No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1000-15.-9-10.1, 11.1... . .~{I~ ~I.lFFaL.t, t'~~ '~" '~ "~,,, ~ o ~ . ~ . ~ "~. : ?"1: ',0. ~," ''c, ~ ~'t-: ~:=--'Q.f + ~~c-:} -<=c%::::::.::.:.:;~-=--~- . ~.,; S"~p~~'-- fZK JEAN W, COCHRAN SUPERVISOR Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P,O, Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1889 OFFICE OF THE SUPERVISOR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM Date: Town Board, Town Attorney Planning Board Francis Yakaboski, Esq. Jean Cochran, Supervisor \~ June 27, 1997 To: From: Re: AlIached teller re Cross Sound Ferry I received a call from Richard MacMurray to dispel any rumors. He was notifying me that they are meeting with Long Island Railroad representatives to promote trains running to Lake Ronkonkoma and then busses to the ferry. They are also looking into property in the Town of Riverhead for parking and then bussing to the site, He will be sending an article from a Connecticut newspaper complimenting the ferry on their encouragement of bicycle traffic on the boat. ~ /rbw Attachment ~ ~ J: : : : ~ ,rn , ._-.J SOUTHOLD T:JWN PlANNING BOARD . . 281-J4 Gardner Avenue New London, Connecticut 06320 June 22, 1997 Jean Cochran Town Supervisor Town of Southold Southold, (Long Island) NY RE: Orient Point Ferry/Sea Jet, Foxwoods Gaming Casino Dear Jean Cochran: Please find enclosed a recent New London Day newspaper article concerning your town's plights from the impacts of the Sea Jet ferry servicing the Foxwoods Gaming Casino. The purpose of this letter is to provide advice on possible remedies to mitigate the long term effects of the nightmare. First, a careful examination of the license and permits issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission would be in good order to determine the conditions of operation. Of course, you may have already conducted such an investigation. Also, the I.C.C. may have regulations requiring hearings for significant impacts resulting from changed operations. It wouldn't hurt to explore the regulations and laws with a fine- toothed comb. Next, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, United States Department of Interior prepared a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the environmental assessment of Foxwoods. I have a copy of all those pertinent documents. Essentially, the FONSI was deliberately designed by the BIA to avoid preparation of a full-blown Environmental Impact Evaluation. The document itself is a sham and doesn't even begin to cover any of the ongoing, long-term impacts. Because I do not live in close proximity to the casino, I could not claim a direct effect from the casino at the time of the assessment. In other words, I lacked standing to bring litigation challenging their environmental review. However, things have changed because of the Pequots expanding operations and impacts. Currently, the State of Connecticut has sued the BIA to prevent annexation of an additional 167 acres. This suit in Federal District Court requires preparation of a full environmental impact statement for the annexation. Your town could join the suit as party plaintiffs because of the increased effects from annexation. I am, also, commencing an effort to enlist as many people as possible to bring suit under the National Environmental Policy Act to require preparation of :I full impact statement. 7 . . If you require additional information or assistance, please contact me at: 860/447-8259 after Jul;y 5, 1997. Very truly yours, fJAit . "The Day" Sunday, June 22, 1997 ~f>rient Point r:identS I furious over Sea Jet By CLIFFORD KRAUSS N.Y. Times News Service OrIent Paint, N.Y, .- Lined by Vic. torian barns, picket fences, scare- crows and potato fields, the I5-mile stretch of Houte 25 between Green- port and Orient Poinl is still a cen- tury, or at least a state of mind, away from the jams of the Long Js. land Expressway. But this bucolic passage has he- come a battleground between a Connecticut ferry company and a bunch of crusty East I~nd viJJagcrs. Residents are furious about a sudden increase in traffic spawned by a high-speed ferry Ihat six limes a day takes gamblers aeross Long Island Sound to the F'OXWOOfls He- sort Casino. They say the sporadic clusters of tramc arc reducing property val- lWS, massacring th(' guinea fowl that run aCfoss the roml and forc- ing residents to sit in lheir drive- ways for up to five mitlllff~s waiting for cars to go by, The frustrations lire Slimmed up by a bumper slicker sold at Ihe Ori- ent general store thaI: says, "] Don't Care If You're Late for the Ferry!" Heavy traffic is, of course, a rela- tive concept Most eommuters on the LIE or the FIJI{ Drive would he tempted kiss lhe pavement for simi- lar conditions. And to the owners of gas stations and ro;tdside stands, the sounds of gamblers and other drivers honking to pass s]ow- moving farm tractors mean ringing cash registers. . But to most peoplp who Jivn ill villages like Orient, Orient Point and East Marion, the sounds are the accompaniment to clism::;ler. The "traffic prohlem" on the North Fork has been building for years. But when Cross Sound Ferry Services launched the Sea .Jet two years ago to augment the slower car ferries and then sought zoning permission to expand a pRrking lot in Orient Point, it slirrcd a baUle royaL The ferry comp;my says !KK),OOn p{'!onl(~ take IIw fmTY h(~1 WPPI1 Ori- ent Point and New London annu- ally, compared with 8lKI,OOO fi ve . years ago, before the Mashantucket Pequot Indian tribe opened ~'ox- woods. Residents say they fc;lr the traffic w1ll only get worse if the ferry company lallndws more boats for trafTie to Ute IWW Mohe- gan Sun easillo, a few mHcs fmm ......ox woods. Typically, riders of the ferry are gamblers who leave their cars in Orient Point in the morning, take the 35-minute high-spped ferry ride ($20 rounu-trip) to New London and shuttle by bus to Il'oxwoods. They return to Long Island that night. The Town of Soulhold, N.Y., which includes 111 its Jurisdidion the vlilages most am,,,t,,d by Ihe traffic, has tnk(m th\! ferry com. pany to courl to demand a full envt- ronmcntul.imp:wl stalt'lm'lll on the proposed 2.5.aerc.exp;lllshm of the parking lot. Meanwhile, a citizens' group led by a retirc(l viee admiral Is suing the town for not moving to stop the ferry altogether. The company has lwen forced to spend $SfX),OOO on lawyers, a trRilie consultant and a variety of experts to complete the impaCt slatement. Biologists have begun studying reports on the mating. nesting and spawning habits of several species of birds and sea life, including the tiger sa;;unander. an endangcred species native to Ihe area. And an archaeologist is sllldVill~~ histodcal records to see if the lot' was ever used as a burial ground hy ^ 1_ gonquin Indians or settled by early Jo~uropean colonists. WHliam "'~ssex, a ferry-company lawyer, said that rights that date hack to the ArticJes of Confedera. tion are at stake in the dispute. "There is a constitutional right to travel," he said, "and you can travel a state road all you want.." The ferry company has tried to calm anxieties by donating blink- ing yellow trafflc lights In front of a local school anet a firehouse along Route 2S. Adam Wrollowski, the 25- year-old scion of the family that owns Cross Sound Ferry. said the company is considering donating a tmffic light near the ferry to stag- ger traffle leaving the parking lot. "Ferry traffic rises naturaHy through supply and demand," Wronowski said. "Are we an evil entity? No, we're a public service." But the ferry company's attempts at creating good will have been spurned in recent monlhs. First the Orient CongregatiolJalist Church refused a $2,SOO donation to fix an organ sound system damaged by iightnlng, and then the Greenl'orl l"loyd Memorial Library turned down $.'l,50n from the company. The local police department has added officers outntted with radar guns to reduce speeding to and from the ferry. And to Ihis point, 110 i one has been hurt hy tratTic linked to the high-speed ferries. . But residents say a serious acci- dent is waiting to happ(m, and real estate ngents sny property values along -the road have already been affected. One agent, Suzanne Hahn, recalled times when she showed po. tential clients J9th.cent.ury Victor- ian homes "that they felJ in love with unW they Iried to leave lhe driveway and were forced to wait five minutes because of a wave of trafflc. " Sipping iced tea on her gracefui veranda overiooking Route 2S, Eli- nor WUlinms recaJJcd roller- Skating along the same road, be- tween me:!(h)ws of sky scraping SI1I1- llownr!-l. sOl1wtJnm during the De- pressIon. "You wouid hear nothing but the frogs and the birds," she said, closing her eyes as jf fulling into a dream. Suddenly five cars cume rum- bling by, probably rushing to catch the ferry In Nnw London which wn~ sehcduled to lenve Orient Point in 20 minutes. Mrs. Williams' sweet smile suddenly twisted Into' a gri- mace as she blamed the "hordes of Foxwoods gamblers" for the 81111- den, wave of cars. "It's painful," she said, raJsing her voice over the en- gine noise. "It's a nuisancc'" On her cable television program, Jean Cochran, the Southold town supervisor, recently displayed a thick stack of complaint letters. One, written by Mr, and Mrs. Jam- es Mark, a retired couple, asked,. "Why must we in Orient and Grecnport lim(! our food Shopping, dodor's visits and other necessary trips out of our homes to the ferry trame?" The ferry company and just about everyone on the peninSUla agt-ee there is a solution: If only Montauk, Easthampton, Sag Har. bor or Shoreham would take some of the high-speed ferry traffic, the North Fork could avoid becoming a funnel for every gambler traveling through Suffolk County. But no one else wants the traffic, and local governments and civic groups have so fat. hloclwd the ferryenmnany. .' ~C~;fFOl~~ . t?~~.~\ .~ ~ ~,~ ~ ~ ~ ~). ''''-~. ~.' ~QJ + "';.~. ~:/ ""~JY Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM. JR. RICHARD G. WARD PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD May 13, 1997 Thor Hanson Southold Citizens for Safe Roads, Inc. P.O. Box 797 Greenport, NY 11944 Dear Mr. Hanson: I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your letter of May 6, 1997 regarding the current status of Town of Southold v. Cross Sound Ferry, Inc. The letter, which has been reviewed by the Planning Board, took us by surprise. In response, I wish to note that the Board recognizes that Southold Citizens for Safe Roads, Inc. has taken an active interest in the progress of this litigation and has participated fully in the reviewing of the environmental scoping outline. Further, since SCSR's attorneys were present at the March 11, 1997 meeting before Judge Dunn, you no doubt are cognizant of the discussions that took place before the Judge. In essence, the Judge has declined to move ahead with an injunction at this time. Having said that, I also must add that we share your concerns about the seeming delay in preparing the environmental impact statement. However, I wish to remind you that the Planning Board's resolution of December 16, 1996 adopted a Scoping Outline which requires, among other things, a detailed transportation analysis addressing peak activity periods (i.e. the summer months). It may be prudent to allow them sufficient time to address the Outline in depth. If they fail to meet the October deadline specified in Essek's letter of April 29, 1997, ("By that time, a completed DEIS should have been submitted, reviewed by Town staff and the subject of public comment." page 3 of his letter), I believe that failure, alone, will speak more loudly and clearly to the Judge than anything else we could do at this time. Sine ere/~y,. / I / / . /, I~ '..,/,'...../ '<"....~--r.. .J,;?'t/;ffi--'--- /r Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman cc: Francis J. Yakaboski, Counsel Laury P. Dowd, Town Attorney 0:J04!1997 10:58 8604403492 ~~1 I .\ . 1:.., . __. _...~ '''_'~'' Date: Attention: Company: cROSS SOUND FERRY . . C 1'\'" ",'llll\ll ,'11\ \ I., i Fax Cover Sheet February 4, 1997 Bonorable Jean Cochran Town oE Southold Fax Number: 516-765-1823 From: Message: Richard MacMurray PAGE 131 $LtF P8 F.y. ~p 6R-'-~ (~ T0 l~~~,,\ / ,;. ..',"f . ,. ,- -~-~ , 0' f" '] !III f'2 j .' c.q LS U I!J ~ ;r'''' I FEB I 3 1991 ~ .........._-=:.J t ;-:::11) TliGLJ HJNN L-._~-:'.l,~:;t!li~ilQ 8(J~Jm Number of Pages Including Cover Sheet: 6 Please c:zll (860) 443-7394 if all pages are not received:. -r ", ea.......OIIIIB. 2FcySt. . POb33 . Nlwlallbl,CT0632O. (B8l)<M3-7J94.FIX(I6O)~3492 ., ':...~t.~~r,+~!,>!' :: 02/04/1997 12:58 8504403492 . CROSS SOUND FERRY PAGE 02 . Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. .: ~ 2 FelTY 51. P. O. Bolt 33 New London, cr 06320 ~e..__ ~. . ,.,. .' . . -~...: Telepbone (860) 443-7394 Fu (860) 440-3492 February 4, 1997 Honorable Jean Cochran Supervisor Town of Southold Town Hall, P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 . i .','''' .... .1. Dear Jean: As we discussed on the telephone last week. please fmd the enclosed summary shut of the results of the economic impact survey that was conducted aboard the Sea Jet this past Fall We are encouraged by the re.,ults. as I think you will be, since they show that those utilizing the high-Speed sctVice an: conuibuting to the economy of Southold Town. We hope to use the results of this survey in our ongoing marlceting effOrL' to attract visitors to the North Folk. . I We have recently begun wolk with the Greenpon I Southold Chambei of Commerce on a joint chamber I ferry committee to produce incentive packages to be cross-madretcd to ferry customers. It is our intention to use these illCCDtive laden packages to entice ferry cuStomers to continue to palroniu local attractions, accommodations, shops, and other busine.,ses. Through this, it is also oW' intention to encourage these visitors to make subsequent visitS to the area even when they are nol using Cross Sound Ferry. .. . ",i If you should have any questions on this. please feel free to ca1lme. ., ~ , ) Sincerely. Richard MacMurray Vice ,President I General Manager . ;' ~ I -"',. . ~H' " ,,::;,; :~ 02/04/1997 10:59 8504403492 . CROSS SOUND FERRY . Economic Impact Survey of Sea Jet, High-Speed Ferry Service on Southold Town . '. Prepared by: Cross Sound Feuy Services. Inc. 2 Ferry Street New London, CT 06320 December 1996 (860) 443-7394 PAGE 03 / 02/04/1997 10:58 8604403492 . CROSS SOUND FERRY PAGE 04 . Summary of Findings Economic Impact Survey of Sea Jet Ferry Service on Southold Town lntrocluclion In the Fall of 1996, a slII'Vey was conducted by Cross Sound Ferry on 1he economic impacts or the Sea Jet I, high-speed. passenger-only ferry service on Southold Town. Specifically, the survey was designed to measure the impact that passengers utili7.ing this high-speed ferry service had on local businesses in Southold Town. This poll consi.~ted of personal.interviews with 154 individuals who were palrom aboard tbe_l;ea Jet. The interviews were conducred during the morning trips over the course of a four week period in November and December of 1996. The individuals polled were asked various questions pertaining to their travel behavior. They were specifically asked if they had patronized any local businesses on the North Fork on their trips out to the ferry or on their way blll:k from the ferry (ferry trips). They were a.\ked III he spcc;ific in naming both types of businesses frequented and the actual names of businesses. The survey asked the respondent the approximate amount of money that each spent at thc.~ local businesse., a., part of their ferry trip, along with what prompted them to stop at these businesses. I The final set of questions asked the respondent if their experience of taking the ferry including the drive out on the North Forlt encouraged them to come back to the North Fork for a future visit other than when they take the ferry. If the respondent answered yes. they were then asked what particular place.,. attraction.~, or businesses they would like to visit in the future. ! '-,. ,.,.," \".l SeA Jet cwdftmers who ride die .ntn terries This question asked the Sea Jet cu.,tomer if they had used the autOmobile ferril!S when then:: was a need to take a car on the ferries or when the Sea Jet was nOt in , operation. Of those polled, 70% responded that they do ride on the auto ferries and that 87% of them take their cars when traveling on the auto ferries. This figure demon.~traw.~ that then:: is a definite cross section of Cross Sound Ferry patron.1 who1ide on the auto ferrie.~ and now utilize the Sea Jet, hip-speed service when it can be fit into the. individuals' travel plan.,. Once again, this 70"" could also represent those.eus~omers who i\I'C repeat usetS of the ferry service over the course of a year. iJ)t,..~~~_fJ(!~~tr }~:, ....... ~~ .........._~...u, G2/84/1997 19:58 8684483492 CROSS SOUND FERRY PAGE 85 . . Has r"~""ent stouoed at '''''DI.. Nnrth Fork btdiftM:!.aco durin. ferJ'Ytrio Of those polled, 63% of the respondenrs staled that they have patrOnized local businesses located on the North Fork on a previous ferry trip, on this particullll' trip, or plan to stop on their return trip from the ferry. The respondenu were aL~ asked to name certain categories of businesses that they StOpped at (non-specific busi~ses} and the actual names of places (specific businesses) if they could. Non..~flll! businesses that 'ern eustomen natronized Keep in mind that these pen:entages will exceed 100%. since many of the respondents who said that they patronized North Fork businesses named more than one category of businesses that they frequented on their ferry trip. Of all IqP.9J1Cienu who stopped, 65% said they stopped at North Fork re.,taurants I deli's; 50% said they Stopped at local fann.uands; 27'1f> of respondenrs stOpped at convenience stOTesor'gas station.~; 26% SlOpped at other stores or shops; and 14% stopped at the various North Fork wineries.,';" .:~' ._~.,:-;}" Soedflc hud....... thld terry ~~ eatronizerl I Of the names of specific busines.~ that ferry customers stopped at on their ferry trip. each was grouped into six categories. The categories uc: -I" Restaurants I Deli'. FlU'"'It.. CODYCJIieac:e Stores I GII Stadons Stores I Shops WlDeries I Vineylll'dl Hotels I Motels I B&:B's :'-nr 'I ','l ,.,:.)....~,!i~~.,', The top three businesses in each category that customers on the Sea Jet patronized are as follows: D......1'tlfttII I DeIi'~ 1. Clifrs Elbow East I Elbow Room 2. Claudio's 3. Hellenic Snack Bar (Overa11. respondenlS named 25 specific restauranlS that they stopped al on their ferry trip.) 'H' J j; 0""""':- . 1- .~ 2 'f' ~: ~. ..~'-," ..,,~ 02/04/1997 10:58 8604403492 CROSS SOUND FERRY -- ---- PAGE 06 . . :FRrnBtand. 1. Lalham' s 2. Briemere Farms 3. Sep's Fanner Mike's . "-'F~l Cnnvl!llie1'll!l! StnrM I eM Ct. tift... 1. Seven-Eleven 2. Spanos 3. Mr. Roberts StDre5 I Shom 1. The CaDClymaD in Orient 2. Tanger Fac:lory Outlet Center 3. IGA - Greenpon Thompson's "'~"":" WI"""'... I Vlnevards 1. Pindar 2. PalIner Lenz Pellegrini / Hn..... I UnHrI. I BaB's 1. The Beachcomber (The Beac:hcomber was the only specific business named in this category.) A Do'MXima. amount 01 monev ment at th6e bu......... on eaclt terrY trin Respondents were asked lo approxiIllam the amount of money they spent at the various North Folk businesses they Slopped at during their ferry trip. The respondents were ased to classify their spending into one of the following categories: Less than S 1 0; Betwccn S10 and 520; Between $20 and $30; Between $30 and $40; and Morc than $40. Of those polled. 26% eslilnalcd that they spent between $20 and $30 at local businesse.~ on eac:h ferry trip, aDCl 23% said they spent more than S40 dollars OD each ferry trip. Those who said they spent less than $10 ac:countcd for 19% of those surveyed, while 18% said they spent between 510 and 520, and 14'l1> said they spent between $30 and $40. 3 '\'- I....... '. ~, ".. ,.Ii ..'~.;. ~ -:~';~~2 ~.;~:~:- ~::.~}: ..rl- ~'.. """'- -~i~-":-r ..'~~...., ~ . - "",/ 1"0;:>/ _~.,c _./ -t.-U;:; <,v..Er ~, 11 f,fJLO'i.~~ fR-. \-'1- 1~1 I, ()Mi'^- IMPORTANT >> File Number: Pl-473800-00118 00 Use the above number in all correspondence about this action! To the Lead Agency: The above information confirms that filings on the described Positive Declaration were officially received by, and entered in the SEQR Repository on the date(s) shown in the box headed DATE RECEIVED above. The latest filing is indicated by the most recent date in that box. The date and time in the second line show when this document was printed. Please check the information above carefully. For corrections or questions contact Charles Lockrow, (518)457-2224, or write to: SEQR Repository NYSDEC Division of Regulatory Affairs 50 Wolf Road, Room 514 Albany, NY 12233 Town of SOUTHOLD Planning Board 53095 Main Road-P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 r:.'m '.. R (C' r<; T. ii.!.;'~--'; II D IE 19 L' d.-; , !i r~---.' ~J! 15 i i..- I , PLANNING BOARD MEMBE' RICHARD G. WARD Chai.rman GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS December 16, 1996 William Esseks, Esq. Esseks, Hefter and Angel 108 East Main Street Riverhead, NY 11901 - 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: Proposed Site Plan for Cross Sound Ferry SCTM#1000-15-10.1, 11.1, 15.1 & 3.5 Dear Mr. Esseks: The following took place at a special Planning Board Public Meeting held on Monday, December 16, 1996: WHEREAS, The Southold Town Planning Board is required by Sections 3-0301 (1) (b), 3-0301 (2) (m) and 8-0113 of the Environmental Conservation Law to implement the provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (S.E.Q.R.A.); and WHEREAS, S.E.Q.R.A. requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they directly undertake, fund or approve may have a significant impact on the environment, and, if it is determined that the action may have a significant adverse impact, prepare or request an environmental impact statement; and WHEREAS, the applicant has provided the lead agency, (Planning Board), with a Long Environmental Assessment Form and the L.E.A.F. has been received by the Planning Board. the Planning Board's Environmental Consultant, and other involved agencies; and . 4 Resolu tion: Cross Sound Ferry Page 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Board, as lead agency, after review of the L.E.A.F. found that the action may significantly effect the environment, made a determination of a Positive Declaration at a public meeting held on September 16, 1996; and WHEREAS, 6 NYCRR part 617.8 (2) scoping was initiated by the lead agency and requires the project sponsor to submit a draft scope that contains the items identified in paragraphs 617.8 (f) (1) through (5) of Section 617.8; and WHEREAS, the project sponsor provided a draft scope to the lead agency on November 15, 1996 and the lead agency provided a copy of the applicant's draft scope to all involved and interested agencies and individuals who expressed an interest in writing to the lead agency; and WHEREAS, a scoping outline has been prepared by the Planning Board's Environmental Consultant using the applicant's scope outline with input from the Planning Board, members of the Southold Town Board of Zoning Appeals, involved and interested agencies, in addition to relevant and substantial comments received in letters from the public, and finally, the outline incorporates input from the public scoping meeting held at Town Hall on December 4, 1996; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board as lead agency has received the final scoping outline and deemed it to be sufficient for the purposes of a Draft E. I. S., BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board adopt the scoping outline dated December 16, 1996 in determining the content and format of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Cross Sound Ferry. Enclosed is a copy of the scoping outline for your use in preparing the D.E.I.S. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. ()l:~rO~~A Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Acting Chairman Encls. . . CROSS SOUND FERRY SEQR SCOPING OurLI~"E Dran ~cmber 16, 1996 This outline provides a scoping document for use by the Planning Board of the Town of Southold in determming the content and format of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Cross Sound Ferry. Attached, and made a part of this outline is the Positiv~~ Declaration for the (>roposed action, which provides a brief description of the project, and lists the potentially signIficant environmental impacts which formed the basis for the Positive Declaration. This outline has been prepared Wlth input from the consultant to the Planning Board, Planning Board members, and members of the Southold Board of Zoning Appeals. In addition, relevant and substantive conunents from coordination letters (received up until date of preparation of this outline) have been incorporated into the scope where appropriate. Finally, ~ outline incorporates .in.P.J.I1.i'mm 1M public scopine meettnll hclQ.ll1 ~ Hill Qn ~m.Qg.4..12.2.6. The applicant should recognize and contact each agency that is a separate permitting entity, and fife applications with each jurisdiction and obtain technical comments. The EIS process is intended to provide comprehensive and important information for the decision m<:l1ing process for use by involved agencies in preparing their own findings and issuing decisions on their res ective permits. In m:s.!.tl1Q iYOi.d sellmentation and be ill conformance wi . " I '~s f v' lncern. th~ scOpinll outline and the .!2r.af1 !lWS.t consider ~ imp~ associated IDIh pr~ and proposed activity .ll1lill ~.s in 1!.le. terminal facilitY. The document should be concise but thorough, well documented, accurate, and consistent. Technical information may be sununarized in the body of the document and attached as an Apf.endix. Review for acceptance or certification of the Draft EIS will involve review of content Lor conformance to the fmal scope, and accuracy to ensure that correct information is incorporated into the document for initial review. Review after acceptance will deal in more detail with the specific technical information presented and the allal~sls provided. Based on review, substantive comments received from involved agencies and p,aches of interest, the public hearing process, and appropriate direction from the lead agency, a final EIS will be prepared which will respond to all substantive comments on the Draft EIS. The Planning Board will be responsible for the preparation, content and accuracy of the Fin2.l EIS, and this document will be used as a basis for each agency to prepare a Statement of Findings and Facts for use in structuring permit or approval decisions. Overall, the Planning Board seeks a detailed Description of the Proposed Project including documentation of the following: background andhistorv, location, design and layout, recharge handling, water supply, sanitary disposal, quantities of site coverage, !ite access, mechanisms for open space preservation, and site access. The Environmental Setting and Potential Significant Impacts section may be combined, to discuss existing, no-huild and build conditions. Impacts should be identified as short term or long term. In nddide-n, a section should be proVided which identifies cumulative impacts of the proposed project. Consistent with SEQR Draft ElS guidelines, additional chapters of the Potential Significant Impacts section should include Growth Inducing Aspects, Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources, and Effects on the Conservation of Energy Resources where appropriate. Adverse Impacts which can not be avoided shall be identified in a separate section. CO:lsideration of one or more Alternatives will be required to address other scenarios regarding key resources. The following outline provides an updated form for the content and preparatic,n of a Draft EIS. Page 1 '- J::.I 1-:.::' _ .-J ~. r'1 Ilj _ :=. 1,~1 F' _ L:1 ... . . Cross Sound Ferry Draft Ers $coping Outline TABLE OF CONTENTS AND SU:;'IMARY A Table of Content, and a brief summary arc reqwred for the Draft EIS. The Table e,f Contents and ,urn mary will include: A. Brief description of the action. B. Significant, adverse and beneficilll impacts (issues of controversy must be spedfied). C. Mitigation measures I'ropClsed. D. Alternatives considercd. E. Mutters to b. decided (permits, approvals, status, funding). I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION A. PROJECT PURPOSE, NEED AND BENEFITS 1. Background and History.. History of ownership and use, extant strudures, past use(s), and prior site plan applications. Describe history of terminal buildi.ull inaprovements and parking area changes and history of snack bar pareel. Provide history of underwater land including ownership and legal (include survey of underwater land) per milling and dredging history including placement of spoil and fill of wetlands. Provide ID3 historical overvicw ill cnvirClnmental reviews QIllM~;1 propertv. 2. Public need for the project, and municipality objectives based 011 adopted community devclopment plans.. ,umlnarize municipal objectives fro1l11and use }lans and establish Dced for the project. 3. Objectivcs of the project sponsor in expanding business and in changing nature of servkes offered (Le. addition of high specd fcrry, passenger only service) over tbe past 2 years. Discuss.il.!ll! identify m known future business plans, possibl" expansion, etc. 4. Benefits of the Action -. Transportation services, economy. B. LOCATION I. Establish geographic site boundaries .. Provide location map of upl""d and underwater lands. Identify area of public land which appears on tax maps in eenler of subject property, and public access to this sile as appropriate. 2. DcscriptiCln of site access .. Road frontage and lvater acccss. Deser;:,e inter. relationship of State Road 2S and all four parcels. 3. Description of existing zoning on subject properties and 011 eastern-eJost parcel. :!. ~ Map = Provide I radius J!Wllll ~ .!!ls ill!: in relation lll!U lrilhin Zll!l fs&1 C. DESIGN AND LAYOUT 1. TUlal Site Arca.. describe existing and potential site use and deseril:e dcsign features incorporated into the proposed plan. DiscuM limitation cl s.W: ~2lIl as .a Cunction ll! parkin\!. 2. Sitc Coverage Quantitics .. Use table to prescnt building, driveway, I'oad, recharge, landscaping, natural area, and other site coverage quantities. 3. Structures .. Describe expected ~tructures, including the proposed parking and relocated staging areas. Describe existing lighting: type, wattage, locations. Describe existing traffic management proeedurc~ if any. Describe moving oflnack bar and combining with existing re"idenee for waiting room and snack restaurant. 4. Parking .. Describe existing and proposed parking, existing and pro~osed parking surface type and area, cireul.tion, de"ign .nd layout. S. Recharge -. Present method of stormwatcr recharge, capacity 3Ild dc:sign requiremellts. Describe proposed drainage and measures 10 minimize overland flow 3Ild provide adequate stormwater rccharge capacit)'. Page Z DEe -.. 1 1 -~ .::. >:: t..1 ED :~~ : 4. 3 . . Fo ~ ~':1 4 Cross Sound Ferry Drafi US Scoplng Outline 6. Sanitary Disposal.. Describc sanitary dispo~al mcthods, design fiow, needed additional capacily, 3S a~propri.'te. Dc~cribe ,anitary de,ign flow of ferry terminal building, snack bar and rcsidence.. 7. Water Supply .- Ability to meet Article 4. private watcr system stane,ards and water quality. 8. Land,caping .. Der-cribe proposed landscaping to improve or visual md aesthetic site qualities. 9., Ytilitic< .. De;cribc oth!ll.\!.l.i!i1il;s e,;stin2 MJl prol'o'ed in conneeti'ID l!li1h llll: proposed l!!Jl~ D. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION 1. Construction a) Anticipated period of construction. b) Schedule of construction activities.. i.e. Wildlife sensitivity and any wetlands resources. 2. Operation.. discuss future management of proposed project following construction, i.e. maintenance of buildings, roads. recharge. etc. E. AGENCIES A.ND APPROVALS .. list lead agency, involved ag'Jndes and interested parties separately, followed by their jurisdiction or interest, and the status of each p"rmit or approval application. Describe permit history where appropriate. 1. Towel Planning Board 2. Soutbold T 0....11 Board 3. Town Board of TI'ustees 4. Town Zoning Board of Appeals S. Suffolk Counly Department of Health Services 6. Suffolk County Department of Public Works 7. Suffolk County Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation. 8. Suffolk County Planning Commission and Department of Planning 9. New York State Departmeut of Environmental Conservation. 10. New York State Dcpaumen! of Transportation 11. New York State Deparlment of Stale 12. New Yerk State Of/ice of Parks, Recreation &: Historic Preservation 13. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 14. Federal Emergency Management Agency 15. Southold Cili/.cns for Safe Roads 10. North Fork Environmental Council 17. U.S. Departmenl of Agrieulture,(flum Is!.a!!.II Center) 18. Other II. EXISTING, NO-BUILD AND IIOILD ENVIRONMENTAL CONIlITIONS This section should describe existing environmental conditions. fulure environmental condirions if the project is not implemented. and future conditions once the project is completed. Identify thme resources that may be adversely or benelicially affected by the proposed action and require discussion. Discuss all environmental conditions in sufCicient detail to determine if significant adverse or beneficial irnpaets are expecled. Identify impacts as long Or short term where possible and provide separale chapter including discussion of cumulative impacts. Consistent ,,:ith SEQR Draft EIS guidelines. additional chapters of tb.: Potential Significant Impacts scction should incluue Growth Inducing Aspects, Irreversible and Irretrie"able Commitment of Resources, and Effects on the Conservation of Energy Resources where appropriate. An appropriate design year should be ,ebcted for building traflie. Jir and noise conditions. '. Page 3 ,t) E C -- 1 1 .,~ '?~, \..~ E U '~'.4 . F' . '-:' ~ Cross Sound Ferry Dralt E:lS S<oplng OutJIne Tn 'Iiew of the fact that the current operation includes a passenger/vehicle ferry and a passenger only ferry, existing conditions will include the current operation. In addition, certain additional Ian is including thc casterly parcel and parts of the State right-of. way arc in use (or parking and circulation, and therefore sbould be described. Further, otber information concerning environmental conditions contained in this ,;ectlon shall include all four parcels and the Statc right-of-way where it separatcs the two westerly parcels from the twO eastcrly parcels. Natural Resources A. GEOLOG Y u ThiS ~ ~ address!%.~ a!!l! imoacts associated m ieoloiY 1. Subsurfacc a) composition and thickncss 01 subsurlace matcrial- To dcpth 01 17 fcct or g.roundwaterj providc a summary of tcst hole information. 2. Surfacc a) List of soil types per Suffolk County Soil Survey. b) Discussion of soil characteristics/limitations c) Distribulion 01 soil typcs at project site d) Identify important dune, tidal marsh or special featurc soils as a resource. Describe dune and beach lorm~tions on the subject site and 1 heir proximity to the proposed activity. Include 'pecifically ~ National ~11ll.1l111,.4ndm8rk ~ Q[ Qili;nt ~ S1llll: Park..am! idcntif~ W iml'8ets ill ~ f,I~ fI2! ~ it is !lili.Q. 3. Topography a) Description of topography at project site, particularly any areas 01 steep slopes or drainage areas. B. WATER RESOURCES -- This section should address the listed issues as tbey pertain to the elfect th~ proposed action may have On the site's capacity to provide potable water and sanitary wasle disposal for the existing use and any proposcd uses. 1. Groundwater a) Location and description 01 aquifers and reeharge areas. depth 01 water table i.u development areas. seasonal variation, discuss groundwater-surface water intcr-relationship; :liseharge to surlace water; tidal fluctuations if rclevant. determine exisling water quality beneath the sile in anticipated water supply zones. direction of now b) Identification of pre~ent uses and leyel of u.,. of groundwatcr location of existing wells public/private w~ter supply agricultural uses c) Groundwater/water management regulations - 208 study, special groundwater protection areas, NURPS study, etc. d) ~ A~sessm~nt -. deterrnine ~ ill ~ Jm i1:QlIJldwater ouantity ii.e. saltwater \1pconina: A!!JUQr intrusion] a.nll ~ ~~ (i& s.nit.ry waste. ,tormwaler Irom parkina: WJ! ~ ~ hydrocarbon. formation Q.( t!hth313te~!!!!l combustion pollutants]. 2. Surface Water a) Describe Jny nearby surface walers including -NYSDEC smface water rJassification water qualily and salinity fage 4 . . Cross Souod Ferry Draft ~:IS Scoplng Outlloe characteristics and uses Pcc<'~ic Bav Estuary .. descrih~ !!!.Q ill.Q dc<ijp'3tion ami wil\iQn ill till: Peeonie .fuu' Estuarv, Drainage b) 3. describe existing drainage patterns Oil site and in the arca. make note of drainage swales and natural collection a.eas. determine ereect or the proposed action on incrcased IUDOff and pollutioo from lhe Main Road into the slorm drains on the adjacent property of the Plum Island Animal Disease Research Laboratory into Gudiners Bay. determine ~ llf ~ or~~osed iiill!ln QJl elosion 1ml1.l:!llW. aIlli ~ 1lu.l potenhal WSlllJllS m.tulatcd 4. Flooding . locate flood zones on the subject site and describe limitations, features, jurisdictional issues, and special requirements. C. TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY -- This ~ shmWlllmi.S ~ resource ilI!ll determine oOlential impaclslll J.hQ ~ with ~ III ~ resource. 1, V egetat ion a) list vegetation types On the project site and within thc surrounding area; classify into habitats, b) discussion of site vegetation characteristics species presence and abundance size distribution community types unique, rare and endangered spccics value as habitat ror wildlife c) Contact NYS Nalural Heritage Program for inrormalion cc'ocerning unique vegetation, habilats or wildlife species 00 site or in the area, and provide discussion/analysis in lext as necessary. d) Desc.ribe habitat needs and biological characteristics of all ,:ndangcrcd species, threatened and species or speeial concern e) discuss unique nora in marine environment in relation to subject site and activities conducted ,at the subject site. 2. Wildlire a) Provide a list of wildlire utili,jng site habitats or expected on sileo Inelleatc dates of surveys and distinguish spedes identified On sile. Consult references codetermine species cxpeel<:d 00 site based on habitatlypc. b) COnI act Natural Heritage Program Cor file review of site a..d area, e) Identify Endangered, Threatened or Species of Special COIlcern. d) Describe habitat needs and biological characteristics of all ,:ndangered species, threatened and species of special COncern. 3. Wetlands a) O",eribc wetlands (vegelated aod unvegetated) and adjacc:1t areas as and characteristics, b) Indicate method of delineation and agencies conlaclcd for '/erification or agencies with jurisdiction. Specifically contact Town Truslc:es, NYSOEC and USACOE. c) Identify valuablc runctions of wCllands on site and adjacent sileo D. AIR RESOURCES -. This MilliM s!lilllJ.Q ~ U~ resource MIl sWJ:rmirn: nolenlial impacts III ~ Jllili<:.!;.l with le.an! ill 00 resource, .~,. - Page 5 DEl..: 1 1 .- ?~. ~.J E 1.:1 .-..~. .=. '" .-' . F' _ ~::) T Cross Sound Ferry Draft E1S Scoplng Outline 1. Meteorological Conditions. describe c"',ting meteorological conditions in proximity to Oricnt, including seasonal winds, temperaturcs, etc. Z. Ambicnt Air Quality. determinc e><isting ambient air quality. 3. Air Quality Standards. describe and list air quality standards 4. Air Quality Impact. determine key paramctcrs of concern and conduct air quality impact analysis for existing and build conditions in order to predict inlpact. At a miainlum conduct analysis to determine impact of existing and propJsed conditions regarding carbon mono..<.ide using quantitative methods recognized and aecepted in the field. HUlD~n Resources . A. TRANSPORTATION.. This section shall include the State right.or.way (ROW), and the 2 ROWs through thc rcsidcntial parcel and the privatc ROW on the northerly bou.ndary of the two easterly parcels. Descrihe and identify all parties having right to access the northerly ROW. Identify boundaries of said ROWand deed restriclions to use of same, if any. 1. Existing TransPQrlalion services. Separate passenger only service data from vehicle and passenger service. Describe origin( destination of clientele. Describe peak activity periods (i.e. bea>y truck trame, Boy Scout ouling~, etc.). a) Deseriplion of access to the site and internal road circulatic.n. b) De,cription of currcnllevel of use of services. peak hours of use vehicle mix source of existing traffic c) Obtain latest traffic volume data for Route 25, in the vicinily of the project, from the New York Slal" Department ofTran~PQrtation (NYS DOT). d) Obt(lin Stale Accident Surveillance System (SASS) data for the latest available three year period. Accident data to include all accidents along Route 25 fr.wn 1h!: intcrseClioQ m NYS ~ ~,mQ Main ~ (Greenc2IU.Ill ~ WllaIJ ~S2f~~ c) Conduct traffic volume counlS on Route 25 immediately west of the proposed project for a seven day period. f) Obtain trip inCormation from Cross Sound Ferry regarding schedules, trip passenger and vehicle data, and other historical informatioJl needed to develop .lrip seneration dala for the exisling conditions. . g) Research available public transportation ~ llf W\~.wm llf lfiS ~ ~,mQ MJ.in Slr!.<!<t (Grcenport) l.2lM WWD MSllli R2Jll~ z.t the intersection of east of Greenport. h) Calculate exiSling levels of service on Roule 25 W llf 1.hl: Jntersectlon oJ.trlS. ~ 15 .il.!!l! Mii.u ~ (Greenoort) 1.2lhl; ~ tlllI11f ~ 1.i Delcrmine carrvinq cavacity of NYS Slale 25 from the intersection of NYS ROUle 25 and Main Street (Grcenport) 10 the ferry lerminlJ. i) Anal)"le the accidenl dala 00 Q[ lhl; inlersectinn Q[:t:!YS E~ l:l :iUIlI M4in ~ (ili,;ennor[).Illlhl; caMern ~ l!f ~ ~ and corn, pare Ihe rate and frequency to the >.ll!LW NYSDOT average aecidenl rates. 2. Transportalion System Impaels a) E"timate the increased hourly trame volume to be gencral"d by the Il!lliru site. diff~rentiatinq comoonent~ S2f 1M prQject. b) Determine the area traffic growlh factors used by Ihe NYSDOT for Route 2S ~ l!ft~ intersection Q[NYS R.mllJ;,1'i illll! Main ~JGreenvort1.1lllM WlliJl ~.CJi ~ Zl Page 6 . . Cross SOllDd Fe...,. Dnll't EI S Scopl"3 Outline B. Calculate the future kvds of service for Route 2S W clIhl: intersection Qj l:!YS .~ ~ Jl!ISl ~ Slrlli (Greenoort) 12lhk WWl ~lI.ll gf ~ z.t Quantify sile generated traffic impacts based upon the level olf service calculations. Determine other impacts, such as uninterrupted traffic Oowllong Route 25 resulting from vehicles unloading at the terminal. Describe site circulation ,Unpacts and methods of handling tr affic from peak use. distinguish between vehicular Oow (projected) and passeage>: flow from long. term parking areas to the Cerry. discuss adequacy of existing and proposed site improvemenl:l to handle existing and projectcd volume over ncxt 5.10 years. determine traffic now on Route 25 to insure bilee safety and to provide resident crossing that is available and safe Public Transportation Services .. Describe public transit ddership and the type of service (schedules) available (i.e. bus, ta.'<i, URR, casino bus). Pedestrian Environment .. Dcscribe pedestdan environment, bikc use, circulation. -;a!eLy, etc. Indude ocdcstrian nOM (rom terminal to bOaB" boat!; to oarkiDl7 for niclc... up areas: oar kino to beach. etc. The cxistina: and oroposed crosswalh and measure. 12 ~ pedcstria~ ~ .IlWI ~ discussed. . LAND USE AND ZONING.. TIm ~ shmI!ll ~ illh res"urce awl determine potential imollcts 2f lhl: ~ ~ ~ !.Q each rCSOllrCe. 1. Existing land use and zoning a) Dcscription of the existing land usc of the project site and the surrounding area. b) Description of existing zoning of site and surrounding area. c) Describe exi.~ting ownership on the site and in the area, relating ownership, use and zoning to future land use trends, and open spa~. Describe non.conformin" ~ which ~ ~ Q!l J.l!l; ~<.t sil.lu Provide suoDorl fuI variance 12 ~ residentiall2iXW fuI jW:kina; consider precedent itilli.ni !!iIIJI!s 2f ~ M Jl p"tenlial impact Co:osider IilZhtini: impact on ~ntland use and conCormance or non-conformance with adiacent uses and land use ~ Land usc plans a) description of any land use plans or master plans which include project site and surrouoding area; describe conformance.Q.[ non.confort~ MIll anorooriate !aIlll !m: ~ LWRP M.ll ~ Coastal Mana~cmcnt Proaram: llm.. ~ili (elation III ~ S.tal.!1 ~ Policics in Artide 42. Peconie ~ Estuary Proa:ram: ~ pro\!!,arn. ~mendatioll~ ~ 12 W lUld ~ Critical Environmental &u SlJl1ll.L awl ill 'J . A' . I' ~on$J ~uhon:a potcnha Impa<:t~. Qllim! Landmark Desigcnatio'!,; ~ ~ ill Wlllill.ll tQ desifPlation i\!!I1 in consideration llf DOlcntial impacts. COMMUNITY SEll. VICES.. Ibis ~ ilimllil ~ ~ rcsource lWl determine potential in\pacts oC \hi; ~ with ~ ll1llih resource. 1. Educalional facilities. discuss eJd.~tiug facilities and location relative to the site and access road. Policc protection. discuss levcl of pubUc ser.ice being provided ....d indude description of service (i.e. speed cnforcement, parking, violations, accidents, etc.) fire protection. discuss status of flfe protcction facilitics in OriCllt l.nd suitability of c) d) 0) f) g) h) i) 3. 4, d) e) 2. c. ~ .. 3. P"ll" 7 '.~.' . 1.1 <:~ I to, ,_, I., - : -' .:.. F" _ r.:~1"? . . Cross Sound F eTry Draft EJ:S Scopl", Outline same to handle level of ha7.md at the site. Identify >1m: restrictioDs ~~ may ~ llll !i:lililhl ,hinpio~ cl ha7.ardous malerial,. 4. Recreational faeiliti.. . discuss status and location of recreational facilities in Orient, including State aod County Roads. 5. Utilities. discuss location of any public utilities On Or adjoining the subject site. D. CULTURAL RESOURCES .. This ~ ilillllli! ll.iillISS ~ ~Ql!~ ~ determine pOlenlial imoacLl Q[ lh~ ~ l!1l.h ~ ill 00 ~source. 1. Visual resources. describe visual impact by night as well as by day (particularly with regard to site lighting of parking areas, pedestrian walkways, doc.k areas and staging areas. a) description of the physical character of the community b) description of site from viewsheds along nearby roadways and nearby surface waters. 2. His(oric/Pre.h.ish1rie Resources a) Location and description of historic areas or structwes listed On State or National Register or designated by lhe community or includ"d on Slatewide Inventory. Include Society for Preservation of Long Island .....otiquities data on Orient. b) Determinc signmea.oee of any existing historic structures on site c) .1ll!1.s::is substantial ~ disturbance ib'\!! Ill: documented .lndertake.a ~ I archaeoloj!ical ~ to determine lM gresenee Q[ absenee:;ll archaenIooical ~ Q[ l2!hl;r cultu,at resources in ~ Droiect's ~ cl ~l1iaI ~ 3. Noise Resources a) Identify potential nearby scnsilive receptors and determine ,xisting sound levels on site and at prnperty line of nearest receplor. b) ESlablish appropriate guidelines for use in determining potc.otial impact with regard to lIoise increases. c) Identify ooise sources associatcd with subject use and condu,:t analysis to determine increase above ambient noise based on existing and build conuitions. Other Resources and Iml"'CU A. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS B. GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS C. IRREVERSIBLE Al'ID IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES D. EFFECTS ON THE USE AM) CONSERVATION OF ENERGY RESOURCES III. MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Describe measures to reduce Ot avoid potential adverse impacts identified in Section IV. The following is a brief listing of t)picalmeasure$ used for some of the major areas of impact. Natural Resourtes A. GEOLOGY 1. Subsurface a) use excavated material for land reclamation Surface a) 2. b) use topsoil stockpiled during construction fot restoration and landscaping.. ilknlif:,: ~ ~.M4 rniti2alion Q[ ~ Sl2lill if aDnrnoriate. address proteelion of dune and beach formations during and after construction, and in general minimize disturbance of non-construction sites design and implement soil erosion control plan c) ;..t~,.. Page 8 , . . F' . 