [J C DVes ~ c..;No [j 0 DVes r;No D [J DVes -,No [] 0 DVes :JNo 0 [j DVes LNo D [j DYes ~No X D DVes - CNo 0 D DVes CNo "' 7" Will proposed action affect air quality? Examples that would apply to column 2 . Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour. . Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. . Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 Ibs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. . Proposed 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: ""1:j;rb"""1<r.:- HJ nA/-;;;/ nr- ~ pfF- $'ITr v'GJHC,U: C/.sr DNa ):tES 1~lIto 2 3 Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change 0 0 DYes ONo 0 0 DYes ONo 0 0 DYes ONo . ~ ~Yes 0 ONo 0 Q UYes ~No 0 0 DYes ONo 0 0 DYes ONo 0 Q QYes ONo 0 0 DYes ONo )<' 0 DYes ONo 0 0 flYes ~No 0 0 DYes ONo 0 0 eYes : 'No : Q 0 DYes ONo 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes '-lNo - 0 0 DYes DNo . . 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: fJpnc=.r O/:>...uJ ;.fA, .MIlO /It?A-.MAM~ M(jsr t?l-':- /VI rlluf..,-,..;-o IMPACT ON AIR IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or enda~ed species? ~O DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 . Reduction of one or more species I isted 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 habitat. . Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes. . Other impacts: 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non.threatB\te9- or non-endangered species? ~ DYES 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 r~o rces? o DYES 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.) -< . o Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land_ . The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultutal District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land_ . The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural land management systems (e_g_, subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e_g_ cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) . Other impacts: IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? DNO (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section Appendix B_J Examples that would apply to column 2 . Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from or In sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. o Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource, o Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area_ . Other impacts: A71C'7\/7'I/h.. V/St/A'L AA/Yl f'=IIIVltUlM(S:J!Jf:. AJ_ "'U1~:r-i -'11= PM~/M", /A7'" AA/1) VOH'r/M, 11 ~ES 617__1, IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance' -. 'iiNO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 /" o Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic pl<lc~~. . Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the project site_ o 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 ~O DYES . The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity, o A major reduction of an open space important to the community_ . Other impacts: 9 "~lIto Moderate Impact D D D D D D D D D c:; c D D D D 2 Potential Large Impact D D D o CJ o D )< o o o o o D D 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change DYes ONo DYes ONo DYes ONo DYes ONo DYes ! iNo DYes UNo DYes DNo DYes DNo DYes c...:No nYes ~No DYes '-.JNe DYes DNa DYes DYes DYes ONe DNo DNa IMPACT ON eNSPORTATION .14 Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? DNa ~S Examples that would apply to column 2 . Alteration of present patterns of movement of people andlor goods. . Proposed Action will result in major traffic proble!"s. . Other impacts: IMPACT ON ENERGY so~, of fuel or ~O DYES 15. Will proposed action affect the community's energy supply? 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 energy 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 vibration as a ~I,t of the Proposed Action? DNa ~~ Examples that would apply to column 2 . Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. . Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). . Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. . Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. . Other impacts: /6~/""- JA,,",,- rAl"'~T"": tZO.A-i7fJt.(, Il&:;-Jhrl.-^ ~ ,./~-n_ I*JP~/J-r7iOArs IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH ?O 17. Will Proposed Action affect public health and saf~ ? '0 DYES 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 low level discharge or emission. . Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any. form (I.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious. etc.) . Storag" facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural gas or other flammable liquids. . Proposed 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: 10 .~llto L 2 I 3 I Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change 0 0 DYes oNo D X DYes ONo 0 ~s ONo I 0 0 DYes "No 0 n DYes "No ~ D c; DYes :::JNo 0 0 DYes ONo 0 0 DYes ONo 0 0 DYes :::JNo 0 0 :::lYes :JNo )( 0 DYes L.JNo 0 :::l DVes :::::No 0 0 DYes CJNo 0 0 DYes ~No 0 0 DYes DNO - 0 0 DYes DNo IMPACT ON GROwr'AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 18 Will proposed action affect the character of the existing com~,t.y? DNO ~ES Examples 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 5 %. . The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. . Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. . Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. . Proposed 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: 5.11 to 2 3 Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change 0 0 DVes DNo 0 0 DYes DNO 0 0 Dves DNo 0 ~ DVes DNo 0 DYes DNO 0 0 eVes CNo [J n DVes UNo w 0 0 DYes C:No [J c: [JYes eNo 19 Is there. or is there likely to be. public controversy rela~ to potential adverse environmental impacts? DNa ~ES If Any Action in Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If 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 il one or more impact(s) is considered to be potentially large, even if the impact(s) may be mitigated. Instructions Discuss the lollowing lor each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1 Briefly deSCrIbe the impact. 2 Describe (ii applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s). 3. Based on the information available. decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important. To answer the question of importance. consider: . The probability oi 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 objections to the project relate to this impact. (Continue on attachments) , 11 . . . .SEQR POSITIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Significance Date: Town of Southold Planning Board Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 September , 1996 Lead Agency: Address: This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617, of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The lead agency has determined that the proposed action described below will have a significant effect on the environment and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement must be prepared. Location: Cross Sound Ferry Site Plan Application SCTM No. 1000-15-9-10.1, 11.1, 15.1 & 3.5 Orient, New York Type I Action The subject application involves a request for site plan approval to provide additional parking to a previously approved ferry terminal on Rt. 25 in Orient, in order to accommodate increased demand for parking that has been generated by the inclusion of a high speed passenger only ferry service to the existing vehicular ferry service. Subject property is located at the end of NYS Route 25, Orient, NY. Reasons Supporting This Determination: Title of Action: SEQR Status: Project Description: This determination is issued in full consideration of the Criteria for Determination of Significance contained in 6 NYCRR Part 617.7, the Long Environmental Assessment Form Parts I and II and the following specific reasons: Page 1 of2 ---~ . . Cross Sound Ferry Positive Declaration 1. The project is a Type I action, which is more likely to require the preparation of a Draft EIS. In addition, the project is located adjacent to-the surface waters of Gardiners Bay, which comprises a portion of the Pecooic Bay Estuary, and lies within the Orient Point Critical Environmental Area (CEA). The proposed project may impair the environmental characteristics of this CEA. In addition, the project is in proximity to the Orient Beach State Park and 48 + acres of County owned land. 2. The proposed action will cause a significant increase in the intensity of land use on the project site, as a function of the expanded parking, demand for parking in connection with ferry operations and on-site traffic circulation for parking access. 3. The proposed action may change the need and use of public and pedestrian transportation services (including existing bike trail), and may increase the demand for other community services including fire, police, recreational facilities and uti1ities. 4. The proposed action will cause a significant increase in the number of vehicle trips which utilize off-site infrastructure facilities primarily including existing transportation systems. 5. The project may adversely change noise and air quality as a function of increased traffic, and/or may substantially increase solid waste generation. Existing and proposed site drainage must be analyzed and controlled. 6. Increased intensity of site use for high speed ferry service will increase the use of on-site facilities, particularly sanitary flow and water use, and may result in an adverse impact upon the environment. 7. The project may impact visual and aesthetic resources, particularly as regards lighting, and use during both daytime and nighttime hours. 8. The proposed project may cause growth inducing aspe<is associated with the proposed project. In addition, the study of mitigation of potential environmental impacts and alternatives would be facilitated by the preparation of a Draft EIS 9. The project involves multiple agency jurisdictions and permits, and the comprehensive review of potential impacts would be facilitated through the preparation of a Draft EIS. 10. Impact of passenger ouly jet boats on marine environment. For Further Infonnation: Contact Person: Mr. Robert G. Kassner Planning Board Town of Southold 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 (516) 765-1938 Copies of this Notice Sent to: Southold Town Board Southold Town Building Department Southold Town Zoning Board of Trustees Southold Town Board of Trustees Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Public Works Suffolk County Department of Parks NYS Dept. of State, Coastal Resources & Waterfront Revitalization Division NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Albany and Stony Brook Offices NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation U.S. Dept. of Agriculture U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Federal Emergency Management Agency Southold Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Applicant Page 2 012 '. ~ ....---. 14-16-2 (2/87)-7c . 617.21 f fl' Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SEQR ( Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequent- ly, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition. many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focllses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially- large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large. then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE- Type 1 and Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: 0 Part 1 Unlisted Actions o Part 2 OPart 3 { Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate). and any other supporting information, and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact. it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: o A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore. is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. o B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment. there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required. therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.' ~ The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. . A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions C. /(05.5 5t5t1l"ij) FfllZ( Name of Action s'c "rt/oL- {) ? J. t9 flit/fiG Name of Lead Agency 1SoI1R)J ency }/'..,.I;"1 (11.....,...."1... Title of Responsible Officer ( gency Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer) 7-//-,9/ Date 1 Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Lydia A. Tortora Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 Sv'o.J t'e, ~I< v~ VllJt'niS . . APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board (as SEQRA Lead Agency) FROM: ZBA (as SEQRA Involved AgenCyt;!P DATE: September 6, 1996 SUBJECT: Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. Application Tbis will confirm that the Members of the Board of Appeals have reviewed the Planning Board's SEQRA coordination letter (received August 5, 1996) in the above project. Our department is requesting that the applicant designate on the maps: a) terminal (Section those "accessory parking spaces provided upon the ferry lot within 200 feet walking distance "of the ferry terminal 100-191H, first sentence); and b) the proposed ownersbip of the additional parking spaces requested under the variance and an additional 200 ft. (radius) line on the adjacent areas, measured from the ferry terminal-dock parcel {also Section 100-191H). We are also requesting the above as part of the normal process in the application on file with tbis department. ZBA:lk SEP 1'196 t.... Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Lydia A. Tortora . ';)u 'b~ f:, ~I\ Southold Town Hall {~ 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 0, l.,1 i.. . \.V~PE~S BOARD MEMBERS BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 9, 1996 Thomas F, Whelan, Esq. Esseks, Hefter & Angel 108 East Main Street Riverhead, NY 11901 /~ Re: Applications to ZBA - Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. ( Dear Mr. Whelan: June. This is sent just as an update since the last communications in fJ , 1 On August 5, 1996 we received the coordination letter from the Planning Board, and additional maps which were made available to start the lead-agency coordination, and the SEQRA process will continue. We are requesting that the maps delineate: a) each accessory parking space provided upon the ferry terminal lot, as well as a line drawn to show those parking spaces outside the 200 feet walking distance of the ferry terminal (Section 100-191H, first sentence); and b) each accessory parking space, the proposed ownership of this land area, and a line drawn at 200 ft. radius measured from the main ferry dock parcel (to the northeast and easterly parcels). (Section 100-191II) . Thank you. Very truly yours, cc: Planning Board v/ Linda Kowalski SEP II 'yU, ,-.. ,--- ,:::;::€~~-':~ . eJ~SOCIATES, lNC. ;P "\ G CONSULTANTS ~0 - 'S.. '1 ~ Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Review of Long EAF - Cross Sound Feny SerM No. 1000-15-9 10.1, n.1, 15.1 & 3.5 September 9, 1996 <':Lp I 6 ,-,1.,.-- Dear Mr. Orlowski: As per the your request, we have completed a preliminary review of the above referenced project in accordance with your letter. Tasks and completed activities are identified as follows: 1. Review Part I LEAF The parcel has been field inspected by CV A, and the LEAF has been reviewed and amended as necessary. A copy of same is attached. 2. Prepare Part II LEAF The Part II LEAF checklist has been completed and is also attached. Additional information concerning our findings is included below. 3. Environmental and Planning Considerations The parcel has been inspected and environmental references concerning the site and area have been consulted. The site consists of a total of 6.2 acres, including four (4) tax parcels which comprise the entire Cross Sound Ferry property as well as additional lands which may be incorporated into the site for proposed e~ansion. The project involves a request for site plan approval to provide additional parking to the existing ferry terminal. The primary reason for the expansion is to accommodate increased demand for parking that has been generated by the inclusion of a high speed passenger only ferry service, in addition to the existing vehicular ferry service. Physical alternative is proposed to the 1.1 acre parcel which contains a Snack Bar, and an additional 2.5 acre parcel to the east of the existing terminal which is vacant. An alternative plan has been prepared which comprehensively plans site improvements and includes all four parcels as well as land of New York State associated with Route 25. The site is located in a CEA, and adjacent the Peconic Bay Estuary, and is located in proximity to County land and a State Park. The water resources associated with the site are sensItive, and include beach areas and associated upland. The site has limited access potential as a result of the termination of New York State Route 25. Access east of Greenport on Route 25 is constrained given existing road size, lane width and potential for improvements. This must be balanced with the rural nature of the area, and impact upon adjacent communities. Land use compatibility of the expanded site is of concern, as regards the request for parking within residentially zoned areas and operation of existing bike trails. Infrastructure, on-site improvements and services which currently exist should be analyzed to determine adequacy to serve the proposed use. Page 1 , 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, ,MILLER PLACE. NY 11764 . (516) 331-1455 . FAX 331-8046 . . . Cross Sound Ferry, Orient Long EAF Review Use of the site for passenger ferry parking is known to cause overflow and significant excess demand for parking. In addition, proposed activities on site are expected to increase the intensity of use of land. This increased intensity of use will cause potential impact upon the environment. A list of environmental and planning impact considerations is as follows: 1. The project is a Type I action, which is more likely to require the preparation of a Draft EIS. In addition, the project is located adjacent to the surface waters of Gardiners Bay, which comprises a portion of the Peconic Bay Estuary, and lies within the Orient Point Critical Environmental Area (CEA). The proposed project may impair the environmental characteristics of this CEA. In addition, the project is in proximity to the Orient Beach State Park and 48 + acres of County owned land. 2. The proposed action will cause a significant increase in the intensity of land use on the project site, as a function of the expanded parking, demand for parking in connection with ferry operations and on-site traffic circulation for parking access. 3. The proposed action may change the need and use of public and pedestrian transportation services (including existing bike trail), and may increase the demand for other community services including fire, police, recreational facilities and utilities. 4. The proposed action will cause a significant increase in the number of vehicle trips which utilize off- site infrastructure facilities primarily including existing transportation systems. 5. The project may adversely change noise and air quality as a function of increased traffic, and/or may substantially increase solid waste generation. Existing and proposed site drainage must be analyzed and controlled. 6. Increased intensity of site use for high speed ferry service will increase the use of on-site facilities, particularly sanitary flow and water use, and may result in an adverse impact upon the environment. 7. The project may impact visual and aesthetic resources, particularly as regards lighting, and use during both daytime and nighttime hours. 8. The proposed project may cause growth inducing aspects associated with the proposed project. In addition, the study of mitigation of potential environmental impacts and alternatives would be facilitated by the preparation of a Draft EIS 9. The project involves multiple agency jurisdictions and permits, and the comprehensive review of potential impacts would be facilitated through the preparation of a Draft EIS. 10. Impact of passenger ouly jet boats on marine environment. The proposed project may result in one or more potential impacts upon the environment as noted above. As a result, if the Planninjil Board is in agreement, it is recommended that a Positive Declaration be issued for this proJect, based upon the reasons outlined above. If you have any questions or wish any further input with regard to this matter, please do not hesitate to call. .~ , CEP, AlCP enc: Long EAF Parts I & II Draft Positive Declaration :;~~~:,\,',?>\ CHARLES VapR':nS &$AssOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAtii~~tNG CONSULTANTS \ Page 2 SEP- 9-96 MON 10:16 . 1 . P.02 CHARLES V(~ASOClAT[S. INC. ENVIRONMEN'~~ C01~SLlcrANTS September 9, 1996 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Southold pl"nn;T\g Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Rlwiew of LoDI EAF . Cross Soud Ferry SI.-"1'M No. 1000-15-9 10.1, n.l, 15.1 &: 3.5 Dear M', Orlowski: A:j per the your request, we have completlld a prel:,jflinary review 'Jf the 'l.bove referen.:eu project in accordance with your lette::. Tasks a':td completed activiti 1S are identified as follov:s: . _ =--~"-=--~'~"'-~'---'~c,. ;, f:; (,cJ ~ n nil rc; f""", I . i ~, l~) [_S U \:/ Ii, I r,l.- if=~n"~'~-=-..-----~ J !J If _~ In; 1 i , SEP 91900 "JIl I IbJ i 8 ,f L_u ",,-I' ~ ~';UJ'-1'-~" '-,j , L-.......~_E:L;.l:L~;:,,, "(~""",.~,,_,.J 1. hview Part I LEAF Tb,e parcel has been field inspected by CV A, and the LEAF h:.1S been reliewed and ar.IleIlded as necessary. A copy of same is attached. ' 2. Prepare Part II LEAF The Part n LEAF checldist has been completed and is also attached. Additional bfonnation concerning OUf findings is included below. ' 3. ~En.viTonrnental and PTanni,"I/i ConsideraticJ/ls The parcel has been insp'.'ct"dand envL-l),llIIl.ental references conl;';rnir.,\:. the site and area nave been consulted. The site CODHSts DC a tmal of 6.2 acres, mcluc'ing four (4) tax pa~~ which comprise the entire Cross Sound Ferry property as well a.~ additional lands which may be incorporated into the !itc: for prol'o:><:d ~anslon. The pi aject involves a re.:uest for site plan approval to pro\ide addit;om.'[larking to the existb,g fer:ry terminal. l' t,~ primary reason for the expansion i. 1.0 accOl11T.\1odate incrc:~d demand for parking tIlt has be,en ge1)erated by the incluskn of a high speed pasSt;'Jger only ieny service, in ~ fJd1tion to the existing vehi'L'ar ferry seMU. . . Physical alternative is proposed to the 1.1 ?cre parcel whkh contains a Snaclc Bar, and an additioi1al2.5 acre parcel to the east of. the existing tt'm/Jnal which Ul vacant. An alternative plan has been prepared which comprehensively plaus site iII:.flrovements and in~udes all four parcels as well as land of New York State associated with Route 25. The site is located in a CEA., and adjacent the Peconic Bay Estuary, and is located in proximity to County land and a State Park. The water resources associated with the site ate SCD.S1tive, and include beach areas and 8.ltsocia~ed upland. Tbf; site tas limited access J:I'~tential as a result of the termination of New York State Route 25. AGcess cast of Gr"enport on Route 2S is constrained given CJW.:ing road size, lane width and potential for improvemenu. TbiI JDllIt be ba1ILnr.:td with th~. !"UI"al naturll! of the area, and impact I:,pon 3.djacent communities. Land USI' ';ompau'bilit'1. of the expanded site is of concern, .,:; .re~ard~ the r\?CJ.uest for parking with~ r~sideDtiaily zon.::d ~.~'eas. and ('J?,eration of . I x!5ting bike trailS. Infrastrut\ure;pn-S1te 1T,'prove,ments ~d SCIVlces w,':1ich currel1tly enst should be analyzed to det:emune ade4'Jacy to serve we proposed use. ' Page 1 . S4 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD. SUITE 2, .MILLER PLAc,e, NY 11764 · (516) 331.1455 · FAX 331-8046 SEP- 9-96 MON 10:17 P...03 . ; ~ . ;' . . CrOll. Sound Fen)', Orieat Loaa E,U' Review Use of the site for passenger ferry parking is known to cause overflow and significant excess demand for l'arking. In addition, proposed activities 0/1 site are expected to increase the inteDSlty of use of land. ThiS increased intensity of use will cause potential impact upon the 'environment. A list of environmental and planning impact considerations is as follows: ' 1. The project is a Type 1 aaioD, wbic:h is more likcly to require the preparation of a Draft ElS. ID acIdilioll, the project is loc:aICd adja~ to tho &lII'faoe waters of Gardiacrs Bay. whic:h comprises a portion of the PccoDic Bay Estuary, and lies within lbe Orient PoiAt Cridcal En,oir~CDJ:31 Area (CEA). The proposed proje<< may impair lbe eawlllUDcataI chatact0ri51ica of this CEA. III aclclitioll, the project i& ill proximity to tbr: Oneill Bcar.h Slate Park and 'is.. acres of ColU1l}' owncd 1&IId. . 2. The ~ aaioll will cause . sipilic.&llt iIlcru.se in the iIlteD&ity of Iaaclll&e 011 the project sile. as a fullctiOll of the expanded parking, demand for put. ag ill COllJlCCtioD with ferry opcratioDS and Oil-Site traffic circulatioll for parkillg &ece$$. 3. The proposed actiOJl may chaDIC the IleCcl aDd use of public aDd pcJestriaa. tran~porlatioll services (inc1ucliDg exiSt;'lg bike trail), andlllay iIlcreasc the clcm&lld for other co-W>ity seM~ iDeluding f11e, police, reaeatioJJal facilities and utilities. . 4. The propo&ed actiOll will cause a dgr"f;(a"t iIlcrease ill the Ilwaber of vehicle trips whic:h utilize off- site iIlfrastruawe facilities primarily iIlcludir.S exi$1ina: trlDSporlatioll &y&lems. S, The projc<< may adversely cbaoge liaise aa.cI air qua1ily as a function of iIlacased traffIC, aMI or lIIay substulial1y iIIaease soUd waste IClICratioll. Existing ud proposed site c1raillage must be llJ1alyzcd &Ild controlled. . 6. lDaeaseli ipteusity of site use for hi&b speed ferry soMCC will iIlcrease tmUSC af on-site faQlities, partkWarly sanitary flow aM water use,Uldmay _.lIt ill &II adverse izr.pact Up.lll the eawollll1ent. 7. The project may imp&<< visual &Ild aesthetie resolUc.e.... putieuiarly as rt.prcls li,"d1tia& and use durillg both daytime and mpttime hours. . 8. The propo&ed proje<< may cause growlA induciae: as"""., assuciated vlith t1>e prnpo&ed projecl. ID addi~ the stuliy of mitigation of polcJ1tial CIll'irolllnr 1~ta1 im~aw ,lIllI alte=, d vcs Would be rae;Jllw4 by the preparatioa of a Draft EIS 9 The project iIlYOlvc$ multipk ageDcy jurisdktl,OJ1S and permits, &IltJ the eompreb:Dsive review of polCIIli8limpaw would be facilitated througl'J the preparation of I. Draft ElS. . 10. Imp&<< of Pll56cl1lCr oaly JOI boats aD mariAe eDviroDme..,. - The proposed project may result in one or more potential im,Pacts upon the environment as noted above. As a reswt, if die Plannin, Boar.1 is in agreement, It is recommended that a '. Positive Declaration be issued fOI: Ibis proJect, b4.sed upon the reasons outljne~~ above~ .. If you have any questions or wish any further input with regard to :l:ris matter, please do not hesitate to call. . · enc: Long EAF Parts I &. II Draft Positive Declarati<ln ~~~ {j,1If. ..r,,- zw'" CHARLES V~RH . t~SSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTA~.:.~~'~Ni~~ CONSULTf'NTS, PBae 2 SEP- 9-96 MON 10:25 P _ 14- . . 'SEQR POSITIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Significance Lead Agency: ToWll of Southold Planning Board ToWll of Southold ToWll Hall, 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 September .--J 1996 Address: Date: This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617, of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Enviromnental Quality Review) of the Environmental" Conservation Law. The lead agency has determined that the proposed action described below will have a signif!cant effect on the environment and that a Draft Environmental Impact StatelI1ent . . must be prepared. . Cross Sound Ferry Site Plan Application SCTM l'ilo. 1000-15-9-10.1, 1-1.1, 15.1 & 3.5 Orient, New York . Type I Action The subject application invohies a request foJ:' site plan approvill to provide ~ditiona1 par~g t~ a previously approved ferry terminal on Rt. 2S In Onenl, in order to ac~mmodate increased demand for5EkiDg that has been generated by the inclusion of a' speed paSsenger only ferry service to the existing vehi ferry servi~e. Subject llroperty is located at the end of NYS Route 25, Orient, NY, Reasons Supporting This Determina&ion: Title of Action: SEQR Status: Project Description: Location: This determination is issued in full consideration of the Criteria for Determination of Signif!cance coutllined in 6 NYCRR Part 617.7, the Long Environmental Assessment Form Parts I and n and the following specific reasons: . ' .. Paae 1 012 ~p- 9-96 MON 1B:25 . p _ 15 . Croal S_d Ferry POIltlve Dedaratlon 1. The project Is a Type J action, which is more 1ikcIy to require the preparation of a Draft EIS. In addi!ioll, the project is Ioc;ated adjllCCDt to. the s\lrfaee wale<l of GardiDc<l Bay,wlaich comprises a portion of the Pecoa.ic Bay EstIWY, and lies witIaiD the Orient Point Critica1 &viro_eDtal Area (CEA). The proposed project may impair the CDViro_ental characteristics of this CEA. In addition, the project is In proximity to the Orient Beach State Parle and 48 + aaes of Collllty owned \aDd. 2. The proposed ~ will cause a sipiliCaDl iDcrcasc In the iDtens.ity of land use: OIl, the project site, as a fuDctioa of the e'1',anclcd parkiDg, demand for parking in CODDCCtion with feny opcratiODS liDd OD~sitC traflie ~cu1ation for parkiDg access. ' ' , 3. The proposed action lDay change the need and use of pub& and pedestriaa transportation services (includiDa exiJ';"S bike trail), and may increase the clcmand for other CODlmWlity services including tire, police, recreational facilities and utiJltics. 4. The proposed adion will cause a ';I~i/l~",,,r incrzase in the Dumber ofvchidc tripswbich utilm: off.~te iafrastructure facililies primarily including existiag transportatic,lI '1't,,_. ' S. The project may adversely change noise and air quality as a fw1ction of iDcr ~ased traffic, aIJd./ or may substantially increase solid waste sem:ration., Existing and proposed site drainage must be analyzed and <:onlroUed. 6. Increased IntCIISity of site use: for high speed ferry service will iDcrcasc the use: of on-site facilities, particularly sanitary flow and water use, and may result in an advuse impact upon the enwoDD1ent. 7. The project may impact visual aIJd. aesthetic re.sourcc:s, partic:ularly ll.S regaro.s I;glo';"& and useduriag bOlb, daytime and nighttime hours. ,', , , 8. The proposed project may cause growth indllClDg aspedS associatccl with the proposed project. In addition, the study of mitigation of potential environmeDtal impacts and alternatives wotJld be facilitated by the preparation of a Draft EIS 9. The project involves multiple ageney jurisdictions and permit;, and the comprehensive ~cview of pote.atia1 impacts would be facilitaEed wouah the prepantioD of a Draft EIS. 10. Impact of passenger only jet boats on marine environment. For Further Information: Contact Person: Mr. Robert G. Kassner Planning Board Town of Southold 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179 Southo~d.1 New York 11971 (516) 7ll:l-1938 Copies of this Notice Sent to: Southold Town Board Southold Town Building Department . Southold Town Zoning Board of Trustees Southold Town Board of Trustees Suffolk County Depanment of Health Services Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Public Works Suffolk County Department of Parks NYS Dept. of State, Coastal Resources & Waterfront Revitalization Division NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Albany and Stony Broolr. Offices NYS Office of parkst Recreation and HistoricPrc$(;l'Vatioll ' u.s. Dept. of Agric:wture U.S. Ann)' Corp of ~gineers Federal Emergency Management Agency Southold Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Applicant , , , i " p.F20r2 J". :. ----",.. "''''''IF'''''' . , . Submission Without a Cover Letter Sender: John w (6'i\6\usK.; Date: e> l2.llq(" Subject: Cross SouV\cA. fe-V'Yi SCTM#: I ~ - 0;- j(). ( ) II. I, 15". I t- 3. S- Comments:1tlSD fov eA')V' (uuiffilJ ~eJ- t \,0 1/ ~<r ~ '7 ') r^"" ~e..c-L I h d. (Gl w e.-L. ..--~~:~~ p ',:'-' \Xi '\'1 ~",~,.s'_'.' . I\UG '2.1 ,'"...-< ~ ~K. f115 . . 0Ld<< ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW 108 EAST MAIN STREET P. Q. Box 279 RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 11901-0279 W,LLIAM W. ESSEKS MARCIA Z. H EF'TER STEPHEN R. ANGEL ,JANE ANN R. KRATZ ,JOHN M. WAGNER (516) 369-1700 WATER MILL OFFICE MONTAUK HIGHWAY P. O. Box 570 WATER MILL. N.Y. 11976 (516) 726-6633 TELECOPIER NUMBER (516) 369-2065 WI LLlAM POWER MALON EY THOMAS F. WHELAN CARMELA M. 01 TALlA August 16, 1996 Ms. Valerie Scopaz Chief Planner Town of Southold Main Road southold, New York 11971 Re: Cross Sound Ferry Dear Ms. Scopaz: In accordance with your request, delivered to you herewith please find twenty-one (21) sets of the following: 1. Topographic Base Map - 1" = 20' (existing conditions) - 1 sheet 2. "Initial" site Plan - 1 sheet 3. Alternative Integrated site Plan 1 sheet Vb~?~~ ,-Barbara C. Boner Legal Assistant BCB Encs. !,"""",,,".,.. HAND DELIVERED 6 .. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS RICHARD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS ~:.;:;::.~~ ,fc~~'l.UfFaL.t~ '.';.'~.~(::;:..-."c"... ly~ ~\ Q ~ ,. : en ~;;' -~ ~ ;;:! :; ~ A, . '-~:' ",'Yh ~..' ~OJ + ~~-u:;:;' ~~ - 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 August 13,1996 William Esseks, Esq Esseks, Hefter and Angel 108 East Main St. Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: Proposed site plan for Cross Sound Ferry SCTM# 1000-15-10.1,111,15.1 & 3.5 Dear Mr. Esseks: . The Planning Board has received the cost estimate of $750.00 from their environmental consultant for their review of the Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF). This sum must be paid in full before we can authorize our consultant to proceed with the review. Please make check out to the Town of Southold. Please contact this office if you have any questior)s regarding the above. J. j{;~ "efit,,,,nec Site Plan Reviewer .'S . AUG-l:.2-9~. r'10N :3 : '54 CHARLES vq~~t &';t:;~SOCiATES, INC. ',ll \;\ I/!IJ ~~ ENVIRONMENTti~\ANO\ ./' " G COI,SLJLTANTS . ~'-:;= ~iljl"" II~~ ~ Pb t-K F' _ ~D:':: August 12, 1996 Robert G. Kassner Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 ','I Re: ~UG I 2 1996 Review of Long EAF Cross Sound Ferry SCTMNo.1000-15-9-10.1,IS.I&3.S Dear Bob: As per your request, this letter provides you ...ith a quotation to review lhe above referenced Long EAF. CV A proposed the following services in connection with this review: 1. review the documents prepared b~' John J. Raynor's office submitted with t.ic application, inspect the subject site 2. review the Long E.<\.F and supporting site plun 3. provide letter review identifying key issues, eonstr:lints, environmental resources and land use aspects of the project, with a rccorrunendation for a determination of significance. The fee for these services is 5750.00, and we would expect to complete the review within approximately 3 weeks of authorization to proceed. Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with this proposal, and please eall if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Charles J. Voorhis. CEl', AlCl' " I.. . ._' .. "," It""',",,",' , .~. .,-.. ,..,,, : '....... . c - Jlf-~ & le 0 W " SOUTHOUi'L ~ I .QI~_&~ , ..-~~OFFlct Diol../) - . TOWN OF DRAFT LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM r>-\t"-l ~~\~ ?\t~-v.\'1'~ :\ \)~ ~~~ ' . \\ ,'..iO JV FEBRUARY 1991 PREPARED BY: CASHIN ASSOCIATES, P .C. ENGINEERS - ARCHITECTS - Pl.ANNERS PLAINVIEW, NEW YORK SP I 6 THE PREPARATION 01' THIS REPORT WAS FINANCIALLY AIDED THROUGH A FeDERAL GRANT (GRANT ....AlD '-'WARD NO. NA-a2-AA-O-CZ-OU) FAOII THE OPPlClt OP OCEAN Ale COASTAL RESOURCI! MANAi---;n NATIONAL OCEAMC AND ATIIOIPl....aIIC AI1U.A."AnO~ . . UIlDER THE COAS1aL ZONE MANan.