1 ',-:':' [) ~ I.. -- 1 _ e,l ':::e. r'l '_+1 tl Cr08S Sound Ferry D....n ErS Scoplng Outline 3. Topo!!,uphy 3) avoid construction on areas of steep slope b) design adequate soU erosion de,ices to protect areas of steel' slope B. WATER RESOURCES 1. Groundwater a) design systems to provide adequate leaching of wastewater and stormwater. b) maintain permeable areas on the sitc c) maximize natural areas, rcduce fertilized areas d) design systems 10 provide adequate mitigation of oil/grease from parked vehicles and traffic on site. 2. Surface water a) cnsure use of soU erosion control techniques during cOllStruc:tion and operation to avoid siltation exam plcs: bay bales temporary restoration of vegetation to disturbed areas landscaping b) design adequate storrowater control system eJ increase wetlands setbacks and provide covenaDts where pal sible d) provide setback from beach and protcctioD of dunes. C. TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY 1. Vegetation/wildlife a) restrict clearing to only those arc as nccessary b) preserve part of site as a natural area c) afler construction, landscape sile with naturally occurring vegetation d) preservc cross section of natural habitat are~s. e) provide linkagcs to other sites and habitats f) preserve all wetlands and wetland functions through setbacks D. NOISE RESOURCES 1. Buffers, barriers, operalional mitigalion, traffic miligation, etc. shall be incorpQraled into the project as necessary to minimize Daise impacts Human Rt~ouree~ A. TRANSPORTATION 1. TraMportation systems, parking, circulation, etc. a) discuss internal cireuiation patterns proposcd and mitigate problems. b) discuss management or lr~rfic flow to and from the immedi"te terminal operations and parking site tQ NYS ~ ~ in terms of regulating speed and spacing of ears. c) design adequate and safe access to project sile to handle projected traffic flow B. LAND USE AND ZONING 1. Existing land use and zoning a) design projecllo comply witb existing land use plans b) design functional and visually appealing facility to set standard and precedent for future surrounding land use C. COMMUNITY SERVICES I. Police/Fire ProtectioD/Safety a) discuss how adequate aCCeSS ),Q ill iili! tQ residents betwce.a Grecnport Yillail: MlI ku.::l terminal "ill be maintained in order to pmvide police, fue '. Page 9 _ ..I. I . . Cr088 Sound F~rry nran EllS Scoping Outline and olher emergency protection senices. b) discuss mitigation measures to improve safelY durlag transport of school children. 3. Utilities a) install utility services underground b) incorporate waler saving tixtures into facility design c) incorporate enerb'Y.saYi.ng measures inlo facility dcsign D. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Visual resources a) provide buffering to improve aesthetics, particularly on the corth side of residential parking lot (if approved by ZBA), a.w1 miti;1ate:r:i~ inwW fr.wn ~ !Ii parkin~ fu:JJl.s a!lll blli:I. terminal. b) minimize road surface area and significant land disturbance. e) ~ mushroom liQhtin~ lriili nlllc.s!.l;ss J.hlI.llll rw in he;~ d) ~!.lI!:i& expanses 91lWini with ~ ~ lAndscaoiol, 2. Histotie/ Archaeological -. pres~"'Je adequate portion of site to provide for archaeological resource use, research and management. Othtc Resources and Impact Milic"t1.,n A. CUMUL<l.TIVE IMPACTS B. GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS C. IRREVERSIBLE A.."lD IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT Of RESOURCES D. EFFECTS ON THE USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY RESOURCES IV. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAl, EFFECTS THAT CANNOT B" AVOIDED IF THE IPROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED Identify those adverse envi.ronmcnml effects is Seellon IV that can be expected to oecm regardless of the mitigation measures considered in Section V. V. ALTERNATIVES Tbis scotion contains categories of alternatives with examples. Discussion of eacb altern.tive should be at a IeI'd sufticient to perm't a comparative asocssment of costs, benefits and environmental risks for eaeb alternative. It is no! acceptable to make simple a~sertions that a particular alternative is or is not feasible. Tl.e No Action Altern.tive must be discussed. A. ALTERNATIVE SITE LOCATIONS .. Provision Q[ parkin~ lllI alternative l,diacent ~ Parkin2 il A ~ location with ,'ustomclS ~ lQ 1M !'ru::t terminal. B. ALTERNATIVE SIZE .. pflwision Q[ A smalkt parkini' .aKa ll:ilh a reduced number of parkini m.a.w.. C. ALTERNATIVE DESIGN.. Rccontii\lrat!on l2!~~il tM fl<m terminal, D. AL TERNA T1VE USE .. Deyclonmcnt !If lhl: ilit fur iU residential ZllJlCll ~::. E. NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE .- Continue (lo~ration wil~ Mr.!<!lt ~ Allll f"cilities. Describe !lotentiallQ dccrea~e intensity Q[ operation lQ ~ oroYided w:il2! l.Q hiih s~ pa<<enqer ferrv. VI. R"FERENCES AND CONTACTS Pro>ido complete list of references and contacts utilized in preparation of the reporr. VII. APPENOICES following is a list of m.tcri.ls typically used in support of the EIS. A. List of underlying !tudb, reports and information considered and relied On in preparing statement. B. Technical exhibits (if any) at a legible scale. C. Rele\'ant correspondence regarding the projects may be included. '. PlIlle 10 ~LANNING BOARD MEMBEt-' RICHARD G. WARD Chairman ~ ~ :::. ;.< Q . en ~ ~ ~ 4:: .. ~~ ~Q./ + i-~<:S ~ GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM. JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI. JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Post-It" Fax Note 7671 -r t. Phone # December 16, 1996 Fax # William Esseks, Esq. Esseks, Hefter and Angel 108 East Main Street Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: Proposed Site Plan for Cross Sound Ferry SCTM#1000-15-10.1, 11.1, 15.1 & 3.5 Dear Mr. Esseks: . Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 . ulouthold, New York 11971 ~ _I""" Fax (516) 765-3136 \ j}t;;;~ ~ bfM, As- The following took place at a special Planning Board Public Meeting held on Monday, December 16, 1996: WHEREAS, The Southold Town Planning Board is required by Sections 3-0301 (1) (b) ,3-0301 (2) (m) and 8-0113 of the Environmental Conservation Law to implement the provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (S.E.Q.R.A.); and WHEREAS, S.E.Q.R.A. requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they directly undertake, fund or approve may have a significant impact on the environment, and, if it is determined that the action may have a significant adverse impact, prepare or request an environmental impact statement; and WHEREAS, the applicant has provided the lead agency, (Planning Board), with a Long En vironmen tal Assessment Form and the L. E. A . F. has been received by the Planning Board, the Planning Board's Environmental Consultant, and other involved agencies; and . . Resolution: Cross Sound Ferry Page 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Board, as lead agency, after review of the L. E. A. F. found that the action may significantly effect the environment, made a determination of a Positive Declaration at a public meeting held on September 16, 1996; and WHEREAS, 6 NYCRR part 617.8 (2) scoping was initiated by the lead agency and requires the project sponsor to submit a draft scope that contains the items identified in paragraphs 617.8 (f) (1) through (5) of Section 617.8; and WHEREAS, the project sponsor provided a draft scope to the lead agency on November 15, 1996 and the lead agency provided a copy of the applicant's draft scope to all involved and interested agencies and individuals who expressed an interest in writing to the lead agency; and WHEREAS, a scoping outline has been prepared by the Planning Board's Environmental Consultant using the applicant's scope outline with input from the Planning Board, members of the Southold Town Board of Zoning Appeals, involved and interested agencies, in addition to relevant and substantial comments received in letters from the public, and finally, the outline incorporates input from the public scoping meeting held at Town Hall on December 4, 1996; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board as lead agency has received the final scoping outline and deemed it to be sufficient for the purposes of a Draft E.I.S., BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board adopt the scoping outline dated December 16, 1996 in determining the content and format of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Cross Sound Ferry. Enclosed is a copy of the scoping outline for your use in preparing the D.E.I.S. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Cl:Jo~Jj A Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Acting Chairman Encls . . . CROSS SOUND FERRY SEQR SCOPING OUfLII'IE Draft Dectmber 16, 1996 This outline provides a scoping document for use by the Planning Board of the Town of Southold in determming the content and format of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Cross Sound Ferry. Attached, and made a part of this outline is the Positive Declaration for the flroposed action, which provides a brief description of the project, and lists the potentially sigmficant environmental impacts which formed the basis for the Positive Declaration. This outline has been prepared Wlth input from the consultant to the Planning Board, Planning Board members, and members of the Southold Board of Zoning Appeals. In addition, relevant and substantive comments from coordination letters (received up until date of preparation of this outline) have been incorporated into the scope where appropriate. Finally, ~ outlil)e incorporates in.mI.t !J:Qm 1M public sCQpjn~ meetln~ hcll.:! & ~ lliJl Q11 ~ml?g 1.l22n. The applicant should recognize and contact each agency that is a separate permitting entity, and fife applications with each jurisdiction and obtain technical comments. The EIS process is intended to provide comprehensive and important information for the decision making process for use by involvea agencies in preparing their own findings and issuing decisions on their res ective permits. Tn ~ 12.aYQ.id seimentation and he in conformance with the int R ,hensively address i~sues of environmental concern. the ~copin~ outline and the.l2rnft !IDlS1 consider ~ impacts a~sociated IDth i2!~ a.w1 proposed activity & llll12ID:.@,S in ~ ~lxnilli!l facility. The document should be concise but thorough, well documented, accurate, and consistent. Technical information may be summarized in the body of the document and attached as an Appendix. Review for acceptance or certification of the Draft EIS will involve review of content for conformance to the fmal scope, and accuracy to ensure that correct information is incorporated into the document for initial review. Review after acceptance will deal in more detail with the specific technical information presented and the analysIs provided. Based on review, substantive comments received from involved agencies and ~art1es of interest, the public hearing process, and appropriate direction from the lead agency, a f'inal EIS will be prepared which will respond to all substantive comments on the Draft EIS. The Planning Board will be responsible for the preparation, content and accuracy of the Fin2J EIS, and this document will be used as a basis for each agency to prepare a Statement of Findings and Facts for use in structuring permit or approval decisions. Overall, the Planning Board seeks a detailed Description of the Proposc:d Project ' including documentation of the following: background andhistorv, location, design and layout, recharge handling, water supply, sanitary disposal, quantities of she coverage, lite access, mechanisms for open space preservation, and site access. The Environmental Setting and Potential Significant Impacts section may be combined, to discuss existing, no-build and build conditions. Impacts should be identified as short term or long term. In additio.n, a section should be prOVided which identifies cumulative impacts of the proposed project. Consistent with SEQR Draft ElS guidelines, additional chalJters of the Potential Significant Impacts section should include Growth Inducing Aspects, Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources, and Effects on the Conservation of Energy Resources where appropriate. Adverse Impacts which can not be avoided shall be identified in a separate section. CO:1sideration of one or more Alternatives will be required to address other scenarios regarding key resources. The following outline provides an updated form for the content and preparation of a Draft EIS. Page 1 -. L: . " "., I, , .' ~ F' _ ~"'::1 .. . Cro,. Sound Ferry Draft EIS s.,OplDg Outline TABLE OF CONTENTS AND SU~IMARY A Tabl~ of Contenl, and a brief summary arc required for the Dra(l ErS. The Table (,f Contents and sum mary '.vil1 include: A. Brid description of the aclion. B. Significant, adverse and beneficial impacts (issues or controversy must be 'p<<ified). C Miligation measures propesed. D. Alte'rnative, considered. E. Mutler' to be decided (permit', approvals, status, funding). I. DESCRlPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION A. PROJECT PURPOSE, NEED AND BENEFITS 1. Background and History.. History of ownership and use, extant strudures. past use(s), and prior sile plan applications. Describe history of terminal building improvements and parking area chan~es and history or snack bar parccl. Provide bistory or underwater land including ownership and legal (include slltVey of underwater land) permitting and dredging history including placement of spoil and fill or wetlands. Provide ilJl hiSlOrical overview ill cnvironmcntal reviews Q!l ~~;t pro\lerN. 2. Public need for the project, and municipaliTy objectives based on adopted community development plans u summarize municipal objectives from land use :?Ians and establish need for lhe project. 3. Objectives of the projecl sponsor in c.'panding busincss and in changing nature of s~rvkes offered (i.e. .ddition o{ high speed ferry, passenger only service) over tbe past 2 years. Discuss i\!!Q identify am! known future business plans, possible, expansion, etc. 4. Benefits of the Action .. Transportation services, economy. B. LOCATION 1. Establish geographic site boundaries .. Provide location map of upla;,d and underwater lands. Identify area o{ public land which appears on tax maps in eenler of subjcct property, and puhlic access to this site as appropriate. 2. Description of site access .. Road {rontage and water access. Describe inter. relationship of State Road 2S and all four parcels. 3. Description of exi,ting zoning on subject propcrties and on eastero..,lost parcel. ~ ~ M;u! = Provide ~ radius ~ III ~ ~ win relation llllB l!1lhin Z!l!l - C. DESIGN AND LAYOUT 1. T \ltal Site Area .. describe existing and potential site use and descrite design (eatures incorporated into the prop\lsed plan. DiscuM limitation ill1iIl: lllIilsLlW lIS .a function 1lI \larkin\!. 2. Sile Coverage Quantitics .. Use table to present building, driveway, I'oad, recharge, landscaping, natural arca, and ~ther site coverage quantities. 3. Structurcs .. Describe expecled structures, including the proposed parking and relocaled staging areas. Describe existing lighting: type, wattage, locations. Describe e,osling traffic management procedures, if any. Describe moving o(;nack bar and combining with e,osting residence for waiting room and snack restaurant. 4. Parking.. Describe c,osting and proposed parking, exiSling and pro~osed parking surface type and area, drculation, dcsign and layout. S. Recharge .. Present mcthod of stormwat~r recharge, capacity and dc:sign requiremenls. Describe proposed drainage and measures to minimize overland flow and provide adequate stormwater recharge capacity. ...;... Pag~ 2 DEe 1 l. .=:, t':': ~._l E~ I:I .- ",:a. _, . F'_~=~4 Cross Sound Ferry Draft US Scoplng Outline 6. Sanitary Disposal -. Describe sanitary disposal methods, design fiow. needed additional capacity. as appropri,'te. Describe sanitary dcsign fiow of ferry tcrminal building, snack bar and residence.. 7. Water Supply -- Ability to meet Articlc 4, private water system stane.ards and water quality. 8. Landscaping .. Der.cribe proposcd landscaping to improve or visual md aesthetic site qu~I.il.ies. . ..... .,. 9. \.Itcht/cs .. De$wbe ~ .\!1ili.Ul;S CXJst102 ll!!..Q proposed l!l connecU.;m l!lilh llul oroooscd vroiect. D. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION 1. Construction a) Anticipated period of construction. bJ Schedule of construction activities.. i.~. Wildlife sensitivity and any wetlands res.ources. 2. Operation -- discus; future macagement of proposed project following construction, Le. maintenance of buildings, roads, recharge, ete. E. AGENCIES AND APPROVALS ..listlcad agency, involvcd agencies and iJltcrested parties scparately, followed by their jurisdiction or interest, and the status of eaeh p"rmit or approval applioation. Describe permit history where appropriate. 1. To'''''' Planning Board 2. Southold To"" Board 3. Town Board of Trustees 4. Town Zorung Board of Appeals 5. Suffolk County Department of Health Services 6. Suffolk County Department of Public Works 7. Suffolk County Department of Park~, Recreation and Conservation. 8. Suffolk County Planning Commission and Department of Planning 9. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 10. New York State Department of Transportalion 11. New York State Dcpartment of State 12. New York State QUice of Parks, Recreation &. Historic Preservation 13. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 14. Federal Emergency Management Agency 15. Southold Cili,,,ns for Safe Roads 16. North Fork Environmental Council 17. U.S. Department of Agriculture (f!llm Wa!!4 Center) 18. Other II. EXISTING, NO.IlUlLD AND BUILD ENVIRONMENTAL CONI)lTIONS This scetion should describe exi,ting environmental conditiolls, fulure environmelltal conditions if the project is not implemented, and future conditions once the project is completed. Identify Ihme resources that may be adversely or beneficially affected by the proposed action and require discussion. Discllss all environmental conditions in sufficient dctailto determine if significant adverse or beneficial irnpacts are e''Peelcd. Identify impae!s a~ long or shmt term where possible and provide separate chapter including discussion of cumulative impacts. Co",'s!ent y,;th SEQR Draft EIS guidelines, additional chapters of th.: Potential Significant Impacts section should include Growth Inducing A$pccts, Irreversible and Irretrie"able Commitment of Resourccs, and Effects on the Conservation of Energy Resources wherc appropriate. An appropriate design ycar should be sekctcd for builJing traflic, air and noise conditions. Page 3 DEC.-tl '? ...,2. l.j ED .:44 . F' 4 L:;:' '5 Cross Sound Ferry Dra/l f:lS Scopln8 Outline In view of the fact that lhe current operation includes a passenger/vehicle ferry and a passenger only ferry, existing condidons will include the eurrcnt operation. In addition, ccrtain additionallan:ls including thc easterly parcel and parts of the State right.of.way arc in use (or parking and circulation, and therefore sbould be described. FlUtber, other information concerning environmental conditions contained in this ,;ectioD shall include all four parcels and the State right.oC......ay where it separates the two westerly parcels from the two easterly parcels. N~turaJ Resources A. GEOLOG Y .. ThiS ~ shJlli!d address!ll~ a!!.I! imn.cts associated lri1h .eoloiY 1. Subsurface a) composition and thickness of subsurface lUaterial . To depth of 17 feet or groundwater; provide a summary of tesl hole information. 2. Surface a) List of soilt)'pcs per Suffolk Count)' Soil Survey. b) Discussion ot soil characteristics/limitations c) Di5lribution of soil types at project sile d) Identify importanl dune, tidal olar,h or special feature soils as a resource. Describe dune and beach formations on the subject site and t beir proximity to the proposed activity. Include speeifieallv l.!2sl Nationall::!i1llllll j..andmark liAtioi J1f Qrknl !l<affi Sllll& Park. md idcnlif~ ~ impacts l.lllM ~~ lilt ~ it i.& fulli!. 3. Topography a) Description of topography at project site, particularly any areas of steep slopes or drainage areas. B. WATER RESOURCES u This section should address the listed issues as they pertain to the effectth" proposed action ma)' havc on the site's capacity to provide potable water and sanitary waste disposal for lhe e,;sting use and any proposed uses. 1. Groundwater a) Location and description of aquifers and recharge areas. depth of water table in development areas. seasonal varia lion. discuss groundwater. surface water inter. relationship; :liseharge to surface water; tidal nuetuations if relevant. determine existing water quality beneath the site in anticipated water supply ZOlles. direction of now b) Identification of pre.cnt uses and level ot use ot groundwater location of existing wells public/private water supply agricultural uses e) Groundwater/water management regulations. 208 study, special groundwater protection areas, NURPS study, etc. d) !!!!w1 Assessment .. determine Imwt clll!lliW nil illl.lllldwaler auantitv (I.e. sallwater llpconln~ 4!!JlLQ! intrusion).and ~ ~llalilY (i&. sanitarY waste. storlOwaler from "arkinl! JI!ll1 ~ ~ hydrocarbon. tarmatian m phthalaWs md combustion p<'lllutants), 2. Surface Water a) Describe any nearb,' surface waters including .NYSDEC surface waler classification water quality and salinity r.ge 4 . . Cross Sound FelT)' Droit ns Seoplng Outline characteristics and ust:s Pecnoi~ BavEstuar\' .. descrihe ~ ;ill: de<;","ation.ill.!1 ill~ ill thl: Peconic fulx Estuarv. Drainage b) 3. describe e:usting drainage patterns 011 site and in the arca. make note of drainage swales and nalural collection aleas. determine errect of the proposed action on incrcased lunoff and pollution from lhe Main Road into the storm drains on the adj:o:ent property of the Plum bland Animal Disease Re,earch Laboratory into Gardiners Bay. determi.!!Q ~ Q( ih.c. orooosed ~ Iln md lll2!~.ill.!1 ~ 1lW potential ~ is miti~ated. 4. Flooding . locate flood zoncs on the subject site and dcscribe limitations, featurcs, jurhdiction3l i,<ues, and special requirements. C. TERRESTRL~L AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY.. Thi' ~ s!!.wiliI ~~ wh resonrce ilI!li determine l'otential impacts Q(.\hI1 ~ with ~ ill ~ fesource. 1. Vegetation a) li~t vegelation types on the project site and within thc surro~nding arc a; classify into habitats. b) discu<sion of site vegetation characteristics species presence and abundance size dislributioD community types unique, rare and endangered species value as habitat for wildlife c) Contact NYS Natural Heritage Program for information <<'Deeming unique vegetation, habitals or wildlife spccies on site or in the area, and provide di<cu,^ion/analysis in text as necessary, d) Describe habitat needs and biological characteristics of all .mdangercd species, threatened and spedes of special ConCern e) discuss uniquc flora in marine environment in relation to subject sile and activities conducted 'al the subject site. 2. Wildlife a) Provide a list of wildlife utililjng site babitats or expected on site. Indicate dates of surveys and distinguish species identified on sile, Consult references codetermine species expected on site based on habitat type. b) Contact Natural Heritage Program for file review of site a":d area, c) Identify Endangcred, Threatened or Species or Special CO[1cern, d) De<crl!>c babitat necds and biological characleri<tics or all ,~ndangercd specics, threatened and specie, of spccial concern. 3. Wetlands a) De.cribe wctlands (vegelated and unvegetated) and adjacc:JI areas as and characteristics. b) IDdicate method of delinealion and agencies contacled for 'Ierification or agencies with jurisdiction. Spccifically contact Town Trust"e., NYSDEC and USACOE, c) Idenlify valuablc functions of wetlands on site and adjacent site. D. AIR RESOURCES -. This ~ s.!l2.IIM.I!iwill ~cl! resource i!!.Ii sI.c1ermiru: ootential iml)aet< m ilif JllQi!ill wilh ~n1 !n 00 resource, .~, - Page 5 HUlIIMn Resources . A. TRANSPORTATION -- Thi.~ section shall include the State right.of.way (ROW), and lhe 2 ROWs through the residential pared and the private ROW on the northerly boundary oC the two easterly parcels. Describe and identify all parties having right to access the Dortherly ROW. Identify boundaries of said ROWand deed restrictions to use of same, if any. t. Existing Transportation services. Separate passenger only serviee data Crom vehicle and passenger service. Describe origini destinalion of clientele. Describe peak activity periods (i.e. heavy truck trame, Boy Scout outings, etc.). a) Deseription oC access to the site and internal road drculalk,n, b) Description of currentlevcl of use of serviccs. peak hours of use vehicle mix source of exisling traffic Obl.ain latest traffie volume data for Route 25, in the vicinity of the project, from the New York State Department of Transportation (NYS [lOT). Obtain State Accident Surveillance System (SASS) data for the latest available three year period. Accident data to include all accidents along Route 25 fulm iliI; intersection cl NYS ~ ~.and Main ~ (Green~21U III W ~ ~ cl BmI.l.I\ ~ Conduct traffic volume eounls on Route 25 immediately west of the proposed project for a seven day period. Obtain trip informatioll from Cross Sound Ferry regarding schedules, trip passenger and ',chicle data, and other hislorieallnformatioll needed to develop trip generalion data for the existing conditions. . Research available publie transportation ~ of 1M ~lliw1llf. IDS. &.o.w& ~ ~ ~ SlrJ:l1l (Grccnoorl) l.Q 1M ~ ~ of &mil~ 2S.. the intersection of east of Greenport. Calculate existing levels of service on Route 25 US! m ~ jntcr<ect;on lllliYS &mu.\c ~ il!!l! Main ~ (r.reennorl) l.Q iliI: ~W! ~ nf ~ 2S.. Determine c""vinl! ~1VacilV of tlYS..Slllte 25 from the intersection of NYS Route 25 and Main Street (Greenport) to the Cerry termin21 AnalYle the accident dala ~ l)L iliI: intersection llll::!Y.S E~ ~ ~ Main ~ (Gr<;enoorO 12 iliI: ea~tern ~ cl ~ ~ and corn, pare the rate and frequency to lhe ~ NYSDQT average accident rates. Transportation Sysl"," Impacts a) E"timate the increased hourly lraflic volume to be generated by the ~ site. diffcrentialinll eomoonents clilil: protect. Determine the area traffic growth factors used by the NYSDOT for Route 25 >.;lli cl t~ intemetio!! clNYS B.mili;.1;i ~ Main SlI:W I Greenoort) 12 W ~~Q[~ll DEC---l1--. :::< ":0. L.l ED .: . F' _ 1-:., .. 4 ~i Cross Sound Ferry Drall E1S Seoplng Outline 1. l'.ktcorological Cundit;olls . describe cx"ting Oleteorological conditions in proximity to Orient, including SC3$.onal winds, temperatures, elc. . 2. Ambient Air Quality - determine existing ambient air quality. 3. Air Quality Standards - describe and list air quality standards 4. Air Quality Impact. determine key parameters of concern and eonduet air quality impact analysis for exisling and build conditions in order to predict inlpact. At a minimum conduct analysis to determine impact of existing and propJsed eonditions regarding carbon mono:<ide using quantitative methods recognized and ae""pted in the field. e) d) e) f) g) h) i) , ~. b) Pall" 6 . . Cross SOUDd Ferry DnLl'l EJ S Scoplll3 Outline c) Calculate the future kvels of service for Route 25 W1 ill llil: intersection ill t!YS ~ ~.il!!l! ~ Slr.W (Greenoorl) 1.Q ~ ~ ~ml ill B.wW: ~ d) Quantify sile generated traffic impacts based upon the level o)f service calculations, e) Determine other impacts, such as uninterrupted traffic flow .J.1ong Route 25 resulting from vehicles unloading at the terminal. . f) Describe site circulation impacts and methods of handling traffic from peak usc. g) distinguish between vehicular now (projected) and passengel: flow from long- term parking arcas to the ferry. 11) discuss adequacy of existing and proposed site improvement" to handle existing and projected volume over no.'<l 5.10 years, i) determine traffic flow on Route 2S to insure bike safelY and to provide resident crossing that is available and safe 3. Public Transportation Services -- Describe public transit ddership and the type of service (schedules) available (i.e, bus, ta'Ci, URR, casino bus), 4, Pedestrian environment .. Describe pcdestrian environment, bike use, circulation. safety, etc, Include pedestrian flow<: f.om terminal to boats' boats to parki"l! for nick. up arcas: ".rkina to beach. etc, The cxistinlol and prooosed crosswalh and measures t2 ~ pedestria~ ~ sIl;IIlhk discussed. B. LWD USE AND ZONING .. This ~ .Ib.milil illi.w.s 00 resource .and determine potential illloacts 2f \ill; ~ m rami !.Q Ul;h reSOllrce, 1. Existing land use and zoning a) Description of the existing land use of the project site and the surrounding area. b) Description of cxisting toning of site and surrounding area. c) Describc existing ownership on the site and in the area, relaling o....-ner.hip, lISC and zoning to future land use trends, and open space. d) Describe non-conformin~ ~ which mav exist 9.!! \ill; ~<l ~ e) Provide supQort I'll! variance t!l ~ residential ~ mt 1ll\I:kina; consider precedent ~ !!.lll.lt!.!.\.Q[ ~ as 1 notentia! im\1act. Co:osider Ii~tini imoact on adlacent land use and conformance or non-conformance with adiaecnt uses and land use ~ 2. Land use plans a) description of any land use plans or master plans which include project site and surrounding area; det:cribc. conformance.Q[ non.con(orr:~ Mtb aOQronriate!.al!.1! ~ ~ L WRP l.!l.I! ~ Coastal Manalolemenl Prollram: 4imIso I2tlliW ill relation lll. ~ StlILI: ~ Policies in Article 42. Peconic ~ Estuarv ProlP'am: ~ proeraro. =.wmendation.. ~ t!l silt l\Ild ~ Critical Environmenta! Aln SJ~ ami ill consideration 2f potential impacts. Qri!m! Landmark Desi~nation: ~ ~ ill !:!i!I.tiQll t!l desimation M.Il ill consideration Q[ ootential impacts. C. COMMUNITY SERVICES.. Ihilllililla ilimllil illi.w.s_ resource llIIll determine potential impacts of lhs ~ with ~ Il1 U&h rcsource, 1. Educati<Jnal facilities - discuss existing facilities and location relative to the site and access road. .. Police protection - discuss level of public ser.ice being provided and include description of service (i.e. speed enforcement, parking, violations, accidents, etc.) 3. Fire protcction . discuss status of tire protection facilities in Orient ..nd suitability of Page 1 ..",4 1.1 Co r", 1_, I.; " . F' 4 1.-:1 ",," . Cross Sound Ferry Drall El!S ScopllljJ Outline same to handle level cf h371trd at the site. Identify ill!)' restrictions ~~ may Wt llll li:JiliUu <hinoioo cl Q.7.ardous m;ili;ri.;ili. 4. Recreational f.cilities . discuss slatus and location of recreatiooal facilities in Orient, including Stale aad County Roads. 5. Utilities. discuss location of any public utilities on or adjoining the subject site. D. CULTURAL RESOURCES .. Tru< ~ ilimilil ~ ~ W-QllWi.a.wl determine potential jmoacLS ill 1M ~ il1l.h ~ ill ~ resource. 1. Visual resources. describe visual impact by night as well as by day (particularly with regard to sitc lighting of parking areas, pedestrian walkways, dock areas and staging areas. a) description of the physical character of the community b) description of site from vicwsheds along nearby roadways and oearby surface waters. 2. Historic/Pre-historic Resources a) Looation and description of historic areas or structures listed On State or National Register or designated by the eomm\1.t1ity or inc1ud"d On Statewide Inventory. Include Sociecy for Preservation of Long Island ......ntiquities data On Orient. b) Determine significance of any existing historic structures On slte c) ~ SllllSlanllill ~ disturbance l;,,1!l ~ documented .tndertake a ~ 1 arehaeolo~cal ~ 12 determine 1M presence Q! absence;;u archaeological ~ Q! ~ cultural resources in 1M oroieet's Ml:A cllllll&lll.ia1 ~ 3. Noise Resources a) IdentiCy potential nearby sensitive receptors and determine existing sound levels on site and at property line of nearest receptor. b) Establish appropriate guidelines for use in determining pote.atia! impact with regard to noise increases. c) Identify noise sources associated with subject use and eondu:t analysis to determine increase above ambient noise based On existing and build conditions. Oth.r Resoun:es and Inll"'cts A. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS B. GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS C. IRREVERSIBLE,tu'ID IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES D. EFFECTS ON THE USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY RESOURCES Ill. MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Describe measures to reduce or avoid potential adverse impacts identified in Section IV. The following is a brief listing of typical measures used for some of lhe major areas of impact. Natu....1 Resources A. GEOLOGY 1. Subsurface a) use excavated material for land reclamation Surface a) 2. b) use topsoil stockpiled during eon.<truction for restoration and landscaping.. isW:u.if:i ~ ~ i!!.4 miti~ation cl ~ SI2Qil if aonropriate. address prol"ction of dune and beach formations during and aft.r construction, and in general mini01i%c disturbance of Don4construction sites design and implement soil uosion control plan c) ....1. Page 8 . . F" . 1 0::::' U E 'n -1.. _ C'.''';. f-l ,_, ~.~ Cross Sound Ferry Draft EI'S Scoplng Outline 3. Topolll'aphy a) avoid construction on arcas of stcep slope b) design adequate soil erosion d",ices to protect areas of ste"1' slope B. WATER RESOURCES 1. Groundwater a) design sy~tems to provide adequate leaching of wast"water and stormwater. b) maintain permeable areas On tbe site c) maximize natural areas, reduce fertilized areas d) design systen's 10 provide adequate mitigation of oil/grease from parked vehicles and traffic on site. 2. Surlace water a) ensure use of soil erosion control techniques during cOllStruc:tion and operation to avoid siltation exam pies: bay bales temporary restoration of vegetation to disturbed areas landscapinll b) design adequate storm",ater control system e) increase wetlands setbacks and provide covenants wbcre p05sible d) provide sctback from beach and protection of dunes. C. TERRESTRIAl.. Ai'lD AQUATIC ECOI..OGY 1. Vegelation/wildlife a) restrict clearing to only those areas necessary b) prcscrve part of site as a natural arca c) aCler construction, landscape site with naturally occurring vegetation d) preserve cross section of natural babitat areas. e) provide linkages to other sites and babitats f) preserve all wetlands and wetland functions through setbacks D. NOISE RESOURCES 1. 8uffers, barriers, operational mitigation, traffic mitigation, etc. shall be incorporated into thc project as necessary to minimize noise impacts HunulO Re.ouree. A. TRANSPORTATION 1. Transportation systems, parking, circulation, etc. a) discuss internal circulation patterns proposed and mitigate problems. b) discuss management of traffic flow to and from the immedi..te terminal operations and parking site 1Q.t:a.S. ~ b:! in terms of regulating speed and spacing of ears. c) design adequate and safe access to project site to handle projected traffic /low B. LAND USE AND ZONING 1. Existing land use and zoning a) design project to comply with existiog land usC plans b) desiB" functional and visually appealing facility to set standud 3Jld precedent for future surrounding land use C. COMMUNITY SERVICES 1. Police/Fire Protection/Safety a) discuss how adequate access U1 ~ illi! 1Q residents ~a Grecnport ~ awl ~ tcrminal will be maintained in order to pT<lvide police, rue " Palle 9 . . CrOSB Sound F~rry Draft EJlS Scoplnll Outline and other emergency protection senices. b) discuss mitigation measures to improve safely durmg transport of school children. 3. Utilities a) install utility services underground b) incorporale water saviag fixtures inlo facility design c) incorporate energy-saving measures into facillty design D. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Visual resources a) provide buffering to improve aesthetics, panicuJarly on the north side of residential parking lot (if approved by ZBA), a.wl miti~ate Yis.ua.1 iIIul.W!.tom ~ !l1l'arkinll ~ ;mcJ km' terminal. b) minimize road surface area and signifi~lland disturbance. e) I!lmid.c mushroom IiQhtinQ lrii.h ~ ks.51!wl11 ~ ill hc:.2:ht d) ~ law e~anses 2f JWil!& with m ~ landscapinl', 2. Histotie/Archaeological-- preserve adequate portion of site to provide for archaeological resource use, research and management. Omt< Resoure<s and Imp"ct MiUcnU'iR A. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS B, GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS C. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMIu"IENT Of RESOURCES D. EffECTS ON THE USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY RESOURCES IV. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFfECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE I?ROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED Idcntily thosc adyerse environmental effects is Section IV Ihat can be e"Pected to oeCll( regardless of tbe miligation measures considered in Section V. V. r\LTERNATlVES This scction contains categories of alternatives with examples. Discussion of eacb alternative sbould be at a Ievd sufficient to permit a comparative assessment of costs, benefits and environmental risks for each alternative. It is not acceptable to make simple a~sertions thaI a particular alternative is or is not feasible. Tt.e No Action Alternative must be discussed. !\. ALTEIl.NA TlVE SITE LOCATIONS -- Provision m parkin~ 1l.!I alternative lldiacent ~ Parkinq 1.1 A ~ location with cuswmeJS ~ 12 ~ ~ terminal. B. ALTERNATIVE SIZE.. Provision!lf a smal!J:! parkini;un YLi.th a reduced number!lf oarkina ~ C. ALTERNATIVE DESIGN .. ReconfiiUratlon 2f!!l ~ i1.th1: fl;rry terminal, D. ALTERNATIVE USE.. Dcvelooment!lf ~ ilit fur il.s residential ~~::. E. NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE -. Continue Olltration wit~ ~ ~ All>! facili/i~~. Describe ootent;al12 dccrea~e intensitv ill oDeration 12 ~ orovided m 12 bWI S~ pa.~en~er ferrY. VI. REFERENCES AND CONTACTS Provide complete list of references and contacts utilized in preparation of the report. VII. APPENDICES Following is a list of materials typi<ally used in support of the EIS. A. List of underlying studio,. reports and information considered and rdied On in preparing statement. B. Technical exhibits (if an)) at a legible scalc. e. Relel'ant correspondence regMding the projects may be included. ,~.: . Page 10 ....................................................................... TRANSi1ISSION RESULT REPORT ............... (DEC 17 '96 SOUT~D TOWN HALL 516 765 1823 (AUTO) .................. 12: 43PM).............. ....................................................................................................................,.~........................................................ TIME MODE TOTAL PERSONAL LABEL PAGES 12 FILE NO. 004 DATE START REMOTE TERMINAL TIME IDENTIFICATION DEC 17 12:37PM FEMA RE- SULTS OK ES 06'05" ,....................................................................................................................>........................................................................................... DECM >JREDUCTION SJSTANDARD DJDETAIL FJFINE MJMEMORY CJCONFIDENTIAL $JTRANSFER PJPOLLING +JBATCH "IIIIIIIIII'II"II'IIII'IIIIIIII'II'IIIIII'IIII'IIIIIIIIIIII.II'.~IIII' TRAdSMISSION RESUl T REPORT ..............(oEC 17 '96 SO~LD TOWN HALL 516 765 1823 (AUTO) '1111'1111'111111 12: 34PM)IIII..IIIIII. ......................................................."""'"'''''''''''''''''''''11'''''''''''''''''''''''''................................................................ DATE START TIME DEC 17 12:28PM REMOTE TERMINAL TIME IDENTIFICATION 518 474 712113 1216'1121" MODE TOTAL PERSONAL LABEL PAGES 12 FILE NO. 1211211 RE- SULTS OK ES ...............................................................................................................................................................1.11........11.11.......1111111111..1.1111111111... E)ECM ))REDUCTION SlSTANDARD DlDETAIL FlFINE MlMEMORY ClCONFIDENTIAL ilBATCH $lTRANSFER PlPOLLING :....1111..................111.............11....................11........... TRANSMISSION RESULT REPORT ..............CDEC 17 '96 12:27PM)II........... SOU~D TOWN HALL 516 765 1823 :............................................................................................................................................................................... (AUTO) ................. . DATE START TIME REMOTE TERMINAL IDENTIFICATION TIME RE- MODE SULTS OK ES TOTAL PERSONAL LABEL PAGES 12 FILE NO. 019 DEC 17 12:14PM 15184857563 12'52" .................11................1........................................................................................................................................11................................... DECM )lREDUCTION S)STANDARD DlDETAIL FlFINE MlMEMORY C) CONFIDENTIAL i)BATCH $lTRANSFER PlPOLLING ........................................................................ TRANSMISSION RESULT REPORT .......;,;....... (DEC 17 '96 SOUT~ TOWN HALL 516 765 1823 (RUTO) ................. 12: 13PM)............. ................................................................................................................................................................................ DATE START REMOTE TERMINAL TIME IDENTIFICATION DEC 17 12:07PM 9526569 TIME RE - MODE SULTS OK ES TOTAL PERSONAL LABEL PAGES 12 FILE NO. 017 06'10" ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. DECM )lREDUCTION SlSTANDARD DlDETAIL FlFINE MlMEMORY ClCONFIDENTIAL $lTRANSFER PlPOLLING ilBATCH ......................................................................... TRANSMISSION RESULT REPORT ~:~...~~~~E~A~: ~~: 7~~: ~~:;l"""''''''' .......................................111...................11.....1111.....................................................................................111................ (RUTO) ................. TIME MODE TOTAL PERSONAL LABEL PAGES 12 FILE NO. 015 DATE START REMOTE TERMINAL TIME IDENTIFICATION DEC 17 11:57AM 4440373 RE- SULTS OK S 08'31" ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. DECM > l REDUCTION SlSTANDARD DlDETAIL FlFINE MlMEMORY ClCONFIDENTIAL ilBATCH $ l TRANSFER PlPOLLING ........................................................................ TRANSMISSION RESULT REPORT S~~&..~~~~E~A~: ~~: 7~~: ~;:: )............. :..............11.................................11..........................................................................11................................................ (AUTO) ................. DATE START TIME DEC 17 11:49AM REMOTE TERMINAL IDENTIFICATION 518 473 TIME RE.. SUL1 S MODE TOTAL PERSONAL LABEL PAGES 12 FILE NO. 013 2464 07'06" OK ES ........................................!........................................................................................................................................................................ DECM ))REDUCTION S)STANDARD D)DETAIL F)FINE M)MEMORY C)CONFIDENTIAL $)TRANSFER PlPOLLING ilBATCH ........................................................................ TRANSMISSION RESULT REPORT~:~...~~~E~~: ~: 7~~:::::l............. 111.................................................11..............11..........................11...................................................11.....111................. (AUTO) ..........11..... DATE START TIME DEC 17 11:42AM REMOTE TERMINAL TIME IDENTIFICATION 518 457 7744 06'33" MODE TOTAL PERSONAL LABEL PAGES 12 FILE NO. 011 RE- SULTS OK ES ............................................'"................................................................................................................................................................... E)ECM )lREDUCTION SlSTANDARD DlDETAIL FlFINE MlMEMORY ClCONFIDENTIAL $l TRANSFER PlPOLLING tlBATCH ............................................................................. TRANSMISSIOt~ RESULT REPORT .................... (DEe 17 '96 11: 39AM)""'''''''''; .... SOUT4IIb TOWN HALL 516 765 1823 ............................................................................................................................................................................... (AUTO) .................: REMOTE TERMINAL IDENTIFICATION 516 854 4969 TIt1E MODE TOTAL PERSONAL LABEL PAGES 12 FILE NO. 008 DATE START TIME DEC 17 11:30AM F,E- SUUS OK S 08'39" ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. E)ECM )lREDUCTION SlSTANDARD DlDETAIL FlFINE MlMEMORY ClCONFIDENTIAL $ l TRANSFER PlPOLLING +lBATCH ............................................................................. TRANSMISSION RESULT REPORT ....................(DEC 17 '96 11:29AM).............. .... SOUTtIIb TOWN HALL 516 765 1823 ................................................................................................................................................................................ (AUTO) .................. DATE START REMOTE TERMINAL TIME IDENTIFICATION DEC 17 11:23AM 516 8524150 TIME RE- MODE SULTS OK ES TOTAL PERSONAL LABEL PAGES 12 FILE NO. 006 06'09" ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ElECM )lREDUCTION SlSTANDARD DlDETAIL FlFINE MlMEMORY ClCONFIDENTIAL .,BATCH $lTRANSFER PlPOLLING ........................................................................ TRANSMISSION RESULT REPORT ~:~...~~~~E~~: ~~: 7~~: ~::;l.............. ..11...................................11...................................................................................................................................... (AUTO) .................: DATE START TIME DEC 17 11: 16AM REMOTE TERMINAL IDENTIFICATION 516 853 TIME 4044 06'11" RE- SUL -is OK MODE ES TOtAL PERSONAL LABEL PAGES 12 FILE NO. 004 ElECM .......11....................11..............................t............................................................................................1..........11..............................,........... )lREDUCTION SlSTANDARD DlDETAIL FlFINE MlMEMORY ClCONFIDENTIAL +lBATCH $lTRANSFER PlPOLLING -------- """""-,,._n__,_~_ -":'_""":"----"," -........................................................................ TRANSMISSION RESULT REPORT .................... (DEe 17 '96 11: 16AM)............. SOU~ TOWN HALL 516 765 1823 (AUTO) ................. ,............................................................................................................................................................................... DATE START TIME DEC 17 11:09AM TIME MODE TOTAL PERSONAL LABEL PAGES 12 FILE NO. 002 REMOTE TERMINAL IDENTIFICATION 516 8522743 RE- SULTS OK ES 06'12" ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ElECM )lREDUCTION SlSTANDARD DlDETAIL FlFINE MlMEMORY ClCONFIDENTIAL $lTRANSFER PlPOLLING .,BATCH . CHAnL.ES vqt;ffit'~~ ~"'OCI^rES, IIIC. EN'IIROIH"EN1"~~\~' COI'.ISUCTNITS . December 13, 1996 Bennett Orlowski Town of Southold Planning Board 53095 Main Ro~d Southold, New York 11971 Re Cross Sound Ferry Scoping Outline Dear /vIr. Orlowski: As per your request, I have reviewed the letter dated December 10, 1996 Ii orl1 Inter- Science Research Associ:ltes to the Planning Board, The letter includes comments which would have been appropriately posed and discussed at the ~coping meeting. A fomrn of e1ialogue would have allowed the Planning Board and its consultant to ensure that the applicant understood the nature of certain items in the scoping outline, and the reasons for them. There are several points 'vith regard to scoping that I believe should be under~lood. S':oping is optional and can be initiated by either the Lead Agency or the project applicant. As noted in6 NYCRR Pan 617.8 (a), "The primary goals ofscoping are to focus the .EIS on potentially significant adverse impacts 3nd to eliminate con~ideration of those imp~cts that 3. e irrelevant or nonsignificant". The Lead Agency issued a Po~itive Declaration because of the pot,~nti;ll significant impacts of the proposed project, and subsequcntlo receiving ~. drall ~cope from the applicant prepared a revised draft scope for use at the meeting of December 4, 1996 to identify those impActs. The Planning Bo.1rd is the entity required by SEQR regulations to finalize the written scope for the project sponsor, involved agencies and interested parties, as required under Palt 617.8 (I). The Inter-Science letter notes that, ". . . the SEQR regulations provide for 1 flexible scoping process, and give ~ubstantiaJ latitude to the Lead Agency in their investigation of the proposed action and it~ impacts". I believe that the Planning Board has made every errort to provide dlrection 'for the scope and content of the Draft EIS for the Cross Sound Feny project in accordance with SEQR. It i~ velY clear that public participation i~ an integral pArt of tbe scoping procea,s. Where public input to the scope and content of an ElS results in identi!ic.ltion of important iss\le~, these issues sbould ,rppropriately be rdlccted in the !inal scoping outline. Tbis is certainly the caBe with the Cross Sound Ferry outline. The meeting of December 4. provided a Ilmlln to discuss and understand the direction of the PlannJng Board in scoping the, EIS. Once the Draft EIS is prepared, it is the Planning Board that has sole discretion to determine the adequacy 'Jf the document in terms of scope and content. Accordingly, the direction of the Planning Board should bc e:ctremely important to the applicant at this slage of the process. 5~ rlORTH COd~ITn'{ PiJr,D. S'.JI[!: :> ,\!lU ER f"uACE. ;IY \17'3.1 . (516) 33t.I^55 . FAX 3:11.AO,IG . . CrOH ~J\lnd FellY R~vie\V d Scoplng Oulllllt This letter will ador".ss ea<:h point of the Inler-Science letter of December 10, 1996, in order lo pro..tide fi.lrther direction to the applicallt and to assist in finalizing the wrillen scope of the Draft EIS for the ClOSS Sound Ferry application. . . t + LA. 1. lhe history of undel water land including OlVnership, legal pemuttiog and dredging history is appropriate to ;ncludo in the Drail EIS as it provides impoltanl background leading tJ the plOpo~e<1 action. Underwater laods are adjacent to the physical project ,;ile and are under control oftbe "pplicwt. FurthemlOre, underwater hUlds are mainlained lluough dredging and in f3.('1 previou~ dredge spoil was depo;ired on the IJpland area proposed \0 be used in connection with (lIe prop)sed project. Tl<e SEQR Handbook (Noy~mb.r 1992) indieale1 ". ' . n sununa.f"/ of the background er hislnry of. site with rcspectlo previous activities l]lCle or past proposals for its use may have a be.;lnng ou what is preseotly proposed". 'lbe h"ndbook g",es on to st.,le "^pplic"lIll~ and project spon.~or~ !:bould recognize, Ihal the omission of lilCts about earlier environmentAl problems or Issues at asite could be a f:ttal dereet wid. re~peel dIe ~dequacy of an EIS". 