~ ACr 01" 1W2, AS A_II:IID THIS .....onT WAS PRI!MR!D FOR THE NI!W YORK STAT1! IlIMRTf~ OP S'IM1!. ~ \':lfi if . . DRAFT should not be located within 1,000 feet of saline waters or within 300 feet of each other. Large diameter production wells may require greater spacing. In addition, USGS suggests greater utilization of field tensiometers (soil moisture meters) to regulate irrigation and conserve water. The amount of available groundwater in Southold is comparatively small, and all reasonable measures should be taken to conserve the supply and to control withdrawal, especially during periods of below normal precipitation (Crandall, USGS, 1963). The Suffo1 k County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) has recently completed the Suffolk Countv Comorehensive Water Resources Manaoement Plan (1987), which addresses current 9roundwater conditions and analyzes future water supply problems. Based on an analysis of expected growth rates, water demands, consumptive use rates, and recharge rates through the year 2020, the SCDHS has determi ned that future development wi 11 not have a substant i a 1 impact in terms of the quantity of groundwater that wi 11 be available for the Town of Southo1d, except in the hamlets of Orient and Orient Point. SCDHS suggests that tight land use controls over future development are needed to ensure an adequate future water supply in these two areas. Due to the relatively low density of development in Orient, it may not be feasible to develop pub1 ic water supplies. Rather, other groundwater protection measures are needed, such as the granting of zoning variances for uses which requi re 1 ess water usage than uses permi tted under the current zoning. Additional SCDHS recommendations for the entire area of Southo1d are contained in the analysis section of this document (Section 2.4). Groundwater Oua1itv Although SCDHS does not anticipate significant future Town-wide water ouantity problems, localized water supply problems may arise during periods of prolonged drought. In addition, localized water 2-16 . . --... "j ~r,:. ,~ -...,;.,,; ,0 ,:: T( :-. '.:- . ,~...... ... - feeding in these fields, as well as nesting and roosting cover for certain species. Abandoned agri cultura 1 fi e 1 ds wh i ch have reverted to meadows or shrubby fields, provide some of the most diverse upland wildlife habitats in the Town of Southold. These old fields serve as a natural transition zone between the upland woodlands and croplands or wetland areas, and thus support a wi de vari ety of wil dl i fe species. For several seasons after abandonment, latent weed seeds germinate along with propagules from the last crop planted. Within several years, seedling pioneer trees take root in the abandoned fields adding further height and vegetative diversity. In terms of providing food and cover for wildlife, the benefits of preservi ng up land vegetat i on increase when natural buffers are retained surrounding wetlands and agricultural fields which otherwise would 1 ie directly adjacent to confl icting land uses. Large contiguous blocks of natural vegetation are more valuable than narrow stri ps; however, stri ps whi ch connect two otherwi se separated fields or woodlands are valuable in terms of providing travel corridors for wildlife. In most cases, vegetated strips wider than 36 feet provide additional habitat values above their utility as corridors (Forman and Godron, 1986). The different vegetation types occurring in the Town's LWRA support a variety of wildl ife. Among the most common are the Eastern Cottontail and the Raccoon, both of which are found in a variety of habitats, including woods, wetlands, and dunes. Gray Squirrels are also common, though they are found primarily in areas with deciduous trees. Red Fox are fairly abundant, living primarily in woods, shrubs, and dune areas. White-tailed Deer are COlllllon in those areas of the Town where there is sufficient vegetation for cover, and are often seen browsing in agricultural fields. Other mammals occurring in Southold include Moles, Opposum, Shrews, Mice 2-69 iiJf' . > . . .JItr. __ '">,, ~ -..>' - . and Bats. There are a number of mammals wh i ch were common in Southold in the early part of the century, but have become rare in recent decades. These include the Woodchuck, Muskrat, Mink, and Striped Skunk. The Town of Southold supports a rich variety of birdlife, including both nesting and migratory species (Szepatowski Associates, Inc., April 1987). Due to its location within the Atlantic Flyway, the Town's coastal areas provide valuable breeding and over-wintering areas for shorebirds, waterfowl, wading birds, raptors and perching birds. Raptorial birds common to the upland woods and open field areas include Red-tailed Hawks, Kestrels, Northern Harrier (Marsh Hawk), Barn Owl s, Screech Owl s, and Great-Horned Owl s. The Northern Harrier is listed as a "threatened" species on the NYSDEC List of Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Species of New York State. Similarly, the Barn Owl, Common Nighthawk, Eastern Bluebird, Grasshopper Sparrow and Vesper Sparrow, all of which inhabit the upland areas in the Town are listed as "Species of Special Concern". Over 50 species of upland gamebirds and perching birds either breed in or migrate through the Town of Southold. One additional species of "Special Concern" -- the Eastern Hognose Snake, inhabits the sparse 1 y vegetated sandy meadow and woodl and areas in Southold (Szepatowski Associates, Inc., April 1987). 2.2.10 Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats The Town of Southold LWRA contains several important ecosystems including beaches, freshwater and tidal wetlands, creeks, salt marshes, and other surface waters. These ecosystems support di verse and often large wildlife populations, many of which are of commercial or recreational value. Clams and scallops are commercially taken from bay waters. Recreational finfishing is popular in the coastal waters throughout the Town. 2-70 . . The bay and harbor surface waters and adjoining wetlands and islands in the Town serve as wintering grounds for many species of birds, breeding grounds for others, resting stops for migrating species, and permanent homes for other resi dent speci es. The popul at ion si ze of the various waterfowl species is influenced by water quality, changes in wetland areas, intensity of adjacent land use, and by habitat loss or alteration. The offshore waters of the bays and Sound also support a diversity of fish, crustacean and molluscan species, and are important feeding areas for many bird species. The offshore waters are biologically and hydrodynamically coupled to the coast a 1 bays, harbors, and creeks. Therefore, any degradation of offshore waters or decl ines in fish species will ultimately have adverse impacts on the coastal embayments. The converse is also true. In 1972, the federal government passed the Coastal Zone Management Act. The purpose of this Act was to promote the proper protection and development of our nation's coastal resources. In 1982, New York State passed its own Coastal Management Program (CMP). Included under the State CMP was enabling legislation to protect, preserve and restore coastal fi sh and wil dl i fe habitats. The habitat protection policy not only protects important species, but also the areas in which these species live, either seasonally or permanently, to meet an essential portion of their 1 ife requi rements. Coastal habi tats across New York State were eval uated and rated by the New York State Department of State (NYSDOS) as to their State-wide significance based upon general criteria. These include: . Population Level - a large portion or significant concentration of a fish or wildlife population depends on the habitat for at least some part of their life requirements (e.g. - nesting areas for shore birds or spawning areas for fish); 2-71 ,. . . . Species Vulnerability - a vulnerable species one which is 1 isted as endangered (E), threatened (T), or of special concern (SC) in New York State -- depends upon the habitat; . Human Use - the fish and wildlife resources are valuable for human uses including commercial, recreational or educational uses (e.g. -commercial bay scallop fishery; ornithological research station); and . Ecosystem Rarity - the habitat or ecosystem type is rare in the State or region (e.g. - undeveloped barrier beach, wetland ecosystems, or dune formations). Upon satisfaction of one or more of these criteria, and following a series of public hearings, a habitat received a State designation of significance. Once designated by NYSDOS, a habitat is protected through a regulatory process of consistency reviews for State and Federal actions affecting coastal areas. As a result, proposed actions that are determined to significantly alter or destroy a designated habitat or impair the viability of the area as habitat may not be approved. In addition to the NYSDOS review role, other State and municipal agencies that regulate activities requiring an environmental impact statement (EIS) are required to ensure that designated significant habitats will be preserved and protected. The Town of Southo 1 d, through the preparation of thi s LWRP, is required to protect such designated habitats. The NYSDOS has designated the following eighteen areas within the Town of Southold as significant fish and coastal wildlife habitats. As previously indicated, the biological, commercial and recreational value of these areas was one of the primary factors determining their protected status. 2-72 .".- . . DRA.FT area is important as a habitat for various fish and wildlife speci es. The habitat is a confi rmed nesting area for diamondback terrapin (SC) which are relatively uncommon on the north shore. Thi s speci es 1 ays its eggs on the sand beaches bordering the marsh. The tidal creek and salt marsh provide feeding area cover for the terrapin during this nesting period (April-July). Piping plover (T) nested on the beach in 1983 but not in 1984 or 1985. The importance of the beach as a habitat for piping plover is not well documented. The tidal marsh serves as important feeding area for the terrapins, shorebirds and other wildlife. The creek is also important for various species of marine shellfish and finfish. L i tt 1 e Creek is one of the best areas in the town for crabbing and is also locally important for clamming. 11. Lone Beach Bav Long Beach Bay is located on the northern fork of Long Island, one mile east of the hamlet of Orient, in the Town of Southo1d (Figure 2-5). Thi s approximate 1,300-acre significant coastal fish and wildl ife habitat includes Long Beach Bay the adjacent tidal salt marsh areas, and Orient Beach State Park, which is comprised of a long, narrow, sand peninsula protecting the bay area. Most of the open water area of Long Beach Bay is less than six feet deep at mean low water. Long Beach Bay and Orient Point Marshes comprise a large and relatively undisturbed coastal estuarine ecosystem. Areas such as this are rare in New York State, and provide habitat for a diversity of fish and wildlife species. In 1984, approximately fifteen pair of osprey (T) were reported nesting in the Long Beach Bay area. This is one of the largest nesting concentrations of osprey in New York, and 2-84 ~r ( I . . ~f"':. ."....- r, >.)f ;7'; ~_ A -'\.r--_~ ~ the potential exists for additional nesting pairs at this site. Almost all of the nests are located on man-made platforms placed around the perimeter of the bay. A variety of seabirds, shorebirds, and wading birds use this area for feeding or for stopovers during migration. This area is especially significant as a feeding area for herons, egrets, and ibis which nest on Plum Island. Long Beach Bay is also an important waterfowl wi nteri ng area in Suffol k County. Aerial surveys of waterfowl abundance in January for the ten year period from 1975 to 19B~ indicate average concentrations of over 300 bi rds in the bay each year, i ncl udi ng approximately 240 scaup (900 in peak year), and 70 black ducks (300 in peak year), along with lesser numbers of mergansers, buffl ehead, goldeneye, and mallard. Oi amondback terrapi n (SC) are frequently observed in the marsh. Fish and wildlife recreational activities in the area that are important to the residents of Suffolk County include waterfowl hunting, fishing, and birdwatching. Bay scallops are abundant in Long Beach Bay, contributing to a commercial shellfishery of significance in the northeastern United States. A 1 so, the bay is one of the top three areas of significance for clams in Suffolk County. 12. Mattituck Inlet Wetland The Mattituck Inlet Wetland habitat area is located north of the Village of Mattituck on Long Island Sound, in the Town of Southold (Figure 2-5). This significant coastal fish and wil dl i fe habitat cons i sts of an approximate 50-acre tidal wetland and creek. Mattituck Inlet, located north of the wetland, is a deep water inlet, with strong tidal flushing, that enters Long Island Sound. Mattituck Creek extends south of the inlet for about one additional mile, and supports 2-85 ;."'" . . ~ 'i'" r~ 'f--~ ~ ., ~ to, ....: ~~\;..--~~ ;; . moderate res ident i a 1 and mari na development. The wetl and habitat itself is undisturbed; the majority of the wetland is owned by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Small, undisturbed tidal wetlands with good flushing are unusua 1 in northern Suffolk County. The Matt ituck Inlet Wetland has a high primary productivity which supports a large variety of fish and wildlife species both in the wetland itself and around the mouth of the inlet in Long Island Sound. Osprey (T) nested on the state wetland property in 1984 and 1985 and feed in the wetland and on the creek. One pair of piping plover (T) nested on the beach to the east of the inlet in 1984 but the extent of use by this species is not documented. The wetland also serves as an important habitat for a variety of other wildlife as well as marine finfish and shellfish. Surf clams, hard clams and mussels have been harvested in or adjacent to the habitat area but there have been pollution problems due to marina activities, and consequent shellfish closures. 13. Orient Harbor Orient Harbor is located near the eastern end of the north fork of Long Island, in the Town of Southold (Figure 2-5). This area is approximately 1900 acres in size, consisting primarily of open water area in the harbor, along with an undeveloped tidal wetland area on its north shore. Water depths in most of the harbor are generally less than 20 feet below mean low water. The harbor is bordered by much undeveloped land, including Orient Beach State Park to the east and south, and low density residential development on the west. 2-86 . . -'~A'C- Lii'\. .. i Orient Harbor is generally representative of the Peconic Bays ecosystem in being a broad expanse of moderately shallow water. This habitat type is unlike the very shallow bays on the south shore of Long Island or the relatively narrow bays on the north shore. The tidal wetlands area adjoining Orient Harbor are an important component of this ecosystem, contributing to the biological productivity of the area. Orient Harbor is an important habitat for a variety of fish and wildlife species. From November through March, Orient Harbor supports wi nteri ng waterfowl concentrations of regiona I significance. Mid-winter aerial surveys of waterfowl abundance for the ten year period from 1975 to 1984 indicate average concentrations of over 500 birds in the area each year (1,825 in peak year), including approximately 360 scooters (1,695 in peak year), along with lesser numbers of scaup, black duck, common goldeneye, bufflehead, red-breasted merganser, oldsquaw, canvasback, mallard, and Canada goose. In 1983 and 1984, Orient Harbor was also inhabited by at least one nesting pair of osprey (T), which util ized man-made nest i ng plat forms located in the saltmarsh north of the harbor. The potential exists for additional nesting pairs at this site. Diamondback terrapin (SC) have also been seen here but the location of their nesting sites and the importance of this area to the species is not well documented. Orient Harbor is a productive habitat for marine finfish and shellfish. This area is one of the top scallop producing areas on Long Island, supporting a commercial shellfishery significant in the northeast region of the United States. The harbor also serves as a nursery and feeding area (from April-November, generally) for many estuarine fish species, and is an important spawning area for weakfish, winter flounder, and scup. 2-87 '" . . - ..,- ''\ ;,.- ..... I ,'~ ;.... .;_ ,1 J....!.l."'.-,,;l il 14. Plum Gut Pl urn Gut is an area of open water located between Ori ent Point and Plum Island, in the Town of Southold (Figure 2-5). This significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat is a deep channel (over 60 feet in depth), approximately one-half mile across, and bordered by steep underwater slopes rising up to the relatively shallow Midway Shoal (less than 20 feet deep). This approximate 500-acre area is the primary opening in the underwater ridge separating Long Island Sound and Gardiners Bay, and is an area of very turbulent tidal exchange. Plum Gut is on the ferry boat route from Ori ent Poi nt to Pl urn Island and New London, Connecticut. Plum Gut represents a very unusual physical environment in New York State. The deep, turbul ent waters and shoal s combi ne to produce a product i ve and di verse habi tat for mari ne fi shes. Significant concentrations of many species forage in this area, including striped bass, bluefish, tautog, summer flounder, and scup. Pl urn Gut is one of the two major migration corridors for striped bass, which move into Long Island Sound in spring enroute to their breeding grounds, and return to .southern overwintering areas during the fall. Plum Gut is also thought to be the major corri dor for Atl ant i c Salmon returning to the Connecticut and Pawtucket Rivers in New England in the early spring. As a result of the abundant fisheries resources in the area, Plum Gut is one of the most popular areas in the northeastern United States for recreational fishing, with heavy fishing pressure occurring throughout spring, summer, and fall. Much of this pressure is brought in by charter boats from Greenport, Connecticut, and Montauk Harbor. In addition to sportfishing, the commercial trap net fishery and lobster fishery in Plum Gut are of regional Significance. 2-88 - ~ ~N ,,~. . . ::-~ "")... "" ____ rr.. , 1'. . : -"...... -..... ..'. ~-..... . ~ j .:. :,; 2.2.11 Critical Environmental Areas and Environmental Quality Bond Act land Acquisitions A Critical Environmental Area (CEA) is a specific geographic area the possesses except i ona 1 or uni que characteri st i cs whi ch deem the area environmentallY significant. In 1978, New York State implemented the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Under SEQRA, local governments have the abil ity to designate specific geographic areas within their boundaries as Critical Environmental Areas. Once a site receives such designation, any action proposed wholly or partiallY within the CEA must be treated as a Type I action pursuant to SEQRA, and undergo a series of governmental reviews and publ ic hearings before the proposed action can take place. A Type I action is an activity that is likely to have a significant impact on the environment that requires the preparation of a Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF). Although actions proposed within a CEA do not always receive a positive declaration from the Lead Agency thereby requiring the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS), these actions are more likely to require an EIS than actions proposed in areas not so designated. Land areas are recommended to receive CEA designation if they fulfill one or more of the following criteria: . The land is identified as a benefit or a threat to the public health or public safety (e.g., benefit water supply reservoir, threat abandoned landfill); . The land area is determined to be of social, cultural, historic, recreational and/or educational importance (e.g., historic building, waterfront access); 2-93 ;:~,'~ . . ~..~,' .,.4.'~" ':.J /( .':-....:. .~ ." . The land area possesses an inherent ecological, geological or hydrological sensitivity to change and may be adversely affected by such change (e.g., groundwater aquifer, endangered species habitat); and . The 1 and area is a natural envi ronment whi ch possesses significant ecological and aesthetic character (e.g., fish and wildlife habitat, undeveloped open space). Us i ng the criteri a 1 i sted above, 1 oca 1 governments typi ca 11 y nominate a group of land areas for CEA designation. Following a series of public hearings, at which time the characteristics and boundaries of these areas are discussed, these land areas are classified as CEA's and are filed with the NYSDEC Department of Regulatory Affairs. This agency maintains a listing of all of the State's Critical Environmental Areas. Critical Environmental Areas Within the Town of Southold The creeks and inlets in the Town of Southold have been identified as the most aesthetic and ecol ogi ca 11 y productive resources. Consequently, almost all of these waterbodies have received CEA designations. Southo 1 d Town and Suffol k County have judged the fo 11 owi ng 22 areas as qualified CEA's (Figure 2-5). It should be noted that, in whole or in part, many of these areas have also been designated by New York State as Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats (as indicated by the asterisk). Significant habitats were discussed in Section 2.2.10. 2-94 ..;.---- . . .,."" .'0,.,. ..~ ~ $fill. '-.....-.... Land Area Oesianated Bv Date Brushes Creek Southold Town 2/90 Cedar Beach Creek* Southold Town 2/90 Corey Creek* Southold Town 2/90 Cutchogue Harbor and Southold Town 3/88 Wetlands* Dam Pond Southold Town 3/88 Deep Hole Creek Southold Town 2/90 Downs Creek* Southold Town 3/88 Goldsmith's Inlet Southold Town 2/90 Goose Creek Southold Town 2/90 Ha 11 's Creek Southold Town 2/90 Ha 11 ocks Bay* Southold Town Inlet Pond Suffolk County 2/88 Little Creek* Southold Town 2/90 Mill Creek* Southold Town 2/90 Peconic 8ay and Environs Suffolk County 9/88 Pipes Cove Creek Southold Town 2/90 Orient Creek Southold Town 3/88 Orient Point Suffolk County 2/88 Richmond Creek and Beach* Southold Town 9/88 Robins Island* Suffolk County 3/88 West Creek Southold Town 3/88 *EQBA discussion 2.2.12 Scenic and Visual Resources The visual qual ity of the coastal waterfront is a significant resource of the Town of Southold. The scenic qual ity of the coastal landscape plays a vital part in attracting visitors, res i dents, and busi nesses to the waterfront areas. It is important to protect those positive scenic qual ities which enhance the viewer's recreational experience and the quality of life for residents, as well as develop plans to improve any degraded vistas or resources within its jurisdiction. The" existing scenic and visual settings of the Town are significant resources for residents and visitors. 2-95 . . ... , -... The 1 andscape can be descri bed in terms of its basic phys i ca 1 components: land and water, vegetation, and structures. The land and water component consists of the rolling terrain, bluffs, dunes and beaches, inlets and ponds, creeks and streams, the south shore bays, and the Long Island Sound. These features are mostly in their natural condition which contributes to the beauty of the waterfront. In some places, the land has been altered in such a way as to degrade the scenic quality of the landscape. Dredging for marinas in many of the creeks, and bulkheading have replaced some of the natural organic curves of the water's edge with straight architectural forms. The vegetat i on component i ncl udes trees, shrubs, and ground covers. Most of the vegetation in the Southold LWRA consists of tidal wetlands, freshwater marshes, agricultural lands, undeveloped fields, pine and oak woodlands, and transitional vegetation. The extent of th is natural vegetat i on helps to obscure development that is in contrast with the natural landscape. The structural component of the landscape i nc1 udes man-made objects such as buildings, roads, and power lines. Southold is fortunate in that development along the coastline has not been intensive. Although there are many structures that are visible from offshore locations, most of this development is residential in nature and for the most part is not significantly obtrusive. This is further benefitted by the extent of woodland vegetation that exists and acts to screen upland development from view. There are many wide stretches of undeveloped shoreline in the Town, particularly along the northshore. There are also no industrialized areas containing 1 arge, promi nent structures. Offshore vi ews of the Town are, therefore, very positive. 2-96 '. . -, ,~.) .... ,~, - .., ' , 1 . ~.,,\ ......;" J- ' ."", -, ,. .'. There are many sign i fi cant vi stas along the waterfront. The northshore affords spectacular views of the Long Island Sound, particularly from the bluff areas. The south shore embayments offer a variety of views of offshore islands and land masses, and the Great Peconic, Little Peconic, Southold, and Gardiners Bays. The elements that give these vistas importance include: the vi s i bi 1 ity of the water; conspi cuous foreground, mi d-ground or background features; and the composition of elements in the view. Viewed from offshore waters the coastal area of the Town is breathtaking. Many of the south shore embayments provide excellent anchorages and are popular areas for sailing and cruising. These areas are visually accented with sandbars and shoreline woodlands that highlight the viewsheds. The prominent bluffs on the northshore dominate views and lessen the visual obviousness of shoreline development. Overall, the scenic and visual quality of the Town is excellent despite the fact that development is affect i ng the Town's aesthet i c character. Southold has existed for many years as an area of wi despread agri cultural activity, with vast areas of rural and undeveloped land. Over the past ten years, the Town has experienced an upsurge in development. In some areas commercial and residential development has taken on an obtrusive and incongruous appearance, with the construction of structures and signage that are not in concert with the rural and historic character of the Town. Many of these commercial structures remain vacant and have adversely impacted the physical appeal and social character of certain areas. The preservation of the aesthetic, historic, and scenic character of the Town is important to the continuance of its attraction as a quaint, agricultural and waterfront community. Efforts should be taken to balance growth and development with the desire to maintain the rural character that has existed here for many years. Development should be guided 2-97 ~ . . ) -~. . " _';~:.;...-~i ;, and regulated through the use of design standards and review to achieve this goal. Generally, it is assumed that positive coastal vistas and visual resources evoke feel ings of serenity, tranquil ity and harmony. Positive visual elements are uncluttered, ordered, simple and congruous with existing natural amenities. Positive resources include lush, vegetated marsh areas, thriving fish and wildlife habitats and populations, and man-made structures which conform with the historic and rural character of the Town, the natural shoreline, and coastal features. In direct contrast, negative visual elements appear cluttered or haphazard, obtrusive, and incongruous with the natural setting. Negative resources include signs of pollution, overcrowding, neglected or deteriorating structures, and land uses that actually degrade or result tn discord with the natural environment or the rural, historic character of the Town. The scenic and visual resources in the various sub-areas of the Town's LWRA were evaluated based upon their positive or negative characteristics. A few areas are noted as unclassified. These are areas where the impacts of land use activities have resulted in a more subjective impact. For example, although a deteriorated or intensively utilized are~ or structure may possess nostalgic character or add to the charm of an historic waterfront community, such structures or areas may actually detract from the overall visual quality due to this existing physical condition or intensity of use. In these cases, the beauty is 1 iterally in "the eye of the beholder". 2-98 . . . ~ ; . J' ~...:. , ..JIII \ ... .. oll -"-..1 Sub-Area 1 Positive: Sound Avenue (Suffolk Countv) - In recognition of its cultural, scenic and historical importance dating back to the American Revolution, in 1975, the New York State Legislature establ ished Sound Avenue as a significant scenic and visual corridor in Suffolk County. Any development activities that occur in this area should be undertaken and designed in conformance with the significant visual nature of this area. Breakwater Beach (Matti tuck Park District) - Breakwater Beach is located just west of Mattituck Inlet. This beach contains and provides visual access to the highest bluffs in the Town (Mattituck Hills -160 feet above mean sea level). On and off-site views in this area are quite picturesque and should be preserved. Negative: Mattituck Tank Farm and Asohalt Plant (Private) - The Mattituck Tank Farm and Asphalt Plant are located near the mouth of Mattituck Creek (adjacent to Luthers and Naugles Roads). Presently, the unfenced and un screened sites contain several very large and abandoned above-ground storage tanks, and are strewn with litter and rusting garbage. Efforts should be made to improve the visual quality of these sites through appropriate redevelopment action. Unclassified: There are a number of private lots located directly across from the Old Mill Inn on the eastern side of Mattituck Creek (Tax Map Section 106, Block 4, Lots 2,3,4,5, and 6). Presently, lots 3, 4, 5, and 6 contain neglected structures used primarily for the fishing industry. In addition, lot 2 contains a private home in an advanced state of disrepair although probably habitable. All of these structures have the potential for revitalization. 2-99 . . ~-> . -~.. . ,;_. ,-, . Sub-Area 2 Positive: Peconic Dunes (Suffolk CountY/Private) - Peconic Dunes is located between Goldsmith Inlet and Great Pond. Presently, this lOa-acre site houses a 37-acre Suffol k County camp as well as severa 1 pri vate homes. Primary and secondary dune format ions, with elevation changes of over 100 feet, allow Peconic Dunes to be one of the most unique and aesthetic ecosystems in the Town. Naturally, the site abounds with wetlands, diverse wildlife, and lush vegetation. Currently, the dunes are restricted from the public due to private ownership and the presence of the County camp. Protection of this significant ecosystem is of high priority to preserve its scenic and environmental character. Goldsmith Inlet (Suffolk County) - Goldsmith Inlet is one of two inlets in the Town located on the Long Island Sound; the other one is Mattituck Creek. Unlike Mattituck Creek, this inlet is owned and protected by Suffolk County. As a result, the inlet is bas i ca 11 y undeveloped and is not used for power boat i ng. Goldsmith Inlet supports a great variety of wildlife and native vegetation. Consequently, the area provides many hiking and fishing opportunities for Suffolk County residents. This facility offers excellent views of the Sound and surrounding area and should be maintained and protected. Sound View Avenue (Suffolk County) - Sound View Avenue begins at the Southern edge of Gol dsmi th Inlet and cont i nues eastward, representing the southeastern border of Sub-area 2. This corridor offers scenic views of the Long Island Sound and runs through wooded duneland and historic estate property. Consequently, Sound View Avenue is one of the Town's most aesthetic roadways. The vi sua 1 qual i ty of thi s roadway shoul d be protected. Future development proposals should be reviewed with consideration given to the preservation of viewsheds and scenic quality. 2-100 . . -..-...... - "':I~ / if' .. . . .. .......- #, .- '1""'. .. ;, .... . . '" Unclassified: Kenneys Beach, a private facility, is an intensely developed area of tightly packed, small bungalows, located directly north of Great Pond. This area is highly prone to erosion, and the nature of development activities has impacted visual quality. Sub-Area 3 Positive: Horton Point Liohthouse (Southold Park District) - The Horton Point Lighthouse is located 00 a nine-acre landscaped site at the end of Li ghthouse Road, overl ooki ng Long Is 1 and Sound. This historically significant lighthouse has been converted into a museum and is open to the public. There are picnic tables located on the site but extensive use of the park and its amenities is limited to certain hours. The site offers spectacular vistas of the Sound and is a resource that shoul d be ma i nta i ned and protected. Sound View Avenue/Countv Road 48 (Suffolk Countv) - Sound View Avenue begi ns in Sub-Area 2 and cont i nues in a northeasterly direction, merging with County Route 48. This stretch of roadway offers excellent scenic views of Long Island Sound and is bordered by thick native vegetation. The visual quality of this portion of Sound Avenue should be preserved. Future development that may occur in this area should be reviewed with consideration given to the preservation of viewsheds and scenic quality. Negative: Inlet Pond Countv Park (Suffolk Countv) - Inlet Pond is a 36-acre site located north of the Incorporated Village of Greenport, with access provided from Route 48. This site offers tremendous scenic value due to its acreage, high bluffs, large areas of wetlands and thick forests. However, Suffolk County has not properly controlled access to, or maintained conditions on, this site. Consequently, portions of Inlet Pond are strewn with debris including garbage and junked cars. In addition, four-wheel 2-101 . - PI?> S-t,t ~ September 13, 1996 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 SEP I 3 1996 Dear Mr. Orlowski: We write on behalf of Southold Citizens for Safe Roads, Inc. ("SCSR") at your invitation to provide the Planning Board with SCSR's opinions on this issue of public importance. The following represents SCSR's response to the draft Long Environmental Assessment Form ("LEAF") and the draft SEQR positive Declaration on the Cross Sound Ferry ("CSF") terminal site plan prepared by Charles Voorhis & Associates. We appreciate the Planning Board's adherence to NYS open government laws, which mandate the release of these documents for public comment five days in advance of the hearing. We also welcome the opportunity to express our opinions. While we feel that in general the draft LEAF and SEQR positive Declaration reach a valid conclusionand raise many of the relevant issues, SCSR would like the final documents to address all of the relevant issues, to be complete and to give full weight to local community concerns for environmental, safety and quality of life issues. Toward that end, it is our opinion that the LEAF should be amended to fully and accurately describe what we believe are additional relevant facts. Further, the SEQR Declaration should identify long-term as well as short-term impacts of the proposed development and should consider likely cumulative effects of additional development and activities at Orient Point. For example, the SEQR Declaration should consider the pattern of progressive development by CSF at Orient Point and take into account the potential environmental impact that could result if that pattern . . continues into the future. We believe that a full analysis of the impact at Orient Point additionally requires the completion of the supplemental Visual Assessment Form (VAF) (referenced in Part 2, item 11 of the Long EAF entitled Project Impacts And Their Magnitude), and the Coastal Assessment Form (CAF) , which is mandatory where, as here, the comprehensive site for review exists in a coastal flood plain or Critical Environmental Area (CEA). SCSR expects the Planning Board to ensure that a properly completed VAF and CAF are made available for public comment in the near future. Parts I, II and III of our comments represent our opinions with respect to Parts I, II and III of the LEAF. Part IV provides our opinion regarding the draft SEQR Positive Declaration. ~/ PART I-PROJECT INFORMATION The Description of Action should contain a reference to underwater lands at the site as well as to what we believe has been a recent addition of a dock bridge and rebuilding of the dock to accommodate and to implement the high-speed passenger-only ferry service. More importantly, the project information should include reference to the ongoing intensification of use at the ferry terminal resulting from the introduction of the high-speed service. Further, in keeping with the requirement that environmental assessments look to the total impact of an overall plan and not incremental pieces, the project description would benefit from some statement by the applicant regarding its future growth plans. The project description should make clear that any growth beyond that disclosed in the current ~/ We note that the instructions for completing the "Project Impacts" portion of the LEAF indicate that "maybe" answers should be considered as yes answers. -2- . . application would require a further application to the Planning Board and a further LEAF. A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. The vacant lot should be listed as zoned under an R-80 designation, with an existing snack bar on the eastern parcel constituting a non-conforming use. 5. We believe that the response is inconsistent with CSF's May 1984 EAF, prepared by En-Consultants, Inc., which states that 5% of the proposed project site has slopes of 10-15%. Given the proximity to protected waters and wetlands in a critical environmental area, the slope issue may be relevant to questions of runoff and aquifer pollution. 6. The response should be amended to "yes". The project is substantially contiguous to what has been referred as the Kings Highway. 7. The response should be amended to "yes". The project is substantially contiguous to and part of the Long Beach ecosystem, which has been designated a National Natural Landmark. 9. We believe that the response should contain an addendum reflecting the conclusions of the Suffolk County Water Authority ("SCWA"). As set forth in the attached letter, dated September 4, 1996, the SCWA has concluded that: "The Orient Point and Orient areas are the most fragile groundwater conditions on Long Island because the land masses are relatively flat with complete underlayment of salt water. . . "Groundwater samples throughout the eastern end of Southold Town have indicated high concentrations of nitrates and residual pesticides and herbicides. Any sustained pumping of water in these areas will upcone -3- . . salt and result in permanent chloride contamination of the aquifer. "These unfavorable groundwater conditions have influenced the SCWA policy of not seeking any well field locations in the orient areas. [I]t is important that development be severely restricted to prevent any further impairment of the fragile aquifer. "Any intensification of land uses will be detrimental to groundwater conditions. In fact, every effort should be made to maximize open-space acquisitions and adopt strict zoning codes that will prevent any increase in activities at Orient that will impact groundwater conditions. Local government should upzone to very large lot zoning and reduce vehicular traffic that will add to groundwater pollution in the form of hydrocarbon runoff, formation of phthalates and combustion pollutants." 10. The response should be amended to "yes". The path of the ferry is over the Plum Gut, a listed CEA with major regional importance to commercial and recreational fishermen. 11. The response should be amended to "yes". As set forth in the attached September 6, 1996 letter of Dr. Eric Lamont, a botanist who has conducted botanical studies on Long Island for twenty years: "Plans by Cross Sound Ferry Co. to increase the parking facilities at the Orient Point terminal may result in the destruction of a globally rare plant population. seabeach Knotweed (polygonurn glaucurn), is known to occur from sandy beaches at nearby Orient State Park, and suitable habitat for this rare plant also occurs in the vicinity of the ferry terminal. In addition, seventeen other rare plant species have been recently (1991) documented from Orient Beach State Park; some may occur near or at the proposed development site." -4- . . We here attach a copy of the 1991 scientific article "The Vascular Flora of Orient Beach State Park, Long Island, New York", referenced in Dr. Lamont's letter. NFEC biologists are currently working on a report which will further detail local flora or fauna which may be threatened by CSF's proposed action. Further, the 1991 Draft Local Waterfront Revitalization Program of the Town of Southold ("DLWRP") states that Orient Point is the home to a rare ecosystem and identifies Long Bay Beach, Orient Harbor, and Plum Gut as areas designated by the NYSDOS as significant fish and coastal wildlife habitats, hosting a variety of species that are considered "threatened" or of "special concern" such as the Osprey, the Piping Plover, the Diamondback Terrapin, the Eastern Hognose Snake and the Northern Harrier. In addition, the coastal areas to the Town of southold-- including the site at issue-- are in the Atlantic Flyway and provide "valuable breeding and over-wintering areas for shorebirds, waterfowl, wading birds, raptors and perching birds." DLWRP at 2-70. As we understand it, the proposal at issue would remove approximately 2.5 acres of open space and replace it with a parking facility. 12. The response should be amended to "yes". Wetlands map shows the presence of intertidal the residential lot of CSF as of August 1995. The Federal wetlands on 13. The response should be amended to "yes". We believe that the termination of Route 25 at the water's edge has always been a visual scenic area and is one of the only open places to view the Atlantic Ocean from the North Fork. 14. The response should be amended to "yes" for the reasons stated in our comment to question 13. 16. The response should list, in addition to Gardiners Bay, what we believe were previously interconnected Long Beach Bay tidal wetlands. -5- . . 19. The response should list, Bay Estuary: (i) Orient Point; Bay. in addition to the Peconic (ii) Plum Gut; and (iii) Long B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. (a) We believe that the acreage owned by CSF also includes 4.1 underwater acres. (b) The parenthetical statement of an "approved and pre-existing parcel" should, in our view, state "approved and nonconforming parcel". 3. The response should be amended to "no". We do not understand how previously undeveloped open space that is converted into a parking lot can be said to be "reclaimed". 6-7. The responses should be amended to reflect the fact that, according to the NYS Department of Transportation, this must be considered a multi-phase project in light of the incremental steps of the Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA") variance and the developing DOT plans. 11. The conceptual plan indicates that the existing snack bar will be removed then re-sited in the existing house on the western parcel. In our opinion that would constitute an intensification of use that will limit public access to the beach at the end of Route 25. 16. The response should be amended to "yes". We believe the increased use of the passenger-only ferry may well increase the volume of solid waste generated at the CSF site. 19. The response may need to amended to "yes" in light of the projected increase of diesel and automotive exhaust that may be associated with the increased use of the passenger- only ferry. -6- . . 20. The response should be amended to PA system of the Cross Sound Ferry may acceptable ambient noise levels. "yes". The current already exceed 22. CSF's May 1984 EAF states that the pumping capacity of the CSF wells is 15.6 gal/min. 23. CSF's May 1984 EAF indicated anticipated water usage of 2250 gallons in 1984 with a peak capacity of 22,500 day. 25. We believe that approvals are required from the DOS, FEMA, and ACOE because the project impacts federally protected wetlands and underwater areas. C. ZONING AND PLANNING INFORMATION 1. The project may additionally require approval for any present non-conforming use of the snack bar lot. 6. The response should be amended to "no". The master plan, the CEA listing, and Southolds' draft Local Waterfront Revitalization Program all appear to support the proposition that development and new nonconforming uses at Orient Point should be severely restricted. 8. The response should be amended to "no". In our opinion, the proposed project is incompatible with the residential and preservation land zoning in effect within a quarter-mile radius. 10. The response in our view should be amended to "yes". As noted above, the Suffolk County Water Authority has concluded that "Any sustained pumping of water in these areas will upcone salt and result in permanent chloride contamination of the aquifer. . . . Since the cost of [a public water supply] system would be extraordinary due to existing high nitrates and other contaminants and the narrow band of fresh water constantly -7- . . threatened with salt upconing, the SCWA believes it would be best not to provide a public water supply at this time. But, to support this policy, it is important that development be severely restricted to prevent any further impairment of the fragile aquifer." SCSR submits that the proposed project may result in substantially increased pumping of fresh water and may ultimately require the installation of an "extraordinarily" expensive public water supply. If that were to occur, the project may require the authorization of water districts. 11. The response should in our view be amended to "yes", because the increased volume of traffic and passengers that may result from the project could require increased fire and police protection. 12. Although question 12 has been left unanswered, it is our opinion that the response should be "yes" to reflect the generation of significant new traffic by passengers utilizing the high-speed passenger-only ferry. PART II-PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE IMPACT ON LAND 1. Although the LEAF identifies a potential large impact from construction on slopes of 15% or greater, the LEAF fails to identify whether or not the impact can be mitigated by a project change. SCSR respectfully notes that the slopes on the residential/ snack bar lot originally had inclines greater than 15% but those inclines appear to have been leveled. IMPACT ON WATER 3. Although the LEAF identifies a potential large impact from the construction on the peconic Estuary and Orient Point, the LEAF fails to identify impact on the adjacent -8- . . protected CEA areas to state whether or project change. of Plum Gut and Long Beach Bay and fails not the impact can be mitigated by a 5. Although the LEAF identifies small to moderate impacts on surface and groundwater quality from discharges, stormwaterl construction permits, and possible sanitary uses, the LEAF fails to identify the potential large impacts from groundwater contamination that may result from the following: (i) increased vehicular traffic contributing to groundwater pollution in the form of additive emissions, including hydrocarbon runoff, formation of phthalates and combustion pollutants (as identified in the attached September 4, 1996 letter of the SWSA); (ii) increased pumpage of water to serve the increased number of passengers, threatening to upcone salt and cause the permanent chloride contamination of the aquifer (as identified in the attached September 4, 1996 letter of the SWSA); (iii) increasing parking of automobiles situated in the 100 year floodplain, threatening a discharge of oil, gasoline, and diesel fuel into the waterways in the event of storms, hurricanes or other flooding. IMPACT ON AIR 7. We believe that the identified increase in on-site and off-site vehicle use, including increased passenger car, bus, and ferryboat traffic, may have a potential large impact on local and regional air quality. IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8-9. The response to both should be amended to "yes". As set forth in our comments to the response to question 11 of Part I, threatened species which may be affected by the planned construction include the Seabeach Knotweed and the Northern Harrier--an effect which is by definition a Potential Large Impact. Moreover, the proposed action may substantially interfere with the ecosystems at Orient Point, Long Bay Beach, and Plum Gut, affecting other species that -9- . . are classified as "threatened" or of "special concern", namely the Osprey, the Piping Plover, the Eastern Hognose snake and Diamondback Terrapin. There may also be an impact on the regionally important fishing, shellfish, and hatchery areas adjacent to the ferry site. SCSR respectfully brings to the attention of the Planning Board the fact that the 1993 study of the Suffolk County Planning Commission, conducted pursuant to County legislation reviewing over 30 Long Island ferry studies, confirmed a 1981 prediction that the Orient Point terminal was of finite capacity and, due to its location in a fragile CEA, the potential damage to the environment should preclude any expansion at the CSF site. IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOtffiCES 11. We believe that the visual impact of the size and location of CSF's proposed parking lot and lighting systems requires the completion of the supplemental Visual EAF referenced in this section. IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOtffiCES 12. The response should be amended to "yes". Orient Point has long been a historic destination for local tourists separate and apart from any ferry activity. The DOT administers a state land grant from 1897 that was created to insure a separate wharf public use. This grant included a still applicable covenant for a separate roadway named "Dock Road". It exists on maps east of the historic Kings Highway. Moreover, the state road of Route 25 has existed in its entirety since postal route surveys were completed in the 1790s. This is evidenced by the stone road marker noting "New Suffolk-3D miles" located at the south-western end of the Route 25 extension. IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION -10- . . 13. The response should be amended to "yes". The end of Route 25 has always been a visual scenic destination where local residents and tourists visit. It is one of the only places to see out to the Atlantic Ocean from the North Fork and it also serves as a strolling and bathing beach complemented by a refreshment stand. The neighboring CSF expansion may interfere with or discourage this long- established use. In addition, traffic congestion in general threatens to discourage local tourism. IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 14. (a) The response should be amended to identify a Potential Large Impact from the alteration of present patterns of movement of people. The end of Route 25 has always been a scenic destination for tourists and scenic DOT parking spaces have been in place from at least the 1940s. CSF's expansions may alter this long-established local tourism use. (b) The response should be amended to identify a Potential Large Impact from major traffic problems. CSF's introduction of a high speed ferry service may increase the amount of vehicular traffic along Route 25 to Orient Point. A comprehensive and impartial town-wide traffic study is urgently required to assess the full impact--both present and future--of CSF's proposed expansion. We believe that such a study must coincide with and inform the SEQR process. (c) The LEAF does not specify the nature of the Potential Large Impact identified in 14. NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16. This section should also reference any planned P.A. systems at the ferry terminal. IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH -11- . . 17. The response should be amended to "yes". The increase in the number of cars that may be stationed on the flood plain will increase the risk of oil, gas, and other chemical leakage into the groundwater. The risk is especially high in the case of hurricane, flooding or other inclement weather conditions. In addition, the intensity of vehicular traffic may threaten public safety by increasing the risk of accidents, including accidents with pedestrians or cyclists. IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 18. The LEAF identifies a Potential Large Impact from a change in density of land use but fails to identify whether the impact can be mitigated by a project change. SCSR respectfully submits that the impact lies not merely in increased density of use but also obstruction of public access to the beach areas and scenic vistas lying at the end of Route 25--one of the few areas in the North Forth permitting an open view of the Atlantic Ocean and one regularly used by the local community as well as seasonal tourists. PART III -- EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS SCSR respectfully notes that the LEAF lacks the required evaluation of impacts for each of the potentially large impacts identified in Part II. As the LEAF is in this respect fundamentally inadequate, SCSR reserves its right to publicly comment on Part III until the draft LEAF contains a full and complete evaluation of the importance of impacts as mandated by law. -12- . . PART IV -- DRAFT SEOR The SEQR Positive Declaration should in our opinion reference the following specific reasons supporting the Positive Declaration in addition to those identified in the draft: (i) The proposed action may threaten the contamination or depletion of the fragile Orient Point acquifer, the only source of potable water for the community. (ii) The proposed action may require the creation of an expensive public water supply and may necessitate the creation of new water districts. (iii) The proposed action may significantly increase non-point source pollution of surface and groundwaters. (iv) The proposed action may adversely affect threatened or rare species in the fragile, tidal- wetlands ecosystem, including the Seabeach Knotweed, Osprey, the Piping Plover, the Diamondback Terrapin, the Eastern Hognose Snake and the Northern Harrier. (v) The proposed action may adversely impact fisheries, shellfish, and hatcheries in the marine environment at or adjacent to Orient Point site or the adjacent waters. (vi) The proposed action may impair the environmental characteristics of the Plum Gut and Long Bay CEAs. (vii) The proposed action may result in the loss of public parking and beach access at the end of Route 25, rendering historically scenic views of the Atlantic Ocean inaccessible. (viii) The proposed action may severely limit or preclude future public access to the New York DOT landlease options. -13- . . Thank you for your attention to this matter. ~ Sincerely, ~Jk.___ ~ ~ ,d.......J-- Southold Citizens For Safe Roads, Inc. -14- . . ::Nt;, , ~. tK \'~ v..,';, Eric Lamont, Ph.D. Botanist 717 Sound Shore Road, Riverhead, N.Y. 11901 Tel: 5l6n22-5542 Jean W. Cochran, Supervisor Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179, 53095 Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 5 September 1996 RE: Potential Negative Environmental Impacts and the Proposed Development by Cross Sound Ferry Co. Dear Supervisor Cochran: Plans by Cross Sound Ferry Co. to increase the parking facilities at the Orient Point terminal may result in the destruction of a globally rare plant population. Seabeach Knotweed (Polygonum glaucum) is known to occur from sandy beaches at nearby Orient Beach State Park, and suitable habitat for this rare plant also occurs in the vicinity of the ferry terminal. In addition, seventeen other rare plant species have been recently documented from Orient Beach State Park; some may occur near or at the proposed development site. Enclosed is a copy of the scientific publication, "The Vascular Flora of Orient Beach State Park, Long Island, New York," which I authored in 1991 with Dr. Richard Stalter from St. John's University. Twenty years of botanical studies on Long Island induces me to state that the entire eastern tip of the Orient Peninsula supports the greatest diversity of plant life in the Township of Southold. Therefore, I urge you to declare the need for a full Environmental Impact Statement before any development occurs anywhere near the vicinity of the Orient Point ferry terminal. If I may be of further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me. zreu Eric Lamont, Ph.D. SEP I I 1996 Enclosures cc: Me..ben .f -t-k PlA"";"~ gOA".\. . . Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 118(4), 1991, pp. 459-468 TORREYA The vascular flora of Orient Beach State Park, Long Island, New York I Eric E. Lamont New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY 10458-9980 Richard Stalter Department of Biological Sciences, St. John's University, Jamaica, NY 11439 ABSTRACT LAMONT, E. E. (N. Y. Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY 10458) AND R. STALTER (Dept. BioI. Sci.. St. John's Univ.. Jamaica, NY 11439). The vascular flora of Orient Beach State Park. Long Island, New York. Bull. Torrey BoL Oub 118: 459-468. 1991.- The vascular flora of Orient Beach State Park, New York. is based exclusively on collections made by the authors from April 1988 to October 1990. Altogether, 217 vascular plant species in 183 genera and 67 families are reported here. The largest families are Poaceae (49 species) and Asteraceae (48 species). and the largest genera are Aster. Solidago, Po/ygonum. and Panicum. The park's current flora is compared with a 1934 80ra published by Latham. Natural plant communities of the park are described and discussed. Eighteen plant species have been designated as rare in New York State (Oemants 1989; Mitchell 1986). Key words: tlora, Orient Beach State Park, Long Island, New York, maritime vegetation. Orient Beach State Park (OBSP),Suffolk Co., New York, is located on the north fork of Long Island just southwest of Orient Point (Lat. 41"08'N,Long. 72016'W, U.S. GeoI.Serv. 1956). The park consists of a 6.4 k:m long, recurved spit varying in width from about 550 m near the park's center to less than 50 m near the western end. OBSP is bordered by Gardiner's Bay on the south and Little Bay, Long Beach Bay, and Ori- ent Harbor on the north. The geological features of OBSP retlect effects oflongshore sediment drift from ocean currents originating to the east, and the combined action of wind and water during severe storms and hur- ricanes. Land elevation averages less than I m above sea level and ranges from sea level to 3 m. The park has been completely submerged be- neath salt water twice during the past 60 yean. The park exhibits a series of storm ridges com- posed of coarse sands, pebbles, cobbles, and oc- I We acknowledge with ptitude the assistance of Raymond Dobbins, for unrestricted access to OBSP and for providing uansponation to areas of difficult access; Florence Horton. for historical information; Robert Meyer. for assistance in identifying grasses; the late Joseph Beitel, for sharing the location of Selagi. nella rupestris; and Alisa Abatelli, for assistance in preparina herbarium specimens. Received for publication November 13, 1990, and in revised form February 22, 1991. . _ -,,, '... _~',,,,"""'_."'__" ..........-.."'...__"'...........,..... '~'~'T_"-_" '~__ __:. :__~.,.. _~:~._ '.' casionally shells. The ridges formed where storm waves piled up coarse materials well above nor- mal high-tide level. Storm ridges are almost nev- er composed of sand. since finer sediments are swept into deeper water by storm waves rather than being built into ridges (Komar 1976). There is a slight accumulation of surface humus on some of the wooded ridges. Depressions containing salt marshes and salt water pondS occur between storm ridges. A number of storm washover lobes extend from ridges into the salt marshes. Orient Beach State Park was established in 1929 by the Long Island State Park and Recreation Commission. In 1934 Roy Latham publiShed a flora of the new State park that included brief descriptions of plant communities and an an. notated checklist consisting of 227 vascular plant species. Latham (1934) described an area rela- tively undisturbed by human inIluence, with only 8% of the flora consisting of non.native species. Invasive alien plants such as Phragmites aus- Iralis and Taraxacum ojfiJ:inale were not re- ported from the park. Of particular interest, La- tham noted, was a mature maritime red cedar forest that would later be classifted as a rare plant community in New York State (Reschke 1990). Latham (1934) also noted that OBSP was near the northern range limit of several southern plant species (e.g., Firnbristylis castanea and Site"" caro/iniana var. pensylvanica), and the southern 459 . . 460 BULLETIN OF THE TORREY BOTANICAL CLUB [VOL 118 range limit of several northern species (e.g., Li- guslicum scolhicum and Draba replans). The park has been in !he path of many severe northeasters and hurricanes, which have had considerable impact upon the vegetation. Some of the more memorable hurricanes were in 1938, 1944,1954,1968, and 1978. Many upland vascular plant species reported by La!ham (1934) no lon8er occur at OBSP: Tilia americana. Carya glabra. Geranium maculatum. Circaea lutetiana ssp. canadensis. Solidago cae- sia, Heracleum lanaturn. and Smilacina race. mosa. Brodo (1968) also noted !he subsequent disappearance of many lichen species reported by La!ham from Orient Point. In a letter (29 May 1960) to Brodo (see Brodo 1968), La1harn de- scribed !he effects of !he great hurricanes of 1938 and 1944 on lichens at OBSP: "Salt water flooded all of this beach which was exposed to gales and rolling waves and the beach was swept as clean as a new house floor. In places the water was four to six feet in depth and washed !he bark lichens from the low cedar trunks and wrenched !he branch-growin8 species away. All traces of Us- neas and Ramalinas disappeared in !he storm. I don't think!hese two species have appeared !here since. The Cladonias showed a fair comeback in two years, but not in the abundance or large growth of !he old days. After !he second hurri- cane of 1944, !he beach was again washed by high flood tides and left [in] about !he same con- dition as in 1938." The 1938 hurricane wasbed away !he concrete road leadin8 to !he park, temporariIy making OBSP an island. In 1939 !he narrow eastern ap- proach to !he park, between Gardiner's Bay and Little Bay. was elevated with ufilln and a new road was constructed on the narrow neck. Many natural landscape features of !he park's eastern neck had been totally obliterated or altered. After !he 1968 storm, gahions filled with rocks were placed on !he shore along !he park entrance road, and Pinus Ihunbergii was planted to stabilize soil. Since 1986, P. Ihunbergii at OBSP has been dying in large numbers (see Daughtrey and Kowalsick 1988). During !he 1950's and 1960's, park visitation increased and construction began on new picnic grounds, concession stands, bathhouses, play- grounds, and maintenance buildings. All devel- opment was resuicted to !he park's eastern half (Orient Beach), while !he park's western half (Long Beach) remained natural and relatively un- disturbed by human influence. Roads were never constrUCted along Long Beach, and several areas _ _ .C. ."....-" ~~ "'"~"''-'-~'"'~~_''''.''''',~~.~'''"'"''-'=-'''''''.'''_.~''~'c~ -::"T"" . were designated as bird sanctuaries. Public access to the park's west end was restricted and in some cases prohibited. In 1980 !he United States De- partment of Interior designated Long Beach a "National Natural Landmark," concluding !hat: ..this site possesses exceptional value as an il- lustration of the nation's natural heritage and contributes to a better understanding of man's environment" (Secretary of !he Interior 1980). Since !he flora of OBSP had not been system- atically studied in almost 60 years, !he authors initiated the present study. The objectives of !he study were to obtain a current record of the veg- etation of OBSP, and to compare the current flora with the 1934 flora reported by Latham. Methods. Orient Beach State Park was sam- pled at least twice a month from April 1988 Ihrough October 1990 for a total of about 46 field days. Herbarium voucher specimens of each taxon were prepared and deposited al OBPL; some specimens are also kept on duplicate file at NY. The species checklist of OBSP (Appendix I) contains an inventory afthe vascular plants that reproduce spontaneously and persist for more than one year without cultivation, including na- tive taxa. naturalized and adventive weeds. and escapes from cultivation. Vascular plants col- lected at OBSP by !he current authors but not reported by Latham (1934) are designated in !he checklist by an addition sign (+). Species re- ported by La!ham (1934) but not collected by the current authors are designated in the checklist by an exclamation point (!). All non-native spe- cies are designated by an asterisk (0). Species collected bybo!h!he current authors and La1harn (1934) are preceded by no symbol, unless !hey are not native. The checklist is divided into four categories: Pteridophyta, Pinophyta, Magno- liophyta: Magnoliopsida, and Magnoliophyta: Liliopsida. Nomenclature follows !hat of Mitch- ell (1986) and !he concept offamilies follows that of Cronquist (1981). Results. The current vascular flora of OBSP consists of 67 families, 183 genera, and 277 spe- cies of which 156 (56%) are native (Table I). New records for !he park number 141 species; 104 (74%) of!hese are non-native. Panicum leuco- Ihrix is a state record for New York (see Mitchell 1986). The Poaceae, with 31 genera and 49 spe- cies, and !he Asteraee:ae, with 29 genera and 48 species, are !he largest families. Together !hey comprise 33% of all genera and 35% of all spe- c,. . 1991J LAMONT AND STALTER: FLORA OF ORIENT BEACH STATE PARK 461 Table 1. Statistical summary and comparison of the 1990 and 1934 vascular flora afOrient Beach State Park, Long Island, New York.' PteridophyteS Conifers Dicots Monacou Total 1990 (1934) 1990 (1934) 1990 (1934) 1990 (1934) 1990 (1934) Families 2(4) 2 (2) 53 (49) 10(8) 67 (63) Genera 3 (4) 2 (2) 133 (116) 45 (36) 183 (158) Species 3 (4) 3 (2) 203 (165) 68 (56) 277 (227) Native species 3(4) 2(2) 112 (150) 39 (53) 156 (209) Introduced species 0(0) 1 (0) 91 (16) 29 (3) 121 (19) I Native and introduced taxa that reproduce spontaneously. cies. Other large families are Rosaceae (9 gen., 19 spp.), Caryophyllaceae (10 gen., 14 spp.), Fa- baceae (9 gen., 13 spp.), Chenopodiaceae (6 gen., 12 spp.), Brassicaceae(10 gen., 11 spp.), and Po- lygonaceae (3 gen., 10 spp.). The largest genera are: ASler, Solidago, Polygonum (each with 7 spp.), Panicum (6 spp.), Rubus, Trifolium. and Plantago (each with 5 spp.). When the tiara is analyzed by habitat (see Reschke 1990), it is not- ed that 17 species are present in the beach com- munity, 56 occur in the swale community, 23 occur in the salt marsh community. 62 occur in the maritime forest community, while the great majority, 145, occur in various disturbed habi- tats such as roadsides, parking lots, and near buildings. A statistical summary of the compo- sition of the vascular dara ofOBSP is presented in Table 1. Latham (1934) reported an additional 89 spe- cies from OBSP not collected by the authors. The total number of species reported from OBSP by all investigators, past and present, is 366 species. A comparison of numbers of species from OBSP collected by Latham (1934) and the current au- thors is presented in Table 1. Species richness of the tiara of Orient Beach (OBSP-east) is compared with that of Long Beach (OBSP-west) in Table 2. The species/area quo- tient was calculated to indicate species richness to area. The Orient Beach portion of OBSP is richer in species than the Long Beach portion, a direct result of the increased number of intro- duced, non-native species into the park's east end, due to increased visitor use. Forty seven percent of the Orient Beach tiara consists of non- native species, while 19% of the Long Beach tiara consists of non-natives. Diseussion. The vegetation of Orient Beach State Park can be classified into three general plant communities: maritime beach and swale, maritime forest, and cnastal salt marsh. The con- cept of plant communities is based upon Reschke (1990). MARrnME BEACH AND SWAU; COMMUNITY. Drift lines and areas of occasional overwash are sparsely vegetated by annual plant species, most notably Cakile edenlula. Salsola ka/i. Chamae- syce polygonifolia, Atriplex patula, A. arenaria, and Polygonum glaucum. Characteristic peren- nials include H onkenya peploides ssp. robusta and Solidago sempervirens. The upper beach, located above the normal high-tide level, is vegetated by Ammophi/a bre- viligulata. Artemisia stelleriana. Lathyrus japon- icus var. glaber. Solidago sempervirens. and Car- ex silicea. Primary dune systems do not occur at OBSP. Instead, beaches usually have a storm ridge on their shoreward limits where storm. waves have piled up coarse material above the normal high-tide level. The landward side of these ridges is generally vegetated by Ammophi/a brevi/igu- lata. Hudsonia tomentosa. Lechea maritima, Po- lygonella articulata. Silene caroliniana var. pen- sylvanica. Toxicodendron radicans. Rosa rugosa. Myrica pensylvanica. and Prunus maritima. Arc- tostaphylos uva-ursi, a common plant at Fire Is- land National Seashore, N.Y. (Stalter et al. 1986), was not collected at OBSP, although Latham (1934) listed the species as common throughout the park. MARrnME FOREST COMMUNITY. The forest at OBSP consists of two types: maritime oak forest, dominated by Quercus stel/ala and Q. velUlina. and maritime red cedar forest dominated by Ju- niperus virginiana. Table 2. Comparison of species richness between eastern Orient Beach State Park (Orient Beach) and western Orient Beach State Park (Long Beach). Ares (kID') Species richness Spp.larea quotient Native species Introduced species Orient Beach (OBSP..east) 0.7 240 343 127 113 I.4q Bcoch (OBSP-.....) 0.9 146 162 118 28 . 462 . BULLETIN OF THE TORREY BOTANICAL CLUB [VOL. 118 The maritime oak forest occurs on the widest, most stable portions of OBSP, usually about 2 m above sea level. Soils there are welI-drained and composed of line sand with a slight accu- mulation of organic matter. The trees are usually stunted and flat-topped because the canopies are pruned by salt spray, sand blow-up, cold wind, and winter ice. The canopy of a mature stand may be only 5 to 7 m tall. The dominant trees are Quercus stellata and Q. velutina. Other cbar- acteristic trees include Prunus serotina, Pinus rigida. and sometimes Quercus marilandica. Vines such as Toxicodendron radieans and Smi- lax rotundifolia dominate the understory. The maritime red cedar forest at OBSP is con- sidered rare in New Yark State, where fewer than five occurrences of the plant community have been documented. It is "especially vulnerable to extirpation in New York State" (Reschke 1990). Conard (1935) first documented this plant com- munity on Long Island at Asharoken Beach, Huntington. Greller (1977) briefly commented on the community. concluding that: "vegeta- tional data are scarce and incomplete for this type." Reschke (1990) also stated that: "more data on this community are needed." In re- sponse, the present authors are currently con- ducting ecological studies of the maritime red cedar forest at OBSP. The maritime red cedar forest at OBSP occurs on a series of parallel storm ridges composed of coarse sands, pebbles, and cobbles. There is very little accumulation of surface humus. Between storm ridges are depressions containing salt marshes. Juniperus virginiana is the dominant tree on the ridges, where it forms nearly pure stands. Toxicodendron radicans is usually com- mon in the understory. Shrubs are uncommon in the understory; Myrica pensylvanica and Gay- lussacia baccata are scattered throughout some ridges. A characteristic groundIayer species is Opuntia humifUsa, which often forms large, dense populations. Other groundIayer plants include Ligusticum scothicum. Selaginella rupestris. and Moehringia laterij/ora. COASTAL SALT MARsH COMMUNITY. The salt marsh communiry at OBSP occurs along the sheltered north shore bordering little Bay and Long Beach Bay, and commouly extends into depressions between storm ridges. The vegeta- tion of the low salt marsh is almost exclusively a monospecific stand of Spartina alternij/ora. The high salt marsh is dominated by Sparrina patens, Distichlis spicata, a dwarf form of Spartina aI- y;,.".:,-:.",....y,.,~~:""'....-.-..-..'7:~~..,.....,.,'":'::',.. terniflora. and Juncus gerardi. Common species of the upper slope of the high marsh are Limo- nium carolinianum, Aster tenuifolius. and Iva frutescens. Salt pannes occur in both low and high salt marshes where the marsh is poorly drained. Pannes in the low marsh usually lack vegetation, but pannes in the high marsh are usu- ally vegetated by Salicornia europaea. S. virgi- nica. Spergularia marina. Pluchea odorata var. succulenta. and Trig/ochin maritimum. Plantago maritima ssp.juncoides, listed by Latham (1934) as very common at OBSP, was not observed dur- ing the current investigation. A shrubland com- munity dominated by [va jrutescens and Bac- charis ha/imifo/ia forms the ecotone between salt marsh and upland vegetation. RARE PLANTs. Ten native and eight non-na- tive species currently observed at OBSP are con- sidered rare in New York State (Clemants 1989; Mitchell 1986). Panicum leucothrix, Quercus marilandica. Silene caro/iniana var. pensylvan- ica. Atriplex arenada. Conyza canadensis var. pusilla. and Plantago pusilla are all southern spe- cies at or near the northern limit of their range at OBSP (Gleason and Cronquist 1963). Ail six species usually occur in dry, sandy or gravelly soils. Ligusticum scothicum is a northern species near the southern limit of its range at OBSP; Polygonum tenue, P. g/aucum, and Cirsium hor. ridu/um are also rare native plants in New York. The eight rare species not native at OBSP are: Aira praecox. Bassia hirsuta. Chenopodium des- sicatum, C. hybridum, Chloris verticillata, Glau- dum jlavum, Leucanthemum nipponicum. and Wisteria sinensis. Latham (1934) reported an additional 13 rare plant species from OBSP not observed by the current investigators. Latham's (1934) 10 native rare species are: Acalypha gracilens, Agalinis maritima, Carex hormathodes. Cyperus poly- stachyos var. macrostachyus. Draba reptans. Fimbristy/is castanea. Oenothera oakesiana. Onosmodium virginianum, Paspa/um setaceum var. muhlenbergii, and Potentilla ansmna ssp. pacifica. The 3 non-native rare species are: Ce- rastium semidecandrum. Holosteum umbel/a- tum, and Mirabilis linearis. Summary. The vegetation of the western half of Orient Beach State Park (Long Beach) remains relatively pristine and very similar to the vege- tation as described there by Latham (1934). Many rare plants reported by Latham (1934) still per- sist at OBSP-west. Only 19% of the OBSP-west .<1 1991J . LAMONT AND STALTER, FLORA OF ORIENT BEACH STATE PARK 463 flora consists of non-native species. The vege~ tation of the eastern half of the park has under- gone significant changes. Eighty five native plant species reported by Latham (1934) from OBSP are now apparently extirpated from the park. One hundred and four non-native species have been introduced to the park since 1934, of which 23 species are grasses (poaceae). Most of the alien species are thus concentrated in the park's east- ern half (Table 2). The loss of many native plant species and the addition of new species, especially grasses, re. f1ects the ever-changing environment of OBSP. Human disturbance and natural forces, such as salt spray and periodic flooding during frequent northeasters and infrequent hurricanes, are re- sponsible for the dynamic environment and dy- namic flora of the park. Literature Cited BRODO, I. M. 1968. The lichens of Long Island, New York A vegetational and floristic analysis. N.Y.S. Mus. Bull. No. 410, Albany, NY. CLEMANTS, S. E. [ed.] 1989. New York rare plant status list. N.Y. Natural Heritage Program, N.Y.S. Dept. Environ. Conservation, Latham. NY. 26 p. CONARD,H.S. 1935. The plant associations of central Loog Island. Amer. Midi. Natur. 16: 433-515. CRONQUIST, A. 1981. An integrated system of clas. sification offlowering plants. Columbia Univ. Press, NY. 1262 p. DAUGHTREY, M. AND T. KoWALSICK... 1988. The Jap. anese black pine-What's happening? Home Hort. Facts, Cornell Cooperative Extension, Riverhead, NY.4p. GLEASON, H. A. AND A. CaoNQUlS'f. 1963. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United StateS and . adjacent Canada. Willard Grant Press, Boston. 810 p. GRELLER. A. M. 1977. A classification of mature for. ests on Long Island, New York. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 104: 376-382. KoMAR, P. D. 1976. Beach processes and sedimen. tation. Prentice.Hall Press, NJ. 429 p. LATHAM, R. 1934. Flora of the state park. Orient, Long Island, N.Y. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 34: 139- 149. MITCHELL, R. S. 1986. A checklist of New York State plants. N.Y.S. Mus. Bull. No. 458. 272 p. REscHKE, C. 1990. Ecological communities of New York State. N.Y. Natural Heritage Program, N.Y.S. Dept. Environ. Conservation, latham, NY. 96 p. SECRETARY OF tHE INTERIOR. 1980. National Natural - Landmarks ~. Dept. of the Interior, Natl. Park Service, Washington, DC. STALTER, R., E. LAMONt, AND J. NoaTHUP. 1986. Vegetation of Fire Island, New York. Bull Torrey Bot. Club 113: 298-306. U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY. 1956. Orient, New York Quadrangle (map). Appendix Checklist of the Vascular Flora of Orient Beach State Park, New York. Nomenclature follows that of Mitchell (1986) and the concept of families and higher categories follows that of Cronquist (1981). An asterisk (0) indicates a non-native taxon, an addition sign (+) indicates a new record for OBSP, and an exclamation point (!) indicates a taxon reported by Latham (1934) but not observed by the current authors. Taxa collected by both the current authors and Latham (1934) are preceded by no symbol, unless they are not native. PIERIDOPHYTA Aspleniaceae + Asplenium platyneuron (L.) BSP. ! Polystichum acrostichoides (Michx.) Schott + Thelypteris pa/ustris Schon Cyatheaceae ! Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn Polypodiaceae ! Polypodium virginianum L Selaginellaceae Selagi1U!/la rupestris (L) Spring PINOPHYTA Cuprvss.-cea. Juniperus virginiana L Plnaceae Pinus rigida Mill. +. P. thunbergii Pari. MAGNOLIOPHYTA-MAGNOLIOPSIDA Aceraceae +* Acer pseudoplatanus L + A. rubrum L. Amarantlw:eae +. Amaranthu.r retrojlexus L Anac:ardiaceae Rhus copa/linum L R. glaINa L. Toxicodendron rodicallS (L.) Kuntze Apiaceae +* DaUClLf carota L ! Heracl~ lanatum Michx. . 464 . BULLETIN OF THE TORREY BOTANICAL CLUB [VOL. 118 Ligusticum scolhicum L. ! Sanicu/a marilandica L. Apocynaceae + Apocynum cannabinum L. Aquifoliaceae + It ex opaca Ait. ! I. verticil/ala (L.) Gray Araliaceae ! Aralia nudicaulis L. Asclepiadaceae + Asclepias incarnata L. var. pu/chra (Willd.) Pers. A. syriaca L. ! A. verticil/ala L. Asteraceae . Achillea millefolium L. Ambrosia artemisiifolia L ! Antennaria p/antaginifolia (L.) Richards. +* Arctium minus (Hill) Bcmh. Artemisia campestris L. ssp. caut/ala (Michx.) Hall & Cern. " A. sle//eriana Besser +" A. vulgaris L. + Aster divaricatus L. ! A. dumosus L. A. ericoides L. ! A. linariifolius L. ! A. nov;.be/gii L. A. patens Ait. ! A. paternus Cronq. + A. pi/osus Willd. A. subuJatus Michx. A. tenuifolius L. ! A. umbel/atus Mill. A. unduJatus L. Baa:haris haiimifolia L ! Bidens discoidea (T. & G.) Britt. +" Centaurea maculosa Lam. +* Cichorium intybus L +* Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. e. horriduJum Michx. +* C. vulgare (Savi) Tenore Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. var. canaden. sis + C. canadensis (L.) Conq. var. pusil/a (Nun.) Cronq. +* Coreopsis /anceolata L Erechtites hieracifo/ia (L.) DC. ! Erigrron puJchellus Michx. E. strigosus Willd. Euthamia graminifolia (1-) Cass. +* Ga/insoga ciliata (Raf.) Blake Gnapha/ium obtusifolium L. G. uJiginosum L. +* Helianthus annuus L ! H. divaricatUS L. ! H. giganteus L +* Hieracium caespitosum Dumon. ! H. gronovii L. ! H. venosum L. lvafrutescens L. ssp. oraria (Bartt.) Jackson Krigia virginica (L.) Willd. Lactuca canadensis L. +* L. serriola L. + * Lew:anthemum nipponicum Maxim. + * L. vulgare Lam. ! Liatris scariosa (L.) Willd. var. novae.ang/iae Lunell +* Matricaria matricarioides (Less.) Porter !* Onopordum acanthium L. Pityopsis falcata (Punh) Small Pluchea odorala {L.} Casso var. succu/enla (Fern.) Cronq. ! Prenanthes trifolio/ata (Cass.) Fern. +* Senecio vulgaris L. Solidago bic%r L. ! S. caesia L. S. canadensis L. var. scabra (Muhl.) T. & G. S. juncea Ait. S. nemoralis Ait. S. odJJra Ail. S. rugosa Mill. S. sempervirens L. +* Taraxacum officina/e Wiggers Xanthiumstrumarium L. var. caltlUknse(Mill.) T.&G. Berberidaceae +* Berberis thunbergii DC. Betulaceae + Betula populifolia Marsh. Boraginaceae +* Myosotis stricta R. & S. ! Onosmodium virginianu,:" (L.) A. DC. Brassicaceae +* Arabidopsis thaiiana (1-) Heynb. Arabis glabra (1-) Bernh. +* Barbarm verna (Mill.) Aschers. +* B. vulgaris R. Sr. +* Berteroa incafUl (L.) DC. Cakil. edentido (Bisel.) Hook. +* Capse/kz bursa-pastoris (L.) Medic. Cardamine parvij/ora L. var. arenicola (Britt.) Schulz ! Draba reptans (Lam.) Fern. * D. verna L. + Lepidium virginicum L. +* Raphanus raphanistrum L. Cactaceae Opuntia humijUsa (Raf.) Raf. Caesalpfnf--- ! CassiJJ chamaecri.sta L. Campanalaceae ! LoIJftiJJ injlata L. Triodanis perfoliala (1-) Nieuwl. . . 1991] LAMONT AND STALTER: FLORA OF ORIENT BEACH STATE PARK 465 Caprifoliaceae +* Lonicerajaponica Thunb. +" L. tatariea L. Sambucus canadensis L. ! Triosteum perfo/iatum L. Caryophyllaceae .. Arenaria serpyllifo/ia L. +* Cerastiumfontanum Baumg. ssp. tn"via/e(Link) Jalas !* C. semidecandrum L. +* Dianthus armeria L. !* H%steum umbel/alum L. Honkenya pep/oides (L.) Ehrh. ssp. rabusea (Fem.) HultOn Moehringia /ateriflora (L.) Fenzl +* Sagina procumbens L. +* Sc/eranthus annuus L. Si/ene anli"hina L. S. caro/iniana Walt. var. pensylvanica (Michx.) Fem. +* S. latifolia Pair. Spergu/aria marina (L.) Griseb. +' S. rubra (L.) Presl & Presl +" SteJ/aria graminea L. +* S. media (L.) Vill. Celastraceae +* Ce/astrus orbicu/atus Thunb. ! C. scam/ens L. Chenopodiaceae + A/rip/ex arenaria Nutt. A. palu/a L. +* Bassia hirsuta (t.) Schwein. +* Chenopodium album L. +* C. ambrosioides L. .. C. dessicatum A. Nels .. C. hybridum L. SaJicornia europaea L. S. virginica L. Salso/a /cali L. Suaeda /inearis (Ell.) Moq. S. maritima (L.) Dumon. Clstaceae Hudsonia tOMentosa Nun. Lechea maritima BSP. Clusiaceae ! Hypericum canadense L H. gentianoides (L.) BSP. ! H. mutilum L +* H. perforatum L. Conyolvu1aceae CalY3tegfa sepium (1..) R. Br. C......uJaceae +* Sedum acre L. C......- + Cwcuta gronovii Schultz Elaeagnaceae +* Elaeagnus angustifolia L. +* E. umbel/ata Thunb. Ericaceae ! Arctostaphylos uva-ursi (L.) Spreng. Gaylussacia baccata (Wang.) Koch ! Vaccinium pa/lidum Ait. Eupborbiaceae ! Acalypha graci/ens Gray + Chamaesyce maculata (L.) Small C. polygonifo/ia (L.) Small +* Euphorbia cyparissias L. Fabaceae Lathyrw japonicus Willd. var. glaber (Ser.) Fern. Lespedeza capitata Michx. +* Medicago lupulina L. +* Me/i/otus alba lam. +* Robinia pseudo-acacia L. Strophostyles helvola (L.) Ell. +* Trifolium arvense L. +* T. campestre Schreb. +* T. dubium Sibth. + * T. pratense L. +* T. repens L. +* Vicia vi//osa Roth ssp. varia (Host) Corbo +* Wisteria sinensis (Sims) Sweet Fagaceae + Quercus coccinea Muenchh. + Q. marilandica Muenchh. Q. stel/ata Wang. Q. velutina lam. Gentianaceae ! Sabatia ste/Jaris Pursh Geraniaceae ! Geranium macuIatum L. G. robertianum L. JugJandaceae ! Carya g/abra (Mill.) Sweet Lamlaceae +* Lamium purpureum L. ! Lycopus virginicus L. +* Nepeta cataria L. Teucrium canadense L. trichostema dichotomum L. La1ll'llCeae ! Sassafras albidum (Nun.) Necs MoUu&lnaceae +* Mol/ugo verticil/ala L. . 466 . BULLETIN OF THE TORREY BOTANICAL CLUB [VOL. liB Monotropaceae ! Monotropa hypopithys L. ! M. uniflora L. Myricaceae Myrica pensylvanica Loisel. Nyctaginaceae !* Mirabilis linearis (Pursh) Heim. Oleaceae +" Ligustrum vulgare L. Onagraceae ! Circaea /utetiana L ssp. canadensis (L.) Asch- eI'S. & Magnus Oenothera biennis L. ! O. /ruticosa L. ! O. oakesiana (Gray) S. Wats. & COull. Orobanchaceae + Orobanche uniflora L. Oxalidaceae Oxa/is stricta L. Papaveraceae "Glauciumjlavum Crantz Phytolacraceae Phytolacca americana L. PIantaginaceae +* Plantago aristata Michx. +* P. lanceo/ara L. " P. major L. ! P. maritima L. ssp. junco/des (Lam.) HultCn + P. pusilla Null. + P. ruge/ii Dcne. PIumbaainaceae Limonium carolinianum (Walt.) Britt. PoIyplaceae ! PolygaJa verticil/ata L. var. ambigua (Nutt.) Wood ! P. verticil/ala L. var. verticil/ala PoIYlonaceae Polygorutlla articulata (L) Mcisn. " Polygonum arenastrum Boreau + P. g/aucum Nun. P. pensylvanlaml L. +* P. pers;carla L. ! P. ramosissimum MichL var. pl'O/ijicum Small P. ramosissimum Michx. var. ramosissimum P. scanderu L. P. tenue Michx. +* Rumex acetosel/a L ssp. angiocarpus (Murb.) Murb. +* R. crispus L Portuiacaceae +* Portulaca oleracea L Primulaceae +. Anagal/is anensis L. Lysimachia quadrifolia L ! Samolus valerandii L. ssp. pan'iflorus (Raf.) HulteD ! Trientalis borealis Raf. Pyrolaceae Chi"",phlla rmu:ulala (L.) Pursh ! C. umbel/ata (L.) Bart. ssp. cisarlantica (Blake) Hulten RanuncuIaceae Aquilegia canadensis L ! Thalictrum revolutum DC. Rosaceae ! Agrimonia gryposepala Wallr. Amelanchier canadensis (L.) Medic. Crataegus crus-galli L. . Fragaria virginiana Mill. Geum canadensis Jacq. . Malus sylvestris (L) Mill. ! Potentilla anserina L ssp. pacifica (Howell) Rousi +. P. argenlea L. P. canadensis L. +. P. recta L. Prunus maritima Marsh. P. serotina Ehrh. + Rosa carolina L. +. R. multiflora Murr. . R. rugosa Thunb. R. virg;niana Mill. + Rubus al/egheniensis Bailey R. j/agellaris Willd. + R. hispidus L. +. R. laciniatus Willd. +. R. phoenicolasius Maxim. Rubiaceae + Galium aparine L SaIlc:ac:eae + Populus grandidentata Michx. + P. tremuJoides Michx. + Salix discolor Muhl. ScrophoIarlaceae ! AgalllIis mariti"", (Raf.) Raf. ! A. purpurea (L.) Pennell ! Aurealaria virginica (L.) Pennell Linaria CllIIIlI/eruis (L) DumorL +. L vulgaris Mill. ! Melampyrum Iineare Desr. ! Pedicularis canadensis L. ! ScrophuJaria lanceolata Pursh +. Yerbascum blatteria L +* Y. thapsus L +. Veronica arvensis L. .-.. 19911 . LAMONT AND STALTER: FLORA OF ORIENT BEACH STATE P.~RK 467 Simaroubaceae +* Ailanthus altissima (Mill.) Swingle Solanaceae '" Solanum dulcamara L. '" S. nigrum L. Tiliaceae ! Ti/ia americana L. Ulmaceae Celtis occidentaJis L. Verbenaceae ! Verbena urticifolia L. VioJaceae ! Viola fimbn"atula Sm. Vitaceae Parthenocissus quinquefolia (L.) DC. + Vitis aestiva/is Michx. LILIOPSIDA Commelinaceae +'" Comme/ina communis L. var. ludens (Miq.) Pennell Cyperaceae Bu/bosty/is capillaris (L.) Oarke ! Carex hormathodes Fern. e. pensylvanica Lam. e. silicea Olney ! C. swanii (Fern.) Mackz. Cyperus fi//cu/mis VahI C. grayi Torr. ! C. po{ystachyos Ranb. var. macrostachyus Boeck!. C. strigosus L. ! E/eocharis parvu/a (R. & S.) Buff. & Fing. ! Fimbristylis castanea (Miehx.) Vahl ! Scirpus americanw Pen. ! S. robustus Pursh Juncaceae Juncus gerardii Loisel. J. gree1ll!i Oakes & Tuckenn. J. lenuis Willd. ! Luzula multiflora (Haffin.) Lej. J unc:aginaceae Triglochin maritimum L. Lillaceae +* Allium vineal.e L. '" Asparagus officina/is L +* Hemerocal/isjulva (L) L. ! Maianthemum canadense Desf. ! Polygonatum commutatum (Schultes &. Schultes) Dietr. ! Smilacina racemosa (L.) Desf. S. stel/ata (L) De,f. ! Uvularia sessilifolia L. Poaceae +. Agropyron repens (L.) Beauy. Agrostis hiemalis (Walt.) BSP. + A. perennans (Wallo) Tuckerm. ! A. stolonifera L. Yar. paluseris (Huds.) Farw. +* Aira caryophyllea L. +* A. praecox L. Ammophila breviligulata Fern. + Armida dichotoma Michx. +* Bromus hordeQC(!US L. +* B. racemosus L. + * B. teetorum L. Cenchrus tribuloides L. + * Chloris venicillata N utt. +* Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. +. Daaylis glomerata L. Danthonia spicata (L.) R. & S. + Deschampsiaflexuosa (L.) Trin. +* Digitaria ischaemum (Schweig.) Muhl. +* D. sanguinalis (L.) Scop. Distich/is spicata (L.) Greene +* Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauy. Elymus virginids L. var. halophilus (Bickn.) Wieg. +* Eragrostis cilianensis (All.) Mosher + E. pectinacea (Michx.) Nees E. spectabilis (Pursh) Steud. +* Festuca elacior L. '" F. ruhra L. ! Hierochloe odorata (L.) Beauy. +! Lolium perenne L. Muhlenbergia schreberi Orne!. Panicum acuminatu1l'l Sw. P. capillare L. + P. clandescinum L. ! P. depauperatum MuhI. + P. dichotomiflorum Michx. ! P. dichotomum L. + P. leucothrix Nash ! P. oligosanthes Schultes var. scrlbnerianum (Nash) Fern. ! P. ovale L. ! P. sphaerocarpon Ell. P. virgatum L. ! Paspalum setaceum Michx. Yar. muhlenbergii (Nash) Banks + P. sezaceum Michx. var. stramineum (Nash) Banks +* Phragmites australis (Cav.) Steud. +* Poa annua L. +'" P. bulbosa L. +'" P. compressa L. +* P. pratensis L. Schizachyrium scoparium (Michx.) Nash var. /ittorale (Nash) Gould ! Schizachyrium scoparium (Michx.) Nash var. scoparium +. Setaria Jaber; Rosen . S. gJauca (L.) Beauv. Spartina alterniflora Loisel S. palens (AiL) MuhI. ! S. pectinata Link . . 468 BULLETIN OF THE TORREY BOTANICAL CLUB [VOL. 118 ! Sporobolus asper (Michx.) Kunth +* S. cryptandrus (Torr.) Gray + Tridens jlavus (L.) Hitchc. Trip/asis purpurea (Walt.) Chapm. +* Vulpia myuros (L.) Gmel. ! V. ocroflora (Walt.) Rydb. var. glauca (Nun.) Fern. Ruppiaceae Ruppia maritima L. Smilacaceae ! Smilax herbacea L. S. rOlundifolia L. Typhaceae + Typha angusrifolia L. Zosteraceae Zostera marina L. var. stenophylla Aschers. & Grabn. . . North Fork Environmental Council September 4, 1996 -2- Any intensification of land uses will be detrimental to groundwater conditions. In fact, every effort should be made to maximize open-space acquisitions and adopt strict zoning codes that will prevent any increase in activities at Orient that will impact groundwater conditionS: Local government should upzone to very large lot zoning and reduce vehicular traffic that will add to groundwater pollution in the form of hydrocarbon runoff;formation of phthalates and combustion pollutants. I hope this letter answers your questions. Please do not hesitate to call for further information. T JH:MLG:dmm Sr '~ ' /.-?r/~r- ~ A I / I - (' :, ~-=- C,f:' rr-ro"-,\. /"2.C2-- :/J~ .....'JI ;']?"70<-_ 1iJ113<.2,-;-,llf "~I"l. ~ ..C-/" "'7.s:;= ,-::; - ..,J~F -=/-.J,/'fq, J ---::1/ ;.. r-y~ SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY Michael A. LoGrande. ChalnnarVCEO Matthew B. Kondenar. Secretary Melvin M. Fritz. M.D.. Member James T.B. Tripp, Member Eric J. Russo. Member Administrative Offices: 4060 Sunrise Highway. Oakdale, NY 11769.0901 (516) 589-5200 Fax No.: (516) 563-0370 ~ September 4, 1996 North Fork'Environmental Council 12900 Route 25 Mattituck, New York 11952 Attention: Debra O'Kane ;Dear Ms. O'Kane, In answer to your questions regarding groundwater conditions in Southold and most particularly Orient and Orient Point. the Suffolk County Water Authority has closely monitored groundwater quality in those areas for nearly twenty years. Our observations have followed those oi the Suffolk County Department of Health Services whose monitoring program for the North Fork dates back to the fifties. The Orient Point and Orient areas are the most fragile groundwater conditions on Long Island because the land masses are relatively flat with complete underlayment of saltwater. Very little clay barriers exist in these areas that could serve as an aquifer protection from surface pollutants above or saline waters below. As a result all surface pollutants can easily penetrate upper soil strata directly impacting the freshw~ter aquifer. , " , ' , ' Groundwater' sampiasthroughQut the eastern end oJ Southoid Town have indicated high concentratlons of nitrates and residual pesticides and herbicides. Any sustained pumping of water in these areas will upcone salt and result in permanent chloride contamination of the aquifer. These unfavorable groundwater conditions have influenced the SCWA policy of not seeking any well field locations in the Orient areas. Originally it was believed that the best way to insure quality w.ater ~or the families at Orient would be to establish a public water supply that could monitor all pumpage and treat where necessary. Since the cost of such a system would be extraordinary due to, existing high nitrates and other contaminants and the narrow band of fresh water constantly threatened with salt upconing, the SCWA believes it would be best not to provide a public water supply at this time. But, to support this policy, it is important that development be severely restricted to prevent any further impairment at the fragile aquifer. ~ .:.:1 ( I'~-;-; Jr- A j ,/' I -- / .- c.:;: ~..I Cf::!ld'"rO"A./-2.cf2, -:h~<""....,)-;- LJ -" ',~ r /"""....<..._ Iv..~<2.(rr'\C::> I j'""~ J / ~ .;;L ~/ I ? q, ) C', --::1/ =- ::;:(1 ~\lA r ;., 'J- ' SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY Michael A. LoGrande, Chainnar1lCEO Matthew B. Kondenar. Secretary Melvin M. Fritz. M.D., Member James T_B. Tripp, Member Eric J. Russo. Member Administrative Offices: 4060 Sunrise Highway, OakdaJe. NY 11769.0901 (516) 589.5200 Fax No.: (516) 563.0370 ~ September 4, 1996 North Fork'Environmental Council 12900 Route 25 Mattituck, New York 11952 Attention: Debra O'Kane ,Dear Ms. O'Kane, In answer to your questions regarding groundwater conditions in Southold and most particularly Orient and Orient Point, the Suffolk County Water Authority has closely monitored groundwater quality in those areas for nearly twenty years. Our observations have followed those oi the Suffolk County Department of Health Services whose monitoring program for the North Fork dates back to the fifties. The Orient Point and Orient areas are the most fragile groundwater conditions on Long Island because the land masses are relatively flat with complete underlayment of saltwater. Very little clay barriers exist in these areas that could serve as an aquifer protection from surface pollutants above or saline waters below. As a result all surface pollutants can easily penetrate upper soil strata directly impacting the freshwater aquifer. , , , ' Groundwater sampias,throughQut the eastern end 0.1 Southoid Town have indicated high concentrations,ofnitrates and residual pesticides and herbicides. Any sustained pumping ot-water in these areas will upcone salt and result in permanent chloride contamination of the aquifer. These unfavorable groundwater conditions have influenced the SCWA policy of not seeking any well field locations in the Orient areas. Originally it was believed that the best way to insure quality w.ater tor the families at Orient would be to establish a public water supply that could monitor all pumpage and treat where necessary. Since the cost of such a system would be extraordinary due to, existing high nitrates and other contaminants and the narrow band of fresh water constantly threatened with salt upconing, the SCWA believes it would be best not to provide a public water supply at this time. But, to support this policy, it is important that development be severely restricted to prevent any further impairment of the fragile aquifer. .. If..'" North Fork Environmental Council September 4, 1996 -2- Any intensification of land uses will be detrimental to groundwater conditions. In fact, every effort should be made to maximize open-space acquisitions and adopt strict zoning codes that will prevent any increase in activities at Orient that will impact groundwater conditionS: Local government should upzone to very large lot zoning and reduce vehicular traffic that will add to groundwater pollution in the form of hydrocarbon runoff;formation of phthalates and combustion pollutants. I hope this letter answers your questions. Please do n'::'t hesitate to call for further information. T JH:MLG:dmm . oJ " ..:~ . PREPARED BY: ~ ~ Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Ferry Terminal Facilities by Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. <-./r . \_-1' I I Town of Southold Suffolk County, New York En-Consultants, Inc. 64 North Main Street Southampton, New York 11968 llr I ' .J . SEP I 6 !996 j ."'OJ . . TABLE OF CONTENTS ,'. List of apendices ................................. 1 Summary ........................................... 2 Description of Action ......................... .... 3 Description of Environmental Setting ...... .... .... 5 Location .................................... 5 Environmental Features (')1' the Site ............... 6 Geology and Soils ............................ 6 Slopes and Topography..... ................... 6 Land Forms ................................... 7 Mineral Resources ............................ 7 Erosion and Sedimentation Potential .......... 7 Hydrology .................................... 7 Surface Water ........................... 7 Groundwater. ..... .. .... . . '" .... ........ 7 Ecology ...................................... 8 Vegetation. . . .... . . ...... " .. . ... ... .... 8 Wildlife ................................ 8 Land Use " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Demography ................................... 10 Public Services .............................. 10 Historical Resources ... ..... .......... ....... 10 Visual Character ............................. 11 Noise Levels ................................. 11 Odor Levels .................................. 11 Existing Environmental Constraint Affecting Action 11 Statement of Environmental Effects .. .... .... ...... 12 Identification of Any Adverse Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided ....................................... 16 Description of Mitigation Measures to Minimize Adverse Effects....................... ......... .. 16 Identification of Any ~rreyersible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ......................... r7 Description of Any Growth-Inducing Aspects of the Action.... .... ... .. ...... ...... .... .............. 17 Impact of the Action on the Use and Conservation of Energy ........................................ 1 ? Description and Evaluation of Reasonable Alternatives To Achieve the Same or Similar Objectives ........ 18 Studies, Reports and Literature Used in Preparation of DEIS .......................................... 19 . . . List of Appendices 1. Proposed site plan by Young & Young. 2. Preliminary terminal building plans. 3. Site location map. 4. Water analysis laboratory report by Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell. S. 1984 ferry schedule. 6. Town of Southold Planning Board letter of April 2, 1984 acknowledging Planning Board approval of site plan. 7. Photographs of the site taken March 16, 1984. -1- . . SUHMARY The applicant, CrosB Sound Ferry Services. Inc. J seeks all necessary approvals to construct upland ferry terminal facilities on the .ite of their existing ferry terminal vehicle staging area. The project is to consist of a terminal bUilding, paved vehicle 7 staging ares, and paved entrance and exit drlvew~8. - The site with an area of 2.2 acres, is presently exten.ively paved, and is being used a. a vehicle staging area. It contains one 2 " small wood frame structure of 440 ft which will be rpmnvpq~or replaced to a new location. The proposed terminal building, a 2 .tory, 48' x 42', Cape Cod style structure, will be used to house the ferry administrative office, waiting area, ticket office, pasaenger lounge and re.trooms. A One story wood frame structure, which presently serve. these functions On an adjacent parcel of land, will be converted to a snack bar for use by ferry passengers. The issues that have been identified with the proposed project are: 1. Generation of increased traffic 2. Availability of adequate water supply The parcel i. located in the hamlet of Orient, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, N.Y. Site plan approval has been granted by the Southold Planning Board. Variance. for front yard .etback. and to locate a ferry terminal in a B-1 Bu.ines. zone have been granted by the Town of Southold Zoning -2- . . Board of Appeals. Suffolk County Department of Health Services has issued preliminary approval for the waste water disposal system and water supply. Tidal Wetlands (Article 25) permits from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation are not required as all work will be landward of an existing retaining wall. Description of Action The applicant, Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc., proposes to construct upland ferry terminal facilities on the site of the existing ferry terminal vehicle staging area. The project is to consist of a 7 terminal building, paved vehicle staging area, ~nd paved entrance and exit driveways. The purpose of the project is to provide improved service and conveniences to ferry users, and to fscilitate more efficient operation ~nd maintenance of terminal operations and facilities. Existing terminal facilities are located on 2 parcels of land East and West of Main Rd. at the Easterly terminus of Rt. 25. A one story wood frame building, serving as a business office, ticket office, waiting area, lounge and vending machine snack bar, is situated on the 1.4 acre parcel East of Main Rd., along with an unpaved parking lot, cesspool wastewater disposal 'system and water well. All terminal construction and improvements are to take place on the 2.2 acre parcel West of Main Rd., which is the existing, partially paved vehicle staging area. A small, one story wood frame building 2 (440 ft ), serving as a waiting room, situated adjacent to the ferry loading ramp, will be removed or relocated. < - -3- / . . .' The proposed terminal building, a 48' x42', 2 story Cape-Cod style structure, will house the ferry administrative office, ticket office, waiting area, passenger lounge and restrooms. The second floor will be used for bulk storage. The reader is referred to the architects drawings in the appendices for further details of the proposed building. A paved vehicle staging area, with a 156 car capacitvy is proposed South of the terminal building. Although this area is now partially paved, full paving is required for the purpose of marking vehicle lanes, and to facilitate snow removal, surface cleanup and maintenance. Paved entrance and exit driveways are also proposed. Prior to construction of the terminal building and paved areas, the elevation of the land will be raised to a maximum of +11.0' by the addition of approximately 3000 cubic yards of sand and gravel fill which is now on the site, and was obtained from maintenance dredging of the ferry slip. Existing and proposed elevation contours are shown ~n the site plan in the appendices. Sewage disposal will be accomplished by an on-site septic tank and leaching pool system, consisting of one 4500 gallon septic tank, a distribution pool and a field of leaching pools capable of handling 2250 gallons per day. Potable water will be provided by a well, the exact location of which is pending Suffolk County Department of Health Services inpwt and approval. However, a test well dug on the site provided water meeting New York State and U.S. drinking water standards. The reader is referred to the engineers water analysis contained in the appendices. Surface runoff will be contained by the installation of French Drains, in three separate locations. The reader is referred to the -4- 7 , . . engineer's site. plan, contained in the appendices, for further details, including those of the septic and drainage systems. Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. has been owned by the applicant since 1975 when it was purchased from the New London Freight Lines. Ferry service to New London, Connecticut has been operated from this site since at least the early 1930's and the site has served marine transportation since at least 1797. Maps on file at the Suffolk County Historical Museum in Riverhead, N.Y. show a dock named "Point Dock" at this location in 1797, "Steamboat Wharf" in Atlas' of 1873 and 1896, and "Point Dock" in a 1909 "Map of a Section of Suffolk County, L. 1.". Newspaper clippings on file at the museum, dated July 15, 1948 and August 26, 1948, refer to the addition of two new ferries, the "Orient" and the "Gay Head". The Orient was a 204' vessel capable of accomo- ,.,--, t.-' ,.J dating 68 autos and 300 passengers, and the Gay Head was a 203' vessel .......1,.1 -- !f~8 , of unstated capacity. At that time, the ferries were making 6 runs daily, between Orient Point and New London. The need for this project derives from the obligation of the applicant to provide adequate services and facilities to ferry users, , to allow for more efficient and effective terminal operation. It is anticipated that the work will commence upon receipt of all necessary approvals, and be completed by March 1985. Descriotion of Environmental Settin2 Location The site is located in the hamlet of Orient, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, Long Island, New York. It is bounded on the north by Rt. 25, on the east by Main Rd., on the west by a parcel zoned - -5- . . Bl-Business, n.o.f. Blauvelt, which is the site of a one-family privste residence, and on the south by Gardiners Bay. Environmental Features of the Site Geol02V and Soils As indicated on sheet 4 of Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York (USDA, 1975), the entire parcel is classified as Fd, Fill Land, Dredged Material. It is described as follows: "Fill land, dredged material (Fd) , is made up of areas that have been filled with material from hydraulic or mechanical dredging operations. These operations are used mainly to widen or deepen boat channels in salt water; however, some dredged material has been obtained from new channels cut into tidal marshes. Most of the dredged material is pumped onto tidal marshes. Smaller amounts are placed on beaches and dunes and on nearby mineral soils in a few places. The practice generally is to dike an area by using on-site material. The dredgings are then pumped into the diked area and allowed to settle. Excess water drains back into the bay. After the water drains off, heterogeneous deposits of sand, gravel and sea shells remain. In many places a dark-gray silty mud remains. Protective dunes have been built with clean sand and gravel dredgings in Some places, and in such places a few naturally formed dunes are included in mapping. Fill land, dredged material, is not suited to farming. Areas are satisfactory for building sites where the fill is adequate and if the highly compressible organic layers in the tidal marshes are removed prior to filling. Areas where the fill is placed on marshes containing thick organic layers are likely to be unstable and need on-site investigation before building on them. Droughtiness, low fertil"ity,'and high salt content severely _ limit the establishment of lawns and other landscape plantings. Cesspools do not function properly where the ground water is at a shallow depth. Capability unit not assigned; woodland suitability group not assigned." SlODes and TODo2raohv Elevations on the site vary between 4.7' and 8.3', with most of the site lying between 4.7' and 6.0'. As can be seen from the -6- . . contours on the site plan, the site is flat, with little slope. Land Forms No land forms of geologic significance are located on the site. Most of the site is paved, and seaward of the retaining wall and west of the seawall is a coarse sand and gravel beach. Mineral Resources No mineral resources occur on the site. Erosion and Sedimentation Potential ~ Rapid water p~~olation through sand plus the flatness of the terrain combine to cause little erosion and/or sedimentation potential. The site is protected from shore eriosion by the seawalls and retaining wall as shown on the site plan. Hvdrolol<v Surface Water The site is bordered on the south by Gardiners Bay, a large tidal body of water lying between the Eastern North and South Forks of Long Island. It's mean tide range is 2.5', and it's spring tide range is 3.0'. The NYSDEC has classified it as SA, the highest classification for tidal waters. These waters are",.. suitable for shellfishing for market purposes and primary and secondary contact recreation," The area is presently open to shellfishing. Groundwater The site lies within the Nassau-Suffolk 208 Study Water -]- . . Management Zone IV. Zone IV comprises the North Fork and the eastern ------Part of the South Fork. The "208 Study" (Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board, 1978) describes Zone IV as having "unique groundwater r; ,. '). ~ conditions, and special management alternatives apply to it. ~ Intensive agricultural activities have resulted in nitrate-nitrogen concentrations in wells located in agricultural areas that are above six milligrams per liter, with many observations exceeding ten milli- grams per liter. Although groundwater underlying agricultural areas shows definite signs of nitrogen-related contamination, the residential areas still have good quality water, and statistical examination of over 300 analyses from domestic wells located on the North Fork indi- cates that almost all have nitrate-nitrogen concentrations of less than three milligrams per liter." Laboratory test results from an on-site test well 18' deep show the ground water quality to be satisfactory. The reader is referred to the appendices for results of the engineers water analysis. Ecolol!v Vel!etat ion Since the site is partially paved, heavily traveled by vehicles using the ferry, and is periodically used as a temporary repository for dredge spoil, vegetation, with the exception of low grasses and weeds along it's perimeter, is non-existent. Wildlife Due to the conditions stated above, and the intensive nature of human use of the site, wildlife is limited to those species able to exist in close proximity to man and his development. -8- . . During several visits to the site, a list of animals noted was kept. Birds noted can be divided into two categories: Upland and shorebirds/waterfowl. Of the former mourning doves, sparrows, robins, grackles, swallows and starlings were noted. The latter is represented by gulls and te91s. . Observations of mammals during site visits indicated cottontail rabbit and mice (probably meadow moles). Land Use The site has been used as a part of the ferry terminal operation since at least the early 1930's. It is used as the staging area for vehicles waiting to board the ferry. To the east of th~ site and Main Rd., is a 1.4 acre parcel of land, upon which is located the existing ferry terminal building. This building now serves to house the ticket office, administrative office, snack bar and waiting room. It will be converted to a snack bar upon completion of the proposed new terminal building. Included on this ? parcel is an unpaved parking lot serving ferry passengers and employees, ~nd a 60' x 12' mobile home. The parking lot will continue in its ~esent use upon completion of the proposed project. , To the east of the existing ferry terminal is a vacant parcel of land zoned MI-Multiple Residential. The site is bordered on the west by a parcel Which is now the site of a Single-family residence. Further to the west is the USDA Plum Island Ferry Terminal, followed by a marina and restaurant. West of this parcel is located Orient State Park. The Cross Sound Ferry Services site, along with all the waterfront land up to the State Park is zoned BI-Business. -9- . . The remainder of the surrounding area, zoned A-Residential, Agricultural, is rural in character, consisting mainly of small farms and single family residences. Demoeraohv The site is located in the Orient-East Marion school district. According to the Long Island Lighting Co. Population Survey of 1983, the population is 1,465. During the summer months, population can be expected to increase by an undetermined amount due to second- home use and tourism. The proposed project will not alter the demography of the area. Public Services The site is within Fire District #25. Public transportation to the ferry terminal is provided by Suffolk Transit bus service, making 6 round trips daily between the terminal and Mattituck. New York State Route 25 is the only highway between Orient Point and Greenport. Historical Resources Although the site has been in use as a marine transportation facility since the late l700"s, nb structures or artifacts predat1ng the latest 50 years of ferry service remain. The property is not listed as an historical landmark, nor is it listed on the National Register of Historical Locations. ~o- . . Visual Character The site is flat, partially paved, contains one small wood frame structure adjacent to the loading ramp, and for all practical purposes, devoid of vegetation. Noise Levels Noise at the site and along Rt. 25 is generated by vehicles entering and departing the ferries and terminal area. Noise levels, with respect to intensity, duration and frequency, depend upon Ierrv scheduling, the I number of vehicles using the ferry, and the mix of autos and truck traffic. The highest volume of traffic, and therefore noise, can be expected to occur during the period of June 18 to September 9, ~len 12 ferry a als and 12 de artures per day are scheduled. With the ~ - exception of the fall months, when a higher volume of farm produce is being shipped to New England by trucks using the ferry, the volume of truck traffic is fairly constant throughout the year. On a yearly basis, trucks account for approximately 9% of all vehicles using the ferry. Odor Levels Other than the very low and usually unnoticeable odors generated by vehicles entering or departing the terminal, no odors are generated. Existin2 Environmental Constraints Affectine Action The site is shown on Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) #36083 0046C for the Town of Southold. It lies within an A9 zone, which requires a first floor elevation of any proposed buildings to be +11' above mean sea level. This will be attained by the placement of approximately -11- . . ~ 3000 cubic yards of sand and gravel fill existing ~ result of ferry slip ~~!ntenance dredging. < on the site as a Statement of Environmental Effects The proposed action, being limited to the paving of an existing vehicle staging area, which is now largely paved, the addition of a relatively small (46' x 42') terminal building, along with an improved waste water disposal system, a surface water runoff control system, and vegetative landscaping, represents ~ increase in the 7""" ill ~ I . . capacity of the terminal to accomodate passengers and veh!