11,e background and history of adj;u:enllulderwater land that i1 pan of the overall ferry lennilk'll operations is Important in consideration of the proposed project. I. A. 3. Objectives of the project ~ponsor is all appropriate section o[the Ora.!!. EIS:. The ellclo~ed O.ccmbcr 16, 1996 ouuine has been amended to request thftl the applicant doclunenl II e "bjectives in changLng the n:\lurC of 1ervlcl.!.<; om~rt?d over the pa.<;t scvcml ye..'1lS. as this is the ba.~is fJr the currently proposed project. If there arc future business plans known at this time, tl,e Town ha.~ reasonably reque~ted disclosure of tllesc pbns, l. C.3, In response ,lIe applicant.~ original applic.'ltion, the Pbmung Board soughl a comprehensive ~ilc plill inlegrntiug the propos,~d expanded parking areas with existing facililie~. This request was le:!Sonable from a site planning and d~sjgn perspective. 1110 applicant subsequently suhmitte.d the o)Ordinared ~ite design pI"" prepared by John], R"ynor, PE., L.S" P.C. dated July )0, 1996. The J) applic~llt is a.dvised that dIe coordinatod plan is preferred by Ihe LC3d Agency. This pl.alllllay either be e~plored as thc Propo~oo Project or as an Allemative ill the Dmft EIS. TIle discussiOlI concerning the ! reloc"ltion of vehicle s{;!ging area.~, and snack bOll conl1g1113tion should be discussed io either the Pmpoged Project section or the AltefJ1~live scclion, whichever is appropria.lo. It woule. bohoovc the applicaot 10 consider amending the application to reflccl the plan wluch is coordinated in !emlS of design and layout, as tltis will reduce the burden of impact analysis and eliminate one Altemnt,ve lince it reprcsents a more coordinated d"sign plan whicb addresses some of the Planning Boards concerns and is more likely to meet with approval. I.E.lbe Inter-Science leucr uldicate~ tl",llhe list of agl'l1cies and approvals;s unnecc",arily long, 11.0 Lead Agency fmds that inclusion of interested parties Md agencies will assist In ensuring Ihat ule public is involved in Ihe SEQR process and is consistent with Part 617.3 (d) indicates "The lead ageuey v:illmake every reasonable effort to involve project sponsors, olher agencies and tlle public inlhe SEQR proce~s", Part 6179 (b) (5) indicales Ihal fom,,,t of the D,ail EIS may be flexible, and nowhere In SEQR is it lndic.1led that inlerc,ted parties and agencies may not be listed in tlle document. In addition, tlle Inter-Science letter recommends deletion of Illany agencies which m.ay be involved in tile permitting d tllC aclion or arc (\rrel:t(~l hy tbe project, depeuding upon the n;!,rure of the project, ",itigation and ..ltemalives.AI ,jle ~copjng meeling dIe ~ppliC:\Il1 was directed to sepamtel)' list those interested p:ur.ks and "gene;.:s 'Fhieh do not kl'le direcl approval authority, md to indicate Ihe statu~ ,:.:c::~~?~. ,5:f\ CHAnLES VOORHIS 2,..ASSOCIATES, I~IC. E~'I\tIROIltA~~rl.''l, 11./'10' Ptj~i~ilf~G C0t,ISIJLT,~tnS "'.....-: 1.,/, '"..' P'g. I or ~ ,- ..:, "I . . Crou SOllnd Fury Rel1m IIr Scoplng Onlllne and nature of permits of all parties listed. In additien, the scoping meeting also resulted ill directioll to the applicant to list ~he Suffolk Count}' Plaluling Commission a.~ " approving agl!!lcy, :tOd to list the Suffolk County Department of PI31Ulillg as staff to the COTllmission :lnd an interested party. TI,es. amendments are reflected in tJ,e Deccmuer 16, 1996 scopiJlg outline. Ul.C.l.e. n'e "Jlpllcnnt is r<~'lucslcJ to cstablHlthe e:d~ting conditions of the aquat]" environment a~sociated \Vitb tbe subject site and a<ijacent are". 'DJis is " re:lsonable request to present information which i~ well documented on Long Island and docs not require :1IIY original re"ea.rch or inventorie~. It is 311 obvious request, because tJle ferry terminal operations bave resulted in alte""tion of undenvater lands as " result of dredging, and beeause proposed upland iJ1lprovement~ may result in erosion :urd sedimentation witJl associated impact.1 to t.lle marine environ/llent. Ifthe scope of the p:roject i~ limited 10 upland :\reas, and if tJle appli"llt is sllece~sflll in mitig:\ting potential impacts to tlle mam,c environmellt, the bllrden of unpaet aldysis IIpOll \lndcrwater lands will be reduced to a limited dLc;cllssion. UlAl.d lUAI.h 1lI.A.2.c. Tr:\ffic is perhaps tJle lIIost significant impact of the operation oftJle feny teonina!. TI,e npplic;tnt has been directed to provide a complete trame impact a"".Iysis which add res,"" the incrementAl impacts associated with existing :\nd proposed operations and improvements, with pa.ttieuior interest llllJ1iligation to remedy unpacts of ferry tennulal operations nnd prO'fide :\ ~afe vehicuJafalld pedestrim cnvironmellt fOf the residents of the Town of 50utJlold, f bdieve it is generally recognized tJlnt tJ,e majodty oftrips bound for the feny originale west of Grccnport, It is 3190 recognized tJ,.t tJlere :He limited intcrsections and points of conflkt (a.nd no signalhed intersections) e.1.St of Gr'~enport. There ale altel1l:ltive routes to be used by JIIotorists west af Greenpor!, unt once ':l.t of tJle inte,.,;ection of Main Street and NYS Route 25, Route ;:5 become. the only road by which ro reach tJle fcny. Given the comlitians noted above, there is evidence that traffie velumes east of Greenport "-te at tUlles dominated by feny bOUJ,d traflic, Therefore, traffic operations emt af Greeopart seems like a re:L~0nable study area, '!lIe traffic study will not require either a land use analy~is of all lands on the OOrtJl for', east of Greenport, or a capacity allluysis far each intersection witJl.in the study area, TIle study should logically examine accident data within this stretch of roa.d to dctemline recurring conf1ict..~ which may be mitisat",l, 111e deteorune of level of service in a through traffic situation is not OllCrouS and would provide ulfonnatiol1 regarding the flow of traDie, traffic volumes, available gaps for sde road ul{ersectiorlS, :urd provide a me:ms of determining impact and mitisation, '11" scope of tJle traffic study is rC:lSon.nbly related to tJle ferry operatiorlS, and Is indeed precipil.~ted by Ole ferry operations. ConsequL"lltJ;', it is appropriate for tJre Town to direct the project sponsor to conduct the appr~printe slud>' to document tJle nature of traffic impacl.s :uJd provide "ppropriale mitigation a5 necessary. [VAl.. IV.A.l.b. rv.A. I.f. nrese comments pertain to portions of the scope wllich tJ,e project sporlSor believe~ arc more appropriate to address :l.~ project impacts ralher OI31lll\itigation, We have no objection to this reeonllnendatioll, and the December 16, 1996 scope has been amended to reflect this change. ,-"..,~ 11/'" ~<'..-?:'\:\\\ 11,7.\\\\ CHARLES 1/001-11-113 ,3, ASSOCINFS, I~IC. ::C1vIRr'fJf,IErIT"C I\ND"PL,i\~I~ilt"G C:()~I:;IJl WITS - --0. .'-", " ",1 P.WfIl:1 or .. . . [ro.. Sound Feu}' 'R@'1~'" o( Scoplng OUlllne V1.A. TIle December 16 outlille has been "mended to proviM additional direction to the project sponsor with regard to alternatives. So01~ of this specificity was contributed by the New York State Department of State Co"st.~l M:JJ1agement office in a Icltcr previously provided to the a.pplielUlt. I belie'/c that "'finy of t.he objectiv.,s of t.h~ project sponsor are simibr to the Town, in that snfe, efficient access to the inter-state ferry benefirs Town residents, Ferri riders and Cross ~;ound Ferry. If operations do DOt meet tllese cril.erill, it seems rea.~onabte to explore alternatives to a.dd~ess operatiorL~1 CQnsII:1i.nl~. Nt.ernalive site pllXkiug with customers bussed to the ferry is a logical me:isure to reduce Individual trips to the end of NYS Route 25 and to reduce needed parldng where limited parking i. available. Therefore, this alternative seems 10 fit witlUn the SEQR guidelines to evalua.te "tbe range of reasonable alternatives to tile action which ale fe:1Sible, considering the objectives 211d ':.~pabi\ities of tl,e project spon.or". SEQR indicates tl11lt "Site alternatives may be limited to pan:e1s "WYled by, or under option to, a pdv.lte project sponsor". The operative word In tlljS sentence Js "illa~", wbich is not a requirement and would imply discretion dependent UpOll consideration of tlle 13m. Cross Sound Ferry i~ a privat.e company wbich provides a signilic.~nt public service in the oper:l.f.ion of an Inter-state transportation link. If operations affecllhc safety of motorists and pedestrians, or if Iimher improvemenls are needed in order for customers to efficiently access Cross SoundFerry, polentinl off- site parking and bussing altemalivcs seem reJlSoll.~ble. Therefore, tbe feasibility oft.his alternative should be exaniined in the Draft EIS. + + . + Included with the above explallation is the revised outline dated December 16, 1996 for YOllr use, This letter is intended to re~pond to the Inter-Science letter ofDecernber 10, 1996, and to go beyond to provide meanlngli.ll insight into the level of environmental analysis requested by lhe Town in the scoping outline for CfOSS Sound Ferry, If the board is in agreement, I believe it would be pmdent to supply this letter with the revised scope to the applicant to assist them In the preparation of the Draft EIS. Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with tltis i1\formatioll, and pll'/lSe caU if you have any questions. cc Valerie Scopaz ~-"'.\ "l.f~ l.;~.j.::':,-,:~-\ l'l::(\'~l CHARLES VOORHIS E, ASSOCIATES. INC, ,.\'t 1\..:;",- . ,"-\, E~'IJIRONIvIE~IT,\L.NID PLNINlNG CONSULTf\NTS '.___",:,: VI,., ,\.." Very truly yours, a~~ Charles], V?orhls, eFP, AIer r.~. 4 of 4 . . SOUTHOLD CITIZENS FOR SAFE ROADS, INC. (SCSR) P.O. BOX 797 GREENPORT, NY 11944 December 11, 1996 Town of Southold Planning Board 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 RE: Inter-Science Research Associates -- Review of SCOpin9 Outline Dear Planning Board Members, I write to express the views of Southold Citizens for Safe Roads, Inc. (SCSR) on the December 10, 1996 letter of Richard E. Warren of Inter- Science Research Associates, Inc. Mr. Warren's letter includes several technical or procedural observations which appear to be both non- controversial and correct. However, it seems to us that the majority of Mr. Warren's substantive comments challenging the scope of the Town Planning Board's Positive Declaration and Draft Scope are contrary to the governing law. They also appear to ignore the facts concerning CSF's proposed expansion and actual intensification of the use of its Orient Point facility. Specifically, many of Mr. Warren's substantive comments appear, in our opinion, to rely upon the same defective assumptions and arguments that form the basis of CSF's recent Article 78 petition. First, implicit in Mr. Warren's conclusion that the Draft Scoping Outline Document includes "issues beyond what is appropriate for an evaluation of the project that is proposed by the applicant" is the assumption that the scope of the Town's environmental review must be determined solely by CSF's application. In fact, the scope of the Planning Board's Positive Declaration is properly based on its July 14, 1995 Resolution that: (i) CSF's proposed addition of a high-speed passenger-only ferry constitutes a significant change in the nature and intensity of its operation which requires the ferry to apply for and receive revised site plan approval; and (ii) CSF's non-conforming use of the snack bar parcel similarly requires revised site plan approval. That Resolution obligated CSF to submit a revised site plan covering the terminal parcel and the snack bar parcel whether or not it applied for any additional parking or variances. !Io)r~ @ ~ 0 WI ~ rnll !I n,- ,Ii i Ii:: DEe 131996 :,', f'L. L,_,~L~~ SOUTHOLD TOWN: A DESTINATION, NOT A CORRIDOR A GATEWAY, NOT A THRUWAY 1 . . SOUTHOLD CITIZENS FOR SAFE ROADS, INC. (SCSR) P.O. BOX 797 GREEN PORT, NY 11944 Consequently in our opinion, the Planning Board must review CSF's use of the entire facility at Orient Point for compliance with state and local law. Second, Mr. Warren's comments reflect what we believe to be an erroneous assumption that SEQRA would permit the Town Planning Board to limit its review to CSF's proposal to convert two parcels into a parking lot with 335 spaces. To the contrary, SEQRA reauires the Board to consider the cumulative environmental impacts of the totality of CSF's operations at Orient Point. Under the statute, the agency entrusted with the review must employ a non-segmented approach to the review, unless the agency itself formally determines that a partial evaluation of a project's impact is no less protective of the environment. In light of the Planning Board's July 14, 1995 Resolution concerning CSF's introduction of the high-speed ferry, and in light of the fact that the proposed parking lot will likely be used largely -- if not entirely -- to support that new service, the Board would, in our view, be acting in violation of the law if if did not consider the potential environmental impacts of CSF's entire operation at Orient Point. Mr. Warren's comments and recommendations appear to be an effort to permit CSF to avoid the requirements of SEQRA by submitting a permit application covering only a limited portion of its ongoing expansion. This effort, in our opinion, is contrary to the requirements of SEQRA, in particular the clear prohibition against "segmentation." It should therefore not be countenanced. Finally, Mr. Warren suggests that a number of interested agencies and groups should be removed from the listing because "they have no formal approval authority over the application." In our view, there is no basis in law for that request and it is entirely contrary to the spirit of SEQRA and to common sense. In our opinion, the Town Trustees, the Town Board as well residents and property owners in Southold have a legitimate, indeed vital, interest in this process. The same is true of each and every one of the other entities Mr. Warren would have this Board exclude. For example, the Suffolk County Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation is entrusted with maintaining and preserving the county park at Orient Point. Similarly, the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation is vitally interested in Orient Beach State Park, a national SOUTHOLD TOWN: A DESTINATION, NOT A CORRIDOR A GATEWAY, NOT A THRUWAY 2 . . SOUTHOLD CITIZENS FOR SAFE ROADS, INC. (SCSR) P.O. BOX 797 GREENPORT, NY 11944 natural landmark. Both of those parks are in the immediate vicinity of CSF's project. What CSF appears to want is a closed proceeding from which the public and interested governmental agencies are largely excluded. That approach is directly contrary to the mandate of SEQRA that: ''the lead agency will make every reasonable effort to involve project sponsors, other agencies and the public in the SEQRA process" at the earliest possible stage. 6 NYCRR Sec. 617.3 (d). We therefore respectfully urge this Board to reject Mr. Warren's substantive comments and recommendations. In particular, we ask that no interested agency or group be excluded from this process and that this Board continue its commitment to conduct a review of CSF's entire operation at Orient Point, including any future plans for changing or intensifying the use of the facility. Respectfully, :!~)L,____________ President, Southold Citizens for Safe Roads, Inc. (SCSR) SOUTH OLD TOWN: A DESTINATION, NOT A CORRIDOR A GATEWAY, NOT A THRUWAY 3 ............................................................................. TRANSt1I'3SICtl RE:3UL T REPORT .................... (DEe 13 '96 04: 32PM).............. ~ SOU~D TOWN HALL 516 765 1823 ............................................................................................................................................................................... (RUTO) .................. DATE START TIME DEC 13 04:30PM 11OL'f. TOTAL PERSONAL LABEL PAGES 04 FILE NO. 011 REMOTE TERMINAL TI~C IDENTIFICATION 516 727 4130 01'37" 'F- SOLTS OK ES ................................................................................................................................................................................................................: E)ECM ))REDUCTION S)STI'V'IDARD D)DETAIL F) FINE M)MEMORY C)CONFIDENTIAL $)TRANSFER PlPOLLING .)BATCH REPORT ....................(DEC 13 '96 04: 29PM)..I..........: SOU~D TOWN HRLL 516 765 1823 (AUTO) """""""",,: . TRRNSMISSlON RE3ULT ..11..1..1..1""",,,,,,,,,,,,.....1,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,....1.."""""'" "",,,,,,,,,,,,",,,......",,,,,,,........",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,......",,,,,,".....1............1............1.....1....................1.......1.........1.'......1 DRTE STRRT REMOTE TERMINAL TIM[ TIME IDENTIFICATION DEC 13 04: 27PM CORNELL UNIV. L. 1. HRL 01 '53" MCDE TOTRL PERSONRL LRBEL PRGES 04 RE- SULTS OK ES FILE NO. 009 ElECM -................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ))REDUCTION SlSTRNDARD DlDETAIL FlFINE MlMEMORY ClCONFIDENTIAL .,BATCH $lTRANSFER PlPOLLING 00 ~ @ ~ u w ~ ''7;,' J 1;1 li i DEC I I 1996 .. I',' L,""'_""'" ~;::~ ;',.. . -,_."~"..--,-~ . . INTER:SCIENCE RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS RICHARD ERIK WARREN, AICP President VIA FAX/MAIL December 10, 1996 Town of South old Planning Board 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 RE: CROSS-SOUND FERRY - REVIEW OF SCOPING OUTLINE Dear Planning Board Members: I have had an opportunity to review the Draft Scoping Outline which was subject to the Southold Town Planning Board work session on December 4, 1996. After a more extensive review of the document and after listening to the comments made at the meeting, I question the appropriateness of a number of the requests included within the outline. I understand that the SEQR regulations provide for a flexible scoping process, and give substantial latitude to the Lead Agency in their investigation of the proposed action and its impacts. However, it appears to me that in the issuance of the Scoping Outline Document, they have included issues beyond what is appropriate for an evaluation of the project that is proposed by the applicant. The proposed action as described in the Positive Declaration issued by the Town is as follows: "The subject application involves a request for site plan app1'O\lal to provide additional parking to a previously approved ferry terminal on Rt.. 25 in Orient, in order to accomnwdme 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. " The application submitted to the Town of Southold involved the creation of an organized parking lot totaling 335 parking spaces, on two parcels ofIand located to the east of Main Road (S.R. 25) totaling 3.93 acres, as illustrated on the Site Plan for Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. prepared by John 1. Raynor, P.R, L.S., P.C., last dated June 28, 1996. The Positive Declaration and the issues requested to be addressed in the Scoping Outline issued by the Town describes...fm!!: (4) parcels ofIand - the two parcels which are included in the Site Plan application and the existing Cross Sound Ferry Terminal.. Issues which I believe are inappropriately included within the Scoping Outline are listed as follows (note that the numbering follows the original numbering that was contained in the Scoping Outline provided to us at the meeting): POST OFFICE BOX 1201 .36 NUGENT STREET. SOUTHAMPTON, NEW YORK 11969-1201 .516-283-5958. FAX; 516.283.597-4 ...2d~' f"YL8 y~ 1) ~ - /1_ 1-1/-11 ~V''-/J' {,-<, ,,-, LA.I. "Provide history of underwater land including ownership and legal (include surveys of underwater land) permitting and dredging history including placement of spoil and fill of wetlands." Comment: The subject action is contained wholly within the upland - there is no change proposed to the underwater land. The underwater lands are not shown on the site plan submitted to the Town of Southold or survey of the property. There are no plans for dredging or filling of these lands. It seems inappropriate to cause the project sponsor to expand his inquiry to include areas which are not part of the subject property on which the action is proposed. I.A.3. "Objectives of the project sponsor in expanding business and in changing nature of services offered (i.e. addition of high speed ferry passenger only service). Discuss other future business plans, possible expansion, etc." Comment: Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. is seeking approval to improve the only other parcel that they own/control. They currently operate their ferry terminal providing a variety of transport to Connecticut - passengers, passenger vehicles and commercial trucks. Their existing operation includes passenger only ferries, and passenger/vehicuIar ferries. The project sponsor's position is that they are not changing the nature of their business, but are simply providing parking for their patrons who utilize their service. The objectives of the applicant are clear and are presented in the application - they seek approval for the construction ofa 335 vehicle parking lot on 3.93 acres ofland, consisting of two parcels, located east of the terminus of Main Road (Route 25). I.C.3. "Structures - Describe expected structures, including the proposed parking and relocated stal!inl! areas." ... "Describe movinl! of snack bar and combininl! with existinl! residence for waitinl! room and snack restaurant." Comment: Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc.submitted a site plan, dated June 28, 1996 which outlines the work for which approval is sought. It does not include the relocation of the vehicle staging areas. It does not propose the moving of the snack bar. During the course of the review of the application, the Town of Southold requested the project sponsor to prepare an alternative integrated site plan and specified certain design elements. Since this was requested by the Town, the project sponsor complied with their request, with the preparation ofa plan by John J. Raynor, P.E., L.S., P.C. dated July 30, 1996. This plan - not the plan proposed by the applicant and subject to the site plan application - illustrates the relocation of the snack bar and the reconfigured staging area. It seems inappropriate for the Town to request the applicant to file an application for what they want, then request them to explore alternatives that they do not seek, then require them to address such alternatives within the Draft EIS under "Description of the Proposed Action". LE. Agencies & Approvals. Comment: The listing of agencies contained within the Scoping Outline is unnecessarily long, and inclusive of agencies which have no approval authority over the subject site. Scoping is supposed to INTER.:5CIENCE reduce the extent to which extraneous material is included in the document. With all due respect, those agencies which should be removed from the listing (as they have no formal approval authority over the application) are as follows: South old Town Board Town Board of Trustees Suffolk County Dept. of Public Works Suffolk County Dept. of Parks, Recreation and Conservation New York State Department of State New York State Office of Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Federal Emergency Management Agency Save Our Roads North Fork Environmental Council U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Suffolk County Department of Planning should also be eliminated from the list, and substituted in it's place, the Suffolk County Planning Commission, who would have authority over the subject site. All of those agencies recommended for removal, along with the numerous other individuals and organizations who have commented thus far on this project clearly will have the opportunity to review and comment on the project at the appropriate time - after acceptance of the Draft EIS. Their comments will be recorded as interested parties, and their comments will become part of the record within the Final EIS. ill.C.1.e. (Natural Resources) "Discuss unique flora in marine environment in relation to subject site and activities conducted at the subject site." Comment: As mentioned previously, the proposed action includes upland improvements only - there will be no alteration of the existing conditions off ofthe property owned or controlled by Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. As such, this inquiry seems to attempt to reach into the existing operation of the ferry service, as opposed to being focused on the proposed parking lot sought on the two parcels, as illustrated on the Site Plan prepared by John J. Raynor, P.E., L.S., P.C., dated June 28, 1996. mA.I.d. (Human Resources) "Accident data to include all accidents along Route 25 from the Greenport Village easterly boundary to the eastern end of Route 25." mA.I.h (Human Resources) "Calculate existing levels of service on Route 25 just east of the Village of Greenport, during the twelve highest volume hours of a typical day." mA.2.c. (Human Resources) "Calculate the future levels of service for Route 25 just east of the Greenport Village boundary for the build and no-build conditions." Comment: It is my opinion that the level of inquiry for traffic data is excessive in geographic scope, as it requires the gathering of all traffic accident data along Route 25 from locations up to INTER:5CIENC[ eight (8) miles from the project site. There is substantial acreage, both developed and undeveloped lying between Greenport Village and the subject site. In order to put this accident data in proper context, a detailed land use analysis (both existing and future potential) would be required for this entire area, to determine whether the accidents are even related to the subject project. (Note that under ill.B.l and 2, the land use analysis requested includes only the project site and surrounding area.) Thus, reporting of the traffic accidents, level of service, etc. along the street eight miles away may be meaningless. I think it more appropriate for these questions to be evaluated as part of either (1) the municipality's review of the subject application, or in the alternative, (2) as part of the municipality's comprehensive planning efforts to determine the capacity of the roadway systems in a built-out condition. I believe it unfair to ask an applicant seeking approval to construct a 335 space parking lot on a 3.93 acre parcel at the most easterly terminus of the roadway to undertake a traffic evaluation such as that requested. The traffic evaluation should be associated with the proposed project - not evaluate all of the other influences of traffic along Route 25. I believe this evaluation is more properly within the purview of the municipality's responsibility as the Lead Agency. IV.A.l.a. (Human Resources) "Discuss adequacy of existing and proposed site improvements to handle existing and projected volume over next 5-10 years." Comment: While this issue is described under the heading of Mitigation Measures, the inquiry is not properly a "mitigation measure". Mitigation includes the measures that a project sponsor can undertake to minimize any adverse effects that the proposed action might have. The above referenced notation is part of the impact analysis, not mitigation. IV.A.l.b. (Human Resources) "Distinguish between vehicular flow (projected) and passenger flow from long term parking areas to the ferry." Comment: While this issue is also described under the heading of Mitigation Measures, the inquiry is not properly a "mitigation measure". The above request for information is a request for a breakdown of the operation of the ferry terminal, which is more appropriately included under the existing conditions analysis of transportation and parking (Section ill.A., Human Resources). IV .A.l.f. (Human Resources) "Determine traffic flow on Route 25 to ensure bike safety and to provide resident crossing that is available and safe." Comment: This issue, which is broad and poorly defined, is also included under the heading of Mitigation Measures, is not within the proper section of a Draft EIS document. There is no geographical reference to the area to be evaluated. This topic should follow Section ill.A.4. under Human Resources, which discusses the existing pedestrian and bike use of the area. VI.A. "Alternative Site Locations." Comment: Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. have an application submitted for the improvement of two parcels of land located immediately to the east of the terminus of Route 25, Main Road. SEQR INTER5CIENCE requires the project sponsor to evaluate "the range of reasonable alternatives to the action which are feasible, considering the objectives and capabilities of the project sponsor" (617.9(b)(S)(v). This section goes on further to state that "site alternatives may be limited to parcels owned by, or under option to, a private project sponsor". As discussed at the Scoping Session, the project sponsor owns no other land holdings in the area. Accordingly, it is inappropriate to discuss alternative site locations in the context of this Draft BIS. I trust that this information is helpful to you in your review of this project. Please advise if you have any questions regarding these comments on the Scoping Outline for Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. '0 truly yours, t~~ l1arren, AlC President REW:db CC. William W. Esseks, Esq. Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. INTER::5OENCE NAME R. G. Kassner S7a~ 1f1idc,^ $ ,LWM ()(t1Ij)(J)sk/ 'R'~haV (. lJ:;v>"'Yl 'W....,c:.w4r \(',<:. \..CL <L ~ tvI r... t. "'^-"~ J~ln A- W~\W~ !l-r t R~s 5 -,.., . ~\ '~b~~""~ 4.. nn'i. L2ru..:']' /^ " >-f. ~li\-, 1 ~ \ ,~\ft vU~' 'VA,\" M~'4I--'r-~ TlJ\\11)..l .j' ~ G-e4J<:.. - 7 C],,.--e 5S ) q/, (Zr. \,.. ~ Lt S'CJ ~ ~1 AJ)\ D ChJ Cb,Ao7 5a.-rtt% !1~~ \~..sPrJ CJ. k-fl-L.-ti~ ;VI- U'l/,tL /i- B-~ IU[- CLNIv I~' k If- (,A- 41i ft( MSij CROSS SOUND FERRY SCOPING MEETING DECEMBER 4, 1996 ORGANIZATION Southold Town Planning Cf"O$$ ~lA""~ ~r.-y cACW J~ ~, ~-s......." lit.......,.\,-. AS5o<:.~C ..:r~. , C-s.. f- A-bly C-__c\".,. ""-c",^",,,, ~"'l C Y"oSc, SoLr'"'-A. ~~'1 f{,,~.:rr.1res.- c lie lu Ert-7 c~.~~ N P(~c.. )~'SR IJPEC fl~) ~.~ , .- -"uSC I, ~fl- US~l p,(<~ i \/IA-!/c..: , ,;1 ( S"tflLJJ C+,~ ~1Y~ V C./Lb~S LJ ~-1c1U! ~ ~~7"a7 ADDRESS Town Hall Main Road, Southold Doe-J2 {(6c..d O(\.~.,..,+ ) ~ N. p~~ g~ I'i"p.,+ Sf.) So~"'l'~ f(v>l> , ("'1. '. .t. ~.'\.. \ ~<:o.~\."----~M p(\~ -r-e>-'t>'-"r )0 g SO. ~l~ f".K "2 n Ct.td.1 'fA ~O~o)l.. ,"'"' 0,",-' ~~ Po {jD Ie 1 1 ( }7b ~G1 ;S'-/l TELEPHONE # 765-1938 323-d.7~J 3~J-Y)6( 2.53 ~'5~ 3"~-1 .q...;> J 2.-'J -V[..(. ( . 32.3 7.""7" { /'iLI Z,>,L 71'f 7rf:( o ~ .. - '<. 'l.J.u.. a ~~-~ '3 L-~ ~"5 0 I ~ ;;2.9C- ff-3 ~3 f'0 pj~) ~,).'1 '. I I ?/J.3 _ ?, sf:2 -3>Z-"?-2-50c:l f210 ...rlt J)J-(J,,-e f)1/.. "3).. ~ - /;;'2.- } J fO e.,1'" ~~ l \ Q4i.\ fJt {Joy 7q 7 C ~f /lq44 bCJ 5' 1.J.-rP f"^ Lw i I (J fl, "t~ T NAME if kMi fh$jiv~ ~~ ~,/2~X~ 44~ ~~Vpl .~~~ ~~ . ~ ~ ~ ~~~\u CROSS SOUND FERRY SCOPING MEETING DECEMBER 4, 1996 ORGANIZATION / dou/ zl34- ~ 'z-851- ADDRESS -rd ..,..1 /IA_/"'''j , 7-,.; f&J9A/V'NG ~# ~/v'#<"'/1'c j/ M-lV'vP") /5~ .~~ sc s R... ~P\ . Si?,j7~ L7~)~~~ Nf~oS TELEPHONE # . . T - 4t SOUTHOLD CITIZENS FOR SAFE ROADS, INC. (SCSR) P.O. BOX 797 GREENPORT, NY 11944 4 December 1996 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Acting Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Preparation of Final Written Scope for the Proposed Site Plan of Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. Dear Mr. Orlowski: Based upon your oral suggestion, and out of an abundance of caution, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617.8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), Southold Citizens for Safe Roads, Inc. (SCSR) submits the following items for inclusion in the final written scope for the Proposed Site Plan of Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. These eight documents, which are attached, have previously been submitted to the Planning Board as part of the SEQRA process. Because the Planning Board's draft scope could be read to exclude some of the critical points raised in these submissions, and because, in our view, the matters raised are necessary to any legitimate SEQRA review, we formally submit them so that they are of record. We also note for the record SCSR's position that the points raised in these eight documents must be fully addressed as part of the review process. The eight documents are: > SCSR 13 September 1996 response to the Planning Board on the draft Long Environmental Assessment form and the draft SEQR Positive Declaration on Cross Sound's terminal site plan prepared by Charles Voorhis & Associates. This response, among other points, lists specific impacts of the proposed project and also includes 9 specific reasons that we believe should be referenced in and supporting your lead agency Positive Declaration. It includes attachments from the Suffolk County Water Authority on groundwater conditions at Orient Point and from Eric Lamont, Botanist, on the possible destruction of globally rare plant populations at Orient Point. > The North Fork Environmental Council (NFEC) 16 September 1996 SOUTHOLD TOWN: A DESTINATION, NOT A CORRIDOR A GATEWAY, NOT A THRUWAY 1 -T, . . SOUTHOLD CITIZENS FOR SAFE ROADS, INC. (SCSR) P.O. BOX 797 GREENPORT, NY 11944 response to that same Planning Board Positive Declaration. > The Southold Town Trustees 17 September 1996 memorandum to the Planning Board, which lists nine concerns to be addressed in the SEQRA process. > The Federal Emergency Management Agency 9 August 1996 response to your Lead Agency Coordination request. > The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation 30 August and 30 September 1996 responses to that same request. > The United States Department of Agriculture Plum Island Center 8 August 1996 response to that same request. > The State of New York Department of State 12 August 1996 response to that same request. SCSR also notes for the record that the review process should address: > Any plans Cross Sound may have to introduce busing from possibly contemplated parking lots west of Orient Point. Recent EPA findings appear to emphasize the greater danger of diesel exhaust fumes as compared to gasoline. > Cross Sound's plans for temporary or permanent storage of future dredge spoils on the site. Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, T~ JLJ ---------- Southold Citizens For Safe Roads, Inc. (SCSR) SOUTHOLD TOWN: A DESTINATION, NOT A CORRIDOR A GATEWAY, NOT A THRUWAY 2 .t ~~T""'.,,<% fA) w.~ ~ NEW YORK STATE a Bemadette Castro Commissioner . . Si~ 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 518-474-0456 Human Resources 518-474-0453 December 3, 1996 Fiscal Management 518-474-0061 TOO: 518-486-1899 Bennett Orlowski Acting Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Chairman Orlowski: Thank you for the Draft SEQR Scoping Outline for the Cross Sound Ferry proposal. We found it to be comprehensive and well- prepared. We understand that you may have received some comments after the time that the outline was drafted which will be incorporated into the Final Scope. So as to be clear on this agency's previous recommendations, we suggest the following modifications to the scope, all in Section III: - Under Natural Resources, A.2.d), add the following: "Include specifically the National Natural Landmark listing of Orient Beach State Park, a description of the reasons for listing, and identify any impacts to the qualities for which it is listed." - Under Human Resources, A.4., correct the statement on pedestrian Environment as follows: "Describe pedestrian and bike use environment[al shall be discussed]. Make note of...." - Also under Human Resources, D.2.c), change to the following: "Unless substantial ground disturbance can be documented, undertake a Stage 1 archeological survey to determine the presence or absence of archeological sites or other cultural resources in the project's area of potential effect." Again, thank you for keeping us informed of this proposal. Sincerely, dtn- (8 Thomas B. L Director Environmental Management Bureau cc: E. Wankel R. Dobbins P. Battaglino R. Pierpont P. Otis 00 m @ ~ II W _tpl I E_~~~ SOUTHO!.:"') I;)"r PLt~!'~tllL}n. y" ",:' An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Agency o printed on recycled paper ~.-= - -.-,-"-' '::.'.:.~ - - - ~- . ~ - - --,' ~, :i(':: -......-~ .:: . --...... :=:_':;CF ::::", .~ ...l:=~ -.~~.c,o . -- <" Pb _---'-'. ~_~~TION.":I: ~1_\ ~ II ~ ~ w ~ '..! :;i: ; IIlE!:W 'l'eAt( s~#.n ~ 8emade:"e C,UUQ CDmmlSS10nBr . . New York State Office of Parks. Recreation and Historic Preservation The Governor Nelson A. RocKefeller Empire State Plaza Ager.cy 3uilding 1, Albany, New York 12238 518-474-0456 December 3, 1996 Human Resources 518-474-0453 Fiscal Management 518-474-0061 TOO: 518.486.1899 Bennett Orlowski Ac~ing Chairman Town or Southcld Planning Board 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 1=1+~ 'S1'ir---<t~- 737~ Dear Chairman Orlowski: Thank y~u ror the Draft SEQR Scoping Outline for the Cross Sound Ferry~~roposal. We found ic to be comprehensive and well- prepared. We understand that you may have received s~me comments afcer the time cha~ the outline was drafted which will be incoroo=aced into the Final Scooe. So as co be clear on this agency's previous recommendations, we suggest the following modifications to the scope, all in Section III: _ Under Natural Resources, A.2.d), add the following: "Include speci:ical1y the National Natural Landmark lis~i~g ~f Orient 3each State ?ark, a descripcion of the reasons for 'liscing, and iden~ify any impac~s to the qualities for which it: is listed." _ Under Human Resources, A.4o. I cor:t-ecc the st.at~ment. :In Pedestrian Environment as follows: "Describe oedestJ::"ian and bike use environmen~ [al shall be discussed]. - Make :1oce of...." _ Also under Human Resources, D.2.c), change to the f~llowing: "unless substancial ground disturbance can be dccum=n~ed, undertake a Stage 1 archeological survey to determi:1e the presence or absence of archeological sites or other cultural resources in the project.'s area of pocential effect." Again, thank you for keeping us informed of this proposal. Sincerely, ~4 Thomas B. L Director Environmental Manageme::1t Bureau cc: E. wankel R. Dobbins P. Battaglino R. Pierpont: P. Otis An ::qual OpportUnity/Affirmative Action Agency _ U p'lnte~ on tecycJed PCtDef , I~ @ ~n -W' ~ rn-li 'i,' ~.- 7 ~ 1 :'. < ... ,.1, q 'f'. ,j Ui :.,'- "I: il: DEe -4 -- ,,"~I - j .., ~ ~,.,..J i ii, L...-__...___~...J ' SouTHOLD TlJ'Im PLANNiNG BOARD -\ . . ~ Pb THE LEAGUE OF W011EN VOTERS OF SUFFOLK COUNTY ~ $cwvj:) November 3, 1996 Fvfe I'y To: Planning Board, Town of Southold, N.Y. From: Johanna Northam Please include the following comments as part of the scoping proceedings regarding the site plan proposal of Cross Sound Ferry Services!. Starting in 19"65, League members have been active in protecting the water, wetlands and watershed areas. In relation to said proposal, there is concern that the State Environmental Quality Review Act of 1975 (SEQRA) guidelines, supported by the League, does not focus on natural resource issues for this project. It is clearly defined in SEQRA, that the environmental impact statement (EIS) should contain a comprehensive description of the environmental setting of the project site, the nearby area and the affected region. Without this information the EIS would lack insufficient analysis to provide an under- standing of existing environmental conditions. As lead agency, the Planning Board must comply with the State law and uphOld local zoning and related legislation in reviewing the site plan proposal for this project. ENC: Johanna Northam P.O. #1053 Natural Resource Chair , Southold NY 11971 ill! ~ : ~-~~~ L-s.C;:-;,~:C ,--._-~-' Bachelor of Science Environmental Studies -."..-:.--..-.--"..-.. -,1'- " -,-",'_'1 U."P,,1!J,"=, Ti:' .l::.1r=:,'t'5 ~ ~t:S C' ;--:',.-1 , . '-'-'" . . -.3- Natural Resources Impact on Issues 1995-97 WATER RESOURCES (See Imoact on Issues, 1994-%, LWYUS, p. 39) Staning in 1965, League members have been active in protecting the water, wetlands, and watershed areas of the state. We have worked for the state's Pure Waters for Life. the federal Oean Waters Act. and numerous local and regional legislation to prevent pollution from point and non-point sources. We support statewide water resources strategies as well as financial aid that would rehabilitate water supplies, and clean-up wastewater and watershed threats. We support statewide water metering, watershed protection, and groundwater protection, identification and management. Again, members serve on local environmental boards, committees and councils. As a result of our position supporting regional management of water resources, three League inter-state organizations were created: the Inter-League Council of the Delaware River Basin composed of New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania Leagues.1 the Lake Erie Basin Committee composed of Leagues from New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan. the Tri-State League composed of members from New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. These organizations monitor and advise on water management in their areas. They have alened other Leagues to take action on legislation or problems that affect their water basins. We suppon funding for the Great Lakes Commission and other activities that prevent degradation of existing waters and promote clean up projects. Through the Tn-State League, we supported the Interstate Sanitation Commission (ISC) which advocates for improved water quality through regulation enforcement, research and monitoring for the Long Island Sound, lower Hudson River Valley and other tn-state waters. At the 1995 Convention, the League adopted a mini-study: "NEED FOR MEASURES TO ACHIEVE WATERSHED PROTECTION FOR DRINKING WATER, INCLUDING PESTICIDE ISSUES," The basis for this study was the BOCC League watershed study which was adopted for concurrence by the Westchester ILO. IThe State Board dropped its membership in the Inter-League Council of the Delaware River Basin. The Council was no longer addressing New York's concerns. -77-, f -'~ ~ - -- ~ -..,' ,,_, ... I '-':' ~', . --"- . . -4- Natural Resources Impact on Issues 1995-97 NATURAL RESOURCE PROGRAM OF THE L WVNYS LAND USE Support fora state-established intergovernmental system for land resource management. LAND USE - Statement of Position as lUlD()l1n~ by the State Board, May 1976 The League of Women Voters believes that New York State must develop an intergovernmental system for land resource management. Such a system would require: 1. I.A:lcal governments to adopt local land use plans under minimum state standards with direct or indirect financial and technical help from the state. 2. Review by higher levels of government of those land use decisions which have Iarger-than-1ocaI impact. 3. The development or land to meet public needs (such as low and moderate-income housing, recreational and open space uses) under a system which fairly distributes the costs and benefits of such uses within a region. 4. The strengthening of county and multi-county regioDlll planning bodies. S. The use otregioDlll commissions to represent larger-than-local interest in managing unique natural resonrce areas or the state. The League ofWomea Voters is concerned that inadequate planning at the state leftl wastes resonrces: natural, social and fiscaL The state must coordinate l'lmctioual plans of state agencies with each other, with federal programs, and with the budgetary process. The combined impact of state plans and actions upon land use should be considered. The state must coordinate standards and guidelines in state programs to reduce inconsistencies which frustrate citizens llnd local governments. -78- I.;:. - . ) # ,-,.-,}.)'-. ,..'~, ~'IJ ~~':'r-_, ,=,~O:'7\:,'3 . . -5. Natural Resources Impact OIl Issues 1995-97 The State Environmental Quality Review Act of 1975 (SEQRA) was supported by the League; and we continue to oppose attempts to weaken it. We supported the laws on Coastal Zone Management in 1981 and the update of these laws in 1992. We are learning about the attempt by legislators, interest groups and lawyers to incorporate the principles of the Public Trost Doctrine into our land use laws. Because they have laws that date back to colonial times, New York and the Long Island region have unique status with rights and privileges granted to them. The recognition of these laws has resulted in opening up bodies of water for recreational purposes, and some localities/groups are attempting to e:qJand these rights. In 1978 Leagues in New York State agreed on key components of an intergovernmental process for managing land within the state and supported the Adirondack Park AgencY (APA). The key features of the APA that the League supports include; 1. Support the Adirondack Park Agency and the State Land Master Plan, including the unit management plans for state-owned lands. This plan calls for comprehensive review every five years. 2. Support the Land Use and Development Plan applied to the private lands in the Park. 3. Support the concept of the state and local governments sharing the planning and control process over use of private lands in the Adirondack Park. 4. Support local government in providing sound local land use planning throughout the Park. 5. Support preservation of open space, consisting of both private and public lands, and development of supporting facilities necessary to the proper use and enjoyment of the unique wild forest atmosphere of the Park. The League is pleased that the legislature, in the 1994 and 1995 sessions, passed and the governors signed into law a number of bills designed to improve the quality of land use planning and enforcement. Passage of this legislation was an attempt to address the various court decisions that have occurred over the years and to provide a uniform basis for zoning. The League continues to monitor changes to the Park, supporting some that we feel stre~gthen the original legislation and opposing proposed laws that weaken the purposes of protecting this unique natural resource. In 1990 we supported the Environmental Quality Bond Act which was defeated by the voters. However. we continue to support the establishment of an Environmental Trust -'79-. . . ~ 11 IMPORTANT >> File Number: Pl-473800-00118 00 Use the above number in all correspondence about this action! To the Lead Agency: The above information confirms that filings on the described positive Declaration were officially received by, and entered in the SEQR Repository on the daters) shown in the box headed DATE RECEIVED above. The latest filing is indicated by the most recent date in that box. The date and time in the second line show when this document was printed. Please check the information above carefully. For corrections or questions contact Charles Lockrow, (518)457-2224, or write to: SEQR Repository NYSDEC Division of Regulatory Affairs 50 Wolf Road, Room 514 Albany, NY 12233 10), ~ @ ~ 0 WI ~ ~ rfDll~'/ @Inw I ,~ lJI1~ .- 2 - jllU I.,;. DEC.~~IJII;_, SOUTHOLD TOWN l');i~'r:,v:u~, TO\;VN fi0:,!!_~~G..xiQ.BB~.~,"> L".~,-~^___i:~,,:':i~'_;_:':~~~~UlQ.~~L,~~.__,___ Town of SOUTHOLD Planning Board 53095 Main Road-P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 . . New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Building 40 - SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11790-2356 Telephone (5161 444-0365 Facsimile 15161444-0373 ~~ ~, ~ Michael D. Zagata Commissioner SEOR COORDINA nON RESPONSE AND DRAFT SCOPE COMMENTS November 20, 1996 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Town Hall, P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Attn: Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Acting Chairman Re:Cross Sound Ferry, Rte. 25, Orient SCTM# 1000-15-9-10.1, 11.1, 15.1 & 3.5 Dear Mr. Orlowski: An initial review by Department staff indicates that the NYSDEC is an involved agency as defined in SEQR (6 NYCRR Part 617) due to Article 25 Tidal Wetlands jurisdiction. A pre- application meeting was conducted with the applicant and our Bureau of Marine Habitat Protection. However, as of this writing, no application has been received by DEC for the additional parking areas on lots 11.1, 15.1 and 3.5. The site plan prepared by John J. Raynor last revised 6/28/96, appears to be in accordance with the pre-application meeting and appears to meet the standards for permit issuance in the Tidal Wetland Land Use Regulations 6 NYCRR Part 661. A large portion of the project is greater than 300 feet from the Tidal Wetland Boundary and is therefore out of Article 25 jurisdiction. A review of the project site by our Bureau of Environmental Protection revealed that no endangered/threatened species have been identified at the project site. Please be advised the DEC has no objection your agency or another agency assuming lead agency for this action as the anticipated impacts are primarily of local significance. If you have any questions, I can be reached at (516) 444-0403 for further information or discussion. Sincerely; ,fP~ Kevin Kispert Environmental Analyst cc: Cross Sound Ferry Services " m [, f" is II \V/ '\ r'o i IO Ll.., ltJ ~s UL~ I-.S jr':' r- i' ," U! NfN?? - !:~)l L___,,"__,_..-J~ SDUT;1DLO TOWN Pli"\~~\!!NG BOARD . . 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 TO: All involved agencies, and individual or interested agencies that have expressed, in writing, a request to receive a draft scope. Draft scope for proposed site plan for Cross Sound Ferry State Road 25, Orient RE: DATE: November 19, 1996 Dear involved/interested agency: The State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) 6 NYCRR Part 617.8 "scoping", requires the lead agency to send a copy of the project sponsor's draft scope to all involved and interested agencies. The project sponsor's scope was sent to you on October 29, 1996. The enclosed draft scope has been' prepared by the Town's Environmental Consultant from a review of the record, together with consultation with the Planning Board and other involved/interested agencies, and will be used at the December 4, 1996, meeting to develop the final written scope. Please review this scope carefully for areas within your jurisdiction that you may wish to comment on at the meeting. If you cannot attend this meeting, we would appreciate your comments as soon as possible, so as to incorporate them into the draft scope. . . If you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact Robert Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer, at the above telephone number or address. dJ:=:t od, jt f, Bennett Orlowski Acting Chairman Encl cc: William Esseks, Esq. Frank Yakaboski, Esq. Laury Dowd, Town Attorney (continued on attached list) 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 61 00 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 Rev~alization 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 Federal: Interested parties: . 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 Dr. Alphonso Tones, Acting Director Division of Agricultural Research-Plum Island U.S. Department of Agriculture P.O.8ox 848 Greenport, NY 11944 US Army Corp of Engineers NY District Jacob K. Javits Federal Bldg. New York, NY 10278-0090 AlIn: Regulatory Branch Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 26 Federal Plaza Room 1338 New York, NY 10278 AlIn: Response & Recovery Division Thor Hanson, President Southold Citizens for Safe Roads, Inc. P.O. Box 797 Greenport, NY 11944 John Wright, Acting President North Fork Environmental Council P.O. Box 799 Maltituck, NY 11952 . . . Draft Oetober 1, 1996 ..-- iIo)ID.r~ rG I ,1 r,,) If ,~ - , r l N;f;N....;... ,)\.)L:: !l,'~~_' [': I \1,1/ CROSS SOUND FERRY SEQR SCOPING OUTLINE I 5 1996 :::>"!,:'~');~ This outline provides a scoping document for use b)' the Planning Board of the Town of Southold in determining the content and format of the Draft Environment,tl Impact Statement for Cross Sound Ferry. This outline has been prepared with input from the consultant to the Planning Board, Planning Board members, and members of the Southold Board of Zoning Ap~als. In addition, refevant and substantive comments from coordination letters (received up until date of preparation of this outline) have been incorporated into the scope where appropriate. The applicant should recognize that each agency is a separate permitting entity, and applications should be filed with each jurisdiction to obtain technical comments. The EIS process is intended to provide compr,~hensive and important information for the decision makjn~ process for use by involved ag.mcies in preparing their own findings and issuing deciSions on their respective permits The document should be concise but thorough, well documented, accurate, and consistent. Review for acceptance or certification of the Draft Ers will involve review of content for conformance to the final scope, and accuracy to ensure that corre,:t information is incorporated into the document for imtial review. Review after acceptance will deal in more detail 'with the specific technical information presented and the analysis provided. Based on review, substantive comments received from involved agencies and parties of interest, the public i.earing process, and appropriate direction from the lead agency, a Final EIS will be prepared which will respond to all substantive comments on the Draft EIS. The Planning Board will be responsible for the preparation, content and accuracy of the Final ErS, and this document will be used as a basis for each agency to 'prepare a Statement of Findings and Facts for use in structuring permit or approval decisIOns. Overall, the Planning Board seeks a detailed Description of the Proposed Project including documentation ofthe following: background andbistory, location, design and layout, recharge handling, water stlpply, sanitary disposal, quantities of site coverage, site access, mechanisms for open space preservation, ana site acceSs. The Environmental Setting and Potential Significant Impacts section may be combined, to discuss existing, no-build and build conditions. Impacts sllould be identified as short term and long term. In addition, a section should be provided which identifies cumulative impacts of the proposed project. Consistent with SEQR Draft EIS guidelines, additional chapters of the Potential Significant Impacts section should include Growth Inducing A~pects, Iireversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources, and Effects on the Conservation of Energy Resources where appropriate. Adverse Impacts which can not be avoided shall be identified in a separate section. Consideration of one or more Alternatives will be required to address other scenarios regarding key resources. The following outline proVldes an updated form for the content and preparation of a Draft EIS. Page 1 . . 0:08. Sound Ferry Draft E (S Scoplng Outune HilLE OF CONTENTS AND SUMMARY A Table of Contones and a brid summary arc required for the Draft EIS. The Table of Contents and summary will include: A. Bri"f description of the actiOn. B. Significant, adverse and beneficial impacts (issues of controversy must be spe.:iIied). C. Mitigation measures proposed. D. .Alternatives considercd. E. Malters to be decided (permits, approvals, statuS, funding). I, DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION A. PROJECT PURPOSE, NEED A."lD BENEFITS 1. Background and H'lStOry.- H'lStOry of ownership and use, extant structures, past use(s), and prior site plan applications. Describe history of termtnal buildtng improvements and parking atea changes and history of snack bar parcel. Provide hi~tory of underwater land tncluding ownership and legal (include survey of underwater land) permitting and dredging history tncluding placement of spoil and fill of wetlands. 2. Public need for the project, and municipality objectives based on adopted community development plans -. summarize municipal objectives from land use plans and establish need for the projeet. 3. Objectives of the project spollSor in expanding business and in changing nature of seM= offered (Le. addition of high speed fcrry, passenger only service). Discuss other future business plans, possible expansion, ete. 4. Benefits of the Action.. Transportation seMces, economy. B. LOCATION 1. Establish geographic site boundaries -. Provide location map of upland and underwater lands. Identify atea of public land which appears on tax maps in een:er of subject property, and public access to this sile as appropriate. 2. Description of site aeecss - Road frontage and water access. Deseribe inter. relationship of State Road 25 and all four parcels. 3. Description of existing zoaiag On subject properties and on eastern-lllost parcel. C. DESIGN AND LAYOUT 1. Total Site Area.. describe existing and potential site use and describe design features ineorpolated into the proposed plan. 2. Site Coverage Quantities - Use table to present building, driveway, ::oad, recharge, landscaping, natural area, and other site coverage quantities. 3. Structures.. Describe expected structures, including the proposed parking and relocated staging areas. Describe existing lighting: type, WlIttage, locations. Describe ellisttng traffic management procedures, if any. Describe moving of ,nack bar and combining with existing rcsidenee for waiting room and snack restaurant. 4. Parking _. Deseribe existing and proposed parking, existing and proposed parking surfaee type and area, circulation, design and layout. S. Recharge -. Present method of stormwater recharge, capacity and d"sign requirements. Describc pwpcsed drainage and measures to minimize overland flow and provide adequate storm water recharge capacity. 6. Sanitary Disposal.. Describe sanitary disposal methods, design flow, needed additional capacity, as appropriate. Describe sanitary design flow of ferry terminal building, snack bar and residence.. 7. Water Supply.. Ability to meet Article 4, private water system standards and watcr Page 2 , \ . . " . , Draft E (S Scoplog QuUlne quality. 8. Landscaping .. Describe proposed landscaping to improve or visual '.Dd aesthetic site qualities. D. CONSTRUcnON Al'iD OPERATION 1. Construction a) Anticipated period of construction. b) Schedule of construction activities .. i.e. WUdliie sensitivity and any wetlands rcsource~. 2. Operation -. discuss future management of proposed project following construction, i.e. maintcnallce of buildings, roads, recharge, etc. E. AGENCIES A.'<-n APPROVALS ..listlead agency, involved agencies and interested parties separately, followed by their jurisdiction or interest, aJld the status of cach pe;,'mil or approval application. Describe permit history where appropriate. 1. Town Planning Board 2. Southold Town Board 3. Town Board of Trustecs 4. Town Zoning Board of Appeals 5. Sulfolk County Department of Health Services 6. Suffolk County Department of Public Works 7. Suffolk County Department of Parks, Recreation and Cooservation. 8. Suffolk County Departmenl of Planning 9. New York State Departmellt of Environmental Conservation. 10. New York State Department of Transportatioll 11. New York State Department of State 12. New York State Office of Parks, Recrcation & Historic Preservalion 13. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 14. Federal Emcrgcncy Managemenl Agency 1S. Save Our R.)ads 16. North Fork Environmental Council 17. U.S. Departmenl of Agriculture 18. Olher 111. EXISTING, NO. BUILD AND BUILD ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS This section should describe existing environmental conditions, future cnvironmental ,:anditions if the project is 1I0t implemented, and (uture conditions once che project is completed. Identify thosl:resources that may be adversely or beneficiaUy affected by the proposed actioll and require discussion. Discuss all environmental conditions in suClicient detail to determine if significant advorse or beneficial m'pacls arc expeeled. Identify impacts as long or short lerm where possible and provide separate chapler including discussion of cumulative impacts. Consistent with SEQR Draft EIS guiddincs, additional chaplers of the Potential Significant Impacts section should include Growth Inducing Aspects, Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources, and Effects olllhe Conservatioll of E.nergy Resources where appropriale. An appropriate design year should be selected for building traffic, air and noise conditions. III view of tbe fact tbat ,he current operation includes a passenger/vehicle ferry and a passenger only ferry, existing conditions will include tbe current operation. In addition, certain additiooallands including tbe easlerly parcel and parts of the State right-of-way are La use for parking and circulation, and therefore should be described. Further, other information concerning environmenlal conditions contained in this ::ection shall include all four parcels and the State right-of-way where it separates thc two westerly parcels from the two easterly parcels. PlIge3 NOY-15-96 FRI 8~07 . P _ 01 . CroIlI SoUIId Fen')' Draft ~ SCO.... ~dlDe ',' Natural Resources A. GEOLOGY L Subsurface a) compositi04 and lhl,It"p.. of subswface material. To depth,of 17 fect or gro1IlIdwatcrj prO\lide a summary of test hole lDformalioll. Surface a) Liit of $On lY1* pet Suffolk County Soil 811MI)'. b) DisCllUioD of &Oil cbaracteli6tics/limilatiolls e) Di&tribulioA of aoil types at project &ite d) Identify Importurt dune, tidal marsll. or special feature IOiIs u a rClOwce. Describe dune and beach fOllDations 011 the subject site and their proximity to the proposed activity. Topography . a) DcsaiptioD of topography at project silc, particularly my areu of steep slopes or draina&e areas. . . .,.' . WATER RESOURCES - This 5CClioII sII.ould addrOA the IlstQCl issuc\u'dIey pertain to thc . . effect the proposal aclioll may have 011 the site's capacity to provide po~ water aDd salllWy waste clisjlosal for the ~.';"g use aDd any proposed uses. 1. Groundwater a) LocatiOll and c1escriptiOll of aquifcra and recharge areas. depth of water table ID cIc:ve1opmeat areas. lca&OlIal variati.OII. discuss groUlldWaleMlII"face water IDter-relaliolllhipj cIischargc to IIII"face water; tidal fluctuations if rclevaDt. ch:tcrmlDe =tiua water quality bencatlo the aite ia lIIIlidpatc4 water . supply ZOJICi. e1ircelioll of Dow IdeDtifacatiOll of pr':SCut uses and level of use of aroUlldwatcr 1ocation of =IJD& weIla pUblic/private water supply agricull\lral uscs . GroUlldwatcr/watcr monagr.meut rcgu1atio.lII.208 study, special p'oUlldwatcr protcctiOll areas, NURPS study, etc. Surface Water a) Describe my nearby lurCaco wat_,iD.cludiua "NYSDEC sw!acc water classifiutloll water quality and saIiuity characteristics and uses 2. 3. B. . I..." , . b) c) 2. 3. Draioagc describe exiiting drainage. pallDl1lS Oil lituJ'dia thear~a. make DOte of c1raiDa&e swaIcs and nallll"al coI1ccliOll areas. determine elCect of the proposed acliOll 011 iacr~d rUIIoff and poUutIoa &om the Maill RoadlDto the storm draias OIl thc PjaccIIt property of thc Plum Is1aDd ADimal Disease Rc.scarch Laboratory into GardiDers Bay; 4. Flooding - lo<:atc Rood ZOIl" 011 the subject aile and dcscribo IiIlli1alloaa, features, jurisclictioDal .ssUCI, and spcc:WlIIq1Iirelll~ C. TERRESTRIALANDAQUATICECOLOG'l(' .- 1. VqetatiOll ,... . ,} --"'--.~jT..."r NOY-IS-SO€. FRI ItB7 P_B2 . '\ en- SouacI FerrJ .~ lIS ScopIqOutlbie a) list vegetation lypCS OD the project lite and withiD the surrounding lIl'Cai classify into habitats. b) discuisioA of silt vegctatiou c:haraderistica . spedes pre&euccand abUllclante siic distributiDA commUllity t:'J:'e& UlIique. rare and ellclaagered species value as habitat for wilcllife c) CoDtact NYS Nat'lI'al Heritage Proaram for iDf___ ~1liDg lIIIique Yeptatioo, habitats or wildlife speciel 011 site or in the area, and proviclc discussion/llllalysia ill text IS uecessary. d) Describe habitat needs and bioIogk:a1 characteristica, of all eadaDscred speciea, tbrc:atcned and spcc:ics ohpecial CODCCrll ,'.. e) discuss unique flora ill mariDc coviroamellt ill relation to subject site lIIId activities conducted at the subject site. 2 ~ddliCe ' a) Provide a list of wildUfc utilizing site habitats or expected on sile. IDdicalC .... dates of slIl'VC)'S and clisliquish species idcDlified OJI site. COJIsult refcrcace5 to delCrmiDe species c:rpccted on site based on habitat type. . . b) Contact Natural Heritage Program for file review of site and area. c) IdeJltify Eodaogcre,d. Threatened or Species of Special CoDcerD. d) Dc~cribe habitat needs and bioloaieal characteristics of all endangered species, threatened and sp~os of special concern. 3. WctIands . .. a) Describe wedand~ (VCiCtated andUllvcgctated) and adjaCODt areas as and charact.-ristics. . . b) lndicate method of cIc1ineatiOllandagCDcies.,eon~ 4lr ~cation or agencies with jurisdic:tiDn. SpcciflCllly contact Town Tr\l$l:ccs, NYSDEC and USACOE. . c) IdeAtity valuable functions of wedands on site and adjac=l site. D. AIR RESOURCES 1. Meteorological Conditions - cIeicn'bc Clli$l'''lJ meteorological conditions iD proximity to Orient, lac:Iudiaa SCISODaI winds, temperatures.. cae. . 2. Ambient Air Quality - delcmUnc cxisliDc ambieat air quality. 3. Air Quality Standards. dell:l1'bc and list air quality standard. .. .Air Quality Impact. dctcrlJlinc key paramclcra of COIlcom and coacIlICt air quality iIIlpact alll1ysis for clCW1'Ig and build COIlditiODs iD order to predict iIIlpact. At a minimum conduct analysis to determine ,Impact of exi$liDg and propcllCd conditions rcprding carbon monoxlcl" usiD& quantitative mcthodsrecognizcllllDCl accepted in the flCld. H_Jlcaoun:u .,,, ;" d.." A. TRANSPORTATION - This &cction shall include the St.ta..ri&ht.of-....,. (ROW). and lhe 2 ROWs tbroup tho residcotial parcel and the private ROW on the northl:rly boundary of the town caaterly parcell. Dcacn'bc and idontify all llIrticaha.vias rieb& to _.the northerly ROW. IdcDdCy boundaries of said ROWand dccc1 rcstrktiOJlS to 1ISC of same, if IDY. 1. RYls/lna: Transpiration services . Separate pasl"l<< .oDlyarviccdatabom .vehicle and passeager service. Describe oriain/clostinatiOD 0( clientele. Describe ~ ~ivity periods (i.e. bea'/)' truck trallie, Boy Scout outiDgs,cte.). . \".".(.. f.,/. "'5 , HOV-15-96 FR.~ a.as p.ea: . . I,:. ! " er.. SoIWI FCR7 Dnft;EIS'seoplq OUIIIDe . .1' . . B. a) DesaipCioD. of _to !he aile aDd,ialuaal;road,cir~,I"lO?, b) DCiCriptiOll of QII'fUIt levd of~ ofsoni",,- peak bours of \1$0 vehic1c mix 10111'00 of "wed:, tnffic, e) Obl.... lataltratrae votv.me data for Route 25, ill !he ~ of the project, from the New York StateDepartmellt of TraDsportadoll. (NYS DOT). d) Obtain State Accident SurvellIancc System (SASS) data for the latest evailable three year pa,iocI. Accidcllt data to iDcllldc aD acddioont. aIciiI& Route 25 from the Grccnport Villagc cuterly boundary to the eastern CJid of RoUte 25. . c) ." CoDdUc:l traftie VOlume COlIIlls OIl Route 25 imme<!l.tply weat of the pro~ p':~ for a scva;, lI&y llUiocL . '. . . f) Obtain trip iaformatioD from CTOSIi Sound Ferry rquclillll achcdulca, trip p&SICIIgCl' and ve.blc1c data, aadother historieel iaforaiatioA,iIccded to cIovoIop tripgCncrationdaiaforthecxisw.~. ..... " " ... g) R_eh a'lllli1abIe' pUblIc transportation.aloaa Route 2s ~. of GrCCDport. h) gu~::~~:U~*!.~~~~:r.~~~~~Of i) Analyze the ...~:.I<,~; data aad cOlIlpare !he rate aDd frequency to the NYSDOT __. accidcllt ratC.. ". . 2. TraasportatiOil System bp&etl ii, a) Estimate !he Inc:rca&cdhourly traffic: wlumeto ~acnulllCd by the proposed parkiDa areas. . . . , b) Determine the ~a tr.mc growthfaetors used by the NYSDOT for the seetioas of RoUU; '15 cut of Gr_~ . ..... e) Calculate the (utl:1O ~ of scnicc for Route 25 just ~ of !he GrCCllport ViIJaSc bolllldary few tllo buijd and IlO-bu.ild couditiOlll. ". . Ii) Quantify site gcncralcd traffic impacts based llp01l tlac level of scmcc calculatiollS. ,c' .' ..... ....". . e) Dclcrmiae other impacts, such ~ ~il\t!lrr'!l\!o!i tral'f'lC..l1Qw along Route 25 resultlas &om ve.blc1cs ";"'~~'1'$,at~c~' .' , f) Describe site circull\li~ Im~and m~ ofb,a,a~ !tame frolll peak use. . .' .", '_ .' .... . . .,' , . . ..' ,', 3. Publlc TransportaliOll ScMCcs- D~~IIC~;\ill'~,iail4 the type of ICI'\'Icc (scheclulc:s) aVai1ab!e (i.e. bUS,' tiIit, tIR1t. ckiz!O bus)." ...... 4. Pcdcstrjan EaWOIIJIlcat .. Describe ~trian aDd !.iI.C Use enVinmmcalal sball be c1ilCllSlCd Make IlOlc of pedestrian cnvUOIlIIlent, bike use, circulatio.il, safety, cle. LAND USE AND ZONING L "''';ctn.a 1an4 lISe and zo..mg . a) Description of lhr; ~liDs laad. \ISll.of ~ projCCl; site 1lIid: ~surrolJDcli"l areL b) Description of cxistioa ZoDlDs of 4!toand surrollllding area. c) Deic:ribe -:.tI.. owUnbiPOllthe #10 and.",!h~ arca,r~ ownership, \1$0 and zoaiDg '0 future llUId ...... lr...w, .and open spBC!l.. 2. Land use plaas " . '.<.. . . a) dcscriplk>u of any Janel UIO plans or muter plans whicb include project site and s\lrrOll.~ area. COMMUNITY SERVICES 1. Ed~tionaJ far:iJilies .' discusi existing' rWlilicslllicl ~lon relfti~ to the site and aa:A:II road. .' 2. PoIiec protection. cIiscuss IeftJ of PU~11c ScryiecbcUlg~~ dd\D,c1l1dc description c. Pap 6 , 'X:; ~. ~ '... t-..O.....-15-'SI6 F~~I 13 1 6 P _ 1211 . . Cross Sound Ferry Draft E:iS Scopl... Outline af service (Le. speed enfarcement, parking, vialations, accidents, etc.) 3. rll'c pratectian - discuss status af flfe proteetian facilities in Orient a"d suitability of same to. bandle level of haz.vd at the site. 4. Recreatianal facilities - discuss status and location af recreatianal facilities in Orient, including State and Caunty Roads. 5. Utilities - discuss locatioo. af any public utilities on or adjailling the subject site. D. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Visual resources - describe visual impact by night as well as by day (particularly with regard to. SilC lighting af parking areas, pedestrilU1 walkways, dack at,:as and staging areas. a) descriptian of the physical characcer af the eommUlliey b) description af site fram viewsheds alang nearby raadways ar:d nearby surface waters. 2. Histaric/Prc-histaric Resaurces a} Locatian and descriptioo. af historic arcas or structures listet! 00. Slate or National Registcr ar designaccd by the commUllity ar included on Statewide Inventary. Include Society far Preservatian of Long Island Antiquities data an Orient, b) Determine significance of any existing histaric structures an site c) Cantact N"YS Office af Parks, Reereatian and Historic Pres'~rvatian, Histaric Preservatian Field Serviccs Bureau far infarmation pertainil\g to. histary and prehislary af site. 3. Noise Resources a) Identify patential nearby sensitive receptors and determine "xisting sound levels an sile and at property line of nearest receptor. b) Establish appropriate guidelines for use in determining potential impact with regard to naise increases. c) Identify noise sources a.o;saciatcd with subject use and conduct analysis to determine increase above ambient nalse based an existing and build conditions. Other Resources aad Impacts A. CUMUlATIVE IMPACTS B. GROWfH INDUCING ASPECTS C. IRREVERSIBLE Al'lD IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES D. EFFECTS ON THE USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY RESOURCES IV. MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Describe measures to reduce ar avaid potential adverse impacts identified in Section IV. The fallowing is a brief listing of typical measures used for some af the majar areas af impact. Natural Resourees A. GEOI.OGY 1. Subsurface a) use e~cavaced material far land reclamation 2. Surface a) use topsail stack piled during constructian for restoration and landscaping b) address proteetian of dune and beach formations during and after construction, and in general minimi~e disturbance af non-construetian sites 0) design. and implement sail erasian contral plan Page 1 ,,~~,,' ',I'~t;'ii~",~''''''~ltJ:F~:~F:y,'q''~Y_f\':-',:!l'I~:!' NOY-15-96 FRI 8.09 P.04 . Croll. Sou.. F~ ~',ilSSCOplDi Outll..; 3. Topogtaphy a) avoid CODStr1IClioD oureas of steep slope .,' . b) cIeaip adequate soU erosion delliccs to protect areas of steep s1opo . WATER RESOURCES . 1. Grouadwalc:r a) dClip systoms to pnMclo adequate leac:hingofwaslcWa1er uuI st......_r. . b) maiDtaiD pcnncablo areas OD the.site . c) D'vlmI7.Q D&tUtll1 area, reduce fertilizcd atC!IS . . .' . d) desip SyJtclD510 pcovi.dc aclcqualC mitigalioD 01 oil/sr- from parked ~ aDd ua Surface water . . . . . :. a) easure use of soil erosion control techlliqucs duriq COIlIlrUC:ticm ud Opelltioll: 10 avoid siItalioa. .' exa.mp1ca:Ylllf,i" ',;ii ' hay baIea temporary restontioD 01 veselalion to cli&turbcd areas .... 1aDCIscaploc . . b) dcaip adequate stormwatct control system ." c) increase wetlands sctbadla aDd provide COVCIWIU wbcre pcl!IIib1e d) provide setback from beach aDd protcctiOD of dunes. . TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY 1. Veactation/wlldlite a) restrict c:IeariDs to 0DIy those areas IK'CCSSi'Y b) preserve part 01 site as uaturahrea e) aftu COII5trIIctiOD, 1alWcape sile with nalurallYoceurriJlsvesc:lal;on . cI) preserve cross scdio. olllatural habitat areas. . e) provide liakageato other sitea and habitats . f} prcaerve all wetlaDcI& aac1 wetlaDd fuactions throup aetbacb NOISE RESOURCES'!'''; L Butren, barriers, operationa1 miliption. trafru: mitiption. etc:. 'iha11 be incorporated into the project as neCllSSaty' to minimize IIOise impacta. .' B. 2. <., . c. D. ., , '~ . . HIIIIIU 1lca0llral A. TRANSPORTATION 1. Transportation sy&lC1I1I, parkiDg. cireulaliOD.etc. . . . . ." a) diacua& acIeq1Iacy of uialiq aac1 plopoaecl site impro_oalI tC) band1e uiatima anc\' . projected volume over IICllt 5-10 ~.. . . ..' . distinsuiah belWllOn vehicular fIoW(ptojOGled) uuI pa-~"lF flow from 1oDa-, '.: .. '. term parmi areas to tbe ferry.; " .' . cli&cuss internal circulation patterns propoaed and JPitlpte ptObIems. . . discuss maDaseme4l 01 tra11ic Ilowto ad from the immediate tCrmina1 . .;; opcralioas lIDd parkiDg site ill temts"of reau1ating speed alId~"I of ear.. . . . desisn adequate aDd safe access to projecr: site EO haDcIJe projecucllraflic: Oow' c1clermiM traffic flow OD Route 25 to iIlsure bike aatCtj'ADa;to' provide rcsiclent croasin& that if awllablo aDd safe' ". .. i, LAND USE AND ZONING ,. 1. PYl"I..g 1aDCI use aDd ZllJIing a) design projcc:t to comply with ClCialiq 1ancl use plans. .... . . '. . b) desip fllllCliOD-' ilIIcI visually appcallDgfacilily to set5tandatd _ prececleDt for f)!ture s~ land use .. b) c) d) e) f} ~. .... B, " . .' "'d.'. !.,F"r' 1. { .... .. ;' NDV-15-96 FRI a.12I9 P.12I5 . . . Croll. S_" Feft7 "f.Jl~~~~Oudlae ij:!, C. COMMUNITY SERVICBS 1. PoliccjFire ProtcctioD/Satcty a) discu$s how adequate _ will be maiDlaiDed io wdu to pcavide poIil:c, fae aDeI other emetgcJlC)' pl'0leCli04 services. . b) cliscuss miliplioD measures to improve safety elurias lr&llSport of school cbilcl1eD. . 3. l1tilitic$ a) install utility scMces WlelergrouDcl b) iDcorporatc water saviDa: kures into facility !lcsip c) iDcorpocatc encrgy-saYiDg measures ioto facility clcsip D. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. VISual resourcea a) provide bu1IeriDg to improve aesthetics, partil:Ularly on the DQrth sicle of re&icleDlial parkiDs lot (if appl"Oltecl bY,,vsA)... ....~j\!,,\\tl I b) minimize roacI surface area aDd ~igP;fIrea"tlaJiddistliiti&llce. 2. Historicl Archaeoq;w- prc&erVC ac\e4IIatc portion of site to provide for arcbacological resource use, research aDcI maoagemenl. Otber Jlaourca .... Impact MitlpdoD A. CUMUlATIVE IMPACTS B. GROWI"H INDUCING ASPECTS C. IRREVERSIBLE AND J1UtEl'RISVABLE COMMITMENT OF RBSOUR(:I!.S D. EI'I'ECTS ON THE USE AND CONSERVATION OP ENERGY RESoURCES V. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL ElTECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED ldeDtify tbOIC ac\vcrsC cnvlrQDD1e.aW e.tJects is ScdloD IV that c:aJ1 be upectcd to. occur reprc11c:51 of !he mitigoiU\ft measures coDSiduecl in Section V. VI. AL'mRNATIVES Tbi& section eontallli categories of altenlatiWi wilh exalIIples. DiseussioDof ea4~.oativc should be at a levd su1llcicDt to penait a comparative ilSSC'S~D1CDl of cosa, bellcliCullcl ellviroDmeDtaI risks far Clcb alternative. It is IIOt ac:cc:ptable to make simple assertions that a parlicular alternative is (II' is Dot. fcaaiblc. The . No Action Alternative must be cliscusseel. A. ALTERNATIVB SITE LOCATIONS B. ALTERNATIVE SIZE C. ALTERNATIVE DESIGN D. NO-ACfiON ALTERNATIVE VlL RUERENCES AND CONTACTS Provide complete list of rcl'erences aDcI CODlaCtI uti1izc4 in preparation at the report. VlIL APPENDICES Pollowina is a list of materials typically usecl in support of tlle ElS. . . . . I' A. List of WIcIer1~ Iluclies. reports and inCormatlcm "O"oi-.lercc\' bel rcliecl oD in prcpariag statcmCDI. B. Tc""nl('1l exhibiu (if any) at a J.:sibIe scale. ' ,. .j. C. Relcvant correspolldellce regardiDS the proJcct&aay"be ilIcI\ldcd. l;ik.. ..,' ,., ...." ,,;......,:...... Vito Minei, Supervisor Department of Ecology Department of Health Services County Center Riverhead, NY 11901 William Sickles, Superintendent Department of Parks,Recreation&Conservation P.O. Box 144. Montauk Hwy. W. SaYVllle. NY 11796-0144 Roger Evans, Director NYSDEC Bldg. 40, SUNY Rm. 219 Stony Brook, NY 11790 Thomas Lyons, Director Environmental Management Bureau Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation - Bldg. 1, 13th Floor Empire State Plaza Albany. NY t 2238 US Army Corp of Engineers NY District Jacob K. Javits Federal Bldg. New York, NY ID27S0090 AIln: Regulatory Branch William Esseks, Esq. Esseks, Hefter & Angel P.O. Box 279 Riverhead, NY 11901 Planning Board Office Town of Southold 53095 Main Rd. Southold, NY 11971 Planning Board Office Town of Southold 53095 Main Rd. Southold, NY 11971 Planning Board Office Town of Southold 53095 Main Rd. Southold, NY 11971 Planning Board Office Town of Southold 53095 Main Rd. Southold, NY 11971 . Stephen Jones, Director Department of Planning P.O. Box 6100 Hauppauge, NY 11788 George Stafford, Director Coastal Resources & Waterfront Revitalization Division New York Department of State 162 Washington Ave. Albany. NY 12231 Darrel Kast, Regional Env. Coordinator Depl. of Transportation Stale Office Building 250 Veterans Memorial Hwy. Hauppauge, NY 11788 Dr. Alphonso Tones, Acting Director Div. of Agricultural Researcl>f'lum Island U.S. Department of Agriculture P.O. Box 848 Greenport, NY 11944 Federal Emergency Management Agency 26 Federal Plaza Room 1338 New York, NY 10278 AIln: Response & Recovery Division Frank Yakaboski, Esq. P.O. Box 389 Riverhead, NY 11901 Planning Board Office Town of Southold 53095 Main Rd. Southold, NY 11971 Planning Board Office Town of Southold 53095 Main Rd. Southold, NY 11971 Planning Board Office Town of Southold 53095 Main Rd. Southold, NY 11971 Planning Board Office Town of Southold 53095 Main Rd. Southold, NY 11971 . John C. Murray, Planner Transportation Division Department of Public Works 335 Yaphank Ave. Yaphank, NY 11980 Michael D. Zagata, Commissioner New York Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wo~ Rd. Albany, NY 12233 Barry Hecht Passenger Transportation Div. -NYSDOT W. Averell Harriman State Office Bldg. Campus Floor&Rm.4-115 1220 Washington Ave. Albany. NY 12232 Thor Hanson, President Southok! Cijizens for Safe Roads, Inc. P.O. Box 797 Greenport, NY 11944 John Wright, Acting President North Fork Environmentai Council P.O. Box 799 Mallituck. NY 11952 ptanning Board Office Town of Southold 53095 Main Rd. Southold, NY 11971 Planning Board Office Town of Southold 53095 Main Rd. Southold, NY 11971 Planning Board Office Town of Southok! 53095 Main Rd. Southold, NY 11971 Planning Board Office Town of Southold 53095 Main Rd. Southold, NY 11971 Planning Board Office Town of Southold 53095 Main Rd. Southold, NY 11971 ."'--'1 ~:I . . , . ~~j- eB. \is K\~ . STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE, N.Y. 11788 EDWARD J. PETROU, P.E. REGIONAL DIRECTOR JOHN B. DALY COMMISSIONER November 19, 1996 IS- - "'1- 10. ( (I. I IS. ( 3.s- Mr. Bennett Orlowski Acting Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southo1d, New York 11971 Draft Seoping Outline Cross Sound Ferry Route 25, Orient Dear Mr. Orlowski: We have reviewed the Draft Seoping outline for the DEIS for the Cross Sound Ferry parking lot project. In addition to the subjects which have already been identified, we believe the following issues should be addressed. Under #2, adverse impacts, the question of public access to the waterfront should be addressed. Under #4, mitigation measures, the provision for busses should be included. The safe operation of bicycles should be provided. The issue of pedestrian movements should be addressed. Under #5, reasonable alternatives, should be a shuttle bUB service be studied/considered? We trust this will be useful in your consideration of this proposal. If you have any questions you may contact G. Beierling at 952-6128. Very truly yours, .-/7 j) IJ- r~ FRANK PEARSON Planning & Program Management rr~~~~~wrn~ Ull! NeW 2 I _ \~J ~-"C: ...1 ~~~~.~2t\',:~..," _, (;i.., ~_I ~ NEW 'fORK STATE ; Bemadette Castro Commissioner . . S0b' ~\ vs 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 1\\" 518-474-0456 Human. Resources 518-474-0453 Fiscal Management 518-474-0061 TOO: 518-486-1899 November 15, 1996 Bennett Orlowski Acting Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 (::>-'""1- 10, I II, r IS~ f -- -~ < c',..,,) Dear Chairman Orlowski: Thank you for your notice of the scoping meeting for the Cross Sound Ferry proposal. We will have a representative at the meeting on December 4th. We have taken a preliminary look at the draft scope, and note that the concern we raised previously regarding the bike route is not specifically included. However, since the effect on transportation services, including the bike trail, was cited in the positive Declaration, we trust that the issue will be addressed. In addition, since the time that this office submitted comments in conjunction with the lead agency response, the agency's Division for Historic Preservation sent you a letter recommending that an archeological survey be undertaken. The potential effects on archeological resources should be included in the final scope. We are in receipt of comments from other interested parties which appear to adequately address other potential issues that should be included in the scope. Of particular interest to State Parks is the National Natural Landmark listing of Orient Beach State Park and any potential impacts to its resources. We remain interested and we thank you for keeping us informed of this proposal. Sincerely, Th~m1:::?LY~~ t-X"'- Director U Environmental Management Bureau cc: E. Wankel P. Battaglino R. Pierpont p_ Otis 00 lEoomowm .2'. 00 An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Agency o printed on recycled paper o.::.our ';~;~;;:-:-~ Tfjl;:iJ PL~; ':'\i:'__2gj~,Q,__ :.1;::: 4::::~, ....,-' , -" '-' P.C1,2 ~,_'T1""'''<>>\ ~ ~ " ~ It ~ o New ~~K $TATE ~ Bemadana Ca.stro CommIssIoner . . 5i.L5F ?e {'" 'f:;. V.'c, 51 8-474-0456 New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation The Governor Nelson /1,. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza Agency Building 1, Albany, New York 12238 Human Resources S18~474.0453 Bennett Orlowski Acting Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 ____~_u. FIscal Management 518-.7.-0061 TOO: 518-.86-1899 't/5- "1- to, / /I - 1 15"./ 35 November 15. 1996 Dear Chairman Orlowski: llni ill [~ i:;.. ',I;J I I. ~, I r .1 'ull' NOV 181996 I NUV ,. L---..~,....:~- ",~....~_--i ' SOUTHOLO TD'i;i~ i PL~.f!!lING BOAfl!!_,_J Thank you for your notice of the scoping meeting ror the Cross Sound Ferry proposal. We will have a represent~ttive at the meeting On December 4th. we have caken a preliminary look at the draft scope, and note that che concern we raised previously regarding the bike rour.e is not specifica:'ly included. However, since t.he effect on transpcrtat.ion servicea, including che bike trail, was cited in c;;.e Positive Declaraticn, we trust that the issue wil~_ be addressed. In addicion, since the time that chis office subrcitted comments in ccnjunccion with the lead agency response, che agency's Division for Historic Preservation sent you d lette~ recommending :::.at an archeological survey be undertaken. The potential effects on archeological resources should bO! included in the final scope. We are in receipt of comments 'from other interested parties which appear to adequatel:r" address other potential issues that should be included in the scope. Of particular interest to State Parks is the NatiOnal Natural Landmark listing of Ori'mt Beach State Park and any pctential impacts to its resources. We remain interested and we thank you for keepinq US informed of this proposal. Sincerely, Th~1s~LY~: ~---- Director 0 Environmental Manageme~t Bureau co: E. Wankel P. Battag1ino R. Pierpont P. Otis An Equal Oppcrtunit'IIAffirmative Action Agency o ptlnCed on r~y(;led p;JPef TiJTHL P,O.2 . . MORTH FORK EMVIROMWEMTAL COUMCIL, IMC. Route 25 at Love Lane, PO Box 799, Mattltuck, NY 11952 516-298-8880 November 13, 1996 110) ~ @l [~ : IL~J \ POI t 4 1996 L_.,"_.. .-.. sO~J J .1\-,", C j )1' " ," ~ I I .~~~_L-. Mr, Bennett Orlowski Acting Chairman Southold Town Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Cross Sound Fen:)' Services Inc v Planninll Board of the Town of South old Dear Mr. Orlowski: We would like to comment on several points made by Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. in the above-mentioned lawsuit which seeks to set aside the Planning Board's Positive Declaration on the company's proposed site plan for changes at the ferry terminal at Orient Point. " Cross Sound attempts to disprove the theory that its parking problems are self- created as a means of gaining from the Zoning Board of Appeals approval for a variance which is critical to its project. " The Planning Board has both a right and an obligation under the law to consider the impact of a high speed ferry service at Onent Point; is this not the thrust of SEQR? * Despite Cross Sound's arguments to the contrary, the Planning Board is not seeking to regulate its ferry service, but to consider it in its entirety in order to make a proper SEQR determination. " Cross Sound must offer more substantial evidence that the lack of a parking lot could result In "revocation" of its interstate transportation service license. " On page 17 of its petition, Cross Sound argues that the Planning Board did not take a "hard look" at the environmental concerns of the area and failed to offer a "reasoned elaboration" in issuing a Positive Declaration ofthe proposed site plan. The Positive Declaration identifies potential adverse impacts to the environment; the Draft Environmental Impact Statement addresses such conce!J1s more specifically. '. ~-~ f8 ;';, Tl'I1"F F '1d-~ L. "bOw!) a non-profit organlzatlon for the prEl$ftVatlon of land,sea, air and quality of life printed on 1000/. recycled paper . . * The Planning Board did not identifY environmental concerns when granting approval for Cross Sound's parking lot on the "West parcel" in 1995 because the high speed feny, which changes the nature of feny operations at Orient Point, did not exist until a few weeks afterwards. . * A comprehensive Positive Declaration does not delay action on the subject site plan. In seeking site plan approval, an applicant must allow time for the SEQR process to be properly administered. In reality, any delays which Cross Sound may experience can be attributed to its own attempts to circumvent, to segment or otherwise to thwart the process by failing make a proper site plan application in 1995 and by refusing to disclose the current or intended nature of its business. We reiterate our support of the Planning Board's Positive Declaration issued on the proposed site plan of Cross Sound Feny Services, Inc. We look forward to the smooth administration of a legally-mandated environmental review so that the issue may be reasonably resolved in accordance, with the best interests of the people of the town of Southold. Very truly yours, t~tt{4 (l~~ Charles Cetas . Acting President -2- . . .5u-6-P ~ 1'6 ;eK ~ t/S l f-y/ "? 5-) November 10, 1996 Ms. Jean Cochran Supervisor, Town Board Southold Town Hall P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 RE: Ferrv Lawsuit fn 15 l~ ff'YJ i~ [~\: II OJ! 15 -: \\n\i ."., 13-- IULli nu., ~ L l_d'- SOUTH OLD I;J.y .'1 PLAr:,lt:lJi~~..t~::'_~~,~~~, ..._, -.- Dear Ms. Cochran: First of all, I would like to thank the Planning Board for voting to require the Cross Sound Ferry to submit to a rigorous examination of their plans to expand the Orient parking facility. It is clear from the recent election that Town of Southold residents recognize the special place in which they live and we very much appreciate your efforts, as well as those of the Planning Board, in helping to keep it that way. However, I have just finished reading the news of the lawsuit filed by the Cross Sound Ferry against the Southold Town Planning Board regarding the required SEORA requirements for their proposed parking lot. I am sincerely disappointed and somewhat outraged at CSF's blatant disregard for the quality of the environment in the Town of Southold. They feigned sincerity in all of their lobbying efforts! I hope that everyone in the Town government is fully aware of their real intention--to make as much money as they can at the expense of anyone standing in their way--particularly the residents of the East End who so much value their unique environment and quality of life. I am very upset by this new turn of events and hope that the Planning Board will stand firm in the face of this action and defend the integrity of their decision (and from what I read, I am sure they will). They have helped to maintain a world in this part of Long Island that has long disappeared from just about everywhere else. I was awestruck when I first laid eyes on the farmlands and vineyards in our Township. The area has a peace that is unparalleled and most signs of crass commercialism are absent from the scene. All you had to do was look at the popularity of our countryside at harvest time when the farms overflowed with people longing for an original piece of Long Island country. They came to our Town from as far away as New Jersey because this type of country is not something you can find easily anymore. It is particularly important for Orient that the traffic and development be kept to a minimum.The Suffolk County Water Authority recently told the citizens of Orient that development be severly restricted to prevent any further impairment of the fragile aquifer. They stated that, "Every effort should be made to maximize open- space acquisitions and adopt zoning codes that will prevent any . . increases 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." And lastly, those of us who have recently moved to the Town of Southold (I am building in Orient) will contribute significantly to the economy of the region. We will shop in Greenport and Southold for just about everything to furnish a home and run our everyday lives. I am certain that a stream of traffic from the ferry using our roads as a corridor will contribute little to the local economy. It will compromise our quality of life and will begin to damage the fragile environment that the Planning Board and the good citizens of the Town of Southold have worked so long and hard to create. In short, we will start to look like the rest of Long Island and loose our unique character. I am sure no one wants that. Surely there are places that welcome the commercialism that this kind of "corridor" brings (I've read that Port Jefferson is interested). Perhaps the Ferry management will realize that they just cannot ruin a community for a few dollars and look for alternative ways to attract day-trippers and others looking for the experience that they offer. Thank you so much for your tireless efforts to help preserve our community, and please pass my thanks to the Planning Board for its vision and passion. Please help to stop the Ferry's end-run around the environment and the Township. If there is anything that I can do to help, please let me know. I will be the first on line to give any assistance you need. If there is anyone else I should write to, please let me know. Thank you. Sincerely, 1} ~Hoag.JC . - a~:st 11 Stre New York, NY 10011 (212)-255-3808 Soon to be residing at 4725 Orchard Street, Orient cc: Richard Ward, Planning Board Chairman / . . MORTH FORK EMVIROMWEMTAL COUMCIL, IMC. Route 25 at Love Lane, PO Box 799, Mattltuck, NY 11952 516-298-8880 November 7, 1996 ~I~ @ ~ n w ~i~: Lt~~_ ~__2.. -c~-_-i' ::j' I SOLiTHOUJ T'F{I\.j Plf'~i!.i!i9)i95...r:.~_,_. Mr. Bennett Orlowski Acting Chairman, Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Cross Sound Ferry Services Inc v Plannini Board of the Town of South old Dear Mr. Orlowski: We would like to convey our full support to the Southold Town Planning Board in the matter of a lawsuit filed against it by Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. on October 16, 1996. In this action, the petitioner seeks to set aside the Positive Declaration issued by the Planning Board on September 16, 1996 on the proposed site plan for a project on the . Cross Sound Ferry properties. In issuing a Positive Declaration, and thereby calling for a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed site plan, we believe that the Planning Board has followed both the letter and the spirit of the State Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law (6 NYCRR Part 617). As lead agency under SEQR, the Planning Board must call for a DEIS if it determines that the proposed project may have one adverse impact on the environment. In its Positive Declaration, the Planning Board identifies ten areas in which the project may adversely impact the environment. Although Cross SOUlld argues in its petition that the Positive Declaration is too broad and improperly addresses certain aspects of the company's business, SEQR specifically states that the agencies involved in actions such as these must "conduct their affairs with an awareness that they are the stewards of the air, water, land, and living resources" (617.1 (b)) of the communities under their jurisdictions. We believe that the scope of the environmental review should be as broad as possible under SEQR. Cross Sound wishes to dismiss its proposed project as the installation of a simple parking lot, but it is the Planning Board's responsibility to consider the potential impact that expanded facilities will have on the fragile environment of the Orient Point area. (In a letter dated September 16, 1996, the NFEC has already submitted a list of specific concerns with regard to the environmental impact of this proposed project.) It is clear 5~ -CdYn fb $QIff f'. ytfK a non-profit organization for the pres}lr\iatlon of land, sea, air and quality of life printed on 100% recycled paper _.,--~ - . . that the ferry terminal has the potential to eventually become a major transportation hub and the Planning Board is required to take this possibility into account when making its determination. According to SEQR, the Planning Board has "an obligation to protect the environment for the use and enjoyments of this and allfuture generations" (617.1 (b)). It also states that a "suitable balance of social, economic and environmental factors" (617.l(d)) must be incorporated into the decision-making process and that "the lead agency must consider reasonably related long-term, short-term, direct, indirect and cumulative impacts" (6 1 7.7(c)(2)) (emphasis added). In assessing the likely consequences of a proposed action, the Planning Board must consider the following, as enumerated in 617. 7( c )(3): (i) its setting (e.g. urban or rural): The unique nlral setting of the Orient Point area is considered to be bot.'1 aestheticaliy valuable to the surrounding community as well as historically important to the nation. (ii) its probability of oecurrence: There is no doubt that the proposed action will increase the intensity of use at the project site which is located in a Critical Environmental Area. Such intensity of use must be carefully studied. (Iii) its duration: The proposed project will result in a permanent alteration of the site in question. The project also has great potential to result in increased ferry use, and therefore, increased local traffic (which we believe has already occurred with prior expansions). These consequences will be ongoing. (iv) its irreversibility: Establishing the Orient Point Ferry terminal as a major exit point off of Long Island for almost three million residents will be permanent and irreversible. (v) its geographic scope: The Planning Board must consider the potential for increased ferry use not only by Long Islanders, but also by residents in the entire .Connecticut and New England area. (vi) its magnitude: The Planning Board is reasonably concerned that the proposed action may have impacts of great magnitude with regard to traffic, pollution and damage to a Critical Environmental Area; this concern renders the DEIS even more' critical. (vii) the number of people affected: Residents of Orient Point will be most immediately affected by the proposed expansion of ferry facilities. Residents of the towns of both Southold and Riverhead, totaling almost 50,000, also will be significantly affected. Despite Cross Sound's repeated assertions in its petition that the proposed action is only a request for a parking lot, the Planning Board is legally justified in its concern -2- . . that such action may have wider implications for the community. By attempting to narrow the scope of the environmental review process, Cross Sound is striving to segment its project by seeking piecemeal approvals for various parking facilities, including approval for a parking lot granted in 1995 without an environmental review. The Positive Declaration issued on the proposed project fully complies with the requirements and intent of SEQR. The Planning Board has fulfilled its responsibility as lead agency in this matter and should not be deterred from-proceeding in its appropriate course of action. Very truly yours, {~Mt4 &~ Charles Cetas Acting President -3- .. . . . September 13, 1996 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 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 (II 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, stormwater/ 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 RESOURCES 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 RESOURCES 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 cre~tion 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, Southold Citizens For Safe Roads, Inc. -14- ;~- . . \?PE.'.LS BOARD 'vlE'vlBERS ...,........,..-..-..-~-- c'c~o;UfrOl-;--~ '0 ,,;) '1~_ ./.~.'.;<::<~ y;::: ~ "- oJ;::, ~'"' ~ "" - j ~ '" ::z: ~ N..,-- ~. ':-<,~ -.;:) ~~. ~-' ~t)-f + i-~~_;;1 ~:;d';t-" Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 Ce'Clfd P. Goehringer. Chairman Serge Doyen James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Lydia A. Tortora 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: This is sent just as an update since the last communications in .June. 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) (.,ach accessory parking space provided upon the ferry terminal lot. i1S 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) laud area, i'",rry doek 11)1)- 1 ~Jl II) . each accessory parking space. the proposed ownership of this and a line drawn at 200 ft. radius measured from the main pareel (to the northeast and easterly parcels). {Sectioh Thank you. Very truly yours, Linda Kowalski cc: Planning Board , ... -," . SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY Michaal A. loGrande, Chalnn8J1lCEO Matthaw B. Kondanar, Secretary . Melvin M. Fritz, M.O., Member James T.B. Tripp, Member Eric J. Russo, Member Administrative Offices: 4060 Sunrise Highway, Oakdele, 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 of 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: .. .. . . . . Gtouhdwaler' sairipl~s .throughOUt ihe eastern end oj Southold Town have indicated' high concentrations 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 water 10r 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. \ . ..... . . 