~l~A. It's ----------- ~ ~ en~ironmentatefr-~" ''It!I, there!..~re, be limi~ by _t;W:....P\tJ;l).mal nature of .the propoae4-~JL~ments of ~~ject. It is anticipated that dust and noise levels will rise during construction. This effect will be transitory, and cease upon completion of the work. Dust levels due to vehicle traffic on unpaved portions of the site, although low, are expected to be lower after paving is completed. The existing impervious 2 of paved surface and 440 ft 2 pavement on the site consists of 42,000 ft 2 of building coverage. Approximately 3600 ft of the site is vegetated with naturally occurring low grasses and weeds. Upon completion of the project, the impervious surface represented by paving, the terminal building' and' a 2 of 41,020 ft. This decrease in impervious 2 conversion of 9700 ft sidewalk will amount to an area 2 surface of 1,420 ft is accounted for by the of existing area, mostly paved, to landscaped area. Since the resultant impervious surface will be served by a surface water runoff control system, while the larger area of existing impervious surface is not, the project will -12- . . result in a positive environmental impact with respect to rainwater runoff control and siltation. The proposed waste water disposal system represents an improvement over the existing cesspools, and is there- fore considered to be a positive environmental impact. While the proposed new water well will draw upon //the existing ground water reservoir, the Suffolk County / Department of Health Services has required the applicant I ; to participate in the formation of a community water supply to serve the area as a condition of final approval of that agency. Daily fresh water demand for the terminal facility will be 2250 gallons with a peak demand of 22,500 gallons a day, or 15.6 gallons/minute. / Since the project does not increase the capability of the terminal to handle larger numbers of vehicles, it will not, in and of itself, increase the volume of \ \ \ traffic. Traffic, with the noise and disturbance it creates, is however, an important issue in the'local com- munity, and must be addressed. Annual ridership for the years 1981 through 198J is shown below. During this period, an increase in a~l categories of ridership was experienced, with the most dramatic increase being for 198J. During that year, 1J1,JOO vehicles, of which 12,000 or 9.14% were heavy trucks, were carried. This was an increase of 24,800 passenger vehicles and 2,000 trucks over 1982. The increase -1 J- . . in vehicle traffic is accounted for by the replacement of the ferry "Plum Island". with a capacity of 20-22 autos. by the "Henlopen". which is capable of carrying 95-100 autos. The number of trucks that can be carried is dependent upon the size of the trucks in relation to the number of cars they replace. Annual Ridership Orient Point - New London Passenger Heavy Total .illL Passen/1:ers * Vehicles Trucks Vehicles 1981 257.920 97.000 7.000 104,000 1982 259,160 94.500 10,000 104.500 1983 325,624 119.300 12,000 131,300 *Includes drivers The greatest number of passengers and vehicles are carried during the period of June to September. During this period. tourist and vacationer activity is at a peak. requiring the use of 3 ferry boats to fulfill a schedule of 12 arrivals and 12 departures on a daily basis. Demand is generally high enough to fill all boats. and on week- ends passengers may have to wait for the next available boat. It is only during tfiis period that the largest- ferry, the "Henlopen" is in service. During the period of November to March, demand decreases to a level that can be met by one boat making 3 to 4 arrivals and departures daily. The reader is referred to the 1984 Ferry Schedule contained in the -14- . . appendices for details of the annual schedule of service. It is expected that annual ridership and vehicle traffic will increase by a small margin when the ferry "Caribbean" is replaced by a new boat the "North Star" in Mayor June of 1984. The North Star has a capacity of 35 autos and 200 passengers, as compared to the Caribbean with 22 cars and 120 passengers. During the period of heaviest traffic, from June 18 to September 9, the North Star is scheduled to make 4 arrivals and 4 departures daily. Assuming that every run is filled to maximum capacity (which is unlikely) traffic would be increased by 104 autos trips daily during this period. r----- As wi th I , past increases in ridership, it can be , i expected that future increases will come as a result of demand and ferry scheduling and capacity increases to meet that demand, not upon terminal facility improvements. The effect that the proposed terminal improvements will have upon increasing the demand for ferry service is highly speculative. In a 1980 survey of passengers (New York State Department of Transportation, 1981) the most common complaints .con<;:erned the cost of service, the congestion at the access terminal, and the infrequency of service. While the proposed project will increase the orderliness and efficiency of the terminal operation, it does not increase the available upland space, will not result in a reduction of fares, and will not increase ferry capacity or scheduling frequency. 4---- -15- . . Future ridership on the Cross Sound Ferry from Orient Point to New London, although predicted to increase (New York State Department of Transportation, 1981), will de- pend on such factors as gasoline prices, road congestion, the availability of ferry services at alternate locations, and fare increases. Should ferry service between Port Jefferson and Bridgeport be improved and expanded, and/or a third service be initiated at some westerly location, as recommended by the Long Island Sound Ferry Service Improvement Study (New York State Department of Transpor- tation, 1981), it is likely that demand for the Orient Point ferry will level-off or decrease, depending upon the extent of alternative services. Identification of any Adverse Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided Any increase in traffic that might be generated as a result of the proposed traffic, are unpredictable and unavoidable. As the parcel is already developed and privately owned, there will be no significant loss of open space ) ~~~A~ to the water for the general public. -------- - Description of Mitigation Measures to Minimize Adverse Effects The planned adherence to regulatory restructions on all levels will mitigate the impact of the project. The rainwater runoff control system will mitigate the effects of runoff from the paved area and terminal bUilding. -16- . . The architectural design of the terminal building and the landscaping will improve esthetic and visual qualities of the site. ~ Improved efficiency with respect to passenger check- and vehicle traffic control will relieve congestion the local roads. The improved wastewater disposal system will decrease groundwater contamination. Identification of Anv Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources The usage of fossil fuels to power construction equipment and workers vehicles is irreversible, as is the consumption of electrical power by tools. (-Description of Anv Growth-Inducing Aspects of the Action The proposed action will have no growth effects "'- upon local area. "'\, Impact of the Action on the Use and Conservation of Energv During the construction phase, energy in the form of fossil fuels and electricity will be consumed. Upon completion, the terminal building will be heated by modern, efficient equipment, and will be adequately insulated to minimize energy consumption. -17- . . Description and Evaluation of Reasonable Alternatives To Achieve the Same or Similar Obiectives The only reasonable alternative is to continue operation of the ferry terminal under existing conditions. While ridership and capacity would be little affected, if at all, this alternative would result in continued incon- venience to passengers in the form of inadequate lounge, waiting room, snack bar and sanitary facilities. Congestion on local r~ads by vehicles waiting to enter the staging --"-------,--- -- area would continueL and ferry company management would be denied the opportunity to initiate needed operational and administrative improvements and efficiencies. -18- . . Studies. Reports and Literature Used in Preparation of DEIS Austin, G. L. Jr.. 1961. Water and Marsh Birds of the World. Burt, William H. et.al., 1964. A Field Guide to the Mammals, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. Miner, R. W., 1950. Field Book of Seashore Life. G. P. Putnam's Sons. New York. Nassau and Suffolk Regional Planning Board. 1979. Water Study, Hauppauge, New York. "208" U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1975. Soil Survey of Suffolk County, Riverhead, New York. /------ New York State Department of Transportation, 1981. Summary of Findings, Long Island Sound Ferry Service Improve- ment Study. 1'-- New York State Department of Transportation, 1981. Summary and Recommendations. Long Island Sound ~ervice. Improvement Study. Executive Ferry Long Island Lighting Co., 1983. Population Survey. Current Population Estimates for Nassau and Suffolk Counties. -19- . . ~I}~ \ q 8<1 . EAF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOP~ Purpose: The EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action is likely to be sig- nificant. The question of whether an action is significant is not al- ways easy to answer. Frequently, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasurable. It is also understood that those who will need to determine significance will range from those with little or no formal knowledge of the environment to those who are technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affect- ing the question of significance. The EAF is intended to provide a method whereby the preparer can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehen- sive in nature, and yet flexible to allow the introduction of informa- tion to fit a project or action. EAF CO~WONENTS: The EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Part 2:" This phase of the evaluation focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially-large impact. The form also identi- fies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: Only if any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially- large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important to the municipality in which the project is located. Determination of Significance If you find that one (or more) impact is both large and its con- sequence is important, then the project is likely to be signifieant, and a draft environmental impact statement should be prepared. Scoping If a draft EIS is needed, the Environmental Assessment Form will be a valuable tool in determining the scope of the issues to be covered by the draft EIS. 14-16-2 (12/78) . . APPE~DIX A EAF E~VIRD;IHE~TAL ASSESSHE~T PART I Pro1ect Informatlon NOTICE: Thts document is desl~ned to assfst 1n determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the enYlronment. PI.as. complet. the entfr. Data Sheet. Answers to these questions will be considered IS Dirt of tn. &ppJicatfon for apprcval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide Iny addition.l lnfonnitlon you believe wtll be needed to camplet~ PARTS Z and 3. It is eXPecteo tnat conclet/on Of,the EAF will be dependent on 'nformatfon currently a.a/lable and will not ,nyolYe new studies. r..e"chor ,nyestfqU'on. If informU,on re~ulrfno SUCh addlt!O""1 k is unav"i'ble. SO indicat. and Spectfy elch lnsta"ce. . t' wor I~ ~ OF PROJECT: Improvements to Orient Ferry Terminal Facilities ~AHE A~D ADDRESS OF OWNER (If Oifferent) Cross Sound Ferry Services Inc. (Name) Box 33 (Street) New London, Connecticut ~ (State) 06320 (Zfp) , ADDRESS AND NAME OF APPLICANT: En-Consultants Inc. (NI") 64 North Main Street (Street) Southampton, N. Y., 11968 (P.O.) (State) (Zip) BU~NCSS PHO~E: 323-2415 ~ DESCRIPTlO~ OF PROJECT: (Briefly describe type of projector Iction) Construct upland ferry terminal facilities on the site of existing ferry terminal vehicle staging s The ro ect is to consist of a terminal building, paved vehicle staging area, and pave entrance an ex t r veways. . (PLEASE COMPLETE EACH QUESTION. Indlclte N.A. ff not Ipplfclble) A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. (PhYSical sett;~g of overail project. both develoned and undevelooed areas) Generll charlcter of the llnd: ~..nerally uniform Slope ~ Generally uneYen and rol11n9 or !rre~ular ." 2. Present hnd use: Urban . Industrial _____, Agriculture _____, ryther Total acreage of project arel: 2.2acres. '- , CCMllftlrcial .~. Suburban _.1 Rural F..,rest 3. AoproxtMlte acreage: ~eldow Or Brushland Presently After COmpletion ~acr.s d-acres Presently After Completion Forested __acres __acres Hater Surface Area _acres Unveget.ted (rock. e4rth or fill) ~ar.res Roads. buildtnQs ' and other ='Ived surfaces L-acres (Landacaping) Other (indic.te t~eT _____acres Sand _ac"~S AQricultural acres _acres ..:..1-ac re 5 I'J.tland (FreshwUer or Tldal as ner Articles ?4, Z5 or ~.C.l.) _acres _acres -.!-acres ..:1-acres 4. '4hat 15 .,,..d08Ihant soil type(s) on "rojt"Ct sHe? 5. o. ;re ther~ b~drock outcro?o;nos on "rot~ct 5it~? t. ~~at is death to bedrock? 9!1/78 Unknown Y.s L~n (In ie.t) . . 6. Approxinate o!rcentaae of proposed oroject site with sloaes: O-lQ~ ~ l~-l,~ ~\; 15;. or greater t. 7. Is project contiquous to. or contain a buildino or site listed on the National Register of Historic Places? _Yes ~No 8. W~at is t~. d.pt~ to t~. wat.r tab I.? ..&..2f..t (at teat hole) 9. Do hu~ting or fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? ~Yes _____No 10. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endanQered Yes X :10. according to - Identifv each species 11. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on t~e project site? {Le. c~iffs. dunes. other gl!!ological fannations - _Yes ~No. (Describe 12. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area . _____Y@s ~No. 13. Oo@s the pres@nt site offer or include scenic views or vistas known to be important to the community? Yes --1L-No 14. Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Name of stream and name of river to which it is tributary ~ 15. Lakes. Ponds. ~etland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. I~a,"" Gardinera Bay ~ b. Size (1n acres) N/A 16. What Is the dominant land use and zoning classification within a 1/4 single family residential, R82) and the scale of development (t.g. 2 mile radius of the project story) . B1 Buainea. (..g. B. PROJECT OESCRIPTION 1. Physical dilTW!nsions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned by project sponsor 2.2 acrts. b. Projtct acreagt develooed: ~ acres init1ally; ~ acres ultimately. c. Project acruge to remain undeveloped ---1..2+ . d. L.ngth of project. in mil." N / A (if appropriate) f. If proJect is an expansion of eXistin1~ lnd1cate percent of expansion proposed: building square foot- ag. 1700+ ; d.v.lop.d acr.ag. N ~ Nuntler of off8strEPt oarking spaces eXlstin 156+ ; proposed _156+ o change from existing Maximum vehicular trios generated per hour (upon completion of project) .. g. ~. If residential: Number and type of houslnq units: \ ~6 Jne famlI y Two Fami 1 v Multiple Fami ly Condominium Ini tial N/A Ultimate i. If: OriEmtation "e i ghbor"ood-C i ty- Reg i ona 1 Estimated Emoloyment COl\Tllerci al regional 5;t Industrial j. Total heiQ~t of tallest "ronospd structure 35_f..t. -! ~ . . 2. How much natur..l material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site- o tons __cubic yards. 3. How many acres of \leqetaticn (trees, shrubs, ground covers} wl11 be rel"lOved (rof" site - ~ac,.es t 1,0/111 any mat;.:re farest (oller 1')0 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be refl'lOyed oy tnls proJect.' _Yes -X-No 5. Are thpr~ any plans for re-vegetation to replace that removed during construction? X Yes 'jo 6 If single [)hJse ;JrOJect: Anticlpated period of construction ~monthS. (including demolltlon) 7. :f ~ul~i-~h~sed oroject' a. Total number of phases anticiPated No. b. Anticioated date of cO/TlTlencement ohHe "I ""ontn ______vear (,nC)"c:I1ng demo I i tion) c. Approximate comeletien date final phase fl'()ntl'1 .-'year, d. Is phase 1 financially dependent on subseouent ohases? Yes No 8. j~i11 blasting occur during construction? Yes ~No 9. Numoer of jobs generated: during construction 12 ; after project is complete 5 -... 10. Number of Jobs eliminated by this project 0 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? --1L-Yes _No. If yes, exolain: Present ferry terminal will be relocated to new buildin~. 12. a. Is surface or subsurhce Itquid waste disposal involved? -.!......Yes _~o: b. J f yes. indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) SeW8.11e c. If surhce disposal name of stream into which effluent will be discharged 13. Will surface area of existing lakes, oonds, streams. bays or other surface waterways be increased or decreased by proDosal? _Yes -X....-No. 14. Is project or any portion of project located in the 100 year flood plain? ~Yes No 15. a. Does project involve disposal of solid waste? _Yes ~No b. If yes. will an existing solid waste dlsnosal facllity be used? Yes ~o c. If yes. give name: : 11)cabon d. !1111 any wastes not go into a sewage diSPosal system or into a unitary landf;11? _Yes fio 16. Will ornJect use herbicides or pp.sticides? Yes ~~o 17. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour oer day)? _____yes ~NO 18. Will project prOduce ooerating noise e.ceedlng the local ambience noise levels? _____yes X No 19. l.I;l1 project resuit in an increase in energy use? _____Ves ~~o. If yes. indicate type'-s) 2~. 11. If water sUDDly is from wells indicate pumoing capacity 1-;.6 ToUl anticipated water usage per day _2_2...L500 Qals/day. (max) gals/minute. 22 Zoning: .. l.jhat 1S dOMinant zoning classlfication of site? Bl-bulIlnellll b. Current soeci fic zon1ng classification of sHe " c !s orODose<1 us. CO"Slstpn:. "'1 th flresent Zon1nq? Yell d. If. no, indicate desired Zonlnq .,. 26.. App-ovlls: a. Is ,ny 'ede" I pe""treQUired? Y!S ~No . b. Does prOject involve State or Federal funding or financing? _~Yes _____NO c. Local and Regional approvals: Approval Required (Ves, No) (Type) SubmHta 1 Approval (O,te) (Date) City, Town, Village Board City, Town, Village Planning Board City, Town, Zoning Board City, County Healt~ Deoartm@nt Other local agencies Other regional agencies State Aqencies Federal.Agencies --r- Sltp plan 127R1" ~ ~:~~:~~~~mw~ll ~ 17IDR4 i ~ig ~~~ C. INFORMATIONAL DETAILS Attach any additional infonnation as adverse impacts associated with the tak.n to mitigate or avoid them. be any can be PRfPARFR'S SIGNATURf: TITLf: RfPRfSfNTING: DAn: p E -C I Cross Sound Ferry Mav 29, 1984 " I - _4_ . . EAF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART II Project ImPJcts and Their Maqnitude General Information (Read Carefully) In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my decisions and determlnatlons been reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. ldentifying that an effect will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it Si~nificant. Any large effect must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. ef eet 1" calum 2 simply asks that It be looked at further. is also necessarjJy Ay identifying an The Exam~les provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of effects and wherever possi~le tne thres~n: of mag"l ude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally appl icable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any specific project Ol'" site other examples and/or lower tnresho]os may be more appropriate for a Potential large Impact rating. Each project, on each site, in each locality. will vary. Therefore, the examples have been offered as guidance They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each ouestion. The number of examples pel'" question does not indicate the importance of each question. INSTRUCTIONS (Read Carefully) a. Answer each of the 18 questions in PART Z. An'wer ~ if there will be ~ effect. b. MaYbe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a Question then check the appropriate box (colum 1 or 2) to indtcate the potential size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check: column 2. If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example. check column 1. d. If reviewer has doubt about the size of the impact tt)en consider tne imoact as r>otentially large and proceed to PART 3. e. If a potentially large impact or effect can be reduced by a change in the project to a less than large magn1tude, place a Yes in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. 1. WIll THERE BE AN EFFECT AS A RESULT OF A PHYSICAL CHAI4r.E TO PROJECT SITE? NO YES (8)0 1. ~. 3. SMALL TO POTENTIAL CAN IMPACT BE MODERATE LARr.E REOUCED BY IMPACT I"PACT PROJECT CHANGE - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IMPACT ON LANO E.amples that Would ADply to Column Z Any cons truct ion on s lopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot ri se per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10~. Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. ronstruction of oaved oarkinq are~ fnr 1. ""'l'1 or more vehicles. ~nstruct;on on land where bedrock is ex~osed or qenerally wi thln, l feet of existing ground surface. Construction that wjll continue for more than 1 Veal'" or involve more than one I1hase or stage. Excavation for minin9 purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e. rock or soil) per Veil"'. Construction of any new sanitary landfill. . Construction 1n a designated floodway, Other impacts: 2. ~ YES ~ILL THE~E BE AN EFFECT TO ANY UNIOUE O~ UNIISUAL L~NO FnRMS t':\r'"\ FOUND ON THE SITE? (Le. clfffs, dunes, atolootcal 'onna~ ~ Uons, etc.) . Snlcf'fc land forms: H'PACT ON WATE~ 3. NO YES WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY WATEP BOOY OESIGNATED AS .... ......1'::\ PROTECTED? (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Envfr- ~ onment!l Conservation law, E.C,l.) , Ex.moles that Would Aoply to Column 2 Dr@dgtno more thin 10~ cubic YI~S of materfal f~ enlnnel of I protected stream. Construction 1n I designated freshwater or tid.l wetland. Other impacts: .. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY lION-PROTECTED EXISTlNr. OR NFH NO YES BOOT OF HATE~7 ............................................(9 Examoles that Would Apply to Column 2 AlaS fncrelSe or decreue In the surhct nel of Iny body of wlter or more thin. 10 acre 1ncra.s. or decrease. Construction of . body of water that exceeds 1n IC~S of surfact 'rel. Other frrlf'llcts: \. 41LL pqOJECT AFrECT SURrACr OR r,~01l~D4ATER Oll.UTn IllJ YES Q EXlmoles tnat Hould Apply 1:0 Calum Z Project will require a discharge pemit. Project requires use of a source of wlte,. that does not hive .por"ov.l to serve ,mpond project. Project requires water supply from wells wtth ~re.tlr t~l~ ~5 Qlllons PI" minutt ~umpt"9 capacity. Construct;on or operation causinq Iny contaminatton of a public water SUDOly system. Project wtl1 .dyers.ly affect ground.lter. LiqUid effluent w111 be conveyed off the stte to ",flttf,s wnich presently do not ,.tst or h,ve 1n.d,~u.t. cap.city. Project rtQu1rln~ . '.cjlt~y th't would UII Wit,,. tn Uteu of 2(1,000 qallorn per dav. Project will lIkely cause Sfltltion or other disch.r~t into an .xlstln9 b~dy of wlter te the ,xt.nt that there will b~ An nbvtous vtSu.l Co~trlst to n,tur,l condftfons. -<- 1. "'!"LL HI OERATE T , pnTE,~TlAL L~RGE HrACT CAN "lPACT BE REDUCED BT pqOJECT CHANGE . . 1. 2. :?l. Exa~les thlt Would Apoly to Column 2 '<<l YES QO ~'lAlL Tr pnTE~TI^L (Alj 1I1P~CT BE flOF.?ATE LARGE llEauCtJ c' ::J?t;:-- ,"PICT PP0JECT (HAliGE - - - - - - -'L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - '1thpr II'l"OdCts 6 'lilt. PR0J[CT ALTO! DIU,' NMir Fl/')l' . P~TTE"IS Oq SURFAt:E I(IJNI)FF? . . . . . . , . Ex"ml'lle t~a<: '!ould ~"lply to Colunn 2 Project wflul(i imI'Jede flood water floW5. Project 15 1 j kely to cause substdnt i a 1 eroSIon. 'IATER ~m YES "OG PrOject 15 inco~atlble with existing dra1n'9l! patterns. patterns JL Other Impacts. New but will be picked oaved ar~RR ~ill ~l~~r nr~inege up by on-site drainage. IMPACT 'IN AI R 110 YfS '''~O 7. "Ill PROJECT AFFECT AIR OUALITY? f'umples that \~ould Apply to Calum 2 Project w111 faduc! 1.'1f)0 or more ...ehicl, trips In any ginn hour. Pr'Oject wf 11 resul t 1n the inc1nerltlon of ll'Or"e than 1 ton f'f refuse per hour. , Project e~;s5ton rate of all cont.~inlnts will excp.en 5 lbs. De~ nou~ o~ a heat snuree ~~duc1n9 ~r~ than l~ million BTU's pe~ hour. Other 1molcts: IMPACT ON PlANTS AND ANI~ALS B. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY THREATENED OR ENOAHr.ERED SPECIES? Rf!:duction of one or IlI)nt species listed on the flew York or Fede~al list. ysing the site. over or near site or found on the site. Aemoval of anv OO~tlon of I critical or slQniflcant wild. lif~ I\"blWt. _",ol'lllcat;l"ln of Pesticide or "'el1)ici du over more thin b'ic! 4 ....eI,. otr,er ttun for..,...:c.,utur..l Don'poi''!'. 0!.1~r i r.loacts: 9. ~HLL PROJECT SUBSTAflTIALlY AFFECT '~ON.THREATE:jED OR r'OA'CERED SPECIES? .....,......,...........,.... ~ that Would Appl~ to Colu~ 2 NO YES d80 rrOJect would substantially lntf!"fere wlth an', n~sir1ent or rn;qratory fis., or wl1dl1fe speCl-s. PrOject reouires the rflmoval of 1"I0re than l"l ac"'e' of mature forest (over l'JO ytlJrs ;n ane) or other 10c.ll.... im~ort~nt vegetat;on. -7- . . 1"f'lr.,CT C; "'lS':'l.l Q~S,":'RCE 1'), \!II.L T!-IE oonner .H"rEC VJ~\I~. "ISTAS ~1 T~rF '/lC;P"L C~ft.Il:ACTER ')1=' Tflf: :IFIGHBI)~~i"V)D nr C(I......."lfTV? EXJmnles that lIould A~D1v to Column 2 An incom~atible visual affect caused bv the intro~uctinn of I'U!W l'"Iaterials. colors and/or forns 'in cl')ntrast tt" t11! surroundi"~ landsca~e. A oroject eas;l:; visible. not easily screenl!d,t1lat is obvious ly di fft>rent frorl nth<.!1"S around it. Project '.lil1 result in the pli,.,ination or r'lajor screeninq of scenic views or vistas k.nOlm to be important to the area. Other Impacts: IMPACT ON HI~TO~IC RESOURCES 11. WILL PROJECT !r'PACT ANY SITE OR STRUCTURE OF HISTORIC. PPE-IH~TO.IC OP PAlEOrnO'iCAL lI'r~PTANCE? .......... NO YES 00 EXlmoles that \~ould Aoolv to CoJun" 2 Pl"t"iect occurina wholly or narthlly within or contiouous to Iny facilitv or site listed on the National Renister of historic ,laces. Anv lmoact to an arche-ological sJlt:e or fossil bllld located within the project sHe. i')ther 1m,acts: I~PACT ON OPEN SPACE & RECREATION 12. WILL THE PRnJECT AFFECT THE OUANTITY OR QUALITY OF EXISTIIIG NO YF~ OR FUTURE OPffl SPACES OR RECRE~TIONAL OPPORTU'IlTIES?..... 0 0 Examoles that ~Iould Aop1.v to CollM11"l 2 T~e perManent foreclosure of a future recre~t;on~l oDDortunity. A major rpduction of an open space important to the community. t')ther lmoacts: I~.~CT ON T~NSPORTATIO~ 13. \'ILL THERE BE AN EFFECT TO EXISTIlIC TRANSPORTATInN SYSTE"S' ............................................... NO YE *00 Examples that Would ~~~lv to Column 2 Alteration of present patterns of MOveMent of ~eople and/or goods. Pro.1ect w111 result in severe traffic ~roblems. * Present transportation systems will be maintained but in a more efficient manner. Other In:pacts: .R . 1 2. ;} M.ALL Tf') "CTE/IT I AL CA" II'PACT AE r.0~ERA TE L ~PGr PEOUCED "' [Llrl\Ci l'~ro..CT PROJECT C~',o..llC;E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S - - - - - - - - - - - - 'I" 'fEO:: 00 . .,...'"") ~. 'O;!; .t.. . . :~PACT O~ E~ERGY .., "',CT THE CO~MUNITIES SOURCES OF FUEL nR ;;'(:>L(' 00 ~~at ~ou)d ODDly to Column 2 : cduSlnq Qreater tnan 5\ lncrease in any form of ..~~:' used HI rnunlcioaJlty. 'e~t reoulring the creation or extension of an energy " 1,;,~15510n or supply system to serve more than 50 sinale :r two fdmi 1 y res ldences. Jther lmpacts: IMPACT ml NOISE I' "ILL THERE BE OBJECTIONABLE OooRS. NOISE, GLARE. VIaRATI0N NO YES Jr ELECTRICAL DISTURBANCE AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT? . ...~<:::> t.l:amples that \/oulrl Aoaly to Calum Z Blasting within I.SIlO feet of a hospital, school or other sensiti~e facility. ndors wl11 OCcur routinely (more than one hour per day). Project will nroduce oDer~tin9 noise exceedi"" the local ambient noise levels for noise o~side of structures. Project will re~ve natural barr;~rs that would act as ~ nOlse Screen. nther inoacts: I~PACT O~ HEALTH & HAZARDS :6 'me PPO.lEe; AFFECT PUBLIC IIEALTH ANO SAFETY? ~If) ... "0<:::> EXdmpl,.s that I~ould /\'pply to Column 2 P~oiect will causp. a riSk of ex,losion or release of hazardous substances ~l.e. 011, pesticldr.s, chemicals, rartiation, etc.) I~ the event of accident or uoset conditions, or there will :-Oe il. cnron~c 10\"1 level dlscha~ge or e",,;ssion. Pr"Ol~ct that will resul t in the burial of "hazard('lus wastes" it .e. toxic. poisonous. hi~hly reactive, radioactive, lrr;tating, infectlous. etc. I lnclu:.1inll wast~s that are solid, semi.solid, liquid or contain qases.) :l~ordae facl11til>s f:lI' one "\1]1,on or' more Qallnns of liouified ~dturdl g~s or otner liouids. '1~n~'" llf'uacts. . 1 2. ~ ~O S~LL Tn P0TE~T I ~L CAil IMPACT CE f'0DERnE LAnGE REDUCEO av I~rACT ['lPACT PROJECT CI-IANGE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - YES YFS , . . . r~PACT orl GROWTH AND CHARACrf::R OF COtmuNITY OR ~1(lr.flR~P4nOO 17. Will PRI)JECT AFFECT THE CHAPf\CTEl) "F THE r.xrSTPH; CO'ffiNITY' QO Example that Would Apoly to Column The population of the City, To.....n or Vilhge in whier the prOject is located is likely to orow by ~ore than 5~ of resident human population. The municipal budgets (Or capital ell'oenditurp.s or Q'1er<1- ting services will increase by more than 5t per vear dO; il result of this project. W111 involve any ~ermanent facility of a non-agricultural use in an agricultural district or r@mQve nrime agl'"icultural lands from cul tivation. The project ....ill reolace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the co~unity. Development will inducp an influx of a particular aqe group with special needs. Project w111 set an imporf'.ant precedent for future prOlects. Project will relocate 15 or more em~loyees in one or ~re businesses. Other imoacts: 18. IS THERE PU8L1C CONTRCVfRSY CONCERNING THE PR0,JECT' Examples that Would Apply to rolumn 2 Either government o~ citizens of adtacent have expressed oDPosition or rejected the not been contacted. cO""'unities pro iect or have Objections to the l"Iroiect from within the COlflllUni tv. . l.j(1 y(S p~~LL I' P .TEilTIl<l C'" I""^, 1 " OER'TE lMHiE REDUCED BY It'PArr JIlP~CT PROJECT CH^NGE - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~O YES @O IF MY ACTION It: PART 1 IS IOEHTIFIED AS A pOTEllTJAl lARr.E IMPACT on IF you CANNOT DETERI4UIE THE MAGIJlTUOE OF IMPACT, PROCEED TO PART 3. PORTlmlS OF EAF C0I1PLETED FOR THIS PROJECT PART I .!- PART II.lL- P^RT 3_ DETEP",NATION Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1, 2 and J) and constderinQ both the maonttude and im~ortance of each impact. it is rp.asonably determined that: A. The project will result in no major impacts and. therefnr!:". Is one which may not cause significant damaoe to thp environment. B. Althou~h the project could have a significant effect O~ the !"vfrnn~nt. there will not be a signif.cant p.ffect in this cas~ because the mitiqation measures described in PART J have bee~ included as p~rt of the oroposed project. C. The project will result in one or more major adverse 1l'1nacts that cannot be reduced and ma cause sinnificant da~aqe to the environment. Ma 29 ~/ at. onaultanta Inc. S"on~;ble officer) PREP^RF. A tIEr.,PI ~E [)~(lAR.AT IOt~ G) PR[~ARE A ~VE nEClARATIOH PREP~RE PC,ITIVE OR~TIO'I oROCEED WITII EIS ITQ-nature-o'- Q"soo~leJiTTicial ;n laad . lI,gencv ~1~~ :\~e nare ~f ~e~Do~slbie offlc;al in '-tad I\q~ncv '- I .~. ~, 4t 4f; _.." . . . , ~ E~F EflV I R0I1MENT Al A ISES SIlENT PART III EVAlUATIO:j OF THE 1'1P~RTA~CE OF IMPACTS C>,lll T[;~,:; 'rt 1 1~ ,);"E'pared if one cr more lmpact or effect is considered tJ be ootentlally larae. ~r;e dmount of wrHino necessary to answer Part 3 may b~ deterll'llned by answering the auestlon: In b~1efJy :om~letln9 tne instructions below have I r1aced in t~is record sufficient lnformation to indicate the '-edsonaoJeness of r.w,decisions? HISTRUCTIO~IS Comolete the followlnq for each impact or effect identIfied in Column 2 or Part 2: ). Briefly describe the impact. 2. Jescribe (H apolicable) how the impact mignt be mitigated or reduced to a less than ltlrr;Je lrr:nact by a [1ro. jeet c'1ange. 3. ~ased on the infonnation available, decide if it lS reasonahle to conclude that thls il"lflact is Jmporta!!l to the minicipality (city, town or vnlaqe) 1n \.,.h1Ch the project is located. To answer the Question of importance, consider; The probability of the impact or effect occurring The duration of the impact or effect Its irreverSibility, inclUding pennanently lost resources or values ~hether the imract or effect can be controlled The regional consequence of the im~act or eff~ct Its potential divergence from local needs and goals Whether known objections to the prnject a~oly tc this impact or effect. DETERI'INATl0N OF SIGI!IFICA'ICE ^n action is considered to be sign;fi~ant if: One (or more) ;moact is determined to both larne 3nd its (their) conseouence, based on the review above. is impOrtant. .". PAPT III STATE~E~TS (Continue on ^ttachments, as needed) PLANNING BOARD MEMB~ RICHARD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS ,.Y;:;-C:C~~ y,;f~ c;.UffOl.t C~ jY 5:)\';.<:< ~'. QY~ ~"" ~ ~ ....i\ ~Cl ~ffi ~ ~,~ ~. ~ff ~QJ + '+-~~ ~~f . 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 SOUTH OLD August 7, 1996 Morris C _ Lipsman Regional Real Estate Officer Real Estate Division, Region 10 New York State Department of Transportation State Office Building Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, NY 11788 Re: Cross Sound Ferry Site Plan Application Dear Mr. Lipsman, In the interest of keeping you informed of the status of the Town's review of Cross Sound Ferry's site plan application I have enclosed a copy of the lead agency coordination packet that the Planning Board distributed earlier this week. A set of the site plans will sent to you under separate cover when we received them from the applicant. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at (516) 765-1938, Si~erely , ~~ Valerie S~~r:~:{ / Town Planner PLANNING BOARD MEMBE' RICHARD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR BENNETT ORLOWSKI. JR WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS yr::.;:::~:::::::.-::::;...... ..oY-~ '1.\\fFDl,tA .}'~.~~ "". zY~ ~-"';.\ ::; ::::I '2 >.!~ ~ Q . ." '~cn =e0 ''''' ".,;, "e:::>. ~1 ~~ ~"<;" ~()J + -+.~~ ~=-~- . 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 August 6, 1996 Francis Yakaboski, Esq. Smith Finkelstein Lundberg Isler & Yakaboski 456 Griffing A venue P.O.Box 389 Riverhead NY 11901 Re: Cross Sound Ferry Litigation Dear Frank, Enclosed you will find copies of the material that went out with the lead agency coordination form yesterday. A list of the agencies to whom the material was sent is included in the package, Also attached are copies of letters sent to Bill Esseks and Morris Lipsman conveying copies of the lead agency materials. Lastly, the next time you are in the neighborhood, could you return my copy of the SEQR regulations (in the floppy black binder)? S~cerel~ ' Itd&/Uh ;;; ~ Valerie s~;:r-;J Town Planner . .:,=':::-'::::':"'-=--='=::-- j~..''''(;;'~",,-.'': "''::: - ~-' ~ Q - ~ ~ en - ~ 'J ; ~ .- :t! 5 ~ *'. ~...,."""../ ~IJ.{ -+ ~~.j- ~=-~:.- . PlANNING BOARD MEMBERS RICHARDG. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCHIE L-\.THAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI. JR. WILLIAi\1 J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hail, .53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Somhold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 6, 1996 Willam Esseks, Esq. Esseks, Hefter & Angel 108 East Main Street Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: Cross Sound Ferry Application SCTM # 1000- 15- 10.1, 11.1, 15.1, & 3.5 Orient, NY Dear Mr. Esseks, As per your request, enclosed is a copy of the material that accompanied the lead agency coordination request letter. If at all possible, it would be most appreciated if you would authorize John Raynor to run more sets of the three site plan maps which were submitted with Cross Sound's application, Although he delivered 20 sets, we just had enough sets to send to the coordinating agencies. Additional copies are needed for use by Planning and Zoning Board members. Also, we have received a few requests from the public to obtain copies of same. Accordingly, if another 15 copies could be delivered to the Planning Board office, it would be most helpful. Sincerely, ! .}.' /./-,----;."