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 conditionlf. Local government should upzone to very large lot zoning and reduce vehicular traffic that will add to groundwater pollution in the form of hydrocarbon runofftformation 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 . . .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 glaL/cL/m) 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. c,~'~ Eric Lamont, Ph.D. Enclosures -. . . Bu.lletin of the Torrey 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 Botlllical Garden, Bronx. NY 10458-9980 Richard Stalter Department of Biolocica1 Sciences, SL John's Univenity, Jamaica, NY 11439 ~ ABSTRACT !.<MONT, E. E. (N. Y. Botlllical Garden, Bronx, NY 1045S) AND R. STAL1'ElI. (Dept. Bioi. Sci., SL John's Univ., Jamaica. NY 11439). The vascular ftora of Orient Beach Slate Park, Long Island. New Yorlc. Bull. To=y BOL aub liS: 459-46S. 199 I.-The vascular ftora of Orient Beach Slate 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 arc Poaccae (49 species) and Asteraceae (48 species). and the largest genera areAsler. Solidago. Polygonum. and Panicum. The park's CUrTcnt flora is compared with a 1934 flora published by Latham. Natural plant communities of the park arc described and disc:usscd. Eighteen plant species ha.vc been designated as rare In New York Slate (aemanlS 19S9; MitdteU 1986). Key words: flora. 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 Islaod just southwest of Orient Point (Lat. 41 "OS'N, Long. n'16'W, U.S. Geol. Servo 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 SO m near the western end. OBSP is bordered by Gardiner's Bay on the south aod Little Bay, Long Beach Bay, aod Ori- ent Harbor on the north. The geological featureS of OBSP rellect effects oflongshore sediment drift from ocean currenlS originating to the east, aod the combined action of wind aod water during severe storms aod hur- ricanes. Land elevation averages less than I m above sea level aod 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, aod oc- I We acknowledge with gratitude the assistance of Raymond Dobbins, for unresuictcd access to aBSP and for providing triUlSportation to areas of clif5cu1t aCCC$S; F10rence HortOn. for historical information; Robert Meyer. for assistance in ideDtifyiDg &fU5CS; the late Joseph Beitel. for sharing the loc:ation of Se/agi- nella rupestrir. and Alisa AbateUi, for assistance in preparing herbarium specimens. Received for publication November 13. 1990, and in revised fonn February 22, 1991. casional1y shells. The ridges fonned where stann waves piled up coarse materials well above nor- mal high-tide level. Stann ridges arc 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 aod Recreation Commission. In 1934 Roy Latham published a 1I0ra of the new State park that included brief descriptions of plant commwtities and an an~ notated checklist consisting of227 vascular plant species. Latham (1934) described ao area rela- lively undisturbed by hwnao influence, with only 8% of the 1I0ra consisting of non-native species. Invasive alien pl=ts such as Phralfmiles aus- tra/is and Taraxacum officina/e were not re- ported from the parlc. Of particular interest, La- tham note~ 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 nonhern range limit of several southern plant species (e.g., Fimbrislylis casranea and Silene caroliniana Vat. pensylvanica)~ and the southern 459 . 460 . BULLETIN OF THE TORREY BOTANICAL CLUB [VOl.. 118 range limit of several northern species (e.g., Lia gusticum scethicum and Draba replans). The park has been in the path of many severe nonheasters and hurriCOUlCS, 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 Latham (1934) no longex occur at OBSP: Tilia amen"cana. Carya glabra. Geranium macu/atum. Circaea /utetiana ssp. canadensis. Solidago cae~ sia. Herac/eu.m lanatum. and Smilacina race- mesa. Broda (1968) also noted the subsequent disappearance of many lichen species reported . by Latham from Orient Point. In a letter (29 May 1960) to Broda (see Broda 1968), Latham de- scribed the effects of the 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 fioor. 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- Deas and Ramalinas disappeared in the storm. I don't think these two species have appeared there since. The Oadomas 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 "fill" 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 liIIed 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 eastem balf (Orient Beach), while the park's western half (Lcng Beach) remained natural and relatively un- disturbed by human induence. Roads were never constructed along Long Beach, and several areas were designated as bird sanctuaries. Pu bije 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 flora of OBSP had not been system- atic:111y 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 flora with the 1934 flora 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 checklist 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 offamilies follows that of Cronquist (1981). Results. The current vascular dora of OBSP consists of67 families, 183 genera, and 277 spe- ciesofwhich 156 (56%) are native (Table I). New reGards for the park number 141 species; 104 (74%) of these are non-native. Panicum leuco- thrtc is a Slate record for New York (see Mitchell 1986). The Poaceae, with 31 genera and 49 spe- cies, and the Astera.ccae, 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 tIora of Orient Beach Slate Park, Lons Island, New Yark. I PteridophyteS Conilcn Oicots MonocolS Tow 1990 (1934) 1990 (1934) 1990 (1934) 1990 (1934) 1990 {I 934) Families 2(4) 2 (2) S3 (49) 10 (8) 67 (63) Genera 3(4) 2 (2) 133 (116) 4S (36) 183 (IS8) Species 3 (4) 3 (2) 203 (16S) 68 (S6) 277 (227) Native: species 3 (4) 2 (2) 112 (ISO) 39 (S3) I S6 (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.), Caryopb.yllaceae (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 (eacb. with 7 spp.), Panicum (6 spp.), Rubus, Trifolium. and Plantago (eacb. with S spp.). When tile fiora is analyzed by babitat (see Rescb.ke 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 nabi. tats such as roadsides. parking .lots, and near buildings. A statistical summary of tile compo- sition of tile vascular fiora of OBSP is presented in Table l. Latham (1934) reponed an additional 89 spe- cies from OBSP not collected by the authors. The total number of species reponed from OBSP by all investigators, past and prescnt, is 366 species. A comparison of numbers of species from OBSP collected by Latham (1934) and tile current au- tIlors is presented in Table 1. Species ricb.ness of tile fiora of Orient Beacb. (OBSP~t) is compared with that of Long Beach (OBSP-west) in Table 2. The species/area quo- tient was calculated to indicate species ricb.ness to area. The Orient Beacb. portion of OBSP is richer in species than the Long Beach. portion, a direct result of tile 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 Bora consists ofoon- native species, while 19% afthe Long Beach fiora 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 overwasb. are sparsely vegetated by annual plant species, most notably Cakile edencula. Salsola !<ali. Chamae. syce polygomfolia, Atriplex patula. A. arenaria. and Polygonum g/aucum. Characteristic peren- nials include Honkenya peploides ssp. robusta and Solidago sempervirens. The upper beach, located above tb.e normal bigb.-tide level, is vegetated by Ammophila bre- viligulata. Artemisia sul/edana. Lathyrus japan. icus var. glaber. 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 stonn waves b.ave piled up coarse material above tile normal bigb.-tide level. The landward side of these ridges is generally vegetated by Ammophila breviligu- lata. Hudsonia tomentosa, Lechea maritima. Po- Iygonella aniculara. Silene caroliniana var. pen- sylvanica. Toxicodendron radicans. Rosa rugosa. iW'yn'ca pensy/vanica. and Prunus maritima. Arc- tostaphylos UYa~ursi. a common plant at Fire Is- land National Seashore, N.Y. (Stalter et aI. 1986), was not collected at OBSP, a1thougb. Latham (1934) listed tile species as common tIlrougb.out the park. MA1uTIME FOREST COMMt.1NtTY. The forest at OBSP consists of two types: maritime oak forest, dominated by Quercus stellata and Q. velutina. and maritime red cedar forest dominated by Ju- niperus virgin/ana. Table 2. Comparison of species richne$S between eastern Orient Beach Slate Parle (Orient Beach) and western Orient Beach State Park (Lens Beach). Area (km') Species richness Spp.larea quotient Native species Introduced species OriCllt Bcacb (OBSP-east) 0.7 240 343 127 113 LoCI Beach (OBSP-WCll) 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 well-drained and composed of line sand with a slight accu- mulation of organic man.r. Th. tre.s are usually stunted and fiat. topped because the canopies are prun.d by salt spray, sand blow-up, cold wind, and winter ice. The canopy of a mature stand may b. only 5 to 7 m tall. the dominant tr..s are Quercus stel/ata and Q. velutina. Other char- acteristic trees include Prunus serotina. Pinus rigrda. and sometimes Quercus mari/andica. 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 Yark State, where fewer than five occurrences of the plant community bave been documented. It is uespecially vulnerable to extirpation in N.w York Stat." (Reschke 1990). Conard (1935) first docum.nted this plant com- munity on Long Island at Asharok.n Beach, Huntington. Greli.r (1977) brielly comment.d on the community, concluding that: '.vegeta- tional data are scarce and incomplete for this typ.... Reschk. (1990) also stat.d that: "more data on this community are needed. It In re.. sponse, the present authors are currently con- ducting .cological studi.s of th. maritime red c.dar forest at OBSP. Th. maritime r.d c.dar forest at OBSP occurs on a series of parallel storm ridges composed of coars. sands, pebbles, and cobbl.s. There is very little accumulation of surface humus. Between stonn ridges are depressions containing salt marshes. Juniperus virginiana is the dominant tre. on the ridg.s, wl1.re 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, wllich often forms large, dense populations. Other groundIayer plants include Ligusticum scolhicum. SeiaginelIa rupestris, and M oehrinl{ia laterij/ora. COASTAL SALT MAllsa COMMUNITY. The salt marsh community at OBSP occurs along the sh.lt.red north shore bordering Littl. 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 monospeciJic stand of Spartina altemij/ora. The high salt marsh is dominat.d by Spartina patens, Distichlis spicata, a dwarf form of Spartina aI- lernijIora. and Juncus gerardi. Common species of the upp.r slop. of the lligh marsh are Limo- nium caro/inianum. Aster tenuifolius. and [va frutescens. Salt paones occur in both low and lligh salt marsh.s where the marsh is poorly drain.d. Paones in the low marsh usually lack vegetation, but pannes in the high marsh are usu- ally vegetated by Salicornia europaea. S. virl{i- nica, Sperguiaria marina. Pluchea odorala var. succu1enta. 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 lva frutescens and Bac- charis halimifo/ia forms the ecotone between salt marsh and upland vegetation. RARE~. Ten native and eight non..na.. tiv. speci.s currently observed at OBSP are con- sidered rare in New York Stat. (Clemants 1989; Mitchell 1986). Panicum leucoth,ix. Quercus marilandica. Silene caroliniana Vat. pensylvan. iea, Atn"p/ex arenaria, Conyza canadensis var. pusilla. and Plantago pusil/a are all south.rn spe- cies at or near the nonhem limit of their range at OBSP (Gleason and Cronquist 1963). All six speci.. 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 eiTS/Urn hor- riduium are also rare native plants in New York. The eight rare species not native at OBSP are: A.ira praecox, Hassia hirsuta. Chenopodium des- sicatum. C. hybridum, Chloris verticil/ata. Glau- dum flavum, Leucamhemum nipponicum, and Wisteria sinensis. Latham (1934) reported an additionall3 rare plant species from OBSP not observ.d by the current investigators. Latham's (1934) 10 native rare species are: Acalypha gracilens. Agalinis maritima. Cara hormathodes. Cyperus poly- sraihyos var. macrostachyus, Draba replans, Fimbristy/i.s castanea. Oenothera oakesiana. Onosmodium virgin/anum. Paspa/um setaceum var. muhlenberg/I, and PotentilIa anserina ssp. pacifica. The 3 non..native rare species are: Ce. rastium semidecandrum, H %sreum umbel/a- tum. and Mirabilis linearis. SIDIlIDarY. The vegetation ofth. w.st.rn half of Orient Beach Stat. Park (Long B.ach) remains relatively pristine and very similar to the vege.. lOtion as described there by Latham (1934). Many rare plants reported by Latham (1934) still per- sist at OBSP-west. Only 19% of the OBSP-w.st . . 19911 LAMONT AND STALTER: FLORA OF ORIENT BEACH STATE PARK 463 tiara consists of non-native species. The vege- tation of the eastern half of the park has under- gone signilicant changes. Eigl1ty live 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 wl1ich 23 species are grasses (Poaceae). Most of the alien species are thus concentrated in the park's east.. em balf (Table 2). The loss of many nati~e plant species and the addition of new species, especially grasses, re- fiectS the ever-changing environment of OBSP. Human disturbance and natural forces, such as salt spray and periodic fiooding during frequent nonheasters and infrequent hurricanes, are re- sponsible for tJie dynamic environment and dy- namic tiara of the park. Literature Cited BRODO. 1. M. 1968. The lichcnsofLoagIsland. New York: A vqctational and 8.oristic analysis. N.Y.S. Mus. Bull. No. 410. Albany. NY. e"""""",. S. E. (ed.j 1989. New York rare plant statUS lUL N.Y. Natural Hetitale Pro&ram. N.Y.S. Dcpt. Environ. Conservation, Latham. NY. 26 p. COl'lARD.H.S. 1935. Theplantassociationsofccntral Lonl Island. Amer. Midi. Natur. 16: 433-515. CRONQU1ST. A. 1981. An integrated system of clas- sification offtowcnng plants. Columbia Univ. Press, NY. 1262 p. DAUOHTJtEY', M. AND T. KoWALSJCK. 1988. The Jap- anese black pinc- Wbat's happening? Home Hort. Facts. Cornell Cooperative Extension, Rivcrhcad, NY.4p. GLEASON, H. A. AND A. CRONQUIST. 1963. Manual ofvascu1arplants ofnonheastcm United StateS and adjacent Canada. Willard Grant Press. Boston. 810 p. GREl.LER. A. M. 1977. A classHication armature for- es'" on Long Island, New York. Bull. TotTey Bot. Oub 104: 376-382. . KoMAR. P. O. 1976. Beach processes and scdimcn~ tation. Prentice-Hall Press. NJ. 429 p. LATHAM. R. 1934. Flora of the state: park. Orient. Long Island, N.Y. Bull. TotTey Bot. Oub 34: 139- 149. MtTCHEl.L, R. S. 1986. A checklist of New York State plan.... N.Y.S. Mus. Bull. No. 458. 272 p. REscHKE. C. 1990. Ecological communities of New York State. N.Y. Natural Hetitale Pro&ram. N. Y.S. Dcpt. Environ. Conservation. Latham, NY. 96 p. SEClt2TAAY OFTHEINTDJOR. 1980. National Natural . Landmarks Program. Dept. of the Interior. Nati. Park Service, Washington, DC. STALTER. R.. E. LAMONT. AND J. Nop.THt1P. 1986. Vegetation of rlI'e Island. New Yorlc. Bull Torrey BOL Oub 113: 298-306. U.s. GEOLOOICA.I. 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 I1igl1er categories folloWs that of Cronquist (1981). An asterisk (") indicates a non-native taxon, an addition sign (+) indicates a new record for OBSP. and an exclamation point (!) indicates a taXon reponed by Latham (1934) but not observed by the current authors. Taxa collected by both the current authors and Latham (1934) are preceded by 110 symbol, unless they are not native. PTERIDOPHYTA Aspleniaceae + ..upleniumplaryneuron (1..) BSP. ! Polystichum oaOSlichoidc (Michx.) Schott + The/yplerls paJustris Schon Cvatheaceae . ! Pteridium aquilinum (L) Kuhn Polypodiaceae ! Po/ypodium Yirginianum 1.. SeIa&ineIlaceae S.Iaginella rvpestrU (1..) Spring PINOPHYTA Cupressaceae Juniperus virginiana 1.. Pinaceae PinlU rigida MUl. +" P. thunbergii ParI. MAGNOUOPHYTA-MAGNOUOPSIDA Aceraceae +- Acer pseudop/atanus L. + A. rubrum L. Amaranthaceae +- dl7l4lTJnlhus retrojlexus 1.. Anacardiaceae RhIU copalllnum L. R. glabra L. Toxicodendron radicans (L) Kuntze Aplaceae +- Dazu:us carota L. ! Hera.cimm lanatum Michx. . 464 . BULLETIN OF THE TORREY BOTANICAL CLUB (VOL. 118 Ligusricum scorhicum L. ! Sanicula mari/am/lea L. Apocynaceae + Apocynum cannabinum L Aquifoliaceae + flex opaclJ Ait. ! I. verticil/ala (L.) Gray Araliaceae ! ~ralia nudicaulis L. ~ Asclepiadaceae + Asclepias incarnata L. var. pu/chra (Willd.) PeTS. A.. syriaca L. ! A. verticil/cua L. Asteraceae . Achillea mi/lejolium L. A.mbrosia arremisiifolia L. ! Anrennana plantaginifolia (L.) Richards. +.. Arctium minus (Hill) Bemb. Artemisia campestris L ssp. cauda/a (Michx.) Hall 8< Clem. . A. steJleriana Besser +* A. vulgaris L + Aster diwzricatus L. ! A. dumosus L. A.. ericoides L ! A. linariifolius L. ! A. novj.belgii L. A. patens Ail. ! A.. paternus Cronq. + A. pilosus Willd. A. subulatus Mic:hx. A. renuijolius L. ! A. umbel/arus Mill. A. wuiulalus r... BaccJuui.s ha/imifolia I- i Bitkns discoitka (T. 8< G.) BritL +. CentClurea macu/osa Lam. +* Cichorium intybus L. +* Cirsium arveNt (L.) Scop. e. horridulum MiehL +' C. vulgar. (San) Tenore Conyrd canadensis (L.) Cro~q. Yar. canaden- sis + C. canadensis (L.) Coaq. var. pusil/a (Nutt.) Cronq. +. Coreopsis laneeolala L ErI!cillilcs himu:i[olia (1..) DC. ! Erigeron pulcltellus Michx. E. Slrlgosus Willd. Eutluunia gramini[olia (1..) Ous. +' Galinsoga ciliala (Rat:) Blake GnaphaJium obtusi[olium L G. uJiginoswn L. +. H eiiantJulS annuus L ! H. divarieatus L ! H. giganteus L. +. Hieradum caespilosum Dumon. ! H. gronovii 1- ! H. venosum L lva frureseens L. ssp. oraria (BanI.) Jackson Kngia virginica (L.). WilId. LActuca canadensis L. + * L. serriola L. +* .Leucanthemum nipponicum MOl.."tim. +* L vulgare Lam. ! Luuris seariosa (L.) Willd. Va!. novae-angiiae Lunell +. lJ'alriearia marricarioides (Less.) Porter !* Onopordum acanlhium L Pityopsis [alcala (P1=h) Small Pluchea odorala (L.) C3s$. Vllr. sueculenla (Fem.) Cronq. ! Prenanthes trl/oliolata (Cass.) Fern. +* Senecio vulgaris L Solidago bleolor L. ! S. caesia L. S. canatknsis r... var. scabra (Muhl.) T. 8< G. S. juncea A.it. S. nemoralis Ait. S. odora Ait. S. rugosa Mill. S. sempervlrens L. +. Tara:w.cum officinale Wiggers Xamhiumslrumarium L vat. canadense(Mill.) T. 8< G. Berberidaceae +* Berberis lhunbergii DC. Betulaceae + Betula populi/alia Marsh. Boraginaceae +* },,{yosotis striao R. & S. ! Onosmodium virginianu'!1 (L.) A. DC. Brassicaceae +' Arabidopsis thaliana (1..) Heynh. Arabis glabra (1..) Bemh. +' BariJarl!a ..,."" (Mill) Aschen. + * B. vulgaris R. Br. +* Berteroa incana (L.) DC. Cakil. nt.mula (BigeL) Hook. +* Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medic. Cardamine parviflora L Vat. arenieola {Britt.} Schulz ! Draba reptans (Lam.) Fern. * D. verno. L. + Lqidiwn virginicum L +* Raphanur rapnanislrum L Cactacelle Gpumia humi[u:ra (Raf.) Raf. Olesalpiniaceae ! Cassia chamaecrisla 1.. Campanulaceae ! Lobelia inflata L Triodanis p'rfoliala (1..) Nieuwl. . 19911 . LAMONT AND STALTER: FLORA OF ORIENT BEACH STATE PARK 465 Caprifoliaceae +. Lonicerajaponica Thunb. +* L. latar;ca L Sambucus canadensis L ! T,iosteum perfolimum L. Caryophyllaceae .. Arenaria serpyl/ifolla L. +. Cerastiumfonuurum Bawns. ssp.ln'viaie(Unk) J alas !. C. semidecandrum L. +* Dianthus armeria L !. Ho/osteum umbel/alum L. Honk4nya peploides (1..) Ehrh. ssp. robus,o (Fern.) Hulten lvloehringia laterijlora (L) Fenzl +.. Sagina procumbens L. +.. Scleranchus annuus L Silent! antirrhina L S. caroliniana Walt. var. pensylvanica (Michx.) Fern. +." S. tali/alia Poir. Spergu(orio marina (1..) Griscb. +. S. rubro (1..) Pre,I 8< Pres! +* SteJ/aria graminea L +* S. media (L.) VilL Celastraceae +.. CelaslfUS orbiculatus Thunb. ! C. scandens L. Chenopodiaceae + A./rip/ex arenana NutL A. paluJo L +. Bassia hirnaa (L) Schwein. +* Chenopodium album L +. C. ambrosioides L .. C. dessiCalum A. Nels .. C. hybridllm L Salicornia ~paea L. S. 'lirginica L Souolo lca/i 1.. SUlJeda /ineoris (E1I.) Moq. S. maritima (L.) Dumort. CIstaceae Hudsonia tomenlosa Nutt. Lechea rru:zritima BSP. Clusiaceae ! Hypericum clllUldense L. H. ge1l1ionoides (1..) BSP. ! H. muli/urn L. +. H. peiforalum L CORvolvulaceae Calyst~gja sepiwn (L.) R. Sr. Crassulaceae +* Sedurn acre L. Cuscutaceae + CusCUla granovii Schultz Elaeagnaceae +* Elaeagnus angustifolia L. +* E. umbel/ala Thunb. Ericac:eae ! A.rctostaphylos uva.ursi (L.) Spreng. Gaylussacia baccara (Wang.) Koch ! Vaccinium pallidum AiL Euphorbiaceae ! A.calypha graci/ens Gray + Chomaesyce ma::ulalo (1..) Small C. polygonifolio (1..) Small +* Euphorbia cyparissias L Fabaceae Larhyrw japonicus Willd. var. glaber ($cr.) Fern. Lespede=a capitora Michx. +. i\tledicago /upulina L. +*l"felUotus alba Lam. +. Robinia pseudo.Qcacia L Stropnoslyles helvola (L) Ell. +. Trifolium arvense L. + '" T. campesrre Schrcb. +. T. dubium Sibth. +. T. pralense L- +'" T. repens L +. Vieio. yil/osa Roth ssp. varia (Host) Corbo + '" Wisteria sinensis (Sims) Sweet Fagaceae + Qu~rcus coccinea Muenchb. + Q. marl/ant//ea Muenchh. Q. srellala Wang. Q. velu'ina Lun. Gentianaceae ! Sabalia sle/farir Plush Geraniaceae ! Geranium macuJatum L. G. robertianum L. Juglandaceae ! Caryo glabro (Mill) Sweet Lamiaceae +- Lamium purpunum L. ! Lycopus virginicus L. +. Nepela cataria L. Teucrium canadense L. Trichostema dicholomum L Lauraceae ! S=o[ros aibidum (Nu'L) Nccs Molluginaceae +- Mo/fuga veniciOala L . 466 . BULLETIN OF THE TORREY BOTANICAL CLUB [VOL. 118 Monotropaceae ! Monolropa hypopithys L. ! JIJ. uniflora L. Myricaceae lvlyrica pensylvanica Loisel. Nyctaginaceae !. Mirabilis /inearis (Punh) Heim. ~ Oleaceae +* Liguslrum vulgare L Onagraceae ! Circaea lutetiana L. ssp. canadensis (L.) Asch- ers. &. Maanus OenatherD. biennis L ! O. fnaicosa L. ! O. oakesiana (Gray) S. Wats. &. Coult. Orobanchaceae + Orobanche unif/ora L Oxalidaceae OXIJ./is stricta. L Papaveraceae .. Glaucium }lavum Crantz Phytolacca.ceae PhYla/aceD. anuricana. L Plantaginaceae +. Plantago arUlalt:J Michx. +. P. lanaolata L .. P. m4jor L. ! P. maritima L. ssp. juncoides (Lam.) HuJten + P. pusilJa Nutt.. + P. rugelii Dene. Plumbaginaceae Limonium carolinianum (WalL) Britt. Po!ygalaceae ! Polygala vntidllaztz L. var. ambigutl (Nutt.) Wood ! P. verticil/ara L. VU. l1entcil/ala Polygonacae PolyroMOa anU:u/01a (1...) Meisn. .. Polygonum artmastnun Boreau + P. glaucum Nutt. P. pensylvanicwn L +* P. persicaria L. ! P. ramoswimum Mic:hx. V&r. pro/ijicum Small P. rarnosissimum Michx. var. ramosi:ssimum P. sct:mtkns 1.. P. lenue Michx. +. Ruma acelose/la L. ssp. angiocarpus (Murb.) Murb. +4 R. crupw L. Ponulaacea.e +* Portulaca o/eracea L. Primulaceae +* Anagal/u anensu L. Lysimachia quadrifa/ia L ! Samaha valerand;; L. ssp. pan'iflarus (Raf.) Hullen ! Trienlalis borealis Rat. Pyrolaceae Chimaphila =I01a (L.) Pursh ! C. umbel/ala (L.) Bart. ssp. cisallanlica (Blake) Hulten Ranunculac:eae Aquilegia canadensis L. ! Tha/ictrum revalutum DC. Rosacene ! Agrimania gryposepa/a Wallr. A.me/anchier canadensis (L.) Medic. Cr01ae/{llJ crus-gaill L. * Fragari4 virginiana Mill. GlUm canlUknsu Jacq. * .Wa/us SY/lIestris (L.) Mill. ! PoulIli//a anserina L. ssp. padjU:a (Howeil) Rousi +* P. argenlea L P. canadenJis L. +* P. recla L. Prunus marilima Marsh. P. serotina Ehrh. + Rosa carolina L. +* R. multiflora MWT. . R. rugosa Thunb. R. virginiana MilL + Rubus a/legMnlensls Bailey R. flegel/oris Willd. + R. hispidus L. + * R. lacinialus Willd. +* R. phaenico/asius Maxim. Rubiaceae + Ga/ium aparine L Salicaceae + Populus grandidentala Micbx. + P. tremu/oides Michx. + Sa/ix ducolor MuhL Scrophulariaceae ! Aga/inl.s maritima (Raf.) Rat. ! A. purpurea (1...) Pennell ! Aurea/aria virginica (L.) Pennell Linaria canadensis (1...) Dumon. ..' L. vulgaris MilI. ! Mllo.mpyrum liMaTt Desr. ! Pedicularis clVllU'UlUis L. ! Scrophu/aria lanceo/ala Pursh +- Yerbascum b/aueria L. +' V. lhap"" L. +- Veronica arvensis L. . !991J . LAMONT AND STALTER: FLORA OF ORIENT BEACH STATE PARK 467 Simaroubaceae +. Ailanthus alrissima (Mill.) Swingle Solanaceae .. So/anum dulcamara L. .. S. nigrum L. Tiliaceae ! TUia americana L Ulmaceae Celtis occidenla/is L Verbenaceae ! Verbena urricifolia L Violaceae ! Viola fimbrialula Sm. Vitaceae Panhenodssus quinqlU!folia (1..) DC. + Vilis aesliwzlis Michx. ULIOPSIDA Commelinaceae +. Commelina communis.L. var. ludens (Miq.) Pennell Cyperaceae Bu/bostylls capl/larts (1..) Oarke ! Carex horrruuiJodes Fern. C. pensylvanica Lam. e. silicea Olney ! C. swan" (Fern.) Macl<z. Cyperus /iI/culmls Vahl C. gray; TOrT. ! C. POIYSlachyos Ranb. var. macrostachyus Boccld. C. Slrigosus I.. ! Eleocharis pOT'lU/a (R. '" S.) Buff. '" FUll- ! Flmbrlstylls caS/anea (Michx.) VahI ! Scirpus ameriaurus Pers. ! S. robustus Punh J uncaceae Juncus gerardii Loisel. J. greenei Oakes &. Tuckenn. J. lenuis WUld. ! Lumia multiflora (Hotfm.) Lej. J uncaainaceae Triglochin maritimum L UIlaccae +. Allium 'lineale L. .. Asparagus offU;inaJis L. +. HttmerocaJ/isfulva (L) L. ! Maianlhemum call4tkns~ Desf. ! Po/ygonatum commutatum (Schultes &. SchulteS) Dietr. ! Smi/acina raClmosa (L) Desf. S. stellala (1..) Dosr. ! Uvu/aria sessi/ifo/ia L. PoaCe:le +. A.gropyron r.'pens (L.) Beauv. Agroslls hiemalls (Walt.) BSP. + A.. plrlnnans (Walt) Tuckenn. ! A. st%ni[era L Vat. pa/us/ris (Huds.) Farw. +. ,-Ura caryophy//ea L +. A. praeeQ.T L. Ammophi/a breviligulata Fern. + Aristilia dicnotoma Michx. +. Bromus hordeaceus L. +- B. racemosus L +. B. teetorum L Cenchrus tribuloides L +- Chloris l'enicillata Nun. +.. Cynodon daaylon (L) Pers. +- Dactylis glOmf'ralQ l. Damhonia spicata (L.) R. &. S. + Deschampsiaj1e~",uosa (L.) Trin. +. Digitaria ischaemum (Schweig.) Muhl. +. D. sanguinaUs (Ll $cop. Distich/is spicata (L) Greene +. Edtinoch/oa crus-galli (L) Beauv. Elymus virrilli~;;J L. Vo.r. halophilus (Bickn.) Wieg. +. Eragrostis ci/iallensis (AU.) Mosher + E. pectinacea (MichL) Nees E. spectabi"s (Pursh) S'eud. +- Festuca e/atior L . F. rubra L. ! HierodJ/oe odOTala (L) Beauv. +! La/ium pennM L. Muhleni:Mrgia schrtberi OrneI. Panicum acuminalUm Sw. P. capi/lare L + P. cl4ndestinum L t P. depauperalum MuhJ. + P. didwlomiflorum Michx. ! p, dichotomum L + p, /~lhri:t Nasb ! P. oligosanlhes Schultes Vat. saibnerianum (Nash) Fern. ! P. ovaie L ! P. sphaerocarpon Ell. P. virgatum L ! Paspalum saaceum Michx. var. mulrlenbergii (Nash) Bonks + P. setaCl!Um Michx. var~ stramineum (Nash) Bonks +- Phragmites austra/is (Cav.) Stcud. +. Poa annua L +' P. bulbosa I.. +- P. compressa L +- P. prar.ensis 1.. SchizDchyrium scoparium (Michx.) Nash Vat. Ii"arale (Nash) Gould ! Schizachyrium JCoparium (MicJ1x.) Nash Vat. scoparium +. Setaria faberi Rosen . S. gltSJll:a (1..) Beauv. SpartilUl. aiternijIora Loisel S. palens (AiL) MuhL ! S. pectina.ta Link . 468 . BULLETIN OF THE TORREY BOTANICAL CLUB [VOL. 118 ! SporoboJus asper (Mich.;t.) Kunth +. S. cryptandrus (TOrT.) Gray + Tridens jlaVlU (L) Hiu:hc. Triplasis purpur", (WalL) Chapm. +,. Vu/pia myuros (L) Ome!. ! v: ocIojlora (WalL) Rydb. vv. glauca (NUlL) Fern. Ruppiaceae -- Ruppia maritima L Smilaoceae ! Smilax herbacea L S. rotundifo/ia L. Typhaceae + Typha angustifolia L. Zosteraceae Zostera marina L. vat. slenophyl/a Aschers. & GrabD. . . NORTH FORK ENVIRON...ENTAL COUNCIL, INC. Route 25 at Love Lane, PO BOX 799, Mattltuck, NY 11952 516-298-8880 ~ ~ ~ September 16, 1996 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Acting Chaimlan Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New Yark 1197 I 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 Enviromnental 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 \i\\\ \\\),'\)\\i\\l\. sew:\ hils ,k,h\\d \h, Orl,n\ \\ll\\\ ~\\,,\ Une\\\ ~\l'ea$ hl ha\e the \\ll)S\ .fragile groundwater conditions on Long Island due to its tlat land masses and complete underlayment of saltwater. Any intensification ofland uses, such as the expansion ofthe ferry terminal's parking facilities to accommodate more than 300 cars, is expected to be detrimental to groundwater conditions. SCWA specifically recommends large lot zoning to nrevent an\' increase in actjvitie~ at Orient as well a~ a reduction in vehicular traffic '.:.::~.....: .1';'::.5:': :;,7C"';'.-'':-,;/Z:.=.- ;:(;..-~=~O:11f: the :0:rfi o{nyd{OG&.fu(;{J {u{Juff, i0fr{JCilluli (;/ :...l~:.1:.:::J2:.:.."'5 .2..;': ......:-::::-:.:.5:_<.-..,.- ~~..._':;..;.:.::-:~,- . . Increased ferry operations in the past ten years have already added to traffic and noise levels along 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 hwnpback 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 of the residentially-zoned parcel of land 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 (PEP) Action Plan called for local governments to adopt land use regulations to minimize or avoid any new source of storm water runoff. 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 stonnwater 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 storm water 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 Form, "Do hunting or fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area?" In 1996, the company's answer to question nwnber lOon the same form, "Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area?" was UNo. II (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 of land. 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 of land 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 nearby farm (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 So~nd Ferry attract a large number of people to Orient Point, particularly throughout the suITuner 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 intensifY 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 II of the -4- . . Long Environmental Assessment Form for the proposed 'action to include our numerous concerns. Thank you. Very truly yours, John F. Wright Acting President 4 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- 740 720 700 68~ 410. I 420 '- a L .' 740 . 400 390 NORTHEASf ESTUARY PROJECf 720 700 6SC ~orth.aa~ Estuary orric. D.S. Fish . wildlife Service P.o. Box 307 Charl..town, Rho4. X.land 02813 401/3U-'lU 401/3U-6226 !lTT(.JOIHEAlT A SUF'"FDLK C.TY .... + . ... _.4~_---- + + /.....~ ~ .;"'l" ..../'. . .....;!:,..-... -- .... ,.:.' ,;:.., ,.:.' .; ~ ./.. A/" + . R.... .' :.,..- ~ > :' ~., ~. , ..'- " ~ II (lrifnt'. . :?" f-'n i n t '. ...":' .' . , ;z5l '.'-/ '.' - :'....J. ,. ":,." '" :-.' -' .;-., , _.....- ~. Ct<./ TicAL ENVII.fl-fENrflL AREAS ?c\'\o ~ ... Mot. .. ,"~ - "J';)"- I.J. . - Subject. Property .' ....... 53A~ \,. .. ~ . .' ....--...Ofient '... ., ....~- .... . .....,r POir1! ~.~ ~'i:'."/ . ..~..:~....~...........~..... '../ .:.:... .'... :.:....... /;" . . . . .... . . . 4.4/ .....~... ....~,.l' . . . . ..." ,. .. " .' ..*,,'7' . .,' .... .' . . ~ . . ~..., ","" -. . ;" ~L' . . ;" i' . 2$ . 1"..,-" .. -.... ..;;I .' ~.~' .:?-;~ it <':~,~ ~ 1\ ... I ';}..:..\ . 6~ t~Yo(.' '. ,,- ~ f ,file:. \., - ....... - 'I~.j, '~, - ~.;t0 .,~"'"' -~.., Mf\ :....- t ~ ,~ .r C, \ . -. '\).' "'. 9 "< \ -; ;.... i;~rrI'~' (.~6" ~ -". ':7J"Q.dSf)'R,IE:-;l' t-<I:Al:lI _~:: _~:.. ....:':... :': :..':{;;j :iT.... n; '" ~ I~K ...... ......-.. .....:-=..':P"' !"'.~~- 'J...,:.....~;. ~;,;.:;..::' "W.?,< ~ ~ l . -~. . " :l~,,-:- /-,. -f" .....~ ___\.... ,A.1ol' ./~ '7',.., ,\ ~1 Y;;' -/ ,,~.t:f;f ..:. :) Y: ~-:. '/1 S tat e \:7 . tffj~ Parkland ~I '" ~:./I / .... .~~ -: '::- .~t, -. 1167 A. :~ ~ t.'f~ :: ... '" ...'( .' 0: ,.,.. .,., r.,:,~'" .., .- a '3' - -I:J - 1- ..:> .' (~) -' ~, ~ ~. \: '\ '\ .// 'r V ~~ ..~ ..(] u~ '."CII"U uc -0 If" I"..' -9 COUNTY Of SUffOlK Reol p'o,,~r1Y T o~ Se,vicp Agency (o)o.Il'1ly (,fit,., 'iurh,od. l I Nt.... y~l~ 0.. ...c,-..I..._ !!.." .. ~CUTH9.l;!l ~~~~.?! ,I ~~~ ~ 1'li'.19.O<;J I! TiA cl-l {I,j c.NT i5 . :>. ~ . J ~ '!I.{_-:.~e.. S;!~Z SHELTER ISLAND -- - Yl!!2.. ~ ~ . SOUTHOlD ". BROOKHAVEN ~ THE PECONIC BAY ESTUARY . ~ --4 --{ "}: ~. f) :1: '> -'>.. r~j -, c: -.-! flC ~ The WATERSHED area of the estuary includes all the land within the darker broken line. Polluting activities in the watershed affect the water quality. r:, , . . c'~ ( To. South old Town Planning Board Since 1992, the Southold Town Trustees has administered the Coastal Hazard Zone, and it continues to be within our jurisdiction. At Orient Point, in the area of the site plan for Cross Sound Ferry, Trustees' jurisdiction also extends specifically from the high-water mark to a distance of 75 feet inland. A determination of a wetland line should be made in coordination with NYS Department of Environmental Conservation and NYS Department of State. The Trustees respectfully request that the following concerns be addressed in the course of the ongoing SEQRA process: 1. Coordination with NYS DEC, which has jurisdiction within 300 feet of the water and coordination with FEMA, whose maps indicate floodplain dimensions and borders. 2 Coordination with NYS Department of State to assure their policies are followed. 3. Permitting history of the Cross Sound Ferry vis-a-vis dredging, placement of soils, and what may be infill and accretion into wetlands areas. 4. Although the CFS owns 4.1 acres of underwater land, this land and its use should be examined in any review of plans for intensification on the property in question; the underwater land was omitted from the current siteplan being reviewed. 5. At the time that CSF applied for and was granted permission to develop the 69-car parking lot, several permits and amendments were issued by NYS DEC to "maintain the dock." In truth, the development at this time was much broader, including but not limited to the construction of a bridge tower and replacement dock to enable passengers to get on and off the high-speed ferry. The Trustees assert that a portion of the work done, was done without an application to the Trustees, and that application has still not been received. The construction of the high speed docking structures and the dredging activities require both Town wetland and CEHA permits. 6. This is a Critical Environmental Area and as such proposed development must be approved and conducted in accordance with stricter guidelines. 7.The Trustees are also concerned with the unanswered questions of the effect of the proposed action on increased runoff and pollution from the Main Road into the storm drains on the adjacent property of the Plum Island Animal Disease Research Laboratory into Gardiners Bay. 8. The high-water mark has changed in this area, as evidenced by aerial photographs from decades ago, and has changed as recently as this past winter with continued accretion of beach land to the east of the ferry docks. 9. It appears from tax maps that there is a section of public land that sits in the middle of CSF's project - will public access to this property be guaranteed? We are eager to contribute to this process, and look forward to having our comments included in the findings of the Town Planning Board. Please feel free to contact the Trustees for any amplification. Thank. you. Southold Town Trustees '~p I 7 :Jt. . . FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY Region II Jacob K. Javits Federal Building 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1337 New York, New York 10278-0002 Po 12< , '. . I,..... ,11":1 I"'_!'"" - /'." ... ADS 9 1996 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 Area (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. Sincer~ 7-< ..:~ ph . Picciano, Director igation Division cc: Fred Nuffer, NYSDEC Bill Southard NYSDEC, R 1 .~l:';' .;."'-~"'."'''<>.." I .. f ill ~ I ~ NEW YORK STATE ; Bernadene Castro Commissionsr . . :>; " Ie New York State Office ot Parks. Recreation and Historic Preservation The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza Agency Building 1, Albany, New York 12238 ~'" 518-474-0456 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 .!--' ...... 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. ~~. M. Pamela Otis Associate Environ. Analyst Environmental Mngt. Bureau cc: Ruth Pierpont, Director, Field Services Ray Dobbins, Park Manager Tom Lyons, Director, Environmental Management An Equal OPPOrtunity/Affirmative Action Agency .... ,. .~V;_~""TIOf;."",,-q,. ~ f> <r ~ ~ ~ . ~ o ~ w < " . . ~ ~ NEW YORK STATE ; , fit ---'1. Os R\, New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau Peebles Island, PO Box 189, Waterford, New York 12188-0189 518-237 - 8643 Bernadette Castro Commissioner September 30, 1996 Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Acting Chairman, Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Orlowski: RE: SEQRA Cross Sound Ferry Terminal Parking Expansion Southold, Suffolk County 96PR2125 Thank you for requesting the comments of the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) concerning your project's potential impact/effect upon historic and/or prehistoric cultural resources. The documentation which you provided on your project has been reviewed by our staff. Preliminary comments and/or requests for additional information are noted on separate attachments accompanying this letter. A determination of impact/effect will be provided only after ALL documentation requirements noted on any attachments have been met. Any questions concerning our preliminary comments and/or requests for additional information should be directed to the appropriate staff person identified on each attachment. In cases where a state agency is involved in this undertaking, it,is appropriate for that agency to determine whether consultation should take place with OPRHP under Section ~4.09 of the New York State Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law. In addition, if there is any federal agency involvement, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations, "Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties" 36 CFR 800 require that agency to initiate consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) . An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Agency <> printed on recycled paper , ~ ~ , ARCHEOLOGY COMMENTS 96PR2125 Based on reported resources, your project area may contain an archeological site. Therefore, the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) recommends that a Stage 1 archeological survey is warranted unless substantial ground disturbance can be documented. A Stage 1 survey is designed to determine the presence or absence of archeological sites or other cultural resources in the project'g area of potential effect. The Stage 1 survey is divided into two progressive units of study including a Stage lA sensitivity assessment and initial project area field inspection, and a Stage IS subsurface testing program for the project area. The OPRHP can provide standards for conducting cultural resource investigations upon request. Cultural resource surveys and survey reports that meet these standards will be accepted and approved by the OPRHP. The OPRHP does not conduct cultural resources surveys. A 36 CFR 61 qualified archeologist should be retained to conduct the Stage 1 survey. Many archeological consulting firms advertise their availability in the yellow pages. The services of qualified archeologists can also be obtained by contacting local, regional, or statewide professional archeological organizations. Stage 1 surveys can be expected to vary in cost per mile of right-at-way or by the number of acres impacted. The OPRHP encourages you to contact a number of consulting firms and compare examples of each firms's work to obtain the best and most cost-effective product. Documentation of ground disturbance should include a description of the disturbance with confirming evidence. Confirmation can include current photographs and/or older photographs of the project area which illustrate the disturbance (approximately keyed to a project area map), past maps or site plans that accurately record previous disturbances, or current soil borings that verify past disruptions to the land. Please note that the OPRHP does not consider agricultural practices to be ground disturbing. Many archeological sites are located at depths below the plow zone and would not be disturbed by plowing, tilling or other agricultural practices. If you have any questions concerning archeology, please call Cynthia Blakemore at (218) 237-8643 ext. 288. G United States Department of Agriculture ~9riCultural Research Service . North Atlantic Area Plum Island Animal Disease Center Fe:. IC.i< P.O. Box 848 \1'5 Greenport, New York 11944 - 0848 . August 8, 1996 Mr. Bennet Orlowski, Jr. Acting Chairman Planning Board Office Town of Southold P. O. Box 1179 S~uthold, 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 eas~ 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~._.~~_.:~..~~._. \;t C~.~~ Assistant Center Director for Management y;: 2 cc: A. Torres, PIADC J. Crew, NAA Fax: (516) 323-2507. (FTS) 649-9295 . - -<0 , _, ~."r Pe> /fie:. .Is STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE ACBANY. NY 12231-0001 AL.EXANDER F. TREADWELL SECRETARY 0" STATE August 7, 1996 Mr. Robert G. Kassner Town of Southold Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 AUG I 2._ 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. ACOEJNY 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. :;z;elY, ., Walter . Meyer Coastal Resources Specialist Consistency Review Unit Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitali2ation WFM/wfm c. U.S. ACOEJNY - James Haggerty file o ptlntea on recyded paper , '''''''.c'''' .--,,0;> tI 4a MORTH FORK EMVIROMWEMTAL COUMCIL, IMC. Route 25 at Love Lane, PO Box 799, Mattltuck, NY 11952 516-298-8880 December 4, 1996 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Acting Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Final Written Scope for DEIS for Proposed Site Plan of Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. Dear Mr. Orlowski: In accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 617.8(f) of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), we would like to request that our concerns regarding the environmental setting of Orient Point and the Town of Southold be included in the final written scope for the above-mentioned project. In preparing the scoping outline for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for this proposed site plan, please bear in mind that all parcels owned or controlled by Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. (Cross Sound) lie within the watershed area of the Peconic Bay Estuary which is a Critical Environmental Area. The parcel under review for a variance to allow a business use on a residentially-zoned lot lies within a Critical Environmental Area separate and apart from the Peconic Bay Estuary. The following represents a list of potential adverse impacts which the proposed site plan may have on the environment. Wherever possible, we have attempted to identify existing sources of information which will aid in the thorough evaluation of each impact. Where no such information is readily available, we have suggested that new information be gathered which will specifically address the issues raised with this particular site plan. 1. Reasonably related long-term and cumulative impacts. We ask that Cross Sound provide full disclosure of its future plans for the Orient site in order to facilitate the environmental review. SEQR specifically charges the lead agency with considering any reasonably related long-term or cumulative impacts which the proposed action may have on the environment. The lead agency must also take into account whether or not a non. profit or9anlzatlon for the prQ{ervatlon of land. sea. air and quality of life printed on 100% recycled paper . . the proposed action is part of a long-range plan which could result in further adverse impacts on the environment. (See 6 NYCRR Part 617.7(cX2).) Due to the fact that the ferry terminal at Orient Point has the potential to become a major transportation hub connecting the New York metropolitan area with the economically expanding New England region, we feel that such disclosure on the part of Cross Sound is critical. An in-depth analysis of the past and present nature of Cross Sound's operation at Orient Point will help to create a better understanding of its possible direction in the future. A careful study of the high speed ferry service should be made. The DEIS should provide a study of Cross Sound's expansion and growth since it initiated service at Orient Point in 1975. The company's 1984 site plan application should be reviewed and compared with present operations to determine what, if any, violations exist. Cross Sound should offer a statement regarding its perceived role in the expanding Connecticut economy. The DEIS should make projections as to how another casino and a Six Flags Amusement Park in Connecticut may affect the demand for ferry service to and from Long Island. 2. Material conflict with Southold's officially approved plans. Cross Sound's request for a variance to use a residentially-zoned parcel ofland as a parking lot threatens the balance of the existing zoning code in the Town of Southold. In fact, the entire project hinges upon the granting of such a variance by Southold's Zoning Board of Appeals. The 1994 Peconic Estuary Program (PEP) Action Plan specifically recommends that local governments support two-acre (R-80) zoning and enforce strict land use regulations to minimize development near the bays. We ask that the DEIS contain an opinion from the Town of Southold as to whether or not the proposed project, considered in conjunction with Cross Sound's potential for future growth, adheres to the planning objectives of the town. Also, the Town should decide if the project is compatible with the current R-80 zoning at Orient Point. 3. Damage to the Peconic Bay Estuary System. The ferry terminal lies within the watershed area of the estuary which means that all of its polluting activities will affect the water quality of the bay system. The PEP Action Plan repeatedly recommends that local governments enforce strict land use regulations to minimize development near the bays and to avoid any new source of stormwater runoff. These points should be made clearly in the DEIS, along with an opinion as to exactly how much of an impact the planned intensification of use at the proposed site will have on these environmentally sensitive areas. 4. Impairment of ground and surface water quality at Orient Point. The Suffolk County Water Authority specifically recommends restricted development and reduction in vehicular in the Orient area in order to prevent impairment of its fragile aquifer. SCW A possesses information regarding the effects on the environment of groundwater pollution in the form of hydrocarbon runoff, formation ofphthalates and combustion pollutants. -2- . . 5. Detrimental effects of marine pollutants. The 1994 PEP Action Plan also addresses the problem of marine pollutants such a oil, gasoline, marine paints and debris which have severely deteriorated marine life in the Peconic Bay. An investigation should be perfonned as to the type and quantity of marine pollutants which Cross Sound discharges into the bay system today and what discharge may be expected in the future. If an area is to be designated in the site plan for power-washing of vessels, the projected amount of debris to be released into the water should be noted. 6. Beach erosion. Increased frequency offerry trips to and from Orient Point may significantly affect coastal erosion in a Critical Environmental area. 7. Damage to wildlife. The North Fork lies entirely within the federally- designated Fish and Wildlife Service's Northeast Estuary Project which identifies numerous plant and animal species as being of national or regional significance and management concern on Long Island. A proper inventory of wildlife specimens at Orient Point should be obtained from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. We also ask that Eric Lamont, President of the Long Island Botanical Society, be consulted for an opinion as to how the proposed project may affect existing flora. The DEIS should detennine what effect, if any, ferry activities have had on Orient Point wildlife since 1975. 8. Deteriorating effects of increased traffic levels. In addition to traffic studies offered for inspection by Cross Sound, traffic counts from ten years ago and from the summer of 1994 (the year prior to the inception of the high speed ferry at Orient) should be analyzed as a point of comparison. Southold Town Police reports for the same period of time should be analyzed in order to detennine whether or not traffic accidents have increased in recent years, due to an increased traffic flow through the town. 9. Increased air and noise pollution. After a comprehensive evaluation has beeI' made regarding the traffic levels at Orient Point and the potential for traffic to increase if the proposed site plan is approved, the effects of air and noise pollution caused by an intensification of use at the ferry site must be carefully considered. The DEIS should include infonnation on ambient air quality at the project site since 1975. Also, a current seasonal comparison of ambient air quality should be made. The United States Environmental Protection Agency should be consulted regarding its new findings on the effects on air quality of diesel fuel. Increased busing to the ferry site would result in a higher concentration of diesel fuel and other air pollutants. 