->,-,-,, ---- __ Z (~:~ Valerie Scopaz; Town Planner PLANNING BOARD MEMAs RICHARD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNE'IT 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 August I, 1996 Charles Voorhis and Associates, Inc. 54 North Country Rd Miller Place, NY 11764 Re: Review of EAF for Proposed Site Plan for Cross Sound Ferry, Inc. SCTM# 1000-15-9-10.1, 11.1, 15.1 &3.5 Dear Mr. Voorhis: The Southold Town Planning Board hereby refers the Environmental Assessment Form and site plan for the above mentioned project to your office for review. The Planning Board started the lead agency coordination process on July 29, 1996. Please develop an estimate of what it will cost to 'undertake the review. If the Planning Board wishes you to proceed with the review, you will be sent a facsimile of a purchase order authorizing you to proceed. The actual purchase order will be sent through the mail. Please contact this office if there are any questions regarding the above. y ~ rt .!i)~ Site Plan Reviewer 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 Re: Lead Agency Coordination Request - July 31,1996 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. Project Name: Cross Sound Ferry SCTM#: 1000-15-10.1, 11.1, 15.1 & 3.5 Requested Action: To provide additional parking to a previously approved ferry terminal on Rt. 25 in Orient; in order to accommodate increased demand for parking that has been generated by the inclusion of a high speed passenger only ferry service to the existing vehicular ferry service. SEQRA Classification: (X) Type I ( ) Unlisted Contact Person: Robert G. Kassner (516) 765-1938 . . Page 2 Lead Agency Coordination Request 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: (X) 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) ~nmmAnt~. ~Q~ .att::J~hArl m::Jtari::Jlt: Please feel free to contact this office for further information. @:AtJ Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Acting Chairman ;fft cc: Southold Town Board Southold Town Building Dept. Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Board of Trustees Suffolk County Dept of Health Services Suffolk County Dept. of Planning Suffolk County Dept. of Public Works Suffolk County Dept. of Parks NYS Dept. of State, Coastal Resources & Waterfront Revitalization Division NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation - Albany & Stony Brook offices NYS Dept. of Transportation - Albany & Hauppauge offices NYS Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation U.S. Dept of Agriculture U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Federal Emergency Management Agency . . ADDITIONAL COMMENTS PERTINENT TO YOUR AGENCY'S REVIEW OF CROSS SOUND FERRY APPLICATION Project Boundaries: The enclosed project proposal includes four parcels of property which are highlighted on the enclosed tax map. The parcels from west to east are: SCTM# 1000-15-9-10.1 is a 1.2 acre site which contains a parking lot for 69 cars: the site plan for which was approved by the Planning Board on June 6, 1995. SCTM# 1000-15-9-11.1 is a 1.4 acre site which contains a ferry terminal/ticket office building and a staging area: the site plan for which approved by the Planning Board on March 30, 1984. SCTM# 1000-15-9-15.1 is a 1.1 acre parcel which contains a pre-existing snack bar and parking area for which no site plan has been approved. This parcel presently is used for overflow parking and is considered by the applicant to have a certain amount of preexisting parking. SCTM# 1000-15-9-3.5 is a vacant, residentially-zoned 2.5 acre parcel which the applicant proposes to use as a parking lot. With the exception of the easternmost parcel (SCTM #1000-15-9-3.5), the remaining parcels are owned by the applicant. The easternmost parcel is owned by Adam C. Wronowski a principal of the applicant, Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. If the Zoning Board of Appeals grants permission for a use variance, the ferry company will acquire this parcel from its principal and will merge it with the snack bar parcel (SCTM# 1000-15-9-15.1). State Route 25 runs between and completely separates parcels SCTM# 1000-15-9-11.1 and SCTM# 1000-15-9-15.1. . . Scope of Review: The actual site plan application before the Planning Board includes just the two easterly parcels. The application before the Zoning Board involved the easternmost parcel only. Pursuant to SEQR requirements, we are looking at the entire ferry operation as it presently exists. Context of Review: The subject site plan and variance applications before the Town were submitted in response to the Town's request for a site plan to address the intensified usage of the site. The Planning Board has the authority to request a site plan (or an amended site plan) when a change in the use or the intensity of use occurs on a business-zoned property. On or about July 19, 1995, Cross Sound Ferry initiated a new high speed, non-vehicular (passenger only) ferry service from its terminals in Orient, LI and New London, Connecticut. This new service reduced travel time between Orient Point and New London from one and a half hours to approximately thirty five minutes. Prior to this date, the ferry service consisted primarily of vehicular transport (cars and trucks). This new service has resulted in incidents where car parking has overflowed onto the adjoining beach area, the shoulders of State Route 25 and the residential-zoned areas surrounding this operation. As announced by the applicant, the high speed passenger-only ferry service was initiated to facilitate transport to the new Foxwoods Casino at Ledyard, Connecticut. (A bus at the New London terminal takes passengers to and from the casino.) The Foxwoods Casino is still under construction; and recent announcements about the construction of additional casinos and a theme park within close proximity to the existing casino together with normal growth mean that the prospect of continued increases in traffic and in parking demand at the Orient site must be taken into consideration, whether the impacts are generated by the operations of the vehicular ferry or by that of the high-speed passenger-only ferry or a combination of the two. All pertinent environmental impacts relevant to the increased level of ferry operations will be considered. Explanation of Enclosed Maps & Materials Three plans are included with this coordination letter: 1. A plan showing a survey of the four subject properties. The . . survey shows existing structures (excluding parking areas) and topography. 2. A site plan showing the proposed parking lot design for the two easterly parcels. 3. A conceptual plan showing an alternative design which incorporates within it use of the entire State Right-of-Way. Although the application before the Planning Board ostensibly incorporates only the two easterly parcels, this SEQR review will encompass the entire site includine; the use of the State R-O-W. ** Please note that the inclusion of the State R-O-W is being done with the knowledge and cooperation of the New York State Department of Transportation. ** Note, also, that if the petition to extend parking into the easternmost, residentially zoned parcel is denied, this agency will proceed with its review of the remainder of the site. In this case, the conceptual plan will be altered to delete the easternmost parcel. The Planning Board will announce lead agency status and its environmental determination of significance at its next scheduled public meeting on August 26, 1996. If any aspect of this proposed project falls within your agency's scope of jurisdiction or permitting authority, we encourage your participation in this coordinated review. Since the enclosed site plans may not provide all the information necessary for your agency's review, please outline your agency's information needs in writing. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to call Robert Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer at 516/765-1938, Monday through Friday from 8 AM to 4 PM. . . Project Description for Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. Situate Orient Town of Southold Suffolk County, N.Y. Jf July, 1996 John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., P.C. "..'8 . . Cross Sound Ferry Introduction Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. operates a ferry service for the transportation of passengers, vehicles and freight across Long Island Sound between Orient Point, New York, and New London, Connecticut. Terminal operations are maintained both at Orient Point and at New London, and consist of vessel mooring facilities and loading ramps, vehicle queuing and parking areas, ferry office, waiting room, snack bar and restroom facilities. Aerial view of site taken in late March, 1996; markings shown indicate ground control points used in preparation of topographic mapping of the site. A plan showing existing conditions at the site, titled "Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc." and dated July 25, 1996, is included with this description. John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., P.C. 1 . . Cross Sound Ferrv As a result of litigation instituted by the Town of Southold, Cross Sound and the Town have been engaged in discussions of ways to improve parking conditions at the Orient site. Cross Sound has access to an adjacent 2.5 acre parcel (hereafter termed the "East Parcel") which could be used for additional parking. John J. Raynor, P.E. & LS., P.C., has been retained by Cross Sound to assist in the preparation of a site plan to integrate the East Parcel with existing parking adjacent to the Snack Bar. This project description is intended for transmission to other involved agencies by the Planning Board in connection with the procedure for designation of a SEQR lead agency. Existlna Use Cross Sound currently owns land east of the easterly end of State Route 25, which land currently supports a building housing a snack bar and an unpaved parking area which represents a portion of the company-provided parking for ferry patrons. That property is termed "Snack Bar Parcel" in this description, and it consists of 1.4449 acres as computed from the deed description. It is in the WII zoning district. On the westerly side of the end of State Route 25, Cross Sound owns two other adjacent parcels. One, which we here call the "Terminal Parcel," is immediately adjacent to the end of the highway, and includes the ferry terminal building and the paved staging area for vehicles waiting to board a ferry. Just west of that facility, the "West Parcel" includes a permeable surfaced parking area and an unused building. John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., P.C. 2 . . Cross Sound Ferry View facing westerly across parking on Snack Bar Parcel toward Terminal Building, with Snack Bar building visibie at left. ProDosecI Addition East of the Snack Bar Parcel is property owned by Adam C. Wronowski, individually and as custodian for Jessica Wronowski, which currently is zoned R-80. Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc., can acquire the Wronowski property, termed in this report the "East Parcel", and provide additional parking spaces. For purposes of preparation of a site plan, it is assumed that these two parcels will be treated as a single lot. John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., P.C. 3 . . Cross Sound FelTY View facing westerly across East Parcel toward Snack Bar, showing vacant area with existing parking in background, The Site Plan Cross Sound submitted a site plan dated June 13, 1996, and revised June 28, 1996, a copy of which accompanies this project description. That plan depicts a re-design and expansion of parking facilities east of the end 9f Route 25, and pertains only to the "Snack Bar" parcel and the "East Parcel'. In submitting that plan, Cross Sound has applied simultaneously to the Planning Board (for site plan approval) and to the Zoning Board of Appeals (for permission to expand a parking lot into a residentially zoned parcel). Alternative Intearated Site Plan During its initial review of the site plan described above, the Planning Board expressed to Cross Sound a desire to incorporate in the review process an alternate site plan which would encompass all. four of the Cross Sound parcels John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., P.C. 4 . . Cross Sound FelTY ("West", "Terminal", "Snack Bar" and "East") as well as that portion of Route 25 that runs southerly to the ferry dock. In communicating that request, the Planning Board said that there has been some indication from NYSDOT that the subject portion of Route 25 might be included in an overall site plan, subject to appropriate legal arrangements, and that the Planning Board felt that some depiction of such a coordinated site plan was appropriate to an effective review of the current application. Cross Sound has provided the Alternative Integrated Site Plan ( the "Alternative") that accompanies this description in compliance with the Planning Board's request. The "Alternative" provides for an organized method of sorting approaching vehicles into a short term parking and dropoff component, a departing vehicle and passenger component, a long term parking component, and a component returning to Route 25 westbound. In addition, it provides for a traffic signal within the Cross Sound site to modulate westbound vehicles as they leave the site to insure that reasonable gaps in the traffic flow are generated systematically. PostscrlDt This description is intended simply to assist involved agencies in considering whether or not to seek lead agency status, and to clarify the inter- relationship of the drawings included. Prepared: July 31, 1996 John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., P.C. 5 Southold Town: County: State: . . Town Board Building Dept. Zoning Board of Appeals Board of Trustees P.O. Box 1655 Southold, NY 11971 Vito Minei, Supervisor Department of Ecology Department of Health Services County Center Riverhead, NY 11901 Stephen Jones, Director Department of Planning P.O. Box 6100 Hauppauge, NY 11788 John C. Murray, Planner Transportation Division Department of Public Works 335 Yaphank Ave. Yaphank, NY 11980 William Sickles, Superintendent Department of Parks, Recreation & Conservation P.O. Box 144, Montauk Hwy. W. Sayville, NY 11796-0144 George Stafford, Director Coastal Resources & Waterfront Revitalization Division New York Department of State 162 Washington Ave. Albany, NY 12231 Michael D. Zagata, Commissioner New York Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Rd. Albany, NY 12233 . . Roger Evans, Director NYSDEC Bldg. 40, SUNY Rm. 219 Stony Brook, NY 11790 Darrel Kost, Regional Env. Coordinator Dept. of Transportation State Office Building 250 Veterans Memorial Hwy. Hauppauge, NY 11788 Barry Hecht Passenger Transportation Division NYS Dept. of Transportation W. Averell Harriman State Office Building Campus 1220 Washington Ave. Floor & Rm. 4-115 Albany, NY 12232 Thomas Lyons, Director Environmental Management Bureau Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation Bldg. 1, 13th Floor Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12238 Federal: Dr. Alphonso Tones, Acting Director Division of Agricultural Research-Plum Island U.S. Department of Agriculture P.O.Box 848 Greenport, NY 11944 US Army Corp of Engineers NY District Jacob K. Javits Federal Bldg. New York, NY 10278-0090 Attn: Regulatory Branch Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 26 Federal Plaza Room 1338 New York, NY 10278 Attn: Response & Recovery Division . . PART 1-PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist In determining whether the action proposed mav have a significant effec on the environment. Please cQmplete the entire form, Parts A through E Answers to these questions will be conslderec as part of the application for ~p.proval 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. ~ unavailable. so indicate and specif\ each instance. terT:1inal NAME OF ACTION Ex. ansion of off-street ark in facilities at existin LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street Address, Munlclpallty and County) S/S Main Road (west of terminal) and E/S Main Road (east of :erminalJ NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR ( ind i vidua lly & as ellS tad ian) 9USINESS 7ELEPHONE Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. & Adam C. Wronowski '5161 J69-1iOO ADDRESS c/o William W. CITY/PO 108 East Esseks, ESQ.; Main Street, Esseks. Hefter & An~el P. O. Box 2i9, Riverhead NAME OF OWNER (If different) Same as above ADDRESS -", I STATE ZIP CODE NY 11901 BUSINESS TELEPHONE ( ) CITY/PO STATE ZIP CODE DESCRIPTION OF ACTION The applicants are see~ng a public utility use 'Jariance to allow parking on a 2.498 acre parcel zoned R-80. A waiver or variance with regard to the size of parking spaces is also being sought in order to maximize off-street parking on a parcel that contains an existing gravel parking area. If the variance is grantedt the numb~r of spaces will increase from 69 to 80. this 1.193 acre parcel is zoned MIl. Please Complete Each Question -Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site DescrIption Physical setting of overall project. 1 Present land use: DUrban o Forest both developed and undeveloped areas. Olndustrial .Commercial OResidential (suburban) OAgriculture .Other vacant 2.498 acres. (R-80) 1.193 acres (MIl) DRural (non.rarmj 2. Total acreage of project area: APPROXIMATE ACREAGE Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) Forested Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECl) Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock, ear~h or fjll)~( earth rd6d2raveJ:- ) .parK~ng~ rencn ta~ns, wo ~n wa ks Roads, buirdings ana ot er pave surfaces Other (Indicate type) beach Landscape & grass 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? Haven a. Soil drainage: .Well drained is % of s.ite .Poorly drained . 25 ' % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soii grouo 1 land Classification System? 1.69 acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? DYes .No a. What is depth to bedrock? (in feet) PRESENTl Y 1..:i 1 acres o acres o acres o acres o acres . i6 acres . 08 acres .91 acres loam. fil143 land acres & OModerately well drained 2 AFTER COMPLETION o o o o o 2.20 .08 .91 -0 beacfi acres acres acres acres acres acres acres ac:-e5 acres % or Site through 4 of the ""vS . . 5 ,'""\pproximate percentage of proposed project site wIth slopes .0-10% 100 % =10-15% " ,0 =15% or greater % 6 Is project substantially contiguous to. or contain a bUilding, site, or district. listed on the State or the ,""3tlon2 Registers of Historic Places? eYes .No 7 Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? 8 What is the depth of the water table' 3-7:t (in feet) ::JYes .i'\C 9 Is site located over a primarjl; principal, or sole source aquifer? .Yes DNo 10 Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist In the project area? 11 Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified DYes .No According to Joseph Lombardi, Technician Identify each species eYes .No as threatened or endangered? ~re there any DYes unique or unusual land .No Describe forms on the orOlec: site? (ie, cliffs. dunes other geological formations I s the project DYes site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? .No If yes. explain 14 Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? DYes .No 15 Streams within or contiguous to project area: N/ A a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16 Lakes, ponds, wetland areas withIn or contiguous to project area: a. Name Gardiners Bav b 5ize (In acres) 1 i Is the site served by existing public utilities? .Yes uNo a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist -to allow connection? " b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? .Yes DYes DNo D.No 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets law, Article 2S-AA, Section 303 and 3041 DYes .No 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECl, and 6 NYCRR 617.1 .Yes DNo (Peconic Bay Estuary) 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? DYes .No B. Project Description Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill In dimensions as appropriate) a Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor b Project acreage to be developed: 3,691 acres initially: c Project acreage to remain undeveloped nnone acres. d. length of project, in miles: NA (If appropriate) e If the project is an expansion. indicate percent of expansion proposed 220 Number of off-street parking spaces eXisting 221 proposed 486 g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour ,'0" (upon completion of project)? ,b"See attached h If residential: ,'\lumber and type or housing unitS" N/ A letter from Dunn Engineering One Familv Two Famdv ,V\ultiple Familv Condominium 6,468 acres. 6,468 acres ultimately (i, e, "approved & pre-existing parcelsll) %; InltiaJlv u'lt:matelv Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare ~ I, height; project will occupy is? . width: 88 length. ft. 3 j H.JW much natural material (i.e.. rock, earth etc) will be removed from the site? 9&O~'~ . "dredge spoil previousl; ~ Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? .Yes :JNo uN/A a. If yes, for what intend~... purpose is the site being reclaimed? parking area b Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? .Ves DNo c Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation' eVes .No 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? 1.51 acres. 5. Will anV mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? DYes .No . - tons/cubic vards deposited on site. 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 7 If multi-phased: N/A a Total number or phases anticipated b Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 c Approximate completion date of final phase d Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? 2 months. (including demolition). year, (including demolition year month :::JYes DNa 8. Will blasting occur during construction? DVes .No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction none ; after project is complete 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project none 11, Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? DVes .No If yes, explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? DYes .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? DVes .No Type 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? DYes .No " Explain 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? .Yes DNo 16. Will the project generate solid'waste? DYes .No a. If yes, what is the amount per month tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? DYes DNo c. If yes, give name ; location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? DYes DNo e. If Yes, explain 17 Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? a, Ir yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? b If yes. what is the anticipated site life? DVes .No tons/month. years. 18 Will project use herbicides or pesticides? DYes .No 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? DVes .No 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? .Ves DNo If yes indicate type(s) Electricity for parkinR area li!';hting DYes .No 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity N/A gallons/minute. 23 Total anticipated water usage per day N/A gallons/day 24 Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? If Ves, explain DYes .No 4 ~'f; 25. Approvals Required: . . Type Submittal Date City, Town, Village Board Cltv Town, Village Planning Board Citv 7"own Zoning Board (itv County Health Department eYes .No .Yes [:,'10 .Yes [:,'10 DYes .No Site Plan Public Utility Use variance ParK~n~ SDace SIze varIance Pending 11/9/95 Other Local Agencies Other Regional Agencies State Agencies NYSDEC Federal Agencies DYes Sl,lffolk Ctv. P lannlng cOI1lJl8Yes .Yes DYes .'10 DNo Zon ing Ac tion Tidal Wetland Permit DNo .No pending pending c. Zoning and Planning Information Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? .Yes ONo If Yes. indicate decision required' Czoning amendment .zonlng variance Ospecial use permit Dsubdivision .site plan . Gnew/revision of master plan Oresource management plan Oother 2 What is the zoning classlficatlon(sJof the Site' _.1111 & R-80 3 What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? s aces on l1~rI arcel & 219 s aces on R-80 arcel 4 What is the proposed zoning of the site? Puh lie Ut i 1 i tv Use 5 What is the maximl,lm potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? Cl,lrrent proposal represents maximum development 6 Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? .Yes ONo 7 What are theipredominant land use(s) and zoni!1g classifications within a lj. m!'e radi.us of(Qro.po~ed action? ommerc.al overnmentata n RESO 1~~ ~~stII) to west; Resldentlal R-~O) to north and 8 Is the proposed action compatible with adjOining/surrounding land uses within a l/. mile? 9 If the proposed action is the subdivision of land. how many lots are proposed? N/ A a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? :0 Will proposed action require~a'hY authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? .Yes DNo 11 Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police. fire protection)? DYes .No a. If yes. is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand' DYes DNo 12 Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? a. If yes. IS the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic' *i' DYes ** see attached letter from Dunn Engineering D. Informational Details DYes .No DYes DNo DNo Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse rmpacts assocIated with your proposal. please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or aVOid them E. Verification : certdy that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. / John J. Raynor. P.E., L.S., p.c. as agent for the applicant sponsor ~PPlicant/Sponsor. : N~:ynae e ,- . Date 11/9/95 >'gnature OJ -.;~ (Joseph Lombardi) Title Technician If the acrtt.. is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. 5 . . ~,-:; g:] Reports Design Environmental Planning John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., p.c. Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor Deerfield Green P.O. Box 720 Montauk Highway Water Mill, New York 11976 Phone: (516) 726-7600 August 1, 1996 Ms. Valerie Scopaz Southold Town Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Cross Sound Ferry Dear Ms. Scopaz: I am pleased to deliver herewith 20 sets of the three site plan drawings shown at the Planning Board meeting this past Monday evening, together with 20 copies of a project description, for your use in referrals for designation of SEQR lead agency. , aynor, P.E., L.S. cc: Cross Sound Ferry William W. Esseks, Esq. "iG ......1.,1 "-',if , GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS ........~UFFDl;~~-O'c. .}v,,\,~ "a '" /~.~." ;'.." .~~; \J :::::, :....::. ~ :~ Q . ' ~ CIO :e \~ ~ "'" *' . ~" ~:~j ... ,+:~~J -"-<~:::::::::_,~:;~_lf- - . PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS RICHARD G. WARD Chairman 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 July 30, 1996 William Esseks, Esq. 108 East Main St. Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: Proposed site plan for Cross Sound Ferry SCTM# 1000-1S-9-10.1, 11.1, 15.1 & 3.5 Dear Mr. Esseks: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting heid on Monday, July 29, 1996: BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board start the coordination process on this Type I action. The subject property is classified as a Type i action because it is considered an unlisted action that exceeds 25 percent of the threshold of a project or action invoiving the physical alteration of 10 acres and occurring substantially contiguous to any publiCly owned or operated parkland. The property subject to alteration is 3,93 acres and is contiguous to County owned parkiand. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. nee{ '/I1M / \jfi;~id d . tYZPf \ Chairman cc: John Raynor , . 5u...I2F F'8 ~. Submission Without a Cover Letter Sender: John ROI~nO( Date: 7/2- q Iq (" Subject: Cross Sound Fur~ SCTM#: 15"- q-II Comments: J (t-lIl'sed plan "\ r~ Wi i5 n \\'i i ~ ;~.g~_<~ ~:-'N.Il.-~.., .; JUL291996 . . .' . .Eric Lamont, Ph.D. Botanist 717 Sound Shore Road, Riverhead, N.Y. 11901 Tel: 516n22-5542 ~ ~ 5 September 1996 Jean W. Cochran, Supervisor Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179, 53095 Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 RE: Potential Negative Environmental Impacts and the Proposed Development by Cross Sound Ferry Co. Dear Supervisor Cochran: Plans by Cross Sound Ferry Co. to increase the parking facilities at the Orient Point terminal may result in the destruction of a globally rare plant population. Seabeach Knotweed (Polygonum glaucum) is known to occur from sandy beaches at nearby Orient Beach State Park, and suitable habitat for this rare plant also occurs in the vicinity of the ferry terminal. In addition, seventeen other rare plant species have been recently documented from Orient Beach State Park; some may occur near or at the proposed development site. Enclosed is a copy of the scientific publication, "The Vascular Flora of Orient Beach State Park, Long Island, New York," which I authored in 1991 with Dr. Richard Stalter from St. John's University. Twenty years of botanical studies on Long Island induces me to state that the entire eastern tip of the Orient Peninsula supports the greatest diversity of plant life in the Township of Southold. Therefore, I urge you to declare the need for a full Environmental Impact Statement before any development occurs anywhere near the vicinity of the Orient Point ferry terminal. If I may be of further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me. ~~ Eric Lamont, Ph.D. Enclosures '" . . BuLletin a/the TOTTey Botanical Club 118(4), 1991, pp. 459-468 TORREYA The vascular flora of Orient Beach State Park, Long Island, New Yorkl Eric E, Lamont New York Botanical Garden, Bronx. NY 10458-9980 Richard Stalter Department of Biological Sciences, St. John's University. Jamaica, NY 11439 ~ ABSTRACT LAMONT, E. E. (N. Y. Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY 10458) AND R. STALTER (Dept. Bioi. Sci., St. John's Univ., Jamaica, NY 11439). The vascular flora of Orient Beach State Park, Long Island, New York. Bull. Torrey BoL Oob 118: 459-468. 1991.- The vascular ftora of Orient Beach State Park, New York, is based exclusively on collections made by the authors from April 1988 to October 1990. Altogether. 277 vascular plant species in 183 genera and 67 families are reported here. The largest families are Poaceae (49 species) and Asteraceae (48 species), and the largest genera are Aster. Solidago, Po/ygonum. and Panicum. The park's current flora is compared with a 1934 flora published by Latham. Natural plant communities of the park are described and discussed. Eighteen plant species have been designated as rare in New York State (Oemants 1989; Mitchell 1986). Key words: flora, Orient Beach State Park, Long Island, New York, maritime vegetation. Orient Beach State Park (OBSP), Buffolk Co., New York, is located 00 the north fork of Long Island just southwest of Orient Point (Lat. 41"08'N, Long. nOl6'W, U.S. Geol.Serv. 1956). The park consists ofa 6.4 Ian long, recurved spit varying in width from about 550 m near the park's center to less than 50 m near the western end. OBSP is bordered by Gardiner's Bay on the south and Little Bay, Long Beach Bay, and Ori- ent Harbor on the north. The geological features of OBSP reflect effects of longshore sediment drift from ocean currents originating to the east, and the combined action of wind and water during severe stonns and hur- ricanes. Land elevation averages less than I m above sea level and ranges from sea level to 3 m. The park has been completely submerged be- neath salt water twice during the past 60 years. The park exhibits a series of storm ridges com~ posed of coarse sands, pebbles, cobbles, and oc- I We acknowledge with gratitude the assistance of Raymond Dobbins, for unrestricted access to OBSP and for providing transportation to areas of difficult access; Florence Horton, for historical information; Robert Meyer, for assistance in identifying grasses; the late Joseph Beitel, for sharing the location of Selagi- nella rupestris; and Alisa Abatelli, for assistance in preparing herbarium specimens. Received for publication November 13, 1990, and in revised form February 22, 1991. casionally shells. The ridges fonned where storm waves piled up coarse materials well above nor- mal high-tide level. Stonn ridges are almost nev- er composed of sand, since finer sediments are swept into deeper water by stonn waves rather than being built into ridges (Komar 1976). There is a slight accumulation of surface humus on some of the wooded ridges. Depressions containing salt marshes and salt water ponds occur between stonn ridges. A number of storm washover lobes extend from ridges into the salt marshes. Orient Beach State Park was established in 1929 by the Long Island State Park and Recreation Commission. In 1934 Roy Latham published a flora of the new State park that included brief descriptions of plant communities and an an~ notated checklist consisting of227 vascular plant species. Latham (1934) described an area rela- tively undisturbed by human influence, with only 8% of the flora consisting of non.native species. Invasive alien plants such as Phragmites aus- tra/is and Taraxacum officina/e were not re. ported from the park. Of particular interest. La- tham noted, was a mature maritime red cedar forest that would later be classified as a rare plant community in New York State (Reschke 1990). Latham (1934) also noted that OBSP was near the northern range limit of several southern plant species (e.g., Fimbristy/is castanea and Si/ene caro/iniana var. pensy/vanica), and the southern 459 :oi'D' . . 460 BULLETIN OF THE TORREY BOTANICAL CLUB [VOL. 118 range limit of several northern species (e.g., Li- gusticum scothicum and Draba replans). The park has been in the path of many severe northeasters and hurricanes, which have had considerable impact upon the vegetation. Some of the more memorable hunicanes were in 1938, 1944,1954,1968, and 1978. Many upland vascular plant species reported by Latham (1934) no longeI occur at OBSP: Tilia americana. Carya glabra. Geranium maculatum, Circaea lutetiana ssp. canadensis. Solidago cae- sia, Heracleum lanatum, and Smilacina race- mosa. Brodo (1968) also noted the subsequent disappearance of many lichen species reported by Latham from Orient Point. In a letter (29 May 1960) to Brodo (see Brodo 1968), Latham de- scribed the effects of the great hurricanes of 1938 and 1944 on lichens at OBSP: "Salt water fiooded all of this beach which was exposed to gales and rolling waves and the beach was swept as clean as a new house floor. In places the water was four to six feet in depth and washed the bark lichens from the low cedar trunks and wrenched the branch-growing species away. All traces of Us- neas and Ramalinas disappeared in the stonn. I don't think these two species have appeared there since. The Oadonias showed a fair comeback in two years, but not in the abundance or large growth of the old days. After the second hurri- cane of 1944, the beach was again washed by high flood tides and left [in] about the same con- dition as in 1938." The 1938 hurricane washed away the concrete road leading to the park, temporarily making OBSP an island. In 1939 the narrow eastern ap- proach to the park, between Gardiner's Bay and Little Bay, was elevated with ufill" and a new road was constructed on the narrow neck. Many natural landscape features of the park's eastern neck had been totally obliterated or altered. After the 1968 storm, gabions filled with rocks were placed on the shore along the park entrance road, and Pinus thunbergii was planted to stabilize soil. Since 1986, P. thunbergii at OBSP has been dying in large numbers (see Daughtrey and Kowalsick 1988). During the 1950's and 1960's, park visitation increased and construction began on new picnic grounds, concession stands, bathhouses, play- grounds, and maintenance buildings. All devel- opment was restricted to the park's eastern half (Orient Beach), while the park's western half (Long Beach) remained natural and relatively un- disturbed by human influence. Roads were never constructed along Long Beach, and several areas were designated as bird sanctuaries. Public access to the park's west end was restricted and in some cases prohibited. In 1980 the United States De- partment of Interior designated Long Beach a '.National Natural Landmark," concluding that: "this site possesses exceptional value as an il- lustration of the n~tion's natural heritage and contributes to a better understanding of man's environment" (Secretary of the Interior 1980). Since the fiora of OBSP had not been system- atically studied in almost 60 years, the authors initiated the present study. The objectives of the study were to obtain a current record of the veg- etation of OBSP, and to compare the current fiora with the 1934 fiora reported by Latham. Methods. Orient Beach State Park was sam- pled at least twice a month from April 1988 through October 1990 for a total of about 46 field days. Herbarium voucher specimens of each taxon were prepared and deposited at OBPL; some specimens are also kept on duplicate file at NY. The species checklist of OBSP (Appendix I) contains an inventory of the vascular plants that reproduce spontaneously and persist for more than one year without cultivation, including na- tive taxa, naturalized and adventive weeds, and escapes from cultivation. Vascular plants col- lected at OBSP by the current authors but not reported by Latham (1934) are designated in the checldist by an addition sign (+). Species re- ported by Latham (1934) but not collected by the current authors are designated in the checklist by an exclamation point (!). All non-native spe- cies are designated by an asterisk (0). Species collected by both the current authors and Latham (1934) are preceded by no symbol, unless they are not native. The checklist is divided into four categories: Pteridophyta, Pinophyta, Magno- liophyta: Magnoliopsida, and Magnoliophyta: Liliopsida. Nomenclature follows that of Mitch- ell (1986) and the concept of families follows that of Cronquist (1981). Results, The current vascular fiora of OBSP consists of 67 families, 183 genera, and 277 spe- cies of which 156 (56%) are native (Table 1). New records for the park number 141 species; 104 (74%) of these are non-native. Panicum leuco- thrix is a state record for New York (see Mitchell 1986). The Poaceae, with 31 genera and 49 spe- cies, and the Asteraceae, with 29 genera and 48 species, are the largest families. Together they comprise 33% of all genera and 35% of all spe- .....")",,,' . 