10. Compromising the historical, architectural and aesthetic nature of Orient Point. The value of the Orient National Historic District should be considered in light of any proposed business expansion at the ferry site. The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation has indicated that the ferry property may contain an archeological site and has recommended a Stage 1 archeological survey. The discovery of a double-child burial on Roy Latham's nearby farm (as reported in The New York State Archeological Association Bulletin, November 1962, pages 8ft) offers presumptive -3- , . . evidence that the land which Cross Sound occupies holds significant pre-historic and archeological interest. 11. Negative visual impact. The current visual impact of the ferry site should be described in detail. A reasonable prognosis should be offered as to the anticipated change in such visual impact with the proposed addition of intensified lighting and an expansive parking lot immediately adjacent to a state park and public beach access. 12. Restriction of public recreation. A study should be made of the public access to Route 25, the state right-of-way and to the beach. This study should include local public opinion as to how such access has changed, if at all, since before Cross Sound's purchase of the company in 1975 and how it will be affected by the proposed plan. We strongly urge the Planning Board to include all of our concerns in its final written scope for the proposed project. Out of an abundance of caution, we also have enclosed all previous correspondence sent from NFEC to your office regarding this issue. The Planning Board's draft scope may be read to exclude certain points which we feel are critical to a proper State Environmental Quality Review; consequently, we are formally resubmitting these documents in order to ensure that they are on the record. Please notifY us if we can offer any assistance in gathering information for the DEIS. This proposed site plan has serious implications for our quality of life on the North Fork. It is critical that the project receive the most comprehensive and incisive environmental review possible. . V,ryrt: Anne Lowry President enc. -4- . SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY Michael A. LoGrande, Chairman/CEO Matthew B. Kondenar, Secretary Melvin M. Fritz, M.D., Member James T.e. 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 of 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. Grou;1dwate.. sam pies throughout the eastern end of Southoid Town have indicated high concentrations 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 water for 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 ~u~~ . . .' :._1. . , . North Fork Environmental Council -2- . September 4, 1996 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 ~' / . . o ins, Esq. ounsel . . . 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 RE: Potential Negative Environmental Impacts and the Proposed Development by Cross Sound Ferry Co. 5 September 1996 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. ;:=u- Eric Lamont, Ph.D. Enclosures ~ . Bulldin a/the Torrey Botanicol Club 118(4), 199t, pp. 459-468 . TORREYA The vascular flora of Orient Beach State Park, Long Island, New York 1 Eric E. Lamont New York Botanical'j;;arden, Bronx, NY 10458-9980 ~ Richard Stalter Department of Biological Sciences, St. Joho's University, Jamaica, NY 11439 ABSTRACT LAMONT, E.' E. (N. Y. Botaniea1 Garden, Bronx:, NY 10458) AND R. STALTER (DepL Bioi. Sci., St. John's Univ., Jamaica, NY 11439). The vaseular 80ra of Orient Beach State Park, Long Island, New York. Bull. Torrey BoL Club 118: 459-468. 1991.-The vaseular 80ra of Orient Beach State Park. New Yark. is based exclusively on collec:tions made by the authors from April 1988 to October 1990. Altogether, 277 vascular plant species in 183 genera and 67 families are reponed here. The largest families are Poaecac (49 species) and Asteraceae (48 species). and the largest genera are Aster. Solidago. Polygonum. 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 Stale (Clemants 1989; MileheIl1986). Key words: flora, 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'OS'N, Long. nOl6'W, U.S. Gcol.Serv. 1956). The park consists oCa 6.4 km long, recurved spit varying in width from about 550 m near the park's center to less than SO m near the western end. OBSP is bordered by Gardiner's Bay on the south and Linle Bay, Long Beach Bay, and Ori- ent Harbor on the north. The geological features ofOBSP reflect 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 years. The park exhibits a series of storm ridges com- posed.ofcoarse sands, pebbles, cobbles, and QC- I We acknowledge with gratitude the assistanc:e of Raymond Dobbins, for unrestricted access to aBSP and for providing transponatioD to areas of diflicult ac:c:essj Florcnc:c Honon. for historical information; Robert Meyer, for assistance in identifying grasses; the late Joseph Beitel, for sharing the location of Selagia lu!/Ia rupntris; and Alisa Abatel1i, for assistance in preparing herbarium specimens. Received for publication November 13, 1990, and in revised form February 22, 1991. . casionally shells. The ridges formed where storm waves piled up coarse materials well above nor- ma! high-tide level. Storm 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 storm ridges. A number of storm washover lobes e"tend 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 inJIuencc, with only 8% of the flora consisting of non-native species. Invasive alien plants such as Phragmites aus- lra/is and Taraxacum offidna/e were not re- ported from the park. Of pamcular 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., Fimbri.stylis castanea and Silene caroliniana var. pensylvanica), and the southern 459 "-"-7 it ~~ . 460 BULLETIN OF THE TORREY BOTANICAL CLUB [VOL. liB range limit of several northern species (e.g., Li- gusticum scothicum and Draba reptans). 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 hurricanes were in 1938, 1944,1954,1968, and 1978. Many upland vascular plant species reported by Latham (1934) no longer OCCUO at OBSP: Tilia americana. Carya glabra, Geranium maculatum. Circaea lutetiana ssp. canadensis. Solidago cae- sia. Heracleum lanatum,and Smilacina race. mosa. Brodo (1968) also nOled. the subsequent disappearance of many lic!>en 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 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 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 storm. I don't think these two species have appeared there since. The Cladonias 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 "fill" and a new road was constnlcted on the narrow neck. Many naturallandseape 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 narura1 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: Uthis 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 the Interior 1980). Since the flora of OBSP had not been system- atically studied in almost 60 years, the authors initiated the present study. The objectives of the study 'Ycre 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 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 1) contains an inventory of the vascular plants that reproduce spontaneously and persist for morc 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 checklist 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 inio 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). Resnlts. The current vascular flora of OBSP consists of67 families, 183 genera, and ~'J7 spe- cies of which 156 (56%) are native (fable I). 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 3 I 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- ~7 . ..'1 . 1991\ LAMONT AND STALTER: FLORA OF ORIENT BEACH STATE PARK 461 Table 1. Statistiea1 summary and comparison of the 1990 and 1934 vascular flora of Orient Beach State Park, Long Island, New Yark. I Pteridophytes Conifers DicolS MonocolS Total 1990 (1934) 1990 (1934) 1990 (1934) '990 (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 40(0) 1(0) 91 (16) 29 (3) 121 (19) 1 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 1I0ra is analyzed by habitat (see Reschke 1990), it is not- ed that l7 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, l45, 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 of OBSP is presented in Table I. Latbam (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 (l934) and the current au- thors is presented in Table I. Species richness of the 1I0ra of Orient Beach (OBSP-east) is compared with tbat 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 park9s east end9 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 Statc Park can be classified into three general plant communities: maritime beach and swale, maritime forest, and coastal salt marsb. The con- cept of plant communities is based upon Reschke (l990). MARmME BEACH AND SWALE COMMUNITY. Drift lines and areas of occasional overwash are sparsely vegetated by annual plant species, most notably Cakile edentula. Salsola kali. Chamae- syce polygonifolia. Atriplex patula. A. arena ria. and Polygonum glaucum. Characteristic peren- nials include Honlanya peploides ssp. robusta and Solidago sempervirens. The upper beach, located above the normal high-tide level, is vegetated by Ammophila bre- viligulata. Artemisia stelleriana. Lathyrus japon- icus var. glober. Solidago sempervirens, and Car- ex silicea. Primary dune systems do not occur at OBSP. Instead, beaches usually have a storm rid8e 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- Iygonella articulata. Silene caroliniana var. pen- sylvanica. Toxicodendron radicans. Rosa rugosa. Myrica pensylvanic~ 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 stellata and Q; velutina. and maritime red cedar forest dominated by Ju- niperus virginiana. Table 2. Comparison of species richness between eastem Orient Beach State Park (Orient Beach) and western Orieot Beach State Park (Long Beach). Area (Jcm') Species richness SppJarea quotient Native species . Introduced species Orieal Beach (OBSP-easl) 0.7 240 343 l27 113 Lonl Beach lOBSP-.....) 0.9 146 l62 118 2g 'If I {I ~. . . 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 qrganic matter. The trees are usually stunted and fiat-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 arc 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, 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 stonn 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 arc uncommon in the understory; Myrica pensy/vanica and Gay- lussacia baccata arc scattered throughout some ridges. A characteristic groundlayer species is Opumia humi[usa. which often forms large, dense populations. Other groundlayer plants include Ligusticum scothicum, Se/aginel/a rupestris. and M oehringia laterijlora. 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 alternijlora. 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 arc Limo- nium caroIinianum. Aster tenuifo/ius. and [va 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 paones in the high marsh are usu- ally vegetated by Salicornia europaea, S. virgi- nica. Spergu/aria marina. Pluchea odorata var. succu/enta. 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 Iva frutescens and Bac- charis ha/imifolla forms the ecotone between salt marsh and upland vegetation. RARE PLANTs. Ten native and eight non-na- tive species currently observed at OBSP arc con- sidered rare in New York State (Clemants 1989; Mitchell 1986). Panicum leucothrix. Quercus marilandica. Silene caro/iniana var. pensylvan- ica. Atrip/ex arenaria. Conyza canadensis Vat. pusilla. and Plantago pusilla 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 scolhicum is a northern species near the southern limit of its range at OBSP; Po/ygonum tenue, P. glaucum, and Clrsium hor- ridu/um arc also rare native plants in New York. The eight rare species not native at OBSP arc: Aira praecox, Bassia hirsuta, Chenopodium des- sicatum, C. hybridum, Chloris verticil/ata, Glau- dum j/avum. LeucanJhemum 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 arc: Acalypha graci/ens, Agalinis maritima, Carex hormathodes, Cyperus poly- stachyos var. macrostachyus, Draba reptans. FimbristyIis castanea. Oenolhera oakesiana. Onosmodium virginianum. Paspalum setaceum var. muh/enbergii, and Potemilla anserina ssp. pacifica. The 3 non-native rare species are: Ce- rastium semidecandrum. H%steum umbel/a- lum. and Mirabilis linearis. SUIIUIIlIl")'. The vegetation of the western half ofOrienl 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-wcsl. Only 19% of the OBSP-west "-~^-""I " 1,/'! " h " . --r . 1991) LAMONT AND STALTER: FLORA OF ORIENT BEACH STATE PARK 463 flora consists of non-natiy~ species. The vege. tation of the eastern half or 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 tbus concentrateg. 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- 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 BRODO, I. M. 1968. The lichens of Long Island. New York; A vegetational andftoristic 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. CONMD,H.S. 1935. Tbeplantassociationsofcentral Long Island. Amer. MidI. Natur.'16: 433-515. CRONQUlSI', A. 1981. An integrated system orelas- sification of flowering plants. Columbia Univ. Press, NY. 1262 p. DAVOHTREY. 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. CRONQUIST. 1963. Manual of vascular plants ofnonheastcm U oited States and adjacent Canada. Willard Grant Press, Boston. 810 p. GREU.ER. A. M. 1977. A classification of mature for- ests on Long Island, New York. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 104: 376-382. ' KoMAk, 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 BOL Club 34: 139- 149. MITCHELL,R.S. 1986. A checldist 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 INTERJOR. 1980. National Natural . Landmarks PrograIp. Dept. of the Interior, Natl. Park Service, Washington, DC. STALTER, R., E. LAMONT. AND J. NORTHUP. 1986. Vegetation ofFue Island. New York. Bull Torrey BOL Club 113: 29g...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 (*) indicates a non-native taxon, an addition sign (+) indicates a new record for OBSP, and an exclamation point (I) 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 platyneuron (L.) BSP. ! Polys/ichum acrostichoides (Michx.) SchOll + Thelyp/eTis palus/Tis SchOll Cyatheaceae ! Pteridillm aquUinum (L.) Kuhn polypodiaceae ! Polypodium virginianum L. SeJagineJJaeeae Selaginella rupes/Tis (L.) SpriDs PlNOPHYTA Cupressaceae Juniperus virginiana L Pinaceae Pinus rigida Mill. +* P. tltunbergii Pari. MAGNOUOPHYTA-MAGNOUOPSIDA Aceraceae +. Acer pseudoplazanus L. + A. rubrum 1.. Amaranthaceae +. Amaranthus retrojlexus L. AnacardJaceae Rhus copallinum 1.. R. glabra 1.. Toxicodendron radicaru (L.) Kun1%e , Apiaceae +. Daucus carota L. I Hera&/eum /analum Michx. 7! / /; /; . , I ,.. . 464 BULLETIN OF THE TORREY BOTANICAL CLUB (VOL. 118 Ligwticum scothicum L. ! Sanicula mari/andica L. Apocynaceae + Apocynum cannabinum L Aquifoliaceae + llex opaca AiL ! /. verticil/ala (L.) Gray ~ Araliaceae ! Aralia nudicaulis L. Asclepiadateae + Asclepias incarnata L. var. pu/chra (Willd.) Pers. A. syriaca X- ! A. verticil/ala L. Asteraceae . Achillea mi/lefo/ium L. Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. ! An/ennarla planlaginifolia (L.) Richards. +. Arclium minus (Hill) Bernh. Artemisia campesrris L. ssp. caudata (Mich".) Hall 8< Oem. . . A. stelleriana Besser +* .4. vulgaris L. + Aster divaricatus L. ! A. dumosus L A. ericoldes L. ! A. Iinariifolius L. ! A. novi-be/gii L A. patens Nt. ! A. paternus Cronq. + A. pllosus Willd. A. subulalus Michl<. A. lenuifollus L. ! A. umbellatus Mill. A. undulalus L. Btucharis hallmifolla L. ! Bldens discoldea cr. 8< G.) Britt. +* Centaurea 1tUJCUlosa Lam. +* Cichorium intybus L +* eiTSiurn arven.se (L.) Seop. C. horridulum Michl<. +" C. vulgare (Savi) Tenore Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. var. canat/en. sls + C. canadensis (L.) Con'l. var. pusl/la (NulL) Cronq. +* Coreofnis lanceo/ala L. ErechJ.Ues hiertuifalla (1..) DC. ! Er/geron pulche/Ius Michl<. E. slr/gasUS Willd. EUlhamia graminifolla (1..) Cass. +" Gallnsoga clllala (Raf.) Blake Gnaphallum oblusifollum L. G. uJiginosum L. +* He/ianthus annuus L ! H. diwzricatus I- t H. gigantf!US L. +* Hieracium caespitosum Dumon. t H. granoYii 1- . ! H. yenosum L. lvafrutescens L. ssp. oraria (Bartl.) Jackson Krigia virginica (L.) Wi1Id. Lactuca canadensis 1- +* L. serriola 1- +* Leucanthemum nipponicum Maxim. +* L. vulgare Lam. ! Liatris scariosa (L.) Willd. var. novae-angliae LuneU +* Matricaria matricarioides (Less.) Porter !* Onopordum acanlhium L. Pityopsls falcara (Pursh) Small Pluchea odorala (L.) Cass. var. succulenla (Fern.) Cron'l. I Prenanthes trifo/iolata (Cass.) Fern. +* Senecio vulgaris L. Solidago bicolor I- ! S. eaesia L. S. canadensis L. var. scobra (Moo!.) T. 8< G. S. juncea Ail. S. nemara/is Ait. S. odora Ail. S. rugosa Mill. S. sempervirens L. +*. Taraxacum o.fficinaJe Wiggers Xanlhium strumarium L. var. canadense (Mill.) T. 8< G. Berberidaceae +* Berberis lhunbergii DC. Betulaceae + Betula popuiifolia Manh. Boraginaceae +. Myosotis stricta R. & S. ! Onosmodium virginianu'!' (L.) A. DC. Brassicaceae +" Arobldopsls lha/lana (1..) Heyqh. Arobls glabra (1..) Bemh. +" Barbarea verna (Mill.) Aschers. +" B. vulgaris R. Br. +" Berteroo Incana (1..) DC. CaJdle eden/ula (Bisel.) Hook. +" Capse//a bursa-pastaris (1..) Medic. Cardamine parviflora 1.. var. arenico/a (Britt.) Schulz ! Droba replans (Lam.) Fern. . D. ve17UJ L. + Lepidium virginicum 1- +- Raphanus raphanistrum 1.. Cactaceae Opuntla humifusa (Raf.) Rat: CaesaIpinlaceae ! Cassia chamaecrista 1.. CampannJaceae ! Lobelia illfhua L. . Tr/odanIs perfoli4la (1..) Nieuwl. ----.-,-.-.'- ~<~ '1 . -"" . . i 1991] LAMONT AND STALTER: FLORA OF ORIENT BEACH STATE PARK 465 Caprifoliaceae + '" Lonicera japon;ca Thunb. +. L. tatar;ca L. Sambucus canadensis L. ! Triosteum perfoliatum L. Caryophyllaceae '" Arenar;a serpy//ifolia L +'" Cerast;umfomanum Baumg. ssp. triviale(Link) Jalas 4 !'" C. semidecandrum L. +'" Dianthus armeria L. J'" Holosteum umbel/atum L Honke.ya peploides (L.) Ehrh. ssp. robusta (Fern.) Holten Moehringia lateriflora (L.) Fenzl +'" Sagina procumbens L. +'" Scleranthus annuus L. Silene antirrhina L. . S. caroliniana Walt. var. pensylvanica (Michx.) Fern. +'" S. lalifolia Pair. Spergularia marina (L.) Griseb. .+' S. rubra (L.) Presl & Pres! +'" Stellaria graminea L. +' S. media (L.) Vill. Celastraceae + '" Celastrus orbicu/atus Thunb. ! C. scandens L. Chenopodiaceae + Atrip/ex arenaria Nutt. A.. palula L. +'" Bassia hirsuta (L.) Schwein. +'" Chenopodium album L. +'" C. ambrosioides L. '" C. dessiCalum A. Neb . C. hybridum L. Salicornia europaea L. S. virginica L. Sauola k41i L. Suaeda /inearis (Ell) Moq. S. maritima (L.) Dumon. Clstaceae Hudsonia tomemosa Nun. Lechea maritima BSP. Clusiaceae ! Hypericum canadense L. . H. gentianoides (L.) BSP. ! H. mulllurn L. + '" H. perforalum L. Convolvulaceae Calystegja sepium (L) R. Sr. Crassulaceae +'" Set/urn acre L. Cuscutaceae + Cuscuta groncwii Schultz Elaeagnaceae + '" Elaeagnus angustifo/ia L. +. E. umbellata Thunb. Ericaceae ! Arctostaphy/os uva-ursi (L) Spreng. Gaylussacia baccata (Wang.) Koch ! Vaccinium pa/lidum Ait. Euphorbiaceae ! Acalypha graci/ens Gray + Chamaesyce maculala (L.) Small C. polygonifolia (L.) Small +* Euphorbia cyparissias L. Fabaceae Lathyrus japonicus Willd. var. g/aber (Ser.) Fern. Lespedeza capitata Michx. +'" Medicago /upu/ina L. +' Meli/otus alba Lam. +* Robinia pseudo-acacia L. Strophostyles helvola (L.) Ell. +* Trifolium arvense L. +* T. campestre Sc:hrcb. +' T. dubium Sibth. +'" T. pratense L +. T. repens L +'" Vicia vi/losa Roth ssp. varia (Host) Corbo +* Wisteria sinensis (Sim!) Sweet Fagaceae + Quercus coccinea Muenchh. + Q. marilandiea Muenchb: Q. stellata Wang. Q. velUlina Lam. Gentlanaceae ! 'Sabatia stellaris Punh Geraniaceae ! Geranium macuJalum L. G. robertianum L. JngJandaceae ! Carya glabra (Mill) Sweet Lamiaceae +. Lamium purpureum L. ! Lycopus virginicus L. +" Nepeta cataria L Teucrlum. canodense L trichostemn dlchotomum L. Laurac:eae I Sassafras a/bidum (Nut!.) Noes . Molluginaceae +' Molluga verticillala L. ......~.....,... '." / . ! , ! /1 ;' -- ,.~ . 466 BULLETIN OF THE TORREY BOTANICAL CLUB [VoL,118 Monotropaceae ! Monotropa.hypopithys L. ! lV/. uniflora I- Myricaceae Myrica pensy/yanica Loisel. Nyctaginaceae '''' Mirabilis linearis (Pursh) Heim. ~ Oleaceae +'" Ugustrum yu/gare L. Onagraceae , Cireaealutetiana L. ssp. canadensis (L.) Asch. ers. & Magnus . Oenolhera biennis L. ! O,frut/cosa L. ! 0, oakes/ana (Gray) S, WalS, & CoulL Orobanchaceae + Orobanche unijIora L. Oxalidaceae Oxalis stricla I- Papaveraceae '" Glauciumflayum Crantz Phytolaccaceae Phyto/acea americana I- Plantaginaceae +'" P/anlago aristata Micbx. +'" P. lanceo/ata I- '" P. major I- ! P. maritima L ssp. juneoides (Lam.) Hulten + P. pusil/a Nutt.- + P. ruge/ii Dene. Plumbaginaceae Limonium earo/inianum \'Halt.) Britt. polygalaceae 'Polyga/a verticil/ala I- var. ambigua (Nutt.) Wood ! P. yerticillata I- var. yertici//ata Polygonaceae Polygonella art/culaJa (L.) Mei.n. '" po/ygonum arenaslrum Bareau . + P. g/aucum Nutt. P. pensylyanicum L +* P. persicana L. t P. ramosissimum Micbx. vat. proli)icum Small P. ramoswimum Michx. var. ramosissimum P. scandens L. P. temur Micbx. +'" Rumex acelose/la L. ssp. angiocarpus (Murb.) Murb. +'" R. erispus I- portulacaceae +* Portulaca oJeracea L Primulaceae +'" Anagallis anensis I- Lys/mach/a quadrifolia L. .! Sarno/us ya/erandii L. ssp. paniflorus (Raf.) Hulten , Trientalis borealis Rat: Pyrolaceae Chlmaphila maculata (L.) Pursh ! C. umbellata (L,) Bart. ssp. clsatlan/lca (Blake) HullOn Ranunculaceae Aqui/egia canadensis L. ! Thaliclrum revolutum DC. Rosaceae ! Agrimonia gryposepala Wallr. Ame/anchier canadensis (L) Medic. Crataegw crus-,alli L. * Fragaria Yirginiana Mill. Geum canadensis Jacq. . Malus sylvestrls (L.) Mill. ! POlemi/la anserina L ssp. pacifiia (Howell) Rousi + '" P. argentea I- P. canadensis L. +* P. recla I- Prunus marilima Marsh. P. serotina Ehrh. + Rosa carolina L +'" R. multiflora Murr. '" R. rugosa Thunb. R. rirginiana Mill. + Rubus alleghenlensls Bailey R. j/agellaris Willd. + R, hlspidus L. +. R. lac/n/atus Willd. +* R. phoenico/asius Maxim. Rubiaceae + Galium aparine L SalIcaceae + Populus grandidenlata Micbx. + P. tremuloides Michx. + SaJjx discolor Muhl. Sc:rophularlaceae I AgoJlnI.r maritima (Raf,) Raf, I A. purpurea (L.) Pennell I Aurl!Olaria y/rginica (L.) Pennell Linaria canadensis (L.) Duman. +. 1.. YUlgaris Mill. ! Melampyrum linear< Desr. I PedlcuJarls canadensis L. ! Saophularla lanaolata Pursh +. Verbascum blatteria L. +. V. thapsus L. +'" Veronica arvtnsis L. ,..~:<\t.",".'.,;'~'<~~" . .---- ~i"" . 1991J LAMONT AND STALTER: FLORA OF ORIENT BEACH STATE PARK 467 Simaroubaceae +. Ailanthus altissima (Mil1.) Swingle Solanaceae . Solanum dulcamara L. . S. nigrum L. Tiliaceae ! TUia americana L. .... Ulmaceae Celtis occidenta/is L. Verbenaceae ! Verbena urticifolia L Violaceae ! Viola fimbrialula Sm. Vitaceae Parthenoc:issus quinquefolia (L.) DC. + Vitis aestivalis Michx. LILlOPSIDA Commelinaceae +. Commelina communis L vat. ludens (Miq.) Pennell Cyperac:eae Su/bosey/is copillaris (L.) Clarke ! Carex hormathodes Fern. C. pen.sylvanica Lam. e. si/icea Olney ! C. .swanll (Fern.) Mackz. Cyperus filiculmis Vahl C. grayi Torr. ! C. polystachyos Rottb.' vat. macrostachyus Boeck!. C. serigasus L. ! E/eocharis parvu/a (R. & S.) Bulf. & Fing. ! Fimbristy/is castanea (Mich..) Vahl ! Scirpus americanus Pcrs. ! S. robustus Pursh J uncaceae Juncus gerardil Loisel. J. greenei Oakes & Tuckcrm. J. tenuis Willd. ! Lum/a multij/ora (Holfm.) Lei. Juncaginaceae Triglochin maritimum L Llliac:eae +* Allium vineale L * Asparagus officinalis L. +* HemerocaJ/isfulWl (L.) L. ! Maianthemum canadense Desf. ! polygonatum commutatum (Schultes &.' Schultes) Diet<. ! Smi/acina racemosa (L.) Desf. S. slellata (L.) Desr. ! Uvularia sessi/ifolia L. Poaceae +* Agropyron repens (L) 8Cauv. Agros/is hiema/is (Walt.) BSP. + A. perennans (Walt.) Tuckerm. ! A. stoloni/era L var. palustris (Huds.) Farw. +* Aim caryophyl/ea L. +* A. praecox L Ammophi/a brevi/igulata Fern. + Aristida dichOloma Michx. +* Bromus hordeaceus L. +* B. racemosus L +* B. teclorum L Cenchrus lribuloides L. +. Chloris verticil/ala Nun. +* Cynodon daclylon eL.) Pers. +* Dacty{is glomtrata L. Danthonia spicata (L.) R. & S. + DeschampsiajIexuosa (L.) Trin. +* Digilaria ischaemum (Schweig.) Muhl. +. D. sanguinalis (L.) Seop. Distich/is spicala (L.) Greene +* Echinochloa crus.galli (L.) Beauv. E/ymus virgf1Ti~~IJ L. V3r. Iralophilus (Bickn.) Wieg. +* Eragrostis cilial1ensis (All.) Mosher + E. pectinacea (Michx.) Nees E. spec/abilis lPursh) Steud. +* Festuca elalior L. * F. rubra L. ! Hierochloe odorata (L.) Beauv. +1 Lolium perenne L. Muhlenbergia schreberi Grnel. Panicum acuminalUm Sw. P. capil/are L. + P. clandestinum L. ! P. depauperalum Muhl. + P. dichotomiflorum Michx. ! P. dichotomum L. + P. leucolhrix Nash ! P. oligosanthes Schultes vat. scribnerianum (Nash) Fern. ! P. ovale L. ! P. sphaerocarpon Ell. P. virgatum L. ! Paspalum setaceum Michx. var. muhlenbergii (Nash) Banks + P. setaceum 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. littorale (Nash) Gould ! Schizachyrium scoparium (Michx.) Nash vat. scoparium . +" Setariafaberi Rosen * S. g/auca (L.) Bcauv. Spanina alterniflora Loisel S. palens (Ait.) Muhl. I S. peet/nata Link "'~'_;;W.H'.'.".~." ~_. ..'"..".....~'.I , ' L . . 46, BULLETIN OF THE TORREY BOTANICAL CLUB [VOL. 118 ! SporoboJus cuper (Michx.) Kunlh .. s. cryptandrus (Torr.) Gray I-- Tridens jlavus (L.) Hitchc. TripJasis purpurea (Walt.) Chapm. +. VuJpia myuros (L.) Gmel. ! V. octojlora (Walt.) Rydb. var. glauca (Nutt.) Fern. Rllppiaceae -01 Ruppia maritima L. Smilacaceae ! Smilax herbacea L. S. rotundifoJia L. Typbaceae + Typha angus/ifolia 1... Zosteraceae Zostera marina L. var. stenophylla Aschers. & Gtabn. , I' /,^~*'G~"T10~'~<r\ I~ 6 <r . ~ ill ~ " o m ~ w < \,! ~ ~ NEW YORK STATE ~ . . ~ u_.-vvu~. ("'S Rt" New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Historic Preservation Fieid Services Bureau Peebles Island, PO Box 189, Waterlord, New York 12188-0189 518-237-8643 Bernadette Castro Commissioner September 30, 1996 Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Acting Chairman, Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Orlowski: RE: SEQRA Cross Sound Ferry Terminal Parking Expansion Southold, Suffolk County 96PR2125 Thank you for requesting the comments of the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) concerning your project's potential impact/effect upon historic and/or prehistoric cultural resources. The documentation which you provided on your project has been reviewed by our staff. Preliminary comments and/or requests for additional information are noted on separate attachments accompanying this letter. A determination of impact/effect will be provided only after ALL documentation requirements noted on any attachments have been met. Any questions concerning our preliminary comments and/or requests for additional information should be directed to the appropriate staff person identified on each attachment. In cases where a state agency is involved in this undertaking, it is appropriate for that agency to determine whether consultation should take place with OPRHP under Section 14.09 of the New York State Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law. In addition, if there is any federal agency involvement, Advisory Council on Historic preservation's regulations, "Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties" 36 CFR 800 require that agency to initiate consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) . An Equal Opportunlty/Affirmallve Aclion Agency o prinled on recycled paper .. .. When responding, please be sure to refer to the OPRHP Project Review (PR) number noted above. Sincerely, ~~p~ Ruth L. Pierpont Director, Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau RLP:cm attachments: [*] Archeology Comments cc: Pam Otis ~ ~ ARCHEOLOGY COMMENTS 96PR2l25 Based on reported resources, your project area may contain an archeological site~ Therefore, the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) recommends that a Stage 1 archeological survey is warranted unless substantial ground disturbance can be documented. A Stage 1 survey is designed to determine the presence or absence of archeological sites or other cultural resources in the project'~ area of potential effect. The stage 1 survey is divided into two progressive units of study including a Stage lA sensitivity assessment and initial project area field inspection, and a stage IB subsurface testing program for the project area. The OPRHP can provide standards for conducting cultural resource investigations upon request. Cultural resource surveys and survey reports that meet these standards will be accepted and approved by the OPRHP. The OPRHP does not conduct cultural resources surveys. A 36 CFR 61 qualified archeologist should be retained to conduct the Stage 1 survey. Many archeological consulting firms advertise their availability in the yellow pages. The services of qualified archeologists can also be obtained by contacting local, regional, or statewide professional archeological organizations. Stage 1 surveys can be expected to vary in cost per mile of right-of-way or by the number of acres impacted. The OPRHP encourages you to contact a number of consulting firms and compare examples of each firms's work to obtain the best and most cost-effective product. Documentation of ground disturbance should include a description of the disturbance with confirming evidence. Confirmation can include current photographs and/or older photographs of the project area which illustrate the disturbance (approximately keyed to a project area map), past maps or site plans that accurately record previous disturbances, or current soil borings that verify past disruptions to the land. Please note that the OPRHP does not consider agricultural practices to be ground disturbing. Many archeological sites are located at depths below the plow zone and would not be disturbed by plowing, tilling or other agricultural practices. If you have any questions concerning archeology, please call Cynthia Blakemore at (2lB) 237-B643 ext. 2B8. --7 )6 rUE 15: 28 LONG ISL! FIELD OFFICE FAX NO. 51658111 FINAL REPORT NORTHEAST COASTAL AREAS STUDY: SIGNIFICANT COASTAL HABITATS OF SOUTIIERN NEW ENGI,AND AND PORTIONS OF LONG ISLAND, l'ffiW YORK Submitted to U.S. HOUSE ,OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS AND U.S. SENATE COMMI'ITEE ON APPROPRIATIONS August 1991 PREPARED BY: U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Southern New Englalid - Lona Island Sound Coastal and Estuary OrrlCe Box 307 " CharlCb1own, Rhode Island 02813 p, 02 . ~6 TUE 15:29 . LONG ISLAND FIELD OFFICE FAX NO. 51658~42 P.03 APPENDIX B NORTHEAST COASTAL AREAS STUDY U.S. FISIl ANDWU..DLIFE SERVICE SOU'IHERN NEW ENGLAND-NEW YORK COASTAL SPECIES OF SPECIAL EMmASIS The following species have been identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Northeast Estuary Proaram as being of national or regional significance and of special management concern in the coastal reeion of southern New Eneland CMA, RI and CT) and New York. Many are species whose populations have declined or are presently declining from historical levels of abundance in the region and/or are especially vulnerable to habitat loss and degradation, disturbance, competition with exotic or nuisance species, overexploitation or environmental contnminAnts. Some groups, e.g. sheIIrlSh and certain rmf'lSh, while not especially rare or declining, are of considerable ecological, cOIl1l[llcrclal or recreational importance in the region. The primary pUt'poses of these species IIsts are to establish a base for identifying habitats in netd of protection in the project area and to develop ecol'Clional strategies for the long-term protection, conservation, and monitoring of both species and habitats. I. J'lNFfSR: (Spawning areas, nursery and feeding grounds, migl'lltion pathways) Shortnose stul'geon (Acipenser br,viro.wrum) E Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxy""ynchus) American shad (Alosa sapldissima) Striped bass (Morone saxatilis) Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) Bluefish (Pomalomus saltalrix) Winter nounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) Summer nounder, nuke (ParoJichthys dentalus) Weakfish (Cynoscion regalls) Blackf'lSh, Tautog (Tauloga onilis) Stup or Porgy (Slenotomus chrysops) Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) Blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) Rainbow smelt (Dameros mon/ax) Menhaden (Brevoorlia tyrannus) American sandia nee (Ammodytes american/Is) American eel (Anguilla rostrata) Bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilh) Atlantic silverside (Mellldia menidia) " E = U.S. Endangered Species T = U.S. Threatened Species I, 2 = Category 1 or 2 Candidate Species .".. T J6 TUE 15:30 . LONG ISLAND FIELD OFFICE . FAX NO. 5165811642 P.04 APPENDIX B n. MARlNFJESTUARINE SHFLLFlSH: (Major shellrlSb beds; horsesboe crab spawning areas) American lobster (HOmtlTUS a11lencanus) Blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) Horseshoe crab (Umulus polyphemus) AmerIcan oyster (Crassostrea virginica) Hard-shelled clam or Quahoi (Mercenaria mereefUJria) Soft-shelled c1arn (Mya arenaria) Ocean quahog CAretiea islandiea) Surf clam (Spisula solidissima) Bay scallop (Aequipeeten imulians) m. RF;PnT.F.llANJ) AMPH.lBIAN~: (Nesting, breeding, nursery and rcedinl areas) Northern diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys t. terrapin) 2 Sea Turtles: (JuveoUe concentration areas) Loggerbead (Carelta caretla) T Green (Chelonia mydas) T Atlantic or Kemp's Ridley (upidocheJys kempu) E Leatherback (Dennochelys coriacea) E Tiger salamander (Ambystolna tignnum) Blue-spotted salamander CAmbystoma lateraJe) IV. JmIDS: A. Federally ListedlDn)oosedIcandidate SJlCCles and FIsh and Wildlife Servia SDecies of snecial DIllllJU!"emeDt c:oocem: Roseate tem (Sterna dougallil) E Gull-billed tern (Sterna nikJtica) Piping plover (Cbaradrius melodus) T Northern barrier (Circus cyaneus) Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leueocephalus) E Osprey (Pandion baliaetus) Peregrine falcon (Falco peregnnus) E, T Short-eared owl (Asio flammeus) American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus) Least bittern (lxobryehus exilis) . Black rail (LateralJus jamaicensis) Seaside sparrow (Ammodramus maritimus) Common barn owl (1)to alba) -- -~ T d TUE 15:31 . LONG ISLAND FIELD OFFICE . FAX NO, 5165811642 p, 05 APPENDIX B B. M"ll!:rllnto;: (Wintering concentrations and staging areas; resident breeding populations) Common loon (Gavia immen Red-throated loon (Gavla steUata) Horned grebe (Podiceps auritus) Red-necked grebe (Podiceps grisegena) Pied-billed grebe (Podi1ymbus podiceps) Canada lOose (Brallta canadensis) Atlantic brant (Branta bemiclo) Northern pintail (Anas acuta) American wl&eon (Anna amencana) Mallard (Anna pli1t]rhynchos) American black duck (Anas rublipes) Gadwa8 (Ana8 Glrepera) Canvasback (Aythya lIalisineria) Greater scaup (A,ythya marila) Lesser scaup (Aythya riffiniB) Harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) Common elder (Somateria moUissilllil) Oldsquaw (Clangula hyemalis) Burnehead (Bucephala albeola) Common goldeneye (BucephaIa clangula) Scoters (MelallitUlfusca, M. nigra and M. perspicillatu) Hooded merganser (1..opl1odyte8 cucullatus) Red-breasted meraanser (Mergus Berraton Clapper rail (RaUus lDngirostris) Sanderling (Calidris alba) Short-billed dowitcher (Limnodromus gnBeU8) Whinabrel (Numenius phaeoplds) Grasshopper sparrow (Amlllodl'amUS savannarum) C. NMin. Colonial Waterb~: Double-crested connorant (Phalacrocorax aumus) little blue heron (Egretta caerulea) Tricolored heron (Egretta 'ricolon Great egret (Ownerodius albu8) Snowy egret (Egretta thula) CaUle egret (Bubulcus ibis) Black-crowned night-heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) Yellow-crowned night-heron (Nyctanassa violacea) Green-backed heron (ButorideB striatus) Continued on rollowing page. ---~ ' d rUE 15:32 . LONG ISLAND FIELD OFFICE . FAX NO, 5165811642 p, 06 APPENDIX B C. NPdblf CoIonh!l Waterldrds: continued. Glossy ibis (Pugadis lalcinelIlIs) . American oystercatcher (Haematopus pallia/us) Lau&hina lUll (Larus atricilla) Least tern (Sterna antillarum) COD1lDon tern (SterllQ hirundo) Black skimmer (Rynchops niger) D. NII-nee- Soeclt:a: (Species of particular management concern because of impacts on other species) Mute Swan (Cygnus 0101') Herring lUll (Larus argentatlls) Great black-backed lUll (Larus m~rinus) V. M'AMMAI-B A. Marine Mamlllllll'.!~ CWbale concentration and migration areas; seal pupping and hauUng out sites) , Whales: Minke (Balaenoptero acutoro8llTlla) Fin (Balaenopte1'a physoJus) E Humpback (Megaptero novaeangline) E Northern riaht whale (Eubalaena gklcialis) E Gray seal (Halichoerus grypus) Harbor sea) (Phoca vilulilla) B. Tt!l'I'eI.triAl Mam~ (Island endemics-Some of dubious taxonomic status) Martha's Vineyard short-tailed shrew (Bklrina brevicauda alonga) :z Nautucket short-tailed shrew (BkJrillQ brevicauda compacta) :z Small-Cooted myotis (Myotis leibh) 2 Monomoy white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus ammodytes) 2 Martha's V"meyard white-footed mouse (Peromyscus lellC(lpuS luscus) 2 Block Island meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus provectus) 2 Beach or Muskeaet Island vole (Microtus breweri) 2 .~... ,>.. . . -96 TUE 15:33 LONG ISLAND FIELD OFFICE FAX NO. 5165811642 VI. 1NVEk1'EBRATFS: American burying beetle (Nicrophorua americanua) E Northeastern beach tiger beetle (Cincindela d. dorsalis) T Puritan tlier beetle (Cincindela purltana) T Decodon borer moth (PapalpemQ sulphuralD) 1 Banded bo, skimmer draaonfly (WilliDmsonia limnen) 1 Lemmer's noctuid moth (lithophone lemmen) 2 Regal fritillary butterfly (Speyeno ida1ia) 1 Barrens bluet damseltly (Enallagrna recurvatum) Lateral bluet damseltly (Enallagrna laterale) Hessel's halrstreak (Milourl heasell) Barrens buckmoth (Hemaeuca maia) Dwarf wedge mussel CAlasmidonta heterodon) E VB. n~: A. FederaIl'f T Wed: Sand plain gerardia CAgalinis acuta) E B. Federal CanAIBtm: P. 07 APPENDIX B Sea-beach pigweed (Amaramhus pumilis) 2 Nantucket serviceberry (Amelanchier nantucketensis) 2 Variable sedge (Carex polymorpha) 1 Spreadinll TIck-trefoil (Desmodium humifus"m) 2 New England boneset (Eupatorium leucolepis var novae-Gngliae) 2 Pine Barrens boneset (Eupatorium resinosum) 2 New England blazing-star (Liotrls borealis) 2 Graves' beach plum (Prunus maritilna var gl'avesil) 2 Cbaffseed (Schwalbea americana) 1 Long's bulrusb (Scirpus longil) 2 C. R~ol1lll Soecks JJf Snecial Concern: Annual peanut-grass (Amphicarpum purshil) Eastern silvery aster (Aster concQlo~ Bicknell's hawthorn (CralDegus bicknelli{) S<!SSile-leaved tick-treCoil (Desmodium sessilifolium) Continued on Collowing page. ,---,--,-.-----iJIlI'" ' 96'TUE 15:34 . LONG ISLAND FIELD OFFICE . FAX NO, 5165811642 C. R~I S'-"'" of SJ)H'hl CODC'.eI'II: continued. Saltpond arass (DiplochM 11I81itinUZ) Tbree-ao&led spike-sed&e (Eleocluzrls trlconata) Parker's plpewort (Brlocauloll parketi) Bushy rockrose (Helianlhemum dum06um) Creepm. St. Jobn's-wort (Hyperlcum adpressum) Round-rruited raJse-Joosestrlre (Ludwigi4 sphael'ocaf]Ja) Climblna rern (LygodJum pablUllum) Sea-beach knotweed (Polygonum glaucum) Pondsbore knot weed (Polygonum purilanorum) Bald rush (Psilocarya 6cirpoides) Torrey's mountain-mint (PyclJIlfIthemum torrei) Inundated borned-rusb (Rhynchosporrz inundata) Torrey's beak-rush (RhYllchosporrz tom/yana) Plymouth &cntian (Sabatia kennedyana) Quill-leaved arrowhead (Sagittaria teres) Untubel'dcd bulrush (Scirpus etuberculatu6) Coast violet (Viola brittonia/Ul) P. 08 APPENDIX B .~~."-----_.-,-----------"r -96 rUE 15: 35 . LONG ISLAND FIELD OFFICE . FAX NO, 5165811642 P.09 SHORELAND AND AQUATIC COASTAL IlABITATS OF SPECIAL EMmAsIS SPEClES IN SOU'l:w:RN NEW ENGLAND AND NEW YORK APPENDIX B A. Primary focus or the Northeast Coastal Areas Study it OD those br-dl"&,,spawning areas, DII1'Sel'y areas, f-.fI"&"stagilBl areas, winterin& areas and mip-ation pathways or importance to Federal tmst suedes of rqlnnaJ or nation..' fjtrnlr............ partic:u]arly those in the following groups: - migratory birds - anadromous fISh - endangered species of rtsh, wildlife and plants (Federally listed, proposed and candidates) - marine mammals - nati~e species populatiollS OD Federal lands - recreationally and commercially Important species - ecologically signifieant species - depredating, nuisance, exotic and potentially invasive species In addition, other habitats and areas of speeial emplJasis are: - Areas of si&nificant biolo~caI,diversity - Outstanding representatives of Re~onal Coastal Community types B. Signif"lCant Coastal Habitat Types" in Southern New F..nglAnd aocl Long Island - Maritime grasslands - Vegetated tidal wetlands (freshwater and brackisb) with contiguous upland buffers - Sandplain gl'aSSlands and heathlands - Coastal Plain fresbwater and brackish ponds - Pitch Pine/Scrub Oak barrens - Atlantic White Cedar swamps - Colonial bird rookeries - Relatively undisturbed sand beaches and contiguous dunelands - Intertidal mud and sand flats - Submerged aquatic vegetation beds - Relatively undisturbed and free-flOWing freshwater coastal streams - ShellrlSh beds - FlOodplain forests - Productive subtidal shoal areas Open peatlands - Marine mammal pupping and haUling out islands (seal islands and rocks) · Preferred or Important Habitats of Federal Trust SpecieS/Species of Special Emphasis. - . c,a U) o ~ o o ~ ~ I'\) o - - , , '"'\I . o ...., ~ o , "."'fa. 001_ . 0 ~~ ?!"~ ...., '"'\I ...... It' I'\) ....1.... I\) ..... ...= 0 , I'" . ".0 cr... 0 N"a" NN 0". ...... .... . . III ~Il 0 E! .. . ... Z ..0 H ... . .. .. .... 0 i .0 ~. ... ~ 0 0 . N . .. .. ;g~ . ...., ~~ '"'\I 0 0 0 0 Qm .~ . . --< en en CD (I) 0 0 S UF'FDLJ<. CD~TY ENV,.'''-ft::..NrflL AREAS ~t. CP./ TI CAL Subject, Property .' "-"'. 53A~ ~. - ~_ . .... . . .' ...."-~O(ient '\.. . .....;-- "., ' ....~,... Point ...... ~.._'II...; ..:~..........~...- --/ .. .. .'. .... . . . . ,.. .:.:.... '... :.:.... ... c' . ... . .... . . . 4../ ......... ....~",'1 . . . , . -.,. I- .. ;," ..",,"'" . ,- _.., ,,-;. .. ~w . . .....-~ ~ air.,.' <1,0 -.;' .. ~,~ , . 2$ . 1...:, ~ .... ~ ---. ...~-- + +/.....: ':' ..... .. ~",.~ .~~ . /' ,.. .:,..::"o~' .' / ~ :.,.kA ".r" . . ,':0' :.. ~ ~ , .... :- ~., . , .. .... ... ...... ..... . ,)......... ':Z-;~ it t: ~,~,. .. ~ ..' I ;}~\. 6~ t~....<, ..., ;-..- ~ f,f" \', - - - 'I~: .~, - v.";"e .' ~'""\ .:.~... Mf\ . .~ .... ., C' '...":" ~\~.". i:;. ",__rtJ . ;"'/~'l~ <.dJ :" '::r"'4:X~IE:"T l"L\.l:1I -\ ,.:~:,. ,,:-:"~ :'.: ;.:'fff ~T.....Tl:; fI~I~K ..""....~_. ......~~ :-...;.:~- ~,......'.:...\ -:- ..;;:::;;.....-::.- "w:;' ~ ~ 'J... ~ '-:-"~ , .' :t~,:::-,,-' ~. .....~ -, ,A.'~ ./ "'" - " '\,\...1 ' '1;+ -7' ,,~. ASr. '-"'\ "<' hi, -' j ,......, State :~) ~ 6~ .... Parkland ( "~:..;; .1 ....... ~! &I.... ' -j '- ,.~" :: 1167 A. ~ ....; r.']C I~. ~<C S'" t' ~: ;" . (. . . -. ...... . ~ ~ If Clrit>nt", . :?' !-,,,int', ....'. .' . . ;.1]] - ....:.:.;, '. ":~I' l" ..:..:. .' , , , " , ... .;.... , . ,.......- -- . '\,' ?o\"lO ". ,pI ()~,\.... .. ::-. .. 'of .' O:"~ .,.' f". ,;,:,... .,' /.5'- '1 - '3.S- ~) -' " , ~ ; .- \ \: ('.. \ . \ 'r V ~~ j>'" ~tJ' (l '.""CI....f,l tce .0 Ul.llf.., .f) COUNTY Of SUfFOlK ~.. ~OUTH~ Real ProD~"IY T ox S~rvicp Agency ~~~!'! ._ CQoInty C."h. "UtlC'tIC 1000 Riv.,h,.rJ.l I Nfl.... 'f6f~ __'A ..-., . O'...c.......l.,.~. " 1/ Tn1cl-l f\1 E-NT is s. ~ --\ -1 '>. ~ [) 'l: ~ r\; ;: -...! r:, \ , <)~? ~ r- 'Y: ---~ '/Ji~lf}i;~ :~., ~. , re0 I~,\~:V>I If) i /';~-v !'Y~)\J\~\~~ m r.L~) rv/ \ .... /~"!r~ \ EAST H~N~ \77 h't=I \__ / \\ /" (v--T- R'VERHEAD ~ .........-.\ I,' .-' -', /"'" . ""-,~, cpr" _.' / . I PCaJNC ~ IpF'''~e...-~ r. ()..'J"~\~t-l \ /lIVe.. _ L~ ----\~ I Vj / N' U-' -L "NC"U __ . ,-"' .,-- --- ~ - \.... ".. I __ VV"'" I I BROOKHAVEN W: hlLZL~: 'J! ~\J ,.(51 ~ ~.. ~ l . J ~(X" &:'_~."!L ~.'!::!:2 SHELTER ISLAND ~ JSLANt? ~ . 0# THE PECONIC BAY ESTUARY . ., ~~JJ5. ftfy ,.... The WATERSHED area of the estuary includes all the land within the darker broken line. Polluting activities in the watershed affect the water quality. . . MORTH FORK EMVIROM...EMTAL 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 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 presEMktlon of land, sea, air and quality of life printed on 100% recycled paper -, . . Increased ferry operations in the past ten years have already added to traffic and noise levels along 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 of the 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 (PEP) Action Plan called for local governments to adopt land use regulations to minimize or avoid any new source of storm water runoff 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 storm water 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 Environrilental Assessment Form, "Do hunting or fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area?" In 1996, the company's answer to question number 10 on the same form, "Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area?" was "No.1I (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. Forthree centuries prior to 1984, ferry service at Orient remained consonant in both size and style with the scale of land 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 nearby farm (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 intensify with expanded ferry service. (xi) Each of the ten preceding points represents a significant adverse impact on the enviromnent which may be reasonably expected to result from the proposed action. Taken collectively, the potential for a detrimental enviromnental 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 Enviromnental 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 II of the -4- . . Long Environmental Assessment Fonn for the proposed action to include our numerous concerns. Thank you. Very truly yours, 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- . . MORTH FORK EMVIROMWEMTAL COUMCIL, IMC. Route 25 at Love Lane, PO Box 799, Mattltuck, NY 11952 516-298-8880 November 7, 1996 Mr. Bennett Orlowski Acting Chairman, Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Cross Sound Fell)' Services Inc v. Plannin~ Board of the Town of South old Dear Mr. Orlowski: We would like to convey our full support to the Southold Town Planning Board in the matter ofa lawsuit filed against it by Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. on October 16, 1996. In this action, the petitioner seeks to set aside the Positive Declaration issued by the Planning Board on September 16, 1996 on the proposed site plan for a project on the Cross Sound Ferry properties. In issuing a Positive Declaration, and thereby calling for a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed site plan, we believe that the Planning Board has followed both the letter and the spirit of the State Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law (6 NYCRR Part 617), As lead agency under SEQR, the Planning Board must call for a DEIS if it determines that the proposed project may have one adverse impact on the environment. In its Positive Declaration, the Planning Board identifies ten areas in which the project may adversely impact the environment. Although Cross Sound argues in its petition that the Positive Declaration is too broad and improperly addresses certain aspects of the company's business, SEQR specifically states that the agencies involved in actions such as these must "conduct their affairs with an awareness that they are the stewards of the air, water, land, and living resources" (617.1(b)) of the communities under their jurisdictions. We believe that the scope of the environmental review should be as broad as possible under SEQR. Cross Sound wishes to dismiss its proposed project as the installation of a simple parking lot, but it is the Planning Board's responsibility to consider the potential impact that expanded facilities will have on the fragile environment of the Orient Point area. (In a letter dated September 16, 1996, the NFEC has already submitted a list of specific concerns with regard to the environmental impact oftl\is proposed project.) It is clear a non-profit organization fOr the prestlYatlon of land, sea, air and quality of life printed on 100% recycled paper . . that the ferry terminal has the potential to eventually become a major transportation hub and the Planning Board is required to take this possibility into account when making its determination. According to SEQR, the Planning Board has "an obligation to protect the environment for the use and enjoyments of this and allfuture generations" (617. I (b)). It also states that a "suitable balance of social, economic and environmental factors" (617.I(d)) must be incorporated into the decision-making process and that "the lead agency must consider reasonably related long-term, short-term, direct, indirect and cumulative impacts" (617. 