1991] . LAMONT AND STALTER: FLORA OF ORIENT BEACH STATE PARK 461 Table 1. Statistical summary and comparison of the 1990 and 1934 vascular flora of Orient Beach State Park. Long Island, New York. I Pteridophytes Conifers Dicots MonocolS Tolai 1990 (1934) 1990 (1934) 1990 (1934) 1990 (1934) 1990 (1934) Families 2(4) 2(2) 53 (49) 10(8) 67 (63) Genera 3 (4) 2 (2) 133 (116) 45 (36) 183 (158) Species 3 (4) 3 (2) 203 (165) 68 (56) 277 (227) Native species 3 (4) 2 (2) 112 (ISO) 39 (53) 156 (209) Introduced species ~ 0(0) 1 (0) 91 (16) 29 (3) 121 (19) I Native and introduced taxa that reproduce spontaneously. cies. Other large families are Rosaceae (9 gen., 19 spp.), Caryophyllaceae (10 gen., 14 spp.), Fa- baceae (9 gen., 13 spp.), .chenopodiaceae (6 gen., 12 spp.), Brassicaceae (10 gen., II spp.), and Po- Iygonaceae (3 gen., 10 spp.). The largest genera are: Aster. Solidago. Polygonum (each with 7 spp.), Panicum (6 spp.), Rubus, Trifolium, and Plantago (each with 5 spp.). When the flora is analyzed by habitat (see Reschke 1990), it is not- ed that 17 species are present in the beach com- munity, 56 occur in the swale community, 23 occur in the salt marsh community, 62 Occur in the maritime forest community, while the great majority, 145, occur in various disturbed habi- tats such as roadsides, parking lots, and near buildings. A statistical summary of the compo- sition of the vascular flora ofOBSP is presented in Table I. Latham (1934) reported an additional 89 spe- cies from OBSP not collected by the authors. The total number of species reported from OBSP by all investigators, past and present, is 366 species. A comparison of numbers of species from OBSP collected by Latham (1934) and the current au- thors is presented in Table 1. Species richness of the flora of Orient Beach (OBSP-east) is compared with that of Long Beach (OBSP-west) in Table 2. The species/area quo- tient was calculated to indicate species richness to area. The Orient Beach portion of OBSP is richer in species than the Long Beach portion, a direct result of the increased number of intro- duced. non-native species into the park's east end, due to increased visitor use. Forty seven percent of the Orient Beach flora consists of non- native species, while 19% of the Long Beach flora consists of non.natives. Discussion. The vegetation of Orient Beach State Park can be classified into three general plant communities: maritime beach and swale, maritime forest, and coastal salt marsh. The con- cept of plant communities is based upon Reschke (1990). , MARmME BEACH AND SWALE COMMUNITY. Drift lines and areas of occasional overwash are sparsely vegetated by annual plant species, most notably Cakile edentula. Salsola lalli, Chamae- syce polygonifolia, Atriplex pa/Ula, A. arenaria, and Pa/ygonum g/aucum. Characteristic peren- nials include Honkenya pep/aides ssp. robusta and Solidago sempervirens. The upper beach, located above the normal high-tide level, is vegetated by Ammophila bre- viligulata, Artemisia ste//eriana, Lathyrus japon- icus var. glaher, Solidago sempervirens, and Car- ex si/icea. Primary dune systems do not Occur at OBSP. Instead, beaches usually have a storm ridge on their shoreward limits where storm waves have piled up coarse material above the normal high-tide level. The landward side of these ridges is generally vegetated by Ammophila breviligu- lata, Hudsonia tomentosa, Lechea maritima. Po- /ygone//a articulata. Silene caroliniana var. pen- sy/vanica, Toxicodendron radicans, Rosa rugosa. Myrica pensylvanica. and Prunus maritima. Arc- tostaphylos uva-ursi, a common plant at Fire Is- land National Seashore, N.Y. (Stalter et al. 1986), was not collected at OBSP, although Latham (1934) listed the species as common throughout the park. MARmME FOREST COMMUNITY. The forest at OBSP consists of two types: maritime oak forest, dominated by Quercus stel/ata and Q. velutina, and maritime red cedar forest dominated by Ju- niperus virginiana. Table 2. Comparison of species richness between eastern Orient Beach State Park (Orient Beach) and western Orient Beach State Park (Lone Beach). Area Don') Species richness Spp.larea quotient Native species Introduced species Orient Beach (OBSP--east) 0.7 240 343 127 113 LoDS Beach (OBSP.west) 0.9 146 162 118 2g ;j;lIjV . 462 . BULLETIN OF THE TORREY BOTANICAL CLUB [VOL. 118 The maritime oak forest occurs on the widest, most stable portions of OBSP, usually about 2 m above sea level. Soils there are well-drained and composed of fine sand with a slight accu- mulation of organic matter. The trees are usually stunted and ftat.topped because the canopies are pruned by salt spray, sand blow-up, cold wind, and winter ice. The canopy of a mature stand may be only 5 to 7 m tall. The dominant trees are Quercus stel/ata and Q. velutina. Other char- acteristic trees include Prunus serotina, Pinus rigida. and sometimes Quercus marilandica. Vines such as Toxicodendron radicans and Smi. lax rotundifolia dominate the understory. The maritime red cedar forest at OBSP is con. sidered rare in New York State, where fewer than five occurrences of the plant community have been documented. It is "especially vulnerable to extirpation in New York State" (Reschke 1990). Conard (1935) first documented this plant com- munity on Long Island at Asharoken Beach, Huntington. Greller (1977) briefly commented on the community, conduding that: "vegeta. tional data are scarce and incomplete for this type." Reschke (1990) also stated that: "more data on this community are needed:' In re. sponse, the present authors are currently con. dueting ecological studies of the maritime red cedar forest at GBSP. The maritime red cedar forest at OBSP occurs on a series of parallel stann ridges composed of coarse sands, pebbles, and cobbles. There is very little accumulation of surface humus. Between storm ridges are depressions containing salt marshes. Juniperus virginiana is the dominant tree on the ridges, where it forms nearly pure stands. Toxicodendron radicans is usually com- mon in the understory. Shrubs are uncommon in the understory; Myrica pensylvanica and Gay. lussacia baccata are scattered throughout some ridges. A characteristic groundlayer species is Opuntia humifusa, which often forms large, dense populations. Other groundlayer plants include Ligusticum scothicum, Selaginella rupestTis, and M oehringia lateriflora. COASTAL SALT MARsH COMMUNITY. The salt marsh community at OBSP occurs along the sheltered north shore bordering Little Bay and Long Beach Bay, and commonly extends into depressions between storm ridges. The vegeta. tion of the low salt marsh is almost exclusively a monospecific stand of Spartina alterniflora. The high salt marsh is dominated by Spartina patens. Distich/is spicata. a dwarf form of Spartina a/- ternijlora, and Juncus gerardi. Common species of the upper slope of the high marsh are Limo- nium caro/inianum, Aster tenuifolius, and Iva [rutescens. Salt pannes occur in both low and high salt marshes where the marsh is poorly drained. Pannes in the low marsh usually lack vegetation, but pannes in the high marsh are usu. ally vegetated by Salicornia europaea, S. virgi- nica, Spergularia marina, Pluchea odorata var. succulenta, and Triglochin maritimum. Plantago maritima ssp.juncoides.listed by Latham (1934) as very common at OBSP, was not observed dur. ing the current investigation. A shrubland com- munity dominated by [va frutescens and Bac- charis halimifolia forms the ecotone between salt marsh and upland vegetation. RARE Pu.Nrs. Ten native and eight non-na- tive species currently observed at OBSP are con- sidered rare in New York State (Clemants 1989; Mitchell 1986). Panicum /eucothrix, Quercus marilandica, Silene caroliniana var. pensylvan- ica, Atriplex arenaria, Conyza canadensis var. pusil/a. and Plantago pusil/a are all southern spe- cies at or near the northern limit of their range at OBSP (Gleason and Cronquist 1963). All six species usually occur in dry, sandy or gravelly soils. Ligusticum scothicum is a northern species near the southern limit of its range at OBSP; Polygonum tenue, P. glaucum, and Cirsium hor. ridulum are also rare native plants in New York. The eight rare species not native at OBSP are: Aira praecox, Bassia hirsuta, Chenopodium des- sicatum, C. hybridum, Chloris verticil/ata, G/au- cium jIavum, Leucanthemum nipponicum, and Wisteria sinensis. Latham (1934) reported an additional 13 rare plant species from OBSP not observed by the current investigators. Latham's (1934) 10 native rare species are: Acalypha graci/ens, Aga/inis maritima, Carex horrruzthodes. Cyperus poiy- stachyos var. macrostachyus, Draba reptans. Fimbristy/is castanea, Oenothera oakesiana. Onosmodium virginianum. Paspalum setaceum var. muhlenbergii, and Potentilla anserina ssp. pacifica. The 3 non-native rare species are: Ce- rastium semidecandrum, H olosteum umbella- turn, and Mirabilis linearis. Summary, The vegetation of the western half of Orient Beach State Park (Long Beach) remains relatively pristine and very similar to the vege. tation as described there by Latham (1934). Many rare plants reported by Latham (1934) still per- sist at OBSP-west. Only 19% of the OBSP-west ... . . 19911 LAMONT AND STALTER: FLORA OF ORIENT BEACH STATE PARK 463 flora consists of nonwnative species. The vege- tation of the eastern half of the park has under- gone significant changes. Eighty five native plant species reported by Latham (1934) from OBSP are now apparently extirpated from the park. One hundred and four non-native species have been introduced to the park since 1934, of which 23 species are grasses (Poaceae). Most of the alien species are thus concentrated in the park's east~ ern half (Table 2). The loss of many nati~e plant species and the addition of new species, especially grasses, re- flects the ever-changing environment of OBSP. Human disturbance and natural forces, such as salt spray and periodic flooding during frequent northeasters and infrequent hurricanes, are re. sponsible for the dynamic environment and dy- namic flora of the park. Literature Cited BRODQ, I. M. 1968. The lichens of Long Island, New York: A vegetational and floristic analysis. N.Y.S. Mus. Bull. No. 410, Albany, NY. CuMANTS, S. E. [cd.] 1989. New York rare plant status list. N.Y. Natural Heritage Program, N.Y.S. Dept. Environ. Conservation, Latham, NY. 26 p. CONARD, H. S. 1935. The plant associations of central Long Island. Amer. Midi. Natur. 16: 433-515. CRONQUIST, A. 1981. An integrated system ofclas- sification of flowering plants. Columbia Univ. Press, NY. 1262 p. DAUGHTREY, M. AND T. KOWALSICK. 1988. The lap. anese black pine- What's happening? Home Hart. Facts, Cornell Cooperative Extension, Riverhead, NY.4p. GLEASON, H. A. AND A. CRONQUIST. 1963. Manual of vascular plants ofnoI1heastern United States and adjacent Canada. Willard Grant Press, Boston. 810 p. GRELLa., A. M. 1977. A classification armature for. ests on Long Island, New York. Bull. Torrey Bot. Oub 104: 376-382. KoMAR. P. D. 1976. Beach processes and sedimen~ tation. Prentice.Hall Press, NJ. 429 p. LATHAM, R. 1934. Flora of the state park, Orient, Long Island, N.Y. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 34: 139- 149. MITCHEu.. R. S. 1986. A checklist of New York State plants. N.Y.S. Mus. Bull. No. 458. 272 p. RESCHKE, C. 1990. Ecological communities of New York State. N.Y. Natural Heritage Program, N.Y.S. Dept. Environ. Conservation, Latham, NY. 96 p. SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. 1980. National Natural . Landmarks Program. Dept. of the Interior, Nat!. Park Service, Washington, DC. STALTER, R., E. LAMONT. AND l. NORTHUP. 1986. Vegetation of Fire Island. New York. Bull Torrey Bot. Oub 113: 298-306. U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY. 1956. Orient, New York Quadrangle (map). Appendix Checklist of the Vascular Flora of Orient Beach State Park, New York. Nomenclature follows that of Mitchell (1986) and the concept of families and higher categories follows that of Cronquist (1981). An asterisk (0) indicates a non-native taxon, an addition sign (+) indicates a new record for OBSP, and an exclamation point (!) indicates a taxon reported by Latham (1934) but not observed by the current authors. Taxa collected by both the current authors and Latham (1934) are preceded by no symbol, unless they are not native. PTERIDOPHYTA Aspleniaceae + Asplenium plalyneuron (L.) BSP. ! Polystichum acrostichoides (Michx..) Schott + Thelypteris palustris Schon Cyatheaceae ! Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn Polypodiaceae ! Polypodium virginianum L Selaginellaceae Selaginella rupes/ris (L.) Spring PINOPHYTA Cupressaceae Juniperus virginiana L. Pinaceae Pinus rigida Mill. + * P. thunbergii ParI. MAGNOLIOPHYTA-MAGNOLIOPSIDA Aceraceae +* Acer pseudoplatanus L + A. rubrum L. Amaranthaceae +* Amaranthus retroj/exus L. Anacardiaceae Rhus copallinum L R. glabra L. Toxicodendron radicans (L.) Kuntze Apiaceae +* Daucus carota L ! Heracleum /anatum Michx.. - . 464 . BULLETIN OF THE TORREY BOTANICAL CLUB [VOL. 118 Ligusticum scothicum L. ! Sanicu/a marilandica L Apocynaceae + Apocynum cannabinum L. Aquifoliaceae + /lex opaca Ait. ! I. verticil/ala (L.) Gray Araliaceae ! Aralia nudicaulis L. ~ Asclepiadaceae + Asclepias incarnata L. Vat. pulchra (Willd.) Pers. A. syriaca L. ! A. verticil/ala L. Asteraceae . Achil/ea rnillefolium L. Ambrosia anemisiifo/ia L. ! Antennaria p/antaginifolia (L.) Richards. +* Arctium minus (Hill) Bemh. Artemisia campeslris L. ssp. cautlala (Michx.) Hall & Clem. . A. ste/leriana Besser +. A. vulgaris L. + Aster divaricalus L. ! A. dumosus L. A. ericoides L. ! A. /inariifolius L. ! A. novi~belgU L. A. patens Ait. ! A. paternus Cronq. + A. pi/oms WilId. A. subulatus Michx. A. tenuifolius L. ! A. umbel/alus Mill. A. unduJatus L. Baccharis halimifolia L. ! Bidens discoidea (T. & G.) Britt. +* Cemaurea macu/osa Lam. +* Cichorium intybus L. +* Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. e. horriduJum Michx. +* C. vulgare (Savi) Tenore Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. var. canaden. sis + C. canadensis (L.) Conq. var. pusil/a (Nutt.) Cronq. + * Coreopsis lanceo/ata L. Erechtites hieracifolia (L.) DC. I En"geron pulche//us Michx. E. strigosus Willd. Euthamia graminifo/ia (L.) Cass. + * Galinsoga d/iala (Raf.) Blake Gnaphalium obtusifo/ium L. G. u/iginosum 1- +* He/ianthus annuus L ! H. divaricatus L. ! H. giganteus L. +* Hieradum caespitosum Dumort. ! H. granovU L ! H. venosum L /vafrulescens L. ssp. oraria (Bartl.) Jackson Krigia virginica (L.) Willd. Lactuca canadensis L. + * L. se"iola L. + * Leucanthemum nipponicum Maxim. + * L vulgare Lam. ! Liatris scariosa (L.) Willd. var. novae-angliae LuneH +* Matricaria matricarioides (Less.) Porter !* Onopordum acanthium L Pityopsis fa/cata (Pursh) Small P/uchea odorata (L.) Casso var. succulenta (Fern.) Cronq. ! Prenanthes trifoliolata (Cass.) Fern. +* Senecio vulgaris L. Solidago bic%r L ! S. caesia L. S. canadensis L. Vat. scabra (Muhl.) T. & G. S. juncea Ait. S. nemoralis Ait. S. odora Ait. S. rugosa Mill. S. sempervirens L. +* Taraxacum officinale Wiggers Xanthiumstrumarium L vat. canadense(Mill.) T.&G. Berberidaceae +* Berberis thunbergii DC. Betulaceae + Betu/a populifolia Marsh. Boraginaceae +* Myosotis stricta R. & S. ! Onosmodium virginianu,:" (L.) A. DC. Brassicaceae +* Arabidopsis tha/iana (L) Heynh. Arabis g/abra (L.) Bernh. +* Barbarea verna (Mill.) Aschers. +* B. vulgaris R. Br. +* Berteroa iMana (L) DC. Cakile edentuia (BigeL) Hook. +* Capsella bursa.pastoris (L.) Medic. Cardamine parviflora L var. arenicola (Britt.) Schulz ! Draba reptans (Lam.) Fern. * D. verna L. + Lepidium virginicum L + * Raphanus raphanistrum L. Cactaceae Opuntla humifusa (Raf.) Rat: Caesalpinlaceae ! Cassia chamaecrista L Campaoulaceae ! Lobelia inflma L Triorianis peifoliala (L.) Nieuwl. "'~_'"""__'__'.___.,u,_,__"",,"_____..___.._....._.,..,. ..' ._....... ....~."',.._..__. _,...."...... - . 19911 . LAMONT AND STALTER, FLORA OF ORIENT BEACH STATE PARK 465 Caprifoliaceae +- Lonicerajaponica Thunb. +. L. tatarica L Sambucus canadensis L. ! Triosteum perfoliacum L. Caryophyllaceae .. Arenaria serpyllifolia L. +* Cerastiumfontanum Baumg. ssp. trivia/e(l..i.nk) lala, !'" C. semidecandrum L. +* Dianthus armeria L. !'" Holosteum umbel/alum L. Honkenya pep/aides (L.) Ehrh. ssp. robusta (Fern.) Hulton Moehringia Jateriflora (L.) Fenzl +* Sagina procumbens L. + '" Scleranthus annuus L. Silene antirrhina L. S. caro/iniana Walt. Var. pensylvanica (Michx.) Fern. +.. S. latifolia Poir. SperguJaria marina (L.) Griseb. +. S. rubra (L.) Prest & Presl +.. Slellaria graminea L. +* S. media (L.) Vill. Celastraceae +- Celaslrus orbicuIalus Thunb. ! C. scandens L. Chenopodiaceae + Amp/ex arenan"a NutL A. palu/a L. +'" Bassia hirsula (L.) Schwein. +. Chenopodium album L. + '" C. ambrosioides L. '" C. dessicatum A. Neis '" C. hybrid~m L. Salicomia europaea L. S. virginica L. Salso/a !<ali L. Suaeda /inearis (Ell.) Moq. S. maritima (L.) Dumort. Cistaceae Hudsonia tomentosa Nun. Lechea maritima BSP. Clusiaceae ! Hypericum canadense L. H. gent/aneides (L.) BSP. ! H. muti/um L. + '" H. perforatum L. CODvolvulaceae CalysteKja sepium (L.) R. Dr. Crassulaceae +'" Sedum lUre L. ClI5CUlaceae + CusCUla granoyi; Schultz Elaeagnaceae +'" Elaeagnus angustifolia L. +'" E. umbel/ata Thunb. Ericaceae ! Arctostaphylos uva-urst (L.) Spreng. Gaylussacia baccata (Wang.) Koch ! Vaccinium pal/idum Ail. Euphorbiaceae ! Acalypha gracilens Gray + Chamaesyce maculata (L.) Small C. po/ygonifolia (L.) Small +'" Euphorbia cyparissias L. Fabaceae Lathyrus japonicus Willd. var. glaber (Ser.) Fern. Lespedeza capitata Michx. +'" Medicago lupulina L. +'" Melilotus alba Lam. +'" Robinia pseudo-acacia L. Strophostyles helyola (L.) Ell. +'" Trifolium arvense L. +'" T. campestre Schreb. +'" T. dubiurn Sibth. + '" T. pratense L. + '" T. repens L. + '" Vida vil/osa Roth ssp. varia (Host) Corbo +* Wisteria sinensis (Sims) Sweet Fagaceae + Quercus coccinea Muenchh. + Q. man"landica Muenchh. Q. stellata Wang. Q. velutina Lam. Gentianaceae ! Sabatia stellaris Pursh Geraniaceae ! Geranium maculatum L. G. robertianum L. J uglandaceae ! Carya g/abra (Mill.) Sweet Lamiaceae +'" Lamium purpureum L. ! Lycopus virginicus L. +'" Nepeta cataria L. Teucrium canadense L. trichostema dichotomum L. Lauraceae ! Sassafras albidum (Nun.) Nees Molluginaceae +'" Mo//ugo verticil/ata L. "_'l" . 466 . BULLETIN OF THE TORREY BOTANICAL CLUB [VOL. 118 Monotropaceae ! Monotropa hypopithys L. ! M. uniflora L. Myricaceae Myrica pensy/vanica Loisel. Nyctaginaceae !* Mirabilis linearis (Pursh) Heim. ~ Oleaceae + * Liguslrum vulgare L. Onagraceae ! Circaea luteliana L. ssp. canadensis (L.) Asch. ers. & Magnus Oenothera biennis L. ! O. fruticosa L. ! O. oakesiana (Gray) S. Wats. & COUll. Orobanchaceae + Orobanche uniflora L. Oxalidaceae Oxa/is slricta L. Papaveraceae * Glaucium flavum Crantz Phytolaccaceae PhYlolacca americana L. Plantaginaceae +* Plantago aristata Michx. +* P. lanceo/ala L. * P. major L. ! P. maritima L. ssp. juncoides (Lam.) Hulten + P. pusi/la Nutt. , + P. ruge/ii Dcne. Plumbaginaceae Limonium caro/inianum (Walt.) Britt. Polygaiaceae ! Polygala verticil/ala L. var. ambigua (Nun.) Wood ! P. verticil/ala L. var. verticil/ala Polygonaceae Po/ygone/la articulata (L.) Meisn. * Po/ygonum arenastrum Boreau + P. glaucum Nun. P. pensy/vanicum L. +* P. persicaria L. ! P. ramosissimum Michx. vu. pro/ificum Small P. ramosissimum Michx. var. ramosissimum P. scandens L. P. tenue Michx. +* Rumex acelose/la L. ssp. angiocarpus (Murb.) Murb. +* R. crupus L. Portulacaceae +* Portulaca o/eracea L. Primulaceae +* Anaga/lis arvensis L. Lysimachia quadrifolia L. ! Sarno/us va/erandii L. ssp. pan'iflorus (Raf.) HulleD ! Trienlalis borealis Raf. Pyrolaceae Chimaphila maculaJa (L.) Pursh ! C. umbel/ara (1...) Bart. ssp. cisatlantica (Blake) Hult6D Ranunculaceae Aqui/egia canadensis L. ! Thalictrum revolUlum DC. Rosaceae ! Agrimonia gryposepa/a Wallr. Amelanchier canadensis (L.) Medic. Crataegus crus.galli L. * Fragaria virginiana Mill. Geum canadensis Jacq. * Malus sylvestris (L.) Mill. ! Potentil/a anserina L. ssp. pacifu:a (Howell) Rousi +* P. argentea L. P. canadensis L. +* P. recta L. Prunus maritima Marsh. P. serorina Ehrh. + Rosa carolina L. +* R. multiflora Murr. . R. rugosa Thunb. R. virginiana Mill. + Rubus a//egheniensis Bailey R. flagellaris Willd. + R. hispidus L. + * R. lacinialus Willd. +* R. phoenico/asius Maxim. Rubiaceae + Ga/ium aparine L. Salicaceae + Populus grandidentata Michx. + P. tremuloides Michx. + Salix disc%r Muhl. Scrophulariaceae I Agalinis maritima (Raf.) Raf. ! A. purpurea (L.) Pennell ! Aurea/aria virginica (L) Pennell Linaria canadensis (L.) Dumort. +* L. vulgaris Mill. ! Me/ampyrum lineare Desr. I Pediadaris canadensis L. ! Scrophularia /anceo/ata Pursh +* Verbascum b/atteria L +* V. thapsus L +* Veronica arvensis L - . 1991J . LAMONT AND STALTER: FLORA OF ORIENT BEACH STATE PARK 467 Simaroubaceae +* Ailanthus a/lissima (Mill.) Swingle Solanaceae * Solanum dulcamara L. . S. nigrum L. Tiliaceae ! Tilia americana L. Ulmaceae Celtis occidenlalis L. Verbenaceae ! Verbena urticijo/ia L. Violaceae ! Viola fimbria/uta Sm. Vitaceae Panhenocissus qUinquejolia (L.) DC. + Vilis aestivaJis Michx. LILIOPSIDA Commelinaceae +* Commelina communis L. Vat. /udens (Miq.) Pennell Cyperaceae Bu/bcsty/is capll/aris (L.) Oark. ! Carex harmathOOes Fern. e. pensylvanica Lam. e. si/icea Olney ! C. swani; (Fern.) Mackz. Cyperus fiJiculmis Vahl C. gray; Torr. ! C. polystachyos Rattb. var. macrostachyus Boeckl. C. slrigoSUS L. ! E/eocharis parvu/a (R. & S.) Buff. & Fing. ! Fimbriscy/is castanea (Michx.) Vahl ! Scirpw americanus Pers. ! S. robustus Pursh J uncaceae Juncus gerardii Loisel. J. greene; Oakes & Tuckenn. J. tenuis Willd. ! Luzula multiflora (Hoffin.) Lej. J uncaginaceae Triglochin maritimum L. UUaceae +* Allium vineale L * Asparagus officinalis L +* Hemerocallisfu/va (L) L ! Maianthemum canadense nesf. ! Polygonatum commutatum (Schultes & Schultes) Dictr. ! Smilacina racemosa (L.) Desf. S. stel/ala (L.) Desf. ! Uvularia sessi/ifolia L. Poaceae +'" Agropyron repens (L.) Beauv. Agrestis hiemalis (Walt.) asp. + A. perennans (Walt.) Tuckerm. ! A. stoloni/era L. var. paluseris (Huds.) Farw. +* Aira caryophyl/ea L. + * A. praecox L. Ammophila breviligulata Fern. + Aristida dichotoma Michx. +* Bromus hordeaceus L. +'" B. racemosus L. +'" B. tectorum L. Cenchrus tribuloides L. +* Chloris verticil/ata Nun. +* Cynodon daceylon (L.) Pers. +* Dactylis glo/1lerata L. Danrhonia spicata (L.) R. & S. + Deschampsia jlexuosa (L.) Trin. +'" Digitaria ischaemum (Schweig.) Muhl. +'" D. sanguinalis (L.) Seop. Distichlis spicata (L.) Greene +'" Echinochloa cru$4galli (L.) Beauy. Elymus virginLi; L. var. halophilus (Bielen.) Wieg. +'" Eragrostis cilianensis (All.) Mosher + E. pectinacea (Michx.) Nees E. spectabilis (Pursh) Steud. +'" Festuca elarior L. '" F. rubra L. ! Hierochloe odorata (L.) Beauy. +! Lolium perenne L. Muhlenbergia schreberi Gmel. Panicum acuminacu1l1 Sw. P. capillare L. + P. clandestinum L. ! P. depauperatum Muh1. + P. dichotomiflorum Michx. ! P. dichotomum L. + P. leucothrL-c Nash ! P. eligosanthes Schultes Vat. scribnerianum (Nash) Fern. ! P. ovale L. ! P. sphaerocarpon Ell. P. virgatum L. ! Paspalum setaceum Michx. Vat. muhlenbergii (Nash) Banks + P. setaceum Michx. vat. stramineum (Nash) Banks +* Phragmites australis (CaY.) Steud. +* Poa annua L. + '" P. bulbosa L. +* P. compressa L. + '" P. pratensis L Schizachyrium scoparium (Michx.) Nash Vat. littorale (Nash) Gould ! Schizachyrium scoparium (Michx.) Nash var. scoparium +'" Setaria/aberi Rosen '" S. glauca (t.) Beauv. Spartina alterniflora Loisel S. patens (Ail.) Muhl. ! S. pectinata Link ''flIT . 468 . BULLETIN OF THE TORREY BOTANICAL CLUB [VOL. 118 ! Sporobolus asper (Michx.) Kunth +* S. cryptandrus (Torr.) Gray + Tridensjlavus (L.) Hitchc. Trip{asis purpurea (Walt.) Chapm. +* Vu{pia myuros (L.) OrneI. ! v: ocrojiora (Walt.) Rydb. var. glauca (Nun.) Fern. Ruppiaceae .... Ruppia maritima L. SmiIacaceae ! Smilax herbacea L. S. TOtundifolia L. Typhaceae + Typha angustifolia L. Zosteraceae Zostera marina L. var. stenophyl/a Aschers. & Grabn. . . '5i.J;, t f'f, ' :>mH MORTH FORK EMVIROMWEMTAL COUMCIL, IMC.' Route 25 at love lane, PO Box 799, Mattltuck, NY 11952 516-298-8880 ~ September 16, 1996 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Acting Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 -"''''''-~---~=---'-'''''''''; n \~1 ~ ,-), , --.----, ~" i 'I'" n,jH I 6 I~ i1"11 ;1~ ;;:_,' SEP Dear Mr. Orlowski: We are writing to support the Southold Town Planning Board's intention to issue a positive declaration on the site plan for proposed changes to the Cross Sound Ferry property in Orient. As you know, the New York State Environmental Quality Review requires the lead agency to issue a positive declaration if the action may include the potential for at least one significant adverse environmental impact. With respect to Cross Sound Ferry's proposed action, we wish to specifically address the criteria for determining significance in accordance with New York State Environmental Conservation Law, section 617. 7(c(i-x)): (i) The proposed action may result in a substantial adverse change in ground and surface water quality at Orient Point. The Suffolk County Water Authority has made a strong recommendation that development in the Orient areas be severely restricted to prevent impairment of its fragile aquifer which is already threatened by high nitrates and salt upconing. SCW A has declared the Orient Point and Orient areas to have the most fragile groundwater conditions on Long Island due to its flat land masses and complete underlayment of saltwater. Any intensification of land uses, such as the expansion of the ferry terminal's parking facilities to accommodate more than 300 cars, is expected to be detrimental to groundwater conditions. sew A specifically recommends large lot zoning to prevent any increase in activities at Orient as well as a reduction in vehicular traffic which adds to groundwater pollution in the form of hydrocarbon runoff, formation of phthalates and combustion pollutants. a non-profit organization for the pr~.lIatlon of land. sea, air and quality of life printed on 1000/. recycled paper . . Increased ferry operations in the past ten years have already added to traffic and noise levels alon~ the entire North Fork. The impact that such intensification has had on existing air quality must be closely examined. In addition, the Planning Board must consider the potential for beach erosion which may result from increased ferry trips. (ii) The North Fork lies entirely within the federally-designated Fish and Wildlife Service's Northeast Estuary Project (see attachment A) which identifies numerous plant and animal species as being of national or regional significance and management concern on Long Island. Some examples include these endangered wildlife specimens: the shortnose sturgeon, the leatherback turtle, the roseate tern, the bald eagle, the peregrine falcon, the humpback and fin whales, the American burying beetle, the Northeastern beach tiger beetle and sandplain gerardia plant. The maritime grasslands of Orient Point are considered a Significant Coastal Habitat on Long Island. Obviously, the further grading ofthe residentially-zoned parcel ofland controlled by Cross Sound Ferry and the increased vehicular and ferry traffic which would inevitably result from the proposed expansion would alter the area's wildlife. (iii) The residential lot controlled by Cross Sound Ferry (Suffolk County Tax Map #3.5) lies within a Critical Environmental Area as designated by the County of Suffolk (see attachment B). All parcels owned or controlled by Cross Sound Ferry are also part of the Peconic Bay Estuary which is a Critical Environmental Area. The Cross Sound Ferry terminal lies within the watershed area of the estuary (see attachment C) which means that any of its polluting activities will affect the water quality of the bay system. The 1994 Peconic Estuary Program (PEr) Action Plan called for local governments to adopt land use regulations to minimize or avoid any new source of stormwater runo.ff. Southold Town has addressed this issue already with R-80 zoning on Orient Point. The PEP Action Plan also predicted that careless exploitation of the Peconic Estuary system would lead to increasingly irreversible degradation of a once-pristine ecosystem. An expanded parking lot and increased vehicular traffic at Orient Point would only add to stormwater runoff which the PEP Action Plan deems to be the "largest and most significant source of total and fecal coliform loading to the Peconic Bay." In addition to the aforementioned stormwater runoff, marine pollutants such as oil, gasoline, marine paints and debris have severely deteriorated marine life in the Peconic Bay. It is disturbing to note that when Cross Sound Ferry submitted a site plan application for changes to the property in 1984, it answered "Yes" to question number nine on Part I of the Environmental Assessment Forni, "Do hunting or fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area?" In 1996, the company's answer to question number lOon the same form, "Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area?" was "No." (iv) The proposed action represents a material conflict with Southold's current plans or goals as officially approved or adopted, namely the R-80 zoning designation given to the parcel ofland. The PEP Action Plan specifically recommends that local governments control commercial, industrial and institutional land uses so that the impact -2- . . on groundwater with respect to nitrogen contribution is comparable to that of two-acre residential zoning. (v) Both the character and quality of the important historical, architectural and aesthetic resource known as the Orient National Historic District are severely compromised by the presence in its midst of the Cross Sound Ferry. Since 1984, the company has transformed the site into a transportation hub of the New London metropolitan area, without regard for regulatory and public scrutiny and with little recognition of Orient's historic role. By virtue of its insular location, Orient's charm has preserved 17th and 18th century architecture, ambiance and landscape features. For three centuries prior to 1984, ferry service at Orient remained consonant in both size and style with the scale ofland uses in the surrounding area. Cross Sound Ferry's largely unregulated departures from its 1984 site plan, its current need for inter-state parking and its cosmopolitan and commercial pretensions for the future are glaringly discontinuous with every aspect of the fabric of the Orient National Historic District. The discovery of a double-child burial on Roy Latham's nearbyfarm (as published in the New York State Archeological Association Bulletin, November 1962, pages 8ft) offers presumptive evidence that the land which Cross Sound Ferry occupies and has unadvisedly cleared holds significant pre-historic and archeological interest. (vi) Increased parking will necessitate a major change in the quantity and type of lighting utilized which will have negative visual impact on the surrounding area. (vii) In the ten years since Cross Sound Ferry has built its terminal and expanded its operations, traffic accidents in the Town of Southold have increased by 43 percent, according to Southold Town Police reports. While there is no way to ascertain whether or not these accidents can be attributed specifically to ferry traffic, it is safe to assume that traffic safety has become a problem and a hazard to human health which can only be exacerbated by more vehicular trips to and from the Cross Sound Ferry terminal at Orient Point. (viii) The Cross Sound Ferry has already substantially changed the use of the Orient site as a recreational resource. Route 25, which formerly served as access to the beach by Orient residents for recreation and other uses in addition to the ferry is now monopolized by the ferry use alone. We oppose other changes in use which would result from the completion of the proposed site plan. With reference to section 617.7(iv), we reiterate that changing an R- 80 zoned parcel to a parking lot represents a substantial change of use and intensity of use. Similarly, we underline our argument regarding section 617. 7(iii): the R-80 parcel will in no way have the capacity to support its existing state as a Critical Environmental Area if it is used as an inter-state parking facility. We also seriously question Cross Sound Ferry's designation of its parking facilities as a public utility use. It should be noted that the parking problems at the Orient Point ferry terminal were created by this privately-owned company and should not be alleviated by any benefits it may garner from its self-appointment as a public utility. -3- . . (ix) Obviously, the services offered by Cross Sound Ferry attract a large number of people to Orient Point, particularly throughout the summer months. Cross Sound Ferry calculates that each year it carries 900,000 passengers to and from Connecticut. Although the company has argued that expanded parking facilities at Orient Point are intended only for the convenience of existing customers, more parking will certainly make it easier for this passenger load to increase. The proposed action may, therefore attract to Orient Point a large number of people which might not otherwise come. ~ (x) The proposed action will most likely create a material demand for other actions which would again result in one or more of the above-mentioned negative impacts. Expansion of Cross Sound Ferry's facilities offers a convenient service for many existing or proposed business interests in Connecticut. Foxwoods Casino, said to be the largest casino in the United States, has resulted in cooperative ventures among the casino, Cross Sound Ferry and the Long Island Railroad. Another casino, as well as a Six Flags amusement park, have also been slated for Connecticut regions in close proximity to the New London ferry terminal. Additionally, two Connecticut Indian tribes have bought ship building capacity and plan the construction of high speed ferries. We can only speculate on where these ferries are planned to be used. Economic expansion in the New London area has already placed great pressure on the Orient Terminal and the East End area. More high speed ferries will require more parking, possibly at remote areas, and will result in diesel busses wearing away at Route 25 and smaller local roads. Increased parking and traffic will undoubtedly require more police to enforce traffic codes. Southold Town currently has a shortage of police officers, and consequently, experiences difficulties issuing violations to offenders, particularly in the Orient Point area. This problem will only intensif'y with expanded ferry service. (xi) Each of the ten preceding points represents a significant adverse impact on the environment which may be reasonably expected to result from the proposed action. Taken collectively, the potential for a detrimental environmental impact increases dramatically. (xii) In reviewing the site plan for the proposed action, we request that you also consider all segmented improvements made to the Cross Sound Ferry property prior to and including the 1984 site plan. The unfortunate approval of additional employee parking facilities which preceded the advent of the high speed ferry last year should serve as a reminder that Cross Sound Ferry has not been entirely forthcoming with Southold Town regarding its expansion plans. Full disclosure of the company's intentions for future growth should be expected. In conclusion, the North Fork Environmental Council supports the Planning Board's intention to issue a positive declaration on Cross Sound Ferry's site plan. The NFEC also strongly opposes the granting of a use variance on the company-controlled R. 80 parcel of land. Massive traffic problems on the East End can be mitigated now with adherence to current zoning. As an interested party, we ask that you amend Part 11 of the -4- . . Long Environmental Assessment Form for the proposed-action to include our numerous concerns. Thank you. Very truly yours, ~})11' A-, I,") Ie,',}', J,-- ',. .,t' ,J;!" , IF-' 'K"'-{: I ~."W I , (; '4Dr._ John F. Wright Acting President enc_ cc Southold Town Supervisor Jean W. Cochran Members, Southold Town Board . Gerald Goerhinger, Zoning Board of Appeals County Legislator Michael Carraciolo Assemblywoman Pat Acampora Congressman Michael Forbes Riverhead Town Supervisor James Stark -5- 740 420 410, ,- ,- 390 740 720 700 i 68 a ~ .' . NORTHEAST ESTUARY PROJECf 720 700 680 Hort"e..~ 1I.~..uy Office U.S. Pie" . Wildlife Service P.o. Box 307 c"arle.~oVD, RIlode I.lead 02813 401/314-nu 401/314-I2U f-ITTlJrJ.JM~A/r A S UF='FDLJ<. C04TY ..... . + ..-..-:-=---- - -- + . /'...;. .;.-~' +../ . . ...~... ,.;.' , .....- ,.. ., ./ ....:..'1.. :...~.. "",/" . . ~., . :;.'t ,., ..:0 ~ Cl r;f;'n t", . :'y' I-"iint', '.'.<' . . . ..... :.~~ '. - - " \' , - :,.;~ . ":;." :<' :_0' " . , . ...:: .;..... , .^" '\' CR./ TicAL ENv'JI?..eNENTflL AREAS ?o\'lO Subject Property .' ....... 53A" ~. - ~ -" . .' ....