7( c )(2)) (emphasis added). In assessing the likely consequences of a proposed action, the Planning Board must consider the following, as enumerated in 617.7(c)(3): (i) its setting (e.g. urban or rural): The unique rural setting of the Orient Point area is considered to be both aesthetically valuable to the surrounding community as well as historically important to the nation. (ii) its probability of occurrence: There is no doubt that the proposed action will increase the intensity of use at the project site which is located in a Critical Environmental Area. Such intensity of use must be carefully studied. (Hi) its duration: The proposed project will result in a permanent alteration of the site in question. The project also has great potential to result in increased ferry use, and therefore, increased local traffic (which we believe has already occurred with prior expansions). These consequences will be ongoing. (iv) its irreversibility: Establishing the Orient Point Ferry terminal as a major exit point off of Long Island for almost three million residents will be permanent and irreversible. (v) its geographic scope: The Planning Board must consider the potential for increased ferry use not only by Long Islanders, but also by residents in the entire Connecticut and New England area. (vi) its magnitude: The Planning Board is reasonably concerned that the proposed action may have impacts of great magnitude with regard to traffic, pollution and damage to a Critical Environmental Area; this concern renders the DEIS even more critical. (vii) the number of people affected: Residents of Orient Point will be most immediately affected by the proposed expansion offerry facilities. Residents of the towns of both Southold and Riverhead, totaling almost 50,000, also will be significantly affected. Despite Cross Sound's repeated assertions in its petition that the proposed action is only a request for a parking lot, the Planning Board is legally justified in its concern -2- . . that such action may have wider implications for the community. By attempting to narrow the scope of the environmental review process, Cross Sound is striving to segment its project by seeking piecemeal approvals for various parking facilities, including approval for a parking lot granted in 1995 without an environmental review. The Positive Declaration issued on the proposed project fully complies with the requirements and intent of SEQR. The Planning Board has fulfilled its responsibility as lead agency in this matter and should not be deterred from proceeding in its appropriate course of action. Very truly yours, Charles Cetas Acting President -3- .1 . MORTH FORK EMVIROMhlIEMTAL COUMCIL, IMC. Route 25 at Love Lane, PO Box 799, Mattltuck, NY 11952 516-298-8880 ~overnber13, 1996 Mr. Bennett Orlowski Acting Chairman Southold Town Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 53095 Main Road Southold, ~ew York 11971 Re: Cross Sound Fen:)' Services Inc v Planninl: Board of the Town of Southold Dear Mr. Orlowski: We would like to comment on several points made by Cross Sound Ferry . Services, Inc. in the above-mentioned lawsuit which seeks to set aside the Planning Board's Positive Declaration on the company's proposed site plan for changes at the ferry . tenninal at Orient Point. * Cross Sound attempts to disprove the tl)eory that its parking problems are self- created as a means of gaining from the Zoning Board of Appeals approval for a variance which is critical to its project. * The Planning Board has both a right and an obligation under the law to consider the impact of a high speed ferry service at Orient Point; is this not the thrust of SEQR? * Despite Cross Sound's arguments to the contrary, the Planning Board is not seeking to regulate its ferry service, but to consider it in its entirety in order to make a proper SEQR determination. * Cross Sound must offer more substantial evidence that the lack of a parking lot could result in "revocation" of its interstate transportation service license. * On page 17 of its petition, Cross Sound argues that the Planning Board did not take a "hard look" at the environmental concerns of the area and failed to offer a "reasoned elaboration" in issuing a Positive Declaration of the proposed site plan. The Positive Declaration identifies potential adverse impacts to the environment; the Draft Environmental Impact Statement addresses such conc.e.rns more specifically. '~, ".' ..,~ ..'. ... a non-profit organtzatlol1fortlle presttvatlOn of laOd.:sea. air and quality of life. printed on 100'll recycled paper . . * The Planning Board did not identifY environmental concerns when granting approval for Cross Sound's parking lot on the "West parcel" in 1995 because the high speed ferry, which changes the nature of ferry operations at Orient Point, did not exist until a few weeks afterwards. * A comprehensive Positive Declaration does not delay action on the subject site plan. In seeking site plan approval, an applicant must allow time for the SEQR process to be properly administered. In reality, any delays which Cross Sound may experience can be attributed to its own attempts to circumvent, to segment or otherwise to thwart the process by failing make a proper site plan application in 1995 and by refusing to disclose the current or intended nature of its business. We reiterate our support of the Planning Board's Positive Declaration issued on the proposed site plan of Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. We look forward to the smooth administration of a legally-mandated environmental review so that the issue may bc reasonably resolved in accordance, with the best interests of the people of the toWn of Southold. Very truly yours, vi ti~t4- (ltr~ Charles Cetas . Acting President ~ -2- " . . November 26, 1996 George E. Pataki Governor Alexander F. Treadwell Secretary of State Mr Bennett Orlowski Acting Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board Town Hall 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Scoping for proposed site plan for Cross Sound Ferry Dear Mr Orlowski Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the project sponsor's draft scope outline. I would like to take this opportunity to provide you with details of the requirement to address the state's coastal management policies within an EIS. Article 42 of the Executive Law requires state agency actions within New York's coastal area to be undertaken in a manner that is consistent with the state's coastal area policies. Land development and related activities in New York's coastal area which require state permits for actions involving an EIS under the State Enviromnental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) must be consistent with the coastal area policies in Article 42 and 19 NYCRR Part 600.5. No state agency involved in a Type I or Unlisted Action, as the term is deImed in 6 NYCRR Part 617.2, shall approve the action until the agency has complied with the provisions of Article 42 of the Executive Law and implementing regulations contained in 19 NYCRR Part 600. Article 42 and its implementing regulations in 19 NYCRR Part 600 require certain Type I or Unlisted state agency actions to be consistent with the coastal policies in 19 NYCRR Part 600.5. Where a positive declaration is made and an EIS is prepared pursuant to SEQRA, and a state agency is a lead or involved agency, the EIS must contain an identification of the applicable coastal policies and a discussion of the effects of the proposed action on and consistency with such policies (6 NYCRR 617.9(b)(5)(vi)). The SEQRA regulations provide that no state agency shall make a fInal decision on NYS DEPARTMENT OF STATE Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization Albany, NY 12231-0001 Voice: (518) 474-6000 Fax: (518) 473-2464 , . . the action until it has made a written fmding that it is consistent with the coastal policies set forth in 19 NYCRR Part 600.5 (6 NYCRR 617. 11 (e)). In order to avoid segmentation, the EIS must consider the impacts associated with the reconfiguration of all parcels in the terminal complex associated with any additional plans of the applicant to increase the intensity of use at the terminal complex. In addition to specifically addressing the coastal management policies and the items discussed in the applicant's draft scoping outline, the EIS must address the specific effects of increased traffic resulting from increased parking on the character of the community. A very important element of the EIS will be the evaluation of the effects of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. The project sponsor's proposed alternative "B. Floating, moored parking platform with ramp to shoreline" should not be considered as part of the review. Such a use is not water dependent, and would not be consistent with Policy 2 of the NYS Coastal Management Program, the pUlpOse of which is to reserve the in-water area for water-dependent uses. Instead, a number of other alternatives should be considered. These include the development of the site for its residentially zoned use; provision of a smaller parking area with a reduced number of parking spaces; the provision of parking on alternative adjacent sites; reconfiguration of all lots at the ferry terminal; and parking at a remote location with customers bussed to the ferry terminal. The effects of all such alternatives should be considered in the EIS. Federally authorized and funded activities are reviewed by the Department of State for consistency with the New York State Coastal Management Program. If during the course of your review it is determined that any federal authorization or funding is required for any portion of the proposal, please instruct the applicant to submit a completed Federal Consistency Assessment Form (FCAF) and all necessary supporting information to the appropriate federal agency and the New York State Department of State. The issues addressed in the EIS should provide the most appropriate supporting information required by Section D of the FCAF. Upon receipt of the FCAF and supporting information, we will determine if the submitted information is adequate to commence a formal review of the project for its consistency with the New York Coastal Management Program. If you have any questions please call Steve Ridler at (518) 474-6000. t1~M< ~ m?J ~SOfftb~ Drrector Division of Coastal Resources and waterfront Revitalization GRS/sdr . . THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF SUFFOLK COUNT) November 3, 1996 To: Planning Board, Town of Southold, N.Y. From: Johanna Northam Please include the following comments as part of the scoping proceedings regarding the site plan proposal of Cross Sound Ferry Services: Starting in 1965, League members have been active in protecting the water, wetlands and watershed areas. In relation to said proposal, there is concern that the State Environmental Quality Review Act of 1975 (SEQRA) guidelines, supported by the League, does not focus on natural resource issues for this project. It is cleacly defined in SEQRA, that the environmental impact statement (EIS) should contain a comprehensive description of the environmental setting of the project site, the nearby area and the affected region. Without this information the EIS would lack insufficient analysis to provide an under- standing of existing environmental conditions. As lead agency, the Planning Board must comply with the State law and uphold local zoning and related legislation in reviewing the site plan proposal for this project. ENC: Johanna Northam P.O. #1053 Natural Resource Chair , Southold NY 11971 ,...,....,n' \0) R @ ~ U W! [~ Uor;'-~;:' ~,~ ..-- so~nH.:I: '(I'. .I~L!:::;:,:'.': Bachelor of Science Environmental Studies ;,C,-._.-, 7_' .:,'~r:: -.-- -.- -,--- ~S: ~l . If,'::. c~;;:.~,::' l':TH C:::-U':'lI':':F' Sl:~ ..:.t:jE ,",..,..~,-, 1_'1';::> p . ~=12 .__,,-.:.~E.Po:ltON 11, ~1*\ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ Ii > ~ ~!w 'l'~ Si"T~ q B9made~e Ca~Wo CammlSSIOnlU . New York Stale Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation The Governor Nelson A. RocKefeller Empire State Plaza Agency Building 1, Albany, New York 12238 518.474-0456 December 3, 1996 Human R9sources 518-474-0453 Fiscal Management 518-474-0061 TOD: 518.486.1899 Bennett Orlowski Acting Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 H<l-)o( :>1"ir4~- 7378' Dear Chairman Orlowski: Thank ybu for the Draft SEQR Scoping Outline for the Cross Sound Ferry 'proposal. We found it to be comprehensive and well- prepared. We understand that you may have received s~me comments after the time that the outline was drafted which will be incorporated into the Final Scope. So as to be clear on this agency's previous recommendations, we suggest the following modifications to the scope, all in Section III: - Under Natural Resourc""s, A.2.d), add the following: "Include specifically the National Natural Landmark listing ~f Orient Beach State Park, a description of the reasons for listing, and identify any impacts to the qualities for which it is listed." Under Human Resources, A.4., correct the statement ~n Pedestrian Environment as follows: "Describe pedestrian and bike use environment [al shall be discussed]. Make:1ote of.. " Also under Human Resources, D.2.c), change to the f:lllowing: "Unless substantial ground disturbance can be docum,=nted, undertake a Stage 1 archeological survey to determi~e the presence or absence of archeological sites or other cultural resources in the project's area of potential effect." Again, thank you for keeping us informed of this proposal. Sincerely, ~.~ Thomas B. L Director Environmental Manageme:1t Bureau cc: E. Wankel R. Dobbins P. Battaglino R. Pierpont P. Otis " ~~ ' : i"~' "'; An Equal OpPor1unity/AffirmativQ Action Agency C'.J p'in~_!d Qn '~Ycle~~o1D~r ..--\ . . ,\ ,~.). , ()(~ V..'.' I~ \< ~. 'i.:. .,-.~:: ~ _~_.. ~J_ \;--~Oll~- ~ STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE, N,Y, 11788 EDWARD J. PETROU, P_E. REGIONAL DIHECTOR JOHN B. DALY COMMISSIONER November 19, 1996 Mr. BenIlett Orlowski Acting Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New Yor){ 11971 IS- - ']'-. /0, ( /1 / 1St 3.::'- Qraf~ ScoE!ng Outline Cross Sound FerEY Route ~25;-OrTent - Dear Mr. Orlowski: We have revlewed the Draft seaping Outline for the DEJS for the .CrOBB Sound Ferry parking lot project. III addition to t~~ ~ubjectB which have already been identified, we believe the following issues I3h~uld be addressed. Under H2, adverse impacts, the question of public access to the waterfront should be addressed. Under #4, mitigation measures, the provision fa!: busses should be included. The safe operation of bicycles should be provided. The issue of pedestrian movements should be addl:essed. Ullder #5, reasonable alternatives, studied/considered? should be a shuttle bus service be We trust tllis will be useful in your cOllsideration of this proposal. If you have any questi.olls you may contact G. Belerling at 952-6128. Vel~Y truly YOlJ)~8, ~2i t~~~ FHANI{ PEl\RSON Planning & Program Management l'i))" Jf~~J[[\~-'~'I.~I~ ',\1 [1,1 [II NOV 2 I 1996 (, 1_______ I : ;: ) i I ~ i ;: .!i _~_.__._.n .!l;,~~, 1, ;_,\ j'OflOtv,"r; iff"""'\. : J 3 ~ . . ~ Ii it ~ ,~ NEW 'l'OOK $TME '! BEomadel1& Caslro CcmmfsslonBr . . ;5iL()F PPe> RK /~ 518.474.0456 New York Stale Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Pre seriation The Governor Nelson A. Roel,_feller Empire State Plaza Agency Building 1, Albany. New York 12238 Human Resources 518-474.0453 November 15, 1996 FIscal Managemtmt 518.474.0061 roo: 518.486-1899 '115- c/_ 10. I II, ( I'S" I ~ ') 8ennett Orlowski Acting Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 '\ .:MI~-[L; t:; i! " '1~'-~~~~003 . l._.,______ .j SllllTllOIO liJ'/:,j r'LAnNltIGJ!.~!\!,~..... ...........,~-~._,.--.__.- Dear Chairman Orlowski: Thank you for your notice of the scoping meeting for the Cross Sound Ferry proposal. We will have a representative at the meeting on December 4th. We have caken a preliminary look at th~ draft scope, and note that the concern we raised previously regarding the bike t'ouce is not specifically included. However, since th.,. effect on transPQt.tat1::m s"rvice.3, including ehe bike trail, wa~; cited In the Positive Declaration, we crust that the issue wil:_ be addressed. In addition, sinc~ the time that this office subr~itted camrnents in conjunction with the lead agency response, che agerlcy's Divisicn for Historic Preservation sene you it letter ceccmmendin'J ti1ac an archeological sUL'vey be undertaken. The Dotential effects on archeological resources should be included in the final scope. . We are in receipt of comments froln oth~r interesl:~d parties which appear to adequately address other potential issues that should be included in ehe scope. Of particular interest to State Parks is the National Natural Landmark liseing of Orient 8each Stat~ Park and any potential impacts to its resources. We remain interested and we thank you for keeping us informed of this proposal. Sincerely, / h~.:> (9. Zr~ Thomas B. Lyons Director Environmental Management Bureau cc, 8. Wankel P. Battaglino R. Pierpont P. Otis An Equal Opportunily/Affirmalive Action Aoency U Oll(ltt!d on lec;ycled PdPllf L'L'._ j:,::II_- l.j: .ulr Lid; II!, '=, . 1 '':-.J t:....t:.'~' l7t.::C F .1__:"-1 ( -3- Natural Resources Impact on Issues 1995-97 WATER RESOURCES (See Impact on Issues, 1994-96, LWVUS, p. 39) Starting in 1965, League members have been active in protecting the water, wetland." and watershed areas of the state. We have worked for the state's Pure Waters for Life. the federal Oean Waters Act. and numerous local and regionallegisJation to prevent pollution from point and non-point sources. We support statewide water resources strategies as well as financial aid that would rehabilitate water supplies, and clean-up wastewater and watershed threats. We support statewide water metering, watershed protection, and groundwater protection, identification and management. Again, members serve on local environmental boards, committees and councils. As a result of our position supporting regional management of water resources, three League inter-state organizations were created: the Inter-League Council of the Delaware River Basin composed of New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania Leagues.! the Lake Erie Basin Committee composed of Leagues from New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan. the Tri-State League composed of members from New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. These organizatio'Rs'monitor and advise on water management in their area~. They have alerted other Leagues to take action on legislation or problems that affect their water basins. We support funding for the Great Lakes Commission and other activities that prevent degradation of existing waters and promote clean up projects. Through the Tri-State League, we supported the Interstate Sanitation Commission (ISC) which advocates for improved water quality through regulation enforcement, research and monitoring for the Long Island Sound, lower Hudson River Valley and other tri-state waters. At the 1995 Convention, the League adopted a mini-study: "NEED FOR MEASURES TO ACHIEVE WATERSHED PROTECTION FOR DRINKING WATER, INCLUDING PESTICIDE ISSUES." The basis for this study was the BOCC League watershed study which was adopted for concurrence by the Westchester ILO. 11116 State Board dropped its membership in the Inter-League Council of the Delaware River Basin.' The Council was no longer addressing New York's concerns. -77.- . . -4- Natural Resources Impact on Issues 1995-97 NATIJRAL RESOURCE PROGRAM OF THE LWVNYS LAND USE Support for a state-established intergovernmental system for land resource management LAND USE - Stattoment of Position as announced by the State Board, May 1976 The League of Women Voters believes that New York State must develop an intergovernmental system for land resource management. Such a system would require: 1. Local governments to adopt local land use plans under minimum state standards with direct or indirect financial and technical help from the state. 2. Review by higher levels of government of those land use decisions which have larger-than-Iocal impact. 3. The development of land to meet public needs (such as low and moderate-income housing, recreational and open space . . .uses) under a system which fairly distributes the costs aod . benefits of such uses within a region. 4. The strengthening of county and multi-county regional planning bodies. S. The use of regional commissions to represent larger-than-Iocal interest in managing unique natural resource areas of the state. The League ofWomeo Vottors is concerned that inadequate planning at the state level wastes resources: natural, social and fiscal. The state must coordinate functional plans of state agencies with each other, with federal programs, and with the budgetary process. The combined impact of state plans and actions upon land use should be considered. 1lte state must coordinate standards and guidelines in state programs to reduce inconsistencies which frustrate citizens and local governments. -78- . } I J-.,. ~' 1.'_'_ L'..'.",.i II;.... '6 j J ~ If::~,': 1 ','t"~ , . -5. Natural Resources Impact on Issues 1995-97 The State Environmental Quality Review Act of 1975 (SEQRA) was supported by the League; and we continue to oppose attempts to weaken it. We supported the laws on Coastal Zone Manag,ement in 1981 and the update of these laws ill 1992. We are learning about the attempt by legislators, interest groups and lawyers to incorporate the principles of the Public Trust Doctrine into our land use laws. Because they have Jaws that date back to colonial times, New York and the Long Island region have unique status with rights and privileges granted to them. The recognition of these laws has resulted ill opening up bodies of water for recreational purposes, and some localities/groups are attempting to expand these rights. In 1918 Leagues in New York State agreed on key components of an intergovernmental process for managing land within the state and supported the Adirondack Park ~encv (APA). The key features of the APA that the League supports include; 1. Support the Adirondack Park Agency and the State Land Master Plan, including the unit management plans for state-owned lands. This plan calls for comprehensive review every five years. 2. Support the Land Use and Development Plan applied to the private lands in the Park. 3. Support the concept of the state and local governments sharing the planning and control process over use of private lands in the Adirondack Park. 4. Support local government in providing sound loca1land use planning throughout the Park. 5. Support preservation of open space, consisting of both private and public lands, and development of supporting facilities necessary to the proper use and enjoyment of the unique wild forest atmosphere of the Park. The League is pleased that the legislature, in the 1994 and 1995 sessions, passed and the governors signed into law a number of bills designed to improve the quality of land use planning and enforcement. Passage of this legislation was an attempt to address the various court decisions that have occurred over the years and to provide a uniform basis for zoning. The League continues to monitor changes to the Park, supporting some that we feel str'elfgthen the original legislation and opposing proposed laws that weaken the purposes of protecting this unique natural resource. III 1990 we supported the Environmental Quality Bond Act which was defeated by the voters. However. we continue to support the establishment of an Environmental Trust --79-. -,,=. ~-:: ,-. '.--~,' <:;,' ;;. > ~! : . 'J 1-. '::" . -- o " . COUNiY OF SUFFOLK. ~ ~ r'8 S'mFF 1-- Y rtK ,jtllJ,q; rs ROB~RT J. GAFF"N&:Y SuJ"FOI.K COUNTY e;):.ECuTIVf! CEPARTMENT OF" PLANNiNG STEPHEN M. ,JONES. A.I.C.P, OIAECTOR or PLANNII"IG November 14, 1996 Bennett Orlowski. Acting Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 ~1ail1 Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 - ffO)c ~ \~ l~ U W l~)' llrt lel: :~::- f.~;.~ ~~ ~ ~ --. RE: Draft Scope of the Proposed Sitc Plan for the Cross Sound Ferry Dear Mr. Orlowski: Please be advised that the Suffolk County Department of Planning is in receipt of thc draft scope for the above referenced project. This office is in concllrrence with the outline as , presented. The inajor Planning Department concerns cemer around the traffic situation. parking, and compatibilicy of the requested use variance with surrounding use. [n a Novemher 6. 1996 lener from Mr. William: Esseks to all involved agencies and individuals or interested agencies concerning a draft scope for the project, it is pointed out that the Interstate Commen:e Commission (ICe) granted Cross Sound its certificate under the Interstate Commerce Act and the National Environm~ntal Policy .".ct (NEPAl. and imposed no restrictions on scrvice. Therefore. the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed variance and sire plan approval should also contain a history of the ICC environmental review conductcd lor ferry operations at the existing sIte. This should include the Environmental Impact Assessment or EIS that was prepared W1der NEP A by the ICC, which should bave analyzed all impacts of rhe ferry operation on the site and the surrounding area. However, it should be pointed out tbt NEP A does not necessarily suffice for SEQRi\ which should be done independently by local State agencies. I As you know, the criteria for determining signiticance include the following: A substantial advers~ change in existing air quality, ground or surface water qua!ity or quantity, traffic or noise levels. The impairment of tilc environmental characteristics of a Critical Environmental Area within which the project sit~ is located. The creation of a material conflict with the community's current plans or goals il'; officially approved or adopted!. .:I:~O QASAO DRI....E . po. .CO! 0100 . ~AU~~~uGE. ~ONO IS~NO_ NT 1t7al~Si . "'le" 8S3-5IV.z ~A1 tatSl 8S3~. -' :::--, '.:.';:,..: ~-- -....-.-- :::_'cce_, ':0, ~'_Ctjrj:'!Ci ~,'::::::'T Sl.::, ,::.<="-:" -lCq.J :::',03 . . Bennett Orlo'.v~kl .2- November 14,1996 The impairment of the character ar quality of existing community or neighborhood character. .'\. substamial change in the 'Jse or intensity of usc c,f land or in its capacity to support existing uses. TI1e encouraging or attracting of llal'ge number of people to a place or places for more than a few days. compared to the number of people that would come to such place absent the action. The creation of a material demand for other actions that would result in one of the above consequences. Changes in two or more dements of the environment. no one of which hus a significant impact on the envitoqunem. but when considered together result in a substantial impact on the envirorunent. All of these criteria appear to be triggered by the proposed action, therefore. requiring preparation of a DEIS as proposed by the lead agency_ Mr. Esseks pointcd out that the lype and frequency of service including the vessels uscd. IS beyond the Town's jurisdiction and outside the scope of the site plan and variance application for the proposed parking lot. However, the proposed project is directly linked and a result of ongoing opcrations at the fer::, which must be discussed and included within the context of the DEIS. Title 6 NYCRR Part 617.9 implementing SEQRA and dealing with the preparation and content of impact statements states that a concise description of the existing environment:!1 setting, of which the current ferry operations are a part, must be included within the DEIS in order [0 understand the impaCts of the proposed action and its altern<:\tives. Since the proposed action is an outgro\'<1h of the existing environmental situation cause.i by ongoing ferry operations. such information is necessary to clearly evaluate the proposed action and its alternatives. If the Plarming Dl:!partment can bl:! of further help with respect [0 this matter. please let us know. We would appreciate receiving a copy of the DEIS when it is prepared for rt:view and conunent. Sincerely, (4~~fl- .e/l;J J~:es F Bagg f/{/ Chief Envirorunental Analyst JFB/tk cc: George Gana. Deputy COW1ty Executive Stephen:VI. Jones, Director of Planning Department Michael Frank, Conunissioner of Department of Parks. Recreation and Conservation Members of Suffolk COW1ty Plarming Commission TOTHL P,O: - . COUNTY OF SUFFOLK. ~ w ROBERT J. GAFFNEY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING STEPHEN M. JONES. A.I.C.P. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING November 14, 1996 Bennett Orlowski, Acting Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 ~~ ~"(u l SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD RE: Draft Scope of the Proposed Site Plan for the Cross Sound Ferry Dear Mr. Orlowski: Please be advised that the Suffolk County Department of Planning is in receipt of the draft scope for the above referenced project. This office is in concurrence with the outline as presented. The major Planning Department concerns center around the traffic situation, parking, and compatibility of the requested use variance with surrounding use. In a November 6, 1996 letter from Mr. William Esseks to all involved agencies and individuals or interested agencies concerning a draft scope for the project, it is pointed out that the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) granted Cross Sound its certificate under the Interstate Commerce Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and imposed no restrictions on service. Therefore, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed variance and site plan approval should also contain a history of the ICC environmental review conducted for ferry operations at the existing site. This should include the Environmental Impact Assessment or EIS that was prepared under NEPA by the ICC, which should have analyzed all impacts of the ferry operation on the site and the surrounding area. However, it should be pointed out that NEP A does not necessarily suffice for SEQRA which should be done independently by local State agencIes. As you know, the criteria for determining significance include the following: A substantial adverse change in existing air quality, ground or surface water quality or quantity, traffic or noise levels. The impairment of the environmental characteristics of a Critical Environmental Area within which the project site is located. The creation of a material conflict with the community's current plans or goals as officially approved or adopted. 220 RABRO DRIVE . P.O. BOX 6100 . HAUPPAUGE, LONG ISLAND, NY 1 1788..0099 . (15161853-5192 FAX l5161 853.4044 I . . Bennett Orlowski -2- November 14, 1996 The impairment of the character or quality of existing community or neighborhood character. A substantial change in the use or intensity of use ofland or in its capacity to support existing uses. The encouraging or attracting of a large number of people to a place or places for more than a few days, compared to the number of people that would come to such place absent the action. The creation of a material demand for other actions that would result in one of the above consequences. Changes in two or more elements of the environment, no one of which has a significant impact on the environment, but when considered together result in a substantial impact on the environment. All of these criteria appear to be triggered by the proposed action, therefore, requiring preparation of a DEIS as proposed by the lead agency. Mr. Esseks pointed out that the type and frequency of service including the vessels used, is beyond the Town's jurisdiction and outside the scope ofthe site plan and variance application for the proposed parking lot. However, the proposed project is directly linked and a result of ongoing operations at the ferry, which must be discussed and included within the context of the DEIS. Title 6 NYCRR Part 617.9 implementing SEQRA and dealing with the preparation and content of impact statements states that a concise description of the existing environmental setting, of which the current ferry operations are a part, must be included within the DEIS in order to understand the impacts of the proposed action and its alternatives. Since the proposed action is an outgrowth of the existing environmental situation caused by ongoing ferry operations, such information is necessary to clearly evaluate the proposed action and its alternatives. If the Planning Department can be of further help with respect to this matter, please let us know. We would appreciate receiving a copy ofthe DEIS when it is prepared for review and comment. Sincerely, ~~~ Chief Environmental Analyst JFB/tk cc: George Gatta, Deputy County Executive Stephen M. Jones, Director of Planning Department Michael Frank, Commissioner of Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation Members of Suffolk County Planning Commission .- - ,,( · COUNTY OF SUFFOLK- SW!F (i ROBERT oJ. GAFFNEY SUFFOLK COUNTY ExECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES MARY E. HIBBERD, M.D., M.P,H. COMMISSIONER November 13, 1996 [i)1 ~ @ ~ D-W J( Ull) NOV I 8 1996 " L,"~,.,,,_ Town of Southo1d Planning Board Town Hall P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 J Re: Draft Scope for proposed s;' SCTM# 1000-15-9-10.1 ,nd Ferry, Orient ~ ~ ~ ~ r V >.-5 ..1 the accompanying "Draft Scoping ..:w of the scoping document, it appears .,} increased number of patrons") and item .nined from the installation of an on-site test Dear Mr. Orlowski: This Office is in receipt of your letter d" Outline" for the above referenced project. that Item 2C (..."increased sanitary waste ge. 3B ("...groundwater and water quality shall b~ wel!...") involve this agency. It is my understanding that the Ferry Service has or is expanding its operation, necessitating an expansion of its parking facilities. Increased parking facilities for ferry services are not specifically covered by our construction standards; however, the use of the sewage disposal and water supply facilities on site are. If the use of any of the buildings change (e.g., increase in number of passengers or employees using the bathroom facilities in the terminal) then this office would be actively concerned with the effect on and the adequacy of the existing sewage disposal system and water supply. Knowing the logistics of the operation are important in order to determine if a substantial increase in the use of the bathroom facilities can be expected. For example, if there is an increase in the number of passengers and all passengers are required to physically enter the terminal building to purchase or pick-up tickets, then it can reasonably be expected that a large percentage of these passengers would use the bathroom facilities, causing an increase in sewage discharge. If, however, passengers are not required to enter the terminal on a routine basis, then the usage of the bathrooms at the terminal would not be expected to increase proportionally with the number of passengers. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COUNlY CENTER RIVERHEAD, N.Y. I 1901-3397 852-2 I 00 . . The sewage disposal aspects of the project should be considered as part of the review process, as well as the adequacy of the water supply to serve any additional passengers on the premises. If you have any questions concerning this, please feel free to contact me. a::Q9-. Royal Reynolds, P.E. Senior Public Health Engineer cc: Office of Ecology 2 ..." .J,il1:,...,., > ~J;'-'L~,~~~:" ..-i..'''. . '~~""\\lLL'''''' '.~,~~~'~t ':,{ .,.',:.'\'\' , ,-, ;(:::~'=. ,=.'==: ,:E 'L... :::,='=:!_'-)~" L,'-'=:, ='C-:':',,:""':-:: (:'.02 . COUN1Y OF SUFFOLK. ~ Pb S~ (:? t tf1::- <fItWbl6 ROBERT ,j, GAFFNt!y SUFFOLK COUNTY ExECUTiVe: DEPAF<TM~NT OF HEALTH SERVICES MARY E. HIBa~A:O M 0" M.P_H. COf'olMIS~il0NER November 13, 1996 ToM'll of Southoltl PIJruung Board I Tolwn Hall P.0. Box 1179 SOllthold, New York 11971 ! r--'-'~-'''--~~''--'._"'~ 'I'r", 'i :-~: :', I-i!,! f~ '1'"\1 \1, ,c ,; Ii Ir' !: U' ---,.._~~.~._~ 'I'i, I' , . NOV I 5 11I86 i' ,- L__l'.. Re: Draft Scope for proposed site plan for Cross Sound Ferry, Orient SCTM# tOOO.15-9-10.1, 111.15.1,&35 Dorar Mr. Orlowski: This Office is in receipt ofyonr letter dated October 29, 1996 and the accompanying "Draft Seoping Outline" tor the above referenced project. Based upon a review of the scoping document, it appears that Item 2C (.....incrcased sanitary waste generation from increased number ofpatrens") and item 38 ("...groundwarer and water quality shall be determined from the installation aLII! on-site test well...") involve this agency. It. is my unders,anding that the Ferry Service has or is expanding its operation, necessitating an expansion of hs parking facilhies. lncreased parking facilities for ferry services are not specifically c()vered by Otlr construction standards; however, the use of the sewage disposal and water supply facilities on site are. If the use of any of the buildings change (e.g., increase in number of passengers O{ employees using the bathroom facilities in the terminal) then this office would be actively concerned with the effect on and the adequacy of the existing sewage disposal system and water supply. Knowing the logistics of the operation arc important in order to de,ermine 1f a substantial increase in the LIse of the bathroom facilities can be expected. For example, ifther~' is an increase in the number '1fpassengers and all passengers are required to physically enter the terminal building to purchase or pick-up tickets, then it can reasonably be expected that a large percentage of these passengers would use the bathroom !acilities. causing an increase in sewage discharge. It: however, passengers are not required to enter the terminal on a routine basis. then the usage of the bathrooms at the terminal would not be expected to increase proponionally with the number or passengers. DI....ISION CP EN\lI~ONMEl'oiT"'L OU"'I..I"T"l' COUNTY c~NTER FlIVERHEAO. N'f I I gO I -:J.:Js1 85Z-iZ, I 00 --r- .i-" '-1~-1':'-'3.::, ~ -l : 1 ': . =':,;:::H::, ,;-"- -- i:ir ;:::,:::::U::GI :.:..0:.' r',O: . The sewage disposal aspects of the project should be considered ilS part of the review process, as well as the adequacy of the water supply to serve any additil'nal passengers on the premises. If you have any questions cuncerning this, please t~cl free to contact me. Sincerely, (wCl.9- Royal Reynolds, P.E. SerioI' Public Health Engineer cc: Office llf Ecology 2 TOTHL P.03 RICHARD G. WARD Chairman VL~ i~'.""~"\ ~y " '0::;. \\ .. :::> "" ':\ . ~ ~t~ t;l. ~. ...... .~ ~'IJ ,...r:::,'t- /1 ~ '..( oIL "''9~tV ~~~e . . PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS' GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD To: All involved agencies, and individual or interested agencies that have expressed, in writing, a request to receive the project sponsors draft scope. Re: Draft Scope for proposed site plan for Cross Sound Ferry State Road 25, Orient SCTM# 1000-15.9.10.1, 11.1, 15.1 & 3.5 Date: October 29, 1996 Dear Involved /Interested Agency: The State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRAl 6 NYCRR Part 617.8 "scoping", requires the Lead Agency to send a copy of the project sponsor's draft scope to all involved or interested agencies. Enclosed is the project sponsor's scope outline which was received by the Southold Planning Board as Lead Agency, on October 21,1996. A scoping meeting has been set for December 4, 1996 at Southold Town Hall, at 2 p.m. Because of the large number of involved or interested agencies, and the logistics involved in preparation for this meeting, we would appreciate written confirmation as to whether you or a designated representative will attend this meeting. If you cannot attend, please send your written comments on the enclosed draft scope, by November 15, 1996. If you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact Robert Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer, at the above telephone number or address. . C4-{)~ QBennett Orlowski "\ Acting Chairman Encl: cc: William Esseks, Esq. Frank Yakaboski, Esq. Laury Dowd, Town Attorney (continued on attached list) . . landscaping, etc.). F. Impact to existing wildlife usage on the subject site and nearby properties from the utilization of this site as a parking area- 3. The extent and quality of information needed for the preparer to adequately address each impact, including an identification of relevant existing information, and required new infonnation, including the required methodology(ies) for obtaining new information. A Existing traffic conditions to be determined from field counts taken within the last two years, as well as parking demand counts undertaken by the Town of Southold during 1996. B. Exi sting depth to groundwater and water quality shall be determined from the installation of an on-site test well and site-specific water quality sampiing; C. Inventories of existing vegetation, wildlife and soil conditions shall be prepared from on-site investigations, field inspections and existing literature review (e.g. u.s. Dept. of Agriculture Suffolk County Soil Survey to confirm on-site soil borings). 4. An initial identification of mitigation measures. A. Proposed landscaping and low-level lighting to minimize visual and aesthetic impacts; B. Installation of on-site drainage system to control stormwater runoff; C. Utilization of gravel-surfaced parking area to reduce overall stormwater runoff-an-site. D. Controlled access and egress to the site and organized parking plan, to ensure patron safety. 5. The reasonable alternatives to be considered. A Construction ofmuiti-Ievel parking garage overtop of existing parking areas on the adjoining Cross Sound Fe.'TY Services, lnc. properties B. Floating, moored parking platform with ramp to shoreline. C. No action alternative. Federal: Interested parties: . 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 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 Alln: Regulatory Branch Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 26 Federal Plaza Room 1338 New York, NY 10278 Attn: Response & Recovery Division Thor Hanson, President Southold Citizens for Safe Roads, Inc. P.O. Box 797 Greenport, NY 11944 John Wright, Acting President North Fork Environmental Council P.O. Box 799 Mattiluck, NY 11952 . .' ~ . SOUTHOLD CITIZENS FOR SAFE ROADS, INC. (SCSR) P.O. BOX 797 GREENPORT, NY 11944 october 24, 1996 Planning Board Town of Southold Town Ha 11 53095 Main 'Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 oo.~ ~:::~ rn SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARO Cross Sound Ferry Site Plan Application, SCTM Nos. 1000-15-9-10.1. 11.1, 15.1, & 3.5 Dear Sirs: As you requested, the following constitutes the preliminary comments of Southold Citizens For Safe Roads, Inc. ("SCSR") on the October 21, 1996 submission by Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. ("Cross Sound"). ObviouSly, if and when a draft scoping document is accepted by the Planning Board, SCSR reserves its right to submit comments on that document. Cross Sound's most recent submission appears to be an effort to undo all of the work that has been done by the Town, the Planning Board and the other interested parties in preparing to conduct the environmental and site plan review necessitated by Cross sound's intensification of its use of the Orient point terry terminal. Cross Sound now asserts that the only issue properly before the Planning Board involves Cross Sound's October 1995 application tor a variance to construct a parking lot on SCTM No. 1000-015-9-3.5. Cross Sound argues that "[n]o analyses can proceed as long as there are efforts to broaden the application beyond what CroSB Sound has itself proposed" (Esseks Letter at 3). Crois Sound's unilateral effort to narrow the scope of this Board's responsibilities and obligation under SEQR relies upon a miestatement of both the facts and the governing law and should be rejected. CrOBS Sound alleges that the Town sought a preliminary injunction in the summer of 1995 because "there was insufficient parking for the passengers who do not take SOUTH OLD TOWN: A DESTINATION, NOT A CORRIDOR A GATEWAY, NOT A THRUWAY ~ Pi!:> -' ~ fJ- ~t5 ~ . 2 cars on the vessel" (Esseks Letter at 2, !I 5). Based upon that incomplete statement of the record, Cross Sound asserts that they have solved the problem by making an application for additional parking. In SCSR's opinion, cross Sound has rewritten history. The Town commenced its action in the summer of 1995 because "[blv resolution, the Planninq Board determined that the ro osed addition of a hi h-s eed, assen er-onl er is a si n ficant chan e in t e nature and intensity of t e ferry operat on and requires t e ferry o eration to a 1 for and receive a revised lite Ian approva prior to imp ementinq the c anae in use". Affidavit of George Ritchie Latham Jr., July 17, 1995 at , 10 (emphasis added). At the time of the Planning Board's resolution, Mr. Latham's affidavit and the Town's lawsuit, there was no application to obtain a variance for a parking lot on SCTM No. 1000-015-9-3.5. Hence, the required site plan application and approval at issue was and is a site plan for the existing and proposed future Cross Sound operation at Orient Point, not, as Cross Sound now asserts, solely the october 1995 request for a variance. Cross Sound's position appears to be that it will not submit a revised sIte plan on its current and admittedly "non-conforming" use of its facility, nor will it participate in a non-segmented SEQR review of its operations at orient point. Such an approach is contrary to the fundamental principles of SEQR. Under SEQR review of projects must not be segmented. SEQR defines segmentation as "the division of the environmental review of an action 5uch that various activities or stages are addressed under this part as though they were independent, unrelated activities, needing individual determinations of significance" (6 N.Y. .IDe 617.2 (ag))..!/ Here, Cross Sound argues that the introduction of the high-speed ferry, which 1/ The law is clear that: "[c]onsiderin9 only a part or segment of an action is contrary to the intent of SEQR. If a lead agency believes that circumstances warrant a segmented review, it must Clearly state in its determination of significance, and any subsequent EIS, the supporting reasons and must demonstrate that such a review is clearly no less protective of the environment. Related actions should be identified and discussed to the fullest extent possible" (6 N.Y. ADC 617.3(1)). What Cross Sound proposes here is not only an improper segmentation, but in effect a procesethat would shield its' non-conforming activities from any review. . . 3 is already the subject of a Planning Board resolution, a lawsuit and a positive declaration, is to be ignored. Cross sound asserts that only the parking facility allegedly necessitated by its unilateral and unauthorized intensification of the use of the Orient Point site through the introduction of the high-speed terry should be considered. That effort at segmentation must be rejected. To do otherwise in SCSR's opinion would be to set in motion a fatally flawed review process that inevitably would be subject to challenge. Cross Sound also argues that the scope of the environmental and site plan review must be limited to only the additional parking lot in part because "(f)ederal law requires Cross sound to reasonably satisfy public demand for its interstate transportation servIces, including increased pUblic demand". Again, cross Sound is wrong. In 1995, Congress abolished the Interstate Commerce Commission ("ICC") and effectively deregulated all interstate ferry services. ~,~, Ice Termination Act of 1995, see also 49 U.S.C. S 70l(a); S. Rep. No. 104-76 at 26-27 (1995); and H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-422 at 165 (1995). consequently, Cross sound's ICC Certificate of Convenience and Nece8sity is of no further force or effect and the argument that federal law "requires" cross'Sound to do anything is, in SCSR's view, totally without merit. Moreover, CroSS sound's repeated assertion that state and local environmental and zoning laws do not and cannot reach Cross sound is also wrong. The Supreme court of the united States has held that state and local governments may exercise their police power in enforcing environmental regulations against entities that operate in interstate commerce. For example, in Huron Portland cement Company v. City of Detroit, the Supreme court held that "the constitution when conferring upon congress the regulation of commerce, never intended to cut the State8 off from leqislatinq on all subiects relatinq to the health, life, and safet of their citizens thou h the eqtslation miqht in irectl affect the commerce 0 the count. 362 U.s. 440, 443-44 (1960) (emphasiS ad ed). The Supreme Court in Huron expressly held that in the exercise of local police power (in that case a regulation dealing with air pollution), "the states and their instrumentalities may act, in many areas of interstate commerce and maritime activities, concurrently with the federal government (~ at 442). . . . 4 In the matter before this Board, there can be no question that neither the applicable local zoning or environmental laws, nor the New York State environmental regulations at issue would discriminate against or impermissably burden interstate commerce. Those laws and regulations are equally applicable to all citizens of Southold, More importantly, they are precisely the type of regulation that the supreme court has determined that state and local governments may enforce against entities engaged in interstate commerce. Consequently, it is SCSR's opinion that CrosS Sound's "interstate commerce" argument can in no way serve to limit or to alter the appropriate scope of environmental review required by the positive declaration adopted by this Planning Board in its role as lead agency. Finally, it appears from Cross Sound's submission that its unwillingness to proceed with the complete environmental review required by law is not grounded on any legitimate reading of the facts or of the relevant law, Instead, Cross Sound's position seems to flow entirely from its concern that a comprehensive review "will prejudiCe its non-conforming rights" (E$seks Letter at 2-3, ~ 6(b)). That i8 not in SCSR's view a legitimate basis upon which an applicant may avoid a SEQR review following a positive declaration. SCSR believes that the Planning Board and Trustees should consider whether Cross Sound has "non-conforming rights" or is simply engaged in a continuing course of "non-conforming ullage" 1n violation of Cross sound's existing site plan and, consequently, 1n SCSR's opinion, prohibited by law. We urge the Board either to require Cross Sound to submit a complete draft seoping document that addresses all of the issues relating to the totality of Cross sound's current and future operations at Orient point or to draft such a document itself for use at the seoping session. very truly ~ SO~[~1t1zens' f::-------- Safe Roads, Inc, copies tOI supervisor Cochran Southold Trustees ~ .~ pe, ~ . MORTH FORK EMVIROM...EMTAL COUMCIL, IMC. Route 25 at Love Lane, PO Box 799, Mattltuck, NY 11952 516-298-8880 October 22, 1996 Ms. Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Office of the Town Clerk Town of Southold Post Office Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Ms. Terry: Thank you for your phone call this morning acknowldeging our letter and enclosures of October 18, 1996. The Council is glad to know that as an interested party North Fork Environmental Council (NFEC) will have access at the Office of the Town Clerk to all correspondence and other data received by or sent by Southold Town and its Planning Board or staff relative to the Cross Sound Ferry terminal at Orient Point in Southold, New York in a timely manner and in their entirety as required by State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) and that any excluded document or portion of any document will be accompanied by a written explanation as to the reason for exclusion. In particular, your willingness to allow authorized personnel from the NFEC to review entire files provided by your Office and to select from them particular, needed items for copying is appreciated in assuring the Council timeliness of receipt. As understood, the Council will present a copy of the completed Application for Public Access to Records enclosed with our letter to you of October 18, 1996 on each occasion access to records is required. Thank you for your and your staff's continuing helpfulness un the Council's behalf. Sincerely, ''\. ~..~ I~.O Henry Bookout Acting Program Coordinator For Debra O'Kane, Coordinator 'if: Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Southold Planning Board ~! ~ @ ~ lJ \VJ-1lp. n.: lJ1) j ar.T 2 4-l996,~ L._u........_or._..-l $lUTHCiL;} rOA'N Ptl~NNING BOARD a non. profit organization for the preservation of land. sea, air and quality of life printed on 100% recycled paper . PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS RICHARD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS r;r:a:OJ..ZQ:< ;.} ~.I~'i."fFOL.t ~ ~ ~ Cl . "" "'" ~. ~ ~Q.t i-~~ ~.o:rdff . Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD October 22, 1996 John Wright, Acting President North Fork Environmental Council Route 25 at Love Lane P.O. Box 799 Matlituck, NY 11952 RE: Request for Documents on Cross Sound Ferry Dear Mr. Wright, Thank you for your letter of 26, September, 1996, requesting that NFEC be copied on all correspondence and other data received or sent by the Planning Board or staff relative to the Cross Sound Ferry. The Planning Board does not maintain a public distribution list for material concerning Cross Sound Ferry. However, your organization will be copied material such as the final written scope as required by SEQRA NYCRR Part 617.8 (I), (I) to (7). If you have any questions, or require further information, please contact this office. Sincerely, 13~ ()~~t..J)~' Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Acting Chairman cc: Frank Yakaboski, Special Counsel PLAc"INING BOARD MEMBa RICHARD G. WARD Chalnnan GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM. JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI. JR. WILLIAlVl .J. CRElvlERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS -'llfFal r' . ,,;:, ',., - ''=iD'''' ~O",c.. ~,- . ' ~.< ~ ,', ~ . ;;~', ~ -, "......-:-' ,..,..,. ~,O -' - " ':.*.. .~. c., ~O "I:?>~<- .... ~_ '.! -+ '1'..' -~.::::::::.:::::c-:...:.-- . Town Hall. .5309.5 ylain Road PO. Box 1179 Southold, )Jew York 11971 Fax (.516! 76543136 Telephone ,.516) 76.5.1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD October 22, 1996 Thor Hanson, President Southold Citizens for Safe Roads, Inc. P.O. Box 797 Greenport, NY 11944 RE: Request for Documents on Cross Sound Ferry Dear Mr. Hanson, Thank you for your letter of 26, September, 1996, requesting that SCSR be copied on all correspondence and other data received or sent by the Planning Board or staff t'elative to the Cross Sound Ferry. The Planning Board does not maintain a public distribution list for material concerning Cross Sound Ferry. However, your organization will be copied material such as the final written scope as required by SEQRA NYCRR Part 617.8 (f), (1) to (7). If you have any questions, or t'equire further information, please contact this office. ~cerelY~Jkfd(}I/ ~ (,<-- et lowski, r. Acting Chairman cc: Frank Yakaboski, Special Counsel . . ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW 108 EAST MAIN STREET P. O. Box 279 RIVERHEAD. N.Y. 11901-0279 WilliAM W. ESSEKS MARCIA Z. HEFTER STEPHEN R. ANGEL JANE ANN R. KRATZ ..JOHN M. WAGNER (516) 369-1700 WATER MILL OFFICE MONTAUK HIGHWAY P. Q. Box 570 WATER MilL, N.Y. 11976 (516) 726-6633 TELECOPIER NUMBER (516) 369-2065 WILLIAM POWER MALONEY THOMAS F. WHELAN CARMELA M. 0, TALlA October 21, 1996 Planning Board Town of Southold c/o Frank J. Yakaboski, Esq. Special Counsel Smith, Finkelstein, Lundberg, Isler & Yakaboski P.O. Box 389 456 Griffing Avenue Riverhead, NY 11901-0203 Re: Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. site Plan and Variance ADDlication Dear Mr. Yakaboski: Enclosed is the "Sponsor's" Draft Scope pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617.8(b) and (f) (1-5) for the proposed parking lot adjacent to Cross Sound's terminal. The project, as described in the Draft Scope, arises from the following: 1. Federally-licensed water carrier service has been provided from the terminal site immediately adjoining the proposed parking lot since the mid-1940's. Since 1975 Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. ("Cross Sound"), has operated that service as licensed by the Interstate Commerce Commission, pursuant to a Federal Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Provide Water Carrier Service, providing passenger, vehicle and freight services as a common carrier by water between New London, Connecticut and Orient, Long Island, New York. After pUblic notice and an opportunity for public comment and participation, the ICC granted Cross Sound's Certificate under the Interstate Commerce Act and National Environmental Policy Act and imposed no restrictions on the service. Since then, Cross Sound has served as an increasingly important portion of the interstate transportation network. Federal law requires Cross Sound to reasonably satisfy public demand for its interstate transportation services, including increased pUblic demand. rn rnrnrno\VJ~ rn DeT2t_ SOUTHOLD TOWN PlANNING BOARD . . ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL Cou NSELORS AT LAW 2. In Spring, 1994, Cross Sound began to offer a special combination round trip and bus fare (at New Lon~on) so that Long Island residents could go to the Foxwoods Cas~no without having to take their cars onto the vessel and drive them to the Casino in Connecticut. Those walk-on passengers, availing themselves of that fare and service, made the journey on a vehicle/passenger vessel. If no bus service were provided, a large proportion of the passengers would still make the trip and would take their cars. 3. Starting in the Summer of 1995, Cross Sound provided a seasonal high speed service to accommodate public demand for interstate service, including the Foxwooda Caaino- bound and commuting walk-on customers, and to provide ample reserve capacity for times when one or more vessels were out of service. In both 1995 and 1996 when the high speed vessel was ~ not operating, a significant number of walk-on passengers utilized the slower and less comfortable vehicle/passenger vessels. 4. When all vessels are operational, the passenger capacity of the vehicle vessels is seldom reached even in the peak season. The capacity of the John H is 1,000; the capacity of the Cape Henelopen is 900; the capacity of the New London is 300; and the capacity of the North Star is 300. The passengers using the high speed vessel could and would be accommodated on the John H or Cape Henelopen, although there would be occasional capacity constraints during peak times of use and potential difficulties if and when any of the vessels was out of service for repair or refurbishing. 5. The Town of Southold, in July 1995, the year after the combination passenger vessel and bus from orient to Foxwoods Casino began, sought an injunction from Justice Henry to stop the passenger service on the high speed passenger vessel and alleged that there was insufficient parking for the passengers who do not take cars on the vessel. The injunction was denied with an admonition to Cross Sound to make an appropriate application to the Town. 6. a) In OctOber, 1995, a site plan and a variance application were submitted to allow the use of the subject parcel, SCTM #1000-015-9-3.5 for parking to serve the growing demand by users of all the vessels who do not take their cars on board. b) Cross Sound was and is willing to process a site plan review for the snack bar parcel but not a review which . . ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL COUNSEL-ORS AT LAW will prejudice its non-conforming riqhts to park cars on the site at a density and configuration different from what might be granted if a 1996 application were made. Sponsor's Nscope" should be viewed in the context of the foregoing. The NprojectN is not accurately described in the Positive Declaration. The project to be scoped is a parkinq lot for ferry service. It is not a proposal for the use of one or more vessels. Furthermore, it appears that the Positive Declaration has pre-judqed a number of matters based on a misunderstandinq of the proposal, unfamiliarity with relevant history and background facts, and assumptions that are completely unsupported by data. We hereby request copies of all documents that were considered or that were created in connection with the Positive Declaration. The type and frequency of service, including the vessels used, is beyond the Town's jurisdiction and outside the scope of the site Plan and Variance Application for the proposed parking lot. Cross Sound is prepared to qo forward with an appropriate environmental analysis of the proposed parkinq lot, but not with an irrelevant and improper analysis of the supposed environmental impacts of hiqh speed vessel operations. No analysis can proceed as lonq as there are efforts to broaden the application beyond what Cross Sound has itself proposed. Very truly yours, w~""' w. ~{v.J William W. Esseks Iml Enclosure . . Draft SeoDin!! Outline for ~OSS SOUND FERRY SERVrrCES. INC. The following is the Sponsor's draft scope for the preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) for the Cross Sound Ferry parking lot project, prepared pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617.8(b) of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR). The outline that follows utilizes the required format as identified in Section 617.8(1)(1-5). 1. A brief description of the proposed action. The applicant seeks a variance and site plan approval to establish and maintain a parking lot for vehicles on a 2.5 acre parcel ofland (SCTM No. 1000-015-9- 3.5), 10caJ:ed immediately to the east of the Cross Sound Terminal off of Main Road (S.R 25), Orient, Town of Southold, New York. The proposed parking lot is to be utilized by patrons of the existing passenger, vehicle and freight water carrier service which has operated on the immediately adjoining site since the mid 1940's. 2. Potentially significant adverse impacts identified both in the positive declaration (which Sponsor proposed should be changed by Lead Agency amendment or court determination) and as a result of consultation with the other involved agencies and the public, including an identification of those particular aspect(s) of the environmental setting that may be impacted. A. The potential for an increase in traffic, and the potential impacts to the existing traffic patterns, incidence of traffic accidents, and the level of service of the adjacent roadway system (Main Road, S.R. 25) caused by the availability of parking on the proposed lot. B. Potential visual impacts caused by the alteration of the eXlstmg conditions of the site to a parking lot (including proposed landscaping and lighting) C. Potential impacts to the groundwater underlying the subject property from the anticipated usage of the property as a parking area (including contaminants from vehicles, recharge of stormwater runoff; and increased sanitary waste generation from increased number of patrons). D. Potential impacts to adjacent surface waters from the utilization of the subject site as a parking lot. E. Impacts to existing site conditions (site topography, and vegetation) from the alteration of the site for utilization as parking (including site grading and excavation, installation of drainage control strucflires, . . landscaping, etc.). F. Impact to existing wildlife usage on the subject site and nearby properties from the utilization of this site as a parking aretL 3. The extent and quality of information needed for the preparer to adequately address each impact, including an identification of relevant existing information, and required new information, including the required methodology(ies) for obtaining new information. A Existing traffic conditions to be determined from field counts taken within the last two years, as well as parking demand counts undertaken by the Town of Southold during 1996. B. Existing depth to groundwater and water quality shall be determined from the installation of an on-site test well and site-specific water quality sampling; C. Inventories of existing vegetation, wildlife and soil conditions shall be prepared from on-site investigations, field inspections and existing literature review (e.g. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Suffolk County Soil Survey to confirm on-site soil borings). 4. An initial identification of mitigation measures. A. Proposed landscaping and low-level lighting to minimize visual and aesthetic impacts; B. Installation of on-site drainage system to control stormwater runoff; C. Utilization of gravel-surfaced parking area to reduce overall stormwater runoff-on-site. D. Controlled access and egress to the site and organized parking plan, to ensure patron safety. 5. The reasonable alternatives to be considered. A Construction ofrouln-Ievel parking garage overtop of existing parking areas on the adjoining Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. properties B. Floating, moored parking platform with ramp to shoreline. C. No action alternative. . . s;v& pf!; Fl~ MORTH FORK EMVIROMWEMTAL COUMCIL, IMC. Route 25 at Love Lane, PO Box 799, Mattltuck, NY 11952 516-298-8880 CERTIFIED MAIL #P 486365 906 October 18, 1996 Ms. Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Office of the Town Clerk Town of South old Post Office Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Ms. Terry: On behalf of North Fork Enviornmental Council, I enclose a completed copy of Application for Public Access to Records requested by your office. I am also enclosing a copy of the Council's letter of September 26, 1996 to Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr:, Southold Planning Board. Mr. Orlowski acknowledged receipt of this letter at the October 7, 1996 meeting of the Southold Town Planning Board. At this meeting Mr. Orlowski said that all interested parties are entitled to any documents pertinent to the scoping process and that they will be available at Town Hall. Sincerely, l~v~~ Henry Bookout Acting Program Coordinator For Debra O'Kane, Coordinator ~@~U\~[~!-:: j' ill OCT 2 I t996 SOUTHOlO TOWN I PlAN!!lliQ.!lQ8!!!L-_---' Enclosure: completed FOIL request of 10/18/96 'Vh:: Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Southold Planning Board a non-profit organization for the preservation of land, sea, air and quality of life printed on 1001'. recycled paper eVIl FIEO N\AIL w'J If'6 (0 3 {O5 cr 0 (p JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER D\J\=>l-\CATE- OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC ACCESS TO RECORDS INSTRUCTIONS: Please complete Section I of this form and g~ve to Town Clerk's' Office (agency Freedom of Information Officer). One copy will be returned to you in response to your request, or as an interim response. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SECTION I. TO: :S-\J D 1"\ H \: TeRRY I TDwN c..l-f.:,RK (Department or Officer, if known, that has the information you are requesting.) RECORD YOU WISH TO INSPECT: (Describe the record sought. If possible, supply date, file title, tax map number, and any other pertinent information.) OfHcial writt8R a9tir@ a(ij rg~'1ir9d ~)' ~IiiQP ...~u:: [~At tQ )fr B~gvou {)rlmAf4:'l-i hJ' NPpr in I",up-r nf 9/26/96 and acknowledged by Mr. Orlowski at 10/7/96 meeting of the Planning Board that as an iRterest@E:l flulJlie flarty ~lf~C F8ij\l8E:tE repieE gf all ~grrtu:p9Rd.~R~v ~A.d n.lu:.... Ao:Ilf-"" r""rp1u""r1 hJl or sent by the Planning Board or staff relative to the Cross Sound Ferry terminal at OyiERt PaiR! 1ft ~811tk8hl, NeT.'.' YBTk. 'A'e \tRaen:taas tbat F9rtiR9Rt ]""m p.......uirlo'" t-h-::.t- -:Jl] documents be made available in a timely manner and in their entirety. Any excluded portion of any cl8ftlftlf.l'it ftltl3t he aee8ftll'al'iiul hy a .. TiM-ea eHtdaBatisR as ts tke reaseR fer e1~hu;ieR Signature of Applicant:J~. O~-t , NFec.... J- , _\ ~ Y..h &-'1(1~ C...-v-'\ c:L:../VI. 19~- Printed Name: \,P\'\Y"j \=l"'Al.<'n"v-t" Address: yDb 'I qq AAn++\1-\J ('k AI \( I ,qS- Q.. ) 1 Mailing Address (if different from above): Telephone Number: 2-'] IS - ~ 'b ~ 0 Date: (i)&~ \ 9,) /C(C(w, ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [ ] APPROVED [ ] APPROVED WITH DELA V" [ ] DENIED" Judith T. Terry Freedom of Information Officer Date . If delayed or denied see reverse side for explanation. . . r " ~\'C fl (~ (,t~ \ 11 IMPORTANT >> File Number: P1-473800-00118 00 Use the above number in all correspondence about this action! To the Lead Agency: The above information confirms that filings on the described Positive Declaration were officially received by, and entered in the SEQR Repository on the date(s) shown in the box headed DATE RECEIVED above. The latest filing is indicated by the most recent date in that box. The date and time in the second line show when this document was printed. Please check the information above carefully. For corrections or questions contact Charles Lockrow, (518)457-2224, or write to: SEQR Repository NYSDEC Division of Regulatory Affairs 50 Wolf Road, Room 514 Albany, NY 12233 Town of SOUTHOLD Planning Board 53095 Main Road-P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 - rn Ii' 9_ l'J OCT 11.,.. , , J SOUTHOLOiRiINNi--- PLANNING BOARD ef PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS RICHARD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS fI77zn,/-?::>:?- piP ~\\HOl.t ""~ ~~.~. t'a '" ~ ~~) tn :z: ~ ~ +. . ,,-,-""\Y ..~~.{ ,. ~~~fr!IJ '?/-~:>)IJ-rri . 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 October 3, 1996 William Esseks Esseks, Hefter & 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 (MII) & Residential Low-Density R-80 SCTM# 1000-15-9-10.1, 11.1, 15.1 & 3.5 Dear lVIr. Esseks, The statutory luthority of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 6~'7.8 (b) states that the project sponsor must submit a draft scope to the lead agency that contains the items identified in paragraphs 61't.8(f) (1) through (5), Section 617.8(f) (2) indicates that impacts identified in the positive declaration, and comments by involved agencies and the pllbli" are part of the scoping process. In order to assht Y0U in the preparation of the draft scope I am enclosing all commeLts the Board has received to date from the public and involved agende!; for your use. The positive declaration was previously sent to you. If you have any c[lwstions, 01' require further assistance, please contact this office. . . If you have any questions, or require assistance, please contact this office. @II.!X.,~~ Site Plan Reviewer ":/. cc: Frank Yal<aboski, Attorney Laury Dowd, 'Lown Attorney John Raynor, P.E. Richard McMurry, Cross Sound Ferry Enc1's. Snut'lold Cithens for Safe Roads-9-13-96 De}Jartmnnt of Public Works-8-28-96 Memo I'rc,." Southold Trustees-undated, received-9-17-96 Suffolk Gnmty Water Authority-9-4-96 Draft LoeC\1 Waterfront Revitalization Program-2-91 North Fork Environmental Council-9-16-96 N'{S Office, of Parks Recreation & Historic Preservation-8-30-96 NYS Department of Transportation-8-26-96 Federal Energy Management Agency-8-9-96 US lieparlment of Agriculture-8-8-96 l\VS De,'lJrtmBnt of State-8-7-96 Eric l'UQont, Botanist-9-5-96 j 8~" DEiS, Cross Sound-received-9-16-84 N1S Of;'ir-~ of Parks, Recreation and Historic PI'eW)pVal ton -9-30-96 ~ .. fJT'7:Vc,?r,. 11ff~ 'i.llfFOlt 'l>;.." f.~.V t'a "'G ~ %j'\ Q "i"" <n "" ~. ~ ~O ~<;::,'t-ji\ '.l,. "'pr)) ~n7rlj4- .~ 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 GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS ,'1, PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD October 3, 1996 William Esseks Esseks, Hefter & 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) S, Residential Low-Density R-80 SCTM# 1000-15-9-10.1, 11.1, 15.1 & 3.5 Dear Mr. Esseks, The statutory luthority of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 6; '7.8 Ib) states that the project sponsor must submit a draft scope to the lead agency that contains the items identified in paragraphs 61'{.8(f) (1) through (5). Section 617.8(f) (2) indicates that impacts identified in the positive declaration, and comments by involved agencies and the publico are part of the scoping process. In order to aS5i.3t y.,u in the preparation of the draft scope I am enclosing all comm8r.ts the Board has received to date from the public and involved agencle,; for your use. The positive declaration was previously sent to you. If you have any qu<!stions, 01' r'equire further assistance, please contact this office. ---~ ". If you have any q lWS tions, or req uire assis tance, please con tact this office. WJ/ !!.,~~ Site Plan ReviE'wer cc: Frank YaJ<aboski, Attorney Laury Dowu, " own Attorney John Raynor, ['.E. Richard McMurry, Cross Sound Ferry Enel's. SClut',old Citllens for Safe Roads-9-13-96 Dep,u-tment of Public Works-8-28-96 Memu fro"" Sou thold Trustees-undated, received -9-17 -96 Suffolk Cnmty Water Authority-9-4-96 DJ'ai't LoC"\! Waterfront Revitalization Program-2-91 North Fork Environmental Council-9-16-96 NYS Office of Parks Recreation & Historic Preservation-8-30-96 NYS !:Jepa l'tment of Transportation-8-26-96 Federal Energy Management Agency-8-9-96 US Depart ment of Agriculture-8-8-96 i\Y:S De"?artment or State-8-7-96 Eric [JuQont, Botanist-9-5-96 bH nE1S, Cross Sounu-received-9-16-84 N1S ('f:'i," of Parks, Recreation and Historic Pl'"s',rVa, ,,,n-9-30-96 . -- . ;::',-,'0 .- - " r.\" ,.:> ,<{!>_v"''''"'''''''<.~\ I .. f ill 15 ~ ~ ~ ~ NEW YORK STATE ; f(\\. New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau Peebles Island, PO Box 189, Waterford, New York 12188-0189 518-237-8643 Bernadette Castro Commissioner September 30, 1996 Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Acting Chairman, Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Orlowski: RE: SEQRA Cross Sound Ferry Terminal Parking Expansion Southold, Suffolk County 96PR2125 Thank you for requesting the comments of the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) concerning your project's potential impact/effect upon historic and/or prehistoric cultural resources. The documentation which you provided on your project has been reviewed by our staff. preliminary comments and/or requests for additional information are noted on separate attachments accompanying this letter. A determination of impact/effect will be provided only after ALL documentation requirements noted on any attachments have been met. Any questions concerning our preliminary comments and/or requests for additional information should be directed to the appropriate staff person identified on each attachment. In cases where a state agency is involved in this undertaking, it is appropriate for that agency to determine whether consultation should take place with OPRHP under Section 14.09 of the New York State Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law. In addition, if there is any federal agency involvement, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations, "Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties" 36 CFR 800 require that agency to initiate consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) . OCT 4 An Equal Opportunltyl Affirmative Action Agency o printed on recycled peper . . . When responding, please be sure to refer to the OPRHP Project Review (PR) number noted above. Sincerely, ~eK. p~ Ruth L. Pierpont Director, Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau RLP : crn attachments: [*] Archeology Comments cc: Pam Otis . . ARCHEOLOGY COMMENTS 96PR2l25 Based on reported resources, your project area may contain an archeological site. Therefore, the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) recommends that a stage 1 archeological survey is warranted unless substantial ground disturbance can be documented. A Stage 1 survey is designed to determine the presence or absence of archeological sites or other cultural resources in the project's area of potential effect. The stage 1 survey is divided into two progressive units of study including a stage lA sensitivity assessment and initial project area field inspection, and a Stage 18 subsurface testing program for the project area. The OPRHP can provide standards for conducting cultural resource investigations upon request. Cultural resource surveys and survey reports that meet these standards will be accepted and approved by the OPRHP. The OPRHP does not conduct cultural resources surveys. A 36 CFR 61 qualified archeologist should be retained to conduct the Stage 1 survey. Many archeological consulting firms advertise their availability in the yellow pages. The services of qualified archeologists can also be obtained by contacting local, regional, or statewide professional archeological organizations. stage 1 surveys can be expected to vary in cost per mile of right-of-way or by the number of acres impacted. The OPRHP encourages you to contact a number of consulting firms and compare examples of each firms's work to obtain the best and most cost-effective product. Documentation of ground disturbance should include a description of the disturbance with confirming evidence. Confirmation can include current photographs and/or older photographs of the project area which illustrate the disturbance (approximately keyed to a project area map), past maps or site plans that accurately record previous disturbances, or current soil borings that verify past disruptions to the land. Please note that the OPRHP does not consider agricultural practices to be ground disturbing. Many archeological sites are located at depths below the plow zone and would not be disturbed by plowing, tilling or other agricultural practices. If you have any questions concerning archeology, please call Cynthia Blakemore at (218) 237-8643 ext. 288. RECEIVED oei 2 1996 ST!OF NEW YORK-OEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR.ON TRAFFIC ANO SAFETY OIVISION JL-I s':'i\' \.\. ,03 "iiI NOTICE OF ORDER STUDY NO.: FILE: 47.37 - 25 TROOP: L Southold Town Oerl< THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAS FILED AN ORDER WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE WHEREBY: SECTION 3047.37 SUBDIVISION (i'll PARAGRAPH (32 OF THE DEPARTMENT'S REGULATIONS is mADDED D AMENDED to read as follows: 0 REPEALED (32) On the east side of Route 25, 3H 8380, fran Ferry Slip northerly for a distance of SO:t feet, in the unincorpJrated ccmnunity of Orient Point. The ebove order will be effective upon the installation, modification or removal of the necessary trllffoc control device (sl required by and conformillll to the State Manual of Uniform Treffic Control Devices. JS:BAM 9/25/96 APPROVED BY, -A..... Acting Regional Traffic Engineer IDATE) SIGNATURE) ITITLE) DESCRIPTiO..: This order establishes a "No Stopping Anytime" restriction at the entrance to the Ferry Parking Lot on the east side of Route 25. """""""""'"'' ocr 3 1996 COUNTY: Suffolk OTHER RELATED ACTIONS 0 NONE LOCALITY: Town of Southold IX! 1047.37 k)( 23) (Identify) ce: 0 CITY o VILLAGE Kl TOWN o COUNTY SUPT. o SHERIFF g] STATE POLiCE o PERMITTEE [] Southold Town POLICE DEPARTMENT [] REGiON 1" TRAFFIC ENGiNEER o OTHER ~f'~~~~~ . .. / J ~.r--./p ___ -.<:::_./ /!/(/ i_/~~ /-/c,/ ~ /;;-__ 7E Je (8/act . S.,';, i'J' . I,~ J\I~f"~~~~~ ~ ':Lb a.i' ~ ~ \P. 0, ~ 7CfCj '""rv\~-T~~, Y\<r 1\'152- September 26, 1996 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Orlowski: I am writing to provide official written notice required by State Environmental Ql1ality Review (SEQR) that as an interested public party, North Fork Environmental Council (NFEC) requests that NFEC be added to the distribution list to receive copies of all correspondence and other data received by or sent by the Planning Board or staff relative to the Cross Sound Ferry terminal at Orient Point In Southold, New York. We understand that pertinent law provides that all documents be made available in a timely manner and in their entirety. Any excluded portion of any document must be accompanied by a written explanation as to the reason for exclusion. Thank you for your consideration on our behalf. Sincerely, OCT 4 cc: Ms. Jean Cochran, Southold Town Supervisor Southold Citizens for Safe Roads, Inc. Ie . ~ I'IB j(f\ SOUTHOLD CITIZENS FOR SAFE ROADS, INC. (SCSR) P.O. BOX 797 GREENPORT, NY 11944 26 September 1996 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Orlowski: I am writing to provide official written notice required by SEQRA that as an interested public party, Southold Citizens for Safe Roads, Inc. (SCSR) requests that SCSR be added to the distribution list to receive copies of all correspondence and other data received by or sent by the Planning Board or staff relative to the Cross Sound Ferry terminal at Orient Point in Southold, N.Y. We understand that pertinent law provides that all documents be made available in a timely manner and in their entirety with any excluded portion of documents to be accompanied by a written explanation of the reason for exclusion. Thank you for your consideration to this matter. Sin,.,,', ~ :~j~lon ~ President, SCSR .}t;: L 'C; cc: Ms. Jean Cochran, Southold Town Supervisor SOUTHOLD TOWN: A DESTINATION, NOT A CORRIDOR A GATEWAY, NOT A THRUWAY , . St..-ueF -~2 PE>~~ R\<. SOUTHOLD CITIZENS FOR SAFE ROADS, INC. (SCSR) P.O. BOX 797 GREENPORT, NY 11944 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 26 Federal Plaza Rom 1338 New York, NY 10278 Attn: Response & Recovery Division 26 September 1996 Dear Sirs & Madams: Enclosed is a copy of a response of Southold Citizens for Safe Roads, Inc. (SCSR) to the draft Long Environmental Assessment Form and the draft SEQR Positive Declaration on the Cross Sound Ferry terminal site plan. This response was prepared and submitted to the Southold Planning Board at that Board's request. We hope that this additional information is useful to you in your agency's participation in the SEQR process. SCSR is a citizen's group formed last year to help the Town of Southold maintain its unique environment and quality of life and particularly to respond to the potential threat to those qualities that we fear is posed by the introduction by Cross Sound Ferry of a high speed passenger only ferry to service the Connecticut gambling casino business. We currently have some 800 supporters in Southold, are represented by legal counsel and are playing an active role as public participants in this issue. We intend to be particularly active in the scoping process and hope that your agency will be deeply involved. S~7Z;jL ~ Thor Hanson President, SCSR 'i SEP 3 0 cc: North Fork Environmental Council v Pt,. I Pip.."';' fJ_"",^-. . - ., SOUTHOLD TOWN: A DESTINATION, NOT A CORRIDOR A GATEWAY, NOT A THRUWAY .COUNTY OF SUFFOLK . 'S~~~~ J1T f; ~.)\ ::>'1;' IJ.,'> .:K ROBERT J. GAFFNEY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE August 28. 1996 STEPHEN G. HAYQUK. P.E. COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Hon. Jean W. Cochran. Supervisor Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 (:; I SEP I 8 199f1 Re: Bus Service between Tanger Outlet Mall, Riverhead and Orient Point F~%~ Dear supervlso~(J' I am writing as a follow-uP to a recent meeting attended by Richard LaValle of my staff concerning the Orient Point Ferry Service. This letter provides information in response to questions raised about bus service in the North Fork area. In a telephone conversation with Mr. Robert Brown. President of Sunrise Coach Lines. Inc.. we were advised that his company does not operate any bus service beTWeen the above two points. Mr. Brown indicated that it is his understanding that bus service to and from the Tanger Mall is contingenr upon an authorizing agreement with the mall management. something his company does not hold. Sunrise does operate a locai pubiic bus line with a number of stops that include Riverhead and the Orient Point Ferry. This service. which is under contract with Suffoik County, does not, however. go to the Tanger Mall. The New York Sate Department of Transportation (NYSDOn reguiates locai public bus services including issuing the necessary operating authority to bus companies providing the service. Although the County can exercise controi over The services it contracts. bus carriers must still obtain operating authority from NYSDOT. Presently. Suffolk County does not contract for any bus services which enter the mall property. Last year, the Riverhead Trolley Corp. sought to operate a public bus line between the Tanger Mall and various points in and around Riverhead. We were advised by company representatives that they had obtained the necessary contract rights with T:Jnger to provide exclusive bus service to and from the mail. ::mC would be seeking NYSDOT authority to provide the service. UitimaTelv. the Riverneaa Trolley redefined the service They sought to provide from a 8ubilc bus line to a signTseelng service, and notified the NYSDOT of Their intemions in this regard by letter oared August 21. 1995 tc NYSDOT .""amlnlsTraTive Law Judge Thomas Tcrres. While NYSDOT issues operaTing cuthontv . for public bus 'ines, it is our understanaing ffi' I rs yO~not regUlaTe sigmseelng services. i D . 1_1._ 1 \ \J1J\ 5UF;:'CLK COUNTY !S AN =:CUAL. ~P?ORTUN1TY/AFF1RMAT1VE -l..C71CN EMPL~~-;.'7..~-. 'AP~.ANK. ""'." .. 960 -C"'~j:.l-;:': '':' ...:~e}-,8~2.....0OC =~x ~1..l<:!5Z-....~'=C ,..,"" '~P"'ANK "....E;"lUE ~ , . Jp~\ !,K, is To: South old Town Planning Board Since 1992, the Southold Town Trustees has administered the Coastal Hazard Zone, and it continues to be within our jurisdiction. At Orient Point, in the area of the site plan for Cross Sound Ferry, Trustees' jurisdiction also extends specifically from the high-water mark to a distance of 75 feet inland. A determination of a wetland line should be made in coordination with NYS Department of Environmental Conservation and NYS Department of State. The Trustees respectfully request that the following concerns be addressed in the course of the ongoing SEQRA process: 1. Coordination with NYS DEC, which has jurisdiction within 300 feet of the water and coordination with FEMA, whose maps indicate floodplain dimensions and borders. 2. Coordination with NYS Department of State to assure their policies are followed. 3. Permitting history of the Cross Sound Ferry vis-a-vis dredging, placement of soils, and what may be infill and accretion into wetlands areas. 4. Although the CFS owns 4.1 acres of underwater land, this land and its use should be examined in any review of plans for intensification on the property in question; the underwater land was omitted from the current siteplan being reviewed. 5. At the time that CSF applied for and was granted permission to develop the 59-car parking lot, several permits and amendments were issued by NYS DEC to "maintain the dock." In truth, the development at this time was much broader, including but not limited to the construction of a bridge tower and replacement dock to enable passengers to get on and off the high-speed ferry. The Trustees assert that a portion of the work done, was done without an application to the Trustees, and that application has still not been received. The construction of the high speed docking structures and the dredging activities require both Town wetland and CEHA permits. 5. This is a Critical Environmental Area and as such proposed development must be approved and conducted in accordance with stricter guidelines. 7.The Trustees are also concerned with the unanswered questions of the effect of the proposed action on increased runoff and pollution from the Main Road into the storm drains on the adjacent property of the Plum Island Animal Disease Research Laboratory into Gardiners Bay. 8. The high-water mark has changed in this area, as evidenced by aerial photographs from decades ago, and has changed as recently as this past winter with continued accretion of beach land to the east of the ferry docks. 9. It appears from tax maps that there is a section of public land that sits in the middle of CSF's project - will public access to tl1is property be guaranteed? We are eager to contribute to this process, and look forward to having our comments included in the findings of the Town Planning Board. Please feel free to contact the Trustees for any amplification. Thank. you. Southold Town Trustees SEP I 1 !g9'" f PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS RICHARD G. WARD Chairman ,-r ---,.- J. GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS ~-""~::~;:::::....~ e~~~.~~UffaL,.i':~ ~ Yl~" ~-%, ",:, , :::::. :"':'-:. c::: . . .,', en ::!:':~: 't\~ ~:; ~ A~ . ~ ,"'~ A 'Yk ~~ .': ~(}j + -t.~p:/ -<%':::~...L"J/~ ~ Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-313E Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 17, 1996 . William Esseks, Esq. Esseks, Hefter and Angel 108 East Main St. Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: Proposed site plan for Cross Sound Ferry SCTM# 1000-15-9-10,1,11,1,15,1 & 3,5 Dear Mr, Esseks: The following resolutions were adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, September 16, 1996, BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, assumes lead agency status on this Type 1 action, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Board, as lead agency, finds that the action may significantly effect the environment, and makes a determination of a Positive Declaration, Enclosed please find a copy of the Positive Declaration for your records, Please contact this office within the next week for a scoping session date prior to your compiling the Draft Environmentai Impact Statement. Sincerely, ,: (' /)~ I~Jl/f)t~*-< ,~ ~~tt Orlowski Acting Chairman enc, . PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS RICHARD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS ,-r:;::~~:- ___ _ .;J~\lfFDl-t"-. .:.....~~.~.. C'~c.., ;:~' '-::;.' ,".:::l ' ....c:.'., -~' Q - . -~ 'l "" . ... .) .;\, "0 !:!!) '" *' .. ";:..) ~ ""'1} .~>:).. ~~~'J_ ijr ~:~;., -<-~.~~;~-~ . 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 State Environmental Quality Review POSITIVE DECLARATION Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft EIS Determination of Significance September 16, 1996 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The Southold Town Planning Board, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed action described below may have a significant effect on the environment and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared. Name of Action: Proposed site plan for Cross Sound Ferry SCTM#: 1000-15-9-10.1,11.1,15.1 & 3.5 Location: E/S State Rt. 25 at Orient Point SEQR Status: Type I ( X ) Unlisted () Description of 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 in part by the inclusion of a high speed passenger only ferry service to the existing vehicular ferry service. . . Page 2 SEQR Positive Declaration - Cross Sound Ferry September 16,1996 Reasons Supporting This Determination: The applicant has provided the lead agency with a Long Environmental Assessment Form. The LEAF has been reviewed by the Planning Board, the Planning Board's Environmental Consultant, and other involved agencies. The Cross Sound project is expected to have a potential significant impact particularly in view of site sensitivity regarding the following issues: 1. The project is a Type 1 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 pedes- trian 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 . . . . . page 3 SEaR Positive Declaration - Cross Sound Ferry September 16,1996 regards lighting, and use during both daytime and night time 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 only jet boats on marine environment. The Southold Town Planning Board has determined that an Environmental Impact Statement be prepared in order to provide a means to assess the significance of the impacts of the project, to obtain input from involved agencies and the community, and to research possible alternatives and mitigation measures. For Further Information: Contact Person: Robert G. Kassner Address: Planning Board Telephone Number: (516) 765-1938 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 . ~:. . Q/17/Qp b1..,- I ~ ~ JJ1;..u #-. ~ I--- . "'" ,/.hf,......... L. d( I 7 ! 14. ~,,;.-..4 OI.U ~ _Lv,,/- ...... ti., C. I. .r ,'4 f/~. J? ~ ':&'6-., I . . ~ (~ JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK N\AIL WJ lt~ (v 3&5 CfDlv REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town HaJl, 53095 Main Road P,O, Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 D0 ~l-\ CATE. OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC ACCESS TO RECORDS INSTRUCTIONS: Please complete Section I of this form and g~ve to Town Clerk's' Office (agency Freedom of Information Officer). One copy will be returned to you in response to your request, or as an interim response. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SECTION I. TO: 'S'\J 0 I\"\-\ T TeRRY. TDwN c"l--F-RK (Department or Officer, if known, that has the information you are requesting.) RECORD YOU WISH TO INSPECT: (Describe the record sought. If possible, supply date, file title, tax map number, and any other pertinent information.) Official -"ritt@R Betin! iiU T8'1"linu,i by ~IlQP ur",\, fliRt ..? ~,f... '9~....nou ('h-lrm,clrl hJ' 'I\II:::J:;r in l".ttPT nf 9/26/96 and acknowledged by Mr. Orlowski at 1017/96 meeting of the Planning Board that as an iRteresteEl tJuhlic tJQf"~' ~lfl!C :refiiyests capias Bf all nlrrgEFgA4'JvR....~ J1....,.1 nt-ha... rJo:Jl1"-::I -rpr""iuprt ft)' or sent by the Planning Board or staff relative to the Cross Sound Ferry terminal at GrieRt PaiRt IR ~allth.ahl, tIe.l Yark. 'ATe yadi!!nltaaQ tl1at PQrtiRC'JRt hJ"' Fr.Q,,;rI~... t-h.,t- all documents be made available in a timely manner and in their entirety. Any excluded portion of any 86ittlftel'it ftllut 'he. Rii6111fJRRieil 11) a .. FiK:ea enfllaRatisR as ts the TeaseR t"sr ~md'lsisR Signature of Applicant:j~. O~-t, NFec.. J-. . _\ ~ \,).h~ ~ Ce-tY\ cL:../V\, {).. Printed Name: I' P h Y' j ~ f) ,,\,<'- r;~..+ Address: '"'Pub '7 qq ) AAn++\nJ rk AI \l, I \q~ Q.. 1 Mailing Address (if different from above): Telephone Number: ;2 'l fS - q; '& ~ 0 Date: fi)~~ 19., lqq0> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------- [ ] APPROVED [ ] APPROVED WITH DELAY* [ ] DENIED* Judith T. Terry Freedom of Information Officer Date * If delayed or denied see reverse side for explanation. SECTION II. (For use by Freedom of Information Officer only.) Your request has been DENIED or the reason(s) check below: [] Confidential Disclosure [] Part of I nvestigatory Files [] Unwarranted Invasion of Privacy [] Record of which this agency is legal custodian, but cannot be found [] Record is not. Maintained by this Agency [] Exempted by Statute other than the Freedom of Information Act [] Other (specify): Your request is ACKNOWLEDGED. There will be a delay in supplying the requested record until Reason for delay: SECTION III. RIGHT TO APPEAL YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO APPEAL A DENIAL OF THIS APPLJCATION IN WRITiNG WITHIN 3:0: DAYS OF THE DENIAL. CONTACT THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD (see below). THE TOWN BOARD MUST RESPOND TO YOU IN WRITING WITHIN TEN BUSINESS DAYS OF RECEIPT OF YOUR APPEAL. Southold Town Board Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Telephone: (516) 765-1800 ..",-_..".".,.,.-""~~""""-,,..-_....,,",,,-,,- . COUNTY OF SUFFOLK . 'S~\<. ~~ Jl]: tP (' >.,,~\ Ol~ v,> ~:K ROBERT J. GAFFNEY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE August 28, 1996 STEPHEN G. HAYCUK. P.E.. COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Hon, Jean W. Cochran, Supervisor Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 SEP I 8 1996 Re: Bus Service between Tanger Outlet Mall, Riverhead and Orient Point F~~~ Dear superviso~r(f' I am writing as a follow-uP to a recent meeting attended by Richard LaValle of my staff concerning the Orient Point Ferry Service. This letter provides information in response to questions raised about bus service in the North Fork area. In a telephone conversation with Mr. Robert Brown, President of Sunrise Coach Lines, Inc.. we were advised that his company does not operate any bus service between the above two points. Mr. Brown indicated that it is his understanding that bus service to and from the Tanger Mall is contingenT upon an authorizing agreement with the mall management, something his compeny does not hold. Sunrise does operate a local public bus line with a number of stops that include Riverhead and the Orient PoinT Ferry. This service, which is under contract with Suffoik Couniy, does not. however. go to the Tenger Mail. The New York Sate Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) regulates local public bus services including issuing the necessery operating aumoriiy to bus compenies providing the service. Although the Couniy ccn exerCise control over The services it contracts, bus carriers must still obtain operating authority from NYSDOT. Presently, Suffolk County does not contract for cny bus services which enter the mall property. Last year, the Riverhead Troiley Corp. sought to operate a publiC bus line between the Tanger Mall and various points in and around Riverhead. We were advised by company representatives that they had obtained the necessary contrect rights with T::mger to provide exclusive bus service to and from the meli. and would be seeking NYSDOT authoriiy to provide the service. Ultimatelv. the Riverheed Trolley redefined the service they sought to provide ~rom a cublic bus iine to a slgmseeing service, ana notified the NYSDOT of Tr,elrmenrions in this regerdoy letter detea August 21, 1995 te NYSDOT ,A.amlr,lstrcTive Law Judge Thomas Terres. While NYSDOT issues operaTing Guthentv ~er public bus iines, it is our understaneing: 1r2,', '" ~6',::-not regulcTe sigmseeing services. I n ~ :2 '1__,' ; U \ \,P \\ ~ JU~ ::!~ ,,,p-..;..."'K >..vE:"lUE 5UF=-CU< COUNTY !S AN ;::CUAL .:lPPORTUNITY/AFFIRfwIIAT1VE ..l"C71CN ~MPL~-;::7.'.~:~. '.l,P'-+ANK. 'I." ~ 980 t. -':','';;'.\- :-::,'': - ~1.ar_9~2-..l,COO o:-"'x 5105l952-..:.~5C -2- TO: Hon. Jean W. Cochran RE: Bus SeNices bet\o.ien Tanger Outlet Mall. Rlverhead and Orient Point Ferry We are not familiar with the specific seNice(s) provided by the Riverhead Trolley. although we are advised the company is currently promoting a seNice bet\o.ieen the Tanger Mall and the Orient Point Ferry which includes a combined trolley/ferry fare. I hope the above information clarifies some of the issues raised at the meeting. Very t Iy yours. .A /1. J2-' s!ePhen G. Hayduk. P.E. /tommissioner _/ SGH:RJL:er cc: Hon. James Stark. SupeNisor. Town of Riverhead Tony Apolloro. Assistant Deputy County Executive Janet DeMarzo. Assistant Deputy County Executive 1'1" .~. ..~ ~..I" 1lIIIiP' l"i 1 i 1+ 25 WEST <�J `I 25 EAST FERRY f I v " BUFFER - -"-" -� PLANTINGS , \ / TRAFFIC LIGHT LONG TERM PARKING SHORT f. TERM - - EXIT ----- -- - - EXIT -- — - -_ fn �_ va s PARKING w o z i ° '. -- -------- --- ----- -- ------ --- --- z "0 — O {i TERMINAD --- I G) { - • i r NG TERM PARKING STAND-BY --- -- j, STAGING AREA •� �,. ° STAGING AREA 'I 1 • `_-.---- -.-_—.. '� • � it 1 1 SNACK gAR I s r � __ _ . . . . . . ..._... . . _ ARRIVING PASSENGER PICK UP w � �1 ..vlr.daaM1-,• xM• � ,dam ..M• � f �. ALTERNATIVE PARKING SPACES �� INTEGRATED EAST LOT: 541 SPACES SITE PLAN WEST LOT: 38 SPACES TOTAL: 579 SPACES PREPARED FOR CROSS SOUND FERRY SERVICES, INC. PREPARED: JULY 25, 1996 FOR PROPERTY SITUATE AT REVISED: JULY 30, 1996 �'0 OF NfW ORIENT J. eqk P * � O TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., p.c. m * m y Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor 2s ', ro - Caw SCALE: 1" = 20' • Deerfield Green P.O. Box 720 Water Mill, New York 11976 Phone: (516) 726-7600 Qt`ess;oNV �mm�c :sam�wmnmawmivuaae•.ann •,eam,w,�m^ . ,nmrar•^,-.++.•