__'1> 0 rien t , ~.~- .... ....,r. Poiflt .,,'~ ~,,,'.'./' ..,.~..:.,:..... ..-.... .f1I..... fl. *.61/ .:.:........:.:.:.....~' . . . . .... . . . 4.4/ ......... ....~~,I . . . , . . ~ 1- -. .\.. .,:.,'11 · ," .. v . .-:. .. ~ · .Il".", ",-.It t1i. . r" aLJ . . ,,- y , 2$ . 1...... .. .; ~ .. ......... ... t- ~.", ;~~;~ it \.,<:r~ r 1\ .1> I ';/:...\: ~~c t~....<, , ,f(; _ _ 'i"'f..-",11 ".' . -:- :., .;.:.&.~.,,~ Mf\ . of'" ". .p C' ';.-:' ~\::;...... t:, ....rt.! . ,..../:'\l'l~ (dJ -', ':7/"~~IE:-;1' ~1.:..\.~:1I _~: _~'., ~'.#:.; ~1'....n: I'U:K : .-:.-;."".,~.;.::'~ "..~ ..........~_. ........ ':P""' !"\~.. .;.....,. - ..........~-.. :;,ii:.~ ,;' .;;:, ' ",:"'- J..... "" ~, J-" . ..... -........ . .' ,(. ';" " fi ,. , ,d! -"7J I '.....~-i ,'ol ,I '""" -,' ,\ ~1 . Y;;' -7 ,,~. ~j/ ..:.-::-~ ~~.~~Y State :~~~ 6~ ~ Parkland \ '- ~'''l: .1 '--.. ~~ r...... ' /" ,.t,,~ :: 1167A. 5 ..... r.':C ~ > :: . ~ , ~ .. ..~ . Mol .. ,..\ ()"~ ,'..... " :-. .-: .. .... ",0,( ." ~.,... . -.' f". ,::,:'," ." -6-9-'3..:r " cv J' ~ e ,- \. \~ (\. \ , " \ ,d ''1 V ~~ ~\, ~<J (,l' .....'=.1'111,1 sce .0 0' I"'.' -9 COUNTY OF SUfFOlK Reol Pro".rly T ox S"rvic~ Agency Coitolnty 'fill.., Riv.rh"od. l IN,,,, YllIf\' o....e.....;..,... ,f !!...~ .. .~OUTH9.Y.' ~!.!:~~!'r ._ ~~~!~.l9OQ Ii TTri c. H N e:NT B . :>. <j~'~ ?f5 y -' -- - ~~ "\ ,:~ -'; "::cos ~, ~ SOUTHOLO ~l;\~~.,\., >'\ - If) r uP' ~~/ /~~ J,_ ,,\i"l' \~L ili A...~ ) 0 7" 1).0 vj " ~-'Ij\ L'fflr \ \ .... "",..l1j ~ ."".,,6 : \ EAST HAMPTON \ 7 v h . t/ \____ ~ J"'\\ /' (v--;- RIVERHEAO ___ y" ,.., .......- e"~.fr, ./" - , ~ ~CDNC ~'\. "Pac.."t/&.- -;;,. '" / '-'p.'J:.\"I,'~ \ '''CR ~~ "".,------\~ / t\ 'WI:" -L' n""", __ ):\).., -- --- ~ - ..... ~ , -- vv-" I SOUTHAMPTON J BROOKHAVEN ~ t '>1~ ~~JLZL~I f!! ~\) ,.ES l -. ~-- vw'~ ~ ~ . J SHEL TER ISLAND l'{X"'!1..:.._~...2.. .".~:!2 ~ mE!P. ~ -- . -. ~ -i -l ::t, () ':t. :s: r\1 ~ r:, \ C~AN ~ THE PECONIC BAY ESTUARY . TIC ~ The WATERSHED area of the estuary includes all the land within the darker broken line. Polluting activities in the watershed affect the water quality_ ."'<;ffcF"""."<>>\ i if 1 l'l ~ ~ ~ ~ NEW YORK STATE ; Bernadette Castro Commissioner . ., c " ':>UO). p~ I(,l< ~oo(\ 518-474-0456 New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza Agency Building 1, Albany, New York 12238 Human Resources 518-474-0453 Fiscal Management 518-474-0061 TOO: 518-486-1899 August 30, 1996 Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Acting Chairman, Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, N.Y. 11971 61~ I Dear Mr. Orlowski: Thank you for sending us a Lead Agency Coordination Request for additional parking at the Cross Sound Ferry terminal. As neighbors, we appreciate being advised of any projects which may affect Orient Beach State Park. Upon review of the information provided, it does not appear that any of the parking alternatives are adjacent to, or would affect, park land. Thus we would have no approval over the action and would not be an involved agency under SEQR. We have referred the information to the Field Services Bureau of the agency's Division for Historic Preservation who could advise you as to whether there may be cultural resources in the project area. As the State recreation agency, we do wish to express concern regarding the possible modification of the Route 25 right-of-way (ROW) for parking. As a bike route which also links to a bike path in our park, we would ask that any use of this ROW not obstruct bike access. Again, thank you for notifying us. We remain an interested agency with respect to the project and ask that we be provided any notices or relevant documents as you progress through the planning process. Sincerely, J1. ~~- M. Pamela Otis Associate Environ. Analyst Environmental Mngt. Bureau cc: Ruth Pierpont, Director, Field Services Ray Dobbins, Park Manager Torn Lyons, Director, Environmental Management An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Agency o printed on recycled paper . . STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE, N.Y. 11788 ~ f8 ::J77tfP -J odI"';> EOWARD J. PETROU, P.E. REGIONAL DIRECTOR JOHN B. DALY COMMISSIONER August 26, 1996 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Acting Chairman Southo1d Planning Board 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southo1d, New York 11971 Cross Sound Ferry Route 25, Orient Point Dear Mr. Orlowski: We have reviewed your request concerning additional parking for the referenced project. We concur with your position that the Southold Planning Board should assume SEQR lead agency status. NYSDOT is discussing this project with interested parties (i.e.: a meeting was held on August 21, 1996) since there are other related issues to be addressed. Thank you for continuing to advise us of the progress of this proposal. Very truly yours, , . +or ~N~ Planning & Program Management AUG28 ~ - ~ Pb RK vovrtH is FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY Region II Jacob K. Javits Federal Building 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1337 New York, New York 10278-0002 ADS 9. Mr. Bernard Orlowski, Jr. Acting Chairman Planning Board Town of Southold Town Hall P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Orlowski: We received and reviewed the project proposal and the Environmental Assessment for the Cross Sound Ferry Parking Lot. This serves as a reminder. Since all or a portion of the project is in a designated Special Flood Hazard ~ea (SFHA) , the project shall be constructed in compliance with the Local Flood Damage Prevention Law for the Town of Southold. In addition, if there are any federal funds' involved, the Lead Agency must complete a floodplain review as required under Executive Order, 11988, Floodplain Management. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Bill Southard, Regional Floodplain Management Coordinator at (516) 444-0405 or Mary Colvin of my staff at 9212} 225-7200. Since,~ cc: Fred Nuffer, NYSDEC Bill Southard NYSDEC, R 1 AUG 16 , . ~eF 1"6 P.O. Box 848 ~ Greenport, New York 11 944 - 0848 G United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service North Atlantic Area Plum Island Animal Disease Center August 8, 1996 Mr. Bennet Orlowski, Jr. Acting Chairman Planning Board Office Town of Southold P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Reference: Lead Agency Coordination Request Project Name: Cross Sound Ferry Dear Mr. Orlowski: This is in response to your letter dated July 31, 1996 where the Cross Sound Ferry proposes to provide additional parking at their ferry terminal. 1. Jurisdiction in the action described. This Agency has no jurisdiction in the proposed action. 2. Interest in assuming the responsibilities of lead agency. This Agency has no objection to your Agency assuming lead agency status for the proposed action. 3. Issues of concern which we believe should be evaluated. · The site lighting design should address the impact of local residents and consider the impact on marine operations in the area. . The stormwater discharge poin~ from Property 10.1, just east of our property, is in our property. Please address all attention. If you 323-2500 Extension future correspondence regarding this matter to my have any questions, please contact me at (516) 210. Sincerely, ',.~-';;""~r}'_C '(-:~;'~r:I'-~"\\;'i 'rn '1 '~F',U~~,.~l2",~_~~,.~,lL,,1L...2"'f : C~.~~ Assistant Center Director for Management cc: A. Torres, PIADC I\UG I 2 1996 J. Crew, NAA Fax: (516) 323-2507, (FTS) 649-9295 . . ~ f'b J!k:. vs ~ ':,,"~i;L"\~--' -of' STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE ALBANY, NY 12231-0001 ALEXANDER F. TREADWELL SECRETARY OF STATE August 7, 1996 Mr. Robert G. Kassner Town of Southold Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 AUG I 2 199b L.. Re: Lead Agency Coordination Request Cross Sound Ferry Dear Mr. Kassner: Thank you for submitting the above mentioned Lead Agency Coordination Request to the Department of State (DOS). Please note that the DOS is not interested in assuming Lead Agency status but does not object to the Town of Southold Planning Board as Lead Agency. If during the course of your review it is determined that a federal permit or federal funding is required for any portion of the proposed project, please instruct the applicant to submit a Federal Consistency Assessment Form (FCAF) and supporting information to the U.S. ACOE/NY and to the DOS. Upon receipt, we will determine if the submitted information is adequate to commence a formal review of the project. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to call me at (518) 474-6000. ~eIY, ., Walter . Meyer Coastal Resources Specialist Consistency Review Unit Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization WFM/wfm c. U.S. ACOE/NY - James Haggerty file o printed on recycled paper ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL Cou NSELORS AT LAW 108 EAST MAIN STREET P. O. Box 279 RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 11901-0279 ~ PB ~ . . WI LLlAM W. ESSEKS MARCIA Z. HEFTER STEF'HEN R. ANGEL ..JANE ANN R. KRATZ ..JOHN M. WAGNER (516) 369-1700 WATER MILL OFFICE MONTAUK HIGHWAY P. O. Box 570 WATER MILL, N.Y. 11976 (516) 726.6633 TELECOP1ER NUMBER (516) 369~2065 WILLIAM POWER MALONEY THOMAS F. WHELAN CARM~' mIVERED July 29, 1996 Southold Town Planning Board 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 JUL 2 9 !qOh RE: Aoolication of Cross Sound Ferrv Services. Inc. Dear Board Members: At the last Planning Board meeting, the Chairman requested the applicant to submit an integrated site plan to include (a) the west parking lot parcel; (b) the terminal/queuing lane parcel; (c) the north/south portion of Route 25; (d) the snack bar parcel; and (e) the trust parcel. Such a plan has been prepared and submitted today to the Board. A copy was given to Valerie Scopaz, the Town Planner and Robert Kassner, the site Plan Reviewer. By this letter I agree, on behalf of Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. that said proposed comprehensive integrated site ,{ plan shall be one of the alternatives within the SEQRA review } process. My understanding of 6 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 617 and the SEQRA process itself is that an alternative within the SEQRA process may become the actual approved project. Very truly yours, w_"",~ /ml william W. Esseks . . ~ P8 I!.K REASONS FOR ABSTAINING. CSF . Sometime after a site plan was approved by the Planning Board in 1984, CSF received a grant from NYS for improvements to the ferry terminal at Orient Point. . Upon receipt of the grant notice by CSF a condition of the grant was that CSF retain an independent engineer to inspect the dolphin/piling portion of the project. . CSF contacted an engineering partner of mine who had civil and marine engineering expertise and engaged our firm to provide these engineering services. . CSF upon learning of our architectural capabilities also engaged our firm to file plans for the ferry terminal building. . Prior to and subsequent to 12 years ago I had no relationship with CSF other than as an independent consulting professional firm providing inspection and design services related to the NYS grant. . Since this professional involvement with CSF some 12 years ago I have had no further professional or personal relationship with CSF. . Since my prior involvement with CSF could be looked upon as being a conflict, I will abstain from voting on any and all actions brought by CSF before this Board. ~/)~~~J~~/~ ~~~.a-~~~Md'J;I7'"74 JUL 2 9 1996 GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS ~~.y:::.z:-....<::::::;___ . cLC~fFal;"oO-~~ \~.~ t'~ ~"". ,)~ ~" 0' => :;A '. 1 c:::> "'" ~ ..~ en ,., .~ c,~. ~d ~ +..b ~ :' ~OJ + ~~,/' ~n:.:.J-' . P~NGBOARDMEMBERS~ RICHARDG. WARD Chairman Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, N ew York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD July 9, 1996 William Esseks Esseks, Hefter 8< Angel 108 East Main Street Riverhead, NY 11901 RE: Proposed Site Plan for Cross Sound Ferry Main Road, (Rt. 25), Orient Zoning District: Marine II (MIl) 8< Residential Low-Density R-80 SCTM# 1000-15-9-10,1, 11.1, 15.1 8< 3.5 Dear Mr. Esseks, As discussed at the Planning Board's public meeting on July 8, 1996, the site plan submitted on July 1, 1996, does not contain sufficient detail to start the environmental review. The following changes/additions must be made before the Board can start the coordinated environmental review: 1. All site details of both the west parking lot and the terminal lot must be shown as contained on the approved plan dated May 16, 1995. 2. Internal flow of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic between all four parcels and the State Right-of-Way must be indicated. . , . . The Board would appreciate receiving this material before its next public meeting on July 29, 1996. If you have any questions, or require additional information, please con tact this office. .~{d ~I- Frank Yakaboski, Attorney Laury Dowd, Town Attorney Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Board of Appeals Southold Town Board Board of Trustees Edward Forrester, Town Investigator John Raynor, P.E. Thomas Fisher, Senior Building Inspector Richard McMurry, Cross Sound Ferry . . Si.J.E>F Fe ~ g:] Reports Design Environmental Planning John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., p.c. Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor Deerfield Green P.O. Box 720 Montauk Highway Water Mill, New York 11976 Phone: (516) 726-7600 June 28, 1996 Richard G. Ward, Chairman, Town Planning Board Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York Re: Application of Cross Sound Ferry Dear Mr. Ward: This letter accompanies two copies of the site plan for the above captioned project which has been revised in accordance with Mr. Kassner's latest letter dated June 18, 1996. As requested, we have shown one potential circulation pattern for vehicles and pedestrians. We have also enclosed copies of the revised key map, which now depicts the zoning district boundary lines. Lastly, we have included information on the "contactor" drainage units which we are proposing to use for the on- site drainage system as shown on the site plan (drainage calculations previously sent). This latest "progress print" is meant for discussion at the next Planning Board meeting. Very truly yours, JOHN J. RAYNOR, P.E., L.S., p.c. fL<.tJ~J U~ch- {~r Richard Van de Kieft encls. pc: W. W. Esseks, Esq. F. Yakaboski, Esq. R. Mac Murray JUL I 19S' _,_ . ':" _'"" . '"~. .1 ,.,.,.,.', ;", ~~ii,;:wrr.~~#i~~S;~;~.~~~.~T..N.:A...S.Lr~~~M.; A.C. H..N.....O.o~E.,~~X;~i:t:~Z/~E.E~~?r~~ FOR ~ The FE.tt!c,!ent Sep;tic(Drainage System ~ CONTACTOR is a low profile, rugged, light in weight leaching system, ~ that is easy to install. ,When used in septic systems or ground water ! ..,{(le~~,~~8r~Elfhargin~,;,f9NT ACTC;>R~astheS?~dvll.ntag?,s,:. . "!;>", ~;'!!.;. Greaterstorage.fll.pacity exte~ds the 10ng-termaCceptanc<;j rate.of " \:~~~l}~~~~,S,t~W(l';Ai"':i'.'>"f" '.ii,.<;,' '.' :;: ". ....litll~? " _;f":,.,Jncrease~ ,llffluenVdrainag!l interface, rals\ng,th,,~ ~ffic,i.ency.~! th!j/, ;'",. ......':'aO:i i:f"U" system I<'${r',,!~:;) (\ . ,,'\.4~ ~'. '~1l)~1ti~f.' "'!'J-:-.::'- 'Y.'1> ."" ", I~i' . ;~' r(~ "~~"'. > '.. , I".~ ""ry'ti' . . .,c,: ,. Open bottom to allow for direct contact with soilp( -;:!.;'!;~::j;i~::p,~~~g~~%~'tr 'r:Sl~,;,' , ,. . Chemically resistant to compounds normally found in t' ';~, " '. : ":i'<i-<,'~f" ..sewaQe.'.. .,.,.. '0. ;''';~__'''1'>''~)',/;:i'Y .. .';.'>'~-\':'_ WITH CONTACTOR DIG LI;SS, USI; LI;SS FILL. HAVI;, G. .!'l!=A-r:~~~TORAGI;. . 'i,ii,>r';' ....'. '1:1.: ,,;;1'i:'* F# '-.' . ., ,.,~Jl'l_' :-'>' '-,,4!::: ",'~":','~';~::'," ",,,;..,,F. "16" DIA. 18' 0.0. PIPE h~Y04~t';~":~'~;:,.",,,,~,~,: ': 1.4 FT3/LN. FT. :.!;j\...\. < ,'C'" 12" HIGH CONTACTOR 75 1.6 FT3/L.N. FT. +14% 18" HIGH CONTACTOR 125 2.2 FT. 3/LN. FT. (+57%) ";'i "~i~ LWAYS SPI;CIFY CULTI;C'NO:410 FILTI;R FABRIC<~; HI;N USING CONTACTOR.'"THI; COMBINATI91' q~T'ii HI;TW.... ,9 P,.69!\11PTI;~ HIG,H I;FJ:ICIE...NPY"'::fr:}i;.~:f."'....:";:~:: ., \,;,5; r....'Jr".".{I";\'!ir ",'c,' " ,., "",':1~.~'1'1::~;;"""-""""",, "',\~,',.,. ,^~:';:,':'!h~~:~h<\'->" . : '>~~,:~r,~r:(1?'~;~>:';,;/" ;<'i:~, ,,;~\~."_......~, 'AI.lQN..I~~O*ATION , ", /AVAILABLEIN 12" HIGH & 18" HIGH MODELS ~\~' ",.,'.. -. . . ..., ",: ~>:j~l1,~jf;'\"';/,:"""";':;: ':':"S."L"';;,:" ,',' '~,' i ~---~~- ~, 18_0" 1'5 ___..!..___..J~__ 375" ..__R_~DIUS 265' ---..I ,.-------- ---==-- :f.:, " "._ "",.?i::"'1~~'A'!'j....;~"I~.:, '''''_ ~. ~ACroR (MODEL'12ss)end 'the aUt CONTACTOR (MODEL 125R). Total length 13'&~ ~ "'-i~..,:'1;~:,?:r"'r,~:~".,.,1~.!O,~th.lengthot.lln.-6'3.or75M . '-:,' .,. ''''- ''''.. ," . . 'N. ~'. 12_38" 6" 4.75 DIA .. ----'-- I:':~\h,"j~' ."'.ti;,-';K"",."~_~~1",;:""-.'~,':~~,"',&j,j~(',,,,,\,,, ,,',~;: "-".~/~::T'i';,___,,; -, -. ,"i" ' -- , . ,-~:1: : Y' -,"': <~- ~ ,~;.'SO~ " 'MODEL 7SR IS USED FOR 1:,~ ~ CENTER OR ENDING SECTION :_~~"i~: . ;'~,'-j"~'.>': "'r.';k~:;~:~~:{~:.~'~i::",,; " ~'.. ,. .P.i!;lLl~~.~~,~Aly,inCONTACTOR 125, ,'(f?E!' " .~c:l,!~~~~~[~;!IiI!~P.f'tA!N,p~events f?~. ,. . . ~atil1~~yY!.IPil-Qs1asother units do. /,In. ", . . . gre,infor~s'the.,\>!rength of CO NT ACTOR 125, '!t,,~~~~~.~c:l17~!~I;)~'lil'l}~~LOCK connections. The RIB-LOCK feature consists of a starting unit which has two end walls and additional interlocking units which have one end wall and the other end open. The open end of the interlock units has a larger rib that drops over the, smaller rib of the next unit, creating the locking (RIB- LqR~~~.' .NO 'di,~i~ultClIi9nlTl~~t.9-r screwing together reqUlrec:l'~.ClLlick "l;asy".~IrQng " . o_C,_" .. '0_"",' .,',..........,.. '-~'" :, ' ~ CONTACTOR 125 & CONTACTOR 125 HO 125 gal. capacity chamber (approx, 16 gal/If) Length: 7.5ft. Width: 28 in. Height: 18 in. Effective Base Area: 2.2 sq. fUft. Effective Sidewall Area 2.1 sq. fUft. Effective Total Area 4.3 sq. tUft Perforation Diameter: 3/4 in. Upper Effluent Transfer Hole: 4.75 in diameter Lower Effluent Transfer Semicircle: 3.75 in. x 7.5 in. List price ~ . CDNTACTOR 75 & CONTACTOR 75 HO 75 gal. capacity chamber (approx. 12 gal/If) Length: 7.2 ft. Width: 28 In. Height: 12 in. Effective Base Area: 2.2 sq. fUft. Eftectlve Sidewall Area: 1.7 sq. fUft. Effective Total Area: 3.9 sq. fUft Perforation Diameter: ' 3/4 in. Upper Effluent Transfer Hole: 4.75 in diameter Lower Effluent Transfer Semicircle: 3.75 in. x 7.5 in. "",-.' List price $ ,Al,Jthorized Cuftee Dfstri/Jutor: '.".,'" ~GH'DN~G.-rr.EASY'''O INSTALL. ONE MAN CAN ,.dNST4il?75FEETIN LESS THAN, 20 MIN, UTES WITH NO ;:~iEQiJlPNU:NTNECESSARY. .. "~ .... ~ CULTEC . . L . INSTALLATION OF CULTEC CHAMBERS L Contactor 75 Contactor 125 Contactor Recllarger 330 UNDER PAVED TRAFFIClillD AREAS L . . Identificalion of Cullec's lID Model Chambers Cultec HD model chambers are specifically designed for use under paved trafficked situations and also for installation under. unpaved trafficked areas. , Two different gauge thicknesses are manufactured. A lighter gauge is used for untrafficked mostly residential use and a heavier gauge for a trafficked installation such as driveway, parking lot, athletic field (which also may be subject to occasional vehicular use and parking etc. Currently all three Cultec chambers are marked with a stripe over the top of the center of the HD product: Contactor 75 ................. Blue Stripe Contactor 125............... White Stripe Recharger .................... Red Stripe The use of the stripe in the HD models allows the engineer and installer to identify the product and the heavier gauge. L The stripe is co-extruded and therefore bonded to the polyettlyl- ene used to manufacture the Cultec <;:hamber. Malting the Choice of Cullec liD vs Slandard Chambers When a choice is to be made between Cultec HD or Cultec Standard or other manufacturers' chambers, several important factors must be evaluated. 1. Is the completed Installation of cllambers subject to vehicular traffic? If it is -<:hoose Contactor 75 HD, Contactor 125 HDor Recharger HD for your design. 2. In the future will the completed system be subject to . traffic or should consIderation be given to traffic as a possibility? Often when an initial design is completed an assessment of future situations has not been thorough. The result can be both unnecessary and costly. By evaluating the location of the system, particularly for commercial, industrial or institutional applications, the ad- . . L vantage of using Cultec's HD chamber is almost always obvious. Remember to say any underground system will never see traffic may be unreasonable and the general rule is "Never Say Never" . 3. WhyshouldlchooseGultec'sGontactor75HD, Gontactor 125 HD, RechR.-gcr HD or other Guttec HD models over other plastlc chambers? Although some good reasons were already detailed for using Cultec's HD chambers probably the best reason deserves explanation. Currently a number of manufacturers have available, as we do, both regular duty and heavy duty plastic chambers. . Cultec's heavy duty chambers are constructed of a thicker, heavier polyethylene which is designed to be installed under realistic on-the-job conditions. L While other manufacturers choose to offset structural i nteg rity with unrealistic installation requirements, Cultec's HD chambers are designed to do the job with no "babying" required as part of the installation. In some cases manufacturers of other chambers may have little or virtually no difference between their standard vs heavy-duty chambers. (Instructions to bury the standard chamber deeper to attain H20 performance may be the only difference In some cases). Requiring an increased burial depth to altain an H20 wheel load requirement from an H 10 wheel load rated chamber is not Cultec's policy... this type of requirement Is little more than "wishful thinking" and can result in an unsatisfactory installation. Cultec HD chambers build safety into the product which takes into. account the actual burial process. To attain an H20 wheel load a chamber has burial requirements, but what happens in getting to the specified depth is critical. Chambers are not "Magic Boxes" that make it possible to go from no cover to the required and compacted cover instantaneously. Cultec patented interlocking rib connection allows a quick, strong joint which is actually re-inforced during baCkfilling... -- Look closely at other chamber connections and require- ments to decide Cultec's advantages " \ SPECIFICATIO~~ INFORM..<\TION r 'RECHf\R6eR 3 '30 375 gal. capacity chamber (approx. 'I9gal/ll) Length: 7' lD 'I Width: 52 in. Height: .3O~in. Effective Base Area: J./..O sq. ft.llt. Effective Sidewall Area: 4-. 4 sq. 1t.1ft. Effective Total Area: B. 'f sq. 1t.1ft Perforation Diameter: 3/4 in. Upper Effluent Transfer Hole: 4.75 in diameter C.STD) Lower Effluent Transfer Semicircl . 3.75 ini x 7.5 iR.S1'r '1.:>'5 ~ C. ~ . CONTACTOR & CONTACTOR HD 125 gal. capacity chamber (approx. 16 gall1f) Length: 7.51t. Width: 28 in. Height: 18 in. Effective Base Area: 2.2 sq. 1t.1ft. Effective Sidewall Area: 2.1 sq. ft.lft. Effective Total Area: 4.3 sq. 1t.1ft Perforation Diameter: 3/4 in. Upper Effluent Transfer Hole: 4.75 in diameter Lower Effluent Transfer Semicircle: 3.75 in. x 7.5 in. Note: 125 = 325 mils: 125HD = 400 mils. CONTACTOR-C 75 gal. capacity chamber (approx. 12 gall1!) Length: 7.2 It. Width: 28 in. Height: 12 in. Effective Base Area: 2.2 sq. 1t.1ft. Effective Sidewall Area: 1.7 sq. 1t.1ft. Effective Total Area: 3.9 sq. 1t.1ft Perforation Diameter: 3/4 in. Upper Effluent Transfer Hole: 4.75 in diameter Lower Effluent Transfer Semicircle: 3.75 in. x 7.5 in. NOW ALL THREE MODELS ARE AVAILABLE IN HEAVIER GAUGE FOR INSTAlLATION UNDER PAVED AND TRAFFICKED AREAS. OTHER PRODUCTS: . Splash Deflectors Inspection Covers Filter Fabric 7' x 400' Filter Fabric 4' x 400' Filter Fabric 3.5' x 400' Filter Fabric (Minimum Average Roll Values) Weight: 4 oz. (ASTM 03776) . Permeability: 0.2 cn"Vsec (ASTM D44~ Flow Rate: 95 gpn"Vsq ft. (ASTM D4491) AOS: 70-100 (ASTM 04751) Grab Strength: 90 lb. (ASTM 04632) Mullen Burst: 180psi (ASTM 03786) Puncture: 50 Ib (ASTM 03787) Trapezoidal Tear: 551b (ASTM D4533) L L '- '. . . CuIlec #410 Fabric hllerface Cultec attains a highly ellicient sidewall and upper surface drain- age interface with its chambers by utilizing its ribbed design In combination with a covering of polypropylene filter cloth. In order to determine performance standards, Cultec No. 410 Fabric Interface should be used, Th!;l combination of Cullec Chambers with No. 41 0 fabric interface is the ~y~ by which Contactor and 1?~er" chambers are rated in this manual. Properties of Cultec # 41 0 Fabric Interface Test Method ,..,."...""....~...,.,...,.. '-. . ,- '- " '. . ',' ,- .. ," .'.-,' ,., ',', ;.',.' -"-", ,,',-,. ,',',. .--' \i~~~Jl'jb., Test Resu~s Grab Tensile Strength Grab Tensile Elongation III.l1l1tl\ '2>ur.lt. ASTM-D-4632 90100. ASTM-D-4632 50% ASTM.D-3786 225 psi ASTM.[)"4833 65 Ibs. ASTM.D-4533 451bs. ASTM-D-4355 70% Puncture Trapozoid Tear UV Resistance rffil'.}:'~."IJ':."'..,.,."'.,.". ".::.--;,:,,-::' " ::@:,:::/,t,d:~::::,:::~:?~:.. Apparent Opening Size (AOS) ASTM.D-4751 Permittivity ASTM-D-4491 Row Rate ASTM-D-4491 70 US Sieve 2.5 Sec.-1 175 GaJJmin1ft2 ~ " . . L hlStallatioll of the Fabric Interface Before the starting Cultec chamber Is put in place, lay approxi- mately 1 1/2 feet of the properly sized cloth on the ground at the beginhlng of the line. . . , Position the starting chamber on top of the 1 1/2-2 feet of fabric. The setting in place of the No. 410 Fabric in this manner allows it to be held firmly in place and also serves as a splash "diffuser" to the effluent discharged from the feed pipe above. With the fabric now being held at the starting end, you may install the total line of chambers. Pull the free end of the No. 410 Interface Fabric to the end of the line of chambers making sure the center of the fabric is even with the center of the chambers, which allows the fabric to drape over evenly to the base of the units. Approximately 1-2 feet .. of extra fabric will be evident if the directions for determining fabric length are followed correctly. After pulling the fabric tightly overthe chambers, throw 5-6 shovels full of either broken stone or soil over the cloth where it meets the base of the final end wall. '- , Inspect the fabric along the entire line of Cultec chambers. Look for slight bends in the line where some further positioning of the fabric may be necessary. Inspect also for roots which may prevent the fabric from its proper positioning to the base of the chamber. Fabric interface is always recommended for sand or soil backfill in order to prevent intrusion of the particles. Fabric interface may also be chosen when backfilling the cham- bers with broken stone. Fabric increases the effective area for . particulate filtration and intrusion. An additional benefit of using Fabric Interface with stone backfill is the availability of particulate settlement, which occurs aftereffluent leaves the chamber through the discharge openings. Muchoft~ available discharge opening(s) may be blocked if no fabric is used. Fabric interface provides a large void between the ribs and is accessible to effluent. '- No guarantee of performance of Cultec chambers will be honored If any other than Cultec No. 410 fabric Interface Is used. . . L Sizillg of #4.10 Falu'ic Inlerface for COlllacloi. 75, 125 lUul1<eciIo..r8e.r ~330 Width Requirements of Cultec No. 410 Fabric Interface: Contactor 75 ....................3.5 feet wide Contactor 125................... 4.0 feet wide Qechtr3er -330........................... 7.5 feet wide Determlnatl6n of Length Required for Cultec No. 410 Fabric Interface '- Todelermine the lenglh of Cullec No. 41 0 filter fabric used to cover an installed line of chambers, measure the distance on the top of the Contactors or ~jer and add: 5 feet of fabric for Contactor 75 6 feet of fabric for Contactor 125 9 feet of fabric for Re.cto..r-3e.r' 2>30 The addition of the amount of cloth to the top dimension total will supply what is necessary to install the fabric interface correctly. Here Is an example using END OF LINE ""'.. .ft .., -2'...J RIB.LOCK RIB.LOCK BEGINNING OF LINE. ,/ ".- ~~~ RIB.LOCK ST^RTER UNIT -2....). Total length of fabric required for this IIne= fi2ECHRe6EJZ 330 Fabric required for; Over Top of Units = e,,,-'2,;" End Wall of Starter Unit = 2' 6'.{;,'" Under Lay of Starter Unit = 2' End Wall of End Unit = 2' 61/2," ''--' End Unit & to be Covered WHh Fill = 2' Total Lenglh of Fabric Required = 35'5" . . PAGE 1 L UNDERGROUND STORHWATER POLYETHYLENE CHAMBERS ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS FOR "CONTACTOR" CHA~ERS I. DESCRIPTION CONTACTOR™ POLYETHYLENE CHAMBERS ARE DESIGNED FOR THE PURPOSE OF UNDERGROUND STORHWATER MANAGEMENT AND ON-SITE WASTE WATER TREATMENT. THE CHAMBERS MAY BE USED FOR RETENTION, RECHARGING, DETENTION, OR CONTROLLING THE FLOW OF ON-SITE STORHWATER RUNOFF. II. UNIT SPECIFICATIONS AND MATERIALS A) UNITS ARE MANUFACTURED FROM HIGH MOLECULAR WEIGHT HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE. B) CONTACTOR™ OR CONTACTOR RECHARGER™ SHALL BE JOINED BY THE USE OF AN INTERLOCKING RIB METHOD. c) POLYETHYLENE CHAMBERS' END WALLS (or Plates) SHALL BE INTEGRATED AS PART OF THE CONTINUOUSLY FORMED UNIT. ~ D) POLYETHYLENE CIUHBERS SHALL BE MANUFACTURED BY . CULTEC, Inc. OF BROOKFIELD, CT. E) ALL CHAMBERS SHALL BE ARCHED IN SHAPE AND HAVE 3/4" ROUND DISCHARGE HOLES BORED INTO THE SIDES OF EACH UNIT FOR WATER INFILTRATION OR EXFILTRATION. F) ALL CHAMBERS WILL HAVE AN OPEN BOTTOM AND INTEGRALLY FORMED END WALLS DESIGNED FOR VERTICLE SUPPORT AND STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY. G) POLYETHYLENE UNITS ARE MANUFACTURED IN DIFFERENT MODELS: H-I0 or H-20. H-I0 UNITS ARE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AASHTO (AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRAFFIC OFFICIALS) LOAD RATING OF 16,000 Ibs. PER AXLE WITH 6" OF COMPACTED COVER. '- H-20 UNITS ARE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AASHTO LOAD RATING OF 32,000 Ibs. PER AXLE WITH 12" OF COMPACTED COVER UNDER PAVEMENT USING CONTACTOR™ AND 14" OF COMPACTED COVER UNDER PAVEMENT USING CONTACTOR RECHARGERTM. H) UNITS MUST MEET LOAD TESTING TO 20,000 Ibs./sq. ft. UNDER ONE FOOT OF 85% COMPACTED FILL, WHICH EXCEEDS AASHTO RATING FOR H-20. . . PAGE 2 L I) POLYETHYLENE.CHAMBERS MUST HAVE THE ABILITY TO ACCEPT AND CARRY UP TO 4" PIPE THROUGH ITS INTEGRALLY FORMED VERTICAL SUPPORT WALL. . J) SEPARATE INLET OR END PLATES CANNOT BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS UNIT. K) ALL POLYETHYLENE UNITS MUST HAVE 15 RIBS ON EACH CHAMBER. L) VERTICAL SUPPORT WALLS SHALL BE REPEATED EVERY 6.25 FEET AS PART OF THE CONTINUOUSLY FORMED UNIT. M) ALL H-20 POLYETHYLENE CHAMBERS SHALL BE ABLE TO PERFORM TO AASHTO CRITERIA UNDER 12" OF 85% COMPACTIBLE FILL USING CONTACTORTM UNDER PAVEMENT AND UNDER 14" OF 85% COMPACTIBLE FILL USING CONTACT OR RECHARGERTM. N) H-20 UNITS SHALL BE FORMED WITH A COLORED STRIPE SO IT CAN BE EASILY IDENTIFIED AS A H-20 UNIT. CONTACT OR 75---BLUE STRIPE CONTACTOR 125--WHITE STRIPE CONTACTOR RECHARGER--AQUA STRIPE 0) UNITS SHALL HAVE A 6" (nominal) OPTIONAL INSPECTION PORT LOCATED AT THE TOP OF THE ARCH IN THE '- CENTER OF EACH UNIT. III. CHAMBER INSTALLATION A) EACH POLYETHYLENE CHAMBER MUST BE COVERED WITH CULTEC No. 410 FILTER FABRIC TO PROVIDE MAXIMUM INFILTRATION CAPABILITY, ALSO ADD TO OVERALL STORAGE CAPACITY AND PREVENT SOIL INTRUSION. *OPTIONAL SURROUNDED BY STONE, BUT BENEFICIAL TO USE CULTEC No. 410 FILTER FABRIC. B) UNITS SHALL BE CONNECTED BY OVERLAPPING INTERLOCKING RIBS~ SIMPLY BY TAKING ONE OF ITS 14 LARGER RIBS AND PLACING IT OVER THE SINGULAR SMALLER RIB LOCATED AT ONE END OF EACH UNIT. IV. MANUFACTURING PROCESS A) CULTEC MANUFACTURES ITS PRODUCTS THRU A PROCESS CALLED VACUUMED THERMOFORMING. A SHEET OF EXTRUDED HIGH MOLECULAR WEIGHT HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE IS LOCKED IN A FRAME, HEATED, DRAWN OVER A MOLD AND SIMULTANEOUSLY A VACUUM IS DRAWN, RESULTING IN THE TOTAL FINISHED PIECE: AN INTEGRATED HOMOGENOUS STRUCTURE WITH ALL RIBS, DEPRESSIONS AND SUPPORT WALLS INCLUDED. IF THE EXTRUDED SHEET EVIDENCES ANY DEFECT IT IS EVIDENT IMMEDIATELY ON THE FINISHED PRODUCT. L IV. '- ~ . . PAGE 3 MANUFACTURING PROCESS (cont'd) B) COMPANIES THAT USE INJECTION MOLDING, WHETHER IT BE STRUCTURAL FOAM OR HDPE, DO NOT HAVE THIS ADVANTAGE. MATERIAL IS PUSHED THRU A DYE ANO FILLS A SERIES OF CAVITIES CONSECUTIVELY, ONE CAVITY AT A TIME. IF THIS MATERIAL IS NOT OF SUFFICIENT QUALITY OR TIME AND TEMPERATURE CONTROLS ARE NOT PROPER, KNITTING TOGETHER OF THIS SEQUENTIALLY INTRODUCED RESIN MAY BE FAULTY. THE UNSATISFACTORY PRODUCT WILL NOT BE DETECTED UNTIL A LOAD IS APPLIED, ALTHOUGH A VISUAL INSPECTION MAY INDICATE OTHERWISE. SPECIFICALLY, A NON JOINING OF RESIN MAY RESULT IN A SEPARATION. . . PAGE 4 L V. DETAILS FOR CONTACTOR 75HD A} EVERY POLYETHYLENE CHAMBER WILL HAVE A MINIMUM WALL THICKNESS AT THE TOP OF THE ARCH OF .25" FORMED FROM HIGH MOLECULAR WEIGHT HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE. B} EACH UNIT WILL HAVE 3.25 SQUARE FEET OF SIDEWALL INT~RFACE PER LINEAR FOOT. USE OF FILTER CLOTH IS MANDATORY TO PREVENT INTRUSION OF SOIL OR SILT INTO THE SYSTEM. C} OVERALL HEIGHT OF EACH CHAMBER SHALL BE 12.38 INCHES. ADD 1.25 INCHES FOR OVERALL HEIGHT TO TOP OF CLEAN-OUT. D} ~~~~~ISED CENTER INSPECTION POSITION HAS A REC~SSED TROUGH TO ENABLE SUPPORT AND LOCATING ASSISTANCE FOR UP TO 3" DIAMETER PVC PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION OR GRAVITY FEED PIPE. E} OPEN FOOTPRINT TO DRAINAGE WILL BE 2.2 SQUARE FEET PER LINEAR FOOT. F} THE UPPER OUTSIDE PERIMETER FOR EACH UNIT IS 3.25 FEET. L G} EACH CHAMBER HAS 14 RIBS OF APPROXIMATELY 2" IN HEIGHT, 2" WIDE AT THE TOP AND TAPERING TO 3.5" AT BOTTOM, SPACING AT THE TOP OF THE RIB IS APPROXIMATELY 3.25"; AND ONE SMALLER RIB SIZED DIMENSIONALLY TO ALLOW THE PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBED LARGER RIBS TO EFFECTIVELY DROP OVER AND INTERLOCK TO CONNECT UNITS. THE SMALLERoRIB'S DIMENSIONS BEING 1-3/4" HIGH, 1-3/4" WIDE AT THE TOP OF THE RIB, 2-3/4" WIDE AT THE RIB'S BASE. H} OVERALL HEIGHT FROM THE BASE OF THE STRUCTURE TO INSIDE RIB IS 10-3/8 INCHES. OVERALL H~IGHT FROM THE BASE OF THE STRUCTURE TO THE OUTSIDE RIB IS 11-3/4 INCHES. I} INVERT HEIGHT FOR 4" PVC PIPE IS 5.5 INCHES. J} EACH POLYETHYLENE UNIT AVERAGE FOOTPRINT IS 2.2 SQUARE FEET PER LINEAR FOOT. K} EACH POLYETHYLENE UNIT IS DESIGNED TO HANDLE 1.46 CUBIC FEET OF STORAGE PER LINEAR FOOT. . . . PAGE 5 V. DETAILS FOR CONTACTOR 125HD L A) EVERY POLYETHYLENE CHAMBER WILL HAVE A MINIMUM WALL THICKNESS AT THE TOP OF THE ARCH OF .25" FORMED FROM HIGH MOLECULAR WEIGHT HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE. B) EVERY POLYETHYLENE CHAMBER WILL HAVE A FOOTPRINT SIZE OF 2.2 SQUARE FEET PER CHAMBER TO ELIMINATE SINKING. C) EACH UNIT WILL HAVE 4.16 SQUARE FEET OF SIDEWALL INTERFACE PER LINEAR FOOT. USE OF FILTER CLOTH IS MANDATORY TO PREVENT INTRUSION OF SOIL OR SILT INTO THE SYSTEM. D) HEIGHT OF EACH CHAMBER SHALL BE 19 INCHES AT TOP OF RIB. ADD 1.5 INCHES FOR OVERALL HEIGHT TO TOP OF CLEAN-OUT FOR 20.5 INCHES OVERALL HEIGHT. E) THE RAISED CENTER INSPECTION POSITION HAS A RECESSED TROUGH TO ENABLE SUPPORT AND LOCATING ASSISTANCE FOR UP TO 3" DIAMETER PVC PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION OR GRAVITY FEED PIPE. F) OPEN FOOTPRINT TO DRAINAGE WILL BE 2.2 SQUARE FEET ,PER LINEAR FOOT. ~ G) THE UPPER OUTSIDE PERIMETER FOR E~CH UNIT IS 4.16 FEET. H) THE RATIO OF MEASUREMENTS OF THE OUTSIDE UPPER SURFACE PERIMETER TO THE BASE WIDTH MUST BE 1.75 OR GREATER IN ORDER TO MAXIMIZE THE EFFECTIVE INFILTRATIVE AREA PER SQUARE FOOT OF SYSTEM. I) EACH CHAMBER HAS 14 RIBS OF APPROXIMATELY 2-3/4" IN HEIGHT, 2-1/4" WIDE AT THE TOP AND TAPERI~G TO 3-1/4" AT BOTTOM, SPACING AT THE TOP OF THE RIB IS APPROXIMATELY 3.18"; AND ONE SMALLER RIB SIZED DIMENSIONALLY TO ALLOW THE PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBED LARGER RIBS TO EFFECTIVELY DROP OVER AND INTERLOCK TO CONNECT UNITS. THE SMALLER RIB'S DIMENSIONS BEING 2-~/4" HIGH, 1-3/4" WIDE AT THE TOP OF RIB, 2-1/2" WIDE AT THE RIB'S BASE. J) ,VERALL HEIGHT FROM THE BASE OF THE STRUCTURE TO INSIDE 'RIB IS 16 INCHES. OVERALL HEIGHT FROM THE BASE OF THE STRUCTURE TO THE OUTSIDE RIB IS 18-1/2 INCHES. K) INVERT HEIGHT FOR 4" PVC PIPE IS 11-1/2 INCHES. L) EACH POLYETHYLENE CHAMBER WILL HAVE AN AVERAGE OPEN FOOTPRINT OF 2.3 SQUARE FEET PER LINEAR FOOT. M) EACH POLYETHYLENE UNIT IS DESIGNED TO HANDLE 2.24 CUBIC FEET OF STORAGE PER LINEAR FOOT. ~ -"-",,,,-~......-~. ~... -I ==::='1 -==1 -i -~I =i ----;;,1 =1 -I ==11 -11 -'I -ill -!i , ~I -~, II -t.1 ------=' ~ II ~iii - ---------=i -I' -=~I ~I --r I I -I --"'"I j =,", -, --=1' -- ----=:: I --~ - - -------=.!!!!!! - ~, ----, , . i I i. 1'1', I",! f!,l 'ii " , I I. ~ , :, ;, I 1z -',r,'.:: ",i '"7r, ,I ,-r,o..".) ! : I:,; : ~/:) :', " f:.t'I ,'.,. ;,~ ' i'i I"~ I .' !I I . I ,; I i "~I f'r . . i' I I' i , , I i . . . . .....-nn - ............".....-".. I'; ~.~ !<l,,', i! I J,\, j i,ll' ,'I .J' ~ I,' '>"i' ,i!':~ ~:"""_; ,,,/'t , ", . fI .,oA '~ ijlrA ,.'- ?,JIW .:0 'Oil ;11 'j;, ,+ ';, U f~ ~'''--i- --,:-,"""':- - I,~:, fi '" <i ." ~ " , ",i! ;: :,;'l,{, 'i'.1 ::/ /;1 ~ -- I \ I () ~ ~ 0;:) - "'... "',..., ~... '" ol !l qJ! ,. " -:ii" ~J ~ -r.~" I ""\,. :,1 I " ',. ~ ~ @ , , I, I ~ I? .... ".i. L i " !l , I i I. i , " \. ' :3 , ./ " 1\,; 1\ ,I" , ti~ , , )', \, \ ,.I' \ \ )",:, I" I .. ';\ i , , i I, I' '.\ ( ~ II , ~;",;l' I: j.q I, 1\ ! I , . I , , ,,"- ; il . " ! .. ..\ '" ,..... 'I , i \~. .~ , I . ,: 'I , .1 i , ,\ ' , \.~ ~ .." "', "'..... ..... '''-.. . i/' r. " ,. j j I I' i/ ! ~l '. ..',IIi;" 't '11,1"., t ""'" ''''f ~ Jof'j'.\, ", R.,.." ., H' . ," '11 , ,~, ,,1,1 rJI '~